The concern with Wiggins is that, other than scoring, he hasn't demonstrated another elite skill.
He doesn't rebound and, at least at the pro level, hasn't shown himself to be a strong defender (though I believe he is capable). To be a superstar, he has to do something other than score unless he can score near 30 per game.
That's my point. The owners won't admit it because they cannot legally collude to keep Kaepernick out of the league.
Your point also establishes a sad reality - sports fans are more prepared to accept drunk drivers and domestic abusers than Kaepernick. Apparently those things don't hurt business as much...
If you look at my post, you will see that while I compared him to Gabbert, I pointed out the numbers CK posted.
Here are CK's leaguewide rankings in several different passing categories (there are 32 starting spots in the league):
Completion% - 26th
TD% - 13th
INT% - 6th
Yard per attempt - 23rd
Average yards per attempt - 16th
Yards per completion - 17th
Rating - 17th
QBR - 23rd
Kaepernick ranks in the middle a lot, and even shows up in the top 10 once. He is legitimately better than probably half a dozen STARTING QBs in the league right now at a minimum.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all when you say the league is considering "other factors" in evaluating CK. Let's just not push under the rug the fact that CK is physically capable of playing in the NFL right now, but the "other factors" are preventing that. Heck, I'm not even arguing the merits of whether those other factors should keep him out of the league. What I'm saying is the NFL needs to fess up that it is the "other factors" and not skill level because the statistical data is showing that it's not production. Go look up the QB depth charts for Cleveland, Denver, Jacksonville, Los Angeles and Buffalo, the look at the stats and tell me there's a football talent reason why those teams wouldn't be better off with CK under center.
Once we agree that there's not a football reason, we can move to the truth, which you have already hinted at - that CK is not employed for "other reasons."
Let's not undersell Mitch just yet. He is more skilled than Mari was. He has a similar motor, although he isn't as physical as Mari was. Still, I think because of his skill level, he will ultimately be able to contribute because he has the ball skills that Jamari, for all his athleticism, lacked even as a 5th year senior.
@JayHawkFanToo some guys also have trouble breathing with the facemasks on. Don't know about Mitch, obviously, but there's a chance that he was struggling with conditioning as a result of simply not being able to get air.
If we have anything close to that lineup, everyone better look out.
That's a fine point you make. But the thing is, the NFL owners are, to a large degree, trying to claim this is a football talent issue. A lot of fans are too. You are not trying to make that point, but many are, so I laid out the points that refute that. I even made that point (or tried to) in my own post by saying:
If this were about football, CK would have been signed months ago, and likely would be starting for the Rams, Bills, Broncos, Jets, Texans, Jaguars or 49ers. This is not about football.
The thing is, the NFL doesn't want to admit that this is about Kaepernick taking a public stand that they happen to not agree with. They want it to be about football. They need it to be about football.
If it's not about football, the NFL has just entered some very ugly territory:
Drunk driving (a crime by the way) is okay. You can get re-signed as long as you can produce.
Domestic violence (also a crime) is also okay, so long as you produce you will have a spot in the league.
Protesting how minorities are treated by cops - not okay, we will blackball you out of the league.
And that's a problem in a sport where almost 70% of the league is black. Maybe it doesn't matter to most fans what the players think about BLM or racism, but as a black man in this country, I know that matters to me every single day.
I'm glad you brought up Blaine Gabbert in comparison to Colin Kaepernick.
Gabbert's QB rating last year was 68.4 in 6 (5 starts) games.
Kaepernick's was 90.7 in 12 (11 starts) games.
Kaepernick had a higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt, a better TD/Int ration (4 to 1 for CK, 1/1.17 for BG).
Going to the advanced stats, Kaepernick was higher in Yards per attempt + (100 is average for all of these) with a 90-66 advantage. CK also had an 80-70 edge in net yards per attempt, 102-65 in average yards per attempt, 95-67 in average net yards per attempt, 85-76 in completion percentage plus, 105-84 in TD percentage plus, 120-74 in Int percentage plus and 101-68 in Rate plus.
Gabbert holds a 96-66 advantage in Sack percentage plus.
I look at all of those numbers and determine that Colin Kaepernick was, at worst, a fairly average quarterback last season. I look at those same numbers and determine that Blaine Gabbert was very much below average last year.
So Blaine Gabbert gets the veterans minimum because he was very decidedly below average last year. The numbers dictate that Gabbert is a backup at best.
Kaepernick was not. He was average or even above. He could very well be a starter. He was 23rd by QBR last year. That means there are 9 guys starting this year that were worse than he was last year at a minimum.
This article shows every free agent QB over the last several years (from fivethirtyeight.com ↗). You see that CK is the best QB to go unsigned for this long after a performance like he had last year.
If this were about football, CK would have been signed months ago, and likely would be starting for the Rams, Bills, Broncos, Jets, Texans, Jaguars or 49ers. This is not about football.
As bad as some of those team's QB situations are, they are beyond desperate - look at the QBs they will start instead. Those guys are terrible. They should be pleading with CK to come play for them. Instead, they are silent, which makes it pretty clear that there's an informal agreement not to sign CK.
BPI, the preseason version especially, weighs returning players very heavily. KU lost Mason, Jackson, and Lucas from its main rotation last year. Azuibuke didn't play enough to be weighted the way he should be for his likely impact. Newman didn't play well enough at Miss. St. to weigh properly, either. As a result, BPI doesn't see Newman and Azuibuke as replacements for Mason and Lucas, instead seeing them as inadequate fill ins.
That's also why UK and UNC are so low.
Once the games start, the teams with top incoming talent will rise as the result bare out the talent.
All but a handful of backup QBs in the NFL earn more than the $900,000 veterans minimum that CK was offered. Offering him the veterans minimum would be the equivalent to offering an experienced person in your field an entry level salary. Yeah, a million dollar offer sounds like a lot, but every starter in the league except Dak Prescott (rookie deal) makes more than that, as well as Matt Barkley, Ryan Mallett, Mark Sanchez, Scott Tolzien, DeShone Kizer, Christian Hackenberg, Dan Orlovsky, Josh Johnson, Luke McCown, Ryan Griffin, Brandon Weeden, Landry Jones, Colt McCoy, Chase Richardson, Drew Stanton, Mitch Frazier, Kellen Clemens and Chad Henne, among others.*
Simply put, even mediocre QBs in the NFL make more than what CK was offered. Only guys on rookie deals make less. Why should CK take less than many backups would make? If I offered anyone on this board less than their subordinates made, it would be turned down, and it wouldn't be to create a media frenzy.
That new helmet reminds me of this
I agree about Emmitt Williams as an athlete. He is absolutely a freak athlete. Problem is, he's 6-8. At 6-8, you can't be sure he will be able to dominate in the paint based purely on athleticism because the college players will be much stronger than his current competition, so they can negate some of his athleticism with their strength.
I have the same concern with Zion Williamson. He's 6-7. He's incredibly strong and athletic, but again, collegiate guys will be able to negate some of that. He won't be able to dominate on strength and athleticism alone, and at 6-7 or 6-8, both of these guys will need to be able to step out on the floor and shoot and handle. Notice how effective Josh Jackson was, mostly because he could handle and pass. Even though his shot was shaky at times, because he could really handle the basketball, his offensive game opened up.
I haven't seen that type of handle from either Williams or Williamson. I see a lot of straightline drives, but not a lot of shiftiness and skill moves. That's my concern. I think they can be good, but they will have to be energy guys, not primary options.
Some quick hits...
Robinson-Earl is very explosive and has been adding muscle. If he stays on this trajectory, he's a top 25 player in his class IMHO.
Dotson, I like him because he's comfortable finishing with either hand, even in traffic. Not many guards are really comfortable with that.
I am high on Williams' athleticism, but not his overall skills. His shot isn't as clean as I would like. He could contribute immediately defensively and on the glass, but I don't know how effective he will be offensively out of the box.
Mitchell Robinson is good at basketball. He is impossibly skilled for his size. He's a better shooter than Anthony Davis was at the same point, but probably not quite the athlete. Still, college players have very little chance of matching up with him on a nightly basis.
Normally this is true, but as @mayjay mentions, Lucas had issues with mishandling those quick passes. Remember, LL was a catch and gather guy.
Check out video above at 0:44. It happens quick, but he catches the entry and you very quickly see him have to pull the ball towards his body for control, then go up to finish the layup.Two things about that play. One, he has to catch and gather, which takes an extra moment (giving a defender a chance to recover). Two, he finishes with a layup rather than a dunk, which a quick, active defender like Bell can still block or bother.
Towards the end of the video (1:49 or so) there's a couple more examples of Landen having to pull the ball in towards his body to gather before exploding up. For a good shotblocker, that gives them a chance to time out the jump and block the shot. Landen was very good on lobs (the highlights have tons of finishes with him catching lobs), but if you took away the lob, because he couldn't catch, gather and explode quickly, he was effectively neutralized. Oregon took that away, leaving us playing 4 on 5 offensively.
The hope, from a guard's standpoint, was that if you could get the shots on the rim, Landen could get the stickback dunk when Bell left him unguarded. Again, watching his highlight, Landen is more than capable of getting the putback dunk with no problem. Unfortunately, a lot of those shots never made it to the rim.
I think it takes longer, just because the erosion is a long way off. It's coming, no doubt, but it will take a while. For example, the drop in youth participation is mostly at the younger levels (8-10 year olds, as opposed to 12-13 year olds). That means those kids, who are just now turning 12 and 13, aren't even in high school yet since the study was just a couple of years ago.
The big high school drop is still two years away, maybe even three. After that, the numbers will probably continue to erode, but at a lesser rate.
High school participation is roughly 40% of what youth participation is (basically, the best 40% from youth teams keep playing into high school). With youth participation down to around 2m now, we can expect high school participation to drop under 1m in the next year or two, and down to around 850,000 by 2023 or 2024 (when the kids that are 8-10 years old now get into high school).
The question is what happens with the kids that are younger than that right now? What happens with the kids that are too young to even consider football - the ones that are not even in school just yet? They won't even be in high school for another decade or more. If their youth participation (basically five or six years from now) drops under 1.5m, that's proof that football is dying.
Football survives now because it is part of the culture. Kids are used to going to high school games on Friday night, playing youth games or watching college games on Saturday afternoons, or NFL on Sundays. It's how pretty much all of us grew up. It was just part of the Fall routine. But if all of a sudden those Fall Saturday mornings are filled with soccer games, or swim and track meets, or tennis tournaments, or volleyball matches for the vast majority of kids, things change. But even that isn't until 2027 or so at the earliest at the high school level, which means its another 6 years before that wave gets to the end of college.
This article is a parody of what it would take to destroy the talent level in the NBA. https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/3/5772796/nba-y2k-series-finale-the-death-of-basketball ↗
It's funny, but look how long it takes to completely decimate the NBA talent - from 2014 all the way until nearly 2030 before the talent level caved in so badly that the end was visible on the horizon. That's 15 years from the time the talent pipeline from college completely dries up. We are at least 15 years away from being 15 (or so) years away from being able to see the end in sight. I would say 2050 may be the day of reckoning, though sooner if more health issues come out before then.
Fouls 2 and 4 on Jackson were awful, awful calls.
We tried to matchup with Lucas, but Bell absolutely demolished him, which allowed Bell to basically play free safety on defense and control the lane. It was the thing I feared most about Lucas being our default 5 man - a quick athletic player dominating that matchup in a way that shifted the tenor of the game. KU really needed to go 5 out against Oregon to force Bell to guard either Jackson, Vick or Svi (probably Svi) offensively, meaning that the lane opens up because he has to stay on the perimeter with Svi.
It would have been a very non-traditional look, but it would have given Frank, DG and Josh a chance to attack the rim without having Bell consuming everything in the lane (I swear he had more than the 8 blocks he got credit for). Play Lucas only with Bell off the floor, otherwise the matchups just don't work.
An interesting article here that football participation has dropped again this year at the high school level.
That's a big deal. Football will remain the biggest participant sport because you can't have 50 kids on the basketball team even if you have 12 each on a freshman team, a sophomore team, a JV and a varsity. Right now its just a 1% decline. Youth football participation has declined even more, from around 3 million in 2010 to less than 2.2 million in 2015.
That's a 25% drop in youth participation. If that erosion continues (even if it slows to only 2% or so), football is in real trouble because less kids playing at the youth level means less kids going out in high school. Those kids will end up playing other sports - basketball in the midwest and upper midwest, soccer on the coasts, baseball in the Sunbelt, even hockey in the upper plains and northeast.
The clock is ticking. It's probably two decades out, but the clock is definitely ticking.
I agree with that. I'm just looking at it from both sides. Clearly something was going on in this game. Perhaps it was disrespect. Perhaps it was frustration. I don't know.
From reading Kinnamon's comments and the aftermath, it doesn't look like Midwest Flight was trying to disrespect Kansas Elite. Typically, in these types of games, if things are that tense from one side, it spills over into conflict between the players. That didn't happen here. That's what is making me question this storyline, just because that's not typically how these types of games go. That's what has me scratching my head.
I like the prediction. I have been kicking around what I think the ceiling for this year's team could be.
Newman looked really good in Italy. He looked like he was back to being the natural scorer he was coming out of high school. If Newman is back to that level, he is one of a handful of the very best players in the country. Not even kidding when I say first team All-American and potential player of the year level. Newman came out of HS as a guy that could get 20 whenever he wanted. All I can say to the rest of the Big XII is look out, and Godspeed.
Graham could be set to have one of the most efficient seasons in KU history. Lots of assists, few turnovers, high percentages because there's just no way to cover him and Newman on the perimeter, plus handle Preston and Azuibuke inside.
Speaking of the interior guys, from a numbers perspective, I think both may not put up the type of numbers we are hoping for (double doubles, etc.). I do think Self should challenge Billy Preston to average more rebounds than points, though. Preston is the type of player, from a physical gifts perspective, that if he works, should have 7 rebounds by the time he brushes his teeth in the morning. If he brings that effort to the glass, KU will control the boards all year, because Udoka is getting 10 boards a game (or mauling people on his way to the bench). There could be nights where those two combine for 25+ boards between the two of them (if Preston works hard).
The X factors are Svi and Vick. I know we are expecting breakouts from both, but I actually think the breakouts will be in efficiency rather than overall numbers. Vick should take it as a personal challenge to dominate on the defensive end this year (he's our best perimeter defender, and should suffocate his man every night).
This should be a Final Four team. There's no reason it shouldn't be. They have everything you could want. @DoubleDD has made a bold statement, but all of the pieces are there to make that more a factual statement than a hot take.
Honestly, Kinnamon's quotes don't say much for him in my eyes. His team was up 10 at the time in what would be an even game except for all of the FTs and extra possessions his team got from the six technical fouls called.
If you're on the other side of that, coaching against a guy that's pretty well known in his own backyard, don't you start getting the sense that your team may be getting "home-towned"? I'm not saying that The Midwest Flight team was going to win. I wasn't at the game. But six technicals (I guess five, since they walked off after #6) means that Central Kansas Elite got 10 extra FTs and 5 extra possessions. If they cashed in half those opportunities, that's 5 points on FTs and another 4-6 on possessions (not counting lost possessions, if there were any, for Midwest Flight). That's 9-11 points right there, perhaps more.
On top of that, they just ejected a Midwest Flight player. If I'm the Flight coach, I do have to wonder if my team is going to get a fair shake down the stretch. If that's the question in my mind, should I have my squad finish or just shake hands with the other team, congratulate them on their effort and roll out?
Again, I wasn't at the game, didn't see any of the action. But six technicals, unless the game was on the verge of Midwest Flight brawling with either the other team, or the officials, seems pretty extreme.
The fouls look pretty even, but if they were really calling that many T's in a game that wasn't actually chippy, I can't really blame the coach for pulling his team. I have seen a coach pull his team on only one occasion due to officiating - a football official missed a chop block and a face mask in pretty close succession. For the safety of his players (6th graders) the coach pulled his team in a tie game. I couldn't really blame him.
This situation looks different, and I would have needed to be there to be sure, but six T's in a game is a lot. If they were really that bad, the officials could have ejected players or coaches long before then. The fact that they didn't makes me wonder.
Doke will have to be like Shaq in that he will have to do his damage in the first 36 or 37 minutes of the game, then defer to a perimeter closer (probably either Newman or Graham) down the stretch since he is a weak FT shooter. Obviously that's a very workable gameplan, but Doke has to understand that his touches will be limited in the last few minutes of close games unless his FT shooting improves because college teams absolutely will just foul him with under 2 minutes in the game, knowing they can't stop him in close.
If Doke can just finish around the rim (no layups, just dunks) it will be very tough to take a lot of fouls on him. He's so strong, that he likely can finish through contact if he is on the way up, and teams won't want to just take fouls if he's not going to the line because it just gets us to the bonus quicker.
Of course, down the stretch, teams will probably always take fouls because a Doke dunk is a sure thing - a Doke FT is... not.
Look up the term "social minority".
Here, from Dictionary.com
noun, plural minorities.
1. the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.
2. a smaller party or group opposed to a majority, as in voting or other action.
3. a group in society distinguished from, and less dominant than, the more numerous majority:
The ethnic minority was disproportionately affected by the reduction in preventative medical services.
4. a racial, ethnic, religious, or social subdivision of a society that is subordinate to the dominant group in political, financial, or social power without regard to the size of these groups: legislation aimed at providing equal rights for minorities.
5. a member of such a group.
6. the state or period of being under the legal age of full responsibility.
adjective
7. of or relating to a minority.
Look at definitions 4 and 5.
That's almost verbatim what I was talking about.
Second, I never said that being white equated to being rich, or being non-white equated to not being rich. Certainly, there are rich minorities. Certainly, there are whites that are not rich.
You pointed to welfare, and I am glad that you acknowledge the fact that there are more whites on welfare than any other race. Yet, when you hear people discuss cutting welfare politically, they always talk about "inner city welfare queens taking advantage of the system." The implication is clear - poor minorities abuse the social safety net system, while poor whites are just hard working people that need some help. Why is that? Why is there the connotation that poor minorities abuse the system while poor whites are just unlucky?
It seems like every time a minority athlete takes a social stand, there's an outcry that they need to just "shut up and play the game" because "nobody is interested in their opinions", hearkening back to the days of minstrel shows, where black people specifically were mocked for being lazy, stupid, and comic relief, existing only for the entertainment of whites.
Let me be clear when I say that I am absolutely NOT accusing you or anyone on this board of that type of attitude. I am simply pointing to the history and using it as both a guide and as a warning. Saying that an athlete should keep their opinions to themselves draws on that history - that the black performer is here only for entertainment, not to speak and have an opinion as a human being.
Again, I want to be clear. I do not want anyone here to think I am making an accusation about anyone's opinions or attitudes. I am just pointing out the historical parallels.
Again, we are talking about biases that are built into society. There are lots of studies that suggest that even a "black" or "hispanic" sounding name is more commonly associated with violence or anger than a "white" sounding name. These are societal biases.
I wrote about implicit bias a few weeks ago. Its the bias that all of us have. It's the thing that makes us believe that things that are "blue" are cooler, while things that are "red" are warmer. It's the thing that makes us associate a pink balloon with a girl and a blue balloon with a boy. We don't even think about these things because they are built into our societal understanding. We associate big with strong and small with weak. We associate physical height with leadership. We associate things higher up on a shelf or list with status, importance and value (that's why cheap cereal is on the bottom shelves, while the more expensive cereal is on the top).
It's how we sort through information - we categorize it with implicit bias without even really thinking. Most of the time, its harmless. Sometimes, it can lead to mistakes - you may overvalue something simply because it was placed higher on a shelf or list. Other times, it can lead to misjudging a person or group when the implicit bias leads to judgments based not on fact, but on biases we don't even realize are at work.
Racism, obviously is an overt expression of hatred related to bias. It's a decision. I'm more worried about the negative connotations associated with implicit bias that lead to inequality. But of course, the first step is to get everyone to understand that this even exists.
Landen Lucas played nearly 900 minutes last year. Withey played over 1100 in his final season at KU. Aldrich was over 950 in his final season at KU.
So I think we can anticipate Doke playing at least 900 minutes as the only true 5 on the team. That's roughly six times as many minutes as he played last year, so we will cheat and just multiply by six - that gives us 174 FTs.
Let's say Doke shoots a shade better from the stripe over the full season - 42% instead of the 37% in the smaller sample, or 73 total makes.
If Doke could shoot 58% instead (101 makes), that's 28 extra points, or nearly one a game. There's nobody on this board that would deny that's massive, especially because it takes away the option to simply foul him around the rim. College teams don't have the depth of talent to put in a scrub for several minutes just to foul Doke. He's so strong that if they put in a scrub that isn't able to be physical with him, he may score anyway, at which point the foul is just giving away points (both because he will make some FTs and also because it gets KU in the bonus quicker).
The key is getting above 55%. This isn't the NBA, where teams can strategically use fouls because their end of bench guys can hold their own for a few minutes, while most 12th and 13th men at the D1 level cannot.
Going from 46% to 58% is actually a pretty hefty jump. That's basically a quarter more makes over the season. If a guy gets to the line 150 times (Josh got to the line over 170 times last year). That's an 18 point swing on the season. That's a legitimate difference, particularly with the existence of the one and one in college. We're talking about half a point per game - you won't find much that can move the needle like that.
I think you misunderstand the term "minority". It doesn't just mean less people. It's also reflective of power and access.
For instance, in the colonial days, there were far fewer British people in their colonies, but they were by no means the "minority" because they had the money, the power (both political and military) and the access to things that allowed them to control their own destiny, and the destiny of those they had colonized.
Just because there are less of a particular group, that doesn't make them a "minority".
Think about it this way - the super rich are, from a pure numbers standpoint, an extreme minority. However, no one would argue that the super rich are a minority, because they have power, both politically and financially, that the rest of us simply do not have (unless you are also super rich, which, in that case, congratulations). They have the ability to manipulate their finances and taxes (and hire lawyers and accounts to do so) in ways that the rest of us simply cannot. There is a reason that while the tax rate for the super rich is higher, they often end up paying less on a percentage basis, than most anyone else.
Second, you assert that some white people are poor, which is absolutely a true statement. But unless and until the people making the hiring decisions (the vast and overwhelming majority of which are white and male) decide that they are no longer going to hire other white people, your statement is entirely absurd on its face.
The law is enforced in a way that is different. If you rob a convenience store of $500, you might get a couple of years in prison. You can steal 1000 times that amount through fraud or embezzlement, and get the same couple of years in prison. Why? Because we assume that violent crime is more damaging to society, even though embezzling half a million dollars may ruin a company and cause it to go bankrupt, costing dozens of people their jobs. But really, it's because money is power, and being in a position to embezzle money is an indication of power, so we treat it differently. Knocking off a convenience store requires no societal power. Embezzling half a million dollars does.
Minority status isn't just about numbers (unless those numbers follow dollar signs).
Particularly when its not your health and lifestyle at risk.
Never stand next to Udoka in a photo. He will make you look very puny.
Also, Newman is pretty ripped.
Devonte and Garrett have the same hairstyle.
Billy Preston is a legitimately large human being also.
That's a clear sign that KSU doesn't think they can do better than Weber. They are in a state of trying not to get worse rather than trying to get better. I don't think they believe they can get better (or that they are willing to try to get better). They will be between 4th and 8th in the Big 12 as long as Weber is there. They won't bottom out completely, but they won't rise, either.
Oak Hill is too big a player (too established, etc.) to have the NCAA jerking them around. Almost all of the school's that have had NCAA issues have been newer schools (less history, not old money, etc.).
Just spitballing here. Two guys get tangled up going for a rebound.
They come down. One guy pushes the other. That happens in practice all the time. Maybe a similar situation here (full disclosure, I do not know, I am just guessing).
But reading what Self said, it's not the first part he's concerned with. When guys are competing, tensions can run high.
He's concerned with what happens after that. Does someone de-escalate the situation? Are the players calm, or escalating things?
Who is under control? Is anyone out of control? Does that carry over to the next play? The next several plays?
I think that's where the issue is/was. Something happened after the initial situation and Dedric went too far. He was/became an instigator rather than a level headed player.
People still smoke today, true enough. But look at the age of the people that smoke. It's usually not younger people. It's actually somewhat surprising to see someone under 30 smoking now. The TV campaigns and awareness have worked, not so much with older demographics, but for kids born in the 1990's, they generally think smoking cigarettes is gross.
The same thing is going to happen with football. It won't happen overnight, because football is still very popular right now. But the 20-somethings right now that are going to have kids may not let their sons play football, so instead of having 90 kids trying out for varsity in 15 years, there may only be 60. Instead of having 12 teams in a youth league in eight years, there may only be 8 or 10. Numbers have already slipped a bit for youth participation. Not by a large degree, but ever so slightly.
It's a slow erosion.
There have been problems, and nobody wants to deal with that for $14 an hour.
Is it the immigrant's fault, or is it the company that hires them for just pennies, pays in cash to avoid payroll taxes, houses them in the equivalent of slave camps (anywhere that has the locks on the outside of the trailers instead of the inside is a slave camp) and makes them work more hours than allowed by the department of labor, all so the company can squeeze out a little bit more profit?
It's easy to blame immigrants because we could (maybe) just get rid of them. But then what happens with the companies that are breaking Tax law, labor law, and criminal law (false imprisonment). Are we prepared to also prosecute and fine, arrest or otherwise punish them for breaking our laws. The immigration debate always centers on "we are a nation of laws that must be enforced." That's true, but many back away from punishing the corporations, CEO's and others that violate at least three bodies of law along the way because frankly its just easier to deport an immigrant because they don't have access to a high powered lawyer to defend them. And they said justice was blind...
The problem is that wages have stagnated. There are lots of jobs out there that are not minimum wage jobs, but are less than $15 and absolutely are assumed to be jobs that you can support a family on. Here's a list of jobs available from the state, along with the hourly wage:
http://admin.ks.gov/services/state-employment-center/job/job-postings ↗
We have nurse aides for less than $12. Corrections officers for less than $14 an hour. That's $25,000 and $29,000 a year, respectively. Those are salaries they expect you to survive on. The nurse aide job requires a 90 hour post HS course. The corrections officer requires only a HS diploma or GED.
And they wonder why these positions often remain unfilled.
Ultimately, the attempt to raise the minimum wage isn't to make HS kids rich. It's to raise the salary floor so there are fewer FT positions out there for $9-$13 an hour.
I think that could be a great experience for him, and he could earn good money doing something he loves. Good for him.
I agree that there are tons of moving parts on this deal, which is why this deal will probably take until training camp or later to actually come together. Just so much complications because of the salaries and talent in any deal. I think you nailed some of the players likely involved in a deal with any team.
I think Cleveland may actually put together a couple of different deals - one centered around Kyrie, the other around Kevin Love. This whole situation has the potential to entirely re-shape the NBA landscape with as many as a half dozen top 50 players in the league on the move, as well as possibly two or three young players with huge potential (thinking Wiggins, Bledsoe, Porzingis, Jaylen Brown). And of course, there could be an additional mystery team getting involved in the deal with picks or players we haven't identified (imagine Portland offering Damian Lillard and one of their first rounders from this year's draft for example).
Anything could happen.
Some of the best advice I ever got (from a great boss, actually) was "treat your employees like you would want them to treat you if they were your boss tomorrow." Really puts it into perspective. I think some people (unfairly) assume that they have risen to leadership because they are better than the people that are working for them. Hubris, as they say, will be our downfall.
San Antonio can't get Kyrie without moving several guys. Cleveland isn't just giving him away, and he's under contract for two more years, so the price for a trade will be steep.
Minnesota has the assets to do it, but they would probably have to break up Towns-Wiggins-Butler in order to do it. It would be odd if Wiggins found his way back to Cleveland in a deal.
The Knicks could do it, but it would take a lot more than just Carmelo. They would need at least one more team involved, maybe two because they don't have the assets unless they are okay with moving Porzingis.
Kyrie is a combination of age and talent that makes it hard to trade him because you have to get a lot back in return, which basically would cripple whichever team he goes to.
It's hard to measure effort with really talented HS kids because their talent overwhelms their opposition. It's hard to make it look like you're playing hard when you're running faster and jumping higher than everyone else. They are going max effort and you're just gliding along, yet still pulling away, jumping higher and basically doing whatever you want on the court.
Is the kid not playing hard because he's efficient, or is he lazy, or is he protecting himself? It's hard to tell without watching every minute of each game to see how they play against equals, against those that are overmatched, etc.
The average worker in the USA makes about $37,000.
The average CEO makes nearly $12,500,000.
$15 an hour is about $31,000 a year, but you have to remember that many hourly workers don't work a full 40 hour work week because they are only given part time hours to avoid benefits, so most people at $15 would actually still only earn less than $25k per year. And that's without paid vacations or paid sick leave, so that figure assumes they work 30 hours every week without taking any time off.
Companies could easily remain profitable if the pay scale were more equitable - in 1980, the average CEO made 42 times what the average worker made. By the 90's, that was 107 times. Today, it's over 330 times more. If CEO pay were still along the lines of 1980's salaries, CEO's would make about $1.3m per year even with the average employee seeing their wages go to $15/hr.
Of course, this is on a large scale, but I am sure you can find lots of companies where the salary scale is skewed significantly towards management at the expense of rank and file talent.
Of course, the people making the salary decisions are also the ones earning the most...
We are on the brink of a huge double whammy in this country - the need for a highly educated, highly skilled workforce (particularly with technical and computer skills), but the lack of any means to get the education necessary to get those jobs. Look at the countries that are consistently producing the most technically skilled workers - they are all under a variety of regimes politically, but they all have one thing in common - higher education is either very cheap, or it is free.
Doubling back to @Kcmatt7 and his point, the debt load on students leaving school is simply too high and it is going to cause many students to re-think whether college is a viable path. If education is too high to make the higher salary justifiable, smart kids simply won't pursue college if they are not on scholarship, or will pursue lower degrees (i.e. associates rather than bachelors, or bachelors rather than a graduate degree). Because most businesses have outright dropped on the job training, it is very difficult to increase education while working without returning to school part time, meaning many workers will not get any education beyond the highest level they have prior to entering the workforce.
How does the US compete with Europe and Asia when they educate their youth for free, while we make it incredibly expensive (and don't look now, but Africa is doing much the same)?
I'm about a decade older than you, but the problems you point to are very real. The debt issues, pay rates lagging well behind inflation, while the cost of education continues to skyrocket. All of that is truly problematic and you are absolutely right that something needs to be done to break the cycle.
But here's the thing - the private sector hasn't broken that cycle. While business earnings are up, wages have not kept up with those profits for rank and file workers. Businesses are continuing to make money (which is good), but earnings are not keeping pace for most workers (which is bad). The cost of education keeps going up, but its not because the salaries of educators is taking off. Its because the things you need to keep schools running (buildings, electricity, books, equipment, etc.) continue to rise. Those companies are making plenty of money.
And this is where government has two functions. The first I addressed above, which is providing for research, etc. for the greater good because the private sector won't do that (although the private sector benefits from the advances - through healthier workers, more efficient uses, etc.).
The second is regulation, which has somehow become a dirty word these days. Many oppose raising the minimum wage (a form of salary regulation) but wages continue to stagnate. Right now, a company's profits could increase 200% and the owners of the company could keep wages stagnant if they chose to do so. Yes, it's their business and yes, that is their right, but that is the problem that we face right now. Businesses are making plenty of money, but not passing it down to the working class. Government has never attempted to regulate that (and there are significant legal and moral questions about whether government even should attempt to regulate that), but that's the root of the problem that you point to.
If salaries were keeping pace with the increase in profits for companies (or at least coming close) taxes could be lower because the higher earnings would expand the tax base. Because that is not happening, taxes must rise to keep up with the increasing cost of services (remember, companies are making more money both by selling more products and also by increasing the cost of those products). When the cost of gas rises, the cost to run school buses, police cars, fire trucks, etc. also goes up. When the cost of paper goes up, the cost of textbooks, forms, etc. also increases. The oil companies make money. The paper and printing companies make money. The cost increases for everyone (including government) but the level of service doesn't change.
People blame government for that, but government doesn't change the price of paper or gas (for the most part).
So instead of funding things like Social Security (a social good) or pensions (something that has been neglected by both the public and private sector), government has to divert funds to keep up with today's services.
This isn't to make a partisan point, because these have been issues under both Republican and Democratic administrations. This is more to point to the problems and honestly say that we haven't moved the ball on any of them. I'm not arguing for bigger government necessarily, but government has a role in this. To say that the private sector will self regulate is folly. We would see almost zero safety standards and little (if any) paid leave time if that were the case because business is supposed to make money. It has no moral code. It has only a bottom line. And that is where a government for the people should step in.
I understand your stance on shots in the dark. I agree that its something that could be open for waste. I am also in full agreement that they have a fiduciary duty to be mindful of how tax dollars are spent.
But I also know that government is the only way to make those types of research possible because the private sector simply won't spend the money on things that aren't going to produce a financial return. Most of the big breakthroughs in medicine come from government teaching hospitals. Why? Because they do the type of widespread research that, while expensive, can produce those types of groundbreaking achievements. Private business just doesn't fund that type of research purely because it is a shot in the dark that, while it may be good for society, does nothing for the bottom line or shareholder positions. This isn't to criticize private business. Private business has a different function.
But that is the role of government (to serve the greater good of the public). Government isn't here just to keep people from killing each other and stay out of the way. Government is here to help build the best overall society for everyone to live in. That's roads and infrastructure, sure, but also research and discovery.
Natural PG is a guy that has the natural instincts, feel and overall propensity to play the position.
For instance, watch guys like Magic Johnson or Chris Paul. They do more than just understanding and being able to dribble, pass, etc. They understand where people need to be, and where they need to get the ball in order to score most efficiently. They know how to manipulate a defense with a dribble, or a jabstep, or a fake, in order to create a window to pass into or a lane to cut on. That's what natural PGs do.
Many young PGs are just kids that grow up with the ball in their hands because they are gifted scorers. They don't know how to move the defense to allow them to get easy shots for others. Natural PGs are guys that can get other guys to run the floor because guys know they will get the ball if they run with them.
It's a skill thing as much as an understanding thing, maybe even understanding moreso than skill (with the understanding that a minimum threshold of skill has to be present).
There are so few true 5's in CBB now that you don't have to have a true backup to the position. It's more important to have versatility than having a true 5, even as a starter, let alone as a backup.
I realize that its fun to talk about government waste and poke fun at projects that we believe are "silly".
But let's think about why it's important to know whether or not sea monkeys can be trained to follow light so that, if we need to drill for oil or resources in their habitat, we can possibly lead them with light to a new habitat and away from the area that may be a good drilling area.
Lots of different medical procedures and physical therapies have been pioneered through working with animals, so those Swedish massages for bunnies may be used to pioneer new therapies to help humans recover from injuries.
That's just two of the biggest "wastes" on that list. Add to that the fact that the good Senator's list isn't talking about much in terms of real dollars when it comes to the Federal budget. The 2014 Federal budget was $3.506 trillion, or $3,506,000,000,000. When you look at that number, $50,000 for Sea Monkeys isn't even pocket change. It's sofa lint. Anything that doesn't cost at least $1,000,000 isn't even really a line item.
It sounds like a lot of money to us because our budgets aren't in the billions and trillions of dollars, but a few hundred thousand isn't even like pennies.
Think about it this way. If you make $50,000 a year, a nickel is .0001% of your overall budget.
If your budget is three and a half trillion dollars, $3,500,000 is worth the same as a nickel proportionally. It's like saying buying one piece of nickel candy in a year is an enormous waste. Literally no one ever does that. And remember, that's for a nickel. Spending $50,000 is nothing. Like literally nothing in comparison. Even a few hundred thousand barely registers because the numbers are so big.
Bagley is good at basketball. Really good. When you're trying to win national titles, finding people that are really good at basketball helps you do that. If Bagley wants to come to KU, come on down. We can figure out minutes and rotations later. He's good at basketball, and that helps win games.
Additionally, Bagley is versatile, as is Preston. They could play together with Azuibuke because they can both handle and shoot from the perimeter (that front line would be HUGE). Playing them with Newman and Vick would be a pretty scary lineup. You could also go semi-small with those two, Svi, Vick and Graham together, or smaller with either Bagley or Preston, plus Svi, Vick, Newman and Graham. That's a fun lineup that would probably be very explosive without giving up much in the rebounding department if Bagley were in there as the only big.
Whitman was going to be a backup. Bagley could potentially start. That's an upgrade (if Bagley comes). If not, KU is still okay because Whitman was depth, not someone they were relying on.
You should probably hate the owners, then. They are the one's getting the tax breaks and such to build their stadiums/arenas and not move their teams to other places.
Hill is a very solid NBA starter. The Kings aren't going anywhere right now, so they have to overpay a bit to get a player like Hill that could get a solid offer from a contender. The Hill contract is frontloaded, so as their younger guys improve they will have a chance to spend some of that money on those guys while Hill's salary number drops.
The NBA has a salary floor that a team like the Kings needed some help to hit. Of the 17 guys the Kings have under contract, 8 are still on their rookie deals (not including Frank Mason, who will be added to the roster, likely in place of one of the other veterans, giving the Kings 9 guys on rookie deals). The Kings won't be good right now, but they are giving themselves a chance to build something if they can develop their young guys.
I would take one or two more losses if it meant better tournament preparation.