🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@drgnslayr

I get your point, but the NCAA can't put in too many guidelines without squeezing out ShoeCo money, and most non-revenue sports depend on that money (and equipment) to help manage their budgets.

Track and Field, Soccer, Volleyball, Swimming, etc. would all be in significant budget trouble if not for ShoeCo money, as that money pays for the equipment and apparel side of their budget. That's why there is so much ShoeCo money in each school, and why KU is with Adidas instead of Nike right now. Simply put, Adidas offered KU more for their non-revenue sports than Nike did. That made all of the difference in the contract negotiations.

ShoeCos will continue to do what they want because the NCAA can't host sports like gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, hockey, track and field, etc., or lower divisions without ShoeCo money (even D2 and D3 schools have small contracts with ShoeCos for apparel and equipment).

There's just too much money in too many people's hands to shove this genie back into the bottle.

I still do not believe anyone gets dinged for this latest round of violations coming out of the ShoeCo investigations.

The NCAA needs the ShoeCos. Every athletic department makes tons of money off ShoeCos. Not just P5. Not just D1. Every athletic department is receiving ShoeCo money. If the NCAA disrupts that relationship, there are a lot of D2 and D3 programs that outright cannot make their athletic budgets work without the money and equipment they receive from ShoeCos. The NCAA knows they would put some programs under if they ran ShoeCos out of the equation.

The only way to avoid doing that is to ding a few players here and there, hit a handful of coaches and boosters, but avoid dinging the schools themselves so they don't disrupt those lucrative relationships.

We play Kentucky every three years in the Champions Classic. We have played them every season in the last four seasons, and we will see them next season in Chicago for the Champions Classic again. That's five of six seasons to face one non-conference opponent. That's a lot.

I am all for playing UK once every few years in the Big 12/SEC Challenge as long as the Champions Classic is going because we will play them once every three years in that anyway. We aren't ducking them. They aren't ducking us. But it doesn't make sense for the same two programs to play in the Big 12/SEC Challenge every year from a marketing perspective. I want to see Tennessee. I'd like another shot at Auburn. A matchup with Mizzou at some point would be fun. Arkansas could be interesting. Maybe LSU. We haven't seen a single one of those teams and the challenge has been going for six years. We finally get Tennessee. The whole idea is to see different teams in non-conference. Not always the same teams.

If these projections are what we actually get we could be in some trouble.

If we are looking to Garrett as our #2 option, our offense will likely be fairly inefficient. Our defense could be very stout, but relying on a guy that's not a natural or efficient scorer, our defense had better be elite, because we will need to win some 65-60 type games.

With Doke, you also have to account for some foul trouble, and being out of the games late. While he may be in better shape, he probably won't play much in the last 4 minutes of any game, and will probably miss time in other games due to foul trouble. 26-27 minutes per game for Doke seems a bit heavy to me. I would bet he's under 25. That shouldn't hurt this team though, because we have a lot of front court depth.

In the history of the Big 12/SEC challenge, KU has played Kentucky 3 times, Florida twice and Texas A&M once. I am personally glad that we are seeing another SEC team other than UK or Florida. We need some variety.

chriz said:

Sports is an interesting animal. You can be the best in the nation one year and then barely getting a job the next just due to your size.

So much more size and athleticism in the pros than in college. It's a huge step up talentwise.

@FarmerJayhawk and @Kcmatt7

I think this has a lot to do with expectations.

A D1 player here in Kansas will dominate the Kansas HS basketball scene, especially if they are P5 level. They will generally be a man among boys. I think this leads to unrealistic expectations of some of the players that come out of Kansas because we expect them to dominate because they set the HS scoring record, but they are really just a bench player at the D1 level (Conner Frankamp). That wasn't on him. That was on fans because we thought he would turn into something he never was.

That's why I critique players the way I do. I am trying to see what they can be at the college or pro level, rather than just what they are at the HS level. There are kids all over the country putting up crazy numbers against lower level competition. Now, sometimes that stuff translates to the next level. Other times it doesn't.

II don't know if Ty Berry is a full 6-6 in his latest videos, but he is A LOT bigger and stronger than he was before. And that shooting stroke is still just as good. I would be curious to see how his athleticism increases with his added size and strength. Definite P5 target at this point.

I will say this - if Jalen Wilson can play some minutes as a stretch 4 type player, that could open up things for Marcus Garrett at the 3 in something resembling a functional offense. Because of his style of play, Garrett needs to be on the floor with as many shooters/ floor spacers as possible. Even if Wilson only plays 14 or so minutes, if most of those are as a stretch 4 with Garrett and either Doke or Silvio on the floor, that will be a solid lineup.

This roster is going to take a lot of mixing and matching because just about every player has unique strengths and weaknesses.

Also, my earlier posts about Moss aren't to say he won't be a good player. I think he will be. But I also think everyone has to be prepared for the 0-5's as much as the 6-8's. There will be nights where he will score less than 5 points. On those nights (6 such games in conference play last year, including three games where he scored 0 points), someone else has to step up on the perimeter. There will be other nights where he gets 15+ (4 games like that in conference, including a couple of 20+ point games), where we will be able to afford an off night from someone else. Moss will average 10-12 points by mixing 20 point games with 2 point games. He's not a guy that you write in his points before the night starts like Dedric was last year.

@KUSTEVE

Moss is very streaky. He shot 42% from three, but he did that in a very streaky way. A sample:

Opens the season by going a combined 1-9 from the field in games against UMKC and Green Bay. Hits 7-12 threes in his next three games versus Oregon, UConn and Alabama State.

He followed that three game stretch up with a combined 1-8 from the field against Pitt and Wisconsin, then dropped an efficient 13 (4-8, 2-3) against Michigan State and a 20 piece (8-12, 4-5) in a rivalry game against Iowa State in back to back games.

A week after that Iowa State game he went 1-4 against Northern Iowa.

Or take this five game swing during conference play:

21 vs. Illinois on 7-12 shooting, including 5 threes

2 points against Michigan State on 1-7 shooting

23 at Minnesota on 8-14 shooting with 6 threes

Back to back goose eggs at Indiana and at home against Michigan on a combined 0-11 shooting.

Of course he would follow that up with 16 against Northwestern (6-12) and 17 against Rutgers (7-12).

My point is that Moss can score for sure. But he can also disappear.

BShark said:

@justanotherfan probably d2 as a pg for Braun.

D2 Braun would destroy as a point forward with his size. If he played PG, he could maybe play low D1, but not P5. He's going to be a nice wing player, though.

All I want to know is WHY he lost his mind. Did they screw up his order?

@Texas-Hawk-10

I actually have the opposite opinion than you. I expect this team to start very fast. Our early opponents will likely be overwhelmed by the Doke/Silvio combo inside. That will cover up some of the roster issues early in the year. Skipping the Duke game for a second (I'll get back to them), the next four opponents are UNC-Greensboro, Monmouth, East Tennessee State and Chaminade. Then we get either a rebuilding UCLA team or an okay BYU squad. Then it's Colorado, UMKC, UW-Milwaukee, Villanova and Stanford. Duke and Michigan State are the only two squads we really have to worry about there. Everyone else probably gets run off the floor by our size.

So back to Duke. I actually think we even handle Duke with our size. They are depending on two freshmen inside in Carey and Hurt that don't have nearly the size and strength that Doke/Silvio have. If KU doesn't get into foul trouble, we probably bully Duke off the floor, too. They have some really good players, but nothing like this year where they had so much individual talent that they could just blow a team off the court. Carey and Hurt will be up against grown men in the paint for the first time in their lives.

But come conference season, I think things could shift if we cannot find some consistent perimeter scoring. Not one of the players that we have on the roster has been a consistent perimeter scorer in their college careers. Maybe we can get by doing it by committee, but that's hoping that one of the group has it going every night so teams cannot just pack the paint.

Once teams start adjusting to our size/strength advantage, we have to have a counter. That's what I will be waiting to see. That's what gives me pause.

BShark said:

@justanotherfan like Braun I think Berry is much more appealing as a wing than a pg. Some kids do get stuck on position though.

I'm not sure Braun was ever going to be a PG at the college level. Berry could still be a PG at the college level, but I think his ceiling is higher on the wing.

I may also being viewing that because he is a better fit on KU rosterwise if he's a wing player.

approxinfinity said:

wissox said:

For the last 4 years KU has been eliminated by a FF team. In fact 13 of these 20 tournaments we've been eliminated by a FF team!

Things get easier when you knock off the #1 seed in your bracket ;)

Also important that, in most years, KU has gone at least to the Sweet 16 or better. We all remember Bucknell, Bradley, Wichita State, Stanford, Northern Iowa and Auburn this year, but most years KU got pretty deep in the tournament, so losing to a FF team only required one more win, or no wins at all.

I don't think signing Harris rules out signing Ty Berry. Berry may end up moving to the wing with his shooting and size. He may be better suited on the wing long term, anyway.

The move to Sunrise is good for him as well. He's a player that should be watched closely this year.

Iowa State and West Virginia are tough jobs because I think there is a definite ceiling on how good they can be consistently. Expectations over time make those jobs tough.

Right now ISU is up and WVU is down, but I wouldn't be surprised if that flipped in a few years.

KU should get out of last place this year because I think they can win 3 conference games. Several vulnerable teams out there, and KU should be better on the road due to coaching.

Snyder left Klienman with very little in Manhattan. He may get it turned around, but KSU wasn't very good last year, and they have less talent on hand now than they did at the same time last summer. Even KSU fans I have talked to are not feeling good about this season.

Kietzman was constantly over the line. If he didn't have an ownership stake, he would have been canned years ago.

He's lucky he lasted as long as he did.

Grayson Allen is a dirty player. That's what separates him from a lot of the guys @BigBad lists. Many of those guys were physical. Allen is just dirty.

He isn't playing physical and sometimes escalating. He's playing in a way that he does not care of a player is injured by tripping, closed fist fouling, etc. That's what makes Allen different to me.

But because he went to Duke, he has a better reputation than he deserves.

@KUSTEVE

If you are confident that Vick was going to continue to shoot over 60% from three, you are right to be confident in this lineup.

If you don't think that was going to continue, then that's where the floor spacing issues start.

Crimsonorblue22 said:

Question, not sure how to word it, if a player, say Tom, has some mental health issues, what all issues could be covered by Hipaa laws? Could drinking or drug addiction problems be considered covered by hipaa laws? I was wondering if Self can't share some things due to hipaa laws?🤔

There are both HIPAA issues and student privacy issues at play. Certain things about a student athlete are not public and by law cannot be made public. I am not an expert by any means, but I know those issues exist.

@drgnslayr

I am concerned about how much depth KU has, as well as how KU can play their best 5 together.

If KU's best group includes Doke, de Souza and Garrett, how do you build a real D1 offense with the skillsets of those three guys.

Let's say the best group is Moss, Dotson and the previously mentioned three. How is that better than what we showed last year? Lawson was much more polished than I believe de Souza will be. Moss and Vick are about the same. Doke is what he is, and despite our criticisms, Garrett likely isn't a large upgrade over Grimes.

So unless Dotson has made a huge leap, we have last year's team with some new faces. Perhaps I am too pessimistic, but that's my concern. I just don't see large differences right now.

Wiggins is a good NBA player. He is not a star. Unfortunately, he is on a star contract, so he is a hard player to fit into anyone's cap situation.

As for Westbrook and Harden, they will have to figure out how to work on the court together because there is no way Houston can avoid playing them heavy minutes together in the playoffs.

@stoptheflop

Line play is the hardest thing to build. If you have a bad line (or no depth), it can be tough to get out from under. KU has been short on line play since the Weis years.

The recruits that Beaty brought in to at least get some depth up front on both sides of the ball are a credit to him. I don't know whether he could have ever gotten things truly turned around, but he at least took KU from laughingstock to just bad.

Duke did not win a national title this year because their roster was flawed.

Even though they had a ton of top end talent, that talent did not necessarily fit together well on the court. Reddish and Barrett played the same position, and would have had similar roles had they been on different teams. On the same team, Reddish was often the odd man out. Even still, Reddish was easily their third best player.

Behind the four freshmen (adding in PG Jones) Duke had basically zero depth. The NCAA is still five on five, and Duke didn't really have anyone else they trusted to give minutes to. Their four freshmen all played about 30 mpg, with most of the other players on the team playing 20 mpg or less. Had Williamson, Reddish and Jones not missed time, there's a decent chance that Duke would have had four players average 30+ minutes and four others averaging 15 or so minutes per game. That lack of depth consistently got exposed, particularly in the tournament where good teams could attack the weak link on the floor.

On top of that, Duke didn't have much in the way of perimeter shooting. They shot 30% as a team from three. They likely would have been unguardable if they had shot 35% from three, and a real nightmare at just 33%.

Duke had a flawed roster and it haunted them all March. If you could keep Williamson and Barrett out of the paint, Duke was actually easier to guard, and they always had at least one weaker player on the floor.

We all know that most NCAA champions have at least seven or eight legitimate contributors. That is just a must unless you get really lucky.

dylans said:

@justanotherfan Did you see the stats for the qbs after they left KU? Much improved. Is the big12 that tuff or does KU suck that bad at the supporting positions -line, receiver?

KU's line was among the worst in D1 for a while. Tom Brady would have looked average behind that line.

Texas Hawk 10 said:

@justanotherfan Most owners have no issue going into the luxury tax in an attempt to win a championship. Only New Orleans and Charlotte have never paid the luxury tax since its inception. Owners don't want to stay in the luxury tax because the penalty for being the in luxury tax escalates each consecutive year a team is in it.

Key phrase attempt to win a championship. At no point since the tax has been created has either Charlotte or New Orleans been relatively close to championship caliber.

Now, I will grant that several other teams weren't there, either (Knicks, Nets, Grizzlies, probably a few others), but most everyone else has either been a top 2 team in their conference or gone to the Finals during that stretch.

It's been a combination of a lack of talent and a lack of organization.

After Reesing left, there was no incoming QB talent. The Gill years were short circuited on whether or not he would be able to recruit a better QB.

Weis was terrible in every facet. No more needs to be said.

The last few years, we have been able to recruit solid enough QBs, but haven't surrounded them with the scheme or enough overall talent to make any difference. Hopefully the stability that Miles brings will also allow a QB to actually develop at KU. We aren't in a position to recruit a five star guy that can come in and start immediately, so we need enough stability in the program to allow a QB to actually develop within the program for a year or two before starting.

An improved offensive line and some more playmakers on the outside should also help.

None of the owners really want to go into the luxury tax, and Charlotte has too many bad contracts on the books to really compete right now. Their cap situation is a mess, with no real way to repair it until Batum and others come off the books.

Zion could be a great rebounder if he committed to it, particularly on the offensive glass where he would be a real menace because of his explosiveness.

But his skills dictate that he get the ball in his hands away from the rim quite a bit because he can handle the ball and is a very adept passer as @Texas-Hawk-10 notes.

There are a few paths Zion could take.

1. Charles Barkley 2.0 - a modernized young Barkley. A few less rebounds, but more assists. Barkley's first All Star season saw him average 23 points, 14.6 boards and nearly 5 assists, with more than a block and a steal a game. I could see Zion averaging 22 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists and nearly 4 combined blocks and steals a game, with an effective FG% over 62% because he can likely shoot around 33% from three (Barkley generally shot under 30% from three).

2. Super Draymond Green - Basically a do everything forward that can guard all 5 positions defensively. Less scoring, but more efficient. Something along the lines of 17 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists, roughly 3.5 combined steals and blocks, 65%+ eFG%. This only works if he gets guys like Lonzo Ball, Stanley Johnson, Brandon Ingram, etc. to be able to be the focal point of the offense so he can do a little less pure scoring.

3. mini Lebron - His rebounding will suffer here because he will facilitate more, but something like 26/7/6/1.5/1, with an eFG% of around 50%. His efficiency suffers here, but that's still a great line. Also, that line is a shade under what Lebron has averaged for his career.

4. All Star Shawn Kemp 2.0 - 20 points, 10 rebounds, but fewer assists as his ball handling responsibilities diminish.

All four of those scenarios are perennial All Star level scenarios. If Zion stays healthy, I don't think there's a path that leads him to be less than a consistent all star.

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

Excellent post. Don't you think the rankings are a bit of "self-fulfilling prophecy?"

I've been around several players fresh out of D1 awaiting for their shot in the league. Most all of these guys jump to another level within that period of just a few months. They have agents, who connect them with the right trainers while they get their moments practicing for NBA teams.

You can easily see the difference in their conditioning just by seeing them in street clothes. It's dramatic.... and it's also necessary if they want a real shot in the league.

I don't think the ratings are "self-fulfilling" in that guys end up being good because we are told they are good. The guys that are rated really high tend to be better. Even the ones that end up not being that great are generally still serviceable.

Take Quentin Grimes. He was bad for a top 10 recruit. But he was still just as good as anyone you could have gotten that was rated below 35. We have seen how guys in that range perform. You get Andrew White. Or Brannen Greene. Or Royce Woolridge. Or Anrio Adams. Those guys don't produce what Grimes produced last season. They give you 3 or 4 points per game. A rebound or two maybe. Grimes was double that.

Was Grimes overrated? Probably. He should have been in the 20's instead of the top 10. But had he been in the mid to late 20's, his production would have been right in line.

But that's the thing. Even when the ratings miss, they can be telling. A top 10 recruit will at least give top 40 type production, even if they are overrated. A top 50 recruit will likely become productive at some point in their career.

Anything below 50 is a crap shoot.

Paul George is an elite level second star because he does everything well. He's one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. He and Kawhi will make teams miserable on the wings. Add Patrick Beverly and the Clippers are not going to be fun to play against offensively.

This offseason has really re-shaped the entire league.

Utah has improved. Philly probably took a small step back without Butler. Boston probably took a step back losing Kyrie and Horford. Kemba is good, but he won't replace Kyrie's production.

The Lakers are better, but it remains to be seen how healthy they will be. Same for the Warriors.

The Nets will be good in 2020-21. Durant is better than Dominique Wilkins ever was, and Wilkins' entire game was based on his otherworldly athleticism. Durant at least has his shooting to fall back on. Also, Wilkins was 31 when he was injured, not 21.

It's weird to think we live in a world where the Los Angeles Clippers are a legitimate NBA title contender. Not a hip pick. Not a sleeper pick. Legit title contenders.

Bosthawk said:

more stats fun about top 100 high school ranked players from 1998 to 2013 and how their careers panned out in the NBA:

27% of the 1,563 top-ranked high school players made it to the NBA and only 25% made it past their two-year rookie contract. Put another way, 441 of the 900 draft picks in that 15 year span were top 100 recruits. Just 31 players eventually reached “superstar” status.

But perhaps the top 100 is too broad of a categorization. Surely the top 10 players will make it to the NBA more often, right?

Players ranked in the top 10 certainly appear to have slightly better odds—a full 84% of them eventually made it to the NBA. Though with 60 draft picks a year, you might expect that number to be higher.

How many players can truly be "superstars" at any one time? Let's say that a "superstar" is a player that is an All-NBA type talent. That means there are maybe 15-20 true superstars in the NBA at any one time. And because superstars will tend to stay in the league for a while, your superstars will tend to be the same year after year.

For example, Kobe Bryant was a "superstar" from probably 1999 or 2000 until 2010 or 2011 when injuries and age slowed him down. Lebron James has been a superstar since probably 2004 or 2005. Shaq was a superstar from 1994 or 1995 until 2006 at least. Kevin Garnett was a superstar from 1996 until at least 2009 or 2010. Tim Duncan was a superstar from 1999 until 2010 or 2011. So between those five guys, you had five of the 15-20 superstars in the league from 2004-2006, and between James, Duncan, Bryant and Garnett, they occupied four of those spots from 2004 through 2010. Not a lot of space for new guys to jump in and become superstars.

84% of top 10 prospects make the NBA. That again shows that the top ranked players are generally the best prospects. One or two out of each class don't pan out, but the other eight usually do.

Meanwhile, if you picked a ten player sample of probably any other ranking (i.e. 11-20 or 55-64, or 110-119) you would probably find an attrition rate around 50%, if not higher, particularly once you get below about 350 or so. You would be very hard pressed to find even a handful of guys ranked past there that make the NBA, or even turn into above average college players.

The rankings aren't perfect, but they are pretty solid.

I will mention again, when you are picking a school as an athlete, you are picking a coach as much as anything else.

Q was not a good fit at KU. From the beginning of the season, Self had him basically out on the perimeter as a floor spacing shooter. When his shot was falling, that worked well. When it was not, it went poorly.

A couple of stat lines:

38-77, 49% from the field, 6-25, 24% from 3 PT, 3.3/1 Assist to Turnover ratio, 4 rebounds per game

106-276, 38% from the field, 54-159, 34% from 3 PT, 1/1 Assist to Turnover ratio, 2.5 rebounds per game

Those are both Quentin Grimes, both playing under Self. One was with team USA, where Q played on the ball quite a bit. The other is obviously Q playing at KU, where he played exclusively off the ball. You notice right away that at KU, 57% of Q's shots came from three, while for team USA, only about a third did. Q's primary role for KU was as a floor spacing shooter. He did okay in that role, but literally every other part of his game suffered as a result. At no point did we see the aggressive Grimes that you saw for Team USA, or in HS.

Self basically used Q as if he were Brannen Greene or Conner Frankamp. There is absolutely NO WAY a player with Grimes' skillset should have shot more than half his shots on the season from three. That's part of why KU was so hard to watch last year. The pieces never really fit together. Not enough shooting. Not enough floor spacing. Not enough creativity. I remember a few times early in the season where Q spotted a mismatch and ran into the post, where he called for the ball against a smaller player. That type of play disappeared as the season wore on, even though inverting the offense to let Dedric take a bigger player out to the perimeter where he had a skill advantage, and letting Q post a smaller player, where he had a size advantage was perhaps KU's best available MUA. We did not see that enough for whatever reason. Either way, it's water under the bridge now.

I just hope lessons were learned by everyone and that Self in particular has gotten more creative with how he will approach his sets this year with another team that may have some pieces that don't fit together very cleanly.

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

California is the 5th largest economy is the world. Let that soak in.

If you remember nothing else from this outstanding post, remember this single line. The California economy is so large, losing it could potentially destroy the NCAA.

With nearly 40M people, California could (on its own) create its own separate division. There are, besides the D1 schools in California, some fairly large D2 institutions that could join as well. There are over 100 schools in California that have an enrollment above 10,000. The 60 or so biggest schools could create their own division with no problem.

This is a fight the NCAA can't win if California sticks to their guns. Cali is simply too big, with too much money. Add the marketing angle and a California only division would do just fine on its own, with a ready television market to serve.

Meanwhile, the Pac-12 would effectively collapse. Without the Pac-12 to generate West Coast viewership the NCAA would have to shift to being even more East Coast biased to make sure that it held viewership numbers back East. That would leave schools in smaller Midwest and Mountain states out of the loop (i.e. places like Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.)

The death of the NCAA is coming. California may be pushing them closer to the edge of the cliff than they even realize.

@drgnslayr is on the money here. California has a large enough population and enough schools to become their own division separate from the NCAA. The NCAA can't get into a staring contest here, because there's enough media in California that those schools could break from the NCAA and make it work. And if California threatened to do so, I could imagine Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and Nevada could all follow suit. If that were to happen, the other Pac-12 states (Utah, Colorado) would probably come along.

That would change the math on TV contracts. The NCAA makes about 90% of its revenue from the tournament. If the West Coast schools dropped out, that loss of viewership could affect the contract (its likely that viewership numbers are baked into the contract somewhere). Any loss of revenue there would cripple the NCAA financially.

Even a 5% decline in TV revenues would be damaging to the NCAA. I don't see how the NCAA can win this faceoff.

@drgnslayr

Looking at Culver's 24/7 page, it looks like the following schools offered him:

Texas Tech, Louisiana Tech, Texas, Baylor, Illinois, Memphis, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Oral Roberts, Rice, Sam Houston State, Santa Clara, TCU, UC-Irvine and UT-Arlington.

He was your classic regional/mid major recruit. It helps that he grew about three inches, but even with the growth, he probably was a fringe top 100 prospect at best.

In 2012 UK had a great team. Davis was a transcendent player, but Jones, Kidd-Gilchrist and others were also heavily involved. That team was a couple of bad bounces away from going unbeaten (Indiana beat them on a buzzer beater, Vandy won the SEC title game).

The 2015 Duke squad didn't really get a cakewalk. Their bracket as the #1 seed was 16, 8, 5, 2. In the Final Four, they got Michigan State (a 7 seed that got hot) then Wisconsin after the Badgers knocked off unbeaten Kentucky.

Can an OAD team win it all. Yes. Duke and Kentucky have both shown that. Will it happen regularly? Probably not, because in any given year, there will only be one or two teams with enough OAD star power to get it done, and some years there won't even be that. And then that OAD team has to survive the season, including injuries, bad luck, etc.

Every national champion has to get a little lucky along the way. Virginia got a big call that went their way in the national semifinal, and they probably should have lost to Purdue in regulation in the regional final anyway. But they won the title (deservedly), so its their poise and experience that got them through. Nevermind that the same team lost to a 16 seed a year prior in part because they were banged up.

If you go through the last several title teams, basically every single one has had a game where they had to get a borderline call, or a fortunate bounce, in order to win the title. That's the nature of winning six straight single elimination games. Somebody gets the bounces. Somebody else doesn't. There is generally not enough of a talent separation in college basketball to make luck irrelevant.

@KUSTEVE, Yes, guys outside the Top 100 make the NBA. It happens every year. But run down the list of draftees again and you will notice something.

Here's the list of guys that were top 40 recruits coming out of HS that were drafted this year:

Williamson, Barrett, Garland, White, Hayes, Reddish, Washington, Herro, Langford, Bazley, Little, Johnson, Bol, Porter, Walker, Waters and Hands.

That's 17 of the 60 players drafted. Nearly 30% of the draft was high ranked players. 7 guys were international and not ranked. 7 others were ranked between 40 and 75.

So roughly one third of players drafted were high ranked players. About 10% each were either international or "mid range" players. The other roughly half the draft was ranked below that.

You may think that proves that the rankings are flawed, but it actually proves how accurate they are.

Looking back at ESPN's 2017 rankings, there are 18 guys that are not currently either in the NBA or on a 2 way contract. That's means 22 either are in the NBA or have signed two way contracts. That's more than half. And most of the guys that haven't are still in college (only Jontay Porter, Brandon McCoy and Billy Preston left college and were undrafted). So out of that top 40, 15 are still in college and could in theory be drafted next year or the following year.

That suggests that the rankings identified the best players pretty well, since after two years, most of those guys ranked high have already moved to the pros.

Think of it this way. There's maybe one or two three star recruits that make the NBA each year out of hundreds of three star guys.

There are only a couple dozen five star guys each year, and about half of them make it.

The rankings aren't perfect, but they do a decent job of establishing tiers.

No surprise that KU didn't have anyone drafted. Before the season, Grimes was the only one really on the radar. Once he fell off, it was pretty clear that no one was going to hear their name called. Depending on what happens next year, I could see the potential that KU might not have anyone picked then, either.

@wissox

From L to R - Mario Little, Russell Robinson, Mario Chalmers, Ben McLemore, Jamari Traylor, Sherron Collins, Tyshawn Taylor.

Baseball draft is a crap shoot because you won't consistently see top notch pitching as an amateur, and pitchers are such a high injury risk.

So hitters are rarely a sure thing because they may get exploited by better pitching, and pitchers may not stay healthy.

If Kawhi really wants to maximize his potential, he should sign a 2 year deal with someone, and THEN sign a super max extension. At 27 (now) he can command top dollar. He will still (probably) be able to command top dollar in two years, so he could effectively get seven years of near super max money. If he does a one year deal, the contract he could sign at 33 won't be a super max or near super max contract. Best chance to capitalize is now, in his prime.

One major thing that Miles is doing is building some depth. That was missing, even from some of the better teams that KU had under Mangino. KU was extremely thin behind the standouts. Miles is building depth to make sure that if one guy goes down, next man up is a guy that is ready to play at the P5 level athletically.

The NCAA should shift its calendar. The NBA draft is always right after the season ends. The date to withdraw from the draft has to sit sometime in May because you can't have it in April before the combine, otherwise its pointless. The current date at the end of May seems about right, honestly. That gives players a good opportunity to get feedback and make a decision.

The transfer portal offers some opportunity. The next step is immediate eligibility for all transfers (not just grad transfers). Sports is the only avenue in which you have to sit out a year if you transfer

I tell potential student athletes all the time that when you are picking a college you are really picking a coach. A good coach can help you develop. A bad one could make you hate the sport, and possibly fail academically while you are at it. Maybe a coach that is good for you is bad for someone else, or vice versa. And this isn't just for head coaches. Its also for assistants. Often, assistants have a more substantial relationship with non-starters because they led the recruiting efforts. When those people leave, it changes the program for those student athletes. But those people can leave (and I am not arguing that they shouldn't be able to) at any time with no penalty.

And before anyone says it would turn into a free for all, do you really think that coaches aren't already recruiting other teams' assistant coaches in the handshake lines? That happens every night. Why shouldn't students be able to do the same, particularly if its a bad fit?

Kcmatt7 said:

Go back and look how many HS players got drafted in 04 and 05 and you’ll see why it was harder to land top 10 talent. We were still recruiting at the top of the talent pool available those years too.

2005 in particular was a weird year because everyone knew the rule change was coming, so lots of players declared that year. Gerald Green, Monta Ellis, Martell Webster, Andray Blatche, Lou Williams, Andrew Bynum, CJ Miles and Amir Johnson all went to the NBA. That's 8 of the top 20 right there.

2004 saw Dwight Howard, Shaun Livingston, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Sebastian Telfair and Robert Swift all go to the NBA. That's 7 of the top 20 there.

And the crazy thing is, most of those guys ended up having pretty good careers. Green, Williams, Johnson, Howard, Livingston, Jefferson, Miles and JR Smith are all still in the NBA. Ellis, Bynum and Josh Smith all had pretty nice careers. Webster and Blatche both played close to 10 years in the league.

Robert Swift was pretty clearly a bust (only played 4 years in the NBA, and never garnered even 25 mpg). Even Sebastian Telfair, who many would consider a bust, played in over 500 NBA games over 12 seasons. For comparison's sake, Brandon Rush played in 481 NBA games over 9 different seasons.

Those two classes argue for the OAD rule being removed rather than kept.

NBA rules prohibit a team from trading their #1 pick in consecutive drafts. This comes from a rule in the 1980's (the Stepien rule). The rule was created because Ted Stepien's Cavs traded away five consecutive #1 picks. Those picks ended up being the following players:
1. Al Wood - 1981 #4 overall
2. James Worthy -1982 #1 overall
3. Rodney McCray - 1983 #3 overall
4. Sam Perkins - 1984 #4 overall
5. Detlef Schrempf - 1985 #8 overall

That is a pretty solid group of picks, including a Hall of Famer and two other guys that had nice, long careers.

As for what the Lakers can do with their cap space, if they are smart, rather than trying to land a max guy, they should try to get two solid players. JJ Redick or Danny Green would be a nice addition on the wing as a shooter. A two way guy like Malcolm Brogdon that can play either guard spot would be a good fit.

With New Orleans, they are in a great position. They get Zion and a nice group of young players from the Lakers. They were able to keep their roster intact and they have the #4 pick this year, plus extra first rounders in 2021 and 2023. If they are knocking on the door in 2021 or 2022 they can move an extra pick to round out the roster then. They could also shop the #4 this year for something in the future, or for more immediate help, although if it were me, I would keep the #4 this year to give myself another good young player (Coby White from UNC could be an enticing pick).

The Lakers got the best current player, but New Orleans got so much back that it may not hurt them long term.

Unfortunately, most dynasties end because of injuries and age.

The great Celtics of the 1980's had McHale's broken foot and Bird's bad back.

The Lakers had Worthy aging and Magic getting HIV.

More recently, the Heat lost Chris Bosh to health problems that ended his career.

The Warriors have played in the Finals five straight years. That's 100+ games every year for the last half decade. It catches up to everyone. We saw it with Lebron this year (8 straight Finals appearances). At some point, age gets the best of you. Klay Thompson had never missed a playoff game before this year. It catches up to you.

Kcmatt7 said:

nwhawkfan said:

Oh well, a win's a win.

I beg to differ. At this point, every win is a loss... Gimme that draft pick!

They are almost guaranteed to pick top 3. The Royals already have 46 losses. Only Baltimore (47) has more. The Marlins have the most losses in the NL and they only have 42. Detroit only has 40. Toronto and Seattle have 43.

It's hard to see the Royals trending up enough to make up much ground on anyone. Even making up three or four games will be a task because they already have so many losses "in the bank".

The pick is coming. No need to lose 110+.

kjayhawks said:

@justanotherfan It will be interesting to see which squad is better but my money is heavily on the 2019-20 squad being better. If our line up is Dotson, Moss, Ochai, SDS and Doke, there is a chance we lose all 5 starters to graduation and the NBA draft. Then we could lose Mitch too, if he dont redshirt. I'd bet at least 4 of the 6 mentioned are gone and replacing that many starters and improving seems unlikely.

Part of why I think the 2020-21 group will be better is that of the group you listed above, only Dotson and Ochai are likely to be true difference makers.

Doke is very good, but we know his strengths and flaws at this point. He's going to average 13 and 7 if he stays healthy, but he's not a 20 and 10 or 20 and 12 guy.

Moss, same thing. He's a good player, but we know what we are going to get - likely 10-14 points per game, with some good three point shooting. He's not going to show up and average 17 for us all of a sudden.

SDS is a bit of an unknown, but I don't think he will morph into some sort of superstar. I think he will be a more refined energy player. I see him averaging something like 8 and 8.

Dotson could take a big leap if his shooting is progressing. Otherwise, I would imagine he's more efficient than last year, but not necessarily a bigger threat without adding some shooting.

Ochai, somewhat similar. He flashed some big time potential, but wasn't consistent throughout the season with that. He should be a very solid starter, but I don't know if he's All American (or even All Conference first team) level.

The 2020-21 group should have more shooting, which is an area that next year's team is at least thin in, potentially lacking outside of Moss. While Doke is a great player, you almost have to play him with additional rebounders/rim protectors because he's not as good at those things as his size suggests he should be. That tends to clog the floor. The 2021 team should be able to space the floor better and get even more efficient offensively, whether Dotson returns or not.