Hamidou Diallo to Test Waters (UPDATE: DIALLO TO RETURN TO UK)

[TennCat]

Apparently not. You're the only one I've heard complaining about it.

Now that's funny.

[Joneslab]

May 24th is the date underclassmen can go up to before returning to college. If Diallo stays in past that day then he's in for good.

He'll be a hot commodity in the private workouts simply because he's so unknown. I would imagine he'll get a bunch of invites to work out for franchises in the next three weeks.

[Joneslab]

Diallo was invited to the NBA Combine, as were all the Kentucky players (including Briscoe).

[George]

He gone.

[justford]

Diallo was invited to the NBA Combine, as were all the Kentucky players (including Briscoe).

Did Humphries get invited?

[Joneslab]

Did Humphries get invited?

No.

Sixty players were invited, however. Most of those guys are going to be disappointed by what they find out about their game.

Which is why the test-the-waters rule exists in the first place.

[SCBlu]

Is anybody else besides me getting tired of the one shot stars & getting into the NCAA tourney & getting eliminated by teams with less highly regarded players who are upperclassmen--third or fourth year players???

Not tired of winning, but miss having more players stick around. The greater question is whether you would prefer winning an NCAA championship once every 8 years utilizing: (1) Cal's "one & done" philosophy' or (2) a system where we really get to know our players over 2-4 years? I'd opt for #2 (with Cal as our coach).

[Joneslab]

Not tired of winning, but miss having more players stick around. The greater question is whether you would prefer winning an NCAA championship once every 8 years utilizing: (1) Cal's "one & done" philosophy' or (2) a system where we really get to know our players over 2-4 years? I'd opt for #2 (with Cal as our coach).

The better question is whether or not a coach could go with #2 and actually win that title once every eight years with players who stick around. We all want players who stick...but you might find yourself in a situation where you get those players but they don't net you any titles.

There are coaches who are doing it with players who stick. Roy Williams being the main one. He's had some one-and-dones, but he's also had McDonald's All-Americans who don't pan out in terms of their NBA potential. It's netted him three titles and a shot away from a fourth in the last decade-plus.

The only other coaches who've had mega success (if you're defining "success" by winning titles only) during Cal's tenure at UK are Coach K and the UConn run. Coach K won one of his titles with virtually all one-and-dones; the other behind three guys who'd been in the system awhile. UConn won their two titles on the backs of two great point guards.

So if you're looking for a pattern, it's hard to find it. It seems like the closest you're going to get is a balance; a couple of vets who've been through the battles and then some guys who are going to be surefire professional players.

[Joneslab]

But my main problem with "titles only = success" is that what you're basically saying is that any season that doesn't net a title, it's flawed and the coach at Kentucky (whoever he is) needs to change.

By that metric you have to argue that every season except one under Cal is flawed. I don't buy that.

Are we going to look at '09/'10 or the Towns year and say that something needed to change after those years? Because we didn't win the final two or three games? Or that the great run in 2014 was flawed because we got beat by UConn? Even this past year: we got beat on a last-second shot by the national champs.

I just don't know how much should change. It isn't like what we're seeing is terrible and needs to be ditched. Fans tend to operate under the fallacy that if you don't win it, then throw out the whole thing. I don't buy that.

[BJD]

But my main problem with "titles only = success" is that what you're basically saying is that any season that doesn't net a title, it's flawed and the coach at Kentucky (whoever he is) needs to change.

By that metric you have to argue that every season except one under Cal is flawed. I don't buy that.

Are we going to look at '09/'10 or the Towns year and say that something needed to change after those years? Because we didn't win the final two or three games? Or that the great run in 2014 was flawed because we got beat by UConn? Even this past year: we got beat on a last-second shot by the national champs.

I just don't know how much should change. It isn't like what we're seeing is terrible and needs to be ditched. Fans tend to operate under the fallacy that if you don't win it, then throw out the whole thing. I don't buy that.

I agree with this. This season was a great season. We have certainly had more than 8 great seasons in UK history. This is a fantastic era of UK basketball. Fantastic 8 seasons under Cal. Only one blip in 2013 and even that season wouldn't have been so bad had Nerlens not gotten hurt. It wasn't a title team by any stretch but it wasn't an NIT team either with him healthy.

4 FF's. I've been to every SEC tourney game and it's just awesome how UK takes over the city. 22 SEC tourney games since Cal has been here. The most we could have played is 24. We are 19-3 in those 22 games.

I've also been to every FF that UK was a part of since 1978. UK is not the only team in town like the SEC tourney but it's close. Wonderful memories. It's not just about the titles. I believe we were the best team in the country 4 times in the last 8 seasons. '10, '12, '15 and'17. Two of those teams didn't make the FF. So we did make the FF twice when we were not the best team.

And that's just the last 8 years. We are not one hit wonders. We have 5 title winning coaches. dUke is going to fall into oblivion when Krackywacky retires.

UK will miss Cal when he retires but we will go on. The next coach will be the 6th coach to win a title here.

As Cal said, "we don't move the needle, we are the needle!!".

[justford]

I believe many fans look at the success of Roy Williams with few one and dones and ask why not UK?

[Joneslab]

I believe many fans look at the success of Roy Williams with few one and dones and ask why not UK?

What Roy Williams has done is similar to what Billy Donovan did during his back-to-back run. He's been able to get very highly rated guys (for the most part) who stick because they just aren't your can't-miss NBA guys.

These are the same kinds of players that Bo Ryan was getting at Wisconsin. Gonzaga gets them quite a bit. Rick Pitino has built his legacy at Louisville like this.

The reason Cal doesn't run that sort of a system is because Cal has made it known he's not interested in that system. He wants to get these guys in, get them out, and let them start making money. He isn't going to get a guy like Justin Jackson, have him be a fringe first-rounder, and then coerce him back to school not once but twice. Justin Jackson would've been gone at Kentucky after one year.

Another thing about this system is that it's like everything else: there's a lot of risk to it. If you don't have surefire pros, you better have a team full of guys who buy in. Kentucky went through a stretch where it had a bunch of borderline pros from 2000 to 2008; guys who looked pretty similar to what North Carolina runs out. That didn't work out for us nearly as well as it has for Roy Williams.

So when UK fans claim they want that, I always shudder a little because I remember when we all pined for more NBA players.

[lilproUK98]

What Roy Williams has done is similar to what Billy Donovan did during his back-to-back run. He's been able to get very highly rated guys (for the most part) who stick because they just aren't your can't-miss NBA guys.

These are the same kinds of players that Bo Ryan was getting at Wisconsin. Gonzaga gets them quite a bit. Rick Pitino has built his legacy at Louisville like this.

The reason Cal doesn't run that sort of a system is because Cal has made it known he's not interested in that system. He wants to get these guys in, get them out, and let them start making money. He isn't going to get a guy like Justin Jackson, have him be a fringe first-rounder, and then coerce him back to school not once but twice. Justin Jackson would've been gone at Kentucky after one year.

Another thing about this system is that it's like everything else: there's a lot of risk to it. If you don't have surefire pros, you better have a team full of guys who buy in. Kentucky went through a stretch where it had a bunch of borderline pros from 2000 to 2008; guys who looked pretty similar to what North Carolina runs out. That didn't work out for us nearly as well as it has for Roy Williams.

So when UK fans claim they want that, I always shudder a little because I remember when we all pined for more NBA players.

Exactly. At Kentucky you are much more likely to be in the NBA in 1 yr or at most two, than any other school. Including Duke. The kids know this. How many kids who have gone to UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc. have stayed at those schools for 2,3,4 years would have been at UK for only 1 or at most 2 years? That is the key.

Better yet, name the kids who have left UK after 1 or 2 yrs that would have been at any other school for 3 or 4.... long list.

[Dwight Schrute]

What Roy Williams has done is similar to what Billy Donovan did during his back-to-back run. He's been able to get very highly rated guys (for the most part) who stick because they just aren't your can't-miss NBA guys.

These are the same kinds of players that Bo Ryan was getting at Wisconsin. Gonzaga gets them quite a bit. Rick Pitino has built his legacy at Louisville like this.

The reason Cal doesn't run that sort of a system is because Cal has made it known he's not interested in that system. He wants to get these guys in, get them out, and let them start making money. He isn't going to get a guy like Justin Jackson, have him be a fringe first-rounder, and then coerce him back to school not once but twice. Justin Jackson would've been gone at Kentucky after one year.

Another thing about this system is that it's like everything else: there's a lot of risk to it. If you don't have surefire pros, you better have a team full of guys who buy in. Kentucky went through a stretch where it had a bunch of borderline pros from 2000 to 2008; guys who looked pretty similar to what North Carolina runs out. That didn't work out for us nearly as well as it has for Roy Williams.

So when UK fans claim they want that, I always shudder a little because I remember when we all pined for more NBA players.

I would say that was more of a coaching issue than it was anything else.

[Joneslab]

I would say that was more of a coaching issue than it was anything else.

I would argue that this is just part of it.

I don't want to get back into *that* argument again, and really you don't have to. There are a bunch of programs that get players who are good-but-not-great. Generally they don't win like Roy Williams has.

The reason Williams has had so much success is (in my opinion) the same reason Pitino has with players of a similar stock. Great coach but as much as that he's gotten players who are right on that magical borderline: very good...but not so good they're going to be in the mock drafts after one year. If they are in the mocks, Williams has talked some of them into coming back. We know this to be true because the media has reported on it.

That's not the game Cal is interested in playing. Maybe he should be...but he isn't. But as I said, it doesn't guarantee you're going to win titles. Michigan St. gets very similar players and Izzo has 0 titles in the Cal/UK era.