No harm in testing the waters and getting feedback. More than half of those guys know they are going to return, but it helps them understand what skills they need to work on over the next year or so.
justanotherfan
3643 posts
The challenge with Doke is that he is so talented and can be dominant.
When the matchup is good, Doke can dunk another team to death and dominate the restricted area. We have all seen those games where Doke is basically unstoppable.
But when the matchup is bad, Doke becomes a liability.
The challenge when you have a player like that is that for 30 or 35 games of the year, Doke is either a huge asset or at least break even.
But for a handful of games, Doke is a liability, and in those games, he cannot play more than 5 minutes. PERIOD
But that's tough. How many potential All Americans are out there that may not be able to play more than 5 minutes in a big game because of a bad matchup? But that's where Doke is right now. If you can spread the floor, Doke can get out of sorts and becomes a liability. Doke could go for 18 and 15 in a Sweet 16 game, then be superglued to the bench in the very next game, only to be called on to give you 14 and 10 in the very next game. Can Doke handle that type of up and down? Can Self navigate that up and down? How do you determine if Doke is struggling because he isn't playing well (i.e., off to a bad start, but should stay in the rotation for that game) or if its a bad matchup (i.e., Doke shouldn't play another minute in that game)? And how do you do so quickly (by the first TV timeout)?
If you lock scholarships for players that leave, you have to make scholarships a four year contract. Coaches can't push players out anymore. You can't pull scholarships unless a player becomes academically ineligible, though that also introduces oversight issues.
The findings of this commission will be incredibly difficult to implement without some significant changes to the NCAA structure. If the AAU structure goes away, you will see more players flowing to Prep schools because it is incredibly difficult to evaluate players against mediocre competition (that's why coaches go to AAU tournaments instead of lots of HS games - also easier because you can see six or seven guys in one day rather than just one).
The entire rulebook needs to be re-written to implement these recommendations. Basically this commission recommends a total re-set.
Until the late 1950's, African Americans in this country primarily voted Republican because, as you correctly observe, Democrats had until that time historically been oppressive not just to African Americans, but all people of color.
If you had written your comment in 1956, I would be wholeheartedly applauding every word.
But something happened along the way. There was a civil rights movement. Nationally, Democrats largely supported this movement, and suddenly the Democratic party welcomed people of color, while the Republican party ended up implementing the Nixon Southern Strategy, which was basically strategic fearmongering in white areas in the south - opposing integration and the civil rights movement by preaching "law and order", telling white citizens that integration and civil rights would threaten and in fact upend their way of life.
Almost overnight, African Americans went from voting about 90% Republican to about 90% Democrat.
Its no mistake that while the founding members of the KKK were Democrats, the members of today's KKK, neo-Nazi and White Nationalist movement are almost exclusively Republican.
That is not to say that all Republicans are a part of those groups, or ascribe to the beliefs of those groups. That would be a foolishly overbroad generalization. But it is a fact that while those individuals were at one time aligned with the Democratic party, after the civil rights movement they left the party en masse and joined the Republican party.
Yes, the people that perpetrated the atrocities you noted were Democrats, but their descendants today are not. You cannot just ignore the last 50 years of American political history.
This isn't leftist mantra. What I talked about was straight up capitalism. The players have a skill. That skill has value. People are willing to pay for that value. The only issue is that the NCAA has decided to cut the players out of that deal. Not because players can't make money. If they couldn't, these companies wouldn't be throwing money at them.
If the NCAA wants to clean things up, that's perfectly fine. But they won't. Why? Because the only way to clean up college hoops is to push the money out of the game. If the TV and apparel and sports drink contracts go away, the money to pay illegally goes away. The corruption goes away. You can't have that much money and keep it out of the hands of the people generating the revenue (nobody's paying to see Bill Self and Jay Wright shoot jump shots) without creating a situation that invites corruption.
Corruption. There's something interesting about it. Places with the highest corruption tend to have very low paid public servants. Why? Because its worth the risk to take a little money on the side if you have the power to approve this permit or that license. Same thing applies here. It's worth getting $100,000 for a kid, regardless of whether he plays NCAA hoops or not. That's not leftist. That's capitalism.
Your argument is that only certain people should be able to benefit from capitalism. Except that's not how capitalism works. The NCAA system is draconian. The rules were written when the only money flowing into the system was from illegal gambling. Now the NCAA is taking money on top of the table from ShoeCos and others, and those same entities are paying players under the table. The only way the NCAA can fix this is to turn off the faucet. Stop the flow of money. They can't accept the money on one hand and then make the players the villains for taking the same money.
Except that would end it all because if the NCAA turns off the faucet, somebody else will turn it on...
Lots of good posts popping up today. I think I have upvoted more posts today than in any single day every. Tons of thought provoking stuff. Great to see, even when we don't all agree on something that good points can be made here.
We have a very tenuous system balanced carefully on the backs of certain individuals. To upend this system would be a catastrophe (for those currently benefiting from it financially).
Great point. Or they might turn that into something that benefits everyone in their community (the horror). I know your comment was tongue in cheek. It made me laugh at work.
One of the things I respect most about Lebron James is that he used his immense talent not just to help himself and his family, but also his friends. Maverick Carter, James' best friend, is a millionaire now. He runs a lot of James' businesses. While Lebron himself is probably going to be a billionaire, he has helped several of his friends become millionaires. Rich Paul runs a sports agency and is probably worth $20M. Randy Mims also runs some of Lebron's business interests and is a millionaire himself. That's four friends that all became extremely wealthy even though only one was actually an elite athlete. While all were good HS athletes, only Lebron was ever going to the pros. But because James was able to capitalize on his talent financially, the other three were able to start and build their own businesses as well. Instead of one kid making it out of a run down area of Akron, three did, and another kid from east Cleveland made it as well. They started a marketing agency in 2006, when James otherwise would have been just leaving college. But since he was already a pro, James was signing a big extension in the NBA.
Lebron James has completely flipped everything. He skipped college. He got rich. He stayed out of trouble. He got his friends rich. They have built their own business/sports/media empire. And he did it all outside the usual channels. That's what it means when an athlete has a chance to capitalize on their marketability from the beginning. Not one life changed. Not one family changed. Several. Dozens. Maybe hundreds before its all said and done. And that's just directly. Who knows how many will indirectly benefit.
Beaty changing directions on recruiting is a big indictment to me. Signing HS kids that you can build around gives hope for the future. Signing a bunch of quick fix hopes from JUCO is a bad path. That's what put KU in this hole to begin with from Weis, who remains the worst hire in the history of the program (saying something when Terry Allen exists). This is heading in a bad direction. I've tried to remain optimistic, but this story probably won't end well.
KC's best two OF prospects are in A ball. So is the best 1B prospect. Might as well add a few more guys to that group.
I agree with @Kcmatt7 that DM should focus on position players. Pitchers get hurt too often to spend lots of high picks on pitchers. Position players may not pan out, but as a whole, they stay healthier, which for a small market team, is as important as talent.
@HighEliteMajor and @JayHawkFanToo
Both of you are speaking from the perspective of alumni. But most of the "fan base" of college athletics is non-alumni.
There is loyalty to particular schools because it was your school. But for individuals that are not alums, that is not the draw. @Kcmatt7 makes a great point about reducing things to D2 levels. For most D2 schools, their "fan base" is basically limited to alumni and local fans in the community where the school is located. These schools are very regional in that respect. For big time college athletics, the draw is not limited to regional draws. If that were the case, KU is in trouble because Kansas is not a populous state.
Talent level matters because the quality of play is what makes things interesting and exciting to the non-alum fans.
At this point in history owning a pro sports franchise is probably the least risky investment anyone can make. It's a status symbol, not a business. It's a monopoly that is set up and guaranteed to make money. The way revenue sharing and such work in the pros basically guarantees a profit for ownership unless they are setting money on fire.
The current NBA CBA limits the amount the players can make based on revenues. The agreement guarantees that ownership will only spend a certain amount on player salaries (the largest expenditure). There is almost no risk associated with owning a pro franchise.
The government protects your monopoly. You can insist on public funding for playing facilities (most don't actually "own" those). The product is the talent of the players, so owners don't "own" that. All they own is the name on the front of the jersey.
So your primary argument, that ownership owns the facilities, the brand, the product - and owners assume all the risk, is patently false. They don't own the facilities in most cases. They don't own the product. They don't assume risk because the collective bargaining agreement and government monopoly protection have reduced that risk to a negligible amount. The jerseys are sponsored, so while they own the "brand", nobody would be paying to see just anyone running around in the jerseys.
Sports has value only because of the players. Without that, the "brands" are worthless. Don't believe me? If you go to the KU Store online, you can find 2013 replica jerseys with the number 5 or the number 23 on them. Strangely, #10 and #20 are not marketed. Looking at the t-shirts with numbers on them, I see a #0 and #11. I doubt any of us has to think too hard about why those numbers were chosen to be mass produced.
College basketball and college football are big business because of the elite players. They are only interchangeable with other elite athletes. You argue that they are entry level positions. You can find literally anyone to be a line cook at McDonalds, or a checkout clerk at Whole Foods. You can find lots of people to be administrative assistants at Boeing or Google, but not as many to be engineers.
There are a very limited number of people that can play basketball or football at the top universities, and make no mistake, its the top of the pyramid that matters, because that's where the money is.
To borrow your analogy, you're recruiting engineers at Google, but wanting to ~~pay~~ compensate them like line cooks at McDonald's.
Take away the elite level players from Division One college basketball and it starts looking a lot like D2 and NAIA hoops. That's not a knock on those levels. There's a lot of passion and energy at that level. Lots of strong programs. Lots of student support. Just not a lot of money. The players are not interchangeable.
The money will follow the talent, and if that talent flows away from CBB, the money from the sponsorships will follow it. There's nothing that says college hoops (or football) has to remain the development path.
Football is already in trouble as a school sport as it is. Many high schools are grappling with the liability issues around injuries, particularly the head injuries that have been in the news. Participation at youth levels is down more than 30%. More and more former pros are pushing their kids away from football and towards other sports. If those trends continue, that could effectively end football as a major revenue sport.
Basketball is going to end up with a model similar to Europe. I have been saying that on this board for more than a year now. It is going to happen. Already, lots of high schools are getting branding deals with ShoeCos. It won't take much to just direct that money from schools into sports academies similar to how it is in Europe. ESPN already televises some HS games. Get a few more elite academies out there and its really easy to have a league. The wheels are already turning on that.
The last piece is the NBA getting on board. They have already moved from the D-League to the G League, changed the compensation table and added two way contracts. The NBA already has academies in Africa and China. NBA execs have been meeting with European soccer people to understand how to run academies.
All of this has been happening over the last 3-5 years behind the scenes. Now people are talking about it. The structure is changing. The NBA wants to develop not only players, but executives, referees, and coaches, and the only way to do that is to control the development pipeline.
So when that happens, what plan do the colleges have? They have a bloated salary structure that would quite literally collapse if the sponsors moved away from this model and to any sort of new model.
The NCAA budget is based on college basketball revenue (about 90% of the budget comes from the NCAA tournament revenue). Most athletic department's budgets are based on revenue from football and/or basketball. If that revenue stream dries up...
Change is inevitable. It's already happening. Some people are adapting. Some.
The only difference between college hoops and pro hoops is that the players cannot officially be paid. Everyone else is paid, and generally paid well. College hoops is big business.
Apparently John Calipari met with the Players Association ↗ about creating a HS combine to get more information to young players.
I think letting guys meet with reputable people to tell them where they stand is better than the current system with everything under the table.
Holiday and Davis both being healthy has allowed New Orleans to play to their talent level. I had forgotten how good Jrue Holiday was.
No idea on the actual health of Doke's knee. If he declared, I assume he's healthy. There's no reason to go and have a poor showing because he's not 100%.
We are getting to a point where there are two basic kinds of big men - rim runners and stretch players. If you can shoot, you're a stretch guy. If you can't, you better be able to screen and dunk lobs. If you can't do either, you really don't have a position the way that basketball is evolving.
Doke is a rim runner. The question is whether he can defend guys on the other end if they are stretch players, or if they are rim runners, can he hold his own when he switches onto the ball handler in PnR situations. We don't see that a lot in the college game, but that's something you see every other possession in the NBA, so Doke has to be able to at least hold his own for that.
The most important thing for Doke is to be able to have lateral quickness and mobility. If he can't guard away from the basket, he has no real chance of getting into the NBA right now. He's a good athlete, and good athletes can improve rapidly. The Villanova game exposed his weaknesses, so he's had some time to work on improving those areas.
Doke is an interesting case study. He has very obvious strengths (size, strength, finishing around the basket) and very clear weaknesses (lateral quickness, PnR defense). The interesting thing is that Doke isn't a statue out there. He can move. He just doesn't have good technique when defending away from the basket. He has high hips and tends to bend at the waist rather than the knees. He also doesn't quite understand airspace on the perimeter, which means he gives too much ground to shooters because he can't access his athleticism because of his poor perimeter technique. Those things are fixable, particularly where it comes down to technical issues.
I'm willing to go on a limb and say that Quentin Grimes will be one of the five best players from this class.
That's the kind of graph that demonstrates just how great Lebron is. Harden is incredible offensively, and still lags well behind Lebron. There aren't many people above Lebron defensively, either. Seeing the visual cluster around the middle, and only a handful of people emerging from that is a pretty good view.
There's no guarantee KU can attract a better coach right now.
The only thing that changes from 18 to 19 is that parents are usually too far away to keep you from doing the dumb stuff you came up with at 18.
Wiggins has to be better than he was in Game 2 if Minnesota is going to steal a game or two this series.
KJ Lawson is probably going to be the guy that makes most of our lineups work because of his versatility. We can go big or small with KJ on the floor because he can slide up or down (and defend basically anyone but the biggest fives and quickest ones.
Against a big team, KJ plays the 3 and gives us ball handling. Imagine a lineup of Grimes-Langford-KJ-Dedric-Doke. That's a four out lineup that not many college teams can deal with. Switch Silvio or Big Dave for Doke and that's still a tough lineup to work with.
But KJ can also slide down the scale if we need him to. Imagine a small lineup with Dedric at the 5, KJ at the 4, then Grimes, Dotson and Moore. As @Kcmatt7 said, Dedric is big enough and strong enough to handle the 5 against everyone but the best 7 footers. KJ rebounds well enough to lock down the 4, and that lineup is a nightmare to guard because everyone can shoot and handle. I think we played a team like that one time... (probably too soon).
With the ability to plug KJ, Grimes and Agbaji into a variety of lineups because of their size, skill and athleticism, KU isn't locked into specific lineups. That's one benefit of KJ having been here all year. He knows the responsibilities of the different spots and will probably play almost all of those spots over the next year.
Hurt is better than Mitch Lightfoot, yes. But let's pump the brakes for a second. Mitch was a darn good player coming out of HS, and has been a solid option at KU. Hurt has more upside than Mitch because he's more skilled, but he also has a lower floor because Mitch is probably the better athlete of the two, although I am basing that purely off highlights, not any measurables.
Hurt's upside (All-Conference, Second or Third Team All American) is much higher because I could see him coming in and being an inside out scoring option capable of averaging 15+ points on a good team, along with 6 or 7 rebounds and 3 or 4 assists. I don't know how good he would be defensively, but I can see the makings of a very good collegiate player on the offensive end with the BBIQ to be a passable defender once he understands the system and responsibilities.
Hurt's floor (bench shooter substitution in specific lineups) is lower than Mitch's because Hurt may not be as good a defender as Mitch has become. If Hurt can't defend, I could see a scenario where he just can't stay on the floor and he never gets more than sporadic minutes. He may still have the occasional game where he goes for 16 or 20 because of his shooting ability, but he might not develop that way.
The thing is, I can't even tell you which of those scenarios is more likely. Maybe he arrives on campus, gets stronger and is All Conference as a sophomore. Maybe he never adds the weight, struggles with his shot and his confidence, and ends up transferring after a season. Perhaps he lands somewhere in between.
I will be watching his summer very closely to see how he handles his AAU action, and how he does up against some of the springier athletes in the class. If he holds his own defensively against them, that will change his upside. If he starts getting blown away, that will be a big red flag.
Matthew Hurt is a really skilled guy, but as @ReggieKansas and @BeddieKU23 say, he's not a great athlete. I wish he were a bit bigger. He's basically a slightly taller Mitch Lightfoot with ball handling ability. I'd even say Mitch is probably the better athlete of the two. He's not a statue, but he isn't a mobile guy. He can't punish you with his strength.
All of his plays are skill plays, so it's hard to guess how that translates as the athleticism increases. He's a really good shooter and a skilled passer. He could be an incredible four year player. He could also be a complete bust. I wish I could say for sure whether his high skill and BBall IQ would translate.
My estimation is his ceiling is Perry Ellis - starts slow his first year, but turns into a really, really good four year player. His floor is that he doesn't get strong enough to handle the interior and becomes a 6-9 offense only wing off the bench. You don't not recruit that guy. You just have to recruit around him.
The market is already a bit thin. Several teams are already not really interested in competing, so teams that are willing to move need to do so early because there will be quite a few sellers and relatively few buyers. Looking in the AL, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland and maybe Seattle aren't going to be looking to buy. In the NL, Miami, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are in situations similar to the Royals. That's a third of the teams that definitely aren't buying and may be willing to sell already.
San Francisco, San Diego, and Texas are all off to slow starts. If that continues, they won't be buying. That's 13 total teams that, if the current trends hold, will not be buying at the deadline, and 10 of those teams may be selling.
I don't see big returns out there because there will be relatively few buyers, but lots of potential sellers. I'd rather the Royals get 2 or 3 solid prospects than load up on a bunch of filler.
I wouldn't trade Junis. I wouldn't move Duffy or Perez unless I could get a lot back.
Since the Royals best hitting prospects are in A ball right now, I wouldn't be worried about getting back guys that are in AAA right now because they are too far ahead of the best prospects already in the system. I would focus more on getting more talent into A ball so that, like the previous group, the talent is mostly linked together in the minors, moving up together, winning at each level before graduating to the majors in 2021.
He are the players ranked 25 - 65 that have not signed LOIs
(30) Shareef O'Neal - PF, UCLA, (31) Jordan Brown - C, unsigned, (35) Elijah Weaver - PG, USC, (37) Brandon Williams - PG, unsigned, (40) Khavon Moore - SF, Texas Tech, (41) Taeshon Cherry - PF, Arizona State, (55) Jairus Hamilton - SF, Boston College, (56) Courtney Ramey - PG, unsigned
That's eight guys. I'm going to discount O'Neal and Brown right off the bat. O'Neal has already switched commitments once. Brown hasn't seriously considered any non-Pac 12 schools. Taeshon Cherry considered Texas A&M, but other than that, he's a California kid that considered west coast schools.
That leaves five guys - Weaver, Williams, Moore, Hamilton and Ramey.
Weaver is a big PG (6-5). He's from Florida and considered schools from all over the country (UConn, UVA, UCLA, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, NC State, Mizzou, etc.). He's currently committed to USC. He would be an interesting replacement for Langford. He's a lefty that is more of a pass first PG.
Williams is a 6-1 PG. Williams is more of a score first PG. He would be a bit of a duplicate of Charlie Moore on this roster. He's a good player, but I don't know that he makes sense on this roster with Moore and Dotson already in the fold.
Moore is a 6-8 SF that can do a bit of everything. He's not super athletic like some guys, but he's a very solid player in every aspect. However, he's committed to Texas Tech, and it is generally considered poor form to poach a committed recruit from a league rival. He's a nice player. I would guess with Smith leaving, Tech will be locking this signing down.
Hamilton is interesting. KU was pursuing him early, but backed off and went after other targets. He's a really good player. A bigger version of Agbaji in some ways (6-8, 220). Duke, UNC, Florida, Arizona and others were interested, but he ultimately picked Boston College. He's the type of player that might be interested in switching his offer, and missing on Langford would give KU an opening on the wing. He's at least a three year player. Probably a four year guy.
And finally Ramey. He's a 6-3 PG, but he could be considered a combo guard. He was linked to Mizzou, but hasn't signed. Louisville has started pursuing him again. He was HS teammates with Carte'Are Gordon (SLU commit). KU has never been connected to him, but he has been connected to both Texas and Oklahoma State. He's unsigned, so he could be in play.
If I had to guess, I would say Hamilton is the mystery man, although I have no insider information on that.
There's a ton of pressure on him next year, though. He's had one winning record in four years at Wake, and that year his winning record was only good enough to make the first four of the NCAA tournament. He hasn't finished better than 10th in the ACC. He needs to finish in the top half of the league and make the tournament to save his job. Going 9-9 in the league probably won't be enough to keep his job at this point.
Royals need to deal Moose and Herrera soon, plus trade Hammel and Kennedy if they can find any takers. No sense being old and bad.
Lucas Duda, John Jay and Alcides Escobar should be either traded or benched by the end of June. Paulo Orlando as well (he's already 32). The Royals should not have more than two players over 30 in their lineup on any given day after the All Star Break. You might as well find out if guys like Hunter Dozier, Bubba Starling, Jorge Soler, etc. are going to be able to contribute or if they are busts.
Spot on. Excellent example to make it more clear.
The grad transfer number is probably two thirds done right now. Since there are 250 or so names that will pop up out there still, I anticipate a few more big names hitting the market. Once the draft market is set, then the transfer market will settle. Right now, Big 12 overall and KU in particular look good. I think KU is in good shape either way (with Langford) since Agbaji continues to climb.
He was ranked in the 300s a few months ago, but is more likely borderline top 100 now. He's not Romeo Langford, obviously, but he's not exactly a consolation prize, either. He will likely be a very good three or four year contributor in either scenario. His improvement over the last 14-18 months is amazing. If he had gone to prep school rather than college, he would be a very sought after recruit this time next year. We were lucky to be able to grab him when we did.
I don't mind the father's statements, honestly.
If something were to happen and Bill Self were to get fired, that changes the entire situation at Kansas and I would guess more than just the Lawson brothers would be looking to move. That's just a reality. Most of these guys have zero ties to KU other than the basketball program. If that were jeopardized, I think many of them would probably leave. A guy like Mitch Lightfoot would probably stay because he has personal ties to the university. But for most of the other guys, they don't have any real connection to the university outside basketball.
That's a dad looking out for his kids. If the situation at KU were to fall apart, there would be a mass exodus, same as what happened at Louisville, same as what would happen anywhere else.
You are correct that it is not illegal for Adidas to pay individuals to endorse a product.
However, it is a crime to conceal who payments are being made to, or make a payment to one person in order to ferry that payment to another person. That's why this is about money laundering and wire/bank fraud. While it is legal to pay people to endorse products, because the source and beneficiary of the payments are intended to be hidden, that's a violation of banking laws.
These Adidas payments were being made, and money was being sent with a false purpose. That's why the feds are involved. I doubt many of the universities actually get caught up in the criminal aspect because the whole criminal aspect is that the payments, the sources, and the beneficiaries were all supposed to be concealed. That's the crime.
However, the standard for the criminal part is different than it is for the NCAA. While KU may not have committed a crime, the NCAA could still make other findings that don't rise to the level of criminal action.
Winning the national championship is legitimately difficult.
It takes a perfect blend of players, combined with the right amount of luck and talent to get it all done.
Even during this OAD era, there have never been more than four teams with enough overall OAD talent to even be considered a national title contender in a given year. Given that, having two OAD national champions is pretty good when you would guess that there are probably six or seven total teams with legitimate national title aspirations each year.
Up until Calipari arrived at UK, there really weren't many OAD dominated teams. I don't count Derrick Rose at Memphis because he was the lone OAD on that team, or Durant at Texas (or Beasley at KSU) because again, they didn't really have that many actual OADs around them. If you want, you can count Ohio State in 2007 with Greg Oden, Mike Conley and Daequan Cook. However, most only projected Oden as an OAD, with Conley and Cook expected to stay multiple years.
If we count Ohio State 2007, here are the OAD dominated teams in the OAD era:
Ohio State 2007 (Conley ranks too low in most recruiting sites to make this team qualify), UNC 2007, Kentucky 2010, Kentucky 2012, Kentucky 2013, Kentucky 2014, Kansas 2014, Duke 2015, Kentucky 2015, Duke 2017, Kentucky 2017, Duke 2018, Kentucky 2018. To be considered OAD dominated, you have to have at least three players ranked in the top 15, or four freshman ranked in the top 20 in the class. That eliminates teams with one high ranked recruit surrounded by a bunch of other top 100 players (LSU with Ben Simmons, Mizzou last year, Beasley at KSU, Durant at Texas, etc.).
Kentucky 2012 and Duke 2015 won titles. Kentucky 2014 and Ohio State 2007 were national runners up. Kentucky 2015 went to the Final Four. UNC 2007, Kentucky 2010 and Duke 2018 went to the Elite Eight. Kentucky 2018 went to the Sweet 16. Kansas 2014 and Duke 2017 lost in the Round of 32. Kentucky 2013 missed the tournament.
What's really fascinating about these squads is that Kentucky 2013 was by far the weakest of the group. Poythress and Goodwin were ranked 13 and 15 in their class. Noel got hurt. If you take away Noel, that team doesn't qualify. Same story with Kansas 2014. Take away Embiid and it's just Wiggins and Selden. That means they aren't really an OAD dominated team. Duke 2017 had Giles and Bolden both miss big chunks of the season with injury or illness. Take away those two and again, that's not an OAD team.
Obviously, that doesn't take away the fact that those teams underachieved, but when you count it up, there have really only been about a dozen true OAD teams. Most years, it's one or maybe two freshmen on a squad together without a lot of other help. If you don't have three starter quality freshmen, it's hard to say you're an OAD team.
It appears from this that if you can land three or more top 15 recruits and keep them all healthy, your chances of making a deep tournament run are almost assured.
Edit: The only OAD squad for 2019 is Duke (for now). Kentucky only has three top 20 recruits, and only one top 15 recruit. KU may have two top 15 recruits, but they don't have any other top 20 guys. Oregon only has two top 15 recruits. If Langford goes to Vandy, they actually become an OAD squad (Garland and Shittu are both top 15 players) so adding Langford would legitimately change Vandy's ceiling.
Agreed. Given his skillset, if he can shoot 33%, he is certainly playable with his defense, ballhandling, rebounding, etc.
It's the below 30% that makes it hard because you don't have to guard him. He doesn't have to be 40%, but he does have to get where you guys have outlined.
I wholeheartedly agree that Marcus will work on his game. However, I am not as certain that he will become a knockdown perimeter shooter. I am hoping he becomes a solid shooter that can keep the defense honest.
Wanting to wait until after the draft deadline passes just in case there's a surprise entry or return (Zaire Smith and Barry Brown in particular). I'd also like to see where Langford goes and if there are any grad transfer candidates that land in the Big 12 since those guys have experience and can play right away.
But it is coming...
For NBA stuff, that is absolutely true, but Doke's best opportunities probably lie overseas. Without connections to the international agents and scouts, Doke isn't getting all of the best advice for his unique situation.
It would be very helpful to Doke if he could get some feedback not just from the NBA, but from teams overseas. He could probably make a decent amount playing overseas at his size. Not millions, but hundreds of thousands. It is a bit difficult that he cannot consult with an agent about those options without forfeiting his eligibility, as that would be very helpful in his decision making. Most NBA folks aren't connected enough with the international basketball scene to give quality advice on what other leagues may be interested in with a player like Doke. Doke may be even more valuable overseas because of the fact that he isn't a guy likely to be poached by the NBA in a few years.
Agreed. I just don't see how Doke is going to develop some of those things at KU. Is Bill Self really going to take Doke out of the post to help him develop his face up game? The rebounding, I absolutely see Doke being able to develop. But diversifying his offensive game likely won't happen at KU. I think that's where the 40 part of the 60/40 is coming from. Doke understands he needs to develop, but breaking from his one dimensional game requires a significant change in his role - a change I am not sure KU will make because its not worth it from KU's perspective to have Doke go from shooting 77% from the field to 60% because he's taking 12 footers all of a sudden.
Also, a lot of pressure on an Indiana kid to go to IU. IU has had several years where they have missed on their top in-state prospects. That was one of Miller's major goals when he was hired, so I am not surprised that IU has put on the full court press. The last time Indiana signed the Indiana Mr. Basketball was 2011 (Cody Zeller). That's a long time for a program like Indiana to miss out on top in-state prospects.
Having Doke back should make for an interesting rotation. I think this means McCormack is the odd man out from a PT standpoint because he and Doke play the same type of role and they can't be on the floor together against most teams. It would be difficult to play Doke and De Sousa together as it is. Dedric needs 25-28 mpg, Doke probably needs 22-25. De Sousa can play 15 and Lightfoot can play some. When we go small, KJ can play the 4. When we go big, KJ slides to the 3. But I just don't see where McCormack finds minutes if Doke returns unless he, Doke and De Sousa somehow split roughly 50 minutes between the three of them. That would be a tough rotation to keep together. Maybe redshirt someone?
I agree that pace and space works because of three point shooting. Nobody is following Doke out to the corner if he goes there. Nobody is chasing Marcus Garrett off the three point line. The whole reason pace and space exists is because not everyone can get a big man like Doke, so you have to make his size a disadvantage.
Malcolm Gladwell, a remarkable writer, did a great book several years ago talking about the advantages of disadvantages. In the past, it was viewed as an advantage to be big and strong in basketball. Big men ruled. Mikan. Russell. Wilt. Kareem. Hakeem. Robinson. Shaq. Duncan. On and on, the way to win a title was to get a dominant big man and work from there. Count the rings among that list right there. It's a big number. Sure, perimeter players were great, including the former GOAT Michael Jordan, but there was nothing like having a great big man.
In the same way, Gladwell looks at Goliath and all of his perceived advantages. Big and strong. Heavy armor. A spear that could crush you. A sword that could take your head off. A large shield to deflect any blows. Taller, stronger and heavier than anyone out there. That was seen as an advantage because everyone imagined having to battle him in hand to hand combat, where his size, strength and armor gave him an overwhelming advantage.
But David saw something different. Where everyone else saw a literal giant too big and strong to be defeated, David saw an immobile, clumsy man weighted down with too much armor to ever hope to catch him. The fight was over before Goliath even realized it had begun. As Gladwell observed, David changed the rules of engagement. Rather than battle in close, hand to hand, David used his slingshot skills to perfection. Goliath never even drew his sword or cast his spear. The stone hit him before he had a chance to raise his shield.
Pace and space is the basketball equivalent of a sling and stone. It changes the terms of engagement. Mobility is prized over size and strength. But pace and space can also be beaten. Pace and space works so well because so many current coaches still adhere to old rules of engagement. They are still trying to fight hand to hand against teams with slings and stones (not an insult, by the way, because the accurate sling and stone guys are dominating right now). Rather than emphasizing rim protection, you have to emphasize line protection. The three point line must be protected and defended as closely as the rim was in the 80's and 90's.
No corner threes. That is today's equivalent of the layup. You cannot give up corner threes. Period. No exceptions. I repeat - NO CORNER THREES.
You have to funnel everything into the middle of the floor. This is why UVA's packline defense is so effective. The packline is designed to funnel things to the middle. But you can't do that without having certain other rules. When you funnel, you always help from the strongside wing. On PnR, you bottle the roller into the middle of the lane to prevent the guard from getting a straight line drive. Two through Four is an automatic switch on any PnR or Pick and Pop action.
You never help from the corner on any drive because that violates rule #1 (no corner threes). Push everything to the middle of the floor. Force threes from above FT line extended to the area between the circles, where you can extend your defense to force the longer threes.
But that all requires effort. You have to harass and cover tons of ground. Every pass has to be challenged to make sure guys aren't getting clean catches against a rotating defense. It requires depth. It requires a relentlessness.
That's the next shift. Offense is ahead of defense, but defensive minds will catch up. It's the constant push and pull of the game.
But here's the thing about Villanova - all of those guys are A+ athletes.
DiVincenzo had a two hand block in that title game. He's a guard. That's not something you see from guards. He's legitimately an above average athlete at the guard spot. I think some would dismiss him because he's not African American, but he's as athletic as most anybody around the country. Spellman got athletic once he lost the weight. Brunson is a good athlete (extremely strong for a player his size). Bridges is an NBA caliber athlete. Nova had a very athletic team. Not necessarily all freaks of athleticism, but very athletic.
Athleticism comes in more than just speed and leaping ability, though. For all of his explosive quickness, perhaps Allen Iverson's single greatest athletic trait was his balance. He could twist and contort in all sorts of ways and never lose any speed on a drive, all because he kept incredible balance, even through contact.
Jerry Rice became one of the greatest receivers of all time not because of blazing speed, though he was fast, or even incredible size and agility, but because his ability to adjust his body and maintain his coordination to make catches was uncanny. Larry Fitzgerald has a lot of that same ability. Most every great pass catcher does. They just have the ability to coordinate their hands even as they twist and adjust. You see that same form of athleticism in all great fielding outfielders. The ability to run and track the ball is a form of athleticism.
Chris Paul isn't thought of as "athletic" when it comes to today's PG's. He doesn't have John Wall's straightline speed. He doesn't have Russell Westbrook's power. He lacks elite size and explosiveness. But he understands how to create space, how to do little "jujitsu" moves that change your balance just enough that you lean one way, clearing space for him to wiggle past, or release a jumper, or create a pocket to thread a pass through.
And then there's Steph Curry, who can create an angle out of nothing. His release is so quick that bigger players cannot get to it, even when they are anticipating it. His balance when dribbling, the ability to shift his weight from one foot to the other without making that shift clear to the defender is uncanny. It makes him so much more difficult to guard because he's already made his move before you realize that he shifted his weight onto his other foot to push.
All of that is athleticism. All of it is elite. Some of it is imperceptible.
He needs to be at about 33%. The problem with Garrett is that the eye test suggests he's a poor shooter. When he missed, he often missed badly. It suggests that he needs quite a bit of work to get where he needs to be to be effective. Add to that the fact that Garrett was often left completely open from three and still shot poorly. That means he was getting A+ looks and still couldn't crack even 30%. He's further away than just having 3 or 4 shots that missed go in.
I don't see Garrett starting unless he can really improve his outside shooting stroke. It's difficult to build lineups around a wing guy that can't shoot.
The pace and space era has dawned. That's what the Warriors and Rockets have built. Spread the floor with four shooters and a PnR big man. Force the defense into impossible choices in space.
Defensively, this can be countered if you have multiple similar sized players - KU can do this next year with Grimes, KJ, Garrett, Dedric, Silvio, Mitch, and Langford if he comes. Your 5 man needs to be able to guard a 1. Your 2 needs to be able to guard a 4. Your 3 needs to be able to guard a 5 rolling to the rim. Your 1 needs to hold his own if the other PG posts up.
Offensively, you have to be able to space the floor so that teams cannot double without creating too much space. The corner three creates space because you can't help on the wing or at the top without conceding an open corner. You can't bump a rolling big man without exposing a wing. Impossible choices. Easy dunk, or 40% shooter open from three?
Hesitate, and both are open.
I do remember him originally committing there. I can't remember anyone like that since Bennett got there, which could vault SKJ into the NBA if he's a lockdown rim protector for a year at UVA. I imagine a lot of ACC teams with that sinking feeling of being suffocated on the perimeter and funneled hopelessly into the teeth of a shotblocker. Rinse and repeat.
UVA would be scary with a rim protector like SKJ in Bennett's system. They may hold a team under 25.
Not yet, but I can't imagine he would return to Durham. I can't find a date for his announcement.