Reality check from the land of Trust in Bill Self
-
@mayjay Thank you for this post. I’m really sick of people bashing Bill and the team after Saturday. I even turned my phone off for most of the day Sunday. HCBS is the man period. Sure his record could be better but there’s no other coach alive on earth that i’d want to helm our beloved Jayhawks!
-
@HawkInMizery Thank you!
-
Our bracket was filled with teams loaded with height and bullies. We knocked off MSU (bullies on the court) and Purdue (plenty of height). There fan bases have to be pissed about losing to Kansas. The one thing I take away from not advancing in this year’s tournament is that before we left, we took a few teams with us.
-
Been thinking about this for a couple days now. Why Self gets stuck in the Elite 8.
Had it been a regular season game and JJ picks up 2 fouls before the 1st TV time out, would Self even bother bringing JJ back in the game? Especially when they were only down a point in the 1st half? I think we can all agree JJ was pretty ineffective the first half. Virtually losing a position player for a half. Maybe this could be 1 example of Self doing something different in the E8?
I read a quote from Vick saying he’ll remember this Elite 8 all the way to next year. Is that really the smart thing to do? Automatically set yourself up for that pressure before next season begins?
I’m probably just overthinking this now.
See ya around in the Royals GDTs!
-
@jayballer54 said:
I’m just curious as to how many schools/fans would wet themselves to have the opportunity to have 7 chances at the elite 8? win or lose?
Yes - BUT they aren’t KANSAS fans!
-
@nuleafjhawk Right cause they aren’t spoiled - - - Did you happened to noticed where I posted that since 1979 only 25 % of # 1 seeds reach the final 4? - - That’s not very good odds over the years, I imagine there are ALOT and I mean ALOT of schools that would love to be in the position we are --a lot of elements go into making the final four, a we have seen it only takes ONE bad night and your done, doesn’t mean your season is a waste or disaster - -doesn’t mean your season has been a failure/loss. Many of really good teams have failed to make it to the final four - - -ask umm Duke - -Kentucky - -Michigan State - - Ucla - - Arizona, a lot involved to get there. - - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
Right on man. Have I told you that your writing has noticeably improved a lot? more often than not you’re making really compelling arguments that I can get behind. Enjoying what you’re laying down. Keep it up!
-
We should compare ourselves and our achievements to the other blue blood programs, and to the other elite programs of the day (meaning more recent history – UConn, Florida, Louisville, etc) – that will help us determine if we’re performing reasonably.
I love the graphic from @kjayhawks There’s your guide. Since '04, slotting us in at around 5th or 6th spot is pretty fair. If you weight conference titles more, or tourney appearances, then perhaps we skip over a couple.
No way that I am satisfied with that.
We are not the top program since 2004. That’s why I’m not satisfied. I don’t care one iota as to whether other crap schools would be happy with our record. I’m sure they would be. It’s irrelevant in my mind.
We are Kansas, as @nuleafjhawk said.
The difference here is just one – one national title. That would add an additional title game and an additional final four. The entire narrative and discussion changes with another title. I’ve said that now going on 7 seasons – since the UNI debacle. One … more … title.
Root for Gonzaga, or SC, or even Oregon … because if Roy gets another, our mountain is steeper. Though, if someone had to be King other than Self, I’m glad it might be Roy.
.
-
@kjayhawks Its just coincidence but I did notice 12 of 13 titles were won by Eastern Time Zone Teams. 42 of 47, or something has been won by eastern time zone schools since ESPN became televised. Just a coincidence, I’m sure. But still noteworthy. With this much data, it would mean it is an exception to the rule when a team west of the Mississippi wins it.
Arkansas, UCLA, Kansas, UNLV, & Arizona–I believe are those exceptions
-
@HighEliteMajor said:
Root for Gonzaga, or SC, or even Oregon … because if Roy gets another, our mountain is steeper. Though, if someone had to be King other than Self, I’m glad it might be Roy.
Right now, I have some strange man crush on Frank Martin. I’d be less perturbed if South Carolina won it. (Less perturbed since KU isn’t there…)
It wouldn’t kill me if Ol Roy won it again. He’s had nothing but great things to say about KU - I personally was ticked at him for about 5 years after he left, but hey - he did what was right for him and his family. I’m over it now. (I’d like him a lot more if he’d trash those God-awful checkered jackets…
)There is no scenario on earth that permits me to root for Oregon or Gonzaga. That’s all I’ll say.
As my sweet (female) friend who lives in South Carolina loves to say - GO 'COCKS!!
-
@Blown Shhhhhh … @jaybate-1.0 may be listening.
@nuleafjhawk Seriously … is the SC basketball team the lady 'cocks?
-
@HighEliteMajor OK - I don’t ever literally LOL - but I did just now!
-
@Blown You are right. Kansas was the last team west of the Mississippi in 2008. While Arizona in 1997 was the last team west if the Rockies to win it all.
-
@nuleafjhawk If the OSU ladies are that Cowgirls … the SC girls would be the … ?
-
@approxinfinity Hey well thanks for that, greatly appreciated. - - I guess like so many other things it just like taking the rigors of war, being battle tested from and along in this site. I will tell you this, I have learned so much from everyone here some good, some maybe not so good. Even with saying that I can tell and feel the passion in the room for our Ku Jayhawks. I love coming here, reading the different post, peoples thoughts and input.
Does that mean as individuals we have to agree with everything that everyone says or thinks in here? NO absolutely not, nor does it mean we have to disagree with everything either. This is actually one of the things that I actually like about this room, sometimes you may get 40 different opinions from 40 different people - - AND? what’s so wrong with that right? For the most part everyone here is very level headed - - -sure at times things might get a little heated - - a little over the top - - but that’s ok -I know that I can go off the deep end sometimes - -sometimes way off the deep end and for that I am truthfully sorry. - At the time if you were to ask me if I was wrong I’d would more likely then not just tell you to shut the hell up step the f- - - back up off me and find someone else - -that’s me again I’m sorry.
However you know what? - - I’s people like yourself and many others in here that I have grown to know, that I have come to realize are just pretty good folks. Like I said earlier it’s ok if we al don’t agree - -it’s kind of like in a way there is this example, let me share and I’m sorry if I get off track but please try and follow with me ok? - -here is an example:
We were talking at work one day about relationships and arguing. One young guy and I mean young like 20 or so made the comment OH me and my woman NEVER argue. - - The rest of us almost at the same time, stood there for a moment and said - -REALLY? - -REALLY? then we preceded to tell him it’s like this if your in a relationship with someone and you never argue - - -well guess what - - -you don’t have a relationship. Because if your in a relationship no mater how great that relationship is and you never argue - -then that means someone is kissing someone’s ass - -and that’s NOT relationship. So anyways with me saying all that, that’s kind of like the way this room is. This group is in kind of a relationship with the other people here - -and there are going to be disagreements and that’s ok because people are entitled to their opinion - -WHY? - -because it’s THEIR opinion doesn’t mean we have to agree with it - -like it - -even understand it - -that’s fine, but that’s what great about this room.
In the end we work it out - -we have that one goal - -to dissect, evaluate, and give our view. It’s people like you that make this room special for me, so thanks again I appreciate what you had to say, & i’ll try to keep working maybe some day I’ll be able to achieve even better - -thanks my friend and as always - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
@jayballer54 hear hear!
we’re the anti-Fakebook.
-
In hospital jargon, we call the process (“to dissect, evaluate, and give our view”) the ‘blameless autopsy’…when things go terribly wrong (as they so often do in life), it is a great experience to step back from the histrionics and emotional arguments and take a deep dive into causation. What we inevitably discover is that most situations are multifactorial (many symptoms, few root causes) . What I most appreciate about this board is that this dynamic is occurring independently and interactively (without benefit of a facilitator) and 99% of the time the comments (even those at odds) are very insightful and respectful. What a wonderful ‘learning lab’ @approxinfinity has created for all of us along with contributors so willing to share.
-
Here’s my take.
Self is a tremendous coach. He’s one of several truly great coaches in the country. If we imagine our coach as a superhero, Self is a superhero while Bruce Weber is the guy that gets out of the cab to watch the superhero and supervillian fight, then runs down the street screaming.
But what do all superheroes have? They all have a flaw or weakness.
Self’s is that he tightens up in certain situations, at which point he can become predictable and rigid, which exposes him to being outcoached simply because everything is telegraphed. Of course, when the scheme you are rigid to has resulted in over 600 victories against fewer than 200 defeats, you earn the right to be a bit stubborn.
Before this year, it was always a challenge to get Self to break away from the high-low. That was his thing, and he always wanted to run it, even when his best players were perimeter guys.
This year, Self finally broke away from that. I thought he had finally slain the beast. But there’s still a dragon lurking inside. Self still tightens up, and rather than be fluid and flexible, he becomes rigid and predictable. That helps a lot in a two day turnaround.
Think about Self’s most frustrating tournament losses - UNI in 2010, Stanford in 2014, Wichita State in 2015, VCU in 2011, Villanova last year, Oregon this season. The common thread is that they were all that second day of the turnaround.
It’s easy to prepare when you know if the game gets tight, Self will revert to a predictable pattern. Your goal is to set out a close game, then hope you make plays when you know the fastball is coming.
Self needed to make a change on Saturday night. He needed to be flexible rather than rigidly adhere to the system. The process works, but Self needed to, in that moment, get outside the box. diagnose the problem and fix it.
The problem - Bell was killing us. His quickness and shotblocking was cutting off our attack of the lane. Since we couldn’t finish in the paint, our drives weren’t collapsing the defense, meaning we couldn’t get good looks on threes. Even later in the game when we did get some good looks, we didn’t convert because our shots were rushed.
Okay, so what’s the fix.
Simple - the five out lineup that we ultimately finished the game with. Only problem is, Self went to it with three minutes left when he should have played that lineup from the under 8 timeout through the end of the game. The season is on the line. That was our only hope.
Jackson, Svi, Vick, Graham, Mason. Oregon counters with their best lineup (Bell, Brooks, Ennis, Dorsey, Pritchard). Defensively, KU puts JJ on Bell (Bell is taller, but JJ is quicker and doesn’t give up much weight here), Vick on Brooks (Vick has the athleticism edge even though Brook is a bit bigger), Graham on Dorsey (to counter his size), Svi on Ennis (the lesser scorer) and Mason on Pritchard.
Oregon doesn’t post Bell up much, so Josh doesn’t have to worry about direct post ups and just has to focus on keeping Bell off the glass.
Offensively, Bell can no longer just stand in the paint because he has to guard someone away from the basket. This opens up driving lanes and makes the defense have to rotate. A rotating defense is a shooter’s best friend because you can see shots develop as the ball is swung and the defense is scrambling. We never made Oregon scramble Saturday night because every time we drove, Oregon just waited on Bell to turn us away.
Self finally recognized the adjustment, but it was too late. KU was at a point of needing to shoot threes by then. Given a bit more time and the option of driving to the basket, things may have turned out differently, although it may not have considering we didn’t make shots.
But again, making the defense rotate would have been huge because that gives our shooters a chance to get their feet set and ready to release rather than trying to get away from a defender to set up a shot.
I think this season helped Self grow as a coach. Moving away from the high lo and traditional two post game to a game that suited his team’s best personnel was a big step for him. I was hoping it would make him more flexible in game as well, but that is still something to work towards.
But still, the man is 623-192 over his career. He has found things that work at every stop. I’m not off the band wagon. I just want to swing it in for a quick tuneup.
-
I was a sophomore when Roy left. I was sick for a week. I could not stop thinking about how there was no possible way our next coach could outperform, or even match what he did. 14 years later, here we are and Bills best tournament days are ahead of him. He won the gold medal. he’s been to two straight elite eights. Let’s hope he sticks around another 5 years and gets another ring, or two. He deserves it.
-
@Blown Same age. We were pretty spoiled to go to the Final 4 our first two years of school. No doubt about that. We were a few lucky bounces away from 3 in a row if you are being pretty positive about the GA Tech loss! Great time to be at KU. Bill had huge shoes to fill and I could not be happier with the coach that we have or where I feel that the program is heading. In 5-7 more years I hope we are talking about around 20 Big 12 titles and maybe a deep run or two in the tourney.
-
@joeloveshawks yes, Roy was hitting his stride for sure and has continued it for the most part. And as I’ve aged I understand and respect his move to get back home.
-
Sure would have been a different dynamic had they made free throws and beat cuse. Likely still would have gone home, but sure would have been leaving in a bitter sweet high note.
-
@Blown said:
Its just coincidence but I did notice 12 of 13 titles were won by Eastern Time Zone Teams. 42 of 47, or something has been won by eastern time zone schools since ESPN became televised.
Are the odds of EST teams winning 12 of the last 13 and 42 of 47 since ESPN began televising the games greater, or lesser, than the WTC towers being the first and only incidence of three high rise towers designed to withstand commercial jet impacts falling in their own foot prints in a single day?
To be fair let’s add Red Auerbach’s 10 NBA rings in 12 seasons, Wooden’s 10 rings in 11 years and Self’s 13 titles in 13 years.
What is it about American basketball that makes it so prone to to so many extraordinary streaks?
I am reminded that James Naismith saw his game invented in a Springfield YMCA spread within a couple years throughout Northeast and Great Lakes industrial cities as a professional sport staged by boxing and burlesque promoters with gambling thoroughly a part of the games.
Naismith actually abandoned his game for several years and moved to Denver to get a Doctor of Osteopathy degree. Looking back one wonders if he became disillusioned by his lost control and the sport’s saturation with gambling.
Gambling is about the odds of something happening. Basketball has long been plagued by interference in its outcomes. Perhaps the interference has been more than we suspected?
-
A little late to the game but I decide to give myself a little break from posting to recover from the loss and avoid the acrimony that follows a loss in the tournament.
The coin flip analogy is one that is often used to make a point but in this case, as it is in most other cases where its is used, not an applicable one.
First, the coin flip statistic assumes that you are using ONE perfectly balanced coin, with each side having a perfect 50% chance and the number becomes more accurate with a larger number of coin flips; a small sample will not necessarily show a perfect distribution. Second, every Elite 8 has different teams with different players that change from year to year, so this alone invalidates the comparison. Third, the winning probability of teams playing in the Elite 8 is not a perfect 50% but often something quite different and last, the sample is not big enough to show a definite trend.
Nice try but no cigar…a consolation single malt is OK.
-
@JayHawkFanToo And, by focusing on the tool, you missed the point. I was trying to illustrate by using something familiar (coin flips) that the loss rate by Self is not something statistically so far out of likelihood that, as expressly stated by some here, the only possible explanation is something aberrant about his coaching. I think a 2-5 record with KU, demonstrates no such thing.
Each game has 2 possible outcomes, thus in measuring win/loss statitical probability you are only measuring distribution of all possible outcomes, not the factors that give a team a higher or lower chance of success. Bill’s loss rate in E8 games occurs 21 times out of 128 total possible outcomes, ranging from all wins to all losses. That is approximately one out of six times. The coin flip analogy simply demonstrated where that falls along the probability of an outcome in a test we all are familiar with.
The bigger problem with all of this is the failure to consider where his results fall on graphs that also incorporate, among other things, his seeds, the average success rate of those seed levels in the history of the modern tournament, how he compares to others in other rounds, and the results in all rounds not just the 8. Izzo, by comparison, is great in the E8. But Bill by comparison has Izzo beaten in the semifinal in winning percentage terms, but his sample size is much smaller.
-
@mayjay said:
@HighEliteMajor said:
This relates to how a coach has his team ready to play on a short turnaround vs. an unfamiliar opponent.
Just a thought about this, because it has been mentioned a lot. Does this reflect a flaw in short-turnaround coaching by Self but his 12-5 record in the second round with that same turnaround does not mean the opposite?
I guess I am not willing to make very firm conclusions or find patterns where these things are based on info so highly selective.
And we play a ton of Sat / Mon games. Granted - not unfamiliar teams.
-
No, I am not missing the point. When the #1 seed play the #16 seed the game has two possible outcomes, right? but they are not even close to being equal in probability as it would be when you flip a coin…so far the #1 seed is 100% and the #16 seed is 0%. Again, just because there are two possible outcomes it does not mean they have equal chances.
Again, you are comparing coin flipping where the perfectly balanced coin never changes and the flip is is exactly the same every time to an event in which the teams are different every time and also from year to year and with a different winning possibility every single game based on team personnel at the time of the game. For example, this year we had #1 Gonzaga playing #11 Xavier and #1 UNC playing #2 Kentucky; this is how much variation there is in the Elite 8.
A friend of mine is a top actuary for a well know insurance company and he always laughs at the way sports writers use statistics, more often than not incorrectly…we used to have very interesting conversations on the subject although I mostly listened and learned because even when I have a pretty good working knowledge on the subject he is in a different league than I am.
Nice try…but still no cigar.
-
@mayjay Coin flips are not 50/50. They are biased towards whatever side is face up before the flip.
Let’s say that a coin flip truly was 50/50, there’s no variable. In Self’s E8 games, there are many variables. The school Self is coaching at, the school Self is coaching against, the coach Self is coaching against, the players Self coaches, the players Self coaches against, injured players, the style officiating by the refs. These are all variables that make basketball games very rarely a 50/50 proposition. The only constant in these 9 games has been Bill Self.
So when you have a replicated performance (6 of 9 times) woth only one constant, that constant has some kind of impact that causes these repeated outcomes.
Go.look at Self’s record in the November tournaments KU has had to play 3 games in 3 days in, there’s a lot of losses with poor offensive games in there as well.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I am measuring outcomes after the fact. There are a finite number of outcomes each measured only by win or loss. You are talking about probability of winning, which is a measure of predictability.
Bill could have had WWLLLLL, or LLLLLWW, or LWLLLWL, or any other distribution of 2 wins and 5 losses, whatever the order. etc. If he had zero wins, there is only one distribution where that occurs. If he had 7 wins, also only one. If he had 3 wins, or 4 wins, or 5, or 6, each of these has a finite number of times that occur in the distribution. He had two, which occurs 21 times in a distribution of every possible combination of 2 wins and 5 losses.
You are arguing as if I said he had a 16% chance of winning. That isn’t it. But remember, I am only saying the numbers alone do not mean it is solely the result of coaching.
Forget my argument, because you don’t obviously don’t understand it. Maybe it is me. Do me a favor. Look at the only assertion I am arguing against: they say he could not have lost 5 out of 7 for any reason other than coaching. Use your skills on that one. Tell me why the number of losses vs the number of win cannot just be a coincidence.
That argument depends on an assumption that a coincidence is too unlikely to have occurred. So, where is the proof of improbability?
Remember, I am only saying coincidence cannot be dismissed because a record of 2 W 5 L is not so far out of the realm of possibility as to be virtually impossible.
-
@JayHawkFanToo And, by the way, this is not the use of stats your friend complains about. It drives me crazy when someone says “he should have let Brett hit because he had a 30% chance of getting a hit” based on his batting average.
Take my hypothesis and my posts to your friend. See if he agrees with me that the distribution of all outcomes can be measured to determine if a particular set of outcomes (with no other factors) is statistically not unusual.
-
@mayjay said:
The bigger problem with all of this is the failure to consider where his results fall on graphs that also incorporate, among other things, his seeds, the average success rate of those seed levels in the history of the modern tournament,
So here’s Bill Self’s seed history in his E8 games and the seed he was coaching against
2000^:Tulsa (7) lost to North Carolina (8)
2001: Illinois (1) lost Arizona (2)
2004: Kansas (4) lost to Georgia Tech (3)
2007^: Kansas (1) lost to UCLA (2)
2008^: Kansas (1) beat Davidson (10)
2011^: Kansas (1) lost to VCU (11)
2012: Kansas (2) beat North Carolina (1)
2016^: Kansas (1) lost to Villanova (2)
2017^: Kansas (1) lost to Oregon (3)
^ Year Self’s team had worst offensive game of season in E8
Out of the 6 times Bill Self’s team has had their worst offensive game of the year in the E8, Self has been a 1 seed including all 5 times at KU. KU is 1-5 in those 6 games. Overall, Bill Self has had the higher seed in 7 of his 9 E8 games and is 1-6 in those games. Bill Self has been a 1 seed in 6 of his 9 E8 games and is just 1-5 in those games and his team has had their worst offensive game of the year in 5 of those 6 games. 2008 is the 1 win in all of those records.
1 seeds are historically 38-34 against 2 seeds in the NCAA tournament since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985. So 1 seeds historically win about 53% of the time against 2 seeds. Self is 0-3 as a 1 seed in 1 vs. 2 match ups and 1-0 as a 2 seed in 1 vs. 2 match ups so 1-3 overall. 25% is much lower than 53%. 1 seeds are historically 20-13 against 3 seeds for a 60% win rate. 1 seeds are 6-1 against 10 seeds , and 1 seeds are 3-3 against 11 seeds. 4 seeds 3-5 against 3 seeds all time and 7 seeds are 1-1 against 8 seeds all time. Here is the source for you (http://mcubed.net/ncaab/seeds.shtml). Bill Self is 1-6 in the E8 as the higher seeded team. I don’t care where you look, you will not find anywhere that a higher seed has 14% winning percentage against a lower seeded team. Just looking through that site, the anomalies are 2 seeds against 4 and 5 seeds (4-5 against 4 seeds and 1-4 against 5 seeds), 4 seeds against 6, 7, and 8 seeds (2-4 against 6 seeds, 2-3 against 7 seeds, and 3-7 against 8 seeds), 5 seeds against 8 and 9 seeds (1-3 against 8 seeds and 1-2 against 9 seeds), 6 seeds against 8 seeds (1-3), and 10 seeds against 11 seeds (1-2).
Self’s record is below average based on what other same seeds have historically done against the same seeds Self has face in the E8. I believe the only other 7 vs. 8 game in NCAA tournament history besides the Tulsa/UNC game in 2000 was the UConn/Kentucky title game in 2014.
-
You still don’t get it. The coin flip analogy is completely not applicable n this case. You are trying to apply a deterministic statistical approach to a process with multiple variables and random outcomes and where a Bayesian Probability Approach is in order. I will not go in detail on what this it because it would bore the bejesus out of everybody here…and probably me too… but you can probably google it and get the general idea. I have myself worked more with Markov Chains since is is more applicable to the work I do but my friend is an expert n Bayesian Probability Analysis, since that is more applicable to the field he is in.
This is quickly getting our of hand and it is time that we get back to just plain ol’ KU basketball.
P.S. I have not talked to my friend in a while but I will see if I still have his phone number; I believe he retired a couple of year ago.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Thank you for that info. All of which is more than just his simple win/loss record in one particular round. Knowing more about the losses’ circumstances may tend to implicate coaching, but I also think it implicates incorrect seeding due to our consistent overachieving in the regular season–i.e., I believe we are not as our seeding because our record each year appears to be stronger than we are. (Look how distorted our close game record was vs the average.)
Jayballer keeps citing a stat that only 25% of #1 seeds have gotten to the F4. I haven’t checked that, but (assuming we throw out HCBS’s record to avoid skewing the average toward him) if that 1 over 2 record is as strong as you cite, that must mean most #1 seeds who lost before the F4 (that 75%) either got knocked off early or lost to seeds lower than 2 in the E8.
Seeding drives me crazy because during the tournament everyone knows that it is based on a committee’s collective judgment regarding the relative strength of teams. There is no consensus on how to measure this, RPI vs BPI vs the computer models vs blah blah blah. There is also the monkey wrench thrown in that we don’t have a good working knowledge of how the committee does its work.
A fourth best #1 and the best #2 might easily be switched in almost every tourney with few cases of heartburn. You could probably shuffle all the teams on any particular line without causing undue shock, so the same would also likely be true of shuffling the last two on one line with the best two on the next line.
Would we be as upset if KU had been lower seeded in the years we have lost in the E8? Does the panache of a #1 seed create unrealistic expectations if 75% of them do not live up to their seeding.
-
@JayHawkFanToo So you didn’t even read my last post since I don’t mention coin flips. I am talking finite outcomes (there are only two). You are worrying about how likely those outcomes are (impossible to measure). That is irrelevant when counting things that have already happened.
-
@mayjay Since 1985 when the field expanded to 64 teams (including this season), out of 128 total 1 seeds, 50 have reached the Final Four. That’s 39%, but we can round that up to 40% to simplify the math which says that for every 5 one seeds out there, 2 of them should reach the Final Four. Bill Self has received a 1 seed 8 times (2001 with Illinois, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2017. The numbers say Bill Self should have between 3 and 4 Final Four appearances from these 8 seasons alone, but he only has 1 so again, he has underachieved to historical performances of other 1 seeds.
-
He’s a hall of fame coach, wouldn’t want another one, and I think he’ll get some more Final Fours and titles. Just wish he’d hurry up and figure it out.
-
I’m for Frank Martin 100%!
I’ve always been a fan of Frank’s… and it just intensified when he said all those great things about Kansas.
Frank is the real deal.
Go, Gamecocks!
-
@drgnslayr I missed it, what did he say about Kansas?
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Wouldn’t it be more fair to mention 2012? What seed were we? How many times have we had that seed? What are the averages?
Maybe Self has overperformed as a non-1 seed: seems fair to say so…
-
@ParisHawk Self’s been a lower seed in the E8 twice. KU lost as a 4 seed to 3 seed GT in 2004 and beat 1 seed UNC as a 2 seed in 2012. 2 games is not enough to draw any meaningful or trends out of.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said:
@ParisHawk Self’s been a lower seed in the E8 twice. KU lost as a 4 seed to 3 seed GT in 2004 and beat 1 seed UNC as a 2 seed in 2012. 2 games is not enough to draw any meaningful or trends out of.
And that 1 seed UNC team was missing their starting point guard.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said:
@ParisHawk Self’s been a lower seed in the E8 twice. KU lost as a 4 seed to 3 seed GT in 2004 and beat 1 seed UNC as a 2 seed in 2012. 2 games is not enough to draw any meaningful or trends out of.
Which helps whoever wants to emphasize Self’s postseason shortcomings…
-
When he was at KSU he mentioned KU many times in a very positive light.
-
@ParisHawk Also, just more known info … we did underachieve as a non-#1 seed against Bucknell, Bradley, Stanford, Wichita St. Of course, those sort of stumbles are not unique to high-level coaches and every top coach seems to have similar missteps.
-
The Bucknell game was bad. Langford was on a bad wheel and Wayne seemed really tired at the end of that season.
The Bradley game was the 05-06 team. That team played well at times but was REALLY young and had chemistry issues with Julian Wright. I dont think Self ever figured out the best rotation with him. He was such a hybrid player.
The Stanford game we missed Embiid but Self should have started pressing earlier.
Withcita State loss was a roster of no go to players. Ellis wasn’t that confident yet, Selden never was reliable, and Frank wasn’t really Frank yet. I also don’t think our guys wanted it like they did. The “nobody respects us” is always a huge motivator.
-
If you really want to feel like someone throwing a pity party (pretty much what it is at this point) realize that KU has the 3rd best winning percentage in the NCAA tournament all time at 69% behind Duke 75% and Florida 71%
-
Basketball, because it can be dominated by one or two great players, is prone to dominance you can’t see in other sports because the best players can play such an outsized role.
Jordan’s Bulls won 6 of 8 titles in years he played in the 1990s.
Lebron James has been to the Finals in each of the last six seasons.
If you have one of the top talents, you are automatically good. That’s just what happens with basketball. Magic’s Lakers, Bird’s Celtics, as long as those guys were healthy, their teams were among the best.
College is a bit different because coaches tend to focus on systems more because the talent is always changing, but that means the best coaches have an advantage - it’s no accident that the last 10 titles in college hoops look like this - Donovan, Self, Williams, Coach K, Calhoun, Calipari, Pitino, Ollie, Coach K, Wright. That’s 6 titles from current HOF coaches Williams, Coach K, Calhoun, Calipari, and Pitino, two from likely HOF coaches Wright and Self and one from a coach that probably would have been a HOF coach had he stayed in college (Donovan). We could stretch it back a few more years and we would find Donovan again, Williams again, Calhoun again, Boeheim (another HOF coach), Gary Williams (another HOF coach), Coach K again, Izzo (another HOF coach), Calhoun again, Tubby Smith, Lute Olson (another HOF coach), Pitino again.
Out of the last 22 titles, 15 have been won by current HOF coaches. The only coaches that have won titles in the last two decades plus that likely won’t make the HOF are Tubby Smith and Kevin Ollie, and perhaps Billy Donovan since he moved to the pros. They represent just 4 titles.
That influence is unlikely to ever change.
-
@HighEliteMajor Not to pile on, but Northern Iowa as well. Yes, all coaches have tourney missteps. Looking from the outside, Self has more than his share, though. Getting to the E8 7 out of 14 seasons is pretty darn good…just too bad we couldn’t have won another 1 or 2 of those…resume would look a lot better IMO.
-
@Hawk8086 Right … I had followed up on exits when we were a non-#1 seed. The #1 seed stuff is obviously much more the irritant. As you said, if we’d snuck out a couple of those, we’d be in a different place in our discussion – if he’d lost in the FF, we’d wonder why he couldn’t win the title game (though, odds say, winning one of four FF appearances is par).
@dylans Real discussion of tournament issues has nothing to do with a “pity party.” I guess you don’t feel the discussion has any validity. That’s certainly fine but I don’t see “pity” being the purpose – the purpose is the same as all the discussions here. Love for KU basketball and enjoyment in discussing the same. Sometimes that discussion isn’t all peaches and cream.
-
Great job EVERYONE! I know some feel frustrated at failing to persuade others, but this has been one of the most interesting airing of the basis issues I have read. Tried to Red Rooster everyone!
