Still gonna win at least a share of the conference

[Deleted User 89]

At a certain point this streak starts to make the big 12 look pretty lousy imo.

And in the grand scheme of things, outside KU fan base, most people care more about final 4s and national championships than who wins regular season conference titles.

but thats only because nobody else is doing this

if a single school in any other of the power 5 conferences were doing the same, it would talked about just as much. and honestly, the only conference where such a streak would be more impressive might be the acc...but let's not pretend that they've hands-down been the better conference over the last 15 years

[Deleted User 75]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't. If we had duke or UNC in the big 12 this streak wouldn't exist.

[NDballer13]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

[Deleted User 89]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

right now they do

duke and carolina at various times, and often together

but what is the longest streak of conference titles in the acc? and even streaks aside, i'd be curious to know the breakdown of titles in the acc over the last 15 years. the sustained dominance by KU, even if you want to go all-in on the acc being better, is what's most impressive

[CrimsonNBlue]

And if Duke or UNC replaced Kansas in the Big 12, neither of them would have had this streak.

[NDballer13]

Agree about 2012 compared to 2010 and 2011....but you don't become legends in December and January, you do it in April. The 2 years prior were better teams, no doubt about it, but 2012 is the 1 who gets the glory because of their magical run.

This is like the so and so isn't great because he doesn't have a ring. He's good, sure, but he can't be in that conversation because there's no ring.

[Deleted User 75]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

It's not solely based on that...which team besides Kansas in the big 12 is a peer of Duke and UNC? None. None are even close.

[PhDhawk]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

Because you have to win 6 consecutive games and at least 5 of them are going to be against essentially top 25 teams.

Anyone trying to downplay winning the NCAA tournament doesn't understand college hoops.

The flipside of the coin, that there are really great teams who loose early is true and loosing shouldn't nullify their season.

The NCAA tournament doesn't always crown the best team in the country as the winner, but you can't win it if you aren't very very good.

[Deleted User 75]

Agree about 2012 compared to 2010 and 2011....but you don't become legends in December and January, you do it in April. The 2 years prior were better teams, no doubt about it, but 2012 is the 1 who gets the glory because of their magical run.

This is like the so and so isn't great because he doesn't have a ring. He's good, sure, but he can't be in that conversation because there's no ring.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it is.

You tell me to rank best KU "teams" from past 15 years and those teams are ahead of 2012....you tell me to rank best "years" and 2012 is higher on the list, above some teams that were better than them.

[Deleted User 75]

Let's all be honest with ourselves for a minute....if KU had won 3 or 4 more titles the last 20 years like Duke and UNC we wouldn't downplay their importance or what the mean. But we haven't. So they're downplayed. That's fine. I get it. I do it too. I don't let the tournament ruin the season for me anymore, but that's because I had to adjust due to repeatedly being disappointed by teams that should/could have won it all.

[NDballer13]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

It's not solely based on that...which team besides Kansas in the big 12 is a peer of Duke and UNC? None. None are even close.

Ok, so use those two. Outside of those two, who would be a peer to Kansas in the ACC? Kansas has won 14 straight. In those 14 years, the ACC wasn't won by either Duke or UNC every year.

[NDballer13]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

Because you have to win 6 consecutive games and at least 5 of them are going to be against essentially top 25 teams.

Anyone trying to downplay winning the NCAA tournament doesn't understand college hoops.

The flipside of the coin, that there are really great teams who loose early is true and loosing shouldn't nullify their season.

The NCAA tournament doesn't always crown the best team in the country as the winner, but you can't win it if you aren't very very good.

I'm not saying any rec league team can just go win the tourney. I agree, you have to be very good, if not great to win it. I just feel the weight being put on a 6 game winning streak is too much considering the whole body of a season. Especially in recent years when you have seeds higher than an 8 making Final Four runs.

[Deleted User 75]

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

It's not solely based on that...which team besides Kansas in the big 12 is a peer of Duke and UNC? None. None are even close.

Ok, so use those two. Outside of those two, who would be a peer to Kansas in the ACC? Kansas has won 14 straight. In those 14 years, the ACC wasn't won by either Duke or UNC every year.

Why we comparing Kansas to teams who are 3rd and 4th best in their conference when Kansas is a top 4 program in the entire country?

The ACC is better than the big 12. No reason to argue about it. If you don't agree that's fine.

ACC also has Virginia...who would be the 2nd best program in the big 12.

[jfish26]

Let's all be honest with ourselves for a minute....if KU had won 3 or 4 more titles the last 20 years like Duke and UNC we wouldn't downplay their importance or what the mean. But we haven't. So they're downplayed. That's fine. I get it. I do it too. I don't let the tournament ruin the season for me anymore, but that's because I had to adjust due to repeatedly being disappointed by teams that should/could have won it all.

At least the last time I saw the math done (which I think was before we made the Final Four last year), we really haven't underperformed in the tournament to NEARLY the extent you'd think by reading message boards. Obviously we're probably one title light, and that weighs heavily, but generally the narrative is grossly exaggerated.

[PhDhawk]

The ACC is superior conference to the Big 12 when you're talking about winning conference titles. We have no peer. They have several national championship winners at the top. We don't.

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

It's not solely based on that...which team besides Kansas in the big 12 is a peer of Duke and UNC? None. None are even close.

The strength of the big12, as a conference collectively, is that there are no bad teams (usually).

Recently there has been 1 great team (some years a second or third team is in that category, but not always and not consistently), 5 or 6 or 7 good to really good teams, and a couple mediocre but respectable teams.

Big12 teams don't have a couple of shitty teams that everyone else beats up on and picks up a handful of easy wins to pad their stats.

But outside of a couple teams (Hield's team at OU for example) there isn't always another NC-contender level team outside of KU

[jfish26]

It's not solely based on that...which team besides Kansas in the big 12 is a peer of Duke and UNC? None. None are even close.

Ok, so use those two. Outside of those two, who would be a peer to Kansas in the ACC? Kansas has won 14 straight. In those 14 years, the ACC wasn't won by either Duke or UNC every year.

Why we comparing Kansas to teams who are 3rd and 4th best in their conference when Kansas is a top 4 program in the entire country?

The ACC is better than the big 12. No reason to argue about it. If you don't agree that's fine.

ACC also has Virginia...who would be the 2nd best program in the big 12.

"Is," like right now? No doubt. But you can marshal some pretty compelling arguments that the Big 12 has been better than the ACC over the last 15 years.

[PhDhawk]

That's the exact point I made in my last post. Why is greatness based on an individual single elimination tournament?

Because you have to win 6 consecutive games and at least 5 of them are going to be against essentially top 25 teams.

Anyone trying to downplay winning the NCAA tournament doesn't understand college hoops.

The flipside of the coin, that there are really great teams who loose early is true and loosing shouldn't nullify their season.

The NCAA tournament doesn't always crown the best team in the country as the winner, but you can't win it if you aren't very very good.

I'm not saying any rec league team can just go win the tourney. I agree, you have to be very good, if not great to win it. I just feel the weight being put on a 6 game winning streak is too much considering the whole body of a season. Especially in recent years when you have seeds higher than an 8 making Final Four runs.

I agree in the sense that I think a lot of other things matter, and are largely ignored by many.

College hoops is great because the regular season matters, even if not many people care. I think how we do in the Champions classic matters, I think Thanksgiving tournaments matter, conference tournaments (even though I hate them) matter, seedings matter, rankings matter, wins and losses matter, etc.

But the tournament matters, it's the thing that matters most. I'll buy that people ignore other things, when they shouldn't, and that the tournament isn't the only thing...but it is the most important individual factor.

[Deleted User 75]

Ok, so use those two. Outside of those two, who would be a peer to Kansas in the ACC? Kansas has won 14 straight. In those 14 years, the ACC wasn't won by either Duke or UNC every year.

Why we comparing Kansas to teams who are 3rd and 4th best in their conference when Kansas is a top 4 program in the entire country?

The ACC is better than the big 12. No reason to argue about it. If you don't agree that's fine.

ACC also has Virginia...who would be the 2nd best program in the big 12.

"Is," like right now? No doubt. But you can marshal some pretty compelling arguments that the Big 12 has been better than the ACC over the last 15 years.

Not at the top you can't. Just count the national titles by each conference.

I agree with PHD the strength of the big 12 is that there are less teams and no teams that are shit every single year.

[jfish26]

Why we comparing Kansas to teams who are 3rd and 4th best in their conference when Kansas is a top 4 program in the entire country?

The ACC is better than the big 12. No reason to argue about it. If you don't agree that's fine.

ACC also has Virginia...who would be the 2nd best program in the big 12.

"Is," like right now? No doubt. But you can marshal some pretty compelling arguments that the Big 12 has been better than the ACC over the last 15 years.

Not at the top you can't. Just count the national titles by each conference.

I agree with PHD the strength of the big 12 is that there are less teams and no teams that are shit every single year.

Ok, but you didn't say "better at the top." You said "better."

Now it is perfectly reasonable to judge a conference by how many elite teams it has. It is also perfectly reasonable to judge it top to bottom.

Dismissing the streak because of the Big 12's overall strength is...fine, I guess? But the point is that it requires a very particular way of looking at things (or, at least, a closed mind).

[Deleted User 75]

"Is," like right now? No doubt. But you can marshal some pretty compelling arguments that the Big 12 has been better than the ACC over the last 15 years.

Not at the top you can't. Just count the national titles by each conference.

I agree with PHD the strength of the big 12 is that there are less teams and no teams that are shit every single year.

Ok, but you didn't say "better at the top." You said "better."

Now it is perfectly reasonable to judge a conference by how many elite teams it has. It is also perfectly reasonable to judge it top to bottom.

Dismissing the streak because of the Big 12's overall strength is...fine, I guess? But the point is that it requires a very particular way of looking at things (or, at least, a closed mind).

I'm not trying to dismiss the streak. Sorry if that's how it seemed. Not my intent at all.

I guess in the end, when thinking about it from a "Kansas perspective" winning the big 12 is easier than winning the ACC because the top isn't as good...we just don't have duke unc Virginia type top..we've got Kansas....and then whoever else is good in a given year.

Not dismissing it. Just saying the ACC is better, even when considering overall top to bottom, and recognizing there are less teams in big 12, because ACC has 2 elite programs...and then they also have UVA who has been on a hot run.

Big 12 needs another elite team....when is the last time someone from the big 12 got a 1 seed in the tournament that wasn't Kansas? Was it OU buddy hield year?