🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@Wigs2 At times, I don't think folks get my points here. My fault I guess. All I want, really, is coach Self to be flexible. To assess his talent and be willing to change course if necessary to compete in March. To be honest, isn't he the exact kind of coach you'd want to coach against? You really would never have to worry about being surprised.

@JayHawkFanToo - When you are attacking the idea that there is more risk in taking on a European player, that seems pretty definitive to me. By saying there is not more risk, you are definitively saying that it's just like a kid from the USA. The mere fact that the kid is coming from a completely different culture to the US, without having lived here before, is an increased risk of departure standing alone, correct? You can admit that, right? You admit that he could go to Europe for the money after one season. I admit, so could a US kid. There are just some reasonable items that increase the risk. That's all. Now, when you say it's unlikely .. that's hard for me to accept. Unlikely? We just don't know: and I certainly wouldn't say that it is likely the kid will leave. But from a logical standpoint, objectively less likely than Papapetrou? I can buy that. Your arguments clearly establish that. But, likewise, I would suggest that my arguments clearly establish an increased risk of bolting after one season than the normal KU player (just and increased risk), and thus the risk of collateral roster damage.

@Vailhawk - I referred to Rubio because @JayHawkFanToo did in his discussion. The example of Papapetrou, truly, is unimportant. The risk thing is simply looking at geography, culture, and options given the kid's situation.

@jaybate 1.0 No, I didn't. I looked at the NCAA by-laws, too. The bylaws define "Extra Benefit", at 16.02.03, and include "family members" in the prohibition. It says that an extra benefit is impermissible unless specifically ok'd by the NCAA. I don't see anything specific.

It is odd that it isn't addressed specifically.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/genrel/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/ncaa-manual.pdf ↗

On the issue of employing a relative, this may fall under a "benefit to a relative." I like the summary at the Boise St. site.

http://broncoathleticassociation.com/about/ncaa-donor-guide/ ↗

@Wigs2 No, actually, you said "I really do not understand why anyone is extremely disappointed with the way KU finished this year."

Now you say, "So, we lost to a #10 seed. Who cares?" Well, seeding is a reflection of your performance during the season, and most times, the quality of team. And watching Stanford, they weren't that good. Are we going to debate that? Are we going to debate that KU should have beaten Stanford with or without Embiid by 10 points? I'm sure we will.

It's a way to rationalize the significant failure of our coaching staff in having this group ready to play in the NCAA. You cite the end of the season -- that was a collapse too.

Your argument is that the way we played this season, apparently with Embiid, "wouldn't cause most to expect" a decent tourney run.

Well, I don't know, if you have the #1 and #2 (or #3) picks on your roster, you might. Maybe.

@JayHawkFanToo It is amazing to me how you can see into the future. Papapetrou was no different than a guy like Tyshawn Taylor. He would have to work to get to the NBA.

You seem to think that because their situations are apparently different, there is no way he'll bolt after one year or before. You seem to discount that he might be homesick in a new culture. And you seem to discount the possibility that if he shows that he is a real player, that a Euro league team might offer him a nice deal. Heck, if he is so much better than Papapetrou, then he'd like command more money. Say, 3 years, 3 million? Or stay in college.

Again, I haven't said it will happen. You just keep saying it won't.

You point to Rubio as if it supports your argument, but Rubio did sign a deal.

And I do appreciate that you seem to be able to tell us without doubt that this kid never took any benefits beyond those permitted by the NCAA.

I just find that sort of apparent certainty comical, particularly when you give no credence to the risks. I understand and appreciate your argument, but it loses credibility when you present it as a certainty.

@Wigs2 "I really do not understand why anyone is extremely disappointed with the way KU finished this year."

Again, this is puzzling. We lost to a #10 seed. We should have won that game going away.

I understand that we didn't have the look of a title team. Our defense was horrendous. And we didn't have an offensive approach to make up for it. You pointed out that we hadn't had 6 impressive games in a row all season. However, you don't need 6 "impressive" games. You need 6 wins. You just need to survive. We started conference play 7-0. I'd say the stretch itself was impressive.

But goodness -- not understanding why anyone was "extremely disappointed with the way KU finished this year"?

I'd be interested to hear who lives on that planet.

@KansasComet You said - "We had an eraser (Embiid) to clean up defensive lapses and then he got hurt. Season was toast from that point, and the effort to win was made. I applaud our team. Had they been healthy, who knows."

I'm curious, without Embiid, you don't think we should have beaten Stanford?

All was not lost with Embiid out. I'm sure Self didn't believe that.

After Stanford, most thought Embiid would have returned. Even if he didn't, we would have played Dayton to go to the Elite 8. And then Florida with a one game chance to get to the Final Four. If we lose to Florida without Embiid, no shame there. But losing to Stanford was flat out embarrassing, as it would have been if we'd have lost to Dayton (with or without Embiid). Both games we should win, no doubt.

You also said "We win every year, top ten every year. That's good enough for me." --- that's just where we respectfully differ. But I envy your peace of mind.

@ParisHawk It's kind of kidding around, but ok ..

How do you know this kid didn't take money? I forgot. You were following him around Europe. So I stand corrected.

Mykhailiuk said the following: “I have pro experience. In Ukraine I play on a pro team. There were guys 10 years older than me, 12 years,” said Mykhailiuk, who turns 17 on June 10. “I don’t have problems with these (older) guys."

How many kids here "have pro experience" and play on a "pro team"?

Doesn't mean that he took money, but sure seems like more chance for impropriety that could get the NCAA delaying or denying his eligibility. I'm just saying it may be a bit more risk.

Also, again, the kid is "graduating" after the 11th grade because the Ukraine permits a "test" to skip the 12th grade. I, of course, wouldn't expect the NCAA to scrutinize that. Not saying it will be a problem, just saying that it seems like a bit more likely that it could be. Risk, that's all.

I'm not implying it's an "either/or" situation between this kid and a USA recruit. I know there is no real available option here to sign, of that quality. I have never done that. I just said it's more risk.

My main argument against this kid was the impact his presence may have on our current roster, i.e., a transfer or two. And then, coupled with the increased possibility, because he is actually from Europe and has never lived here, and that he could struggle for P.T., that he might leave early to grab a paycheck in Europe -- it might not be the best move. We could lose a transfer, and then lose him too. That's my main concern.

I saw someone post that his parents are educators, and Phd's, or whatever, so they must want him to stay in college here more than a year. Of course, they're sending their kid half way around the world to a basketball school, not Harvard or Stanford. My guess is Harvard would have taken him. I'm sure Tommy Amaker could have made that happen.

It is almost comical how defensive some folks get on a pure risk analysis. I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that signing a kid from overseas brings more risk.

You can't look at any signing in a vacuum -- a "well, we have an open scholarship." There is always a collateral impact.

I bring up Kanter or Papapetrou and it's "this kid isn't anything like that ..." Right, we say that because we know.

Here's what Rustin Dodd said at the KC Star on May 22, after I posted my concerns by the way --

"But one thing to keep in mind: European players always have the option of leaving college and returning to play professionally in Europe. Take the case of Ioannis Papapetrou, a one-time Kansas recruiting target who spent the 2012-13 season at Texas. Papapetrou, a 6-foot-9 forward, averaged 8.3 points and 4.4 rebounds during his freshman season, and he looked like a solid building block for Longhorns coach Rick Barnes. But last summer, Greek pro team Olympiacos — one of the top clubs in Europe — gave Papapetrou an offer he couldn’t refuse, a reported five-year deal worth approximately $2 million. This is one of the inherent risks of signing European teenagers. They will always have more options than their American counterparts."

Don't forget, Barnes, as I had previously posted, said one week before he left i August/2013 that Papapetrou would "definitely" be back. Uh, no.

But I'm not completely negative on the signing. I like our guys. We could win with our perimeter without this kid. But it was pointed out that if Selden and Oubre leave, we only would have four perimeter players for next season without SM. Perhaps good reason to take the increased risk.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/22/5039706/a-deeper-look-at-some-questions.html#storylink=cpy ↗

@wissoxfan83 I've been told that there is no greater risk with this kid, than signing a kid from the good ole USA. So majority rules. No greater risk.

Signed,

Enes Kanter

@justanotherfan You realize that you just made a clear and correct argument AGAINST Self's style of offense. You are correct, the more possessions, the more chance that the superior team should prevail, and exactly why inferior teams try to use all of the shot clock. And exactly why KU, as generally the more talented team, shouldn't.

Further, if you are a good defensive team, as Self tends to coach, then the shorter the clock, the better chance your solid defense will prevail.

So, lowering the shot clock may change Self's offensive approach while capitalizing on Self's defensive approach.

@RockChalkinTexas Hmmm ... SM has a leg up on Wiggins already. Can you imagine how dynamic a player Wiggins would have been if he could have actually passed and found the open man on penetration? Given our team, I cannot imagine one single item improving our team more than that last season -- well, maybe other than if Tharpe's defense could have been 50% better.

@JayhawkRock78 Nice ...

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=boris+and+natasha+youtube&qpvt=boris+and+natasha+youtube&FORM=VQFRML#view=detail&mid=8CC306A54860F455FC128CC306A54860F455FC12 ↗

@Blown The only curious thing is why it took so long. Same with Tharpe.

Tharpe goes 5 or 6 weeks and doesn't transfer. Graham visits, Tharpe leaves, Graham signs, Graham says that Tharpe leaving impacted his decision.

Then, White goes 6 weeks and doesn't transfer. Nothing has changed since the end of the season. Then, KU "recruiting" SM becomes public. Just a day or two later, AW3 transfers. Then KU signs SM.

Maybe no connection. But maybe there is ...

"Svi will not start over Greene" -- Ok, but will he "play" over Greene. Starters, say Mason, Selden, Oubre. Next ball handler CF or Graham. Have to have that. Does Self bench SM and play Greene? "Immediate impact" doesn't happen on the bench. Self isn't playing more than 5 rotation guys, and we know that four will be the major bulk, with the 5th generally getting scraps.

@Blown What say you?

@nuleafjhawk Pretty funny .. how often do you think this kid has been told DON'T shoot?

Self: Look, we need to get this ball into the post. That's our offense.

SM: What do you mean?

Self: I mean, I want us to look for the post entry pass early in the possession.

SM: "look for the post entry pass" .. but I can shoot if I'm open, right?

Self: Right, but you'll be sitting next to me.

SM: So I have to look at the shot clock before I shoot?

Self: We need to be aware of the shot clock.

SM: I'm not sure I really understand English -- I shoot ball (in Russian accent).

Self: Ok, then "you sit bench" (also in Russian accent)

@ralster I agree on Mason and I expect him to be the starting point guard. But I've long since learned that my opinion controls nothing in the universe.

The speculation on a redshirt is simple numbers, as you know. And it will come down to a decision by Self. We know he won't tie his own hands.

But here's the situation: Three guys that can handle to ball at the point, and now a fourth, SM, who seems like a legit emergency point (compared to Selden, who just isn't, or at least wasn't).

SM won't redshirt. Graham won't either. So if there is one among that group, it's CF or Mason. All four of them won't play regularly. At least one is the odd man out. We know that.

And if a kid starts out redshirting and there is a calamity (injuries), he can still play.

So what if Self does prefer CF over Mason? Now, Self could obviously prefer Mason over Graham. Again, this "immediate impact" stuff would tend to imply that Graham is a guy Self thinks will play. I'm not so sure I'm ready to buy that one, though. I think Mason and CF are ahead of Graham quite easily. It's a matter of how good Graham really is, and how quickly he assimilates. The Mason speculation is solely taking Self at his word on SM and Graham, and then crunching the roster numbers by skill, size, and positioning.

But I'm absolutely with you. Mason has the most experience. He demonstrated that he matured as the year progressed (much fewer drives into the abyss), and his three point shot got better. He also was a much more active distributor.

I think Mason is our best bet there. But this coming from a guy who was squarely on the Tharpe bandwagon on May 22, 2013.

@icthawkfan316 It will be very interesting to see if there is any other "ripple effects" between now and the start of the season, or through semester. I think once they start school in the fall, a transfer would have to sit until after 1st semester of the following season. The next few months will be interesting to see -- if there is any (more) movement related to this signing. I say "more" because maybe AW3's decision was based in part on this possibility.

Essentially, Self traded Tharpe and White for Graham and SM.

@joeloveshawks - Exactly. We say this a lot though -- is SM coming to Kansas now to simply ride the pine? If not, who sits? Selden and Oubre, we know, will play. Self has to have two ball handlers -- Graham, CF and/or Mason. Can't imagine Self sits Greene with the reincarnation of Pistol Pete Maravich and Manu Ginoboli rolled into one sitting there. Self obviously thinks he'll play now. He said that about Graham, too.

Ok, here's a plan for the perimeter - CF or Mason, Graham, Selden, Oubre, SM (might be perfect for SM as the 5th perimeter guy, who gets scrap minutes).

CF or Mason (loser of that battle) and Greene redshirt.

Oubre and Selden turn pro.

2015 - CF, Mason, Graham, SM, and Greene. Sign a nice non-OAD to develop.

Amazing how stud our perimeter is for the future, but how unsettled our post spots are. Maybe Self plays more outside in? Maybe???

What are the odds that Brannen Greene, right now, is saying "This isn't what I'd hoped"? But if he did redshirt, and have two gangbuster years, he is likely the NBA guy Self said he is.

But I can't imagine that SM is better than CF or Greene right now. Self seems to think in his quotes that he'll play next season.

“Obviously, this is great news for us," Self said today. “He is 16 years old and will turn 17 in June, but his skill level, knowledge and aptitude for the game are way beyond his years. I think that he will be an immediate impact guy. He is a guy that can play all three positions on the perimeter. At 6-8, he can play point, play the No. 2 (guard) or the No. 3 (guard). He allows us to be more versatile next year and certainly, there would be few people that would shoot it better than him.”

Again, what is Brannen Greene thinking?

I only thought that it appropriate that I announce the news. Trust in Self. National title ---- Please!?!?

I asked this on another thread this morning, just kind of crossed my mind. Does anyone think AW3 knew this possibility was coming? I mean nothing new changed since late March to affect AW3's situation. Graham for Tharpe was a push. Makes me wonder ....

!Sviatoslav ↗

Just had a thought .. any possibility that the SM information might have influenced AW3 to transfer?

I say that because I have always thought that the timing is odd. What changed since late March? Devonte Graham signed, but Tharpe also left. That's a push regarding AW3's playing time.

The only thing that really changed in that time period, that we know of, is SM's recruitment.

@JayHawkFanToo Well, let's hope SM signs here and is a stud player for two seasons. If he leads us to a title, I'll be the guy's biggest fan.

I like the mention at one of the site's that he could be on the floor with two other point guards and we'd have some mad ball handling. Maybe the perfect Self "lead" guard.

Two seasons, though.

@ParisHawk - The reason to make that comparison is because it's reasonable to assume that things could come up. I don't know why it would be "highly unlikely" that he would bolt. We don't know the kid. We do know that he's apparently debating between college and the pros in Europe. I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to think that he could have buyer's remorse after coming here, or culture shock as @justanotherfan mentioned. And then decide the money would be a better deal.

@JayHawkFanToo - You ask why he would sign a contact and delay his NBA career. Well, he could sign a one year deal, couldn't he? Or two years, thinking he'd do better in the next draft after what would be his junior season. Ioannis Papapetrou got $2 million for 5 seasons. If he's not the level of player as SM, as you pointed out, then is it unreasonable to think that SM could sign a pretty sweet two year deal? If I don't know the European league contract rules, let me know -- I mean if they have some restrictions or requirements. Then my opinion on that would change. Meaning, if contractually he had to commit five years, or something, I agree that would be different. Never heard of anything like that.

Really, I am confused as to why we want to resist simply acknowledging that signing a kid like SM is different than a US kid, and fraught with some different perils -- like eligibility. Kids get flipped money to play in Europe to they're done here. See Enes Kanter. Not saying it is likely, or for sure, but the basketball environment in Europe is much different than the US. And @wrwlumpy , in the Ukraine, they can graduate after the 11th grade if they take and pass a test. They can skip 12th grade.

Of course, he could do what Papapetrou did and kind of lead his coach on and then leave right as school starts. See link below. This kind of leaves a coach in a lurch. Again, no one knows this kid's head. But just a bigger risk that a kid from Europe would bolt than a kid here -- the kid here doesn't have a million dollar option. His scholarship deal is pretty sweet.

Now the real point is the upside vs. downside that @JayHawkFanToo mentions. My main "downside" is not that he'll leave, but that his presence will cost us a transfer, maybe two. If SM gets p.t. at the expense of another player, and SM then leaves, we could still lose a transfer. And the timing could leave us exposed (if done late like Papapetrou) and could cause us to revert again to freshmen on the perimeter. A key, too is uncertainty. A European kid brings more of that to the table.

But if the risk and uncertainty isn't a concern, by all means, sign the kid if he's the second coming of Pistol Pete.

Heck, a kid just turning 17 will certainly come in here, play high quality defense, nail three pointers better than our past freshman, handle D-1 defensive pressure, match-up athletically, and assimilate to a new culture in short time. He'll love Lawrence, and have no home sickness being half way around the world. Of course, a kid that graduates after the 11th grade and takes a test to get out of the 12th grade won't be of any NCAA concern, and we're sure that he hasn't gotten any Enes Kantor money. Certainly, the lure of big money won't be a consideration if he's not getting the playing time he thinks he should get, or if Coach Self is a being rough on him. We can assume he's a tough personality in all this, and not one that is easily beaten down. We know that.

Silly me for assuming his situation is riskier than signing a highly rated player from Dallas or Detroit.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/08/06/texas-ioannis-papapetrou-being-courted-by-two-greek-teams/ ↗

@drgnslayr I guess I don't know why an international play would generally be "methodical" and "not easily swayed" from his opinion, and not governed by "emotions."

My thought on SM relates as well to what happened with Ioannis Papapetrou, the Greek player who bolted Texas after just one season for a multi-million dollar deal.

If SM is really that good, and shows any of that level of play at KU, that opportunity would pull him surely much more than a kid from say Chicago.

We can't agree that a Ukrainian kid might be more likely to bolt to play in Europe than the normal high level, born and raised in the USA player?

@JayHawkFanToo My reference to an OAD was that if SM is on our roster, an OAD might thus not choose KU because of roster composition, and that might be a good thing.

You are correct on the rule related to SM (which I incorrectly ignored in a post last week).

Although some disagree, I think the risk is much greater that he'll leave than a normal player -- he's never lived in the US, he's from the Ukraine, and his current choice is college or playing pro in Europe. After one year of school that pull -- to play professionally prior to being eligible for the NBA draft -- could get pretty firm, I would imagine.

But if he's a two year guy at least, hard to argue with the signing.

@JayHawkFanToo No downside? Do you view possible transfer from our perimeter players as a negative, or are you ok with that risk? Maybe a little downside.

Let's assume Selden and Oubre go pro and the other four guys stay after this season; and Self lands a class of 2015 guard. That five. SM makes six.

Maybe Self is fine with Mason, or CF, or Greene leaving?

Or maybe the 2015 guy is a kid that understands that he will sit early and no one transfers. Maybe it could work. But I don't think it could if we land a "play now" 2015 guard.

Could SM being on our roster hurt us in that pursuit? Maybe that's good. We could avoid a presumed OAD.

@konkeyDong - I was tied up all day yesterday. I very much appreciate the discussion. You have the last word. @REHawk wants everyone (you and me, really) back on target. Sounds good.

@icthawkfan316 Seems many of us thought CS should take a redshirt last season, and Self said he thought he could help us. Self was right there. CF may very well be our starting PG. But does he fit Self's profile of a "lead" guard? I don't know. If I had to predict, he'll be the backup PG and part of a four man rotation. He proved his worth and convinced me. I see no reason why he can't win the job. CF, Selden, Oubre, Mason or Graham, and Greene as the 5th guy. CF seems to give us ball handling, ball security, and shooting. Perfect option.

I get that race is a touchy subject. I do. I get that it's easy to try to explain away the obvious. I get that it's uncomfortable. I get that one can look at exceptions can always be used to try to attack what we see. We rely on silly explanations to make us feel better. We make silly, irrelevant arguments. Being different doesn't make us "unequal."

The races are not the same. Does anyone really think that we are all the same and we are essentially spray painted? How stupid is that.

The races originated in varying areas of the world and adapted to those conditions. Those with the traits that permitted survival were more apt to procreate than those that didn't. Does anyone dispute the "survival of the fittest" theories? Those with the physical (and I'm sure mental) adaptions needed for the region of the world they lived in were more apt to survive. Does anyone really dispute that? Is someone with a deadly genetic disorder more or less likely to procreate? It depends on the onset. But if death occurs before age 10, for example, that genetic disorder is not going to get passed on.

Now, skin color, per say, means nothing really other than the pigmentation adaptation to sun exposure. But the general physical characteristics of those that have certain skin color is certainly passed along. Those that possess a certain skin color, based on their region, have other adaptive characteristics.

A very good doctor friend of mine (who happens to black) pointed out to me that there are number of genetic conditions that afflict folks based on race. He has no qualms in agreeing to the differences.

He reminded me that blacks have a significantly higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than other populations. It afflicts 1 out of 500 blacks, but only 1 out of 36,000 hispanics. Most all research points to malaria as the source of the genetic alterations, and thus blacks in Africa were much more susceptible. That is, simplistically, the sickle cell itself helped ward off malaria. Thus those with the sickle cell trait were more apt to survive malaria. Malaria, over the history of man, is considered one of the largest killers. This trait continues in blacks today. It is not hard to imagine that other adaptive, survival of the fittest, traits would continue through today. The sickle cell trait is more prevalent in areas where malaria is an issue, it's just more focused on blacks.

Another interesting item my friend pointed out to me -- those of Scandinavian decent are much more prone to type 1 diabetes due to a genetic defect. Same with cystic fibrosis with northern Europeans. A higher prevalence. He noted other examples to me.

He also pointed me to that there have been multiple studies regarding athletes and muscle development, etc. His opinion was that discussion is constrained by the "everyone is the same mentality."

Below is a link to an author he was aware of, and an explanation that is worth reading. Just as information.

http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p1.php ↗

I'm going to try to be done with this topic. It's very difficult to discuss it productively. And it distracts from what we really like to discuss.

I seriously wish I had time today to write a novel, but I don't.

@JayHawkFanToo I know that was what you were referring to. My thoughts on race go much, much deeper than whether we can judge this Ukrainian kid when he hasn't faced the same competition as kids here.

And that's all I brought up. It's the same thing that Bob Kendrick from the Negro Leagues Museum has raised, and other negro league stars -- the MLB before integration was not a true elite league.

Likewise, if a kid is playing against only U16 white kids, he's not seeing the same competition that, say, Cliff Alexander did.

That's the only injection of race (@wissoxfan) that I provided here. That led to a deeper discussion.

It's pretty funny that my admiration for the black athlete provokes a question about whether I subscribe to Jimmy the Greek's philosophy on race.

@truehawk93 said discussing race is a losing battle. That's because folks can't discuss it many times without calling folks racist, and without thinking beyond their comfort zone and boundaries. Most are scared to discuss it.

@konkeyDong - Holy crap. What did you just say??

"Being born with dark skin doesn't give you access to an athletic gene pool. Your heredity does (as well as random chance)."

Your statement "heredity does"? -- isn't that like the end of the argument. Heredity. Exactly.

Perhaps we're overlapping here. I'm not saying the mere fact that someone is black means anything. Black skin doesn't create an athlete, of course. However, I am saying that as a percentage of the population, those high level, superior athletes tend to be black. How can anyone argue with that?

You seriously say that boys and girls are not different, then cite that it is the injection of testosterone they get in puberty. Right. Boys get more. Naturally. Through their bodies. And I'm sorry, I've coached kids for years. The 7 year old boys basketball team will thrash the 7 year old girls basketball team. Are there some exceptional girls that can play with the boys? Sure. Rare. They can't generally keep up. But any later change that occurs is natural. Men and women are made differently.

And again, you say athletic girls outperform unathletic boys. Of course they do. But you completely ignore the percentages. MOST vs. SOME.

I still believe basketball is a skill driven game. Certain athletes possess both the skill and athleticism. Much skill can be increased by practice. But each has their own ceiling. But athleticism .. the old adage, you can't teach height. Hard to teach a 40 inch vertical, too.

No, the truly superior black athlete you reference is not necessarily going to play the violin as well. Totally different. Explosiveness, jumping, running fast, quickness -- those don't relate to playing the violin. Those are the qualities I'm referring to.

I've pretty much reached the point where I'm done here.

You can't show me the white Jim Brown, or Bo Jackson, or Lebron James, or Michael Jordan. When you find one, then I'll have scores more black athletes to throw at you. Dominique Wilkens, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Deion Sanders, etc.

Your core fallback is that blacks try harder. And your rationale for that argument is, well, they just do. Ok. Hard to argue with that.

@konkeyDong said: "Black people dominate basketball because black people try harder to do so compared to everyone else."

I cannot fathom a more uninformed and patently ridiculous comment. Black people try harder. Right.

So, conversely, are you saying that blacks' lack of effort leads them to their much higher levels (per capita) of unemployment, poverty, and violent crime?

You ask: "Is a golfer or pro bull rider less of an athlete than a power forward or middle linebacker?"

Short Answer: Yes. Obviously. And by a long shot. It takes much less pure athleticism to do the former than the latter -- see Craig Stadler, for example. Thus my point about blacks being better basketball players. And this is my sole point.The game of basketball, in a large part, is based on a certain type of explosive athleticism. It is exactly why blacks dominate those positions in football which require that -- running back, wide receiver, corner, LB, safety.

In basketball, shooting the ball is more of a skill. Rising above the basket with your elbow at the rim has more to do with explosive athleticism. A black player that can do the latter, can learn the former. Conner Frankamp can never do the latter, nor could a black kid that possesses CF's athleticism.

You say, "Blacks play more basketball than whites per capita." Per capita is irrelevant. Your argument is that blacks succeed in basketball because culturally they focus on achieving in basketball. But more whites focus on that than blacks (numbers, not per capita), and the number of blacks at the highest level far outweighs the number of whites.

Some don't like stereotypes -- but the phrase "White men can't jump" is there for a reason.

Again, I think you make pointless arguments -- citing Michael Phelps, and orchestras.

Learning to play the violin, my friend, is much different than being born with inherent athletic explosiveness.

Just like men are born stronger than women. Some men are born stronger, faster, and more athletic than other men. It just so happens that based on centuries of evolution, some black men can achieve, generally, a higher level of explosive athleticism than white men. Exceptions for sure. But the rule, for sure.

And remember, black folks are black because they lived in very warm climates. The pigmentation differences in our skin are a direct result of the climates and exposure to sun of our ancestors. Cloudy, cool = pale Irishmen? Is it that hard to figure out that the physical differences in people inherent to world regions where the races originated centuries upon centuries ago may be tied to the physical requirements necessary to survive in those varying regions of the world? And that those differences maintain in large part still today?

@DanR - Or, other hand, you could think.

We all do understand that there are many, many more whites in poverty than blacks, right? The logic that black "need" it more is absolutely absurd. Perhaps we aren't understanding percentages. There may be more blacks as a percentage of their population that play basketball, but volume favors whites.

The idea that the "white" Lebron James is actually working at IBM is also absurd.

There has never been a white Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Dominique Wilkins, Julius Erving, Michael Thompson, etc. The list goes on and on.

Larry, DIrk, and an athletic freak here and there like Tom Chambers.

Blacks -- generally -- are better athletes than whites.

@JayHawkFanToo - I much preferred Phyllis George at the time.

@konkeyDong You make no sense. I think if blacks played hockey they would dominate hockey. My point is that blacks, generally, are much better athletes. That's all.

You don't think that there are general differences between the races when it comes to athletic ability?

@konkeyDong That is a bunch of baloney. Politically correct nonsense. I suppose you think men and women are the same, too?

There are many, many more whites playing basketball than blacks. They just aren't good enough. Many more whites are working hard to play pro basketball than blacks. It's numbers.

Remember, it's not that a white dude can't be as athletic as a black guy, it's the overwhelming percentages that win the day.

I don't care how hard thousands of white kids try, they aren't going to be as good as Frank Mason. For every Mason, you have a thousand black kids that fail. For every CF, you three thousand white kids -- or whatever. Look at participation numbers. When blacks participate, generally, they dominate sports.

Why are black sprinters the best in the world? It has nothing to do with genetics, of course.

Look, I get why you make the argument. There are no difference in the races, right? It's politically correct. It's the world now.

@Kip_McSmithers You miss the point. First, it's a highlight video. But second, whether it's 37.5 of 45%, it's not against D-1 competition and not with coach Self screaming at him not to shoot until the ball has a chance to go into the post. What did Greene shoot in high school? Or CF?

I can hit 50% in a empty gym from high school range. If I was facing D-1 competition, well, I would hurt myself. It's just not the same.

@truehawk93 You think that Tharpe followed his "heart and personal interests"? Both he and White were either subtly shown the door. There are cover stories. Makes everyone look good. But we got the snippet from White -- Self said he'd have a hard time cracking the rotation. I have posted this a few times at kusports.com, most recently on March 29. I used Lucas at the hypothetical player. Hypothetical conversation between Self and player:

Self: Thanks for coming in to talk.

Player: Sure coach, what's up.

Self: Well, I just wanted to talk with you about what I project your role to be on this team moving forward. I talk to most of the guys about that.

Player: Well, I'm looking forward to getting back to work.

Self: I'm sure you are. In looking at our roster, what I try to do is anticipate my rotation, backups, etc. It's what I need to do as far as recruiting. When I see what I have here, and what I have coming in, it's hard for me to see you getting much playing time, even in your junior and senior seasons.

Player: Really? It seemed I was making progress.

Self: Oh, you are. I love how you play the game. Unfortunately, at Kansas, we are always targeting the top guys. We have Cliff coming in, maybe Turner. Ellis will be here. And Jamari has made great leaps. You and Hunter appear to offer a lot the same thing. Both of you very good players.

Player: Well I could compete and win time, right?

Self: Of course. But I see things objectively. I have to. No matter how much I like you, I have to put what I think is the best talent on the floor. For 2015, we'll likely have 2 highly ranked post guys. I'm not sure either one will be a one and done. So both those guys would be here through your senior season. I also anticipate bringing in a transfer. The transfer I'm anticipating is farther along than you are. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard for me to project you being part of a 4 man post rotation at any point.

Player. I guess I'm not totally surprised. I love it here though.

Self: And we love having you here. Look, this is your scholarship. It's your life, your career. If you are content, then so am I.

Player: But I want to play. I only get to be a college player once, and I think I can play pro ball.

Self: I do understand. I think you can too.

Player: Well how can I do that if I don't play?

Self: Well, you make a great point. I'm not saying you won't play here. I'm just trying to shoot it to you absolutely straight so you can have all the information. It would be selfish for me not to give you my thoughts. I love having all of the security I can get. But it's not fair to you if I keep it to myself.

Player: Well, thanks coach. Do you think I should transfer? I mean, if I leave I have to sit out another season. I would only have two seasons left to play since I redshirted a year.

Self: That's not my decision. I do know the desire to play the game. And playing the game puts you in a position to make a living playing the game. If you were my son, I'd want you to play the game. And honestly, I want that for you. Selfishly, I want you here. But if you aren't going to play here for three seasons, but could get good playing time, probably start, somewhere else for two seasons -- I guess you just have to balance that.

Player: Ok, well I have to think about this.

Self: If you are considering an alternative, I would love to know soon. You know, planning and all.

Player: Sure, how soon?

Self: Coach Townsend is out in the hall and he can visit with you more. See what his thoughts are. Or coach Roberts and Howard. If you or family have any questions, let me know.

Player: Ok, thanks coach.

Just a hypothetical.

@Statmachine I see Mason as a huge flight risk. The issue is "do we care." Not being harsh, but if Traylor or Lucas transferred, we'd yawn. Selden? That's another thing. Your "least recruited" reference is right on point for that.

But I firmly believe that we need an experienced, high quality point guard running the show. Mason was way ahead of where Tharpe was as a freshman. He has the potential to be that guy. I don't want to run he, or CF, off. Or Greene.

Trade a yacht for a tug boat? Maybe not. But if your sitting in the engine room of the yacht, or could be the captain of the tugboat, that might change your perspective.

@truehawk93 Did you ever see the movie "Meaning of Life"? Where the teachers played the students in rugby? It's why top tier guys absolutely dominate their alleged competition (such as Mason and CF in high school), then come to D-1 and it's a whole new ball game. The D-1 guys are men against the high school boys as far as talent. These tapes show the top highlights. Didn't see him miss any threes. But there was a spot where his stats flashed up as 3/8 from three.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=frank+mason+video&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=25583F98F110DBC3D29F25583F98F110DBC3D29F ↗

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=conner+frankamp+highlights&FORM=VIRE4#view=detail&mid=DFA613545C8C98D5200BDFA613545C8C98D5200B ↗

@konkeyDong A couple of things. Whether there are as many unathletic black people as unathletic people of other races is completely irrelevant. The high level black athlete has demonstrated his/her superiority. Look at the NBA. Proof is in the pudding. Look at skill positions in the NFL. Look at KU's roster. This is an obvious fact, given blacks account for only about 13% of our population. And relating it to this Ukrainian kid -- it would be much more relevant to see what he does against high level athletes.

Kaun lived in the USA before coming to KU. I suggested it as a risk, and a risk that bigger than a kid from Chicago. Kids in the Ukraine can graduate after the 11th grade and then have to get a qualifying test score. Again, just a risk and maybe a bit higher than U.S. guys.

I never was beating the Self can't recruit drum. I lamented why we were missing on high talent guys, resulting in Lucas, Traylor, Anderson, Lindsay, etc. It has been proven that it was just a downturn. Actually my main criticism of Self then was the "all in" on Tarc. But I was a fraction of bennybob, if that helps.

Of course, we're recruiting some highly talented guys in 2015. I doubt we'll be sitting on four guys. But that is an excellent point with our likely numbers for 2015.

So, ok, sign the kid. Great. When Greene or CF transfer, we'll talk. Or when he gets homesick. Remember Ioannis Papapetrou? Left Texas, signed in Greece. How would his signing have affected our roster? Same sort of deal. But I know nothing is for sure and each situation is different, and some foreign kids do fine here.

Who does he steal playing time from this season? We have 6 guys for a likely 4 man perimeter rotation as it is. Maybe he sits this year and is ready for 2015. That is fine. Maybe that's the plan. With the battle at PG, we might lose one of those guys anyway.

Does this situation seem like that to anyone though? That this guy is a multiyear player?

Likewise, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong on this stuff, and roster turnover, and transfers, etc. Problem is, I haven't (humbly, of course) been too far off in my projections with that stuff.

@konkeyDong You're right on the draft age ...

Nice video, but he was playing U16 -- against guys what, 15 and under? I didn't see one black kid on the floor, either. Perhaps a different level of athleticism, if I might invoke a racial fact.

I take nothing from this silly video. I'm sure if you watched Tharpe's video it would be much of the same. There is nothing there that would suggest that he could be a reliable guy handling the ball, against D-1 pressure. Ok, he dribbled between his legs. I can still do that. I don't see from the video that he has "basketball IQ" as @drgnslayr mentioned. Of course, that might be because my basketball IQ is lacking.

Heck, at one point, it showed he was 3 of 8 from three point range. He's supposed to be 6'6"? He was barely able to dunk.

There is no way to tell his defensive acumen.

What about the kid bolting for a Euro team after the season, which seems to be a reasonable alternative for him? Some Ukranian kid is going to come to Lawrence for two years? I'll believe it when I see it. And as @icthawkfan316 mentioned, what about the possible disruption to our roster? Discontent isn't cured when a guy leaves as an OAD -- as White found, the next OAD is right around the corner. And it keeps coming. If we want guys to leave, then let's dispense with the pretenses.

This is not directed at you kD, but just in general -- I just do not understand the belief that we have to have a certain guy, and the next talented guy is the best guy to have, and then the corresponding disregard for high level guys committed to the KU program.

Is there no value at all to committing to your high level players then? Come in and your garbage if there is someone that might be perceived as better. And sometime (White) you perform well (see early in the season) and you find the bench anyway and never get your opportunity.

Don't get me wrong. I love competition for playing time. But there is great value in committing to your guys, and great value to treating them as more than a hedge to the next, supposedly better thing.

I ask this question -- Does Bill Self want Brannen Greene to stay here for 3-4 seasons? Or CF? Or does he want them to transfer?

Maybe this kid is "all that." Don't know. But would you rather have right now, essentially sight unseen -- CF or this guy? Or Greene or this guy?

Easy, easy choice for me.

What we need is quality post players. That's where we're lacking. Jamari Traylor for goodness sake is our projected first big off the bench. Didn't Stanford just gameplan to take advantage of his weaknesses offensively?

I'd much rather us hold the scholarship for a solid, highly rated, program guy; unless we can get a quality post player.

Am I missing something? This potential signing makes absolutely no sense at all ... unless ... unless he actually can play the point and be a "lead" guard as Self has recently used the term. Not a "combo" guard, but the "lead" guard.

Assuming he can't be the "lead" guard, it makes no sense. An NCAA violation or suspension waiting to happen. Who does he play in front of and displace from the rotation? Another guy that might only be here one season, or who could leave anytime to go home and play pro. Plus, he will only be 17 during the season. Should be in high school.

I just want to see that he can handle the ball like a point guard. Then it becomes interesting.

@JayHawkFanToo Ok, best college point guard since Reagan was president ... how about the last 30 years? I stand corrected, though. But since you didn't cite any in the last 30 years, I assume we can agree Hurley was a bad ass point guard.

Just for fun, here's my out of the box, favorite college starting 5 ... meaning guys that played their respective positions about as good as someone can play the spot. And I loved their college games.

1. Bobby Hurley

2. Ray Allen

3. Larry Bird

4. Thomas Robinson

5. Artis Gilmore

Best college point guard .. Bobby Hurley.

@justanotherfan This will be Calipari's toughest coaching job .. keeping guys happy and avoiding dissention. It will be amazing if he can keep that ship together. But they will be the team to beat. I like that. It will build to amazing pressure in March.

Saw where Lawrence was granted his release .. but will likely transfer close to home because of an ill father. He's from New Jersey.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/university-of-cincinnati/2014/05/13/jermaine-lawrence-granted-release-from-uc/9034929/. ↗

@JayHawkFanToo I cannot locate it, but Oubre sent out something on twitter too. But it's pretty much along the same lines. I don't see the two statements being that far off.

@icthawkfan316 I heard Self's interview yesterday. He did seem to differentiate between the terms.

He said our best teams where when we had 2-3 "lead" guards, and he was referring to Robinson, Collins, Chalmers. He seemed to put that somewhere between a point guard and a combo guard.

He said Tharpe was more of a "small scoring guard."

He also referred to being able to get more ball handling in the game with the group we have now.

So -- my take on it:

1. A point guard is a pure point guard as we envision (Aaron Miles)

2. A lead guard is not a true point, but has the requisite ball handling to run the point, and skills to play the spot (Chalmers, Collins, Taylor, Robinson)

3. A combo guard is neither numbers 1 or 2 above, but can handle the ball well enough, if necessary, to be in control of the ball (EJ, maybe Tharpe, Selden, if he could handle the ball)

4. A small scoring guard is the guy he's glad transferred (uh, you know).

Self seemed to like the idea of multiple "lead" guards.

I don't know. It was pretty confusing really. I was driving, so I may try to re-listen if they have a podcast.

@JayHawkFanToo I think Oubre's statement is highly credible. But I agree that it is not equal to an unconditional guarantee. Self would be smart enough to choose his words. Here's what Oubre said in an interview:

“Of course [Wiggins is] going to the league [after this year], so they just need another big wing to come in and just fill that spot,” Oubre told SNY.tv. “[Kansas coach Bill Self] pretty much told me everything’s there for me.”

Even Oubre says "pretty much told me ..."

But I think we're all pretty comfortable with the fact that Self sold Oubre on the idea of coming in and taking Wiggins' place. Let's call it an assurance that if everything went as planned, that's his spot. Nothing wrong with that.

@ralster Here's why I think both CF and Mason have upside on defense -- tenacity. You can tell both are locked in and giving everything they have. Compare to Tharpe, who many times appeared lackadaisical on defense, less than intense, and somewhat resigned to his fate. I've used the term before, but Tharpe lacked "grit." I am quite sure Mason has it; jury is out on CF, but I sense that he does.

@truehawk93 You said:

"This is the problem with KU. Nobody wants to step up and take the shot and when they do, it's usually the wrong man. For example, they make 2-4 passes, and then pass to Ellis on the key. He launches and misses. Their shot selection is simple. Pass around the perimeter 2-3 times, look inside each time for a seal, look to drive, or take an open look with time running off the shot clock."

Remember, it's not that "nobody wants to step up and take the shot", it's that they get hammered by coach Self if they do. Shoot the three too early in the shot clock -- and you find the bench. You have diagnosed Self's offensive approach. Pass it around the perimeter, look for the entry pass, if you get below 15 seconds on the shot clock, the acceptable shot selection then widens. But it is Self dictating the approach.

You also said:

"Conor performed perfectly against Stanford. Those shots he launched and SUNK were B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L. He didn't pause or think, he shot a natural shot he's shot many times before in high school and it works."

Right. He didn't pause. Why? Because the game situation required him to gun.

Your statements illustrate the exact point -- shooters need the freedom to gun. Self doesn't give them that freedom. Therefore, they "pause" and "think." As result, they don't shoot as well, and hesitate.

It is just that freaking simple.

@justanotherfan Ok, I understand. I'd rather have our guys, too.

Remove Tharpe and put Adams at the point .. you go, what, 6'3", 6'4", 6'6"? Bring Tharpe off the bench. Two "combo" guards as the term is used (see @ralster, I can say it), long and athletic.

And as ict has noted, Adams is much more talented than Tharpe -- a guy who has more natural attributes. Adams is a plus defender. Doyle played well for Loyola this past season, and was their leading scorer. And White isn't that much different than Greene, and Oubre will be a freshman.
Remember, Tharpe started for us last season, too. Wasn't like Self thought he was a slouch.

I just think it's an interesting comparison.

@icthawkfan316 Nice summary. Add into the mix a new recruiting class for 2015. You never know if another kid falls in our lap.

Try this .. would you rather have a four man perimeter rotation this coming season of Naadir Tharpe, Anrio Adams, Andrew White, and Milton Doyle, or our perimeter rotation? Interesting to consider.