Blue Blood Wins since 1980-1981 season

[HagginHall1999]

This subject was crossing my mind when debating about Kansas overtaking us for all time wins. I put these stats together manually so hopefully no egregious errors (couldn't find a good repository for W/L records) .

Was most surprised at how close UNC and Duke are in every category. Also, tossed in Gonzaga for giggles just to see how they stacked up and they actually have just 76 less wins than us and more than IU/UCLA.

Disappointing to think what might of been with title losses in '97 and '14 for UK....plus other frustrating tourney losses we won't discuss, plus Duke poaching two that should have been ours- '10/'15.

I left out UConn, MSU, UL...just sticking with traditional blue bloods for topic.

Picked the date just because it represents my lifetime (born in '80).

Most Wins
Kansas- 1159
Duke- 1129
UNC- 1119
Kentucky- 1089
UCLA- 930
IU- 871

*Gonzaga*- 1013, 0 Titles, 2FF (just tossed this in as I found it a bit surprising)

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky/Kansas- 3
IU- 2 each
UCLA- 1

Most FF
UNC- 14
Duke- 13
Kansas- 10
Kentucky- 9
UCLA- 6
IU- 4

 

[Joerules19]

This subject was crossing my mind when debating about Kansas overtaking us for all time wins. I put these stats together manually so hopefully no aggregious errors (couldn't find a good repository for W/L records) .

Was most surprised at how close UNC and Duke are in every category. Also, tossed in Gonzaga for giggles just to see how they stacked up and they actually have just 76 less wins than us and more than IU/UCLA.

Disappointing to think what might of been with title losses in '97 and '14 for UK....plus other frustrating tourney losses we won't discuss.

I left out UConn, MSU, UL...just sticking with traditional blue bloods for topic.

Picked the date just because it represents my lifetime (born in '80).

Most Wins
Kansas- 1159
Duke- 1129
UNC- 1119
Kentucky- 1089
UCLA- 930
IU- 871

*Gonzaga*- 1013, 0 Titles, 2FF (just tossed this in as I found it a bit surprising)

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky- 3
Kansas/IU- 2 each
UCLA- 1

Most FF
UNC- 14
Duke- 13
Kansas- 10
Kentucky- 9
UCLA- 6
IU- 4

Kansas has three titles: 1988,2008, 2022

 

[HagginHall1999]

Kansas has three titles: 1988,2008, 2022

Egregious error 😁

 

[Montana81]

We’re very clearly 4th in the modern era.

Hard not to think if Pitino had stuck around that wouldn’t be the case and we’d be clearly #1.

 

[seccats04]

Kinda what I thought. UK has been less consistent than the other blue bloods. Kansas has dominated the regular season and Duke and UNC have the most titles.

 

[HagginHall1999]

We’re very clearly 4th in the modern era.

Hard not to think if Pitino had stuck around that wouldn’t be the case and we’d be clearly #1.

Mostly agree, we are really the only school of the main 4 (Kansas/Duke/UNC/UK) that dealt with 2 tumultuous situations and survived. The '80's we're mostly turmoil when you account for Sutton situation and the same can be said for back half of '00's, Tubby/BCG.

UNC did to an extent with M.D. but they came out of that rather quickly hiring Roy.

We only have Cal as a legacy coach 10+ years during this timeframe. Pitino didn't hang around long enough to become that.

Duke had K, UNC had Dean and Roy, Kansas had Brown/Roy/Self.

I imagine if RP never left we have 2-3 more titles than we have now. That said, Cal has had his chances ...we legit could have 10-11 titles now.

 

[Smashcat]

Starting in 1978 and adding another UK championship makes more sense to me.

 

[HagginHall1999]

Starting in 1978 and adding another UK championship makes more sense to me.

Well then I'd be 44 Smash...and I'm not 😂...not sure if you read whole post but that is why I picked '80.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Well then I'd be 44 Smash...and I'm not 😂...not sure if you read whole post but that is why I picked '80.

Just go back to 48 man. Uk adds 5 titles then. Lol

 

[weatherbird]

We’re very clearly 4th in the modern era.

Hard not to think if Pitino had stuck around that wouldn’t be the case and we’d be clearly #1.

There's a caveat to this. Cal had almost identical success to Pitino in his first 6 years. Had Cal left in 2015, we would likely said the same thing about him, yet here we are 7-8 years later thinking the last few years certainly weren't like the first few.

But every coach does the same thing, periods of great success followed by periods of not the same level of success. The truly great ones are marked by their ability to rebound from the lull. Part of the reason Tubby's teams got worse after 1998 was the roster Pitino left. It was a great roster for 98, but the classes behind that were lacking, and formed a gap. Maybe Pitino could have won in 98, but the roster was not positioned to continue that success. And Pitino was never one to build his rosters around young talent.

So, in the end, had Pitino stayed, it may have been the equivalent to K, but it could have very easily mimicked Cal's career here as well. My hope for now is that Cal finds a way to rebound, and give us a good 2-3 year run before he rides off into the sunset.

 

[bbncal02]

.

I imagine if RP never left we have 2-3 more titles than we have now. That said, Cal has had his chances ...we legit could have 10-11 titles now.

yeah Cal has caught some damn bad breaks too. Someone of them his fault. Some of them a striped bastards.

We could easily have 11. And Cal could have like three to four of them.

 

[bbncal02]

. My hope for now is that Cal finds a way to rebound, and give us a good 2-3 year run before he rides off into the sunset.

This. It’s his legacy on the line. Can he be in that elite group? Or will he have to settle for just the one.

 

[SosaUK87]

There's a caveat to this. Cal had almost identical success to Pitino in his first 6 years. Had Cal left in 2015, we would likely said the same thing about him, yet here we are 7-8 years later thinking the last few years certainly weren't like the first few.

But every coach does the same thing, periods of great success followed by periods of not the same level of success. The truly great ones are marked by their ability to rebound from the lull. Part of the reason Tubby's teams got worse after 1998 was the roster Pitino left. It was a great roster for 98, but the classes behind that were lacking, and formed a gap. Maybe Pitino could have won in 98, but the roster was not positioned to continue that success. And Pitino was never one to build his rosters around young talent.

So, in the end, had Pitino stayed, it may have been the equivalent to K, but it could have very easily mimicked Cal's career here as well. My hope for now is that Cal finds a way to rebound, and give us a good 2-3 year run before he rides off into the sunset.

Good points but a lot of Pitinos lack of recruiting can be directly attributed to his flirtation with the NBA. Everybody knew he was going, eventually. If he was going to stay the whole time like OP, and he would have shit those rumors down, recruiting would have been way different.

 

[EternallyBlu]

This subject was crossing my mind when debating about Kansas overtaking us for all time wins. I put these stats together manually so hopefully no egregious errors (couldn't find a good repository for W/L records) .

Was most surprised at how close UNC and Duke are in every category. Also, tossed in Gonzaga for giggles just to see how they stacked up and they actually have just 76 less wins than us and more than IU/UCLA.

Disappointing to think what might of been with title losses in '97 and '14 for UK....plus other frustrating tourney losses we won't discuss, plus Duke poaching two that should have been ours- '10/'15.

I left out UConn, MSU, UL...just sticking with traditional blue bloods for topic.

Picked the date just because it represents my lifetime (born in '80).

Most Wins
Kansas- 1159
Duke- 1129
UNC- 1119
Kentucky- 1089
UCLA- 930
IU- 871

*Gonzaga*- 1013, 0 Titles, 2FF (just tossed this in as I found it a bit surprising)

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky/Kansas- 3
IU- 2 each
UCLA- 1

Most FF
UNC- 14
Duke- 13
Kansas- 10
Kentucky- 9
UCLA- 6
IU- 4

Kudos! Nice job!

 

[Oboro3]

This subject was crossing my mind when debating about Kansas overtaking us for all time wins. I put these stats together manually so hopefully no egregious errors (couldn't find a good repository for W/L records) .

Was most surprised at how close UNC and Duke are in every category. Also, tossed in Gonzaga for giggles just to see how they stacked up and they actually have just 76 less wins than us and more than IU/UCLA.

Disappointing to think what might of been with title losses in '97 and '14 for UK....plus other frustrating tourney losses we won't discuss, plus Duke poaching two that should have been ours- '10/'15.

I left out UConn, MSU, UL...just sticking with traditional blue bloods for topic.

Picked the date just because it represents my lifetime (born in '80).

Most Wins
Kansas- 1159
Duke- 1129
UNC- 1119
Kentucky- 1089
UCLA- 930
IU- 871

*Gonzaga*- 1013, 0 Titles, 2FF (just tossed this in as I found it a bit surprising)

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky/Kansas- 3
IU- 2 each
UCLA- 1

Most FF
UNC- 14
Duke- 13
Kansas- 10
Kentucky- 9
UCLA- 6
IU- 4

Break it down by decades and you will see how each team's success ebbs and flows...

 

[cats#1again]

1.5 wins a year for 43 seasons.
Kansas is mediocrity at its best. I'm not sure they were ever considered #1 for a period of time in those 43 seasons

 

[UKWildcats1987]

This. It’s his legacy on the line. Can he be in that elite group? Or will he have to settle for just the one.

Bill Self went from being a pretty good coach that had underachieved at KU (IMO) to arguable the strongest in the game due to one great half against UNC in the title game this past season. Winning that 2nd title puts you in rarer company and it is hard to do, but Self kept at it and won his 14 years apart.

Sadly I do not see the same for Cal, but I 100% never thought Self would win a 2nd either to be honest. Cal & Self remind me of each other to an extent (pre-KU title this past season), other than Self obviously being much more consistent with winning percentage. Cal had more post-season success, but again, this year's NCAA Tournament put it 100% in Self's favor as the better coach career wise.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

80’ is a very arbitrary date. I’d start in 87’ with the add of the 3 pt shot or even we they banned direct entry from high school to the pros as those are definitely defined eras in college bball. Before those changes, it was not the same game as after.

 

[JeepCSC]

Actually the 1980 tournament is probably the first modern tournament (seeding, unlimited conference at-large bids, selection committee, no regional considerations). 1985 was of course when it went to 64. Both are valid starting points (as is 1981 because of the OP’s birthday).

 

[HagginHall1999]

Weird how these "random date" comparisons always manage to start a year or two before Kentucky finished a dominant run (1975 Final Game team, 1976 NIT Champion when that mattered more , 1977 Elite Eight, SEC Champion, 1978 SEC Champion and dominant NCAA champion.)

As for being "number 4" in that era, that is clearly foolish nonsense. Call the "Modern Era" the past 20 years instead of someone's arbitrary birthday and what do you have?

Kentucky was clearly the dominant program in the country for two long stretches during that period -- longer than anyone else: 1993-1998 and 2009-2015. In the span beginning 20 years ago, UNC-CHeats and Kansas have had incredibly ugly and program-scarring scandals. That is a huge factor. Duke has skated (barely) on scandals, but in terms of dominance - no long streak of Final Fours and Championships like Kentucky.

Even with the past two years an objective person would say Kentucky has been the No. 1 program of the past 20 years. But we don't have very many of those on this board anymore.

I mean I'll happily date it a few years before. No problem. I didn't have an agenda here. Picked the date because I was born in 1980 and was just thinking my lifetime....

 

[Cawood86]

This subject was crossing my mind when debating about Kansas overtaking us for all time wins. I put these stats together manually so hopefully no egregious errors (couldn't find a good repository for W/L records) .

Was most surprised at how close UNC and Duke are in every category. Also, tossed in Gonzaga for giggles just to see how they stacked up and they actually have just 76 less wins than us and more than IU/UCLA.

Disappointing to think what might of been with title losses in '97 and '14 for UK....plus other frustrating tourney losses we won't discuss, plus Duke poaching two that should have been ours- '10/'15.

I left out UConn, MSU, UL...just sticking with traditional blue bloods for topic.

Picked the date just because it represents my lifetime (born in '80).

Most Wins
Kansas- 1159
Duke- 1129
UNC- 1119
Kentucky- 1089
UCLA- 930
IU- 871

*Gonzaga*- 1013, 0 Titles, 2FF (just tossed this in as I found it a bit surprising)

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky/Kansas- 3
IU- 2 each
UCLA- 1

Most FF
UNC- 14
Duke- 13
Kansas- 10
Kentucky- 9
UCLA- 6
IU- 4

Hard to use that time frame for one reason.....UK was on probation 2 of those years plus the last year of Sutton was a de facto probation year.

Reality check for some though with those numbers. Good post.

 

[HagginHall1999]

Going back to '74-'75....

Most Wins
Kansas- 1266
UNC- 1262
Kentucky- 1239
Duke- 1232
UCLA- 1081
IU- 1014

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky- 4
Kansas/IU- 3 each
UCLA- 2

Most FF
UNC- 15
Duke- 14
Kentucky- 11
Kansas- 10
UCLA- 8
IU- 5

 

[morehorsepower4UKbb]

There's a caveat to this. Cal had almost identical success to Pitino in his first 6 years. Had Cal left in 2015, we would likely said the same thing about him, yet here we are 7-8 years later thinking the last few years certainly weren't like the first few.

But every coach does the same thing, periods of great success followed by periods of not the same level of success. The truly great ones are marked by their ability to rebound from the lull. Part of the reason Tubby's teams got worse after 1998 was the roster Pitino left. It was a great roster for 98, but the classes behind that were lacking, and formed a gap. Maybe Pitino could have won in 98, but the roster was not positioned to continue that success. And Pitino was never one to build his rosters around young talent.

So, in the end, had Pitino stayed, it may have been the equivalent to K, but it could have very easily mimicked Cal's career here as well. My hope for now is that Cal finds a way to rebound, and give us a good 2-3 year run before he rides off into the sunset.

I do not approve of any of Pitino's off court scandals or personal life, however,
I think Pitino cemented his ability to change/win by his success at Louisville. He could never get the same quality recruits at Louisville as he did at Ky but he continued to win and IMO, overachieved considering what he had to work with.
He proved he could win with Providence in the 80's and is even overachieving at lowly Iona now. I would not be surprised to see him resurrect himself once again. He seems to have 9 lives.... and I suspect he has many, many regrets that he would like to atone for.

 

[HagginHall1999]

Going back to '69-'70...

Most Wins
UNC- 1379
Kansas- 1342
Kentucky- 1341
Duke- 1305
UCLA- 1224
IU- 1100

Most Titles
UCLA- 6
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky- 4
Kansas/IU- 3 each

Most FF
UNC- 16
Duke- 14
UCLA/Kansas- 12 each
Kentucky- 11
IU- 6

 

[HagginHall1999]

I get that, and didn't mean to be critical of you -- it just has been a pattern on this board that Kentucky always seems to be on the wrong end of these comparisons of eras.

I will say that others responding to you grossly mis-characterized Kentucky's place in college basketball in recent decades, and an easy case can be made that Kentucky has been No. 1 in the past 20, 50, 60, 80 years, to cite some random dates.

If I had an agenda (and I don't) I honestly think folks are overly dramatic of our success in the past 50 years.

Simply put, people want to bash Cal and say he can't coach, etc but at the end of the day going back to 1969 Kentucky has 1341 wins, 11 FF and 4 titles in 53 seasons.

Cal has coached 25% of those seasons. He has 27% of the wins, 36% of the FF and 25% of the titles since 1969.

If you start squeezing it even more into the '80's the gap tightens even more in his favor.

Is there somebody better for the job out there? Maybe, but it is no sure thing. Is he trending poorly...yeah and time to turn it around!

Cal- 365-101, 78%, 4 FF, 1 Title, 13 seasons
**1 canceled tourney**

Hall- 297-100, 75%, 3 FF, 1 Title, 13 seasons

Smith- 263-83, 76%, 1FF, 1 Title, 10 seasons

Pitino- 219-50, 81%, 3FF, 1 Title, 8 seasons
**2 probation years**

Sutton- 88-39, 69%, 0 FF or Title, 4 seasons

BCG- 40-27, 59%, 0 FF or Title, 2 seasons

 

[weatherbird]

I do not approve of any of Pitino's off court scandals or personal life, however,
I think Pitino cemented his ability to change/win by his success at Louisville. He could never get the same quality recruits at Louisville as he did at Ky but he continued to win and IMO, overachieved considering what he had to work with.
He proved he could win with Providence in the 80's and is even overachieving at lowly Iona now. I would not be surprised to see him resurrect himself once again. He seems to have 9 lives.... and I suspect he has many, many regrets that he would like to atone for.

UL is considered a top 5-10 job in the country for basketball. Yes, they have had some scandals, and Pitino was at the center of them. Don't act like they were nobody before Pitino went there. And for that matter, Cal's history is much the same, with UMass and Memphis, and UL is a better job than either of those 2.

Their careers are almost mirror images of each other. The biggest difference is that Cal stayed longer here. Both saw success at programs that otherwise had very little, both coached a top program in the country, both have some questionable stuff in their backgrounds, and both were the head man at schools that eventually were punished for breaking rules. Both are italian, and both love to hear themselves talk. I do believe Cal is a kinder human being, but in terms of career, they are almost identical, including the fact that when going head to head, the one at the better program tended to win most of the time.

My point in all of that is that fans tend to believe that the train under Pitino would have just continued, but the truth is, that's highly unlikely. It is way more likely that Pitino's career would have looked very similar to K, a great run, followed by a lot of good not great years, then maybe another great run, followed again by good not great years. It's titles were 91&92, 2001, 2010, 2015. From 2001 to 2010, he advanced past the sweet 16 just once. Isn't a knock on Pitino as a coach, just reality that coaches across the board have periods of good but not great teams and that their great success tends to be over short periods very spread out.

 

[kywildcat41086]

We’re very clearly 4th in the modern era.

Hard not to think if Pitino had stuck around that wouldn’t be the case and we’d be clearly #1.

Amen amen amen!

 

[Cawood86]

If I had an agenda (and I don't) I honestly think folks are overly dramatic of our success in the past 50 years.

Simply put, people want to bash Cal and say he can't coach, etc but at the end of the day going back to 1969 Kentucky has 1341 wins, 11 FF and 4 titles in 53 seasons.

Cal has coached 25% of those seasons. He has 27% of the wins, 36% of the FF and 25% of the titles since 1969.

If you start squeezing it even more into the '80's the gap tightens even more in his favor.

Is there somebody better for the job out there? Maybe, but it is no sure thing. Is he trending poorly...yeah and time to turn it around!

Cal- 365-101, 78%, 4 FF, 1 Title, 13 seasons
**1 canceled tourney**

Hall- 297-100, 75%, 3 FF, 1 Title, 13 seasons

Smith- 263-83, 76%, 1FF, 1 Title, 10 seasons

Pitino- 219-50, 81%, 3FF, 1 Title, 8 seasons
**2 probation years**

Sutton- 88-39, 69%, 0 FF or Title, 4 seasons

BCG- 40-27, 59%, 0 FF or Title, 2 seasons

None of those other coaches came in talking and barking like Cal. Talking about catching and passing UCLA.

Proclaiming the gold standard and eating first among many other big statements.

He has not lived up to his talk imo. The 1st 6 years he got away with all that stuff. Not anymore. He looks weak. He is not the big bad wolf anymore.

 

[STL_Cat]

OP clearly stated why he picked 1980 and yet some of you still couldn't comprehend it.

 

[Padsfs07]

Actually the 1980 tournament is probably the first modern tournament (seeding, unlimited conference at-large bids, selection committee, no regional considerations). 1985 was of course when it went to 64. Both are valid starting points (as is 1981 because of the OP’s birthday).

I feel like the expansion in 1975 to 32 teams and the first use of *seeds* in 1978 would be better markers. Plus the game had significantly changed from 1970 (Issel) to 1975 (Grevey), however, UCLA probably doesn't like the idea of cutting out the Alcindor and Walton years.

 

[Gold_Standard]

This subject was crossing my mind when debating about Kansas overtaking us for all time wins. I put these stats together manually so hopefully no egregious errors (couldn't find a good repository for W/L records) .

Was most surprised at how close UNC and Duke are in every category. Also, tossed in Gonzaga for giggles just to see how they stacked up and they actually have just 76 less wins than us and more than IU/UCLA.

Disappointing to think what might of been with title losses in '97 and '14 for UK....plus other frustrating tourney losses we won't discuss, plus Duke poaching two that should have been ours- '10/'15.

I left out UConn, MSU, UL...just sticking with traditional blue bloods for topic.

Picked the date just because it represents my lifetime (born in '80).

Most Wins
Kansas- 1159
Duke- 1129
UNC- 1119
Kentucky- 1089
UCLA- 930
IU- 871

*Gonzaga*- 1013, 0 Titles, 2FF (just tossed this in as I found it a bit surprising)

Most Titles
UNC/Duke- 5 each
Kentucky/Kansas- 3
IU- 2 each
UCLA- 1

Most FF
UNC- 14
Duke- 13
Kansas- 10
Kentucky- 9
UCLA- 6
IU- 4

This Kansas run is amazing.

 

[JeepCSC]

I feel like the expansion in 1975 to 32 teams and the first use of *seeds* in 1978 would be better markers. Plus the game had significantly changed from 1970 (Issel) to 1975 (Grevey), however, UCLA probably doesn't like the idea of cutting out the Alcindor and Walton years.

‘75 (at-large bids for a conference) and seeding were important evolutions. But the tournament has remained mostly intact since the 1980 revamp. Expansion was the only major change afterwards.

 

[HagginHall1999]

None of those other coaches came in talking and barking like Cal. Talking about catching and passing UCLA.

Proclaiming the gold standard and eating first among many other big statements.

He has not lived up to his talk imo. The 1st 6 years he got away with all that stuff. Not anymore. He looks weak. He is not the big bad wolf anymore.

I have no problem with him saying that. Love the confidence. Had chances to back it up and didn't close them, plain and simple.

 

[Padsfs07]

My point in all of that is that fans tend to believe that the train under Pitino would have just continued, but the truth is, that's highly unlikely. It is way more likely that Pitino's career would have looked very similar to K, a great run, followed by a lot of good not great years, then maybe another great run, followed again by good not great years. It's titles were 91&92, 2001, 2010, 2015. From 2001 to 2010, he advanced past the sweet 16 just once. Isn't a knock on Pitino as a coach, just reality that coaches across the board have periods of good but not great teams and that their great success tends to be over short periods very spread out.

If you assume he's here and wins in 98 like Tubby did, we'd probably have a more elite recruiting class in 98 than just Prince/Allison/Camara, like Mike Miller or something. Without Saul Smith, maybe he gets a legit PG in 99 like Jay Williams or Chris Duhon in 00.

Rather than get carried away with different recruits, I think he'd likely have kept Michael Bradley (from transferring), Desmond Allison (from DUI dismissal), Marvin Stone (transferring), and Jason Parker (dismissed), just given he would have a lot more pull than Tubby in those early years.

Those changes probably mean that we don't have the 2000-2002 run that we had. There's a lot of better PGs than Smith, but, beyond that, Bradley in 99/00 and 00/01 would be a huge addition to the frontcourt. Having a committed Stone and Allison in 01/02 , rather than a young Fitch and Estill, would be massive. While having Stone, Allison, and Parker in 02/03 would've been a crazy deep team, while possibly have Parker or Estill held over for 03/04 would've changed that team since they didn't have a great frontcourt.

Recruiting-wise, by 02/03, you can probably swap out the UK classes with the UL classes - meaning perhaps we have Dean and Garcia over Azubuike and Barbour that year. 04/05 would've probably been a turning point NCAA success-wise. Tubby had UK at 1 that year in recruiting, while Pitino had some big classes at UL starting that year, but many of them didn't make it to school (Lang, Telfair, Smith, Johnson) I think Pitino would have started fading at that point, starting in 05/06 to 08/09.

 

[Cawood86]

I have no problem with him saying that. Love the confidence. Had chances to back it up and didn't close them, plain and simple.

Fast forward to how he talks now....not even close...fires out....just smoke and ashes.

 

[rabbitTown]

We’re very clearly 4th in the modern era.

Hard not to think if Pitino had stuck around that wouldn’t be the case and we’d be clearly #1.

And #1 in a coach admitting to consensual sex in a restaurant, paying for abortions, providing hookers for recruits, and payments made ($100,000) to a single recruit (before it was legal to do so).

 

[the nail at the foul line]

I mean I'll happily date it a few years before. No problem. I didn't have an agenda here. Picked the date because I was born in 1980 and was just thinking my lifetime....

You have hated us for years. Why weren't you born in 75?

 

[HagginHall1999]

You have hated us for years. Why weren't you born in 75?

I don't just hate UK and you all, I mostly hate my parents for not bringing me in as a kid of the 70's. So selfish...

 

[STL_Cat]

You have hated us for years. Why weren't you born in 75?

These guys and their agenda birth dates make me sick. I was also born in 80. Explains my agenda.

 

[Gromcat]

There's a caveat to this. Cal had almost identical success to Pitino in his first 6 years. Had Cal left in 2015, we would likely said the same thing about him, yet here we are 7-8 years later thinking the last few years certainly weren't like the first few.

But every coach does the same thing, periods of great success followed by periods of not the same level of success. The truly great ones are marked by their ability to rebound from the lull. Part of the reason Tubby's teams got worse after 1998 was the roster Pitino left. It was a great roster for 98, but the classes behind that were lacking, and formed a gap. Maybe Pitino could have won in 98, but the roster was not positioned to continue that success. And Pitino was never one to build his rosters around young talent.

So, in the end, had Pitino stayed, it may have been the equivalent to K, but it could have very easily mimicked Cal's career here as well. My hope for now is that Cal finds a way to rebound, and give us a good 2-3 year run before he rides off into the sunset.

No way Ralph. We know that’s not the case with pitino. How do we know? Because you’ve got two types of champion coaches.

A. Champion coaches who cover the second title.

B. Champion coaches who don’t.

Calipari is more inline with the Boeheim tier. Pitino was very much in the K / Williams tier.

Pitino wanted that second ring so bad he was willing to do whatever it took. Calipari couldn’t care less. Had Pitino stayed he would have wanted the 3rd and 4th as well judging by his will to win. He would have been in a winning war and goat status chase with K for sure.