How these Sweet 16 coaches win (and how they lose)

— -- For better or worse, in March, we tend to view each team's success largely as a reflection of its coach's performance. And even if that habit is overindulged at times -- the players do have to go out there and make the shots themselves -- I think it basically reflects a healthy instinct. For one thing, it's surely instructive that many of the same guys tend to show up in the Sweet 16 each year.

To celebrate this March's outstanding coaching performances, I decided to look at 16 defining qualities for each of them, and an equal number of, yes, weaknesses. Even the coaches at the top of the heap are always striving to get better.

Here are your Sweet 16 coaches, in the order in which they appear on that bracket you crumpled up and burned long ago.

Bill Self, Kansas

Defining quality: It's not hyperbole to label Self a master of interior scoring, and thus far in the NCAA tournament, KU is showing the master's touch. In wins against Austin Peay and UConn, the Jayhawks have connected on 59 percent of their 2s. Kansas attacked the interior early and successfully in both games, and as a result, Self has coached the balance of this tournament with a safe, double-digit lead in his pocket.

Weakness: You have to squint pretty hard to find any meaningful deficiencies in a team that just won two games by a combined margin of 38 points. Maybe there will be concerns to address when Kansas faces higher-seeded foes. For example, in recent years, the Jayhawks have tended to operate at a slight turnover disadvantage relative to their Big 12 opponents. We'll see if any future opponent can put all those turnover-less possessions to good use. The Governors, Huskies and, for the most part, Big 12 opposition could not.

Mark Turgeon, Maryland

Weakness: In league play during Turgeon's Maryland tenure (spanning both the ACC and the Big Ten), the Terps have yet to record a turnover percentage that's lower than the conference average. That's not necessarily a huge concern, but the Terps have committed turnovers at a rate far higher than the Big Ten average this season.

Jim Larrañaga, Miami

Weakness: The Hurricanes allowed Buffalo and Wichita State to launch 48 tries from beyond the arc. The Shockers are a good enough team that they lost by just eight points even though they shot a mere 27 percent from downtown, but the Bulls connected on 38 percent and thus lost by almost the same margin (seven). Though Miami did a good job limiting 3-point attempts during the regular season, the first two games of the tournament indicate a good perimeter-shooting team may be able to score against this defense.

Jay Wright, Villanova

Weakness: What if that incredible shooting takes a game off? A notable share of Villanova's points are produced on a possession's first shot from the field. Period. The Wildcats don't emphasize offensive boards, and in Big East play, their free throw rate was right at the league average. Wright's system is thought of as perimeter-oriented (and often is), but in league play this season, Nova balanced 2s and 3s in the same proportion as an average Big East team. Still, when shots from the field don't fall, it can be more of a concern for this offense than for others in the Sweet 16.

Dana Altman, Oregon

Weakness: Altman's Ducks are not the best defensive rebounding team you will come across. Chris Boucher is an excellent shot-blocker, but his forays in search of swats may be leaving the rim open for weak-side offensive rebounds.

Mike Krzyzewski, Duke

Weakness: Krzyzewski's weakness, at the moment, is defense. Those same two lower-seeded opponents -- UNC Wilmington and Yale -- scored a healthy 1.10 points per possession. Particularly worrisome for Duke is the fact that opponents from the CAA and Ivy were able to rebound 39 percent of their misses.

Billy Kennedy, Texas A&M

Weakness: The only ingredient in this otherwise excellent defensive mix that seems a little off is the frequency with which opponents attempt 3-point shots. If the Coach K school of thought has merit, and the best perimeter defense is not to allow attempts from beyond the arc, then the A&M perimeter defense has room for improvement. Northern Iowa, for example, launched 34 3-point attempts in 50 minutes, and in SEC play, the Aggies were similarly welcoming to tries from beyond the arc.

Lon Kruger, Oklahoma

Weakness: Kruger's only real weakness is the uncertainty once he loses a remarkable trio of seniors in Hield, Cousins and Ryan Spangler. We've established that Kruger didn't build this rotation through elite recruiting. Can he replicate his own unconventional -- and unmistakably successful -- method a second time in Norman?

Roy Williams, North Carolina

Weakness: At the risk of repeating what I wrote for Kansas, it's difficult to nitpick with a team that has cruised into the Sweet 16 with such ease. One potential wrinkle to watch: UNC's foul rate in two tournament games is up from what we saw in the regular season, and Isaiah Hicks (twice) and Brice Johnson (once) have each picked up four fouls. The wrinkle hasn't mattered to the final result so far, of course, but it could come into play in a close game.

Tom Crean, Indiana

Weakness: IU's interior defense improved by leaps and bounds over last season, but its number for opponents' 2-point accuracy was still a hair worse than the league average in Big Ten play. The Hoosiers' two tournament opponents have hit 54 percent of their 2s. Baked into that number are plenty of Chattanooga makes when IU had a double-digit lead, but it's something to track going forward.

Mike Brey, Notre Dame

Weakness: Brey has long favored players who are versatile on offense and can shoot, but those same players don't always perform at such a high level on defense. The Irish defense ranked No. 12 in the ACC during league play, and that level of opposition scoring has continued in the tournament. And, of course, Notre Dame is still standing. The Irish have won two (relatively slow-paced) shootouts.

Greg Gard, Wisconsin

Weakness: I'm going to give Gard a rookie pass on this category. The Badgers weren't the best shooting team this season, it's true, but to remedy this shortcoming, maybe the coach needs to draw up more contested 3s from the right corner for Bronson Koenig.

Tony Bennett, Virginia

Weakness: There aren't a lot of weaknesses to be found on a team that's gone 45-9 in the ACC over the past three seasons. Virginia's offense is consistently underrated because it's not as good as its defense. Well, competing with that unit is one tall order. If there's one curious element in Bennett's track record, however, it's his teams' on-again, off-again relationship with offensive rebounding. This season, it was off-again and there were harmful side effects. A lack of second chances in league play helped explain how the most accurate shooting team in the ACC finished No. 4 in the conference in points per possession.

Steve Prohm, Iowa State

Weakness: In a word, defense. Mind you, this is a temporary weakness. Prohm's defense at Murray State in 2011-12 was downright elite. Still, ISU struggled this season, in part because it ranked No. 8 in the Big 12 in defensive-rebound percentage in league play.

Mark Few, Gonzaga

Weakness: Gonzaga has never been a high-pressure defense that forces turnovers, but this season in WCC play, the Bulldogs' opponents actually held onto the ball even better than the Zags themselves. (And Gonzaga's turnover rate was excellent.) With the elite teams that remain in the field, there will be an unusually large number of chances to score against Gonzaga. So there's potential for big scoring runs by opponents.

Jim Boeheim, Syracuse

Weakness: Defensive rebounding. I'm unconvinced that zone teams can't rebound -- Syracuse has on occasion been excellent on the glass during the season-- but it is true that some of Boeheim's teams have been weak in this area. This is one of those teams. In ACC play, the Orange pulled down just 65 percent of opponents' misses.