Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 14166638)

Snore. We are vs the following, per sagarin

1) Villanova -11.5
2) Villanova +1
3) Villanova + 6
4) Villanova +2.5


Cumulatively that’s low odds to win all 4, but individually? Each is possible, not shocking at all.

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 14166661)

These Auburn players are talented

Originally Posted by KC_Connection (Post 14166047)

It goes without saying, but this is a difficult draw. The Midwest regional location only matters if you get there and there's a less than 50/50 chance that Kansas does. To start, Northeastern is one of the most efficient shooting team in the country (5th in effective field goal percentage). More crucially for our purposes, they both take and make a ton of threes. 46.3% of their shot attempts come from behind the arc (22nd in the country) and they make them at a 38.8% clip (14th in the country). As some have been fond of pointing out, this KU team struggles to guard the three (not so much percentage wise but they allow teams to shoot 41.4% of their shots from there which is well below average). Northeastern also play a four guard lineup, which has proven to be the death of Self teams several times in the past and will likely require an adjustment in our own lineup (Dotson/Grimes/Agbaji/Garrett/Lawson). In sum, these guys are basically Villanova-lite and we will need them to miss a lot more shots than they generally make to survive even to Saturday.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14163623)

Call me crazy, I actually like Braun and McBride. I think Braun is sneaky and underrated, because well, he's a white Kansas kid who looks like a paperboy. McBride is a great shooter and scorer, but undersized.

I think both are going to be great players. We need to be making our living in the 50-20 recruiting rankings range. OAD players are extremely overrated in terms of collegiate value IMO. Zion is a once in a generational player, even if you get the #1 guy there is no guarantee. Wiggins was nice, but I'd take Frank Mason or Devonte Graham 4 years over Wiggins ANY day. Selby was a complete bomb and some services had him #1 as well.

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan (Post 14167321)

I might take Mason over a OAD Wiggins. But I would take OAD Embiid over Mason. If Embiid's health had held up a little longer KU could have won it all.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14168013)

Just Baffling. Embiid was good player in his one year of college, but he wasnt even as good as the best years of Aldrich, Simien, Withey, or Thomas Robinson.

Id take 4 years lf Frank Mason over virtually any 1 year player. Gives you the best chance at sustained excellence. Id take 4 years of Graham over Josh Jackson. No hesitation. I don't see how its even close.

Of course you can't pick and choose but the flop rate of a OAD recruit and the fact you get them for one year are all huge detriments. OADs are highly overrated for COLLEGIATE value akin to dinosaur baseball thinking in terms of only looking at batting avg and rbis.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14168013)

Just Baffling. Embiid was good player in his one year of college, but he wasnt even as good as the best years of Aldrich, Simien, Withey, or Thomas Robinson.

Id take 4 years lf Frank Mason over virtually any 1 year player. Gives you the best chance at sustained excellence. Id take 4 years of Graham over Josh Jackson. No hesitation. I don't see how its even close.

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan (Post 14168827)

The streak was nice. I'm glad KU got the all-time record before it came to an end.

At this point, I'm less interested in sustained excellence and more interested in titles. There are not a lot of OAD players I would take over Mason. But Embiid I would. By the end of the year before he went down with injury, his rim protection was incredible.

Aldrich better than Embiid before he went down? I'm not sure I watched the same games you did.

Now if you want to factor in that Embiid was unavailable for the tourney, sure.

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow (Post 14169397)

I don't know what to think anymore. I just found out BWillie likes the female Ghostbusters movie.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14169538)

Yeah it was pretty good. The only reason people dont like it is because of nostalgia. It wasn't what they grew up remembering Ghostbusters was like. It would be if they made Golden Girls but with men. People would naturally be pissed. But as a stand alone movie if you dont include nostalgic expectations it was good.

Why did it get 75% on RT if it was so bad?