Addressing the "8 titles in 100 years fallacy" some of you keep using.

[ManitouDan]

It's pretty sad this whole thread is born out of losing yesterday. A good opportunist. That's the only kind of posting OP & posters like him do anymore. Be silent while things are good, but after a loss grind the axe since an opportunity has arisen.

Thats an absolute fabrication.. The ole " posters like him " insult .. the accusation about being silent while things are good .. total lies against the OP -- Son of Saul is here rain or shine . Grace to you is a total misnomer , He's one of the biggest Cal only guys here and prob in his 30s and doesnt remember much else . Well I'm not letting it go unanswered .

 

[ruppcat]

Joe B Hall had 6 years(78-84) between Final 4's and was basically run out of the job. Cal won't be because of the RIDICULOUS 10 year contract mitch gave him that would cost $60 million to get rid of him.

So like I've stated numerous times in other threads the last 2 years, either Cal digs in on his stubbornness and just continues to draw a big check or his ego will kick in and he'll get that edge he had back and become the innovator he was when we hired him. He needs to adjust his system to today's game.

Hall blew some serious opportunities with some serious talent between 81-84 to get to the FF and the title game.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Thats an absolute fabrication.. The ole " posters like him " insult .. the accusation about being silent while things are good .. total lies against the OP -- Son of Saul is here rain or shine . Grace to you is a total misnomer , He's one of the biggest Cal only guys here and prob in his 30s and doesnt remember much else . Well I'm not letting it go unanswered .

Thank you, sir!

 

[JPScott]

It's almost not even worth comparing anything to pre-1985 and absolutely not worth comparing the 4 titles in 10 years Rupp won to the modern era. The game is just not even close to the same game. The way champions are determined is different, there's no competing tournament, at large bids for a 68 team field, mid majors regularly making runs to the Final Four, etc.

And titles come in bunches. Florida repeated, UConn had two fluke titles in a very short span, we made three straight title games, etc. To average out years between titles, especially when considering titles that happened so long ago the game wasn't even integrated yet, and hold any program to hitting that average is ridiculous and disregards any sort of context or the nuances of the modern game.

I know this a widespread mindset but I disagree with this. The way I see it any given year there are between 12 to 20 teams with a legitimate chance at a title. That's true today as much as it was in 1948. Given that, it wasn't 'easier' to win back then any more than it is today.

The only major thing that's changed is the NCAA tournament field has expanded, so now the important thing is to get hot in the tournament, whereas in the past you had to not only get hot in the tournament but had to be good enough in the regular season to earn a bid at all.

 

[JHannibalSmith]

Rupp was getting old, was not fired or going to be fired because his last title was 1958.

Hall was not run out. He retired. UK was not going to fire him for last title 1978.

Sutton got us on probation. Was not fired because of no championship.

Besides 1993, Rick was mediocre until 1996.

Tubby was run out because his recruiting was deplorable for UK standards & actually got worse. A good recruiting staff might have been a better idea.


Stop trying to make it sound like "its unacceptable" & Cal sucks. We're used to national championships every 9 years" bla, black.

No were not! You gave an average of the 8 championships spanning 72 years in which 4 of the 8 were in a 10 year period 1948-58. We've won 4 championships in my lifetime & I was born in 1973.

So since 1959 we've won 4 championships. 4 in 61 years is an average 1 every 15 years. That is a better representation of what most living fans have lived to expect.

Nice try Jack

Pitino was mediocre prior to 93? In what world? In 90 he took what was essentially a pickup team from the Y & went 14-14, beating top 5 LSU with Shaq, Chris Jackson & Stanley Roberts, along the way. It’s maybe the best coaching job I’ve ever seen, in any sport. In 91, while still on probation & one year removed from penalties, he outright won the SEC. In 92, he was a miracle shot away from beating a dynastic Duke team, which was also the overwhelming favorite, & making the FF. In a game that NOBODY gave us a chance to win. And, in reality we had no business being in that game.

The only season in Pitino’s tenure that could possibly be seen as an underachievement was 94. But, we lost Rodney Dent in January & that really hurt that team. 95 was nearly as dominant as 96. We had 4 regular season losses by a total of 10 points & reached the E8, where we did step on our dic*s. But, we were arguably the best team in the country & peaking in March, like all of his teams. Pitino’s teams were only eligible for 6 tournaments & we reached at least the region final in 5 of them. If anything it’s more evidence that Cal’s tenure doesn’t measure up to Pitino’s time here. We saw 9-16 last year with HS AAs all over the floor. I shudder to think of what Cal would’ve done with our rosters from 90-92.

 

[JPScott]

Is this a serious question? The world was completely different back then. There's more talent today than there's ever been and that talent is more spread out across the country. If you really can't understand the competitive differences between 2022 and 1951 I don't know what to tell you.

Again, that's kind of a fallacy. It was different back then in that a lot of talent stayed home to play for local schools, some of which became national powerhouses in their own right for their time. (Remember for basketball teams you don't need a lot of top players to have a competitive teams.) Today top players flock to Power 5 schools in general.

Does one system dilute or concentrate the basketball talent available, or more critically does one system create a more difficult competitive situation than the other? It's not cut and dried like some of you assume.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Pitino was mediocre prior to 93? In what world? In 90 he took what was essentially a pickup team from the Y & went 14-14, beating top 5 LSU with Shaq, Chris Jackson & Stanley Roberts, along the way. It’s maybe the best coaching job I’ve ever seen, in any sport. In 91, while still on probation & one year removed from penalties, he outright won the SEC. In 92, he was a miracle shot away from beating a dynastic Duke team, which was also the overwhelming favorite, & making the FF. In a game that NOBODY gave us a chance to win. And, in reality we had no business being in that game.

The only season in Pitino’s tenure that could possibly be seen as an underachievement was 94. But, we lost Rodney Dent in January & that really hurt that team. 95 was nearly as dominant as 96. We had 4 regular season losses by a total of 10 points & reached the E8, where we did step on our dic*s. But, we were arguably the best team in the country & peaking in March, like all of his teams. Pitino’s teams were only eligible for 6 tournaments & we reached at least the region final in 5 of them. If anything it’s more evidence that Cal’s tenure doesn’t measure up to Pitino’s time here. We saw 9-16 last year with HS AAs all over the floor. I shudder to think of what Cal would’ve done with our rosters from 90-92.

This is a great post, @JHannibalSmith ! Well done!

 

[ukcatz12]

Again, that's kind of a fallacy. It was different back then in that a lot of talent stayed home to play for local schools, some of which became national powerhouses in their own right for their time. (Remember for basketball teams you don't need a lot of top players to have a competitive teams.) Today top players flock to Power 5 schools in general.

Does one system dilute or concentrate the basketball talent available, or more critically does one system create a more difficult competitive situation than the other? It's not cut and dried like some of you assume.

In the last 40 years there have only been two repeat champions (Duke '91/'92 and Florida '06/'07). In the 30 years from 1945-1975 there were four repeat champions and then the UCLA run of ten titles in 12 years. That seems to suggest it was easier to win bunches of titles back than compared to now. Which means when averaging out years between titles anything from the pre 1985 should be taken with a large grain of salt.

 

[sk73]

This conversation is just an example of the division in our fan base. I like Cal and I support him.
Pointing out the historical facts about the program is pointless unless you share all of the important facts.
The OP left out:
In the first 3 UK NCAA championships, 8 teams(!) made up the tournament.
Win one game, you are in the final four.
After that time 16 teams made up the tournament during our next two championships. 1958 and 1978.
My point is, it is difficult to compare those eras with the current landscape of college basketball. At least it is for me .

 

[JPScott]

In the last 40 years there have only been two repeat champions (Duke '91/'92 and Florida '06/'07). In the 30 years from 1945-1975 there were four repeat champions and then the UCLA run of ten titles in 12 years. That seems to suggest it was easier to win bunches of titles back than compared to now. Which means when averaging out years between titles anything from the pre 1985 should be taken with a large grain of salt.

UCLA was an exception which indeed skews things for a time. They were one of the first program to recruit nationally, and did so far better than any other program.. Remember they got stars from Philadelphia and New York along with the pick of the West Coast.

But prior to UCLA's domination of the late 60s, the landscape was pretty well balanced and competitive.

 

[Blue63Madison]

I found all of these in less than 5 minutes, and none of them were written in this thread except yours, @Blue63Madison .

Is this satisfactory evidence needed to substantiate my point?

Most of those posters don’t even post here anymore. You had to dig really hard for this. Five minutes? You think anyone believes that? Anyway … congrats, I guess.

 

[JoeSwag]

I think a main post of frustration is the amount of success posters have seen during their lifetimes from Duke, UNC, UConn and I guess to some extent- Villanova.

UNC has won 5 titles since 82, four came from 93, 05, 09, 17. Duke has had all of their success during their lifetimes- five titles from the 90s on. UConn four titles. And Villanova even won two titles in a three year stretch and that was just a few years ago. Granted, these teams have down years but UNC and Duke have had more success than we’ve had the last couple of decades.

 

[JPScott]

In the first 3 UK NCAA championships, 8 teams(!) made up the tournament.
Win one game, you are in the final four.
After that time 16 teams made up the tournament during our next two championships. 1958 and 1978.
My point is, it is difficult to compare those eras with the current landscape of college basketball. At least it is for me .

The tournament field was indeed smaller then, but that also meant it was harder to be invited in the first place. Two of UK's greatest teams in the modern era (1996 and 2012) would not have even been invited to the tournament using rules of that day.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Most of those posters don’t even post here anymore. You had to dig really hard for this. Five minutes? You think anyone believes that? Anyway … congrats, I guess.

That's weak. Traditionally, you've done much better, @Blue63Madison .

49 minutes ago I asked what you meant, and 45 minutes ago I posted the response with the quotes. That's less than five minutes. The screen saves the evidence, so you actually got that one wrong, too, sir.

You tried contradicting my point, and you were proven wrong. It happens. How about instead of doubling down, you just own up to the fact that you hadn't been aware that the "8 titles in 100 years" was actually a longstanding point people make around here all the time? I get stuff wrong on here all the time. It's better just to own it and move on.

By the way, I could have quoted a bunch of our current posters who said the same thing, but I chose not to out of respect.

 

[gracetoyou]

This is a great post, @JHannibalSmith ! Well done!

I'm almost 50. Not sure if you guys were around or not but BBN had massive complaints about Pitino. After 93, we lost 2nd game 94. Lost elite 8 in 95. Everyone said Pitino could not win big games. And yes it was a real complaint by fans. We've always had unrealistic expectations...except 1989-92 😀

Of course now that we won in 96 & runner-up 97 everyone forgets all of that.

 

[Nbacats]

Well, then if @Son_Of_Saul takes that year out, the gap ratio between titles becomes just that much smaller. You realize that, correct?

What it actually does is make his post invalid because he can't even math right.

 

[Nbacats]

But why can't we compare it when it comes to actually recognizing the competitive value of that era?

Did Duke, UNC, Florida, Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, and the hundreds of other programs not have an athletic department back then with real competitive basketball teams?

I'm not buying that argument at all.

They all had access to the same competitive realities that Kentucky did. They just couldn't get it done whereas UK actually did.

Back then if you didn't win your conference you didn't even get into the tournament. One conference could have had the # 1and #2 teams in the country but only one of them was going to make it.

Two of the titles Kentucky won were when only 8 teams made the tournament, two more when only 16 made it.

The following teams wouldn't have even made the NCAA Tournament if only conference champions made the tournament, which consists of 21 of the 36 champions since the field expanded to 64 in 1985.

1. 2021 Baylor
2. 2019 UVA
3. 2017 UNC
4. 2016 Villanova
5. 2015 Duke
6. 2014 UConn
7. 2012 Kentucky
8. 2009 UNC
9. 2005 UNC
10. 2003 Syracuse
11. 2002 Maryland
12. 1997 Arizona
13. 1996 Kentucky
14. 1995 UCLA
15. 1994 Arkansas
16. 1993 UNC
17. 1991 Duke
18. 1989 Michigan
19. 1988 Kansas
20. 1987 Indiana
21. 1985 Villanova

 

[RunninRichie]

this thread is wild man. Cal fans in here trying to deface their supposed favorite teams history in support of a Coach. Insane.

 

[JC CATS]

They say it every year after we flame out of the NCAA Tournament.

"We only have won 8 titles in 100 years."

This is fallacy, and it's an audacious fallacy at that because it is not correct historically.

The NCAA tournament began in 1939. Between 1939 and 1998, UK won 7 national titles. That's 7 titles in 59 years, or one every 8.4 years. Between 1948 and 1998, UK's title to year ration was one title for every 7.1 years. If you remove the probation/forfeit years, it's actually one title every 6.7 years.

Between 1939 and 2012, UK won 8 titles, or one title every 9.1 years (8.6 years if you remove probation years or the 1954 season).

So even at our worst, we're winning a national title every 9.1 years before 2013 ( or 8.8 years if you remove the probation/forfeited seasons).

We're coming up on that actual historical average right now, in fact. One title for every 9.1 years, and it's been ten years since our last title. Based on historical precedent, it's time for a title.

Factor in the reality that UK was on probation for two years during the Pitino Era, and refused to participate in the 1954 NCAA Tournament - a season where they were undefeated. Remove those three years from factoring into the title ratio, and between 1939 and 2012, UK averaged a title once every 8.8 years.

Historically, UK is averaging:

1. An Elite Eight every 2.1 years (or an Elite Eight every other year). Historically, finishing with an Elite Eight is expected every other year.
2. A Final Four every 4.7 years.
3. A National Title Game appearance every 6.6 years.
4. A National Title every 9.9 years (1939-2021 *counting the Covid year, the two probation years, and the forfeited tournament year).

***Also, some of our fans are quick to point out the "gaps" between titles, but they rarely point out what resulted from those gaps, which was this: multiple head coaching changes happened *because* of the gaps.

The gap between 1978 and 1996 saw *three* different head coaches (one was fired and one was pressured out).

The gap between 1998 and 2012 also saw *three* different head coaches (one was fired and one was pressured out).

These coaching changes came because the gaps were not acceptable by Kentucky's historical standards and norms.

All this is to say, we need to get our actual history correct when we're making arguments. The "8 titles in 100 years" is a weak fallacy.

Our historical standard of excellence is better than that.

I don't have the time to read that, so we have more than 8. We going to count Wonder bread titles! J/K Any way you slice it we have played a hell of a long time and only have 8 titles and at that still rank 2nd

 

[JC CATS]

this thread is wild man. Cal fans in here trying to deface their supposed favorite teams history in support of a Coach. Insane.

Is it really defacing the team saying they have 8 titles?? it's true and ain't nothing shabby about that. Unless you are talking about something I don't see

 

[ruppcat]

In the last 40 years there have only been two repeat champions (Duke '91/'92 and Florida '06/'07). In the 30 years from 1945-1975 there were four repeat champions and then the UCLA run of ten titles in 12 years. That seems to suggest it was easier to win bunches of titles back than compared to now. Which means when averaging out years between titles anything from the pre 1985 should be taken with a large grain of salt.

UCLA, being in the West, rarely had to play the caliber of teams coming out of the East and Midwest.

 

[4UK]

Numbers can be manipulated any way you want. For example, we've won 3 championships since 1979, or about 1 every 14 years. Or between 1979 and 2010, when Cal arrived, we won 2 championships in 31 years, or 1 every 15.5 years. See how easy that is?

 

[DCFseattle]

Since you're just arbitrarily taking out years, why not the whole of the 60s, 80s, and 00s?

That'd give us a title every what? 5 years? 6 at the most.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Since you're just arbitrarily taking out years, why not the whole of the 60s, 80s, and 00s?

That'd give us a title every what? 5 years? 6 at the most.

No.

I "took out years" for probation and the 1954 season (as well as the Covid season where there was no postseason) in one scenario, but also included them in another. At worst, UK is batting one title for roughly every 9 to 10 years.

 

[UKat51]

They say it every year after we flame out of the NCAA Tournament.

"We only have won 8 titles in 100 years."

This is fallacy, and it's an audacious fallacy at that because it is not correct historically.

The NCAA tournament began in 1939. Between 1939 and 1998, UK won 7 national titles. That's 7 titles in 59 years, or one every 8.4 years. Between 1948 and 1998, UK's title to year ration was one title for every 7.1 years. If you remove the probation/forfeit years, it's actually one title every 6.7 years.

Between 1939 and 2012, UK won 8 titles, or one title every 9.1 years (8.6 years if you remove probation years or the 1954 season).

So even at our worst, we're winning a national title every 9.1 years before 2013 ( or 8.8 years if you remove the probation/forfeited seasons).

We're coming up on that actual historical average right now, in fact. One title for every 9.1 years, and it's been ten years since our last title. Based on historical precedent, it's time for a title.

Factor in the reality that UK was on probation for two years during the Pitino Era, and refused to participate in the 1954 NCAA Tournament - a season where they were undefeated. Remove those three years from factoring into the title ratio, and between 1939 and 2012, UK averaged a title once every 8.8 years.

Historically, UK is averaging:

1. An Elite Eight every 2.1 years (or an Elite Eight every other year). Historically, finishing with an Elite Eight is expected every other year.
2. A Final Four every 4.7 years.
3. A National Title Game appearance every 6.6 years.
4. A National Title every 9.9 years (1939-2021 *counting the Covid year, the two probation years, and the forfeited tournament year).

***Also, some of our fans are quick to point out the "gaps" between titles, but they rarely point out what resulted from those gaps, which was this: multiple head coaching changes happened *because* of the gaps.

The gap between 1978 and 1996 saw *three* different head coaches (one was fired and one was pressured out).

The gap between 1998 and 2012 also saw *three* different head coaches (one was fired and one was pressured out).

These coaching changes came because the gaps were not acceptable by Kentucky's historical standards and norms.

All this is to say, we need to get our actual history correct when we're making arguments. The "8 titles in 100 years" is a weak fallacy.

Our historical standard of excellence is better than that.

The short of it is, we have had only 1 NCAA championship since 1998. Only 1 in the last 24 years. Everything else is poop. I only care about wins and not participation trophies

 

[LowCountryCat]

The only time most of you impossible people are halfway satisfied is in periods like 1993-1998, 2011-15. Unfortunately the only other period similar to those was 1948-1951. I mean...it is what it is.

You cannot go bonkers every time we're not in a period like that. Good grief!

Try to stop acting like an irrational female for a second and quit with all the superlative absolute emotives, like "you impossible people" and "go bonkers." When you overstate your case you come off like a screeching harpy.

Nobody really went "bonkers" until Cal achieved the worst season in 100 years. There were grumblings but not like now. And the issue with Sharpe is a real distraction. We just came off that horrible season and Cal should have been minding his P's and Q's and instead he pulls a wacky stunt that may end up being a betrayal of UK's integrity. So yeah, people are upset.

And then you have scads of posters acting like you and launching massive invectives and personal attacks, which always results in people doubling down and firing back, and blocking each other left and right, and you end up with this mess we're in.

 

[LowCountryCat]

But the average skews perception & expectation. Take away the 4 titles from 1948-58 & there's only 4 titles the last 61 years which is an average of 1 every 15 years . That's what most of us have experienced.

Outside of that one 10 year period of 4....its 1 championship every 15 years.

Funny how SoS predicted you would say that. So you're okay with leaving out the first 4 championships, but you insist that we include Cal's first 5 years in HIS record? That's a double standard.

 

[LowCountryCat]

I typed out a response & posted...not sure why it's not showing up.

I said I'm fine with saying it's been since 2015. Only 5 tourneys since last final 4 & 2 of those 5 we were 1 shot shy.
2015-16
2016-17 - 1 shot shy
2017-18
2018-19 - 1 shot shy
2019-20 - Covid...no tourney
2020-21

1 shot shy is not a Final Four. Stop acting like it is. In 2015 we were "1 shot shy" of NOT making the FF.

 

[LowCountryCat]

Pitino was mediocre prior to 93? In what world? In 90 he took what was essentially a pickup team from the Y & went 14-14, beating top 5 LSU with Shaq, Chris Jackson & Stanley Roberts, along the way. It’s maybe the best coaching job I’ve ever seen, in any sport. In 91, while still on probation & one year removed from penalties, he outright won the SEC. In 92, he was a miracle shot away from beating a dynastic Duke team, which was also the overwhelming favorite, & making the FF. In a game that NOBODY gave us a chance to win. And, in reality we had no business being in that game.

The only season in Pitino’s tenure that could possibly be seen as an underachievement was 94. But, we lost Rodney Dent in January & that really hurt that team. 95 was nearly as dominant as 96. We had 4 regular season losses by a total of 10 points & reached the E8, where we did step on our dic*s. But, we were arguably the best team in the country & peaking in March, like all of his teams. Pitino’s teams were only eligible for 6 tournaments & we reached at least the region final in 5 of them. If anything it’s more evidence that Cal’s tenure doesn’t measure up to Pitino’s time here. We saw 9-16 last year with HS AAs all over the floor. I shudder to think of what Cal would’ve done with our rosters from 90-92.

He also took Providence to the FINAL FOUR before he got hired here.

 

[YouKay]

That’s some real good cherry picking there.

I was born in 1958. Didn’t see a UK champion until my senior year in 1978. Didn’t see another one until 1996. That’s two titles in 38 years. I don’t care how many coaches were involved.

We have four titles in 64 years since Rupp’s last one in 1958.

 

[Blue Bigfoot]

They say it every year after we flame out of the NCAA Tournament.

"We only have won 8 titles in 100 years."

This is fallacy, and it's an audacious fallacy at that because it is not correct historically.

The NCAA tournament began in 1939. Between 1939 and 1998, UK won 7 national titles. That's 7 titles in 59 years, or one every 8.4 years. Between 1948 and 1998, UK's title to year ration was one title for every 7.1 years. If you remove the probation/forfeit years, it's actually one title every 6.7 years.

Between 1939 and 2012, UK won 8 titles, or one title every 9.1 years (8.6 years if you remove probation years or the 1954 season).

So even at our worst, we're winning a national title every 9.1 years before 2013 ( or 8.8 years if you remove the probation/forfeited seasons).

We're coming up on that actual historical average right now, in fact. One title for every 9.1 years, and it's been ten years since our last title. Based on historical precedent, it's time for a title.

Factor in the reality that UK was on probation for two years during the Pitino Era, and refused to participate in the 1954 NCAA Tournament - a season where they were undefeated. Remove those three years from factoring into the title ratio, and between 1939 and 2012, UK averaged a title once every 8.8 years.

Historically, UK is averaging:

1. An Elite Eight every 2.1 years (or an Elite Eight every other year). Historically, finishing with an Elite Eight is expected every other year.
2. A Final Four every 4.7 years.
3. A National Title Game appearance every 6.6 years.
4. A National Title every 9.9 years (1939-2021 *counting the Covid year, the two probation years, and the forfeited tournament year).

***Also, some of our fans are quick to point out the "gaps" between titles, but they rarely point out what resulted from those gaps, which was this: multiple head coaching changes happened *because* of the gaps.

The gap between 1978 and 1996 saw *three* different head coaches (one was fired and one was pressured out).

The gap between 1998 and 2012 also saw *three* different head coaches (one was fired and one was pressured out).

These coaching changes came because the gaps were not acceptable by Kentucky's historical standards and norms.

All this is to say, we need to get our actual history correct when we're making arguments. The "8 titles in 100 years" is a weak fallacy.

Our historical standard of excellence is better than that.

I typically enjoy your posts, but cherry picking years and titles to make the claim people using the aggregate are being fallacious, is a little strange.

 

[FinancialPlannerZac]

I’m mostly concerned with our staggering lack of 1 seeds and this current streak we are in.

I've heard you say this a few times, but if you include 2020 (which we were projected to be a 2-seed at the very end of the season), that's four 2 seeds since 2015. Again, I realize you're right, two seeds are not one seeds. But that's not some HUGE decline. Slight decline, I'll give you, but any time you are a two seed, you are a title contender. Here's hoping we claim that title this year.

 

[JoeSwag]

Pitino was mediocre prior to 93? In what world? In 90 he took what was essentially a pickup team from the Y & went 14-14, beating top 5 LSU with Shaq, Chris Jackson & Stanley Roberts, along the way. It’s maybe the best coaching job I’ve ever seen, in any sport. In 91, while still on probation & one year removed from penalties, he outright won the SEC. In 92, he was a miracle shot away from beating a dynastic Duke team, which was also the overwhelming favorite, & making the FF. In a game that NOBODY gave us a chance to win. And, in reality we had no business being in that game.

The only season in Pitino’s tenure that could possibly be seen as an underachievement was 94. But, we lost Rodney Dent in January & that really hurt that team. 95 was nearly as dominant as 96. We had 4 regular season losses by a total of 10 points & reached the E8, where we did step on our dic*s. But, we were arguably the best team in the country & peaking in March, like all of his teams. Pitino’s teams were only eligible for 6 tournaments & we reached at least the region final in 5 of them. If anything it’s more evidence that Cal’s tenure doesn’t measure up to Pitino’s time here. We saw 9-16 last year with HS AAs all over the floor. I shudder to think of what Cal would’ve done with our rosters from 90-92.

Yeah, I have no idea how anything is mediocre in the list below outside of 1990. We would have went far in 1991 if eligible. We overachieved in 1992. We were great in 1993. Even though we flamed out in the second round in 1994, we were a three seed and SEC champs. In 1995, we were a damn good team and won the SEC but we shot 28% on 21 of 75 shooting and got bounced in the Elite 8.

1989–90	Rick Pitino	14–14[Note D]	10–8	T–4th	Ineligible
1990–91	Rick Pitino	22–6[Note D]	14–4[Note E]	1st[Note E]	Ineligible
1991–92	Rick Pitino	29–7	12–4	1st (East)	NCAA Division I Elite Eight
1992–93	Rick Pitino	30–4	13–3	2nd (East)	NCAA Division I Final Four
1993–94	Rick Pitino	27–7	12–4	T–1st (East)	NCAA Division I Second Round
1994–95	Rick Pitino	28–5	14–2	1st (East)	NCAA Division I Elite Eight
1995–96	Rick Pitino	34–2	16–0	1st (East)	NCAA Division I Champion
1996–97	Rick Pitino	35–5	13–3	2nd (East)	NCAA Division I Runner–up

 

[Lempface]

I think it's funny that you call this a fallacy, and yet the difference in frequency of titles is only about 2.5 years. So if you take just the tournament timespan its 1 every 10 years (you cherry picked your date range to shorten this up to 8.8) and if it's 8 in the last 100 it's 1 every 12.5 years. Such a great fallacy you've exposed.

 

[LowCountryCat]

I've heard you say this a few times, but if you include 2020 (which we were projected to be a 2-seed at the very end of the season), that's four 2 seeds since 2015. Again, I realize you're right, two seeds are not one seeds. But that's not some HUGE decline. Slight decline, I'll give you, but any time you are a two seed, you are a title contender. Here's hoping we claim that title this year.

Fictional seeds do not count as seeds. Cal wants to throw away last season, that's not happening either. This is a statistical point he's making, and you playing games with fictional stats won't make your case, Mister Financial Planner.

The more you talk on this forum, the more I feel sorry for your clients. Your ethics are morally questionable.

 

[STL_Cat]

I've heard you say this a few times, but if you include 2020 (which we were projected to be a 2-seed at the very end of the season), that's four 2 seeds since 2015. Again, I realize you're right, two seeds are not one seeds. But that's not some HUGE decline. Slight decline, I'll give you, but any time you are a two seed, you are a title contender. Here's hoping we claim that title this year.

I get it, but still what you’re saying is “wellllll we were close to a 1 seed.” I’m making a point about not being 1 seeds. Close is nice. But either way it’s not a 1 seed, and it’s still the longest we’ve ever gone without getting one. Massage or do whatever gymnastics you want. We had 2 seeds in the past, too. But only with less years between 1 seeds.

 

[FinancialPlannerZac]

Fictional seeds do not count as seeds. Cal wants to throw away last season, that's not happening either. This is a statistical point he's making, and you playing games with fictional stats won't make your case, Mister Financial Planner.

The more you talk on this forum, the more I feel sorry for your clients. Your ethics are morally questionable.

Haha you again... As we know by now, the SEC tournament doesn't mean anything in terms of seeding. Those CATS in 2020 were the exact same record as these current CATS and had a similar ranking. They were going to be a 2 seed. There is statistical evidence of their seed projection, aside from the actual bracket coming out (which, obviously, never came out). That isn't fictional.

I didn't deny any point he was making either, just adding perspective.

None of our clients are handcuffed and chained to us. They are allowed to leave whenever they'd like. However, they don't.

 

[kybassfan]

this thread is wild man. Cal fans in here trying to deface their supposed favorite teams history in support of a Coach. Insane.

That’s crap. Posters are exposing outright lies. That’s what happening.

 

[FinancialPlannerZac]

I get it, but still what you’re saying is “wellllll we were close to a 1 seed.” I’m making a point about not being 1 seeds. Close is nice. But either way it’s not a 1 seed, and it’s still the longest we’ve ever gone without getting one. Massage or do whatever gymnastics you want. We had 2 seeds in the past, too. But only with less years between 1 seeds.

That's fair. One seeds obviously go a long way, and I've been saying a one seed was even more important this year than others since I see a pretty big gap between the 3 seeds and 4-5 line. And now, because we didn't get a one seed, a tough Purdue team likely stands in the way.

 

[LowCountryCat]

Haha you again... As we know by now, the SEC tournament doesn't mean anything in terms of seeding. Those CATS in 2020 were the exact same record as these current CATS and had a similar ranking. They were going to be a 2 seed. There is statistical evidence of their seed projection, aside from the actual bracket coming out (which, obviously, never came out). That isn't fictional.

I didn't deny any point he was making either, just adding perspective.

None of our clients are handcuffed and chained to us. They are allowed to leave whenever they'd like. However, they don't.

Seed projection isn't the same as selection. Are you completely devoid of any semblance of awareness of this thing called "rules?"

Show me the LINK that PROVES that we were SELECTED for a 2 seed.

And now you literally mock your own clients, implying that they are suckers.

You're a real piece of work.