Showing posts with label kentucky basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kentucky basketball. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2015

5 comments John Calipari is Culpable for the Scam the NCAA Runs Simply By Choosing to Be a Head Coach

I've read a lot of John Calipari-hating columns through the years. Some I agree with and others I don't agree with as much. I'm not a huge Calipari fan, but I often find myself countering attacks against him from certain parts of the media who seem to think one-and-done was his idea. Today, a guy who writes for Deadspin and Slate (well, at least he writes for Slate for one day) states that John Calipari is culpable for the NCAA running a scam on players with the one-and-done rule because he chooses to be the head coach at the University of Kentucky. That's the gist of what he writes. If true, this means every Division-I head coach who recruits a player that leaves after one year is culpable for the NCAA scam of one-and-done. As I always state, one-and-done is not an NCAA rule, but it seems few people care about that sometimes. It always comes back to John Calipari as the bad guy because he dares to recruit one-and-done players. It is unfair for Calipari to be blamed for something the NCAA has chosen to do. The only way Calipari could not participate in the NCAA scam is if he would resign as the University of Kentucky's head basketball coach and go find something else to do with his life. I'm not sure why this ultimatum only pertains to Calipari, but it seems that it does. I've explained too much already, so I'll let you get confused by what point the author is trying to prove in blaming Calipari. The author admits that the one-and-done rule and other NCAA scams are not Calipari's fault, but fuck it, let's blame him anyway. Actually, the author's point is that if Calipari were really on the player's side then he would quit his job at Kentucky. Because that would fix everything.

Last week I wrote about the ways that both pro- and anti-NCAA camps tend to miss the mark when talking about University of Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari. He deserves less criticism for breaking NCAA rules and more for profiting from them, because even his “Players First” arrangement forces players to take huge risks for a reward artificially delayed by NCAA and NBA rules,

I am not going to wave a Calipari flag outside the courthouse steps or self-immolate in order to protect his honor. But let's be a little bit honest here. I like honesty. Almost every NCAA men's head basketball coach would like to be in the position that John Calipari is in. They can lie and claim differently, but the vast majority would take Karl-Anthony Towns on their team for one year. Most coaches wouldn't mind their program being a pit stop between high school and the NBA. Coaches like Bo Ryan can argue differently, but they are lying. Bo Ryan heavily recruited Kevin Looney, who is a one-and-done player. So getting that assumption out of the way, which I believe to be a correct assumption, most men's college basketball coaches wouldn't mind profiting from the NCAA rules. It is not John Calipari who forces Michael Kidd-Gilchrist to come to college for one year, it is the NBA who forces Kidd-Gilchrist to go overseas or play in college for one year. Sure, Calipari is profiting. He's not forcing these players to take these huge risks. They are free to sit out a year, go overseas (where there would still be risk for injury) or they can play college basketball for one year in the United States (where there would still be a risk for injury). Absent not playing basketball for a full year and then entering the NBA, the risk is always there. Calipari is not forcing these players to do anything because it's not his rule and he's simply recruiting these players like other men's basketball coaches are doing. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is going to play basketball for a year after high school prior to entering the NBA, it's just a matter of where.

while he himself risks nothing at all and has a guaranteed seven-figure annual reward no matter what becomes of the players who do all the valuable work.

This is an absolute strawman argument. Every men's basketball coach risks nothing at all while coaching. Saint Coach K isn't risking his career coaching Jahlil Okafor. Steve Prohm isn't risking his life or career coaching at Murray State. The risk will always be on the players. I don't know why John Calipari and his "arrangement" is more dangerous than Tom Izzo's "arrangement" where he gets paid millions of dollars and the players do all the valuable work.

On Sunday, Slate writer A.J. McCarthy published a thoughtful response to my piece. In his estimation, “Calipari’s unmatched success in getting his players to the next level—while certainly not entirely ridding him of the NCAA’s stench—does, actually, separate him from his rival coaches. Not just in degree, but in kind as well.”

To argue that Calipari’s arrangement with players is meaningfully different—in kind, not degree—from the one offered by other college coaches because of the high rate at which his players catch on in the NBA, strikes me as flawed in at least a couple of ways.

It can be a flawed argument, but it's an argument that is as flawed as arguing John Calipari is the most evil of evil head coaches because he profits from the one-and-done rule and forces his players to take huge risks prior to entering the NBA. The risks Kentucky players take are no more than the risks any college basketball player takes in wanting to make it to the NBA one day. Doug McDermott was coached by his father and his father didn't take a risk, it was Doug who did all the valuable work during his time at Creighton and took on the risk of injury.

First, and most importantly, it ignores the risk forcibly taken on even by those of Calipari’s players who emerge from his program with their NBA prospects unharmed, or even enhanced. Anthony Davis may have survived his lone season at Kentucky without, say, tearing his Achilles tendon, but he still carried the enormous risk of doing so throughout that entire season—

Every single college athlete in every single college sport suffers risk of injury during their playing career. Some of these athletes plan on making their living in sports, others don't. The risk of injury doesn't go away simply because Nigel Hayes is planning on spending four years in college rather than one year in college. If Anthony Davis tore his Achilles tendon, he has the option of going back to school for a second year. This risk of a player's stock being down or an injury occurring isn't present because John Calipari has put a gun to Anthony Davis' head forcing him to play, but because Anthony Davis is forced by NBA rules to either sit out a year, play overseas or play college basketball for a year prior to entering the NBA. Simply because John Calipari is an NCAA men's basketball head coach doesn't make him partially culpable for the NBA rule requiring Anthony Davis to play/sit out a year before entering the NBA, any more than Bill Self is culpable for coaching a group of basketball players at Kansas who may someday want to enter the NBA.

a season during which his work paid him no money, and helped John Calipari haul in at least seven figures.

You are blaming John Calipari for participation in the NCAA system. What does the author expect Calipari to do? Quit? If he quit as the head men's basketball coach at Kentucky would the NCAA system all of a sudden become fair and NBA prospects are no longer risking injury to play basketball in college? Of course not. Calipari coaches within an unfair system, but this doesn't make him culpable for the unfairness of the system.

Davis took a huge risk because artificial and unjust rules forced him to, and he’ll never be compensated for taking that risk—but his coach was.

So again, while being a problem spotter and not a problem solver, what is the solution here? Should John Calipari stop coaching college basketball because the rules are so unfair, which of course would fix nothing because 300+ other Division-I college coaches are still coaching teams under the same unfair rules they would embrace if Anthony Davis wanted to go to their school? Should John Calipari just not get paid for coaching the Kentucky men's basketball team? That seems like a rather unreasonable conclusion.

That would be true at any other college.

Which only highlights the absurdity of blaming John Calipari for an institutional problem.

Second, the notion that every instance of a star recruit making the NBA is an instance of a fair deal ignores how even those nominal successes can be screwed by their time in college (even apart from the fact that they don’t get paid for their work while there)

This is the part where the author has already blamed John Calipari for his recruits having to spend a year in college, allowing his prospective one-and-done guys to play basketball in live action games, thereby risking them getting injured, but now blames Calipari for the NBA rookie pay scale. That's his fault too now. 

Consider fellow Kentucky big man Nerlens Noel. Superficially, Noel might seem to buttress McCarthy’s point: He arrived at Kentucky as the top recruit in the nation, tore his ACL just weeks before the NCAA tournament in his freshman season, and still went on to a lucrative NBA contract as the sixth overall pick in the following draft.

BUT NO! McCarthy wasn't considering factors which John Calipari didn't have a hand in creating or legislating that show how Calipari is the real problem. If you consider another factor out of Calipari's control, it just goes to show the evil nature of Calipari and how he abuses his prospective one-and-done basketball players merely by choosing to coach college basketball. This is abuse caused only by Calipari.

But then, account for the NBA’s rookie pay scale system, under the rubric of which draft position determines salary for all first-round picks. Prior to his ACL injury, Noel was the presumptive first overall pick in the 2013 draft (actually, “presumptive” may not be strong enough; that he would go first overall was a virtual certainty); when the draft finally rolled around, he fell to sixth, thanks to concerns about his leg and how recovery might hamper his development.

So once you factor John Calipari's culpability in creating the NBA rookie pay scale system (which he has none), then you can see the real evil behind his mad schemes. So what if no men's college basketball coach had anything to do with the NBA rookie pay scale system? Fuck it, blame them anyway.

Here is another scam that John Calipari participates in. This so-called "American Dream" where everyone has a shot to succeed. How about those who never got a shot to succeed? Doesn't John Calipari care about them? He earns millions of dollars working at a lucrative job, while thousands go hungry, living on the streets, and without sufficient food or shelter. If John Calipari really cared about the scam of the "American Dream" then he would move to another country where (a) there is no poverty or homelessness or (b) no one pretended to care about the poverty and homelessness. As long as John Calipari lives in the United States, he's all a part of the scam.

The first overall pick, Anthony Bennett, received a first-year salary of $4,436,900; Noel, at sixth, received $2,643,600—a difference of almost $1.8 million in their rookie season alone.

And is John Calipari going to reimburse Noel for that $1.8 million difference caused by no actions on Calipari's part other than a freak injury occurring to Noel when Calipari had chosen to put Noel in the game? Of course not. It's all a part of Calipari's plan to recruit one-and-done basketball players and then steal hypothetical money from them when they get injured on the court, all the while Calipari is manically laughing at how his team has now a lesser chance of winning a championship. It's all part of the plan that John Calipari and the NCAA have.

Of course, one could also point out that Anthony Bennett was also a one-and-done guy, so the money Noel "lost" was "gained" by Bennett through the scam Dave Rice is running at UNLV where he recruited Bennett to play basketball. Dave Rice is culpable as a basketball coach in the NCAA scam too, right?

Over the maximum five-season lifespan of his rookie deal, Noel’s draft position is worth about $11,000,000 less than if he’d gone first overall, as he would have if he hadn’t suffered the ACL injury.

This has to be one of the most poorly defended articles I have read in a while. Okay, that's sad for Noel. I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with John Calipari. If Noel didn't tear his ACL as a member of the Kentucky basketball team then he could have done it as a member of the UNC or Indiana basketball team. I wouldn't argue against the NCAA costing Noel this money, but dragging Calipari into it due to his status as a basketball coach for an NCAA team is ridiculous.

And unlike Alex Poythress, the Kentucky player who decided of his own free will to return to school and wound up with an expensive and prospect-darkening ACL injury of his own, Noel didn’t lose a dice roll of his own choosing.

So now we are differentiating between the risk on the court a guy who may be one-and-done takes with the risk on the court a guy who may play in the NBA but chooses to stay in school for 3-4 years takes? The risk is the exact same. Nerlens Noel could easily go back to school and turn into a guy who stays in college for 3-4 years. All of a sudden, Calipari is no longer responsible for Noel's draft status!

He played the single season of college ball essentially mandated by the NBA’s age restriction, got injured, and got screwed.

But Noel could have gone back to school. Alex Poythress would have left after his freshmen year too if his draft stock would have been higher at that point. Noel rolled the dice of his own choosing by not coming back to school for his sophomore year. He could have made the same decision that Poythress made.

(Before anyone does the whole Hey, Nerlens Noel made $2.6 million his rookie year—if that’s getting screwed, sign me up thing: Likely there are people who would happily do your job for 40 percent less pay, too. Probably you would feel pretty screwed if your employer told you that you were about to become one of them.)

This isn't close to being an accurate parallel. A more accurate parallel would be if I had the chance to get a job, but because of circumstances out of my control they re-opened the job search and hired someone else for the position and paid them more than they were offering me. Then I would get a similar job for less pay at another company.

None of this—the NBA’s unjust age restriction and rookie wage scale, the NCAA’s criminal restrictions on athlete compensation and unfair asymmetry of risk—is John Calipari’s doing, or John Calipari’s fault.

I must have misread that. I'll try again.

None of this—the NBA’s unjust age restriction and rookie wage scale, the NCAA’s criminal restrictions on athlete compensation and unfair asymmetry of risk—is John Calipari’s doing, or John Calipari’s fault.

Oh, what you write does say it is John Calipari's fault. The author states the following in this column:

He deserves less criticism for breaking NCAA rules and more for profiting from them, because even his “Players First” arrangement forces players to take huge risks for a reward artificially delayed by NCAA and NBA rules, while he himself risks nothing at all and has a guaranteed seven-figure annual reward no matter what becomes of the players who do all the valuable work.

It sort of sounds like he is blaming Calipari for the unfair asymmetry of risk and unjust age restriction doesn't it?

You may rightly assert that his Wildcat pedigree and Calipari’s imprimatur helped secure Noel’s draft position against concerns about his health, in service of a Coach Cal gets his guys paid! argument.

But then, account for the NBA’s rookie pay scale system, under the rubric of which draft position determines salary for all first-round picks. Prior to his ACL injury, Noel was the presumptive first overall pick in the 2013 draft (actually, “presumptive” may not be strong enough; that he would go first overall was a virtual certainty); when the draft finally rolled around, he fell to sixth, thanks to concerns about his leg and how recovery might hamper his development. The first overall pick, Anthony Bennett, received a first-year salary of $4,436,900; Noel, at sixth, received $2,643,600—a difference of almost $1.8 million in their rookie season alone.

Doesn't this sound a bit like blaming Calipari for the rookie wage scale? Specifically since this was a point brought up to counter an argument that Calipari's success makes him different from rival coaches and therefore shouldn't be put to blame for "the deal" he offers his players.

The point isn’t that Calipari is out here doing anything more evil than what his counterparts are doing at other big-money NCAA programs—he’s not—but that the NCAA system itself is so corrupt and compromised, the ripping-off of athletes so fundamental to its business, that it cannot be navigated in a humane and ethical fashion by a coach.

So why in the hell are you singling out Calipari for disdain? Other than it pumps up pageviews and the comment section to have a debate about Calipari, of course.

To coach in the NCAA is to perpetrate the rip-off. John Calipari might make it as painless as it can be, but it’s still a rip-off—for Alex Poythress, for Nerlens Noel, for Anthony Davis, for all of them—and Calipari is still on the side of it that participates by choice. The side of it that gets paid.

As is every single NCAA college coach. I don't get the point that is trying to be proven here.

Tellingly, the defense of Calipari winds up echoing defenses of the NCAA itself. McCarthy objects to the use of Poythress to illustrate the shortcomings of Calipari’s “Players First” principle, on grounds that Poythress, who stayed in college longer than he had to and suffered a torn ACL for it, will still “have a free college education to show for his time at Kentucky.”

Well, that defense sucks then. There is no required defense of John Calipari. He coaches men's basketball at the University of Kentucky. Some of his players who choose to go to the NBA after one year, as they are required to wait that long by NBA rule. Some players wait longer than one year to go to the NBA and other players of his have no chance of making the NBA. John Calipari tries to win games for the University of Kentucky while teaching his players how to play basketball better, which may or may not help them make it into the NBA. His track record says he is pretty good at getting his players into the NBA while following the one-and-done rule set out by the NBA. The rookie wage scale has nothing to do with NCAA college basketball.

Remember that Poythress will have earned this education by playing many hundreds of hours of basketball for the university—basketball that generates far more money for the university and the NCAA than they return to him in the form of his athletic scholarship.

If John Calipari died as a child, then Alex Poythress would still be playing hundreds of hours for a university and receiving no money in return for the money he generates for the university.

Poythress has not received a “free college education.” He has received an incredibly expensive one! He has paid more for his college education than the average college graduate will spend in a lifetime.

When you find evidence that John Calipari is directly responsible for college athletes not getting paid, then call me.

To accept the premise that an undergraduate education is—or even can be—a fair return for the work high-level college basketball players do is to accept the central lie of “student athletics.” If Calipari’s deal as presented by McCarthy—NBA jobs after a year of underpaid work for some, free college educations for the rest—is a fair one, then so is the NCAA itself.

Maybe this is true. It sounds like both McCarthy and the author here are arguing about whether college athletes should get paid, but putting "Calipari" in the title in effort to gain more attention for the same old tired argument.

In this case the sheen of principled rebellion evaporates from Calipari’s rules violations in an instant, and he’s just a guy who cheats to get ahead, then leaves the consequences for others to absorb.

Oh, we are talking about Calipari's rules violations now.

But the NCAA’s deal isn’t a fair one. An undergraduate education isn’t a fair return for the work college basketball players do. And so Alex Poythress’s decision to stay in school and pursue his degree doesn’t vindicate Calipari’s methods.

If the NCAA isn't a fair deal, then no methods used by any NCAA athletic coach are vindicated in any way. This is because zero college athletes get paid for participating in their sport and generating revenue for the school. This is true whether the athletes be women's soccer players at Lehigh University or football players at the University of Texas. These athletes spend hundreds of hours of their time trying to perfect the sport they aren't getting paid to perfect. If the system is corrupt, this means any athletic coach in the NCAA is culpable on the same level as Calipari. No method used by a coach, interestingly other than to commit a rules violation (that the author felt the need to randomly bring up as a case against Calipari's methods) by paying the players, will vindicate that coach's methods because the NCAA system is corrupt.

Calipari runs the scam without the bullshit pretense of some lofty pedagogical mission, but it’s still a scam.

It's a scam, but not a scam of Calipari's doing. He's trying to do what other men's basketball coaches are trying to do, which is work within the rules and recruit a team that wins games. It's not Calipari's scam, he's simply choosing to work at the University of Kentucky. His quitting as the head coach at Kentucky would have zero impact on the scam the NCAA is running. Therefore, his culpability is the same as every other coach's culpability, yet for some reason other coaches aren't mentioned in this column. Weird.

McCarthy and other defenders are right to say that Calipari offers the closest thing to an honest bargain players can get from college basketball. It’s also true, though, that the comparison makes Calipari appear better than he is. Only in the context of the NCAA would justice-minded people look at him—a millionaire management-class white dude who asks for a year of underpaid labor, rather than four, from his black teenage workers—and see a beacon of fairness.

What are Calipari's other options again? Other than to quit his job as the head coach at Kentucky, of course. I don't think some people see a beacon of fairness in having basketball players at Kentucky stay there for a year before they go to the NBA. I think Calipari offers certain college basketball players a way to reach their goal of making it into the NBA, just like other NCAA men's basketball head coaches offer prospective one-and-done players or even players that will be at the school risking injury over a four year period.

Go easy on him, the other ticks are much thirstier. That flattering comparison is another of the many ways John Calipari profits not in spite of the NCAA’s awfulness, but because of it.

I don't think this article was quite as profound or persuasive as the author believes it was. To frame this argument in the context of John Calipari and try to make it seen as he's hero for college athletes is very misguided. It's simply not true. The basic argument McCarthy was making was this:

The NCAA is, for lack of a better word, evil. But while John Calipari might not be a hero fighting against its crooked ways, he isn’t the villain that many, including Burneko, have described.

Right, Calipari isn't the villain. Because if he is the villain then every other NCAA coach who participates in the scam is a villain as well. If the author doesn't blame Calipari for the NBA's rookie salary structure, the one-and-done rule, restrictions on athletes' compensation and the asymmetry of risk then what is he blaming Calipari for? Being a cog in the machine? I guess both arguments pro- and anti-Calipari are wrong in that case.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

8 comments Jay Mariotti Thinks John Calipari is Wrong for Following the Rules; Advises Jabari Parker to Stay in School Because I'm Sure That's What Jay Would Choose to Do in Parker's Situation

Jay Mariotti normally knows a sleaze when he sees one. After all, when looking in the mirror everyday he sees a guy who seems to be pretty sleazy himself. So Jay writes that John Calipari is a sleaze and just generally does a hit-job on Calipari for following the rules set out by the NBA for when collegiate players can declare for the NBA Draft. Also, while doing a hit-job on Calipari he advises Jabari Parker of Duke (coached by Coach K, who by the way, has had two one-and-done players over the last three years and will probably have another this year, along with potentially two more next year) to stay in school. Why? I would have no idea. Mitch McGary, Nerlens Noel, and Marcus Smart are great examples of why staying in school as "the right thing to do" more often than not is the financially dumb thing to do.

I don't know what else I should expect from a guy who has an issue with Barack Obama filling out a bracket. It seems Obama knows more about college basketball players than Jay does, which means Obama spends most of his time talking basketball and not running the country. It doesn't annoy me that Obama fills out a bracket and then goes on ESPN to reveal his bracket. It's all a part of efforts, like appearing on "Between Two Ferns" and Michelle Obama appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Kimmel," to appeal to "the kids" and further an agenda/program they have. Obviously Obama isn't furthering a program by filling out a bracket, but I chalk that up appealing to "the kids" and trying to seem down-to-earth. Either way, it's sort of silly to get up in arms about Obama filling out a bracket. It's needless, but not a huge drain on his time.

I'll start with Jay's column about what a jerk John Calipari is. I feel like I end up defending Calipari more often than I would like to, but simply because many sportswriters seem to think it's his fault the NBA has instituted the one-and-done rule. Calipari didn't think of the rule and is on record as saying he doesn't like it. He simply plays within the rules of the one-and-done rule and that irritates writers like Jay Mariotti for some reason.

Don’t bother conducting a scientific poll. Without debate, John Calipari is the most loathed man in college basketball, primarily because what he preaches is not college basketball but something you’d have seen Kevin Trudeau hawking about college basketball on a 3:30 a.m. TV informercial (Note: Trudeau was just sentenced to a 10-year prison sentence for consumer fraud).

AND JOHN CALIPARI SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR CONSUMER FRAUD TOO! HE SELLS TO RECRUITS THAT HE WILL GET THEM DRAFTED BY THE NBA AND THEN HE DOES THAT, WHICH IS DEFINITELY FRAUD!

Under the phony premise that his players are his only real priority as a coach — his leadership book, to be strategically released in time for the Final Four, is called “Players First’’ — Calipari is on an evangelical soapbox to prove he can point one-and-doners immediately to the NBA while they try to win a quickie NCAA championship for Kentucky.

Except for the fact Calipari has won a championship while placing his players into the NBA after one season, this definitely could be considered fraud. It's also pure speculation to state that Calipari doesn't care about his players. I can't read minds and Jay Mariotti can't read minds, but Calipari's disappointment with the performance of his 2012-2013 Kentucky team was pretty obvious when he spoke about how his team lacked discipline. I guess that wasn't sincere enough for Jay.

Of course, all he’s doing is playing to the soft academic weaknesses of teenaged hoops prodigies — “Gee, if I play for him, I can blow off school and be in the NBA the following June,’’ goes the thought process — so St. Cal can pick the players he wants and annually reload his assembly line of talent.

He doesn't pick the players he wants. He just beaten by Duke for a recruit from Ohio and he has missed out on several other recruits and he lost out on the #1 point guard in the 2014 class to SMU. Yes, recruits want to play for Kentucky to get drafted, but top recruits also choose to play for other schools who can also get them to the NBA after one season in college. Student-athletes are required by NBA rules to stay in college for a year, spend a year overseas or petition the NBA to allow them to enter the NBA Draft if they can prove they are a year removed from their high school graduation. As I've said many, many times before, one-and-done is an NBA rule not an NCAA rule.

Once he won a national championship with two such one-and-doners (Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist) two years ago, Calipari had his street cred. 

Actually, he won it with three one-and-done players, including Marcus Teague. But what are facts, even facts that could further prove Jay's point? He's got no time to look this shit up. Research is for bitches and bitches get grabbed by their hair when they are acting up.

“We don’t just play college basketball,’’ St. Cal announced as the season began. “We ARE college basketball.’’

Calipari has a lot of bravado, which may be annoying, but certainly doesn't make him a sleazeball.

No, you are a feeder system — for the grateful NBA,

Every college basketball program is a feeder system for the NBA, not just Kentucky basketball. Some colleges feed the NBA more than others, but NCAA basketball is set up as a feeder system for the NBA. So criticizing Calipari and the Kentucky program for being a feeder system to the NBA is a bit disingenuous. They aren't alone in this regard.

And until this past Sunday, a whole lot of us were delighted to see Kentucky, a season after failing to reach the NCAA tournament, struggling with maturity, cohesion and listening issues and appearing ready to exit early from this year’s tournament.

Of course Kentucky was a #8 seed, so an "early" exit would most likely the first round, unless Wichita State had gotten upset in the first round by Cal Poly.

Imagine: Only months after suggesting his team might be the first ever to go 40-0, St. Cal was taking 10 losses into the Midwest Regional. He was a walking embarassment — petulantly blowing off a post-loss press conference, complaining his team was “the most overanalyzed team in the history of sports’’ (didn’t he suggest Kentucky might go 40-0?), then complaining that his players were “counting on me too much.’’

Wait. Players First, right?

The fact Jay can't spell "embarrassment" correctly and that Calipari is sort of a hypocrite for talking about how Kentucky was overanalyzed aside, Calipari wasn't saying he didn't want to coach or care about his players, but he is commenting that his players were waiting on him to provide instructions rather than simply going out on the court and playing to their ability.

And those same players were counting on Calipari too much when they needed him most? Opinions were mounting that he was the next one done at Kentucky, eyeing the New York Knicks.

This isn't Calipari's fault. There is no indication he has attempted to pursue the New York Knicks job. Jay seems to have a double standard for head coaches, because I don't read about him criticizing Tom Izzo for having any iota of interest in the Cleveland Cavaliers job a few years ago nor the fact Izzo keeps getting connected to the Pistons job. Jay also doesn't seem to mind that Coach K has almost taken an NBA job twice (that we know of) during his coaching career. But hey, these two coaches like their players and Calipari is always looking for something better, right? That's the narrative.

Some were demanding his ouster, sensing St. Cal was much more a recruiting con man than an actual coach. His daughter, Erin, defended him on Twitter: “People saying my dad should be fired, he won 81% of his games @ UK. Coach K 79% Duke. Roy Williams 78% @ UNC. Pitino 74% @ UL … #forreference.’’

We waited for the crash.
 
Instead, Calipari’s parachute opened.

He got his team to play very well against Wichita State and the Harrison twins realized, "Hey, if we drive to the basket a lot I'm not sure very many guards in the country can stop us!"

While presumed future NBA stars Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker were flaming out of the tournament with eyesore performances, Calipari watched in bliss as the embattled twin brothers, Andrew and Aaron Harrison, combined for 39 points and lottery pick Julius Randle contributed his usual double-double in eliminating a 35-0 force that nearly won the national title last April.

These presumed future NBA stars are coached by Bill Self and Coach K, both coaches who have coached one-and-done players before, yet get a free pass from Jay because they haven't coached enough one-and-done players. There apparently is a limit on how many one-and-done players a coach can have before he no longer cares about them as people.

Calipari, understand, has a bad hip. It didn’t stop him from leaping and hopping by the bench as the buzzer sounded.

Clearly he is faking this bad hip. John Calipari commits consumer and insurance fraud. Arrest this man immediately!

The purists almost had their man nailed to the wall, at long last.

The idea of "purists" in the college basketball game is laughable. Nearly all coaches end up taking on one-and-done players at some point. Even Tom Izzo took on Gary Harris who easily could have gone pro last year if he had been healthy all season. It's the nature of the game. Jim Boeheim has guys who are going to go one-and-done, Roy Williams has had players go one-and-done...it's just how it is now.

“If wins are relief, it’s time for me to retire. This was great joy in seeing a group of young men come together and start figuring this out. It took longer than I’d hoped,’’ Calipari said. “This team and what people said about this team — all we’ve done all year is continue to get better. Like every team, you hit a hole when you don’t play well. But they believed in themselves.
 
“I just wish we had another month of the season, because we’re getting better every day.’’

How selfish of Calipari to say "we" as if he is part of the team. There he goes trying to take credit for what his players do on the court. It's clear by these quotes that Calipari doesn't care about his team and only wants to steal the spotlight from his players.

Remember, Kentucky rallied and nearly stole the SEC title game two weekends ago from Florida, the tournament’s No. 1 seed and clear favorite to reach the Final Four out of the South Regional. There might be seven NBA futures on this team. Nothing is more dangerous in March — and April — than pro-skilled players emerging as one with the stakes at their highest.

Imagine how good Kentucky would be if John Calipari actually cared about his players and didn't treat them as disposable goods by tossing each freshman out the door after one year so that they may achieve their goal of entering in the NBA Draft and becoming a millionaire? It's a shame Calipari puts these student-athletes in a position to achieve their dreams.

It was Willie Cauley-Stein, the sophomore forward, who said last week that Kentucky would “shock the world,’’ adding, “There’s a lot of people that don’t think we can make a run at it. And you know, a lot of people don’t want to see us make a run at it.’’

These people are better known as "Jay Mariotti." And what is this? A highly-recruited player who is a sophomore at Kentucky and didn't go to the NBA Draft? I thought Calipari kicked all of his freshman out so new freshmen could take their place? My world is spinning.

“Here’s what happened with my team,’’ Calipari said. “They now are putting themselves in a position where they’re accepting roles how they have to play. So we’re becoming a better team. Individuals are losing themselves into the team, so they’re playing better and more confident.

Hence what Calipari meant by stating his players were counting on him too much. They were waiting for him as the coach to put them into a certain role or worried about Calipari correcting the issue of not playing as a team when it is only the Kentucky players themselves who could correct this.

We love most March stories because they are embraceable, charming. Nothing is warm and fuzzy about St. Cal and the rise of his one-and-doners.

It doesn't have to be warm and fuzzy, but the high level at which they play the game could be appreciated. It was pretty cool to see the Harrison twins finally seem to understand they could dominate if they wanted to. Again, it's unfair to blame Calipari for recruiting the players he does. He is looking for a recruiting edge and his edge is that he coaches for a highly publicized school where he helps these basketball recruits get drafted into the NBA. Calipari wouldn't have to recruit these players if they could go straight to the NBA, but they can't. I recognize it's fun to hate Kentucky and hate Calipari, but let's put the blame where it belongs. Calipari isn't abusing the system any more than he is following the rules set out by the system. But of course writers like Jay Mariotti hate the one-and-done rule and naturally Calipari is a villain for not educating these players (and obviously if Calipari had not recruited him then Anthony Davis would have stayed in college for all four years, right?) and then dumping them into the NBA...which just so happens to be where these recruits want to go anyway.

Do not forget that he is the only coach who had to vacate two Final Four appearances because of NCAA rules violations, the first at UMass because Marcus Camby took money from an agent, the second at Memphis because Derrick Rose allegedly had someone else take an SAT test for him.

Calipari doesn't have a clean history. This is true.

At the center of Calipari’s self-righteous rampage through the sport is a familiar question:

I don't understand how Calipari is being self-righteous. If anyone is being self-righteous it is Jay Mariotti for claiming Calipari is the devil for taking advantage of a rule that nearly every other college coach would take advantage of if given the opportunity.

Should college athletes be paid? Again, they are being rewarded with full-ride scholarships that, if they chose to stay the full four years instead of one, are worth beyond $200,000 at many schools.

Yeah, but if someone decides to stay one year and enter the NBA he has the chance to earn much more than that in real money in one year, not over four years.

Should they also be paid a stipend out of the disgustingly mammoth pot now shared by the NCAA, the TV networks and the programs themselves? Certainly. But that won’t stop the cries of 21st-century slavery.

It may not stop those cries, but it would certainly feel more fair. A stipend also probably wouldn't stop John Calipari from recruiting one-and-done players nor prevent these players from choosing to go to the NBA after one year in college if they feel they are ready.

And that won’t stop “heroes’’ like John Calipari from swooping in and protecting these kids, Players First,

I'm not sure Calipari has ever claimed he is protecting his players. He claims he is teaching those student-athletes who enter his program how to play defense and succeed at playing the game of basketball. If this leads to the NBA, then so be it.

even when you know and I know that he’s another scam artist trying to win in a filthy sport.

Other than his past vacated Final Four appearances I fail to understand how John Calipari is a scam artist. In fact, he delivers on what his players want him to do more often than nearly every other college basketball coach. Players enter his program wanting to play in the NBA and Calipari puts them in the NBA.

Now Jay talks about how Jabari Parker can set a grand example by choosing to stay in school for one more year as opposed to entering the NBA Draft. I think Marcus Smart, James Michael McAdoo, and Mitch McGary have already set the example by choosing to stay in school. Nerlens Noel has set the example of why an athlete that has a chance to get drafted should do so. Get paid, that's the best example, because the longer you stay in college the more chances scouts get to pick you apart.

If this isn’t how Jabari Parker wants his college career to end — breaking down in tears, trying to explain the unexplainable — then he does have an option. He can stay in college.

And then wait another year for scouts to pick apart his bad defense or suffer an injury? No thanks.

He can defy the one-and-done expectation, remain at Duke for his sophomore season, tell the NBA and the agents and the TV networks and the shoe companies that they can wait until he’s good and ready.

Because we wouldn't want Parker to be chewed up and spit out by shoe companies and evil agents. He needs to stay in school where he can continue playing basketball for free and have his image marketed without any compensation in return, all while having nothing to gain in terms of his draft position from staying one more year. That sounds like a much better plan. 

Does he realize what a glorious statement that would be, rejectng immediate millions and saying yes to one more year of the college experience?

I do, because other college basketball players have done it. Jabari Parker would in no way be the first college basketball player to reject going to the NBA to come back and play another year in college. Harrison Barnes did it, Marcus Smart did it, Mitch McGary did it, as did Perry Jones III, Isaiah Austin, Terence Jones (from evil Kentucky!), Willie Cauley-Stein, Alex Poythress, James Michael McAdoo, Gary Harris, Glen Robinson III, and other players over the past decade have done the same. What's interesting about this list is that of those players that have already been drafted few actually improved their draft position by staying in school longer (except maybe Terence Jones). I don't know where Cauley-Stein/Harris/Robinson will go or if they will declare, but I already know from mock drafts I've seen that Robinson doesn't appear to be going in the first round like he may have last year.

“Incompletion,’’ he told ESPN when asked to reflect on his Duke career, after the stunning loss to Mercer in his first and maybe only NCAA tournament game.
Is it possible such a bitter disappointment will impact his decision on whether to enter the NBA draft, where he could be the No. 1 pick? “I don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t know what I’m going to do,’’ he said, adding that he “didn’t care about the rankings’’ of draft projections.

Then Parker admitted that the emotion of the moment may be affecting his decision-making, which is a small little point that Jay cares to leave out. What could be gained from coming back to school that could not be gained from playing in the NBA? All that Parker can do is improve his stock to where he is definitely the #1 pick, with the trade-off of possibly suffering an injury or having a down year that causes his stock to fall. Just look at where Marcus Smart is now. He made the "right" decision to stay in school and now he's a guy who can't lead his team to an NCAA Tournament win and the incident at Texas Tech has his maturity called into question. Can he make his teammates better? Can he shoot the three-point shot better? The "right" decision hasn't helped him reach his goal of being drafted early and playing in the NBA.

There is no set mandate that a gifted basketball player must turn pro simply because he might be drafted first. It’s clear Parker’s game and confidence level need work, dogged as he was by 4-of-14 shooting, four turnovers and four personal fouls while continuing to have well-scrutinized defensive issues against a Mercer team showing no mercy.

And if Parker stays at Duke then NBA scouts are going to see those defensive lapses and question whether Parker can defend at the NBA level. That's assuming Parker stays healthy of course. Parker had a horrendous NCAA Tournament and he doesn't have to turn professional, but the risk-reward and examples of past players who have come back to do the "right" thing by staying one more year show that Parker may not have anywhere to go but down. I firmly believe if a college basketball player is projected to go in the Top 5 of the draft, then 9 times out of 10 it is in his best interest to enter the draft.

If he looked like a polished NBA product only two weeks ago against North Carolina,

And you know, he looked like an NBA product most of the entire college basketball season as well.

he since has faded into a funk, perhaps feeling the burden of trying to lead Duke at least into the Final Four.

Or perhaps he is simply hitting the "freshman wall" that freshmen tend to hit, especially freshmen who are expected to be the best player on their team on a nightly basis. Or perhaps Parker was tired from having to play the power forward position (and some center) during most of the season when his natural position is small forward. Besides, the burden that Parker may have felt has nothing to do with whether he should go to the NBA or not.

The best player since LeBron James is Kevin Durant, right? About a dozen other post-LeBron standouts come to mind, right? Yet that didn’t stop the ridiculous hype for Parker and Andrew Wiggins, who avoided his own second-round exit as he and Kansas fended off Eastern Kentucky.

Then Wiggins and Kansas lost in the next round to Dayton. Was it due to Wiggins being in a funk and trying to carry the burden of leading Kansas to at least the Final Four? Well, Wiggins better not go to the NBA until he can carry the burden of leading an entire team to the Final Four.

Just the day before, Parker had spoken about winning a national title. “The only way you can leave a legacy and you can leave behind memories is by winning a championship,” he said. “I know we just came up short (in the ACC tournament). I’ve got to try to do something big now.’’

Has to do something big now? He has been hearing, no doubt, the comparisons to Carmelo Anthony in terms of their offensive machinery and identical 6-8, 235-pound frames. Mike Krzyzewski, his coach, tried to temper the link before the Mercer game.

And the only way Parker can no longer hear these comparisons is to stay in college for more than one year. After that, there will be no more Carmelo Anthony comparisons ever.

Here is the most annoying part about Jay Mariotti encouraging guys like Jabari Parker to stay in school and to state that's the "right" thing to do. That annoying part is I don't believe Jay Mariotti or any of these other sportswriters would have passed up a big payday in the same situation just to stay in school and do the right thing. If ESPN had called Jay while he was in college (assuming ESPN was big when Jay was in college) during his sophomore year and said, "If you skip the last two years of college we will hire you now," does anyone really think Jay would have stayed in college for two more years? I highly doubt he would have. This same thing goes for these other sportswriters who encourage college athletes to pass up a payday in order to stay in college for one more year. Does anyone really think if the roles were reversed that sportswriter would pass up making money in order to stay in college?

“Jabari’s going to be an outstanding pro, but he’s right now in the process of development,’’ he said. “To compare the two now, there is no comparison. But in three, four, five years, Jabari, I think, will be a franchise player. He’ll be a 25-points-a-game scorer in the NBA. But he’s still developing.’’

Just because Parker is still developing doesn't mean the best place for him to develop is in college basketball and not the NBA. It's fun to get paid while developing. It's no fun to do it for free, unless Parker really cares that much about an education. Which in that case, he can always come back to Duke to get his degree anytime he wants.

The most responsible decision he could make would be to stay.

Is it though? Ask Marcus Smart how being "responsible" paid off for him. Ask Mitch McGary how being "responsible" and coming back for his sophomore year when his value was at an all-time peak after the 2013 NCAA Tournament worked out. In terms of finances, it is not responsible to stay in school. If Parker is projected to go in the Top 5 of the draft he should definitely go to the NBA. I have a hard time seeing how staying in school and potentially hurting his draft stock is responsible.

I could think of no worse fate than Parker turning pro, being drafted by the god-awful Philadelphia 76ers and being expected to lead that franchise to the promised land in an overly demanding sports town. Just 19, he surely would struggle at times in his rookie season, whereas another season at Duke under Krzyzewski would better prepare him for the NBA — 

Yes, but declaring for the NBA Draft would mean Parker is actually in the NBA and he would learn to lead a franchise by actually leading a franchise that doesn't have any other leaders, where the team can be built around him and Michael Carter-Williams/Nerlens Noel. If anything, having Noel back there would do wonders to offset Parker's defensive deficiencies and help ease his transition to playing defense at an NBA level. Yeah, I bet Jay didn't think about that did he?

and give him a chance to redeem himself in March.

And how much money does redeeming himself in March make for Parker and his family again?

That also would be a gift to Coach K,

Because the one thing Coach K needs more of is gifts. He already has four Top-50 players in the 2014 class committed to Duke and has one Top-20 recruit for the 2015 class committed to Duke. Who will be around to save Coach K when Jabari Parker is gone?

He had a health scare earlier this month, not the first time, and maybe the best plan is to coach two more seasons at Duke, coach the U.S. Olympic team to a third gold medal in Rio de Janeiro in 2016 and retire.

I don't understand why Jabari Parker shouldn't go to the NBA because he needs to give Coach K a gift and be around for Coach K's final years as a basketball coach at Duke. This doesn't make sense to me. Why does the impending retirement of a head coach mean one of that coach's players has a responsibility to stay in school? I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

It wasn’t his best coaching performance this season, with his players lagging defensively and lapsing on fundamentals.

And of course if Coach K isn't teaching his players the fundamentals and how to play defense why wouldn't Jabari Parker stick around to take advantage of this shitty teaching when he could be in the NBA making money? Come on Jay, you say Parker will learn more staying in college and then state you don't think Coach K did a good job coaching this year. It can't be both ways. Parker isn't very good on defense yet, so why would he stick around if Coach K let his players lag on defense? That's not going to help Parker improve.

Besides Jay is wrong, Coach K didn't do a poor job coaching the entire season. There wasn't a quality center on the roster, the three seniors were disappointments or non-contributors, and the two players he built the team (Hood/Parker) around were weak on defense and had to play out of position too often. Part of the reason these two players were so weak on defense is they played out of position for most of the season (especially Parker). Either way, if Jay thinks Coach K did a shitty job coaching, then I don't see how it is responsible at all for Parker to come back for his sophomore year.

Is it time for to wonder if Harvard’s Tommy Amaker, one of his many protegees, is the best man to replace him?

Remember when this column was about Jabari Parker setting an example by not leaving for the NBA? What ever happened to that?

Everyone knows Chris Collins is going to be the man to replace Coach K. Collins is a great recruiter and just has to prove he can coach. So far, he's done a pretty damn good coaching at Northwestern.

Soon enough, he will be visiting another young man to discuss the future. If he tells Jabari Parker to follow his heart, that artery will lead him back to Durham.

Unfortunately, this is a case of the heart leading Parker wrong. If he's projected to be a Top 5 draft pick then Parker should absolutely enter the NBA Draft. Just take a look at recent players who have chosen to stay for their sophomore year and where they were drafted the year after. It's not a list that tells me it is responsible to stay for another year in college if the ultimate goal is to be drafted as high as possible in the NBA Draft. This is just another example of a sportswriter unconscionably encouraging an amateur athlete to hold off on getting paid when this isn't the same decision this sportswriter would make in the same situation.

Jay Mariotti sucks and it would be responsible for Sports Talk Florida to not allow him a forum to give his trolling opinions. 
If this isn’t how Jabari Parker wants his college career to end — breaking down in tears, trying to explain the unexplainable — then he does have an option. He can stay in college.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/parker-would-set-grand-example-by-staying/#pyL4E7hLjsXRQtOa.99
Don’t bother conducting a scientific poll. Without debate, John Calipari is the most loathed man in college basketball, primarily because what he preaches is not college basketball but something you’d have seen Kevin Trudeau hawking about college basketball on a 3:30 a.m. TV informercial (Note: Trudeau was just sentenced to a 10-year prison sentence for consumer fraud).
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/nothing-admirable-about-the-calipari-way/#HyFb5ltwwGFkuBIb.99

Monday, May 21, 2012

15 comments Three Articles In One for Today

I didn't have one certain article I felt like covering today, but I do have a few articles I've bookmarked that don't deserve a full post. I will on occasion stumble upon an article and bookmark it with full intentions of writing about it, then realizing it is not worthy of a long post. I thought I would cover three of these today.

-I'll start off with Frank Deford and his dislike for sporting events that end in ties. The saddest thing for me in reading an article by Frank Deford is that he used to be a great sportswriter. In fact, I read an excerpt of his latest book in Sports Illustrated recently. The excerpt was about his covering the NBA when it was just in its infancy and about his relationships with the players. It was really nice to read. It was readable, interesting and it made me want to buy his book. Then I turn my attention to his writing for CNNSI.com and NPR.com and it is hard to think the same guy wrote the excerpt also writes on those sites. On CNNSI.com and NPR.com Deford takes on some of the most bizarre topics. He takes on how the salary cap ruins baseball, he wants to get rid of field goals, he believes trick plays are child abuse, he pines for the day of "character coaches," and attributes the decline of NASCAR to how people won't fix their own car anymore. Some of those are really painful to read.

I don't like ties in sporting events either, but I won't dedicate an entire column to my dislike for sporting events that end in ties. It just doesn't seem worthy of 200 words, yet that's what Frank Deford does. Don't worry, there is one reference to gunslinging and John Wayne.

Politicians love to boast about American exceptionalism: how special we are from all the merely ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill countries around the globe. However, I would say that what sets us apart, more all the time, is that we Americans don't like ties.

Americans love winning. A tie isn't really winning. It is nobody winning. No one likes ties. This would have made a great Tweet and not an article.

Lots of times, in other English-speaking countries, a tie is called a draw. Well, in these United States, when we say "draw," we don't mean a namby-pamby even-steven -- we mean John Wayne a-reachin' for his six-shooter. Now that's the American way to draw, a-standin' our ground.

Yes, we Americans love John Wayne (do we still love him?), guns, and using the letter "a" in front of a word ending in "-ing" with the "g" of "-ing" being replaced with an apostrophe. That's all we love a-doin'. For sho'.

Some Americans when they hear the word "draw" they also think of drawing a picture, but I am sure the picture being drawn is of a six-shooter and people a-shootin' guns at each other.

Ice hockey was tie city. I blame that on the Canadians, who are so nice. But now, in hockey, we got shootouts. That's the all-American way.

Actually shootouts are the "all-stupid" way. The word Frank Deford was a-lookin' for was "all-stupid" because shootouts suck and hockey games should end with another sudden death overtime and not a shootout. Maybe the point of this article would have been better made with two Tweets.

Do you know they have ties in Japanese baseball? That just flat-out takes the "national" out of "pastime."

Taking the "national" out of pastime when discussing Japanese baseball makes sense because baseball is the American pastime, not the Japanese pastime. So when discussing Japanese baseball played in Japan it would theoretically not be referred to as the "national pastime" anyway.

But of course, the rest of the world loves soccer. And it is reliably calculated that 30 percent of all soccer games end tied, drawed, deadlocked, nil-nil. How does the rest of the unexceptional world tolerate this? It's exactly this kind of thinking, I believe, which is why they can't fix the bloody euro.

I'm not sure Frank Deford is going for total accuracy (of course I'm not entirely sure what he is going for with this column...maybe irony?), but soccer is hugely popular in England and they do not use the Euro.

A tie has no place in sports.

Said Roger Goodell to Mike Nolan.

(Hopes someone gets this obscure NFL-related clothing reference)

It's like not finding out who is the "who" in whodunit.

Agreed. No one likes ties. Was this really worth writing about for 200 words though? This isn't worthy of the Frank Deford material I have read in print.

-David Whitley of The Sporting News seems to enjoy the NBA playoffs, but he knows what everyone really wants and he hopes we get it. You may think you want a Thunder-Heat NBA Final matchup or a Spurs-Heat NBA Final matchup, but you really want a Lakers-Celtics NBA Final. He can read our mind,. so that is how he knows this. In fact, he says we should PRAY that we get a Lakers-Celtics NBA Final matchup. Why you ask? Well, David is glad you asked.

If you want the best NBA Finals, your instincts should mimic Pierce’s. Drop to one knee and pray for Boston-LA.

Because nothing excites me more than seeing a Boston Celtics team that struggles putting up 85 points against a good defense go against a Lakers team that is clearly not playing at its peak either.

Romantic fools, maybe. You can even call us old farts for wanting to see Lakers-Celtics instead of Miami-Oklahoma City.

Who is "we?" Do you have a squirrel in your pocket or something? David Whitley uses "we" throughout this column as if he is using the plural form in the desperate hopes of fooling us into believing many, many people agree with him.

We have seen Lakers-Celtics play some really good series in the past, but I'm not sure these Lakers and Celtics team could provide us with any exciting games that would be enjoyed outside of Boston and Los Angeles. Sure, ESPN/ABC would hype the shit out of the series, but that doesn't make it a good series to watch. Quite the opposite in fact. If the series has to get hyped to increase interest, it may lack the substance to be a good series.

The Heat-Thunder is the trendy Finals pick, and it certainly has appeal.

Being that the Thunder are rolling right now and the Heat have two of the five best players in the NBA, I can see how this series would have a lot of appeal. In fact, this Heat-Thunder series would have three of the five best players in the NBA right now. It's not hard to get excited for this series. Even as a Celtics fan, I would have to work a bit to get excited to see the Lakers and Celtics play in the Finals.

For one thing, if LeBron James wins a title, we’d have nothing left to make fun of him with.

And apparently we (there goes that word again) want to make fun of him some more?

But the main reason we can wait for a Heat-Thunder Finals is we’re likely to get five of them in the next six years.

Wow. I didn't even know that. I wasn't aware we were going to get five Heat-Thunder Finals in the next six years. Why is this likely again? Because David Whitley claims it to be so?

Another thought...the Lakers and the Celtics became a great NBA Finals matchup in David Whitley's mind based on the matchups between these two teams in the NBA Finals from the past, right? Celtics-Lakers got their Finals history from having played each other in the Finals many times. So couldn't Thunder-Heat become the kind of dream matchup for the 2010's that Celtics-Lakers was in the 1980's? Especially if David Whitley believes these two teams could meet five times over the next six years. This series could be the next Celtics-Lakers Finals rivalry. Doesn't this sound exciting? I personally think so. So why cheer against it? A great NBA Finals rivalry has to start somewhere.

After this year, we’re not likely to see Boston-LA in Jack Nicholson’s lifetime. It’s an upset we’re even seeing them now considering the past few months.

Don't be a drama queen. The Celtics have a ton of cap room after this season and the Lakers are still the Lakers. Both teams can find a way to put quality teams on the floor after this season.

A couple of hours later at the Staples Center, Bryant’s scoring instincts produced 38 points and a 104-100 win over Denver. Since Kobe arrived in 1997, the Lakers have never lost a series they led 2-0.

They did come close to losing the Denver series after David Whitley wrote this column.

It would be like the Grateful Dead getting back together for a final concert.

Considering Jerry Garcia is dead, no thank you.

If you didn’t like the Grateful Dead, substitute Beatles or Led Zeppelin or Elvis and TCB Band.

Two of the Beatles are dead and Elvis got fat even in the 1970's. Not sure I'm interested.

These examples of bands David Whitley wants to see reunite only goes to help prove my ponit. What he fails to see is that things change. The 2012 Beatles aren't the 1968 Beatles. The 2012 Lakers are not the 2008 Lakers. The 2012 Celtics are not the 1987 Celtics. Simply because the Beatles are up on stage doesn't mean it would be a vintage 1966 performance. Things are different now. A Lakers-Celtics series (besides annoying 50% of NBA fans) wouldn't be a replay of even the 1987 NBA Finals. Circumstances have changed and nostalgia can't necessarily guarantee an exciting series.

The NBA Finals came of age when Magic threw down his baby sky hook and Kevin McHale threw down Kurt Rambis. To players like Durant, Russell and Chamberlain might as well be Lewis and Clark.

None of these players would be playing in the 2012 NBA Finals. How about Avery Bradley guarding Ramon Sessions? How about Steve Blake bouncing off the bench and taking on Keyon Dooling? Who can wait to see Devin Ebanks and Mickael Pietrus going head-to-head?

I realize none of the aforementioned gentlemen would be playing in this year’s Finals.

Do you realize this? I'm not sure David Whitley does realize this. He seems to pine for a series and epic matchup that may not exist anymore.

But it’d be nice to see the two greatest franchises in NBA history clash one more time.

And they will play again. Just hopefully not this year.

“Too old for this,” Pierce tweeted after Tuesday’s game. “I need a bed right now!!”

I can hardly contain the excitement running through my veins at the idea of an NBA Finals matchup where the winner is whichever team gets to 80 points first and both teams' best players are slightly banged up.

Just one more time, wouldn’t you like to see Nicholson’s sideline smirk and hear “Beat LA!”

“Beat Oklahoma City!” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

How about "Beat the Heat?" That sounds pretty good, no?

-A guy who writes for Bleacher Report says he knows the real reason the Kentucky-Indiana rivalry ended. Spoiler alert: The author says the rivalry ended because Kentucky is afraid of playing the same Indiana Hoosiers program that has two Final Four appearances since 1987. In a completely-and-utterly-related development, the author is a Indiana Hoosiers fan. Apparently making one Sweet 16 has given Hoosiers fans such confidence they now believe other teams, even those who have made two straight Final Fours and just won the national title, will be running scared from them. This is why Hoosiers fans can't have nice things.

The series is over due to Kentucky wanting a neutral court matchup every year in Indianapolis and Louisville.

The horror! A neutral court matchup! Has any other college basketball program ever been so bold as to ask for this? Why would the Kentucky-Indiana games be played on a neutral court? There's no historical precedence for this...other than the fact the Kentucky-Indiana series was played on a neutral court from 1991-2005. Nevermind there is a history of the series being played on a neutral court, playing on a neutral court in 2012 would ruin the series forever.

Last year’s game on December 10 in Bloomington wasn’t just one of the best games in this historic series, but it was one of the best college basketball games of all-time.

It was probably the greatest game in the history of basketball games. The greatest game in the history of sports. The author's opinion is in no way affected by the fact the Hoosiers won this game on a last second field goal and he is a Hoosiers fan.

That atmosphere was special.

And here I heard global warming, chlorofluorocarbons and ultraviolet rays were killing the atmosphere. Turns out this isn't true. John Calipari is the one killing the special atmosphere.

Think how pumped the students and fans that cheer on the Big Blue would have been to have Indiana coming to town with arguably the No. 1 team at that point.

(The English language and the God of Sentence Structure begins weeping violently)

You ever get the feeling Indiana Hoosiers fans are going to ride this projected preseason #1 thing hard? I am pretty sure this is all college basketball fans will hear about. Indiana is the preseason #1 team! That means they win the National Championship automatically, right?

You wouldn’t have that atmosphere if it were played in Louisville.

It would still be a ruckus environment, just a more evenly dispersed environment with fans of both teams being loud.

Coach Calipari has other motives, and I think he’s scared of what Indiana has become with everyone coming back to the team and the recruiting classes the Hoosiers have coming in.

Kentucky is coming off a national title and I'm pretty sure they aren't scared of Indiana's recruiting class since Kentucky's class is considered better than Indiana's class in every single class ranking by every single ranking system I looked up.

Maxpreps

Rivals

ESPN

Scout.com

But no, I'm sure Kentucky and John Calipari are scared of the recruiting class Indiana has which is universally considered to be inferior to Kentucky's recruiting class.

It’s hard for one-and-done’s to gel and beat a better all around “team” that early in the season.

Even though the one-and-done's Kentucky had for 2011-2012 only lost one time before March of this year...to Indiana. They'll never gel in time. Of course the author was just trumping how Kentucky is scared of Indiana's recruiting class. I'm guessing he believes these freshmen don't need time to gel because they aren't going to be one-and-done, but Kentucky's freshmen do need time to gel because they are one-and-done players? This makes not of sense. Not to mention, Kentucky isn't going to be a team made completely of one-and-done players next year. Jarrod Polson, Jon Hood, and Ryan Harrow should play a big role on the team too. Yes, they will be mostly freshmen led, but that doesn't mean Kentucky won't be much of a "team."

The one-and-dones don’t have the time to get used to playing with each other in that type of atmosphere and will lose 90 percent of the time.

Yes, they will lose 90% of the time. It's science. It's science based on the author talking out of his ass. Apparently the author doesn't realize college basketball teams practice and the Kentucky players will probably be used to playing with each other in December. In fact, last year's one-and-done Kentucky team beat an experienced (they started the exact same starting lineup as the year before) UNC team in December 2011. Of course, don't let actual proof this 90% number is bullshit change your mind, let's just stick with the number since it is so scientific. Not to mention, the UK-Indiana game would be in Kentucky, so the crowd would be on Kentucky's side.

Calipari isn’t dumb and knows that. He doesn’t want to lose and knows in this series he will be a loser way more than a winner with the type of players he recruits.

The type of player Calipari recruits being talented, NBA-ready, and able to win the National Title?

Kentucky had way better players as six of them are off to the NBA.

I need a comma and a complete sentence transplant now! STAT!

(The God of Sentence Structure strikes down Bleacher Report in a fit of rage)

They were too young and inexperienced to win in Bloomington in that atmosphere last season.

So naturally this means a team full of completely different Kentucky players will also fail to win in a tough atmosphere. Every single basketball team is the exact same every single year. Let's call a spade a spade. Indiana won on a last second buzzer beater. Let's take down the bragging and rhetoric about how young Kentucky was down a notch or two. It isn't like Indiana handed Kentucky their ass on a silver platter. Indiana played a great game at home and won at the last second. Kentucky later beat Indiana in the 2012 NCAA Tournament on a neutral court.

Once both teams met again in Atlanta in the Sweet 16, Kentucky’s team had more time to gel and look at the result.

I'm guessing our author, who is clearly a crack college basketball analyst, believes the Indiana team did not need time to gel to incorporate Cody Zeller into the offense last year, while the Kentucky team did need time to gel to incorporate each freshmen into the offense. Kentucky just didn't have time to gel. This clearly explains why Kentucky never lost before or after the December loss to Indiana until the SEC Championship Game and beat the #1 team in the nation (UNC) and an eventual Final Four team (Louisville) during that time.

Calipari is afraid of losing to Indiana over and over again and with the game coming so early in the season, he won’t play them and that’s why this series is over.

Nail, meet the hammer that will hit you on the head. John Calipari is scared of playing Indiana. This is why he scheduled a game to be played in Indiana this year and scheduled a home-and-home series with UNC over the past two seasons. John Calipari is very, very scared. That's why he didn't want to play Indiana in Kentucky, but wanted to play on a neutral floor. He didn't want to lose to Indiana again and fear his team receiving motivation from a loss, much like the 2011-2012 team received, which eventually led to a national title. John Calipari hates national titles.

Coach Calipari has put an black eye on every program he’s coached at with asterisks next their respective seasons,

Well, I knew a comment like that would be coming at some point. A fan of the Indiana Hoosiers program run by such a completely and utterly clean coach and with no recent history of NCAA violations definitely has room to talk on this issue.

and now he’s put a black eye on this rivalry and provided a big loss to college basketball.

Thanks a lot Coach Calipari. Now there are only 122 other NCAA college basketball games I am looking forward to next year.

This rivalry has been around for years and one guy just single-handedly ended it.

I know. It's not like this rivalry has a history of playing on a neutral floor. How dare Calipari want the UK-Indiana rivalry to be played on a neutral court...except from 1991-2005 when the UK-Indiana games were played on a neutral floor. I'm guessing the author thought the rivalry was ruined then as well.

Monday, April 23, 2012

7 comments College Basketball Forever as We Know It Has Ended! Bleacher Report Has Five Reasons Why!

I've come to the conclusion in order to write for Bleacher Report you need to either (a) be physically breathing and/or (b) know how to use a computer to write words in English. The ability to complete, coherent sentences are preferred, but not required. This Bleacher Report article claims the Kentucky National Championship was bad for college basketball for five reasons. Not six reasons. Not four reasons...but five reasons. His reasoning sucks because it focuses entirely on generalizations based on no other college basketball seasons except for the 2011-2012 season. The reasoning used in this article completely ignores the make-up of teams prior to the 2011-2012 season who won the NCAA Championship.

Let's start the slideshow!

After over a decade of failed attempts to reach the national title, Kentucky finally steps back into the circle of champions.

What a great intro. Very succinct and quick to the point. This will be the highlight of this slideshow. It's all downhill from here.

Boasting one of the youngest, most talented squads to ever cut down the nets, the college basketball community is, more or less, stunned by how truly potent this team turned out to be.

Stunned in that Kentucky was considered to be the second best team in the country in the 2011-2012 preseason poll. Stunned in that Kentucky beat the #1 team in the country back in December, was the #1 team in the country for a good portion of the season and was the #1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament. But yes, we were all stunned the best team in the country ended up being the best team in the country. Who saw it coming?

Watching one of the nation's most powerful programs return to prominence is inspiring within itself, yet I can't help but feel a pang of disgust at how bland their route to the title, not to mention the tournament overall, turned out.

It wasn't the most exciting of tournaments, but that isn't Kentucky's fault. The blandness was because the best highlights tend to happen during the first two rounds of the tournament and the first two rounds for the 2012 NCAA Tournament were clear of any buzzer-beating game winning shots.

As the dust surrounding the finality of March Madness begins to settle, we can begin to truly analyze the conclusion and resulting implications of the Wildcats hoisting the National Championship.

(Begins analyzing) Yep, there are zero implications. Thanks for playing.

Here are my five reasons why Calipari leading Kentucky back into the light of title contention is bad for college basketball.

Here are my five reasons you are wrong:

1. Every college basketball year is different. Next year a upperclassman-led team could win the NCAA title.

2. One year's national title doesn't guarantee a next year's national title. So it isn't like Kentucky's title is definitely going to lead to another title, which would obviously further ruin college basketball.

3. Kentucky is a high profile program and the re-emergence of high profile programs isn't bad for college basketball and its popularity.

4. The Wildcats were in contention for the national title during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons and this didn't ruin college basketball. It's interesting how the Wildcats have been in contention for the national title over the last three seasons and this hasn't hurt college basketball, yet the year they win the title, all of a sudden college basketball is in immediate trouble. Sort of torpedoes the idea college basketball will go downhill when Kentucky wins the title doesn't it?

5. The very premise one team's rise is bad for college basketball is just very stupid.

No One Appreciates Too Much Chalk


As a college basketball fan, my favorite part of the entire postseason is knowing that, in all likelihood, there will be some surprises.

You want upsets? Norfolk State over Missouri. Lehigh over Duke. Vanderbilt winning a first round game. You're welcome.

I mean, they don't call it March Madness for the alliteration alone, right?

Well, no they really do call it that because it is catchy because of the alliteration.

To put it simply, I love watching the underdog win.

Well then you must have enjoyed two out of the last three Final Fours where Butler has made the championship game twice and VCU made the Final Four. Again, you're welcome. What's the problem again?

Our country was even formed on such a basis with the Continental Army essentially taking down the all-powerful British Army.

While this is true, the Continental Army had homefield advantage which brought the all-powerful British Army's "all-powerfulness" down a bit. The Continental Army knew the lay of the land in the colonies which allowed them an advantage over the British Army. The Continental Army also had the advantage of the non-Continental Army colonists being willing to help out the cause by providing housing and other necessities, even though the idea of an army wasn't entirely popular among the colonists. The war was like Syracuse losing to an average or above-average mid-major on that mid-major's home court. The Continental Army was the underdog, but they simply wanted it more.

Therefore, when the No. 1 overall seed takes home the title, the country is at the point where we're just begging for the "madness" to stop.

No we are not. Don't generalize the entire country's reaction simply because it reflects your own personal point of view. The country most likely simply wants to see exciting games and exciting players.

We desired to see the best of the best trip up halfway through this whole ordeal and provide a champion who wasn't the top ranked team going in.

Which happens more often that not. So the outlying year where the #1 overall seed wins the national title is the exception and not the rule. I see no reason why this would change in the future.

It's just plain boring, and if the trend continues, who's truly going to want to watch the sport anymore?

I will. It also doesn't matter if it is boring because this trend won't continue. I don't think the one year the #1 overall seed wins the national title even counts as a trend.

I want to play a game. Let's see, since the 2002-2003 season, which teams were ranked #1 in the ESPN/USA Today poll OR teams ranked as the #1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament (data since 2003-2004 season) and ended up winning the national title.

2002-2003: Syracuse (Arizona was preseason #1)
2003-2004: Connecticut (UConn was preseason #1 and Kentucky was #1 overall seed)
2004-2005: UNC (Kansas was preseason #1 and Illinois was #1 overall seed)
2005-2006: Florida (Duke was preseason #1 and #1 overall seed)
2006-2007: Florida (Florida was preseason #1 and #1 overall seed)
2007-2008: Kansas (UNC was preseason #1 and #1 overall seed)
2008-2009: UNC (UNC was preseason #1 and Louisville was #1 overall seed)
2009-2010: Duke (Kansas was preseason #1 and #1 overall seed)
2010-2011: UConn (Duke was preseason #1 and Ohio State was #1 overall seed)
2011-2012: Kentucky (UNC was preseason #1 and Kentucky was #1 overall seed)

So since the 2002-2003 season, four teams (including this year's Kentucky team) won the national title and were ranked either #1 in the ESPN/USA Today preseason poll or were the #1 overall seed in the tournament. Out of nine NCAA Tournaments since 2002-2003, the perceived best team in the country either at the beginning of the year or immediately before the NCAA Tournament did not win the national title 50% of the time. So I really doubt this "trend" of the "best" team winning the NCAA title will occur every single year. It is fun to take one year of data and try to make a big deal out of it though, isn't it?

Discourages Cinderella Success

So "Cinderella" teams are going to be discouraged by Kentucky winning the national title during the 2011-2012 season? I can't help but believe this is pure bullshit.

Last season it was the 11-seed VCU and the year before it was the 12-seed Butler. Most every postseason has at least one, but this past year we had...fourth-seeded Louisville?

Again, you are taking one year's worth of data and then trying to make generalizations that completely ignore data from past years. You can not do this and expect to be making a good point. As the author just admitted, previous seasons had double-digit ranked teams making the Final Four. In fact, since the 2005-2006 season three double-digit ranked teams have made the Final Four. Since that time, three preseason #1 or #1 overall seeds have won the NCAA Tournament. Cinderellas don't get discouraged and want to take on the powerhouses. That's why the NCAA Tournament is so exciting.

Stop taking one year's worth of data and ignoring the data of previous seasons in order to pretend there is a trend. There is no trend.

When the powerhouses take over, there is no room for the Cinderella squads.

So why haven't "Cinderella" teams been discouraged over the last ten years of the NCAA Tournament when powerhouse teams dominated the college basketball landscape? It isn't like powerhouse teams didn't win the national title all through the 1990's. Why would "Cinderellas" get discouraged after the 2011-2012 NCAA Tournament when they haven't been discouraged over the last two decades when powerhouse teams won the National title? This point by the author doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, the whole "March Madness" money-making system is based upon the continued success of underdogs,

I'd like to see proof of this. Of course, this is Bleacher Report. We don't get an editor looking at each column before it is posted most times, much less any factual backing for the author's claims.

and when they don't pull through due to powerhouses becoming too powerful, the entire network collapses.

This reasoning doesn't explain why the network didn't collapse as the following teams won the National Championship since 1980.

Louisville
Indiana
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Georgetown
Villanova
Louisville
Indiana
Kansas
Michigan
UNLV
Duke
Duke
UNC
Arkansas
UCLA
Kentucky
Arizona
Kentucky
UConn (ugh)
Michigan State
Duke
Maryland
Syracuse
UConn
UNC
Florida
Florida
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
UConn
Kentucky

How many "Cinderellas" you see in there? NC State and Villanova. Those are still teams from big conferences. The system didn't collapse over the least 30 years when powerhouse teams won the NCAA title and the system isn't going to magically collapse after Kentucky wins the 2011-2012 title.

Top-Notch Recruiting, Not Coaching Wins Titles


This has been true for several decades. So my question, as it has been all along while reading this slideshow, is why is top-notch recruiting all of a sudden part how the system will all come crashing down?

However, it's more than prudent to conclude that he is easily one of the best recruiters this sport has ever seen. When he was at UMass, Calipari pulled in Naismith College Player of the Year Marcus Camby who ended up leading his team to a Final Four.

That's just one player on those two UMass teams. Who else was on that UMass team? Don't look it up. Try to guess. Who else was on the two UMass teams that made the Elite Eight and Final Four in back-to-back seasons with Marcus Camby as the center? I'll give you no hints, but tell you only one player on either of those teams besides Camby were drafted. There weren't a ton of NBA-type players on those two UMass teams, yet those two teams made the Elite Eight and Final Four. So great recruiting is very helpful to a team, but a great recruiting class isn't going to guarantee a national title from here on out simply because Kentucky had a great recruiting class that won a national title.

While at Memphis, he pulled in superstars such as Tyreke Evans, Chris Douglas-Roberts and Joey Dorsey on a consistent basis. There was also this point guard from Chicago named Derrick Rose...maybe you've heard of him?

How many national titles did those Memphis teams with Evans, Douglas-Roberts, Dorsey and Rose win? Zero. So Calipari's top notch recruiting AND top notch coaching wins games for his teams. Believe it or not, a coach can't just roll the ball out to center court and start counting the national titles that follow.

Essentially, it's Calipari's top-notch recruiting and not his coaching that has him and his team on top of the college basketball world, but is that truly the direction we want our sport to be heading in?

Yes, that's where we want to sport to be headed because that's mostly where it has been for the past three decades. The 2008-2009 National Champion UNC team had the third-ranked and seventh ranked power forward, fourth-ranked point guard, and seventh ranked in the 2008 class. They also had the top-ranked shooting guard, top-ranked point guard and the fifth-rated center from the 2006 class. That team also had the third-rated power forward and seventh-rated small forward from the 2005 class. That's a well-recruited class that won a national title. How come the author isn't seemingly bothered by this?

The 2007-2008 Kansas team had the seven-ranked center from the 2007 class, the second-ranked power forward and second-ranked point guard from the 2006 class, the fourth-ranked small forward and second-ranked point guard from the 2005 class and the sixth-ranked shooting guard and sixth-ranked center from the 2004 class. Is the author bothered the core of that team were mostly highly recruited players?

I'm just picking teams at random. This can go for nearly any NCAA Championship team. Top notch recruiting is important, but coaching is just as important. The 2011-2012 championship by Kentucky doesn't set a new precedent.

A universe where the maturation of high school prospects is a thing of the past and programs only pick up recruits to play for one or two years, basing their worth not on potential, but talent alone?

What the hell does this mean? Is the author saying college basketball teams shouldn't pick up recruits based on talent and should only rely on potential? That seems silly since the object is to win games. The 2011-2012 Kentucky team had talent and potential. There weren't finished products on that team. There are still going to be NCAA Champion teams that feature seniors. That won't change.

Prevents Emergence of Non-Traditional Programs

This is really the same argument as the "Cinderella" argument, but whatever.

As with every sport, there are power programs that consistently dominate over the course of decades. For college basketball, those few programs include UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, UConn, North Carolina, Duke and Michigan State.

Indiana hasn't won a national title since 1987 and has been to the Elite Eight three times since then. I wouldn't call them dominant in any fashion.

These "outsiders" work to consistently jeopardize the big boys' dominance, hoping to someday join the ranks of the elite programs.

Kentucky winning the national title isn't going to prohibit these "outsiders" to join the ranks of the elite programs. The fate of "outsiders" trying to join the ranks of the elite programs hasn't changed magically in the last year.

With the strong recruiting styles and powerful play of Kentucky and their brethren, there may never be another real shot for the smaller programs to seize a spot amongst the elite.

Shouldn't this article be called "The Fate of Mid-Majors and Why They Will Never Compete for the National Title on a Yearly Basis"? That seems to be more of what the author is trying to say. Instead the article focuses why this specific championship by Kentucky is bad for college basketball, when everything that is said here could be said for nearly every other national champion over the last decade.

There are 68 teams that enter the tournament every year and I would hate to know that everyone, save the powerhouses mentioned above, truly have no chance to compete for the title.

I guess Butler had no chance to compete for the title with the back-to-back national championship game appearances? So VCU had no chance when they made the Final Four last year? This past year it seems the powerhouse teams and conferences did well in the NCAA Tournament, but this hasn't always been the case over the past 5-6 years. Of course the author seems unable to have any sort of perspective on this issue and insists on only using 2011-2012 data to made broad generalizations about the future of college basketball.

Does Experience Mean Nothing?

This isn't a reason, but instead is a question.

The Wildcats brought home the National Championship under the guise of five underclassmen, all of who contributed a massive amount to the team's success.

The 2000-2001 Duke National Championship team was led by three sophomores and a freshman. The 2002-2003 Syracuse National Championship team was led by three freshmen, two sophomores, and a senior. I could go on, but you get my point. This isn't the first time underclassmen have contributed a massive amount to a championship team's success.

When matched up against some of the more experienced teams in the nation, Kentucky dominated with ease, crushing the opposition despite their obvious disadvantage.

What "obvious disadvantage" are we talking about? The "obvious disadvantage" of being underclassmen? If being an underclassmen is such an obvious disadvantage then why does the author seem concerned about experience meaning nothing? Clearly, experience means something if he think being an upperclassman is an obvious advantage. Isn't it possible this Kentucky team just happened to be the best team in the country this year (well, the best team since UNC lost Dexter Strickland, Leslie McDonald, and Kendall Marshall for the NCAA Tournament)? I think it is silly to say the Kentucky victory is bad for college basketball because it means "experience means nothing." College teams have won national titles with freshmen and sophomores playing key roles prior to this year and it wasn't seen as bad for college basketball prior to this year.

When taking on Kansas, Thomas Robinson and Tyshawn Taylor stood no match for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Anthony Davis.

Actually Jeff Withey did a pretty good job of shutting Anthony Davis down offensively.

Against Louisville, Kyle Kuric and Peyton Siva were completely thrown off their game as Marquis Teague and Doron Lamb owned the court.

"Owned the court?" Really? Let's check out the numbers from this game (which you will see is something the author didn't do himself):

Kyle Kuric: 3-8 from the field, 7 points, 5 rebounds, 1 steal.
Peyton Siva: 4-11 from the field, 11 points, 3 rebounds, 3 assists.

Combined numbers: 7-19 from the field, 18 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 steal.

Marquis Teague: 4-8 from the field, 8 points, 2 rebounds, 1 steal, 5 assists.
Doron Lamb: 4-9 from the field, 10 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist.

Combined numbers: 8-17 from the field, 18 points, 3 rebounds, 6 assists, 1 steal.

If the author thinks Lamb/Teague owned the court over Kuric/Siva then he didn't watch the game nor did he do any research in preparation for writing this article. I would guess probably both are true.

Experience was easily trumped, it seemed, by the loads of talent that the Wildcats controlled.

And college basketball is a competition between two teams to see which one has the most talent, and how they use that talent, during a certain game. College basketball isn't a competition to see which team has the oldest average age of the players on the team.

Teams with young players have won the National Championship before and teams with young players will win the National Championship again. This isn't necessarily bad for college basketball.