🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@DanR It may not matter to you, so why are you participating? If the thread is distasteful or causes you distress, why engage in the debate?

From my perspective -- and I only posted this thread because of the other discussion on Greene -- the fraud that Greene's injury caused his three point shooting to fall off a cliff was relevant. It had become an accepted fact, when, in fact, the evidence indicates that it is untrue.

That had not yet been mentioned.

Again, if you or whomever here doesn't like it -- or more what it is and always is -- folks don't like it when implicates coach Self, well, tough. Bill Self isn't perfect. Bill Self took a team that was 21-4 and drove our season -- our season -- into the ground. He made the decision to cut back on the three pointers on a team that was functioning quite well, to switch to a God awful offensive scheme (bad ball), and change the entire complexion of a team that was winning. That's the issue.

This is what troubles folks. Bill Self. Genius. Blew it. Then, post fact, folks try to create this silly scenario that he had to do it. That Bill Self, genius, foresaw that massive three point shooting slump; and because that innate foresight, he cut the threes in advance of that slump and put in an offense that really wasn't much of an offense -- the perpetual weave, as @BeddieKU23 noted.

Again, do we simply forget that our coach had our team wildly unprepared? That we had no real offense? That he chose that path mid season? All after having them exquisitely prepared and 21-4? Who changes that?

We know why Self changed what we were doing. It was because it didn't fit his little version of what successful and proper offense should be. Meanwhile, we watch coaches and teams that did adapt and change -- shooting threes at the rate we shot pre bad ball (Michigan St.) -- find their way to a Final Four.

The fact is, Self just made a mistake. A very human mistake. He miscalculated. That's all I"ve ever said. I take the position that Self is human. I take the position that Self is not a genius with an all knowing crystal ball. This was just a big miscalculation on his part. And the fraud that Greene's hip was causing him to immediately miss everything he shot further masked that reality. You know, great coaches can make mistakes. They can make big ones.

So what, in the final analysis, is more important to discuss than that?

@sfbahawk Ok, your phrasing was confusing -- making attempts then means an attempt. When you could have just referred to it as an attempt. Got it.

So to your point, you said: "If the team felt that the coach didn’t want 3 point attempts, why did Frank Mason make 2.8 attempts per game before the remark and 2.5 attempts after?"

Uh, the attempts went down.

The team attempts went down by nearly 25%. This is of course the important stat for anyone willing to consider the argument. But when you're not willing to consider it, you avoid the most telling stat.

On Greene, my initial thought is that he was pressing, trying to get out of the slump. Further, that's really about all he could do in bad ball (shoot the three), since the emphasis was on driving and he clearly can't do that. When he tried, he was pretty bad at it. But that's my best explanation.

And, of course, I've never said Self mandated no threes. He clearly mandated fewer threes, and less reliance on them.

I exclude Baylor because they played zone and we played our zone offense. I know this is hard for you to follow, but again, it is the approach, it is what is done in practice, it is the change in scheme. That would not have occurred until the game after Baylor. Again, I know this whole basketball thing is hard for you to digest, but give it a try. When a coach preps for an opponent, he game plans for that opponent. So, there was no "bad ball." That started the game after Baylor.

You said "I reread your past posts. I wasn’t impressed then and I am less so now."

That's nothing more than being a jackass for no reason, and it unfortunately dictated the tone of my post. My citation to my prior posts was to offer context to my opinion now, and to provide posts that had much more information.

I will ask you, though, point me to another end of the season breakdown that was more detailed that I have offered for discussion on this site (referring to my links above)? Remember, it is offered for discussion.

@jaybate-1.0 If you think a coach can amp for "a game", then he must be able to amp for two games. And let them come out flat for two games. Or more.

Again, I think you focus on a strawman -- I have never said that he did it on purpose. Ever. You said, why would he do it, essentially, "when it would not be in their interest to have it destroyed."

I have never suggested or implied that it was intentional. It was an unintended consequence. That's all I've suggested.

The poor three point shooting was not half a season. We shot excellent as a team for 25 games. We then fell off a cliff for 11 games when bad ball began, when three point attempts dropped precipitously, when the new scheme took hold. I just don't understand why it's so hard to admit that coaches can induce slumps or poor performance. Once in a slump, it is sometimes difficult to get out of it. The slump creates more slump, and more pressure. Heck, how much did the media talk about the sudden and unexplained drop in our three point shooting?

That's really all I've suggested.

You also said, "If coaches could make team’s avoid slumps and shoot great all season, why I reckon they would all do it all the time. I would."

Ok. You are absolutely right. But not sure what that has to do with unintentionally causing a slump by word and deed.

@jaybate-1.0 Selden an unfocused underachiever? Goodness. Do you think something could have affected a guy who was having a pretty good year?

-Wayne Selden before “Fool’s Gold” and switch to "Bad Ball": 43 for 100, 43% from three.

-Wayne Selden after “Fool’s Gold” and switch to "Bad Ball": 3 for 26, 11.5% from three.

So Greene goes from over 50% to below 15%.

Selden goes from 43% to 11.5%.

I always wonder why other teams don't have the same wear and tear we do?

My question is whether you would, in hindsight, do what Self did?

But how could anyone now suggest that we should have switched to bad ball over what we were doing so successfully, now that we know the result?

Right now, wouldn't it be most prudent to say that we should have kept doing what we were doing? Given what we know now?

So you don't believe that a coach can affect the collective psyche of a team? Don't you always refer to Self amping or not amping his teams? What is that?

Let me supplement my main post above:

-Wayne Selden before "Fool's Gold" and switch to "Bad Ball": 43 for 100, 43% from three.

-Wayne Selden after "Fool's Gold" and switch to "Bad Ball": 3 for 26, 11.5% from three.

So, @sfbahawk -- you noted that Wayne had a significant decrease in attempts after the switch to bad ball. Who in their right mind would tell a guy shooting 43% from three to shoot fewer threes?

Your comment on Selden makes no sense. In 8 of 12 games following the Fool's Gold comment/switch to bad ball, he shot 2 or fewer three point attempts. This is pretty definitive. The guy was gunning at 43% with 4.6 attempts per game. Then he got shut down. Who does that?

Top 12 seniors, Ellis is a question. But Mason for the juniors? Crazy to leave him off.

@jayhawk-007 My choice of the word "philosophy" was poor.

I should have said scheme. We clearly changed scheme, i.e., what has been termed "bad ball" (by either @drgnslayr or @jaybate-1.0).

Your talk of evolving is right on point. And I think we will see that. All the fabled hi/low needs is tweaks. Great point.

Heck, Izzo evolved. Self can too.

@sfbahawk First, go back and read this.

Second, read go back and read this.

Now, to your discussion.

1. You are correct on Greene's attempts.

2. You reference Mason makes, not attempts. You do not note Mason's attempts. His attempts went down from 2.83 to 2.54 per game. I don't know why you'd refer to Greene and Selden's attempts, but Mason's makes.

3. You are correct that Selden's attempts decreased.

4. You ignore the most important stat, which proves the coach's edict. Our team's three point attempts dropped by nearly 4 per game, and nearly 4.5 excluding the pre-bad ball game vs. Baylor. In the 24 games through Texas Tech, we shot 16.91 three pointers per game. After, it was 13 per game. The 13 per game also included 18 against Baylor just after the TTU game, but before "bad ball" was implemented (Baylor played zone that game). If we exclude Baylor, that is 12.54 per game. Then we shot 21 vs. WSU in our last game trying desperately to come back. The number of threes per game including those two games were 18, 11, 10, 13, 8, 15, 15, 8, 12, 12, 13, and 21.

This is easy.

@DanR Uh, no, on attempts. Three point attempts dropped like a rock. Again, and I keep repeating myself -- why is it so hard for some to recognize that Self mandated fewer three point attempts? The evidence is indisputable. Who denies this?

@jayhawk 007 - Don't focus on the comment. Focus on what the comment led to. The meaning of the comment. It led to a wholesale change in offensive philosophy.

@DanR Exactly .. I think that it was the behind the scenes stuff that impacted them. Fool's gold was public. In private, I think it was much more pointed and likely more animated. But it was with that theme.

@jaybate-1.0 Let me ask you this question -- If you were Bill Self, standing there following the TT win, would you do things differently than coach Self did, with what you now know? Meaning, in hindsight, would you take a different path?

The March thing is when it kind of hit our collective consciousness (and we didn't know surgery was in the offing when he mentioned hip paid then). But I just don't recall anything near or even close to after his slump hit.

I believe if you say that folks saw it earlier. I just never saw it, or noticed it. I sometimes read through the kubuckets chats post game, and I sometimes do the CJ online one. Really the first I heard or considered injury was when this hip deal came out.

@wrwlumpy You said, "Before Perry got hurt last year, we found out that getting him the ball on the outside with a chance to create against a big was what had him in front for POY. If they don’t come out to guard him, he will take the unguarded three."

Ok, but do you see what you are saying?

It's true.

However, that's exactly what Self said was "fool's gold" -- he said it after Ellis played outside in and torched Utah in the first half. Self said that at halftime.

@Crimsonorblue22 Your comment here is very insightful. Ellis, in fact, had his best games post TTU. Against Baylor, we won -- but they played zone, so that is somewhat of a difficult one to analyze. Ellis then scored 19, 23, 24 and 28 in succession, under bad ball, before his injury. No doubt, Ellis was better.

However, we lost 2 of 4. Our team was not better. Our overall offense was not better.

So there is no doubt that Ellis was better. But our team was not better. Bad ball didn't improve our offense.

@jaybate-1.0 I guess I ask, "what injuries"?

I have no issue with Greene's progressive hip deal. My position is that it is flat baloney that it caused his three point shooting to tank as it did. But beyond that, no one on our team -- Graham, Oubre, Selden, Mason -- had anything of substance. Nothing that would cause them to fall off the cliff. Further, the nicks and bruises, or whatever they were, were nothing more than what other teams deal with or that KU has dealt with each season.

And I don't think Self wrecked his team with one sentence. Self saying "fool's gold" to the media is not what troubles me. It's what happens behind the scenes. It's the disdain for the three, the change in philosophy, the link between Self's statements regarding the three and success in the tourney, and then what we saw on the court. We can logically connect the dots as to how this was approached, based on what we heard from Self all season.

So no, I don't buy that one sentence wrecked the season. It's the wholesale transformation from a three point shooting team to a "drive it" team, and Self clouding the shooters' minds with doubt related to shooting. No free minds. He attacked the very foundation of the team's offensive character.

Also, remember the three game stretch in 2013? Where Self threw EJ under the bus after the OSU loss at home? We then lost at TCU in a complete meltdown?

Think about that. Think about the power of a coach's words and actions related to his team.

I have posited that the otherwise inexplicable loss at TCU was a direct result of Self's actions/reactions after OSU. On that topic, I really got no disagreement from posters on this site. Why is it then not reasonable that the actions/reactions by Self post-Texas Tech and with his change in offensive approach, led to the three point shooting tanking almost immediately?

Again, I'm not saying Self "wanted" to wreck the offense. He didn't intend to. But it happened, didn't it?

I mean, wasn't the offense horrible -- I mean horrific -- after bad ball took hold? Can't deny that.

Your position is that it was all he could do, and that he made the right decision. But the foundation of your argument is not that it worked, but that it would have been worse without bad ball. I personally (and respectfully) think that your speculation is more remote than mine, given the evidence we have.

In any case, regardless of whether there was cause or effect, we do know, as fact, that our offense was much worse after "bad ball." We can dress it up, we can try to find excuses, but that is fact. Numbers don't lie.

And there is strong evidence that we would have been better NOT playing bad ball. It occurred in the first 25 games (21-4). When we didn't play bad ball. That's the best evidence we have for the 2014-15 Jayhawks. Further, we have Self's own words -- that team was the "best shooting team" he has ever had at Kansas. Yet his offense diverted away from that admitted strength at a point in time when they were 21-4. The man is a genius.

Maybe he is at time. But he just made a mistake last season. That's all.

@jaybate-1.0 I think you are incorrect. When Self went to "bad ball", look at our three point shooting numbers. So, all of a sudden, Self is going to magically know that we have a degraded ability to make threes? No way. Self changed the offense which led to our three point shooting demise. The three point shooting demise did not occur before "bad ball", and there was no indication that our three point shooting would go south.

Self destroyed our season, and his change led directly to our most embarrassing loss in many years to WSU. We just need to admit it, instead of trying to make excuses for him, least of all calling him a genius. The genius got spanked by the WSU coach everyone makes crude remarks about.

On Greene, Greene's dad said Greene didn't tell anyone of his supposed injury. I say supposed because I believe that it was a preexisting condition where pain increased, and nothing traumatic really occurred. But nonetheless, Greene's dad said Greene kept it from the coaches. The coaches have never said they knew about it, least of all when the bad ball switch was made.

And, of course, Ellis got hurt after the change to bad ball. I kind of doubt Self looked in his crystal ball and saw that, too.

Further, it is just silly to reference Graham and being "nicked."

His team was 21-4. That's the "barrel of doom"?

To show the folly of your argument, you say, " See, I keep telling everyone: if Self had tried to play anything but BAD BALL with the hand he was fanning thin air at the end of last season with, he wouldn’t have gone .500 down the stretch. He most likely would have gone .250, or something like that."

It is entertaining now that the argument is that we would have only won 25% of our games after starting 21-4, without bad ball. That is surely a response to the arguments I have made noting the inescapable win/loss record after bad ball was put in place, in comparison to the shiny 21-4 mark before. You know, that objective evidence.

Saying we would have won 25% of our games is creating a narrative. It is something that is needed to keep the argument afloat. Without that, it crumbles. To convince one that Self had to play bad ball, one must believe the result would have been much worse without it. Thus the narrative.

When in our history under Self have we played to a .250 winning percentage over 15 games? Never.

Self just made a mistake. He miscalculated.

Maybe, if the three point slump wouldn't have hit, bad ball would have succeeded. We don't know.

But the extreme nature of the change was odd. Sure, we're 21-4, I'll completely change our offense, cut the three point attempts by nearly 50%, and destroy the established identity and character of our team. All because I have a crystal ball.

If he had a crystal ball, it would have shown him his second straight exit the first weekend of the tourney.

I appreciate the discussion. The key here is that we avoid making the mistakes of the past.

@DanR So I'm clear here, I'm not saying it was a fake injury at all. I'm just saying that it was a condition that progressed as far as pain, just like Self said and like Greene's dad said (quoting his son). Further, there are clear statements that he had surgery for a condition that he's had "for years." I'm interested if you could show me any link to a "chat" where folks were saying he favored one side.

@jaybate-1.0 @drgnslayr My belief is not that Self intentionally caused harm to the team. My belief, and I believe it is supported by the evidence, is that Self went off on the team and its reliance on three point shooting. I think he had finally reached his breaking point. That is because he believed that three point shooting was not a reliable way to succeed. We had heard Self make snide remarks about three point shooting -- remember, he referred off-handed to "fool's gold" in a half time interview during the Utah game, related to Perry Ellis.

Of course, simply saying "fool's gold" didn't cause a slump. I believe it was more than that. I believe that behind the scenes, Self was very vehement and vocal with the team regarding what he's said in the media -- that you can't rely on three point shooting, that the team has to take a different path, and that the team was going to take a different path. Thus, the change in offensive approach (bad ball).

I don't think Self set out to throw the team into a slump, but that a slump resulted.

I know some poo-poo this. How could a coach cause a slump? Anyone that has been involved in sports knows this can happen. Whether it be a coach that tries to tinker with a hitter too much in baseball, or gets him thinking too much. The mental part of sports is crucial. And slumps, in large part, are mental. Does anyone who has played disagree with that?

I cited the "free mind" thing when it comes to shooting. I think that the evidence we see, meaning Self's statements and the precipitous decrease in our three point attempts, provides great support for the idea that Self mandated a decrease in three point shooting reliance.

Was their a change in the "free mind" thing?

You have a team that we all pretty much agreed was, offensively, led by three point shooting. It was really its identity. It was the best shooting team Self had at Kansas, according to Self. Then you tell them that won't do it, you mandate a decrease in three point shooting attempts, and you then change the offensive approach on a dime -- and the net result is what we saw. A team-wide slump.

It is odd, the timing, right? If Self had nothing to do with causing the slump, then it just magically hit at the precise time when he made the comments, changed the offense, and (obviously) mandated lower three point attempts.

Ain't just a coincidence. Not when you have a team-wide blackout.

Either you believe, or you don't.

If you don't believe, ask yourself whether a coach can inspire a slump, in any sport? Can a coach by his words and actions negatively affect a team's performance?

Think of it this way, if a coach gives a pregame speech and fires up his team properly, can that help? If a coach demeans the team, tells them they are worthless, tells them that their opponent is superior, that he knows because he's the coach -- and he's never seen a more worthless group of players than is sitting in front of him -- can that negatively affect a team, the team dynamic, and the team's performance?

The latter is an extreme example, but all we're talking about is whether a coach can affect performance by word and deed.

This situation matches up too perfectly.

But of course, we'll never really know.

On a couple of other threads, the Fool's Gold discussion has again been engaged. I felt compelled a few months ago to dive into this topic again when it seemed many were simply accepting Greene's hip injury as the reason for his slump. I avoided it .. but not today.

It has now been somewhat accepted that Greene's alleged hip injury was the culprit for his travails.

I say "baloney."

The evidence says that 1) Greene's hip issue was a long standing issue for a number of years and 2) that his alleged injury was not traumatic or significant, rather, the symptoms progressively got worse.

Bill Self made the Fool's Gold comment after the Texas Tech game on February 10. This was not just a comment, this was an attack on the entire concept of three point shooting leading this team's offense. It was this dramatic because Self changed the entire offense after this comment. It was words backed up by deed.

Before the Fool's Gold comment, Brannen Greene was 34 for 65 from three point range (52.3%).

After the Fool's Gold comment, Brannen Greene was 6 of 34 from three point range (17.6%).

“There was a period of time he was the best shooter in the country,” Self said of this past campaign. “He had a minor concussion, and he didn’t hit a shot three weeks after that.”

Huh? That's right, Self blamed a "minor concussion", quoted in an article about the hip surgery.

However, Greene's dad had a different version -- "I noticed he wasn’t getting any lift on his shot. It was flatter than normal at times. It wasn’t the same repeating motion,” Jeff said. "He was trying to keep his condition from everybody, me, the staff, the trainers."

Really? So nobody else knew. Nobody else could tell any change? His dad is full of it. If Greene wasn't getting any lift, no one notices? If he can't get lift on his shot due to his hip, I guarantee you he can't jump the same, pivot the same, slide the same, defend the same, or function the same, etc. The action of lift on one's shot is not a cause/effect that stands in a vacuum.

Think about this -- Greene was said to have had a torn labrum that affected his shooting. Yet nobody knew? That is not plausible.

Self says he had a minor concussion and blamed his three point drop off on that. Yet he missed no games because of a concussion. But that is different than blaming the hip. Why would Self take the effort to blame a minor concussion in an article commenting on his hip?

Greene's dad says he had a hip injury that Greene didn't tell anybody about - not the coaches, trainers, or him. Greene's dad blames the three point drop off on that. However, with this supposed "hip injury", Self kept playing Greene. And very importantly, Self apparently didn't notice any change in his jump shot nor his movements on the court in games or in practice.

In March, an article on KU's three point shooting dearth noted, "Greene got the ball on the left wing and rose for the shot. His body was squared to the rim, his jump on balance, and the ball flying toward the rim with a shooter’s backspin. It missed, of course, but when Greene went back on defense his coach yelled for his attention. 'Keep shooting,' Self said, and he winked."

So why wouldn't Self, of all people, notice something supposedly changed with his shot? Did the staff look at tape? Did the medical staff in practice and in games simply not notice anything then? Correct, they didn't. They didn't notice anything because there wasn't anything to notice. When this came out in April, I still had some games DVR'd. I challenge anyone to find an example of Greene not getting lift on his shots -- not just one example, but a succession. I went back and looked at four games. He had a couple flat shots, but the rest looked great. It is flat out nonsense.

To me, the comments by Greene's dad smack of revisionist history. They appear to be a way to explain away his son's horrible shooting. Something a dad might say. I don't think he noticed anything out of the ordinary. Greene's dad did what any parent would do -- search for answers and over-analyze.

A big question too: Is it believable that Greene could engage in all other basketball related activity with a torn labrum and that the condition would go wholly unnoticed? Meaning, defending, rebounding, jumping, sliding, pivoting, running -- you name it.

Actually, it is quite believable.

Look at the symptoms of a torn hip labrum. A torn hip labrum can present no symptoms. There is a progression .. pain to more severe pain with locking of the hip. Of course, there can be a traumatic tearing of the labrum with significant symptoms. But we know that this did not occur because of what we saw on the court. No doubt. But one can have torn labrum with no symptoms. As such, one could have a torn labrum with mild symptoms.

My point is this: We cannot logically say that Greene hurt his hip and thus he was plunged into a horrific slump. There is no rational way to conclude that he would have such a dramatic drop off. There was no significant trauma. His court movements prove that. The fact that he supposedly hid this injury from the staff prove it as well. But there was a dramatic change in performance at one particular point in time -- when the Fool's Gold comment was made and the offense changed (significantly decreasing the reliance on three point shooting). If this "injury" happened near the beginning of the slump, this was at best minor in nature.

Either he had significant symptoms that would be readily noticeable to others, or not. If he did, then we'd all notice. Or surely the coaching staff and medical staff would notice in games or practice. If he didn't have significant symptoms, then, well, why would his shooting drop off so dramatically?

Here's what Self said at time of the surgery: “It (hip) hurts, but that’s not the problem. The problem is it’s continuing to get worse,” Self said.“He’s had it (bone spurs) for years, and they’ve decided to get it corrected. He’ll be pain-free.”

Of Greene, his dad said, "He said he hurt it but it wasn’t as painful but keeps getting worse,”

Of course, this is what is dad said also, "“Genetically when you are 7-years-old you start to form that ball socket. The ball socket was a tiny bit bigger than they felt it should be, so they shaved it down a bit. He had no bone spurs. It went well. He is in recovery in a good amount of pain. Give it a day and the pain should subside.”

Do you see what is being said? Both Greene's dad and coach Self agree that Greene had a longstanding condition that got repaired. Something he's had "for years." Self's comment clearly makes it appear that is was something other than a traumatic injury. And by the way, I don't worry a lot about the the contradiction between the two on "bone spurs."

And, of course, Self blamed Greene's poor shooting on a "minor concussion", not the hip. Clearly, Self downplayed the hip issue as it related to performance. If not, he would not have pulled the "minor concussion" out of thin air when discussing the hip surgery.

Further, it is important to remember that Greene's hip deal supposedly got progressively worse as the season went on. Both Self and Greene's dad said so. But Greene's dad also says that he got hit "in a game" and that he got hit "in practice." I guess one or the other. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether he had symptoms, and the progression of those symptoms.

This directly contradicts the idea that his performance fell off a cliff due to a traumatic hip injury. Logic says otherwise. He had no outward manifestations that anyone saw, including the medical staff at Kansas. He continued to play all aspects of the game. He continued to practice. And no one noted any injury? That spells minor symptoms at best.

Self's comment supports that -- the problem was that it was "continuing to get worse." This comment was made in April. Greene's comment, via his dad, supports that.

If Greene had a "torn labrum" with significant symptoms, it would have been incredibly obvious to coaches, teammates, fans and most of all, the medical staff. Greene apparently was able to function on all levels without anyone knowing or even suspecting. Why is that?

It's because it wasn't causing him significant distress. That's all. Nothing spectacular. It hurt a little, then progressed to hurting a lot in April. Makes sense.

But my issue is the attempt at the lame excuses. His dad attempting to create an excuse for his poor shooting. Self referring to a "minor concussion." Fans, including some here, simply buying the B.S. that is being served without really challenging the story.

That same article that noted Greene's shot form stated, "Shooting is best done with clear minds." Yes it is. No doubt. It's why Kansas has struggled with the three ball for years.

And, of course, we have the best circumstantial evidence of all -- the entire team (not just Greene) went into a three point shooting slump after 1) the Fool's Gold comment, and after 2) the change in our offense scheme (bad ball) -- which occurred in concert with the Fool's Gold comment.

This wasn't just a Greene issue. It as a team issue. It was a team issue because the leader -- coach Self -- changed the very dynamic of the team. He trivialized a certain aspect of the game. He told the players they couldn't win relying on the three. He actively limited the amount of three point shots that could be taken. He changed everything.

Sam Mellinger noted that, "It is a bizarre and concerning turn for a flawed team whose strengths, in theory, include three-point shooting."

It was bizarre. Perfect word. Completely bizarre. Inexplicable, perhaps -- if there wasn't an explanation.

Kansas was one of the best three point shooting teams in the nation. Greene was perhaps the best three point shooter in the nation. Then it went to hell.

There is only one person with that amount of influence and control of KU hoops to make that happen. Bill Self. Only one person that could affect the entire psyche of the team. Everything we saw on the court fits that narrative. We know the stats, we know that three point attempts plunged, we saw what Self paraded onto the court as an "offense."

Bill Self changed the entire offensive culture of this team in one dramatic swoop. That's why the three point shooting of Brannen Greene and the rest of the team tanked.

I think @Texas-Hawk-10 meant "Because Bill Self is not going to go dream killer on one of his players."

And I thought that when Self made the comment about BG and the NBA. That he was pumping the kid up because he knew where BG sat in the pecking order, but perhaps also saw his potential.

With Greene, I just don't know right now. If Self doesn't place significant value on the three pointer, a player with the three point shot as his primary weapon (logically) would not have much value.

I would also add that UConn also wins conference titles -- they've won 5 since and including 1999.

@DanR My discussion point is not to be confused with program history. UConn is new to that scene. I would ask you, though, just curious, what's your trade off? It was quite in vogue to mock UK because it didn't make the NCAA tourney the year after winning the national championship. What's the trade off?

Try this scenario:

1. Kansas wins the NCAA title in 2016-17.
2. Kansas goes 17-13 and misses the tourney in 2017-18.
3. Kansas makes the tourney and reaches the sweet 16 in 2018-19.
4. Kansas makes the tourney and gets knocked out in the first game in 2019-20.
5. Kansas wins the NCAA title in 2020-21.
6. Kansas makes the tourney and reaches the Elite Eight in 2021-22.
7. Kansas goes 16-14 and misses the tourney in 2022-23.
8. Kansas makes the tourney and get knocked out in the first game in 2023-24.
9. Kansas makes the tourney and reaches Final Four, losing in the semis in 2024-25.
10. Kansas win the NCAA title in 2025-26.
11. Kansas makes the tourney and loses its second game in 2026-27.
12. Kansas goes 18-12 and misses the tourney in 2027-28.
13. Kansas makes the tourney and reaches the sweet 16 in 2028-29.
14. Kansas wins the NCAA title in 2029-30.
15. Kansas makes the tourney and reaches the Elite Eight in 2030-31.
16. Kansas goes 15-15 and misses the NCAA tourney in 2031-32.
17. Kansas makes the tourney and reaches the sweet 16 in 2032-33.

During this 17 game stretch, you also get 5 conference titles and 4 conference tourney titles.

Would you sign up for this right now? I have guaranteed you 4 national championships in the next 17 years. Five Final Fours. Seven Elite Eights. And oh yes, four seasons where we don't make the tourney.

@ParisHawk Don't get me wrong, I think the streaks (NCAA tourney and Big 12) are impressive. Sure I do. But it's just the matter of degree.

But my post was really directed at the mindset that believes KU's record over the last 15 years is more impressive than UConn's. The point @Texas-Hawk-10 was making.

Why can't one say, "Our streaks are great. We're proud of them. But by comparison, what UConn has done since and including 1999 is more impressive."

That doesn't demean our accomplishments. It just puts them in perspective. Sometimes what KU does isn't the best that has been done, that's all.

It just seems to me that we latch on to our accomplishments as if they are more impressive than what other programs have done, simply because we have done it. It seems to me that we latch onto it because it is what we have, not necessarily because it's what we aspire to.

If we missed the NCAA tourney a few times but had 4 nice, shiny rings, everyone would argue why missing the tourney a few times was irrelevant and just a few bumps in the road, or bad luck, or due to injuries -- you name it. We'd rationalize it just like we do now.

We should aspire to greatness. UConn has been greatest in the last 17 years, very close with Duke who has three NCs. Other teams have done it. It can be done.

We are a great program. That is determined over history. Over time, I think most would look at the totality of the programs and say Kansas is greater than UConn. The weight of history overwhelms a 17 year burst. That includes the conference titles, the total wins, the consistency, etc.

So I guess it's like this for me -- would I trade our program for UConn's right now? Of course not. Would I trade the accomplishments since and including 1999? In a minute. Again, the accomplishments -- not the experience, not AFH, not everything that is KU hoops. Just the accomplishments.

Look at what I set our for the next 17 years -- looks pretty darned enticing, doesn't it?

And "no malice" intended.

@jaybate-1.0 You ask the question, "What If Mason, Svi, BG, and Vick Each Average 40% from Trey?"

I have the unequivocal answer: Self would change the offense.

@Hawk8086 I do. I like @nuleafjhawk's video link. If a coach appears calm, handles stressful situations like other situations, and projects confidence -- that impacts the team. Great story about Joe Montana I heard again the other day. In the Super Bowl against the Bengals (2nd time against them), SF was down, 2 minutes left. Montana comes to the huddle and points out John Candy in the stands to his teammates. Players in the huddle said that was exactly what they needed to relax.

@drgnslayr "smearing testosterone cream on their nuts"? I wouldn't try it, I hear they explode.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Well, we live on a different planet. You may value simply getting to the tournament. You may value high tourney seeds. And you may value regular season wins. That may get you all jazzed. Not me. UConn has won four national titles starting in 1999. Your "boom or bust" comment is illogical and near ignorance levels (not trying to be insulting, but did you even look at their tourney results?).

Including 1999, when they won their first title, through 2015, UConn has missed the tourney just four times. So they made the tourney 13 times in 17 season.

This shows the lunacy of our attachment to our little streaks. We are going blindly catapult our program history over others simply because we made the tourney four more times in 17 years? Sounds like something an MU fan might do -- we all get a trophy.

UConn, in those 13 appearances, has played 46 tourney games in the same time period that Kansas has played 55. So they didn't make the tourney four times, yet only played 9 less games than Kansas. Thus in those four seasons, we essentially averaged just a little better than getting to the second round.

Ask yourself this -- this is the crunch question. Since 1999, would you trade simply playing nine tourney games for three more national championships?

Since and including 1999, we have played two or less games in the NCAA tourney 7 times. That means we're eliminated the first weekend. Counting UConn four seasons not making the tourney, they had 8 seasons where they weren't playing past the first weekend (4 where they didn't make, and four where they did but were eliminated). What they heck is the difference?

The only real difference is that UConn was put out of its misery earlier. How much misery did we feel each year we were eliminated in the first weekend? Think about that.

Try UConn having 7 elite eights, just as many as KU has. So, again, UConn made four less tourneys, but has the same number of elite eights.

And think about how three -- count 'em three -- additional NCAA title rings would brighten your day, for the rest of your life? You know it, you'd be wearing a t-shirt boasting about it at least once a week. I would.

Instead, I have a "Ten there, done that" t-shirt in the bottom of my drawer (my wife bought me) that I will never wear. The statute of limitations has run on my 2008 tourney t-shirt.

Any argument attempting to promote KU's hoops record over UConn since and including 1999, or in the last 15 years, is diluting and cheapening the very basis of why Kansas plays the game.

Here we go again. The dreaded program rankings.

And no, no one should ever "think twice" if Self deserves to be criticized. You can either be objective, or avoid criticism. Objective means challenging his decisions and testing the thought process. That objectivity, of course, will land you on Bill Self's side a good majority of the time.

Where Self does deserve criticism is the NCAA failures coupled with the lack of NCAA titles. I have seen where folks have cited Duke's NCAA exits. Sure, but look at the NCAA titles to counterbalance the exits.

On the stats cited, of course, two of the final fours were Roy's, not Self's. That's being objective.

Of course, Roy has won two national titles during the 15 year span used by this article, Self has won one. And three final fours to two. Can't get more objective than that.

Of course, winning percentage is utilized -- and we play in an inferior conference. That's being objective too.

How any ranking system could ever credibly rank Kansas ahead of UConn the past 15 years is beyond me. It's flat stupid. In that time UConn has three national championships. Kansas one. Four final fours and Kansas two. I will never understand the alternative mindset.

@nuleafjhawk said, "You can’t destroy teams all year long and win 30+ games and then get to the tournament and get the deer in the headlights look."

Interesting. The .. butt .. puckers. When did we last see it? At the WUG. Self coached masterfully the entire tournament. We discussed it here during the tourney. Then the butt puckered in the final game. Subs dried up -- the same sub pattern that got him there disappeared. His entire style changed because there was different pressure. And that almost cost us the game. That's choking. Now, we won. My view is all indiscretions are forgiven when you win the ultimate prize, because, ultimately, the goal was achieved. But that's his issue. It always has been. It's failing to make crucial adjustments when situations dictate. It's an inability or refusal to deviate from schematic dogma. It's poor late game management. It's ... the ... butt ... puckering.

These failures are magnified because they are elimination games. That's how it is. When we look at games we should have won -- Bucknell, Bradley, UNI, VCU, Michigan, Stanford, WSU -- it's all the same. Each loss points directly at Self. On the other hand, when we win, we many times don't discuss what Self did that caused us to win the game. Those times are much more frequent.

I think what happens with Self is that when the pressure gets higher, he gets more conservative -- he sticks with the players he trusts, he resorts to the schemes he trusts, and he relies more on the one guy he trusts (himself).

That's been the simple formula that has spelled our premature NCAA doom.

And, of course, many, many times, it's that exact same formula that produces wins.

It's an interesting dilemma.

But I think with a coach that coaches as Self does, it just creates a higher probability of the one game calamity than perhaps there should be -- in situations where it shouldn't happen.

Losing to UCLA, or MSU, or UK -- like @nuleafjhawk said -- those suck, but we can stomach that. But when we lose to inferior teams, that's the issue.

But all we have is 2015-16. That's all that matters now. And ask yourself this, is there any other coach you'd want leading the Jayhawks right now?

There just isn't.

This is the year.

@joeloveshawks Here's a link that has two videos on Bolden. Just scroll down a bit.

So we all agree then, Bolden and Azubuike? I'll let coach Self know.

@drgnslayr I prefer Bolden .. I'll take the guy with the skills over the bulk. But both would work fine! I will be disappointed if we don't get Bolden, no matter who we get. But if we got Azubuike, I wouldn't complain. Not a presumed OAD, which is good. Big, which is good. Agile, which is good. In the recruiting game, as we have discussed, covering ones bases is an absolute necessity.

I admit I may be overly enamored with Bolden, but I just think his skill set translates to some quick impact. He's long, he can score with both hands, etc. Lots of game ready stuff, in my opinion. Perfect for what we need in Self's offense. He keeps creeping up the rankings.

Bolden and Azubuike would be terrific. We have to have two guys. It's a must. Three would be perfect.

What do you think about Azubuike?

@justanotherfan Regarding Mason, I would disagree on the height thing -- how was he not ranked because of his height, and then ranked later (all being at the same height)? Mason was Self's 6th choice, or thereabouts. Heck, Frankamp was listed at 6'0" and in the top 50. Mason was listed at 5'11". Kasey Hill was a top 15 guy at 6'0" that same year. I just don't think the height was that big of a deal. Sherron was listed as 5'11" and ranked top 15.

I really like your take on Herard. That's the sort of analysis that really tells the story on how to project a guy. I agree on the lob test -- that's a good measuring stick. A piece of the puzzle. He does seem athletic to me, but mechanical -- not smooth (you said clunky). His baby hook (right hand only) is just average. Herard would not be a factor in 2016-17, but is a guy to develop so he'd be a rotation guy as a junior/senior, and maybe even as a sophomore. Lots of tools that warrant a scholarship as the 2nd or ideally 3rd big man in the class, as has been discussed.

@drgnslayr On EJ, he did play point in high school and for his AAU team -- I looked into that pretty deeply during the EJ debates. He was also listed as a PG by ESPN. The ESPN summary on EJ mentioned that "Johnson has more upside than any point guard on the west coast." I guess my point is that EJ was a PG coming in who really didn't have that skill set for D-1 (as perhaps you saw at the time). My problem was that I was delusional on EJ. And not to be too contrary this morning, but there are a number of conversions to pitcher in the MLB ↗. Actually, another was Troy Percival, who was a top reliever for many years. Surely the exception, not the rule. Many have tried converting and failed. All just an FYI.

And don't fret the 3 thing with Wayne -- doesn't that really seem to fit him better now that we have seen him at the 2?

@drgnslayr I do think EJ was recruited as a PG. He was listed with Rivals as a PG. I recall a few lengthy debates with @jaybate-1.0 on the other site where I lobbied for EJ to start at PG over TT, and cited his PG credentials. I felt EJ did well during TT's suspension, too. But I offered a concession on that debate a few years ago. EJ was/is/always has been a 2.

However, really to your point, it was obvious after EJ got significant court time at the PG spot, he was exposed. That's what coaches need to isolate not only after game action, but in practice. Self failed there.

In hindsight, if EJ would have simply been given the 2 spot his sophomore year and left alone, I think his overall body of work would have been much more impressive. And our team would have been better off in 2010-11 and 2012-13. Really, I think there is a decent chance that we have a national championship in 2011 instead of that horrible loss to VCU.

@joeloveshawks On Tyshawn, he really only played well in the 2nd half of his senior season (I simply could not stand the guy, or his game, until that turnaround, except for the first 12 games or so his junior season). I might think that a 70ish player would do at least that, if not playing solid by his junior season. But being say a top 5 point guard by your senior season might be a reasonable trajectory. I can definitely see the merit in your argument, though.

@elpoyo So you're telling me that the top recruits don't get all goo-goo over the Big 12 streak? They don't dream of hanging another Big 12 banner in AFH? Heresy. Pure heresy.

@Makeshift That is the trump card, isn't it? Mason -- no rank Frank.

But the rankings are our best guide, right? They have proven over and over again to be the best indicator of immediate contribution and ceiling. There are exceptions, for sure.

Mason is (maybe) our Trey Burke. We deserve that.

Really, though, what low ranked player ever really exceeded his ranking under Self, other than Mason? Probably Morningstar? Possibly Reed?

Traylor sucking is right in line with his non-ranking and Lucas is at best pedestrian. Other guys like Releford ascended pretty much in line with his ranking, being a force in the latter half of his tenure here.

Schnider, as you mentioned, as the 2nd or 3rd big, is fine, but not as the #1 dude in the post in this class.

Bolden and Schnider. A reasonable wish list.

Didn't know if anyone saw the post at kusports.com in the Bolden article. A poster mentioned the relationship Avery Johnson has with a Texas billionaire, Kenny Troutt. He said he was the link to Julius Randle that got Randle to UK. There was a link ↗ to an article.

Thought this was interesting and might partially explain Bolden's sudden interest in 'Bama, together with the AAU coach connection.

Interesting that today we see what coach Bill Self says on the "innocent kid" thing: "I know with others we've had and other schools have had guys that it takes time. This is certainly one that is no fault of his. He goes to a school for 3 1/2 years and finds out after he graduates that, 'Hey, we could have a potential problem.' Hopefully it can be rectified."

Hmmm ... sounds like coach Self contradicted someone.

@Texas-Hawk-10 - You said, "KU needs at least 3 bigs in this class and if Schnider is the best big KU lands, that’s a problem. Schnider is someone that would be good as a second or third big for the class as he’s not someone who can start immediately and may not be able to contribute immediately, but he’s still worth pursuing."

I think you are exactly right.

The key is, as well, that we don't sign a Traylor or Lucas type -- period. As @drgnslayr said, a Schnider type over a Lucas type. Again, under no circumstances should we sign a Traylor or Lucas type. Those experiments were much as the "rankings matter" crowd anticipated when they happened. The signings were largely a waste of time, and a waste of scholarship resources.

Traylor was a desperation signing, as was Lucas.

Who knows, if we didn't have either Lucas or Traylor, we might have a more highly talented post player in the fold. Maybe Pascal Chukwu. Scholarships are precious. Who knows what else the signings of Lucas and Traylor cost us? Other players, wins, advancement in the NCAA tourney? Speculation.

It is not speculation to say that Traylor and Lucas are both D-1 players. But it's not speculation to say that they would be a better fit at a non-elite program.

And to @Texas-Hawk-10's point -- Let's sign Schnider. Let's use the power of Kansas to eliminate the balance of the competition. Let's get a more talented post player too, like Bolden. And then let's snag another. Roster spots abound. Scholarships are available. Self needs to cash in the chips.

@BeddieKU23 Last year?

@BeddieKU23 He was ice in the WUG. Hit some big shots. Definitely looks like a freshman that could play now. Think about this possibility -- we could have all of our perimeter players back in 2016-17, which means he'd still be in the logjam as a sophomore.

@jaybate-1.0 -- hilarious!

ATT got so expensive, we switched .. got tired of continually calling to get the rates reduced. I stayed out of it because I didn't want the KU thing to influence, and I let my wife decide on the new provider. We ended up going with Comcast because of the price. What funny is my wife didn't know that Comcast was the one that had the channel with the KU games (TW sports channel). When she told me her decision, I mentioned it to her. The next day, she had to call Comcast for something and asked about it to see if it was included. The service rep didn't know what she was talking about (and further, when my wife talked to them initially, they didn't even bring it up either).

So .... I don't have to go to BWW to watch the games anymore. That's good.

@BeddieKU23 You said, "I also believe Vick has the highest ceiling on the team."

That is a huge compliment. It appears that you might be giddy?

@jaybate-1.0 Sorry for my vagueness .. I was referring to BG transferring, not Vick.

@jaybate-1.0 @joeloveshawks -- Vick would be nice at the 5th perimeter spot, to get some reps as a freshman. Honestly, I thought we'd get word he was transferring before school started. I know there is no hint of that .. so my gut was wrong again.

@Statmachine I think he will be ahead of BG. I struggle to see how BG has any different role than he had last season. Svi just has more diversity to his game, and seems to fit Self's stated preference to having ball handling on the floor. BG as the designated 3 point assassin seems to be the only role that he would fit, ahead of other guys. I certainly could be wrong.

While I love three point shooting, I am really pumped about the idea of Selden at the 3, Graham and Mason starting, with Svi first off the bench. All four shoot shoot the three competently. And with BG in that three point shooting role, I wouldn't trade our back court with anyone in the country.

@JayHawkFanToo Seriously, where do people like you come from? You're all talk. I do work in the private sector. I own my own firm. And I do micromanage details. It's what's made me successful. When my career relies on my professional work product, I micromanage it. But of course, the idea of micromanagement might be too complicated for you.

Now, if you're someone who comes from a background of working on team projects, that would explain your perspective. And it makes sense in that dynamic. But when you're the leader, the CEO, the one in charge, things change a bit.

Micromanaging doesn't mean you don't take advice, or rely upon others. It means you attend to the important details yourself. And you control the details.

Bill Self, for sure, is a micromanager. That is obvious. Watch him during the game. Who calls the plays? Who runs the huddles? Heck, he can barely give his players freedom to run things outside of the offense. He's the king. Have you ever seen one of his practices? I have. He runs everything. This in contrast to some other coaches we see. And it's not a fault all the time. I am quite sure that Bill Self is well versed in compliance issues.

How about Bill Snyder? He's a famous micromanager, even ensuring that butter is heated to the right temperature so it will spread easily at team meals.

So, when Self's on his private plane hopping between recruiting destination, he has no time to be abreast of recruiting rules and regs? That is ridiculous. And it is ridiculous to suggest that Bill Self is too busy to deal with this stuff. Yes, I want my basketball coach to know the rules. I agree that you have to rely upon folks to help, of course. And you have to delegate many things. But when it comes to your livelihood, you better be the one that knows what he/she is doing. Because the buck stops with you. Some people have never had to deal with that in their professional life.

I question whether you are correct on this point -- you say that "the NCAA will not disapprove a class that was listed as approved on its site retroactively." You cited the portal that I had provided a few weeks back.

How do you know this? At Diallo's school, wasn't that all supposedly ok'd and now the NCAA is investigating if there were issues with the coursework? It doesn't make sense to me the that the NCAA would say "ok" and because the portal said heading in that year the class was ok, it is still ok. It looks like there are many reasons a course can be found to be inadequate.

And this site is a guide.

When you go to American Heritage's portal, it says this, "This program is under an extended evaluation period to determine if it meets the academic requirements for NCAA cleared status. During this evaluation period, the courses listed below may be subject to further review on a case-by-case basis, which will require additional academic documentation."

That means that all of the courses they say are ok are under review.

And then the site specifically says, "The list of NCAA courses, and courses contained within, are maintained as a guide for prospective student-athletes seeking NCAA initial-eligibility. The list of approved courses does not, nor is intended to, signify accreditation, certification, approval or endorsement of any high school or specific courses by the NCAA or NCAA Eligibility Center and is subject to change at any time and without notice.Core course information included on this Web site is provided for guidance purposes only and should not be solely relied on as an indication of NCAA initial-eligibility. Certification of a prospective student-athlete is case-specific, and the Eligibility Center has the authority to determine in its sole discretion whether the prospective student-athlete has met all criteria."

Clearly (except maybe to you) this is obvious. Please, tell me how you don't concede that you are wrong? Think hard. You said, "You posted a link to the NCAA site where every HS is listed and a list of approved and not approved classes at each school is readily available."

You posted this as the gospel. That it was that simple.

But you didn't read the fine print.

Further, the portal of Diallo's school only lists that the courses are good -- "ok" through 2011-12.

The course work is now under "review". And it would seem that review could spell possible eligibility problems after the fact, meaning after the time he took classes that appeared ok on this list. And the NCAA does not even represent that this portal approves coursework.

This is the exact point I made, the one you evaded. You think because a course is listed then it is approved and that decision can't be changed. That is silly. Again, the portal says through 2011-12. And it says it is a guide and NOT certification of any course. My point was that upon review, a course could be determined inadequate. That's exactly what the review is about, and why it is concerning.

To prove my point further, go to the portal. Click on "show all denied courses." You'll then hit the drop down that shows the "denied reasons code description." You'll see that there are courses now denied because 'the course is taught below the regular academic level." There are other items too, most all of which could have been entered after an academic review.

The point is that a kid really could be innocent in all of this. I realize you believe you were an extraordinary 17 year old. Some kids may not be to your extraordinary level. But even extraordinary kids can't place reliance on a portal that is a guide.

This is why I said a kid could be "innocent." Would Diallo be "innocent" under that scenario? If he thought everything was good, but then it wasn't?

And, again, if your argument here is correct, then you lose the "Bill Self knew or should have known" discussion. Because the info you cite in the would have been definitive.

On the release, of course, you didn't mention the release because "we both know (it) is an option." Sure. Whatever you say. And you argue just to argue now asking how many kids "thousands of miles away from home" get their parents input. Gotcha. I'm sure none. I'm sure they just shut their parents out, and their parents are disinterested. Give me a break.

It was you just a few weeks ago arguing that privacy laws prevented coaches from getting school info, and then you were enlightened on the release issue. You didn't even say thank you. Now it's old hat to you -- so much so, that we are to assume that you are considering that when you are ranting about how parents can't get information on their 18+ year old kid's schooling. I would dare say that an 18 year old kid denying his parents access to school info is the significant exception, rather than rule. But I'm sure you'll disagree with that too.

@JayHawkFanToo A few of your topics -

Yes, I do expect Self to be an expert in compliance. When your career, reputation, and success rely upon the eligibility of your players, you better know -- if you don't, as many don't, you are placing your fate in the hands of others. I would micromanage that aspect of the job, no doubt. And Self might actually do that anyway.

I do think you have skirted the issue I raised, which refutes (in part) your point -- what do kids/parents do when a class or curriculum is, post-fact, deemed inadequate due to irregularities (outdated course materials, etc.)? But of course, that could apply to a coach, too.

When a kid is 18, he signs a release for parents, right? This is the same thing you failed to mention when you tried to argue a while back that a coach couldn't know the academics of a player. I mentioned the ease of a release, and what my son signed during recruiting. Same here. My daughter just signed a release for med records for my wife and I. Easy. Of course, if a kid wants to shut his parents/guardians out, he/she can do that too.

And I think you know from my prior posts that I won't blame Self one bit on this. If I were aware of Diallo's issues that are present now, in May when he signed, I would have signed him too. Timing is everything. November? Not a chance. In May when we are essentially down to the last guy on the market? Easy choice.

@JayHawkFanToo

1. The "opinion" thing is because you have freaked out when you get challenged on something you claim to be just your opinion. And like this post, you post a bunch of stuff that sure sounds like you're saying it is being stated or argued as fact. It's as black and white as I've seen in a post for a while. But I do agree in large part, except in one area.

2. You put this in bold, "There has to be personal responsibility and accountability assigned to the student and the people advising them." You do realize that in your initial post, you didn't say anything about "the people advising them", right? You just said there were no innocent kids. That was the premise of my reply -- that there could be innocent kids. That you said very definitively .. just your opinion and all .. that there are "no innocent kids." Now you say, "Like I said, in this day and age for a student athlete or family or guardian to claim they did not know is disingenuous ... " You didn't say that. I raised the issue of their parents/guardians being the ones at fault after your statement that there were "no innocent kids" and now you have moderated your position. That is good to see, and it's interesting to see that you act as if that's what you were saying all along.

3. As to kids/parents/guardians knowing what is required for coursework. I do agree with you there. That is something that is readily available.

4. I also agree that when kids go to these basketball factories, you kind of know what you are getting.

5. But as for the kids, it's not that easy. I think you need to look step further. As my example noted, a class at a school could be deemed inadequate if it has improper materials, for example. Very hard for a kid to be vigilant on that. And, of course, it's not as simple as taking the classes that have been approved. At Diallo's school, the investigation just began in the late spring, after Diallo was done with course work. What warning did Diallo have that his coursework might not be up to par? I don't know. But I certainly can assume that in many of these situations the school drops the ball, not the kids or parent/guardian. In that case, I might say the kid is innocent. Further, it's hard to place blame on a 16 or 17 year old kid that goes to school where his parents tell him, and takes the classes he's told to take.

6. But really, just go to a "regular" high school and this won't be an issue. As you said, smoke cigarettes and don't be surprised if you get cancer.

Ok -- now another topic. Does your logic apply to coach Self? He is certainly as smart and well informed on these basketball factories as anyone, right? That's what I meant by Self either "knew or should have known." If you can sit here and say it's as obvious as getting cancer from cigarettes, why isn't Bill Self culpable?*

@JayHawkFanToo I agree with you on the NCAA, and I'm glad to loan you the "on that wall" analogy that I have used with coach Self. I don't charge a fee.

I do understand this is "just your opinion", so I'm not sure that makes it ok for discussion or not.

But I'll test the waters here. You say there are "no innocent kids here."

I completely disagree. How is a kid supposed to know that coursework he dutifully completes at a school his parent, parents, or guardian has placed him is deficient in accordance with NCAA standards?

How might he know, for example, that the textbook and materials in his English class are out of date? Or that the school doesn't make sure the class meets for the requisite number of hours? Or other items like that.

I agree we should not blame the NCAA. But I do think in certain situations, you have an NCAA doing their job, an innocent kid who did his coursework, and a parent/parents/guardian who are culpable.

@drgnslayr @Lulufulu Good posts. Another player that has met our expectations (easily) is Frank Mason. Maybe Frank should have been rated #12?

@truehawk93 You said, "I don’t quite understand how or why Self and KU would waste anytime on a player that is even remotely doubtful."

I generally agree. But on Diallo, remember the timing. Was there any other player that could have helped us in 2015-16 that we passed on instead of Diallo? We took Diallo at the last minute, basically, with nothing else on the table.

@jaybate-1.0 did a nice job tackling this topic in a separate thread.

Personally, I don't care for the uncertainty. But as long as a kid like Diallo doesn't cost us another good player, why not take the chance? There is something to be said for the distraction, and if he suddenly becomes eligible in December, the potential for disrupting chemistry.

Personally, I just wish we had pinned down a non-OAD like Tyler Davis in the early signing period instead. But Self doesn't care much about my wishes.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Coleby instead of Bolden. Makes more sense.

I really don't see how I took your comments out of context -- you said, ""Do we really want another Wayne Selden? A top 10 recruit that was a consensus OAD player coming out of HS that is still around as a junior doesn’t exactly speak well for KU’s ability to develop guards."

You questioned whether we would want another Selden based on the fact that (you claim) he was a consensus OAD player that is still around as a junior. My response was based specifically on your comment.

Not to be too detailed here, but although you've said it a couple of times, Selden was not a top 10 player -- he was #12 by Rivals, and #14 by ESPN. Not near the status of Selby and X. Those are bad comparisons. Selby and X would better compare to Wiggins (top 5 guys). You might be the only one lumping Selden together with Selby and X. I don't know. Others might agree with you.

Selden would actually compare, rankings wise, better with Mario Chalmers, who left after his junior season -- Selden and Chalmers were both ranked #12 by Rivals.

Has Selden been the player we hoped? No. And that may be your ultimate point. But I think that a slightly inflated ranking, and some late OAD discussion, adjusted our expectations a bit. If he has a strong junior season .. say 90% of what we saw at the WUG .. his track would be nearly perfect for a player ranked outside OAD range. And really, #12/14 is outside OAD most of the time.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Did you actually just say, "Bolden just doesn’t impress as a player ... "?

I just don't have a clue as to what you are saying. He "doesn't impress as a player"?

Can you enlighten all of us common folk as to what is so unimpressive, I mean from a guy that can score with both left and right hands in the post?

And regarding Selden, I'm sorry, but that is really an outrageous statement. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I can't even comprehend your comment.

Did you see Selden's outside shot when he arrived at campus? It was horrible. He pulled the ball back over his head, and he had a painfully slow release. Now, after a complete remake, he has the kind of jumpshot that Jeff Van Gundy commented last season looked NBA ready. We know Selden was over ranked. That seemed apparent relatively quickly. As you may recall, he made quick assent in the rankings. He was probably more like at 25-30 guy. I think we had a discussion on that during his freshman season. His development, if he makes a leap this season, is perhaps what you would expect from such a player.

Now I've never been a big Selden defender. I thought he should have been removed from the starting lineup last season to change things up a bit. I think Self did miscast Selden as a 2 guard. It was painfully apparent that the guy couldn't dribble a lick. And Self furthered the myth by using Selden and "point guard" in the same sentence a few times.

But that has nothing to do with Selden. Your judgment on Selden is based really on being 12 instead of 30.

But you don't want another Selden? I cannot even fathom that based on just two seasons.

The WUG has foretold further assent by Selden. Anyone disagree? Anyone wish Selden weren't on our roster right now? My goodness ... Selden is now the exact type of player we want on the floor for Kansas.

Now we see the competition. Duke is making a hard run at Marques Bolden. Right now, this is Self's biggest recruiting challenge. Bolden visited Duke and of course, Duke is perceived to have the recruiting momentum. It seems like a two team race. Quite frankly, I was a little concerned with the lack of news on the Kansas front regarding Bolden.

But today we woke up to the news that Bolden just announced that he will officially visit Kansas in September, then visit unofficially in for Late Night. That feels better.

Here's what Bolden said today at kusports.com ↗.

Bolden told Jayhawkslant.com he wants “to get a closer look at Kansas. I talked to coach (Jerrance) Howard and he suggested that I come at a time when there weren’t any other recruits and then I’ll visit for Late Night unofficially when all the other recruits are on hand as well. I’m just looking forward to talking to coach (Bill) Self and really just getting a feel for Kansas and everything like that,” Bolden added. “Kansas is a very serious option for me.”

This seems to demonstrate how serious KU is in its pursuit of Bolden -- having him in by himself. This seems like a terrific move. Has to make the kid feel like a major priority. But it's also a bit concerning, really, that Howard is the lead recruiter (if that's the case). Howard appears to be our weak link.

Bolden is the "must get" anchor of our recruiting class. The guy we need to land early. It would be a very difficult defeat to lose him to Duke. Self has to use every bit of recruiting magic to make sure this happens. This is kid that has been perceived as a KU lean for quite some time now. The type of kid that we have to get.

Our roster for 2016-17 has Lucas, Coleby, and Bragg as the only likely post players -- Diallo either being a OAD or a NAD (none and done) -- though we remain optimistic. Bolden continues to be our most important recruiting piece. If we land Bolden, we are assured to have a competent front line. We are also assured that we will not be put in a position of extreme need as we head into the late signing period. But Kansas certainly needs two post players in this class, no doubt.

Any chance we can get Adidas to simply make the kid his own shoe right now?

I am also interested in Schnider Herard and how Bolden impacts the pursuit of Herard. Clearly, Bolden would be the preference ... but could we get both? Or is Herard really a back up plan and not a real target given their position overlap? A possible scenario is that if Bolden won't commit, we would take Herard. It seems unlikely that we would get both -- neither seems like the "high" in the Self "high-low." The both seem like the "low." And with Bragg on the roster, a likely 2-3 year player, the 4 spot might be out of play for a couple of years after this season anyway.

But why not? There's enough PT to go around, and Herard is a guy that will surely need at least three years to get develop to get to the next level, if not a full four. If we could land Bolden and Herard, that could give us four solid post guys (with Bragg and Coleby), for the following two seasons, all without the need for a presumed OAD. That's a good thing. And Bolden, being a guy that is a likely two and done, would leave the spot for Herard. I'm sold.

And let's note this too .. Self didn't take Eubanks. While some us were trying to compare Vick, Eubanks, and Mack and suggest who was the better player, Self took Vick. We don't know exactly how everything went down. But Vick committed in May to KU, and Eubanks then to Alabama in June. We do know Self didn't sign Eubanks. Maybe Self knew the issues on Eubanks? Regardless, Self gets credit for not having this fiasco (Eubanks) upsetting our late summer discussions.