🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@Crimsonorblue22

As a pro prospect, Frank is hard to evaluate. He's tough, but at the same time, we have all seen the wear and tear on him as the seasons have worn on the last couple of years.

He's an adequate (but not great) perimeter shooter and he isn't very big (though he is a sturdy player). He's quick and fast, but so is literally every other PG prospect out there.

He's a very good player that deserves a look at the next level, but I can't see anyone spending a high pick on him. He's a late second round or undrafted free agent type of player that could end up sticking in the league, but could also end up never even making a roster.

Given all of that, I understand why Fran isn't as high on him as many of us are. Frank is a very good collegiate player (much like Perry) that may or may not pan out at the next level. Fran does a lot of pro evaluations, particularly on European players, so when he is evaluating guys, that pro perspective comes out.

I think the real truth is that Trump only won a state as deep red as Texas by 10 points shows that many people, even those that would normally support the Republican candidate, do not/ did not support the President-elect. Mitt Romney won Texas by 16 points. McCain won by 12.

This is a difficult thing for many people, as the President-elect campaigned on a certain brand of fear, anger and disrespect. Maybe he will change that tone now that the election is over and he is faced with the task of governing a large, diverse country and having to work to build coalitions not only with those on the other side, but also within the Republican party.

This is unlike anything that Mr. Trump has ever had to do. He has always been able to force his will because he owned the company. Now he must truly work with people rather than simply give orders because Congress can tell him no. He cannot simply walk away from a project or obligation. He must carry through, even if his initial decision was in error.

For our nation's sake, I hope that he abandons and condemns hate, and leads with dignity and respect.

Last night showed the fear that I have with this team. Josh Jackson is a great player, but as an off ball player, he must have quality touches in order to be effective.

Jackson, by my count, had two quality touches in the second half and OT. A quality touch is one where you catch the ball in an attacking position. Once he was fouled on the arm, the other time he passed. That's it.

Josh is not a shooter. Spotting him up on the corner or on the wing is useless because he is easy to defend from there.

This team needs to run. Every player on this roster other than maybe Lucas is better in the open floor. Svi, Vick, Udoka, Josh, Frank, Devonte, Carlton, Mitch, all of them will be better with the pace up. Self needs to unbridle his horses and let them run.

@wrwlumpy

I think the athletic department does. For a taller guy (basically anyone over about 6-2) sitting in the regular seats for any length of time is terrible. I used to work with a guy that was 6-4. Not sitting in first class was basically miserable for him on any flight more than a couple hours.

@REHawk

Don't like foot/lower leg problems with big guys. The amount of stress/ pressure on the lower leg and foot makes those injuries much more difficult to deal with for bigger players.

I am very wary of Lucas trying to play if they put him in a boot as a precaution. This early in the season, better to let that heal completely than try to have him play with anything nagging and potentially make it an on again, off again type of recurring problem.

@approxinfinity

Markese Jacobs reminds me of another Jayhawk - Sherron Collins.

Check out some old Sherron HS highlights. Sherron was thicker than Jacobs is, but they have very similar game.

@Texas-Hawk-10

Also protecting Starks from playing behind a line that is still two years away. No QB can succeed without protection. Unfortunately, line development isn't an instant impact type thing like a WR or RB can be. It takes lots of time to develop, which means that KU has to wait for those guys to develop.

I agree that Starks is going to be a big time player, but Beaty has been wise to wait, and I hope he remains patient next year while his line catches up.

In 2018, the line should be able to protect and open running lanes, at which point you can unleash Starks and some weapons to help.

28-10 loss.

Still quite a ways away from being able to compete week in and week out, although progress has been made.

I am rooting so hard for him to stay healthy.

Basketball needs that sort of talent in the game. It still saddens me that a guy like Greg Oden couldn't stay healthy, and that guys like Derrick Rose and Eric Gordon are shells of themselves due to injury.

Yes, injuries are part of the game, but you want to see the most talented guys stay healthy so they can take the game forward with them.

@JayHawkFanToo

The point of the shotclock piece was that it sped the game up. Before that, scores were often very low. The season before the shotclock, there wasn't a single team in the NBA that averaged even 90 points a game - Boston led the league averaging 87.7 points per game, Syracuse was second at just a shade over 83.

The very next season the lowest scoring team in the league averaged 87.4 points per game. In just a single year, the average scoring output went from 79.5 to 93.1.

From there, scoring took off. 99 in 1955-56. 99.6 the next year. 106.6 the year after that. Then 108.2, 115.3, 118.1, and finally 118.8 in the 1961-62 season.

Let's shift the discussion to another player from that era - Oscar Robertson - for just a second.

Oscar Robertson nearly averaged a triple double in 1960-61. He was 0.3 assists short. He averaged a triple double the next year. Is there anyone out there saying that Oscar Robertson was the most well rounded player of all time, because his stats from that era suggest that he was, or are we taking those stats with a grain of salt because they are just a bit off the wall from everything else in basketball history? The numbers for the Big O in each year from 1960 to the 64-65 season:

1960-61, 30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds, 9.7 assists

1961-62, 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 10.1 assists

1962-63, 28.3 points, 10.4 rebounds, 9.5 assists

1963-64, 31.4 points, 9.9 rebounds, 11.0 assists

1964-65, 30.5 points, 9.0 rebounds, 11.5 assists

Look at those five seasons for a second. Might I also add that those were Oscar Robertson's first five seasons in the NBA. He nearly averaged a triple double as a rookie. He was 20 assists short. In 1962-63, he was 42 assists short of averaging a triple double. In 63-64, he was 7 rebounds short of the triple double. The next year, he was 76 rebounds short. That is insane. Oscar Robertson was 62 assists and 83 rebounds short of averaging a triple double for FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS. If you average his first five years, the Big O did average a triple double for his first five years in the NBA. How is he not talked about as a top five all time player?!?!

Oh yeah, because we understand that the pace of play allowed for a guy to throw up those types of numbers. It's not that Robertson wasn't good. He was amazing. But he was like a pre-Lebron Lebron - he was a 25-7-7 guy. In today's NBA, that's what his numbers would be, just like in that era, Lebron would have slapped up 30-10-10.

In some ways, the 1960-1965 seasons are like the juiced ball/steroid era in baseball - not because guys were doing anything illegal, just that the numbers from that era are out of whack with anything that happened before or since. It's like the 1997-2003 home run totals - just off the wall to where people don't pay as much attention to them as they might have in another time.

We do that with every number from that era, except for Wilt's 50 ppg scoring average.

This video does a great job breaking down the pace/minutes arguments that I was making earlier.

[link text](

It's hard for KU to get pumped up to play Washburn, but easy for Washburn to get pumped up to play KU.

For Washburn players, this is their chance to be on the big stage at AFH. They are going to go all out to measure themselves against a team like KU. On the other hand, KU really doesn't have much to gain against Washburn. You can't learn much from playing a team that, even playing as well as Washburn did last night, simply cannot beat you.

I think @ralster makes a great point that there's mutual respect between the Washburn players and the KU players from working camps and playing with/ against each other in summer pickup and camp games. The KU guys have no real desire to embarrass the Washburn guys. Not saying they took it easy, just that they didn't go for the throat last night.

This game and the next exhibition are tune up games. Chances to run the offense against a live defense that is actually playing hard to see if guys are in shape and understand the basic offensive principles and the basic defensive schemes. Once the Indiana game rolls around, then it gets a lot more intense, but I think that game will have the type of intensity we are wanting.

Svi didn't lead the team or score 19 points, but he did hit 4 threes.

At least I got something right.

@JhawkAlum

It is well documented that Wilt did not run the floor when he was with the Sixers, and that if he picked up his third foul, he would not defend aggressively because he did not want to foul out. Wilt famously said, when asked why he walked up the floor on offense "they can wait for me."

Additionally, averaging over 48 minutes a game means that Wilt's scoring and rebounding were aided by playing OT games, something that a player can't necessarily control. That artificially inflates his numbers a bit.

Wilt was a great player, but let's remember that his scoring and rebounding numbers were aided by the fact that shooting percentages were pretty poor across the league. Let's go back to the numbers.

As a whole, the league shot 42.6% in 1961-62. The next year it ticked up to 44.1%

As a whole, the league shot 45.0% in 1997-98. The next year it dropped to 43.7%.

Just for perspective, last year the league shot 45.2%.

You say hey, that's just 2.4%, that's not that much. When it comes to available rebounds (especially for a big guy like Shaq or Wilt) that's a huge difference. The average team rebounding figure over 82 games in 1961-62 was 5713. In 1997-98, that figure was 3407. Last year, that figure was 3588.

Simply put, in the 60's, the pace was high, lots of shots went up, but lots of shots were missed. A big guy like Wilt could grab offensive rebounds and get 6-7 putbacks in a single game to increase his scoring average, yet he still could not maintain a high shooting percentage. Wilt could also grab lots of defensive boards to push his rebounding numbers above 20.

There were 2300 less rebounding opportunities in 1997-98 than there were in 1961-62. That's 28 rebounds a game for each team. A guy like Wilt that's grabbing 25% of his teams rebounds anyway, 28 more boards is 7 rebounds a game.

When you compare eras, you have to compare the pace and game style, too. Poor shooting means lots of rebounds, which inflates the rebounding numbers, particularly for big men. Poor shooting at a fast pace really drives that up.

@jaybate-1.0

We have to draw the difference between young Shaq and older Shaq, as we would with Young Wilt and veteran Wilt.

Wilt averaged 50 points a game as a 25 year old in 1961-62. The All-star centers and power forwards that year were the following players:

Dolph Schayes, 6-8, 220 pounds (basically the same size as our own Josh Jackson)

Johnny Green, 6-5, 200 pounds (smaller than Wayne Selden)

Bill Russell, 6-10, 215 pounds (a big guy in his day, but lighter than Perry Ellis is now, and Perry is at least 2 inches shorter than Russell)

Bob Pettit, 6-9, 205 (Cheick Diallo was bigger than Pettit when he arrived on campus last year)

Walt Bellamy, 6-11, 225 (legitimately tall, but again, he's lighter than Perry Ellis, or even Carlton Bragg)

Wayne Embry, 6-8, 240 (Roughly Perry Ellis' size)

Those were the all-stars that season. Could any of those players do anything to guard young Shaq?

But let's dive into the numbers.

As a 25 year old, Wilt shot 50% from the field. As a 25 year old, Shaq shot 58% from the field. Yes, Wilt scored more, but he shot nearly 40 shots a game. You better average close to 50 a night shooting that much. Shaq shot less than 20 times per game as a 25 year old, but he averaged 28 points per game. If you up Shaq's FG attempts to match Wilt's, but shave off a little bit of his efficiency - say he shoots only 50% on the additional 20 attempts per game to match Wilt's 39.5 shots per game vs his 19.1. That tacks 20 points per game onto his average, bringing him to 48.3 - and that doesn't include any additional FTs!

Wilt shot 17 FTs per game that season. Shaq shot 11 as a 25 year old. Tack on the extra 6 FT attempts (not out of the realm of possibility if Shaq were shooting 20 more FG per game) and suddenly, even if Shaq shoots just 2-6 from the line on those additional 6 attempts, guess what his average is --- 50.3. Wilt averaged 50.4 in his historic season.

That's about as close to a mirror image as you can get. And that's just the back of the envelope math to equalize the shot attempts and free throw attempts, dropping down Shaq's efficiency with more usage. If Shaq were to maintain even a bit more efficiency, it's not crazy to say he could have averaged 55+ per game if he replaced Wilt in that wild 1962 season, since I drop his FG% from 58% to 54% and his FT% from almost 53% to under 46% (Wilt was 50% and 61%, for perspective).

This isn't an argument to say that Shaq was/is better. This is an argument to say that Shaq could have absolutely matched Wilt's numbers from that season. There was never a post man that could score as reliably from inside 6 feet like Shaq. Here are his FG% from his rookie year until his 10th year in the league - 56, 60, 58, 57, 56, 58, 57, 57, 57, 58. Shaq shot 58% from the field for his career.

Wilt did eventually get there from an efficiency standpoint. After never shooting better than 54% during the first 9 years of his career, from then until the end of his career his numbers are like this - 68, 59, 58, 57, 55, 65, 72. An incredible run that brought his career number up to 54%. But during that run, Wilt never averaged more than 27.3 points per game. His efficiency skyrocketed right as he took fewer shots (never more than 19 a game, mostly in the mid teens as his career entered its later years).

Here's a quick comparison of Wilt's scoring and FG% vs. Shaq's - Wilt in Blue, Shaq in Red. Notice how his efficiency doesn't take off until his scoring plummets:

!Untitled.jpg ↗

Meanwhile, notice how Shaq never strays from the high 50s or low 60s. He's just a machine throughout his career. And Shaq played another couple years after this also where he was still a very efficient scorer (though often injured).

From his second year in the league until his 11th, if you had to bet your life that Shaq would average 26 points a game and shoot 55%+, you would have lived every year. That's consistent and amazing.

Svi.

Hits 4 threes, gets to the rim a few times, finishes with 19.

Don't say I didn't warn you when you wake up in the morning.

It's incredibly difficult to compare eras.

If you drop young Lebron James or Michael Jordan into the league when Elgin Baylor came in, we may have rules about how far away from the basket you were allowed to jump to dunk. Drop Steph Curry into the league around that time and there would be rules about how much one guy could dribble, or how far away you could be when you shot.

Wilt changed the rules because he was dominant (and because he basically destroyed the set shot as a part of the game). Wilt, along with Russell, Baylor and Robertson revolutionized the game by making it a vertical game as well as horizontal.

Prior to that quartet, guys played the game either vertically or horizontally. Go back and watch players from the early 1950s. Big guys played the game vertically because they were tall. Small guys played the game horizontally because they were not. But Wilt, Russell, Elgin and Oscar made you play both at the same time.

Wilt and Russell could run with guards, so guards could not just play on a horizontal plane, using their speed to outrun the giants that manned the paint. Elgin changed the way you could attack the rim. Oscar was the first truly big guard that could pass, handle, shoot, post up and do all of the things we see today. All four guys could play above the rim if necessary, but could also run the floor, defend, etc. They were all very much all around players.

Think of Wilt as an early Shaq. Think of Elgin as the first Lebron. Imagine Russell as Kevin Garnett. Oscar is the hardest to make a parallel for - maybe an early Magic, but smaller and better defensively.

Players now are so much more well rounded. Big guys can step away from the basket and handle or shoot. A guy like Anthony Davis would simply break the league in 1956. A 6-11 guy that handles like a guard, but blocks shots, runs like a gazelle and can shoot jumpers too. There wasn't an answer for that in 1956. Heck, nobody then even knew that could be a question. And Anthony Davis is not the best player in the NBA right now.

Heck, Kevin Durant would likely turn the whole world upside down. A 6-10 guy that's one of the best perimeter shooters in the league, handles like a guard, can post or step away from the basket and score. Who guards Kevin Durant in 1957 or 1958? And he can shoot FTs too. He likely wrecks the league in ways we can't even imagine.

But that's the thing. The game has been pushed to progress by all of the different elements of greatness that have been introduced. The game is where it is because of Wilt's size and agility making big men have to become mobile. It was raised because Elgin saw you could fly, David Thompson decided to walk on the sky, Julius went to the Dr., Michael Jordan became Air and every kid thought they could dunk from the FT line.

Now Steph Curry is leading a new revolution of long range bombers that will push the game to another place. 20 years from now there will be some kid built like Lebron swishing 25 footers and simultaneously dunking on people with severe malice, and people will say that guy is the greatest.

Not the greatest. Just next. Always next. And the game marches on.

@wrwlumpy

Fun fact - Gary Woodland actually attended Washburn for a year or so and played basketball before leaving for KU to focus on golf. Good call on his part.

@Crimsonorblue22, @JayHawkFanToo

I figured it was mental, but since Coleby is a bigger guy, he has to start working it normally, or he will injure his other leg trying to "protect" the leg he had surgery on. I am always wary of big guys with leg injuries when they take longer to heal. History has not been kind to big men with leg injuries that do not heal quickly. They are quite literally never the same.

@KUSTEVE

That news on Coleby is very concerning. The longer he takes to get back to full speed, the more you have to worry that he may not fully recover his agility and explosiveness. Granted, Coleby was not a speed and agility player before, but losing mobility could hamper him quite a bit.

He tore his ACL last September. It's been 13 months since injury and a full year since surgery. I understand there are hurdles and people recover differently, but 12 months is when you would expect even some of the slower healers to be back to 100%. Perhaps its more mental than physical and he's not ready to trust his leg underneath him yet.

This is definitely a watch and see type of thing.

@BeddieKU23

Gordon is a Saint Louis kid. There was a time when SLU got lots of local kids to stay in town, which is what made that program as strong as it was. For city programs like that (SLU, DePaul, Houston, St. John's, Memphis, etc.) they are dependent on local talent staying close to home.

For Gordon, the only non-midwest schools he was even considering were UNLV and USC. The rest of his list was Cincinnati, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, K-State, Mizzou, Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, Purdue and Texas. That's pretty clearly a kid interested in staying closer to home. No Kentucky. No UNC or Duke. Not even a Michigan State or Ohio State.

Not sure KU could have pried him away from Mizzou even had he decided not to go to SLU.

@BeddieKU23

I agree that KSU could be kind of okay. But it's not hard to imagine a scenario where they lose on the road to St. Louis and drop a close one at home to Colorado State, then start the conference season by losing to Texas, getting blown out at AFH, dropping three straight close games to OU, Tech and Baylor, then losing by double digits at OSU. Suddenly you're 9-8, 0-6 in conference and players are complaining about PT and shots with West Virginia coming to town.

It could unravel really fast for KSU. Yeah, they could start 11-0 and upset Texas to start the conference season, but the first scenario that I outlined is more likely. They shouldn't be terrible, but if they get off to a bad start, it could certainly snowball, and if any of their main 4 guys you listed struggles, it goes south fast.

@BeddieKU23

I wouldn't be surprised if KSU lost a couple of those games. Saint Louis will be tough at home. Both Washington State and Colorado State could go on the road and win. And the tough thing for them is that if they are any worse than 9-2 after that schedule, they are heading for a double digit loss season.

Look at their start to the conference season and tell me where you see a win:

vs. Texas

at Kansas

vs. Oklahoma

at Texas Tech

vs. Baylor

at Oklahoma State

vs. West Virginia

at Iowa State

at Tennessee (SEC Challenge)

Maybe they beat Baylor since they are at home, or possibly Oklahoma. I doubt they win on the road and KSU just doesn't have the talent to match Texas or West Virginia. KSU could go from being 9-2 or 10-1 to 9-11 or 10-10.

That's the downside of a schedule that soft. KSU could have an awesome looking record early in the year that basically goes up in smoke once conference play starts. They could start conference play 2-10 or 3-9 with how their first 12 stack up (KU, Baylor and West Virginia twice, plus games at Oklahoma State, Iowa State and Texas Tech, and better teams like Texas and Oklahoma coming to Manhattan - and maybe an improved TCU). Weber could be buried by mid February.

Weber basically has to run the table, then hope he can upset 2 of Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Baylor in Manhattan to start the season (since he probably is staring at 1-3 on the road with Kansas, Oklahoma State, Iowa State and Texas Tech). And that's just to start the conference year 3-5. Any worse than that and he's 2-6 or 1-7 to start the conference season, and everything is already circling the drain at that point.

@kjayhawks

Van Vleet is a PG though. He can be a backup PG that can come in and run the team for 5 minutes at a time while Lowry rests. He won't play more than 15 minutes a game (barring injury). His only job is to make sure the ball gets distributed to the second unit and that he doesn't turn the basketball over.

Every team has to have three types of players on the bench:

1. Backup PG - to rest your primary ball handler
2. Backup C - to give fouls if your main big guys get into foul trouble
3. Wing scorer/ defender - A guy that can come in with the second unit and get points to keep the second unit from stalling out offensively, or can come in and clamp down on the other team's best perimeter threat.

Obviously, better teams have more weapons than that, but every team has to have those types of players at a minimum. Selden and Perry are both auditioning for role 3 as the offensive side of the equation. Unfortunately for Wayne, he doesn't do enough off the dribble to make himself a huge part of the offense. Since he also can't fill another role, he makes himself expendable.

Van Vleet as a PG is just asked to defend and handle the basketball. Scoring from your backup PG is a bonus. If he hits a three every now and then, that's found money. Guys have carved out 10 year plus careers playing backup PG. It's the best job in sports.

@kjayhawks

Selden's ball handling issues make it tough to carry him on a roster because he can't play PG, even in a pinch, and he's not quite big enough to play your bigger 3's. That's why Baker made a roster (can play both on and off the ball). Perry isn't healthy, so I am not surprised that he wasn't retained.

Wayne needs to dedicate himself to learning to handle the ball well enough to play spot minutes at the point.

It's tough being the final roster spot in the NBA. Fortunately, the Lakers are rebuilding, so he may get to play more than he would on a team fighting to contend. Hopefully this is his chance to establish himself as a rotation level player in the NBA.

@BeddieKU23

True, but look at what Malik Newman was in HS, and tell me that he isn't every bit of Collin Sexton, except that he will have been on campus and in practice for a full year, plus a full year of Hudy work in the weight room.

Sexton is an incredible player, no doubt. Would love to have him in Lawrence. But we already have a player like Collin Sexton in Lawrence, and we know that he will be in the lineup next year.

Sexton will likely be one of the best freshmen in the country if he fulfills his potential next season. Newman will likely be one of the best players in the country if he fulfills his.

@BeddieKU23

Losing Sexton isn't the worst thing for KU. I love his game, but he and Newman are very similar players. It may be difficult for their games to match up because they have such similar styles, it's hard to say that their games would be complementary to each other.

For that reason, Brown may be a slightly better fit. He's my preference right now, with Young as my second choice. The pressure is on if Sexton signs though, because instead of going 1-4, Self now has to go 1-2 with Waters already committed to the Hoyas.

With Newman already in the fold, I either want a true PG, or I want a big wing. Pairing Newman with another scoring guard will be difficult from a basketball standpoint.

@Crimsonorblue22

He may be slated to miss the full year, but Charlotte may have worked something out to have him work with them and do rehab this season because they are interested in seeing him once he is fully healthy. That would be the best case scenario for Perry basketball wise.

Selden's salary represents the rookie league minimum. Notice that he is making the exact same amount as Treveon Graham, Rasheed Sulaimon, Mike Tobey, Andrew Andrews,Vince Hunter, and Troy Williams. If he goes to the D-League, that salary gets pro-rated along with the D-League rate, so that every day he is in the D-League he gets paid at the D-League rate, and every day he is on the NBA roster, he gets that rate.

Since the D-League salaries are less than $30,000 per year, each day on the NBA roster represents a significant pay increase, as he will make more in a month on the NBA roster than he can all year in the D-League.

The value of guys like Selden (and Batum also, oddly) is that they can guard multiple positions and shoot the three. That's perfect for the current pace and space style that is prevalent in the NBA. Having multiple guys that can play multiple spots off the bench is a necessity. Almost every guy that is making the minimum is taller than 6-4 and can shoot the three, except for Tobey, who is a seven footer (the game will always have a place for footers) and Andrew Andrews, who is basically PG insurance for the preseason and likely won't make the final Hornet roster.

Ellis likely will not make the Hornets roster. Selden has been given a chance to make the Grizzlies roster, particularly since they want to go more uptempo.

I will admit I am probably higher on Malik Newman than most. There are guys that just know how to make things happen offensively, and he happens to be one of those guys. The mistake at MSU was they had him just stand out on the perimeter and shoot threes. He's not a spot up shooter. He's a slasher/cutter.

If he is utilized properly, he could be one of the best players in the country next year. Combine him with Udoka, who could be one of the best big men in the country.

That one-two punch is enough to make any team a serious contender, but KU will have pieces around that. Vick could be a dynamic collegiate two way player. Lightfoot should be a very solid inside player as a sophomore. Maxwell is a solid big man off the bench in limited minutes. Same with Coleby. Adding any one of the four perimeter guys we are currently after basically solidifies the full rotation.

KU is national championship good this season. They are basically one player away from being right back in that conversation next year. Self needs to go basically 1-4 on recruiting and he's right back where he wants to be because Newman and Azuibuke will both be in Lawrence next season. As long as they are healthy, KU is good again.

@BeddieKU23

Ball helps UCLA a lot because he moves Alford to his more natural 2 spot on offense, while also being big enough to guard the other team's best perimeter player on defense so that UCLA can hide Alford on that end.

They also have Jrue Holiday's younger brother (averaged double figures for them last year as a freshman. He will likely come off the bench. Basically, Ball bumps Holiday to the bench and slides Alford over to his natural spot. That's a huge change from a basketball perspective for UCLA.

I do agree with your point that a lot of teams are strong on the outside and soft in the middle. I think that's what can set teams apart this year moreso than many other years. If you are strong inside, you can really set your team apart. That's what makes Kentucky an interesting case to me. They signed the second best freshman big man. That also makes Texas, Florida State and UCLA intriguing. They all have freshman big men with size. That could make a huge difference in a year where there aren't many teams that are strong inside.

I haven't really had a chance to look at everyone yet, but I think it's pretty clear that a handful of teams stand out above everyone else.

KU, Duke, UNC, and UK seem to rise above the rest. We should know fairly quickly what all of those teams have, as KU has Indiana and Duke right off the bat, UK has Michigan State and UNC has the Maui Invitational and Indiana. And that all happens before the end of November.

You also have Arizona-Michigan State (the other Armed Forces Classic game). Suffice it to say that by Thanksgiving, we should know what just about every team in the top 15 or so has.

The one team I am surprised to not see ranked is UCLA. They have some talent out there on the west coast. It's just a matter of if they can take it to the next level.

@BeddieKU23

I am figuring on a 2017 lineup like this:

PG - Newman (moves from SG to PG this year in practice).

SG - Vick (inherits this spot as a lockdown defender slotted next to a scoring lead guard)

SF - Troy Brown (speculating a bit here, but I think he comes in to replace Jackson)

PF - Lightfoot (he's not as big as we would like, but he will have a year in the program, and...)

C - Azuibuke (nobody is big compared to Udoka. He will be a destroyer of worlds after a year in the program)

A bench of Coleby, Maxwell and Garrett is pretty solid. Obviously, if we miss on Brown, but land a guy like Sexton, Young or Waters, Vick slots up to the 3 and either Newman or the 5 star freshman starts at the point (Young and Waters are natural PGs, Sexton is a 2).

I would love to have a Newman/Sexton backcourt. Both guys can score and distribute. That would be a tough backcourt to handle, and neither guy is terribly undersized to create bad matchups defensively.

The Big 12 has been in trouble for one simple reason - they were not pro-active when it counted.

As soon as Nebraska and Colorado left, the Big 12 should have been on the phone to expand. Had they added Louisville and West Virginia at that time, the conference would have been as follows:

North - Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State, Louisville, West Virginia

South - Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

That's a very solid conference in football, both men's and women's basketball and baseball as well. Obviously, with the real revenue sports being football and men's basketball, that would have been a real coup to have that group.

Instead, the Big 12 sat on its hands and let the ACC grab the best parts of the dissolving Big East. Had the Big 12 been really pro-active, they could have gone to 14 by adding Pitt and TCU also.

Instead, the Big 12 didn't do anything until Mizzou and A&M left. By then, everyone else had already grabbed seats, so the Big 12 got what was left (TCU and West Virginia). Heck, the Big 12 could have gone with Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pitt and TCU, then arranged the conference in 3 divisions of five:

Louisville, Cincy, WVU, Pitt and Iowa St.

KU, KSU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.

TCU, Texas, A&M, Baylor, Tech

Everybody plays each team in their division in football, plus 2 or 3 teams from the other 2 divisions (still 9 conference games). Round robin for your division in basketball, plus either home or away against everyone else (still 18 games). Tell me that's not an awesome conference in both football and basketball?

Everybody maintains their main rivals: Backyard Brawl, Border War, Bedlam, A&M-Texas, etc.

You still get the Red River Shootout every other year in football. Louisville and Cincinnati likely develop a good rivalry in football.

And in basketball, we get the traditional games, plus a trip to Louisville or Cincinnati every year. That's a nightmare of a conference with all of those teams, but a conference that likely sends someone deep in the tournament every single year.

That's what could have happened if the Big 12 was pro-active. But they waited until the music stopped to find a dance partner.

@BeddieKU23

I wouldn't call it a re-build year. With Newman already in the program, Vick on hand and Garrett already committed, KU is in good shape already, and that only gets better if they sign Sexton or Young. And don't forget about Tremont Waters, who could be a four year player if he signs at KU.

Add in the fact that Lightfoot and Azuibuke will definitely be back, as well as Coleby and Evan Maxwell up front, and it's pretty clear you have a good core group (Vick, Newman, Garrett, Lightfoot, Azuibuke, Coleby, Maxwell) that you already know, plus the chance to add a dynamic wing (Troy Brown?) and another guard (Sexton, Young or Waters) That's a very solid nine man rotation. If you can get another big to go with that (Billy Preston?) you're right back in the conversation for national titles, etc.

And that doesn't even look at the possibility that Svi could be back, which eliminates the need for a wing like Brown (or eliminates the need for one of the Sexton/Young/Waters trio). That gives tons of depth and options.

That is the very definition of a reload. KU could have four first round picks - Jackson, Bragg, Graham and Svi, plus have Mason taken late in the second and Lucas get invited to summer league - and still end up with a top 10 team next season. And if any of that group stays for whatever reason, look out.

From a lineup perspective there are a couple of things we really can't do, and a few others that we would like to do.

1. Can't play Udoka, Landen and Coleby at the same time. It's just spacing death to put two of those guys on the floor at the same time. You basically have to have Svi, Bragg or Jackson at the 4 to make things work offensively.

2. You don't really want Graham and Mason sitting at the same time. So that means you need to find 5 minutes of rest for each of them each half. Ideally, that means one of them comes out at the under 12 TV timeout, and then comes back in for the other after the under 8 timeout in the first half, then in the second half, one comes out at the under 16, then replaces the other after the under 12.

3. You want to manage Bragg's exposure to bruising guys. With Lucas, Udoka and Coleby around, there's really no reason Bragg should be banging against some 6-10, 280 big man. The fact that there's three of them means Bragg should never be matched up with a guy he's giving up 30-40 pounds to.

4. You want to avoid playing anyone more than 33 minutes on a regular basis. In blowouts, you really want to have the ability to get Graham and Mason out with 5+ minutes left - no need to put the extra wear on those guys. In close games, you will have to ride them for their ball handling, but if you're up 15-18, you can monitor their minutes so they maybe only play 8-10 minutes each in the second half of a double digit game. That means playing Vick 20-25 minutes when games start getting a bit of cushion.

5. You want your best lineup (currently Mason-Graham-Svi-Jackson-Bragg) to play at least 5 minutes together in each game. That lineup is a great run starting lineup because they can hit you with that 14-2 run that takes a close game and turns it into a double digit matchup.

@BeddieKU23

Agree 100% that it puts the most talented guys on the floor. I think Coleby, Udoka and Lightfoot can help this year, but compared to Jackson, Svi, Vick, Mason and Graham, those three aren't quite on that level. The only big guy I would really put up there is Bragg. Lucas will obviously contribute, but he's still probably only the sixth or seventh most talented player on this team.

This team should go small because it's best players are perimeter guys, and they can still keep size on the floor with Jackson and Svi.

@BeddieKU23

I think "dictated by personnel" is more of a reflection of the fact that the most talented players on this roster are Jackson, Graham, Bragg, Mason and Svi. Vick, Lucas, Udoka, Coleby, Lightfoot, etc. can all play, but four of the best five guys on this roster are perimeter players, maybe 5 of the best 6, but definitely 5 of the best 7.

Given that, you have to consider playing four of those guys at once, especially since Jackson and Svi are both big enough to handle some 4's, and Vick can easily slide 1-3 against most college teams. It's not a lineup I would show a lot, but it's a lineup that has merit because you have to get your best players on the floor together and a lineup of Mason-Graham-Svi-Jackson-Bragg is arguably the best five KU has. I think Lucas and the other bigs will bring something to the table, but the best group is that group of five I listed.

Five guys on the perimeter is Self's preferred rotation. We have five perimeter guys that we can solidly trust, so we are good there.

Additionally, we have Malik Newman for practice reps so that Frank and Devonte don't get too worn down since Newman can work with the second team in practice. That should keep everyone's legs fresh even during the grind of conference season.

So, as long as no one suffers a long term injury, we should be fine through the season. If, however, any of our main five guys goes down with an injury that will keep them out for more than a week or so, the toll could become too great and we may need to tag in one of the walk ons for spot duty (2 minutes per half) just to try and keep everyone fresh.

The nice thing is that there are 120 minutes to go around, and with five guys, we can give everyone 20-30 minutes without over-taxing anyone.

@BeddieKU23

Agreed. It's just tough to name something after someone at a school with the history of Kansas. It's Kansas. It's bigger than the names, but there have been so many big names, it's nearly impossible to recognize them all.

At almost any other school, there would be an entire wing dedicated to Wilt Chamberlain. At KU, he's just a part of the history, same as every other great player that has passed through those doors. That's not a knock on Wilt. That's just the fact of Kansas being Kansas.

Kansas is legendary. The court is named after the guy that invented the game. The building is named after the first big time coach in the game. You have to be a consensus all American or a Final Four MOP to get your jersey hung in the rafters. You can be great, really great, and might only merit a paragraph in the storied history of Kansas not as a knock on your greatness, but because the expanse of greatness that is the history of Kansas basketball is so very vast.

Kansas is a school where you can win a national championship and a dozen consecutive conference titles and they can't find anything to name after you because, well, it's Kansas.

Self deserves a prominent place in KU history. I'm just not sure where to put him right now because its Kansas. Prominent places in this history are already reserved.

@BeddieKU23

Maybe the locker room or the weight room at some point.

The building will always be AFH. The court is named after Naismith. Neither of those will ever change.

So you can either name the training facility after Self, or the locker room. That's about it as far as the options.

@brooksmd

I can see both sides. I love the rowdy crowds, but have also been at games where student sections crossed the line (taunting a deaf player by mocking sign language was probably the one of the worst I've seen). I would rather the enforcement came from the school level, where the admin at the game could see when things were going too far and step in, but that usually doesn't happen, either.

@DinarHawk

It's not about moves for Lucas. It's about the time it takes for him to catch/gather and execute an offensive move. If you are unguarded at the college level, you have less than a second to catch a pass and start making a move before the defense recovers to you. Landen cannot do this. He has to catch and gather before he can make a move. By the time this happens, the defense has recovered, unless Landen is dunking on a lob.

@jaybate-1.0

This team is not built to get into a street fight with West Virginia, or Cincinnati, or Providence, or Michigan State or anybody else. This is not a street fight team. The 2011 team could do that. 2012 could. This team doesn't have the interior bulk to do so.

What this team does have is speed and talent. This team should have eaten WVU's press alive with speed and shooting. Get those guys scrambling, then hit open shooters to bomb away. But instead, Self tried to play WVU's game. He tried to street fight them.

Why get into a tug of war if you're a sprinter?

Self wants to play a blunt force type game, but his team is built to slash you to death, not bludgeon you over the head. He turns to power guys (Lucas, Traylor), when he should be going to speed (Bragg, Mickelson, Diallo).

I am not opposed to throwing the ball inside.

However, we have no real efficient back to the basket scorer. Perry is playing his best ball, and it has come primarily by facing up on the offensive end.

If we want Perry to post more, we need to go to Bragg, Mickelson and Diallo with Perry more often. Since teams won't cover Lucas and Traylor when they are away from the basket, Perry can't post when he plays with them because the paint is simply too crowded.

Self is at a crossroads. He can either throw the ball inside, but to do that he can't play his veterans with Ellis, or he can play his vets and play outside in. Those are the only two viable options.

@jayballer54

Losing on the road (especially to OU) won't hurt. Now if they lose to Texas at home next Wednesday, then they give it back. But a road loss to another top team isn't a death knell.

@jaybate-1.0

I would respectfully disagree and say that C5 was the problem last night, specifically Lucas and Traylor.

Yes, KU's turnovers spiked, but they spiked for schematic reasons. West Virginia, like Oklahoma last week, decided they would not guard Landen Lucas when he was on the floor. They decided they would guard Traylor with a smaller, quicker guy for portions of the game. This meant that KU was basically breaking a five man press with only four guys.

I think the play that sums this up best came at the 17:07 mark in the second half. Perry came up to set a high screen. West Virginia opted to trap the high screen, doubling Frank with Perry's man and his own man. Now typically in this situation, Perry will be wide open at the top of the key, which is where Frank threw the basketball.

Unfortunately, Perry was not wide open at the top of the key. Instead, Landen Lucas was wide open halfway down the lane, because Devin Williams was not covering him at all. Williams steal. Williams dunk. KU down 11. Two possessions later, same thing. Williams steal leading to a fastbreak and a layup for WVU. Frank had seven turnovers last night. I just explained two of them right there. On the night, Williams had 12 rebounds, those two steals, a block and I don't know how many challenged shots and disrupted possessions while "guarding" Landen Lucas.

Bob Huggins took Lon Kruger's challenge and one upped him. They actively ignored Lucas when Williams was in the game. Lucas was unguarded and in 15 minutes he punished WVU to the tune of 2 points on 1 of 1 shooting with one offensive rebound (a tip in for his only score of the night). Wait, what? Yeah, I read that right. Lucas was unguarded for most of his 15 minutes on the floor and he burned WVU for a single tip in. That is not going to get it done.

I said yesterday that teams were going to start ignoring Lucas when he was on the floor, and lo and behold, WVU did exactly that. As a result, their pressure forced KU into a four on five situation. Lucas was a complete non-factor.

And then there was Traylor, who WVU started playing with a guard.

Let there be no doubt. Self was outcoached last night by Huggins. It's not like WVU played that well. Other than turnovers, KU wasn't really that bad. But strategically, KU had a very thin margin last night. As I said after the OU game, if we insist on playing Lucas and Traylor as much as we have been, our other four guys have to play extremely well for us to win because Lucas and Traylor have been overexposed. Teams now know that they are non-entities on offense, so they aren't guarding them. Lucas and Traylor can't punish teams for not guarding them, so KU is reduced to 4 on 5 offense. When the 4 are all clicking (see Oklahoma game) we can survive. When they aren't (see last night) we can't.

Not only that, but WVU exposed a dirty secret. Lucas isn't a good shot blocker if you go right at him. Traylor is solid from the weak side, but not when attacked head on because he isn't tall, so he needs to be able to jump. WVU carved us up last night attacking the lane, either getting layups or drawing fouls.

C5 needs to go (or the minutes inverted) because the secret is out. The plans have been revealed. Now we must adjust.

@Crimsonorblue22

There are lots of four year players in the NBA, obviously. But look around the college landscape. Most 4 year players aren't on that level.

More often than not, when it comes to stars, you won't see many 4 year players on that list. Let's check the last 5 years of All NBA teams (first, second and third teams). These are the best 15 players in the league for that year:

2011

0 years of college - Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Dirk Nowitzki, Amar'e Stoudemire, Manu Ginobili

1 year of college - Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, Zach Randolph

2 years of college - Dwyane Wade (at Marquette three years, but ineligible as a freshman).
, Russell Westbrook, LaMarcus Aldridge, Chris Paul

3 years of college - Al Horford

2012

0 - James, Howard, Bryant, Andrew Bynum, Parker, Nowitzki, Tyson Chandler

1 Year of college - Durant, Kevin Love, Carmelo Anthony

2 Years of college - Paul, Blake Griffin, Westbrook, Rajon Rondo, Wade

2013

0 - James, Bryant, Marc Gasol, Parker, Howard

1 - Durant, Anthony

2 - Paul, Griffin, Westbrook, Paul George, Wade, Harden

4 - Tim Duncan, David Lee

2014

0 - James, Howard, Parker, Al Jefferson, Goran Dragic

1 - Durant, Love

2 - Harden, Paul, Griffin, George, Aldridge

3 - Joakim Noah, Stephen Curry, Damian Lillard (redshirt junior due to injury)

2015

0 - James, M. Gasol, P. Gasol

1 - Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, DeAndre Jordan, Kyrie Irving

2 - Harden, Westbrook, Paul, Griffin, Aldridge

3 - Klay Thompson, Curry

4 - Duncan

So we can take out the foreign players - Nowitzki, the Gasol's, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Goran Dragic - they took up 11 of the 75 spots. That leaves 64 spots.

Of those 64, the breakdown is as follows:

No college - 16

One Year - 14

Two Years - 25

Three Years - 6

Four Years - 3

That is pretty telling. If you're playing in college for three years or more these days, the likelihood that you will become an NBA star is pretty low. The chance of Hield or Valentine or Wiltjer being a star at the next level is low. For a guy like Melo Trimble, or Ben Simmons, the chances are actually pretty good, particularly since you would need to lump the No college and 1 year guys together due to the rule change.

Going back further, here are the four year All-NBA guys since 2000, along with the year they entered the NBA:

1. David Robinson - 1987
2. Tim Duncan - 1997
3. Gary Payton - 1990
4. Grant Hill - 1994
5. Karl Malone - 1985
6. Alonzo Mourning - 1992
7. Ben Wallace - 1996
8. Steve Nash - 1996
9. Sam Cassell - 1993
10. Brandon Roy - 2006
11. David Lee - 2005

Check that out. Not a single four year player drafted after 2006 was named All-NBA. That's very telling. Since the start of early entry straight from HS, the best players leave college every year. Kevin Garnett debuted in the NBA in 1995. Only five players above left college after that. Now that we are in the OAD era, who are the best players. The evidence above suggests it is probably those freshmen and sophomores.

@Texas-Hawk-10

That's another great point I failed to mention. European teams are unlikely to carry an injured player, particularly an injured US player. Their roster limitations restrict how many "imports" they can have, so if a US player can't play, he's taking up one of their most valuable roster spots without providing any production. Any injury that will result in significant time off could lead to a player being cut to open the spot for a healthy US player.

@Crimsonorblue22

Hield ranked just outside the top 100. In almost every class, there are a couple of guys ranking lower that rocket to the top of their class. Hield is certainly one of those guys, along with Nik Stauskas, who was ranked 76 but left Michigan after his sophomore year for the NBA. Both Hield and Stauskas have something in common, though - both were born outside the US (Hield in Haiti, Stauskas in Canada). There is a lot of potential with foreign born players that they may not be properly ranked, particularly if they don't play much HS ball in the US. I believe that both Hield and Stauskas could have (and would have been) top 40 players had they played in the US from an early age.