OT: Calipari, Not Ryan, Elected to Hall of Fame
http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/4/5/8347763/john-calipa…
Something about this just seems absurd to me.
Could they both have gotten in?
One would think Bo Ryan making Wisco into a perennial power without the glamorous recruiting would get him elected in...
Forgot to mention Ryan's 4 Div. III titles. Don't those count?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I can understand the bad taste Calipari's election leaves in a lot people's mouth. His time at Memphis & UMass is definitely tainted. However, the Kentucky situation is interesting to me. I'm not sure if he has boosters dumping money into kids accounts or if he is working outside the lines of NCAA rules on recruiting.
However, he is, to a certain extent, a pioneer of the new age of competitive college basketball. The NBA and NCAA created this one year and done fiasco. Coach Cal has embraced it and used it to turn UK into what equates to a "minor league" basketball team. Other teams are starting to adopt this approach (here's looking at you Duke), but Coach Cal was defintely the first one to jump in at the deep end of the pool. He has basically taken the NBA draft rules and turned it into a massive recruiting edge for his program.
I cannot stand the guy, but unfortunately, he has defined what the future landscape of competitive collegiate basketball will look like while this one and done crap exists. Throw in the incoming stipend/paycheck college athletes may end up receiving and you have minor league basketball. Do I think he's HOF worthy? Not really, but there is no doubt he has had a profound impact on what NCAA basketball looks like now - for better or for worse.
Well, "The Future" has been delayed for at least one year.
I am amazed at the number of people here who are crying foul over Bo Ryan not getting into the HOF this year. Don't we hate Bo Ryan? Isn't he alien Hitler or the vanguard of the bug people? He is still one of the biggest complainers to the refs in college basketball despite his teams undercutting shooters and bumping every guy who drives to the lane without anything getting called against them.
I guess when compared to Coach Cal he looks pretty good, I am just surprised at the number of people here calling for his immediate enshrinement into the HOF.
What he's done is impressive. It just is.
As he has been able to recruit better, he has dialed back some of the Neanderthal tactics we hated him most for.
He did what he needed to do, given his situation, but not longer than necessary, it appears. He probably did not like it any more than we did.
He is an abrasive pain in the ass, but he is a very good coach for his program.
I never denied he is a really good basketbal coach. Since he has been at Wisconsin they have never finished lower than 4th in the league, that is really impressive.
But I dispute your, "he did what he needed to do". Other coaches with limited talent succeed without playing a slow, grind it out, ugly style of basketball. But regardless, he is a quality basketball coach.
I will be interested to see if he can maintain this really high level of success or if it is a flash in the pan built on good coaching and some good luck (Kaminsky developing beyond anyones expectations and 2 really good basketball players, Dekker and Koening, growing up in Wisconsin).
I've never found Wisconsin basketball particularly ugly. It's basketball the way I was taught it, something there isn't a lot left of these days. Every pass, every pick, every boxout I find myself remembering some coach back in high school or grade school, thinking "yep, that's the way he said it should be done."
It's Kentucky I find ugly, despite all the talent. It's all iso and dribble-drive and throwing the ball at the hoop; when they try to run some stuff it's so clunky. There's something unnaturally self-conscious about the way they set an off-ball screen, like it's something none of them had ever been asked to do before.
It's hard to watch. And I think it was harder this year, because I've had the painful experience of watching my own former high school transition from one to the other. They hired an AAU guy as head coach and the focus now is on advancing potential careers by enhancing stats and creating highlight-reel moments.
But that's what people seem to like--if I hate it, well, too bad for me. It's what the media like, for sure, and understandably so. A solid 35-second defensive stand doesn't do much for Sportscenter after all.
I have never found Wisconsin's offense ugly, I think it is well taught and well executed. It is their clutch and grab defense I find ugly.
As for Kentucky, I agree their offense is ugly, because their offense is non-existent. For all their talent I am not sure any of them actually know how to play basketball involving the four other guys on the court.
With all that being said, I would much rather have an offense like Michigan the last two years or Notre Dame this year. Also well taught and executed, space the floor, have good shooters and take the first quality look available. Wisconsins offense is fine, but I would prefer a bit more of a wide open game with less shots taken with under 10 seconds on the shot clock. I could be wrong, but I think Wisconsins offense would be just as efficient but would have even more possessions if the shot clock was shortened from 35.
Off the top of my head:
- Terry Porter
- Jim Chones
- Joe Wolf
- Wes Matthews
- Latrell Sprewell
- Nick Van Exel
- Fred Brown, if you want to go way back
Maybe Porter doesn't belong on the list because he wasn't heavily recruited by any means, but he's exactly the kind of player Ryan looks for (he played for Bennett, after all).
I'm sure I'm missing some people.
Dekker's a good player but he isn't historically unique--except that he went to UW instead of leaving the state or going to Marquette like everyone else.
Ask this question 6 months ago and it'd be funny to see how different the responses would be.
This year's Wisconsin team is not like teams in the past that played attrition basketball and essentially tried to beat you 42-41. This team is the #1 team in the country in terms of offensive efficiency. They execute on offense better than anyone else in the country. How can you possibly not appreciate that?
They are essentially the perfect model of the team that Beilein tries to build every year, and the anthiesis of what everyone says you have to do to win right now in college basketball. Everyone says you have to win with defense, but Wisconsin's offense is so good that their defense almost doesn't matter. They score so many points per possession that no one else can keep up. Very similar to our team last year, but better.
I think it is far to early to say there has been much change in Bo Ryan. I think his scheme and style of play have remained largely the same, he just has more talent at his disposal then he has ever had before, so his offensive efficiency has shot through the roof.
I wonder if this is a lasting trend for Wisconsin. Next year without Kaminsky and possible Dekker, along with losing Gasser and Jackson, will Wisconsin still be great offensivly or will they regress and Bo Ryan go back ot winning games 42 - 41.
All of his Final Fours have been vacated with the exception of the Kentucky ones --- which will almost assuredly be wiped out within the next fifteen years as well.
...the basketball HOF really is a joke.
Basically as a thought experiment, give Kentucky's roster to every coach in this year's NCAA tournament. At least 40 (and probably like... all of them but Rick Barnes and John Thompson III) of them would make the Final Four, and the really good coaches would be completely unbeatable. Calipari just throws the ball out and hopes. Watch their last like six possessions in that game where it was stall and let a Harrison drive to the lane and pray.
Even more fun would be to see what Calipari could do with a roster like we had this year.
He would probably just hang it up and wait for next year.
and I'm not quite sure what would happen if you gave Ryan UK's roster. He has certain expectations about how players should practice and prepare (and play for that matter) and he's carefully managed his program to make sure he always has players who will perpetuate that environment.
I don't know what happens if you toss a lot of freshman McDonald's all-Americans into that. Do they buy in? Do they walk? Does he?
And not just any freshmen, but the particular group of freshmen that in real life chose to play for the guy that "throws the ball out and hopes," instead of plausible alternatives like Krzyszewski. I think it would be a disaster.
Give Ryan Duke's roster and he's probably unbeatable. Force Kentucky's roster on him and you've probably got his resignation by the end of the week.
Give Ryan a skilled big who's almost unstoppable in the post and makes 80% of his FTs and I like his chances.
I'm absolutely certain he's got the basketball knowledge to make it work. I just don't know if he'd put up with it for a whole season--I think he much prefers what he does now.
That's false.
I basically agree with your assessment of Calipari. He's never been known as a teacher of the game, his game management isn't that great, the only schematic advance he's got to his name is that 1-4 iso play you're describing that's been a staple of AAU offenses since forever. From a pure basketball standpoint you could count on one hand the number of coaches in the tournament I'd put him ahead of (and yes my hand has room for Rick Barnes).
So maybe it's worth thinking through why the best talent in the country keeps coming to play for him. It's not bribery. I can see how people might have interpreted some of what I've written on this thread that way, and I should have been more careful.
He comes highly recommended by people that are likely to have a hand in the future income of a top prospect. He offers a comfortable one-and-done year (or two, if necessary). He's not particularly demanding, nobody's checking to see if you showed up for your 8am class, he won't do anything that might embarrass you and threaten your future career, he can be counted on not to ask any questions if you need some extra assistance with your eligibility like Rose or have some unusual personal requirements like Camby. He understands a player's need for media exposure, won't get too upset if you piss away a possession trying to get yourself on that night's Top Ten.
He's trustworthy, from their perspective, like few other coaches are, so the Worldwides of the basketball world are happy to refer future stars to his care for a year. The player knows he'll be taken care of in return, won't drop too far in the draft if he gets hurt for example (Nerlens).
It's successful. It wins. It's self-perpetuating. The looking-the-other-way part can be problematic in the long run but nobody much cares at the time.
The question is: is it a reason to put somebody in the Hall of Fame?
And it probably is. It's the essence of college basketball now. Calipari to the Hall, Ryan and Beilein to a museum--I'm grudgingly learning to accept that that's where we've come to.
I'm sure Cal will get in trouble with the NCAA again soon and have ANOTHER Final Four vacated. Only a matter of time.
All this talk about how dirty Cal is; you could count on 1 hand the number of successful programs who don't break the rules.
That's the nature of college basketball.