Calipari

BEAST, I've got to disagree that Cal is generally regarded as a below average in - game coach.
I'll grant you that he's not praised like some coaches (K, Izzo, Self, Pitino) but he's not far behind.
He shed the bad coach label a long time ago.

He crafts a cohesive brand of ball for inexperienced players who all think they should shoot 20x a game. That's not easy.
I'm most impressed with how he teaches his young kids to buy into playing D. Coming out of HS few of them understand that.
 
BEAST, I've got to disagree that Cal is generally regarded as a below average in - game coach.
I'll grant you that he's not praised like some coaches (K, Izzo, Self, Pitino) but he's not far behind.
He shed the bad coach label a long time ago.

He crafts a cohesive brand of ball for inexperienced players who all think they should shoot 20x a game. That's not easy.
I'm most impressed with how he teaches his young kids to buy into playing D. Coming out of HS few of them understand that.
Click to expand...

It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.

You do realize of course, that the reverse it true also. Fans, even intelligent fans, can only measure wins and losses and how deep you get into the tournament, if at all. That's why some poster on here (you?) claimed that there were better game coaches right here on redmen.com. Now it doesn't matter that I've never read an intelligent technical post on here, breaking down our offensive sets to actual plays, or identifying anything other than a vague critique - like we don't run a cohesive offensive set. I can tell you one thing from experience regarding such ridiculous assertions - coaching is mostly cookbook application of offensive plays, defensive sets, and practice drills. Even the bottom 20% of coaches have learned these things, far above what the casual fan knows. When I coached with some guys who coached high level high school or even some college ball, initially I was kind of in awe of how they would pull things out of a hat. Then as I learned some of those things over time you just apply them. Certainly some guys are better game coaches than others, but you don't have to teach very much to a super blue chip starting 5, and if you do, making shots, finding the open man, and making big plays are not among them.

I'd like to see Calipari coach last season's St. John's team, and see how he would do. Strip off his reputation and name, and I have a feeling there would be a clamor to fire him for not making the dance.
 
It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.
Click to expand...
You could make the same argument about the UNC program. Historically they've raked in the lion's share of McD AA. It is not even close. Duke is a distant second with a few teams like Indiana, Kansas, St. Johns, UCLA, Georgetown, Syracuse and a few other having multiples but most high major programs have had only one or two and the rest of the programs having one or two here and there. On that logic UNC should have won a national championship most of the past 30 years so they have seriously underperformed even during their heyday. An interesting study would be the prominent AA recruits that ended up languishing on the UNC and Duke benches instead of being superstars at some other program. These guys are amazing salesmen regardless of their in game coaching abilities.
 
BEAST, I've got to disagree that Cal is generally regarded as a below average in - game coach.
I'll grant you that he's not praised like some coaches (K, Izzo, Self, Pitino) but he's not far behind.
He shed the bad coach label a long time ago.

He crafts a cohesive brand of ball for inexperienced players who all think they should shoot 20x a game. That's not easy.
I'm most impressed with how he teaches his young kids to buy into playing D. Coming out of HS few of them understand that.
Click to expand...

It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.

You do realize of course, that the reverse it true also. Fans, even intelligent fans, can only measure wins and losses and how deep you get into the tournament, if at all. That's why some poster on here (you?) claimed that there were better game coaches right here on redmen.com. Now it doesn't matter that I've never read an intelligent technical post on here, breaking down our offensive sets to actual plays, or identifying anything other than a vague critique - like we don't run a cohesive offensive set. I can tell you one thing from experience regarding such ridiculous assertions - coaching is mostly cookbook application of offensive plays, defensive sets, and practice drills. Even the bottom 20% of coaches have learned these things, far above what the casual fan knows. When I coached with some guys who coached high level high school or even some college ball, initially I was kind of in awe of how they would pull things out of a hat. Then as I learned some of those things over time you just apply them. Certainly some guys are better game coaches than others, but you don't have to teach very much to a super blue chip starting 5, and if you do, making shots, finding the open man, and making big plays are not among them.

I'd like to see Calipari coach last season's St. John's team, and see how he would do. Strip off his reputation and name, and I have a feeling there would be a clamor to fire him for not making the dance.
Click to expand...


Really? You think Calipari would have let this happen with last year's team?

"NEW YORK -- Two days before a critical game against No. 8 Villanova, St. John's coach Steve Lavin has not settled on a starting lineup.

Twelve different players have started at least one game for St. John's this year. Lavin has already used eight different starting lineups in the first 14 games of the season.

The larger issue is, Lavin has hardly settled on a rotation, despite his team nearing the halfway point of its season. Thirteen different players saw the court in the first half alone versus Georgetown, making it very difficult to build any chemistry or consistency."


http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/colleges/post/_/id/6482/st-johns-desperate-for-win-vs-villanova
 
BEAST, I've got to disagree that Cal is generally regarded as a below average in - game coach.
I'll grant you that he's not praised like some coaches (K, Izzo, Self, Pitino) but he's not far behind.
He shed the bad coach label a long time ago.

He crafts a cohesive brand of ball for inexperienced players who all think they should shoot 20x a game. That's not easy.
I'm most impressed with how he teaches his young kids to buy into playing D. Coming out of HS few of them understand that.
Click to expand...

It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.

You do realize of course, that the reverse it true also. Fans, even intelligent fans, can only measure wins and losses and how deep you get into the tournament, if at all. That's why some poster on here (you?) claimed that there were better game coaches right here on redmen.com. Now it doesn't matter that I've never read an intelligent technical post on here, breaking down our offensive sets to actual plays, or identifying anything other than a vague critique - like we don't run a cohesive offensive set. I can tell you one thing from experience regarding such ridiculous assertions - coaching is mostly cookbook application of offensive plays, defensive sets, and practice drills. Even the bottom 20% of coaches have learned these things, far above what the casual fan knows. When I coached with some guys who coached high level high school or even some college ball, initially I was kind of in awe of how they would pull things out of a hat. Then as I learned some of those things over time you just apply them. Certainly some guys are better game coaches than others, but you don't have to teach very much to a super blue chip starting 5, and if you do, making shots, finding the open man, and making big plays are not among them.

I'd like to see Calipari coach last season's St. John's team, and see how he would do. Strip off his reputation and name, and I have a feeling there would be a clamor to fire him for not making the dance.
Click to expand...

Making shots, sure. But finding the open man, playing disciplined D, positioning to rebound, and moving without the ball... those are skills that most guys learn in college. And Cal's teams have done that.

Also, he's had success far above what the other blue chip programs have done. Since he got to Memphis he's been working on a different level.
In the last 9 seasons he has just 1 bad year; 4 Final Fours, 3 Elite Eights, and a Sweet 16.

I agree with you that coaching can be overrated, it's often just the application of known plays/schemes. But the style and scheme you choose has to be apart of any evaluation of the coach. And, for example, we spent a lot of time in that matchup-zone. I'm not the only one who thinks that was a mistake, few coaches are fond of that defense. It's not a mainstream defense.

But that's beside the point, this isn't about Lavin.
I think Calipari is a good coach, and you're overrating how easy it is to coach HS all-stars. By that measure SJU should've been much better in recent years, but again - it's not easy.
 
BEAST, I've got to disagree that Cal is generally regarded as a below average in - game coach.
I'll grant you that he's not praised like some coaches (K, Izzo, Self, Pitino) but he's not far behind.
He shed the bad coach label a long time ago.

He crafts a cohesive brand of ball for inexperienced players who all think they should shoot 20x a game. That's not easy.
I'm most impressed with how he teaches his young kids to buy into playing D. Coming out of HS few of them understand that.
Click to expand...

It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.

You do realize of course, that the reverse it true also. Fans, even intelligent fans, can only measure wins and losses and how deep you get into the tournament, if at all. That's why some poster on here (you?) claimed that there were better game coaches right here on redmen.com. Now it doesn't matter that I've never read an intelligent technical post on here, breaking down our offensive sets to actual plays, or identifying anything other than a vague critique - like we don't run a cohesive offensive set. I can tell you one thing from experience regarding such ridiculous assertions - coaching is mostly cookbook application of offensive plays, defensive sets, and practice drills. Even the bottom 20% of coaches have learned these things, far above what the casual fan knows. When I coached with some guys who coached high level high school or even some college ball, initially I was kind of in awe of how they would pull things out of a hat. Then as I learned some of those things over time you just apply them. Certainly some guys are better game coaches than others, but you don't have to teach very much to a super blue chip starting 5, and if you do, making shots, finding the open man, and making big plays are not among them.

I'd like to see Calipari coach last season's St. John's team, and see how he would do. Strip off his reputation and name, and I have a feeling there would be a clamor to fire him for not making the dance.
Click to expand...


Really? You think Calipari would have let this happen with last year's team?

"NEW YORK -- Two days before a critical game against No. 8 Villanova, St. John's coach Steve Lavin has not settled on a starting lineup.

Twelve different players have started at least one game for St. John's this year. Lavin has already used eight different starting lineups in the first 14 games of the season.

The larger issue is, Lavin has hardly settled on a rotation, despite his team nearing the halfway point of its season. Thirteen different players saw the court in the first half alone versus Georgetown, making it very difficult to build any chemistry or consistency."


http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/colleges/post/_/id/6482/st-johns-desperate-for-win-vs-villanova
Click to expand...

Think about that - In season 1, where Dunlap is hailed as a genius and catalyst for the team's success, how long did it take to settle on a rotation? Last season it hardly mattered as far as I'm concerned. The team didn't have a single player capable of carrying the team in crunch time, consistently making the big play or big bucket. You can continue to pin that on the coaching, but big time players make big plays in big moments, regardless of coaching. Ours didn't. We were in position to win nearly every lost game, but played like garbage down the stretch.
 
It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.
Click to expand...
You could make the same argument about the UNC program. Historically they've raked in the lion's share of McD AA. It is not even close. Duke is a distant second with a few teams like Indiana, Kansas, St. Johns, UCLA, Georgetown, Syracuse and a few other having multiples but most high major programs have had only one or two and the rest of the programs having one or two here and there. On that logic UNC should have won a national championship most of the past 30 years so they have seriously underperformed even during their heyday. An interesting study would be the prominent AA recruits that ended up languishing on the UNC and Duke benches instead of being superstars at some other program. These guys are amazing salesmen regardless of their in game coaching abilities.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Yes, Cal is as good as they come as a salesperson, and right now he has incredible inertia, raking in the very cream of the crop, and turning them into one and dones (which suits recruits just fine). Combine his skills, with the historic success of Kentucky, and few programs can touch that. Kentucky, Duke, UNC, and Kansas recruit on a totally different plane than us. How else can you explain NRs failure to recruit well here, but having great success at Kansas.
 
It's all in the final product. Game announcers this year, especially since his team matured late, started to praise his game coaching ability and saying essentially what you are saying now. I'm not convinced. When you start with the talent level Cal is raking in, which almost inarguably is so far above nearly every other program that it's sick, it's hard to measure what kind of a coach he is.
Click to expand...
You could make the same argument about the UNC program. Historically they've raked in the lion's share of McD AA. It is not even close. Duke is a distant second with a few teams like Indiana, Kansas, St. Johns, UCLA, Georgetown, Syracuse and a few other having multiples but most high major programs have had only one or two and the rest of the programs having one or two here and there. On that logic UNC should have won a national championship most of the past 30 years so they have seriously underperformed even during their heyday. An interesting study would be the prominent AA recruits that ended up languishing on the UNC and Duke benches instead of being superstars at some other program. These guys are amazing salesmen regardless of their in game coaching abilities.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Yes, Cal is as good as they come as a salesperson, and right now he has incredible inertia, raking in the very cream of the crop, and turning them into one and dones (which suits recruits just fine). Combine his skills, with the historic success of Kentucky, and few programs can touch that. Kentucky, Duke, UNC, and Kansas recruit on a totally different plane than us. How else can you explain NRs failure to recruit well here, but having great success at Kansas.
Click to expand...
Could it be that these programs are cheating their arse's off!
 
The worst part is that it is all gauranteed with no performance incentives. If this was a public company the board would be under serious fire for this contract.
Click to expand...

It is a public school. So his salaray comes out of the taxpayer's pockets.

BTW-So does Nick Saban who makes close to $10 million with incentives at Bama. And the President of Alabama makes no apologies. Calls it the best investment the school and the taxpayers of Bama could make at least with regards to intercolleigate athletics.
Click to expand...

UK Basketball doesn't cost the taxpayers a thing. They are very profitable even with Cal's salary. I suspect you knew that already, though.
Click to expand...

( while I'm with Gman and against long term guaranteed contracts no matter who it is ) from a taxpayer budget point of view you are right It's not even close to costing taxpayers a dime.

Back in 2012-2013 Kentucky Basketball produced a profit of over 8 million for the school

Then factor in how much boosters donate to the school because of having a good basketball team and I'm sure Cal has increased that since he got there

So that alone means it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime because profit + donations which requires less funding from taxpayers.

BUT also factor in jobs kentucky basketball creates and the income tax from them and also the business affect of kentucky basketball and all the kentucky merchandise that's sold in kentucky with a 6% sales tax.
 
This beats our attendance for NIT game v. Robert Morris by one;

@Matt_HayesSN: "@kmattio: According to ESPNU, there are 90 NBA personnel at Kentucky's practice right now. NINETY.”
 
Kentucky men's basketball practice on ESPNU. two hours of Kentucky basketball practice wow. They got pro scouts watching.
 
Today is Big 10 Media Day, and of course John Calipari came up. Tom Izzo called out Calipari for claiming that his recent NBA Combine had nothing to do with recruiting, cracking “If he was Pinocchio, he could have hung 10,000 shirts on that schnoz of his.”
 
Today is Big 10 Media Day, and of course John Calipari came up. Tom Izzo called out Calipari for claiming that his recent NBA Combine had nothing to do with recruiting, cracking “If he was Pinocchio, he could have hung 10,000 shirts on that schnoz of his.”
Click to expand...

LOL - good one! Love Tom Izzo...best coach is college basketball, IMO
 
Today is Big 10 Media Day, and of course John Calipari came up. Tom Izzo called out Calipari for claiming that his recent NBA Combine had nothing to do with recruiting, cracking “If he was Pinocchio, he could have hung 10,000 shirts on that schnoz of his.”
Click to expand...

Excellent, Tom! :lol:
 
Ou
Today is Big 10 Media Day, and of course John Calipari came up. Tom Izzo called out Calipari for claiming that his recent NBA Combine had nothing to do with recruiting, cracking “If he was Pinocchio, he could have hung 10,000 shirts on that schnoz of his.”
Click to expand...

Excellent, Tom! :lol:
Click to expand...

Why would Calipari attend Big 10 Media day? Attention whore!
 
Ou
Today is Big 10 Media Day, and of course John Calipari came up. Tom Izzo called out Calipari for claiming that his recent NBA Combine had nothing to do with recruiting, cracking “If he was Pinocchio, he could have hung 10,000 shirts on that schnoz of his.”
Click to expand...

Excellent, Tom! :lol:
Click to expand...

Why would Calipari attend Big 10 Media day? Attention whore!
Click to expand...

Cal's name was brought up. He wasn't there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top