Better Coach Or Better School? Who's Better, Calipari Or Izzo?

In reading this piece from Athlon Sports late Friday night, I had to ask myself. What makes Tom Izzo better than John Calipari? Why is Izzo so beloved(even by some True Blue fans) while Calipari struggles for respect that he has not only earned, but earned time and time again? Or is it where they are? Is Michigan State the house of truth and justice and all things good in the world? Is Kentucky the locale of demonic seed pods which are going to infest the world if not stopped by the forces of good? How is it that five years of being the winningest basketball coach in the NCAA (by 19 games no less), an NCAA Championship, Back-To-Back Final Fours, and a slew of NBA first round picks doesn't get John Calipari a seat at the adults' table at the family Christmas party?

A look see after the jump.

For the record, I like Tom Izzo myself. I don't see him as being the end all to end all of coaches, but I think he's a decent guy. But what is it about him that makes him so beloved? Is it his laboring with lesser talent? Is it his down-home, earthy manner? Is it because he coaches at Michigan State? Or is it the mentality of America and our burning desire to see the underdog win that enthralls everyone with Coach Izzo?

And what of John Calipari? He wins. He sends his kids to class. He puts kids in the NBA. He has a top-flight program at a top-flight school. He coaches the elite of the elite. He si friendly with almost everyone (John Chaney not withstanding. He recruits non-stop. He talks to everyone. He loves his wife and kids. He can coach great players, he can coach good players, and he can even coach marginal players. Or is it the inherent lack of trust in today's society that makes successful people a target for critics and haters alike?

Of course, I could be all wrong in this and people could just be stupid. What is it folks?