Keion Brooks Jr. Commits to UK

[Bowhunter]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

To me the family should give there input to KB and tell him what they think but in the end I think the decision should be KB's alone.  the draft has shown that if you can play then they will find you anywhere so to me just going to UK does not change your draft stock anymore than going anywhere else.

Maybe doesn’t change draft stock but he could get paid in other ways while still in college. 

More than anything the building his brand crap that Kentucky sells.

[The Daily Hoosier]

To me it's simple at 18.

Son, here's what we think, but you are 18, neither decision is a bad decision, and you will be fine either way.  We told you what we think, but it's your decision.  

[Billingsley99]

4 minutes ago, The Daily Hoosier said:

To me it's simple at 18.

Son, here's what we think, but you are 18, neither decision is a bad decision, and you will be fine either way.  We told you what we think, but it's your decision.  

i hope that's how it goes. If so he will be a Hoosier. 

[FKIM01]

On 2/24/2019 at 1:45 AM, bluegrassIU said:

Well, that's because they dont have to recruit those players that come.out of nowhere. It isnt really a fair comparison.

When was the last time Coah K, Bill Self, Roy William's etc took a kid that nobody expected to the NBA and did?

I am against what Cal is as a person, but this seems like a sour grapes argument.

That's not the point.  The point is maintaining or improving a kid's draft stock.  It doesn't have to be a nobody.  Cal has had some in the 20's & 30's too.  How often did he put those kids in the lottery?  Labissiere was #2 in mocks coming in and damned near fell out of the first round playing for Cal.

It's a very objective argument.  How often does Cal really improve a kid's draft stock?  Or at least maintain it?  I can point to a lot of examples where it went down measurably.

[Hoosierhoopster]

6 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

That's not the point.  The point is maintaining or improving a kid's draft stock.  It doesn't have to be a nobody.  Cal has had some in the 20's & 30's too.  How often did he put those kids in the lottery?  Labissiere was #2 in mocks coming in and damned near fell out of the first round playing for Cal.

It's a very objective argument.  How often does Call really improve a kid's draft stock?  Or at least maintain it?  I can point to a lot of examples where it went down measurably.

I haven't 'run the numbers' but have seen multiple Cal players drop from their projected ranking going into UK, or during the season. Also seems like he hasn't been doing as well with getting kids drafted highly recently, though again I haven't gone back and looked. 

Cal is not what I would call a good developed of talent. He's a very good identifier and lander of talent, and though I can't stand the snake oil salesman, he generally does at least a good job of getting multiple highly talented kids to play well together -- leaving aside that he plays in a routinely weak conference, he generally has his teams perform well. But I see very little support for saying he develops players, whether it's measured by their progression into the NBA, or by improving draft stock. On the flip side, there are multiple examples of Crean's player development at a high level. Yes, his downfall was poorly structuring class balance, a fall off in recruiting, and inability to get past the SW16 at IU, but unlike Cal, his track record of developing players is overall a strong one.

[IUDan93]

2 hours ago, DC2345 said:

I agree with this. That's what has been said the Watford's are doing with Trendon and that is part of why IU isn't his top choice right now. If it was up to his parents he would probably be wearing candy stripes.  

I absolutely think the parents should let their kid decide......except in the Watford's case where they should be the ones deciding.

[bluegrassIU]

23 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I haven't 'run the numbers' but have seen multiple Cal players drop from their projected ranking going into UK, or during the season. Also seems like he hasn't been doing as well with getting kids drafted highly recently, though again I haven't gone back and looked. 

Cal is not what I would call a good developed of talent. He's a very good identifier and lander of talent, and though I can't stand the snake oil salesman, he generally does at least a good job of getting multiple highly talented kids to play well together -- leaving aside that he plays in a routinely weak conference, he generally has his teams perform well. But I see very little support for saying he develops players, whether it's measured by their progression into the NBA, or by improving draft stock. On the flip side, there are multiple examples of Crean's player development at a high level. Yes, his downfall was poorly structuring class balance, a fall off in recruiting, and inability to get past the SW16 at IU, but unlike Cal, his track record of developing players is overall a strong one.

I am not gonna argue because I will be labeled the UK apologist.

But there are many examples of players that improved under Cal, and some that have regressed. As with any coach.

I just disagree with the premise he isnt a good coach because he has talent, and never develops them.

Hagan, as an example this year. Night and day from game one to now. Not even close.

Anthiny Davis is a crazy talent. But if you actually watched him the full year at UK, he improved throughout the year (although I love that Cody kinda owned him!).

PJ Washington was a trainwreck last year and early this year. He is an absolute beast the past month.

When you get that much talent it is easy to give blame when a kid does not develop, and overlook when a kid does..saying he is just good, nothing to do with coaching.

Again, same argument. Who has coach K "developed"? Has Zion improved? Barrett? How do we determine that?

And did you see UK against Duke, and see them now?

They just handled tennesse and flat ran Aubutn off the court. A totally different team than day 1 of the season. I am fine saying I despise Cal, and he is also a pretty damn good basketball coach.

He didnt get lucky at Memphis or UMASS.

Yes he is slimy. Yes he gets elite talent and hasn't won as much as most think he should have. But nobody besides rival fans question his coaching/develipment ability.

And so much for me not arguing the point. Lol

[ColtsIUDomer]

While i can't disagree too much with the above Cal comments, Bluegrass, It does make my eyes burn reading it. You're lucky your keyboard didn't burst into flames typing it! lol

[CrimsonV]

I wouldn’t label you an apologist but you remind me of someone ...

[bluegrassIU]

33 minutes ago, CrimsonV said:

I wouldn’t label you an apologist but you remind me of someone ...

How did you get a picture of me? Is my webcam hacked?

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 hours ago, bluegrassIU said:

I am not gonna argue because I will be labeled the UK apologist.

But there are many examples of players that improved under Cal, and some that have regressed. As with any coach.

I just disagree with the premise he isnt a good coach because he has talent, and never develops them.

Hagan, as an example this year. Night and day from game one to now. Not even close.

Anthiny Davis is a crazy talent. But if you actually watched him the full year at UK, he improved throughout the year (although I love that Cody kinda owned him!).

PJ Washington was a trainwreck last year and early this year. He is an absolute beast the past month.

When you get that much talent it is easy to give blame when a kid does not develop, and overlook when a kid does..saying he is just good, nothing to do with coaching.

Again, same argument. Who has coach K "developed"? Has Zion improved? Barrett? How do we determine that?

And did you see UK against Duke, and see them now?

They just handled tennesse and flat ran Aubutn off the court. A totally different team than day 1 of the season. I am fine saying I despise Cal, and he is also a pretty damn good basketball coach.

He didnt get lucky at Memphis or UMASS.

Yes he is slimy. Yes he gets elite talent and hasn't won as much as most think he should have. But nobody besides rival fans question his coaching/develipment ability.

And so much for me not arguing the point. Lol

UK apologist. 

I think you read too much into, or glossed over, what I wrote. I never said Cal wasn't a good coach. Among other things, I said he does a good job of getting multiple highly talented kids to play well together. He's a good coach. That doesn't make him a good developed of talent. The guys he brings in are not the Victor Oladipos, OG's etc. of high school. For the examples you gave, there are multiple examples of guys at UK whose draft stock dropped or plummeted, or who otherwise regressed, but the reality is he generally doesn't bring in guys at the 3-star etc. level and develop them into lottery picks. He brings in, generally, a group of 5 stars. There's a a big difference there.

 

[ArchieBall13]

19 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

UK apologist. 

I think you read too much into, or glossed over, what I wrote. I never said Cal wasn't a good coach. Among other things, I said he does a good job of getting multiple highly talented kids to play well together. He's a good coach. That doesn't make him a good developed of talent. The guys he brings in are not the Victor Oladipos, OG's etc. of high school. For the examples you gave, there are multiple examples of guys at UK whose draft stock dropped or plummeted, or who otherwise regressed, but the reality is he generally doesn't bring in guys at the 3-star etc. level and develop them into lottery picks. He brings in, generally, a group of 5 stars. There's a a big difference there.

 

Cals pool of project/Oladipo types that he brings in on annual basis is a lot smaller than a guy like Crean. Crean could mess up 6 times and hit every 7th. 

Cal recruits at such a high level he only coaches an off the radar guy once every few years (or much lower rate anyways). Taking a guy from 8 to 10 is probably a lot harder than taking a guy from 4 to 8 in skill level.

All that said, I think Creans track record of developing talent seems solid but I think a Cal vs Crean talent development comparison is a bit more apples vs oranges. 

[Billingsley99]

12 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

Cals pool of project/Oladipo types that he brings in on annual basis is a lot smaller than a guy like Crean. Crean could mess up 6 times and hit every 7th. 

Cal recruits at such a high level he only coaches an off the radar guy once every few years (or much lower rate anyways). Taking a guy from 8 to 10 is probably a lot harder than taking a guy from 4 to 8 in skill level.

All that said, I think Creans track record of developing talent seems solid but I think a Cal vs Crean talent development comparison is a bit more apples vs oranges. 

Just my opinion but very few show much improvement in 1 year. 

[ArchieBall13]

5 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

Just my opinion but very few show much improvement in 1 year. 

Agreed, another reason why it's likely tougher for Cal to get the player development sticker of approval. Comparing incremental improvement between Coach K and Cal is a much better comparison in my opinion based on roster construction. 

[Billingsley99]

11 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

Agreed, another reason why it's likely tougher for Cal to get the player development sticker of approval. Comparing incremental improvement between Coach K and Cal is a much better comparison in my opinion based on roster construction. 

Exactly.  When you rent them for w year it's more about cramming in as much as you can to be gelling come tournament time

[IUDan93]

It is hard to measure improvement when you go from one level to the next.  How do you compare how a freshman in college performs compared to what he did as a senior in high school?  I imagine that if the "services" could re-rank the recruiting class after playing one year in college, things would look different.  This has more to do with an inaccurate ranking in the first place than it does with how a coach develops a kid.  So many factors too, like a kid is too far from home and struggles with the adjustment, or is struggling with academics, etc.  These things could make one coach look bad, while another has hookers and shame classes to "ease the burden". 

[cybergates]

6 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

Agreed, another reason why it's likely tougher for Cal to get the player development sticker of approval. Comparing incremental improvement between Coach K and Cal is a much better comparison in my opinion based on roster construction. 

Its like the golf analogy. It is said that it is much easier to knock 10 strokes off your score if you are shooting 100 than it is to knock 1 stroke off your score if you're shooting par.

[Hoosierhoopster]

32 minutes ago, IUDan93 said:

It is hard to measure improvement when you go from one level to the next.  How do you compare how a freshman in college performs compared to what he did as a senior in high school?  I imagine that if the "services" could re-rank the recruiting class after playing one year in college, things would look different.  This has more to do with an inaccurate ranking in the first place than it does with how a coach develops a kid.  So many factors too, like a kid is too far from home and struggles with the adjustment, or is struggling with academics, etc.  These things could make one coach look bad, while another has hookers and shame classes to "ease the burden". 

In fairness, can't agree with this take. Of course various coaches develop players, including significantly. The rankings are not always on, certainly true a ranking depends on many factors including how often a kid is scouted, etc., but there's really no question that, for but one example, Victor improved by leaps and bounds from the kid who signed up for IU. He was nowhere near a 5-star, etc., coming in. He left as a top 2 draft pick. That's development. Could keep going and going, Watford, labeled "cookies" here for how soft he was around the basket, couldn't guard my grandmother etc. as frosh to soph, but by his junior year was guarding the other guys' best players, including point guards. That's development, on a major scale. You just don't see that under Cal, you really just don't. Yes, it's harder to guage "incremental" development of players under Cal and K, but, that takes us back to the simple point that they're not doing much in the way of major development, because the guys they generally bring in are already legitimately elite bball players.

[IUDan93]

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

In fairness, can't agree with this take. Of course various coaches develop players, including significantly. The rankings are not always on, certainly true a ranking depends on many factors including how often a kid is scouted, etc., but there's really no question that, for but one example, Victor improved by leaps and bounds from the kid who signed up for IU. He was nowhere near a 5-star, etc., coming in. He left as a top 2 draft pick. That's development. Could keep going and going, Watford, labeled "cookies" here for how soft he was around the basket, couldn't guard my grandmother etc. as frosh to soph, but by his junior year was guarding the other guys' best players, including point guards. That's development, on a major scale. You just don't see that under Cal, you really just don't. Yes, it's harder to guage "incremental" development of players under Cal and K, but, that takes us back to the simple point that they're not doing much in the way of major development, because the guys they generally bring in are already legitimately elite bball players.

I guess my point was that when a coach has a one and done, it is hard to determine how much they really developed  in the one year.  Those who under-perform based on their ranking may having nothing to do with a coach, but is based on an inappropriate ranking to begin with.  You should be able to see how a coach develops players over multiple years, though.   

[Hoosierinbham]

This is the point with Cal. HE sells that HE gets kids to the NBA. We've provided many examples of very highly ranked kids that dropped, transferred, or just completely busted professionally. Look at the current team.  Keldon Johnson will probably be drafted about where he was ranked, or a little lower. PJ Washington was ranked 15.  As a sophomore,  will he go in the lottery?  Nick Richard's was a 5 star that doesn't start and barely plays most games.  What are his NBA prospects after two seasons? Hagans could really move up if he has a strong finish, or keep playing the way he has been lately, and be 2nd round.

We can debate his coaching,  which has been quite good this year actually, but the numbers don't lie when it comes to improving draft stock by going to UK. The results just don't match Cal's hype. A 5 star wanting to be oad runs a serious risk of dropping or needing more than the one season he was sold on.

[bluegrassIU]

47 minutes ago, Hoosierinbham said:

This is the point with Cal. HE sells that HE gets kids to the NBA. We've provided many examples of very highly ranked kids that dropped, transferred, or just completely busted professionally. Look at the current team.  Keldon Johnson will probably be drafted about where he was ranked, or a little lower. PJ Washington was ranked 15.  As a sophomore,  will he go in the lottery?  Nick Richard's was a 5 star that doesn't start and barely plays most games.  What are his NBA prospects after two seasons? Hagans could really move up if he has a strong finish, or keep playing the way he has been lately, and be 2nd round.

We can debate his coaching,  which has been quite good this year actually, but the numbers don't lie when it comes to improving draft stock by going to UK. The results just don't match Cal's hype. A 5 star wanting to be oad runs a serious risk of dropping or needing more than the one season he was sold on.

Sorry, this is just wrong. We could cherry pick names with any coach in this manner. 

I can give you just as many that didnt make it in the NBA, or as their silly high scholl.stars says they should have, from Duke, UNC, Kansas etc

What he does have to sell to a OAD that nobody else does is that he has vast experience. How to best sell yourself as a playe, be on a winner and be mentored by a group that has the one and done system down to a science.

That is not hype. That is actual facts. We can list names all day. The NBA is littered with stars that played at UK. 

Yeah, every one of them.is talented. But every one will tell you that UK helped prepare them.

 

I mean, is Cody as good of an NBA star as his high school rating suggested?

It just drives me nuts, because I think IU has the most intelligent fan base in the country. But when it comes to Cal and UK I think emotions and disdain take over.

D'aarom Fox, Karl Towns, Jon Wall, Anthony Davis, Devin Booker, Willy Cauley Stein.....we can go in for days.

Nobody other school comes close. So yes, Cal has recruited stupid high talent. But to dismiss his ability to develop them and get them ready for the NBA just seems totally insane to me.

If it was so dang easy, why does nobody else do it? It takes more than a slick sales pitch to have a list (very partial list) like this.

To assume UK is not really really good at preparing kids for the NBA is just flat wrong.

[bluegrassIU]

3 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

UK apologist. 

I think you read too much into, or glossed over, what I wrote. I never said Cal wasn't a good coach. Among other things, I said he does a good job of getting multiple highly talented kids to play well together. He's a good coach. That doesn't make him a good developed of talent. The guys he brings in are not the Victor Oladipos, OG's etc. of high school. For the examples you gave, there are multiple examples of guys at UK whose draft stock dropped or plummeted, or who otherwise regressed, but the reality is he generally doesn't bring in guys at the 3-star etc. level and develop them into lottery picks. He brings in, generally, a group of 5 stars. There's a a big difference there.

 

My take is.just the opposite. I think he  has proven 2 things....

1. An ability to coach many giant egos, as you alluded to.

2. To get the talent ready for the NBA

Where I feel he falls short.is in game coaching. Adjusting, x and o stuff.

With the talent he gets, he should have several national championships.

This is why when Cal.brags, it isabout how many players are in the NBA and how much money they make. NOT how much they win.

I think he is a great recruiter, a very good developer of talent, a magician at coaching egos and slightly above average in game coach.

[Hoosierhoopster]

26 minutes ago, bluegrassIU said:

My take is.just the opposite. I think he  has proven 2 things....

1. An ability to coach many giant egos, as you alluded to.

2. To get the talent ready for the NBA

Where I feel he falls short.is in game coaching. Adjusting, x and o stuff.

With the talent he gets, he should have several national championships.

This is why when Cal.brags, it isabout how many players are in the NBA and how much money they make. NOT how much they win.

I think he is a great recruiter, a very good developer of talent, a magician at coaching egos and slightly above average in game coach.

I really don’t see why you think he has proven he can get talent ready for the NBA. Many of the players he recruits and lands would’ve been direct draft guys but for the one and done rule and again many of his players have either stayed the same or dropped after a year or more of his coaching. He’s not doing much to develop them, but he does do a good job of getting them to play together. His record and deep tourney runs (makes me sick to say it) are there. In fairness, no one should have many NC’s, too many variables in s one and out tourney 

[Hoosierinbham]

57 minutes ago, bluegrassIU said:

Sorry, this is just wrong. We could cherry pick names with any coach in this manner. 

I can give you just as many that didnt make it in the NBA, or as their silly high scholl.stars says they should have, from Duke, UNC, Kansas etc

What he does have to sell to a OAD that nobody else does is that he has vast experience. How to best sell yourself as a playe, be on a winner and be mentored by a group that has the one and done system down to a science.

That is not hype. That is actual facts. We can list names all day. The NBA is littered with stars that played at UK. 

Yeah, every one of them.is talented. But every one will tell you that UK helped prepare them.

 

I mean, is Cody as good of an NBA star as his high school rating suggested?

It just drives me nuts, because I think IU has the most intelligent fan base in the country. But when it comes to Cal and UK I think emotions and disdain take over.

D'aarom Fox, Karl Towns, Jon Wall, Anthony Davis, Devin Booker, Willy Cauley Stein.....we can go in for days.

Nobody other school comes close. So yes, Cal has recruited stupid high talent. But to dismiss his ability to develop them and get them ready for the NBA just seems totally insane to me.

If it was so dang easy, why does nobody else do it? It takes more than a slick sales pitch to have a list (very partial list) like this.

To assume UK is not really really good at preparing kids for the NBA is just flat wrong.

You seem to be missing the point myself and others are trying to make. Does Cal consistently take a recruit, and in one year, get them drafted higher than their recruiting ranking would project based on potential? Is it your stance that Cal is able to take any 5 star recruit, and get them drafted higher than any other coach could, including coach K?  If you really believe that, I'm not sure what to tell you.  There have been more than enough examples listed to refute this thought. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and hope Keion chooses us. 

[CincyHoosier]

A kid holds 90-95% of the influence in determining his fate as a potential NBA player.  The other 5-10% is coaching and other variables.  Bottom line if an individual makes it to the NBA it is because they had the talent and determination to make it happen.  Btw talent is prerequisite, we are talking about the best of the best athletes with basketball skills (and the will to keep improving them).  Of course this is just, like, my opinion man.