🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Cliff didn't hustle? What games was @Crimsonorblue22 watching? But this is typical revisionist history. Because Self didn't play Cliff, and because Cliff didn't work out for coach Self, it's appropriate to defame the kid? It's really a joke.

Cliff didn't hustle? He seemed to find his way to quite a few rebounds that our useless energy can't seem to get within five feet of. Cliff averaged 5.3 rpg in 17.6 minutes, Traylor just 3.7 in 20.4 minutes per game. Cliff .30 per minute, Traylor .182. There's your hustle.

Cliff and supposed "energy" guy Traylor each had 37 blocks on the year -- Cliff in 492 minutes, Traylor in 712.

Cliff got up and down the court just fine. Self wanted to mention his motor here and there. Don't mistake that for anything more than it was -- a way to inspire the kid to play the right way. But that doesn't mean he was the "complete opposite" of Diallo. Heck, we've never even seen Diallo in a Kansas uniform. We don't know a darn thing about how he'll react to Kansas basketball and coach Self.

It's easy to trash Cliff now -- no way Self mishandled him, right? Self's perfect. What we saw in Cliff was a typical freshman, who was learning on the job. But he wasn't lazy. And he isn't deserving of getting trashed here regularly for how he played.

It would have been quite interesting to see how Cliff would have done if he had chosen Duke, UK, etc. How he would have done if he was simply put in the lineup and permitted to learn on the job. It's just so much smarter to play a guy like Traylor who does nothing.

@JayHawkFanToo Uh, yea.

@Lulufulu I agree with you on the best starting lineup to start the season. I think some of the best evidence to support your opinion on the guard situation came this past summer:

“The staff as a whole, we feel like playing Frank and Devonte’ together will make us a lot more dangerous offensively,” Townsend said. “We’ll be able to put a lot more pressure on (other teams) because they both can drive it, they both can shoot it, and they’re both pretty good defenders. We definitely talked about that. It’ll free up Wayne a little more, too.” Self, of course, has discussed the advantages of playing two guards for more much of the last year. His best teams and rosters, he says, featured two creative ballhandlers in the backcourt, even going back to Illinois. “Two guys that can handle, like the national championship team,” Townsend said. “We had Sherron (Collins), Russell Robinson and Mario Chalmers.”

You questioned -- who spells Devonte and Mason? My expectation is that, like most of last season, one or the other is on the court all of the time. But if both are out, our next best ball handler is Svi. That was true last season, too. He's the "next" point guard. That's how it should be. Whether that is how it is, in actuality, we'll see. But that's how it is.

Svi starting or not starting isn't that big of a deal if he's really good. Self playing Svi big minutes is the big deal. It would be nice to see Self balance the 80 minutes available at the 1 and 2 spots between Mason, Graham and Svi roughly equally. Or close to that. I do think Mason plays at least 32 per game, so perhaps balance is divided between Graham and Svi. Svi may end up demanding more by his performance.

However, I think that our season is really going to be determined in the post.

It might be obvious to place our hope on Diallo. But I don't think that is it. @Lulufulu has placed Mick, Diallo and Bragg ahead of Traylor and Lucas -- "Then you have to assume Landen and Traylor will get minutes somewhere."

That is it, my friends. If Traylor and Lucas, both, are in the top 4 of the post rotation, that's a problem. If either of those two are first off the bench in the post, that's a problem.

It is low talent level of Traylor and Lucas that can drag this team down.

Diallo, Bragg, and Mickelson are all better right now. With Diallo, we make that reasonable assumption. With Mick and Bragg, though, we saw it with our own eyes in eight games this past July.

Here is the definitive proof -- ask yourself, if you could have Mick and Bragg for this coming season, or Traylor and Lucas, who would you choose for your roster? Who would anybody choose? The choice isn't even close.

We have the best collection of perimeter talent in the nation.

What we should legitimately fear is Self doing what Self has done in the past -- relying on guys that he feels comfortable with, that have experience. In this case, relying on the inferior pair of Traylor and Lucas.

I can't even comprehend that.

For some reason, my "fear" level is much lower than in past seasons in this regard. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

@JayHawkFanToo No OAD has ever come from a JUCO? Come on, what about Bryce Harper???

@Hawk8086 Yes, honesty is the best policy. I've avoided the OAD discussion for a while. But damn right, this is a great place for bigs to come, be the focus, and develop into draft picks. I just cannot fathom why we should have any real trouble with the non-OAD dudes, though Bolden may fashion himself as that. I don't know.

@BeddieKU23 I certainly agree on the Cliff thing .. there is much more good than bad with our players, to be sure.

But I'm just talking negative recruiting. What other school has had two top 5 guys in the last five years who have flamed out like Selby and Cliff? It's just fact. Thus the fodder for negative recruiting.

Even with Oubre -- what top guy would want to go through that when others would just start him and leave him to develop? Again, may have been good reasons to coach Self, but not to other coaches. Still fodder.

@dylans So I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the negative Cliff issues don't have an impact? I don't see you saying that, but I see your post essentially saying it doesn't matter. Explaining it away.

Is there anyone that thinks that Cliff's situation would not be a serious consideration for a top post player considering Kansas, with his future on the line?

@BeddieKU23 It is surprising to me, that with our obvious need in the post area for next season, that we don't have a commitment yet. Each the top programs seems to have at least one highly rated player in the bag - Duke, UNC, UK, MSU, Louisville, UConn, UCLA, Ohio St., Indiana.

When we talk hurdles, most of the top programs do have some hurdles. But ours sometimes seem more stark. Why? Because Self has a reputation of valuing experience.

But also, and let's not forget the elephant in the room here -- Cliff Alexander. Rightly or wrongly, it is not a stretch to suggest that top post recruits see the Cliff Alexander example and that is a big negative. Cliff was a top 5 guy whose stock completely plummeted at Kansas. Goes from top 10 draft pick, to nothing. It is the perfect negative recruiting topic. It's all perception.

I'm in the living room of a top post recruit, and I'm selling a competing program, and Kansas comes up: "Look, I don't know what went on with Cliff Alexander. I tend not to focus on things like that. But as a player, I would always wonder if that could be me. All coaches are different. Some coaches are more receptive to freshman mistakes, and learning. Some coaches aren't as patient. It's not that one is right or wrong, it's just that one way creates more of a chance that a player might not get the minutes and exposure that a top player needs. Cliff was highly talented, and out performed other guys when he was in the game, but his minutes were lacking. Some coaches let players play though mistakes, others no so much. Again, what's right or wrong? As you know, we realize that there is a learning curve but that the learning process is accelerated when that player gets more playing time. Particularly a top player like you."

Cliff Alexander could be the anchor right now. We all saw Cliff generally out perform Lucas and Traylor. Yet languish much of the time behind them. There make be good "Bill Self reasons", or we may do our best to defend Self, but I know what I saw. I saw that Cliff was just flat better. And I (and many, many other people) would have just played and committed to Cliff (which, in the end, would have been the wrong decision given eligibility issues, but that's a different topic).

Heck, Cliff seemed to think a tweet noting how his and Oubre's draft stock dropped under a year with Bill Self was worth favoriting. You think a top recruit doesn't know that if we do?

Regardless of the Cliff negativity, it's hard to see all the top guys passing on Kansas with the obvious rotation minutes available. But look what happened last season. We inked Bragg pre-Cliff implosion. Then after that? We got the last guy standing -- with eligibility issues.

I still think we land Bolden. It just makes too much sense. But I am less confident.

I don't think this is good news .. remember that Self had set aside this weekend solely for Bolden. Any way you slice it, it's not good news. It may end up being irrelevant, but right now, not good.

@jaybate-1.0 -- Interesting discussion .. I certainly want to make sure that it is clear that my outside-in preference was related to last year's team. I am very much a "inside-out" guy. Once the inside-out philosophy was proven futile, and the character of last year's team apparent, there should have been no fighting the change. Now, of course, Self took the outside-in approach in a different direction than the team had been succeeding with, changing to bad ball, but that is/was a different topic ... now concluded.

I agree on the conference expansion ideas. I really thought Louisville was the perfect expansion partner (EST), and I thought Cincinnati (EST) made a great deal of sense. Having those two in the fold right now would be a major plus for the Big 12. I'm not so sure how realistic the Florida St. or Clemson rumors were, but that would have been terrific.

But we are where we are now. At least we're alive.

@JayHawkFanToo You said "There is a good chance that, as I pointed out before, the issue is due to Diallo’s overseas transcripts not being in order or properly certified."

Just confirming, you haven't seen anything referring to this, correct? It's just a reasonable possibility that you are suggesting based on the fact that others from the school have been cleared (who weren't from overseas) and he hasn't, correct? Or is there more?

@konkeyDong What if Diallo attended core classes that were determined to be insufficient -- let's say three of them, hypothetically? Is that a "very good reason"?

Diallo's culpability here is should not be the issue.

Your position, as I read it, basically, is that if the school taught core classes that were inadequate, then Diallo should be cleared because he was (presumably) ignorant of the deficiencies, correct?

I can't bite on that. It sucks for Diallo. But such is the risk created by his parents, mentor, benefactor, or who the hell ever sent him to that school. And kids are punished for the sins of the parents (mentors and benefactors). Fair? Maybe not. But reality.

If you don't want that risk, send him to Blue Valley Northwest, or Shawnee Mission West, or even Schlagle. You know, a real school.

You also refer to "others" being granted passage and comparing fairness. You acknowledged that those granted hadn't attended the school as long as Diallo. That's the rub -- apples to oranges. If Diallo is deemed to not qualify, my guess is it is related to items that weren't the same.

I'd like "very good reason" too if he is ineligible. My guess is if that happens, there will be.

@BeddieKU23 I am always curious about the dislike for the NCAA. Without a rules enforcer, there would be no rules. And the NCAA only enforces the rules made by its member schools, like Kansas.

I guess my position is that if Diallo doesn't qualify, then there is probably a very good reason. We may selfishly not like how it impacts Kansas, but I'm wondering why as general policy we should support any kid playing that doesn't meet the very minimalist standards now in place? Self said, in hindsight, he supported the ruling on McLemore, as I recall.

All that said, we don't know yet. But it seems any negative ruling would deem him a partial qualifier like McLemore and Traylor. I wonder if they could split the baby and make him ineligible for just the first half of the season (that would suck too)?

If Diallo is deemed ineligible this season, I would then revert to my position before Diallo signed regarding our failed efforts to secure talent before getting Diallo's late commitment -- but that would be premature comment on recruiting at this point.

And Selby had times when he had to sit out practice -- that was more on par with Cliff as it was an impermissible benefits issue. That caused me to question him practicing last year. I recall when I looked into comparing that to Selby, Self had said at some point that the NCAA ok'd Selby practicing. I wonder if that was the case with Cliff, that the NCAA ok'd him practicing?

Did I say I was excited to see how Mick does this season? Interesting to see.

We'll win at Rutgers .. planets aligning.

@jaybate-1.0 You know I buy it. Ellis, Tharpe -- it is an important consideration. You sold me on this some time ago. I never look at long necked dudes the same way. Shorter than advertised on the court. And poor Tharpe .. has to peddle a bit harder.

@jaybate-1.0 Come on, none of this "long neck", "short legs", "crooked pecker" stuff. Ok, maybe not the last one, but still ...

@nuleafjhawk That's the problem with our gun analysis. Worry about those that break the laws. Don't worry about those that don't.

Personally, if I lived in the country (vs., suburbia), I'd have a full fledged assault rifle for protection, as well as my shotgun and handgun.

I don't shoot, but I know some folks enjoy shooting them. I don't hunt either, for whatever that's worth. Not into killing things.

In a society based on liberty and freedom, don't worry about the law abiding citizens. Focus you disdain on the thugs and violent criminals.

You have hit on the "missing the ball" issue with guns. Liberals, TV, etc., make big deals out of the school shootings, etc.

Look at your news. Look at the carnage every night in the urban centers of our nation. Look at the little kid that gets shot going into the convenience store, or the girl shot on her porch, or the grandma hit by cross fire getting in her car, or the 20 bullets sprayed near birthday party.

Politically, it's easier to focus on the big events -- but much more difficult to examine the realities of the murder and mayhem perpetrated by a certain segment of our society every night in the inner cities.

It's odd how the country folks in this nation all have guns, and somehow, someway, they don't shoot each other but on a very rare, rare occasion.

@nuleafjhawk Curious, why does the law abiding fellow with AK 47s bother you?

Is that the guy killing folks every night in the inner cities of our country?

@drgnslayr Charles fumbles 1.5% of the time. On reward, you don't need him to break a touchdown. Just a big gain. This is increased when the defense is playing the vaunted prevent to stop the deep ball. Further, he doesn't need to get far enough for a field goal on one play. Just 20 yards.

Another option is to throw underneath for 20 or so yards because the D is playing back and retreating -- that is riskier than the handoff. But more aggressive. Call the timeout. Looking for the same thing the draw might give you.

The Monday morning quarterbacking is a litle silly on this, but I certainly understand it. If the Chiefs squat on it, and Denver wins the toss and scores a TD and wins, there would be complaints that we weren't aggressive and didn't try to win then. Particularly when Manning just shoved a drive up our a** and scored.

The Monday morning quarterbacking would have been just as silly if we had taken a knee and lost under the above scenario.

Doing what the Chiefs did is a reasonable approach to the situation. I agree, Charles is a bit loose with the ball, but not much more than Adrian Peterson, for example. That does create a little more risk. Jamaal fumbles it appx. 1.5% of the time. A stud like Emmitt Smith was like .08% or something close to that. Again, really a slim chance.

Here's another way to look at it - Putting the ball in your best player's hands there, is no different than handing the ball to him at the 20 yard line to start overtime. Exact same risk analysis.

With a 1.5% chance of fumbling balanced against the possible overtime chances, it does seem reasonable to take the chance. But that doesn't mean it's the only right answer.

But there is no doubt that each of you who now says he should have taken a knee (whether in hindsight or whether you said it at the time) are right. We lost. That is for sure.

@JayHawkFanToo I personally don't think every other team would have just taken a knee. KC had a time out and only had 50 yards to go to get in field goal range.

I personally like running a draw there. Sometimes you pop it for 20 yards based on the nature of the defense being played (deep protect -- many times quarters coverage). Such a play would have you out to your own 40. Then you can decide to call the timeout and then attack with passing if it made sense. It's really the best option balancing between safety and not just conceding overtime at that stage. Going say 50 yards in 36 seconds to get in field goal range is realistic, particularly if you hit the draw for a big gain (and you have a time out). And the draw is a safe way (usually) to start the drive.

Obviously, though, in hindsight, they'd change what they did and just take a knee. It would certainly have helped if Charles, when he saw that there was no gap to get through, would have covered up and protected the ball.

@wrwlumpy I am wrong for wanting to see those two women wrestle in jello?

@JayHawkFanToo Yes, I meant the one with the "e". I don't think I've ever used the one with an "a" before in conversation. But it could work ... I just misspelled it.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Ok, help me out then. Seemed like they replicated the NY Giants uniforms. And it seemed like he won. Further, he didn't seem have multiple uniform/helmet combos. Again, feel free to point out the error of my ways.

I also recall Bowen last season, after he took over, shutting down the uniform carousal ↗, and referencing the Mangino (Orange Bowl) days. But I've been know to have a faulty memory.

Also, just before Weis was fired, I wrote about the uniform mess. Bowen seemed to feel the same way.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Call me simple minded (or an idiot) here, but when Weis purposefully and as part of his plan "dismissed" a bunch of Gill's players, or when he was "dumping talent", might that be analogous to "gut(ting) the program"?

Just curious.

@wrwlumpy I can't imagine how Mangino won with one helmet and two uniforms -- one blue, one white.

Zenger hired Weis. It was a horrible hire. If Beaty don't turn this thing around, meaning .500 in 2017-18, then Zenger has to be fired. This is Zenger's fault. His job was to pick the right person to move on after Gill. Instead, the program got worse. That's is complete failure.

I am embarrassed about our football program, like many others. But I'm also pretty mad about it. This is our program.

I guarantee you this .. if Bill Self were hired as our football coach when Weis was hired, we'd have a much better program right now.

@Lulufulu Say I'm coach Self's lawyer and I'm negotiating an extension for Self. Let's pretend that Self's contract expires after next season. I've got lots of leverage. I might insist that Self will sign an extension if, and only if, there are no conditions on his contacted salary other than performance of his basketball duties. The school may respond and list off a number of items that would constitute a breach. Let's say the school suggests:
1. Being found to have committed an NCCA violation or infraction.
2. Having a team GPA below 2.5.
3. Making negative public statements about the Chancellor or administration.
4. Personal conduct that causes the school significant embarrassment; committing a DUI, assault, battery, or something more serious, or conduct that involves moral turpitude.
5. Providing university information to third parties.
6. Losing more than 15 games in two consecutive seasons.
7. Failing to make 15 appearances per year at university fund raising functions.
8. Being sanction by the NCAA or Big 12 more than twice in a season for on-court actions.
9. Failing to appear for practices or games in a regular and customary fashion.
10. Failing to wear the gear from approved Kansas sponsors.

So let's say the schools says that.

Self's lawyer says, ok, we're good with 3, 7, 9 and 10, but nothing else. That's it.

Then the university has a choice.

Certainly, most negotiations have more back and forth, but ultimately, deals are made based on leverage.

If KU is hiring David Beaty, who's got the leverage? Right. A breach might be Beaty farting when Sheahon Zenger is downwind.

Coaches are rewarded for failure (or better, not penalized for failure) because they have leverage to enter agreements that don't make that conduct a breach or material failure to perform.

Most of the time there is some ambiguity, which leads to buy out negotiations.

@ParisHawk I like it. I admit my bias in favor of the high/low -- it's the best offense in basketball (in my humble opinion). @jaybate-1.0 initiated a discussion a while back about Self's desire to morph an offense to deal with any defense, referencing his Okie St. days with Iba.

The high/low is it.

But man, Self has been a rigid, rigid system guy, to the detriment (I think) of offensive production.

This entire WUG may be a boon in that Self saw us forced to play at a faster pace, and with players that really didn't know our system. Amazing that we could succeed without the rigid system (where's the sarcasm font when you need it?).

I am very excited to see the changes. I have felt for years that the rigidity of the system has held us back. There may be some growing pains with the change -- more with the coach accepting the change, not reverting to prior form, and letting the guys play more. Kind of shaving off the sharp edges a bit, and adding elements that highlight skills sets.

This is the single biggest story line of the upcoming season.

We have the best collection of perimeter players in the nation. We should have this ranking.

The key this season will be ... sorry ... coach Self.

He has to get the most out of this team. That means tweaking his system to do that. If we revert to the same sort of high/low attack he tried to force feed the squad the first half of last season, that could be problematic.

But I don't think that will happen. I think last season (and the WUG) has got Self thinking a bit differently. Self said he learned a lot this summer, referring to the offensive freedom he gave his players. That's good. It had always been system, system, system.

All his offense needs is some tweaks to capitalize on the teams' collective talents. The high/low is fine. Just some tweaks.

As usual, we hold our breath ...

@truehawk93 @Lulufulu I'm trying to figure out why this is outrageous. It's just a contract. If Patterson didn't breach his contract, why shouldn't he get the money he contracted to get? Remember, negotiating leverage creates these deals. No one is forced to enter them.

The outrage, if there is any, should be with Texas for making a bad deal. Just like with Kansas and its deals with Gill and Weis. Just bad business decisions. But Texas (as well as Kansas) shouldn't be able to just fire someone who has a valid contract, and not pay them what is due. Otherwise a contract would be worthless.

Just saw tonight that Self offered a 6'9" Juco 2016 power forward, Emmanuel Malou, from Yuba College.

Never heard of this one before.

@drgnslayr You said --- "I hope Jamari spent most of his off-season in the video room and reading textbooks on the game of basketball. His biggest weakness is clearly his lack of basketball IQ. It just isn’t enough to bring “energy” into the game without knowing how to use it for the benefit of the team. His “energy” was often spent committing really bad fouls, over-shooting his rebound positioning directly under the basket, or making various assortments of TOs."

I would agree. However, for a guy heading into now his 5th year in the program, I would suggest that you not hold your breath.

I still chuckle on this energy thing. I think that's just a fraud. He does have times when his effort and athleticism create exceptional plays. But what is largely ignored is when he just stands there as a shot is taken, or when he's frozen when a dribbler slips past him. He takes plays off, and he has numerous lazy moments.

You are so right. If we accept that his calling card in energy, it certainly isn't enough to just bring energy.

But we have Traylor, and there are certainly situations where he can be effective. There are times when he can excel. He (and CF) saved us vs. EKU. It's just a matter of marginalizing his minutes. 20 minutes per game? Please, no. Eight minutes here, 10 minutes there. And if he's having a great game, then more. That's really the best role for him.

This is the stuff SI covers were made of -- video ↗

Let me toss this out .. I mentioned this when he was here: If Embiid had played three healthy seasons at Kansas, is it reasonable to project that he would have been the 2nd best center in the history of Kansas basketball?

@ParisHawk Good thoughts. However, you said, "If Cheick is out the whole year, Cheick-compatibility is no longer an issue and Hunter has fewer arguments for playing time."

You know what that means? You have to make an argument for Traylor to play rotation level minutes. Ah, now the task gets much more difficult. There simply isn't any good argument for that.

Just go with Mick.

Mick showed at the WUG, undeniably, that he is better than Traylor. Mick showed at the WUG, undeniably, that he is better than Lucas.

Is there anyone here who would rather have Lucas or Traylor on their team, instead of Mickelson? If so, I'd love to hear the argument.

Mick adds something. He has an "it" factor to him. Lucas? Pedestrian at best. Traylor? Just bad most of the time, with these little glimmers here and there.

If Diallo is eligible, Mick should be no worse than the 4th big (behind Ellis, Diallo, Bragg). If Diallo is not eligible, Mick should be no worse than the 3rd big, but actually should start next to Ellis, with Bragg off the bench.

That seems like the best Kansas post rotation. Perhaps I'm missing something.

@Makeshift Hmmm .. I think if Self wanted to play some high/low there, it just might work.

Sleeper 5: Mason, Collins, Rush, Collison, Embiid.

@dylans Cool ... thanks.

The guy who got killed at that overpass was a young man from Shawnee.

@dylans -- you had a great quote above, "Hatred doesn’t make a good rival; you should be able to respect one another before, during, and after the games are played. (But good natured ribbing is to be expected)."

But your more recent post about the overpass would seem to contradict that. I'm quite confident that the post I quoted is more your intention.

Me not understand.

@justanotherfan I might say that there really even hasn't been a consistently good team. Meaning one that makes runs here and there, and is reliably at the top of the conference. Each team, other than Kansas, seems to wax and wane.

Personally, I can't explain our lack of tourney success. I mean ISU and OU seemed like legit FF contenders last season. It makes no sense to me.

I think @drgnslayr's point about the football priority really explains the lack of consistently good programs and teams.

I'm with @joeloveshawks here. It's been over a decade since another Big 12 team sniffed the Final Four, and only two (KU in 2008 and 2012) have gotten there in that span.

Our conference is weak, has been weak, and will always be weak until proven otherwise.

If folks want to believe a conference is good because of stuff that occurs in November and December, then that's missing the boat. Teams usually don't figure out rotations, minutes, and all of that definitively, until the later. But that still pales in comparison, in my mind, to winning on the biggest stage.

Again, this all goes back to how much folks value the NCAA tourney. If you choose to discount the NCAA tourney, then I guess OU beating Illinois on December 4 or Texas Tech beating Clemson in November is what should guide you in your assessment of conferences.

@jaybate-1.0 Good question. Mick sat the season before, and presumably learned the system. So I can't believe it was mental. He clearly offers a different type of player than Lucas or Traylor.

Self, last preseason, said that Ellis and Mick were both 4s and likely wouldn't play together. He referred to needing something down low, that those two together could offer. I have the quote somewhere. I thought that was odd, given the "poor man's Withey" comment -- Withey being a strict 5. I think the 4 comment on Mick might have been because of his step out ability.

But maybe Self so him as a soft, movable object down low? I don't know. But Self seemed convinced that Mick and Ellis weren't a good match together. And because Ellis was the big minutes dude, that meant Mick, well, wasn't.

I do know that there were times when Mick looked really bad defensively last season. A couple laughable moments, really.

Then the WUG thing changed everything.

I guess I fell in this camp with Mick -- I trusted Self on that judgment, but for playing Traylor over him (yes, "dismay" @wrwlumpy).

But now, we shake our heads. We saw Mick in the WUG. There is just no denying that over those 8 games, he was the better post choice when compared to Lucas or Traylor. He could score, he was nimble, he fought for boards, he was solid defensively, and he offered rim protection. It was very impressive.

Unfortunately, Self said Mick's performance was Fool's Gold at the WUG, did you miss that? -- SORRY. Couldn't resist. No, he didn't say that.

Really, though, Self seemed complimentary to Mick, but then he did bench him for a long stretch vs. Germany -- that was pretty unnerving. I was literally begging for Mick to play. We won the gold, so Self made the right decisions there. But that worries me now on Self's ultimate opinion on Mick.

He wasn't the "comfortable" choice.

I think it might be this simple -- it's one of those judgment calls Self makes as head coach that we don't understand. Much like (to me) playing Traylor so much. There's not much, objectively, that supports the decision. It's his subjective choice.

I suspect Mick has now ascended in the pecking order; perhaps he's built a little (gold) equity with the coach.

Here's a post you did last year on Ellis/Mick.

Without Diallo, and with Mickelson actually playing, and playing to the level he played at during the WUG, we are a serious NC threat.

With Diallo, it only gets better.

@drgnslayr You, my friend, have played the game. You've been coached. And you understand that a coach, by word and deed, can impact his players.

What entertains me is the same people that will give credit to Self for his coaching, won't recognize that his approach could backfire sometimes.

I cited Self's EJ blowup after the OSU loss at home in 2013. Crickets. Folks that oppose my theory here gloss over that. I have not heard anyone dispute what I said at the time -- that Self's uncharacteristic trashing of EJ led directly to a team being mentally not ready to play against TCU, and thus and inexplicable loss. If one admits that Self's actions and words helped lead to that loss, then my theory here has undeniable legs.

Of course it has legs. Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who has played or coached this game knows that a coach can impact positively and negatively. As I pointed out to @jaybate-1.0, he has a long standing position Self amps his team, or lets them come out flat. Same thing.

Could my theory be wrong? Sure. But to me, the only other explanation is a horrific and perhaps unprecedented coincidence. I've never seen a team's shooting tank like that. But then again, I've never seen a coach do what Self did with 7 regular season games left. The reason I discount the coincidence is how vehement Self was about NOT relying on threes. The fact that the three was point of his upset. Then the new scheme. And the stark change in our three point fortunes. Dots connected. 100% for sure? Of course not. Confident? Sure.

But, of course, some simply want to deny that it's even possible -- enter @sfbahawk.

@sfbahawk Again, and I know that this is continuing to be difficult, but the team's three point attempts dropped nearly 25%. That's evidence. I don't think anyone, perhaps other than you, believes that Self did not mandate scaling back the three pointers. Just one person's performance is not sufficient evidence. It is just a piece of the puzzle. The entire puzzle is the entire team.

By the way, Mason's attempts went down from 2.83 to 2.54. There were 12 games. But whatever.

The fact that Wayne's attempts went down 1.8 per game is notable, and nice. A portion of the whole. He was shooting 43% before, and crap after, right? But absolutely no connection.

It is pretty funny that you mention the tired line that I think I know more about basketball than Bill Self. It always interesting how analysis, critique, and challenging a thought process degrades to that with some on this site (and in the past, on the other site). It's a simple minded response, of which I'm happy to expect from you. When I suggest another theory that might challenge you, feel free to accuse me of what you'd like. Others -- one in particular -- has flown that non-substantive banner for quite a while.

It demonstrates just a touch of ignorance when you can't even consider the hypothesis to be true. When you shut it down without even a hint of possibility. And it's interesting that no one really challenges the psychological impact a coach can have on his team -- see the TCU debacle. But no way. Devaluing the very character of the team, changing an offense approach midseason, mandating fewer shots from three thus getting in their heads, could not lead to a slump. Nope. Just doesn't work that way.

Tell me this. When a hitter in baseball is hot, why don't players talk about the streak? Is it because the don't want to jink it? Or is that really getting the hitter thinking about his success, which might impact his future performance?

That analogy might be over your head. I don't know.

It is amazing to me that this is just outright dismissed.

The theory is that Bill Self made a tactical mistake that simply evidences that he is not perfect, and that mistake is analyzed largely in hindsight. And that is interpreted as suggesting that one (me) thinks he knows more about basketball than Self.

I can't help you there. It makes you feel better to think that, I assume.

I will conclude this topic .. you may have the last word if you choose.

@wissoxfan83 Well I can't disagree there. Our society has gone down the tubes. The liberals have won. More sex, more pushing the limit, more moral equivalency. I wasn't looking at it from that perspective. I was looking at from us being offended as Jayhawk fans. Good point.

@jaybate-1.0 Well, I won't convince you. I just think it is utterly preposterous that "Self and his statisticians" looked into their collective crystal balls, decided the three point shooting would slump, and thus switched the offense premised on this premonition.

I agree. Correlation is not causation. But what we have is significant circumstantial evidence. With your argument, there is not circumstantial evidence. There is nothing that connects the dots. I have hard numbers. I have the scheme change. I have the timing. I have the (nearly) universally unchallenged belief that Self mandated fewer three pointers (that remains unchallenged because we saw it happen). I have Self's words to the media (and not just Fool's Gold).

Again, I'm sorry, but when you look at the actual evidence, I simply believe my suggestion is much more probable and supported by what we see. Thus our line of demarcation. It is what it is. You usually convince me on most discussions, as your powers of persuasion usually trump mine -- and I recognize that. But on this one, not so much.

But I do really like your statement -- that you suggest I that claim Self made the change to bad ball out of "reactionary stubbornness." I agree completely. I think that is exactly what it was. I'd toss the word "dogmatic" in there if I could get it to fit. He did it because he believed that bad ball was a better, more reliable way to win moving forward with the 2014-15 Jayhawks.

He was just wrong. I felt that way at the time, and it plainly didn't improve our offense (in hindsight). In fact, our offensive production decreased.

But there I go again ...

You may have the last word if you would like to.

Unbelievable that anyone is really offended or really cares. It was simply funny. You know, college humor?

But ooooohhh, evil KSU. Along the way, let's demean ourselves by our indignant overreaction. Everyone has to be offended about something.

Sometimes you have to laugh at your self a bit.

Really, they should have turned that Jayhawk around and rammed that Starship Enterprise right where the sun don't shine -- that's a more appropriate demonstration during football season for the old Jayhawks of late.

@ParisHawk Great, great point -- "So shooting becomes thoughtful and not instinctive, and shots have to be taken in a hurry."

I don't have access to that info on when in the shot clock they were taken. This goes directly to the "free minds" concept. Shooters are best with free minds. When that is clouded, their shooting can be affected because they are thinking about it. Marginalizing three pointers meant removing them as the first option, or second option. Moving them to a less important position. That's what bad ball did.

We still shot threes. Just not as many. Self didn't say "don't ever shoot threes." But rather, most likely, let's do this first, then this second, and maybe this third. In our 21-4 stretch, we shot a lot of early threes. There were times they were raining down. Self accepted it then, though it was not his preference.

Great point.