vol fan here with a question about the one and done rule

[morgousky]

As a U.K. Fan wanting straight to league from high school is insane.

We had straight to NBA just a few years ago.

We now have an advantage and some fans want to get rid of it.

Amazingly and mundnumbly awful.

Makes zero sense.

We are blessed with OAD, we have fans that cannot handle the collateral damage of the subculture of players leaving too early that shouldn't have.

Weak Sauce


Not one poster here can make a case that the last 8 years would be remotely close to the success we have had if it were not the OAD.

Yet they keep preaching this insanity.

There's no way Cal could have been as effective as he has been with the straight from high school or two route. That's just incredibly bizarre that someone could actually make that case.

I guess Cal could have hit some good teams and he would have recruited around it, but we wouldn't have this level of success. And even if someone thinks it's possible I'd like to hear a good case as to how that would have put UK in a better position to win.

Honestly I don't think it would suit Cal to have a two and done. I have never believed him when he says he'd prefer it. Why would he? So You gain great players for two years - while everyone else gains half of our players we've had. No thanks. Cals strength is in recruiting. The OAD has helped him. Without that he loses most of what he sells and everyone else improves tremendously.

 

[morgousky]

And you can't prove that we wouldn't be just as successful.

None of us know what our roster in 2012 would have been. Both of us can probably guess that we would be competitive year in and year out, just like we are now.

IMO, we would be recruiting similar to what UNC does, who signs very good players, but doesn't sign the best of the best on a regular basis....they didn't do too shabby the past 2 years.

Imagine players staying 2 and 3 years like NOVA and UNC

I disagree that we have dominated. I think we could be just as successful with a different recruiting philosophy if players went straight to the NBA.

IMO, you're not giving Cal nearly enough credit. Cal was a great coach before the 1 and done and he would be a great coach again without the 1 and done.

Cal might have been a great coach, but he wasn't DOMINANT.

I'm not going to argue system preferences. Maybe UK sings Izzo in 09 and we win two titles. Who knows. I would prefer a two and done for college basketball, but I'm definitely not for none or two with Cal coaching at UK. And as I said, I don't think a two and done helps Cal near as much as most do.

The thing is it's not going to work both ways. Cals best attribute as a HC BY FAR is recruiting. Nothing else he does comes close except promotion. Why on earth would you want to strip that away? Cal has 1 final four without a OAD, and today Camby is a OAD.

Cal has 5 final fours and a national title with OAD, mostly coming from OAD products. Heavily in fact. So the facts are simply just against you here.

 

[morgousky]

Go back and look at the original projections out of high school, Cousins and Bledsoe were not considered one and done prospects, Orton definitely was not. Just saying if they were allowed to go straight from hish school, Wall most likely would have been the only one of the 3. But it still doesn't matter, in my opinion if a kid wants to try he should be allowed to go right out of high school. This one and done rule is just the NBA protecting their own interests.

Demarcus Cousins was NBA OAD before he stepped foot at UK. Are you serious?

 

[UK-chulo]

Cal's early adoption of the one and done is the reason we have had all those #1 recruiting classes. They are not coming here to play for UK, they come because Cal is giving them the chance to reach a career goal quicker. Should these players have to choose a school with one and done out of the equation I'm not sure all of the ones who came here would have picked UK.

 

[bigdaddy741]

As a UK fan the current rule is okay with me.

As a BASKETBALL FAN at all levels I think the baseball model would be the best for college, NBA, and fans.

The LeBrons and such could go straight to the league.

The rest could go to college for three years (oh, the horror!) or go ride the pine in Europe or make near minimum wage in the NBDL.

Kentucky aside, it's crazy that over 100 guys declare for the draft for only 64 spots.

Another thing that could help is allow the players to earn money via jersey sales and autographs, etc.

 

[Kampus Korner]

Cal might have been a great coach, but he wasn't DOMINANT.

I'm not going to argue system preferences. Maybe UK sings Izzo in 09 and we win two titles. Who knows. I would prefer a two and done for college basketball, but I'm definitely not for none or two with Cal coaching at UK. And as I said, I don't think a two and done helps Cal near as much as most do.

The thing is it's not going to work both ways. Cals best attribute as a HC BY FAR is recruiting. Nothing else he does comes close except promotion. Why on earth would you want to strip that away? Cal has 1 final four without a OAD, and today Camby is a OAD.

Cal has 5 final fours and a national title with OAD, mostly coming from OAD products. Heavily in fact. So the facts are simply just against you here.

I think you grossly slight Cal's coaching abilities if you think his principal, if not exclusive coaching attributes are recruiting and promotion. Have you forgot what he did at UMASS? He turned that program into a national powerhouse in a very short time. He did it with no OAD's. Camby was a top shelf talent but he played from 93 to 96. Prior to Cal becoming the UMASS coach, they had 10 consecutive losing seasons. After Cal became coach and before Camby arrived, UMASS went 10-18, 17-14, 20-13, 30-5 and 24-7. With Camby as Cal's ONLY OAD type player, UMASS went, 28-7, 29-5 and 35-2.

Likewise, he converted Memphis from near to nothing into a top ten program. Memphis had virtually no worthy basketball tradition before Cal arrived but he was able to mold the talent he was left with into a winning program. In the four years before Cal became coach, Memphis had a record of 16-15, 17-12, 13-15 and 15-16. After Cal became coach, Memphis went 21-15, 27-9, 23-7, 22-8, 22-16, 33-4, 33-4, 38-2 and 33-4.

Cal was certainly prescient enough to recognize the value of selling the elite high school players on the "player's first" or OAD concept. The OAD rule did not come about until the 2006 NBA draft. He started taking advantage of the "one and one rule" during his last few years at Memphis and has mastered it UK. However, the notion that Cal's principal talent is substantially restricted to recruiting is pure poppycock.

The most conspicuous revelation in the ESPN "30 for 30" documentary on Cal was the fact that his players genuinely loved playing for him. This was true for his players at UMASS, Memphis and UK. As a result, they listened to what he had to say as a coach, then played in the manner and style that he instructed them to play. Moreover, his college teams have been majorly successful. This is beyond dispute.

Cal is unique among his fellow college coaches in being able to get highly regarded and well publicized high school basketball players to sublimate their inflated egos and play for the benefit of the team. He does this every year with different players. . Cal also has to adjust his style of play each year to take advantage of the particular talent that he has recruited. Each year is, in large part, a new team. Yet, regardless of the new talent, each season Cal coaches these very young players into becoming a successful team. Again, his 8 year tenure of success at UK has only been matched by Adolph Rupp way back in the late 1940's and early 1950's. This was nearly 70 years ago. Cal has demonstrated that he is much more than a mere "recruiter/promoter".

Coach Cal is special. He is unique. He has brought great glory to the University of Kentucky and its fans. We best enjoy these times while we can. Cal's time with us, as it is with every coach, is limited. No one coaches forever. As someone who has been a fan of UK since 1958, I fully appreciate and applaud the total and exemplary coaching job Coach Cal has done for the University of Kentucky.

 

[The_Answer1313]

There's no way Cal could have been as effective as he has been with the straight from high school or two route. That's just incredibly bizarre that someone could actually make that case.

I guess Cal could have hit some good teams and he would have recruited around it, but we wouldn't have this level of success. And even if someone thinks it's possible I'd like to hear a good case as to how that would have put UK in a better position to win.

Honestly I don't think it would suit Cal to have a two and done. I have never believed him when he says he'd prefer it. Why would he? So You gain great players for two years - while everyone else gains half of our players we've had. No thanks. Cals strength is in recruiting. The OAD has helped him. Without that he loses most of what he sells and everyone else improves tremendously.

Hasn't the argument on this board always been tho that you need to have some guys stay more than one year to really be title contenders. Sure there is no doubt we wouldn't have had some guy but it still could have worked out to our benefit. So we lose out on Noel maybe and gain a 2nd year of Anthony Davis. We lose out on Brandon Knight but gain a 2nd year of John Wall (and Bledsoe for that matter). Maybe we don't even bother going after Kanter but gain a 2nd year of Cousins.

On average, the biggest jumps a play makes is between his freshman year and so. year. I think the 2 year rule would benefit UK and Cal greatly.

 

[ZaytovenCat]

You can't prove it, not on our scale of success we have had.

I can guarantee you no title in 2012 if Cal starts with the roster he inherited.

This is common sense.

Our elites are game changers, some of our highly ranked ones are not ready yet and many on here trash them.

Imagine an entire class every year not ready?

The kids today are bigger and stronger the amount of straight to the league kids or those attempting would skyrocket.

You think we can dominate like we have with A- and B players?

Cal might have struggled more at the start here but we would be better in the long run. Roster turnover would be less and we would have more talented players returning.

Either way, you can't prove your theories just like others can't prove theirs that it would be better.

 

[MSU129]

would hate that rule personally. zero great/good players would go to college. college game is bland enough, cant imagine what it would look like with a bunch of 6'3" dudes.

I disagree. I only think a few players in the past 8 years since Cal has been here would have had the chance to go to the NBA out of high school. Yes, people are ranking these kids and think they are great, but the NBA wouldn't take a chance on an Anthony Davis straight out of high school (he played on a weak HS team, skinny, etc). He came to UK and showed what he could do against other talent, put on some meat and the rest is history. Since Cal has been here and in all of college basketball the only kids that I think would have had a chance to go without college would be Wiggins (dude was hyped up as the next Kobe), Giles if he hadn't been injured (lucky for the NBA the college rule is in place), Wally probably would have too because was really hyped up too. I don't see any other player that we have had or any of the other teams that would have been selected without the college evaluation process that is currently in place.

 

[awf]

But wouldn't a true players first concept be that these guys can make money straight out of high school?

Cal is players first using the current rules that are in place. Cal has preached that he would like to see the rule changed so those that want to go straight to the league. So UK is a true players first program. Cal is about helping these guys reach their dream. If they change the rule to allow HS players to go straight to the league then he will attract the next level of players and succeed.

 

[ubtrapper]

but you dont know them....like AT ALL. and in most cases, 20-30-40 years older.

again...kind of creepy.

Honestly, for you to think like that, then you're the one making it "creepy". You are taking it and making it something that it isn't.
What's really creepy is someone seeing it the way you do.

 

[brianpoe]

Cal might have struggled more at the start here but we would be better in the long run. Roster turnover would be less and we would have more talented players returning.

Either way, you can't prove your theories just like others can't prove theirs that it would be better.

I have way more evidence than the anti-OAD group does.

See our last 7 years vs the 10 years prior.

See Cal's FF's prior to the OAD. Without D Rose he has zero.

With the NOPY at UMass, who could easily have left the year prior, he has one.

The straight to HS group has zero evidence we would have or will be better.


Why so many of you want to drag us back to the rest of the pack is amazing.

You guys are now OK with MSU results? Kansas results?

Prior to the last 2 season UNC was not doing well. Duke has a couple of titles but also knocked early just as often.


Some of you make no sense...

You complain bitterly of losing a titles game with all freshmen.

You complain bitterly of going 38-1.

You complain bitterly of being upset in the EE with poor shooting in 10 and by a last second shot to the national champs.

Yet you are ok having multiple mediocre season in the event that we can eventually put together a talented and experienced squad and make a run every few years....?

 

[brianpoe]

Cal is players first using the current rules that are in place. Cal has preached that he would like to see the rule changed so those that want to go straight to the league. So UK is a true players first program. Cal is about helping these guys reach their dream. If they change the rule to allow HS players to go straight to the league then he will attract the next level of players and succeed.

Next level players are not nearly as good and I believe Cal is saying that they should be allowed to go is very much a part of his players first marketing.

Our one true advantage and fans are actively promoting getting rid of it.... I just dont understand why we would want to to take that risk?

 

[brianpoe]

I disagree. I only think a few players in the past 8 years since Cal has been here would have had the chance to go to the NBA out of high school. Yes, people are ranking these kids and think they are great, but the NBA wouldn't take a chance on an Anthony Davis straight out of high school (he played on a weak HS team, skinny, etc).

I stopped reading here... the weak skinny was #1 in his class for a reason.

Seriously though... Wall maybe? Cousins no?

 

[brianpoe]

I think you grossly slight Cal's coaching abilities if you think his principal, if not exclusive coaching attributes are recruiting and promotion. Have you forgot what he did at UMASS? He turned that program into a national powerhouse in a very short time. He did it with no OAD's. Camby was a top shelf talent but he played from 93 to 96. Prior to Cal becoming the UMASS coach, they had 10 consecutive losing seasons. After Cal became coach and before Camby arrived, UMASS went 10-18, 17-14, 20-13, 30-5 and 24-7. With Camby as Cal's ONLY OAD type player, UMASS went, 28-7, 29-5 and 35-2.

Likewise, he converted Memphis from near to nothing into a top ten program. Memphis had virtually no worthy basketball tradition before Cal arrived but he was able to mold the talent he was left with into a winning program. In the four years before Cal became coach, Memphis had a record of 16-15, 17-12, 13-15 and 15-16. After Cal became coach, Memphis went 21-15, 27-9, 23-7, 22-8, 22-16, 33-4, 33-4, 38-2 and 33-4.

Cal was certainly prescient enough to recognize the value of selling the elite high school players on the "player's first" or OAD concept. The OAD rule did not come about until the 2006 NBA draft. He started taking advantage of the "one and one rule" during his last few years at Memphis and has mastered it UK. However, the notion that Cal's principal talent is substantially restricted to recruiting is pure poppycock.

The most conspicuous revelation in the ESPN "30 for 30" documentary on Cal was the fact that his players genuinely loved playing for him. This was true for his players at UMASS, Memphis and UK. As a result, they listened to what he had to say as a coach, then played in the manner and style that he instructed them to play. Moreover, his college teams have been majorly successful. This is beyond dispute.

Cal is unique among his fellow college coaches in being able to get highly regarded and well publicized high school basketball players to sublimate their inflated egos and play for the benefit of the team. He does this every year with different players. . Cal also has to adjust his style of play each year to take advantage of the particular talent that he has recruited. Each year is, in large part, a new team. Yet, regardless of the new talent, each season Cal coaches these very young players into becoming a successful team. Again, his 8 year tenure of success at UK has only been matched by Adolph Rupp way back in the late 1940's and early 1950's. This was nearly 70 years ago. Cal has demonstrated that he is much more than a mere "recruiter/promoter".

Coach Cal is special. He is unique. He has brought great glory to the University of Kentucky and its fans. We best enjoy these times while we can. Cal's time with us, as it is with every coach, is limited. No one coaches forever. As someone who has been a fan of UK since 1958, I fully appreciate and applaud the total and exemplary coaching job Coach Cal has done for the University of Kentucky.

Cal is a very good coach. We all, for the mot part love having him.

But Cal has also had his moments here with great talent... WVU 2010, UConn 2014, and Wisconsin 2015.

You said it yourself, Cal has 2 FF's - each with a OAD type player, prior to coming here.

 

[brianpoe]

I agree. If he wants to attend college, he should stay for 3 years, at least. If he's good enough to go out of high school, adios.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

This is such hypocrisy.

If he is good enough at 17 let him go.

But not if he is even better at 18, 19, 20 or 21...nope - kid must stay.

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

OP lost me at Vol Fan.

 

[willievic]

I have way more evidence than the anti-OAD group does.

See our last 7 years vs the 10 years prior.

See Cal's FF's prior to the OAD. Without D Rose he has zero.

With the NOPY at UMass, who could easily have left the year prior, he has one.

The straight to HS group has zero evidence we would have or will be better.


Why so many of you want to drag us back to the rest of the pack is amazing.

You guys are now OK with MSU results? Kansas results?

Prior to the last 2 season UNC was not doing well. Duke has a couple of titles but also knocked early just as often.


Some of you make no sense...

You complain bitterly of losing a titles game with all freshmen.

You complain bitterly of going 38-1.

You complain bitterly of being upset in the EE with poor shooting in 10 and by a last second shot to the national champs.

Yet you are ok having multiple mediocre season in the event that we can eventually put together a talented and experienced squad and make a run every few years....?

Some fans just like good seasons, but National Championships are not important. Kansas always has great seasons. I believe they have won their conference championship 13 or 14 years in a row, but only one NC.
A lot of us would like to see more National Championships. I would be happy with a 21-11 record entering the NCAA tournament, then winning the National Championship, better then the 38-1 record with NO NC.
I've never wanted us to be second best, as some fans do.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

Some fans just like good seasons, but National Championships are not important. Kansas always has great seasons. I believe they have won their conference championship 13 or 14 years in a row, but only one NC.
A lot of us would like to see more National Championships. I would be happy with a 21-11 record entering the NCAA tournament, then winning the National Championship, better then the 38-1 record with NO NC.
I've never wanted us to be second best, as some fans do.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

second best is first LOSER.

 

[morgousky]

I stopped reading here... the weak skinny was #1 in his class for a reason.

Seriously though... Wall maybe? Cousins no?

Listen to all of this revisionist history. Lol.

Cousins wasn't a OAD until he played games.

Davis was too skinny to be a OAD.

That is so ridiculous I'm not sure I've seen butters or UMM make stupid statements like that. Wtf.

 

[morgousky]

Some of you are conflating two different issues.

Cal would be successful in any system, but if you take away the OAD you take away his best attribute. That's not debatable, at all.

Whqt I would like to see and what's best for Cal are different things. If we went to a none or two rule, we don't have any of the stars we've had, and everyone else would have the same level of talent. We would have no edge on the others. Again, it's not debatable. It's not even a guarantee we would get the best of the rest. Kansas and Duke / UNC have a much better record with returning players right now. So if it happened today, we'd be in recruiting battle after battle.

When Cal is GONE I would love to see a rule change.

We need returning players and I've said that forever. We're too heavy into the OAD, but that doesn't mean the whole system is wrong for Cal. It just means I would have made an adjustment a while back.

Cals record, even dating back to Umass, is the same. He's better with talent. Memphis could not get to a final four until they had an elite NBA OAD PG. Now that's just facts. Even at Umass Camby was a 1/2 and done if he played today. So it's just the way it is. Without having 1 or multiple NBA guys on roster, he's got zero final fours. No thanks.

 

[morgousky]

Hasn't the argument on this board always been tho that you need to have some guys stay more than one year to really be title contenders. Sure there is no doubt we wouldn't have had some guy but it still could have worked out to our benefit. So we lose out on Noel maybe and gain a 2nd year of Anthony Davis. We lose out on Brandon Knight but gain a 2nd year of John Wall (and Bledsoe for that matter). Maybe we don't even bother going after Kanter but gain a 2nd year of Cousins.

On average, the biggest jumps a play makes is between his freshman year and so. year. I think the 2 year rule would benefit UK and Cal greatly.

You're conflating two different issues. I was talking mainly about none or two. But even in this case......

Cal would be DEADLY if he could find a way to get a few guys to stick around, especially upperclassman guards. That changes nothing I said.

And even if we retained a few of those guys, there's no guarantee Davis would have played here given that rule. Maybe he stays home since he's going to be in colllege for two years.

You're also leaving half of the formula out of the conversation. Where does Noel go? Where does Knight go? Does Jones stay home? How about Booker? Spread them out to other programs. What do those teams look like? We'd literally lose half or more of our commits. That means other teams are way more competitive. You can't dismiss that.

Way too much bs to wade through. Talk about taking a huge risk for no reason.

 

[MSU129]

Come on! AD wasn't even consensus #1 in the class..Rivers was #1 in some places. AD would not have been a lottery pick coming out of high school, and I don't care how much you think you know. He wasn't seen as a LBJ.

 

[MSU129]

Come on! AD wasn't even consensus #1 in the class..Rivers was #1 in some places. AD would not have been a lottery pick coming out of high school, and I don't care how much you think you know. He wasn't seen as a LBJ.

Well I guess I didn't say it correctly. Yes, those guys would have been drafted but not where they were drafted. So it doesn't automatically mean an AD goes straight to the league if Cal says, "Come play for me and you will be the #1 pick in 2 years instead of the 25th pick this year."

 

[brianpoe]

Some fans just like good seasons, but National Championships are not important. Kansas always has great seasons. I believe they have won their conference championship 13 or 14 years in a row, but only one NC.
A lot of us would like to see more National Championships. I would be happy with a 21-11 record entering the NCAA tournament, then winning the National Championship, better then the 38-1 record with NO NC.
I've never wanted us to be second best, as some fans do.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

Ahh I see....

Because 11 loss teams are much better than undefeated teams...

Makes absolutely no sense.

And your way got us nothing, except double digit loss seasons, prior to Cal's arrival.


The really confusing part is that we were so close to winning because of OADs and never lost because of them.

Injuries, refs, coaching, and shooting.

Those are why we lost.

The real problem is the kids who are OAD or 2AD in name only and shouldn't have left.

The lottery kids made our season, the I drafted ones that left hurt our following season.

Not that hard to grasp.

 

[morgousky]

Come on! AD wasn't even consensus #1 in the class..Rivers was #1 in some places. AD would not have been a lottery pick coming out of high school, and I don't care how much you think you know. He wasn't seen as a LBJ.

AD was a OAD from the jump and most credible people laughed at rivals for making him #2 in class, the same way everyone laughed at ESPN for making Wall the 5th player in class.

Cousins was never going to play two years of college basketball. Davis was never going to play two years of college basketball. Wall was never going to play two years of college basketball. All three would have been around the same in the draft had they left after high school. I Have no idea why you think otherwise.

Bledsoe, sure, he surprised some people. Those three mentioned above were no suprise.

 

[WilsonPiCAT]

I'd like to see the rule changed to minimum 2 years if enrolled, straight to the NBA out of high school if the kid wants to and has a good shot of making it, in his opinion. I don't think there would be too many trying it out of high school. At our level, we and the other schools would still be on the same level...except that we still have Cal and they don't! No real change, imo, except that we would have more mature teams and more titles.

 

[brianpoe]

I'd like to see the rule changed to minimum 2 years if enrolled, straight to the NBA out of high school if the kid wants to and has a good shot of making it, in his opinion. I don't think there would be too many trying it out of high school. At our level, we and the other schools would still be on the same level...except that we still have Cal and they don't! No real change, imo, except that we would have more mature teams and more titles.

Again, this makes zero sense.

If a kid is good enough to go out of high school then it is hypocrisy to make them stay for 2 years.

Also, it takes away UK's unique advantage.

Fans of UK's rivals pray that the NBA allows straight to NBA from HS.

 

[WilsonPiCAT]

Again, this makes zero sense.

If a kid is good enough to go out of high school then it is hypocrisy to make them stay for 2 years.

Also, it takes away UK's unique advantage.

Fans of UK's rivals pray that the NBA allows straight to NBA from HS.

Jesus, Brian, after your strong posts on the thread about your weird website controversy, you are now the opinion king of UK basketball? To answer your remarks, "if a kid is good enough to go out of high school" to the NBA, then he should go. Right? That's exactly what I said.

If the scenario we've both outlined were the case, we would still be in the recruiting environment that we are in now. We have Cal. No one else does! If you think that we have some sort of a college disadvantage with this, let me know.

 

[brianpoe]

Jesus, Brian, after your strong posts on the thread about your weird website controversy, you are now the opinion king of UK basketball? To answer your remarks, "if a kid is good enough to go out of high school" to the NBA, then he should go. Right? That's exactly what I said.

If the scenario we've both outlined were the case, we would still be in the recruiting environment that we are in now. We have Cal. No one else does! If you think that we have some sort of a college disadvantage with this, let me know.

No. You totally misread my post.

The hypocrisy is that if straight to HS is ok, then requiring kids to stay at any age doesn't make sense to the players or the NBA.

Cal coached prior to OAD and did not have the kind of success he has had while here. That is just a fact.

The level of talent severely drops after the top group of elite players.

We obviously have an unfair advantage with OAD.

My "weird website" controversy" is a ridiculous statement and I'm just providing my opinion, based on actual results as I see them.

Your attempted cheap shot is comical.

 

[Kampus Korner]

Cal is a very good coach. We all, for the mot part love having him.

But Cal has also had his moments here with great talent... WVU 2010, UConn 2014, and Wisconsin 2015.

You said it yourself, Cal has 2 FF's - each with a OAD type player, prior to coming here.

I must be missing something. Cal is a better coach with better players? Say what? Which coach isn't? Cal is a worse coach than a coach with better players? Really?

Cal didn't have any "one and done" players when he took over at UMASS and Memphis, yet immediately converted traditionally losing programs into winning ones. Obviously, Cal had even more success when he was able to get better players. This is shocking?

For the better part of 4 decades, North Carolina's Dean Smith got the best high school players in the nation. Smith coached the Tar Heels for 36 years yet, he only won 2 national championships. I never heard anyone contend Dean Smith was a bad coach because he didn't win more championships with his better players.

Cal, on the other hand, gets criticized for not winning more championships with teams predominantly made up of players just out of high school? There is no question that Cal has recruited exceptionally talented high school players but they are still young players who, he has to mold in a matter of a very few months, into a successfully functioning team. Moreover, Cal's very young teams often have to compete against teams made up of players who have played together for 2 or 3 years. These older players know how to play as a team and the players on these better veteran teams are not exactly "chopped liver" talent wise.

Cal has proven he can be successful with lesser talented players. He has also proven he can have more success with better players. Now, Cal's teams may not meet the expectations of some UK fans who believe he should do even better. These fans apparently believe highly regarded high school stars from different high school should be converted into a well oiled national championship team within 9 months. If this is their belief, so be it. I am simply not persuaded by such unrealistic expectations

 

[brianpoe]

I must be missing something. Cal is a better coach with better players? Say what? Which coach isn't? Cal is a worse coach than a coach with better players? Really?

Cal didn't have any "one and done" players when he took over at UMASS and Memphis, yet immediately converted traditionally losing programs into winning ones. Obviously, Cal had even more success when he was able to get better players. This is shocking?

For the better part of 4 decades, North Carolina's Dean Smith got the best high school players in the nation. Smith coached the Tar Heels for 36 years yet, he only won 2 national championships. I never heard anyone contend Dean Smith was a bad coach because he didn't win more championships with his better players.

Cal, on the other hand, gets criticized for not winning more championships with teams predominantly made up of players just out of high school? There is no question that Cal has recruited exceptionally talented high school players but they are still young players who, he has to mold in a matter of a very few months, into a successfully functioning team. Moreover, Cal's very young teams often have to compete against teams made up of players who have played together for 2 or 3 years. These older players know how to play as a team and the players on these better veteran teams are not exactly "chopped liver" talent wise.

Cal has proven he can be successful with lesser talented players. He has also proven he can have more success with better players. Now, Cal's teams may not meet the expectations of some UK fans who believe he should do even better. These fans apparently believe highly regarded high school stars from different high school should be converted into a well oiled national championship team within 9 months. If this is their belief, so be it. I am simply not persuaded by such unrealistic expectations

You are creating disagreements where there are none.

Yes Cal is a very good coach.

Cal did well in the A10, yet was great with Camby.

Cal did well in CUSA, American or whatever crap leagues Memphis played in, and he was great with Rose.

Cal's FF's before coming here included a Parade AA that in this day and age could definitely be a OAD and his second was with the top OAD.

But as the past few years have proven, he is a master with highly talented freshman.

A major advantage over even the best coaches, see Duke this year.

We are better at OAD then everyone else, makes no sense to give up our advantage.

 

[WilsonPiCAT]

No. You totally misread my post.

The hypocrisy is that if straight to HS is ok, then requiring kids to stay at any age doesn't make sense to the players or the NBA.

Cal coached prior to OAD and did not have the kind of success he has had while here. That is just a fact.

The level of talent severely drops after the top group of elite players.

We obviously have an unfair advantage with OAD.

My "weird website" controversy" is a ridiculous statement and I'm just providing my opinion, based on actual results as I see them.

Your attempted cheap shot is comical.

No worries. It was a matter of sentence structure. The phrase was meant to describe the weird controversy over your website. Everyone still thinks you're a god.

Seemingly, half of the fanbase is not offended by Diallo's declaring for the draft (and he will be going in, by the way). Every aspect of a UK basketball scholarship is devalued by this crowd - the free tuition, free (and excellent) room and board, free books, free exposure to the national media, the best collegiate job training program in the nation, free association with the nation's most prestigious basketball brand, the lifetime adoration across an entire state - none of this has any value to this group - while 99% of the rest of the student body can only dream of having these things. God forbid that anyone suggest that Diallo needed to honor his commitment to us. After all, he's a teenager on a mission to earn millions. He must do it now or he might lose it all!

Cal's pitch to a two-year player wouldn't change from what his pitch is now. "You come here and I will do everything I can to ensure your success at the next level. I won't promise playing time - you'll have to work harder than you ever have. It will take a commitment on both my part and your part."

Cal's reputation for delivering on his commitments precede any rule change. He would still be the leader of the premier recruiting team in the country after a rule change. For any kid who knows that he needs more training out of high school before entering the NBA, and that has to be the vast majority of them, Cal will still out-recruit and we will still have excellent, exciting teams every year. He didn't excel in this way at UMass and Memphis because rules were mostly different during those years, but as we saw in Memphis' latter years, he did not excel as he does now because that school is not Kentucky. Small brand vs. Huge brand.

 

[brianpoe]

No worries. It was a matter of sentence structure. The phrase was meant to describe the weird controversy over your website. Everyone still thinks you're a god.

Seemingly, half of the fanbase is not offended by Diallo's declaring for the draft (and he will be going in, by the way). Every aspect of a UK basketball scholarship is devalued by this crowd - the free tuition, free (and excellent) room and board, free books, free exposure to the national media, the best collegiate job training program in the nation, free association with the nation's most prestigious basketball brand, the lifetime adoration across an entire state - none of this has any value to this group - while 99% of the rest of the student body can only dream of having these things. God forbid that anyone suggest that Diallo needed to honor his commitment to us. After all, he's a teenager on a mission to earn millions. He must do it now or he might lose it all!

Cal's pitch to a two-year player wouldn't change from what his pitch is now. "You come here and I will do everything I can to ensure your success at the next level. I won't promise playing time - you'll have to work harder than you ever have. It will take a commitment on both my part and your part."

Cal's reputation for delivering on his commitments precede any rule change. He would still be the leader of the premier recruiting team in the country after a rule change. For any kid who knows that he needs more training out of high school before entering the NBA, and that has to be the vast majority of them, Cal will still out-recruit and we will still have excellent, exciting teams every year. He didn't excel in this way at UMass and Memphis because rules were mostly different during those years, but as we saw in Memphis' latter years, he did not excel as he does now because that school is not Kentucky. Small brand vs. Huge brand.

Thanks for the deity reference, but I dont think thats the case.

There is so much money in collegiate athletics one scholarship really doesnt matter anymore.

Also, an argument has been made that even if he leaves he may have helped Monk and Fox improve.

I dont know the agreement - I would think that if he was guaranteed 1st round Cal would have been ok from the start but possibly expected him to stay if he was 2nd round - which is what he most likely is....?

Your last paragraph is all truth.