🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@jaybate-1-0 I mentioned this in another thread a while back .. how about Duke's defense they ran on us? Kind of a match-up, guard the line type zone, with four defenders, and then one protector near the hoop. After seeing that from Duke, I thought that would be a nice fit against Nova. Creative. And particularly with one major M2M liability in Doke.

@Texas-Hawk-10 I think he was just suggesting he get advice from him .. Vick will make a good living. But you're right, definitely not Keith Langford. Or Romeo, for that matter.

@jaybate-1-0 Ok, so let's go with your Mitch tangent. Do you really think he is on the outs, or on the transfer block? I agree that the bench in the last two games has been solid circumstantial evidence. But we have no other evidence. Not even a shred. So I really don't. With other guys that found the bench late, we had more smoke.

How about wild, irresponsible speculation, that goes with your more reserved observation -- Mitch got punched by Dedric (leading to Dedric staying home from Italy), and they don't get along, and thus Self is trying to make nice for next year, and Mitch's scholarship may actually be at risk? (please note, I am still searching for the assassin, a/k/a the guy who punched Mitch)

I think he's the program player we all want to occupy a scholarship or two. I've said this before and been surprised ... but, it would seem the Lightfoot family would have known the lay of the land at Kansas. PT is shifting sand here and only as available as the next OAD. Hopefully he's a lifer here.

@Barney Personally, I think Self thought that his best option was to just keep doing what the team normally did. That is reasonable too. That we have cut leads before, CBB can shift on a dime, etc. Just some hindsight hypothesizing. Heck, we could have lost by 30 doing some of that stuff. It would have been more risky. He probably just determined it was the best chance to get back in the game -- doing what we do. But dying is dying.

@BShark But Silvio's rebounding is much better than Doke .. the gap between Doke and Silvio, per 40, is nearly double the gap between Mitch and Doke. That's pretty amazing. The option of Doke guarding what Nova was throwing at us was a losing proposition and begged an adjustment once it was shown to be a loser.

@jaybate-1-0 Like you, I did find it odd that Mitch didn't get even a cursory look. Mitch has been a spark at times, and he's the best shot blocker we have. He's been a guy Self has relied on and trusted. It was a tool in the tool belt that went unused. It's interesting that @JayHawkFanToo suggested Self "probably saw an unfavorable match-up." But with all that 3-D chess going on, did Self thus not see the unfavorable match-up that kicked our a** in the first 10 minutes?

The point is not whether he may have seen some pregame "unfavorable match-up" -- I'm sure he did, and just thought Doke and Silvio were better. I did too. But that is irrelevant when the game marches on and your gameplan isn't working (working defined not only by the score, but by completely open shots taken by the opponent). Mitch played all season, and then not at all. None. And I understand that when all things are "normal." I"m good with that. But this game was not normal. We appeared to have no answers, and we didn't try a possible answer.

It is a bit more irritating in hindsight. No aggressive press, no trap, no junk defense -- nothing substantive. A few possession of zone, Nova scores, and we scrap it. I look for answers from the bench when things spiral on the court.

The reality is that anything Self did that night may not have been enough. In fact, I think that's the most likely answer. But I sure wish we had tried.

Of course, sometimes, just continuing to chop wood is the answer. Defensively, I don't think anyone thinks that was really the best path playing from behind, given what we saw. But forgetting that, when we get to the last 10 minutes, we have to pull out everything we have. With the season and a possible national championship on the line. And we didn't. That is frustrating.

All that said, Mitch is back, no doubt. Hopefully a 5 year player.

With Cunliffe, if we don't get Langford, there is a path were he could actually be a starter -- shooting on this team would be at a premium and he might offer that. But it's pretty obvious he was not the favored child this past season.

@Barney But don't you think that our biggest, most obvious, defensive disadvantage was also Doke? I mean, everyone and their brother knew it heading into the game. Heck, Self experienced back 2012 when he could not keep Withey and TRob on the floor against MU's small lineup. He had to take one out because we couldn't defend properly.

You said, "My guess would be that the defense needed against Nova was different than we had played all year (particularly when their big guys were hitting). I doubt he was ready for that and it appeared our whole team was out of position most of the night." You are correct. We weren't ready for it. Which is fine. That's what in game adjustments and preparation are all about.

I don't fault Self for starting Doke, and seeing how things played out initially. That's who we are. But when you get a swift answer, you have to respond. I understand Self thought Doke, offensively, could help get us back in the game.

Remember the old YMCA defense? You have to guard your man? Sometimes the most simplistic solutions are worth considering. When rotations, and help, and the complexities of real M2M defense are hurting you, the simple act of sticking your nose in the chest of the offensive player has great merit and tracking him, as @jaybate-1-0 was referencing. It's not perfect. But I can assure you that "shootaround" open three pointers are much worse.

The biggest item that got exposed was that Doke was incapable of guarding on the perimeter. The biggest fallacy is that Nova got up by their 15-18 margin and then we played even. That's the ballad of a loser. That's what a Big 12 lackey would say when we jump on them early. Who even thinks like that? Losers. The guy that lost. The apologist. Oh, we lost the Patriots 42-17, but we outscored them in the second half. Loser.

In CBB, the game is volatile. When down, you have to help create the volatility. Staying even is losing. We did nothing to shift the needle, to upset the status quo, to attack -- after we were down. The game was far, far from over at 22-4. In fact, how many of us would have been nervous UP 22-4 with so much time left on the clock?

I was also disappointed that we didn't see the famous Bill Self junk defenses he's used to help win games in the past. I mean, if Wooden could do it to beat Houston and Elvin Hayes in the Final Four, why not Kansas? Of course, Nova was a multiheaded monster. But then again, a little diamond and one, triangle and two -- you never know. It's going down swinging.

And to @jaybate-1-0's final two lines, MIX IT UP.

Or try this -- at the 10 minute mark of the second half, an all out, bust your tails, full court press (not every time, but a great majority); go man trap full court on a missed shot when you can; or the Okie State 2-2-1 3/4 court special; spice in a 1-3-1 hard charging, trapping defense on the defensive end. In this scenario, Garrett would have been useful, with Silvio or Mitch. No Doke.

It was a desperate time. It was life or death. And we didn't resort to desperate measures. But I guess we died with our boots on. That's nice. I'd just rather not die, and I'd rather go down knowing I used every weapon I had to avoid it.

@nuleafjhawk Perhaps a better way to look at it ... we bring in possible one year player with our eyes wide open. We know this going into the interview. We could bypass such issues and approach things as other high level programs do, and skip the presumed OADs. So it appears we actually want this hassle. If not, recruit a different tier of player.

Right now, sure, I would have rather had a #20 - 65 player in the bag as opposed to the presumed OAD. But we couldn't get that guy in the bag in the fall with Newman and Vick uncertainty. It was just the lay of the land. Now, what's the best move? Bag Langford and maybe we recruit to that position and land three year guy that knows the spot is opening up.

@Blown He joins an esteemed group White, Greene, Bragg, Tharpe, Adams -- missing any recent nudges out the door?

@BShark Man, that is telling .. particularly since he's not hiring an agent in the announcement.

So, Romeo waited to announce, and if he picks Vandy or Indiana, why did he wait?

Moore had two games in Italy with little ball distribution, then two games with decent assists -- 6 assists in 17 minutes, and 6 assists in 16 minutes. He only averaged 3.5 assists per game -- which is about what he did in Italy (3.7).

To moderate this, aren't we just asking him to be a decent guy off the bench?

The worst part about Tharpe was that he was a rain-cloud pouter who provided negative leadership. A guy we took after we (thankfully) missed on Josiah Turner. Even as bad as he was, it still ended up better than Turner.

@BigBad, you said, "Always amazed how guys who 'need money' have enough for tattoos." This statement transcends sports, and items beyond tattoos.

@approxinfinity The graphic is messed up on rebounds .. Frank had a career 3.4 per game. Tyshawn 2.2, Svi 2.5, Devonte 3.1.

I don't think we're going to have a Frank or DG. Those type of leaders develop and we don't have that. We'll miss both. What we need is a Tarik Black type to jump in the mix, somehow. He was the rock for that 2013-14 team, that seemed to lack a leader returning. We might have a leader in the mix. But we don't know yet. I think it is a leading concern, actually, heading into next season. That and three point shooting. The leadership thing is more of a concern because the remaining guys don't seem to be leaders, and I hate to assume transfers -- guys who weren't content somewhere else -- will assume that role.

Self will guide the ship like usual, and we've never seen him lose a team. So that is reassuring.

@nuleafjhawk To your point ... I had my issues with Jamari Traylor's playing time. But I certainly hold Traylor, and his time here, and his contributions and commitment to Kansas in higher stead than an Andrew Wiggins, or Josh Jackson, for example. Win a NC, and I'll talk about reconsidering. Not that I look down on the OADs, I appreciate who they are and what they are, and I understand the lure of instant generational money. But I'm selfishly interested in Kansas basketball, that's all. No doubt they help KU recruit and give our program increased value and prestige. I'd just rather shake Traylor's hand, if I had to choose.

So, next year is a year we feel we may have the title close to in the bag, given the incoming talent. Weird how things play out sometimes. How the Lawson's fit and acclimate, and just how good Charlie Moore is, and whether we get Langford, are big deals.

If Vick is gone, we don't get Langford (and please don't laugh here) and Cunliffe stays there is a path for Cunliffe to start. What are we lacking in that scenario?

Shooting.

Who might be the best shooter on the wing, on the roster? Hint. It isn't Garrett.

SkinnyKansasDude said:

Malik and Legerald walk Mitch is redshirted Dok returns and we land Romeo is looking like the scenario

Sold. Where do I pay?

@JayHawkFanToo No, you have said the NCAA tourney is a “crapshoot.” I have no idea why you would Insult Bill Self by suggesting our conference titles are tainted by inferior competition.

I will ask a simple question - If I cite an article for authority, and I say Self was "frustrated", that the players "didn't follow the gameplan", that KU had "poor execution", and that KU reverted to their "old ways", but the article I cite as authority doesn't even quote Bill Self or any staff or any players, or anyone, on the topics, am I being honest?

Hmmm.

By the way, this season was Bill Self's best coaching job.

@JayHawkFanToo I thought national titles were lucky or crapshoots? Why cite them for authority? Has your opinion changed? The Big 12 has just one in this century. By consequence, we must be an inferior conference to the Big East, ACC, SEC because of their national title. This is an implied insult to our conference winning streak.

@JayHawkFanToo You're right, your post speaks for itself. Anyone with a brain can see that you misrepresented the story. You made claims that weren't there, and weren't reported. There wasn't even any interview with Self for information you claimed. You just see what you want to see. You don't respond when your logic is refuted, You just make little cute comments. You are not objective. You're just a Bill Self apologist -- and he doesn't need apologizing for this season, or from this game. The discussion of what occurred isn't "blame." You take it that way because you refuse to even consider or discuss that your hero has some part when the team doesn't succeed, as with any coach.

You always believe that it is ONLY the players fault. All this while literally everyone else here at least considers all aspects of the contributions to failure.

Interesting post I saw few years ago on twitter, in a back and forth regarding Self. The poster responded to an individual who basically took the "it's always the players' fault" position that you repeat ad nauseam, with the following, "Maybe you could see what happened on the court if you moved Self's ball sack out from in front of your eyes."

At least as credible a source as Groucho Marx.

@JayHawkFanToo So, you made incorrect statements about the article. Post it now in total. All to show that you made incorrect statements about the article. See, you saw what you wanted to. There was not even any reporting in the article that Self said he was "frustrated"; there was no reporting in the article that Self said we didn't follow the "gameplan"; there was no reporting in the article that Self commented that we reverted to our "old ways."

Oh, so now you say it's "very obvious" they were not doing as they were told. What it sounds to me like is Bill Self complaining. And whether he's frustrated or not doesn't mean anything related to a gameplan. I would suspect he was frustrated. Everyone was. Guys are many times out of position in every game. And Bill Self complains every game as does most every other coach. I sat near the bench earlier this season when we won easily and you'd think our guys were incompetent oafs based on his commentary. But coaches do that.

If you would watch what @Kcmatt7 was referring to, our doubles in the post, leaving players open. Do you deny that? Will you answer that question? Do you deny that we were doubling the post? That is a very tangible and undeniable element of a gameplan that helps create open looks on the three point line.

My belief is that perhaps Self thought, reasonably, that Nova might have difficult time initially shooting in a dome, that if he forced them to shoot threes, that the result would likely be in our favor. That if we defended the paint hard, they'd fall into the trap of being a shooting team. That seems very reasonable to me. It seems a very low probability that Novo would light it up like they did. It was a calculated risk, it appears, that failed.

In fact, I'm not really that critical. If we actually score the ball a bit and Nova shoots only 40% on their first 18 attempts, that's a 12 point swing.

To use the analogy in your last sentence, sometimes it is the instructor's fault -- he can substantially contribute to failure. Perhaps the instructor places a gun that is inaccurate, or that kicks too hard, or that is too heavy, in the hands of the student. Does that instructor place the student in the best position to succeed? Is it the student's fault he missed the target? If the golf pro fits your clubs incorrectly, does he contribute to your failure? If he fits them correctly, does he contribute to your success?

This is the old refrain. With you, it is never the coach's fault in any degree. You always blame the players. With most folks, the coach's role is considered a contributor. I know, it's never coach Self's fault. He doesn't contribute to our losses.

@mayjay Thanks for you attempted defense.

Kcmatt7 said:

I don't have access to the Star, so I don't know what Newewll said. But I don't really care either. If it says that the gameplan wasn't to double the post, than it is a lie by someone.

We CLEARLY made doubling the post a part of our gameplan. Especially Brunson. I'm sure that changed in the huddle after they knocked down the first 7 or 8 threes. Then the guys might have messed it up from there. But for anyone to claim that wasn't the gameplan at the beginning is kind of ludicrous. There were several games we never once doubled the post. And the games we did, it was clear because we did it the second their big touched the ball. We didn't even double Delgado as he was actively destroying us. The double team was the gameplan. And a poor one.

Sure we played even with them after the first 7 minutes. Give Bill another shot at them today, and I think we could make it a game. But Jay's gameplan was better. He spaced the floor even more than normal, basically never posting up and forcing our bigs to run all over the floor. We in turn, played into that gameplan by doubling the post and forcing our Big to run from the opposite short corner all the way across the court to wing to try and contest a shot. That forced horrible rotations and easy looks.

You're a hard man to argue with.

@JayHawkFanToo You don't ask why. More precisely, you ask why only within a very small bubble. You don't consider the fact that perhaps another coach's game plan might be better than coach Self. You don't consider that another coach might get his team ready to play in a better manner. You don't consider Self's role in things, other than the credit end of it. This limits your objectivity, and limits your ability to analyze. It's like believing man-made global warming is true, but refusing to look at past historical climate data, or failing to consider that folks might have falsified data.

Look, this is the old hat. You will never consider, acknowledge, reference or admit that on some occasions, Self has been outcoached. Even in the most obvious situations. And no matter what has been presented to you. And I personally don't think that this game is one of those situations, for whatever that is worth, where that should be our focus. But it is quite clear that Nova shot open threes, and shot a lot of them. And we shot about half the number of threes, and a much higher rate were contested. Perhaps ... just perhaps ... that had to do with gameplan. And if it did, then their gameplan was better. I would remind you that a game is 40 minutes. Small detail. Games aren't 7 minutes, or 33 minutes, they're 40 minutes. And we made no progress against the early deficit as it turned out. Even when we saw what they were doing, we made no progress. An early, big lead in a CBB game can be a curse. Many, many times it is lost. We never even got it to single digits. We never even had much of a hot streak the entire game.

My overall belief is that Nova is just a better team. An excellent team that we could probably beat 1 out of 3 times. Just my belief. They destroyed this tournament, winning all games by double digits. So coaching is really not my concern on this day, unlike our final games of 2013, 2014, and 2016. Of course, in 2013, we were up 14 with under 7 minutes to go.

But you also put in bold something that is just not true. Please quote from the story where Self was "frustrated the players were not following the game plan." I'll help you. There is no such quote, nor anything close to it. And there is not one reference to "gameplan." Not once in your cited story. Not once does it mention reverting to old ways. Not once does it mention Self saying we had poor execution. Your typical m.o. is to respond to folks and ask if they read your post, which is nothing of substance anyway. You might read your own link.

Your next move is usually to lash out, tell me I think I know more than coach Self, and if I knew so much, I'd be a major college coach. So, if you'd like, feel free.

@jaybate-1-0 @Texas-Hawk-10 Ok, how about an offense that generally only takes 3s and lob dunks? Really, though, any offense would have the "ok, if you're giving that to me, we'll take it" aspect. So if you truly wanted 100% 3s, but the defense aligned as such, you'd take it to the rack.

Stick with the high percentage near the hoop, or threes. No mid-range.

@BShark Well, I'd agree, but the question of whether Garrett might be better off shooting his 3s granny-style still persists.

@DanR Even if Nova would have shot 33%, with 40 attempts, they still would have had more points if just looking at the final result with that percentage. They ended at 37%. Same thing.

@Crimsonorblue22 DG was the rivals #36 player overall and we signed him in the spring. Frank was #76. Frank I think would fit the “gem” category, being lower ranked and only moving up to that spot from like 134 after we signed him
in fall.

Beyond Frank, I struggle for our gems.
What I had seen is the pursuit of the highest ranked guys, including OADs. Is our current class different? Maybe.

I also see our lower ranked guys, quite frankly, being anchors that stifle us as a team by their overuse - Brady, Reed, Traylor, Lucas. The latter two killing multiple years of KU basketball by their extreme overuse and reliance. This was exacerbated by strikeouts on recruiting targets and signing of guys Self for whatever reason wouldn’t play as other coaches would have.

Both coaches in the title game thrive on getting talented and productive players that fit, vs the tired and disproven approach of just going after the highest ranked players and presumed OADs.

It’s just an inexact science. However, I think focusing on high talent fit and just avoiding the presumed OADs is the best bet. Much like our current class. Again, it’s all still an imperfect pursuit.

@Kcmatt7 I really like your "ahead of the curve" commentary. I think your suggestion is a very likely path. One mitigator might be that Vick did get back in the lineup (not like we had much choice), that he did bounce-back ,and the team did coalesce with Vick in the lineup. I think if Vick leaves, it is exactly what you've projected.

The question to me is whether Self would play that hand with Vick if he was unsure if Langford was coming? Or stated another way, would he only play that hand with Vick if he know Langford coming? If Vick is gone and Langford does not come, that's some pretty strong circumstantial evidence of the dynamic going on ... not definitive, of course.

Man, feel bad for Cunliffe. Should have transferred to a next step down program like ISU, or OU.

@justanotherfan No, I agree totally. I had no real issue with our offensive gameplan

You said KU had the right gameplan. My point was that given Nova's 40 threes, it wasn't the right gameplan. I stated that "they did not have the right gameplan if Nova was shooting 40 three pointers."

Thus my initial point in this thread about our lower volume of threes being an important reason "in hindsight" as to why we didn't win.

I don't think Nova planned on 40 three pointers. I do think they planned on a high volume though. It would make sense given their team construct, and our strengths.

From a scheme standpoint, I'm puzzled by our passivity at defending the three point light, particularly once the "solarflare" you mentioned was evident.

@BShark said, "My guess is Newman declares with agent, Doke declares w/o and probably comes back and Vick ends up somewhere else one way or another."

BeddieKU23 said:

@BShark

Agree on all.

Ditto.

@justanotherfan One point of clarification .. they did not have the right gameplan if Nova was shooting 40 three pointers. If you take all of the averages, in that scenario, we lose. The "average" is the most likely result. If we knew Nova was going to shoot 40 three pointers, and we assume 40%, how could shooting 20 threes be the right offensive gameplan? That means if we shoot our average, also 40%, we're down 24 points, having to make that up in extra possessions with two point baskets or free throws. Am I wrong there?

@DanR Very nice .. excellent analysis. we're down 14 and Marcus Garrett shoots twice. I wouldn't want him shooting a water pistol. While I love the rest of his game, if he can't shoot, he'll be a liability.

@wissox In the mountains, with your boys. Very envious. Hope you are enjoying it.

@drgnslayr Plagiarism is an essential element of coaching.

@benshawks08 I think the feeling of desperation inspired those shots. We weren't getting good looks as you noted.

@DCHawker Right, I think Nova exposed our defensive deficiencies. I think we could have really focused on guarding the three point line, during their hot stretch, perhaps playing a zone much like Duke did to us. Our zone didn't cover the line.

It's not that we lost. It's just the way we lost that creates this entire discussion and has us scratching our heads. Looked like the KU/Duke semi in 1988 in the domination to start.

@DanR And remember, you have to play to your percentages. It is the correct answer of the course of a season. And what has been shown over the course of Self's time at Kansas, the volume of threes doesn't move the arrow on percentages much over the course of a season. The implication that fewer may mean better looks is proven to be fallacy (and I know you're not saying that it isn't). @justanotherfan, I think you are spot on here. Taking a two point jumper, if scripted, would never happen but for the flow of the game. I saw a number of HS game this season. It is just amazing how the game has totally changed since I played. the shot between 5 - 19 feet is a rare occurrence (and given what you've posted, it should be).

Like most everyone else, I guess I don't fault our gameplan offensively going in. We played like we've always played. In fact, I'd begun to feel like Malik attacking the hoop was option 1.

@BShark My only concern, and it might be overblown, is that Self relies too much on thinking he can throw it into Doke for a basket. And more precisely, that our offense is centered around that. I've never liked that reliance and I think it can be fatal to an effective offensive attack. I want our offense to be diverse, with options (not limits) and I think we could be quite dynamic with a stretch 4. Doke is a good interior passer and that could open up a whole new aspect of the game with a more true 4 working inside.

I'm in the camp of wanting Doke to come back. I think having that huge asset/weapon is much better than not having it. I think Self will not hesitate to go with a lineup when needed that has Doke on the bench (Desousa/D. Lawson). I also think competition will be good for him. Doke should really come back because he can only get better. Some time to add maturity can't hurt either. I don't think he's a guy that has peaked in value, and I don't think he'll ever lose value (except for major injury). But I also think we have the opportunity to be just as good if he turns pro, as @BShark referenced.

@Fightsongwriter @wissox It was actually easier to watch the second time. I was watching to see if what I initially thought was true. It seemed to me that Nova's looks were amazingly clean, many uncontested in large part. I was also looking at something really worse -- how easily Nova shut down our three point shooting, and how little we did to try to create those looks.

The fact is that Nova did both -- they had a gameplan to shut our three point shooting down. And they had a plan to create open looks.

The fact is that we did neither -- we did not stop their open looks, we did not get open looks.

So, some simply cite Villanova's first half shooting percentage, and we walk away? That's it, game over?

@JayHawkFanToo Do you ever ask the question "why?" Do you ever try to look deeper? Do you want to look deeper? Do you ever, in the deepest corners of your mind, consider for a moment that there is a reason why teams make shots?
@justanotherfan said, "We gave Villanova shootaround quality shots and they made them. That isn’t lucky. That isn’t even surprising. Give good shooters good looks and they will make them." That is the painful truth. It should resonate. It is a crisp analysis that resulted in a big loss.

And there is a "why" attached to that.

The results, what we saw on the court, and demonstrates what @jaybate-1-0 said. We just had the wrong game plan for this game. That happens sometimes.

@KUSTEVE Said, "We thought we could beat them with Doke on the inside." Right, we did. I didn't see that as a flawed gameplan before the game. I thought our normal mix of inside and out, and driving aggressively was how we played. It just didn't work out.

In the end, in hindsight, the volume of threes shot by Nova, based on them making at or near their season percentage, was nearly possible to overcome given our volume of threes.

One thing I wish we had an answer for, that we saw in 2016, was how aggressively they played our offense around the three point circle, attacking handoff's etc. I wish we'd had some looks to make them pay for the overplays.

@BigBad As hard as it is to admit this, watching Nova, I would conclude that they have better players. Their big guys were impressive. So you think it was Washington's game plan?

After watching the game last night, looking at the numbers, rewatching most of the game this morning, I believe that we did not win this game because we did not match Nova in three point attempts. More precisely, faced with Nova's shooting, we just didn't give ourselves much of a chance. This created conditions where our victory probability was very low.

1. Not Winning vs. Why We Lost: The concept of "not winning" is different than "why we lost." Let's focus here on why we didn't win. In other words, what were our chances?

2. Nova vs. Kansas/Three Point Percentages: A very odd fact. Right now, Kansas and Nova each have the same season shooting percentage from three point range -- 40.1%.

3. All Things Being Equal: Importantly, if Nova doubles our three point attempts in a game, at a high rate, one would logically conclude that we would not win, correct? Thus if they shoot 40 threes, and we shoot 20 threes, and we’re both 40% three point shooting teams, the biggest slice of pie on the pie graph is a negative one, correct?

4. Three Point Attempts: For the game, Nova shot 40 three points, and KU shot 21.

5. Hindsight Question: Thus ask yourself, in hindsight, did we have a reasonable chance to win this game -- even if Nova and Kansas shoot their season percentages from three? If they shoot their season percentages, it's a blow-out, right?

6. Villanova Percentages (Game Saturday): Villanova shot just 45% from three in the game Saturday. That's right, 45%. Not 55%, or 60%, but 45%. It just seemed worse, and it was early. Even if Nova just shot 30%, that’s 12 threes. That’s where the game would have tightened. They would have had to have shot 30%.

7. Kansas Percentages (Game Saturday): Kansas shot 7/21, or 33%. The @jaybate-1-0 trough he predicted.

8. Not That Easy: So we shot 7/21 you say, 33%? A trough? Not that easy. We've all been around this game long enough to know that we could easily run off 9/19 in the next 19 shot, and that gets us to 40%. Or could we run off 11/19 and get to the exact same game percentage as Nova. We just didn't give ourselves a chance to win. We didn't shoot that next block of 20 threes.

9. More Proof: Kansas has been shooting three pointers during this hot stretch, since back in mid-February, solidly over 40%. And oddly, since and including our blowout of OU at home, we've shot 44.6% from three heading into the Nova game. Why is that odd – well, Nova shot 45% last night. Essentially the same.

10. High Rate of Attempts: Before you say that “we’ve never shot 40 threes in a game this season”, we have shot 35 or over 5 times, the most recent being against Duke where we shot 36 threes. So we have been very high high volume.

11. Hindsight Answer: Seems pretty easy. Shoot more threes. Reverting to the mean, right? Our mean, since we transformed as a team (basically) is exactly what Nova shot last night, 45%. So if we shoot more threes, we progress closer to that percentage. In fact, it's certainly possible we exceed it in our next 20 attempts by quite a bit. Shooting more threes in this game would have created a better condition for this team to win.

12. Not That Easy II: The astute CBB fan would say, “Well, shooting a contested look is not as easy as shooting an open look.” Correct. Seems easy. But our looks were contested and theirs, in large part, were not.

13. Conditions To Make Threes: Coach Self cannot make balls go in the hoop, and can't make them stay out. But he, like Jay Wright, can create conditions that help or hurt the cause. What was our gameplan? What was Nova's?

14. Cause For Not Shooting Threes (Option 1): Gameplan. Kansas, of course, was passive in creating open looks at the three point line, content to try to score inside with Doke, or on drives (which Nova helped on tremendously). This was how we played all season. This was Kansas. This did appear to be the game plan. Take control inside. At the very least, this was a “take what they give us” strategy. They guard the line, we go inside. They over commit, we drive. Pretty much what we’ve done. But certainly NOT creating three point looks. It's what got us here.

15. Cause For Not Shooting Threes (Option 2): As we saw, Nova a was guarding the three point line with reckless abandon. They were in our face at every turn, particularly in the first half. So, the option then is to try to drive or pound it inside. This is the explanation of the passive commentator, though. They took it away, so we’re not going to take it back. We had no answer to their defense on the line. If our plan was to shoot threes, Nova actively, and impressively, tried to take it away.

16. Why Nova Made Threes – The Converse (Option 1): Nova had a clear gameplan to shoot the three ball, to create open looks, to drive and dish inside/out, to get Kansas defenders out of position, and to use their bigs to stretch the floor. They shot a number of threes likely banking on the fact that if they shot their season percentage, we would not be able to match it. And I’m guessing that Jay Wright may have employed this gameplan predicting our reaction. Any questions? This gameplan of Nova’s was a winner. Of course, no doubt, making the three pointers at a reasonable rate is key. And there was a clear path to losing with this strategy. All gameplans are a calculated risks.

17. Why Nova Made Threes – The Converse (Option 2): Nova took more threes (and thus made more) because the three point line was available. We just didn’t guard it aggressively. Ask yourself, did Kansas guard the three point line with reckless abandon? Hmmm. Perhaps the easiest answer of the day – no, they did not. The threes were so open, that it appeared that our gameplan was to permit shots from the three point line. I’ve seen multiple views on that this morning. Wow. Could we really have taken a "make it if you can" strategy? I personally don't think so. I just think Nova was superior in this aspect, a true clinic in inside/out basketball. They got the ball in, and kicked it out. A bit different than our rotational schemes.

18. Match-Ups: I don’t want to overlook this. Nova’s bigs were a near impossible match for us, as it appeared last night. They were able to stretch the floor in a manner that we could not, and Doke couldn’t guard the line. Their big guys were able to pull ours away from the hoop, and were match up nightmares. Even with this, could we have still won? I believe we could have. But it is certainly a reason we lost. Again, making the shots was key here.

19. Nova The Better Team: I grant this conclusion, they are probably the better team. Let’s say they win a four game series, 4 games to 2. Or they beat us 3 of 5 games. But all that is irrelevant. It’s a one game playoff. We had a reasonable chance to beat Nova.

20. The Answer (Why We Didn’t Win): So why did Kansas not win? Why didn’t we really have a chance to win, looking at this now, the Sunday after? First, we did not shoot enough threes to match Villanova’s volume. Very little chance we could win based on season percentages when we shoot half their number of threes, and they shoot 40 total (meaning a high volume game). Based solely season shooting percentages, this is a loser in most scenarios. It’s certainly a higher chance Nova wins than loses. And maybe Jay Wright knew that heading in. This is a conclusion that is partially “in hindsight”, based on how the game played out. Could we have planned to shoot a high number of threes? Sure. But it didn’t look like it. Would we have shot more if available? Probably. But they weren’t. And Nova seemed intent on gunning from three point range as the core focus of their game plan. Second, we did not win because of gameplan. Because Nova was able to create open three point looks, because we couldn’t stop them from getting open looks, because we couldn’t get open looks, and because Nova defended the three point line with reckless abandon. Gameplan, scheme, preparation. This goes to the question of would we have shot more threes? I think we would have. We just didn’t have the plan to get the looks, and to counter their agressiveness.

21. Explanation: I think it is easy to say that Nova just shot the lights out last night, and that’s why they won. It is in large part why they won. There are other moving parts. It is certainly A reason. But it’s not the only reason. There are reasons why they were in a position to shoot so well. Search for the reasons. We saw reasons on full display. And let’s not forget that the quality of players -- which team is the best collection of players, has a lot to do with that. Nova is very good. And matchups are key, as mentioned above with the bigs. But all of that are more reasons why we lost. The issue I’ve tried to address is why we didn’t win -- why we weren't in a real position to win. On a normal day, all things equal, we probably lose, I believe. But could we have won? No doubt. We just didn’t really have a chance.

22. Conclusion: Nova shot 40 three pointers and we shot 21. On an average day, on a day where both teams play their average game, we would have zero chance of winning (or something very near that). Considering all other variable, our chances increase of course (fouls, Doke going for 26, us getting easy baskets at the hoop, 20% shooting day for Nova from three, etc). And that is really the conclusion here. The high volume of threes by Nova created conditions where the largest probability was a Nova win. Pretty simple. Lots of other things could have conspired against Nova, including a cold shooting night. But Jay Wright rolled the dice that Nova could shoot a reasonable percentage.

This was a great season where we seemed to overachieve. We overcame many obstacles. And we reached the Final Four. Sure, we wanted the national title. We always do. But reaching the Final Four after years of falling short, and with this team – given where we were about 60 days ago – is pretty amazing. Winning the record breaking conference title. All of it adds up to a season that has no peer, but for winning a national title. It will go down as one of the top Kansas seasons. RCJH

@DCHawker Yes, well said.

That is a press break.

At least no other Big 12 team got embarrassed by Nova in the national semis, right?

@DoubleDD Nova has won every game in the tourney by double digits. Line will be 6 or 7.

On the postive end, we get to watch Nova win their second title in three seasons.

I wonder how Garrett’s shot can be so bad.

Someone sold their soul.

We’ve got nothing different out of the half. Same handoff stuff. I’m not sure what the coaching staff did in the locker room.

@bmensch1 Right on. And a strange truth with basketball, the only score that counts is the one when the clock hits 0.0. We have time. And how many times has some stat puke said the chance of winning is 1.3%, and it happens. Is Venus aligned with one of Saturn's moons?

@jayballer73 Damn, I thought they were. Thanks for the help. Come on, they could be .. optimism is powerful. Either they come out and play like this is the most important thing in their lives, or I'm watching a rerun of the X-Files Monday night.

@approxinfinity Let's hope @jaybate-1-0's trough theory hits San Antonio right now.

We came back against OU I recall late many moons ago, down by 15 or something like that. We did vs. WVU. But now, we have 20 minutes. Better to be here, right now, than not in the FF.

Well, we'll see what we have coming out at half. 15 seems insurmountable against such a good team. But CBB is a crazy game. If we can get it to 10 by 15 minutes, then we're in a position to chip away. Long shot, but the game isn't over.