Moore
-
BShark said:
Grimes, Dotson, Moore and Garrett are all good at driving. Teams are definitely going to pitch a tent in the paint.
Except for NOVA.
NOVA will try to get Grimes, Dotson, Moore and Garret to drive every possession!
3 > 2
Every drive is an auto-stop, or a self stop, if you will.
Every drive is choosing to attempt 2 points instead of 3 points.
Thus, every drive is foolish.
Every drive instead of a trey is 1/3 of a self stop.
Each time a team takes a 2 point attempt, when it could take a 3 point attempt, it is a monument to stupidity, unless…
One is playing the clock with a big lead over an opponent late.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Interesting concept. Under you theory a physical WV type press would create more TO’s and FT’s which should take away the 3 opportunities for an opponent.
-
Nic Moore.
Ah yes poor HCBS. The system works against him at every turn. Meanwhile the great rankings cover-up makes Jay Wright (an excellent talent evaluator and coach in reality) look much better than he really is! When you factor in that KU never gets calls well gosh it’s rather amazing HCBS has the will to field a team. A true maverick, a renegade trying to defeat the system that definitely doesn’t funnel him players too.
-
Thanks for weighing in.
Yes, yes, and I think we laymen are only barely beginning to catch on to how the coaches are probably thinking about this and approaching it from a number of angles simultaneously.
Huggins is an exceptional defensive coach, same as Self.
They are predisposed to working with different kinds of players and so they probably take different strategic paths.
Coaches do not have the luxury we fans have of thinking ideally about what would work, or about what kind of players might be best.
Coaches from early on in their careers learn that there are certain kinds of players they can reliably sign year to year, and that among those there are certain kinds that they are most successful at working with to get them to improve and play the type of game the coach feels he can coach.
Each coach has to find out what he is good at and then learn how to be as flexible and adaptable within that range of “who he is” and “what he can sign” as possible. But Self just cannot become Huggins, or vice versa. They can borrow certain things, but they cannot in most cases simply copy the entire program, because they cannot sign those kinds of players, nor coach in that particular kind of way.
But nevertheless, all the good ones are all skilled and smart enough to massage the strategies on both ends of the floors to try to get to a net benefit in scored points vs. allowed points.
Huggy, Izzo, Bo Ryan, Ben Howland, long ago apparently inferred that basketball could be played at a level of contact that was so frequent that referees simply would not call all of the fouls. From that moment, the game has gotten more and more physical, despite brief respites when fouling thresholds were lowered and more fouls were called to try to deincentivize fouling everywhere all the time.
Huggins defense is one way to hold down total points attempted and accuracy. By stretching full court, it enables more opportunities to foul in transition, where refs anecdotally seem less likely to call the fouls of a certain kind, and then all of the hubbub in transition makes the refs anecdotally seem less likely to call all the fouls in half court. To call fouls and to try to control a game with foul calling, referees have to have a feel for the flow of the game. When WVU presses it is not only disrupting the other team, but the referees, too. it can backfire on WVU, as it did one game against KU where the referees appeared to feel they were tired of being had by Huggins and so simply called a ton of fouls on WVU and none on KU.
Self’s M2M that funnels the ball to help in middle is another approach. KU fouls a lot once the ball gets into the middle. Sometimes they get away with it and other times not. It depends on the arena and the opponent.
Neither Huggins’ defense nor Self’s defense is very good at forcing the shooters out of the 20-25 foot strip of the 3 point shooting area. Both are more attuned to disruption of the flow of the offense throughout the half court area, especially the first initiation pass. They are good at keeping the ball out of certain hands and delivering help quickly and unexpectedly.
Jay Wright’s break through IMHO was to dust off Jud Heathcote’s old 1-3-1 matchup zone that Heathcote used when Magic Johnson was there. If you are tall at PG and one wing and have two bigs, the 1-3-1 matchup is a great zone that can really stretch and shut down open looks from outside or inside on ball side. Jay seemed to take the concept and mask it by playing several zones in match up fashion and this enabled him to push the the opponents three point shooters farther out consistently, and then rely on his two bigs inside whenever they could sucker teams to escape the pressure by moving into mid range 2 pt areas of the floor. This ability to shut off high percentage three point shots and challenge and deny the inside, hamstrung opponents into contested 2pt shots that worked to magnify Nova’s great three point shooting and Jay’s insight that Nova should always try to shoot 5-10 more treys than the opponent could get off.
I suspect we will see quite a bit of advancement in blending defenses schemed to deny the trey, and offenses schemed to generate open look treys on the other end.
So: even though I like to bust Jay’s chops, I think the game owes him and whoever got those six trey ballers, including two post trey ballers, a debt of gratitude for showing another way to skin the basketball cat.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I don’t know if I’d go as far as a debt of gratitude. Some ways of skinning a cat are gross.
Watching James Harden and Steph Curry walk up the court and launch Ill advised threes for half of their series made me sick. Just mind numbing garbage.
If the game is infact dumbed down to a simple truth of 3 > 2, is it enjoyable at that point? Is it watchable?
-
Your palpable disgust with the kind of play 3 > 2 seems to be generating reminds me of my father’s disgust at first the proliferation of the one handed jump shot that made the long range two handed set shot obsolete.
It also reminds me of many others of his generation and their dissatisfaction with the proliferation of the dunk, which largely obsoleted the hook shot and the layup.
Further, it reminds me of me back during the mid 1990s (culminating in the dreadful 2000 championship slugfest between MSU and UW) grumbling about the referees apparent decision to “let’em play football” and the rise of the prison body bigs that literally knocked drivers into the cheap seats at times.
All rules changes trigger both foreseen and unforeseen effects, and desirable, and undesirable styles of play.
Rules determine the path tendency of interplay.
Rules changes change that path tendency.
Some times the changes come instantly, other times slowly.
The three point shot was first tried in a college game in 1945 and then rejected.
It was not instituted until 1967-68 in the ABA. Seven foot former center Commissioner George Mikan said the three point basket would help keep the little man in basketball and open up the defense to make the game more enjoyable for fans. The ABA also encouraged slam dunking to attract fans as well.
The NBA followed suit in 1980 with a 23-9 trey stripe.
FIBA followed in 1984.
From 1980 to 1985, the college three point shot came conference by conference . The Southern conference was first. Most followed the next year and from 1981 to 1985 the three point stripe ranged from 17-9 to 22-9 away from the basket. Interestingly, Michael Jordan’s career at UNC from 1981-1984 paralleled the spread of the three point shot in college basketball and in 1981 the ACC three point stripe was only 17-9 feet from the basket.
The three point basket was standardized across college basketball at 19-9 in 1986-7 and first used in the NCAA men’s tournament that year–the same season the trey was adopted in women’s basketballl at 19-9 also.
In 1987, high schools adopted the 19-9 stripe.
In 1995, the NBA tried to spike up scoring by moving its 23-9 stripe in to 22 feet.
In 1998 the NBA moved the three point stripe back to 23-9.
In 2007 the NCAA men’s stripe was moved out to 20-9.
I have recalled the time line above to show how herky jerky and uncoordinated the adoption of the rule and evolution of the rule has been. The lack of continuity and standardization of the rule early on seems to have set in motion a diluted and delayed recognition of its potential for changing the game.
Just because some one was a good three point shooter in high school did not guaranty they would be in college. And being a good trey shooter in college did not mean they would be in the pros.
As a result, for a long time, the three point shot’s potential was explored mostly by coaches at programs that could not field rosters of players that could use athleticism to “get to the rim” and to jump shoot over others in the mid range.
Also, the tendency of shooters to vary widely in their accuracy game to game discouraged coaches from relying on the basic mathematical advantage of 3>2, because every so often, on a cold shooting night, cold shooting would nullify 3>2.
But the biggest discouragement of the there point shot came in the 1990s, when muscle ball spread from the NBA to the NCAA. Muscle ball eroded the timed offense. It eroded trying to avoid contact when defending in order to keep from getting fouled up. What it encouraged was physical disruption of running routes, of making timed screens and timed passes to achieve open shots. All shots began to be contested, even violently, if necessary,. Unable to run motion offenses and timing offenses effectively, offense began to be played as physically as defense.Charging and backing down, and muscling to the rim became the higher percentage plays, if you had the prison bodies to play that way.
But after the fiasco of the 2000 season when the NCAA finals became a tooth rattling scrum of poor shooting teams involving prison bodies from MSU and UW, the NCAA set out to try to clean up the flagrant physical contact for a few years. Driving athleticism and kick outs to three point shooters had a renaissance till the latter part of the Naught Decade, when a skill and muscle restoration occurred. More rules changes stymied the muscle restoration, but something interesting occurred before the muscle restoration was stopped. Teams began to try to both muscle inside and kick and shoot outside.When the rules shut down the muscle restoration, college basketball coaches began to notice that: a.) the NBA was relying more and more on the three point shot; and the new college rules made driving ball seeking the short trey was feasible. Teams relied on some of both. More rules changes ended drive ball, when referees began not calling the fouls n necessary for the short trey. That left the trey.
My point is that 3>2 is a long term structural force incentivizing offense outside, especially when other rules changes discourage other paths of play.
The play you refer to by Golden State is annoying on one level, but it is simply sound offensive strategy.
ALWAYS try to attempt as many points as possible; that invariably leads to choosing treys over 2pts shooting.
All TPTB have to do is change the rules a little, and the path tendency of shooting treys instead of 2s will redirect.
The question is: why do TPTB think that the public prefers to see trifectation over athleticism.
It would, after all, be very easy to make a rule that any basket made inside of five feet from the basket gets 3 points also.
Or it would be easy to make any mid range jumper worth three.
Nothing is written except the rules.
And they can be and often are changed.
Rock Chalk!
-
@jaybate-1-0 maybe they could incentivize the 2 point shot by giving teams bonus points at the half if they’ve made x many of them
-
Its very frustrating to realize that the game you loved is being changed by rules that yield foreseen, and unforeseen, consequences you don’t enjoy, and wish were able to be reversed.
It is one of the less pleasant aspects of aging. As with any rules changes, basketball rules changes usually have short and long term effects. When we are young, all we have to reconcile with are the short term effects, which to us are sudden, sharp, and which we make quick reconciliation with by either accepting, and continuing on with our participation in the games, or by saying, “Phooie with this, I don’t like this game anymore and I am moving on to other games.”
But the longer term effects of rules changes to games surface much later and they often hit us after 30, but certainly after 40. In mid life we begin to REALLY resent these changes, because: a.) we are highly invested in the games by then; and b.) we sense there is little chance that this change is going to wind back toward what we prefer, and we have had enough prior experience with negative fall out from rules changes, to be pessimistic that anything new and improved will result.
Further, long term change emerging in our 50-60s leaves us frankly bitter, and tempted by a cynicism we have to wage a constant battle against being consumed by. We realize we are unlikely to live long enough to see this undesirable change remedied,precisely because it has taken so long for it to evolve and emerge, and we know how hard it is to change anything constructively as we age. The older we get the more we realize that change tends to occur as a result of small groups of wealthy influential individuals and their firms exploiting a vulnerability in the system of a game with the sole intent of enriching themselves, while pushing the costs of their pursuit of enrichment on to those not strong enough, or rich enough, or well organized enough, to resist the change exploitative change.
I am expounding on this at the risk of boring you for a reason.
Game theory and institutions, when studied, call attentions to assumptions, rules, incentives, strategies and tendencies of play. They sensitize us–through modeling what games and the aspects of competition the games may simulate–to the individual’s subjective tendency to over emphasize his POV as being most characteristic of the full panoply of play, and underestimating the influence of institutions (rules) and the strategic incentives of others interplaying with his POV and agenda to generate what is actually probable, or even possible.
Games of all kinds have much to teach us about broadening our POVs, beyond the simple enjoyment of games, and beyond how to play them well, or be knowledgeable fans and appreciate them well.
They also teach us a considerable amount about our frustrations in life, as well as what is and is not likely, regarding many competitive aspects of the world in which we live (if we are luck).
There is a concept in the study of institutions (and the game theory used to model and analyze potential institutional effects) called “institutional stickiness.”
Distilled, it is easier to make and impose new rules, than revise, or get rid of old rules, because institutions are “sticky.”
They get entangled and cemented into economic and political eco systems, if you will. It is a very powerful concept, that is embraced as a kind of heuristic, that probably implies a profound underlying law of the 19th Century kind that is simply to difficult and costly to formalize, so we keep it handy as a heuristic.
Problems tempting us to solve them by imposition of rules are often very simply understood and narrowly defined.
We want problems to go away, because problems are painful.
The more simply we define problems, the fewer persons there are we have to admit are impacted by solutions proposed. So: there is real practical (if selfish) expedience and strategic self-benefit to oversimplifying problems and who will be impacted by their solution. And it almost goes without saying that cost shifting is essentially taboo to discuss until after it has been shifted.
Thus, a proposed rule intends to solve a problem defined simplistically, whether a good rule, or a stupid one, but here is the great appeal of a rule: it has little cost of materials in the making of the rule. Its black ink on white paper. Sometimes its just pixels. All it takes is a few persons that think they will benefit handsomely from creating it, plus their perception that it won’t cost too much to get the rule agreed to and imposed on all of us, plus their perception that any large foreseeable and unforeseeable costs triggered will not have to be born by the small group advocating for the new rule.
Thus, there is a tendency to impose new rules, independently of whether there is a problem fixable by rules, or fixable by the rule proposed, that is driven by how much wealth is to be achieved by the small group advocating the rule and by their ability to make others accept imposition of the rule based on their belief that that new rule will make things better.
Alas, when the lying and side payments are done, many go along to get along, and almost no thinks about the unforeseen consequences, because, well, they are unforeseen.
But the conditions for change are quite different, when one considers changing, or repealing a bad rule that has been around for awhile.
First, the bad rule that has been around for awhile, has likely been enriching those that promoted the rule in the first place. So: they are one influential constituency obstructing its revision, or repeal, unless they think they can come up with a rule change that continues their enrichment, or increase it.
Second, all rules, but especially bad ones, trigger a lot of sunk costs in compensating for them. All kinds of expertise from all kinds of fields is brought to bear on problems caused by bad rules to help us live with those problems until the bad rule is changed. Its bitterly ironic, but bad rules are often actually far more cemented in place by sunk costs accreted around helping us compensate for and endure the side effects of bad rules, than are good rules that seem to require little or no professional expertise to perpetuate.
Hence, even the worst rules, maybe especially the worst ideas, become vast professional and enterprise arrays of networked sunk costs embedded in the politics and economy of a culture.
We see this played out even in the seemingly innocuous game of basketball.
It seemed a good idea (to some) to let the petroshoecos give the universities and coaches endorsement money. It meant we tax payers had to pay less for the minor sports and less for hiring the coach, and so on. But down stream, we discovered (or should I say the FBI/DOJ reputedly discovered) somewhat to our chagrins that petroshoecos require certain distributions of talent among schools to pursue their business interests and this leads into incentive methods that lead into all sorts of compliance issues and PR issues and so on that require all manner of experts in law, contracting, admissions compliance, and so on to handle the risk and pain of funding minor sports and coaches salaries increasingly through the petroshoecos. And of course the petroshoecos are part of an emerging petrowear industry trying to migrate the world off natural fibers and onto petro fibers, and trying to use slave/child/peonage labor overseas in countries with often hostile political systems to achieve big margins, and using globally marketed basketball stars to increase petrowear sales abroad and at home, and this draws Big Oil into the equation (petrowear is a huge market and so a big consumer of oil). And, well, universities are often one of the most critical and largest cash cycle activities in a state and so Big Oil and Big Shoe may have overlapping interests/agendas in both markets and politics for oil exports, oil imports, fracking, natural gas development, helium for moving gas through pipelines, oil dome storage capacities, strategic oil reserves, and so on that a state university and its state government and elected officials might be useful in promoting.
All of the preceding makes it so the folks wagging the tail of basketball would also benefit from wagging the tail of the university, and the board of regents and the state house, which still funds quite a bit of the university budget and which influences the state’s choices on political economy issues influencing all manner of linkages with this now vast array of interconnected organizational interests inside and outside government.
Comical as it sounds, changing the three point stripe one foot in (or out) could have one effect on the game (or other), but also possibly a further ripple effect outwards through the organizations I have just outlined. Often, the effect of a change in the three point stripe would be insignificant in term of foreseeable outcomes. All folks can see that. But big players like Big Oil and Big Shoe and Big Government are creatures of complexity. They live with complexity and the unforeseen consequences of interacting with that complexity 24/7, or at least quarterly in their statements that drive their stock values and particularly the incentive clauses of management.
Complexity and unforeseen consequences make the Big Players prefer changes that either perpetuate the status quo (something in your example, that you increasingly find objectionable), or change that so vastly benefits them alone that they do not have to worry much about unforeseen consequential enrichment of potential adversaries downstream. As a result, in the tiny insignificant backwater of college basketball, either nothing in the way of rules changes can happen without the watchful, cautious eye of this vast network of self interested big players, even for good reason, or only something that vastly, asymmetrically enriches those already embedded and being nourished like ticks attached to a blood reservoir the size of the Lake of the Ozarks. (Note: Jason Bateman’s OZARKS series, though not filmed much on location, is quite fascinating in a dark, one-eyed, occult sort of green tinged light way, but I digress.).
All of the above is a long way of saying be careful what new rules you wish for, because you only have to enrich a relative few to bring them about. And don’t hold out a lot of hope for changing bad rules without one helluva dog fight, because existing rules are cemented in often vast and unexpected ways to unexpected players that you may not have the fire power to face down and prevail over.
The above is old news and mastery of the obvious to many.
But sometimes old news is worth remastering in an age of fake news.
Rock Chalk!
-
With @jaybate-1-0 geting on a roll lately, scrolling through his posts is helping me get in great shape for the many expected thumb wrestling contests during our g-kids upcoming visit home!
-
BShark said:
Nic Moore.
Ah yes poor HCBS. The system works against him at every turn. Meanwhile the great rankings cover-up makes Jay Wright (an excellent talent evaluator and coach in reality) look much better than he really is! When you factor in that KU never gets calls well gosh it’s rather amazing HCBS has the will to field a team. A true maverick, a renegade trying to defeat the system that definitely doesn’t funnel him players too.
First you appear to be polishing a turd, when apparently trying to use conspiracy hooey to distract from the “fact” that Nova played 6 > 39% trey shooters reputedly ranked 75-100 that outscored and out defended teams stocked with reputedly 1-75 ranked players. How did Jay do it? How did a guy who was a .600 coach prior to a few years back (if I recall correctly) get 75-100 ranked players to walk all over 1-75 ranked players for a season and a post season? How did those darned 75-100 ranked players steamroll those 1-75 rank players? Are the rankings completely unreliable? Or are you trying to tell me that a guy that was a career .600 coach prior to a few years ago suddenly figured out the key to making 75-100 rank players walk all over 1-75 rank players?! How did Jay do it? I don’t believe in conspiracies, or cover ups. I am asking how did he do it? Do you understand the difference?
Next, and as I have related to you recently, I categorically reject the idea of a conspiracy, or a cover up in this situation. I don’t believe anyone is covering anything up. Conspiracies are for suckers, unless the authorities prove them.
Next, some questions:
-
What is the legal definition of funneling you refer to? Is there a law against being “funneled” players? or is there a law against certain ways of funneling players that Self has never been convicted of, or even charged with so far?
-
If Self were being funneled players, and if this funneling were illegal, why would Self not be being funneled as many players as other coaches at elite programs were being funneled?
Might I suggest an electric orbital sander for you polishing needs?
-
-
You appear to have a fanfiction narrative regarding KU. Now to address some things since you asked.
Jay is a good coach. Omari Spellman was #20, Brunson #22. Not exactly sub 75. Let me know when Villanova is named in the indictment.
Funneling as in Adidas paying players to pick an Adidas school/KU. Self played the game. Selby, Collins, Wright, Arthur etc… If you think those were clean I don’t know what to tell you. There were others too, but those 4 were perhaps the most glaring. It’s a good thing the probe came later, though as we found out…Preston was paid. Josh was paid. Not by KU or Self, it’s just the way the system works.
-
mayjay said:
With @jaybate-1-0 geting on a roll lately, scrolling through his posts is helping me get in great shape for the many expected thumb wrestling contests during our g-kids upcoming visit home!
Please write longer posts, so I too can get in great shape!!! I depend on you.
-
I think the best offensive strategy for every team has to be customized to their strengths and weaknesses.
GS has Curry, Thompson and Durant on the perimeter. They have some of the best shooters at distance so the long ball game works for them.
Until there is a NBA team with that firepower from distance, I expect to see a lot more GS championships!
-
mayjay said:
With @jaybate-1-0 geting on a roll lately, scrolling through his posts is helping me get in great shape for the many expected thumb wrestling contests during our g-kids upcoming visit home!
Page Down works well. Also the down arrow on the band at the top of the screen allows you to skip to the next post quickly…
-
I think perhaps all of us are guilty of watching too much TV news… which has become one big plate of political conspiracy accusations.
I 100% believe that Bill Self has never illegally conspired with representatives from any shoe company, AAU or high school coaches, handlers and anyone else.
Just knowing Bill, his upbringing, his career up to now… I just don’t see him being that type of person to knowingly do things he knows is illegal, either in the US court of law or within the legal framework of the NCAA.
Of course he knows things go on… he knows all of the shady people exist and talk to his recruits. What should he do? The only thing I can think of is that he should quit coaching if he can’t handle these kinds of people hang around the players he recruits.
No one in college basketball is “innocent” including us! We all know there are shady things happening… so why aren’t we volunteering to tag along with recruits and help guard them?
I do not believe Bill is complicit with any activity that can put Kansas at risk, or his players or staff. He suffers from the same lack of innocence all of us have; knowledge that bad people and events surround college basketball, especially with top high school recruits!
-
@drgnslayr The rest of y’all may be guilty, but I am now, and have always been, innocent and have never cheated in any fashion. Mr. Boline’s accusation in 11th grade Trigonometry was without foundation, all rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.
-
I see Charlie as a 4-year player and knowing that, he is trying to maximize helping us by growing into a better player every year.
Charlie is going to get his share of PT this year. He could easily win a spot, even a starting spot.
What I like about Charlie is he will be with us for his remaining eligibility (hopefully) and that will bear us plenty of fruit. He will become an experienced PG… especially with Self-ball. Experience is what counts at PG.
So Charlie may be kept from big minutes in his career if we find top tier PGs that can earn minutes right away. That is just the risk he took by coming to a top blue blood program. But he will always be challenged here and play against top players. I feel sure Charlie will make his time in Lawrence pay off for him… and for us!
-
@JayHawkFanToo I only read this board on my phone. No page down button!
-
There are reports published that you intentionally dropped your pencil under Sarah Cantrell’s dress in 9th grade.
Statements? Comments?
(no malice - just humor)
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
mayjay said:
With redacted geting on a roll lately, scrolling through his posts is helping me get in great shape for the many expected thumb wrestling contests during our g-kids upcoming visit home!
Page Down works well. Also the down arrow on the band at the top of the screen allows you to skip to the next post quickly…
I should really do this instead of engaging/humoring him.
-
@drgnslayr I think he used to be more involved but isn’t anymore. This is just pure conjecture on my part but man, the 4 I mentioned were very dirty recruitments.
-
@drgnslayr That is a vicious lie! I didn’t know anything about looking up dresses back then!
Full disclosure: I was impeached as class president of my 8th grade Unified Studies class because I was caught with a rubber band after a beleagured Mr. Northcutt banned all rubber bands. Funny true story: my best friend raised the issue in class when I was sick on the day after the horrid misconduct. He wanted to get the regular work off track, and claimed we could learn about impeachment and stuff. Mr N bought it, my friend prosecuted, and we wasted 2 whole days. The most timid kid in class was my defense counsel. 6 votes. I couldn’t even get 6 votes. Boom! Outtahere!!
This was in 1969-70, before Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton made these inquiries popular. Trendsetter me. But it was based on (Northcuttian) high crimes, not cheating.
-
SEE REMARKS IN CAPS
BShark said:
You appear to have a fanfiction narrative regarding KU. [DON’T TELL ME YOU HATE FAN FICTION, TOO!!! } Now to address some things since you asked.
Jay is a good coach. [JAY WAS A .600 COACH BEFORE A FEW YEARS AGO. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT BY GOOD?] Omari Spellman was #20, Brunson #22. [I DID NOT KNOW THAT. THANK YOU FOR ADDING THAT TO THE DISCUSSION. WERE THEY RANKED THAT HIGH WHEN JAY SIGNED THEM, OR AFTER HE SIGNED THEM? THAT’S A PHENOMENON THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES WITH KU RECRUITS. THEIR RANK ASCENDS AFTER THEY SIGN. HOW ABOUT WITH NOVA? I DON’T FOLLOW THEM AS CLOSELY AS YOU SEEM TO.] Not exactly sub 75. Let me know when Villanova is named in the indictment. [I WILL, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE. BUT WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT VILLANOVA BEING NAMED IN AN INDICTMENT, OR NOT? I THOUGHT YOU WERE A KU FAN, RIGHT? YOU WANT ME TO TELL YOU IF NOVA IS IDENTIFIED AS A VICTIM IN THE INDICTMENT, RIGHT? AND ARE YOU INSINUATING YOU HAVE INSIDER INFORMATION ABOUT KU—THE REPUTEDLY REPORTED VICTIM–BEING INDICTED? THAT WOULD SEEM TO INVOLVE SOMEONE BREAKING THE LAW GIVING IT TO YOU? SHOULD’T YOU GO TO THE AUTHORITIES WITH THIS APPARENTLY INSIDER INFORMATION AND REPORT IT? OR ARE YOU JUST SPECULATING WITHOUT INSIDER INFORMATION AND WITHOUT BEING A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL? I AM NOT CRITICISING YOU EITHER WAY. YOU JUST HAVEN’T MADE THESE ISSUES VERY CLEAR TO ME YET.]
Funneling as in Adidas paying players to pick an Adidas school/KU.[WHY DO YOU CALL IT FUNNELLING? WHY DON’T YOU JUST CALL IT PAYING PLAYERS. IS IT ILLEGAL TO PAY PLAYERS, OR JUST A VIOLATION OF NCAA RULES, OR BOTH? IF SO HOW? AND WHY IS SELF ABLE TO FUNNEL SO FEW PLAYERS THAT HE HAD ALMOST NO DEPTH AT THE POST LAST SEASON–CERTAINLY NO THREE POINT SHOOTING POST MEN LIKE NOVA, RIGHT? WHY DOES SELF HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE FUNNELING PLAYERS WITH MONEY, WHEN YOU MAKE IT SEEM LIKE JAY DOESN’T EVEN HAVE TO FUNNEL AT ALL TO SIGN 1-75 PLAYERS AND 75-100 PLAYERS THAT PLAY BETTER THAN 1-75 PLAYERS? TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR THINKING HERE. I DIDN’T KNOW NOVA HAD A BUNCH OF 1-75 RANKED PLAYERS.MAYBE YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WHY SELF RECRUITS WORSE PAYING PLAYERS THAN JAY NOT–IF YOU KNOW HE ISN’T.] Self played the game. [HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE? I MEAN, YOU APPEAR TO BE IMPLYING A .600 COACH A FEW YEARS BACK, LIKE JAY WRIGHT, WAS, CAN SIGN 1-75 GUYS LIKE SELBY, COLLINS, WRIGHT, ARTHUR, ETC., WITHOUT EVEN PAYING THEM, BUT FOR SOME REASON YOU ARE POSITIVE SELF PAYS PLAYERS AND THAT KU, IDENTIFIED AS A VICTIM, IS GOING TO BE INDICTED. I JUST DON’T FOLLOW HOW YOU CAN BE SO SURE ABOUT ALL OF THIS. I AM PRETTY CONFUSED ABOUT ALL OF THIS, AND I DON’T CLAIM TO KNOW EVERYTHING YOU DO. I AM NOT SAYING YOU DON’T KNOW. I AM SAYING I DON’T SEE HOW YOU KNOW? MAYBE YOU WILL EXPLAIN HOW YOU KNOW FOR SURE.]. Selby, Collins, Wright, Arthur etc… If you think those were clean I don’t know what to tell you. [WELL, IF JAY CAN RECRUIT 1-75 GUYS AND BE CLEAN, WHY CAN’T BILL? I DON’T FOLLOW YOUR REASONING.] There were others too [WHO EXACTLY?], but those 4 were perhaps the most glaring.[THEY DON’T SEEM GLARING TO ME. I AM NOT EVEN SURE WHAT GLARING MEANS IN A LEGAL SENSE. I DON’T FOLLOW YOU HERE EITHER. AND I AM TRYING.] It’s a good thing the probe came later, though as we found out…Preston was paid. Josh was paid. Not by KU or Self, it’s just the way the system works.[AH, SO YOU APPEAR TO BE SAYING THAT THE 1-75 PLAYERS SELF AND JAY SIGN ARE PAID; THAT THAT IS JUST HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS, BUT THAT SELF AND JAY WRIGHT TO NOT PAY THEM, AND THE SCHOOLS DO NOT PAY THEM. HMMM. SO: YOU APPEAR TO BE IMPLYING THAT SELF AND KU AND JAY AND NOVA WILL NOT BE INDICTED, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PAY THESE PLAYERS; RATHER, THE “SYSTEM” DID. IS THAT ABOUT THE GIST OF IT? YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING NEITHER JAY AND NOVA, NOR BILL AND KU WILL BE INDICTED. WELL, I AGREE, BUT I JUST DON’T HAVE THE KIND OF KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT YOU APPEAR TO HAVE THAT APPEARS TO MAKE YOU BE SO SURE. I JUST DOUBT THAT EITHER BILL AND KU, OR JAY AND NOVA WILL BE INDICTED. ROCK CHALK!
-
@jaybate-1.0 Is there a specific Bengay ointment for thumbs? Overtraining injury…
-
C’mon, man up and hit that key board!
-
I do dislike fan fiction in general yes. However some good has come of it, like Sergio Leonne westerns but I digress.
Brunson was always highly ranked, I know this because KU recruited him. I can’t answer on Spellman.
The KU bump isn’t as big as say, the Duke bump but Marcus Garrett did go from unranked to near top 50. In the last class, Dotson and Grimes were always highly ranked. McCormack bumped up a bit I think. Agbaji went from being a relative unknown, barely top 300 to 128. Probably would have happened if he ended up at say, Wisconsin, which he almost did. He got tons of interest late from major programs which always make the rankings guys spin around a bit.
I don’t think Jay or Self will end up being indicted. Especially given that we have already seen KU players named, but no one even tangentially related to KU. It SEEMS for the time being that KU (and Nova for that matter) are safe.
-
Agreed, but man was it nice to have had trey dingers like Sherron, Frank and Devonte!
And we will have to hope the game turns away from teams having 3-6 > 39% trey dingers in their regular rotations during the next couple years.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
mayjay said:
With @jaybate-1-0 geting on a roll lately, scrolling through his posts is helping me get in great shape for the many expected thumb wrestling contests during our g-kids upcoming visit home!
Page Down works well. Also the down arrow on the band at the top of the screen allows you to skip to the next post quickly…
————
You both are finally getting it!!!
Scroll, baby scroll!
It’s always worked for me
Howling!
-
mayjay said:
@drgnslayr The rest of y’all may be guilty, but I am now, and have always been, innocent and have never cheated in any fashion. Mr. Boline’s accusation in 11th grade Trigonometry was without foundation, all rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.
——————-
Was Mr. Boline a member of the Deep State?
-
BShark said:
JayHawkFanToo said:
mayjay said:
With redacted geting on a roll lately, scrolling through his posts is helping me get in great shape for the many expected thumb wrestling contests during our g-kids upcoming visit home!
Page Down works well. Also the down arrow on the band at the top of the screen allows you to skip to the next post quickly…
I should really do this instead of engaging/humoring him.
——————
By George, he is catching on!!!
First Kim saw the light with Trump.
And now @BShark catches on.
Halaleujah!!!
-
BShark said:
@drgnslayr I think he used to be more involved but isn’t anymore. This is just pure conjecture on my part but man, the 4 I mentioned were very dirty recruitments.
—————-
Evidence please.
-
BShark said:
I do dislike fan fiction in general yes. However some good has come of it, like Sergio Leonne westerns but I digress.
Brunson was always highly ranked, I know this because KU recruited him. I can’t answer on Spellman.
The KU bump isn’t as big as say, the Duke bump but Marcus Garrett did go from unranked to near top 50. In the last class, Dotson and Grimes were always highly ranked. McCormack bumped up a bit I think. Agbaji went from being a relative unknown, barely top 300 to 128. Probably would have happened if he ended up at say, Wisconsin, which he almost did. He got tons of interest late from major programs which always make the rankings guys spin around a bit.
I don’t think Jay or Self will end up being indicted. Especially given that we have already seen KU players named, but no one even tangentially related to KU. It SEEMS for the time being that KU (and Nova for that matter) are safe.
——————
Thanks for getting real.
I was about to call your doctor!
No, wait, that’s your line.
-
jaybate 1.0 said:
BShark said:
@drgnslayr I think he used to be more involved but isn’t anymore. This is just pure conjecture on my part but man, the 4 I mentioned were very dirty recruitments.
—————-
Evidence please.
Didn’t you once tell me that it’s not on you for me to research your claim? Just look into each one yourself via internet search. I’m not going to “do your legwork”.
-
REMARKS IN CAPS
BShark said:
Nic Moore.
Ah yes poor HCBS. [CANT EVEN SIGN 4 CREDIBLE D1 BIGS CLEARED TO PLAY LAST SEASON. CANT EVEN SIGN BACKUPS FOR THE PERIMETER. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?]The system works against him at every ]turn. [CANT SIGN OAD 1/5S. CANT SIGN A LONG OR MEDIUM STACK. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? Meanwhile the great rankings cover-up makes Jay Wright (an excellent talent evaluator and coach in reality [RED PILL OR BLUE?]) look much better than he really is! [.600 TILL SUDDEN TRANSFORMATION] When you factor in that KU never gets calls [GOT’EM AGAINST WVU] well gosh it’s rather amazing HCBS has the will to field a team. [HE APPARENTLY GETS A KICK OUT OF INFURIATING THE ASYMMETRIC SYSTEM WHILE CLIPPING $10M COUPONS!] A true maverick, [YUP!] a renegade trying to defeat the system [HE ALREADY BEAT IT. HOF!] that definitely doesn’t funnel him players too [BUT SPOTS THEM 6-10 TO HIS 2-3 .
ROTFLMAO!———————
I have seen so many come and go. Please. Play nice. You can do it. It’s a friendly community.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I was joking. But towards basketball I do find myself vacillating between the thought process you characterized as being the youthful perspective, i.e. “to hell with this game, I’ll find another” and a deep pervasive sadness as the games I loved and thought would be eternal all have gotten facelifts, and estranged their lifelong friends.
-
I guessed you were joking, and it gave me a good laugh, as you are blessed with a fine sense of humor, but this experience of disatisfaction with change over a lifetime appears widespread in perception among individuals, yet coped with quite differently by each of them. Humor goes quite a way as a saave. But the dissatisfaction can be quite corrosive and life draining for some, while others find positive paths through the sticky wicket. I don’t know the answers of how to avoid the corrosion and stay positive. I am a horse in mid stream still in the big two hearted river. But I can at least share the issue, so others do not think they are alone. Or think something is wrong with them. It’s human as nearly as I can tell.
Rock Chalk!!!
-
Rock Chalk buddy. I just finished coaching my boys in soccer and baseball. Both are moving on to travel soccer. This may be the end for me coaching in both sports. I am pretty emotional these days about sports and transitions for this reason as well. We are entering the Nike puppy mill, eyes wide open, and a lump in my throat.
-
BShark said:
jaybate 1.0 said:
BShark said:
@drgnslayr I think he used to be more involved but isn’t anymore. This is just pure conjecture on my part but man, the 4 I mentioned were very dirty recruitments.
—————-
Evidence please.
Didn’t you once tell me that it’s not on you for me to research your claim? Just look into each one yourself via internet search. I’m not going to “do your legwork”.
——————
Now I recall reading where you’re kind of indulging me and I feel that’s some common ground we share and can build on, for I feel I am kind of doing the same with you.
Next , I said please regarding evidence, didn’t i? I didn’t give you an order, or demand you do it. I should get a kudo for that.
Next, you appeared to suggest you knew something specifically about what Self and KU had done that was “dirty” in each case, so since I don’t know of such info, I thought I ought to ask . And it seemed you could type it off the top of your head. But I’m ok with you not. I try in good faith to take what you give me.
Regardless, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I was hoping you might have something substantive that made you be so sure, because I have read some accounts about some of these examples over the years and recall not reading of any evidence that seemed beyond a reasonable doubt to implicate Self and/or KU in any thing illegal. But I am a legal layman and a fan and so I thought maybe you knew more, but now it appears you didn’t find anything more incriminating beyond a reasonable doubt than I did. I infer you found “indications” of “dirtiness.” Dirtiness is not a legal term of art that I am aware of, so I infer you are not using it to indicate Self or KU committed a felony, right?
FWIW, since reading Murray Sperber’s 1990 “College Sports, Inc.,” and Dan Wetzel’s 2000 “Sole Influence” I have guessed many, if not most D1 recruits and players have received considerations in various forms that would not be in full conformity with NCAA regulations, but I am not clear about whether any illegality has been widespread or not. I have tended to guess that the rarity of criminal convictions in college basketball indicated illegality was either not prevalent, or else so widespread as to be like certain kinds of political and law enforcement corruption treated as normalized and give a blind eye. I could never tell which.
You, however, seem to write as if you know for a fact what goes on with Self both in terms of “dirty” and/or “illegal”, but then stop short, at least in my recall, of supplying evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving Self’s culpable role, especially regarding illegalities. In short, there seems a gap between your apparently confident assertions about Self’s culpability and the evidence. Further your assertions do not yet appear to square with the fact he has not been convicted, or even charged, with any illegalities in procuring players over several decades at several schools.
And when I add in that the reputed FBI/DOJ remarks reputedly characterize KU as a victim, well, then I am not clear why you believe what you appear to believe.
-
Be brave. I have not run that gamut, but can imagine great pride/love and some trepidation mix for a strong life cocktail.
-
BShark said:
@drgnslayr I think he used to be more involved but isn’t anymore. This is just pure conjecture on my part but man, the 4 I mentioned were very dirty recruitments.
—————-
You appear to conjecture purely that “the system” is dirty and so makes Jay Wright and Bill Self recruit as “dirty” as you conjecture purely that they do.
Who do you conjecture purely is responsible for dirtying the system so that Jay Wright and Bill Self appear to recruit as dirty as you appear to conjecture purely that they do?
Note: My question is purely conjecture.
-
@BShark I think they both start. DD/Charlie/Grimes/Dedric/ Doke. First man up w the bigs: Silvio. First man up w the guards: Marcus Garrett.
-
KUSTEVE said:
@BShark I think they both start. DD/Charlie/Grimes/Dedric/ Doke. First man up w the bigs: Silvio. First man up w the guards: Marcus Garrett.
KJ I think will be more of a factor than this. But I see it similar, with the players you mentioned and KJ being the primary 8 player rotation.
-
So no Garrett?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Are you asking me? I think Garrett is firmly in the 8 man rotation and could start.
-
@BShark but not starting? Who knows! 5 guard rotation? I would say grimes for sure, that’s it.
-
I laughed so hard that now I have to clean green smoothie off my monitor and keyboard!
-
I’m hearing that everyone except maybe Doke is working hard on their threy accuracy this summer!
We’ll find a couple of good shooters… long ways to go until tip off!
-
I agree, except for Silvio. He is just too good to keep off the floor, UNLESS…unless he and Jay Wright and Bill Self and Jay Bilas are already in some kind of @BShark insider knowledge based, purely conjectural, but fantastically high confidence witness relocation program as we type. Booga booga!
“Paranoia strikes deep
Into your heart it will creep…”
—Buffalo Springfield, “For What It’s Worth”
Ahem.
Self tries to get his best 5 guys on the floor.
U r probably right at season’s start.
I guess Silvio could back up all year, because he has less experience than Ded and Doke, but…
Wow! Silvio seems a potential NBA stud to me already with just a half season of grooming.
Silvio seems the best big Self has recruited other than The Lion Slayer.
Normally he would sit and learn for a season, but he sat and learned half a season last year instead of attending Prom!
OMG!
Self has to find a place for him at tip off, by mid season, if @BShark, the Feds and the NCAA don’t deny him.
-
drgnslayr said:
I’m hearing that everyone except maybe Doke is working hard on their threy accuracy this summer!
We’ll find a couple of good shooters… long ways to go until tip off!
———————
I never recall more than one mid 30% bricker transmogrifying into a 40% trifectater in a single season, do you?
Therefore the odds of even two of our guys reaching the 40% level seem slim.
And frankly, a team apparently needs at least 3 even to hang on against other teams with 4-6 from the Elite on.
I fear the days of Elite Eight and higher teams with only 1 > 39% trifectaters are behind us, maybe even with only two, also.
But I like your optimism!
-
jaybate 1.0 said:
I never recall more than one mid 30% bricker transmogrifying into a 40% trifectater in a single season, do you?
2014-2015
- Svi - 0.288
- Manning- 0.333
2015-2016
- Svi - 0.402
- Manning- 0.500
You were saying?
