Charles just said "(Kentucky) always plays to the level of their competition. Come on, team.
Go Cats!
This was my concern before the game started. Young/new teams do that unless they have a coach that will "run up" a score.
Now, let me say that I don't believe in that term. A team should have an identity and play to the strongest version of it. If the other team can't stop them, whose fault is that? It's a battle not a negotiation. Cal, like Pitino in '97 not letting DA play, is too worried about how he's perceived.
If he coached the team right, as is expected of a coach making 100k much less 9M, they know and are experienced with how to handle any zone defense, that coach doesn't "forget" who he has on the bench, and he for sure doesn't squander momentum. He lets the team put the pedal down. How many teams let up on their underdog opponents the last few days besides UK?
The last time we played UT, we played like a team that knew they could beat them, rather than a team that wanted to crush them again. I want teams like the latter. I want a team that will dunk on an opponent with a 30 point lead and 1min left on the clock. I can't stand it when our back up come in to "run out the clock" and won't shoot or run the offense like they want to be starters in the NCAA Finals. Any coach that tells the guys that never get to play to go out there and run out the clock rather than trying to score is a poor example of a "coach," imo.
That's the OPPOSITE of coaching. It's simply management. Coaches that don't use the bench as a teaching tool when a player is playing poorly and there are other players on it, is damn near foolish. Competitors wouldn't want to play for him.
"Running out the clock" should be called what it is - "giving your opponent an opportunity to win." (Taking a knee, imo, is not running out the clock, btw. It is more insulting to a true competitor than running another play and trying to score.)
