🏀 KuBuckets Archive

I rated the teams the way I did based on the degree of difficulty, which team I thought would beat which, and the level of dominance displayed during the year.

I think really the only question is who is the best among that top 4, really the top 3.

Even though Florida has the most losses among the top 3 (5), I give them credit for repeating as champs. It's so much more difficult going back to back that I felt like the hiccup at the end of the season didn't take away from their dominance, especially considering they won each NCAA tournament game by at least 7 and overall just cruised through the field. Really, from the time the SEC tournament started, they just went to a different level. And that was for the repeat.

With KU and UK, I had to really look because I have always considered those two teams very similar. The weird thing about that KU team is that they were never ranked #1 during the season. They were never lower than 7, and almost always in the top 5, but never 1, until the poll that mattered. That's surprising, but it was also important in ranking them. UK, on the other hand, was never lower than 3 all year, and their only losses were a buzzer beater at Indiana and an SEC tournament loss to Vanderbilt - a team they had already beaten twice before. Less than a third of the games for UK that year were decided by single digits, and of those, only two of their wins the entire season were by less than 5 points. Simply put, teams weren't staying with that UK team. That level of dominance is pretty impressive. They also won 3 rematches during the tournament, avenging the Indiana defeat and beating Louisville and KU for the second time. That's pretty impressive as well.

KU avenged all of their defeats in their title season, except the OSU loss (they only faced the Cowboys once that year). Only four of the Jayhawk wins were by less than 5 points. Like I said, these two teams were extremely similar. But UK seems to grade out just a bit better, so I ranked them ahead.

@drgnslayr

I agree with you to a point. I think if the season were a month longer, UK would find their way back into the top 10, maybe top 5. They just have so much more of a ceiling than everybody else.

I definitely agree with you that a team like UNM has peaked. Look at the other 7-10 seeds - Colorado, Pittsburgh, Gonzaga, UConn, St. Joes, Arizona State, Texas, Oregon, BYU, K-State, Stanford, New Mexico, Memphis, George Washington. Those are all teams that, given their talent level, you would expect in that range. Then there's Kentucky and Oklahoma State. Much, much more talented than your standard issue 7-10 seed.

And that's the worry with UK and to some extent OSU. They have guys that can dominate a game - not one guy - guys. UK has both Harrison's, Young and Randle that can all just take over a game. OSU has Smart and Brown and Nash. Most 7-10's are like K-State or BYU. They are a pretty solid team, or they have one standout guy.

OSU and UK have been a mess at various times this year, but I wouldn't want them in a one and out tournament because they could have a couple guys go off on you and that's your season.

@jaybate 1.0

I would respectfully disagree.

Here's the thing - in the midwest, WSU almost certainly will have to go through UK and either Louisville or SLU just to get to the E8. KU, on the other hand, may draw a team like Stanford or New Mexico, and follow that up with Syracuse or Ohio State. I'd say right now I'd prefer KU's road to WSU's.

In the tournament, you can only play your A game once or twice. The rest of the nights, you're depending on your B+ game to get you through. Can your B+ game get you through UK, then Louisville, then Duke? If you have to play your A game just to get by Louisville in the S16, do you have anything left for Duke or Michigan two days later? The thing about that is in the Midwest, no matter who advances, it's going to be a very good team - undefeated WSU, maybe the most talent in UK, defending champ Louisville, Big 10 champ Michigan, ACC runner up Duke... you get my point. You avoid fighting a bear, but end up in a cage with a tiger. You escape the tiger to fight a gorilla. You beat the gorilla, but now you have a lion in your path. It just doesn't get easier in the Midwest.

In the South, if Florida or Syracuse loses, the path for KU opens up pretty wide. An upset may be more unlikely, but the overall strength of the region is more directly tied to three teams, so if any one of them is eliminated, the region gets really weak, particularly if the Gators lose because there isn't another top notch team in the top half of the bracket.

It's the same reason I tabbed the West as so easy in the bottom half. There's really not another high level team out in the West region. Put it this way - I wouldn't be shocked to see Baylor in the E8. Yes, Arizona is one of the best teams, but saying the region is strong because the strongest team will advance is flawed, at least to me.

@JayHawkFanToo

I say the Midwest is toughest because they have the toughest top half of the bracket and either the toughest or second toughest bottom half. Midwest has Wichita State, UK, Louisville, SLU, Michigan, Duke, UMass and Texas. That's just a brutal draw. Several people were saying before brackets came out that WSU, Louisville, Michigan or Duke could be Final Four teams. They're all in the same region. The top 4 seeds are all considered legit Final Four contenders.

If I had to rank the champs of the last 10 years I think I would go something like this (the formatting may throw off the numbering, but the list is from 10-1):

1. '11 Connecticut - Just not a super strong team. They caught lightning in a bottle for the tournament, but they weren't thought of as a really great team. They gelled for a run in the Big East tournament and carried that through the NCAA's. They were a 3 seed, so not terribly low, but pretty low for a champ.

2. '06 Florida - Another 3 seed that was thought by many to be a year away. They proved that they weren't, but it was a bit of a surprise that they won that tournament.

3. '10 Duke - They were a 1 seed that appeared in a pretty weak Final Four field. I doubt most Duke fans would even consider this the best Blue Devil squad of the last ten years.

I'd say those three squads are pretty clearly below the rest of the champs.

1. '05 North Carolina - A really strong team, honestly. Not stacked like some of the teams ahead of them, but really strong. A great college basketball team.

2. '13 Louisville - Very similar to the '05 Heels in that they are a strong collegiate team. They weren't devastating in the same way that the teams above them were, but they could absolutely close you out.

3. '04 UConn - They were the best of what I would consider the really good collegiate teams. They had a lot of great college talent. They are the only non #1 seed that I would put this high (they were a 2 seed).

This last group of 4 is tough to rank, honestly. Some truly spectacular teams here.

1. '09 North Carolina - I'm probably being a bit unfair to them here, in that I am punishing them for losing the '08 Final Four. Still, this team to me is very clearly better than the six teams already listed, but not quite as strong as the two listed above.

2. '08 Kansas - They won the best championship game in what was probably the most talented Final Four we have seen in the last 20-25 years - every team had at least 2 pros on the roster. Just a loaded field. The knocks on them would be that they didn't truly dominate the tournament. They pounded UNC and their early opponents, but squeaked by Davidson and needed OT to fell Memphis.

3. '12 Kentucky - Dominated the tournament. Average margin of victory over 10, even though no game was a huge blowout (biggest win was by 16). Teams stayed with them, but honestly, there was never a "they might lose this game" moment in the tournament.

4. '07 Florida - They did it with a target on their back. From the day the season started, everyone knew that Florida was the team to beat and ultimately, no one was able to do that. I agree with @wissoxfan83 , this was the best champ of the last decade.

I don't really see any team from this season with the ability to crack this top 4. WSU hasn't had to play a tough enough schedule, Florida and Virginia don't have the high end talent, and Arizona hasn't shown that dominance. Maybe I'm wrong and 'Zona goes out and wins every game by 12 plus points. But I doubt it.

We don't have the worst road, honestly. We have the toughest 1 seed, but its not brutal, honestly. That Midwest bracket is ridiculous. You figure that we were either the third or fourth 2 seed and it seems like the committee slotted us correctly.

I don't see Wichita State surviving their bracket. I really don't see them getting through both Kentucky and Louisville.

Toughest top half of the bracket (1-16, 8-9, 4-13, 5-12) is easily Midwest with WSU, Kentucky, Louisville and SLU. I doubt WSU wants a rematch with SLU, but I wouldn't be itching to play the defending champs or UK right now.

Easiest top half - Probably South. There isn't really another scary team other than Florida. UCLA is solid, but not special. VCU is a tough style to prep for, but UF should have a week to get ready for them. The West isn't too bad because UA matches up very well with undersized Oklahoma State and nobody should be afraid of OU. SDSU has offensive issues.

Toughest bottom half - either South or Midwest. South has KU, Syracuse, Ohio State and New Mexico. Midwest has Michigan, Duke, UMass and Texas. I give a slight edge to the South, but just barely.

Easiest bottom half - West. Not even close. It's pretty wide open, honestly. Wisconsin isn't the scariest 2 seed, Creighton is as vulnerable as any 3, and Baylor is their 6. The bottom of the West is wide open, which means if Arizona makes it through their half, they should be in the FF without much problem.

I think we have to go small tonight. No Embiid means we may need to show a lineup with a lot of perimeter players. I think two guys step up - Frank Mason and the much maligned (deservedly so) Brannen Greene. I think Greene knocks down a couple of triples and Mason gets into the lane a few times to draw some fouls and open up the perimeter for others.

I think Black likely has a poor game tonight because of matchups, but hope he realizes that he is basically invaluable at this point because of his defense and rebounding (and toughness).

The greatest challenge for this KU team is whether or not they can get stops when they need them, regardless of what defense they are in.

They have not demonstrated that they can consistently force missed shots and get rebounds without Embiid patrolling the middle. There will come a moment in the NCAA tournament where they absolutely have to have a stop, and I am not sure they can get it right now. That's what scares me most.

So the adjustment needed. Our three best defenders are Wiggins, Black and Selden. Wiggins goes on the best guy the other team has, unless its a post player. Selden goes on the next best perimeter guy. Black has the duty in the post. Traylor plays when Black sits, unless the team has a lot of size, in which case we are depending on Landen Lucas since we really aren't that big without Embiid.

The rotation has to avoid having both Wiggins and Selden on the bench together. We just aren't good enough defensively without one of them on the floor. Thankfully, the NCAA tournament offers lots of long TV timeouts, so Wiggins, Selden and others can go 35+ minutes if necessary.

Really, we are at the point where I don't want the rotation to go much past 7 guys - Tharpe, Selden, Wiggins, Ellis, Black, Mason, Traylor - with maybe Brannen Greene playing some spot minutes here and there. Just too weak on the defensive end the further down the bench we go, and without Embiid to hide that, we just can't afford those lapses from guys like Greene and White.

Unfortunately, I just don't see a place in the rotation for Frankamp during the tournament. Now, maybe he has one half like Spike Albrecht did in the national title game last year. That would be incredible. But I just don't see him playing regularly the rest of this season.

As for zone, I fear that ship has sailed. As @HighEliteMajor said, we just don't practice it enough to break it out right now. I wouldn't want to run it for more than a few minutes in a game - 5 at most - and would really want to only use it for a couple of possessions as a gimmick more than anything.

@jaybate 1.0

"CF and Brannen will find their sea legs and make their shots."

I think both Conner and Brannen are struggling with the same issue, namely, going from getting 15-20 shots per game to getting <5. They were offensive stars in high school. They are role players now, which means they come in, maybe get 2-3 looks if they are getting shots that night, then they are done. In high school, they could start 0-3 and still finish 8-18 with 22 points on an off night. Now, they start 0-3, that is their night.

I don't feel pessimistic. However, watching this team right now, I see a Sweet 16 team without Embiid. Defensively, we just aren't very good without him protecting the rim. Perhaps Black can help with that, but he tends to get into foul trouble, and there is always a game in the tournament where quick whistles send a key big man to the bench.

Without Embiid, Black is our only reliable interior defender - Jamari has nice athleticism, but he doesn't match up well with bigger guys because he's closer to 6-7 than he is to 6-8. Perry just hasn't developed on the defensive end the way I had hoped. Landen doesn't have the lateral quickness to guard ball screens or get out away from the basket. If Black is in foul trouble, we are really vulnerable in the paint. I think this is why Myles Turner's name keeps coming up as a potential recruiting target. Our returning interior defense is not very stout right now, presuming that Embiid has in fact played his last game as a Jayhawk (which I think is the case).

The other question I have is the overall health of Naadir Tharpe. I know he's been battling some nagging injuries for a while now, and it seems like his play has really started to spiral downward. I am wondering, similar to last year with EJ, if his body just can't do it right now because he's banged up? And if so, this would be the second straight year that nagging injuries became an issue. I know Hudy does a great job of building guys up, but this is a concern from a training standpoint. I am not placing blame because I don't know - it could be something as simple as needing to stretch out a little bit better regularly in order to avoid some of the nagging things. It could just be bad luck and coincidence. But it is something to watch.

The danger in jumping from a mid major to a larger program is that you may land in a bad situation.

Alford left New Mexico to go to UCLA. UCLA was a mess. They not only had to get rid of their previous coach, they had to dismiss a couple of players as well. If you were a coach, would you really want to take over that program just to be in the big time?

Or take a look at some other recent leaps - Anthony Grant was the coach at VCU before Shaka Smart. He went to Alabama where he has had a mix of success and struggles. Perhaps Smart saw what Grant experienced and decided that there was no benefit and jumping from VCU, where he can put together strong teams in his style, to the middle (or bottom) of a major conference at a school like Illinois. Jim Larranaga led mid majors like Bowling Green and George Mason. He's at Miami now. He has an ACC title, and what will likely be his second NIT appearance coming.

There's just not much advantage for most coaches to jump if they are going to end up at a program that wants to win now, but is sitting as the 7th (or 8th or 9th) best program in their conference. Why leave Gonzaga to coach Washington State? Why leave VCU to coach Virginia Tech? Why leave BYU to coach Utah? There's just no benefit, unless you can implement your program and turn things around in three years or less.

@wrwlumpy

In looking at that series of screen grabs, look how high Greene's hips are as Staten dribbles away from him. Look how close together his feet are in that first frame (one foot just barely outside Staten's frame, the other completely hidden behind his body).

In that second cap, look at his feet again. He's not sliding in the proper defensive position. He's planting to run. Hips are too high again. Feet are still too close together.

Cap three is just the end of a sad, sad song. He's already beaten.

That's just poor defensive technique in every appreciable way. Feet too close. Standing too tall. Not sliding at all. Just bad plays all around.

@JRyman

I agree completely. Wiggins put the team on his back, but most of his teammates refused to go along for the ride. It was clear that offensively, Wiggins was going to do enough to get them back into the game. As a teammate, your job then is to rebound, take care of the basketball and defend as if your life depends on it. His teammates didn't do that. They got out-efforted and that's what bothers me most.

I do want one more thing from Wiggins though. In the heat of battle, somewhere around the time he crossed the 30 point threshold and it became clear that he was about to carry the team offensively, he never got after any of his teammates, never challenged anybody, never demanded that anybody else step up. Part of making your teammates better is asking, no demanding that they step up in moments of crisis. Instead I just saw a bunch of guys watching and hoping Wiggins would bail them all out in the end. I didn't see anyone else say, "whoa, Andrew is playing his [butt] off, let me help him out." That was the most disappointing thing to come from Saturday. Nobody else stepped forward. If anyone had, KU probably wins that game.

Wiggins showed what he can do. I think this should quiet all fears about whether or not he can take over a game.

I think the more significant question, the one that has been lurking along the edges all year, is whether this KU team is good enough defensively to be a factor in the tournament.

At some point, it's not just about other teams getting hot - it's about whether or not you have the players to cool them off.

Wiggins is a top notch defender. Embiid is as well. Selden can be above average, but mostly plays very average defense. Black is solid in the post, but fouls too much.

Other than those four, I really can't point to another player on the roster that is an average or above defensive player.

Devin Williams, who, prior to Saturday had averaged less than 9 points and less than 8 rebounds, went off for 22 and 13 on 8 of 10 shooting from the floor. The 13 rebounds tied a career high. The 22 points was a career high. Williams had NEVER prior to Saturday played as efficiently as he did.

Look at some of the losses this year - against Villanova it was Dylan Ennis going for 14 on 4-5 shooting, including 3-3 from three. That's his second highest point total of the season. Against Texas, it was Holmes and Taylor going 17-18 from the FT line. Against KSU it was DJ Johnson's 9 points in just 19 minutes (on 4-5 shooting). Against Oklahoma State Markel Brown scored 21 points on just 7 FGA because he was 10-10 from the line.

This is pointing to a huge problem. Basically, for our perimeter guys, if we don't have Wiggins on them, there's a pretty decent chance that they are either scoring with ease or getting fouled.

Inside, if we don't have Embiid accounting for someone, they are probably shooting 70%+ from the field, or getting fouled.

This is a bad defensive team, folks. There's no other way to say it.

We have two good defensive players, to solid defensive players that foul too much, and a host of average and below average defenders that are either getting blown by on the perimeter, offer no resistance at the rim, under rotate or foul at alarming rates.

I am not going to point to any one player because its a combination. I worry that without Embiid to clean up at the rim, this team is just too weak defensively.

I think this is why there's a push to get Lyle. We need another good defender. Looking at the returning players for next season, there's not a single above average defender in the group, particularly if Selden does leave. Without Lyle, next year's team could be frighteningly bad defensively.

Doesn't this thread point out the obvious - KU needs someone else to emerge as a national threat in the Big XII on a consistent basis.

This year the Big XII will probably have seven teams in the tournament. However, other than KU and Iowa State, they probably won't have any teams seeded higher than 5. It wouldn't be a shock if the Big XII had only one team in the Sweet Sixteen.

I look at Oklahoma, Texas and Oklahoma State as the realistic schools to start to emerge as consistent players on the national stage. ISU is another possibility, although their success is tied to Hoiberg, who could end up in the NBA before too long.

Good points made by a lot of posters here.

However, we have to think about this from a different angle as well. We don't know, right now, who will sign with KU.

Let's skip the 2014 class since it's pretty much wrapped up at this point and say that after the 2014-15 season we have Oubre leaving, Tharpe graduating and the following scholarship players returning - Seniors Mickelson, Ellis, Traylor, and White, Juniors Frankamp, Mason, Greene and Lucas and Sophomores Lyle and Alexander (I'm assuming Lyle signs and no one transfers). We need to land three guys.

Here is the list of guys that KU has offered in the top 15:

1. Malik Newman, 6-3 shooting guard
2. Stephen Zimmerman, 7-0 center
3. Ivan Rabb, 6-9 power forward
4. Skal Labissiere, 6-10 power forward
5. Cheick Diallo, 6-9 power forward
6. Elijah Thomas, 6-9 power forward
7. Carlton Bragg, 6-8 power forward
8. Jaylen Brown, 6-7 small forward
9. Derrick Jones, 6-6 small forward
10. King McClure, 6-3 shooting guard
11. Chance Comanche, 6-10 center

That's 11 of the top 15 players that KU has offered in the class. They can only sign three. But which three? Well, if Oubre leaves, they need either Brown or Jones. I don't know much about either right now, but let's say they grab Brown. They could use another guard. Let's add McClure to the mix. And since they are recruiting all of that size, let's throw Cheick Diallo into the fray as well, since he has such a cool name (I bet that sounds awesome over the PA).

So how will these personalities mesh with what's already in house. I don't know about you, but I changed quite a bit from when I was an incoming freshman to when I returned to campus as a junior. I would imagine that the same will be true for Frankamp, Mason and Greene. How will a player like Brown fit in with them? How will Andrew White handle having yet another tremendously talented player come in at his position? What about Lyle? How does he handle a combo guy like McClure's arrival?

And that's just personalities. We haven't even touched how their games match up on the floor. Does Diallo like to operate on the right block offensively? That's the same area Perry Ellis likes, so if that is the case they will operate in the same real estate and that just won't work. Let's say that Jones likes to work on the left wing. What if that's also Lyle's preferred side? Or if Mickelson likes the left elbow, but we have also seen that Jamari likes to start his moves from there? And that doesn't address the fact that inside you will see a logjam of Ellis, Traylor, Mickelson, Alexander and Diallo.

What if Self prefers Brown over Jones because Brown is a better fit, but knows he needs one of them to have a high skill wing player and gets Jones instead? Again, this is hypothetical. I don't know what the preferences are.

After all, the way this class is currently built, it's heavy on big men. It's pretty light on wing guys. If we miss on the preferred guy in the top 15, we may end up with a guy in the 70s or 80s that won't contribute for a year or two. We are only on the list with one other top 50 SF, and we haven't offered him yet. If he signs and we miss on our preferred guy, do we really want to take on a guy that may not contribute for 2 years just to avoid a OAD. That was Roy Williams old philosophy, which led to some pretty dry recruiting years when he missed - remember the Baron Davis miss that led to not really having a quality PG on the roster for a season back in the late 90s?

I'll take the talent, please.

@JRyman

I don't think TRob is a good comp to Lucas. TRob was ranked the #10 PF and #31 overall by Rivals, #9 PF and 25 overall by Scout, and #40 by ESPN. He was a borderline 5 star recruit. Not a OAD, but a high talent guy. Lucas was not ranked in the top 150 by any service he was on the border between being a three star and four star player.

My hope for Landen is that he achieves a Darnell Jackson type of career. That's probably his best case scenario, honestly. Robinson wasn't a top ranked player, but he was right on that next tier.

Here's the thing - in order to win the title, you need future pros on your roster. Pros as in plural. You can't win a title with a future pro. You need multiple players that can play at the next level.

In order to do that, you have to recruit the top talent. Not necessarily top 10 talent (which is where you will typically find the OADs), but you have to have talent.

Sometimes guys outside the top 50 develop - Morris twins, Tyshawn Taylor, etc. But here's the thing. Take a guy like Andrew White. He's a good basketball player, definitely a D1 talent. Ranked right around 50. However, he struggled on defense last year and has struggled with injury and effectiveness this year. The assumption is that four years of White is better than one of Wiggins.

The better question is whether White, in any of his four years, can be a rotation player on a championship caliber team. We are through two years and the answer is no.

And that is the rub. Wiggins, in one year, is clearly good enough to start on a championship level team. So is Selden. Embiid, too. Landen Lucas is not, but Jamari Traylor is. White isn't, but Greene is.

So is four years of White better than one of Wiggins? Probably not. Is four years of Greene better than one of Wiggins? Doubtful, but its more comparable because Greene could give you two years where he helps give you a shot at a title as a key cog. You know going in Wiggins will only give you one. The tough thing is that Wiggins is the type of talent that can put you over the top. Greene is the type of talent that helps you get there.

Here's the tougher question - is four years of Perry Ellis better than one year of Joel Embiid? I would say no, because Perry Ellis, while good, isn't the type of player to put you over the top. Embiid is, clearly.

I think that is what Self and coaches like him - Calipari, Donovan, others - have realized. OADs, while they could be disruptive, could also be the thing that puts you over the top. Why do you think a guy like Billy Donovan, with a team ranked in the top 5, would start playing a guy like Chris Walker in February after he was ruled eligible? It's because he could make a difference in March in a way that many other players can't.

Here's a hypothetical for you. If the NCAA had ruled that Ben McLemore could have played in the national title game against Kentucky a couple years back, would you have wanted him to play, even if that would also mean that he would have jumped to the NBA after playing only one game for KU? I would take that in a heartbeat. McLemore could have been the difference that day. He's that kind of talent. Adding him to that rotation, even just for that one night, could have closed the gap between KU and UK just enough to give the Hawks the title.

That's the difference between OADs and players ranked down the list. You pretty much know a OAD can make a difference in your season. There is no guarantee that a player ranked lower will ever have that type of impact in any one season, and at a school like KU, where you will basically always be good, you have to look for ways to push it over the top.

@JayHawkFanToo

If you watch the video I linked to, which is from Texas Tech btw, there's something said at the 0:17 mark. Orr says he said "piece of crap" but I don't hear that on the video. It's pretty unclear.

That doesn't justify Smart of course. There are two people here that are wrong. Orr for instigating, Smart for retaliating.

Would it have been better if Smart had said "we didn't want them celebrating in our building." Would you have felt like Smart was wrong to say that? Especially given some of the things that were said about Smart by KU fans after the backflip last year, including some that were of a very racial tone.

As you said earlier - can't have it both ways. Can't complain about people celebrating on our floor and then be offended when others don't want us celebrating on theirs.

@DinarHawk

Yes, actually I have. It happens quite a bit in college especially. Typically for smaller conferences, they play their tournaments at the home site of the top seed. If the top seed doesn't win the title, the nets are cut by the champion on the top seed's home court. I haven't watched enough title clinching games from other conferences to know if other coaches have trimmed nets on the road in the regular season consistently, but I do know that it has happened before.

Whether Self would do it is another thing entirely.

@globaljaybird

As for the whole TTech thing, I don't know what Orr said, but the way Smart reacted made me believe that Orr said something to spark that reaction, considering Smart wasn't even engaging him, then turned around very suddenly. The only video with sound of the incident is hard to hear what is said.

It doesn't sound like a racial slur, but I can't tell what he said. It's at the 0:17 mark in that video.

My thing is this - if you're going to criticize Smart for pushing that guy (and he was wrong for doing that, no doubt), then you should also criticize the Orr guy, who 1) is a booster of Tech and 2) has a history of incidents baiting players.

Just my thoughts.

@nuleafjhawk

Truer words were never spoken. It could have gone either way.

@truehawk93

You seem a bit aggressive about this whole Marcus Smart thing. OSU beat us, and they beat us because while they were able to execute, we were not.

We could not contain their high screen action. The reality of upper level basketball is that you don't run many set plays. You can run set plays on SOB and BOB situations, but most of the time you are not running a "play" but rather a repetitive action with multiple options on each branch.

For example, the famous "chop" that KU runs isn't really a play. It's an action. A play would have a definite beginning and end, with a specific shot being orchestrated. An action doesn't have that.

Most think chop is a play because we have seen the Chalmers shot, made famous in the national title game, but previously run in the Big XII title game in 2007 (to tie that game, oddly enough). However, that's just the first part of the action. KU actually ran the exact same set IN THE NATIONAL TITLE GAME in 2008. People don't really remember it because it did not end with a three, so it looks like KU's regular dribble hand off action (which is what it is based on. In that situation, Memphis played it perfectly and the action ended with Darrell Arthur hitting a jumper from the weak side.

If it were a play, the result would be to back the ball out if the three weren't there. However, because it's an action it just keeps going. Initial dribble handoff, swing to the weak side. Possible three from the weak side. Post up on the weak side block. Cut through to the new strong side corner. Flash to the high post for a high low option. Chop is Bill Self's favorite action because it incorporates all of his favorite things - high low, dribble handoff, strong to weak swing - into one continuous motion. But it's really not a play.

But back to my point, OSU ran a ton of action, typically off a high ball screen down the stretch. And they absolutely killed us with it. They ran similar action last night against K-State. And they killed them with it too.

As for the whole celebration thing, let's look at it from a different perspective. There were a LOT of people upset about OSU celebrating in the Phog last year after their win. We have on record that Bill Self said they would not celebrate the conference title until they had clinched outright. Now ask yourself - how do people normally celebrate titles? Is it completely unreasonable to take Bill Self's statement that KU would celebrate when they won the title outright, and knowing that a win in Stillwater would clinch the title (and the fact that KU's equipment managers had championship hats and t-shirts in tow), is Smart's statement really all that absurd?

Did Self say they would cut down the nets at Gallagher Iba? No.

Did he say they would celebrate after they won outright? Yes.

Would a win in Stillwater have been an outright title? Yes.

Do teams cut down nets after winning titles? Yes

Would an OSU coach showing the team the quote and then saying - DO NOT LET THEM CELEBRATE ON OUR FLOOR! have been out of line? I don't think so

Could that have been interpreted to mean net cutting? Maybe.

I will say this - calling Smart a liar and a thug because of the way he interpreted Coach Self's statement about celebrating when they won the title outright is over the top in its own respect.

@HighEliteMajor @jaybate 1.0 @Hawk8086

Lets say for instance that, rather than coming to Kansas, Andrew Wiggins had gone to Wichita State to play his one year of college ball with Nick instead. That would give WSU that answer they needed. We will never know, obviously, but we could have seen something like that happen for reasons that had nothing to do with basketball.

I think that's the variable we can't account for. What if a major recruit makes a decision based on non basketball reasons - staying close to home, playing with or for a friend/ family member. WSU is undefeated right now. If they had Andrew Wiggins, that could be the variable that they needed. What if next time the Wichita State of that year gets that recruit?

I think that's how it will happen, if it ever does.

1976.

That's the last time a men's D1 team went undefeated and claimed the title.

1990.

That's the last time a men's D1 team went undefeated and advanced to the Final Four.

That's the last time an undefeated D1 team made it to the title game.

WSU has completed a run through the regular season, but can they win a title?

Can anyone go undefeated at the D1 level any more?

I think it would take a perfect storm of things to make a once in a lifetime run possible.

First, I think it would take a non power conference school. The likelihood of going undefeated in a major conference is basically zero. KU has dominated the Big XII over the last decade, but their best conference mark was 15-1 (2009-10). It's just incredibly hard to go undefeated in conference, even at a non-major conference. Typically there's only a couple of teams with fewer than 2 conference losses for the season in all of D1. And that's not even taking into consideration the non-con schedule.

The next element would be a very good, experienced coach. Winning in the NCAA tournament you need someone with experience to handle the media crush that's basically a given as the team navigates the tournament. WSU benefits from having gone to the Final Four last year, giving not only their players, but their coach a chance to have gone through this before. They know the lay of the land. They know the pace and feel of the tournament. Marshall understands the preparation.

The third element would be previous conference domination. Being the hunted is different than being the hunter. However, if you're always the hunted in conference, you have that experience to handle when the pressure is multiplied chasing history.

Fourth, they need the perfect returning roster. Experienced guys that know their roles and can do things like knock down threes when nothing is going right, get rebounds when they absolutely have to have a stop and take care of the basketball on the road when the opposing crowd is ready to storm the court.

Finally, they need the perfect recruiting class. This is where I think WSU falls a little short. They have a lot of things going for them, but when it comes down to it, do they have enough overall talent to win it all once they get past the round of 32. Can they win consecutive games against, for example, Michigan State, Villanova, Florida and Arizona? That's a heck of a stretch. Do they have the talent to beat those four teams in a row, knowing they will have to win at least once with their B+ game, and they will have to win at least once when the other team plays their A+ game? That's the question I can't answer for them right now.

To win it all, a team has to have that perfect moment come together. If I had to pick teams that would have a chance at that, I'd point to the following schools.

1. SMU - With Larry Brown there, they have a tremendous coach with experience. Being in Dallas helps with recruiting and being in the American with Louisville leaving, they could find a year with the perfect storm. The downside is that time is not on their side with Larry Brown, and they still have Memphis, UConn and Cincinnati in their conference.

2. UNLV/ San Diego State - They are about even. Steve Fisher is in the same boat as Larry Brown. Plenty of experience, but starting to get on the wrong side of the aging curve. UNLV has made a run before, but it's tough to get players to come to Vegas consistently. Also, they play in the same conference, so that's a bit of a hurdle.

3. Villanova - They have a young coach who has already had some tourney success, and they are no longer in the Big East. If Creighton falls back to the pack next year and Georgetown does not emerge, I could see 'Nova becoming a real beast. They have some history to recruit from and they have gotten top players in the past. They're in Philly, so they have somewhere to recruit as well.

I'm not predicting anyone going undefeated. I just can't see anyone winning 40 games without a loss. There's too much talent, and it's too spread out.

Virginia has a solid team. However, they got a great break in the schedule.

They played Duke at Cameron (their only ACC loss). Got 'Cuse in Charlottesville. Got UNC in Charlottesville. Road win @ Pitt. But here's the thing. They only played each of those teams ONCE. The teams they played twice in league were Florida State (8-8 in conference), Maryland (7-9), Notre Dame (6-11) and Virginia Tech (2-14). Syracuse played Duke and Pitt twice. Duke plays UNC and 'Cuse twice. Pitt had 'Cuse and Clemson (the only other team in the ACC above .500 in league) twice. UVA didn't play a their home and homes against anyone that was above .500 in league. Only UNC had as soft a schedule among the top league contenders, especially considering they only played one of the top 3 teams in league on the road.

UVA won the ACC outright and they are deserving of it, but they still have some questions to answer in the ACC tournament, considering they have losses to Green Bay and Tennessee on their slate. That Tennessee loss (a 35 point beat down) still has me scratching my head. Was that the Tennessee ceiling, Virginia's floor or just a random college basketball happening?

@jaybate 1.0

The reality is that for Wiggins, it's not just about the money from an NBA contract. The money he could get from a shoe endorsement dwarfs that. Wigs, by nature of being Canadian, could be the most popular basketball player in the growing Canadian market by a long stretch. Every kid from Montreal to Toronto to Vancouver, and everywhere in between would want the Wiggy kicks.

I don't know what that's worth, exactly, but its worth quite a bit. However, it's only worth quite a bit for the current version of Wiggins - the high flying athletic marvel. The NBA money will almost certainly be there, even if he gets injured and has to adapt his game (God forbid). The shoe money, that's not assured, especially if he's not a stylish, high flying dunker that kids are emulating on nerf hoops.

That, to me, is the bigger issue here. Wiggs has a chance to make a lot of money from his specific style of basketball, just because he can reach a market in a way no other player probably can. In the same way Jeremy Lin is the most popular player in China and has lots of endorsement opportunities there that American players do not have Wiggs could do that in Canada. And Lin, though a good player, isn't exactly a superstar. Wiggins could be, which gives crossover appeal to the US market.

@drgnslayr

I think you're right on. I will add a couple of thoughts.

Perry was also hurt by avoiding the AAU scene for much of his developmental phase. This makes him a very well coached player. Unfortunately, it also meant that most of his game time was spent playing against smaller, weaker, less skilled players. Perry didn't spend as much time at skills camps and AAU tournaments playing other elite 6-8+ guys, getting those all important reps in live action.

Perry is a smart guy, though. He has made a lot of steps this year to cover some of his issues. However, the fact remains that while he is a good athlete, Perry is not a great athlete. He's not explosive enough to elevate over defenders, and, while strong, he's not strong in the way that a guy like Wayne Simien was strong. He's very skilled and very polished, but I don't think that will lead to an NBA career for Perry, at either the 3 or 4. The types of athletes at the 3 in the NBA (Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Paul George, etc.) are guys that he doesn't match up well with.

However, Perry could put himself into Jayhawk lore with some very nice career numbers. I would put him in the 1600 point neighborhood for his career, which slots him very nicely between Wayne Simien and Mark Randall for 12th all time. He has an outside chance of catching Kevin Pritchard (1692) Kirk Hinrich (1753), Dave Robisch (1754) and Paul Pierce (1768) if he bumps his per game average up to around 15.5 a game to get into the top 10.

He should get into the top 10 in career rebounding, probably somewhere around Scot Pollard, Wilt Chamberlain, Wayne Simien, Cole Aldrich and Drew Gooden in the 850-900 range.

He may not ever be an All-American, but I wouldn't be shocked if he was an academic All-American and finished his career as both a top 10 scorer and rebounder at one of the elite programs in the nation. That's nothing to sneeze at. And he could win a national title while he's here, too.

We also have to remember that one thing Lyle has working in his favor is that he can play either guard spot on both ends of the floor. He's big enough to guard basically any college 2, but can also handle the quicker PGs. He can handle playing on or off the ball on offense. That's a big deal because it means he can play with a very small lineup (Tharpe, Mason, Ellis, Alexander) or a big lineup (Selden, Oubre, Alexander, Mickelson). You could play him with Frankamp and Oubre on the wings and not worry about losing anything in either the ball handling or defense departments.

@HighEliteMajor it's important to note that Self is much more inclined to go with talent and versatility than experience. White is a 2. He isn't a very strong ball handler, so he can't play without having another strong ball handler on the floor. You can't play a lineup with him and Frankamp because you come up short in both ball handling and defense since White can't handle quicker PGs.

I think White would fit great at a number of schools. The tough thing about coming to KU is that if you can't crack the rotation as a freshman, there's a good chance you will never crack the rotation simply because every year there will be a new influx of talent to overcome. White could probably start at 250 of the 350 D1 schools. He'd probably be a vital rotation player at 75-80 of the remaining 100. It just so happens he's at one of the 20 or so schools where minutes are very hard to come by.

@REHawk I think we will see the friendship influence play into decisions much more in the future. Most of the top players understand that they will only be in college for a couple of years, so why not go somewhere that you like and can play with guys you enjoy playing ball with? I don't think Lyle sees himself as a OAD. He's ranked anywhere from the 20s to the 40s. Your typical OAD is ranked in the top 15, probably top 10. Not saying it can't be done, but Lyle is likely a two year college player at a minimum. He seems to have quite a bit of room for growth skillwise, which could make him one of the top players in the country as a sophomore or junior.

@HighEliteMajor

I think this is also reflective of Coach Self's new recruiting approach that he's been building for the last few seasons.

He knows that in order to compete for a title consistently, you have to have top shelf talent, and the only way to guarantee that you have top shelf talent is to recruit the best high school players.

As @drgnslayr said, it's hard to improve drastically while playing D1 ball. There's just not enough time to practice and work on your weaknesses, spend time in the weight room, film study, with coaches, etc. to make huge leaps either in season or during the off season.

For that reason, you can't expect a guy that comes in ranked low to make "the leap" from his freshman to sophomore year. Perry Ellis has made significant strides this year, but you have to remember that he was a top 40 recruit.

Maybe Frankamp makes a similar move next year, although his situation is different because of his size and position. I think he could be a nice gunner off the bench like Forte at OSU, or like Heslip was at Baylor before this season. I don't know that he will ever be a starter, but he doesn't have to be a starter to be a very productive player. If Greene doesn't develop into a starter level guy, you're completely dependent on Mason and unknown top 25 recruit in the backcourt in 2015-16. I think Self has seen that he needs to surround his incoming freshmen with some experienced contributors.

Next year, those experienced contributors will likely be Selden, Ellis, Tharpe, Traylor and Mason. All five of those guys will have played significant minutes this year. Greene and Frankamp are a year further along at this point. Add in Oubre, Alexander and Lyle, and that's a team that could play deep into March again.

Subtract Selden, Tharpe and Oubre from that mix the following year and add a couple of Top 25 recruits to the Ellis, Mason, Traylor, Lyle, Alexander, Greene, Frankamp group and you can play deep into March again.

And so on. If it lines up right, Self can literally just reload every year with one or two OADs, plus a couple of guys that are 2-3 year players and another 4 year guy (a Frankamp, or Greene, or Tharpe, or Traylor) to compliment the McLemore's, Oubre's, Wiggins' and Embiid's he also lands along the way.

I think next season's roster has room for Lyle.

Looking down the roster, we know that Black is gone. Wiggins is a OAD. Embiid is a top 5 pick, so I am considering him as good as gone, too.

That opens up three spots.

There are 13 scholarships. Right now, the scholarship players returning are Mason, Selden, White, Tharpe, Greene, Frankamp, Traylor, Lucas, Ellis and Mickelson. That's 10. Add Oubre and Alexander and we have 12. There's already enough scholarships to add Lyle.

So the question is does Self want another guard or a big guy.

Well, with Traylor, Lucas, Ellis, Mickelson and Alexander already in the fold, adding a sixth inside player would make it extremely difficult to find minutes for guys since you can really only play 2 of those guys at any one time.

I think that makes it more likely that Self signs another perimeter guy, especially since there are times where he has to play 4 perimeter guys at once. He has really only had two primary ball handlers on the roster this year, with Selden being an emergency ball handler. I bet he'd like to add a third so Frankamp can play off the ball more, where he has shown to be more comfortable, and able to look for his shot a bit more. Plus, having a big guard like Lyle means Frankamp won't have to cover a bigger guy, which has been a struggle for him at times this year.

You also have to consider the 2015-2016 season in this equation. You figure Selden is probably only a two year player. Oubre probably is a OAD. If White transfers and we don't have Lyle, the perimeter guys would be Greene, Mason and Frankamp, plus a top 25 recruit. We would still need one more perimeter guy at a minimum. For that reason, I think Lyle almost has to be the guy. I see him as a two year player, much like Selden.

@JayHawkFanToo

I disagree with your changes to the NCAA tournament for this reason. Right now, WSU can't get KU or KSU to play them. They take the games they can get, typically against mid level teams from other power conferences. They also try to get into tournaments to play stronger teams. This year, they were in the CBE classic. They could have played Texas in the final, but UT lost to BYU, so WSU played BYU instead. That's not WSU's fault that Texas didn't take care of business against BYU.

Now, as for yesterday's scheduling challenge, I picked the schedules I picked specifically for a reason.

Team A is Michigan State. They lost to team 22 (North Carolina). Yesterday, you said that WSU would likely finish "middle of the pack" in a major conference. You could not distinguish their undefeated non-con slate from MSU's 1 loss non con slate.

I'll skip team B and jump to C. C is K-State. They lost to team 163 (N. Colorado), 161 (Charlotte) and 59 (Georgetown). They have pretty clearly the weakest schedule of the entire group, and they are a "middle of the pack" Big 12 team. You don't think WSU is better than K-State?

Team D is Syracuse. Team F is Arizona. Both went undefeated in non-con. The ACC is obviously pretty solid with UNC, Duke, Pitt and UVA. However, Cuse has played only UNC, Pitt (2), and Duke (2). That's five games. The rest of their conference schedule is Miami twice (123), Virginia Tech (227), BC twice, with a loss (186), Wake Forest (98), Notre Dame (116), Maryland (76), NC State (64), and Clemson (73). Not exactly murders row. Basically, we are giving them credit for playing #22 (UNC) once, #45 (Pitt) twice and #7 (Duke). Pitt is slightly better than Indiana State (57). So really, they have three games so far that WSU can't match.

Arizona is slightly better because of the fact that the Pac 12 has a bunch of decent teams without a lot of bad ones. They played Washington State (189), USC (156), Oregon St. (100), Washington (78), Stanford (41) and UCLA (15) once. Utah (90), Oregon (44) Colorado (26) Cal (52), and Arizona St. (34) twice, with road losses to ASU and Cal. WSU can match Washington State, USC, Oregon State, Washington, Utah and Cal for schedule, so really we are talking about the following games - UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Colorado and Arizona State. Five games.

Finally, my favorite comparison - E and B. E is Wichita State. B is Villanova. Villanova's non con is a bit better. They have the single loss to Syracuse (9), but they have some good games in there. Looking at the Big East, other than Creighton, Xavier is 46, Georgetown, Providence and St. Johns are around 60, Marquette is in the 70s and then DePaul, Seton Hall and Butler are below 130. Not exactly world beaters here. One top 50 team in the league other than Creighton, then a bunch of decent and below teams.

Basically, if Creighton had stayed in the Valley, Villanova would be dominating a pretty weak Big East. They would be 26-1, loss to Syracuse (they got rocked by Creighton TWICE). Would we be saying Villanova wasn't good enough to be considered for a #1 seed? The only thing keeping 'Nova out of the 1 conversation is a pair of 20+ point losses to Creighton. WSU would probably be 29-1 with a split with Creighton? Would they be good enough to be a #1 seed if Creighton was in the Valley? We are basically talking about Creighton being in the Valley vs. the Big East in order to legitimize Wichita State. That doesn't make much sense to me.

@JayHawkFanToo

Their schedule is certainly not very strong. I agree with that. They don't control their conference and losing Creighton definitely hurt the strength of the Valley this year.

Here's the thing though. They can only play teams that will play them. KU has no interest in playing them, which I believe is the right decision for KU. Let's compare their non-con schedule with some other teams from major conferences:

So here are some non-conference schedules, by current RPI of teams that are likely to be dancing in March, plus WSU.

Team A - 265, 240, 227, 217, 212, 193, 165, 138, 24, 23, 22, 10

Team B - 285, 217, 192, 156, 130, 108, 95, 72, 39, 32, 9, 1

Team C - 345, 279, 239, 211, 182, 163, 161, 146, 82, 59, 28

Team D - 321, 182, 143, 141, 133, 132, 119, 104, 99, 56, 33, 12

Team E - 331, 327, 263, 195, 191, 180, 96, 62, 52, 43, 40, 4

Team F - 274, 272, 244, 164, 157, 146, 122, 109, 107, 77, 21, 14, 7

Can you pick out which one is WSU's "weak" non con? Even better, can you guess who the other schools are?

Answers later on.

@JayHawkFanToo

"I just don't see WSU bigs being able to keep up with our front line, particularly in view of how they handled Texas front line in the game in Lawrence."

How we played Texas in Lawrence was impressive. How we got manhandled in Austin (particularly that front line) is not.

@Crimsonorblue22

I'm not saying WSU is the likely national champ. I think Florida is the best team in the country right now. But I think they are among the best dozen or so teams in the country.

Look at the current top 10:
Florida - probably the best team in the country, losses to Wisconsin (5) and UConn (30)
Arizona - losses to ASU (32) and Cal (49)
Syracuse - losses to BC (171) and Duke (6)
Kansas - losses to Villanova (4), Colorado (26), Florida (3), SDSU (20), Texas (24) and K-State (41)
Duke - losses to Kansas (1), Arizona (2), Notre Dame (114), Clemson (67), Syracuse (9)
Louisville - losses to UNC (22), Kentucky (10), Memphis (35) and Cincinnati (21)
Villanova - losses to Syracuse (9) and Creighton twice (7)
Creighton - losses to SDSU (20), GW (29), Providence (62) and St. Johns (50)
St. Louis - losses to Wichita St. (8) and Wisconsin (5).

You're saying that Wichita State doesn't belong in that group? That they are that much inferior to Creighton, a team they beat last year? That they are inferior to SLU, a team they beat this year? Villanova, a team that Creighton mauled TWICE this year? Louisville, who has won exactly one game against a ranked opponent, and who WSU took to the brink in the Final Four last year?

Villanova beat Kansas. Kansas beat Duke. Duke beat Syracuse. Arizona beat Duke.

Wichita State is a clear top 10 team this year and it's hard to say they aren't among the 5 or 6 best teams. The worst losses on the above list belong to Syracuse and Duke. I don't hear anyone saying they shouldn't be in the discussion for a 1 or 2 seed.

@JayHawkFanToo

"...but in the Big 12, they finish middle of the pack at best."

I think that is putting too much stock into the jersey, and not enough stock into the players wearing the jersey. I watched WSU last night and the thing that impressed me was that they had the game under control literally the whole way. Once they hit certain thresholds, the lead stayed there. Once they got up 6, Bradley never got it back within four. When they pushed it to 10, Bradley never got closer than 6. Once it went above 15, the closest Bradley got was 13. They never had a knockout run, but there was never a moment where Bradley made a run to make you think they could maybe get back into it. They play the kind of basketball that makes it hard for the other team to believe they can win.

Cleanthony Early is a potential pro. I'd go so far as to say that he'd be the best player on the floor if WSU played Tech, TCU, WVU, K-State, Texas or Oklahoma. He's got a ton of talent. There isn't a surefire NBA player on any of those rosters. Early would start any of those places. I'd bet Fred Hoiberg would love to have him at ISU. He could play a ton of minutes at OSU or Baylor. Heck, Early would play at KU. He wouldn't start ahead of Wiggins, but to think he'd be behind any of the other guys at the 3 spot is insane.

Ron Baker is a top notch shooter. I'd go so far as to say this year he's every bit as good as Cooney from Syracuse. I think you could switch those two guys and nobody would notice a change in production at either school.

Van Vleet is about as solid a point guard as there is in college basketball. He's not an elite talent, but he's very, very solid.

Tekele Cotton is... actually, rather than tell you, I'll just submit this link.

Those four guys all average between 10 and 15 points a game. All four have hit at least 30 threes this year. Their other five guys that play all play at least 12 minutes a game and provide something - Coleby, Lufile and Carter rebound, block shots and generally make the painted area an uninviting place for opponents. Wiggins shoots and defends. Wessel hustles, defends and handles the ball.

The only thing that would change if WSU were to play in the Big 12 is player development. In the Big 12, guys like Wessel, Baker and Van Vleet would not have gotten the minutes they got last year (19, 26 and 16 respectively). They would have been playing less than 15 minutes each, which probably would mean they would not be developed to the point they are now.

Take a guy like Tekele Cotton. He played 10 minutes a game as a freshman. In the Big 12, he probably plays less than 5 because he would not have been ready. At WSU, they know he's going to be there 4 years, so it helps to get his feet wet as a frosh. Last year as a sophomore he played 23 minutes a game and was a key player for them, typically coming off the bench. This year as a junior he's starting, playing 31 minutes a game and doing the kinds of things I linked to above. He probably couldn't have played in the Big 12 as a freshman. He absolutely could play in the Big 12 now.

If you took out a random Big 12 team (let's say Oklahoma) and replaced them with WSU I think WSU is probably second or third in the conference right now. Sweeping Tech, TCU and WVU is pretty clear. They would put the muscle on a team like Baylor and Baylor would probably not bang back with them. Depending purely on when they played Oklahoma State, they might split, but I have a feeling Tekele Cotton would make Marcus Smart very frustrated. The Iowa State games would be incredible basketball. As I said yesterday, they are a better, more talented version of K-State and I just don't think KSU could beat them because their style would make it very difficult. That leaves Texas and KU. Say they go 1-3 there and end up 13-5 or something like that in the Big 12. That's probably good for second, definitely enough for third.

@JayHawkFanToo

About that schedule, let's break it down and ask ourselves if WSU would be worse than KU's current 22-6 mark if they played KU's schedule.

Let's dispense with the easy ones first - ULM, Iona, Towson, Wake Forest, UTEP, Toledo, West Virginia, TCU (2), Texas Tech. All wins. That's 10 wins right now.

Moving to the next tier, we have to consider Villanova, Oklahoma (2), K-State (2), New Mexico (neutral), Georgetown, @Colorado, Texas (2), Baylor (2), Oklahoma State:

Villanova is good. They have only lost 3 times all year. All three losses are by double digits (Syracuse, Creighton twice). This game is probably a coin flip.

WSU is in many ways a better version of K-State. They've handled teams like OU, New Mexico, Georgetown, Colorado and Baylor all year. I say they end up with one loss among those 9 games. KU went 7-2, but WSU was more consistent early in the season than KU, so I figure they either beat KSU in Manhattan or beat Colorado in Boulder, but not both.

Texas and OSU left in this group. Texas may give them problems down in Austin, but WSU is pretty stout at home, so they are no worse than 2-1 here.

The final tier is the tough ones: Iowa St. (2), Duke (neutral), SDSU, @Florida.

I've got WSU pegged for a loss against Duke. I also have them losing to Florida in Gainesville. They beat Iowa State at home. The trip to Hilton is a coin flip. The visit from SDSU is a coin flip. The SLU win tells me they probably beat ISU at Hilton. They may hold their home court against SDSU.

So going back and counting the coin flips, its Villanova, @ISU and SDSU. Let's say they go 1-2 there.

Counting it up - 10-0 against the weakest teams.
10-2 in the next tier.
1-2 in the final tier.
1-2 in coin flip games.

Losses to Duke, @ Florida, Villanova, SDSU, @ISU, @KSU. Basically trading the Colorado loss for the Duke loss and the @ Texas loss for the @ISU loss. Maybe they have one more loss (either of those previously mentioned games), but I have a hard time finding more than 7 losses on that slate for WSU.

Remember, the Big XII's strength is in having lots of really solid teams, not in having a bunch of world beaters. The rankings for the conference are 11 (ISU), 23 (Oklahoma), 24 (Texas), 39 (Baylor), 41 (K-State), 47 (Okie St), 82 (WVU), 113 (Tech), and 201 (TCU). The lack of really bad teams boosts the overall conference rating.

The Big 10 has 5 teams rated behind West Virginia and three rated behind Texas Tech. The Pac12 has 4 teams ranked behind West Virginia and Washington ranked just a few spots ahead (78). 8 SEC teams are rated below 80. The Big East only has 2 teams in the top 50, but three lower than 120. The ACC has 6 teams ranked below 100, including 3 below 150.

Every team in the country except Wichita State has a loss. This is a fact. If they stay undefeated, they will be a one seed.

Saying that other teams would be undefeated if they had played WSU's schedule ignores facts.

Syracuse has lost to Boston College. BC's RPI is in the 170s. So is Drake's. WSU beat them by 17 in Des Moines, and by 29 in Wichita. Cuse almost lost to NC State. Their RPI is around 60. Indiana State has a higher RPI than NC State. WSU beat them by 20 at home and 7 on the road.

Arizona lost to both Arizona State and Cal. ASU has an RPI of 32, Cal is at 49. Wichita beat BYU by 13. BYU's RPI is 33. They beat St. Louis by 5 at SLU. SLU's RPI is 11.

Simply put, almost every team loses games they probably shouldn't lose. WSU has not done that, even though they get everyone's best shot every night in the Valley.

Going undefeated is HARD. I don't think anyone can do it for a whole year because even a team with a "weak" schedule like WSU has played enough legitimate teams that they could have slipped up once. Except they haven't.

The only team in the country besides WSU that doesn't have a loss to a team outside the RPI top 30 is Florida (Wisconsin at 5, Connecticut at 30).

My concerns for the NCAA tournament are always based on matchups.

My nightmare scenario for KU is VCU as a Round of 32 opponent, Michigan State as a Sweet 16 opponent and Syracuse as an Elite 8 opponent. To me, that's the worst possible set of matchups for this particular KU team.

VCU's havoc exposes KU's occasionally shaky ball security. Michigan State could expose the fact that we sometimes back down when we get hit in the mouth. Syracuse's zone is a nightmare for a team that doesn't always shoot well from the perimeter.

This KU team is very talented, but vulnerable to certain specific styles. That is what makes the tournament so scary.

This is where the conflict exists between a player's best interests and a coach's best interests.

For Joel Embiid, given his size, his potential and the situation, it is unquestionably in his best interests to sit until his knee and back are absolutely healthy.

For Bill Self, given Embiid's unique ability, it is undoubtedly in his best interests to have Embiid in the lineup as long as Embiid can contribute at an 80% level.

So what to do? Does Self ignore his own best interests and sit Embiid for the next week or two, possibly jeopardizing the quest for conference title 10, or does he play him and risk a more substantial injury if Joel is trying to compensate?

Does Embiid ignore his own best interests and "gut it out", putting himself at risk as a big man to injure his knees or back? It is well known that big guys are at a unique risk when it comes to back and leg injuries because of their size. Does Embiid ignore that? Should he? Or does he say he can't go and risk being labeled "soft?'"

Honestly, I don't know what the best course of action is here. It would be easier on Embiid if Self ruled him out of the lineup, but its unlikely that happens unless the injury is more substantial than we are being told.

@jaybate 1.0

Some very interesting analysis. I agree with you that in order to beat KU you have to slow the game down. KU just has too much offensive talent to try and out score them in an up and down game. KU has two elite collegiate level scorers in Wiggins and Ellis, along with two very good collegiate scorers in Selden and Embiid. Pretty much on any given night two of those guys will get going. Wiggins, Selden and Ellis have all shown that they can go for 20+. Tharpe can also score if left unchecked, so the starters can really hurt a team on the offensive end.

Unlike past years, this years team probably will not lose to an undertalented team. You can't really gimmick them to death because gimmicks won't keep Ellis, Embiid, Wiggins, and Selden all quiet for 40 minutes. You need a lot of talent.

The formula is simple - be physical with the front line. Not physical to the point of fouling because, as you observed, Wiggins, Ellis and Embiid are all good enough at the line to make you pay for putting them there. But you have to be physical, as this has been shown as a way to really take Perry out of his game. Perry is, in some ways, the most important Hawk to eliminate because KU typically tries to get him going first. If he struggles, the offense will typically stagnate early on. If you can knock Perry off stride, then you have to force Wiggins and Selden into lots of guarded two point jump shots.

The most important thing is to turn the PG into a scorer. While Tharpe and Mason can both scorer (Conner, too), if they are having to score it probably means that they aren't getting contributions from the big 4.

Finally, deny the Color Guard (White, Greene, Black) any chance of getting into a rhythm on the offensive end. That means no open jumpers for White and Greene, and no offensive rebounds for Black.

If you can do that, you can limit KU to about 60 points. Their season low is 57 against San Diego State.

Now you have to find 65 points of your own. The quickest way to do that is to force turnovers, probably at least 18. You will need about 20 points off turnovers because KU's set defense is improving, especially with Embiid continuing to develop as a rim protector.

You will also need to shoot the three well. KU is vulnerable to the 3pt shot, so if you can hit 8-12 threes, (24-36 points), you won't need that many two point FGs.

Finally, you need to get to the line at least 20 times. Villanova shot 29 FTs against KU (winning 63-59). Florida shot 34 FTs (winning 67-61). SDSU shot 18 FTs (winning 61-57). Colorado shot 37 FTs (winning 75-72) and was aided by a buzzer beater at the end of each half. Oklahoma State shot only 16 in the two point loss to KU. You have to get to the line often (and shoot a solid percentage) to beat KU. Notice that SDSU only survived because they are an elite defensive team. Had they not been an elite defensive team, they lose simply because they would not have scored enough points to beat KU even though they played well enough.

Because of the talent KU has, the margin to beat them is pretty small. You need turnovers, a good three point shooting night and lots of FTs to have a chance. Miss one of those ingredients and you likely still lose.

Dealing with lots of new players is tough because these guys don't know each other on the court. They don't know, for instance, where a guy likes to catch the ball, or how he likes to set up in the post or on the perimeter. They don't know when a guy doesn't want a cutter through the lane because he wants to turn into the middle, or when a guy wants a cutter because he's turning baseline. Those things take time to learn.

In high school I was lucky enough to play with the same group of guys for basically 3 years, the last two of which were on varsity. We got to the point that we didn't even call a lot of things out because we had played together so long we just knew what other guys wanted on both ends of the floor. We basically didn't call switches defensively because we had gone through the same rotations for two and a half years in practice and games, to the point that I knew from a guys positioning whether he wanted to take a man or not and I could react accordingly.

Thing is, that doesn't happen in a day, or a week, or even in a half season's worth of practices. Look at Smart and Forte at Oklahoma State. They've been playing together for 10 years and it shows. How many times have you seen Smart with the ball and just suddenly find Forte spotting up from some unreasonable distance. That doesn't happen after a handful of practices. That happens because he's found him spotting up like that since they were in 6th grade, he knows where he is, where he's going, and when and where he will want the ball delivered when he gets there.

UK has some issues. Their two best offensive players - Randle and Young - haven't figured out how to play off each other to complement their skills consistently. The Harrison twins are struggling to find their niche in the offense because they are used to being able to dominate the ball on the perimeter, having never really played with a dominant post guy like Randle before. Cauley-Stein hasn't fully embraced his role as a rim protecting shot blocker/ rebounder, but that comes from being a scorer in HS and trying to continue to do the same in college.

One of the major things that has helped this KU team is that Wayne Selden has been able to take a back seat for the majority of the season. It's been frustrating because there have been games where Selden could have really helped KU had he just decided to take over for a stretch, but by letting Wiggins, Ellis and Embiid take center stage, there has never really been confusion about the pecking order.

@icthawkfan316

Interesting question you bring up about the overall depth. The Big 12 has one great team (Kansas), several pretty good teams, and a couple above average teams. I could see seven making the dance, but of those seven, I could see five being seeded between 6-10, meaning they probably won't advance past the round of 32.

Oklahoma doesn't have a single notable win out of conference. Probably Alabama or A&M is their best non con win. They lost to La. Tech, which isn't good, but their only other losses are KU, Michigan State and K-State. La Tech is tied for first in Conference USA, so there's a solid chance that OU doesn't have a loss against anyone that will miss the tourney. On the other hand, they really don't have any notable wins. Tough to see them being better than a 5 seed unless they keep rolling in the Big 12.

Texas has a loss against BYU. That hurts them quite a bit. But their other losses are Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Michigan State. Not a bad resume. Still, no notable wins, unless you want to count their win against UNC (I don't). They are probably staring at a 6 seed.

Oklahoma State and Iowa State have done better. OSU beat Memphis (also lost to Memphis), Colorado and La. Tech. ISU beat Iowa, Michigan and Boise State (with no non con losses). That will probably have them both on the 4/5 line. Still, that makes it unlikely that either of those squads makes it past the Sweet 16.

Baylor has a good non con resume as well. Wins against Colorado and Kentucky and their only non con loss being to Syracuse. Their conference season has been a mess, but if they finish 8-10 in conference, they will probably sneak into the tourney with a 20-11 record and a 12 seed.

K-State has three bad losses - Northern Colorado, Charlotte and Georgetown. They have one good non con win against Gonzaga. They probably can nail down a 6 or 7 seed, but they would need to go on a serious run to rise much higher. Any sort of slide probably knocks them out of the tournament completely with such a weak resume.

The Big 12 is a weird conference in that it's middle is probably stronger than any other conference. There just isn't much drop off from the #2 team to the #6 team. That will probably mean that KU starts pulling away in the conference, but it also means that a lot of those teams will be in the tournament.

I predict six tournament teams with Baylor being either a play-in game or first four out. However, only KU, ISU and OSU have the talent to advance beyond the round of 32 and only KU and ISU really have any chance of getting past the Sweet 16.

Last night's win may have effectively ended the conference title chase.

Let's look at the standings taking into account only losses and remaining road games.

1. Kansas - no losses, road games against Texas, Baylor, K-State, Tech, OSU and WVU.

2. Oklahoma - 2 losses, road games against Iowa State, WVU, OSU, KU and TCU.

3. Texas - 2 losses, road games against TCU, K-State, Iowa State, KU, OU and Tech.

4. K-State - 3 losses, road games against WVU, Baylor, OU, Tech and OSU.

5. Oklahoma State - 3 losses, road games against Tech, Texas, Baylor, TCU and Iowa State

6. Iowa State - 4 losses, road games against OSU, WVU, TCU, K-State and Baylor.

The remaining schedule for Texas is brutal. They've got KU twice, plus road games with K-State, ISU and Oklahoma. They have a four game stretch from Feb 18 to March 1 that goes @ISU, @KU, vs. Baylor, @OU. They will be hard pressed to escape that going better than 2-2. And they have to make up 2 games on KU. I don't think their chances are very good.

Oklahoma's schedule isn't quite as harsh as Texas, but they already lost their home game to KU, so they need a win in Lawrence, plus some help to make up that ground, and they still have to go to Stillwater for Bedlam part 2. They have a trip to Ames on Saturday that could knock them out of serious contention with another loss at this stage of the race.

K-State probably has the easiest remaining slate, as they have already traveled to Lawrence, Austin and Ames. Problem is, they lost all three of those games. Their only Big XII road win is against TCU. If they can't win on the road, holding serve at home won't be enough because they still have to go to both OU and OSU, and they have to make up 3 games in the loss column.

Oklahoma State is in a mess. They still have trips to Texas, Baylor and Iowa State. They already have 3 losses and their home schedule is the toughest out there - Baylor, Iowa State, Oklahoma, Tech, KU and K-State. I can't see them making up much ground unless they just go crazy.

And then there's Iowa State. They have four losses now. They have a virtual must win game Saturday with Oklahoma. Lose that and they probably have no chance of making up ground to even finish second in the conference (already having lost in Norman). They haven't played Oklahoma State at all yet, so they still have two with the Cowboys. Their only saving grace is that they have five total games against the bottom of the conference - WVU, TCU twice each and Tech in Ames. But with four losses already, they really can't lose again.

Simply put, looking at everyone's remaining schedule, I can't see anyone other than Texas or OU even having a chance to catch KU. Texas has a better shot because they can make up ground on KU just by winning their own games since they have the Hawks twice. But Texas has that brutal stretch in their schedule that will make it tough to keep pace. Oklahoma has to win Saturday or they may end up too far back to even chase KU, especially since they haven't been to Lawrence yet.

Number 10 may be closer than we realize.

@globaljaybird That's an agonizing injury to have. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's amazing really. The human body can stand lots of pressure and stress, but if that pressure comes at the wrong angle, or just a bit to one side or the other, the damage could be life and career altering.

You could probably go back through footage of Joel cutting where he is putting much more force on his knees than he is in the above photo. But in those instances, the pressure and stress is aligned with the joint and everything flows smoothly.

There's one other factor that makes Wiggins very attractive to shoe companies - he's Canadian, from a family that is athletic royalty in his home country. There is a chance that whichever shoe company signs Wiggins will have every basketball player from Vancouver to Montreal wearing his signature shoe.

Canada has never been a basketball hotbed, but Wiggins could help to change that. His value as a brand in Canada could create huge worldwide revenues for whatever company he picks when the time comes. That's where the real value comes and that's why the bidding for Wiggins as a spokesman could get a little crazy.

@jaybate 1.0 My thinking is that 1 seeds have always had a tremendous advantage in that their first round opponents are the weakest teams in the field. Whether it's a 24 team tournament, a 48 or a 64, having your first game against the weakest team in the field is a huge advantage. Look at conference tournaments for an example. How often do you see the #1 seed in a conference tournament NOT make it to the conference semifinals? It's pretty rare for the #1 to lose their first game. Not unheard of, but rare.

The talent gap is a bigger reason for the success of the #1s, though. Let's imagine for a second that every team has a true talent level between 100 (best) and 1 (worst). Now, let's say this year the #1 seeds end up being Arizona, Syracuse, Wichita State and KU (to borrow Lunardi's prediction for a moment). Let's say their TTL rank (I'm making these true talent rankings up as I go along) is UA (94), Syracuse (95) Wichita State (91) and KU (95). Then let's say the #2 seeds are Florida (92), SDSU (90) , MSU (91) and Villanova (88). Let's say that 16 seeds are TTL at around 65, 15s are high 60s. 3 seeds are 88-86, 4s are 86-83, 5s are 83-82, 6s are 82-80, 7s are 80-79, 8s and 9s are 78-77, 10s are 76-75, 11s are 74, 12s = 73-72 13s and 14s 71-70.

So in the first round, there's close to a 30 point "gap" between the TTL of 1s and their 16 opponents. However, as you move through the field, the gap becomes much less. The difference between a 12 seed and a 5 is about 10 talent points. If a 5 plays poorly, they will likely lose simply because they aren't that much better than a 12 seed. Even in the second round, the best #1s are still enjoying a 15+ point gap between them and their opponents talent. It isn't until the third round (Sweet 16) where the gap may shorten to within 10 or 15 talent points. This is why 1 seeds almost always get to the Sweet 16. They are just so much better than 16 seeds, and even the 8/9 seeds.

But look at the 2 seeds. You see that Florida, Wichita State, SDSU and Michigan State are all roughly the same talentwise. WSU has the easier path, but there's a decent gap in talent between the top 3 #1s and the rest of the field , especially when you consider that the difference between the #1s and any opponent they will see before the Elite Eight is going to be close to or greater than 10.

There is a limit to how bad tournament teams are because really bad teams - the ones that would be TTL of 50 or lower - generally don't make the tournament, and if they do, they face a #1 seed that immediately shows them the door. But there really isn't a limit on how good a tournament team can be. If somebody has a 98+ talent, that's probably going to separate them from the field quite a bit. They would be a #1 seed. But the 2s would still cluster in the high 80s, low 90s. The threes would still be in the upper 80s, 4s in the mid 80s, etc. The only changes would be on the extremes - the best teams in the tournament could be incredible, the worst teams in the tournament could be horrible. But the middle would likely stay roughly the same.

That's why it's tougher as a 2. On your side of the bracket you would have a 3 seed (87), a 6 (81), a 7 (80) a 10 (76), an 11 (74) and a 14 (70), along with your first round opponent 15 (68). You enjoy that huge 20 point gap in round 1, but round 2 brings you an opponent that's probably within 10 or 12 points of your talent level. The Sweet 16 likely gives you a team that is practically your equal (3) or very close to your round 2 opponent.

An elite #1 won't face a team that is their equal (talent wise) until the final four.

@HighEliteMajor that photo is also probably why Joel Embiid will not be wearing a KU jersey next season.

I think about the speech that Al Pacino gives in Any Given Sunday. The crazy thing is, the margin is really smaller than that. We aren't talking about inches in a lot of situations, we are talking about millimeters. We are talking about changing the angle by a quarter of a degree. We are talking about rotating a body 2 degrees, or turning a hundredth of a second sooner.

The area that houses the ACL in the knee is fairly narrow. For most people, it's only a few millimeters wide. The difference between blowing your knee completely out, spraining it, tweaking it, or just stepping awkwardly is the difference of about a millimeter each. That's it. Four millimeters is the difference between a weird step and being crumpled on the floor grabbing your knee in pain. That's less than half a centimeter.

The even more frightening thing is that there is nothing all that notable about that play. It's not terribly abnormal, or vicious. There's nothing dirty or unusual about the play or the contact. But one or two millimeters more flex and Joel's season would have been OVER just like that.

How small is the window for success, really? For KU, that window may have been two millimeters wide, and that might have been just enough.

@HighEliteMajor

"If #2 seeds are as good as #1s..." The thing with seeding is that really, there is a pretty clear separation on each seeding level. For instance, the best 2 seed could probably switch places with the weakest #1. However, the third best 2 seed is usually not nearly good enough to be a #1. The second best 4 isn't good enough to be a 3 most likely, and so on.

That matters for one seeds because, most likely, the number one seeds are four of the best six teams in the country. Chances that one of the best six teams in the tournament wins in a single elimination set up are actually pretty good, especially given that no 16 seed has EVER beaten a 1, so #1s are really playing in a 32 team tournament while everyone else is playing in a 64 team field (ignoring the play-in games). That is an enormous advantage.

The other thing that hurts 2 seeds is that they are much closer to the rest of the field than the 1 seeds. For example, you can look at some of the incredibly dominant teams of the last 25 years - UNLV in 1990, Duke in 1992, Arkansas in 1994, Kentucky in 1998, UConn in 2004, Florida in 2007, the entire 2008 Final Four, Louisville last year, Kentucky the year before - those teams were truly elite and separated themselves from the field. The teams in the tournament are on more of a continuum than just a straight ranking. The five or six best teams in the field are usually quite a bit better than anyone else in the field. Being quite a bit better means you don't have to play six perfect games to win the title. You just have to play solid to get into the Final Four. The best 2s and 3s have to play at the top of their game (or very close) because the 4s, 5s and 6s aren't really all that much worse than they are, and if a 6 plays over their head, they can knock off a 2 or 3 (and often do).

Foster is a good player. He's even a player that, on a better team surrounded by better talent, could become an all conference level player. But he's not a pro.

Ennis will likely be a pro. I watch him and feel like he's going to play in the NBA. Not next year, but likely within two years he will be in the NBA. I don't see that with Foster. Ennis just handles everything so well for Syracuse. He runs their offense, takes over when he has to, doesn't turn the ball over, causes havoc on top of that zone, etc. Foster is a very good player on a pretty average team.

If you asked Boeheim to trade Ennis for Foster, straight up, right now, he would laugh and hang up the phone. If you asked Weber about Foster for Ennis, he would close the door and have at least a half hour closed door secret meeting about the trade before he gave you an answer.

As for Foster for Mason, I think Bill Self would actually listen on that. Foster is a bit bigger, so while he and Mason have similar games, Foster might hold up better. Self would think about it before he said no. He wouldn't call a secret meeting with his assistants to discuss it, but he would weigh the pros and cons himself. Boeheim wouldn't even entertain the offer.

My E8

1. Arizona - They will likely be the #1 or #2 overall seed. That means they probably won't be challenged prior to the Sweet 16, maybe not even then depending on upsets.

2. Syracuse - A very good team with lots of talent. They defend very well, they are deep and not many teams attack their zone well. I'd be shocked if they aren't at least into the Sweet 16.

3. San Diego State - they do everything you expect of a team that gets deep into the tourney - defend, play hard, rebound - all of the things you can do well every single night. They are battle tested, too.

4. Kansas - starting to come together at the right time. I could see them as either the lowest 1 or the highest 2 seed.

5. Iowa - There always seems to be a team that makes a push. I don't think Iowa is the best Big 10 team, but I think they will be the one that emerges.

6. Florida - If Chris Walker becomes eligible any time before the tournament, look out. That could be what pushes Florida from the Elite 8 (where they have lost 3 years in a row) to the Final Four.

7. Kentucky - Having that much talent around makes them scary. I look at their losses and don't see a real stinker on the slate. They have one of the toughest players to stop in the country, so undersized, undertalented teams won't be able to knock them out early.

8. Wichita State - with the caveat that this only applies if they get a top 3 seed. If they end up lower, they will take too many shots to get through to the Elite 8.

@ralster When analyzing which defenders affect which offensive strategies the best, height is only one factor.

For example, let's look at Heslip's game. He's a catch and shoot guy. He can put it on the floor, but that is not his preferred method of destruction. He wants to run off screens, catch and fire. For a guy like Heslip, size will present a problem, because he needs those screens to create that much more space if he's going to get a good look over a lengthy defender like Wiggins. On the other hand, take a guy like Pierre Jackson from Baylor last year. A guy like Wiggins would not necessarily be as good a matchup on someone like him, because while Wiggins' size would bother him, he would be looking to catch off those screens and drive. A player like Frank Mason would probably be a better matchup on a player with Pierre Jackson's skill set and preferences.

Taking your discussion of Tyshawn and Brady - Tyshawn was a very good "on-ball" defender. Brady was a good "off-ball" defender. Brady struggled against slashers, but did very well against catch and shoot guys where his primary job was to deny the ball and crash screens. Tyshawn was much better on ball, and defending the pick and roll. Part of this was because of their differing skill sets. To be a good on ball defender, you have to have quickness and athleticism first and foremost. Tyshawn had that. Just being smart and reviewing the scouting report won't help you on ball if you don't have the speed and agility to stay in front of a guy. Where that film study pays off is in defending off the ball, where you can "play the play" (i.e. over commit to the side where the play will go, thereby denying the initial action). You can do that off the ball because the guy without the ball can't hurt you as much as long as your overplay doesn't give him a free lane to the basket. Playing the play on the ball will get you embarrassed.

Notice that when we played certain teams during that era (K-State comes to mind) Brady never guarded Pullen or Clemente for extended stretches. Self understood that he was better off putting Brady on a shooter as opposed to a scorer.

If WSU goes undefeated, they do deserve a #1 seed. I doubt they go undefeated because at some point in time, even in the MVC, a decent team like Indiana State, or Northern Iowa, or Drake will catch them on the road and upset them. I doubt they lose at home this year, but road trips can get dicey.

I'd say even a 1 loss MVC regular and tournament champ WSU should be a 1 seed. If they have multiple losses, no, but it would be tough to say they don't have one of the 3 or 4 best resumes with only 1 loss.