Kentucky Basketball: Why Coach John Calipari is Setting Kentucky Up for Years of Success
by Glenn Logan on Jul 20, 2010 8:51 AM EDT
in Commentary
Email
PrintYou see them out there all the time -- the naysayers. The ones that tell you there is no way Kentucky can win national championships by turning over half it's team to the NBA every year. The ones who say Kentucky is a D-League team, the minor leagues of college basketball.
We have discussed ad nauseum the merits of offering scholarships to talented players who aren't necessarily likely to be around for years, but most people have been, as we are wont, living in the present and ignoring the possibility of the future. Let me enlighten you.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the NBA succumbs to public pressure and includes a two or three year out-of-high-school requirement for future players entering the NBA draft. Let that roll around on your taste buds for a while. Think about the possibilities of having a team where Enes Kanter, Doron Lamb, Brandon Knight, and Terrence Jones join Michael Gilchrist and Marquis Teague for up to two years. Do you think the naysayers would still be their with the "too young to win" meme? Maybe, but the high probability is that they would be wrong.
John Calipari is aware of where this thing is going, and the worst thing that could happen is a scenario in which the NBA does not change it's current "one and done" rule in favor of a rule that reduces the drumbeat of criticism the league is suffering right now from the educational establishment and possibly even the government. As it stands now, the NCAA is powerless to prevent "one and dones," and even though college coaches like Calipari get plenty of criticism, when you ask the critics what's to be done, they don't suggest keeping these kids on the shelf.
It's easy to beat up on coaches -- that's what they get paid for, after all -- but it's really tough to suggest that a kid should be denied a chance at any amount of education in favor of a stint at McDonalds for a year, or hanging out on the street waiting to be eligible for the draft. Some would say, "let them go to prep school or junior college," but the question remains: If division I colleges want them, and they are eligible, why should they be denied an opportunity to earn a scholarship just because they are likely to accept NBA millions after only one year?
Calipari is betting the farm that the NBA will listen to it's PR people and extend the college attendance requirement to two years. That won't hurt Calipari's recruiting in the least -- he's still the guy that can get you into the first round of the draft faster than anybody -- but the additional experience means that Kentucky, if that scenario comes true, will be battering down the doors to the Final Four with teams so talented that success is inevitable.
In the final analysis, John Calipari is not getting enough credit. The "one and done" rule that he is helping to get changed by putting player after player into the draft will quite possibly be history after the next collective bargaining agreement. The NBA won't say that, but you know that they are thinking it, and if the "one and done" becomes "two or three and done," Kentucky (and the student athletes) stand to benefit immensely.
Here's hoping for three years. But I'd take two.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The NFL is two years
I’d take that.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jul 20, 2010 9:15 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
The NFL is 3 years
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel, is just a freight train coming your way...
So you are now willing to accept that the government might get involved with this Tru?
Thought you had dismissed that scenario? Calipari is smart…….really smart. He seems to possess this crystal ball and a set of brass ones to go with it that allows him to do what others only whisper about when there are no cameras or cell phones around.
But back to this thing about Cal getting the rules changed simply by his actions, I thought everyone was of the opinion that the rule was never gonna change until there was a money issue surrounding it? When I was touting the merits of the change being made everyone was quick to point out that the NBAPA was not going to do anything anytime soon as long as the money kept rolling in. Are we changing stances now?
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
The Irony Is....
typically rules are changed to limit UK’s success – the first of which I remember was outlawing athletic only housing when UK Lodge was orginally built. There have been others that escape me at this point.
However, if the one and done rule is changed, my gut is that some believe it will impede Cal’s and therefore UK’s success when imo it will actually increase it.
I would add to your example a team with Enes Kanter, Doron Lamb, Brandon Knight, and Terrence Jones joining Wall, Cuz, Bledsoe and Orton….
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Jul 20, 2010 10:27 AM EDT reply actions
Do you sign all those kids with the previous years top freshman coming back?
I think not. At least, not as many and not as often. They will all still want to play right away. That is why they all waited to the last days to sign these last 2 years.
I’m not sure a two year NBA rule helps Kentucky’s current recruiting strategy.
You make several good points about the benefits of having more mature star players. I doubt any Kentucky fan would turn down another year with Wall running the point. However, you assume that Gilchrest and Teague would be so quick to sign when guys like Knight, Jones and Lamb playing in front of them. No matter how prodigious a recruiter Coach Cal is, I don’t think he gets Teague if he has to share pg minutes with Knight.
Additionally, imagine that the 09-10 class is required to stay for 2 years. Does the prospect of sharing minutes with Cousins and Orton scare off Kanter? Does Knight sign somewhere else to avoid competing with Bledsoe and Wall? And ultimately, does the effort it takes to keep guys like Bledsoe and Orton engaged in the academic side of the equation create more problems in the 2nd year than the benefits gained by having them around in year one?
There are several significant negatives to consider before praying that David Stern introduces a 2-and-done rule.
If Knight
stays two years, is it necessary to get Teague?
I woke up feeling BLUE this morning. It's gonna be a great day.
knight
You are right, Teague and Knight do not have to play together. Teague then becomes redundant.
I make that comment only because the blog writer “truz” writes that a 2-and-done rule would produce a situation where Knight and Teague play together. The blog post might be fantasty but the argument has to be grounded in reality. Truz’s suggestion that Teague and Knight would suit up together seems far fetched to me.
I'm not sure....
You make some really good points. Behind what you are saying I can read the possibility of a battle with our old nemesis $$$$$$$. I hate that this is the way it is. Money has taken over everything. What a shame.
Enjoy the present hour,
Be mindful of the past;
And neither fear nor wish
The approaches of the last.
Poor Richard's Almanac
Talented HS Players Should Be Able To Go Straight To NBA
Just like talented hockey players (NHL), baseball players (MLB), golfers (PGA) and tennis players can do.
Calipari will average 30+ W in his UK tenure.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jul 20, 2010 12:10 PM EDT reply actions
The answer is NOT more years in college.
The answer is allowing the kids to enter out of high school.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
I agree too, Hoze.
But the NBA doesn’t like that rule b/c it “forces” them to make risky lottery picks based on some high school kid’s “upside.” The risks are reduced greatly after seeing them play a year in college, though the risks are never eliminated given the difference b/t the NCAA and NBA games.
I’m just saying – the answer depends on whose interest you support. If you are looking through the NBA lense, I don’t think we will return to drafting high school players.
Understood & agreed.
Call me a Dreamer….but kids first. Oh, and I am always on the right side and what’s fair. ;)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jul 20, 2010 8:57 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Understood....
Hoze, you can’t spell “right” much less know what it is.
Enjoy the present hour,
Be mindful of the past;
And neither fear nor wish
The approaches of the last.
Poor Richard's Almanac
AGREE 100%
"UK isn't a choice, you're born bleeding blue"
by kentuckywild on Jul 20, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed
The NCAA already has the best system in place…….baseball. You go straight to the pros, or if you go to college you are there 3 years.
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel, is just a freight train coming your way...
What do you think about
letting players go right after high school but if they enter college they have to stay 2-3 years?
The only potential problem I see is you will have a lot of kids that would have gone to college for a year or two go ahead and make the NBA jump when they weren’t ready and end up screwing themselves. But at some point you have to protect the integrity of college basketball.
I agree kids first, but there has to be a happy medium and a way to help the kids make smart decisions.
by Clint Phelps on Jul 21, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
If the NCAA changes the rule in the next couple of years
the CATS will have to field a Blue Team and a White Team with of course KENTUCKY across their uniforms and finish 1 and 2 or 1 and 1a. I may have been carried away a little, just a dream.
It doesn't really matter if they change any rules
.
Coach Cal will still get the best players available for the same reasons (NBA) as now.
If they change the rules to allow kids to go straight to the NBA, we won’t have guys like Wall or Kanter anymore. But we will still get the other guys who want one year. And we will still lead the nation in one-and-done players. And face the exact same criticisms. Just with a few less numbers.
If they change the rule to force two years, we will get the best of those guys. And we will then lead the nation in two-and-through players. And then send them off to the NBA and get criticized for that.
Forced to stay three years, like baseball? Fine. We will just end up leading the nation in three-and-flee players. Or whatever.
.
-- Tim . http://HomeSalesLexington.com/barn
I suspect you are totally correct on your thoughts
Can you imagine if we had those particular 5 returning for 2010-11? And would the other teams want to show up to play us in 2011-12 with 4 of them (minus PPat) returning that season? I think that is a possible thought also for the powers that be.
Regardless of what they do or don’t do, I think we will still be criticized for our revolving door no matter how many times it goes ’round.
Blue... there is no other color to Bleed !!!
Exactly, a2d2
Whatever the minimum number of years required, the best kids are always going to want to head to the NBA as soon as they feel confident of being a first-rounder. And as well they should!
I think you have said it best: “I think we will still be criticized for our revolving door no matter how many times it goes ’round.”
Truthfully, about the only way to stop this is to stop getting so many of the best players. I vote: “Keep ’em coming!”
.
-- Tim . http://HomeSalesLexington.com/barn
Good grief....I agree again.
….and to think most think I am disagreeable. :)
Seriously, it would be a net sum zero. The end result would be that the best recruiters would STILL get the most talented teams….in theory.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jul 20, 2010 9:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Good grief...
You are proof that the majority is not always right.
Enjoy the present hour,
Be mindful of the past;
And neither fear nor wish
The approaches of the last.
Poor Richard's Almanac
I like your "Two and shoo" better as well, JackBluto
As far as the athletic prospects go…
One and done
Two and shoo
Three and flee
Four and head for the door
Five and hope barely still alive
Six and you’ll need some tix (just like the rest of us)
.
-- Tim . http://HomeSalesLexington.com/barn
Edit:
The ones who say Kentucky is a D-League team, the minor leagues of college basketball.
I assume you mean “the minor leagues of professional basketball.”
Otherwise, good take. What’s the chatter about the NBA instituting a 2 or 3 year rule?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
Hmmmm....
You see them out there all the time — the naysayers. The ones that tell you there is no way Kentucky can win national championships by turning over half its team to the NBA every year
.
What a bunch of malarkey! First, if Calipari’s recruiting strategy can’t/doesn’t win, darwinian forces within the Kentucky program will make it go away. So, if you really think it won’t work, you shouldn’t be wringing your hands over it – Period. Three or four years and it will be gone. The reality is that these individuals don’t have the courage of their convictions and are afraid that it WILL work and be a self perpetuating recruiting magnet… and I believe it will as well.
Second, the concern over the lack of educational commitment of these one-n-done players is silly at best obfuscation at worst. We’re talking about a bare handful of student athletes, only 12 freshmen declared, only 9 were drafted. Advocating the overhaul of a difficult NBA collective bargaining agreement to keep 12 guys in college an extra year is insane.
I’ve posted this before, but, the reality is that college graduation rates are much lower than most people are aware. For example, the Boston Globe published a study in 2008 concerning completion rates for all Boston students who entered institutions of higher learning in what is often referred to as the "Center of American Higher Education." They found: (1) "Students attending two-year community colleges had a 12 percent graduation rate;" (2) "Students attending four-year public state colleges had approximately a 33 percent graduation rate;" and, (3) "Students at four-year, private colleges managed the best rate but still only a 56 percent graduation rate." Further, "for those aspiring college students who finished in the bottom 40 percent of their high school classes, but went on to attempt to secure a four-year degree right out of high school, roughly two-thirds had studied for the better part of eight and a half years without obtaining a diploma."
This implies that, of all the thousands of college athletes, only a third of them are EVER going to graduate from a public university like UK. And some of us are worried that 12 potential multi-millionaires are not going to graduate?!? Changing the NBA rule from one year to 2, 3, 4, or even 0 years will not change a thing. It simply won’t increase the likelihood of graduation for any of them. And if we’re not talking about graduation then what does it matter if they stay 4 years or 1?
The Point that everyone is overlooking is this!
The point here is that UK will have one year to get the team working together… The second year UK would be the Team!!!
Think about 2 years with wall/bledsoe. Now would you want a 1 year team of knight lamb over this second year team… I would take a 2 year team of that talant any day.
So yeah Kinght/lamb/kanter would have signed some place other then UK…. But UK would have added Jones to the mix of last seasons team when patterson would have left to the NBA.
Think about that team for a min……. Now look where you would put UK…. I would vote #1 team and hard to stop in the NCAA Championships.
You will also still get the players like Poole that everyone thinks really has no shot at going pro any time soon… but how much better would it make poole to play along with the talant that uk had last season.. I say it would overall have to help the team.
last point i want to make is this, Gilchrest and Teague would have still signed with UK im sure… they would get the playing time that they want… Coach Cals job at getting stars would be focused on every other year… less time recruiting and more time to focus on the players and making them better… so all and all this would Make UK better IMO!
What he said.
Is that a +1? I’ve never really understtod that. But again I am >50, too. Damn youngsters!
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jul 20, 2010 9:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
yep + 1 is agreeing or giving props
from what ive gathered … could be wrong
"UK isn't a choice, you're born bleeding blue"
by kentuckywild on Jul 20, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Tru...
Great writeup. I’m glad to see there is someone in your position who thinks this way.
I’m on board.
Enjoy the present hour,
Be mindful of the past;
And neither fear nor wish
The approaches of the last.
Poor Richard's Almanac
a good problem to have
if the top kids were forced to stay 2-3 years, and the prevailing argument is that the next class wouldn’t be as strong (i.e Teague not coming because of sharing minutes with Knight)…well, it seems as though knight may be staying anyway and Teague is still coming…and even perhaps Wroten (although if Knight stays, I can’t see a scenario where Wroten comes…but could be wrong)…but regardless, even if that were the case, I would prefer to have a top flight player around for 2-3 years (learn the system, comfortable playing with teammates…and the ever present tournament tested experience) so that I wouldn’t mind if we missed out on a top-flight replacement player if one decided to stay longer at UK…just reload when that kid does decide to leave…either way, UK will be fine in recruiting and thus fine altogether…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 01/18/2012]
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
