Wisconsin redux

[Westtncat]

With a one and done tourney it doesn't matter. All you can do is do well enough to have a shot. Does anyone really think the tourney actually selects the best team every year? I dont.

[Joneslab]

I think he has to stick to his guns if he wants to keep pulling in the best of the best.

Mo Bamba is a perfect example. That kid is obviously super smart in addition to being a sensational athlete; in his eyes, there's no way Kentucky could top Duke if the debate was one degree versus the other. Not saying Kentucky's a bad school, but it isn't Duke, it isn't Michigan, it's not UVA, UCLA, Texas, etc.

Like it or not, the NBA payoff is our selling point.

Yes but UK isn't a dog-crap university either. Duke isn't the only school we're competing against: we've lost players to Kansas and a bunch of different players.

So you could sell the degree...but more than that it's about releasing the stigma of NOT being a one-and-done on these players.

You're really not talking about many players when you talk about this. Maybe you get Dakari back, you get Teague back, you get Orton back. Skal, possibly. Guys who didn't really "succeed" individually at a level that would make you think they can be pros.

Would that have netted another title? Obviously impossible to say. But other coaches are doing this. We know because Rick Pitino has openly talked players into returning through the media.

I think what happens at Kentucky is that you have these top-shelf guys and then there are always one or two who get dragged in by those top guys. Orton got dragged by that first group. Then Teague. Then Lamb. Dakari. This season it's going to be Briscoe. Those are the guys that really don't "succeed and proceed," they just kind of coattail. Finding ways to get those guys to go more years might be the trick...

...but I don't see it ever happening.

[George]

Yes but UK isn't a dog-crap university either. Duke isn't the only school we're competing against: we've lost players to Kansas and a bunch of different players.

So you could sell the degree...but more than that it's about releasing the stigma of NOT being a one-and-done on these players.

You're really not talking about many players when you talk about this. Maybe you get Dakari back, you get Teague back, you get Orton back. Skal, possibly. Guys who didn't really "succeed" individually at a level that would make you think they can be pros.

Would that have netted another title? Obviously impossible to say. But other coaches are doing this. We know because Rick Pitino has openly talked players into returning through the media.

I think what happens at Kentucky is that you have these top-shelf guys and then there are always one or two who get dragged in by those top guys. Orton got dragged by that first group. Then Teague. Then Lamb. Dakari. This season it's going to be Briscoe. Those are the guys that really don't "succeed and proceed," they just kind of coattail. Finding ways to get those guys to go more years might be the trick...

...but I don't see it ever happening.

1. Not at all what I was saying.
2. You've heard me say this very thing many times over the years. I'm fine with Cal embracing (exploiting, even) the one-and-done system for our benefit, but I'll always be a bit irked when other elite coaches manage to hang on to more pieces from one season to the next while Cal can't figure out how to do the same. As I see it, it's his one true failure as an employee of the university. He should be able to find a way to keep a couple more of those drag-alongs.

[BJD]

1. Not at all what I was saying.
2. You've heard me say this very thing many times over the years. I'm fine with Cal embracing (exploiting, even) the one-and-done system for our benefit, but I'll always be a bit irked when other elite coaches manage to hang on to more pieces from one season to the next while Cal can't figure out how to do the same. As I see it, it's his one true failure as an employee of the university.

I see it just the opposite. Cal is being honest with the player and looking out for the player's best interest. The ones doing it wrong are the ones advising the player without the player's best interest at heart. I'll take Cal's way every day of the week and it's not a failure, it's a success.

[George]

I see it just the opposite. Cal is being honest with the player and looking out for the player's best interest. The ones doing it wrong are the ones advising the player without the player's best interest at heart. I'll take Cal's way every day of the week and it's not a failure, it's a success.

It isn't a failure where the players are concerned, but I think one could easily argue that as an employee of the university, Cal is obligated to do what's best for the school/program, and not the player. That would mean finding a way to hang on to Will's drag-alongs for an additional season or two to maintain some continuity. We could realistically have seasons like '14-'15 with some regularity if he could strike the right sales pitch with those guys.

Now, I obviously see that getting guys in and out to the NBA as quickly as possible is in and of itself good for the program. BUT, if there's a way to find that balance we're talking about, then he should find it (or should've already).

[Joneslab]

I think it's just his system and he's gone all-in with it. He obviously thinks there should be no half-measures, possibly because half-measures show that you might not be truly indebted to the system you've created and you'll start missing out on these players.

I don't know if it's the right way or not...but if you look around during Cal's time at Kentucky, it's difficult to find a school/coach who has done it better outside Duke. They seem to have gotten the balance right, but even there it isn't perfect.

[George]

I think it's just his system and he's gone all-in with it. He obviously thinks there should be no half-measures, possibly because half-measures show that you might not be truly indebted to the system you've created and you'll start missing out on these players.

I don't know if it's the right way or not...but if you look around during Cal's time at Kentucky, it's difficult to find a school/coach who has done it better outside Duke. They seem to have gotten the balance right, but even there it isn't perfect.

Exactly. One example that it can be done is all I need to see to believe that we should be able to pull it off, too.

[George]

I see it just the opposite. Cal is being honest with the player and looking out for the player's best interest. The ones doing it wrong are the ones advising the player without the player's best interest at heart. I'll take Cal's way every day of the week and it's not a failure, it's a success.

And we get into this every single year, and every single year it surely sounds callous to some, but I (and others) really couldn't care less about the players' success beyond Kentucky outside of two things: a basic human decency level, and how that success continues to help the Kentucky brand (a la Booker, Davis, Towns, et al. regularly repping UK).

I don't want those guys to play here so that they're set up to do well as professional basketball players; I want them to play here so that we make regular trips to Final Fours and National Championships. I'm a fan of theirs as individuals only because they played here, did well for us, and continue to help the program as pros. Within this discussion, my one concern is the success of Kentucky basketball - not of the players.

[Joneslab]

Exactly. One example that it can be done is all I need to see to believe that we should be able to pull it off, too.

But I don't think they're so astronomically beyond Kentucky though that I think we need to change.

One title difference. Maybe some wins (?) but not many.

Could things...or SHOULD things be changed just to approximate Duke, who's really not that far ahead? Would you sacrifice some other stuff to make that change?

I don't know. It's not like Duke is just absolutely killing it. Everybody's got their flaws in this game because the one-and-done thing creates this constant erosion.

[George]

But I don't think they're so astronomically beyond Kentucky though that I think we need to change.

One title difference. Maybe some wins (?) but not many.

Could things...or SHOULD things be changed just to approximate Duke, who's really not that far ahead? Would you sacrifice some other stuff to make that change?

I don't know. It's not like Duke is just absolutely killing it. Everybody's got their flaws in this game because the one-and-done thing creates this constant erosion.

I agree. But then I look to next season when the players' average age will be fourteen or so, and then I think about the season after that when we're already down on experienced players and all of next year's players will probably leave after one season, and I really start to think about how nice it'd be to talk those 'tweeners into staying with a bit more regularity.

You've remarked on numerous occasions how the years in which we have the greatest success are the years when we have that balance. In that regard, the next two seasons* looks a little concerning.

*Of course we don't know what will happen with next year's players and the 2018 Draft, but as always the assumption is that the cupboard will be left pretty bare, with the exception of one or two guys. Maybe they'll be enough?

[Joneslab]

I don't want those guys to play here so that they're set up to do well as professional basketball players; I want them to play here so that we make regular trips to Final Fours and National Championships. I'm a fan of theirs as individuals only because they played here, did well for us, and continue to help the program as pros. Within this discussion, my one concern is the success of Kentucky basketball - not of the players.

I don't think Kentucky is the only place where this is happening.

I saw an article about a JUCO player who was going pro the other day, and he was talking about how it had been a "lifelong dream" to play in the NBA. They all say that.

If we had players who didn't care then that would be one thing. But clearly that's not the case. So the fact that they care to me is enough. They play well for the most part, they've been successful relative to other post-Rupp eras, they leave it all out on the court most of the time.

That should be enough.

If we weren't winning all these games then you might say something's wrong. But you can't win 32 games and then look at the players and say they need to have more concern about Kentucky basketball. That isn't fair.

[George]

I don't think Kentucky is the only place where this is happening.

I saw an article about a JUCO player who was going pro the other day, and he was talking about how it had been a "lifelong dream" to play in the NBA. They all say that.

If we had players who didn't care then that would be one thing. But clearly that's not the case. So the fact that they care to me is enough. They play well for the most part, they've been successful relative to other post-Rupp eras, they leave it all out on the court most of the time.

That should be enough.

If we weren't winning all these games then you might say something's wrong. But you can't win 32 games and then look at the players and say they need to have more concern about Kentucky basketball. That isn't fair.

That isn't what I'm saying. I said my concern is for Kentucky basketball, and not the players. They're free to do as they please and I don't blame them one bit. What I said was that Cal ought to be able to find a way to hang on to the 'tweeners with a bit more regularity.

Not sure how or why you thought I was imploring the players to care more. I know they care. I watched the post-game videos just like everyone else.

[BJD]

That isn't what I'm saying. I said my concern is for Kentucky basketball, and not the players. They're free to do as they please and I don't blame them one bit. What I said was that Cal ought to be able to find a way to hang on to the 'tweeners with a bit more regularity.

Not sure how or why you thought I was imploring the players to care more. I know they care. I watched the post-game videos just like everyone else.

I think Cal is doing right by the players and thus by extension for the university. I don't want him to change a thing. Of course I wish they would all stay. But that's a different discussion as to whether Cal is doing it right or wrong. I'm firmly in the camp that says Cal is doing it exactly right.

[George]

I think Cal is doing right by the players and thus by extension for the university. I don't want him to change a thing. Of course I wish they would all stay. But that's a different discussion as to whether Cal is doing it right or wrong. I'm firmly in the camp that says Cal is doing it exactly right.

I don't want to be misunderstood here: I'm in full support of Cal and I trust his methods. But, as with Duke (and sometimes UNC, Kansas, and occasionally Louisville) I can't help but notice that they seem to hang on to those 'tweeners at a higher rate than we do. While I know that Cal's system is the very reason why we get such great players, I look to '11-'12, '14-'15, and even this year to an extent, and see how good we are when we have those elite players with the sprinkling of returnees.

I don't for one second think Cal should alter his recruiting methods, but I do think one-on-one conversations with the Teagues, Johnsons, Goodwins, etc. could be handled a little differently.

[Dwight Schrute]

The problem is I can't think of very many players who should've stayed that left. Marquis Teague, Dakari, and Orton are the only guys that come to mind. I believe Cal tried to talk all three of them into staying, and all three were bent on leaving.

The other guys who come to mind all clearly made the right move. Bledsoe, Booker, and even Skal are all having success in the NBA. I think if Cal weren't being honest with kids, someone like Briscoe who really wanted to leave would've left after this year. Same with Doron Lamb the title year, and even Terrence Jones.

The fact is, there just aren't that many tweener players.