ADVERTISEMENT

Interesting Tourney Fact Under Cal

Apr 10, 2015
59
15
8
In 2010 and 2015 we were the heavy favorite and lost to Underdogs. In 2011 and 2014 we lost to UCONN and we were the favorite in both games.

The only games we were the underdog were against 1 seeded Ohio State and 2 seeded North Carolina in 2011, and 1 seeded Wichita State, 4 seeded Louisville, 2 seeded Michigan, and 2 seeded Wisconsin in 2014.

So we are 6-0 as the underdog and have only lost as a favorite.

Is this just a coincidence?
 
That's a lot of wins as the underdog. Go back and check how often Tubby won in the tourney as an underdog.

Also, define "heavy favorite."
 
I'd chalk it up to a small sample size, there really aren't enough games to draw from to make a case for causation or anything. The UConn losses were more about matchups, their guard play was a problem for us, and those UK teams probably could've played UConn ten times and lose most of 'em even if you think on paper UK was the better team, if they didn't do anything different to address the guard play. I would consider the WVU loss as a complete fluke, as we had the worst shooting night possible at the same time that a team not known for their shooting hit a ton of threes and that is a case where I'd say, if the same UK team played the same WVU team another ten times, they probably would have never beat UK again. This last game vs Wisconsin is probably just a combination of player brain-freezes, questionable coaching strategy, and awful officiating at critical times.
 
I'm not sure UK was a "heavy favorite" or that Wisconsin was an "underdog" in 2015???

And both times against the Cons, they were the higher seed in the NCAA.

What is your basis?
 
Define "heavy favorite". I would say 2010, yes, 2015, not as much as people want to make it out to be. The Wisconsin line closed at under -5, and as far as I'm concerned, any line less than 5 points is getting into toss-up territory- which also applies to all the games where UK was an underdog, except probably OSU.

I don't think there's any trend, other than a couple of things. One is that it's hard to play well for 6 games. There's likely to be a bad game in there, and in the NCAA Tournament, that's likely to come against someone who can take advantage of that and end your season. The other is that people almost always overestimate what it means to "be the favorite". Being the favorite can mean you would be expected to win 55-60% of the time, and that's hardly a sure thing in a one-shot scenario.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: brianpoe
We were a 4 point favorite over WVU in 2010. We were 4.5 over UW this year.

I mean, everybody loses except one team. If you are the tourney favorite, you will either win it or lose to someone you are favored to beat. No way around it.

Still more impressed with our quantity and quality of wins as a dog under Cal. Besides 1985 and a little bit in 1998, when have we EVER performed well as a tournament underdog? Calipari has done a bang up job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianpoe
My only thing is I look at what Cal has done in the NCAA tourney & I'm like....WOW!! Never a better 6 year stretch in UK history. Amazing!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
Define "heavy favorite" I would say 2010, yes, 2015, not as much as people want to make it out to be. The Wisconsin line closed at under -5, and as far as I'm concerned, any line less than 5 points is getting into toss-up territory- which also applies to all the games where UK was an underdog, except probably OSU.

I don't think there's any trend, other than a couple of things. One is that it's hard to play well for 6 games. There's likely to be a bad game in there, and in the NCAA Tournament, that's likely to come against someone who can take advantage of that and end your season. The other is that people almost always overestimate what it means to "be the favorite". Being the favorite can mean you would be expected to win 55-60% of the time, and that's hardly a sure thing in a one-shot scenario.



"The most painful for Calipari was probably in 2010, when West Virginia won 73-66 as a 4-point underdog in the Elite 8."

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/...eet-16-notre-dame-wichita-state-wisconsin-unc
 
I have no idea what Vegas was pushing, if that's your factor, but who says we weren't favored against UL in 2014? We'd already beaten them earlier in the year.
 
One thing I have found interesting about UK is since I can remember, and that is 1992 we have never just had an embarrassing tourney loss. I'm talking about a first rounder. The closest was Tubby loss against UAB in round of 32 and Tubby about lost as a five seed to 12 seeded St. Bonaventure in OT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianpoe
One thing I have found interesting about UK is since I can remember, and that is 1992 we have never just had an embarrassing tourney loss. I'm talking about a first rounder. The closest was Tubby loss against UAB in round of 32 and Tubby about lost as a five seed to 12 seeded St. Bonaventure in OT.

MTSU in 1982.
 
My only thing is I look at what Cal has done in the NCAA tourney & I'm like....WOW!! Never a better 6 year stretch in UK history. Amazing!!
93-98 was better, and 46-51 was way better (especially when you take into account that the NIT meant as much as the NCAA Tournament during that time). But to do what Cal has without any consistency in personnel (in an era where that's not even possible- for anyone, not just Cal and UK) is pretty amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .S&C.
I have no idea what Vegas was pushing, if that's your factor, but who says we weren't favored against UL in 2014? We'd already beaten them earlier in the year.


UL was favored by 4.5.

What they were pushing was neutral court vs. playing at Rupp.
 
93-98 was better, and 46-51 was way better (especially when you take into account that the NIT meant as much as the NCAA Tournament during that time). But to do what Cal has without any consistency in personnel (in an era where that's not even possible- for anyone, not just Cal and UK) is pretty amazing.

I meant under one coach...certainly that was a better period.
 
We did lose in the 2nd round as a 3 seed to 6 seeded Marquette in 1994. That was Pitino worst tourney appearance. Not much of an upset.
 
My bad, and it goes to show what I was talking about. It's easy to overestimate what being the favorite really means. I thought UK was -6 or 7 for that game.

Yeah, we all lived through it and watched the games, but it's funny how our minds will play tricks on us as time goes by.

Hard to watch Wall/Cousins/Bledsoe today and imagine that they were ever less than a 10 point favorite.
 
UL was favored by 4.5.


Well, I guess we showed them a thing or two! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Strange though, since UK had beaten them, had a good SEC Tourney wherein we played #1 in the land-UF to the buzzer, and had just knocked off 1-seed WSU... I'm not sure what set the line for UL to be the favorite against us. Good thing I don't gamble, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
Well, I guess we showed them a thing or two! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Strange though, since UK had beaten them, had a good SEC Tourney wherein we played #1 in the land-UF to the buzzer, and had just knocked off 1-seed WSU... I'm not sure what set the line for UL to be the favorite against us. Good thing I don't gamble, I guess.

You are right. There is a small difference between favorite and underdog. But under Cal we have fared well when considered the underdog, in my opinion 6-0.
 
You are right. There is a small difference between favorite and underdog. But under Cal we have fared well when considered the underdog, in my opinion 6-0.


I do agree that those 6 games were a helluva lot of fun!!! I'm lucky I don't have holes in my ceiling from all the jumping around I did during them.
 
Calipari is a great recruiter and can bring in great talent most years but IMO UK has actually underachieved under Calipari considering the talent that they have had.

Talent can get you to the final four but IMO coaching wins it because the talent has evened up by the time you get to the final four. Caliparis record after getting to the final four should be better considering the talent he has had. Heck the most talented team he likely has had didn't even make the final four losing in the elite eight.
 
Calipari is a great recruiter and can bring in great talent most years but IMO UK has actually underachieved under Calipari considering the talent that they have had.

Talent can get you to the final four but IMO coaching wins it because the talent has evened up by the time you get to the final four. Caliparis record after getting to the final four should be better considering the talent he has had. Heck the most talented team he likely has had didn't even make the final four losing in the elite eight.

12soWQ91xpTDVu.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueSince92
Calipari is a great recruiter and can bring in great talent most years but IMO UK has actually underachieved under Calipari considering the talent that they have had.

Talent can get you to the final four but IMO coaching wins it because the talent has evened up by the time you get to the final four. Caliparis record after getting to the final four should be better considering the talent he has had. Heck the most talented team he likely has had didn't even make the final four losing in the elite eight.

Problem is, no other coach could have gotten UK to 4 Final Fours the past 5 seasons...if for no other reason than they can't recruit worth crap compared to Coach Cal.

And I'm not sure UK's run Under Pitino was better as 4 Final Fours for Cal vs. 3 for Pitino. If you give the edge to Pitino you are basically saying 2nd round>NIT, which I get, but surely another Final Four trumps that advantage. It is close.
 
Calipari is a great recruiter and can bring in great talent most years but IMO UK has actually underachieved under Calipari considering the talent that they have had.

Talent can get you to the final four but IMO coaching wins it because the talent has evened up by the time you get to the final four. Caliparis record after getting to the final four should be better considering the talent he has had. Heck the most talented team he likely has had didn't even make the final four losing in the elite eight.

This is absolutely ridiculous. In 6 years Cal has a 22-4 record in the tournament which is by far the most wins in that period. Pitino is second with 15 tournament wins in that time frame. Underachieving with new rosters every year dominated by freshman mainly? Uh no. He is knocking it out of the park. Dude, you have done nothing but hate on Cal and belittle him the last few days.

4 final fours in 5 years with a title is underachieving? Are you freaking serious? Before Cal we were mired in our longest final four drought in history and you have the nerve to call 4 final fours in 5 years underachieving? Good God bro.
 
Calipari is a great recruiter and can bring in great talent most years but IMO UK has actually underachieved under Calipari considering the talent that they have had.

Talent can get you to the final four but IMO coaching wins it because the talent has evened up by the time you get to the final four. Caliparis record after getting to the final four should be better considering the talent he has had. Heck the most talented team he likely has had didn't even make the final four losing in the elite eight.


Why are people so confused with best young prospects vs best college players? Talent today is described as kids who will be drafted on potential. Much harder to coach a bunch of these kids than older players who know the system.
 
Problem is, no other coach could have gotten UK to 4 Final Fours the past 5 seasons...if for no other reason than they can't recruit worth crap compared to Coach Cal.

And I'm not sure UK's run Under Pitino was better as 4 Final Fours for Cal vs. 3 for Pitino. If you give the edge to Pitino you are basically saying 2nd round>NIT, which I get, but surely another Final Four trumps that advantage. It is close.
Honestly Wisconsin was just as good as us this past year, we just played a weaker schedule ...

Good job man. I'm looking for some real analysis. I honestly mean it. Nobody is really thinking about this.
 
You're saying we were the favorite int he UCONN games? I find that a bit hard to believe, if only because they were the higher seed both times. Anybody got the line on those?
 
You're saying we were the favorite int he UCONN games? I find that a bit hard to believe, if only because they were the higher seed both times. Anybody got the line on those?

I see 2 points for us in 2011 and 2.5 in 2014. A slim favorite.
 
Interesting. Especially last year - we had been through one of the most brutal gauntlets in tourney history, but we were going down to the wire, while UCONN had just smashed the odds-on favorite in the final four.
 
Interesting. Especially last year - we had been through one of the most brutal gauntlets in tourney history, but we were going down to the wire, while UCONN had just smashed the odds-on favorite in the final four.

Right. But if you remember we were down 15 early. What was the reason we got back in the game and almost won?
 
ADVERTISEMENT