Kentucky and the New Face of College Basketball?

[volprof]

I'll have to say that I was never one of those who thought that Calipari's recruiting approach wouldn't eventually payoff. He was bound to win at some point with the talent he brings in. The question is, however, whether or not his system represents a paradigm shift in the game. Until this season, I was unsure if this was the case; now, though, I am convinced that (barring something unforeseen and unexpected) Calipari's system is the new "it." Let me explain...

This year, Syracuse and UNC might could have stood up to Kentucky, especially UNC (and not just because I grew up a Tarheel fan but because they would have matched up position-by-position). Unfortunately, each of those teams defeated themselves with either ineligibility or injury. This coming season I see no team being able to mount a legit opposition to UK's new team. Carolina could have, but they're all gone now. This was the first year that I realized the proficiency of the Calipari system. Whereas his recruiting approach gives him a chance to win every single year, a coach like Roy Williams, for instance, only gives himself a chance to win once every three or four years. Your hotshot sophomore and junior players decide to leave (i.e., Barnes, Marshall, and Henson) and no one comes in to take their place the next year (due to the fact that you didn't necessarily know if you would have the scholarship space). At Kentucky, leaving is a given, so Calipari recruits as such to be prepared and can quickly fill the gaps with the same caliber of talent. Everyone knows (recruits included) that the previous group will be leaving and free up space. Calipari recruits as if his whole team will be leaving; therefore, he needs to reproduce all of its talent in the next year's recruiting class. No other teams in college basketball take this approach, and, as such, are left out in the cold for a couple or few years until they can reproduce the talent (i.e., what will happen to UNC for the next couple of years at least).

Of course, this is all my opinion, but I think the differences between UNC and UK in recruiting approaches and season outcomes here really begs the question as to whether or not Calipari's system is the wave of the future. What say you?

 

[Pulscifer]

I think college basketball is definitely moving towards a "1 and done" sport. Until the NCAA decides to add a two year requirement you will only see more and more freshmen declaring for the draft every year.

Of course we will still see some of the traditionalist coaches like Krzyzweski wanting players to stay, and recruiting players who want to play more than one year, but I think once coaches like him (the older generation) you will see a lot more "dominant", "all-American", "POTY" players being freshman.

UK beating up on Kansas most of the game last night just proves talent can beat experience and that it's not all about veteran ship when it comes to winning a championship.

 

[slh1089]

They should get rid of the college requirement all together.

 

[golfballs]

grantland had an article about it, and I thought it was BS. UK winning doesn't change anything. All the top schools will try and attract the best players possible. There are relatively few kids who are one-and-done, and even fewer coaches who would pass them up because of that. The ones who do are successful enough and will likely be unfazed by a one-year run that Calipari put together.

 

[volprof]

grantland had an article about it, and I thought it was BS. UK winning doesn't change anything. All the top schools will try and attract the best players possible. There are relatively few kids who are one-and-done, and even fewer coaches who would pass them up because of that. The ones who do are successful enough and will likely be unfazed by a one-year run that Calipari put together.

I think you're point is well-taken; it's just that, in my opinion, Calipari has structured his system to the point that he relies upon these so-called one-and-done's (aka, NBA lottery picks that typically would not even bother with college if the one year rule weren't in place) more so than any other coach. As such, I think he goes after them harder and gets more of them. Of course other schools go after them as well, but I don't think they pursue them as relentlessly as Calipari. Basically, they're just looking to pick up one or two here and there, whereas Calipari looks to reproduce his entire team with them each year. This allows him to compete for the national title every year (because incoming top recruits know automatically that there will be a sharp turnover on the previous squad allowing them scholarship space), while other schools wait around a couple years attempting to recuperate all their talent. Obviously, every school as an equal shot at these players, but it just seems like they look towards Calipari's system (more often than not) as the one that will work for them. "Win me a championship my one year in college, then go on and get millions in the pros" kind of thing. Of course there is absolutely nothing about Calipari's system, or Calipari as a coach, that prepares these kids to be better NBA players more so than any other coach, but, nonetheless, they're all drinking the kool-aid. They see all of the NBA talent he collects and they say to themselves that Kentucky is the place for them, where they can succeed, when in fact, these kids are pretty much already NBA talent to begin with. I think then that it kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of thing with how recruits look at Kentucky, as if their NBA success is predicated upon Calipari's production of NBA talent, when in fact, he's simply the guy who had the bright idea of revamping his first Kentucky squad with a bunch of NBA lottery picks who would have been first rounders regardless of any Calipari coaching imprint. Let's face it: in the words of Paris Hilton, Kentucky's just "hot" right now. Not going to change anytime soon either, unless the rules are changed.

 

[slh1089]

To be honest, I could see Jones, Teague and Lamb having below average NBA careers and not produce very much. All three could stand to stay at UK one more year and be better for it.

 

[Pulscifer]

To be honest, I could see Jones, Teague and Lamb having below average NBA careers and not produce very much. All three could stand to stay at UK one more year and be better for it.

I think Davis and MGK are the only ones that will have a long, successful career. MGK more than Davis IMO.

 

[slh1089]

I think Davis and MGK are the only ones that will have a long, successful career. MGK more than Davis IMO.

MKG definitely has a higher ceiling than Davis in my opinion. I don't think it is likely but I could definitely see two of the three I mentioned staying. If Teague stayed it would be interesting with Herra becoming eligible.

 

[BeecherVol]

I think college basketball is definitely moving towards a "1 and done" sport. Until the NCAA decides to add a two year requirement you will only see more and more freshmen declaring for the draft every year.

Of course we will still see some of the traditionalist coaches like Krzyzweski wanting players to stay, and recruiting players who want to play more than one year, but I think once coaches like him (the older generation) you will see a lot more "dominant", "all-American", "POTY" players being freshman.

UK beating up on Kansas most of the game last night just proves talent can beat experience and that it's not all about veteran ship when it comes to winning a championship.

Im not sure that its moving toward it now anymore than before. It gets more discussion when the NC winning team has at least 2 and maybe more that bolt after one year. Thats where all the pub goes.