Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Shootings Near Thunder's Arena Follow Win Over Lakers

The Big Blue Daily Mail -- Kentucky Enters SEC Play

There is a lot of diverse stuff in today's BBDM, but I want to focus briefly on Kentucky beginning SEC play on Saturday versus the Georgia Bulldogs.

It's been a long time since UK got through the non-conference season unscathed, and even though the Wildcats had several tough opponents and a couple of near-misses against not-so-tough opponents, the young Kittens have arrived to conference play with the roundest of numbers in their loss column.

As a bonus, Kentucky is beginning to play some pretty good basketball.  While their performance against the Louisville Cardinals was uneven, I never actually felt that the Cardinals were going to rise up and win the game.  Kentucky pretty much stayed on top of them from tip to horn with the exception of a short period in the middle of the second half.

But the 'Cats are capable of much better play than that, and against Georgia, we have every reason to expect to see some of it.  John Wall is hitting on all cylinders, looking to pass first but never missing an easy opportunity to put the ball in the basket.  DeMarcus Cousins is getting beastlier by the day (some Cardinal fans probably think he has already morphed into Wolverine, but he hasn't), and Patrick Patterson is shooting the ball well from virtually every spot on the floor.

Which brings me to the only real criticism I have at this point -- feed Patterson a bit more.  Okay, maybe that wasn't the only one -- DeMarcus Cousins needs to learn how to pass out of the post, but given the rest of his game, that's a weakness I think we can all live with for the moment.  He has gotten better at virtually everything else as time goes on, so there is no reason to believe that post passing won't improve as well.

The news follows the jump.

Star-divide

 

Comment 96 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Seth Davis is a moron of epic proportions

I think his idiocy outweighs any bias he might have.

First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...

by btcoop71 on Jan 7, 2010 11:14 AM EST reply actions  

If Seth Davis has a legal background

that explains a lot. Almost every attorney I have ever known thinks they know more about everything than anyone else. That explains why he based his conclusions and opinions on one camera angle, the worst of the three I saw for actually determining what happened, and says the refs got it wrong without even seeing what they saw. That is beyond idiocy if you ask me. My feelings on the matter is CBS and ESPN owe some airtime to someone who is prepared to present an opposing point of view.

by kywineman on Jan 7, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions  

LOL

Good luck with that! Let me know how it works out… :-)

If your wings don't sweep....

by EagleTDL on Jan 7, 2010 5:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I like Joker's idea..

that Coach Brooks taught him. Don’t listen to the noise out there. Seth Davis, and his buddy’s are just “noise”.

by UK1972 on Jan 7, 2010 5:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Ditto

Ditto… we have all followed basketball enough to know whats going on… we don’t need the bias of bozos like Brando, Seth Davis, Billy Pecker, Clark Kellogg frosted flakes and the like… Just mute ’em!!

by Foxtrail1 on Jan 7, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

So are a lot of fans,

present company exclude of course.

by Grasslands1 on Jan 7, 2010 10:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh good, atty bias

The same could be said for every wine drinker I know. Pretentious snobs. And a lawyer who’s a wine drinker may be the worst. But an attorney and a bourbon drinker, like me, well we are right about everything. The rest of you are just haters.

For the record, I hear Seth doesn’t drink bourbon.

by JackBluto on Jan 8, 2010 12:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Hear hear.

An attorney/bourbon drinker/Cats fan is as good as it gets, speaking from experience.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.

by blbskue on Jan 8, 2010 12:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

ironically...

the picture that accompanies his comments is the one of cousins getting kneed….

only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team

by memphis wildcat on Jan 7, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Couldn't agree more-

Also, I watched the replay of the Louisville game and believe that Cal did yell to delk that E. Bledsoe would kick his ass after the game. Not sure why this was necessary .

"You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"

by iam4ukintn on Jan 7, 2010 11:17 AM EST reply actions  

I love it

First of all, I agree with your thoughts Tru on getting Pat more involved and on Cousins.

But I love the fact that U of L fans are so up in arms over the game. I love that Cal yelled back at Delk for trying to be a bully. Obviously he was, how much emotion have you really seen out of Bledsoe before that? Maybe it’s not professional, but dang it it’s still a game and that’s the kind of coach I’d want.
I love that despite Jerry Smith getting arrested a few weeks ago for nearly hitting a cop and Pitino’s investigation, U of Loser fans really think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to integrity. That argument holds no weight from any Louisville fan.
I love the fact that we beat them at their own game. I don’t want to see our players ejected, but being the new Bad Boys isn’t a bad thing. Personally, I think it’s a bit of racism.
Think about it, look at the off the court problems recently at Tennessee, the arrests and Pitino situation at U of L and in football, all the arrests at Florida and problems again at UT.
Those are some serious offenses. What has UK done? Recruit a player that has a temper and doesn’t put up with a bunch of trash talk? If our team was all white, would they be called the new Thug U and all that crap? I don’t think so for a minute. Effin John Stockton was one of the dirtiest players in the history of the NBA. You hear him called a thug?
I think this team is mentally pretty tough and like most great teams, cocky. They’re not going to put up with some jackass team like Loserville talking a bunch of crap when they got embarrassed by Western Carolina on their home court just a few weeks earlier. That doesn’t make them bad players or bad people.
My highschool football coach said we should be maniacs when we stepped between the lines but complete gentleman when we stepped off the field. Until Cousins has to be pulled off by five cops at a party or Cal gets caught with his hand in the bread basket after hours at some Italian restaurant, I don’t give two snowflakes what the eff happens on the court as long as it’s not [very subjective here] completely unethical.

by daniel81 on Jan 7, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Not quite

Bill Laimbeer was THE dirtiest player I ever watched. He got called a thug and worse….by me.

by sylvar on Jan 7, 2010 5:41 PM EST up reply actions  

On "Thuggery"

Since “Thug” seems to be the new terminology in basketball this year … why not have a little fun with it … SEC Teams and their “Thug” nicknames …
Of course in Knoxville they have the Tennessee "Thug"enteers(maybe for real), at UK we can be the Wild"thugs", UGA will get the "Thug"dawgs moniker while MSU takes the Bull"Thugs" name …. LSU "Thug"gers, Auburn War “Thugs”, Alabama Crimson “Thugs”, Florida "Thug"ators, USC Game"Thug"s, Arkansas Razor"Thugs", Mississippi "Thug"Rebels, Vanderbilt "Thug"adores,
Have you hugged your “Thug” today???

by ukcris on Jan 7, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't forget Coach Cali-Thuggy :)

He’ll kick our ass if we do. lol

No matter where you're at, there you are

by cincyblue on Jan 8, 2010 4:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Why NYC sux (sometimes)

So I went to pick up my John Wall SI from the newsstand last night. But NO. . . the cover up here is the NFL playoffs (Dallas Cowboys on the cover) with just a tiny reference to Wall in the lower right corner. So mad. . .

It's time. . .

by NYCCats on Jan 7, 2010 11:21 AM EST reply actions  

Check back when we go for #8

"You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"

by iam4ukintn on Jan 7, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Are you superstitious?

Look at it this way, if Wall isn’t actually on the national cover, we totally avoid the possible SI cover jinx, right?

And, if we do grace the national cover this year, it will hopefully be at the end of the year and by that point we will more than likely have accomplished all we wanted to (thus the reason for the cover) and the so-called jinx will be null and void. See, potential crisis averted. : )

by BigSkyCat on Jan 7, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Now that's a great way to look at it :-)

I still think SI dropped the ball (sales-wise) , but avoiding the jinx (if it exists) could be priceless for us….lol

Blue... there is no other color to Bleed !!!

by a2d2 on Jan 7, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions  

SI

I agree….mine came in mail today….glorious cover and great story. Our team has not had such coverage since who-knows-when…but it sure makes one’s heart step up a beat or two or three.

Anxious for Georgia…and to see SEC wins add up.

by CAWebb on Jan 7, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions  

keep looking

a keeper..for sure…I think I might nail mine on the door.

by CAWebb on Jan 7, 2010 11:49 PM EST up reply actions  

A Wall-Paper

I found a wallpaper of the si cover on wildcatworld. In case anyone is interested.
http://www.wildcatworld.com/bounce/wp-content/gallery/wallpaper/john-wall-si.jpg

No matter where you're at, there you are

by cincyblue on Jan 8, 2010 4:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Problem solved!

I happen to work right across the street from the SI headquarters* – so I called up my buddy who works there, and he just dropped me off a John Wall copy. Sweet!

*Yes, I will punch Seth Davis in the nose if I happen to see him on the street

It's time. . .

by NYCCats on Jan 7, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I got the NFL cover in Indiana as well.

I’d be grateful if I were you guys. I will never forgive SI after they put the Detroit Tigers on the cover on 9/28/2009. After the cover was released on 9/25/2009, the Tigers went 4-6 before falling to the Twins in a one game playoff to miss out on the postseason. Screw you SI. What a waste of a beautiful cover and a good story.

by rcpratt on Jan 7, 2010 8:30 PM EST up reply actions  

And A Perfect Pass By Paul Pierce

"Learn(ing) without thinking begets ignorance. Think(ing) without learning is dangerous."
-Confucius

by Wild Weasel on Jan 7, 2010 7:44 PM EST up reply actions  

But I totally disagree

With the idea that a sports scholarship should automatically be a 4-year pass. As I’ve said before, universities have no problem terminating an academic scholarship when grade point averages aren’t met. If a guy is a scrub, why should he continue to get a scholarship? You can’t tell me galloway averaging 2 points a game put people in the seats at rupp.

by daniel81 on Jan 7, 2010 2:22 PM EST reply actions  

I agree with you...

it’s almost a double standard. If you are attending college on an academic scholarship, does anyone care how well you play basketball? Not at all. However, if you enrolled on an athletic scholarship, why do we care how well you do in Spanish 101? It doesn’t make sense. If an athlete decides to better themselves and become a force in the classroom as well, that’s fantastic. However, if universities are truly focused on preparing youngsters for their careers, shouldn’t UK basketball players be focused on the NBA, or playing professional basketball in at least some capacity? I would wager money that a higher percentage of UK basketball players make money playing basketball than UK history grads make money within the field of history. I should know, that’s what my degree is in and I don’t want to teach! It’s not hard to tell that the people behind these rules can’t dunk!

I left TN and now I am back in the Bluegrass... just in time for Football and Keeneland! Life is great!

by sleepytimetea on Jan 8, 2010 12:42 AM EST up reply actions  

347 Division 1 teams feeding 30 NBA teams.

The math is simple. Less than 9% of scholarship basketball players are ever going to make a dime playing professional basketball. A primary goal of the NCAA will always be to prepare the other 91% for what they’re going to do for the rest of their lives after sports.

However, I am fine with the whole cutting scholarships thing. If you are underperforming on an academic scholarship, you’re going to lose it. The same should be true for athletics.

by rcpratt on Jan 8, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions  

If the NCAA is really committed to the scholar athlete

the player given an athletic scholarship should be given a four year scholarship. If they can’t make the team after the 2nd and subsequent years let their tuition be paid for four years with a declared major and a minimum GPA. Whether that scholarship or a portion of it should count against the allowed athletic scholarships should be considered.

As you point out, very few athletes turn professional so this lets players also attend a school to prepare for life after college.

by hoboat33 on Jan 8, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Sure

As long as they pay for it or actually earn an academic scholarship. If a student can’t hack it and loses their scholarship, are we going to let them play basketball on a free ride? I just don’t like the hypocritical message it sends: Which is essentially if you have any athletic talent, you should keep your scholarship no matter what. If you’re smart, well you’ll just have to prove that everyday and never mess up.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Not sure of your response

“As long as they pay for it or actually earn an academic scholarship”. I don’t think you pay for an academic scholarship.
To further explain – Existing system of letting player retain scholarships if they’re good enough to make the team and maintain passing grades would remain. All I’d like to see added is a player not making the team set to a higher academic standard in a specified major. This would take care of those wanting to just hang around college for four years taking meaningless classes on the public dole. If they are a true scholar-athelete then not making the team or getting a college career ending injury wouldn’t comdemn them to not finishing college.

Go to your local high school and you’ll find athletes working their butt off to get an athletic scholarship because their family cannot afford to send them to college. Is it too much to ask for the college to furnish that education if the student’s athletic career ends once the university has wooed them to their institution?

by hoboat33 on Jan 8, 2010 6:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Best Reply By A Coach That I Ever Heard

Q – How many of your players graduate?

A – Every one that wants to graduate.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 8, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, the statement does him credit.....lol

it’s actually a very good line…..and VERY true

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Only Guarantee Is Freshman Year (Signed NLOI)

Athletic scholarships are renewable ANNUALLY at sole discretion of the school.

No guarantee of a 4-year scholarship.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 8, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions  

It matters because colleges are academic institutions first

There’s this flawed reasoning that colleges now exist to prepare professional athletes in the same manner they do for mathematicians, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc. This is false. Athletics are extra-curricular activities, albeit very public ones, just like band, etc. They exist as a supplement to education – not a substitution. If you want to prepare for a career playing basketball you can go to college, but in doing so you agree to abide by certain academic standards. If you don’t want to do that then you can go play overseas or in one of the semi-pro leagues.

There is no double standard. If you are attending college you are there to do academics regardless of the other activities you participate in.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

It's not that simple.

I’ve addressed this before, but I will again.

What if the grade standard for being on an academic scholarship when you were granted one was 3.5, then in your second year, the University decided to raise it to a 3.65. You no longer qualify, so you lose your scholarship.

That’s similar to the standard that was applied to the basketball team. UK decided to upgrade it’s talent, and guys like Galloway and Pilgrim were no longer talented enough for them.

Frankly, institutions can set whatever standards they want for largess, but the public will see this as unfair. And since this a publicly funded institution, that matters.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 8:48 AM EST up reply actions  

So it's publicly funded

When we have a problem but it’s the athletic department’s money when we don’t? It can’t be both.
There are scholarships that do change year to year. I understand what you’re saying about new coach having new expectations, but expectations also change every time you take a new class. My English 101 class was much easier than my Melville 301 class and so on. So no, I don’t think there should be any guilt for taking a player’s scholarship if they aren’t performing. It’s called life, you don’t put up you pack up. Why should college athletics be the only exception?

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 10:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Again ...

… it isn’t a matter of actual fairness. It’s perceived fairness. And as usual, you are raising a strawman.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Right

Cos this statement is a strong one for an argument. “it isn’t a matter of actual fairness. It’s perceived fairness.”

There’s fair and there’s not fair, perceive what you want. Saying certain privileges only apply for athletes and not students at the same “public funded institution” just ain’t fair.

Here’s a real strawman for you. You perceive coach cal is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in the past, as you’ve made it a habit to blast anyone with a suspicion. But you have no actual proof, just the absence of a smoking gun.

You can set whatever standards you’d like for proving guilt, but the public will mostly see this as denying the obvious.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Does that make Cal guilty?

Nope. Just like the public whining about Galloway doesn’t mean it’s the wrong move.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

You know ...

… I never said that Calipari was innocent of wrongding in the past. Not only are you lousy at debate, but you can’t even get your facts straight. Did you say you work in the news biz? That’s scary.

When the public funds a university, they get to say what’s fair and what isn’t. So that matters. It also matters with respect to the basketball team, because the basketball team is an extension of the university.

I have said nothing about “guilt” anywhere, so it’s curious that you are using that term. Calipari did what he did, and he had a right to do so. But that doesn’t make it the right thing to do, and the perception is that it was not. See my earlier discussion about fairness.

What you need to do before accusing me of something is to link it or quote it. I’m not going to defend accusations that are inaccurate, misremembered, or just plain wrong. I don’t like people telling me I said things that I didn’t.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions  

You never

Dedicated a billion posts to calling out any and everybody that accused Cal of doing wrong? How long is your nose right now? Because if you’re so staunchly defending him, you must feel he’s innocent. Or is he guilty? This isn’t a perception question,
Please, unlike you I don’t have hours to sift through internet posts, looking for some quote from 3 months ago to hang over somebody’s head. Quite honestly, it’s not worth it. Your opinions are never anything to stop and make people think, they are lockstep with whatever is deemed as popular by the UK mainstream. If that makes you a great debater, then I suppose you are the masterbater.
On the actual point before the name calling commenced, your statement that Cal is perceived to be wrong for the scholarship thing is not accurate. Some perceive it that way, others do not. There’s no absolute on this issue.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Hey everybody! What's going on?!!?

Oh… wait… this is somewhat awkward…

I’ll just shuffle on out of here like I never saw anything…

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 8, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

LMAO........your patients must love you......lol

“oooh wait…..I pushed on the wrong vertebrae…..sorry….did that hurt?”…..lol

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I never say "sorry"

Its usually an awkward pause followed by “Yeap… that happens sometimes!”

;-)

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 8, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, this thread has gone to....

First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...

by btcoop71 on Jan 8, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

That's a helluva video

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 8, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Helluva video

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 8, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Master(dis)cusser, Not Master(de)bater

No need for those words.

Make your point. If it’s a good one, you won’t need those kind of words.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 8, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I dedicated posts ...

… to demonstrating that Calipari did nothing wrong at UMass and Memphis with respect to the forced vacation of wins. I also, in several of those posts, detailed several things that Calipari did that were unethical and wrong. Perhaps you should go back and read them.

Nah, don’t bother. You clearly aren’t interested in the facts or you would have done that already, after I called you out on them.

I never said anything about absolutes. And by the way, what “name calling?” Good grief, not only do you attribute fiction to me, you accuse me of things that I haven’t even done.

As to the perception of Calipari’s actions most people think he was wrong, at least most of the people to whom I’ve spoken and anyone who isn’t a UK fan who has written about it on the Internet. That’s good enough for me, whether or not it’s good enough for you.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

You dedicated posts to demonstrating that Cal did nothing wrong

Like you knew it as a fact, which you didn’t, and you still don’t. You based it on second hand knowledge and what you read, not on anything you witnessed or can actually prove. You still want to dispute facts? You have no more knowledge of sports, right or wrong, fair or unfair than anybody else
As proved by your last paragraph, your opinions are based primarily on the popular thought, sorry, I can’t give any credence to that.
And the reason I won’t go back and reread your posts has nothing to do with what I might find — cos I can clearly remember you arguing how sports are separate from the university cos they raise their own money —thus eliminating your grounds of saying the public can judge since its a public university — it’s because I’ve already had my afternoon nap.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Generality
… and the perception is that it was not.

What a generality! It is not my perception that it was wrong. Indeed his charge as head of UK BB and with rewards based on winning makes the decision not only proper but noteworthy.

"We must not always judge of the generality of the opinion by the noise of the acclamation." – Edmund Burke

"Learn(ing) without thinking begets ignorance. Think(ing) without learning is dangerous."
-Confucius

by Wild Weasel on Jan 8, 2010 4:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Hey, UK screwed me on an academic scholarship. I'm not b*tchin'! Just not givin'!

I went to the law school with a 100% tuition scholarship. I was told I would have to apply each year for it to be renewed. After the first semester, I was second in my class, which was when I had to apply for the second year. No problem right? They rejected my application. Obviously, it was a bait and switch – never intended to renew it. It was to get me there knowing I was unlikely to transfer after spending a year in the law school (same thing happened to other recipients).

UK pays the price. I only give to my undergrad school where my academic scholarship was honored for 4 years based on my performance. But I knew the deal going in. I had a different understanding based on assumptions that great peformance would result in renewal. UK didn’t tell me its real intent, but they lived up the letter of the agreement.

In the end, UK cost itself more money from me over my lifetime by screwing me like that (within the letter of the agreement). I don’t live in Lexington, so I don’t have to give money to the school for season tickets. I see UK when they are on the road like in Atlanta, Athens, and Auburn, and a special trip to NY in December. And on DirectTV (which based on the stories in the LHL seems to have more UK games on TV than Lexington cable channels). Haven’t missed a game in person or on TV in 3 years. GO CATS!

Life can be tough. Wear a helmet.

by JackBluto on Jan 8, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

You didn't say ...

… why they didn’t renew it.

Not that it really matters, I suppose. But clearly, even you thought that was unfair by your description of the situation as a “bait and switch.” Hence, the perception of Calipari’s housecleaning.

My point is, it doesn’t really matter all that much if it is the school’s right to revoke scholarships or change the standard. Clearly, it is.

But the perception is that is unfair, and I think a strong argument can be made that it is unfair. The same people who object to Cal’s actions would likely object to what happened to you, assuming the circumstances are similar.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

OK I give in

Why is it unfair?

I’m sure you’ll say these people agreed to 4 years, pursue a degree, could have gone elsewhere….

But in a time when we just lost 85k jobs in November nationally, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find any other sector that follows the principle of we’ll give, but you don’t have to produce.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 1:37 PM EST up reply actions  

It's unfair ...

… because the standard was changed midstream. They were good enough for UK before, why aren’t they good enough now?

That’s a fair question. If you had a scholarship to attend school, and the University changed the standards for that scholarship after the first year so that you were excluded from receiving it the next year, would you consider that fair? Most people wouldn’t, even if it was perfectly within the right of the University to do so.

I daresay you wouldn’t think it was fair, and neither would I.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

okay, I am late into this discussion, but I still have 2 cents... I will contribute them

In my humblest of opinions, if you interview college students, some at UK, some at Ivy League schools, others at community colleges, hey, even throw in a few Dookies if you can put up with them, and from this group of students some are on academic scholarships, some on athletic scholarships, others who are there because Dad is paying the bill, and you ask them if there is anything unfair about their classes, professors, academic programs, graduation guidelines, etc., etc., etc. those who answer honestly will tell you, "yes!’ And the truly honest students will tell you that some of the unfairness works for them and some of it works against them.

My experience on an academic scholarship was that sometimes you took tests when the idiot upstairs had kept you up all night with her noise or you were coming down with flu. Sometimes others snagged easy A’s because they got the “bunny professor” when you got the academic Attila the Hun.

Sometimes the course requirements just did not make sense and were changed the following year, but not changed for you, or the cute blonde in the front row unexplainable got the best grade in the class.

But in the end, the student who achieves the most in life is often one who figures out the fastest that he or she cannot change all of life’s inequities, only rise above them and use the challenge as motivation to achieve even more.

by StillCatwoman on Jan 8, 2010 6:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Agree

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2010 9:43 AM EST up reply actions  

I think this is fairly easily answered

“They were good enough for UK before, why aren’t they good enough now?”

They were recruited by different coaches under the existing conditions of the program. The program has moved on, they have moved on, and so should we.

by kywineman on Jan 9, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

This is not the same situation at all

Yes, basketball scholarships are only 1 – year deals that get renewed for 4 years. But in practice they are treated as 4-year scholarships and this makes a difference in the expectations of someone committing to a school and how the school treats that player.

If UK wants to hide behind the “they’re only 1 year scholarships anyway” factor then I wonder how much the coaches emphasize that point when they are in the home of a recruit, telling the family that he can play basketball and get his degree at UK. I bet exactly 0% of all college basketball coaches tell their recruits that they might only get the scholarship for 1 year and that it might not be renewed through no fault or action of said recruit.

This is different from academic scholarships – the student knows up front exactly what they have to do to keep the scholarship and as long as they hold up their end of the bargain the money will be there. The basketball players have no such assurance.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

That's exactly right.

That’s why it is a perception problem. It looks unfair, and arguably, it is.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

So if the public perceives Cal to be guilty, and it looks bad, then it probably is. We should let perception reign over all our truths, it already does on A-SOB as I like to refer to it as.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay, daniel.

I think maybe it’s time for you to go. You are acting like a jerk, and I’ve had enough of it.

Desist, please.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I think what Tru is trying to say is

First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...

by btcoop71 on Jan 8, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Um

you started it, I won’t have to look too far to remember that.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Perils Of Fairness

How I hate the word fair! Primarily for its absolute lack of objectivity but also because it is one of many examples of tyranny of the majority. Perhaps nothing exemplifies it more than the current controversy over same-sex marriage. Is it fair to grant it the same standing as heterosexual joinings? George Orwell who had great insight into such human whimsies perhaps said it best:

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the high-brow periodicals."

Thus we have the discussion and disharmony on the relatively trivial subject of a coaching decision.

"Learn(ing) without thinking begets ignorance. Think(ing) without learning is dangerous."
-Confucius

by Wild Weasel on Jan 8, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Thank you!!

No moral victories--it's all about Ws and Ls!!!

by oldcat'69 on Jan 8, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this,

and I think your points are all valid, but I would like to add one little thing here. While I’m pretty sure that, yes, coaches lie, some responsibility surely has to fall on the shoulders of the athlete and their families. As a parent, I would surely try to educate myself about what my son were getting into and what he was guaranteed and entitled to before he entered into any kind of agreement with the school of his choice.

Also, on the flip side of this whole thing about being unfair to the athlete, it should be noted that along with the unfairness or unethical nature of the rule as it stands – it also means that an athlete is free to leave as he wishes, as well, (i.e. Kevin Galloway leaving Southern Idaho and Matthew Pilgrim leaving Hampton for UK).

by BigSkyCat on Jan 8, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think it's a question of honesty or deliberately misleading recruits

I think it’s that athletic scholarships – contrary to how they are officially described – are thought of as 4-year deals to all involved: the coaching staff, the players, the families, etc and they get talked about as such. That creates problems when something happens like Calipari taking over and several players leave. Yes, it’s within the rules but it’s not consistent with how the rules are typically understood and talked about.

While in general I agree that families should be informed about the exact details, in practice this is harder to do than it sounds. Yes it’s an important decision, but it’s not the only important decision. At some point, when the man sitting in front of you is asking you to come to school, play basketball, get your degree and use basketball to pay for it – you have to put some trust in him.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

you know, honestly it would do more for the system as a whole if they were only

considered to be a one year scholarship…….if today’s recruits understood completely going in that we will re-evaluate you after your first year, and then make a decision based upon your first year performance and make it publicly known and advertised, it might keep a lot of this “innuendo” and “misunderstandings” out of the public perception

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I think the current system works well for the most part

It only really becomes an issue when you have a coaching change. At that point it is up to the schools to honor the intent of an athletics scholarship and prevent the new coach from dropping players from a team just because he doesn’t want them on it. Of course, this also means that the school has to give the new coach a reasonable amount of time to get “his guys” on the team and see what he can do.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions  

and now we have reached the crux of the problem......

this only flares up when there is a coaching change….and those are becoming more and more prevalent as good young talent becomes available in the coaching ranks….the last crop of coaches seem to be about as good as we have ever seen, but I guess that is a generational thing….Calipari would be considered an “elder statesman” now…..

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

There would be

a lot more one and dones that way!

by kywineman on Jan 9, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

The first thing most of us went through in high school athletics

Were try outs. You got cut if you stunk, any year. It was understood. It was also understood that if you produced, you’d have a spot for four years. This is a simple formula 99.99 percent of any business, athletic or organizational sector uses. We take care of you if you produce, if not, you’re done.
The only examples outside of college sports I can think of that are the opposite of this formula would be some sort of welfare program. Heck, if you commit to the army and don’t do your job they’ll get rid of you.
Hey, it stinks. It stinks that people have to lose in this society but that’s this society. I believe in being fair down the board. I don’t care what’s assumed, doesn’t mean it’s right.

by daniel81 on Jan 8, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

let's hope you are never put in charge of social security there daniel.....lol.....

you have a valid point about it…..but I think that the NCAA and it’s member institutions have let the misunderstandings snowball for years and it has now been brought to light in the information age……as it were

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Cousins the black hole

If Cousins could learn to pass, it might solve the “not feeding Patterson enough” problem as well.

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 7, 2010 9:30 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

I have a question for everyone

This doesn’t have anything to do with anything really, but I noticed it today and thought it was neat.

If, at the beginning of the season, you were offered a deal where Jodie Meeks could step in and take every 3-pt shot the Cats attempted this season, would you take it? I would have.

3-pt shooting:
2008-2009 Jodie Meeks: 40.6%
2009-2010 Kentucky: 40.6%

Also, Patterson is one of the most efficient players in the game. It’s criminal that he doesn’t touch the ball more. And I think South Carolina is going to be lucky to make the NIT – they just aren’t that good this year without Archie.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 7, 2010 11:15 PM EST reply actions  

Actually no......because Jodie shooting all of those is what made us so 1 dimensional

part of the reason we are undefeated is that we have 5 guys on the floor now at all times that can beat you. Larry Conley said it best over on Vaught’s Views. We have the best role players in the country, period. No one has our depth at so many positions. Last year we had one developed point guard…….now we have three….with a fourth one available in an emergency. This year we have the tallest team in the country, and it doesnt drop off too much from 1st string to second or third. That is what will be the difference this year……..when conference play hits, no one knows who, besides Wall, Cousins, Patterson, and Bledsoe is going to show up to beat our opponents.

Can you imagine if Orton, Perry and Jorts could come in and give Patterson and Cousins 6-7 minutes rest in each half and production never dropped off???

It is possible at times this year.

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 8:05 AM EST up reply actions  

"Last year we had one developed point guard"

We did?!!? Who???

I’d love to know, because I remember article after article here bemoaning that we didn’t have anyone to initiate the offense or protect the ball. We repeatedly talked about Michael Porter being forced to play a position he wasn’t recruited for. We talked about DeAndre Liggins and Kevin Galloway being in over their heads when they played.

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 8, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

I must digress in my statement.....I should have said..."last year we had 1 point guard"

he was not as developed as we would have liked….he was however the best of the three we had….my apologies….I was not trying to insinuate that Porter was a great point guard

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you misunderstood

I didn’t mean that Jodie would actually be on the floor in the game, but rather when say – Patrick – was about to attempt a 3pt shot Jodie would magically appear, attempt the shot, then disappear back into the ether.

The point is, at this moment the team collectively is shooting exactly as well from behind the arc as Meeks did last year – something we would all have taken headed into the season.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I knew what you were getting at

And its an interesting point. I remember in Tru’s preseason breakdown he asked the question “Who will shoot the 3 for us?” His answer now seems almost prophetic when he said “Everyone.” (At least, that’s what I remember reading… I could be misremembering.)

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jan 8, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

You remembered right ...

… but it was Eric Crawford who said that, not me. :-)

I did link it, though.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Jan 8, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, and in many ways it's far more impressive what they are doing this year

To shoot 40% or better as a team is just incredible – so many guys are contributing that it spreads out the risk. As ABC mentioned above, last year it was either Jodie or bust – if he had an off night then the team was pretty much sunk when it came to making perimeter shots. This season it’s more spread out so even if Bledsoe and Dodson are having bad games, Wall, Patterson, and Miller are all proven and capable of picking up the slack.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

youre right....I did misunderstand.....

and the 3 pt stat pleases me to no end…..

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Jan 8, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions  

quite alright

That’s the problem with writing – sometimes the intent stays in my head.

3 > 2, except for very large values of 2.

by JLeverenz on Jan 8, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Totally off subject here

But…..KEN, she is beautiful !! But you don’t need me to tell you that. :-)

Blue... there is no other color to Bleed !!!

by a2d2 on Jan 8, 2010 1:50 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

An exciting community-driven SBNation blog, by and for fans of the Kentucky Wildcats.

Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 01/18/2012]

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Eko_world_small
Coach Cal and His Love for Hair Flare
323_small
N.Y. Times/Pete Thamel / FLW Tour- Nerlens Noel Open
323_small
In Cal We Trust?
Small
Show 'Em The Money
323_small
Richie Farmer: Unforgettable Or Not?
Eko_world_small
Huge Problem for UK FANS
Img_0019_small
Not of general interest.
323_small
The King Is Dead, Long Live The King!
Grover_avatar_small
Reds Fans Upset UK to be Honored at Tonight's Game
Small
Recruiting In 1960's > Limit Was 25 Scholarships

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Twitter Widget -- Follow me!


Managing Editor

Tru_small Glenn Logan

Editor

Derby_024_small BigSkyCat

Fl_family_photo_small Ken Howlett

Author

Small JLeverenz

Justified-olyphant_small jc25

P1000195_small a2d2

Img_0019_small Alex Scutchfield