Sports Daily: Is It Right To Hate On Kentucky Basketball?

[LowerWolf]

As a Vols fan, I don't care if they're one-and-done or stay four years, it's always OK to hate Kentucky.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Kentucky has been hated on for years. There was a down time of that when Tubby and Billy Clyde were coaching. Calipari (who's always been a lightning rod his entire career*) was the lighter fluid that reignited the 'Evil Empire' of Kentucky basketball.

(*Let's be honest, the man doesn't have any NCAA violations against him. This is an opinion that I held when he was at Memphis. Many non-UK fans hold this opinion as well (Jay Bilas comes to mind). The Marcus Camby situation was all on Marcus Camby. I'm sorry, but no coach baby sits their players 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days out of the year. The Derek Rose situation was a farce and a half by the NCAA. The NCAA cleared him. Name one coach in America who would've turned down the opportunity to coach Rose.)

But there is a lot of baloney surrounding the one and done....

* Cal is promising these players NBA dreams (Nope, he doesn't promise a single player they'll be able to go pro after one year)
* These kids don't go to class (Kentucky has a team GPA of 3.0, one of the highest APRs in the country, has graduated 10 players and two more have come back to work on their degrees)

Cal hates the one and done rule. He feels it should be a two year rule. He's come up with suggestions on how to make it work.

[wildcatchild]

Quote: Originally Posted by tbook24

Calipari doesnt reallhy coach. he recruits guys well but his teams arent coached that well. He should have more titles than his one. When his kids get to the nba they have some fundamental issuest hat needto be worked out. He gets outcoached in most of the big games. Kentucky itself is not to be hated unless you are a rival of them but Calipari is an eternal underachiever as a coach.

So tired of hearing the "Cal just rolls the ball out" argument. Here are facts that totally blow up your comments:

1.) Calipari took '96 UMass with exactly ONE NBA player (Camby) to a Final Four. UMass has not sniffed the Final Four since Calipari left town.

2.) Calipari took Memphis with Derrick Rose and two borderline NBA role players (Dorsey and Douglas-Roberts) to within a possession of the national title in 2008. Who did they beat in the Final Four? How about a UCLA team with Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook and Darren Collison. How many Sweet 16's and Elite 8's has Memphis made since he left? It's not like Josh Pastner is exactly struggling on the recruiting trail.

3.) Calipari completely changed the way his 2011 UK team played halfway through the season --- which was 10-6 in the SEC mind you --- and it resulted in a Final Four appearance. He turned Josh Harrellson into an NBA player.

4.) Of course, 2014 and his end-of-the year tweak with Andrew Harrison may have been his best coaching job of them all. Took an 8-seed of freshmen and sophomores to the national title game.

5.) If winning with young talent is so easy, why did Coach K lose to both Lehigh and Mercer two of the last three years? Why couldn't Bill Self beat a crappy Stanford team with Andrew Wiggins, Perry Ellis and Wayne Selden? Why has youthful North Carolina lost in the second rounds two years straight?

My point? Calipari gets talent, but he's proven he can win with less talented teams and also he can make adjustments when necessary. That's called coaching.

[ehh]

While all of your points are valid I think it goes a little deeper than that. Calipari has obviously been a successful college coach so saying "he's won" is a tough point to argue against. Recruiting and motivating are the two most important qualities of a college basketball coach and Calipari has them both in spades which is why he's been successful. Plenty of coaches have won titles without being great in-game coaches.

However, the eye test in-game still leaves quite a bit to be desired, anyone that understands the depths of basketball knows that Calipari isn't a great X's and O's coach just like Roy Williams, Rick Barnes, etc. He has a very basic system and does not adjust well (not that this is that much of an aberration in the coaching world). Basic systems tend to struggle against elite defenses. Also, just a personal opinion of mine, but there is absolutely no reason or excuse to use such a simple system. The more movement and more you have going on in your offense the more the defense has to work and the more opportunities there will be for defenses to make a mistake that you can capitalize on. Basically he's going with a simple system because A) he can get away with it in college with supreme freshman talent each year B) it isn't that far from what these poor kids are used to in AAU. Some people think that's genius, I get why he does it but I think it's a foolish move. For anyone who disagrees with me, I completely get the opposite side of the argument (why install a complicated offense for a core of players that'll be on campus for seven months?), just my opinion on the matter.

In addition to simplicity, for young college kids, I think he gives them too much freedom. Young players need more guidance and structure. They're still learning the game. Having your "secret tweak" being that you told your starting PG who shoots 36% from the field to shoot less and pass more is not genius, that's common freaking sense.

• He pretty much threw last year's team under the bus for their underachieving ways (at least he took a brunt of the blame this year).
• When UK made the boneheaded foul with under a minute left in the title game that ultimately put things on ice for UConn, Calipari's press conference response was to shrug it off to the fact that they're freshman.
• When asked about Randle struggles? He's a freshman, and he was a little nervous and a little tired.
• Why in the world you would ever put James Young on Napier to start the title game or switch every ball screen literally had me laughing at my TV. Did Calipari watch a second of the MSU or Florida film? This stuff isn't rocket science.
• Teams that don't execute well out of timeouts (or coaches that don't have uniquely drawn plays in the huddle) drive me crazy.

So basically he's a genius when they win and when he loses it's the player's fault because "they're freshman". Kudos to him for trying to relieve the pressure from his kids but it's complete BS.

To say overall that he's a bad coach is obviously foolish, I understand why UK fans get tired of the blanket statement from probably clueless opposing fans that say it only because they hear so many other fans say it. He does two-thirds of the coaching trinity extremely well and that's enough to win a lot of games but he's an average-at-best in-game coach.

It is also funny that Calipari is one of the few guys that gets knocked for being out-coached. Ollie out-coached Izzo and Donovan quite a bit and you barely heard a peep from the media about it. He made several mid-game adjustments that pretty much led to UConn winning.

Moral of the story...

Spoiler

Ollie is a ****ing stud.

[ProfessaPackMan]

I could care less about UK but it's just hilarious to me how sensitive most of their fans are and I've noticed that since I've been on OS. You say one bad thing about the team or it's players and even UK players that are in the NBA, you get a full blown essay from them.

Relax and stop being so damn touchy everytime someone doesn't praise the holy ground that UK or Cal walks on.

[PhantomPain]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

I could care less about UK but it's just hilarious to me how sensitive most of their fans are and I've noticed that since I've been on OS. You say one bad thing about the team or it's players and even UK players that are in the NBA, you get a full blown essay from them. Relax and stop being so damn touchy everytime someone doesn't praise the holy ground that UK or Cal walks on.

I have a short response for you. UK fans are crazy! Or another term to use, is EXTREMELY passionate. It's all we got to root for man, cut us some slack and either read the good points some make or laugh at the stupidity that others ake. Either way, you win!

[PhantomPain]

Quote: Originally Posted by ehh

While all of your points are valid I think it goes a little deeper than that. Calipari has obviously been a successful college coach so saying "he's won" is a tough point to argue against. Recruiting and motivating are the two most important qualities of a college basketball coach and Calipari has them both in spades which is why he's been successful. Plenty of coaches have won titles without being great in-game coaches. However, the eye test in-game still leaves quite a bit to be desired, anyone that understands the depths of basketball knows that Calipari isn't a great X's and O's coach just like Roy Williams, Rick Barnes, etc. He has a very basic system and does not adjust well (not that this is that much of an aberration in the coaching world). Basic systems tend to struggle against elite defenses. Also, just a personal opinion of mine, but there is absolutely no reason or excuse to use such a simple system. The more movement and more you have going on in your offense the more the defense has to work and the more opportunities there will be for defenses to make a mistake that you can capitalize on. Basically he's going with a simple system because A) he can get away with it in college with supreme freshman talent each year B) it isn't that far from what these poor kids are used to in AAU. Some people think that's genius, I get why he does it but I think it's a foolish move. For anyone who disagrees with me, I completely get the opposite side of the argument (why install a complicated offense for a core of players that'll be on campus for seven months?), just my opinion on the matter. In addition to simplicity, for young college kids, I think he gives them too much freedom. Young players need more guidance and structure. They're still learning the game. Having your "secret tweak" being that you told your starting PG who shoots 36% from the field to shoot less and pass more is not genius, that's common freaking sense. He pretty much threw last year's team under the bus for their underachieving ways (at least he took a brunt of the blame this year). When UK made the boneheaded foul with under a minute left in the title game that ultimately put things on ice for UConn, Calipari's press conference response was to shrug it off to the fact that they're freshman. When asked about Randle struggles? He's a freshman, and he was a little nervous and a little tired. Why in the world you would ever put James Young on Napier to start the title game or switch every ball screen literally had me laughing at my TV. Did Calipari watch a second of the MSU or Florida film? This stuff isn't rocket science. Teams that don't execute well out of timeouts (or coaches that don't have uniquely drawn plays in the huddle) drive me crazy. So basically he's a genius when they win and when he loses it's the player's fault because "they're freshman". Kudos to him for trying to relieve the pressure from his kids but it's complete BS. To say overall that he's a bad coach is obviously foolish, I understand why UK fans get tired of the blanket statement from probably clueless opposing fans that say it only because they hear so many other fans say it. He does two-thirds of the coaching trinity extremely well and that's enough to win a lot of games but he's an average-at-best in-game coach. It is also funny that Calipari is one of the few guys that gets knocked for being out-coached. Ollie out-coached Izzo and Donovan quite a bit and you barely heard a peep from the media about it. He made several mid-game adjustments that pretty much led to UConn winning. Moral of the story... Spoiler Ollie is a ****ing stud.

Well said, ehh. Cal is not a great in-game coach. I consider him average. Sometimes he makes great adjustments and makes him look awesome at X's & O's and many times you are left scratching your head. As for the system, you already understand it. It's simple because he usually has a bunch of freshmen that have no idea how to go through drills and he has to teach them when there aren't many upperclassmen to help. By the time March rolls around he can actually starting coaching more because the players are usually by then playing with emotion, hustle and for each other. Last year I think Cal was as frustrated as he has ever been with that team and he put a lot of responsibility on the players. Usually he tries and take the blame and to take the spotlight off the kids. I guess last year he couldn't help himself?

He is one of the best, if not the best, at recruiting and motivating so that goes a long way. But he could certainly get better at in-game coaching.

And Ollie does seem to be a stud. Look forward to seeing how he does over the years. I like him.

Finally, ehh, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters on this forum. Thank you for the intelligent insight and conversation you provide.

[wildcatchild]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

I could care less about UK but it's just hilarious to me how sensitive most of their fans are and I've noticed that since I've been on OS. You say one bad thing about the team or it's players and even UK players that are in the NBA, you get a full blown essay from them. Relax and stop being so damn touchy everytime someone doesn't praise the holy ground that UK or Cal walks on.

Imagine if you had to hear some version of the following statement from envious Vikings, Bears and Lions fans 365 days a year:

Mike McCarthy is a terrible coach. He has Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, etc. and he's only won a single Super Bowl? Pathetic, all he does is walk up and down the sideline and tell Aaron to sling it downfield every play.

I have a hard time believing you would turn the other cheek if this is all you ever heard from your NFC North rivals. But if pointing out stupidity in essay format is sensitive --- as opposed to calling people names and getting banned --- then I guess I'm guilty as charged.