🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@JayHawkFanToo
It looks like UK had two seniors (Hood and Polson) so that's two scholarships open right there. Right now, they have four guys signed - #8 Trey Lyles, #11 Karl Anthony Towns, #30 Devin Booker and #33 Tyler Ulis. If Young and Randle depart, they are right at their limit.

I do think this changes the Myles Turner recruitment. UK really doesn't have a scholarship for him unless someone else leaves. This actually may give a school like Oklahoma State the edge. With UK and KU both looking like they are full on the recruiting side (especially since KU is looking to grab a PG) Turner could end up anywhere.

This isn't much of a surprise. I figured once Hood declared, Parker wouldn't be far behind.

The real interesting thing is what is going on in Lexington. So far Cauley-Stein has said that he's staying. I figure Poythress, Johnson and Lee will all be back as well. I'm assuming Randle leaves. Also assuming Young is gone. But if the Harrison twins come back, that team looks awfully stout.

Obviously KU is set, but I figure there will be several more expected declarations and at least one or two surprises.

The Big 10 gets a lot of credit for name recognition and history. Ohio State wasn't that strong, but their perceived strength added credibility to the Big 10. Indiana was pretty weak, but again, their perceived strength in a bad year made it seem like the league was better than it probably was. Michigan, Michigan State and Wisconsin were really all the league had, but you could make enough noise about other perceived powers (OSU, Iowa, Indiana early in the year, etc.) that people just sort of assume they are strong.

The Big 12 doesn't have that benefit. If K-State isn't good, nobody is going to assume that they are. Same with basically the rest of the league, except for maybe Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Iowa State. The Big 12 doesn't get a name recognition bump, so it is assumed that the league isn't as strong if KU isn't in the F4.

How coaches handle injuries is a huge pet peeve of mine, especially for non-professional players.

Playing hurt in high school or college may endear you to a coach, but it could have longterm effects, either on your personal health and well being, or on your future earning potential should you be fortunate enough to have the talent to play professionally.

Perhaps this goes back to my own personal experience. In high school I had a pretty significant high ankle sprain. I probably should have been on the shelf for at least 2-3 weeks, but, because we already had lost a couple other starters to injuries, I was asked to play. Being a team player, I agreed and played on an ankle that was roughly the size of a grapefruit for basically two weeks. I finally started getting healthy and guess what - I was benched in favor of the guys that had been sitting out because I had not been playing at the top of my game due to the injury because I could barely run or jump.

If I had to do it all over, I would sit for at least a week, probably two in order to get healthy. There was no reward for "gutting it out." I just provided a bridge until some guys got healthy, then fell out of the rotation for a month, even though I was healthy and playing well by that time. Still, my coach pointed to some of my early season performances that were uneven as a reason for cutting my minutes (one of the reasons I haven't spoken to him in almost 15 years).

I think guys should sit if they aren't healthy, especially early in the season. Playing when you're dinged up in October won't help you, because you aren't going to get better playing or practicing every day. Hopefully Selden hasn't caused any lasting damage to his knees by playing basically the entire season on a bad wheel.

@truehawk93

What's the value of a complex system, really? Does it benefit KU that Self's high low is more sophisticated than Calipari's Dribble Drive?

Maybe a better question is - what is the point of the system? Should the system produce aesthetically pleasing basketball? Should the system produce winning basketball? Should the system highlight the players? or the coaches? Should the system produce a particular style of play?

I think the point of the system is to win basketball games. I also think that college systems should be easy enough to pick up in six weeks (roughly the amount of time you have between the start of practice and games) and mastered in three months (the time from start of practice to conference season). If the system is more complex than that, you are basically wasting a season. Freshmen (even non OADs) no longer automatically redshirt, so there is no real benefit from having a system so sophisticated that a freshman cannot pick it up easily.

You have to remember, even if you don't have OADs, you will experience 20%-30% turnover every single year in college basketball. Wasting a year of production is really not an option because you can never get that year back.

The question when you ponder OAD or no OAD is whether you want to maximize the potential of each team, or build to a potential championship every three or four years.

If you go the system route, you can have a potential title contender every 3-5 years. Look at what KU has done since 1988. 1991-1993. Then they didn't have another potential run until 1996-1998. From there, 2002-2004. Then 2007 and 2008. 2010-2012. We have one title in that stretch, because when you wait for the system to manifest itself, you may only have one or two chances and there's no guarantee you will make it.

In a lot of ways, winning a national title is like winning the World Series of Poker. You don't play to win the title, you play to make it to the final table so you have a chance to win the title. In college basketball, you're playing to get to the Elite 8. Occasionally an upstart team will go on a run (George Mason, VCU, etc.) but notice that those names change from year to year, just like the upstarts that run to the final table change from year to year.

The thing is, I don't want KU to play for hoping to make one run every few years, because that isn't going to bring titles. Every year there will be several teams with a chance to win it all - probably 4-6 teams. I remember back on the old site that will not be named, I used to do a thing called "Who can win it all." There were almost always 3-4 teams that could be considered favorites and another 2-3 teams with an outside shot. If you play to be in that group once every three years, the percentages say you probably won't win more than one title every 25 years or so because its unlikely that every time you get into that group, you will be able to put everything together for your run. There will be years like 1997, injuries like this year, needing a great shooter (Steph Curry) to miss and a great shooter (Mario Chalmers) to make like in 2008.

I'm sure Michigan felt like they could get back to the F4 this year. But Harrison knocked them out.

There's a reason that Izzo only has one title. His teams are always good, but they haven't been quite good enough to break through.

And then there's the issue of development. Part of the reason that guys are ranked as high as they are is because of their presumed ceiling. For every Tyshawn Taylor that vaults from the 70s into an NBA draft pick, there are guys like Mark McLaughlin, who was ranked one spot ahead of Taylor at 76. He finished his career averaging 27 points per game this year - at Division 2 Central Washington University. Could KU have gone to the national title game with Mark McLaughlin? You never know how guys will develop, especially as you get lower in the rankings.

DeAndre Daniels is another good example. He's been a disappointment at UConn throughout his career. But the fact that he was a top 10 recruit means that he has some serious basketball skills, as evidenced by the fact he dropped 27-10 in the Sweet 16, 12-8 in the Elite 8 and 20-10 in the national semifinal. That's a top 10 recruit playing like a top 10 recruit. Or Alex Poythress on the other side during the title game. He has been a disappointment at Kentucky, but he's an extremely valuable college player off the bench.

Even the presumed OADs that are disappointments usually turn into valuable players. A miss on a top 10 player means he stays four years and is at least a good rotation player. A miss on a guy below 50 means you may have a guy that can't play at a high major school.

First off, I look at Newman and I love his abilities. Great bounce, nice explosion, can get shots for himself and others.

The PG position has changed. This isn't 1974, where the PG walked the ball up the floor and passed it to the wing or into the post. This is the era where the PG pushes the ball, penetrates the defense and can either score, dump it to a big or kick it out for a three. UConn has won 2 titles in the last four years with a PG that could do just that. Louisville won a title last year with two guys doing that. UNC won the 2009 title with a PG doing that. That's 4 of the last six titles centered around a slash and kick style system.

Graham could be a nice addition, and he won't be an OAD. The one thing I am concerned about is his lack of vertical explosion. He's a blur with the ball and has great moves on the floor. However, for a slasher, he doesn't get ideal explosion. There's a notable difference between him and Newman when it comes to getting off the floor. Obviously, Newman is the ideal, but there's something to be said for that level of athleticism.

Looking at Watson, the problem would be that he would have to sit out, and even then, how substantial an upgrade is he from what we currently have. Watch him and tell me that you couldn't see Frank Mason being that type of player at a non major D1 school. If we are going to get someone, it needs to be an upgrade.

As for Phillip, I can't find any video of him, but I know that Independence has done a good job of producing some good transfer talent throughout the years. He could be an interesting find, especially since he would add some size.

The most interesting thing about all of this is what it means for Naadir and either Mason or Frankamp. If Self adds a PG, particularly if its either Graham or Phillip, that probably means Tharpe is done at KU. There's also the possibility that if that happens either Mason or Frankamp may transfer due to the numbers/position crunch caused by an additional PG on the roster.

The Conner question is something that will be interesting to watch all summer.

I'm not surprised Conner played well against Stanford, to be honest. Remember, Stanford was a team that did not play a true PG. That's the type of team I would expect Conner to do well against. The question for him is, over the course of the season, can he handle the Marcus Foster's of the world hounding him defensively (and having to chase them around on the other end). That's an answer we don't have yet.

We saw with Naadir this year that the increase in minutes exposed several of his flaws, just as losing Tyshawn exposed EJ the year before. My worry with Conner is that he may be a guy that is perfect in small doses, but could be exposed if we try to expand his role too much. Of course, you really can't determine that until you start expand a player's role, but that could be a concern, especially since our progress next year could be directly determined by how our PG situation unfolds.

I think Oubre is going to really shoot up the draft boards, which doesn't bode well for him being in Lawrence more than one season. He's just developing so quickly and with his size and length, he could be ready for the NBA this time next year. He's closing in on 6-7 now, and with another year, could be that tall.

He's also been moving up the boards very steadily in the high school rankings. He debuted in the rankings in the 60's in the Scout rankings and has moved all the way up to 6. He's had a similar climb in the Rivals rankings. I'd tie most of that to his size. A 6-4 guy with his skills could be a very solid college player. A 6-8 guy with those same skills could be an NBA starter. And his frame looks like it could add 15 pounds of muscle with no problem.

As for Alexander, as I've said before, I believe he's in Lawrence two years, because as @joeloveshawks observed, his offensive game just isn't far enough advanced to go to the NBA at this point. The power game should work nicely in college, but he will need to add something to go to the next level. That probably means 2 years in Lawrence, possibly 3.

@globaljaybird
Its not just the money on the front end. It's the money throughout the career that is at issue. I did a comparison between the careers of Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace (picks 4 and 5 in 1995). Garnett's last contract was much bigger than the final contract of Wallace's career, because Garnett was 2 years younger than Wallace. At the end of your career, being 34 is much different than being 36. It affects your free agency earnings because if you are getting peak years (years 26-31) people will pay a premium for those years, vs. paying for 2 peak years and some declining years. It could be worth $10-$15m at the end of his career, ignoring the $3m it is worth on the front end.

@DanR

Because most of Michigan's points are from their most recent seasons, they wouldn't fall too far. Because all of those things happened more than 15 years ago, they would lose about 5 points and fall to around where Syracuse was.

The reason I don't adjust for vacated seasons is simple - there's no way to adjust how other teams did based on that. In 1993 (the vacated season) UofM beat UCLA in the round of 32 and Kentucky in the national semifinal. Should those school's scores be adjusted? Since only the Final Four was vacated in 1992, should UofM get credit for an Elite 8 appearance instead, while Ohio State is elevated to Final Four status? The games happened. There were winners and losers.

As one of the Fab Five members said in the ESPN 30 for 30 "You can't take away what we did." And its true. Others can choose to ignore it or asterisk it, but it happened, so I credited them for it.

I doubt Cal leaves. He has a pretty secure job at UK and the Lakers are currently a mess, with little chance to change that in the future given their salary cap situation.

If Cal were to leave, I would bet it would be to a job that has him coaching some of his former players - New Orleans comes to mind as a possible landing spot should he decide to ply his trade in the pros.

@jaybate 1.0

It's tough to weight the infractions. For example, should KU's 1988 title be weighted down because KU was put on probation afterwards? If so, how much. Should 1987 or 1986 also be downgraded?

Should Duke be penalized for Corey Maggette even though they were never formally punished?

How do you handle UConn's title this year coming off APR? And the 2011 title?

I'm not sure I'm smart enough to figure out any kind of way to weight those things. I prefer to just judge the things that are easy to see - what happened on the court.

So here are the findings prior to including conference titles (either tournament or regular season, as some of that information is going to be difficult to come by).

1. Kentucky - 68.5
2. North Carolina - 49.75
3. Louisville - 49.625
4. UConn - 45.375
5. UCLA - 44.75
6. Kansas - 42.375 (tied, KU gets the upper hand by having more points in the last three years).
7. Duke - 42.375 (tied)
8. Michigan - 31
9. Ohio State - 30.875
10. Michigan State - 29.375
11. Syracuse - 25
12. Indiana - 22.625
13. Arizona - 20
14. Georgetown - 14
15. Oklahoma - 12.25

Some things of note:
- Indiana isn't really a blue blood according to this list. The fact that they haven't had much success in the last 10 years kills them in this system. Only 3.75 of their points have been amassed over the last decade.

• UConn is boosted by their two recent titles. That's 30 of their points. They also are helped by the fact that they have been a fairly consistent tournament participant throughout history.

• Kentucky pulls away from the field in just about every category. Most title points, most Runner up points, plenty of F4 and E8 points and in the field fairly regularly when they weren't going deep into the tournament.

• The lack of overall titles drags KU's number down. Even with the recent title, KU trails all of the multiple champions except MSU in that category. Since I weighted championships pretty heavily, that hurts.

• Louisville is a blue blood. They have the history and the recent success to back that up.

• UCLA is in jeopardy of having an Indiana type fall. Most of their points are tied to their titles. They only have 10.5 points in the last decade (basically the same value Michigan got from their title game appearance last year). If they don't right the ship in Westwood soon, they will start to see some of those Big 10 teams pass them.

• Michigan State, Ohio State and Michigan are about as close as it can get. I find it ironic that 0.125 points is all that separates Michigan and Ohio State. Michigan has the last two seasons to thank for jumping ahead of OSU.

• The gap between Kentucky and everyone else is surprising, because even if you took out the weightings, UK would still be ahead of everyone because they keep going to F4s, while UCLA has not had sustained success over the last 20 years.

@JRyman

I didn't take away points for missing the tournament or scandals for a pretty basic reason - those things don't resonate in the memory. For instance, Florida missed the tournament in 2008 and 2009. That doesn't stick in the memory like their back to back titles do.

I didn't count scandals for the same reason. UConn was suspended from the postseason because of APR last year. They won titles in 2011 and 2014. Which sticks out more? 5 years from now, will people remember 2 titles in 4 years or the year they were suspended for APR?

When it comes to national prominence, missing the tournament doesn't make much difference because in our memories, we assume that the big time programs - KU, UK, Duke, UNC, Indiana, Louisville, UCLA, UConn, Georgetown, Syracuse, OSU, Michigan, Arizona, etc. are in the field every year anyway. Maybe they aren't getting deep into the tournament, but our memory tells us they are there, even if they missed a year here or there.

I have no idea what the results of my system will be, or where KU will rank. I'm pretty sure when I finish I will find the flaws here - for instance, I am already trying to decide if the conference tournament should be worth half the regular season tournament (because it's easier to get hot for a weekend) or the same because its more likely that people will see you win the conference title outside your region. Results still to follow, hopefully later today or early tomorrow.

I would rather think of things in terms of national prominence. So how do you measure national prominence. I am going to attempt to do a project over the next day or two with the following system.

Things that have happened in the previous three years are the most valuable. Things that happened 4-6 years ago are half as valuable as the most recent events. Things that happened 7-10 years ago are half as valuable as that. Things that happened more than 10 years ago are half as valuable as that.

A national championship is worth 20 points in my scale (which means a title this year is worth 20, but a title 15 years ago is only worth 2.5). Recent greatness is more valuable than long ago greatness. A title game appearance is worth 10 points (after all, nobody makes t-shirts saying "national finalist"). A Final Four appearance is worth 8. An Elite 8 appearance is worth 4. Everything else is worth 1 point (Sweet 16, Round of 32, Making the tournament, Conference title, conference tournament title, number 1 seed).

So why weight it like that? Well, TV is the name of the game. Simply put, most fans watch their team during the season, and their conference. A few hoops junkies will watch more games than that, but for most, they watch their team and that's it. So nationally, conference stuff isn't that important. Even the tournament isn't that strong an indicator of national prominence. For most major conference programs, making the tournament isn't really a huge cause for celebration. I reward the things that stick out. Number one seeds get special note in the field, so they get a point, but just because you were a number 1 seed in 1992 doesn't make you prominent today. You can be rewarded for multiple things in a season (i.e. winning both the regular season and conference tournament title), but you only get credit for your NCAA tournament finish (i.e. KU would get 2 points for this year, 2 points for last year and 10 points for 2012).

So let's take the potential blue bloods and see how Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, Indiana, Duke, UNC, and Louisville stack up with some strong programs like UConn, Georgetown, Oklahoma, Syracuse, Ohio State, Michigan and Arizona.

I'm using NCAA tournament finishes because trying to quantify the value of the NIT in the 50's is impossible.

Results hopefully sometime this week.

@JRyman

As far as I can tell, There's a 42-3 record that has been vacated - 4-1 in the tournament at UMass due to Camby and 38-2 at Memphis due to Rose. So you can take him down to 512-169 (.751). That would drop him from 5 Final Fours to 3, but even then, you look at his resume and it's still impressive:

3 Final Fours, one title, 4 other Elite Eights, .751 overall winning percentage, over 500 wins.

If I showed you just those numbers, that would be a pretty gaudy overall resume, and that's taking out a 42-3 run and two Final Four appearances.

@icthawkfan316

I agree, but here's the thing - Calipari is a constant. The other teams change from year to year.

Going back to 2006 (the beginning of the OAD era), here are the coaches that have been to the Elite 8, along with the number of Elite 8's (72 total).

Those with one fleeting appearance - Anderson, Brady, Capel, Dixon, Huggins, Kent, Larranaga, G. Marshall, F. Martin, McKillop, A. Miller, Ollie, Pearl, Ryan, Smart, Thompson III, B. Williams. That's 17 right there for the guys that have one trip.

Two trips - Barnes (yes, Rick Barnes), Beilein, Boeheim, Drew (yes, Scott Drew), Krzyzewski, Brad Stephens, Wright.

Three trips - Calhoun, Howland, Izzo, Matta, Sean Miller

Four trips - Rick Pitino and Bill Self

Five trips - Roy Williams

Six trips - Billy Donovan

Seven trips - John Calipari

Simply put, he's always there. In the last 9 years, since the OAD rule has really taken off, Calipari has always been around in the E8. 7 trips in 9 seasons is quite good. Coach K and Jim Boeheim (two great coaches) have as many trips as Rick Barnes and Scott Drew.

Calipari has done it year after year after year at two different schools regardless of who stayed, who left and who everybody else got. The only other coach with that level of consistency is Billy Donovan, although Calipari can match him with titles tonight.

If it takes 2-3 years to incubate your system, about the best you can do is what Self, Williams, Pitino and Izzo have done. You can get to 3-5 E8's in 9 years. But if you want to be there year after year after year, I think you have to have a system that can be captured quickly so that you can maximize your available talent every single year.

Isn't that what we want anyway - to have the best possible team every year?

Is John Calipari a good college basketball coach? I think you have to look at that question in three ways.

First, do his teams win? Well, he went 189-70 at UMass, 214-67 at Memphis and is 151-36 at UK. That adds up to a tidy 554-172, good for over a .760 winning percentage. And before you point to him having overwhelming talent, let's remember that at UMass, his only notable player was Marcus Camby. At Memphis, he really didn't have any super talent other than Dajuan Wagner, CDR, Rose and Tyreke Evans. He's had more talent at UK than any other stop, but he was winning before he got to UK.

Second, do his players play to their potential? Other than last season's UK team, I am having trouble finding a Calipari team that outright underachieved. The Wall-Cousins-Patterson group at UK could be pointed to as an underachiever, but they went to the Elite Eight. His single bad year at Memphis may have been an underachiever, but if you can name even a single notable player off that team, you're a better man than I.

But here's something crazy I discovered when I looked up Calipari - he hasn't been the victim of a big upset in the tournament since his days at UMass. In 1993-94, Calipari's 2 seeded team lost to 10 seed Maryland. The rest of his resume in the tournament looks like this:

1991-92 - 3 lost to a 2 S16

1992-93 - 3 lost to a 6 R32

1993-94 - 2 lost to a 10 R32

1994-95 - 2 lost to a 4 E8

1995-96 - 1 lost to a 1 F4

2002-03 - 7 lost to a 10 R64

2003-04 - 7 lost to a 2 R32

2005-06 - 1 lost to a 2 E8

2006-07 - 2 lost to a 1 E8

2007-08 - 1 lost to a 1 title game

2008-09 - 2 lost to a 3 S16

2009-10 - 1 lost to a 2 E8

2010-11 - 4 lost to a 3 F4

2011-12 - 1 seed, won the title

2013-14 - 8, either wins the title or loses to a 7.

Come tournament time, his teams generally play to their seed. Other than the 1994 team, he has never had a 2 seed not make it to the Sweet 16, and as a 1 seed he has always gone to at least the Elite 8. You can say what you want about having talent, but that's a phenomenal achievement. A few times, that would be luck. He's been a 1 seed 5 times and his resume is F4, E8, Title game, E8, champion. That's what you'd expect from a #1 seed, but I can't find anybody else that has actually produced that. If Calipari has a really good team, he's going to the Elite 8 - period. That's got to be coaching to some extent.

And the last part of being a college coach is, of course, recruiting. He's one of the best three recruiters in the country. I don't think there's anyone that can argue otherwise.

So he wins three quarters of his games, his teams almost always play to or exceed their seeding in the tournament and he's one of the best recruiters in the land. If his resume belonged to anyone else, I don't think there would be much question that he was one of the best handful of coaches in the country.

I'm probably a blue pill guy anyway. After all, I have said more than once on this board that around the country, most teams don't remember who wins the conference, other than the conference their favorite team is in. For example, most of us won't remember who won the ACC this year once next season gets going. Most probably don't remember who won the Big 10 last year, or who won the Pac-12 the year before. Conference titles are nice, but they don't really resonate nationally because the grind of the conference schedule is regionally focused.

So here's the real question - is it effective in this state of college basketball to coach an elite major school with a system that takes 2-3 years to master? If, as some have argued, Bill Self's system is so complex as to take 2-3 years to master, is that really practical knowing that the top talent won't be in school for more than 2 years most of the time?

For example, even if Wiggins and Embiid returned, is there anyone that believes they would stay past next season? You simply cannot assume that you will have the best players for more than 2 years.

It seems to me that Calipari has understood this better than basically anyone. I think Tom Izzo is a genius, but even he has struggled with the fact that in order to have top notch talent, he can't expect to have those guys around for four full seasons. Coach K has started to embrace this as well, although the results have not followed yet.

I think the new reality of college basketball is that teams are going to have to adapt year to year based on the talent on hand more so than relying on a system. If you have an Andrew Wiggins one year, you have to capitalize on his unique gifts. If, the next year, you have a different type of player (a Cliff Alexander, for example) you should adapt to take advantage of that. Lacking a true high talent PG? Maybe you let your wing players initiate the offense. The new reality of college basketball is that you can't just hope your system wins it for you - the talent is very spread out, to where if you don't maximize the use of the elite guys, you're no better off than a team with lesser talent.

I've always been of the belief that you don't move into a conference at a second or third tier program.

Yes, Tobacco Road has a lot of basketball tradition and draw, etc. But Wake Forest is always going to be the fourth (or fifth, or sixth) choice for the better players in that area. Manning is better off succeeding at Tulsa and moving to a better program than he would be to try and resurrect Wake in the ACC when you already have Duke, UNC and NC State as your instate challenges, plus Virginia and Syracuse as conference challenges and Kentucky and Tennessee breathing down your neck as well.

There's a reason that Wake has struggled so much. I don't think he can expect to even the playing field with UNC and Duke as long as Williams and Coach K are around, which means he's no better than the third choice in his own state, and that's assuming he can surpass NC State.

I don't know if anybody has posted this somewhere else, but I thought it would be nice to point out some of the great things that former KU guys are doing in their new communities.

http://www.kcra.com/news/Ben-McLemore-makes-royal-visit-to-Sacramento-school/25167970 ↗ ↗

That's a classy thing to do from McLemore.

@JayHawkFanToo

The reports that I have seen have him listed at 6-8 in shoes. That's concerning from a pro perspective, especially since he's a true post player. If he were more of a stretch post player, I would think differently, but he's a true banger, so his lack of elite size could keep him in college for two years instead of one. That doesn't change his projection as a college player, where I am fairly certain that he will be a very good, if not dominant, player on both ends of the floor.

I actually believe that Alexander will stay for at least 2 years. He's an undersized PF at the NBA level. No real benefit in him leaving after just one year. He's likely to stay for 2 years so he can work on his strength, much like Jared Sullinger (although he's a better athlete than Sullinger).

I think he will be dominant in college, though. And he will bring some much needed toughness and tenacity to the KU frontcourt.

Picking up on what @HighEliteMajor and @drgnslayr were discussing from my previous post, PG in high school is different than PG at the D1 level.

First, understand that a D1 level talent in HS is likely the best player on their HS team, probably by a wide margin. Look no further than our two freshmen, Frankamp and Mason. Frankamp was easily the best player on his team, and as such, he really turned into more of a SG in high school because his HS team needed him to score to maximize success for the team. He's in a completely different role now at KU. Same for Mason. He was a dynamic slasher/scorer in HS. The offense was him taking the ball from the top of the key and making plays. Again, completely different role now for him.

Those two guys were accustomed to being the best player on the floor, as most D1 level recruits at the PG position are. They literally have to re-program themselves to become primary distributors because they spend so much time as primary scorers in HS by nature of the skill level of the players around them. Their HS coaches discourage them from passing because they know they are better off with their PG taking 18 shots than passing it back out to a lesser player.

This is where AAU ball is actually a benefit. True PGs can really shine by playing with more guys that are scorers at the more traditional spots, giving them the freedom to be a distributing PG. Still, the transition from a scoring guard to a true distributing PG is a tough climb.

@drgnslayr

I understand your fear. I don't have any children (yet), but I do remember a lot of the things my parents taught me that I'd like to pass on to the next generation.

One of the things I remember them teaching me was that it was important to appreciate the things you had been given and the people that were around you. One of the saddest things I see in society today is that so few people appreciate the individuals that got them where they are today. You hear so many people talk about how hard they worked to be successful, without ever mentioning the teachers, coaches, mentors, parents, friends, siblings, spouse, etc. that made them into the people they were, and that allowed them to succeed. There is an attitude of ungratefulness that is pervasive in today's society.

I think that's where character comes in. You built character riding up Naismith Drive on your bicycle because, as I can tell from your posts even without you saying it, you sincerely appreciated the opportunity you were given and, even more, the sacrifices that people in your life had made so that you could pedal up that hill and pursue your dreams.

That's why I wouldn't worry too much about your son - if he has learned your sense of gratitude, he will understand the sacrifices that people make so that he can be successful, he will appreciate that and live accordingly. That is something that, no matter whether he is the most talented at something or the least, he will have with him forever.

Point Guard is a difficult position to play. It's hard to find a point guard at the high school level that is a true PG moving to the next level.

I mentioned the other day in a thread that the last Top 25 true PG that Self recruited was Sherron Collins. Since then he landed Tyshawn Taylor (ranked in the 70s), Tyrel Reed (moved to SG), Elijah Johnson (moved to SG), Josh Selby (moved to SG in college due to injury/ eligibility issues), Naadir Tharpe (ranked in the 90s), Royce Woolridge (moved to SG, transferred).

There's always the possibility that a PG will get to college, struggle on the ball and move off the ball, where they excel. That is what happened to Elijah Johnson. He couldn't find the healthy balance between scoring and facilitating at the college level. Some guys find that - some never do.

Let's talk about basketball, Kentucky and character development.

The best players winning won't ruin basketball. It can't. Talent will always have an enormous influence on who wins in basketball because one or two transcendent talents can move the needle in college basketball more than in football, or baseball, or any other sport.

To say that UK's new concept of recruiting a large conglomerate of talent will somehow make college hoops devoid of character development is, in my estimation, unlikely. If you remove the Jayhawk bias we all carry for a moment, think about the season that Aaron and Andrew Harrison, Dakari Johnson, Marcus Lee, Julius Randle and James Young have had for a second.

They arrive in Lexington as the greatest recruiting class in the history of the free world, or whatever they were called. Maybe they had it in their head that it would be easy. The world was going crazy around them.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you

Maybe they had dreams of coasting through the season and having vanquished opponents fall at their feet right after the opening tip. But that's not what happened. The season was hard. Their bravado was mocked across media reports. Their work ethic was questioned. Their dedication. Their commitment. Their character. Their heart.

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

Everytime they struggled, someone, somewhere was writing an essay, or a blog, or a news story about how they were overhyped, undeserving, too cocky, etc. The success didn't come immediately. They had to wait. Wait and listen. Listen to everything being said about them on every channel and in every newspaper, and on every sports show.

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

There were probably times where those initial lofty ideas, the ones about going 40-0, seemed like a fools errand. I'm sure those dreams seemed like cruel nightmares. I'm sure in a lot of those moments both they and their coaches felt like everything was falling apart and everything they had worked for was just a joke.

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

Character is built through hardship, and revealed in the most trying of times. I'm sure that there were some hardships for that freshman class, many that we observed and probably quite a few that we didn't see at all. I'm sure that on the morning of March 2 when those freshmen woke up after losing to a South Carolina squad that was sitting at 11-18 on the year, and just a few days removed from a loss to an Arkansas squad that was very much on the outside looking in at the tournament, those kids probably had to question themselves a bit.

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

But isn't that what makes you grow up? Isn't that what makes you into a man. Just because they were McDonald's All Americans when they arrived in Lexington didn't forestall the potential for growth. I don't know any of their parents, but I would estimate that the sons they left in Lexington back in August are much different today than they were then.

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

@bskeet

I ran those numbers myself. I agree that a regular season title is important. But my bigger point is that winning those championships should also be reflective of the fact that you are among the top 8 teams in the country in terms of true talent.

It is presumable that the #1 seeds are 4 of the best 6 teams in the country. It's also presumable that the 2 seeds are among the best 10 teams in the country.

This year is a little bizarre in that UK has 1/2 level talent, but they were an 8 seed. That throws the model off because I doubt there has ever been a team seeded that low with that much raw talent.

And that's the real point - the talented teams generally win out. It just so happens that usually those teams are the ones that are ranked high throughout the year because it's rare to come across a team like Kentucky that doesn't put it together until their conference tournament even though they have top 5 talent.

Similarly, UConn has demonstrated their talent this year. After all, the Huskies are the last team that beat Florida. They get another crack on Saturday. The other team to beat UF this year? Wisconsin. It's just really bizarre how that works. But that points to the true talent level of all of these teams.

@truehawk93
UK was expected to be this far. They were the preseason #1 team. That team has been pretty thoroughly raked over the coals for underachieving this season. Had they gotten knocked out of the tournament early, there would have been gallons of internet ink spilled on how experience trumps talent, and how UK's players were selfish, etc. That wouldn't happen if this were Tennessee, or Texas, or NC State, or Dayton, or Cincinnati or any number of other programs. But if you're Kentucky, or Kansas, or UNC, or Duke, the expectations never go away.

I'm not sure Kentucky can ever not be "the hunted" any more than KU or UNC or Duke, or any of the other elite level programs. The name on the front of the jersey doesn't change. The jersey says Kentucky, therefore it is assumed that you should be in the hunt for the Final Four and ultimately the national title.

UK is winning now, but really, all they are doing is playing up to their potential. Early in the season, they were not and as a result they struggled. Now they are, and as a result, they are winning.

North Carolina had a rocky year this year. They lost at home to Belmont. Lost to UAB. Started 0-4 in the ACC. But they still got everyone's best shot because they were North Carolina.

Balanced teams make it to the Final Four. Not balance as far as balanced scoring - you can have one or two dominant scorers. Balanced as far as offense and defense.

You have to be able to get stops when you need them, because you can always pack your defense, even if your offense doesn't travel.

You also have to be able to score easily.

KU struggled in both of those areas this year. They could not get stops. I can't remember a single time this year when I felt confident this year that KU could lock somebody up defensively. That was a problem. Most of this had to do with personnel. KU started 2 below average defenders basically all season (Tharpe and Ellis). But even strategically, you should be able to get stops if you have a defender like Wiggins on the perimeter. But they couldn't.

But at the same time, when KU wasn't in transition against certain teams, they had a lot of trouble getting easy baskets (think Stanford, San Diego State, Villanova, Florida, @K-State). This is more of a strategic thing. Self typically wants to play 2 posts and three perimeter guys. However, against certain teams, he might have been better served to go 4 out, or even 5 out. For instance, in the Big XII tournament against Iowa State he may have been well served to play Wiggins as a token power forward and gone small with Selden at the 3 and two of the Mason, Tharpe, Frankamp group, along with Ellis, Black or Traylor. I also think that lineup would have put a lot of pressure on Stanford.

We have to capitalize on mismatches much more than we do right now. It's the only way to avoid losing to inferior teams.

@JayHawkFanToo

Absolutely agreed. My point wasn't to disagree, but to argue that once they demonstrate that they can produce, even a little bit, they are gone, whether that be after one year or four.

Your point on everyone thinking they are OAD is spot on. I don't know how many HS players that I have talked to that thought they were D1 material. Never mind that they weren't playing all that well, they were convinced that they were going to play D1. The truth really doesn't set in until they really try to go to that next level and see how big that talent gap really is.

That putback Wiggins had against K-State (2:34 mark of the video) is still one of the most incredible plays I have ever seen. He had his foot out of bounds on the drive, changed his momentum and tipped in his own miss before anyone else could even jump. Just amazing.

Over the last 10 years, the number 1 overall seed has finished like this, starting from 2004 - round of 32, title game, sweet 16, champion, final four, elite eight, round of 32, sweet 16, champion, champion. If you're the best team, over the last decade, that's an 80% chance at playing in the Sweet 16 and a coin flip to be in the Final Four.

Obviously, the best teams are still the most successful, but how successful?

Going back to 1979 (the year seeding started), the champion was not a 1 or 2 seed only nine times - 1981 (Indiana, 3). 1983 (NC State, 6), 1985 (Villanova, 8 ), 1988 (Kansas, 6), 1989 (Michigan, 3), 1997 (Arizona , 4), 2003 (Syracuse, 3), 2006 (Florida, 3) and 2011 (UConn, 3). That's 9 times in the 35 years that one of the top 2 teams didn't win the title.

But here's something even crazier. A non top 2 seed has made it to the title game only 13 other times. The national final has only featured 22 teams that were not considered to be among the top 8 in the country at the start of the tournament. 70 teams. 48 were either 1 or 2 seeds.

Let's expand to the Final Four overall - 30 other teams that were not 1 or 2 seeds made it to the Final Four. That's 51 of the 140 teams in the Final Four that were not 1's or 2's. But that means that 89 of the Final Four teams, or 63% were one of the top 8 teams, and 68% of the finalists were. But when it comes to being the champion, 74% of the champions are among the top 8 teams. The cream rises.

@JayHawkFanToo

You're absolutely right that there's a limit to how many players stick in the NBA. But that number is limited by talent, not just pure numbers.

There are, right now, 360 NBA jobs. I would say pretty confidently that the 200 best basketball players in the world are all playing in the NBA right now. After the top 200, some foreign players decide to stay in their country and make more money, be a star, live closer to family, whatever. But if you are one of the best 200 or so basketball players, there is an NBA job for you - period. The other 160 spots cycle between guys that are probably anywhere from the 201st best player in the world to probably the 600th best player in the world, if there were a way to clearly rank the talents around the world.

In other words, in order to play in the NBA you have to be one of the 600 best basketball players on the planet. If you assume there are 200 million basketball players of adequate age to play in the NBA, that means you are basically talking about the top .000003% of basketball players. So yes, it is a small window.

But here's the thing. The guys that will have a shot at going to the NBA, ultimately, are going to be mostly the guys that were highly ranked in high school. Basketball is one of the few sports that is extremely predictable in terms of development. If, for example, you want to know who the best senior basketball player in your school district will be in four years, go ask for a list of the best 10 8th graders. The best player in four years will almost certainly be on that list. He may be ranked 1st. He may be ranked 10th. But his name will show up about 95% of the time.

This is why it's imperative that KU recruit the top players. Maybe they turn into OADs. Maybe they don't. But the top players are the ones that give you the best shot. You use Florida as an example. One of the guys critical to their success this year - 27th ranked 2010 recruit Patric Young. He took a bit longer to develop than his classmates, but he's a key cog now. If you skip him because you're afraid he's an OAD, you miss out. I bet Michigan State wouldn't want to be without Adreian Payne (#20). Stanford probably appreciated having Dwight Powell (#25). These guys weren't OADs, but they were in the range and, as seniors, they demonstrated that ability. Remember, Ennis was ranked in the 20s. If you don't want a possible OAD like Ennis, you have to skip a guy like Payne or Powell or Young.

Some of the best from the class of 2011 that were still in college this year would include Nick Johnson #18, who I know Arizona would miss and Dorian Finney-Smith (#31), who wound up at Florida and is pretty important to the Gators. DeAndre Daniels (#10) is probably thought of as a huge disappointment, but he averages 12 and 6 for UConn playing 30 minutes a game.

The top players that meet expectations end up in the NBA after a year or two. The ones that don't become, at the minimum, a rotation level player somewhere.

If we don't want top 25-30 talent, chances are we will never have quite enough talent to go all the way. That's not good enough for me.

Here's the thing - if freshmen play at an extremely high level, they will likely leave.

For example, look at Tyler Ennis. He was considered either the 4th or 5th best PG in his class, roughly ranked 20th overall. He is declaring for the draft. If you had asked just about anybody last summer whether Tyler Ennis would be a one and done, I think almost everyone would have said no. Of the three guards ranked ahead of Ennis, it's likely that both Rysheed Jordan (St. John's) and Kasey Hill (Florida) return to school. Jordan had a rough season both in production and from an emotional standpoint (for more on that, read here ↗. Kasey Hill has sat behind Scottie Wilbekin. Ennis played and flourished right away. As a result, he's heading to the NBA. Hill and Jordan will be staying in school most likely.

I would say that, as far as OADs are concerned, anyone that is ranked in the top 30 probably has the talent to be a OAD if everything comes together. Had Selden played as well as someone like Ennis played this year, it's likely 1) KU would still be playing and 2) he would not be back in Lawrence.

Do we want to avoid players like Selden, or guys like Ennis just because we know that if they play well, they will probably leave early? If so, we are taking our recruiting down from the elite power level to something less. And of course, guys like that may not be ready to contribute as freshmen. Brannen Greene was in that range. Would he have been ready to step in and play 20+ minutes a game this year?

That's the thing with potential OADs. They are more talented than the other recruits, so the best case scenario is Carmelo Anthony, while the worst case scenario is them returning for a second year after an underwhelming freshman campaign.

I've been operating under the assumption that Embiid would be gone since mid January. He progressed much faster than anyone anticipated.

I doubt that Coach Self really regrets having Embiid here, and I certainly don't think he would have preferred a lower ranked prospect than Embiid. Embiid provided KU, in his one year, with a real chance to go the distance. Shepherd wouldn't have provided that this year, and may not ever turn out to be that type of "put you over the top" player. Would KU be better off to have a player that probably will never be as good as Perry Ellis is now?

@KirkIsMyHinrich makes a great point about KU, but I would take it even a step further. When is the last time KU landed a highly ranked PG that actually stayed at PG in college?

Give up? Try the Class of 2006 - Sherron Collins. Since then, the only guys to stay at the point were Tyshawn Taylor (77) and Naadir Tharpe (92). Tyrel Reed, Josh Selby and Elijah Johnson all moved off the ball.

You know who this team really may have missed, without even realizing it? Anrio Adams. Wouldn't it have been nice to be able to slip a combo guard into the rotation alongside Selden and Wiggins? But that's a moot point.

Self needs to find himself a true PG that is legitimately a high ranked player. Not a developmental case. A legit, can play from day one PG. As we have seen, a lower ranked player can become a big time player like Tyshawn, or never quite develop to our hopes like Naadir.

That said, Tharpe still has one more year, but as a player that is getting towards the end of his career, I have trouble seeing him becoming a significantly different player at this point.

The challenge for KU next year is that the returning players must answer some significant questions that will unlock the success (or failure) of the 2014-15 squad.

Tharpe - Can he defend PGs at a level that will allow him to play 25+ minutes as a starting PG? Right now, he is a huge defensive liability, which means he can't always be given minutes. Even more than his turnovers, his shaky defense really hurt KU this year.

Selden - Can he help create offense for himself and other perimeter players? This year, one of the reasons we saw a lot of inconsistency game to game from Selden and Wiggins was that wing players are dependent on solid PG play. If you're a perimeter player and you aren't the primary ball handler, you must get the ball in positions that allow you to get right into your moves. If that doesn't happen, you will always be facing a set defense, and that will bring your effectiveness down. We don't know if PG play will improve next year, so the next best option is to see Selden be able to take on ball responsibility offensively to get himself, Oubre, Frankamp and Greene all perimeter scoring opportunities, whether that's on the catch and shoot, or on the drive.

Ellis - Can he legitimately cover either 3's or 4's on a nightly basis? Perry struggled against quick guys and bigger guys. That's a problem because you can't depend on the opposition always being both smaller and slower than you. He has to be able to either bang with the big guys or move on the perimeter with the quick ones. If he can't do either, I'm not sure he can be a 25-30 mpg guy like we are hoping.

Greene - Can he be instant offense consistently? Somebody has to come off the bench and be able to score. Greene needs to be able to check in at the 13 minute mark and provide some positive value on the offensive end, while also being at least respectable defensively.

Frankamp - Same as Greene, but the challenge for him is to do that while also being able to take care of the basketball. He's never going to be a dominant scorer in college, but he can be a very effective offensive player, and so long as he can keep his man in front of him defensively, KU can live with him giving up jumpers.

Mason - I am officially tabbing him the most important returning player. Can he unseat Tharpe and provide a steady hand at the point? His inability to steady the ship this season meant that KU didn't always have an option when Tharpe struggled. Seeing as we currently don't have a PG in the recruiting fold, Mason has to provide a steady hand (and a threat to the starting spot), or we could be felled by curious PG play for a third consecutive year.

Traylor - Can he consistently hit from 12-15 feet? That's the last thing missing from his offensive package. He added the ability to drive this year. Now if he can get a decent mid range jumper, that will prevent teams from sagging into the paint off him. I'd also like to see him bulk up a bit so he can handle bigger post guys. Right now, Ellis has to be paired with someone that can handle the bigger post players. Traylor can help our roster flexibility if he can do that.

Lucas - What kind of player is he? Is he an end of the bench guy, or can he contribute something in 15 mpg? That's really what we need to see next year.

Mickelson - He's the X-factor. I honestly don't know what he will bring to the table. If he's legitimately good as a two way player, he and Alexander may help solve many of the issues we ran into this season. If he's another one way player, we may struggle again, as we could run into stretches where either the offense can't function, or the defense turns into a sieve.

@JayHawkFanToo

I'd absolutely agree. But there are many around college basketball that question whether Indiana still belongs the game's elite. Their last Final Four appearance was in 2002. Their last title was in 1987. To put that in perspective, most of the guys that will be freshmen weren't even in school the last time Indiana was on the big stage. That matters.

No, Butler didn't leap to the forefront after going to consecutive title games. But look at a program like Florida. They weren't really a school with any kind of success 20 years ago, but now they can recruit on the same level as KU, because they have the two titles and multiple Final Fours over the last 15 years.

National prominence matters because we as KU have to recruit nationally. Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Oklahoma just don't produce enough high major talent for us to rely on being dominant only in conference. In Texas, we have to compete with the entire country for recruits. We have no geographic advantage to offer recruits.

Going back to Indiana, look at how many of the top recruits in Indiana are going out of state to Ohio State, Louisville, Kentucky and others. Historically, Indiana has more reach than both OSU and Louisville, but that doesn't matter to an 18 year old because, again, they probably don't remember the last time Indiana was in the Final Four. If a power program wants to maintain its national prominence, the had better be in the Final Four at least once every 5-7 years, and win a title at least once every 15 or so years, otherwise they will eventually get to a recruiting class that won't remember the last time they were on the national stage.

The kids in the Class of 2014 remember Mario's shot. They were 12 or 13 when that happened. They definitely remember Anthony Davis and MKG winning it all. They probably remember Florida going back to back. They probably don't know who Sean May is. They definitely don't know who Juan Dixon is.

I remember growing up, the first three really great college teams I remember were Duke, Arkansas and Michigan. I have no recollection of Glen Rice's Michigan teams, but I do remember the Fab 5. I remember Laettner and Hurley. I remember those really good 40 Minutes of Hell Arkansas teams. And I grew up in Kansas. Around a KU team that went to the Final Four in '88, '91 and '93. But I was too young to remember their title in '88. I only barely remember the 1991 season and going back to the title game. Duke sticks out because they went back to back, and while I have only vague memories of 1991, I remember 1992 very clearly. Michigan sticks out because they were in back to back title games. Arkansas was too, winning one and losing one. But notice something crazy about that list - one of the great teams I remember never won a conference title. I couldn't tell you who the Big 10 champs were either of those years, honestly. But I remember Michigan because they went to the Final Four.

It's easy as a fan to see things and feel like they should put us in the spotlight because we understand the significance. But honestly, if you're a 10 year old on the east coast right now, was KU really on your radar this year? UCLA? Indiana? If you're out west, have you paid any attention to North Carolina? Ohio State? Duke? Syracuse? That's three decades worth of national titles between those 7 schools. And yet, most of the kids in the Class of 2022 probably won't remember anything about their season this year.

I have long argued that regionally, conference championships matter more, but on the national stage, Final Fours and championships are all that matters. Conference titles only matter to the people in your league. Do we care who wins the Pac12, or the Big 10, or the American in a given year?

The only way to be prominent nationally is to play in the Final Four. As @KUSTEVE noted, even getting to the Elite Eight isn't enough. The national conscience doesn't pay attention until the Final Four. Even the biggest college hoops fans probably couldn't name last year's Elite Eight, but I bet everyone could name the last couple of Final Fours. That's just how things work.

It's the same thing in every sport. We don't remember who played in the NFC championship game, but we remember the Super Bowl. We don't remember the LCS, but we remember the World Series. The Final Four is the big event, so that's what we remember. That's how you gain prominence nationally.

That doesn't mean the other stuff doesn't matter. It's just that Final Fours and National Titles matter so much more on a national scale.

@truehawk93

I like Kelly Oubre, but my concern is that much of his success from a shooting standpoint is on drive and kick plays. That will put pressure on either Tharpe, Mason or Frankamp to master a drive and kick game. I think he will be great, but for him to reach his full potential will require our PG contingent to step forward.

As for Alexander, he is a BEAST. He is a true power post player somewhat like TRob, but probably further along than TRob was as a freshman. A very respected coach once said at a clinic I was at that big men need to finish with violence and authority. There is no way to violently finish a finger roll. But that's what I like about Cliff Alexander. He is not trying to finger roll. He is not trying to make layups. He is trying to break backboards, and anything else that happens to get in his path along the way.

I love the highlight you embedded, because all it shows is dunk after dunk after dunk, with a handful of jumpers and post moves mixed in, and the occasional thunderous block to punctuate the video. More than anything KU needs a bit of an edge. They need a little toughness, something we've lacked the last few years without guys like Darnell, Sherron, Mario, TRob and Tyshawn. More than his skill set, that's what Alexander brings, and that's why I am ecstatic to have him in Lawrence next year.

KU wasn't scary this year. SDSU and K-State turned the games against us into street fights, and we lost both. I bet a team with Cliff Alexander on it wouldn't lose a street fight. That's not the kind of guy you get into a street fight with.

@DanR

I absolutely agree that Self wants to match up defensively rather than offensively. The problem was, without Embiid, we could not match up defensively. That's where I fault Self. We just didn't have the size. Black and Ellis were already undersized, and trying to go with either Traylor (even smaller) or Lucas (less skilled) wasn't a long term solution.

Basketball is the game where skill matters most, because you can only play 5 at a time. We didn't go with the guys that were our (potential) best five on Sunday. That five was probably either Tharpe, Frankamp, Greene, Wiggins, Black or Mason, Frankamp, Selden, Wiggins, Traylor if we were going to press. Notice that Perry Ellis is conspicuously absent from both of those lineups. He's one of our best five overall players, but since he struggles to score over size, he wasn't one of our best five situationally. That means you either spread the floor with shooters around Wiggins (first lineup) or just put all sorts of athletes on the floor to press in the second lineup (keeping Frankamp because it was clear he was hot).

That was the adjustment. I can't guarantee it would have worked, but it was there.

After the loss yesterday I sat down and watched the Wichita State - Kentucky game. I did this for two reasons. 1) I thought it would be a good game. 2) I really love watching hoops.

I was rewarded on both fronts.

Something very interesting stuck out to me with what Calipari did to Wichita State. Through the course of the season, 9 Shockers averaged 12 or more minutes per game. Yesterday, UK trimmed WSU's rotation to 7 pretty effectively. Coleby was basically taken out of the game right off the bat. And as soon as Wessel came into the game, UK attacked him until WSU took him back out.

I've often watched Self and noticed that he doesn't insist that his players overwhelm a bad matchup. He let's teams play in bad matchups and stay in their regular rotations. He doesn't just say - if you leave that guy on the floor we are going to attack him in the man, attack his side in the zone, make him handle the ball on offense, etc. He does not exploit when the matchups swing in his favor.

As I said in another thread, when Stanford was in foul trouble, he could have put Wiggins at the high post with four shooters around him and let him attack and distribute. Make Powell and Nastic have to guard a quick guy like Wiggins in space. Make them guard a guy like Selden or Greene out on the perimeter. Change the matchups to do something in your favor. That didn't happen yesterday.

Self is a great coach, but without an exceptional defense he has been hamstrung all year. I just hope he figures it out because his best two defenders are likely going to be gone from this team.

@MoonwalkMafia

If anything, I think the Marcus Smart situation will discourage players from staying in school another year. Smart wanted to stay because he wanted to "be a kid for another year" and "have some fun." But he didn't look like he was having much fun in January and February. Not saying that he regretted his decision, but by coming back to school, he didn't lessen the glare of the spotlight on him and, at the same time, he raised expectations on himself and his team.

However, his draft stock wasn't hurt all that much because the things that NBA scouts look at are still there - the strength and athleticism. He improved his shot. He's very good in the pick and roll. He's an above average rebounder, especially for a point guard. Those things weren't changing. The only thing that could have hurt his draft stock was either injury or off court issues like a drug/ drinking problem or a run in with the law. He had none of those. He's just a super competitive player that got stuck in a really frustrating season.

The other thing you have to consider, and it was laid out very well on Grantland.com ↗ a few weeks ago, right under a question about Joel Embiid oddly enough. Basically, the thought is that most agents and players don't want the age limit not because of the rookie contract, but because it pushes the second contract, and the all important third contract (the max deal for stars) out an extra year.

For example, if Embiid leaves after this season, he will sign a four year rookie deal that will be up in the summer of 2018, when he is 24 years old (Embiid is already 20). At any point up until then, he can sign a five year extension that could be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $15-$17m per season. That would take him up to his age 29 season. If you know anything about aging curves for big men, you know that this is critical. That third contract for him starting when he's 29 rather than 30 or 31 means an extra year or two on the end of what likely would be his last significant contract. That's worth $30m or more.

Look at a player like Kevin Garnett vs. a guy like Rasheed Wallace. Rasheed Wallace spent 2 years at UNC. Garnett went straight to the NBA. Wallace went 4th in 1995, Garnett went 5th.

Because Wallace was older from the day they were drafted, even though he initially made more money by being drafted a spot earlier, Kevin Garnett made more money over the course of his career. Through his career, Rasheed Wallace made more than $158m in basketball contracts. That's nothing to sneeze at and a very nice career. Kevin Garnett, subtracting this year, has made more than $300m in his career. And he's still playing. You can argue that Garnett made more because he was a better player, which is true. But let's control for that by simply counting the number of season's where each player had an 8 figure contract. Wallace had 10 such seasons, counting a year in Detroit where his base was slightly under $10m, but bonuses likely covered the difference. Garnett has had 15 such seasons not counting this year. Being younger earned him one extra large contract at the end of his career (when he was 34, before the 2010 season). Conversely, when Wallace was 34, he was playing the next to last year of his contract, meaning that when it ended, he was 36. He didn't get another large deal after that. Garnett is finishing off his last big contract now. It's been worth roughly triple what Wallace's last contract was worth. Age had a huge factor in doing that.

Will KU be better next year? I think that question really should focus on two people, as they will likely be the key to whether the first question is a yes or no.

Will Perry Ellis be better next year? It's clear that Self wants to run the offense through Perry. That's not a bad thing because Perry is a pretty effective scorer down low against most teams. However, Perry struggles to score against size and that is a killer against quality teams with big men that can stymie him. So the key question is whether or not Perry will be able to score against bigger guys? If that's a yes, KU becomes much more dangerous next year.

The other issue with Perry is defense. I don't expect him to become a Withey or Embiid type of shot blocker, but his interior defense is pretty clearly below average. Perry simply must become a more effective two way player. His positioning and footwork must improve on the defensive end, otherwise he's your classic score 19, give up 17 player.

The second guy is Naadir Tharpe. Will he be better? Specifically on offense, will he take better care of the ball and get it to guys in their scoring zones? Naadir Tharpe was simply not effective for much of the year at making it easier for any of KU's scorers (Wiggins, Ellis, Embiid, Selden, Greene, Frankamp, etc) to get the shots they wanted to take. He got himself shots at various times, but he never made the offense easier for those around him.

Like Ellis, Tharpe simply has to improve defensively. I would go so far as to say he had the worst defensive season of any PG during the Self era at KU. He couldn't handle smaller, quicker guys. He couldn't handle bigger guys. He wasn't disruptive out front. He didn't pressure the basketball very much. The crazy thing is that I don't really see a reason why he can't be a solid defender. But honestly, if he's this poor on the defensive end next year, he probably should be pushed down the depth chart.

As for Embiid, I am banking on him being gone.

If you're Embiid, you're faced with the following four scenarios.

1) Stay at KU, have a healthy season that is 20% better than this past season. Get drafted in the top 5.

2) Stay at KU, encounter another injury and be labeled as injury prone, forcing him to either stay for his junior year or leave after two years as a non lottery pick due to injury concerns.

3) Leave now, prove his health during the draft combines (every team does a physical during that time) and get drafted in the top 5-7 this year.

4) Leave now, have them discover an issue during the physical that will linger, and drop to being a low 1st round pick.

Now, the only way staying in school works out for his benefit as a basketball player is in Scenario 1. Otherwise, he's better off going. I know most would say that Scenario 4 is worse than Scenario 2, but let's think about this for a second. In 4, he has an injury issue that is lingering. If he comes back to school, that issue isn't going to magically go away. He's just going to be playing (or sitting out rehabbing) for free. In 4, he's going to be getting paid and receiving top notch medical treatment, as whichever team that drafts him will do everything possible to make sure he is healthy.

The injury changed everything not only for KU's season, but for Embiid's future. I could have seen him returning if not for the injury. Now, I don't see any way that happens.

Yesterday I wished that Bill Self was a mismatch type of coach.

Stanford had size and was giving us fits inside. I wanted so desperately for Self to go small (Frankamp, Mason, Greene, Wiggins, and one of the Black, Ellis, Traylor trio). That would have slotted Wiggins in the high post of that zone offense where, as the announcers observed, he could have done a lot of damage.

@globaljaybird

I think you make a good point about not instilling confidence in shooters, but I would take it even one step further. Self's offense doesn't encourage his best players to be creative. How often did we see Wiggins and Selden vanish on the perimeter? Yet both of those guys could have and probably should have been 15+ ppg scorers. Yesterday those two took a combined 11 shots. KU was struggling to get good looks, yet their two most creative scorers only took 11 shots? Perry Ellis took 10 shots, and we all know he struggles to score against size.

Yesterday would have been the perfect day to go to a version of the dribble drive motion. Stanford's size gave them an advantage against the standard high low look. But we had the quickness advantage, an advantage we did not exploit because we didn't change up what we were doing.

I think it was Bill Simmons that once wrote that season ending losses often expose the great flaws of a team and encapsulate them into one game.

This team's flaws were well known:

1) Shaky point guard play
2) Too many turnovers
3) Inability to score against a zone
4) Lack of strong interior defense without Embiid on the floor
5) Lack of aggression offensively from wing players (Wiggins and Selden)

Every single one of those things came to roost during yesterday's game. I knew with 12 minutes left in the game that there were likely only 12 minutes left in the season. The tough thing is that many of those problems are going to still exist next season unless there are some significant changes in either strategy, skill or personnel.

@drgnslayr

"It seems like these guys would be going to the gym after team practices and working on these things for themselves."

A great point, but one that is often overlooked when discussing development in college versus the pros. In college, because instruction time is limited, if, for example, a guy like Perry goes back to the gym to work on things after team practices, he cannot receive any instruction from coaches. He can't be told whether he is executing the move properly, or even have a grad assistant rebound for him. He is on his own. He can work with a teammate, obviously, but cannot receive any help from the staff, lest he cause a violation of NCAA rules by going over the weekly practice time allowance. He can improve some by working on his own, but would probably improve more if he was actually being coached while he worked on those aspects.

This is why you see certain guys sort of top out in college, then suddenly explode when they get to the NBA. I think of guys like Paul George, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden. All very good college players, obviously. But I don't think anyone figured that those three guys would be three of the 20 best players in the world when they left college. But once they got to the NBA where they could receive high level coaching to improve the weak parts of their game (especially offensively), they just exploded.

I think a guy like Selden could be a classic example of this. He just can't tap into all of his potential in college because of the limits on practice and instruction. It's pretty clear he's a hard worker and has the physical tools. He just needs to combine that with the proper instruction and that takes time that, frankly, the KU staff can't give him because the rules prohibit it. There will be no such prohibition if he lands in the NBA, which is why I think he may leave after this season.

@drgnslayr

The other thing with hedges in the NBA vs College is that in the NBA, if you let Tony Parker or Lebron or really any NBA quality guard turn the corner on a screen without a hedge, you might as well just trot to the other end because you have given up a basket. In college, it's not a guaranteed score and, on top of that, some collegiate big men just don't have the foot speed and lateral quickness to hedge away from the basket.

@DinarHawk

As for shot fakes, I think one of the reasons that many players don't use the shot fake is that they are still understanding the jump in skill from high school to college. Take Perry Ellis for example - he probably didn't have much need to shot fake while in high school. He was big enough and strong enough that if he got the ball in his shooting zones, he was scoring with no need for anything other than his basic moves.

@JayHawkFanToo
Playing devil's advocate for a minute here - So the fact that UK erased 11 points off a 15 point hole against the consensus #1 team in the country, and did it in 3:04 isn't a scary thing? Florida pushed UK to the brink, to the point where most teams break, roll over and get blown out. That's where the game was headed. Heck, that's what I thought was about to happen.

I figured UK would fold up at that point. And then, before I could even make a sandwich and refill my beverage, it was a game again. And they did it in basically six possessions. The suddenness with which they got back into the game speaks to their talent.

Now, will they play up to that talent for six straight games? I doubt it. I have a feeling they probably won't put that together for three games in a row.

I believe in WSU. I think they are a very good team. I just think their road is so challenging. They are almost guaranteed to be facing a high level opponent every round after round 1 (round 2, whatever they call it now). If they survive that road and win the title, they will absolutely deserve every accolade and story that will be written about them.