This is why I think John Calipari's last six years have been better for UK than Coach K's would have been.
View it in the framework of how UK has been seen historically.
1. Even as UK was largely considered the nation's best program or one of the nation's best programs up 'til 2009, UK did not have any No. 1 draft picks, they had significantly fewer Final Fours than UNC and fewer than Duke and, as a matter of perception, fans and recruits across the country did not think about elite, transcendent talents at UK in the same way they did at UNC and Duke. UK's historic success, according to perception, was less about individual greats and more about great team defense, the fast break (in the early days), and the collective effort.
2. Calipari has not just added to the title count, though he has. He has narrowed the gap on the Final Four point (IIRC, at one point it was like five or so fewer than the program with the most). He has given UK three number one picks, possibly four as of next year.
So beyond the numbers, Calipari has totally reversed the points that would hypothetically be used against Kentucky in arguments over "the best all-time." Beyond that, he has systematically added to UK's "lore" in the eyes of recruits for the next 20-30 years by amassing an unprecedented amount of young talent in the NBA.
Basketball is a team sport, but basketball culture and fandom is all about individuals, beyond the die hards on team message boards. Player emulate players, not teams. Recruits' attitudes are shaped based on which player did what and where, not based on the specifics of which team won which game. At least rarely.
The Fab Five's cultural significance. Jordan's success in branding. Lebron's insane cult following and utter dominance of the national conversation in spite of a losing record in the finals.
Sometimes it's more important than to just dominate the conversation than to win the whole thing. If you're the one that everybody talks about, you've won, even if you haven't won. That's a point that I don't think everyone will agree with and I won't totally write off criticisms of this point, but I do think it's naive to write off that point I'm making entirely.
Now, Duke has also been phenomenal and a great case can be made for their last six years.
But I think UK has dominated the conversation more, has done more to 'patch' its image in areas that needed patching, and has taken over more a role of adding fans, adding haters, winning hearts/minds of young players, etc. Part of that is because Duke really already had those things and UK had kind of become the more-lovable-than-they-used-to-be giant that wasn't quite as big as they were in the past. But still, the point remains.
View it in the framework of how UK has been seen historically.
1. Even as UK was largely considered the nation's best program or one of the nation's best programs up 'til 2009, UK did not have any No. 1 draft picks, they had significantly fewer Final Fours than UNC and fewer than Duke and, as a matter of perception, fans and recruits across the country did not think about elite, transcendent talents at UK in the same way they did at UNC and Duke. UK's historic success, according to perception, was less about individual greats and more about great team defense, the fast break (in the early days), and the collective effort.
2. Calipari has not just added to the title count, though he has. He has narrowed the gap on the Final Four point (IIRC, at one point it was like five or so fewer than the program with the most). He has given UK three number one picks, possibly four as of next year.
So beyond the numbers, Calipari has totally reversed the points that would hypothetically be used against Kentucky in arguments over "the best all-time." Beyond that, he has systematically added to UK's "lore" in the eyes of recruits for the next 20-30 years by amassing an unprecedented amount of young talent in the NBA.
Basketball is a team sport, but basketball culture and fandom is all about individuals, beyond the die hards on team message boards. Player emulate players, not teams. Recruits' attitudes are shaped based on which player did what and where, not based on the specifics of which team won which game. At least rarely.
The Fab Five's cultural significance. Jordan's success in branding. Lebron's insane cult following and utter dominance of the national conversation in spite of a losing record in the finals.
Sometimes it's more important than to just dominate the conversation than to win the whole thing. If you're the one that everybody talks about, you've won, even if you haven't won. That's a point that I don't think everyone will agree with and I won't totally write off criticisms of this point, but I do think it's naive to write off that point I'm making entirely.
Now, Duke has also been phenomenal and a great case can be made for their last six years.
But I think UK has dominated the conversation more, has done more to 'patch' its image in areas that needed patching, and has taken over more a role of adding fans, adding haters, winning hearts/minds of young players, etc. Part of that is because Duke really already had those things and UK had kind of become the more-lovable-than-they-used-to-be giant that wasn't quite as big as they were in the past. But still, the point remains.
