Yep, I wouldn't bitch if we could get an Okafor or Tyus Jones for a year.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Being Kentucky
- Thread starter DBT
- Start date
Plain and simple, anyone who hates on Cal for the way he runs his program is just jealous. No one is doing it better right now.
it sucks being a kentucky basketball fan said no kentucky basketball fan ever
I am not sure Calipari cheats now, he has a program that recruits itself. Think about it, if you were a top talent out of high school with the goal to go to the NBA, its hard to not go with Kentucky. Proven record of getting to the NBA as quick as possible with lots of exposure, and winning.
Now, did Calipari cheat to get to kentucky, well, yea, most likely
/endthread
I agree with DBT.
I don't hate Cal for doing what he does and I do agree winning is fun. I'm sure Kentucky fans like it and I would like it too. But, to me, winning as an underdog is more fun than winning when you're expected to.
We all agree that beating Arizona is more fun than beating Oregon State right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't hate Cal for doing what he does and I do agree winning is fun. I'm sure Kentucky fans like it and I would like it too. But, to me, winning as an underdog is more fun than winning when you're expected to.
We all agree that beating Arizona is more fun than beating Oregon State right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I kind of understand what DBT meant.
I enjoy getting to know the players and watching them mature and progress in the system.
I enjoy those games where we have a great shot at winning but aren't necessarily favored.
I enjoy being one of the "cinderella" stories ESPN runs their mouth about as we approach tournament time
I enjoy the discussion on where we fall in terms of the bracket bubble and following our RPI to see how we match up with everyone else
However, I know for a fact I would enjoy winning every game or near every game just as much. Two different versions of the same game and both would be just as good.
I enjoy getting to know the players and watching them mature and progress in the system.
I enjoy those games where we have a great shot at winning but aren't necessarily favored.
I enjoy being one of the "cinderella" stories ESPN runs their mouth about as we approach tournament time
I enjoy the discussion on where we fall in terms of the bracket bubble and following our RPI to see how we match up with everyone else
However, I know for a fact I would enjoy winning every game or near every game just as much. Two different versions of the same game and both would be just as good.
We also all agree that being Arizona would be more fun that being Oregon State.
Don't let the kittens see that. They are insufferable as it is.
Well Kentucky had issues last year and where did they end up? Just saying. You can't teach talent and they have a ****load. I see where you are going Dbt but winning trumps everything imho whether it's freshmen or seniors.
I like the Indiana "early draft" model better than Kentucky. My love loss for the Cats aside, Kentucky often attracts the absolute top high school basketball recruits that have an extremely high likelihood of being drafted in two years or less, most likely post their first year. Not every recruit of course, but more of this type of recruit than most any other program currently. Your classic 'one and done". As mentioned in a previous post, this O And D recruit may not even attend class for an entire academic year.
Indiana model is a bit different. Target the hoops athlete with strong potential of being drafted, but target a player who really does value obtaining his/her undergraduate degree. This has resulted in an accelerated graduation program catering to these high end athletes. IU emphasizes an accelerated 3 year graduation program, support network, and an alternative class program catering to this accelerated degree. This 3 year accelerated degree is completed during their stay, or immediately after. Fans of IU call it "Three and a degree".
Best recent examples are Oladipo, Guyton, and Zoeller. All three left early, but have also already reached their undergraduate degree. Not the only way to approach things, and of course not unique to IU, but a contrast from the Kentucky model where few of the early exits will gain a college degree. Of the recent early exits from IU, I believe Vonieh was the only "one and done". So even with IU, and potentially with CU in the future, it does happen.
No doubt there is a talent gap even in the upper level programs, but I prefer a recruiting focus emphasizing someone who places some significance on their education, and the history of the program. CU fits this mold, especially with Tad.
Indiana model is a bit different. Target the hoops athlete with strong potential of being drafted, but target a player who really does value obtaining his/her undergraduate degree. This has resulted in an accelerated graduation program catering to these high end athletes. IU emphasizes an accelerated 3 year graduation program, support network, and an alternative class program catering to this accelerated degree. This 3 year accelerated degree is completed during their stay, or immediately after. Fans of IU call it "Three and a degree".
Best recent examples are Oladipo, Guyton, and Zoeller. All three left early, but have also already reached their undergraduate degree. Not the only way to approach things, and of course not unique to IU, but a contrast from the Kentucky model where few of the early exits will gain a college degree. Of the recent early exits from IU, I believe Vonieh was the only "one and done". So even with IU, and potentially with CU in the future, it does happen.
No doubt there is a talent gap even in the upper level programs, but I prefer a recruiting focus emphasizing someone who places some significance on their education, and the history of the program. CU fits this mold, especially with Tad.
I agree with DBT's point insofar as it's less fun to be a fan of the overwhelming favorite. It's akin to the CU-CSU series: win and CU has merely met expectations, lose and it's a disaster.
It's the same reason that I've found following the Broncos this year to be less fun (although in many cases satisfying) than other years because anything less than a SB title has to be considered a failure.
For that Kentucky team, anything less than a NC is a failure.
It's the same reason that I've found following the Broncos this year to be less fun (although in many cases satisfying) than other years because anything less than a SB title has to be considered a failure.
For that Kentucky team, anything less than a NC is a failure.
The year I hear Jay Bilas say, "For this Colorado team, anything less than a national championship is a failure" I'm pretty sure I'll be a happy fan. But maybe that's just me.
I get what you're saying Nik, it's just a difference in opinion. Some of us find exceeding expectations more fun than meeting them.
I had more fun in 2007 watching the Rockies make it to the world series than I did any year the Broncos or Avs won it all.
I also personally think it's more fun to see a class of freshman come in and grow together into winners over a few seasons than to have a new group of freshman come in every year and win. Not that I wouldn't like that, I just wouldn't like it as much.
I agree that winning is fun. But there a lot of different ways to win. The Kentucky model seems like the least fun, but obviously still more fun than losing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had more fun in 2007 watching the Rockies make it to the world series than I did any year the Broncos or Avs won it all.
I also personally think it's more fun to see a class of freshman come in and grow together into winners over a few seasons than to have a new group of freshman come in every year and win. Not that I wouldn't like that, I just wouldn't like it as much.
I agree that winning is fun. But there a lot of different ways to win. The Kentucky model seems like the least fun, but obviously still more fun than losing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honestly, I like watching guys grow up and to know all the guys on the team every year without having to check a roster card.
I'm just saying that being ranked #1 with multiple McDonald's AAs on the roster and a favorite to win the the Dance would be pretty damn awesome, too.
Mostly, I was just arguing against being satisfied with where the program is when there are some pretty incredible things to cheer for above this level.
My biggest gripe with pro sports is the level of perfection, though not totally perfect, they are at. That's why I enjoy college sports so much. Most of these kids will never be pros. We get to watch a kid be recruited, show up as a freshman and develop through the senior year. Each year, we continue the process. It's fun to watch. Kentucky is more like the pro model. They bring in the top "free agents" each year. Those guys stick around for a year. Maybe two. Then a new group of free agents come in. Now, would I be all bummed if Tad brought in 3 or 4 McDonald's All Americans? HELL NO!
I be Kentucky
rolandftw
Club Member
They were "One and Done U." Cal has slowly moved away from it after their disaster of a season 2 years ago. Towns is probably the only one and done player on their roster.
They probably have 6 of the 25 best players in College Basketball. Not very common at all, and not something they will have every year.
People still refer to Cousins by his real given name?
I honestly didn't think people would follow if I said Boogie.
Admittedly, I´m #TeamSimmons
This thread....
Hoops Fan
Well-Known Member
I am disappointed to see the current situation where a team (Kentucky right now) can be a 'destination" program for one and done players year after year. With the growth in shoe money and national showcase of AAU ball, elite players from all around the country can get to know each other and decide to team up at a place like Kentucky to make a realistic run at the national championship every year. Calipari is a good coach. I have not heard of any cheating. He really does not have to. I agree with an earlier post that at this point Kentucky is a destination that recruits just want to be at ... come to Kentucky, play a year or two with the other High School All Americans and use that exposure to get into the NBA.
But my issue here is that this has changed the landscape of College basketball by stacking the deck in an ever smaller circle of Universities. The playing field is not as level as it used to be and I think that it takes away from the College game. It is pretty much impossible to stop this trend because it is the result of free choice for every player as to where they would prefer to be. I would not support legislation to limit a player's choice even if I could do so. But I do think that a change on the NCAA rules that would effect the scholarship supply side and spread the top tier talent around a little. I would like to see a requirement whereby a school would be required to use a minimum three scholarship years for every recruit that they sign ... regardless of how long they stay at the University. Then a one done player would still use up a scholarship for two subsequent years after they left (a two year guy would leave a gap for one year). This would limit any destination school for loading up as Kentucky has because they would soon have to be playing mostly with walk on players to fill the gaps until they could offer more scholarships. A school could load up once in a while, but not year after year. This policy also resonates with the notion of a four year scholarship commitment to every recruit that Boyle practices and the rest of the PAC 12 is apparently considering as a required practice.
This said, I am much happier rooting for Colorado (and my old home town Maryland Terrapins) than a load of one and done guys at Kentucky. No knock on the University of Kentucky, but I liked it better when Rupp was coaching there. I was in the stands at Cole Field House in Maryland when Texas Western (now UTEP) beat Rupp's top ranked Kentucky team for the national championship with a bunch or run and gun "no stars" in a game that I think changed the nature of the style of play of college basketball thereafter. That is much less likely to be able to happen today. I for one lament that.
But my issue here is that this has changed the landscape of College basketball by stacking the deck in an ever smaller circle of Universities. The playing field is not as level as it used to be and I think that it takes away from the College game. It is pretty much impossible to stop this trend because it is the result of free choice for every player as to where they would prefer to be. I would not support legislation to limit a player's choice even if I could do so. But I do think that a change on the NCAA rules that would effect the scholarship supply side and spread the top tier talent around a little. I would like to see a requirement whereby a school would be required to use a minimum three scholarship years for every recruit that they sign ... regardless of how long they stay at the University. Then a one done player would still use up a scholarship for two subsequent years after they left (a two year guy would leave a gap for one year). This would limit any destination school for loading up as Kentucky has because they would soon have to be playing mostly with walk on players to fill the gaps until they could offer more scholarships. A school could load up once in a while, but not year after year. This policy also resonates with the notion of a four year scholarship commitment to every recruit that Boyle practices and the rest of the PAC 12 is apparently considering as a required practice.
This said, I am much happier rooting for Colorado (and my old home town Maryland Terrapins) than a load of one and done guys at Kentucky. No knock on the University of Kentucky, but I liked it better when Rupp was coaching there. I was in the stands at Cole Field House in Maryland when Texas Western (now UTEP) beat Rupp's top ranked Kentucky team for the national championship with a bunch or run and gun "no stars" in a game that I think changed the nature of the style of play of college basketball thereafter. That is much less likely to be able to happen today. I for one lament that.
Scram! You're not welcome here!
ShockerHoops
Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of making up your team with an entire roster full of Burger Boys. I enjoy that the guys that come through the program I cheer for attend the university I attended, and do so for either 2 years as transfer juco's, or 4/5 year guys if they get a RS. I think it adds a level of connection with the players in the program. They too are alumni, most of which graduate with full honors, and a degree they can be proud of, just as I'm proud of my degree. When a university starts to recruit nothing but one-and-done's, it is no longer an activity that student athletes compete in, it simply becomes a semi-pro team that happens to play games with colleges. In all seriousness, and I'm 100% serious, maybe Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, etc. should create a major for professional athletes. And not a sham major, one that teaches them in's and outs of being a professional athlete. Training regiments, classes on physiology, tax issues with being a professional athlete, branding of one's self, social media, public speaking, etc.
found myself in conversation with three UConn grads today. talk turned to hoops. I made a sexist faux pas referencing their recent NCAA title ("uhh, excuse me, we won BOTH championshipS") and the conversation turned to women's hoops....
the one female in the group remarked that while she loved the women's team, she didn't like going the games: "it's not that fun watching them beat the other team 80 - 25, especially when that's what you expect to happen". The other two Huskies agreed.
I thought of this thread. and became jealous (VT men AND women tracking to finish dead last in conference for 3rd straight year).
I can see how it would be hard to be excited as a season ticket holder to one of the women's blue blood schools for 80% of the home games. Back to the topic though, nobody in men's hoops dominates like you see UConn, Duke and [STRIKE]Tennessee[/STRIKE] South Carolina do in women's, so it's hard for me to imagine a team winning to the point that such feelings set in.
the one female in the group remarked that while she loved the women's team, she didn't like going the games: "it's not that fun watching them beat the other team 80 - 25, especially when that's what you expect to happen". The other two Huskies agreed.
I thought of this thread. and became jealous (VT men AND women tracking to finish dead last in conference for 3rd straight year).
I can see how it would be hard to be excited as a season ticket holder to one of the women's blue blood schools for 80% of the home games. Back to the topic though, nobody in men's hoops dominates like you see UConn, Duke and [STRIKE]Tennessee[/STRIKE] South Carolina do in women's, so it's hard for me to imagine a team winning to the point that such feelings set in.