Recruiting Perfection: Bragg Or Bust
-
“You can hate UK all day long, but if they are healthy, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see them playing deep into March again this year.”
If they remain healthy they should be the team to beat this year in March. They’ve got the tallest D1 team of all time. 3 footers to go along with their tall twins out on the perimeter. They are stacked with All-Americans, and many of those are back for year 2.
Their weakness is Calipari being out-coached. Their weakness is still the twins, if opponents can get over all the intimidation of playing such a tall team and get out there and put pressure on the twins. The only way to beat this team is to beat them at x-axis basketball. Win the game from about 6’3" and lower. Big perimeter pressure, steal passes and dribbles, play more physical and get rebounding position and win the boards, draw fouls with fakes, control tempo… just get Kentucky out of their game. The twins will still choke if there is enough pressure. They are still only a few months older than they were last year when they constantly choked. Last… their weakness is too much media all year creating chaos and slowing down their development.
Self is going to have to put the heat on these kids. The pressure starts from the coaches, and ends with the kids putting up big pressure on the court.
We could easily lose our B12 streak this year. We are going to have to really hustle to win it this year.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I don’t believe we were whipped in that game either. However I do believe we played into their hands. At the time I was surrounded by UK fans, and while debating that game with them, I said that we should play Davis straight up (no double team), take away everyone else and make him beat us. The best part of his game was his passing so we should’ve taken that away. This was the thing that worried the UK fans the most leading up to the game. That strategy worked well for us twice against Durrant and Beasley here at AFH. I was really surprised and disappointed when that didn’t happen. Wow, I wasn’t posting here then; that sure felt good to get that off my chest! Sorry if this is all old news!
In regards to Davis and TRob stats, everybody had already crowned Davis National Player of the Year before the season had started. We could have held his stats to zero, had Releford lock him up with big D, and had TRob wear off that unibrow with the bottom of his shoe while hanging from the rim, and it wouldn’t have mattered.
Thanks everybody for letting me get that out. It’s been two years coming!
-
On the OAD thing, I hear everybody’s points but I’m ready to jump off the train. One or two to fill a need is fine, but man, it’s going to make an old man out of me quick!
Maybe the biggest fear I have is that we lose all the great success stories that we get from players growing and then having a chance to make basketball their life. Guys like Releford and DJack are making a living with basketball because they weren’t recruited over and were given a chance. Jamari may be the last one if we continue down this road, and that’s just sad.
-
@KUSTEVE Now, I’m not down on Oubre at all. Looks like a great player. Just comparing to AWIII as a junior. But I sense you are subtly reminding me of my Tharpe love last fall … duly noted.
And you cite Morningstar for the proposition that I’m supporting. This is an alternative universe. If there ever was something to cause me to rethink my entire existence, that might be it!
@statmachine Remember, it’s not Shepherd this next season. It’s Shepherd after theoretically playing one season under Self. And you sure do have lofty numbers pegged for Alexander – you are projecting essentially Julius Randle numbers (15.0 ppg/10.5 rpg). Heck, how many players under Self have ever averaged close to those numbers? TRob 17.7/11.9, Cole 14.9/11.1, Simien 20.3/11.0 & 17.8/9.3. I might temper those expectations a bit. Embiid was 11.2/8.1.
As a note, Shepherd was 9.1/6.8 his freshman season at TCU.
But I really can’t argue with your projections too much … Alexander might be = Randle. I thought Randle was the right plug in OAD last season for us and would have preferred him over Wiggins. Alexander is a nice plug in OAD this season and fills a clear need. My point is that I wish we didn’t need the plug in OAD and had quality, high talent depth instead.
@konkeyDong I like that outside of the box thinking. So who are the guys with attitudes on this team? Mason, Greene, Alexander. Anyone else?
And by the way, I’m not down on Alexander or Oubre at all, so that’s clear. I think they both will be great assets. And Self pursued and bagged the best talent available. The OAD discussion for me is always a macro approach to team basketball under Self.
-
@HighEliteMajor Gotta give it up for ya Maj. once the OAD merry go round starts it tough to get off. They’ve got to tweak that friggin rule, it’s ruining the college game. Surely the L doesn’t want that, it’s their minor league-for free !!
-
@globaljaybird
“They’ve got to tweak that friggin rule”
Amen on that!
“Surely the L doesn’t want that, it’s their minor league-for free !!”
We should all be thrilled at the lambasting of Goodell in the NFL. I’m thinking all the other pro league head offices are thinking of cleaning up their act before their heads go on the chopping block.
There are going to be stories coming up, showing athletes like Selby, who went from 0-100 in two seconds, then back to 0.
Suddenly all the pro sports start thinking about their image and hire marketing and PR people to help them review policies.
The OAD rule might end sooner rather than later because a football player punched his girl in the elevator.
BTW: there is only ONE sport in this country… M O N E Y ! Catch it while you can!
Filmed at 11…
-
@globaljaybird Hey! I was wondering this weekend just what happened to Oakville? He was one of my favorites from the old site. Do you have any idea where he’s at? Any way to send out a search party and coax him from wherever he is to here?
-
@jayhawkbychoice Glad you asked. Some of the guys that are still registered at kusports.com have IM’ed him & they’ve received no response. About the first of the year we even started a thread on buckets to entice him to join in our forum but to no avail. Slayr, HEM, nuleaf, myself & several others wrote snippets on the thread for several days why we needed Oakville to join buckets, but our efforts fell short. Maybe it’s time to revive our quest. He is one funny & hoop savvy guy, & he’s buried deep in enemy territory (ST Louis). Another recon is a damn great idea. Reading Oakville oddities is about the only reason I ever even click on the LJW site anymore. Oak would be in the starting lineup here at buckets-he’s one witty dude.
-
@jayhawkbychoice Not only sad, but wrong. IMO
-
Shepherd is a very good player that Coach Self pursued heavily. My comment was based on HEM’s premise that he had already played one year under Coach Self. It is the proverbial premise of whether you pick a proven player with good potential or an unproven player with greater potential. Also keep in mind that Shepherd will like stay in college longer than Alexander and will continue to improve and it comes a time where you have to look at the long term outlook (Shepherd) rather than a short term boost (Alexander).
-
I agree. As I indicated, KU dug itself into a deep hole in the first half and even when it outscored UK by six in the second half, it was not enough to overcome the deficit. By the way, KU last year’s team was younger than the UK.2012 team The three key players in 2012 UK championship game were 2 sophomores and 1 senior.
-
You wrote:
We were never in that game. Ever. Not when we were 5 points away,
I guess when KU was down by 9 points with 2:12 left against Memphis in 2008, KU was never in that game either, right? How did that game work out?
-
@JayHawkFanToo Ahhh…I wasn’t trying to rub in our loss. That game still gnaws at me today We played pretty well in that game. It was one of the first times I had seen a KU team simply get beat by talent. And that’s a testament to what an amazing program we have. Most of our losses as a team are in games where we simply give the game away in one form or another- where our best effort would’ve won the game, no matter who we play. This game was different - we didn’t play badly - they were simply better.
-
@HighEliteMajor “And you cite Morningstar for the proposition that I’m supporting. This is an alternative universe. If there ever was something to cause me to rethink my entire existence, that might be it!”**LMAO. That’s PHOF material.
-
The nature of college basketball makes it tough to really build for the long term. You are never guaranteed to have a core of players together for more than a few years, even if they all stay in school and graduate.
Think back to the recruiting class of 2004 - Darnell Jackson, Sasha Kaun and Russell Robinson. You add Mario Chalmers and Brandon Rush the next year. That’s a good group. Then you come back the next year and get Sherron Collins and Darrell Arthur. That’s the championship rotation. But it took us three years to put that group together and we had two chances with that group. One chance went down the tubes because of Sherron’s late season injuries in 2007. If Rush goes pro, we never get another shot with that group. Three years of work would have likely been down the drain because of a guy getting banged up down the stretch of the season. We would have had an Elite Eight and a first round loss to show for it.
As I have said, for experience’s sake, you have one shot every three years or so. Maybe not even that. The 2009 team wasn’t talented enough to go deep into the tournament. Sweet Sixteen was their absolute ceiling, I believe. We should have had a shot in 2010 (due in large part to the addition of OAD Henry), but a random upset knocked us out. That’s just bad luck, but that knocked off a team that otherwise probably would have had a chance. In 2011 we got to the Elite Eight, but ran into VCU. Had OAD Selby been healthy, we probably have a Final Four team, maybe even a title considering that was a pretty weak year. 2012 I firmly believe had we had OAD McLemore, we could have beaten UK. Without him, we didn’t have the firepower. 2013 we didn’t net a single elite recruit (I don’t consider Ellis an elite recruit because I feel his ceiling is very good college player) and without our big guns (Taylor, Robinson) back in the fold, we again didn’t have the firepower. This year, more bad luck with injuries knocked us out.
So the question is - do you want one shot every few years when things go perfectly, or do you want a shot every year (or every other year). If you want a shot every few years, recruit for experience. If you want a shot every year, you need the best combination of talent every year. That means OAD’s, because it’s likely that OADs will produce better in their only season than most of the experienced juniors and seniors will.
-
From a talent perspective, you are right, and we stand a better chance by recruiting higher talent.
What really pays off is when players that maybe should have gone pro, hang back for another year. You mention '08… what really worked for us was Rush getting hurt and coming back for another year. We had a good fortune as a result of his bad fortune.
It is hard to talk about chance without talking about luck. We were fortunate because of Rush’s injury the year before, then we were fortunate to keep our guys healthy through the run.
In 1988, turns out we were fortunate to lose Marshall for the second time. It is hard to say that, because we all suffered so much with Archie. But there is no guarantee we would have won it all with a healthy Marshall. Losing him gave that team all the heart they needed to win out in March, even against a tough Oklahoma team with all that talent.
In 2012… heck… were we really the second best team in the land? We didn’t have a single McD’s AA, but we had a team that had endured the loss of Robinson’s mom. That lit a torch in the souls of those guys to step up and push harder. I know that is the most proud second place I’ll ever experience.
The one aspect that is gone from a team of OADs is the relationship of being a team for a longer period of time. That helps the guys come together as a group, especially when something horrible happens and they have to fight through it together. You never hope for bad things to happen, but it took some bad stuff for us to come through in '88, '08 and '12.
Look around at other teams. Louisville losing Ware… UCONN being banned from post season play.
I’m curious to know if we went through the list of champions, how many went through some kind of major struggle that toughened them up to win.
I’m making a point, but I also agree that snagging big talent helps our chances. We just need to try to have a mix with some quality older players, too.
-
Indeed. The nature of the college game has changed big time with the advent of the OAD, at least for the elite programs.
You can build a team 3 ways:
OADs - This is the UK model that depend heavily on OADs, a couple of less than stellar classes and the program can crash. Even with top recruiting classes, a key injury can land you in the NIT and loosing to Bobby Mo.
NO OADs - This the model that most schools use, not necessarily by choice but more likely because they cannot land the big time recruits.
Hybrid - This the model used by KU and several other elite programs that can recruit some elite, OAD players but not enough to go full OAD like Kentucky. Since the program does not depend heavily on OADS, a couple of poor recruiting season might set the program back but would not necessarily create havoc.
I personally prefer the approach that depend on top but not necessarily elite players that will stay in school at least 2 years and preferably more. Let’s face it, if a player is good enough to go to the NBA, chances are he will not stay 4 years, and if he is good enough, he should not; not that many senior in the NBA draft anymore.
To me, the best approach is one similar to the model baseball uses. A player can go directly from HS to the NBA and players like Lebron and Durant do not need to go one year to college, but if the player chooses to go to college then he must wait 3 years.
Several positive results with this approach.
Allows exceptional players a direct path to the NBA.
Prevents HS to NBA busts.
Players that go to college are better prepared for the NBA.
Improves the level of college basketball and competition becomes much better. I will guess the NBA fears a higher level college game that could compete with them for audience.
Last but not least, allows the student-athlete to make substantial progress towards a college degree that he can use if the NBA does not work.
The OAD rule was established by the NBA for purely selfish reasons. There had been a number of HS to NBA busts and the league wanted to observe players in better environment than HS games and hence college basketball became the NBA’s laboratory.
Can you imagine the level of competition we would see in college with teams full of NBA caliber players in their third year? It would be awesome. Would any team be able to beat a KU team with top players in their third year under Coach Self’s system?
-
@drgnslayr Chemistry. Elusive, subjective, non-quantifiable. Chemistry is built. It rarely happens overnight. It can be inspired by events, as you describe. Most commonly, the “us against the world” approach, or the coach bringing the team together by inspiring the team to hate him, thus giving the team a common cause or enemy. Masterful coaches build chemistry in many subtle ways.
Chemistry combined with coaching acumen, most times, overcomes pure talent in team sports. At some point, of course, talent will be overwhelming.
The key is to have high talent, and have the time to mold and meld it into a cohesive group that can execute a competent coach’s desires.
-
@HighEliteMajor “Remember, it’s not Shepherd this next season. It’s Shepherd after theoretically playing one season under Self. And you sure do have lofty numbers pegged for Alexander – you are projecting essentially Julius Randle numbers (15.0 ppg/10.5 rpg). Heck, how many players under Self have ever averaged close to those numbers? TRob 17.7/11.9, Cole 14.9/11.1, Simien 20.3/11.0 & 17.8/9.3. I might temper those expectations a bit. Embiid was 11.2/8.1”
The last 4 to 5 #1 PF’s on ESPN’s top 100 in the NCAA have averaged those lofty numbers. I would imagine Alexander is going to have a long enough rope to achieve those numbers or foul out every game.
-
The baseball model would be interesting for basketball. I don’t think the level of play in college would increase, as most elite players would opt to go the juco route because they can leave juco early rather than being tied to the three year commitment of NCAA ball. For instance, a player like Selden or some of the other highly touted freshmen may opt for juco because they can leave after one or two years rather than committing for three. It could literally cause most top 50 players to opt for NBA, Juco or D-League. Almost no top 100 baseball player ends up actually enrolling in college. Most head to the minors instead. I doubt the cut would be that deep in basketball, but I could see the top 30 or 35 players all skipping the NCAA.
As for HS to NBA busts, there have been surprisingly few. Let’s look at every player that declared for the draft straight from high school.
Looking purely at how they performed in the NBA:
1970’s - Moses Malone, Darryl Dawkins, Bill Willoughby. Willoughby was the least successful of this era, but he played 8 years in the NBA. Dawkins played 14 years and Malone is a hall of famer.
1980’s - Shawn Kemp. One of the best players in the 1990’s.
1990’s - Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O’Neal, Taj McDavid, Tracy McGrady, Al Harrington, Rashard Lewis, Korleone Young, Ellis Richardson, Jonathan Bender, Leon Smith. Garnett and Bryant are future HOF’s. Jermaine O’Neal and Tracy McGrady were perennial all stars. Harrington and Lewis were both rotation level players for the bulk of their 10+ year careers. Bender fell out of the league due to a congenital knee problem. Young and Smith were both busts. Richardson and McDavid weren’t even D1 recruits when they declared, so its no surprise they didn’t make it.
2000’s - Darius Miles, Deshawn Stevenson, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, DeSagana Diop, Ousmane Cisse, Tony Key, Amare Stoudemire, DeAngelo Collins, Lenny Cooke, LeBron James, Travis Outlaw, Ndudi Ebi, Kendrick Perkins, James Lang, Charlie Villanueva, Dwight Howard, Shaun Livingston, Robert Swift, Sebastian Telfair, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Dorell Wright, Jackie Butler, Martell Webster, Gerald Green, CJ Miles, Ricky Sanchez, Monta Ellis, Lou Williams, Andray Blatche and Amir Johnson.
Big group here. James is one of the best of all time. Howard and Stoudemire have both been elite players when not saddled with injuries. Chandler, Livingston, Jefferson, both Smith’s, Ellis and Blatche have all been starters for multiple years in their careers, at times performing just below all star level. Williams, Johnson, Wright, Outlaw, Webster Stevenson, Brown and Perkins were/ are all rotation level players during their careers. Butler, Sanchez, Key and Lang were not big D1 recruits. Darius Miles’ career was cut short due to chronic knee issues. CJ Miles and Gerald Green have been in and out of the NBA. Villanueva went to college and eventually became a lottery pick. Curry, Diop, Cisse, Ebi, Swift, Collins and Cooke were all busts.
That’s 49 players total, a little less than a full draft. There are no less than four HOF or future HOF (Malone, Garnett, Bryant and James). You could make a case that Dwight Howard is a future HOF. For all star caliber players there’s Kemp, O’Neal, McGrady, Stoudemire and Jefferson. That’s 9 players that are at least all star level players. There were only 15 players that should be considered busts in the entire group, and 6 of those guys weren’t even major D1 recruits. That means that there were as many all star level (or better) performers as there were outright busts if you consider the players that had a reasonable shot, since declaring for the NBA draft really only requires paperwork.
I actually had a high school teammate that didn’t even start for us consider declaring for the NBA draft just to get his name in the newspaper since all of the declared players are listed. He had no aspirations of playing in college, so his eligibility wasn’t at risk. It was going to be a joke more than anything. He didn’t, but I kind of wish he had. He had as much chance of being drafted as a guy like Taj McDavid.
-
@Statmachine I don’t (and wouldn’t) expect Shepherd to average 15 and 10 as a sophomore. That makes your case more convincing. If Alexander bangs out those numbers, my mind will be pried open to the OAD way of thinking. I think your citation to those stats is very compelling.
That got me thinking. Sullinger was one of the PFs you cited. Same height as Alexander? Sullinger a tad bulkier. Never seemed really overmatched height-wise in the post. But that might be a very good comparison. I’ll take Sullinger’s 17.2/10.2 and shut up about OADs. Question is, @Statmachine, can you deliver the goods?
-
@HighEliteMajor Anthony Davis sported the shirt #'s don’t lie in a pre draft interview lol. We will just have to see how Big Cliff does in comparison to his predecessors?
-
The model would work the same as it does now but instead of being 1 year removed from HS it would be 3 years. The JuCo is a no go since it does not provide the level of competition or exposure that players need and the 3 year period after HS would still apply. The only options would be the D-League and overseas teams but there is only a limited supply of space there, so the bulk of players would still go to Division I schools.
As I indicated, the true elite players can still go directly to the NBA and skip college altogether. As far as the busts, the NBA GMs themselves indicated that the one year rule was establishes specifically for this purpose; I personally heard Kevin Pritchard, former KU player, indicate this much in a radio interview on 610-AM while he was still GM of the Portland Trail Blazers. keep in mind that every lottery player that does not pan out ties the team to $12M-$15M, not an insignificant figure. There is lots of information on players that left after one year and did not do well in the League. The consensus seems to be that only players selected in the top 10-11 (almsot all lottery picks) have consistently performed well, but players selectedbelow that are hit and miss and most end up as journeymen in the League.
-
Our culture is so different than it was 40, or even 20, years ago. One of the problems is that so many of these kids come from single-parent homes. Many of them have come from homes that have been in poverty their whole lives. It’s understandable why a Selby or McLemore would want–or need–to start earning money ASAP.
One thing that could alleviate the OAD issue would be for the players to be paid a decent stipend for playing D1 basketball. At the very least let them borrow money at low interest. They generate millions of dollars of revenue but don’t get enough to help their family back home.
I don’t think either Selby or McLemore would have been an OAD If Ifnances had not been a factor they had to consider.
-
The thing is, most any player selected outside the lottery is hit or miss, regardless of experience.
For example, let’s take the 16th overall pick. That’s a non-lottery, mid first round pick. John Stockton was a 16th pick. That’s pretty good. Ron Artest, Hedo Turkoglu and Nick Young were, too. Not bad. Bill Wennington. Tony Delk. Some solid players here.
But Troy Bell, Jiri Welsch, Randy Woods, Kirk Haston all were 16s and they were not productive at all. You can find a good player at any pick, but outside the top 10, there are some massive misses.
The sad truth is that there are some guys that can play at that level and some that can’t. If you can, you will last in the league, even if you struggle for a few years. If you can’t, you will wash out regardless of experience.
Take Jermaine O’Neal for example. Through his fourth year in the league, O’Neal never played even 1000 minutes for a season. He didn’t average even 5 points or 4 rebounds in any one of those years. I suspect many people would have labelled him a bust at that point. The next seven years in the league O’Neal averaged 13/10, 19/10, 21/10, 20/10, 24/9, 20/9, 19/9 and was an all star six times. Jermaine O’Neal was able to survive because he was a good enough player to merit an NBA roster spot that entire time, and once he took off, he took off. After that peak, he spent 3 years averaging a very solid 13/7.
Now the question is this - would Jermaine O’Neal have had a better NBA career if he had gone to college? Looking at that peak again - six all star seasons, averaged a double double 4 straight seasons, averaged over 20 per game 4 straight seasons - does college improve on that at all, or was Jermaine O’Neal prepared just as well by sitting on the bench in Portland for four years as he would have been playing at Clemson or North Carolina. I would say this - going up against NBA players every day in practice was much more beneficial to his development on the court than going up against guys with no pro future because it made him develop his skills even more so rather than depend on his superior athleticism and size in college.
-
@HighEliteMajor I have ran many numbers to figure the odds of Alexander producing the numbers I have previously posted and my way of figuring things produce a ±1. I did it on Wiggins for example and his numbers were 2 points higher than his predecessors but if you were to average minutes per game and then punch in Wiggins MPG (which were higher) its a 1 point difference using Wiggins MPG instead of the average MPG of the previous 3 SF’s. MKG, Shabaz, and Barnes #s are about 1 point different than Wiggins Freshman stats. So depending on MPG Cliff should produce that 16 ppg and 10 rbg ±1. As long as he plays at least the average amount of time his predecessors did. Its a work in progress…
-
@Wigs2 I would point out that no one made Selby or McLemore go to college. They each could have played immediately overseas – Israel, Turkey, Russia, wherever – and could have sent money home. Further, if they really needed to help at home, then they could have skipped college all together and got a job. The problem isn’t the NCAA and stipends. You suggest now stipends so they can send money home, which is different than the “pizza money” narrative. The problem is simple poverty and that’s a broader problem. Yes, the kids are part of a process that makes millions. but so are the employees at McDonalds earning minimum wage. The college hoops players get value far exceeding minimum wage. Simply because you participate in a multi-million dollar industry doesn’t mean you deserve to earn an owners’ share of the profits. The players are replaceable parts. The NCAA and colleges own facilities, trademarks, and the business itself. Selby and McLemore each made a choice to come to college under the LOI they signed. I do wonder though, even if both would have had let’s say, Zach Peters’ parents’ financial situation, would they have still gone pro? I don’t know.
@Statmachine – When I was looking back at others’ numbers, I saw Aaron Gordon was 12 ppg and 8 rpg. Does your analysis take into account system and teammates? For ex., if a kid is the top option, or one simply one of many weapons?.
-
@HighEliteMajor I feel strongly Ben Mac would have stayed, he was crying when he left. Going to school, having hot water, food, a bed, mentors, tutors, friends, etc. meant the world to him. He truly was happy here. Selby I don’t know. I do feel sorry for him!
-
@HighEliteMajor Is that a realistic possibility? Are overseas teams seeking to sign American high school players? I’ve heard of it being mentioned to go overseas right out of high school, but I’m not aware of any who have done it. And–judging by what I’ve read about Svi–if they want to play in the NBA, it might be detrimental to their long-term future if they decide to play overseas first.
And although you say that the players “get value far exceeding minimum wage,” I 'm not convinced that’s a good argument since they are in school to play basketball–not learn business or psychology. I think that all too often, they are being used to make big profits for the schools and the NCAA.
Other students who are on scholarship don’t have the same restrictions and demands that athletes do. I’m from the old school, but I think it’s time to start allowing some financial assistance.
-
@Wigs2 coach browns hot recruit went overseas, mundiay(sp).
-
@Wigs2 Dante Exum played overseas instead of college and so did Brandon Jennings, although Exum was a foreign player, I think.
Reed is a good example of a player who is getting a good value for his time here. I think he is at KU Med school right now. I’m sure others know more about that.
-
KU graduates just about every player that stay 4 years and many that left early come back to finish their degree; Cole Aldrich was Academic All-American Player of the year in his third and last year at KU and took summer classes to complete his degree and proudly walked down the hill, which is something that he had promised his parents. BTW, the “greatest walk-on” at KU, Christian Moody, also went on to Medical School and Sasha Kaun got a degree in Computer Science.
A small group of players that attended (and hopefully graduated from) KU end up in the NBA, a few others are coaching or working for Athletics programs but the great majority of players end up working in a fields other than basketball or sports.
-
@HighEliteMajor My analysis doesn’t get that in depth atm. Gordon was not the #1 PF on the ESPN top 100 (which is weighted more than other poles).
-
@Wigs2 Here are a few considerations:
-
Playing overseas is completely realistic for many players, particularly the better players. This season, Emmanuel Mudiay signed a $1 one year deal in China, and just signed a $3 million shoe deal. He had signed with SMU, then changed his mind. But that’s the big money example. If a kid has talent, there’s a lot of crappy pro teams he could eke out a living with. The point you are making is money, and playing for pay.
-
This is perhaps the best point. If anyone argues, well, who would want to play for such little pay? Or there aren’t real opportunities? Ok, then, that’s a consideration – there is no real market for their current skill set. You said that for their long term future, playing overseas may be detrimental for their futures – ok then. The best deal they have is the NCAA. It’s all about choice.
-
Other students on scholarship have no parallel to student athletes. Those other students aren’t in a sports competition. where outside influences, boosters, etc., could taint the entire playing field with outside money, benefits, etc. Moreover, and more importantly, the only reason the basketball player is getting a scholarship because he can play basketball, not because he has a high GPA or ACT score. It’s because of basketball. Take away the hoops, take away the scholarship.
-
And that’s the next point. If a kid wants the freedom to work while in school, or market his skills, don’t accept the basketball scholarship. Get a student loan, or grant, and work, and go to school. Quite obviously, the basketball scholarship is the better deal.
-
You imply that they aren’t in school to “learn business or psychology.” Folks make this mistake all the time. The college athlete many times chooses the easy path. The African American studies path. But others choose a more challenging path – look at Tyrel Reed. It’s there for the taking. Or Christian Moody, a walk-on, as cited by @jayhawkfantoo. All the tutoring one could want. Most often, the easier path is chosen, and that probably fits many times with a player’s academic acumen. Many people forget that. Many of these kids choose easier degrees because they just aren’t smart enough to pursue more difficult degrees. No shame in that.
-
“Fair value” - Free tuition, free room and board, free food, free books, free tutoring, free clothes, free cable tv, free room phone. Oh, but they might have to pay for a pizza. But guess what? At KU, part of the meal plan includes a certain number of pizzas. If a kid comes from nothing, his standard of living increases many fold living on scholarship.
-
You mentioned it again – you said, “I think that all too often, they are being used to make big profits for the schools and the NCAA.” I say, so what? Look at McDonalds, Home Depot, Nike – they make their billions in profits of low paid workers. Why are they low paid? Because they have no other appreciable, marketable skill. Same with the NCAA basketball players. The NCAA and colleges have all the risk. Folks forget that. It’s the big, bad rich and powerful. But the NCAA and colleges build the facilities, manage the programs, negotiate TV deals, create sports networks, and create the environment to permit athletes to play in college for free, and to hone their skills so that they have a chance to make a living in their chosen sport.
Look at today’s story at kusports.com. Jaylen Brown says he may play overseas because he wants to help his family. Good for him. Stephen Zimmerman’s mom says he won’t ever sign a LOI because of the restrictions. Smart. It’s freedom of choice. The lower tier guys just don’t have as much leverage. But it’s still all about freedom of choice. Every kid has it.
-
-
Here’s the truth about athletic scholarships
-
Scholarship athletes, particularly in the money making sports of football and men’s basketball, are typically steered away from more challenging majors by academic advisers. I know this for an absolute fact. Advisers will set the student’s schedule for them, and they steer them towards easier courses with “athlete friendly” professors so they don’t have to worry about eligibility, and because being an athlete requires missing a healthy amount of class, especially at the D1 level. This isn’t about intelligence so much as its about whether the athlete will insist upon changing their schedule (and major) and going against the adviser. I personally know athletes that wanted to pursue a particular field and basically had to fight the athletic department academic adviser as well as the coaching staff to let them take certain courses or switch majors.
-
Many of these athletes have other skills. It just so happens that their most valuable skills are athletic. Many of these athletes are skilled musicians, writers, artists, etc, but none of those professions offer them a chance to make the kind of money their basketball skills could translate to. If you have one career path that could lead to a $1m per year job and another career path that could lead to a $35k per year job, which would you pursue first?
-
Colleges fear the changing of the OAD rule because of the things I cited above about the possibility that NCAA basketball starts becoming more like NCAA baseball. That is the unspoken thing here. NBA GMs do not say this on the record, but the scouts do - they are already heavily critical of the level of play at big time college basketball programs. It’s just not very high. Look at KU’s schedule last year, the toughest in the nation. You want to evaluate Andrew Wiggins as a wing player for the NBA. How many games did you have where you had enough opposing talent on the wings to really evaluate Wiggins? Let’s count - Duke, Florida, Colorado, San Diego State, and Oklahoma State (2). That’s it. Six games with NBA caliber talent/size on the wing to evaluate Wiggins against. KU played 35 games last year. 29 were worth very little from a level of competition standpoint for a guy like Andrew Wiggins. If you start having the OADs skip college again, the level of talent will be even lower. At that point, the TAD’s and others with NBA potential are, at least from a basketball perspective, better served to play wherever the rest of that talent flows. If you have to stay three years, the top talent won’t be flowing to the NCAA. That means either juco’s or the D-League will be getting most of those players. That terrifies the NCAA since the NCAA tournament represents about 85% of the entire income for the NCAA in any given year. The NCAA is the currently accepted path, but if there’s a rule change, there’s no reason that has to continue.
-
That whole “walk on” if you want freedom thing? Not true. Check out the Baker Mayfield situation between Texas Tech and Oklahoma. Mayfield was a walk on at Tech last year that happened to end up being their starting QB. He has since transferred to OU, but Tech initially blocked his transfer and he is now in a position where he may not be eligible to play this season, even though he was not on scholarship at Tech. OU may not even be able to give him a scholarship because of the transfer situation with Tech. And this for a kid that was a walk on to begin with.
-
The NCAA and colleges take almost 0 risk when it comes to student athletes. One of the false assumptions is that a scholarship is a four year investment. Completely untrue. A scholarship is a one year commitment, renewable for up to five years. We see all the time that students are released from scholarship for all sorts of reasons, be they academic, behavior, or athletic. But just because you make grades and attend practices, there is no guarantee that your scholarship will be renewed. That is at the discretion of the coaches each year. If a player doesn’t perform as well (or if a better one comes along) you can just not renew the scholarship of a returning player. The student athlete is guaranteed nothing - not a four year degree, not full tuition, nothing. The athlete is the one risking injury performing for free. They play while banged up or risk that their coach will tell pro evaluators they lack “toughness” or “heart”. I know for a fact that this has happened in the past, too.
Changing the OAD rule could be a boon for colleges if top players continue to come to college. It could also turn D1 basketball into a product that looks a lot like D1 baseball.
-
-
@HighEliteMajor What is the risk for the NCAA? And, out of all those schools that have taken so much risk, can you name any that have lost anything by taking that risk?
-
@drgnslayr I read your post about the 2012 Hawks and “proudest 2nd place finish”, and no doubt got a bit emotional about it in a Dick-Vermeil-sort-of-way. The issue with that team was the whole season they got off to slow starts, and it caught up with them vs KY, despite outscoring KY in the 2nd half.
I’d remind everybody that we had 2-3 missed dunks (point-effin-blank), and about 2-3 clanked FTs in that game…if that team could have won, I may have liked them better than the 08 champs, since '12 could have done IT without all the pieces that '08 had.
@Statmachine I agree with you about the value of talent, and think KY this year should be ranked #1, due to their incoming talent PLUS their 3-4 *talented guys returning who have Final4 experience". Look what that mix did for Calipari in '12. Look what raw talent alone did for KY in '13 (NIT), and for KU last year (lackluster).
The other point to make about talent is this: Self isnt bring a bunch of Bradys & Tharpes in here…the guys he brings can still jump outta the gym, etc…they just need what his keen eye thinks he can add to their game, which is a priceless process to watch. I dont want to lose such a true, pure, and intuitive coach like that. Tyshawn#70, TRobTop50, WitheyTop30, RelefordTop40, EJ5starTop20. Not a MickeyD on that team, but no slouches either. I’d take TRob OVER McdAA Ellis anyday! (fire under Ellis intended.)
Winning a NC every season is simply NOT possible. Making it back to the champ game back2back is statistically highly unlikely. In a one-loss-go-home tourney format, yall ask yourselves how often do these decade-o-dominance ku/Self teams even make it to the BigXII Tourney Champ game? Definitely not every season. So temper the Final4 expectations back to realistic proportions…is what I tell myself the last few years.
-
@Wigs2 Well, it’s really the member institutions. The NCAA is a governing body so my reference including the NCAA is not that important in this point. But money doesn’t grow on trees for member institutions. Facilities cost millions, coaches and their contracts cost millions, etc. The “risk” is not all paid cash on the barrel head. There is debt carried forward. Further, you have the involved individuals such as administrators who have their livelihoods tied to the athletic ventures. And don’t forget, the revenue from sports covers a large chunk of non-athletic expenditures. “Risk” is also the venture itself. If the venture starts to fail, as in any other venture, that’s when the balance sheet bleeds red. When balance sheets turn negative, folks lose their jobs, services (programs) get cut, assets are liquidated – it’s business.
-
I agree with every point you made…the world must be coming to an end.
The underlying theme of our culture is that we have choices, some might have better (or worse) options but in the end we all have the option and freedom of saying yes or no.
The average athlete at a programs such as KU has a lot more options than the average student that has to depend on family money, loans, scholastic scholarships (none even close to an athletic scholarship) or part-time classwork with part-time work or a combination of all. Enough said, you presented perfectly.
-
@HighEliteMajor For most of the NCAA institutions, your point is probably more accurate than it is at KU and other elite basketball schools. But most schools don’t have anyone thinking about OAD–e.g. UMKC. Hardly any have someone who would–or could–decide to play overseas instead of playing college ball.
We’re talking about upper-crust, elite players–not those that even a school like K-State is normally recruiting. Those players who are almost sure-fire NBA talent.
Assuming that there are 13 full-paid scholarship players each year, the amount of money you’re talking about is at most $400K. Considering attendance, television and radio, apparel sales, etc., how long does it take KU or Kentucky or Duke to make that amount of money? Ten minutes into the first game?
I say there should be some way to provide additional financial assistance beyond the scholarship to get them away from the OAD mentality.
-
“One thing that could alleviate the OAD issue would be for the players to be paid a decent stipend for playing D1 basketball.”
They just need to own their own names. In any other situation this would be protected by federal laws… but the NCAA “slave league” somehow wins out over federal law.
If they owned their names they could already be pulling in licensing revenue. As we well know, even top HS recruits might already be millionaires coming out of HS… funny thing… they already have big reps today while in HS and a big value with advertisers and shoecos. They have that value WITHOUT any involvement from D1. Wiggins should have been a millionaire in HS.
Someday there will be one smart attorney with ethics and the balls to take this challenge the right way to the courts, and not just what the NCAA does with players’ names, earning them a small cut.
-
What planet do you live in? No disrespect intended.
You are looking at a tiny fraction of the expenditures for the basketball team.
Operating expense per participant: $127,886
KU total Basketball expenditures: $10,724,156
KU Total Basketball Revenue: $16,412,415
The revenues are not generated by the players alone. Revenues include TV contracts, endorsements, trademark even concession stands. All of this require a number of administrators (and yes, attorneys) to get the revenues flowing. The Jayhawk trademark and brand popularity alone likely contribute the most and are largely player independent.
Here is the official government source:
Source of financial information for Educational Institutions…
-
@JayHawkFanToo Agreed that the revenues are not generated by the players alone. However all those revenues you mentioned would not happen without the players–especially the elite players. And I’m not saying to pay them all several million a year. But I see no problem with the school loaning them money till they get to the NBA.
But if Josh Selby had been able to have been able to help his family while he was in college, he almost certainly would have returned to KU for at least one more year. Then he could have paid that money back when he got to the NBA. Unfortunately, he most likely felt the need to go for the instant money rather than wait to develop into an NBA-caliber player.
-
@Wigs2 said:
@JayHawkFanToo Agreed that the revenues are not generated by the players alone. However all those revenues you mentioned would not happen without the players–especially the elite players. And I’m not saying to pay them all several million a year. But I see no problem with the school loaning them money till they get to the NBA.
But if Josh Selby had been able to have been able to help his family while he was in college, he almost certainly would have returned to KU for at least one more year. Then he could have paid that money back when he got to the NBA. Unfortunately, he most likely felt the need to go for the instant money rather than wait to develop into an NBA-caliber player.
Ben McLemore comes to mind too. Might have returned to school if his name could have made him enough money to support his family. Regardless I think even if you give players the chance to make money which I agree with, most will realize that the tree’s are greener just around the corner (NBA). So while a kid can love the College life/game /value education the chance for professional fame and much bigger money is always going to win out.
-
@Wigs2 paying players is a slippery sloop. Is not getting a free education good enough? If a family was poor raising a future NBA star (so rare), then why couldn’t they live in poverty for a few more years so their son can not only hit the NBA lottery but have an education to go with it? You know in case the basketball thing doesn’t work out? You know as well as I do so few actually make it.
Sorry back on point here. So who’s to say that KU offers a player 3,000 a month to come play at KU, and then UK offers that same player 4,000 to come and play? So what happens now? Where is this line? Who looks over this line? Where does it end?
It’s not as simple of hey we should pay players in the college game. Maybe if some of these families actually cared about their sons. They wouldn’t put pressure on them to skip an education (like they did)(are you seeing the madness yet?), or experience that will last him a life time so that he can chase some lotto money that will leave him broke and his family.
As for borrowing money? What happens if said player doesn’t make it? Then what. How this kid supposed to pay back this money that he never earned?
Just my two cents.
-
@BeddieKU23 I never understood why Bens mom didn’t come to Lawrence. So many parents have come and found jobs while the kids played.
-
@DoubleDD “If a family was poor raising a future NBA star (so rare), then why couldn’t they live in poverty for a few more years so their son can not only hit the NBA lottery but have an education to go with it?”
I’ve never had to live in poverty, and I doubt many on this board have. That comment about living in poverty “for a few more years” is an example of how so many who have never had to live in poverty feel about the underprivileged.
If any system like this were to be implemented, it would have to be based on financial hardship. Again, I am not suggesting that schools just start doling out huge sums of money. But I think if there was a serious concern by college administrators and coaches, they could make it happen.
And I do think that a player such as Selby would have returned for a second season if given the opportunity to prove that he belonged in the NBA. Unfortunately, leaving after his freshman season probably cost him millions that he will never recover.
-
@Wigs2 well my friend I grew up quite poor, and my family never demanded that I lead them out of hardship. Never once did they consider me a as their meal ticket, or the way out of poverty.
You keep bringing up Selby, but lets bring up Embiid. He didn’t need the money, and wanted to stay. Yet all his advisors said go. So he went.
Bottom line when a young man is looking at millions just by signing on the bottom line, they’re gone. Whether it’s the right thing to do or not.
So let me ask you this question. What happens when this players don’t pay back the money when they don’t make it? No really I’m curious. Are the colleges supposed to absorb these costs? You do know that most colleges that participate in sports are in the red? Meaning they are loosing money. And you want to add the burden of supporting these players families on loans that are mostly likely not to be paid back?
It’s quite obvious that we have views that are quite different. You feel the being in poverty is a society problem and that we should just throw money at the problem at that will fix it. Yet 90% of all people that when the lottery are worse off than before they won that pile of cash. We could also point to the fact that all those great college players that go pro, Over 60% of them go broke. I grew up poor, but made a decision that I wasn’t going to live from paycheck to paycheck. Not to toot my own horn, but I have had a job since I was 12 (well except that time I was laid off after 9/11)(yet within 4 days I had another job), I’m nothing special, just realized no money coming in doesn’t pay the bills. I’ll shovel cow shit to pay the bills if I have too.
-
@DoubleDD I have not suggested that money be tossed around to just any player who wants it. Nor have I suggested that all schools participate in a program.
The reason I have brought up Selby is that he is the KU player that I think has been hurt most by leaving the program early. And I don’t think he would have left if he had felt he had a viable alternative. I would have mentioned McLemore also if he had not been drafted. Embiid’s case doesn’t apply.
At the time I first mentioned the concept, we were speaking specifically in reference to OAD’s. And only those elite, upper-crust players who have financial hardship. The ones who could go to the NBA right out of high school were it not for the rule that requires they be 19 to play in the NBA.
The elite players don’t go to schools like UMKC. Almost all go to elite basketball programs like KU, UK, Duke, UNC, UCLA. Those programs are not operating in the red.
Another alternative would be to allow them to bypass college and participate in the NBADL but not in the league till they turn 19.
-
@Wigs2 one problem my friend. Your wanting to make special rules for only certain schools and certain players. That’s not fair to other schools and other players.
