KU does not have the athletes

Outside of Ochai, who in KU’s starting five would crack UK’s starting lineup? As much as this game stunk, it should not be a surprise, Hawks did not get any bigger or faster from last year, and it showed up against UT, USC and now UK. Hawks lucky to be 17-3 given 3 straight wins they could have easily lost.

This was much like the Southern Cal game that ended last season. Against probable NBA big men it gets embarrassing quickly unless the Hawks make an unlikely number of threes.

On the perimeter they have the fast twitch and long arms to compete but not enough to compensate for the shortcomings in the paint. Help is on the way.

I get that help is on the way; but watching Kentucky and Squid win at AFH in dominant fashion was just not right. Last several home losses have been in blowout fashion.

I agree on the talent level.

I can't quite "buy" the KU lacks talent theory. Clearly for that one game it is pretty easy to fall prey to the UK is better and more athletic than KU and thus we are seriously lacking. I don't disagree that we have weaknesses but in part, our weaknesses are transient. The transient part is largely David McCormack. David is a fine young man and a true stellar student athlete. If I recall, he is working on his masters already. I have like him from the first time he set foot on campus. But lets be honest. He is maybe the biggest Jekyll/Hyde story KU has ever had. He is an enigma. He can look like an All Big 12 candidate one game and the next game look like he is a freshman like a deer in the headlights. His profound lack of consistency is mind boggling. It is hard to have a game plan when a key part is so unpredictable. I know I have a lot of resistance on this board to this next one but when the greatest compliment you make about your point guard is he doesn't make a lot of mistakes, that should raise red flags. Like David, DaJaun is an inspiring personal story. And he is not without talents. But he is the anti David. DaJaun is mechanically consistent. He is wonderful in his consistency. But the downside is, the level at which he is consistent is one that is somewhere near or slightly above mediocrity. True it is that he makes few mistakes. And that is a great quality. But he is no Tyshawn Taylor, or Devon Dotson, or Frank Mason or Mario Chalmers or Kirk Hinrich or Sherron Collins. He is never going to be the guy you can count on when the chips are down to come up big. Christian started the season like an All-American and has been in a serious 9 game slump. But a slump for Christian is greatly hidden because he does so many things sort of well. But he has regressed in aggressiveness and seems to have lost all confidence in his shot and also attacking the rim. Jalen is an interesting story. I tend to think he is getting the most from his ability lately, it is just that he is somewhat limited. He is a good shooter mostly but rarely a great shooter. He is a great rebounder, nothing to argue with there. He is a good defender but not great. he is a good ball handler but not a great facilitator. He is just not quite to the "I can take over a game" level but a pretty solid overall contributor when he is playing well and he has been playing pretty well the last 6 or 7 games. Ochai is interesting. I think I am understanding him a little better lately. I was critical that Ochai did not have the assassin in him. I still think that is tru but what I have learned is that he actually does have the assassin in him if the team around him is operating well. Ochai depends on the team. If the team is doing its part he can be the go to guy. But he can't do it all on his own. Yesterday, the rest of the team was not doing there part and Ochai could not arise. I still think we have a very good team with one potential devastating caveat. I worry about our ability to defend on demand. We have shown signs of defending at times but generally our defensive vacillates between mediocre and poor. That is a real problem. I distinctly still remember 1997. That team had some lapses in games but you ALWAYS knew they could just dial it up and turn it on and change the game. This team has nothing close to that. This team is mediocre or less on defense and can at times be even less then that. And I am not qualified to discern the nature of the problem. I can tell you that statistically we an be pathetic at defending the paint. So that points somewhat to our bigs. But I really can't put my finger on the exact reason our defense is so crappy. But the season numbers at this point are pretty definitive. We struggle on defense way too much of the time.

I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I can see a path to a great season denouement and I can see a path to a flame out. It is up to Self and the team to figure it out. For now, we need to focus on winning the Big 12.

My opinion for years is that KU certainly is a blue blood, and we're perennially a top 5/10 team, but we are rarely in the mix for true 5 star prospects. Mostly we get those who excel in HS, but who have holes in their games that may take time to fill (Ochai), or those who have holes in their athletic ability compared to true 5 star athletes (Mac). We get the "Plan B" players that KY, UNC, Duke etc. have on their list as fill ins if they don't get their top prospects. They usually get theirs, so we get the Plan B guys.

Our current starting roster is Ochai and Braun (relative unknown recruits outside of KC hoops circuit, but who have really improved every year at KU), Big Mac (great body and energy, but below average skill), Harris (fun to watch and I'll bet a pest in practice, but not the talent we've seen in prior years from our floor general), and Wilson who is still the highest ranked recruit on the team (I think?), and a very good player, but not a dominant player even after three years of Self coaching.

Our subs are mostly mid level transfers who had good to great seasons for their prior teams, but don't seem to have translated that success to KU - yet.

It leads me to really understand now how good a technical coach Self is. He is getting more out of less than most coaches could muster ("less" is relative when compared to most schools, but still less than those who we see as our elite equals - KY, UNC Duke). That rung loud and clear to me watching the KY game. They overwhelmed us with more size and skill, and it showed. They had a great night (kudos to them), and we weren't on the same planet as them. But we're still leading the toughest league in the country, with the roster we have - holes and all. Self will have them playing better as the season goes along, and we're talented enough to beat anyone on our best night, and most teams on just a good night.

I guess it remains to be discussed whether Self and his long term coaching staff have what it takes to break back into the elite level of player recruitment again. Next year's class seems pretty dynamic, so we'll see how they pan out.

Luckily, I'm getting older, and can now enjoy the ride, not living or dying with every game.

Rock Chalk !

exactly as i would have said it AZ. but, in addition, the fun of it is that the most talented team doesnt always win. these are 20 year olds after all and college is still a coaches game mostly. i would point out that everything you say was just as true in 1989 when we beat kentucky 150-95 with the same kind of talent deficit. thats what i love about us. we are an overachieving blue blood program composed (almost always) of multi year high character players who play hard and take coaching well. and we play in the most entertaining venue anywhere in the world that for a couple of hours makes us forget any real problems we might have. wouldnt trade that with anyone elses program ever.

I agree with the follow-up comments on talent, especially when it comes to the NCAA tournament potential performance. Look at how well some of the mid-majors have done over time. All it takes is one bad game, see Saturday, and good team goes home, or a hot one like Kentucky going home. I like AZH's comment about getting older "and can now enjoy the ride, not living or dying with every game". A Kentucky friend told me after that was the best UK has played all year. I responded that it was close to the worse we played all year but we also know that our team has some flaws and they showed up on Saturday.

Two other factors that I think KU is having to deal with:

1. The NCAA has taken their pound of flesh simply by dragging out the investigation. I have no doubt we've lost out on more than a few top recruits who were concerned that their one or two years at KU would be marred by some level of penalties. By dragging this on for what, three years now?, we've more than paid the price on the recruiting trail even without a formal ruling.

2. the very elite prospects, if they don't go to KY/Duke/UNC are now considering other schools not historically in the running for elite players, where they know they'll be the king without having to earn Self's confidence/respect, and can spend six months working out, playing some games, and preparing for the draft. Schools like Memphis, Florida State, Gonzaga (though Zags are now getting pretty much anyone they want), Baylor, LSU, etc are direct competitors for top talent. I'm actually fine with one and done types going elsewhere, as I've really not enjoyed the several OADs we've had at KU. I'd much prefer to follow an Ochai and watch him progress. It may mean we're not a dominant #1 ranked team, but that's OK by me.

I'd much prefer to follow an Ochai and watch him progress

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement AZ87. And I think HCBS's system/style/etc.matches beset with that multi-year progression as well.

And I think it's important to state that whatever level you want to call our recruits/player (from a ranking & athleticism standpoint) - high or low and how they compare to KY/Duke/UNC/etc. we are near the top of the list pretty much every year HCBS has been at the helm.

Yes that can lead the "consistently high ranked, but no/few championships" vs. "inconsistent seasons,but a few more championships"" but that's for another time.

I have used my extensive database to attempt to quantify the value of retaining and developing players. There is a clear benefit to having experience. There is also benefit to having talent. Based on the comparing across all of KU's teams over the last 30 years I have developed a chart that plots a teams projected win% as a function of both talent and experience. I won;t go into here all the process to develop this chart since it would take a pretty long monologue. But the graph is pretty easy to understand when you look at it for a minute. You can see when I showed this at the beginning of the season I projected the "Seniority Scale " based on my best guess of the minutes played by each player to be 3.3. That is actually 3.07 through the Kentucky game. You can also see that I projected this team to be an "average" talent team. That was purely a subjective opinion on my part. If I had to project the talent level now I would say maybe slightly below average. Now recall, average means average for a KU team. So if that is correct, we should win about 83% of our games or a record of 26-5 or 25-6. The first table goes back to 1999. The 2nd is for Self's years, 2004-2022.



On another note, I agree that we have not been in the same league as Duke and Kentucky at getting top HS talent. But good grief, the re are 358 college basketball teams and 76 Power 6 conference teams and 10 or so very high profile non Power 6 teams (Gonzaga, etc) and we are probably 4th in garnering HS talent. That is not exactly a "poor boy" operation. And we are pretty close to UNC for third. I happen to keep a database of the top 100 HS recruits all the back to 1999 when it was 1st started. I get the data from RSCI (Recruiting Services Composite Index). They average out the top 6 recruiting service rankings like ESPN, Rivals, etc. So I can tell you just about anything you would like back to 1999 in terms of recruiting by school. It even shows all subsequent transfers to other schools. KU has an enviable recruiting success. We have had 2 top recruits (tied with Kentucky and behind Duke's 4). No other school has had more than 1. It gets a little skinnier after that. But if you give a score to each recruit based on the No. 1 recruit gets a 100 , the No. 2 recruit gets a 99 and so forth, KU is strongly in fourth. So I think it is a little overstated to say KU get's the rejects. There is a degree of truth to that but it is certainly all relative. And there are only 2 schools that would applies to. I think we compete pretty well against UNC. Duke and Kentucky dominate. But as discussed, it has not exactly resulted in dominance commensurate with the talent. That is because the experience matters as well.