Home
News Post


What excites you more -- jaw-dropping performances by elite athletes or a group of average players that display the very essence of a great team?

More specifically, do you enjoy the model set forth by the Kentucky men's basketball program? By all appearances, it wouldn't be a stretch to label the Wildcats as a stepping stone, not a destination.

The sports purist and team-builder inside of me loathes this model set forth by Kentucky. But at the same time, if it works (and it has -- two title appearances in three years including a championship) and we still complain, maybe that just makes the rest of us 'haters.'

Sound Off: Do you enjoy teams like Kentucky that load up on and lose elite stars yearly, or side with teams built over a longer period of time?

Sports Headlines for April 11, 2014

Game: NCAA BasketballReader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: SportsVotes for game: 1 - View All
Member Comments
# 1 eaterofworlds888 @ 04/11/14 06:12 PM
As a Kentucky fan I would prefer that players stay longer. Calipari is a great recruiter and experience would only help the program. But, as you said, it has worked. We've gone to 3 final fours in five years and won a championship back in 2012, almost won last week but missed free throws killed us. However, once the season is over it does need to be about the players making their own decisions. They're are only playing one year because they are forced to. A lot of them wouldn't even bother if they could go to NBA straight out of High School. What's Calipari supposed to do? Recruit worse players? He's doing the best he can with the situation and I support Kentucky Basketball and Coach Calipari. #BBN
 
# 2 jamesdawon @ 04/11/14 06:50 PM
I have no problem with Kentucky basketball. I like Kentucky a lot. My problem is with Calipari and the pain he will eventually inflict on Kentucky basketball. Look at his past.

"Recruits well" at UMass, leaves for NBA. UMass gets hit for recruiting violations under his tenure.

Comes back into NCAA at Memphis and "recruits well" again. Leaves Memphis for Kentucky. Memphis gets hit for recruiting violations under his tenure.

It's only a matter of time before the same thing happens again.
 
# 3 PhantomPain @ 04/11/14 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesdawon
I have no problem with Kentucky basketball. I like Kentucky a lot. My problem is with Calipari and the pain he will eventually inflict on Kentucky basketball. Look at his past.

"Recruits well" at UMass, leaves for NBA. UMass gets hit for recruiting violations under his tenure.

Comes back into NCAA at Memphis and "recruits well" again. Leaves Memphis for Kentucky. Memphis gets hit for recruiting violations under his tenure.

It's only a matter of time before the same thing happens again.
Just so you know, your statements about Calipari are false and while it may seem like it doesn't make a difference, it does.

Just to be clear, UMASS was not hit with a recruiting violation. Marcus Camby accepted money from an agent during his junior year. Nothing to do with recruiting.

Rose had someone else take his SAT. Again, nothing to do with Cal.

As for UK basketball and the topic that is posed. I would love to have players stay 2, 3 or 4 years. As it stands it is not that possible with the way the rules are and the fact that Calipari has got the lock down on recruiting. Until the NBA does something to change it, or the NCAA finds ways to entice kids to stay longer, it will remain this way.

I know the fun thing to do is say Cal is ruining college basketball with all the OAD's. But first, it isn't his rule and he is playing within the rules. But he also has publicly stated he hates the rule thinks it should be changed. Beyond that he is the ONLY coach I have ever heard that has actually put some thought into how to fix the issue.

Second, Kentucky did not set forth the model that it is today. The NBA and Player's Association did. If anyone has such a problem with the fact that Calipari gets a lot of elite players, I ask you simply this:

What should he do? Should he only accept a couple of good players per year and tell the other ones that are interested that "sorry, we don't want you"?

Do people even realize that Duke, UNC, Kansas, Louisville, Florida and a plethora of other college coaches recruit and offer many of the same players that Calipari gets? Duke has 4 super freshmen coming in next year. Kansas had 3 this year.

There was an article in the past year or so that I read that quoted about 10 major college basketball coaches and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, including Self, Coach K, Roy Williams, ALL said that a coach would be crazy not to take the kind of talent that UK was getting if it was available. Why did they say that? Because everyone wants the best players.

So again, why is it that Calipari and UK are the ones that are singled out and what do you propose Calipari does differently?
 
# 4 ReidSkee @ 04/11/14 09:06 PM
Quote:
By all appearances, it wouldn't be a stretch to label the Wildcats as a stepping stone, not a destination.
That argument also came from a Louisville site. Why am I not surprised?

The Wildcats job is not a "stepping stone" job, because once you've made it there, you've MADE IT. Heck, even when Billy Clyde had his disastrous two-year run, that was as high as he ever made it on the coaching food chain. To me, it's really this simple: If your program has won three or more national championships, your program is a "destination" program. No matter how many bad years you may have, you will ALWAYS be a program worth dropping everything for, even if there's the chance that someone may say no. The list of teams that have won three or more championships is:

UCLA (11)
Kentucky (8)
Indiana, North Carolina (5)
UConn, Duke (4)
Kansas, Louisville (3)

And there are three other schools that have not won three or more titles, but are certainly going to attract a LOT of attention when a vacancy opens up: Michigan State, Florida, and Syracuse. That's 11 programs that any coach would consider, unless they are already coaching at one of those schools.

Of course, this thought process is somewhat short-sided, because it doesn't take into account teams that have been long-time tournament threats,like Cincinnati, Arizona, Georgetown, Villanova, and, more recently, Gonzaga and Wisconsin. But, to me (again), if you can't separate the program from the coach (or coaches), I find it difficult to argue that most of these programs could ever be "destination" programs along the lines of the teams listed above. Arizona may be the exception, because they've had great success under both Lute Olson and Sean Miller. I won't say that they are, but I'll hear any arguments to the contrary.

As for the actual question at hand, though, as a UK fan, I'm not going to lie and say that there are not times when players leave UK when they should stay, but that's the nature of the beast. There will always be players at all programs in this current environment that will leave before they are ready. I do think that PhantomPain, while on the right track, is wrongfully blaming the NCAA for the one-and-done rule. The owners and the players of the NBA were the ones who made the one-and-done rule possible. THEY are the problem. Honestly, if I had it my way, I'd consider going the baseball route for the draft. Basically, it would be like this: If you go to college, you stay there for at least...let's say two years. If you want it to be three years, that's fine, too. However, if you think that you are ready to play in the NBA right now, then you can enter straight out of high school. That gives those who think that college is a waste of time their chance to bypass college and head straight to the pros, while also giving the college basketball purists what they want with the elimination of the one-and-done system.

Really, Cal was just ready to embrace the current one-and-done machine before many others were ready to, hence why Cal gets all of the hate for it. Well, that, and the violations and vacations that Cal was not at fault for whatsoever. But I digress. If the end result is more like this year and three years ago than two years ago, I don't think I'm going to be too bothered by the system that's in place, if only because Cal is such a great recruiter that UK will always have elite talent as long as he is the coach.
 
# 5 Jon1323 @ 04/11/14 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaterofworlds888
As a Kentucky fan I would prefer that players stay longer. Calipari is a great recruiter and experience would only help the program. But, as you said, it has worked. We've gone to 3 final fours in five years and won a championship back in 2012, almost won last week but missed free throws killed us. However, once the season is over it does need to be about the players making their own decisions. They're are only playing one year because they are forced to. A lot of them wouldn't even bother if they could go to NBA straight out of High School. What's Calipari supposed to do? Recruit worse players? He's doing the best he can with the situation and I support Kentucky Basketball and Coach Calipari. #BBN
Very well said, I agree.
 
# 6 PhantomPain @ 04/11/14 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidSkee
That argument also came from a Louisville site. Why am I not surprised?

The Wildcats job is not a "stepping stone" job, because once you've made it there, you've MADE IT. Heck, even when Billy Clyde had his disastrous two-year run, that was as high as he ever made it on the coaching food chain. To me, it's really this simple: If your program has won three or more national championships, your program is a "destination" program. No matter how many bad years you may have, you will ALWAYS be a program worth dropping everything for, even if there's the chance that someone may say no. The list of teams that have won three or more championships is:

UCLA (11)
Kentucky (8)
Indiana, North Carolina (5)
UConn, Duke (4)
Kansas, Louisville (3)

And there are three other schools that have not won three or more titles, but are certainly going to attract a LOT of attention when a vacancy opens up: Michigan State, Florida, and Syracuse. That's 11 programs that any coach would consider, unless they are already coaching at one of those schools.

Of course, this thought process is somewhat short-sided, because it doesn't take into account teams that have been long-time tournament threats,like Cincinnati, Arizona, Georgetown, Villanova, and, more recently, Gonzaga and Wisconsin. But, to me (again), if you can't separate the program from the coach (or coaches), I find it difficult to argue that most of these programs could ever be "destination" programs along the lines of the teams listed above. Arizona may be the exception, because they've had great success under both Lute Olson and Sean Miller. I won't say that they are, but I'll hear any arguments to the contrary.

As for the actual question at hand, though, as a UK fan, I'm not going to lie and say that there are not times when players leave UK when they should stay, but that's the nature of the beast. There will always be players at all programs in this current environment that will leave before they are ready. I do think that PhantomPain, while on the right track, is wrongfully blaming the NCAA for the one-and-done rule. The owners and the players of the NBA were the ones who made the one-and-done rule possible. THEY are the problem. Honestly, if I had it my way, I'd consider going the baseball route for the draft. Basically, it would be like this: If you go to college, you stay there for at least...let's say two years. If you want it to be three years, that's fine, too. However, if you think that you are ready to play in the NBA right now, then you can enter straight out of high school. That gives those who think that college is a waste of time their chance to bypass college and head straight to the pros, while also giving the college basketball purists what they want with the elimination of the one-and-done system.

Really, Cal was just ready to embrace the current one-and-done machine before many others were ready to, hence why Cal gets all of the hate for it. Well, that, and the violations and vacations that Cal was not at fault for whatsoever. But I digress. If the end result is more like this year and three years ago than two years ago, I don't think I'm going to be too bothered by the system that's in place, if only because Cal is such a great recruiter that UK will always have elite talent as long as he is the coach.
agreed. I also must have accidentally typed NCAA because I know it is not their rule. But the NBA as an organization isn't the main culprit at fault, it is the Player's Association. They are the ones that so far have refused to end it. Which doesn't make sense to me.

If I am an NBA player the last thing I want is he next stud coming to my team especially if I am at the tail end of my career. If I am an NBA owner I would want incoming players to be mature physically and mentally. I want people to recognize who they are and want to watch them at the arena we play in. The college game gets players longer, the players benefit from going to the pro's much more ready and the NBA benefits from players that can actually contribute and bring brand recognition so that fans show up.

It just makes sooooo much sense not to have the OAD, I have a hard time understanding why it is there to begin with.
 
# 7 tbook24 @ 04/12/14 11:43 AM
Calipari doesnt reallhy coach. he recruits guys well but his teams arent coached that well. He should have more titles than his one. When his kids get to the nba they have some fundamental issuest hat needto be worked out. He gets outcoached in most of the big games. Kentucky itself is not to be hated unless you are a rival of them but Calipari is an eternal underachiever as a coach.
 
# 8 PhantomPain @ 04/12/14 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbook24
Calipari doesnt reallhy coach. he recruits guys well but his teams arent coached that well. He should have more titles than his one. When his kids get to the nba they have some fundamental issuest hat needto be worked out. He gets outcoached in most of the big games. Kentucky itself is not to be hated unless you are a rival of them but Calipari is an eternal underachiever as a coach.
He should have more titles? Sure, I can agree with that. Many coaches should have more than they have. But there is a reason why only like 4 or 5 coaches have more than 2 in their career. It's because it's hard. Over the past 5 years he has taken UK to an Elite 8, a Final Four, a Championship, an NIT first round exit and a National Champion runner-up. Most of those seasons we had juniors and seniors that contributed, except this past season where the only 2 seniors contributed very little. But by and large a good portion of those teams were freshmen and sophomores. Right, he can't cach.

He took DeAndre Liggins from nearly leaving college to playing some in the NBA. He took Josh Harrelson and made him an NBA player. These are guys that had no business being in the NBA prior to Cal working with them.

I'm not saying he is the best X&O coach around. I think he is capable at that skill. But he is great at everything else that goes along with coaching including getting more out of his players quicker than most other coaches.

So if you are still under the mindset that a guy who made UMASS relevant with no star players and built Memphis into a national contender, again with mostly no name players with he exception of a few, then you simply don't know what a coach does or are terrible at evaluation. Good luck.
 
# 9 XXstormmXX @ 04/12/14 05:06 PM
I don't get the hate for teams like UK, they're doing what you're supposed to do: win. Why does a team have to accomplish their goal of winning championships and then get hated for it? Last time I checked, that was what all the teams were trying to do.
 
# 10 PhantomPain @ 04/13/14 04:30 PM
Here is a very interesting article (blog) by Rex Chapman, the best and most timely tweeter in America lol, that provides a very interesting analysis of one and dones and the success they have have (or haven't had).

Rex breaks down all the one and done players since they instilled the rule into 3 categories. No Brainers, Top-19 and Head Scratchers. After compiling stats, he comes to this conclusion:

Quote:
After researching all of the “one and done” players and their numbers – it only backs-up what Iíve always believed about early-entry in to the NBA. The best predictor for “one and done” success is if you’ve dominated the college game enough that you’ve become a unanimous 1st-team all-conference performer, an All-American and/or NCAA POY during your freshman season.
The History of the One and Done and a Guide for all Freshment considering making the jump
 
# 11 ehh @ 04/14/14 03:21 PM
You could write a novel on the subject because there are so many far reaching variables and situations.

The easiest and shortest answer is that you shouldn't hate Kentucky basketball because they're playing within the set of rules that was given to them.

The NBA created this monster (thankfully they're going to kill it in three years) and it has bastardized college basketball a little bit but college basketball has been a mess for nearly 15 years now.

The most interesting aspect of Kentucky in this era is that the hatred is never based towards the players, it's all towards Calipari. I can't think of an unlikable player they've had since Cal took over. It's not like Duke of yesteryear where they always had a few players that everyone despised. Battier, Paulus, Wojo, Redick, etc. It was about hating Coach K and the players. Hating on UK is solely hating on Calipari.

I've never cared for Calipari for a variety of reasons, mostly because of the Camby/Ray Allen stuff when he was at UMass. He's always had the "used car salesman" vibe.


As for Rex Chapman's article, I think he's missing the point on guys like Bayless. It doesn't really matter that Bayless is a journeyman. He's 25 years old, has already made $15m in his career and plays 20 minutes a night as a back up. Something tells me that he doesn't have any regrets about leaving Arizona after one year.

This is hilarious though...

Quote:
The 2013 “one and done’ers” (Yikes!)

Take a look at this past year’s group of rookie “one and done” guys.

*Steven Adams (12th-overall) – 3.3 ppg & 4.3 rpg

*Anthony Bennett (1st-overall) – 4.1 ppg & 2.9 rpg

*Archie Goodwin (29th-overall) – 3.3 ppg

*Grant Jerrett (40th-overall) - D-League

*Ricky Ledo (43rd-overall) – 1.7 ppg – D-League

*Ben McLemore (7th-overall) – 8.3 ppg & 2.9 rpg

*Shabazz Muhammad (14th-overall) – 3.9 ppg – D-League

*Nerlens Noel (6th-overall) – Has not played yet due to Knee-injury
This is also SO accurate...

Quote:
In my opinion, the reason that so many current freshmen have such little understanding of how difficult the jump from college to the NBA will be – is because college basketball has never been weaker. When college freshmen, by and large, are the most talented/physically gifted players in the college game – that means that the college game has been weakened (due to “one and done” – and because the most talented players LEAVE AFTER ONE YEAR.). The “best”, most talented and most “polished” collegiate players NATURALLY used to be juniors and seniors. Those days are gone. Freshmen are now lulled into a false sense of security in the college game. Many believe that since they’re doing well in college that the next step for them is naturally the NBA. The truth is that they’re doing well in the most watered-down college basketball era in history. The college game presently resembles more “Senior High School” than the college game of yesteryear.
Though I have never seen an article where someone "quote" so many words for emphasis. I think Rex needs to a hire a PR/editor/proof-reader.
 
# 12 PhantomPain @ 04/14/14 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehh
You could write a novel on the subject because there are so many far reaching variables and situations.

The easiest and shortest answer is that you shouldn't hate Kentucky basketball because they're playing within the set of rules that was given to them.

The NBA created this monster (thankfully they're going to kill it in three years) and it has bastardized college basketball a little bit but college basketball has been a mess for nearly 15 years now.

The most interesting aspect of Kentucky in this era is that the hatred is never based towards the players, it's all towards Calipari. I can't think of an unlikable player they've had since Cal took over. It's not like Duke of yesteryear where they always had a few players that everyone despised. Battier, Paulus, Wojo, Redick, etc. It was about hating Coach K and the players. Hating on UK is solely hating on Calipari.

I've never cared for Calipari for a variety of reasons, mostly because of the Camby/Ray Allen stuff when he was at UMass. He's always had the "used car salesman" vibe.


As for Rex Chapman's article, I think he's missing the point on guys like Bayless. It doesn't really matter that Bayless is a journeyman. He's 25 years old, has already made $15m in his career and plays 20 minutes a night as a back up. Something tells me that he doesn't have any regrets about leaving Arizona after one year.

This is hilarious though...



This is also SO accurate...



Though I have never seen an article where someone "quote" so many words for emphasis. I think Rex needs to a hire a PR/editor/proof-reader.
Yes, Editor is not a position that Rex will hold anytime soon. And you are also right about the players with the exception that a lot of people didn't care for Demarcus Cousins which is understandable considering his antics on the court (I still maintain he is one of the better guys in the NBA he just immature).

As for your example of Bayless, while Rex may be off based and Bayless is super happy about his decision, I took the main gist of the article to say "this so far is the norm. Sure there are exceptions, but they are just that...exceptions. And those exceptions don't happen very often." So I would lump Bayless in that category and maybe even a couple of others.

But it is hard to argue the data of the most successful players and where they were taken in the draft.
 
# 13 ehh @ 04/14/14 03:56 PM
I guess Cousins might fit in that category of disliked players but I don't know. He was/is immature but he seemed relatively harmless to me. He was an easy target for opposing fans because he could be set off so easily. I always enjoyed watching him play while he was at UK though.
 
# 14 jsquigg @ 04/14/14 09:07 PM
You can't say anything about how legitimately dirty Calipari is without UK fans responding in denial. I guess Cal just isn't responsible at all for his previous teams having their Final Four accomplishments wiped clean from the record books. Here's an idea: As a coach, maybe you have a little responsibility in how the players on your team act within the rules. This isn't football where there are often over a hundred players on a team to manage. This is basketball, and given how short a time the players are at UK, you'd think Cal could keep them out of trouble. Another reason people hate Cal is because if you underperform he cuts your scholarship the following year. While this may be within the rules (for now), many consider it unethical. We'll see how Kentucky fans feel after the Calipari era is done, especially if he leaves the program in flames like he has done at literally every other stop. Of course that just makes me a "*****" to delusionally biased big blue nation. Facts hurt sometimes.
 
# 15 PhantomPain @ 04/14/14 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsquigg
You can't say anything about how legitimately dirty Calipari is without UK fans responding in denial. I guess Cal just isn't responsible at all for his previous teams having their Final Four accomplishments wiped clean from the record books. Here's an idea: As a coach, maybe you have a little responsibility in how the players on your team act within the rules. This isn't football where there are often over a hundred players on a team to manage. This is basketball, and given how short a time the players are at UK, you'd think Cal could keep them out of trouble. Another reason people hate Cal is because if you underperform he cuts your scholarship the following year. While this may be within the rules (for now), many consider it unethical. We'll see how Kentucky fans feel after the Calipari era is done, especially if he leaves the program in flames like he has done at literally every other stop. Of course that just makes me a "*****" to delusionally biased big blue nation. Facts hurt sometimes.
Facts could hurt but in this case there aren't any. Congratulations on posting one of the most ill informed posts I have seen in a long time.
 
# 16 LowerWolf @ 04/15/14 02:33 PM
As a Vols fan, I don't care if they're one-and-done or stay four years, it's always OK to hate Kentucky.
 
# 17 jasontoddwhitt @ 04/15/14 03:35 PM
Kentucky has been hated on for years. There was a down time of that when Tubby and Billy Clyde were coaching. Calipari (who's always been a lightning rod his entire career*) was the lighter fluid that reignited the 'Evil Empire' of Kentucky basketball.

(*Let's be honest, the man doesn't have any NCAA violations against him. This is an opinion that I held when he was at Memphis. Many non-UK fans hold this opinion as well (Jay Bilas comes to mind). The Marcus Camby situation was all on Marcus Camby. I'm sorry, but no coach baby sits their players 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days out of the year. The Derek Rose situation was a farce and a half by the NCAA. The NCAA cleared him. Name one coach in America who would've turned down the opportunity to coach Rose.)

But there is a lot of baloney surrounding the one and done....

* Cal is promising these players NBA dreams (Nope, he doesn't promise a single player they'll be able to go pro after one year)
* These kids don't go to class (Kentucky has a team GPA of 3.0, one of the highest APRs in the country, has graduated 10 players and two more have come back to work on their degrees)

Cal hates the one and done rule. He feels it should be a two year rule. He's come up with suggestions on how to make it work.

 
# 18 wildcatchild @ 04/16/14 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbook24
Calipari doesnt reallhy coach. he recruits guys well but his teams arent coached that well. He should have more titles than his one. When his kids get to the nba they have some fundamental issuest hat needto be worked out. He gets outcoached in most of the big games. Kentucky itself is not to be hated unless you are a rival of them but Calipari is an eternal underachiever as a coach.
So tired of hearing the "Cal just rolls the ball out" argument. Here are facts that totally blow up your comments:

1.) Calipari took '96 UMass with exactly ONE NBA player (Camby) to a Final Four. UMass has not sniffed the Final Four since Calipari left town.

2.) Calipari took Memphis with Derrick Rose and two borderline NBA role players (Dorsey and Douglas-Roberts) to within a possession of the national title in 2008. Who did they beat in the Final Four? How about a UCLA team with Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook and Darren Collison. How many Sweet 16's and Elite 8's has Memphis made since he left? It's not like Josh Pastner is exactly struggling on the recruiting trail.

3.) Calipari completely changed the way his 2011 UK team played halfway through the season --- which was 10-6 in the SEC mind you --- and it resulted in a Final Four appearance. He turned Josh Harrellson into an NBA player.

4.) Of course, 2014 and his end-of-the year tweak with Andrew Harrison may have been his best coaching job of them all. Took an 8-seed of freshmen and sophomores to the national title game.

5.) If winning with young talent is so easy, why did Coach K lose to both Lehigh and Mercer two of the last three years? Why couldn't Bill Self beat a crappy Stanford team with Andrew Wiggins, Perry Ellis and Wayne Selden? Why has youthful North Carolina lost in the second rounds two years straight?

My point? Calipari gets talent, but he's proven he can win with less talented teams and also he can make adjustments when necessary. That's called coaching.
 
# 19 ehh @ 04/16/14 04:42 PM
While all of your points are valid I think it goes a little deeper than that. Calipari has obviously been a successful college coach so saying "he's won" is a tough point to argue against. Recruiting and motivating are the two most important qualities of a college basketball coach and Calipari has them both in spades which is why he's been successful. Plenty of coaches have won titles without being great in-game coaches.

However, the eye test in-game still leaves quite a bit to be desired, anyone that understands the depths of basketball knows that Calipari isn't a great X's and O's coach just like Roy Williams, Rick Barnes, etc. He has a very basic system and does not adjust well (not that this is that much of an aberration in the coaching world). Basic systems tend to struggle against elite defenses. Also, just a personal opinion of mine, but there is absolutely no reason or excuse to use such a simple system. The more movement and more you have going on in your offense the more the defense has to work and the more opportunities there will be for defenses to make a mistake that you can capitalize on. Basically he's going with a simple system because A) he can get away with it in college with supreme freshman talent each year B) it isn't that far from what these poor kids are used to in AAU. Some people think that's genius, I get why he does it but I think it's a foolish move. For anyone who disagrees with me, I completely get the opposite side of the argument (why install a complicated offense for a core of players that'll be on campus for seven months?), just my opinion on the matter.

In addition to simplicity, for young college kids, I think he gives them too much freedom. Young players need more guidance and structure. They're still learning the game. Having your "secret tweak" being that you told your starting PG who shoots 36% from the field to shoot less and pass more is not genius, that's common freaking sense.
  • He pretty much threw last year's team under the bus for their underachieving ways (at least he took a brunt of the blame this year).
  • When UK made the boneheaded foul with under a minute left in the title game that ultimately put things on ice for UConn, Calipari's press conference response was to shrug it off to the fact that they're freshman.
  • When asked about Randle struggles? He's a freshman, and he was a little nervous and a little tired.
  • Why in the world you would ever put James Young on Napier to start the title game or switch every ball screen literally had me laughing at my TV. Did Calipari watch a second of the MSU or Florida film? This stuff isn't rocket science.
  • Teams that don't execute well out of timeouts (or coaches that don't have uniquely drawn plays in the huddle) drive me crazy.

So basically he's a genius when they win and when he loses it's the player's fault because "they're freshman". Kudos to him for trying to relieve the pressure from his kids but it's complete BS.

To say overall that he's a bad coach is obviously foolish, I understand why UK fans get tired of the blanket statement from probably clueless opposing fans that say it only because they hear so many other fans say it. He does two-thirds of the coaching trinity extremely well and that's enough to win a lot of games but he's an average-at-best in-game coach.

It is also funny that Calipari is one of the few guys that gets knocked for being out-coached. Ollie out-coached Izzo and Donovan quite a bit and you barely heard a peep from the media about it. He made several mid-game adjustments that pretty much led to UConn winning.

Moral of the story...

Spoiler
 
# 20 ProfessaPackMan @ 04/16/14 05:13 PM
I could care less about UK but it's just hilarious to me how sensitive most of their fans are and I've noticed that since I've been on OS. You say one bad thing about the team or it's players and even UK players that are in the NBA, you get a full blown essay from them.

Relax and stop being so damn touchy everytime someone doesn't praise the holy ground that UK or Cal walks on.
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.