🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@icthawkfan316 I agree .. I'm not a Turg fan when comes to a being a possible successor.

If Manning is successful and can recruit, then he'll be the logical guy with KU connections.

Tad Boyle seems to be one to keep our collective eyes on as well.

But if Stevens flounders a bit in Boston, and is ready to come back to the college ranks, that's interesting too.

@JayHawkFanToo - Traylor is a fine 4th big. But that's it in my opinion. And not trying to be argumentative, but TRob and Traylor don't have near the same build. Actually, Ellis' build is much closer to TRob's.

But I understand your point. If Traylor's stats do double, or even increase by 50%, that will be quite a feat. Self clearly felt more comfortable with Traylor vs. Ellis many times this season, which was unfortunately due in large part to Ellis' defensive lapses.

@JayHawkFanToo and @Crimsonorblue22 - I don't know, I've never looked at Traylor and thought TRob. Ever. Even with the silly "baby TRob" stuff. Traylor's shoulders are thin. TRob was a freak of nature.

And TRob was bad ass underneath, and his post moves were superb. He hit the boards as well as anyone I've ever seen here. Honestly, I don't think Traylor's even close to TRob.

Let's look at TRob vs. Traylor -- both players' sophomore season:

Traylor: 549 minutes, 164 points, 139 rebounds

TRob: 482 minutes, 251 points, 212 rebounds

As you can see, the stats aren't close.

TRob's junior season was perhaps .. perhaps .. the best season a post player has had under Self at KU. Awesome. TRob averaged 11.9 rebounds a game, nearly 2 rebounds a game more than Nick Collison did in his senior season, and even more than Drew Gooden did in his incredible 2001-02 season.

Traylor certainly improved. But that improvement has simply made him an average back up. Definitely not a guy I want to rely upon as a 3rd post player. 4th guy? Sure. 3rd? No way.

@konkeyDong Good stuff .. I vote beefy.

I think I'm selfishly rooting for the left side of the bracket. It provides us something to aspire to.

Two programs that have won multiple national titles in the last 10 years. For UConn, it would be their fourth in the last 15 seasons.

If either wins the national title, they stake claim to the best program in recent years. Easy. Going away.

Every program would trade places with their success.

Highlights my thoughts on the value of national titles vs. anything and everything else.

Still curious how many conference titles UConn has won, and if it even matters ....

Imagine if Kentucky wins it -- 1/5 of the national titles in the last 20.

The "Calipari can't coach" and "Calipari is a sleeze ball" tripe seems to be waning a bit.

@Crimsonorblue22 You mean, "nude-iir".**

**Funny, but not my original thought .. stolen material. Mark Allen on the other site.

@JayHawkFanToo - I guess I feel less comfortable about the bigs. Here's why, 1) Alexander is a freshman. You never know. It seems that the hurdles in the post are easier than as a wing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took him time to adjust to the competition level. 2) Ellis is a weak post presence. Good scorer, but can't defend too well and not physical. Finesse guy who compromises our defense. 3) Traylor has improved, but it is optimistic to think he makes another leap. His leap from freshman to sophomore was one of below average sub to average sub. 4) Lucas is one that I was impressed with from a skill perspective, but obviously Self doesn't feel that way yet. He was an emergency only guy. Maybe a reason for that. 5) Mickelson is a complete unknown, and no way we can count on anything.

Personally, I think our post play is a bigger question than point guard -- unless Self is actually planning on playing Tharpe. If so, we should all expect double digit losses and another March spent watching other teams play.

Totally off subject: Odds that players transfer -

1. White: 2-5
2. Tharpe: 3-1
3. Greene: 5-1
4. Lucas: 5-1
5. Mason: 7-1
6. Traylor: 10-1
7. Frankamp: 15-1
8. Ellis: 200-1
9. Selden: 1000-1

@Hawk8086 Speculation on my part ... I think is he one of those passive, mentally weak, kind of guys. I think that he lacks mental and physical toughness. It shows distinctly on the defensive end. He's a square peg in a round hole with coach Self.

One of the things that bothers me most from his play is that he has very little acuity in running the break. Seems to move the ball to the wing too quickly, and backs it out too often

So, lacking physical and mental toughness, I think that coach Self's quick hook style has made him even more careful, and even more passive. Trying to avoid the mistake.

Again, square peg round hold. Self doesn't want passivity, and the right guys respond to his style. Tharpe ain't the right kind of guy.

Just my opinion from observation.

I really ... really ... don't think that this is that complicated.

It is not difficult to find a competent point guard. Look around. Who has this kind of problem?

The question is, what do you want? Or another way, what type of player do you want to play that position?

And what kind of player are you recruiting?

I think the combo guard thing causes the problem. A combo guard, really, is just a 2 guard that can also (supposedly) handle the ball well enough to run the point. That's it. A combo guard would not generally be thought of as a distributor in the pure point guard sense -- Tyshawn Taylor, Elijah Johnson.

@justanotherfan makes a great point about translating a high school point guard to D-1 college. The speed of the game at D-1 is incredible. It takes time to adjust . And I think another great point implicit in his comment is that great high school point guards many times are score first guys. They aren't distributors first. They have to become that.

Remind you of someone -- excellent ball handling, score first mentality, becoming a better distributor? Right, Frank Mason.

If you want combo guards, then do that. But understand that many times, ball handling will be lacking. And you're not getting a distributor. You get Tyshawn Taylor and EJ (EJ being a true 2 guard).

But if you want a true point guard, then you have to recruit that. And I think Self's comment in Fall of 2012 saying that he needed to add a "point guard" was very telling, with all the combo guard stuff.

We did not land 6 point guards ahead of Mason. We'll see if he fits that bill.

@konkeyDong "HEM seems ready to take the risks citing that we could be UConn or UK or UF, or whomever else. I'm conservative like Self in that regard, so I don't know if I could take the heart ache of having real down years just to try and swing for the fences in March."

See, I don't think that March success and regular season success is mutually exclusive.

Self really, really knows what he's doing. We all know that. He is a great coach.

All I suggest is tweaks. I see a coach who has tunnel vision, who is stuck on his philosophy. And I see a team who has failed in big situations because of that tunnel vision. Granted, that tunnel vision is part of the reason why we have been so good and consistent. But the flat out refusal to adapt a bit has been our downfall.

No one can or has defended our strategy against Stanford. The irritation with some is the criticizing of Self. The "if you are so brilliant then apply for the job" argument. But no one has defended the strategy.

Self himself said that they were long and contested our shots. That led to a low shooting percentage, which is a hallmark of good defense (by Self's standards) .. so, how do you get open looks?

You have to scheme it. We didn't.

They have superior interior players and our strategy is to get the ball inside. We have superior wings (Selden, Wiggins) and we do nothing to create opportunities for them offensively. Wiggins shot 6 times. He should have shot 16. Wiggins stood in the same spots, ran the same stuff. Stanford said thank you and took it away. That is where a coach has to adjust. No one has contested the claim that coach Self got outcoached against Stanford. Not that I've seen.

Our strategy against Stanford is indefensible.

Self's strategy against Stanford is always his strategy, as @globaljaybird nailed perfectly.

That's my point.

@JRyman I acknowledge your point. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what we can see. So I just think you are dead wrong there. We can certainly analyze what's going on.

But to your point. Let's say we want KU to play zone. But coach Self has run zone in practice, sees that it is horrible that three players are completely incompetent running the zone, and he sees it as a waste of time even if man to man is not that solid.

There I would agree. But in that instance, Self said on Hawk Talk that he thought we could be a good zone team, but that he believes in man to man. He said that good man to man is better than good zone, and that it's harder to beat a good man to man team.

On some of the other items, there are not issues that relate to specific personnel or secret behind the scenes things -- he does the same thing every season regardless of personnel, etc.

"Anyone can pick up a book and take a test and become a basketball official, that does not make them knowledgeable." --- Great point

@JRyman & @globaljaybird -- Don't think for a minute that "we really don't know squat."

This is not rocket science, it's not brain surgery, and it is not complex. It is a game with many elements.

Look at other teams. See what is successful. Adopt. Adapt. Take pieces that will help this team be more successful. That's really all coach Self needs to do in my humble opinion. As I mentioned -- Free your mind. Just break free of the philosophical tunnel vision.

I have really seen zero change from coach Self. Everything is the same. Offense, defense -- everything.

While I am clearly more in coach Roy's camp regarding style of play, there's more than one way to skin a cat. And Self has skinned that cat.

And to the "we really don't know squat" thing -- right, coach Self will clearly be able to take information and translate it on the floor better than the rest of us. Not even an issue there.

But too many times folks get caught in the trap of thinking that because someone is extraordinary in what they do, that an opinion in comparison is not worthy or valid.

Let me ask you this, in all seriousness. Do you really think that coach Self is smarter than @jaybate? I can flat out guarantee you that @jaybate wins that hands down.

Now, does that mean @jaybate can coach like Self? Of course not. But he can certainly view, process, and apply information, and likely in a higher capacity.

That's all our discussions are here. Try this -- do you think that our discussions about KU playing fast, creating more possessions, trapping and pressing, putting the best offensive team on the court to score, placing less emphasis on defensive personnel -- has any merit now after the loss to Stanford? I bet if anyone here could go back and try that, they'd do it.

I wouldn't minimize insight on the message board here. Many time folks are in positions that they are in due to circumstance when many others, given the same circumstance, could achieve in the same manner -- whether it be a CEO, Coach, Doctor, Lawyer, or President of the United States.

I've met brilliant people who simply have not been in a position to achieve professionally, many of them women who have chosen to be moms first.

Do you really think that George W. Bush and Barack Obama are more qualified than many, many others to have been president? Doesn't make them bad presidents, but their skill set is not unique. Circumstance, in large part, led to them becoming president.

Let's not be afraid to critique. The key is why -- why is an opinion valid? The rationale. The logic.

Logic wins the day.

And that's the issue I have with coach Self's approach sometimes. It makes no logical sense when you add everything up.

I can tell you, in my opinion, our game plan for Stanford stunk. And I have one strong point in my favor -- the result. We lost. We got beat by an "ok" team. A lousy 10 seed ruined our season. We played their game. Out coached. Period.

What I haven't heard is anyone defend Self's game plan vs. Stanford. Not one person.

Terrific topic. This is simple. To quote Morpheus in the Matrix --

"Free your mind."

That's all.

Your way, while solid and with great merit, isn't always the best way to win.

Sometimes we must be flexible, and we must adjust. We must be willing to deviate. We must be creative

That thought process will lead a great coach (like coach Self) to the answer.

@Hawk8086 - That's pretty funny. Actually, I was coaching baseball all day in a tournament so was otherwise detained.

I hope everyone noticed that in my post, I made no criticism of coach Self, nor did I reference him.

The responses here are quite amazing, I think. A full range of thought on the topic.

I think, first, some presume that giving back the 10 conference titles means mediocrity. I wouldn't presume that.

Has UConn won any Big East regular season conference titles since and including 1999? I would think yes, but I don't know. But I don't care. They have won three NCAA titles in the stretch. Three. 1999, 2004, and 2011 (the final one should have been our title).

Since and including 1996, Kentucky has won three national titles (1996, 1997, and 2012). I know they've won conference titles. But I don't care.

Florida won back to back titles ... but conference titles? I don't know.

We know Duke and UNC have each won two national titles since and including 2001. Conference titles? I'm sure they've won some. I don't know.

What I said is that conference titles are a means to an end. But they, in the final analysis, really mean nothing. I provide the contrast to make a point for discussion. I want national championships. I want, as @Moonwalkmafia said, a "team built for March."

I saw the reference by @JayHawkFanToo to comparing Big 12 titles to Gonzaga's titles not being a fair comparison? Why not? Who in this conference ever does anything nationally? No one in this conference has won a national title except Kansas since when? The Model-T? How is this conference better than Gonzaga's? RPI? BPI? We were supposedly the best conference and no one even gets to the Elite 8. When we get on the national stage we are routinely pummeled. Look at KU's recruiting. My guess is, in a relative sense, our recruiting vs. the rest of the conference is pretty close to Gonzaga vs. the rest of their conference. And I acknowledge that the streak is amazing, it just has nothing to do with greatness. Zero.

And I always love strawman arguments like @JayHawkFanToo made -- referencing programs who had short term success "VCU, George Mason, or Butler ..." How in the world does that have anything to do with KU? Again, I know it's easy to argue this way, but it's not relevant in my humble opinion to Kansas.

@Blown "This post reeks of selfish ego, cynicism, and is a direct result of being spoiled by this programs successes."

Interesting. Actually, is it unrealistic to think that we can be UConn? And please, I hope no one cites academics with UConn or KU.

And now, we don't have a "handful of championships." We have 3. The first two, as we all know, in 1922 and 1923 are just silly to include. It's embarrassing when I see folks cite them.

This program has won but 3 national titles ... ever.

And we sit round and pat our backs about conference titles. It is Kool-Aid. It is a diversion. It is nice window dressing. It does allow some to wear t-shirts and talk smack to ISU fans from time to time.

For me, I am curious as to why, with all of our talent and recruiting, we can't find a game plan for success to beat UNI, VCU, and Stanford ... I mean, with a conference title preceding those contests and all. I don't expect national titles every season. But with our talent, we have been significantly shortchanged -- 1997, 2002, and 2011 without any doubt.

@Blown -- you say "Should I tell my kids there was no "success" in their year because they didn't win the last game."

My answer, no, you shouldn't say they had "no success." I never said that. But you should tell them that they are not a champion.

And being a champion, if you are playing at the highest level and you aspire to be thought of as elite, is the only true measure of greatness.

So here we sit. Watching Michigan, Florida, Kentucky, etc. Ugh. I enjoyed the games last night, but there was a hole, an emptiness.

The tournament means more – it means more than recruiting successes, it means more than non-con, it means more than conference titles, it means more than conference tournaments. The NCAA tournament means everything.

We can deny it, and we can rationalize it all we want to. But it’s dishonest and untrue.

Sure, it’s not “fair” that the tournament means this much. It’s not “fair” that coaches are suffering such a fate – that they are judged by their tournament success. It is what they signed up for. And ultimately, “fair” has got nothing to do with it.

This season, like it or not, UK is superior to KU. We are an also ran. We mean nothing. How often have you uttered the word "Duke" in the last week or so?

Fair? If we beat an average Stanford team and a mid-major, Dayton, all of a sudden the entire narrative changes, right? That’s all. Just beat those to middling teams.

It’s not who you beat, it’s when you win. When you win is most important.

That is why everything a coach does has to be geared toward March success. Everything. Not part, or some, or a little bit. Everything. That is the reality at Kansas. It is the reality at Duke, at UNC, at Kentucky, at other top programs.

Great programs are defined by NCAA titles, and to a lesser extent, Final Fours. That defines greatness. Greatness is not defined by 10 conference titles. That’s impressive. That’s amazing. We have put ourselves in the same discussion as Gonzaga. Terrific. But it is certainly not “greatness.”

The entire basketball world and all of America, for sure, is focused on this tournament. And again, we sit at home. Sitting at home is sufficient for other teams, other schools. But we are Kansas. We correctly expect our teams to play to their talent level each and every season.

So let me reiterate what I’ve said in the past – conference titles mean nothing. They are a means to an end, with the end being a #1 seed, and thus a better statistical chance of winning the NCAA tourney. A conference title is not worthy of t-shirt in Lawrence, Kansas. If you have one, throw it away.

Because all that matters now is coach Self’s preparation for next season’s NCAA tournament. It is the only meaningful end game.

Right now, I’ll make you a trade – the 10 conference titles, wash it all away, for the 2013-14 NCAA title. It’s an offer you can’t refuse.

For now, though, we sit on our pathetic couches, watching our pathetic HD TVs, watching a pathetic tournament, that will result in the pathetic crowning of yet another team not known as the Kansas Jayhawks.

I did not enjoy the ride.

@dylans -- I think you're on the right track here.

Why pursue Thompson?

Easy. In 2015-16, the first year he would be eligible, it is likely (as it stands now) that the only big men on campus that we'll have are Lucas, Traylor, and Mickelson.

Alexander and Turner (if he comes) are both considered OADs. And Turner may not come.

Good chance that Ellis may go after his junior season, though that possibility has slipped. And even if Embiid is a two year player (which he won't be), we're in the same position.

So all coach Self is doing is planning and protecting.

When you are on the OAD merry go round, and you are apparently focusing on those guys, your ability to develop the next level of talent takes a hit. So we look to transfers to fill the void.

Why pursue the Temple kid?

Because, as was the case last season, Self is not completely enamored with his bench players -- Traylor, Lucas, and now Mickelson. Self would only pursue Lee, it seems, as a backup plan to Turner and because he sees Lee as better than Traylor, Lucas, and Mickelson.

That what it all looks like to me.

@JayHawkFanToo When I see that coach Self says winning the conference is the most important goal every season, I feel like jumping off a bridge ...

But you connect the dots there .. winning the conference will put you in a good position to get a #1 seed, which equates to more tourney success.

@Hawk8086 - Weren't we "lucky" to get VCU? Ugh. Then we would have had Butler. Then a UConn team that we would have overwhelmed.

@nuleafjhawk your logic is inescapable. Team denotes chemistry. Teams with lesser pure talent win over teams with greater pure talent all the time. It is the stage at which that talent is refined, it's the cohesion of the unit, and it's the coaching.

A great, nearly perfect example is WSU vs. Kentucky. Nearly equally matched teams. One, laden with freshman five star dudes. The other, not so much.

@VailHawk Well that's good; if you were an OAD I might have advised against recruiting you ...

@Wigs2 would the world end tomorrow? Again what's the point if you "what if" it to death?

It's a general concept where you make general assumptions to arrive at a philosophy and approach. It's like recruiting a point guard. If you want a tall, athletic guy that is good on defense. You recruit guys that mold and assume that it will translate to what you want in college. They might flame out.

And no one's saying 50-60 years ago. I'm talking recruiting guys that you would assume would be 3-4 year guys.

@Wigs2 Well what's the point then. I don't know if the world's going to end tomorrow.

Ok, assume we got Shepherd and he progressed just like our other 50ish post guys, Markieff and TRob, and left after three years vs. Embiid's one year.

You have to make a few assumptions in recruiting in general terms. If a guy is saying he's likely and OAD, you have to recruit assuming that and vice versa.

@dtdjayhawk Ok, I was with you until you said "Tharpe tries his absolute hardest ..." I have never seen a player under Self that I questioned his heart, desire, and effort more than Tharpe. Is my conclusion wrong there?

Remember, my question on Shepherd vs. Embiid is in hindsight. Embiid was not a presumed OAD. So now, as we sit here today, would you have rather had Embiid for this past season only, no national title, or Shepherd for this past season and into the future? I just think that it's an interesting thought process. It lets you know where you stand on OADs.

My line on judging is if we win the national title. Otherwise, the better decision is nearly always long term.

With Wiggins, for example now, are we better off having had him. Or, given that we didn't win that national title, got bounced in the 2nd round (or 3rd round .. whatever the hell it is .. first weekend), would KU have been better off playing Greene and/or White all season at the 3? Thus having one or both more ready and prepared next season? Or did having Wiggins bring something intrinsic? I've touched on this before a few times.

I do think we win the Big 12 without Wiggins, if Embiid was healthy all season. But he wasn't. So we might have lost the Big 12. That doesn't cause me to lose sleep mainly because of those other 9 shiny rings.

But this is the presumed OAD question. At what cost vs. the what benefit.

Now, we had Wiggins, and we have nothing. And we head into next season with the three spot either occupied by a guy who didn't get a ton of experience (Greene) or a freshman who will need to learn (again) -- Oubre.

@Wishawk This is an absolutely serious question -- you'd keep Tharpe?

A blind roll of the dice wouldn't be better?

Tyrone Appleton, where are you???

@wissoxfan83 What link are you looking at?

@konkeyDong - Pretty funny .. I wasn't expecting Adams when I clicked on the link.

@icthawkfan316 Yes you were. Remember back November/2012? Tharpe was playing poorly and Self said if something didn't improve, he'd be making a change. There was then the gratuitous KU sports article about Self working KY at the point, or something silly like that.

But Adams was "that" close.

@Wigs2 No, you are correct. When I've discussed OADs, I've typically separated them -- presumed OADs, and OADs. Meaning, Wiggins was a presumed OAD, and Embiid/Selden were not. It is an important distinction.

And to your point, how could coach Self have projected Embiid would be an OAD? Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. But I do not criticize his decision in the least on Embiid. Awesome recruiting coup.

My point is that when a guy leaves after one year, it makes you consider the alternatives, and thus our recruiting philosophy. Yes, we want the best players. But is there a better approach?

On the Shepherd/Embiid deal, I had just posed the question earlier in the season: would you trade Embiid for Shepherd assuming we don't win the national title. I added the national title thing because of course, if we win a national title, every move was "perfect."

Now, if Embiid is gone, I would rather have the #50ish player with a year of experience. And a guy that would not dissuade an Alexander type player from coming.

@truehawk93 Well, sure, Traylor, Lucas, and Mickelson aren't near Embiid.

How do you know that Alexander is a better version of Black? Or that he will be "Black and more?" Would you expect him to do more than Black did against Stanford?

And you are projecting Turner basically to be every bit as good as Embiid but with a better outside shot? Embiid is being compared to Olajuwan, right? One of the best centers ever. Once in a decade type guy. And Turner is that plus a better outside shot.

Don't bank on it.

Let's not fall for these OAD guys too quickly now and imagine them to be better than what we had. It's easy to fantasize that they'll be immediate studs. Just don't bite too firmly.

So, worst case, we have Ellis, Alexander (another likely OAD), Traylor, Lucas, Mickelson.

Or, we drool over another OAD (Turner).

Ok, back to my question a few months ago -- would you trade Embiid for Karviar Shepherd? (And I do understand that Shepherd picked TCU before Embiid picked KU, so this is and has been an illustration)

How on earth anyone could answer "no" at this point, well, I just would like to hear the logic.

Right now, I bet coach Self wishes he had Karviar Shepherd instead of Joel Embiid.

I do think that Selden's trajectory is on an upward angle, and that he'll be our best player next season.

Starting lineup of Mason, Selden, Greene, Ellis, Alexander.

If Oubre is a plus defender, maybe he unseats Greene.

Embiid gone, no Myles.

Early prediction.

@JayHawkFanToo You may get tired of second guessing, I get that. But I'm interested in why you think the second guessing is wrong?

I wish I could sit back like I did in 2012 and watch coach Self do everything possible to get the maximum out of his team. But this year he did not.

-Should he have benched Tharpe?

-Is our zone offense deficient?

-Does he minimize the importance of three point shooting in his scheme?

-Against Stanford, should he have at least tried moving Wiggins to the high post as Greg Anthony mentioned?

And did all or some of the above significantly contribute to our premature exit from the tournament?

I believe I'm right. But it's just an opinion. I've believed I'm right before, then been proven wrong (mainly by @jaybate) -- and I'm happy to reconsider my analysis.

The Fox Sports article is laughable.

Anyone here knows that the game Sunday had nothing to do with Wiggins failing.

Stanford's zone didn't allow him to breath.

And there was no scheme to permit him to breath.

@DanR Coach Roy is 24-0 in first round NCAA games. He has never lost in the first round. Pretty amazing, I think.

@Hawk8086 - on your first comment, I think coach Self is actually an extremely detail oriented coach. He strikes me as a micro-manager. A guy that is intensely a teacher of the game, and the detail of the game. I think he is a system guy, over a strategy guy. Meaning, he is the type of coach the believes in what he does, and game by game strategy takes a back seat to that. That doesn't mean he doesn't strategize -- he just trusts his system, both offensively and defensively. I do think that is quite apparent. He is not unique in that regard.

On the second item, I personally don't think that he makes the team tight. His system permits opposing coaches to control tempo. That's my opinion. Just look at the blue print laid out by Tubby Smith. If we are not putting the ball in the hoop, we are susceptible in low possession games because we do nothing to increase pace and possessions, or change the dynamic. We value possessions, and work the shot clock. There is a thinner margin of error. And this year, we rarely got out on the break.

All just my opinion, of course.

@konkeyDong Completely 100% agree. Can never say "all." But there are some decisions that have more impact than others.

I just don't look at "fault" based on wins and losses. You can screw a lot of things up and your team still win, and vice versa -- you can provide your players the best opportunity, and talent and execution fail.

Good example was the game at Texas Tech. We won, but we should never have been in that position. Coach Self permitted Tech to control the pace of the game. He let Tubby Smith dictate how that game was going to be played. But we won. Not Self's best moment.

Contrast that to our loss at K-State this season. I could not think of one critical item in that loss.

@JRyman - I cannot disagree more with your comment - "I can't blame a coach for a loss, he can't go out there and make lay ups, get steals and make the right pass."

If a coach was not important, then why not hire the English professor?

A coach means everything ... I mean everything.

A coach decides game plans, personnel, and scheme. A coach develops the overall strategy. Imagine World War II without generals. You have troops running wild without any organization.

In basketball terms, it would be pick-up ball.

You "can't blame a coach for a loss"?

I posted this on another thread in response to @konkeyDong blaming missed shots:

When you blame missed shots in the face of misfires in strategy and scheme, you fall prey to an argument that can be made any time, any where, about any coach. Essentially any coach is immune because his players have to execute.

Mickey Mouse could be coaching, and if players don't make shots, they aren't going to win.

@justanotherfan "I've often watched Self and noticed that he doesn't insist that his players overwhelm a bad matchup."

That is a great point. Like posting up Wiggins (or a guard like TT, EJ, Selden) on an undersized defender.

On the other site, I recall a few folks posing that exact same question -- why not exploit some matchups like that?

@REHawk thanks for the kind words. I very much enjoy your tempered insight as well. You mention Self needing to make some form of adjustment.

I personally think -- and have mentioned this before -- that leaders in all walks of life become arrogant. They believe their way is the best way, and many times the only way, because it has provided great success. Therefore, unlike others not in that position, they are more reticent to change. It's their way, their system. I do see this with coach Self.

But like you and most everyone here, we know that 95% of what he does is exquisite. It's the 5% that he might consider some "adjustment."

The three point shooting and its relation to tourney champions was a pretty easy stat to notice early on. I might agree with him not prioritizing it IF he had a stud defensive team. But we didn't have that going for us. Three point shooting is huge, huge part of the game now. It does not appear to be a part of the game that coach Self embraces as a priority.

@konkeyDong When you blame missed shots in the face of misfires in strategy and scheme, you fall prey to an argument that can be made any time, any where, about any coach. Essentially any coach is immune because his players have to execute.

Mickey Mouse could be coaching, and if players don't make shots, they aren't going to win.

@JayHawkFanToo and @konkeyDong - Remember, missed shots don't just occur because a player misfires. It's because they are contested. That's part of scheme.

It's why Self harps on opposing field goal percentage. What are we contesting? How do we create a low shooting percentage?

How many open looks did we get vs. Stanford down low or anywhere?

It's more complex than, "we missed shots."

@Kip_McSmithers - Yet more sheer brilliance.

"Giving up a great open look early on to guys that we're told are deadly from 3 just because we want to run the O is moronic."

The pass the ball and focus on getting the ball inside all the time made a lot more sense when there was no three point line. I don't think we should shoot bad or marginal 3s early, but we shouldn't discourage the open look 3 early in the clock -- heck, if we shoot an open look three at 33.3%, it's equal to 50% on two point shots.

@globaljaybird - Sheer brilliance as well. Great quote below.

"We simply do not have confident shooters regardless of their resumes & this is because of the "Wrath of Bill" regarding shot selection. If the ball is reversed a couple of times, is touched in the paint by a big or two, & the shot clock is under 15, then if you're open, OK take it. But His kids consistently pass up good looks early in the clock because they're doing it his way & the 3 pt shot is only optional when that's all that's available. This is not conducive to a lethal sniper's mentality."

A great example was CF's three at the end of the half. I bet that dude could do exactly that 50% of the time when he's not worried, not thinking about the ramifications of shooting -- just shooting.

@drgnslayr I love your post, and particularly the last three paragraphs -- sheer brilliance.

The best part: "If this game had been played on the Mayan courts at Chichen Itza 1300 years ago and the losing team would be sacrificed to the sun God... I'm pretty sure we would have won."

Damn right we would have won.

@Crimsonorblue22 - We weren't in "serious" foul trouble. And it is not hard to press when in foul trouble. It's like any other defense, you play it and don't foul. A misconception (not saying you, but in general) on pressing many times is that you are trying to steal the ball all the time -- you are and you aren't. The best "press" is one where you don't reach and grab trying to steal the ball. You let them throw it away or you intercept, much like we did yesterday. So I don't think that it necessarily is something you don't do if you have foul worries.

Regarding Tharpe, I am curious as to what your opinion is of Tharpe. What I am really interested in is what he has provided to this team. Let's get past the fact that he's a Jayhawk, and we personally like the guy. Seems like a great kid. I see a player whose production has gone straight downhill, and who has been nothing but a negative in terms of production. The efficiency ratings, etc., if you like those things, demonstrate that further.

During the tournament, he was 4-11 shooting, 1-4 from 3 point range, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 9 points. All in 47 total minutes of play. And I do not need to go into the defense thing.

I feel even stronger about my post above now, with the additional explanation in response to @icthawkfan316, than yesterday.

"Yet, we kept absolutely bashing our heads against a brick wall."

@MoonwalkMafia - Sounds like we're singin' the same tune. I love the football references. The reason I don't think Self presses is why teams don't blitz -- they think they can win with their base defense. They don't have to create unnecessary risk that could swing the game. I kind of think you toe the water with the press, see how it works. Then use it accordingly. Self's view most of the time is that we only press when absolutely necessary. And my guess is that it's the "risk" thing.

@Lulufulu85 Sorry if I offended. Not my intention. I do value your posts and opinions here.

Unfortunately, I critique every game, and many decisions. It's how I'm wired. I make notes during the game on my thoughts and what I see. I deeply enjoy the analysis, strategy, and game planning. The whole process makes the game more than just a game to me. And I enjoy reading the opinions of the insightful folks on this site -- I'm literally educated every day on something here.

Self is an amazing coach, and as I've said before, I wouldn't trade him for anyone, to quote @MoonwalkMafia.

That being said, I personally don't think it is bashing to rationally address topics that affect the game, the team we love, and our success.

You said that I made "valid points" ... thanks. But I'm curious as to what you'd prefer I do on this site (short of turning in my credentials hopefully)?

@icthawkfan316 I, however, was squarely on the Tharpe bandwagon. I was hopeful for that 25% improvement. I totally misread that one.

"The thing that ticks me about Self so much is his inability to capitalize on actually finding his "lightening in the bottle" in Conner."

@globaljaybird - Well said. Remember when I had the post about going with Lucas, that we needed to be bold to win without Embiid? Maybe I just had the wrong dude. As you noted, Self saw it for his own eyes, then went back to Tharpe. A conscious choice with full evidence that CF was the better choice. I do not understand it.

@icthawkfan316 Appreciate the critique of my thoughts.

1. Self began pressing today too late; it seems he starts pressing a good bit later than I prefer most of the time. Today, it was effective. My question is, armed with the info about them not having good ball handling, tall, etc., why not go with it earlier? And it I would have gone to it right after the 7-0 run. But he did press earlier than usual (see UNI).

2. I am most frustrated with our inability to execute an effective zone offense. This left Wiggins nearly useless as they targeted their defense to stopping him. We had no counter-punch. This is the biggest question I have. I cannot say in strong enough terms how simple our zone offensive approach is. @truehawk93 pointed out Self's complex offense. That is his man to man offense. Not his zone offense.

3. Three point shooting is a tough one, but here's my belief: I want a guy that is a dead eye shooter -- a Forte, Heslip, etc., in my rotation. The way the game is played now, you have to have that as an option. It is a necessary to have that. Self decided that wasn't a priority. He set up his rotation without one. That is his fault. And thus our options in attacking and intelligent zone defense is very limited. It's why I feared the Syracuse match-up. We knew early that our three point shooting, volume wise, was deficient. I posted numbers related to that back in late November, and our volume of threes changed very little. I knew that, you knew that, we all knew that. He also discourages three point shooting until under 15 on the shot clock. He is not a three point shooter friendly coach. His culture is one that jacks with shooters' minds. He doesn't create comfort for them. He makes them second guess their shot, and that hesitancy drives potentially great shooters to shooting dismally (in my humble opinion). Again, I want a stud three point shooter as part of any rotation. Self chose against that.

On Tharpe, my opinion only -- I would not have started him. I am trying to figure out what exactly he brings to this team. CF and Mason are both better. Self played Tharpe more minutes today than vs. EKU. Figure that.

Question for the crowd: Do you think we are playing in the sweet 16 if Tharpe broke his ankle against ISU in the Big 12 semis?

And, ict, I would never, ever confuse you with a Self is God person.

Self is not God. Let’s get that out of the way right now. He is a great coach subject to the same human flaws as the rest of us. And today, he failed KU nation.

There are times when a coach has to adjust. He has to recognize that business as usual isn’t working. That time arrived in the second half when Stanford went on a 7-0 run to take the lead. Game on. And what did Self do in response? Nothing.

We can say, well, “we missed a lot of shots.” That happens in basketball. They were contested shots. Stanford was tall, and long. We had to find a way to win. That starts with Self. Instead, we got nothing. Three big reasons that our season is done, all within Self's control:

1. Playing Naadir Tharpe: I am so disgusted by Tharpe’s play, but that is second to my disgust with Tharpe even playing. That was Self’s choice and decision. The buck stops there. Tharpe provided nothing in the second half. For the game, he played 26 ineffective minutes. Five points and a whopping 2 assists. He played once again like a scared child. He passed up open looks. He had no ability to penetrate the zone. He had no ability to create anything. It was highly reminiscent of our loss to VCU. Self stuck with his chosen personnel. He saw what Frankamp could do last game. That makes it even worse. But he made the conscious choice to stick with Tharpe. And once again, with Embiid set to return, his lack of adjustment cost us a run at a title. This all ignores Tharpe’s laughable defense. It is so bad standing alone that he should not see the court. Never seen anything like it.

2. Scheming - Wiggins/Screening Against Zone: Greg Anthony was dead, spot on during the telecast. Anthony said, “Self isn’t doing anything to help scheme for Wiggins.” Anthony asked for Wiggins to be moved to the high post when attacking the zone. Absolute brilliance. Self didn’t adjust. We just banged our head against the wall. Stanford completely took Wiggins away. It is Self’s job to counter-punch. That’s what coaches do and Self failed miserably. Two main things – 1) what Anthony said. When it became apparent in the second half that things we getting dicey, moving Wiggins to the high post and putting Ellis out on the wing. Is it a sure fire solution? No. But it was an obvious item that could have rendered positive results. 2) Screening against the zone – one of my pet peeves. We pass it around the perimeter, we try to rotate, then an entry pass. Terrific. We were incompetent from three range (see below). So we were a one trick pony. We run set plays against the zone with back screens for dunks. But we completely fail to use effective screening in our supposed zone offense. This is another way we could have freed up Wiggins a bit. We saw coach Self get outcoached early in the season when were weren’t prepared to attack the zone press. Guys weren’t even going to the right spots. Then, vs. SDSU, we couldn’t handle the trapping of our post players. Self admitted that they knew that was coming, but didn’t get ready for it sufficiently. Against Stanford, Self flat let us down. Imagine, further, if we would have pressed for most of the game. Stanford didn’t have a point guard. Yet we let them walk it up the court. We’re down Embiid, they have greater height and poor ball handling, and we play their game. Self let us play Texas Tech’s game, too. Remember?

3. Three Point Shooting: It is something I identified way early in the season – horrible three point shooting. This chicken came home to roost today. We had no ability to shoot them out of their zone, or to make them pay. Self played Tharpe 26 minutes and he shot only three, three-pointers. Wiggins, Tharpe, and Selden combined for only six three point attempts in the entire game. I chuckled when Frankamp entered the game late. It would be comical if it wasn’t both infuriating and pathetic. Why wasn’t he playing over Tharpe the entire second half? But this three point shooting issue was one that Self permitted to occur. He had the ability to adjust it, plan for, and attack it head on. This team was not prepared to win a game from the three point line. Think we would have kept up with Dayton’s three point shooting?

This all goes back to coach Self. He refuses to adjust and is content with losing doing it his way simply because he has won doing it his way. It’s a coach’s job to know when to adjust. Today was prime example of an epic failure in that regard.

We know why we lost, don't we? It's the same reason we lost to VCU. Coach Self choked.