Kansas Jayhawks Vs Memphis Tigers

[NoBBiR 0]

A mizzou fan who thinks Kansas will lose. Oh really.

Lol. Shocking.

[vonteego3 0]

Derrick Rose. Really?

[donk4life 34]

Derrick Rose. Really?

GG memphis

[NoBBiR 0]

Who says the NCAA isn't exciting?SUPER MARIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[vonteego3 0]

GG memphis

I'm a Pitt fan, so it's GG for me sweet 16 or sooner every year anyways.Fucking amazing game.

[vonteego3 0]

btw, am I the only one to have flashbacks of Darius Washington missing 2 of 3 free throws against Louisville in the C-USA title game a few years ago as CDR missed a few late in regulation?

[Ganseynogle 0]

Congrats to Kansas and their fans on the NC

[Jadaki 0]

It's silly though to give Hansbrough the POTY just because he played on a better team. He didn't play better. I don't recall anyone saying that Stephen Curry didn't deserve to make the Tournament first team because he played on a bad team.If you want to give the kid a pat on the back for leading his team and having good teammates, be my guest, but the POTY award is for pure individual accomplishments, not for hustling and having a solid coach/backcourt.What's the difference if he would be there or not if there wasn't a rule? He is there, and thats it. And the POTY award is just that, Player of the Year. You can't reward Hansbrough for having "three consistent years" and deny the guy who had the best year with a trophy that's specifically designed for the best player this season. Are you saying if Beasley was on a team like, Kansas, not Kansas St., he would be more deserving of the award if he put up 25/12 than because he went to a smaller, less prominent school? I really don't think that if you go to a good school, you should get preferential treatment for awards and accolades.

First of all, Curry didn't play on a bad team. Davidson proved they were top ten material in the tournament, and had the longest winning streak in the country coming into the tournament. Second, how are you going to tell me that averaging a double double (22.6 point, 10.2 rebounds) for a team that won the conference, was ranked #1 a good majority of the year and made most of the key plays carrying his team when the second best player was out 1/2 the year with an injury doesn't deserve player of the year. Beasley may have had 4 more ppg and 2 more rpg, but he didn't lift his team to the top tier of college ball this year. And yes, regardless of it being an individual award, usually the better your team preforms the better chance you have at it. It's the same reason Kobe has his best chance at MVP this year when they are competing for best record in the western conference instead of when he was putting up better numbers on shittier teams that barely made the playoffs.

[NoBBiR 0]

btw, am I the only one to have flashbacks of Darius Washington missing 2 of 3 free throws against Louisville in the C-USA title game a few years ago as CDR missed a few late in regulation?

I did as well. All I could think of was CDR breaking down and crying the way Washington Jr. did.

First of all, Curry didn't play on a bad team. Davidson proved they were top ten material in the tournament, and had the longest winning streak in the country coming into the tournament. Second, how are you going to tell me that averaging a double double (22.6 point, 10.2 rebounds) for a team that won the conference, was ranked #1 a good majority of the year and made most of the key plays carrying his team when the second best player was out 1/2 the year with an injury doesn't deserve player of the year. Beasley may have had 4 more ppg and 2 more rpg, but he didn't lift his team to the top tier of college ball this year. And yes, regardless of it being an individual award, usually the better your team preforms the better chance you have at it. It's the same reason Kobe has his best chance at MVP this year when they are competing for best record in the western conference instead of when he was putting up better numbers on shittier teams that barely made the playoffs.

I don't really think you could call Davidson a top 10 team. They ran a huge winning streak over some of the worst clubs in NCAA div. 1 (so they had a massive confidence boost), and then Curry played out of his mind against Zaga (who isn't good), and GTOWN and Wisc. Against Kansas, Kansas just played like shit and gave them chances. Curry is a top 10 players, but they are hardly a top ten team.Hansbrough didn't lift his team to the top tier of country either. They were a top 10 with him, and would be without him. Roy Williams (despite being a traitor) is the reason that club is so good. It does kind of help to have Ellington, Lawson, Danny Green, and key role players that can come off the bench as well. That also helps take some of the pressure off of him.Who did Beasley have, honestly, on his team that did anything? He's the reason Bill Walker had a 16/6.5 season, because he also was a good passer. The guy was getting tripled teamed every single game because he was their best and only option and was dumping 30/12 a game. And he didn't just have more point and rebounds than Hansbrough, he averaged more assists, more blocks, and equal steals. He played more minutes, and even shot the three at 38%. Tell me how many 6'10" guys pull that off? They even managed to beat the National Champions. I didn't see UNC accomplish that feat.Hansbrough may get all the accolades, but he is FAR from a better player than Beasley.

[Jadaki 0]

I did as well. All I could think of was CDR breaking down and crying the way Washington Jr. did.I don't really think you could call Davidson a top 10 team. They ran a huge winning streak over some of the worst clubs in NCAA div. 1 (so they had a massive confidence boost), and then Curry played out of his mind against Zaga (who isn't good), and GTOWN and Wisc. Against Kansas, Kansas just played like shit and gave them chances. Curry is a top 10 players, but they are hardly a top ten team.Hansbrough didn't lift his team to the top tier of country either. They were a top 10 with him, and would be without him. Roy Williams (despite being a traitor) is the reason that club is so good. It does kind of help to have Ellington, Lawson, Danny Green, and key role players that can come off the bench as well. That also helps take some of the pressure off of him.Who did Beasley have, honestly, on his team that did anything? He's the reason Bill Walker had a 16/6.5 season, because he also was a good passer. The guy was getting tripled teamed every single game because he was their best and only option and was dumping 30/12 a game. And he didn't just have more point and rebounds than Hansbrough, he averaged more assists, more blocks, and equal steals. He played more minutes, and even shot the three at 38%. Tell me how many 6'10" guys pull that off? They even managed to beat the National Champions. I didn't see UNC accomplish that feat.Hansbrough may get all the accolades, but he is FAR from a better player than Beasley.

You realize that 3 of Davidson's losses this year were to teams in the final four and most of them where down to the wire? They can play with anyone in the country. I had them into the sweet 16 in my bracket before I thought they would lose to Wisconsin (oops) since I knew they were a solid team that was getting the shaft in the seedings. You don't make the elite 8 beating 3 teams that were in the top 20 all year by luck. I'd put Curry over Beasley for player of the year too. He took an even smaller school farther than Beasley could take one from a BCS conference.Without Tyler this year UNC loses 5-8 more games, and they don't come close make the Final Four, and they don't win the ACC regular season or tournament championships. Wanna take a guess on who drew more charges this year, they work the same as blocks except they pick up fouls on the other team which is even more important when you only get 5 in a game. Tyler is by far the better positional defender than Beasley. More assists (1.2 compared to .9), I don't really care, they aren't point guards... are you seriously trying to use that? 6'10 guys who shoot three, I already saw Kevin Durant last year and Dirk has been doing in the league for years. That 4 points came in 4 more shot attempts per game, want go guess how their scoring ends up if Tyler takes as many shots as Beasley does at their season percentages? Beasley also had more turnovers per game and committed more fouls. Funny how much better a team Texas was this year without Durant. I wouldn't be surprised if Kstate is better next year without Beasley. That was the #1 recruiting class in the country that came into the program, not just because of him. Sometimes those ball hog star players, just aren't that great to have in the end, and this is one reason among many that Tyler is NCAA mens player of the year. Give UNC two shots at Kansas too and I bet they win one. Kansas came out and played like the entire program depending on that game because all the Jayhawks were still butthurt over Roy leaving them for UNC.The award isn't about who is going to be a better NBA product, I think we all know that will end up being Beasley. But when your talking college ball, Beasley hasn't done nearly as much as Tyler has, and never will because he is never suiting up for Kstate ever again.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

You realize that 3 of Davidson's losses this year were to teams in the final four and most of them where down to the wire? They can play with anyone in the country. I had them into the sweet 16 in my bracket before I thought they would lose to Wisconsin (oops) since I knew they were a solid team that was getting the shaft in the seedings. You don't make the elite 8 beating 3 teams that were in the top 20 all year by luck. I'd put Curry over Beasley for player of the year too. He took an even smaller school farther than Beasley could take one from a BCS conference.Without Tyler this year UNC loses 5-8 more games, and they don't come close make the Final Four, and they don't win the ACC regular season or tournament championships. Wanna take a guess on who drew more charges this year, they work the same as blocks except they pick up fouls on the other team which is even more important when you only get 5 in a game. Tyler is by far the better positional defender than Beasley. More assists (1.2 compared to .9), I don't really care, they aren't point guards... are you seriously trying to use that? 6'10 guys who shoot three, I already saw Kevin Durant last year and Dirk has been doing in the league for years. That 4 points came in 4 more shot attempts per game, want go guess how their scoring ends up if Tyler takes as many shots as Beasley does at their season percentages? Beasley also had more turnovers per game and committed more fouls. Funny how much better a team Texas was this year without Durant. I wouldn't be surprised if Kstate is better next year without Beasley. That was the #1 recruiting class in the country that came into the program, not just because of him. Sometimes those ball hog star players, just aren't that great to have in the end, and this is one reason among many that Tyler is NCAA mens player of the year. Give UNC two shots at Kansas too and I bet they win one. Kansas came out and played like the entire program depending on that game because all the Jayhawks were still butthurt over Roy leaving them for UNC.The award isn't about who is going to be a better NBA product, I think we all know that will end up being Beasley. But when your talking college ball, Beasley hasn't done nearly as much as Tyler has, and never will because he is never suiting up for Kstate ever again.

I don't even post here anymore, but I think that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. So stupid, in fact, that I had to come out of the shadows to point out how incredibly ridiculous it is, only to disappear back into the ether moments later.(Disappears into ether)(Still frustrated, reappears and continues ranting)ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!I don't really give a shit about the National POTY award for college basketball. Hansborough is white and got a bloody nose once and goes to UNC, so he's got a HUGE advantage. Whatever, maybe he should have won anyway. I don't care. But to suggest that K-State will be better next year after Beasley is gone is utterly fucking ridiculous. Utterly. Fucking. Ridiculous. I have no idea why you think Beasley is some kind of gunning ball-hog (and you've offered absolutely no evidence to support this... perhaps because he is a turbo-black, and is jetting for the NBA after one year?) whose decision to act in his own self-interest was detrimental to the success of his team, but that's absurd. I think K-St. was a top 20 team for most (all?) of the year. If Beasley had to shit at center court and wipe his ass with a photo of Mother Theresa to lift his team to top 20 status, who cares? Beasley was awesome, and to suggest that the loss of his dominance will make them BETTER next year is... I can't fathom how you even convinced yourself to make that argument. I really can't. "Let's see, I gotta find a way to suggest Beasley isn't even that good. I know! How about a bad analogy?"Stupid. Soooo stupid. (back into ether)(forgot something)Wang(ether)

[Jadaki 0]

I don't even post here anymore, but I think that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. So stupid, in fact, that I had to come out of the shadows to point out how incredibly ridiculous it is, only to disappear back into the ether moments later.(Disappears into ether)(Still frustrated, reappears and continues ranting)ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!I don't really give a shit about the National POTY award for college basketball. Hansborough is white and got a bloody nose once and goes to UNC, so he's got a HUGE advantage. Whatever, maybe he should have won anyway. I don't care. But to suggest that K-State will be better next year after Beasley is gone is utterly fucking ridiculous. Utterly. Fucking. Ridiculous. I have no idea why you think Beasley is some kind of gunning ball-hog (and you've offered absolutely no evidence to support this... perhaps because he is a turbo-black, and is jetting for the NBA after one year?) whose decision to act in his own self-interest was detrimental to the success of his team, but that's absurd. I think K-St. was a top 20 team for most (all?) of the year. If Beasley had to shit at center court and wipe his ass with a photo of Mother Theresa to lift his team to top 20 status, who cares? Beasley was awesome, and to suggest that the loss of his dominance will make them BETTER next year is... I can't fathom how you even convinced yourself to make that argument. I really can't. "Let's see, I gotta find a way to suggest Beasley isn't even that good. I know! How about a bad analogy?"Stupid. Soooo stupid. (back into ether)(forgot something)Wang(ether)

First off, Kstate was not in the top 20 most the year, the popped in for a few weeks when they beat Kansas, but thats it. Only two teams from the Big-12 were ranked all year, Kansas and Texas. 11 seed in the tournament, usually if you are in the top 20 you get a little more respect than an 11 seed which means the commitee ranked then somewhere between 41st and 44th best team in the country.I explained my thought process on why Kstate might be better next year, the same reason Texas was better this year than it was with Durant. I saw a lot of people last year talking about how Texas was going to fall off after Durant left, but the rest of that recruiting class came together and made a good team. Same thing will happen with Kstate.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

First off, Kstate was not in the top 20 most the year, the popped in for a few weeks when they beat Kansas, but thats it. Only two teams from the Big-12 were ranked all year, Kansas and Texas. 11 seed in the tournament, usually if you are in the top 20 you get a little more respect than an 11 seed which means the commitee ranked then somewhere between 41st and 44th best team in the country.I explained my thought process on why Kstate might be better next year, the same reason Texas was better this year than it was with Durant. I saw a lot of people last year talking about how Texas was going to fall off after Durant left, but the rest of that recruiting class came together and made a good team. Same thing will happen with Kstate.

KState wont be better. They dont have the talent that Texas has.

[Jadaki 0]

KState wont be better. They dont have the talent that Texas has.

They don't have anyone who is quite as good as Augustine, but no one that Huggins recruited in that class was a bad player.

[bigkg 0]

First off, Kstate was not in the top 20 most the year, the popped in for a few weeks when they beat Kansas, but thats it. Only two teams from the Big-12 were ranked all year, Kansas and Texas. 11 seed in the tournament, usually if you are in the top 20 you get a little more respect than an 11 seed which means the commitee ranked then somewhere between 41st and 44th best team in the country.I explained my thought process on why Kstate might be better next year, the same reason Texas was better this year than it was with Durant. I saw a lot of people last year talking about how Texas was going to fall off after Durant left, but the rest of that recruiting class came together and made a good team. Same thing will happen with Kstate.

If your argument is that KState will be better because the rest of that team will develop that much more, similar to Texas, then ok.However, if your argument is that KState will be better because Beasley won't be there, then that is ridiculous.

[Jadaki 0]

If your argument is that KState will be better because the rest of that team will develop that much more, similar to Texas, then ok.However, if your argument is that KState will be better because Beasley won't be there, then that is ridiculous.

Pretty much, all those other good players are going to get more shots, and will be harder to guard as a team than what people did this year which was just try to shut down Beasley.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

First off, Kstate was not in the top 20 most the year, the popped in for a few weeks when they beat Kansas, but thats it. Only two teams from the Big-12 were ranked all year, Kansas and Texas. 11 seed in the tournament, usually if you are in the top 20 you get a little more respect than an 11 seed which means the commitee ranked then somewhere between 41st and 44th best team in the country.I explained my thought process on why Kstate might be better next year, the same reason Texas was better this year than it was with Durant. I saw a lot of people last year talking about how Texas was going to fall off after Durant left, but the rest of that recruiting class came together and made a good team. Same thing will happen with Kstate.

I didn't say they were ranked in the top twenty. Nor do I give a fuck one way or another what sportswriters and the committee thinks.Laughable man! Laughable!The committee had Davidson as a 10 seed, even though they were favored in their opening round game. This is the first year I can remember in at least 3 or 4 years where no 12 seeds were favored in a 12-5 opener. Louisville was a 3 and Tennessee was a 2. Who do you think the better team was? The committee fucks up the seedings all the time. Sometimes it's understandable, but that doesn't mean their seedings are wholly reflective of the relative quality of all the teams in the field. LAUGHABLE!The Texas:KSU analogy doesn't hold very much water, because the talent around Beasley (staying as well as incoming: no Rivals top 150 recruits) doesn't compare to the talent around Durant. Do you really think if Durant had stayed this year, Texas would have been WORSE?! Because that's really the only way your analogy makes any sense. Laughable man. Just... so fucking laughable. How do you piece your arguments together? Is UNC going to be better next year without Hansborough? Would K-State have been better THIS YEAR without Beasley? Because nothing you say makes any fucking sense.And, I repeat, K-State was one of the 20-or-so best teams in the country this year. I just wish I could get K-St. and UConn to play 100 times at a neutral site, just to prove my point. Instead, you're going to say something patently ridiculous, and then I'll support my contention with at least mildly scientific evidence, and you will dismiss it out of hand and my head will explode. My guess? I'd say right now K-St. is going to have a very, very hard time making the tournament next year. I wouldn't take 30-1 on them TO WIN THE NIT, motherfuckers.Wang

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Pretty much, all those other good players are going to get more shots, and will be harder to guard as a team than what people did this year which was just try to shut down Beasley.

This is so stupid. So what you're saying is, if a team LOSES a dominant, dynamic offensive player, the offense becomes more difficult to defend? So when Shaq was in his prime and commanded a double-team every possession, you are saying that his teams would have been HARDER TO DEFEND if he WERE NOT PLAYING?!?!Oh. My. GOD. I... this is making me so mad. People like you actually exist, which is something I absolutely can not believe.

[Jadaki 0]

I didn't say they were ranked in the top twenty. Nor do I give a fuck one way or another what sportswriters and the committee thinks.Laughable man! Laughable!The committee had Davidson as a 10 seed, even though they were favored in their opening round game. This is the first year I can remember in at least 3 or 4 years where no 12 seeds were favored in a 12-5 opener. Louisville was a 3 and Tennessee was a 2. Who do you think the better team was? The committee fucks up the seedings all the time. Sometimes it's understandable, but that doesn't mean their seedings are wholly reflective of the relative quality of all the teams in the field. LAUGHABLE!The Texas:KSU analogy doesn't hold very much water, because the talent around Beasley (staying as well as incoming: no Rivals top 150 recruits) doesn't compare to the talent around Durant. Do you really think if Durant had stayed this year, Texas would have been WORSE?! Because that's really the only way your analogy makes any sense. Laughable man. Just... so fucking laughable. How do you piece your arguments together? Is UNC going to be better next year without Hansborough? Would K-State have been better THIS YEAR without Beasley? Because nothing you say makes any fucking sense.And, I repeat, K-State was one of the 20-or-so best teams in the country this year. I just wish I could get K-St. and UConn to play 100 times at a neutral site, just to prove my point. Instead, you're going to say something patently ridiculous, and then I'll support my contention with at mildly scientific evidence, and you will dismiss it out of hand and my head will explode. My guess? I'd say right now K-St. is going to have a very, very hard time making the tournament next year. I wouldn't take 30-1 on them TO WIN THE NIT, motherfuckers.Wang

I can't watch your youtube link at work, so I'll have to see it later.TN had a better body of work than Louisville did this year, Louisville was playing better at the end of the year when they met in the tournament. I don't really have a problem with how either of them were seeded. I really don't see how comparing a 2 and 3 seed has anything to do with an 11 seed. K-state was a 12 loss team this year. There were no 12 loss teams ranked in the top 25 at the end of the year, the worst I can think of were Marquette and Clemson who both had 10. They even had a 4 game losing streak, top 20 teams don't lose 4 games in a row.Kstate had the number one recruiting class this year, it wasn't just because of Beasley so there is other talent there. In the 5-6 games I watched them play in the regular season you can see the other players around Beasley are solid, but the game plan is to run everything through him. Texas didn't have any killer freshman players this year, so what they have incoming next year doesn't matter to me. Would they be better with Durant, we're never going to know but it was the same guys there with him last year and they were not nearly as good. No one gave two shits about Augustine last year either because everyone was blowing Durant. All of a sudden, he is gone and the team improves with a new leader and more even shot distribution. It's not a coincidence.I'm glad I got you out of hiding.

[Jadaki 0]

This is so stupid. So what you're saying is, if a team LOSES a dominant, dynamic offensive player, the offense becomes more difficult to defend? So when Shaq was in his prime and commanded a double-team every possession, you are saying that his teams would have been HARDER TO DEFEND if he WERE NOT PLAYING?!?!Oh. My. GOD. I... this is making me so mad. People like you actually exist, which is something I absolutely can not believe.

There are cases where losing your best player can make the team better. I think Beasley is better than Durant, and probably more NBA ready, but that doesn't mean Kstate is going to turn to absolute shit without him.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I can't watch your youtube link at work, so I'll have to see it later.TN had a better body of work than Louisville did this year, Louisville was playing better at the end of the year when they met in the tournament. I don't really have a problem with how either of them were seeded. I really don't see how comparing a 2 and 3 seed has anything to do with an 11 seed. K-state was a 12 loss team this year. There were no 12 loss teams ranked in the top 25 at the end of the year, the worst I can think of were Marquette and Clemson who both had 10. They even had a 4 game losing streak, top 20 teams don't lose 4 games in a row.Kstate had the number one recruiting class this year, it wasn't just because of Beasley so there is other talent there. In the 5-6 games I watched them play in the regular season you can see the other players around Beasley are solid, but the game plan is to run everything through him. Texas didn't have any killer freshman players this year, so what they have incoming next year doesn't matter to me. Would they be better with Durant, we're never going to know but it was the same guys there with him last year and they were not nearly as good. No one gave two shits about Augustine last year either because everyone was blowing Durant. All of a sudden, he is gone and the team improves with a new leader and more even shot distribution. It's not a coincidence.I'm glad I got you out of hiding.

You ignored most of what I actually said, and instead just responded with more fucking hypothetical nonsense. Kansas St. was the 20th-most efficient offensive team in the country last year, and 23rd-most efficient defensive team. As a comparison, the team they played in the first round (6th seeded USC) was 17th and 38th respectively. I was in Vegas for that game, and hammered K-St., and begged all my friends to do the same. "Trust me. I am certain K-St. is the better team." Who cares if they had a 4 game losing streak at one point during the season? They were one of the more unlucky teams in college basketball last year, but they were still one of the most talented. How many games they lost is, when you're trying to predict future outcomes, almost irrelevant. "Would they be better with Durant, we're never going to know but it was .... (nonsense)"I know. I know Texas would have been much, much better with Durant. Does anybody -- and I mean fucking ANYBODY -- here think otherwise? How about responding to my Shaq analogy? Or my Hansborough comparison? Instead of just claiming you don't know whether the 9th best team in college basketball would have been better if they added the most talented player in college basketball to their roster and playing all dumb?Wang

[Jadaki 0]

You ignored most of what I actually said, and instead just responded with more fucking hypothetical nonsense. Kansas St. was the 20th-most efficient offensive team in the country last year, and 23rd-most efficient defensive team. As a comparison, the team they played in the first round (6th seeded USC) was 17th and 38th respectively. I was in Vegas for that game, and hammered K-St., and begged all my friends to do the same. "Trust me. I am certain K-St. is the better team." Who cares if they had a 4 game losing streak at one point during the season? They were one of the more unlucky teams in college basketball last year, but they were still one of the most talented. How many games they lost is, when you're trying to predict future outcomes, almost irrelevant. "Would they be better with Durant, we're never going to know but it was .... (nonsense)"I know. I know Texas would have been much, much better with Durant. Does anybody -- and I mean fucking ANYBODY -- here think otherwise? How about responding to my Shaq analogy? Or my Hansborough comparison? Instead of just claiming you don't know whether the 9th best team in college basketball would have been better if they added the most talented player in college basketball to their roster and playing all dumb?Wang

Who is Shaq?Hansborogh isn't leaving, and he is a better team player than Beasley anyway.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Who is Shaq?Hansborogh isn't leaving, and he is a better team player than Beasley anyway.

Your attempts at levity only underscore the total ass-kicking you received via: me.Wang

[Jadaki 0]

Your attempts at levity only underscore the total ass-kicking you received via: me.Wang

Your attempts at picking up that other than telling you Kstate was not a top 20 team all year I was fucking with you were a failure. It's sad it took you until that last post to realize it.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Your attempts at picking up that other than telling you Kstate was not a top 20 team all year I was fucking with you were a failure. It's sad it took you until that last post to realize it.

See, you're totally lying here. (shrug) You were arguing sincerely for pretty much everything you said. You might have realized at some point it was ridiculous, but you still meant it at first. Pretending it was all some kind of obvious joke I should have picked up on is a transparent ploy that is, frankly, depressing. Everyone who reads this: don't get caught defending ridiculous, illogical claims. I like my place in the ether, and don't want to have to put on pants and leave it.Regards,Wang