🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@BeddieKU23

Lots of cutting and movement.

You can't let the defender sag and stand stationary. You have to make them move back and forth. You have to make them account for backdoor cuts. You have to make that guy have his head on a swivel rather than just sagging into the paint.

Marcus also has to crash the offensive glass with abandon. Since his man is going to be playing off him, he can get a running start on almost every shot attempt. His goal should be to grab at least one offensive board for every stretch he is in the game at a minimum. If he can do that, it will make it harder to play off him because you have to account for him when the shots go up, and its exceptionally tough to run out and box a guy as he's running in to compete for a rebound.

Finally, Marcus has to get something in transition every game. His goal should be one transition bucket, one offensive rebound putback, and one bucket off a cut. That at least keeps the defense honest without him having to make jumpshots. If he can throw in 2 or 3 more offensive rebounds and one more transition opportunity, whether he scores or not, he can be a net positive player without making shots, provided he also provides top notch defense against the other team's best guys.

Unfortunately for Marcus, this means he's going to play 20 of the most high energy minutes you can imagine. On defense, he has to be an absolute stalwart. On offense, he has to be in constant motion, because he has no gravity if he's just stationed out beyond the three point line. Oh, and he has to do all of this while staying within the scheme, both offensively and defensively.

It is going to get harder and harder for Garrett to get to the rim because teams are sagging well off him from three. Before long, his man is just going to be standing in the paint. He is going to have to take (and make) a couple of threes to at least keep teams honest. They are daring him to shoot, and he doesn't have the confidence to accept that challenge. Of course, he also hasn't made a three since before Thanksgiving, so I don't know that I blame teams for sagging away from him.

Teams seem more apt to move on from guys when they aren't in the lead. That happens all the time. It's very rare for a team to actively say they are no longer interested in recruiting a guy that is 1) very talented and 2) strongly considering picking them.

I will agree that some coaches are selective about who they recruit hard. You have to be somewhat picky about how to deploy resources, even for a school with the resources of a KU, UK, Duke, UNC, etc. You can't recruit every top 25 guy out there. For instance, the only top guys from the Class of 2018 that KU is truly still pursuing are Romeo Langford and Zion Williamson - two top 5 players. If KU signs one, they will likely stop pursuing the other due to a lack of scholies, but I doubt they move away from either before an announcement is made.

On the other hand, a guy like Emmitt Williams, KU has basically moved on from. He's a PF, but with De Sousa and McCormack already in the fold, and Williamson still out there, there's no benefit to netting Williams. Same with PG Jahvon Quinerly, who isn't much different than Devon Dotson, who is already signed.

You hold out for talent. Simple as that.

Self's statements tell us a couple of things.

1. The NCAA has had all requested information since prior to Christmas. The NCAA offices were closed between Christmas and New Year's, so Self saying he expected to hear something last week means they have had the information they wanted for at least three weeks now, maybe longer.

2. This is no longer about eligibility, but bureaucratic foot dragging. Self wouldn't poke a sleeping bear. But if the NCAA is delaying the formal announcement, that is wrong. Couple that with the comments from Preston's mother and it paints a clearer picture.

TCU is an underrated team IMHO. They have all of the pieces to potentially get to the Sweet 16 this year with the right draw and good health.

Also, Preston, eligible January 11, 2018. De Sousa, eligible January 9, 2018. Things can get better quickly.

If Ball falls out of the NBA, it will have more to do with his production than his dad's mouth.

Right now, he's averaging 10/7/7. That's not great. I thought his assist numbers would be better, and I thought he would shoot better from 3 (currently under 30%). If this continues, he won't make it. If he bumps that assist number up to 8.5, and starts shooting more in the 35% range from 3, Lonzo goes from being an iffy player to being a solid player. Not a star, but very solid, particularly because he can rebound and should be able to handle bigger guards in the post.

@BShark

Preston is definitely gone. Losing basically half a season (maybe a whole one) due to the NCAA review sours guys on college hoops. You can look around college basketball. When guys aren't cleared relatively quickly, they leave, either via transfer, or straight to the pros.

I think Azuibuke is back next year. Right now, he's not ready to take on the role he would have in the NBA. Seven or eight years ago, he would absolutely be gone because he would be a lottery pick, but with the way the pro game is played now, he needs more refinement to be an effective two way player.

As for Vick, I think he has a chance to get drafted. He could certainly return, as he's not necessarily a lottery pick, but I think he would make a team next year, and could be a rotation player on a good team by his second or third year, meaning he could be in line for a nice contract before his 25th birthday, or even a big extension prior to year 4.

@JayHawkFanToo

This is why he should have played PG all last year on the scout team. Form those habits in practice. Tell him he can't shoot for an entire scrimmage. Make him initiate the offense so that it becomes a part of his overall game. He's a scorer. He wouldn't have lost that over the course of a year. But he could have rounded his game out, and at the same time left us better equipped to handle the current season.

@HighEliteMajor

I was not an athlete coming out of HS. Wasn't good enough. As a result, when I found mentors in my chosen profession, I didn't have the NCAA trying to declare me ineligible, or say I couldn't accept my scholarship, or tons of fans questioning the motives and character of myself or my family. I was able to get help and guidance from some people that, to this day, I respect a great deal. To put it simply, I know that I would not be the professional I am today, or the man I am today, without the mentorship of those individuals.

The NCAA would benefit greatly if some of these guys actually could form relationships with guys that walked their path. Wouldn't it be great if Billy Preston actually had the chance to form a relationship with a guy like Wayne Simien, or could talk to Darnell Jackson about what it's like to go through tough times in college?

Heck, wouldn't it have been great if a guy like Jacque Vaughn or Kirk Hinrich could have talked to someone like Josh Selby about how to contribute even when you're injured, or a guy like Xavier Henry having a chance to get to know Paul Pierce.

Sports is the only forum in which the current system basically forbids the next generation from developing those mentorship relationships until after they are professionals, when that next generation is competing with those guys for jobs, minutes, contracts, endorsements, etc.

I know, I know, rules, rules, rules.

But someone needs to honestly say one simple thing - this is stupid.

Think of it this way.

Let's say two kids meet in high school on the basketball team. One kid (let's call him "Superstar") clearly has a college future. The other (let's call him "Regular Joe")is going to end up being just a regular HS basketball player. Regular Joe and Superstar become friends. Even though Regular Joe isn't from a rich family, they do okay and they help Superstar out from time to time - rides to games, AAU tournaments, spending money on the weekends, etc. - because when Regular Joe and Superstar hang out, they don't want Superstar to be left out.

Is that illegal? Is that wrong? Is that against NCAA rules? That's a gray area, because they met in high school, when Superstar's skill and opportunity were clear. But it's clouded because the two kids are friends.

Now let's say that Regular Joe's family does have quite a bit of money, so it's not just $20 on the weekend, or a trip with the family to a chain restaurant to celebrate a birthday - now it's paying for prom tuxes and limos, or paying for AAU trips. Is that illegal? Wrong? Against NCAA rules?

The question of how long you have to know someone has long haunted the NCAA because sports cross the normal income lines drawn by real estate and work. A talented, athletic kid can get a chance to go to a private school that he could not otherwise afford, where he ends up becoming friends with kids he would never meet, or dating a girl whose father owns a bunch of local businesses.

But to the NCAA, those relationships were created because of the kid's athletic talent, so they can be questioned.

Newman has spent most of his life playing the 2, and is in the process of moving to the 1. Honestly, Newman should have played the 1 for the scout team last year while he was sitting just to get those reps. You can't become a PG overnight. It takes time.

Cunliffe has played more 1 in his life than Newman has. The tough thing is that when you're the type of scorer that Newman is, you spend so much time being told to score for yourself, you have to learn how to just run the offense because you were the offense. Remember, Newman once went for over 70 in a HS game. Cunliffe can score, but has the advantage (in this case) that because he wasn't as gifted a scorer, he was expected to also initiate the offense, same as Garrett, same as Graham and Mason, and same as we will see with Grimes next year, who was a late bloomer as far as dynamic scoring goes. That makes a difference in how guys develop.

Lack of depth is starting to really cause problems. We can't consistently score inside. Azuibuke isn't healthy, but we simply don't have other options without some of the other guys getting cleared.

At this point, I would actually sit Azuibuke and let him get healthy. We are going to struggle anyway, so you might as well ride Mitch and the walk-ons for a bit, get Udoka's back ready for March knowing that you're limited if you don't have Preston and De Sousa anyway, but if you suddenly have Azuibuke, Preston and De Sousa come tournament time, it doesn't matter where you're seeded because that's top seed talent. No sense in burning everyone out right now. Try to stay in the hunt, maybe sacrifice the streak, but put yourself in a position where if people are healthy/eligible in March, Self ends up going all in with a full house of Kings and Aces when it really counts.

I said from the very early stages that this situation is lousy for the family because the NCAA can ask the family to open up a lot of very private information - credit card statements, tax records, mortgage/ rent information, pay stubs, etc. Often, they request this not just for the last several months, but years.

Also, often these investigations have a bit of a racial element - i.e., there is disbelief that this person can afford it, even after producing the necessary information. I've seen this happen firsthand, but because the NCAA controls the ability of the kid to be eligible, they hold all the cards unless a kid is willing and able to walk away and go pro immediately. Billy is the rare kid that probably could have, but most don't have that option.

Let's face it. The NCAA is power crazed and corrupt. Maybe Billy did something inappropriate. Maybe he didn't. Maybe all the records are there. Maybe they aren't. But here's the thing - the NCAA has been able to drag this out, casting serious doubt on this young man and his family, and their character. If he is cleared in the end, I bet we wait longer than what this investigation took to hear an apology for that.

De Sousa has added some significant refinement to his jumpshot. It's still not particularly quick, but he at least has a "keep-'em-honest" jumper. You can't just leave him from mid range.

I am not as confident in his handle. I wouldn't want him handling for anything more than a straightline drive. His handle is pretty loose, even in the open floor. I would hate to see what he would look like against even mild pressure, let alone something like what WVU does.

Bamba would be a tough guy to officiate. He is so tall and long, he gets to balls that are higher than what most can get to. Its tough to really tell if he is getting them at their peak, or just as they come down.

It would be a nightmare at real speed, considering that even in slow motion, it's hard to tell. I think one of the blocks may have been a goal tend, but the others looked clean to me.

Svi heating up.

That Bamba dunk was ridiculous. Not sure there are ten other people that catch that lob in that position.

The threes will probably carry KU, but Bamba has impressed me. Texas is better than I thought.

@BeddieKU23

Bamba is a potentially elite defensive player. He's incredibly raw offensively, but from a defensive perspective, he could quite possibly be the best defensive player in the country - he'd be the overall #1 pick in the NBA draft next June if he were anywhere near that good offensively.

@JayHawkFanToo

I agree. I have Tech as the either the third or fourth best team in the conference, behind KU and WVU, even with OU and ahead of Baylor. They are at home, so I figure they beat Baylor, but if the home teams all hold, most of the top half of the conference will be 0-1.

Any way you slice it, it's likely that at least a couple of the top half starts out 0-1 (either Baylor or Tech has to lose, and I can't imagine OU, WVU and KU all win on the road). That's the fun of the round robin. You can't dodge anybody.

Between Moore, Dotson and Jacobs, we do have a very nice group.

We do need some size to go with them though, because that group goes as follows:

Moore - 5-11, 170

Dotson - 6-2, 175

Jacobs - 5-11, 170

Lots of speed and ballhandling, but not much size. They need at least one more 6-4 or 6-5 guy to go along with Cunliffe just to prevent teams from throwing too much length at them. Still, I always default to talent over anything else, and those three guys have that in spades.

@wrwlumpy

It is not outside the realm of possibility for four of the best five teams in the league (Baylor, KU, OU, West Virginia) to all take road losses to start the conference slate.

As has been said, wins on the road count for double, so whoever can grab a road win this weekend will be sitting very pretty.

@JayHawkFanToo

For a school like Kansas, any change makes no difference, because they are at the top. Changes to the middle or bottom have little, if any, affect on KU.

This has more affect on the Texas Tech's, TCU's and KSU's of the world. Those schools are in a position where yes, they can certainly pay the smaller schools to come in and play them, but the attraction of playing at KU, versus the payday they can get by playing at KU or another big name program is significant. Plus the TV exposure, etc. to have a chance to be on the radar for recruits.

If the NCAA were to re-structure D1, Power 5 schools would have to play the mid majors. That's a big reason why its doubtful that D1 hoops makes any changes.

As you correctly point out, its a business, and the NCAA D1 tournament basically pays for the budgets for the NCAA, and mens basketball pays for the athletic budgets for roughly half to two thirds of D1 programs (basically all programs except those that have FBS football and those that operate at a loss).

Even in the single bid leagues, getting the revenue from having a team in the tournament is worth it, and if that 13 or 14 seed happens to swing an upset every few years, even better because that's a huge boon for the league from a revenue standpoint.

A separate subdivision would be interesting, with a couple of caveats. If you break into two divisions, let's call them A and B for simplicities sake, schools in division A cannot schedule more than 3 non-conference games against teams in division B. That forces power conference teams to play mid majors, which avoids a situation where the 7th place finisher in a Power 5 conference argues for an NCAA bid based on their "strength of schedule" because they lost to Powerhouse A twice, while a mid major that finished 2nd in their conference only played 1 Power 5 team (because the Power 5 schools wouldn't schedule them).

There's no point in shrinking D1 if Power 5 teams won't play mid majors. Look at KU's schedule this year. KU played 6 Power 5 teams. They played one mid major (Toledo), and five low majors from typical one bid leagues. Power 5 schools traditionally avoid playing teams from the American, A-10, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, Sun Belt, Conference USA and Mid American, as those leagues are the typical "mid majors" with serious bubble cases come Selection Sunday.

Look around on Power 5 schedules and you will see the same. One or two games with true mid majors, plus lots of games against low majors.

The truth is, though, that the Power 5 wouldn't want to split D1 into two divisions. Think about how tough it would be if you were at a school like Rutgers or Oregon State, in a Power 5 League, but not able to fatten up the schedule with a few low major cupcakes to get 5 or 6 easy wins. Now you're facing off with other Power 5 teams, or playing those dangerous mid majors, and suddenly you're 4-8 heading into conference play. That gets coaches and AD's fired after you go 9-19 or worse.

The last place team in every major conference lost at least 14 conference games last year. If you are heading into conference play without six or seven guaranteed victories against low majors, you're staring at a 20+ loss season. You might be able to survive one of those. Probably not two. Lower level Power 5 programs wouldn't want that, especially since a 64 team field for 200 schools would mean missing the tournament three straight years probably costs the coach their job, and maybe the AD, too.

@JayHawkFanToo

You could have put the period after Purdue. Lol. The rest of that conference is pretty poor. I can't seem them getting four teams into the dance, honestly.

Come selection Sunday, their bubble teams will have an uphill climb.

Ohio State already has losses to Clemson and Butler. Their best win is Stanford.

Michigan already lost to LSU. Best win is UCLA.

Maryland lost to St. Bonaventure and Syracuse. Best win is Butler.

Minnesota has lost to Arkansas and Nebraska. Best win is Alabama.

Penn State has lost to NC State and Rider. Yes, Rider. Best win is George Mason? Pitt? Nobody?

Nebraska has losses to Creighton, UCF and St. Johns. Best win is Boston College? I guess?

Northwestern has losses to Creighton, Texas Tech, Georgia Tech and Oklahoma (two of those in blowouts). Best win might be DePaul.

Everyone else in the conference already has at least six losses and likely won't even make it onto the bubble - sorry Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Rutgers.

That's seven possible bubble teams in a conference with only two good teams and only Michigan and Minnesota have any decent wins. Penn State, Nebraska and Northwestern probably are already on the wrong side of the bubble. Ohio State and Maryland are in trouble with some of their losses to potential bubble teams. And they will spend the next two months losing on the road against each other, giving you a host of 10 and 11 loss teams with .500ish conference records to choose from.

That's the worst possible scenario for a collegiate major conference.

@KUSTEVE

Kanter has talent, but he has never been consistent. He has a stretch like this every year. He averages 14 and 10 for the year, but is at 17 and 11 over the last 5 games. He's 11 and 7 for his career.

If he were consistent with where he's been the last week, he would be a near all star.

Young is both a shooter and passer. Forcing the ball out of his hands means he can likely find the open man - he's averaging over 10 assists a game! He is averaging almost 29 points a game, but on only 18 shots. Young doesn't monopolize the ball, and OU has other capable guys if you make Young give the ball up.

This isn't like Durant or Beasley, where they were scorers first and foremost. Young is a PG with natural passing instincts. He's only had 2 games all season with fewer than 8 assists. He's only had three games all year where he has more than 18 shots, but he's efficient enough from three (41%) that you can't just let him shoot.

This OU team is different than anything we have seen at KU in the Self era. Young is similar in some ways to Curry, but the overall talent around him at OU is far superior to what Davidson had with Curry. Young is a better scorer than guys like Marcus Smart or Jacob Pullen, and also a better passer than guys like Hield.

It's a tough matchup for KU because OU isn't just Young, and Young, as a PG, knows how to get his other teammates involved. There's also the chance he could hit 5 or 6 threes. OU isn't the best team KU has faced during the streak, but they are one of the more difficult matchups because they could win in Morgantown and hold serve at home. That's the start of the recipe for knocking off KU in the conference.

Any way you slice it, this will be a tough conference slate. KU could go 14-4 and win going away, or they could slog to a 12-6 and have to sweat it.

I'd say centers on Embiid's level are Cousins and Porzingis. Cousins averages 26 and 12. Porzingis averages 25 and 7, but is a better shooter and ball handler. Embiid averages 24 and 11, so very similar to Cousins in a shade less minutes. Embiid's numbers are just a shade better than Cousins on a per 36 basis, but Cousins is slightly more efficient because he is a better three point shooter by both percentage and volume (Cousins has made more threes than Embiid has taken, and at a higher percentage). I'd say those two are basically a push, honestly, with the slight edge to Cousins based on durability and efficiency. Even the advanced stats agree its a push - Embiid and Cousins both have a 23.6 PER!

The Big 10 is down. Big 12 is about average. The only difference is that the Big 12 may not have any elite teams this season, depending on the eligibility of Preston and what that does for KU.

@JayHawkFanToo

This is definitely true.

Some guys are surprised by that element of pro basketball. It is all basketball all the time because basketball is your job. You have to get up and go lift. You have to eat right. You have to work on different elements of your game with a mind towards improvement.

You can't just go in the gym and shoot. You have to go in the game and work at game speed. You have to work on your jab step 17 footer. You have to work on your step back 17 footer. You have to work on your one dribble to the left 17 footer. You have to work on your one dribble to the right 17 footer. You have to work on your pick and pop 17 footer. Then you have to do all of that again at 15. Then again at 19.

Then you have to work in the post. You have to finish while people hit you with pool noddles and push you with boxing pads.

You have to condition.

You have to stretch.

You have to watch film to understand the nuances of offensive and defensive sets that are three or four times more complex than anything you have seen to this point in your basketball life.

It's just like a job. You clock in at 2 and clock out after the game at 10. On off days you might clock in at 10, and clock out at 5.

Tough to say. This team doesn't look unbeatable at AFH, so anything could happen.

KU always struggles in Stillwater, even when we are much better than them, and get beat more than we should. KU tends to struggle (but win) at Hilton. Haven't won in Morgantown in five years (not sure that changes this year). Tend to play choppy in Manhattan. Struggle in Lubbock (and against weaker teams than what they are trotting out this year). We haven't played well in Fort Worth the last couple of years. Texas and Oklahoma are much better than either of them was last year.

Suffice it to say, this isn't a 15-3 type of team. This could be a 12-6 type of team.

However, I will add this caveat. If Billy Preston is eligible and productive, this could be a 14-4 type team, but that remains unknown, and depending on how far into the season this goes, may not change the overall record that much.

I wouldn't assume Lightfoot red shirts next year. These sorts of issues tend to sort themselves out. You never know what can happen with injuries, eligibility, productivity, etc. It will all sort itself out.

Lightfoot has a whole summer, plus whatever is left in this season, to take a step forward. He should be playing more in position, so that always helps. I don't see him as a starter, but he could be a very helpful, experienced reserve.

@jayballer54

The counterpoint to that is that right now, Preston can work out with the team, meaning he's at least getting to practice against good competition.

The only reason it would make sense to leave KU is if he went to the G-League for the rest of the season, then prepped for the draft. It wouldn't make sense to leave right now, with six months until the draft when he can stay at KU and practice unless he has somewhere else to go that gives him the chance to practice against quality players like Doke, the Lawson's, etc. and play with good guards as well.

The G-League has that. Most other places don't by this time since even the shorter season foreign leagues have started by now, meaning the free agent talent pool is pretty shallow at this point - mostly guys working back from injury. That's not the best talent to work against.

If Billy isn't going to the G-League, he might as well stay at KU.

The real question is whether Smith is worth the salary cap hit. Mahomes is on a pretty cheap rookie deal. Smith is in the last year of his contract. I don't know the Chiefs salary cap situation, but that probably will have more influence on the decision than just whether or not Smith is productive.

Given how college games are officiated, either Azuibuke or Bamba ends up in early foul trouble. That will decide how the first half goes, and which team is working its way out of a deficit at the break.

KU has the advantage since Texas is without Jones, but the Horns are getting better PG play as Coleman continues to progress, so they could be a real threat here. Still, KU by 6.

Mitch should be playing around 10 minutes a game, preferably with another skilled big in the lineup. Instead, he's playing almost 15 mpg, often as the lone big in the lineup.

There's a concept called overexposure. Its basically when a solid, but limited player is asked to take on a role that exceeds their skill level, often by necessity. We saw this the last couple of years with Landen Lucas. It caused quite a discussion on this board on more than one occasion. The truth is that Landen was never a bad player, just that Landen should never have been the primary big man. Forcing a guy that should be a secondary option into a primary role does nothing but expose their flaws in ways that other teams can exploit. That was not Landen's fault the last couple of years, and it is not Mitch's fault now.

Mitch has done a good job of trying to stick to the things he is good at, and avoid trying to do things he simply cannot do. However, in 15 mpg, the action will find you because Mitch is probably playing 5 or 6 minutes per game more than he should. That's 15 more possessions where he can be targeted on either offense or defense.

When I was in high school, my team, like a lot of schools, lacked size. We just didn't have many true big guys. As a result, we had to kind of mix and match to keep up with teams with some size. That often meant that either I or one of our other guards ended up matched up on the other team's power forward (I'm 6-0 tall and more naturally suited to play either PG or SG). On the perimeter, I was a top notch defensive player, as I could handle the quickest PGs or switch off and play the best wings. I often guarded the opponents best perimeter player. However, when I had to guard the other team's PF in some of our lineups, I was overexposed. I could usually hide out there for three or four possessions, but after that, I was probably going to get destroyed - not because I was a bad defensive player, or a bad player overall, but because I just couldn't handle giving up 4+ inches and 40+ pounds in the post. It was a mismatch, and everyone in the gym could see it.

Mitch is in the same position. He can get by okay for a few possessions at a time as the primary big, but after that, he probably gets exploited because his limitations are exposed. If he were playing as a PF, where he has done well at times this year, he can be effective, or in lineups where he is the primary big against teams that can't hammer him with size, where he has also had success.

But if you're leaning on him come Friday to handle Mo Bamba on his own for 7 or 8 possessions in a row, that's not really fair to Mitch because that's a bad matchup for him.

@BShark

Someone should have told that kid not to jump. That was an error in judgment.

@HawkChamp

The recruiting analysts shouldn't be considering where different guys sign to determine their position. Grimes plays on the ball for his HS team. He plays on the ball for his AAU team. Of course, because of his size, he can move off the ball, and he is a dynamic scorer off the ball. But he's effectively a big PG, and that's where his future (NBA) is.

Still not sure why people are considering Grimes a combo guard. He's a PG. Perhaps they just don't want to make him a PG because of his size.

Right now, KU's roster is flawed in ways that good teams can exploit.

If Preston and De Sousa are available, that flaw does not exist and KU is immediately once again one of the best five or six teams in the country. If those guys aren't available, KU could get to the Final Four or lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament. That's the level of variation because there is a clear roster construction flaw if those guys aren't available, and a bad matchup could expose KU at any point.

Once an announcement is made on Preston and De Sousa, we can figure out what the ceiling (and the floor) for this team is.

@teebee10

You certainly make a good point about those guys being able to hang. I would add one other name to that list - KT Raimey, also with the KC Run GMC program.

I will admit to one thing - it is very hard to evaluate Kansas kids based on their HS program because many of the top players just don't face off. For instance, it would be awesome to see Zach Harvey and Ty Berry match up, but because Newton is 5A and Hayden is 4A, that matchup probably never happens. Same with KT Raimey and those guys, since Olathe East is a 6A school. Perry Ellis and Willie Cauley-Stein never matched up even though they were both at 6A schools. You just don't get to see the top players in Kansas face off most of the time because the shorter schedule (just 20 regular season games) limits regular season matchups, and because Kansas is big geographically but small population wise, the top players are often spread out and never play each other through their entire HS careers.

K-State will have a hard time sustaining Snyder's success. He built the program to succeed only under his leadership and with his blueprint.

That's one reason why I do not want KU to try and emulate Snyder's model - there's no guarantee it works for anyone other than Bill Snyder. Look around the country. Name anyone that has been able to duplicate what Snyder did at K-State. What Snyder did may just be a thing only he could do, and only in the era that he did it in.

That's certainly laudable, but not something anyone should try to duplicate.

@teebee10

I noticed in your profile that you've only been on the board for a few months, so first, welcome aboard.

I used to do some amateur scouting with some friends of mine. Nothing serious, just evaluating players we saw from time to time. Every now and then, I evaluate highlights of different guys that KU is recruiting here. Generally, no one on these boards really knows those players, so it isn't a big deal one way or another. You can see some of that here, here, or here for Billy Preston, Marcus Garrett and Silvio De Sousa.

What I am doing is nothing personal against Ty. I don't know him personally. He seems to be a good person off the court from things I've heard other people say, and he's certainly a talented sophomore player.

As I noted, if I were evaluating him, based on what I have seen, that's what I would have in my report - I would want to do an in person, and I would want a follow up. From a scouting perspective, a follow up in person viewing is basically gold. Scouts don't bother to do an in person if they don't see talent. I see talent, certainly.

I saw his highlights. Ty is a skilled player, but Ty doesn't have the eyepopping athleticism of a guy like John Wall or Derrick Rose at the point coming out of HS. Granted, those guys were coming out of HS and Ty is still just a sophomore.

Now obviously, Ty is more than two years away from college. He could put on 30 pounds of muscle in the next couple of years without any problem, and not lose any agility while adding explosiveness and power.

If I were a scout, I would want to do an in person, and get a second opinion on what someone else thought of his skill and athleticism. He can play. He's a D1 recruit. But can he be productive at KU? That's a completely different question.

I watched some of his highlights from this season. He's definitely taller, although it doesn't look like he's gained much weight as he's grown. He's only a sophomore though, so that should come. He still needs to work on his leg strength/stamina/explosiveness (had a dunk he almost missed, and another one blocked against Buhler), but that should also come with time and some work in the weight room. He's still pretty lanky, so he can add the strength as he matures.

His shooting stroke has remained clean as he has grown, which is always important. Some kids lose their mechanics when they start growing, but his motion looks consistent with what I saw in the past, which is excellent since he was already a good shooter. Muscle memory has stayed intact as he has gotten taller.

The handle is solid. He's taller now, so he needs to tighten it up a bit if he's going to stay at the point in college, otherwise he will get moved to the wing to take advantage of his shooting ability. He has good hands and anticipation on defense, but its hard to say how that holds up in college against guys that won't make some of the outright mistakes that average HS players make. He reads the floor well, though so he should be easy to teach collegiate defensive concepts.

I don't have a very good read on his end to end speed. I just can't find a highlight that shows him in an outright dribble sprint from this season. He has good habits as he's pushing the ball up the floor (eyes up, scanning). Some of the lack of sprinting may simply be that he has to play at a speed that his teammates can also play at, which shows good understanding of the game and his role.

I'd like to see him against some other good guards, but I don't know that his league has any D1 level guards in it - Ben Pyle (McPherson) is a wing at the next level, Dylan Vincent (Eisenhower) is a fringe D1 talent. Just not a lot of chances to really compare him to the types of players he will see at the next level. It'd be nice if Newton had some Wichita City League teams on the schedule, but that's not in the cards.

If I were evaluating him based on what I've seen so far (freshman highlights, game highlights from three games this year), I'd mark him as has potential, but incomplete, needs follow up because I just don't have a good read on some of his skills from the highlights. If I were scouting him, I would definitely do an in person myself, and recommend a second opinion in person by someone else on staff.

Young doesn't want to beat you by himself. He's averaging 28 points and 10 assists. He's not monopolizing the action. On any given night, he's worth about 50 points when you count how he sets up his teammates. That's a huge factor in any game. That's why he can keep his team in any game.

He was worth over 50 against Wichita State, when you account for the fact that some of his assists were on threes. That's why OU is averaging a nationally leading 94 points a night. Young gives you 50 or better by himself, everyone else can account for 40-something. And with the gravity his shooting creates, guys like Christian James and Brady Manek have better looks at shots (James shooting 49% from the field this year vs. 36% last season - bet he understands what a difference playing with a great PG makes). Manek has an easy transition to college and is tossing in 11 and 5 while shooting over 50%. Kadeem Lattin also benefits, averaging a career best 9 and 8 on 59% shooting (shot 56% playing with Hield, then down to 52% last year without a good PG due to injury).

That's four guys that are playing at a really high level, two of whom have taken huge steps forward this year after disappointing seasons a year ago. All of that traces to Young. He has actually made Lattin and James better (or more accurately, gotten their best out of them).

KU should have offered Simone Award winner Ronnie Bell. He's a WR from Park Hill HS in the Kansas City area. Prior to a couple of days ago, he was committed to Missouri State to play basketball. He committed to Michigan this week. KU likely could have easily landed him had they offered him earlier in the fall, as he had zero D1 offers prior to winning the Simone (goes to the top HS football player in the KC metro area). Opportunity missed.

@BShark

Greene was athletic, but didn't have the usable athleticism that Cunliffe has. Cunliffe can tap into his athleticism in game situations rather than just the layup line.

Young's efficiency is what has my attention.

He has an effective FG% of 57%. His assist to turnover ratio is 2.7 to 1. He's shooting 58% from 2 point range, amazing for a guard his size.

That level of efficiency makes OU a factor all season because he can keep them in games and potentially win it at the end with his shooting.

@Barney

This tax plan will, by 2026, raise taxes on most all individuals earning less than $50,000. This is because while the rates go down, many deductions are eliminated. For example, the personal exemption is eliminated. This means that, although the child tax credit goes UP (from $1000 to $2000), the $4150 that you could claim in personal exemptions is gone, so a married couple with two kids would end up paying more because gaining the higher tax credit doesn't offset losing the exemption.

There are lots of little things like that in the bill. For every item that seems like a benefit for lower or middle income people, there's an offsetting item that hurts them just as much, meaning for most average people, their taxes won't go down, and as you go down the income ladder, the harm is greater because the deductions and exemptions that were eliminated are larger.

For example, that personal exemption is equal to nearly 10% for a household bringing in $45,000 a year. For a married couple here in Kansas with a couple kids, where that's the median income, losing out on that 16 grand in exemptions is much bigger than the bigger child credits and the 3% deduction in tax rate.

And remember, all of those rates for individuals revert back to the current levels in 2026. With how this bill affects the deficit, it is doubtful that Republicans will have the appetite to extend those (or make them permanent) at that point. Which means that even if you do get a small benefit right now, in 10 years you will give all of that back when the tax levels go back to what they are now, but you still don't have the deductions and exemptions that were eliminated in this bill.

There is very little chance that average Americans benefit from this bill after 2026, even if some of us do benefit now. My wife ran some preliminary numbers last week for us, I ran some more on Monday, and it looks like we will benefit in the short term. But this is still a bad bill overall. Chances are my parents, who are nearing retirement age, will get hit pretty hard by this bill. My wife's mother will as well with just a single income. My wife and I saving maybe a couple hundred dollars a year isn't worth seeing both of our parents lose out on hundreds as their taxes increase, or see their healthcare go up since the ACA mandate is repealed here.

That's not worth $200 a year to me. You're basically betting that whatever small benefits you gain this year will get extended in a decade, or that it won't be your problem by then. That's a losing bet if you ask me.

Edit: Just re-ran the numbers for my family against the final bill. My wife and I will see our taxes go down between 4% and 5%, then go up 0.2% when the current rates expire.

My parents will initially see their taxes go down by about 3%, but once they retire, their tax savings will shrink to 2%, then disappear after 2026, when their taxes will also go back up by 0.2%

My wife's mom will see her taxes go down very slightly (between 1% and 2%), then go back up in 2026.

I can't really account for how the ACA mandate repeal will affect my family or our aging parents, but my guess is that it will not be a benefit.

Good scorers go through periods where they miss shots. Good players always play hard.

That's a big deal.

Newman has been playing hard. His shot has been off for reasons I can't quite diagnose, but he's been working in the other aspects of the game.

He's grabbing 4.5 rebounds per game. For his struggles, his shooting percentages are still holding steady. He hasn't gotten to the rim like I expected, but he's been very solid. Remember, at MSU, he averaged less than 3 rebounds and just 2.2 assists per game. He's exceeding both those figures at KU, all while shooting a higher percentage.

I think part of his struggle is that he hasn't yet found the best driving lanes. Once he does that, look out. Remember those 30 point explosions from the EuroTrip? That's coming, people. Be warned, Big XII - Malik Newman is coming. He just hasn't done it yet, but some unsuspecting team is going to experience Newman slashing them to shreds. He already has more blocks and more steals than he did at MSU.

Newman is a player trying to stay within the team, but he will explode at some point.

If De Sousa, Preston and Cunliffe are all available after January 1, this is a much different team (in a lot of good ways). We can basically throw out what happened prior to now, because that's three high level players becoming available.

That A&M game gets very interesting as far as evaluating the ceiling of KU.

Here's the truth about the economy - tax policy is a small part of the overall economy.

Businesses at all levels operate on a supply and demand model. You could have a 0% tax rate, and companies won't expand if demand does not increase. They will not create more jobs. They will not expand their facilities. They will not buy more supplies. If demand is stagnant, the business will stand pat, regardless of tax rates.

If demand increases, businesses will expand. You could have a 50%+ tax rate, but if the market is growing, the business will expand to keep up with the demand. They will not simply "punt" on capturing that customer demand. That's the honest truth.

Corporate profits are at an all time high right now, but wage growth has stagnated. Basically, while corporations have raked in record profits, they have not raised wages. There was a study that says that millenials are, for the first time since WWII, the first generation that faces the dilemma that they will not earn more than their parents.

Remember, millenials grew up seeing their parents laid off as various bubbles (dot com, real estate, energy, etc.) burst, leaving their parents without jobs, or laid off, then re-hired at a fraction of the salary. This generation is now entering the work world with very few worker protections, as many states have stripped down health and safety regulations in an effort to be "pro-business", and lower starting salaries relative to inflation than previous generations have seen.

Many of these new workers are entering the work force as contractors, meaning they don't have benefits, and they don't have a clear path of advancement. This model allows businesses to hire workers without having to worry about promoting internally because the contract workers are not a part of the company, and thus are outside the regular chain of promotion.

Let's be honest for a second - the stock market tells us how good US companies are doing. It does not tell us how well the overall economy is doing because it does not tell us how well workers are doing, how much income is being realized, and whether that income is flowing only to the top of the pyramid, or if it is flowing to the lower level and entry level workers.