I've said before and I will say again, if Grimes was classified as a PG (his future NBA position), he would be one of the top 7 players in his class. As a 2 guard, you can understand why scouts are less high on him (he's only 6-4, which makes him a bit small as a prototype wing player). But if he's a PG, he's probably the #6 player in this class - he passes Quickley, Garland, and Jones because he's bigger, plus Bazley, Simons, Johnson, and Shittu based on the value of PG above non-elite PF and wings. He doesn't pass Barrett, Langford, Reddish, or Williamson because they are elite players, and doesn't pass Bol Bol because he's a C (and probably elite or very close to it).
justanotherfan
3643 posts
wissox said:
- What I stated in 3 leads to a double standard because 'protected classes' who are victims will see their attacker charged with hate crimes while reverse cases won't. I saw this once in Baton Rouge where a person was told you don't belong in this neighborhood (African American majority) and beaten severely along with his wife and daughter who defended him. No hate crime added to that despicable mans charges.
Anyhow, these are thoughts that irk me when I hear this term thrown around. What do you or others think?
I just saw this category and wanted to focus on this one issue to clear up something legally. Hate crimes do in fact protect classes, but protected classes aren't specific races or people, but rather categories.
In other words, a crime motivated by a person's race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation (some states), gender identity (some states), etc. is a hate crime. You do not have to be in a minority group to be protected. This is a common misconception. If a bunch of minorities attack a white person based on their race, that can be classified as a hate crime.
Now, many prosecutors actually do not like charging hate crimes because in addition to proving the actual crime, you have to prove the targeting based on membership in the protected class.
Because of this additional requirement of proof, many prosecutors focus on just charging the underlying crime itself unless the motive is clear (usually based on possession of a manifesto, membership in a hate group or something else) because prosecutors ultimately want to get the conviction. No one wants a vicious crime to result in an acquittal simply because they couldn't prove that the motive was membership in a protected class. Obviously, I don't know if that was the case in the example you presented, but it may have been.
Coleby looked like he was dragging around an anchor last season. Good for him that he's recovered enough to really play to his potential. This KU squad could probably use someone like him, honestly.
If KU shoots the ball like they could on their best day, they are basically unbeatable. You can't do much if KU hits 17-20 threes. On the other hand, this team is vulnerable to a cold spell that could doom them against a far inferior team.
No way Svi and Vick will be able to sustain that level of play. They will probably settle in around 115 or so (still very good, but over 140 is otherworldly). Once competition picks up the efficiency based stats like PER will start to even out.
It does confirm what the eye test has shown - the Hawks are playing a high level of basketball right now, and should only improve once a couple more pieces are added in.
I think Davis was trying to make a very simple point. Here's a coach that knew going into the game that his team was going to be overmatched by KU. He was asked a classic coachspeak question about picking your poison, and he replied in a simple way that conveyed both his respect for KU's talent, and his frustration at not having an answer - "they all poison".
Could he have used proper grammar and said "All of the players at the University of Kansas are talented enough offensively to be considered poisonous to the opponent."
Sure, but that seems silly.
Remember Jim Mora's "Playoffs? Don't talk about—playoffs?! You kidding me? Playoffs?!" rant. That's not perfect English, but it conveys the point perfectly.
Let's remember, language is about conveying ideas. Sometimes, those ideas are best conveyed through the use of the grammatical rules because the discussion is in a formal setting. At other times, the formality can be discarded to convey an idea through colloquialism, knowing that the audience will understand the point. This is often done to be humorous or sarcastic. That's all Davis was doing here.
My point was not that not shaking hands wasn't a big deal to me personally. The times when we as officials did not have the captains shake hands, it was at the request of the coaches, not something that we as officials decided (most times, we were not involved in that sort of stuff). We just abided by the request.
Obviously, that's not what happened here, but again, pregame handshake is, for me at least, not that important. As I said, I can be okay with them not shaking hands, but being a team that appeared to take cheapshots during the game was something that I couldn't accept. That was what made me mad at Beaty and the team. You can be a crappy team that's overmatched and I would be patient. You can't take cheap shots. That's low class.
Devonte is a great catch and shoot player. On the ball, he's not going to get as many catch and shoot opportunities, but they will come with time as defenses begin to rotate and he's left open. When that happens, the scoring will come. Until then, making sure that Svi, Vick, Newman, Azuibuke, etc. are all averaging double figures is perfectly fine with me. He will be there when we need him, provided he doesn't wear down with all of the minutes.
Here's my thing. On the scale of sportsmanship, things like late hits and other dangerous plays that could injure people, shaking hands before the game is a relatively small thing. If not for all the other stuff, the pregame shenanigans probably wouldn't have amounted to anything.
Like I said, when I used to officiate, we had a few games where things were chippy between the two teams, so they did not shake hands before the game, but played a clean game. I've also seen situations where rivals shook hands before the game, there was bumping, etc., and before you knew it, things were escalating during the game.
As an official at the time, I would rather the teams not shake hands and keep it clean than shake hands in a show of "sportsmanship theater", then get into a chippy, cheapshot filled game.
Should KU have shaken hands with OU - yeah, they should have. But I can live with the fact that they didn't. I cannot tolerate what I would consider to be dirty play.
I didn't mean to imply that the late hits were "planned". But the late hits, IMHO may have grown from a targeting of Mayfield that KU players decided they were going to "get" him. That's what I meant by saying if Beaty implied that KU wanted to be physical and tough, and that's how the players took it, its time to re-examine that approach. If that attitude came from not shaking hands, then that's on Beaty as well.
I just know that when I was officiating football, we had a couple of games where because of rivalries and such, the teams did not shake hands pre-game to avoid any back and forth between them. Helped keep things at bay rather than letting things get started before kickoff.
I didn't care about the pregame handshake thing. Not a big deal.
The late hits bother me, though. That's dangerous and stupid. I've been backing Beaty for a while, but the late hit stuff makes me re-think that support. If Beaty thinks being physical and tough means taking late hits and stupid penalties, KU will never improve under his leadership. He's just going to get people hurt for no reason.
I am officially reversing course on Beaty. This may need to be his last year at KU.
It's hard to see if Allen got hit, but that doesn't mean he didn't get hit. A fingernail to the eye can do some damage.
Tech could be a top 3 team in the Big 12, particularly if WVU is down more than we anticipated earlier this year. They brought back a lot of experience from a pretty good team.
Lightfoot was an exceptional HS player. Anyone with the ability to play any time at KU as a freshman was undoubtedly an exceptional HS player. That does not ensure that a player will be a college star. There are several recent Kansas POY that are barely playing at all at the D1 level. That doesn't happen as often in the larger states, but in a state like Kansas or Arizona where there may only be a dozen or so legitimate D1 hoops prospects, there can be years where the top player is not a surefire D1 starter.
Mitch Ballock was the top player in Kansas last year. He's getting 20 minutes a game for a solid Creighton team this year. For most POY, that's a great outcome. Sure, some will be stars in college or even make it to the NBA, but most will play in college a bit, then go on to a different career.
The instant he made the jump to the NBA, I knew Stevens wouldn't return to college. Coaching in the NBA is actually less of a headache than college. The NBA guys are pros. The stars actually do more to maintain their own health and discipline than anyone else. Look at how the best pros prepare in the offseason - different diets, workouts, trainers, etc. That's their livelihood on the line. The best take that seriously.
College guys just aren't at that level in terms of preparation. Self gets a call about Preston having a car accident and he has to deal with it as the head coach. Pro coaches don't have to do that. They don't have to recruit. The only thing they have to do is prepare for basketball and win. They don't have to deal with the extra stuff.
The stud PGs in this class were spread out around the country. Not just on the coasts or in the deep south.
Here's the list of states with top 50 PGs - Minnesota, Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Illinois, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Missouri (also one from Canada).
None on the west coast this year, but the entire eastern part of the country is pretty well covered. Add in some combo guards that are also pretty well distributed across the country, and you have an opportunity for a lot of programs to have a shot at a really good lead guard.
@RockkChalkk beat me to it, but given his degree program and the fact that he has no pro aspirations, I think Mitch may be open to having a year where he can really focus on academics, which gives him a chance to finish his degree, play four years, have a little fun and leave school without much in the way of debt. It's certainly something that they should consider talking to him about. He can provide depth in 2019 and 2020, and it benefits him as well.
There are some spread offenses that focus more on the run than the pass. It's basically a spread option attack, with things like end arounds, jet sweeps, etc. to utilize the receivers in the run game, as well as screens and other short passes in the passing game (basically just like runs). You have to keep more DBs on the field because there are always 3 or 4 receivers on the field and you don't want LBs isolated in space against those shifty guys, but it takes people out of the box, allowing you to pound the ball inside if you want to.
I think that sort of attack could work with what KU has (and the types of players they can recruit).
And tell me he doesn't make you think that this could be LeGerald Vick in another few years.
[link text](
That's Tony Snell, now a starter for the Milwaukee Bucks, with his highlights when he was at New Mexico. He just signed a 4 year, $46M contract this offseason. That could be Vick in 4 years. Snell is a bit bigger (6-7), but they are very similar athletically and body type.
Snell was a better shooter in college than Vick probably is, but Snell was also the star and the focal point in his team's offense. Vick won't really change roles once he gets to the NBA like Snell had to. It opens up a nice opportunity for him to be not a superstar, but a really good contributor.
With Grimes, it really doesn't make a huge difference what Vick's decision is. That's why landing Grimes was so important. If Vick comes back, you're thinking about a truly great team. If Vick goes, you're still really, really good.
Right now, as of this moment, KU has the following roster for next season:
Guards - Garrett, Cunliffe, Moore, Grimes, Dotson
Forwards - Lightfoot, K. Lawson, D. Lawson, De Sousa, McCormack
You can mix and match that group as much as you want.
Go small with the Lawson's, Garrett, Grimes and either Dotson or Moore.
Go Big with Garrett, Grimes, the Lawson's and McCormack or De Sousa.
Traditional lineup with Moore, Grimes, K. Lawson, De Sousa, McCormack
Everybody's basically the same size lineup of Garrett, Cunliffe, Grimes, and the Lawson's. You could switch everything with this group. I'm not sure many teams could actually match up with this group on the floor on both ends. Maybe nobody could.
And that's without Vick. And without Azuibuke. Add those guys in, probably approach Lightfoot about redshirting, and you have a legitimate 11 deep team. Look at that group again. Cunliffe is probably the guard that won't play much, but I think he's going to play solid minutes on this year's team (and do well). De Sousa is probably the least ready, but if he joins the team at semester this year, he could be much more ready to contribute as a soph.
Beaty has to get the numbers back in line. If you don't take a step forward in year four, you can him if he doesn't make it happen year five. But the numbers have to come back first.
I look at UK and I know two things
-
Kevin Knox and Wenyen Gabriel won't shoot below 27% each all year. They just won't do it. They are too good to play that poorly all year. Be ready for a course correction at some point.
-
UK won't be this disjointed on both ends all year. Too much talent to not put together better stretches, even if it doesn't last a full game.
Bottom line, KU has the advantage here, this isn't a team of superheroes. But Kentucky will be better than they have been through two games - but probably not enough to win. KU by 4.
Wigginton and Jackson haven't been good at all this year. They were supposed to provide some offense. If those two aren't giving them 25+ a night, I don't know where they get points. They aren't even going to be particularly good on the offensive glass this year, so if they can't shoot it, they don't even really have the option of throwing it up and chasing it.
If KU fires Beaty now, they basically guarantee the next coach will fail as well.
KU hasn't had enough job stability for the head coach to even have a chance to recruit. When Beaty started, he had less than 60 scholarship players on the roster. The FCS division can award 63 full scholarships. D2 can award 36. KU was somewhere between a D2 and FCS program when Beaty took over, and that showed on the field. KU is now fielding over 70 scholarship players. Still not quite a D1 level, but closer than what we saw two years ago.
Fire Beaty now, KU will probably be back below 60 again next year, starting all over.
Football is a numbers game. If you go to a HS game and count the number of players that dress for varsity, and then count the number of players that actually play, more times than not, the team that has the higher numbers wins because unless you have 8 of the best 10 or 12 guys on the field, numbers matter too much in football. It's just too important to have subs and get quality practice reps against strong backups. If you only have 60 guys at the D1 level, that means you don't even have a full three deep, which probably means your two deep is very thin. Some of your starters are probably only good backups, and some of your backups should be third stringers, which means your third stringers are redshirt guys and your redshirt guys should be walk ons, etc.
KU can't start over next year. That will lead to this same conversation in the Fall of 2020 when we wonder why we can't get consistent performance in year 3.
They are. The NCAA did not take away any games or events that had already been awarded. The D2 football championship has been held in KCK the last few years.
Those sites can't bid for future events, which means KCK and Wichita will miss the next round of bids.
That law already cost Kansas and a few other states the opportunity to host games in the NCAA tournament. You can say what you will, but the money isn't flowing away from the states that don't have those types of laws. Not trying to turn this political (we have had this debate already and I don't want to re-start it here), but the NCAA and pro sports leagues have stated their position on this. Its up to the individual states to decide how they want to respond, and whether hosting NCAA events and pro events like the draft and the all star game (as well as other events like conventions and such) is important to the local economy or not.
Vick is the classic 3 and D wing in the current NBA. He can guard any position on the perimeter, can handle the ball a little bit and can shoot it. If he gets a bit better from the corners, he has a 12 year NBA career waiting for him, maybe not as a starter, but certainly in the league as a rotation player.
Best case scenario, he turns into a Tony Snell/Danny Green type of player. Worst case he ends up inconsistent on both ends and washes out of the league in three or four years.
I forgot about the California law.
Without the ability to do Home and Home, that limits KU's options. That's out of their control obviously, but I doubt the legislature backs off that position anytime soon.
Guys making idiotic decisions that will have a huge affect on them. It's likely all three will be banned from traveling to China in the future, plus whatever criminal penalties China lays out, and whatever penalties UCLA gives out. Probably will cost all three a significant part of their freshman year, if not the entire year by the time everything plays out.
Just an amazingly stupid thing to do.
Play Mizzou every year in KC. It's a marquee game that would almost certainly get national TV exposure.
Find a way to get in games against a West Coast team (UCLA? Oregon?) each year, plus a game with an East Coast team (Virginia? Georgetown? Syracuse?). Just find more ways to expand the brand.
I'm okay with a 20 something point win. No need to over exert anyone tonight trying to run guys out of the gym. More than anything, you just want execution and effort. This is really building towards the first real test against UK.
Those jamborees are weird. It's not really a full game - they reset the score at each break, but the rotations may be weird (starters may play most of the first 13 or 14 minutes, then backups play against the next group). As a result, UNC's backups may have faced UNC-G's starters for the majority of that matchup. If you isolate a 13 or 14 minute stretch against a lot of teams, KU probably "lost" some games against teams they ultimately beat by 8-10 points.
I'm taking everything we know into account.
I've talked to mental health professionals over the last few years. One of the things they say is that we often look at the symptom (in Bragg's case, substance use and possible substance abuse) and conclude that the symptom is the problem. We treat the symptom (substance use and abuse) through AA or other programs, but never deal with the root problem.
That often leads to a person that was previously coping through alcohol or drugs becoming unstable, and then people wonder why this person who "just got sober and had things looking up" had everything suddenly fall apart. It's because the underlying issue (depression, anxiety, etc.) was never addressed. Just the thing that stuck out that everyone could see.
This knowledge has made me try to be much more aware of that, particularly in an industry (in my case, the legal field) where substance abuse is high and often masks underlying problems. We have to de-stigmatize mental health issues. It's socially okay to go and get help for drug or alcohol use and abuse, but we poke fun at people that need help for depression, stress, anxiety, etc. That has to change.
Like I said before, I don't know specifics on Bragg's situation, but I see signs that suggest he may have some underlying issues that he is masking with drugs and drinking. Should he get help with the drugs and drinking? Of course! But he also needs help with any underlying issues he may have to be sure that the problems are not multiplied when he gets rid of his coping mechanism but feels the same way.
We have all talked about how "happy" Bragg seemed even off the court, even as he struggled with his play. Yet his play was uneven and inconsistent. A bong was found in his room. Rumors of drug use and some heavy drinking.
He leaves school, but rather than return home, he goes further away, both from home and from where he was.
When you look at the facts through this lens, that looks more like a potential mental health issue (anxiety? depression?) than substance abuse or dependency.
How many people that "looked" happy turned out to be depressed, anxious or stressed behind closed doors?
Its a pet peeve of mine as well when big guys don't DUNK the basketball. If you have been blessed to be big and strong, you should use that in a game that rewards size and strength the way that basketball does. If you're built like Shaq, you shouldn't play like Isaiah Thomas. Sometimes, I think being that big at a young age hinders guys in their development because they pick up tons of fouls early in life when kids that aren't as big and strong get knocked over by them.
A lot of times, that makes them timid around the basket (avoiding contact, etc). Its a flaw in the way kids develop at the earliest stages that takes years to un-teach.
Big guys should always take the BALL to the APPARATUS.
I would argue that the biggest slice of pie with Bragg could be emotional issues (i.e. depression). Maybe he smokes when he's down because it eases his mind. Perhaps he struggles with anxiety. Those are things I don't know. But I agree with @jaybate-1-0 that weed could be more of a symptom than the underlying problem.
I talked about addiction initially because I know Bragg has been rumored to drink quite a bit sometimes. But even that could be symptomatic of underlying emotional issues.
This country as a whole hasn't done well with de-stigmatizing emotional health issues in a way that allows people to get help. One such issue could be addiction. In Bragg's case, I do not know. For others, substance dependence is a coping mechanism (self medication). Again, with Bragg, this is all just guessing from the outside. If Bragg is taking his time away to get some help for something like that, I applaud the young man for recognizing the issue and getting some help. As much as we in society tend to associate mental health issues with weakness, it takes an incredible amount of strength to recognize and admit that struggle, and then get some help.
I think 55% from the line for Doke is extremely optimistic. He's shooting stroke is not that great, and he doesn't exactly have "touch" around the rim. It's going to take another couple of years to smooth that out to make him a passable FT shooter. If he can get around 50% then he at least won't be an automatic foul any time he catches near the rim. Either that, or he has to dunk guys through the rim so they are afraid to take a foul.
I have never liked 3rd place games. I have seen a few on the HS side, and they are just brutal to watch. Typically, the team that wins is the team with lots of returning players. If you have several potential NBA draftees on the team, do you play them in a game that does not mean much? The season is over at that point. The risk of injury is far higher.
I know some coaches that have limited minutes for seniors in HS to protect them from injury. You don't want a kid with a college scholarship tearing his or her ACL in the third place game. I've seen lots of teams just sleepwalk their way through those games, either because of the disappointment, or because its hard to get back up for that game for a veteran team that less than 24 hours before thought they had a chance at a title.
The singular danger with lack of depth is that any one injury to Doke, Preston, Graham or Newman probably sinks this team. We could probably survive without Svi or Vick for a period of time (nothing long term), but anything more than one game without the other four and we are probably done. We really can't have any of those first four not playing at a high level. We just don't have the pieces around them to back that up unless Young Lightfoot becomes a Big Foot.
That said, there are openings around the country. I don't see a truly great team on the landscape, so this could be the year where a team with little depth makes a deep run. Last year's team had more top end talent, but this year's team has its talent more evenly distributed, despite the fact that the talent is basically the top 7 guys, with nothing behind door number 8.
True, but it is tough to evaluate in a scrimmage. I watched the game, which was crisp at times, disjointed at others. I liked what I saw, but I need to see more, particularly in the half court against a set and locked in defense. That is typically where freshmen struggle.
The question is whether Bragg has a personality that lends itself to addiction - be it pot, pills, alcohol, or something else. That is the danger for the young man, moreso than any argument we can have about the morality/danger of weed.
There is a certain percentage of people that have addictive personalities. For those people, it is always a risk that they may become addicted, whether it is to a substance, an activity, etc. They are always chasing and relying on that high.
I am concerned that Bragg may be one of those people, and I hope that he gets the help that he needs so that he doesn't wind up as an alcoholic (whether functional or not), serial drug abuser, or otherwise. This isn't really a basketball thing. This is this young man's whole life we are talking about, even if he never takes another jumpshot or grabs another rebound.
I need to see Garrett up against some bigger guards and wings to fully grade him out. He looks good in HS and against Pitt State, but that's against much smaller guards who he can physically overmatch. I think he passes the eye test, but he hasn't really been tested yet. Not even sure UK will be a good test with their current injury situation. We may not have a good feel on Garrett until mid December after he has several games under his belt.
No reason for Graham to play a lot in exhibition games. He will play a ton - no need for extra miles right now. Play him just enough to be ready for UK.
It is exactly the same. 10 wins for each over that period. Averaging two wins a year is basically averaging a Sweet 16 every season. That's pretty lofty.
I'd argue that WSU is not in a spurt with a "core group". They have been to the tournament every year since 2012. They have basically an entire roster turnover since their Final Four team in 2013. I agree that if Marshall leaves, you have to re-evaluate them, but the fact that they move conferences now, while they are on this run could help them recruit to sustain this if Marshall does ever leave.
WSU has 10 NCAA tournament wins in the last five years. That's pretty impressive, particularly for a team that has been a double digit seed twice in that stretch.
They had their best recruiting class under Marshall this year, their star PG is a sophomore. WSU has the pieces in place to continue to be good under Marshall for the foreseeable future. Maybe not national title good, but WSU could certainly become the midwest version of Gonzaga or Villanova. They have enough Koch money to compete for recruits, particularly in a better conference now.
They aren't a national power, exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were in the Sweet 16 every other year or so.
The major difference with those other in-state games is that those games are already in strong recruiting territory, or are nationally recognized games. UK-UL is a national level game between two blue bloods or near blue bloods (11 national titles between them). Other than UK-UL, the rest of those games are conference games anyway. Adding a non-con game in-state with a non blue blood doesn't necessarily serve a purpose.
I'm not against playing WSU per se, but the other question is where you play the game. I want the KU-MU game because you would play it in KC every year as an event rather than just a random non-con game. Home and home doesn't make sense for that kind of thing. KC doesn't make sense, either. There's nowhere else in the state to play that game.
Home and home does make sense if you're getting out into another recruiting territory.
@Kcmatt7 I actually believe KU would be better served to play more away games in non-con. AFH is the best home court/field advantage in sports. But to prepare for the tournament, KU needs to get away from there and play tough teams. If that means heading down to Wichita every other year, I'm not against it, although I am more for taking that trip to somewhere else. KU plays one true road game (at Nebraska) and another semi road game (Stanford in Sacramento).
I understand the economics, but KU needs to get out on the road and into a hostile environment a little bit more often.
Now that WSU is in the American Conference, they are certainly a worthy opponent.
The question is, what does KU gain? When I look at scheduling for KU, one of the things I consider is whether the game will attract interest outside the state of Kansas. That's why I am higher on playing Mizzou than WSU. A KU-WSU non NCAA game doesn't necessarily matter outside the state borders. Because Kansas (the state) is so small, KU needs games on the non-con schedule that matter outside the state borders for recruiting purposes. That's why you play Oakland (in Detroit), Stanford (California), Arizona State (Arizona, obviously for Mitch's homecoming) and others. I would be in favor of playing one of the Chicago area schools (key recruiting pipeline), or Memphis (basketball hotbed).
We play in Texas enough during the conference season that we don't necessarily need to play any of those schools down there, but I am all for playing schools outside the geographic area. WSU would be a good game for sure, and I believe they are a worthy opponent, but would that game be on TV anywhere outside of Kansas/Kansas City, or would it just be a regional game on a Saturday afternoon?
If KU were to start scheduling a school from the American, I'd much rather it be Temple, Cincinnati or Memphis than WSU because that gets us into other areas. Heck, we should probably schedule one of the Florida schools now that we are getting more guys from IMG (located just south of Tampa). That probably has more draw than a WSU game. Sure, KU is on national TV already, but adding a non-con game that might not be a top regional game if WSU slips even a little bit isn't the best idea.
Beaty needs to get the team to execute and compete this week. They haven't competed the last two games. Getting beat is one thing - failing to compete is embarrassing.
I worry about the young man and if he is dealing with emotional issues/ depression. I've wondered that since he was at KU. I hope he finds the answers (and hope) that he needs.