Kansas Jayhawk News and Notes 1.12.12
by Owen on Jan 12, 2012 3:00 AM CST
in Kansas Jayhawk News and Notes
Email
PrintKansas Basketball
Red Raiders suffer ‘good whipping’ | KUsports.com
Billy Clyde and Billy Eugene walk into a bar...
Thomas Robinson dominates atypically | KUsports.com
Robinson showed some flashes of other areas of his game last night. We may not be as deep this year, but we do have some guys that play with major confidence at times and Robinson is one of them.
Milestone mauling: Bill Self gets 250th KU win | KUsports.com
Time flies. But hey, he wins.
Thomas Robinson tops Keegans against Texas Tech | The Keegan Ratings | KUsports.com
A little update on the bball Keegan ratings
KU thumps Tech after chippy first half | CJOnline.com
Another recap.
KU pulls away for 81-46 rout at Texas Tech - KansasCity.com
The game started as a grinder. And just like that it got out of hand.
Women's Basketball
KU women rally to beat ISU in double OT | CJOnline.com
Women move to 13-2, 2-1 in league play.
Big 12
What we learned in the Big 12: Bowl edition - Dallas Colleges Blog - ESPN Dallas
The season's over, but our look back is just beginning. Here's five things we learned this year in the Big 12.
MU battles for 76-69 win at Iowa State - KansasCity.com
Solid win for Mizzou. I'm a believer in the Mayor up in Ames and I think Hilton is going to become a tough place to get a win once again and that time may yet come as early as this year.
College Football
If A College Football Playoff Won't Help Players, We Don't Need It - SBNation.com
Agree or disagree?
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't even get that Bomani Jones article.
There shouldn’t be playoffs in college football because ARG BLERG RAWR?
by sax solo on Jan 12, 2012 6:59 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
That about sums it up.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
that sums up basically everything he has ever written
I write everywhere. You're probably better off following me on twitter
what?
The point of the article is that fixing the bigger problems—namely that “academics” and “student-athlete” seem like the lowest priorities of the NCAA—should be the thing to address not BCS vs playoff. I don’t think he actually says “There shouldn’t be playoffs”; in fact, he says the BCS is broken. I think this is the best line:
The BCS is a symptom, not the disease.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 12:48 PM CST up reply actions
Symtoms need to be managed too...
The article just seems tangential and has a deep zero sum assumption fallacy. I mean I could keep going; the situation in the Sudan demands that college football be suspended until the situation is resolved! How dare you tie your shoes when people are starving in Baltimore!
Symtoms need to be managed too…
Right, and like he says, don’t manage those symptoms by making the disease worse, i.e. adding a playoff that adds time to the “athlete” part but not the “student” part and brings in money for the schools but gives nothing to the players.
deep zero sum assumption fallacyFrom what I see, he says focus on the problem, don’t make it worse and don’t spend time on the less-important issue of a playoff if it doesn’t help things. Time and energy are somewhat fixed resources – time/energy spent reworking a playoff scenario takes from time/energy fixing a broken NCAA system; they aren’t mutually exclusive, but they’re not totally separate either.
the situation in the Sudan demands that college football be suspended until the situation is resolved! How dare you tie your shoes when people are starving in Baltimore!I don’t think you can just state any old analogy and assume that it fits. Otherwise, a contradictory one: I’m going to keep working on replacing the faucet knob even though the pipe beneath is broken and leaking. The difference (I probably don’t need to explain this) is that tying my shoe has virtually nothing to do with me not helping these starving Baltimoreans, while me replacing the knob is affecting me fixing the pipe.
The further I get in to this, the more it seems like you disagree with this claim that I think the article is making and I think I agree with: Focusing on the BCS/playoff at best does nothing to help fix the underlying problems in current NCAA system, and at worse serves to take time and energy away from fixing those problems and even makes things worse.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 4:34 PM CST up reply actions
Fixing the BCS/playoff system would at least allow the schools to capture more of the money they generate
If it goes to the school, it has a chance to help the student-athletes, but if it’s being siphoned off by the various bowl committees, there’s no chance it can help the student-athletes. It seems that getting the money away from the bowl committees (or at least getting rid of ticket purchase and hotel reservation requirements associated with bowls) is a necessary step to any plan to give more money to the players. Because, right now, there’s no money left in athletic department budgets to give to the players even if you wanted to.
by KSinDC on Jan 12, 2012 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree that this is a good thing.
If it goes to the school, it has a chance to help the student-athletes
And same for getting rid of the siphoning by the BCS entities. But I’m skeptical of how much of that really gets to the student-athletes (or the students, who probably should be first in line, considering the mandatory funding they provided), at least in the current climate of how the NCAA seems to work (meet the new boss, same as the old boss).
And this goes to the point that if a playoff really does help promote the student-athlete, then let’s do it sooner rather than later.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 5:00 PM CST up reply actions
Oh sure nitpick the analogies.
I don’t think they are very related, and I don’t think that article makes a good case.
In fact, I think it’s more compelling case that this is the perfect time to change the college football post-season. Conference realignment and the LSU/Bama BS game has lots of people pissed off at the BCS. They’re noticing that the BCS is a parasitic entity that (unlike the NCAA) provides nothing of importance or value. That’s not going to last forever.
Whereas the desire to change the whole makeup of college athletics (not just cfb) is still something that is being hashed out, something on which reasonable people disagree and there is no clear popular will. People have been shouting at each other about this stuff forever and we’re not close to agreeing on any major change. Yeah, the NCAA needs to suck less, but paying players is actually continuing along the road to sucksville, it’s not fixing anything.
There’s a great opportunity to fix something stupid about the college football postseason, and saying that we shouldn’t do that because we have to use all our energy shouting at each other about this other thing and accomplishing nothing—-to me, that’s irresponsible bullshit.
Ubben's article is pretty good.
A lot of valid points. Not bad for a MU grad.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
I had to laugh a little...
when I saw this;
The Big 12 beat teams like Stanford, TCU, Florida State, Washington, Northern Illinois and California along the way.
Notably the mention of Northern Illinois without mentioning that it was the big 12’s weakest team that beat them. Not sure if that would’ve helped or hurt his point.
Bomani Jones is wrong on many levels
But if I could single out just one thing, it would be the idea that college athletes in general (or football players in particular) are underpaid.
Setting aside his idea that a college education is supposedly worth less to them (which just seems patronizing), I really want to know how many of the 4000 or so guys playing on scholarship for FBS schools would be making money playing football. How many guys on KU’s team last year would be making anything if there were some mythical football minor league? Any of them? Even on a team like OSU, there’d be only a handful.
And, like all minor leagues, a professional football minor league wouldn’t pay much of anything. If the NFL age restriction was still in place, there’d be a few superstars-in-the-making who’d get paid serious money but everybody else would be playing for the same sort of peanuts as guys in AA baseball (salary: $1500 / month) or the NBDL ($20K per season). Is a college education really worth less than that?
This whole claim that athletes are exploited really boils down to 5-10 superstar players per year and all of those guys get paid anyway when they get drafted. Where is the harm here?
by KSinDC on Jan 12, 2012 9:52 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
I disagree with his piece too...
Mostly due to the fact that its based on a premise of “we shouldn’t improve this flaw because there’s a bigger flaw that would still be there.” Just because you don’t solve everything with this fix doesn’t mean you don’t fix it.
But I think most of the outrage of athletes vein underpaid is due to the administrators that become so grossly overpaid on the backs of those athletes. I agree that it’s condescending to consider the college degree worthless, but just because they get substantial value doesn’t mean they aren’t earning and/or entitled to more. I would back off that stance if the money they were earning we’re better distributed back into the schools.
by hiphopopotamus on Jan 12, 2012 10:19 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
I agree the coaches and administrators are overpaid
But I think we agree that the money should rightfully go to the school for academics instead of to the athletes.
The non profit status
Of athletic departments, bowls and other related entities needs to be looked at. The money keeps growing but a non-profits, they must spend all they take in. Perhaps more should be directed back to academic programs and schools, as KSinDC suggests.
There are many tentacles to this thing. Attempting to solve or improve them all is impossible.
by jayhawk1996 on Jan 12, 2012 11:04 AM CST up reply actions
I'm sort of surprised that there hasn't been more Congressional inquiry
I know the IRS is too cash-strapped to undertake any more big investigations right now, but Congress (especially Sen. Grassley) is usually willing to go after the sorts of obvious tax abuses that entities like the Bowls present.
As for athletic departments in general, I don’t really have a problem with them being organized as non-profits, but I do think there should be a limit on the size salary that a non-profit can pay to anyone. The IRS (rightly, in my opinion) objected when some non-profit hospitals were paying their CEOs $2M+ a few years ago. Seems like college coaches shouldn’t be getting paid that much either.
I think you're mischaracterizing the premise
"we shouldn’t improve this flaw because there’s a bigger flaw that would still be there."
Jones says this, which I take to be closer to the premise
What will any new postseason format do to help the players?
I think he’s arguing for change that helps the players, and against it if it harms them:
So what would players get from an altered postseason? The same “pay,” maybe more games and chances to be the next Melvin Bratton or Willis McGahee, greater temptation, and more missed classes. Only two schools will play for a title — just like now — so few of them will even get to be vaunted “true champions.” They’ll just get a lot more hell and no more money, and the public will be there to make sure they receive both.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
Has Willis McGahee suffered from being Willis McGahee?
My biggest problem with his argument is that he’s assuming each player is only out for himself and not the chance to play for a championship. Having the opportunity to compete for the championship in a playoff would be one of things that I would love if I were a player.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
He really seems only to care about the biggest stars in the game
The rest of the players, for whom college will be the peak of their athletic careers and who probably care more about winning in college than the guys who are just making a pit stop on the way to their million-dollar paychecks, probably care about getting to play meaningful games and controlling their own destiny on the path to a championship.
Depends on what you mean by "underpaid"
To me, it means, are they making their market value? I think it’s pretty clear that the players are worth more than they’re paid. If you don’t agree, then consider this: Let’s say Weis were allowed to pay $10,000 to a player to entice him to sign with/transfer to KU. Would Weis do it? Of course he would, in a second, for at least dozens and dozens of players. But he can’t, so the player works for less than he could earn (and the school pays less than it would be willing to pay).
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 1:02 PM CST up reply actions
To counter that, many players on full scholarship are overpaid in your example.
True?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
If they were overpaid, the school wouldn't give them the scholarship in the first place
In fact, they already follow the practice of removing the scholarship as soon as the player doesn’t fit their needs.
I meant $10,000 in addition to the scholarship, if that wasn’t clear.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 1:49 PM CST up reply actions
You mean like...
all those scholarships handed out to non-revenue sports which are primarily funded by Football and Men’s Basketball? Not that they’d get any more scholarships by adding a game, but it is ridiculous to think that getting an education that most people pay a lot of money for is not a valuable paycheck.
Even if they go to classes that will do them no good in the future because they are going to be an elite athlete instead of getting a normal job they are still getting an education in football from some of the most expensive teachers on campus. Sure, you can’t get a degree in football, but that is hardly the university’s fault.
You don’t see a big movement to pay grad students any significant money to do research which might lead to a super-lucrative cancer-curing drug which would be property of whoever is funding their pittance of a grant, do you? At least the elite athletes can see the light at the end of the tunnel and know that they will be making a ton of money after working in their internship and the less good athletes will probably work harder in the classroom and walk away with much less debt. That’s more than can be said for the vast majority of the population.
I’d bet that most students that worked jobs just to pay the bills would trade places with these poor overworked souls in a heartbeat for nothing more than the scholarships.
by FLJhawk on Jan 12, 2012 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This is part of the problem
poor overworked souls
No one is calling them that. The issue is whether the NCAA is looking out for the players’ best interest and whether they are underpaid. Whether or not the players are “poor souls”, they are certainly operating under the will of a monopsony that is the NCAA.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 3:51 PM CST up reply actions
name me an employee
whose boss is looking out for their best interest. Why should college athletes be entitled to that?
Use the forks
mine...
Well, my situation is different being military. My “boss” really is looking out for my best interests. But with my 2 civilian jobs I had, the owners looked out for me too. Both those were small businesses in construction. One had a total of 5 employees and the other 6. The second one, the boss was always pushing me to either further my education to do something better or look into a different career. This wasn’t cause I was a worthless employee either. When work got slow, he kept me and laid of his own son. Being small businesses though, the boss has to look out for his employees or else work doesn’t get done. If work doesn’t get done, they don’t get paid.
by hawkinwichita on Jan 12, 2012 7:52 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
The NCAA is not the athletes' employer and it claims to be looking out for the players' interests
I don’t think the NCAA would describe even the relationship between school and student-athlete to be employer-employee. I think they’d compare it to the Boy Scouts of America and individual scouts or something similar like that. It’s set up as a paternalistic relationship, so it’s fair to ask if they’re looking out for the players’ interests.
I just think that using the money to provide a college education to players across a wide range of sports rather than paying a handful of players in the revenue sports as much money as possible is looking out for the players’ interests.
I think this is a very valid way of looking at it
using the money to provide a college education to players across a wide range of sports rather than paying a handful of players in the revenue sports
And something I agree should be the goal of college sports in general (use the revenue sports to buoy the non-revenue sports).
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 13, 2012 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
I can't follow the $10K example if I try to think it through
Obviously, Weis would want to give more money to players if money was unlimited, but if money is unlimited, everybody is underpaid.
If Weis or other coaches wanted to do it out of existing budgets, they’d be constrained by the fact that the vast majority of FBS athletic departments lose money. They could ask for a bigger subsidy from the university, but that’s not really different than assuming unlimited money, so we’re left with two possibilities:
- paying players more by taking the money out of the other expenses (primarily coaching salaries); or
- paying football players more by taking money out of the other sports (which almost has to mean cutting scholarships in other sports).
I don’t think Weis would be likely to give $10,000 apiece to “at least dozens and dozens of players” out of his own bank account, and taking the money from other sports just shows that while some players are “underpaid,” others are equally “overpaid” so I can’t see what the global problem here is
out of his own bank account
wouldn’t he? He wouldn’t spend 100k per year to get ten recruits he wants? (If not 100, then what about 50? 25? There’s some amount that CAN’T be paid to the players that coaches/schools would like to pay.) Coaches/schools/boosters already spend money on players – they wouldn’t spend more if they were openly allowed to?
while some players are "underpaid," others are equally "overpaid" so I can’t see what the global problem here is
That IS the problem. I can see a valid argument where we say Damian Miller (the kind of player teams would be willing to spend money on) sacrifices some income so that the softball team can exist – maybe that’s a social net positive. Otherwise, we’re robbing Peter to pay Paul – doesn’t seem like the best solution.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 4:01 PM CST up reply actions
If the problem is that the stars are underpaid, that's solved by the money they'll make in the pros
Plus, I think it’s disingenuous for Bomani Jones to claim that he’s concerned with the student-athletes at large when, if you boil down his argument, he’s really only concerned about the financial interests of a handful of them and his proposals would be actually harmful to the financial interests of a much larger number of them.
I don’t think cross-subsidization is a problem at all. It’s a healthy model that’s used all across the university to equalize opportunity for students. It’s not meaningfully different than charging the same amount per credit hour for English classes (cheap to put on) and Pharmacy classes.
On the point about Weis, my guess is that there’s relatively few players he’d pay for out of his own pocket, and I’m not sure that they’d be any more likely to come to Kansas if every school could offer them an extra $10K. Maybe the most of the guys rated 5 stars would get money and a few of the 4 stars? Aside from that, there’s just not enough differentiation.
Also agreed that if the intent is to help the star players,
I’m less adamant about that. For me, it’s about the general abuse of the players in high profile sports – concussions, churn-and-burn of scholarships, graduation rates (and education in general) being the enemy and not a friend.
Here’s a sort of off-topic question – if football and basketball went away all of a sudden, what would happen to the non-revenue sports? (Not making a point or anything, just wondered. I think that they would contract some but not a huge change, though I’m not sure how I support that guess financially or logistically.)
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 12, 2012 5:14 PM CST up reply actions
Football going away would have a huge impact on non-revenue sports at football factories
But at non-BCS schools, it would probably help non-revenue sports. For schools in between (like KU), I think it’s hard to figure out whether it would help more (assuming that the huge operating expenses and debt for things like the new football practice facility goes away too) or hurt more (some of the TV dollars and alumni focus would switch to basketball but some would be lost).
So Bill Self
has almost 1/8 of KU’s all-time wins in lest than 10 years? Holy sh
The name of that song played at KC Comets games in the '80's was Giorgio Moroder's "The Chase." Now you know.
I always thought
Ist weekend in December: 16 teams
2nd weekend in Dec: 8 teams
3rd weekend in Dec: 4 teams
4th weekend in Dec: 2 teams.
December maddness!!!
With many people taking vacation during December, it would almost instantly become a marketing homerun and intense national pastime.
Finish that and then roll right into the no fun leagues playoffs. It’s just a natural fit.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
First weekend in December is the end of the regular season/conference championship games.
Would you move the start of the season up to do that, or did you forget there were still games that week?
thats why 8 makes
Perfect sense. Plus is the 15 or 16 team really gunna win it? At 8 its only adding 2 games and if your not top 8 your not gunna win it anyways. Remember these kids do have finals in december
I think finals is probably an insurmountable problem to any attempt to hold it before Christmas
You can’t really claim that they’re student athletes if you force them to play the biggest games of their career while also preparing for their biggest tests of the year.
Yet 90% of the bowl games
are already in December.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
by Rivethead on Jan 12, 2012 3:34 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
then start it Christmas Eve
Or the Saturday after finals. It would basically push the playoffs a week past the current National Championship game.
Have the BCS bowls host the E8/FF (maybe add the Cotton Bowl) and have all the teams that currently qualify for bowls but who aren’t in the top 16 then play their same bowl games leading up/intermixed with the playoffs.
The poster formerly known as DCJayhawk0208
Are you playing the first round on campus?
If so, it might make more sense to push the first round up to conference championship weekend so you can do it while the students are still around.
Scheduling
Having the games on campus would be awesome (especially the first few rounds), but then you’re either putting an extra week between rounds to compensate for finals, or you’re just ram-rodding through finals week.
The poster formerly known as DCJayhawk0208
But FCS and D2 have no problem having their playoffs/championship round during finals week.
The worst part is those are the real student-athletes and they can swing it.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
The conference championships could be part of the tournament
- vs #2 in the SEC
- vs #2 in the Big 10
- vs #2 in the Big 12
- vs #2 in the Pac 12
- vs #2 in the ACC
After that you might have to get a little more selective. But there is no reason you couldn’t include conference championships from the big conferences into a college football playoff structure.
That, or you eiliminate the bye week.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
Yes.
It’s winner move on and the conference championships ARE the first round of the playoff.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
Nope
They would play Big 12 #2 in the 1st round of the national football playoff. Now, how Big 12 #2 is determined would be up to the conference but most likely based on record (since we don’t have divisions currently) and tie-breaker rules.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
my problem with this...
Now I would rather take 3rd in a good league rather than 2nd. If you take 3rd, now you don’t play the best team in your conference. They way you stated it, there are still at large bids or byes in the next round. If you go with byes, how do you determine who gets byes and what about teams like Boise, TC, Houston that are in major conferences?
by hawkinwichita on Jan 12, 2012 7:01 PM CST up reply actions
There are no byes in my 16 team tournament dream
The first weekend of December 16 football teams will play.
1 v 2 in: Big 12, SEC, Big 10, ACC, Pac 12, C-USA, Mountain West, Big East would be one way to do it (fairly). Although I don’t believe CUSA, MW, and BE would be strong enough conference to “deserve” two teams into the national tournament. That’s where a selection committee (much like bball) could come into play.
It wouldn’t be a perfect system, but nothing is.
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
Rodney Coe
Can someone who can read twitter (and especially 18-year old shorthand) tell me if STUD RB Rodney Coe just switched from Iowa to KU?
I can't translate it myself...
but he certainly doesn’t seem to be denying it.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Better question
if we can’t understand what the kid writes, do we really want him representing our school?
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
I mean I can make it out...
I just can’t say for certain if he’s playing around or what sometimes.
No it’s not perfect English by any means, it’s twitterish and if a 6’3" 265 pound back that still moves well and who’s juco coach and others believe is capable of just as easily on 20-40 pounds and be a great d-lineman wants to come to Kansas…then yes. This is like Brandon Jacobs 2.0
In short, the guy is a former 4* that a lot of people wanted. Iowa still wants him, he had to go to JUCO and he’d be a solid prospect at multiple spots depending on how he ends up fitting in.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
sorry for the epic run on sentence…working on a few things at once here.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Thought he was projected as a RB?
Either way, we’ll take it. Thanks Phil Ford, who’s a Jayhawk regardless of where he’s attending school.
yes he is...
but I guess he has very little issue adding weight and maintaining his athleticism to the point that his juco coach is quoted as saying he might play defensive line next year.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
what I can figure is that he had lunch w/Phil Ford...
and Phil Ford claims he’s going to be at Kansas.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
I thought Phil Ford didn't qualify?
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
they both go to JUCO together.
and from what I can tell none of this is relevant until the next recruiting cycle anyway so it seems like an overly jubilant Phil Ford. He tends to do that. But hey, at least there’s a little buzz.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Are we sure
he can’t play next year? Seems like Iowa thinks he’s got a good chance to be there next year.
I guess I haven't ever seen that indicated anywhere...
the most recent article I read said 2013.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
I thought you had to attend for two years or you have to sit out a year when you transfer?
Or can you transfer after only one year at a JUCO?
I thought it depended on your qualification status
that there were some that could go after 1 and some had to stay 2. Thought we had some basketball players come after 1 back during Roy?
You're probably right. I don't know much about it to be honest, but I only remember seeing kids come after two years.
Thinking about it, I guess coming from a JUCO after one year wouldn’t be much different than what McLemore and Traylor are doing this year. Just at KU rather than a JUCO. I wouldn’t think anyway.
FYI
Brady is on NBA TV right now. Tulsa vs. Fort Wayne. Just started the third, Tulsa up 67-43.
yea just saw that
crazy seeing him out there
by I need more Esteban on Jan 12, 2012 4:27 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
