ADVERTISEMENT

So the platoon DID kill us

Exactly! MJ is OK, but he just expressed an opinion without any real reason and did it when he was coming off an event filled weekend trying to give his readers some explanation of why we struck out. But like you, I don't believe for a minute any of those recruits that stiff armed us had much fear about playing time after losing 7 players to the draft. And like you, I do believe the real reason lies in the image of Kentucky that has developed over the last couple of years. I hear it over and over (at least the people in Cincy that are around me) that Kentucky is a bunch of losers that can't even win when they have everything - Size, talent, depth, MickyD's, All Americans, a team full of NBA players etc, etc etc. It's no fun trying to argue that point to a bunch of BeraCats and Musketeers at this point in time. That is (at least in part) the reason the recruits are not interested, but Matt can't write that kind of stuff without irritating his audience. Just like my comments do to the Kentucky fans here.
I don't believe that either. Last year was a one time deal. We're not going to start 38-0 again. So will players stop going to duke? They get 4 burger boys every year and sick out loud 4 of every 5 years (lose in 1st round to mid majors while getting to the championship game has been the average result for us under Cal).

The bottom line is, right now our biggest needs are a wing and a backup center.

Ingram was never leaving NC.
Brown has bizarre school criteria ( I think it could be argued that uk, Kansas and Michigan were all better choices than cal).

Diallo and Zimmerman don't want to have to compete with three other elite players for pt.

Newman wasn't going to play on the ball.

That's why we are where we are.
 
Jones wasn't lottery pick. Neither was young. WCS and lyles might end up being late lottery, some might drop past lottery.

Also why do people assume Briscoe won't be a lottery pick?

both were top 20, and Jones is an elite player - starting for Houston.

LOL WCS is a top 10 pick, could go as high as 7
 
So, who shouldn't have gotten minutes?

Saw your post at KSR. Johnson and Lee deserved the minutes they got, imho. Maybe Lee should have gotten a few more.

I do agree, though, 100%, that the platoon thing was preached loudly by our competition for players this spring, and the spring recruits bought it.

Opposing coaches don't need to point out the negative. Kids have access to stats on websites and can see for themselves how much people played. All they do is point out who they would be competing against at their school for minutes. Zimmerman, Rabb and Diallo had less competition for minutes at UNLV, Cal and Kansas than they would have at Kentucky. Same with Newman at MSU. Brown probably would have played just as many minutes at Kentucky as he would have at Cal so mentioning the platoon would be irrelevant to him. He seems to have simply liked the situation at Cal better.
 
Matt- I am a fan of the show and realize that all opinions from the show isn't news. In saying that I do disagree with the notion that the platooning hurt with all these top recruits. Jaylen Brown had to know that Cal was not going to platoon with 9 scholarship players, Ingram had to know he had minutes had he chosen UK, Diallo would have less competition at UK than KU. It was just an odd Spring for recruiting and UK still had a class that we can be very happy with
 
Even if we had won it all, we still would NOT have done it "with the platoon system", because we did NOT platoon in the NCAA tournament. Indeed, we did not platoon for most of the second half of the season.

Good lord is it ever absurd how much the "platoon" stuff has been overblown. In truth, that's something we experimented with for only about half a season, we did not do it in the games that really mattered, and we were never gonna do it again.

And, despite the baseless speculation of Matt Jones and some here, I doubt it had anything to do with why these recruits have been rejecting us. As someone else noted, each of these kids had his own independent reasons for his choice. Zimmerman wanted to stay home and logically did not want to go the same school where the No. 1 guy at his position (Skal) was also going; Newman wanted to play point guard and stay home and play for the same school his dad played for; Rabb wanted to stay home (I won't ever fault a kid for wanting to play for his hometown school); Ingram is a North Carolina kid was reportedly focused in on either Duke or UNC from the beginning; Brown is reportedly a shy withdrawn kid who wanted nothing to do with living in the UK fishbowl, etc. It was just an odd class full of kids with different preferences, there's no simple explanation for it all.
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about in regards to platooning. Coaches negative recruited the shit out of it ALL SEASON LONG. Even after we had stopped doing it. Hearing other coaches negative recruit against platooning is absolutely going to have an effect rather you want to believe it or not. If you listen to the same lies over and over again you're eventually going to believe it if it goes on long enough. That's how propaganda works, that's how the human brain works. Need to face reality.
 
Would you really want a kid that's stupid enough to believe we play a platoon system every year...
 
Okay, so now the over-discussed topic of conversation is how in fact the platoon system killed recruiting. I have more thoughts on this than I have time to share them, but I'll do my best to condense.

For starters, the "platoon system" hardly qualified as a "system" for half if not more of the season. It wasn't a concrete blueprint we signed in blood as our structure for the entire year. It was a remedy. A remedy for an unforeseen situation in which we found ourselves that just so happen to be awarded one of Cal's catchy terms. Let's be honest, we really only used it in it's true form until Alex got hurt, then only used a modified form of it for a bit longer before we all but threw it to the curb and substituted one or two guys a time. So anyone--fan, player, or coach alike--who thinks that this "system" is Cal's new go to "system" clearly didn't pay close enough attention to this past season.

But secondly (and most noteworthy as far as I'm concerned), while I agree that players who are concerned about playing time would be turned off by the notion of the platoon, Cal was the first to clarify that the attempt at the platoon idea was a ONE TIME deal due to unique circumstances. And Cal, being the notoriously persuasive super-recruiter he is, no doubt reiterated that to recruits. You can't tell me he wouldn't have the brains to recognize this as a potential recruiting hurdle and very clearly refute any recruit's concerns about it. I just don't buy this idea that negative recruiting from other (less effective recruiting) coaches regarding the platoon is enough to drown out Cal's input on the matter--input that I am CONFIDENT he didn't just forget to voice to recruits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatInNC
something happened that made the kids believe that other schools we're a better fit for them and some of these schools, the kid would readily admit they aren't in the same league with UK.

So what makes a kid go to a UNLV, a California, and a Mississippi St - what makes this coming season different than the last 5 years?

The crazy depth? Did these kids also spurn Duke?
The TV saturation? There wasn't a day that didn't go by from December to March that UK wasn't mentioned on Sportscenter. I don't ever remember that happening before
The fans on social media? probably no worse than any of the last 5 years (maybe better considering UK fans didn't have much reason to concern themselves with recruiting based on past years)
Have coaches finally come up with a strategy to Cal's one and done, players first system?

The only thing I'll say about the platoon system is that a kid probably isn't going to believe its a one time thing with Cal - if he were to ever have 10 legitimate starters and 8 potential NBA players, he'd have no choice but to platoon again - if he were true to his word of being a player first coach - and perhaps a kid just assumed like the fans did that Cal/UK would meet the limit on recruiting and 5* kids would be on the bench watching other 5* players play.
 
Okay, so now the over-discussed topic of conversation is how in fact the platoon system killed recruiting. I have more thoughts on this than I have time to share them, but I'll do my best to condense.

For starters, the "platoon system" hardly qualified as a "system" for half if not more of the season. It wasn't a concrete blueprint we signed in blood as our structure for the entire year. It was a remedy. A remedy for an unforeseen situation in which we found ourselves that just so happen to be awarded one of Cal's catchy terms. Let's be honest, we really only used it in it's true form until Alex got hurt, then only used a modified form of it for a bit longer before we all but threw it to the curb and substituted one or two guys a time. So anyone--fan, player, or coach alike--who thinks that this "system" is Cal's new go to "system" clearly didn't pay close enough attention to this past season.

But secondly (and most noteworthy as far as I'm concerned), while I agree that players who are concerned about playing time would be turned off by the notion of the platoon, Cal was the first to clarify that the attempt at the platoon idea was a ONE TIME deal due to unique circumstances. And Cal, being the notoriously persuasive super-recruiter he is, no doubt reiterated that to recruits. You can't tell me he wouldn't have the brains to recognize this as a potential recruiting hurdle and very clearly refute any recruit's concerns about it. I just don't buy this idea that negative recruiting from other (less effective recruiting) coaches regarding the platoon is enough to drown out Cal's input on the matter--input that I am CONFIDENT he didn't just forget to voice to recruits.

Other coaches lied and said Cal was lying and would do it again no doubt. They also said that UK already has so and so, and probably even mentioned how a veteran Willis and Hawkins would compete for playing time this coming season so UK is already "Nine" deep including them. I agree with you that it should not have mattered, but I'm sure it was used against UK again and again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS_OH_Cat
If the platoon system (and the implied lack of minutes) was the reason kids chose other places, why did all of the guys that waited until after the season was over pass on UK? Wouldn't 7 guys going to the NBA mean that there are a ton of minutes available?

I'm with the OP; I don't buy the platoon thing as the reason either. I think there are reasons for each guy to make his decision. Newman wants to play PG? Can't do it here. Brown wants to be a regular guy who happens to play ball? Can't do it here. Etc, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS_OH_Cat
Platooning wasn't necessarily it to me. The issues were playing time and personalities. Most of these guys just weren't cut out for UK basketball personality wise. Newman and Brown especially. While Cal was adamant about the platoon system being a one time deal I guarantee these opposing coaches still used it as a talking point. Imagine if we got even half of the haul everyone was expecting. We'd be looking at another roster that was 10+ deep. Couple that with Cal's comments about no platooning this year and I can see coaches playing up the fear that one of these guys would be the odd man out of the rotation.
 
Okay, so now the over-discussed topic of conversation is how in fact the platoon system killed recruiting. I have more thoughts on this than I have time to share them, but I'll do my best to condense.

For starters, the "platoon system" hardly qualified as a "system" for half if not more of the season. It wasn't a concrete blueprint we signed in blood as our structure for the entire year. It was a remedy. A remedy for an unforeseen situation in which we found ourselves that just so happen to be awarded one of Cal's catchy terms. Let's be honest, we really only used it in it's true form until Alex got hurt, then only used a modified form of it for a bit longer before we all but threw it to the curb and substituted one or two guys a time. So anyone--fan, player, or coach alike--who thinks that this "system" is Cal's new go to "system" clearly didn't pay close enough attention to this past season.

But secondly (and most noteworthy as far as I'm concerned), while I agree that players who are concerned about playing time would be turned off by the notion of the platoon, Cal was the first to clarify that the attempt at the platoon idea was a ONE TIME deal due to unique circumstances. And Cal, being the notoriously persuasive super-recruiter he is, no doubt reiterated that to recruits. You can't tell me he wouldn't have the brains to recognize this as a potential recruiting hurdle and very clearly refute any recruit's concerns about it. I just don't buy this idea that negative recruiting from other (less effective recruiting) coaches regarding the platoon is enough to drown out Cal's input on the matter--input that I am CONFIDENT he didn't just forget to voice to recruits.


The main problem this year is kids saw the platooning and frankly 24 to 28 minutes a game not enough for the ball hogs we didn't get. Cal was lucky to get all those players last year to stay one more year. Will be hard to have that many stars on same team again. Maybe never.
 
I love the "get hits" comment. Makes me laugh every time. Again, feel free to not believe anything I say...it is more than your right. But for some who like to criticize (or dont like me) they dismiss anything I say as "getting hits." We all need hits in order to have a job, but covering UK sports will get KSR plenty of hits regardless of what I write...tonight's post has literally zero effect.

Coaches have been pounding recruits with the idea that platooning is now Calipari's style. Next season Calipari will show that isn't true...but for now, this group believed it. Disagree if you like, but I can tell you that the platoon factor was one (but not the sole) factor that hurt UK this year.
Coaches have been negatively recruiting against Cal for years. I highly doubt kids are all of a sudden starting to finally buy in. Cal puts kids in the NBA. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. He's about to have another one of his players go No. 1.
 
something happened that made the kids believe that other schools we're a better fit for them and some of these schools, the kid would readily admit they aren't in the same league with UK.

So what makes a kid go to a UNLV, a California, and a Mississippi St - what makes this coming season different than the last 5 years?

The crazy depth? Did these kids also spurn Duke?
The TV saturation? There wasn't a day that didn't go by from December to March that UK wasn't mentioned on Sportscenter. I don't ever remember that happening before
The fans on social media? probably no worse than any of the last 5 years (maybe better considering UK fans didn't have much reason to concern themselves with recruiting based on past years)
Have coaches finally come up with a strategy to Cal's one and done, players first system?

The only thing I'll say about the platoon system is that a kid probably isn't going to believe its a one time thing with Cal - if he were to ever have 10 legitimate starters and 8 potential NBA players, he'd have no choice but to platoon again - if he were true to his word of being a player first coach - and perhaps a kid just assumed like the fans did that Cal/UK would meet the limit on recruiting and 5* kids would be on the bench watching other 5* players play.

Every kid is different!!!

Why would a kid choose Cal over UK? Why would he choose Cal over about 50 other (better) schools? He either really wanted to play with Rabb, or for the Cal coach, or for the educational aspect are the 3 most likely answers.
Why would a kid choose Miss St over UK? Why would he choose Miss St over about 50 other (better) schools? It seems quite evident he wanted the volume (shots), he wanted to be "the man" on campus, and score 20+ per game. And he wanted to stay close to home.
Why would a kid choose UNLV in a mid-major conference, over UK? Why would he choose UNLV over about 50 other (better) schools? Liklely to stay close to home, and avoid the pressures of a high profile school.
Why would LSU get 2 of the top 20 recruits! LSU, really?

As for the Platoon system, that ended in mid-Dec when Poythress was injured. A recruit would simply have to watch a game (I think I would watch a team play if I was considering going there to play) to see that. We had 7 guys that played most of the game, Lee & Johnson combined for an 8th guy.

And if Cal can't convince a kid at the uniqueness of the this past year's team and this platoon system wasn't more than a 1 year thing, then he isn't a very good recruiter (which we know isn't the case).
 
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about in regards to platooning. Coaches negative recruited the shit out of it ALL SEASON LONG. Even after we had stopped doing it. Hearing other coaches negative recruit against platooning is absolutely going to have an effect rather you want to believe it or not. If you listen to the same lies over and over again you're eventually going to believe it if it goes on long enough. That's how propaganda works, that's how the human brain works. Need to face reality.

How do you know?

I always find it interesting how the same people who have no idea where a kid is going during the recruitment suddenly know the intricacies of said recruitment once it ends.

Apparently coaches have been negative recruiting against us and it was a huge factor and the platoons killed us, but it didn't keep Matt or anyone else who somehow knows this information from predicting that UK had a real shot at about a half dozen recruits, even though the negative recruiting happened all season and was very influential.

Just call it what it is: an attempt to develop a theory to explain an anomaly. Meanwhile, the reality appears to be that these kids weren't interested in going to a place like Kentucky, platoon system or no. Newman, Zimmerman, Brown, etc. couldn't have found a blue blood school that doesn't platoon? I mean that only leaves every single one of them.

I was going to vacation in Barbados, but it rained for two days there last summer, so I'm going to visit Campbellsville instead.
 
If we would have only played a 7 man rotation, other coaches would have said negative things about how "if you go to UK, they might not even play you ... take a look at this year, you had several McDonalds All-Americans sitting on the bench getting no pt"

It's negative recruiting .. you can always come up with something negative to say.
 
Why in the hell would MJ name his sources??? Are some of you that dense? Say it's Rock Oliver. MJ names him and then the entire staff freezes MJ out and maybe cost Rock his job
Some of you dislike MJ's success to the point you don't think rationally.
I went to journalism school. Sources with a name tied to them provide readers with a sense of trust to the one delivering the story. Today, many hide behind their sources and even pass on information that is made up or untrue. Some stories need to be told while others shouldn't be. I have nothing against MJ. I don't visit his site or listen to his show. However, I don't need to.
 
If we would have only played a 7 man rotation, other coaches would have said negative things about how "if you go to UK, they might not even play you ... take a look at this year, you had several McDonalds All-Americans sitting on the bench getting no pt"

It's negative recruiting .. you can always come up with something negative to say.
 
If we would have only played a 7 man rotation, other coaches would have said negative things about how "if you go to UK, they might not even play you ... take a look at this year, you had several McDonalds All-Americans sitting on the bench getting no pt"

It's negative recruiting .. you can always come up with something negative to say.

Bingo. Trying to explain it in hindsight when no one can prove your theory "wrong" is pointless. But we always have to have someone or something to blame.
 
Coaches negative recruited the shit out of it ALL SEASON LONG. Even after we had stopped doing it.

How do you know that? That is pure speculation on your part. There's no real evidence or proof of it, nor any that it was the reason a single one of these kids rejected us. Again, you're just guessing.

And, you know, there actually are plenty other logical reasons for the choices these kids made over us, despite what folks here claim. For example, first thing I notice is that an awful lot of the kids who rejected us this year were simply choosing to stay home (Zimmerman, Newman, Ingram,Rabb, Ellenson, etc.). It should hardly be a shocking thing when a kid wants to play for his local home school (especially if you also have family connections to the program like Newman and Ellenson). Diallo, Kennard and Swanigan chose fellow power programs that seem like logical fits for their game. The ONLY one that seems truly out of left field to me was Jaylen Brown to Cal, but sounds like that may be explained by the kid's unusual personality and aversion to media attention.
 
Last edited:
Most of those kids have intentions of staying in school for 1 year then they're off to the NBA. They've been told how great they are since they were around 10 years old and it's hard for some of them to accept the fact that they might not be able to play 35 minutes per game and average 20+ points. For some, individual stats on a mediocre team are more important than playing on a team who has a chance to win a National Championship if that means their own stats might suffer. These are the type of players Cal is referring to when he says Kentucky isn't for everyone.

In Brown's case, if it's true that he wants to be somewhere without a lot of attention, he probably made the right choice. Eventually though, if he has plans of playing in the NBA I doubt that he will be as well prepared as he would have been if he came here.

If other coaches were able to use the platooning as a negative recruiting tactic, the recruits must not have paid much attention to what happened at UK this year. Most of our players' draft stock improved from the beginning to the end of the season and I don't know if any of them dropped. I don't see how any recruit could view playing on a team that went 38-1, went to the Final Four and had players' draft stock rise as a bad thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLTCatFan
If we would have only played a 7 man rotation, other coaches would have said negative things about how "if you go to UK, they might not even play you ... take a look at this year, you had several McDonalds All-Americans sitting on the bench getting no pt"

It's negative recruiting .. you can always come up with something negative to say.

Except none of that disproves the idea that platooning was effective in getting recruits to stay away from UK. We may see what the kids/parents/coaches have to say soon, providing some tangible proof.

Not all negative recruiting is created equal, either. It's much easier to win going negative by using the opposing coaches own catchphrase.

I think some of this comes from people's inability to criticize Cal for anything. Even though few if any are questioning his strategy of using a large rotation (it was the right move), it's perceived as a shot at Cal, and some fans just can't go along with that.
 
Last edited:
I think it was not the platooning as much as how the media sold it - all this talk about the players sacrificing stats for the team, balanced scoring, etc. UK's scoring was balanced because we really didn't have one guy - until the end of the year with KAT - who was a reliable consistent scorer. It didn't have that much to do with platooning.

Kids don't want to hear that - kids like Newman want to be stars and first team All-Americans. Everyone seemed to forget that Cal's past UK teams have been much more like Dukes was this year - a core of 6-7 guys, than the logjam we had this year.
 
How do you know that? That is pure speculation on your part. There's no real evidence or proof of it, nor any that it was the reason a single one of these kids rejected us. Again, you're just guessing.
LOL. Are you serious with this? Seriously, questioning if other coaches were negative recruiting? Wow. Just wow...
 
I don't think it is the platoon so much as it is that Coach Cal will not tell a recruit that he will be "the man" and get to jack up 30 shots agame. The platoon system re-inforced that idea, but the idea has been around longer. Anthony Davis was "the man" for 2012, but took the least amount of shots. It could be argued that Archie Goodwin became "the man" on the 2013 team, but the results weren't good.

My other thought is that these kids have grown up with participation ribbons & trophies. Maybe they assume that will continue in college.
 
I don't buy the "this is just a weird class argument" that I have heard from some...there's always been more to it and it took a KSR post to legitimize what many of us have been saying for weeks on here. The platoon system (although it was the right thing to do this year) is affecting recruiting. Opposing coaches are using it against us. Just look at how Calipari went from getting whoever he wants whenever he wants to not being able to get any of his targets this post season. What's changed? You have to look at the ONE variable that was different this year than any other year in Cal's domination of the recruiting scene? What was it?

It was the sharing of such limited minutes by the top notch recruits...period. And opposing coaches are spinning this in every way imaginable turning players away and honestly its not a hard sale, let's not be naive and think that most highly ranked recruits want to play in a system like that.

Matt is spot on here imo.
 
Let me preface this by saying I was in favor of platoons and think it was the right thing to do. You can't argue with 38-1 and 7 NBA draft picks, but recruits aren't going to argue or debate coaches trying to sell them on their programs. Their just going to take it all in and these coaches are master salesmen.

In my opinion here's some things that opposing coaches might be saying....

1. Don't you want to play as much as possible? You can't do that there.
2. Do you want to be potentially recruited over or thrown in another platoon system if you return for a second season?
3. Can you improve your game more by playing 20min/game or 35min/game? Common sense, right?
4. UK gets whoever they want, do you really want to have that much competition for playing time?
5. Cal says he won't platoon again, but those kids didn't expect to have to do that this year either, did they?
 
Every kid is different!!!

Why would a kid choose Cal over UK? Why would he choose Cal over about 50 other (better) schools? He either really wanted to play with Rabb, or for the Cal coach, or for the educational aspect are the 3 most likely answers.
Why would a kid choose Miss St over UK? Why would he choose Miss St over about 50 other (better) schools? It seems quite evident he wanted the volume (shots), he wanted to be "the man" on campus, and score 20+ per game. And he wanted to stay close to home.
Why would a kid choose UNLV in a mid-major conference, over UK? Why would he choose UNLV over about 50 other (better) schools? Liklely to stay close to home, and avoid the pressures of a high profile school.
Why would LSU get 2 of the top 20 recruits! LSU, really?

As for the Platoon system, that ended in mid-Dec when Poythress was injured. A recruit would simply have to watch a game (I think I would watch a team play if I was considering going there to play) to see that. We had 7 guys that played most of the game, Lee & Johnson combined for an 8th guy.

And if Cal can't convince a kid at the uniqueness of the this past year's team and this platoon system wasn't more than a 1 year thing, then he isn't a very good recruiter (which we know isn't the case).

yes, every kid is different but you're going against 5 years of history here. Something clearly happened this year that has not happened in years past. I'm not convinced the platooning is the answer, but I don't know that its not
 
Other coaches lied and said Cal was lying and would do it again no doubt. They also said that UK already has so and so, and probably even mentioned how a veteran Willis and Hawkins would compete for playing time this coming season so UK is already "Nine" deep including them. I agree with you that it should not have mattered, but I'm sure it was used against UK again and again.

I think also you have to take 2016/17 into consideration as well. I'm sure opposing coaches are telling players that if something happens and they have to/want to return for a second year there's a great chance they're getting platooned considering where UK is sitting with so many top recruits in that next year's class.
 
Maybe some of these kids DO care about winning a championship. They may only play one year and if they are competitive enough to play at this level, I would think a championship is what they would go after. After seeing us fall short this year and maybe a couple of other years with the most talent in the country they may be wondering what the problem is. Platooning went away when Alex got hurt.
 
MJ's new post laid it out. The platoon crushed us recruiting. All to get some players minutes who probably should t have gotten them. What a crappy April


Notice you left out the part about the fans...

Like I said before, if a kid isn't smart enough to figure out WHY we had to platoon at all and why this was likely an isolated event ....maybe it's best they went somewhere else.
 
No, it does not really lay it I rthink your comment about noonwe really knowsd
I've had my disagreements with MJ, but I think he nailed it on this one.

I bit my tongue when people criticized Jay Williams for saying he wouldn't want to play in that system, thinking people would blast me for supporting a Duke player, but I agreed with him. Most star players are concerned about playing time and getting to the NBA as quick as possible, not sharing or even *GASP* winning a national championship. That's part of it, but not usually the driving force.

Negative recruiting works, just like negative campaigning does in politics. We like to think these kids are smart enough to see through the BS, but they're just not. You play on someone's fear long enough, there's a good chance it will have an impact. This class was a little odd, but it wasn't batshit crazy. There had to be other factors at play.

Everyone is looking for a reason why top players turned UK down. I don't think there is any "one reason". However I think that the platooning system comes closest to being it. I don't think we will ever know exactly what ticks in the minds of 18 year olds.

I do think that playing time is the key factor. To give every player the same chance, you have to either platoon or use the alternative of players setting on bench.

One poster mentioned the fact Cal was thinking that the parents would look at the system as being fair for ALL the players. Did he forget Willis and Hawkins?

Others have claimed that staying close to home is one of the factors, which makes a lot of sense to me. Cal did lose 7 players to the draft, but do we know where they are going, development league maybe or maybe just not make it? jmho

There are always negatives along with positives with most decisions that players or parents have to make regarding which school they like best.

Unfortunately or fortunately, when you fill the roster with 10 all-americans 5 will have to set or play limited minutes . That is where the bind comes in. You can't have it both ways. In other words playing time is the overriding factor.
 
Cal did what he HAD to do to appease all the players, I can't fault him for that. But, he did NOT do a good job of utilizing the talent he had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckinden
I think there is a lot of negative recruiting going on and it costed us this spring.Don't be surprised if it doesn't cost us some this fall as well.I'm of the belief that while I want the best possible players to fit my system,they all don't have to be 5 star players either.
 
Cal did what he HAD to do to appease all the players, I can't fault him for that. But, he did NOT do a good job of utilizing the talent he had.

Can't disagree.

The interests of UK > the appeasement of the players & families.

At least that's how it should work when you are employed by a University.
 
smdh at this thread.

Matt Jones dun gone'n made summa you'all retarded.

Marketing....not hard to figure out what plate of red meat to serve to attract hits. This is my only knock on KSR, they tend to play to the echo chamber much like Alex Jones. You just listen to the chatter and serve up something that plays to it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT