re: It’s time address that which we’ve known for some time now — Calipari is overrated

quote:

---

God, I hate having to defend Cal as a basketball coach, but

He’s been successful at every stop in his career;
He’s been to multiple final fours at different schools
Routinely wins the SEC and gets his team to at least the Elite 8.
National Championship.
His recruiting style means he has constant turnover, forcing him to coach true freshman for their one year. His teams always get better as the season progresses.

Finally, he’s honest about his approach to the game in gettting his players as fast as possible to the Green Room. K still acts like he is the “leader of Men” at the higher institute of learning at Duke University, when most of his players go to Central U during their six months on campus.

---

Fair enough, especially the part where you make fun of Ratface. I think most people agree on the facts (I'm not entirely on board with the "always" part of getting better over the course of the season.) The debate here is one of comparative quality. Nobody questions his success. What's being discussed is whether his success is as high is it should/could be given the talent he's had. In other words, at least how I'd put it, if you knew everything about Cal, including his classes and his places of employment, except the results, would you guess he'd have better results, similar results, or worse results than he's actually had?

Edit: Just to be clear, you'd have every other bit of context as well, so you'd know how well Duke, Kansas, and UNC have done, how good or bad the SEC has been, etc.