Time to Clean House

I suppose other names that would emerge if there were ever a vacancy would include the likes of Tony Bennett (UVA), Brad Underwood (Illinois), and Tad Boyle (CU) - with Tad in the mix mainly because of his KU background and his competitiveness in the PAC-12.

Of all the names mentioned so far, adding in these 3, only one stands out to me as being potentially in Bill Self's league:

Tony Bennett.

On the plus side, he is a proven winner - and he's done it in a very competitive (top to bottom) league, the ACC. Since assuming the UVA job in 2009, he's compiled an overall .741 winning percentage. (Self's is .816, competing in the Big 12) Despite not having any innate recruiting advantages at Virginia - other than touting that Ralph Sampson played there in the early 80s, lol - he has managed to coach his teams to winning records in ACC conference play for 10 straight years. That is a model of consistency, and a streak that Roy Williams has not achieved at UNC. (For context, Duke owns the longest active ACC conference winning streak at 13 years, barely holding on at .500 this year: 9-9) Bennett's Cavaliers have won the ACC regular season crown 5 times out of the last 8 years, so he's hitting a nice stride.

More plusses:

* He is a bricks-and-mortar coach who builds solid defenses. (Some years better than others, as is expected based on the athletes he has, but you can always count on defense as the beginning foundation)

* He is young - only 52 - with a solid couple decades in his tank ahead.

* He runs a very clean program at a school with exceptional academic standards. UVA is the premier, flagship school in the state where I live - the most difficult university by far to get into here. Standards are high, and Bennett has nicely balanced building a premier winning basketball program within those standards.

* He won his first national championship at age 50; Self got his at 46. That's a pretty close running, and both have significant upside potential to capture additional crowns in their future.

As for downsides, I see only one: some see his teams as "boring" due to their emphasis on defensive tenacity. I actually used to find some of their games to be snooze-fests myself, but I attribute that in part to UVA not being my school. If it's my school and they're kicking butt and taking names, even if in part via defensive prowess, I would imagine I'd not be picky. But his teams also started to pick up their offensive game around the time of their championship season run. And this year, as just one current marker, his team ranks higher on the offensive side in KenPom (#18) than they did for defense (#34).

Here's the deal on Bennett. If, for whatever reason, Self were to depart at some point and we were able to reel in Tony, I believe the success he has achieved at UVA would be taken up several notches. And I say that not because I believe the ACC is a superior conference - though it certainly is if you go by the metric of post-season success - but rather that he would have the full institutional, atmospheric, and historical recruiting advantages of KU to attract more and better athletes than he has garnered at UVA. And to do so year in and year out. The recruitment positives and pull behind the Kansas brand is up in the top 10, whereas at UVA I would subjectively assert that it is just in the top 100 - and maybe now, because of Bennett's success, in the top 30. In short, if you give Tony the capacity to recruit the level of talent that KU has managed to acquire over the past couple decades (and perhaps even improve on it), I believe it is indisputable that he would excel. Up to and including many Big 12 championships, plenty of deep tourney runs (as well as premature exits because it is, after all, March Madness), and yes, I believe, some definite possibilities of more NC crowns.

That being said, here are the necessary caveats and disclaimers:

* First, we have no idea if he'd come to KU or not. Yes, it's a "destination job," as Bill Self noted when he left Illinois to come to Kansas, but Tony might view a future opening at Wisconsin, his state of birth, as more of a dream job and natural fit. We just do not know - and neither would a future KU AD, until such an occurrence happened, which means there is innate risk in assuming we could land him.

* Secondly, no other names of current coaches jump out. And I certainly see zero appeal in "taking a flyer" on some no-name, in the hopes of hitting bottled lightning like we did with Roy. We are an elite program, we don't do flyers on no-names. Period. (See: Bill Self being hired from Illinois) In other words, this isn't 1988-89, and all of HawkErrant's points about the unique nature of Roy's hiring apply.

* Thirdly, we have a solid bird in hand in Self. (Corollary: Be careful what you wish for) The winning pedigree of Self is unprecedented for Kansas, as Corpus and HE have dutifully and extensively pointed out. Yes, it's been too confined to the regular season and he needs to improve in the tourney - I'm fully on board with that sentiment. However, we cannot just dismiss last year's tourney being taken away from us (and everyone else, due to COVID) because we were the cream of the crop. You can argue, as you have, that we would've found a way to lose, or that an unfavorable matchup would've bitten us, but the same could be said for any program out there. And the fact remains that last year's KU team was dominant, and poised for success in the tourney. We were hot, we were beating every style presented to us, and we had few weaknesses relative to the field.

* Fourth, we are disadvantaged right now by the NCAA cloud, which has enabled opposing coaches and programs to negatively recruit against us and pull some athletes away that we might have otherwise landed. Self clearly gets the need to recruit longer, faster athletes - he made that clear after Monday night's debacle. And I would add "good shooters" to that mix. One rap I have on Self is he hasn't adjusted sufficiently with his big-man game to actively recruit stretch 4s and 5s who have size but also can shoot from outside. (See: Villanova, 2018) Self openly admits that, when we face that kind of team, we're not good - and yet, he doesn't recruit such players for KU. That is a missing arrow in his quiver, and perhaps a flaw in his thinking - an unwillingness to update his big-man coaching style to accommodate the new reality. He needs to get with the program there and change his ways. We need inside game, but also the capacity to stretch out and make static big defenders work by coming out to defend the outside shots - including the 3.

* Fifth, I would argue against pre-supposing anything about Self and the NCAA infractions until we actually see how it plays out. And also caution everyone to look at all sides, and the big picture, as stories are released, etc. The issue of the apparel companies, the racket of funneling players to schools, and the question of whether they should suddenly be classified as boosters - which would render the entire NCAA Division I process open to scrutiny, and make it wholly unfair to make KU the sole poster child for a punishing crackdown - is bigger than us. And certainly bigger than Self. It is not fair whatsoever to put him on a dartboard as the embodiment of badness on this score.

* Lastly, I concur with Corpus and NotO and others who argued that Self actually, probably over-achieved this year, given the talent he had and the cards in his hand. The NCAA cloud has damaged our recruiting, and he did well with what he had. Can he, however, do better? Hell yes, and he'd be the first to admit it - because he is a premier, HOF coach, and his standards are high. Once the NCAA cloud clears, which in my worst nightmare I fear could encompass a season or two (sadly), I would say let's wait at least 3-4 more seasons to see how Coach Self and the program fares under his leadership. (And I wouldn't mind seeing some fresh blood and new faces brought onto the Assistant Coaching staff - to include Sir Danny, if I had my way)

Just my two cents...take it for what it's worth, which might not be much.

PS: I wrote the prior post prior to the separate new comments by Corpus in the different thread. (Just for chronological clarity)

I also hadn’t seen the posts on assistant coach ideas for Jeremy and Mitch, on the heels of HE’s interesting suggestion about Marcus. I like these ideas, but would also make a plug for the currently unemployed KU passionista (and high-character big-man coach), Sir Danny.

Love the Bennett idea, konza!

I do have one guy that I think might be a possibility— Chris Beard at Texas Tech.

He does not have the CV of Bennett, and he may be solidly entrenched in Lubbock, but he is the one coach in the Big 12 that I also hate to face. Overachiever. Give him all the benefits you mention of being KUHC and look out, Ethel!

Agreed, gorillahawk. It's a faulty tradeoff proposition. (Would you trade regular season success for more crowns?)

In the "Post-Mortem" thread, I made this point:

"I would not, however, welcome us having multiple sub-.500 seasons over and over, with a crown once every 20-30 years, as a tradeoff. I suspect the fact that a team has to have sufficient regular-season success to even get into the tourney makes the question answer itself to a degree - i.e., you would still have to fare pretty well, competitively, in regular season in order to get those deep run and crown opportunities. The difference is, when you get those opportunities, you close the deal on them."

It's a false tradeoff, and I concur with you.

This is a topic that comes up often. Specially after we lose in the NCAAs. I should probably save my response so that I can cut and paste it for when it comes up again, but here goes.

We would all love for KU to win NCs. The more the merrier. But the difference between NCs and Conference championships is one is a season's worth of effort against common foes and the other is a one and done frolic.

I am old school. I place a lot of value on winning the Conference and a high percentage OOC. The tournament is fun and all but by no means does it determine the actual best team in college. We can look no further than to KU for verification of that. 1986 KU was the best team in the nation and lost. 1988 KU was no where near the best but won.

The tournament is fun. The tournament is exciting. The media plays it up like the be all and end all and to a degree the fans have bought in to the hype. But at the end of the day, I find winning the Conference Championship (specially in those years where a lot of teams are good) to be very very enjoyable.

I would love to have 3 or 4 more NCs to add to our trophy case, but I think that we all forget that Final Four, Cinderella, March Madness, etc. did not exist before the Bird/Johnson match up. The NIT was king long before that and the NCAA was a situation where you had to win your conference to get in. Things have changed. Media hype is more important than on court success.

So would I change one for the other? NO. They are a false equivalent and to be honest, I enjoy the upsets. I don't want us to be upset, but if it happens it happens. Enjoy the show because that is all it is ... a show

I am not calling you a young punk or anything. Just expressing my opinion that it doesn't mean as much to me as it does to the younger generation.

It just doesn't. I enjoy the tournament and enjoy the upsets, but it is just a show to me. It doesn't crown anyone or anything to me other than a team that won 6 games. The 86 and 88 teams went a long way in forming my opinion on this and nothing since then has changed my opinion.

I have heard many many times that it matters to young kids and recruits and I am sure it does. IT just does't mean that much to me. I answered the question regarding the choice of the false equivalency provided. You clearly feel otherwise. Good for you.

What do you want. You want me to suddenly say, "Oh dearie, my opinion is not valid and you are right, oh how could I be so foolish?" Not happening.

You have your opinion. I have mine. Both are valid and both can exist.

The tournament is fun and all but by no means does it determine the actual best team in college. We can look no further than to KU for verification of that. 1986 KU was the best team in the nation and lost. 1988 KU was no where near the best but won.

With all due respect, I think saying things like this - or that the tournament is just for show - is a way to make us feel better, as KU fans, for perennially coming up short in the NCAA tournament.

Year in and year out, we are typically ranked in the preseason Top 5. (With an exception now and then) Most years, we have dominated our conference in the regular season, or at least excelled sufficiently to go into the tourney as a very high seed - and several times as the favorite. Just to reference a few examples, and there are so many: when UNC (2004-05), Florida (2006-07), UK (2011-12), Villanova (2017-18), and Virginia (2018-19) followed that path, they closed the deal. They capped off their exceptional regular seasons with 6 wins against different types of teams in the tourney, and cut down the nets.

This is more the rule than the exception, for the tournament typically does result in great teams winning it all. The first- and second-round upsets are great, and lend an air of "madness" (crap shoot) to the tourney, but for analytical purposes, if we're going to be real here, the focus should be on who is left standing in the end. And let's dissect that, even if just at a high level.

* The last 22 tournament champions (national championship teams) have all finished with 30 or more wins. These are not fluke teams with fluke records. These are power conference teams that excelled over the course of the season, then finished the deal in the tournament - despite the 6-game gauntlet, the one-and-done format, the certainty of a bad matchup or matchups along the way, and all the other variables in play.

* Look at these records for those national champions during that period, moving back in time from the last champ: UVA (35-3), Villanova (36-4), UNC (33-7), Villanova (35-5), Duke (35-4), UConn (32-8 ), Louisville (35-5), UK (38-2), UConn (32-9), Duke (35-5), UNC (34-4), KU (37-3), Florida (35-5), Florida (33-6), UNC (33-4), UConn (33-6), Syracuse (30-5), Maryland (32-4), Duke (35-4), Michigan State (32-7), UConn (34-2), UK (35-4).

Moreover, since 1980, which was the point when season schedules expanded to a capacity more in the 35-40 game range (for those who went deep enough in the tourney to hit that ceiling), there have only been five national championship teams that have not finished with 30 or more wins: Indiana, 1981 (26-9); NC State, 1983 (26-10); Villanova, 1985 (25-10); KU, 1988 (27-11); and Arizona, 1997 (25-9).

That is 39 years of data, 39 years of NCAA tournaments - in which 34 times the eventual winner was an exceptional 30+ win team. 34 times a very solid regular-season team (and again, always from the power conferences) closed the deal in the tournament. And some of them performed the ultimate feat - they were favored as the top team in the land in preseason, and they defended that position from start to finish, cutting down the nets at the end. KU has never done that, at least in the modern era. (Someone would have to look at the 1953 season to see if we were the pre-season favorite) And with the exception of 2008, we've failed to live up to our 1 seed ranking when positioned as such in the tourney - while many of the teams above very much lived up to theirs, and closed the deal.

I return to what I said earlier. It would be nice if KU could simply cap some of their elite regular-season success with post-season success. And I'm sorry, feeling that way cannot be attributed to an age or generational issue - my own brother is 9 years older than me, and is the reason I grew to love sports as a kid. He follows many sports avidly, and - like so many fans (myself included) - appreciates the regular-season campaigns, but ultimately looks to who won it all in the end. That is how sports success is measured - by the crown, whether it's the Lombardi Trophy, the Stanley Cup, the World Series crown, the gold medal in the Olympics, the first-finish and winner's circle in auto racing, or - yes - the NCAA championship trophy.

Just once it would be nice to see a vaunted KU team (ranked at or near the top in preseason) that performs at an elite, dominating level in the regular season close the deal. 2008 was our best model for that, and it was a truly delicious year.

Bottom line: a few more crowns here and there are the only thing lacking from KU's resume in the pantheon. It would be nice for that to change - to accompany all of the other measures of elite success that we've proudly accomplished.

I would also like to make a point about the 1985-86 team, since it was cited as the best team in the nation at that time - and thus a notionally validating point as to how and why the NCAA tournament doesn't determine the best team in college.

That team is by far my favorite KU squad of all time, and I believe it was the strongest KU team in my lifetime. That being said, I actually think it's debatable whether they were still the best team in the nation after the 8:10 mark of the Final Four game against Duke, when Archie Marshall suffered his tragic and pivotal torn knee ligaments injury. At that point, with KU leading 59-55 and about to be outscored 16-8 with Marshall out, it became an open argument whether we were or not - and a sadly great (and tenacious) Duke team wound up beating us by 4.

[Another footnote on why Archie's departure was so huge: Manning and Dreiling - our two other key bigs - both fouled out and had off days at the worst possible times, making Marshall's steady 6th-man role huge. Manning fouled out with almost 3 minutes to go, having only scored 4 points. Dreiling fouled out with over 5 1/2 minutes still to go, but having only scored 6 points. The Marshall injury was simply devastating to our chances in that game, and to our closing the deal as the best team in the land - because without Archie, we no longer necessarily were]

Another reason - also not in KU's control - for why you could make a case that KU perhaps wasn't necessarily the best team in the nation that year was because, in the cruelest twist of fates, the 3-point line was instituted just weeks after the 1986 tournament ended - rather than having been implemented prior to that season. If it had been, KU arguably would've finished 37-3 (rather than 35-4) by beating both Duke and Louisville for the crown. Calvin Thompson and Ronnie Kellogg were the best tandem of long-distance sharpshooter wings that I can ever remember for KU. Sadly, their gorgeous shots - and high accuracy rate - only resulted in 2 points every time. Give that KU team the 3-point line, and there's actually a very decent chance that the team would've gone 40-0, not 37-3 or 35-4. Sadly, they were hampered by the rules at the time, which took away from their greatness (and clear advantages) relative to Duke and others.

The '85-'86 campaign will always go down as the saddest in my lifetime, because the team was hammered by some elements of fate that were beyond its control - and prevented them from reaching the highest heights.

First, AMEN AND HALLELUJAH konza for your post on the 1985-86 team, which is also my all-time favorite KU squad!

Second (takes a deep breath)...

I agree, konza, the NCAAT usually does reward — if not the best, then one of — the best teams in the nation that season. As you demonstrated, the exceptions are rare.

But to bring the discussion back to its original point, calling to replace Self is an unproductive, reflexive response to yet another frustrating ending for KANSAS fans.

Wait, what was that?

Hmmm...

Phog: 4 NCAAT, 3 FF, 1 NC. Lost 2 of 3 NCG, 1 by 1, 1 by 18
Dick: 2 NCAAT, 1 FF. Lost NCG by 1
Ted: 7 NCAAT, 2 FF, lost both FFGs
Larry: 5 NCAAT, 2 FF, 1 NC. Lost FFG by 4 after Marshall injury, beat eventual champion earlier in season.
Roy: 14 NCAAT, 4 FF, 2 NCG. Lost FFGs by 10 & 9, NCGs by 7 & 3 (game tying shot blocked; FTs 12-30!, 3P 4-20!)
Bill: 17 NCAAT, 3 FF, 2 NCG, 1 NC. Lost FFG by 16, NCG by 8.

15 FF, lost 6 FFG (Bill is 2-1)
9 NCG, lost 6 by 18, 1, 1, 7, 3, 8
1940, 1991 and 2012 arguably the best team (Indiana, Duke, UK) won as expected.
1953, 1957 and 2003 really smart, especially 2003 because we got to see our first half defensive failure and then our second half comeback thwarted by our missing free throws and 3-point shots and the last indignity Michael Lee’s potentially game tying 3 to send it to overtime blocked.

And that’s without looking at teams that were supposed to make the FF but failed -
Roy
1990 30-5, L 1 UCLA R2
1996 29-5, L 3 Syracuse E8
1997 34-2, L 3 Arizona S16
1998 35-4, L5 Rhode Island R2

Bill has had 9 30+ teams
7 made E8
3 made FF
So 6 of the 9 fell short.

FRUSTRATING!!!!!

With the exception of Larry Brown, every Kansas coach, including the great Phog, has a losing record when it comes to being the ordained king but not winning the crown.

Excellent teams coached by Larry (1986 Archie), Roy (1997 Jerod, Scot) and Bill (2014 Joel) had injured players that factored in to the losses suffered by those teams.

Is it The Curse of Kansas Basketball?
Having been blessed in sooo many other areas of hoops excellence, the Great Maker endeavors to keep us humble by limiting our NCAAT success?

Roy didn’t finally “break down that door” until he returned home. Would he be as successful today if he had stayed at a KU? Would we be saying it’s time to replace Ol’ Roy if all he had was 3 more FFs and finally 1 title in the last 18 years?

But putting the metaphysical aside —
Yes, our last two coaches in particular have left us frustrated many years.
Yes, Bill has had far too many teams that didn’t get as far as they should.
BUT HE HAS HAD KU THERE!

I still believe last year would have been his 4th FF and 2nd NC, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion over a team that the data shows was his least talented and still managed to come together to finish in 2nd place behind only a potentially NC team.

Shake up the staff, especially if it helps with the NCAA, but also especially if it helps in getting new eyes and younger eyes as assistants. I like none of his current assistants as potential replacements for him, and the retirement of Lon Kruger (68) reminds us that Bill (58) will probably only be around another decade before he retires.

My final point — self-flagellation accomplishes nothing unless you are into pain.
(Yeah, I went there... )

Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I felt like this aspect of the discussion was short-changed by being located in a thread about firing Self.

There’s still a legit dialogue to be had around our postseason performance without going to that extreme. Guess I’m in the middle on this one - between a call for his head and a complete dismissal of our postseason shortfalls. We can and should do better - and hopefully we will in the years ahead. (Law of averages and all that)

I think you meant to reference Kong, amigo, since you're speaking to points he made directly to you.

Kong, Konza, I know it can get confusing. lol

But seriously, I didn't take any offense on my end to anything you said. Like you said, everyone has a right to choose to root for KU in their own way - and I'm kind of in the middle of the opposing views for this particular issue. (I say, give Bill another 5 years - let's see how we fare over that period, then take stock. But that's just me)

Take care!

konza63 wrote: ...(I say, give Bill another 5 years - let's see how we fare over that period, then take stock. But that's just me)

Take care!

Make that 5 years after the NCAA stuff is settled and I’d agree.

Of course, the way things are goin that may end up taking him to retirement!

"With all due respect, I think saying things like this - or that the tournament is just for show - is a way to make us feel better, as KU fans, for perennially coming up short in the NCAA tournament." Konza

Maybe for some, but not for me.

And as to your point regarding good teams winning it all, I am not, in general disagreeing with that. I think more often than not good teams do win it. There are the rare exceptions UCONNs mythical run to get in the tournament and then win it all, NC State over Phi Slamma Jamma, Danny and the Miriacles, etc.

What I am saying is not that good teams don't win it. Just that often the best team does not win it. I know that is subjective to a large degree, but that is the way I see it. Therefore the NC is not the be all and end all for ME.

Having said that, I do think that if you are good, you should make the FF more often than not and that is where I believe KU falls very short.

But would I change NCs for Conference championships and the like. Not a snowballs chance in ...

That's just me. Others can see it anyway they want. It's all good

Yep, I respect your opinion, and will simply agree to disagree on this one. Just as I don’t root for the Chiefs to only win AFC West crowns, I don’t root for KU to only win conference crowns.

I think it’s a false proposition or choice to begin with, as noted before. And I simply believe that a program with our Mount Rushmore pedigree - and that is the most consistent at getting into the Dance, and as a very high seed (often as a 1 or 2, sometimes as a 3 or 4, but almost always high) - should have more than 3 crowns in 83 years of tourney play.*

* 71 years since it expanded to 16, 46 years since it expanded to 32, and 36 years since it expanded to 64.

I agree. I believe we should have more as well. I can think of at least two other times I felt we should have won it all. I always root for us to win it all. But sports (all sports) are just entertainment to me. I love the tournament and the upsets. It is great fun for me.

But I was addressing if I would exchange one for the other and the answer is no. For me.

It's all good.