Does Kentucky/Calipari need to rethink their model? Is one-and-done done?

After two straight seasons of highly touted recruiting classes, but on-court performance considerably below expectations, will Coach Cal continue to try to pull in as many 5 star recruits as possible in every class? Or will it start to dawn on him that having 5 or 6 one and done superstar-types as freshmen every year is not only no guarantee of a high level of success, but may actually be detrimental to it, as often as not?

Will the system practiced by teams like Florida and Louisville, in which elite players are developed over 3 or 4 years, and in which experience, leadership and team cohesiveness are placed above raw talent, start to look better to Calipari, and to some of the grumbling UK faithful?

Michigan, oddly, seems to be landing somewhat between these two, not bringing in the most elite talent on paper, but losing their best players after 2-3 years, and still not having a really good team dominated by senior/junior talent.

Interesting topic. I don’t think the issue Kentucky will run into is recruiting five one and done’s every year. But rather over recruiting issues when those guys don’t go pro right away. I don’t know what happens with these current guys but if only one or two leave, it is going to create problems next season with the incoming class.

In terms of championship success I don’t think you can question the model. Yeah they struggled last year and this year seem to be a middling outfit. But they did dominate college ball in 2012. If you can continue to recruit at that level every year, you are going to run into a few elite, ready players every so often and win titles or get close. Is any other model any more successful in terms of winning titles?

Again, I think the real issue is whether or not you can actually continue to recruit at the level they have for the last several years. I just gotta think there is going to be a class that does not pan out for the nba and you are stuck with no scholarships.

Some posters here want Beilein to be more like Calipari. I think Beilein is doing it better than Calipari. Do you think Cal would have ever gone after guys like Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway Jr., Caris LeVert, Spike Albrecht, etc.? I don’t, but I’m sure glad that John Beilein did.

Cal is only as good as the strength of any given recruiting class. Julius Randle is no Derrick Rose or Anthony Davis.

Again, I think the real issue is whether or not you can actually continue to recruit at the level they have for the last several years. I just gotta think there is going to be a class that does not pan out for the nba and you are stuck with no scholarships.

Last year was an example of this and he just showed them the door anyways. Ryan Harrow and Archie Goodwin pretty much told the real story.

Some posters here want Beilein to be more like Calipari. I think Beilein is doing it better than Calipari. Do you think Cal would have ever gone after guys like Trey Burke, Tim Hardaway Jr., Caris LeVert, Spike Albrecht, etc.? I don't, but I'm sure glad that John Beilein did.

I like JB’s system because I love watching guys grow and develop, not because it is more effective. Cal does have a championship.

How much longer before the NBA player association blinks, and the one and done is a thing of yesteryear? Serious momentum being generated by the powers that be to move age limit to at least 20. Have to believe it is inevitable.

It’s not necessarily that Kentucky’s system doesn’t work at all (thought I guess it depends on how you define “work”). They’re going to have at least a good team pretty much every year, and sometimes a great team. It’s perhaps more to the point to say that with this kind of system, bringing in 4, 5, 6 elite recruits every year who don’t stay more than 1 or 2 seasons if they’re any good, Kentucky is far more likely to perform below expectations, and to have their fans and the media always wondering why they aren’t better on the court, than a team like Florida (whose high-impact senior class includes a 2, 3, 4, and 5 star recruit).

As far as wanting Michigan to be more like Kentucky, no thanks. Not that we’re ever likely to recruit that successfully anyway, but I can’t help but feel that the fan experience for a team that is basically a revolving door to the NBA has to be a bit empty in some ways, wins aside. Why would you want to watch a bunch of guys who cared nothing about your school or your tradition, who never had any real pride in the uniform, who never really wanted to experience being “Michigan Men”, but just wanted the quickest route to somewhere else? How much fun would it be to root for a team full of prima donnas, that changes faces so much that there is never any real team identity, cohesion or cameraderie? Imagine some young kid who bought a Nerlens Noel jersey last year, ditched that for a Julius Randle jersey this year, and will likely have to go shopping again next year? I’m not sure I wouldn’t rather be the kid who wears his Spike Albrecht jersey for four years.

Haven’t they already changed? Ulis, Booker, Kennard, Blackmon. I have been under the assumption for awhile that Cal will go with more of a blend from here on out. Mix the one n dones with 3/four year studs.

I am not sure Cal’s system has proven to be a winning model. One championship can be luck. Let’s see if he can repeat that. Also, didn’t that class rely on a lot of upperclassmen?
I think the one-and-done system has a risk of chemistry issues and cohesiveness. As a fan, I would not like to see players for only one year and then they are gone.
I wonder if he can sustain it if he doesn’t start winning league championships and making long tournament runs more often.

Well, Kentucky still offered most of the top 15 in Rivals 150 for 2014, so it doesn’t seem like they’re getting more selective. They didn’t LAND quite as many elite prospects this year as last, but I’m not sure it’s because they’ve changed their tactics.

I am not sure Cal's system has proven to be a winning model. One championship can be luck. Let's see if he can repeat that. Also, didn't that class rely on a lot of upperclassmen? I think the one-and-done system has a risk of chemistry issues and cohesiveness. As a fan, I would not like to see players for only one year and then they are gone. I wonder if he can sustain it if he doesn't start winning league championships and making long tournament runs more often.

One title, one runner up, FF and E8. I think most would kill for that resume.

2015 just isn’t a good recruiting class. Even still, UK fans are delusional and think Booker, Kennard, etc are one and done…sad thing is those players might think that, too.

Calipari certainly hasn’t been without success, but do two years in a row now with performance considerably below expectations start to indicate a trend in the other direction, with the flaws in his system starting to bite him in the ass? Maybe, maybe not, but some Kentucky fans (delusional or not) are already grumbling, and unless this team makes a deep tournament run this year (which they show no sign of being capable of), or comes much closer to expectations next year, his seat is likely to get hotter.