Recently, Hoboat33 and Glenn wrote pieces discussing Chuck Klosterman’s Grantland article. [Link] Glenn’s point was basically that Klosterman’s hand wringing was much ado about nothing – that Cal’s paradigm for recruiting and putting a team on the court is a natural progression in the changing environment in which college basketball operates. Hoboat33’s point was that there’s NO "change coming" in College Basketball … it’s already happened.

I particularly liked an insightful point Hoboat33’s made:

"Now that other coaches have seen it in action and seen it succeed, regardless of what transpires in the coming week, they will be adjusting their recruiting strategy. Actually, not their strategy but their message (Emphasis added). It's not as if these players come to Kentucky because no one else was recruiting them, they liked the message. After all, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, et al were also recruiting these players and since many chose UK, we get the label. (Some one-and-doners did go to other schools, *cough* Duke,... *cough*.)"

My point is that there is no way that even so few as 5 schools can realistically seek to build a program around showcasing freshman one-n-done talent … and what’s more, interestingly enough, they don’t want to even if they could.

I’m not trying to say Chuck Klosterman is stupid; but however articulate the Grantland article may be, as Glenn points out, Klosterman wrote it giving full rein to his irrational fears and not his analytical skills. However, giving credit where credit is due, Klosterman’s article IS the first one I’ve read that clearly verbalizes what so many fear will be the result of Calipari having won a NCAA Championship with one-n-done freshmen – that it will herald the end of competitive college basketball…

"There will be five schools sharing the 25 best players in the country, and all the lesser programs will kill each other for the right to lose to those five schools in the Sweet 16. It will skew the competitive balance of major conferences and split D-I basketball into two completely unequal tiers. Final Four games will look more and more like sloppy pro games, and national interest in college basketball will wane..."

If he had used his head, he would have found little in the situation to stoke his fears. As Hoboat33 and Glenn correctly point out, it isn’t as though the top tier programs haven’t been recruiting these ‘top-25’ prospects all along. UNC, Duke, etc. have more McD AAs on their benches right now than Kentucky and they’d have even more if they could get them. There are some obvious realities that the Klosterman, et al hand wringers are ignoring. But first and foremost, the numbers won’t hold up.

Continue reading this post »

[If it helps put this post in perspective, imagine I'm channeling my 1st grade teacher, Mrs. Hoeback, bless her soul, and have manifested a stern though entirely false British accent as you read this. ‘;-)]

Yesterday, Glenn posted a good article (Click Here) about Calipari not getting his just accolades for his ability to successfully coach up the carousel of one-n-done freshman who annually dominate the teams he puts on Kentucky’s court. And, not surprisingly, I agree.

The idea promulgated by his hecklers that Cal may be a great recruiter but not a supremely talented coach is a clear injustice. The concept that he merely rolls the ball onto the court and lets them have at it is just ridiculous and says more about the people who voice such rhetorical garbage than it impugns Calipari. By itself, this type of defamation constitutes a part of the low level derisive background jeering that all public figures must breast. One of our roles as Kentucky’s fans is to correct the public record and constantly counter this type of micro-slur in the public debate to assure Cal’s image (as well as that of the Kentucky program) does not suffer the burden of a metaphorical death by a thousand tiny malignant cuts. And, as can be attested to by the vast majority of both local and national sports media, we’re darn good at it!

One of the problems I’ve noticed, however, is that we Kentucky fans sometimes inadvertently validate some portion of this rhetoric of small slights that Cal is heir to by allowing some of the mocking vocabulary to leak into our descriptive discussion of our own coach. An example of this is how Cal is routinely depreciated as more of a "salesman" than a great coach. Clearly this portrayal is in the exact same vein as the libel Glenn seeks to debunk in his post, but in the comments section of that same post, I noticed a couple of our fans fell into a semantics trap by using the term "Salesman" to label Calipari.

In the fullest and strictest sense, he is not a "salesman." And, when we fans use that term to label him, you’re shortchanging Cal by adopting and disseminating the pejorative characterization used by his detractors who seek to portray him in a shady and thereby less than savory fashion. Encarta Dictionary defines ‘Salesman’ as - "A man who sells goods or services, either in a store or by contacting potential customers" – In a stereotypical cultural context, often subliminally paired with the loaded adjective ‘Slick,’ the term ‘salesman’ frequently has a negative connotation, as in the individual who preys on a naïve individual by convincing them to buy something they don’t need and wouldn’t normally want, often at an exorbitant price they can’t afford, e.g., "He could sell ice to Eskimos."

Individuals who attempt to defend their use of the term ‘Salesman’ point to the recruiting component of a college coach’s job, but they are wrong, imo. To ‘sell’ implies the reciprocal action ‘buy or purchase’ and when someone buys something they are taking possession/ownership and, in effect, separating the purchase from the seller in some manner – and that’s not what happens in the college recruiting process. What college recruiters, in general, and Calipari, in particular, does is to ‘Promote’ UK’s athletic program to the prospect and invite him to join with Cal in becoming a member of the team, rather like an evangelist seeking converts, though Lord knows, in the secular castes of our society, the term ‘Missionary’ carries no small amount of its own baggage.

So, imo, if you have to use a term other than ‘Recruiter,’ the appropriate term is ‘Promoter.’ In addition to abjuring the negative connotations of an inappropriate label, using the term ‘Promoter’ has the added benefit of allowing his wildly successful recruiting activities to be seen as just another aspect of what makes John Calipari so tremendously successful in general - He is a consummate promoter. He’s constantly promoting - promoting himself, the University of Kentucky, its athletic programs, his coaching staff, the team, his players, his opponents, the SEC, his friends, his wife, his charities, Orange Leaf frozen yogurt, etc., etc., etcetera.

Encarta Dictionary defines ‘Promoter’ as: "1. someone who arranges and advertises events. Someone whose job is to arrange and advertise concerts and sports events; 2. Someone who tries to get support for an issue. Someone who tries to make people support an idea or issue; 3. Someone who tries to make a product popular. Someone who tries to make a product or institution more popular; 4. Someone who helps to start a new company. Someone who helps to start a new company or project."

But the best way to see how appropriate the term ‘Promoter’ fits what Calipari does is to read Encarta’s list of synonyms for the word: "Organizer, Agent, Sponsor, Advocate, Supporter, Publicist, Marketer, Developer, Backer, Advertiser, PR person." – Not "Salesman." ';-)

Timeout, Game Tied, 15 seconds Left, What's The Play, Who Takes The Shot?!?

The pressure is on us, we are the higher ranked team, far more talented, playing in Rupp, projected Final Four, in everybody's Championship conversation. Louisville just lost last night, over-ranked, a veteran team of good-but-not-great players pushed by a once great coach desperate to reclaim some weak glimmer of his former glory. Favored Kentucky should win by 12 - 16 points, imo.

But this is a rivalry game, a game of such intensity and history many sports books aren't even offering a line on the contest - at least not yet. Whose favored means almost nothing. In fact, if history has taught us anything, in a world where even the most important events in our lives elicit personal reactions suffused by only a few aspects of love, happiness, fear, anger or sadness, ... every year THIS GAME, over its 40-minutes - provides an opportunity to experience the most incredible range of intense emotions of any single event of our entire lives - Joy, Alarm, Calm, Shock, Thrill, Dread, Awe, Panic, Inspiration, Anxiety, Exaltation, Worry, Pride, Rage, Devotion, Torment, Serenity, Hostility, Satisfaction, Fury, Passion, Terror, Adoration, Outrage, Enthrallment, Disgust, Blissfulness, Grief, Optimism, Anger, Disappointment and Relief - again, all in one 40 minute contest! Win or lose, many times, we are totally drained emotionally by the end of play. And, in a statistically improbable number of instances, this game has capped its full spectrum emotional maelstrom by allowing the entire game to come down to one last second 'Sparks/Siva' shot.

So, ... when it comes right down to it, for this team ... who takes that shot? Lamb? Miller? Teague? Davis? Jones? Kid-Gilchrist? ... Wiltjer? Let's face it, all these guys are good but Cal has a tough decision, it's not so clear a choice. Taking a devil's advocate perspective, most of these players do not promote a lot of confidence for channeling Patrick Sparks in the final seconds of a college basketball game.

Jones? Not the first outside shooter that might come to mind in a situation like this and he has the injured left pinky, but he is shooting 47.1% from three and, guarded by a big man, he is more likely to be open on the perimeter than, say ... Lamb or Miller. Alternatively, Cal might want him for a low block option or for a potential putback. But Jone's been injured and been in a funk for the last 3 games that he's played. At least right now, I don't have a good feeling about Terrence, instead of being our best player, he looks like maybe the 5th best player on the team. I was criticized for suggesting that the apparent issues that manifested themselves at Indiana might well extent into follow-on games. But, in fact, they did seem to.

Terrence holds the ball low as he explodes to the basket. Indiana, to their credit, picked up on that fact and, imo, Jone's poor play was an emotional response to being hacked every time without the foul being called. The same thing was happening during the 10-minutes of the Tenn-Chattanooga game at Rupp he played before the injury and last night against Lamar. However, this type of media hyped game is just the opportunity Jones needs to break through his bad humor and let his play provide support for his nomination as a College Basketball Player of the Year Candidate and projected top-5 NBA Draft pick. I'm pulling for him.

Miller? Last night, Darius' outside shot was on, 4-6 from three, but, unlike last season, it has been very inconsistent, only 31.3%. In addition, I'm not so sure I want Miller's outside shot to be dropping against Louisville. [You say, "What, are you crazy?!?" - Maybe, but not just for entertaining this particular idea. I have others. ';-) ] Like last night against Lamar, every time his outside shot is dropping, Darius seems to totally forget/abandon any thought of defense and offensive rebounding; his turnovers drop and overall game improves drastically when his 3's aren't falling. Cal was so frustrated with Miller last night, despite the 4 threes, you could hear him screaming at him during every timeout. If the choice is one or the other - of getting a few outside shots to fall or a steady senior contributing lockdown defense, dropping dimes for his teammates and making putbacks - what's your choice?

Teague? Despite shooting 33.3% (better than Miller) from the arc, many fans are disappointed with Marquis so far this season and some have expressed the opinion they want Lamb to be running the team in tight game situations. As a 65% freethrow shooter, Teague is the second worst starter at the line. Cal defended him to the media last night despite his having six turnovers against Lamar but how much harder is it likely to be handling against Louisville's pressure? Should he have a similar performance Saturday, I'm not sure Cal will even have him in the game at the end.

Davis? Certainly, I could really see Cal calling a play to free Davis for a pass to the low block. Though he's the starter with the worst freethrow shooting and has missed all 4 of his 3 attempts, honestly, he's a much better outside and midrange shooter than he's shown so far. He will assuredly be in the game during any final seconds situation, but I don't think he'll be taking any outside shot as a primary option.

Wiltjer? Now this is intriguing. Kyle has a pretty shot and has been more effective lately. And, we saw in the Lamar game that Wiltjer is especially effective as the trailing big man coming down the floor catching the ball in rhythm and nailing the 3. Kyle is also the best freethrow shooter on the team. However, Wiltjer has had a lot of trouble with his ability to function on the block and be strong with the ball; the reality is Kyle has the lowest shooting percentage of any player getting meaningful minutes except Teague.

Kid-Gilchrist? I have no doubt MKG will make the most of any opportunity if the ball can make it into him down low. Of anybody, Kidd-Gilchrist is the absolute competitive killer on the team, the guy who has no other thought than WIN. But Michael has a tendency to play out of control driving in any given possession and, especially if the refs are expected to be calling fouls in such a last second play situation, Cal might not choose to give him the ball over another player. Rather, Cal might rely on him to set the hard screen to free up another shooter or enable the inlet pass.

Lamb? This is the easy answer, our best outside shooter, an excellent aggressive ball handler able to drive left or right, vastly improved passer and, running off a screen, able to get a little separation for a deep three, a midrange jumper or use his dribble to get into the paint and shoot that beautiful teardrop floater ... and the quality decision making mindset to choose between them. Hoping the refs swallow their whistles, Louisville, no fools, will virtually tackle the guy to keep him from getting a shot.

Cal's got a tough tough decision. Do you go with Doron or do you use him to decoy the defense and go with a different option?

Over on the main page, Glenn posted a short review of Jon Scott's new addition to his AMAZING Kentucky Basketball 'BigBlueHistory.net' website critical of the appalling 2010 National Media coverage of Kentucky Basketball issues. (Link To Glenn's Review Post)

Glenn's incisive commentary on the Anthony Davis/Chicago Sun Times unsubstantiated rumor controversy here on ASOB was quoted by Jon in his own analysis of the media's treatment of Davis in his article. IMO - for a Kentucky Blogger - that accolade is a virtual Pulitzer nomination! Well done and well deserved, Congratulations Glenn! (Link to Glenn's entire Anthony Davis/Chicago Sun Times post)

The Jon Scott '2010 Media' Article is an update on an earlier article Jon included on his website entitled "Top Ten Detractors" ... of the basketball program discussing the background of each person and their reason for their dislike of our program. It's an extremely good read, well worth the time of any Kentucky fan, providing anecdotes and quotes that give insight into the treatment of Kentucky's basketball program in the national and Kentucky media. (Top Ten Detractors Link)

Further, that '2010 Media' article by Jon Scott (reviewed by Glenn) is another in the vein dealing with the many side issues and controversies surrounding the Kentucky program. Again, a terrific set of educational reads for any Kentucky fan. Here is a list of those great links, enjoy!

UK - KU, What's the Difference ?

Kentucky digs for lost wins

The Truth Behind the Helms Committee - (New!)

Pitino pushed Rodrick Rhodes out the door

Kentucky cheats

Kentucky's early titles don't count

Adolph Rupp was the biggest racist there was

Ralph Sampson's Slip of the Tongue

Bowie over Jordan ? What a terrible move

Bear Bryant, the lighter and Rupp's Cadillac - (Recently Updated)

Some Oldies but Goodies

The NCAA proved Eric Manuel is a cheater

Kentucky cheated Illinois in 84

Christian Laettner is a Saint

Over on ESPN's Basketball Blog, Eamonn Brennan was dealing with 'Mailbag' questions and some semi-anonymous fan, @rmj_equals_hero, posed a hypothetical, "Suppose you had to pick one player to make up all 12 roster spots (like the movie "Multiplicity"). Which player would you pick?" Now, rmj_equals_hero is almost certainly not a Kentucky fan or he would know that there are 13 scholarship roster spots on an NCAA Division 1 team, not 12, but as they say, there are no stupid questions and, indeed, as ESPN's Eamonn Brennan says, "this is a fantastic question ... "

... this is a fantastic question. My first instinct was to go with Kentucky forward Terrence Jones. He can handle the ball, shoot it a little bit, he can guard pretty much any position on the floor. But then I wondered what it would be like to try to coach 12 Terrence Jones'. Can you imagine? What happens if they share the same mood, and the "zero" (Coach Cal's words, not mine) that Jones posted at Indiana Saturday becomes a team-wide malaise? That's why I'll go with Jones's teammate, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Like Jones, Kidd-Gilchrist is incredibly versatile and athletic. Like Jones, he can guard a variety of positions on the floor, and the communal athleticism of the 12 Kidd-Gilchrists would make up for any size issues the Kidd-Gilchrists playing center and power forward would have to deal with. Unlike Jones, however, Kidd-Gilchrist appears to be an absolute competitive killer, the guy who shows up for each and every game with one goal in mind: win. Of course the insane natural ability is nice, too, but I'll take 12 of that guy any day." - Eamonn Brennan, ESPN College Basketball Nation Blog

Whether you agree with Brennan's choice, and how could any Kentucky fan not feel at least a little gratuitous glee at the selection of Michael Kidd-Gilchrist as the "Multiplicity Man" of college basketball (Over his own teammate, Terrence Jones, no less!), it brings up a significant point - what an incredible roster of athletes we have the privilege of cheering for. While Brennan lavishes praise on MKG and Jones (with a small back hand smear to Terrence), pretty near the same amount of tribute can be heaped on every Kentucky Wildcat starter ... +1.

Continue reading this post »

Over on CoachCal.com, Calipari has posed the "Who would you drop" question. He states that we are in danger of over scheduling because we will be adding the two SEC games against Missouri next season. These two new league games taken together with on-going commitments to play in the Champions Classic (against Duke and Michigan State over the next two years) and the SEC/Big East Challenge are forcing Cal to make choices to stay within the NCAA's game limitations.

From a die-hard fan's perspective, we would ordinarily keep our perennial rivalries with North Carolina, Indiana and Louisville and cast off cupcake games against the likes of Radford, Tenn-Chattanooga, Samford, Loyola (MD), Lamar and Arkansas-Little Rock. However, it is against these very confectioneries that we hone the individual skills, confidence and team play of the freshmen dominated squads Calipari puts on the court every year. So, we can't throw out two cream puffs - one of the trio of North Carolina, Indiana or Louisville will very likely have to go. So, to the question: Who Would You Drop?!?

Continue reading this post »

Connecticut looking for another scholarship?!?

I'm probably in a minority-of-one on this issue but I think it is totally despicable that Connecticut is apparantly succeeding in evading the reduction in scholarships imposed by the NCAA Committee On Infractions to add Drummond to the 2011 roster. - Article

Connecticut was penalized one scholarship by the NCAA last February for recruiting violations involving Nate Miles and other infractions. Calhoun was personally cited by the NCAA for failing to create an atmosphere of compliance within the program and suspended for the first three Big East games of the 2011-12 season. And, though not discussed on this blog, that penalty was so light as to be insulting, imo, given Miles is on public record giving evidence that Calhoun was fully aware he received improper benefits from UConn's team manager turned agent. - Article

Then, last May, UConn lost two scholarships after posting an APR of 893 (needed a 925 to avoid penalty), the second lowest score of any BCS basketball team (Arkansas had a nifty 892). That brought UConn's allowable scholarships down to a total of 10 and, as you could well believe, they had been all accounted for. - Article

Now, Calhoun is attempting to make room for Drummond by moving a current player off athletic scholarship. The targeted scholarship belongs to "Michael Bradley, a 6-foot-9, 210-pound forward/center out of Chattanooga (Tenn.) Tyner Academy." - Article

Normally, if a player can qualify for financial aid (or if he can pay his own way), then he can go from athletic scholarship to non-scholarship with an NCAA exception and not count against your roster. The NCAA purportedly goes along with this type of trick because it provides an opportunity for a player, who might otherwise have his scholarship revoked, to continue going to college on scholarship - a non-athletic scholarship. The damaged player, in this case Bradley, has to agree to the proposal to go off athletic scholarship, take on financial aid and likely a loan. (I'm already on record totally against roster management by revoking scholarships.)

Yes, a loan. Bradley, already taking classes, has been approached by the lovely people at UConn to give up his scholarship and now pay for the privilege to play for Calhoun. Can you imagine Bradley saying, "No," under the implicit threat of not playing and the one-year nature of his scholarship being at risk next year? -- Calhoun: "Come on, Mike, be a team player ... or I'm going to pull your scholarship!".

Another thing that sticks painfully in my craw, because the academic scholarship that Bradley takes has to be one open to every UConn student to avoid an improper benefits infraction, this evasive scheme prevents another deserving student from getting that academic scholarship.

I don't care how you equivocate, this act is a clear attempt to avoid scholarship limits placed on the UConn program as direct punishment for it's failure to meet the ethical and academic standards of the NCAA. How Emmert and Thomas can allow this fraud to be perpetrated is contemptible, and absolutely and totally beyond me. Let's be clear, because the NCAA has to issue the 'exception' for this crime to take place - they are knowingly and entirely complicit.

Glenn's piece (Article) is much too nice to Parrish. Without actually appending the label, what Glenn described is a man who is intellectually/journalistically dishonest. I believe Parrish's piece (Article) was done solely with the aim of attracting the ability of the manic focus of the BBN to spin website page-view counters off their spindles during the summer news doldrums. But like most of us, I've become inured to the behavior of too many of the media who want to don the journalistic mantle but eschew the hard intellectual labors associated with adhering to the panel of attendant ethics.

I've seen a few fans express distaste but wonder what all the anger directed toward Parrish and his article was about, e.g., "... He covered his ass pretty well on the journalistic part by stating there were little to no facts to back it up." And if all Parris had done was to bring up the rumor while dismissing it as unfounded they'd be right - unpleasant journalism but no big deal. But my Big Blue anger is aroused primarily because that is not what he did. He went much further.

Continue reading this post »

Yesterday, Glenn linked a Yahoo Sports article by Pete Lieber that I exaggerate only slightly when I claim it essentially says, "Everybody knows Calipari is a depraved degenerate, obtains his admittedly outstanding coaching/recruiting results through devious and deceitful means, and furthermore, we're dedicating ourselves to proving it. We're going to get him!"

What Lieber actually wrote was:

"Coach (John) Calipari has led a remarkable turnaround of our basketball program, bringing it back to unquestioned national prominence and in a position to compete for national championships on a regular basis."

 

Those were the words of Kentucky's university president after the school gave Calipari a two-year extension to his contract which now stretches out over the next eight years.

 

My question is how?

 

How does John Calipari continue to bring in a string of one-year wonders no matter where he coaches? When Cal was at Memphis, their obscurity turned to Final Four appearances. Since being at Kentucky, Cal has resurrected a program that was close to embarrassing its rich basketball tradition. Now, under Cal, everyone suddenly wants to go there. Now, I'm sure Calipari is great in a living room. I'm sure he promises a ton of mothers that he'll take care of their babies (for a year till they move on to the NBA) like they were one of his sons. I'm sure his basketball acumen lends to his reputation as a coach who prepares kids for the next level. I'm sure of all that.

 

I'm also sure of this—every time his name comes up in the pub, the word "corrupt" immediately follows it. Don't be surprised in the next few years if one small slip up by Cal or one of his players leads to a Tressel-esque chest of past violations. Call that my futures wager of the week. - Yahoo.com - Link

Now, folks, no matter how mild the actual prose you think Lieber used in delivering what may first appear to be an unpleasant but purely speculative and unremarkable forecast, imo that piece represents a real manifesto of unadulterated 'Media Hate Inspired Intent!' And furthermore, it is absolutely no idle threat to be taken lightly!

Yahoo! Sports started turning heads with its investigative journalism when it broke many of the stories about Reggie Bush and his family accepting gifts and cash from agents while he was playing for USC, stories that ultimately led to putting USC on NCAA probation and Bush giving up his Heisman Trophy.  - Link

More recently, it has broken stories about sports agents and college athletics (Link), secret workouts by collegiate players for the New York Knicks (Link), and recruiting violations that led to probation for the men’s basketball team at UConn (Link).

Also as referenced by Lieber himself, we shouldn't forget it was Yahoo Sports who broke the news that Jim Tressel knew all along that some of his Ohio State football players, including Terrelle Pryor, were selling OSU memorabilia at a Columbus tattoo parlor in return for discount tattoos and other benefits. - Link

And most recently, Yahoo also broke the story now being investigated by the NCAA where a $28,000 payment was made by the University of Oregon to the Houston man who allegedly was steering high school prospects to the school’s football program. - Link

Having been reminded of Yahoo Sports' participation in such recent NCAA regulatory histrionics, now go back and reread Lieber's piece and see if you don't agree more closely with my own opening interpretive translation. Does it chill your Blue Blood like it does mine as it sets out Cal's disciplinary predestination and fall from grace? Yahoo Sports apparently fancies itself as an NCAA deputized vampire hunter and thinks it has identified John Calipari as just such a lord of darkness.

The Lieber piece implies the violations have already occurred and only await revelation adjunct to other investigative probes either on-going or anticipated. But, be that as it may, I think there is little doubt that the investigative journalists at Yahoo Sports have committed themselves to bringing down Calipari and the University of Kentucky. And of course there won't be any lack of vigilante assistance from the likes of Tipton, Forde, Thamel, O'Neil, et al.

The only option is not particularly onerous, continued adherence to the course UK is already on, meticulous compliance, individually and as a program. It's not as though no one was looking for dirt all along, giggling with glee every time they thought they had found an incriminating speck. Despite any past or present antipathy with the NCAA, it's the law UK sports lives under and abiding vigilance is necessary in our own self-interest.  

As for Calipari himself, I'm hopeful the challenge represented by Pete Lieber, Yahoo Sports and their ilk will serve as motivational inspiration to shatter these people's low held speculations. Hopefully, Cal's reputation, even when assaulted by those burdened with bias, prejudice and an outright agenda, will shine through; character, after all, is enduring and success is the sweetest revenge.

Years from now, if after Calipari retires and the NCAA has never found any reason to discipline him or UK, if Lieber is confronted by someone about the implied accusations in this story and I'm sure many more to come, he will only shrug and say, "Yeah, well, they just didn't catch him," but I doubt we'll hear, "Yeah, maybe I was wrong," and I'd bet big bucks we'll not hear, "I'm sorry."

Sandy Bell writes:

..., my coach has expressed understandable concern that he is being singled out by the NCAA.

 

The NCAA has vacated almost 60 tournament appearances from coaches' records and over half of them for both institutions and coaches have no notation of any kind in school publications by either the penalized institution or future employers of the coach. - Mrs. Sandy Bell April 11, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text 

Dennis Thomas responds:

The committee rejects out of hand any notion that it selectively punishes individuals or certain institutions, for that matter. For a veteran administrator at a major Division I institution to agree with a coach that he is somehow being 'picked on' by the Association is, again, very troubling to the committee." - Mr. Dennis E. Thomas June 3, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

This is a pompous and very disingenuous set of remarks by Mr. Thomas, imo. Sandy points out that more than half the victims of the NCAA's vacations ignore them with seeming very public impunity while the NCAA (Thomas) jumps with both feet on Calipari as "the committee" finds it "troubling" that Kentucky (Calipari and Sandy Bell) should wonder about 'selective enforcement?!?' That's posturing, that's what that is.

Further, Thomas shows a clueless mentality as he pleads a deplorable lack of manpower and time to police the NCAA's regulations over something he could have personally identified with 30 seconds on Google

The committee's staff does not have the manpower or the time to retroactively review all instances of vacation made during the 60-year history of the NCAA enforcement program. However, if the office of the COI receives any information that an institution is not complying with a penalty, such as in the instant case involving Kentucky, it will take action. - Mr. Dennis E. Thomas June 3, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

Now, like a bank robber lamenting being prosecuted while other stickup-artists run free, it's difficult to complain about selective enforcement, but Thomas' (and thereby the NCAA's) illustrative willingness to rely solely on external informants to motivate enforcement is a singular problem.

As we have repeatedly seen, the NCAA depends almost entirely on the investigative reporting of the media to define their enforcement efforts. While policing agencies have historically relied to varying extents on the input from external informants from time out of mind, when you use the media as your only or even primary source for determining who will be prosecuted for violations, you become complicit in their (the media's) agenda.

Because the media focuses primarily if not exclusively on the highest profile programs consistent with their readership goals (and in fact has a significant part in determining that same profile) that's where their scarce investigative resources are reasonably applied (as well as opinions, if no evidence, are expansively aired). By their total reliance on these media predilections, the NCAA is by necessity shackled by the media's myopic limitations and also their biases, prejudices and outright agendas (read Tipton, Forde, Thamel and O'Neil, et al). So, while many might believe the members of the NCAA COI aren't by nature intent on singling out individuals and programs, I think hardly anyone believes that to be true of the media. The result is unavoidably and demonstrably 'selective enforcement' by the NCAA.

Furthermore, Thomas goes to great length attempting to demonstrate the independent and fair minded embodiment of the COI:  

Ms. Bell should be reminded that the NCAA is a member-ruled organization. The NCAA staff does not make decisions relative to penalties. Those decisions are currently made by the COI, a peer group selected from the membership and general public. The committee which made the decision to vacate wins in the 1996 Massachusetts case, the Championship Committee, is not the same body (the Committee on Infractions), which responded to a 2004 letter written by Mr. Calipari to then NCAA President Myles Brand regarding the vacation of records in the 1996 Massachusetts case (Enclosure 1). Further, the 2009 Memphis case was adjudicated by members of the Committee on Infractions, none of whom were on the committee in 2004. To assert that these separate and distinct bodies, each with completely different members, somehow conspired to "single out" Mr. Calipari is preposterous. - Mr. Dennis E. Thomas June 3, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

First, this Calipari 500 Wins case has nothing to do with those committees from 1996, 2004 and 2009 and their integrity is not germane. It is only Mr. Thomas' current COI whose conduct is in question. But more importantly, though these individuals are no doubt professionals, even as Mr. Thomas is commissioner of the MEAC, they are all fans of their own individual players, programs and conferences - consciously or unconsciously jealous of their naturally conferred or hard-earned prerogatives and motivated by perceived past and current injustices and injuries they would rectify if possible.

These same COI member perceptions of injustices and injuries as well as their presumed perpetrators, punished or not, are shaped not only by their background and personal experiences but also by that very same media that the NCAA relies on so exclusively. Are we to believe the COI is immune to the uninterrupted media drum beat of 'Cheater, Cheater, Cheater" directed at Coach Calipari or the disparaging comments effortlessly tossed about concerning the University of Kentucky and its athletics programs? This when it can't even check to see if Steve Fischer's record accurately reflects his vacated wins in the San Diego State media guide or that of Florida A&M (a school in Thomas' own MEAC) without it being brought to their august attention by an obviously biased and inconsistent investigative press corp? 

So, while Mr. Thomas may reject "out of hand any notion that [the COI] selectively punishes individuals or certain institutions," I think its lack of transparency, reliance on the media for enforcement case selection and past inconsistency in rendering its decisions and any punishments levied make Sandy Bell's concern for prejudicial action by the COI against Calipari and the University of Kentucky to be valid, appropriate and, if anything, understated. A regulatory institution cannot lay claim to unbiased application of its enforcement activities, imo, when it is so fundamentally dependent on and profoundly influenced by a media that is unabashedly biased, antagonistic and agenda driven.

I have the utmost respect for Mitch Barnhart and Lee Todd. This is entirely due to their decision to hire John Calipari. It took a lot of personal fortitude to own up to their previous error manifest in the hiring of Billy Clyde after only 2 years. And perhaps even more to select a candidate which suffered from the controversies that have dogged Calipari and add him to the target grouping that constitutes the University of Kentucky Basketball Program. In the short period since his arrival, Calipari has replaced Joe B. Hall as my favor Kentucky coach and it's almost entirely due to his recruiting. Sports Illustrated made a passing salute to Calipari in this article about recruiting. It's a good read and I highly recommend it. On the fourth page an encounter between Calipari and Andre Drummond, a prospect in the 2012 class, is depicted.

By the time Drummond's game starts on Sunday, the big names have arrived. Georgetown is there, and so are Connecticut and North Carolina. And then, shortly before tip-off, heads turn as Kentucky coach John Calipari walks in.

Knowing when to deploy your head coach is part of the strategy of recruiting. If you have someone with the reputation and charisma of Calipari, you use him in precise circumstances: when you're sure you want the kid and you want the kid to know it. Calipari settles in directly under the basket. "At this stage," says Wildcats assistant Orlando Antigua, nodding toward Calipari, "it's less about us seeing the kid than the kid seeing him."

Drummond is dominant only sporadically. He's clearly a project, but his upside is too vast to ignore. Any team—NBA included—would be overjoyed to have him. After one dunk Drummond ends up face-to-face with Calipari, and his eyes widen. He knew Calipari was coming, but that's different from seeing him there. After that he seems to run the floor with even more intensity, and who wouldn't? It hardly matters that it's the noncontact period. A big-time coach such as Calipari can have a huge effect on the process without saying a word.

 John Calipari IS the Alpha Recruiter!

Recruiting - For most of my life as a 'Catfan I paid almost no attention to basketball recruiting. Predominantly, this was due to the fact that even in the Bluegrass there would only be occasional snippets in the media about UK prospects until an actual commitment or the list of Midnight Madness attendees was announced. And, even then, it had to be something really big like Kyle Macy transferring in from Purdue, the landing of a nationally targeted McDonalds All-American like Sam Bowie and Winston Bennett or especially the theft of Indiana Mr. Basketball Roger Harden to merit more than a mere mention in the newspaper.

I concede there might have been something on radio. But, radio ... frankly, other than listening to Cawood Ledford, I could not force myself to listen to the crank calling that passed for radio call-in talk shows of the era in order to glean what little actual information they may have had to offer. I knew recruiting was going on, appreciated how crucial recruiting was for the success of the team, but, like watching a duck on a pond, I was pretty much oblivious to what was going on below the surface.

Then Al Gore invented the internet! On the internet, basketball recruiting, the entire drama of the metaphorical life and death struggle for high school talent to which I had previously been insensible, became available as an adjunct spectator sport. To many basketball fans, recruiting has now become the undercard to the season's main event. You could now easily follow the performance of targets in all their AAU glory, see who was taking visits and where, keep track of the gossip and rumors as well as coaching travel itineraries and commitments. It was fun following the various recruitments during the Pitino era but I really didn't get into following recruiting until Tubby arrived. [Most of what follows is from memory so feel free to correct or add to my recollections, I'm sure others have different perspectives.]

In hindsight it seems ironic that Tubby was known as a recruiter when he arrived at Kentucky, first as an assistant and then as head coach. I watched Tubby land Bogans and Stone (1999) only to see Mike Dunleavy, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer and Casey Sanders go to Duke; Donnell Harvey and Brett Nelson go to Florida; Joe Forte go to UNC and Jason Kapono go to UCLA.  But still the future seemed more than bright. In 2000, Tubby brought in Jason Parker and Cliff Hawkins but we also witnessed the heartbreaking recruiting mis-fires of Chris Duhon to Duke and Darius Rice to Miami. I was ecstatic over Rashaad Carruth in 2001 only to watch Carlos Hurt go to Louisville; David Harrison go to Colorado; Julius Hodge go to NC St.; and James White and David Lee choose Florida. Our best commitment in 2002 was Kelenna Azubuike while UNC reeled in Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants and Sean May and Duke collected J. J. Redick, Shavlik Randolph, Sean Dockery and Michael Thompson. In my opinion, 2002 was the beginning of the end for Tubby.

In 2003, recruiting targets Shannon Brown and Brandon Cotton go to Michigan State, Chris Paul goes to Wake Forest and David Padgett goes to Kansas. In 2004, the recruiting gods smile on Tubby - our class includes Randolph Morris, Joe Crawford, and Rajon Rondo but despite his best efforts we still lost out on Malik Hairston to Oregon, D.J. White to Indiana and Darius Washington to Memphis. 2005 - thinking about 2005 makes me cringe ... well, a little bit. Like 2003, in 2005 we sign nobody of note while Josh McRoberts, Greg Paulus and Eric Boateng go to Duke; Tyler Hansbrough, Danny Green and Bobby Frasor go to UNC; Julian Wright, Mario Chalmers and Micah Downs decide on Kansas. Finally, 4-star Jodie Meeks was Tubby's top recruit in his last class in 2006 while targets like Thaddeus Young went to Georgia Tech; Kevin Durant committed to Texas; Greg Oden went to Ohio St.; Brandan Wright and Ty Lawson went to UNC; Duke's class had Gerald Henderson, Lance Thomas and Jon Scheyer. It was over for Tubby.

We all know that recruiting is not an exact science. Many McDonalds All Americans go bust, most don't wind up in the NBA and prospects who had modest recruiting rankings often develop into terrific players. But the perception is that top players on top teams were ranked 5-star coming out of high school and you need to annually restock with that talent to constantly compete for championships. You can say perception is wrong but when you don't bring the pedigree talent Kentucky has traditionally recruited and you aren't perennially competing for championships the argument tends to be very short as your own efforts fail to support your premise. A recruit's decision can turn on innumerable factors, most perhaps under nobody's control. But an Alpha Recruiter succeeds in bringing in a top class despite the circumstances and competition. Everybody who ever spent time with Tubby thought he was a wonderful person but too often his apparently herculean recruiting efforts turned Sisyphean. I don't think anybody can argue convincingly that Tubby wasn't a good, maybe even a great coach but Tubby was no Alpha Recruiter. John Calipari is an Alpha Recruiter.

We've discussed the 2011 and 2012 classes here.

 Follows is the current list of 2013 prospects who have mutual interest with Kentucky as ranked by Scout.com along with their current list of schools. (If you follow recruiting the summer is never boring.)

1  SF  Jabari Parker (Simeon Vocational HS - Chicago, IL)    6-7/215 

DePaul, Duke, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Northwestern, Oregon State, Purdue, Washington 

2  PF  Julius Randle (Prestonwood Christian - Plano, TX)    6-8/215 

Baylor, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio State, Texas, Wake Forest 

 3  C    Nerlens Noel (Everett HS - Everett, MA)    6-10/205 

Connecticut, Florida, Georgetown, Kansas, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Providence, Syracuse 

4  PF  Chris Walker (Holmes County HS - Bonifay, FL)   6-10/205 

Alabama, Baylor, Connecticut, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio State, Syracuse 

8  SF  Kuran Iverson (Northwest Catholic HS - West Hartford, CT)   6-8/190 

Arizona, Connecticut, Georgetown, Kentucky, Louisville, Rutgers, Saint John's (NY), Seton Hall, Villanova 

9  PF  Jonathan Williams (Southwind HS - Memphis, TN)   6-8/190 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgetown, Kentucky, Memphis, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Tennessee, Texas 

 24 PG  Solomon Poole (Providence - Jacksonville, FL)   5-11/165 

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee 

39 SG  Isaiah Lewis (Christ The King Regional HS - Middle Village, NY)   6-3/175 

Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio State 

50 PG  Tyler Ennis (St. Benedict Prep - Newark, NJ)   6-2/175 

Florida, Kentucky, Seton Hall, West Virginia 

The question in Glenn's blog post is, "Are Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones NBA ready?"  Because the NBA has been shown to select on potential, I think that question of 'Ready or Not' is not as interesting to the average UK fan as the issue: "Given their projected draft positions, should they come back for another year at UK."

I agree that Knight can only damage his draft position by returning and dropping back into the 2012 draft.  The only chance he would have to improve on this year's projected #5 pick is to try and take advantage of the fact that while the 2011 draft has Kyrie Irving, Kemba Walker and Knight (if he stays in this draft) projected to go top-5, the 2012 draft is very weak in PG's with DraftExpress projecting no point guards in the top-12.  It's possible injuries and other NBA season related factors could allow Knight to take advantage of the projected PG scarcity in the 2012 draft and be prized again as a top-5 pick.  IMO, you've got to love Las Vegas to take those odds.

Continue reading this post »

The NBA early-entry deadline has come and gone. Here are the names of the 7, count them - 7 college freshman who have generated so much absurd media and NCAA hand wringing owing to their potential to be 1-N-Done. Of all the thousands of NCAA basketball players, all this recent 1-N-Done controversy is over just 7 likely multi-millionaires - not 70 - 7. The last 3, including Terrence Jones and Brandon Knight haven't retained agents so they may not remain in the draft, so the actual number of freshmen in this year's NBA draft could be even fewer.

Kyrie Irving

Jereme Richmond

Josh Selby

Tristan Thompson

Tobias Harris*

Terrence Jones*

Brandon Knight*

*Haven't hired agents, yet.

Last year, 14 freshmen stayed in the draft of which only a total of 11 were actually drafted, just 11. I shake my head; it never ceases to amaze me what we as a species, not to mention college basketball sports fans, can find to get worked up about. Particualrly given all the other issues facing college sports, well ... talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Things haven't changed much since Roman times when the poet Juvenal decried the populace's fixation on bread and circuses at the expense of more substantive issues.

That Kentucky has 6 of the 18 over the last two years, a full third of the total assuming all 7 stay in this coming draft, shows why the topic, contentious as it is, is so closely linked to UK and Calipari.  I can't help wondering, speculating really, that if the freshmen numbers weren't so heavily concentrated with our own program but rather with, say, North Carolina or Duke, would this be much of a controversy at all?

I don't think this [article] is a particularly fair characterization of Jerry Tarkanian by the Washington Post. It takes Tark to task for making a public statement condemning the NCAA. Understand Tark's statement was made at the public screening of HBO's upcoming documentary about Tark at UNLV with special emphasis on his TKO over the NCAA. What was he supposed to do, say nothing during the premiere at which he was the guest of honor?

I've met Tark 'The Shark' and had a fairly lengthy conversation with him while he was coaching Fresno in 2001. Seemed to be a very pleasant guy, willing to spend time just chatting with a fan (unlike several other Div.1 coaches I've met through the years including Hall and Pitino) and although I brought up the NCAA with him, noting it didn't look like anything was going to happen to Duke over Corey Maggette, he didn't dwell on it at all, stating only [I paraphrase], "The NCAA plays favorites and will do almost anything to avoid penalizing some programs and coaches."

In fact, I suggest it is just that people like me constantly bringing up the NCAA to Tark that may make it impossible for him to put it aside from his life - that demand he and the NCAA orbit one another in some iconic binary juxtaposition. Several years ago, a friend of mine who graduated from Stanford was on the receiving end of one of my rants against Christian Laettner and Duke. At the end he responded, "Dude, you Kentucky fans have got to let this hatred of Duke and Laettner go - it's been ten years." To which I responded, "We'd love to but CBS and the rest of the media won't let us." And just as we Kentucky fans have been goaded to hyper sensitivity by the seemingly incessant televised replay of that dagger in my heart by the lead trailer for every CBS college basketball broadcast and innumerable college basketball montages intent on exacerbating my outrage at Laettner and the circumstances that surround the "The Shot," so too, Tark has been forced to relive his career altering clash with the 'Big Brother' of college sports over and over in life defining flashbacks that never end.

There aren't many who have bested the NCAA and until the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit plays out there is absolutely no one who has won a more financially rewarding victory over the collegiate gargoyle of amateurism. But in the end, I'm not sure the $2,500,000 settlement was near enough compensation for the deformation the confrontation ultimately imposed on the man's life. I'm sure the HBO documentary won't blast the NCAA nearly enough to satisfy me but I'm hopeful it will give structure to the enmity that has defined such a huge fraction of Tarkanian's existence.

Earlier this evening I posted the following in another thread:

We have got to stop using youth as an excuse for diminished expectations. Next year we will almost certainly start 2 - and maybe 3 - more freshmen. And, although we don't know 2012's class yet, I'm sure it will be top 5 and probably have a couple of freshman starters in it as well.

I've seen several commenters speculate as to the make-up of next year's team, but my admonition begs the question: "What will happen thereafter?"

I speculate that next year's 2011/12 starters will be: Teague (PG), Knight or Lamb or Miller (SG), Gilchrist or Liggins (SF), Wiltjer (PF) and Davis (C). So, like this year, I expect our team to start at least 2 - maybe 3 - freshmen.

The 2012/13 season will see Miller and Liggins gone. Also - if Knight doesn't go to the NBA this year he will be gone next year for sure along with both Davis and Gilchrist, each of whom could have been drafted 1st round out of high school if that option had existed. I no longer see Lamb leaving for the NBA until after his senior year. He just doesn't have the speed, handle, motor or defensive skills to make the leap early. I expect his college career to be the same as Duke's J.J. Redick, a pure shooter forced to stay in school for 4 years. Hopefully, like Duke did Redick, UK will have reason to retire Lamb's number at the end of that time.

So, we will see a 2012/13 season starting line-up that will look something like this: Teague (PG), Lamb (SG), Hood or 2012 (SF), Wiltjer (PF), Vargas or 2012 (C). Assuming Cal's recruiting is on par (probably, at a minimum, DaJuan Coleman, L. J. Rose and Brandon Ashley), I'd expect Hood and Vargas to be bench players and we again start at least 2 freshmen from the 2012 class.

My crystal ball becomes cloudy from this point forward so I'll stop torturing myself and just end with the earlier admonition, "We have got to stop using youth as an excuse" - a crutch for diminished expectations. With Cal we are always going to be 'young' but at Kentucky we cannot allow youth to be other than a talented pillar supporting our team's stellar winning achievements.  

GO 'CATS

One of the things this team has not done yet this year is pull the come-from-behind last second win. So far, at North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama, we had a chance to win late but each time we were denied. Not to overlook Ole Miss, MSU, USC and Arkansas, but we are approaching the meat of the SEC East schedule with 2 games each to play against Florida, Tennessee and Vanderbilt and I can feel another tight grinder coming. So I ask myself, down 1 with 30-seconds to go, who would I give the last shot to?

Would I give it to Jones? Early on I thought he was going to be a scoring machine. Inside-outside ... who could stop him? Turns out ... he can. His outside shot has become anything but consistent. His best moves come from quick catches on the wing and in the pinch post, moving left to go to the basket. However, due to his known predilection to heavily favor his dominant left hand and confident willingness to ignore double and even triple teams, lately he seems prone to being blocked.

Knight is the best overall player on the team, imo. But his best shot, the 3 from above the key, is still a tough shot. And if we need a 3, Brandon isn't our best outside shooter.

I confess; Lamb is my favorite player on the team with his deep range and marvelous 10 - 15 foot teardrops. But even though he's the team's best shooter he doesn't take contact well when in the act of shooting - a high likelihood that is commonly not called with the game under a minute.  

Surprisingly, I'd probably give the last shot to Miller. Why? First, I have confidence that he will pass the ball if he has no shot or lane to the basket - something I'm not confident one of the freshmen will do with the game on the line. At 6'7" he's tall enough and has the hops to elevate over any defender and athletic enough to create for himself. He's shooting 49% overall and 45% from 3 - only Lamb shoots it better.  And in the event a foul is called he shoots 81% from the stripe. Finally, I think he has emerged as the confident upperclassman on offense we didn't see at all earlier in the season. I guess at this point, Darius is my man.

Though Ken and Glenn's game analyses place the blame on the players, I think I have to have the players' back in this loss to Alabama. I know, ultimately, they had the ball in their hands but it's the coach who is supposed to put them in the best position to win and Cal, in my opinion, did not. I hear tumultuous choruses of, "We played soft" and, "We made mistakes." Both true .... but not, in the final analysis, the reason we lost the game. This is like blaming the fact the wheel fell off on the mechanic without looking at the inadequate quality control and management failures that allowed and promoted the circumstances where it occurred.

This is what I saw in the game, admittedly one man's opinion. In the first half, we were being physically manhandled on the block and in the lane. The refs could have fouled out the entire 'Bama frontline. This is not unusual by any means. When you don't have the skilled talent on your side, one strategy, perhaps the best, is to compensate with aggression and physicality. It was quite evident in both Chapel Hill and Georgia. Calhoun admitted he did it as a way to take advantage of UK's inexperience.

However, universally, the refs don't call it for a variety of reasons, some conscious - some subconscious, ... it slows the game, ticks off the fans, enrages the fouling coach, drives the TV people crazy, seems petty, they don't want to determine the final outcome of the game, can lead to charges of favoritism, etc. ... as long as it doesn't get out of hand, "Let the boys play". As a result, particularly in the last 20 years, the game has become increasingly physical. Not that he invented it by any means, but Pitino uses fouling as a fundamental underpinning of his coaching philosophy - "They can't call them all."  The reality is they WON'T call them all.

Unless egregious, most if not all fans, either because they were on the winning side or don't want to be viewed as a whiner, refuse to point to officiating as the major determining factor in a game. One of the stupidest things I've seen otherwise intelligent basketball fans do is to point to the fact that both teams got about the same number of fouls called to support an argument that a game was "fairly" officiated. If one team fouls 50 times and another fouls 30 times and both are called for 20 ... want to bet who won the game? And that is how the game we love is very often played.

At this point I want to put to rest the understandable impression that a reader might get that I am blaming this loss on the officiating. In fact, I believe Kentucky teams should be expected to go on the road and win despite the very predictable lack of a 'fair' whistle. I blame it on UK's lack of depth. In a game where the opposing team is physically carving out the paint as their territory you have to be able to contest that strategy. There are several ways to do it, one of which is to overcome it with good shooting. Another is to ride the officials al la Mike Krzyzewski.  (Calipari has been ejected from exactly two games in his entire college coaching career - Cal riding officials is just not going to happen.)

All the rest of the strategies depend on having fouls to burn. Not that you are necessarily going to need them, as the contesting rough play underneath may not be called, but you have to be able to absorb any fouls that might be called as the officials seek to establish control. In the 'Bama game, we were generating great looks at the basket throughout the first half but for whatever reason the shots weren't falling. We have no fouls to give. Now what do we do?

Everyone says we played soft in the first half. I ask you, if you have been beat over the head in every game and practice, "Keep your head - play smart - don't commit stupid fouls - don't force anything - don't retaliate - if you get two fouls I've got to sit you - I've got no one to replace you with, etc. ...,  what do we do? We can't contest physical play in the first half because if we get called there's no bench. Even if each team gets the same number of fouls called, it's a net victory for the deeper bench. Therefore, you back off and attempt to be patient looking for opportunities. We got great looks but many just didn't fall. Still, we were only 8 points down at the half.

In the second half, with no reason to hold anything back, we were more assertive and used up the fouls we saved in the first half taking it to the Alabama frontline. But we just ran out of time.

If we could have established an inside presence we would have been just fine. For those of you that say things like "Live by the 3, die by the 3," I point out that we shot 7 for 21 for 33%. It wasn't the lack of 3s that hurt us. We didn't get enough 2s. In my opinion, enough 2s would have come if we could have contested the paint in the first half. We couldn't because of the total lack of frontline bench depth. Roster is the responsibility of the coach. He can cuss the players all he wants, admittedly with cause, but this loss, imo, (amazing as it is to say about Calipari) was due to a recruiting failure.

.

I think I understand the wish of Bobothevol and Getoffmyvols to retain Pearl as coach. However, I'm less understanding of some of the same sentiments expressed by Kentucky fans. If you want to say he's been good for TN and SEC basketball and has been a positive factor in his community, I'm willing to concede the point though I think you have to admit, given the current controversy, he's hardly an unmixed blessing. But the mafia also promoted family values and supported the Catholic Church, community organizations and local charities. Organized crime built a terrific city in Nevada and has pumped a ton of money into third world economies. The reality is that criminal activity, especially sports criminal activity, is seldom committed in a vacuum. Sports criminals, like most all criminals, are engaged in pleasing someone in addition to themselves. Therefore, you can generally always find ameliorative character factors - but none of them are exculpatory. The man is admittedly guilty. So, really, the current discussion/argument is what should be Pearl's punishment.

In criminal law circles, the accepted wisdom is that there are two and only two true justifications of punishment: (1) punishment should be imposed because defendants deserve it, and (2) punishment should be imposed because it makes society safer.  

The NCAA has never been especially good at establishing and adhering to sentencing guidelines but they have expressed the wish to at least try. So, let's look at this as if we were an actual judge. First, does he deserve punishment. I think most of us would agree that the answer to that question is, "Yes, he broke the rules." But, how badly did he break the rules?

For the moment I invite you to suspend your sense of the ridiculous. To demonstrate how really bad Pearl's actions are in their NCAA context, let's remove them from that purely NCAA context and examine them as if the Federal Penal Code could be applied. When we do that, the seemingly petty but repetitive nature of his excessive phone calls scheme and BBQs aside, the reality is that IF Pearl's sports criminal behavior came under Federal statues he could be prosecuted as a Racketeer.

You say, "WHAT...?" It's true. First, the accepted definition of an organized crime gang is a group of three or more persons "having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in combination to collaborate in the commission of criminal activities." Obviously, Pearl, his assistant coaches and any others, would constitute such a criminal gang. And, as definitive participants may stand in an arm's-length relationship to the illicit operations, the gang would include Hamilton and other members of the AD's staff who may have aided or abetted the activity.

Further, if you consider the obvious fact that continued employment of any of Pearl's staff member's was conditional on the commission of NCAA criminal acts, Pearl specifically committed an offense punishable under the organized crime statutes when he "knowingly cause[d], enable[d], encourage[d], recruit[ed], or solicit[ed] another person to become a member of a ... gang which, as a condition of initiation, admission, membership, or continued membership, requires the commission of any conduct which constitutes [a punishable offense]."

In addition, the Federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statutes effectively define racketeering as a pattern of activity committing any two of a list of 25 crimes within a ten year period - those 25 crimes include: tampering and intimidation of witnesses, obstructing justice, wire fraud and sports bribery. Each of these crimes were apparently committed by Pearl and his 'gang'.

Jumping back into a strictly defined NCAA context, it's clear Pearl's sports criminal activities in violation of NCAA regulations were wide in scope and major. In a NCAA context, Pearl is a racketeer, and, as such, he deserves punishment. So, now, the question becomes, "What is an appropriate penalty?" What do you do with a NCAA Racketeer?

Again, back in the Federal Penal Code context: In the criminal courts, in cases without mandatory sentencing, a judge normally takes into account the nature of the crime; the history, characteristics, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant; the public interest in protection, deterrence, and punishment; the type of sentences available; the applicable Sentencing Guidelines (including pertinent policy statements); the need for uniformity in sentencing similar defendants for similar crimes; and restitution. 

Clearly, if Pearl were convicted under Federal organized crime statutes he would face prison. Further, if convicted under the RICO statutes he would face confiscation of all the assets (bank accounts, investments, real-estate, homes, cars, etc.) that accrued from moneys forthcoming from his illicit activities. Those money's would constitute at a minimum his UT contractual compensation and any outside compensation (radio, television, speaking, endorsement, etc.) that could be shown to be a direct or indirect result of his being the Tennessee coach engaged in racketeering.

Back in the real world, the NCAA can't take Pearl's assets but they can deprive him of the enabling position as Coach at an NCAA institution. They can't put him in prison, but they can confine him from associating with the society of college athletics. In the context of the NCAA, Pearl's egregious behavior deserves the equivalent punishment meted to all such convicted racketeers. As a NCAA Racketeer that would be a penalty of "Show Cause." How long? - At least 3-5 years, the period necessary for any recruiting network and associations benefiting from his tenure at Tennessee to disappear.

To help you understand how my recommended penalty is consistent with the development of a NCAA sentencing guideline, here are the 5 instances where the 'Show-Cause' penalty was handed down against basketball coaches (there have been only a total of 6 show-cause penalties, ever. The other time dealt with football recruiting violations):

Todd Bozeman - Former head coach for the University of California - Berkley got an eight-year show-cause penalty for paying for a player's parents to watch their son play and lying about it to school and NCAA officials.

Clem Haskins - Former head coach for the University of Minnesota got a seven-year show-cause penalty for paying a tutor to write papers for players on the team, lying to the NCAA about it and encouraged his players and assistant coaches to lie as well.

Dave Bliss - Former head coach for Baylor got a ten-year show-cause penalty for paying tuition for two players, lying to the NCAA about it and encouraging players and assistant coaches to lie.

Kelvin Sampson - Former coach of Indiana got a five-year show-cause penalty for twice making impermissible cell phone calls to recruits - first at Oklahoma and then at Indiana.

Neil McCarthy - Former basketball coach at New Mexico State got a five-year show-cause penalty for giving a job inducement to a junior-college coach to get two of his players (Sound familiar Louisville readers?), and then giving preferential assistance to the players with their coursework and exams.

I'm interested in why you think Pearl doesn't deserve or won't get the 'Show-Cause' penalty from the NCAA. It seems a foregone conclusion to me.

Do you think we will lose 2011 recruits? I mean, why would those guys come to play behind this years’ freshmen? I’m sure they signed thinking we had 3 (counting Katner) 1 n dones this year.

by JackBluto on Oct 22, 2010 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Its a good question... But all of the teams they would want to play for (i.e. Duke, Kansas, UNC, etc) will have the same “problem” that we do.

 

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Oct 22, 2010 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with that. But they may not have as good a player at the same position. We shall see.

by JackBluto on Oct 22, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

.

With the current status of the NBA contract negotiations, the chance of an owners' "lockout" looms greater and greater. The above short comment exchange between JackBluto and chirop1 following Glenn's blog post highlighted a question in my mind as to the impact such an NBA lockout and the associated cancellation of the 2011 draft might have on top NCAA basketball programs in general and Kentucky in particular. What I found was interesting, at least to me.

The NBA lockout would prevent players from exiting early to the NBA Draft. At Kentucky, imo, it would probably limit Kanter, Knight, and Jones, and possibly Liggins and Miller (maybe more?). The implications for hanging No. 8 (and No. 9!) of having this talented roster returning intact for another season makes my heart pound! But, as suggested by JackBluto's comment, with at least three of the four 2011 recruits (Gilchrist, Davis and Teague) thought to also be of one-n-done caliber and needing to see major minutes to showcase their talent and cement a high position for the 2012 draft, there will be a major logjam at the scorer's table for players trying to get on the court.

Could an NBA lockout result in a loss of some or all of our 2011 recruits to other programs? If they could avoid this "minutes logjam" situation, why would the members of this talented class not go elsewhere to play for a team with minutes to offer? As none of the 4 have more than 'verbaled' their commitment to Kentucky, much as we 'Cat fans might hate to believe it, that is certainly at least a possibility. So, how big a problem can it potentially be?

Clearly, there aren't many teams where this group of recruits couldn't go and dominate the competition for minutes. But, as suggested by chirop1's response, for the 2011 recruits to leave, there has to be a desirable place to go. Chirop1 states he believes all alternatives to Kentucky would be suffering from the same problem, however, given the well chronicled recruiting failures of top programs like Kansas and Louisville, I wondered if that were true. There might well be scholarships available - after all, there only has to be a few openings to provide the opportunities necessary for the caliber of player in our 2011 recruiting class to disappear.

Also, I'm concerned about what JackBluto termed "the potential for teams to trade up." We all know it happens, though I think most coaches at top programs resist, with varying levels of success, the temptation to pull a scholarship from one kid to give it to another. Also, anyone who remembers the gyrations Tubby frequently went through to free up scholarships knows even so called "high moral" coaches should not be counted out when it comes to opening up scholarships to compete for 5-star recruits. Finally, its been suggested in the media that recruits are only giving verbals this year to keep THEIR options alive, but the thought beckons, what if coaches are only encouraging verbals to keep THE PROGRAM'S options alive? In the end, it wouldn't take many manufactured openings, no matter how generated, particularly when combined with regular scholarship openings, to potentially woo this entire class away.

While I don't think a top recruit would only consider playing for a top program, like chirops1, I think they would be most tempted to leave Kentucky for a program that could give them the things that attracted them to Kentucky in the first place - coach, facilities, TV exposure, potential for post season play, scheme of play, tradition, fanbase, etcetera - all of which seems to point to top nationally ranked programs. Taking my cue from chirop1, to get a feel for the size of the problem, I decided to look at the top 10 teams from the recent Coaches Poll - and threw in UCLA, Florida, Tennessee and UofL for fun - just 14 teams.

Listed below is the current (2010) roster size, number of seniors on this 2010 roster, and number of currently committed 2011 recruits all taken from the ESPN page for each team. I estimate the lockout impacted 2011 roster size by subtracting the number of seniors from the current roster and adding the number of 2011 recruits [The number of 5-star recruits in the class is listed after the "/"]. To get an idea of the talent Gilchrist & Co. would be competing for minutes against should they defect to that team, I also append (at the end) the number of potential 2011 draft prospects currently on the team.

Duke (Current Roster = 12) - (Seniors = 3) + (2011 Recruits = 4/1 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 13 (2 NBA)

Michigan State (Current Roster = 14) - (Seniors = 4) + (2011 Recruits = 4/1 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 14 (1 NBA)

Kansas State (Current Roster = 15) - (Seniors = 2) + (2011 Recruits = 2/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 15 (2 NBA)

Pittsburgh (Current Roster = 15) - (Seniors = 4) + (2011 Recruits = 4/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 15 (0 NBA)

Ohio State (Current Roster = 15) - (Seniors = 3) + (2011 Recruits = 4/1 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 16 (3 NBA)

Villanova (Current Roster = 11) - (Seniors = 3) + (2011 Recruits = 4/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 12 (2 NBA)

Kansas (Current Roster = 18) - (Seniors = 5) + (2011 Recruits = 1/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 14 (3 NBA)

Purdue (Current Roster = 16) - (Seniors = 3) + (2011 Recruits = 2/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 15 (0 NBA)

North Carolina (Current Roster = 12) - (Seniors = 1) + (2011 Recruits = 3/2 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 14 (2 NBA)

Kentucky (Current Roster = 11) - (Seniors = 1) + (2011 Recruits = 4/4 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 14 (3 NBA)

Florida (Current Roster = 15) - (Seniors = 4) + (2011 Recruits = 1/1 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 12 (3 NBA)

Tennessee (Current Roster = 16) - (Seniors = 6) + (2011 Recruits = 2/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 12 (2 NBA)

UCLA (Current Roster = 17) - (Seniors = 0) + (2011 Recruits = 1/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 18 (3 NBA)

Louisville (Current Roster = 15) - (Seniors = 1) + (2011 Recruits = 5/0 5-star) >>> 2011 Roster = 19 (1 NBA)

Obviously, anywhere you see a roster size in excess of 13 you are seeing non-scholarship walk-on players which changes year-to-year and according to the traditions at each school. For example, at UCLA they currently have a listed roster of 17 players, 5 of which are walk-ons, and no seniors. Today, they only have one commitment for 2011, Norman Powell, a SG from Abraham Lincoln H.S. (CA), who is not a 5-star recruit. When he arrives, and assuming the number of walk-ons stay the same, they will have an 18 player roster with 13 on scholarship - 3 of which (Honeycutt, Lee and Smith) are currently listed as potential candidates for the 2011 draft and who will still be on the team due to any NBA lockout. Clearly, UCLA presents no real threat to woo away recruits from other programs.

So, what does this tell us? Well, as suggested by chirop1, most teams have recruited full rosters for going into a lockout impacted 2011. And, as could be expected, they have senior laden rosters seeded with NBA quality talent. But, contrary to chirop1's prediction, only Duke and North Carolina are potentially in the same position as Kentucky with a talent logjam affecting their 2010 and 2011 top-5 recruiting classes. In addition, a few teams on this list are problematic. Villanova, Florida and Tennessee have an obvious scholarship available and thereby could assume the role of poacher without having to dump players to free up a ride.

In addition, Purdue (not so obviously) also hasn't filled its last scholarship slot yet. Further, Purdue will have NO NBA rated players left on its roster for 2011 after Hummel, Johnson and Moore, seniors this season, leave. Also, though coaches Izzo (Michigan State) and Dixon (Pittsburgh) would say, if asked, that they are pleased with the players on their team, it is clear their talent is going to be way down in 2011 and would hugely benefit from any Kentucky defections they could get. Enough to tempt them to pull scholarships to make the necessary roster room? I think so, though, as Glenn is fond of saying, your mileage may vary.

In conclusion, I think there could be plenty of reasons to be concerned about the security of the commitments of our 2011 recruiting class. Even in a relatively small sample of 14 teams, we can see nearly 30% have scholarships available. Also, though most coaches could be excused for drooling over any chance to poach recruits of the caliber of Davis, Gilchrist, Jones and Wiltjer, at least 3 teams have such large anticipated talent deficits it might possibly be sufficient to motivate roster moves to free up scholarships in the attempt to upgrade their 2011 recruiting class from other teams like Kentucky who have a shortage of minutes. Purdue in particular has a relatively huge demonstrated need to upgrade their 2011 recruiting class and at least one scholarship to offer. In short, I see no reason to be sanguine over holding on to all 4 of our 2011 recruiting class. Even now, though denied, there are rumors swirling that Kyle Wiltjer has re-opened his recruitment and is planning on committing to Washington. In this set of circumstances, Pearl's compliment of Calipari on his skill at keeping a team of high caliber players happy takes on special significance and will certainly be tested.

GO 'CATS !!!! 

There are a lot of perspectives on the issues at stake in the Enes Kanter eligibility quagmire.

Here are four of my perspectives: (1) The Euro-interest; (2) the Kentucky interest, (3) the Domestic interest, and (4) the NCAA interest

The Euro-Interest

The Euro-interest in the Kanter eligibility issue is double edged - financial and political. The financial interest is fairly clear cut. As long as the options for talented young athletes to leave Europe are few, sports teams, amateur and professional, have a low-cost, high-quality talent pool controlled by current teams and leagues with high profit margins. At the point where the NCAA opens the Kanter pipeline to American college sports, control of this European talent pool is diminished if not totally lost. They lose high quality talent to the US, thereby denying them to their domestic venue; they lose the income from the sale and trading of contracts; and, they will be forced to pay higher competitive costs to retain the now smaller talent pool through bid up contracts and higher resulting compensations. Higher costs to put a sports product (perhaps with less talent) before the public ultimately means lower profit margins.

The foreign political interest is one we don't hear much about and centers around the patriotic fervor citizens of other countries (particularly, poor countries) have for their domestic athletes and participation in international leagues and sports competitions. Rather than being pleased that one of their citizens is trying to get a chance to play college ball in the US, their perspective is that the loss of a top athlete to another country is one less to uphold the national pride in international competition and still worse, that athlete may actually compete against their country's teams. So, even Turks with no financial stake in Kanter staying in Turkey are not sympathetic at all to his wish to play at Kentucky. It's rather like the attitude of a typical Hoosier fan toward a 5-Star Indiana HS basketball player having trouble getting eligible to play at Kentucky - ugly. 

Continue reading this post »