ADVERTISEMENT

Derek Willis: “We’re the most talented team every year, regardless of what anyone says."

I'll say we had the most talent in 10/12/14/15 and now 16. That's incredible. I'm not going to go all cutnets on you but I do believe we should have had 3 titles out of those teams. I still shake my head at what happened with that 2010 team. My goodness that team was incredible. The talent was just unreal.
What many people can't seem to understand is that

BEST INDIVIDUAL TALENT =/= BEST ROSTER


Set aside that we've seen other teams like UNC or UCONN 2012 or Zona or Duke '15 playing exclusively elite recruits up and down the roster -

There were a number of Kansas, Florida, UNC, Duke, UCONN, Zona, OSU, UCLA, Texas, Memphis, etc rosters that had like 4.5 star averages across their rotation, including a bunch of juniors and seniors.

Does a UK roster that averages 4.8 stars across the rotation with all freshmen and two sophomores compare favorably to that? I don't think so.

Other coaches talk about it all the time, but general fans take for granted that Cal's job is tough in this respect - having top 10 defenses half the time with all freshmen seems like it should be a given now, but it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

When you combine that with the highest "random factor" postseason tournament in all of sports (single elimination) and the fact that 4 final fours in 6 years with a championship and another elite 8 has only been matched what - twice in the history of CBB? I think you have to take a step back and appreciate what's going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .S&C. and brianpoe
What many people can't seem to understand is that

BEST INDIVIDUAL TALENT =/= BEST ROSTER


Set aside that we've seen other teams like UNC or UCONN 2012 or Zona or Duke '15 playing exclusively elite recruits up and down the roster -

There were a number of Kansas, Florida, UNC, Duke, UCONN, Zona, OSU, UCLA, Texas, Memphis, etc rosters that had like 4.5 star averages across their rotation, including a bunch of juniors and seniors.

Does a UK roster that averages 4.8 stars across the rotation with all freshmen and two sophomores compare favorably to that? I don't think so.

Other coaches talk about it all the time, but general fans take for granted that Cal's job is tough in this respect - having top 10 defenses half the time with all freshmen seems like it should be a given now, but it's pretty crazy when you think about it.

When you combine that with the highest "random factor" postseason tournament in all of sports (single elimination) and the fact that 4 final fours in 6 years with a championship and another elite 8 has only been matched what - twice in the history of CBB? I think you have to take a step back and appreciate what's going on.

This is true, and I wouldn't argue it. I would however make a point that Cal has had an enormous amount of talent through his 6 years here. Definitely more so than any other team, and maybe more than any coach has ever had in history. He will need a minimum of two championships with this talent to be considered a success. I know some fans don't like that, but it doesn't matter what they like. He will be judged on title(s) by the collective "basketball society" if you will.

I'd also say lots of the time, the best te actually does win it all. Going back 10 years, you have the best team winning the tile (or close to the best team/subjective) probably 6 or 7 out of ten. If it's not the best team winning it, it's a top 5 usually. When people say "the best team doesn't always win" it's more of an excuse IMO. No one thinks the best team always wins the title, but they absolutely usually do as of late. Cal would probably be the first to admit we've had enough talent to win 2.

To me, anything after two is just hard to make happen. very few coaches can do that. But lots of coaches have won a single championship and have had way, way, WAY less talent to do it.

Not to sound like a hater or Lousiville fan, but it's my take.

::just to add, cal is already a HOF coach. But I'm talking "top 5 or 10" impact. ::
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jkwo
Cal is a "A" grade coach. 100% on recruiting. 80% on coaching. Overall 90% which is an A.

Since I'm just an ignorant fanatic, winning a second title takes that "coaching" category up to 90% which if my math is correct would put him at a 95%ile and make him A+.

Yup, I'm a UK fan.
 
This is true, and I wouldn't argue it. I would however make a point that Cal has had an enormous amount of talent through his 6 years here. Definitely more so than any other team, and maybe more than any coach has ever had in history. He will need a minimum of two championships with this talent to be considered a success. I know some fans don't like that, but it doesn't matter what they like. He will be judged on title(s) by the collective "basketball society" if you will.

I'd also say lots of the time, the best te actually does win it all. Going back 10 years, you have the best team winning the tile (or close to the best team/subjective) probably 6 or 7 out of ten. If it's not the best team winning it, it's a top 5 usually. When people say "the best team doesn't always win" it's more of an excuse IMO. No one thinks the best team always wins the title, but they absolutely usually do as of late. Cal would probably be the first to admit we've had enough talent to win 2.

To me, anything after two is just hard to make happen. very few coaches can do that. But lots of coaches have won a single championship and have had way, way, WAY less talent to do it.

Not to sound like a hater or Lousiville fan, but it's my take.

::just to add, cal is already a HOF coach. But I'm talking "top 5 or 10" impact. ::
I'm saying though - look at all those seasons, and accounting for both star average and experience, how many years did he have the best roster with nobody else in the vicinity?

I'd argue he didn't once. Sounds crazy, right?

Everybody will say "but what about '10, '12 and '15?!"

Well, let's break it down by season (just using big time obvious examples here off the top of my head - I'm not even getting into those Florida/OSU type teams that I mentioned with star averages well above 4 composed of mostly upperclassmen):

'10 had Kansas, who had sick talent with much more experience than us and got knocked out by a mid major. There are no good losses, but thank God instead of what KU did, we at least we lost to a 2 seed by single digits on the coldest shooting night we've had since '84.
'12 had UNC (whom we beat in one of the most awesome games ever but who also had an awful injury at the end that ruined their tourney - same HS star power as us but with more experience) and UCONN (who sucked and lost in the 8/9 game - but holy %^&* look at their roster). We won the ship, obviously.
'15 had Duke (won it all under the GOAT coach, tied us for the record with 9 burger boys, plenty of upperclassmen and 3 superstar freshmen) and Arizona (burger boys down the line, 4 out of 6 rotation guys were upperclassmen, plus 1 soph and the #1 freshman wing recruit). Obviously, we got another F4 and took a down-to-the-last minute loss vs a HOF coach that we knocked out the year before with the same team.

Only one of those mentioned won the championship, even though all of those other guys are HOF or future HOF coaches.

And that's not even getting into '11, '13, '14, where we were loaded with great freshmen, but so damn young that there were usually something like 5-8 rosters on paper that would be easier to coach to a championship when you factor in both star power and experience.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: .S&C.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT