When they pass the new rule and let the kids go pro straight out of high school. The most corrupt coach in America knows it too was begging on national tv the other night that it's working. Those hasbeens will continue too be looking up to the king of college basketball.
Kensucky will go back to being irrelevant in college basketball
- Thread starter 3skinny
- Start date
Those hasbeens sold there sole to hire the biggest cheater in college basketball. They where irrelevant when they hired Calishady and still can't beat us now. He will have them back on probation when he leaves. Something they know all about.
He's still a good recruiter, recruiting for a top school. He'll lose a major selling point (I'll get you to the NBA fast), but he'll still get top recruits.
The question becomes whether he can do as well with those recruits for a couple of years as he did with OADs for a single year.
To accomplish that, he'll have to coach. But everything I've seen suggests that he's a good coach. How good, under changed circumstances, is what we'll find out over a couple of years. But since he will start out getting good talent, he'll probably still look good after a couple years.
Let's not forget that Roy used to be criticized in much the same way as a coach who only won because he was a top recruiter. Roy has buried that complaint. Cal could, too.
The question becomes whether he can do as well with those recruits for a couple of years as he did with OADs for a single year.
To accomplish that, he'll have to coach. But everything I've seen suggests that he's a good coach. How good, under changed circumstances, is what we'll find out over a couple of years. But since he will start out getting good talent, he'll probably still look good after a couple years.
Let's not forget that Roy used to be criticized in much the same way as a coach who only won because he was a top recruiter. Roy has buried that complaint. Cal could, too.
No matter what else happens, you can put this in the bank, doesn't matter if the NBA does away with the one & done or puts in a 2 or 3 yr rule, what ever they do will allow a path for kids to enter the GD League right out of high school. Note, for the sensitive GD = Gatorade Developmental...
Next Kal as a coach, IMO he is on par with Leonard Hamilton, no where near Roy as a coach. His career has been built from either getting kids in to his program that could play but could not get thru other programs admissions, grade point factories or having them funneled to him from WWW or now his hype of the one & done rule. He gets players, now looking to exploit the U-19 team advantage. What will he do if the NBA grants those kids the path from HS to the GD League? Does he tell them, go to the league and don't worry about playing college ball for me, yeah, forget about the offer I gave you from UK, just go league and take care of business now? LOL
Next Kal as a coach, IMO he is on par with Leonard Hamilton, no where near Roy as a coach. His career has been built from either getting kids in to his program that could play but could not get thru other programs admissions, grade point factories or having them funneled to him from WWW or now his hype of the one & done rule. He gets players, now looking to exploit the U-19 team advantage. What will he do if the NBA grants those kids the path from HS to the GD League? Does he tell them, go to the league and don't worry about playing college ball for me, yeah, forget about the offer I gave you from UK, just go league and take care of business now? LOL
Two things.
One, Cal is a good coach. Probably not a great coach, but quite good nonetheless. He gets all these 5* players to buy into his M.O., that's not always easy to do. His recruiting ability is second to none.
Second, I doubt seriously that the NBA ever reverts back to drafting kids right out of high school. If anything, they will amend the rule to require a kid be 2 years removed from high school, versus the current 1 year.
One, Cal is a good coach. Probably not a great coach, but quite good nonetheless. He gets all these 5* players to buy into his M.O., that's not always easy to do. His recruiting ability is second to none.
Second, I doubt seriously that the NBA ever reverts back to drafting kids right out of high school. If anything, they will amend the rule to require a kid be 2 years removed from high school, versus the current 1 year.
First agree with hands down. Cal will just have 5 players for two year instead of one, so he actually is better off in that situation.
Second point we totally disagree on, NBA and players are starting to warm up to the D league as a viable option so sticking young kids there and not worrying about grades is not a bad option for some if not a lot of players.
Two and done will both help, and hurt Kal. He will still have the NBA sell as much or more than any other coach. He will get to have some really great players for 2 years and have some continuity, and probably a more cohesive unit. It will hurt in that he will get "stuck" with the 5 stars who are over-billed for two years instead of one, taking up a precious roster slot. UNLESS, he runs them off via transfer - which I believe to be a very likely scenario.
The KY/KAL setup is a mercenary system, but it is mercenary from both sides. Players want to use KY for feature and fast track to NBA, and KY/Kal want to use players who pan out quickly and dispense with the rest in order to keep up their NBA pipeline image.
The KY/KAL setup is a mercenary system, but it is mercenary from both sides. Players want to use KY for feature and fast track to NBA, and KY/Kal want to use players who pan out quickly and dispense with the rest in order to keep up their NBA pipeline image.
Good coach must men different things to different peeps! I think Slimy is one of the greatest recruiters the game has ever seen. I think he is good at the salesmanship and the motivation aspects of coaching, BUT.....
Good coaches can adjust on the fly during games; they develop players; they adjust their system to fit the peeps on their team; they use their bench and always put peeps in situations that will lead them toward success.
Great coaches add the interpersonal skills and winning no matter who is on the bench. They win when they are supposed to and often when they aren't. They keep winning even when the overall system changes.
Slimy = OK to good
Roy = GREAT!
Good coaches can adjust on the fly during games; they develop players; they adjust their system to fit the peeps on their team; they use their bench and always put peeps in situations that will lead them toward success.
Great coaches add the interpersonal skills and winning no matter who is on the bench. They win when they are supposed to and often when they aren't. They keep winning even when the overall system changes.
Slimy = OK to good
Roy = GREAT!
Trying to be objective...I still don't think Cal is a "good" in-game coach. I'd call him average.
I just don't see him make adjustments. His has a game plan going into a matchup but rarely deviates off of it if something is going wrong. He's not the kind of coach to call a TO then jump into a full court trap or zone to catch a team off guard.
Give me the most of the blue blood coaches and probably half of the mid major coaches over Cal as an in-game coach.
I just don't see him make adjustments. His has a game plan going into a matchup but rarely deviates off of it if something is going wrong. He's not the kind of coach to call a TO then jump into a full court trap or zone to catch a team off guard.
Give me the most of the blue blood coaches and probably half of the mid major coaches over Cal as an in-game coach.
With a large enough sample, team quality matters a lot more than coaching decisions. Roster (recruiting), development, system, and culture determine team quality.
People point to individual coaching decisions (time outs, changing defenses, etc) as being critical, but those decisions are only worth a fraction of a point in terms of expected value. That trap that "worked" may have moved the probability of a stop from 53% to 55%, for example. It "worked" in that it helped move the needle, but it wasn't the difference between success and failure.
Have you played at any high level?
I'm not asking to condescend, I'm asking because I don't know too many players who feel that way. If you've faced man for 25 minutes straight, a team flipping to a zone or trap throws you WAY off for at least 3-4 possessions. In a close game, getting 3-4 stops in a row can easily be the difference in a game.
This is especially true in road games.
At this level, the kids are all so good that the skill of utilizing them in the best way in the pressure situations is something I just can't see as being described as "overrated".
Depending on outcomes make coaches legends, Heels up 9 with a minute and change , then Kentucky Ties it. then you have Pinson not Berry bringing the ball up , then a non starter will shoot the last shot... Sounds like a great coaching situation too me... Had it gone the other way Roy looks like the Coach that blows the lead.. So we as fans just have to let things play out and enjoy the ride..
Nope, I've literally never played competitive basketball outside of intramurals. But I do have club experience in another team sport.
Players feelings frequently don't match reality. I'm not saying in-game coaching doesn't matter, but the effect of being "thrown off" for those possessions is smaller than it's perceived to be. Players remember when it "worked" - when they didn't score. When they successfully beat the new defense, it's far less notable.
The impact of those 3-4 possessions may be less than half of a point in terms of expected value.
This is just not true. Having played basketball for literally my entire life, new defense changes absolutely take a few possessions to get used to.
In-game coaching is an extremely valuable part of college basketball. I think most players and coaches would agree if we asked them.
I too must disagree with this. There were several cases in this years NCAA tournament when Roy made late changes in the defense that allowed Carolina to get several stops when we were losing, enabling the team to tie the game or take the lead. Claiming those few stops are small and inconsequential just makes no sense to me.
I more than disagree about in-game coaching; I believe the comment borders on nonsense! I played Soccer at NCSU (invited walk-on) and basketball later in my college career (D-2). I have coached basketball, baseball, football, and soccer up to the high school level and I know that in-game decisions often impact winning and losing; team morale; bench development; and momentum for the game and season!
ALL great Coaches are masters of responding to the demands of their team and specific games! Only those who have either never coached or been coached at at least the HS level would even think this!
Ratty was actually pretty good at this, but has settled into a system he seems reluctant to change recently. Slimy has never shown any particular skill at this. Roy is excellent at this but his changes are often too subtle for casual fans and thus he doesn't get enough credit!
ALL great Coaches are masters of responding to the demands of their team and specific games! Only those who have either never coached or been coached at at least the HS level would even think this!
Ratty was actually pretty good at this, but has settled into a system he seems reluctant to change recently. Slimy has never shown any particular skill at this. Roy is excellent at this but his changes are often too subtle for casual fans and thus he doesn't get enough credit!
That illustrates my point perfectly. Those decisions didn't guarantee we'd get a stop, nor would a lack of those decisions have guaranteed we wouldn't get a stop.
Perhaps they shifted the probability of success in our favor for those possessions, but fans treat that shift as directly resulting in a binary outcomes.
The changes didn't "allow Carolina to get several stops", because there's a good chance we would have gotten stops anyway; and there's also a good chance opponents would have scored despite the changes. The changes shifted the expect value of those possessions, but they didn't directly cause the outcomes.
Some coaches call timeouts, others don't. Some coaches change defenses, others stick with their bread-and-butter. Some coaches ride the "hot hand", others run their offense. Some coaches pull players immediately after mistakes, others let players play through them.
The fact that you see successful coaches at both extremes on a range of in-game decisions indicates that those decisions aren't nearly important as they seem. The problem is that we don't see the counterfactual for specific coaching decisions and so we treat the outcome as destiny.
Calipari has been the most successful coach in the sport since taking over at Kentucky.
I agree but only on recruiting and getting his guys to the NBA. But beyond that he is under-achieving when you compare the results to the level of talent he has brought through UK's program. JMO.
LMFAO! Now you're talking out your a-hole.With the talent he has had with just one Title to show for????Riiiiiiight.
In 8 years:
1 Championship
2 Championship Games
4 Final Fours
6 Elite Eights
Who has been more successful? The only coach with more championships is Coach K, and he has 1/2 as many Final Fours (2 vs 4) and Elite Eights (3 vs 6).
Again, you haven't defined "success". It's clearly not championships, otherwise it'd be K. Maybe it's elite eights.
He has certainly been the best recruiter since he got to UK. And he has enjoyed a lot of success, but the "most", I'm not sure about that. I'd argue K has had the most success since Cal has gotten to UK. I think an interesting hypothetical would be what would other top coaches in the country (K, Roy, Self, Pitino, Wright, etc.) have done with the teams that Cal had. I feel like all five of the aforementioned would have at least the 1, 2, 4, 6 line that Cal has had - probably better.
Plus the timeline suits Cal because it starts the year after Roy won a title. Using alternate timelines:
-The most success since Shaka Smart went to Texas? Roy
-The most success since Cal went to UK? K or Cal
-The most success since Roy went to UNC? Roy
-The most success since K went to Duke? K
I prefer Roy Williams over the last 9. Back to back Championship games and 2 NC's.
My definition is a combination of regular season success (avg Kenpom rating might be the best approach there), conference success (more regular season than tournament), and NCAA tournament success (end goal is a championship, but if I'm evaluating a coach's success, 3 EEs and 2 FFs means more than a single championship).
That may be true, but that supports my overall point. The players that step on the court - their talent level and preparedness - are far more important than decisions the coach makes.
Cal has been an absolute huge success. Anyone who denies that is a fool. The tournament is a crapshoot, but his teams have been dominant almost every year and already have 1 title. Any team would take a Final Four every other year and winning the conference almost every year. It doesn't mean Roy and K haven't been just as good.
Excellent point, if you go back & watch the Kentucky/Wisconsin FF game in 2015, they show shots of him on the sideline & he is a deer in the headlights when that game was tight down the stretch. He had no idea what to tell those guys to do. He was hoping the talent would bail him out. Didn't work out.
So the point of this us to prove Slimy is a great coach even if you have to keep shifting the definition. Nobody said he wasn't successful, clearly he is. He wins games to. None of this changes the facts that he is a poor in-game coach and an under achiever!
Pure logic thoery has nothing to do with basketball in practice and it is silly to think it does. I won't even respond to the coaching decisions don't impact the game idiocy any more!
Pure logic thoery has nothing to do with basketball in practice and it is silly to think it does. I won't even respond to the coaching decisions don't impact the game idiocy any more!
Similar threads
