UK's Fab Five??
Parrish calls Kentucky "UK's Fab Five," and then follows up with this:
"On the other hand, if UK wins, Michigan's Fab Five will be permanently displaced as the sport's most accomplished first-year starting lineup, and wouldn't that be something?
No team has ever won a title starting even four freshmen.
Kentucky has a chance to do it starting five."
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24…
I guess I'll be rooting for UConn. What about you?
I'll be rooting for UConn, but not really because of this. The Fab 5 have had their time to shine, and they're known for a lot more than being 5 freshmen that did very well.
(Edited to sound less dickish. Since I have a habit of sounding dickish)
The Fab 5 was a team, possible one of the two most exciting college basketball teams ever. Kentucky is a bunch of super talented individuals. Age is the only comparison.
There can be only one!
Individuals don't make the NCAA championship. Let's not sound bitter, people, Kentucky has a good team.
You must not have watched the Fab 5 play. There was a beautfitul flow to their game. They were truly a team. The UK squad is a bunch of dudes chucking it at the rim and dunking rebounds. They're not in the same league at the Fab 5.
Agreed. Here's hoping the refs don't let UK get away with all of their bull rushes and offensive goaltends tonight. If it's officiated fairly, UConn wins (but then again, so do Michigan and Wisconsin).
Kuck Fentucky!!!!
At least not ALL of our freshmen accepted cash and other illegal benefits.
Kentucky didn't pay E.J. Floreal, did they?
That's what I think about Fab 5 - related conversations on MGOBLOG.com
Rooting for UConn. Not because of the 5 freshmen, but because Calipari seems like a jerk. Whenever I have seen his press conferences he always seems to discredit the notion that the other team outplayed his team. It's always "well we didn't do this, or we didn't do that" and one of the things I find endearing about Beilein is his ability to give credit where it's due.
In his defense his team is the most talented in all of college basketball.
It's a bogus comparison. Cauley-Stein (a sophomore) was the functional starter at center until his injury in the Louisville game. The Fab Five was starting since mid-February.
There is no Chris Webber in this group of UK freshmen. Not even close. I also don't see three guys who will have 12-15 year careers in the NBA.
Exactly, I love how this is totally ignored for some reason. It's still a pretty impressive accomplishment, but the Fab Five compairsons are bogus. If it wasn't for an injury to a non-freshman starter, we're not even having this conversation.
Christian Laettner and Bobby Hurley in their senior years. Talent like that is long gone to the NBA in 2014.
Unfortunately, if UK's five freshmen win tonight, they will have done something the Fab Five never did, qualitative differences notwithstanding.
Rooting for Kentucky. My dad wins like $500 if they win. Some blind pool he bought in to.
It's a totally different era and game now. Much easier for a freshman to make an impact now in the in the "one and done" age. The college game is much younger now then back when the Fab Five played, and freshmen are often the best players in the game (look at the draft histories since the age limit rule went into effect).
Records were meant to be broken, and it was only a matter of time until an all freshmen lineup won a championship with the way the draft eligibility rules are setup today. I don't really care who wins tonight but probably leaning Connecticut because Calipari irritates me.
This can't be said enough. It's like when people (e.g., ESPN) were making a big deal out of Doug McDermott being the 7th (or whatever) highest scorer of all time. Players today play 5-10 more games per season AND many great scorers (e.g., Pete Maravich, Oscar Robertson) were not allowed to play their freshman year. So it's not that meaningful.
I mean compare this year's Florida team (the consensus #1) with Duke in '91-'92 (the consensus #1). Even though both teams are/were senior/junior-laden, they are not even comparable in terms of talent.
- Duke had Laettner (very hateable, but one of the best college players of all-time and a solid pro), Grant Hill (great in college & pros), Danny Hurley (great in college, #7 NBA draft pick), Cherokee Parks (good in college, #12 NBA draft pick who played for 10 years) and a few other good college players.
- Florida has a bunch of very good/good college players with experience, who worked hard as a team, but none will be considered an all-timer in college, let alone the NBA (e.g., none will be a first round pick). Yet, b/c they had good talent and great experience, along with an excellent coach, they were #1 in the nation and made it to the Final Four.
And '91-'92 Duke barely made the Finals! That's b/c they had to tough out wins over other experienced/talented teams (e.g., Calbert Chaeney's Indiana).
Yes, what was remarkable about the Fab 5 is that they did it against teams of mostly Juniors and Seniors . . . many of whom were NBA-level players who stayed to be Juniors and Seniors.
Kentucky did what it did against teams of mostly Freshmen and Sophomores . . . teams like us.
Not quite the same accomplishment.
Well, I believe Fab Five is a trademarked term (by Jalen maybe). So no, just like the US women's gynamastics team in 2012 found out, UK legally and technically doesn't have a Fab Five. Take that, Parrish!
(Edit) - Besides, the Fab Five changed the face of college basketball (and athletic fashion as well). There is much more to what Webber and Co. accomplished than just hardware in a trophy case.
Last time I checked you get a trophy for winning your region. Hence why Final Four appearances are counted as they are.
Shut up.
...it seemed pretty improbable that a starting lineup of freshmen could nearly win the NCAA championship but we also need to consider the context. It was a different era then and the Fab 5 were battling many senior-laden teams.
In today's context with so many younger players getting into games and then moving to the pros after a year or two, probably it's more surprising that all-freshmen teams haven't yet won a title in this era.
this is just one of the many reasons we are all huskies tonight.
I was a Badger on Saturday night. That didn't work out so well.
I simply find Kentucky annoying, and don't want them to win.
Having said that, I think we're a bit jealous. Wouldn't almost every team like to have such gifted individuals come to their school?
I'm not sure that Calipari is a jerk. He is just dealing with the hand he has been dealt, and the fact that many one and done players are coming to congregate at UK.
I really wish Michigan or Wisconsin had knocked UK off, but it didn't happen. To their credit, the Michigan players were respectful, and gave UK credit. They dared UK to hit from outside the arc, and they did. What can you say?
Hand he was dealt?!?!?! If college basketball and recruiting was a big poker game, Calipari would be the asshole who keeps getting caught cheating but just shrugs his shoulders, says "you got me," then moves to a different table and continues to cheat anyways.
I think you're missing the fact that Calipari, and his approach to recruiting and college basketball, is the reason one and done players are at UK. It's not a "hand he was dealt" so much as his MO. Of course every school would love the type of raw talent Kentucky has, but (i) it's not feasible for anyone except MAYBE Kansas and UNC and (ii) most coaches would never choose to go down the road Calipari has gone down. Guys like Bo Ryan, Beilein, Izzo, Coach K, even Pitino (not to mention every program not in the "elite" category) prefers to recruit to their system and develop players within that system. Getting an occassional 5 star player is just a bonus. Calipari's "system" is recruit the highest rated, most athletically gifted set of high school seniors he can squeeze on his roster while attempting to fit them into positions - then hope a bunch go pro so he can do it all over again. Other than that, it's "roll the ball out" and let his recruiting efforts (or those of Kentucky boosters) pay dividends . Personally, I think that approach makes a mockery of college basketball.
There were two reports from the sideline reporter that stuck with me. First, she said during one huddle, Calipari told Harrison to drive more and shoot less. That is the exact same advice I gave the fourth graders I coached this year. Second, she said Calipari scolded Harrison about his body language, and two minutes later they show Calipari on the sideline whining for a call.
Is missing the beauty of the dribble drive offense and the way it opens up the offensive glass. When it's running well, the weave up top with the handoffs waits to get a matchup that they can exploit, forcing help defense that leaves Kentucky's bigs un-boxedout (probably not a word) as they crash the offensive glass. You can see Calipari have trouble getting his players to run this set, but when they do it's nearly unstopable.
Michigan has this set in it's arsenal. They have run it going back to Darius Morris. It's one of the ways Morgan has gotten wide open dunks, and how GRIII has had those baseline lobs wide open. The big difference being Kentucky has so much youth they don't run many other sets where as Michigan does. Also, Kentucky has so much athleticism at every position, this really is the best offense for them.
I'd upvote you infinity if it were allowed. This is the point nobody on the board is willing to concede and it makes us look sour. Kentucky does have an offense. The same dribble drive that made stars out of John Wall, Derrick Rose, and Marcus Camby. We claim our open dunks are the offense yet Kentucky's clear lanes to drive aren't considered.
They don't actually have clear lanes. They just put their heads down, charge at the defenders, and fling the ball up in the air. They either get a blocking call, or their other athletes get the OREB and they do it again.
If the game is called like a basketball game and not a football game, that strategy does not work so well.
How long do you think it took Calipari to come up with this "offense"? He's not drawing up or installing anything complicated to cleear up a bunch of space or create mismatches. The most creativity he uses (or has to use) is dribble handoffs. Even so, I don't see a lot of clear driving lanes from their halfcourt offense. Otherwise he's relying on his set of superior athletes to use their athleticism to drive by, bull through, or jump over people and get to the rim. That isn't revolutionary. I'll admit, it must be nice to have that many freaks on your team to not have to worry about x's and o's, but I've said before, I don't like what comes with it.
I hate Calipari. Ergo, Go Huskies!
I'll echo some comments above. The fact is that the Fab Five had a CULTURAL impact. This was the true differentiator of that team, not just that they were five freshman starters (although that in itself was also unique) that made two national championship games in a row.
Good for those UK kids. They're uber-talented and having a great run. But they aren't, and never will be, on the level of the Fab Five.
I really do think that is an important point anyone talks about the impact of one team or set of players - the Fab Five were a marketing phenomenon and the force behind changes to the very look and feel of the game itself.I don't think that there has ever been a Kentucky team that could say this, but I could be incorrect there.
Even now, the changes that were begun by that Michigan team resonate today. They didn't win in either 1992 or 1993, but their names and innovations live on in the game.
UK has had its moments, although mostly infamous:
Levi Strauss couldn't have done it any better (or worse)
Cat's claws?!?!
Clowniformz?
Not much better...
If you don't think so, you are the most naive college basketball fan on the planet. Cheering for the Huskies because I do not want to see the human slime win another championship.
I agree with most posters. The Fab Five played in a different era. Their impact on and off the court cannot be understated (within the context of college athletics). UK's group are a bunch of highly rated individuals who really underachieved until three weeks ago. The Fab Five came in with high expectations, but no one outside of Ann Arbor wouldve thought that those guys wouldve had the lead at halftime against Duke in the title game. What the Fab Five did was truly incredible. I cant see anyone other than Julius Randle starting on the Fab Five. Rose, King, Howard, and Webber would eat the sad five's cheerios without saying please or thank you.
And Calipari is a used car salesman with a whistle. Hes the same guy who left his team out to dry when they were underperforming this earlier this year. Hes a frontrunner that cheats. He has no ability to develop talent or really even coach a team. Hes pretty much running an NBA prep program like its an AAU team.
I'm rooting for UConn simply because I hate John Calipari.
Rooting for Kentucky. I would rather have the team that knocked Michigan out of the tournament win than the team that knocked MSU out.
I'm rooting for UConn, but because Calipari is a scumbag, not because of any threat to the Fab Five's legacy.
I'm sure many have seen this, but if you haven't--a CBS poll from 2012 asked nearly 100 coaches who the dirtiest basketball coach is. More than one-third said Calipari:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/19…
Love this quote, from a coach: "Cal probably doesn't have to cheat now as much as he used to, but he's still the standard. The rest of us can't even deal in his league. He's the best."
Kentucky is a talented team, as we know first hand, and it would be huge accomplishment if they win the title game tonight. That being said, they are NOT the next Fab Five. Winning (or not winning) was only one of the many factors that made our collection of freshmen special. The Fab Five forever changed the culture of college basketball - for better or worse. This UK team, while very talented on the court, has done no such thing.
All of that being said, go Huskies! I couldn't stand the ESS-EEE-SEE winning another title.
(KU, UK - Who's paying attention?)
But there's no way they would have gotten all the way through the 92 tournament, including 92 Kentucky. And certainly not 92 Duke. Back then there with teams with multiple pros as upperclassmen.