It was an awesome run that probably can't be duplicated. This was the right group of players at the right time. It was a perfect storm.
The Royals have to rebuild now, but if they are smart with their draft picks and international signings, they could be right back in the hunt in a few years.
The flag is supposed to be a symbol of freedom, an expression of the ideals that, to quote "all men are created equal".
As government employees, police officers hold a special place in our society. They are to uphold the law and administer justice. Justice, we are told, is blind. It doesn't care who you are, the color of your skin, your religion, gender, income or anything else. It looks only at what you have done.
Except that the point of the protests is that police behavior has not been blind, but biased. Biased in a way that people are dying. Let me type that again so we are clear.
biased in a way that people are dying
Police misconduct is especially dangerous and damaging to society because if the police are acting inappropriately, who do you call? Who watches the watchmen?
And that is the crux of the protest. Its a symbol of freedom amd justice to fly the flag, but that freedom and justice is being perverted by a few bad apples that abuse the power and responsibility that comes with the badge and the oath they take.
And yet, rather than address that, many are critical of those who would hold these bad apples to the meaning of their oath, or worse, tell those protesting that they are the enemies of freedom and justice by calling attention to this injustice.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Silence isn't an option because it ensures that nothing will change.
Black on black crime is certainly a problem within the African American community, but guess what - it is prosecuted and punished. Do you realize how rare it is for a police officer to be prosecuted and convicted for a shooting while on duty?
That's the reason for the protest. Its not just that minorities are being killed by police - its that their deaths are not being punished. That's the whole point of Black Lives Matter - that if you kill a black person without justification, their life should matter enough that the killer is brought to justice, even if that killer wears a badge and a uniform.
You can do whatever you want during the anthem. But patriotism is not fulfilled by putting your hand over your heart or standing at attention. Patriotism is representing the ideals of justice and freedom for all. If you're not interested in that, your standing for a song and a banner is just an empty gesture, like buying your wife flowers on the way home from your seeing your mistress.
An NBA minor league doesn't have to be profitable. It just has to develop players better. The league itself is profitable enough to invest in a development system that it controls. Profit is secondary.
College sports, if they cease to be profitable, require a complete restructuring. An NBA minor league can operate at a loss because the parent club can subsidize it. A college cannot do the same over the long term.
Every college administrator in the country hope's you're absolutely right and that I'm dead wrong.
Minor leagues aren't generally popular because you have to pay the athletes while having much lower revenues than the pros.
You posted some figures. Let's add a little context. Charlotte Hornets average a bit over 17k per game over 41 home dates. UNC averaged 18k over 16 home dates. That means UNC drew a total of 293k for the season, while Charlotte drew 710k. Could college basketball be viable over a longer season with fewer marquee games? Plus, you're comparing a pretty middle of the road NBA team to the national champions.
And then there's arena size. The Dean Dome seats 21,750. The Hornets arena (Spectrum Arena) seats 19,077. The Hornets were at almost 91% capacity for their games. The Heels were at about 84% capacity for theirs. Every NBA team last year but 5 was higher than 84% capacity for their home games. In the ACC alone, six league schools draw less than 70% capacity. And that's for one of the premiere leagues in the nation!
Only 11 NCAA teams drew more than 15,000 per game in 2016. Once you get past the top programs, the drop off is real and very fast. 43 schools average more than 10,000 fans. TCU (ranked 99th in attendance) averaged right about 5300. College basketball is hugely popular at the biggest basketball schools - Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Louisville, Syracuse, Indiana, etc.
A pretty good program in a major conference like Minnesota or West Virginia draws a little less than 11,000.
The model is sustainable only because the players aren't paid. That's why there's so much money out there.
Minor league teams draw like colleges would draw if the best players went elsewhere. I know I am in the minority in that opinion, but you don't have to look that far. If you look at the history of college hoops you will see that the money wasn't there (relative to today) as recently as the late 1980s. There's nothing that says CBB will remain this overwhelmingly popular (particularly if the level of play drops) at the biggest schools. Even a 5% erosion in attendance would be huge, particularly as you move down from the top 10 or 15.
I would venture to guess that a lot of college sports fans aren't alums of the schools. I didn't go to KU, but I am a KU fan. KU has thousands of fans that didn't attend. If every school only had fans that were alums, the viewership would resemble D2 programs much more closely. That changes the math on profitability.
The new "top 15" would not necessarily be all that much better than the next 100 guys.
As I have said many times, once you get past the top 30-40 players, the talent level begins to really flatten out. By the time you get into the 60s, the guy ranked #60 may not be discernibly better than the guy ranked 125th. The guy ranked 100th may develop more than the guy ranked 70th. These are all 4 year guys at that point, so getting the new #1 recruit (really the 50th or 51st guy in his class) may not be any advantage because that guy isn't much (if any better) than the guy ranked 70th or 80th.
You might see better execution of collegiate schemes, as @JayHawkFanToo posits, but because of the way basketball is, you can't fake talent. At the end of the day, you can run all the pretty plays in the world, somebody still has to put the ball in the basket. Except most of those "put the ball in the basket" guys won't be around.
I would still watch, but I would probably skip more games. Part of tuning in (for me anyway) is to watch the playmakers because basketball is very hard to watch without playmakers.
That means the quality of play is going to drop off. A school like KU no longer has the huge advantage in talent because there aren't any five star guys to recruit. There aren't a ton of four stars. For example, take Josh Jackson, Udoka and maybe Vick off last year's squad. Our lineup is Svi, Graham, Mason, Coleby and Lucas (or Lightfoot and Lucas). That's a major downgrade in skill.
We laugh when the Big Ten has games that score in the 50s. That would be much more common in CBB because the talent wouldn't be there to push the ball and score over solid positional defense. People would be asking "what can be done to make CBB more exciting?" and complaining about pace (lots more teams would be holding the ball through the shot clock). It would change the aesthetic of the game.
I would be careful of being too critical of the OAD rule.
I posted an article last week about the NBA possibly starting "basketball academies" similar to the soccer academies in Europe run by the pro clubs. If this happens, big time college hoops as we know it is done. These academies would funnel the best talent directly into the GLeague (formerly DLeague), with only players that likely don't have a pro future routed to college. The talent level of the top colleges would drop to the mid major level.
The only way to stave that off is to become a part of the system because the talent is always going to flow to the money. There's no reason why the schools, coaches and administrators should get rich while the players act as cogs in the money making machine. It's assumed that the status quo will remain because its the status quo, but if the NBA decides they want more control of the development track, college basketball falls away.
I've written many times before that the NBA has little use for a lot of the strategies employed at the collegiate level. Because of that, college basketball is not the ideal development environment for the NBA. If the NBA were to take on its own development environment (something that is clearly being contemplated), college hoops is now outside that circle. That is a plus for amateurism, but a huge minus for big time college athletics, especially considering that this would come with the opportunity for a lot of the top players to sign pro contracts right out of HS (similar to soccer) even if they go play in the GLeague for a year or two.
If I had to choose between the two, I would pick Grimes. You can never have enough ball handlers. True, Langford is one of those scorers that could glide his way to 30 on any given night. He could end up being a superstar. So my preference isn't even necessarily that Grimes is hands down the better player. Honestly, I'm not sure either is "hands down" better than the other.
It's just that Grimes can fit with any combination of players. He can slide into a ball handling role if we have a ton of wings. If we land a guy like Dotson, Grimes slots nicely as a wing. If Vick stays, he can be the secondary ball handler. Langford is a true 2. He will be the starting shooting guard wherever he goes. But if you lack ball handlers, Langford isn't going to slide into that role. He may be the better player (reasonable people can disagree on that), but he is not the more versatile one (Grimes can fit in any scheme with any personnel group - he's a smaller version of Josh Jackson in that respect. Put him on the floor with four other guys and he will find a way to fit).
I'd take Grimes over Langford, but would prefer both because that would be one heck of a backcourt.
I think we can pretty safely assume Self and KU will average 30 wins a year for the next 5 years. 36 is pretty aggressive unless KU is getting to the Elite Eight or better every season.
That probably leaves Self somewhere in the 560s for wins at KU, and in the 770s for overall wins. At that point, the question for Self is if he tries to win 800 overall (top 10 all time), which would only require probably one more season of work. If that's the case, does Self chase 800, knowing he would be very close at that point. He needs better than 35 wins a season over the next five to get to 800 in that time, so it's likely he needs 6 years to get to 800 career wins.
If he decides to coach more like 8 or 9 more years, 900 wins is out there for him (31 wins a year for the next 9 seasons gets him there). That would put him ahead of everyone except Coach K, Boeheim and probably Roy Williams (Williams is at 816 now, so if he coaches 3 more years, he probably crosses 900). If Williams doesn't get to 900 for one reason or another (he is 67 already), then Self could potentially be top 3 all time in wins in less than a decade, and no matter what Williams does, if Self sticks around, he will probably be top 4 in 9 years. That's got to be a tempting thought in the back of his mind if he's sitting at 775 or so at the end of his current deal.
Of course, he's already a hall of famer so his place in history is safe (assuming no scandals a la Pitino), but if he stays at KU (he's won 147 in the last 5 years, and has won as many as 165 in a five year period (2007-2011), there are some pretty impressive benchmarks he could hit.
I would agree with most of what's in that article. I would probably go a step further and start talking to Grimes about playing in the backcourt with Langford. There's a video of a shooting contest between Grimes and Langford on youtube. Langford's stroke is much cleaner - it's also notable that he's at least an inch or so taller than Grimes, which matches up with the reports that Grimes is 6-4ish, while Langford is between 6-5 and 6-6.
Grimes' best future is playing on the ball. If he's a wing player, he's a dime a dozen at the next level. At 6-4, he's a big PG that could be a game changer. It all depends on whether Grimes wants to peak as a very good college player, or as a very good NBA player.
If Grimes and Langford both come to KU, look out. I didn't really have Langford on the radar because he was headed to Louisville, but if he flips, this whole investigation could really turn college hoops on its ear because there could be more changes coming.
Not saying we will win against Baylor (or anyone else from here on). Just that its our best chance outside of Iowa State and maybe Tech if we can move the ball and our secondary steps up. Probably the max we can do is get 3 wins this year, but I would take one more just to give Beaty something to build on in the spring.
Even if Langford flipped to KU, I would still want Grimes to join him. Langford is a "true 2". He's not going to slide over and run the point, although his handle is solid. He needs to play with a PG. Garrett could be workable in that role, but I would love a combo of Langford and Grimes - I could see Langford, Grimes and Garrett all on the floor together.
Not sure how this all plays out. There could be several dominoes to fall with everything that is coming out.
Also, just wanted to post this link of a Green Beret talking about his conversation with Colin Kaepernick where he encouraged Kaepernick to kneel rather than sit during the anthem.
Obviously its from last year, but I thought it might give a different perspective from a military guy that actually spoke to Kaepernick about his protest.
I don't see how Maryland lands any sort of "fab five". Maybe a "kinda okay five", but that doesn't have the same ring to it.
The original Fab Five were ranked the following: #1 (Chris Webber), #3 (Juwan Howard), #5 (Jalen Rose), #9 (Jimmy King) and #84 (Ray Jackson). Some services had Jackson ranked higher than that - perhaps in the 30s. Either way, to equal that, Maryland would need 3 guys in the top 5 and four in the top 10, plus another from the top 100.
Here are the top players in the class that are undeclared right now:
The rest of the top 10 is already committed.
Maryland has two commitments so far - Jalen Smith, the #15 player in the country, and Aaron Wiggins, the #39 player in the country. The only other five star considering Maryland is Moses Brown, the #17 player. Dotson is ranked 26. Weaver and Nembhard are in the 40s. Jarius Hamilton is in the 50s. Noah Locke is 64. Eric Ayala is 91. If they got their best possible group (Smith, Wiggins, Brown, Dotson and Weaver), we are still talking about guys ranked 15, 17, 26, 39 and 42. Not exactly the "Fab Five."
It bugs me when teams sign five ranked guys and then want to call it the "Fab Five". If you don't sign at least three top 10 guys, those words shouldn't be coming out of your mouth. Maryland does not have a Fab Five class. They just have a class that might end up with five guys in it.
Does your opinion change now that most of the owners have publicly stated their support, some even coming down to the field to stand or kneel with their team? I think it was you (could be wrong) that had said previously that players shouldn't do this on "company time". Now that they have sign off from the owner, is it okay to continue the protests?
Sports is the ultimate meritocracy. If you are good enough, fast enough, big enough, etc. then you can rise to the top. That's why we hate performance enhancing drugs. It's supposed to be you that's big, strong, fast enough, not something generated in a lab.
You say its an injustice that these players get access to certain things and paid large sums of money because they were bigger, faster, and stronger. That's merit. Their talent gave them that. They weren't given it as a birthright. They weren't handed it as an inheritance. They had physical talent, and they spent years on lonely practice floors and fields cultivating that talent, shooting jumpers when other kids went home, running sprints when other kids had quit. Time in the weight room - time you and I didn't spend (or perhaps you did...I did not).
That's not an injustice. That's earned. Maybe you say they shouldn't be paid as much. Perhaps you're right. That's a different discussion for a different topic. But it's not unjust that they earned what was available within the system. Its the difference between being a lawyer, a judge or a social worker - you work in the same places oftentimes, but the pay scale is different. Is that unjust? I doubt many people would call it that. Each of those individuals chose their profession, and each of them moved through the ranks based on their abilities - intelligence, work ethic, etc.
There isn't a single athlete that makes it to the pros that hasn't spent countless hours practicing. No one - literally not one person - makes it to the pros based completely on physical talent.
I think you missed the point of my post. I was mimicking the statements that lots of people make about athletes not speaking out on other issues.
It's amazing that people always want athletes to be active in the community - I am sure lots of people would be upset if KU players did not participate in the various charity things that the basketball team does throughout the year - but when they speak out on a subject people don't agree with, then they should just be silent.
I have no issue with the President speaking on this issue. I don't agree with him, but I have no problem with him making his statements, same as I have no issue with the athletes protesting (or not protesting, for that matter - it's their right).
But in a way, you made my point for me. The President has a right to speak. Athletes have a right to speak.
That's why I put (said in jest) at the bottom. It was a joke.
I just wish the President would stay out of sports. I tune into political rallies to hear about public policy, not sports. He should stick to politics. Or business. Or reality TV.
(said in jest).
I can't figure out how bad (or good) Baylor is. They are a mess right now. By November, the whole world around that program could be imploding. Coaches could be looking to jump ship. Players could be considering transfer opportunities for the spring. There's a real possibility that the Baylor team that arrives in Lawrence November 4 is packing it in, coming in to face a KU team hunting for some tangible progress - that Baylor game is probably KU's last serious chance at a win since they close at Texas, home for Oklahoma, then at Oklahoma State.
Baylor is basically this KU team's bowl game.
This might sound weird, but stay with me here.
McCormack should be a nice player in time, but its going to take a year with Hudy before he can really realize his potential. He's done a great job working out to get in better shape. You can see it on his frame. But it appears that he's less strong in game situations. He's certainly more agile and athletic, but he's not as strong. He knew how to use his bulk before, but he doesn't know how to use the muscle.
The nice thing is that he has the tools to be very good, and he won't be a OAD. He's spending at least two, probably three or four years in Lawrence, so its okay that he is a little ways away because he's not going to start right away IMO. He could end up being a three year starter, though and could end up posting some really strong career numbers (basically three years worth of 14 and 8).
Grimes is probably wanting to see how Newman works out at KU. Grimes and Newman are actually fairly similar players. Both are too small to play the 2 in the NBA, but both have NBA level skills - they just have to start sliding over to the point.
So Grimes is probably watching to see how Self utilizes Newman this year. Grimes is an excellent passer - good vision, good feel. He's not necessarily a "natural PG" in the Chris Paul mode, but he's a PG in the John Wall-Russell Westbrook category - scorer that can handle and get other people involved.
Newman is really the first player like that to play under Self since his Illinois days. I think Grimes wants to find out if Newman capitalizes on his talent at KU. If he does, there's no reason for Grimes not to come on down. If that happens, I don't think we will even remember that we didn't land Dotson.
Houston over Tech in a first one to 50 type game.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State both win as they start the two month journey to Bedlam.
West Virginia, but the game stays more competitive than you would have thought.
Mississippi State
Washington
The key is to find the best person for the job, regardless of whether they have a connection to Kansas or not.
KU Basketball is in the unique position of being a "destination" job. It's the Lakers, or the Yankees, or the Cowboys. Head basketball coach at Kansas isn't a stepping stone job. That's a job you work your entire career to get. It's the corner office, the front row parking spot. It's all the stuff you dream about (with twice the responsibility and expectation).
Maybe Aaron Miles or Jeremy Case rises to the level where they are in a position to lead KU hoops.
Perhaps one of the dozen D1 head coaches that were under 35 at the start of last season will be ready to take the job.
Or maybe its a guy that we can't even think of right now.
Remember, five years before Roy Williams left KU, Bill Self was just a guy coming off his first season at Tulsa (went 19-12, didn't even make the NIT) after being 55-54 in four years at Oral Roberts. If you had walked up to Bill Self in the Spring of 1998 and said to him that in five years he would be coaching Kansas, he probably would laugh at you. His dream job at that moment was probably coaching at his alma mater. That may have been his biggest aspiration at the time - make enough of a name for himself to get hired to coach in a power conference at a school like OSU.
Maybe he had faint dreams of coaching somewhere like KU, but I would almost guarantee you that if we were having this same conversation in 1998, there isn't a single KU fan that would have picked Bill Self to be the next coach of the University of Kansas. Maybe someone mentions a second year NBA coach named Gregg Popovich that was a grad assistant under Larry Brown. Maybe someone mentions Matt Doherty, who was at the time an assistant at KU.
Its hard to look that far in the future and see anything. If Bill Self really does leave in five years, chances are we wouldn't even consider the person that ultimately will be named head coach. We wouldn't have named Roy Williams as a possibility in 1983. We wouldn't have named Self in 1998. Chances are, whoever this person is, we wouldn't guess their name if we had 100 chances today between us all.
If the things talked about in this article - https://www.theringer.com/nba/2017/9/21/16341796/nba-aau-fc-dallas-player-development ↗ - come true, it won't make as much difference because the way recruiting will work will be much, much different. Perhaps Coach Self, who has always done a good job of looking to the future, sees the changes coming and realizes that the way college sports will be structured in the near future is going to change, and wants to be ahead of that.
If NBA teams open academies, that eliminates AAU stuff, but changes the way that everything works, and changes who goes to college, when, where and why.
His stepdad went to Clemson, so that was always a possibility. His biological father went to NC State, for whatever that's worth.
Frank Martin has really turned South Carolina around. Looking at their basketball history, this is the most successful period in the last 40 or so years. South Carolina is further along as a program than Clemson is, so if Zion wanted to be a hometown hero and play winning ball, South Carolina is probably his best bet.
Certain kids like being hometown heroes. Zion certainly would be if he chose either in-state school. Perhaps that matters to him. Maybe it doesn't. Hard to really say without knowing the kid personally. Is he a Perry Ellis type that always wanted to go to a certain school?
He would definitely be a big time get for either in-state program and could be a package to draw more local talent into those programs. Frank Martin is really building something at South Carolina and could make them a player in the SEC if he can get the support. A guy like Zion would alter the trajectory of that program.
The league will be competitive, but there aren't a lot of top quality NBA prospects in the league, so its hard to see any team other than KU make a deep run.
Every Big 12 team has issues, whether its health, eligibility, experience, talent, or fit.
It actually would be hugely helpful if Texas took a nice step forward this year. They could with Bamba, but I still look at a very murky PG situation there and wonder if they will have the same problems as last year getting quality shots. I worry the same thing for OSU without Evans and ISU without Morris. There could be some ugly basketball played in the conference this year if PG play is down and teams can't get good shots up.
I wouldn't be surprised to see KU win 15 conference games this year and win the conference title by 2-3 games. It's just a watered down league. The only way that changes is if Young or Bamba can lift OU or Texas up a level.
The true Champions Classic should be KU, UNC, UK and UCLA. Arguably the four most storied programs in the game (sorry Indiana).
With the way that conference re-alignment has put lots of schools in the same conference, that's the only way to create a non-conference pre-season field. Indiana is really the only school that would have a legitimate beef about not being included, but their lack of recent success is a good argument against their inclusion.
Grimes is pretty clearly the superior player in my eyes. He's more explosive, stronger and a tick better shooter. He's also the better athlete. Dotson's vision may be better, but even that I wouldn't say for certain.
I'm actually a bit surprised that Grimes isn't a top ten guy in such a thin class. I'm surprised Quickley is ahead of Grimes. I understand why people are high on Garland, but I would have Garland ahead of Jones and Grimes right behind Garland. Grimes just looks like he will be more able to transition to college with his strength and athleticism. Jones is basically a carbon copy of his brother (not that this is a bad thing), but I don't see how that puts him ahead of those other guys. Perhaps its that Grimes is classified as a 2, but I see him more as a combo guy (particularly because these HS guys all come out handling the ball anyway).
Let's think of this like investments. In one case, you have an investor with a long track record, but it's a record of mediocre returns with your type of product (i.e. PGs), even over a long term (i.e., lots of talent, just a few second round picks, or undrafted free agents after good college careers).
On the other hand, you have an investor with a much shorter high level track record who has never really done much at this level. On the one hand, you're looking at the unknown. On the other hand, it's the unknown against a record of underperformance in this particular area. In this situation, Mike White's lack of history is actually a benefit in a direct competition against Self because he doesn't have his past shortcomings weighing him down (something White has no doubt pointed out to Dotson and his family).
I'm not saying White is a better coach, obviously. Just that if you're Dotson and you're putting your draft future into one program or another, the program that hasn't produced a first rounder with multiple McDs AAs and collegiate stars may not be your first choice because you can't even argue that Self hasn't had talent at the position, or that Self hasn't had guys play well at the point. They just haven't translated to the NBA.
Svi isn't a bad athlete and has the quickness to play on the wing.
Unfortunately, he plays with high hips (a high center of gravity) that means he isn't low enough to slide quickly on the defensive end because he's standing too upright. We saw this last year on his closeouts defensively. Giving up that initial first step is all most good slashers need. It doesn't matter if you can get back into the play. They already got their shoulders even with you.
Svi needs to get lower so he can tap into his athletic gifts on both ends. I think having a lower center of gravity would also make Svi a little more explosive and able to absorb contact when attacking the rim.
Newman is an NBA PG. He doesn't really have a future in the NBA as a 2 because of his size, so I am considering him a PG for this exercise. It actually benefits KU if others consider him a PG as well, because recruits will see a scoring PG at KU, which could lead to some recruiting currency later on. I hope Self has Newman playing on-ball at least 40% of the time, letting him run the show sometimes even with Devonte on the floor.
KU has not had a single first round PG under Self. They have had high recruits - Collins, Chalmers, Selby. They have had all conference and all Americans - Mason, Miles, Taylor. But they have not had a first rounder. That's a boatload of highly talented guys that have not, for one reason or another, translated to NBA stardom.
Every single guy I listed, with the exception of Selby, was a very good collegiate player at a minimum. Several of those guys were legitimately great collegiate players. But Self has yet to solve the jump from college to the NBA at the PG position. That's why the success of Newman this year is so important. Self has to show other PGs that he can take a highly talented player and make them a lottery pick from the PG position.
We knock Calipari on this board all the time, but his PGs almost never miss when they come in that highly touted. Wall and Bledsoe are legit stars. Knight is a starter. Fox was a lottery pick. Tyler Ulis is a solid NBA backup. That track record is pretty impressive. Self can't match that, and he's had McDs AA's at his disposal.
Newman is a referendum on Self's ability to translate talent to draft pick at the PG position. At this point, that's the only thing that can really change the current perception of Self (in my eyes) on the recruiting front at PG.
Let's pump the brakes here for a second. Since 2008, KU football has been led by Mangino, Gill, Weis, Bowen (interim) and now Beaty. That's five different coaches, philosophies, staffs, etc. in less than 10 years. Let's slow down and let the program have something resembling stability for a minute.
Is Beaty having the type of success we want him to have? No.
Is switching coaches and starting all over going to help? Probably not.
KU hit the eject button too early on Gill, then made matters worse by bringing in Weis, who set about trying to undo everything Gill had put into place. That meant that when Weis got canned, KU was starting over for the third time in less than five years. What's more, Beaty took the job with less than 60 scholarship players on the roster. The D1 limit is 85. Beaty was working with less than three quarters of a full D1 roster in his first year!
If KU bails out on Beaty now, we start over again. We basically guarantee that we will see 1 or 2 win seasons in 2018 and 2019 once you account for the attrition that will once again occur when we change coaches.
This is a cycle that has to stop. I said when Beaty was hired that he needed to be given a minimum of four years, regardless of how things went just because any stability within the program has value right now. You can't develop any players when they are constantly changing offseason programs, schemes, etc. We can't ever start winning if we do not bring some stability. The constant churn and turmoil has undermined any progress we may have made over the past several years.
Look at the basketball program here. The only coaches to stay at KU less than 10 years were Naismith (nine), Harp (eight) and Brown (five). KU has played basketball for nearly 120 years, and has had 8 coaches in that time. The football team has had five in the last 10 years. One team is nationally known and respected. The other is constantly searching for its way. The lack of consistent direction has hindered any potential growth for the program.
KU football isn't going to resurrect overnight. We aren't in a situation like KSU was in the late 1980s and early 1990s where there is a vacuum of strong programs within the conference that allows a mediocre team to rise. This will take time because the Big 12 has legitimate depth right now.
2018-19 is shaping up to be a year where a more veteran team could emerge for the national title simply because the depth isn't there for the incoming class.
Unless one team is able to sign four top 15 players, it's hard to see a team dominated by freshmen rising above the fray.
Teams that have top returning players should rocket to the top over the course of the season. Of course, the risk is that this parity just means lots of teams have a shot at the title rather than just a handful because the talent levels will be so close come tournament time.
I try to stick to a handful of rules when posting, particularly about politics.
I try to stick to giving my opinion on facts.
I avoid namecalling or accusations of fellow posters
I try to understand the other side of the argument.
Perhaps it was a bit confusing because I used the term "snowflake". That was not directed at my fellow bucketeers, but at Mr. Schilling. Curt Schilling was fired only after his third incident in 8 months. He wants Hill fired immediately. He was a repeat offender over a very short period of time. She had a small incident nearly a decade ago, with nothing since. As I said, if she has another incident within the next several months she will likely be suspended (justifiably) and potentially fired.
But Schilling is ignoring those facts, acting like he was fired for his first incident. That's why I am calling him out. If you have multiple incidents where you are disciplined over a short period of time at any job, you are likely to get fired. Period.
Schilling is just trying to drum up support for himself by comparing apples and oranges. I have seen lots of people call that "playing the victim", so I called it that.
I used the term "snowflake" because I am aware many conservatives use that term against left leaning individuals that complain about treatment the left views as unfair. I used it specifically to call attention to the fact that Schilling is doing exactly that here.
The only part directed at you was the question "if you had an employee that violated a policy three times in under a year, would you keep them or can them?"
My post and the words "victim" and "snowflake" were directed only at Mr. Schilling, as I hope is apparent both in this explanation and, if you desire, a review of my previous post, which I have left unchanged.
The key is not asking him to do anything outside his skillset. He's a good runner that can do okay on short passes, but doesn't have good touch downfield. He's mostly making shorter throws and running the ball a few times. He can run the spread, but only if you keep the deep throws to a minimum (mostly swings, bubble screens, slants in the passing game) and let him run on rollouts and options. That's the perfect use for him.
Having a better line and a better supporting cast doesn't hurt, either. I'm glad to see that he was able to go somewhere and have success because he seems like a good guy.
Honestly, not super high on Louis King. He's not a great athlete, his handle is probably roughly average and he's an above average but not elite shooter. I am just not sure how he transitions to a collegiate wing at KU and is anything more than Andrew White. Maybe others have a different take, but I just don't see it.
This class is top heavy, but light on depth, so he could get ranked top 25 or top 30, but really be more like a 40-60 guy. For comparison's sake, in 2016, the highest a player rated lower than 90 was ranked in ESPN's 100 was 29th. In 2017, an 89 got you ranked 31st. In 2015, 2014 and 2013 it went 20, 30 and 23.
A deep class takes players rated above 90 to about 30. Anything less than that, the class lacks depth. The first player rated less than 90 is at 25. But what is even more telling is that this class only has 4 guys rated 95 or higher. There aren't really any truly elite prospects, and there's not a lot of depth. 2018 is going to be a year where not a lot of freshmen arrive on campus ready to contribute because there just aren't any elite level guys.
I think Self has seen that possibility and has planned for it with the Lawson brothers, Charlie Moore and Sam Cunliffe, all of whom are likely to be more ready to contribute than any prospect outside the top 12-15 in the 2018 class. Throw in Marcus Garrett and you have a solid starting five whether Vick returns or not.
Self may have done it again - we just don't know it yet.
I just wonder if Embiid can stay healthy over a full season. He's played 59 total games since 2013-14 - 28 at KU, 31 last season in Philly. That's 59 out of a possible 281, or about 21%. In some ways, this is his last chance to prove that he can stay healthy, at least in Philly. They can't commit to building around a guy that is never going to be on the floor. The talent isn't at issue. Durability is. I'm rooting for him, but history suggests that big men don't magically get healthier as they age.
Let's look at why Schilling was fired. He posted a meme about the transgender bathroom issue that depicted the following:
an overweight man in a too-small t-shirt with holes cut out of the chest with the following caption - “LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow-minded, judgmental, unloving racist bigot who needs to die."
Now, this meme is outright factually incorrect. Cross dressing is not transgendered. Being gay is not transgendered. There's outright no factual basis that Schilling can stand on to say that his post was based in anything other than mocking a group of people (or several groups, in this case). Prior to that, Schilling had previously been disciplined by ESPN for the following incidents:
In 2015, he posted a meme comparing Muslims to Nazis. He was suspended briefly for that.
In February 2016, he had a post that said Hillary Clinton should be "buried under a jail."
The meme about the bathrooms was his third incident in less than twelve months.
If you had an employee that violated a policy three times in less than twelve months, despite the fact that they had been suspended and admonished about their previous actions, would you keep them or can them? Schilling got fired because he was a repeat offender. If Jemele Hill has another incident in the next few months, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN suspends or even fires her.
Schilling wants to play the victim. I guess he's too much of a snowflake to realize that being a repeat offender always brings more harsh discipline.
What JJ Watt has done with his fundraising is remarkable. But this is the problem with the illegitimate media sites on the web - they can grab a true story and add it to their banner, thereby legitimizing their other stuff. Just scanning the front page of the site, I'd say 75%-80% of the stuff is fake on its face. Maybe 10% is true, and 10% is partially true, but with a significant slant towards a Russian position.
Obviously, that's a blatant example, but if confirmation bias is playing a role and you're looking for a site that backs up your world view, you can easily fall for those stories.
I saw most of the second half, so I saw the more dominant side of OU. But I also saw what Alabama did to Florida State, where it never really looked like FSU had a chance to do anything more than maybe keep it close. OU looked very good - like get to the CFP, maybe even the title game. But you can't hope to out scheme Saban. You better have some Jimmy's and Joe's that can make plays when the plays aren't working on both sides of the ball. Bama has that up and down the roster. Not sure OU can match that depth.
Of course, that's why they play the games. You could be right.
Also, for picks, this seems like a good week to take every Big 12 team except Baylor (dumpster fire), Texas (a mess) and KU (still building). Everyone else should get wins, most in blow out fashion. Maybe Vandy plays KSU sort of close, or Pitt stays with Oklahoma State for a while, or Tech and ASU get into a shootout, but I think WVU, ISU, OSU, TCU, OU, KSU, and Tech all win, while KU, UT and Baylor all lose.
I want to agree with you. But I think Bama is better this year than they were last year, when Ole Miss played them within 5, Clemson beat them on a last second TD, and they beat everyone else by two scores. I just don't know if anyone else in the country is as good as Clemson was last year. I hope someone can stand up to them, but they seem to have a great team in a year with a bunch of good ones.
OU is likely the only potential elite B12 team this year.
Oklahoma State and TCU could make some noise. Everyone else is probably either fighting to make a mid tier bowl or scraping for bowl eligibility.
I am still not sure OU can run with Alabama (not sure anyone can), but it would be nice to see a Big 12 team in the playoff.
I believe he was sincere because of everything else he's done since that time.
Take a second and Google Colin Kaepernick donations.
You will see that he pledged to donate $1M. Through August, he had donated $800k of that money. He appeared at a rally in New York protesting police brutality. These actions say to me that he is sincere. They haven't gotten as much press as the initial protest, but when someone puts their money where their mouth is, that's sincere enough for me.
It is absolutely about the color green. I never said it was about race. I said it was about his position, and the owners/ league believe it will cost them money. But they also know being honest about refusing to give him a fair shake will cost them money. So they posit a fake position (that he isn't good enough to start) when its clear from the QBs currently starting in the NFL that CK could very well start in the NFL.
Two answers, but in reverse order.
Do I believe that Tim Tebow is a good enough "player"? Yes. Is he a good enough QB? No. He's just not accurate enough. In his best NFL season, Tebow completed 50% of his passes. He doesn't throw a ton of picks, but that's mostly because he's so inaccurate that he throws more incompletions than anyone else. If Tebow had said he was willing to move off QB and be an RB or a TE, he would be in the NFL right now. But he has expressly said that he has no interest in playing in the NFL as anything other than a QB. Tim Tebow is not a good enough QB to play in the NFL. Even when other teams brought him in, they quickly realized how bad his passing was and moved on.
I do believe that CK's protests were sincere. I think he knew that he stood to lose quite a bit for his position. You don't make that kind of leap unless you are sincere. Race in this country, particularly how different people are treated by police, is tricky because how police will treat me as a black man when I am with white friends differs from how they may treat me if I am alone. Because of that, no one that isn't a minority can truly see how a minority is being treated. Race is complicated. How people feel differs widely. Perhaps he's willing to stand now because he's frustrated that his original point has been lost because the only thing people want to talk about is whether he should kneel or stand.
The QB isn't necessarily the face of the franchise.
Here's a quick list of some non "face of the franchise" starters in the NFL right now:
Tyrod Taylor, Mike Glennon, Deshone Kizer, Trevor Siemien, Tom Savage, Scott Tolzien, Blake Bortles, Josh McCown, Brian Hoyer.
CK is not in the NFL because of his stances. We agree on that. But the NFL claims he's not being blacklisted because of those things. That's an outright lie. I just listed 9 QBs that CK could easily be starting in front of. I didn't list Matt Moore, Carson Palmer, or Sam Bradford, all of whom are very iffy as starters. That's 12 of the 32 starters.
I would respect the NFL more if they just came out and said that CK was not in the league because they didn't agree with his protest. It wouldn't change his situation, but it would at least show they were willing to be honest about something. Of course, this is the same league that was claiming until about 5 years ago that head trauma was not a serious issue, so the league's record on honesty isn't exactly stellar.
This was my fear after the first game. KU won, but didn't physically dominate. KU isn't yet at the point where their athletes are just superior to mid major teams. Honestly, KU is still sort of a mid major level athletic team. They haven't gotten back to Power 5 level yet with that athletic depth (although substantial progress has been made on that front).
This year is still about building. The depth is improving. The athleticism is improving. The line play (both sides) must improve for this team to even sniff its potential, but the opportunity is there for KU to have a really good team next year and win a bowl game within the next couple of years.
But to get there, some lumps will be taken this season. Saturday was one. There will be more.