When I really look at I can only see 2 real underachievements:
2001 Indiana State
1995 Manhattan
In my humble opinion I do not think 3 vs. 6 games are upsets. The teams are just toio close in ability.
Discuss.
When I really look at I can only see 2 real underachievements:
2001 Indiana State
1995 Manhattan
In my humble opinion I do not think 3 vs. 6 games are upsets. The teams are just toio close in ability.
Discuss.
2002 Indiana, They played their best and OU played not so well.
The margin of the loss against Temple you could categorize as an underachievment but the match-up was pretty even. The Stanford, Indiana and Purdue games were all 50/50 games. The 98-99 run was a big overachievement. A 3 losing to a 6 isn't a big deal when Utah had guys hitting shots in their sleep. Collectively I think it is fair to say that Sampson has underachieved in the NCAA tourney. It is also fair to say he has at times overachieved in the regular season and conference tourney.
Indiana St loss was bad but Manhattan was in a class by itself IMHO.
Man, that was the Final 4. Sure, I thought we could have won that game, but it happens, you know?Originally Posted by oumartin
I thought we could/should have won but if a Final 4 run at Oklahoma is underachieving then you might have to re-examine your expectations. Under that standard our loss to KU in 88 was a huge underachievement.
We either overachieve or underachieve. Why can't we just achieve?
so my expectations are a little unrealistic to some.
Too many times. How many times have we gone one and done under KS?
Know thy self,
know thy enemy.
A thousand battles,
a thousand victories. - Sun Tzu (500 B.C.)
7 times by my count: NCAA Tourney 95,96,97,98,01 Big 12 Tourney 96,99
Billy Tubbs had 8 one and dones in case you are wondering
NCAA 84,92 Big 8 Tourney 81,83,91,93,94 NIT 94
Kelvin has been given a seed of eight or higher six times in the NCAA Tournament while he's been at OU. Those teams have played to their seed only once: 2002.
Every other year, Kelvin's teams have "underachieved" based on where they finished in relation to the seed they were given.
That's not very good.
That's true though no one seriously can say losing to Syracuse a few years ago in their backyard when they were the national champ is underachieving. I also think that in 8-9 games and 7-10 games seeds are literally interchangable.
But yes we have underachieved in the tourney overall under KS to this point. No argument here.
True, but many of those times his teams overachieved just MAKING it to the tournament.
Coaching talent is very different from coaching overachievers and tweeners. I hope Kelvin gets the hang of it soon.
2001-I.S.
2002-Indiana .....I thought it was our year.
They had better never send us to play in Memphis again. Damned hokey pyramid.
_______________________
Phil
HMFIC
SoonerFans.com
If the standard is making it as far as your seed would indicate you should, here's his resume:
1995 - 4 seed (top 16), lost in first round (underachieved)
1996 - 10 seed (underdog), lost in first round (neutral)
1997 - 11 seed (underdog), lost in first round (neutral)
1998 - 11 seed (underdog), lost in OT first round (neutral)
1999 - 13 seed (underdog), made it to Sweet 16 (overachieved)
2000 - 3 seed (top 12), lost in second round (underachieved)
2001 - 3 seed (top 12), lost in OT first round (underachieved)
2002 - 2 seed (top 8), made it to Final Four (overachieved)
2003 - 1 seed (top 4), made it to Elite Eight (underachieved)
2004 - NIT
2005 - 3 seed (top 12), lost in second round (underachieved)
4 underachieved (didn't make it as far as their seed indicated they should)
3 neutral (lost in first round as they were predicted to)
2 overachieved (made it further than their seed indicated they should)
As someone else pointed out, it seems kinda rough to hold that 2003 year to the same standard as the others. It's tough to say that any #1 seed that makes it to the Elite 8 underachieved, especially when they were knocked out by the eventual champs. If you give Sampson the benefit of the doubt that year, then it changes to:
3 underachieved
4 neutral
2 overachieved
I think a lot of it has to do with how the losses happen. If we were putting forth our best effort and losing, then that is one thing. But, sometimes it is like we didn't even show up.
Yeah. I guess it's all perspective. Some people look at that and say we didn't show up. Others look at it and give credit to our opponent.
It seems that we played pretty well in the 2 losses leading up to the Sweet 16 year. Against Stanford, we just couldn't stop Brevin Knight. The next year we came close to being one of the 7-10 upsets, taking Indiana to OT.
When we were upset by Purdue in 2000, they played a great defensive game. We would've won the 2001 game if Hollis hadn't gone down (and then we would've faced the 12th seeded Zags), but that game shouldn't have even been close when Hollis went down.
The 2005 game was just one of those games where shots wouldn't fall. We were getting open looks, we just weren't knocking them down.
I agree about the pyriamid, but the new FedEx Forum is sah-weet!!
I'd gladly make that trip!
Which is a worse loss. Billys loss to Louisiana Laffeyette in 91 or 92. Or Kelvins loss to Manhattan?
Tough call.
Maybe Billy's, since they were a few years out from being in the title game, while Kelvin's loss to Manhattan came before he made it to the Final Four.
Posting Permissions
