@JayHawkFanToo Sorry I'm late back to the table. I can't post on my work computer any more because some glitch related to the site.
We do disagree a lot, but I do appreciate your thoughtful responses. Like you, no disrespect intended or even implied.
Here's what I'd ask you to do ... try to free your mind. I'll try to do the same. I am really going to reconsider my criticisms of Self after this post. But I'd ask you to really be critical, really analyze this. Don't be afraid to criticize coach Self or anyone you perceive to be wiser than you. They're just people.
My response is two parts:
First, you do realize that your citation of Coach Wooden and his approach to the game, apparently what you believe to be the most credible approach, is an apparent indictment of coach Self? You can see that, right? Never fear, though, I'm on the grand jury. No indictment is imminent.
You cite Wooden for the proposition that his job was to teach player how to prepare, prepare them, and let them execute, citing the following, "Once the game started, he largely left it to his disciplined army of athletes to figure things out for themselves, often times even when they found themselves in a spot of bother."
However, Coach Self is a near control freak during games. He regularly uses all of his timeouts. He calls all sets, and all plays. He signals all in-bounds plays. He is universally known for his quick hook, and emotionally based substitutions. He strategically moves players in and out. When he has players in a timeout, he's always directing. I agree with Self's approach 100%.
Of course, in all sports, coaches do the bulk of work before the game. You put that in bold as if that is some sort of revelation. That's like saying the sky is blue.
The other really incredibly obvious reference is to players missing shots or turning the ball over affecting games. Of course. That happens. And that can swing a game. The sky is blue.
But the key that you apparently fail to recognize is that coaches do their most important coaching during games when the players aren't performing and when their preparation has failed. Whether it is changing to a different formation in football, or switching defenses in basketball (like UK did vs. UConn in the first half), or bunting/hit and run in baseball, there are enumerable adjustments that coaches make during the game that decides the outcome, and those decisions become more important as the game moves on and there is less time to come back from a deficit.
Coach Self calls a back door lob because the defender in the zone is creeping up from the baseline; he recognizes that a defender on an inbound play creeps to the middle on a throw in opposite, so runs the wheel around for a bucket; he notices that a player rotates backward each time after he tries to penetrate the baseline, so he instructs his help defender to shut that off, causing a turnover. It literally goes on and on. But it's the players.
I tend to think that you watched the Stanford game and truly thought it was 80% on the players. Your citation of our players in the UNI and VCU games demonstrates that you have a lack of accountability directed at a coach. So in your book, Self prepared his squad correctly, his games plan was fine, his personnel choices fine, his in game adjustments all fine; it was just the players. That is simply comical. It is convenient. But it is a cop-out.
I will very confidently say that you simply do not appreciate, or really understand, the role of a coach during in-game situations. That to me is obvious.
You state" .. you can even see in this forum where some posters (who have never coached even grade school kids) are constantly second guessing Coach Self and claiming he is doing it all wrong,"
My disagreement with you is from the perspective of a guy that has coached over 50 seasons of youth baseball, basketball, and football, all at the top levels of each sport.
You say when you "... are playing against a better team, chances are that you will lose regardless." Really. That is another indictment of coach Self, right? Somehow, we have found ways to lose to inferior teams in the tournament over and over. I'm sure UNI, VCU, Bradley, Bucknell, Bradley, et. al. would be considered "inferior."
But knowing how you approach an argument, you'll go circular. You'll go back and say, see, the players failed. You have attempted to cover yourself from both ends. But it really comes down to a lack of appreciation for in-game coaching.
Second, you fall into a common trap. My perception of your post and defense of Self is that simply because he is the coach of Kansas and makes millions, that he undoubtedly knows best at all times. As if he's beyond reproach. Meaning, that the opinions of us mere peons' are just uninformed and worthless.
I reject that completely.
I have used this example before. Marty Schottenheimer, great football coach. In 1997, Elvis Grbac got hurt so Rich Gannon took over. Gannon led the Chiefs on a great run, AFC West title, home field -- Schottenheimer made the fateful decision to start Grbac over Gannon in the playoff game vs. Denver in Grbac's first game back, and the Chiefs lost. Broncos go on to win the Super Bowl. Probably the Chiefs best team ever.
Most Chiefs fans felt Gannon should have started.
Schottenheimer admitted later that he made the wrong decision.
The point is that coaches make mistakes, and coaches admit those mistakes later. They are human. They make decisions for the wrong reason. Schottenheimer made the decision because he didn't feel Grbac should lose the job because of injury. Flawed logic, to be sure.
Your shortsighted approach to criticism of coach Self ignores that coaches are dead wrong many times. Thus, if you accept that premise -- that coaches are dead wrong many times -- criticism and analysis are reasonable. The generically most informed and intelligent person on a topic can make the wrong decision.
Now, does that mean that anyone of us would be a better all around coach than coach Self? Of course not. So don't confuse the two.
It does not take a rocket scientist (in a hoops sense) to see that coach Self did nothing against Stanford to free up his best player, Andrew Wiggins, from a strategy designed to stop him (when his real best player, Joel Embiid, was out). Multiple strategies that coaches employ when teams try to take a great player out of the game. Self did nothing. And lineup decisions, pregame and in-game are crucial. In hindsight, would you have started Naadir Tharpe vs. Stanford? I said before the game that we should bench him and not play him one minute. Who was right, me, or coach Self? I also suggested before the tournament that given that Embiid was out, we should have switched to a small lineup, attack, play fast, etc. That with Embiid out, it was our only chance to win the title. Who was right, me, or coach Self?
I have also made some pretty stupid suggestions. And my stupid suggestions are far more vast and wide that any of coach Self's decisions. I know that. But that doesn't mean that perhaps some of my suggestions, and other's that post here, are better than coach Self's ultimate decisions on a particular topic.
Scrutinizing certain aspects of his decision making, that may not be his strong suit, is certainly reasonable. That's all this is. Isolating areas that seem to be weakness, and analyzing the decision making, the thought process, the scheme, the strategy.
I heard Bob Knight one evening suggest that Kansas was not using the dribble drive enough. Ok, perhaps one of the best coaches in history critiquing one of the best coaches in history. But if we say the same thing here, that coach Knight said, it is worthless, right?
I reject that completely. Jim Boeheim won a national title running the 2-3 zone. Self won't do it. It's not valid to suggest that in 2013-14 that using a zone, with that team, with our defensive holes, might have been the better option -- like I (and others) suggested in late November?
Coach Self failed us against Stanford. Joe Montana failed the 49ers a few times too. He made some bad decisions. Threw some interceptions. But he is still arguably one of the greatest of all time. Coaches are the same way.
One last thing .. if you're still with me here. I've posted this before. Coaches get arrogant. They get tunnel vision. They think their way unequivocally is the best way. It happens in all walks of life; the arrogance of leadership. It does not permit the leader to free his mind and make the best decision for his team. It's why many bad decisions are made. But it's also why they're successful. there's a balance. I just don't think coach Self has that balance.
It why we all chuckle when coach Self says we could play small, but in the same sentence says that we then couldn't guard anyone. He thinks it, talks himself out of it, and reverts to his tried and true -- his theory of the game.
You say that "it is apparent that you are not a fan of Coach Self." That is the furthest thing from the truth. I have posted many, many times over the years that I would not trade coach Self for any other coach. And I wouldn't. My analysis is related to my perception of how he could improve as a coach. Really, as I've said before, "just tweaks." Opening his mind that his way, his tried and true, could stand some adjustments here and there.
Again, I appreciate your position and the discussion. Though I tend to get blunt, no offense intended. I'll try to rethink my position a bit.
