Dan Hurley taking his ball and going home...

[ralphdaltonfan]

History is important. That being said, I'm glad Kentucky views CBB as important and hasn't gone the way of UCLA which is abhorrent to watch in terms of not giving 2 *****'s about CBB anymore. UCLA is #1 in NC's but does anyone view them with any respect? When is the last time they did? The year they made a run in post Covid Tournament they were in a play in game. When normalcy returned, so did the results a Mick Cronin led program gets.

As for the discussion of UConn, could care less what people call the program if it's won 6 National Championships in 25 yrs and has never lost a National Championship game. They also have a history of owning Duke and preventing Coach K from at least 2 more NC's so for that alone, I salute them-specifically Jim Calhoun.

Kentucky's place in CBB is more than secure as long as they invest and care about the sport. Pope's proven to be a great hire and now just needs to get time to blend his approach of roster building with high level HS recruits and Portal guys. The staff did a great job on the quick window fix. This year's team reminds me more of a Kevin Stallings Vanderbilt team than what Pope will want moving forward and we've already seen that addressed in his HS recruiting with more athleticism blended with skill which is a must in SEC. Can't be all athletes or sacrifice athleticism simply for skill or you will get killed in this Conference or against top level programs. Truly believe in what Pope/Staff are doing and think they'll be winning #9 in his tenure and hopefully more, but it's not easy to do which is why minimizing what UConn has done in this era is silly to me as well. Winning championships is hard and specifically in this era of CBB. Salute those who can do it and want to see the Cats in that high stakes room again and think they will be under Coach Pope.

 

[Big BlueBeard]

Hurley's a bitch. Good coach, but a whiney bitch. He never misses a chance to remove any doubt about it, either.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Hurley's a bitch. Good coach, but a whiney bitch. He never misses a chance to remove any doubt about it, either.

Yep. Basically sums up how I feel about that guy. Good coach but a complete asshole

 

[wardlow]

Is it OK for coaches to openly complain about officiating now? I thought it was a no-no.

 

[Big BlueBeard]

Is it OK for coaches to openly complain about officiating now? I thought it was a no-no.

To me it depends on how you complain. If you're always the off the hook type, stammering and spitting and snotting like your'e 5 yrs old and someone took your toy from you, then maybe a bit more professional decorum may be prescribed to you on the sidlelines. Just the way I see it.

 

[rick64]

 

[uky8unc5]

Is that really much better? I was making the comparison from modern times. The modern era is considered from 1985, so how about we say 3 titles in going on 40 years? Is that better?

Bull crap. You are full of it.
1985 "beginning of modern era"

IGNORE

 

[Ron Mehico]

And there proves you have no clue what you are talking about....
Taking out, like I mentioned, Ricks later years (lets say 94-97) and Cals first 8 years (09-17) since Joe B's title (1978) we have a whopping THREE Final Fours in those 34 other seasons. That is text book mediocrity for a program that is supposed to be one of the premiere programs in America. I'm a numbers and facts guy...not a blind lead with my heart guy.

If you take out Warren Buffetts top 3 investments his net worth decreases by 80%. If you take out Dan Hurleys and Kevin Ollies fluke title UCONN only has 3 titles and hasnt been to the final four in a decade. If you take out Dukes back to back titles in the early 90s…….

 

[UPSCat4080]

If you take out Warren Buffetts top 3 investments his net worth decreases by 80%. If you take out Dan Hurleys and Kevin Ollies fluke title UCONN only has 3 titles and hasnt been to the final four in a decade. If you take out Dukes back to back titles in the early 90s…….

All of those instances you talked about happened at least in the last 30 years. All I was getting at is this "blue blood" word our fans throw around like that's supposed to mean something really doesn't mean squat anymore and doesn't "separate" us from anyone. It doesn't matter what we did in the 40's and 50's when comparing the state of our program now and trying to downplay another schools program because they aren't a "blue blood" is just plain dumb.

 

[UPSCat4080]

Bull crap. You are full of it.
1985 "beginning of modern era"

IGNORE

Per a simple search.....

The modern era of college basketball is generally considered to have begun in 1985, when the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament expanded to 64 teams. This expansion led to increased media coverage and popularity.



The 3-point line was introduced to college basketball in 1986.

Here is another one:

The Prestige: The Top 10

What college basketball programs have been the most consistent, the most prestigious since the 1984-85 season? After unveiling the top 290 schools all week, here are the top 10.

www.espn.com

Thank you, come again.

 

[Ron Mehico]

All of those instances you talked about happened at least in the last 30 years. All I was getting at is this "blue blood" word our fans throw around like that's supposed to mean something really doesn't mean squat anymore and doesn't "separate" us from anyone. It doesn't matter what we did in the 40's and 50's when comparing the state of our program now and trying to downplay another schools program because they aren't a "blue blood" is just plain dumb.

Ummm you, in your example, excluded Cal and Pitinos years, which have also been within the last 30 years. Youre also excluding these “high points” to try and diminish success, which is a very ignorant point by you. The reality is “points of success” typically account for success. I demonstrated this by pointing out Warren Buffets investment history, widely considered one of the best investors of all time and one of the richest people in the world. About 3-5 out of hundreds of stock purchases account for over 90% of his wealth. So someone like you can say “Well, if it wasn’t for like 1% of his investment purchases, Warren Buffett is actually an average investor and not that rich!” But that would be stupid, because you’re eliminating his peaks, which is actually what accounts for 99% of individuals/corporations/teams success.

 

[UPSCat4080]

Ummm you, in your example, excluded Cal and Pitinos years, which have also been within the last 30 years. Youre also excluding these “high points” to try and diminish success, which is a very ignorant point by you. The reality is “points of success” typically account for success. I demonstrated this by pointing out Warren Buffets investment history, widely considered one of the best investors of all time and one of the richest people in the world. About 3-5 out of hundreds of stock purchases account for over 90% of his wealth. So someone like you can say “Well, if it wasn’t for like 1% of his investment purchases, Warren Buffett is actually an average investor and not that rich!” But that would be stupid, because you’re eliminating his peaks, which is actually what accounts for 99% of individuals/corporations/teams success.

The poster I responded to made the comment that we had maintained continued success all through the years even after Halls last title. I pointed out that no in fact we had not and when you look at everything included after Joe B's title we really had been mediocre for the MOST PART. Yes you include everything when looking at the situation, but Ricks main successful years and Calipari's early years that we consider "successful" are a small portion of the entirety. There were more years of Joe B after his title, Sutton, Gillispie and Tubby that would draw the entire body of work more toward mediocrity than the successful few years lift it up toward "sustained success".

It cracks me up anytime someone isn't completely blue glasses blinded and agreeing that we are the greatest program of all time regardless of what years you look at, they are labeled a non fan, hater or ignorant lol.

 

[Ron Mehico]

The poster I responded to made the comment that we had maintained continued success all through the years even after Halls last title. I pointed out that no in fact we had not and when you look at everything included after Joe B's title we really had been mediocre for the MOST PART. Yes you include everything when looking at the situation, but Ricks main successful years and Calipari's early years that we consider "successful" are a small portion of the entirety. There were more years of Joe B after his title, Sutton, Gillispie and Tubby that would draw the entire body of work more toward mediocrity than the successful few years lift it up toward "sustained success".

I addressed this specific point with you in my previous point. Eliminating “points of success” is incredibly stupid and ignorant. You haven’t refuted my point but simply restated it. My point still stands. Remove UCONNS points of success and you have one of the worst programs of all time.

 

[UPSCat4080]

I addressed this specific point with you in my previous point. Eliminating “points of success” is incredibly stupid and ignorant. You haven’t refuted my point but simply restated it. My point still stands. Remove UCONNS points of success and you have one of the worst programs of all time.

If you had told me that UConn has had sustained success over the past 30 years I would say you are wrong...even with their titles susstained success would mean they are toward the top year in and year out. 6 out of 30 years isn't sustained. If you say that UConn has had one of the most successful programs over the past 30 years I would say you are right.

I am not saying that we haven't had success, what I am saying is even with Cal and Ricks best years if you look at the ENTIRETY overall we have been mediocre as a whole. Especially when you take away those 10-11 years it really shows how mediocre we have been. For a program that touts "blue blood" and "greatest program of all time" the only measure of success we should use if Final Fours and Titles and since Joe B that has been less than more.

 

[Ron Mehico]

.

I am not saying that we haven't had success, what I am saying is even with Cal and Ricks best years if you look at the ENTIRETY overall we have been mediocre as a whole. Especially when you take away those 10-11 years it really shows how mediocre we have been. For a program that touts "blue blood" and "greatest program of all time" the only measure of success we should use if Final Fours and Titles and since Joe B that has been less than more.

What program, if you took away its best 11 years, has been great? It’s a totally nonsensical and ridiculous point. What is the main message that you are trying to convey anyway? That Kentucky Basketball is actually an average program?

 

[UPSCat4080]

What program, if you took away its best 11 years, has been great? It’s a totally nonsensical and ridiculous point. What is the main message that you are trying to convey anyway? That Kentucky Basketball is actually an average program?

In the era of modern basketball yes that is exactly what I am saying....our basketball program has been average to above average in it's entirety since either 1985 (when most everyone considers the start of modern day) or if you want to say after the last title before that period began. Titles from 60-70 years ago mean nothing today.

Since 1978 (our last title before modern basketball) we have played 45 seasons. Two of those seasons we were ineligible for the tournament and another season COVID cancelled the tournament, so in reality there have been 42 seasons for UK Basketball. In those 42 seasons here is a breakdown of how the season ended:

3 titles for 7% of the time
2 Runner Ups for 5% of the time
4 Final Fours for 10% of the time
10 Elite Eights for 24% of the time
6 Sweet Sixteens for 14% of the time
9 Second Round Exits for 21% of the time
4 First Round Exits for 10% of the time
3 NIT Tournaments for 7% of the time
2 Missed Tournaments for 5% of the time

For everyone to hate Cal so bad his years really saved the look of our program exponentially because without Cal we are looking at 2 titles, 1 runner up and 2 final fours in 27 years.

Can you honestly look at those numbers and say that we have had sustained success through most of the years?

Compare that to say UNC during the same time period! North Carolina during that same time frame has two more titles, one more runner up and two more final fours. Just based off that we can't say we are the greatest program in the modern era. That is without even checking Duke, Kansas, UConn and others numbers from the same time frame.

I love UK. I bleed BLUE. I am a realist.

 

[Ron Mehico]

In the era of modern basketball yes that is exactly what I am saying....our basketball program has been average to above average in it's entirety since either 1985 (when most everyone considers the start of modern day) or if you want to say after the last title before that period began. Titles from 60-70 years ago mean nothing today.

Since 1978 (our last title before modern basketball) we have played 45 seasons. Two of those seasons we were ineligible for the tournament and another season COVID cancelled the tournament, so in reality there have been 42 seasons for UK Basketball. In those 42 seasons here is a breakdown of how the season ended:

3 titles for 7% of the time
2 Runner Ups for 5% of the time
4 Final Fours for 10% of the time
10 Elite Eights for 24% of the time
6 Sweet Sixteens for 14% of the time
9 Second Round Exits for 21% of the time
4 First Round Exits for 10% of the time
3 NIT Tournaments for 7% of the time
2 Missed Tournaments for 5% of the time

For everyone to hate Cal so bad his years really saved the look of our program exponentially because without Cal we are looking at 2 titles, 1 runner up and 2 final fours in 27 years.

Can you honestly look at those numbers and say that we have had sustained success through most of the years?

Compare that to say UNC during the same time period! North Carolina during that same time frame has two more titles, one more runner up and two more final fours. Just based off that we can't say we are the greatest program in the modern era. That is without even checking Duke, Kansas, UConn and others numbers from the same time frame.

I love UK. I bleed BLUE. I am a realist.

Average to me means just that, average. We finished in the top 8 24% of the time and the final four 10% of the time. How many other programs out of 300 have matched or exceeded that? Go ahead and look it up and then report back. You’ll find that your argument keeps getting more ridiculous and ignorant with each long winded post you make.

 

[UPSCat4080]

Average to me means just that, average. We finished in the top 8 24% of the time and the final four 10% of the time. How many other programs out of 300 have matched or exceeded that? Go ahead and look it up and then report back. You’ll find that your argument keeps getting more ridiculous and ignorant with each long winded post you make.

Top 8 is your measure for success? I thought we were about Final Fours and Championships?

Years that each team have made the Final Four or better since Joe B Halls title:
Kentucky 9 years
Duke 13 years
UNC 14 years
Kansas 10 years
Michigan State 9 years
Louisville 7 years
Villanova 5 years
Syracuse 5 years
UCLA 5 years
UConn 7 years (didn't get their first Final Four for this category until 1999 so that's the last 25 years not 45 years)

So we are worse that Duke, UNC and Kansas, on par with Michigan State and a little better than Louisville and UConn (but 3 less titles in that time frame).

I WILL ADMIT that you are more right than I first thought when saying that we have been better than I described as "above average". Yes we are in the upper echelon of teams when it comes to success of Final Fours or even elite Eights and beyond and that is largely in part thanks to Cal because without his years here we drop to 5 seasons of that success which would be on par with Syracuse and Villanova.

I still stand by my response to the poster I originally replied to though that:

-We cannot call ourselves better than any program using titles won 60-70 years ago as evidence
-We are not the top program or in my opinion even Top 3 in recent modern times
-The years outside of Cal even including Rick brings our program view closer to mediocre than the GOAT status that many label us with

I am done going back and forth and had way to much time on my hands today apparently to even be able to type as much as I have. Keep on the blue blinders my man.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Top 8 is your measure for success? I thought we were about Final Fours and Championships?

Years that each team have made the Final Four or better since Joe B Halls title:
Kentucky 9 years
Duke 13 years
UNC 14 years
Kansas 10 years
Michigan State 9 years
Louisville 7 years
Villanova 5 years
Syracuse 5 years
UCLA 5 years
UConn 7 years (didn't get their first Final Four for this category until 1999 so that's the last 25 years not 45 years)

I WILL ADMIT that you are more right than I first thought when saying that we have been better than I described as "above average". Yes we are in the upper echelon of teams when it comes to success of Final Fours or even elite Eights and beyond and that is largely in part thanks to Cal because without his years here we drop to 5 seasons of that success which would be on par with Syracuse and Villanova.

I still stand by my response to the poster I originally replied to though that:

-We cannot call ourselves better than any program using titles won 60-70 years ago as evidence
-We are not the top program or in my opinion even Top 3 in recent modern times
-The years outside of Cal even including Rick brings our program view closer to mediocre than the GOAT status that many label us with

I am done going back and forth and had way to much time on my hands today apparently to even be able to type as much as I have. Keep on the blue blinders my man.

So in this post we have established that out of 325 teams there are only 3 more that have more final fours then us putting us in the top 1%, and we are even better in elite eights (yes, finishing in the top 8 teams is a good season - 2017 and 2019 and 2005 etc etc were good years) as you are obviously too embarrassed to even list that stat. So after 10 or so insanely long winded posts we’ve concluded that everything you’ve argued in this thread is dumb and ignorant. Congrats, and if I were you I’d leave this thread ASAP