To dream of defending our way to a ring in the 3pt era is a pleasant past time, but do not mistake the dream for reality.
jaybate 1.0
10346 posts
HighEliteMajor said:
@BShark Can you name one three point shooter that you expect to be above 37% ... that's my quandary. I can't.
————————————.
BINGO!
IF:
KU = 2
AND
Opponent = 3
THEN
2 < 3.
AND
KU Loses
ELSE
KU Wins.
This year’s challenge of winning a conference title with weak trey shooters will keep Self interested again, same as winning one without a big man rotation most of the season did.
But in the Carney, all that matters is:
a.) Time zone;
b.) Shoe brand; and
c.) Having both inside and outside game.
Self will spend the off season scheming a defense that denies 3s AND chokes the lane.
We will win a lot of 70 point games.
We will lose in the Carney to a NIKE-EST team with good inside game and good trey shooting.
The headline should have read:
Doke Back for First 35 Minutes of Every Game Next Season
As usual, the number 1 team is the team with the most decisive MUA against all the different kinds of teams it will face.
You can have as many bigs as you want, and if you face a team with six trey shooters including two bigs that can pot the triceratop, you lose, because 3>2.
Really, KU will be in great shape, if it runs into no teams in the tournament schemed like Nova's team last season.
If it runs into a team schemed like Nova last season, they could have 20 bigs on the team and it wouldn't matter. You can only play two bigs at a time, maybe three. And if those bigs all have to guard the trey stripe, its doesn't matter a tinkerer's damn they are big, because they are going to be guarding and rebounding out at the corner of the court, or they are going to be giving up open look 3s, while our team is attempting short treys and getting no called into oblivion in the March Carney.
The athletic, three point shooting big man is the decisive edge.
If you look around next season's rosters and see no team with them, then KU is in great shape.
If you look around and see a team with a three point shooting big man, and three perimeter trifectates, to go with him, figure KU will lose to them.
If you look and see a team with two three point shooting big men, and three perimeter trifectates, and that opponent is in the EST, bet all you have on the opponent.
I haven’t been keeping up with Cal. How is he reputedly doing it?
They all had the higher mound and no one ever had a season like that in the post ww2 era.
Tom Terrific was a great one, too. And he adapted the same mechanics. Seaver, like so many of my generation went out and tried to imitate McClain’s delivery. And Tom did it beautifully, too, and was so much more stable and enduring. But 31-6 and 1.96 ERA is, like .406, hard to argue with. At the end of the day, when all the explanations and adjustment for era are given, the numbers stand like the faces on Mt. Rushmore. Only time and weather will ever lessen them.
We also tried to imitate Bullet Bob Gibson, who I worshipped, but he was just too idiosyncratic to pull off. Believe me, because I know 7 boys that fell off home made mounds for 3 summers trying!!!
Thanks for the update on the comet. I figured as much. Made me tear up. He took so many savage hits, especially in the NFL, when they were trying to prove poetry in motion could not work in the pros. He proved them wrong though. Oh how he proved them wrong.
Sayers is the greatest, most electrifying, most beautiful athlete I ever saw in person.
Wilt was long gone before I got to KU and I only saw him on TV as a pro.
I have been blessed to see many, many great athletes in person in many sports.
But to see Gale Sayers step on grass limed with a grid iron, break from a huddle, take a hand off, or a pitch, when everyone knew KU didn't have any other weapon, and watch him take a step, change direction squirt through an opening that seemed unlikely to open, plant a foot and run out of the arms of a tackler, then jump over another, land, give a knee to a closing line backer, then pull it back and veer left, lunge in then out again, feel the pursuit and cut out of its arms and spin, then squirt ahead, then feint left and cut cross field, then turn up field and seem to shift gears, once, twice, thrice and veer off at 45 toward the goal line marker, seem to come full stop and let two guys overrun him, then take off at another 45 and crisscross the fields, then literally gallop the last ten yards and glide into the end zone as if it were the most natural thing to have just eluded EVERY man on an opposing defensive team. It was no exaggeration. Galloping Gale, the Kansas Comet, REALLY was poetry in motion. I always tell persons: Michelangelo's David was the most sublime work of perfection in art I have ever seen. He towers over you and you cannot believe that there was ever a time in human existence that he did not exist. The David made perfection in art tangible and real. Gale Sayers did the same thing in sport. Gale made perfection of poetry in motion tangible and real. He was the David with a football.
For many years we had board rat here that went under the alias of Kansas Comet. I have always secretly hoped it was really Gale Sayers. Why? Because it gave me chills to hope it might be him, the same kind of chills I got when I saw him run, and the same kind of chills I got when I met him many years later at Allen Field House, and got to shake his hand. The same chills I got when I saw the David.
Gale Sayers is just a man. A decent human being of flesh and blood.
But for some reason god granted him the gift of a demigod, when he ran with a football. I am not lying, or exaggerating. To see him run, was to witness a kind of perfection more rare and precious than any other single experience that I have felt in all of my life. He knows exactly what I am talking about, too, if he is still alive. He has felt the perfection himself first hand. I could tell it in his eyes when I met him. And he could tell I had seen it too. It is why such a deep connection forms between himself and those fans that approach him only momentarily. Persons that have expressed perfection can never escape awareness of its existence and possibility later. They stand in rooms like echoes of perfection. The echo adds a dignity to them. They move with grace ever after, after they have moved with perfection. Joe DiMaggio was this way when I used to see him in his favorite restaurant/bar in San Francisco. To attain perfection, or to witness its attainment by another, changes both the actor and the watcher, for the rest of their lives.
Denny didn't have a big rap sheet that anyone knew about at the time. I can remember thinking he was a bit of a chunky dude, but he had the greatest pitching mechanics of anyone I had ever seen. Never dreamed he had a night clubbing, organ playing, walk on the wild side kind of life outside the ball park. Don't recall if I even knew that he played the organ in a band that season. I just remember seeing him on a the game of the week a few times and the stories and pictures of his pitching motion in Sports Illustrated and Sport magazines. OMG! He was flawless. I had been a fan of Whitey Ford, and of Sandy Koufax. But when Denny came along he had the finesse of Whitey, but he was much stockier and stronger. He could overpower guys, or position them. Koufax was more rangy and was my favorite of all from the time I saw him uncoil and bend his curve balls half way around Chavez Ravine on TV, but I never got to see Koufax in person the way I did Whitey Ford and Denny McClain at old Municipal Stadium in KC. McClain had this amazing ability to completely square up to home plate, as he released with his arm motion actually resembling the force and motion of a pitching machine releasing it perfectly every time. I still can't forget him. It was insane how grooved he was that season. It looked like he could put the ball anywhere he wanted it, at whatever speed he wanted, with whatever amount of curve and sink he wanted. A 1.96 ERA was insane even in the era of the high mound. He was better that season than anyone I have seen before or since. He was like Roy Hobbs, only with a rubber and a rosin bag.
Denny McClain did a lot bad things afterwards, got in a lot of trouble, but I used to listen to his radio show many years after that he did in Detroit, and he was terrific with a mike, when he wanted to be. The guy was haunted with demons, but blessed with greatness. He rose to unimaginable heights that 1968 season. And he wasn't on steroids. He was the real deal. A natural. He did not last long. He squandered his reputation later. But what he did, like Ted Williams .406, is for the ages. Nothing can tarnish that season. Nothing can diminish what he did that season. It didn't matter that Lolich carried them in the Series. It doesn't matter that he became an obese caricature of himself later.
31-6
Its written in granite for the ages.
Thanks for asking.
Mine is an eclectic list of first and second hand experiences of sport over my life time.
First: Learning that Head Coach John Calipari neither knew about, nor was responsible for, infractions, and resulting penalties at UMASS and Memphis.
No question about it.
Second: Reading "College Sports, Inc." by the late Indiana University Professor Murray Sperber that made clear how corrupt college sports has been and for how long.
Third: Self winning nearly 82% of his games, 14 straight conference titles, and a national title, without ever signing a single 5-start/OAD at the 1 and 5 his first 14 seasons at KU.
Fourth: Self making it to the 2012 National Finals without a single Mickey D All-American.
Fifth: Self reaching the Final Four in 2017-18 with a 6-10 inch guy that could barely make 50% of his free throws, could only score by dunking, and Self's tallest player at the 1-4 positions having been Svi Mykailiuk at 6-5. PHENOMENAL!
Sixth: The Miracle on Naismith Drive, when KU defeated MU in the last regular season contest between the two schools before MU moved to the SEC.
Seventh: Being born into a family to a father that began taking me to KU basketball and football games at the age of 6.
Eighth: Watching Adrian Dantley on Notre Dame stand up during a game in AFH and turn and taunt KU student fans until he was showered with at least 20-30 cups of ice and sat back down and covered up under a towel and never mouthed off again once during the game
Ninth: The Shot by Mario Chalmers in the 2008 Finals.
Tenth: The defeat of Roy and his EasyHeels in the 2008 Semi Finals.
Eleventh: Watching Kirk Gibson hit the home run on one good leg pinch hitting in the bottom of the 9th to win Game 1 of the 1988 World Series for the Dodgers.
Twelfth: Seeing Gayle Sayers play 4 games at KU including the game he ran something like 98 yards for a touch down on an off tackle play.
Thirteenth: Watching Bobby Douglas, John Riggins, Donnie Shanklin, John Zook, and so many other great players lead by Pepper Rogers change for ever what people knew was possible in KU football.
Fourtheenth: KU's Orange Bowl team under Mangino.
Fifteenth: "The Pine Tar" incident with George Brett that proved Brett was so great that he would even fight the Yankees to break down the doors to lead the Royals to realize Ewing and Muriel's dream of a World Series Champion in the only classy new stadium ever build in the major leagues.
16th: Every Tour de France win by Lance Armstrong, who was competing on a level playing field in which every other leading rider he competed against was breaking the rules in effectively the same way, and who remains, along with Eddie Merckx, the greatest two riders that have ever lived.
17th: Ford winning the LeMans two years in a row by defeating Ferrari at the peak of their power.
18th: Bruce McClaren winning the Can-Am Challenge with the most awesome, dominant racing cars, in the most technologically wide open series, ever run pre-digitally controlled cars.
19th: Tom Watson defeating Jack Niklaus in Scotland.
20th: Denny McClain's 1968 record setting season of 31-6 with a 1.96 ERA. I had pictures of Denny all over one wall of my bedroom that season and I awoke early all summer to run out to the front yard and get the morning KC Times see any possible box scores with the Tigers, and then again waited for the evening KC Star to be delivered again to see the box scores with anything about Denny in them. No one has won 30 since and McClain's record appears as towering as Ted William's being the last player to hit .406.
mayjay said:
@jaybate-1.0 That is quite a twisted inference from my post. Let me try again, based solely on how I think about it:
I suspect Cal may be dirty based on some of the people around him. I do not suspect HCBS of being dirty. If forced to conclude one way or the other, I would have to conclude there is no firm evidence of either being dirty.
As to whether they themselves suspect any players of illicit benefits, I hope and assume that they would investigate any hints or evidence coming their way, and I believe we have seen that. But I do not expect them to spent all their time being forensic accountants or financial cops, or turning kids down because they made the KU choice late in the game. (Are we suspicious of Shady's last-minute dream?)
————————————
Your response above and some of your recent previous responses made me wonder the following:
1.) Was your response convenient?
2.) Was it projecting about my post being twisted?
3.) Are you in actuality suspicious of Shady's last-minute dream and what firm evidence” makes you be suspicious* or were your words just conveniently mentioning that?
4.) Do you have firm evidence indicating your recently claimed number of 90% of Buckets posters thinking what you claim they think regarding Cal?
REGARDLESS: thanks for taking the time to “try again” to help me understand your POV “based solely on the way you think about it”.
It made me wonder. And that’s good.
Hang in, eventually the authorities will get this sorted out!
Be of good cheer.
As a layman, I have long suspected all the observable asymmetries and the likely apparently unobservable activities apparently required to enable the observable asymmetries and anomalies were likely manifestations of probably legal apparent entertainment values in operation. I strongly doubted illegal conspiracy as an explanation of very much, if anything at all. All but proven conspiracy theories are mostly for suckers IMHO.
BUT...since the FBI/DOJ apparently suspect (allege? charge?) something illegal is operating, well, I am a layman willing to take a dutiful wait and see attitude, so they can do an ethical, professional job of investigation and adjudication.
It saddens me to think there may be a vast illegal/criminal conspiracy that has college sports generally in its dastardly grip. I am flabbergasted that anyone suspects Bill Self could be one of its criminal masterminds, or even stooges.
But the end of the Cold War and record declassifications reputedly now show the McCarthy Era, vicious and opportunistic as it reputedly was at times, turns out was apparently not totally a witch hunt. There really were communists and communist informants in our government, same as there are reputedly foreign assets and informants in high and low places today.
So: I suppose it’s possible Jay Wright, Coach K, Cal and Self could all be criminally masterminding everything. It’s possible Russia, or PRC, or even tiny Israel has turned them all. But I still doubt it. Don’t you?
Nevertheless, I enthusiastically support a fair, legal and ethical investigation and adjudication by the FBI/DOJ. Heck, I would even like to see a commission plus all levels of law enforcement investigate sport for the criminal and Intel money laundering I suspect could conceivably be going on in college sports betting, even though if I were forced to choose, I would probably choose that it was probably not going on.
Regardless, god bless America!
Rock Chalk!
P.S.: And I want to applaud you for NOT using SMH! 👏
mayjay said:
@jaybate-1.0 If you go by the 90% of Buckets participants who "know" Calipari has been dirty from UMass through Memphis to UK despite any direct evidence, then your question that conveniently excludes "specifics" answers itself: anyone who generally suspects something could not plausibly claim not to know of it.
But in actuality, specifics are crucial, and thus the need for having evidence before something you suspect is something you "know".
Does this mean you pick Cal as a cleaner coach than Bill Self?
One of the defining characteristics of digitalization and ensuing hypermodernity (the era we have moved into) is that many analog things under the curve can be digitally copied so close to the curve that it simply takes far too much money, analysis, and enforcement time for other humans to root out the fakes and confirm the originals.
Further, originality is undergoing a radical transformation in conception, as is authorship.
Originiality and authorship simply don't mean the same that they did prior to the 1980s IMHO, and in the opinion of many others, like the late Michael Crichton (see Rising Sun and State of Fear), and Jean Beaudrillard (see virtually any of his remarkable explorations of fields like Marxism, sociology, psychology, philosophy, hard sciences, politics, economics etc. Both these thinkers largely demolished the meaning of meaning and of authorship and originality. To say nothing of calling into question truth.
And I won't even enter what quantum theory transformed, when it broke down the independence of subject and object and refuted the locality assumption.
Not trying to argue, but civilizations (to the extent we are still permitted to use the term independent of those that decry it as a racist concept) and their constituent cultures and sub cultures are reeling from the break down of legacy notions of originals and authorship and the nature of truth and authenticity vs. lies and fakery that simply don't hold up anymore under many conditions.
Simply agreeing to keep a stiff upper lip and go on working and doing our best are admirable, and courageous, and preferable to giving into nihilism, but they are not the same as bringing coherence to what science and technology have wrought the last 125 years or so. We are in a crisis of meaning and digitalization and its capacity for creating effectively indistinguishable copies is at the very crux of our problems.
HighEliteMajor said:
@Lulufulu Dirty is a relative term.
So let's try this, as a simple question: Do you think it plausible that the head coach of a blue blood D-1 program would have zero knowledge of payments by shoe companies to players made to influence their college selection?
Not specifics, but the fact that it is occurring.
See, if Self knew of payments, the next question becomes was he ever aware of payments to Kansas players during his tenure.
And if he knew of a prior payment, and didn't "self-report" (no pun intended) -- is he dirty, or not?
————————
Do you think it plausible that the head coach of a blue blood D-1 program and other coaches, players, cheerleaders, trainers, students, alums, ADs, Chancellors, NCAA directors, NCAA staff, law enforcement (local, state and Federal), prosecutors, lawyers, judges, Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents would have zero knowledge of payments by shoe companies to players made to influence their college selection?
Not specifics, but the fact that it is occurring
So: if Self and all coaches, players, cheerleaders, trainers, students, alums, ADs, Chancellors, NCAA directors, NCAA staff, law enforcement (local, state and Federal), prosecutors, lawyers, judges, Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents knew about payments, and didn’t self-report, are they dirty, or not?
What if Coach Self is found to have been the guy we both believe him to be?
Who will give him back his reputation?
It makes me sad.
SMH2.
SHM. Here we go...
SHM. Interesting. You are preaching to the choir regarding costs comparing machined parts versus 3D copies requiring machining, as I thought I made clear in my post.
SHM. So: I am not sure why you are focusing on costs of copying machined parts, or 3D printed parts requiring further machining, when the issue is apparently copying 3D printed parts not requiring further machining. Capice?
SHM. I have never heard anyone else argue it would cost 100 times more to make a copy of a 3-D printed part requiring no machining from a filched CAD-CAM FILE, or from a file generated from a 3D scan of such a part, with an identical 3D printer, as used to make the original 3-D printed part requiring no machining. It seems like you should let the government know about your POV on this, so they understand.
SHM. I am not qualified to agree, or disagree with you. But it seems like copying a 3D printed part requiring no machining with a filched file, or a file generated by 3D scanning of a 3D printed part requiring no machining, would yield an effectively indistinguishable 3-D printed part requiring no machining.
SHM. 3D scans and 3D prints of entirely, or partially, machined parts would logically probably not yet yield near perfect copies, as I thought I indicated in my post.
SHM. In the future?
SHM. Common sense suggests increasing reliance on 3D printed parts with less and less post print machining required, as design/engineering evolve and the technologies of additive manufacture progress.
SHM. But again I am not qualified to agree, or disagree with your remarks, or reliably predict the future of this technology.
SHM. I have had no occasion or reason to search for and and examine a 3D printed part. Another engineer once told me 3D printed parts are already pretty widely used, and that I have likely already seen a 3-D printed part unwittingly. That suggests to me they are already pretty well done from a layman’s eye. And I recall a story with pictures supposedly comparing original 3D printed hex nuts and 3-D printed duplicates. They appeared indistinguishable, but I cannot vouch for the veracity of pictures, or the stories, nor recall citations.
SHM. Rock Chalk!
SHM. Howling!
SHM.
What everyone needs to keep foremost in mind about 3-D printing from an early and problematic economic impact POV is that 3-D scanning/imaging of an additive manufactured product, makes it potentially unprecedentedly feasible to copy exactly that product, or to simulate it with other inferior and cheaper materials.
To get the concept, take a simple additive manufactured hex nut.
3-D scan it.
Find the same additive material used and the same 3-D printer used to print the hex nut.
Use the 3-D scan to operate your 3-D printer.
Add material.
Voila!
The same nut.
Effectively indistinguishable from the original.
Yes, there will be tricks to make things more difficult to copy accurately and completely. But that's how things are now already.
If you thought figuring out whether a Rollex was real, or a knock off, or part real with a fake movement, etc., when purchasing second hand examples, you probably ain't seen nothing yet.
For quite awhile, the problem will be limited to simple items produced additively. High ticket, subtractively manufactured items will be very difficult, or impossible, to counterfeit additively, except for certain of the sub assemblies and constituent parts.
But, over time, more and more producers of original products will opt for additive manufacture of increasing numbers of the parts that comprise their authentic products. Advances in materials science, part design efficiency, and part performance, and cost control will drive this migration at least in some parts. Early on, though, legacy manufacturers will be quite calculated in retaining certain subtractively machined parts, and imbedding certain smart chips encoded to discourage counterfeiting, in hopes of being able to discourage copies, and win settlements in courts. But...
It doesn't take a Nostradamus, or a batetradamus 1.0, to see where this is heading. Industrialization and digitalization made it easier to make copies, but counterfeiting was still discouraged to considerable degree.
3-D scanning coupled with 3-D printing will take this problem to a degree of copying, but not completely overwhelm the system. Yes, there will be ways to discourage it, but net it is likely that copying will increase as a problem. The more things are additively manufactured, the less parts a forger has to counterfeit traceably, and the more he can literally duplicate untraceably.
Counterfeiting is NEVER perfect.
If it were there would never be originals.
But counterfeiting is never completely imperfect.
Otherwise there would be no counterfeiting.
But this combo of 3-D scanning and 3-D Printing and their very existence as data files capable to be captured by NSA at the top of the surveillance pyramid, and on down through the ranks of hackers and crooks preying on data storage and data in motion, mean lots of products can easily be pinched and duplicated hither thither and yon.
But when you combine this copying increase with decentralization of copy production that additive manufacturing appears to enable, then you have real headaches for: a.) the consumer trying to get an authentic product; b.) the producer trying to know who and where the problem of copying is located; and c.) law enforcement and judiciary trying to enforce intellectual property rights.
We also appear to need TPTB to declare DaSousa to be a victim, not a perp.
Or else we appear to need the NCAA to announce general amnesty.
JayHawkFanToo said:
The particular story you cited was discussed in another forum I belong that deals with 3-d printing. The write up can lead one to believe that a 3-d printer can be programmed and the finished shoe produced; this not even close to reality.
Yet.
As with most other things related to high technology, implementation and full transformation will not come as fast as early believers predict, but much faster than early skeptics predict.
Its jaybate 1.0's rule of high technology implementation and transformation. :-)
As I understand it, 3-D printing technology bears within it "rapid prototyping". Rapid prototyping--esssentially a literal 3-D expression of the kind of what-if capability started with CAD being able to explore design simulations in virtual 3-D; i.e., within the phase space of a computer screen.
Rapid proto-typing appears a many edged sword.
On the plus side, it appears capable of exponentially increasing not only exploration of virtual solutions in design/engineering/manufacturing/operation, as has CAD, but also feasibility testing of these virtual solutions with actual one off, additive prototyping. One often learns quite a lot of flaws in solutions at the prototyped stage, so this could offer more and more fitting product solutions.
On the minus side, some unfortunate by-products appear likely, based on our history with CAD. CAD and sophisticated marketing coupled with high costs of inventory storage/distribution/retailing have lead us into a kind of technological baroque goods designed for optimal breakdown for shipment, rather than optimal function for end user. Technological baroque (my term) refers to kind of hyper variation. By this I mean proliferating product variation yielding little to no increase in function, but simply contributing to new versions with almost the same utility being endlessly rolled out to give sophisticated marketing new things to hype as frequently as possible. This is to be distinguished from planned obsolescence, which was probably pioneered in its 20th Century form by the Krupp canon makers in the 19th century, who figured out they could make a better canon with scientific metallurgical knowledge and decided to incrementalize ramping up of canon barrel hardness to maximize profits and perpetuate market influence over kingdoms buying their canons over time as well. The Krups would role out the latest canon barrels hardened to allow a little more charge and so a little more range. Selling to one kingdom forced the other kingdom's to buy new canons to stay strategically competitive. Once all the kindoms had new canons, Krupp increased the hardness, and repeated the marketing process. It could have hardened the barrels massively in one increment from the start, but, well, that would have meant only one round of canon sales, and then Krupp would have had to invest heavily to discover a whole new metal/alloy to justify a new round of canon sales. This model of incrementalizing technological innovations to optimize cashflow, while intentionally suboptimizing product utility for buyer, became ubiquitous business model in the 20 Century prior to CAD. At first, CAD enabled quite a lot of product innovation simply by what-ifing existing products, then came what-ifing new materials introduced into new products, and then came incrementalization of planned obsolescence on steroids, so to speak. But centralization of production in the far east and concomitant long distance shipping in conjunction with CAD and high interest costs and high energy cost converged to trigger just in time inventory management and this in turn all together triggered a relentless insistence on packing density. Floating cheaply made, rapidly obsolete, hyper variationed, throw-away consumer junk, er, products, on gigantic ships lead firms to endlessly trade off end function of products for high density packing (a lot of product in a little space in the shipping container) in shipment. This trade-off preference intensified, when NWO central bank strategies to migrate from diversified producer markets first to producer oligopolies, and then to massive concentration of ownership of those producer oligopolies by three asset management organization using untraceable bailout monies to fund the concentration of ownership in NWO hands. The goal for the NWO was the blunt ax of more top down control by the NWO. In little time, their financialist reach exceeded their producer grasp by many orders of magnitude, which vice they then rationalized into a virtue by exploiting the very instability, chaos and inefficiency their ignorance (and their calculation)--something I like to call "ignoration"--triggered so as to enable still more acquisition and concentration with fake money they printed and gave untraceably to their big three investment management firms and still the process continues. No matter who we elect, it seems they like fake money and are elected largely by being given more of it than their opponent. But I digress.
The result was marginalizing firm competition through real innovation in producer oligopolies to near zero and replacing it with "coopetition" i.e., cooperation AND competition. The fake, or junk, economists would have you believe "coopetition" were a good for productivity AND efficiency AND innovation. NOT. Under coopetition, oligopolists essentially compete to cooperate; i.e., they compete to copy what other members innovate based on the fake money they are given by their NWO masters--the central bank owning financialists. And practically ALL innovation under this NWO is incrementalized to enable and ensure the perpetuation of their controlled producer oligopolies. But first CAD and now "rapid prototyping" achieved by linking CAD with 3-D printing, in reality push the whole kit and caboodle of R&D and production into something fundamentally NOT planned obsolescence. They have standardized and normalized "planned suboptiimization," if you will, which appears something significantly different. Products are designed to be suboptimal from the outset and incrementally improved into something suboptimal and to be replaced long before they are ever made well in terms of their utility to the consumer. There are exceptions, but these seem to prove the rule so far.
For example, when you buy a toaster today, it was apparently never intended to be any good as a toaster for the consumer. It was designed to be barely good enough to be not bought, if you will, by a consumer operating without real substitution choice among toasters with differing degrees of meaningful functionality, just choice substituting appearances of what are all junk toasters underneath. Contemporary toasters were designed to be packed, shipped, displayed, sold and thrown in the trash within two years of use. Function in use by consumers appears practically irrelevant. A contemporary toaster was designed to be made by robots, prisoners, and child slaves, shipped efficiently across the ocean in containers, along with illegal drugs, illegal weapons, and other contraband goods requiring more of the weight bearing capcities of the ships, and to fit perfectly in stacks on store shelfs, and to catch the human eye at a subliminal sensual and symbolic/sign level. The consumer's user experience with the toaster matters hardly at all in the calculus in my anecdotal. Experience. Compared to the technological zenith of a practically automatic Sunbeam Radiant Toaster made 1940s to 1980, still operating today and likely operating a hundred years from now, a contemporary toaster is a de-utilitized piece of junk designed solely to serve the interest of a vast supply chain and investment chain--NOT a consumer.
Why?
Well, the full answer would take a book. But I will distill it give one a hint of the drivers.
Because in a producer oligopolized, centrally financed (and so centrally planned to the interests of the NWO, not its consumers) economy : a.) fake consumer reviews in web sites on media controlled by 5 holding companies each actually under controlled ownership by the same three investment managers (working for the NWO) have largely replaced word of mouth as the buying criteria for most increasingly de-educated consumers; and b.) the price of the toaster is segmented by income class, so, regardless of what income class you belong to, there is no incentive to seek out the toaster with the most functional utility. Whether you are affluent and buying a SMEG for its looks, or counting ATM charges and buying a Procter Silex at CVS, its a throw away item and performs like one. It will toast your toast until it doesn't in a year or two, and to think about it at all is foolish, because you won't find ANY toaster on the market that was designed for a consumer to possess high quality and utility and durability and reliability. These attributes beneficial to a consumer, are inconsequential to the supply chain and to the investment chain. Hence, they are inexorably marginalized out of the design/engineering of the product. Using one of these cheap toasters, one can readily imagine that an artificial intelligence routine with a simulated moron IQ is used to engineer the consumer's desired function, while the best engineering minds of a generation the in the first percentile beneath those being used to design WMD, and mind control technologies, are expended figuring out how to make it easy for robots, prisoners and child slaves to make, store in containers with max units per container volume and min breakage, and also to catch the eye of mind controlled consumers predictively programmed by advertising, entertainment and public school conditioning to impulsively buy.
The key here is that almost all products have crossed the threshold into hyper variation and consumer suboptimization. It is not like the 1950s, when a Chevrolet (itself an early compromise of planned obsolescence) was engineered underneath very solidly and durably and was very repairable, and only planned obsolete on the surface. Most products now are designed and engineered sub optimally core to skin from a consumers POV. They suck. And the stuff designed for the rich, now that the rich are a mass market segment, because of globalization, sucks, too. Any product not hand crafted and hand made at the point of sale seems as apt to be as sub optimally designed, engineered and manufactured for long distance shipping as a toaster at CVS. And given that most craftsman cannot make a living any more doing bespoke work, bespoke craftsmanship is a watered down version of what it once was, also, and in some cases cannot even muster the resources needed to make something good. But I digress. In fact quite a lot of products designed with high tech by producer oligopolies for the "mass rich" are fully legal rip offs IMHO. Your Lexus is a flipping Toyota with more sound deadener sprayed in it, more padding under the hide seats, and a black box dial-up adding 15 more horsepower. The rest of the superiority exists in the perceptual "beauty" of the exterior. It can't do anything between 0 and 85 that a Toyota cannot do, as well. Mercedes Benz? Years ago, but still in the 21st Century, I recall German automotive engineers were surveyed and picked the Toyota Camry as the best designed, best engineered, best assembled, most reliable, best car made. And yes, they probably even ship better. What is wrong with this technological baroque picture? But again I digress.
The point is: rapid prototyping could, if NWO financialism succeeds in vassalizing all of EURASIA without extinction of us all by World WAR WMD, quickly lead to "Technological Baroque Runaway."
What do I mean by Technological Baroque Runaway? I mean very shortly the end consumer could completely disappear from the design/engineering calculus, except as a buying receptor to be stimulated with infinite product variation within limits; i.e., a controlled economic chaos morphing endlessly around strange tendencies (to the clouded consumer) of design/engineering paradigms endlessly, incrementally varied not toward progress, but toward triggering the dumbed down, sensual perceptions of change in consumers.
Pocket knives have already taken on this characteristic as I speak. They are not getting better, rather they are getting more individualized. I like knife A better than Knife B. You like Knife B better than Knife A. We both have our subjective preferences triggered by variations in the knives that alter only subjective perceptions of function deemed desired, not actual real world practical utility, because we don't hardly use the things in the real world in the first place. It is the "jewelry-ization" of functional tools. Jewelry-ization refers to the reduction of a tool to its signage content vis a vis other distinguishable only in terms of their signage content, not their practical utility. In a signage realm, aka a signage economy, humans think more about what they might do with tools than what they will do with tools. They think more about the appearance of the tool to others, and to themselves, than what they will actually do with the tool. We might use the knife for self defense. We might use it to cut a box, or cordage. We might use it to pry a staple, or cut a label, from another technologically baroque product we have just purchased. We might pass it on to our sons, or daughters. We might sit around over beers and compare ours with our friends. We might go camping and use it to feather a stick. We might do many things with it. But the only thing for certain to be done with it on a frequent basis is that we will sit around and admire and fidget with it. For such consumers, for persons that increasingly live in the virtual world of "might," infinite variation unrelated to real function is techno-cat nip. Survivalists especially fall prey to this, while thinking themselves the utter opposites of this type of buyer. They plan to put these knives to "hard use" if/when SHTF. I like survivalists, actually. I think they have brought a kind of rationality to things in our world full of NWO imbeciles that have normalized their reach exceeding their grasp and so endangering all of us with World War WMD. But the reality is the sheer complexity and unforeseen consequences that make World War WMD possible also simultaneously make it improbable. These NWO idiots not only cannot successfully achieve their own grand goals because of complexity and unforeseen consequence, they also cannot ensure their failure to achieve them. Thus, survivalists expecting SHTF breaking out as the new normal, simply do not grasp the confounding tendencies of bureaucratic inertia, path dependence in systems of huge sunk cost, and the desire of elites to survive at all costs. YES, they would kill, or control, us all, if it ensured they would probably survive at all costs, but its not clear to them that they would. They grasp the devils of complexity as much, if not more than the rest of us. They share in the problem of technological baroque runaway as much, if not more than we do. They know and fear that technological baroque runaway will spread like stuxnet viruses in such a world, same as we ordinary folk do and same as survivalists do.
In such a world, everyone will increasingly select a knife and a pair of tennis shoes, levels of surveillance intrusion enabled, with the illusion of bespoke uniqueness without the reality of it. At some point we will not only talk about the Turing Test for computer sentience, wherein a computer is sentient if it can fool a human into appearing sentient, whether it really is or not, but also of the Turingbate 1.0 Test of a technologically baroque product being unique, wherein it will be deemed bespoke and improved, if it can fool a person into believing it is bespoke and improved, whether it is or not.
Capice?
But I am, I suppose, engaging in handwringing on an epic scale here. Life will go on regardless and human beings will find ways to enjoy and savor and share it, even during a technological baroque runaway, so long as we don't extinct ourselves in World War WMD.
And surely, human beings will find ways to both personalize basketball shoes with 3-D printing of them, and to somehow keep the sport in a sufficiently precarious balance between virtue and corruption apparently intrinsic to it since its inception, to keep it the greatest game ever invented and to keep it yielding joys to little boys (and girls) that play it, and yielding satisfaction and/or consideration to the parents, students, fans, alums, member institutions, athletic directors' cartel (i.e., the NCAA), media-gaming complex, petroshoeco-agency complex, and the crime and intelligence organizations that likely launder vast sums of money through it. :-)
Whattta world!
Rock Chalk!!!!
Thx for weighing in. You already know way more than me!! I am in your debt!
First, I've told you most of what I know, which is not much. :-)
That said, let me give you two concepts to get you rolling.
Subtractive manufacturing (i.e., removing material with a tool path): traditional casting, fabrication, stamping, and machining are viewed as involving pairing away, or otherwise shaping masses of materials to end up with a part. Probably oversimplifying with metaphor, Michaelangelo went to the quarry and found a hunk of granite in which he could imagine a figure, brought it home and chiseled away the necessary material until he was left with the form he sought. Machining metal, or wood, on a lathe is like that. Stamping works similarly. You stamp a car door out of some steel and trim, or grind, away the unstamped portions.
(Note: casting gets lumped in with subtractive manufacturing, but to me it an injection molding probably deserve their own category of manufacturing somewhere between subtractive and additive manufacturing.)
Additive manufacturing (i.e., adding material with a tool path): there are many techniques for adding material with a tool path to build it up into a part. Thus 3-D printing is considered one subcategory of additive manufacturing. ny technique that starts with raw material being repetitively added by any means of application to arrive at a finished part can be lumped into additive manufacturing
One of the earliest 3-D printing technologies started as ink jet printing heads spraying ink in the form of letters on white paper. Conceptually, a letter on a page may thought of as a part built up on a page.
Techniques for microcasting and adding materials by spraying came to constitute additive manufacturing of parts.
Basically, R&D are constantly looking for new ways to arrange and add new kinds of materials. Graphite has a wide array of parts applications, but in the broader sense of additive manufacturing the category of polymers are used in various types of injection molding and spray build up techniques.
I assume basketball shoes are injection molded, or sprayed polymers, rather than graphite arranged with lasers, or other methods.
In answer to your question about knives, blades have long been a subtractive process involving cutting/grinding/forging steel into desired shapes with desired edges and hardnesses.
But I suspect that some recent ceramic blades and some recent particle steels used in man jewelry knives selling high hardness and edge retention may be pioneering uses of additive manufacturing techniques.
All for now.
Spooky RAND think tank in Santa Monica has reputedly been doing a little research into how tough and unpredictable life could get for hegemonds the next 50 years, as technological innovation accelerates from fast, to too fast for hegemonds to keep up with.
Word is that design, engineering, AND especially production of goods is likely to decentralize so fast and so pervasively that globalization already slowing to regionalization may frag into an era of localization.
Lots of factors will supposedly drive this, but 3-D printing is pretty stunning on its own.
3-D printing aka additive production takes the technology of laser printers using electrical charge to arrange powdered graphite into letters on a page and has it make huge numbers of passes to create, say, a nut for a bolt, out of the graphite powder. Neat. Lots of parts are being made this way already. More and more will be.
The tie in to basketball is: the RAND report reputedly indicates that basketball shoes have already been made with 3-D printing. The story I read summarizing the RAND study gave no more details, so I can't say if these were experimental prototypes, or if they were shoes already being marketed.
But here is the thing that tweaked my curiosity. What if the NCAA and the member institutions standardize basketball shoes and distribute the software file for 3-D printing standardized shoes to firms in each college town with 3-D printers?
Suddenly the member institutions are free of the shoecos influence, right?
Not so fast.
That could mean the member institutions would not be endorsing Nikes, adidas, and Under Armours, to name just three.
That would mean no beau coups endorsement money.
That could mean the lights go out in the minor sports.
Oh, the unforeseen consequences!
On the other hand, the NCAA could get in the shoe business and every player could have as many complimentary shoes to sell for beer money as he wants!
On the other hand, the shoecos could stop using child and prison labor in SE Asia and contract with 3-D printing firms in each college town and make even more profit by eliminating shipping costs of finsihed shoes across the ocean and across the continent. Graphite could be moved in bulk. Economies of scale skyrocket. New shoes freshly printed for every game. And the endorsement gravy train continues.
This is going to be quite a remarkable technological roll out; this 3-D printing.
Break points shifting all over the globe. Convergence and centralization giving way to divergence and decentralization. Reliance on a single reserve currency diverging into proliferating bilateral currency exchanges and barter systems.
Oooooh, as Yogi said, its not over till its over.
Thanks so much for posting the link above.
I had grown despondent thinking I would not live long enough to celebrate the end of football as an amateur sport exploiting young men starting around 4th grade through college.
I am a member of the "two football concussion" club.
Playing football was fun as hell.
But playing football was the stupidest thing I ever did.
And I have done my share of stupid things.
I am so glad its gotten into the courts.
I hope some truth about whether or not it is wreaking havoc on young men's brains is discovered and I trust most any 12 Americans that do no have incomes dependent on the perpetuation of football in our schools to make a fair finding in the midst of both sides hiring the most expensive expert witnesses money can buy to try to make their cases.
drgnslayr said:
Is Bill Self clean? I believe he is, if for no other reason than thinking what recruit would be worth risking his legacy and everything he wants to accomplish moving forward? No recruit!
Your logic appeals to my reason.
Another thing...once a guy makes $10M/yr 2 to 3 years in a row, what is the incentive to act in ways that the FBI finds to be criminal and so maybe never get to spend it? I know rich persons occasionally lose their principles--lose sight of how good they have it--and violate the law some times. I have not statistics on this sort of thing, but they appear to do this mostly when they are in danger of: a.) going upside down financially; b.) stand to make a monster speculative fortune; or c.) get compromised by some predators and threatened into doing it. I don't see any signs of any of these three drivers in Self's case, do you? I mean, I suppose any of them are possible, but I haven't observed anything to make me suspect such.
True.
True.
True.
BShark said:
This is an evergreen thread. #extendthestreak
Evergreen as in improper cash incentives?
Forgot the sarcasm font.
Me too.
Its a movement.
Perhaps now KU can finally get 9 OADs on one squad, as Coach K did?
wissox said:
Yikes, we're 9-22 all time against UK.
That's because KU cheats more than UK.
Will both teams be wearing new prison stripe uniforms?
@et al
I suspect it is hard to interpret what is going on here with DaSousa largely because most involved in the investigation--investigators, prosecutors, defenders, alleged victims, so far unindicted folks, alleged perpetrators, alleged peripherally involved folks, etc.) still want it to be difficult to interpret.
We may just have to live with the confusion awhile longer.
Persons, especially professionals, incentivized to keep things confusing usually find ways to do so.
BigBad said:
I said all last year(before Silvio joined and Billy left), and I'm sticking to it we didn't have a single NBA player on our roster.
You make an pregnant observation.
It bears significant implication.
Why is a coach alleged by some to be an egregious cheater cheating to acquire less talented players than those so far not reputed to be cheating have on their rosters?
Put another way, how are coaches reputedly NOT alleged to be cheating, signing so many more talented players than Self?
Many, if not most coaches caught cheating (or having had plausible deniability about those cheating for them) in the past have been able to sign as much or more talent than those reputedly NOT cheating.
Are we to believe that Bill Self, who is some how brilliant enough to reach the Final Four without a single NBA grade player, is at the same time too stupid to cheat as effectively as other coaches in the past?
I am deeply puzzled by what is going on.
BShark said:
approxinfinity said:
@JayHawkFanToo has Bill Self mentioned how he think De Sousa will do next year? To me that's the most telling sign. At least in the selected quotes in this story, no mention of DeSousa where you would assume he would be mentioned
Yep. I made a thread about this. Had a similar thought about De Sousa. Self also didn't mention Mitch or Cunliffe so we can assume they are probably Deep Bench/cryo-iced.
Cryo-ice patent pending c/o @jaybate-1-0
Just keep in mind that cryo-icing can apparently happen for many different reasons.
Rock Chalk!
@ et al,
May I counsel wait and see?
dylans said:
The damage is done. I hope they actually clean up the game. If they leave it as is Arizona, Louisville, and KU (and others)got screwed. AND Nike got a major advantage. 🤔
PHOF!
No way!
Gambling is involved in D1?
That’s impossible!
Why the next thing that will be spread is the Deep State laundering black money through betting on D1.
Just ridiculous!!
Gambling?
There’s no stinking gambling!!!!
No connection between gaming and media either.
It’s all conspiracy theory stuff!
I recall the Cole measure vividly. It’s what woke me to KU inches!
Frank 5-11.
Sherron 5-10.
Charlie can’t be more than 5-9 then! 😀
BShark said:
The answer is still no. Too many shady recruits that KU won, or was involved in to believe Self is fully clean. Rumors have long been that Self is one of the dirtiest in the game along with Pitino, Cal etc... So he certainly isn't the cleanest, by any stretch of the imagination.
——————-
You appear not to be really answering the question I ask: Is Self the cleanest coach in D1?
Who believes any coach in D1 is totally clean? I am a realist. I suspect everyone bends the rules at least a little and some a lot!
You appear to be answering another question I haven’t asked. It would go like this: Is Self’s reputation as dubious as Cal’s and Pitino’s. You indicate rumors long indicate it is so.
But your support appears unpersuasive, so far.
You appear to be alleging without apparent support that Self is comparable to Pitino, who left Louisville in Deep do-do. But so far Self has left not even one of the four schools he has coached at in Deep do-do. Therefore that seems a not very apt comparison, regardless of what rumors you have “heard.” Put another way, the rumors you have long heard don’t appear to square with known events so far, do they?
You also appear to be comparing Self to Cal, who has left in his wake 2 of 3 programs with some vacated wins and so forth. I do not recall that Self has left in his wake (so far) any of the four schools he has coached at with similar issues. Therefore, this too seems a not very apt comparison, regardless of what rumors you have long “heard.” So far, the rumors you claim to have long heard have not appeared to square with known events.
I am left wondering why you place so much stock in the reputedly long heard rumors? At some point, don’t you begin to wonder more about the veracity of the rumors than about Self rumored being comparable to Pitino and Cal?
Given Jay Bilas and the late Indiana Professor Murray and Don Wetzel, I am goaded into thinking most schools incentivize players, bend recruiting rules and bend rules to get them admitted and to keep them eligible.
I’ve also not heard many argue the Self and KU are among the dirtiest coaches and programs in D1.
So let’s give you yet another chance to persuade us?
Lets rephrase my question to reflect your allegations based on reputedly long held rumors: Which coaches by name do you claim are cleaner than Self in D1?
If you put such stock in the long reputed rumors that you claim appear to make Self out to be comparable to Pitino and Cal, these long heard rumors likely also indicate, or at least suggest, who is not comparable to Self, Pitino and Cal?
Can’t be Coach K, because of the picture Jay Bilas painted of his time at Duke, right? Plus there was the player with the jewelry issue, right? And there were those conspicuous 9 OADs on one team, right?
Therefore Coach K seems a not very apt comparison, regardless of what you have “heard.”
How about Bruce Pearl. Um, no. Forget Bruce.
Jay Wright? The guy is a lifetime .600 coach before bagging 2 rings in three years under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Along the way he gets 6 > 39% trifectates including two trey balling trifectate post men...on the same team? Let’s pass on Jay, shall we?
Can’t be Roy Williams right? He was reputedly at UNC around the birth of the shoe thing with Sonny and Dean, right? He reputedly divided the country for recruiting with Dean, right? Roy had his Myron Piggie/Jaron Rush moment at KU, too, right? He had his reputed issues that cost Self some schools early on, right? And he faced Easygate in Chapel Hill, right?
Probably not Jim Calhoun, right? Or Sean Miller? No and no.
How about Izzo? Well, maybe not Tom either, given the player rape stuff that overhangs MSU and his program.
How about Steve Alford? Well, if Self were a bad egg that would mean Alford takes Self’s damaged goods as transfers, right?
How about Bo Ryan? Oops, he was unfaithful to his wife. Not just a rumor either.
Bob Huggins? Remember the Natti? Remember Beasley and the other guy that followed him to KSU? Um, prolly not Huggy bear.
Who else? Tim Floyd? Nah, prolly not.
Tubbie Smith? Pitino guy. Tulsa guy before Self. Coached UK. Nuff said.
Squeaky in Manhattan? Recruited and later coached Self’s guys at Illinois. Came to KSU which hired guys like Huggins and Frankie Martin. He’s practically Self and Huggins and Frankie but with a hair helmet. Right?
This is tough.
But I believe you can find someone at least possibly cleaner than Self in D1, but even you might have to stretch to find a lot of them, right?
But Self might also be the leper with the most fingers!!!
Rock Chalk!
Isn't the question posed in the title really the critical question facing college basketball coaches these days?
Should they keep emulating Self's strategy of tough M2M defense and 4-1 offense foundationed on 3-2 High Lo Carolina passing offense principles, or should they try to find 6 > 39% trifectates in bodies as athletic as top 25 ranked recruits but ranked between 75-100 as per Jay Wright and the world's most anomalous college basketball team, since UK's 10 stack and Duke's 9 stack of OADs. You know who I'm talking about: last seasons remarkable Villanova 75-100 Rank CATS.
If Jay Wright's model were legitimate, i.e., if they were not a bunch of sand-bagged ringers channeled to Jay over the last few years, then we should expect many coaches to be copying what worked for Jay, the same way they have copied what worked for Bill?
In Bill's case, what Bill does seems remotely attainable for quite a few coaches. Not many can get the adidas cream players Bill gets, which increasingly amounts to 2, or less. And some years he can't even play the 5-stars he signs, because of baggage.
Mostly Bill goes after 5-stars, loses them to the NIKE-EST programs, then signs athletic 4-stars and "coaches'em up"! Lately, he has been leaning toward short 4-stars that can drain the trey, but even on his bumper crop years, he never has more than three >39% trey dingers on the floor at once. Bill just can't seem to find any more than that. Heck, he even has trouble recruiting bigs that can make free throws, much less trey ding at a >39% clip.
So: many coaches apparently view Bill's model as something they can at least partially aspire to emulate, even if they can't get the adidas, or Nike cream players with baggage in similar numbers.
See: Jay's model is so sexy right now after Nova pounded everyone in their path to a March pulp last season.
And Jay's model, if one buys the official story, works with 75-100 rank guys. Heck, even Squeaky at Farm&Home, er, KSU can sign 75-100 rank guys, right?
So: Jay's model of six trifectates shooting 10 or more treys (and making > 39% of said attempts) than the opponent including two bigs stepping out and draining treys, and the highly athletic team of 75-100 rank players running the floor like gazelles to play a super matchup zone, should be being emulated by at least half the majors in each power conference, right? i mean they would be crazy not to emulate Jay Wright now, because the basic math is all in favor of his scheme, and, well, it only takes 75-100 rank players to execute, which any major coach can recruit to a Power Conference school, right?
Wrong!
The fly in the ointment caveat is that six, including two bigs, have to shoot and make lots of treys at a>39% clip.
If Bill Self, John Calipari, Coach K, and Roy Williams cannot find six > 39% trey shooters, including not one but two bigs, in the Top 25, how are coaches going to pull it off from the 75-100 ranked guys they draw to Lubbock, or Champaign Urbana, or Knoxville, or Berkeley, or Pullman, or Minneapolis-St. Paul or Iowa City, or Stillwater, or Baton Rouge?
Better yet, how did Jay Wright pull that little trick off in the City of Brotherly Love, where Fran Dunphy, at least as savvy a coach cannot pull such a fete off?
For god sakes, if Jay has been developing this for several years, Fran couldn't have missed this, being just across town at Temple, right? Heck, Temple is even another Catholic school, right? Talk about an easy emulation, right? Watch. Copy. Win.
Seriously.
How did Jay do it?
I mean was it a divinely inspired, papal kind of intervention, or what?
What gives here?
I want to believe.
I'll even convert just to get 2 bigs alone that can run the floor, guard their position, rebound and shoot >39% from trey, as well as those guys on Nova did.
And why isn't anyone else asking how Jay really did it?
I'm not saying he cheated. I'm saying I can't figure out how he ended up with 6 highly athletic >39% trifectates, including two trey dinging bigs in the paint, that can run the floor and overwhelm teams laden with Top 25 talent, by recruiting guys from 75 to 100 ranked.
Its almost biblical, like turning water into wine, like loaves of bread into fish, or was it the other way around?
Heck, if it were divinely inspired, let's all get religion.
If it comes from Roman Catholic faith, lets rehire Sheahon pronto.
Was it a miracle?
Or what?
Is it all down hill from here for the kid?
:-)
One of the great things about sport is these kinds of things keep happening inspite of what goes on in the rest of the world.
I ask the question again: is Bill Self the cleanest coach in D1?
BShark said:
@jaybate-1.0 Cal has, in the past, consistently got more NBA talent than Jay Wright. Only looking at wins and losses is short sighted.
Not shortsighted at all.
Evidence based.
Quantitative.
Large N.
Reliable.
Coherent.
Not out of nowhere.
Everyone seems to be overlooking the only apparent reason for questions about the Big 12's viability going forward.
Clearly, its a money making machine and clearly its schools and fans are happy with its sports product.
The only reason I can glean for doubting the Big 12s viability moving forward is the perceived desire for a 4 power conferences to fill out a 4 team playoff in football, and maybe to fill out a four team final four, depending on how skeptical one is about the extent to which the March Carney is driven by entertainment values.
There is of course another solution that is never talked about, but which could generate more money for everyone and solve the problem of four playoff slots for 5 power conferences and 4 final four births for five power conferences.
The problem could be enlarged, as my old professor used to say.
Eight power conferences could be designated, football could be expanded to an 8 team playoff, and the March Carney could go on its merry way unimpacted, because it already has an Elite Eight that fits.
There is now so much money in every state and in every conference, and in every school, that it would be no problem to dilute the concentration of football talent by spreading it among eight power conferences, instead of concentrating it in 5, and then picking 2 programs in each of the 8 designated power conferences to play the role of the two "football schools" that every power conference already has. No one has to give up being a designated "football school." No one has to give up being in a "power conference." Quite the contrary, 6 more "football schools" in three more power conferences get to be created, and everyone wins.
This is the American way to resolve the problem that the age of concentration has stupidly burdened college sports with.
College sports can grow its way out of this problem with expansion.
Expansion works in all professional sports with cartel advantage, which is exactly the case in college sports, same as the NBA, NFL, and major league baseball. NCAA D1 is a cartel of athletic departments. They don't have competitors. They don't have to lower prices to water down the competition with expansion. Making the NBA, the NFL, and major league base ball worse for several decades with expansion actually helped increase market share and revenues, even as the quality of competition lessened. Cartels don't have to worry about product quality and they don't have to worry about price. And the NCAA cartel doesn't even have to worry about salaries with student athletes. The petroshoeco-agent complex seems to have the under the table incentives worked out. And tuition and books and board and food and so on are government subsidized and never significant costs that can't be paid by the tax payers. And the alums and petroeshoecos pick up the tabs for the expensive coaches.
So expand already!
You're a cartel. Act like one.
BShark said:
@jaybate-1.0 Wright is a better in game coach than Calipari. You frequently overrate Self.
NEVER overrate Self. His numbers speak for themselves, especially with the level of talent he gets to coach in comparison with the other top coaches. Self has NEVER had a team as talented as Jay's was last season.
Regarding Jay vs. Cal as game coaches, you kind of pulled that out of thin air, so let me ground you in some quantitative reality.
Lifetime W&L
Jay 544-250 (.685)
Cal 678-202 (.770)
Cal seems to win more games and win at a higher rate.
So far as I can recall, all of Cal's victories were achieved, while he was an "in game coach," so it appears that Cal is quite a bit better "in-game" coach than Jay.
Though I admit, "in game coach" is a pretty fuzzy concept.
I am only using it because it is what you gave me.
Maybe if you know who ran C-Bernie (I don't) and if you know who imposed Girod (I don't), who had connections to KUMED and MRI and the sort of medical research they might have converged on in disaster areas like, say, Haiti, then you could probably get in the ball park about why Zenger got the ax and why now?