Kentucky Basketball's New Death Star - WSJ.com

 

I laugh at these types of pieces especially here late in March. UK who was not in the tourney, and already exited the NIT is still the focal point of an article from WSJ? Seems like a waste of time, and a feeble attempt to take a stab at the program. I will never understand why folks cannot fathom that there are different philosophies when it comes to coaching. Why does that upset so many people?

 

John Calipari has given this UK program a rebirth, and brought them back to prominence in the college basketball world. Cal is a master marketer, a motivator, and persuasive. Some fans take this as a threat, or just despise it. I guess my point/ question is why do people have such polarizing views of a guy that does his job in a different way? Mind you a system that follows the rules, and improves the lives of these young men. I'm not trying to anoint him as a saint, but I think it is unfair to call his body of work hollow, and making a mockery of the NCAA.

Because it's not seen as the "right way."

Poor guy. Once this article starts circulating through BBN, his twitter and email will blow up like never before.

I heard he was a Louisville fan?

I heard he was a Louisville fan?

 

That's what it says at the bottom of the article.

Because it's not seen as the "right way."

 

What makes it wrong?

That's what it says at the bottom of the article.

 

I guess that explains it all...

The guy is a lifelong Louisville fan using his position with the Wall Street Journal to troll UK fans. I'm not too worried about it.

His article would carry more weight if UK had not won the national title last year in very convincing fashion, while being led by a group of freshman players. First-rate basketabll programs like UK and UL should measure their success in national titles. If UL captures the national title this year, then clearly Pitino's "way" of things paid dividends. But, Calipari's "way" has already proven it can win titles.

 

If UL stumbles along the way and does not bring home a title, then this writer's argument is going to be really weakened.

What makes it wrong?

 

People see the university as being a one-year NBA prep stop, instead of being a place where you get an education and play basketball. No sense of history behind the program; just a me-first attitude with the ultimate goal of getting paid and winning championships is secondary.

People see the university as being a one-year NBA prep stop, instead of being a place where you get an education and play basketball. No sense of history behind the program; just a me-first attitude with the ultimate goal of getting paid and winning championships is secondary.

 

Nothing wrong with that. By using this logic Cal and UK has already produced a national championship, along with a plethora of 1st round draft picks. It takes talent to win a championship and Cal has done that already. What is the goal of college? Prepare you for a career you love. These kids love basketball and UK is best to prepare you for that career. No different than kids going to Harvard Law School. Who was it that said that UK is turning out more millionaires than a Fortune 500 company?

Nothing wrong with that. By using this logic Cal and UK has already produced a national championship, along with a plethora of 1st round draft picks. It takes talent to win a championship and Cal has done that already. What is the goal of college? Prepare you for a career you love. These kids love basketball and UK is best to prepare you for that career. No different than kids going to Harvard Law School. Who was it that said that UK is turning out more millionaires than a Fortune 500 company?

 

It's dislike for the system. I don't think Calipari or UK are doing anything wrong; I hate that they're necessary. If pro sports in this country were put together in a way that made any sense at all, college sports would be just a minor blip on the sports radar, which is probably where they ought to be.

 

If professional basketball had teams all over the country competing in an effective pyramid system, the whole sport could benefit from it.

 

But we're stuck with it and we're stuck with our colleges and universities having to deal with all this nonsense.

Let's say Louisville does win the title this year, will it "mean" any more than UK's did last year? Of course not. Again, people want to pretend like Cal is writing the rules when, in fact, he is very outspoken about not liking them.

The only part I really dislike about it that you rarely, if ever, will get to watch another player like Darius Miller grow and expand their skills while at UK for four years. That and the problem with having to buy new jerseys every year. Though #3 appears to have been a good jersey if you held onto it.

The guy who wrote this article makes it sound like all UK/Calipari has been able to do is churn out pros while not being very successful as a team in college. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe UK has gone to two final fours, won a national title and made an elite 8 appearance in four years under Calipari, not to mention going 3 years without losing at home. This year did not go well, but how can this guy argue that UK as a college team/program has not been successful under Calipari. Calipari once made the unfortunate remark about the 2010 draft day being the greatest day in UK basketball history, and this writer seems to be taking that one comment and expanding it to represent the current state of UK basketball, which it isn't. Has another team been more successful in the past four years than UK? Maybe 1 or 2 teams, if that.