🏀 KuBuckets Archive

If Shareef inherited his father's genes, he could bulk up pretty quickly.
!0_1519920617492_upload-88420650-73a4-4765-8ffe-92b20c910ace ↗

!0_1519920628937_upload-900f9025-11f0-4efa-83a5-1ef0f8d593c4 ↗

!0_1519920674284_upload-c2e79d3f-1ee9-4089-b292-30ed6e742409 ↗

That's Shaq in 1990 in high school, in 1993 as an NBA rookie and in 1998 with the Lakers.

!0_1519920818189_upload-d450f311-0865-402e-80f6-544a17b44e6c ↗

That's Shareef last summer. He's basically like Shaq would have been if he had been a perimeter type player. If he gets bigger and stronger like his father did, he could be Lebron type size after a few years in the NBA, and if he maintains his quickness while adding the size (Shaq did for his first several years in the league), Shareef could be a very good NBA player.

Apologies if the pictures mess things up, but its hard to describe without the pictures.

@Kcmatt7

I think it's smart to be somewhat active, but the Royals aren't like the Rays in that the Royals have some big contracts on the books right now (Gordon, Kennedy), plus some other homegrown guys with nice extensions (Duffy, Perez). They have a couple of middling prospects at 1B and in the OF, so it doesn't make sense to sign veterans there IMHO.

I don't think it made sense to bring back Escobar when one of the top young players in the organization plays the same position. Duda makes a little more sense because the guys that play 1B aren't as big of prospects, but I didn't like it because you still need to get guys like Soler, Bonifacio, Dozier, Cuthbert at bats regularly, which means probably using one of them as the DH quite a bit. Duda seems like he may block some of that on days he's not at first.

Plus, the Royals theme has been defense and athleticism. That's how they built their championship team. Duda doesn't check either of those boxes. Escobar does, but he's been a pretty bad offensive player the last two seasons, and guys tend to fall off defensively as they age. Now, I will grant that maybe the Royals are rebuilding in a different model, but if that is the case, I would have gone younger rather than with older players.

But you are right, maybe there is some tradeable upside for guys like that to get picks to re-stock the system. If that's the plan for 2018, that makes sense, especially since it is on a one year deal.

I don't get what the Royals are doing. They should be rebuilding, but they keep signing veterans that are going to end up blocking younger players. The only thing worse than a bad plan is no plan at all. I fear that's where the Royals are right now.

Last night shook some things up from my view of the bracket. K-State and Oklahoma, both of whom have shaky cases in my view, lost critical games.

The Wildcats, who own just two top 50 wins (OU and TCU, both of whom split the season series with KSU) and don't have a single top 50 win away from Manhattan, have the double whammy of a weak non conference schedule and no truly impressive wins. Lots of places have them as a 10ish seed right now, but if they lose to Baylor on Saturday, then get knocked out of the Big 12 tournament early, I think their status will be shaky on Selection Sunday.

For Oklahoma, they have some good wins (Kansas, TTech, Wichita State in Wichita, TCU, USC) but they also have an incredible number of losses, particularly losses where they weren't competitive (lost by 30 at Kansas, lost by 18 at KSU, lost by 23 last night in Waco). That pushes them closer to the bubble than you would imagine for a team with the win quality that they have.

UNC losing last night makes the case harder for the ACC to get two #2 seeds. The American champ, particularly if either Cincinnati or Wichita State wins both the regular season and conference tournament (WSU and Cincy play Sunday in what could be a game to decide who gets on the 2 line). With UNC and Duke still having to face off, and then needing to go through UVA for the ACC title, it's tough to see a way for both UNC and Duke to stay on that 2 line.

@JayHawkFanToo

NBA execs are saying he should play if he can ↗. Basically, Porter is a lottery pick if he sits the rest of the season, but a top 5 pick if he can do something in the next week or two, even if he isn't great. If he is great (leads MU to Sweet Sixteen or better), he could be top 3. That's a pretty significant difference in money versus being the seventh or eighth pick.

The caveat is that only applies if he is completely healthy. He shouldn't try to play if he's 80%. He's only gone through limited practice so far, so he's not going to play until the SEC tournament at the earliest, but that's a week away, with the NCAA's a week after that.

If he's close enough and has no setbacks, he could change the tournament (and maybe move MU up a seedline or two).

Big 10 should get 5 teams in the tournament MAX, and Nebraska is questionable (first four out right now). Everyone else in that league would need to win the conference tourney. Given that, Most everyone else should miss. If Nebraska doesn't win the tournament, they are probably out, too.

Even Ohio State's resume is basically built on the weakness of the Big 10. They have zero top 50 wins outside the conference. They were swept by Penn State, who is not going dancing this year barring a run at the Big 10 tournament. They are 8-7 against top 100 opponents, but 16-0 against non-top 100 opponents. That's really not much better than Gonzaga, who the committee slots as a 5, while giving Ohio State a 4 right now.

Missouri presents an interesting question if Porter comes back for the SEC tournament. If he's healthy and productive, that's going to be a tough matchup for whatever 8/9 bracket Mizzou ends up in (hopefully in Nashville with Xavier and not Wichita with KU).

@JayHawkFanToo

Rather than Pac-12 (which likely wouldn't accept a basketball only member) Gonzaga and St. Mary's should look for an option like the WAC or Mountain West in basketball only. Moving two more strong programs into one of those leagues puts them on par with the A-10 and American as a consistent multiple bid league.

@BeddieKU23

Gonzaga has one bad loss, to San Diego State. They only have seven top 100 wins. If they played in a power conference, they would have a resume roughly equal to Michigan State. But in the WCC, that's a tough sell.

The one thing they have going for them is that all of their top 50 wins were by double figures. They beat Ohio State by 27. They beat Creighton by 17. They went up to Washington and beat the Huskies by 17. They went on the road and beat St. Mary's by 13 (lost by 3 to the Gaels in Spokane). That's a reasonably good resume. The only team to beat them by more than six was Villanova. But I think they are short on quality wins.

@JayHawkFanToo

I misread the standings when I saw Michigan and thought Michigan State. Age is starting to catch up to me.

Right now, KU, Virginia and the Big East champion are three of your #1s. The Big 10 could snag the fourth if either Michigan State or Purdue wins both the regular season and tournament titles, but both of those schools have questionable resumes outside of that. Michigan State has only two top 50 wins, and only 10 games against the top 100 overall. Purdue has played a bit stronger schedule (14 games against the top 100), but has a bad loss to Western Kentucky on their resume.

For comparison, Xavier has 19 games against the top 100. Villanova has 17. KU has 23. Virginia has 16. Sparty can't catch up to those resumes. Purdue could, but only if Villanova or Virginia slips up. Duke has three bad losses, including last night's loss to Virginia Tech. UNC has that home loss to Wofford hanging around their neck.

There's an outside chance that Auburn or Tennessee could make a late run and grab a one seed if they run the table from here, but that's highly unlikely. It basically comes down to Virginia, Kansas, Villanova, Xavier, Michigan State and Purdue, with Duke and the SEC champion as longshots. If KU wraps up Saturday with a win at OSU, I think they have a #1 regardless of Big 12 tourney results. Same for UVA if they finish with a regular season win. Either Villanova or Xavier gets a 1, with the other needing to win the Big East tournament to secure the #1. If not, the door is open for the rest of the field, with the narrowest paths belonging to Michigan State, Duke, Auburn and Tennessee. Purdue has the inside track on that group, but its not a straight line by any means.

@mayjay

Cutbacks are killing media companies. Media needs layers to make sure they don't miss things, or rush through things. When all you have is the on the ground reporter and the chief editor, the appropriate diligence is often neglected. The need to push out content is also a problem. Was there a rush to get this story out simply because no new stories had been posted, even if this story hadn't yet been thoroughly vetted?

The explosion of social media makes it even more difficult, as false information and bad leads can take on an air of legitimacy from likes, shares and retweets, sometimes from well meaning or legitimate sources. It used to be that bad information was isolated, so it was easy to root out. Now anyone can start up a blog or legitimate looking webpage, and a savvy computer user can manipulate search engine algorithms to be sure that their fake story pops up at the top of specific internet searches.

We need good investigative journalism more than ever, but the financial structure of news makes that less and less likely.

@JayHawkFanToo

I would also observe that police are only charged in extremely rare circumstances, and are convicted far less frequently than society at large. Even when police are dismissed from the department for improper behavior (whether criminally charged or not), that dismissal generally cannot be brought up if/when they apply for another job.

There was a study back in the 1990's of the largest police departments in the U.S. (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, maybe one or two others). In that study, they discovered that most officers (over 60% if I remember correctly) had no disciplinary complaints. That's excellent. Even more impressive, of the remaining 40%, most of those officers had fewer than three public or disciplinary complaints. The majority of the complaints focused on a very small minority of officers (often 15% or less of the overall department).

Basically, the lion's share of complaints boiled down to a few "bad apples" within the department. However, when proposing reforms such as training or removal of these officers, the departments themselves blocked many of those proposals. One of my largest critiques of police departments is that they do not want to be held accountable by the public they are sworn to protect and serve.

@benshawks08 and @mayjay make the excellent point that the police are given a much larger amount of latitude, as an officer stating that they "feared for their life" is enough to make that fear rational, while if a regular citizen made that same statement, it would be judged against whether or not that fear was rationally based. It has gotten to the point that police officers are trained to say that they were in fear for their life in any situation where they discharge their weapon. Those five words ("I feared for my life") remove liability from both the officer and the department. We simply don't question whether that fear was rational or reasonable.

Remember the Philando Castile killing by Jeronimo Yanez in Minnesota? Castile had a conceal carry permit. In conceal carry trainings, they tell you that if you are stopped by the police, you should inform the police that you are permitted to carry. That was something that law enforcement requested so that officers would be aware of the presence of a weapon. Castile did that. Yanez panicked and shot him with his girlfriend in the passengers seat, and his four year old daughter in the back seat. Almost immediately after Castile informs Yanez that he has a gun, Yanez pulls out his own gun and kills Castile. Yanez was acquitted because jurors determined he acted "as any other officer would have."

That's the problem with that standard. It assumes that officers have the right to shoot in any circumstance, regardless of the reasonableness of the perceived threat. In the aftermath, in addition to saying that he thought Castile was going for his gun, Yanez further slandered the man he killed by saying that he thought he was an armed robbery suspect and that he smelled marijuana from the vehicle (the other officers on the scene did not mention a marijuana scent).

Is that truly how we want our police officers to operate? To accuse the victim of looking like a criminal after being shot? To claim they smelled drugs, or saw drugs? To plant evidence and falsify reports? All of these things have happened in the aftermath of recent police shootings, and the only reason we know about this behavior is because the reports did not match the video.

As I stated at the beginning, most officers are not the issue. Most officers go about their business and never do anything to even merit a complaint. But that small group of bad apples is allowed to hide within the department, protected by the good, professional and courteous officers that surround them. That should not be.

Now, I am not saying the officer involved here is a bad officer. I honestly don't know. But it should be investigated. He shouldn't get a pass simply because other officers are good officers.

@Kcmatt7

None of them has ever worked because the big players (NBA, ShoeCos, etc) never backed any of them.

The GLeague is backed by the NBA and Gatorade. Add a pipeline backed by Nike and Adidas and you have a whole new system.

Big 12 typically flames out in the tourney because, while the league is very balanced, there haven't been many truly great teams in the conference over the last decade. Blake Griffin's Sooners went to the Elite Eight. Buddy Hield got his group to the Final Four. The Pullen/Rodriguez Wildcats got to an Elite Eight. But point me to another great non-KU big 12 team over the last 10 years. There were some good Texas teams, a couple of interesting Baylor teams, a fiesty team or two from West Virginia, but I wouldn't call any of those teams "great".

I agree that Beaty needs to get some wins on the ledger this year. One win isn't going to get it done anymore. He needs three or four wins, and needs at least one conference win. It's an uphill climb, but we need to see more climbing, less falling.

The challenge that Beaty has is that with some in the fanbase wanting him canned, he can't pitch stability and other programs can use that against KU in recruiting. KU already has enough against it (away from home, lack of winning, etc) without also having to deal with a lack of stability.

@JayHawkFanToo

Likely comes down to the conference tournament for those two. Villanova has won the head to head, so I'd give Nova the slight edge, but Xavier has a good enough team to beat Nova if they play some defense.

Xavier's resume is pretty strong. Villanova's is as well. This year will really test the committee, because there are not a lot of clear cut rankings.

@mayjay

I wasn't legitimizing what he said. He should not have done it. But we have not seen any actions or heard any accusations of him harming women (at least to my knowledge). The Chiefs drafted Tyreek Hill, so that isn't a position that this franchise can claim the moral high ground on. People said they would boycott the Chiefs for taking Hill, but that all seemed to disappear when people saw how game changing his speed was. This fan base can't complain about Peters' words on twitter from before he was in college as a way to justify the trade, and yet ignore Hill's actions that got him kicked out of college. Otherwise, it's time to move Tyreek Hill, too.

Like I said above, the issue is the inconsistency. I don't support the denigration of women, but the Chiefs employ Tyreek Hill, a move some questions specifically because of this franchise's history. If you're making that stand based on character, if Peters is out, Hill has to be packing his bags, too. I'd argue that Kelce should not have been extended given his previous immature behavior. But he was. Hill was drafted.

My big point to all of this is that if this is about the police brutality protests just say that. Don't hide behind football reasons. Don't hide behind previous behavior. If it was about Peters kneeling and raising a fist, just say that his protest wasn't supported by the fanbase, so you traded him. Just tell the truth. That's all I really want. Maybe a different segment of the fanbase won't like that. Maybe some free agents will want a bit more money before signing with KC. But hey, at least be honest about it.

@wissox

Frank was an exceptional HS player, so he probably would have gotten into the development pipeline, albeit likely later on (as a sophomore or junior rather than at 13 or 14). The kids that don't develop in that system would still go on to college (there would likely be an avenue for them to pursue collegiate education later on).

Sports is a big business. It's only a matter of time before the business part changes the developmental stages, too.

Lots of people on this board don't like Marcus Peters. I get that. I'm not even going to try and convince you otherwise, because its irrelevant. You don't like him. You don't have to. There are reasons not to like him.

But Marcus Peters is a playmaker on a defense that had too few playmakers to begin with.

If Eric Berry doesn't return next year at his 2016 level of play, the Chiefs defense will likely have only the often injured Justin Houston as a true playmaker. For a defense that already struggled, that's not good.

Add to that the fact that the secondary was already shaky even with Peters playing at a top 10 level and you have the ingredients for the defense to take an even larger step back next season.

Like I said before, this is a terrible football move. It will hurt the Chiefs in football ways. I get that a large part of the fanbase wanted him gone, and that's their right, but this move is one that was done by a franchise that has already experienced the Trent Green-Priest Holmes-Tony Gonzalez years of big offense, no defense, lose a playoff game in which neither team punts type of teams.

If you're a free agent looking to win, that's something that you may weigh in your decision from a football standpoint, given that this team hasn't won a home playoff game in more than two decades.

@Kcmatt7

Having guys stay in the NCAA longer doesn't serve a purpose for the NBA. Most college programs don't run NBA systems, so it doesn't help the NBA to have a guy play in that type of system for several years.

That's one of the issues the NFL is facing now - colleges run college schemes, while the NFL runs a completely different type of playbook offensively and defensively. That means that success in college could be the result of the system, not a player's overall talent, or a player's skillset just may not translate from college to the pros. That's at every position in football from the line to the skill guys.

The NBA is moving more and more to positionless basketball, while most college teams are still in a traditional two interior player system. Because of that, from a development standpoint, you really don't want a guy working in a system that is so much different than what he will be asked to do at the pro level, as that may stunt his professional development.

Right now, major sports networks pay tons of money to broadcast college basketball. If the talent pool shifts away from college, that money could shift as well. The money will follow the talent.

This is all just setting the table for the NBA to set up its own development system outside the NCAA. This report may be the push that moves the NCAA back to amateur status (i.e., no players with pro aspirations) while the NBA moves to a more European model (i.e. each team having a developmental system).

If that happens, D1 basketball will change. It won't cease to exist, but it will certainly change. Kids with pro aspirations will start working their way through the pro development system as early as 12 or 13, going to school during the day, then training at the pro development facility at night. That's why you see guys from Europe coming over having already played three or four years within a pro system - they start that as soon as they are ready from a talent perspective, often 17 or 18. Had a guy like Svi stayed in Europe, he likely would be finishing his second or third year as a pro in a lower European league right now. That is coming to the U.S.

That type of system will allow Big Shoe to sponsor these development centers (along with the NBA and GLeague). It will also mean that top HS players probably won't go to their local high school, or even a private school or prep school - they will go to the development center probably as early as 13 or 14.

Now obviously, this is years down the road - currently, there are six or seven NBA teams pondering opening training centers. It's in the planning stages, which means its probably still three years from happening in the earliest stages. But with this issue popping up now, it may speed up the process just a bit. It's still going to take 8-10 years to get anything like this off the ground, but that's where things are headed.

@HighEliteMajor

I intentionally cited to great QBs to prove my point. Those guys get away with the things they did because they are thought of as leaders, but shouldn't leaders not be getting into arguments with coaches on the sidelines? Shouldn't leaders not be getting into situations where they are accused of sexual assault? Shouldn't we be holding them to higher standards?

My whole point was pointing out the double standard, which you very clearly did. Marcus Peters is an ALL PRO cornerback in a pass heavy league, and his cap hit is less than $2.5M. Signing a replacement for Peters, unless they draft an All Pro, is going to cost more than that. You say Peters is "a punk CB" and "nothing." That's comical to call one of the 8 or 10 best players at his position "nothing."

Cornerback is probably the third or fourth most important position in the NFL at this point (QB, DE, and left tackle are the only ones that may rank ahead of CB). Since you can't bang and hold receivers anymore, a CB that can cover in space is enormously valuable. That's not nothing.

@Kcmatt7

Sounds like its just picks, and the Rams don't have a second rounder this year because they used that in the Sammy Watkins deal. Chiefs better get the first and the third, otherwise this goes from being a bad football move to a potentially crippling one.

If the plan is to sign Trumaine Johnson, you deal Peters after you sign him. Johnson has multiple offers out there. The Chiefs could be left holding the bag on this one.

If the Chiefs are getting torched by a QB next year, anyone that supported moving Peters because of his attitude should just sit quietly and be glad that he's not a distraction in Kansas City anymore. Good CBs are hard to find, and you need them in a pass first league like the NFL. :shrug_tone5:

@drgnslayr

Because it is stored in the fatty tissue, there's a chance that his body doesn't ever burn his stored fat deposits since he is an athlete. For an average person, we will tend to burn fat if we start to work out after a long layoff (i.e., the weekend warrior). For someone like him, with a body fat percentage that is already low, he may not ever be burning that stored fat, meaning everything stored in those deposits just stays there, or stays much longer than it would for a lesser athlete.

@HighEliteMajor

Here's Tom Brady berating an assistant coach ↗ on the sideline last season.

Here's Brady doing the same thing ↗ in 2011.

The Patriots should trade him I guess. Should've moved him back in 2011. You can't just yell at a coach like that. Too much of a distraction.

Here's Ben Roethlisberger asking Mike Tomlin ↗ to keep OC Todd Haley away from him.

The Steelers probably should move on from him, especially given his history off the field ↗. Too much of a distraction. It would hurt the business.

Here's Rob Gronkowski taking a cheap shot at a guy ↗ and getting suspended as a result.

Here's Gronk admitting to throwing punches ↗ after the Super Bowl a few years ago.

Here's Gronk making an anti-Semitic joke ↗ last year.

The Patriots definitely need to cut ties with that guy.

I'm looking online now to see if the Pats have waived or traded Brady or Gronk, or if the Steelers got rid of Roethlisberger. Doesn't look like they did, but I will keep checking...

Nobody develops in SAC. That franchise is flawed right now. Not sure what they are doing out there.

@HighEliteMajor

Travis Kelce is two years older than Peters. That means that the Chiefs put up with Kelce's antics for two more years before he "matured" last year about halfway through the year. If that's the measuring stick, Peters should get at least one more season (probably two) before the Chiefs decide to move on from him. The Chiefs actually extended Kelce in spite of some of his issues after the 2015 season. They are talking about getting rid of Peters after the same amount of time. That's not a football decision, or at least isn't one using the same measuring stick they did for an equally talented and equally troublesome player.

@HighEliteMajor

Let's say that money was illegally transferred. Let's say they hid the source of that money (so it wasn't easy to tie back to Adidas) or attempted to hide the recipients. Let's say they did not fill out the proper forms when taking out large sums of cash.

That could be the beginnings of bank (or wire) fraud, money laundering, etc.

There could be bribery charges in there (since many of these are public universities, the coaches are considered public officials in some states). Bribing a public official is a crime.

The eligibility stuff is irrelevant to the FBI. It's all of the other stuff that could send people to prison.

Because KU is so solid at home, many years, there was never even a chance of a sweep because the game at AFH was already in the KU column. No surprise that Missouri and Oklahoma State have played KU toughest, as they were the teams that had the most success defending their home floor against KU.

@mayjay

What makes someone an expert? The police argue that only if you have had their training can you be an expert. But what if the problem is the training? What if instead of training the officer to de-escalate, the training encourages that sort of engagement? I'm not arguing that the officer went there specifically to shoot that young man. Far from it. But just saying that you have to have that training to make the right decision only ensures that you are trained to make the same decisions, not the right ones. I'm not saying the officer was wrong, but part of independent evaluation is seeing things from outside the lens in which the person that took the action would view them.

So let's look at the video and break it down. As the garage door opens (seen from the view facing west at the 1:39 mark of the embedded video in the article) the officer walks into the driveway. The vehicle is not moving at that moment. I remember when I was younger that my parents told me to never walk or stand in the driveway if the garage door was opening, just in case someone pulled out quickly without looking. Did the officer account for that possibility, that the young man might just be upset and not paying attention as he pulled out of the driveway? Could that have been avoided if the officer simply steps out of the driveway until he can get the young man's attention? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I do think those questions should be asked, if for no other reason that to do things better in the future. We know the officers were aware that the young man was suicidal. Perhaps a more subtle approach would have been safer? Perhaps not. Again, these are questions that should be asked, not definitive answers.

Did shooting expose others to danger? What happens if the officer shoots and the young man's foot slams down on the gas, sending the vehicle speeding across the street and into the house across the way? Did the officer have a plan for how to stop the vehicle before it hit the house across the street in that event?

In most police shootings, the person evaluates only the conduct at the time the shots were fired. As I said in my previous comment, the shooting is justified in the mind of the DA and the police force because the officer feared for his safety as the vehicle was backing towards him and decided the only way to protect himself in that moment was to fire his weapon into the vehicle.

But my argument is that things could have been done better. Was there a way to approach that situation initially to put that officer in a situation where he didn't feel that his life was threatened. I suggested above possibly attempting to block the vehicle in the driveway rather than standing in the driveway. Maybe that was not a good option. Maybe it was. But a full evaluation of the situation requires not only evaluating whether firing the shots was justified, but also determining if the officer may have made decisions that exposed himself (or others) to risk when there were better options available. We simply aren't doing that today.

Should the officer have waited for backup before engaging? As the article notes, many departments restrict firing into a moving vehicle because shooting (and killing) the driver could result in a driverless vehicle continuing down the road. @mayjay you are 100% correct that the consequences are much more severe than what we are talking about on this board on an every day basis. I couldn't agree more. That's why I think the scrutiny should be so much greater, as well. A young man is dead as a result of this. Even if the officers actions were justified, I'm looking at whether things could have been done better so next time there's a conversation instead of a funeral.

NCAA violations and the FBI investigation are two completely separate things.

Even if Self is completely clean, if an assistant or someone within the program did something illegal within the FBI investigation, that will hurt KU. It may not get Self fired, but it could change his reputation. I am not saying that Self did anything wrong, just looking at it from the other side.

Art Briles had a good reputation, right up until the accusations started at Baylor. He probably couldn't get another college HC job anywhere.

Joe Paterno had a good reputation, right up until the accusations started at Penn State.

Your reputation is only as good as the worst thing people know about you. Right now, there's nothing negative out there about HCBS. If that were to change, his reputation would change, too. Again, I'm not saying there is anything, just adding a little perspective.

There was a lot of money involved in this FBI investigation. There will be people that go to prison. We already know Adidas was involved and that KU is the prime Adidas school. While that doesn't mean that KU got caught up in any of this, there are certainly things that are in KU's neighborhood that would cause me concern if I were the compliance officer at KU.

This seems like a bad football move to me. Peters is one of the top 5 or 10 CBs in the league, and he's still on a very cheap rookie deal. I get that some in KC aren't enamored with him, but the Chiefs will be hard pressed to find a corner as good as Peters if they move him. Chances they get back as much value in a trade are pretty close to zero, particularly if this is a move related to non-football issues.

And if the reason for moving Peters is maturity, the Chiefs have a very tough question to answer in regards to Travis Kelce and his future with the team as well.

@BShark

Unfortunately, no one wants to talk about any actual reforms on this. The BLM movement tried to start the conversation, but there has been a lot of push back. Colin Kaepernick tried to raise awareness. People had a fit about that. People said that the method and the message weren't right. That may be true, but that hasn't changed police practices, and that means people are still dying. Sometimes it's Michael Brown, and as a society we can shrug that off because he had done something bad just a few minutes before (although the officer was unaware of that when he encountered him). But sometimes, its a suicidal kid in the suburbs that is in some mental distress. When can we have the conversation about some actual reforms, both to policing, and to the way we investigate use of force?

I don't know how much people have been following the news, but here in Kansas (assuming most of us live in Kansas) the police don't actually have to ever release the body camera and dash camera footage to the public. A new law working its way through the legislature to require police departments to release that footage to family in a timely manner (currently, that is not required by law).

Policing is a difficult job. However, many departments do not regularly drug test their officers - testing is only done at the start of employment, and then after a use of force. Officers are not required to undergo regular psychological evaluations to screen for things like alcohol abuse and depression. While some argue that this level of scrutiny would be unfair, that would actually help police officers, as the rates of alcoholism (as high as one quarter to one third of officers, far and away higher than the population at large), depression (as much as 4 times higher than population at large) and suicide (50% higher than the general population in some studies - the FOP insists the rate is lower, but have omitted some deaths that are still under investigation) among police are much higher than the population at large. Similar to military, we build these individuals up as heroes, but we fail as a society to provide the resources necessary to ensure their good health, particularly when it comes to mental health.

If Bill Self said that he was exempt from criticism because he "made that decision based on what he knew in the moment" or if a player excused a turnover by saying "the game happens fast" or it was a "split second decision" we would be appalled. This is just basketball that we discuss on this board each day. It enhances the discussion to scrutinize and criticize. I am sure that behind the scenes, Coach Self, the staff and players do the same. And again, this is just basketball. By refusing to engage in scrutiny of police behavior (much as we do here on this board with our favorite college basketball team) the opportunity for improved practices is lost.

Part of the accountability of officers is to see a situation like this and re-examine the training that the officer received. Why did he put himself at risk by running immediately towards the vehicle rather than attempting to block the vehicle in the driveway with his car? Even if the finding is that the officer did not do anything illegal, that doesn't mean he could not have done things better. Asking why isn't an indictment. It's an opportunity for growth. Why didn't the officer approach more cautiously? Did the officer know for certain who was in the vehicle as he was approaching? Did the officer evaluate if there were other civilians around or in the houses before he discharged his weapon?

We expect that Devonte Graham will evaluate the entire floor on a fast break and make the right decision. Shouldn't we expect an even greater level of evaluation and decision making when we entrust someone with a badge and a gun?

Police were called in that situation to help de-escalate the situation. Instead, shots were fired and the kid ends up being killed. So just from the perspective of was the goal (de-escalation) accomplished, the mission was a failure. The hope is that the officers can create a situation to calm the kid down and get him the help he needed, otherwise they might as well have not responded at all. It's a true tragedy.

But this video and @HighEliteMajor point to something very significant - the officer created the dangerous situation for himself by potentially moving into the path of a moving vehicle. The vehicle did not speed up until shots were fired, meaning its likely he sped up after he was hit and killed. The officer was actually put in more danger because the young man lost control of the vehicle after he was shot and nearly spun into the officer, then nearly hit another patrol vehicle and another officer as the vehicle continued to roll (similar to what happened in the Samuel Dubose shooting, where the officer said he continued to fire because he thought he would be dragged after Mr. Dubose was shot and his body weight slumped onto the gas until he crashed down the street).

Nevermind that these shots were fired in a residential neighborhood - every police manual instructs officers to consider the danger presented to other individuals prior to discharging their firearm. Shooting into a vehicle could have been even more tragic had one of those shots missed and went into one of the houses nearby.

The officer created a danger to himself, then, in an attempt to get out of that danger, created a danger to anyone else on the street at the time, as well as everyone in the nearby houses. As I said on the thread a while back - these types of shootings should not be investigated by the local DA that works with the department all the time. They should be investigated by a neutral third party, either the state AG or another DA's office that has no professional ties to that jurisdiction to ensure neutrality. Or even better, they should be independently investigated by an entity with no ties to law enforcement.

DA Steve Howe has a professional relationship with the police that he needs to maintain. They testify for the prosecution regularly. He needs the support of the department. Its very difficult for him to be neutral on something like that.

Doubtful he gets his number retired without Tournament MOP. He isn't going to be a first or second team AA. He likely won't even be Big 12 player of the year. He's had an excellent four year career, but I can't see a route for him to get into the rafters without an MOP.

K-State's remaining schedule gives them an opportunity to play themselves in. Go 3-1, plus win their first Big 12 tournament game, and they probably get in. 2-2 leaves them on the bubble. Worse probably eliminates them. I do think it's a little ridiculous that the bracket has KSU, Baylor and Texas all in, but solid teams from middle tier conferences (Boise State, St. Bonaventure) are in the same position or worse. I really do think the NCAA should move to a .500 record requirement for an at large bid. While that would hurt the Big 12 this year as one or two of TCU, Texas, and Oklahoma would probably miss the dance based on that, but if you aren't good in your conference, why should you be competing to be the best team in the country?

.500 in conference isn't some crazy requirement. Big 12 would still get 5 or 6 teams in this year. SEC probably would still get 8 teams in. Pac 12 would likely get 5. Big 10 would probably get 6. ACC would probably have 8 or 9. Half the field would still come from Power 5 conferences. The only difference would be that Baylor, Texas, TCU, KSU and Oklahoma would all be playing for their tournament lives over the next couple of weeks to stay above .500. Meanwhile, lots of first and second place teams from middle level conferences wouldn't be playing for their lives just because they lost their conference tournament final. No, St. Bonaventure couldn't win the Big 12, but this year, neither could Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Texas, or K-State. We shouldn't compare these teams to the top teams in the conference and say they would finish towards the middle or bottom of a Power Conference when that's exactly where Baylor is going to finish this year.

The FT disparity looks bad in a really close game. That's not something we can argue. If we had that type of disparity against us, we would be upset, so I get where WVU is coming from.

Before his knee and weight problems, Sherron was easily an NBA talent. He was so explosive off the dribble. He was a big play guy from day one, as @Texas-Hawk-10 , @kjayhawks and @JayHawkFanToo said.

From a pure talent perspective, Sherron was better than Mike Conley (went on to be a OAD and an NBA all star), and comparable to Ty Lawson. He should have made it to the NBA, but injuries slowed him down, and he didn't develop good training/diet habits to help keep his body ready.

This is bigger than UNC for one simple reason - MONEY. There is money involved here. There's the possibility that money was laundered (origination and destination obscured or hidden) in order to pass it on illegally. That's why this is a bigger case. Having athletes enroll in easy classes is academic fraud, but likely not a federal crime. Money laundering is a crime.

This could be the beginning of the end for the NCAA. How do you get your biggest money making sport in the clear. College hoops is a billion dollar industry, but the talent that is on the court playing the games isn't supposed to touch any of that money. That means if they do get that money, it has to pass under the table, meaning the money has to be taken out in cash from nefarious sources, and passed along either in cash, or after having gone through other channels. Suffice it to say, this is not going to be pretty for anyone involved because we could be talking about real actual jail time.

There are specific rules against the cheerleaders being distractions during game action. Looks like the official warned him. I've actually seen that happen at the HS level before - never in college, though.

Home teams get more calls, particularly at the college level, where some officials are swayed pretty heavily by the home crowd. That can really affect the outcome of games.

KU is better off with UK being good that with UK struggling.

We already know KU is going to be loaded next year. UK is going to be very good. But think about Cal's best teams at UK. They came after Cal had a disappointing year, because when Cal gets kids to come back as sophomores, those kids are generally the best returning sophomores in the country. They were OADs that didn't pan out, but when you mesh that talent and experience with more incoming talent, those teams turn into world beaters.

We want UK to lose multiple guys in the draft every year, because when they don't, they have a roster with a ridiculous amount of talent. I don't want Quade Green returning to Lexington. Same for Gabriel, Vanderbilt, Richards and Washington. I want those guys to leave.

Think about UK's biggest issue this year - lack of outside shooting. Quickley and Herro especially can both flat out fill it up from outside. Put them with some of the guys on this squad and look out. Keldon Johnson is a better version of Kevin Knox. You don't want UK getting these guys and having Green, Gabriel, Vanderbilt, Richards, Washington, Killeya-Jones all returning. That's experience, depth and talent. Last time UK had a team built like that, they went 38-1. The time before that they went 38-2 and won a national title.

I want UK to get back on track because if they don't, they will have a monster of a roster next year because next year's recruits address this year's problems -- you don't want them fixing this year's team's problems.

@jayballer73 @BShark

I would like to see Zach develop more of his off the dribble game. His upside is limited if he is only a spot up shooter. Granted, with the way his shot is coming along, he can be a very good spot up shooter, but that's the difference between a Brannen Greene type career and a Travis Releford type career.

@jaybate-1.0

The love of money is the root of all evil. Sadly, that is what Big Sports have become - money making engines.

The NBA is about players. College is about systems. Whichever you prefer depends largely on your preference for that style.

If you prefer college, its probably because you prefer the set systems in the game. The top coaches can often be identified by scheme, either offensive or defensive. Because the players change every year, the coaches (and systems) are what make the game what it is.

If you prefer the NBA, its probably because you prefer the system breaking talent of the individual players. There aren't plays so much as there are sets and actions - things designed to get the ball to a certain player in a certain place, where that guy can make a decision/play. Because the players are so skilled, that's what makes the game what it is.

This means that college basketball and NBA basketball are two entirely different things. College puts players into a mold. The NBA demands that the best players break from that mold. I think that's why many college fans don't like the best NBA players (they exist outside the system), while many NBA fans don't like the best college teams (they constrain the best players).

Even a guy like Kevin Durant was constrained at Texas in a system that gave him quite a bit of freedom. Steph Curry was constrained at Davidson. You couldn't have really imagined them taking the NBA to this place when they were in college because you couldn't see the most creative parts of their game within the college game.

On the other hand, certain guys really excel within a system in college. Perry Ellis was a great player within the system at Kansas. He learned how the system worked and saw his offensive numbers go up each year as he matured within the system. Grayson Allen at Duke is another good example of a guy learning a system and how he fits into it.

Because of these differences, though, college systems aren't a good place to develop NBA stars. It's a good way to develop NBA role players - look at guys like Danny Green in San Antonio, Frank Mason (will be a very good backup PG for a long time), Draymond Green (he's a star role player, but if he were the Warriors second best player, they would be merely a solid playoff team) and others. They all played four years at strong programs (UNC, KU, Mich St.). None will ever be a star you can build a team around, but all are good players that can help championship level teams during their careers.

That's a flaw in the development system. Stars need to be developed on a different track than role players from a professional standpoint, but they are often developed side by side throughout their careers.

Harvey with a huge game last night, dropping 42 in the win. Hit 7 threes. He's averaging over 25 a game since his ankle got healthy, though that's obviously a bit skewed with the big game last night. Still, seven threes in a game demonstrates that Harvey has improved his overall shooting touch even more (was 7-10 from three, 15-21 from the field).

KU can still control their own destiny. Win out, they get #14. Lose any game other than Tech, and it's likely they still get #14 because I don't see Tech not losing at least one of those road games.

To continue what @Barney said, there has to be a difference between shooting poorly and playing poorly. If you can maintain your activity levels, get on the offensive and defensive glass, play sound defense, move the ball offensively, cut hard, etc., then even if shots aren't going in, you can play well. With the exception of the missed FTs at the end, I felt like Graham played well last night. Same for Svi. He's been struggling with his shot since getting the black eye, which I think may be distracting his vision ever so slightly.

Last night's game was an okay performance. Newman continues to make plays going to the basket, which is going to be where he helps us the most. Ideally, fewer than half his shots are from three point range. That means he's being aggressive and playing downhill. If we see that, that means he's getting to the rim, drawing fouls, getting layups, etc. Good things happen when Malik slashes. That must continue.