🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@JayHawkFanToo

The Big 12 is okay now because their contracts are not up yet. When it comes time to renegotiate, that's when we will all find out if the Big 12 is still in good shape. My guess is that the Big 12 will be looking to expand before they start renegotiating in order to strengthen their negotiation position. If the Big 12 doesn't negotiate a good long term deal to follow up the current contract, then the conference is in trouble.

@jayballer73

Pac 12 is not in trouble. They control every TV west of the Rockies. Having all of the major schools in the most populous state in the country is huge for revenue. While we may not stay up and watch here in the midwest, all of the people in the following top 30 metro areas are within the Pac 12 footprint:

Los Angeles (2)

Phoenix (11)

San Francisco - Oakland (12)

Riverside - San Bernardino (13)

Seattle (15)

San Diego (17)

Denver (19)

Portland (25)

Sacramento (27)

Las Vegas (28)

That's 10 areas in the top 30 where the Pac 12 is the dominant collegiate conference. That is huge financially. The Pac 12 has nothing to worry about. Their member schools have no interest in leaving for time zone reasons. They can expand if they want with no challengers and grab University of Nevada, BYU, Boise State, UNLV, San Diego State, etc. with no issue. They could not expand and not face any other challengers from that group.

The Big 12, in comparison, has Dallas - Fort Worth (4), Houston (5), and Kansas City (30). One of the reasons I advocate that the Big 12 add Cincinnati is that the Cincinnati Metro area is actually #29 right now. Although there are a lot of Ohio State fans there, Cincinnati has a huge following locally there in town. That's one of only two markets the Big 12 can tap into right now. The other, of course is Memphis (#42), right behind Oklahoma City.

West Virginia doesn't have an MSA in the top 100 - there are portions of West Virginia included in the Baltimore and Pittsburgh MSA's, but West Virginia itself does not have anything higher than #148. Iowa clocks in with Des Moines at #88. Wichita is #89. Tulsa is #54. Every other high ranked MSA is in Texas. For the Big 12 to ultimately hang on, the conference must eventually add Cincinnati and Memphis, or the conference will be pushed out of relevancy at some point.

@jaybate-1-0

Other than Villanova, point me to a truly great team in the NCAA last season. UVA stormed through the ACC, but we all understood their limitations even if no one saw UMBC coming. UNC was flawed. Michigan State couldn't find an identity. Duke couldn't defend. KU was jump shot dependent. Xavier lacked depth. Cincinnati struggled to score. Purdue lacked top flight talent. Michigan's guard play was suspect. Ohio State had no one to complement their stars. Same story for Miami. UCLA was torpedoed by early season scandal. Arizona was torpedoed by late season scandal. The top freshmen were too spread out, many at lesser programs.

There were not any great teams this past season. Villanova was the best team for most of the year. Villanova won the title. Every other team had a serious flaw that ultimately saw them get knocked out of the tournament for that very reason.

Maybe next year there will be great teams, although it's hard to see that coming through. Duke is still flawed in roster construction. So is UNC. Not getting Langford will probably haunt KU in a few key games when they could use his shooting. The FBI probe isn't going away, so there will probably be some recruit or team that gets hit with that at some point. Kentucky probably won't be able to rebound next year unless some of their guys come back. Arizona and Louisville are both probably sunk due to the investigation.

So who has the strongest team? Well, that's still up for debate, but whoever does probably has a shot at running the table in March because next year promises a bunch of really good, but also really flawed teams.

There are enough people on the West coast to keep the Pac12 as a Power Conference. The issue is the Big 12. Outside of Texas, the Big 12 conference footprint does not have a top media market in it.

While Kansas is a strong basketball program and Oklahoma is strong in football, neither of those states has the population to drive regional or national viewership.

One of the reasons that Nebraska left the Big 12 was to gain affiliation with some larger markets. Same for Mizzou. The Big 12 just doesn't have the population within its footprint to command larger TV deals.

I know we complain about the lack of coverage nationally at times, but the truth is there isn't as much national interest for what is going on in the Big 12. That's part of why I didn't mind ESPN paying so much attention to Trae Young. The Big 12 needs whatever national attention it can get because there aren't enough people in Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia and Oklahoma to drive conference revenues up to compete with the other power conferences.

The Big 12 should've been aggressive the first time around. Because they were reactive instead of proactive, they lost the ability to control their own destiny.

Maybe they will be able to change the course in the next round, but lack of action at the outset continues to haunt the conference.

@approxinfinity

Svi is still 2 or 3 years away from understanding how to get open at the level that will allow him to tap into his full shooting potential. He will not be an immediate replacement. With some time he could be replacement down the road for a great shooter.

He also needs to improve his off the dribble game so that people can't just bury up into him on the perimeter. This will give him space to get his shots off in the NBA.

I think Svi spends next year in the G League.

@Statmachine

The issue for Newman is that he was an average athlete before (by NBA standards) and is still a pretty average athlete now. The decreases aren't a big deal because they still make him average.

He has to show that he can defend 1s and 2s, that he can handle the PnR, and that he can pass. Everyone knows that he can score. He just has to show he can do it on both ends.

I see him as a off the bench spark scorer (Jamal Crawford, Lou Williams, Bobby Jackson type). If he can defend at an average level, he can make himself very valuable.

@JayHawkFanToo

There are two things that factor into whether a player succeeds in the NBA. One is development. That, obviously, has nothing to do with how they did in college.

The other is raw talent. A player has to have a raw talent level of X in order to play in the NBA. There isn't an NBA direct equivalent, but a few years ago FiveThirtyEight ↗ did a feature on a regular guy being created as a Madden player based on his actual skills. He rated as a 12 on the ratings scale. The lowest rated player in Madden that year was a long snapper that rated a 41.

Basketball works in much the same way. To be an NBA player, you would probably have to be "rated" a 55 or so at a minimum. Most regular people would be rated below 15. A guy like Diallo is around a 60 or so at this point in his career. Let's say that an average D1 player is rated 45.

Diallo had the physical talent to be an above average D1 player. Lucas was much closer to average (perhaps a high 40s, low 50s type). Chances are Diallo, when he left KU, was somewhere between 53 and 57 given that he's bounced between the NBA and the G League. Lucas is below even that minimum NBA standard.

The guys you point to (Morrison, Fredette, Hansbrough) have the minimum talent level, but they need to adapt their game. All three were primary options in college, but are not nearly talented enough to be number one options in the NBA. They are role players that have been stars throughout their lives. They are guys rated in the high 60s or low 70s, but to be a #1 option, you need to be an 80 or better. They have the minimum talent level to be in the league, but not to fulfill the role they are used to.

I like 10, but would be okay with 12 if the Big 12 were to add either Cincinnati and Louisville (unlikely) or Memphis. The Big 12 really needs to bridge the gap between West Virginia and the rest of the conference geographically.

As @JayHawkFanToo says, it makes no sense to expand west unless you drop WVU.

Big 12 expansion has to go east, and the only schools that make sense going east are Cincinnati, Memphis, and then smaller status schools like Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB, Houston, Rice, etc.

Doke and Preston's measurements are big positives for both of them. Devonte as well, though he is shorter than most would prefer, but that length means he can play a bit bigger than his height.

Newman neither helps nor hurts his stock with his measurements. He needs to defend this week at the combine.

Svi hurts himself a bit, but can remove some of those concerns with a good showing shooting the basketball. Svi was always going to be more of a shooter than anything else. JJ Redick also has a wingspan shorter than his standing height, and he's done okay in the NBA. Svi isn't quite that level of shooter, but he likely will have the same type of role as Redick in the NBA.

Lecque is "old" for his class, so a move to 2018 wouldn't be crazy. He's basically a month younger than Quentin Grimes (one of the younger players in his class). However, if Lecque stays in 2019, he would become one of the oldest players in his class, as he would turn 19 next summer. That may be a bit of a factor for him.

He's an elite athlete for his size. I don't know how he would fit in this backcourt because he would probably need to play on the ball a bit more than Langford or another true wing would, but when in doubt, you take the talent and figure the rest out later.

Landen Lucas should have gone down as one of the great five year role players in the history of KU basketball. He did everything he was supposed to, its just that he was asked to do more than he ever should have been. He wasn't supposed to ever be a starter at KU. Had he been allowed to be a 10-15 minute per game player, his weaknesses would not have been exposed and he may have been a part of a couple of Final Four teams, maybe even a champion.

Lucas was a perfect backup at a school like KU. But he was forced into a role as a starter, which was unfair to him to have to carry that weight of expectation. Imagine if a guy like Jeremy Case had been required to be the starting PG for KU as a junior and senior, or if Jamari Traylor had been asked to be the starting PF his last two years. We would remember them differently because they would have been in roles that exceeded their skills. Jamari got a little bit of that as it was because KU was thin up front towards the end of his career.

We view Landen in a different light because of the role he was cast in, when if we view him as a solid backup, he actually exceeded expectations. That's how I try to look at Landen now that his career is over - solid backup that was overextended as a starter. He played to his skill level. He was just over extended in the role he was given.

@JayHawkFanToo

I saw a portion of one of these types of contracts a few years ago. Players are required to wear the contracted attire for games and "team activities, which is why you see the players get off the bus, for instance, wearing their shoes, hoodies, jackets, t-shirts, etc. However, for non team activities (going to class, going out, etc.) the players can wear whatever they want because the contract can't bind the players personally.

The flip side of it is that the players receive several pair of shoes and lots of apparel from Adidas anyway, so they wear a lot of that stuff around campus, etc. After all, if you have four or five Adidas hoodies, three pairs of sweat pants, a track suit, seven different t-shirts and four pair of shoes that you get for free, what are you going to likely wear a lot of days? Especially when you get all of that washed for free.

@JayHawkFanToo

The question remains whether he would be allowed to develop a midrange game by returning to KU? What's better for KU - to have Doke shoot 65% because he's adding a face up game from 10 feet, so he misses some turn around jumpers and such, or have Doke shoot 80% on dunks, layups, jump hooks and lobs?

Can Doke develop in the ways he needs to by returning to Kansas?

Or more accurately, will Bill Self allow Doke to develop the way he needs to in order to succeed professionally?

That's a question Doke has to answer just as much as NBA teams have to answer the draft/G League/ two way question. But I ultimately think the answer to those questions is not in Lawrence.

@BeddieKU23

Doke's size and athleticism are top notch. The question is how his basketball skills are going to develop. When in doubt, always bet on the athleticism.

Does an NBA franchise feel like sending Doke to the G League this year and part of next year is a good investment, or do they want him to go back to college, then spend one and a half seasons in the G League? Doke's age makes this a complicated decision because he doesn't turn 21 until September of 2020. He won't be 19 until the start of training cap this year. He's one of the youngest players in this year's draft, younger than freshmen like DeAndre Ayton, Marvin Bagley and Mo Bamba. Doke is younger than Anfernee Simons, who would have been an incoming freshman this fall. The only players in the draft that I can find younger than Doke are Jontay Porter, who reclassified last year to play at Mizzou, and Issac Bonga, an international prospect.

Of that group, Doke is the only one to have two years of US college hoops. Porter has one, obviously, and Bonga has played in a pro league in Germany the last couple of years.

That might be enough to convince a GM to take the gamble and stash him in the G League for a year or two.

@DoubleDD

I actually studied that McDonald's coffee case when I was in law school. While it is popular to point out as an example of out of control lawsuits, that's not the case when you look at the facts. Here are the facts as I remember them.

Coffee beans are graded on an A, B, C, D, etc. scale, similar to school, with A being the best (the gourmet coffees) and B being the regular coffees. C beans are used for planting and other things like that, but aren't used to make grounds. For each coffee bean grade, there is an optimal temperature at which the flavor is best for serving. For A beans, it's about 160 degrees F. For B beans, its about 170-175. For C beans, it's about 190-195. Basically, C beans only have their best flavor during brewing. As they cool, they don't taste as good.

A McDonald's executive realized they could get C grade beans much cheaper than the B grade beans they were using at the time, and not lose the flavor if they just heated up their pots a little bit more and served the coffee at a higher temperature.

So McDonald's started serving their coffee at a little over 190 degrees.

Water boils at 212 degrees, so McDonald's was serving coffee at just about 20 degrees below boiling temperature, knowing fully well that the coffee was hot enough to easily scald anyone. Additionally, McDonald's knew that the coffee cups they were using could deform slightly when the coffee was that hot, meaning the lids would not stay on tight.

The perfect storm of events was set - incredibly hot coffee, a cup that wasn't designed to handle liquids that hot, a loose lid and a drive through window. The victim in this case suffered second and third degree burns on her legs and lap. She had to have several skin grafts, including the removal of some of her feminine areas because they were burned too badly. Very serious injuries - in some areas her clothes had been scalded onto her skin by the coffee.

The jury awarded her all of her medical expenses, and then did a very specific calculation for the other damages. They took the total amount that McDonald's made on coffee sales for one day, and subtracted out what the profit would be if McDonald's had used the B grade beans instead of C grade beans. That's how they came to the final number in the award - the difference in a day's coffee profits from using the cheaper beans vs. using the standard beans.

McDonald's made a business decision to use the cheaper beans even though they knew they would have to serve hotter coffee, and didn't compensate for serving the hotter coffee by buying heavier duty cups to serve it in, sticking with their regular cups even though those cups could warp with the hotter liquid. The jury award accounted for that business decision. That's how the system should work.

Does Sketchers even make basketball shoes?

Hazing has reached far beyond fraternities and sororities. Every year there are hazing incidents in high schools and colleges, usually involving sports teams or popular "clubs". The news usually only comes out when there is a tragedy (i.e. someone is seriously hurt or killed). Too often, administrators get focused on the "tradition" part of it and don't monitor what is actually happening during these events. That leaves the students unsupervised and often leads to these types of things.

At this point, I don't know that a mystery man is coming. It's pretty late in the game. The music has stopped and pretty much everyone has found a seat. Unless someone else is going to reclassify, it's hard to see someone switching a 2018 commit this late. Most of the grad transfers have also found homes. There are obviously still some guys out there, but most of those guys are going to be looking for significant time, something KU may not be able to guarantee for most of them.

It's a tough market to figure. The investigation is looming over all of college basketball, and will probably get bigger, sweeping up more programs, rather than smaller. I just don't see where the mystery man comes from right now.

@jhawk7782

I know other guys have re-classified. That makes sense. Diallo re-classified, but intended to play. He just wasn't allowed play because of academic requirements. He would have played if he were eligible.

But with this group at Duke, it doesn't make a lot of basketball sense. Now maybe they can make it work to get all four of those guys minutes while letting them each tap into their unique skills. But if I had to guess, I think that will be hard because there is overlap and redundancy in places that don't help.

You can never have enough ball handling, shooting and rebounding. Duke has shooting and rebounding, but probably not enough ball handling. The upside is that Williamson, Barrett and Reddish are so talented they might just make it work anyway, but the downside is that they also might just be in each other's way.

@BigBad

Going small makes sense, and I think Zion can certainly handle the 5, but the issue is that Reddish, Williamson, Barrett and now Baker are all fairly similar. Baker is a better shooter than the other three, but all four play off the ball, but are primary scorers. Jones is a PG, which helps, but Barrett isn't really a 2 and Williamson isn't really a 4 like the article tries to claim. They are all SF.

Jones is the only primary ballhandler out of the group. None of the others is even really a secondary ballhandler or in the mold of someone like Quentin Grimes that can slide over to the point and handle those duties. They all work off the ball and need guys to set the table to get them shots. Simply put, although this group is very talented, I don't know if they have enough ball handling and passing to make each guy effective. Baker is a catch and shoot guy. He's not going to set other people up. He will spread the floor, but he won't necessarily get other guys shots. Reddish and Williamson are both isolation type players. They aren't necessarily drive and kick type players that will help get the most out of a player like Baker. Barrett is the best of the group, but even he isn't a passer.

They have four guys that can shoot, which is good. They have four guys that can slash, which is also good. They have one guy that can distribute. That guy does not have a backup on the roster. That is a problem. Jones has to make sure everyone eats, which puts a huge burden on him on every possession to keep everyone in the game.

@BShark

Agreed. I get re-classifying if you would come in and start. I don't get re-classifying to come in and sit.

I don't understand what kind of team Duke is trying to build here. Maybe they are ahead of the curve, but it seems like they are just signing the same guy over and over again with no regard to how those pieces fit together. Perhaps Coach K is doing something different, but I don't know how this is going to work.

@BShark

Just wait til he does that in a packed AFH.

@JayHawkFanToo

Fair statement. ShoeCo's are clearly paying. Schools may be paying.

But the whole idea is to get continued exposure for the "brand". Having a school advance an additional round is another 2 hours of "free" advertising for the brand, whether that's the school, the ShoeCo or other sponsors.

Either way, if a guy might help move the needle in March, he's worth something.

Let's ponder another angle for a moment.

The top players are going pro after one year in college. There's no question they are going to get paid. I think we all agree on that.

Silvio De Sousa is not an automatic pro player. He may play in the NBA one day, but its hardly a sure thing. I think we can all agree on that.

So why were schools paying for a player like De Sousa? Well, because whether he ever makes the pros or not, chances that he is a good college player are almost assured. I think we can all agree on that.

So who are the players that are most susceptible to being paid? The guys that are sure millionaires in a year may get paid, but they are getting paid either way. But the next tier down, the for sure good collegiate players/maybe one day pros are the guys that can round out rosters and perhaps help get a team over the hump, to the title. The maybe one day pros don't have the guaranteed pay day coming like the top guys do. A quick $50K or $100K might be tempting because they aren't going to be a lottery pick in 12 months. It's arguable that their value will never be higher than as a collegiate athlete.

The danger for the NCAA is not the top of the pyramid. It's the middle.

If anyone can find me seven players better than Lebron right now, I will eat the socks I am currently wearing. Lebron may be slowing down, and no, I wouldn't build a team around him because he's not going to play 10 more years, but if I were trying to win a title this year, next year or in 2020, and he were available, I would add him in a heartbeat. It's easy to build a team around Lebron because he's good at every single basketball skill. You don't have to pair him with specific kinds of players - you have to put Steph Curry, for instance, with good rebounders and defenders because he's not strong in those areas. Same with James Harden. With Lebron, if you need him to play center, he could probably do that. If you needed him to play PG, he basically already does that.

I agree with @JayHawkFanToo that Lebron is slowing down, but his versatility means that he will have a more gentle decline, moving first to playing a stretch 4 type with elite ball handling and passing, then eventually to a small ball 5. So even if he only has 2-3 more years in his current role, he can probably play 2-3 years after that as a stretch 4/small ball 5 (barring injury). That means he likely plays until he's close to 40, maybe even beyond if he remains as healthy as he has over his career.

Because he is an elite passer and ball handler, he can still be the focal point on offense even as his offensive skills begin to decline to basically being a post up/ spot up guy. Lebron could put on 20 more pounds and turn into late career Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, and those are two ALL TIME GREATS.

@kjayhawks

Marcus Smart is one of the few players that you have to watch in order to understand why he plays despite being so inefficient offensively. Smart is one of the best defenders in the league. Not only because he has the physical skills, but also because he is one of the smartest defensive players in the league. Almost never out of position, either one on one or off the ball.

I hate that he flops because he is so positionally sound it takes away from the aesthetic beauty of his defensive work. He's a nightmare to go up against. Because he's so strong, he can guard bigger guys without giving up anything - you can't post him because he simply cannot be moved on the block by most guys.

Add to that the fact that although he's a poor shooter, he can handle the basketball, drive, pass and is a very good cutter. That still makes him a below average offensive player, but he's an elite defensive player, so it balances out on the positive side.

Dotson can do all of the things Self likes about a PG. He can get to the rim basically whenever he wants. He's stronger than he looks. He knows how to get his teammates involved and can organize the offense.

And now he's going to be surrounded by more top shelf talent than he's ever had at his disposal as a PG.

In his highlights you often see him having to slow down to get his teammates involved. That's not going to be the case with Grimes, the Lawson brothers, Moore, Agbaji, Lightfoot, etc. He will be able to turn on the afterburners without overrunning his teammates. We have not seen the best of Devon Dotson yet.

@dylans

I think Lebron could carry a group of us bucketeers to a 30 win season in the NBA. Give him a group of actual NBA players, and he is a playoff team.

I am not overly worried about the personnel available next year.

D. Lawson, K. Lawson, and Moore are all available. Lightfoot and Garrett are back. That by itself is a solid enough starting five. Not great, but solid enough. That's a P5 quality starting five, and that assumes Doke stays in the draft and De Sousa remains ineligible. Sam Cunliffe is still here as well.

Then you add in a top notch recruiting class with Grimes, Dotson, McCormack and Agbaji. McCormack should be able to play some minutes at the 5, even if its just 10-15 a game. Dotson will either start or play significant minutes at the 1. Agbaji is probably just depth next season, but there are scenarios where I see him playing double digit minutes and holding his own. I think his career path will be somewhat similar to Semi Ojeleye, where he sticks around college for four years, then makes an impact at the next level as he continues to mature.

And then there's Quentin Grimes. He offers the perimeter punch this team needs. He's a good enough ball handler to play in any lineup, even if its without Dotson and Moore.

Honestly, the two most important players, as far as roster construction, for next season are KJ Lawson and Quentin Grimes because both of those guys can play multiple positions and guard multiple positions.

This team will be just fine. And if either Silvio or Doke is back, that just adds depth to the frontcourt as guys re-shuffle to make room.

@BeddieKU23

Bassey is originally from Nigeria. He has a guardian as most every foreign kid that comes to the US would have. Not necessarily a sign of improper actions. The other issues give pause for sure though.

@JayHawkFanToo

The same could be said for many of the players pulled into this because of the actions of third parties, possibly without their knowledge.

I don't worry too much about parents being involved. That means they care. It's better to have parents that give a crap than parents that are nowhere to be found.

@BShark

That would be a bad thing if Grimes isn't playing. Grimes is one of the five most talented players Self has ever recruited to KU. Only Embiid, Wiggins and maybe Josh Jackson can get ahead of him. If Langford comes to KU, Grimes is still fourth or fifth. Him not playing would be a big deal and a potential disaster.

Grimes should play (and play a lot) from Day One. Grimes has legitimate superstar potential at the pro level, nevermind college (as does Langford). Self hasn't had that at his disposal before.

@BShark

If Doke is back, Cremo may need to start in a Doke-Dedric-Grimes-Dotson lineup to space the floor a bit more. I'm still waiting to see how Garrett's shot progresses before I decide where he can fit in different lineups.

Langford and those close to him have done a really good job of keeping things under wraps. This decision will be a surprise to everyone.

Cremo works as a designated shooter in a lot of different lineups. He could be a nice addition if KU misses on Langford. 18-20 minutes a game off the bench shooting 3-5 threes per game, I could see him being a really nice asset. I don't think he could start because he probably won't be versatile enough, but he could be a bench guy that scores a few points a game, with the potential to hit 6 or 7 threes on any given night.

With Doke, evaluators want to know two things.

1. Is he healthy

2. Can he play as a rim running, PnR 5 in today's NBA.

He was good catching lobs at KU, the question now is can he catch lobs off the PnR, and can he hold his own in isolation against guards since he will have to defend PnR switches. If he answers both of those questions positively, I can certainly see him staying in the draft. Doke will need a year in the G League before he's ready for the NBA whether he stays at KU or not. If he's close to ready now, he should spend that year in the G League now rather than a year from now.

Vick is going to be okay. He's heading to the G League most likely. Teams just have to decide what priority to assign him (i.e., do you want to be sure you get him by drafting him in the second round, or do you think you can snag him as a free agent signee). Vick can play in the NBA. I think he likely will. Just not for probably two more years.

@dylans

Certainly could. It's a personal decision for him, so all sorts of factors (ones we can see and ones we can't) could be in play.

@dylans

I think people want to keep politics they disagree with out of sports. That's from both sides.

Okay, so I guess I need to clear up one of my previous posts.

First, you can find the Financial statements for the KU Athletic Department Online ↗. It's required reporting. These financial statements are audited, so any funny business would be unethical and potentially illegal.

Second, the first part of my post was serious. I was laying out the case for why paying back scholarships made no financial sense for revenue sports (football and mens hoops). The first five paragraphs address that.

The last six paragraphs (starting with "Taking it to the business world") were me being sarcastic by basically comparing college hoops and recruiting to a business. Basically saying that businesses would recruit OAD's if they were that valuable, similar to how college basketball coaches recruit these highly talented players even knowing that they will not be around long because they are so valuable.

It's a market argument. The market says the best players are valuable to the university even if they stay only one year because they improve the on court product. And their value is so high that even if they leave, they are worth more than their scholarship.

Remember, each conference receives money based on each win ↗. So if an OAD helps a team make the tournament (oh, hi there Trae Young) he's worth his scholarship right there.

Getting to the tournament and winning even one game (shout out to Collin Sexton)? Probably pays for the entire roster's scholarships. Trae Young nets the Big 12 $273,00 each year for the next six years for getting OU into the dance. Sexton gets the SEC twice that (two units, since Bama made the tourney and won a game).

Young was worth a full scholarship to OU this year (money in the Big 12 gets split up among the schools), plus a full scholarship every year for the next five years after that just because he got OU into the tourney. Sexton was worth twice that.

Why should those guys pay a penny back to those universities? We know that neither OU or Bama makes the tournament without Young or Sexton. And that ignores the additional ticket sale revenue those guys brought in.

I actually think IU has the worst chance of the three. Romeo has shown he wants to play with a good PG, which is smart since he wants to be able to showcase his skills as a 2 guard. Indiana has the worst PG situation among the three finalists.

Garland and Dotson are both better than what Indiana has. Langford played with a very good HS backcourt mate (another D1 recruit, although to a midmajor). Once you have played with a talented PG as a wing guy, you don't want to give that up. The quality of shots he will get at KU or Vandy will be better because of Garland or Dotson than what he will get at Indiana. That's a huge factor from a "business decision" standpoint.

He can take Malik Newman's situation as an example. Newman went to Mississippi State with a poor PG situation. He shot poor percentages and was too often asked to shoulder a lot of the burden both from a scoring and from a playmaking standpoint. Newman comes to KU, and once he figures out he doesn't have to make every play on the offensive end, explodes and turns right back into the player he was coming out of HS.

Langford is faced with a similar situation (albeit, Indiana is in slightly better shape than MSU was). Still, he doesn't have the PG help at IU that he would have at either KU or Vandy. I think that swings the decision, but whether that means KU or Vandy is beyond me.

@JayHawkFanToo

I guess I should have indicated those paragraphs were written sarcastically.

@Buster-1926

The University of Kansas is a public university, so this information actually is public record. Just google it and you should be able to find the information.

@Buster-1926

I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that athletic scholarships (and the athletic department) are funded by donors, not taxes at the big schools. Perhaps for smaller schools it is different, but at the big schools, scholarships are funded by donations and the revenue from the athletic department itself.

The student athletes in revenue sports help pay back their scholarship value and then some over the course of their first season. The revenue generated by KU basketball is much more than the $390,000 (13 x $30,000) in scholarships for the team. In Fiscal Year 2014 basketball generated over $18M at KU. Basketball expenses were $8M. That figure includes scholarships and coaches salaries. The athletic department as a whole had a profit of roughly $7M. Football, as bad as KU football is, had a surplus of a shade over $8M as well.

So those two sports brought in over $16.5M above what it cost for FY14 and this proposal would ask any student athlete leaving early to pay back $30,000? If this were asked of a non-revenue student athlete who quit their team, I could maybe understand the financial reasoning. I can't here. Student athlete X comes to University Y and the basketball team rakes in over $8M above what is spent for that program. In KU's case, every player on the basketball team generated over 320% of what it cost to fund the entire basketball team's scholarships.

A payback program makes zero financial sense to recover any funds from revenue sports because every scholarship athlete in basketball, at least at KU, generates enough money to pay for the whole program's scholarships three times over. Every football player is worth about 9 athletic scholarships from a revenue generation standpoint.

And that's EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. The athletic department isn't losing any money if a student athlete leaves after a year from a revenue sport because they have already made their investment back several times over.

Taking it to the business world, there was some debate a few weeks back about the frustration of bringing someone in, training them for a year and then having them leave.

I guarantee you this right now - every businessman here would absolutely hire and train a new person every year if they brought in 9 times their cost in revenue in a single year like KU football does, or 46 (forty-six) times their cost in revenue in a single year like KU basketball.

Businessmen would be falling over themselves to recruit these one year wonders. They would be wooing them year 'round. They would be flying them around the country to talk to these incredible people, meeting them in their homes, at their schools, calling them on the phone, sending text messages, following their social media, etc. You would probably need rules about some of that, though...

They would want to talk to their parents, their girlfriends, anybody that knew them. You would probably need rules about some of that, too, though...

They would be taking them to dinner at the finest restaurants, sending them all sorts of gifts. You would probably need rules against some of that so the gifts and dinners wouldn't get out of hand...

Even better if they only had to pay them room and board, and for their training. That would be quite a business model. I wonder why no one has thought of it yet. You could make a ton of money doing something like that... hmmm...

@Buster-1926

An athletic scholarship is only a one year deal. That's why you see student athletes getting "squeezed out" all the time. Scholarships are not for four years. So if a student athlete honors their commitment for one year, they are not obligated to return the next year just like the school is not obligated to renew the scholarship for the following year. That is why I recommend that if some of these changes are adopted, the school is locked into that commitment as well.

@Woodrow

I think Preston gets an invite. NBA people will want to see him compete. He was a highly ranked player, so they will want to see where he is at. Combine invites are for those players that most teams would want to see work out anyway. I think Preston fits that category.

Doke is a tough call. NBA folks probably want to see if he's healthy, but there are significant questions about whether he is still a year away. He may get some individual workouts, but may not get a combine invite.

I don't think Vick will get an invite, but he should also get some individual team workouts, probably in a group setting as teams decide who to use 2nd round picks on.

@JayHawkFanToo

There are three "classes" of athletes in college that the rules affect in different ways.

1. The elite athletes - these are the ones that are going pro either way. Maybe they lose a little bit of money while in school, but they will generally make it up during their pro career later on.

2. The "college legends" - these are guys like Steve Woodberry, or more recently, Travis Releford. They had better than average college careers, but they are not going on to a lucrative payday after college. However, they help generate a lot of income for the university and they also are most marketable themselves during that time period from an athletic standpoint. This also includes the biggest stars in non-revenue sports (women's hoops, volleyball, soccer, baseball, softball, etc).

3. The rest - Basically everyone else. Stars in non revenue sports. Every other rostered player in both revenue and non-revenue sports.

Paying players doesn't matter to that top group all that much. If the system changes, they are going to get a piece of that pie because they are at the top. I think when people talk about paying players, they think of these types, but that's really not it.

Paying players (or letting them profit off their likeness) means the most for the second group. Every non-revenue star, plus all of those local "heroes" in the revenue sports could benefit from at least being able to profit off their likeness. The university sells and auctions off their signed jerseys, balls, etc. They should be able to get a piece of that pie. I know the argument will be that the university gives them the forum, etc. Then why not just sell the ball or jersey as is, with no signature? What makes the autographed stuff special (rhetorical question)?

Honestly, I would rather the NCAA simply allow player's to make money off their name and likeness rather than outright paying them. That way, the most marketable players get the most benefit. It puts the money on top of the table. It allows athletes that also have other marketable skills to utilize them while still in school (i.e., the music producer can make his music, or go out on paid gigs, the graphic designer can make money off their craft, as can the writer, etc.). And it makes all of this transparent, while allowing the athletes to do the same thing other scholarship students can do. The chemistry student isn't prevented from profiting off their work while in school if there is a market for it.

@benshawks08

Athletes are also prevented from earning money from other pursuits while in college. There was a football player at Miami that is also a music producer. His music was set to be on a publicly released album, but the NCAA did an investigation that put his eligibility at risk. His music is entirely separate from his athletic career, but the release of the album was delayed so that he could earn his royalties, same as any other music producer.

Were he on a music scholarship at Miami, he could be gigging around town and selling his work for whatever the market would bear. But because he was a football player, the NCAA got involved.

Let's be honest about something. Money already dictates who makes the NCAA tournament. It's not about strength of schedule, wins or losses. It's about money.

This article ↗ from the Ringer talks about how Loyola is one of a dying breed of Cinderella.

There's also this glorious quote from the article:

The tournament is the NCAA’s only event that pays a cash reward. A team making a tournament appearance earns $1.67 million for its conference; each subsequent win in March Madness earns the league an additional $1.67 million. Every conference wants to add teams that have a higher potential for NCAA tournament wins because that success can boost the entire league’s finances. Every school wants to join leagues with more NCAA tournament–caliber teams because that prize money is evenly split throughout the conference.

Loyola, had they lost to Northern Iowa, wouldn't have gone to the Final Four. They would have gone to the NIT, same as Middle Tennessee State and Vermont, two teams that dominated their league in the regular season, then lost in their conference tournament and missed the NCAA altogether.

The money is spilling out from all sides. The NCAA is pushing money which has dictated conference re-alignments (and is killing mid-sized conferences). Why not just put the money on top of the table for everyone. Make it transparent why certain teams are left out on Selection Sunday (Middle Tennessee) while others (Oklahoma) get in.

Corruption exists at the highest level of the organization.

To @dylans point, the reason that mid majors haven't won the tournament in years is that the strongest mid majors are typically either underseeded or miss the tournament entirely if they don't win their conference tournament.

Memphis, Cincinnati, Wichita State, UNLV, Butler, George Mason - all have made the Final Four from outside a P5 conference over the last 30 years. But look at that list again. Almost all of those schools have changed conferences since that Final Four appearance.

When players declare for non-P5 schools, how many on this board allege impropriety? The playing field is already severely slanted and this report does nothing to level it.

@BeddieKU23

WKU could be sneaky good next year. Potential tournament team if they can put it all together.

WSU will have a completely new rotation next season. Will be interesting how their staff handles that much turnover.