The Kim Caldwell System

[1reVOLver]

BOTTOM LINE

In 2024-25, Caldwell had two defined 5-player units she could swap as groups, and those groups plus minor variations accounted for over half of all playing time. In 2025-26, minutes are spread across 235 different lineup combinations with nothing approaching that level of structure.

Other coaches of highly ranked teams experiment with different lineups early in seasons, and usually by the start of conference play they have their starting lineups and first two or three off the bench players identified. Injuries, slumps, breakout performances can lead to variations, but those are exceptions.

Season long tinkering with “minutes…spread across 235 different lineup combinations”
makes one wonder if underperformance had led to panic, leading to further underperformance. That's a query, not a condemnation.

 

[RetroVol]

She very much seems to have given up on this team which she chose.

I agree she hasn't found an answer, but evidence points to her continuing to coach this teams. She has talked about drills she did and new wrinkles to them (like throwing balls into the stands on turnovers) to get this team to focus and perform. No, she hasn't totally abandoned her approach -- the one that has worked for every other team -- in the middle of the season. We've seen adaptations in substitution patterns -- is that giving up on a team? I'm sure no one on this board is more frustrated with this season than Kim and her staff. But we can walk away from it, go do something else. She's a self-confessed basketball junky who thinks about the team all the time (except, hopefully, Connor and her husband are still pulling her away from it for a while each day). So, "giving up" seems a wildly unwarranted claim.

 

[RetroVol]

Other coaches of highly ranked teams experiment with different lineups early in seasons, and usually by the start of conference play they have their starting lineups and first two or three off the bench players identified. Injuries, slumps, breakout performances can lead to variations, but those are exceptions.

Season long tinkering with “minutes…spread across 235 different lineup combinations”
makes one wonder if underperformance had led to panic, leading to further underperformance. That's a query, not a condemnation.

Panic is a judgment, but no need to wonder if the staff has continued to search, unsuccessfully, for the rotations that will work with this team. Kim said that, and she said why. Players not performing consistently from game to game.

 

[1reVOLver]

I'm sorry, but what? Are you suggesting Kim and her staff are being inconsistent for no reason? That a staff that was happy to find and use steady combinations in 2024-2025 (and I would guess in prior years) just decided on a whim to start randomly grouping players this year? What could possibly make them do that? And it flies in the face of what Kim said. It's player performances that kept them hunting for combinations that they could rely on. I submit there is little rational basis for such a suggestion.

Counselor, your uncharacteristic attempt to put words in my maw is worthy of a juniour high school debate team, but not of your fine self, so dedicated to objective data analysis. Never did I imply, much less state, that any actions by Kim et alia have been either for no reason or whim-based.

Your impassioned riposte omits yet another possible cause for the high number of roster combinations. Your own penultimate sentence may be part of the reason.

It's player performances that kept them hunting for combinations that they could rely on.

When player performance is problematic, most coaches have at least a couple of frequent responses:

1) Coaching! Coaching staff work with the individual to overcome the problem. Player development is a fundamental coaching responsibility.
2) Allow the unsatisfactory performer to join buttocks to bench. “System allowing”

Sure, it’s easy to blame the player and shuffle the deck, but that may be a bug, not a feature.

Edited to add: I don't believe an underperforming team is the sole result of sub-par coaching or of crappy player behavior. A team includes both coaching staff and players. Attempts to place all the blame on one group or the other are logically flawed.
(Even when they are my own.)

 

[glv98]

I agree she hasn't found an answer, but evidence points to her continuing to coach this teams. She has talked about drills she did and new wrinkles to them (like throwing balls into the stands on turnovers) to get this team to focus and perform. No, she hasn't totally abandoned her approach -- the one that has worked for every other team -- in the middle of the season. We've seen adaptations in substitution patterns -- is that giving up on a team? I'm sure no one on this board is more frustrated with this season than Kim and her staff. But we can walk away from it, go do something else. She's a self-confessed basketball junky who thinks about the team all the time (except, hopefully, Connor and her husband are still pulling her away from it for a while each day). So, "giving up" seems a wildly unwarranted claim.

Of course she’ll continue to coach, but within the framework that everything’s the players fault and that at this point they’re irredeemable.

 

[RetroVol]

That's one way to look at it, and it's most likely the way Kim looks at it. This year's team, which she hand selected, just turned out to be a particularly acrimonious, slow to catch on, ultimately selfish group. In spite of her obvious miscalculations in roster building, the theory is this is a fluke which is unlikely to happen year after year. Which means CKC does'nt need to change much if anything about her system, except the players she selects for it

To me thats a scary af high risk gamble, esp considering the damage taken on this year is going to make recruiting the elusive right players even harder.

"Hand selected" is another of those subtle little phrases,, like "giving up" on a team, that leave an implication I'm not sure you actually mean. It suggests she got the exact players she wanted, and we all know that's not true, for her or for any other coach. She got the ones off her list that she could persuade to come play for her.

But, I do agree with your point. Kim and her staff face some very challenging questions after this season, and unfortunately, they are going to be, as I've said before, in the position of a marksman who misses a shot. He may know he jerked the trigger. He may also know there is a question about the range estimation, wind direction and speed, and even the possibility of a faulty powder load in the round. Now, how does he adjust for the next shot?

@glv98, I gather your recommendation would be something along the lines of, "No one has ever made a system close to this work at this level. You should take a long look at how other top coaches run their programs -- their offense, defense, substitution patterns, etc., and seriously consider adjusting what you know and have done throughout your career in the direction of those programs."

And if Kim said, "Really? Based on one season where we had clear internal problems with team members?" you might answer, "Yes, because it's too risky to do otherwise. Next year could be make or break for you. You need to go with the tried and true. It's too risky to do otherwise."

Am I close?

Oh, and thanks for the discussion. I enjoy your perspective.

 

[RetroVol]

When player performance is problematic, most coaches have at least a couple of frequent responses:

1) Coaching! Coaching staff work with the individual to overcome the problem. Player development is a fundamental coaching responsibility.
2) Allow the unsatisfactory performer to join buttocks to bench. “System allowing”

@1reVOLver, I enjoy our exchanges also.

As for coaching -- yup, and Kim has talked about numerous way she and her staff have coached this team, as a group and individually. But, there are times a coach simply can't get through to a player or two, and sometimes that can tip a whole team.

And, yes, "benching" is kind of off the table for Kim except for players that are totally out of the rotation.

 

[1reVOLver]

I gather your recommendation would be something along the lines of, "No one has ever made a system close to this work at this level.

I don't know how close his system was, but hockey line subs, speedy play, and lots of three point attempts were hallmarks of Doug Bruno's DePaul teams. I think he made it to the Elite Eight once. DePaul rarely attracted players of the quality TN gets, with Anesha Morrow—pirated by Bayou Kim of horrid haberdashery fame—being a notable exception.

 

[Deebowbear]

I dont think it’s so much of the system. It’s the players. As we can tell most dont play defense either.

 

[glv98]

"Hand selected" is another of those subtle little phrases,, like "giving up" on a team, that leave an implication I'm not sure you actually mean. It suggests she got the exact players she wanted, and we all know that's not true, for her or for any other coach. She got the ones off her list that she could persuade to come play for her.

But, I do agree with your point. Kim and her staff face some very challenging questions after this season, and unfortunately, they are going to be, as I've said before, in the position of a marksman who misses a shot. He may know he jerked the trigger. He may also know there is a question about the range estimation, wind direction and speed, and even the possibility of a faulty powder load in the round. Now, how does he adjust for the next shot?

@glv98, I gather your recommendation would be something along the lines of, "No one has ever made a system close to this work at this level. You should take a long look at how other top coaches run their programs -- their offense, defense, substitution patterns, etc., and seriously consider adjusting what you know and have done throughout your career in the direction of those programs."

And if Kim said, "Really? Based on one season where we had clear internal problems with team members?" you might answer, "Yes, because it's too risky to do otherwise. Next year could be make or break for you. You need to go with the tried and true. It's too risky to do otherwise."

Am I close?

Oh, and thanks for the discussion. I enjoy your perspective.

You mean subtle little phrases like “tried and true”?

We’re making this harder than it needs to be. CKC and staff are responsible for the roster they end up with and for designing a system for them to play in that allows them to be successful. And that will be the case next year and the year after, etc.

Sometimes that will be the system she prefers, other times, like this year, it won’t. The ability to adjust to that, esp in an environment of high player turnover, will determine whether she’s successful or not.

Did you get a chance to see my post above about why that system has never really caught on at higher levels? I’m just curious why you and Kim believe she would be able to overcome all of those?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Glenville look at the size of the players for Kim in this season.

Why do they have a better offense, with motion and ball movement, did she have another assistant at that time?

 

[StorrsCentral]

Defense, do they practice defense that actually means something? Does the offense in practice play traditional offence so they can practice traditional defense? Defense in college is a little different than in high school, so how much effort is being done in practice to learn these skills? Defense is hard, and most of the players out of high school are recruited for their offensive skills, and defense, high caliber defense, is learned at the college level. My question is do they work on defense or are they only working on defending the messed-up offense that Kim is playing (that nobody else is playing). IMHO, if the offence is not what it should be by now than they don't have time to practice proper defense. Two different systems for offence and defense to learn, so why shouldn't they be confused?

 

[1reVOLver]

I just re-read this thread, and paid special attention to the debate(s) about whether or not, and how much, CK has (or has not) changed her system. The conversations and AI summary all focused on rotations, consistency thereof, and coachability (nifty neologism or clunky invention?) of players.

I believe most of us are comfortable with the notion that the best coaches get to know their players in depth, and those coaches try to put their players into situations in which the players are apt to succeed. Not rocket science. Just common sense.
Now then, if you share my opinion that I am probably not a lot smarter than your average junkyard dog, I'll offer my best shot at a logical analysis.

1. Kim has, without question, experimented with damned near every combination of players on the floor.
1.a. That hasn’t accomplished what she, and we, hoped for.

2. Kim has adjusted, altered, tinkered with—pick the phrasal verb of your druthers—size and duration of substitutions.
2.a. We have still lost to both highly ranked teams and teams we were expected to defeat.

3. Given past success, at very least in relative terms, of the system, all of the above suggests to some of us that the problem is the players, or at least some of the players.

However… go back and refresh your memory of a nostrum offered earlier:

…coaches try to put their players into situations in which the players are apt to succeed. Not rocket science.

Has this happened? Did it include suspending, altering, chucking, or otherwise getting rid of significant parts of the system? You know, like maybe playing conventional college basketball for a quarter, just to see what might happen with the best players on the court together for most of a quarter, playing zone defense, looking to pass the ball to someone more open rather than throwing bricks in the general vicinity of the hoop… and all that dull, boring ‘everybody else does it’ kind of stuff?

OK. I'll shut up now and watch the basketball HOF candidates shred these heresies.

Oh, just one more thing, Ma'am. The word “elite” is proscribed.

 

[RetroVol]

Why do they have a better offense, with motion and ball movement, did she have another assistant at that time?

Always keep the most obvious difference in mind: different team.

There also could be multiple causes.

 

[StorrsCentral]

Always keep the most obvious difference in mind: different team.

There also could be multiple causes.

D1 coaches are smarter than D2 or mid-major coaches.

 

[1reVOLver]

D1 coaches are smarter than D2 or mid-major coaches.

Oh boyohboyohboy. You serve up a fat pitch down the middle of the plate and…

There once was this really, really, really (famous Geno expression?) good D2 or D3 coach. Had great success at a place called…Tufts, you know, like clumps of hair.
So that coach, from your CT tree, goes to a D1 school, Princeton, and
by dint of her mere presence on that D1 campus her IQ went up by 34.096 points.

And they all lived happily ever after.

 

[StorrsCentral]

Oh boyohboyohboy. You serve up a fat pitch down the middle of the plate and…

There once was this really, really, really (famous Geno expression?) good D2 or D3 coach. Had great success at a place called…Tufts, you know, like clumps of hair.
So that coach, from your CT tree, goes to a D1 school, Princeton, and
by dint of her mere presence on that D1 campus her IQ went up by 34.096 points.

And they all lived happily ever after.

What I meant was that going against a D2 coach is different than going against an established D1 coach. At Marshall she wouldn't go up against a Geno, Dawn, Kim, Cori, etc. One year (I think) at a D1 school will not get the experienced needed for a big time D1 program. On the sidelines she looks so bewildered at times. She is not ready for this and DW should stop the bleeding now and start looking.

 

[RetroVol]

Has this happened? Did it include suspending, altering, chucking, or otherwise getting rid of significant parts of the system? You know, like maybe playing conventional college basketball for a quarter, just to see what might happen with the best players on the court together for most of a quarter, playing zone defense, looking to pass the ball to someone more open rather than throwing bricks in the general vicinity of the hoop… and all that dull, boring ‘everybody else does it’ kind of stuff?

@1reVOLver, you were doing so good until right here! Then you got the timing wrong. (Wait until you see my next post.) Some of it she has done. She's talked about how much they have worked on passing in practice. And taking care of the basketball. And then we start the TAM game with Robertson throwing the ball right into the hands of the defender to give up a break-away layup. And that has happened over and over again. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't sat in film reviews and watched possessions where they didn't move the ball, with Kim & her staff pointing out what should have happened and didn't, then watched possessions where it did, then they go back on the court, maybe do better for a game, then revert when the staff tries to add a focus on rebounding or something. It's really seemed like this team can only improve one thing at a time, and when they try to add a second, it's like you asked them to juggle and they start dropping balls.

The second reason is psychological, and this plays to the most visible aspect of the system: the substitution patterns. It seems to me what is being said to the team by this system (and likely in practices and in personal sessions) is you can each contribute, we have to work together, we win by being better as a team. And to pull back too much from that in the middle of the season would clearly say, "No, you can't. You're not that good after all." And that's a message she cannot send. She can't send it to her freshmen because she needs to keep them. And she can't send it to the upperclassmen because she needs to keep them (Cooper, Latham) or be able to say to the portal players she talks to in a few weeks that you will get every opportunity to prove yourself here, even to play your way out of slumps. So, the radical departure from what she's been doing in the middle of the season is a non-starter. The adjustment of substitution patterns late in tight games is about the most that can be done.

And I agree with those who say Kim's behaviors recently reflect a great deal of frustration. She hasn't quit on this team. She's kept coaching. She's adjusting as much as she can. And the game to game results are erratic in ways she's never seen before. That's got to be demanding. (Oh, and she's doing it all with a 1-year-old at home.) It's got to be hard.

 

[1reVOLver]

So, the radical departure from what she's been doing in the middle of the season is a non-starter. The adjustment of substitution patterns late in tight games is about the most that can be done.

We could quibble about whether we are in the middle or the final rounds of the season…but your point holds up well, no matter where in the trajectory of the dud shell we find ourselves. No only would it be harmful to retaining those she needs to keep and hopes to attract, it would be a public confession that her comparative advantage (sincere apologies to David Ricardo) is nil some of the time.

What I was getting at is that this group of “flawed” players might perform very well for a different coach and approach, despite being a mismatch for CK's system. The time to have tested this would have been in the December-January part if the season, but hindsight is always better than the present through a glass with too many dead bugs on it, or clouded by mixed metaphors and tears.

 

[LVBB_Legacy]

@1reVOLver, you were doing so good until right here! Then you got the timing wrong. (Wait until you see my next post.) Some of it she has done. She's talked about how much they have worked on passing in practice. And taking care of the basketball. And then we start the TAM game with Robertson throwing the ball right into the hands of the defender to give up a break-away layup. And that has happened over and over again. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't sat in film reviews and watched possessions where they didn't move the ball, with Kim & her staff pointing out what should have happened and didn't, then watched possessions where it did, then they go back on the court, maybe do better for a game, then revert when the staff tries to add a focus on rebounding or something. It's really seemed like this team can only improve one thing at a time, and when they try to add a second, it's like you asked them to juggle and they start dropping balls.

The second reason is psychological, and this plays to the most visible aspect of the system: the substitution patterns. It seems to me what is being said to the team by this system (and likely in practices and in personal sessions) is you can each contribute, we have to work together, we win by being better as a team. And to pull back too much from that in the middle of the season would clearly say, "No, you can't. You're not that good after all." And that's a message she cannot send. She can't send it to her freshmen because she needs to keep them. And she can't send it to the upperclassmen because she needs to keep them (Cooper, Latham) or be able to say to the portal players she talks to in a few weeks that you will get every opportunity to prove yourself here, even to play your way out of slumps. So, the radical departure from what she's been doing in the middle of the season is a non-starter. The adjustment of substitution patterns late in tight games is about the most that can be done.

And I agree with those who say Kim's behaviors recently reflect a great deal of frustration. She hasn't quit on this team. She's kept coaching. She's adjusting as much as she can. And the game to game results are erratic in ways she's never seen before. That's got to be demanding. (Oh, and she's doing it all with a 1-year-old at home.) It's got to be hard.

She's getting paid a million dollars a year to figure it out.

She's apparently failed in recruiting players that fit her 'system' and now after almost an entire season she's failed to adjust her 'system' to take advantage of the skills of the 6, formerly 7, highly-talented, five-star, McDonalds All-Americans players that she signed.

There's nothing erratic about this team, they've played the same all year. They've been able to swamp less talented teams with their athleticism, but not able to compete with teams with comparable talent. Now, towards the end of the season, they're dropping games (MSU, A&M) to less talented, better coached teams.

She had a better team last year with a core of players who were coached to play with skill and intensity by the previous staff, and who recruited her best player (Cooper), who despite the fact she obviously doesn't enjoy playing for her, is still her most consistent player.

Basketball is a tournament sport, and if she can't figure it out and make a run with this kind of talent, we need to cut bait and make a change. At the current pace, I can see major losses to the portal that no amount of NIL money can change.

 

[LadyVolsDiehard]

Like someone already debriefed yesterday, Caldwell needs to find "hungry and underestimated players" for this system of hers.

Most 5 star and sometimes 4 stars have in their thought process they are already great, don't need much coaching and won't play as hard as the system requires of it. A player is who once a 2-3 star recruit in high school or a player who's stuck in JUCO or a midmajor that scouts overlooked will feel a type of way about playing in a system like this.

That's to say give up get big time recruits but Caldwell & staff has to be realistic in this NIL world we live in. And hey if you lose a 3 star because they can't keep up or whatever the reason, it won't be a total loss unlike a 4/5 star player. You gave them a shot play P4 basketball unlike other universities that passed on them.

 

[LasVegasBill23]

don't know if this has been brought up, but has anyone tabulated our return on the system.....

specifically number of turnovers caused by running this system and resulting LV points..... versus oppositional points given up due to transition and layups by those who break the system.

 

[madtownvol]

@1reVOLver, you were doing so good until right here! Then you got the timing wrong. (Wait until you see my next post.) Some of it she has done. She's talked about how much they have worked on passing in practice. And taking care of the basketball. And then we start the TAM game with Robertson throwing the ball right into the hands of the defender to give up a break-away layup. And that has happened over and over again. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't sat in film reviews and watched possessions where they didn't move the ball, with Kim & her staff pointing out what should have happened and didn't, then watched possessions where it did, then they go back on the court, maybe do better for a game, then revert when the staff tries to add a focus on rebounding or something. It's really seemed like this team can only improve one thing at a time, and when they try to add a second, it's like you asked them to juggle and they start dropping balls.

The second reason is psychological, and this plays to the most visible aspect of the system: the substitution patterns. It seems to me what is being said to the team by this system (and likely in practices and in personal sessions) is you can each contribute, we have to work together, we win by being better as a team. And to pull back too much from that in the middle of the season would clearly say, "No, you can't. You're not that good after all." And that's a message she cannot send. She can't send it to her freshmen because she needs to keep them. And she can't send it to the upperclassmen because she needs to keep them (Cooper, Latham) or be able to say to the portal players she talks to in a few weeks that you will get every opportunity to prove yourself here, even to play your way out of slumps. So, the radical departure from what she's been doing in the middle of the season is a non-starter. The adjustment of substitution patterns late in tight games is about the most that can be done.

And I agree with those who say Kim's behaviors recently reflect a great deal of frustration. She hasn't quit on this team. She's kept coaching. She's adjusting as much as she can. And the game to game results are erratic in ways she's never seen before. That's got to be demanding. (Oh, and she's doing it all with a 1-year-old at home.) It's got to be hard.

A fascinating discussion. If I may, let me add one other point of consideration that has not yet been raised.

Retro, I love your analyses but as you know, our friend Claude, like all our other soon to be AI overlords, have one big blind spot-- context.

When you put CKC's system in context, we come to one conclusion-- it did not translate that well last year either.

Let's put last season in the broader frame of CKC's career. As a D2 coach, she won a national championship (plus made another F4 along with 7 conference titles in 8 years + one 2nd place finish); as a mid major D1 coach, she won a conference championship (before her Marshall team got obliterated in the first round of the NCAA tournament). So even at Marshall, there was a bit of a comparative step down in her team outcomes but, that slippage was easily excused as she was moving up a level.

Last season, CKC went 8-8 in the SEC conference (The LVs WORST finish ever). However, "we" generally celebrated that outcome because it was her first year at this P5 level, along with her coaching the wondrous upset of UConn and defeating OSU to get to the S16.

In hindsight, however, I suggest that, even with the Uconn and OSU wins, CKC actually did less with more. The players she inherited (and kudos to her for keeping them in the fold) and gained through the transfer portal, made a for an experienced, well balanced team. CKC has a quality, experienced PG, multiple outside shooters, and rangy defenders who could get to the rim. Surrounded by that talent, it made life a lot easier for Zee who thrived with that group. CKC also had Hollingshead, a skilled and mobile big with enough heft to mix it up with wide body posts. I believe that team had a much higher ceiling than what they actually delivered.

This season, the LVs look to be on track for another 8-8 conference finish but with a clear sense that they are less likely to pull off any big upsets and many more embarrassing losses. They will also likely enter the NCAA as a lower seed than last year (barring a surprising turnaround in these last few games).

If the current pattern holds, this season will be the worst coaching outcome of CKC's career. And if so, the big picture data is trending the wrong way. This trend has been masked by the noise of CKC's moving up two coaching levels from her D2 glory era.

 

[1reVOLver]

A fascinating discussion. If I may, let me add one other point of consideration that has not yet been raised.

Retro, I love your analyses but as you know, our friend Claude, like all our other soon to be AI overlords, have one big blind spot-- context.

When you put CKC's system in context, we come to one conclusion-- it did not translate that well last year either.

Let's put last season in the broader frame of CKC's career. As a D2 coach, she won a national championship (plus made another F4 along with 7 conference titles in 8 years + one 2nd place finish); as a mid major D1 coach, she won a conference championship (before her Marshall team got obliterated in the first round of the NCAA tournament). So even at Marshall, there was a bit of a comparative step down in her team outcomes but, that slippage was easily excused as she was moving up a level.

Last season, CKC went 8-8 in the SEC conference (The LVs WORST finish ever). However, "we" generally celebrated that outcome because it was her first year at this P5 level, along with her coaching the wondrous upset of UConn and defeating OSU to get to the S16.

In hindsight, however, I suggest that, even with the Uconn and OSU wins, CKC actually did less with more. The players she inherited (and kudos to her for keeping them in the fold) and gained through the transfer portal, made a for an experienced, well balanced team. CKC has a quality, experienced PG, multiple outside shooters, and rangy defenders who could get to the rim. Surrounded by that talent, it made life a lot easier for Zee who thrived with that group. CKC also had Hollingshead, a skilled and mobile big with enough heft to mix it up with wide body posts. I believe that team had a much higher ceiling than what they actually delivered.

This season, the LVs look to be on track for another 8-8 conference finish but with a clear sense that they are less likely to pull off any big upsets and many more embarrassing losses. They will also likely enter the NCAA as a lower seed than last year (barring a surprising turnaround in these last few games).

If the current pattern holds, this season will be the worst coaching outcome of CKC's career. And if so, the big picture data is trending the wrong way. This trend has been masked by the noise of CKC's moving up two coaching levels from her D2 glory era.

Good analysis. I'm not as deft as Claude, but I might summarize the above with a metaphor sure to upset PETA*:

Big fish in small pond
Pond grows wider and deeper
as fish shrinks.



*People Eating Tasty Animals

 

[RetroVol]

Last season, CKC went 8-8 in the SEC conference (The LVs WORST finish ever). However, "we" generally celebrated that outcome because it was her first year at this P5 level, along with her coaching the wondrous upset of UConn and defeating OSU to get to the S16.

In hindsight, however, I suggest that, even with the Uconn and OSU wins, CKC actually did less with more. The players she inherited (and kudos to her for keeping them in the fold) and gained through the transfer portal, made a for an experienced, well balanced team. CKC has a quality, experienced PG, multiple outside shooters, and rangy defenders who could get to the rim. Surrounded by that talent, it made life a lot easier for Zee who thrived with that group. CKC also had Hollingshead, a skilled and mobile big with enough heft to mix it up with wide body posts. I believe that team had a much higher ceiling than what they actually delivered.

You make a good argument in your post. I'm not dismissing that. I do think that there weren't lot of folks who thought as we started the season last year that we had the team to play toe-to-toe with some of the best in the country and, as you note, hand UCONN a loss and beat Ohio State on their home court to go to the Sweet Sixteen where we faced Texas again and once again hung with them. Maybe there were a lot of, "Yeah, we really didn't do much," posts on here last year, but I think most people thought we overachieved. And, yeah, there was that incongruous rough patch in the SEC where it looked like fatigue, a mental let down after UCONN, and some bad breaks (Kaniya slipping against Vandy) hurt us. But, overall, a really good year in most people's minds, and one to build on. Which Kim did with her portal class and then the early recruits this year.

Looking back through the lens of this year, it looks different. And regardless of what we say about last year, this year definitely pushes some questions to the fore that can't be ignored.