Luck's role in our loss

[EvilMD]

Haven't seen this brought up yet. Here is a list of the seeds who made the Final Four since Cal has been here...

2015: 1, 1, 1, 7
2014: 1, 2, 7, 8
2013: 1, 4, 4, 9
2012: 1, 2, 2, 4
2011: 3, 4, 8, 11
2010: 1, 2, 5, 5

In any other year, we would have been the only top seed there. Check out Louisville's group in 2013 (which was similar to their group in 1980).

 

[wcc31]

That was one of the reasons I wasn't as confident with this team as I was in '12 or '96. I knew this team was probably going to have to beat 2 of the other 3 best teams in the country (Wisconsin, Arizona, Duke). Throw in Notre Dame who was playing as well as anyone in March and that's a chore for anyone.

 

[3rex]

If you win the championship, it doesn't matter who the other teams were, nor their seeds. You are the National Champion.

If you lose, it doesn't matter who the teams were, nor their seeds.

Excusing our failure to win, while somehow downgrading another teams championships at the same time, just strikes me as sour grapes.

We lost. They won.

 

[EvilMD]

Just saying....everybody always says luck plays a huge part in winning the tournament. We made it to the Final Four. When we got there we had to beat two other top seeds. Very rare for that to happen. Meanwhile, show me another year where a one seed was the only one of the top 12 teams to make it (2013).

That's not sour grapes. It's acknowledging that luck didn't do us any favors.

 

[Joneslab]

It was clear that it was going to turn out like that back in November. Just a really top-heavy season in the sport.

The only wildcard was Arizona. Kentucky got a break when they were put in Wisconsin's bracket, but it could have easily been a Kentucky/Wisconsin/Arizona/Duke Final Four. It was one of those seasons where the top teams were clearly separated from the rest of the pack.

Next season isn't going to be like that, IMO. At all.

 

[wcc31]

Poor Arizona. Get Wisconsin in the Elite 8 again and those SOBs go 10-12 from downtown in the 2nd half. lol

 

[EvilMD]

Something about Cal. Three of his best teams (96 UMass, 08 Memphis, 15 UK) lost to another one seed. It's not nearly as common as you think.

 

[Joneslab]

Poor Arizona. Get Wisconsin in the Elite 8 again and those SOBs go 10-12 from downtown in the 2nd half. lol

I bet when Dekker came out in the title game and shot that airball that landed at about the dotted line, Arizona Fan threw his remote control through the TV.

I know I did.

 

[wcc31]

Something about Cal. Three of his best teams (96 UMass, 08 Memphis, 15 UK) lost to another one seed. It's not nearly as common as you think.

Even here, the guy has just gotten no favors in March. Look at who UK has had to play. It's amazing we've been to four F4s in his 6 years.

 

[EvilMD]

Yeah. Dekker choked big time in the title game. And Wisconsin still had a nine point lead on Duke.

 

[barryn2000]

Haven't seen this brought up yet. Here is a list of the seeds who made the Final Four since Cal has been here...

2015: 1, 1, 1, 7
2014: 1, 2, 7, 8
2013: 1, 4, 4, 9
2012: 1, 2, 2, 4
2011: 3, 4, 8, 11
2010: 1, 2, 5, 5

In any other year, we would have been the only top seed there. Check out Louisville's group in 2013 (which was similar to their group in 1980).

2009 1, 1, 2, 3
2008 1, 1, 1, 1
2007 1, 1, 2, 2
2006 2, 3, 4, 11
2005 1, 1, 4, 5
2004 1, 2, 2, 3
2003 1, 2, 3, 3
2002 1, 1, 2, 5
2001 1, 1, 2, 3
2000 1, 5, 8, 8
1999 1, 1, 1, 4
1998 1, 2, 3, 3
1997 1, 1, 1, 4
1996 1, 1, 4, 5
1995 1, 2, 2, 4
1994 1, 2, 2, 3
1993 1, 1, 1, 2
1992 1, 2, 4, 6
1991 1, 1, 2, 3
1990 1, 3, 4, 4
1989 1, 2, 3, 3
1988 1, 1, 2, 6
1987 1, 1, 2, 6
1986 1, 1, 2, 11
1985 1, 1, 2, 8
1984 1, 1, 2, 7
1983 1, 1, 4, 6
1982 1, 1, 3, 6
1981 1, 1, 2, 3
1980 2, 5, 6, 8

 

[EvilMD]

Of the last five one seeds to have won the title, only 2015 Duke had to beat another one seed. In the Final Four, 2013 Louisville played a nine and a four. 2012 Kentucky played a four and a two. 2010 Duke played a two and a five. 2009 UNC played a two and a three.

Since 2000, a one seed has won it 11 times. Only 2008 Kansas had to beat two one seeds.

None of those teams had the added pressure of being undefeated.

 

[billCgmx]

Luck, injuries, seeding and upsets are all factors that play into who wins a National Championship. I believe in the old saying of, "Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good".

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

The 3 lowest totals for FF seeds are all in years we made the FF. (In the Cal years that is)

 

[wcc31]

All of these factors -- and let's face it, some terrible officiating -- are why I think it's futile and misguided to cling to some bitterness over the failure to go 40-0. The tournament is just too filled with minefields and randomness. Makes it the greatest sporting event of the year, but also the hardest one in which to guarantee victory.

Yep- but the truly great teams overcome and I was hoping we were a truly great team.

 

[3rex]

All of these factors -- and let's face it, some terrible officiating -- are why I think it's futile and misguided to cling to some bitterness over the failure to go 40-0. The tournament is just too filled with minefields and randomness. Makes it the greatest sporting event of the year, but also the hardest one in which to guarantee victory.

In the big picture, I think you're absolutely right & agree with you 100$%

But, once we had navigated our way through that, and had a 4 point lead with 5 minutes to play, we stopped playing. That seems, at least to me, to be the rub.

 

[hootervillearnolds]

Did I stumble onto the Bengals board by accident? Luck did go for like 370 yards, didn't he?

 

[Joneslab]

Yeah, but Notre Dame could say roughly the same about their game with Kentucky in the Regional Finals -- two empty possessions and it was all gone. If anything, the ND and Wisc. games back-to-back highlight the point that there is an element of luck, and that, while we all wanted to believe this UK team was one for the ages, it was actually a very, very good team in a year when there were 2-3 other very, very good teams. No question in my mind the 2015 UK team waltzes home in 2010, 2011, 2013 or 2014.

The Notre Dame game was crucial and I tend to think if it hadn't been played--had Kentucky drawn Gonzaga, for instance--then the Wisconsin tragedy might never have happened.

The way Notre Dame played provided a model for how Wisconsin could beat us. The game was surprisingly slow, low-possession, and turned out to be dominated by Towns.

When it came down to the end of the Wisconsin game, Cal went back to the well that won the game against ND. But he tried to do it in such a way where Towns could operate at the end of the shot clock, and Wisconsin had that completely scouted. Thus the three straight shot clock violations.

As for whether Kentucky was "historically great": obviously not. You can't be considered as such if you don't win a title. But great teams don't win titles in this sport for the reasons you laid out above.

I think Kentucky was great. One loss doesn't change that. How great is a completely subjective debate.

 

[3rex]

If what many are saying is true, and it seems logical to me that it could be. Bo saw the blueprint in the ND game, we had a plan to go to KAT come he!! or high water late in the game, but they had that sniffed out....then the questions that begs is, "where was plan b, or the adjustment, on our end?"

 

[Joneslab]

If what many are saying is true, and it seems logical to me that it could be. Bo saw the blueprint in the ND game, we had a plan to go to KAT come he!! or high water late in the game, but they had that sniffed out....then the questions that begs is, "where was plan b, or the adjustment, on our end?"

Those three possessions started too late in the shot clock to go to any plan B. (Actually IIRC the third possession made it into Towns, but they sloughed on him and ripped the ball away.)

It was a problem most of all of time. The attacking we'd been doing early in the game turned into stalling.

I love Cal. Doesn't get enough credit for his coaching. But Cal loves nothing more than to try and grind away a lead.

Problem is, I can't think of a single Calipari team that was very good when they weren't in attack mode.

 

[EvilMD]

All the criticisms of Cal are valid up to a point, but to me the tale of the 2015 Kentucky Wildcats is this...the very thing that made them special -- unprecedented depth -- let them down at the end. In December we had 12 guys rowing in unison. In January we had nine. In February we had six or seven. In March it was down to four or five. Lyles, Booker, Lee and Dakari pretty much stopped contributing what was expected of them at the end of the season. That puts a pretty heavy load on the rest of the team, and the axle broke against Wisconsin.

 

[PenetrateAndScore]

Those three possessions started too late in the shot clock to go to any plan B. (Actually IIRC the third possession made it into Towns, but they sloughed on him and ripped the ball away.)

It was a problem most of all of time. The attacking we'd been doing early in the game turned into stalling.

I love Cal. Doesn't get enough credit for his coaching. But Cal loves nothing more than to try and grind away a lead.

Problem is, I can't think of a single Calipari team that was very good when they weren't in attack mode.

Last year's team was phenomenal on defense which spurred on transition offense that they excelled at pretty well. As for the half court offense and 3pt shooting, a lot was left to be desired. Taking away the running game could make the guys looks pretty mortal - especially if the opposing team was having a good shooting night.

 

[Katwatcher]

In a lot of crucial ways the tournament is a much different animal than the regular season. Having borderline NBA talents as your 8-9th men during the regular season makes you a juggernaut. In the NCAA tournament, with TV time outs every four minutes and most teams playing deep into every possession to limit the number of opportunities to be scored upon, it doesn't matter at all. The way tournament games are played it is hard to use depth as a decisive advantage.

I agree with most of your points, however depth is a decisive advantage if you have foul problems. jmho