What Gives Bill Self An Edge At Kansas?
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 9:00 AM CST
in Kansas Jayhawk Basketball 2011-12
Email
PrintYou could use a lot of different adjectives to describe Kansas Basketball under Bill Self, and none would be as accurate as "consistent." Year after year, the man wins the league and takes Kansas into the tournament as a high (or low, whichever way you want to look at it) seed. Every time we are expected to have a "down" season (See 2006, 2009 and this year) Self's teams still wreak havoc on the league. I need to know how. Immediately. So I've decided to develop some different hypothesis as to why Self and the Jayhawks own the Big 12. Self is a great coach and one of the best in the game. Still, there has got to be a little something that gives Kansas even more of an edge. What is that something?
Theory One - Kansas Simply Has More Talent than Everyone
Let's take a close look at this year's team. We all worried about the talent drop off after losing the Morris twins, TyBrady MorningReed, etc. Oh no. Well, even this year's team is still loaded if we take into account the player's recruiting rankings (the only metric way I have to rank talent). Kansas has a starting five that was highly touted, and better yet, they are all experienced.
Tyshawn Taylor, SR ****
Elijah Johnson, JR *****
Travis Releford, RS JR ****
Thomas Robinson, JR ****
Jeff Withey, JR ****
Talented and experienced (we'll ignore the "lack of depth" thing for the time being.) It is hard to find a year where Kansas didn't have a starting five made up of 4 and 5 star players. I can't think of one in the Self era. Sure, he has had young teams, but he has always had talent. Could Kansas' winning simply be a product of having better players?
Theory Two - The Big 12 Is Not That Strong Of A League
Calm down, stop grumbling at your desk, and bear with me. These are all "theories" remember? Look, we all have an inflated sense of pride in our league. No one wants to hear the league we own and win every year isn't that great. Still... how good is it? There are some good teams every year, but often, there is a bevy of easy wins for Kansas. Traditionally, Kansas has had a 9-1 guaranteed record (if not better) most years against its North opponents. KU was simply better (if not insanely better) than Nebraska, Colorado, KState, Missouri and Iowa State over the last decade. Now throw in that some teams in the south have given Self some decent competition (Texas, Oklahoma State). A pattern starts to emerge. Kansas has dominated weaker opponents, and then won say 2 out of 3 against the top tier teams. Isn't that what the most talented (or one of the most talented) team in the league is supposed to do?
Theory Three - Kansas Has A Ridiculous Home Court Advantage
Bill Self is 141-7 at home. Let that sink in for a minute..................ok. 141-7! Are you kidding me? However, he isn't the only person to destroy opponents at home. Since the opening of Allen Fieldhouse in 1955, the Jayhawks have a home record of 679-107. Since 1994, the Jayhawks have lost only 13 regular season games at home, good for a 243-13 record. 243 wins, 13 losses. Just insane. Now a lot of that has to do with the fact that most of those Kansas teams have been very good, but winning the league gets a lot easier when you have one of the toughest places for opponents to play in the country. Heck, look at KU's record just playing in Kansas City for non-conference games. In front of a home crowd (just not at the Phog) Kansas hasn't been nearly as successful.
Theory Four - Self Has a Fantastic Staff
Watch tape of Jeff Withey playing when he first arrived at Kansas. Heck watch tape of Withey from last year. Now do the same for the Morris twins. Darnell Jackson. The list goes on. Now tell me how Danny Manning isn't the best assistant coach in America in regards to developing players. Self's staff has proven time and time again to be great at recruiting talented individuals and developing them into all-league caliber players.
So, Jayhawk fans, which theory are you buying? Self is one of the best coaches in America, but if you had to pick one of these as the biggest boost to his success, which would you choose? Vote in the poll and then argue your reasoning in the comments.
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Scott Drew says
“Maybe #1 isn’t that big a deal. I would push for #4, followed by 1, 3, & 2.”
I chose #4
because I couldn’t help but think about our football team when I looked at these options. I kept hearing people say during the football season that we had the talent, yet we looked absolutely awful on the field because of coaching.
Same argument can work with basketball as well. You could have a bunch of 4 and 5 star guys out on the court (think Baylor), but if you don’t have the right coaching staff they may win some games, but won’t be as good as they really should be.
What? A girl who likes sports...INCONCEIVABLE!
by ladyjay78 on Feb 20, 2012 9:20 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Looks like I'm the lone vote on #2 so far.
The Big 12 has had some very good teams but outside of Kansas, the conference hasn’t had the national title contending teams. The lack of truly elite teams has kept anyone else from popping up and taking the conference because they always stumble on the road in a game or two. Though after going back through our conference records during the streak, I’m not sure that matters as much either. Crap.
13-3 is the worst record over that span, so I’m switching my vote to AFH. Just not losing at home is how those records happen. Of course, having superior talent is probably the biggest reason though, maybe I’m back to theory 1…
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
All are def part of it
I think I’d argue that while not as significant, theory two might be a bigger factor than people realize or want to admit.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 9:51 AM CST up reply actions
The conf schedule is similar to non-con most years
(this year being a bit of an exception) lots of strong middlin teams that strengthen the SOS, but not as many elite teams.
I'm cheating here...
It’s a combo of 1,3, and 4.
I’ll start with why I don’t think 2. There is always another team or 2 making noise on the national level every year. These teams could of knocked us off. We are always the consistent one at the top though.
Now, I’m goin with why i combined the other 3. First, if you win all your home games, you have an upper hand on whoever you are in the race with. Second, talent is needed to win any decent league. You don’t always need the most talent, but talent is needed. Third, you could have all the talent in the world, but you need to develop that talent. If you don’t, there is a good chance to flake out (see Baylor).
I know this was cheating, but there isn’t just one thing we do that wins us championships. To me, the correct answer is the fact that HCBS does a combination of everything every year. Other teams might beat us in a few categories, but they haven’t found a way to beat us in all yet.
by hawkinwichita on Feb 20, 2012 9:38 AM CST via mobile reply actions
That's true about the "national noise" but I think we've also seen all of those teams stumble as the year wore on.
Texas and Baylor in particular, are they flawed and building a reputation on beating their non-con opponents and the bottom half of the league? I think so but I’m also probably selling some of those teams short.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
It seems to me that the difference between KU and North Carolina
is that KU has two or three teams every year that have a 40% chance of beating us when they play us while North Carolina faces one team that has a 50% chance of beating them.
I think a lot of people perceive UNC’s conference schedule as being tougher, but mathematically, KU’s is far tougher.
I don't have a kenpom subscription, so I can't check his numbers but I'd imagine both are fairly close.
But when talking about winning the conference as many consecutive times as we have, that 50% chance is a larger hit than a few 40% hits in my mind.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
The chances of winning two games against 40% opponents is way smaller than one win against a 50% opponent
36% chance of winning two games against 40% opponents.
50% chance of winning one game against 50% opponent.
I'm no statistician, but I think Warden is saying that
Over the length of a conference season, one team’s slight superiority over a couple other teams should win out. But a battle with just one mostly equal foe is going to be subject to more randomness.
Correct.
Carolina or Duke’s other games aren’t freebies. They face the same numbers in addition to a game that’s likely a toss up. Kansas might face a few more 40% games but in the scheme of winning a conference championship, that toss up games going to cause more problems than beating inferior opponents should.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
The Big 12 has consistently been the stronger conference top to bottom
The only thing the ACC has had that makes it appear stronger is a 2-team race at the top. UNC has one 50% opponent (Duke) and a bunch of inferior opponents. KU has a bunch of 40% and 30% opponents who are, collectively tougher than what UNC has to face, even though UNC plays the single toughest opponent.
I think KU is a victim of its own success
Many people perceive the league as being weaker because the same team wins it every year. However, I still think it is interesting that even in down years, KU has won the league (I mean, the 2009 team went 14-2!). Perhaps the league is a little weaker than we thought? Or maybe it just seems “weak” at times because KU has a good to great team every year?
Might be a topic for another post. As I’ve said before, let’s not forget that Kansas is the only team to win a title in our league’s history (and it gets real stretched out too if you want to go back to the Big 8 years). Also, if we look at Final Fours, OSU, OU and Texas each have one. Apart from that, Big 12 teams not named Kansas haven’t done much. Fair or unfair, this hurts the league’s rep.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 12:37 PM CST up reply actions
If it's weaker than we thought, it's also weaker than the computers think
I don’t know when is the last year that the ACC finished ahead of the Big 12 in the Sagarin conference ratings (the only historical conference ratings I have easy access to).
2010 in KenPom
also 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
There must be a different methodology
Sagarin has the Big 12 ahead of the ACC in
11-12
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
02-03
But in terms of winning games, Kansas is favored in almost every conference game.
Carolina is not. I’m almost tempted to get a kenpom subscription just to look this up because dealing with made up numbers will get us nowhere.
Even if Kansas faces a couple more (not a lot more) games where their win expectancy is 60% instead of 70%, they’re still favored in those games. Carolina doesn’t have that luxury because there is another elite school in their conference that faces the same odds. As it is, even if Kansas stumbles in one of the games, there isn’t another opponent strong enough to make a sustained run through their games because the other Big 12 teams play many more 50/50 games or games where they are not favored.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
KenPom doesn't keep the winning% predictions
in a very accessible format, anyway. You have to go through the FanMatch pages and collect the numbers yourself. Not sure if FanMatch pages are visible without a subscription.
I think I better understand what you're saying (assist to Jayhawk3r)
You’re saying that, in most years, the second best team (the primary threat to overtake the conference champion in the standings) in the ACC has been better than the second best team in the Big 12? And that the strength of the second-best team is the most important variable in how difficult it is to put together a consecutive-title streak?
I agree with that.
However, just glancing back through the KenPom data, over the life of the streak (and over the like of the data), the second-best Big 12 team seems to have finished ahead of the second-best ACC team more years than not.
I completely respect KenPom's rankings and numbers.
But looking at Marty’s fanpost about tournament wins shows the other side, Duke and UNC have combined for 47 tournament wins over the last 10 years. The Big 12’s top duo (KU and UT) have combined for 44 tourney wins, with KU holding a 10 win advantage over UT while UNC has a 1 win advantage over Duke. Tourney wins aren’t a great way to go about it but just a point in the opposite direction.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I'm very reluctant to take tournament performance as the measure of quality
But the bigger issue I’d take with this analysis is that there’s no need to look at only one team as the second best team. Whether a conference has the same second-best team every year or a different second-best team every year makes no difference in how hard it is for the top team to sustain a run of conference championships.
Almost every year, the ACC is a Duke-UNC race. Texas is usually good, but OU, Okie State, and Baylor (and, if the standings hold, Missouri) have all taken turns as the second-best team during our run. We’d need to look at the second-best team each year to get a true measure instead of just looking at Texas over the timespan.
I agree with you about looking at other teams.
However, no other teams even made the list posted in the fanpost, so that’s what I had and really don’t care enough to go look at each team individually.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
It's not about the probability of winning the same number of games as North Carolina
It’s about the probability of winning the conference. I think you’re conflating the two.
Consider 2 conferences. Conference A is composed of the 8 worst teams in basketball, 1 middling team (Team Decent), and 1 great team. Conference B is composed of 9 middling teams and 1 great team (Team Awesome).
Team Awesome has a tougher aggregate schedule than Team Decent, but is much more likely to win its conference.
What's the probability of losing?
16%?
Hmmm. Wait, that doesn’t make 100%. (100 – (16 + 36) = 48)
So the probability of losing at least 0 games is 36%?
So the probability of losing at least 1 games is 48%?
So the probability of losing at least 2 games is 16%?
What’s the probability of the “other” game in the ACC? Utoh. It’s getting a bit complicated now.
"and better yet, they are all experienced."
I’ve heard a lot of announcers say this but assumed it was just because they saw jr over and over again without really looking into it.
How much experience do we actually have outside of TT? EJ and T-Rob were around 14 mpg last year and TRele at 10 mpg with Withey rounding out the bottom with 6 mpg. Go to the year before that and you can half those numbers.
When I think of experience I think more of people who have started at least the previous year if not longer.
Coming into this year I wouldn’t say this was an experienced group, granted they’ve gained experience but if we use that then what starting line-up isn’t experienced?
Not trying to harp on one point but it’s just something I’ve noticed being said a lot recently.
Don't discount years of practice time as well
Releford and EJ might not have had a ton of in-game experience, but both have been in the program for three years, practicing against some of the best guards in the nation year in and year out. I think that counts for a lot.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 9:54 AM CST up reply actions
I think that goes back to simply stating they are juniors
I just can’t say this is an experienced group with how big the question marks were when we were actually coming into this season.
We had a sixth man who was foul-prone, a 7 footer we dreaded seeing on the floor for clean-up minutes and a few role-players to surround our seasoned veteran point guard when we started this season. To call that an experienced group seems a bit misleading.
They were all unproven and I think it’s simply because of how well they transitioned that people can slap on an experienced tag when I think we should still be marveling at how far they’ve all come.
Juenemann will be in the program for 3 years after this year, would you call him an experienced player next year?
I just think there’s a difference between being in the program and being in the game when you are going to call a player experienced. Practice isn’t the same as a game, especially when it comes to having experience with high pressure situations. Going through something in practice and being through it in a game and being comfortable with it are two completely different things.
Can you say we looked experienced at the end of the Mizzou or K-State game? I think that’s where it really starts to show that next to the name it says Jr but these guys weren’t the ones making those plays for 3 years.
by smartwater on Feb 20, 2012 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That is fine
But there is a clear difference between Johnson and Releford, 5 and 4 star recruits, who have seen significant game action in the past (Johnson even started a few games last year) and a walk on.
My point was this team isn’t relying on freshman and sophomores. This isn’t the 2005-2006 season when our lineup featured three true freshman. Does this team have the experience of say a Kansas in 2008? Of course not. But a team with a four year senior starter and several juniors that have all seen anywhere from a decent amount to an extensive amount of game time is pretty experienced. Especially in today’s college basketball.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 10:44 AM CST up reply actions
True about in today's college basketball
But the part about there being a difference between Johnson and Releford and Juenemann when we talk about experience how do the star’s fit in?
You said practicing against the best guards in the nation for 3 years counts for a lot, that is what Juenemann is doing right?
Obviously I’m being over the top on this but it’s worth noting that talent is not experience which I think is getting muddled up a bit. If this team were .500 the lack of experience would definitely be getting some air time but because they are doing well they are being called an experienced squad.
They certainly have more experience than a lot of teams but also less experience than other teams and probably less experience than the majority of teams throwing out a Junior and Senior line-up which is why I think it’s misleading.
I see your side of it, I just don’t see this as being black and white, and I feel we are more white than black, or more black than white or whatever way you wanna put it.
Missed this on the first go around.
“and several juniors that have all seen anywhere from a decent amount to an extensive amount of game time is pretty experienced. "
10 mins and 6 mins per game last year is a decent amount of time to you? 14 mpg is extensive? Especially when you consider these were not the guys who were getting the ball in crunch time scenarios?
I’m not arguiung TT as experienced, clearly he is.
I'm with you
practice time is important but experience comes from game action. No matter how hard you practice, you cannot simulate a game, the pressure is higher because it counts.
I’m with smartwater that it’s just simply stating they’re juniors or seniors in that case.
by I need more Esteban on Feb 20, 2012 4:57 PM CST up reply actions
Don't discount years of practice time as well
and game time minutes over their career.
Also, don't ignore
the fact that not all game minutes are “meaningful” minutes. By and large, practice time and game time are as valuable as the player makes them. Getting the minutes is a coach’s decision, but using them to build confidence and focus is a player’s responsibility.
RRROOOOCK CHAAAALLLK! JAAAAYYYHAAAAWWWK! KAAAAYYY UUuuuUU!
I had to go with coaching staff
Its not just that they develop the talent, they also are the ones going out there and bringing it in. This staff does a great job of recruiting. I also think it should be noted that they don’t just do a great job of recruiting big time talent they do a great job of getting guys that fit into the system and don’t just want to go run off for the pros after one or two seasons. The staff would not have a chance to develop the talent if it just ran off as soon as it got here. We have been very fortunate to have guys stay with us and develop and get better. As for what smartwater said I agree that we are not experienced, but we are mature and battle tested and that makes a big difference. Year after year we have to rely on some players who are inexperienced, but its a testament to this staffs recruiting ability that allows us to have a solid group of veterans mixed with young talent.
Well, it's a combination of those 4 plus other reasons, but for fun here's an argument
Kentucky couldn’t win the mediocre SEC last year, even with 3 five-star recruits. So cross out conference and talent. Kentucky also managed to lose the conference without ever losing at home, so cross out home advantage.
I think Bill’s ability to recruit good/great players who stick around a few years and develop is what gives him such consistency. And every once in a while he plugs in a 1&D who fills a gap or something. You can credit the staff or HCBS himself for the development and recruiting of the right guys.
by jayhawk3r on Feb 20, 2012 9:54 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
All are factors but
I think Self’s hi/low system of getting points in the paint generally wins out over the long haul. Obviously you have to have the horses to play down low which we have and there insanely being coached up. Also, Self’s teams are always physical. Which helps us on the glass and on defense.
But I think the biggest reason we’ve dominated this league is our road record. Every year there are good teams that play well at home but end up around .500 on the road. I think I remember hearing our road record over the Self era is somewhere around 80%. Nobody else is close to that. Hopefully someone can do some research.
For anyone who thinks it's #3
Self’s road/neutral record at KU in conference is almost the same as his overall conference record at Illinois
KU road/neutral in conference: 65-22
Illinois overall in conference: 35-13
And Self was regarded as one of the nation’s best young coaches when he was at Illinois (plus, his numbers at Illinois are gettng boosted by a pretty strong home court advantage there).
Also, I think Vegas says that AFH is only worth an extra point or point and a half
versus a typical high-major home court.
He doesn't lose a lot of road games either
As others have said, it’s a little of everything, but mostly coaching.
by jayhawk1996 on Feb 20, 2012 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
Big 12 vs Big 10
Ya but I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12, he still won a lot because it was easier
by TriangleHead on Feb 20, 2012 8:15 PM CST up reply actions
I don't know what makes you say this
In Self’s 3 years in the Big Ten, it was ranked ahead of the Big 12 in two of them.
RE: Theory 4
Some forget that Self was known as a miracle worker with post players even before Manning joined the staff.
Yeah, I give Danny a lot of credit
But, when success is sustained this long, and his assistants don’t go on to success elsewhere, the true credit has to go to the head coach, not the assistants.
I've wondered about this quite a bit this year.
Not saying that Manning doesn’t deserve quite a bit of credit and not that Bill Self needs more credit, just that it seems like anytime Withey is mentioned the following talk is about Manning.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Especially considering
the success Self had with lesser big men talent before Danny arrived. I’m not saying Danny doesn’t help, but Self himself is a great big man coach.
A lot of people have attributed the success of the big men to the strength coach.
They’ve been pretty good at adding muscle (and tape shows it) to get stronger without slowing down.
Obviously, they need to be coached to take advantage of this extra strength, but this appears to be a big factor.
by misterbrain on Feb 21, 2012 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
A little bit of everything but mostly theory 4
It can’t be easy to recruit 4 and 5 star recruits and not guarantee immediate playing time every year (although early on this wasn’t the case.) Self and co. then gets these guys to buy into things like team basketball, defense, and development. He mixes in a nice touch of elite players with role players and turns almost all of them into very important members of a national title contending team. The guy just doesn’t know how to have a down year.
i voted 1 at first but then got to thinking about it and it has to be 4
ok talent under a great coach will always beat out great talent under an ok coach. Throw in great talent under a great coach and you have Bill Self’s tenure at KU
Are people reading number 4 differently than me?
I read number four as saying Self has great assistant coaches.
I don’t know what evidence we have that our assistants are great. On the other hand, we can be almost certain that we’re getting great recruits.
I read #4 as "staff" as a whole.
It might not be as good as Turner Gill’s STAFF was but it’s a solid one. /code
Anyway, I think Self should be included in that. One thing that goes unnoticed as well during this run is the dominance of the defense every single year under Self.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
As well as Coach Self
I’d say there is benefit in the entire organization he has created. Though I wonder how much of the org goes back to even Larry Brown? As in any org, some parts may be more important than others, but in order for the org to be successful all the parts have to work together. Ultimately, the character of the org is set from above and trickles down. Coach Self is a great leader (manager and implementer – it’s rare to get both in the same person regardless of what the org is/does).
I meant his assistants
Both their ability to recruit and their ability to develop players. Obviously Self has the biggest role in that, but this article is about what gives Self the biggest boost. So in this case I was saying strictly his assistants… if that makes sense.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 11:55 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah, that's how I read it
Otherwise, it’s obviously #4.
Bill Self is, by far, the biggest part of what makes Bill Self a great coach. He won at Tulsa without talent or home court advantage of great assistants.
However, if we removed Bill Self from the staff for purposes of #4, I’m surprised if as many people would vote for it.
I misinterpreted
it as well, figured #4 was staff as a whole. Bill Self and his hi/low offense and emphasis on D are the main reason KU is so consistent. After that I’d go with talent,staff,B12’s lack of another top dog, then AFH all in that order. AFH is like positive feedback imo, the better the program is the more it gives back and helps the team get pumped.
by sevendeadlies on Feb 20, 2012 12:37 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah I was torn on the Phog
The home record is insane, but could that just be a product of the team that plays there? Still, there have been years where KU wasn’t that great (for Self standards, mind you) and we still went undefeated (or close) at home.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 12:39 PM CST up reply actions
Ya but,
there are plenty good teams whose home court advantage cannot measure up, it’s not often that the talking heads on ESPN can pretty much unanimously agree that AFH is the toughest place to play. Especially with Duke at the generally excepted number 2 spot. Only time people disagree is when they’re at another place for gameday or they’re told to be different to keep the contest they’re trying to pump up interesting.
by TriangleHead on Feb 20, 2012 8:33 PM CST up reply actions
I agree that we are getting
great recruits, but not at the level Calipari, Williams, Calhoun, Barnes and Drew are getting them, if your only criterion is the ✭s assigned by rating services. KU’s recruiting looks deeper than that – at the factors aside from raw talent which determine how much a player will (or might) contribute to a team. I think K, Izzo, Boeheim and a few (very few) others have that approach instead of viewing recruiting as a race for ‘top rated’ classes.
Player development is as much about having coachable players as it is about coaches saying or demonstrating what the players need to develop toward. There are many McD AAs and playground studs who never (or only briefly) grace the college hardwoods as there are ‘diamonds in the rough’ who spend two or three years (even 3.5 years) being coached up to pro potential, and the biggest reason is a-t-t-i-t-u-d-e.
RRROOOOCK CHAAAALLLK! JAAAAYYYHAAAAWWWK! KAAAAYYY UUuuuUU!
Is Rick Barnes really getting better recruits than us?
Is Scott Drew getting better recruits than us if we extend the time frame beyond the last two years?
Here's my simplest explanation for HCBS's success:
He has all 4 theories working for him, but he’s also a better coach than just about anybody out there. He maximizes the performance and abilities of every player on the roster. He knows exactly what his players are capable of, even if they don’t yet. He is a master motivator, and consistently out-kicks his coverage year after year.
Except in the tournament sometimes. But still.
Criticize FHOFNCHCBS at your own risk...
Tournament
is a tough way to judge a coach. Ultimately it IS a more important game to lose, but it is 1 loss. The coaches job is to create long term, consistent success. As much as I love the tournament, Roy’s March losses did not make him a worse coach in my mind and neither do Self’s. In fact it’s probably really the reason that I do love the tournament.
by bigreed on Feb 20, 2012 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
agreed
the fucking thing is hard to win. Boeheim didn’t get it until 2003! Calipari still hasn’t. I think detractors of Self will point to that all the time but it’s just because we always have such a huge target on us that one has to be able to find something bad to say. Plenty of other big programs have lost early in the tournament, ours just kind of came in a wave (oh with a championship sandwiched in).
by I need more Esteban on Feb 20, 2012 5:03 PM CST up reply actions
I disagree.
I think KU and Bill Self have had tremendous success in the NCAA tourney. But I keep hearing this knock on us and it really bugs me. So today I finally decided to go gather the stats to prove my gut feel that KU has been very successful in the NCAA tourney. I spent several hours converting archived brackets into spreadsheet data and guess what?
Over the last 10 years, no other team has won as many NCAA tourney games as KU. Not UConn, not Mich, St., Not Duke, not UNC, not Kentucky. Nobody!
So how can people criticize Self’s and KU’s tournament performance when no one else has even been as good over the last decade? I don’t get it.
So you're going to put this in a fanpost, right?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Feb 21, 2012 7:07 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Um. I am not sure how to do that.
LOL. I could not even figure out how to put a screen-cap or link in my post so i could share the data.
It's actuallly pretty easy
In the upper right of the page, under the search box, click on “new” next to fan post. The tools are easy to use.
I’d be interested in seeing what you found, and you can always edit it once you’ve posted it, so don’t worry about getting it perfect. Just ask for help in the comments.
I wouldn't say I criticize...
But its a little BS (a little) that he only has one Final 4 appearance in those ten years, given the teams he has fielded. The first round losses don’t bother me at all honestly. Its the VMU, Northern Iowa ones where we had a one seed, a loaded team, and blew it.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 21, 2012 7:12 AM CST up reply actions
please fanpost
and if you don’t, I’m sure if you sent the data to one of the site contributors they’d be happy to do it
by I need more Esteban on Feb 21, 2012 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
it's most of these things
but i don’t buy the big 12 as a weak conference, the numbers just don’t support it. i think it’s pretty simple though, bill self brings in high level talent and has succeeded in plugging them into a system that maximizes their value. He gets potential professional players and puts them into professional style sets, we can’t be surprised when his teams dominate a college regular season.
there are other factors like skill development (manning), S&C (hudy), and of course the fieldhouse, but these are more complimentary to the overall system in my opinion.
next level performer
#3
It can’t be #1, that just doesn’t give enough credit to Bill and the staff (ie Baylor, Texas)
While #2 certainly cannot be disregarded as a factor, we still manage to get 2nd-4th most teams into the tournament every year
- is the second most viable option and the only reason I didn’t vote for it is because I read it as the staff not including Bill…and because #3 is the only I could directly contribute to :)
Fantastic screen name
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 20, 2012 8:49 PM CST up reply actions
Number 4 and Self's approach/philosophy to the game.
He surrounds himself with a staff that embodies his philosophy. He places great value in winning the conference. It was that way at Oral Roberts, Tulsa, Illinois, and now Kansas. He values system over raw talent. This is not to say he doesn’t think talent is important, rather he believes talent alone only goes so far, system with talent sustains itself and can withstand the drought when talent alone fails. For those that viewed # 3, you are also correct because that is one of the tenents in his philosophy, be unbeateble at home and steal as many road wins as possible. That wins the league. It’s all laid out in his biography “At Home in the Phog”
by BCRavenJHawkfan on Feb 20, 2012 10:02 PM CST reply actions
I voted #1 because KU has a lot more talent every year than anyone but UT, and recently Baylor, but those teams may as well be coached by cardboard cutouts during games most of the time
That talent edge means to me that KU will beat everyone they’re supposed to beat without a whole lot of trouble at home, and then the coaching takes over on the road.
However, #4 is also huge. In the off-season I’m REALLY hoping someone comes along to give Danny Manning a gig somewhere else. What better compliment can you give an opponent than to want them (player or coach) gone?
Actually extend that to Self. Dear Santa, please give Bill Self the itch to coach in the NBA or Europe or anywhere but down the river from me. I believe Bill Self is the best coach at any college program, football, basketball, men’s, women’s, it doesn’t matter. Part of that is because the only people I can come up with that match Bill’s record are either Satan (tell me Coach K doesn’t look like Satan), awful examples of humanity (Saban, Meyer), or play in a 5-team game (Auriemma, Summitt).
No offense intended, but I’m of the opinion playing in Phog Allen is not that important. To bring up K-State’s miserable men’s basketball record recently, the Cats have won in Allen as many times as they’ve won in that ugly bunker in the last 20 years. The Cats won at KU in the mid 90s and 2005, and have only won at home in 2008 and 2011 (excuse me while I go puke). That tells me it is less playing in Phog Allen and more about the terrific teams Williams and Self put on the court. I know it’s a small sample but that’s why I think #3 is the least important.
"Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." - Ephesians 4:29
Danny isn't going anywhere
He doesn’t need the money, he’s comfortable in Lawrence, has other businesses and investments in town. Sorry.
Plus he has a kid at KU I think
That is a freshman or sophomore. From what I gather though, I don’t think Manning wants to be a head coach. He is a high paid assistant at one of the best programs in America, which happens to be his alma mater and a place where he is an absolute legend…
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 21, 2012 9:23 AM CST up reply actions
His daughter is on the KU volleyball team
His son graduated from HS last year. Not sure if he’s at KU or not.
Ha ha ha
I knew it was a long shot. It didn’t make sense to me for him to leave, but hey, at least I HAD hope.
"Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." - Ephesians 4:29
I agree with most of this
Except for Coach K, who clearly looks more like a rat or Hitler to me than Satan. By to each his own.
KState is just an outlier in the whole home/road thing IMHO. If you look at the numbers, while KU has been very good on the road, its home record almost makes me pass out it is so unwordly. Like you said, a big portion of that is a product of the teams that play there. However, having been to almost 100 home games there, I can tell you that the noise (when shit gets really rocking) and other factors have swung a lot of close games.
I bought in my sophomore year (2005-2006), when KU played OU (who was favored to win the league and had assholes like Bookout on the team). KU got down big, then just stormed back in the second half. I’ve never seen a place get so loud. This was the loudest Allen Fieldhouse has ever been, I refuse to compromise on that statement (at least the loudest in any of the games I have been to). The stands were about to break, the place was visably shaking. You could see our players feeding off it like crazy, and you could see the fear in the OU players’ faces.
So while I agree in principle with your statement and think it has a lot of truth to it, there are examples like the one I just outlined that also make me buy into the magic as well. Maybe its somewhere in the middle.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 21, 2012 9:28 AM CST up reply actions
I'm certain the truth is in the middle, but particularly for the biggest of games (like Saturday) I'm sure Allen becomes a huge advantage.
I’m more excited for that KU vs MU game than I am for the Cats butt-kicking in Columbia tonight, or for payback against ISU on Saturday.
"Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." - Ephesians 4:29
If KState wins tonight I will wear a KSU shirt someday next week. All day.
I’ll even photograph it as proof. That is how happy I will be.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Feb 21, 2012 9:55 AM CST up reply actions
I was thinking something similar
But I might just wear red & blue and know in my head that for that day only it is a tip of the cap to the purple people
Pay heed...
by pj_hawk4life on Feb 21, 2012 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
I'll be looking for that photo
"Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." - Ephesians 4:29
I learned the wabash cannonball on my guitar complete with my own...
solo jamout in honor of the win.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
This is not true...
This was the loudest Allen Fieldhouse has ever been
But as long as you’re limiting it to only games you attended, I will accept the statement.
by hiphopopotamus on Feb 22, 2012 8:54 AM CST up reply actions
Really goood point
That home record (95 of 96 or something like that) has been built year by year. The Field House is always there, but the wins come one at a time.
RRROOOOCK CHAAAALLLK! JAAAAYYYHAAAAWWWK! KAAAAYYY UUuuuUU!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
