define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);
If his belief is to do the best he can for the players, would he be more effective to do it with lesser athletes at a lesser school? This is essentially what I Renko is suggesting. If you have a belief, is it more beneficial as a whole to work inclusively on a local level? Or to rally others together with your cause, create a community of peers pursuing such ends? John Calipari has the best job in college basketball. If he truly believes he should do what is best for players, he will feel a responsibility to be an advocate for such beliefs from the platform he has, while also doing best for his players.
You can call this all a recruiting ploy. It definitely reaps recruiting benefits. But to say it is exclusively a selfish recruiting ambition negates the whole. What if John Calipari enlists a change that benefits student athletes everywhere? Is that simply a recruiting ploy? He isn’t boasting of his personal efforts to benefit his players. He could. He is asking for a change that could benefit players at multiple schools.
As far as recruiting goes, four of the nine players gone pro from Kentucky since he has been there weren’t his recruits. Of those four, only one, Patrick Patterson, really had any shot of going pro before. Cal calls it the Kentucky Effect. Call it what you want, Josh Harrellson had no shot of playing in the NBA before he embraced the challenges to get better that Coach Calipari presented to him. And of the remaining five players that were Cal’s recruits, one, Enes Kanter didn’t have the option to return to school.
The bottom line is, to do your job as a basketball coach well doesn’t render your attempts to provide better for players spurious or dishonest. Besides, at which middle or lower rung program could any coach do right for ‘hundreds’ of players? I mean, John Calipari is forsaking hundreds of players?
]]>This way, those who value education can go to school and get their degree.
Those who have no interest in school and are just there to prepare for a pro-career can just play ball.
This end the hypocrisy, yet still allow the schools to field successful teams and make the money.
Call this “The Kentucky Solution.”
]]>And then of course there is his standard strawman self-defense that he will never brainwash his kids and force them to stay when they could leave early. As though Roy Williams or Coach K or Ben Howland or whoever else he is recruiting against would do such a thing. (Not that he would ever say anything negative about another program. Oh, no.) But in the next breath, he suggests that the one-year rule should become a two-year rule. Is that supposed to be a players-first policy?
The bottom line is this: John Calipari’s job is to win basketball games. He believes the best way to do that is to recruit the most talented, NBA-ready players in the country because (i) this supplies with him with excellent on-court talent, and (ii) it provides a sustainable, self-perpetuating pitch about how his program produces NBA players. This may involve, along the way, explicit or implicit dealings with agents, runners, shoe companies, questionable prep schools and academic facilitators, families and entourages in search of something more than playing time, etc. Some of this may be worse than what you might see at other programs, some of it may not be. But all of it, as you see here from reading between the lines, is rationalized by coaches and fans as resistance to an NCAA regulatory regime that is allegedly counter to the interests of students. But that’s mostly what it is — rationalization.
]]>