@jayballer73 No biggie .. you like Garrett, I like Garrett; I think the only issue between the opinions is about 10 or so minutes a game.
HighEliteMajor
5416 posts
@jayballer73 Yes, I get that. Garrett is a pretty good player. No doubt. Buy he is a highly flawed player. Some may “dog him” him I guess, but the way below avg shooting is why many don’t view him as worthy of starting or playing big minutes. So maybe that’s dogging him.
It’s a critical flaw when you have a player that shoots less than 25% from three, 42% overall, and under 60% from the line.
There is a rational argument to be made that he shouldn’t even play with those poor numbers. But he is very good in other phases and has proven to be a situational difference maker.
When Self gives him too big of a role, it costs our team. That’s reality (or dogging him).
jayballer73 said:
HighEliteMajor said:
If Marcus is on the perimeter, why not slack off to below the free throw line? He compromises your entire offensive flow if the opposing coach has a pulse.
again IF we ha - -we will have better complete team more competent scorer's .ve a normal years team it isn't going to make any difference
When one guy’s defender doesn’t have to respect him away from the basket, it can only hurt your offense as that defender can help stop penetration from other offensive players, and can really ignore the kick out to Garrett’.
An NCAA committee proposes changing the three point line to the international distance, over a one foot distance increase.
I would think that this would put more of a premium on real three point shooters, but would also make post play more valuable — all by some degree as the line moves farther away. It would seem that it would at least marginally decrease the risk of poorly defending the three point line as we seem to have become accustomed to.
Does this make the 4/1 less attractive?
Seems like a lot of possibilities impacting the game, but it would certainty make Doke just a bit more valuable.
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-committee-proposes-moving-three-212420647.html ↗
If Marcus is on the perimeter, why not slack off to below the free throw line? He compromises your entire offensive flow if the opposing coach has a pulse.
You ask to compare Garrett to Grimes. Low bar with Grimes. I only like Garrett as a player off the bench, 15 minute type guy, and situational where the game may dictate more time. We never got to see Grimes off the bench. If we are starting either of them (given how both played), that's not a recipe for an elite team.
I have to go with the MU booted from the SEC.
And welcome back to @KUSTEVE .. new day moving forward.
Woodrow said:
Who is Bill Hipple?
He’s the guy that picked Tech.
I mean, good grief, what's Adidas good for, shoes, equipment, and money?
Kcmatt7 said:
If Silvio's agent likes his current offers abroad, there is absolutely no reason to go risk those by going to the combine. He isn't going to get drafted and the G-League would absolutely still offer him a roster spot.
Imagine he gets absolutely dominated at the combine scrimmage. Or he just absolutely cannot shoot that day. Just as quickly as contracts can get offered they can get rescinded.
That makes sense .. I assume thus he doesn't accept the offers because he's waiting on the NCAA. That would perhaps indicate no decision has been made there that we don't know about.
@FarmerJayhawk I'm not understanding the risk reward reference -- what's the harm of being at a G-League combine? It does seem like a very odd decision as @Woodrow referenced, barring something definitive (appeal granted, Euro contract) or an injury (which it seems would have been mentioned).
@drgnslayr You may think Miller is crazy, but he’s paying that kid $50 a month plus unlimited fruit rollups — call it a speculative play.
@AsadZ Might have young guys come up more after service time is less of an issue ... maybe Staumont and Blewitt from Omaha and Beckwith from NA? There are three or four top end pitchers in high A that could be here later in the year.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26514863/what-need-know-service-practices-mlb ↗
@Kubie for a few weeks now, our bullpen has been at least just below average. But it is probably the worst bullpen in baseball or in that limited discussion. Maybe not valium, maybe more accepting of our fate. We're just limping by with below averageness out there when the game gets late. The balance of the team looks pretty good, so long a Chris Owings and Lucas Duda are nowhere to be found.
Good to see Gutierrez up and playing. Nicky Lopez and hopefully more to follow.
jayballer73 said:
Really frustrating year recruiting wise .... we maybe need new blood injected in the staff.
Whatever the discussion, it seems to me, we need to start at the top.
That said, this all seems largely related to the FBI/Adidas deal. I think we all agree that is the lynch pin in all of this. A storm we just have to whether. It's impacted two recruiting classes.
I'm supposing that envelopes of cash aren't being provided by our booster ... uh, recruiting partner, Adidas. I'm supposing recruits are considering the fallout from the FBI/Adidas deal and the possibility of probation (no tourney appearance). I'm supposing that having a McDonald's AA get limited run, Q's draft stock sinking like a rock, Doke coming back and clearly being the focal point, and a situation where our offensive approach is murky (3/2 vs. 4/1), all play a bit into this. I also think that we are handicapped, always, in recruiting with Self because of how he has handled better players vs. below avg. role players (Brady, Traylor, LL). We can disagree on that last point, but if you're recruit, and you have choice, why would you want to play for a coach that plays his pets over NBA level talent (that you, as a recruit, think you are)? Of course, there are lots of successes and counter-narratives that have significant weight as well.
The reality is that we have a top 5 roster of talent nearly every season. There is no arguing that. It's just one man's job to make those rosters successful.
Heading into next season, my concern is that we repeat this past season -- going all in with a scheme focused on Doke, who has proven highly fragile. SDS's appeal looms, too, for recruits considering KU.
Back to the FBI/Adidas deal, the question is, how long is the storm? And what do things look like after the storm passes?
Gorilla72 said:
Interesting development...
Isn't it true the government wanted you to testify against a bunch of head basketball coaches in this country and you wouldn't do it?" Haney continued.
"No, I wouldn't," Dawkins answered.
@BShark All good. But worth discussing.
@Marco No worries .. I'm a little protective of my man @drgnslayr.
@jayballer73 I looked up Frank Howard .. a touch before my time, so didn't ever see him in person. 6'7", 280. About the size of Aaron Judge. Frank Thomas 6'5" 275.
@dylans Every year seemed like the Braves’ year back then.
BShark said:
@Kcmatt7 I'm sure KU is offering him compensation lol.
Bill Self: "Now, I'm going to leave the room. We don't prohibit recruits from looking around, looking in drawers of the desk, top drawers to be exact. I mean, anything you find is arguably yours, we're kind of 'finders-keepers' around here."
@wissox 1994 was the Expos year. They were awesome. I think they had the best record. But I think Chicago was the best team in the AL (if they could hold off the Royals, who were surging). White Sox had an old Expo on the roster that year, Tim Raines, and one of my favorite pure hitters, Julio Franco.
Marco said:
@HighEliteMajor Hitler? Sorry, can't go that far. Hitler murdered and or gassed to death millions of innocent people. As far as I know the NCAA has not and does not order the death of anyone.
I agree. Of course, though, I didn't mention Hitler.
But I think we know what was meant by that reference. @drgnslayr was not suggesting they were the same. It's just a way to emphasize the point, so you can perhaps dispense with the dramatics. But we all can appreciate the history lessons, and statement of the obvious.
@approxinfinity Great point. That's a different and really more relevant discussion point .. and you're right, the correct analysis of this (in my opinion as well) is whether there is a monopoly. You can't have a cartel if you have a monopoly, kind of by definition.
The NCAA does have a competitor, kind of, which is the NAIA. It could also be argued that the subunits (conferences) are really operating entities. And that the subunits of the subunits (the schools) are operating entities. But economically, that's kind of like saying AT&T's shareholders are separate entities -- that doesn't make sense in this situation either. The NCAA is the operating structure. The monopoly discussion is probably the one that is more on point.
The reason why, I think, that the situations aren't parallel to an AT&T situation is that we're not dealing with a necessary item -- phone service is much different than strolling to AFH for recreation.
But antitrust rules can be argued to apply, just like with pro sports leagues. A clear difference is the educational piece, the non-employment aspect of the athletes voluntary participation. Many more complications than in a pure pro sports league (including the bleed over to funding everything from tennis to intramural soccer to marching band to black hole research). The mission of the NCAA is much different than the NBA. That's undeniable. And it is a mission that benefits millions of students, employees (professors), the public (research, medical centers, etc.), and alumni.
Further, the availability of competition also dispels the monopoly notion when one considers the availability of other facilities and infrastructure, the freedom to negotiate other monetary agreements (TV deals), the lack of predatory tactics by the NCAA, etc.
Here's a great example ... say a new pro league came into play, and was to pay possible CBB players $75,000 per year. Then, the NCAA, in response, gave CBB players money in that ball park. That might change the monopoly analysis to me. But if the NCAA retrenched, didn't react, stuck to its formula, that's about as anti-monopoly as it comes. Monopolies also buy and consume competition. The NCAA really can't do that.
Again, excellent point.
@FarmerJayhawk That is just not true. The NCAA is not a cartel as the term is used. You can start a minor league BB league right now. In fact the NCAA invites competition. The NCAA is not able to stop you from competing anyway. The NCAA doesn’t work to limit supply. OPEC is a cartel. They utilize international law to avoid antitrust enforcement. And requires memeber participation. Unions are also more close to cartel status as they seek to eliminate the ability of workers to earn a living without being a member of the union, and to set prices in a manner that is anti-competitive.
Here, the NCAA allows participation by players by offering specific benefits. Much different. There is no requirement that the players accept, and the players are free to ply their trade anywhere else without repercussion. And as mentioned, no one is prohibited from starting a league that targets the same players and directly competes.
An X factor in the equation is that CBB is not the only sport governed by the NCAA. They work to fund millions of athletes in other non revenue sports. The benefit to student athletes is immeasurable. It is laughable to listen to NCAA bashers who completely ignore the millions of athletes that have received free education by participating in the various sports they love — its really quite amazing to think that you can be a good rower and get your education paid for.
So while it is fashionable to bash the NCAA, that argument completely lacks merit. It’s one forwarded by anti-CBB commentator Jay Bilas. But like many in the media, they offfer their comments in a forum free from debate, or where someone can point out their errors.
If CBB players skills were so valuable, why isn’t there a league that pays them high dollar to participate? Newsflash - it’s not the players that create the value. It is the schools (KU), their identity (Jayhawks), it is the facilities (AFH) — the players don’t really matter. Miles, Chalmers, Taylor, Mason, Dotson. Just place holders.
And that’s the difference most ignore. In college sports, the interest is not largely created by the individual players, but it is most created by the tie to the University.
How much interest would there be if the KC Hawks (with KU’s roster) played the Durham Devils (with Duke’s roster) played at the Sprint center? With other similar teams in a league? Virtuallly zero.
So don’t forget what the NCAA offers us, the fan. But the irrational bashing won’t stop.
You guys need your own MSU site. I mean to report all the dirt you know about.
@Texas-Hawk-10 @BShark Amazing how much inside knowledge the two of you have.
So how is Izzo accountable for the stupid, criminal acts of thug players? If one of our players rapes a girl, it’s Self’s fault?
I don’t recall any info that Izzo didn’t cooperate, or tried to cover anything up.
The coach deal (grad assistant I think) was a non issue.
Perhaps we should applaud Izzo for not doing what our program has permitted to occur, and apparently took part in.
I think SDS could be a double-double machine. We just saw the surface scratched with him. What we saw vs. WVU in the conference tourney was what I would expect him to resemble
@Bosthawk “DOAD” and “When are we going to get off the crackpipe of OAD mania?” — the man is on a roll.
It's not heresy to discuss whether another coach might do a better job here than Self. For many years I've held the position that there would be no better coach here than Bill Self. I would offer that a better choice now, for the next 10 years, could very well be Chris Beard -- could be.
Bill Self was at the helm, in charge, a "buck stops here" kind of thing, during this entire FBI/Adidas mess.
I don't know, it's just off season (irrelevant) discussion I guess. I think it goes to Self's value that it's very, very hard to come up with a guy we'd take over Self right now, for the next 10 years. I have faith in the guy from a BB perspective. But that doesn't mean I don't think that another guy (Chris Beard) might have the chance to take our program to greater heights. Beard seems like that guy to me.
Smart money, though, usually sticks with the proven product. But to reach great heights, a great gamble is sometimes warranted. It's an interesting consideration, at least from where I sit (given the FBI/Adidas mess we're in).
@rockchalkwyo I tend to think that citing conference titles as a primary argument is a flawed approach. I personally don't care about that .. just my opinion. In fact, if we get two NCAA titles in the next five seasons for so, I don't care if we win the conference one time. I'm glad the streak is over, and glad that distraction is now done.
Crimsonorblue22 said:
Does it matter if there will be a lot of pt guards in next years draft?
Right, draft position is all relative.
Right now, at KU, would we rather have Self for the next 10 years, or Beard?
Texas Hawk 10 said:
@nuleafjhawk Grimes was a man among boys here in the Houston HS scene. For being as big as Houston is, we really don't produce a lot of top tier HS basketball talent. Dallas has always been the superior HS basketball city.
You said that from the start ... it is odd, but he really did appear overmatched. Which would support that theory. He should have stayed for another season or two.
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer. With Grimes we simply saw nothing. Color me shocked if that gets turned around in a few months.
@FarmerJayhawk Then don’t direct your stupid sh** at me.
@FarmerJayhawk I know, of course, if I would have referred to a kid from Norway, you wouldn’t have said a word. My laughs come at leftist whiners like you.
@FarmerJayhawk Some suits are done a contingency basis, so he might have some takers. But like a said, small chance he wants to be under oath, but more likely, he knows exactly what went on.
It's not a slur. It's a joke. Try laughing. It works. And don't change the discussion by injecting "respectful" into the equation. What whiners (like you on this stuff) want is a conversation that meets your criteria of acceptability. The better path, I'd suggest, is for everyone to be a bit less thin skinned, a bit less easily offended -- and for folks like you to be a bit less prone to whine about it.
@BShark One important item — we have to sign someone first.
Starting Garrett over Agbaji would be a sick joke. But Ned plays Chris Owings and Lucas Duda, so there are sicker things.
CoreyBill said:
Hated Arizona for Josiah Turner (cough BUST) and Tarczewski (useless, stone hands) but what I hate about them the most are the fans that follow them. And man did they like talking sht about Kansas paying players...Welp
We lost Turner but that led to us landing Tharpe ... perhaps the classic no win situation.
Tarc? Uh, LL.
@FarmerJayhawk On your question, it's a great point -- SDS could claim breach of fiduciary duty. A civil claim. But of course, SDS would never sue because as I've mentioned in other posts, no one wants a civil suit with discovery -- depositions with witnesses under oath. SDS being one. But I'm pretty confident it's not a crime unless Fenny stole money from him, or something like that.
One reading on this is that because SDS hasn't sued Fenny, it's more evidence that they are one in the same. If Fenny acted unilaterally, who has damaged SDS more than him? But there is no lawsuit from SDS.
You don't have to ignore what you mentioned in your last sentence. Whiny leftists see what they want. But I am anti ILLEGAL immigrant/migrant, very much so (the "illegal" part is immaterial to whiny leftists nowadays). And I say a lot of stuff that a whiny leftist would see as borderline racist, even a joke about where someone lived (of course, if the kid lived in Norway, and I suggested he put down his Viking horns, crawled off his Nordland, and came to America, you wouldn't have said a thing). A black from Africa isn't exempt to jokes about where he's from.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I know he wasn't an adult when he came to this country. I of course looked at his birthdate before I posted. The point is he was an adult during his recruiting, when the cash was received, and when he signed. There is no "guardian" of an adult unless the adult is disabled. It's comical how you again state your opinion as fact.
You know nothing. You have no idea how SDS was involved, if he knew, etc. Yet you take the position he's a victim.
My position, on the other hand, is conditioned upon the claim that he (or his agent, guardian, etc) received money being true. If it is true .. as I mentioned. Big difference.
If someone acts on your behalf, they are an agent. You can check the definition if you need to.
@Kcmatt7 We know who got what, we know what Zion got, we know the details. We have the info on any top player. We know the contacts, we know what was suggested to us, we know what we deal failed to meet to get a player. We trying to get deals done. We know what parent got what job, or what house, or what benefits. We are one of the biggest players in the game. Self knows. KT knows. You think that Adidas didn't let us know what Nike was up to? All assuming that the premise that all of this is wide-spread and rampant is true. Time to break the mafia like code of silence (again, under this narrative).
The NCAA can investigate, and force coaches to cooperate, or get hit for the failing to cooperate. The NCAA does have subpoena like power to member institutions.
This would be in part a publicity item, to apply pressure.
Or we can take it up the a** while others skate in a scheme that, under this theory, covered most of CBB? Not me.
I'm sorry to be broken record on this, but if we are the sole target, if we are the ones that are penalized, we should burn it all down. We know where the bodies are. We should sing like canaries and implicate everyone we can. On the other hand, perhaps we lose some scholarships for the SDS matter, some recruiting limits, and we move down the road.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Well, I take facts seriously. I don't ignore info and opinions because I'm a KU fan and he's an MU grad. The irony of KU making a deal with the very company that allegedly victimized it undeniable. If we were a "victim", we should have gone elsewhere, but we shamelessly took the money from the highest bidder. There's no way to dress it up.
Now, whether Forde is object or not, that's another question. This column, though, objectivity is pretty much irrelevant. Again, you can put lipstick on a pig ... still a pig.
Regarding SDS, I can see how some see him as a victim. You're statement is your assumptions and beliefs. That's fine. Lots of folks view term "victim" differently. All I know is that SDS was an adult. He chose who his agent .. er, guardian, was. We are in America, and I don't care if he was dragged off of a Wildebeest in the Serengeti. I'm not much into giving folks that come to our country the benefit of the doubt over Americans, who would be in a similar situation, when it comes to following the rules -- just because they came from somewhere else.
If he took the UA and/or Adidas money (and his agent/guardian is "he" -- they are one in the same), I hope he stays suspended.
@Marco So, I wonder, when you say SDS didn't know. SDS was an adult, he had a "guardian" who acted on his behalf, like an agent. Further, where is there a requirement that SDS actually have direct knowledge of what someone he chose to act on his behalf, to be held responsible?
The restitution means zero. Remember, KU was labeled a "victim" because that's what the prosecution needed to do to proceed. Then, the prosecution used objections related to relevancy to exclude information and witnesses from trial, that would shed light on the big picture. Remember, the info on KT regarding Zion was inadmissible.
But most importantly, KU is characterized as the victim, not Bill Self. The prosecution treated the monolithic university as the victim. Bill Self is not the monolithic university. Under the prosecution's theory, whether Self knew or not, was not really relevant. The defendants sought to defraud KU, which is a state institution (thus the Feds' jurisdiction). Of course, amazingly, the wiretap of Gassnola and Self supposedly failed. The defendants' theory was to create a situation where Self's knowledge would get them off the hook as acting on behalf of the university. But under the prosecution's theory, he'd just be a co-conspirator.
It is amazing how willing we are, on varying levels, to stick our heads in the sand. We say on one hand that this stuff goes on everywhere, that CBB is corrupt, and then on the other had act as we aren't part of that, or that Self (Mr. PD) didn't know. The plausible deniability is a legal argument.
Who here will say with a straight face that Self did not know that Adidas was paying players to assist in recruiting? I'm interested. Not whether he knew the specifics. But whether he knew the game and what was going on?
Of course he knew. We are no victim here. It is just embarrassing.
All good news. The more blue bloods in the muck, the more likely the NCAA doesn't target us as an example (when others would suffer the same fate).
Hmmm. Are we lacking some objectivity? Of course we are.
It is an utter and outright joke that KU is cast in the role of a "victim." A complete joke.
His last line is the worst line. SDS is no victim either.
In truth, we only have co-conspirators. Those co-conspirators include all involved.
@nuleafjhawk I'm with you there. He expends a lot of recruiting resources on presumed OADs with very limited success. I do wonder, as a percentage of our recruiting efforts, how much time we spend on the presumed OADs.