University of Kentucky Men's Basketball -- 7th Edition

[5TimeWSChamps]

Also, Anthony Davis is coming up on Jimmy Kimmel now

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by WVRed

The Knicks are a prime example of everything you posted though. I would love the idea of Cal coaching Jeremy Lin, but could you imagine him and Carmelo Anthony?

Something to remember, though... Calipari and Carmelo have a very close mutual friend... Mr. William Wesley.

[Hoosier Red]

I agree with the eleven warriors to a point. Though I chuckle at their reference to "noted Calipari hater" when it was noted by a UK blog.

I think the holier than thou critics are overly sanctimonious. But I also believe that college basketball would be a lesser product if every team was built on 1 and 2 year players. There are many fans(myself included) who love college basketball but are indifferent at best to the NBA. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is no doubt the connection people feel to their university,(even if they didn't specifically attend), and when a player basically does a free agent one year contract, the connection is lessened.

It's not a big deal to the overall structure if you're talking about maybe one player per year. But if every team had even one player every year who was a one and done, it would not only drop the quality of play, but it would lower the connection.

Fortunately, there isn't that large of a supply of players both willing and able to go from high school to the NBA in one short year. Kentucky happened to have 3 of those along with at least one other player who was able but decided to come back for his sophomore year. Which gets to why everyone bemoans the supposed "lack of integrity." Everyone who's not Kentucky is jealous that Kentucky is getting a lion's share of these very talented players.

To take the ridiculous moralizing out of the argument; think of it this way. If the Reds decided to basically sign the top free agent players every year but the roster turned over 75% every year, the Reds might be a good team, but really the fans would lose some connection to the team. Part of the joy of being a sports fan is seeing a player grow and succeed. Part of the joy is being there through the down times and appreciating the successes that much more. If you bring in great players but they stay for only one year, you don't really get that.

So if you do that, the only solution is that you must win. And win big.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Congrats to UK. Great team. Great season.

Another coulda/shoulda/woulda/what if season for my Buckeyes. I'm used to it.

[improbus]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

I agree with the eleven warriors to a point. Though I chuckle at their reference to "noted Calipari hater" when it was noted by a UK blog.

I think the holier than thou critics are overly sanctimonious. But I also believe that college basketball would be a lesser product if every team was built on 1 and 2 year players. There are many fans(myself included) who love college basketball but are indifferent at best to the NBA. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is no doubt the connection people feel to their university,(even if they didn't specifically attend), and when a player basically does a free agent one year contract, the connection is lessened.

It's not a big deal to the overall structure if you're talking about maybe one player per year. But if every team had even one player every year who was a one and done, it would not only drop the quality of play, but it would lower the connection.

Fortunately, there isn't that large of a supply of players both willing and able to go from high school to the NBA in one short year. Kentucky happened to have 3 of those along with at least one other player who was able but decided to come back for his sophomore year. Which gets to why everyone bemoans the supposed "lack of integrity." Everyone who's not Kentucky is jealous that Kentucky is getting a lion's share of these very talented players.

To take the ridiculous moralizing out of the argument; think of it this way. If the Reds decided to basically sign the top free agent players every year but the roster turned over 75% every year, the Reds might be a good team, but really the fans would lose some connection to the team. Part of the joy of being a sports fan is seeing a player grow and succeed. Part of the joy is being there through the down times and appreciating the successes that much more. If you bring in great players but they stay for only one year, you don't really get that.

So if you do that, the only solution is that you must win. And win big.

Every time I hear an argument like this, I can't help but think of the selfishness of college sports fans (which I exhibit too every time I talk about UK, OU or my other affiliated institutions).

We have an undying loyalty to our school where we crafted four (or more) years of amazing (and sometimes hazy) memories. Our love and loyalty to the institution is almost always deep and our need for the institution as a gateway to the professional world is great. The students equation is very logical and makes sense. We provide the school with money and they provide us the the skills, maturity, and diploma needed to make make our way in the professional world.

But, the equation for a high profile football or basketball player is very different and much more lopsided (in favor of the school and fans). We fans get glory and hundreds of hours of entertainment out of the equation in return for our money. The coach can make millions of dollars a year. The school gets money and a much higher Q score.

What does the elite athlete get? What does Kentucky provide Michael Kidd Gilchrist? Fame? An education? The opportunity to make millions? Who got more out of his experience at UK, Gilchrist or the fans? He would make it into the NBA whether he went to college, played in Europe, went to the D League, or played for a year at a New Jersey YMCA (LeBron and Kobe did just fine without going to college.) So, how is that equation going to get better for Kidd Gilchrist if he has to stay two or three years? Would he improve more by staying at UK and playing inferior competition in college? Is Anthony Davis going to learn to score in the post by playing 6'8 centers? We complain that players should stay in college to improve their game. That seems like a highly flawed and selfish argument. Shouldn't we have sports academies instead? Shouldn't Anthony Davis be going to post player school instead of UK? What would happen if we had changed the basketball upbringing of Ricky Rubio and John Wall. Put John Wall on a team with J.C. Navarro, Jose Calderon, and the Gasol brothers at 16 instead of playing AAU. Put him on Barcelona with seasoned pros instead of DeMarcus Cousins and DeAndre Liggins and doesn't he have to become a different player? How is college benefitting these guys (even if it is 2 or 3 or even 4 years).

The final part of the equation is this. College sports are the gateway to the professional ranks (especially in basketball and football). Why? Is there any logical reason to connect higher education with a path to the pros? What do the two have to do with one another? Doesn't the connection lessen the both of them? Do we really believe that college sports are the best way to train athletes for the professional ranks? College sports are the means to get to the pros for two reasons.

1) They always have been
2) We (the fans) want it that way

What if our college sports looked like what they are purported to be? Actual Amatuer sports? What if we took all the pro prospects out of college hoops and college football and truly made it amateur instead of a means to an end? Would we watch? Would the product be so poor that we would lose interest?

Now, here is the dilemma. I love college sports. My arms still hurt from the amount of fist pumps I did during UK and OU's runs during the tournament. I am still furious with DJ Cooper for going 3 for 20. But here's the problem I run into: I'm not particularly sure why. It is an inferior product to the pros. I (and everyone else) knows that it is corrupt and flawed. But I still follow. Why? Is it loyalty to my schools? If so, then why am I drawn to games that have nothing to do with them? Is it the love of competition? Maybe... I don't know. All I know is that I'm basking in UK's title and I'm going to collect some money from my NCAA pool... I hate myself.

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by improbus

Every time I hear an argument like this, I can't help but think of the selfishness of college sports fans (which I exhibit too every time I talk about UK, OU or my other affiliated institutions).

We have an undying loyalty to our school where we crafted four (or more) years of amazing (and sometimes hazy) memories. Our love and loyalty to the institution is almost always deep and our need for the institution as a gateway to the professional world is great. The students equation is very logical and makes sense. We provide the school with money and they provide us the the skills, maturity, and diploma needed to make make our way in the professional world.

Good post, improbus. Some excellent points.

One thing I'd disagree with is the idea that "fans" think the way alumni do. Even alumni-fans.

I love my alma mater, both as an athletic program and an academic institution. I think one issue is that there are so many fans (even alumni-fans) who could care less or care far less about their schools as academic institutions than as athletic programs. They care about w's and l's above all.

I have no problem with a kid like John Wall, who made the most of his time as a UK student-athlete both on and off the court. He had a college experience. He wanted a college experience. And he got a good one, even if it was only for 7-8 months. I will have no problem with John Jenkins leaving my alma mater after 3 years without a degree for the same reasons (although I hope he comes back for his senior season and I'm relatively certain he'll find a way to complete his degree). The kid wanted and worked for a quality college experience, on the court, in the classroom and as a place for growing into an adult. And there are many others we could point to who have left early who have done things the right way while they were enrolled in school.

My issue is that quite a few of the "one-and-doners" (not just UK kids at all) have no business near a college campus. They're going to college because, more or less, they have to. I think kids should be able to enter the draft after high school if they so desire.

The way I view my alma mater is this: We, as alumni and fans, deserve a competitive team on the field/court because the resources are there for the coaches to bring in kids who can compete at the appropriate level (can't have always said this about Vandy football, but that is changing). But at the end of the day, the school also has to get kids who will be capable and worthy of having the same degree us alumni have. I guess I can't get over the idea that that's the whole point of having the school in the first place. If my alma mater competes at a fairly high level while remembering that it's more important to bring in and turn out quality human beings who make the most of the opportunites given them in college, I have no issues. That does not sound like too much to ask.

I also agree with you that the fans and schools are getting more out of the student-athletes' time there than the kids are. Are schools really fulfilling their missions by using these kids and allowing themselves to be used to a certain extent?

[improbus]

Originally Posted by dabvu2498

Good post, improbus. Some excellent points.

One thing I'd disagree with is the idea that "fans" think the way alumni do. Even alumni-fans.

I love my alma mater, both as an athletic program and an academic institution. I think one issue is that there are so many fans (even alumni-fans) who could care less or care far less about their schools as academic institutions than as athletic programs. They care about w's and l's above all.

I have no problem with a kid like John Wall, who made the most of his time as a UK student-athlete both on and off the court. He had a college experience. He wanted a college experience. And he got a good one, even if it was only for 7-8 months. I will have no problem with John Jenkins leaving my alma mater after 3 years without a degree for the same reasons (although I hope he comes back for his senior season and I'm relatively certain he'll find a way to complete his degree). The kid wanted and worked for a quality college experience, on the court, in the classroom and as a place for growing into an adult. And there are many others we could point to who have left early who have done things the right way while they were enrolled in school.

My issue is that quite a few of the "one-and-doners" (not just UK kids at all) have no business near a college campus. They're going to college because, more or less, they have to. I think kids should be able to enter the draft after high school if they so desire.

The way I view my alma mater is this: We, as alumni and fans, deserve a competitive team on the field/court because the resources are there for the coaches to bring in kids who can compete at the appropriate level (can't have always said this about Vandy football, but that is changing). But at the end of the day, the school also has to get kids who will be capable and worthy of having the same degree us alumni have. I guess I can't get over the idea that that's the whole point of having the school in the first place. If my alma mater competes at a fairly high level while remembering that it's more important to bring in and turn out quality human beings who make the most of the opportunites given them in college, I have no issues. That does not sound like too much to ask.

I also agree with you that the fans and schools are getting more out of the student-athletes' time there than the kids are. Are schools really fulfilling their missions by using these kids and allowing themselves to be used to a certain extent?

And I have no issue with John Wall wanting to go to college. But he didn't really have much of a choice, did he?

I see a few possible solutions.
1) Make the athletic department a "school" unto itself. Let the kids at Florida and OSU and the other schools participate, get paid some money, and get a "football" degree. That would loosen schools from having to treat the kids like regular students, which they are not (based on their schedule, not necessarily their acadmeic capabilities.) It would allow the schools to create "athletic/academic calendars" that work around their seasons (which would eliminate the BCS "finals" excuse as well). But, it can maintain some of the associations that draw people to the event in the first place. Also, if the kids want to participate in the regular education program at a school, then their "salary" can go to the education instead.
2) Create something similar to the Junior Hockey Leagues in Canada. They are a feeder to the NHL, have the same passionate fan base that many colleges do (the finals of the Juniors rival the Stanley Cup Finals in interest) and don't have the compulsory academic aspect, (although the do try to provide academic assistance to the kids if they do decide to go to college and not to the pros). It seems like a pretty nice solution.
3) Academies. Imagine if there was a USA Basketball program that took the top fifty 16 year olds into the program each year. It taught them the game without the pressures of recruiting, the inconsistency and fragmenting of talent of the NCAA and AAU, and taught them a more consistent game. How much better would American ballers be? How much better would the NBA be? In fact, this idea has me pumped up. We would be awesome. USA, USA, USA...

[improbus]

Sorry to hijack the Uk thread. I'll get back to watching videos of Noel blocking 6'4 guys into the third row

[jmac]

Just seen this on another site :

The first reliable report is leaking out from ESPN’s draft expert. Chad Ford’s latest blog post claims that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Anthony Davis, and Terrence Jones will declare for the NBA draft soon

Not surprised at all by Davis. Jones had a good tourney. MKG though I think he has alot of room for improvement as far as the next level, is projected as high # 2 so I dont blame him either.
Still no early rumors on what Lamb or Teague will do.
I would think coach Cal would want these guys to make their choices so guys like Shabazz, Noel and Bennett would know what was going on.

[WMR]

If Lamb or Teague came back it would be pretty huge.

UK is still in on a bunch of different guys, going to be really interesting to see how it shakes out.

[Assembly Hall]

Originally Posted by WMR

If Lamb or Teague came back it would be pretty huge.

UK is still in on a bunch of different guys, going to be really interesting to see how it shakes out.

Very interesting indeed!

[Tuff Nut]

Originally Posted by dabvu2498

They have to declare by the 10th, but they can "pull back" by the 29th, I believe.

The rule as I understand it, is that a player, has until the 29th to declare, but any that have declared, have until the 10th, to pull their name out, without losing eligibility.
In other words, if you declare after the 10th, you cannot get out.

[WVRed]

Originally Posted by jmac

Just seen this on another site :

The first reliable report is leaking out from ESPN’s draft expert. Chad Ford’s latest blog post claims that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Anthony Davis, and Terrence Jones will declare for the NBA draft soon

Not surprised at all by Davis. Jones had a good tourney. MKG though I think he has alot of room for improvement as far as the next level, is projected as high # 2 so I dont blame him either.
Still no early rumors on what Lamb or Teague will do.
I would think coach Cal would want these guys to make their choices so guys like Shabazz, Noel and Bennett would know what was going on.

I'm glad MKG is going though. I agree that he has a lot of room for improvement but there's two reasons why he should go:

1. Consider Harrison Barnes, who would have likely been a top 2 pick last year. He came back to work on his shot and improve his game and he is still a top 10 pick, but likely in the 5-10 range now. MKG is expected to go higher than Barnes.

2. MKG plays 100 mph and I don't think that will ever change (nor should it). The problem with a motor like his is that it leads to injury. Remember when we were all catching our breath after he took the spill against Kansas early in the game? With how hard MKG plays, it could happen. All it takes is one freak play in college and you've lost millions (DaSean Butler from WVU).

I'd like to see Teague or Lamb return. Either one is capable of running the point next season. I'd be fine with Harrow, but Teague could become that elite PG with a second season or Lamb could convert to a PG and likely improve his draft stock.

[Assembly Hall]

I think Lamb and Teague should both come back. When I see draft projections where the "experts" say they might be 1st round selections a red flag comes up in my mind.

[improbus]

Originally Posted by WVRed

I'm glad MKG is going though. I agree that he has a lot of room for improvement but there's two reasons why he should go:

1. Consider Harrison Barnes, who would have likely been a top 2 pick last year. He came back to work on his shot and improve his game and he is still a top 10 pick, but likely in the 5-10 range now. MKG is expected to go higher than Barnes.

2. MKG plays 100 mph and I don't think that will ever change (nor should it). The problem with a motor like his is that it leads to injury. Remember when we were all catching our breath after he took the spill against Kansas early in the game? With how hard MKG plays, it could happen. All it takes is one freak play in college and you've lost millions (DaSean Butler from WVU).

I'd like to see Teague or Lamb return. Either one is capable of running the point next season. I'd be fine with Harrow, but Teague could become that elite PG with a second season or Lamb could convert to a PG and likely improve his draft stock.

Also, I don't know how much MKG is going to improve his game in college. His offensive game is based on finishing the break and bulldozing his way to the rim. That works in college in a way that it won't in the NBA. How much will playing in college push him to develop his shaky jumper?