I would have voted Bruce Pearl for coach of the year; to play as well as they have after losing their best player for the whole league schedule and still go 11-5 is much more impressive than the job Stallings did. Stalling did a good job, but considering the adversity Pearl overcame, it has to be him.

 

That's if you buy into the theory that Smith was their best player....I personally wouldn't.

Because he did more with less maybe? Stallings goes 14-2 in the SEC with UK's roster. So does half the league's coaches.

 

How can you make that assumption?

Calipari didn't get snubbed. Stallings won the award and deservedly so. There is a much better chance that Stallings wins 27 games with Cal's players than there is that Cal finishes second in the SEC East with Stallings' players.

 

:lol: hater.

:lol: hater.

:lol: I know it. It's called the salmon arguement. It's what happens when you swim against the current.

:lol: I know it. It's called the salmon arguement. It's what happens when you swim against the current.

 

REALLY against the current.

 

 

Gary Parrish (candidates): Alford, Boeheim, Calipari, Dixon, Drew, Martin, Ryan, Self

Greg Anthony (candidates): Boeheim, Calipari, Few

Pat Forde: Boeheim (Calipari as SEC COY)

Mike Miller (candidates): Boeheim, Rose, Calipari, Martin, Dixon, McCaffery, Kennedy

 

Jeff Eisenberg (rivals): How did [Calipari] not win SEC COY?

 

Rick Bozich:

"But it makes you wonder if the coaches really believe that Stallings did a better job than the coach whose team won the league and beat Vandy twice or if the vote was a backlash at Calipari and the way he has rolled into the league this season with his five-star roster.

 

I say it's more backlash."

 

Digital Sports Daily:

Calipari ... deserved to be SEC coach of the year.

 

SportingNews:

"Love him or hate him, don't tell me Stallings "outcoached" Calipari this year. "

That's not the point he took a team that was in the NIT last year and has them as a one seed in the NCAAT. Plus, he is 2-0 against Stallings, I just don't see the logic in picking Coach Stallings.

 

 

I thought Calipari pretty much cleaned house of last year's team. The team that played this year is most definitely NOT the team in the NIT last year.

 

If he'd have kept those last year's players, and they were the ones winning the games, then yes, he would have a better case for COY, IMO.

I would have voted Bruce Pearl for coach of the year; to play as well as they have after losing their best player for the whole league schedule and still go 11-5 is much more impressive than the job Stallings did. Stalling did a good job, but considering the adversity Pearl overcame, it has to be him.

 

I agree with the fact that Pearl did a great job after those guys got in trouble and Smith was gone for the year, but (I know I'll take a little heat for this) I think he has to take some responsibility in what happened because those are the types of players he brings in-thugs. I know it's not his job to keep track of his players every move, but he's not completely innocent IMO.

 

I can't stand Pearl either so I guess that factors into my opinion.

I thought Calipari pretty much cleaned house of last year's team. The team that played this year is most definitely NOT the team in the NIT last year.

 

If he'd have kept those last year's players, and they were the ones winning the games, then yes, he would have a better case for COY, IMO.

 

That's one way of looking at it but shouldn't he also get credit for being able to bring in the talent that enabled them to improve that much in 1 year?

Coach Cal got robbed.

 

If they left both Wall/Cousins on the ballot for POY/Freshman they would have split votes, this way each kid wins an award and it worked out fine.

 

UK decided on this.

That's one way of looking at it but shouldn't he also get credit for being able to bring in the talent that enabled them to improve that much in 1 year?

 

Possibly. But on the otherhand, would he have been so successful if one or two of those players had not come to UK? He has an unbelievably talented group of freshmen. What happens next year with at least 3 of the players on this team are gone? What if he doesn't get the same level of talent?

 

I think the team did great. But, although you can successfully argue that he did a great job of recruiting to get them there, couldn't as much be said for the fact that they saw a depleted team and knew they'd get their chance to be one and done there?

 

I don't know...I'm just throwing out there that I think most coaches could have done as well with the talent he had, and I'm not 100% sold that he recruited them so much as they saw a chance to play together as an essential "all-star" team and improve their chances to go big sooner.

I thought Calipari pretty much cleaned house of last year's team. The team that played this year is most definitely NOT the team in the NIT last year.

 

If he'd have kept those last year's players, and they were the ones winning the games, then yes, he would have a better case for COY, IMO.

 

:lol: You guys are too much.

 

He's not coach of the year, because he can recruit? Thats not part of being a coach?

I'm not 100% sold that he recruited them so much as they saw a chance to play together as an essential "all-star" team and improve their chances to go big sooner.

 

Sorry... I didn't realize he didn't recruit them either.

 

:lol:

 

H A T E R

Sorry... I didn't realize he didn't recruit them either.

 

:lol:

 

H A T E R

 

 

My point is that I don't think it's too hard to get great players to come play for you when you have a fistful of other great players, and you're clearing most of the previous team out of the picture. For a player who wants to do his one year parole before he can go to the NBA, how hard of a decision is it to play for a coach who's landing the other top recruits with the same goal? It's not like it's a hard-sell recruiting job.

Possibly. But on the otherhand, would he have been so successful if one or two of those players had not come to UK? He has an unbelievably talented group of freshmen. What happens next year with at least 3 of the players on this team are gone? What if he doesn't get the same level of talent?

 

I think the team did great. But, although you can successfully argue that he did a great job of recruiting to get them there, couldn't as much be said for the fact that they saw a depleted team and knew they'd get their chance to be one and done there?

 

I don't know...I'm just throwing out there that I think most coaches could have done as well with the talent he had, and I'm not 100% sold that he recruited them so much as they saw a chance to play together as an essential "all-star" team and improve their chances to go big sooner.

 

They were all going to Memphis before Cal left for UK, and Henry was going there instead of Kansas too. It had nothing to do with a depleted team, because Memphis sure wasn't depleted as is evident by the fact they're a pontential NCAA tourny team this season.

My point is that I don't think it's too hard to get great players to come play for you when you have a fistful of other great players, and you're clearing most of the previous team out of the picture. For a player who wants to do his one year parole before he can go to the NBA, how hard of a decision is it to play for a coach who's landing the other top recruits with the same goal? It's not like it's a hard-sell recruiting job.

 

Hence my post in #6. They are basically saying "your players did all the work." So its like him.. Self, Nick Saban, all have to prove themselves somehow. Or in other words your players are too good, anyone could coach them?