It's tough to focus when things aren't right at home. I hope that he has a great season.
justanotherfan
3643 posts
Andy Reid also still has his issues with clock management that have not been taken care of. He mismanaged the last two minutes in Detroit last week in the first half, losing a chance to try for a TD, then mismanaged the last 3 minutes of the game last night (including that disaster of a run call on 4th and 1).
Reid is a brilliant offensive coach, but he does not handle decisions under stress well at all. We have seen this time and again, and I would not be surprised if we saw it again in January. He has helped Mahomes develop, but I question whether Mahomes can achieve his full potential with a coach like Reid.
The AFC East is incredibly weak, so that helps NE because they get 4 games against the Jets and Dolphins. They also play the NFC East, home of the Giants and Redskins, two of the worst teams in the NFC and AFC North, home of the Bengals, Browns and Steelers (all either bad or banged up or both). Really, your previous year's placing only affects two of your games - for NE, that's the games against Houston and Kansas City. For KC, it's the games against New England and Baltimore. The rest of the games are set by rotation.
Smaller guards in P5 conferences have a tough road ahead of them. Maybe McBride could have overcome that, but maybe not.
McBride, if he's good enough to get recruited to a school like Kansas, can definitely play somewhere in D1. Why sit at KU (and maybe not ever get into the rotation) when you can play somewhere else? He recognized that early on and decided to cut his losses. I can't blame him for making a choice that was the best for him personally.
I doubt we see any activity until 2021 at the earliest. I don't think there is any momentum to take legislative action because the legislature has generally been more deferential to the NCAA.
I will grant that the big difference here is that KU could be negatively impacted by inaction. That may prompt something, but is by no means a guarantee.
Doubtful Kansas does anything of substance in the legislature until most of the other states act. This could leave KU playing catch-up if Kansas waits too long.
The thing is, the market would be mostly local.
Other than Mahomes, Kelce and maybe a couple of others, how many Chiefs players would you recognize out of uniform? How many Royals other than Gordon, Perez and Merrifield? How many Sporting KC guys?
But there are pros in local ads all the time even though I guarantee most people wouldn't recognize Sammy Watkins or Danny Duffy outside the KC area. This would allow them to advertise for the local car dealership or whatever. They could sign and sell autographs. That's about it.
If the NCAA were to sue, schools in California could just leave the NCAA. Basically be ineligible for the tournament, etc., but there are enough schools (and people, and dollars) in California that they could form their own association if they wanted to.
Elite level post. Best on this topic. Probably the best on this board, regardless of topic, all year.
I don't think Self loses his job. The only evidence out there is that he let the Adidas guys do what other schools let their chosen apparel provider do. Like I said, everyone is staring down into the abyss. The only way back is for everyone to walk away.
Unless there is something more substantial against Self, this is just going to be a lot of screaming and yelling, but nothing more.
You also have to remember that a KU postseason ban also hurts the Big 12. Each NCAA tournament win is worth a unit. Each team that even makes the tournament receives a unit. A unit was worth $280,300 in 2019, $273,500 in 2018, $265,000 in 2017, $260,500 in 2016, $250,106 in 2015 and $245,500 in 2014. In 2019, KU was worth 2 units. In 2018, KU was worth 5 units. In 2017, KU was worth 4 units. In 2016, KU was worth 4 units, and 2 units each in 2015 and 2014.
That's $560,600 last year, plus $1,367,500 in 2018, $1,060,000 in 2017, $1,042,000 in 2016, $500,212 in 2015 and $491,000 in 2014.
That's $5,021,312 over the last six years. Since that is distributed over a six year period, that means each school in the Big 12 will receive $83K+ from KU's basketball program this year alone. With each unit this year likely approaching $290,000, that's nearly $5,000 per Big 12 school every year for the next six years for each win KU has in the tournament. Since KU is perennially worth at least two units, that's an easy 10 grand on the line for the next six years for every school in the conference. A multiple year ban for KU could cost each conference school around $20K or more each year (assuming a two or three year ban). That's not millions, but it definitely isn't nothing.
It's a wonder that every school in the conference isn't storming the NCAA offices demanding fair treatment for KU. KU gets them paid every March. If the Big 12 is going to lose KU's unit wins, the ACC should lose Duke (and UNC, and Louisville), the Pac12 should lose Arizona (and USC), the Big 10 should lose Maryland (and Michigan), and the SEC should lose Kentucky (and LSU).
Somehow, though, I don't think the NCAA is looking forward to March Madness with no Duke, UNC, Kentucky, KU, Louisville, Arizona, USC, Michigan, LSU, etc.
The big thing that has helped KU so far this year is that, even though they are 2-2, they were very competitive in both of the losses. That matters. Kids don't want to come and get embarrassed week after week. Showing that KU is no longer a team that can get blasted every week by any conference opponent is big.
The next step, obviously, is to put some numbers in the win column. I'd like to see 4 wins. More than that is probably too hopeful, but 4 would show some definite progress. We still need playmakers on the offensive side, and some more athletes on defense, but 4 wins on top of being competitive would show that things are pointed in the right direction.
The trouble the NCAA has is that KU never played Preston, sat De Sousa, and Williamson went to a different school. Unless investigations and allegations are coming for other major programs, the NCAA is in a bind. How do you punish KU without investigating Duke? How do you punish KU and Duke without hurting college basketball overall?
The NCAA is dragging itself closer and closer to the abyss, but can't decide if it will throw itself or its premier programs over the edge, not realizing that they are all handcuffed together anyway.
The only solution is to back away from the abyss. Clearly, that's not the NCAA's plan, so everyone will plummet to doom.
Smaller guards have a lot of challenges as they move up. That's one reason why I am always hesitant to sign on to guys under 6-2. It's a huge challenge to play at the D1 level at that size. You are always facing bigger guys, and they are generally going to be just as good as (or better than) you, and they have the physical advantages that go along with that. For a smaller player, that's a huge challenge.
McBride may have discovered he would need a redshirt year at KU to even have a chance to compete for minutes. That's a tough call to make. Maybe he was homesick. That happens. Maybe there are other issues we don't know about. These guys are human, too.
Whatever the case, I wish him the best in the future.
Rotating home dates would be a nightmare logistically. You could end up with a situation where you would go literally a month or two without having games in a certain "home" base. It would be more expensive in the long run because you would need two or three sets of staffing infrastructure instead of just one.
On top of that, I doubt many players would want to do that. Most at least have apartments in their "home" city, even if they don't live there year round. If you had two or three "home" cities, You're basically living in hotels through the entire season.
dylans said:
FWIW If the xfl gains traction, they are talking about drafting HS players.
That would be wild.
For what its worth, I don't think the NFL has any interest in building their own developmental system. They are perfectly fine with the current system.
The NBA... well, that's different. They are not as content with the current state of affairs. College systems (and the overall schedule) make it too easy to hide flaws that get exposed at the next level, or prevent really amazing players from fully realizing their potential.
dylans said:
Outside of Zion, whom I also wouldn’t have seen much of if not for Duke, I can’t think of a single marketable athlete at the collegiate level when removed from his university and the exposure it creates.
The reason this is true is because that's the system that we currently operate under. If, for instance, the NBA or NFL were running their own developmental system outside the NCAA (like European soccer clubs do), we would have examples of marketable athletes aside from the NCAA. That day is coming.
Social media allows many of these athletes to begin marketing themselves before they ever step foot onto a college campus.
Jalen Green, a current KU recruiting target for 2020, has over 28,000 followers on Twitter. These guys today can promote their own material before ever setting foot on a college campus. They have access to social media to get their name, their highlights, and their story out there on their own.
Teenage stars in golf and tennis have endorsement deals. The only reason that's not true for basketball and football stars is because we have put a system in place that prevents them from doing so prior to a certain age. If that system were changed, they would almost certainly profit. It's not like Nike and Adidas all of a sudden stopped wanting to market their products through athletes.
College fans want to keep the status quo because they enjoy the status quo and it doesn't make a difference to them personally. There's nothing wrong with that.
But that doesn't mean the rules have to stay that way. That doesn't mean the rules will stay that way. And if the rules do change, the development process will, too.
Ultimately, the money that built the NCAA is going to be what kills the NCAA. When the NCAA wasn't very profitable, they had gambling scandals. As the NCAA got more popular (and profitable) the money ended up on top of the table instead of underneath, but the people that made the big money off college athletics still weren't the players, so there was always a possibility of shady dealings.
Now, there's no way to turn off the flow of money without smothering the golden goose with it. That's just the reality. All the tournaments in beautiful locations, the games on national TV, etc. All of that is a product of the money. The NCAA tournament used to be held in campus arenas. Only a handful of teams made it (mostly conference champs). It has grown so big, but in reality, the popularity of college sports is maxxed out.
The NCAA can't really become a global brand. The NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. are all marketing overseas because that's where the biggest potential for growth is. Other than games on military bases, the NCAA doesn't have any international interest, so the overall marketability of the NCAA is limited to its popularity here in the U.S. There's no more money to be made. ShoeCos get more bang for their buck from the pro game, so if the NCAA starts hassling them, they will just move away from colleges rather than deal with the headaches.
The same goes for TV. If there are other events that are more marketable, the TV money isn't promised forever. There's nothing that absolutely says the NCAA basketball tournament has to be on TV for a BILLION DOLLARS. The money could very easily dry up. I posted on another thread about how much KU gets from TV, ShoeCos, the conference (bowl payouts) and the NCAA (basketball tournament payouts). It's about half the athletic budget. If that portion of money were to go away, college sports would change dramatically.
Actually, let me put that another way. If college football or college basketball were to change in any way, the college revenue pie would change dramatically. Right now, the athletic department at most colleges is outside the school itself. It can do that because ShoeCo, TV, and NCAA money makes that possible. Take any of those revenue sources away (or drain them in any substantial way) and athletic departments become insolvent pretty quickly. Are boosters gonna pony up the $50M in lost revenue every year?
The business model is flawed. I like KU basketball, but I have no problem seeing a flawed business model fail. That's capitalism for you.
Here's the 2018 Report ↗ for KU. I think every school has to submit this report.
Highlights include that KU made $20.6M in ticket sales and about $26.2M from contributions (donations). Media rights was worth another $28M+ (Footbal accounts for about three quarters of that total).
KU got $10.8M from Royalties, Licensing, Advertisements and Sponsorships. That's where the ShoeCo money is. That category is worth about 10% of the total athletic revenue.
Also worth noting that even though the basketball team is top notch and the football team is... not, KU football was worth almost twice what KU basketball was in terms of revenue.
KU can win games because they can run the ball. In the Big 12, they can keep some of the more explosive offenses off the field with their run game, but in order to do that, the threat of a pass has to exist. Because Herbert and Williams are so talented, the passing attack doesn't need to be great. As @Texas-Hawk-10 said, average is enough.
The defense is a bit more athletic (eye test) than last year. That may not translate to a better product right away, but it will give them a higher ceiling.
The NCAA only has jurisdiction over schools, not the ShoeCos. Every school needs ShoeCo money. If the NCAA comes down hard on one ShoeCo, they will probably get sued unless they come down on all of the ShoeCos. If they crack down on every ShoeCo, the ShoeCos may stop spending money on these college contracts. Those contracts make athletic departments solvent, so that's a non starter.
The only remaining option is to do nothing.
Carter Stanley is a caretaker. KU still needs an upgrade, but if he can keep teams from completely loading the box to stop the run, this KU team can move the football. QB play just has to keep defenses honest so the backs can do their thing.
dylans said:
Last I checked it wasn’t illegal in any state to sell your image, just against ncaa rules. So what changes with the California ruling? Just more pressure on the ncaa to allow players to make money?
Exactly. This puts pressure on the NCAA's rules on eligibility. If you are a regular scholarship student, you can profit off your name and likeness in any field. However, if you are a scholarship athlete you cannot.
Chad Thomas, a former player at Miami (now with the Cleveland Browns) was a rapper and music producer in college. He was featured on several major albums, but the NCAA forbid him from promoting or profiting from his music, or they would take away his eligibility (story ↗) That's pretty pathetic, if you ask me. A kid that majors in biology could certainly profit from research that they did. A kid on a band scholarship could play gigs on the weekends for money.
But if you are an athlete, you cannot do anything to make money, or you risk your eligibility.
The NCAA has the power to suspend the schools in those areas, but California is large enough (with enough schools and population) to break away anyway. The NCAA is staring at a showdown that it may not have the horses to win.
BShark said:
@justanotherfan Rotate and motivate :thumbs_up_medium_skin_tone:
And keep guys healthy and fresh.
KC has options at running back. Each guy can do something a little different. That should limit the wear and tear on everyone, which means those guys should all be ready to go come January when this stuff matters.
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@justanotherfan hopefully working with you long enough will expand his mind and change his heart.
Unfortunately not. We didn't cross paths much after that, and he never spoke to me after that incident. I haven't seen this person in at least a decade.
nuleafjhawk said:
@justanotherfan I must be the most naive guy on the planet. I haven't read all of the "racial" posts word for word, but I am literally in shock. This stuff is still that prevalent? I can't believe it.
I'm white, but I've had many friends over the years that were not. Mostly black and hispanic. I don't know what Brandon and Tim were selling, but It's never crossed my mind not to buy something - car, house, groceries, whatever it is i'm buying - from someone just because they are another race. That's CRAZY.
Just curious - are you guys in the midwest? Like I said, maybe i have my head in the sand, or maybe it's different in other parts of the country/world.
That's a sad, sad thing to not like someone for the color of their skin. (of course my twisted mind wants to add "when there are so many other things not to like them for!" jk )
First, its a credit to you that you don't think that way. I think a lot of people do not think that way. It absolutely IS crazy to think that way.
I am however, not surprised that you do not encounter this. I think we can agree that a very small percentage of the population is racist. Given that you know hundreds of people, you may know a handful of people with racial superiority/inferiority ideology. However, given your own position on these issues, those people likely won't ever act on that around you because they know you think that's crazy and will likely react, and may even socially shun them or change your opinion on them based on their attitudes toward race. You may even know some of these people well, but they would never reveal that side of themselves to you.
For instance, I was once called a "colored boy" in a business meeting. Needless to say, everyone that was there was shocked that the person that said that actually said it, and the reactions of others in the room reflected that.
But let's say that man had just said "this guy" instead of "colored boy". He has the same attitude in his heart. He holds the same ideology in his mind. He just has a better verbal filter.
I'm still not going to get a fair shake from him when I have to deal with him one on one. He still thinks of me as a "colored boy", he just knows he can't say that. By changing those two words, he draws zero reaction from anyone, and if I have problems dealing with him, no one will say that its because of his racial attitudes. They will just say that I have to learn to work with him on things, or that I have to be more flexible, or that I have to take more personal responsibility. The obligation shifts from him to me, even though I can't change his heart or mind, because he isn't doing something blatant, so he gets a pass even if he is politely screwing me over at every turn.
People with those attitudes have learned that they will be socially ostracized for that type of behavior, and no one wants to be an outcast. But they also know that they can feel the exact same way, and even act on that, so long as they watch what they say and never point to race as the determining factor. And if they do that, they can make sure you never even see it.
Classes start Monday. If he isn't there then, that's a very bad sign.
You are correct that basketball, football and volleyball are headcount sports. That means that they have a certain number of scholarships and cannot split those scholarships up between players. This means that whoever the people are on scholarship, they are on full scholarship. You can't give one guy a half a scholarship, and another guy a half a scholarship like you can in baseball or track or other sports.
However, an athlete can play more than one sport while in college. Because you cannot double dip, you have to take a scholarship in your "primary" sport. Bo Jackson, for instance, played football, baseball and ran track at Auburn. However, he was on a football scholarship, which allowed the baseball and track programs to have an elite level player as a walk on for their programs since he could not also be on scholarship for those programs.
Perhaps a better example is Santana Moss at the University of Miami. When Miami was on probation in the late 1990's they had scholarship limits as a penalty in football. Moss was also an elite level HS track star (state titles in long jump and triple jump, ran a 10.7 100 in college), so Miami gave him a track scholarship initially. There was some controversy because people argued that Moss wasn't really a track athlete, but he participated in track all four years at Miami and even won the conference title in the triple jump as a senior. He didn't initially count against the football scholarship limits because he accepted the track scholarship.
McKinstry would be in the same type of situation. He is an elite football player, and a good basketball player. He would be on football scholarship, but, as @Texas-Hawk-10 mentioned, part of the recruiting pitch could be to come and be a part of an elite level basketball program as a preferred walk on. Yes, KU offered a hoops scholarship, but that is part of the pitch to let him know he would be able to play both at KU. I doubt Alabama or Auburn makes the same offer, so if the young man wants to play both, KU is probably his choice. And he's a legit D1 prospect in basketball, so he could play at KU.
Bird was a better shooter, no doubt.
Lebron is a better athlete and a better slasher.
Lebron was a better perimeter defender (particularly earlier in his career). Bird was better in the post before his back betrayed him.
Hard to say who the better passer was. The video doesn't give much in the way of separation. I don't think there's anything passing wise that one could do in their prime that the other could not have done.
The overall edge goes to Lebron because of his durability. Bird just can't match his production over the long haul, but Bird was an ALL TIME great, full stop.
Texas is one of the biggest athletic departments in the country. While KU is a great basketball program, there's really no comparison between the UT athletic department and KU. It's the equivalent of being the starting shortstop for the Yankees and being the starting shortstop for the Diamondbacks. Yeah, both are in the majors, and the guy with the D-backs may be the better player, but from a prestige perspective, there just isn't any comparison.
Hudy has made quite a career for herself. She broke into a male dominated field, moved from a small D1 school in UConn to a nationally recognized P5 program, and now is at the biggest athletic department in the country. Hudy basically moved to the top of her field. Not sure many of us would pass up a job that allowed us to move to the top of our chosen field. I can't blame her for doing the same, particularly when she had no previous ties to KU.
KU has always struggled to find solid QBs. That isn't a new story. I anticipate that whomever wins the job this year is just a stop gap. I'm not even sure the QB Miles wants for the future is on the roster or committed yet.
Miles is trying to build up the rest of the roster to attract the right QB.
I think you missed my point. I didn't say you weren't focused on Tim's success. I said you weren't focused on why Tim was successful. The reason is what matters. But I will flip it so its easier to follow.
They both were encountering racism.
They both recognized that they were encountering racism.
Brandon failed because he spent time actually trying to persuade racists to buy from him. That is a waste of time, and that wasted time caused him to fail because he tied up time, energy and resources on lost causes.
Brandon is allowing people that have judged him by his skin color to make him fail by letting them rob him of his time. He can't get that time back, or outwork that wasted time because its just gone.
That difference in time allotment meant Brandon was bogged down dealing with people that would never buy from him because of the color of his skin.
Its not that Brandon encounters racism. Its that Brandon gives racists time and energy that they don't deserve. That is why Brandon failed.
Interesting post you made here. But I think you have still missed the key difference because you are trying to understand why Brandon failed instead of looking at why Tim succeeded.
Obviously I don't know either Brandon or Tim. But I know why Tim succeeded. Tim succeeded because he didn't waste time.
Most of you probably think I am referring to Brandon's Facebook posts. That isn't it. I'm referring to Brandon's sales strategy. Brandon is black and racism exists. There are people that won't buy from a black person. I have experienced that myself. But I know what Tim knows. YOU DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME TRYING TO CHANGE THOSE PEOPLE'S MINDS.
Think of it this way. Both Tim and Brandon encounter one person each day that will not buy because of their race. Tim determines that within the first few minutes of the sales call, thanks that individual for their time and moves on. Tim spends 15 minutes on that, and moves on to other clients. Brandon, on the other hand, spends 90 minutes trying to convince this person. He gives his best pitches, outlines all the benefits, works every angle, follows up with management, etc. The deal still doesn't happen. Brandon spends 4 or 5 hours over a 2 or 3 day period and gets the same result Tim got in 15 minutes - no sale.
Brandon is frustrated because he is working hard for no results. That's making him bitter and disillusioned because he's beating his head against the wall for nothing, so he's on Facebook venting.
Tim isn't frustrated or bitter or disillusioned because he didn't let someone else's toxic racism infect him. He recognized it and moved on to something that could be beneficial. Tim succeeds.
They deal with the same problem, but Tim doesn't waste time trying to convince people that don't want to be convinced. Brandon does, and that works against him. Brandon is working harder than Tim in all likelihood, but because he is spending so much time and energy on lost causes, he can't do as well with clients he actually can sell to.
And that's the difference.
I think race played a role in the reaction to the "Rich Paul" rule, but not in the normal way. Normally, a minority with no college degree would not have the power/money/influence to speak out against this sort of thing.
Rich Paul does, so it throws a wrinkle into the normal power dynamic because people aren't used to a person like him being able to push back against a big institution like the NCAA, and people are especially not used to a person like him being able to push back against an institution like that and win.
I don't think what the NCAA did was racist. More just poorly thought out and vetted. They listened to people in the industry, some of whom have an agenda against Rich Paul because he is competition, so cutting him out of a lucrative part of the market is a money decision. However, had this been vetted more carefully, the entire decision/fallout could have been avoided.
Hudy was a big reason behind a lot of players developing at KU. This is a huge change.
In the same way that our big man rotation took a hit when Manning left, this will affect development.
The other notable thing that Miles is doing is building a lot of depth. No matter who you recruit, every guy will not work out for your program. In the past, that left us severely undermanned. Miles is addressing that with numbers and talent. KU looks to be in a better position not only now, but moving forward because of it.
BigBad said:
"Requiring a four-year degree accomplishes only one thing—systematically excluding those who come from a world where college is unrealistic," Paul wrote. "Does anyone really believe a four-year degree is what separates an ethical person from a con artist?"
With this logic do people like this believe that no job should have any requirements?
There are requirements to become an agent. The NBA Player's Association certifies all agents that work in the NBA. You can find their requirements here ↗.
The issue that was brought up is that Rich Paul has met all of the NBPA requirements to become an agent, but the NCAA was attempting to add additional requirements on top of what the NBPA requires.
It makes sense to have job requirements. Being an agent has those. It just doesn't make sense for the NCAA to add additional requirements.
The crazy thing is, Mahomes could throw for 43 TDs, 4500 yards and just 15 interceptions and that would be about 15% worse than last year, but still one of the 25 best passing seasons in NFL history. That is absolutely mind boggling.
I also think the Chiefs run game is more effective this year. Teams will have to put more people into coverage, so the backs are going to be operating with a lot more space around the line of scrimmage. While that may lower Mahomes' overall numbers, the offense could be even harder to contain, which should make you giddy as a Chiefs fan and absolutely terrified if you root for anyone else.
If the defense is a top 20 defense, the Chiefs will be very hard to beat.
Guys can certainly improve, but there is generally a ceiling on that improvement depending on how naturally good (or bad) someone is to begin with.
For example, you can improve your vertical leap. Anyone can with the right exercises. But not everyone can train their way to a 40 inch vertical. Maybe you can turn your 10 inch vertical into a 25 inch vertical (an incredible improvement), but the person that naturally had a 23 inch vertical may get to 35 or 40 and throw down 360 dunks while you are barely sneaking the ball over the rim.
Shooting is a skill just like hitting is a skill in baseball. But some guys are naturally gifted hitters. Others are not. Generally speaking, if a guy cannot shoot by the time he is 18 or so, that skill will likely not develop. There are exceptions, obviously, but guys that can put the ball in the basket (like Selden) can improve more with refining their craft. Guys that struggle to shoot (like Garrett) generally do not improve regardless of what adjustments they make. Maybe Garrett or Enaruna ends up being like Bruce Bowen and that skill develops over time. More likely, they end up staying more or less the same and learning to work within those limitations to be effective.
I agree that Selden changed his stroke and improved. I disagree about how bad he was before the change. Selden shot 42-128 from three as a freshman. That's basically 33%, and he did that on almost 4 attempts per game.
To me, that says that he shot a break even percentage on a pretty decent volume of attempts (wasn't incredibly selective to only take the very best looks).
He was certainly better after that (over 39% as a junior), but he was not bad even as a freshman.
Selden wasn't a great shooter coming to KU, but he could shoot. He had results saying he could shoot. He improved, but he had a foundation to improve from. I just worry about guys that don't have results to back up what we hope to see.
That rule was probably not going to stand up to a possible legal challenge, and Rich Paul has the means to drag that fight out as long as the NCAA was willing to.
Turnovers are difficult to duplicate year over year because they involve some degree of luck (particularly fumble recoveries). Pass gets tipped, and falls just out of reach of a defender, rather than one foot further. Ball gets fumbled and takes a funny bounce right back to the offense. Because of that, looking to have turnovers make up for an otherwise leaky defense is always risky.
If the Chiefs are statistically better (particularly on third down) they will likely be much improved even if turnover numbers dip.
Last year's team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU's roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there's still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).
This is a bit of a prove it year. We go 2-10 and we probably lose a lot of our recruits.
On the other hand, we go 5-7, look like a potential bowl team in 2020, I think we keep everyone and may even add some more.
These guys want to know they aren't signing onto a ship that is still taking on water. That's why this season is so important to KU. If the Hawks get off to a good start, expect this class to arrive on campus ready to challenge for a bowl in 2020.
A roster of OADs only works if they are complimentary to each other.
For instance, Duke had tons of talent on this year's roster, but Williamson, Barrett, and Reddish did not really compliment each other on the floor. Duke would have been better served to have Zion with a guy like Tyler Herro in place of Reddish to help space the floor with shooting without needing the ball in his hands. That would have been a better fit than Barrett and Reddish, who always seemed to be in each other's way because they played the same style and position.
Duke had similar issues playing Wendell Carter and Marvin Bagley together. They were tremendously talented, but also in each other's way. Trade either of them for a high skill wing player (Kevin Knox, maybe) and that Duke team becomes virtually unstoppable.
It's all about making sure the pieces fit because you don't have enough practice time to force the fit, and the players themselves don't have enough experience to adjust their style to create a fit.
Makes sense. The demands on them internationally are actually very similar, as they were pressed into roles that may not have fit their skillsets as well as the roles they eventually occupied (or will occupy) at KU.
Releford was never a poor shooter. He was a big time scorer in HS that adjusted his role in college. He wasn't asked to score at KU, but he was never a poor shooter.
Miles is an interesting case. I would argue that he never really developed as a shooter. That's what kept him out of the NBA long term. If you look only at his 3PT% you see a nice progression from 29% as a freshman up to 50% as a senior. That would suggest that he improved. However, you look at his 2PT% and you see that it never really moved, staying more or less right around 43% his entire career (with his sophomore year standing out at 49%). Miles made a few more threes as a senior, but still bricked the same amount of 2s. And indeed, he shot about 30% from three in his European career, with one season around 37% and every other season south of 33%. And his FG% in Europe? 42.3% over 5 seasons. Miles was the same shooter after five years in Europe that he was after four years at KU.
Selden was also never bad as a shooter. Came in at 33% and improved steadily from there. Selden was more plagued by consistency problems (like Vick) than he was by result issues.
Probably one of the most famous improved shooters in the world right now is current Finals MVP Kawhi Leonard. He was a bad 3pt shooter in college. 20% as a freshman, 29% as a sophomore. But the thing was, Kawhi always attempted shots. He shot 78 threes as a freshman, and 86 more as a sophomore. Clearly, there was a belief that he could shoot, despite the results. The Spurs literally re-worked his entire shot from the ground up as a pro. But even then, Leonard was a pretty good 2pt shooter that entire time. He struggled from distance, but his jumpshot overall was not broken, as he shot right around 50% over his college career from 2. You can contrast that to a guy like Ben Simmons, whose shot was always broken, and who didn't even attempt to shoot in college (just 3 attempts from three point range in his lone college season).
If Enaruna comes in at 33% or so, I think he has a chance to become a pretty good shooter. If he's at or below 30%, the chances that he ever becomes a good shooter fall dramatically.
I would hesitate to compare Enaruna to Svi. Svi could always shoot when set. He hadn't rounded out his game when he arrived at KU, but if he got his feet set, his stroke was silky. There was never a "results don't match the mechanics" issue with Svi. I remember watching early video of him and wondering if he would ever develop the rest of his offensive game, but I never doubted that he could put the ball in the basket.
As @BeddieKU23 says, shooting can be taught. However, I am cautious because he recently switched hands. Almost all good shooters have some naturally good things going. Switching hands at this stage indicates to me that Enaruna doesn't have some of those natural tendencies even if he does have the athletic ability to repeat motion, etc.
I am not saying that Enaruna won't develop into a better shooter. He's young enough that he certainly could. But I don't think its a given, either.
Ponder it this way. During the Bill Self era, name any player you like that came in as a poor shooter and left as a good one.
Miles may also get creative with the roster this year to help manage how many people roll out of the program. I could see possibly grabbing a few more preferred walk ons, as well as potentially redshirting upperclassmen to help balance the classes a little bit more.
And he still has the option of moving recruits into the 2020 or 2021 class (possible January 2021 reports for some) to help balance a bit more.
How was Enaruna ever projected as a "stretch-4" when he cannot, by definition, stretch since he is a below average shooter?
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women's sports would not exist without shoe money.
Not just women's sports. All sports other than football, men's basketball and (in some cases) women's basketball. Those are the only sports that could likely survive without ShoeCo money. Smaller sports have no chance.