On the Recruiting Platoon Effect

[MattJonesKSR]

Calipari acknowledged today that platooning was used against UK in the recruiting process this year. It had a stronger impact for some recruits than others (Newman, Diallo and Zimmerman were likely most affected), but was used by coaches with everyone Kentucky was going after. Cal's comments today won't completely take away the issue (that won't happen until they play next season without platooning), it was a big step and one he had to do. Even though some fans thought the idea that platooning was used against Calipari was false or stupid (and some on here roasted me for saying so), the coaches believe it was the number one problem they had to overcome. While other factors surely mattered (distance from home, coaching relationships and with Brown, the media spotlight), the platoon was the one Calipari clearly believes had to be addressed most importantly.

Still with all that, I think platooning was the right call. It kept out unrest on a team where most believed playing time would be an issue. It created a team bond that led to one of the most magical runs in UK history. The unintended consequence was a tough Spring recruiting. My guess is that it won't have an impact beyond then, but Cal's comments today are clearly to try to make certain that is the case.

 

[Lumpy 2]

If these kids let the platooning affect their decisions they were probably more interested in individual stats than they were about competing for championships and they sound like those Cal is referring to when he says Kentucky isn't for everyone. The platooning didn't seem to negatively affect the draft status of our players and the competition in practice only made them better. I would rather have a player with a little less talent but is willing to buy into the team concept than one who is only interested in personal achievements.

 

[catben]

Could this be the reason Cal is finished with recruiting?
This way he can keep the rotation at 7-8 players. We have 5(5*) players on this roster. That should be plenty of talent to compete for a Final 4 run. Why add players that will never actually compete for playing time just to fill up the 13 scholarships?

It all comes down to trust. A recruit must have it in the coach. For some reason, this group of recruits didn't trust Cal. Why? Considering the success of our former players, UK and Coach Cal should have been an easy choice. I agree with you Matt, that this class was extremely odd.

 

[JC for 3]

...it was the right call....the team was ridiculously deep....you had to spread out the playing time somehow. If it had resulted in 40-0, opposing coaches still would have used it against UK on the recruiting trail.

 

[Sawnee Cat]

If a player only stays a year or two it makes little difference one way or the other

 

[3rex]

I agree with the OP. 2 things can be true at the same time. Those 2 things being...

It was the right move for the past season.

It was used against us on the trail.

HS players aren't watching or listening all that closely during their senior year, in my opinion.
They turn on the TV & hear platoon. They see 5 subbing for 5.

Cal probably didn't help by playing it up so heavily, giving each platoon a name, etc.

Any negative effect will not last beyond this year, in my opinion.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Cal said basically the same thing a few months ago in a post. You could tell it was a concern for players he was recruiting, otherwise he would not have posted it.

The problem most had was the logic. How could a SF let this influence his decision when there were plenty minutes?

But the real key to it all was that UK had more returning talent than most any other top team. Otherwise platooning never gets discussed.

Finally, are these kids we'd want if they were scared of having to compete for playing time? They don't seem like the typical Cal recruit as of late. Most of these kids made a decision to go somewhere the red carpet would be rolled out, and they wouldnt have to share the limelight.

 

[ala_kat2]

Calipari acknowledged today that platooning was used against UK in the recruiting process this year. It had a stronger impact for some recruits than others (Newman, Diallo and Zimmerman were likely most affected), but was used by coaches with everyone Kentucky was going after. Cal's comments today won't completely take away the issue (that won't happen until they play next season without platooning), it was a big step and one he had to do. Even though some fans thought the idea that platooning was used against Calipari was false or stupid (and some on here roasted me for saying so), the coaches believe it was the number one problem they had to overcome. While other factors surely mattered (distance from home, coaching relationships and with Brown, the media spotlight), the platoon was the one Calipari clearly believes had to be addressed most importantly.

Still with all that, I think platooning was the right call. It kept out unrest on a team where most believed playing time would be an issue. It created a team bond that led to one of the most magical runs in UK history. The unintended consequence was a tough Spring recruiting. My guess is that it won't have an impact beyond then, but Cal's comments today are clearly to try to make certain that is the case.

In my opinion, the only reason he platooned was due to WCS and the Twins coming back. If he's not going to platoon, then he can only recruit so many 5* players in one year. You cannot keep eight or ten 5* McD players happy if you're only going to play 5 of them for the most part. So only sign 2 or 3 One and Dones per year and develop the others as multi-year contributors, such as Willis, Lee or Poythress. But you've got to play the ones who are there for the long run in order for their game to develop, not just give them mop-up minutes like he did Willis this year.

 

[JPScott]

While UK will not be able to platoon most years, I think it's a overreaction and unnecessary to state that UK will never platoon in the future.

If anything, it should be a goal to have enough solid players that one could platoon if the conditions were right. To do anything less means that you are not trying to have as deep or talented a team as possible. Note that this doesn't mean that UK would automatically platoon with 10 good players, only that they would have enough players to do so if it made sense. Calipari could certainly choose to only play 7 or 8 if he thought that was the best option. And that doesn't mean UK would always be able to attract at least 10 good players every year, only that this should be the goal.

My opinion is that UK historically has been at its best with deep and talented teams, and that having those teams gives UK the best chance at winning a national championship, with last year's team a perfect example.

I don't think that by playing 7 or 8 players (or more importantly only having 7 or 8 solid players) gives UK its best chance for success. The last time that was tried was in 2012-13 and that team was a disaster (relative to most UK teams) as it was thin at key positions and was vulnerable to a key injury (Noel) which pretty much sealed the season. I seem to remember after that season Calipari declaring that he would never be caught short again.

Where my concern is with Cal's statement is whether he means to say that he no longer will try to have deep teams (i.e. at least 10 guys capable of contributing) or whether he means that regardless of how many good players he has that he will only play 7 or 8. If it's the former, then I think that's a mistake as it makes whatever team he puts together vulnerable to injury or other unexpected upset. If it's the latter then while I understand that's how Cal has historically felt the most comfortable coaching, I think it's shortsighted and not trying to reach UK's full potential.

The one experience we had with full platooning and not only was UK undefeated but they were playing at a historically dominant level. It seems crazy to me to vow to never play that way again, when it proved to be so successful.

 

[BlueRunner11]

Saw Cal's post earlier today, many of us on here had been saying this for awhile...and got roasted as well. Maybe they'll believe it now that Cal has said it, but probably not. It was the right call for this year, but its obvious that its had an effect.

My only difference is that I think it still may have an affect on recruiting for a couple years mostly on the earlier potential commitments that are worried/or told by other coaches about possibly being platooned again at UK if the current team has a loaded roster with non lottery players and others that are iffy on that upcoming draft. If opposing coaches have found a potential chink in Cal's armor, they're going to milk it for all its worth. "He did it one, he could do it again" sort of thing. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

 

[twocoach]

Calipari acknowledged today that platooning was used against UK in the recruiting process this year. It had a stronger impact for some recruits than others (Newman, Diallo and Zimmerman were likely most affected), but was used by coaches with everyone Kentucky was going after. Cal's comments today won't completely take away the issue (that won't happen until they play next season without platooning), it was a big step and one he had to do. Even though some fans thought the idea that platooning was used against Calipari was false or stupid (and some on here roasted me for saying so), the coaches believe it was the number one problem they had to overcome. While other factors surely mattered (distance from home, coaching relationships and with Brown, the media spotlight), the platoon was the one Calipari clearly believes had to be addressed most importantly.

Still with all that, I think platooning was the right call. It kept out unrest on a team where most believed playing time would be an issue. It created a team bond that led to one of the most magical runs in UK history. The unintended consequence was a tough Spring recruiting. My guess is that it won't have an impact beyond then, but Cal's comments today are clearly to try to make certain that is the case.

Platooning had zero impact on Diallo. He went to Kansas because he was really impressed with their development of Embiid after multiple conversations with Joel about what the coaching staff did for him, liked his visit to KU and felt he had a better chance for minutes with Landen Lucas standing between him and a starting forward slot than he did with Skal, Poythress and Lee already competing for the two spots at Kentucky.

 

[BlueRunner11]

Platooning had zero impact on Diallo. He went to Kansas because he was really impressed with their development of Embiid after multiple conversations with Joel about what the coaching staff did for him, liked his visit to KU and felt he had a better chance for minutes with Landen Lucas standing between him and a starting forward slot than he did with Skal, Poythress and Lee already competing for the two spots at Kentucky.

Thanks for contributing your unbiased perspective. Such tactics are below Bill Self I'm sure...btw Do you think Diallo caught that game back in November?

 

[reignof cats]

I am a fan of getting as many talented kids as possible on our roster. If the nbapa and the ncaa force a two and done scenario, then Cal will be ready for platooning. Platooning might have hurt us but the real reasons are as follows:

Skal & Lee better than Zimmerman
Ulis & Briscoe better pg's than Newman
AP better than C. Diallo
Brown was not threatened. We got Matthews. Who is very good and has played with Tyler.
Murray if he reclassifies could start at SF. Cal has a jr. Mulder.
Cal going to a 7-8 man rotation. minutes are tightened!! GBB

 

[twocoach]

Thanks for contributing your unbiased perspective. Such tactics are below Bill Self I'm sure...btw Do you think Diallo caught that game back in November?

Shocker, another Kentucky fan that thinks the world revolves around Kentucky basketball. As hard as it may be for you to believe this, other schools can stand on their own merits without having to negatively recruit against Kentucky.

as for your last lame attempt at a dig, even if Diallo did watch the Kansas-Kentucky game earlier in the year it obviously didn't factor into his decision. Kentucky still had a great recruiting class after getting punked by Robert Morris in the NIT a few years ago. Recruits aren't real worried about what a team they were not a part of did or did not accomplish. Kansas has shown that they are able to compete deep in the tourney when they have a good, well balanced team with a nice mix of young talent and veterans. They'll be a tough out this year.

 

[wildcat8084]

Platooning was right for last year but, it won't work as an every year strategy because of recruiting

 

[sluggercatfan]

Shocker, another Kentucky fan that thinks the world revolves around Kentucky basketball. As hard as it may be for you to believe this, other schools can stand on their own merits without having to negatively recruit against Kentucky.

as for your last lame attempt at a dig, even if Diallo did watch the Kansas-Kentucky game earlier in the year it obviously didn't factor into his decision. Kentucky still had a great recruiting class after getting punked by Robert Morris in the NIT a few years ago. Recruits aren't real worried about what a team they were not a part of did or did not accomplish. Kansas has shown that they are able to compete deep in the tourney when they have a good, well balanced team with a nice mix of young talent and veterans. They'll be a tough out this year.

...it was the right call....the team was ridiculously deep....you had to spread out the playing time somehow. If it had resulted in 40-0, opposing coaches still would have used it against UK on the recruiting trail.

If these kids let the platooning affect their decisions they were probably more interested in individual stats than they were about competing for championships and they sound like those Cal is referring to when he says Kentucky isn't for everyone. The platooning didn't seem to negatively affect the draft status of our players and the competition in practice only made them better. I would rather have a player with a little less talent but is willing to buy into the team concept than one who is only interested in personal achievements.

 

[TrustinCal]

Congrats Matt.

 

[ukfan041]

Shocker, another Kentucky fan that thinks the world revolves around Kentucky basketball. As hard as it may be for you to believe this, other schools can stand on their own merits without having to negatively recruit against Kentucky.

as for your last lame attempt at a dig, even if Diallo did watch the Kansas-Kentucky game earlier in the year it obviously didn't factor into his decision. Kentucky still had a great recruiting class after getting punked by Robert Morris in the NIT a few years ago. Recruits aren't real worried about what a team they were not a part of did or did not accomplish. Kansas has shown that they are able to compete deep in the tourney when they have a good, well balanced team with a nice mix of young talent and veterans. They'll be a tough out this year.

"Tough out"........lol! I'm sure another 7 seed is looking forward to knocking you guys out of the tourney! If there is one thing KU is good for, it's definitely doing less with more! But as a Fan, I'm sure you are well aware of that!

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Wait, so recriuts were scared of having to run a platoon-style sub pattern on a team that needs more players???

 

[kybassfan]

I gotta admit, I was surprised to see this come from Calipari. Was a good call on the OPs part. He was surely closer to the mark than I was.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

Shocker, another Kentucky fan that thinks the world revolves around Kentucky basketball. As hard as it may be for you to believe this, other schools can stand on their own merits without having to negatively recruit against Kentucky.

as for your last lame attempt at a dig, even if Diallo did watch the Kansas-Kentucky game earlier in the year it obviously didn't factor into his decision. Kentucky still had a great recruiting class after getting punked by Robert Morris in the NIT a few years ago. Recruits aren't real worried about what a team they were not a part of did or did not accomplish. Kansas has shown that they are able to compete deep in the tourney when they have a good, well balanced team with a nice mix of young talent and veterans. They'll be a tough out this year.

Did you say SHOCKER? I thought that was a dirty word for Kansas fans.

 

[ukfan041]

Did you say SHOCKER? I thought that was a dirty word for Kansas fans.

Dude probably doesn't even get the pun....lol!

 

[Lumpy 2]

Wait, so recriuts were scared of having to run a platoon-style sub pattern on a team that needs more players???

What's scaring off recruits at UNC?

 

[johnnyrockets]

Cal would never say something just to settle the masses, right?

 

[kybassfan]

What's scaring off recruits at UNC?

Lack of quality education? Wait, sorry, that's an oxymoron. Lack of quality?

 

[BengalWACO]

...it was the right call....the team was ridiculously deep....you had to spread out the playing time somehow. If it had resulted in 40-0, opposing coaches still would have used it against UK on the recruiting trail.

I agree. That is a great point.

 

[wildcatsboston1984]

And some people on here wouldn't listen to me that other coahces used it against us. Clowns.

 

[catfaninsc]

Yahoo even has a story about it cycling through on their home page.

Link

 

[johnnyrockets]

Somebody help me here. Is negative recruiting new? Was Cal bulletproof before this season? Did Miss St, Duke, Cal, Kansas, and UNLV all figure him out at the same time? Did the five kids in question wait until players declared, freeing up a ton of minutes, then still choose to go elsewhere, because of concerns over minutes?

None of this makes any sense. It's an excuse, which is stupid, because excuses aren't needed when you sign a top 5 class. Cal is only dragging this out by still talking about it. Some of y'all just can't get enough, I guess.

 

[*Bleedingblue*]

I don't care what year it is, who we have on the roster, who gets what playing time, how the offense is run, how we play d etc etc etc your going to have negative recruiting against us.
If happens every year and will be happening next year as well it will be just something different that coaches will pull out if their ass to confuse kids into coming to their program instead.

Now the question is do you take the high road and just do your thing and to hell with the other coaches or do you soil your hands and dip your fingers into the poo flinging? (Insert monkey flinging poo)
I'd say stay with being the standard and use reasoning with recruits and make public statements. I think Cal is a little late on making a statement, should have publicly scorned opposing coaches weeks ago. Let the recruits know what you said publicly is just what your telling them privately that it was just a one time thing because we had the roster to do it.

Now does Diallo not come here because of platooning when he commits to a school with 2x as many front court guys? Doesn't make sense to me.
To me all platooning is just subbing guys in and out? Don't tell me that other coaches won't be subbing ahem "platooning".

 

[anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6]

I love me some KSR, agree that platooning likely hurt recruiting this year, and realize you talk to people much closer to these situations than me . . . but my man, did you really need the 'told you so" post on the rivals board?

 

[ace on the river]

I like Matt, but it is plain as day with this post, he is just a mouth piece for coach Cal. and thats ok! but when was the last time he started a thread? if ever?

 

[Hoskins91]

Whenever a thread related to him comes up on the board, he always shows up eventually to defend himself. Now he is even coming on to do "I told you so" posts. I'm sure it did come up, but I think there are also things that you can point to for each individual for why they didn't come here. It is simplifying things too much.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

What's scaring off recruits at UNC?

The realistic threats of sanctions.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yaaayyy...another platooning and how it affects recruiting thread!!!

 

[Bombur]

What's scaring off recruits at UNC?

Opposing coaches are negatively recruiting by telling recruits they expect the NCAA to levy a severe punishment, even though those coaches couldn't possibly know what the NCAA is going to do.

Negative recruiting happens all the time. The impact of the negative recruiting varies based on whether or not the recruits believe the BS.

 

[4UK]

I don't have a doubt that platooning hurt UK's recruiting; that was obvious to anyone who didn't have their head buried in the sand. The irony is that, if these players and their advisors truly analyzed the situation, they would have seen that the platoon helped far more players than it hurt in terms of draft status.

Booker's weaknesses, particularly on defense, would have been exposed if he played 25-30 minutes a game. Instead, he got to showcase his strengths - shooting, getting out in transition - without the grind of defending for long stretches.

KAT was able to be much more aggressive on defense, because he didn't really have to worry about foul trouble. Even with that, he got in foul trouble several times, but imagine how bad it would have been if he were playing 32-35 minutes a game. Okafor didn't have that luxury, and it's KAT's defense separates him from Okafor and will likely make him the No. 1 pick. That may - and I stress may - not have been the case without the platoon.

I think the platoon helped Andrew and Dakari as well, as Andrew was able to avoid the mental lapses that he was prone to have a season earlier, and it allowed Dakari to play hard every minute on the floor. He simply couldn't do that if he were playing traditional starter minutes, despite being in better condition.

The only player I think it truly hurt was Aaron, as he never seemed to be able to get into a good shooting rhythm.

I know the ego of these recruits won't allow them to see this, as they always believe they are ready to star immediately. But if getting to the NBA is the ultimate goal, sometimes hiding weaknesses is every bit as important as showcasing strengths.

 

[johnnyrockets]

I like Matt, but it is plain as day with this post, he is just a mouth piece for coach Cal. and thats ok! but when was the last time he started a thread? if ever?

It's hilarious. A guy with great access to the program and the staff (and who makes money by having people read his blog and listen to his radio show) floats "platooning was the problem with 2015 recruiting" for a couple of days before the head coach issues a statement implying that platooning was, in fact, the problem with 2015 recruiting, and now people are breaking their arms in a rush to pat him on the back for "nailing it."

Set aside the fact that it makes no sense to lay all of this at the feet of negative recruiting over the platoon system, and ask yourself which is more likely: that MJ has access and is willing to use it at times to bolster his readership/listenership, or that he is just in Cal's head and has the same independent reading of the situation.

 

[AnarchoNeoLuddite]

Could someone explain how it affected Diallo? He just signed with ku and they have more experienced bigs than us?

 

[twocoach]

Could someone explain how it affected Diallo? He just signed with ku and they have more experienced bigs than us?

It doesn't matter the NUMBER of returning bigs you have unless you are competing for bench minutes. Perry Ellis is 100% guaranteed to be one of the two starting forwards. It is between Diallo and Landen Lucas and to a lesser factor Hunter Mickelson for the second forward spot at Kansas. Diallo considered that an easier path to starting minutes than beating out Poythress and Lee for minutes next to Skal (who is like Ellis in that he is pretty much guaranteed to be using one of those starting spots. If Poythress and/or Lee and or Skal weren't there then the conversation is totally different.