Former Kansas football coach Pepper Rodgers passed away yesterday at the age of 88.
Rodgers was the head coach of KU from 1967-1970. In his second season in 1968, Rodgers led Kansas to its last conference championship in football and lost to Penn St. in the Orange Bowl that season. Rodgers went 20-22 in his four seasons at Kansas.
@jayballer73 Anywhere between 3 and 8. 3 for sure with Garrett, Lightfoot, and DeSousa graduating. McCormack, Agbaji, and Thompson are the early departure candidates, personally I don't see any of them leaving after next season. Then Muscadin and Jossell are potential transfer options. Jossell being the more likely candidate if he doesn't show signs of developing into a role player down the road. Muscadin needs time in the weight room more than anything right now. He'll probably never be a star, but a solid rotation player in the future.
@Crimsonorblue22 said in Next season...:
@Texas-Hawk-10 Harvard is also online, we have them on our bb schedule
The Ivy League is a totally different animal in this matter because those schools are truly academics first. They don't allow redshirts, even medical, so none of their spring sports athletes are getting their extra year of eligibility. They also don't give athletic scholarships, all athletes are on academic scholarship at Ivy League schools.
The Ivy League could permanently cancel all sports programs at their schools and be minimally impacted financially by that decision.
I wouldn't be shocked if KU has to find a replacement team for that game such as UMKC, Mo. St., SEMO, Drake, or some other smaller school in the area, possibly even a D2 program.
@Marco There's too much money at stake for schools not to play at least football and basketball or to even completely close campuses, at least for schools that participate in FBS level football.
There's already some rebellion against plans to go completely online by at least one school. The California State University system has already announced all of their schools will be completely online for the fall semester at least. San Diego St. however, who is a part of the CSU system along with fellow Mountain West members Fresno St. and San Jose St., has announced they plan to do a hybrid of online and in person classes in the fall. The logic behind the move seemingly is so SDSU can participate in athletics this fall.
I would expect most schools that participate in football at the FBS level to settle on a similar hybrid model so that they too can play this fall.
Along with the money football generates, schools closing in the fall would be losing millions of dollars as well from housing, meal plans, and textbook sales among other revenue generators. It would also destroy the economy even further in traditional college towns like Lawrence where students make up a significant percentage of the population when school is in.
There's going to be a lot pressure on major universities to reopen in the fall because of the money at stake for those schools and communities so it will interesting to see how these schools handle that pressure.
Even this far out, this schedule looks like a gauntlet for KU. KU is a borderline top 5 preseason team next season, top 10 for sure. Kentucky, UCLA, Virginia, and Creighton should all be ranked when KU plays them and USC could be ranked by that time so that's potentially 5 ranked teams before B12 play starts. I'm going take a guess that Tennessee in Knoxville is going to be our B12/SEC game so that should be another ranked team. I'm also going to guess that we play UCLA in the Wooden and Virginia plays Georgetown so I wouldn't be shocked if that ends up being UCLA on the 26th and Virginia the 27th.
Throw in to that mix that Baylor and Texas Tech are both projected 10 teams next season and KU's looking at potentially up to 7 games against top 10 teams (Virginia, Creighton, Tennessee, Baylor x2, Tech x2). That's a meat grinder of a schedule next season.
The non-conference portion of KU's schedule has been released and it appears pretty stacked like usual.
Nov. 10- Kentucky (Champions Classic, Chicago)
Nov. 13- Southern Utah
Nov. 16- Eastern Illinois
Nov. 20- Stony Brook
Nov. 26- Georgetown/UCLA/Virginia (Wooden Legacy, Anaheim)
Nov. 27- Georgetown/UCLA/Virginia (Wooden Legacy, Anaheim)
Dec. 3- Creighton
Dec. 8- Omaha
Dec. 12- Missouri (Sprint Center)
Dec. 19- USC
Dec. 22- @Colorado
Dec. 29- Harvard
Jan. 30 TBD (Big 12/SEC Challenge)
@BeddieKU23 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
Gassnola's testimony was apart of Gatto's trial. Where was Gassnola's case separate? If I remember correctly didn't Gassnola strike a deal with the FBI in exchange for him being a cooperating witness. A lot of the allegations from the NOA against Self and T revolve around Gassnola's testimony in the trail.
Gassnola was a witness in Gatto's trial, but Gassnola was also brought up on his own charges of bribery of corruption and plead guilty to those charges. That means stuff Gassnola said would open to the NCAA because he went through his own legal proceedings.
@BeddieKU23 Even if the NCAA couldn't use evidence from the Gatto trial currently, the Gassnola case is not under appeal since he plead guilty from the start. Since Gassnola was the one who primarily dealt with KU, what bylaw prevents the NCAA from using any evidence that came out in Gassnola's trial?
@BShark said in 2020 Transfer List:
@FarmerJayhawk Great. Was Eastern playing hurt last year or something? That's a sharp decline.
Eastern was never that good even when healthy. I'd rather have Haarms than Eastern and opinion of Haarms wasn't that high to begin with.
@HighEliteMajor The "severe and egregious" part is most likely referencing Gassnola and Adidas and their booster status and why this will eventually end up in court if the NCAA does drop the hammer on KU. We cannot ignore the circumstances of why KU declared Gassnola and Adidas as boosters which was because the NCAA asked them to do so in order to move forward in Silvio's reinstatement case. That is relevant in KU's fight against this.
I'm guessing KU will be challenging that by accusing the NCAA of coercion in regards to forcing KU to name Gassnola and Adidas as boosters in order to move Silvio's case forward.
I agree that KU probably isn't going to escape with no punishment from all of this because money changed hands to influence a recruit to come to KU. Probation, loss of 1 or 2 scholarships, and a lack of oversight label seems probable. Vacating the 2018 games Silvio DeSousa played in seems a possibility as well.
Depending on how a court rules about the status of Gassnola and Adidas, Kurtis Townsend getting tagged with a show-cause wouldn't shock me and even if he doesn't, he seems like the most likely to lose his job over this. Self maybe gets a suspension from this, but I don't see him being fired over this unless some new evidence comes out.
@kjayhawks said in What we all knew was happening at Duke with Zion is finally hitting the fan.:
@Texas-Hawk-10 they got plenty of negative press from places outside of ESPN and Fox for UNCs fake classes but it disappeared over night because most of the major sports outlets have let it die.
The UNC case quite frankly wasn't an NCAA issue. Offering fake classes to regular students, even if athletes were given priority took it from an NCAA matter to a Department of Education issue due to the academic fraud happening. Since those classes were made available to regular students, it really wasn't an NCAA violation because what advantage did athletes receive that regular students didn't in that case?
@kjayhawks said in What we all knew was happening at Duke with Zion is finally hitting the fan.:
@Texas-Hawk-10 the NCAA has seemed unwilling to pursue Carolina schools in the past. North Carolina Amnesty Association is what anyone outside of NC calls it. I hope your right but will only believe it, when I see it.
The Zion Williamson case will be too public for the NCAA to ignore without doing permanent damage to themselves. The backlash the NCAA would receive if they ignore an admission of receiving benefits in a high profile lawsuit would open themselves up litigation in regards to how they handle punishing schools and even the NCAA isn't stupid enough to go down that road.
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
There's several ways to look at this. Before I get to that though, I want to say that is coming from the lense that the NCAA doesn't give two 💩 about college football because they don't profit off of college football. ESPN owns the playoffs and the conferences negotiate their own TV deals. The NCAA will be singing a different time this fall when it's time for college basketball to start up since that's where the vast majority of the NCAA's operating finances come from and they're going to be desperate in not wanting to miss out on a second straight NCAA Tournament because I'm sure their pocketbook took a huge hit this year and why they tried so hard to find a viable alternative so they could still get their TV money.
First of all, the NCAA moving towards the adoption of allowing players to make money off of themselves is a huge step forward for college athletics. That statement @BShark linked to is also significant because it's another step away from the charade that college athletics is amateur in nature, at least in regards to football and men's basketball. If that's the position the NCAA, conferences, and schools want to take, then I have no problem with players coming back before students because nobody is pretending they are student-athletes anymore. They're being viewed and treated like athletic-students in that case and should have a different set of rules applied to them in that case.
The other side is if those groups want to keep up the charade that these kids are true students first, then I would agree with keeping them away from campuses until everyone else returns as well. If you want to bring in the football players in the summer like normal because of plans to reopen the campus in August/September to students, I wouldn't have an issue in that case either because that's standard for programs to get their kids conditioned and ready for the season.
Ideally before the end of the month, you would have the NCAA talk to conference commissioners about their support of the rule change in regards to players profiting off their likeness which basically says these kids are more than just student-athletes now. Then the conference commissioners get on conference call with all of the AD's and university presidents to to establish how student-atheltes are viewed in their eyes based on the NCAA's endorsement of players profiting off their image and come to a decision about how the school's themselves view these athletes in that light.
If they can profit from playing and have access to tests and the like then I don't have a problem with it assuming they follow state and local guidelines. But under the scenario where we don't have students back on campus, NIL is still more an idea than reality, and schools want to play football, I think that's rank hypocrisy. I don't think it'll happen thankfully. I do believe students will be on campuses in the fall with significant modifications to schedules. I have no idea what'll happen with football beyond I think they play at some point. I could see a delayed season without fans but I don't think there's much of a chance they'll cancel the season
Like I said, it all depends on how schools and athletic departments truly view football players. Honestly, I think whatever we see with the NFL in regards to delaying the season is probably the way college goes as well.
@Careful-you said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I could be wrong about this but I think the NCAA handles all the branding of college athletics. So the NCAA gets royalties from football related sports items that have a university logo so they probably care deeply about college football.
No they don't because the NCAA isn't a marketing company. Schools handle they own branding through their own marketing departments within the athletic department.
The NCAA also has no control over the licensing and trademarks of schools either. That is a private company called Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) based out of Atlanta that schools and conferences outsource their licensing and trademark stuff to. That's the company that's gets a piece of pie when licensed merchandise is sold.
ESPN controls the College Football Playoff so they're the one who make a boatload of money from that. Various groups control the individual bowl games so the NCAA doesn't get any of that pie. Conferences the TV deals for the conferences which is why the conferences want college football so badly. The NCAA doesn't get any piece of the pie of college football.
@kjayhawks said in What we all knew was happening at Duke with Zion is finally hitting the fan.:
@Texas-Hawk-10 they will ignore it, always have and always will.
If Zion, his mom, or stepdad admit to taking benefits which will probably happen because that won't hurt Zion's bottom line anymore because he's probably going to win this case.
That said, the NCAA won't be able to turn a blind eye if those admissions come out as expected without serious repercussions coming their way, especially as they're trying to nail KU to the wall.
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
There's several ways to look at this. Before I get to that though, I want to say that is coming from the lense that the NCAA doesn't give two 💩 about college football because they don't profit off of college football. ESPN owns the playoffs and the conferences negotiate their own TV deals. The NCAA will be singing a different time this fall when it's time for college basketball to start up since that's where the vast majority of the NCAA's operating finances come from and they're going to be desperate in not wanting to miss out on a second straight NCAA Tournament because I'm sure their pocketbook took a huge hit this year and why they tried so hard to find a viable alternative so they could still get their TV money.
First of all, the NCAA moving towards the adoption of allowing players to make money off of themselves is a huge step forward for college athletics. That statement @BShark linked to is also significant because it's another step away from the charade that college athletics is amateur in nature, at least in regards to football and men's basketball. If that's the position the NCAA, conferences, and schools want to take, then I have no problem with players coming back before students because nobody is pretending they are student-athletes anymore. They're being viewed and treated like athletic-students in that case and should have a different set of rules applied to them in that case.
The other side is if those groups want to keep up the charade that these kids are true students first, then I would agree with keeping them away from campuses until everyone else returns as well. If you want to bring in the football players in the summer like normal because of plans to reopen the campus in August/September to students, I wouldn't have an issue in that case either because that's standard for programs to get their kids conditioned and ready for the season.
Ideally before the end of the month, you would have the NCAA talk to conference commissioners about their support of the rule change in regards to players profiting off their likeness which basically says these kids are more than just student-athletes now. Then the conference commissioners get on conference call with all of the AD's and university presidents to to establish how student-atheltes are viewed in their eyes based on the NCAA's endorsement of players profiting off their image and come to a decision about how the school's themselves view these athletes in that light.
@BShark said in NOA response from KU discussion:
Not related to KU, but NCAA in general.
That's the type of statement that can begin the process of real reform in college athletics because it redefines what a student athlete is. It does appear that real reform is happening based on the recent NCAA proposal to allow students to profit off of their likeness and to do endorsement deals and personal appearances.
@hawkfan01 There's two different governing bodies at work here and each have their own set of rules of governance. It's not illegal for a school to pay a recruit to attend their university. That school will never face any legal consequences for that action because they didn't violate any local, state, or federal laws. That action does violate NCAA rules and makes the school subject to punishment under NCAA rules.
In KU's case, money changed hands to influence a player to attend KU, that's an NCAA violation regardless of a DoJ ruling. The defrauding of KU was determined by the DoJ because they ruled that the money changing hands to influence recruits to come to KU occurred without KU's knowledge. Whether that's reality or not is another story, but that's what the court determined at this time. We'll probably find out if that's reality whenever KU takes the NCAA to court following the NCAA's issuance of punishments against KU.
@hawkfan01 said in 2021 Recruiting:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in 2021 Recruiting:
@Marco said in 2021 Recruiting:
@FarmerJayhawk said in 2021 Recruiting:
@BShark said in 2021 Recruiting:
@FarmerJayhawk does not look winnable
It looks like, as @jayballer73 astutely pointed out in the 22 thread, we’re going after a different type of guy these days. I think Bill saw what he had last year and was like OH. This could be fun.
And with OAD all but officially over with the new G League contracts it makes sense. We'll still get our Bryce Thompson's and others, but as far as top 10 recruits go I say steer clear. Build the bench and solidify the starting 5 with KC players and the occasional Wichita recruit, as well as adding nationwide ones such as Frank and Devonte (Gethro fitting that mold for next season).
There's not enough local talent to keep KU competitive at a national level. KU would have to land every local player to have any chance at being competitive which isn't going to happen as long as MoKan is the dominant AAU team in the area.
KU lands a local talent every other year on average with varying degrees of success.
KU is a national brand in basketball and with the new rules on players selling themselves, KU needs to market the exposure a potential recruit can get at KU to land top players.
Why do you say Mokan being the dominant AAU team in KC is a detriment to KU? KU has 3 Mokan players now. Do you know of any high profile players at Mokan now that we are/should be recruiting?
MoKan is a top Nike AAU program and they tend to funnel their top prospects to Nike programs. The general lack of interest from their elite recruits in KU is evidence of that. Trae Young is their only elite recruit that's ever seriously considered coming to KU and he still ended up at Oklahoma. KU generally recruits MoKan's top prospects, interest has generally not been reciprocated because MoKan is a top Nike AAU program and KU is not a Nike school.
Ochai Agbaji was the first MoKan player to ever commit to KU. None of the 3 players KU has landed were highly regarded. Harris who was barely a top 100 player is the highest rated of those players.
@approxinfinity said in Well Bowlsby pretty well set it straight:
@drgnslayr said in Well Bowlsby pretty well set it straight:
The way to really get life back, besides a working vaccine, is to have affordable, accurate, immediate testing for the active virus. This would let crowds come together again and people would feel safe that the people they are scrunched up with in a stadium are virus-free. Test at the gate. Give everyone a squirt of hand sanitizer so their hands are clean, too.
Test at the mall, test everywhere. This will also give us immediate containment. I can't believe the world doesn't come together and make this priority #1!
Imo priority #1 is n95 masks for all. The lack of focus on this by the government makes me angry.
Only people who need the N95 are those who are at most risk of contracting the virus such as those with underlying issues and those who interact with Covid-19 patients.
Someone without an underlying issue doesn't need an N95 to go about their regular day. A regular mask or face covering is sufficient in that situation.
@HighEliteMajor The NCAA did not perform due diligence on Zion Williamson. They accepted the results of Duke's internal investigation without question.
There are punishments for KU that I will not argue against because they happened. KU vacating the Silvio games in '17-'18 is probably going to happen and I won't argue that one. Kurtis Townsend not coaching at KU beyond this upcoming season is realistic as much as his name was attached to Gassnola.
I don't think Self is in danger because there's not enough to hit him with a show-cause. Maybe a suspension, but that's it.
Billy Preston not playing a game for KU is going to save them from a lot of punishment. The payment happened, probation there seems appropriate since Preston never played a regular season game.
The biggest part of the NCAA's case against KU is the reason this thing will end up in federal court if they attempt to drop the hammer on KU. Gassnola and Adidas being declared boosters of KU will not hold up and should not hold up. Let us not forget the reason why KU declared them boosters. It was done because the NCAA asked KU to do so in order to move the Silvio DeSousa reinstation case forward. KU's compliance with an NCAA request then being used against them is going to come back and bite the NCAA in the ass in the end. This is the particular ruling that if the NCAA insists on standing by, should trigger KU to go full scorched earth in trial and expose the levels and depth of corruption at the youth level in the Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour leagues and tournaments. This would be best done by taking statements from Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour runners talking about their business practices and how they steer players to certain universities. The reason for this would be to force the NCAA into one of three decisions, two of which would be good for KU. First option, they back off on the naming of corporate partners as boosters and remove that from the list of violations against KU. Should the NCAA remain steadfast in their resolve to keep calling corporate partners boosters, there's two ways that decision goes. Either they address the corruption and hit the reset button through reforming their rules or they punish everyone that's identified by witness testimony and statements in regards to grassroots corruption.
The Zion Williamson lawsuit will be nothing but positive for KU. An admission of NCAA violations is going to come from this at some point in the near future which will help KU in the long run. Either the NCAA hammers Duke for lying to the NCAA which softens the blow for Kansas or the NCAA goes soft on Duke and gives KU ammo for the eventual federal case that the NCAA is unfairly targeting KU which would have much more merit in that scenario.
@kjayhawks said in What we all knew was happening at Duke with Zion is finally hitting the fan.:
They are Nike, absolutely nothing will come of this.
This has nothing to do with the NCAA.
This is Zion's former marketing rep suing Zion for breach of contract. This will be in a court room under oath. Stuff will come out in this trial that the NCAA will not be able to ignore in regards to Duke.
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The hammer might be about to drop on Duke.
Released a little under 2 hours ago from ESPN.
"Attorneys representing Zion Williamson's former marketing representative and her company have asked the New Orleans Pelicans star to admit that his mother and stepfather demanded and received gifts, money and other benefits from persons acting on behalf of Adidas and Nike and also from people associated with Duke to influence him to sign with the Blue Devils and to wear Nike or Adidas products."
The rest of the article goes into the background of the pending lawsuit that's about to come Zion's way.
This is about to get real ugly for the NCAA since they cleared Zion after Duke's "investigation" of Zion's recruit.
Good grief. I see Adidas mentioned. That, coupled with the KT statement could add more to our misery. If Adidas gave gifts, etc., who else would it be on behalf of?
@wissox It would make us feel a bit better. Actually quite a bit better. We wouldn't feel as singled out. But we're still in the same spot.
Adidas offering $200,000 to Zion coming to KU isn't a new revelation. This doesn't change anything for KU.
The hammer might be about to drop on Duke.
Released a little under 2 hours ago from ESPN.
"Attorneys representing Zion Williamson's former marketing representative and her company have asked the New Orleans Pelicans star to admit that his mother and stepfather demanded and received gifts, money and other benefits from persons acting on behalf of Adidas and Nike and also from people associated with Duke to influence him to sign with the Blue Devils and to wear Nike or Adidas products."
The rest of the article goes into the background of the pending lawsuit that's about to come Zion's way.
This is about to get real ugly for the NCAA since they cleared Zion after Duke's "investigation" of Zion's recruit.
There is a third player in the NCAA's response tied to Gassnola as well that could very well be another issue for KU. In a section that was heavily redacted, Tidiane Drame didn't deny receiving a payment from a Gassnola funded AAU team. Drame was the legal guardian for Cheick Diallo. Basically that means Gassnola's relationship with KU goes back at least to 2014.
@BeddieKU23 If it's anything beyond probation for that incident specifically, then it's an issue. Money was exchanged for him to come to KU, that is a violation plain and simple. Preston never playing a regular season game for KU will save them from a more severe punishment, but KU has no comeback for Preston getting paid by Adidas to attend KU.
@Kubie said in NOA response from KU discussion:
I am still having difficulty seeing Preston as an issue. Yes he got money I don't doubt that however when it came to light he was instantly benched before ever playing a game, right? So can't KU say yep he got paid and almost snuck that by us but once we got a clue, the car thing, our compliance people were on it in a flash, found the problem, and we reacted accordingly. Isn't that how things are supposed to work?
The punishment KU gets for Preston shouldn't be very severe because he didn't play a regular season game for KU and compliance did pull him as soon as a red flag was raised. That doesn't change that a significant amount of money did change hands for Preston to attend KU so there will be something for that, probably probation, but there will be punishment for Preston.
@KirkIsMyHinrich said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
SN going full wtf is the NCAA thinking https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-basketball/news/ncaa-response-to-kansas-bill-self-shows-confidence-in-its-case-but-not-an-abundance-of-logic/1bsrlbv5pc6tx1enyaicva9niy ↗
Mike Decourcy asks the most important question here: How do you claim that adidas is a representative of kansas' athletic interests but also claim that shoe/apparel companies like nike are not acting in the interest of other universities?
The ncaa's response to this - "there is no cause for concern among member institutions as most of their relationships with corporate entities comply with ncaa legislation" - is pretty vague and weak.
That statement alone from the NCAA makes me want to see KU go full scorched earth on the NCAA and burn them to the ground in the court room and summon every major recruit that has been connected to KU in recruiting and ask Nike/Under Armour representatives why a player rejected an offer from an Adidas rep to play for KU. There's enough out there on Ayton and Zion that KU can drag Arizona and Duke down with them.
KU's going to get hit with stuff for the payments to Preston and DeSousa. I don't think anybody here has argued against that because that stuff happened. The severity of those punishments is going to depend on the final ruling of Gasnola and Adidas.
The NCAA is going to deeply regret the decision if they continue to pursue that Adidas is a KU booster. That's decision that will ultimately cost the NCAA a lot of money because it will trickle to other corporate sponsors and other programs. Every other program is going to be rooting for KU in that part of the case because of the ramifications a ruling in the NCAA's favor would have on everyone.
If the NCAA's insistent on claiming KU was the only program benefitting from that practice, then that's simple enough to disprove because of Brian Bowen. If the NCAA still claims it's only Adidas, then keep it in house and bring back the Silvio part of the case and purpose of the $20,000 payment that Gasnola attempted to make. Now you have Under Armour dead to rights for the same practice. So now let's say the NCAA acknowledges Adidas and UA, but ignores Nike, now KU should probably go full scorched earth and bring up the recruitments of DeAndre Ayton and Zion Williamson. Subpoena a Nike official involved in Ayton's recruitment to ask why Ayton at pretty close to the last minute decides to commit to a program that had a coach nailed for bribery? Then you subpoena whoever at Nike that can answer why there is recording of Zion Williamson tied to $200,000 from Adidas to go to KU, but ended up at Duke. Did he simply turn down life changing money to go to Duke for free?
It just seems to me that the NCAA calling a corporate partner a booster is going to go down a rabbit hole the NCAA is going to deeply regret down if they pursue it.
@BShark said in Self On Next Season:
I don't think he is bad, just blown out of proportion by the hype machine and portions of the fan base give his actual last on court production. He is a good bench player. I just don't think he is a starter first team all league etc...
Who has hyped Mitch as first team all Big 12? I'm probably his biggest fan here and will say I do think he starts at the 4 spot this year. I've also said multiple times what I think his stats would be and they definitely aren't all B12 caliber. I think 20-25 mpg with 5-7 PPG, 4-5 RPG, 1-2 APG, 1-2 BPG is what Mitch will do.
I know what Self has said about next year's roster and I don't think the playable depth is going to be there next season to run a 4 guard line up most of the time. I think there is more playable depth in the front court next season which will dictate Self running line ups with a stretch 4 most of the time next year.
@BShark said in 2021 Recruiting:
@BeddieKU23 we have landed guys from IMG. Could be a good move.
KU has landed 2 recruits straight out of IMG. Both of them have been issues for KU in regards to eligibility. Jamari Taylor was academically ineligible his first year at KU and Silvio DeSousa's suspension was originally 2 years and KU's probably going to end up forfeiting its 2018 Final Four banner because of DeSousa.
Not exactly a great track record of IMG players at KU.
@justanotherfan said in Last Dance:
Something that has stood out to me about Jordan that almost certainly makes his achievements possible in the future - the current and any future NBA collective bargaining agreement.
Several reasons for this.
Salary cap - yes, there was a cap when Jordan played. But in his final season, Jordan made over $30M. That was more than the rest of the starters on the Bulls made, combined. And that's even though they had two all star caliber players in Pippen and Rodman, a former sixth man of the year in Kukoc and several other solid veterans (Ron Harper, Luc Longley, others). The way the cap was structured then versus now makes it almost impossible to pay a superstar the top dollar and also build that type of supporting cast without crippling your cap situation.
Scottie Pippen's contract - the real MVP of the Bulls dynasty was Scottie Pippen's lengthy extension, that kept him in Chicago through 1998. This deal was signed just as the Bulls were starting to put together their dynasty and allowed the Bulls to have an All-NBA player on the roster for mere peanuts. It would be impossible to have a player half that good signed for that length of time for that cheap now.
Rookie salary scale - Part of the reason Pippen signed that extension was that he hadn't really made any money in the NBA when his extension came up, so he took a very low offer. The rookie salary scale now would not allow that to happen. As the fifth pick, Pippen would have made good money in his first three years, and then Chicago would have had to pick up his fourth year option (a no-brainer) followed by handing him a big extension the next summer since he would have qualified for it. That would have probably meant that the Bulls would have had to trade Horace Grant prior to the 1992-93 season to keep Jordan and Pippen teamed up, or move Pippen to keep Grant on the team. And you can forget about luring Rodman and Kukoc while keeping Pippen under the current cap rules.
Needless to say, the current cap makes it basically impossible to build that type of roster. The Bulls would have had to make a decision every couple of years to figure out if they wanted to keep Jordan and Pippen, or Jordan and Grant (or Kukoc, or Rodman). Basically, they would have had to part with a key contributor, and potentially had that key piece show up on a rival roster in the playoffs.
The Last Dance has put a lot of light on that situation. Under current cap rules, I doubt the Bulls win six titles in 8 years. They still probably win four, but I don't think they would have been able to keep their team together long term with today's cap.
About your last point, the Bulls didn't lure Tony Kucoc to Chicago, they drafted him in the second round of the 1990 draft. Kucoc was a draft and stash player before that was as common as it was today.
@Marco said in 2020 Transfer List:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in 2020 Transfer List:
@FarmerJayhawk said in 2020 Transfer List:
I’m kind of a broken record but if we have a spot the Sarr kid from Wake is really intriguing. Watched him a lot in the ACC and he can really play. Gained like 30 pounds before last season and went nuts.
Sarr is a nice player, probably best big man to hit the market so far, but I wouldn't even look at him. He's not better than McCormack, so Sarr would never start at KU barring injury. Then the next issue would be making room for Sarr on the roster which would mean forcing someone else on the roster to transfer to make room. Jossell, Muscadin, or Silvio would be the options there and none of those would be a smart long term option. As hard as Self fought to get Silvio eligibility, it would be a terrible PR look to recruits to pick one year of Sarr over one year of Silvio. Muscadin is the future 5 so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to force Muscadin out for essentially a one year rental and have to try and find another 5 to replace McCormack with unknown sanctions looming.
The most interesting possibility is Latrell Jossell though. Sarr is a better player than Jossell, no argument there. KU is already thin for the future after this season at the 1-2 spots behind Garrett. Jossell is definitely a long term project and if KU were to decide to look elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to do so with someone whose ceiling at KU is a back up 5.
Like I said, Sarr is the best post player to hit market so far IMO, but KU doesn't need him and bringing him would do long term damage to the roster with what KU would have to do to bring him him.
Sarr is someone I see Kentucky making a very strong move in trying to bring in as hard as they went after Haarms.
That being said, if someone had to go I would choose Silvio, he's a bust - mark it. Jossell's 3 point shooting intrigues me. Let's not act like we're holier than thou, coaches can bolt without a minutes notice, as too can now players. If a player does not fit in, it is best for that player to go elsewhere. Silvio's head is not in the game, and KU is not a psychologist.
Sarr would have to sit a year I believe, and then would be a senior when he's eligible so you only get Sarr for one year. That's the key with why KU won't look at him. He wouldn't be at KU beyond McCormack to be the bridge from Dave to Gethro. He's also too good of a player to be a back up at KU, but he's also not better than McCormack so he would be a back up here. Silvio fits that back up role better.
I don't understand what you mean by Silvio's head isn't in the game because what I saw when he came back last season was someone who was still playing too fast because the game hasn't slowed down for him yet because he's still only played about 350 minutes of basketball in 3 years now. That's not his head not being in the game, that's lack of experience which I said before the season was going to be his issue and I don't remember how many people tried calling BS on that one, I do you were one of them however. If Silvio's head wasn't in the game, Self would've booted him from the team after the KSU incident. That incident is exactly the opposite of his head not being in the game, that's a case of him being too involved and letting his emotions get the best of him in the heat of the moment. That shows passion, not disinterest.
The other thing with Silvio is that he's athletic enough that if the light comes on for him, which it will if he gets 12-15 mpg, he's athletic enough to play the 4 and guard on the perimeter so he could play next to Dave if the light comes on.
@FarmerJayhawk said in 2020 Transfer List:
I’m kind of a broken record but if we have a spot the Sarr kid from Wake is really intriguing. Watched him a lot in the ACC and he can really play. Gained like 30 pounds before last season and went nuts.
Sarr is a nice player, probably best big man to hit the market so far, but I wouldn't even look at him. He's not better than McCormack, so Sarr would never start at KU barring injury. Then the next issue would be making room for Sarr on the roster which would mean forcing someone else on the roster to transfer to make room. Jossell, Muscadin, or Silvio would be the options there and none of those would be a smart long term option. As hard as Self fought to get Silvio eligibility, it would be a terrible PR look to recruits to pick one year of Sarr over one year of Silvio. Muscadin is the future 5 so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to force Muscadin out for essentially a one year rental and have to try and find another 5 to replace McCormack with unknown sanctions looming.
The most interesting possibility is Latrell Jossell though. Sarr is a better player than Jossell, no argument there. KU is already thin for the future after this season at the 1-2 spots behind Garrett. Jossell is definitely a long term project and if KU were to decide to look elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to do so with someone whose ceiling at KU is a back up 5.
Like I said, Sarr is the best post player to hit market so far IMO, but KU doesn't need him and bringing him would do long term damage to the roster with what KU would have to do to bring him him.
Sarr is someone I see Kentucky making a very strong move in trying to bring in as hard as they went after Haarms.
@BeddieKU23 said in 2020 Transfer List:
Yikes. Attrition at Wake Forest already commencing. A few weeks back they were over scholarships then Chaundee Brown left. Now with Manning gone they have 9 bodies right now after their best player Oliver Sarr- 7 footer who averaged 13 & 9 last season has decided to transfer. According to him Manning convinced him to come back for his Sr year without testing the NBA draft and now his coach is fired and he's missed the deadline for entering the Draft..
In Sarr's words
I wanted to test the [NBA draft] waters," Sarr told ESPN on Thursday night. "I requested the UAC [Undergraduate Advisory Committee]. I tried to test the waters, then I had a conversation with Coach and he convinced me to stay and get my degree. He had plans for me, I was going to do great things in the ACC, with the team and individually, of course. It was late April, Coach was going to stay. Then, 24-48 hours before the [draft] deadline, Coach got fired. I didn't get the chance to put my name in and change my mind."
"It's actually a tough decision," Sarr said. "I want to give Wake Forest a chance and listen to what he has to say. I'm entering the transfer portal because I want to listen to all the options. I want to be able to pick my own coach, not have one chosen for me."
Not a big fan of how Danny handled that situation. With the rules set up the way they are currently, there's no harm in letting a kid declare and go through the process and get some feedback from scouts what he needed to work on to be successful at the next level because the kid can still withdraw and come back to school after getting the feedback. L
The renewal of the Border War has officially been announced as a 4 game series starting in 2025. The first game will be in Columbia 2025, a return game in Lawrence in 2026. The third and fourth games will be in Columbia in 2031 and Lawrence in 2032.
@Marco said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
@Marco said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
As soon as I saw that story I thought, 'man, until this all came out, I had never really given much thought to the shoe co. connection.' But it is so obvious now, Nike undoubtedly being the biggest culprit.
Bruce Bowen was going to go to Louisville, but who also almost got him? KU - both KU and Louisville being Adidas schools. Who supplied Bowen's AAU team? Adidas. We got Muscadin, but again it came down to Louisville and KU. Who got De Sousa? KU. But who was in the running? Maryland, an Adidas school.
KU was smart to resign with Adidas. Had we signed with Nike or anyone else we would not have, in the future, even gotten so much as even a whiff of a bigtime recruit. What, With Dook, Kentucky and UNC having already established long-term relationships with Nike the top recruits would have gone to one of those three schools, and Adidas would have steered almost all of the other good or even great ones to schools that they supplied apparel to. Just a thought.
Several things here:
Maryland is not an Adidas school which is how Silvio got caught up in this mess in the first place. The payment between shoe co. reps is why Silvio was suspended a season. Maryland is Under Armour's flagship school since that's where their founder went to school the same way Oregon benefits from Nike because of Phil Knight being an alum.
KU was not a finalist for Bowen, the competition was between Louisville, Michigan St. and Texas. Also, Brian Bowen was a much more sought after recruit than Gethro Muscadin is. Bowen was a consensus 5 star recruit while Muscadin is a 3/4* recruit depending on the service. While Louisville offered Muscadin, they were never a serious player for him.
Also, KU would probably be better off in recruiting with Nike because there is a much bigger pool of AAU talent to spread around than there is at Adidas. KU would be a big fish in a big pond at Nike. KU could get just about any top Midwest and west coast recruit they wanted with Nike, while Kentucky, Duke, and UNC split the eastern half of the country. With Adidas, they are a big fish in a little pond that has to share a sometimes too small pond with other top Addias programs.
I stand corrected by saying Maryland is an Adidas scool. I respect your opinion, but disagree that KU should have signed with someone else. Think that we were wise to stay with Adidas.
I only said KU would be better off in recruiting because of the bigger recruiting pool has to offer, never said KU should've signed with Nike. KU Athletics is a for profit business and the goal of a a for profit business is to make as much money as possible. The Adidas deal pays KU a lot more per year than a Nike deal would based off of what Kentucky and North Carolina receive from Nike. KU currently has the 4th richest apparel deal in the NCAA behind UCLA, Louisville, and Texas.
@Marco said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
As soon as I saw that story I thought, 'man, until this all came out, I had never really given much thought to the shoe co. connection.' But it is so obvious now, Nike undoubtedly being the biggest culprit.
Bruce Bowen was going to go to Louisville, but who also almost got him? KU - both KU and Louisville being Adidas schools. Who supplied Bowen's AAU team? Adidas. We got Muscadin, but again it came down to Louisville and KU. Who got De Sousa? KU. But who was in the running? Maryland, an Adidas school.
KU was smart to resign with Adidas. Had we signed with Nike or anyone else we would not have, in the future, even gotten so much as even a whiff of a bigtime recruit. What, With Dook, Kentucky and UNC having already established long-term relationships with Nike the top recruits would have gone to one of those three schools, and Adidas would have steered almost all of the other good or even great ones to schools that they supplied apparel to. Just a thought.
Several things here:
Maryland is not an Adidas school which is how Silvio got caught up in this mess in the first place. The payment between shoe co. reps is why Silvio was suspended a season. Maryland is Under Armour's flagship school since that's where their founder went to school the same way Oregon benefits from Nike because of Phil Knight being an alum.
KU was not a finalist for Bowen, the competition was between Louisville, Michigan St. and Texas. Also, Brian Bowen was a much more sought after recruit than Gethro Muscadin is. Bowen was a consensus 5 star recruit while Muscadin is a 3/4* recruit depending on the service. While Louisville offered Muscadin, they were never a serious player for him.
Also, KU would probably be better off in recruiting with Nike because there is a much bigger pool of AAU talent to spread around than there is at Adidas. KU would be a big fish in a big pond at Nike. KU could get just about any top Midwest and west coast recruit they wanted with Nike, while Kentucky, Duke, and UNC split the eastern half of the country. With Adidas, they are a big fish in a little pond that has to share a sometimes too small pond with other top Addias programs.
@Marco said in 2021 Recruiting:
@FarmerJayhawk said in 2021 Recruiting:
@BShark said in 2021 Recruiting:
@FarmerJayhawk does not look winnable
It looks like, as @jayballer73 astutely pointed out in the 22 thread, we’re going after a different type of guy these days. I think Bill saw what he had last year and was like OH. This could be fun.
And with OAD all but officially over with the new G League contracts it makes sense. We'll still get our Bryce Thompson's and others, but as far as top 10 recruits go I say steer clear. Build the bench and solidify the starting 5 with KC players and the occasional Wichita recruit, as well as adding nationwide ones such as Frank and Devonte (Gethro fitting that mold for next season).
There's not enough local talent to keep KU competitive at a national level. KU would have to land every local player to have any chance at being competitive which isn't going to happen as long as MoKan is the dominant AAU team in the area.
KU lands a local talent every other year on average with varying degrees of success.
KU is a national brand in basketball and with the new rules on players selling themselves, KU needs to market the exposure a potential recruit can get at KU to land top players.
@FarmerJayhawk said in 2020 Transfer List:
WANT. Even if he has to sit we need to replace Marcus in 21-22. You’d like to have a non-Harris option, or you could start all 3 of Harris, F-L, and Bryce. Or play Bryce at point and start Braun at the 3.
I don't think Self is going to completely rule out Braun being the successor to Garrett at PG. Braun ran some point last season and will probably be Garrett's primary back up this season.
@jayhawks2010 said in 2020 Recruiting:
I feel like Kansas just doesn’t have a ton of 5 star kids so if one goes somewhere else, we feel like there is something wrong. We’ve gotten 5 starts from other people’s backyards all the time, it just happens. I think our recruiting has been impacted recently with the adidas thing.
There's not and that's also including the KC Metro area. I believe the last consensus 5 star KU landed that would be considered a local prospect was Brandon Rush.
Since 2002, (as back as Rivals goes), KU has landed the following local players. By local, I'm referring to the state of Kansas and the KC Metro area.
2002: Jeff Graves 3* (Lee's Summit, MO)
2005: Brandon Rush 5* (KCMO)
2006: Brady Morningstar 3* (Lawrence, KS)
2007: Tyrel Reed 3* (Burlington, KS)
2008: Travis Releford 4* (Shawnee Mission, KS)
2012: Perry Ellis 5* (Wichita, KS)
2013: Connor Frankamp 4* (Wichita, KS)
2018: Ochai Agbaji 3* (KCMO)
2019: Christian Braun 3* (Burlington, KS)
If you look at the top players in Kansas most year, Sunrise Academy dominates that list so Kansas definitely doesn't produce much local basketball talent.
@Crimsonorblue22 said in 2020 Recruiting:
We did have that kid from Ottawa. Should've got him?
Semi Ojeleye had pretty strong KSU ties if I'm remembering correctly and played at MoKan when there was no relationship between them and KU because they are Nike. Christian Braun I believe was the first MoKan player KU has ever landed.
I don't recall KU even making an offer for Ojeleye because of his Nike ties.
Another local (KC Metro) 5 star KU never attempted to recruit was Willy Cauley-Stein partly because of character issues at the time and he was also another MoKan player.
@kjayhawks said in Last Dance:
@Texas-Hawk-10 Jordan didn’t have Rodman in 95 and he only played the last few months of the season after baseball went on strike. Orlando won the series 4-2 but 3 of those victories were by a combined 18 points. That was a competitive series and Jordan wasn’t as good right when he came back.
Jordan was Jordan by the time the playoffs rolled around. Teams with dominant big men always gave Jordan's Bulls issues because Chicago never had a quality big man to go up against other dominant bigs like Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, and Robinson. The only change that would've happened had Jordan come back sooner is Chicago gets the 2 seed and lose to Orlando in the ECF instead of the second round.
Even if Chicago had won the east that year, they still wouldn't have beaten Houston in the Finals that season because the Rockets were a better team than the previous season's team by that point. Olajuwon was healthy, the chemistry issues with Drexler were resolved and Houston dominated two 60 win teams in the playoffs that season in Utah and San Antonio and swept Orlando with Olajuwon absolutely schooling both league MVP David Robinson and Shaq in back to back series.
@kjayhawks said in Last Dance:
Crazy to think that the Bulls really came close to winning a few more titles in the 90s. Obviously anything can happen with what ifs. But man if Pippen is healthy in the 1990 eastern conference finals, the Bulls win it and the title with ease against Portland. Then MJs dad getting murdered and him playing baseball for 18 months. A good Magic team knocked them out in the 95 eastern conference finals but people forget MJ didn’t come back til the middle of March of that season. I still think their 6 of 8 is the best dynasty in modern sports (Celtics won 11 of 15 and 8 in a row in the 50s and 60s). That’s before you consider they could’ve brought back most of the 98 team. I really miss the NBA from the 80s and 90s. Teams played defense and stars didn’t take off several games for rest. The mental and physical toughness of the game is light years ahead of the touch fouls and circus today.
Bulls weren't winning any more titles even if Jordan never left. Rockets still would've won in '94 because Chicago never had an answer for Olajuwon and Houston had a great record against Chicago during that time because Chicago didn't have an answer for Olajuwon. That's why New York and Orlando were Chicago's biggest challengers in the East in the early and mid 90's. Ewing and Shaq were dominant big men and Shaq did beat Jordan in '95.
@BeddieKU23 said in 2020 Recruiting:
No Different then Myles Turner & Jarrett Allen before him
Happens at Oklahoma as well occasionally when they produce a 5 star like Blake Griffin and Trae Young.
@BeddieKU23 said in 2020 Recruiting:
Texas 8-10 conference record with a OAD.
He is local so it's not that weird for him to end up there. 5 stars staying local does happen on a semi regular basis.
@JAYHAWKFAN214 said in Danny Manning fired:
@wrwlumpy said in Danny Manning fired:
Danny needs to be here when Towsand gets hit by the NCAA !Capture.PNG ↗
How do we know that towsand is going to get hit by the NCAA
No guarantee, but based on all of the Gasnola testimony, KT was the connection for a lot of the accused violations so he's the most likely fall guy if the NCAA tries to hammer KU.
@focojayhawk Yes, but Connor Frankamp's wasn't too far in the past and Ballock was ranked in the same range as Frankamp and was afraid he wasn't good enough to play at KU.
He would've been a nice piece at KU, but I think there's a possibility of that he was right about needing to be a smaller school because he is a pretty one dimensional player.
Adeniji was the first pick of the 6th round (180th overall) to the Cincinnati Bengals.
Assumption is that he'll end up moving inside to one of the guard spots.
I'm surprised Danny didn't get fired the day after Wake lost their ACC tournament game against Pitt.