ADVERTISEMENT

Hearing Kentucky next

I get what you're saying, and I Ike you as a poster. You're very reasonable. I think you dodged the question a bit. If Jay Wright could trade incoming freshmen classes with UK would he or not? Simple question. Yes or no.

Speaks directly to the necessity vs choice debate.

That's a great question, and I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer.

My guess is Wright would love to have this years UK class. Better question is would he want to have roster turnover every year, like UK most always does?

It's my impression UK gets the talent they do because those kids are looking at NBA ASAP. Granted, I could be wrong, and you really can't pigeonhole every kid they get in that fashion.

Take a look at UK's roster for the 2017-18 season. They are gonna be talented, but very young. How much can the talent overcome the inexperience? Cal has done a masterful job of dealing with that every year, but I'm not sure every coach would want that even if they could get it.
 
We're only supposed to have a championship caliber team every thee or four years?

Seems like you aren't giving yourself enough opportunities to make a run if that's the case.

Might explain why your hero Bo Ryan never won a title and Jay Wright was on the hot seat before he finally got his.

I'd love to be in the conversation for a Natty every year. Obviously winning it every year won't happen. Recruiting is going to have to be Top 5 every year to make that happen, imo. We'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fpeaugh
That's a great question, and I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer.

My guess is Wright would love to have this years UK class. Better question is would he want to have roster turnover every year, like UK most always does?

It's my impression UK gets the talent they do because those kids are looking at NBA ASAP. Granted, I could be wrong, and you really can't pigeonhole every kid they get in that fashion.

Take a look at UK's roster for the 2017-18 season. They are gonna be talented, but very young. How much can the talent overcome the inexperience? Cal has done a masterful job of dealing with that every year, but I'm not sure every coach would want that even if they could get it.
UK resembles a high class brothel more than a basketball team. And they get paid as well..
 
That's a great question, and I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer.

My guess is Wright would love to have this years UK class. Better question is would he want to have roster turnover every year, like UK most always does?

It's my impression UK gets the talent they do because those kids are looking at NBA ASAP. Granted, I could be wrong, and you really can't pigeonhole every kid they get in that fashion.

Take a look at UK's roster for the 2017-18 season. They are gonna be talented, but very young. How much can the talent overcome the inexperience? Cal has done a masterful job of dealing with that every year, but I'm not sure every coach would want that even if they could get it.
Here's another question that I would be interested in hearing the various answers to. Would you trade our current roster and commits for UK's? How about if we swap coaches and rosters going forward? My answer would be no across the board. I wouldn't even swap out with UCLA and everybody knows how much I dig Alford:D
 
Here's another question that I would be interested in hearing the various answers to. Would you trade our current roster and commits for UK's? How about if we swap coaches and rosters going forward? My answer would be no across the board. I wouldn't even swap out with UCLA and everybody knows how much I dig Alford:D
No way in hell would I would ever want Cal roaming the Halls of Assembly Hall as the coach Of IU
 
I fit is all about winning the championship then it is relevant. Who cares if you have a better chance of winning, it has to do with results.

You're not following. Math is hard I know. The argument "Only 2 out of 12 championship teams have had a one and done" lacks context and I wish people on this board would stop using it as if it is some sort of rebuttal. It shows a poor understanding of statistics.


What you actually want to calculate, is the probability that a team with a one and done in a given season will win a championship. And compare that to the probability that a team without one will win a championship in a given season.

When you do that, you see that teams with a one and done's win titles at a significantly higher rate.

If you want to continue to question that, I could spend 15 minutes doing the math for you, but it would save more time if you accepted that your argument is flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fpeaugh
Serious question. You guys want to model the program more like Wisky and Villanova and less like UK. I get it. The question is do you think Gard/Wright choose the style they recruit because they think it's better overall or do you think they recruit how they do out of necessity? Put another way, if those programs could recruit the 5 star one and dones like UK/Duke do you think they'd turn those players away because they want to build rosters of 3-4 year players? Or do you think it's out of necessity since they can't land the 5 star talent?
I think Gard and Wright chose their style because it was (1) doable for their situation, (2) easier for their situation, or (3) necessary (as a remotely possible analysis).

In other words, they could choose several strategies and they chose one that has worked so far.
 
And he was never implicated in either of those. You think he wanted Camby to take money? How did that benefit Cal or UMASS? That had nothing to do with him as Camby has repeatedly apologized to Cal for dragging him into that.

Now that's a loser mentality. Not holding the man in charge accountable for his subordinates. Bet you loved the golden parachutes a few years back. Is someone who looks the other way to preserve plausible deniability innocent? Interesting character assessment lol.
 
How do you know this? I haven't seen anything in the media stating this. I'm just curious.
I remember a friend calling me and saying that USC was about to get nailed by the NCAA. I asked him how he knew and he said that Pete Carrol had just taken the Seattle job. Sure enough.

A friend of mine that is very close to Indiana told me about Trey. Also, look at the timing of every time Cal left. Instantly there were allegations and misconduct was found to have occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mazz
You're not following. Math is hard I know. The argument "Only 2 out of 12 championship teams have had a one and done" lacks context and I wish people on this board would stop using it as if it is some sort of rebuttal. It shows a poor understanding of statistics.


What you actually want to calculate, is the probability that a team with a one and done in a given season will win a championship. And compare that to the probability that a team without one will win a championship in a given season.

When you do that, you see that teams with a one and done's win titles at a significantly higher rate.

If you want to continue to question that, I could spend 15 minutes doing the math for you, but it would save more time if you accepted that your argument is flawed.
This x 100000000. Some people can't do fairly basic math.
 
I think Gard and Wright chose their style because it was (1) doable for their situation, (2) easier for their situation, or (3) necessary (as a remotely possible analysis).

In other words, they could choose several strategies and they chose one that has worked so far.
So they could choose the UK model if they wanted to? You realize you're saying those coaches essentially turned down multiple top 10 recruits for 3 star guys right? You believe this? Seriously?
 
You're not following. Math is hard I know. The argument "Only 2 out of 12 championship teams have had a one and done" lacks context and I wish people on this board would stop using it as if it is some sort of rebuttal. It shows a poor understanding of statistics.


What you actually want to calculate, is the probability that a team with a one and done in a given season will win a championship. And compare that to the probability that a team without one will win a championship in a given season.

When you do that, you see that teams with a one and done's win titles at a significantly higher rate.

If you want to continue to question that, I could spend 15 minutes doing the math for you, but it would save more time if you accepted that your argument is flawed.
Although I do agree with it's better to have a one-and-done as opposed to not (just from a pure talent standpoint), I believe it's noteworthy that the two teams to win the NCAA Championship with a one-and-done (UK 2012; Duke 2015) both had veteran seniors who played a significant leadership role (Darius Miller UK; Quinn Cook Duke).
 
You're not following. Math is hard I know. The argument "Only 2 out of 12 championship teams have had a one and done" lacks context and I wish people on this board would stop using it as if it is some sort of rebuttal. It shows a poor understanding of statistics.


What you actually want to calculate, is the probability that a team with a one and done in a given season will win a championship. And compare that to the probability that a team without one will win a championship in a given season.

When you do that, you see that teams with a one and done's win titles at a significantly higher rate.

If you want to continue to question that, I could spend 15 minutes doing the math for you, but it would save more time if you accepted that your argument is flawed.

For those who remember when this 2 of 12 thing first came up last year, I was challenging the argument that you needed 1-and-done players to compete for championships. Since 10 out of 12 did not need 1-and-done players to win a title, I thought I had won the argument!

Then the 1-and-done proponents changed the argument to 2 out of 12 was actually really good, because they were facing off against 340+ teams without 1-and-done players. Which is a pretty stupid argument with regard to winning National Titles when you consider that only 27 different schools have ever won a title (not counting mid-majors like Loyola). In other words there are a very limited number of schools that are truly in the hunt for a title... far from 351

None of which really matters because the original claim was that you better get in the 1-and-done game if you want to compete for a title, which is decidedly false!
 
If you look at the 12 National Title winners since the 1-and-done rule went into effect, their starters break down like this. The 12 teams had 68 players who started at least 10 games during the season.

11 were Frosh (16.2%) 6 one-and-done on just 2 teams/ 5 were 4 yr players
15 were Sophs (22%) only 3 (D. Arthur, D. Lamb, T. Jones) were two-and-done
23 were Juniors (33.8%)
19 were Seniors (28%)

You basically have 2 teams (2012 UK & 2015 Duke) driving the 1-and-done bus, but aside from those 2 squads the National Champion rosters have pretty much looked like they always have relative to experience.
 
Last edited:
One last thing about this. 59 of 68 starter players from the 12 National Title winners of the 1-and-done era were in school long enough to get a degree in 3 years. 5 of the 9 who didn't stay long enough to possibly get a degree played at the school some think we should aspire to be like.

Even Duke had 9 of their 12 National Title winning players (who started at least 10 games) stay at least 3 years.
 
Then the 1-and-done proponents changed the argument to 2 out of 12 was actually really good, because they were facing off against 340+ teams without 1-and-done players. Which is a pretty stupid argument with regard to winning National Titles when you consider that only 27 different schools have ever won a title (not counting mid-majors like Loyola).

So if you're going to say a large portion of NCAA teams shouldn't even be considered when analyzing the affect of one and done's on winning a title. You're going to have to be more clear on why, and not arbitrarily limit it to "teams who have won titles previously, but aren't mid majors currently".

I assume why you're willing to discount a large portion of the 340+ teams without 1&D's, is because some of these schools will never have close to the talent level needed to make a tournament run, much less win a title.

But that's where you're missing the crux of the argument. No one is saying we want 1&D's because there is something inherent about players that stay 1 year that helps you win a title. That would be nonsense.

We're saying we want them because they make up a significant portion on the most talented kids in CBB on a yearly basis.

More talented than the power conference teams made up of 3-4 year players and more talented than the 300+ ranked teams made up of 3-4 year players.

You don't get to arbitrarily draw lines based on talent, when the 1&D argument at it's core is about proving that these players are more talented than their peers, and that helps you to win a title. You have to compare them against all their peers, not just the ones you deem it's fair to compare them to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fpeaugh
I'm not totally against 1-and-done players, but I'm pretty close. I would struggle with passing up an in-state kid that really, really wanted to come to IU, but I wouldn't fight in the mud for him whatsoever.

Even then, Really good coaches who can scout will still have some early departures. IU's current roster + commits may very well have an early departure or two and I'll be happy for the kids that make it a reality.

My view on this does not come from some moral high ground. I just think purposely attempting to build and nurture a 1-and-done culture is reckless and stupid even if you can miraculously pull it off.

  • We've averaged 15 One-and-Done per draft the past 3 years, which only leaves room for about 3-4 Kentucky's max.
  • If you can be one of those Kentucky's, you've got to get it done year after year after year.
  • Last week we found out what the price of chasing the Big Blue dream actually is. Players Program UofA is about to pay the piper for it's efforts and more bombshells are probably coming to visit other programs in the coming weeks.
  • It's exceedingly difficult to have that magical season without great team chemistry and cohesion.
  • The fan (the customer) experience is diminished with a revolving door.. imo
Lastly, with regard to Kentucky, it shouldn't be forgotten who they picked to clean up the "Kentucky Shame" mess. Did Pitino just become a cheater at UofL? Kentucky, in my lifetime, is at it's best when the coach fits the BBN culture of "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" Calipari may not get caught, but that won't mean he isn't cheating. If he wasn't a cheater he wouldn't be there... just keepin' it real:)
Totally agree, great post! I think Cal will soon back off the the whole team of one and done's and start splitting it up a little more. He won with the most experienced teams he's had at UK. The results other than that year aren't pleasing to the UK fans that I know. I love the class Archie put together already, but he needs one of Garland or Langford to make a big splash right away. If I was him I'd focus 90% on the 25-75 range players for the most part. They have talent but usually stay a few yrs.
 
I get what you're saying, and I Ike you as a poster. You're very reasonable. I think you dodged the question a bit. If Jay Wright could trade incoming freshmen classes with UK would he or not? Simple question. Yes or no.

Speaks directly to the necessity vs choice debate.
Not year after year he wouldn't. He's won as many titles in the last 5 yrs as Cal. You've provided a perfect example of what most of us are resembling only better! I'd take them both btw, I'm not against 5 stars at all. 2 to 3 a class would be perfect with 2 high 4 stars.
 
And he was never implicated in either of those. You think he wanted Camby to take money? How did that benefit Cal or UMASS? That had nothing to do with him as Camby has repeatedly apologized to Cal for dragging him into that.
How do think he got Camby to UMass? You think this crap just started a couple of years ago? Cal is very good at circumventing the rules. You want to tell me Cal didn't know that Derrick Rose didn't take that test after his previous score was so far away from qualifying? Come on man...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVegasHoosier
I really thought Andrea Paterson's class mixed with Guyton's class, I thought we had a shot. I recall that home loss to MN is OT at the hall. (I believe MN went to F4 that year). We had a lot of talent in those years, but we never put it together as a team.
Knight killed Patterson, he had a ton of talent and Knight made him stay on the block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoogolf
Not year after year he wouldn't. He's won as many titles in the last 5 yrs as Cal. You've provided a perfect example of what most of us are resembling only better! I'd take them both btw, I'm not against 5 stars at all. 2 to 3 a class would be perfect with 2 high 4 stars.
Cal has been to 5 Final Fours in the last 8-9 years. Wright has been to 1. Winning championships is a product of putting yourself in the position to succeed year after year. Cal could easily have 2-3 right now with a couple different bounces.

And I can guarantee you Jay Wright, Greg Gard, or any other coach on this planet would trade all their 3 and 4 star recruits for UK's 5 stars. All day, every day.
 
This board???
Yes. This board was a Crean cult for his first 6-7 years. I consistently got ripped for even questioning the guy. Sound familiar?
"Tom Crean will coach at IU for as long as he wants to be here. Get over it"
 
Cal has been to 5 Final Fours in the last 8-9 years. Wright has been to 1. Winning championships is a product of putting yourself in the position to succeed year after year. Cal could easily have 2-3 right now with a couple different bounces.

And I can guarantee you Jay Wright, Greg Gard, or any other coach on this planet would trade all their 3 and 4 star recruits for UK's 5 stars. All day, every day.
Jay Wright has been to two final fours
 
Yes. This board was a Crean cult for his first 6-7 years. I consistently got ripped for even questioning the guy. Sound familiar?
"Tom Crean will coach at IU for as long as he wants to be here. Get over it"

I hear ya, but by 2014, I think that % dropped to about 90%. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fpeaugh
Yes. This board was a Crean cult for his first 6-7 years. I consistently got ripped for even questioning the guy. Sound familiar?
"Tom Crean will coach at IU for as long as he wants to be here. Get over it"

ehh. i think the board went 50-50 after he couldn't win with Vonleh.
 
I don't think he's so much a UK fan, as much as he doesn't like when IU fans make themselves look ignorant by tossing mud at other programs.
 
Last edited:
How do think he got Camby to UMass? You think this crap just started a couple of years ago? Cal is very good at circumventing the rules. You want to tell me Cal didn't know that Derrick Rose didn't take that test after his previous score was so far away from qualifying? Come on man...

Plausible deniability, brah. The best of 'em have it mastered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mazz
One of my pals (disgruntled UofL fan) took my numbers a step further, and I thought it was pretty cool and worth sharing.

Once again, we're looking at the last 12 National Title winning teams and the players that started at least 10 games throughout the season...

66.2% ended up being 4 year players
20.6% ended up being 3 year players
4.4% ended up being 2-and-done
8.8% ended up being 1-and-done
 
One of my pals (disgruntled UofL fan) took my numbers a step further, and I thought it was pretty cool and worth sharing.

Once again, we're looking at the last 12 National Title winning teams and the players that started at least 10 games throughout the season...

66.2% ended up being 4 year players
20.6% ended up being 3 year players
4.4% ended up being 2-and-done
8.8% ended up being 1-and-done
This is what I'm talking about right here. Talent matters to a degree, but cohesion and experience are just as important.

I think of two champions - IU/87 and Nova/16 - that made title-winning plays without taking timeouts because they had guys that'd been there. Look at the UNC/UK Elite 8 game last year: the Tar Heels get the ball out of bounds quickly and up the floor before a talented, but young, Wildcat squad got its defense together.

Does that guarantee that's gonna happen every time? Of course not - but, like with the Crean stats I posted before - it's about giving yourself the best chance to succeed. I'm not saying a bunch of one-and-done players can't win a title, but (up to now) every team that has had veteran players.

UK has two players back this year - both sophomores - who barely played. Even with all UK's talent, any bets on them winning a title?
 
Last edited:
Andre Patterson also had no motor... that killed his talent as much as anything.
When Andrae lit up Duke with 33 early in his jr year, I thought he would be a lottery pick at the end of the year.That is also the game when frosh Michael Lewis owned Wojo and his stupid floor slapping. K bailed out on that team shortly afterwards, siting a bad back. It was really a bad team, and he wanted no part of it.
 
One of my pals (disgruntled UofL fan) took my numbers a step further, and I thought it was pretty cool and worth sharing.

Once again, we're looking at the last 12 National Title winning teams and the players that started at least 10 games throughout the season...

66.2% ended up being 4 year players
20.6% ended up being 3 year players
4.4% ended up being 2-and-done
8.8% ended up being 1-and-done
Give me an experience and a little less talented team over an inexperience talented team any day.
 
Knight killed Patterson, he had a ton of talent and Knight made him stay on the block.
His talents were far more limited than you believed them to be, which is why Knight wanted him primarily in the low post. He was far less athletic than most thought or hoped he was.
 
His talents were far more limited than you believed them to be, which is why Knight wanted him primarily in the low post. He was far less athletic than most thought or hoped he was.

Yeah I think he just dominated smaller Texas teams with his size. He really was not that athletic.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT