>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin with a look at vox media and the new internet journalism. >> what if we could create a news site that over five years of covering obamacare that built an essential resource to guide you from the beginning of a story to the end so that no matter when you began paying attention, you have the information to understand it. >> charlie: we continue with john calipari, the basketball coach at the university of kentucky. >> you know, would i rather him y he has really good players and he coaches them and they come together? i would, but, you know what? none of us can worry about people who, one, have never had a meal with us, who never sat down with us and who are fans of other programs and not fans of yours. all i do is do the best job i

can for those players, the people i work with, the university and the state that i represent, that's who i work with and that's who i care about. if someone has had dinner with me and been to my company and friend and say, he's not a good guy, then i've got a problem. short of that, i walk on. >> charlie: vox media and john calipari, when we continue. >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it,

when you know where to look. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: vox.com is one of the latest digital news sites to challenge traditional media. this site launched earlier this month to build a news property for the digital age. ezra klein is the editor-in-chief of vox.com and the founder of the blog and in 2012 named one of the 50 most powerful people in washington by g.q. magazine. jim bankoff is the c.e.o. of vox media the parent company of

vox.com. welcome. how and why did this happen? >> it happened because i have been frightened about american politics and policy for about ten years. particularly what you learn when you're doing the policy side, obamacare, the financial crisis, the hard, complicated stuff is that we are not well set up to guide readers for the stories. we start covering something like obamacare way before anyone in the world has actually heard about it. by the ti people begin tuning in, we've long ago gone through the basics. now we're on little bitty pieces folks in washington are fighting over. so th idea is what if we could create a news site that over say five years of covering something like obamacare didn't just give you 5,000 articles about obamacare but gave you a resource to guide you through

story from beginning to end so that no matter when you began pang attention you had the information in front of you to understand it. the insight behind it is the problem previously was technological. print was not have a lot of room to. print one thing, you have to leave out something else. but the internet has plenty of room. so if we could create a new publishing technology and a journalistic work on top of it, we have plenty of space to create the kind of resource we always wanted as writers. and vox media had something close to that publishing technology and the product talent to build snit who noticed who first? >> we came together, coincidentally, right about the same time. i think our head of product technology was at a conference with ezra. ezra heard him speak and i think he described it as, oh, my goodness, either i join these guys or compete against them and we wound up coming together. >> charlie: you said an interesting thing. tell me if i'm right about.

this you said they're already using the technology that we're working on. >> yeah. >> charlie: so you knew they had something that they knew what they were doing. >> i was at this conference about media and i had this idea in my head before we'd gone public with it at all. i heard trey, head of product at vox, talking about things they invented. i remember in every room trey was, i wouldn't speak anymore because ias worried if i said anything more, they could execute on it so quickly there would be no room to do it later. so i left that conference terrified of this company. i hadn't really known very much about vox media. a couple of months later we hooked up and there was a very easy marriage there. >> charlie: kenny who is a successful entrepreneur on a program we taped with his son earlier said to me so many startups have an idea but no technology and that's a central flaw. >> in media in particular it's taken for granted.

in any industry, whether energy or healthcare, education, they've all been transformed, all industry is being transformed by technology. when it comes to media, we look at certain platforms. netflix, amazon is a great example. but media creation, technology has been by and large marginalized. i think there's a historical legacy of let the i.t. guys build it as opposed to let's be a product and technology-driven organization. >> charlie: so, in fact, what's not happening simply is that the tech guys are simply publishing what the creators give them. >> that's exactly right. i think we have been through a few phases. the first phase was great companies with great brand names putting their content on the web whether video or text content, putting observe the web and expecting great results and they were burned by that. that's where we hear about digital dollars turning into dimes and all that.

and then next the day came when the pendulum swung and you got a lot of low-value content. this was a slide show, pop-up, content farms and crowd source model where consumers were conditions to have low expectations of their web content. it was lousy, honestly, and the the advertising along with it was also lousy. now we're entering a third phase where great new brands are created with quality, web journalists with great design and utility. >> charlie: how did you come to form vox media? >> it started out as a sports site. >> charlie: it was sb nation. and sb nation is still one to have the fastest growing parts for contacts. we have seven different brands we run. an oakland a's fan got fed up with the giants coverage in his own town and started athletic

nation which is still around and doing everything today. billy dean at the time money ball was coming on, billy dean became a fan of the site. fast forward, we have about 320 individual team and sports topic communities. but it was this underlying publishing platform which allowed us to publish in realtime. take advantage of where we saw media going, which was more social and conversational in nature, more realtime, of course, and more topical. there are a lot of great portals, but with portals, when you're general, you can't necessarily command authority in any given area, so we wanted to be more verticalizedn nature and that worked well for us. did well in sports and decided to launch into technology as our second one. we've created a site called the verge sh manages. >> charlie: what is that? a site that focuses ton intersection of technology and culture and as i said technology has an impact on everything today from art, literature, science, et cetera. so the verge looks at the world

through the lens of technology and, as a result, has taken off and is doing extraordinarily well and rose to the top of a lot of older brands that had been around for a while with its fresh approach. >> charlie: brands like what? you know, brands like we respect like wired or tech crunch. >> charlie: i was thinking of tech crunch. >> all sites are gre in their own right but we took a forward-looking design and content strategy and the audience ate it up and it continues to grow. >>rlie: what's the key do design? it's not about healthcare (laughter) >> the answer is not just really good designers but a good platform. >> charlie: i mean, obviously, that's true, but i'm asking, again, what design works? is there a sense that, you know, if you can have somebody that can give you some variation of this, then that's where you have

to go design-wise. >> when i was trying to figure out where to go, so one of my co-founders was named melissa bell who is sort of the lead on product design and things like that from vox.com and our theory on it was that there were four pieces to what we were doing. there was the editorialiece, the building of tundz lining publishing technology, the design and then the business. and if any one of the four wasn't there, the whole thing would fail. >> charlie: so busine design, technology and editorial. >> and the thing about design, the reason why i hesitate is i do not have design sense, so it was not a problem i was going to be able to solve. the folks we work with are unbelievable. and t thing was, the product people design, people think, how pretty is it going to be. >> charlie: what is it beyond pretty?

>> what they've talked about is using experience. i think this is an important distinction to make. so on the editorial side, the idea was we could somehow give people a range of information that went from the specific article that they had come to us for or saw from the home page or saw on twitter, and then also an trine into all kinds of different information about the topics, such as they could go exactly as deep as they wanted to go. when you have that much information, the experienced user, how intuitive it is to find that information, how overwhelmed they get or not, how easy it is to take the information and bring it somewhere else in their life like email or facebook, that experience decides whether or not that information is just words on the internet or actually is a service you're providing people. if you don't pay attention to design, the whole thing fails. >> and then you apply it across mobile and tablets and desktop and you have to make it all work and i think simply put we're conditioned to think of our phones as beautifully and elegantly designed devices. apple mas conditioned us and

many others to think that way. but when you thought of web sites, you didn't really think about things that were beautifully designed and utilitarian at the same time. so we've put a lot of effort into that. we test and refine and we're not afraid to be bold. we wanted to work and be you utilitarian. you see things erdesigned observe the web and pretty for the sake of pretty. but the web had become a little overoptimized. when you a/b test you wind up in the same place. a lot of other web sites look at the same place where you see a lot of stuff crammed into the right rail of the web site. that's where we put all "the other stuff." and everyone is, like, that's the way we do it, those are best practices. we weren't afraid to just blow it up, talk to our audience, analyze the data but be bold at where we're going. >> charlie: when you look at new opportunities like ezra, what are you looking for?

what is it that they have to do to ring your bell? >> we have a strong belief that vox -- at vox media there's a new breed of talent, a new class of story tellers that grew up on the web as web natives. in silicon valley we're part technology, part storytelling. in the technology culture, you have theulture of the hacker, and this is a person who never asks permission to create a web site or create a web application and they just did it at home. mark zuckerberg, i think, is the prince of the hackers, right? well, in media now, it's the same way, when i was younger, you had to fight for that school paper job just to get yourself published and then let alone if you wanted to be a professional at this, you really had to have some connections and hope your talent would take you far. obviously, that's all changed now. we all have access to open platforms. we can create a blog on word press, create video on youtube, and talent can try things out,

experiment, and 99.9% isn't going to be professional grade but there is going to be professional grade coming out of it. there are going to be stars that rise whether a woman like amanda clute or melissa belle or josh, we look for those media hackers, people who understand how to create audience for this media. >> charlie: did you learn on your own? >> yeah, i applied to the santa cruz student newspaper, i went to college at santa cruz uc. and i got rejected by the newspaper. i started a blog and thought, well, i'll spend more time on that. i thought if i had gotten into the newspaper, it could have gone a lot worse because i would have learned a set of skills, while valuable and important, were not where the industry was actually going. so my own blog, i began in march of 2003. and it's the politics blog.

utterly uninformed, just whatever the college kid -- >> charlie: i remember every time you've ever been on the show you were just a great guest. >> why, thank you. >> cç$lie: we knew you could deliver. it would be an interesting point of view and especially about healthcare. beyond healthcare, where is your core competence in terms of editorial? >> in terms of editorial as a writer my core competence is generally policy. >> charlie: right. the different kind of learning i did on my site was, okay, if you're going to come o the media, which i had not intended to do, but if you're going to end up in media doing a blog as an amateur, you're not going to get your calls returned by congressmen or people in the white house, so you have to learn about politics a different way. you have to figure out something that gives you the information to deliver value to your audience that is not simply -- and the direction i went was reading papers from think tanks

and academic research. academics and think tanks are open talking even to people without a huge platform. it gave me on the research end to dive deep and get into a kind of information that frankly a lot of professional journals didn't want to take the time to do because it can be dull and complicated. the other side is the great thing about doing policy online is because you don't h the space limitations you can go very deep into very esoteric topics that would never get a huge audience or make it into a paper or a magazine or tv show. >> charlie: however. but because it doesn't bother your audience, you get the learning and every time you're dealing with that issue you're more grounded. but the separate editorial skills i have is i spent the last couple of years at "the washington post" running a blog and writing there and associated published site switch and "no more" which was a more socially driven site.

and i've had data experience trying to build on my product and trying to understand who is your audience and what do you need to do to serve them because, ultimately, if you're going to compete online -- because a fundamental difference between the web and print isn't just technology but how competitive it is, how many other options people have -- you really need to be delivering a service other people are not delivering because there is almost no way in a world that has a new yorker and "the washinn post" and the "new york times" and these incredible organizations that you going to be so much smarter, such better writers that you will be able to compete on raw time. you need to find a service and that service was policy and here we think the value is a mixture of explanatory technology and editorial missi. >> charlie: but you also believe -- i mean, i believe there's no offer "the washington post" could have made that would have been more attractive to you than doing what you did, or could they have made some

promise that would have made you stay there. i mean, you liked "the washington post." you said nothing but good things about them on the departure, as you have described why, but i question whether someone like this might have the same gene he has to go, you know, to be entrepreneurial. >> i think you do not underestimate an organization run by jeff for its capacity to be incredibly entrepreneurial. i adore the post. it's an incredible organization. i think the decision "the post" made was to focus itself on "the washington post" and i felt this particular product needed to be itself, its own thing. so i have no doubt the post can run amazing products as they do every sine day. >> charlie: that's not my question. my question is did they have something that they could have promised you that would have made you stay? what didn't theave in their promise that would have compelled you to stay? >> i don't go super deep into

"washington post" -- sphoo because i'm not asking for negatives, just truth. >> you already touched on things like, you know, aechnology -- a particular technology and a particular approach to design. it was already built up that we had. you know, and the post is capable of building up. we had it and we were ready to go with it. we launched our site within six weeks and it will never be a finished product as most great web sites aren't but we were ready to go and had a lotto assets -- a lot of assets. as vox media, we have the seven brands. what we're trying to do are create next-generation brands in the sense that, you know, there were magazines and you go to the

magazine rack and see big categories -- news, sports, home, food, turn on your cable channel, you flip through, see big categories, news, sports, home, food. and on the web we want to be that company that creates the leading media brands for a generati of consumers that have grown up expressing a preference to consume digitally, to consume via the web, via mobile, and every ounce of our being and organization is consumed with that. we wake up in the morning with no distractions, no business model distractions, no creative distractions, and, you know, focus is a big part of being successful in any endeavor, of course, and we're able to focus on that. >> charlie: did you say there's a condescension towards providing simple information? >> yes, and there is in the media broadly. this was in response to new york magazine. in many of our explainers, we'll ben an explainer about, say, the crisis in the ukraine with a question what is the ukraine or

what is ukraine because the question is whether the article is really contested, or explain about medical marijuana laws, what is marijuana, and you get some pushback from the media because it feels simple. >> charlie: you'll never get it from me. >> glad to hear that. >> charlie: no, but i also believe in digging as deep as you possibly can but just a simple question, why did you do that, or the simple informational question is what follows tablets, something like that, you know. very simple questions. there is a huge need for it. >> there are two things that i think are problems in the media around this kind of thing. one is that the media writes for itself too often and trying to impress the peer group. so you have a lot of desire to be both on the analytical or reporting end, on the cutting edge of the conversation, you're trying to be competitive to a scoop that would come out

anyway, or in the inside you're tryincome up with an idea on the leading edge of the conversation that none of your competitors have. meanwhile your readership has not read everything. they are not like you a professional media consumer. so by always being on the up-leading edge, you're leaving them behind. also a bit of an issue, my mother always quoted to me a quote from eric sefrod (phonetic) in his signoff where he said we always try never to underestimate the audience's intelligence nor overestimate their information. >> charlie: i believe in that totally. >> i think we often do both. we underestimate their intelligence, how much they want to know, how curious they are about hard issues. policy wasn't just vegetables of journals and it's something people wanted if y put in the work to make it readable to

them. secondly, you need to give folks the actual information they need to understand what you're talking about and that often means during the beginning. so when i hear folks laugh at a part of the site that begins really at the beginning of something, i'm just thrilled because that to me shows how wide open that space is. >> charlie: no, i totally agree, don't you? >> i do. what's interesting is, after they get through the first part, i've had experts -- you asked about design, and one of our design features is a metaphor of a card stack. >> charlie: index cards. that's right, preparing you for a topic or helping you consume information and this is a design metaphor that works particularly well on mobile where you can ben your phone and swipe through from one set of explanations to the next. as ezra was saying, usually the first card in the series, anywhere from five toen cards, is very basic, what is

obamacare. as you go through it's a little more detailed, always easy to understand. while the first card for people who are experts might be something that's evident, as you go through each one, i've had a lot of experts on say a topic like jerr gerrymandering sayingw something come through there, i do this for a living and i learned something. >> charlie: people like to learn new things. >> it's a currency,oo. >> charlie: it is currency. in the share economy, it's something that people like to share. i learn this and i want to express that i learned this. so it's helpful in that regard, too. >> charlie: my friend david karr has several things to say about you, as you know. klein's change of address could be read as the latest parable of cluelessness, journalists coming back to haunt them or cashing in on name-brand success, but it is

more complicated than that. >> david is a smart man. >> charlie: he said mr. klein is not running away something. he is going toward something else. >> this has been a great frustration about the way a lot of this has been played that there is some negative judgment rendered on "the washington post." the "washington post" is just one. it is a generally incredible organization. this was just a different idea. what it required was if you're a large newspaper or magazine that has a good web site, you actually need a publishing system that provides a number of different solutions, that integrates different things including how to move things from print to digital and back from bingl digital to print. you have publishing systems that are good at what they do in that world, and the thing we needed to do is create a quite vast amount of information that would not go bad, that was easy to

update and make permanent and make it easy for reporters to go back to that could be attached to other pieces of information. that was optimizing your technology with something entirely different. what david was saying and what we were running towards is this idea there was something different we could do, not necessarily better, just different, and i think needed that other kinds of technology -- that vox media, actually, had the technology to do. >> charlie: but do the people who are creating the product know more about technology than editorial con snent. >> you know, it's a perfect question because it requires a multidisciplinary approach, and our platorm is called chorus. we get a lot of kudos for it. someone said is chorus a unicorn with a pink ribbon that drats kratz magical content? of course not. it takes experts that know how to work the web. but technology can assist the

storytelling process. our technology is developed by people who listen and collaborate to develop the best systems for helping and assisting storytelling, distribution and consumption of digital media. and that's the magic of it is understanding it. ezra's great, as david karr pointed out. there's a whole class o talent. we try to get as many as we can. we don't get them all. they're people to understand digital and create stories for this medium first and foremost and in their cases are talented across other mediums. whether spencer hall who is the preeminent football voice or izzy greenspan who understands fashion and detail better than anyone, we're looking for the next generation that prefer to tell stories on the web and every day we think about how do we enable them, their audiences and our advertisers. >> charlie: when you think about the people that are

leading, does this in a sense make these institutions lesser? i mean, if they're losing so many good people in the digital sphere? >> i haven't thought about it. it's hard to point to any one of these great institutions that still create incredible products and think of them lesser. i tend to think of our products as targeting a class of audience that just really prefe to consume digitally. the new york times is doing incredible work digitally as well, so there are older media organizations that get it and execute on it very well not all of them do, to be frank. there are some that are afraid because they've lost money on it in the past for whatever reason, but there are many who do get it and they're competitors of ours and we're inspired by them and hopefully they by us. >> charlie: two questions

about where you came from, "the washington post." one of the things i love that fits into the question of simple curiosity is whoever does five myths about something, you know, that whole thing, because you look at something like obamacare, they say five myths about obamacare, and you will see new information that you haven't thought about but that has become myths about part of the conventional wisdom. number two, what do you think jeff basos will do? what imprint will he have on "the washington post"? >> i'd be fascinated to know. when it gets talked about publicly, there can be a cult of the billionaire, notust with "the washington post," but anytime any charismatic millionaire or billionaire takes over any beloved institutions and the question is people ask what will jeff do? and the answer is, i think, probably, there is a really talented editorial team and product team and other kinds of

teams at the post and he's going to give them for a while the resources and the autonomy to execute on their vision, right? it's not that jeff is going to come in and tell the executive effort e editor here's how you do it. jeff will help marty and the rest of the leadership team out. so i think sometimes people have the image of the way it will work out that whoever owns it if they've heard of them will sit in the back room and come up with a great plan. but they're really good people, these organizations. >> charlie: jeff will be listening for a while? >> he will, but executions for him as jim, this is how jim would describe he did with vox media, is empowering good people, giving them the resources and space and protection and the time to push the post or any other institution like this forward. >> charlie: good to have you here. >> thank you. >> charlie: great to have you.

thanks. >> charlie: john calipari is here. he's the head basketball coach at the university of kentucky. he arrived in lexington in 2009 after building programs from the ground up at the universi of massachusetts and the university of memphis, kentucky's vaccines culminated in an improbable run through the ncaa tournament to the championship where they lost to the yvrt of connecticut. he writes about his philosophy and much more in players first, coaching from the inside out. i am pleased to have him at this table for the first time. welcome. >> i feel like i made it! i got to the table! >> charlie: thank you very much. the table, on behalf of the table, i say thank you (laughter) the table says we don't speak, we just do. i'm glad to have you. i'm a huge basketball fan, as you know. >> a duke basketball fan. >> charlie: that's right. it's blue!

>> charlie: we didn't do so well in the ncaa this year but we got a very good recruiting vaccines coming next year, i'm told. you would know better than me. >> very good recruiting class, those ready. >> charlie: what is it about you and mike and michigan, louisville? i mean, youuild programs. you don't build teams. you build programs. >> well, the program at kentucky started in the '30s with a guy named adolph -- >> charlie: yes, i know. and it's amazing that the foundation that he set still stands today. true leaders, i my mind, build something, and when they leave, it continues. and that's what he did. so walking in to kentucky is like nothing i've ever done. i've had to build massachusetts and rebuild. i walked in there.

now, the program was down, but it was kentucky. >> charli they had a fan base. >> wow. and you didn't have to sell a ticket. you didn't have to get people excited about basketball. >> charlie: you didn't have to tell anybody who you were. >> and they watched the tapes more than i watched the tapes. >> charlie: oh, yeah, you mean the fans. >> yeah, they'll watch it three times. i'll watch it once or twice. >> charlie: yeah. but, again, what we're doing and what i talk about in players first, the players haven't changed. the clutter around them has changed. the environments have changed in that they now have choices after a year of going to college, where kids stayed four years. now it's how do you deal with this. and i think -- >>harlie: do you look at the reality of that and say, okay, that's the reality i have to deal with? the best players in the country are going to go to college for one year. >> not all of them, butost of them. >> charlie:le exactly, not all of them.

>> yeah. >> charlie: but the majority of the first and second-round choices are freshmen. >> it's crazy. the league, the nba is getting younger. they need to change the rules to two years, but that's another point. but here's the issue for me -- if i recruit good players, i have to give them the information that lead them to make the best decision for themselves. they have to trust me. if i wanted to be a team in the season, to give up, to sacrifice, to do more for your team than yourself, for them to say, you have t have my back, coach, i'm going to worry about everybody else, you have to worry about me. when the season ends, you have to give them the information and if that leads them to make a decision to go to the pros, you have to be happy for them and their family.

it's not what i want, but i'll deal with what's left. >> charlie: you tell them that when you're recruiting them? you say, i prefer you to stay four years, get an education and a degree. don't view me as just somebody who wants to come in here, take you for a year, exploit your talent, do something big for me and the university pays my salary. i want you to come in and get an education and play basketball. >> i say if you only stay one or two years, will you commit to your family that you will come back and get your degree? they all say yes. >> charlie: do they? i've only been there five years. >> charlie: john wall. john wall has not, but john wall is just becoming is player he wants. john wall got a max contract and gave a million dollars to charity right away and so did the marcus cousins. so they've learned something from us. but i really predict, of the guys that went after one year, half of them will begin to come back. i think brandon knight, there's no question will come back and

finish up. he stayed one year. but here's what i tell these kids. don't come in here thinking you're staying one year. you plan on two or three or four. if something happens and you're good enough after one, i'll support you. i am not going to use you. i want you to use me. i don't want thisamily to think i'm using -- i don't need to use children. you use me for everyttkr÷ i know, everybody i know, everywhere i have been, you e me, and that's kind of what we go in with. we don't even talk nba, but they know, if you go there and you're good enough, he won't hold you back. >> charlie: what do you teach? life skills. servant leadership. do you know how hard it is teaching servant leadership in a short period when a young man and all the other guys came in with him and they were the center of attention their whole lives. >> charlie: since they were 8

or 10? >> since they could think. >> charlie: right. they were that. so now they were on a high school team they shot every ball they're coming with me and then in six months, in two years, i'm trying to get them to understand, when you make life about yourself, very difficult. very lonely, very hard. when you make life about everyone else, life becomes easy, and that's the game of basketball. when you want it to be all about you, it's very difficult and very lonely. so now you look at my team. my team that won the national title, anthony davis, michael kidd, gilchrist, one, two pick in the draft. they took the fourth and fifth shots on my team. they understood servant leadership and they were young. to say you can't teach that when they're young, yes, you can. you can teach them.

spending two minutes with a child, with a grandmother, someone from the hills of pikeville to come in and two minutes, you just made them for six months. money has wings. if you chase money, you never really ged it. you chase excellence, money follows. i give them a money talk when they decide to go to the nba. first million, charlie, tell them to put it away. don't worry abo buying watches, cars. your first million dollars, you put it in the bank, leave it there, seven years it doubles. all of a sudden, if it goes south, you can live the rest of your life on what comes out of that $2 million. dollar lot of things we try to teach but it's all speeded up. >> charlie: ow many accept what you're teaching? >> michael gilchrist's mom called me and said he listened to everything you said about the money talk. i have it with all of them

before they leave. john wall and demarcus cousins gives a million to charity, they were list upping. we raised money for haiti and sandy victims, they were part of it. they were part of the fundraising and they see, wow, i can have an impact for other people? yes. understand fame is fleeting and money has wings. so there is more -- and they'll tell you, what we try to do is teach more than basketball, we're teaching life skills. >> charlie: when you say players first, what do you mean? >> well, everyecision i make is based on is this right for them. i'll give you an example. when i went to all the players on this team and said would you like me to call an nba team or nba teams to check on you? yes. then they get the information and i tell them, you know i want to coach you, but i also know

you have dreams and aspirations. i'll spupt you. but you make this decision for you. during the vaccines, it's all about the team. it's all about brotherhood, it's all about sacrifice. when the season ends, no more games, it's about you. this program is going to be here 50 years from now whether you make a decision to leave or go. this school, this state, everything is fine, if you choose to leave or come back, this program will be here. do what's right for you. >> charlie: what happened this year to your team? low start? everybody thought you were going to be just killer. >> we all did. i probably got intoxicated by it. i think again, i needed to develop roles faster than i did. i think i read the hype and didn't want to step in. i needed them to fail fast so i could see what they were and

what they wer't. but no one's ever attempted to do what we did. start a freshman, win a national title. two more freshmen come off the bench? seven freshmen and a sophomore? what? but woke up one day and thought, how am i going to help an drew. the tweak that you all heard about was me getting with andrew, getting him to watch a tape of deron williams, telling him play like that, then going to practice next week and telling him don't shoot any balls, create for us. it changed our team. that's on me. i poll eyes to him and the team. >> charlie: should have done it earlier. >> why didn't i? don't have the answer. >> charlie: does it take time inevitably for five freshmen to bond together so they understand each other? >> yeah. >> charlie: in other words, it's simply a matter of time. >> you can't step steps.

there's a process. we talk about the process in the book and different years. i'll give you an example of the process as you're going. i talk in this thing about us playing vanderbilt in 2012. we were the best team in the country. michael gilchrist comes in before the championship game to have the sec and says start darius miller in my place. really? why? michael, it's 30 minutes before the game. he said, you're killing him. he's not playing well, and we cannot win the national title without him. i said, wow. >> charlie: would give him confidence. >> right. he took 17 shots in the fame, darius miller, which means we weren't going to win, which we didn't. michael got in foul trouble because he wasn't used to coming off the bench. that moment we won the national title because darius miller from that moment on knew his teammates and staff believed in him and we all were rooting for him to do well.

from that point on he played well enough for us to win the national title. that's part of servant leadership. are you willing to step back so someone can step forward? that's the things we're trying to teach. >> charlie: tell me the five most important things a coach does during the game. >> well, during the game, there is managing substitutions. >> charlie: right. i like it when the players sub themselves. >> charlie: they come over and say, coach -- >> raise your fist, get me out. when you take yourself out, i let you go back in. the second thing flow of the game, in my opinion. when we played louisville, i had to stop the game at different points and people are, like, why is he stopping it? because my team was scared and we had to stop. you stop the game to stop runs. i think the other thing is, as a head coach, being able to feel where is this thing going and how do i make it go a different way, whether playing or

trapping, those are the most important things. and the biggest thing of all is your players have to know you believe, even if you're being hard. they still know you're believing. you cannot cheer lack of effort. you can't. you can't cheer a player who's not focused and breaking down all the plays. you can't cheer him. you can't cheer a guy playing with absolutely no intensity or selfish or bad body language. that stuff has to be aggressively dealt with. but even through all that they have to know i believe in you and i'm here and we're going to do fine. keep playing. just keep playing. you have to be there, especially for the kids. i coach them, they're 18 and 19 years old. >> charlie: tell me what the best you've ever seen have, these young men? >> they have a certain drive beyond the norm. >> charlie: that's what i'm interested in. they certainly have larger skills, but their whole -- there

is a whole subset that have larger skills. >> yes. >> charlie: those that have larger skills, what separates them is the drive, the heart, the will. >> you know where i think it comes from? >> charlie: mothers. how about fear that they're not quite good enough. >> charlie: really? the best players i've coached had this thought i'm not as good as everybody thinks. >> charlie: adults have that fear, too. >> and it drives them. i can think of a derrick rose that would be in the gym five hours. tyreek evans sleeping in a practice chair because he didn't want to walk across the street and he got done working out and class was in the morning and he'd leave from there. i can see anthony davis or brandon knight, 11:00 at night, i come back from recruiting, pull in my office, i look out the window, the practice facility is there. what are you doing? he said i had a calculus test

and couldn't come over so i wanted to come over tonight. that driveway is a lot of times a fear that i'm not good enough, a fear that someone's getting better, and if it's channeled the right way, it's not all bad. >> charlie: it also can be a fear that, unless i do this -- i want to n so bad that the taste of victory is so good. >> well, those guys, i'll tell you what happens, charlie, they work so hard they never rrender. they may lose but they've invested too much that they just won't surrender. like this team -- this team, the first thing they had to learn is how to work. when they got that, we could start working on the other stuff. by the end of the year, they invested so much they just wouldn't lose a game. it was, like, what is going on? >> charlie: if a kid comes to you and can't shoot free-throws -- >> they all seem to come to me.

that's why we lose games. i don't understand it. >> charlie: i know. you get all the non-free-throw shooters k. you teach a kid who has a good game to be a free-throw shooter? >> well, if they have huge hands like shaq, it's really hard. it's like you're shooting like this. you really -- it's really tough. but the normal player, the last thing the nba worries about, if it's mechanically right, they're fine. i'll give you an example. >> charlie: an nba team will want to make sure that the player has the right mechanics. >> he's right mechanically. >> charlie: as the ball leaves his hand. >> and does he follow through, when they look, they'll know he's mechanically okay. it means he has to get in the gym. nba players always, if mechanically correct -- tracy grady i worked him out for the nets three times. he couldn't make a threat, a 15-footer. five years in the nba, not only

an all-star, he never missed. >> charlie: he had the right -- >> everything was connected. >> charlie: what happened? they get in the gym and go three a day. michael wasn't great at the beginning, neither was larry or magic. you can go right dthe line. >> charlie: michael didn't make the team when he was a sophomore in high school. >> he got cut. but those guys are driven. they said larry bird would come out two hours before the game and get the managers to rebound for him. shooting is the last thing that they will judge you on. if you can't shoot because of the memics, it may affect -- the mechanics, it may help them. they want to know can he play. some, that's what they do. that's their skill. so they're looking at you, you're passing, dribbling, your defense, rebound -- no, you make

shots for us. i'm talking a normal basketball player that's, you know, well-rounded in a lot of ways, shooting is not the first thing they look at. >> charlie: who had the best shot you've ever seen? >> well -- >> charlie: in the pros or in college? >> you know, the pure -- >> charlie: ray allen? kyle corver can really shoot. curly can really shoot. >> charlie: your father had something to do with that? >> a little bit. j.j. could really shoot, and there are other guys. but that can get you in the league. but i really -- >> charlie: it doesn't make you a superstar. >> you have to have the other parts of your game. >> charlie: so here you are, having a very successful year, almost went all the way, ncaa finals, and there's talk about,

you know, phil jackson might want you to come to the knicks, columnists say that out of their own aspiration. what circumstances would cause you to leave a storiyed program to go back to the pros? >> what we really need is this to go to two years. so college students -- >> charlie: you don't want to stay unless it goes to two years? >> i know i can't do this five or eight more years the way i'm doing it which is every year a new team. >> charlie: yeah. the recruiting cycle for me is not like everybody else. we're investigate recruit a new team every year, not every third year. >> charlie: because you will lose them every year. >> every year. my option is trying to tell kids to stay that should leave. well, i've g to live with myself. i'm not going to use young people for my own benefit. so now i say if it goes to two years, 20-year rule, this is -- >> charlie: two years meaning you have to stay two years and

can't play till you're 20? >> yes. now all of a sudden i get kids two years, none of us are so pressed. >> charlie: why don't they do it? >> the owners need to get with the association. >> charlie: they could do it. they could, i think it will be done, and i hope sooner than later. i think the n has to get in and be a part of this. if we have kids stay two years, we don't want them starving at night because they don't have enough to eat. >> charlie: a question about you -- given the same quality players, does john calipari believe he can get as good as result nays other coach around? given the same level of skill of your players, that you can do with those players as good as any other coach in the college ranks? >> well, there are plenty -- i would tell you that i'm

confident i can get young people together as a team. probably no more confident than other coaches, but i would tell you this, if i'm doing my job right, i want my team to have more fun than anybody. and i have been there. it's not life or death for me. if it is life or death, you die all the time. so i'm trying to get players, to focus on them. if i focus on them, my life becomes easier. we learned willie collie is going to come back. that's like an upset for us. willie collie was o of our best players last year, got hurt in a louisville game, 7', athletic, all this. today he says, i'm coming back for my junior year. very unusual for us. am i happy? i'm doing back flips, but, again, he made the decision and wasn't influenced by anybody. >> charlie: did it bother you when some people would write,

john is a great recruiter, we don't know whether he's a great coach or not? >> i didn't hear a lot of it, but if it is said -- >> charlie: but, you know -- but let me tell you what the next turn of that was, people were also saying, you know, he knows basketball, he's good. it went in that cycle. even though you had built programs at massachusetts. >> well, here's what they're saying, though, and why if that's what they choose to say, i'm okay. he's got really good players. look how good his players are. he needs to be a good coach. then i've done my job. it's about them. if yant to say promote my players at my expense, i'm okay. my life has been good. you know, would i rather them say that he's got really good players and he really coaches them and they come together? i would. but you know what? none of us can worry about people who, one, have never had a meal with us, who'veever sat

down with us and who are fans of other programs and not yours. all i do is the best job i can for those players, for the people that i work for, the university, the state that i represent, that's who i work with and that's who i care about. if someone is at dinner with me and been in my company or my friend and says, he's not a good guy, well, then i've got a problem. short of that, i walk on. >> charlie: a great vaccines. thank you for coming, pleasure to have you here. >> and the table! i made the table! >> charlie: the book players first, coaching from the inside out. john calipari. written with michael sokalov. good luck next vaccines. beat everybody but duke. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you in part by thestreet.com, featuring stephanie link who shares her investment strategy and stock picks, and the multi million dollar portfolio she manages with jim cramer, you can learn more are at the thestreet.com. and on edge, the dow closes with a triple digit loss as tensions over ukraine rise and earnings disappoint. what should investors expect in the days and weeks ahead. and shares drop hard as investors take a closer look at the earnings outcome. what wall street is telling the ceo, but is he listening? and stock in reverse, ford's profits drop, so es