I am super optimistic
- Thread starter davekersey
- Start date
Annnnnnd this is why you shake up the staff and bring in Sam Mitchell if he's on the table.
We've seen this script a bit too much lately.
It’s just not disputable that during the heaviest part of the freshman led teams, Cal needs those top crop in class and those guys are usually in the form of composite top 5.
How that’s hard to comprehend I don’t know. It’s confusing to me.
I wonder if we use the data and remove Cals name, say, coach A, would people see it easier?
I’m thinking so.
The first sentence says it all.
This is what irritates me, putting that magical number five out there.
Just say Cal needs superstar talent. Doesn't have to be top 3 or top 5 or whatever.
Rankings are subjective.
For example, Fox was a superstar. He beat top 5 Ball head to head in the Sweet Sixteen. He belongs in the conversation with Wall, Cousins, Knight, AD, Noel, KAT, and Randle. Just because a few idiots out there ranked him too low it dropped him out of the composite top 5.
To me, this shows you can't use the top 5 as your barometer. Fox, at six or whatever he was ranked, was a superstar and proved it. He took his team just as far as Wall did (with less help, IMHO).
So drop the "top 5" rhetoric from the conversation, and I am with you. Cal needs a superstar or two, regardless of where they are ranked. The higher they are ranked, the better chance they are a superstar, but the recruiting gurus don't always get it right. Fox proved that. Murray proved that. Maxey may very well prove it as well.
]
I think some are misconstruing the point into that “he can’t get there without a top 5 guy” and I’ve never said that. Maybe you are. I dunno. But to date he hasn’t and therefor it’s *almost* valid to say he can’t. But I’m sure he can. People read “he hasn’t” and take that to mean “he can’t”.
I don’t understand that.
I think some are misconstruing the point into that “he can’t get there without a top 5 guy” and I’ve never said that. Maybe you are. I dunno. But to date he hasn’t and therefor it’s *almost* valid to say he can’t. But I’m sure he can. People read “he hasn’t” and take that to mean “he can’t”.
I don’t understand that.
Should all but end the conversation right there.
You could go further and say zero final fours without a composite top 5, but that doesn’t work either.
I’m gonna try using Coach A instead of Cal. This is turning into a defense of Cals coaching ability instead of reality.
Again man, it’s not about a number. Call it whatever you want. The fact is that typically the composite top 3-5 are where the Lebron’s, Zion’s, AD’s, Walls, MKG’s, Kat’s and Randles are. That’s all it is. and we’ve been heavily reliant on them moreso than anyone becuase of how Cal recruits.
10 years of this man. 10 years. Zero final fours without one of those players.
It’s an easy cut off point because if you say top 3 or top 4 it’s not accurate anymore because of Brandon Knight. Besides, saying top 4 is just weird.
You can be irritated. That’s ok. It’s still true that he’s never made the Final Four since 2007 without a player ranked compositely in the top 5 of his class by people paid to scout and subjectively rank said players in each individual class into an objective numerical system to as accurately as humanly possible show which players are the best.
Seems you’re wanting to make it more difficult than it is. It’s not difficult. It just is what it is I reckon.
That’s why I’ve continuously said NOTHING is a GUARANTEE this is EARTH.
At the SAME TIME we’ve got TEN YEARS to show that CALS SYSTEM up to THIS POINT has absolutely NEEDED the best players in the CLASSES because we are so DAMN YOUNG he needs a FRESHMAN who can OVERCOME YOUTH with his insane TALENT.
Cal is not a miracle worker. When you have young teams full of freshman Herro, Ulis, Booker ect they are not enough.
10 years.
I think part of it is that people are seeing the trend growing and making a beachhead when it comes to deflecting what could erupt into a widespread critique of why UK isn't what it was between 2009-2015.
I've already seen some pretty worn out arguments on that front, arguments that really don't minimize the counter critique. Here's a few of them:
- UK is still performing ahead of its historical averages (is this ever a good basis for continued success, be it in the corporate world, relational world, or sports world?).
- The NCAA Tournament is mostly a tournament of luck, therefore there's real no "system" of anticipating success - thus negating the demand for top 5 pick level recruits (and yet the 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 champions mostly breezed through their respective fields).
- Duke doesn't get to Final Fours with top 5 guys and therefore top 5 guys are no real basis of measurement (this has nothing to do with UK's - or more specifically, Calipari's - success with top 5 guys).
- Do people remember Gillispie? (Yes, we remember Gillispie, and we also remember 2009-2015 when UK was the "gold standard", "moved the needle", "we're chasing UCLA", and "we are college basketball" - who said those lines? Must have been the fans projecting something unattainable on the program).
Some don't think the sample size is sufficient. 12 years of this dating back to Memphis.
Not a sufficient sample size. 12 years.
Thank you for this post.
But Barnes almost made a final four without Durant and didn’t make one with Durant? How do YOU explain that?
See, we don’t need those players. It’s just a number.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I know man. Hell I said ten but it is 12.
Somehow that’s not enough because Herro almost made a shot. That disproved the entire concept and argument you’re trying to make.
I’m gonna keep posting in this thread just to run my likes up more than it already is.
I'm good.
I just wish people would understand that it is about the players, not the number beside the players.
Labissiere and Fox proved that.
Cal has zero Final Fours without at least one elite superstar. Therefore he needs an elite superstar or two to get there.
See, you don't need an arbitrary, made up number.
Who said I don’t understand that? I fully do. Fox was better than Ball. You were better than Labissiere.
I think an additional point that needs to be made is this one: what issue has irritated Calipari the most in recent years? If we focus on this question for a moment, we'll understand the wall that Cal doesn't presently seem to be able to climb over.
That issue is easily the Duke recruiting sale's pitch. Cal is frustrated by it:
1. He came at Jay Bilas for "defending Duke"
2. He called out their pitch as naive in the mocking form of, "I've got some swamp land to sell you."
3. He said OAD was considered horrible "until Duke did it."
4. He mimicked and mocked K's elitism when it came to his interaction with the Oregon players a few years ago.
5. He said some kids want to "have fun for a year."
6. and 7. He downplayed the "set for life" angle on at least two public occasions.
8. He said "maybe their coach" in reference to K, was potentially trying to show him up his has last year in the Champion's classic.
9. He said K had an unfair advantage with Team USA and told Boeheim this.
That's 9 public references to Duke where the bad blood is clearly on display. It's frustrated Cal because Duke is landing the mostly good kids from mostly good homes that he's offering mostly before he offers guys like Keldon.
They've stolen his thunder. This is really the main issue at hand and many of our fans know this. It's why our fans are crucifying Duke and Nike and deflecting all the blame on their program "cheating", even in cases where there's not even a hint of substantiation on the cheating front (Jalen Johnson, Jayson Tatum, Brandon Ingram, RJ Barrett, Cam Reddish, etc.). Duke can't possibly be outselling their program and using all their resources to do so (Nike, media, notions of family). It has to be cheating. It should be noted that all of those advantages are what Cal used from '07-'15: Wes, Nike, LeBron, NBA connections, etc.
Did he offer houses to guys like Zion? No. But he offered Wes and Wes brought a hole questionable package that is often overlooked by hindsight.
That issue is easily the Duke recruiting sale's pitch. Cal is frustrated by it:
1. He came at Jay Bilas for "defending Duke"
2. He called out their pitch as naive in the mocking form of, "I've got some swamp land to sell you."
3. He said OAD was considered horrible "until Duke did it."
4. He mimicked and mocked K's elitism when it came to his interaction with the Oregon players a few years ago.
5. He said some kids want to "have fun for a year."
6. and 7. He downplayed the "set for life" angle on at least two public occasions.
8. He said "maybe their coach" in reference to K, was potentially trying to show him up his has last year in the Champion's classic.
9. He said K had an unfair advantage with Team USA and told Boeheim this.
That's 9 public references to Duke where the bad blood is clearly on display. It's frustrated Cal because Duke is landing the mostly good kids from mostly good homes that he's offering mostly before he offers guys like Keldon.
They've stolen his thunder. This is really the main issue at hand and many of our fans know this. It's why our fans are crucifying Duke and Nike and deflecting all the blame on their program "cheating", even in cases where there's not even a hint of substantiation on the cheating front (Jalen Johnson, Jayson Tatum, Brandon Ingram, RJ Barrett, Cam Reddish, etc.). Duke can't possibly be outselling their program and using all their resources to do so (Nike, media, notions of family). It has to be cheating. It should be noted that all of those advantages are what Cal used from '07-'15: Wes, Nike, LeBron, NBA connections, etc.
Did he offer houses to guys like Zion? No. But he offered Wes and Wes brought a hole questionable package that is often overlooked by hindsight.
Last edited:
Just don't like putting that top 5 number out there like its some magical number.
It's man made, based on people's opinion.
A scout ranked Bledsoe the 51st best player in his class. Some of these gurus are terrible (which is why you use composite rankings, I know).
Fox was 6th and was a elite superstar, just like MKG and Randle.
That's all I am saying.
Except you do. Can’t make it top 4, 3, 2, or hell even 1. Has to be at least 5. Can make it top 10 if ya want. You can even say top 25. 5 just closes the gap a good bit.
Is this number arbitrary?
35.6 wins a year over six years when Cal has a top 5 pick.
27 wins a year over six years when Cal doesn't have a top 5 pick.
* These numbers date back to when Cal fully bought stock in OAD back in 2007 when he was at Memphis.
Getting elite players is a better measurement than unfairly hoping a guy like Johnny Juzang somehow turns into the next Devon Booker in one season.
And even if he does, Booker wouldn’t even be a composite top 5 in hindsight. Not on a college floor.
The scouts that do this for a living are extremely accurate inside of that area. Just look back.
Believe what you want to believe, just don't try to make it scientific, when it is not.
Prove a causal relationship and I'm on board.
If not, it's just an observation, a theory, if you will. One you can't prove or disprove because there is no science to it.
We've also never been to a Final Four without a Kentucky boy on scholarship, which we were missing in 2018 and 2019. Now with Allen on the roster, we have a shot.
Need to factor that in as well.
Need to factor that in as well.
So you do believe Cal has never made a Final Four since employing one and done without a composite top 5 recruit?
It’s an observation. I wouldn’t call it a theory. When something is fact it’s no longer a theory.
My goodness, @Son_Of_Saul is bringing the heat in this thread.
As for @Aike 's question earlier of what would I suggest. Shake up the staff. The assistants are there to help land top recruits. If they aren't getting the job done, then bring in someone who can. Hire Sam Mitchell. Hire Jalen Rose. Hire Cade Cunningham's brother. I don't really care how we get recruits here, as long as it's done within the rules (also I would like those silly rules changed, but I'll keep @morgousky on my side in this argument).
As for @Aike 's question earlier of what would I suggest. Shake up the staff. The assistants are there to help land top recruits. If they aren't getting the job done, then bring in someone who can. Hire Sam Mitchell. Hire Jalen Rose. Hire Cade Cunningham's brother. I don't really care how we get recruits here, as long as it's done within the rules (also I would like those silly rules changed, but I'll keep @morgousky on my side in this argument).
RSCI top 5 and how it relates to the draft:
2018:
#1 Barrett - 3rd pick
#2. Reddish - 10th pick
#3. Little - 25th pick
#4. Zion - 1st pick
#5. Langford - 14th pick
----------------------
2017:
1. Bagley - 2nd pick
2. Porter Jr. - 14th pick
3. Ayton - 1st pick
4. Bamba - 6th pick
5. Duval - undrafted
--------------------------
2016:
1. Jackson - 4th pick
2. Giles - 20th pick
3. Ball - 2nd pick
4. Tatum - 3rd pick
5. Fultz - 1st pick
--------------------------
2015:
1. Simmons - 1st pick
2. Skal - 28th pick
3. Brown - 3rd pick
4. Ingram - 2nd pick
5. Rabb - 35th pick
---------------------------
2014:
1. Okafor - 3rd pick
2. Mudiay - 7th pick
3. Johnson - 8th pick
4. Alexander- undrafted
5. Towns - 1st pick
----------------------
2013:
1. Wiggins - 1st pick
2. Parker - 2nd pick
3. Randle - 7th pick
4. Gordon - 4th pick
5. Harrison - 44th pick
-----------------------------
2012:
1. Noel - 6th pick
2. Bazz - 14th pick
3. Austin - undrafted due to illness
4. Anderson - 30th pick
5. Adams - 12th pick
----------------
2011:
1. Davis - 1st pick
2. Rivers - 10th pick
3. MKG - 2nd pick
4. Beal - 3rd pick
5. Miller - 38th pick
-----------------------
2010:
1. Barnes - 7th pick
2. Irving - 1st pick
3. Sullinger - 21st pick
4. Knight - 8th pick
5. Harris - 19th pick
--------------------
2009:
1. Favors - 3rd pick
2. Cousins - 5th pick
3. Wall - 1st pick
4. Bradley - 19th pick
5. Henson - 14th pick
----------------
2008:
1. Jennings - 10th pick
2. Holiday - 17th pick
3. Evans - 4th pick
4. Samuels - undrafted
5. Derozen - 9th pick
-------------
2007:
1. Mayo - 3rd pick
2. Love - 5th pick
3. Gordon - 7th pick
4. Beasley - 2nd pick
5. Rose - 1st pick
With the exception of Austin (leaving 59 players), it looks like the vast majority of these guys lived up to their hype from a draft level and most of them have been starters for the majority of their careers in the NBA. Others disappointed later on once in the league. Many of the players who didn't translate from RSCI to initial draft projection did so due to injuries (Porter Jr., Austin, Sullinger, Giles). Some have chronically disappointed once arriving in the NBA (Fultz comes to mind). The vast majority of these guys, however, have been NBA starters for the majority of their NBA careers (around 34 out of 54 players if we exempt the current draft and Austin due to his chronic physical ailments). If 3 of those current rookies become starters this year (likely) than that number jumpy to 37/59 players. In other words, top 5 RSCI guys since 2007 have been featured as starters on NBA teams 63% of the time for the majority of their careers.
Busts:
- Samuels
- Skal
- Alexander
- Miller
- Duval
Even in the cases of busts, you're getting a serviceable college player.
Obviously, the numbers also need to be run for guys in the 6-10 RSCI range, 11-15 range, etc.
2018:
#1 Barrett - 3rd pick
#2. Reddish - 10th pick
#3. Little - 25th pick
#4. Zion - 1st pick
#5. Langford - 14th pick
----------------------
2017:
1. Bagley - 2nd pick
2. Porter Jr. - 14th pick
3. Ayton - 1st pick
4. Bamba - 6th pick
5. Duval - undrafted
--------------------------
2016:
1. Jackson - 4th pick
2. Giles - 20th pick
3. Ball - 2nd pick
4. Tatum - 3rd pick
5. Fultz - 1st pick
--------------------------
2015:
1. Simmons - 1st pick
2. Skal - 28th pick
3. Brown - 3rd pick
4. Ingram - 2nd pick
5. Rabb - 35th pick
---------------------------
2014:
1. Okafor - 3rd pick
2. Mudiay - 7th pick
3. Johnson - 8th pick
4. Alexander- undrafted
5. Towns - 1st pick
----------------------
2013:
1. Wiggins - 1st pick
2. Parker - 2nd pick
3. Randle - 7th pick
4. Gordon - 4th pick
5. Harrison - 44th pick
-----------------------------
2012:
1. Noel - 6th pick
2. Bazz - 14th pick
3. Austin - undrafted due to illness
4. Anderson - 30th pick
5. Adams - 12th pick
----------------
2011:
1. Davis - 1st pick
2. Rivers - 10th pick
3. MKG - 2nd pick
4. Beal - 3rd pick
5. Miller - 38th pick
-----------------------
2010:
1. Barnes - 7th pick
2. Irving - 1st pick
3. Sullinger - 21st pick
4. Knight - 8th pick
5. Harris - 19th pick
--------------------
2009:
1. Favors - 3rd pick
2. Cousins - 5th pick
3. Wall - 1st pick
4. Bradley - 19th pick
5. Henson - 14th pick
----------------
2008:
1. Jennings - 10th pick
2. Holiday - 17th pick
3. Evans - 4th pick
4. Samuels - undrafted
5. Derozen - 9th pick
-------------
2007:
1. Mayo - 3rd pick
2. Love - 5th pick
3. Gordon - 7th pick
4. Beasley - 2nd pick
5. Rose - 1st pick
With the exception of Austin (leaving 59 players), it looks like the vast majority of these guys lived up to their hype from a draft level and most of them have been starters for the majority of their careers in the NBA. Others disappointed later on once in the league. Many of the players who didn't translate from RSCI to initial draft projection did so due to injuries (Porter Jr., Austin, Sullinger, Giles). Some have chronically disappointed once arriving in the NBA (Fultz comes to mind). The vast majority of these guys, however, have been NBA starters for the majority of their NBA careers (around 34 out of 54 players if we exempt the current draft and Austin due to his chronic physical ailments). If 3 of those current rookies become starters this year (likely) than that number jumpy to 37/59 players. In other words, top 5 RSCI guys since 2007 have been featured as starters on NBA teams 63% of the time for the majority of their careers.
Busts:
- Samuels
- Skal
- Alexander
- Miller
- Duval
Even in the cases of busts, you're getting a serviceable college player.
Obviously, the numbers also need to be run for guys in the 6-10 RSCI range, 11-15 range, etc.
Last edited:
You can't prove that Cal hasn't made a Final Four because he didn't have a composite top 5 recruit, which is what some on here are trying to do.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
STOP.
I’ve never once said and am not currently saying he hasn’t done it *because* he didn’t have a top 5 recruit. I’m just saying he’s never done it. Draw your own conclusions. Surely you agree with that.
Because of that reason the next time UK signs a player that ends up top 5 in the final rankings I’m gonna be giddy.
49/59 guys (omitting Austin) who were RSCI top 5 players became top 20 picks in their draft: 83%.
3/59 went undrafted: 5%
Around 37/59 (if we count Reddish, Zion, RJ) have or will be full time starters for the majority of their NBA careers: 63%.
47/59 have or will be looked to as a full time starter during at least one season of their NBA career (if we count the Duke trio as a conservative estimate and omit Little/Langford: 80%.
If you went after RSCI guys the last 12 years:
- you had a 80% of getting an NBA starter at some point in his career (minimum one season)
- you had a 63% chance of getting a guy who's NBA career was mentioned among the starting five of an NBA team for the majority of his career.
- you had a 83% of getting a top 20 pick.
- you had a 5% chance of getting a guy who went undrafted.
3/59 went undrafted: 5%
Around 37/59 (if we count Reddish, Zion, RJ) have or will be full time starters for the majority of their NBA careers: 63%.
47/59 have or will be looked to as a full time starter during at least one season of their NBA career (if we count the Duke trio as a conservative estimate and omit Little/Langford: 80%.
If you went after RSCI guys the last 12 years:
- you had a 80% of getting an NBA starter at some point in his career (minimum one season)
- you had a 63% chance of getting a guy who's NBA career was mentioned among the starting five of an NBA team for the majority of his career.
- you had a 83% of getting a top 20 pick.
- you had a 5% chance of getting a guy who went undrafted.
You also had a 45/59 chance of getting a lottery pick (again omitting Austin due to his physical ailment): 76%.
"If they aren't getting the job done."
This is the crux of the debate when it comes to the assistants. Some think they "are getting the job done", and they have based this on the new argumentative beachhead of declaring that elite RSCI players don't matter as much (the reasons why this argument fails have been thoroughly outlined in this thread). To go one deeper, the line sounds off like this, "Given the current state of cheating, handouts, benefits, etc. - Cal's staff is doing all they can do."
Maybe this is true; but what if it's not? What if Duke is just outselling us on a line that kids prefer more? What if our staff is unwilling to bend on their old approach of hard work, sacrifice, no "funzies", and you make your own way once you leave here (as opposed to a "set for life" line that parents seem to appreciate; i.e. the program will continue to have your back once you leave, in any practical way that it possibly can)?
Some see no need to shake up the staff. Their deflection is all encompassing, especially if it's assumed to be a fully developed and proven premise (which it's not): that premise is that Duke cheats for all of their elite commitments.
I noted 9 public instances where Cal has gone to the carpet with Duke earlier in this thread. Not once did he mention they were cheating or using Nike. He's pointed out Team USA as an advantage (which he later retracted by saying "Coach K has earned the right to coach that team"); he's pointed out the naive prestige Duke sells recruits on (which he later said was directed at many schools, which was also a public deflection); he's pointed out how some kids just want a year of "funzies."
These are his public lines of attack - two of which he later deflected - and evidently he's still not willing to go scorched earth on Duke when it comes to his private recruiting according to what the elite players have said.
Until this happens (full-scale total war on Duke publicly and privately without retractions), I think we likely continue to lose to them for the Jalen Johnsons of the world. Some are also fine with this, as they've effectively labeled such players as essentially being mentally weak; unable or unwilling to accept Cal's challenge of hard work and sacrifice; or asking for handouts. Their argument is reinforced by highlighting Duke's tournament flameouts as evidence that these players are inept, weren't really worth the time pursuing, or incapable of achieving tournament success (which avoids the issue that Cal actually thrives with OAD in ways Coach K has not). What's interesting here is that Calipari has recruited many of these guys for years, knows their families intimately, and went after them all the way up until the 11th hour. Did they only become mentally weak or corrupt after they committed to Duke, but not before when Cal was still recruiting them, praising their families, and praising their abilities and work ethic?
By the way, we've lost five straight head-to-head recruitments against Duke for RSCI top 10 kids (Johnson, Zion, Barrett, Reddish, Bagley) and seven of our last eight against them for top 10 kids.
There's a reason Calipari was riding a hoverboard around his house when Knox committed to Kentucky.
Last edited:
To quote Bill Withers: "Ain't no sunshine when she's gone."
To quote the last twelve years: "Ain't no Final Four when the RSCI top 5 are gone."
Last edited:
Kersey's vibe in a nutshell -
Trending up:
Dante
Christopher
Boston
Trending down:
Green
Similar threads
