🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@Statmachine

I think that may be a bit harsh unless you have some pretty significant evidence of something beyond the loan, etc. Saying that Cliff's mom is "an outside influence" isn't really fair. She's his mother. She's not an agent. She's not a runner. She's not some Johnny come lately or a hanger on. She's his mother.

I know next to nothing about her other than this whole loan thing. Saying that she interfered with Self and will be the reason he doesn't make the NBA is a huge leap given the limited facts we have, unless you know more than what has been in the public view. Not saying that you need to divulge if you do, because I believe everyone is entitled to privacy, even great athletes. But making a blanket statement like that really isn't fair to Cliff or his family.

@Texas-Hawk-10

I agree in theory that Self doesn't want his young guys getting into quick foul trouble, but the problem is that you aren't getting any more time out of them either way.

Let's say that a guy doesn't start because you are worried that he will foul early in the game and end up on the bench. So you sit him until after the first TV timeout and he checks in with about 15 minutes to go in the half. He has already missed the first 5 minutes, but he has zero fouls. He picks up two fouls before the next TV timeout and has to come back to the bench. You got three minutes out of him.

A better solution is just to play the guy and let him adapt on the floor. If that means he fouls out against Northeastern State, that's fine by me. I'd rather him learn against those guys so he's available against Texas and Oklahoma than try and ease him in.

In college hoops, the easiest opponents are going to be at the beginning of the schedule, in the first 10-12 games. I'd rather Diallo foul out or miss the last 17 minutes of the first half against those guys than have him gone against Texas when we really need him. JMO.

@HighEliteMajor

I think you are right. I hope you are wrong.

Self has too often leaned on experience over talent. As others have said, I hope that he has learned from that. Lucas and Traylor are not as good at basketball as Diallo and Bragg. That doesn't mean that they should never play, but it does mean that if someone has to play a minimal amount of minutes between Ellis, Diallo, Lucas, Bragg and Traylor, it should be Lucas or Traylor because they are the least talented among that group.

My worry with Svi is that his ballhandling was not good last year due to his lack of strength. He seems to have corrected the lack of strength issue, but has that had an unintended consequence (lost shot fluidity, loss of quickness). Sometimes putting on muscle is great. Other times it just puts tank armor on a Ferrari. Doesn't accelerate anymore and can't corner worth a darn. Not saying this happened to Svi. We don't know. I'm just monitoring that as closely as I am monitoring the Greene hip situation.

@KUSTEVE

I don't like the thought of Frank and Devonte playing a lot together because we do not know yet if Vick can be the lone ballhandler on the floor if both Frank and Devonte need a break. Remember how much Frank wore down last year when he basically played 38 minutes a game while Devonte was out with injury? We have to keep Frank fresher this year, which means that we have to be able to rest both he and Devonte regularly to keep their minutes around 28-30 each. That means they can only play about 20 minutes a game together, which is not enough for your starting/best group.

I like Perry, but question if he has the lateral quickness to handle smaller 3's (which would be what he would see basically every night). I think Bragg is better equipped to handle that on the defensive end, which is why I like your first idea. I think we see an early season starting group of Mason-Selden-Svi-Ellis-Diallo. Once we know how healthy Greene's hip is, he enters the mix and may even replace Svi in the starting lineup, depending on how Svi plays. Bragg will help out up front, but because he has the best perimeter skills, if Svi and Greene struggle at the 3, Bragg will be an option because Traylor, Mickelson and Lucas can't play there and Bragg will be one of our best 7 players, so getting him on the floor should be a priority.

Speaking of the best 7, I think that is (in no particular order) Mason, Graham, Ellis, Diallo, Bragg, Selden, Svi or Greene. That's the base rotation right now. Vick may get in there, but I didn't see enough in his high school highlights to put him ahead of Selden, so he's on the edge of the rotation now. I still think he has a role ultimately, but he may not have much impact until early in the conference season.

@KUSTEVE

You have to give credit where credit is due. Trey Lyles will be playing in the NBA in six months. When he faced Bragg, he was a year and a half from being in the NBA. No surprise that he was doing what he wanted on the floor. Bragg might be an NBA caliber player a year from now, but it is more likely that he won't be ready for the NBA next summer. That means that you had a guy that was older and a year away from being an NBA player facing a younger guy that was nearly three years away from being an NBA player in a best case scenario. And you can't discount that Lyles was/is the better player anyway. Lyles isn't the type of 3 that Bragg would see on a regular basis. He's the toughest type of opponent. Most college 3's would be far less skilled.

As a freshman Shepherd averaged about 9 points, 7 rebounds 1.5 blocks and 1 assist. Shot just 41%.

Last year he averaged 6 points, 6 boards, 1 block and 1 assist. Shot almost 43%.

I think we are seeing Shepherd's ceiling. He could probably average 10 points and 7 rebounds on 45% shooting at his peak. On a better team, that would likely fall to 8 points, 5 boards on 48% shooting.

Point is, Shepherd is a decent player, but not someone you should be passing up bigtime talent for. He's a legit D1 player, but not much beyond that.

The college game will always matter because the reach is different.

The NBA will never expand to more than 34 or 36 markets total. This means that a quality pro game won't necessarily always be in your area. However, a quality college game is probably within 100 miles of just about anyone. That means that most anyone can get to a good college game without hardship.

However, the NBA is more popular than ever because there are so many incredible players in the league right now - not just Lebron and Curry, but Griffin, Paul, Rose, Butler, Leonard, Thompson, Harden, Durant, Westbrook, etc. Not only that, but so many fun teams to follow - Cavs, Warriors, Hawks, Bulls, Rockets, Clippers, Spurs - as well as up and coming teams like the Suns, Bucks, Wolves, Wizards and Pelicans.

The NBA is in the best shape its been in since probably the late 1980's or early 1990's. Lots of stars, lots of interesting teams. The internet and NBATV have made it easier to consume. I ran into some people the other day that live in an area without an NBA team that watch 2 or 3 non national broadcast games a week through web streaming. That has changed things because you can follow a team that you find interesting even if they aren't on national TV.

@drgnslayr mentions an interesting thing about competition. The trouble with college basketball is that because there are so many D1 teams (over 350), the talent drop off from the top 30 players in college basketball to the next 100 or so, to the next 250, to the next 1000 is significant. But the thing is, that doesn't even cover all of the starters for every school in D1.

Even without stacks at the top (i.e. UK or Duke landing 8 or 9 McD AA players), KU itself has a stack in comparison to most any school. There isn't a single player on KU's roster that wouldn't have ranked in the top 200 of his high school recruiting class. There are probably 200 D1 schools that don't have a single player that would have ranked in the top 200 of their recruiting class. That's an enormous talent gap just because of the number of players required for college ball. There's nothing anyone can do to cover up that gap. It's always going to be there and it will always be that big, which hurts competitiveness.

Grading this class is dependent on what you think of Bragg and Vick.

If Vick can contribute this year in a way that makes KU a more creative offensive team, that raises the grade. If Bragg is an off the bench two way force, that also raises the grade. However, those are the best case scenarios.

Scenario 1 (Class Grade 6)

Diallo is a good defender, but offers very little on offense, fouls a little too much and generally is a one way (defense) player. As a result, KU's offense sometimes stagnates with him on the floor. However, his defense and athleticism still makes him an OAD.

Bragg shoots the ball well from the perimeter, but is a project on defense and isn't aggressive enough attacking the rim after being bitten by the turnover bug early in the year, making him very one dimensional on offense as a spot up shooter and is prone to defensive lapses. Returns for his sophomore year.

Vick barely plays, getting spot minutes, fails to take care of the basketball or defend effectively. We worry that he is more like Woolridge and White.

Scenario 2 (Class Grade 8.5)

Diallo is great on defense and is useful in the deep post. The jumpshot is still a work in progress, but he brings enough to the table that he always occupies a man on defense. He makes the jump to the NBA as a surefire top 10 pick.

Bragg is a bench scorer, effective both on the perimeter and in the post. He's a little shaky on defense, but Diallo cleans up a lot of the messes he creates. His athleticism covers some lapses as well. He returns to KU to shore up his game.

Vick provides a spark in a couple of games, but is mostly used in mop up duty. He shows flashes, but doesn't burn brightly on a consistent basis.

Scenario 3 (Grade 10)

Diallo is a one man destroyer on defense. In addition, the offensive game isn't just a few rudimentary post moves. He has a nifty jump hook and a decent face up jumper to go along with his rim attacks, making him a solid scorer to go along with plus plus defense.

Bragg is a dynamic scorer off the bench, averaging double figures in limited minutes. On top of that, his defense improves as the year goes along, making he and Diallo a nightmarish frontline pair for 10-12 minutes a game. Bragg does a bit of everything off the bench, and his ballhandling is good enough to allow him to be a secondary playmaker when the offense stalls.

Vick forces his way into the rotation just before conference play and becomes a surprising defensive monster. His defense gives KU a jolt in the transition game, which allows everyone else to shine. He takes care of the ball in the halfcourt, and his slashing allows the shooters space to spot up and hit from deep.

If I had to pick a most likely scenario of these three, it's Scenario 2. I think Vick is likely to struggle a bit more than most. I see some Tyshawn Taylor potential with him, but I think that comes more in his sophomore and junior years. I think Bragg will help us offensively, but may not be ready to bang in the post or slide on the perimeter. The real question is how far Diallo's offense comes this year, because I think he is only in Lawrence for one year.

@JayHawkFanToo

Baseball contracts are guaranteed. I was responding to @brooksmd because he was commenting on Aaron Brooks from the Saints. DIdn't mean to cause confusion.

I would also add that if Perez's performance begins to decline, it will probably be as a result of overuse by the Royals. That isn't Perez's fault. That is the Royals fault that he came off a knee injury and has caught more games and innings in the last two years than any catcher in the last half century.

@brooksmd

I never have a problem with NFL guys getting those big contracts because most NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. As a result, those guys usually only get the signing bonus and whatever their contract for that year is. That means that a guy that signs a 5 year, $40 million deal with a $5 million signing bonus is really only probably guaranteed the $5m plus the first year salary, which is usually the lowest salary for the deal because most deals are backloaded (something like $6m, $7m, $8m, $9m, $10m for the deal I described above). When you look at it in those terms, the guy is really only guaranteed to get $11m, still a nice salary no doubt, but not the $40m + $5m that it sounds like on the internet. If he gets hurt, performs poorly or whatever, he may be out of the rest of the deal.

Baseball is guaranteed, but still backloaded. Also, the window in which you can play is small.

I look at it this way - if your company worked you in such a way that you may only be able to physically work at your job for 2-3 more years, would you (assuming you aren't close to retirement already) be okay with your current salary or would you want a significant raise? I think most would want a raise if the way they were being worked made it likely their career would be cut short by a significant amount.

@JhawkAlum

With the physical pounding he takes, and the fact that he doesn't get many days off, it's doubtful that Perez ever sees another big contract. I think if the organization is going to ride him as hard as they have the last two seasons, they should give him more money upfront, knowing that he probably won't get a chance to get another deal later on.

@Texas-Hawk-10

I don't think you would have to shoot nearly that high as a team. You would have to make shots, yes, but not at that rate.

If there are 80 possessions in a college game and you control your turnovers (i.e. less than 15 per game) you can get up 65 shots not counting offensive rebounds. If you lean heavily on the three using Pitino's old Providence rules for taking them (open above the break, off a drive, off a post kick out or off a set piece) and you intend to take at least 25 a game, I think you can make an offense work off that.

Let's say you shoot around 33% (8 made threes per game for 24 points). That's 17 rebound chances. Long rebounds go to the offense about 40% of the time. That's 7 more possessions. If you can shoot about 50% on your non-three offense (i.e. putbacks, in transition and other plays, that's another 46 points). You should be able to get to the line between 8-14 times per game, and you should shoot at least 65% from there. That's another 5-10 points there. That's 75-80 points a game. If you play decent defense, that's winning basketball.

The key is really to be able to play defense within the game play of shooting that many threes (and finding shooters that can play solid enough defense to keep you in a game during the stretches where you go cold for a bit) then you can win a title with that.

The problem is that most teams that employ this strategy do so as a gimmick because they do not have the talent to win a title to begin with (see Pitino's Providence teams). But you can do that. Heck, KU could have done that last year had they abandoned attempting to put a traditional lineup on the floor and spread the floor with the four out attack. Mason, Graham, Selden, Oubre, Greene, Svi on the perimeter with Ellis sometimes on the perimeter, sometimes inside and then Lucas and Traylor inside. The tough part is not getting destroyed on defense with just one strong big man inside.

But it's workable.

The other benefit of shooting a high number of threes is that three point attempts tend to lead to offensive rebounds at a much higher rate than shorter shots because the longer shot attempts lead to longer rebounds. Since defensive players usually have inside position, those long rebounds fall into an area where the offense has a better chance to get those second chance opportunities.

I would add Bragg and Svi as possible early departures.

I doubt Mason leaves unless he has an amazing season (which I would expect would lead to a FF or national title). His size will keep him from being a sure thing lottery pick unless he and the team have a lot of high profile success. Of course, that's exactly what we are rooting for, but Mason has to be the key reason for that, not just a piece of the puzzle.

The biggest focus for the next recruiting class has to be on scorers. Ellis is gone for sure. We will likely lose another big scorer beyond that, whether its Svi or Bragg or someone else (Selden perhaps). Coleby will replace Traylor nicely. Graham and Mason will both be back, so we won't be searching for ball handling. We will still have solid size with Lucas, Coleby and probably Bragg up front, but we will need another big man, preferably one that can score in the post. Unfortunately, this class is much more guard/wing heavy than 2015, which was very much PF/C heavy at the top. I think that's why Self has entertained transfers this year - he sees that this class is light on bigs (4 of top 15 are PF/C, vs 8/15 in 2015) and realizes that he may not land an elite big given that every bigtime program is fighting over 4 elite guys, then about 6 more guys, then a bunch of lower rated players.

And since we know that size has a huge influence on rankings, there is the possibility that many of these guys are not as good as some of the guards ranked in that same level, but benefit from the size they possess as opposed to the skill.

@dylans

Agree completely that the stress of some things in the real world is much different than the stress of coaching basketball at any level. I am sure many high school teachers face higher stress on a day to day basis than any pro or college basketball coach.

@Bwag, @Lulufulu

Conference imbalance makes it hard to predict exactly what you need to make the playoffs. As @Lulufulu pointed out, Boston made the playoffs under .500 (40-42) while Milwaukee was .500 exactly. But that was the East. In the West, OKC missed the playoffs at 45-37. Only 3 teams in the East won at least 50 games. 7 teams in the West won at least that many. The Clippers, Spurs and Grizzlies all would have been the 2 seed in the East by record - they were the 3, 5 and 6 seeds out West (Portland had the 6th best record in the West, but was a division winner, so they got the 4 seed).

So I am counting out everything to make sure I have the roster situation for next year (not WUG) figured out.

I count the following:

Seniors (3) - Ellis, Mickelson (redshirt), Traylor

Juniors (4) - Greene, Lucas (redshirt), Mason, Selden

Soph (2) - Graham, Mykhailiuk

Fresh (3) - Bragg, Diallo, Vick

That's all of the scholarship guys that I am counting, unless I have missed someone. That means that KU still has one more scholarship for this year. Chukwu and Coleby would both be eligible for the 2016-17 season after sitting out this upcoming year. With Mickelson, Traylor and Ellis all leaving after the 2015-2016 year, I don't see any reason that we can't accommodate both players.

Am I missing something? Is my math wrong?

@dylans said:

@JayHawkFanToo I agree NBA coaching is marginally more stressful than coaching college. I'm aware that they play more games in the NBA, but only the playoffs matter. There is little to no stress to win any regular season game as long as you are playoff bound.

I would respectfully disagree, @dylans. While there may not be stress to win any particular regular season game in the NBA, there is stress to win in the NBA regular season. Take Scott Brooks or Monty Williams, for example. Those guys were the coaches of the 8 and 9 teams in the Western Conference this year. Emphasis on were because both have been fired. There is always pressure to demonstrate progress in the NBA and most franchises expect a steady progression from lottery to playoffs to title contender. Much of that progress is on display in the regular season, where you are moving from roughly 30 wins into the mid 40's and finally into the high 50s. It doesn't matter which games you win, but ownership expects you to win 55+ games as a contender. So if you are sitting at 40-25 and ownership expects you to be a title contender, there is real pressure on you.

There's also the matter that, at ISU, Hoiberg probably never would have been in danger of being fired. In the NBA, he would have no such guarantee. That changes the dynamic and adds some pressure as well.

@Statmachine

I once knew a guy that was writing a similar book, but he had already been contacted by two different publishers and was in talks with a studio about adapting it for a movie. Unfortunately, he got writer's block, too, and was never able to finish the book. So sad, because the partial manuscript was nominated for a Pulitzer, but was ineligible because it was incomplete.

All jest, no malice.

I don't mind court storming, but have always worried about the safety aspect of it. Hundreds of people running down stairs is a recipe for someone getting trampled in the madness. I never really thought about a situation like what happened at KSU this year. I just remember back when Wisconsin had the situation at a football game where a railing gave way and several dozen people fell and were being crushed - I don't remember whether anyone was seriously injured, but it showed the dangers.

Add in what happened at KSU this year and I think you have a very dangerous situation for everyone involved - both students and opposing players or coaches. And honestly, there is not enough security to protect against it. What can a few dozen security do if 500 fans are storming their way?

The penalties ensure that the crowd will do more to police themselves because losing the home game means that there is a possibility that KSU has to play twice in Lawrence in a given year? That's a huge loss for them since they are solid at home, but pretty soft on the road.

Coleby could be a nice pickup. He's an athletic guy that will benefit from a year of going toe to toe with Perry, Carlton, Cheick and others in practice every day. He has a full year to learn the system and otherwise acclimate himself to everything that is going on.

And then he will have two full years of eligibility after that if I understand everything correctly.

I don't know that he is a world beater, necessarily, but if we aren't getting an elite big man, a definite D1 guy with a year in the system and 2 years of D1 experience is better than a lower ranked prospect IMHO.

I will definitely be watching the Finals. Best basketball of the year (hopefully).

I hope we can get through the rest of the playoffs with no more injuries. All of the injuries really robbed us of some top notch battles in the playoffs this year as most teams were not at full strength, which is disappointing. Sad that Kevin Love won't be able to go for Cleveland - that injury was really a tough loss for them.

Hate to see both Curry and Klay get banged up the last couple games. They make Golden State fun to watch. Thankfully, they have about a week for everyone to get healthy before the Finals start, so both teams will hopefully be able to run at their best.

I'm not really rooting for anyone, but I am hoping for at least six very competitive games. Both fan bases would be ecstatic to win the title, so I really don't have much of a preference.

@drgnslayr

I agree that players can work on their own. The key is that they practice things correctly. Going back to the Cliff video, as I mentioned, he still needs to clean up his footwork. Specifically, you can see that on his jumpshot, his right foot is still ending up just slightly behind his left foot, which is backwards (for a righty shooter, the right foot should be the lead foot). Let's say that Cliff doesn't realize this tiny flaw and spends all summer practicing that way. He would arrive back at practice with a mistake ingrained in his muscle memory. You can see it when he shoots his turn around at the 1:08 mark. He doesn't bring that foot all the way through, which means he will leave that shot just a little bit short when he starts getting tired because he isn't rotating all the way through. On the next shot (turnaround to the baseline) he overrotates and the left foot ends up out front again. That means he will push that shot long and off the back iron strong. Those are tiny little things that I would bet he isn't even aware of physically. But a coach watching him work can go back over that with him and correct the form and footwork. But he needs a coach that knows the proper technique to work through that with him until he does it perfectly. At that point, he can work on his own because you can be sure that he won't develop a bad habit. But not until he can do it perfectly so that he doesn't develop bad habits.

I knew the first time I saw video of Cliff Alexander that he would play in the NBA. You cannot teach those physical gifts. You just can't. You either have them or you do not. Cliff has them.

Unfortunately, many of those skills would not have been unlocked at KU because the college practice schedule does not allow for that type of development. Cliff has developed like this in large part because he has been preparing for the NBA draft, working with position coaches, etc. That is why you see the rapid development. You combine the raw physical gifts of a young man like Cliff with some dedicated coaching and you get rapid growth. The crazy part of it is that Cliff's footwork is still very raw! I've watched that video twice and I can still see points where he needs to improve his footwork to smooth some things out. He is still learning.

@joeloveshawks I could definitely see Vick starting alongside Selden and Mason, along with Ellis and Diallo up front. The more likely scenario is for Vick to come off the bench and be a perimeter back up since he can handle the ball and play in any lineup.

I'd say the most likely starting lineup is this:

Mason, Selden, Greene, Ellis, Diallo. This lineup assumes that Greene is 100% healthy at the start of conditioning so that he is in game shape when the exhibitions roll around. If Greene isn't quite ready for starter minutes, it's between Svi and Vick for that other spot until Greene is ready to go.

With this group, you have three guys (Graham, Bragg, Vick) that can come off the bench and literally replace anyone in that previous lineup. You can bring in Bragg and go big (Mason, Greene, Bragg, Ellis, Diallo) or small (Mason, Selden, Greene, Bragg, Ellis). You can bring in Vick and get bigger (Vick, Selden, Greene, Ellis, Diallo), smaller (Mason, Selden, Vick, Greene, Ellis) or stay the same size (Mason, Vick, Greene, Ellis, Diallo). You can bring in Graham and go small.

You can bring in some combination and have a bunch of different hybrid lineups, like a super small speed and ballhandling lineup (Mason, Graham, Vick, Selden, Bragg), or an enormous power lineup (Vick, Greene, Bragg, Ellis, Diallo), or a switch everything because everyone is about the same size lineup (Vick, Selden, Greene, Svi, Bragg - I want to see this lineup at least once just to see if it works).

Just a ton of versatility here, and most of that versatility comes from the fact that both Bragg and Vick can handle the ball, shoot from the perimeter and play multiple positions on both ends of the floor. Perry can step away from the basket on offense, but he can't defend perimeter players on the other end. Selden isn't a good enough ball handler to be on the floor without either Mason or Graham.

The versatility of Vick and Bragg gives us an automatic MUA somewhere because we can change our lineup to something that the other team cannot match up with.

If ISU wants to go small, we can go with Mason, Graham, Vick, Bragg and Diallo. We have the speed to match their small guys, but we can still go inside to our big guys.

If Texas wants to go big we can throw Vick, Selden, Svi, Perry and Diallo at them, and still space the floor with shooting on the offensive end. We can literally switch to any look without losing anything because we have the versatility to do it.

@approxinfinity

Ford had a history of injuries. He had spinal fusion surgery as a rookie after an awkward fall. That surgery basically meant that any fall on his tailbone could end his career.

He had previously contemplated retirement after missing an entire season due to spinal surgery and some resulting stingers in the years after that. He was also born with spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal column) making him more at risk for neck/spine injuries.

Not excusing Horford here, but if that is any player other than TJ Ford, it probably doesn't turn out quite that way. That's what made the play above so scary - knowing that was TJ Ford and knowing that given his history and condition, that play could put him in a wheelchair.

Three things stand out to me in the new video above.

1. His jump shot mechanics look better. He has really cleaned up his shooting stroke, and that has had the desired results. He goes from being a very streaky shooter to a guy with the potential to be a consistent 38% 3pt shooter.

2. He is bouncier than he was before. The rise on his dunks is at least 3 inches higher. I would have rated him as a slightly above average athlete before. Now he is legitimately above average.

3. He is stronger than I originally gave him credit for. He's still thin and could use some muscle, but he takes contact well and it doesn't keep him from getting where he needs to go.

I can see why scouts are raving that he is rated too low. His athleticism has shot up and his jumper has improved. He's no longer a year away from being able to contribute at the college level. He can contribute immediately, either as a starter, or a player off the bench.

The NBA is about potential, but it is also about knowing who may realize that potential, understanding that most will not.

Oubre is an NBA player. He could become a star like Kawhi Leonard or Jimmy Butler. He could end up as a rotation guy. But he has the ability to play at that level. Most guys won't ever be stars, so staying in college in hopes that you hit the jackpot is fools gold.

The NBA is better for development anyway. With the collegiate restrictions on practice and coaching time, it's hard for a guy to really add to his game unless he works with someone privately. In the NBA you have all of that at your disposal automatically.

Important signing for KU. He's another creative scorer that can probably play all three perimeter spots.

Things he needs to work on are consistency on his jumper release and sustained defensive effort. I would also love to see him be a more reliable ball handler that could play PG in big lineups.

WUG could help a guy like him really hit the ground running. He needs high caliber reps and he can get them there.

@drgnslayr

Kaminsky is the exception, not the rule. You take 100 guys that played at the level Kaminsky played at as a freshman and sophomore and I bet only 3 or 4 would play at even 80 percent the level that Kaminsky did.

Guys can improve, certainly. But it is rare for a guy to play like Kaminsky did and even become an all conference level player, let alone all American. It's probably less likely you end up with a Kaminsky than it is you end up with a McDonald's AA that ends up like Cliff.

Frank deserves all the credit for his improvement but he isn't really the model because I doubt many people can replicate that rise.

@DoubleDD

Midrange jumpers don't space the floor very well. Part of the reason the midrange jumper has disappeared is because mobile big guys can cover so much ground that a 15 footer isn't ever really all that open.

Add to the fact that most collegiate teams almost always have at least one guy on the floor that is not an offensive threat, so you can defend 4 with 5.

Take KU for instance. Traylor and Lucas are treated as non entities offensively. Depending on the day, you may not have to guard Selden on the perimeter. That shrinks the floor substantially and really clogs the floor.

You have to have multiple threats on the floor at all times. You have to have at least 2 shot creators on the floor to bend and break down the defense. You have to be able to stretch the floor with shooting, but still create gravity with interior threats.

Most college teams don't have that. They have maybe one guy on the roster that can't be defended one on one. When you can play everyone straight up, offense stalls.

College needs to add a defensive three seconds to keep teams from camping an immobile big man in the paint. That would help with the physical play and open up the floor more.

@Lulufulu

Good for you watching some NBA games. I've always said that the NBA is a master's class on basketball.

Anyway, your questions. A down screen is simply a screen from a big man set "down" on the block or the baseline for a wing or shooter to pop up. It's a basic action in almost every offense. Usually the down screen will be used to start an action to either get a guy openon the wing for a quick hitter or to set up a two man game where the screener immediately opens up for a post up. That works extremely well if there is a switch and you end up with a small guy caught behind a big in the post.

That is why most teams won't switch a down screen except against the most dangerous shooters. Golden State uses this with Curry and Green a lot to force mismatches.

The elevator doors is also used to free up shooters along the baseline. You have to watch off the ball to see it develop because if you show too soon, the defense can react and you won't be able to close the doors. Zach Lowe at Grantland.com does a great job of discussing this stuff and posting GIFs and short clips to show the action. Give him a read for some really interesting analysis on all sorts of different offensive and defensive strategies.

I think recruits are attracted to ISU because of Hoiberg. If you are a high level recruit, why not play in an NBA style system? Hoiberg is one of only a few coaches in the country that truly run NBA style systems. He understands matchups and has the respect of a lot of NBA people.

ISU has its disadvantages, but as long as Hoiberg is there, I think they will be a factor in major recruiting battles.

@ajvan

Quick and dirty comp:

Physical

Vick is 6-4, 180. Eubanks is 6-5, 190. Eubanks is built in a way that would probably allow him to play either wing spot. Vick is strictly a SG.

Athleticism

Neither guy is an eye popping athlete, but both are more than adequate. Vick is probably a shade quicker. Eubanks is definitely stronger. Hard to get a good read on their vertical leap, but I think Vick may be more explosive. Vick is longer and leaner, though, so that may be what makes him appear to be more explosive. If I had to guess, I would say Vick has a slight reach advantage.

Vick also has impressive body control in the air, which allows him to use his long arms to get off shots around the basket that would otherwise be blocked. Eubanks doesn't show that, but that's because he usually finishes with that silky jumper.

Offense

Eubanks is the better shooter. I like his release more and the action is a little bit quicker and cleaner. Vick makes up for a so-so jumpshot by being a better ballhandler. Vick could probably slide over and handle the point in a pinch. Eubanks is more of a catch and shoot guy. He can put it on the floor, but I don't think that is his preference. He wants to shoot threes and pull up jumpers. Vick wants to slice through the defense.

Defense

My guess is that Vick's length makes him a slightly more capable defender. Eubanks has the strength, but on the perimeter, he won't be able to use that muscle as much defensively. I don't think he would be a bad defender, but Vick's long arms and quickness make me think he's probably capable of being a better defender.

Overall

Eubanks is better offensively as a scorer. Vick has more defensive tools. If we are looking for a catch and shoot guy, Eubanks is the pick because he's a more refined shooter. If we want a combo guard, Vick is the pick because he's the better ballhandler and can guard either PG or SG (not sure Eubanks has the lateral quickness to handle PGs).

If we are worried about replacing Brannen Greene, you almost have to go Eubanks because of the shooting. If we are looking for backcourt depth, though, Vick offers more versatility. Both are probably 3 or 4 year players.

Looks like I'm the baby of the group so far. Just turned 33 this winter. No wonder everyone else's memory goes back further than mine does.

@JayHawkFanToo

I look at highlight videos understanding that it is the optimal performance. That's the point - what is a guy's ceiling. If he isn't doing it in his highlight video, its because he flat out cannot do it.

Look at Bragg in that video. About the only thing he struggles with is the two ball speed dribble with the left hand. Everything else he looks great. He runs well, moves well laterally. Great hands. Explosive leaper. Clean shot and release. Catch and dunk skills. Second and third jump ability. Upper and lower body strength. Can take contact.

Find a box that he doesn't check in that video. I don't really see one. Can he improve? Of course. But he checks basically every box you could want. Oh, and he's 6-9, too. I think that video shows why he can play the 3, 4 or 5 in college. The athleticism to play on the perimeter, the strength to play inside. He's a walking MUA.

@BeddieKU23

I think there is a good chance Svi is ahead of Greene next year because I don't think Greene will be ready. That is my major concern for next year's team - Svi not being far enough along, but Greene not being 100%. We desperately need another wing player if Greene isn't healthy because Selden alone is not enough on the perimeter.

@jaybate-1.0

If I were to start Perry, Diallo and Bragg, I would have Bragg at the 3. He seems to be much more comfortable facing the basket than Perry. He also seems to be a much more dynamic ballhandler. I'd rather see him at the 3 than Perry. Perry's jumper is a set shot. Bragg's is more of a pull up off the bounce.

He also has the athleticism and lateral quickness to handle perimeter guys on the defensive end.

@BeddieKU23

I think Smart still plays Havoc, but modifies Ridley's role. Ridley was in terrible shape his first year on campus, but has steadily improved in that department. Smart will have him in shape, which may make Ridley a much better player overall than he has been to this point.

As for Svi, I don't have a good feel for how much he will contribute. I was very high on him last year, but he was much more overmatched than I ever anticipated he would be. I am taking a wait and see approach with him. I worry that the pace and perimeter athleticism was too much for him.

The key to making this make money is distribution. In the past, you had to get a major TV deal. Now you don't. You can get a deal to have every game on one of the many streaming services out there. A deal like that could be enough to make the product viable, along with a few small sponsorships. As @JayHawkFanToo pointed out above, you could probably run this team for less than $30m per year. If you can get a distribution deal worth half that, an apparel deal worth another $5m - $10m (easy if they start drawing the top OAD talent) and some other corporate sponsors, you could make this work even if you don't sell a single ticket.

That's what makes this whole idea interesting. I think it is viable if they can put together a broadcasting/ streaming deal for $15m+.

@drgnslayr

The key quote from the story was "underclassmen with college eligibility $400,000"

That means your Cliff Alexander's, Josh Selby's, anybody that jumps from college that isn't drafted, etc. Now there is a domestic option. You don't have to play in Finland, or Romania, or Turkey or wherever.

But the key is that it would only be for guys with pro futures. I could see a possibility where the quality of play for this team could very quickly surpass the quality in college and make this a more practical development area for the elite players. Would a guy like Brandon Rush have remained at KU after his freshman year if he could earn $400k and go up against players that are just a notch below the NBA?

It wouldn't drain the top 100, but every guy with a reasonable pro future could go to this team/league ---> if the financial part is viable. That is yet to be proven.

@Kip_McSmithers

It all depends on how well run the team is, including coaching, management, etc. The danger for colleges is that if it is well run, other teams may pop up as well and create a minor league system. That could cause a serious drain on talent, particularly if more of the top talent starts moving in that direction.

We are all more familiar with top recruits now than we were 10-12 years ago. Remember before the OAD era how people would be wondering which guys would skip college and go to the pros and which guys would go to college. If anything, reinstating the straight to the pros option will lead to a bigger effect for OAD players in the college game because there will be fewer guys with that level of talent.

If this team is legitimate - still an if from a management perspective, I think elite players (those with a legit NBA future) will flock towards it as a better development tool than college hoops.

The problem with hype is that it doesn't give us a real view of what a guy is or is not.

Thon Maker is a prime example of this.

The hype machine says he's the next great big man even though most of his game is still in a very raw state right now, especially offensively. He's a mobile 7-footer, so people assume he's going to change the game, but there isn't much in his game that separates him from a guy like Isaiah Austin (former Baylor player). In fact, I would say that his likely upside is a more athletic Austin.

He's not a freak athlete like a Dwight Howard. He's a good athlete yes, and certainly more mobile than most guys his size, but he isn't Dwight Howard by any stretch. His energy level reminds me somewhat of a young Kevin Garnett, but he isn't anywhere near as polished as what Garnett was coming out of HS.

He's not the shooter that a guy like Dirk Nowitzki is (very few are). He can handle it a little bit, but he's not going to start playing point center all of a sudden.

His offensive game at this point is basically dunks, spot up jumpers and a couple of basic post moves. He hasn't shown any real post arsenal like Jahlil Okafor has, so if you think you are getting a guy that will command double teams, you are mistaken because I don't know that he can actually score with his back to the basket.

About the only refined element of his game is his shot blocking. He uses his size and length very well and can snuff out just about anything. The downside is he's a free swinger, so better players will get him in foul trouble as he flails away.

Right now, he's a potential defensive game changer, but a very limited offensive player. He would be effective offensively in college because of his size and athleticism, but he has nothing at the pro level on that end. As a one on one defender, he can probably be fooled into silly fouls because he wants to block everything.

He would be a nice addition, but only with the understanding that he may not bring much offensively, especially because there is no evidence that he is a refined passer at this stage in his development, meaning he could be a black hole offensively.

@joeloveshawks

www.billself.com

Almost every coach has their own website, some of which double as the page for the basketball program, others that direct link back to the athletics website (as coach Self's page does).

Everybody has always known that Calipari was putting his players with legitimate NBA aspirations in a position to get to the NBA. He has been saying that for years. The honest truth is that a coach that isn't saying that isn't being honest with himself, or isn't being honest with his players when he recruits them. Even Coach K has changed his approach to OAD's, understanding that you can't tell an OAD to stay in school when it is to their benefit to leave early.

I like this guy a lot better than Mack. Vick has an explosive smoothness to his game. Mack is probably a better shooter at this point, but Vick's mechanics suggest he could be a very good shooter, in addition to having the ballhandling and athleticism to be a very good scorer.

On top of that, @HighEliteMajor will appreciate that Vick is probably not an OAD. I absolutely love the fact that he can finish around the rim with either hand, and does so with equal proficiency. He dunks left handed quite a bit even though he is a righty.

He's not as big as some guys (just 6-4), but the length and athleticism play up. He could afford to add some bulk.

He hasn't really been on the radar in part because he was part of the 2016 class, but is looking to reclassify to 2015. He probably won't start right out of the gate, but he could be a nice scorer on the second unit.

@DoubleDD

After that Final Four run, VCU moved from the Colonial (a lower level conference) to the much stronger Atlantic 10, where he finished 2nd, 2nd, 4th. The A-10 is regarded as on the same level as the modified Big East, and the American. The Colonial wasn't very strong, but the A-10 is a legitimate conference basketballwise. Not Power 5, but right on that next level (A-10 has ranked either sixth or seventh in conference RPI the last three years).

He's coached six years and won 75% of his games. That's pretty solid. Add to that his defensive strategy and I think he has a chance to be very good. Remember, he was tagged by USA basketball to coach the defense for the U19 team.

A good defensive coach with more offensive talent should be interesting to watch. That doesn't make him a world beater, but it would be foolish to not keep an eye on him.

I said the same thing about Hoiberg when he took the ISU job. Hoiberg is a great matchups coach that, if he gets some talent, can be a real headache. Now you have Hoiberg, Smart, Huggins, a rising TCU under Trent Johnson, Kruger at OU. The Big 12 has five legitimately good coaches with talent on their roster (Tubby Smith is a solid coach, but has no talent to work with) outside of KU. That is why there were seven teams in the Big 12 that went to the tournament this year, and that will likely continue because of the coaching talent.

That also means that there are some teams that present some challenges to KU.

ISU causes matchup headaches for us because Self wants to play a traditional lineup, while Hoiberg is willing to tinker with his lineups to create mismatches in either size, speed or both. We will always have our hands full with ISU because of this.

However, they can't create those same mismatches with everyone, because for undersized teams, there is no mismatch, which is why ISU loses an otherwise inexplicable game every year in conference.

KU wins the conference not because we match up well with ISU, but because we are less likely to lose to Tech, TCU, Texas, etc.

The interesting new element is Smart at Texas. He could have the Horns in a position to cause some problems if he can put in his HAVOC style with more talent. I am very curious to see if he keeps that style or if he changes what he does.

@JayHawkFanToo

Superior players, yes. Stars, no. Stars are what separates the best teams. And stars on the magnitude of Durant and Westbrook (two of the best 7 players in the league) are hard to come by.

I thought Chalmers qualified because he was MOP of the Final Four, because every other Final Four MOP has their number hung (Lovellette, Manning).

@JayHawkFanToo

The interesting thing about every team you mentioned is that they all made the playoffs this year - except Miami who has a coach with two championship rings and OKC, who has a coach with 0 rings and a general belief in the NBA that he just isn't a creative enough offensive mind to really take advantage of the talent he has had at his disposal.

If kids wanted to guarantee titles, they would do what UK did - cluster top players together.

However, that's not the case. There are only about 7-10 teams in a given year that realistically have a shot at the national title. A few more teams will move in or out of that group as the season goes based on injuries, etc. That means that the top 10 recruits would either have to cluster at one school or would have the choice between one of 7-10 schools.

Then you have to consider the other factors - things like location, family, relationships.

Henry Ellenson is from Rice Lake, Wisconsin. He committed to Marquette, which, on the surface, looks odd. But Ellenson committed to Marquette in part for the chance to play with his brother, Wally. If he wants to play with his brother, no other school can match that.

Ivan Rabb is from Oakland. He also stayed close to home and went to Cal.

And of course, Malik Newman stayed in state and is going from Jackson to Starkville to attend Mississippi State.

That's three guys that chose to stay close to home for non-basketball reasons.

Brown would be the outlier here. If he were to choose UGA or GTech, he would keep the trend going, but if he goes to Michigan, he's a clear exception.

Stephen Zimmerman stayed home (UNLV). Dwayne Bacon stayed close to home, heading from Lakeland, FL to Florida State. PJ Dozier stayed home (South Carolina). That's six of the top 20 players that chose to stay close to home.

As discussed in another thread, that's not an option in this part of the country because we don't have many high ranked recruits. That's one reason that K-State has struggled to become a consistent power. They just don't have the pull to attract top players from outside Kansas, but they also struggle because there aren't a lot of local players to lean on, either.

Typically these types of things are ochestrated between the student and the school in a way that ensures the student graduates with their scholarship and, potentially, some other academic incentives (i.e. admission to grad school, an on campus position, etc). I would not be surprised if Hatch ends up with a grad position on the UM staff in the next year or two.

@Crimsonorblue22 That works too.