Back to 2008 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament coverage

2008 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Woodling

Woodling: Hoops dream remains

By Chuck Woodling

Advertisement

Has it really been a week? How many of you woke up last Tuesday morning with a start, wondering if it had all been a dream?

How many of you rushed to your front porch to pick up the Journal-World, or immediately turned on the TV in frantic search of confirmation?

It wasn't a dream, of course. Kansas University's men's basketball team really did capture the NCAA championship with a thrilling 75-68 overtime victory over Memphis.

Now that the euphoria from KU's third NCAA championship is beginning to wane, it's time to take an analytical look at this edition of the Jayhawks.

First of all, this team was different from the school's other two national champions. Both of those clubs had a dominant player - Clyde Lovellette in 1952 and Danny Manning in 1988.

Lovellette remains the last player to lead a team to the NCAA title while also leading the nation in scoring. Manning was tapped player of the year in '88 and was the first selection in the NBA Draft a couple of months later.

In comparison, the most dominant player on the '08 champs was, well, take your pick.

No doubt the most memorable player will be Mario Chalmers, thanks to his stunning and stupendous game-tying three-point goal in the waning seconds. But the junior guard averaged just 12.8 points a game during the season.

Brandon Rush? Well, the junior forward did drop a 25-point bomb on North Carolina in the Final Four semis, and he did lead the team in scoring, although at a pedestrian 13.3 points a game.

Trivia question: Who was the Jayhawks' leading scorer in the win over Memphis? It wasn't Rush. He counted just a dozen points against the Tigers. It wasn't Chalmers, either. He had 18. The leading scorer was soph Darrell Arthur with 20.

In the Jayhawks' six NCAA tourney victories, Rush was the leading scorer in three games, Chalmers in two and Arthur in that one. But sixth man Sasha Kaun shared scoring honors with Chalmers in the excruciating nail-biter against Davidson.

Rush and Chalmers were the only KU players who scored in double figures in all six NCAA games. Thanks largely to that 25-point explosion against UNC, Rush averaged 15.8 points in those half-dozen contests.

Chalmers was close behind Rush at 14.8. Then came Arthur at 11.0, Darnell Jackson at 8.5, Sherron Collins at 8.3, Russell Robinson at 7.0 and Kaun at 6.2.

As you know, the 2008 Final Four was the first composed entirely of No. 1 seeds. Three of the teams also boasted a first-team All-American - North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough, UCLA's Kevin Love and Memphis' Chris Douglas-Roberts.

Kansas had no first-team All-Americans. Kansas had no second-team All-Americans. Kansas had no third-team All-Americans. Rush, Chalmers and Arthur did earn honorable mention, however.

That a school would capture an NCAA title - not to mention win 37 of 40 games - without a single first-, second- or third-team All-American is mind-boggling in an era that places so much emphasis on the culture of the superstar.

It's almost as if Kansas won the national title with reverse logic. Then again, the 2008 NCAA champs may turn out to be trend-setters.

Comments

fansincewilt (anonymous) says...

I think coaches will begin to pay attention to the great run by Kansas without a superstar. This team has to be measured by their intense desire, willingness to share the spotlight, mental toughness, and an overwhelming defense. Much of the credit has to go to Coach Self for creating this type of team. Florida's wins with three superstars or if Memphis had won with their two superstars does not or would not compare to this national championship team. Not only was Kansas the best team this year, they are the best team to win a national championship in many years. This is a team to be proud of for the ages.

April 15, 2008 at 5:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Solomon (anonymous) says...

Not entirely, but to a great extent "superstars" are defined by the media. The media, of course, is no more qualified than a dedicated fan to distinguish "stardom." What gets reported? Points. Outstanding defense, outstanding court vision, outstanding passing generally receive short shrift in the media accounts of games.

We saw what Cole Aldrich did to "superstart" Tyler Hansbrough, didn't we? Superstar Derrick Rose made, what, one basket in the first half of the championship game? Kevin Love is a freshman who performed well, but certainly did not meet my definition of a "superstar."

Take away the iconic image of Hansbrough's bloody face and the incessant coverage by ESPN and Tyler would be just another good basketball player. Take Love out of L.A., and put him on a team that hadn't been to consecutive Final Fours and his reputation wouldn't be nearly as grand. On the other hand, I happen to think that Derrick Rose would rise as a superstar wherever he would have played.

April 15, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

okjhok (anonymous) says...

I think the real story here is the voting, because you can't tell me that Rush and Chalmers are not worthy of second-team AA honors, taking into account all they bring to the table for the team. The ONLY thing that matters for these voters is scoring avg. that's it! So while I understand Woodling's argument, the truth is not that KU just had a bunch of good players that played well together. The truth is that KU had a bunch of outstanding players that played well together. For the record, I think all of those guys would take a championship over any individual honors, as skewed as they are.

April 15, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU (anonymous) says...

Personally, I think great defense had more to do with KU's run than having/not having a superstar player. And when I say "superstar player" I mean--and this is what most people focus on--an offensive superstar. When you hold UNC and Memphis below 70 points in consecutives games, you've accomplished something.

You can play great defense with or without a superstar. If we had the same balanced scoring but didn't play great defense, we wouldn't have won the tournament. If we had a superstar player but didn't play great defense, we wouldn't have won the tournament.

Just my take.

April 15, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mylantahawk (anonymous) says...

I agree that our standards for "superstar" are too often unidimensional.....it's all about scoring, etc. I found it interesting how many people discounted Kansas' close game with Davidson as a sign that they were vulnerable to a high-scoring Memphis juggernaut! They failed to understand that the Davidson coach had his team prepared and disciplined to play swarming defense, and they executed their offense beautifully against a tough Kansas defense.

The tournament is all about coaching tactics & match-ups and execution by the players on the court. Defense is everything in such contests, and is often overlooked. Rebounds are huge, as are hitting the crucial shots down the stretch, as Kansas was able to do (especially Mario's superb shot to send it into O.T.), but it was a total team effort!

My hope is that this team will understand how special they were, and that they have a chance to repeat it. I think Rush will be gone for sure, but Mario could hang. I'm not sure about Arthur....he could use another year of good coaching. He's hot and cold on offense, and sometimes his defense is lacking!

April 15, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KUbsee69 (anonymous) says...

Coach Self said Sunday evening that KU's go-to guy was "whoever was open". That's a great comment.

This year's TEAM is truely the "dream team". Hopefully, there will be others down the road ... like next year.

Rock Chalk

April 15, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

crooner (anonymous) says...

lawrence journal-world, where is your copy editor?!

derrick rose is not an all-american 1st-team selection. he is on the 3rd team. chris douglas-roberts is on the 1st team.

Link:

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2...

April 15, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanotherfan (anonymous) says...

This year's KU team is very similar to last years Florida team, with one major exception - depth.

Last year, Florida didn't have one guy that stood out above the other starters. Five of their top 6 guys are in the NBA now (Horford, Noah, Brewer, Green, Richard) The difference was that Florida really didn't go past their 7th guy on the bench. Only 6 guys (the aforementioned 5 plus Humphrey) really scored much. Speights rarely played last year. Walter Hodge was the only other guy that got meaningful minutes. So even though they divided the spotlight, it was only split 5 or 6 ways.

For us, we split that pie 8, sometimes 9 ways. Sasha could come in and throw down a couple of dunks. Cole could grab every rebound. Sherron could spark a run. Early in the year, Rodrick played a lot of minutes.

Over the course of the year DBlock went for 20. So did Brandon. And Mario. And Shady. And Sherron (I think). RussRob led us in scoring. So did Sasha. Cole was the best player for us during a key stretch in the national semifinals.

In the Big XII title game, Mario had 30, Brandon had 20 something and Shady had 20 or so. Sherron did very little offensively in that game. The day before, Brandon went for 25 and Mario had like 6. Other days, Brandon had people pulling their hair out because he only had 6 or 7 shots!

Florida's roles were clear. Horford scored on the block. Humphrey made threes. Green handled the ball. Brewer locked down the other teams best player. Noah gave energy on both ends. Richard and Hodge gave guys a rest.

Our roles were much more evolving. Some days, Shady scored on the block, other days it was Darnell. Some days, Mario made threes. Other days it was Brandon. Or Sherron. Or RussRob. Or Jeremy. Some days Russ handled the ball. Other days it was Mario and Sherron. There was so much depth and changing of roles/ performances, that it was hard to say that one guy shined above the rest.

The most beautiful sight was seeing ALL of them step onto that podium. Because no one outshined the others, they all shined together.

April 15, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

kushaw (anonymous) says...

This article is so funny! This was on the cover of the sports page today here in Charlotte, NC. Got to love the Tar Heel fans.

http://www.charlotte.com/508/story/58...

April 15, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mcrozb (anonymous) says...

Time to vent my pet peeve: instead of calling this our 3rd NCAA championship, why can't we call it what it is......our 5th National Championship. Just because 2 of them happened before the creation of the NCAA, doesn't mean they should be ignored !!!!!!!!!!

Rock Chalk ChampionHawk !!!! (5 time Champions)

April 15, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

rockchalk80 (anonymous) says...

RE: the article in the Charlotte Observer...

Jon Amyx... the former Mayor of Lawrence? :)

April 15, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ChicagoJHawk (anonymous) says...

I agree mcrozb, this is our 5th national championship & it pisses me off also when people refer to this as our 3rd!
Michigan was awarded national championships in football by the Helms foundation and they are able to count those. Why does Kansas' national championships from the Helms foundation not count??

April 15, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

JBurtin (anonymous) says...

UNC also has a helms banner hanging in the rafters as one of their national championships. All the other major programs count their Helms championships, so I see no reason why we shouldn't.

I guess the reason that people haven't before is that counting them felt like a desperate ploy to try and make our program look more successful than it really was. Now that we have more NCAA championships than ones of the Helms variety, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to count them any more.

April 15, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

actorman (anonymous) says...

Sorry, mcrozb, but as much as I love KU, I don't agree with you. It's nice to occasionally reference the 1922 and 1923 "championships," but they are not even remotely on the same level as the three NCAA titles. In 1936, the Helms Committee voted retroactively to award those two "championships" to KU. Think for a second about how much everyone hates the BCS. Then imagine how much worse it would be if the BCS didn't vote in the same year the games were played, but instead voted over a DECADE later. So it really would not make sense to refer to 1922 and 1923 as if they are the same thing as 1952, 1988 and 2008.

As for the crux of this article, I think Woodling is WAY off base. How many of KU's players could have been a superstar if they were in a position where they were supposed to dominate? Mario's stats were simply phenomenal when you look at steals, shooting percentage, 3-point percentage, etc. The only reason his scoring average was so low is that he didn't take so many shots because KU had so many GREAT players, not good ones. Brandon or Darrell could also easily have been superstars in another place. And I agree with okjok, that even with all the balance, Brandon and Mario should have been at least second-team All-American. The funny thing is that if Mario stays, he could have similar stats to this year (although he'll probably score a little more) and be first-team All-American next year because he has now entered the American consciousness, not because he'd be so much better than he was this year.

April 15, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

actorman (anonymous) says...

Correct me if I'm wrong, jburtin, but don't we also have banners up at Allen that celebrate 1922 and 1923? I thought this discussion was more about whether or not they should be referred to when talking about how many championships KU has won.

April 15, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kushaw (anonymous) says...

Actorman: I disagree with you in reference to the 1922 and 1923 titles. A title is a title no matter what the format was during that generation. I don't see NCAA football discounting all the championships before 1998 when the "BCS" was initially introduced. I mean, how can you seriously have two teams crowned National Champions? Example, 1997 with Nebraska and Michigan. It did happen and both are recognized as NCAA Championships. In a couple of years when NCAA football decides to initiate a playoff system then will the "BCS" decade or generation be voided or discounted as well? No, of course it won't, but it's recognized in history as a championship because that was the format at that time. It's the same as the "Helms" Championships. It was the governing body to recognize college athletics and that's how they decided "Champions". You might not agree with it, but that's how the format worked. What is everybody going to say in 70 years about "BCS" generation for football? A Championship is a Championship!

April 15, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

truefan (anonymous) says...

That is exactly what JBurtin was saying. UNC fans count their Helms National Titles and no one gives them any grief. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing? He wasn't claiming that we did not hang the banners, he was just pointing out the fact that unc, ucla, and Kentucky all claim their Helms titles but they don't get any back talk for it but for some reason KU does.

April 15, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PittsburghJayhawk (anonymous) says...

Mylantahawk:

While I agree with you when you say that Davidson played tough defense against us, I have to disagree with your assessment that "they executed their offense beautifully against" us. Curry missed 14 shots (12 of them 3-pointers) to go 36% from the field and 25% from behind the arc. As a team they only shot 38.6%. I wouldn't call that beautiful execution.

The game was a defensive battle, and the better defense won.

Rock Chalk Championship!

April 15, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

speedy (anonymous) says...

5 thats right 5 natl. championships! its up to KU to get that across to the media. not this 3 stuff by ncaa.
noone has EVER won a natl. champ. in football! until they have a playoff system its all voted.
KU has FIVE period.

April 15, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bleed_Crimson_Blue (anonymous) says...

Does anyone know if there is any place to watch the video they showed at the Awards Ceremony following the parade? I heard it was really neat and worth watching.

April 15, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sevenyearhawk (anonymous) says...

Kansas has THREE titles ...

The Helms' ones belong out in the Booth Family Hall of Athletics museum with the old Jayhawk mascot and Wilt's letterjacket, to be valued as artifacts, but nothing more.

In fact, they're going to need the room in the rafters when the Hawks win a couple more NCAA titles!!!

Those banners have always been there, but the Helms' ones were NEVER put on the same level until recent years ... it looks desparate, period!!

April 15, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

speedy (anonymous) says...

i have been around longer than you seventy year
why would you demean the players and their families like you did? part of the history of KU bb is included and 5 championship are on record. how long ago has nothing to do with it.

April 15, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

actorman (anonymous) says...

KUShaw, we'll have to agree to disagree, and your comments about football point out the basis for our disagreement. I don't recognize a single football champion as legitimate and never will until they have a real playoff system. And as much as I would have loved it if KU had won the football "championship" this year, it still would not have been a legitimate title. So I think I'm pretty consistent in saying that 1922 and 1923 will always tremendously pale in comparison to the other three. Even if you were to argue that the polling system is somewhat valid because it's based on what people have seen during the year, it certainly can't be valid over a DECADE after the fact. I mean, could you imagine if people now were to vote on the football champion from 1995?!?!? How ridiculous would that be? Compared to something like that, the BCS would be more legitimate than March Madness.

But Speedy, at least KUShaw is consistent. You make no sense and completely contradict yourself. How can you say that it's up to KU to get across that they have FIVE championships, yet in the same thread say that there's no legitimate football champion until they have a playoff system?!?!? You say the problem is that in football it's all voted??? Well, that's the problem for KU's 1922 and 1923 titles--and it's even worse because it was all voted over a decade later. You're trying to have it both ways.

April 15, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

hawkman1031 (anonymous) says...

Before the 4, I was dismayed at the bad feelings of some toward Roy. We had Phog. We sent them Dean. He sent us Larry and Roy. Larry had Bill there for a bit. Roy went home. Bill came in. KU will always have a great program and a great coach. Now after beating NC, Roy wore a Jayhawk. I like NC before all of that,when they had Dean and Michael Jordan. Still like 'em. Since Dean sent us Larry and Roy, and he came from KU, I have always felt like they are brother schools. My top nemesis teams are Duke, UK and UCLA. They are my grudges, not NC. I'm like Roy, KU and NC are my faves. We are the champions. All is well with the world (of sports), and Roy risked the ire of his NC fans by wearing a Jayhawk. That's good enough for all Jayhawks. Death to any more issue with Roy.

April 16, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mcrozb (anonymous) says...

I second that hawkman1031 !!!! By wearing the Jayhawk Roy proved a lot. Anyone still want to bash Roy....Go become a Duke fan!

April 16, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

CasperCorps (anonymous) says...

All I know its awesome to go to Allen Fieldhouse and just look up and see all the banners.. The three this year, I will remember for a long time. This was trully a team effort, opposing coaches couldn't game plan for a single player, and our team defense showed in every game but Baylor... National Champions!!! Rockem Hawks!!

April 16, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pitthawker (anonymous) says...

I dont mind people saying THREE...However, It needs to b said, "3 NCAA Championships" and when referring to just National Championships, its FIVE. It is not KU's fault the NCAA wasnt around.

April 17, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

1977kufan (anonymous) says...

Super article, Chuck. I do not care about whether or not a player made first, second or third team All-American. We should focus on the All-American, championship TEAM (including the entire coaching and assistant staff) that wins national championships. As we all know, this is a TEAM game. Individual players help other players on their TEAM win games and hopefully national championships. This group of players and coaches understand that concept and put it into every game throughout the season! Congratulations again and again to the All-American national championship team, kansas jayhawks!!!

April 17, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

skolvikes (anonymous) says...

justanotherfan:

Well Said.
QED.

April 17, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )