Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:45 am Mari and Mitch are the band aids for when the better recruits fall victim to the ncaa.


insurance against The Rules, if you will.

Except that there’s no reason to believe the “cheating” is limited to top 40 guys.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:42 am I'm sure we can find examples of both.

What were/are Mari's and Mitch's negative personality traits? None.

I'm not making a grand declaration. Just saying that only wanting 40-100 type guys will result in a lot more Mari and Mitch type players than Frank and Devonte type players.

I want us to have the best players possible. That means OADs and those 40-100 ranked guys. Just because Embiid and Wiggins didn't do well in their 1 tournament isn't evidence that we don't need those kind of players.

We're a game behind a team of mostly upperclassmen who were ranked well outside of any top 100 ranking.

Not sure why you're trying to downplay that you benefit from having multi-year players and developing talent.

It's not like every blue chipper pans out either...how many games did Diallo win for us?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:49 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:45 am Mari and Mitch are the band aids for when the better recruits fall victim to the ncaa.


insurance against The Rules, if you will.

Except that there’s no reason to believe the “cheating” is limited to top 40 guys.

Whatever bro, if Mitch wuz cheating he woulda had someone hook him up some ink by now so he could at least look like a real basketball player.

But for real, good point. How often does the ncaa demand the 6th grade report cards of second tier recruits? Are the blue chips more likely to ask for/receive? Just higher profile in general?

I mean if the ncaa wanted they could dig deep enough to find dirt on just about anyone. And even if they don’t find dirt, just drag their feet to the same effect.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:58 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:42 am I'm sure we can find examples of both.

What were/are Mari's and Mitch's negative personality traits? None.

I'm not making a grand declaration. Just saying that only wanting 40-100 type guys will result in a lot more Mari and Mitch type players than Frank and Devonte type players.

I want us to have the best players possible. That means OADs and those 40-100 ranked guys. Just because Embiid and Wiggins didn't do well in their 1 tournament isn't evidence that we don't need those kind of players.

We're a game behind a team of mostly upperclassmen who were ranked well outside of any top 100 ranking.

Not sure why you're trying to downplay that you benefit from having multi-year players and developing talent.

It's not like every blue chipper pans out either...how many games did Diallo win for us?

I'm not downplaying that we need multi year players at all. We need both. Like you said it's not either/or. I've said I prefer multi year veteran guards, although Dotson is making me rethink that stance at a rapid rate.

Diallo won us probably zero games, but the complaints came game after game that he should have been playing over Lucas (a multi year vet who was clearly better at that stage in their careers). From the same people saying "give me 40-100 ranked guys over OADs all day". It's just inconsistent. It's like when we look like we're not going to get a 1 seed and people say they would rather be a 2 seed anyway.

My point about rankings was pretty simple.

You have the very best 5 or so players from a given class that, of course you want on your team because they have a large immediate impact. Wiggins, Jackson, etc, they're no brainers.

In the next 20 or so ranked players, you have a number who are going to be good, but not great college players who only stick around for one year. Just glancing at last years NBA draft I'm talking about guys like Troy Brown Jr, Lonnie Walker, even someone like Gary Trent, they're all good, but not great for those schools. Where you basically have a one year player who's going to be your 3rd or 4th best player but has enough potential to still get drafted.

I'd rather have someone ranked something like 26-50, who might not be as good, but stays 3 years. I think there's more value 26-50 than say 6-25 because I'd rather have the guy who scores 8 ppg as a freshman, 11 ppg as a So., and 14.5 ppg as a Jr. before going to play in Europe, than have a guy for one year getting 11.5 ppg before having a 6 year NBA career as a journeyman bench player...even though he's the better basketball player, because the 3 year guy has the better college career.

I'm not saying you exclusively recruit those guys, I'm saying given a large enough sample size, you're getting more outta 26-50 than 6-25.

The 1 and done changes will likely eliminate some of that uncertainty you get with guys like Cliff and Diallo, that both clearly would've been very good college players had they stuck around, but they never wanted to be in college in the first place.

Then you can randomly get lucky with guys like Selden or Rush who are supposed to be 1 and done but end up playing multiple years.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:20 am The 1 and done changes will likely eliminate some of that uncertainty you get with guys like Cliff and Diallo, that both clearly would've been very good college players had they stuck around, but they never wanted to be in college in the first place.

Then you can randomly get lucky with guys like Selden or Rush who are supposed to be 1 and done but end up playing multiple years.

Right, the problem with my idea is the gray area for guys ranked 15-40...there's obviously no clear division between who's a OAD and who's a multi-year guy. But that's why coaches get paid the big bucks.

The problem is the NCAA's silly amateurism rules.

Why in the world should the mere act of declaring and/or being drafted preclude you from playing college ball.

And why can you do it in baseball and still be amateur?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:27 am The problem is the NCAA's silly amateurism rules.

Why in the world should the mere act of declaring and/or being drafted preclude you from playing college ball.

But we'd still be debating about recruiting guys, and I'd just be saying, you want to land the recruits who are good enough to get drafted but who decide to play college ball for 2-3 years instead because they're not ready for that level of competition.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:40 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:27 am The problem is the NCAA's silly amateurism rules.

Why in the world should the mere act of declaring and/or being drafted preclude you from playing college ball.

But we'd still be debating about recruiting guys, and I'd just be saying, you want to land the recruits who are good enough to get drafted but who decide to play college ball for 2-3 years instead because they're not ready for that level of competition.

Point being you'd have a lot less guys ranked 6-20 that would stay only one season. Guys like Selby wouldn't have to go sit the bench at Memphis right away. Could stay those 2-3 years that you desire.

That'd be what's best for the players.

It is 100% true that opening up some ways for kids to get money while playing basketball would keep kids in school (and college basketball) longer.

And prepare them better for live after basketball...which comes a lot faster than most expect.

I thought this was all about doing what's best for the kids and protecting them?

Pwhit, what meters do we have available on this site? Is the Doyelmeter still available?

roiboi, illy and gutter.

Nice piece by Jesse Newell about Self making adjustments to help Dedric be more effective.
https://kuhoops.com/ku-basketball-news/226280155/

Nice job Mitch!