re: Jay Bilas: Simmons a cautionary tale

I actually wish him the best. I'm just saying the NBA ain't high school. Those dudes are gonna haze his arse and he needs to respond strongly and positively.

UK fans are so mad LMAOOOO

quote:

---

All your 5* are belong to us.

---

You guys get the 5 Stars, someone else gets the national titles.

quote:

---

You guys get the 5 Stars, someone else gets the national titles.

---

Everybody always harps on the one national championship under Cal. 4 final fours in the past 5 years isn't too shabby (that includes one championship and two runner-ups).

quote:

---

t Miles has the same. And we whipped your arse the one year he did win a national title, so take a seat sugarfoot

---

43-37 in 3OT in a game where LSU overthrew a wide open TE in the end zone, missed the ensuing FG, missed a FG to win it at the end of regulation, and inexplicably failed to play its best RB in the second half is in no way an arse whipping.

49-0 in TS in 2006. That was an arse whipping.

Stick to football?? yea ok I love both sports and know about them equally. I stand by my statement nothing calipari would've done would have changed his game. My examples again Goodwin and Orton both 5* recruits and nothing cal did changed their game. Goodwin developed his iq and jumper in the leage and that's easy to see.

I agree those three could get a natty but the argument was what would haven been different if he would have went too Kentucky and I stick nothing would have been reallydifferent. He would be just as good. The only difference would be playing in the tourney.

Jay Bilas is dead wrong about Ben Simmons, in this case. Simmons did exactly what he wanted, and it looks like things will turn out exactly the way he wanted them to.

If he went to Kentucky (or Duke), his media individuality would have dropped. He'd be the next John Wall, Karl Anthony Towns, Anthony Davis etc. He'd just be the "next" star, and you could easily compare him to the previous guys. By going elsewhere, the comparisons are defaulting back to Lebron.
For Simmons, advantage LSU.

At Kentucky, Coach Cal may have forced him to play more down low, and rotate more with other players. At LSU, Simmons was able to do exactly what he wanted to do, to showcase himself. I'm actually curious if he handled the ball more at LSU than he did in high school; he brought the ball up nearly every possession, and he spent at least half of LSU's possessions basically running the offense at the point. He showcased a lot of his abilities that he wouldn't have been able to, at a "better" system.
Again, for Simmons, advantage LSU.

Kentucky or Duke may win the NCAA without him, while LSU wasn't going to. That was a given going in, so team performance and the "leadership" deal is diminished a lot. If he went to Kentucky and they lost in the 1st or 2nd round, more questions probably would crop up about his lack of leadership, than for LSU not even making the tourney. At LSU, the lack of surrounding talent gives him a pass.
Advantage LSU.

LSU isn't winning like Kentucky or Duke are, and would.
That's irrelevant, sadly. Wins and losses don't really matter any more in basketball. Quick, who's having a better season: Demar DeRozan or Anthony Davis? Davis, right? He's an All-Star putting up big stats, he makes a lot of highlight reels, even casual fans know "the Unibrow" a lot more than DeRozan, who I had to google.

DeRozan is the leading player on Toronto, a team 21 games over .500, currently 2nd in the East. Not really any name players on the team, I had to google to find the roster. Davis is the leading player on the Pelicans, a team 14 games under .500. It doesn't matter, nobody seems to care about whether a team is good or not, just whether they have stars.

So what makes someone a star? Of interest, ESPN lists the roster by displaying the player name, number, and salary, and stats aren't even shown on the main page. Simmons is about to sign a big shoe deal, and be the top draft pick. His income will be set, and apparently that means he will be a star.

Since the game is now about making money instead of wins, Simmons did absolutely the right thing. He's going to "get paid", which nowadays means he made it.

quote:

---

quote:
. Not really any name players on the team,

Kyle Lowry anyone?

---

Yeah, that's my exact point. I don't really follow the NBA much anymore, and don't know who Lowry is. I know from casual sports talk that Toronto is doing well, and I had to google the roster; DeRozan looked to have the best stat line. I guess Lowry is the top player, instead?

I do know who Davis (Unibrow) is, and that's not due to him being on the Pelicans, the team in my state; that's from the press. I don't really know any other Pels players off the top of my head.

edit to add- the point of the matter is this: Simmons is going to be a bigger and more marketable name than Kyle Lowry, even casual fans already know who he is; and I'm proof that Lowry isn't a household name.

And once upon a time, I did know almost every NBA starter, along with a lot of key backups, like who was considered instant offense off the bench, who were key defensive stoppers, etc. The game has lost me now, and I only know the media darling celebs that transcend the sport. I think Simmons is angling towards that group.