I think many of you are missing the fact that college basketball is not the same sport it was 25-30 years ago. The players are bigger, stronger, quicker. The rules have been adjusted to favor the offense. And simply, there are more good skilled players now. The game has evolved. There is more parity now and games are not going to be as predictable. So one cannot just simply compare KO to Coach Calhoun. It's illogical.
It seems to me that most are in violent agreement that JC and KO shouldn't be compared. Because they aren't in the same stratosphere of ability/talent. Not because of some different era theory. Jim Calhoun would win today. Just like K, Boeheim, Izzo, Pitino. Good coaches (and the aforementioned are beyond "good") adjust and if anything, their value increases. Their teams have an identity, they execute, they (generally) get the most out of their team based on its overall composition, and, the players get better under their tutelage. KO's teams have done none of that these last few years.
The good news is that Kevin Ollie doesn't have to be as good as Jim Calhoun. But he's just gotten out coached by coaches/programs that he does need to be better than. And coaches who make much less and have far less resources and talent. And that's a big problem. And that's been a somewhat subtle theme during KO's tenure. Guys like Larry Brown, Fran Dunphy, Mick Cronin and Kelvin Sampson to a lesser degree have outcoached him despite having less (in some cases) or comparable talent. And while the KO supporters will understandably point to Izzo twice, Billy Donovan twice, Jay Wright and John Calipari in his first two seasons, those are sure looking like the exception rather than the rule. He was running Jim Calhoun's schemes with Jim Calhoun's recruits and it showed. As he's shifted to his players and his schemes....
And sorry, I can't shake the statement that ere are more good skilled players today. Not in the college game in my opinion. Call me old school (or just old), but imho there were MANY more good, skilled players 10-20 years ago in college basketball (maybe even in pro basketball) than there are today. Look at the draft. You can't give away a second round pick anymore (sometimes even non lottery picks) because the talent is so watered down. Guys enter the draft with very little readiness for the NBA. Athletes in general (and in all sports) continue to get bigger, stronger, faster as a result of specialized training, nutrition, etc. but more good skilled players? Not to these eyes. Blame it on early entry. Blame it on AAU. Blame it on David Stern if you want. But the caliber of basketball from a fundamentals, skills and team aspect in the 80s, 90s and 00s is so above the product on the court today. And in the college ranks, the teams that we had that didn't make the final four in the 90s (94, 95, 96) and the 2000s (02, 06) would maybe run the table in today's day and age. Lots of schools could say that btw. The product, in general, is a far cry what it once was. Is there more parity? Sure but there's always more teams that are mediocre vs good/great in any era. And with good players leaving top programs early, mid and low major schools that have four year cores can compete. And, thankfully for the month of March, the NCAA tournament is a foolproof formula that benefits from parity and general mediocrity...unless excellence and a high level of play is what you base success and enetertainment value on.