I am not a die hard so must be blind. I thought he did a great job tonight in many parts of the game. Maybe the best coaching job of his career but that does not mean you will win. He kept his team in the game with all his decisions and they had a chance at the end... they just did not make shots and I think the UConn defense had much to do with that.
yep he did a great coaching job last night ....right after his team got down 15 and they only had 15 points in the half...and the refs put two of the Huskies top players on the bench in Boat and Danials he was smart enough to go into a zone defense and finally get Randall his first of his 3 first half shots and they did come back to outscore them by 11 for the last 4 mins of the HALF....not HAVE!!! but dont worry his near 6 million dollar contract will be back next year with another group of 1 and done's and he will manage to win again and get a raise...I know I'd be tired of only making 5.6 million because they won't give him a raise without winning......GL Cal with your next group you get
For a UK fan you actually make some sense. Definitely not the norm with most UK fans I deal with.
I am am no fan of Calapari, but I do think he is playing within the rules of the game. I don't like those rules, but he doesn't appear to be breaking any rules.
Not easy to coach at Kentucky, and he has thrived there.
Calapari explained what he did and why he did it.
Basically, he didnt think Uconn guards were going to miss their free throws and it came down to two possessions and they needed stops and to make shots.
Thats what he believed and thats what he did.
Most conventional coaches would've fouled and hoped those guards would've missed.
Oh well.
In my opinion, mathematically, his explanation makes no sense.
If you assume UCONN shoots 80% from the FT line and 40% from the field, I don't see how he can argue fouling isn't the better decision.
Based on those assumptions, if you foul there is a 20% chance you get the ball back down 4 with 55ish seconds left (assuming there is no offensive rebound). A 16% chance you get the ball back down 5 with 55ish seconds left (assuming there is no offensive rebound) and a 64% chance you get the ball back down 6 with 55ish seconds left.
If you don't foul there's a 40% chance you get the ball back down 6 or 7 with 20ish seconds left and a 60% chance you get the ball back down 4 with 20ish seconds left (assuming there is no offensive rebound). And those numbers don't even account for the chance that one of your guys fouls, sending UCONN to the FT line anyway (with 30 seconds coming off the clock), which is what happened.
Based on those numbers, I'd much rather take my chances fouling. No question.
Cal just don't believe in fouling at the end of games for some reason because it cost him one national championship at Memphis when his player's Derek Rose and company couldn't make foul shots and he let Chalmers shoot a 3 to tie them and then they lose so why foul now and give his team any chance....it's to bad he couldn't foul his team since they only shoot about 55% ....that's the only bad part about his recruiting he gets all them great players that can run and dunk and play above the rim but can't shoot foul shots......and I look at all the coaches that Ky has had from Rupp to Calipari and I don't see any of them having to go out and always get a bunch of 1 and done's to win and they all won there but Gillispie.....Sutton was caught cheating but was never really proven but him and the athletic director resigned anyway and I'm not a big Ky fan but I think Hall,Pitino,and Smith all won championships with 4 year players and Sutton would have if they didn't say his coaches were giving players money...but Cal wouldn't know anything about that even though his other colleges that he was at got put on probation after he left.....lets just see how many of these guy's file for the NBA in the next few week's............good luck on your recruiting class next year Cal
I was surprised by that too, he was willing to take a chance being down 4 with 20 seconds to go
I like his reasoning though, "they don't miss free throws"
I still think you start fouling with 50 seconds left when down 4 and their possession just started
this is a disgrace
Cal can coach, we can't knock him for that
But I think the best coaches are the coaches that make kids NBA players, not the guys that essentially use them for a year while he enables them to use him. It's not Squid's fault (that's what we call Calamari here in CT), he didn't write the rules, he just knows how to use the rules to gain an advantage.
I would think he might try to find kids who will stick around two or three years and have a better "mix" of experience, but you can't argue with 3 FF's in 4 years and it's hard to say no to a top 10 prospect.
I'll tell you one thing I think about Squid, I won't give him credit for putting kids into the NBA although he thinks he deserves credit. Most of his kids would be drafted out of high school if the NBA would let them be drafted.
Now my boy was the "maker of men". Taking kids off the radar (or maybe a distant thought) and putting them in the lottery. Hopefully Ollie can keep that tradition going.
But I think the best coaches are the coaches that make kids NBA players, not the guys that essentially use them for a year while he enables them to use him. It's not Squid's fault (that's what we call Calamari here in CT), he didn't write the rules, he just knows how to use the rules to gain an advantage.
I would think he might try to find kids who will stick around two or three years and have a better "mix" of experience, but you can't argue with 3 FF's in 4 years and it's hard to say no to a top 10 prospect.
I'll tell you one thing I think about Squid, I won't give him credit for putting kids into the NBA although he thinks he deserves credit. Most of his kids would be drafted out of high school if the NBA would let them be drafted.
Now my boy was the "maker of men". Taking kids off the radar (or maybe a distant thought) and putting them in the lottery. Hopefully Ollie can keep that tradition going.
