For All Cal Bashers; 2010-15 Is 3rd Best 6 Year Run In UK's Glorious History
- Thread starter dlh331
- Start date
Good point. I hadn't considered the possibility that Cut is just a kid and lacks historical perspective. 2015 was just another of many and it wasn't even the worst. Winning that tournament is just a tough thing to do and requires a lot of good things to happen and a very large measure of luck. If athletics were ever a sure thing, they wouldn't bother playing the game. Putting down the kids and coach to make himself feel better just makes one bitter.
This is rich. How about YOU actual post something on topic instead of calling out posters, and try not use the word YOU so much.
You mad???
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
See how that easy that was? I've been on here since 2001, and that's the first time I've been called a racist. Then again, SmellyJelly tries to call out everyone over nothing.
Gotta love it when people can't take what they dish out, though.
"Oh yeah?!? Well you're a racist and you're mad!!! I win!!"
Last edited:
Good thread Darryl. I am saving your information. If you see it used again don't do the copyright thing. Okay?
You'd be hard pressed to find too many people that would agree with you that Kentucky was the nation's best team in all those years you listed. Hell you're even listing years when Lew Al Cindor was at UCLA!
We were the number one team in 1966, 27-2 and getting beat in the championship game. We opened the season with a 22 game win streak. Pat Riley, Louie Dampier, Larry Conley, Tommy Kron and Thad Jaracz were one tough team.
Our 1970 team went 26-2. We had 16 + games where we scored over 94 points, 13 games scoring over 100 and two games we put up 120. We were ranked number one even thou we were upset in the tournament and UCLA won it again (don t know if Alcindor was still playing). Great team with Issel, Pratt, Steele and company.
Yes we had the best team. Learn your UK history boy if your gona be a fan....lol
That's a great record, as was UCLA'S 28-2 that same season and fourth consecutive National Championship. Producing a great record doesn't automatically equate to having the best team when there are others around the country that may have equally great records.
No my instigating friend, it was not about our great record we had a great team that year.....period. which is why despite not wining the tourney we were still ranked number one in the last pole.
The point being, weather it was 1970 or 2015, the best team dose not always win the championship. And Kentucky fans from every generation has experienced that first hand at one time or another. Probably more so then any other program.
For someone who never dictates tempo, implements very little strategy, and is extremely easy to game plan against, it's mind-boggling that he has been so successful. Oh, right, it's just because of all the talent. My bad.
I see your point. However, I saw the before and after with that team. It was a very weird year. The team that lost those games was NOT the same team that ran so deep in the tournament. Might have looked like the same guys, they sure didn't play the same. The team that went so deep in the tourney was one of the best teams in the nation, if not the best.
In what tournament game did we lose, under Cal, where we were a huge favorite? You can only point to the WVU but that UK team, while extremely talented, was terribly flawed. We had zero outside shooting, our PG averaged 4 turnovers per game (and had 5 against WVU compared to 5 assists) our shooting averaged more turnovers than assists and in that game they forced UK to shoot and it worked. How was he supposed to coach to overcome a team not being able to shoot?
The Wisconsin game was two fairly evenly matched teams.
In 2011 and 2014 our team wasn't even a favorite to make it to the final four. Yet he coached them there.
If we were getting upset by a bunch of lower seeded teams 5-10s, then you could blame it on him, but we haven't.
The Wisconsin game was two fairly evenly matched teams.
In 2011 and 2014 our team wasn't even a favorite to make it to the final four. Yet he coached them there.
If we were getting upset by a bunch of lower seeded teams 5-10s, then you could blame it on him, but we haven't.
From reading these comments, it is clear that Cut-Nets and a few others don't understand the difference between "could have done more" and "should have done more."
Of course UK could have done more during the past 6 years. If we didn't have a terrible shooting night and if WV didn't have a great shooting night, we probably win in 2010. If we make a few more shots or free throws, we beat UConn in 2011 and have a great shot against Butler in the title game. If Nerlens doesn't get hurt in 2013, we certainly make the field, and 2014 showed us what a talented low seeded team can do with Cal at the helm. We certainly had the talent to beat UConn in 2014 as well even though we didn't play well in that game. The same is true of the game against Wisconsin in 2015.
So yes, UK was in a position to win 5 of the past 6 titles were it not for some bad luck here and there. Since we only won one, we could have done better. But that isn't the same thing as saying we SHOULD have done better. I already posted the Vegas odds. Vegas says we did exactly what we SHOULD have done as far as titles go and much better than we should have done as far as Final Fours go. And Vegas got the benefit of seeing those teams play all season. To say we should have done more means to go back to 2009 when Cal first signed up for the job and say that we should have had more success during his first six years. Given what we were coming out of, that just isn't reasonable.
Even if you do mean to say that, given the talent on each team in October, we should have had more titles come April, I think that sentiment is misguided. We've had more talent in these six years than in ANY stretch in ANY TEAM'S history, but young talent isn't the same as experienced talent. No other coach could assemble that much young talent, and even if they could, why should we think that such a coach could have done more with them? There's simply no precedent.
Of course UK could have done more during the past 6 years. If we didn't have a terrible shooting night and if WV didn't have a great shooting night, we probably win in 2010. If we make a few more shots or free throws, we beat UConn in 2011 and have a great shot against Butler in the title game. If Nerlens doesn't get hurt in 2013, we certainly make the field, and 2014 showed us what a talented low seeded team can do with Cal at the helm. We certainly had the talent to beat UConn in 2014 as well even though we didn't play well in that game. The same is true of the game against Wisconsin in 2015.
So yes, UK was in a position to win 5 of the past 6 titles were it not for some bad luck here and there. Since we only won one, we could have done better. But that isn't the same thing as saying we SHOULD have done better. I already posted the Vegas odds. Vegas says we did exactly what we SHOULD have done as far as titles go and much better than we should have done as far as Final Fours go. And Vegas got the benefit of seeing those teams play all season. To say we should have done more means to go back to 2009 when Cal first signed up for the job and say that we should have had more success during his first six years. Given what we were coming out of, that just isn't reasonable.
Even if you do mean to say that, given the talent on each team in October, we should have had more titles come April, I think that sentiment is misguided. We've had more talent in these six years than in ANY stretch in ANY TEAM'S history, but young talent isn't the same as experienced talent. No other coach could assemble that much young talent, and even if they could, why should we think that such a coach could have done more with them? There's simply no precedent.
