🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@DoubleDD

I never said that whites don't have things happen to them in encounters with police. They do. And when that happens, it's just as wrong.

I said above that Michael Brown was wrong for what he did. But here's the thing that I think you are missing about this whole episode.

As a result of the Brown shooting, even though he was wrong, it revealed a systematic problem with the Ferguson police department and municipal court system. Have you read the DOJ report on their investigation? The report details many unconstitutional stops, arrests and other harassment that the Ferguson PD carried out as a regular practice. The actions of the officer in the case of Michael Brown were justified, but when the light shone on the Ferguson PD, evidence of unconstitutional behavior were rampant. A sampling:

1. In October 2012, police officers pulled over an African-American man who had lived in Ferguson for 16 years, claiming that his passenger-side brake light was broken. The driver happened to have replaced the light recently and knew it to be functioning properly. Nonetheless, according to the man’s written complaint, one officer stated, “let’s see how many tickets you’re going to get,” while a second officer tapped his Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW”) on the roof of the man’s car. The officers wrote the man a citation for “tail
   light/reflector/license plate light out.” They refused to let the man show them that his car’s
   equipment was in order, warning him, “don’t you get out of that car until you get to your house.” The man, who believed he had been racially profiled, was so upset that he went to the police station that night to show a sergeant that his brakes and license plate light worked.

2. At times, the constitutional violations are even more blatant. An African-American man
   recounted to us an experience he had while sitting at a bus stop near Canfield Drive. According to the man, an FPD patrol car abruptly pulled up in front of him. The officer inside, a patrol lieutenant, rolled down his window and addressed the man:

Lieutenant: Get over here.

Bus Patron: Me?

Lieutenant: Get the f*** over here. Yeah, you.

Bus Patron: Why? What did I do?

Lieutenant: Give me your ID.

Bus Patron: Why?

Lieutenant: Stop being a smart ass and give me your ID.

The lieutenant ran the man’s name for warrants. Finding none, he returned the ID and said, “get the hell out of my face.”

1. This incident is also consistent with a pattern of suspicionless, legally unsupportable
   stops we found documented in FPD’s records, described by FPD as “ped checks” or “pedestrian checks.” Though at times officers use the term to refer to reasonable-suspicion-based pedestrian stops, or “Terry stops,” they often use it when stopping a person with no objective, articulable suspicion.

2. In another case, officers responded to a call about a man selling drugs by stopping a group of six African-American youths who, due to their numbers, did not match the facts of the call. The youths were “detained and ped checked.”

3. Frequently, officers arrest people for conduct that plainly does not meet the
   elements of the cited offense. For example, in November 2013, an officer approached five
   African-American young people listening to music in a car. Claiming to have smelled
   marijuana, the officer placed them under arrest for disorderly conduct based on their “gathering in a group for the purposes of committing illegal activity.” The young people were detained and charged—some taken to jail, others delivered to their parents—despite the officer finding no marijuana, even after conducting an inventory search of the car.

That's just a sampling. It should be noted that the police in Ferguson were using pedestrian ("ped checks") checks even though this activity is an unconstitutional stop. Michael Brown was wrong, yes, but it the things that the people of Ferguson complained about were found to be true - there were systematic abuses within the police force.

I appreciate what @nuleafjhawk says, but the trouble is that discrimination happens. Does it happen all the time. No. But the thing with discrimination is that it might not be noticeable unless it happens to you. I have a co-worker that goes through hell when we business travel. I never really thought about it until seeing what she has to go through on literally every single business trip. I'm sure that type of thing happens all the time, but until it happened literally right in front of my face, I didn't see it. I couldn't recognize it.

Like the story I told above, until my roommates actually heard about it from me, they didn't believe that type of thing happened.

What is happening at MU is a result of the administration ignoring small incidents and letting them fester. Now, it has exploded. They just arrested a student at another school for making a terrorist threat against the campus in Columbia.

Currently in the US, there is a DOJ investigation going on about sexual assaults on college campuses. KU is one of the campuses being investigated. Are the women that have complained about the unwanted groping and other behavior seeking special rights? Of course not. They want to be treated with decency and dignity as a member of that community. If university leaders don't want to do that, and root out those who are perpetrating these types of behavior, they should be replaced.

There is a similar problem with race. Not just black, but also with Latinos and a growing issue with middle eastern individuals. That, too should be rooted out. To some, it may just be isolated incidents. But the problem with hate is that if you don't root out the isolated incidents, it becomes a systematic problem.

At MU, the football team isn't saying "make one of us president of the university." They are saying, select a president that cares about all students, and won't look the other way when we are being mistreated. It's not special treatment to not be subjected to abuse.

@dylans what has happened to your brother is terrible, and unfortunately, is a problem everywhere. Some police and DA's see things a certain way and make assumptions about a crime. That attitude must also be rooted out. Don't lose hope though. The system is flawed, but, hopefully, getting better.

You make a good point about scoring highest in school, but it isn't about two parent homes. It is about stability at home. For two parent homes that are unstable, those kids do not do well in school because the instability at home makes it difficult for them to concentrate at school, hard to sleep, inconsistent eating, etc. When there is stability, whether in a single parent home or whatever, the child can reach their full potential.

Mario is a good in-between guard in the NBA. Good enough to start, but not be a star, but a very good backup if you have that luxury. Unfortunately, that also puts a definite cap on his earnings. He should have a very good second half of his career, probably playing another 5-7 years if his health stays intact.

@ralster I agree with your point that individuals should treat police with respect. However, part of what is not addressed is that often times, police approach minorities with hostility that, simply put, is not seen by non-minorities in their interactions with police. As a result, when black and hispanic males tell these stories, while blacks and hispanics understand that what these guys are saying is true, society at large dismisses it because our interactions with police are very different.

Michael Brown was wrong for robbing that store.

But let's look at the facts. The police officer stated that he was unaware of the robbery when he engaged Michael Brown. That's a critical fact that is often lost. The officer flat out did not know that a robbery had just occurred, or that Brown was a potential suspect. The officer yelled at Brown and his friend because they were walking in the street. According to witnesses, he yelled "Get the F! out the street". Some witnesses say he yelled "get the F! out the street, boy!" As I detailed in another post, the history of white males calling black males "boy" as a statement of disrespect is well documented. The question is, as an officer of the law, and as an authority figure, did this officer approach this situation appropriately. I would say no.

By no means does that mean that what Brown did next was okay. It was not. Brown should not have escalated the situation. He should have held his tongue, moved out of the street and went about his business. But at the same time, that officer should not be addressing a citizen like that. That's unprofessional and unbecoming of a police officer to make a normal interaction hostile for no reason.

True story: Back when I was in college, I worked on campus and often was leaving campus late after studying or working. I got stopped by the police quite a bit driving home late at night (at least once or twice a semester). Once, I got stopped by an officer and the first question he asked as he approached my car was if I had any weapons or drugs in the vehicle. The very first question. He did not ask me for my ID. Didn't ask for my registration. Didn't ask why I was leaving campus so late. He basically accused me of doing something wrong as soon as he stopped me. I spent 30 minutes that night on the side of the road right next to campus while this cop ran my information. Finally, when everything came back clean and there was nothing more to run, he handed me a bogus ticket. I call the ticket bogus because when I went to contest the ticket a week later, the officer did not appear and, on top of that, submitted a one sentence report on why he ticketed me. The prosecutor immediately apologized and threw the ticket out. That happens to black men all the time. My roommates couldn't believe it when I got home that night that I had actually been stopped by the cops and that had happened. Up to that point, they had assumed that kind of stuff never really happened, except when people were actually doing something wrong. It actually happens. Unfortunately, even though that officer was completely wrong in how he handled the situation, because I didn't have to pay a fine, I wasn't injured, my car wasn't damaged, etc, I could not bring a claim against the police department for how I was treated, so that story didn't make the national news.

Black Lives Matter isn't about Michael Brown. If you look around, you see that Ferguson is about a culture and societal practice that allows police officers to harass minority males with little threat of retaliation or punishment because the stories that make the national headlines are always a little fishy one way or another. My story doesn't get a voice because I behaved myself in a way that was upstanding and respectful even though the officer did not carry himself that way. Had I been shot or beaten, there are people out there that would have immediately dug into my life story to try and argue that I did something to deserve my fate. Few would have questioned that officer. Many would have taken him at his word, even though he started that encounter with unnecessary hostility and tried to cover that up by writing a bogus ticket, hoping I wouldn't contest it because I was just some young black kid.

A few thoughts...

1. Defense - we have lacked an above average perimeter defender since Wiggins left. Vick may step into that role this year, but the question remains on whether or not he will even play much, so I don't think we get a big boost in perimeter defense unless Vick is suddenly grabbing 18-20 minutes per game. With Cheick, we would have a shot blocker, but without him, our defense looks like this:

PG - Frank Mason, average defender, slightly undersized, but very tough.
SG - Devonte Graham, slightly above average defender, but again, undersized
SF - Wayne Selden, average to slightly above average defender, decent size, strong, but lacking elite quickness.
PF - Perry Ellis, average defender, but will struggle against big, strong post players. Good position defender, but not a shot blocker. Slightly undersized at 4.
C - Jamari Traylor, average defender, but will struggle against big, strong post players. Okay weakside shot blocker, but poor strongside shot blocker. Very undersized at 5.

That's our defense. Our starting personnel, as it now stands, is an average defensive unit with very little shotblocking and not one decidedly above average defensive player. The secret is out - this is a Bill Self team that, without Diallo, is at best a slightly above average defensive unit. I don't see the pieces to make this an above average or elite defensive unit.

So let's turn our attention to:

1. Offense - since we won't be able to lock down teams for 8-10 possessions at a time defensively, we need to be much better on the offensive end. Svi broke out of his shooting slump, which was great. We will need to see that type of performance from either him or Greene basically every night. Between Ellis and Bragg, I think we have plenty of interior punch this year. The big question is Selden. If he's a 15 ppg guy, this team could be very good offensively, which will erase most of the defensive issues. If that is the case, we really need to push the pace to take advantage of our offensive prowess since we don't have the type of team that can win a defensive slugfest.

2. The Rotation - knowing that we don't have a great defensive team, but we do have a lot of great pieces to put together a really strong, efficient offensive unit, I think the rotation (sans Diallo) has to be Ellis, Bragg, Mickelson, Traylor as the bigs, with the lion's share of the minutes going to the first three, then Mason, Graham, Selden, Svi, Vick as the perimeter group, with Greene getting time if Svi is not shooting well. Lucas is on the outside looking in because we need to run, and Lucas doesn't fit as well into the uptempo style we need given our personnel and team strengths. Vick slots ahead of Greene because you have to have at least one guy in the rotation that can stop somebody, even if its just for 10-12 minutes, just so we don't have scoring wings giddily circling the date they play KU, knowing they can throw up 20-25 against our wing defense.

This is a Bill Self team that, in all honesty, is built like a Roy Williams team. I just hope Self realizes that and pushes the pace.

@DoubleDD

It is not a special privilege to be allowed to speak. Having a voice is not a special privilege.

During the civil rights movement, there were many that said if voting laws were put in place to ensure that minorities could exercise their right to vote, that would give them special privileges, or if they were allowed to stay at hotels and eat at restaurants that were white only, that would give them special privileges.

Today, we see people say the same things with respect to gay marriage, that if we allow gays to marry, or carry each other on their insurance, or have inheritance rights from the significant other, etc. that this would give them "special privileges."

Nevermind that all of the things that I listed above are things that the majority population had access to prior to the movement to have those rights bestowed on the minority population.

I will grant that if you have been treated unequally, it is pretty special to finally be on level footing. However, it's not a privilege to have equality. That is the goal of humanity. Unfortunately, we have to put rules in place in society to make sure the powerful, regardless of who that is, do not overrun those that do not have as much power.

The NCAA is now in bizarro land with this investigation. They typically only review high school work because that is the work that is required for graduation, etc. To review homework, pre-highschool work, etc. is really an over-reach. I cannot blame Diallo for getting an attorney because this is going too far.

@ralster said

And how perverse is the country getting that in some public forum, one of the candidates said "ALL lives matter"…and some of the audience jeered at him. How was he wrong? Its no joke–> its simply the sensationalized deconstruct of this society, piece by piece. If there are no absolutes (like an absolute “no-no”), then there is less societal framework, and individuals lose their frame of reference.

I heard a great example given about this and thought this would be a good place to share.

Let's imagine that you are invited to a big dinner where everyone is going to get to eat. Instead of a buffet, there will be servers coming around to serve. You are seated on the far end of the table away from the kitchen. As the serving staff comes out, you notice that they are only serving people to about three quarters of the way down the table.

You stand up and shout "People at the end of the table should be served food, too!"

Someone at the head of the table stands up from their plate and shouts back at you "Everyone at the table should be served food! Don't be rude to those of us at the head of the table."

Now let me ask this - if you don't have food, is it rude to say that you deserve food at that dinner, or should you sit quietly and be ignored? Further, is it necessary to say that those who already have food should also be served, or just to point to those that do not?

That's what the movement is about.

In almost every instance where an African American has been killed by police, there has been a large contingent pointing to what that individual did wrong to deserve to be shot. There are many that say that police should not be held accountable for their actions. This has even been in the cases where the video evidence clearly points to wrongdoing on the part of the officer. So why do people say "Black Lives Matter?" Because minorities are sitting at the end of the table, waiting to be served. We don't need to say "All lives matter" because I see many around that already have been served. It's only those that haven't gotten their food yet that need to be championed. Those that are already on the third course don't need a champion.

@Crimsonorblue22

The defense was absolutely atrocious. Perry, at his best, will be serviceable, but I don't want him guarding a legit pro level talent wing for any length of time. Ultimately, this may mean that Vick emerges because nobody else can guard anybody, but that discussion is for another day. Perry can handle the wing against lesser teams, but against good teams, he will be exposed on that end.

@DoubleDD

There has always been white representation on that committee. The reason there have to be diversity initiatives is that in a lot of places, the decision makers have always been white, so diverse perspectives are often left out.

This is the Missouri Board of Curators ↗. There is no lack of whites in decision making roles. Saying there needs to be whites on the committee is like saying there needs to be Republicans on a Kansas legislative committee. There will be. There always are.

The division that has occurred here is because some idiots on MU's campus decided to use some hateful speech and no one in a position of authority stepped up to stop it. It's not a special right to not have hate speech used against you. It's not a special right to be invited to the table as a part of the decision making process in the community you are a part of. It's just a shame that it has to take something like this to get that type of thing to happen.

I'm gonna zag while everyone else zigs and say Hunter Mickelson.

I do not understand playing Ellis at the 3. This compromises the defense, as Perry does not have the lateral quickness to handle perimeter defense against a legit outside player. If Perry could do that, he should have been playing the 3 this entire time to avoid matching him up against the bigger, stronger inside players that consistently give him problems.

I would love to have Cheick, Perry and Carlton all on the floor at the same time. Unfortunately, I don't think their skillsets will allow that. I agree with @BeddieKU23 and @joeloveshawks that this should be used as a means to get our best players (Cheick, Perry, Carlton, Hunter) on the floor together, not as a means to get more minutes for fringe rotation guys. Unless Self has no confidence in Svi, Greene and Vick, there is no reason to use Perry at the 3.

@brooksmd People do face the same thing. We say all the time that maybe athletes should use their forum for something besides just being famous, to actually use that place to make the world a little bit better. Would the MU president have resigned today if there was just a hunger strike? No. But once the football team got involved, they were an agent of change, and they did so without doing anything crazy, violent or unreasonable. They just said that if MU was going to act in a certain way, they would not represent that university on the football field.

Let's put this into context. If I heard my boss using a racial slur against another group, I would seriously have to consider the company I worked for. I mean this honestly. When it comes to racial slurs, I don't have a lot of patience for people that use them to demean other groups and I would not want to work for a company that allows its superiors to do that. If I had a boss doing that, I would report them to HR immediately, regardless of what group was demeaned.

Nobody gives a hoot about pink napkins, but the football players aren't saying they won't play over napkins, or uniform colors, or anything else, and to make such a comparison ignores the facts here. People on MU's campus are being disrespected and demeaned. That is unacceptable. The university president was ignoring this. He is no longer university president.

I hope the conversation doesn't end here because the fact remains that 1) people on the MU campus are using racial slurs and 2) there continues to be an undercurrent of hate and intolerance in this country.

@JayHawkFanToo I don't think the comparison fits here. As @sfbahawk said, context matters. You can say something with an air of respect or with intent to demean. To argue that all uses are the same ignores the issue. Again, context matters.

Take the word "boy" for instance. That word is, in and of itself, not disrespectful. However, it can be used in a disrespectful way. My grandfather (RIP) grew up in the south and, even as a grown man was often called "boy", even by people younger than him as a way to put him down as an African American man. Does that mean that nobody should ever use the word "boy"? Of course not. Context matters. And we all understand that the context of the word "boy", when used in certain instances is not being used to address a male child, but rather to disrespect a minority male. To argue that "he just said 'boy'" ignores the context, the history and the common sense.

Here we have the same issue. Arguing that the N word is used in rap lyrics, so its not a big deal is ignoring context, history and common sense. We all know the difference in context. The history of the use of that word against blacks in this country is well documented. Given that, common sense suggests that it is in fact different in the two scenarios, and there is no comparison.

Can we delete the spam threads, or are they just stuck in the queue?

In order of importance:

1. Continued health/ healing: It's an exhibition. The most important thing is that everyone leaves in good health for both squads.

2. Wing scoring: Someone has to produce from the wing. Between Selden, Greene, Svi and Vick we need to see 25-30 points a night, otherwise the offense just won't have the diversity to be effective as the season rolls on.

3. A defined big rotation: three bigs will get the lion's share of the minutes, so it's important to see who Self taps to go along with Ellis for those minutes. With the current arrangement, I would like to see that be Mickelson and Bragg, but...

4. Free Cheick!: We will need Cheick to reach the full potential this year. It's not that we will be bad without him. It's just that this team could be great with him.

5. Sound defense: With the new emphasis, this is going to be a work in progress, but the issues so far have been both mental and physical. One of those areas has to get cleaned up, and soon.

@brooksmd

So are you arguing that these "student athletes" cannot protest the treatment that they and their fellow students receive on campus without threat of retaliation by the administration? Interesting premise.

@jaybate-1.0 said:

KU didn’t finish weak.

It finished injured.

That's a huge point, and it seems like Self and KU are bound and determined to repeat those mistakes for the third consecutive year. Embiid was banged up. They brought him back quickly. He never got right. Given his NBA career, he may not have ever gotten right, but KU could have traded a couple more games without Embiid to make sure he was ready for March.

Selden and Ellis both played in the Big 12 tournament while banged up. Why not give them the weekend off and prepare for the NCAAs?

At KU, we prioritize all wins the same. That's just not the case. A win in November or December is not as valuable as a win in late March. Yes, the fans will lament if we lose, but honestly, I would trade two or three more regular season losses for one or two more March wins every year. It's not even something I would think about. I make that trade.

KU must manage wear and tear better this year, or we may be in the same position that we have been in - an 80% healthy squad knocked off by an inferior team in March.

@Crimsonorblue22

I liked what I saw as well. I can't put a lot of stock into his slashing game against Pitt State because he isn't being met by D1 quality bigs. Once he is being met at the rim by a 6-10 athlete, then I can make a determination. I do think he is better defensively than either Svi or Greene showed, which is critical because there will be a game where we need to cool off a hot perimeter hand, and Vick may be the only guy that can do that. He needs to play so that he's ready when called on to cool an Isaiah Taylor or Buddy Heild.

Vick should be a very good defender in time. He should be able to defend 1-3 with his quickness, size and length. The question is whether he can get to that point this year, or if he needs another season to get there.

Offensively, he could also be a very explosive player, but I think that potential is also at least a season away. I would like to see him get minutes this year, probably the 8-12 that @JRyman is suggesting, as this will help keep Wayne fresh and also give the team a different look when he is out there.

If Wayne is hobbled on a bad ankle, he should not be playing against Pitt State. This early in the year, its more important that Wayne get back to 100% than that he be in the lineup. I think this is a flaw of KU - we seem to try to play our guys when they are a little banged up against far inferior opponents when it does us no good.

I want Wayne at 100% against Michigan State. I am not interested in Wayne at 85% against Pitt State.

@Crimsonorblue22

Hoz committed the cardinal sin of trying to make a nice play instead of just getting in front of it and making sure the ball stayed on the infield. If he blocks that ball with his body, he still has a chance for the out at first (probably doesn't get it, but maybe) and there's no way the runner goes home. By letting the ball get by, he gave them a run.

The difference is that the Royals were good enough to overcome their mistakes. The Mets were not. In the only game the Mets won, it turned on the play where Morales gets the comebacker to the mound and, rather than either starting the double play by throwing to second or at least recording one out at first. Instead, he let the bases get loaded and the Mets had a big inning.

When the Mets made mistakes, the Royals capitalized every single time. When the Royals made mistakes, the Mets capitalized sometimes, but the Royals overcame those mistakes. That's why they won. Every team makes mistakes, but the champions overcome those mistakes.

In a game like this, it is hard to really get anything meaningful.

KU's bigs should dominate a game like this. They are facing a smaller team. They should have no problem blocking shots, grabbing rebounds and otherwise dominating the paint. Pitt State is undersized compared to what KU will see for most of the season.

The disappointing thing was how the wings looked. Our perimeter guys have to be better. I understand why Frank and Devonte play so much, but they can't both play 30+ minutes every night, or they will both be worn down by March. We need better wing play so that Frank and Devonte can drop to 27-28 minutes a night each.

@HighEliteMajor

I think its notable that Mangino just got canned at ISU and nobody has touched him as a head coaching candidate since he left KU. Add to it his history of incidents involving verbal abuse and just generally not getting along with people, and its easy to see why Mangino would be a tough hire anywhere. Mangino was out of football from 2009 until he was hired at Youngstown State in 2013. That's a huge layoff. He wasn't doing TV. He wasn't doing radio. It's just that nobody hired him. That speaks volumes about the type of person he is, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, Gill was immediately hired after leaving KU.

I don't think that means Gill is a better football coach than Mangino. That is still debatable. I do think it means that if you're a college, it may be easier to deal with Gill than Mangino as a coach.

I do think @jaybate-1.0 has an interesting point with Yost. Yost was on the brink of getting fired at the end of the 2012 season. Fans were calling for his head, but instead the Royals gave him an extension. Since that extension, the Royals have the best record in the American League. Oddly enough, Yost has a losing record with the Royals for his career (currently 468-469 not including playoffs). He was legitimately bad his first three years, but has been just as good his last three. Had KC not been patient, they would probably still be a mediocre club, either about to fire another manager, or still figuring out what direction they wanted to go in.

KU football is the same in many ways. There's some history, but the last several years have been poor. Like the Royals of the late 80s and early 90s, KU has gone for the quick fix, just like the Royals when they were signing free agents and trying to piece together another quick playoff run. That lack of focus led to KC drifting for 20 more years, as KC went through 8 managers between Howser and Yost. No Royals manager led the team for more than 4 full seasons. It was a revolving door that had many reboots, but never a clear direction.

As I have said many times, Beatty deserves a full term - 4 years - to see if he can get this turned around. I'd be willing to give him a fifth year if he's making any positive progress, even if he hasn't made it to a bowl by then. If this Royals squad has shown anything, it's that you have to stick to a plan, even if many people don't believe your plan is working, or even that it is any good. Had the Royals abandoned the plan after 2012, they probably would have been hailed throughout baseball, but they would not be World Champions right now.

I agree with @HighEliteMajor. The man to watch is Carlton Bragg. Bragg has the highest upside on either end, and his play could really change the ceiling for KU. He can score and defend, and could be a part of either small or big lineups. I think that makes him a huge difference maker.

The other potential guy is Brannen Greene. If he is consistently an elite three point shooter, he probably opens things up in ways that no one else on this team can. Just the ability to knock down a couple (or 4 or 5) threes in a game changes everything.

@HighEliteMajor

This comment really ticks me off.

Why point out something that is obvious – a public defender getting paid less than an attorney at a large firm? Folks that need to work in the public defenders office either didn’t do well relatively speaking in law school. The bottom of the class. Couldn’t get a better job. Or they are just young and getting a foot in the door. They aren’t as marketable. It’s how life works.

That shows an extreme lack of understanding regarding the legal profession. Some of the most talented litigators that I know are public defenders. The fact you think they are unskilled is disappointing. A guy I went to school with got a job at a decent firm even though he finished school at the bottom of the class. But he was guaranteed that job when he got into law school because he had a family connection. Assuming the people at big firms are more talented or more marketable is a joke, plain and simple, and to take a shot at individuals that are passionate about public service is, frankly, sad.

The sad thing is that a lot of individuals can't pursue that passion because paying off their debt is more pressing than doing something they actually care about.

I do love a good zone press. Not a press designed to turn the ball over, but a press designed to eat up clock. Make the team spend 5-7 seconds getting the ball across halfcourt. Most college teams aren't really able to score in less than 20 seconds against a set defense, so they will be operating against the clock on nearly every possession.

Just run a soft zone press that requires the ball to be reversed twice to get up the floor, then match up in the half court.

This is where I think Texas could be on to something with Smart's Havoc. That defense could really disrupt what teams are doing offensively, or it could result in a layup line if they are not sound.

I would like to see Self employ something early in the season to see how it works. It doesn't have to be a fixture, just something that will give teams another set to prepare for.

@HighEliteMajor

With all due respect, your comments signal to me that you likely have not been in and around higher education in some time, so you are not as aware of the current issues.

And remember, it’s supply and demand. If the cost is high, but the return is high, folks will pay the price – see med school costs. Paying back a $200,000 student loan for an orthopedic surgeon is a certainly reasonable. If the cost of the program is not worth the attendance cost, then folks won’t go – unless there is something artificially affecting the market.

The reason that most every rural area in the country has a crisis (and why rural hospitals, dentistry practices, etc. can't stay open) is that the pay can't keep up with the cost of attendance. Sure in areas near metro areas it is easy to pay a doctor, dentist or surgeon enough money to make the cost of medical school worthwhile. But in a rural area, that's not possible. I'm from the city, so it doesn't affect me, but I have a friend from college that wanted to move back to their smaller hometown and open up a dentistry practice, but basically found it to be cost prohibitive because the earnings just aren't there.

You can make enough, but only if you take certain jobs. That's why its a constant struggle to find people to fill positions like public defenders, rural nurses and doctors, etc. The cost for going to school for a public defender is the same as if you take a job as an attorney at a larger firm. However, the pay is quite different.

There is an assumption that the market will regulate itself. Never in the history of ever has the free market regulated itself. Prices will always go up because the desire for profit will drive prices up, particularly for necessity items. We built up a thought in everyone's mind that education is the way out of the poverty cycle, but as @Texas-Hawk-10 mentioned above, there are a lot of kids graduating from college with so much debt because they BORROWED that money that they can't even afford to rent their own apartment while they work in a starting salary job.

Recently, the American Bar Association required law schools to stop publishing the mean starting salary for their graduates, and instead publish the median. This was because the mean was being dragged higher by a handful of high earning outliers, while the median remained 15-20% lower. The ABA determined that was deceptive as it gave students a false sense of what they could borrow in school due to a salary expectation that was unrealistic. This has happened just in the last two years!

Borrowing doesn't work anymore, because borrowing restricts the jobs you can legitimately take, leading to the crises that I noted above.

@Texas-Hawk-10

I bet you and I are about the same age given your story, etc. I drove a 10 year old Honda throughout college, then got another Honda that was about 8 years old when I was in law school when the first car stopped running. I can definitely agree that keeping an old car running gets expensive very quickly. It bleeds you dry, $100 at a time.

The reason I think something has to happen with college is that I look at my story and realize that if I was a high school freshman right now, even with my academic credentials, I probably couldn't afford to go to both college and law school, especially without grants. A kid that has the same dreams and potential that I had 20 years ago would be completely shut out of realizing that because of finances. That is an American tragedy.

Talent is not limited to upper income levels. The next great chemist, or attorney, or biologist, or whatever, may be sitting in some inner city or rural low income area right now, with all the talent and potential in the world to cure cancer, or reduce toxic emissions, or become a Supreme Court justice or just make a difference in the world right in their own community. That talent is sitting there, and it may not be cultivated because that kids parents don't make enough money. That's a waste.

And yet, too many people are content to let the greatest resource on this planet, God given talent, be wasted simply because that God given talent wasn't born into a home with sufficient earthly resources.

Would the world be better off if the next kid like me doesn't get to go to college and law school, and instead of becoming an attorney, and mentoring other kids, and working a job innovating the way things are done in the world, ends up working as a plumber, or electrician, or shift supervisor at the local grocery store?

I sometimes talk to people in admissions at different law schools. They have noted that there is a crisis not just in law schools, but in all graduate programs. Simply put, the programs are becoming cost prohibitive, to the point that many students with the credentials simply are no longer applying. As a result, the qualifications for many schools have begun to decline over the last several years, and some believe they will continue to do so because the question is not "Can you handle the work" but "Can you afford the cost".

We are asking the wrong question. At some point, we will have a generation that has all the wrong answers as a result.

@MoonwalkMafia

The issue with college now, and particularly with borrowing to pay for college, is that it is too expensive to borrow to go to college now, compared to what your earnings will be when you graduate.

Starting salaries have held steady at just about every position in the country since 2008. However, tuition has risen. That means that the average student is now coming out of school with more debt, but making the same amount of money. That was the point I was making to @HighEliteMajor the other day in my post. For the first time in history, we are approaching a point where, if you aren't receiving scholarships, it is not a good financial decision to take out loans to go to college because you won't make enough money to pay those loans back. That's bad, particularly if you are already from a lower income background.

The other struggle with college is that, for the things that @MoonwalkMafia has pointed out, if you are a first generation college student, who is going to tell you those things? I had a friend when I was in college that was a first generation student. His parents were extremely proud and supportive and everything, but because neither of them had been to college, they did what they could, got him in the dorms, found out about academic advising and study help and left. They had no idea about how to switch majors, dropping and adding classes, transfer credits, etc.

They had never been to college before, so they had no idea what to do to help their son when he arrived.

That's something that most people don't realize. If you are from a family that has college graduates in it, it is hard to understand why people don't know these things. But if you are outside the college world, it is something that happens all the time.

I have another friend that was a first generation college student. They did what @HighEliteMajor and @MoonwalkMafia have suggested - they worked during school, stayed at home to keep costs down, got a few scholarships along the way and, guess what - they still ended up several thousand dollars in debt. They took a teaching position here in Kansas and have struggled to stay afloat because the pay has stagnated. These are the realities of higher education now.

I realize that for some, they don't see this side of things, but I come from a lower income area, I mentor some lower income students and I have a lot of friends from these kinds of areas. Quite frankly, college is different for first generation college students. My own father was the first in his family to graduate from college. He saved me from a lot of classic college student mistakes because he made those mistakes himself! That's part of why I am passionate about this topic in particular, because too many people just don't see the difference.

College for a lower income first generation student is like being dropped off in New York City for the first time with nothing but $20 and an address. You see cabs everywhere, but you can't afford a cab with $20. You don't know if you should take the subway, the bus, the train or just walk. You don't know which areas are safe, which people to avoid, etc. Now, for those with more money, they can just hop in a cab and give the address and they are where they need to be. But for our guy, he's in NYC with 20 bucks and no idea what to do next. None of his relatives or friends knows anything about the city. All he can see is skyscrapers and a million people in every direction.

I get that this isn't everyone's experience, but it is an experience, and one that should be understood rather than mocked. After all, chances are that first generation student has had to overcome quite a bit to even stand on that campus in the first place.

While I do not think that KU must hire a female to coach women's basketball, arguing that the best person should get the job rather than examining minority candidates is the type of approach that often excludes minority candidates.

Minority candidates often are not given high level jobs, and often end up taking some of the worst jobs, or jobs that are not prone to advance, because they aren't of the correct pedigree. As a result, when comparing resumes, those candidates are often thought to not measure up. I believe this is the point that @jaybate-1.0 is making.

No one blinks an eye at hiring a male to coach women's basketball. But if a female were hired as the head coach of a D1 men's team, there would be some that would question if she was the best candidate. Some would say "how can she recruit?" or "How will she relate to male players" etc. But hiring a man doesn't generate these questions.

I'm not saying Schneider was not the right candidate. I'm saying that when other jobs open up, will all candidates be looked at the same, or will certain candidates be elevated because they have the right background, etc.

@HighEliteMajor

You have a position. I have a position. I can appreciate that.

Those positions do not agree, and there's nothing that either of us can do to make that so.

Let's go back to arguing about how many minutes Jamari Traylor should get this year.

@JayHawkFanToo said:

@justanotherfan

I have to say that I mostly agree with all the point @HighEliteMajor made but more importantly...where in the world did you get this figure ..."That article points out that over 16,000 commit suicide with guns each day." ? A quick calculation adds up to 5.8 million suicide per year...really?

I mistyped. I meant 16,000 per year. I thought I fixed that when I edited, but must not have gotten it right on my phone. It's 46 per day, 16,000 per year.

@HighEliteMajor

Guns

Owning a gun ↗ makes it more likely that you or someone in your family will die as a result of a gun. That article points out that over 16,000 commit suicide with guns each day (should say YEAR - h/t to @JayHawkFanToo for pointing out the error). The gun violence some need protection from is that of their own hand. Romantic arguments in gun owning homes end in shooting deaths at an alarming rate. However, these shootings are classified as homicides. Women that live in homes with guns ↗ are more likely to have that gun used against them. We have often been told that women who own guns are safer, but the truth is that often, attackers will use that gun against the woman it was meant to protect. Incidents of domestic violence turn deadly much more often.

As I posted here a month or so ago, we need to get the image of the shadowy figure in the alley or the random person breaking the window in the middle of the night out of our heads. That's not how most gun violence starts. It starts with an argument between a husband and wife (or a boyfriend and girlfriend) and often leads to the woman being dead. Or its a child and a parent, or siblings. That's a murder, but it's not what we think of when we hear murder. And that isn't even covering accidental shootings.

Minimum Wage

The number of people on minimum wage now with some college education ↗ is increasing. And for people that take low income jobs, it is very difficult to move out of those jobs. That's a problem. It's not that all people working minimum wage jobs are low skill. It's that there are more low and minimum wage jobs now (as a percentage of the workforce) vs. pre-2008.

College Tuition

Many individuals are now caught in the student loan repayment web, meaning that because they took out loans for their own education, they are now in a position that they cannot afford to save ↗ for their own children's education because they are still paying for their own because of stagnant wages (see above).

School Shootings

Many of the individuals that were involved in school shootings obtained their guns legally ↗. The lack of mental health care plays a role in that, but that also shows that either the laws or the enforcement of the laws is inadequate that most of the time, the guns were obtained within the current bounds of the law.

Unemployment Benefits

Let's ignore the fact that while companies are making record profits ↗ wages and overall job availability continues to hold at the same rate. Corporations are making more money under Obama than under any president in either of our lifetimes, percentagewise, while worker wages have slid. And that's while some companies just aren't hiring new people at all.

Urban Violence

The tragic truth of urban violence is that opportunities for education (see the link on student loans and rising college costs), jobs (that'd be the minimum wage link and the unemployment link) and other opportunities are limited in the urban core. There is a cycle of poverty. 30 years ago, you could get out of that cycle by taking on student loans and going to college (or getting the grants that you have decried). Now however, that just throws you into a separate cycle of poverty, meaning that, for the first time in 100 years, many in the urban core could see their children worse off than they were because they sought to escape poverty through education. Where there is no opportunity, violence rises - see any major revolution in the history of the world. Right now, that violence is contained in the urban core, but that will not remain the case if the opportunities in the urban core continue to be limited while corporations and CEO's continue to rake in massive, record profits.

And then there's the affect the "War on Drugs" ↗ has had.

Abortion

In all of my study, it requires both a man and a woman to have sex that results in a baby. Pointing at only the woman seems unfair.

@HighEliteMajor

I agree with you, to a point, but let's ponder this.

Alcohol is regulated, although the rules get bent (and broken) far too often. Drinking age is 21, in many places you cannot walk around with an open container, even if you are of age. You must be licensed to sell alcohol, can't serve to minors, must provide ID to purchase, etc. It's illegal to drink and drive. If you do drink and drive, the penalties have increased in almost every state over the last decade, to the point that in most states you can have your license suspended for a year for a first offense.

Point being, alcohol, which as you correctly point out, is for pleasure, is somewhat regulated. Those regulations could be enforced better, but the framework exists.

With smoking, there are also concerns, but in most states, it is now illegal to smoke in most public areas. 20 years ago, you could smoke in almost every restaurant. Now, unless there is a separate room with separate ventilation, you cannot smoke in an indoor area. Have to be 18 to purchase cigarettes, etc. If you light up somewhere that prohibits smoking, you will almost certainly be told to put it out. It's to the point that I very rarely see a person under the age of 25 smoking cigarettes. It's just extremely rare in this country to see that today.

Again, smoking is pretty heavily regulated, and has seen regulation increase pretty heavily over the last 15 or so years.

So now guns. Yes, you have to be a certain age to buy a gun, but in most states, minors can also own guns if their parent or guardian okays it. If your parent or guardian okays it, a minor cannot legally drink or smoke.

In many states now, you can conceal and carry. Some states have even gone to open carry. In Kansas, you can conceal and carry in any public building without a license. You can't smoke anywhere you'd like. You can't drink anywhere you'd like.

DUI penalties have risen over the last 10-15 years in almost every state in the country. Restrictions on smoking have increased over the last 10-15 years in almost every state in the country. Restrictions on gun ownership have held steady or decreased over the last 10-15 years.

Bars, restaurants and liquor stores that serve or sell alcohol to a patron can be held civilly liable in court for a person that causes damage related to that alcohol. Cigarette manufacturers have been the defendants in many well documented lawsuits.

There are actually laws on the books that prevent gun shops and manufacturers from being held liable for damage or injury caused by guns.

So while I understand your point, there's really not a good comparison here.

@drgnslayr Absolutely agree about Manu now. He is one of the most savvy and creative players in the NBA today. I am a HUGE fan of his play, which is why my eyes lit up when you mentioned him above.

However, I think asking Lightfoot to get anywhere near that as a collegiate player is probably not going to happen. Manu turned into that type of player after over 10 years in the pros (NBA and Europe). That's a lot of coaching and experience that Lightfoot just isn't going to have an opportunity to get. Ginobili made his pro debut at 18 in Argentina. By the time he was 25, he was 2 time Italian League MVP and had also been the Euroleague MVP. That was in 2002. Then he came over to the NBA and from 2003 to 2009 was a very athletic player on some very good (and some great) Spurs teams. Once he started getting banged up, his game changed, but by then he had been a pro for 15 years.

I think Ginobili is a great player to watch, but it would be very difficult for a high school or college player to possess the type of basketball IQ and court awareness that Ginobili possesses at this stage in his career. Ginobili probably played more basketball from 2002-2009 than Lightfoot has played in his entire life between international tournaments representing Argentina and NBA seasons. That's an experience gap that even four or five years in college won't cover.

@JayHawkFanToo

If Graham were still 5-11, he would not be a Jayhawk. That's the harsh reality. He grew, which changed his outlook. Graham at 5-11, with a slight build, is not a going to be big enough or strong enough to play at a high major.

But he grew 3 inches, and that, coupled with his skills and shooting ability, made him a high major player.

Mitch Lightfoot is 6-8. He's a PF. He's kind of like a Perry Ellis lite. I don't think his overall basketball skill is as high as Perry was a HS junior, but his footwork is good, his athleticism is solid. He's a bit smaller than Perry was as a HS junior, but he could certainly fill out in time.

My concern for him is that he isn't athletic enough to consistently step outside, but is also too small to have an advantage inside, while not being quick enough to exploit bigger players. I haven't seen him work off the bounce enough to believe that he can take bigger guys to the perimeter and beat them off the dribble, as Perry often does from the top of the key. His shot is very much a set shot from three, although it appears he does have the range. However, if no one fears his dribble drive, guys will crowd and disrupt that shot.

So, back to @JayHawkFanToo the question is if he will grow. I will feel much differently about a 6-10 Mitch Lightfoot than I feel about a 6-8 Mitch Lightfoot, just like I would feel much differently if Devonte Graham was still 5-11 (basically making him Jeremy Case).

As to @drgnslayr and the point about Ginobili, let's recall that when he first entered the league, Ginobili was a very athletic player. Check out his [high flying work here](

Schneider was a heck of a coach at the D2 level. It's not D1, but he did win a national title during his stint.

The question is going to be on the recruiting trail. Can he sign the caliber of player necessary to compete nationally. That was Hendrickson's undoing. She simply wasn't consistent in signing enough high caliber talent.

@Crimsonorblue22

In close games, not really. But that's why you make sure to blow out the TCU's, Texas Tech's and K-State's of the world, so you can play Frank Mason 24 minutes in those games, then play him 34 on the road at Oklahoma, or in AFH against Kentucky.

A quick glance at KU's schedule reveals some games that KU should be looking to rest guys:

Nov 23 vs. Chaminade

Dec 1 vs. Loyola

Dec 9 vs. Holy Cross

Jan 9 at Texas Tech

Jan 16 vs. TCU

Feb 3 vs K-State

Feb 20 at K-State

Feb 27 vs. Texas Tech

That's 8 games where the main guys should play less than 25 minutes if KU executes the way they should. You may even be able to keep their minutes down around 20. Those are excellent chances to get Vick, Greene, Traylor, Mickelson, etc. some significant minutes.

The key is that Self has to trust those guys and let them play 15-20 minutes in those games so that Mason, Selden, Ellis, etc. are not worn down at the end of the year.

The other benefit, as we saw in the national title game, is that maybe one of those guys gets some confidence from having a good game during the regular season and comes in during the tournament and has a big game or big half, like Grayson Allen did for Duke last year.

@Crimsonorblue22

I think other coaches try to manage their player's minutes, particularly trying to avoid playing one or two players 35+ minutes in back to back games when possible. In the tournament, obviously, you want to go with your best six or seven players because at that point, talent is more important than depth.

You use depth in the regular season to keep your best guys fresh. You can really do this in blowouts. I know some coaches like to keep their main guys in to stay sharp, but with the intensity that Self likes to practice with, you have to manage the wear and tear.

@Barney

The question that Self has to answer is "which is more important?"

Is it more important to rest guys a little bit in January and February so that we can make a deep run in March, or is it more important to win one or two more conference games, even if that compromises our ability to win one or two more games in March.

I said last year as early as January that Frank was going to wear down with his minutes load. It was no surprise that Frank's productivity and efficiency took a hit as the season wound down.

Self's goal should be to make sure no one on this team averages more than 28 minutes per game. This squad is deep enough that there are alternatives to playing anyone more than that. Selden doesn't need to play that many minutes because Svi, Greene and Vick are available on the wings. Mason shouldn't, because you have that wing group, plus Graham can handle the point when Mason sits. Ellis shouldn't, because you need minutes for Bragg and both Mickelson and Traylor are capable of picking up some minutes. Diallo should not, because you have 4.5 guys to rotate in the post.

There is enough depth that everyone should be fresh when March rolls around as long as Self doesn't ride anyone too hard during conference season. But that comes down to minutes management and trusting guys like Bragg, Vick, Greene, Svi to play 12-18 minutes each so that Mason, Selden and Ellis all get their rest.

There's a chance that both of those sites will be regulated much more heavily in the near future.

The state of NY is doing an investigation ↗ for what may be insider trading with employees from each site playing on the other site with information that was not publicly available.

The state of Nevada recently said that the sites need to register as gaming companies, ↗ prompting them to pull their annual convention out of Las Vegas.

There is something serious going on here. When you have a regulatory body and a prosecutor looking into things, it's only a matter of time before something significant happens.

@DoubleDD said:

My point? If HCBS recruited this kid, then as fans lets be happy to have him. After all having BS as HC is what allows us to hang with those other programs.

I would have to disagree with this.

KU has never gone more than 8 years without a conference title (that happened from 1978 to 1986). Since the NCAA tournament modern era (after 1979) KU hasn't gone more than five years between Sweet 16 appearances (1981 to 1986).

KU has almost literally never been bad. Since Phog Allen took over in 1907, KU has reeled off win after win after win.

I know I am critical of KU, and critical of Bill Self, but KU hangs with the other programs because you can look through the last 110 years of program history and you will struggle to find a "down" period. There are some disappointing seasons here and there, but no true "down" period.

I don't want to act as if being good is a KU birthright. It takes work. But KU is good year after year. We can hang. We have hung for more than a century. I see no reason why that would change.

@ralster

KU should handle UK in January because the game is at the Fieldhouse. If the game were at Rupp, I would expect Kentucky to win because both teams are very good at their place.

On a neutral floor, it comes down to who has the better squad. Last year that was UK by quite a bit. This year, I think KU is better.

In March, Calipari has proven that he can get it done with whatever he has just about every season. Self has shown that he needs a certain type of team. He has that type of team this year, so the pressure is on to get it done because there is no excuse for an early flame out this time.

As @Texas-Hawk-10 said, recruiting is half the job, particularly at the major college level, so when I am ranking coaches from a major conference, I take recruiting into the equation.

I think Tubby Smith is a coach that once upon a time would have ranked in the top 5 among this group, but he has fallen off as a recruiter and his in game skills have not upgraded significantly enough to overcome that decline. That's why I ranked him 8.

Scott Drew I ranked 6 because he has taken what was, at the time, the worst job in the conference and made Baylor a team that is 1) no longer a laughing stock and 2) nationally competitive. The guys I put behind him (Prohm, Smith, Ford, Weber) are guys that I do not believe could have engineered the turnaround that Drew has at Baylor.

I also think Huggins is starting to decline with age. At one time, I certainly would have made a case that he was a top 3 coach among this group, but that was probably 5-7 years ago. Coaching skills are not static.

Lon Kruger is a very good coach that has had success at five stops along the way. He has never quite cracked the elite group, but he has been very consistent, and has some NBA experience as well, making him a better game coach.

Right now, the Big 12 has one elite coach (Self), two former top notch coaches that are now declining (Smith and Huggins), two coaches making the jump from mid majors with varying degrees of success (Smart and Prohm), two very solid coaches with success at multiple stops (Kruger and Johnson), one guy that has done a successful rebuild, but hasn't taken his program higher (Drew) and two guys that may be out of a job before practice starts in Fall 2017 (Ford and Weber).

@MoonwalkMafia If you believe that KSU could be historically bad, why are you so high on Weber as a coach? He is a weak recruiter, has trouble retaining players and it doesn't seem like you are high on him as a game coach. Is it that you think Drew, Johnson, Prohm and Ford are all that bad? Or are you higher on Weber's in game skills than I initially understood?

@ralster Smart did something that is extremely difficult as a mid major - he made the NCAA tournament five straight years, many times as a non-automatic qualifier. That's quite a feat. Most mid majors have to qualify by winning their conference tournament. Only those that also show well during the regular season against major conference teams have a chance to get an at large invite. Compare that with Steve Prohm, who only went to the NCAA's once in four years, despite continually winning the Ohio Valley because he did not perform well enough outside the conference, even last year when he went undefeated in his league.

I think that equips Smart to make the jump to a major conference much more than it equips Prohm. Both men may succeed, but if I had to bet on only one, it would be Smart.

I'd go

1. Self
2. Kruger
3. Smart
4. Johnson
5. Huggins
6. Drew
7. Prohm
8. Smith
9. Ford
10. Weber

I'm higher on Smart than most. Also probably higher on Drew, but I think he really knows the game and has elevated Baylor higher than most anyone could have expected when he took that job.

Weber is on his way out at KSU. He may not be there next season. Heck, he may be in his last year of coaching a major college team.

I'm not sure what to think about Lightfoot.

In some ways, he looks like Sam Dekker, but honestly, he reminds me more of current K-State freshman Dean Wade. Sam Dekker was a bad dude in high school, could can jumpers all over the floor and just generally shredded double and triple teams. I can't find highlights of Lightfoot doing that.

I can see Lightfoot doing a lot of nice things in his highlights, but generally doing them against smaller players, or non-elite talent. It's not really a good thing that he reminds me of Dean Wade, a kid that will likely be a pretty average D1 player when its all said and done.

Lightfoot is too skinny currently to play in the post. He's athletic enough to probably handle a wing, but I want to see him work on the perimeter a little more before I say that for sure. I like that he dunks everything around the rim. That will at least keep him from getting his shot blocked when the competition jumps up.

I'd keep an eye on Lightfoot to see how he develops, but he's not a priority player right now. He's a follow, not a pursue.

@nuleafjhawk

Not saying they will make the choice based on that, but that gets schools into the discussion.

For example, you only get 5 official visits. You get to pick 5 schools, and that's it. You can take more visits if you like, but you have to pay for them. So that means your top 5 is really all that matters.

So how do you get into that top 5? Well, that starts early, when a kid is first deciding who he likes and doesn't like. 12 year olds aren't necessarily concerned with history, but they do think about things like, that looks fun, I like the way they play, etc. Remember how many kids in the mid 1990's considered Michigan? That's the Fab Five influencing those kids. Now, a lot of those kids didn't ultimately pick Michigan, but Michigan was in that conversation.

This is much the same. No HS player picks UK because Drake is there. But a 12 year old may say Kentucky is awesome and I like Drake, and that thought may stick around when they are 17 and deciding where they want to go to college. That won't make the decision, but maybe that makes them say "I want to visit Kentucky."

I just looked at ESPN's rankings. Almost every kid in the top 30 that isn't signed for 2016 (13 total players) is considering Kentucky. Probably only one or two of those kids will actually go to Kentucky. But Kentucky is in the conversation on almost every single guy.

The brand building is for the kids too young to be recruits. History, winning, tradition, etc., that's for once the kid decides to visit. But if everyone wants to visit, you will always land some of them.

@nuleafjhawk

I guess failure is relative. If UK starts missing the tournament, or getting knocked out in the early rounds, then they look silly.

If they keep going to the Final Four, they really don't look silly.

I think @Crimsonorblue22 has a good point about the video game. These are the type of things that kids think about. Remember, most top players start with a list of maybe 8-10 schools. That means that most schools are never even seriously considered. Those decisions are made when a kid is 13, 14, 15 years old, long before the recruiting starts, when a kid is still deciding which schools are "cool" and which ones are not.

UK is cool, so every top player considers them. They are on every single list. Drake, NBA players, it all helps build the brand not with current recruits, but with kids that aren't even in high school yet.

KU has similar opportunities, but they need to be sure and capitalize. You have to be on the list.

@Texas-Hawk-10

Typically I would agree with you, because most 9th men in college have zero NBA caliber skills. Brannen Greene is an exception because he has one NBA caliber skill. The uniqueness of his NBA caliber skill is that Greene has the ability not just to be an above average perimeter shooter in the NBA, but to be an elite level one. That matters.

Darion Atkins (University of Virginia) never played more than 16 minutes a game until he was a senior. As a senior he averaged just 7.6 ppg and just 6 rpg. He's currently getting a shot with the Knicks. He's got the potential to be an elite level defender. NBA people are hoping he develops a solid shooting touch. He's basically the opposite of BG, with NBA people hoping he can become a player similar to Draymond Greene as a multipositional defensive wiz and matchup nightmare.

Greene is 6-7, athletic and a tremendous shooter. That will get him more than a passing glance from NBA people. Greene will get his chance. He may not capitalize on it, but he will get the chance.

@Texas-Hawk-10

He has not. However, he is a good enough athlete that he has the tools to be at least average. With work, I believe that he could be average, maybe even slightly better. And once he gets out of college, he has a real world incentive (an NBA paycheck) to make sure he becomes an average or better defender.

Greene has a better chance to be an NBA player than Perry Ellis because BG has an NBA position. Perry is the far superior college player, but has no pro position. Greene will never be an NBA star, but he can get a job as a 9th man. I think that's a role he could slide right into because he hasn't played a ton of minutes in college. He is a role player now, he would be a role player in the NBA.

@JayHawkFanToo

I was assuming (silly, I know:grin: ) that the Dodgers would win. I think most people believe the Dodgers have the most talent in the NL. Now that they are out, I think everyone believes the Jays and Cubs are better than KC and NY. This is especially odd because KC and NY have home field advantage. If I were a gambling man, I'd put 50 bucks each on the Royals and Mets to win it all