Teaching is the most noble profession, and being innovative, let alone successful, while in the public light creates an enormous amount of jealousy. ‘One and done’ is a media made expression that is simplistic because it is designed to create negative connotations while giving short shift to the families and children. Yes, I consider 18-year-old young men, children, almost all from diverse backgrounds; the criticism negates the reality of their lives, whether the child comes from a poor home or just wants to follow his dream, love and passion.

I don’t think any rational person could argue that all kids wouldn’t be emotionally, socially and culturally better off in many ways by enjoying the college experience for a longer period of time. Nor can anyone intelligently say, under the right coach, kids don’t learn more and improve their game by remaining in college. But these are the rules and the circumstances, so along comes John Calipari, a proven winner with flair and style, whose achievements are too often overlooked because of his SUCCESS. He has to have steel balls and an iron stomach. If he truly is the poster boy then he has had to reinvent himself, redesign his team and his students, reteach himself every year without losing his enthusiasm and passion. That’s quite an achievement in a culture of ‘expectations.’

The game has always had rebellious winners who have gone against the grain; however, the barriers, which a Frank McGuire faced, bringing NYC Catholic and Jewish players to the south in the mid-1950s, or Don Haskins, starting five black kids at a Texas school in the mid-1960s, or John Thompson, whose entire team was comprised of African-American kids in the 1970s and 80s, causing nasty racist backlash are over.

So, who is the successful pioneer today that losers need to be critical of? John Calipari. He shares the characteristics of these other three Hall of Famers. He has gone against the grain of popular belief and he has WON. Eight of ten coaches wouldn’t have won with the same talent. It’s one thing for the ‘conductor’ to recruit the best orchestra in the world, it’s an entirely different thing for those horns, those violins and cellos to be in harmony. Point is, ‘one and done’ is meaningless. It’s media made and robs the coach and his players of the true teachings, efforts, obstacles, and challenges, and those are real.

Rest of story

Great read. The only thing I'll disagree with is when you click the rest of the story and he said the fab five didn't win. The way they came together and went to two final fours, including one title game, is "winning" to me, because IMO you don't fault a team that makes it to the final four and act like they aren't winners just because they fell short of the ultimate goal.

Great read. The only thing I'll disagree with is when you click the rest of the story and he said the fab five didn't win. The way they came together and went to two final fours, including one title game, is "winning" to me, because IMO you don't fault a team that makes it to the final four and act like they aren't winners just because they fell short of the ultimate goal.

 

They went to back to back championship games. They lost to Duke in 1992 and UNC in 1993.

If they happen to win it all, will this year's Kentucky team be remembered and talked about like the Fab Five?

 

Also, if it happens, we'll have to come up with a cool, catchy nickname I guess. :lol2:

If they happen to win it all, will this year's Kentucky team be remembered and talked about like the Fab Five?

 

I don't think they will. Not even in Kentucky. I'd imagine people will remember Anthony Davis & MKG's championship team more. Miller helps with that.

 

The reason I don't think they will be talked about like the Fab Five is because the Fab Five basically changed college basketball, in my opinion. Their style, they way they wore their jerseys, and their swagger (which is a word I hate, but can't think of a better word). If our Cats win it all this year, I'll be beyond excited and won't forget the journey they took throughout the season and tourney but I don't think it will be the same.

They went to back to back championship games. They lost to Duke in 1992 and UNC in 1993.

 

You're right, oversight on my part. Early in the morning and my brain isn't locked in yet :lol2:

I don't think they will. Not even in Kentucky. I'd imagine people will remember Anthony Davis & MKG's championship team more. Miller helps with that.

 

The reason I don't think they will be talked about like the Fab Five is because the Fab Five basically changed college basketball, in my opinion. Their style, they way they wore their jerseys, and their swagger (which is a word I hate, but can't think of a better word). If our Cats win it all this year, I'll be beyond excited and won't forget the journey they took throughout the season and tourney but I don't think it will be the same.

 

I've enjoyed this season's tournament run much more that 2012 because it was totally unexpected from me.

If they happen to win it all, will this year's Kentucky team be remembered and talked about like the Fab Five?

 

Also, if it happens, we'll have to come up with a cool, catchy nickname I guess. :lol2:

 

I think it will be very similar, especially because UK is doing it with 7 freshmen and a sophomore (not counting WCS at the moment, hope I can change that number this weekend) right now. It's amazing no matter what happens. But, as MJ pointed out, Michigan changed college basketball, so it's a little different in that Michigan was the pioneer of something.

"Eight of ten coaches wouldn’t have won with the same talent. It’s one thing for the ‘conductor’ to recruit the best orchestra in the world, it’s an entirely different thing for those horns, those violins and cellos to be in harmony"

 

Some solid points in the article, but the above I absolutely do not agree with. As a matter of fact I think there are many coaches who may have very well done MORE with this team this year during the regular season. I just don't view Cal as a great X's and O's coach and it's really hard to judge how well a "teacher of the game" he is simply because most of his talent doesn't stick around long enough to see. What Cal IS great at is selling himself as the coach to come play for and convincing several of the top players every year to come to KY. He's better at it than anybody else right now, and yes that is all a part of coaching at the college level, recruiting talent, so you have to give him huge props for that part of it. But 8 out of 10 coaches couldn't have done what he did with this team? I don't buy that.

"Eight of ten coaches wouldn’t have won with the same talent. It’s one thing for the ‘conductor’ to recruit the best orchestra in the world, it’s an entirely different thing for those horns, those violins and cellos to be in harmony"

 

Some solid points in the article, but the above I absolutely do not agree with. As a matter of fact I think there are many coaches who may have very well done MORE with this team this year during the regular season. I just don't view Cal as a great X's and O's coach and it's really hard to judge how well a "teacher of the game" he is simply because most of his talent doesn't stick around long enough to see. What Cal IS great at is selling himself as the coach to come play for and convincing several of the top players every year to come to KY. He's better at it than anybody else right now, and yes that is all a part of coaching at the college level, recruiting talent, so you have to give him huge props for that part of it. But 8 out of 10 coaches couldn't have done what he did with this team? I don't buy that.

 

Using this line of thinking, I assume you don't think John Wooden was a great coach? Must not think good old Roy is very good either. The amount of talent those guys have/had over the course of their careers has been mind-boggling.

Using this line of thinking, I assume you don't think John Wooden was a great coach? Must not think good old Roy is very good either. The amount of talent those guys have/had over the course of their careers has been mind-boggling.

 

Dean Smith? And he won only 2?

Dean Smith? And he won only 2?

 

Exactly. We can't discredit Cal's coaching abilities because he "gets the best players", and still hold up guys like Wooden, Smith, Roy, Coach K, etc. on a pedestal.

 

Another huge part of coaching is player development.

 

Look at guys like Jorts, Liggins, Miller, etc. They all improved 10x over under Cal. Hell, even Eloy Vargas was able to turn basketball into a professional career.

What always gets me are the people that say, "oh, he is just a good recruiter" as if that is not a requisite skill of being a successful coach in college basketball.

I've enjoyed this season's tournament run much more that 2012 because it was totally unexpected from me.

 

Like the 2012 Final Four run for Louisville.

 

But this UK squad is supremely talented in a way that the 2012 Louisville squad wasn't on their unexpected run.

 

Kentucky could win this whole thing.

What always gets me are the people that say' date=' "oh, he is just a good recruiter" as if that is not a requisite skill of being a successful coach in college basketball.[/quote']

 

Isn't that kind of natural, though? Hasn't college basketball always celebrated most the coaches who "do more with less?"

 

It's not the best example, because I think Calipari's coaching prowess is miles better, but does anybody look back and think Bill Frieder or Lou Henson and think of their great chalkboard work just because they were able to bring in outstanding talent?

 

While it's not really fair, the fact is that the majority of college coaches have always been viewed as being either a great recruiter or a great Xs/Os guy.