🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Respect. That and remembering that we are all on the same side in the end. Those are the two things that strengthen a country. Those are really the only ideologies that matter. Not right. Not left. Not conservative or liberal or libertarian or red or blue or whatever other descriptions are out there.

Do I agree with our current president - not on many things. I want America to be great, but I also recognize that his idea of what is great doesn't line up with my idea of great. I don't want him to be an enormous failure, just like I didn't want the current governor of our great state to fail. I just fear that some of his policies are likely to end in disaster.

I am especially wary of what's going on now because the president has effectively de-legitimized any criticism of him. That's very dangerous because, no matter how good he is as president (and we all have our various opinions on that) the ability to criticize is foundational to a democratic society. Throwing away that disagreement as illegitimate undermines the principles on which democracy is built. That doesn't mean, of course, that President Trump will ruin the country. That's hyperbole. What it means is that it could erode some of that foundation, in the same way that blindly following a leader (any leader, whether it be a politician, or a coach, or a pastor, or anyone) erodes the healthy skepticism that leads to the best choices.

I'm a boss at work. I manage a small staff. I tell everyone when they are hired that they are always allowed to respectfully question the decision making, provided that they can provide a reason for their questions (I just don't like it doesn't count). Sometimes, based on that criticism, we change paths. Sometimes, we don't because on further review, that criticism isn't as big a worry as they may have thought. But each criticism helps ensure that we cover every angle and that we don't get a "herd" mentality right off a cliff. Sometimes it shows that my original idea wasn't the best one. That doesn't undermine my leadership. It enhances it because I have the confidence to lead to the best solution, not just my solution.

But that only works if there is a channel for respectful dissent.

The major problem in today's politics (both sides are to blame here) is that there is a lot of absolutism and villainization without any room for the type of respectful dissent and discourse that promotes problem solving. My way or the highway is no way to lead.

I need to see Doke healthy before I can say where he falls.

Not sure Preston is OAD, but if he plays to his ability he is gone. I see him kind of like Ivan Rabb from Cal - OAD potential, but probably plays two years.

Newman is almost certainly gone unless he plays poorly or gets hurt (knock on wood).

Vick is really the wildcard. I think he could leave if he has a big year, but him leaving assumes a pretty big leap (becoming a 14-15 ppg scorer, or being a very well rounded player while averaging 12ish ppg).

@DoubleDD

Clinton was investigated - for Whitewater, for Lewinsky, for Benghazi, for emails, etc. It's not like her and former President Bill Clinton's dealings were not looked into. They very much were. That's what I don't understand. It seems like people are saying Clinton got a free pass, when I can name four things off the top of my head that were investigated and that had Congressional hearings on. You're at least as old as I am, so I can't imagine you don't remember those investigations, particularly the last two since they were both talked about quite a bit over the last 18 months.

As for Obama being investigated, trust me when I say, there are people in the GOP that hate him enough that they would investigate him for anything if they thought they could make it stick. There was a GOP Congress for six of the eight years Obama was in office. Perhaps if they hadn't spent time on over four dozen attempts to repeal legislation that opened up health insurance for over 20 million people, they could have found time to investigate him for something (not sure what you have in mind here - no one has ever pointed to a scandal within the Obama White House, not even conspiracy sites can point to anything with legs).

And all of this fails to address the key point. Trump and his associates have continually denied any contact with Russians. If it was legal, that's great for the country, there's no scandal and we can all move along with our daily lives. But they denied it. Up until last week, they said it didn't happen at all. That's the issue here. Regardless of if you think this meeting was legal or illegal, there's no question that the Trump team denied that it happened when its clear that it did occur. If the meeting was legal (and for the good of the country, I hope that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians) then why not just admit it happened, say that you met to get oppo research, she pulled the switcheroo and wanted to talk sanctions, you walked away with nothing helpful and moved on with the campaign. If you do that, the story is in the news for a day or two, then fades away as irrelevant.

The meeting is not the story. THE COVER-UP IS THE STORY

JoJo White? He was a top 10 pick, but we're talking back to the 70's, and whether or not you consider JoJo a 1 or 2 (I believe most consider him a 1). No one else comes to mind.

I'd imagine it would have to be a specialist type player at a high mid major. I doubt a player at a power 5 school would get enough really good looks to shoot that well.

Last year Markus Howard of Marquette shot nearly 55% as a 5-11 freshman on 150 attempts (82-150). Let's drop his attempts from 150 to 140, then he only has to make 84. Yes, that's two more than he made last year in 10 less attempts, but it's doable in theory.

Still, someone as small as he is probably isn't a good candidate because he's going to have to shoot over bigger guys.

Nick Masterson of Kennesaw St. is 6-6. He shot a shade over 54% last year (86-159). Take away his 20 most challenged shots and he only needs to make 84 to hit the magic 60%.

A guy that might be able to do it is actually someone that some on this board are familiar with - Mitchell Ballock, now at Creighton, but originally from Eudora, Ks. He's 6-4, which is decent size for a college wing, and is likely a four year player at Creighton. The offense at Creighton creates good space for shooters, so he's in the right type of system. He's a very good shooter, and, if he's selective, could probably get into that level.

It would be incredibly difficult because a player would have to go basically the entire season without a real shooting slump. A 2-7 from three evening would be backbreaking for that sort of attempt. It would take almost everything going right, but at the same time not shooting too much. The sweet spot is probably 135 - 155 total attempts. Many more and the percentages will drag you back to the low to mid 50s. Basically this would be a season long aberration of a hot streak - the only two players to shoot over 50% from three last year were also two of only three players in the top 50 to shoot fewer than 160 threes total on the season.

Can it be done - yes. But you need a team with two great shooters, one of which shoots for volume while the other racks up the higher percentages. Will it be done - doubtful. A shooter that hot is going to be tempted to increase their volume, which will erode the percentage (regression to the mean).

@DoubleDD

Unfortunately, the deal that you are talking about is often misunderstood.

In 2010, Hillary Clinton, as SOS, approved Russia purchasing a company called Uranium One. This is a multinational company. This deal required not just Sec. Clinton's approval, but the approval of several other agency heads. In short two major things here:

1. Clinton did not have the ability to push the deal through on her own
2. The deal did not sell US Uranium, but allowed for the purchase of a uranium company with multinational assets, including assets in Kazakhstan, Canada and other places. Even by owning the company, Russia cannot legally export the US mined uranium out of the US.

Given those two facts, sure, we could launch an investigation, but because Clinton did not have unilateral approval authority, and because the purchase was a legal purchase run through the proper channels (and not hidden from the public eye) there's very little that is suspicious here.

Now let's look at the current situation and assume the facts most favorable to President Trump and his associates. Those are:

1. The Russian government was not behind this meeting
2. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were not seeking to connect with the Russian government in this meeting
3. The conversation was supposed to be about oppo-research on Clinton and the Russian attorney changed the subject without their knowledge
4. This meeting was 100% legal

I don't know if any of those four things is true, but I am assuming all of those things in this scenario.

If all of that is true, why was President Trump not forthcoming and transparent when he said that neither he nor his associates met with any Russians during the campaign (something we already know was untrue from the other meetings that Sessions, Flynn and Manafort had that they did not reveal)? Or, if the President (then candidate) was unaware of the meeting, why was he not informed that his statement was untrue so that he could correct the record for the American people?

Remember, Sessions said in his confirmation hearing that he hadn't had any such meetings, then had to correct that statement (because he was under oath). Flynn was fired because he was not forthcoming. This is at least the third time someone within the Trump team has had meetings that they did not disclose. If it was completely legitimate, why not be transparent, especially when the questions came out?

And once it did come out, why continue to deny until the proof (the content of the emails) was leaked? Remember, the Trump team has said from the start that they did not work with Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. Nearly every member of the team has said that either explicitly or implicitly on multiple occasions. Now there are emails of Don Jr. accepting a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get information that may be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

As I said, we are assuming here that that was the intent of the meeting and that the Russian government was not backing this meeting (i.e. the lawyer was acting independently). But the emails basically confirm that the Trump team was open to accepting foreign help to defeat Ms. Clinton, the very thing they have denied for the last 9 months! You can't just reverse position on that. There's no question that Trump Jr. knew this was a foreign actor, even if this person was acting independent of the Russian government.

We are assuming the meeting was for the purpose that Trump Jr. says, and that he was not aware of the switch that he claims the lawyer pulled on him until it happened in the meeting. But the purpose was to get foreign help to take down Ms. Clinton, the very thing Trump, his campaign, his surrogates, Fox News, Breitbart, half the GOP and many voters in America have argued did not happen. He would have been better off saying that the meeting was to discuss the Magnitsky Act sanctions (a foreign policy issue that you could argue a Russian lawyer would have interest in if they have a client that is caught up in those sanctions). But he didn't. The emails are clear. This was to get dirt on Clinton.

They always say its not the initial act, but the cover-up that often brings people (and organizations) down. So what act are they trying to cover up? It's already taken down Flynn. They (Trump, his surrogates and his inner circle) know the stakes. So why keep denying, unless there is really something there? Why deny this meeting if it was a waste of 20 minutes? It's either an attempt to cover up something major, or an appalling lack of awareness and judgment.

The challenge is finding news that isn't blatantly trying to mislead or espouse conspiracy.

Has the mainstream media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.) made mistakes? Absolutely. Have they been called out on those mistakes? Yes. Has that led to better work from them? I believe so, as noted from the retractions that several of these newsites have made over the last several months. Those retractions have been publicly embarrassing for those organizations, but I believe that it also reveals that media is working to improve.

As for Breitbart, they are clearly linked to Trump's inner circle. Is that illegal or unethical? Not illegal, probably not unethical, but it does create questions about the integrity of what they are doing.

When you couple that with the stories that they have done - a check of the headlines on the top of the Breitbart page reveals the following:

Scoop War: New York Times has neither seen nor read latest 'Russia email'

Russian Lawyer says she didn't have Kremlin link or Clinton info

Don Jr. was told in email of Russian effort to aid campaign

500 police injured by left wing attacks at G20

Liberals to Trump Supporting Tangier Island 'We hope you drown'

ACLU lawsuit against Trump election commission 'Attack on Rule of Law'

That's six stories, with two directly smearing the "left" or "liberals", while three of the other four attack Trump opponents or opposing issues. It's pretty clear what the lean is here.

All the while, the issue that is being ignored is this.

Regardless of your partisan lean, Donald Trump said that his team "did not meet with Russians during his campaign." This statement is clearly false. Not even Breitbart is denying that this statement is false. Instead, they are saying that the Russian that Don Jr. met with wasn't affiliated with the Kremlin. That may be true. I do not know. But either way, Don Jr. knew that he had this meeting, and he never said, in all of these months, "hey dad, I met with a lawyer from Russia. She doesn't have Kremlin ties, but we ought to at least clarify this so its clear to the public."

It was denied right up until it was discovered, and now they are saying its no big deal, and Breitbart, either with facts or with bias (the story is too new to know which at this point) is aiding in that effort. And their chairman advises the president. I wonder if that has anything to do with it...

He's going to see a ton of double teams this year. Let's hope we have some guys that can take advantage of the extra attention that he is going to be getting.

I would be careful about putting too much stock into +/- in summer league.

+/- depends quite a bit on who you are on the floor with. If you are on the floor with 4 other guys that are going to make the regular season roster, while the other squad has four or five guys that are G-League level players, your +/- is going to be higher than a guy who is on the floor with maybe only one or two guys that will be on the regular season roster.

Mason has to finish at the rim over the improved size of the NBA. I think he can make the adjustment, but he may need half a season in the G-League before he is ready to make that move.

No surprise that Diallo is playing very well. The Pelicans have done a very good job developing him. He could be a big surprise for them this year in the regular season. Selden will also likely see some rotation action for Memphis. His athleticism and shooting fit well with the direction that the NBA is heading.

Central Michigan is pretty solid. They were a bowl team last season, and they beat a very solid Ohio team last year that I think we all agree could give KU some problems since that same Ohio team beat KU in Lawrence last year by a couple of touchdowns. Given that, I don't think its unfair that a slightly better KU team is a slight underdog to Central Michigan in Lawrence, and a more significant underdog to Ohio on the road.

KU hasn't been good on the road in a while, so I can't really blame anyone for not thinking they will win any road games. I think both the ISU and TCU percentages would jump by 20% or more if the games were home games for KU. This is a long rebuild, and it will take some time before the national media has any confidence in KU playing well anywhere, let alone on the road.

The legislature was hesitant to prevent guns from being carried in state mental hospitals. That's really all you need to know on the topic.

@BeddieKU23

I agree with @mayjay that with the right group around him, yes, he was worth it. This draft class was very good, but the downside is that there wasn't one absolute franchise carrying player in the group. There wasn't a Lebron or Durant or someone on that level. There were a lot of guys just a notch below - but none that were on that elite level.

Because of that, every draftee is going to be successful, depending on the situation. If Fultz, or Jackson or anyone else in the lottery. Justin Patton, for instance, could end up being very successful by teaming with a team that won't put a ton of pressure on him, but will still get him playing time to develop in Minnesota. Jayson Tatum might struggle to find minutes on the Celtics. Injuries could derail anyone.

If the Lakers build around Ball correctly (shooters, an elite scorer and a good rolling big - Paul George, DeAndre Jordan and JJ Redick could work in those roles) he will succeed because his best skill is passing. If the Lakers try to turn him into John Wall or Isaiah Thomas, he will fail because he's not a primary scorer.

@Kcmatt7

I actually think he needs less structure in the Elite Eight. Let the guys go play ball. Self seems to want to control every aspect of the outcome in big games, rather than letting the talent on his team decide the outcome. If you say to guys, hey, I trust you - go play our game, they can relax and play ball. If you tighten up, they do too because they are trying to avoid mistakes.

That's the fear with Embiid. He could be an all star, but he could also never play even 50 games in a season.

Ball is a pass first PG. He's a great passer because he has well above average court vision.

Because he is such an adept passer, he needs to be surrounded with shooters and rolling big men. Everything else will fall into place around him. If he can learn a defensive scheme (he's a decent athlete, so even if he's a below average individual defender, if he stays system true, he will be okay) he could be a near all star. He will hit threes because he has great range and will hit when he's open. Otherwise, he will pass and other guys will make shots.

He will never be a dynamic scorer, but I could definitely see 16 points, 10 assists and 5 rebounds from him, while shooting 40%+ from three. Surround him with the right shooters and scorers, and you could mix up a championship caliber team.

@brooksmd

It's more just watching, especially how they shoot on the offensive end. You can tell the team is pressing in certain games, trying to make plays out of nothing. Against Purdue, KU was drilling shots, laughing and smiling, having a great time just playing ball. Against Oregon, they looked like they were locked in a phone booth with a tiger. That's visible in their play.

That Suns squad has a ton of youth and potential. The Celtics are in a more complicated situation because its hard to develop young players when you are also trying to compete for a title.

I wish him luck, but today's NBA isn't built for a guy like Landen. Congrats to him for landing the invite.

I don't think it was a slap in the face to KU that they only had two guys drafted. KU only had three guys in the draft, and we all knew that Lucas being drafted was an extreme longshot. Josh went one pick lower than many had predicted, but he was too talented to really slide once Boston didn't take him. At that point, he was the best player on the board and Phoenix picked him immediately.

Mason went earlier than a lot of people probably expected.

Self doesn't load up on NBA type athletes, so he's not going to get guys drafted at the same rate. Look at the current team. Graham is a smaller PG, so he won't be a lottery pick, though he will likely get drafted. Newman is explosive so he probably will, and maybe can sneak into the back end of the lottery. Preston is a first round body, but needs to match that with production. Azuibuke is the same. Svi is a late first round/second round type talent. Same for Vick. Nobody else on this years team is even a real prospect (not counting the Lawson's since they aren't eligible to play). Six guys are potential draftees, but none are surefire lottery picks and half of them are probably late first or early second round type picks.

That's just the nature of it.

I am going to say something bold - Malik Newman is the most talented guard Bill Self has had at Kansas.

I don't know if he will be the most productive (that was Frank last year, obviously). I don't know if he will be the most successful (Chalmers). I don't know if he will be the most well liked (Frank again). But from a pure talent standpoint, Newman is better than anyone Self has had. He's basically what everyone hoped we would get when Josh Selby signed, except he has already shown he can play at the D1 level (although not to his talent - yet).

@HighEliteMajor

I'm a lawyer. I'm also black. Because of the way business works these days, I often do business either by phone or email with people that I have never met. As I relayed in a comment last summer that was unfortunately lost in the reboot, I have had a situation where a guy I worked with for over three years (but had never met in person) walked past me and shook hands with another person in our office, assuming that person was me (even going so far as to address that person by my name). The person he shook hands with - a white male. In his mind he had an image of a business lawyer and that image was not a young, black man. He had seen my work. He had talked to me on the phone. And yet the image in his mind was not me - it was of a 40ish year old white man.

That doesn't make him mean. It doesn't make my colleague that he went to mean. But the implication is clear. He expected and assumed that he had been dealing with a white male the entire time and was surprised to discover that wasn't the case. I had proven my talent by then - we had successfully negotiated two major deals by that point - but in proving that he assumed that I was white.

That's not an excuse for failure. I've succeeded professionally by any measure you can generate - I've made good money, I've done things that were ground breaking, I've trained proteges that have gone and had their own success, I've been invited to speak at various events, etc. - but it speaks volume that my level of success suggests to some that I must be white, as if being black should be some sort of impediment.

And that is the bias that I am talking about. It's simply assumed that I can't be the same person that is this good at my job because I don't look like I can be this good. Andrea Hudy faces that same challenge because people automatically associate her job (strength coach) with a big, strong guy. And that's not just white men - that's all people. If you asked a group of people to pick out the strength coach and put head shots of these people, I doubt many would pick Hudy as the strength coach:
!alt text ↗
!alt text ↗!alt text ↗

That's not because anybody is evil. It's just that society assigns certain jobs to genders (nurses and elementary school teachers as women, police officers and firefighters as men, etc.) Pointing that out doesn't make white men evil. It doesn't make anyone evil. It means that society has established certain arbitrary roles and subconsciously we all place people in those roles based on appearance, etc.

That's why lots of people doubt that Jeremy Lin is an NBA player even though he's 6-5. That's why many people doubted David Eckstein was a pro athlete when he wasn't in uniform.

There's a thing called implicit bias, where we associate certain stereotypes to appearances and other factors. It's why people with southern accents are considered less intelligent, while people wearing glasses are considered more intelligent, even though your accent or sight has no correlation to intelligence.

Denying implicit bias does not make it untrue. It just makes you blind to it.

Oh, and those pictures - Try to guess the professions (or you could just do a Google photo lookup and see).

@JhwkrRedLegs

They don't need great. They need competence. That's not a huge ask. They aren't looking for a star here.

@Kcmatt7

Complete backcourt overhaul after this year with Graham and Svi graduating and Vick and Newman likely leaving after what I anticipate will be huge seasons from both of them. Whitman's gone up from, along with maybe both Azuibuke and Preston if things go well for both. That's potentially seven spots opening up. We have three filled with Moore and the Lawson brothers, but we will still need some major contributors for 2018-19.

HighEliteMajor said:

THE FACT IS NO ONE EVER SAID THAT HUDY GOT THE ACCOLADES BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN. NO ONE.

Then you quote @elpoyo

@elpoyo said -- "but i don’t really get what the hoopla is about Hudy? she’s a female??? is that it???"

Then @HighEliteMajor says this.

But that undeniable fact doesn't matter. He never said it was because of her gender, and neither did I.

Let's go backto @elpoyo for a second.

"But I don't really get what the hoopla is about Hudy?"

That statement seems to question why Hudy is such a big deal, or why we talk about her so much, or something along those lines.

He then says she's a female??? is that it (empahsis mine, obviously).

That at least implies that the only reason for Hudy getting "hoopla" (his word, not mine) is because she's a female.

You quote the very sentence that says what you claim was never said, then say that no one said it.

Am I the only one that sees that?

We can agree or disagree about the existence of bias. That's a reasonable conversation to have. We can dispute the weight that bias plays into things. That's also very reasonable.

We can't say that this quote doesn't question Hudy's accomplishments based on gender. That's ignoring the actual words that were written.

@elpoyo goes on to question what Hudy has done beside be a female in a men's D1 program. It's all there in the comment.

How else is that supposed to be interpreted when that's exactly what's written.

@BShark

Maybe, but we may have lost to the Topeka YMCA when we had PG problems.

I saw a piece on a D-Day veteran yesterday. Sadly, as @mayjay says, there are just so few still around. I remember thinking the same thing last December with Pearl Harbor. There just aren't many veterans of those battles still around. The youngest WWII veterans are now in their upper 80s or early 90s. Those stories just don't get passed down as much anymore - my grandfather fought in the Pacific theater. I heard those stories when I was younger when he would talk about it, but I doubt my younger cousins heard much about it because of the difference in age.

@approxinfinity

Kid doesn't have to be an All American. He just has to be able to run the offense so the talent around him can excel. An average performance from him will do wonders for Texas overall because they were simply unable to get any sort of production from PG last year.

I watched Texas in a few non-KU games. There were times where they just couldn't get into their offense to get good shots in key moments. Texas lost the following games by 5 points or less last year:

at Michigan, vs. Arkansas, vs Kent State, at K-State, vs TCU, vs West Virginia, at Georgia, at Oklahoma, vs. K-State.

Decent PG play probably turns 6 or 7 of those 9 games into wins. Good PG play probably turns all 9 into wins. I watched the Michigan game and the Oklahoma game. They went three or four possessions in both of those games without getting a shot up (bad turnovers). They couldn't even get the ball in to Allen. And yet they still lost by 3 and 4 on the road respectively. A solid PG gets them shots in those games and they probably win most of them.

They probably don't make the tourney unless they win all 9 of those games (18-15 with a 7-11 conference record won't cut it), but 20-13 with a 9-9 conference mark would have gotten them a bid with wins over tourney teams Michigan, Arkansas, KSU (2) and WVU. They probably replace KSU or Michigan on the bubble.

Hudy is very good at what she does. She ain't perfect, but neither is any other strength and conditioning coach in the country.

She led groundbreaking research on the affects of stress on athletic performance a couple of years ago.

She has done some impressive things to get more explosion out of different players.

However, there's also research out there that certain people, simply because of the way they are built, their frame can't handle the extra explosiveness. That's not really her fault, and I am sure she is working to guard against that, but that's still an existing fact.

Does the fact that she's a woman matter. Yes and no.

No, because she is skilled at her job. She's just like anybody else.

But yes, it matters because in addition to being skilled and knowledgeable, Hudy has to convince 18-22 year old guys that they should listen to a woman about getting stronger, faster and more athletic. That's not exactly an easy sell, and most certainly not a level playing field because she has to prove herself to be not only knowledgeable, but also gain the respect to get full buy in from the athletes themselves.

So Hudy, in addition to being a skilled strength and conditioning coach, must also be a superior communicator in order to achieve that buy in.

Does that make her better at her job than a man? No. But does she have to use more skill to get the same results? Yes.

There's a credibility bias that women, young people, and minorities face within the workplace. It's assumed that they just aren't as skilled, as knowledgeable or as hard working, which requires them to do even more to prove themselves. As a minority myself, I can speak to that bias. You have to first prove that you are worthy of consideration before you can prove that you are skilled. We wouldn't even be having this conversation about whether or not Hudy was good at her job if she were a man. Her track record would speak for itself.

KU only signed 2 players. That right there will drive recruiting rankings down because KU didn't get much in the way of volume. Neither recruit was a top 10 recruit, either (Preston is 19, Garrett is 52 on 24/7). However, KU does bring in, as mentioned above, Newman (former McDs AA and #8 overall recruit in 2015) and Sam Cunliffe (#39 recruit in 2016). If those two guys counted, KU would probably be ranked behind Texas at 5, but somewhere in the mix with Louisville and Alabama (both of those schools have more players, but KU definitely has more incoming talent than Alabama, and maybe more than Louisville).

So while the ranking may say 35, the truth is this is easily a top 10 class of incoming talent.

@Texas-Hawk-10

The issue is that football also had physical safety issues to stand behind. The NBA doesn't have that because its been proven that younger players can play and succeed in the league. This would just be an arbitrary change.

Of course, its tough to predict, but there are arguments here that weren't available to Clarett.

Look at KU's own history with lower ranked guys.

Andrew White, Brannen Greene, Royce Woolridge and Rio Adams were all lower ranked recruits that came. Only Greene lasted more than two years, and he never started. White, Woolridge and Adams all bounced around after leaving. It could be argued that those three would have been better off going to a different school as opposed to trying to stick at KU.

For many of those guys, being ranked outside the top 50 at a school like KU is basically like being a walk-on, except that you would actually play at maybe 340 of the other schools at the D1 level. That knowledge gets frustrating after a while.

Cavs had to know they weren't beating Golden State if they gave up offensive rebounds. Warriors are too good offensively to allow second shots. No surprise they couldn't keep up with the Warriors when allowing offensive rebounds. Add to that the Cavs turning the ball over a million times and they are lucky it was a single digit game at half.

Game 1 didn't tell us much ultimately, because we already knew the Warriors were great offensively and the Cavs didn't do the basics (rebound, stop the ball). I know that wasn't the gameplan (or its the worst gameplan ever), so we have to see what happens in Game 2.

I think that's a pretty accurate take. KU and WVU should be better than everyone else, with a decent gap from KU to WVU, and another decent gap from WVU to the rest. The next six should be fairly close, with TCU possibly as a sleeper to finish in the top 4. KSU and OSU should be at the bottom because neither appears to have the personnel to keep up with the rest of the conference. Even in a league without tons of top shelf talent, both of these squads seem to be fairly barren.

@kjayhawks

I don't buy into much that Weis said. He has always hyped up his preferred QB, regardless of production. Heaps may very well have hit everything when he was in practice, but in practice, QBs don't face a rush during the week. Heaps basically evaporated under pressure.

@JayHawkFanToo and @BeddieKU23

Mitch appears to play with high hips. Because of that, he's always going to struggle with getting leverage because he doesn't get as low as some guys. If he's going to be able to maintain position even playing with high hips, it's got to be from getting stronger. Carlton Bragg had/has the same problem. Some guys just can't or don't stay down as low, so they lose leverage and strength. The only way to compensate is to either get stronger or learn to play lower.

Think back a ways to a guy like Alonzo Jamison or Richard Scott. Neither of those guys was among the biggest, but they played low, so it made them seem bigger. Charles Barkley at the NBA level did this. Ben Wallace is another good example. All of those guys were strong, but even when they were giving up size, because they had low hips, they could maintain leverage both offensively and defensively. TRob is a more recent KU example of a guy that played low, and as a result was a nightmare to handle in the post.

Mitch has the ability, but he has to remedy the high hips, either by consciously getting lower, or by getting stronger to make up for not being as low.

It's sad that this type of crap still happens. Lebron seems to have taken a good perspective on it - as long as his family is safe, it shines a light on something that is still a problem area in this country. I hope they catch the idiots that did this.

Mitch's biggest shortcoming is a lack of physical strength. He's just not strong enough to play the 4 in a power 5 conference. He needs about 20 pounds of muscle. In all truth, I would have liked to have seen him take a red shirt year last year to gain some of that strength. His skill set is solid enough to gain minutes, but he flat out cannot hold position right now at his size. That makes him appear much less skilled than he really is because he just isn't strong enough to take advantage of his abilities because he can be bullied inside.

I still think he's a year away from really being able to help us. If he has a good summer, I may change that opinion, but his work is in the weight room and at the training table, not on the court right now.

@JayHawkFanToo

LaMelo is not nearly the passer that Lonzo is. Lonzo is an NBA level player because of his passing, not his shooting/scoring.

@BeddieKU23

I think Garrett is going to be on the NBA radar. I just don't think he will be an NBA candidate after one year. I do think he will do well at KU, but I see him in the same way I saw Vick coming in - a three or four year player. Garrett may not play a ton this year, but he will probably play quite a bit as a sophomore and junior.

I think we should play Mizzou. I have always thought we should play them.

This is a big rivalry. Our current rival is KSU, a rivalry that literally does not matter outside the state of Kansas. This hurts especially in football, where our relevance outside of Kansas is pretty low. KU needs to play Mizzou in all sports, but especially men's and women's basketball, and in football. This rivalry is beneficial.

Think about it like this. The last weekend of the football season (Thanksgiving weekend) KU and MU play at Arrowhead on Thursday or Saturday.

The week after Christmas, play them in basketball (or put it the first week of December, a week after the football game) in a double header (men and women) at the Sprint Center.

Those are games that are (hopefully) regionally and nationally relevant, as opposed to just within the state.

@BeddieKU23

I would be shocked if Garrett and Cunliffe are not on the roster in 2018. Cunliffe would have played barely two semesters of college ball (and wasn't an OAD to begin with). Garrett is not a likely OAD, either.

Vick could make the jump after his junior year. He may be in a position similar to what Svi was in this year. I don't have much in the way of a guess right now. Need to wait and see how Vick's season starts out before making an assessment - consistency and ball handling will be the key things to look for.

@jayballer54

I am not completely sold on Harvey yet. I can see the talent there, but he doesn't get to showcase his ball handling and creativity very much in Hayden's offense. I haven't seen him on the AAU circuit yet, but I would like to see him be a bit more dynamic because he won't be able to get all of his offense within the regular flow of the system as the competition and defense improve. Basically, I need to see him be able to cut loose outside the system.

Newman is a creator. Graham can be, although he needs to be more consistent about it. And Preston should command double teams even when he faces up. That's enough offensive juice when you consider the shooting that we will have from Svi, Vick, Graham, Newman and Cunliffe (when eligible).

Azuibuke probably won't see as much collapsing defense because he's going to be a third or fourth option. That will help him as his game matures.

I'm surprised Mizzou isn't on here with their incoming squad. They should be good. An OU-MU or MU- UT matchup would have been pretty intriguing.

@Kcmatt7

New Orleans is one piece away, but they don't have a first round pick this year and they may not have a high lottery pick next season because the Davis/Cousins combo will be too good to get a top five pick. They could even make the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed. But that won't help them get the last piece they need.

They are a piece away, but have no clear path to getting that last piece. All of the teams I listed either have all of the necessary pieces, or have a clear path to getting those pieces in place. That's not the case for the Pelicans.

@Kcmatt7

I'd rather have Chris Paul right now. But in three years, Ball, George, Randle, Ingram and X could be a contending core. At the start of the 2013-14 season, no one would have coveted a core of Curry, Thompson and Green. Now, you couldn't get that for a king's ransom. Lots of people thought all of those guys were pretty good players. No one thought they would all be all stars. Green was coming off a rookie season where he averaged 3 points a game. Klay Thompson had played two very solid, but not spectacular years and looked like a rotation piece, but not a star. Curry was becoming a star, and was coming off a season where he attempted 600 threes for the first time, but no one could have seen a 400 make season coming.

That's what I am point to. The Lakers in three years could have a core that represents where basketball is going with Ball (a passing and three point shooting PG), Ingram (maybe he unlocks his Durant lite potential), George (a two way star), Randle (a PF that can handle the basketball and rebound), and whatever X turns out to be. That's better than having Paul, George and Jordan right now because that group is unlikely to be good enough to take down Golden State right now.

Truthfully, I would rather have what Minnesota has simmering (Towns, Wiggins, Lavine, this year's #7 pick and a solid bench) than just about anything (you have to worry that Philly may never be able to keep Embiid and Simmons on the floor enough together to achieve what they could do) anywhere else in the league.

Best current NBA situations:

1. Boston - really good team, top pick, a star (Thomas) and a developing star (Brown).
2. Golden State - historically great team in its prime. They won't be this good in five years, but they could stay this good for the next three.
3. Cleveland - historically great player extending his prime, with two bona fide all stars entering their primes. They, like Golden State, lack the ability to add another great young player through the draft, but as long as Lebron is Lebron, they are here.
4. San Antonio - because its the Spurs and they do this better than anyone.
5. Houston - recognized the revolution before almost anyone else.
6. Minnesota - best situation of all the non-playoff teams with super young talent.
7. Philly - if everyone can stay healthy
8. Lakers - If they get the draft right, they can turn things around in a real hurry with free agency.

Everyone else.

Last New York - Just a mess no matter how you look at it.

@Kcmatt7

Lakers will have George anyway. The Lakers have a built in advantage of always being an attractive free agent destination because it's LA. The mix of guys being from there and guys wanting to live there is always in play.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lakers lineup in two years is PG - Ball, SG - Ingram, SF - George, PF - Randle, C - Draft Pick X.

The team drafting Mason is likely drafting him as a backup. After that, it's really up to Frank how things turn out. If you're drafted after the first 18-20 picks, teams aren't picking you to be a starter or a star. They are drafting you hoping that you can contribute on a winning team as a role player or off the bench. That's why teams are frustrated when lottery picks don't pan out, and ecstatic when late first rounders do. The Spurs have stayed good because they have landed good players late in the first round. Most other teams have not had that success, which is why the Lakers are bad right now.

Also have to remember that draft day trades make it hard to predict what will happen because once picks start moving, the whole look of the round could change. That's the part that lends to the lack of surety here.

Let's imagine for a moment that the first 9 picks go something like this:
1. Boston - Fultz
2. Los Angeles - Ball
3. Philly - Jackson
4. Phoenix - Tatum
5. Sacramento - Fox
6. Orlando - Isaac
7. Minnesota - Smith
8. New York - Monk
9. Dallas - Collins

Portland has three non-lottery first round picks. Sacramento has two top 10 picks. Sacramento is in the midst of a huge rebuild. Portland needs an infusion of talent to go with Lillard and McCullough. Sacramento offers Cauley Stein and 10 for one of their wings and picks 15 and 26.

If Portland says yes, they probably aren't taking a PG with that pick like some mocks have Sacto doing. They are taking a wing or a big man. Let's give Portland Jarrett Allen. Charlotte now takes Markkanen, and Detroit decides to move down from 12 to 16. Sacto is holding 15 and 26. They already have Fox, so they probably want a scoring wing and a defensive big to go with him since they moved Cauley Stein. Maybe Giles at 15? Or Justin Jackson? Maybe Justin Patton? And that would have the trickle down affect through the entire rest of the first round.

Frank would be much better off going to a solid team where he can join a decent second unit than going to a rebuilding team where they wouldn't have the type of bench players that could help him succeed. I don't know that Philly would be a good situation for him because of that, but San Antonio, Golden State, Houston, heck, even Boston, Memphis, Washington or other playoff level teams would be good places for him to land.

@Kcmatt7

I should have been more clear. I think it will speed the game up. But I also think the analysis was flawed and officials may struggle to name the proper final score based on the formula because the strategy will have changed.

The game slows down in the final few minutes because teams slow down their pace if they are ahead. But if the final few minutes is about reaching a certain score, that changes the strategy.

It also changes the strategy of blowouts. When do you put in your scrubs?

Imagine KU is up 92-68 when the under 4 comes. Do you just put your scrubs in and have them try to score the last 7 points, or do you leave one solid offensive threat in just in case? No, you shouldn't blow a 24 point lead, but the clock isn't running out here. How many times have we seen situations where that last unit can't really score - not that they are really trying.

I guess my point is, if the pace of the game doesn't slow down, 7 points really isn't a good target because chances are the pace of the game would dictate that more than 7 points would be scored. And who's to say the pace would increase. If you're behind, you go all out to get stops because you can't give up any points really. Maybe you don't play a stronger offensive player because you have to get stops first and foremost. That could turn the final few minutes into a slog anyway, just because it would emphasize defense first from the team that's behind.