This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

I'd take him in heartbeat too. To lazy to read the article, but that quote just makes me sad.

socaltownie said:

---

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good at hiding the corners you're cutting.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

Fixed that for you.

socaltownie said:

---

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

Seems like his problem is the one that I worry about with DeCuire. He can't recruit at the P6 level (aside from one year of Mo Bamba).

+1. This is the conclusion that I have come to. You have to cut corners to compete in a power 5 conference. You have to look the other way as some shoe company pays some handler who pays some family member who pays some recruit. It's a dirty business. One and drones have to go away.

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

Seems like his problem is the one that I worry about with DeCuire. He can't recruit at the P6 level (aside from one year of Mo Bamba).

---

The line in the article implies that "recruiting at the P6 level) requires you to pay handlers/families money.

As others have pointed out, we have to blow up one and dones.

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I'm hoping there's a happy medium between Altman and Jones - where Cal can compete without cutting corners. That probably means never getting past a sweet 16 every decade or so - which is a bit disheartening. But I'm confident we can better than Jones record without cheating. I'm not thrilled, but OK with that.

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I'm a bit puzzled by the thought that a guy who could take VCU to a Final Four somehow would have to do everything differently in a power conference. Not a doubt in my mind that the power conferences are mired in filth, but if the VCU runs were not luck and they were done without the guys all the dirty programs are fighting to pay, what's the impediment? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I'm a bit puzzled by the thought that a guy who could take VCU to a Final Four somehow would have to do everything differently in a power conference. Not a doubt in my mind that the power conferences are mired in filth, but if the VCU runs were not luck and they were done without the guys all the dirty programs are fighting to pay, what's the impediment? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

---

I think the argument is that in a mid-major you don't need to be in the filth to get the kind of guys that will let your coaching shine and get you to the conference tournament champion and then pick up 3-4 wins in the big dance. But to compete week in and week out with KU when they are paying their players and handlers it is just really tought because basketball is a game where raw skill WILL often overcome bad coaching.

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I'm a bit puzzled by the thought that a guy who could take VCU to a Final Four somehow would have to do everything differently in a power conference. Not a doubt in my mind that the power conferences are mired in filth, but if the VCU runs were not luck and they were done without the guys all the dirty programs are fighting to pay, what's the impediment? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

---

I think the argument is that in a mid-major you don't need to be in the filth to get the kind of guys that will let your coaching shine and get you to the conference tournament champion and then pick up 3-4 wins in the big dance. But to compete week in and week out with KU when they are paying their players and handlers it is just really tought because basketball is a game where raw skill WILL often overcome bad coaching.

---

Sounds like a specious argument. If you get to the final four with mid major talent, then why not with P6 talent (even if you don't have the full blown "sleazy" P6 talent? You gotta agree it should be easer to recruit to Texas than VCU.

Civil Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I'm a bit puzzled by the thought that a guy who could take VCU to a Final Four somehow would have to do everything differently in a power conference. Not a doubt in my mind that the power conferences are mired in filth, but if the VCU runs were not luck and they were done without the guys all the dirty programs are fighting to pay, what's the impediment? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

---

I think the argument is that in a mid-major you don't need to be in the filth to get the kind of guys that will let your coaching shine and get you to the conference tournament champion and then pick up 3-4 wins in the big dance. But to compete week in and week out with KU when they are paying their players and handlers it is just really tought because basketball is a game where raw skill WILL often overcome bad coaching.

---

Sounds like a specious argument. If you get to the final four with mid major talent, then why not with P6 talent (even if you don't have the full blown "sleazy" P6 talent? You gotta agree it should be easer to recruit to Texas than VCU.

---

No. Because to get to the final four as a mid-major you have to win 4 games (and your conference tournament). You can do that. Doesn't happen often but happens.

But to win in the P6 you don't need to win 4 games....you need to win 12 to 15 in conference against the best talent money can buy. Otherwise you don't get an invite and you can't dance. I totally get why this can happen.

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

WHat I still want to know is whether the NCAA could try to do something itself - for example penalizing schools that have kids that leave after their first year so as to discourage their recruitment. Not sure it could but it would start to really deter folks from offering a one and done if you knew that you would be down 2-3 scholarships if they left.

Good piece on one and dones. The most telling thing to me is that 18 first round draft chocies fit that. It would create a VASTLY different landscape - cause the kids that were playing NCAA would likely know their chances of getting drafted were dramatically limited.


http://www.ncaa.org/static/champion/the-one-and-done-dilemma/

socaltownie said:

---

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

WHat I still want to know is whether the NCAA could try to do something itself - for example penalizing schools that have kids that leave after their first year so as to discourage their recruitment. Not sure it could but it would start to really deter folks from offering a one and done if you knew that you would be down 2-3 scholarships if they left.

---

The NCAA could do something. Like count all scholarships for 4 years (or even 3). They won't. Honestly, I don't really support them doing anything, but they could if they wanted.

I think the solution is the NBA having teams do what the Warriors have done and take control of a development league franchise and use it like a minor league system. Remove the 1 year restriction and maybe expand the draft to 3 rounds. Your major problem in college basketball are players who really have no desire to be in college. They should have another option.

The real solution is for the Universities to get out of the entertainment business. I expect that to happen eventually, but perhaps not in my lifetime. As the money gets bigger, the role of the University gets smaller and eventually, no one will need the University. We will all go Ivy League (only cleaner) and the kids will go pro. Money doesn't talk, it swears.

bearchamp said:

---

The real solution is for the Universities to get out of the entertainment business. I expect that to happen eventually, but perhaps not in my lifetime. As the money gets bigger, the role of the University gets smaller and eventually, no one will need the University. We will all go Ivy League (only cleaner) and the kids will go pro. Money doesn't talk, it swears.

---

I actually don't think it is primarily the money that is the issue (well it is, but the money is the symptom, not the cause). At base, college football and men's basketball are lesser products. The quality is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY below the pro's. If you took all the same teams and all the same players that are playing in the NCAA tournament, took away the college affiliation, and called them minor league teams, nobody would watch. There would be no money.

There is only money because people rap up college pride with the performance of these teams. Because it is pride, people drastically overpay to watch and to influence their program to succeed. When that pride starts dwindling, the money will dry up.

Honestly, I wonder if we are seeing the beginnings of that now and if the West Coast is the canary in the coal mine. Attendance at games is dropping a ton and it is a lot harder to take pride in colored pixels moving around a television set. I think the whole college rah - rah thing is reducing (how many people learn fight songs anymore?) I don't know if the younger generations are going to pony up the doe for college sports like their predecessors did.

Of course there are some schools that are as fanatical as ever. I just wonder if there is going to be an ever growing gap between the haves and have nots until the have nots no longer care.

socaltownie said:

---

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

---

Except it's not to any of the people involved in the shoe thing. The players have to agree with the owners on what the new rule would be.

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

---

Except it's not to any of the people involved in the shoe thing. The players have to agree with the owners on what the new rule would be.

---

Yes. Part of the CBA. But NCAA could force their hand. They could make it so unattractive to take kids for one and done that the NBA is suddenly "stuck" with a stupid rule and great 18 year olds that are not anywhere developing brand (except overseas where it is more expensive to scout).

As above, the nuclear option to get there is to make all scholarships 4 years. Kid leaves after frosh, you play down for 3 years. One and dones suddenly look a LOT less appealing. If NBA drags heels I would think, especially if shoegate casts a huge and ugly net that Presidents will push hard for it.

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

---

Except it's not to any of the people involved in the shoe thing. The players have to agree with the owners on what the new rule would be.

---

Yes. Part of the CBA. But NCAA could force their hand. They could make it so unattractive to take kids for one and done that the NBA is suddenly "stuck" with a stupid rule and great 18 year olds that are not anywhere developing brand (except overseas where it is more expensive to scout).

As above, the nuclear option to get there is to make all scholarships 4 years. Kid leaves after frosh, you play down for 3 years. One and dones suddenly look a LOT less appealing. If NBA drags heels I would think, especially if shoegate casts a huge and ugly net that Presidents will push hard for it.

---

All that would happen there is that everyone would take the Brandon Jennings route and college basketball would suffer even more.

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

---

Except it's not to any of the people involved in the shoe thing. The players have to agree with the owners on what the new rule would be.

---

Yes. Part of the CBA. But NCAA could force their hand. They could make it so unattractive to take kids for one and done that the NBA is suddenly "stuck" with a stupid rule and great 18 year olds that are not anywhere developing brand (except overseas where it is more expensive to scout).

As above, the nuclear option to get there is to make all scholarships 4 years. Kid leaves after frosh, you play down for 3 years. One and dones suddenly look a LOT less appealing. If NBA drags heels I would think, especially if shoegate casts a huge and ugly net that Presidents will push hard for it.

---

All that would happen there is that everyone would take the Brandon Jennings route and college basketball would suffer even more.

---

I don't think so. What has "changed" is that the majority of kids drafted in the last 2 years HAVE been one and dones. I would expect that to be the case this year.

So lets say you are in the top 50. You think you WILL be drafted. You go do the Jennings route. Have fun. I heard that Rosseta Stone is on sale so you can learn Italian)

What is left in College are the tweeners. The kids that might make it in the show but probably not. They were not in the top 50. That is a pool in which Cal can thrive. Cause again, Most of them are not going to the show.

The question then becomes (NCAA can work this out) - what do you do with the 31 out of 50 that are NOT drafted? Do they lose their amatuer status. Or can they come and get a ride? I am favor of a ride.

After a year or two of that the 19/1 year from HS will be thrown out. Kids will be drafted. If they don't get drafted they will sign. It will work out and a lot of the sleeze associated with making sure a kid and family "get taken care of" will go away. Not all. Old as the mountain. But still some of it will go away.

Oaktown - I agree with you completely about what drives value in the college game. It has much more to do with psychological attachments, the experience, the uniforms, the rivalries, the tournament, etc than it has to do with the level of play. There's a reason why the G-league has a superior level of play to college basket ball and yet they can't pay people to watch it. The brand value of college basketball is incredibly strong. There may be a small handful of players that each year can increase a particular school's share of that value and actually make a material financial impact but it's very few and short term in nature.

I might suggest though that attendance declines haven't been hugely significant. You can see official attendance figures here and the changes have been very slight. In 2000, overall D1 attendance was 21.9 million. Last year was 24.6 million. In 2010, it was 25.1 million. It's been fairly constant in recent decades. Theres been a slight decline in average per-game attendance from around 5,000 per game in 2000 to around 4,700 per game in recent years. I suspect that''s more attributable to more games being available on tv than changing fan attitudes about the game. Regardless, in any given year, individual schools and even conferences may fluctuate but in general, we haven't seen significant reductions in attendance.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-mens-basketball-attendance

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Oaktown - I agree with you completely about what drives value in the college game. It has much more to do with psychological attachments, the experience, the uniforms, the rivalries, the tournament, etc than it has to do with the level of play. There's a reason why the G-league has a superior level of play to college basket ball and yet they can't pay people to watch it. The brand value of college basketball is incredibly strong. There may be a small handful of players that each year can increase a particular school's share of that value and actually make a material financial impact but it's very few and short term in nature.

I might suggest though that attendance declines haven't been hugely significant. You can see official attendance figures here and the changes have been very slight. In 2000, overall D1 attendance was 21.9 million. Last year was 24.6 million. In 2010, it was 25.1 million. It's been fairly constant in recent decades. Theres been a slight decline in average per-game attendance from around 5,000 per game in 2000 to around 4,700 per game in recent years. I suspect that''s more attributable to more games being available on tv than changing fan attitudes about the game. Regardless, in any given year, individual schools and even conferences may fluctuate but in general, we haven't seen significant reductions in attendance.

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-mens-basketball-attendance

---

I'm on board with the psychological attachments and consider my Cal fandom my biggest vice in life. However. I'm not as dismissive of the minor league option:

• Have you ever been to a Santa Cruz Warriors game? Much more fun than Haas has been for years (although when Haas is rocking - no comparison). Kaiser Pavillion seats about 3000 - better fit than a usual empty arena. Family friendly and they serve beer too.
• P5/P6 programs could convert to minor league. Rent out arenas and license mascot, uniforms etc. They'd make some income and get out of the entertainment business (which many suck at). They could include a rule like at least one student athlete on the court at all times to keep purists satisfied. Majority of roster could non-students. Minor League gets instant fan base (unlike the G-league). Basicly selling the brand and the headache.

As for attendance, the numbers you reveal don't tell the whole story. There are regional and demographic differences which probably aren't in Cals favor. However, when Cal is winning - attendance is good (that is not always the case with every program). Also the demographics of the fan base is getting older and wealthier. That will not work long term. I think the slight declines are the beginning of a major change that will occur over then next couple decades.

The current state of D1 basketball is based on a large influx of money from TV contracts. The next round will have a bigger impact on the game than any rule change or conference affiliation.

As for the One and Done. I think its a false bogey. A small handful of top programs benefit from OAD (Kentucky, Duke, UNC, UofA, Kansas, UCLA). They were thriving before and will likely thrive after. A couple of other programs (like Cal) get one every now and then and it doesn't fundamentally change their program.

Sorry to Necro a thread but resonated with Eric's latest post about the challenges of having a dedicated practice facility.

Lets separate out One and dones. Lets ask a better question - can you have success (if what we measure that as being one of the top 16 seeds in the tournament and thus a favorite to make the S16 WITHOUT kids that are likely to be drafted in the first 2 rounds? Put another way, has Cal EVER enjoyed that kind of success WITHOUT such kids? I guess the Braun team....thought that wasn't a top 16 seed.

And if you conclude that we probably need such talent to achieve above - it underscores just why the new facility is critical - because you have to convince kids with that sort of talent that Cal is the right place to stop to develop their game for the big show.

socaltownie said:

---

Sorry to Necro a thread but resonated with Eric's latest post about the challenges of having a dedicated practice facility.

Lets separate out One and dones. Lets ask a better question - can you have success (if what we measure that as being one of the top 16 seeds in the tournament and thus a favorite to make the S16 WITHOUT kids that are likely to be drafted in the first 2 rounds? Put another way, has Cal EVER enjoyed that kind of success WITHOUT such kids? I guess the Braun team....thought that wasn't a top 16 seed.

And if you conclude that we probably need such talent to achieve above - it underscores just why the new facility is critical - because you have to convince kids with that sort of talent that Cal is the right place to stop to develop their game for the big show.

---

Ed Gray was a first round pick. Sean Marks second round. Yogi Stewart signed as an undrafted free agent.

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I disagree with the premise that you have to be dirty to win in a power five conference. Tony Bennett is as clean as they come and just won a national championship. He has only recruited one McDonald's All-American and has sent many guys to the NBA (with two more first rounders likely this year). Mark Few is another example of a coach who has succeeded for many years without one and done players. Recruiting is important, but coaching is even more so.

While I agree that there are clean coaches in the sport and it might even be the majority of them, but as for comment about Bennett, you should have said he has only "successfully" recruited one Micky D player. He's recruited a ton of them and has recruited a ton of one and dones. He just doesn't get them. UVA's offer list is full of one and dones. It all may be to his benefit in the end to lose out on these players, but you can bet he's recruiting them just like every other coach.

mdbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

This should give serious pause.....and I think is telling..It is from an article about why Shaka Smart has struggled.....


..https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article224955930.html

"Not every college coach is cut out for a Power 5 job; they are brutal, nasty, and require a comfort level in a layer of scum and filth that is not for everyone."

You can not tell me that Shaka suddenly forgot how to coach. His VCU teams were VERY well coached if you followed them in the tournament. Those runs were not luck but showed a ton of skill.

But maybe the story is that to compete in the P5 you have to be dirty. Look at the stories today which mean that Oregon and Zona are clearly as dirty as they come. Maybe that is the very depressing story - that if you want to compete in the NCAA you HAVE to engage in this behavior (or be Duke and so good reputationally that you get enough of the blue chippers that you don't have to pay.)

And, for what it is worth, I would take Smart in a HEARTBEAT at Cal.

---

I disagree with the premise that you have to be dirty to win in a power five conference. Tony Bennett is as clean as they come and just won a national championship. He has only recruited one McDonald's All-American and has sent many guys to the NBA (with two more first rounders likely this year). Mark Few is another example of a coach who has succeeded for many years without one and done players. Recruiting is important, but coaching is even more so.

---

You don't have to be dirty to win, but it sure seems to help. If you look at the more successful teams in the Power conferences, many of them have a taint of cheating. Most importantly, there does not seem to be any backlash or risk from dabbling in these gray areas. Recruits and parents seem fine with it, Administrations seem fine with it, and fans of winning programs seem fine with it. Honestly, the only ones who seem to care are the losing programs who complain about an unfair playing field and certain district attorneys looking for a high publicity platform to advance their career.

You cherry picked two very good coaches which are a far cry from the norm. Both of these guys are well balanced coaches who recruit to their needs, make the best use of their talent and are at very supportive athletic departments. Would they be successful at Cal? Sure. Would either come to Cal? Doubtful - why do you think that is?

It isn't about being dirty. It isn't about recruiting 1 and 1 dones and McD's. Rather it is whether Cal (or perhaps any pac-12 program given east coast bias and the way that RPI and other systems provide greater advantages to certain conferences) can be a top 16 seed WITHOUT kids who enter college with a very realistic chance of playing in the NBA. That doesn't mean they are lotto picks. But it does mean that by the time they are 17 there is a pretty clear path and probability that they can make money playing BB - even if over seas.

AND, given that, is that a world in which Cal can compete? I mean SHOULD cal be building tajmahals for athletes (and the related question - will they any time soon)

(BTW for a variety of reasons I think this is DIFFERENT in football - in part because lifetime median earnings are a lot less for NFL than NBA players, that there really are not options OTHER than the NFL to get paid for playing football and that probably since Pop Warner kids have seen that you are one hit away from not ever being able to play again. It makes school more important. I would LOVE to see the P5 grad rates for hoops players versus football - I am guessing - contrary to stereotypes - that FB players have a higher rates EVEN AFTER you back out early exits).

There aren't many obvious one and done players coming out of HS every year.

Just like the having to "cheat to compete" narrative, this one is overblown too.

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

SRBear said:

---

The sooner they (the NBA) eliminate the ridiculous one and done rule, the better off we'll be. I do realize there will still be scum, but at least one layer of the filth will be lifted.

---

I read that they are getting close. I think that if the FBI/Shoe thing gets into court and we get testimony that could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

---

Except it's not to any of the people involved in the shoe thing. The players have to agree with the owners on what the new rule would be.

---

this is exactly it. Last I heard the NBA wanted to extract some concession from the Union to eliminate the rule. I'm not sure why the union would think the players benefit enough from the elimination of the rule to provide that concession, but I may be missing something. I suppose it means an extra year of pay for top players, though I assume the union is supposed to be for the benefit on all players, and the newbie that gets that extra year bypassing college is taking a veteran's place on the roster.

socaltownie said:

---

It isn't about being dirty. It isn't about recruiting 1 and 1 dones and McD's. Rather it is whether Cal (or perhaps any pac-12 program given east coast bias and the way that RPI and other systems provide greater advantages to certain conferences) can be a top 16 seed WITHOUT kids who enter college with a very realistic chance of playing in the NBA. That doesn't mean they are lotto picks. But it does mean that by the time they are 17 there is a pretty clear path and probability that they can make money playing BB - even if over seas.

AND, given that, is that a world in which Cal can compete? I mean SHOULD cal be building tajmahals for athletes (and the related question - will they any time soon)

(BTW for a variety of reasons I think this is DIFFERENT in football - in part because lifetime median earnings are a lot less for NFL than NBA players, that there really are not options OTHER than the NFL to get paid for playing football and that probably since Pop Warner kids have seen that you are one hit away from not ever being able to play again. It makes school more important. I would LOVE to see the P5 grad rates for hoops players versus football - I am guessing - contrary to stereotypes - that FB players have a higher rates EVEN AFTER you back out early exits).

---

Football (at least in the Pac) is different in that it makes money to pay for other sports. That isn't true of men's basketball any more with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions a year.

smart's problem is not recruiting...he's had several first-round one and dones including a dude this year...