🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@HighEliteMajor You did lose me for a bit when I believe you recommended we take a page from Missouri. The '11-'12 MU team that lost to Norfolk St. Missouri. I've reported this to the site administrators, as obviously someone has hacked the account of HEM. Missouri?

Really, I get the desire to make sure Greene gets on the court. The problem I think is as you stated, can Greene guard the opposing 4. Also, while not as talented as Greene, I'm a big fan of Jamari Traylor. He's improved by pretty substantial leaps since coming to KU. If he makes another leap, he might close that talent gap. At the very least, we know he brings an equal amount of athleticism, while lacking in skill. I'm also reserving judgment on Mickelson. Until I see him, I don't know that not giving him minutes is preferable to giving them to Greene (or Oubre) in the post.

Playing small is I think something Self should have in the bag. But then again, there's a lot of things over the years that I've thought should be available to use when circumstances dictate, yet we rarely see Self stray from his in-game formula.

@Statmachine Well as long as you know you read it...

LOL. Just messing with you. It sounds like a plus/minus stat to me. I mean, "at their worst" to me can only mean in terms of how much the team outscores their opponent.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/individual-player-plus-minus-statistics/2013/ ↗

According to this, Bosh actually led the Heat in terms of plus/minus, coming in at +448 over the course of the whole year, or 5.7/game. Lebron was second coming at +409 or 5.3/game. Chalmers was third, at +304 or 4.2/game.

Of course many statisticians find the plus/minus stat to be heavily flawed. So take that for what it's worth.

I tried a google search for anything I could think of to find your Chalmers reference. Came up empty. Even if true, we should probably look at it like the plus/minus stat. I think your instincts are correct when you would think they'd be worse with Lebron out. If it's not, does that say more about the players or more about the flaw in the stat?

@drgnslayr His agent is Jeff Schwartz, the president & founder of Excel Sports Management. He also represents Livingston, Devan Harris, Jerryd Bayless among 2014 free agent point guards. Paul Pierce, Michael Beasley, Charlie Villanueva, & Emeka Okafor are his big name non-PG free agent clients this off-season.

And you are right, it is possible the if the Heat want another position player to carry more of the load they could look to Chalmers. Again, my only thing is if they thought he was that good, Norris Cole's minutes wouldn't be what they are. But it is possible. I think he has it in him to be more of a contributor.

@drgnslayr You could be right. Or guys could be like Ray Allen, who was a superstar but took less money and a reduced role to chase championships.

There's also the possibility that as Wade in particular enters the twilight of his career the Heat might need a player at another position to shoulder a bit more of the load. We've seen that with some of the Spurs extra pieces having to pick up the slack for an aging core of superstars.

Don't get me wrong, I think Chalmers is important to the Heat. He fills his role perfectly. But that role might change. I also don't think anyone is irreplaceable. The model franchises historically are the ones that cut ties with players when they want more money than the franchise thinks they're worth. Whether they are role players or stars. Moonwalk threw out Albert Pujols. The Cardinals don't overpay for anybody. The New England Patriots are the same.

I really don't think Cole can outright replace Chalmers. But he's there and the Heat obviously feel confident in his abilities. So they wouldn't even need to find a star PG if they decide to let Mario walk. They would only need to find another complimentary piece to maintain the status quo. Someone to play a little more than half the game as Chalmers is now. To me that's one of indicators in what might happen here - Mario's playing time. How much do they pony up beyond what they're giving him now for what I would consider pretty low floor time for a starter?

@jaybate 1.0 It sure would be nice if that was the case.

Sadly, I think you are overestimating Mario's worth (and again, please, nobody take this as a knock on him or me hating on him or whatever). My guess is if Mario tried that play, Riley looks at him, looks at Norris Cole who already cutting into Mario's time pretty heavily, and let's Chalmers walk. There's only a small handful of teams without an established PG, which will likely shrink after the draft when franchises put their money on Dante Exxum or Marcus Smart. Also consider the other free agent PGs hitting the market this year that they could either likely get cheaper - Shaun Livingston, Eric Bledsoe, Isaiah Thomas - or possibly upgrade for not that much more money - could they pry Kyle Lowry from Toronto? - and it's murky at best. Riley will have options. So if Chalmers tries to play hardball with Riley, he ends up with the Pelicans or the Magic or one of the other very small handful of scrub teams that are willing to pay more than Miami to bring Chalmers in as the starter. And we'll all shake our collective heads.

@MoonwalkMafia Asinine? Stupid? Pointless? Really?

It's not pointless. No I wasn't lobbying for a fantasy draft. It provides a context for the question of if he should leave (which is what this entire thread was started for). To do that, we need an understanding of how good Chalmers is compared to other players at his position. It helps us understand how sought after his services might be on the open market. That's not "bashing him". That is reality. Is he good enough to go to a team where he is counted on to do more? Would that be in his best interest, or would it be detrimental to his career in the long run? Comparing him to his counterparts is a good way to do that.

I'm happy he's won rings. I'm happy he's found his niche. I don't care that he's not the best PG in the NBA. But he's in a contract year and it's reasonable to speculate on if he should leave, and to weigh the pros and cons.

A big pro is that he has a contributing role on the Heat, and should they stay together and avoid significant decline due to aging they likely have a shot at more rings.

It was brought up that should he have the chance to play elsewhere for more money, should he leave, having already won NBA titles? This is a tougher question to answer. I brought up how good he is because it could affect how many more contracts he gets. If he leaves for more money and underperforms due to increased expectations, does he get another contract? It is not "asinine" to speculate on that possibility.

And lastly, yes as fans we often think it's "silly" to leave one situation for more money. It's easy for us to shrug off millions of dollars. I get your point, that we want what's best perception-wise for KU. But if Mario leaves to better set up himself and his family, best of luck to him.

@ralster You say you want Lebron to make a run at the record books. Do you mean in terms of individual achievements or titles?

I'm just not a fan of Lebron and the Heat. The way they were put together. I actually didn't have a problem with Lebron leaving Cleveland. They had failed to put a competent team around him for years. Quick - who's the best player to play with Lebron during his Cavalier years? Um...Um...right. But the whole conspiring a year before his free agency, and bringing a 2nd guy in with Bosh...it's just seedy. They basically created a situation where teams have to try and match them with their own "big 3". An arms race of sorts. And thus we go into every season knowing there's 2 or 3 teams tops that have a realistic chance to compete for the championship. That would be fine if it was just because Lebron was the best player on the planet (which he is), as it was when Jordan was dominating the league. But that's not the reason why. Build a team? I don't know, seems to me more like they cherry picked their way through the league's all-stars and bought one. Nothing against it, rules-wise. As you said, Riley has done his job masterfully.

So yeah, the Heat and 2 or 3 contenders every year. Great if you're a fan of one of those teams, or if you just like your superstars, but bad for the league in my opinion. I'll be rooting for the Spurs. A team that yes, has it's own PTPers, but the real genius is in their execution of the game. Even Duncan, who may be the greatest PF ever, isn't overly dependent on superior athletic gifts. "The Big Fundamental". Really hoping he and Pop cement their place as the greatest post-Jordan dynasty, and not the all-star assembled Heat.

@VailHawk Yes he's had a couple of big games in the finals. But you say put him on another team and he could average 15-18 ppg. The flip side is, put him on another team where teams don't have to game plan defensively for Lebron, Wade, & Bosh and how does he do? We don't know, but the point is he certainly benefits in Miami from being able to fly under the radar.

Really, if you were an NBA GM picking a point guard, would Mario be in the top 10? Surely not. Bottom 10? Probably not? Middle 10...yeah that's probably right. Hence = average.

Westbrook, Rondo, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Tony Parker, Kyrie Irving, Derek Rose, John Wall, Stephen Curry, Damien Lillard, Kemba Walker...that's 11 easy off the top of my head. Then out of the group of Ty Lawson, Ricky Rubio, Michael Carter-Williams, Mike Conley, Kendall Marshall, Trey Burke, Brandon Knight...a few of those are probably better than Mario too.

So I stand by my statement that he is a fairly average NBA player.

@Crimsonorblue22 Hmm. Maybe. I don't follow the NBA that closely, but I always got the impression that Mario was part of the "cool clique" within the circle of Heat players. I thought he & Lebron were cool. But I could be dead wrong. Idk

@Crimsonorblue22 How is he treated?

@HawkInMizery It's an interesting decision, which ironically I don't think has anything to do with winning more championships.

Chalmers is a guy who I believe could have just as easily found himself in the D-league and out of basketball within a few years had he not landed in the perfect spot. Put Chalmers in the position of say...Tyshawn Taylor. Comes in and is behind an all-star caliber point guard (in Tyshawn's case Deron Williams) and another established NBA vet backing him up. Has Mario really shown anything in his NBA career to lead us to believe he would have forced his way onto the court in that situation, especially early in his career? The NBA is so much about circumstance & opportunity for it's non-star players. So instead Chalmers lands with the Heat, and only has to beat out Chris Quinn. The Heat never invest in a PG upgrade, so throughout his career he's only had to contend with the likes of Carlos Arroyo & Norris Cole for playing time. And his mediocrity is not only overlooked, but often embraced. The Heat only ask that he isn't a liability. He doesn't bear the responsibility of having to be a net plus. The only things Mario has to do is what he's already good at - keep the defense honest by shooting a respectable (if not great) percentage from behind the arc, and play solid (again, if not great) defense.

So should he leave that? Depends on who is offering I guess. If he goes to the wrong situation, he could be exposed. At age 28, if he signs a 4-5 year deal and disappoints, could that mean the end of his NBA career? Not outside the realm of possibility.

However...if this is likely his last chance at a decent sized contract before entering the twilight years of his career, should he not seek to maximize it and set himself and his family up as well as possible?

Also to consider is the make-up of the Heat going forward. Wade is really aging and is a shell of his former self. There is talk that Lebron could leave for Cleveland (maybe not a great chance, but there is talk). So Mario will likely have to look at the Heat situation and determine whether that will still be the perfect fit for him in the future.

And I hope this doesn't come off as Mario-bashing. I loved the guy at KU, and am very happy that he was able to find his niche in the league. I just think at the end of the day, he's a fairly average NBA player, and those guys are always at risk for either someone better coming along and taking their job or someone who is also average but cheaper coming along and thus becoming a salary cap casualty.

@JayHawkFanToo Yeah. It was too easy to shoot holes through.

Like I say, Perry is not built to play the 4 as it is traditionally played at a high D-1 level. It's not a cop out. If anything, as slayr perfectly illustrated, I think it's a cop out on Self's part to just say "soft" instead of finding ways to maximize the talent of his personnel.

@drgnslayr I couldn't disagree with you more.

Your example isn't even a very good one. Yes Charles Barkley is shorter than Ellis. But what was Barkley's nickname? The round mound of rebound. Emphasis on round. He was a wide body who could throw his butt around and move guys. Look at Perry. Can you honestly tell me that is a guy who is built for a 4? No way.

Pointing out the exception (Barkley) does nothing to disprove the logic that post players generally need to be taller & thicker to succeed. If you don't think that, start advocating to play Selden in the post. I mean, he's probably Barkley's height, so he should have a HOF NBA career as a power forward, right?

@drgnslayr @nuleafjhawk @HighEliteMajor

The "problem" with Perry, if there is a problem to be pointed out, is that he is a tweener. For a high-level D1 program, he's an undersized post player. I mean, Wiggins is just as tall and has a longer wingspan and standing reach, but could we imagine trying to make him play the 4 regularly? Surely not. I can't envision Perry having an NBA career as a post player.

However, early on he was pegged as an interior player throughout middle school & high school. It's the case with a great number of players who are tall. They are the tallest on their team, therefore go stand under the basket and we'll throw it into you. So that's where his skill set grew the most. He was afforded some chances to handle the ball, shoot outside, etc. in high school, but by and large he developed as a post player.

So he comes to KU, and it is a little bit of the same thing. His greatest chance for minutes at the 3 thus far in his Jayhawk career was during his freshman year. There wasn't an embarrassment of riches in terms of wing players. There was Releford, and that was pretty much it (all apologies to AW3). However, we were thin in the post with only Withey & KY, so he got all his minutes backing up those two. Then last year we have Wiggins & Greene, and going forward we look pretty stacked on the wing with Greene, Oubre, & Svi. So Perry will keep plugging along in the post.

And when I say "it is a little bit of the same thing", the difference is in high school he could have played the 3 and likely been the best at that position of anybody on the team. At KU, he's not seeing time there because there are better players at that position than him.

At any rate, I see a great many posters apologizing for guys like EJ, Tharpe, etc. by saying they weren't natural PGs and they were playing out of position. With Perry, while the post may be his "natural" position in that that's where he honed his skills the most, his tweener body type has and likely will continue to limit him from being a prototypical post player.

So he is not going to be a prototypical post player. He can still be largely successful using his skills. He very well could lead the team in scoring next year. But he is never going to be TRob or one of the Morris Twins. If you're expecting him to, that's really on you. He isn't going to be the guy that bangs away and averages 10+ rebounds per game. He's not going to be able to defend guys like Cameron Ridley without giving ground. There are games where he is going to be physically overmatched. If Self is going to play him in the post, it is up to him to game-plan and compensate for that.

@drgnslayr Where this kind of thing scares me the most is when I consider the climate of collegiate athletics 5-10 years down the road (if that long). Considering all the things that are being thrown around lately - paying college athletes, unionizing, etc. - I think the situation is at risk to go very far down hill very quickly if things aren't done right. You ask what is left to develop, the only thing I can think of is the benefits offered to the players themselves.

@truehawk93 You mention Dooley & "Dunk City". I read an article on him and their program mid-season this year. He actually has tried to keep that high-flying offense, at least while he can, while also instilling some measure of order to their offense and discipline to their defense. The thing with them is that they were (and still are) such a small, young program and they tied so much of their identity into that one tourney run and catch phrase. They couldn't afford to abandon that outright after all the marketing they'd done with it to up enrollment, attendance, booster donations, etc. I'm sure that was made clear to Dooley when they interviewed him.

I am a huge Brad Stevens fan and I think you're right on the money when you say he may be the future of NBA coaches. What I mean by that is that Stevens is a well documented stat & metrics guy. He said he would often times scout other teams as much by their stats, metrics, & tendencies as much if not more than he would watch them on film. This ties right in with an article I read on Grantland entitled "Databall" where the NBA is really in its infancy of analyzing a mountain of new statistical data that assigns value to nearly every movement on the court. Not to simplify it too much, but think of the movie "Moneyball" and how Billy Beane & Co. began using various statistical methods to their advantage. Stevens could be that figure in the NBA to usher in the use of new analytics into the coaching game.

Jay Wright - he might be on the list, but is one final four in 13 years or whatever it is at Villanova enough?

Gregg Marshall - you may be right on the recruiting angle, although both you and I (as well as many others) are big fans of Brad Stevens. Do you know how many top 100 kids he got to come to Butler? If my research is correct: One - Kellen Dunham. #79 ranked SG of the 2012 class out of Pendleton, IN (so he got a local kid less than 50 miles from Butler to commit). So...are we holding Marshall to a double standard?

@nuleafjhawk Oh I agree 100% that WSU plays weaker competition than KU or Self's Illinois teams.

But what do we value more? We talk for years about tournament disappointments.

And you can try and devalue their run last year by saying it was because they were under the radar, but they were playing in the Final 4 and we weren't. End of story.

This year, they did lose to the first good team they played. To the eventual national runner-ups full of McDonald's all-Americans and future NBA pros. In what most unbiased fans and analysts agree was the best, most competitive game of the tournament. We lost to Stanford. Do they even qualify as a good team? Was there shame in losing to Kentucky? No. Was there shame in us losing to Stanford? You bet.

@nuleafjhawk The only thing I'd say is that Marshall accomplished something at Wichita St. that Self never did before coming to KU (and not until his 5th year at KU), and that is making a Final 4. How do you weigh that versus Self's 3 years at Illinois (which would be the only job he had that would place him above Wichita St.)? I wouldn't write him off based on us not thinking much of Wichita St.

@JayHawkFanToo That's pretty much my thinking on Roberts. Although who knows, he may have just run into bad luck at St. John's and could be a good head coach if given another shot. I don't want to sell him too short and judge him too harshly on that one opportunity, but I definitely don't think he has the pedigree to be considered at a place like Florida.

As for when Self retires, you say the list will certainly include the top active coaches. To that I would say we'll have to wait and see. That's not a referendum on KU (it is a prime destination), but more so on the state of the top coaches. Consider if Self retired today: my list of the top active coaches are Izzo, Coach K, Calipari, Donovan, Pitino. How many of those would be on KU's list? My guess is maybe Donovan, and that's it. Coach K is too old and approaching retirement age, nor would he ever leave Duke anyway. Pitino is getting up there as well. Izzo wouldn't leave Mich St. I can't see Calipari leaving Kentucky either. My point is the top active college coaches are usually at destinations that they wouldn't consider leaving.

You're probably looking at having to drop down to the next tier, as KU did when they tabbed Self. It's really slim pickings there right now too, at least in terms of who I would think would be considered. Sean Miller or Jay Wright (who I'm not big fans of) maybe? John Beilein (getting up there)? Marshall or Smart (would their mid-major success translate to high-major?)? Josh Pastner?

Honestly right now it's kind of a scary proposition as to who would replace Self if we had to do it right now. Not an abundance of attractive options and the most desirable ones from inside the coaching tree (Manning) might not be ready.

And college basketball is getting ready to have many of it's marquee jobs open up. Duke & Syracuse figure to be next, with UNC, Louisville, & Michigan not too far behind (all coaches in their 60s).

The college landscape will be vastly different assuming Self coaches another 10 years or so. We struck gold with our last 3 coaches, drawing from very different places each time. We can only hope the administration can do the same again, whenever that time comes.

@truehawk93 I actually don't think Roberts would make a very good candidate. That isn't to say he might not make a good coach for them, but as a candidate I think his resume is unspectacular. His head coaching stint at St. Johns was not overly successful. He is part of the KU coaching staff that is in the midst of its greatest recruiting years, but that credit is pretty well spread around (Townsend, Howard, obviously Self, the university itself). And much like the NBA likes young players with unknown potential, the more desirable coaching gigs are likely to attract coaches with more upside; the up-and-comers. I just don't know that there's anything about Roberts that distinguishes him above other candidates.

The Florida situation is intriguing. Florida is in the next tier of top schools just under the blue bloods. Mark Titus lists the Florida job as one of the top 3 in the country (along with Ohio St. & Texas) because they are so overshadowed by the football programs that there is substantially reduced pressure, yet the basketball programs enjoy much of the advantages you would expect at the top tier schools - facilities, ability to pay coaches top salaries, recruiting fertility, significant booster backing, national exposure, etc.

Given that Florida likely has the ability to pull a top coach, I'm very curious to see what direction they'll go in should the position open up. Do they try and grab one of the hot names such as Smart, Marshall, or even Mike White? Or do they look for someone more established at another high-major program, perhaps Jay Wright? I don't know their assistant coach situation, perhaps there is someone on staff that is the likely successor. Or do they look to other top assistants (Damon Stoudamire's name was thrown around a lot recently)?

While the Florida job does intrigue me, any search for a candidate at Kansas would be unique. If Self coaches as long as most fans would like him to, a lot of the candidates being thrown around today will likely be too old. The prospect of Manning manning the sidelines at AFH is exciting, but he's close to Self's age. How many more years could we expect out of him if Self stays until retirement age? Dooley & Roberts as well, and Townsend is even older than them all. Jerrance Howard might be an interesting choice though. He'll have to get out and get some D-1 head coaching experience, but he's really the only one in the Self coaching tree that will be young enough (timing contingent).

Jacque Vaughn? We've seen how Hoiberg transitioned from the pro game to college without any college coaching experience. Could Vaughn do the same? Perhaps.

As has been speculated before, it is likely that the university president, chancellor, & AD have a list at the ready in case the unexpected happens. It would be interesting to get a look at that today and see what it looks like.

@DoubleDD My mistake. I failed to see in the article from the link you provided stated the 60% figure. I simply scrolled to the examples due to the title of the article.

I still think much of your premise is misguided, as again I point to your original statement about $100k/year jobs. You asked for a link, so here's mine:

http://naceweb.org/s09042013/salary-survey-average-starting-class-2013.aspx ↗

$45k/year. That's the average salary for a college graduate, which is less than half of your $100k/year example.

You also seem to think that I am bagging getting an education. That's not the case. My point, repeatedly and without answer, has been that you can always get that education. You can always go back. It's not reserved for athletes you know? You are really never at risk for that being unavailable.

You are, however, at risk to lose money by not going pro when the system & structure say you should. That might not be fair, but you hit on something in your initial post that rings true, and that is that the NBA drafts on potential. Teams are so afraid of missing out on the next Lebron, Kobe, etc. The longer kids stay in the college game, the less they are being drafted on potential and the more they are a known quantity. So more times than not the player with potential will be drafted ahead of the known quantity. If this was not the case, Doug McDermott would be the hands down #1 pick, right? He has had the most success (individually) at the college level. But teams know what he can do, where as Wiggins, Embiid, Parker, etc. there is the potential that they can do better than McDermott. So if I was an advisor, would I tell Wiggins to come back for 3 years and finish his degree or would I tell him to turn pro and be one of the top 3 picks? I would tell him to go pro.

And all of this talk about not going pro when the system says you are supposed to does nothing to address the risk of injury. Is it as great a risk of losing all your rookie money? No, but it's a risk nonetheless.

Something else I've advocated here is that you try and fix the problem. Education about how to spend their money; about how to say "no" to everybody from their past with their hands out. Use some of these broke former players. Have them come in and try and hammer the reality home. Even the link you provided offered the same advice: "If you’re a student athlete with pro potential, “Financial Analysis 101″ & “Child Support 101A” should be required classes." This is the kind of education that I think we should focus on.

After all this I feel we may indeed remain at odds. Regarding your olive branch I will say this: deal. And tomorrow I'll use some of that cash to enroll in classes to finish my degree. Because, again, I can always go back.

P.S. I've never bought a lottery ticket in my life. Poor tax as I call it.

@DoubleDD So if I'm to understand your premise, it's that you assume players will lose the money they make from their first contract. Am I understanding that correctly? I'm drawing this conclusion from your "what good does it...only to lose it all?" question, and later from your "the odds of a person..." declarative statement.

Your "ask yourself" scenario precludes only two possible scenarios, one in which conveniently suits your narrative. Obviously anyone who loses all their money is in the worse situation. You haven't provided any data or facts to back up your statement that "the odds of a person who has never had that much cash is going to lose it." Gut instinct? Intuition? You provided a link with a few examples of NBA players who lost their money. The funny thing is, those aren't the players that you're really talking about. Those were guys that "made it", that got a second (or a third) contract in the NBA. Their basketball skills were enough, they had every business declaring for the draft. And did you check how many of them had degrees? Scottie Pippen for example was on the list. He played all 4 years of college ball. Latrell Sprewell, Derrick Coleman, Vin Baker, Rick Mahorn...all players on the list that went to college for 4 years. Their education didn't stop them from making bad decisions. They have it to fall back on though, which I'm sure is a huge comfort to them.

It just seems like the only thing you're advocating is staying in school because you think it is a better path to financial success. Either that, or just not giving the players so much money because you think they'll blow it. I guess we should just let the billionaire owners keep it huh?

@DoubleDD I do agree with your sentiment about the kids that feel pressured to go before they'd like (Embiid seems to be a classic example). I mean, what life could possibly be better than a star basketball player in a town like Lawrence?

I guess where the disconnect comes from a few things:

1) The money made by a rookie contract versus that of a college education. You talk about 3 million over 30 years (which again, assumes a $100k year salary average that is highly doubtful given the degrees athletes typically are working towards and/or eventually attain). That's not the "same money" as a rookie contract. Maybe you've moved off this since your initial post, but to try and convince a kid that is a lock for the first round that he should stay in school based on your logic that he can make $3 million over 30 years is a tough sell.

2) So let's say the kid who signed the rookie contract also made 3 million (this is a close average of all the first round contracts, and assuming casting aside the third year team option) in 2 years. To me this is a simple case of doing the math. The kid has made as much in 2 years as he would in 30 (again, based on your initial example), and now has an additional 28 years to build upon that total. Now he can go back to school, and everything earned after is gravy.

To put it another way, what if we weren't talking about basketball. What if we were talking about some kid in a computer science discipline that after a year or two showed such promise that Apple was offering him a salary for 2 years that would otherwise take him 30 years to make? Would we be talking about how he should stay in school and how if he doesn't it's because the concept of "hard work" is from another time?

I agree that having a college degree is a worthwhile endeavor. My point all along has been that you can get that degree at any time. After your playing days, during your playing days, etc. But the window to play professional basketball is not something that will always be there.

@DoubleDD Actually I pretty much restricted my comments to players who were drafted in the first round, hence my repeated mention of guaranteed contracts. I made one reference to a second round draft choice. One. And that was Mario Chalmers.

Again, I will redirect you to the point that you seem to be missing, and that is that a career as a professional basketball player and a college education are not mutually exclusive. Why begrudge a person a chance to play basketball when that window is very small, whereas the opportunity to earn a degree is pretty much open for life?

Not sure what your link was supposed to prove. Yes, athletes lose millions. But is that because they weren't ready to play basketball for a living, or is it because they made poor lifestyle choices? Do you think a college education precludes you from making bad lifestyle choices?

And no, I didn't disagree with everything you said. I particularly liked your first bit about kids supporting their families. Players supporting more than themselves (usually in the form of their friends/posse/entourage) is a major reason why many athletes go broke. But I guess I did nitpick my way through your post, as it seemed to not have a clear direction, except to say...stay in school, you'll do better...?

@DoubleDD I like a few of your points, but here are some that I disagree with or take issue with:

• "Do you realize that a person making a 100k a year will gross 3 million in 30 years? At 200k a year that number grows to 6 million in 30 years. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? Is earning 10 million (before taxes and other costs) in 4 years better than earning a lifestyle that can give you the same money but so much more?"

Here you act like a college degree guarantees a 100k or 200k per year salary. I don't know the statistics, but it seems like a college degree isn't what it used to be. I don't have a degree although I went to college, and I work with a lot of people doing the same job who have a degree. And trust me, we aren't raking in 100k! And let's face it, the degrees that the kids you're talking about are working towards, the kids declaring for the draft, those aren't exactly the Matt Kleinsman architecture degrees or Tyrel Reed physical therapy degrees. Communications, African-American studies, general studies, etc. These aren't guaranteed paycheck degrees by any stretch. There's also the "clustering" phenomena, which is basically athletes being directed toward and grouped together by the university into certain disciplines that allow them the freedom to also play college hoops. So while it is honorable to attain a degree (I wish I did), we shouldn't pretend that it's the road to the same money and a better lifestyle than just one guaranteed rookie contract.

• "More times than not a player declares for the NBA draft when they have no business doing so."

It depends on what you mean by them having no business doing so. Sure there are examples that spring to mind of players who tried and failed - Josh Selby, locally (Wichita) Korleone Young about 15 years or so - but if you can land in the first round and get that guaranteed contract, I think it's a wise idea. At KU I can only think of one other time (besides Selby) that a player declared early and then didn't land in the first round with a guaranteed contract, and that is Mario Chalmers who went in the second round. And that's worked out not too bad for him. I know that using only KU players as a sample is not ideal, but it's what I can speak intelligently about. I would have to look at the numbers of kids who declare for the draft annually, but unless the numbers are more than double the number of NBA teams, it seems inaccurate to say "more times than not". If half or more of the kids declaring for the draft end up with guaranteed contracts, I'd say they had business doing so.

• "How many kids chased the money and ended up with nothing?"

I don't know. Is it a lot? Do you have some examples to point to? We hear a lot about athletes in all sports who played professionally but squandered their riches, but is this because they weren't ready to play at that level or because they lived a lifestyle beyond their means? I would guess the latter (for some reason former St. Louis Cardinal slugger Jack Clark always springs to mind), and that really has nothing to do with the current system. I also think a lot of the cases we hear about are older players from past generations when the contracts were not as lavish as they are now.

• "However a lot of kids can have a degree to depend on if their basketball skills aren't good enough."

Here my issue is that you've created an either/or scenario, in that kids can either choose to declare for the NBA or pursue their degree. Kids can still work on their degree and play professional basketball. We're seeing it now with Ben McLemore.

• "However put a lower amount of pay you can receive for your first or second years of play. Let your 3rd year be the money year."

I'm not sure what changing the structure of a guaranteed contract would accomplish. Assuming the third year is still guaranteed, I don't see this as much of a deterrent.

Selfishly, I agree that the system is not working to the benefit of the fans. The rash of players leaving early has depleted the talent pool of both the NBA and the college game. But it's like you say: if the money is there...

As for the players themselves and their money, I think better education from the leagues (in all sports) is key to them not squandering money. I know both the NBA and NFL have programs in place that attempt to educate their players about the pitfalls of their new-found wealth.

@JayHawkFanToo Admittedly I don't keep up on the NBA, so I didn't even know the Maloofs weren't the owners anymore. Did the transition happen within the past year? Because I'm near 100% positive it was the old regime when they drafted and misused TRob.

The worst part is that he is in Sacramento. That franchise is garbage. I was so happy when TRob got out of there.

@Crimsonorblue22 I thought CF played average defense. Not as good as Mason (although I think Mason's defensive reputation comes largely from one play, the block/strip of Nash at the end of the Okie St. game), but he showed good instincts & effort; he was almost always in the right place. I always watched both Mason & CF on defense, particularly when they subbed in for Tharpe. You could always immediately see the difference. Even when they got beat, it wasn't as maddening because they didn't have, as HEM would say, the "whipped puppy" look that Tharpe had.

@ralster From the time knowing you on these boards and on kusports.com, I know you value the physical qualities. You like L&A guards. You like muscular players. In an everything created equal world, yes those are tremendous advantages to have and players with those qualities should take precedence over all others. You can't teach length and athleticism. And muscle can be difficult to put on, especially in the right places.

However, at some point we have to make room for skill & basketball IQ. That is where Connor Frankamp gains the advantage. If this were track I'd agree, Connor is an MVC caliber player. But basketball is more about skill and the mental aspect than simply being a freakish athlete. Ask yourself, in March would you rather have the 5 best athletes on the court, or the 5 most skilled basketball players?

Now where this becomes perhaps a simple academic discussion is when we look at what Self is likely to prefer. Tough to say. On the one hand, we know he covets the things you can't teach, because his ego tells him he can make good basketball players out of athletes. The Al Davis syndrome. We saw this with Tyshawn for years. The classic Self quote "He'll make plays that you just can't coach, then he'll make plays that you wonder if he has ever been coached." Did Tyshawn ever really "get it"? Senior year, particularly when conference play started, he played as good as any guard in the country. But was that due to him finally making smart basketball plays, or was it due to him finally finishing more shots at the rim and his trey gun improving?

On the other hand, we've seen Self go with the smart play. Playing Brady for years over guys like EJ & Releford. Brady was fairly average in the athleticism department. But he had a few simple things that made him a Self favorite. Things that some posters liked to mock (his entry passes to the post being one), which is pretty laughable, until you see the next guy throw it out of bounds or right into the hand of the defender.

Personally, I think CF should be the starting PG to start next year. To me, that wouldn't be a "surprise". I don't think he should be looking for a "niche". The comparison of Frankamp to the Downs-Rush situation is not a very good one in my opinion. As you stated, Rush had a good 3pt shot, and he was bigger and could defend. So basically the one plus Downs had in his bag, the 3pt shot, was matched by Rush and then he was "outclassed". But when you put Frankamp up against say Mason, you don't get the trey gun, or the basketball IQ, or the propensity to take care of the ball from Mason. So while Mason is bigger (bulk), stronger, faster than Frankamp, he doesn't also match Frankamp's strengths the way Rush matched those of Downs.

Of course who knows what improvements the players will have shown come November? Mason may have closed the gap with an improved outside shot. He may show more maturity when valuing the basketball. Or Connor may add 10 lbs of muscle to his frame and show quicker footwork on his defense. My point is, if the next season started right after the Stanford game, my vote would have been for Frankamp to run the team.

At least one NCAA tournament game turns into a street fight and when that happens, you better have those guys around to push back.

@justanotherfan Perhaps, but based on the most recent NCAA tournament, Self prefers CF. And for good reason. Frankamp stepped up and performed, whereas Mason (and obviously Tharpe) did not. Frankamp outscored Mason 22-4.

So while you may need a street fight guy for a game in the NCAA tournament, that clearly didn't translate to success for Mason. To me it spoke volumes that after a full season, Self had more confidence in CF when the going got tough.

Also on the international front, saw that Iowa State signed a 7 footer from Greece that plays on their national team. Not sure I'll believe it though until he plays a year at some other university then decides to transfer to ISU :)

@brooksmd I agree. I'm not a fan of lowering the shot clock to 30 seconds.

@HighEliteMajor I too wonder what Greene is thinking, as well as Connor & Mason. While SM might not cut their minutes directly, the ripple effect certainly does. This was my fear all along.

I think for Greene, best case scenario is a red shirt, then hope that both Selden & Oubre turn pro next year. That would open things up for him to start at the 3, with SM being a very tall 2.

The nightmare scenario for him would be if he red shirts and neither Selden nor Oubre turn pro. In which case he burned a year of eligibility for nothing.

What does everyone think about him staying home for the summer? I remember when Wiggins announced everybody was worried about him staying in Canada to play with the national team, then praised him for coming early to KU. Is everyone going to brush off this kid staying in the Ukraine this summer (as Self appears to have done)?

Now my hopes are that one of the players (CF, Mason, Greene) this kid will be siphoning minutes from will red-shirt as opposed to transfer.

I agree that it may be to Connor's advantage to RS and take time to really develop, grow, and improve his skills. Why not?

@truehawk93 You answered your own question later in the post. You don't want to redshirt if a transfer is a possibility. If he redshirts then later decides to transfer, he burns a year of eligibility. That is why he might be hesitant to take a RS. He might look at the situation and his competition - Mason & Graham - both of whom will likely be on the team for most if not all of his eligibility, and decide he wants to have 3 years eligibility someplace else.

I would also disagree with the statement "we all know his skill sets are lacking." I would agree that he is less athletic than his competition. But skills - ball handling, passing, shooting, defending - I would grade him pretty even with Mason, maybe slightly better overall.

@Crimsonorblue22 Well I semi-agree on your assessment of Mason. He can penetrate. Never saw a lot of quality dimes dropped by him off his drives, and often his shots off his drives were wild and unsuccessful (a la Tyshawn for a good portion of his career).

Regardless, it doesn't answer my question as to why Self went with CF over Mason in the NCAA tournament. Against two completely different teams.

I'm not saying CF isn't the right choice to red-shirt if it comes to that. Maybe he is. But the decisions and quotes by Self in the NCAA tournament regarding CF give me pause about anointing Mason the starter. I think it may come down to what Graham provides and who is the better compliment to him and the rest of the perimeter.

@ralster I get what your saying about Mason and you may very well be right, my only question is if Self was completely sold on him, why didn't he get those crucial minutes in the NCAA tournament (the most important minutes of the entire season) and instead Self felt more comfortable with CF? Obviously all the minutes and experience he garnered throughout the season over CF wasn't enough for Bill to feel comfortable with him when Tharpe shat the bed.

I don't want to place too much importance on a two game sample, but what was he preparing Mason for if not those situations?

@truehawk93 My reasoning doesn't have much to do with your argument (which seemed to be...that we should want him because you think he can fit Self's mold of combo/lead guard?). My stance is, we have a crowded perimeter rotation already. If you bring him in, my guess is at least one and quite possibly two of Frankamp/Mason/Graham/Greene transfers. These are all program guys. Guys that will be here probably 3 years at least if they have the opportunity to see the court. I want those guys. Self's system functions best with program guys.

You say "worst case KU gets a great kid for 2 years, then turns pro." To me that's not even close to worst case. To me, worst case is KU gets a kid who has tremendous upside so Self plays him regularly, possibly starts him. However, he's a 17-year old freshman and at the end of the day isn't all he was cracked up to be. Good, but not great. After one year he returns home to play professionally overseas. In the meantime, two of the aforementioned program guys on the perimeter transfer. Again, worst case, it's two of the guys capable of handling the point - Frankamp, Mason, & Graham. Selden & Oubre declare for the draft. So the following year we have one point guard and a thin crop of point guards in the 2015 class to choose from, many of whom are turned off by the recent situation of seeing quality PGs transfer out of the program. So your perimeter rotation for 2015 is: the remaining player from the Graham/Frankamp/Mason trio, Greene, and whoever we can get in the 2015 recruiting class. That is the worst case scenario.

Is that likely? Probably not. A lot of things would have to break bad for that to happen. But would any one of those things by themselves shock you? They wouldn't me. We almost certainly lose someone to transfer, and I would bet the odds of losing 2 would be 50-50. And as I said, these are guys that are going to be here at least 3 years (Graham & Greene being guys that could leave early, Mason & Frankamp probably not due to their size), and I'm excited to see guys of that caliber here as juniors and seniors.

I'm with HEM on this. We should just pass on this guy. I'm satisfied with our roster as is. If there was a Kaviar Shepherd type post player out there, that would be OK. But on the perimeter...he comes in and we either have 4 point guards and at least one person is disgruntled and transfers, or he cuts into Selden, Oubre, & Greene's minutes. Pass.

But Self has scholarships to give; almost like he can't help himself. We'll see.

@Crimsonorblue22 No problem. And yeah he's good, but ranked in the 20s. Not that uncommon for players in that range to have to come off the bench, particularly if they sign at elite schools. Consider that's about where EJ was ranked coming out of high school and had to sit two years.

And it will be interesting to see if the Twins' stock improves. That's one thing about Cal, he's not really known for developing talent, more so just coaching it while it's there. Consider most of his players in the league and where they where drafted - they'd likely have been drafted about where they went whether they spent a year under Cal or not. We actually have an example that proves this - Enes Kanter. (along these same lines, whether Wiggins improved much this past year didn't affect his draft stock. He was a lock to be a top pick barring a slide).

I do think Cal is a decent coach, so if the Twins are willing to improve I think they can. Also consider their draft stock might improve just by coming out in next year's class. I don't know that there will be as much top end talent coming out next year (no Wiggins, Parker, Embiid, Exxum, etc.)

@Crimsonorblue22 Jones? If you're referring to Tyus Jones, he signed with Duke.

They do have a couple of good guards coming in with Tyler Ulis & Devin Booker. Ulis is smaller (5'9" ) than Cal's typical PG recruits, but everything I've seen and heard about him has been very good.

I'm a fan of the tougher schedules. And yeah, Kentucky will be an interesting litmus test. On the subject of Kentucky, I wonder if some of their big man recruits are upset that more of their front court stuck around another year. Lyles & Townes will have to fight for minutes with Lee, Poythress, & Cauley-Stein. I can't imagine many top 10 recruits signing on to come off the bench.

The ripple effect of this might be that there will be more top big men to choose from in the 2015 class, as even if a fair number leave UK after this year a couple are almost certain to remain which might be enough to scare off the top guys. Cal not having his pick of the litter opens things up for a lot of teams. At the very least, I would think he would have to work harder to convince elite big men to come, which has it's own ancillary benefits I suppose. I'm not really in tune with recruiting more than one year out, but a quick look at ESPN's top 60 include us in on big men prospects such as Ivan Rabb & Stephen Zimmerman.

Of course if there is an NBA rule change forcing kids to stay 2 years in college it would change the entire dynamic.

@truehawk93 I assume lead guard is Self's way of saying point guard, but since we don't have point guards at KU (under Self) we have combo guards he had to come up with another way to say point guard.

As to the quote, it's high praise, but you have to take every quote Self says after a kid signs with a grain of salt. He has had some over the top things for guys who rode the bench and ended up transferring as well. HEM can probably remember better than me some of the things he's said about incoming recruits through the years.

@wrwlumpy Glad I can provide ESPN some material for their articles :)

The comments crack me up. Got guys unequivocally saying Graham is what is best despite not having seen a single minute of college action, and got a guy throwing down his starting 5 plus a back-up at every position. I just wonder, does that ever get old? Just rattling off line-ups every year, no later than the day after the season ends and often times while the previous season is still in progress. And then doing it on a regular basis until the start of the season.

I like the discussion, speculation, and debate about such things, but seeing that "starting 5, back-up 5" always makes me cringe. I'd go into hibernation on kusports until October every year just because I can only look at those things so many times. So far, this board keeps me coming back.

@HighEliteMajor Man...you know what an Adams guy I am! I think with Doyle and Tharpe in that bag though I'd still take our current perimeter rotation.

@truehawk93 I think perhaps you misunderstood my post. I wasn't evaluating Greene at all. I agree that Greene probably gets the nod behind Oubre next year and sees...12-15 mpg maybe? Possibly more? My point was that last year Greene had a role where it was only "a few scraps of minutes" (he only averaged 6.6 mpg), but it was a role where he usually knew he was going to get on the floor. He got into all but two of the conference games. It happened a lot in the first half of games sometime after the 10 minute mark, and he was out there for a handful of possessions. He wasn't a rotation player by any stretch, but Self was doing what he could to try and keep him fresh (and likely placated). And my point in bringing Greene up was that we might see the loser of the PG battle end up in a similar situation, where he is not a rotation player, but Self gives him the kind of role Greene had last year.

So while on HEM's thread about AW3 transferring after losing the battle with Brannen Greene, REHawk brought up the next logjam - the point guard position. We have 3 next year, and logic tells us there will only be room for 2 to receive steady minutes. And looking at it right now, this is going to be as closely a contested battle as we've seen at any position. No one can claim with any confidence that they know who will win playing time, the starting role, etc. Let's take a look at all three players, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses as we enter next season:

Connor Frankamp - 6'0" sophomore. Rivals ranked recruit # 34, ESPN ranked recruit #46

Strengths/pros: Reputation as an exceptional shooter, although he didn't show this throughout the season. Took care of the ball exceptionally well. Made good passes when he was in the game. Garnered playing time in the NCAA tournament when Tharpe struggled (and garnered this playing time over season-long back-up Frank Mason). Ended last year on a positive with great play in the two tournament games. Was the team leading scorer on the 2012 team USA U17 world championship team. One year familiarity in Self's system.

Weaknesses/Cons: Not exceedingly athletic. Defense an upgrade over Tharpe, but still likely marginal. Not a guard that is going to break down the defense or drive the lane typically. Needs to show trey gun skills consistently. Couldn't beat out Mason most of the year for the back-up minutes.

Frank Mason - 5'11" sophomore. Rivals ranked recruit #76. Unranked ESPN recruit

Strengths/Pros: Quickness attacking the rim. Able to penetrate the defense off the dribble. Showed good defensive instincts. Enters next year with the most collegiate level playing time at the position having been Tharpe's primary back-up last season. One year familiarity in Self's system.

Weaknesses/Cons: Needs to finish more of his shot attempts off his drives; often shots were wild and appeared out of control on drives. Could dish more off his drives. Showed only an average jump shot. Shortest of the 3 candidates.

Devonte' Graham - 6'2" freshman. Rivals ranked recruit #36. Unranked ESPN recruit.

Strengths/Pros: Tallest of the candidates, which certainly appeals to Self's combo guard philosophy. Displayed a 40% trey gun last year at Brewster. Described as having leadership skills, being a good passer/play maker, and being a good defender. Led Brewster to the national prep championship.

Weaknesses/Cons: Everything about his game is speculation, as it is unknown how any of the superlatives and praise used to describe his game will translate to the next level. A year behind the learning curve of the other PG candidates.

So that's the brief rundown. I included the rankings of these guys coming out of high school because I'm a firm believer (as others are, yet some aren't) that while the rankings aren't the gospel, they can be a useful guide. You're less likely to be a bust ranked in the top 50 than you are in the 50-100 range. I also am curious as to how close Graham plays to his ranking. I understand the whole deal where he wasn't getting looked at after signing with lowly Appalachian St., but I also wonder how much of his ranking might be inflated by the likes of KU & Florida recruiting him the second time around. Or to put it another way, to go from being unranked and signing a LOI with Appalachian St. to being ranked # 36 and signing with Kansas shows a meteoric rise. Embiid-like. Did he really get that much better in one season? It's possible.

Anyway, as I said before, no one can claim to have any great insight here. In my opinion, it's completely up in the air. I certainly don't have a good read on the situation. I really like both Mason & Frankamp, and am excited from what I've read and seen regarding Graham. If I had to venture a guess it is that the battle is going to be between CF & Mason. I think Graham will get minutes, most likely backing up to start the season, but if he impresses could possibly seize the starting role by the time conference play rolls around. Now between CF & Mason I'm really torn. On the one hand I see a little of Sherron/Tyshawn in Mason that I know Self likes. The ability to push the pace and to drive the lane. On the other hand, one of our weaknesses last year was 3 point shooting. Selden isn't likely to greatly improve, Oubre probably won't be as good as Wiggins shooting the 3 ball. Mason would likely be a downgrade from Tharpe last year shooting the trey. But Frankamp with regular minutes could provide that outside assassin. And he is steady and takes care of the ball.

I also think we might see something along the lines that we saw with Greene last year and that is the loser of the position battle not necessarily being in the rotation, but having a role to where he knows he's going to get on the court and get a few scraps of minutes.

It's unfortunate, as I really wish there were enough minutes to go around for all of these guys, much like I wish we had minutes to give to AW3. But minutes are limited, and the battle begins. And as HEM speculated, without minutes there's a great chance we could lose one to transfer next year. Before AW3, the transfers were by and large lower ranked players that while we might be sorry to see them go, it really wasn't a huge loss from a talent perspective. But now AW3, and next year maybe one of these guys...

At least in this case we can't blame the OAD phenomenon.

why not just red-shirt at KU?

@MoonwalkMafia The answer is because there is no guarantee of playing time after sitting that one year. There are just too many variables working against him. Best case scenario for White if he were to redshirt would be Oubre is an OAD, Self doesn't recruit over him again, and he comes back and backs up Greene for two years. That's two "ifs" that would need to break his way just to be a back-up.

Oubre isn't a guaranteed one and done. If White were to red-shirt and Oubre comes back, now he's getting no playing time as a junior, hoping Oubre turns pro after his sophomore year, and now he's a senior backing up Greene for one year.

I make the assumption that White would be backing up Greene based on Self choosing Greene this past season.

Basically, White couldn't afford to burn that year sitting out at KU hoping the situation improves. If he were to redshirt and the situation didn't improve, he couldn't transfer without burning a year of eligibility. He needs to go somewhere that the situation is more in his favor.

@HighEliteMajor Good post. I do have a question for you. You say you'd personally rather have just gone with White & Greene and let Wiggins & Oubre go elsewhere. I guess, first of all, do you think that stance is at all premature? I know how you feel about Wiggins, but we haven't seen Oubre or how his Kansas career will play out. Say Oubre stays two years. It's not out of the question; we're getting Selden for a second year who was slightly higher rated than Oubre. So three years of Wiggins & Oubre or the last 3 years of White's eligibility? (I say three years, as neither Wiggins or Oubre had anything to do with White not seeing the court his freshman year).

As I said, it's premature as we don't know how Oubre will perform or how long he'll stay. We also don't know how well White would have performed. We have some glimpses, mostly against the bottom feeders of our non-conference opponents. However, taking an initial look, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say we got more production and good play out of Wiggins last year than we would have with White. I draw this conclusion if for no other reason than we know Wiggins was our best perimeter defender, whereas White seemed to be held back by his defensive deficiencies.

So after 1 year (again, discarding White's freshman year which is largely irrelevant in this discussion), we were better off with Wiggins on the court than White. Now I know you're fond of saying that now that Wiggins has "shuffled off to the NBA" that we have nothing to show for his time here. But that's not exactly true. Without Wiggins, and his subsequent departure, we likely don't land Oubre with two rotation players (Greene & White) entrenched at the position. So for me, as much as I like AW3 and agree it wasn't "fair", the true evalution of this roster move by Self won't come until after we see how Oubre pans out. We will also have to bear in mind that in this evaluation, we are judging Oubre against what we think we would have gotten out of a junior and senior year White with 1 year rotation level playing time heading into next year. It will be a tall order for Oubre to out-perform at least what my expectations of White's game would be, although I do think back to White's weakness - his defense - and think it can be done as Oubre is supposedly a plus defender.

The truth is, we'll never know if this was the right move since we don't get to see both paths played out and are only left to speculate. But if Oubre stays 2 years and performs admirably, would you still be in favor of White over Wiggins & Oubre?

@truehawk93 It's kind of funny how we rationalize things in our brains isn't it? How we place importance on one thing while devaluing something else. For example:

"CF was huge with Stanford. But it was one game."

Yet a couple of paragraphs earlier, you were praising Greene with this:

"He really did well in that KSt game too. I think it was his best game in Manhattan."

Um...wasn't that just one game too? Technically CF had two good games, as he scored 10 pts the game before against Eastern Kentucky. The K-State game was Greene's only double digit scoring performance.

Another thing in your post that struck me as odd was this statement:

"Greene was really efficient when he played."

Efficient? In terms of what? Shots made? Not particularly. While Greene's shooting numbers were slightly better than those of CF on the season, neither's was what anyone would describe as "efficient". 38.5% FG% overall, 33.3% from 3pt for Greene, 34.4% overall FG%, 31.3% from 3pt for CF. Efficient in terms of taking care of the ball? No, Greene turned the ball over 15 times in 184 minutes, CF 3 times in 225 minutes. Defense? Well Self was on record repeatedly, including after the season at the team banquet, as saying Greene didn't know how to defend. In short, I'm not sure that efficient is something that accurately describes Greene's play his freshman season.

I've seen a couple posters putting tremendous stock into the play of CF during the tournament, as well as Self's quote to CF that he was going to be "his guy" in the Stanford game. Similarly, I've heard Self say that Greene is a guy that is going to play in the NBA someday. Lofty praise.

My point in all this? We really don't know. Nobody knows what next year's rotation will look like. We have some things that are pretty solid - Selden will play the 2. Ellis & Alexander will be in the rotation, likely as starters in the post. Oubre will be in the rotation. But the question marks - who will garner the minutes as the back-up post players? How will the minutes shake out at the point? What will Greene's role be? -are all pure speculation. And between now and then there will be hundreds of posts where people give their rationalizations on why it will be one way or the other.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying I think Greene is a bad player. Quite the contrary, I think he's going to make a very good player. But your post, which was largely making the case for Greene, didn't really come with anything to support that claim other than vagaries such as "Greene's tools are much more needed in most games" or "Greene has CF beat in many ways."

I think the most logical argument here, if we're assuming it is Greene vs. CF for the final "rotation" spot, is Greene's height gives him the advantage to sub in for Oubre, where as CF has much more competition at his positions - the 1 & the 2. To sub out Oubre and not insert Greene, you're most likely pushing Selden up to the 3, inserting Graham at the 2, and allowing CF to play point, which isn't out of the question, but it requires more positional movement than a straight plug in of Greene for Oubre. However, at this point I don't think anyone can say with too much confidence that CF doesn't have a better shot at garnering minutes in a position battle with Mason or Graham. I don't think anyone has a great read on that situation, and therefore we don't have a great read on what the battle will be for the final rotation minutes.