What Does Calipari Do Next Year

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ What Does Calipari Do Next Year
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Apr 7, 2010 11:24 PM
When I say stand alone, I mean they are known as 'UK' and 'KU'. Anyone who should really talk about college basketball should not make the mistake of confusing them. I've seen the same mistake in the media numerous times this year alone, and it's sickening.

I didn't say it to say that UCLA, Duke, North Carolina, Indiana, etc...are not on par with them. The point was that you don't confuse the initials of these two universities when talking about basketball. It's an inexcusable mistake.

Like I said, it's like calling Ohio State UOS or Southern California SCU. How ridiculous does it look/sound if someone referred to either like that? It's the same with the UK/KU thing. Know the difference or don't talk about it.

Hell, it's ridiculous that we STILL see people talking about how great "NIU" was in this year's NCAA Tournament.
Apr 7, 2010 11:24pm
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Apr 7, 2010 11:26 PM
And ironically, the University of Kansas is TECHNICALLY, UK, but have always gone by KU. So if people were out of the loop since basketball stopped using peach baskets, they might be able to get away with calling Kansas "UK."

However, calling Kentucky, "KU", no. There is no rationale for it.
Apr 7, 2010 11:26pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 7, 2010 11:36 PM
Azubuike24 wrote: Like I said, it's like calling Ohio State UOS or Southern California SCU. How ridiculous does it look/sound if someone referred to either like that? It's the same with the UK/KU thing. Know the difference or don't talk about it.
I don't think it's THAT ridiculous to be honest. And I don't feel that comparison is a fair one. Now, if there were a team with the acronym UOS, then yes it would be a fair comparison. But no one calls OSU (besides Pryor :D) USO because they aren't used to saying USO because no other university has those letters as their surnames. UK and KU are so similar in terms of lettering, that it can easily be mistaken...especially since both programs are so great.
Apr 7, 2010 11:36pm
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Apr 7, 2010 11:38 PM
SportsAndLady wrote:
Azubuike24 wrote: Like I said, it's like calling Ohio State UOS or Southern California SCU. How ridiculous does it look/sound if someone referred to either like that? It's the same with the UK/KU thing. Know the difference or don't talk about it.
UK and KU are so similar in terms of lettering, that it can easily be mistaken...especially since both programs are so great.
That's exactly why they shouldn't be confused.
Apr 7, 2010 11:38pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Apr 7, 2010 11:38 PM
Apr 7, 2010 11:38pm
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Apr 7, 2010 11:43 PM
It's going to be an interesting tenure for Calipari at Kentucky.

Some reports and mock drafts have all 5 of the UK prospects going in the top 20! With the weak crop of PG's, some have 4 of them going in the lottery. Whether this means Calipari needs to change his recruiting, find better players that fit his system (he's going to do this in 2010 IMO) or what, something has to change.

What could have been an all-time great team with historic NBA legacies may eventually go down as one of best collections of talent to achieve very little in-terms of college basketball success.

Even outside of these 5, I think Darius Miller and DeAndre Liggins have a shot at the NBA, and there are possibly 10 or 11 players on this roster who can play basketball professionally.
Apr 7, 2010 11:43pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Apr 8, 2010 12:44 PM
Just caught a bit on First Take talking about Kentucky/Calipari. Jerry Tipton from the Lexington Herald-Leader said he spoke with the university president a few weeks ago. The way he made it sound, the president was not real excited about building a program with one-and-dones every year. Apparently he will soon be on some NCAA committee and will be pushing an exploration of reform in that area.

Not sure what to make of it as it was a quick couple sentences (and obviously a second hand source), but surely the guy knew what he was getting with Calipari in that regard?
Apr 8, 2010 12:44pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Apr 8, 2010 12:50 PM
Kids should be ALLOWED to go straight to the NBA after high school and earn a living. But if there were some kind of rule to go to college first, I say 2 years is more ideal.
Apr 8, 2010 12:50pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Apr 8, 2010 12:52 PM
I'm sure the UK President is happy with UK basketball relevant again regardless of the one and dones.
Apr 8, 2010 12:52pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Apr 8, 2010 1:37 PM
thedynasty1998 wrote: I'm sure the UK President is happy with UK basketball relevant again regardless of the one and dones.
Actually, the UK president is probably irrelevant when it comes to mens basketball. He/she would be raked over hot coals by those with $$$ if need be.
Apr 8, 2010 1:37pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Apr 8, 2010 2:01 PM
mallymal614 wrote: Kids should be ALLOWED to go straight to the NBA after high school and earn a living. But if there were some kind of rule to go to college first, I say 2 years is more ideal.
The NCAA doesn't have any control over the NBA's rule. Other than trying to collaborate with the NBA on a "solution" for both entities, there isn't anything the NCAA can do about that.

I've said before that if the NCAA is serious about avoiding one-and-dones, they could take back freshmen eligibility. If freshmen had to sit out a year anyway, there'd be no incentive to go to school for that one year minimum. Guys who aren't interested in the education could find another way to spend a year before the NBA. Would that be better for the college game? How long would it take the NBA to do away with its rule in that case?
Apr 8, 2010 2:01pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Apr 8, 2010 2:24 PM
Would that be better for the college game?
It would further dilute the talent in the college game.Too many freshmen are contributors with no intention of leaving after one year. It isn't fair to punish the group because a few have the talent to get drafted after one year of college.
Apr 8, 2010 2:24pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Apr 8, 2010 2:55 PM
Prescott wrote:
Would that be better for the college game?
It would further dilute the talent in the college game.Too many freshmen are contributors with no intention of leaving after one year. It isn't fair to punish the group because a few have the talent to get drafted after one year of college.
I agree about it seemingly punishing the group. On the other hand, wasn't the whole reason it was in place initially to allow students to solidify their academics in the first year? In the long run, academically, I doubt it can hurt anyone and in that regard it isn't punishment.

As for the talent issue, I'd say that is the larger point. A lot of people want to talk about this "problem", but when it comes down to it, the schools aren't going to do anything about it because it will take away from their real bottom line. There are very few figureheads that I take seriously for that reason. If they aren't willing to take dramatic action, it really isn't that much of a problem.
Apr 8, 2010 2:55pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Apr 8, 2010 4:38 PM
On the other hand, wasn't the whole reason it was in place initially to allow students to solidify their academics in the first year? In the long run, academically,
It still isn't fair. Most freshmen have academic progress because they have no intention of leaving after one year. If they can handle the academic load and play basketball, they shouldn't be punished because a small minority chooses to be a "One and Done" player.
Apr 8, 2010 4:38pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Apr 8, 2010 4:44 PM
Prescott wrote: It still isn't fair. Most freshmen have academic progress because they have no intention of leaving after one year. If they can handle the academic load and play basketball, they shouldn't be punished because a small minority chooses to be a "One and Done" player.
Then since it is such a small minority, it isn't really a problem. Right?
Apr 8, 2010 4:44pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Apr 8, 2010 6:42 PM
Then since it is such a small minority, it isn't really a problem. Right?
I don't think it is a problem. The problem is the "One and Dones" can't go straight to the NBA after high school and they are making mockery out the term student-athlete.
Apr 8, 2010 6:42pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Apr 8, 2010 7:22 PM
Is it really a "problem"? I don't think it is. Are some using the system? Absolutely. I think its a win win for NCAA and NBA along with fans.
Apr 8, 2010 7:22pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Apr 8, 2010 8:46 PM
Prescott wrote:
Then since it is such a small minority, it isn't really a problem. Right?
I don't think it is a problem. The problem is the "One and Dones" can't go straight to the NBA after high school and they are making mockery out the term student-athlete.
I guess I just see it as a foolish pride kind of thing for the college rep types. How many one and dones per season are there? What is the percentage of all players that do this? You pointed out that it is a small minority, so why would they want to invest any real amount of time or effort in trying to prevent it? Who would it really benefit and how great is the benefit if they were to make a rule that prevents the X number of guys per year that do what they have to do to get to the next level?

centralbucksfan wrote: Is it really a "problem"? I don't think it is. Are some using the system? Absolutely. I think its a win win for NCAA and NBA along with fans.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. Every so often you hear those terms "mockery of the student athlete" and people saying something needs to be done. Well, the NCAA doesn't need to do anything. There is no good direction they could go that is going to make it better for the NCAA, but they could certainly do something that would further harm themselves.

I've read/heard of some suggestions that NCAA tourney bids be qualified by graduations rates first. Yeah right. So again, that is my point. There's no need to act as though this is some travesty to the sport or that something needs to be done.
Apr 8, 2010 8:46pm