Just because a player will be a senior doesn't mean they should automatically be a leader. Just because a player is a freshman doesn't mean they should defer. It isn't in Vick's personality. He is quiet by nature. He doesn't want to be out front.
That doesn't mean he should come back, but its a misconception that seniors are "leaders".
He has a quick shot that he can get off in lots of different situations, particularly off the dribble. Being able to shoot off the dribble and in catch and shoot situations, as well as being a gifted passer means that even if he doesn't develop a real slashing type game at the next level, he can still shoot >40% from three in the NBA while averaging 6-8 assists. That won't make him an all star, but he can be a good starter with numbers like that.
Can he be a star? That's a more difficult question because it is difficult for a player that size to be a star in the NBA without having elite athleticism. You basically have to be Steph Curry. He, like most guys his size in the NBA that aren't super athletes, will be a liability defensively, although he isn't a bad defender, just that he will be physically overmatched most nights at the next level.
So if "success" means star, or even all star, then no. The chances that he will develop into that combination of player (Steph Curry 2.0) are low. But that's a pretty high bar for success. I think he can be a good player and a starter on a playoff, championship caliber team. If that is the definition of success, I think he meets that.
Trae Young is two years younger than Steph Curry was when he entered the NBA. He's not where Curry is now as a ball handler and passer, but he is certainly ahead of where freshman Steph Curry was. Now, that obviously doesn't mean that Trae Young will become an NBA all star and MVP. But he is much further along as a PG prospect now than Steph Curry was after his freshman season at Davidson.
We have to remember that Curry was not a major prospect coming out of high school. Curry was not even an NBA prospect after his freshman year, when he averaged 21 points, but less than 3 assists per game.
Curry didn't average more than three assists per game until his junior year, when it became clear that he could run a team. Young has been doing that since he was in high school, and averaged over 8 assists per game at OU. Curry's assist to turnover ratio was basically 1 his freshman and sophomore years. Young's was not great, but it was better than that, and again, he did that as a freshman, while Curry didn't equal that production until he was a junior.
It's tough to add weight during the season without either getting hurt or getting out of shape, neither of which last year's team could have afforded.
To add the weight correctly, you have to lift and increase your lean protein intake. You can't lift with that sort of intensity during the season.
I think Vick could return. I don't think Vick does return.
Sometimes you need a different environment and a different voice to reach your full potential. I think that is the case with Vick. He has grown as much as he can grow at KU for a variety of reasons. Now, it is time for him to move on. I do think he has basketball in his future. He has a lot of talent if he can get more consistent, and he fits well in the modern NBA as a 3 and D wing when he is engaged.
I could see him getting a shot in the G League. The playoffs have proven that every team needs at least 3 wings that can handle that responsibility. Teams are going to be willing to take the risk in the G League to see if he can develop.
Vick is a very private, shy personality. He would not have been a vocal leader, but he could be a helpful player.
KU looks good for next year because KU is a matchup nightmare for a lot of teams. They have size and they have perimeter guys. While KU lacks elite shooting, they have talent on the perimeter. The guards are not pushovers in any sense. And if the guards get a disproportionate number of open looks because teams have to help into the post, well, it could help KU shoot above their true talent level.
I hate using slow motion replay to change a call like that in basketball, because block charge involves so much judgment. At the NBA level, no one is ever going to be completely set before contact. Players at that level are just too fast, too agile, and too skilled. They won't generally just barrel into a player that is set. That's why block charge is such a difficult call.
Lebron got to the spot above the restricted area in Durant's path. The baseline official (closest to the play) immediately signaled charge before checking with his other officials. Then they went to the monitor. There was no question that Lebron was not in the restricted area. I hate reviewing that call if you aren't looking at the restricted area because no one ever comes fully set in the NBA, otherwise someone has already gone around you anyway.
It's similar to the baseball replay rule that allows you to review a play where the runner beats the ball, but loses contact with the base for a moment on the popup slide. The speed and force of the action means that replay can change a call based on a technicality. If you reviewed every charge in the NBA in slow motion, more than 75% would probably be reversed because in slow motion you can see the player still moving into position because NBA players are skilled enough to change direction in the blink of an eye to avoid contact. You don't see that at the HS or even the college level because most players just don't have that physical ability.
Kansas - The best until proven otherwise. The team is certainly better than they were last year. While last year's team was a perimeter oriented team, this year will be more diverse. Dedric Lawson should be a real force, capable of a double double every night. Azubuike gives KU a guy that might shoot 80% from the field. Quentin Grimes might be the best freshman in the conference. Devon Dotson gets the keys to the Ferrari and KJ Lawson will probably surprise people with his versatility. And unlike this past season, KU has depth with Moore, McCormack, Lightfoot, Agbaji, Cunliffe and maybe De Sousa. This team is Final Four loaded.
West Virginia - The Mountaineers should be better offensively than they have been over the last several years. Losing Carter and Miles hurts, but that will probably be seen more on defense than offense because Ahmad can finally fully explore his offensive potential. They are adding a bunch of athletic recruits that will probably defend like hell and just generally make trips to Morgantown miserable, or in other words, business as usual.
Kansas State - The Cats actually have a lot of talent with Wade, Stokes and Brown all back. They will compete every night. I'm not sold on Bruce Weber's coaching ability or their depth, but they have enough top line talent to overcome that. KSU fans secretly wish Weber was a better recruiter again next March when they fall a bit short once again.
TCU - TCU will go as far as a healthy Jaylen Fisher allows. He should be 100% by November, but it was clear that TCU fell apart without him. Jamie Dixon has this thing moving in the right direction, though. TCU was in line for a top 6 seed with Fisher. I would anticipate a top 5 seed as a possibility if they stay healthy this year. They also signed maybe their best recruiting class in program history.
It gets complicated after these four.
Iowa State - I think ISU makes a huge jump next year. Wigginton is back to run the show, and they actually have guys to put with him. They aren't world beaters, but they should be safely on the right side of the bubble come March. They even added some weapons for Wigginton to ease the offensive burden for him.
Texas - Texas has talent, but I don't know how they can tap into all of that. They could finish third if they tap into all of it. They could finish seventh if they continue to be snake bitten. Slotting them here feels safe. I do think Shaka Smart made a good move to recruit guys similar to ones he would have recruited at VCU, except ranked maybe 20 - 30 spots higher. No five stars in this group, but maybe this is the right mix of players for him. Texas could finish anywhere 3-7 and I wouldn't blink.
Baylor - Can't figure out what the Bears have right now. They are losing a lot of talent and I am not seeing how they have replaced it all. There are scenarios where they are the worst team in the conference.
Texas Tech - I would have them fourth had Zaire Smith returned (he would be my early pick for Big 12 POY). With him gone, though, plus losing that group of seniors, I think they tumble. He was a real difference maker for them. I am sure they thought he would be in Lubbock for at least two years.
Oklahoma State - Part of me feels like they should be higher, but every time I look at that roster, I can't put them ahead of any of the group above them. Wouldn't be surprised if they finished .500 in the conference, though.
Oklahoma - The Sooners will be bad without Trae Young. I don't see a capable PG to fill even 75% of what he did. I haven't seen enough improvement from their experienced players, and they don't have impact recruits coming in that will change the trajectory of this squad. I know they got grad transfers coming in, but Young did so much to make that offense function, and a downgrade at PG (and that's inevitable) probably keeps them from winning more than 5 or 6 games in conference.
The last three minutes of regulation were equal parts exceptional and bizarre. I don't think I have ever seen so much physical play allowed, and so many exceptional plays made, while at the same time seeing incredibly simple mistakes by both teams. Curry over threw Durant on a basic entry pass. Smith dribbling the ball out. Easy missed shots.
I think both the teams and the officials were fatigued at the end of regulation. Lebron played 48 minutes (of 53 possible), but the Warriors main guys also played a bunch. Durant and Curry both played 46 minutes. Green played 47. Thompson played 45 (and he missed time with that injury in the first half). This series may end up being a war of attrition because I don't think either team can go to their bench very much, which could lead to some weird endings when fatigue starts to set in.
I'm somewhat surprised no one mentioned KJ Lawson as a potential starter. He's a guy that everyone is kind of taking for granted right now.
BeddieKU23 said:
The Martin twins plus big man Caroline returned to Nevada. With the returning talent, incoming freshman Jordan Brown and transfers this is a loaded squad. Top 5 good.
This isn't meant to be a hot take, even though it will sound like one. Nevada, with those guys returning, is Final Four caliber good.
Maybe not. How much free time you got? :golfer:
If the expectation from NBA folks is that he won't develop a shot, what is Azubuike returning to Lawrence to work on, exactly? That's not meant as an attack for you (or even a question, really). It's more of just me wondering.
If Azubuike isn't working on expanding his offensive game beyond dunks and short jumphooks, and if his conditioning is improved already, as indicated by the body fat numbers, then I don't know how he improves his draft stock with another year at KU.
That makes some sense. Body language is important, though I will offer the caveat that judging body language and such in high school is difficult because of the talent disparity and role differences. A guy may be a high character, hard working player in high school as the leading scorer and superstar, but become frustrated and angry in college when asked to be a role player.
I myself was a role player in high school. One of the reasons why I had the opportunity to play in college (though I ultimately left the team after a semester for other reasons) when some of my other, more acclaimed high school teammates did not is because I was already used to being a role player. I was a good enough athlete to play in college, and I was able to step into that role. I wasn't trying to go from being a guy that got 15 shots a game to a guy that might only get one or two because I wasn't one of our top scorers in high school anyway. There was very little change for me. Our leading scorer (from high school) struggled a bit in college because he went from being "the man" to being a backup that was expected to just defend and screen for the top scorers.
Obviously, none of this means that a guy with a bad attitude is suddenly going to become a team first guy. It's just to point out that just because a guy is one way in high school or on the AAU circuit, doesn't mean that is who he will be in college on a different team with different expectations and responsibilities.
Are we talking on court red flags or off the court red flags? On the court, Vanderbilt is a nice player. 6-8, athletic guy that can handle the ball a little, pass, shoot from the midrange and rebound. He's not a ball hog or anything. He never tapped into a lot of that at Kentucky, but he only played 14 games for Kentucky, so that's to be expected. He was grabbing almost 8 boards a game in just 17 minutes. KU could have used a rebounder like that last year. He missed so much time due to injury that its hard to say what he is or could have been.
It's more likely that Self would slide Dedric to the 3 in a big lineup than De Sousa. De Sousa doesn't have a lot of ball handling skill at this point. Dedric does. Dedric has a solid face up game as well that would allow him to play effectively on the perimeter. I don't see that from De Sousa yet.
Outliers is an excellent book. I have read it a few times. The thing with the 10,000 hours that always stuck out to me is that it isn't just putting in the time - it's that you have to put in the time focused specifically on improvement. Let's use free throws as an example. The point is not simply that you walk to the line and just start putting up shots. That doesn't really count towards your 10,000 hours. The point is that you walk to the line with a plan. Maybe today you are focusing specifically on form, so you stand three feet from the basket and shoot 250 shots from there, focused specifically on keeping your elbow in, with your follow through finishing through the fingertips. With that focus, it probably takes you half an hour to complete the 250 shots. Do that every day all summer, twice a day, backing up a foot every week until you get to 15 feet by the end of the summer. Congratulations, you have completed about 100 hours of shooting practice.
Separately, you put in 30 minutes focused on your lower body shooting position. Of course, you have to carry over the form from the other practice. So if you put in 2 hours a day (30 minutes twice a day on the 250 shots, 30 minutes twice a day on the lower body part), you can see how someone would improve, and that's just in 200 hours of practice. But the practice has to be extremely focused.
When you hear about how guys like Kobe Bryant would arrive at the arena 2 hours before anyone else to work on footwork before a game, you start to understand the 10,000 hour thing. It's not just the time. It's the level of focus that goes with it.
Smart is an interesting player. For all of his flopping, he's actually a very good defensive player. That's part of why the flopping is particularly annoying with him. He can defend without all of that silliness. On top of that, because he is so strong, he can defend basically any perimeter player.
He's underrated as a ball handler. He's a poor shooter, but he isn't a bad overall offensive player because he is a good passer and has an assist to turnover ratio better than 2 to 1. He's a really smart player (no pun intended) on both ends of the floor as far as understanding scheme and spacing. If he was a decent shooter, he would likely be in line for a huge contract, but because he's such a poor shooter, it's hard to figure where he fits in the modern NBA.
From one standpoint, Doke is what he is. His mobility won't change much, and I think his body has changed as much as it can until he turns pro. There's no doubt that Hudy works players hard, but is limited on how much she can work with them.
Azubuike makes KU better next year, but I am still on the fence about how much more he can improve at KU.
I have watched the game quite a bit actually. It happened before I was born, but ESPN Classic is awesome.
The Sixers started a big lineup with Jones and Dawkins up front with Doc. Hollins and Cheeks were in the backcourt. The Lakers normal lineup was Magic, Kareem, Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes (underrated player) and Chones to match Philly inside. When Kareem went down, LA plugged Michael Cooper in at a forward spot to start. Cooper was a great defender that could match up with Erving and give Wilkes a break on that end.
Caldwell Jones wasn't as physical as Dawkins, so the Lakers put Magic on him some, although Magic also matched up with Hollins. Remember, Magic was only an average defensive player, so LA often hid him on lesser offensive players on D. In the backcourt that was Hollins - Cheeks would have shredded him. Up front, it was Caldwell Jones since either Dawkins or Dr. J would have gone crazy on Magic.
Jordan won all six Finals MVPs.
Lebron has won three (all three times his team won).
The only player from a losing team to ever win was Jerry West, who averaged 38 points, 7.4 assists and 4.7 rebounds per game in a losing effort the very first year the award was given.
Lebron probably should have won the award in 2015, when he averaged 35.8 points (Curry averaged the next most at 26), 13.3 rebounds (Tristan Thompson was next, averaging 13), and 8.8 assists (Curry averaged 6.3) in a losing effort, but the award went to Andre Iguodala, who averaged 16/6/4 while guarding Lebron.
Kevin Durant deservedly won last year. Dirk Nowitzki deservedly won in 2011. Tony Parker won in 2007 when Lebron played poorly. Lebron was legitimately overmatched by the Spurs in 2007, as they forced him to be both inefficient and ineffective.
The interesting thing is that since 2012, Lebron or the player primarily matched up with him has won the Finals MVP. That's how important Lebron is. If your team beats his team, the guy guarding him is the MVP.
The fact that Jordan couldn't guard Shaq doesn't make Shaq better, but the fact that Lebron could guard probably every player in NBA history makes him certainly the most versatile player in history.
I've always enjoyed the Lebron or Jordan debate because there are so many elements to it, including the difference in era and style, the difference in focus, etc.
If they switched places, I think James ends up in much the same place, BTW. Bulls never get Grant and Pippen because by 1987 James has pulled them basically even with Boston and Detroit (similar to how he went to the Finals in 2007 in Cleveland). That costs the Bulls draft position and they end up with different players, never surrounding James with the supporting cast.
James' versatility is his blessing and curse. Because he can do it all (and make up for teammate shortcomings), he makes an otherwise below average team average to good. Jordan raised the level of play for the Bulls to be certain, but at no point were they at the same level as the mid to late 80's Celtics and Pistons.
First, it was the 1980 Finals against the Sixers. That's an important detail for my next point.
Second, while Magic Johnson jumped center for the Lakers, he did not guard Sixers center Darryl Dawkins (aka Chocolate Thunder). He guarded his usual assignment (Lionel Hollins). Jim Chones matched up with Dawkins and held him to just four rebounds. Every game recap notes that Chones, not Johnson, was matched up with Dawkins.
Magic may have jumped center, but Chones played center.
Lebron doesn't jump center, but he has guarded every position in basketball, from PG (thinking of his defense on Derrick Rose in the 2011 ECF) to PF/C (I remember him matched up with Tim Duncan in the Finals more than once).
Some numbers:
Charles Barkley - 6-6, 250
Scottie Pippen - 6-8, 210
Karl Malone - 6-9, 250
Larry Bird - 6-9, 220
Magic Johnson - 6-9, 215
James Worthy - 6-9, 225
That's six HOF players, all of whom were forwards (except Magic). Lebron is 6-8, 250 for reference. So he's roughly the size of Karl Malone, except with the passing skills of Magic, Pippen's defense, Bird's scoring ability and the speed of a guard. And remember, in the 90's, you could not play any type of zone defense, so it was a true man to man, with nobody allowed to sag off their guy to help and protect the middle like you can now. Pippen was an excellent defender, but not big and strong enough to keep a guy like Lebron from backing him down in the post. He's giving away 40 pounds. Lebron has the quickness advantage on Barkley and Malone, and neither of those guys can overpower him at his size. Worthy, Johnson and Bird are also too small to handle him, particularly Magic at his playing weight, and probably are giving away a speed advantage as well.
Who from the 90's can guard Lebron, even handchecking him? He's too strong for the small forwards, too quick for any of the power forwards out on the perimeter. And without being able to send help until he catches the ball, Lebron would feast with his basketball IQ.
How much more dominant a defender would peak Lebron have been if allowed to hand check with his strength and quickness?
Cleveland's roster construction has always been poor. Their front office has been mediocre since before Lebron came into the league. Other than Lebron and Kyrie, Cleveland has not selected a single All Star caliber player. Don't forget, they picked Anthony Bennett with the #1 pick before Lebron returned. How much better would Cleveland have been with Irving and either Oladipo or Otto Porter? Not playoff caliber, but not terrible.
Obviously, that means they likely don't get to draft Wiggins (who himself hasn't developed into an All Star), but they probably do have the chance to pick later in the lottery. Maybe instead of trading for Love they have Irving, Tristan Thompson, Oladipo and either Aaron Gordon or Julius Randle. Or maybe they end up with Embiid instead. Think about that group for a second.
In Miami, they had some pretty incredible rosters that were assembled on the fly because Pat Riley knows what he is doing. Obviously, no one knew about Chris Bosh's health issues, or he probably wouldn't have been in the NBA since those issues ultimately forced him out of basketball (though he hasn't officially retired). But Bosh, Wade and James, along with a host of players to surround him made for some brilliant teams.
The amazing thing about Lebron is that you don't have to construct an ideal roster around him to win. You just have to put something around him because he can cover up most roster flaws. Build a roster with no real rebounding? He can compensate. No ball handling, he runs point. No other creators on the team? Run the offense through Lebron. Weak defensively? Put Lebron on the other team's best player (especially earlier in his career). No depth? Lebron can play extended minutes. No roster flexibility? Lebron can just move from position to position.
He is no worse than average at every NBA level skill, so you have flexibility in how to build around him. The fact that Cleveland's front office hasn't been able to do that is telling - look at how poorly they drafted when Lebron was gone:
2011 - Kyrie Irving (good pick), Tristan Thompson (solid pick), Justin Harper (who?) and Milan Macvan (who?)
2012 - Dion Waiters (okay pick), Jared Cunningham (poor pick), Bernard James (typical second rounder), Jae Crowder (good pick). Cleveland traded Cunningham, James and Crowder for Tyler Zeller and Kelenna Azubuike.
2013 - Anthony Bennett (awful pick), Sergey Karasev (who?) Allen Crabbe (solid second rounder), Carrick Felix (who?)
2014 - Andrew Wiggins (solid pick), Joe Harris (okay second rounder).
Cleveland had 5 top four picks and they drafted one all star (Irving), plus two other good starters (Wiggins and Thompson), a rotation player (Waiters) and a starter for the Maine Red Claws (Bennett). They turned a bunch of second rounders and a couple later first rounders into basically nothing. That's poor management.
Look at their picks after they drafted Lebron before he signed his extension in 2007:
Jason Kapono - 31st in 2003
Luke Jackson - 10th in 2004
Shannon Brown - 25th in 2006
Daniel Gibson - 42nd in 2006
Ejike Ugboaja - 55th in 2006
That's it. That's their full draft record. Cleveland's draft record is horrible. If you want a look at a really sad list, you can see their full draft history here ↗ These ain't the Spurs ↗. These ain't even the Bucks ↗.
Cleveland nailed two picks in 15 years - Lebron and Kyrie. They did alright with Thompson, Wiggins, and Waiters. They whiffed on basically everyone else. Their best two second round picks were traded. That front office is atrocious. If they hadn't won the Lebron lottery, chances are Cleveland would have a pretty long streak of missed playoffs, because their draft history doesn't suggest they would have been able to put together winning teams by stringing together a few good drafts in a row to build a team.
Check out how the Bulls dynasty was built through the draft:
1987 - Horace Grant, 10th overall pick. They picked Olden Polynice 8th and dealt him and other picks to Seattle for some guy named Scottie Pippen. I think Chicago got the best of that deal.
1988 - Will Perdue 11th overall. Went on to be the backup center on many of those title squads.
1989 - BJ Armstrong (18th) and Stacey King (6th). Armstrong was the starting PG for the first three titles. King was a rotation player.
1990 - Toni Kukoc 29th overall. Was the 6th man on the second threepeat teams.
Chicago drafted two of the other four starters for their first set of titles, plus traded for the draft rights to their second best player during that stretch and drafted two other rotation guys and had the foresight to get a guy that would help them win three more titles.
Chicago wasn't unbeatable because of Jordan. It was because they nailed four consecutive drafts starting in 1987, plus made the Pippen trade. They acquired five of their top 7 non Jordan players as rookies, then had the foresight to trade for a veteran center (Bill Cartwright) and a secondary shooter (John Paxson).
The Bulls signed Paxson as a free agent in 1985, understanding that they could use a shooter opposite Jordan in the backcourt, and traded Charles Oakley (a guy they got in a draft day trade) for Cartwright in 1988 once they knew the rest of the roster (Paxson-Jordan-Pippen-Grant) was in place.
Chicago had a plan (surround a young Michael Jordan with defenders, rebounders and shooters). Cleveland did not. Look at the roster again. If Chicago had never drafted Jordan, they would still have been a playoff team given those acquisitions. Not a championship team, but certainly playoff caliber. Cleveland would have been hopeless.
At one time, Boxing and horse racing were the most popular sports in this country (about 100 years ago). Basketball was popular in gym classes (kind of like kickball is). Baseball was riddled with scandal. Football barely had a foothold in American consciousness.
Now horse racing is barely surviving outside specific pockets in the country. Boxing is popular for maybe one or two major fights a year.
Sports don't necessarily die, but they can re-order.
I could see a scenario where football continues to be popular only in the South, while other sports become more popular in other places in the country. The head injury issues have caused lots of parents to pull their kids from youth football. Those kids are growing up playing other sports. Soccer is booming in the suburbs. Lacrosse is popular in the northeast. Baseball is making a comeback in urban areas.
Lots of former players are now saying that because of health concerns, they aren't going to let their sons play football. That's a huge blow to the game.
Chipping away at the player pool because of controversy, health concerns and overall interest dropping won't "kill" football. But it's status as the most popular sport in the country is not guaranteed in perpetuity.
A smaller player pool means less excitement and interest because you will miss out on elite talents.
Terrell Owens was a very good basketball player. So was Randy Moss. In a different environment, maybe those guys play a different sport. Chad (Ochocinco) Johnson was a pretty solid soccer player growing up until he pursued football full time.
Tony Gonzalez was a college basketball player. So was Antonio Gates. That's two of the best tight ends of the last 20 years or so.
John Elway got drafted by the Yankees. Russell Wilson was drafted by the Rangers. That's a couple of Super Bowl winning QBs.
Brett Favre says he hopes his kids pick a different sport. Other former players are outright saying they won't allow their kids to play.
Participation has dropped 30% in the last 8 years at the youth level, from over 3 million kids to about 2.25 million playing. Even a little more erosion (let's say down from 2.25 million to 1.8 million) is probably enough to tilt the scales in another 10 or 15 years.
This article ↗ says that participation at the high school level was down more than 10% in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. 41 total states saw a decline in football participation. Overall, football participation has fallen about 5% at the high school level from 2008 to last fall.
Think of it this way. The kids that were playing youth football at its peak in 2009 as 8 and 9 year olds were high school seniors last fall. Those kids grew up playing football, and yet participation declined by 5% among that group compared to 2009. The drop of 30% from 2008 to last fall at the youth level means that in 9 years (when those kids are seniors), if the natural decline holds consistent, instead of there being over 1 million kids playing high school football in 2028, there will be something like 750,000. That means that school that usually has 100 kids out for football now will have about 75 in 10 years. That's still a good size. But the school that only gets 45 kids out now will only be getting 30-35 out in 10 years. The school that only gets 25-30 kids out now probably won't have enough to have a program in 10 years.
And this doesn't consider that many of these kids are growing up playing sports other than football. If you're a good basketball or baseball or lacrosse or soccer player, you aren't picking up football when you get to high school. A lot of your friends aren't playing football, so it's less likely that you are picking it up.
More and more of these kids are growing up not going to games on Fridays (because older brothers and cousins aren't playing for the local high school) or watching every Sunday (because their parents are cutting the cord or because they have a soccer tournament, for example). Football isn't automatically part of life. And that is ultimately why it will start to fade.
If you read basically any book on Jordan, or just listen to his hall of fame speech, you will realize the type of person and teammate he is/ was. And the media fawned over Jordan as much as they do James. People fawn over greatness. The difference is that we always knew Lebron would be great.
With Jordan there's the whole getting cut when he was a sophomore thing that fits in the "hard work" narrative. The reality is that had Jordan remained just 6-1, he doesn't have the same career. He ends up being another Isiah Thomas, basically. Growing 5 inches is what made Jordan into Jordan.
We don't have that with Lebron because there was never any doubt. The question was never if he would be great. It was how great. Lebron has lived up to every expectation.
The biggest difference with their teams is that the Collective bargaining agreement changed, meaning the way you build teams changed. Guys from the 90s claim they never would have teamed up the way players do now. The truth is that they couldn't. Free agency did not function the same way. Contracts were longer. Teams had much more control.
Pippen and Grant did not just "develop" with Jordan. They were already studs. This isn't a video game where an average talent can turn into a superstar. Basketball is the most unforgiving sport in that way. If you have a weakness, the game will exploit it, whether its size, stamina, explosiveness, athleticism, basketball IQ, shooting, defense, short arms, high hips, weak lower body, weak upper body, fragile feet, bad back, etc.
Lebron is an average free throw shooter. That is his weakness. That's the full list. He's average at one thing. He's at least good at everything else, and elite at most of that. He can defend centers. He can defend point guards. He can play on or off the ball. He can post up. He can initiate the offense. He can rebound. He's a tremendous shot blocker. He's a great scorer.
Lebron led the revolution to positionless basketball because he is all of the positions. Built like a PF. Handles like a PG. Strong like a C. Athletic like a wing. Shoots like a SG. You can't say that about Jordan, or Wilt, or Kareem, or Bird, or Magic.
Lebron is the greatest, most complete basketball player ever. In my opinion, its the lack of that clear weakness that makes people dislike him. He was never the short kid that got cut. He's not smaller than this guy, or shorter than that guy, or weaker than that guy. He's supposed to dominate. He does dominate. He was never cut. He never almost didn't make it. He's Hercules come to life - an impossible myth playing out before our eyes.
I get that KU fans don't like that he yelled at a KU legend. Jordan punched and humiliated teammates in practice regularly. Had we had 24/7 coverage, the narrative might be different. But I've never heard of Lebron punching a teammate in practice.
Jordan never made it without Pippen. Ever. Never advanced to the Finals without Pippen and either Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman at PF.
Lebron's All Star teammate (Kevin Love) basically missed all of games 6 and 7.
The truth is, Lebron surpassed Jordan probably two or three years ago. He won't have the perfect finals record that Jordan did, but he surpassed him as a player.
A lot of people don't like James because of The Decision, which was a dumb PR move. One stupid PR decision is all a lot of people have to base their dislike on, which is their right.
But as I have said in the past, to my knowledge, there has never been a news story about Lebron James breaking the law, cheating on his wife, not supporting his kids, drinking, carousing, etc. That's pretty impressive for a guy that has spent the last decade and a half in the public eye. And the worst thing he ever has done was publicly switch jobs.
Shamet has the advantage of being a PG (Baker is an undersized SG) and being bigger than Van Vleet. That size and positional difference affects his draft potential and overall prospect value.
Lebron still at the top of his game. Back to the Finals again.
Youth football doesn't make much money. Parents spend lots of money on it, but it doesn't generate any money.
Same with high school. It doesn't make much real money.
Only college and pro make money. And if the player pipeline dries up...
KU faces Oklahoma with a chance for a rematch with Baylor.
Oklahoma State (#2 seed) was also eliminated yesterday by 3 seed Texas Tech. That sets up a WVU-TTU matchup.
Baylor and TCU (5 and 6 seeds) are already in the semis. Top 2 seeds are out. 3 and 4 seeds have to win their next two, or they are out (if Baylor or TCU wins their semifinal, they advance - if they lose, they get a rematch under the double elimination format).
Chances are better that one of the bottom four seeds wins this tournament than that a top 4 team even makes the final.
The issue is that the NFL and the football establishment continue to insist that it is not dangerous, similar to the way the tobacco industry denied the dangers of cigarettes for years and years and years. Had the NFL and other football organizations come out and stated the risks, I think your point would be correct because the danger would have been well established and known.
I can remember when people would laugh about guys "getting their bell rung." That was less than 20 years ago. Now we know better, yet the NFL still won't say that outright. The NCAA won't say that. As long as the powers that be continue to deny the danger, there will continue to be lawsuits, and the plaintiffs will continue to be successful in those lawsuits.
I think they won the tiebreaker with Tennessee based on head to head results, but I could be wrong. Mizzou was 6th in the league, so it's not like the teams left out are the bottom four from the previous year.
I'm talking about talented on Day One, when the player arrived on campus.
Embiid, when he arrived was good, but he wasn't even the most talented recruit in his class when he arrived, lagging well behind Andrew Wiggins (and maybe not quite as good as Selden). Embiid has turned out to be better than both of those guys, but he was not better than Wiggins when he arrived.
The only guy that could challenge Grimes, IMHO, is Jackson because of where he was from day one.
Football is in trouble. The NFL has quite the cash cow, but if this suit goes against the NCAA, it will be very difficult to continue to have football as a school sport at any level.
https://deadspin.com/the-ncaa-is-running-out-of-excuses-on-brain-injuries-1819854361 ↗
Simply put, if this decision goes against the NCAA (trial starts in two weeks), the effect could be huge. Most school district budgets are already stretched. Districts can't afford to pay huge settlements and insurers won't want that type of liability without increasing premiums (probably a football specific policy aside from the regular sports policy).
And that doesn't account for the media attention and reaction this will likely generate.
Football is in crisis. All of the conference re-alignment based on football money may start falling apart if that money dries up, or has to be directed towards treatment and recovery for former players.
Not next year. SEC only plays 10 teams, so four teams get left out each year. Next year those four are Mizzou, Auburn, Mississippi State and LSU.
No surprise that KU vs. UK is the matchup. This is the marquee matchup in the Big 12-SEC showdown. The only other one that would draw as much interest is KU - Mizzou. The next time KU and UK play in the Champions Classic, KU will draw Mizzou. The only disappointment is that the game will be on campus and not at a neutral site.
This (Kansas vs. Kentucky) is one of the premier matchups in all of college basketball. The two all time winningest programs facing off is something special.
The Josh Jackson question is an open question.
Grimes isn't quite to where Rush was as a junior, but he is much better than Rush was as an incoming freshman. Grimes is a much better passer and ball handler than what Rush was coming in. Rush was bigger and (coming in, pre injury) probably the superior athlete. Rush was also the superior shooter.
But Grimes' ability to put the ball on the floor and pass means he can be better as a creator than what Rush was in any of his seasons at KU. Rush never averaged more than 2.1 assists in his time at KU. I think Grimes surpasses that easily as a freshman, while scoring and rebounding at solid rates.
With Josh Jackson, he was so good defensively that it's hard to compare the two, but I think Grimes being a superior shooter will help him surpass what Josh Jackson did at KU.
Jackson may still stand above Grimes, but I am incredibly high on Grimes and think he passes even Jackson's production.
Until we know what evidence is out there, I am with @jaybate-1-0. Let's wait and see.
The quote at the end about Quentin Grimes is what sticks out to me. Grimes may be the best player Self has recruited to KU. If Doke is back and Dedric is as good as I anticipate LOOK OUT.
All of the lower seeds won yesterday, so with double elimination, that means two of the top 4 seeds will be out after today's games (4 plays 1, 3 plays 2, losers go home). Meanwhile, among the lower seeds, whoever wins today advances to the semifinals, while the losers will have a chance to get back into the bracket if they can win against the higher seeds. So two of the bottom four are guaranteed semifinal appearances, while two of the top four will be out. Crazy tournament.
It sounds like they took a good business deal and turned it into a bad business deal. I don't know the details on why, but its a head scratcher to be sure.
I don't think that's negative. That's (unfortunately) probably true.
Svi is much more similar to JJ Redick than Kyle Korver. Redick measured 6-4 without shoes at the combine in 2006, but had just a 6-3 1/4 wingspan. Redick is very much a system defender (moreso even than Korver) because he lacks the reach to be disruptive in the NBA at that end.
While it won't keep him from being effective in the NBA, Svi's wingspan will limit his ability to be an impact defender. He isn't quick enough to guard 1s and his wingspan will make it tough on him to guard the best wing players. Svi will guard the least threatening perimeter player for much of his NBA career. This also means it is critical that he become not just a 40% shooter in the NBA, but shoot it in the mid 40s from three, along with being able to initiate the offense because he is going to be a guy that will stick in the league based almost entirely on his offense.
I'm not sure that each coach only voted for one person. It doesn't specifically say that in the article, although to be perfectly fair, it doesn't list the methodology at all. As a former researcher, that bothers me that it doesn't explain whether they asked them for one name, their top three, or otherwise. It would make the numbers a lot easier to understand if that information were out there.
On the other hand, it is sort of implied that maybe there was only one vote per person, but again, its not clear either how the question was presented. Also, it appears they only considered P5 coaches, so coaches like Jay Wright and Mark Few would not have been eligible (not that they would have won), which makes this an even more confusing question to quantify.
For sure starters next year at KU
PG - Devon Dotson
SG - Quentin Grimes
PF - Dedric Lawson
Those are the three guarantees. The rest is up in the air. KJ Lawson could start. Charlie Moore could start. Dave McCormack could start. De Sousa could start. There's a limited chance that Agbaji or Lightfoot could start. Heck, I could probably dream up a scenario or two where Sam Cunliffe starts.
The question for next year's team is how they can guard, because they should be good offensively.
I am waiting to see who stays in the draft to figure out both Nevada and Kentucky. Those two teams look a lot different depending on whether some of their guys come back. Nevada with the twins back is a top 10 (maybe even top 5) team. Kentucky with Washington and Vanderbilt back is a monster (top 3 in the country, no question). Kentucky without them is a flawed team.
Heck, KU with Azubuike is a top 3 or 4 team. Without him, still good, but potentially turning into a team with a lack of frontcourt depth again
Bad news for Beaty, and possibly a shake up coming in a lot of the non-revenue sports that weren't performing well.
That's big.