PDA

View Full Version : Poll Skewin' Time: Coach K v. Calipari



CLW
10-02-2010, 12:54 PM
Fox Sports has posted a poll:

Who's a better recruiter?

John Calipari (Kentucky)

Mike Krzyzewski (Duke)

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball

diveonthefloor
10-02-2010, 12:59 PM
Question might better be posed:

"Who is the best LEGAL recruiter?"

or

"Who is the best at cheating or bending the rules to lure one-and-doners?"

4decadedukie
10-02-2010, 01:10 PM
Cal leads K, 75 to 25 percent; OBVIOULY THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. Vote now and vote often.

zoroaster
10-02-2010, 02:34 PM
Currently up to 65% to 35%, with 585 votes cast.

CLW
10-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Order Has Been Restored! (At Least Temporarily)

Calimary 49%

K 51%

832 Votes

Indoor66
10-02-2010, 03:37 PM
Now 60% to 40% - K winning!

1083 votes

Duke: A Dynasty
10-02-2010, 05:37 PM
Calamari: 52%
K: 48%

1,811 Votes

Come on we need more votes

yancem
10-02-2010, 05:55 PM
There needs to be more clarification as to the criteria used to determine who's the better recruiter. And I'm not just talking about ethics/cheating thing either. I would say that over the past 2-3 years Cal has out recruited everyone if you are looking just at recruiting rankings. What he has done is simply unbelievable (even if because of the ethics/cheating issue). But if you bring in the top recruiting class every year but the recruits only stick around for 1 season before bolting to the pros and you don't win a NC are you recruiting wisely?

I would argue that recruiting is a science and there is more to it than just signing the best players in a given class. If you want to have success in the tournament you need some experience to go with the talent so you have to bring in role players or glue guys that will be around for 3-4 year not just one and dones. This is were I think K has really shown his genius and why I think he is the better recruiter.

But if I remove my blue tinted glasses and am asked based solely on basketball talent level brought in, who is the best recruiter in the ncaa, I think you have to give the nod to Cal. Now if K were to sign Quincy Miller and either Cook or Kabongo, I might be persuaded to change my vote.

CameronBornAndBred
10-02-2010, 05:55 PM
I don't really care which one is the better recruiter..I think both have proven they know how to bring in the players. However, only one has proven he knows how to get those players to win a championship.
Oh wait...I take that back. Congrats on that 2002 NIT, Cal.

Indoor66
10-02-2010, 06:01 PM
Bump to the link:

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball (http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball)

Duke: A Dynasty
10-02-2010, 06:07 PM
There needs to be more clarification as to the criteria used to determine who's the better recruiter. And I'm not just talking about ethics/cheating thing either. I would say that over the past 2-3 years Cal has out recruited everyone if you are looking just at recruiting rankings. What he has done is simply unbelievable (even if because of the ethics/cheating issue). But if you bring in the top recruiting class every year but the recruits only stick around for 1 season before bolting to the pros and you don't win a NC are you recruiting wisely?

I would argue that recruiting is a science and there is more to it than just signing the best players in a given class. If you want to have success in the tournament you need some experience to go with the talent so you have to bring in role players or glue guys that will be around for 3-4 year not just one and dones. This is were I think K has really shown his genius and why I think he is the better recruiter.

But if I remove my blue tinted glasses and am asked based solely on basketball talent level brought in, who is the best recruiter in the ncaa, I think you have to give the nod to Cal. Now if K were to sign Quincy Miller and either Cook or Kabongo, I might be persuaded to change my vote.

Not a knock on you or anything but why do a lot of people on here do this? You think to much about the question. If the question is Who is the best recruiter? Then think of it as if you are a coach and you had to hire someone to recruit players for you then who would you pick to do that job? Coach K or Coach Cal?

theAlaskanBear
10-02-2010, 06:31 PM
Not a knock on you or anything but why do a lot of people on here do this? You think to much about the question. If the question is Who is the best recruiter? Then think of it as if you are a coach and you had to hire someone to recruit players for you then who would you pick to do that job? Coach K or Coach Cal?

This is an easy one if you look at their track record. Coach K has produced many more NBAers and star players. He also doesn't have "questions" about his recruiting methods. Cal has had some success in recent years, but I am yet to be convinced he is a better recruiter.

DevilHorns
10-02-2010, 06:51 PM
If its recruiting as a means to that end (ie, getting the most 1 and done's possible, which are most likely the highest ranked recruits in a given year), then it has to go to Cal for his recent recruiting successes.

HOWEVER, if it's recruiting the best possible prospects and mix of 1-2 year players and full 4-year players out there, then it goes to K hands down.


Recruiting isn't a means to an end. Recruiting is all about thinking about the position players you need, the role players you need, the leaders you need, the scorers, etc.

The greatest day in Duke history will never be a day where we draft 4 players in the 1st round. Cal has his standards for success, and we have ours.

CLW
10-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Kensucky fans have caught on to our poll skewin' and are engaging in some skewin' of their own.

Cal 52%

K 48%

2,770 Votes


To actually discuss the question in the poll: Cal has brought the "hype" (#1 classes) recently. However, the point of recruiting is to bring pieces to the puzzle to help you win championships.

Last time I checked, K has 4 rings from his recruiting efforts where Cal hasn't even been to the Final 4 (legitimately) .

NSDukeFan
10-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Not a knock on you or anything but why do a lot of people on here do this? You think to much about the question. If the question is Who is the best recruiter? Then think of it as if you are a coach and you had to hire someone to recruit players for you then who would you pick to do that job? Coach K or Coach Cal?

Sometimes everything in the world is not black and white; there are a lot of greys. I thought Yancem had a great response which I completely agree with. You may think I am over-thinking this, but if I am hiring someone to recruit the best players, am I trying to recruit the best players to win a championship or to win the October best recruiting rankings? Am I looking for the person who has won the past 3 October recruiting rankings but never gone to the final four, or someone who has had a top 15 recruiting class for approximately 18 of the last 20 years and won 4 championships? When you clarify the question, people may not over-think things.

Duke: A Dynasty
10-02-2010, 09:32 PM
Sometimes everything in the world is not black and white; there are a lot of greys. I thought Yancem had a great response which I completely agree with. You may think I am over-thinking this, but if I am hiring someone to recruit the best players, am I trying to recruit the best players to win a championship or to win the October best recruiting rankings? Am I looking for the person who has won the past 3 October recruiting rankings but never gone to the final four, or someone who has had a top 15 recruiting class for approximately 18 of the last 20 years and won 4 championships? When you clarify the question, people may not over-think things.

Everyones knock on Cal in this argument is his coaching ability. We wernt asked who is better all around or who is the better coach. The question is simply who recruits better? If you were the greatest coach in history and wanted someone to recruit for you because you did not have the time who would you want to get the best players available? not the best role players but the best of the best. The nod unfortunatly would have to go to Cal based on recent history. He simply just keeps getting the top guys. Although Duke may get the better 3 or 4 year guys or the better team in the end that is not the question.

juise
10-02-2010, 10:06 PM
If you were the greatest coach in history and wanted someone to recruit for you because you did not have the time who would you want to get the best players available? not the best role players but the best of the best. The nod unfortunatly would have to go to Cal based on recent history. He simply just keeps getting the top guys. Although Duke may get the better 3 or 4 year guys or the better team in the end that is not the question.

I also disagree with your approach to this question.

You're saying that Duke always has solid upperclassmen who bring leadership and experience, which may result in having the better team. Yeah, so that's a strategy... and it has resulted in four national titles. It means that K can tell one or two players in a class that they have a good chance to play a lot in their freshman year. But he can't give that pitch to five players every year.

Cal has gone only after the best talent, foresaking chemistry and experienced leadership. He basically has a bare cupboard every summer and he can offer to hand over the keys to a new group of stars every year. He has had a good amount of success doing this, but no titles.

Recruiting is not just about who you get every year, but it's also about the team you build. It's not just about sales, it's also about strategy. K and Cal have different strategies. K does not try to do what Cal does. I don't think he wants to do what Cal does. How does that make him an inferior recruiter?

COYS
10-02-2010, 11:32 PM
The nod unfortunatly would have to go to Cal based on recent history. He simply just keeps getting the top guys. Although Duke may get the better 3 or 4 year guys or the better team in the end that is not the question.

But this is also a myth, more or less. Cal will have had 3 monster hauls in a row as his 2011 class looks to be perched at the top. However, over the years, Coach K has consistently recruited top players. Some of his top classes have even challenged Cal's classes of the past few years (Brand's class and the Williams/Boozer/Dunleavy class come to mind, immediately). I can't even remember the last time Duke ever had a true down year in recruiting. The closest is probably the Elliot Williams, Czyz, Miles class if only because two out of those three have since transferred. However Williams proved himself as a top player, so his status as a top prospect was deserved. Cal has had tremendous success in a short period of time. However, Rose's class wasn't overwhelmingly strong, it just had Rose as its centerpiece. Coach K has done it consistently now for 25+ years. And this is at a school with far more strict admissions standards than the ones Cal has coached at. I think people on this board are right to question the criteria for the question of "who is the best recruiter." It is not as simple as checking to see who has topped the recruiting rankings over the past three years.

-bdbd
10-03-2010, 12:05 AM
As of midnight, Sat. night, it is all knotted up... Come'om gang!!

With 6410 votes cast, it is 50% to 50%.... Vote early, vote often!!


:cool:

Duke: A Dynasty
10-03-2010, 12:21 AM
A great recruiting class is whoever has the best players in their respective class. Cal has been winning that recently. Yall keep going back to the team concept and this qustion doesnt ask anything to do with who recruits best for a team situation or for the future of the team which is yess what you want but this is about the best recruiting class and Cal has been unfortunatly very good at that but luckily it takes more than that to win.

Duke: A Dynasty
10-03-2010, 12:23 AM
56% to 44%

Cal to K

:( more votes

Lord Ash
10-03-2010, 12:32 AM
Eh, who cares. I care a lot more about the "who has won more titles" poll. Or the "who has been to a Final Four" poll. How are we doing on those?

zoroaster
10-03-2010, 01:10 AM
I think this is a fun poll and one good to win, but with the recruiting divorced from the larger issue of coaching, and with the presence of Cal in it, I can't help but think of this as the distinction Cal has won:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-MP1GXBYckTI8HcSUwKR_b6tvCSyombahx7LKaIu6Yyu8M10&t=1&usg=__UO6IfrrBQ9-rrRM-Y1dhH9rjdJ4=

:D

juise
10-03-2010, 01:57 AM
A great recruiting class is whoever has the best players in their respective class. Cal has been winning that recently. Yall keep going back to the team concept and this qustion doesnt ask anything to do with who recruits best for a team situation or for the future of the team which is yess what you want but this is about the best recruiting class and Cal has been unfortunatly very good at that but luckily it takes more than that to win.

For you, "best" means highest rated by the recruiting gurus. For me, the "best" class for Duke is not necessarily full of guys with one-and-done talent.

In the rich high school class of 2007, RSCI (http://rscihoops.com/) has Syracuse and Florida ranked ahead of Duke's Singler/Smith/King class. Syracuse's two highest ranked players (Greene and Flynn) earned their high ranking and went to the league. Duke's highest two ranked players have won multiple ACC championships, tournament MOP awards, and oh... a national title. Kyle and Nolan may be lottery picks and they may not be.

Did K get out recruited in 2007? How could he? He didn't get Derick Rose. He didn't get Michael Beasley. He didn't get Kevin Love. He didn't land OJ Mayo or Pattrick Patterson or Eric Gordon. What an outrage! Not a single sure-fire lottery pick in our class.

I say that K had the best class in 2007. I say that he did the best job of recruiting in 2007 and the King saga withstanding, I could not be more proud of the class Duke brought in.

So... agree to disagree (for me at least).

Edouble
10-03-2010, 02:18 AM
The greatest day in Duke history will never be a day where we draft 4 players in the 1st round. Cal has his standards for success, and we have ours.

We did have 4 players drafted in the first round, in 1999. I think you're thinking of the five players that were drafted in the first round out of UK this year.

Duke: A Dynasty
10-03-2010, 03:35 AM
For you, "best" means highest rated by the recruiting gurus. For me, the "best" class for Duke is not necessarily full of guys with one-and-done talent.

In the rich high school class of 2007, RSCI (http://rscihoops.com/) has Syracuse and Florida ranked ahead of Duke's Singler/Smith/King class. Syracuse's two highest ranked players (Greene and Flynn) earned their high ranking and went to the league. Duke's highest two ranked players have won multiple ACC championships, tournament MOP awards, and oh... a national title. Kyle and Nolan may be lottery picks and they may not be.

Did K get out recruited in 2007? How could he? He didn't get Derick Rose. He didn't get Michael Beasley. He didn't get Kevin Love. He didn't land OJ Mayo or Pattrick Patterson or Eric Gordon. What an outrage! Not a single sure-fire lottery pick in our class.

I say that K had the best class in 2007. I say that he did the best job of recruiting in 2007 and the King saga withstanding, I could not be more proud of the class Duke brought in.

So... agree to disagree (for me at least).

I will still have to disagree. Its as simple as this: The best recruiting class is the one with the highest rated guys. You cant tell the futuer with them so you didnt know how the singler and smith class turned out. and as a matter of fact it still proves i am right. Beasley, Rose, and Love are im sorry to say all better than what we got for one year. Singler and Smith were the better option for us but not the best recruits.

DevilHorns
10-03-2010, 10:00 AM
We did have 4 players drafted in the first round, in 1999. I think you're thinking of the five players that were drafted in the first round out of UK this year.

Sorry, meant to put 5.

Though my general point still stands. As others have said as well, if you're looking for a "complete" recruiting class that bodes well for future title runs, then you go with K. He may not go after all the top-flight talent for every position, but that is on purpose. We need position players, 3-4 year development guys, and a mix of 1-2 year guys who are more NBA caliber coming out of high school. Our recipe for success is team chemistry and a team code. We recruit players who represent the program honorably and love to play for the task at hand, ie, winning, and thats that.

hughgs
10-03-2010, 10:18 AM
I will still have to disagree. Its as simple as this: The best recruiting class is the one with the highest rated guys. You cant tell the futuer with them so you didnt know how the singler and smith class turned out. and as a matter of fact it still proves i am right. Beasley, Rose, and Love are im sorry to say all better than what we got for one year. Singler and Smith were the better option for us but not the best recruits.

In thinking about the "best recruiting" I think you need to decide the purpose of the class. If the purpose of the class is to have the best player or best group of players then it's hard to argue that Cal is not the best recruiter.

If the purpose of the recruiting class is to get your players with the highest draft positions then you could make an argument about Cal's recent success versus K's sustained success.

However, it seems that the purpose of a recruiting is to win college basketball games and college championships. And, under that scenario I think it's hard to argue with K as being the best recruiter.

So, like any "best" argument everyone will have different criteria and vote accordingly. But, I think it's hard to argue that college coaches have a primary goal of getting the best ranked class or the getting their players the highest draft positions. That may be a great outcome but I suspect that the primary goal of most college coaches is to win games and championships. And, if that's the purpose of a recruiting class then I don't see how one can objectively vote for Cal.

COYS
10-03-2010, 10:19 AM
I will still have to disagree. Its as simple as this: The best recruiting class is the one with the highest rated guys. You cant tell the futuer with them so you didnt know how the singler and smith class turned out. and as a matter of fact it still proves i am right. Beasley, Rose, and Love are im sorry to say all better than what we got for one year. Singler and Smith were the better option for us but not the best recruits.

But you're still looking at recruiting in a vacuum. K has to recruit athletes that also qualify academically for Duke. Duke certainly has flexibility in its admissions standards for its athletes, but the standards are still far more advanced than what Cal has had to deal with. If academics were not a concern, it is possible that Bledsoe could have been offered. Rumor had it he really liked Duke so he may have ended up here. However, he wasn't really even an option. Cousins wasn't really an option for Duke, either. Wall was barely an option and we got into that game really, really late. Does it make Cal a better recruiter if he's fishing in a sea with many more fish? I still strongly disagree with your simplification of the recruiting issue. It's like asking deciding who is richer between two guys, one who makes $100K for years and years (with incremental raises to adjust for inflation) and another who has recently been making $200K but has sold his soul to get the new job. The guy who is now making $200K throws his money around on all the finest things and doesn't always make sound investments. The guy who makes $100K has been investing his money wisely for years and years and years, even though he can't always buy the finest things. He's developed long term assets that will provide him with stability for the rest of his life. Which one is richer? I think the net worth of K's recruiting classes over the years is significantly higher than Cal's. If you just look recently, then Cal may have had more gross success, but the net result is still far beneath that of K.

*Edit: How appropriate it is to compare Cal's recruiting to spending money.

4decadedukie
10-03-2010, 10:20 AM
A great recruiting class is whoever has the best players in their respective class. Cal has been winning that recently. Yall keep going back to the team concept and this qustion doesnt ask anything to do with who recruits best for a team situation or for the future of the team which is yess what you want but this is about the best recruiting class and Cal has been unfortunatly very good at that but luckily it takes more than that to win.


Many of your responses to this thread indicate that you believe “best” can be defined with a single attribute. What, however, does "best" really mean:
- The best one-and-dones?
- The best intercollegiate basketball players?
- The best teammates, who optimize consistent, long-term, high-level victories?
- The best NBA prospects?
- The best scholars (after all, they are STUDENT-ATHLETES)?
- The best undergraduates (in the wide range of balanced activities relevant to college life)?
- The best in the critical areas of character, integrity, leadership, selflessness, teamwork and cooperation?
- Some or all of the foregoing metrics (with likely additions)?

With respect, my point to you is there is a LOT more to “best” and to “intercollegiate hoops successes” than pure athleticism, and/or high school poll rankings, and/or basketball talent alone. To illustrate, last year’s UNC-CH team had a great deal of “best” level talent, but it was an abysmal failure, principally because it never cohered as a TEAM (well done, UNC coaching staff). This demonstrates that the “best” recruits (as you define it) do not necessarily lead to successes and to championships. I suggest that Coach K understands this fully, which is why he is so careful in the selection of players and sometimes passes by individuals who are highly rated.

theAlaskanBear
10-03-2010, 10:30 AM
Many of your responses to this thread indicate that you believe “best” can be defined with a single attribute. What, however, does "best" really mean:
- The best one-and-dones?
- The best intercollegiate basketball players?
- The best teammates, who optimize consistent, long-term, high-level victories?
- The best NBA prospects?
- The best scholars (after all, they are STUDENT-ATHLETES)?
- The best undergraduates (in the wide range of balanced activities relevant to college life)?
- The best in the critical areas of character, integrity, leadership, selflessness, teamwork and cooperation?
- Some or all of the foregoing metrics (with likely additions)?

With respect, my point to you is there is a LOT more to “best” and to “intercollegiate hoops successes” than pure athleticism, and/or high school poll rankings, and/or basketball talent alone. To illustrate, last year’s UNC-CH team had a great deal of “best” level talent, but it was an abysmal failure, principally because it never cohered as a TEAM (well done, UNC coaching staff). This demonstrates that the “best” recruits (as you define it) do not necessarily lead to successes and to championships. I suggest that Coach K understands this fully, which is why he is so careful in the selection of players and sometimes passes by individuals who are highly rated.

Obviously we can split hairs and debate the necessary qualities...but I saw this as pretty straight-forward. When I think about recruiting I think about BB Talent. And to me, the best way to determine BB Talent is success in the NBA. Other than Derrick Rose, who ended up being ineligible, which of Cal's characters has made an impact in the NBA? Camby? Also eligibility issues. Tyreke Evans. Ok, that's a good one. No way Cal can be called a better recruiter until 1) he shows he can recruit by the rules, and 2) his players have more success in the NBA.

DevilHorns
10-03-2010, 10:36 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball

K has the lead back. 51% to 49%. This one is going down to the wire.

Vote now and vote often and vote again and vote once more!

RoyalBlue08
10-03-2010, 10:41 AM
Obviously we can split hairs and debate the necessary qualities...but I saw this as pretty straight-forward. When I think about recruiting I think about BB Talent. And to me, the best way to determine BB Talent is success in the NBA. Other than Derrick Rose, who ended up being ineligible, which of Cal's characters has made an impact in the NBA? Camby? Also eligibility issues. Tyreke Evans. Ok, that's a good one. No way Cal can be called a better recruiter until 1) he shows he can recruit by the rules, and 2) his players have more success in the NBA.

This seems like a very strange criteria to me. Isn't the goal of recruiting to assemble the most talented teams at your school? Is Coach K's recruiting ability diminished because of Jay Williams' motorcycle accident?

To me, there are two ways to evaluate recruiting, 1.) do you get the players you want and 2.) do you successfully choose the right players to go after in the first place. Comparing K and Cal is a bit difficult because they are often after different players. It seems to me they get the guys they want at a fairly similar frequency, although maybe Cal has a higher winning %, I don't know. But it also seems to me that K is better at assembling a team by targeting a good mix of players. That should count for something too.

elvis14
10-03-2010, 10:41 AM
56% to 44%

Cal to K

:( more votes

Currently K leads Cal 52/48. I discovered that if you put your cursor over coach K's circle and click it you'll choose coach K. Leave the cursor where it is and hit F5 to refresh the page and you can vote again and again. Basically you can refresh and vote about every 2 seconds. I just kept voting until I was able to push K from 51 to 52% ;) I think I voted about 100 times. If you are hanging out watching football or the Ryder cup today.....

4decadedukie
10-03-2010, 11:08 AM
Obviously we can split hairs and debate the necessary qualities...but I saw this as pretty straight-forward. When I think about recruiting I think about BB Talent. And to me, the best way to determine BB Talent is success in the NBA.


Obviously, I understand your point and it is clearly reasonable. However, I ask you to consider, for a moment, the following actual scenario concerning two NBA players:

Allen Iverson was the NBA Rookie-of-the-Year and an eleven-time NBA All-Star (among other professional basketball distinctions). However, he is also a convicted felon, who never graduated from Georgetown, whose comportment has been divisive for many professional teams and has also provided a VERY poor role model for youth, and he is unlikely to make substantial societal contributions beyond pro hoops.

Gary Melchionni graduated from Duke in 1973 and from Duke’s Law School in 1981. In the interim, he had a solid “journeyman” career in the NBA. Subsequently, he has practiced law, raised a terrific family (a son and a daughter, both of whom graduated from Duke), and has made significant civic contributions (including service as a Duke Trustee and as the Alumni Association’s President).

Virtually everyone knows of AI (he is famous – or infamous – as you prefer), whereas Gary is not widely recognized. However, who was the better collegiate basketball recruit? I concede that Iverson was the better athlete, but who was more successful in life’s long-term, who was the more-productive and more-decent human being, who made the greater contributions to our society? In my mind, there is NO doubt that Melchionni surpasses Iverson in all these most-critical categories (and much more). Therefore, who really was the better collegiate basketball recruit, the individual a coach assesses decades after he plays his last game and says, “He makes me proud, he made the most – and gave back the most – of the opportunities his scholarship provided?”

Duvall
10-03-2010, 11:24 AM
Obviously, I understand your point and it is clearly reasonable. However, I ask you to consider, for a moment, the following actual scenario concerning two NBA players:

Allen Iverson was the NBA Rookie-of-the-Year and an eleven-time NBA All-Star (among other professional basketball distinctions). However, he is also a convicted felon,

No, he isn't.

-jk
10-03-2010, 11:28 AM
As I recall, his conviction was overturned.

-jk

4decadedukie
10-03-2010, 11:56 AM
You are both correct. Originally, AI was granted clemency by Governor Wilder, which would not have expunged his conviction, but rather only reduced his imprisonment (this is what I recalled). Subsequently, his appeal for insufficient evidence was upheld. Acknowledging this, my point remains unaltered.

theAlaskanBear
10-03-2010, 11:57 AM
Obviously, I understand your point and it is clearly reasonable. However, I ask you to consider, for a moment, the following actual scenario concerning two NBA players:

Allen Iverson was the NBA Rookie-of-the-Year and an eleven-time NBA All-Star (among other professional basketball distinctions). However, he is also a convicted felon, who never graduated from Georgetown, whose comportment has been divisive for many professional teams and has also provided a VERY poor role model for youth, and he is unlikely to make substantial societal contributions beyond pro hoops.

Gary Melchionni graduated from Duke in 1973 and from Duke’s Law School in 1981. In the interim, he had a solid “journeyman” career in the NBA. Subsequently, he has practiced law, raised a terrific family (a son and a daughter, both of whom graduated from Duke), and has made significant civic contributions (including service as a Duke Trustee and as the Alumni Association’s President).

Virtually everyone knows of AI (he is famous – or infamous – as you prefer), whereas Gary is not widely recognized. However, who was the better collegiate basketball recruit? I concede that Iverson was the better athlete, but who was more successful in life’s long-term, who was the more-productive and more-decent human being, who made the greater contributions to our society? In my mind, there is NO doubt that Melchionni surpasses Iverson in all these most-critical categories (and much more). Therefore, who really was the better collegiate basketball recruit, the individual a coach assesses decades after he plays his last game and says, “He makes me proud, he made the most – and gave back the most – of the opportunities his scholarship provided?”

We aren't talking about who makes the best citizens. We are talking about who recruits the best players. To me the criteria that needs to be considered is a) talent level b) depth of class. I realize success in the NBA isn't necessarily a good determinant of talent levels, but I like it as a rough sketch, because it divorces a college coach's coaching ability from the player's success...a program that puts lots of players in the NBA, and also puts star players in the NBA is the program that recruits the best, because NBA drafts on talent. Mediocre players can put up good numbers in college due to coaching, they can't do that in the NBA.

I think K is the best recruiter. I am also glad he recruits great people, smart kids, and good citizens, but that doesn't factor into my judgements about talent.

Jderf
10-03-2010, 11:58 AM
If we want K to win this over Cal, I don't even think we need to do the logical acrobatics of translating the "recruiting question" into the "championships question" in the first place. That only muddles the debate. Who cares if we're talking about recruiting for talent or recruiting for championships? K wins that battle either way. Seriously, how many NPOYs has K recruited over the last thirty years? How many all americans? How many lottery picks? How many RSCI top-5s? You simply cannot compete with the sustained recruiting success that K has put forward throughout his career. Sure, Calipari has had some big classes over the last decade (so has K), but if you're looking at an overall resumé of recruiting quality players, K's is just better.

4decadedukie
10-03-2010, 12:16 PM
We aren't talking about who makes the best citizens. We are talking about who recruits the best players. To me the criteria that needs to be considered is a) talent level b) depth of class. I realize success in the NBA isn't necessarily a good determinant of talent levels, but I like it as a rough sketch, because it divorces a college coach's coaching ability from the player's success...a program that puts lots of players in the NBA, and also puts star players in the NBA is the program that recruits the best, because NBA drafts on talent. Mediocre players can put up good numbers in college due to coaching, they can't do that in the NBA.

I think K is the best recruiter. I am also glad he recruits great people, smart kids, and good citizens, but that doesn't factor into my judgements about talent.


I am sorry that you view recruiting and conveying a scholarship so narrowly. While I certainly agree K is the better recruiter, Duke works hard to avoid marginal students, those with behavioral and criminal issues, and candidates whose values and attitudes are not conducive to team optimization. IMHO, that is a great deal more important to "top recruiting" than is "star rankings" or even NBA success. Duke has done very well in the long decades of K's leadership, in large part because we have avoided the divisiveness often created by highly athletically-talented players who have comportment/criminal, academic, integrity, and/or teamwork problems.

Jderf
10-03-2010, 12:20 PM
If we want K to win this over Cal, I don't even think we need to do the logical acrobatics of translating the "recruiting question" into the "championships question" in the first place. That only muddles the debate. Who cares if we're talking about recruiting for talent or recruiting for championships? K wins that battle either way. Seriously, how many NPOYs has K recruited over the last thirty years? How many all americans? How many lottery picks? How many RSCI top-5s? You simply cannot compete with the sustained recruiting success that K has put forward throughout his career. Sure, Calipari has had some big classes over the last decade (so has K), but if you're looking at an overall resumé of recruiting quality players, K's is just better.

To elaborate, K has recruited:

7 Naismith NPOY Winners.
10 NBA top-10 draft picks.
26 AP All Americans.
At least 25 NBA players (could be more, not sure).

Calipari has 5 top-10 draft picks and 17 NBA players (before this year it was only 12). Coach K has been a head coach slightly longer (by about 8 years), but either way, he has definitely put up better numbers in both championships and recruiting.

94duke
10-03-2010, 03:09 PM
Cal is up 51% to 49%.

Vote! :)

dukee94
10-03-2010, 03:22 PM
Cal is up 51% to 49%.

Vote! :)

Anyone running Firefox can download the iMacros extension and automate voting on sites like this one, easy way to kick in a thousand votes or so. You basically record refreshing the website and voting and then let it loop through replay as many times as you want (although this particular page has frequent timeouts and the macro needs to be restarted every few hundred votes).

94duke
10-03-2010, 09:28 PM
Coach K is up to 60%!
Keep up the good work!
:)

CLW
10-03-2010, 10:43 PM
Anyone running Firefox can download the iMacros extension and automate voting on sites like this one, easy way to kick in a thousand votes or so. You basically record refreshing the website and voting and then let it loop through replay as many times as you want (although this particular page has frequent timeouts and the macro needs to be restarted every few hundred votes).

Read this and put the program to good use. :D

ACCBBallFan
10-04-2010, 11:04 AM
That link also led to another article where Goodman picked his top 50 non frosh:

From ACC, his likely candidates for ALL ACC or ACC Second team would be Kyle Singler, Nolan Smith, Malcolm Delaney, Chris Singleton, Iman Shumpert, Jordan Williams and Tyler Zeller.

If frosh were allowed he would have added Harrison Barnes and Kyrie Irving, as 9 of top 10 in ACC, hard to argue with any of those picks if they all stay healthy.

none from NC State - Tracy Smith?

Non ACC with multiples and therefore IMO likely Elite 8 or better candidates if they get some help:

Purdue has 3 Robbie Hummell, JaJuan Johnson and E'Twaun Moore

Ohio St had 2+ Willaim Buford and David Lighty plus jared Sullinger if frosh were allowed

Mich St had 2 Kalin Lucas and Durrell Summers

Wash had 2 Matthew Bryan-Amaning who I have never heard of and the other Isaiah Thomas

UCLA had 2 Tyler Honeycutt and Malcolm Lee

KU had 1+ Marcus Morris and if allowed both as frosh and due to eligiibility issues Josh Selby

UK would have had 2 with Brandon Knight and again as frosh and due to eligiibility issues free Enes Kanter

He seemed to be a little generous with Pac10, not sure either PAC 10 is likely Elite 8 or better, but I guess big difference if 2 guys are 45-50 versus 1-5.

Lots of teams with one, highest rated teams being

K-St - Jacob Pullen
Pitt - Ashton Gibbs
Baylor - LaceDarius Dunn
Butler - Shelvin Mack, not their center too?
Syr - Kris Joseph
FL - Chandler Parsons
MO - Kimmy English
Illini - Demetri McCarney
Zaga - Elias Harris
W VA - Kevin Jones
Xavier - Tu Hollaway
Wisc - Jon Leuer
Temple - Lavoy Allen
BYU - Jimmer Fredette
VA Tech - Malcolm Delaney
San Diego St - Kawhi Leonard
MD - Jordan Williams
Richmond - Kevin Anderson
UCONN - Kemba Walker
GA Tech - Iman Shumpert
ole MS - Chris Warren
GA - Trey Thomkins
Vandy - Jeffery Taylor

and notable decently rated teams with none in Top 50:

Nova
Memphis
G-town
TN
Texas
Louisv
TX A&M
Utah St
Calif
UNLV
MS St
MN

CameronBornAndBred
10-04-2010, 11:47 AM
Read this and put the program to good use. :D
I think it's kind of funny that you are cheating to put K ahead of a cheater.

airowe
10-04-2010, 12:05 PM
I will still have to disagree. Its as simple as this: The best recruiting class is the one with the highest rated guys. You cant tell the futuer with them so you didnt know how the singler and smith class turned out. and as a matter of fact it still proves i am right. Beasley, Rose, and Love are im sorry to say all better than what we got for one year. Singler and Smith were the better option for us but not the best recruits.

Duke: A Dynasty, please read this article written by Dave Telep and tell me if you still agree that the best recruiting class is the one with the highest rankings.

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/947679.html

striker219
10-04-2010, 01:46 PM
Duke: A Dynasty, please read this article written by Dave Telep and tell me if you still agree that the best recruiting class is the one with the highest rankings.

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/947679.html

That is a fantastic article, and this part really made me think...


Recently I had a high-major coach tell me he made some recruiting mistakes and wasn’t sure how he was going to fix them. The mistakes were made because the ideals of the program were sacrificed for perceived talent. The short term “bump” of signing big name players wore off and he’s left with a hodge podge of guys that don’t fit. It’s a frustrating situation.

Does that sound like anyone we know? We are presented with a great recruiting class that resulted in a hodge podge of guys that didn't fit together, and a coach who manages to selflessly take the blame for the situation while deflecting it onto others all at the same time. That just sounds so familiar, but dadgumit, I just can't put my finger on who it might be.