🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Below the rim athletes can be very dominant in high school, then fall flat in college. At 6-7, he is probably one of the bigger guys on the floor on most nights. In college, he will see someone bigger than 6-7 every single night. If he is not able to shoot from the perimeter, he will be very limited on offense. And if he isn't super bouncy and fast twitch, he's a less athletic Jamari Traylor. That's not a guy that will have an impact at a P5 school.

Now, maybe there is some athleticism to unlock. Perhaps that's an angle to look at. But if that's the case, he may need to redshirt to accomplish that. Or maybe there's some shot potential, but again, that's a year long process that may require a redshirt.

I guess where I am is that he's currently a less athletic Jamari Traylor, with the opportunity to be a less skilled KJ Lawson or (absolute best development case) Jamari Traylor with a jump shot.

There may not be enough teachers to re-open schools this fall. I know of a few that have said they would not return to work without some safety assurances. This is just a complete disregard for the safety and health of educators and their support staff.

This is a tragedy.

@Texas-Hawk-10

Absolutely. I was just pointing to the overall tradition. It hasn't been recent (no real big time recruits since the 1980's in basketball, no consistent NBA player grads since the early 2000's, but those programs used to produce BIG TIME talent, in large part due to segregation. If anything, this shift could hurt some mid majors, as black student athletes may start considering HBCU's rather than midmajors like the MAC and Sun Belt. Academically, HBCUs have a long history (and even now) of producing the top black scientists, lawyers, doctors, etc.

@BShark said in 2023 Recruiting:

@FarmerJayhawk that's a WILD top 10.

His top 10 includes several Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Williams' mother went to Hampton, and he has already said that when his list cuts down, he will include HBCUs (he stated this in the plural) on his list.

• North Carolina Central (top, far left)
• Alabama State (top, second from left)
• Texas State (top, second from right)
• Hampton (top, far right)
• Tennessee State (bottom, to the left of KU)

More and more top notch recruits are seriously considering HBCUs for basketball. Makur Maker (ESPN #16 recruit for 2020) picked Howard. It would not surprise me to see more high level recruits consider (and even pick) HBCUs. It wasn't that long ago that top black athletes attended HBCUs regularly.

Charles Oakley, Rick Mahorn, and Ben Wallace all went to HBCUs.

So did HOFs like Sam Jones, Willis Reed, and Earl Monroe. And that's just basketball. Football boasts the likes of Jerry Rice, Walter Payton, John Taylor, Doug Williams, and many more.

What is "Cancel Culture?"

Cancel Culture is, at least in my mind, an act of protest. It is the idea that I will not invest my money in people and businesses that do not match up with my personal ideals. We all do that to some extent. I have a bad customer service experience at a business, I stop going there. If the experience is really bad, maybe I even tell my friends and family about it so they won't go there, either.

As @Kcmatt7 said, "Cancel Culture is on both sides and it is silly to think otherwise."

Remember when people wanted to boycott Nike after the Kaepernick ad? You know why it didn't work? Because there were not enough people that opposed the ad strongly enough to even make a blip on Nike's radar. Same with Keurig and other companies. They made a lot of noise on social media, but when it came right down to it, there weren't enough people interested in that form of protest to mean anything other than a lot of capitalized posts on social media.

Boycotts are a non-violent form of protest. I don't understand why anyone even complains about it, honestly. In the aftermath of George Floyd's killing, there were many that were saying that the protesters needed to remain nonviolent. Cancel Culture, and the act of boycotting, are absolutely nonviolent.

So why should we cancel (or even want to cancel) a nonviolent form of protest?

Unless the real motive is to protect the status quo and ignore the issue that is being protested. Hmmm...

@FarmerJayhawk said in Differentiating fact from opinion on COVID-19:

Fully 1% of the city of Logan has now died of Covid after an outbreak at a nursing home. Just horrific.

In a small city, an outbreak could be devastating. We have seen this rip through small communities and families already, with some families in previous hotspots enduring three or four deaths within their family. The only difference was that, because this happened in larger cities, those smaller tragedies were covered by the larger narrative in places like New York and New Orleans.

This is a tragedy, and points more and more to why it is so important that we cut off the spread of this virus. It is wiping families out and damaging communities in ways that we don't even fully understand yet.

Smaller schools generally lose money on football because the travel, scholarships, etc. are so expensive. Eliminating those expenses might save some winter and spring sports.

@Woodrow said in How white Democrats poll on "Big Ideas" to fix racial divide:

@benshawks08 said in How white Democrats poll on "Big Ideas" to fix racial divide:

@Woodrow And the company my partner works for was unable to get a loan because the bank they work with didn't have any access to that money the first time around. They eventually got the loan the second time around.

Not sure what your point is. I am just saying I got 4 different loans from 4 different local banks the first time around. @justanotherfan was saying how only national banks were getting those loans and that is not even remotely close to the truth.

My statement on PPP was "And the banks that had the processes to handle the loans on the first day the money was available were primarily the large, national banks."

I added the emphasis, but the statement remains. I didn't say only. I said primarily, because that is where most of the money went. I'm glad you were able to get those loans through, and hope they helped your business(es).

@kjayhawks said in How white Democrats poll on "Big Ideas" to fix racial divide:

@justanotherfan Ya, that’s frustrating and I don’t blame you for being upset. I’m not insinuating that it doesn’t happen. I’m saying statically less African Americans have an education. Comparing someone’s income with a degree compared to someone who doesn’t would be accurate or a level playing field. You should’ve sued the bastards.

One thing to consider is the issue of equal pay. Education is a cost-benefit analysis. You get more education and in turn can make more money. But if I pay the same amount for my education as a white peer, but am offered 10%-15% (often an even greater difference) less, my education is now de-valued, making more achievement and education less valuable to me because I won't see the return on investment (ROI).

Add to that the fact that lending institutions have historically charged minorities higher rates of interest and the problem intensifies. I am going to pay more for my education through higher interest rates, but get paid less in the professional world.

That means my ROI calculation goes down for each step up the ladder I take. As a HS graduate from a public school, I have spent very little, so my ROI is high, even if my actual earnings are not. An associates from a local juco isn't very expensive, so again, the ROI curve is favorable. But as you move into the professional ranks, the curve is less and less favorable even though the salaries are increasing.

Education is supposed to be an equalizer in society, but if that education does not open the same doors for me, I end up further behind due to the debt incurred. African American college graduates are much more likely to go into default on student loans. That is directly related to the pay gap.

Again, this is really about systemic issues.

• If I am paid less, then I have a less favorable negotiating position when seeking new employment.

• If I am charged higher interest rates, I will have to pay more for my education.

• If I am paid less relative to my education, my ROI is lower.

• If my ROI is lower, my risk of default is higher, which further hurts my credit and pushes me into a cycle of high debt/credit problems.

That risk means that the most high achieving minorities are actually at a disadvantage compared to other minorities because our earning potential is hamstrung by higher debt and interest.

Those issues make it harder to build equity through the purchase of assets and building savings, which means that my higher earning, less in debt peers broaden the wealth gap daily.

Statistics bear all of this out. More education alone doesn't solve the problem if the rewards for that education do not follow.

@kjayhawks said in Chiefs are world champs:

@justanotherfan right, I think if they want to win more titles, it will come in the next 3 seasons. Guys these days hold out a lot more and ask for trades more often. I hope they can be the next patriots but it will be much harder playing in a decent division.

It's tough to project anything more than 2-3 seasons out anyway. Three years ago Andrew Luck was supposed to be turning into a top QB in the AFC for years to come.

The Chiefs are well positioned to compete in each of the next several seasons. They will have to reload, but if they do, they can compete for another 3-4 year cycle. Rinse, repeat.

@kjayhawks said in How white Democrats poll on "Big Ideas" to fix racial divide:

The wage gap is an interesting stat but a lot of people like to skip over the fact that Asian American males have the highest pay rates of anyone in the country. They are 21% higher than white males. Which tells me race has less to do with it, I highly doubt people that hate African Americans like Asians. But Asians also go to college at a higher rate that any other ethnicity in this country. I work for a small business with 15 employees, 2 of which are African Americans. They make the same amount as the other guys who do the same job. I’m sure there are some racist fools that don’t pay minorities as well and there should be a penalty for doing so. We have to keep African American kids in school and make school affordable again. This is the main reason I cringe when people talk about the government getting involved. What have they touched that hasn’t turned to crap? College is high dollar because of the government. Remember when the government started subsidizing housing? The cost of housing sky rocketed. I believe in eduction and healthcare for all, I just believe the government is the worse place to get it.

I have experienced the wage gap myself. I once took a job with a negotiable salary. Another person (a white male) was hired for the same position and started a week before I did. He had about a year more experience than me, which should be worth between 3% and 5%. He was paid more than 15% more than me (I did not know his salary at the time).

To top it off, I tried to negotiate my salary. I asked for a salary that would have been about 8% less than this individual, based on what the market rate should have been, basically hitting the number right in the middle. I was told that the organization could not go any higher than the number that was 15% less.

Once I found out how much more he was making, I left that position.

But here's the thing. Because I was underpaid in that position, my negotiating position was worse when I negotiated my next salary. So even though I got a raise on my next move, I probably lost 5% salary per year due to getting underpaid on that job. That's thousands of dollars lost in income for me personally.

@kjayhawks said in Chiefs are world champs:

I still think the linebacker corps and offensive line are suspect. Hopefully they can make a run again, no telling how long Sammy, Travis and Tyrek stay in KC.

Watkins is probably gone after this year because it is the last year of his contract. He can probably get more on the open market.

Hill is signed until 2023, so he's locked in for the next three seasons.

Kelce is signed through 2022.

Hardman is on his rookie deal. Edwards Helaire is on a rookie deal.

Simply put, the Chiefs are actually pretty well positioned right now with most of their big time guys (Mahomes, Hill, Kelce, Mathieu, Jones, Clark) signed for multiple years and a decent group of young players like Hardman, Thornhill, etc.

It will be tough to open schools a month from now if we don't cut the spread dramatically in the next few weeks. That means masks, social distancing, the whole gamut.

Trying to open schools without taking precautions right now is a secondary disaster waiting to happen. Schools will act as a hot zone, with one case quickly turning into a few dozen. We do not have enough willing, qualified and capable teachers to deal with an outbreak ON ANY SCALE. I doubt you will find many substitutes willing to come in if there is a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school system.

And if teachers have to double up with students, that will make things worse rather than better.

The answer is not to just forge ahead, damn the consequences. We need a plan that will cut the spread now, and protect students and teachers later.

@nuleafjhawk

Having Mahomes means there's never a "there's no way we can win this game" moment.

I doubt any of the departing teams regrets much, other than Nebraska, honestly.

Colorado would not have wanted to stay in the Big 12 with the addition of West Virginia stretching the conference that far east. The time difference of being the only conference school in the Mountain time zone always made it frustrating for them anyway. I always thought they were the most likely departure to the Pac-10(12) for that reason.

I doubt Mizzou and A&M regret the move. Mizzou may have made more sense in the Big 10 at first glance, but the SEC offered more money, so it doesn't surprise me they went there. They basically got more money to be in a very similar position conferencewise. That's a pretty good trade, honestly. And if they do ever win the SEC title game, they will almost certainly play in the national semifinals. Same for A&M.

I think Nebraska may regret it because they didn't sign on for Maryland and Rutgers. They wanted Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc. They wanted the possibility of Notre Dame joining at some point. That's not what they got. So they may actually wish they had stayed put. Add to it that the Big Ten hasn't really helped open new recruiting territory, and Nebraska looks like they got almost nothing from the deal.

The problem with systemic problems is that they are embedded deep in the system, so even things that are not intended to be disproportionate end up being so, because that is a function of society.

Take the Paycheck Protection loans that went out to small businesses earlier this year. Very few minority owned businesses were able to get those types of loans, even though the loans were extended to most everyone. Why?

Well, in order to receive the loan, you had to go through your bank. And the banks that had the processes to handle the loans on the first day the money was available were primarily the large, national banks. Most minority owned businesses, because they often start off small and local, do not bank with the larger, national banks. They bank with the regional, or often even the local banks. Those banks were more or less cut out of the PPP loans, so minority owned businesses were also cut out of that (otherwise) equally distributed program.

So why do minority owned businesses often bank with smaller banks? Well, when evaluating for credit, national banks, for many years, did not bank minority owned businesses. As a result, there are several generations of minority owned businesses that have found larger banks uncooperative, but found certain local banks to be more open. Because of that, those minority owned businesses were able then to act as references for other minority entrepreneurs, who were then able to form that banking relationship, so that they have a strong community relationship with that bank.

But this structure means that when a program is focused primarily on the larger banks (Citi, Bank of America, etc.) that will almost certainly cut minority businesses out of the deal because that is not generally where those businesses bank. That's how structural or systemic racism works. The racism of large banks from 50-75 years ago still manifests itself today even though the people in those positions today may not themselves be practicing racism. But the structure is there, and that structure cuts against minority owned businesses in this case. As a result, many minority owned businesses did not get those loans and instead had to take higher interest loans, or forego additional funding entirely.

Since minority businesses employ minorities at a higher rate, that means those businesses were more likely to have to lay off workers - that's more minorities getting laid off. That means that when this pandemic is over, many minorities will be in a worse financial position than a similarly positioned white person whose small business (or the small business they worked for) was able to get PPP assistance.

Another good example was the early rounds of testing, which required a doctor recommending the testing. There are credible studies out there ↗ that ↗ describe ↗ how ↗ doctors often dismiss the claims of their minority patients, leading to less testing and worse outcomes. So again, when you are depending on a physician referral to get critical testing for COVID-19, even though the rates were higher in minority populations, that can be accounted for by unchecked spread, which meant that many minority clusters were not identified until numerous individuals were hospitalized (i.e., people already extremely sick) as opposed to early on, when the spread could be checked.

Those are just two areas where systemic or structural issues have caused problems with COVID-19 response for minorities.

@kjayhawks said in Differentiating fact from opinion on COVID-19:

I would agree about not being able to shut back down. CNN ran a story about how the riots and protests didn’t lead to a rise in cases but ran an article about how a few thousand at a Trump rally caused a huge spike. The media thinks everyone is a potato at this point. Also if we are shutdown this winter millions will die because of the shut down not virus. The morality rate is less than 1% in this country still considerably less than the flu, pneumonia and other illnesses. Be smart and wash your hands. I’ll see if I can find the article about the hundreds of millions of dollars big businesses like amazon, Walmart, Menards etc made during shut down. Will never understand how standing apart in Walmart is different than any other store or local business. I’m just being as safe as I can, I have left my county once since early February and limited unneeded trips anywhere.

One big difference between the protests and the rally is that the protests were all outside, where sunlight and air/humidity/wind all drive the spread of the virus down. Inside the arena, you don't have those factors, so there's a greater chance for spread in a large crowd.

Another factor is mask use, as many protesters wore masks even outside, which further cuts down on spread, while the rally had lots of attendees not wearing masks, which, again, increases the chance of transmission.

Those two factors (outside vs. inside and masks vs. no masks) are things that could have easily been predicted based on the science we have, which told us months ago that sunlight/humidity and air temperature could help slow the spread, and that wearing masks can cut person to person transmission.

So the result is really no surprise.

@Kcmatt7 said in Stock picks:

American Airlines has to take a 12% loan yesterday.

Not a great sign for the industry....

Yeah, I am still hanging on the sidelines tracking the market. Just about everything is down this week, probably more of the same for the next couple of weeks.

But at some point, things will start to rebound. The key is figuring out which companies in which industries will rebound best. And that is the challenge.

I like some industries that are down right now (mostly entertainment and hotel/vacation type stuff). They are not making any money right now, so are falling, but will probably rebound once things can fully open back up, similar to air travel.

I made a bit earlier this year, but have mostly backed out of the market over the last several weeks while I wait to see where things end up. I probably won't get back in for a few more weeks unless I want to buy and hold. Market is just too volatile right now to do much trading without risking losing your shirt.

If we were in such a rush to open (and many were) there should have been mandatory mask requirements in public. That would have allowed lots of businesses to reopen, while cutting down on infection spread. But somehow, people wanted to reopen quickly and not wear masks.

So we ended up here. Infection rates approaching the high of April, no vaccine and many businesses struggling to stay afloat because consumer confidence is low, so even though businesses are open, they are not getting enough customers to make things work. It was a bad strategy to begin with. You cannot reopen if people do not have basic confidence that they won't get sick (or get someone close to them sick) just by going out into the world.

Masks could have helped prevent that. But apparently wearing a mask (which I do whenever I go out) is a sign of weakness and fear.

So prepare for many more waves until we get a vaccine because it won't get any better until we take some serious proactive steps.

The mystique of AFH would remain. The history that is part of the atmosphere would still be there.

But without the crowd noise, some of the situations would change. There would be no deafening roar that could disrupt the timing and communication on the court. There would be no crowd energy to feed off of during a run.

It would make for an interesting test in how valuable home court is, for sure.

@Crimsonorblue22 said in Mike Gundy and OSU:

@kjayhawks https://heartland-sports.com/2020/06/16/osu-football-players-deny-list-of-demands-produced-by-doug-gottlieb/ ↗
All on Gottlieb not on team! Trying to stir it up

No surprise. It seemed like the kind of thing a guy that can't figure out how to put on his pants would do.

If these P5 schools aren't careful, the athletes may realize their power. This is a thin line, and I am not sure many universities know how to navigate it.

@kjayhawks

The argument is not that police are all bad. As you very correctly point out, that type of broad generalization is quite silly. The argument is that the system is flawed.

Let's move to a sports analogy to make that point. Referees are required to enforce the rules of the game. If the rule is bad, then even if a referee makes the correct call, they may put a player or team at a disadvantage not because they themselves are biased, but because the rule is flawed.

We have seen the issues the NFL has had with the catch/no catch ruling for years as they have defined and re-defined what a catch is. Because of this, there have been a lot of issues with those rulings over time, often resulting in a disadvantage as a result of rule application.

We have seen the same thing with slow motion review of targeting, which has caused a few ejections at the NCAA level based on the slow motion review, even though no penalty was called on the field because of the speed of the play. The referee in those cases wasn't biased. They just didn't see targeting, so they didn't call it, but the technical, by the book application of the rule when put in super slow motion required that a player be ejected. Happened to KU last season. The official wasn't out to get KU. But that rule requires that application, and because it is reviewable, you can get that result. That is a systemic flaw. No matter who you get as an official, you cannot change that result without changing the underlying rule because the RULE is the problem, not the way it is being enforced.

The same issue exists with law enforcement. There are foundational, systemic flaws. Even if we eliminated or mitigated every personal bias in the individuals that are officers, we would still have problems because the system itself is biased and flawed.

@FarmerJayhawk said in Ivanka not welcome in wichita:

So after an almost 4 hour KBOR meeting, they put out a meaningless statement and Pres. Golden stays. Nobody ends up looking good. Well done everyone!

It was for show. They couldn't fire him without destroying any chance of getting a decent replacement. They also risked losing students over it. They might have gained some conservative students, but given the school's location, that's unlikely.

They had to appear to appease the political actors, but their hands were tied. Who would have wanted that job after seeing the previous holder get canned only a few months in?

Absolutely. There are a lot of topics that I simply would not have read before, without the block option. With it, I can read opposing views without having to deal with people that just want to throw grenades into the comments.

@kjayhawks said in Racial Truths and Untruths and the Search for Justice while Doing Justice (previously titled To Infinity and Beyond):

I’m a little confused how canceling shows like cops and live PD are helping this cause. I don’t watch much tv but I enjoy those shows. If we continue to treat all cops as if they are bad and continue to cut funding, it will only make matters worse. Less training hours and low pay won’t fix anything.

On the issue of TV shows, those shows were problematic because the police department that they filmed got to decide what got aired and how the video was cut. As a result, they could manipulate how they were being portrayed, and even had a say in whether or not things aired. It wasn't as "real" as the shows advertised themselves to be.

As far as defunding, its really shifting funding away from police and into community redevelopment and mental health. Police Departments do not do a good job handling people that are mentally ill. All of the research says that. Most law enforcement groups agree. They are not designed to handle people with mental health issues because the whole idea of law enforcement is based on people understanding actions and consequences. If that isn't present, law enforcement is not designed to respond.

There have been numerous incidents where police have injured or killed someone that was mentally ill because that person did not understand the officer's commands, or even that the officer was law enforcement. While those situations are not the officer's fault, it shows how much the system can fail if law enforcement tries to engage on mental health. It simply cannot work.

Moving law enforcement funds to mental health funding actually could save even more money because now you are treating people rather than just arresting them and having them in jail, where they injure themselves and others, require extra monitoring, damage property, etc.

Putting funds back into community development and youth programs can make a huge difference in deterring kids away from some of those initial issues like trespassing and vandalism that are typically the result of bored kids out running around. Again, this could result in savings because instead of having to imprison and monitor, you just have programs that kids and young adults can participate in.

The funds that get moved could end up being twice as effective as just leaving them in the police budget. There is research out there that early childhood and youth programs cut crime rates later by a significant percentage. If that is true, every dollar you spend on early childhood saves you money later on. So dumping $100M into those types of programs now may result in $5-$10M in savings in the future (i.e., money not spent on additional programs or policing later). That is a huge benefit for society overall. And your taxes may go down, too.

@Crimsonorblue22 said in Racial Truths and Untruths and the Search for Justice while Doing Justice (previously titled To Infinity and Beyond):

@BShark I have never heard that before. I hate violence! But I hate what happened to mr Floyd even more. I would've been arrested if I'd have been there. I couldn't stand there and watch that. That's murder.

Part of the tragedy of the killing of George Floyd is that the officers and bystanders all knew the same truth - there was nothing any of the bystanders could have done to intervene without putting themselves in harms way. They basically had no choice but to watch a man slowly suffocate to death, hoping (praying) that Derek Chauvin would have the humanity to let him breathe before the ultimate damage was done.

It's a weird dynamic. There was a gathering at a lake here in Kansas that resulted in 10 people becoming infected. That certainly makes me a bit hesitant about things re-opening. I really hope that as we start to re-open, everyone doesn't just rush back. Those that can work from home should still try to do so, while those that cannot can start getting back out there so they can earn a living.

I hope restaurants keep doing take out. That's actually been a nice treat to sample the takeout from local restaurants. I just worry that if we try to just "go back to normal" we will be in a worse mess than we were before.

The Missouri rivalry is the one that matters because it matters beyond the state border.

For example, take Bedlam down in Oklahoma. That's a huge game. It gets a lot of chatter. But the rivalry is OU-Texas because that one matters nationally. It's really hard for an instate rivalry to get onto the national stage unless both teams are national level competitors consistently (like Alabama-Auburn in football recently, or Miami-Florida State in the late 80s and early 90s).

In state rivalries are big locally, but they just don't have the pull nationally unless both teams are always good. Look at UNC-Duke or Louisville-Kentucky. It works because both teams are almost always good. If there were ever a long drop off, that rivalry would fall apart from the national perspective.

@kjayhawks

We have to put Jordan's earnings into the context of the salary cap while he played. The cap in his final year with Chicago (1997-98) was about $27M. Jordan was able to get $30M that year because of an exception that allowed the Bulls to spend more to retain one specific player.

Prior to his last two years with Chicago, he never made more than $4.5M in a season. Putting that into context, the veterans minimum today is a little over $2M per year, so Jordan made less than that through the early part of his career because everyone in the League (except Bird and Magic) made less than that.

That's what makes the Pippen deal stick out so much. It's not just that it was low, it's that it was low enough that the Bulls were able to pay Kukoc and Rodman more than they would have if Pippen had gotten a market value deal, and there's almost no way the Bulls could have fit Ron Harper under the cap with the rest of those guys.

Instead, they would have been using a late round draft pick rookie, or starting Steve Kerr (a solid player, no doubt), but with an inexperienced young player coming off the bench with no Ron Harper (no cap room to sign him), and possible either no Kukoc or no Rodman (Kukoc could have left in free agency after 1995 or 1996, Rodman was brought in as a free agent prior to the 1996 season).

It changes how they can build out their team. Pippen under market value was a huge benefit to the Bulls, and specifically to Jordan's career and legacy. Imagine Pippen leaving Chicago after the 1995 season for more money with a Western Conference contender, having already won three titles.

That changes everything.

@nuleafjhawk said in missouri:

@kjayhawks I wonder if Nebraska, Missouri - and Colorado are happy with their choice to leave? Seems like they all have basically disappeared from the D-1 sports scenes. Maybe they should have got therapy and just worked it out with the Big 12?

Colorado - I'd say they are happy. They were always an outlier in the Big 12 with the time zone, so moving to the Pac-12 made a lot of sense for them. They haven't fielded good teams since moving, but they hadn't fielded a strong team in the weaker Big 12 North since the early 2000's anyway.

Nebraska - mixed feelings. Nebraska is happy to get rid of Texas, etc., but I don't think they got what they wanted from the B1G. With expansion including Maryland and Rutgers, I think Nebraska is a bit frustrated. Yeah, it's more money, but they didn't join the B1G for Rutgers. They joined for Michigan and Ohio State. Initially they were pretty happy, but I think the further expansion wasn't what they wanted.

Missouri - tending towards happy. They make more money in the SEC than they ever would have in the Big 12. They get more exposure in better recruiting areas. It has hurt their basketball team, but their football team is where they probably always would have been anyway. Mizzou is going to be like South Carolina or Arkansas - in the right year, they can jump up and win their division in football, have a strong basketball team every now and then, but always will be chasing LSU, Alabama, Florida, Georgia in football, and everyone will be chasing Kentucky in hoops.

Texas A&M - very happy. They have a couple of great new rivalries (LSU and Arkansas). They make more money. They were never going to be dominant in the major sports, so making more money is a win for them.

@kjayhawks

Something that has stood out to me about Jordan that almost certainly makes his achievements possible in the future - the current and any future NBA collective bargaining agreement.

Several reasons for this.

1. Salary cap - yes, there was a cap when Jordan played. But in his final season, Jordan made over $30M. That was more than the rest of the starters on the Bulls made, combined. And that's even though they had two all star caliber players in Pippen and Rodman, a former sixth man of the year in Kukoc and several other solid veterans (Ron Harper, Luc Longley, others). The way the cap was structured then versus now makes it almost impossible to pay a superstar the top dollar and also build that type of supporting cast without crippling your cap situation.

2. Scottie Pippen's contract - the real MVP of the Bulls dynasty was Scottie Pippen's lengthy extension, that kept him in Chicago through 1998. This deal was signed just as the Bulls were starting to put together their dynasty and allowed the Bulls to have an All-NBA player on the roster for mere peanuts. It would be impossible to have a player half that good signed for that length of time for that cheap now.

3. Rookie salary scale - Part of the reason Pippen signed that extension was that he hadn't really made any money in the NBA when his extension came up, so he took a very low offer. The rookie salary scale now would not allow that to happen. As the fifth pick, Pippen would have made good money in his first three years, and then Chicago would have had to pick up his fourth year option (a no-brainer) followed by handing him a big extension the next summer since he would have qualified for it. That would have probably meant that the Bulls would have had to trade Horace Grant prior to the 1992-93 season to keep Jordan and Pippen teamed up, or move Pippen to keep Grant on the team. And you can forget about luring Rodman and Kukoc while keeping Pippen under the current cap rules.

Needless to say, the current cap makes it basically impossible to build that type of roster. The Bulls would have had to make a decision every couple of years to figure out if they wanted to keep Jordan and Pippen, or Jordan and Grant (or Kukoc, or Rodman). Basically, they would have had to part with a key contributor, and potentially had that key piece show up on a rival roster in the playoffs.

The Last Dance has put a lot of light on that situation. Under current cap rules, I doubt the Bulls win six titles in 8 years. They still probably win four, but I don't think they would have been able to keep their team together long term with today's cap.

@Marco

College is about putting yourself in the best position for your adult/personal/professional life. That's part of the choice. I know that was a big reason that I went to college where I went. If part of that happens to be endorsements, well, that's part of the decision making process.

Advertising opportunities will absolutely be a recruiting tool, but not for the reason people think.

The ad dollars you can pay in Wyoming are different than the ones you can pay in LA. So a kid going to USC will have more opportunities than one at Wyoming. For programs that are not close to larger media markets or larger, mainstream programs, it could hurt them in recruiting the elite talent. The flip side is that this could help programs that are in large media markets, but outside the P5. If you're Rice, or Houston, or St. John's, or San Diego State, you can offer more opportunities in your market than Iowa State or Utah can. That could change the P5 landscape significantly. It may be time for the Big XII to reconsider adding Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and Tulane to the conference, as those schools could really capitalize on this if they are smart since they are each in decent sized local markets.

I would recommend using the mute feature. I took a period of time off this winter as well.

No point in letting negative internet voices into your life, now or at any time. Just block 'em.

@kjayhawks

I think things are still intense. It's more reserved for the playoffs, generally, but I think that's because there are so many more teams that the travel is just brutal.

In 1988 for example, there were just 23 teams. No Orlando. No Miami. No Memphis, Charlotte, New Orleans, Toronto or Minnesota. That eliminates both Florida teams, as well as every team in the south except Atlanta. Road trips were very traditional - Boston, New York/New Jersey, Philly. Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Indy. Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Kings. Seattle/Portland. Houston, San Antonio, Dallas.

Back to backs usually involved those trips and most of the travel was grouped around that to save on flights. Since TV wasn't as big a factor, there wasn't pressure to put top teams on national TV on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday, which has absolutely been a nightmare from a schedule perspective.

That means a team like the Lakers may be on their East coast trip and play Boston on Tuesday on national TV, then go down to Philly for a Thursday game before flying down to Miami for the weekend primetime game, then back home for a Tuesday national TV game. That's a lot of travel, which is why more teams are resting guys between trips, or on trips.

Ideally, the NBA should cut down to around 70 games, go back to the Best of 5 for the first round of the playoffs and start one week earlier. Regular season runs from Mid October to Mid April, but with 12 less games, there are fewer back to backs. Playoffs start in Mid April, but the first round wraps in a week and a half with just best of 5s.

Just my thoughts on how to increase the intensity. Otherwise, it just gets brutal. The Cavs and Warriors met in 4 straight finals a few years back. The Cavs played 102, 103, 100 and 104 games. Golden State played 103, 106, 99 and 103 games. That's averaging 103 games a season. Injuries caught up with the Cavs in the Final matchup with GS. They caught up with the Warriors the very next year as they limped into the Finals against Toronto. And that includes rest. TV saved the NBA, but its threatening to hurt the game with the scheduling demands.

You remember back when NBA teams were allowed to fight? Allowed to leave the bench and brawl?

Rudy Tomjanovich almost getting killed by Kermit Washington's haymaker?

That was the NBA in the late 1970's through the early 1990's. But then something happened - television.

Sponsors shied away from the big fights, so they started harsher suspensions, then ejections for leaving the bench, etc. The rules simply don't allow for that type of thing anymore. Physical play still exists, but you can't take it past a certain point without ejections, suspensions, etc.

On top of that, salary cap limits make it difficult to keep teams together. As a result, there aren't as many long simmering rivalries.

The Pistons teams that went toe to toe with the Celtics - those were the same basic rotations for five straight years playing each other a dozen times a year by the time you include playoffs. The Bulls squads saw that same group of Pistons. The Celtics and Lakers had the same basic rotations - Magic, Worthy, Scott, Green, Kareem, Thompson, Rambis vs. Bird, Ainge, McHale, Parrish, etc.

It's easy to develop those huge rivalries when the core teams stay the same.

It's much harder when you can't really keep the complementary pieces around your stars long term.

Guys adapt. You don't want to say anything about a certain organization knowing you may get signed by them in the offseason. And you certainly don't want to get kicked out of big games or suspended for being overly physical. A guy is hurting his team if he does that (just ask Silvio De Sousa about how you can hurt your team by throwing punches and getting yourself and others suspended).

So you adjust. No fights. Intense on the court, but friends off it.

Beyond that, a lot of these guys have grown up knowing each other, and being friends since middle school or high school. The best players now start seeing each other regularly starting in 7th or 8th grade. By the time they get to the pros, they have been buddies for 8 or 9 years already. That's a huge difference.

I've been working from home, too. I feel like I get a lot done, but that there is always plenty to do. I think I live on Zoom at this point.

@Crimsonorblue22 said in 2020 Recruiting:

We did have that kid from Ottawa. Should've got him?

Semi Ojeleye was a 4 star. I think Perry was, too. He may have been a 5 star on some services. As @BeddieKU23 said, 5 stars don't grow on tress here in Kansas.

@kjayhawks said in Last Dance:

On a side note, I’d pay money to see prime Rodman vs LeBron. I think Rodman would have him crying on the bench lol.

Rodman played at 210. I don't think he could have pushed Lebron around at any point given Lebron came into the league at least 10 pounds heavier than that. I do think Rodman was a skilled enough defender early in his career to bother Lebron.

I would be more curious, though, to see what a prime Scottie Pippen could have done against Lebron. The match in athleticism would have been something to see.

@kjayhawks

I think your note about rest suggests that the Bulls likely would not have necessarily won more titles if Jordan didn't take that time off.

Let's look at the two Eastern Conference dynasties that came before the Bulls, Boston and Detroit.

The Celtics went to four straight NBA finals from 1984-1987. In those seasons, Boston played 106, 102, 100, and 105 games, winning two titles (1984 and 1986). In 1987, they played 99 games, being ousted in the Eastern Conference Finals by the Pistons.

Detroit actually went to at least the Eastern Conference Finals every year from 1986-1991, including three trips to the NBA Finals. In those years, they played 97, 105, 99, 102 and 97 games.

In each case, the result was the same - the dynasty just got worn down. Guys got hurt (McHale), or just worn down. Detroit ousted the Celtics in six. Chicago swept the Pistons. They just didn't have the gas for a fifth year at that rate.

Chicago had played 99, 98, 99, 104 and 101 games from 1989 through 1993 in making two ECFs and three straight Finals. Could Chicago have kept that up as Jordan and Pippen entered their 30s for another five seasons of nearly 100 games? That's 10 straight years of 97 or more games to win titles from 1991-1998.

At some point, someone gets hurt. Someone leaves via free agency. A team gets hot while you go cold. A team figures you out. It happens to every dynasty.

The early 2000's Lakers looked unstoppable, added Malone and Payton, then got derailed by Detroit in 2004. The Superteam Heat won two titles, but by 2014 they were running on fumes and Chris Bosh's body was wearing out.

Even Golden State couldn't keep it up for that long - injuries to basically everyone ended any chance they had against the Raptors.

My guess is that Chicago wins in 1994 to get a fourth straight title, but loses in either 1995 or 1996 to Houston, New York, Orlando or Seattle, and probably misses the Finals altogether in either 1997 or 1998 as Indiana, Orlando, and New York all pose serious challenges.

There's a reality where Horace Grant stays in Chicago in 1995 rather than going to Orlando, meaning that instead of Dennis Rodman, the Bulls have an aging Horace Grant. Scottie Pippen sulks all summer, then demands a trade. Jordan carries the team, but someone gets hurt at the wrong time.

If I had to guess, the Bulls finish the 1990's with five titles - 1991-1994 and either 1997 or 1998 and six or seven trips to the Finals.

@COHawk

Bol Bol was a 5 star, although he did not graduate from Bishop Miege.

N'Faly Dante was 5 star at Sunrise Christian (prep school in Wichita) last year.

I think Wayne Simien was the last 5 star from Kansas that graduated from a Kansas school and attended KU. KU doesn't consistently have 4 stars, let alone 5 stars instate.

As testing has ramped up here in Kansas this week, we have seen confirmed cases jump quickly. I had felt for a while that we were only scratching the surface of how widely spread the virus was. Now we are seeing a bit more of the iceberg.

Creighton isn't a bad draw, although I would have liked to see Xavier or Butler just to see teams you don't normally see in Lawrence.

Weber is an okay enough coach. He's not great, but not awful.

His problem is that he struggles in recruiting and retention. That has burned him time and again. He saved himself last time with Dean Wade and Barry Brown, but unless he does something similar this time, it will be tough to get out of the basement with the upgrades around the Big 12.

@Marco

If you don't like the NBA, you aren't going to start liking the NBA, particularly if there is no college affiliation to draw interest.

But the coaching angle is of no consequence because the way the NBA is coached is so much different than college that it's irrelevant to go to college for that coaching.

The NBA is coached to create and exploit mismatches.

College is coached to run a system.

Systems don't consistently work in the NBA because the players are too good and too well prepared to just run plays or sets, particularly in the playoffs. In the playoffs you will notice opposing teams sometimes actually calling out the other teams plays based simply on the set they start in. That's the level of scouting, coaching and preparation the NBA has, so you can't rely on that type of coaching.

Instead, at the NBA level, you have to rely on getting guys into favorable matchups. Getting a bigger guy matched up on a smaller one. Getting a quick guy covered by a slow one. That's what is required, which is why you see so much emphasis on PnR to create the favorable matchup.

At the college level, they aren't emphasizing matchups because teams aren't as well scouted and the preparation isn't to that level. Instead, they focus on executing specific sets because you may only have one guy capable of exploiting a matchup advantage.

Take this year's KU team. The only guys that you consistently would have wanted to create mismatches for were Doke and Devon. For Doke, you wanted him one on one inside 5 feet. For Devon, you wanted him matched up with a slower guy in space. Other than that, though, you didn't want to create mismatches because other guys were less likely to capitalize on those.

Let's say that you had a guy like Doke that ended up with a smaller guy switched onto him, but he was 15 feet from the basket. Did Doke have the skill to punish that matchup immediately, before a team could switch? No. Could an NBA big man do that? Absolutely. They could catch that ball 15 feet from the basket and make one move to get into the paint, and either they get a dunk, or the defense scrambles to help and they end up with a wide open corner three, or a weakside cut for a dunk.

In the NBA getting a mismatch for tons of guys can result in a positive play. I could make a list of 50-75 players that can exploit one on one matchups regularly in the NBA. Probably couldn't point to 30 guys with that skill at the college level.

So you have the shift - in college you learn a system because the skill level isn't high enough to exploit a matchup. In the pros, you learn to create mismatches because the players are too good to try and just run even advanced sets against them consistently.

That difference means that college coaching doesn't do much to prepare guys for the NBA. If it did, you would see guys that played four years at the top programs becoming stars, which is a rare thing at this point.

As you say, they are taught when they get there. That is because its a shift in thinking. You can't just run this set or run that play because veterans will recognize that and snuff it out. You have to get into the set, and then know where to go in the free flow of the play. That has to be taught at the pro level because you can't learn that until you see how the initial actions (and the secondary actions, often) are taken away at the pro level, versus those actions being there at the college level. Many four year players from college take several years to get footing in the NBA because they have to relearn concepts based on matchups. Its not the X's and O's at the pro level. It comes down to, you rotate away from this guy because he's not a good shooter from 23 feet, but he can shoot from 19, so you rotate this far off him, versus, DO NOT LEAVE this guy, because its Steph Curry.

In college, its just the X's and O's. In the pros, it's WHO the X's and O's represent.

The sad truth is that because we don't know enough about COVID-19, life after flattening may be a series of fits and starts as we get small flare ups in different locations.

We also don't know what the long term consequences will be for those that were infected. Are we talking about long term lung damage that makes them more susceptible to other illnesses (asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, etc.) in the future? Is there damage to other areas of the body due to the drop in oxygen (thinking specifically about brain, heart and kidney trauma, as those areas need oxygenated blood flow to function properly)?

And furthermore, what happens with the medical bills of those that were in ICU and intubated for a long time? That's thousands of dollars per day in care. One of the leading causes of bankruptcy in America is medical debt. Are we going to see people filing for bankruptcy next year as a result of COVID-19 related bills? And that's the people that survived!

We haven't even covered those that lost their primary income because the breadwinner died (or is permanently unable to work) as a result of COVID-19. There have been 42,000 deaths so far. That's thousands of families that will never be the same because they lost someone. There's a unique story within each of those deaths that can't be dismissed. Some families won't be "getting back to normal" no matter what happens with restarting the economy because the people that were normally in their life aren't here anymore.

I don't know what this looks like going forward, but it isn't going to be as simple as just flipping a switch.

@Texas-Hawk-10 has this nailed in his last sentence. If Mitch acts as a complementary player, he will be a nice addition to a team that should be fairly deep. If he tries to become a star or is used outside his skillset, he will have a very frustrating year.

I come back to the Landen Lucas issue. Landen Lucas would have been perfect as a 15-18 mpg role player. His effort, smarts and skillset would have fit perfectly in that role, and he would have excelled. However, asking him to do more than that exposed his limitations in a way that ultimately was not his fault.

The key is to let guys play within their role. If Mitch's skills begin to exceed that role, great. But trying to force him into an expanded role will only lead to frustration. I'd rather see Mitch have a great year in a limited role than a frustrating year in a role that is too large.

The major difference between NBA and college is the skill level of the best players. Let's imagine that every player has a skill rating, like on video games. The best players in college basketball in any given year are probably in the high 70s or low 80s. Maybe every now and then you will get a guy in the mid 80s, but that's about it.

Within that structure, generally nobody is so much better than anyone else that it bends the defense in unnatural ways. Remember how Kevin Durant looked at Texas? He bent college defenses in ways that no one was prepared for. His team could be beaten, but no one could stop Durant. He was the rare guy in the mid to upper 80s.

Now think about the NBA. There are tons of guys with that type of skill level. Guys that were All Americans in college are role players in the NBA because other guys are just better. You make mistakes and people end up wide open for dunks and open threes. And in the NBA, they make you pay for that.

Would I like to see a shorter NBA season? Yes, but I think if that happens, it will end up crushing college hoops. If guys are only playing 5 times every 2 weeks, players will be fresher, which means they will play all out every night, like the playoffs, but all season long. And at that point, the quality of basketball is so much higher, there's just no comparison.