PDA

View Full Version : Calipari and the NBA



JasonEvans
04-30-2010, 11:04 AM
Tyreke Evans has won NBA Rookie of the Year (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AixcP.zLHXHncTB5ssRfgc.8vLYF?slug=ap-rookieoftheyear) award. Last year, you may recall, Derek Rose won the award. I may be wrong, but I believe this means that Memphis joins UNC as the only school to produce back-to-back NBA Rookies of the Year (Phil Ford and Walter Davis back in the 1970s).

"Whatever," you may say. Well, as a recruiting tool for their former college coach, that can be powerful. And you know what could be even more powerful -- what if he goes 3-for-3? John Wall has to be considered the front-runner for 2011 Rookie of the Year. Cousins will likely also be in the running. Blake Griffin will qualify for the ROY race considering that he skipped this entire season with injury, but there is a very real possibility that Calipari will have 3 ROYs in a row from his programs.

Just a thought.

--Jason "Calipari/Memphis now joins Dean Smith/UNC as the answer to the back-to-back ROY trivia question" Evans

davekay1971
04-30-2010, 11:31 AM
The Lexington Wildcats of the NBA D-League have a front office that is second-to-none in getting in great talent and getting that talent into the Association.

roywhite
04-30-2010, 11:35 AM
The Lexington Wildcats of the NBA D-League have a front office that is second-to-none in getting in great talent and getting that talent into the Association.

And players are able to take classes at the nearby college. A few have even chosen to do so.

CrazieDUMB
04-30-2010, 11:43 AM
I for one am concerned but I'm not going to stay awake thinking about it. I think people got a little too high on this year's E8 flameout, using it as vindication of the idea that pumping in freshmen every year can't work. I think it can work, as 'melo proved. The key will be whether he can get the four-year role players a team needs as well.

Either way, if he can keep this recruiting cycle going I would bet even money that sometime in the next 5 years he'lll hit pay dirt and KY wins a 'natty.

airowe
04-30-2010, 11:45 AM
It won't matter when he's in the NBA too.

Devilsfan
04-30-2010, 11:52 AM
This doesn't make him a good coach. Why didn't he make it to the final four if he had the two leading candidates for next years league ROY? Talent on the court can make you appear to be a good coach. I give you the 2009 NC coach as a prime example. Duke 2010 had very good players but needed excellent coaching and teachable student athletes to achieve their goal.

ncexnyc
04-30-2010, 12:02 PM
This doesn't make him a good coach. Why didn't he make it to the final four if he had the two leading candidates for next years league ROY? Talent on the court can make you appear to be a good coach. I give you the 2009 NC coach as a prime example. Duke 2010 had very good players but needed excellent coaching and teachable student athletes to achieve their goal. Also a bit of luck.

roywhite
04-30-2010, 12:04 PM
I for one am concerned but I'm not going to stay awake thinking about it. I think people got a little too high on this year's E8 flameout, using it as vindication of the idea that pumping in freshmen every year can't work. I think it can work, as 'melo proved. The key will be whether he can get the four-year role players a team needs as well.

Either way, if he can keep this recruiting cycle going I would bet even money that sometime in the next 5 years he'lll hit pay dirt and KY wins a 'natty.


Yeah, maybe so...but what are the odds Cal will be there 5 years from now? Or what's the chance of a serious UK scandal in the next 5 years?

flyingdutchdevil
04-30-2010, 12:09 PM
Yeah, maybe so...but what are the odds Cal will be there 5 years from now? Or what's the chance of a serious UK scandal in the next 5 years?

First question - odds are probably lower than you think. Cal failed in the NBA once before. He needs to prove he can win before he is seriously considered as a coach again. And if not the NBA, then where else? He's already hit the pinnacle of college bball.

Second question - odds are also really low. Kentucky alumni has a lot of hush hush money that they can throw at the NCAA if anything ever came up ;)

I'd think that the chance of Cal winning a NC Tourney are significantly higher than either of those two scenarios.

JohnGalt
04-30-2010, 12:12 PM
First question - odds are probably lower than you think. Cal failed in the NBA once before. He needs to prove he can win before he is seriously considered as a coach again. And if not the NBA, then where else? He's already hit the pinnacle of college bball.

Second question - odds are also really low. Kentucky alumni has a lot of hush hush money that they can throw at the NCAA if anything ever came up ;)

I'd think that the chance of Cal winning a NC Tourney are significantly higher than either of those two scenarios.

OUCH! On a Duke board?!?! You're looking for trouble, my man.

wilko
04-30-2010, 12:25 PM
And folks thought John Chaney was outta line...

I think we should ask ourselves what we can to to help him continue his work...

flyingdutchdevil
04-30-2010, 12:25 PM
OUCH! On a Duke board?!?! You're looking for trouble, my man.

You know what I mean - Duke, UNC, KU, UK, UCLA - the Tier 1 teams. Can't really go higher than that, IMO (unless you're Ole Roy, of course).

And no, I don't believe that UK is of a higher basketball order (even if it sure soundly like I wrote it that way ;))

JohnGalt
04-30-2010, 12:28 PM
You know what I mean - Duke, UNC, KU, UK, UCLA - the Tier 1 teams. Can't really go higher than that, IMO (unless you're Ole Roy, of course).

And no, I don't believe that UK is of a higher basketball order (even if it sure soundly like I wrote it that way ;))

Yup, I did. Just thought I'd give you a hard time for how it came across...

BD80
04-30-2010, 12:36 PM
The Lexington Wildcats of the NBA D-League have a front office that is second-to-none in getting in great talent and getting that talent into the Association.

They are good at getting talent, but they often overpay.

JimBD
04-30-2010, 01:08 PM
Tyreke Evans has won NBA Rookie of the Year (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AixcP.zLHXHncTB5ssRfgc.8vLYF?slug=ap-rookieoftheyear) award. Last year, you may recall, Derek Rose won the award. I may be wrong, but I believe this means that Memphis joins UNC as the only school to produce back-to-back NBA Rookies of the Year (Phil Ford and Walter Davis back in the 1970s).

"Whatever," you may say. Well, as a recruiting tool for their former college coach, that can be powerful. And you know what could be even more powerful -- what if he goes 3-for-3? John Wall has to be considered the front-runner for 2011 Rookie of the Year. Cousins will likely also be in the running. Blake Griffin will qualify for the ROY race considering that he skipped this entire season with injury, but there is a very real possibility that Calipari will have 3 ROYs in a row from his programs.

Just a thought.

--Jason "Calipari/Memphis now joins Dean Smith/UNC as the answer to the back-to-back ROY trivia question" Evans

In my opinion, Calipari has underachieved with exceptionally good talent. Calipari has "recruited" (whether ethically or not) players with NBA talent. I would not go so far as to say he "produced" that talent. These players most likely would have done well in the NBA with or without Calipari. If a coach helps to develop a marginal player to be successful in the NBA, then maybe you can say the coach "produced" that player. But if a player is talented enough to make the NBA regardless of who his college coach is, I don't think you should give that coach or school credit for "producing" the player. For example, I would not give Dean Smith credit for "producing" Michael Jordan. Smith was a great coach, but I think MJ would have been a great NBA player with or without Coach Smith.

SCMatt33
04-30-2010, 01:22 PM
Well, as a recruiting tool for their former college coach, that can be powerful. And you know what could be even more powerful -- what if he goes 3-for-3?

How exactly does this affect Duke? High School players aren't idiots. Cal has done a great job at producing NBA point guards. When was the last time Coach K and Cal went hard after the same point guard recurit? Right now, the only player with offers from Duke and UK is QMiller, who projects as a NBA small forward. Currently, the following people play SF in the NBA who played for Cal: CDR and Joey Dorsey; for K: Grant Hill, Corey Maggette, Mike Dunleavy, and Luol Deng. If a recruit were to look at a track record for a coach's NBA alum, he will look at his own position. If Miller chooses UK, it won't be because Derrick Rose and Tyreke Evans won ROY. If Duke were to suddenly throw their hat into the ring with one-and-done point guards, I will start worrying about that.


I for one am concerned but I'm not going to stay awake thinking about it. I think people got a little too high on this year's E8 flameout, using it as vindication of the idea that pumping in freshmen every year can't work. I think it can work, as 'melo proved. The key will be whether he can get the four-year role players a team needs as well.

Either way, if he can keep this recruiting cycle going I would bet even money that sometime in the next 5 years he'lll hit pay dirt and KY wins a 'natty.

There is a big difference between what Syarcuse did and What UK is trying to do. Both teams had 8 players average over 12 mpg. For UK, 5 of those players had never played a college basketball game before the season (technically only 4 were Freshman, but Dodson had never played before despite technically being a sophomore). Syracuse only had 3 such players (also one who had previously red shirted). Each team had 4 players average at least 10 ppg. UK had 3 freshman in this group, Syracuse only had 2. Guys before the one-and-done rule (and sever guys after) are inaccurately lumped in with certain true one-and-done players. There is a difference between the guys who only stepped on campus because they had to (Wall and Cousins) and the whole world knew that they would be gone after one year during their high school recruitment, and guys who were going to college no matter what and became a one-and-done after the fact because of stellar play ('Melo and Bledsoe). Having a freshman or two play a major role or even lead a championship team is nothing new and very few doubt the potential success of such a team, but there has never been a team made up of nearly all freshman who have gone on to win a title. This is the type of team that most doubt. I certainly think that it is possible that this type of team could win a title one day, but I think that it is very unlikely and I would never pick such a team to win until after I see one do it first.

El_Diablo
04-30-2010, 01:27 PM
Smith was a great coach, but I think MJ would have been a great NBA player with or without Coach Smith.

We all know that there's only one person responsible for MJ's success: Leroy Smith.

El_Diablo
04-30-2010, 01:29 PM
When was the last time Coach K and Cal went hard after the same point guard recurit?

A year ago.

SCMatt33
04-30-2010, 01:39 PM
A year ago.

Touche, but it's not shaping up to happen again anytime soon. That situation rose more out of need than want anyway (not that we didn't want him, but we didn't want him from day 1), hence Duke getting into the game until really late on that one. If Coach K had his choice, he would likely never again go after the same pg's as Cal anyway, that was more of my point.

flyingdutchdevil
04-30-2010, 01:42 PM
Touche, but it's not shaping up to happen again anytime soon. That situation rose more out of need than want anyway (not that we didn't want him, but we didn't want him from day 1), hence Duke getting into the game until really late on that one. If Coach K had his choice, he would likely never again go after the same pg's as Cal anyway, that was more of my point.

We were interested in Brandon Knight. They were interested in Kyrie Irving. UK and Duke often go for similar PGs.

And, btw, it should be noted that Brandon Knight is really, really smart. He has a very strong PGA (higher than Barnes, "The Golden Child," from what I've heard). Just saying...

CrazieDUMB
04-30-2010, 01:50 PM
There is a big difference between what Syarcuse did and What UK is trying to do. Both teams had 8 players average over 12 mpg. For UK, 5 of those players had never played a college basketball game before the season (technically only 4 were Freshman, but Dodson had never played before despite technically being a sophomore). Syracuse only had 3 such players (also one who had previously red shirted). Each team had 4 players average at least 10 ppg. UK had 3 freshman in this group, Syracuse only had 2. Guys before the one-and-done rule (and sever guys after) are inaccurately lumped in with certain true one-and-done players. There is a difference between the guys who only stepped on campus because they had to (Wall and Cousins) and the whole world knew that they would be gone after one year during their high school recruitment, and guys who were going to college no matter what and became a one-and-done after the fact because of stellar play ('Melo and Bledsoe). Having a freshman or two play a major role or even lead a championship team is nothing new and very few doubt the potential success of such a team, but there has never been a team made up of nearly all freshman who have gone on to win a title. This is the type of team that most doubt. I certainly think that it is possible that this type of team could win a title one day, but I think that it is very unlikely and I would never pick such a team to win until after I see one do it first.

I would still hold on to the 'Melo example because to me it's irrelevant what the player's intentions were before the season. The difference between 'Melo playing himself into a lottery pick as a freshman and Wall maintaining his lottery pick status through the season is nil. But that's kind of irrelevant to the topic anyway.

WRT to having ALL freshmen, I don't think there's an example because the 1-and-done rule only came into effect 4 years ago. Furthermore, so far Cal is the only guy thats been able to land more than 1 of these guys anyway. I believe the landscape has changed dramatically with Cal's recruiting abilities, and we're seeing something completely new. While I understand waiting to see it before you believe it, from a common sense perspective I can't see inexperience always trumping a team so overloaded with NBA talent. It just has to happen, and I'd bet sooner rather than later.

UrinalCake
04-30-2010, 02:21 PM
How exactly does this affect Duke?

I think it affects us a lot. Players we go after are going to see those Kentucky guys having success in the NBA and think that Calipari is their ticket in. If you asked a high school player to choose between winning an NCAA title and being a lottery pick after one year in college, my guess is that most would choose the latter.

ElSid
04-30-2010, 02:57 PM
I guess you're right. I'm not too worried. Duke recruiting is in fine shape right now. Coach K is at the top of his game as far as actual coaching, not just recruiting. Coach K has good NBA connections as well.

While I enjoy watching our Dukies do well in the NBA, I strongly prefer watching them do extremely well in college.

Coach Cal may win a championship but it won't change who he is. It's like buying a well-counterfeited luxury good...other people might not know it's a fake, but you do. And you know that carrying that fake Gucci purse doesn't give you class.

moonpie23
04-30-2010, 03:18 PM
I think it affects us a lot. Players we go after are going to see those Kentucky guys having success in the NBA and think that Calipari is their ticket in. If you asked a high school player to choose between winning an NCAA title and being a lottery pick after one year in college, my guess is that most would choose the latter.

the only thing about that is ALL of those guys that will be lottery picks would have been lottery picks at any of the other major programs as well (and maybe not so major)

cousins is a lottery pick regardless of his school, record, hardware, tv time, or conference.... Cal didn't TURN HIM INTO that pick.....

Underdog5
04-30-2010, 03:30 PM
the only thing about that is ALL of those guys that will be lottery picks would have been lottery picks at any of the other major programs as well (and maybe not so major)

cousins is a lottery pick regardless of his school, record, hardware, tv time, or conference.... Cal didn't TURN HIM INTO that pick.....

I think kids are perhaps concerned that another school might not allow them to showcase their skill set as freely as Cal's "system", especially the ones that believe they are already lottery picks in waiting. I hoop with a few guys that are involved with high level AAU kids in NY area and they say their concern about a school like Duke is that K's system is too restrictive and doesn't allow kids to fully utilize all their skills. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with this presumption, I think this could definitely be among the whispers other coaches might use in recruiting battles.

moonpie23
04-30-2010, 10:55 PM
I hoop with a few guys that are involved with high level AAU kids in NY area and they say their concern about a school like Duke is that K's system is too restrictive and doesn't allow kids to fully utilize all their skills.

ask your hoop buddies exactly which skills the guys on duke DID NOT get to utilize......

i'm just curious....the only one i can bring to mind is Zoub's "leaving the floor at the foul line for the tomahawk"......:rolleyes:

Class of '94
04-30-2010, 11:18 PM
ask your hoop buddies exactly which skills the guys on duke DID NOT get to utilize......

i'm just curious....the only one i can bring to mind is Zoub's "leaving the floor at the foul line for the tomahawk"......:rolleyes:

Tell that to J-Will, Jon Scheyer, JJ, Elton, G-Hill, etc. To my knowledge, Coach K has helped to develop the all-around skills of a player to make him well rounded. But if being too restrictive means you can't just "jack up" shots whenever you feel like, then they're probably right about K's system being too restrictive.

It's funny how people try to find things "wrong" with K and Duke's system. The stereotype used to be that K's system made players look better than what they actually were; now its his system is too restrictive. People will say whatever; I remember folks said that same thing about Dean Smith and his system; but Michael Jordan turned out okay.

IMO, the kids that make those kinds of comments are the ones that couldn't get into Duke in the first place or players Duke chooses not to recruit. I think KI will be another example to break that stereotype.

Newton_14
04-30-2010, 11:27 PM
I think kids are perhaps concerned that another school might not allow them to showcase their skill set as freely as Cal's "system", especially the ones that believe they are already lottery picks in waiting. I hoop with a few guys that are involved with high level AAU kids in NY area and they say their concern about a school like Duke is that K's system is too restrictive and doesn't allow kids to fully utilize all their skills. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with this presumption, I think this could definitely be among the whispers other coaches might use in recruiting battles.

So when you hear that argument from folks, ask them to do the following: Ask them to explain in great detail the "System" that Cal runs, then explain in great detail the "System" that K runs, and explain the differences between the two "Systems" and why they feel that Cal's "System" offers a player more freedom than K's "System".

Also, does Cal's system offer players at all 5 positions more freedom or just the PG spot or some combination.

For those that use this infamous argument, I would really love to see/hear them lay it all out and describe it at length. But of course they can't do that because 99% of the people that use that argument could not begin to explain either one.

SCMatt33
04-30-2010, 11:31 PM
We were interested in Brandon Knight. They were interested in Kyrie Irving. UK and Duke often go for similar PGs.

And, btw, it should be noted that Brandon Knight is really, really smart. He has a very strong PGA (higher than Barnes, "The Golden Child," from what I've heard). Just saying...

Everbody has "interest" in everybody when the recruiting process starts out. There is no other way to figure out which top prospects you want the most. It was well known long before either Knight or Irving committed that they weren't going to Duke or UK respectively. That's why I stipulated "going hard" after a recruit. It has nothing to do with how smart a guy is. None of the guys going to UK next year was considering Duke officially at the end and same for the guys coming here next year. Right now, a big battle is shaping up between us for Qmiller, but I would guess that if Cal is at UK for the next 5 years, we will rarely see a point guard who picks between a Duke hat and a UK hat at his announcement press conference.


I would still hold on to the 'Melo example because to me it's irrelevant what the player's intentions were before the season. The difference between 'Melo playing himself into a lottery pick as a freshman and Wall maintaining his lottery pick status through the season is nil. But that's kind of irrelevant to the topic anyway.

WRT to having ALL freshmen, I don't think there's an example because the 1-and-done rule only came into effect 4 years ago. Furthermore, so far Cal is the only guy thats been able to land more than 1 of these guys anyway. I believe the landscape has changed dramatically with Cal's recruiting abilities, and we're seeing something completely new. While I understand waiting to see it before you believe it, from a common sense perspective I can't see inexperience always trumping a team so overloaded with NBA talent. It just has to happen, and I'd bet sooner rather than later.

In the past tense, there is little difference between the Bledsoe and Wall type of one-and-done players, but conversations about Cal's recruiting and the ability of a bunch of one-and-done's are typically about the future, in which case there is a world of difference. At this time last year, no one, and that probably includes Cal, considered his class full of 4 one-and-dones. It was widely expected that Bledsoe and Orton would step in for Wall and Cousins in 2011 after they left, but things changed. As far as the ability to win a title goes, it doesn't really matter, but it is important to keep in mind when looking into the future. BTW, I think the fab five would count as an example of a freshman dominated team before the one-and-done rule.


I think it affects us a lot. Players we go after are going to see those Kentucky guys having success in the NBA and think that Calipari is their ticket in. If you asked a high school player to choose between winning an NCAA title and being a lottery pick after one year in college, my guess is that most would choose the latter.

Not all high school players are created equal. If I'm an open-court oriented point guard with nba talent, I will absolutely go to Cal first, but if I'm a 6-8 college PF who projects as an NBA SF, I might look elsewhere, just like Terrance Jones and CJ Leslie just did this week. Look at PP this year, while he still played a big role on the team, he had to (and was very gracious in doing so) step back a little to make room for Wall and Cousins within Cal's system. This doesn't mean that Qmiller will or won't go to Duke or UK, but he knows that Cal does not have a track record of putting players like him into the lottery. And while coaches in college aren't necessarily responsible for creating lottery type talent, there is a definite difference in draft position for someone who plays for a coach who shows off his talent and one who doesn't.

oldnavy
05-01-2010, 06:42 AM
I can see how the spin can make it seem that Calipari produces NBA star point guards, but as others have said this is a myth, and anyone who knows anything about the game knows that John Wall would have been a first pick had he gone to UNCW (not a slam on UNCW). It is the talent of the player, not Cal that gets them to the next level. Some one please make an arguement for what Cal does that actually makes these players better and takes them from being a mid rounder to a 1st or 2nd pick, and NBA-ROY. PLEASE, I'd love to hear it... The fact that he gives them the ball and lets them play? Heck every rec coach, Junior High coach, and AAU coach before Cal gets them has done that. Would you consider them "producers" of NBA talent?

As for the "system", K seemed to do OK by Jason Williams when he was at Duke did he not. I mean Jason was the second overall pick in 02. He most likely would have been first, but Yao Ming was in that draft and was such a marketing monster for CHINA that he was chosen first, more as a business decesion than based on talent. Does anyone think JW would not have been an NBA all star if not for his accident?

Let's see how K and Duke does with Kyrie next year. IF KI is all that he is said to be, then I would not be surprised to see him as a future 1st or 2nd overall pick. How would that change the perceptions?

oldnavy
05-01-2010, 06:49 AM
ask your hoop buddies exactly which skills the guys on duke DID NOT get to utilize......

i'm just curious....the only one i can bring to mind is Zoub's "leaving the floor at the foul line for the tomahawk"......:rolleyes:

Exactly, I am still mad at K for that!! He should have cut Zoubs loose!!

(For the record, I LOVE Zoubek, and I mean no disrespect to him, I think he did an AMAZING job this past year)

edit: thread continues here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21178)