We must ask again - who is running the asylum?

No Man Land - KU players don't like zone

I use the asylum analog because it seems to fit, given Graham's comments, which seem somewhat delusional.

We discussed earlier (with the "Starting 4" consensus of wanting LL behind them, and HCBS seemingly agreeing) who was in charge this year, and now we get new fuel for the fire re: that question with this article. Interesting times in AFH.

Reminds me a little of the old Edgar Allan Poe story...

In your attempt to present the other side of this question (a decent argument, I'm just not fully buying it), didn't you leave out the most important comment that Self made?

“The way we were doing it, it wasn’t really working ... we decided, or I decided we were going to try to play as much as we could with four the last two games,”

Bedore is a very respected, long-in-the-tooth beat writer who follows a pretty vanilla, straight line. (He's not Whitlock or even Keegan, and I've never seen him "spin" anything because he doesn't push agendas.) In this instance, he clearly appeared to be catching Self saying that the "core four" had made it clear who they felt should be playing with them. He first said "we decided," then self-corrected that to "I decided..."

There were some other comments that Newell pulled out during that 24-hour period that further punctuated the idea above--the one Bedore was putting forth.

Bottom line: this is a weird year vis-a-vis Self, the players, and the fans. We won over UK, and I've celebrated that in an effort to move on and stay positive. But I can't say I agree with you in your effort to revise recent history (or interpretations thereof) on this one. You may be right, and Bedore, Newell, and many others may be wrong. But at the end of the day, you've merely presented an alternate hypothesis and chosen to believe what you want to believe. Just like the others. That's not a knock on you, and really, as long as KU can continue to show that it's gotten its act back together, we may look back at last week in a month or two from now and laugh it off. I hope so, because that will mean that whatever Self and the team chose to do (with the former firmly in command or taking input from his "core" players more than he might have in the past) wound up working.

It could also be more of a "middle truth" area, for all we know. One in which Self is actually opening up a bit more, taking more player input rather than just digging in on his own decisions or impulses. (Which would be a better outcome than just turning over the decisions to others, which I agree is too extreme of a depiction)

Who knows? But let's just hope that whatever buttons he has to push to have the team reach its fullest potential, he finds those and hits them in the right way at precisely the right time. He's got a lot of success under his belt, and this fan (along with you) very much wants him to do well. (Stating the obvious!)

NotOstertag wrote: I think people are reading waaaaay too much into these comments.

Perhaps, and in all reality , probably.

But I accomplished my objective with my post, and be honest -- how many times am I going to be able to tie that absolutely great song from The Alan Parsons Project into a discussion of KU hoops? I saw the opening and took the shot!

...since you brought it up.

If it turns out that Self is basing his rotation decisions primarily around who our "core four" are "most comfortable with" (which he alluded to and you brought up)--as opposed to going with the personnel that he ultimately believes, if they were to reach their upside, would provide KU with the best chance to make the deepest possible run come March-April--then I would have major issues with that. And I believe a huge chunk of our fan base would, too. (I'm not talking about the ranters and ravers who scream about everything, I'm talking about seasoned, sober, objective fans who are pretty darn knowledgeable about the game of basketball.)

Why? Because, first of all, it would signal an abdication of a pivotal role of Self and his staff, which is to coach them up. That is, to help those with the most potential to contribute to the team's success do so. And in my mind, that also means garnering sufficient playing time to gain experience, play through mistakes without immediately getting the hook, and gel with the squad. (How can you gel with the core players, and thereby make them more comfortable, if you rarely see the floor? And why, pray tell, are the core four more comfortable with Jamari--who after four years still can't set a legal screen, box out, hit a bunny, or avoid turnovers--than the young guys, who naturally are going to take some time to work things out?)

It also would signal that he and the staff are prone to fall back to comfort zones, even in the non-conference portion of the schedule, instead of taking a few short-term risks (with player development, particularly with Bragg and Diallo, given Jamari's erratic play and Landon's limitations). Short-term risks in favor of long-term gains...as in, KU being a much stronger team and more formidable "out" come tourney time.

And lastly, it would signal a major double-standard, in that the "core four" are not without their issues on the court, either. Many on here have correctly pointed to the mistakes they are prone to make, yet with a basically unbound leash that allows them to continue on the court while the guys who they are "less comfortable" playing with do not enjoy such a luxury.

I also think Self should never have gone public with that information--that he relied on the core four to finalize his rotation decisions. It's just asking for trouble, both with the media and fan base but also within the team, because it seems to indicate that there is a "sub-group" or clique that has Self's ear more than the others. It suggests some favoritism which might, if it weren't in the public eye, be completely warranted (based on what he's seeing 24/7/365), yet when made public just doesn't do anyone any good.

Hopefully this won't be seen as some sort of contentious pillow fight between your perspective and mine, and those who tend to line up on one side or the other. I view it as a healthy thing to talk about, given the "interesting" developments this season and the fact that the UK game may have merely swept the above issues under the table (i.e., the rotation issues, the question of playing the young guys more versus going with the upperclassmen, short-term risk vs. long-term gain, etc.).

It'll be interesting to see it all play out...

Your clarity of vision and finely sculpted commentary are greatly appreciated, Konza. Thanks for the thought provoking prose.

Good points, Senex, very plausible. If correct about the method to his actions, I do think that Konza's point about keeping such things sub rosa makes a lot of sense. It brings to my mind the aphorism about it being best not knowing how the sausage is made.

Good stuff, and I hope you know (you'd better!) that your insightful, well-articulated perspectives are very much appreciated.

Onward and upward, for sure.

PS: Another provocative "food for thought" piece just posted (haha), but not grounded in an information vacuum--grounded, instead, in concrete data.

Thanks again.

Given that this is a fan board, and fans love to not only comment on what they see on the court, but read the coach's comments and media pieces, read between the lines, practice pop psychology and cultural anthropology, and so forth...we need a good term for the "kremlinology-like" work that we all do.

Oreadology? (Practiced by oreadologists)

Phogology (Practiced by phogologists)

Hmmm...

Stand down, Condor, you are raising your profile. Today's keyword is "Discretion".

Me likes...

(We need a "thumbs-up" emojicon for the board!)