Sports Daily: Is It Right To Hate On Kentucky Basketball?

[RaychelSnr]

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

• Hmmm...ninety-three points on 15 shots is pretty decent -- wait, what!? [Image]
• Minnesota beats North Dakota at the Frozen Four on a goal with 0.6 seconds left. [Animated Gif]
• A young Marcus Smart? That flop was a 'flop.' [YouTube]
• The 2014 Masters tournament -- in one epic photograph. [Image]
• DYK? Greenland can't join FIFA due to their inability to grow regulation-length grass.

[Gramps91]

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

[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.

[PhantomPain]

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?

[ReidSkee]

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.

[Jon1323]

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.

[PhantomPain]

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.

[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.