yeah but Tubby didn't take us to four final fours before that
Bruiser Flint hired by UK as assistant
- Thread starter ukhoops1
- Start date
- Status
yeah but Tubby didn't take us to four final fours before that
I hope he has zero trust
You are the worst poster in the history of this board.
You just helped me prove my point.
UK has lost so many underclassmen to the GL and overseas that it was impossible to plug the holes ever year. So we go into almost every season with a new team that is constructed of transfers and true freshmen and we're competing against Junior and Senior laden teams.
Again, the bottom line is, UK has had by far the most raw talent come through it's program the last 10, but that talent has been too young, too raw, misfit and left too early.
I'm not knocking Cal, what he has done with young teams is something that may never be matched, he's an amazing manager of talent, but he's not going to win titles unless he retains talent and/or lands transcendent talent (the latter is now going to he about impossible to land with the new rules).
So again, you are right, UK has had the best team maybe three times in 10 years, but so many guys left to go to the GL and that caused holes on some of our rosters. Had they stayed, we're the best team several more seasons.
Heck, look at what happened this year. We lost Hagans, Richards, EJ, IQ, Juzang and Whitney, none of them are projected to get drafted. That’s 6 guys, who else loses that many underclassmen? Rinse and repeat with a new team.
What if Sarr doesn’t get a waiver? Heck, what if he never decided to transfer? We would be looking at another flawed roster. Talented, but flawed.
It’s tough to be the "best team" when you lose so many players each year. Still had the most talent.
Cool. Now buzz off. I'm not going to have this conversation with you, you're too young to understand.
Mature enough to win every debate with you by presenting facts. Facts are your biggest enemy.
Things changed after 2015. These players are coming here for 1 thing and 1 thing only, the fast track to the NBA.
Also, Tubby may not have had 4 final fours, but he also had zero NIT appearances and zero losses to Evansville and Robert Morris type schools.
I think we can all agree that Cal is by far the better coach and ambassador, but he does have flaws.
This is all true but I don't think this is just a Cal thing anymore. The landscape of college basketball has changed.
Let's be honest here. It's hard to be the best team regardless whatever strategy you use. You need talent to be the best team and that talent for the most part just isn't interested in staying 4 years or even 2 at this point.
I guess I'm wondering what people actually are looking for. When Cal is recruiting these kids, it's not as if he can tell at that point which ones will be gone. He might have a clue but you can never be sure how the season is going to play out. So what does he do? Should he avoid top talented guys because they might leave after a year? That runs counter to the big argument people on here make about having to have top 5 talent.
And then if he doesn't go after those type of players, you got guys that DO come back for more years but they just aren't good enough to get us where we want to go.
And if the argument is well we need a mix of both, I believe that's what we have been doing. It's not as if guys haven't come back here. We just had three years of Nick Richards. Nearly every year we have had some guys jump to the NBA and some guys stay. If we ever have a season where guys don't jump u know what.......I think we had a pretty bad team that season cause it would mean we had no one that was an NBA talent. We don't want that either.
People are arguing we got this mix wrong but I don't necessarily agree with that. We aren't going to get top 5 talent and have them stay. I just don't think these days that's a realistic thing.
I believe this has been the case since 2010 tho. Wall, Cousins, AD..........they all wanted fast tracks to the NBA as well.
Everyone has flaws. Cal included. Having said that, I believe in how he's doing things. Even post 15, in 17 and in 19 we had teams that could have gone all the way IMO. The fact that we slipped up both years in the Elite 8 doesn't change my opinion on that. My thinking has always been put us in the conversation year after year. If he does that, he'll get a second title IMO.
Post 15,we haven't had a Wall, a Cousins, a Towns, an AD. But compared to the other school's talent in those years, we have had enough to compete for titles
17 and 19 came down to single possessions. We didn't get it done and missed final fours.
11 and 14 also came down to single possessions. We made the final four.
I often wonder if those two things were reversed if people would have different opinions on the direction of the program.
IMO the mere fact that we got down to one possession in all of those years shows something.
17 and 19 came down to single possessions. We didn't get it done and missed final fours.
11 and 14 also came down to single possessions. We made the final four.
I often wonder if those two things were reversed if people would have different opinions on the direction of the program.
IMO the mere fact that we got down to one possession in all of those years shows something.
with a coach of Cal's caliber and the talent we have, a final four every 5 years is not unreasonable, and making excuses of "1 shot away" from a final four isn't going to cover it.
If Cal is an elite coach, if we are an elite program, if we are getting these #1 recruiting classes, then there should be a payoff in the end for all of that, and while I won't demand a title, being one of the last 4 teams standing once every 5 years is more than reasonable (honestly I think you could argue it should be more) - and the first 5 years of the Cal era proves that. To talk about anything can happen in a single elimination tournament is cover. You can have that discussion about an individual year, but over a 5 year period with a top 10 team going into the tourney, its a numbers game.
People want to take the 10 year run, average it out and ignore the last 4-5 years , fine, that their choice, and I'm not going to say its not unreasonable but clearly we are trending downward, if only marginally by any other programs standards, and just blind acceptance that Cal is getting it done by putting stock in recruiting classes or whatever other metric *besides* national titles or final fours is just smoke to me.
I'm sure Coach K had more than 1 gap of 5 years without a final four, maybe Roy Williams too. I'm not going to do the research nor do I really care if they did or not.
Cal knew the expectations coming in here, he embraced them, he's leveraged the fan base to his advantage - and the bill comes due when you don't meet those expectations.
Hiring an old buddy to fill one of , if not the most prestigious, assistant coaching positions in the country, without even opening the job up to see who is interested during a downward trend is bad optics. Its a blatant disregard of his obligations to the program and its taking advantage of his position.
Cal should have read the tea leaves a bit more on this one given the growing fan apathy toward the program.
If Cal is an elite coach, if we are an elite program, if we are getting these #1 recruiting classes, then there should be a payoff in the end for all of that, and while I won't demand a title, being one of the last 4 teams standing once every 5 years is more than reasonable (honestly I think you could argue it should be more) - and the first 5 years of the Cal era proves that. To talk about anything can happen in a single elimination tournament is cover. You can have that discussion about an individual year, but over a 5 year period with a top 10 team going into the tourney, its a numbers game.
People want to take the 10 year run, average it out and ignore the last 4-5 years , fine, that their choice, and I'm not going to say its not unreasonable but clearly we are trending downward, if only marginally by any other programs standards, and just blind acceptance that Cal is getting it done by putting stock in recruiting classes or whatever other metric *besides* national titles or final fours is just smoke to me.
I'm sure Coach K had more than 1 gap of 5 years without a final four, maybe Roy Williams too. I'm not going to do the research nor do I really care if they did or not.
Cal knew the expectations coming in here, he embraced them, he's leveraged the fan base to his advantage - and the bill comes due when you don't meet those expectations.
Hiring an old buddy to fill one of , if not the most prestigious, assistant coaching positions in the country, without even opening the job up to see who is interested during a downward trend is bad optics. Its a blatant disregard of his obligations to the program and its taking advantage of his position.
Cal should have read the tea leaves a bit more on this one given the growing fan apathy toward the program.
Last edited:
Why does it matter when the final fours occurred?
If you feel 1 final four in 5 years is reasonable, than Cal has exceeded that by a large amount.
I mean unless you think the last 5 years is some indication that we are getting weaker and won't have the same success in the future.
I don't believe that tho.
And it goes back to what I was saying..........so if the ball bounces our way in 17 and 19 but doesn't in 11 and 14, you have a different perception of things?
10 years...........4 final fours. 1 Title. In the end that's all that matters.
If you feel 1 final four in 5 years is reasonable, than Cal has exceeded that by a large amount.
I mean unless you think the last 5 years is some indication that we are getting weaker and won't have the same success in the future.
I don't believe that tho.
And it goes back to what I was saying..........so if the ball bounces our way in 17 and 19 but doesn't in 11 and 14, you have a different perception of things?
10 years...........4 final fours. 1 Title. In the end that's all that matters.
why does it matter? would you say 20 years, 4 final fours is OK with a 15 year drought?
and this whole idea of the ball bounces our way is this idea of luck having be involved. This is a game of skill, preparation, coaching, dedication. To marginalize all that work with "and you have to be lucky sometimes" is just rationalization for coming up short. Do you feel we were lucky in 2012? I don't feel there was an element of luck there , we had a complete team that complemented each other very well.
So to answer your question, yes, if we did go to a final four in 17, 19 or whatever, then my perception changes.
The difference in our perceptions is you are comfortable with what we've accomplished in a 10 year time frame while I am focused on the last 5. But there is a number where you decide its no longer acceptable. What you are really debating is what that acceptable number is.
Don’t think Payne is going anywhere. Honestly if he does, so be it. Everyone can be replaced. Can’t get all tight about assistant coaches moving around.
I think it matters if you pay attention to trends.
Thought I went back in time here. Payne is gone, he already took the knicks job.
But we don't have 4 in 20. We have 4 in 10. That's just the facts. Whether it was the first four years in a 10 year run or the last four years in a 10 year run, it's still 4 in 10.
I mean lets go even more extreme. Lets say they were titles. Would u care one bit if they got 4 years of titles in the first 4 years of a 10 year run or if it was spread out over the 10 years? Of course not. You'd just care they had 4 titles.
That's what I mean about it not mattering.
2012 we had the best team. And it wasn't particularly close. So no, I don't believe we got lucky that year.
Do I think we got somewhat lucky in 11 and 14...........yes. We almost lost in the first round to Princeton in 11. It took 3 last second shots by Harrison in 14 to get to a final four.
Do I think we got somewhat unlucky in 17 and 19.........yes.
Heck it's entirely possible we had BETTER teams in 17 and 19 than we did in 11 and 14.
I would agree if it was a trend.
The difference between elite 8s and four finals is.............one game tho.
But I did mention above unless you feel like this is some indication of a downfall. Some do. That's ok.
I definitely don't. It's not as if we haven't been competitive in 17,19 and 20.
I think the idea of the one and done was great at first, but as early as 2012 (Teague and Lamb), guys started leaving too early. I understand why those two left though, their stock was as high as it was going to get coming off a title run. But we are now seeing way too many guys leaving when they aren't listed on any draft boards and UK pays the price the next season.
What can Cal do? Change the culture. It’s gotten out of hand. Where is EJ going? Richards? Hagans? Quickly? Why did Whitney leave? I know, he left, because he came here with the wrong mindset and his handlers were no help. He came here because the culture is all about getting to the NBA and not about going through the process at UK.
It looks to me like getting guys drafted is more important than UK basketball.
And yes, I realize other schools lose guys early too, but UK loses a lot more. You're not going to win titles with this method. Look at the teams that win it every year, they’re veteran teams that can handle the pressure of the big stage.
But things are about to change. All the top kids are not going to play college ball, so now we're going to end up with 2nd tier kids. Hopefully they stick around, because Cal has proven that he molds these kids on a faster track then any other coach. He motivates better, he pushes kids harder and he relates to the kids better than any other coach, but even he can't overcome the many challenges caused by too many guys jumping early.
Nobody has a problem with guys like Wall, Cuz, AD, MKG, Townes, Randle, Murray, Fox, Monk etc.… leaving early, everyone here knows they had to go, heck, they were lottery picks. Those guys leaving is not the problem. It's guys like EJ, Richards, Whitney, Hagans, Teague, Lamb, Dakari, James Young, Diallo, Goodwin, Quickly etc.… some of them made their way to the NBA anyway, but they came to UK for 1 thing and one thing only, to get to the NBA. How invested in UK are you when you have the NBA on your mind? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Yup, we came up short in 17 and 19. The talent was there, but what do young guys do when the lights get really bright? That’s right, they choke, they miss free throws, they turn the ball over, they foul. 2018 and 2019 were prime examples.
But it does matter and here is why.
In Cal's first 5 years, the one and done worked, because he was getting transcendent players. He hasn't landed a top 5 kid since the 2014 recruiting class. Fox was close, I believe he was ranked 6th and the results of that season falls in line.
But Cal's recruiting fell off. Losing Orlando Antiqua is part of the reason, which brings us to the subject at hand. You don't replace a guy like KP with Bruiser Flint when you run a system that hinges on recruiting top 5 guys.
If you're going to play the one and done game and create that culture, you better land top 5 kids, if not, you can forget about final fours and titles, the results show it. Every one of his FF teams had at least one top 5 stud or in the case of the 2011 team, solid veterans with a couple of great freshmen (Jones and Knight).
I think it’s a very bad assumption to presume the NBA is the immediate goal of that second tier of players. They want paying and they want to not be burdened with college. The NBA is only one revenue stream. College for one year is one avenue toward that. Kentucky is the go to option for those type players. There is really only two solutions here. Drop the talent level to the point that the player has no earnings option or continue along the path we’re on. This is the downside of recruiting at this level. The upside is you have a steady stream of raw talent. This will not change any time soon.
Sarr will be eligible. If not Sarr Cal would have found someone else. He always does.
Is Cal > K, Jay Wright, Bennett, Roy W. or Izzo? Is UK a better program than Villanova, UNC, Duke, UVA and MSU? All those coaches are retaining talent, all those coaches put their programs first and 3 of those coaches have multiple titles to Cal's 1. Is it easier to win titles at Villanova? How are those coaches able to field Juniors and Seniors, but UK can't.
That’s my point. It's not about UK, it’s about the NBA. That’s not what those other schools are doing, Jay Wright, Roy Williams, Izzo, K etc, they don't have an NBA first culture, UK does. It’s not the best method if winning titles is your goal.
Yes, we are better than all those schools. Yes, we recruit a better level of talent than those schools. Yes, it’s about getting paid. Period. They don’t give a damn who’s name is on the check. I answered your question clear as a bell. You will not be able to comprehend the answer till you get the NBA nonsense out of your head. Our guys often find a way to get paid after their freshman year. The players at those lesser schools do not have the option.
Ironically, if you were correct, we would retain more. They would not leave unless their chances at the NBA were better. This is crystal clear to me. Wish it weren’t. It’s a damn hard problem to solve. Maybe if Cal pushed the NBA harder as the only acceptable answer post KY. Make no mistake, this is about the money. I bet damn few of them aren’t collecting a check the year after leaving KY.
My point is, all those other coaches are winning titles with less talent and they are able to keep their guys in their program for 3 to 4 years with occasional early departures. Why can't that be the case at UK?
Jay Wright, K and Williams have multiple titles since 2009 with less talent, smaller fanbases and weaker facilities. Cal has 1 title here, but he has had far more talent. It’s not because he can't coach, he's a great coach, it’s because he pumps the NBA first and not UK.
Who is ignoring the first 4-5 years? This makes no sense. Nobody is ignoring the first 5 years, in fact, we would like to get back to winning like we did from 2010 to 2015. That’s what we've been talking about.
Yeah that's right, when you don't like reading the truth, it’s best to just ignore it. That always works.
Again, you won’t understand so long as you hold on to the myth of the NBA marketing thing. That is SO wrong and you merely have to look at the ones that don’t make the NBA to see that. The recruiting strategy is “The best available”. They have options. They exercise those options.
He has had much more raw talent, but they are still kids. One year, two years at that age mean a huge amount.
The other coaches would have exactly the same problem is their kids had the same options. The question you have to ask as the coach, is do you take the lesser kid. Hell he’s tried a couple of times with Herro and SGA. We’ve seen how that turned out.
You’re ignoring what's right in front of you and trying to tell me that what I am seeing is wrong. You're saying that Cal isn’t marketing the NBA. Are you blind? You can't be serious. He brags about all the draft picks, he brags about how much money they're making, he has all the walls in all the facilities plastered with pictures of UK guys in the NBA. How do you explain all those "pro days" where he brings scouts in from every NBA team and he showcases our players to these guys like he's selling cars?
How can you not see this? It's right in front of you. Cal loves the NBA and he loves to get kids drafted, if you don't see that, then there's no use having this conversation.
Cal is trying to have his cake and eat it too, he's trying to feed the NBA and win with freshmen, but the NBA takes the lead there. Now it's out of control, because now you have guys like EJ, Whitney, Hagans and IQ jumping early when they know they have no shot at the NBA. They aren't getting drafted, but they didn't come here for UK. They saw the culture, knew that UK was all about getting kids to the draft and they bought in. They weren’t here for UK, if they were, they would still be here.
Don't give me that crap about Herro and SGA, those guys showed out and worked hard, that happens, but there are far more examples of dudes that left and went nowhere higher than the GL. Plus, Herro and SGA were clearly underrated in HS, Cal and his staff made them better, but they were far better than their rankings.
Why doesn’t Villanova, UNC or Michigan State have that problem? Even duke hangs on to some elite talent for 3+ years. UK loses the most underclassmen and it isn't close. That’s due to the culture that has been created.
If Cassius Winston, Josh Langford, X Tillman, Kenny Goins, Nick Ward, Eric Paschall, Phil Booth, Kris Jenkins, Josh Hart, Arcidiacono etc… played at UK, they never would have sniffed their junior years in college. Most of those guys listed, stayed 4 years. Villanova won 2 titles because of that. I think Cal is a better coach, but we're at a disadvantage because we have Freshmen in the court playing against Juniors and seniors.
- Status
