LMFAO!

[Jerry1714]

Just remembered UK failed at going unbeaten and didnt win the national title because of a mediocre,hypocritical snake oil salesman who now doesnt coach for national titles. what a clown!

You have way to much time on your hands........

 

[Kitaman]

Me thinks that some posters take our Championships for granted. It ain't easy and certainly requires some 'luck', or buzzer beaters, missed shots, timely injuries, etc..

We certainly have favor (or call it what you want) on our side getting to and when we get to the FF. It can be argued that two of our Championships we did not field the best talent in college basketball. All I can say is UConn should never be bet against in April we are like the dealer at the table.

And we are seemingly built for FF bball.

 

[businesslawyer]

It's not a bad thing to have an unexpressed thought every now and again.

Doesn't one need a thought in order not to express it?

 

[Stainmaster]

From the past 48 hours: Syracuse hates us and Kentucky sucks.

The Boneyard, always the epicenter of innovative and stimulating analysis of the college basketball scene.

 

[businesslawyer]

Recruiting: A+
In-game coaching: C

His recruiting is so good that it still nets him to being a top coach in the game, as evidenced by his absolute success (i.e. ignoring success relative to talent level). I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Having said that, his in-game coaching compared to the greats is definitely sub par so when he runs into a guy like K, Pitino or even an inexperienced Kevin Ollie in a years where they also have exceptional talent, he's going to lose over 50% of the time. The problem for Cal is that even though not all of the great coaches will have exceptional talent levels every year like he does, at least one or two of them will. He's going to walk to the Elite 8 or even Final Four because he's not facing any of those teams in the first 3 or sometimes 4 rounds.

I would guess he wins a title in less than 25% of his final four years when all is said and done. At the end of the day it boils down to whether you would rather roll the dice on a coach that is a virtual lock for the Elite 8 every year but has a smaller chance of closing once he gets there or a coach that will build a team every 2-3 years and have a higher chance at winning the whole thing once it all comes together. We have had outstanding success with the latter of the two options but we've also been the exception to the odds.

You're calling Cal a "C" coach because you are setting a standard for him -- based on recruiting success -- that leaves no one to compare it to. Why don't you compare his track record at Memphis and UMass to coaches who preceeded and followed him there and explain to everyone how he's average.

 

[SubbaBub]

You have to weigh someone's success against the resources at their disposal. That resume is disappointing considering.

He's a great networker, a great recruiter, a great snake oil salesman. Coach? Not so much. He's a curator really.

In Squids defense in three of those FF years he ran into better programs with a better coach. Karl Malone was an all time great but Jordan beat him every time.

 

[Brochacho]

I would guess he wins a title in less than 25% of his final four years when all is said and done. At the end of the day it boils down to whether you would rather roll the dice on a coach that is a virtual lock for the Elite 8 every year but has a smaller chance of closing once he gets there or a coach that will build a team every 2-3 years and have a higher chance at winning the whole thing once it all comes together. We have had outstanding success with the latter of the two options but we've also been the exception to the odds.

For reference, there are 5 active D1 coaches who have been to the Final Four as many or more times than Calipari, which is 4 due to UMass and Memphis being vacated.
Coach K: 5 NC, 12 FF 41.6% conversion rate
Izzo: 1 NC, 7 FF 14.3%
Pitino: 2 NC, 7 FF 28.6%
Williams: 2 NC, 7 FF 28.6%
Boeheim: 1 NC, 4 FF 25%
Calipari: 1 NC, 4 FF 25%

If not for UConn, Calipari would be sitting at a very nice 75%, with his only team not converting a 38-1 squad. I think he's doing alright.

 

[mets1090]

You're calling Cal a "C" coach because you are setting a standard for him -- based on recruiting success -- that leaves no one to compare it to. Why don't you compare his track record at Memphis and UMass to coaches who preceeded and followed him there and explain to everyone how he's average.

The grade was a generalization and the actual letter itself isn't important. I don't really care to rank him among dozens or hundreds of other coaches. All that really matters is he's without a doubt the number 1 recruiter and his actual coaching is not close to that level.

 

[mets1090]

For reference, there are 5 active D1 coaches who have been to the Final Four as many or more times than Calipari, which is 4 due to UMass and Memphis being vacated.
Coach K: 5 NC, 12 FF 41.6% conversion rate
Izzo: 1 NC, 7 FF 14.3%
Pitino: 2 NC, 7 FF 28.6%
Williams: 2 NC, 7 FF 28.6%
Boeheim: 1 NC, 4 FF 25%
Calipari: 1 NC, 4 FF 25%

If not for UConn, Calipari would be sitting at a very nice 75%, with his only team not converting a 38-1 squad. I think he's doing alright.

He's obviously doing great. His resume is off the charts and he'll probably get 10 Final Fours if he stays at Kentucky for a long time. 25% is just a standard number as 1 out of 4 Final Four teams wins every year (hope I'm not confusing anyone with my awesome math skills ).

I think most fans would sign up for 9 FF and 2 NC even if the coach directly causes the 7 losses and does nothing in game to help the 2 wins. That's a great all around coach since acquiring the talent to get there is an enormous part of the head coach role in college basketball. I think that people that argue he's not a great coach are basically ignoring that part of being a college coach is recruiting. They say/hear "coach" and they jump to "coaching ability." The counter is hearing "coach" and jumping to "ability to perform all of the duties of a head coach."

If Izzo wins it in his next Final Four he'll be right at 25% so these small samples don't really mean much anyways, just as Calipari being 1 for 4 doesn't actually mean much statistically. When I see him coach though I just think that if you were somehow able to blow up the sample size, he wouldn't win 25%. Similarly, if UConn gets to 10 FF, the probably won't win 10 NC... although maybe they would because I'm not sure we know how to lose title games.

 

[UCHuskies08]

You're calling Cal a "C" coach because you are setting a standard for him -- based on recruiting success -- that leaves no one to compare it to. Why don't you compare his track record at Memphis and UMass to coaches who preceeded and followed him there and explain to everyone how he's average.

How does UMass recruit now compared to Squid's time. How about Memphis?

He's done it all on recruiting. What player has Cal taken and molded from an okay player into a great player? I struggle to think of any. He's had great players come through, he lets them play a dribble drive and kick it out offense, and not much else.

 

[JimHurley]

6 years, 5 Elite Eights, 4 Final Fours, 1 NC. 190-38. Man, Calipari is an awful coach. Just awful. Worst in the nation.

He is an awful coach. Anyone and I mean anyone could win with the talent he gets. Considering he gets multiple All-Americans every single year and only has 1 championship is pretty bad.

 

[CallMeBruce]

He is an awful coach. Anyone and I mean anyone could win with the talent he gets. Considering he gets multiple All-Americans every single year and only has 1 championship is pretty bad.

Just stop.

 

[johnhuskies95]

No I quoted you on what you said about "not closing at the Final Four." And I threw in those numbers just for comparison. My reference to the "UConn syndrome" is that I don't believe UConn fans fully grasp how hard it is to win a NCAA championship, since we are 4 for 4. Here's the list of championships/championship appearances/Final Fours for teams with at least 3 titles:
UCLA 11/13/18
Kentucky 8/12/17
Duke 5/11/16
UNC 5/9/18
Indiana 5/6/8
UConn 4/4/5
Louisville 3/3/10
Kansas 3/9/14

What UConn is doing is crazy. They have 11% of the titles on that list, but only 6% of the title game appearances and 4% of the Final Fours. It is completely normal for great programs to falter in the Final Four. As I said, UConn is an extraordinary statistical example when put against the other great programs.

I'm not Mau, but I think what you have to keep in mind about Calipari is that out of his 9 final four games he's coached in, he's been favored in 8 of them. And he's only 4-4 in those games. Izzo hasn't been favored in a FF game since 2000(can't find data going back further than 2001). Roy is 5-3. Calhoun was 4-1.

Obviously the spread isn't the end all be all, but Calipari's dropped probably 2 games in the final four that he shouldn't have. Not to mention the 2010 EE loss to WVU, which looked bad at the time and will look worse as time goes on and Wall and Cousins' NBA careers play out.

 

[Brochacho]

How does UMass recruit now compared to Squid's time. How about Memphis?

He's done it all on recruiting. What player has Cal taken and molded from an okay player into a great player? I struggle to think of any. He's had great players come through, he lets them play a dribble drive and kick it out offense, and not much else.

Virtually all of Calipari's players are NBA ready after 1 or 2 seasons. If player development is your point, then he's really good at it.

 

[Brochacho]

I'm not Mau, but I think what you have to keep in mind about Calipari is that out of his 9 final four games he's coached in, he's been favored in 8 of them. And he's only 4-4 in those games. Izzo hasn't been favored in a FF game since 2000(can't find data going back further than 2001). Roy is 5-3. Calhoun was 4-1.

Obviously the spread isn't the end all be all, but Calipari's dropped probably 2 games in the final four that he shouldn't have. Not to mention the 2010 EE loss to WVU, which looked bad at the time and will look worse as time goes on and Wall and Cousins' NBA careers play out.

The Final Four is a different animal. Spreads don't matter. You are usually pitting elite teams vs elite teams. Oh, and 2006 UConn.

 

[johnhuskies95]

The Final Four is a different animal. Spreads don't matter. You are usually pitting elite teams vs elite teams. Oh, and 2006 UConn.

How do they not matter?

 

[Brochacho]

How do they not matter?

Because in most cases you have two 30 win teams competing together on a neutral court. Point spreads are not a great predictor.

Additionally, only 50% of top ten prospects (RSCI) go on to be lottery picks. Cal's conversion rate? 72%. Every one of his guys that was not a lottery pick ended up as a first round pick. These percentages are not final however, some players are still in college and others are in this year's draft class.

 

[Huskies4ever]

Virtually all of Calipari's players are NBA ready after 1 or 2 seasons. If player development is your point, then he's really good at it.

Some would be NBA ready after high school. I don't know how ready he gets them. He is "One and Done" U. He has said so himself.

"You can't go straight to the pros, come here for a season." It's more like the D-League.

As a coach, he is an outstanding recruiter, and master motivator. I think his best coaching was at UMass. Camby, Bright, Williams, aside, the rest of those teams were not great, or even good recruits. Lou Roe turnred out very good. And he got everyone else to buy in, play hard, and play good "D".

However, his x's and o's can be questioned. And his arrogance may get in the way at times. Hence being outcoached.

 

[UCHuskies08]

Virtually all of Calipari's players are NBA ready after 1 or 2 seasons. If player development is your point, then he's really good at it.

Virtually all of those kids would have gone from high school to the NBA had they been able.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Because in most cases you have two 30 win teams competing together on a neutral court. Point spreads are not a great predictor.

Additionally, only 50% of top ten prospects (RSCI) go on to be lottery picks. Cal's conversion rate? 72%. Every one of his guys that was not a lottery pick ended up as a first round pick. These percentages are not final however, some players are still in college and others are in this year's draft class.

I get where you're coming from, but that seems like a bit of a cop out response to me. You might as well not put any stock at all into spreads involving seemingly evenly matched teams. That's what Vegas does well, decide who is really the better club. They don't always get it right, but they're pretty good. Besides, virtually every other coach that's been favored in an FF game at least 4 or so times has a winning record, often times very good winning percentages in those instances. You have to be a really good coach(which Calipari obviously is) to have your team in that situation that many times, it just seems like Calipari lags behind his peers a bit when it comes to winning in those situations.

 

[mauconnfan]

I'm not Mau, but I think what you have to keep in mind about Calipari is that out of his 9 final four games he's coached in, he's been favored in 8 of them. And he's only 4-4 in those games. Izzo hasn't been favored in a FF game since 2000(can't find data going back further than 2001). Roy is 5-3. Calhoun was 4-1.

Obviously the spread isn't the end all be all, but Calipari's dropped probably 2 games in the final four that he shouldn't have. Not to mention the 2010 EE loss to WVU, which looked bad at the time and will look worse as time goes on and Wall and Cousins' NBA careers play out.

No you're not!

 

[mauconnfan]

Because in most cases you have two 30 win teams competing together on a neutral court. Point spreads are not a great predictor.

Additionally, only 50% of top ten prospects (RSCI) go on to be lottery picks. Cal's conversion rate? 72%. Every one of his guys that was not a lottery pick ended up as a first round pick. These percentages are not final however, some players are still in college and others are in this year's draft class.

C'mon man. They would be first round picks if they went to Farleigh Dickinson though. This is not his doing usually at all let's be honest. He is not a terrible coach as some have said as a matter of fact he's a very good coach. But he's not as good as K, JC, Izzo or so many others and we know KO is better too. I mean he's 3rd tier game coach 1st or upper tier recruiter, maybe even his own planet there. But I believe you give him way too much respect for his feats. Just me though.

 

[Brochacho]

Virtually all of those kids would have gone from high school to the NBA had they been able.

As I stated earlier, only 50% of top ten prospects (RSCI) go on to be lottery picks. Cal's conversion rate? 72%. Every one of his guys that was not a lottery pick ended up as a first round pick. These percentages are not final however, some players are still in college and others are in this year's draft class.

Do you plan on using any facts, or will you continue to value your perception over reality?

C'mon man. They would be first round picks if they went to Farleigh Dickinson though. This is not his doing usually at all let's be honest. He is not a terrible coach as some have said as a matter of fact he's a very good coach. But he's not as good as K, JC, Izzo or so many others and we know KO is better too. I mean he's 3rd tier game coach 1st or upper tier recruiter, maybe even his own planet there. But I believe you give him way too much respect for his feats. Just me though.

I don't dispute that guys like Anthony Davis, Wall, etc will go to the NBA no matter what. However, he is the most successful coach in D1 in regards to converting top 10 players into lottery picks. You can't rip away what he does as far as getting guys to the NBA. Only judging him off of players he develops for 3-4 years isn't fair since he operates a program that typically churns out kids in 2 years or less. It would be like judging Calhoun's NBA players solely off guys who came here as one and dones.

I don't like Calipari or UK. But I love the history of college basketball. Disregarding the accomplishments of Cal and UK because of how he operates or what people think of him is just plain stupid. Not directed at you mau, but the greater Boneyard in general.

 

[Brochacho]

I get where you're coming from, but that seems like a bit of a cop out response to me. You might as well not put any stock at all into spreads involving seemingly evenly matched teams. That's what Vegas does well, decide who is really the better club. They don't always get it right, but they're pretty good. Besides, virtually every other coach that's been favored in an FF game at least 4 or so times has a winning record, often times very good winning percentages in those instances. You have to be a really good coach(which Calipari obviously is) to have your team in that situation that many times, it just seems like Calipari lags behind his peers a bit when it comes to winning in those situations.

Yes you are right. But my point is, in theory, the teams with the best combination of luck, talent, and coaching end up in the final four. Any one of these teams can beat the others. I don't really consider anything at this stage of the tournament to be an upset. You will have extenuating circumstances that create the image of an upset: under-seeded teams (UConn 2014), mid-major vs a blue blood (such as Butler in 2010 and 2011), or the relative season of the teams (Wisconsin beating an undefeated UK). Sometimes scrub teams slip through, such as Butler and VCU in 2011, but for the most part I feel my view of the Final Four to be correct, as is yours.

 

[mauconnfan]

All good points by all.

One conclusion I came to is that even the one's who give Cal credit think he's a piece of and this is all that counts on the BYard!