Who else is excited to have just a normal, decent team with potential to grow into something more?

[spotter34]

Good try, but the reason you went back to UMASS years is because that is all you got. I challenge you to provide some examples of over achieving teams coached by Cal.

Just so you understand, there isn't anything wrong with Cal's teams playing only to their potential as long as their potential is high. However, you are fooling yourself if you believe his teams are going to win championships when totally unexpected.

That's because you're definition of "overachieving" is flawed. You give absolutely no credit to Cal for doing what he has at UK with FRESHMEN. No other coach in college basketball history has routinely built their teams around FRESHMEN. Just so we remember a freshmen at UK is someone playing elite college basketball 6 months after graduating from high school. Yes we've had talented freshmen but for the most part they haven't had a lot of talented, veteran leadership to lean on. They've had to figure it out for themselves on the floor.

Before Cal, coaches liked to blend 1-2 elite freshmen around a group of experienced, talented players. Cal tries to blend 1-2 experienced, talented players around a group of elite, unproven, 5 star recruits.

The 2010-11 UK team definitely overachieved by most peoples definition. We struggled mightily in the SEC and almost lost a 1st round game to Princeton and then beat the #1 overall seed Ohio St and then #2 seed UNC to get to a FF. He helped turn Josh Harrelson into an NBA player albeit for just a few seasons.

Sure we've had a lot of talent but you're never sure what most freshmen are going to be able to handle emotionally; not getting to play as much as you're used to, not being the go-to guy, being away from home for the 1st time for a long period, and doing good in school. Cal's built his teams around these guys and you want to complain because he's had one bad spring recruiting cycle and we only have 4 McD's AA's, not counting Skal, on the team. It's sickening how any UK fan believes they have a right to complain after what we've enjoyed over the last 6 seasons. Sure I complain sometimes about certain decisions in games but I do so with an underlying appreciation for what Cal has done at UK. He was tailored made for this job and he's doing a HOF job at it, whether it's appreciated by the some UK fans or not.

 

[caneintally]

Ummm we have more talent then anyone not named KU or UNC and maybe Duke . And even those teams aren't more talented just on the same level . This is a final 4ish team just not a 40-0 type team . we will lose 4-6 games and that is alright.

 

[songsungblue]

It's easy to make fun of the chicken little crew around here, and for some reason, they insist that if we're not miserable with them, we must have our heads in the sand and we're avoiding reality.


News flash, boys. There's nothing to avoid. Cal has had the best past 5 years of any coach, so there's no "horrible truth" about him to come to terms with. And regarding the roster, yes it has holes, but it also has lots of potential, and very few teams in history have zero big holes. Hell, even the majority of championship teams at the college level have big holes.


Look. We just had a season with expectations like that. For each of the past 4 seasons, it's been preseason top 5 (whether it made sense or not), and then if we don't get a 1 seed, it means Cal sucks. And unfortunately, some of our own have started joining a merry chorus with the Louisville fans on that nonsense.



Honestly, I'm pretty stoked about having a team with a number of good pieces, a few question marks, and not having any built-in expectations before the season about tourney performance.

Picture it - A normal season for a good team. You know - the teams that are top 25, but not elite, probably will win their conference, then we'll see in March.

Funny thing is, a lot of the same who take the time to bash Cal over a miraculous 4 F4s in 5 years are also the ones who lament guys leaving all the time. You guys who want to see growth and development with slightly lower level recruits? Fine, have Mychal Mulder and Charles Matthews, and a JR Willis and Hawkins.

You want to see some of the higher level guys stick around and grow new facets of their game as they grow older and more mature? Well, look at all the playing time available for Poythress and Lee.

Throw in superstar, future top pick Skal, the other top 10 recruit in Briscoe -

and oh yeah an older, more mature version of TYLER F'IN ULIS returning on the point.


Man, you just can't get me to be miserable about that, sorry. Not sorry. This team is going to be fun as hell.

I'm with you fellers. I can't wait to see what this team can do--just like any year. And I have faith that if any guy can take a team to its ceiling, it's Cal.

 

[WeWant9]

I actually don't mind it and am pretty excited. I mean we still have what, the top pg and center coming in? Mix that in with a few returners and other new role players and I think we got a good recipe. You don't need 7-8 NBA bound players to win it all, we've seen that first hand.

I think this is the type of team Cal really excels with. I think he will get pretty creative in what he can do with a Ulis/Briscoe combo. Will we be a top 5 team all year? I don't know and frankly I don't care about that anymore. As long as we start peaking coming march I'm good. I honestly see this being one of those teams that'll struggle early on, but Cal will find a way to get things clicking.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

The thing is, we will be expected to be very good and over-ranked in the preseason. It will be a big story that we are doing poorly when in reality we will most likely be playing to potential for most of the season. We may have a few of bad losses and make a good run, hopefully ala 2011 or 14.

It is really hard to tell. This is another brand new team. But 2 PGs could make the transition smoother...? Lots of question marks, but it is what is and it's our team. Our job is to support the boys, one thing for sure, we will have to play very hard and this group can do that.

Well said! They will be over ranked just based on the fact that we are Kentucky. I hope the fans give this team time to work through their issues and grow as a team without the gloves coming off and the criticism starts. I hope we keep things in perspective and support this team because we will be over ranked and that leads to unrealistic expectations. It will be fun to watch them grow.

 

[jackcarlson]

I am okay with it. This year I was very emotionally invested in this team (thankfully not financially invested), but I will never do that again....

 

[bevcat]

Yes we have a good starting line-up that can compete with most teams in the country. But get a starter in foul trouble or worse yet, injured, and our talent level as a team takes a major hit. That's what I'm worried about--injuries and foul trouble.

 

[3 fan]

I'm not. I like being a NC favorite. This team is really going to struggle scoring unless Briscoe and Skal coming in firing

 

[JPScott]

I love those, too. I'm just ready to switch it up just for one season.

If UK had won the title this year, then I'd be all for switching things up to see how a team not expected to dominate college basketball would fare with reduced expectations.

But as it stands, I just feel like a huge opportunity was missed to not only win a ninth championship, but to make history in the process. Given that, going to a team with a relatively low chance of winning is not something I'd choose.

 

[CBBCrazy]

Well said! They will be over ranked just based on the fact that we are Kentucky. I hope the fans give this team time to work through their issues and grow as a team without the gloves coming off and the criticism starts. I hope we keep things in perspective and support this team because we will be over ranked and that leads to unrealistic expectations. It will be fun to watch them grow.

For the most part the criticism is already in the second phase if you read around. I have yet to see fans so eager to create the doom and gloom for this team. This board is becoming the place to stay away from until MM, some of it is hard to digest.

 

[Jkwo]

Since when does a "normal, decent team" include:

• the #1 player in a class
• 2 other top 10 players in their class
  
• 2 other McDonald's All Americans
• 2 Kentucky kids that people legitimately thought should play on teams with 7 and 9 McDonald's All Americans + Willie

We are so unbelievably spoiled. The suicide rate will soar in Kentucky if Cal ever leaves.

I agree completely. We are crazy spoiled right now.

 

[Jkwo]

Hate to break it to you but we're STILL likely gonna be "pre-season top 5", and for the 7th straight year (not 4). That part hasn't changed.

Seems many of our fans have been so jaded by our recent insanely loaded rosters that they've forgotten what a "normal, decent" college roster looks like. Even with our recent recruiting misses, our talent level is still miles above what is considered "normal."

We've still got the nation's No. 1 rated big man and projected No. 1 overall draft pick in Skal, we've still got the nation's No. 1 rated point guard in Briscoe, and we still can trot out a lineup where all 5 guys on the floor were McDonald's All Americans, and with three of our five former McD AA's being experienced upperclassmen. Plus we've got the nation's No. 1 juco, a freak athlete who shoots 46 percent from three pt range. How many teams in the country can boast a more impressive collection of core talent? It sure ain't more than five.

I agree, but we shouldn't be ranked that high.

First, when I said "normal/decent", I was not talking about average D1 standards. By overall D1 standards, a normal decent team is a bubble team in the tourney.

I'm talking about normal/decent by historical UK standards, meaning somewhere in the 10-25 range.

The reason we shouldn't be top 5 is because talent is only one variable. There's a huge advantage to having upperclassmen and continuity in general. We have a fair number of older players this year, but very little in the way of continuity (2 freshman who will probably be starters, another freshman who will be important off the bench, Mulder who is older but a transfer, Poythress will be a starter who didn't play most of last year, and Lee who will likely also start but had almost no minutes by the meat of the schedule last season), and no matter how talented you are, it takes a minute to get the chemistry right in a situation like that.

 

[barryn2000]

Since when does a "normal, decent team" include:

• the #1 player in a class
• 2 other top 10 players in their class
  
• 2 other McDonald's All Americans
• 2 Kentucky kids that people legitimately thought should play on teams with 7 and 9 McDonald's All Americans + Willie

We are so unbelievably spoiled. The suicide rate will soar in Kentucky if Cal ever leaves.

No shit...Cal raised some brat fans and if he leaves, this and every other UK forum will be like a thousand kids in the supermarket check out lane that want a candy bar but can't have it.

 

[barryn2000]

The reason we shouldn't be top 5 is because talent is only one variable. There's a huge advantage to having upperclassmen and continuity in general. We have a fair number of older players this year, but very little in the way of continuity (2 freshman who will probably be starters, another freshman who will be important off the bench, Mulder who is older but a transfer, Poythress will be a starter who didn't play most of last year, and Lee who will likely also start but had almost no minutes by the meat of the schedule last season), and no matter how talented you are, it takes a minute to get the chemistry right in a situation like that.

Amazing...years ago, fans bitched that we were ranked too low.

Is it that we are ranked too high or is it that our fans are used to being so talent super rich that when we have just normal great talent we look like mid major to them?

 

[ala_kat2]

It's easy to make fun of the chicken little crew around here, and for some reason, they insist that if we're not miserable with them, we must have our heads in the sand and we're avoiding reality.


News flash, boys. There's nothing to avoid. Cal has had the best past 5 years of any coach, so there's no "horrible truth" about him to come to terms with. And regarding the roster, yes it has holes, but it also has lots of potential, and very few teams in history have zero big holes. Hell, even the majority of championship teams at the college level have big holes.


Look. We just had a season with expectations like that. For each of the past 4 seasons, it's been preseason top 5 (whether it made sense or not), and then if we don't get a 1 seed, it means Cal sucks. And unfortunately, some of our own have started joining a merry chorus with the Louisville fans on that nonsense.



Honestly, I'm pretty stoked about having a team with a number of good pieces, a few question marks, and not having any built-in expectations before the season about tourney performance.

Picture it - A normal season for a good team. You know - the teams that are top 25, but not elite, probably will win their conference, then we'll see in March.

Funny thing is, a lot of the same who take the time to bash Cal over a miraculous 4 F4s in 5 years are also the ones who lament guys leaving all the time. You guys who want to see growth and development with slightly lower level recruits? Fine, have Mychal Mulder and Charles Matthews, and a JR Willis and Hawkins.

You want to see some of the higher level guys stick around and grow new facets of their game as they grow older and more mature? Well, look at all the playing time available for Poythress and Lee.

Throw in superstar, future top pick Skal, the other top 10 recruit in Briscoe -

and oh yeah an older, more mature version of TYLER F'IN ULIS returning on the point.


Man, you just can't get me to be miserable about that, sorry. Not sorry. This team is going to be fun as hell.

Good post OP. I'm looking forward to a new season with the players we have. It will make winnng even more fun to not have 10 McD's on the team. If Skal qualifies I think we'll be fine.

 

[Jkwo]

Amazing...years ago, fans bitched that we were ranked too low.

Is it that we are ranked too high or is it that our fans are used to being so talent super rich that when we have just normal great talent we look like mid major to them?

Are you saying I'm bitching? Because I'm not. I've been the most calm, level headed person on this forum over the last month.

Very pleased with the state of affairs.

The point is that nobody knows how to rank teams that are lead almost entirely by elite freshmen.

Some of them take a while before they flourish (original fab 5 team, '11 UK, '14 UK). Some of them are mediocre all the way through ('13 UCLA, '13 UK). Once in a great while you'll get one that is dominant for basically the whole season ('07 OSU, '12 UK)


A small minority of elite freshmen are just as skilled, composed, and big-game ready as any upperclassmen in the country (Wall, Davis, Oden, etc), and the rest are mostly just super-talented versions of the usual on-off freshman unpredictability that you're used to.

So having said that, if your team is lead almost entirely by freshmen, it's not wise to start them at 1, 2, 3 - it's possible, but unusual for them to be that great, even more unusual if they perform at that level from the get go.

 

[barryn2000]

Are you saying I'm bitching? Because I'm not. I've been the most calm, level headed person on this forum over the last month.

Very pleased with the state of affairs.

The point is that nobody knows how to rank teams that are lead almost entirely by elite freshmen.

Some of them take a while before they flourish (original fab 5 team, '11 UK, '14 UK). Some of them are mediocre all the way through ('13 UCLA, '13 UK). Once in a great while you'll get one that is dominant for basically the whole season ('07 OSU, '12 UK)


A small minority of elite freshmen are just as skilled, composed, and big-game ready as any upperclassmen in the country (Wall, Davis, Oden, etc), and the rest are mostly just super-talented versions of the usual on-off freshman unpredictability that you're used to.

So having said that, if your team is lead almost entirely by freshmen, it's not wise to start them at 1, 2, 3 - it's possible, but unusual for them to be that great, even more unusual if they perform at that level from the get go.

Seriously....when do you recall so many fan arguing against our ranking?

 

[Jkwo]

Seriously....when do you recall so many fan arguing against our ranking?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here. I think we're overranked for the reasons I've already stated. Are you responding to that?

 

[barryn2000]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here. I think we're overranked for the reasons I've already stated. Are you responding to that?

Yea...but I was just noting how unusual it is...historically.

 

[3rex]

Yeah - like his time at UMASS, where he had a better record and better tourney results than both Gregg Marshall and Shaka Smart and also was the only team to beat the GOAT '96 squad in the regular season.. all that with 1 real player and 10 nobodies on the roster... who had zero big D1 offers between all of them.

Get serious, dude. You eeyores can go have your own thread. If you get upset about 4 final fours in 5 years, if you believe that Cal is anything less than a B in terms of Xs and Os, then you're delusional, and this is a no delusion thread.

"10 nobodies on the roster..." My gosh the lengths some will go to.

How ridiculous can u get...

 

[Jkwo]

"10 nobodies on the roster..." My gosh the lengths some will go to.

How ridiculous can u get...

Your unknowledgeable ass has an agenda. That agenda does not survive in light of the facts. You were unfamiliar with the facts, so I gave them to you, and instead of deciding to verify for yourself as any objective truthseeker on either side of a debate should do, you respond with ridicule, so as not to expose yourself to knowledge that will force you to reconsider.

Everything I said was 100% dead accurate.

Just because you have this ridiculous notion that he's been dripping in burger boys since his first day as a head coach doesn't make it true.

Go look back at the facts for yourself and show me a single other kid with a high major offer on Cal's roster at UMASS. Go and look up the Bob gibbons rankings back then and see if you can find any of Cal's recruits on there.

Instead of just mockery, come back with facts. It's sad that you are reaching troll-level lack of concern for facts to make an anti-UK point and calling it realism - and then worse than that, projecting your stretching on to me.

There's a reason that only one of us has specific facts in his posts and the other one doesn't.

Come strong or your ish is gonna get knocked out of the park.

 

[Jkwo]

Yea...but I was just noting how unusual it is...historically.

Yeah, it's true. I think that the standards Cal is held to for on the court performance are higher than for any other coach (including from many of our own fans) and it wears people down. Cal gets more grief for going to a Final Four than K did for losing first round 3/14 and 2/15 games within 3 years. I know that Cal has tons of good will backlogged in his favor, but so should Cal. Hell, Cal gets as much grief for losing in a F4 as Self does for losing to 5 mid majors in 10 years of the tourney.

 

[ZaytovenCat]

Ummm we have more talent then anyone not named KU or UNC and maybe Duke . And even those teams aren't more talented just on the same level . This is a final 4ish team just not a 40-0 type team . we will lose 4-6 games and that is alright.

You couldn't be more delusional. We only have 3 difference maker type players. 2 of those play the same position. We have 3 really good players, 1 pretty good player and 3 role players. That is a roster looking at a 10 loss season. We will lose 2-3 non conference games, 5-7 conference games, likely lose in the SEC tourney and lose in the NCAA's.

 

[3rex]

Your unknowledgeable ass has an agenda. That agenda does not survive in light of the facts. You were unfamiliar with the facts, so I gave them to you, and instead of deciding to verify for yourself as any objective truthseeker on either side of a debate should do, you respond with ridicule, so as not to expose yourself to knowledge that will force you to reconsider.

Everything I said was 100% dead accurate.

Just because you have this ridiculous notion that he's been dripping in burger boys since his first day as a head coach doesn't make it true.

Go look back at the facts for yourself and show me a single other kid with a high major offer on Cal's roster at UMASS. Go and look up the Bob gibbons rankings back then and see if you can find any of Cal's recruits on there.

Instead of just mockery, come back with facts. It's sad that you are reaching troll-level lack of concern for facts to make an anti-UK point and calling it realism - and then worse than that, projecting your stretching on to me.

There's a reason that only one of us has specific facts in his posts and the other one doesn't.

Come strong or your ish is gonna get knocked out of the park.

I only read the 1st sentence of this post, but you're 100% wrong. I watched that team play that year, more than once. They were really good. Very good backcourt. Cal is good enough on his own merits without your revising history & making stuff up to prop him up. He doesn't need that.

 

[Jkwo]

I only read the 1st sentence of this post, but you're 100% wrong. I watched that team play that year, more than once. They were really good. Very good backcourt. Cal is good enough on his own merits without your revising history & making stuff up to prop him up. He doesn't need that.

Of course they looked good. They were a great team formed by one serious player and a bunch of recruits that literally no noteworthy schools wanted. (and he had a 30 win sweet 16 team without that serious player). What does that mean? It means that he coached them up.

Interact with these facts or you're not contributing anything to the debate.

 

[TnKat]

I love those, too. I'm just ready to switch it up just for one season.

I really don't think we have a choice. I've said all along we will very likely never see that team's equal at Kentucky or anywhere else in college. Just because we lost a game does not change my opinion. So, yeah, we must learn to enjoy what we have and lower our expectations somewhat. We'll get used to it I'm sure. But don't expect another team with all that manpower and upside....probably never happen.

 

[3rex]

Of course they looked good. They were a great team formed by one serious player and a bunch of recruits that literally no noteworthy schools wanted. (and he had a 30 win sweet 16 team without that serious player). What does that mean? It means that he coached them up.

Interact with these facts or you're not contributing anything to the debate.

You're not debating dude. Your just giving the idiotic take that a team that went 35-2 & to the Final Four did so with 1 player & 10 nobodies.

Just went back & looked at their results that season. They beat Florida by 22; Syracuse by 18; Pitt by 8 at Pitt; Arkansas by 16 in the Sweet 16; Georgetown by 24 in the elite 8; and had wins over Louisville & Memphis. Them's facts.

And according to you, they did it all with 1 player & 10 nobodies. That's an absolutely asinine take.

Someone else may buy it, but not me.

 

[Jkwo]

You're not debating dude. Your just giving the idiotic take that a team that went 35-2 & to the Final Four did so with 1 player & 10 nobodies.

Just went back & looked at their results that season. They beat Florida by 22; Syracuse by 18; Pitt by 18 at Pitt; Arkansas by 16 in the Sweet 16; Georgetown by 24 in the elite 8; and had wins over Louisville & Memphis. Them's facts.

And according to you, they did it all with 1 player & 10 nobodies. That's an absolutely asinine take.

Someone else may buy it, but not me.

The 3 rex rule:


If Cal wins with any players you've ever heard of, then he had too much talent and that's what carried his sub-par coaching.

If Cal wins with a bunch of players that nobody has ever heard from before or since, then they must have been secret superstars who played despite his sub par coaching.

That's how a rational person thinks, right?

 

[3rex]

The 3 rex rule:


If Cal wins with any players you've ever heard of, then he had too much talent and that's what carried his sub-par coaching.

If Cal wins with a bunch of players that nobody has ever heard from before or since, then they must have been secret superstars who played despite his sub par coaching.

That's how a rational person thinks, right?

I thought you had facts & no insults??

good "debate"

 

[Jkwo]

The facts you present about '96 UMASS's excellence just make Cal's coaching look better and better. He's had truly dominant teams with 1 single drafted player on them. His final four team didn't have another guy who was even honorable mention AA, who was given a high major offer, who was drafted even in the second round.

By any high level university's standards, they were not even close to being noteworthy prospects, and yet Cal turned them into a dominant team.

And you're building a case *against* him?

 

[GOING FOR #9]

It's a final four caliber team we have. This is no ho hum average type team. We will be frogging good

 

[LmdCat]

You're not debating dude. Your just giving the idiotic take that a team that went 35-2 & to the Final Four did so with 1 player & 10 nobodies.

Just went back & looked at their results that season. They beat Florida by 22; Syracuse by 18; Pitt by 8 at Pitt; Arkansas by 16 in the Sweet 16; Georgetown by 24 in the elite 8; and had wins over Louisville & Memphis. Them's facts.

And according to you, they did it all with 1 player & 10 nobodies. That's an absolutely asinine take.

Someone else may buy it, but not me.

Please don't hit him with the facts. That will certainly get in the way of his supersize embellishment.

 

[Jkwo]

I thought you had facts & no insults??

good "debate"

It's an insult to say that someone else's stance is irrational? Now who is stretching? How do you debate if considering someone else's stance irrational is insulting?

 

[Jkwo]

The facts you present about '96 UMASS's excellence just make Cal's coaching look better and better. He's had truly dominant teams with 1 single drafted player on them. His final four team didn't have another guy who was even honorable mention AA, who was given a high major offer, who was drafted even in the second round.

By any high level university's standards, they were not even close to being noteworthy prospects, and yet Cal turned them into a dominant team.

And you're building a case *against* him?

Just for you, LMD.

 

[3rex]

It's an insult to say that someone else's stance is irrational? Now who is stretching? How do you debate if considering someone else's stance irrational is insulting?

Uhhh, because you didn't say that. You said something ignorant like "the 3rex rule."

You said you just come with facts, after giving nothing but your opinion\revisionist history. I gave you facts. You come back with nothing.

Like I said, good "debate." lol

 

[Jkwo]

Uhhh, because you didn't say that. You said something ignorant like "according to 3rex..."

You said you just come with facts, after giving nothing but your opinion\revisionist history. I gave you facts. You come back with nothing.

Like I said, good "debate." lol

I asked how what 3rex's (that's you) stance on this issue could be considered rational. Again, nothing crazy about that.

Meanwhile, you talk about my revisionist history, but all I've done is brought facts that you guys are refusing to engage with. If it's revisionist, then please tell me where I'm in error.



You guys can get me to shut up so easily: all you have to do is to dispute my "revisionist history" on this single claim:

He built a truly dominant team who, outside Camby, had zero high major offers, nobody ranked as a prospect out of high school, nobody drafted in either round, nobody even on honorable mention AA lists, nobody who even has a wikipedia page.

And if you include the four prior years, he produced a run at UMASS better than Smart or Marshall, and not that far off from Brad Stevens, the modern mid-major coaching demigods. At a school that had been to the NCAA tournament only once in its entire history, in 1962.

Now, you guys won't accept results from Memphis, because you're so set on attacking Cal's ability that having even a modest talent advantage will immediately discount his success for you.

So please, please, shut me up and address the facts that I have presented here and numerous other places.

If you can't, then stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[bucsrule8872]

I think this team will be fun to watch.

Ulis and Briscoe provide as good a guard combo as you can ask for.

Labissiere is going to provide lots of "wow" moments.

Poythress gives us something we haven't had since Miller left: a Senior leader.

Lee will finally get the opportunity to play significant minutes.

Mulder and/or Matthews are going to get every opportunity to shine as the third guard.

We will have to attack with this lineup. There is no reason to try to slow down and pound it inside.

We will likely pressure the ball in the backcourt and try to speed up the game.

It should be fun.

 

[new era cat]

No shit...Cal raised some brat fans and if he leaves, this and every other UK forum will be like a thousand kids in the supermarket check out lane that want a candy bar but can't have it.

If we are "spoiled" does that make Duke fans the 1% ??

 

[barryn2000]

If we are "spoiled" does that make Duke fans the 1% ??

If?

Name a program where the fanbase would be this skittish with the recruiting class and roster we have right now.

 

[katkraze]

I'd prefer a bunch of one and dones and the final 4 again!