I had an odd thought ... what about Evan Maxwell? Just looking at circumstances. That is a question no one asked Self or anyone else. Of course, zero information to support. Just, again, a circumstantial puzzle piece to eliminate. I know nothing about the guy other than the very nice things I've heard.

McCarthy, while it houses basketball players, doesn't it also house team managers and others related to BB program? I thought it did -- some of which count as the non-athlete portion of the population of the building. The sleuths would try to see who's missing in the building now. Of course, it could be a non-resident of the building too.

I'll chime in here with a topic I've raised quite a few times ... the press break. Clearly we were not rattled by the press too much. We only had 13 turnovers. But we broke the press ... with a yawn.

When you face a pressing team, you have to make them pay. Self has said that before. You have to attack, Sure, you can win just being satisfied with breaking it and matriculating the ball down the court. That can happen.

But as in prior years, our issue is how passively we deal with the press. We let WVU dictate pace. We let WVU slow us to a crawl getting up the court most of the time as opposed to smashing that press into oblivion.

How many quick press break buckets did we get?

We have four guards on the floor and we don't attack? We have four ball handlers on the floor, all of which are better ball-handlers than the press disaster we had on the floor the past few years (Selden). Good grief.

We let the ball bounce around after a made basket until the man designated to throw the ball finds his way there, as opposed to the closest guy get it, throw it in, and attack.

When you attack, you will have more turnovers. But if you attack, and throw it away, you have a few clicks off the clock. A missed shot sends the ball the other way, too, but you lose time on the clock.

We're the better team. The more possessions, the more likely we are to win. Attack.

You want one of the answers, that's one of the answers. It heightened when you play in their environment. And, of course, if you don't practice attacking, it could get ugly too. But this sort of test is something one might see in the NCAA tourney on a short turnaround, one to be ready for.

To be sure, that wasn't the only issue last night. It's just a reoccurring theme against the press.

On the injury thing, @jaybate-1.0 is usually quick to pin things on injuries. Many times he's right. Here, I'm skeptical.

On the defense thing, I firmly believe that your scheme and approach is premised on your personnel. That includes defensive acuity. If you are not up to par defensively, the world does not end. The game is won based on only one ultimate factor -- who scores more.

As untenable as a 90-88 score may seem to Self, it counts the same as the 65-60 score he seems to enjoy.

We just have to cover our limitations. I had mentioned in a recent post the 2013-14 Jayhawks after we lost Embiid. Focusing on our strengths, understanding our defense was compromised, called for an all out approach to outscore the opponent, understanding we'd give up points. Not a "who cares' approach to defense, but maybe a "it's not the end of world" approach. Energy focused on offense and more possessions.

We are much in the same boat inside defensively now. Opponents will simply try to foul up Lucas. I say, so what?

There will be bad matchups. But unless there is a bull inside and the opposition plays zone (or a very nimble/quick big), our perimeter players are so good we can create the advantage. Hard for big guys to keep up with the high quality smaller players (and to help) than the other way around (where it's easier to trap on the box or double low). If we can shoot over a zone, we can beat anyone.

No approach is completely reliable.

@wissox asked if Doke made that big of a difference. Losing Doke was huge. It limits our options. But we still are a top 5 team, and a team that can win the NC.

@drgnslayr I do think a five guard offense is definitely possible in the right circumstance. Look at what Self has done in the past two years as far as flexibility. Who would have ever guessed after the odd inflexibility of 2014-15?

It's all about match-ups. The difficulty is the age old quote from Self used to be the end of any statement on playing small -- " ...., well, I don't know if we could guard anybody."

Is Self an offense first guy now? Or at least ok with the idea of outscoring someone to win?

The only real issue with five guards is defense in the post. But geez, I'm happy with four guards. Perfect match for our talent. Best guys on the floor.

But I would not foreclose the chance that Self goes with Mason, Graham, Vick, Svi, and Josh together in important stretches. Would you rather have that, or Coleby on the floor just because he's thick? Depends.

And as @justanotherfan analyzes with Bragg, with Bragg's quickness, that could be a big MUA with him at the five. Bragg is a stretch the floor big with the best mid-range game we've had in a big since Arthur (Ellis was more going to arc).

Bragg looked like the killer 4 we've always been looking for at the top of the high/low. We can correctly state that our talent pool of guards is our overwhelming advantage. And that sensibly, Self is going with the best type of lineup and combinations (4 out, 1 in) to win. Hard to argue that (since we argued FOR that for a while now, based on where our talent sits on the perimeter). But it does feel like the idea of Bragg at the top of the high/low is a more remote idea now . Terrific skill set for that -- great passer and awesome midrange game.

I've always liked the idea with four guards of using a guy like Bragg as the 5 at the high spot, and posting up a big guard (with our lineup, a 6'8" Svi or Jackson). Liked that idea with Ellis at the high spot, too.

I bet Self is going to use Bragg considerably at the high spot moving forward. Maybe not posting guards, but dumping to Lucas in the right situation. Great to have options, and we've got a lot of them.

The general consensus is that Bragg is having an off year, perhaps not making the progress we thought he would. Some have even said that Bragg has been a bust.

Not so fast, my friend.

Who do you think is third on the team in points per minute played?

Or first on the team in rebounds per minute played?

If the answer wasn't Carlton Bragg, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Minute played stats are important so long as they aren't puffed up by scrub time (or, hard working non-starter time as is perhaps more sensitive).

The all important player efficiency rating (PER) also support Braggs effectiveness -- his 22.0 PER is third on the team behind Mason and Jackson. And his 22.0 PER is better than his 19.4 rate last season. Of course, we have a tougher slate of games ahead of us.

The eye test is something we all utilize -- and my eye test indicates that Bragg has had a difficulty getting the ball in the hoop tight to the basket. His relatively low field goal percentage supports that. He's also been a bit sloppy with the ball. But that eye test does not mean he has not been good, and it does not mean he has not done well during his time on the floor. Playing Josh Jackson's minutes (27.2 -- which would be about what we might have expected), Bragg would be averaging appx. 12 points and 10 rebounds per game.

Not a world beater, but certainly solid.

Bragg was presumed to be the starter at the four spot -- then came the four guard lineup. Just win, baby -- and we've been doing that, utilizing our teams strengths. But Bragg's production, while appearing less than we'd hoped, is perhaps only a few points per minute away from being the stud we assumed he'd be. And that may be a little surprising.

@BeddieKU23 Another point -- Maxwell leaving leaves KU with just four bigs in practice. A bit of an under the radar difficulty. At least he (presumably) served a purpose for the first semester.

When this stuff happens, one clear possibility is that he was squeezed to leave. That could come in many forms. Whether it be blatant, or subtle, or just by Evan seeing the writing on the wall. Next season -- Doke, Lightfoot, Preston, and as it now appears, maybe Bragg. Coleby will likely be here too unless he graduates and can transfer free from sitting, but not sure we'll notice either way. It could be a clear as -- "You know Evan, you'll never play. Just being realistic, so we're being fair to you." Or Evan could just assess the talent around him. Somewhat like CF probably did (combined with other issues).

On the other hand, Maxwell could have a girlfriend he's away from and he wants to go back closer to his honey. That would make sense too.

Jamie Dixon is the real deal. What a difference a coach can make. A team like TCU, though, could pay tough but still be 6-12 or 7-11 in conference. Big difference between playing tough and winning tough games.

And @ralster's point on the inbounds plays is exactly right. They are free points.

Sophomore Bragg reminds me a bit of freshman Ellis. Difficulty getting the ball in the hole.

I've been incredibly impressed with Huggins, his transformation as a coach, and WVU's style. That said, I see KU going 14-4 or better in Big 12 play. Our skill players are unmatched and we have a coach that embraces the smallness. I could see losing at WVU and Baylor, but I think we win one of those. This team has character that has been --- as the saying goes -- tempered by fire. Experience everywhere and the best freshman we could have hoped for.

@Bwag Thanks .. you helped provoke me to get back at it. Nothing better than an @jaybate-1.0 "epic" post. By the way, I have to read the epic posts more than once to truly enjoy them.

@jaybate-1.0 - Assuming your statement to be true, is it also true that great coaches are great when titles and rings are on the line?

@jaybate-1.0 Merry Christmas to you as well old friend.

Found a good link. Obviously have no idea if this is the same injury, but the healing time matches up with what we've heard from Self - Wrist Ligament Tears ↗

Unfortunately, wrist ligament tears that are severe and needing surgery, may require pins for quite some time, as I recall. Then some extended rehab. A kid I coached against had this happen at first base when he and a runner collided while he was trying to catch a throw. I'll see if I can find a link that explains.

@mayjay - The ACL repair is amazing. The do use patellar tendon or hamstring tendon from the patient. The tendon then transforms into a ligament. Pretty amazing. They also can use a ligament from a corpse on the ACL. Don't know much about the wrist thing with that sort of approach. I know the ACL is unique, and pretty much shreds like a rope. That's why it's so problematic. Something to do with location and other factors that make self-healing of an ACL virtually impossible. Other ligaments will heal on their own. Too much experience on that injury (ACL).

We are most definitely a final four team without Doke … Carlton Bragg living up to our preseason expectations covers that and more.

Grayson Allen should get a three game suspension at a minimum. Not because the act is so horrible, but because a child needs strong punishment to correct repeat behavior. Allen is a "child thug." He doesn't go face to face and start fights or confrontations -- like our friend Jason Sutherland used to, Allen does mildly aggressive things like tripping or pushing on the run. And then acts like he did nothing. Throwing up his hands in disbelief. The child-like tantrum on the bench. Like this last incident, trying to focus their arms getting locked up. With Sutherland, he might be the kind of guy you'd like on your team -- but only if he was on your team. With Allen, excellent player, but I'll gladly stick with our collection of high character, high talent guards.

Good afternoon everyone. I appreciate the posts and those that have reached out to me elsewhere. I've just been very engaged in politics since summer, most of it unrelated to any HEM accounts I have (which I will keep very secret from my basketball friends as well as those that don't call me a friend). The reality was that I was very much in "election mode." Nothing good comes from that. The discussions here are for KU basketball and not (generally) politics. I didn't want to contribute to a deterioration of KU hoops discussions (at least not any more than normal).

Suffice it to say, I felt -- knowing myself -- that it was better for me to disengage here while my mind was much more focused elsewhere.

Screw politics. Hard to get any enjoyment there.

That said, my mind is clearing a bit. I've been following KU hoops just like normal, just not posting or taking notes during games (my wife prefers that). Enjoying the ride, so to speak.

I"ll get back in the flow soon.

And thank you again to those that have reached out. Very much appreciated. Even got contact from a handful that said they don't post here, but just read. One called himself a "lurker." Very cool.

@JRyman You do need a hug.

The 'angry few" are out en masse. I would suggest you give each other a collective hug. Mean old @HighEliteMajor is making life rough again. Tissue anyone?

@dylans Where do you get this yelling thing from? And who says I didn't enjoy it? Personally, I'd take our record third over last 10 years, behind Duke and UConn. UNC's 2005 title would not be in that calculation.

And come one, someone didn't just post a year old positive article about coach Self. The poster posted it with a purpose evidenced by the "conniption" comment.

Again, you use words like "venting" and "attack" to try to discredit the substance of what I have said -- all without really doing anything to discredit the substance of what I've said.

This is all part false narrative stuff I said above.

I don't care what you think of my post to @Crimsonorblue22. If this is an "attack", we need to shut this place down. Silly even responding to your comment. I was disagreeing and challenging her position which I view as being flawed. Such is the nature of debate. If you're not up for it, then you're not up for it. If you are, then you are.

@dylans False narrative.

Here's the recycled dynamic we deal with here -- Folks discuss, analyze a game, and critique Self. Certain folks then translate that to mean that those that discuss Self and his decisions don't think he's a good coach or that they "hate" him. Those same folks, in their single focus minds, create a false narrative that because there is discussion, analysis and criticism that those who participate "hate" him or think he's a poor coach; and, as @JayHawkFanToo did above, that any mention of Self being good coach would cause some sort of distress. @sfbahawk was the leader of the false narrative yesterday.

Personally, I think that those who create this false narrative do so because that is how their minds work -- if they criticize someone that equates to "hating" them.

One problem here -- the article's premise is comparing Coach K to Coach Self, and the article claims that coach K wasn't he best coach in CBB over the last 10 years.

But the article is from February 11, 2015. You know, a little under three months before Coach K WON THE NATIONAL TITLE. Good Grief. You even cite that it's one year old and thus seem to ignore the monumental event that occurred last spring that would alter the entire premise of the article.

Just another example of the red herring (conniption comment) that is pervasive amongst a few. The same few that get angry (in varying degrees and frequency) at posters for having the gall to discuss KU strategy.

From Fran Fraschilla today. Former coach. Has attended Kansas practices. Obviously has done Kansas games.

"When you watch KU play hi-low O, notice how many teams slough off other "big" to double team Ellis in low post. Major fly in KU ointment."

"Haven't talked with Bill Self about this but I expect to see more of Carlton Bragg soon. Best combo of O & D among bigs next to Perry Ellis."

Good info. But he's not telling us anything we don't already know.

@wrwlumpy Great work as always.

Please tell me TCU didn't make that base arena floor round so they could the rodeo thing there if they wanted.

@joeloveshawks Great question. I actually was in process of a thread on this topic a bit ago, got distracted, and just saved it to finish later. I'll scrap it. You were much more efficient with your pointed question.

I think all the stuff about Diallo being "raw" is a baloney -- not that he's not raw, but the idea that he is "too" raw to function.

My believe is that it's very hard to see the full shine of the brass before you polish it a bit. Diallo needs real game minutes (if there is anyone that does, it's him). I think we have seen glimpses. Look at the video on the link, the second one where he catches it in the post and scores -- have you seen anyone else do that for Kansas this season?

It's there. I truly believe that if he was just allowed to play for a good stretch of games, good blocks of playing time, it would be a much different discussion.

How can a kid go from McDonald's AA and highly sought after by everyone, and not be that good? I said everyone -- Duke and UNC did not recruit him, fyi.

But I posed the question when Diallo's status was pending as to whether Diallo was really a main target, or if Self closed the deal with Diallo because better choices for our system (back to the basket guys) fell off the board -- Simmons, Rabb, Zimmerman, etc. The response seemed pretty solid that most felt that Diallo had been a Self priority. I don't know.

My issue for a possible thread was: If Diallo, as a presumed OAD isn't good enough to play now for coach Self, did Self make a mistake in recruiting him in the first place? I mean why recruit the guy in the first place?

I keep going back to Tyler Davis. I was mildly upset when he jumped to Texas A&M (Bragg was my #1 dude); but now, sick to my stomach. He was/is a plug in starter. Whatever.

Jason King had tweeted recently that he believes Diallo is gone after one season. Diallo has said maximum two seasons.

This could either be a disaster; or, the situation could transform itself quite quickly and be a complete success. But only one man controls that.

@Crimsonorblue22 Ridiculous excuses. Again, what some still insist on doing here -- the simplistic explanation.

You seriously bring up Embiid? Yet coach Self's game plan, without Embiid vs. Stanford, knowing he didn't have Embiid, was to stick with the pound the ball inside dogma. Against a team with tall post players. And then to blame missing bunnies. Further, as even the game announcers noted, he just left Wiggins standing on the wing. Perhaps you saw Wiggins' quotes after the game.

A coach's job is to put his players in the best position to win. Not just to put them on the floor, as is the implication of your (and others comments) -- where it is in every instance to blame the players.

Against WSU, Self got to play his favorites -- Lucas and Traylor, right? Even with the 5th and 22nd player in the country on the roster right now, he makes that choice. Further, KU was obviously not ready to play. Self made the choice to switch to "bad ball." And, of course, we have the acknowledgment by Self that he tried to make last season's team into something it wasn't.

All of that does not mean that the players don't share some of the blame. Of course they do. But Self shares some of the blame (a fact which you and some others never acknowledge). In certain games, though, it is clear that a loss is the result of getting out coached, and most times in varying degrees.

For example, vs. Michigan in 2013, was Self "out coached"? No. There were some decisions Self made that were questionable -- not fouling before the game tying three, poor last possession management. But not out coached. Stanford, though, was a schematic failing, and complete failure to adjust during the game. Out coached by a superior game plan. But if you don't want to look for it, you won't see it.

In the game just before the Michigan game, vs. UNC, Self's strategy was excellent in not getting sucked into UNC's small ball. Our approach to start the second half was perfection. And you point out the OU game last season. Clearly one of Self's best coached games. And when we discuss Self's failures in situations, those failures get most of the discussion. A large, large majority of the time, that's not the discussion as we don't have a lot of Self failures to discuss.

I have this vision of the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys when it comes to some and their defenses of coach Self. If the guy decided to start Tyler Self over Devonte Graham, some here would cite Self's coaching record and defend his decision.

The difference is that you, and others, will never acknowledge that Self can fail, or that he fails at times in his prep, or that he fails at time in his game plan. And you mistake the discussion of when there are failures as an attack on the man, his character, and his accomplishments. Just like @sfbahawk did above -- referring to Self "not suddenly becoming stupid" and just saying we played a bad game. This is perhaps the best example of this inability to comprehend the nature of a discussion. No one said he has become stupid. We're just saying the guy isn't perfect, and can make mistakes, and there are times when his decisions negatively impact the team. A great majority of the time, it's a positive impact -- what we all see in great product that Self puts on the floor.

Self is having an outstanding season from a coaching perspective. We get focused on a few main topics, but what else are we criticizing? Not much. Some here can't stand any criticism.

You can go through life just saying "Uh, they played a bad game." Others might look at the most important question in life, which is "why?" But that requires independent thought. I admit, though, it is much easier to say "they played a bad game" and move on. Quite frankly, I can't imagine spending the time to post if all I was going to say is "Bill Self is never wrong" and "They played a bad game."

It's interesting - @sfbahawk says, "Frank Mason didn't all of a sudden become a wuss." Right. The question is "why" did he and Selden have such great difficulty vs. WVU. The next easy step is to look at what WVU did with its press and defensively. Then the next step is to look at what we did to deal with it. What we do to deal with it is directed and orchestrated by one man. He makes the decisions.

And no one says the players don't have a role in this. Of course they do. That's part of the analysis that I freely acknowledge. Guys can just play bad and there are no schematic or game planning issues. No doubt. It's just that a certain group of folks say that Self has no role in it. That's a big difference.

When someone can't acknowledge that a human being can make mistakes in judgment, that someone completely lacks credibility. If you acknowledge that Self can make mistakes, then you acknowledge that positions different than Self's position may be correct. Again, what those in the Self is God group ignore is their lord and savior's admission about his errors last season, and the fact that posters here were right when Self was wrong.

It's certainly fine to have 100% faith in someone's judgment. I have no issue with that. But when you have the 100% faith, you can't objectively analyze the person's decision. 100% faith is akin to blind faith. And when you're blind, you can't see your hand in front of your face. But then again, you don't need to.

Guards aren't the problem with this team, not even last night. Does anyone think two guys (Mason and Selden) just magically turn into turnover machines?

We have the best group of perimeter players in the country. We weren't schematically ready for their press and defensive pressure, and Self admittedly doesn't know who to play at the post spot opposite of Ellis, so he falls back on the two worst players on team.

Of course, post game, Self again makes the flat out stupid "Fool's Gold" comment. We were 10/20 for the game on threes. However, until the last 2:30, we were 6/15. And Self is talking about Fool's Gold. Is foolish not playing to the team's strength? You're down 14 when Mason makes a three at the 2:30 mark, and before that, you had just shot 15 three pointers?

Again, what is foolish?

Regarding the post players, the reality is that coaches need to look in the crystal ball and see what they need before they need. Thus why I've been on the Bragg/Diallo bandwagon. Are they a panacea? No.

But their upward arc, with some regular minutes, will quickly surpass the neutral arc of our two worst players.

Mick was the one that got the shaft last night. Had a real nice stretch. Got yanked for Traylor. Mick has the highest PER on the team now (24,1) yet he sits for Traylor (13.8 ). Unreal.

We are a better team now, and in March, if Lucas and Traylor simply stay home from now on. But then again, I said that in October. Win, lose, or draw. It doesn't matter. We're better without either of them. So nothing new here.

Diallo 4 minutes, Mick 5 minutes, Bragg 6 minutes. Traylor and Lucas combine for 26 minutes. Good grief.

I did notice last night, that Cal found a way to play Skal 16 minutes in a win on the road. Just information.

@justanotherfan "It’s not about moves for Lucas. It’s about the time it takes for him to catch/gather and execute an offensive move. If you are unguarded at the college level, you have less than a second to catch a pass and start making a move before the defense recovers to you. Landen cannot do this. He has to catch and gather before he can make a move. By the time this happens, the defense has recovered, unless Landen is dunking on a lob."

Great post. On Lucas, last night Fran hit on exactly what we've been chirping about. Lucas has the ball just inside the top of the key, and his defender is standing in the middle of the lane, "playing centerfield" as Fran said. Is this helpful to Ellis? Heck, near the basket, they he presents zero threat. Lucas, in that game last night, made no sense.

@jaybate-1.0 I appreciate the response. What we did not do is get the ball in quickly to kill the press and beat WVU down the floor -- e.g., closest man to the ball finds guard quickly, much like we do off a rebound. Meaning attack. Critical.

You know what I did a few times against fast, pressing teams that matched up, then trapped. If we had two players above the midpoint of the lane, I had one seek out and screen the opposing offensive player when a shot went up, to free our player to receive the ball off the make or miss from the rebounder, so we could attack quickly. The opposing offensive player was caught off guard. Maybe not so practical with Frank is one of our best rebounders -- but our screener, interestingly, still got a few boards. It didn't work every time, but it was pretty cool how we got some big run-outs off of made baskets. It's also interesting that we got a way with some major moving screens doing it.

Screening against a press is huge too .. how much did we do that, particularly ball screens, that can result in an open floor pick and roll, as well?

Call me underwhelmed with our timidity.

@jaybate-1.0 Hmmm ... Did you hear what Self said was his scheme was for attacking the press? One thing he said was "throw over it" .. but that "throw over it" amounted to purely guard oriented, back court/sideline tosses. Low on the denominator scale.

@drgnslayr You know, it's weird. That team didn't look like the team we saw all season. We seemed overwhelmed, to be honest. Completely playing WVU's game -- @Kcmatt7 mentioned that above.

@Kcmatt7 Great breakdown above .. you've got to do that more often. I love your statement .. "But one has to wonder why they would still need correcting this far into the season… Against a team we know we have to play every year…" We were lost against the press.

@drgnslayr I love this speculation -- because it is educated speculation, grounded in our experiences with Bill Self, and what we know of him. Always on the alert for the forces of evil trying to pull him back in.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=They+Keep+Pulling+Me+Back+Movie+Line&&view=detail&mid=91F33D50884E3E54A68691F33D50884E3E54A686 ↗

@JRyman I don't know ... last night's loss, in my mind, means nothing. If we lose at OU and run the table, we're 16-2 and win the Big 12. Each loss means more and more. Each win going forward mitigates the loss to WVU.

But I get the point -- if we win at OU. Huge deal for the Big 12 race.

As @benshawks08 said, every road game will be tough. Every one. Awesome time of the year.

Also, thanks for the APB thread last week. You really wanted me back posting? Thanks though.

Pretty funny -- @Crimsonorblue22 definitely knows. And definitely knows that the coach couldn't have done anything that negatively effected his team. Sure, he can do things that positively effect his team. But negatively? No way. Too brilliant. Comical.

Here's the quote from yesterday, before the game, when Self mentioned playing ball-handling bigs -- you'll note he also mentioned that he doesn't know who to play next Ellis. In my post from Monday on killing the c5, I had said that too many options are a problem for Self. This seems to be some verification of that. He admits he doesn't know who to play because of the "depth situation." He has too many bodies.

“I do think there’s certain things from a depth situation that has made it difficult because a lot of times we don’t know who to play. I know that sounds like a lot of coaches should know. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. A lot of times we play based on scouting report. I haven’t done that in many years,” Self said. “Against West Virginia, it could be best ball-handling bigs for obvious reasons. Against a low-post threat it could be your heaviest big who is the best low-post presence. Against a pick and pop big guy it could be your most agile, best perimeter-defending big guys. It’s nice to have some options we can run people out there. It’d be better if you had one guy who could do it all. Certainly in our situation we’ve kind of done it by committee in that other big spot (next to Perry Ellis).”

@Bwag It was stupid then, it is stupid now, it will always be stupid. We've had two versions of this from Self 1) making shots is Fool's Gold because then you won't play defense (as if a coach can't coach defense properly and motivate his team properly if his team is making shots), and 2) that somehow making shots is a bad thing for the offense (of course, when it's been a good thing for the offense all season).

All this is -- all it is -- is Bill Self projecting blame for the loss and projecting blame away from himself. In reality, this loss means nothing so long as we don't enter a game this unprepared again.

Fool's Gold, with this team, is believing it can score consistently inside. Same as last season. It's why we had to go to OT to beat OU. We stopped shooting three pointers -- our admitted strength.

So we need to throw the ball inside. Sure.

Bill Self said yesterday before the game he doesn't even know who to play inside:

“I do think there’s certain things from a depth situation that has made it difficult because a lot of times we don’t know who to play. I know that sounds like a lot of coaches should know. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. A lot of times we play based on scouting report. I haven’t done that in many years,” Self said. “Against West Virginia, it could be best ball-handling bigs for obvious reasons. Against a low-post threat it could be your heaviest big who is the best low-post presence. Against a pick and pop big guy it could be your most agile, best perimeter-defending big guys. It’s nice to have some options we can run people out there. It’d be better if you had one guy who could do it all. Certainly in our situation we’ve kind of done it by committee in that other big spot (next to Perry Ellis).”

Why does Bill Self refuse to press? As Bill Self has said in the past, it creates the risk for easy baskets. He's right. I wonder, then, why can't we get those easy baskets? If they're so easy, is our coach not capable of scheming to attack WVU press? The press he knew was coming?

This is one of those games where Bill Self did not have his crew prepared. He sent his team into a knife fight without even a nail filer. He left his players, time and time again, in positions to fail. This is not brain surgery.

One of the items I have preached about -- if a team desires to play fast, is that the first man to the ball after a made basketball inbounds the ball -- and you go. The same applies to breaking the press. This does not give the press time to set up.

Yet time, and time again, we stood and we waited for the designated inbounder to track down the ball. All the while WVU had time to set up its press and impose its will on our timid approach. This is a major failing in preparation. This single item cost us the game. If Kansas plays aggressive with this simple element on the game plan, a pressing team can be turned on its heels.

Another failing was that Kansas played much of the first half with a "z-cut" press break -- meaning, the guard that is waiting for the pass z-cuts to get open. We had no other plan. Later, Ellis was brought down as an additional body and Self went to crossing the guards and screens. This was way too late. I was very puzzled as to why it took a good chunk of the game to figure this out.

Next, how many passes did you see on the inbounds to half court or near half court? Another area we failed to attack was the 4 or 5 man receiving the ball near half court. Is this crucial? No. But it's an element of attacking a press. An element to mix in. This sets up other options.

Self also failed to implement the deep ball, to really make them pay. One very simplistic method of attack is to bring your post guys moving hard toward half court, and send a guard deep, either off a free release or off a screen. Did you see that tonight? Or simply bring all 5 players to the front court. This changes the dynamic. Is WVU going to risk not having at least one player back? We didn't even find out.

Coach Self talked before the game about his post men. He suggested that the best ball handler might be the best option. I don't even know why the guy talks sometimes. He played our worst ball handler the most minutes opposite Ellis. But I really don't care about that. It's really irrelevant when you look at all of the arrows we failed to place in our quiver.

Finally, I wondered during the game -- is there a rule against playing small? Mason, Graham, Selden and Svi, with Ellis? I wondered if there was a rule against KU pressing WVU? But those options would be bold. Those options, you know, might make sense.

Truly, if we simply incorporated some of what I suggested above, this would have been a different game. Think about how many times we broke the press with a chance to score? This was a completely structural shut-down.

This was a stark example of a coach and scheme winning the battle against a coach that failed to have his team prepared to handle the coach and the scheme we knew was in front of us. I have complained in the past about our horrific press break. Remember Atlantis? Remember OSU's 3/4 court, 2-2-1? Wildly unprepared.

Our scheme for attacking the press was timid, predictable, and impotent. Bill Self did not put his players in a position to succeed tonight. A rare occasion. But an occasion nonetheless. We remain vulnerable to the press, once again, because our coach does not properly prepare the team to defeat the press.

@drgnslayr Thanks as always. I really enjoy this topic. The main reason I enjoy it is because there two very distinct points of view and while we can do our best to speculate, we will never really know for sure. The fact is we are winning. And believe me, I don't take that lightly.

The best defense for the C5 concept to me is that Self doesn't believe that any of the five players are really worthy. So it's a conglomeration by default. That has legs to me. Heck, as @DoubleDD and @jaybate-1.0 noted, so what if it's never really been done this way. This might end up being better for Kansas.

I was careful in my post at the top to make an argument for deciding on post players, and leaving my opinion until the end. Eliminate my opinion and it could very well be an argument for going with Traylor and Mickelson.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Actually, I'm using C5 as @jaybate-1.0 has. Those 5 players. And I'm sure you saw Bragg start the half and play with Ellis for a good chunk vs. TT. Why do you think Bragg would get exposed, for example? What would be exposed? A nice jump shot, activity, skill? You might be surprised at what you see with Bragg at 20 minutes for a few games in a row. You seem pretty sure of yourself on sticking with C5 the entire season. Can you cite me one NCAA tourney winner that has done it this way? I couldn't find one. I guess our 5 guys are so bad we can't play them any significant minutes. Who does that reflect on?

@sfbahawk Yes, on the use of rancor, I should have said "irrespective of" as opposed to "despite all of." Thanks for the notation. And I do agree with you that stats are always subject to sample size issues. The two times Diallo played over 15 minutes, he had double digit points. But until you see it, you are correct, you'll never know (referring to your 25 minute deal). I would also suggest that you have no data to show that Diallo wouldn't do better if given more time a game. While I have two games where he played very well playing over 15 minutes. That all said, we do know what we get from Lucas/Traylor at relatively high minute rates. And it ain't good.

@DanR THANK YOU -- One of the points of my initial post was to do my best to avoid offering an opinion until the last numbered paragraph. You mention sticking with Lucas. Ok -- that's part of my point. If Lucas is the man, then let's go with Lucas. Again, not my preference, but would we be better operating off who we are instead of hoping Diallo at some point meets Self standards? Your notes on Lucas are terrific info. If we just go with Lucas as the man at the 5, wouldn't that present a better chance to play our best with Lucas at the 5 in March?

To your "comfortable" comment, Fran Fraschilla referenced the experienced guys today as a "comfortable pair (of) sneakers" to coach Self, and supported Self's decision on this. He definitely likes Bragg over Diallo.

Question: Do you want KU to play slower and more under control? Is that better with this team?

@wrwlumpy - Alright, what would I have done differently vs. OU? In hindsight, nothing, we won. If we moved back in time, during the game, I would have 1) Focused more on the three point shot in the 2nd half and OT, vs. drive ball, 2) Would have called timeouts and schemed plays to win at the end of the regulation and OT periods, 3) Applied pressure just as Dick Vitale suggested at the end of the 3rd OT, caused some time to run off, and fouled (and if I wasn't going to foul, I would have done everything possible to instruct my guys to guard vs. what we saw from Selden, getting pushed back inside three point range and Ellis slapping at the ball on a three point shot), 4) I would have found Diallo 15 minutes, and 5) Would have gone small to begin the 2nd or 3rd overtime with Greene instead of Lucas or would have swung in fresh legs (Svi, Greene, Bragg) for the start of the 2nd or 3rd OT to see if we could get an advantage. But again, when we win, all decisions are basically justified for that particular game -- the discussion is what are the best decisions moving forward if presented similar options.

@Bwag Thanks .. I've got an elderly parent who is post-surgery, and my wife's grandmother (who is 92) is in her last days. Most everyone has been there.

Your rotation is my rotation as well. You're exactly right .. more consistent time on the floor. Mitch Kupchak, the Lakers GM, bemoaned the fact that Kobe was continuing to play big minutes. Why? He said it was impacting the ability to develop the younger players because of the minutes Kobe played.

@KUSTEVE - your first sentence seems eminently correct.

@DinarHawk - Zoubek and the two Plumlees were opposite Singlar. Thomas played the 3 spot, was the starter there. But Zoubek + Plumlees, next to Singlar. We just need to trim two guys off our rotation now. If you look at the NCAA final game box score, as an example, you'll see that coach K played Zoubek 31 minutes, Singlar 40, and Miles and Mason combined for 12 minutes. In the national semis, Miles played 13 minutes. Mason 8. Zoubeck was 27 minutes. But if you go back farther, the minutes are more what you suggest -- the Plumlees combined for 39 minutes in the Elite Eight.

Really, though, I believe Duke had a 4 man post rotation -- exactly what I am suggesting. They had Zoubeck, Singlar, Plumlee, and Plumlee.

@drgnslayr Fyi, Jason King has posted last week he thought, regardless, that Diallo was gone after the season.

And I guess I disagree a bit on the eye test. I just see developing freshman.

Did you see vs. TT when he didn't shoot when he got the ball, when he passed it around crisply?

I am very interested in your opinion. You are very articulate in your defense of C5.

Do you see us winning the national title with Lucas and Traylor as the #2 and #3 minutes guys in the post? That is the crunch question, isn’t it?

@Texas-Hawk-10 i don't suggest dumping C5 for C2. What I suggest is sitting Traylor and never playing him (save a last minutes switching D on the perimeter). He's easily the worst player. Going a four man post rotation of Ellis, Diallo, Bragg, and Mick. Using Lucas as perhaps a 5 minute guy here and there.

Do we appreciate the concept of opportunity cost, chemistry, cohesiveness, style of play -- any of that?

It is just such a simplistic statement to say " … and if one of them happens to catch fire in a game, then they can play more minutes in that individual game, and then go back to the committee the next game."

Kansas, C5 -- jack of all trades, master of none. A patchwork quilt that has a high risk of being pulled apart at the seams.

@jaybate-1.0 "I think until someone finds a way to beat C5, C5 stays."

Would you be happy if it was Mark Turgeon that figured out how to beat C5 in the Elite 8 with Diamond Stone? Or LSU with Ben Simmons in the Sweet 16? Or whatever?

Project -- look into the future -- what do you see?

My crystal ball sees one thing for certain. Lucas and Traylor playing exactly the way they play now.

I will also acknowledge that we could shock the world and win the title playing C5. I'm not liking the odds. You?

@drgnslayr How do you scout …

1 "Guys, when Lucas or Traylor are in, their defender goes level 5 help (or whatever the team says to designate help levels -- the highest rate)." Why would any team respect either player with the ball? This allows opposing defenders that guard either one to impact our other players (such as Ellis, which might explain a little the offensive per possession discrepancies)

2 "When Lucas or Traylor are on the floor, play loose with zero close out outside of 8 feet." This is self explanatory. Would you ever close out on either guy shooting?

More numbers:

To put the above numbers into perspective, we score 37% more points with Diallo paired with Ellis than Traylor, 31% more with Bragg/Ellis than Traylor/Ellis, and 27% more with Mick/Ellis than Traylor/Ellis.

On defense, we give up 21.4% less points per possession with Diallo/Ellis, 13.8% less with Mick/Ellis, and 9.5% less with Bragg/Ellis vs. our supposed best post defender, Landen Lucas.

@jayballer54 Easy there. Quite frankly, your response to @BeddieKU23 lacks any real contemplation. I get the emotional reaction. But if you get offended by discussion, and you get offended by challenging Self's decisions, my threads aren't the right place for you. No one asks that you agree. But I am very interested in why you disagree. We all know the Bill Self resume. It's a foundational piece of knowledge we all know. With that, why is @BeddieKU23 (or others) wrong?

Self has two final fours in his entire coaching career which requires only 4 wins in a row. He's won 11 conference titles with big in-season winning streaks. Simple numbers tell me that he's a much better regular season coach, than post season.

The issue of playing pedestrian players now vs. looking to the future, seems a connected topic.

And you have selected but one isolated example on Mickelson. But, of course, you know that. The numbers here, my friend, don't lie. Look at the entire season. Over an entire season, the body of work, Mickelson is better than Lucas and Traylor. And the reality is, KU is at its worst both offensively and defensively when Traylor or Lucas is one the floor with Ellis compared to the other three post choices. That all seems fairly interesting to me.

I know we all loved that OU/KU game. But how about winning in regulation? Winning that game was great. But not that great. It is simply looking for ways to get better.

I challenge anyone -- please point to and tell me ONE offensive move made by Jamari Traylor to score a basket this season, but for a few drives to his right from the free throw line (his only move, by the way). And with Lucas, in all of his minutes, how many times has he scored with the ball on the block? Easily less than five. Easy. How about ONE 8 footer? Traylor -- how many 8 footers? Just call me interested.

@drgnslayr The link is in @BeddieKU23 post above.

When is the "right time?" It's like having children. Is there ever a good time? There is always risk. I do think Self can limit the rotation now. I think it is really quite easy. Just pretend that Traylor and Lucas do not exist. He did it last season with Mick and Svi. And see how it goes for a couple of weeks. My view, but you have to see the risk/reward with foresight. You say the risk/reward isn't there yet. i don't understand that. Why not? Make it a plan to increase Diallo's minutes then. 10 next game no matter what. 12 the next. 14 the next. 18 the next game at ISU. Then 20 (in the UK game). And let's see. It is flat silly to sit this kid 50 of 55 minutes vs. OU and to play him, what, 3 minutes against Texas Tech.

The more he plays Lucas and Traylor, the more this team is locked in to playing with Lucas and Traylor. And that is a low ceiling.

Do you see us winning the national title with Lucas and Traylor as the #2 and #3 minutes guys in the post? That is the crunch question, isn't it?

FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD.

@BeddieKU23 You said, "#6. I have held back commenting on this because honestly we are winning games." -- understood. But the best time to discuss is when we are winning. That way, there is no tinge of irritation or irrationality due to a singular defeat. Good points above.

And your comment about Bolden -- I assume you saw where Bolden wants a place where he can play now. Common refrain. And with a senior Landen Lucas and Dwight Coleby, doesn't look good. I'd trade Lucas and Coleby right now for Bolden and a Justin Wesley clone. Or I'd trade all four for Tyler Davis, but I digress.

@BeddieKU23 The entire @Jesse-Newell post is amazing. The "Net" is highlighted here. As referenced in my post, the key to winning is winning the points per possession battle when it comes right down to it. Great breakdown by @Jesse-Newell.

Here's KU's numbers -- per possession:

KU OFFENSIVELY, by possession, when Perry Ellis paired with:

-Cheick Diallo: 1.44

-Carlton Bragg: 1.38

-Hunter Mickelson: 1.34

-Landen Lucas: 1.22

-Jamari Traylor: 1.05

KU DEFENSIVELY, by possession, when Perry Ellis paired with:

-Cheick Diallo: 0.74

-Hunter Mickelson: 0.81

-Carlton Bragg: 0.85

-Jamari Traylor: 0.89

-Landen Lucas: 0.94

Sure bursts some Lucas/Traylor bubbles there. Kansas is at its worst offensively when Traylor or Lucas is paired with Ellis AND Kansas is at its worst defensively when Traylor or Lucas is paired with Ellis.

What's interesting is we can analyze what we see on the court. We can suggest that some guy (Traylor) might defend better. But over 15 games, the fact is, when he is paired with Ellis the NET results are worse than Mick, Bragg, or Lucas -- both offensively and defensively.

Jamari Traylor has a 12.7 PER. Our offense functions far worse when Traylor is paired with Elllis than when Traylor is paired with any other post player. This is the season where Traylor was supposedly better. Right.

No surprise there for some. For the others, well .... we know.

And these stats really demonstrate what the eye test tells me -- Lucas' impact on our defense is a negative.

Take all of that, and then ask yourself -- what our best chance to win a national title? Bragg and Diallo improving, or sticking with the low talent players?

And don't for a minute think that we don't beat OU if Lucas AND Traylor both missed the game entirely. Heck, we would have been better off playing small (with BG in the game) than having either on the floor. The NET production is all that matters.

The time is coming for the choices to be made. C5 is nice, it gives us something to talk about, but to reach the national title, we need cohesion and chemistry. It needs to die ... soon. Without that, we'll continue to be a patchwork of inconsistency down low, which will hold this team back from reaching its peak. Self needs to decide, and needs to make the right decision.

1. C5 Seepage: I realize that it is quite compelling to add together stats and extrapolate that we are exacting a certain amount of production, thus concluding that the platoon at the 5 is acceptable and perhaps warranted. I noted my objection to that concept early on and still believe that it is extremely flawed. What we are now getting at the 5 spot is significant underproduction. But more importantly, we are creating one position on the floor that opposing coaches are not fearful of. Coach Self has marginalized the 5 spot. It's not so important as to whether it is the "5" per se, or another 4 spot (4A) -- it's our second post spot. I know there are folks that strongly defend Self's decisions with the 5 spot. But I'm hoping that we can all -- me included -- break from our predisposed positions for a moment. This is not a consideration related to an individual player. It's not Diallo vs. Traylor, or Lucas vs. Mickelson. The concept I'd like you to consider is seepage (or opportunity cost). The thought that when you seek to play the "hot hand" or the "match-up", you will inevitably lose production. You lose the possibility that the player may play well when he's actually on the bench. You lose the natural tendency for certain players to get comfortable during the game, and perform. Seepage. You take out Hunter Mickelson, for example, play him only 5, minutes, and you don't know what you've lost by not having him in the game. By the same token, you take out Cheick Diallo after 3 minutes on the floor, what has that gained you? It is not only gaining nothing, it starts transforming into a negative.

2. Adrienne says, "You can't win!": In Rocky 4, Adrienne yelled down the stairs to Rocky, "You can't win!" And as Rocky said, Adrienne always speaks the truth. This team cannot win the national championship with a C5, "platoon" concept. As circumstantial proof, I'd ask anyone to find another example of a team that played a 6 man post rotation and won the national championship. History is a good indicator of what it takes to win a national title. This concept, historically, has no precedent. I'm interested in some proof otherwise. I believe there are examples of teams that win with lower ranked post players -- UConn, Louisville. But a massive platoon? Now when I say, "you can't win" doing this, I do understand that someone has to plow the road for the first time. I just don't like the odds given what we've seen historically -- seems unprecedented.

3. Why Reduce Rotation?: Why is it that each season, Self says he wants to settle on 7-8 guys in the rotation? Why do most coaches tighten the rotation? The normal process we see is a wider rotation in the non-con, then near the end of non-con a bit of a tightening, then as the season moves into mid to late January, the rotation is formed. It has to do with a very important concept -- assigning each player his or her role, and permitting the team to gain cohesiveness and develop chemistry. Basketball is a team sport, and for optimum functioning, requires each separate unit to understand the operation of the other separate unit. Team becomes stronger than the individual. We are now compromised in that regard.

4. Cohesiveness and Chemistry: By continually trying to find the hot hand, or the best match, you sacrifice team cohesiveness and chemistry. You sacrifice valuable time that the team has on the floor, in game situations together, to build chemistry and trust. Let me give you an example. Last night, Mason drove into the lane off a screen from Bragg. Mason thought Bragg would pinch to the hoop and tried a blind wrap around pass. This was intercepted by a TT player that collapsed. My first thought was chemistry. Not because anyone completely screwed up (though I would suggest that a shallow pinch by Bragg would have put him in position to receive the pass), but because it looked like they weren't on the same page. They didn't know what the other was thinking. Mason didn't know where Bragg would be, and Bragg didn't conceptualize Mason's next move. I have seem many of these moments throughout the year, and of course all of it can't be chalked up to chemistry. I remember in 2008, and forgive me for my lack of specificity, but there was a sequence on the break where Chalmers threw a lob to Russell Robinson. They showed the reply. I didn't even see them make eye contact. There was traffic. It was amazing. My point is -- and I believe it is unassailable -- that the more players play together, the better chance that they will develop chemistry and cohesiveness. With 5 post players vying for 50 minutes of play, it is a continuous patchwork of uncertainty, contrasted against the more seamless consistency of established roles and minutes.

5. Changing Identity: I think we can all agree that of our five post players opposite of Ellis, all 5 have different qualities and games. Think about that and how it relates to chemistry and cohesiveness. When Self has Mickelson in the game, we are much different in the post than we are with Lucas in the game. Much different players. And how does Bragg contrast with Diallo? Or Diallo with Traylor? Or Traylor with Lucas? Varying levels of skills, varying levels of system knowledge, and a many times, a much different flow on the court. Here's one big example: I'd really like to see our rate (# of attempts) of three point shots and transition baskets with Lucas in the game. It really seems to me that our three point rate decreases. It does seem like we play slower. Why might that occur? First, Lucas only plays the block, Second, he's relatively immobile. Third, nobody really has to guard him in that he has a very limited offensive skill set. Fourth, he is slow up and down the floor. It seems quite clear that with all of this erratic rotation of post players, the night in, night out, banquet of minutes, that our team identity is compromised by this uncertainty. Each player offers different skills and positives/negatives.

6. Purposeless Starter/Subs: How silly is it to start Mickelson and play him for just 5 minutes in the entire game? That seems ridiculous. Why even bother starting him? Likewise, why sub guys in -- Diallo, Bragg, whoever -- for 3-5 minutes in a game? That seems like a complete waste of time. Let's use the Diallo example. I saw Diallo NOT take a stupid shot. He didn't shoot the 16 foot turnaround shot when he had the chance. He moved the ball. He hustled. Yet Self pulled him after Self just got upset that TT scored, and it wasn't an error by Diallo at all. An opposing guard penetrated, Diallo contested, and the ball went in the hoop -- a result that has befallen Traylor, Lucas and Ellis hundreds of times. To pull Diallo as a result was senseless. It's poor coaching. It's dumb coaching. It was done because Self was mad his team gave up a basket. That's coaching without a plan (unless the plan, "I'm going to yank a player when I get upset irrespective of what that player did right or wrong." Cheick Diallo learns nothing from it but only gains understandable frustration. Anyone would be frustrated. I've never been a fan of the quick hook on mistakes, but I'm even less of fan -- and will call it what it is, dumb -- when the hook involves emotions unrelated to the player himself.

7. Match-Ups Way Overrated: I love scheming. I think it's a coach's main job. Scout and game-plan to beat your opponent. However, there is a very rare occasion where a coach would not play one of his chosen starters solely because of a match-up. We've seen one -- when MU played small and we couldn't keep TRob and Withey on the court. But vs. UNC in the 2013 tourney, they played small and we came out conventional in the second half and blew them out. Playing match-ups is over thinking. It all comes back to playing the best player -- in this case, whoever Self believes to be the best player. Who can explain when an inferior pitcher beats a top 10 ERA guy? Who can explain when a no-name receiver beats a shut-down corner for a TD? The point is that you never know how the game breaks. By playing Lucas, for example, you'll never know if Mick or Diallo will block that shot, run the floor, and get a dunk -- a play that could change an entire game. But when you remove players with short bursts of minutes you eliminate their ability to get comfortable, and you simply may never see their best minutes of the game.

8. Options Could Be Self's Undoing: I firmly believe that too many options are a potential downfall for this team. I think that Self feels uncomfortable, to a large degree, with every post player other than Perry Ellis. As in life, you generally reap what you sow, but that's another issue. But when you feel that you have five possible players to play 50 minutes of basketball (opposite of Ellis' 30 minutes per game), in an odd sense, it's akin to the age old phrase, "jack of all trades, master of none." By trying to match-up with opponents, by trying to play the hot hand, you are a slave to situational judgment. You can't become "excellent" in any one area in that fluctuating 5 spot because there is no chance for excellence. Excellence is achieved over time. And by making those decisions situationally, you jeopardize the team's ability to gel and function at optimal efficiency because there is no consistency.

9. Make Your Choice - February 1: Pick and play your starters in the post (Ellis + 1). Pick and play your chosen subs (2 subs). Eliminate the bottom two from any playing time except in emergency. Bill Self needs to make his decision on his chosen post players within the next couple of weeks. If he doesn't, I think it will greatly compromise our ability to reach our ceiling, even more than his failure to play the best talent in non-con. It will threaten the ability of the team to play with cohesion and chemistry moving forward. Bill Self needs to make his choice and go with it. This will lead to a better overall result because you won't have the "seepage." The team will have a better chance for cohesion and chemistry, and the opportunity to gel. Players will have more content minds, in that they will know and expect to function in their roles. Competition for roles is terrific, but there is a point in time where that becomes a significantly decreasing proposition. We're getting to that point. We have seen the cohesion form quite easily on the perimeter. Now it needs to move to the post. Self said the rotation would tighten and not everyone would play. That was three games ago. Everyone has continued to play.

10. Make The Choices With Our Strengths In Mind: Bill Self commented a number of days ago that he would be fine with more turnovers from Frank Mason and Devonte Graham, because it would demonstrate that they were playing more aggressively. I have mentioned this before when discussing my preferred offensive style and why turnovers aren't that big of a deal when you get more possessions. Anyway, my point is that Self's thought process should apply to his post players. Not the turnovers, necessarily, but the aggressiveness and what that aggressiveness brings you. Sometimes mistakes get made. Sometimes a guy that gives a big plus in one area, might be a negative in another area. When you go with a guy who doesn't give you much you are playing conservative, playing scared. You might think you're playing smart, but in the end, you play right into an inferior opponents game plan. Right now, would you rather game plan a against the known or the unknown?

11. The Choices -- It's Really That Easy: This seems incredibly easy to me. The better players still are Diallo, Bragg and Mickelson, despite all of the rancor for Traylor and Lucas. Personally, I don't understand what some folks are watching and considering to be "good" play. The fact is, those guys have been pedestrian. And Traylor's numbers continue to regress (his PER is at its season low). Every minute that they play, is another minute of lost cohesion and development. Let me give you an example of what I see with Lucas - When I watch Landen Lucas play, I see an anchor -- not in the sense of a guy that is a "rock of consistency" -- but a guy that holds this team back from playing to its ceiling, a player that holds this team back from playing fast and from playing aggressively on offense. A guy that can't score unless it is literally given to him. He can guard moderately skilled players in the post, but folks with any skill are too much for him (see Odiase from TT). When we reach the NCAA tournament, there is a good chance that we'll be overmatched down low in some significant games. The net production is all that matters, beating the other team on points per possession, and thus I think it is pretty obvious that we need to move to a player that optimizes our efficiency playing with pace, playing aggressively, and shooting three pointers. Everything we do should be geared toward playing to that group of strengths. Because of our power offensively, we have much more room for error defensively. This team has proven that it is good enough defensively that playing to our strengths offensively will overcome any missteps -- and that the better bet is on our offensive prowess as opposed to micro managing match ups, or going with a guy that might not screw up as much. This team will not win that national championship with Landen Lucas playing the primary minutes at the 5 spot, just like it won't win it with Jamari Traylor getting that time. Both players offer a consistent level of performance that is below what is needed to win the title this season.

Self needs to make the tough choices, the choices with vision, the BOLD choices. It's how championships are won. We can rely on our security blankets, but come March, bold wins. Whatever Self's choice, it's better that it be made sooner than later. And we can all forgive him if we stand around with 11 conference rings in a row, but we're playing on the first Saturday in April in Houston.

**I know I blacked out last week.. Very busy work week, two relatives dealing with health issues, anniversary, etc. Haven't got caught up on all the threads, but had some time to put this together yesterday.

@JayHawkFanToo I don't even understand how you get from my post to your post. It did give me a chuckle, though. Thanks.

@JayHawkFanToo No, I think Self is doing a tremendous job this season. While there may be little disagreements with post personnel that create a lot of discussion, that in no way overshadows the excellent job we've seen so far.

This is really a big deal for Self. He's a guy that has done it one way for years -- with unabridged focus and really, with little flexibility. I've said this may times before, leaders get to the top by being inflexible, by doing it their way. Hard to deviate from the tried and true formula. But he's deviating. He's pairing scheme with the team's strengths. A complete credit to the man himself.

@ajvan I know that some still don't agree with me. But when a coach gets in the head of a shooter, puts limits on the when/where/why/how, makes the shooter think before triggering, that is going to negatively impact the player. It's called a "free mind" as you aptly quoted. If a free mind helps an offensive player as Self suggests, then we can logically infer the opposite is also true -- and anyone who has been around the game knows this to be true. We saw what happened last season when minds were free. We saw what happened when our offensive focus changed mid-game. And we saw what happened when the hammer came down.

What Self has done more than anything is simply supported their strengths. He's embraced it. He's opened his mind and been flexible. We can tell he's not doing what he did last season -- complain constantly about not being able to score inside, forcing us mid-game to pound it inside, etc. That doesn't mean we won't miss shots. It's just that we have a culture and approach that supports a free mind. I think it's really quite simple.

@JayHawkFanToo You said, "Most would call it coaching" -- You say that as if this season exists in a vacuum. Do we simply forget last season? Just once, you might consider the possibility that Self handled things incorrectly with the team last season, and now he's adjusted. It is called coaching. Good coaches "learn a lot" from experiences, as Self said after the WUGs. And all good coaches learn from their mistakes. The change in Self's approach is amazing. I do think posters here can learn from their mistakes, as well.

What does conference play mean to me?

1. Shutting up the yapping competition.

2. Seemingly endless days/evenings of KU hoops.

3. A means to an end.

@Mikey-P Welcome, as well.

My favorite -- "5.Tyshawn Taylor putting it all together in 2012 just in time for conference season."

I always struggled with Taylor. Was glad to see him put it together -- finally. 2011-12 was Self's best coaching job in my opinion. KY and Wesley off the bench in the post, and Teahan on the perimeter. Wow. And we come within a few minutes of a national title. TT redeemed his prior seasons of chaotic performances in one half season.

Great post. Don't be a stranger.

@ajvan Great quote. "Free minds offensively" -- incredibly important; it was a topic that was greatly discussed last season, to be sure. But if coach Self isn't going to pound the "fool's gold" stuff anymore and limit shooters, we can all move forward quite contently, I would think. I know I am very content.