🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@drgnslayr

Your idea of the older players dominating would work if incremental improvement were always guaranteed. If, for example, we could assume that a player would make an x degree improvement each year that he was in school, it would be fair to assume that a team of four year players would always be better than a team led by freshmen.

But incremental improvement is not guaranteed. Let's think of it like a video game. On most video games, players are rated at a certain number. Let's say for instance that freshman Perry Ellis was a true talent of 78 when compared to other college players. As a TT 78, he had some good games, but struggled at other times. He returns as a sophomore and is a TT 84 - he's improved quite a bit. Still some down games, but most definitely some strong games. So he returns again. This year though, how much better is Perry than last year's version? 86? 87?He's better, but only slightly so. And taking it further, how much better will he be? Does he top out at 88?

Now, take a guy like Anthony Davis. He probably entered college as an 87 or 88 on day 1, and was probably over 90 by the time his freshman year was over. In this exercise, senior Perry Ellis might not ever be as good as Anthony Davis was when he walked onto campus in Lexington.

And that's the best explanation in a nutshell. For the most elite players (because that's what we are dealing with in OADs) their ability is already higher than most players will ever achieve.

Look at an example closer to home. Ben McLemore and Travis Releford played at KU together for a year, plus an additional half year of practice. McLemore was, based on what a lot of people said in practice, often the best perimeter player they had. Even against a 5 year athletic wing like Releford, McLemore was pretty clearly better very early on in his career, and was far and away better by the time he started playing in games as a sophomore. If improvement worked the way your post surmises, Releford should have been schooling McLemore, but the truth is that McLemore is just a better basketball player than Releford ever will be.

If Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Ben McLemore, Andre Drummond, Bradley Beal, Cody Zeller and Michael Carter-Williams were all still in college, they would absolutely be dominating. Same for Nerlens Noel, Shabazz Muhammad, Anthony Bennett, Gary Harris, Andrew Wiggins, Julius Randle, James Young, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon and a healthy Joel Embiid. But those guys aren't still in college. The vacuum that is left by them is filled by younger elite talent, not more experienced, less talented players.

Think of it this way. Michael Jordan was an exceptional player at UNC as a freshman. The only difference between then and now was that James Worthy was a junior, and Sam Perkins was a sophomore. Let's say that the OAD idea existed then. At the very least, that means that Worthy and his 15.6 ppg would have been playing somewhere in the NBA. Perkins may not have been in Chapel Hill, either.

But Jordan would have had a bigger role as a freshman if not for the fact that James Worthy was still there as a junior. Worthy, Perkins and Jordan were the only players that averaged double figures on that team (15.6, 14.3 and 13.5 respectively). Jordan actually took the most shots on the team that year. Worthy's 350 shots would not have gone to Matt Doherty or Jimmy Black (the only other players that took even 100 shots on the season for UNC. Those shots would have gone to Jordan and Perkins, pushing their averages up from 13-14 points into the 17-18 range. Jimmy Black would not have been taking shots from Michael Jordan, even if Michael Jordan was just a freshman.

The difference is that the elite talent is, for the most part, freshmen and sophomores now, versus being juniors and seniors 20-30 years ago.

As for the NBA issue, Adam Silver cannot make that change unilaterally. He has to do it in the next collective bargaining agreement. The CBA is set to expire in 2021, but could be renegotiated in 2017. Don't expect any changes before then unless NBA owners are willing to give the players a pretty sweet deal to come to the table earlier than they otherwise would have to.

@JayHawkFanToo

Part of that is due to the shifting dynamic of collegiate ball.

For example, let's take the 2010-2011 KU basketball team. This was the team with Selby as an OAD that eventually fell to VCU in the E8.

In college basketball, you are assembling a group of players that, up to that point in their basketball lives, have been stars and are relearning or remaking themselves as role players.

Selby was an on ball scorer in HS. Markieff and Marcus were the two main scoring options in high school. Conner Teahan was a star at Rockhurst in KC. Mario Little was a star in high school in Chicago, and was one of the top juco players in the country after that. Royce Woolridge once tossed up 40 in a high school game. So did Travis Releford. Brady Morningstar and Tyrel Reed were both big time scorers and stars in high school. Elijah Johnson was a ball dominant scorer in HS.

That's almost the entire team! And that doesn't include two of the better players on that team - Tyshawn Taylor, who was probably the 4th or 5th best player on his high school team, and Thomas Robinson, who was primarily a rebounder/ garbage basket guy in high school.

Brady and Travis both had to transform themselves from primary scorers (HS) to defense first players in college. EJ and Selby both had to move off the ball. Tyrel had to convert to a spot up shooter. Woolridge rarely played. Little had to convert to a garbage basket guy.

College teams are made up of high school stars (primarily) because the role players are not good enough to move to the next level. But only the very best high school stars can continue to be stars in college. The rest have to recreate themselves in different roles.

We saw it this year with Conner Frankamp transferring. Kid can play. He averaged 37 points a game in high school. But at KU, they aren't running plays for Conner Frankamp every time down. They probably hardly ever would have run a play for him. So he has to find a new role that puts his best skill (shooting) on the back burner. That's tough for a lot of guys.

It took Travis three full years to come into his new role. It took Brady two and a half. It took EJ two years to get off ball and he never got his on ball skills back in line.

@JayHawkFanToo is correct that poor coaching at the HS level also contributes to this. Most coaches are just happy to have a D1 level prospect on their roster, so they don't spend time working with those guys to develop their skills in other areas to prepare them to not be a star at the next level.

@nuleafjhawk

Nothing is promised, so of course, KU could experience a big down turn. Look at what has happened at Indiana or UCLA, for example.

However, football is much harder to sustain success in. It takes so many quality recruits, even one or two down years could bury a team for 4-5 years. Nebraska doesn't have the advantage that some schools have in that they don't have tons of in-state or regional talent to choose from. Simply put, there is no inherent advantage that Nebraska enjoys that guarantees sustained football success, or can give them a quick boost if they get back on track.

For example, Florida is down right now. However, because Florida is located in a hotbed of talent, Florida could be playing for a national title in 2-3 years just because things can turn around that quickly when you have talent literally right on your doorstep. Same thing for Texas, or USC. Heck, the year before Saban (2006) arrived at Alabama the Tide went 6-7. They hadn't won a conference title since 1999. Hadn't won a national title since 1992. Saban's first year they went 7-6. Then they went 12-2. Then they won the national title. Fell back for a year, then won two more titles. Being in a place where they have lots of recruits means the rebuild can happen fast.

Nebraska does not have that. They have to depend on coaching, strong scouting and recruitment, and player development. If any of those things falter, they could fall fast and it could take years to put the machine back together.

Basketball doesn't depend on that because you just need to land 1-2 great players to right the ship. As long as you have a good coach, you are always one recruiting class away (maybe just one player away) from being back in the conversation.

The UK loss revealed that this team can't depend on battering teams inside like we have been able to do more or less every year over the past several years. Alexander isn't a classic back to the basket scorer, and Perry is not very effective against size.

The worrisome thing is that we seem to be ignoring that rather than preparing for having to face at least 2 teams in conference (Oklahoma and Texas) that present the same type of match-up problems, and seeing that the national landscape presents at least three other teams (Wisconsin, Duke, Arizona) that will give us those interior problems.

That means that just to win number 11, we need to figure out a way to win when we can't bully a team inside, and to have any hope of advancing to a Final Four, we have to do the same.

The UK loss exposed a flaw. The question now is whether or not we will adapt.

The risk of not playing Oubre is that his confidence is now completely shaken. Watching him this weekend he was not aggressive at all offensively. He wasn't looking to score or even to create scoring opportunities. He wasn't attacking the glass for rebounds. He was just out there trying to figure out how not to screw up.

That is not a good place for a player to be.

Oubre can play. On pure talent, he is one of KU's 5 best players. As I surmised in the preseason, 4 of KU's best 6 players may be their wings - Selden, Svi, Greene and Oubre. This is where Self needs to get a little bit creative in finding them minutes and getting away from the 3 perimeter, 2 big lineups. Basketball is a five man game and you need to find a way to play 5 of your best guys as often as possible. Kelly isn't playing well right now, but you can't lose him for the rest of the year because there will come a game in March where you need a player with that kind of talent and we will all want Kelly to be able to answer that bell.

This is a good move for Frankamp. At WSU he won't be as much of a defensive liability because he won't have to guard a lot of NBA caliber guards. Most nights there will be a perimeter player that Marshall can stash him on that isn't much of a scoring threat. That's the benefit of midmajor and low major basketball. The best defensive players guard the best offensive players, but Frankamp will be guarding a guy that isn't really an offensive force, which will allow him to flourish as an offensive player at WSU.

I would much rather Bowen than Pelini. Pelini is a good coach, no doubt, but the next coach for KU needs to have a commitment to KU, not just a commitment to getting the next big job. Bo wouldn't stay at KU long term. He would (maybe) get a winning season or two under his belt, then take a job at a stronger program.

If Bowen gets KU going in the right direction, he's going to stay and finish the job. He won't be hunting for an NFL gig, or looking to jump to USC or Notre Dame or wherever. KU is his Notre Dame.

Unless KU can find another coach that wants to stay at KU beyond the short term, I am becoming more and more convinced that Bowen is the guy.

@drgnslayr

It's the AAU ball, oddly enough.

Long time ago, most players would only get 25-30 games of action in, basically their HS season, plus a few summer camps here and there. In the late 70's and early 80's, AAU teams started traveling, but again, the tournament schedule wasn't that heavy (maybe one tournament a month in the summer) and two or three camps for the elite players. By the late 90's AAU teams played all summer, with summer camps sprinkled around for not only the elite players, but also for solid players.

That means that an elite HS player in the 1950's or 60's would have played, by the time he got to college, maybe 125 games max, with maybe 15 of those being against top notch talent. By the 70's and 80's, that was maybe up to 175-200 games, with probably 50 games against top talent. Today, the best HS players play as many as 100 games each summer against top talent from around the country. They don't have to adjust to the jump in talent level as much because they have seen the top talent on the AAU circuit for the last four years traveling around.

Think about a player like Perry Ellis, who followed something of an old school model in his development. He played AAU, obviously, but didn't travel as heavily as some and certainly didn't spend as much time at the elite camps as many players do these days. He was a historically great Kansas HS player. But the first year of his college career he had to figure out the speed and athleticism of the college game. At Wichita Heights, Perry played maybe 5 games out of the 100 in his HS career against a D1 caliber player that was taller than 6-6. That won't prepare you to jump straight into D1 ball.

Add to the sheer amount of games that many players begin lifting weights now in the 7th or 8th grade, and that many high schools have a full fledged weight training program. This means that in addition to getting more games in, these players are more physically prepared for college than players from even 15 or 20 years ago.

Go back and look at the highlights from the McD AA games from the 80's and early 90's, then watch today. The players just look more physically developed. It's a startling difference.

You also have to remember that the vast majority of the juniors and seniors playing college basketball are non-elite players. As a result, the truly elite freshmen and sophomores can dominate because they are just better.

For example, If Anthony Davis were in college right now, he would be a senior and would probably be unleashing an absurdly dominant season on college basketball right now, given that he is averaging 25 points, 11 rebounds and 3 blocks a game in the NBA right now. He averaged 15/10/4 at Kentucky as a freshman. Let's say his numbers improved by 10% each year. He'd probably be throwing up a 20/13/5.5 right now. You think UK's current bigs are good? How would Davis look in college right now? It would be flat out unfair.

The college talent level is trimmed from the top every year. The best freshmen are likely better than the best sophomores, who are likely better than the best juniors, who likely are better than the best seniors, because for the most part, their best peers are already NBA players. There aren't very many truly elite seniors in college basketball. There are some elite juniors, but only a handful or so. Most of the truly elite players are freshmen and sophomores, and those are the guys that dominate.

What we saw from Michigan State is what happens to a power program without elite talent. Michigan State will be good as long as Izzo is there because Izzo will get a lot out of whatever talent he happens to have.

However, as we have seen over the last 4-5 years, Sparty is not strong enough come March because of their lack of elite talent. I looked into a mirror yesterday and saw what the future of KU basketball could be if we stay away from OAD talent. Unless the rules change, this is what it will take to be at the top of the college basketball world.

IF and that is a big if... If Hunter is injured, you have to wonder about Hudy's system being able to prevent nagging injuries.

Going back over the last few years - EJ's knees were never right, Selden's knee last year never got healthy, Withey had foot problems for the first two years he was at KU, Selby's foot - just a quick sample. All of those guys were supposed to have gotten quicker, more explosive, etc, but they had some nagging issues that went along with it.

Six inches is a huge increase in vertical. That's likely a 25% or greater increase. Could Hunter's body handle it? Can his back and joints handle the jolt of landing from that much higher up? The extra explosiveness is nice, but only if he can make that useful in game situations.

Again, I'm not accusing Hudy of getting guys injured because injuries have a lot of things going on. However, I am wondering if our guys are spending enough time recovering to make them most effective.

@HighEliteMajor

That may have been the agreement that he and Coach Self came to as far as the reason for him leaving so that he could leave the option of transferring open. Basically, Self may have told Tharpe that he could not reference the controversy and in exchange KU would grant his transfer release to wherever he wanted outside the Big 12, and potentially support his request for an NCAA waiver.

I don't know any of that for sure, but I have heard that those types of agreements are struck regularly in the NCAA.

I am concerned about the Oubre situation. He looks like he is really struggling with his game, which is troubling for a player as naturally gifted as he is. He is questioning all of his moves, doing more thinking than actual playing. That is not good.

I think Oubre will get on track - he's too good not to - but this does concern me as far as the coaching that is being done. A player that is that good should not be so bogged down with the system that they forget how to play basic basketball. Kelly needs to clear his head and play ball.

As for the rest, I like that Perry was aggressive offensively. I'd like to see him be that aggressive to the hole against bigger guys. It's nice to dunk on some 6-7 guys from Rider, but they won't block your shot either way. You need to dunk on bigger guys, because they will throw that shot back.

Mason is our best bet at PG. His speed makes a huge difference for this team. Self needs to give him the keys and let him drive. He will make mistakes along the way, but he's the best bet for this team achieving its potential.

Svi and Greene will help space the floor all year. They should play together as often as possible to stretch the D in a lot of different directions.

Traylor and Alexander need to start getting minutes together. I'd like to see Self put out a lineup of Mason, Svi, Greene, Traylor and Alexander for a few minutes. That would basically let the big guys hammer the offensive glass with spacing because they have Svi and Greene to stretch the floor, and Mason has some drive and dish options. This is a lineup that should be cultivated.

Mickelson looks like the odd man out in the big rotation. Tough break for a guy that transferred in, but I can't figure how he will find minutes either this year or next.

@wissoxfan83

KU doesn't have to win a bunch of road games to win the Big 12.

The key to "The Streak" has always been that KU is so tough at home that they just need to not lose road games they should win.

KU should win at Tech and TCU. Obviously nothing is ever guaranteed, but they should win those two road games. They should also beat Baylor and probably Oklahoma State with both of those schools in a bit of a down cycle.

That's presumably 12 or 13 wins in conference right there assuming they don't lose more than one home game. Let's be honest - KU doesn't lose many home games. Losing 2 home conference games would be a huge shock.

If that's the case, they need to get maybe 2 or 3 more wins on the road against K-State, WVU, OU, Texas and Iowa State. They should be able to handle K-State and they match up well with ISU. WVU is good, but doesn't have the size to hamper them. OU is a matchup problem, as is Texas, but as long as they win the home games against those two, they can lose the road matchups and still win the conference because, unlike KU, none of those other teams is likely to run the table at home. The strength of the conference should work to KU's advantage because none of the other challengers is likely to do better than 7-2 or 8-1 at home.

KU still has poll position in the Big 12, and that is mostly because of Allen Fieldhouse.

This team will be fine. This is Kansas. Barring a huge rash of injuries, this team is still going to win 25+ games.

The Big 12 is loaded this year, but the road to the title still runs very clearly through Lawrence.

KU is not the only team that will have its hands full with UK. That Kentucky team has the chance to be one of the greatest college teams of the last 35 years. They will be right up there with the 1992 Duke team, the 2007 Florida team, 2008 KU, 2009 UNC, 1990 UNLV, 1984 Georgetown and 1982 UNC. Multiple pros, loaded team, matchup nightmares.

The key for KU at this point is to regroup and get right in time for the Gators to visit Lawrence. They have four games over the next week to get their gameplan straight, get healthy, work out some kinks and get some confidence before a very good Florida team comes calling. If they no show at home against Florida, then we can start to worry. Getting torched by the best collection of pure talent in college basketball in at least 25 years isn't a huge issue. It's November. Failing to recover is a huge issue.

Recovery starts tonight.

@Kong

Statistically speaking, midrange shots are the worst shots to take in basketball. Analytics has led to showing us that smart basketball takes basically the three high value shots on the basketball court - layups/dunks, three pointers and free throws.

Layups/dunks are high value because they are the only shot that is converted at above 50% in basketball. These shots also offer value because individuals shooting or attempting to position themselves to shoot these shots are generally the players that draw the most fouls.

Three pointers are high value shots because they are worth an extra point. No need for analysis here. It's worth more, therefore it is valuable. In addition to the extra point, three point shots are more likely to be open (generally classified as a shot with no defender within 4 feet), which drives up the successful percentage ever so slightly

Free throws are valuable because they are the shot that is converted at the highest percentage - even the poorest shooting FT team last year shot 60%. The best teams shoot in the high 70's. The average team will shoot a bit north of 70%, meaning a trip to the line (for two shots) should result in about 1.4 points per possession for an average shooting team.

Midrange jumpers don't offer any of these advantages - only the very best shooters can convert mid range shots at anywhere near 50% in game situations. Most of these shots don't come open because mid range shots are closer to the basket and generally defenders are somewhere near the hoop. And to top it off, most good mid range shooters are also good three point shooters, meaning it is much more valuable to have them taking threes than taking twos that they can make at roughly the same rate.

That's not to say that no one should ever take a 17 footer. However, these shots should not see high usage. The better play is to get to the rim or kick the ball back out to the perimeter.

This is what makes the dribble drive offense so dangerous - it is predicated on producing the three highest value shots in basketball. You drive to create either layups or fouls. If that is cut off, you kick back out to shooters on the perimeter. If they have an open shot, they take it. If not, they drive and the whole thing starts over again.

Add in some stout post players and you have this year's UK squad, although they play through the post more than a typical DDR team, but they have the personnel that would make it foolish not to play through the post.

Okay everyone, we can all calm down.

It's been almost a full 36 hours since the debacle. We know one thing after that game - Kentucky is very good. We really didn't learn much about KU. Let's set aside a few myths however.

Myth #1 - Conner Frankamp would have helped in this game.

No. No. No. Just no. This is precisely the kind of game that Conner would have been eaten alive in. He succeeded against Stanford because Stanford didn't have a single capable guard on the roster. Kentucky has 4. The twins would have bullied him with their size and Ulis would have been blowing by him all night. Frankamp would have been a liability.

Myth #2 - Kansas is not good

False. KU does not match up particularly well with Kentucky. Kentucky is extremely talented. When a team that matches up poorly with another team and that team is very talented, the potential for the game to get one-sided exists. That's what happened here. KU doesn't match up well with extreme size, because two of their (likely) 5 or 6 best players (Mason and Ellis) don't handle extreme size well. We have known since Ellis was recruited he struggled with extreme size. Him not playing well in this match up does not change how he will likely play the rest of the year. If we play UK again, he probably won't play much better than he did on Tuesday. But the rest of the season, he should be fine. Same with Mason. He reverts to his worst habits when faced with extreme size. He will be better the rest of the season, but UK can tempt him into playing as his worst self. KU will be fine - but a rematch with UK would be problematic for the same reasons this game was problematic.

Myth #3 - Oubre's playing time was related to the OAD pipeline.

Kelly Oubre is a very good basketball player. Talentwise, Oubre is one of the best four players on this team, likely behind only Selden, Alexander and maybe Ellis. Oubre will play this season. He will produce. He was our best chance to stand toe to toe with Kentucky because he has the athleticism and basketball talent to stand toe to toe with them.

Myth #4 - Kentucky will go undefeated.

UK is tremendously talented. If this were the NBA, with the talent disparity UK will likely enjoy in every game, I would be comfortable saying they would probably go undefeated. However, these are college kids. They won't play their B+ game every night. UK can win every night if they play their B or B+ game. However, every college team plays a couple C or C- games every year. They just do. College kids just can't produce at that level every night. UK played a C- game against Buffalo in the first half, but they hit the gas and played a B+ second half for a B game overall. Against a better team though, that C- first half buries them and they get beat.

Someone will play an A+ game against Kentucky when they play a B- and they will get beat. It happens every year. Someone will hit 13 or 14 threes against them, and zone them into a 3-11 shooting night from the arc with some untimely turnovers. It will happen. But come March, they will be a monster to deal with. The race is on for the other #1 seeds because you do not want to be in UK's bracket.

@drgnslayr height is any important basketball skill. Let's take Willie Cauley-Stein. He's a good player, but what makes him special is the fact that he's 6-11 but can run and move like a guy that is 6-7 or 6-8. That mobility for his size makes him special. If he were 6-8 instead, he would be like a lot of other 6-8 athletic guys. His height makes him a potentially elite collegiate player.

Your point about the Harrison twins is misplaced. I've played with D1 level guards - they can all flat out play. If the Harrison's were 6-1, they would probably still be D1 players. Would they be at UK? Probably not, because at 6-1 they would not be potentially elite college players, but they would be good players. Their size allows them to overwhelm smaller guards, which makes them top notch players. For a comparison, look at Alec Burks. When he was in high school, he was 6-1 as a junior. He was being recruited to play D1 - at places like UMKC, Drake, etc. Then he grew to 6-6. Colorado called. After 2 years at CU, he was an NBA player.

Or a more extreme example - Anthony Davis. Went from 6-3 recruit at Cleveland State to a 6-11 #1 player in the nation.

Height is the uncoachable skill. You either have it or not. Take a guy like Jeff Withey. He was a top 100 recruit because he was 7-0 tall. Make him 6-7 and he's probably a D2 guy because he just wouldn't have been big enough to play at the D1 level as a SF or undersized PF. Or go the other way and take a 6-7 guy like Kevin Young and make him 6-11 - suddenly he's a potential NBA player even if you don't change his skills at all.

Cal is very good about keeping up with trends. That has always been what has helped him with recruiting. He can walk into a recruit's home and talk to them about their game, their academics, the university, the latest hip hop video, new social trends, etc.

Not only that, he's able to do that without seeming like the out of touch old guy trying to talk about that new thing they don't really know about. That matters to people.

It also matters to these top guys that of Cal's most recent crop of recruits, Rose, Wall, and Cousins all have max deals in the NBA. Self doesn't have a single KU player that he has coached on a max deal. That makes a huge difference.

Maybe in a couple of years Wiggins or Embiid will have signed a max extension, but for right now KU doesn't have a guy like that. Pierce is still the most successful KU player of the last 20 years from a professional standpoint, and he's in the twilight of his career. The next most successful NBA players from KU are Collison, Gooden and Hinrich in some order. After that, it's probably Darrell Arthur. Great college players, all. But from a pro standpoint, other than Pierce, KU doesn't have a single perennial all star, none from the Bill Self era.

That's an issue. This is why KU needs to land either Jaylen Brown or Malik Newman. They are dynamic players that can succeed at the college level and beyond. That matters to the elite recruits because those guys are the ones that most likely will someday become an NBA star. Very few future NBA stars are ranked outside the top 25 as high school seniors. For that specific reason, that subset of players - elite high school prospects - are concerned with who can move them to the highest level - the maximum salary player. Calipari has done that consistently. It's likely Anthony Davis will join the previous group among max players next summer. KU is at least a couple years away from having a max level player. That matters to that subset moreso than any other subset because these are the guys that can seriously (and even realistically) envision that in their future.

I think @MoonwalkMafia may have hit on something. I don't think our Late Night made us look bad - but Calipari makes sure that things like Late Night are orchestrated to make UK look like the place to be. He did the same thing at Memphis. Late Night was an event. At KU, Late Night is also an event, but in a different sort of way.

Late Night at KU is about tradition moreso than anything, and tradition has its appeal. However, most any tradition occurred before any of these current recruits can remember. After all, we are talking about 17 and 18 year olds. Most of them were not even in high school when we won the national title in 2008. They probably don't remember anything about more than 3 or 4 of our conference title teams. Tradition sells, but not as much as those of us who are older would like to think.

Take it this way - there are 8 year olds in LA right now who think the Clippers have always been awesome and that the Lakers are a group of broken down has beens. Why? Well, the Lakers haven't really been good in almost 4 years and the Clippers have been pretty good that entire time. Those of us old enough to know better recognize the enormous difference in history, but if you're a kid too young to know, what difference do all those titles make? The Lakers have won 5 titles in the last 20 years. If you're 8, you probably don't remember any of those, but you know watching Blake Griffin and Chris Paul is awesome.

Do we know that Kelly Oubre is completely healthy right now? First game of the season and he plays 4 minutes in the first half, doesn't play at all in the second.

Played 21 minutes against Washburn, scored 9 points in 21 minutes on 4-7 shooting.

Played 15 minutes against Emporia State, scored 2 points in 15 minutes on 1-3 shooting.

4 minutes against UCSB. No points on no shots. A couple rebounds.

Oubre has literally disappeared from the rotation. For a guy with his physical skills, that's surprising this early in the year. So my question is, is he completely healthy?

Is Coach Self not saying because he doesn't want UK to know that Oubre can't go (or isn't 100%). Or is Oubre just not in the rotation right now? I would tend towards the former for right now. It's not like Oubre has come in and stunk the joint up. He played solid against Washburn, shaky against Emporia and barely at all against UCSB. It just doesn't make sense to me - unless he's not healthy.

@drgnslayr

I am very hesitant to question any player's academics without knowing them personally. Pat Forde made a joke a couple weeks ago about Marcus Paige missing media day to take an exam. Blew up in his face because Paige is an academic all American.

The fact that the Harrison twins, Dakari Johnson and Marcus Lee are all back as sophomores and Cauley-Stein and Poythress return as juniors makes it difficult to believe that UK's guys just stop going to class second semester, otherwise they would all declare regardless of draft standing.

I think what Cal has done is found a glitch in the college system.

As I have said in other threads, the level of competition in college basketball generally is not high enough to really prepare a player for the next level. Take Embiid last year. How many truly NBA size and talent centers did KU see last season? Twice against Texas, Georgetown, New Mexico, Baylor twice and maybe a couple others. That's it. Less than 10 games against truly top notch big man talent.

Calipari can now tell guys "Look, playing in college you will have a handful of showcase games each season - or you can come to Kentucky and play against NBA talent every single day in practice."

What's better for a guy like Karl Towns? Playing 8 games against good players, or having to go against Willie Cauley-Stein, Dakari Johnson and the rest of the guys at Kentucky?

NBA scouts will tell you it's the second option because that's what gives them something to really evaluate against. How does this guy work in practice against equal talent, when the lights aren't shining? How does he take instruction and criticism from coaches? How does he handle a tough practice? How does he work in the second hour? What's his concentration and competitiveness like in conditioning drills?

Those are the questions that NBA folks are going to be asking, and UK's roster gives them the best chance to answer those for their big guys. For what it's worth, KU's wing group does the same thing for them this year with Greene, Oubre, Selden and Svi.

@wrwlumpy said:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11883876/tashawn-thomas-eligible-play-oklahoma-sooners-immediately ↗

That's a huge get for OU. Makes them pretty stout up front. I don't know that it means they can win the Big 12, but it makes that game in Norman a lot more dicey.

@JayHawkFanToo

I agree with you that we don't know how that team will come together. But that's the nature of college basketball. We don't know how most any team will come together because most teams have either lost or added key parts during the off season.

For instance, do we absolutely know for sure that if a player like Perry is asked now, in his junior season, to take a reduced role, that such a request won't harm KU's overall chemistry? Same with Brannen Greene. Do we know that this team is ready to follow either Mason or Graham at the point?

Without knowing that about any team (because everyone has questions right now) you have to look at overall talent. UK has talent, so until they can't play together, I have to believe that they will play at or near their talent level.

Hype exists for a reason.

Hype does not guarantee success, but it is telling.

After all, the reason that Kentucky is hyped is because they have a basketball team that happens to have lots of very good basketball players on it. That definitely helps.

There are other good basketball teams, obviously, but the media has to hype someone, so why not hype a team with probably 8 or 9 guys that will play in the NBA in the next 2-3 years.

Nobody is going to hype a team like K-State because K-State does not have the talent to be a great team. They will be okay, but nothing more. Nobody is going to hype a team like TCU because TCU is bad. UK may go undefeated, but probably not. But if I had to pick 5 teams that might win the national title, it would be foolish to not include UK in that group. In fact, my five would be UK, KU, Florida, San Diego St (random west coast team) and Villanova as the team that could get hot in March and run the table.

UK has the talent to go undefeated simply because they will be the better team most every night they take the floor. But the thing with college basketball is that the best team still loses about 30% of the time because college players just aren't at a level where they are that consistent every single night to romp through the competition, and the talent is so much more spread out than in the 60's and 70's.

The last undefeated team was almost 40 years ago. That Indiana team only played 32 games. Champions now play 40 games. They only had 5 rounds in the NCAA's. No conference tournament. That's many fewer risky games to deal with.

Think about how hard it is to beat the same opponent twice in a year. Or even three times. The last few dominant teams to win the title all lost conference games - KU lost at K-State, at Texas and at Oklahoma St. - all road conference games. UNC in 2009 lost to Boston College (pre-ACC days), at Wake, at Maryland and in the conference tournament to Florida St. That's three conference losses. UK in 2012 lost to Indiana (on a last second shot) and in the conference tournament to Vanderbilt.

That's probably as close as anybody is getting to going undefeated. Too many teams with guys that can get hot for one night and knock you off. Too many games. Too much familiarity in conference. It's just too difficult a road.

Also, forgot to add that the addition of the three point shot means a hot night from an otherwise inferior team can be your ultimate doom. That's something Indiana (or the other undefeateds) didn't have to deal with.

We can beat UK, but Self has to stay with athleticism when the time requires.

That could mean more Traylor in place of Perry. Could also mean that we see Mason more than Graham. Mickelson may not see action at all.

I don't put much stock in UK's game today. If you're a kid at Kentucky, did you sign up to play Buffalo on a Sunday afternoon, or is your natural tendency to being looking at that game with Kansas on Tuesday. I bet most of those guys were looking ahead, no matter what the coaching staff was telling them. This game has been getting hype since this Spring.

In order to win this game we have to make UK execute their offense in the halfcourt. I don't know that we want to go up and down with them because they can send wave after wave at us. We may be better off with this game in the 70's than the 90's because UK will be able to get up and down with anybody.

We also have to double team smartly. Double off guys like Lee and Poythress when they are on the perimeter. We can't double big to big because the size mismatches will kill us in rotation, so we probably are better served to double down than double across. However, those doubles have to be aggressive doubles - not every possession, but showing hard when we go, and playing straight up otherwise. We have to make their bigs have to make complex decisions on every possession.

@jaybate-1.0

Academic fraud (or misconduct, or dishonesty) is defined in basically every school's academic honor code or student conduct policy. Simply put, it's cheating in class.

Academic fraud is just like changing a grade on a paper, or cheating on a test.

My issue is not with UNC enrolling players in "paper" classes. There are some classes that require only a written assignment that are among the most challenging at any school. The issue here is whether that work was evaluated for the grade and, further, whether students were turning in plagiarized work. If, as Tydreke Powell says "everybody knew ↗" then this is ugly for all involved. UNC may as well have just been running a pro team.

Again, I can't say who knew what, and when it was known, but if knowledge is linked to any of the coaches, I could definitely see them being issued show cause orders as a result.

As for the statute of limitations, I don't think the NCAA has one for enforcement. I doubt UNC can take away any degrees at this point, especially if their professors were the ones in on the scheme, because it would go beyond just athletes - you would have to take away the degree of anyone that enrolled in any of those classes, or require them to make up those credits.

I don't think you get sent to jail for any of this, but it can definitely get you kicked out of school. I sat on the student conduct panel when I was in school. We heard a couple of cases where plagiarism was alleged. The ultimate penalty for that was expulsion, although none of the cases my panel heard wound up resulting in expulsion.

However, it gets complicated if there is scholarship or grant money involved, because now the fraud has a financial element and there is a loss or deprivation involved. But that's an issue for another day.

@drgnslayr

Most academic eligibility issues are coming from the transition from HS to college. How that is handled by the university is what connects the university to it. For example, had the Arthur thing turned out differently, and he been declared ineligible due to his grades being changed in high school, KU would have used an ineligible player and may have had to forfeit all games in which he participated.

No one has ever alleged that Memphis fudged Rose's records. He was ineligible because his test score was invalidated. That would have made him ineligible regardless of where he went to school. The travel for Reggie Rose was what really got them. They claimed he had been billed, but that he had not paid. It's more likely that an invoice had been created "just in case" but that Memphis never intended to make him pay that money back.

Ultimately, the eligibility that we are talking about here (i.e. whether a student qualifies to compete in college) is different than the eligibility dealt with at UNC (whether there is fraud going on at the university level).

Also, KU has accepted players on the academic fence. Remember Ben McLemore? Current rotation member Jamari Traylor? Nothing against either of those guys, but they both redshirted due to academic eligibility issues as freshmen.

@drgnslayr

UK lost Enes Kanter due to eligibility issues. The recruits that I named were guys that we were actively recruiting until the very end. We did not pull those offers. Lamb, Jones and Randle specifically were guys that were choosing between KU and UK.

As for whether Self would have followed the same path as Calipari, I don't know. Many of the allegations surrounding Rose are similar to allegations made about Brandon Rush and Darrell Arthur. It was determined in KU's case that both Rush and Arthur were eligible. As I have said before, Rose was ruled ineligible after he left Memphis - not during the season.

How many top recruits have been determined ineligible over Cal's time at UK? I'd consider a "top recruit" to be someone ranked in the top 25. I used ESPN rankings.

2009 - Renardo Sidney (Mississippi State)

2010 - Fab Melo (Syracuse, second semester), Enes Kanter (Kentucky, played pro in Turkey)

2011 - none

2012 - Ricardo Ledo (Providence)

2013 - Chris Walker (Florida, eligible late second semester)

I may have missed someone, but I think that's the full list. Truth is, most top players get are eligible because most of them are identified very early in high school as potential D1 recruits and are placed on an academic path to make sure they qualify under NCAA rules.

As for the link, Calipari gave back his bonus that he received for going to the NCAA title game. Since the game was vacated, Memphis could have asked for that money back anyway. As for whether I could imagine Self doing this - honestly, I don't know Bill Self personally, so I don't know what he 1) has done or 2) would do. I do know that most players are determined to be eligible and that very few are declared ineligible (especially among elite recruits).

@jaybate-1.0

What UNC did amounts to academic fraud if the allegation about not reading the work is true. That is the violation. Simply having students enrolled in paper classes is not a violation. It may be questionable, but not a violation. On that I think we both agree.

However, giving grades without reviewing the work is academic fraud. Giving grades for work that is known to be plagiarized is academic fraud. Committing academic fraud by a student is grounds for expulsion at every university. Academic fraud by a professor is grounds for dismissal. This is where the problem is and that is the monster lurking around the corner for UNC.

@drgnslayr

I don't think your statement is a fair assessment.

At Memphis, the university knowingly accepted partial qualifiers as a part of their admissions process. Some schools accept those students. Some do not. To my knowledge UK does not as a part of an agreement with the rest of the SEC.

As for the success at UK, let's remember that KU was in the running for many of the same players. KU recruited John Wall, Daniel Orton, Brandon Knight, Terrance Jones, Doron Lamb, Marquis Teague, Julius Randle, and James Young. To assume that just because these players chose UK means that some of them may have been academically questionable is an unreasonable inference. KU never backed out of the recruiting due to academic or eligibility concerns, so I would have to think KU believed they would be eligible.

Let's also remember that KU pursued Derrick Rose through the entire recruiting process until he chose Memphis. Surely that means that Self thought (as did the coaches at Arizona, Illinois and Kentucky) that Rose would be eligible.

Let's also remember that even for the guys KU wasn't in on (players like DeMarcus Cousins, Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Nerlens Noel, etc) many of them were being recruited by other high level programs and academic schools like Duke, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Ohio State, Villanova, etc., or considered their in-state school (Alabama, NC State, Tennessee, etc.)

UK is in on most of the top guys, as is KU, UNC, Duke, Ohio State, Michigan, Syracuse, etc. UK is currently winning a lot of those recruiting battles, and it doesn't seem to be because lots of schools are avoiding these players due to eligibility concerns. Duke was in on Wall to the very end. UNC and Ohio State were on Davis until the decision. It came down to KU or UK for Randle, Jones and Lamb.

Oh, and it will be more of the same next year, because KU and UK are both in on Jalen Brown, Malik Newman, Ivan Rabb, Cheick Diallo, Caleb Swanigan, and Stephen Zimmerman (all undeclared top 10 prospects) as well as Brandon Ingram.

@Lulufulu

If it was with his knowledge, it's pretty clear that he cheated. Right now, he's in a worse position than Calipari has ever been in, because the academic advisor that was overseeing all of this was his own handpicked guy. He may still be exonerated, but I'm not sure he can maintain his reputation from this. The stink is on him whether he likes it or not. Especially because he pretty well blasted McCants for some of the things that he said a few years ago that are now turning out to be either absolutely true, or likely true.

@HighEliteMajor

That's something I have been watching for. I firmly believe that Svi, Oubre, Selden and Greene are four of our best 8 players. We can't not play one of them just for the sake of having the traditional lineup spots covered, especially since we aren't as good at the 4 and 5 as we have been the last several years.

I think Self is trying to find a lineup that he can run with confidence. I expect we may see a lineup with Oubre, Svi and Selden all on the floor together with a PG and a post guy. That's a lineup that needs to be explored.

The strength of this team is our wing players - Selden, Oubre, Svi, Greene - they can all play legitimate high level minutes. The only way to really capitalize on that is to play three of them together sometimes, with either Oubre or Svi playing a semi stretch 4.

We can also run our 2 PG lineup sometimes with a more traditional big look (Ellis and Alexander).

The lineup I haven't really seen yet that I think we should give a chance is a pressure lineup featuring one of the PG's along with Svi, Greene, Oubre and Traylor. Extend the pressure full court knowing that Svi, Greene, Oubre and Traylor are all roughly the same size and could switch just about anything in the backcourt or frontcourt without throwing matchups haywire. I'm hoping Self gives that arrangement a chance.

@jaybate-1.0
I don't think the issue is that the class is a paper class, or that attendance must be taken.

The issue in this UNC case is that not only were many of the athletes in these paper classes, but that many of these classes were graded without even reading the papers. That's where the fraud is occurring. I took two independent study classes while I was an undergraduate. Both classes required me to write several papers and, as far as I could tell, those papers were read and graded. That's a legitimate class. To just assign a grade without either requiring attendance and class participation, or to evaluate the written work is not a legitimate class.

The only question now is who knew what, and when they knew it.

@Kip_McSmithers

That clustering article points out what many people fear - that athletes aren't getting the education they want, but are steered into a particular major or specific classes for the sake of eligibility. Looks like that is what UNC did with their paper classes to a huge degree, and may be what many more schools do to a lesser degree.

By the rulebook. that is pretty clearly targeting.

The receiver qualifies as a defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14) because he is a player attempting to catch a pass and has not had time to protect himself.

The defensive player pretty clearly launches (Note 1 of Rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4) by leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust.

Launching to target a defenseless player is a penalty.

That's also an incredibly dangerous play for both the offensive and defensive players involved.

For the defensive player, his head and neck are in a position where he could cause himself substantial injury. He didn't quite lead with the head, but that is a dangerous play that absolutely should not be taught given what we know now about head and neck injuries for defensive players making those types of plays.

Obviously, the offensive player had the concussion protocol run on him, which is clearly the main risk to him.

In football, all to often coaches are still teaching players to "blow a guy up" rather than making a fundamental tackle. We teach too much hitting and not enough tackling. If that player is coming in to make a fundamental tackle (or make a play on the ball) there is no penalty. Because he is looking only to "blow a guy up" he draws the penalty flag.

@HighEliteMajor

Development is upward progression. I think we both agree. And both Morris twins definitely developed while at KU. So did Thomas Robinson, Tyshawn Taylor and many others. But I would argue that a player like Brady Morningstar peaked in his second year at KU and did not develop further after that. I'd likewise argue that Kevin Young was basically the exact same player in both seasons at KU - he just played twice as many minutes and so his averages were twice as high.

I've said many times before that development should not be assumed. Every player has a ceiling. Some guys reach their ceiling at 19 or 20. Others won't hit that ceiling until 25 or 26. For many collegiate players, their ceiling, from an athletic perspective, will be achieved in either their sophomore or junior year because they simply don't have the physical talent to continue to improve beyond that. They may become smarter or more efficient (look at a player like Travis Releford, who became a much smarter player as his career went on), but his game was basically set at that point.

Consider a couple of current KU players: Perry and Jamari.

Jamari has more room to improve because he arrived at KU so raw. He wasn't very good with handling the ball. He wasn't much of a shooter from outside about 5 feet. He was just fast and athletic and strong. Perry, on the other hand, was much closer to his overall ceiling when he got to KU. He could handle the ball. He could step out and shoot. He could finish at all sorts of angles inside. From a basketball playing standpoint, he was very much developed fundamentally. So how much more can Perry improve given his athleticism (good, but not elite) and his fundamental skills (already very high)? Or maybe a better question - Where does Perry improve?

And that is where the myth of development begins. Unless Perry suddenly becomes a dynamic ball handler and shooter off the dribble, he's already at 95% of what he is going to be. He's already a very efficient interior scorer. He's already a respectable midrange shooter. He seems to have added 3 point range this off season. The trendline on Perry will likely continue up because he is a hard worker, but it is going to be a much more flat rise because he is very close to his max.

Think about how much Joel Embiid improved last year. His elite physical skills combined with his raw basketball skills meant that he was improving dynamically from week to week. But Embiid is a rare find. You won't find many elite athletic specimen like him that are still so raw entering college. Coaching has improved at the lower levels to the point that very few guys with high athleticism are arriving in college still raw. Wiggins won't be fully developed for another 5 years because his ceiling is just so high, but he was still developed enough to average 17 and 6 at the D1 level last year.

But that's the only way to see consistent high improvement, is to either have someone that is so raw that they can develop just by learning some basic basketball skills, or have someone so physically gifted that any skill they add is magnified by their incredible physical talent.

I believe the credit for this win belongs to Coach Bowen and the current players. Weis does not deserve and should not get the credit for this in my opinion.

Bowen has brought energy and passion to KU football. Weis did not do that.

Bowen has brought a positive vibe to the team. Weis did not do that.

Bowen has been encouraging. Weis had his pile of cr*p.

Hats off to Bowen and the players. I wish Weis the best as he continues to cash checks from KU and Notre Dame.

The thing with college is that your system has to be adaptable year to year because no matter what, your team is likely changing every year.

Under the old model, even when you kept your best players for 3-4 years, you still had seniors graduating and new players being integrated. A college system cannot depend on continuity because you are almost certain to lose one or two rotation players every year, or, if not, you lose 4-5 rotation players in one off season.

I am firmly of the belief that Coach Self's system does not require multiple years to learn. No college coach can legitimately run a system like that because he can't keep his team together that long. The max you can have any one group is 5 years, and they can only play for 4. Considering how you have to distribute scholarships, you can keep a rotation group (8 players) together for a maximum of 3 years total. That's the absolute upper limit. More likely, as I said above, you are shifting players in and out of that rotation yearly.

Let's take Creighton for example. Here are the top 7 scorers for Creighton each of the last four years. New players are bolded in each year.

2010-2011 - McDermott, Young, Echenique, Lawson, Manigat, Wragge, Jones

2011-2012 - McDermott, Young, Echenique, Gibbs, Manigat, Wragge, Jones

2012-2013 - McDermott, Echenique, Gibbs, Wragge, Chatman, Manigat, Artino

2013-2014 - McDermott, Wragge, Chatman, Gibbs, Manigat, Brooks, Artino

This year McDermott, Wragge, Manigat and Gibbs are all gone. Artino, Chatman and Brooks are all seniors. Every single guy from last year's rotation will be gone next year. And that's the best case scenario as far as continuity is concerned.

I see people on this board talk about development all the time. Look at that list again. The only guy that you could say really developed from being a non-starter to being big time players was Wragge. He was a back of the rotation guy early in his career, second leading scorer as a senior. Everyone else basically contributed the same. Artino has been a seventh man in the rotation. Gibbs was a 3rd or 4th guy. Manigat was a fringe starter.

There is simply no guarantee, as this roster points out, that a guy who stays for four years will ever develop into a big time player. The truth is that, after the sophomore year, most guys aren't going to change much more in college. Those with high talent (the potential future pros) will continue to grow. Those without that talent will start to level off.

@Kip_McSmithers

I never said that I didn't believe that something shady happened with the Rose test scores. I said that I don't believe Calipari was involved. Big difference.

Let me regress a bit. Back when I was in high school there was a kid that made money taking the ACT for other students. In the Kansas City area at the time there were probably 30 test sites within reasonable driving distance. This kid would basically show up at a random test site and take the test for a kid. He wasn't testing for athletes, either. He would basically take the ACT for kids that wanted to score 30+ on the ACT for academic scholarship purposes. It was easy to do because this kid was just a regular dude. Normal looking high school age guy, not really any sort of standout features or anything. Whether he took the test on the Kansas side or the Missouri side, chances that anyone would recognize him were pretty low because he was pretty unremarkable. And this isn't the only case of it. You can look here ↗, and here ↗ for more on that phenomenon.

So let's apply this to Derrick Rose. He was a bit of a celebrity in high school. Anywhere in Chicago he would have been easily recognized. So he travels up to Detroit to take the test (there was proof that he was in Detroit the weekend the test was administered). Nobody has ever been able to indicate who actually took the test for Rose, though. Something happened, and it was questionable, but no one has ever been able to connect it to Memphis or Cal, other than the fact that the score was thrown out, making Rose retroactively ineligible.

@Kip_McSmithers, another thing to ponder is that had both Rose and Arthur been declared ineligible, the national final would have been completely vacated for that season. The NCAA can't have that happen. One of the most interesting what ifs is the what if of Mario's shot missing. If that happens, I think the reverse happens - Arthur is ruled ineligible, Rose is cleared. That way you have a champion, but you also have the NCAA nailing a "cheater".

I guess that's why I have always taken a very casual approach to this whole situation - glass houses and such.

@JayHawkFanToo

I'd argue he uses the same methods that it appears Roy Williams has used regarding the academic issues at UNC. Whether that sticks to him (or Roy, for that matter) is still to be determined.

@Kip_McSmithers

The article you link to alleges Calipari's involvement, but the NCAA report never identifies Calipari in having a role in it. I am quite sure that if the NCAA could nail Cal, they would.

The truth is that, much like our own Darrell Arthur situation, the allegations about Rose go back to high school grades. There are allegations that Rose and several HS teammates had grades changed then to keep them eligible. Trying to tie Calipari to the Rose grade and test situation is tenuous at best, as it looks more likely that some folks in the Chicago school system played a role in that to help out Simeon HS moreso than Cal did for Memphis.

Simply put, there has never been any proof of Cal's involvement with either scandal. He walked away, but many coaches walk away from smaller programs (UMass for an NBA job, Memphis for a power conference job at a historic school). There aren't many coaches that would not make those moves if offered.

Here's the thing with Calipari.

The UMass thing is not connected to him at all. The allegations were always that two agents approached Camby and gave him things to represent him when he left for the NBA after the season. There was no alleged recruiting violation, as this happened during Camby's junior season. Calipari was not ever alleged to have been involved. UMass forfeited the games because Camby was ineligible, not because Calipari had some wrongdoing in the scenario.

With Rose, the allegation was twofold. 1, that his SAT score was invalid and 2, that his brother had traveled with the team for free. The SAT issue is a bit misleading, because the score was not invalidated until after Rose's freshman year in college. Basically, his score was good until after he declared for the draft, then was retroactively invalidated, making him ineligible after the fact. He had a valid score during his entire freshman year and was technically eligible that entire time. As for the travel, that was a violation, but it was a violation in much the same vein as some of the travel issues that have hit many programs (KU included) regarding impermissible travel.

Other than the travel of Reggie Rose, Calipari was not involved in any of the alleged misconduct. He didn't introduce the agents to Camby. He didn't change Rose's high school grades or test scores. Yet everyone links him with alleged "cheating".

@Kip_McSmithers

The critical thing for hiring a new coach is vetting them thoroughly to determine if they will remain at KU once they get the program rebuilt.

The worst thing KU could do right now is hire another Charlie Weis, somebody with a big name that cannot rebuild the program. The second worst thing KU could do is hire a guy that is willing to stay 4 or 5 years until a better job comes along, and then jump. KU needs to find someone that is willing to build and stay - their Mike Gundy, basically.

That's the only way KU will get good and potentially stay good and relevant in coming years.

I think we can shoot threes if we are smart about it. Do we have one guy that I would want hoisting 4-5 threes a game? Not really. Do we have 4-5 guys that I wouldn't mind each putting up a couple threes a game? Absolutely. If Greene, Oubre and Svi all shoot 3 or 4 threes a game, give Selden, Mason and Graham shoot a couple, plus one for Perry, that's 16-18 threes a game. I think that's solid.

I don't want any of these guys to just fire up threes all the time, but I want them to use them intelligently. Every one of our perimeter guys can put the ball on the floor and get to the rim. But they can also make you pay for sagging back. The key will be knowing when to take the threes (i.e. off kickouts and when the defense plays back) and when to drive (on bad close outs and when the defense is tight).

The blind pick is a dangerous (but legal) play.

Dangerous because the unaware player being picked has no chance to brace or protect himself on the contact.

Legal because as long as the screener sets himself before the contact, he is not doing anything that is illegal or even dirty. I don't see anything wrong with the screen that was set on Brannen. The player was set, he didn't lean into the pick, and he didn't have loose knees or elbows. He was solid and nobody warned Brannen.

The responsibility for this play is squarely on KU's bigs. I can't tell what the confusion was here, but either way, someone should have called that screen out. Even if it's not your guy, someone should be absolutely screaming at Brannen so he knows that is coming.

If I'm a guard for KU and we are planning on picking up full court this year, I am absolutely tearing my big guys a new one if they aren't calling out every pick in practice or games from now on. Even at half speed, that needs to be called out just to get in the habit. In high school we used to have to call screens in walk throughs just to make it automatic that every screen got called. HCBS may need to institute something similar if he is going to crank up the pressure.

@jaybate-1.0

Let's be honest here. The more information comes out, the more it is clear that the truth is closer to what Rashad McCants said several years ago and much further away from what Roy Williams and the UNC administration has said over the last several years.

I'm not saying that Roy should bear the brunt of the penalty here, or that it should ruin his reputation, but I also can't say that he had no idea what was going on. There is no way someone with his intelligence didn't know something was afoot.

@jaybate-1.0

As someone that has had a concussion, it is the single best advice I can give. Take your time, whether that's a week, or a month. There is nothing that can replace a sound mind in this lifetime.

I am not surprised that Frankamp transferred. He was always a guy that wanted to play at KU moreso than a guy that could absolutely play at KU.

That's not a knock on Conner, because there aren't many guys out there that could even get recruited to play at KU. But the tough thing is, being recruited to play at KU and being able to play at KU are two completely different things.

Remember Quintrell Thomas? He was kind of like Jamari Traylor. Maybe not quite as athletic, but a very similar player. He stayed one year, then went to UNLV and was a productive backup player for three years there. He likely never would have played had he remained at KU. I can't begrudge him for counting the minutes and realizing he would always be the odd man out at Kansas.

Conner was in much the same situation. I think he should seriously consider heading home to Wichita and playing for the Shockers. His size and skills would play very well in the Valley, where I think he could play 20+ mpg on a good team.

Either way, best of luck to Conner. Sometimes, the situation just isn't working, and there is nothing wrong with moving on from that.