🏀 KuBuckets Archive

I don't think this will work.

The analysis was done based on how teams currently strategize. Changing the rules changes the strategy.

For instance, right now, the strategy is to use clock if you are ahead by X number of points with X amount of time left. Under that line of thinking, maybe you only score 7 more points in the last two minutes because you eat clock, then shoot FTs in the last minute. However, if the thinking is that you need to score just 7 more points to win, your approach changes. Maybe you take that quick corner three that you would otherwise pass up to eat more clock. For the team that's behind, maybe you try to attack the rim rather than hoisting threes because you need points, not just trying to catch up.

The change in strategy would alter the scoring. I'd be curious to see how this tournament plays out. It could make for interesting games, but with nothing at stake, teams may take risks that college and pro teams wouldn't otherwise take.

@approxinfinity

Fair enough. The NBA is a business and that sours a lot of people on it because the business side of things is never far from the surface.

Lebron creating the Wiggins trade probably benefited Wiggins in the long term (and possibly in the short term).

If Wiggins doesn't get dealt, he plays a lot fewer minutes as a rookie because that Cleveland team wasn't built to develop young players - it was built to win immediately. That means they still bring in veterans like JR Smith and Iman Shumpert, leaving Wiggins on the bench for long stretches of the season. Maybe he can help defensively as a big wing in small ball lineups, but he certainly isn't getting to play 35+ mpg and be the go to player as a rookie.

As a second year player, he probably gets more minutes, but again, he's not getting big minutes and likely isn't turning into a 20 ppg scorer because they aren't trying to develop a young player. He's playing barely 20 mpg in all likelihood. Maybe finally this year he's getting substantial minutes, but how much growth would have been stunted by the goal of winning immediately? Look at a guy like Jaylen Brown. Top 3 pick in his draft. McDs AA. Averaged 17 mpg this year. 6 points, 3 rebounds. He's starting to get some minutes in the playoffs, but a Cleveland team with Irving, James, Smith, etc. on the perimeter isn't going to give a young Andrew Wiggins playoff minutes.

Compare that to #2 pick Brandon Ingram. He played almost 29 mpg for the Lakers. His numbers weren't great, but he played lots more than Brown did and had more opportunity than a team fighting for the playoffs could afford to give.

But that's the business side. If you're on a contender as a young player, your role is almost certain to be limited. Development is secondary to winning on a playoff/championship caliber team.

@Kcmatt7

I think part of the hate for today's athletes (not just Lebron) comes from the overexposure they all have. We see everything about these guys. When's the last time you went more than five days without being confronted with a random famous athlete even casually outside of their sports? You don't have to watch the games because they are on social media, in commercials, on the news for everything. Being a sports star makes you part of the news cycle.

I've never heard about Lebron or Steph Curry getting in trouble with the law, or generally doing anything that was reprehensible. Yet they are "arrogant" and "self centered". I think it's just fatigue more than anything. Lebron says he's great, which is more a statement of fact than a statement of arrogance. He's one of the three greatest players OF ALL TIME. PERIOD. The most well rounded player of all time.

I don't think he's ever been in trouble with the law. I've never heard about him beating on or cheating on his wife. You don't see him showing up in clubs. He just happens to be maybe the best basketball player to ever live, and he's aware of his skills (which is part of his greatness).

I do a little teaching on the side sometimes, and one of the most frustrating things when I teach is working with a student that is unaware of their abilities. They actually hold themselves back because they don't think they are able to do things sometimes. The same thing happens in athletics. Athletes cannot be truly great until they understand their own physical ability. Lebron understands that now. When he was younger, he understood his athleticism, but not how it fit into the basketball context. Now he understands both and makes basketball a joy to watch. I watch Lebron and try to see what he sees on the court. At this point, Lebron could be half the athlete he is and still be a star because of his understanding of basketball. Just brilliant. Fascinating to watch.

I don't mind that some don't like the NBA. You have your reasons and that's fine. But let's not trash a guy that, from all appearances, has basically been a working man that comes home and takes care of his wife and kids. That's all any of us want to do in life.

It would be quite an accomplishment for Landen if he could make an NBA roster. 15 years ago, I would say he was in great shape to do so. Now, I don't know if he has the defensive ability to guard on the perimeter on switches, or even containing the quicker guards on the hedge.

That said, Landen will put in the work, so if it's in his grasp to do it, I have no doubt that he will do it.

To me, this is the best part of the playoffs. We're down to the best four teams. Granted, San Antonio is shorthanded without Kawhi, but Pop could make a couple of adjustments back in San Antonio to at least make those games fun.

Boston doesn't have a chance against the Cavs, but it's fun to watch Stevens try to adjust with who he's going to guard James, Irving, and Love with. He tried to take Kyrie away by putting Bradley on him. That worked, except that James and Love feasted to such a degree that it didn't matter. The Celtics could have kidnapped Kyrie and they would have lost last night.

It's also interesting seeing how Cleveland and Golden State are preparing for each other.

I'm not a Marcus Smart fan, but he's a very sound defender (which is why his flopping annoys me). He can guard 1-3 (although he has no chance against Lebron, but he actually tried to play Lebron straight up, just giving away too much size/strength.

I've been looking at Javonte Smart. He can shoot, but he gets to the rim with such ease that the best shots he can get are often layups for himself and teammates. He's a really good passer as well, so he can set up teammates pretty nicely. I could totally see him going several games without shooting jumpers because he just doesn't have to, although his shot is not broken like Fox's shot when he came in.

@wissox

But Oregon didn't kill us offensively with Bell. He protected the rim with his athleticism and used his quickness on the glass.

Jackson could have matched Bell's quickness and athleticism.

@jaybate-2-0

You can switch, but sooner or later, a switch will be late, or someone will get backcut and you give up a layup or open three anyway.

Zone is too vulnerable to perimeter shooting. You have to be able to match up man to man.

@drgnslayr

The way basketball is being played now, having a big, punishing 5 man is bordering on obsolete. Pace and space is the new black of fashionable basketball. That's the way the game is being played. There's still room for a mobile big man like Azuibuke, but bigs that are not mobile are finding themselves without a real place in today's game. We have entered the era of positionless basketball and the era of the stretch 5 simultaneously.

KU's best lineup last year may have been one they used for less than 10 total minutes all season - Jackson, Svi, Vick, Graham, Mason. That lineup doesn't just lack a traditional 5, it doesn't have a traditional inside player at all. But here's the question that every team would have had to ask against that lineup - who do you put your big man on? You can't guard Jackson with a big guy. He will torch him. If your big can't chase Svi out to the three point line, that's trouble. Same for Vick and you can forget about putting a big man on Graham or Mason. And unless you have a big man that can literally score every time in the post against Jackson or Svi, your size advantage is rendered irrelevant.

That's where basketball is going. If you aren't mobile as a big man, you can basically forget it unless you are able to bull your way to the rim and score 7 out of 10 times, and even then, teams are going to put you in so many pick and rolls that your head will spin. Did you see what Steph Curry did to Rudy Gobert last week. Basically turned one of the best shot blockers in the world into a pretzel on the perimeter.

Good 5 men are much less valuable now because you can exploit them on the other end defensively by forcing them to come out and guard shooters on the perimeter (or rain open threes). It's an athletes game. Look at the best two big men in this year's recruiting class - Ayton and Bamba. Both are slender athletes that can run and jump and catch lobs. That's today's game. Unfortunately, Coleby returning from his injury is a throwback to a time that has passed. I hope he regains his explosiveness, but I understand his decision to move on and wish him the best of luck.

UCLA has the most titles. Don't see how you can do a list of bluebloods without the group that has the most titles.

Kentucky and UNC fit into that same criteria. Indiana as well. Duke and KU also.

After that, it gets a little more dicey. I think a school has to have multiple titles (preferably separated by 10 or more years). They need to have long stretches of consistently high performance.

Michigan State is on the cusp of that. They don't have quite the history, but they do have two titles and they have been consistently good for basically the last 25 years.

Arizona doesn't have the multiple titles, but if they did, they would be right there as well.

Ohio State has a strong history, but has long stretches where they basically fade away. Same with Michigan. Florida lacks the history prior to the 1990's.

NC State isn't consistent enough. Same with many of those old Big East programs (Georgetown, St. John's, etc.)

UConn is the toughest call. Four titles, but not really any history prior to the late 80's, early 90's. Still, that is over 30 years of history here. And they do have four titles. That's not nothing. But I don't think they have a long enough history.

@wrwlumpy

Frank is demonstrating that he is a championship level backup PG at the next level. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the playoff teams didn't take a very long look at him as a late first or second round pick to help stabilize a second unit. Washington, Houston, Portland, Cleveland, and Atlanta could all definitely use a good backup PG.

@jayballer54

The reason for testing from those spots is that those are game style shooting drills.

Off the dribble 15 ft left or right break is a classic PnR pullup jumper. That's a shot you see Chris Paul take a lot out of the PnR.

Off the dribble top of the key is the pullup you often see Steph Curry take when the defense sags.

The spot up moving right and left simulates shooting off flare screens - the Cavs do this a lot with Kyle Korver. The Warriors do the same with Klay Thompson.

And of course, the rest of the set spots are simulating the kick outs that come from dribble penetration. Hitting 90% from the corners is a huge deal, as the corner three is equivalent to NBA gold.

Weber's antics and voice are irrelevant to me. He's just not major conference coach.

He can't retain players, so he uses the excuse that he has recruited some players that succeeded in other places. Happened to him at Illinois. Is currently happening at KSU. He is a guy that would be incredibly successful as a D2 coach or a low major coach. He just doesn't have the chops to recruit/retain at the highest level.

Mizzou learned the same lesson with Kim Anderson. D1 ain't D2. You can't approach it with the same mentality. Weber showed in his statements about recruiting that he is approaching recruiting at a major conference like he's at a low or mid major program. It's not just that he's not getting top 50 or top 100 guys. He's signing guys because he's their only major conference offer. If you sign a guy that considered Auburn and Minnesota, but ultimately picked K-State, that's a solid signing because you're looking at major conference type guys. When you're getting guys that were only offered by Pacific, Siena and Weber State, you can't hope to compete in a Power 5 conference.

I think Weber is a coach that has fallen into the same trap a lot of coaches fall into. As a coach, most guys favor fundamentals, hard work and execution because at each level, those things are important. However, as you move up the chain, talent becomes so much more important because the baseline of talent rises so quickly that if you don't have X amount of talent, no level of hard work, fundamentals or execution is going to hide your lack of overall ability.

This happens at every level. A junior high coach may love the skinny kid that always hustles, and you can ignore the fact that the kid isn't at all athletic because the skill level hasn't ramped up. But that kid has no chance and gets cut the first day of freshman practice because he isn't skilled enough. High school coaches have the same situation with kids that work hard and execute, but those kids quickly recognize that their competitive days are over after high school.

Weber is trying to coach against pro level talent, but he's trying to do it by recruiting a ton of less talented, but hard working guys. Sometimes, a guy like Iwundu rewards that. Other times, you end up with a guy that's outright unplayable because he's too small, too slow, too whatever. That's the mistake guys make when evaluating players. You evaluate talent first, effort second. If you find that the most talented kid in the gym is also the hardest worker, you get Josh Jackson. If you just look for effort, you get the annoying guy in the pickup game.

@dylans

I was referring more to the requirements to ban the weapons. In order to make a facility gun free, you have to have special enforcement rules and security measures (required by the law that expanded the conceal carry). So in order to make games gun free zones, KU (and other sports venues and other places) has to add security for sporting events and make special new rules like the bag rule.

@dylans
Unfortunately, with the allowance of conceal carry on campus, anything that could contain a weapon has to be banned now.

@JayHawkFanToo

I agree totally. But he didn't want to confront whomever it was. He knew it was his job to do "something" so he called the police. He didn't want to have to get personally involved, so he didn't go into the hallway.

@JayHawkFanToo

People just don't want to get involved. @jayballer54 had a similar question on the Penn State thread he started. People just are afraid to speak up and say something isn't right. We have seen that over and over. If something doesn't personally hurt that individual, or if speaking out might not be personally advantageous, people, even adults in leadership, more often than not will choose to stay silent.

There was a time when people had courage - real courage. Not fighting in a war courage. I'm talking about the kind of courage that allows you to stand up and say something is wrong even if the person that is doing the thing you don't like is powerful, or popular, or whatever. We see more people that would rather just stay quiet and hope the problems don't find them. That's a sad reality.

That's pretty interesting.

The thing that stands out the most in that article is that Weber is proud of the fact that he lost four good players that were contributing to other teams. That's not something to be proud of. That's close to a fireable offense to lose that much talent. I think that tells you everything you need to know about why Bruce Weber's teams struggle the way they do at times.

@Lulufulu @BeddieKU23

I will grant this much - Frank Mason was rated higher coming out of HS than Isaiah Thomas was. Thomas wasn't even a top 150 recruit. He wasn't a top 40 PG. Frank was both of those things. So in that, I suppose Frank really can look to Isaiah Thomas for motivation - he wasn't supposed to make it, either.

@BeddieKU23

The college PER doesn't necessarily translate. It's doubtful that Frank gets 4 rebounds a game in the NBA. Also doubtful he shoots 47% from three (I still think he shoots above 40%, but 47% is elite level stuff).

The other challenge is how he handles guarding the John Wall's, Russell Westbrook's, etc in the League. Offense isn't always the difficulty for smaller guards. Often, it's the defensive end, where they are constantly being isolated and attacked, particularly in the post (see how Washington has posted up whomever Thomas is guarding). The NBA posts up guards in ways that college does not. That's what makes it very difficult for smaller guys to succeed. They have to be able to be effective offensively and stand up to the attacks in the post. Thomas gets attacked regularly in the post, but he is so good offensively that he makes it less important.

Can Frank be that good offensively? If not, he will see his minutes dwindle, similar to guys like Augustin, Collison and Jameer Nelson.

Second, can Frank be efficient offensively when being guarded by bigger guys. One of the difficulties of the NBA is that guys don't help as much as in college. They help only to (or from) certain guys within their defensive scheme. In college, you help as part of the regular rotation, regardless of who you are guarding. In the pros, if you are guarding a good shooter, you stay home and the rotation changes. That leads to fewer open looks (which is why sometimes guys that were very effective in college see their shooting numbers plummet in the pros). There are more capable shotblockers at more positions, so every game turns into having Jordan Bell in the paint because literally every NBA team has a guy like Jordan Bell.

Can Frank be efficient at his size despite that? That's a question that he has to answer in real time. Remember, Isaiah Thomas gets his shot blocked more than any other player in the league. He's able to be efficient because he shoots so well from three and knows how to get free to finish despite getting so many shots blocked. Can Frank do the same?

I think he has the work ethic to do so, but that doesn't cover the ground between being effective and being an All-Star.

@Lulufulu

That's a pretty tall order (no pun intended). Isaiah Thomas played three years at Washington and never averaged less than 15 points per game. Nobody saw Thomas becoming what he has become, but everyone could imagine, even as a freshman, that he could become a big time scorer off the bench leading a solid second unit.

Frank has been a bit later to really blossom into that type of player. He could certainly become that type of guy, but it is extremely rare for a player that size to excel as a scorer or player.

In the NBA, they use PER as a stat to evaluate. 15 is considered league average. Here are the players in the NBA this year under 6 feet tall that had a per higher than 10:

1. Chris Paul - 26.2
2. Kyle Lowry - 22.1
3. Isaiah Thomas - 21.5
4. Darren Collison - 15.9
5. J.J. Barea - 15.4
6. Ish Smith - 14.9
7. DJ Augustin - 13.9
8. Aaron Brooks - 11.8
9. Isaiah Canaan - 11.1

That's 9 guys in the whole league that were above 10. Only 5 guys shorter than 6 feet are better than average. It is incredibly difficult to become more than a backup level player in the NBA at under 6 feet tall. You have three all star level players, 4 good backups, and then several okay to mediocre backups.

I think Frank can play in the NBA, but I think there's a better chance he becomes a Darren Collison/DJ Augustin type player than becoming Isaiah Thomas or Kyle Lowry. I worry that if he tries to be an Isaiah Thomas type, he may wash out of the league before he gets a chance to shine.

There is money to be made in the NBA as a 6-8 catch and shoot specialist if he can become a sound system defender. He has the size to become something of a Kyle Korver, but with the ability to put the ball on the floor a bit more.

This team could win 3-4 games. That's a huge step forward.

@JayHawkFanToo

I'm going with consensus. If Iwundu gets in, that probably hurts Mason, Motley and Evans. The Big 12 has four guys that are borderline first/second round picks. Chances are that as the first round dwindles down, all four of those guys don't get picked. If Evans goes, Mason probably doesn't. If Mason goes, Evans probably won't. If Iwundu get picked, that means teams are likely going for more wings, so a guy like Motley falls down the board. If Motley gets selected, that means Iwundu probably sticks on the board because there are better wings out there. The lack of true lottery talent in the conference will probably keep all four of those guys from going in the first round because one moving up almost certainly moves another one of them down.

@BShark

They usually do okay. Arkansas, Florida, LSU and Vanderbilt all have had picks in the last few years. Usually, its a couple from UK, then one or two from other schools in the conference. Last year, for instance, LSU had Simmons and Vandy had a couple guys. The SEC has more take a game over type talents (look at South Carolina and Arkansas from this year). That helps them make runs when those guys get hot. The Big 12 lacks that, which is why it's hard to make deep postseason runs.

This was something we started discussing a few weeks ago when talking about why the Big 12 has less postseason success than other major conferences. I'm glad @KUSTEVE has brought this topic back because it is important to the future of KU hoops and the Big 12 overall.

First, let's just cut to the chase and admit that the Big 12 needs to add Memphis and Cincinnati to the conference immediately. That gets the group back up to 12 and also introduces some new recruiting territory into the conference footprint.

Next, let's admit that while the Big 12 has some very good game coaches, the conference lacks any elite level recruiters other than Self. In fact, I would go so far as to say most of the coaches in conference are below average recruiters. That's a killer. It introduces parity into the conference because the talent level is pretty equal across the board, and it helps the conference look good early in the season because the Big 12 maintains continuity season to season because most schools aren't losing tons of players early, but when plays need to be made in March, the Big 12 doesn't often have the players to do that.

Let's have a look at some NBA mock drafts to see where the talent is:

Big 12 - Jackson, Jarrett Allen and Jawun Evans are the only Big 12 players listed in the first round.

SEC - Fox and Monk from Kentucky are the only SEC players.

Big 10 - Anunoby and Swanigan are the only Big 10 guys.

ACC - We have Jayson Tatum, Johnathan Isaac, Dennis Smith, Justin Jackson, John Collins, Luke Kennard, Tyler Lydon, and Harry Giles. That's 8 guys.

Pac 12 - Fultz and Ball are anticipated to go 1-2. Markkanen is a top 10 guy. Ike Anigbogu is here, along with Rabb and TJ Leaf. That's six guys.

Looking back, last year the Big 12 had 2 first rounders, the SEC had 5, the Pac 12 had 4, the ACC had 4 and the Big 10 had 2. Notice a trend?

Big 12 gets less talent in, puts less talent out and as a result, can't seem to get over the hump in March, while the SEC and ACC consistently bring talent in, which allows their teams to run deep into March even if we believe the Big 12 is superior in some way.

@dylans

If he doesn't pick up his performance, the question is whether or not they should retain him.

@JayHawkFanToo

Also because Olynyk was the one that undercut Wall, something had to be done. The Wizards couldn't let him continue to take shots at guys since he was definitely leading with either the shoulder or the forearm on almost all of his screens.

I will say that what Oubre should have done was get up and start yelling at Olynyk to quit leading with his shoulder and stop playing dirty. He would have gotten a T for it, but he wouldn't have been kicked out, and because the official was right there, it puts the spotlight on Olynyk's play to hopefully (if you're Washington) protect your guys later on.

Olynyk is one of those guys that always seems to turn up in dirty/questionable situations. He was the player that dislocated Kevin Love's shoulder in the playoffs a couple years ago, and has had some similar "get tangled up, other guy gets hurt" type of situations. Remember, he was also the guy that caused Wall to go down hard on his wrist in game 2. Had Wall been seriously injured, there may have been an incident in Game 2.

Olynyk has a habit of making high risk plays (diving when guys are in the air, grabbing guys arms awkwardly, etc.) that expose guys to injury risk.

@HighEliteMajor and @drgnslayr

While it is fundamental to not take a long time to gather under the rim, this isn't always a thing of habit or purposeful intent.

As I wrote at length last year, Landen just doesn't have great hands. That was probably my single greatest issue with him. He struggled to catch the ball cleanly, both on passes and rebounds, which necessitated bringing the ball into his body to secure it. Watch good bigs, the really good ones, and see how good they are with their hands. Watch how they can catch the ball cleanly even when passes are off target, or when rebounds are outside their body frame. The test is to see if they can catch the ball with their arms fully extended, or if they have to "short arm" the ball (i.e., they have to bend their arms to really secure a pass or rebound). Only guys with very good hands can keep their arms mostly extended.

Watching Whitman, he can catch cleanly. Any more, that's the biggest thing when I start evaluating a big guy. His hands are better than Doke's in my opinion. If a big can catch the ball cleanly, he can be a solid rebounder and has scoring potential. If he has to slow gather, he will struggle in both areas because he will get stripped quite a bit.

After watching the highlights, I am feeling a bit better about Mr. Whitman. He has pretty good hands, he has good footwork and he doesn't mind dunking on people's heads. I don't think he will be a star, necessarily, but he can certainly be a rotation piece. He can probably help Lightfoot along in practice as well. I wish the highlight had shown him on defense a bit, but I am guessing that he was not asked to be a big time defender at W&M. Bottom line, though, he can help the 2017-18 Kansas Jayhawks.

@dylans

Its not just a thing of Devonte needing to try harder. It's an issue of focus, conditioning and working on specific aspects of his game so that he doesn't have to be playing his best in order to play well.

The NBA is a grind. You're gonna play your best maybe 4 or 5 times during the entire season. But you have to be able to raise what average and poor mean to your game. Devonte has to raise his floor. His ceiling is NBA quality, but that's a handful of games during the season. He either has to make sure the "floor" games are less bad, or that he can play average literally every other night so a coach will accept 5 great games, 5 duds and 70 very solid outings.

@BeddieKU23

Devonte has to show that he can play PG. He just doesn't have the size and strength to dabble at the 2 in the NBA. He has to be a PG, and that means he has to show he can run the point all year without a guy to trade off time at the point with. That's why he's back.

Devonte can shoot. He can pass. He can defend (everyone remembers his work against Buddy Hield). He just needs to show that he can be exclusively a PG (and that he doesn't need to move off the ball to get his own offense) and that he can play that position every night (instead of the occasional 2-9, 3 assist, 2 turnover "What's going on with Devonte" nights he has every now and then).

The question for the combine is simple. Are you a pro or not?

For some guys, they are kind of in a prove it position (Frank is in this group). NBA scouts want to see how they perform against top prospects to see if they have a chance to handle NBA level competition. If you have NBA level athleticism and skill set, there is no harm in declaring and testing the waters. If, however, your skillset is lacking or your athleticism is subpar, there is definitely some harm in being exposed, but if that's the case, you may not be a pro anyway.

@wissox brings up Bronson Koenig. He's a nice player. Very good college player who took and made a ton of big shots in his career at Wisconsin. But if you evaluate him like an NBA scout would, here's the report:
1. Average athlete at best
2. Undersized 2 guard
3. Cannot play PG
4. Solid shooter (but not elite) - never shot above 45% from three in college
5. Secondary skills below average - doesn't rebound, pass or handle at above average level

If that's the consensus scouting report (and it likely is), why bother inviting him when his ceiling is D-League rotation guy.

As opposed to say, Melo Trimble. Trimble did not have as strong a collegiate career as Koenig. But Trimble's report would read something like this:
1. Decent size for a PG
2. An average to above average athlete
3. Below average perimeter shooter
4. Rebounds well for a PG (nearly 4 per game in his career)
5. Solid defensive chops, needs to be drilled on scheme and technique
6. Turnover happy

Ceiling as a fringe starter, floor of a backup PG.

That's the cold reality of NBA scouting. Koenig doesn't get the invite because his best hope in the NBA is a shorter, poorer shooting Kyle Korver (Korver is 6-7 and never shot lower than 42.9% from three in his college career - Koenig is 6-4 and never shot higher than 40.5% from three in his college career). Trimble does because his worst case scenario is something like Cameron Payne - a career backup PG.

I think the number of senior invites reflects the fact that the system is working. College seniors are not going to often get drafted at this point, particularly in the first round. If you haven't made your mark by the time your senior year rolls around, chances are its because you aren't good enough to play in the NBA. You at least need to be on the NBA radar before then.

Frank is an interesting case.

The good - he has demonstrated a work ethic and ability to improve. He's strong and tough. He has developed his outside shot. He can handle the PnR. Good basketball IQ.

The bad - he's not getting any bigger. He may have trouble guarding bigger people. Self PGs don't have a great NBA track record (again, this is just for NBA careers, not college) - Deron Williams was a success. Mario Chalmers did well. Dee Brown was a bust. Sherron Collins was a bust. Josh Selby was a bust. Tyshawn Taylor was a bust. All but Taylor were McDs All Americans when they entered college. All were very good college players (except maybe Selby). That matters to NBA folks.

The things to work on - NBA shooting range. Frank didn't shoot a lot of deep threes. He's gonna have to step back another foot or so in the NBA. I think he can, but that is something scouts will be watching closely at the combine. It actually hurts Frank that Ball and Fultz won't be on the floor at the combine. Frank needs to show that he can handle bigger guys and those two are among the biggest. Athleticism. As a smaller guy, Frank needs to show that he is as explosive as the bigger guys.

Washington doesn't really have any frontcourt depth. Morris and Gortat were the only big men to play more than 20 mpg during the regular season. Wizards have to go small without Markieff because their other options are not very good. Boston may try to go big to punish Washington for going small since the Wizards literally have one decent healthy big man at this point.

Still, Wall is playing the best he has in his entire career, so he may be able to lift the Wizards while Morris is out.

@BeddieKU23

I would echo what @JayHawkFanToo said, and add a couple additional thoughts.

The NBA is very demanding from an athleticism and skill perspective. You have to have both. If you don't have the athletic ability, there's no reason to even try to see if the skill is there. That's why you see guys that are good college players, but not very athletic, end up staying around in college seemingly forever. Think about a guy like Georges Niang. Very good player. Highly skilled. Not athletic enough to play either the 3 or 4 at the next level. Case closed.

On the other side, you can have guys that are incredibly athletic, but not skilled enough. Maybe NBA folks will take a chance on them once in a while, but the lesson of Kwame Brown says that athleticism is not enough.

I wouldn't worry too much about Ball only shooting 7.6% of his shots as 2point jumpers. The 2 point jump shot is a very inefficient shot, and most NBA schemes are going away from that shot. They are more interested in three pointers and layups/dunks. The fact that Ball, as a guard, could get more than a third of his shots at the rim speaks to some athleticism. He's also a phenomenal passer. He has never had to defend at any level, but he has the physical ability to be better than the turnstile that he has been to this point.

Additionally, Ball will have the opportunity to add to his game. He's the best passer in this draft. With everyone looking at what great passing teams do in today's NBA, Ball will be a top 3 pick. Fultz will be there. Jackson will be there. I think it goes, Fultz, Ball, Jackson, but it could go in any order, depending on how the ping pong balls fall.

@wissox Pierce spent a dozen years in Boston. He spent three in Lawrence. I would imagine those years in Boston weigh more heavily in his mind. I don't think that's a disrespect to KU, or a bias against the midwest. It's just he's an LA guy who finished his career in LA that happened to spend most of that career in Boston (and won a title there).

He never won a national championship at KU. He was a great player that doesn't have a clearly iconic KU moment (like Chalmers' shot) that most anybody that's a basketball fan would remember. We're KU fans, so it's easy for us to point to games we remember, but I don't know if that's the case for non-KU fans. The championship in Boston probably stands out to more casual fans, even those that don't necessarily follow the NBA. That's the tough case of lacking the national titles. It just doesn't resonate with more casual national fans.

It's hard to predict what a guy Frank's size will do at the next level. He could be Isaiah Thomas or DJ Augustin. It's a tough leap because of the athleticism difference between college and the NBA.

@ParisHawk

I don't know UNC's rosters as well, but most of their top players from that era were from North Carolina, Virginia, etc. I think they had a couple of kids from Texas during that time, but that's about it. I'd have to check to be sure, but it looks like they stayed on east of the Mississippi, particularly on top level recruits.

@Big-Clyde52

Brown and Davis were both juco guys, so I don't know if they really count as guys east of the Mississippi. Newton and Alvarado were seniors on Williams' first team, so they really don't count, either. Darrin Hancock was from Georgia, but he was also a juco transfer. So was Calvin Rayford (from Wisconsin). Other than that, there's a couple Illinois natives (Sean Peason and Marlon London). That leaves Gregory and Moody. Moody was a walk on. That leaves Kenny Gregory. Everyone else was west of the Mississippi.

Gregory, Pearson and London were the only four year scholarship players signed by Roy Williams in 15 years at KU that graduated from high school east of the Mississippi River. That's pretty astonishing.

It's also interesting that in Bill Self's second recruiting class (after his first full season), he signed three four year guys from east of the Mississippi. Alex Galindo (from New Jersey) didn't pan out and ended up transferring. However, the names Russell Robinson (New York) and Sasha Kaun (Florida) may look familiar.

The rest issue in the NBA isn't a big deal to me, honestly.

The games may be less physical as far as the bumping and banging, but they are more intense now. Watch in the 80's and 90's how many teams packed the paint. There wasn't nearly as much effort on closing out to the corner on shooters, or extending well beyond the break defensively to defend the PnR. You have to really work on both ends even if you are guarding a non-star because of the sheer amount of ground you have to cover defensively.

In the 80's and 90's, you knew that either a post up or isolation was coming and could align your defense accordingly. Now, even a team like the Warriors that has stars, if you load up against Durant, they swing the ball to Thompson so fast that you have to be working off the ball to make sure Thompson doesn't go inferno on you.

The game is so much more spread out that even big men are having to cover tons of ground. Remember that adjustment KU made against Purdue to elevate the PnR another 4-5 feet to make Purdue's bigs have to cover more ground? That's every possession in today's NBA.

As a result, guys are working a lot more and also putting in a lot more offseason work. They don't work just on game days. For today's players, it's a year round thing, and that's before you include things like travel fatigue and injury prevention.

Go back and watch the games. Watch how much closer most of the action is (a big contributor to why the games were so physical) in the late 80's and early 90's. Then go watch a game from the last couple of years. See how much more spread out the action is. Look at how much more quickly the ball moves (and how rarely it stops on isos). That's a lot of effort now that just didn't happen before.

The truth of it is that KU's next coach may not be coaching at this moment. Bill Self turns 55 in December, so he could reasonably coach 10 or even 15 more years. Let's split the difference and call it 12 more years with Self.

Bill Self, as @Kcmatt7 points out, was 41 when he was hired at KU. Roy Williams was 38 when he took the KU job. Larry Brown was 43 when he took the KU job. Ted Owens was just 36.

That's KU's last four coaches and none were over the age of 43 when they took the job. If Bill Self coaches at KU for another dozen or so years, that means KU's next coach is likely in his early 30's or even mid to late 20's. If that's the case, chances are we don't actually know who will be KU's next coach because they probably aren't even a coach yet.

Aaron Miles will be 46 in 12 years. Haase will be in his 50s. Same with Vaughn and Hoiberg. Donovan, Few and others will be in their 60s by then. Simply put, unless Self retires sooner than most anyone expects, every single person mentioned so far on this board is already too old to be the next KU coach. We would be better off betting on someone like Russell Robinson (turned 31 in January) or someone younger than that like Niko Roberts (Norm's son), Travis Releford, or Kevin Young.

I am on only two boards on the entire internet. Oddly, both are having discussions about the whole ESPN thing today.

On the other board (I won't name it here), the discussion is centering on cable unbundling, carriage fees, the cost of cable subscriptions vs. streaming services, the demographics of cord cutting, etc. and how live sports is the only thing that props up the old model.

@dylans
You have already granted that the 2007 Cavs weren't very good (likely a lottery team without Lebron), so let's talk about his Miami teams.

The 2011 team should have beaten the Mavs. Absolutely should have done it. He won in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, they went up against the Spurs, a team with three future HOF players, a HOF coach, and young Kawhi Leonard. I can't find a similarly talented team that Jordan went up against. 1991 Lakers maybe, but they didn't have the elite young player to go along with their HOF level players, and Pat Riley was no longer coaching in LA by then. There's no way any of the other teams Jordan's squads defeated would measure up to that Spurs team.

In 2015, yes, Love and Irving were on the roster, but Love got hurt in the first round and missed the remainder of the playoffs, and Irving was injured near the end of Game 1 of the Finals, missing the rest of the series. That's like taking Pippen and Rodman off those Bulls squads, then seeing if they can knock off the Jazz or Sonics.

In 2016, Cleveland was healthy and they won the whole thing.

Basically, Lebron plus any sort of talent gets you to the Finals, and, unless he clashes with HOF level talent once there, his team is probably winning.

Pick any player in history. Lebron can guard that guy. Pick any basketball skill. Lebron does it at an above average level at a minimum.

Let's take Lebron's stats this year. Leaguewide 2FG% is a shade over 50%. Lebron is at 61%. That is not a misprint. 61% on 2pt shots.

Leaguewide 3pt% is 35.8%. Lebron is at 36.3% He rebounds well. He defends. He passes. In the Finals last year, here are Lebron's lines for the last three games, all must win situations for Cleveland:

Game 5 - 41 points, 16 rebounds, 7 assists

Game 6 - 41 points, 8 rebounds, 11 assists

Game 7 - 27 points, 11 rebounds, 11 assists, also possibly the greatest (or at least the most iconic) chasedown block in history.

Those numbers are insane. Lebron's averages for the series - 29.7 points, 11.3 rebounds, 8.9 assists, 2.6 steals, 2.3 blocks, 49.4% from the field, 37.1% from three, led both teams in all five major statistical categories. That is nuts. And the thing is that those averages are a shade off the 35.8/13.3/8.8 that he tossed up in 2015 with a lacking supporting cast. Every year from 2012 on, the Finals MVP has either been Lebron James or the guy that guarded Lebron James. That's how important he is on the floor. He forces the guy guarding him to be a star.

@approxinfinity and @HighEliteMajor

Sports has changed. 50 years ago, athletes like Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali stood out because they were so much more outspoken about social issues than most. Now, because athletes are so much more financially secure, there is less fear in speaking out because guys like Lebron, or Serena Williams or others are not afraid of being blackballed out of the sport because of what they said. Colin Kaepernick definitely wasn't afraid of that, whether it cost him his career or not.

As a result, a different perspective is being brought to the forefront. That perspective makes some people uncomfortable because they want to, as Clay Travis said, "pop a beer and listen to sports talk..." But Lebron James or Chris Paul or others see things happening in society and they use their celebrity to speak on those issues because those issues are very real to them and their families/communities.

I don't agree with everything ESPN does or has done, but ESPN's struggles are more due to the way the market has changed than it is what they cover. Subscribers have been falling for years. It's not like this just happened in the last 3-5 years (as the incidents most point to happened). The model changed and ESPN didn't adapt, the same as the newspaper model changed, and the music model changed, and so many other things changed with the rise of the internet.

Blaming it on oh, they don't appeal enough to middle America is shortsighted and ignores the facts. If that's what the decision makers at ESPN are doing, frankly, they can change what they cover to appeal to middle America and guess what, they will still be doing layoffs in 2020 and 2025 and so on because it doesn't address the structural issues (ease of other access, other options for entertainment, instant access to news as opposed to waiting, etc.). Think back to the 1990's. If you wanted to watch highlights from a game, you had to watch SportsCenter. Now, if you want to watch highlights for your team, your team has an app, and a twitter page, and a Youtube channel, etc. You can watch that highlight as soon as the game ends. The score pops up on your phone.

If ESPN were created today, they probably wouldn't even have a show like SportsCenter. Think about that. It's like changing everything you know about anything. But why would you create an hourlong show to show highlights people already watched on their phone 20 minutes ago? That would be silly. It outright would not exist. If you created ESPN today, you would have live sports in the evening hours and on weekends, with niche events on during the day or midnight to 5 am hours (things like European soccer, Asian cricket, EuroLeague basketball, etc.). You might have a quick 30 minute show during the seasons dedicated to running down the standings and upcoming schedule (30 minutes), but that would be it. The rest would be focused on things like 30 for 30, E60 and other investigative stuff, so that if you want to watch that, you can. If not, flip over and watch a minor league baseball game, or Euro soccer, or Euroleague basketball, or minor league hockey, etc.

I am about to say something most people don't/won't agree with. I am not saying this to sensationalize, but because I think it's true.

Lebron James is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

Jordan was a better scorer. He was also a better competitor, for what it's worth. But Lebron is literally better at everything else. The stats show this.

Lebron has never averaged fewer than 5.5 rebounds in his career. Jordan averaged as few as 3.6, and Lebron averages a full rebound more per game.

Lebron has never averaged fewer than 5.9 assists in his career. Jordan averaged as few as 2.9, and Lebron averages nearly two full assists more per game. Yes, Jordan averaged 3 more points, but if you give Lebron those extra 2 assists, the amount of points they each account for in a game tilts in favor of Lebron.

Lebron is more versatile as a defender. Lebron has defended PGs. He has defended PFs. He has defended Cs at times. He can literally defend any player in the League without help. Jordan could defend any perimeter player in the League, but needed help on the post players because of their size.

Lebron's eFG% is higher (53.6% to 50.9%). This is mostly because Lebron was a better 3pt shooter than Jordan (34.2% vs. 32.7%).

And Lebron has racked up a ton of extra minutes throughout his career in the playoffs and with the Olympics (remember, Lebron played for Team USA in 2004, 2006 world championships, 2008, and 2012). Because of the different format in the playoffs now (all best of 7 series), Lebron has played over 20 games in the playoffs 7 different times. Jordan played over 20 games in the playoffs twice. That comes out to 24 extra playoff games for Lebron, or more than a quarter of a season extra (not including his team USA play).

I'm with @Kcmatt7 on this one. Lebron may play 7-8 more years (and hasn't sat out any seasons in his prime). Jordan played 82 games a year, but missed almost a full season with injury. Lebron has never played fewer than 62 games (and that was in the lockout shortened 66 game season - in an 82 game season, he has never played fewer than 69). I'd rather he stay healthy and get to play more seasons than get hurt or burnt out and play five or six fewer years. Tim Duncan played forever because the Spurs rested him. I think Lebron will have a chance to do the same.

@Kcmatt7 you're absolutely right. Kicking is so specialized that it's difficult to recruit for. There are barely a handful of "sure thing" kickers out there in every class. After that, it's all about projection. Maybe the 5-10 kid with the strong leg can get more lift. Maybe he can't and he never kicks a game in college. Maybe the super accurate kid gets stronger and starts hitting from 40 plus. Maybe he doesn't and specializes only in PAT and short FG.

HS kickers will rarely kick from longer than 35 yards or so in HS. I've seen kids hit from 45 or so in warmups, but that's with all the time you want to prepare and no game pressure. That's vastly different than kicking in a college game with a rush, etc.

I like the idea of soccer players, but for a school like KU, kicker is kind of the last thing you look for. It's like putting a sun roof on a beat up car. It's nice, but it doesn't ultimately make your car any better. We need linemen and a QB and corners and linebackers and WRs and RBs and all of these other position players. Maybe we can steal a game or two with a good kicking game, but we can win 5 or 6 with more athletes.

Cal does a good job of preparing players for the NBA. If Diallo goes to UK and practices for a year and then gets picked in the first round of the NBA draft, that would be the second player to go to UK under Cal, not play a single game, and still get drafted (Kanter being the other). If you're a high level recruit, that's a huge deal because that would signal that Kentucky practices are better preparation for the NBA than playing at most other schools.

Of course, it helps that UK has enough NBA caliber athletes on their roster to make those practices competitive on that level, but that's all the more reason to be convinced if you're a high recruit. I would love to watch a Kentucky practice to see how Cal runs their practices because their guys come out ready to play in the NBA almost right from the very beginning.

Here's the thing with democracy. At its core, democracy is about majority rule, but also minority rights. The majority cannot simply overwhelm the minority because they have the votes and can force whatever they want down the minorities throats (when I say minority, I am speaking of both political minorities and also social and economic minorities).

Unfortunately, partisan politics (both sides are to blame) have devolved into a "my way or the highway" position on just about every issue. This isn't how things were ever intended. For example, even now, most everything in both state legislatures and Congress, passes by a significant majority. The problem is, when we get to certain issues that get politicized, those issues divide almost exactly down party lines.

For example, the electoral college was previously not a partisan issue. Democrats have generally been more in favor of scrapping it in favor of a popular vote, but Republicans were never that far behind. In 2000, after Bush-Gore, the issue split for a few years, but by 2010, the numbers were within a few percentage points of each other with roughly 60% of members in both parties in favor of scrapping the electoral college in favor of a popular vote. Today, those numbers have Democrats at 75% in favor of junking the electoral college, while fewer than 25% of Republicans think the same.

Every issue isn't a red and blue question. The answers generally don't lie on the fringes, seeking to be either as conservative or as liberal as possible. The answers lie closer to the middle because those are the answers that will be serve the most people in this country on both sides of the spectrum.

There are tons of issues with this list.
Chamberlain and Manning should be flipped at the 1 and 2.
Collins should be above Frank, Pierce should be above both Collison and LaFrentz. White should be top 7. Lovellette is probably a few spots too high (more like 5 as opposed to 3.
If it was me, I would say Wilt, Manning, Pierce, White, Lovellette, Collins, Collison, LaFrentz, Mason, Valentine. I'm unsure on who should be number 10, but Valentine has good numbers.