Herrera was gone at the end of the season either way. Would have liked to see them get a better return for him, though.
justanotherfan
3643 posts
Grimes is the one that sticks out to me as a really special player. He will be a 2 guard in college, but he's a PG in the pros. He has the passing ability to handle that responsibility. He should be a star in college, and transition to the NBA as a star at that level as well.
The reason that I am so high on Grimes is that he doesn't have a significant flaw to his game coming out of HS. Rush was not a strong ball handler, which always limited what he was able to do, both in college and in the NBA. Jackson has an unreliable jump shot, which makes it hard for him to tap into the top of his potential. Embiid was very raw. Wiggins didn't have the mindset. Grimes is one of the best ball handlers Self has had (he compares to some of the better PGs Self has brought to KU) and his shot is about where Devonte was at as an incoming freshman, although we will see Grimes shoot it more than we saw Devonte do so as a freshman. He's not nearly as raw as Embiid and he definitely has that attacking mindset to be the best player on the floor every night.
He will be fun to watch for a year.
It's easy to penalize players/families because they have no power or authority. They generally don't have the resources to fight the NCAA in court, so its an easy target.
Coaches are powerful. They are popular within their own fan base, so its hard to turn the court of public opinion against them. The biggest ones also have tons of money, so fighting the NCAA isn't a hardship. Plus, since the NCAA can't market the players from year to year, they depend on the big time coaches for revenue generation.
University athletic departments are the same as coaches, except with more resources and a fan base that is unlikely to turn against the school itself. While the fan base may dislike a coach or AD, they are still on board with the school as a whole.
The penalties reflect that. Players and families are ruled ineligible for all sorts of things all the time. Coaches get penalized if they are repeat offenders, but generally not for first time offenses, and usually not very harshly. Schools are only penalized for the most gross of offenses. And schools know that the NCAA is never going to enforce the death penalty ever again (nearly destroyed SMU as a D1 program, played a role in the demise of the SWC), so they just keep doing whatever it takes to win, knowing that its worth it from a fundraising/ticket sales/merchandise standpoint even if they ultimately have to send back NCAA tournament money or forfeit wins.
Eligibility has little to do with wrongdoing. The NCAA is not absolutely tied to any of that, so they can make whatever ruling they so desire.
"Follow the money" That's the mantra for every financial crimes investigator out there.
Financial crimes often end up going back years and years.
Let's say that a criminal robbed a bank 10 years ago, but they weren't caught at that time. Over the next decade, they trickled the money back into the financial system slowly, buying property and other assets, allowing them to build a company.
Perhaps now, most everything that they do is completely legitimate, except that they have their first few transactions still out there, and they had to lie to the bank (bank fraud) about the source of the funds, and they had to hide the true source of those funds (money laundering).
An investigator comes in and starts unraveling this. If you limit the investigation to just this year, you can't prove the money laundering because you can't show the false statements used to build the business because you can't prove that the statements are untrue without getting to the source. Tax records for ten years ago show they didn't have that income (tax evasion) legitimately. The original loan and purchase records show that it was purchased with cash, but the forms were doctored to make it appear that it was a bank instrument.
Everything falls apart if you dig deeper. But if you skim the surface, nothing comes to light.
Manafort was hoping they wouldn't dig. He lost that bet.
It's a smart strategy by Puma to outbid everyone in the short term for the next group of potential stars. They will miss with a lot of these guys, but they only need to hit every once in a while for the strategy to work.
That will probably take some time for KU to catch UK.
16 wins isn't that much, but making up ground is not an easy task.
Over the last five years, KU has won 147 games, averaging 29 wins a season. That's not an easy task. In that time period, UK has won 152 games. That's impressive, and shows just how hard it is to make up games over time when looking at two great programs like this.
You are basically hoping to catch them having a 21 or 22 win season while we win the national title with a juggernaut, or hoping they string together three or four 25ish win seasons in a row.
How fast can Doke play? How fast can Big Dave play?
KU has a lot of guys that would benefit from getting up and down, and a couple that may be more adept when the pace slows a bit. That could mean that KU can play either way, or it could mean that KU has to slow down the pace when they have certain lineups on the floor. It's too early in the summer to be able to tell how that will work just yet, but we should be able to tell fairly quickly, probably even during the exhibitions against the D2 schools in the fall.
Both teams can field some solid rosters, so the game should be competitive. Both teams can put guys on the floor that can still play, too, with several guys not far removed from playing in either the NBA or overseas.
It's really in the NCAA's hands at this point. They have all the time in the world to complete their investigation. It could go either way. The NCAA has all of the power here, so they can more or less do whatever they want as far as eligibility is concerned.
Fouling Doke every time down the floor isn't possible. With over 80 trips up and down the floor (more possessions due to the fouling), every player on the opposing team would foul out.
What a team could do is foul Doke whenever he caught the ball inside if they were already in the bonus, or on any possession when they trailed by more than three. Effectively, this would mean that Doke would not ever be able to make a post move once the team was in the bonus and KU wouldn't get to run offensive possessions if they led by more than a single possession.
This could be executed fairly effectively without everyone on the team fouling out, as it would only require 5-7 additional fouls (basically just one more player). I doubt that any coach would attempt to do this unless they were completely overmatched inside, but I could see a team doing this if they didn't have any true post players.
Other than the US, most of the countries in the Americas do not have well developed high school programs, which means their U18 and lower teams are often under-developed. Here in the US, because we have a robust HS program, it is very easy to identify the best HS players in the country (and we have lots of them).
USA has never lost a game in the U16 competition (closest game last year was a 41 point win). The team shot almost 57% from the field for the tournament. RJ Hampton, Jalen Green and Vernon Carey are some names you would recognize from that roster.
The USA U17 team is 30-0 at the World Championships. They will be playing in a couple of weeks in Argentina. Vernon Carey, RJ Hampton, and Jalen Green will likely be on that team this year, although training camp starts today with a roster of 30 that has to get cut down to 12, so that's not guaranteed. Still, the US has never lost at the U17 level.
The U18 team is 53-2 at the Americas Cup, losing in the semifinal in 2002, and the title game in 2008.
The U19 team is 91-14 all time.
You see the difference. Undefeated at the U16 and U17 levels. Only a couple of losses (and never prior to the semifinal) at the U18 level. A crazy winning percentage (.866) at the U19 level, but compared to undefeated or .963, that's a substantial drop. Basically goes from no chance to a snowball's chance in hell, to maybe you have a shot. Most countries don't have enough talent at the lower levels, so they play their best younger players up. A guy like Svi, who played on the U16 Ukranian team in 2013, then played for the senior national team in the 2014 basketball World Cup, then the U20 team in 2016. That's the equivalent of a guy like Lebron James making the national team as a high school junior in 2002. That would probably never happen here in the US. Just too much talent ahead of him to even consider a player like that.
If a player leaves in bad academic standing, that is reflected in the APR.
Coaches talk about kids that are behavior problems amongst each other all the time off the record.
When kids are pushed out for non-discipline/non-academic reasons, coaches won't say anything because it breaks the whole notion of "student athlete"
I agree with you that he was listed as a PF and defensively, he played PF. But offensively, Singler was used as a guard. He usually caught the ball facing the basket near or beyond the three point line. He brought the ball up the floor quite a bit. He very rarely posted up.
He wasn't the PG, as you correctly observe, but when he got rebounds, he rarely outletted the ball to a guard. He brought the ball up himself most of the time.
As one of the bigger players, he played inside on defense, but if you ignored his size and watched him on offense, he was used like a perimeter player.
That said, the comp with him and Hurt is interesting. I think Hurt actually may be the better shooter, but Singler was far and away the better ball handler.
Vick is a good example. He's not eligible to be a grad transfer because he hasn't completed his undergraduate degree. It's tough for him to transfer because he's a sit one to play one guy. It's unlikely that he is in a position to simply pay for his own education.
But KU doesn't have to renew his scholarship. They can simply offer it to someone else and Vick has no way of forcing KU to honor their commitment to him, because the commitment is year to year, not four years.
What Vick could do is contact strong D2 programs as a transfer candidate. Vick immediately becomes a D2 AA candidate and his team immediately becomes a national title threat. Because its dropping down a level, he can play immediately. And of course, he can use the year to prepare himself for pro ball next year.
Of course, if that happens, if/when he does make it to the pros, it will list that school, not KU, as his college. But that seems fair to me given that KU opted not to renew his scholarship.
OADs and potential OADs aren't going to be affected by this transfer rule. They will be pros long before that. This rule overwhelmingly affects student athletes that are not looking to turn pro. This isn't an OAD focused rule. This is a rule change that would benefit student athletes that are specifically using college athletics to allow them to get an education.
I picked a random low D1 school, Wofford, and looked at their rosters from 2016-17 and 2017-18. It took me two minutes to find a kid that left the team after their freshman year - Justin Tucker. Rather than transfer and sit, he went to a juco for a year and is now looking at other 4 year offers. That happens literally every year at lower D1 programs. Typically, the kid announces that they are transferring closer to home, or to a juco, but the truth is their scholarship wasn't being renewed, and they were told at their post season meeting to find a place to go, because their scholarship would not be there in the fall.
Follow a smaller D1 school sometime and you will see that churn at the bottom of the roster almost every year. Follow a non revenue sport and you will see it. I looked up the KU women's soccer team. A quick glance at the roster shows that Amari Hopkins is transferring to Louisville and will sit out this year. I don't know the circumstances, but that's certainly another possible scholarship cut. Another player that was a juco transfer is not listed on the 2018 roster. Again, this happens every year.
D2 schools can offer full scholarships. However, because the scholarship limits are lower than D1, very few players actually get full rides.
Instead, lots of players get partial rides. For example, D2 basketball can offer 10 scholarships, but they still have 15 players on the team. What typically happens is the stars usually get full rides (so two stars each get one scholarship), then the other 9 or 10 scholarship players split the remaining 8 scholarships. That means you can put 13 players on scholarship with three fulls and 8 three quarters and two half scholarships. You can get pretty creative with the math. Lots of kids at the D2 level make their decision because School A offered them a half scholarship, but School B offered them three quarters, or School A offered 60% while School B offered half, but they qualified for academic scholarships at School B that pushed the full package closer to 80%.
Many times, schools get creative with this, using academic scholarships for strong students to help bridge the gap. As you say, many of these kids are more local, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of them are told that their scholarship, which, while not a full ride, still represents half of their tuition and board, won't be renewed for the next year. That's potentially thousands of dollars that is just gone. Why should that kid be stuck at a school that they picked that is close to home with no scholarship when they can transfer to another school and get a scholarship?
I personally know several people that had their scholarships pulled at an MIAA school (the major D2 conference in this part of the country) after their freshman year and were faced with this very decision. Some quit their sport and transferred to a bigger school like KU or K-State to finish their academics. Some stuck with their sport and transferred further away from home to keep their scholarship opportunity. Some quit their sport and stayed at their current school because their academic scholarships were enough to make it worthwhile.
Changing the rule would open the door for those types of kids to transfer and play, which would help them keep their scholarships as opposed to transferring and sitting (hard to eat up that precious partial scholarship at the D2 level when a kid can't play for a whole year).
Just my thoughts on the matter. This happens more than a lot of people realize. I would bet some of those kids that quit because it is taking up too much time may have also been told that their scholarship was in jeopardy of not being renewed, either directly or indirectly.
It doesn't happen a lot at bigger schools, but at lower level D1 schools it is rampant.
At KU, every kid that you recruit is a legit D1 player. There's no question about that. But if you go down the line a bit, to some of the low and mid majors, that's not the case. They recruit guys that are more fringe D1 types - kids that may need a year in the weight room before they are ready to contribute, or that have some projection, but just haven't hit it yet. That's why there's so much player turnover at the low and mid major level.
Drop down to the D2 level, and it gets even worse. A kid that was all state in high school suddenly is exposed because he can't even guard his own shadow. The athletic kid you recruited turns out to have no clear basketball ability. That skinny kid you recruited as a WR isn't strong enough to get away from press coverage at all. The kid that was an all conference selection in soccer suddenly can't keep up with the pace of the college game. Softball and baseball players that looked great in high school can't handle the better pitching they are seeing in college.
Every year, there are kids at end of year meetings that are told that their scholarship is not being renewed. Remember, the NCAA rule isn't just for the Power conferences. It is for all NCAA, including D2 and D3.
Those things almost never make the news - nobody will remember that the third string freshman tight end for a D2 school did not return the following year. But if you know any low major or D2 athletes or prospects, they can probably tell you about teammates that did not have their scholarships renewed, or about kids that transferred into or out of the program they were at as a result of losing their scholarship somewhere else.
I agree about Singler's role at Duke. Duke had a crowded backcourt and that allowed them to get their best five on the floor. Singler had good size to allow them some positional flexibility.
But in high school, Singler was absolutely a guard.
[highlights](
He's a guard. That's not Hurt's role. Hurt handles the ball some, but he's not a primarily perimeter player like Singler is in his high school highlights.
Battier was an extremely good defender. That's likely where Hurt would struggle most.
Singler was more of a guard in HS, so I don't know if positionally that's as good a comp.
I like the Markkanen comp, except that Markkanen is so big. He was skinny coming out of HS, but he was a legit 6-10, and was closer to his current 7-0 by the time he arrived at Arizona. If Hurt gets to that size, that's a good comp, but I don't know that Hurt will ever be a footer.
I say there shouldn't be restrictions because kids get pushed out at programs all the time. It's unfair for a kid to be pushed out of a program and then have to sit for a year at a new school. Remember, scholarships are one year commitments from the school. They are not four year guaranteed commitments. So a school can decide to not renew a scholarship at any time, something that happens quite a bit, and face no penalty, while that student athlete has to either become a walk on at their current school, drop down to the D2, D3 or NAIA level, or transfer and sit.
I would be all for keeping the rule the way it is if scholarships were four years guaranteed. That would mean that a kid might not play, but they were guaranteed to remain on scholarship. If that were the case, then the transfer and sit rule would make more sense because the kid wouldn't be losing their scholarship at their current school. Otherwise, it makes it easy to simply recruit over a kid, and the program faces no penalty, while the kid either has to sit for a year, or pay out of pocket to stay at that school. Imagine telling your parents that you just finished your freshman year in your sport as a scholarship athlete, and you have just been told in your year end meeting that your scholarship will not be renewed because the coach thought you were a potential rotation player, but your game just didn't translate - do you stay and pay or transfer and sit?
This rule was long overdue.
The next thing is to eliminate the required sit year for transfers. Its unfair if you go to a school and you're either recruited over, forced out, or your coach leaves and you still have to sit out a year if you leave.
The Van Horn comp is an interesting one. I don't remember what Van Horn was like coming out of high school, but he was certainly a force in college. I feel like he might have been more athletic than Hurt is, but we are talking about a guy that was finishing up college versus a senior to be in high school. And that was 20 years ago.
Hurt is maybe the toughest player to comp that I have run across.
I think you made the best point with Hurt not having any good comps.
Dekker is a better shooter and athlete than Hurt (probably also a better ball handler). Dekker was a true wing player coming out of HS. Dekker ranked in the top 10 coming of out HS, but as I said, he was better than Hurt both athletically and skill wise in my opinion.
Frank Kaminsky was bigger (obviously) but not as far along as a ball handler or shooter coming out of HS. He was a three star recruit, though.
Hurt is more advanced skill wise than a guy like Perry Ellis. Hurt is also bigger than Ellis. Athletically, this might be the closest to a push, but Perry isn't a good comparison size wise. Perry was a four star recruit, so that's a better comp skill wise, but if he's not as athletic as Perry (who struggled as a freshman to adapt to the pace and athleticism) he may not translate. If he is as athletic as Perry, he could have a heck of a career.
Hurt is a better shooter than a guy like Dedric Lawson, but probably isn't as strong as Lawson was coming out of high school. That makes it tougher to figure if that will translate.
It's really hard to find an elite recruit to compare Hurt to. He's not as athletic as most of the higher level recruits, but his skill is obvious when you watch him. You just don't see many top flight recruits that lack above average athleticism.
A bigger Perry Ellis doesn't seem like the right comparison, although maybe it is. I need to watch him more to figure out if that's a good comp athletically.
A lot of US players have complained in the past about the FIBA ball and that it has a different texture. That may be affecting Grimes shot in game. His shot and mechanics looked good in HS. Its definitely something to watch.
It's tough to compare Hurt and Daum.
For one, Hurt is much more highly recruited than Daum was. Daum was not a top 100 player coming out of HS.
For another, because Daum wasn't highly recruited, he was able to come into a smaller program, where the demands on the defensive end weren't as high, particularly early in his career. At a lower D1 school, Daum could "hide" on a non-threat defensively since most low majors only have one interior player that is dangerous, sometimes none. As a high major recruit, Hurt won't have that benefit, as the competition in the Big 12 will place more demands on him.
Think of a guy like Chase Jeter He went to Duke, barely played for two years, now he's a bust trying to find his way at Arizona after averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds for two years. Hurt's situation will be more similar to Jeter than Daum when it comes to expectation. He will be expected to play and produce.
The good news for Hurt is that he is a skilled guy, so he has something to fall back on.
Women's soccer succeeds here in the US because, among girls, soccer is one of the most popular sports. As one of the most popular sports in the US among girls, the best female athletes in the US grow up playing soccer, softball, or basketball, then select whichever one they are best at as they get older. In a country the size of the US, that is a recipe for dominance. The US is #1 in the world in women's basketball, softball and consistently 1 or 2 in soccer.
For men's sports, soccer lags behind football, basketball, baseball, and in many places hockey. That means the most athletic boys grow up playing other sports. As a result, US soccer teams usually don't have the type of athletes, the physically coordinated, fast, quick, explosive, elusive athletes with great coordination, balance and agility that are most successful in soccer, on the field because those kids are playing wide receiver, or running back, or center field, or shooting guard.
This is shifting as football's popularity as a youth sport continues to decline. More kids are playing soccer, which means better athletes are playing soccer, which will eventually mean better US teams playing soccer on the world stage. Just not yet.
Its tough for the smaller countries.
They just don't have the infrastructure to build a strong team at the lower levels. However, they can't build that infrastructure without sending teams to the competitions.
Think of it this way.
Let's say a local HS has a weak basketball program. Their varsity routinely gets blown out. It won't strengthen their program if they disband their freshman and JV teams. In fact, it will basically guarantee that they will continue to struggle.
Yes, their freshman and JV teams will probably also get blown out, but if they build those programs, they can eventually go from being terrible to being middle of the road over time. Maybe they don't have the talent to become state contenders, but they can win 8 or 9 games a year.
That's where Panama is. Their senior national team isn't very strong, but the only way to strengthen it is to build a strong program at the U16 and U18 levels. Once those guys start graduating to the senior team, perhaps Panama becomes a better team. But it starts at the lower levels.
Panama just had no matchups for this game. Lacked size. Lacked athleticism. Lacked shooting.
The Panama team was really an average local high school varsity team playing a national all star team.
You can't learn much from a game like this.
I think that is highly possible. That could also turn him into a four year player at KU. I see three basic scenarios for Hurt:
-
As the game continues to evolve, Hurt struggles with the pace and his lack of athleticism makes him a 20 mpg player with a high offensive upside. 35% chance this happens, as I can't see him suddenly becoming a completely different athlete. The pace of the game and being on the floor with better athletes able to execute traps and such could really fluster his offense, and he may not ever be more than an average defender.
-
Hurt is a great, sometimes dominant collegiate player, but with no place at the next level, he grows from all conference as a sophomore to All American as both a junior and a senior, but still only garners a second round NBA selection. 45% chance this happens. He's such a skilled player that it should translate against all but a few teams each season, meaning he will rack up big numbers against less skilled players that simply can't exploit his average athleticism on either end.
-
Hurt's game translates, and he ends up playing at KU just two years before moving on to a solid NBA career. 20% chance this happens. Again, because I don't see his basic athleticism changing, its more likely that he is a good college player than that he becomes a pro before he graduates.
I was (still am, actually) a doubter on Hurt. While he is skilled, his lack of mobility and athleticism worries me as it puts a ceiling on his potential. He's very skilled, but I worry about him on the defensive end, and on how effective he will be as a rebounder at the college level.
Anthony Davis would have been great at Texas-San Antonio. He wouldn't have won a national title, but he's a generational talent. He could have gone to any program in the country and still turned out roughly the same (barring injury).
Dedric can shoot. He will get some better shots than he did at Memphis as a sophomore largely because he will have other guys (Doke inside, Grimes and Dotson on the perimeter) that will be drawing a lot of defensive attention. That will help him get better looks, so his percentage will probably land closer to the 35% he had as a freshman.
KU will have a lot of guys able to shoot in the mid 30's, which will make for an okay shooting team, especially since Doke will keep that 2pt % high, and Dotson and Dedric will be able to help guys get easy shots inside the arc as well.
Better surrounding talent would have helped him for sure playing with that level of shooting around him on the perimeter, plus some inside muscle with Doke.
Lebron will end up with a team that has stars already (Celtics, Sixers, Rockets), or a team that has the cap space to sign multiple stars (Lakers, Bulls, Sixers, Hawks, Kings, Mavericks).
There are other teams that could create enough space to sign Lebron without sacrificing too much talent (Spurs, Thunder, Wolves), and there's always the possibility of a sign and trade - New Orleans, Washington and Portland all could make deals that could work on the math side with Cousins, Wall, and McCollum respectively, while still keeping another star to pair with Lebron. Boston could do the same with Kyrie going back to Cleveland, or moving Hayward (Hayward's salary is the better match).
It will be complicated no matter what happens because of the talent and money that will be involved in any deal. Lebron makes any team in the East a title contender. If Cleveland gets nothing in return for him, they likely miss the playoffs completely next season. If they do get something back, Cleveland probably can squeeze out the 7 or 8 seed.
A lot of this will also depend on what happens with guys like Paul George, Chris Paul, Demarcus Cousins, and other superstars or secondary stars.
I doubt Self would have handled Bamba much different than Smart did. Remember what Self said about Josh Jackson - he's only here for a year, so we aren't going to try to make a lot of changes. Bamba would have played the same type of role at KU, mostly shotblocker, rim rolling guy. Step out and hit a jumper here and there, although I doubt he would have shot many threes at KU. I don't think KU would have wanted to try to do more with Bamba than Texas did.
Grimes' outside shot looks like it has improved even more. The stroke has gotten even more consistent. If Dotson can provide a little bit of shooting, KU shouldn't have an issue spacing the floor.
I agree with most of what you said, although Dedric is not as athletic as most 3's at the next level. I think he can be a force as a three in college, but he's a stretch 4 (maybe even a small ball 5, depending on defense) in the NBA.
I took a broader look because the sample size is fairly small since Kansas only produces a few D1 players each year. KU, as the premier program should get the best players in that group every year. The fact that most of those guys were not immediate contributors suggests that players from Kansas may need a bit more seasoning, but can become successful college players in time - I'd consider most all of those guys successes eventually. It just took an extra year or two (and maybe an extra stop along the way) before they realized their true talent.
I agree that JRE is the most talented Kansas high schooler in a long time. He should end up being a McD AA next year and will probably be a consensus top 20 recruit (24/7 and Rivals have him top 20 - ESPN does not, but hasn't updated yet). Harvey may be consensus top 40 by the time all is said and done, will likely be consensus top 50 either way. So there's definitely talent there, and I think both will succeed as freshmen at the D1 level.
It's more a development question than a talent question. We can see the end result. It's just a question of how to ensure keeping the players on track to achieve that result.
Totally agree on those points.
My guess is that a team will offer LiAngelo a G-League deal, while Melo and Lonzo are in the NBA. LiAngelo on a G-League roster isn't too far fetched. He's a solid player, just not an NBA player.
That will certainly affect the market for Lonzo, and could handicap him ultimately. But its not out of the ordinary for NBA teams to sign the less talented brothers of top players for a few years.
BShark said:
KU has offered Oscar Tshiebwe. 2019 C.
He's a bit raw, but he's athletic and moves really well for his size. He's got some size and bulk, so I can see him being a real force in the paint and being able to hold his own as a lone big man/ rim protector in the line up.
The G-League isn't intended to turn a profit. It is a developmental ground for everything - coaches, trainers, players, front office staff, support staff - because you literally are running a franchise.
The Rockets have used their G-League team to develop strategy.
The Raptors use their to develop potential coaches. The Spurs have as well.
Several teams have sent young executives to their G-League teams to help run them. That's why every NBA team will have an affiliate in the next couple of years. They are about developing talent and strategy at every level more so than turning a profit.
The G-League is beyond just developing players, although that will likely be the next frontier as the G-League expands player development strategy.
The G-League's growth will likely kill off any real secondary basketball league in the U.S. because other leagues have to turn a profit, while the G-League will access better talent without needing to turn a profit.
Frankamp was a great shooter. The issue was that his other skills didn't translate to Power 5 basketball. His ball handling wasn't sharp enough. He wasn't athletic enough. His shooting would play, but his other skills lagged behind enough that he couldn't tap into that. In hindsight, Frankamp probably should have taken a redshirt year if he wanted to come to KU, or should have gone the Wichita State route from the beginning. He just wasn't physically ready to play and contribute at KU from day one.
Looking around the state of Kansas, that seems to happen to a lot of the players from here. Semi Ojeleye was certainly talented enough (getting run deep into the playoffs for the Celtics), but wasn't ready to play at Duke as a freshman. It took Perry half a season before he was really up to speed at KU. Travis Releford, Tyrel Reed and Brady Morningstar all played 7 minutes or less their freshman years, looking more likely that they would never contribute than become starters at KU.
That makes me wonder about the current group of Kansas kids that KU has on its radar (Harvey, JRE, Berry, etc.). All of those guys are good players and definitely have a place at the D1 level. The question is whether they will be ready day one as a freshman, or whether they go the Shavon Shields route (started basically immediately at Nebraska), the Perry Ellis route (need until conference play starts) the Ojeleye route (move to a mid major conference and become a standout), the Releford/Reed route (barely play as a freshman, become a contributor later in their career), or the Frankamp route (transfer with up and down results). We will have to see how this will play out.
Low quality hoops in large arenas is not going to work.
Ball should have been looking for small arenas (4,000 seat max), with ticket prices maxing out at $15, with most seats available for $5.
I've been to some T-Bones games. That's about the equivalent quality you could expect here. The T-Bones have lots of tickets for under $10. It's cheaper than going to a movie or a nice restaurant. Smaller settings aren't bad, especially if you can get good local following. Unfortunately, Ball wants this to be a big deal rather than building with some saavy.
Heck, even the MLS ↗ found their success by building smaller soccer specific stadiums. The teams that have soccer specific stadiums all have capacity of 31,000 or less. Many MLS teams started out in larger stadiums and then eventually downsized as they built their own facilities.
The highlight videos at the end of the article that @wrwlumpy posted are pretty good. Agbaji sticks out to me as a guy that will make the right plays. I was a little concerned about where he and McCormack would fit, but I can't see keeping either of those guys off the floor.
Cunliffe is playing much more downhill than he was before. His shot and handle are more confident. He looks like another guy that will get some minutes.
He plays in Arizona now, so that could be a factor for him. He's from Italy, so he may want to stay close to where he has roots here in the U.S.
Why would Lebron go to the west, having to battle the Rockets and Warriors, when he can stay in the East and deal with the Celtics? Lebron would have to get another superstar like Paul George or Kawhi Leonard (if healthy) to join him in LA to even dream of having that team compete with Houston or Golden State with the distance between those squads and the Lakers.
Maybe he goes to Philly. The Knicks are so poorly run I can't imagine him there, and the Nets don't have enough assets to make sense.
The only options are to either go somewhere with a foundation in place (Philly) or have a deal in place with another superstar to join up in an unnamed location. Lebron plus another star makes any East team an immediate title contender.
Mitch may have been a type of "leader" on last year's team, but the "leader" of last year's team was Devonte Graham, just like Devonte was a type of "leader" the year before, but the "leader" of that team was Frank Mason.
Will Mitch take that mantle now, or will the "leader" be Dedric or someone else? Will Grimes or Dotson take that role over? Maybe Charlie Moore?
Vick is more comfortable as "one of the guys". That's an important role, too. After all, everyone can't be a "leader".
Williamson is heavy, but if you look at him, he isn't carrying baby fat. He's probably the most muscular player I have seen coming out of HS in some time. Could he afford to get into better shape? Sure. But his athleticism is off the charts already, and he moves with an ease that's really impressive.
Mitch Lightfoot will be a senior in 2019-20. Should he be the "leader" of that team? I would say no. Not because he doesn't have habits that people should emulate. He certainly does. He just doesn't seem like he is a good fit as the leader of that team.
Should Perry have been the "leader" of his team, or would that group have been better off letting Frank grab hold of that mantle? It was much more within Frank's personality to be that type of person than it was Perry. Perry was a great example of what it means to be a Jayhawk, but he wasn't really a leader. That title would have been more appropriate on a guy like Frank, who clearly took that mantle the very next year.
Wanting seniors to always be "leaders" is silly. It forces guys to get outside of themselves and potentially do more than they are able to do. Frank Mason was the type of guy that could have led as a freshman or sophomore because of his personality. Perry was a good example, but he wasn't necessarily a "leader" in all of those aspects. It is very difficult for quiet, reserved guys to be "leaders".
Look at someone like Alex Gordon for the Royals. He's the longest tenured Royal. By all accounts he's a good locker room guy, etc. But he's also a kind of private guy. Who were the leaders on the World Series teams? Guys like Hosmer, Moose, Perez and Dyson - guys that by their personality drew people in. Even a guy like Lorenzo Cain that was one of the most productive players on the team wasn't necessarily a "leader." Asking him to carry that mantle may have disrupted his focus. Same with Gordon. I have wondered to some degree if that has affected Gordon the last couple of years, trying to be a "leader" rather than just being a productive player.