Who signs his checks?
Only other thing that would make sense would be an agent. WWW places a kid at a school, agent pays WWW and kid is bankrolled thru this arrangement until he can sign with agent. Whatever it is, it is a sad reflection upon the NCAA enforcement group.
or was the last time I read anything on the topic
don't know what kind of money that provides
that was in maybe the last decade, so no idea where money came from outside of that
Because Jim's program was always so squeaky clean.
They included Calhoun, Larry Brown, Boeheim and Chuck Daly. To my knowledge, Daly is the one only one in that group who has never been in any serious trouble/controversy.
Birds of a feather and all.
I can't wait for the 30 for 30 on Rick Pitino.
They will have to dedicate at least half of the 2 hour runtime just to cover Ricky's dalliances.
of dalliances at 15 seconds a shot.
None of those programs are clean.
I've told this story before, but an uncle played college basketball and was on the '56 Olympic gold medal team...so he and Digger knew of each other and were friends. Digger told my uncle that there were only three teams that didn't cheat:
He said everybody else cheated in the late 70's and early 80's
I didn't see the show, but I assume Calhoun had a problem with the lack of education for the one-and-done guys. Let us remember that Calhoun left Kevin Ollie with a program that was not eligible for postseason play because it's APR score was too low. It was the only major conference program in that predicament then; and if I'm not mistaken, no other major conference program has been ineligible since then.
I fear that if the rule is changed upwards (like some people want), you would see more players enter the D-League straight out of high school or play abroad in lieu of the NCAA. While this might be a result the NBA would prefer (Adam Silver has mentioned that he wants to bolster the D-League anyway), I think it would make the college game worse.
I suppose the NBA could also change its eligibility rules for athletes coming from the D-League and abroad (to match an equivalent increase in eligibility for those coming from college) to try to avoid such an outcome. I suspect however the lure of being paid (in the D-league or abroad) would be too much for many *top* players to reject. I think until schools provide *top* athletes with something more valuable for their services, it will be difficult to prop up the college game up any more than it already is without violating laws against collusion (between the NBA and the NCAA).
Although I don't support doing so, I think increasing the threshold to two years would be less catastrophic to the college game than increasing the threshold to three or four years.
The college game would have more mature, more fundamentally sound players with somewhat less raw athleticism. I'm not sure that would make for a worse game.
Lengthening the time a prospect would have to spend in d/euro leagues would be good for those leagues. It would encouraage those who have no interest in college to go to the d league, which is a better outcome for the integrity of college sports as a whole, and probably no worse for the academically uninterested.
Since there's no data, I agree it's debatable. I just don't think the likely consequence of a rule change upward, particularly to a three or four-year minimum, would result in more mature and fundamentally sound players in the college game. I'm less sure about the impacts of a two-year minimum but here's my rationale for a three-year minimum:
At least for a three-year minimum, I think many athletes who would otherwise declare to the NBA draft after only one year under the current regime would go to the D-League and abroad instead of the NCAA to get paid. These players have typically made up a plurality of modern NBA draft classes. At this level, I think this would negatively impact the college game.
As for the athletes who would have otherwise declared after only two years under the current regime, I think the consequences would largely be a wash. Some athletes with a high level of raw athleticism (just short of otherwise declaring after their first year) would choose the D-League/abroad, making the college game worse than it is under the current regime. Others would instead stay longer than they otherwise would have under the current regime, making the college game better. I think if the change were instead a four-year minimum, the impact would lean towards being worse at this level because you would have even more flight to the D-League and abroad.
As for the athletes who would have declared after their third or fourth years under the current regime, there's obviously no change.
He was terrible in the NBA with the Nets
He has had to cheat at every school except UK to win (UMass and Memphis) and sent both programs into NCAA sanctions
He recruits all world talent (multiple top 5 NBA lottery picks) and rarely wins it all
There's a good litmus test. Over the last eight years he's had the most successful program in college basketball.
First, NBA failure doesn't mean someone is a poor college coach. The skills for success at each level overlap, but there are key differences. Few college coaches have made the transition successfully. Brad Stevens has done well so far, and Pitino was doing pretty well with the Knicks before he left to take the Kentucky job; but Pitino was terrible in Boston, and he isn't the only successful college coach who failed in the NBA. Mike Montgomery, Lon Kruger, Leonard Hamilton, Tim Floyd, and Jerry Tarkanian are examples.
On to Calipari at Kentucky...
His teams are pretty hopeless in November and December, uber-talented young guys who have no idea of how to play together. By March, Kentucky runs a credible halfcourt offense and plays decent team defense. It's nothing fancy; but with that kind of talent, it's enough to send Kentucky into the tournament with better odds to win it than almost any other team.
I have no idea how Calipari would do with talent comparable to "normal" programs. He might not be particularly good with four year players who have to develop year by year; but that isn't what he does. He has chosen a different model for his program; and with his school supporting that choice, he has been very successful.
Pitino did a good job coaching the Knicks in the late 80s.
Building a team from the bottom up in the NBA is a crap shoot. Pitino was a poor GM with the Celtics, and probably unlucky, too.
Calipari had one crack at the NBA. He blew it. Give him the Cavs, as rumored a couple of years ago, and he'd probably look like a genius.
College coaches get to pick the groceries. Pied pipers like Pitino and Calipari know how to sell. They also coach at schools that value basketball success above all else.
They're both very good at what they do. I think that's beyond dispute.
We can all hold our noses when we watch them do it because they operate under a different set of rules and they do things we'd never tolerate at ND (or at least we'd like to think so). But that's a moral judgment, not a basketball judgment.
is, if he isn't actually a great basketball coach, why does he attract such amazing talent? If you're going to spend one year in college, don't you want that one year to be with the best coach you can find? Wouldn't Self of Izzo be better? It's funny to think that college coaches might not want you because you're "too" talented.
Is Calipari's value to a program that he's charismatic, dresses nice, and he gets NBA lottery picks to stop playing shitty AAU NBA All Star Game offense and adopt a respectable college offense?
Amherst isn't a Mecca !! Obviously, Camby was a special talent . However, other than that had a scapoygroup of players who fell in line, bought the kool aid, and believed.
They just drank it.
is not conducive towards winning NCAA championships. His process is geared towards recruiting future NBA players. The downside to that is the difficulty of roster management and lack of team chemistry. He will always find it very tough to win a championship with a bunch of first year guys and the occasional guy with a few years of experience sprinkled in who becomes a contributor.
What I have found most interesting is how the fan base evolved in their appreciation or lack thereof for such an approach. I honestly don't know how many of the UK fans are happy or not. There is only one goal with their fan base and it is to win a championship...or at least I think that is it. His recruiting approach makes it difficult to pull that off.
Personally, I can't stand it but that's okay because I don't have to like it or approve of it as I'm not a fan of UK. It would seem that if you are a fan of UK basketball, you would be somewhat similar to rooting for an NFL/NBA team in that the names and faces will constantly change and you are left with just rooting for the organization/institution. There is even more turnover obviously at UK than even professional teams.
There is incredibly high risk for players as well. If you can't thrive fairly quickly at UK, you run the risk of quickly being replaced and then languishing on the bench behind freshmen that come in after you. Your window of development then is closed for the most part. It's either boom or bust in my opinion for the most part. Exceptions occur every so often when they have a veteran contributor such as Willis this past year and a few others over the years but it's not the norm.
The reason I really don't like Calipari is when he often trots out the comments every year about how young his team is. Well no shit you idiot, what do you expect. And when you constantly recruit to a philosophy and embrace the one and done concept, you lose the ability to complain about youth in my opinion.
A backup/role player for his first two seasons, but began to blossom as a junior and wound up as the #6 overall draft pick.
They've completely sold out and gone for the one and done model too, and at least Calipari is honest that his main goal is getting his kids to the draft lottery, plus UK is a massive state school compared to a top 5-10 private school. Friend's opinion was that the best recent Duke teams had less talent, but had guys who actually fit roles rather than functioning as an NBA audition, and their '10 team actually didn't have a single NBA-level guy. As for Cal and UK, I agree completely with your post as even their team that we took to the end couldn't get it done, but they have still done a helluva job winning games and IIRC many of them come back to graduate too - would we fault a ND CompSci junior who left for Google, or a Finance guy who left for Berkshire?
I'm not a fan of Cal, but I have to give him credit. He succeeds at what he has tried to do. Look at the average salaries of guys he has recruited. What coach could claim better results.
It is the mission of a university to prepare people to succeed in their chosen interests. No one is perfect but I doubt any coach has had a better economic impact on his recruits than Cal.
In many ways his mission and ND's mission is are the same. But each does it is different ways. Cal takes gifted athletes and prepares them for the NBA and other professional leagues. ND takes gifted students and prepares them for academic and professional careers. Neither is primarily concerned with winning a championship, to the chagrin of their fans. If a championship should come along, so much the better. But both succeed in their own ways.
The reason his guys make tons of money is because he recruits the best players, who make lots of money. They'd make lots of money if they went to Kentucky or Western Kentucky.
1) over achieved at UK and became a better pro than most expect (Booker, Ulis, Bledsoe, Liggins, Patterson, Harrison) 2) went to other schools as highly ranked recruits and didn't turn out.
Cal has a pretty good success rate with them. I doubt many other coaches could do what he does and he as successful.
ND recruits top students who would succeed at other schools as well. Are you dismissing the value of ND professors?
I don't think Calipari should get credit for the money "his" players make. He just recruits the top players, who then go on to make tons of money. They do so because they are the top players, not because they played for him.
I'm not an ND professor, but I am an ND TA, so no, I'm not dismissing the value of ND professors (or TAs). What makes ND different is not that professors here know things that professors at UK don't. It's that athletes are held to the same standards as other students.
but he doesn't win, he's out. He simply thinks this is the best method to win since he has no restrictions other than those imposed by the NCAA and NBA on who he can bring in. But to say his primary objective is to be a benevolent career coach whose first goal is to make them a lot of money is laughable. If his primary mission is to help all his players advance in their careers, do you think he cares what happens to the players he coached at UK who didn't pan out and make it to the NBA?
I do believe he cares about his former players. Getting good players and winning are two sides of the same coin. What coach doesn't want they guys he gets.
30 for 30 showed the loyalty of his former players.
I would not want him to coach ND, but at UKy he is the perfect fit. Both are more concerned with winning than education.
You said this 2 posts above. I agree re: ND. I disagree re: Calipari. They expect him to win at Kentucky. And that's fine. I'm not saying he hasn't won or that taking 1 and dones is necessarily bad. But he's doing it to win. He's developed relationships along the way, but if he doesn't win at Kentucky he won't be molding men much longer.
As an aside, purely from an on the field, on the court perspective, I have far more respect for the coaching ability of guys like Mike Brey, Bo Ryan, Jim Harbaugh who can actually beat teams with superior talent, than I do for guys like Calipari and Saban who need superior talent to win. Is Calipari really a top 10 college basketball coach (not recruiter) right now?
Sure "they" do, but Cal does not primarily. His first priority is to get them to the league. As a competitor he also would like to win a championship, but that is secondary. And quite a few Kentucky fans find this displeasing in him. Just as quite a few Notre Dame fans are displeased our admin wants the athletes to graduate rather than win championships.
There is a fine distinction here. Of course he wants to win, so does ND. But I'm merely saying the primary, primary, motive is the success of the athlete or student in the two cases. Winning is a benefit. And I agree other coaches may be more admirable. But if they could get the athletes, they would. Prima face Coach K. He has sacrificed honor for winning; whatever honor he may have ever had. I'm not defending Cal's honor, just his effectiveness in taking advantage of a system he did not invent nor even likes. He often states he would prefer players stay more than one year. But that is not the real politic.
As for your question. Likely the best college coaches are unknown to us and work at the many fine colleges that do not give athletic scholarships.
like Cal. Quite frankly most of these guys were probably good enough
to make a pro roster right out of HS anyway, and the one and done rule
would probably not survive a court challenge anyway.
I don't like his system and wouldn't want to cheer for that type of program, but it's silly to argue it's not conducive to winning the NCAA championship.
more than one national championship. I believe North Carolina now has 2 within the past 9 years and they are not nearly going with the one and done model. Of course, many of them have not attended class but that is another story.
I think if you asked the average UK fan they would expect the same. I just don't think a bunch of freshmen are the ideal way to try and win a championship and I'm not so sure that is his goal necessarily. I'm not suggesting they are doing anything wrong - just an interesting dynamic between his approach versus the history of the program and the fans' expectations. Many people remember the infamous line of draft night being the best night in the history of UK basketball.
Has been to 17 final fours and 12 championship games.
They average 1 championship every 7 years - Cal has 1 in 8, so pretty much spot on.
They average 1 Final Four every 3.3 years - Cal has 4 in 8 - better than historical average (before Cal it was 1 every 4.6 years).
They average 1 championship game every 4.7 years - Cal has 2 in 8 - again better than historical average.
He is outperforming UK's spectacular historical averages, so he is doing pretty well.
There is a distinction between what the fans expect and what Cal expects. Both want to win, but Cal puts getting guys to pro leagues first. This contrasts with Pitino. Rick has no compunction trying to get kids to stay in school solely so he has a better chance to win.
Your point is well stated sir.
is he managed to snag a one and done and ride him to a championship. Not because he's a good coach.
You could argue as long as you cash in on an Anthony Davis or Carmelo Anthony it's very conducive.
I realize it's not Cal's fault -- he's playing by the rules (at last). It's the NCAA's fault. They should run basketball like they do baseball. If you want to go pro out of high school, that's fine. But if you sign with a college, you have to stay for at least 3 years. "One and done" sucks!
any of that for baseball players
those are MLB draft rules (see link)
"One and done" similarly is not due to NCAA rules, but the NBA's draft rule
The point I was trying to make is that the same rules should apply. At least MLB respects the idea of kids who are somewhat serious about getting an education. The NBA simply uses the college game as a free minor league system. I wonder how many of the "one-and-dones" even bother to finish their second semester. Enrolling at an institution of higher learning for a year and majoring in "Eligibility" is what makes a mockery of the game being termed "college basketball." Cal was on a local (Pittsburgh) radio talk show a few years back (the year UK won the NCAA title under him) and he was bragging about how well all of his players performed in the classroom. The talk-show host never asked the question: "Oh really? Well, what courses did they take?" My guess is he wouldn't have known or would have been too embarrassed to say. I get it -- he's playing by the standards/rules that are established. The rules need to be changed.
To develop your intellect. Developing a network is a nice side benefit.
If the point of college was just to train for a job, then why would anyone ever go to ND or any private school instead of a state university with a respected degree in your chosen career field?
I agree with you, college is to learn how to think, develop an intellect and network. But the end game, the ultimate goal, is to earn a degree that will allow you to obtain the job you want. That's why there are majors and curriculum. I don't know why people choose ND because I didn't have that option, but I assume it is for the different experience and the networking. There's value and both of those things, and there's a value for having a degree that says it's from ND. The value of those things are different for everyone, which is why the cost of attending ND/private school may not be worth it for many people.
Back to the one and done players, I think they experience these three things at UK as well. I also think UK provides a unique experience and networking opportunity than other schools, which is why the they get more one and done players than anybody else.
Basketball. I do have an issue with them competing in leagues and tournaments against programs that don't. If UK, Duke, NC, and the other schools who treat college as a pretense for enrolling students just to then solely focus on basketball, want to offer degrees in basketball let them go to form their own conference, to play against similar schools. And then let those schools justify why they pay millions of dollars for coaches, and charge hundreds of dollars for tickets, to watch teams that can easily be beaten by CBA teams.
When Thon Maker was considering ND, did you want him? I'd bet almost everyone posting on this board did.
It's not like UK and Duke are the only teams recruiting these kids. Not 1 team in the nation would have turned down De'Aaaron Fox or Malik Monk.
that means that UK, Duke, et. al. are now justified in paying their basketball HC's hundreds of times what a CBA coach earns, and charging premium tickets, so students, fans, and alumni can witness 19 yr. old's learning to play essentially low rung minor league basketball?
College sports only really work, long term, if people believe that the students they are cheering on are more than just paid mercenaries, or really unpaid basketball apprentices, putting in time to earn their "license" to play in professional leagues.
What's the relevance with coaches salaries to the one-and-done discussion? Yes, coaches salaries are ridiculous. The highest paid employee in 40 states is either the football coach or basketball coach. I just don't see how that has any influence on the one-and-done rule and whether schools should take this kids. Do you think the salary of Brian Kelly an Mike Brey are justified because they don't get one and done players?
I asked about Thon Maker because if you are OK with ND taking a one-and-done player, where's the cutoff? He was never going to last more than one year, so he would have been a "paid mercenary" as you said. Is 1 one-and-done player over 4 years OK? One per year?
The relevance to me in regards to the coaching salary is that many of top the coaches who earn large salaries do so not so much earn that due to their coaching acumen but rather due to their, and their institution's, willingness to bend the rules. And, as many of these coaches are often times the highest paid public employees of their states, public dollars are being spent, more or less, to reward unethical behavior than to reward good coaching.
Regarding the one and done's (which I think I ultimately referred to as unpaid apprentices) I think a sliding scale based upon graduation rates should be applied. High level dole out scholarships based upon how many students graduate. The more that graduate the more scholarships teams can offer. Those that graduate less, less scholarships until programs can demonstrate that they can graduate the students they offer scholarships for.
The purpose of college is to get a degree that means something in the real world. It is a credential that has a value added meaning to it.
One and dones have not completed curriculum or a major. They have likely only completed 15 to 25 credit hours. Many kids coming out of high school all ready have 15 to 25 credit hours completed via dual enrollment or AP.
Luckily for one-and-done players, their chosen profession doesn't require a degree. It only requires 1 year outside of high school. Apparently the NBA believes there's enough value for them to earn those credentials in one year. I assume the kids going straight from high school did not provide that value, which is why they changed the rule. I also think many of these guys learn a great deal in their one year that benefits them at the next level. It's a good step between living at home where you've always lived and living on your own with all the vices the NBA lifestyle has to offer. I also think the college game allows them to learn how to play with other quality players (especially at UK and Duke), how to deal with the media, about time management, etc.
I don't prefer the one-and-done rule, but I understand it. Considering the short length of careers in professional sport, the risk of injury, the risk of flaws in their game being exposed, and the background of many of these players, I can't begrudge kids for leaving early. The discussion in the 30 for 30 about Dajuan Wagner is the perfect example.
I know many here may not judge the players but judge the schools, as if most of major college athletics isn't already exploiting the kids. I don't mind it as long as they do right by the kids and the university. In my mind, UK has done this well.
The benefit of the NBA as it was implemented for the benefit of the players involved.
I respect your idealization of what college is, however, in all practicality it is there to get you a better job. That's why people have specific majors and tracks. If it was just to expand one's knowledge, it'd be silly to only take specific types of courses (engineering, bio, etc); you'd want to take as many varied courses as possible.
People choose ND or other private schools because it has been shown to lead to higher paying jobs/careers. And many people DO choose state schools with respected degrees over private schools like ND all the time. Purdue and engineering is one example.
Engineering is one of those exceptions, though, honestly, a good argument can be made that the primary benefit of an engineering degree is that you have been trained to think like an engineer.
Accounting is another one of those exceptions.
At ND, I would suggest that is it. All of the other majors/tracks are designed to train people how to think. You aren't credentialed to be a marketer coming out of Mendoza's undergraduate marketing program. You aren't credentialed to be a historian coming out of A&L's history program. But what you do have is a very broad training in the liberal arts that is designed to stimulate the students love of knowledge acquisition, learning, and thinking.
if you have absolutely no interest in the academic side. If you have no interest in being there other than because you have to be, I don't call college preparing oneself for a career. Minor leagues are better suited for that.
He's been at UK for 8 years. In that time they've been to 6 elite eights, 3 final fours, 2 championship games, and they've won a national championship. This year they lost to the eventual champion on a buzzer beater.
I suppose you could look at those numbers and say "meh, he's only 1/8," but I think that would be underselling the effectiveness of the approach.
I grew up a UK fan and still am. Although these days I enjoy following ND a little bit more. I think that's the result of the one and done program UK has become. I don't have a problem with the approach, but it does keep me from getting attached to most of the players. Of my favorite 20 UK players of all time, very few have played on the last 8 teams even though probably 80% of the 20 most talented players of my lifetime have been on those teams.
I think Cal's focus on the NBA is somewhat frustrating to many UK fans. I think the reaction of the fan base when he proclaimed that the day they had 5 guys taken in the first round was the greatest day in the history of the program demonstrates that. UK fans gauge success on the basis of performance on the court - everything else is extraneous. However it is undeniable that Cal's "use UK as a platform to get to the NBA" approach has produced significant on court success, so UK fans are happy to accept it.
These aren't 3 star guys that nobody has heard of and he's waiving a magic wand. These guys are mainly top 50 players and more closer to 1 than 50. As someone said earlier, these guys would of made the league with or without that scum bag. It's an act, of course he wants them to think he's gonna get them to the league, when they are already there. He's a great salesman and cheater, biggest payroll in the NCAA!
for four years and once issued cannot be used again for 4 more years and if you have 7 one and dones over a 3 year time period in year 4 you only have 6 scholarship players. Same for football. If a kid flunks out, quits or leaves early you cannot reuse that scholarship until 4 years have passed from the time issued.
available to high school athletes looking to attend college. So because a football player makes a family decision to leave a year early and set up his family for life we should punish some well intentioned high school kid who would have taken that 85th scholarship?
It's a completely different point, but I think scholarship limits in general are BS. Notre Dame should be allowed to let as many people attend for free as they want. Wouldn't more total high school athletes get a free education with unlimited scholarships than with limits as we have now? Wouldn't we do away with this roster management crap where schools force out players to free upctheir spot?
It would reach an equilibrium where it wouldn't ever get up to like a 200 man roster because no player wants to go into that logjam. But if it's "unfair" to the Purdues and and Central Floridas of the world that a Notre Dame can accumulate players just to keep them away from lesser programs, maybe they should work on making their school and program more attractive to recruits.
Not materially, anyway.
It would reduce the universe of scholarships available to high school athletes looking to attend Kentucky, maybe. But the number of early draftees vs. the number of available scholarships is quite small. Maybe what, 30 vs. 1200 in basketball? 100 vs. 2000 in football?
In football and basketball and it would add up.
Some kid wouldn't get Kizer's scholarship this year, correct?
educate and try to keep their kids and penalize them for not graduating and keeping kids. I still think the primary reason for a college is to educate young men and women and anything that detracts from that is not good. athletics are extracurricular activities and should be shut down if they are not helping educate and graduate students. they are fun to watch and help create spirit and attachment but it is not the primary purpose. Plays and music performances are also fun to watch and create good school spirit. It is amazing that we have created a culture that pays millions to someone who is strong and fast and sometimes just plain nasty to those around them but whose next best job would pay under $40,000 a year. We have strange priorities as a culture.