I don’t agree with the guy above that says you have to credit him with the successful players in terms of development. These things aren’t equal just because. Calipari does not develop talent but some of that talent ends up being really really talented and can play. He’s always recruiting top classes so yea some of them will be really good.
You’re probably referring to me giving Cal credit for successful players. Let me first reiterate, it was time for Cal to leave. Cal lost the fan base and things were only going to get worse for all parties if he remained at UK. So, my statements are in no way a desire that he was still at UK.
However, putting emotion, fandom, lack of fandom, etc…to the side, I don’t see how anyone can logically blame Cal for specific players not meeting expectations while not giving him credit for other players exceeding or meeting expectations.
Here’s where we probably agree. One, Coaches get too much credit for player success (Davis and many others) and too much blame when high profile players don't meet high expectations (Livingston, Edwards, and others). Two, coaches never know how a player responds (regardless of their talent) to pressure. Some players thrive and other players wilt. I watched Sheppard in high school and thought he would be a 4 year role player at best. However, there was something about him that caused him to excel against better competition. Some of these players are hyped as future NBA players when they’re 15 and the feel the weight of the world on their shoulders coming to college. Throw in a couple subpar games and the pressure builds fast.
Here’s what NBA people liked about Cal. He never out-schemed anyone! (That’s not a knock against him. He was open about his philosophy.) “My guy is better than your guy and will beat you.” NBA scouts got to see what a player could and could not do. Sure, players should continue developing after getting to the league. However, Cal was about giving players freedom to showcase skills and get to the league.
That’s the reason I’m personally glad for the change. A team of four and five year college players, combined with a few excellent young players will beat very young teams regardless of the young talent. (Most the time!) I’m ready to see the combination of talent and scheme!
Looking back, Cal’s success rate of putting players in the league and those players succeeding in the league is VERY high. Rich Paul and others (fans) have very little logic to stand on if they’re trying to blame Cal for a player’s lack of success.
Again, I don’t think that philosophy can consistently win championships on the college level. I’m happy with the change!