GREAT Cal/Rothstein Q&A: "We Could've Won 4 Titles; 2010 Was My Most Talented Team"

very interesting:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...out-the-player

Darryl

It was. Saddened by the 2010. 2011 was close. 2014--almost there. But Duke and K went to the Final Four in 86, 88, 89, and 1990 before breaking through and winning back to back. The 1986 team was a superb Blue Devil squad that came up short. The 1990 team was humiliated but learned how to break hearts.

Let's hope 2015 wins us one and maybe enough returning players to win another in 2016 to make up for it.

Also basically confirms that if we had won it and the 4 he discusses leaves, he would have taken the cavs Job

My head hurts when I read him describe the "Players First" philosophy. I don't even think he knows what he's saying anymore. It's all self-contradictory babble.

Try to reconcile these two quotes from the same interview:

1) "The 40-year old model of the program -- it's about the program, it's about the system, no names on the back of the jerseys -- we've flipped it. Now it's about the player."

2) "Now people get upset with me and say I don't worry about the program enough. But I haven't been transparent about it. I said it at my opening press conference. This program will be about players first. This thing is the way it is because of guys like Dan Issel and people like that. That's why this place is the way it is."

No sense in rekindling the same debate we've had here many times. I know he's not talking to me but rather to recruits. But, sheesh, shouldn't the message at least be decipherable to recruits? If he's only hoping that they take away the motto -- Players First -- without any further depth of understanding the concept, are we doing them or us any favors?

It real shame that 2010 team did not win it. They were crazy talented.

Philly, how is that contradictory?

Great read btw…thanks D.

Puma-- I read it as contradictory, but maybe that's not precisely the right characterization. He says that the Program is great because people cared for 40+ years about the Program, first and foremost. That's what made it great. He then says that we don't do it that way anymore.

To me, it's like he's admitting that he's parasitic. He's drawing on the capital generated during those 40+ years but not contributing anything back to the Program. If the Program is great because of 40+ years of sacrifices, why does he think the Program will continue to be great when he leaves?

Maybe the answer is: He doesn't much care about the Program after he leaves. If so, I'm not down with that.

Honestly, I think he's in a situation now where he is going to have very good players coming back for 2nd and 3rd years, in addition to 5* players coming in every year. Coach Calipari has this going in the direction now that he thought it would be going in until guys like Teague bolted for the NBA. And that's not intended as a knock on MT, it's just what happens at inopportune times. But now it seems the situation may have finally leveled out and perhaps become more 'stable'. At least that's how I see it. I hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philly Cat

Puma-- I read it as contradictory, but maybe that's not precisely the right characterization. He says that the Program is great because people cared for 40+ years about the Program, first and foremost. That's what made it great. He then says that we don't do it that way anymore.

To me, it's like he's admitting that he's parasitic. He's drawing on the capital generated during those 40+ years but not contributing anything back to the Program. If the Program is great because of 40+ years of sacrifices, why does he think the Program will continue to be great when he leaves?

Maybe the answer is: He doesn't much care about the Program after he leaves. If so, I'm not down with that.

---

I hear you. To be honest, I think he is right. I think the paradigm shift of "program first" to "players first" was inevitable and he is just ahead of the curve. He saw it happen in the NBA. It went from being about the name on the front to the name on the back. That was eventually going to pass down to the college level. And in order to maintain our viability of the program, we had to be ahead of that curve.
I reckon it like this…The Celtics are a great NBA "program". They have the history, tradition, etc. They have the right to say, "Its about the name on the front, not the back". And they can show they believe this by not signing any free agent who demands max money (because that isn't about the team), and they can be loyal to veterans and give them money even when it is in their best interest to trade them or let them go. They can do that. But that will destroy their team. They will be in the lottery every year, and they won't win any more championships, because it takes great players to do that. And those great players are "player first", not program first players. So to keep the Celtics a great program, they have to become players first. (I can sense that someone would try to use the Spurs to argue this point. I considered that. I don't agree. The Spurs build their team differently, but its still about Tim Duncan, and now Kawhi Leonard. Without those players, all that team stuff is rubbish.)

I think that is Cal's point. To keep UK being great (as a program, team, etc) we have to get the best players. To get the best players, we have to put them first and get them to the league. Everyone wins. To think we can do it any other way imo is naive and short sighted (not calling you that Philly…we are boys).
I think Cal knows that ultimately, what makes a program great is wins. Banners. Final Fours. And to do that today, we have to be players first. I don't see that as parasitic at all. Just a needed change in approach to meet the demand of the modern college star.
Last thing, I truly believe Cal not only knows this is best for the players…and genuinely cares about that. I think he also knows its best for UK. And even though that isn't his major selling point, I do believe he cares. And I believe he will care about UK long after he is not our coach. He clearly and obviously still has a lot of love for Memphis and Umass and I think he cares greatly what happens there.

So what it comes back to then is what we've done here for five years. What happens if another five years takes place? Now all of a sudden, we're talking about a run of -- what if we have 40 guys taken in a 10-year period? You're talking about 15 percent of the league coming from us. That's not even talking about stuff like, is Derrick Rose still playing? Is Tyreke Evans still playing? Is Chris Douglas-Roberts still playing? So that appeals to me. That does.

But this is unique. I'm not sure anybody has ever been in this type of position to help these many kids doing it this way.

And that is why he is coaching in college

Great analysis, Puma. I can't disagree with anything you say, other than that I am perhaps more skeptical than you that the Program will continue to be healthy. Bottom line, a Program doesn't become great, in my opinion, simply because of the talent passing through (especially when the talent metric is "Guys the NBA thought would one day be great"). I think "culture" is a big part of it-- and it's what helps lift that talent to unforeseen heights.

My big fear with "Players First" is that it is corrosive to that culture. I made my peace with it, frankly, last year when we teased out on this Board that we believed "Players First" actually had a strong team component to it (i.e., brother's keeper, sacrifice, the "tweak," etc.). But that was a subtlety that took a bunch of smart folks -- not me! -- a long while to mine out. My constant worry with "Players First" is that the players themselves won't take that same altruistic message from the philosophy... and then the Program really does suffer, because we're not putting a lot back into the Program.

The best retort, frankly, is: "The proof is in the pudding." Look at the guys Cal has brought in. They're every bit as loyal to UK as prior generations. And the teams themselves have generally played selflessly (the NIT year and some of last year excluded, perhaps).

It pains me that UK could/should have won one or two more championships and they didn't. Great Great run but in 20-30 years we will all look back and say man
UK should have won more with Cal, more championships that is.

Good read. I think his players first approach is fine, I think he could wrap it in a nicer term that was more team and less self but this day and age is all about self and at least he sees it and is being honest.

I found his take on where the twins and poy to be a bit off and likely has some smoke blown for next years draft.

He can spin it however he wants to, doesn't matter to me...UK will always be bigger than the coach. Now saying this, the day he leaves and the way he has ran this program, its going to take a hell of a hire to keep the train rolling. These kids love playing for Cal. I know it sucked losing that final game to UCONN, but man, it could be a blessing in disguise on how this program looks for the next couple of years. As I have said, If we kept Cal more than 5 years it is a blessing. We are at year 6 and I think a nucleus of Lee, Booker, Ullis, Willis, and maybe a couple of more puts our program on a nice roll for several years to come...