(04-25-2017 12:42 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 11:33 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 08:41 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 04:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Duke is going down the drain without K. They'll still be good but in more of an Illinois type of way. They play in a gym that many high schools put to shame and are an academic power, which will hurt their ability to bring in players. It will definitely be about the coach leaving a legacy in this case.

Whether Duke is one of the best coaching jobs or just the work of a zenith master coach remains to be seen.

This^^^ Duke has a tiny terrible Gym. They were not good until Coach K and they'll stink when he finally retires.

Not sure about that. I imagine when K finally goes it'll be the top job in the country and will attract lots of top coaching talent. Now, if Duke screws up the coaching hire, I can see what you are saying coming true.

Jeff Capel is the man in waiting at Duke. He even took over on an interim basis when K was hurt this year. He's literally being groomed to try and keep Duke up and running without skipping a beat once Coach K retires. We'll see if that works out.

I thought the same thing about Johnny Dawkins. Capel didn't do so hot at Oklahoma and then didn't do so hot when K went out last season. Not sure everyone at Duke may be on board with him being K's replacement.

Because he's literally trying to take the baton and stay the same speed as Coach K, we'll see how it works out. As I said, he should keep them good but they shouldn't be getting a 1-seed every year like they did in Coach K's prime.

(04-25-2017 12:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UK's prestige, more money, etc were all factors


but at the end of the day, the NCAA was coming (see his time at UMASS too)

He found one of the few schools in UK that are so professional at cheating that he can stay as long as he is winning and even in the event they screw up and get caught (unlikely), he also knows the ncaa won't touch them

For the talent he has, he is not winning as much as he should.

(04-25-2017 01:32 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 12:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UK's prestige, more money, etc were all factors


but at the end of the day, the NCAA was coming (see his time at UMASS too)

He found one of the few schools in UK that are so professional at cheating that he can stay as long as he is winning and even in the event they screw up and get caught (unlikely), he also knows the ncaa won't touch them

For the talent he has, he is not winning as much as he should.

Yeah he should be like Geno and the lady huskies to a certain extent, he has the talent

(04-24-2017 06:59 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The reason is very simple. Kentucky is arguable the best job in college basketball. Any coach in the AAC would have underwent root canals without pain killer for the same opportunity.

I understand Kentucky's reputation, but I also understand that Kentucky, wasn't always "Kentucky". Just like Duke wasn't always "Duke". Reputations/legacies are built with winning over time. Perhaps my perception from Wichita was skewed, but I considered you guys the role model for what I had hoped Wichita could return to. A national power not requiring a national power conference. In my opinion, Memphis had attained perennial top 10 status and wasn't going anywhere as long as Cal stayed on board. There's no reason to think that Memphis couldn't have become a "Kentucky" a la Louisville with a decade of deep runs and a national championship or two.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the players you had at the end of his tenure were awesome. It seemed like 1-5 had a 7 ft. wingspan and a 40+ vertical. Athletes+++ And in that national championship game I was literally begging Jesus to get you over the top. Fking hate those ChicKUns (they are chickens because they've backed out of every imaginable deal to play us -even prime-time games arranged by ESPN).

You had 18k in the stands every night, I think you were undefeated 3 years in a row in conference? (lol), your coach was established and comfortable (9 years?), and what has already been said - Memphis was peaking and Kentucky was flailing. I know the NCAA was coming but it wouldn't have been a game-changer. He would have been fine after a hand slap.

A God in Memphis vs. operating in the shadow of others at Kentucky. It was just a weird jump to me that's all. Memphis was no stepping stone job IMO. But you're right, the blue bloods make every job a potential stepping stone.

Rant over.


T


...

One last thing...

People will say, he wanted a new challenge; he had peaked at Memphis. B.S.! The challenge was building what he built at Memphis and maintaining it. You could take the top 25 coaches in the country right now, insert them into Kentucky, and the ship would keep sailing down the straight and narrow. One of two reasons made the deal IMO: 1) Either Cal wanted to relax and not work as hard to get the same quality recruit (that hasn't seemed to be the case), or 2) he wanted a program that was impervious to NCAA rules. I'm thinking #2 was the ticket. Just fking look at UNC...

UNC--><--NCAA


T


...

Memphis can be a great job.

It is hard to turn down North Carolina, Duke, UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, and Kentucky.

We should remind everyone that Cal did turn down the NC State job. NC State thought they had him.

(04-25-2017 02:12 PM)chess Wrote:  Memphis can be a great job.

It is hard to turn down North Carolina, Duke, UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, and Kentucky.

We should remind everyone that Cal did turn down the NC State job. NC State thought they had him.

3G turned NC State down, and Missouri, and Arkansas, and Cal, and Nebraska, and Alabama, and... who am I forgetting?


T


...

3G may have turned down UCLA and Indiana. There were rumors, and if so, it happened very early in the process. Strangely enough there were also rumors HE was turned down by Texas and was interested in the job before Smart took it. That would have sucked if we'd lost him to Texas.

Texas is another program that almost seemed Blue Blood-like. They had tremendous recruiting every year forever. They just could never win anything.


T


...

http://archive.commercialappeal.com/spor...84421.html

Quote:Attendance at U of M games has been declining. After seven straight seasons (from 2007-08 to 2013-14) of averages in the 16,000-plus range, the last two seasons have seen a noticeable fall. The announced attendance during the 2014-15 season was 13,915, a 13.7 percent drop. It has dropped another 16 percent this season, with average attendance of 11,721 for 17 games.

Quote:With no official numbers being made available from the U of M or the Grizzlies, per-game media estimates have ranged from 6,000 to 7,500.

Damn guys... you've got a new coach. Get those butts back in the seats. You gotta give Tubby a chance.


T


...

Kentucky is probably the blue blood of blue bloods. They have been good for almost three quarters of a century going back to Adolf Rupp. Their fans are true fanatics which can be a double edged sword. They show up, fill the arena, are loud (sometimes violent), and follow on TV but they also have no patience when it comes to winning.

(04-25-2017 04:01 PM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  Kentucky is probably the blue blood of blue bloods. They have been good for almost three quarters of a century going back to Adolf Rupp. Their fans are true fanatics which can be a double edged sword. They show up, fill the arena, are loud (sometimes violent), and follow on TV but they also have no patience when it comes to winning.

And almost all of them could give two ***** about their football program. IMO you can't call urself a die hard fan unless you root for football and basketball as well as other sports that ur school competes in. beware p5 fan bases are full of fake fans that will leave after the team starts to suck in the sport they like... that why i respect this place most of yall are true fans that stick thru thick and thin and rep ur team no matter how bad or good they are.#respect

This isn't true at all. Kentucky has a large and passionate football fanbase. It just gets dwarved in comparison to the size of their basketball fanbase. But my brother played there and can attest to how passionate their fanbase is. Kinda the inverse of Texas, which has a large basketball fanbase but nothing in comparison to football.

(04-24-2017 08:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 06:45 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 04:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And Kentucky could pay more. They were suffering through Billy Gillespie.

Memphis' last offer exceeded what he got at Kentucky. He left because it was Kentucky, same reason that all but a handful of coaches would.

I'm sure Kentucky could have matched. You guys are right about it being Kentucky, which at least proves he isn't a sellout, a complete one anyways.

Memphis had a $4 million a year offer on the table for him to stay. For the right coach, we will make him the highest paid one in college basketball.

(04-25-2017 09:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 04:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  And Kentucky could pay more. They were suffering through Billy Gillespie.

Doesn't matter. He signed with UK for about $31M, iirc. We offered $60M, including stock options in FedEx and a number of corporate board positions.

He left b/c:

1. The NCAA was about to slam us.

2. It was UK.

He got lucky that the news of us getting killed had not yet made it to the public yet when UK offered.

Right. The CA, our local paper, was asleep on that one -

(04-25-2017 02:03 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 06:59 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The reason is very simple. Kentucky is arguable the best job in college basketball. Any coach in the AAC would have underwent root canals without pain killer for the same opportunity.

I understand Kentucky's reputation, but I also understand that Kentucky, wasn't always "Kentucky". Just like Duke wasn't always "Duke". Reputations/legacies are built with winning over time. Perhaps my perception from Wichita was skewed, but I considered you guys the role model for what I had hoped Wichita could return to. A national power not requiring a national power conference. In my opinion, Memphis had attained perennial top 10 status and wasn't going anywhere as long as Cal stayed on board. There's no reason to think that Memphis couldn't have become a "Kentucky" a la Louisville with a decade of deep runs and a national championship or two.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the players you had at the end of his tenure were awesome. It seemed like 1-5 had a 7 ft. wingspan and a 40+ vertical. Athletes+++ And in that national championship game I was literally begging Jesus to get you over the top. Fking hate those ChicKUns (they are chickens because they've backed out of every imaginable deal to play us -even prime-time games arranged by ESPN).

You had 18k in the stands every night, I think you were undefeated 3 years in a row in conference? (lol), your coach was established and comfortable (9 years?), and what has already been said - Memphis was peaking and Kentucky was flailing. I know the NCAA was coming but it wouldn't have been a game-changer. He would have been fine after a hand slap.

A God in Memphis vs. operating in the shadow of others at Kentucky. It was just a weird jump to me that's all. Memphis was no stepping stone job IMO. But you're right, the blue bloods make every job a potential stepping stone.

Rant over.


T


...

again, had Cal stayed...Memphis hoops would have been hammered by the NCAA (yes, it would be a game changer as we would have been hit with postseason bans and scholarship reductions...they weren't playing around) ...if it wasn't Kentucky...it would have been Arizona...but either way, he was leaving before the NCAA hammer came down.

(04-25-2017 10:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 02:03 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 06:59 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The reason is very simple. Kentucky is arguable the best job in college basketball. Any coach in the AAC would have underwent root canals without pain killer for the same opportunity.

I understand Kentucky's reputation, but I also understand that Kentucky, wasn't always "Kentucky". Just like Duke wasn't always "Duke". Reputations/legacies are built with winning over time. Perhaps my perception from Wichita was skewed, but I considered you guys the role model for what I had hoped Wichita could return to. A national power not requiring a national power conference. In my opinion, Memphis had attained perennial top 10 status and wasn't going anywhere as long as Cal stayed on board. There's no reason to think that Memphis couldn't have become a "Kentucky" a la Louisville with a decade of deep runs and a national championship or two.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the players you had at the end of his tenure were awesome. It seemed like 1-5 had a 7 ft. wingspan and a 40+ vertical. Athletes+++ And in that national championship game I was literally begging Jesus to get you over the top. Fking hate those ChicKUns (they are chickens because they've backed out of every imaginable deal to play us -even prime-time games arranged by ESPN).

You had 18k in the stands every night, I think you were undefeated 3 years in a row in conference? (lol), your coach was established and comfortable (9 years?), and what has already been said - Memphis was peaking and Kentucky was flailing. I know the NCAA was coming but it wouldn't have been a game-changer. He would have been fine after a hand slap.

A God in Memphis vs. operating in the shadow of others at Kentucky. It was just a weird jump to me that's all. Memphis was no stepping stone job IMO. But you're right, the blue bloods make every job a potential stepping stone.

Rant over.


T


...

again, had Cal stayed...Memphis hoops would have been hammered by the NCAA...if it wasn't Kentucky...it would have been Arizona...but either way, he was leaving before the NCAA hammer came down.

You're saying your penalty was lessened by him leaving? And he received no punishment at UK? I don't understand.


T


...

(04-25-2017 10:11 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 10:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 02:03 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 06:59 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The reason is very simple. Kentucky is arguable the best job in college basketball. Any coach in the AAC would have underwent root canals without pain killer for the same opportunity.

I understand Kentucky's reputation, but I also understand that Kentucky, wasn't always "Kentucky". Just like Duke wasn't always "Duke". Reputations/legacies are built with winning over time. Perhaps my perception from Wichita was skewed, but I considered you guys the role model for what I had hoped Wichita could return to. A national power not requiring a national power conference. In my opinion, Memphis had attained perennial top 10 status and wasn't going anywhere as long as Cal stayed on board. There's no reason to think that Memphis couldn't have become a "Kentucky" a la Louisville with a decade of deep runs and a national championship or two.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the players you had at the end of his tenure were awesome. It seemed like 1-5 had a 7 ft. wingspan and a 40+ vertical. Athletes+++ And in that national championship game I was literally begging Jesus to get you over the top. Fking hate those ChicKUns (they are chickens because they've backed out of every imaginable deal to play us -even prime-time games arranged by ESPN).

You had 18k in the stands every night, I think you were undefeated 3 years in a row in conference? (lol), your coach was established and comfortable (9 years?), and what has already been said - Memphis was peaking and Kentucky was flailing. I know the NCAA was coming but it wouldn't have been a game-changer. He would have been fine after a hand slap.

A God in Memphis vs. operating in the shadow of others at Kentucky. It was just a weird jump to me that's all. Memphis was no stepping stone job IMO. But you're right, the blue bloods make every job a potential stepping stone.

Rant over.


T


...

again, had Cal stayed...Memphis hoops would have been hammered by the NCAA...if it wasn't Kentucky...it would have been Arizona...but either way, he was leaving before the NCAA hammer came down.

You're saying your penalty was lessened by him leaving? And he received no punishment at UK? I don't understand.


T


...

hell yes, they absolutely came down easy on us because the root of the problem was gone...what's the point in coming down hard on Memphis when the coach who did it all is no longer there?

thus Memphis got a slap on the hand (vacating a season) and we all moved on.

we didn't even fight with em at the infractions hearing...

(04-25-2017 04:01 PM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  Kentucky is probably the blue blood of blue bloods. They have been good for almost three quarters of a century going back to Adolf Rupp. Their fans are true fanatics which can be a double edged sword. They show up, fill the arena, are loud (sometimes violent), and follow on TV but they also have no patience when it comes to winning.

I am not going to argue too hard with this but North Carolina is fighting off the NCAA for how many years? Fake classes? National Championships? UNC is still untouched.

How can UNC not be the blue blood of blue bloods? It's like the NCAA doesn't care if UNC cheats.

I heard the HC of UK basketball gets Prima Nocta