Kentucky's Death March - a rebuttal

Some good writing from Chuck Klosterman over at Grantland on the possible ramifications of a Kentucky championship this season. The crux of the article is this:

Right now, there are always two foolproof arguments against the Calipari ideal — it reflects badly on the university, and it breaks down in moments that matter most. No one is going to emulate a program with a bad reputation if the end result is the same as doing things the way they've always been done. But that argument evaporates the moment Calipari climbs a ladder and cuts a net. If Kentucky is simultaneously the most straightforward finishing school for future professionals and the best place to win a national championship, there's no reason for a blue-chip high school senior to go anywhere else. Calipari will dynastically dominate with a revolving door of sheer horsepower, and the only way other schools will be able to respond is by becoming exactly like him.

The article can be read in its entirety here. While I generally love his writing and the arguments he brings up, I'd have to say he is entirely wrong on this one.

Firstly, that Calipari's way of running a college basketball team is bad for a university is pretty much mute since ADs at all schools in major conferences will pretty much do anything to guarantee success. That is the nature of the business now. Ask Tim Floyd, Bruce Pearl, Kelvin Sampson, Jim Calhoun, etc. You do what needs to be done to accrue the talent that keeps you competitive. If you get caught, then you deal with the ramifications later on.

I'm assuming that what he means here as "bad for the university" is that it gives the appearance that the school is using shadowy, back-alley dealings to bring in the jaw dropping talent Calipari seems to draw in on an annual basis (M. Camby to UMass, D. Rose to Memphis, the scores of players that go to UK). This somehow taints the "purity" of college athletics and the recruiting process and that through association you are soiling your reputation (an entirely separate conversation totally worth having). It could also indicate that the university is only interested in athletic success by awarding scholarships to players with zero inclination of continuing their education beyond the one-year minimum they must wait before entering the NBA draft.

Is it really that bad for the universities though? If you were to ask the athletic directors of UMass and Memphis and give them two options: A) that you will reach the pinnacle of the college basketball world (a Final Four appearance/championship runner up), that you will be showered with media attention and all the money that comes with it, only to have it stricken from record books (but not from the public's mind) and to incur a few lost scholarships and tournament appearance for a couple of seasons, or B) wade the murky swamp of mediocrity in conferences that are mere afterthoughts to the bulk of the nation's fans and recruits, clinging to your integrity while the losses mount and boosters breathe down your neck.

I would venture a guess and say the majority would prefer the former.

His second point, that with the emphatic victory he envisions Kentucky pulling off this weekend proves that his army of uber-freshmen can and will outperform upperclassmen who develop over time, thus signalling the end of senior- and junior-laden championship teams, is bullshit. There is no doubt that this is the most talented team in the country right now. I would go so far that this team is more talented that the John Wall/DeMarcus Cousins team in 2010 based on the inclusion of one player - Anthony "Swatbrows" Davis.

All guards grow 10 inches in high school, right?

As one scout put it this week, Davis is a once in a generation player. The genetic perfect storm that is able to dominate the college ranks the likes of which we haven't seen since Carmelo Anthony (and I would say Davis affects the college game more than Anthony did at Syracuse). Even in his currently raw state, his physical gifts have carried the Wildcats to each of their lop-sided victories. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is a great player, probably the second player taken in this year's draft and offensive catalyst for the championship favorites. Marquis Teague is the type of guard that typically thrives in Calipari's dribble-drive offense and the same goes for Doron Lamb. But without Davis, this boat don't float. Do they win the SEC? Yes, but they are exposed a few more times, pick up a few more losses along the way and give teams more than a glimmer of hope of scoring around the basket. How many more Anthony Davis's are out there for Calipari to scoop up and win him a title?

But what the argument really boils down to is how the NCAA apocalypse Klosterman prophesizes is any different than what is happening now. Even without a national title Calipari is still able to haul in mind boggling collections of talent year in and year out. So long as he is doing the recruiting and his players continue to flood the NBA draft, players will continue to commit to UK and treat it like a prep school on the way to the NBA. Its been going on since he arrived in Lexington (and you could argue that he was able to pull this off at previous stops UMass and Memphis, just to a much smaller degree) and will continue until he leaves the Bluegrass State.

Believe me, I'd like nothing more than for the mighty Wildcats of Lexington to fall in either of the next two games (preferably to Kansas in the finals), but I don't believe for a second that Calipari's first championship will doom the rest of college basketball to follow his lead or get left behind.