I’m going to concede that he may have gained a few spots in the draft due to the exposure and praise heaped on him by virtue of playing at UK.
My guess is that benefit was minimal. Players that are ranked in the Top 10 usually end up at least in the middle of the first round regardless of where they go to school.
And, he didn’t even come close to a National Championship and won just 2 more games in Ncaat than the program he was too good for on signing day.
So, I wonder if it was worth it for he and his brother to sell out and leave behind the state of Arkansas and the UA program.
Yep, Monk missed an opportunity to be a legend here in Arkansas, just to be another clip note for Calipari to mention him when he talks about how many guys he’s put in the NBA. And speaking of Cal, when are people going to start mentioning how he underachieves with arguably the best talent every year.
He has been coaching now for almost 25 years, he’s been stacking the top talent and having multiple McDonald All-Americans each year for at least 15+ years, and he’s only got 1 NCAA championship to show for it. How many NBA all-stats has he had? And he still can’t win lol. I would seriously love for somebody in the media to discuss that, because had it been anyone else that underachieves like that every year they would be all over them.
Due to the exposure and a system that rewards superstars, it was probably worth it as you noted. Ultimately it probably doesn’t mean anything to him that most of the state doesn’t give 2 blanks about him going forward. He is going to make millions upon millions of dollars (Joe Johnson is over $200 mil :shock: :shock: ), and he still would have made that money if he came here.
I doubt he or his brother cares about being the hero to an entire state like a Moncrief or a Corliss. He made the right “business decision” and if we are honest it would be hard to turn down Kentucky and Cal. With all that being said, I’m not going to waste any energy “hating on him”, but I can honestly say I wouldn’t walk across the street to meet him or Marcus. I kissed them off like Michael did Fredo down in Havana.
Not surprising. Media buys everything Calipari says. He doesn’t even have to win championships for everybody to think he’s the greatest thing ever. And if Calipari was smart and really wanted to win championships he’d only take 1 or 2 of the one and done’s a year, and get those high 4 star players that will be 3 or 4 year guys and mix them together. But, that wouldn’t get him enough media attention and he wouldn’t get the #1 recruiting class every year, which to him is most important thing. He just signs the highest rated guys he can and hopes it works out. Maybe he’ll stick around long enough to get another Anthony Davis to carry him to a championship, those type of guys usually come around once every 20 years.
I’m glad Kentucky lost! And yes the media train does it for Greaseball but the Kentucky fan base will get tired of him not hanging a banner and he will be gone. Then the slim will hit the fan and Kentucky will be on probation for a few years.
I’m not wasting any energy on the Monk brothers ! We won’t see them anymore.
I hope the soup line will take them!
I’d like to see the NCAA limit the total of players signed over a 5-year period to 18, regardless of transfer, NBA, redshirts. It would at least spread the 1-and-done players around.
For the 5 classes from 2013 - 2017 (projected),
KY 30 players
NC 16
AR 17
Duke 22
UF 16
Louisville 19
Kansas 18
Not sure if these number are perfectly accurate. They were taken from 24/7 commitment numbers.
UK 2G was spoiled at UK because he didn’t have to become a well rounded player. He did not develop his game without the ball. He did not follow his shots, did not block out a guard, so he was not good at rebounding. He was a shooting specialist that moved to get open for HIS shot. He did not develop a strong assist game. His defense should have been much better.
At Arkansas, he would have had to become a well rounded player OR he would have been a prima donna that didn’t think he should have to do the little things (locker room cancer).
What’s done is done. He had a pretty spectacular one year of college basketball, got a ton of exposure and his team was eliminated in a regional final. He’ll make a lot of money and won’t have to worry about taking too many college classes. I don’t get the impression that he is the student his brother was. We’ll never know how he would have fit in with the 2016-2017 Razorbacks. Might have made us better, might have made us worse. In the business world, which seems to be the world the Monks live in, he served a one year internship at Kentucky inc. They did not win the NCAAA championship, which means he will never be regarded as highly as any of those players who did, by the big blue faithful. I doubt he’ll ever tear up at the sound of My Old Kentucky Home and he’ll be regarded by them as just another one year wonder. Fame and money are soon to be his. If that’s what you’re living for, you will always be disappointed. I said it before and I’ll say it again. I would just as soon we not recruit a player that we know for a fact is going to be a one and done. It’s cotton candy. A sweet burst of flavor that isn’t fulfilling or all that good for you.
I remember Rick Pitino at Louisville saying he tries to avoid recruiting one and done guys. I’m with you, most of the time those guys are just trying to come in and do what’s best for themselves for a year to help their draft stock. Me personally, I prefer getting those high 4-star guys that will be 3-4 year guys, those are the type of guys a school like Arkansas can win championships with.
That will be hard to do. You will have to regulate number of players that can transfer out also. And number of players kicked off the team. Just kidding on that one.
So, set it at 20 players signed over a 5-year period. That allows a cushion for transfers and other player issues. There’s a 13 scholarship limit now. Let’s be honest, KY isn’t college basketball, it’s an NBA development team. Very few KY players are there for an education. Cal has signed 30 players over a 5-year period, roughly 70% more than other programs.
Monk statistically wasn’t as good as the hype, which was mainly focused around a few incredible performances. Notably, when teams saw him for a second time, his numbers tended to crash.
For all the talk of his incredible range he shot 39.7% from the arc this season. That’s nothing extraordinary in this day and age. He might have been better on a team with more perimeter shooting. Despite his athleticism he didn’t rebound or block shots and got to the rim for a lower percentage of his shots than either Macon or Hannahs even though a much higher percentage of his rim attempts were assisted than theirs. Hannahs was right there with him in deuce rate with a higher 2-pt%. In fact, only small differences exist in a blind analysis of the numbers for Macon, Hannahs, and Monk when normalized for minutes played. Macon arguably had the slightly best overall year of the three.
On the defensive end Monk’s rebound rate was suspiciously low as compared to his teammates Briscoe and Fox, who more often guarded PGs. Macon was the more prolific rebounder as well. Monk also fouled at half the rate as his teammates, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. One gets the impression that he did not expend a lot of energy at that end. Perhaps he couldn’t since UK was so dependent on his perimeter shooting. I doubt that impressed the scouts.
If you put him on a team that had more outlets for perimeter shooting and more depth so that he didn’t have to worry about fatigue or fouls at the defensive end, his draft status might have been enhanced. Of course, that assumes that he is a willing defender. It’s not like Fox and Briscoe staying on the floor was any less critical to UK. Perhaps scouts will assume he can defend and get to the rim because of his athleticism. However, if he couldn’t show those aspects of his game at UK, what did UK really do for him?
If Monk had gone to Arkansas, the Hogs might have made the Final Four. Or not, depending on how much defense Monk was willing to play. He might have solved some problems Arkansas had with droughts. Or he might have been just another of the same kind of guard.
I actually debated that with my son this morning. I think Monk would have helped in the areas you mentioned. He says, maybe but Manny, Dusty, or Macon would have got significantly less playing time.
The question for me is whether Monk could have been added without any subtractions, namely Barford. After the slow start Barford was a perfect complement to the rest of our guards. If Monk was an additional option that could go off for any given game, he could only have helped unless one basketball was too few for those guards to share. If we lost Barford, the chemistry on O may have been worse and the D not as good after replacing him with Monk.
Would Monk have been a more diversified player for us than he was at UK? They essentially started two PGs and had a shortage of perimeter shooters. Monk wasn’t going to have the ball in his hands much at UK. The FF slipped away from them when Willis, their only other consistent perimeter threat, picked up his fourth foul, and Williams felt free to switch to zone. UNC put the same run on UK that they did on us when down by 5 late. In fact, if Beard makes that trey, the games would have been almost identical down the stretch, though we led for much more of the second half than UK did. In any case, Monk was required to stand on the perimeter for forty minutes at UK to space the floor. Ironically his role wouldn’t have been as constrained here.