(03-27-2017 11:51 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:17 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Coach Cal is a GREAT salesman and recruiter. I totally agree with you.

But, if you're trying to tell me he's ANYWHERE near a Coach K (or even Huggins), there's no point in a discussion.

It just depends on how you value that?

Should a great coach be able to meet seed expectations? Should a great coach be able to get a 2 or 3 seed out of the 1st weekend.

In the last 10 times Coach K has been a 2 or 3 seed, he has failed to get out of the 1st weekend SIX of those times. That is an abysmal failure rate (60%) for a 2 or 3 seed.

Cal has been a 2 or 3 seed 11 times in his career. He's gotten out of the first weekend NINE of those time for a success rate of 82%).

OK. You win.

Cal is the best.

You don't have to get super defensive about it. I bolded a statement above about ONE way in which to quantify that belief.

But, do you not believe that a great coach should be able to have his more talented team beat less talented teams more often than not?

Or, put another way, how would you explain the idea that K hasn't played to seed well and factually fails more often than succeeds in the first weekend as a 2 or 3 seed?

(03-27-2017 11:51 AM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:31 AM)tiger2000 Wrote:  somewhat related: cal speaks out against grad transfers:

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo.../99618196/

Parenting is a *****

No regrats

(03-27-2017 11:58 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:51 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:17 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Coach Cal is a GREAT salesman and recruiter. I totally agree with you.

But, if you're trying to tell me he's ANYWHERE near a Coach K (or even Huggins), there's no point in a discussion.

It just depends on how you value that?

Should a great coach be able to meet seed expectations? Should a great coach be able to get a 2 or 3 seed out of the 1st weekend.

In the last 10 times Coach K has been a 2 or 3 seed, he has failed to get out of the 1st weekend SIX of those times. That is an abysmal failure rate (60%) for a 2 or 3 seed.

Cal has been a 2 or 3 seed 11 times in his career. He's gotten out of the first weekend NINE of those time for a success rate of 82%).

OK. You win.

Cal is the best.

You don't have to get super defensive about it. I bolded a statement above about ONE way in which to quantify that belief.

But, do you not believe that a great coach should be able to have his more talented team beat less talented teams more often than not?

Or, put another way, how would you explain the idea that K hasn't played to seed well and factually fails more often than succeeds in the first weekend as a 2 or 3 seed?

Not defensive, at all.

We just see things completely differently.

Cal may not be better than K but Cal has been to a final 4 and multiple elite 8s at both UMass and Memphis. The criticisms of his coaching are mind boggling

(03-27-2017 12:07 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:58 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:51 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:17 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Coach Cal is a GREAT salesman and recruiter. I totally agree with you.

But, if you're trying to tell me he's ANYWHERE near a Coach K (or even Huggins), there's no point in a discussion.

It just depends on how you value that?

Should a great coach be able to meet seed expectations? Should a great coach be able to get a 2 or 3 seed out of the 1st weekend.

In the last 10 times Coach K has been a 2 or 3 seed, he has failed to get out of the 1st weekend SIX of those times. That is an abysmal failure rate (60%) for a 2 or 3 seed.

Cal has been a 2 or 3 seed 11 times in his career. He's gotten out of the first weekend NINE of those time for a success rate of 82%).

OK. You win.

Cal is the best.

You don't have to get super defensive about it. I bolded a statement above about ONE way in which to quantify that belief.

But, do you not believe that a great coach should be able to have his more talented team beat less talented teams more often than not?

Or, put another way, how would you explain the idea that K hasn't played to seed well and factually fails more often than succeeds in the first weekend as a 2 or 3 seed?

Not defensive, at all.

We just see things completely differently.

I'm trying to present my side with an actual thought process.

Are you just saying "K is better because I say he's better and everyone knows he's better"?

I'm just having a hard time with jiving the early exits and failing to meet seed with the idea that dude is the Brett Hart of coaching.

I think trying to win it all with mostly freshman, no matter how talented, is a very difficult task.

My main gripe with Calipari if I was a Kentucky fan is not having enough of a foundation of experienced players as well.

And it's not like UNC was chopped liver either. They were the #1 seed after all.

The player ratings/rankings for each roster aren't too different.

If you go look at the teams he loses to in the tournament, they are usually pretty talented overall and have upperclassmen experience.

(03-27-2017 12:10 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I'm trying to present my side with an actual thought process.

Are you just saying "K is better because I say he's better and everyone knows he's better"?

I'm just having a hard time with jiving the early exits and failing to meet seed with the idea that dude is the Brett Hart of coaching.

A lot of folks get caught up in the straw man argument of - with that kind of talent, he should never lose - which is just not considering the reality of college basketball.

(03-27-2017 11:11 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:03 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 08:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:17 PM)Crazier Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:07 PM)Unionman76 Wrote:  Never in the field of basketball was so little done with so much talent

Pastner? Cal has a championship and goes on nice runs in the tournament every now and then.

Last 12 seasons:

Elite 8
Elite 8
National Runner Up
Sweet 16
Elite 8
Final Four
National Champions
NIT
National Runner Up
Final Four
Second Round
Elite 8

That is three national title games and nine Elite 8 or better in last 12 years.

(03-26-2017 10:17 PM)Crazier Wrote:  Granted any other coach would probably have 3 championships with the talent he gets.

In that same 12 years, Coach K has won two NC's. Also been knocked out in the 1st weekend 5 of last 12 years.

He's been to Elite 8 or beyond three of last 12 years. Duke hasn't "played to seed" eight of the last 12 years in the NCAA.

Cal has had some great success, no doubt.

That said, he's had the best team and #1 recruiting class numerous times. And, he has 1 title to show for it.

Give Coach K, Huggy Bear, Dana Altman, and about a dozen others his roster for the past 15 seasons and every one of them would have 3 or more titles.

They can't get those players though. So the point is moot. K gets those players and has 1 more title during this same period. Self and Roy get those same players and neither has a title during that period. I guess Roy and Self are just better coaches because they never "left" us.

?
Self obviously has one.
Roy has 2.

(03-27-2017 12:10 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:07 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:58 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:51 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  It just depends on how you value that?

Should a great coach be able to meet seed expectations? Should a great coach be able to get a 2 or 3 seed out of the 1st weekend.

In the last 10 times Coach K has been a 2 or 3 seed, he has failed to get out of the 1st weekend SIX of those times. That is an abysmal failure rate (60%) for a 2 or 3 seed.

Cal has been a 2 or 3 seed 11 times in his career. He's gotten out of the first weekend NINE of those time for a success rate of 82%).

OK. You win.

Cal is the best.

You don't have to get super defensive about it. I bolded a statement above about ONE way in which to quantify that belief.

But, do you not believe that a great coach should be able to have his more talented team beat less talented teams more often than not?

Or, put another way, how would you explain the idea that K hasn't played to seed well and factually fails more often than succeeds in the first weekend as a 2 or 3 seed?

Not defensive, at all.

We just see things completely differently.

I'm trying to present my side with an actual thought process.

Are you just saying "K is better because I say he's better and everyone knows he's better"?

I'm just having a hard time with jiving the early exits and failing to meet seed with the idea that dude is the Brett Hart of coaching.

Brett sucked anyway

Ric Flair wooooo!!!!

(03-27-2017 12:12 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:11 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:03 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 08:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:17 PM)Crazier Wrote:  Pastner? Cal has a championship and goes on nice runs in the tournament every now and then.

Last 12 seasons:

Elite 8
Elite 8
National Runner Up
Sweet 16
Elite 8
Final Four
National Champions
NIT
National Runner Up
Final Four
Second Round
Elite 8

That is three national title games and nine Elite 8 or better in last 12 years.

(03-26-2017 10:17 PM)Crazier Wrote:  Granted any other coach would probably have 3 championships with the talent he gets.

In that same 12 years, Coach K has won two NC's. Also been knocked out in the 1st weekend 5 of last 12 years.

He's been to Elite 8 or beyond three of last 12 years. Duke hasn't "played to seed" eight of the last 12 years in the NCAA.

Cal has had some great success, no doubt.

That said, he's had the best team and #1 recruiting class numerous times. And, he has 1 title to show for it.

Give Coach K, Huggy Bear, Dana Altman, and about a dozen others his roster for the past 15 seasons and every one of them would have 3 or more titles.

They can't get those players though. So the point is moot. K gets those players and has 1 more title during this same period. Self and Roy get those same players and neither has a title during that period. I guess Roy and Self are just better coaches because they never "left" us.

?
Self obviously has one.
Roy has 2.

THAT period is the 8 years Cal has been at Kentucky

Go back and read

(03-27-2017 12:12 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:10 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I'm trying to present my side with an actual thought process.

Are you just saying "K is better because I say he's better and everyone knows he's better"?

I'm just having a hard time with jiving the early exits and failing to meet seed with the idea that dude is the Brett Hart of coaching.

A lot of folks get caught up in the straw man argument of - with that kind of talent, he should never lose - which is just not considering the reality of college basketball.

And folks seem to forget the last three years Duke has been 1,1, and 2 in the recruiting rankings (and #3 this year). Say what you want about Cal, it's crazier to think K's team this year has better recruits and recruits he had held onto longer--and still sh!t the bed in the second round.

(03-27-2017 11:31 AM)tiger2000 Wrote:  somewhat related: cal speaks out against grad transfers:

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo.../99618196/

Cal. Always working an angle. It's who he is.

Not sure the angle in this case - but pretty sure he hasn't developed a sense of awareness of harm of smaller schools when players are recruited away from them.

(03-27-2017 11:54 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:34 AM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:27 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:12 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:10 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I understand your logic, BUT the fact remains it sorta flies in the face of reality when you look and note that K has failed to get out of the 1st weekend in 5 of the last 12 seasons as a 6,2,2,3, and 2 seed.

The argument is "give K overwhelming talent and he will prevail." Certainly being a 2 or 3 seed in a game vs. a 14, 13, or 7 seed would be one where he had an overwhelming talent advantage, yet he still lost--several times.

K has failed to take Duke to seed expectations 8 of the last 12 year. Obviously, being the higher seed already implies one is the "better" team and the fact Duke is historically a top 5 recruiter, and the institutional and historical advantages are tremendous. Yet, 67% of the time K doesn't meet his seed expectation.

Coach K - 5 titles.
Coach Cal - 1 title.

True. He's also been at it a lot longer. In the last 10-12 years, Cal has been much more consistent in the tourney. K is a risk/reward bet. Odd to say that, but the results bear that out.

Since 2006:
Cal
Average seed: 2.27
Average wins in tourney: 3.55
Final Four+: 5
1st weekend exits: 1

Since 2006:
K
Average seed: 2.25
Average wins in tourney: 2.08
Final Four+: 2
1st weekend exits: 5

I'll be interested on how Cal adapts to a much tougher SEC in the future. He's not going to keep getting #1 seeds with a couple of conference losses a year.

We might have seen peak Cal.

He will still dominate. The sec had a good tournament. One good tournament don't make a conference

True. They were top heavy like they always are. South Carolina's run does not magically make all those bottom feeders any better.

(03-27-2017 12:20 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:31 AM)tiger2000 Wrote:  somewhat related: cal speaks out against grad transfers:

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo.../99618196/

Cal. Always working an angle. It's who he is.

Not sure the angle in this case - but pretty sure he hasn't developed a sense of awareness of harm of smaller schools when players are recruited away from them.

Nothing is more hypocritical than the $7M a year coach, under contract for years, who could become another team's coach tomorrow, not supporting a student who has graduated being able to play at another school of his choice.

(03-27-2017 12:14 PM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:12 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:11 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:03 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 08:35 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Last 12 seasons:

Elite 8
Elite 8
National Runner Up
Sweet 16
Elite 8
Final Four
National Champions
NIT
National Runner Up
Final Four
Second Round
Elite 8

That is three national title games and nine Elite 8 or better in last 12 years.


In that same 12 years, Coach K has won two NC's. Also been knocked out in the 1st weekend 5 of last 12 years.

He's been to Elite 8 or beyond three of last 12 years. Duke hasn't "played to seed" eight of the last 12 years in the NCAA.

Cal has had some great success, no doubt.

That said, he's had the best team and #1 recruiting class numerous times. And, he has 1 title to show for it.

Give Coach K, Huggy Bear, Dana Altman, and about a dozen others his roster for the past 15 seasons and every one of them would have 3 or more titles.

They can't get those players though. So the point is moot. K gets those players and has 1 more title during this same period. Self and Roy get those same players and neither has a title during that period. I guess Roy and Self are just better coaches because they never "left" us.

?
Self obviously has one.
Roy has 2.

THAT period is the 8 years Cal has been at Kentucky

Go back and read

There is so much money to this post, I had to quote it for posterity.

I'd just love to see the majors of all these players that graduate in 3 years

(03-27-2017 12:20 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:12 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:10 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I'm trying to present my side with an actual thought process.

Are you just saying "K is better because I say he's better and everyone knows he's better"?

I'm just having a hard time with jiving the early exits and failing to meet seed with the idea that dude is the Brett Hart of coaching.

A lot of folks get caught up in the straw man argument of - with that kind of talent, he should never lose - which is just not considering the reality of college basketball.

And folks seem to forget the last three years Duke has been 1,1, and 2 in the recruiting rankings (and #3 this year). Say what you want about Cal, it's crazier to think K's team this year has better recruits and recruits he had held onto longer--and still sh!t the bed in the second round.

Ouch

(03-27-2017 12:30 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:20 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:12 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 12:10 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I'm trying to present my side with an actual thought process.

Are you just saying "K is better because I say he's better and everyone knows he's better"?

I'm just having a hard time with jiving the early exits and failing to meet seed with the idea that dude is the Brett Hart of coaching.

A lot of folks get caught up in the straw man argument of - with that kind of talent, he should never lose - which is just not considering the reality of college basketball.

And folks seem to forget the last three years Duke has been 1,1, and 2 in the recruiting rankings (and #3 this year). Say what you want about Cal, it's crazier to think K's team this year has better recruits and recruits he had held onto longer--and still sh!t the bed in the second round.

Ouch

The truth is uncomfortable for some.

(03-27-2017 12:27 PM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  I'd just love to see the majors of all these players that graduate in 3 years

University studies, communications, a few sports science.

Some seem to place more worth on recruiting over development/tactical coaching. Some seem to devalue it and don't consider it part of "coaching". I have the same opinion I had when Cal was here, and I heard others say he couldn't "coach".

Recruiting is a big part of coaching. He does that as well as anyone ever has, so he is a long way towards being a good coach before they play a single game.

Now, recruiting is not the only thing. Development and game-planning are also big parts. (I haven't figured out the mathematics on it yet.) So if you're only good at one facet, you will get beaten by those better at all facets.