Biggest duds KY starting 5

[Jrpross]

I’ll add the late Marvin Stone. (May he rest in peace) He was a top 5 recruit and averaged about 5 ppg in 3 years then transferred to Louisville.

[kyfanrob]

We definitely had our fair share of busts

[SportsFan]

I’ll add the late Marvin Stone. (May he rest in peace) He was a top 5 recruit and averaged about 5 ppg in 3 years then transferred to Louisville.

That's a great blast from the past. Stone came in with expectations of being the next Elton Brand, but not only left as a bit of a disappointment...but went to Louisville for his final season where he actually showed some signs of life! Good call

[UKWildcats1987]

G starting porter with napoleon dynamite has to be up there. I don't even remember the guys name.

Wheeler I didn't care for due to his quitter nature. He may have helped against ksu so forget him.

I dont like dogging old players so will stop there.

[DA#23]

G starting porter with napoleon dynamite has to be up there. I don't even remember the guys name.

Mark Coury

[SportsFan]

3. Insert Calipari, for some reason he just did not believe in HOOD at all. Same way he blackballed Harrellson, he blackballed Hood in my honest opinion. Had Kanter cleared, Harrellson would have been bury on the bench and long gone forgotten, Cal had no choice but to play him.

4. Jon Hood Senior year. Finally towards the end he started getting some clock and was solid in spot minutes.

I absolutely agree here. Calipari, for whatever reason, did kind of discriminate (let's be honest, just keeping it real) against Hood and white players in general. I agree and have no doubt that Harrelson would have been a "fewer than 5 minutes per game" player has Kanter not been ruled Ineligible by the NCAA. We also saw how few white players Cal even brought to Kentucky. Kyle Wiltjer didn't see a lot of PT his first two years at Kentucky and then transfers to Gonzaga where he becomes an All-American. Rumor has it that Cal didn't want Wiltjer to announce his decision for UK until after (or close to the end of) the recruitment period was over for fear that it might discourage other players (that he obviously wanted more) from coming to Kentucky. And then there was Luke Kennard, a lifetime Kentucky fan from Ohio who ends up going to Duke! Coach K's track record with white recruits ran circles around Cal's. Tyler Herro was the one white player brought in to be a starter AND given big minutes to. Not even the third overall NBA draft pick last year, legacy son of a former Wildcat and reigning Kentucky Mr. Basketball could crack Cal's starting lineup, regardless how well he was playing. Could this have been a coincidence? Possibly....but considering Cal's first two rosters at Arkansas and his Memphis rosters prior to coming to Kentucky it's highly doubtful.

Mays sucked, just couldn't handle the bright lights of Kentucky in my opinion.

Just like I defended Hood against the allegations of sucking, I will do the same for Mays.

I didn't think that Mays was all that bad, but it's been a while. So I had to look up his stats for his lone season at UK.

Yes, his FG% stunk, but his three point and free throw shooting percentages were very good. He also averaged 3 boards and 3 assists, which were very respectable. So no, I wouldn't say he "sucked", maybe just didn't measure up to your expectations.

[MegaBlue05]

I don't like to dog former Cats, but one guy who goes on my list forever (for nothing to do with basketball even though he was not good) is Michael Porter.

[KCKUKFan]

I agree and have no doubt that Harrelson would have been a "fewer than 5 minutes per game" player has Kanter not been ruled Ineligible by the NCAA.

But Enes Kanter was white (Turkish, but my point remains).

It had nothing to do with black or white discrimination; that's nonsense. There are a lot of things to criticize Cal for, but unfounded cries of racism aren't among them. If you could play at the highest level, Cal recruited you.

Simple math shows that there were only a handful of top-end white talents in college basketball during Cal's tenure. Go look at the Rivals 150 for every year he was here if you need your memory jogged.

[Joneslab]

I don't like to dog former Cats, but one guy who goes on my list forever (for nothing to do with basketball even though he was not good) is Michael Porter.

Wow, that's a name you don't hear much anymore.

I searched around to see what he was up to now, but all I can find are articles about his prison sentence (he served two years starting in 2012).

[Joneslab]

I absolutely agree here. Calipari, for whatever reason, did kind of discriminate (let's be honest, just keeping it real) against Hood and white players in general.

I believe it's because the things Calipari coveted--athleticism, length, etc.--were often not found in white players. Didn't recruit many...which is obviously common, statistically, across the sport of basketball.

Pope, being more of a system coach, will obviously be a bit different. But looking at the players he's generally recruited while at Kentucky, you can stress "a bit" there.

[SportsFan]

I believe it's because the things Calipari coveted--athleticism, length, etc.--were often not found in white players. Didn't recruit many...which is obviously common, statistically, across the sport of basketball.

Pope, being more of a system coach, will obviously be a bit different. But looking at the players he's generally recruited while at Kentucky, you can stress "a bit" there.

Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. Cal placed such an emphasis on "athleticism" that he overlooked basketball players. Period. Could you see Cal recruiting a Larry Bird or a Luka Doncic or a Nikola Jokic? I couldn't. Not without a really strong nudge from people close to and around him. A lot of times he recruited "great athletes" that couldn't shoot to save their lives. We all know how poorly a majority of Cal's teams shot free throws, and how often that would come back to bite him.

That said, I think Pope adjusted his strategy for the upcoming season based on how athletic and physical the SEC was last year. I think he focused more on players that could bring speed, athleticism and toughness that may have been missing last year. Did he overcorrect and adjust too much? Time will tell, but this year's team likely won't shoot the ball and put quite as many points on the board as they did last year. Will it matter? In the end, hopefully not...but if it does the one thing we can rest assured of is that Mark Pope will continue tinkering and adjusting until he finds the right mix. That's the thing I have to give Mark Pope credit for that I refuse to give to John Calipari: when Mark Pope sees something that needs to be addressed, he takes action. He doesn't use the same excuses and do the exact same things like he has for previous years....year, after year, after year.

[SportsFan]

Simple math shows that there were only a handful of top-end white talents in college basketball during Cal's tenure. Go look at the Rivals 150 for every year he was here if you need your memory jogged.

If John Calipari didn't have recruiting services that ranked high school basketball players, he would be lost. Period. Cal simply recruits based off of what scouting services tell him. He wouldn't have the ability to look at an unranked Jamal Mashburn like Rick Pitino did, and see something that told him "this guy is special". Nope. Cal doesn't operate that way. That's too much work. He needs somebody else to do the deciding regarding a player's ability for him and then he'll go into salesman mode and recruit that kid. But deciding and determining if a player is capable of being a first round draft pick on his own, without any scouting service's input??? Are you kidding???

[KCKUKFan]

Mark Coury

Can we consider Michael Porter and Mark Coury a bust, though?

Who expected big things from either of those dudes?

[KCKUKFan]

If John Calipari didn't have recruiting services that ranked high school basketball players, he would be lost. Period. Cal simply recruits based off of what scouting services tell him. He wouldn't have the ability to look at an unranked Jamal Mashburn like Rick Pitino did, and see something that told him "this guy is special". Nope. Cal doesn't operate that way. That's too much work. He needs somebody else to do the deciding regarding a player's ability for him and then he'll go into salesman mode and recruit that kid. But deciding and determining if a player is capable of being a first round draft pick on his own, without any scouting service's input??? Are you kidding???

To be fair, this is what most coaches have always done. Assistants evaluate, follow progress and build relationships with recruits. And the head coach closes. Cal was really good at the latter.

I think you're selling him short. Cal was a fine evaluator of talent for years (decades, even), until he got lazy. He was an even better judge of character; of all the top tier guys he brought to Kentucky, how many bad apples did we have? That's almost statistically unheard of.

John Calipari was the best recruiter in the history of college basketball for about fifteen years. You don't get that label if you're just throwing darts at the recruiting service lists.

[SportsFan]

To be fair, this is what most coaches have always done. Assistants evaluate, follow progress and build relationships with recruits. And the head coach closes. Cal was really good at the latter.

This is definitely true, but that hasn't always been the case. Prior to Howard Garfinkle and scouting services, coaches had to send their assistants out on the road to scout a kid, not just recruit him. Unfortunately I'm pretty much going back to the days of Adolph Rupp and Joe B. Hall, but even Eddie Sutton and Rick Pitino early on relied on what they saw with their own eyes more so than what the Five Star camps of the world were telling them. It really wasn't until the internet became the vehicle that it is which made it fashionable and that much easier for coaches like Cal to be lazy.

I think you're selling him short. Cal was a fine evaluator of talent for years (decades, even), until he got lazy. He was an even better judge of character; of all the top tier guys he brought to Kentucky, how many bad apples did we have? That's almost statistically unheard of.

I'll be flexible here and say that you might be right. Or maybe I am. I don't know. I'm just not sure. I do agree with you, though, that Cal likely did have SOME ability to recognize talent....because he put together some really good teams at UMASS and Memphis that weren't loaded with "the best of the best". During those days, he actually did a better job of finding the right pieces and assembling a good roster than he did at Kentucky. It wasn't until he came to Kentucky and started relying almost solely on the scouting services that he seemed to lose the ability to recognize talent and started recruiting solely off of the "Rivals/ON3/ESPN, etc. Scouting and Ranking Services". He also didn't seem to understand the concept of assembling a roster. He didn't seem to understand that you need the right mix. You can't have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians....there needs to be a good mixture of both. You need role players that understand and are capable and content with filling their role. Not everyone needs to be a star. Cal (mistakenly) seemed to think that getting guys who were ball dominant and used to being "the man" their entire lives and asking (or expecting) them to "sacrifice for the good of the team" was going to be an easy thing to do.

John Calipari was the best recruiter in the history of college basketball for about fifteen years. You don't get that label if you're just throwing darts at the recruiting service lists.

If you base it off recruiting services, you are absolutely correct. And he did successfully recruit guys who are now being named MVP and winning NBA championships...so you are 100% correct. Unfortunately I've also seen him bring in a "top 25 Mickey D's burger boy" that was pretty much a bust, while rival schools were bringing in top 150 players who would go on to be All-Conference, first round type players. I guess that's the old "live by the sword (staying solely inside the top 40), die by the sword" recruiting philosophy in action.