The SEC and ACC are ESPN's big properties, and UK is the biggest basketball property in the SEC. It is like the over the top Duke promotion of yesteryear. They think they can get the casual fans to tune in by making a celebrity star.
It's a shame that kids let their basketball futures be influenced by this propaganda, and that parents are not immune to it either. It is the glamor of celebritydom, people like to be associated with a celebrity even if it brings no tangible benefits.
Calipari exaggerates the success of his alumni because it neutralizes the critique that he doesn't actually develop players.
That Calipari "exaggerates" things doesn't bother me. Most coaches pitch to kids the things that highlight themselves and their program. His kids are in the NBA and are making big money. That's an easy sell to the top recruits who have a realistic dream of getting to the NBA. I'm sure JC informed recruits regarding how many of his players were in the NBA. Yes, JC developed players. A lot of them. But it is debatable whether some of the best and most successful players that came out of UConn could have had successful careers in the NBA if they had attended different universities.
Calipari doesn't have to debate whether that same thing would or would not have happened if the kids went elsewhere. He would be stupid to do so and I doubt any coach goes into discussion with a recruit regarding the weaknesses of their program. So far he has managed to juggle the various strong egos very well, and although he may not have developed their skills at the level of JC, he has managed to get them to play alongside one another and be successful while getting a good number into the NBA. Like many others I'm hoping this model breaks down and he becomes exposed.
The first point you make I feel is far more important. Regarding the essence of the process you describe I'm in firm agreement. ESPN is taking successful programs that they broadcast and are promoting them in an inequitable way to increase ESPN's economic reward. From ESPN's perspective it's about increasing market share. The way you do that in the college landscape is to create programs you "own" which can develop polarity. A very successful team will have a lot of band wagon followers. You want to keep that going for as long as possible. But just as importantly, and maybe even more so, these programs will have a lot of people wanting to see that team lose. For every passionate Duke fan out there I wonder how many passionate anti Duke fans there are. When Duke plays, how many fans tuning into a Duke game are watching with the hopes Duke loses? That's a win for ESPN. Dukie V was inspirational at creating this ratings coup for ESPN. Being obnoxious about Duke elevated the visceral dislike fans of other colleges had towards Duke.
It's a fine line ESPN has to walk. They can't be so obvious that they alienate and disenfranchise too many college bb fans. And they have to be somewhat discreet because contracts change and they will be bidding in the future for products. But they can do things that most people will dismiss as being conspiratorial, such as having a well respected old codger "all of a sudden" become promotional to one program or elevating their emphasis on college freshman at the expense of established college players when it gives a distinct advantage to one of their programs.