Final Four as the Standard

[FinancialPlannerZac]

Hi guys, I've noticed throughout my short time here at RR that many like to point out that we haven't been to the Final Four since 2015. They use this to argue the point that Cal is slipping as a coach, that the program just isn't where it needs to be/used to be, and a decline is only going to continue, etc.

It's just hard for me to understand that kind of thinking, because to me it comes with absurd expectations. I get it, this is Kentucky, and believe me, I'd love for them to win it all every year. Great expectations are expected, and they should be. I've mentioned something like this before... but if UK had avoided a game-winner against UNC in 2017 and had played even a decent game against Auburn last season, and then gone onto lose in the FF thereafter, does that make a huge difference in how the season played out? Just because they got to a "Final Four."

The obvious goal is to be champions every year, but I'm happy if we're in the mix to win it. Honestly, I'll take a "lull" here and there if it means we're able to win another title, say within the next three seasons. To me, that's much better than say, Michigan State, who has consistently made it to the Final Four (eight times since 1999), but hasn't won a title since 2000.

 

[STL_Cat]

Hi guys, I've noticed throughout my short time here at RR that many like to point out that we haven't been to the Final Four since 2015. They use this to argue the point that Cal is slipping as a coach, that the program just isn't where it needs to be/used to be, and a decline is only going to continue, etc.

It's just hard for me to understand that kind of thinking, because to me it comes with absurd expectations. I get it, this is Kentucky, and believe me, I'd love for them to win it all every year. Great expectations are expected, and they should be. I've mentioned something like this before... but if UK had avoided a game-winner against UNC in 2017 and had played even a decent game against Auburn last season, and then gone onto lose in the FF thereafter, does that make a huge difference in how the season played out? Just because they got to a "Final Four."

The obvious goal is to be champions every year, but I'm happy if we're in the mix to win it. Honestly, I'll take a "lull" here and there if it means we're able to win another title, say within the next three seasons. To me, that's much better than say, Michigan State, who has consistently made it to the Final Four (eight times since 1999), but hasn't won a title since 2000.

Yes, I think it does make a big difference. Final Fours are a big deal, that’s why you hang banners for them. “If this or that happened we would have ...” doesn’t change anything, that’s sports.

 

[Joerupp]

Yes, I think it does make a big difference. Final Fours are a big deal, that’s why you hang banners for them. “If this or that happened we would have ...” doesn’t change anything, that’s sports.

Be honest. Did you think we had a chance to win that game when the refs were announced? I didn’t. Sorry talking about unCHEAT.

 

[STL_Cat]

Be honest. Did you think we had a chance to win that game when the refs were announced? I didn’t. Sorry talking about unCHEAT.

Yeah, of course I thought we had a chance. I’m not a Higgins fan but I’m not the kind of guy that looks for excuses to make.

 

[Dead Cat Bounce]

In Pitino's final year at UK, I decided--half jokingly--that, since the NCAA tournament is so difficult to win, it requires so much luck, my standard for a great season would be 30 wins, without regard to tournament outcomes. I remember feeling very smug about it, again, in a half-joking sort of way, because 30 wins felt like an impossibly high bar. Rarely do college basketball teams win 30 games in a season. To do so, you have to make deep runs in the conference and/or NCAA tournament. Pitino did it three times in eight years (.38). Tubby did it twice in ten years (.2). Calipari has done it four times in ten years, including last year (.4). Over time, I've kind of grown more serious about that standard, in part because of Calipari's success. For comparison, Coach K has done it, I believe, fifteen times in 38 years (.395). Williams did it only five times in fifteen years at Allen Frickin' Fieldhouse (.333). He's done it seven times in sixteen seasons at Chapel Hell (.44).

 

[MdWIldcat55]

My standard, which no one else ever accepts (which is fine with me) is that making the Elite Eight in today's highly competitive 68 team format is the equivalent of making the Final Four pre-1985. To get there, you have to win three games in the tournament, and avoid any bad losses-terrible upsets.
That is my mark of a successful season.

A Final Four is an exceptional season -- one to be remembered with a banner in the rafters and celebrated, no matter what else happens.

A Championship is an extraordinary season, one to embrace and cherish because it is as rare as it is exhilarating.

I've been a fan since Rupp's Runts, and I've only experienced four -- and that still puts me ahead of a vast majority of college basketball fans, especially when I add in the rich memories of years like 1966, 1975, 1984, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2003, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017 and others when the Cats did things I'll never forget, but fell short of a championship.

 

[KYFOSSIL]

Yeah, of course I thought we had a chance. I’m not a Higgins fan but I’m not the kind of guy that looks for excuses to make.

That was not an excuse and you know it. That officiating was horrendous and contributed greatly to that loss and Wisconsin loss as well.

 

[drew_ukfan]

I enjoy it all from game 1 to the end of the season, even if we lose some of them. My life isn’t changed if we go 40-0 or 0-40, I don’t take it to heart. So the “championship or bust” mindset is foolish imo. Cal gives a chance to compete most years, I’m more than happy

 

[STL_Cat]

That was not an excuse and you know it. That officiating was horrendous and contributed greatly to that loss and Wisconsin loss as well.

It was absolutely horrendous I agree. I’m saying I didn’t just go into the game thinking “oh man we have no chance”... that’s a preemptive excuse. I hope our players don’t have that kind of defeatist mentality.

 

[KYFOSSIL]

It was absolutely horrendous I agree. I’m saying I didn’t just go into the game thinking “oh man we have no chance”... that’s a preemptive excuse. I hope our players don’t have that kind of defeatist mentality.

Yes I agree with that as well.

 

[Ripcord65]

My standard . . . is that making the Elite Eight . . . is my mark of a successful season.
A Final Four is an exceptional season -- one to be remembered with a banner in the rafters and celebrated, no matter what else happens.
A Championship is an extraordinary season, one to embrace and cherish because it is as rare as it is exhilarating.
. . . .

I disagree only slightly with the foregoing, but to my mind significantly.

Making it only to the Sweet Sixteen and losing there is an unsuccessful season.
Making it to the Elite Eight is an acceptable season.
Making it to the Final Four is a successful season.
Making it to the Championship Game is an exceptional season.
Winning the National Championship is an extraordinary season !

 

[KYFOSSIL]

I disagree only slightly with the foregoing, but to my mind significantly.

Making it only to the Sweet Sixteen and losing there is an unsuccessful season.
Making it to the Elite Eight is an acceptable season.
Making it to the Final Four is a successful season.
Making it to the Championship Game is an exceptional season.
Winning the National Championship is an extraordinary season !

I think that’s fair as a general approach.

 

[STL_Cat]

I’ll qualify this as I’m absolutely not a “championship or bust” fan ... although I think when you’re an elite team on a dominant run you should expect a Final Four once every 2 or 3 years. Is that too high an expectation? Probably. But, that’s what Kentucky basketball is. It sets a standard that, hopefully, is better than everyone else’s. It’s why we make fun of Kansas for only having 3 titles. If we truly believe it’s just luck or a crapshoot, we have to stop making fun of Kansas for only having 3. I’m not sure about you guys but I’m not willing to stop making fun of Kansas.

I’d pose this question to the “tournament is luck” crowd. What year so far in the Cal era was our best team? 2012. That team won the title. So the fact that the best team we’ve had under Cal won the title stands to reason that it’s definitely more than just luck. Sure, there’s a luck factor and some years you get lucky and others you get unlucky. But if you look at our best teams, shoot go back 30 years if you want. 1996 and 2012. Our best teams have won titles. Our second best tier either won the title or at least made the final four (1993, 1997, 1998, 2015). So even though there’s an element of luck, the sheer fact that when you break down the best teams there’s a clear correlation of best teams and titles and final fours.

 

[Dead Cat Bounce]

How many titles would we have if the championship was played best of seven? It's not surprising that on any given night, given all the tournament variables (arena, officiating, flu season, shooting streaks, match ups, etc.) a great team, or even simply a hot team, can beat one of the best teams. That's the nature of basketball. Single elimination makes it a whole lot harder for the best teams to control their destiny.

 

[Ocornett]

I disagree only slightly with the foregoing, but to my mind significantly.

Making it only to the Sweet Sixteen and losing there is an unsuccessful season.
Making it to the Elite Eight is an acceptable season.
Making it to the Final Four is a successful season.
Making it to the Championship Game is an exceptional season.
Winning the National Championship is an extraordinary season !

Unrealistic expectations you have. You really believe that in order to have a successful season we have to make the final four? Wow just Wow!!! How many extraordinary seasons have you experienced in your lifetime? We’ve won 4 NC in my lifetime and I’m 62. They are very rare and these days take a lot of luck to win even if you have a great team. You be crazy boy. Hopefully, you didn’t have these type of expectations for your kids? If so, god help them.

 

[STL_Cat]

How many titles would we have if the championship was played best of seven? It's not surprising that on any given night, given all the tournament variables (arena, officiating, flu season, shooting streaks, match ups, etc.) a great team, or even simply a hot team, can beat one of the best teams. That's the nature of basketball. Single elimination makes it a whole lot harder for the best teams to control their destiny.

True, we’d probably have more if it were best if 7. But the fact remains, our BEST teams have won titles or at least made the final four.

 

[FinancialPlannerZac]

I’ll qualify this as I’m absolutely not a “championship or bust” fan ... although I think when you’re an elite team on a dominant run you should expect a Final Four once every 2 or 3 years. Is that too high an expectation? Probably. But, that’s what Kentucky basketball is. It sets a standard that, hopefully, is better than everyone else’s. It’s why we make fun of Kansas for only having 3 titles. If we truly believe it’s just luck or a crapshoot, we have to stop making fun of Kansas for only having 3. I’m not sure about you guys but I’m not willing to stop making fun of Kansas.

I’d pose this question to the “tournament is luck” crowd. What year so far in the Cal era was our best team? 2012. That team won the title. So the fact that the best team we’ve had under Cal won the title stands to reason that it’s definitely more than just luck. Sure, there’s a luck factor and some years you get lucky and others you get unlucky. But if you look at our best teams, shoot go back 30 years if you want. 1996 and 2012. Our best teams have won titles. Our second best tier either won the title or at least made the final four (1993, 1997, 1998, 2015). So even though there’s an element of luck, the sheer fact that when you break down the best teams there’s a clear correlation of best teams and titles and final fours.

I understand what you're saying. But then on the flip side of that, we don't often see the best team in college basketball win the title. I wouldn't be surprised if most people said our actual BEST team in the Cal era was 2015. We also associate the word best with how that team made us feel. It's really hard to say 2015 was a better team than 2012 (even though they might have been) because of the undeniable excitement that came with winning a title, and the utter disappointment that comes with the shortcoming of a team that was two wins shy of a perfect season.

 

[STL_Cat]

I understand what you're saying. But then on the flip side of that, we don't often see the best team in college basketball win the title. I wouldn't be surprised if most people said our actual BEST team in the Cal era was 2015. We also associate the word best with how that team made us feel. It's really hard to say 2015 was better than 2012 (even though they might have been) because of the undeniable excitement that came with winning a title, and the utter disappointment that comes with the shortcoming of a team that was two wins shy of a perfect season.

That 2015 loss was a soul crusher to be sure. But they still at least made the Final Four, and I just can’t put them ahead of Davis & company. Now part of this is chicken and the egg, because if they’d finished the job and gone 40-0 you’d have to put them ahead of ADs group.

 

[Backer cutter]

Not a final four or bust guy. Successful seasons to me are when the team (imo) reaches its full potential and is entertaining to watch, play as a team etc. obviously the championship teams are some of my personal favorites, but other teams stand out also, and not all made the final 4. One example of mine is the 92 team. I thought they reached beyond their potential, and were one of the most fun teams to watch that i can remember. Sure, would have loved for them to have beaten duke and made the final four, but they gave it their all, that’s all you can ask. And that’s what makes a successful season for me personally.

 

[ganner918]

We've been treating Final Fours as a standard for as long as I can remember. Tubby gave us the longest Final Four drought in program history and that was a huge deal to us. Any decade without multiple Final Fours stands out as a down period - 1 in the 60s, 1 in the 80s, zero in the 00s compared to 3 in the 40s, 2 in the 50s, 2 in the 70s, 4 in the 90s, 4 in the 10s.

You don't have to get there every year but you do have to compete for them almost every year and make them pretty regularly.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

I’ll qualify this as I’m absolutely not a “championship or bust” fan ... although I think when you’re an elite team on a dominant run you should expect a Final Four once every 2 or 3 years. Is that too high an expectation? Probably. But, that’s what Kentucky basketball is. It sets a standard that, hopefully, is better than everyone else’s. It’s why we make fun of Kansas for only having 3 titles. If we truly believe it’s just luck or a crapshoot, we have to stop making fun of Kansas for only having 3. I’m not sure about you guys but I’m not willing to stop making fun of Kansas.

I’d pose this question to the “tournament is luck” crowd. What year so far in the Cal era was our best team? 2012. That team won the title. So the fact that the best team we’ve had under Cal won the title stands to reason that it’s definitely more than just luck. Sure, there’s a luck factor and some years you get lucky and others you get unlucky. But if you look at our best teams, shoot go back 30 years if you want. 1996 and 2012. Our best teams have won titles. Our second best tier either won the title or at least made the final four (1993, 1997, 1998, 2015). So even though there’s an element of luck, the sheer fact that when you break down the best teams there’s a clear correlation of best teams and titles and final fours.

* 1998 team was no more than the fourth best team in college basketball, behind North Carolina, Kansas and Arizona, and probably behind Duke. Of those teams it only had to play Duke, and pulled out a game from 17 points down with 9:17 to play after a remarkable streak of scoring 3-3-3-4-3 on five possessions. Then it beat Stanford in OT in a game in which Jeff Sheppard hit three 3-pointers off curls - all absolutely critical. He misses one, Kentucky likely loses. I don't think anyone would say that Championship didn't require some good luck.
* 2015 was the best team in college basketball in a year with three other good-to-very good teams, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Duke. Not only did Kentucky get in a bracket with all three of the other teams that had any chance to beat them, they drew the most obviously biased ref towards UK in history in a tough Final Four rematch with a Wisconsin team that had the revenge factor of a last-second loss the year before. Any reasonable person would say that outcome included some bad luck.

Yes, over history, the luck will even out: A 1998 will balance a 2015. That's why Kentucky is the greatest program of all time and Kansas is rightly seen as second (or third) tier. But over a short sample size -- the last five or ten years say -- it is reasonable to see luck as a factor. You couldn't replicate all the twists that gave Virginia the title last year in a thousand years. You telling me they weren't lucky?

 

[Dead Cat Bounce]

True, we’d probably have more if it were best if 7. But the fact remains, our BEST teams have won titles or at least made the final four.

I won't argue whether that's true or not for Kentucky. I don't have the memory for all of our seasons. But a couple of general statistics I pulled up suggest that it's pretty rare for "best teams" to win titles or even to make the Final Four, at least if seeding is any measure of "best."

A number 1 seed--meaning one of the top four teams--has won the NCAA tournament only 21 out of the last 35 years. A full 40 percent of the time, the tournament is won by a a team seeded in the fifth highest spot or lower.

Nearly half of the time, three of the number one seeds are eliminated before the Final Four.

NUMBER OF 1 SEEDS TO MAKE FINAL FOUR FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
4 1 2.94%
3 4 11.76%
2 13 38.24%
1 14 41.18%
0 2 5.88%



From https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...how-many-no-1-seeds-you-should-pick-your-ncaa

 

[STL_Cat]

* 1998 team was no more than the fourth best team in college basketball, behind North Carolina, Kansas and Arizona, and probably behind Duke. Of those teams it only had to play Duke, and pulled out a game from 17 points down with 9:17 to play after a remarkable streak of scoring 3-3-3-4-3 on five possessions. Then it beat Stanford in OT in a game in which Jeff Sheppard hit three 3-pointers off curls - all absolutely critical. He misses one, Kentucky likely loses. I don't think anyone would say that Championship didn't require some good luck.
* 2015 was the best team in college basketball in a year with three other good-to-very good teams, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Duke. Not only did Kentucky get in a bracket with all three of the other teams that had any chance to beat them, they drew the most obviously biased ref towards UK in history in a tough Final Four rematch with a Wisconsin team that had the revenge factor of a last-second loss the year before. Any reasonable person would say that outcome included some bad luck.

Yes, over history, the luck will even out -- That's why Kentucky is the greatest program of all time and Kansas is rightly seen as second (or third) tier. But over a short sample size -- the last five or ten years say -- it is reasonable to see luck as a factor. You couldn't replicate all the twists that gave Virginia the title last year in a thousand years. You telling me they weren't lucky?

I straight up acknowledged several times that luck can play a factor, so giving me instances where that happened really isn’t disproving my point at all. Fair point about the 98 team, though. That core group of guys had just been around and experienced so much tournament success in the previous couple years, it was like they didn’t know how to lose in March.

 

[KyFaninNC]

Hi guys, I've noticed throughout my short time here at RR that many like to point out that we haven't been to the Final Four since 2015. They use this to argue the point that Cal is slipping as a coach, that the program just isn't where it needs to be/used to be, and a decline is only going to continue, etc.

It's just hard for me to understand that kind of thinking, because to me it comes with absurd expectations. I get it, this is Kentucky, and believe me, I'd love for them to win it all every year. Great expectations are expected, and they should be. I've mentioned something like this before... but if UK had avoided a game-winner against UNC in 2017 and had played even a decent game against Auburn last season, and then gone onto lose in the FF thereafter, does that make a huge difference in how the season played out? Just because they got to a "Final Four."

The obvious goal is to be champions every year, but I'm happy if we're in the mix to win it. Honestly, I'll take a "lull" here and there if it means we're able to win another title, say within the next three seasons. To me, that's much better than say, Michigan State, who has consistently made it to the Final Four (eight times since 1999), but hasn't won a title since 2000.

Lot of IF’s in that

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

Hi guys, I've noticed throughout my short time here at RR that many like to point out that we haven't been to the Final Four since 2015. They use this to argue the point that Cal is slipping as a coach, that the program just isn't where it needs to be/used to be, and a decline is only going to continue, etc.

It's just hard for me to understand that kind of thinking, because to me it comes with absurd expectations. I get it, this is Kentucky, and believe me, I'd love for them to win it all every year. Great expectations are expected, and they should be. I've mentioned something like this before... but if UK had avoided a game-winner against UNC in 2017 and had played even a decent game against Auburn last season, and then gone onto lose in the FF thereafter, does that make a huge difference in how the season played out? Just because they got to a "Final Four."

The obvious goal is to be champions every year, but I'm happy if we're in the mix to win it. Honestly, I'll take a "lull" here and there if it means we're able to win another title, say within the next three seasons. To me, that's much better than say, Michigan State, who has consistently made it to the Final Four (eight times since 1999), but hasn't won a title since 2000.

Said it for years......all you can realistically ask from you coach/program is to be a contender most years. That's all you can ask without being unrealistic and unreasonable. We have some that expect titles every year and its absurd. Its incredibly hard to win a championship! I dont care how much talent you have. Young talent vs experienced talent is not even comparable. Having young talent just makes it that much harder to win. Doesnt matter how talented they are if they let nerves creep in or they make a bone headed play because they have never experienced it before. So, I really wish people would stop with the "All the talent that has come through here" shit. Having talent is not the only key to winning a championship. You have to have a mixture of variables to win it.....including a little luck. Just look at Virginia last year. They had tons of luck. If they played those final mins over in each of those games, they probably wouldn't win any of them. That's the luck factor. It's a legitimate variable. Cal has us competing for championships every single year. That's all any of us can ask for.

I'm content as a fan. We go into the tournament every year knowing that our team has a good chance to cut the nets down. Any program in the country would love to have that at their program. Sure, there are things that I think we can improve on and things that I would do differently. But Cal knows the ins and outside of the team and I do not. I would love to see more inbound plays but I get that Cal feels there are other more important assets to work on and I trust him. So, it's not a big deal. We keep knocking at the door and eventually it will get answered.

 

[Jkwo]

People who understand stats treat NCAA (single elimination) tournament results differently than NBA (best of 7) tournament results.

People who don't understand stats claim that they understand the difference, but still look at the results through the same critical lens, which is logically indefensible.

Given single-elimination, the best way to evaluate a coach is regular season success (adjusting for SOS) and average tournament wins against seed expectations over multiple tournaments.

 

[FinancialPlannerZac]

Lot of IF’s in that

I counted two? My point being the overall success of a season (to me) isn't going to be riding on the difference of an Elite Eight or a Final Four, especially when you're in the mix for both year in and year out.

 

[HagginHall1999]

I disagree only slightly with the foregoing, but to my mind significantly.

Making it only to the Sweet Sixteen and losing there is an unsuccessful season.
Making it to the Elite Eight is an acceptable season.
Making it to the Final Four is a successful season.
Making it to the Championship Game is an exceptional season.
Winning the National Championship is an extraordinary season !

So we have only had an "acceptable season" 38 times? Only 31 times pre-Cal.

You are a tough grader my friend.

I would say making it to Sweet 16 is a successful season in this day and age.

 

[KyFaninNC]

I counted two? My point being the overall success of a season (to me) isn't going to be riding on the difference of an Elite Eight or a Final Four, especially when you're in the mix for both year in and year out.

True. The one thing Cal does better than coach we have had, including Rupp is the have us in contention every year. Pitino did it well once probation was over, but he decided to leave, but he left the program well enough to win a natty.

 

[Ripcord65]

So we have only had an "acceptable season" 38 times? Only 31 times pre-Cal.

You are a tough grader my friend.

I would say making it to Sweet 16 is a successful season in this day and age.

After he coached and recruited at Kentucky for two years during which U.K. was on probation and thus not eligible for the NCAA tournament, Pitino's teams were eligible for the NCAA Tournament from 1992 through 1997. Out of those six seasons, the 'Cats went to the Elite Eight in five of those seasons, to the Final Four in three of those seasons, to the final game twice, and won the Championship once. IMHO, that's the standard by which U.K. success can reasonably be judged.

And I should add that Calipari's teams have also done pretty well over his entire tenure, by my standard - though obviously not as well recently.

 

[king of cali]

After he coached and recruited at Kentucky for two years during which U.K. was on probation and thus not eligible for the NCAA tournament, Pitino's teams were eligible for the NCAA Tournament from 1992 through 1997. Out of those six seasons, the 'Cats went to the Elite Eight in five of those seasons, to the Final Four in three of those seasons, to the final game twice, and won the Championship once. IMHO, that's the standard by which U.K. success can reasonably be judged.

To carry that thought even further, the remnants of Pitino’s final teams won an additional title and another Elite 8.

 

[ScrooDook92]

Yeah, of course I thought we had a chance. I’m not a Higgins fan but I’m not the kind of guy that looks for excuses to make.

Like you, I'm worn out from the "cheating refs" conspiracy theories. We simply weren't good enough to win those games. If Cal wouldn't crap his pants in the tournament, those close game situations wouldn't be happening.

 

[HagginHall1999]

After he coached and recruited at Kentucky for two years during which U.K. was on probation and thus not eligible for the NCAA tournament, Pitino's teams were eligible for the NCAA Tournament from 1992 through 1997. Out of those six seasons, the 'Cats went to the Elite Eight in five of those seasons, to the Final Four in three of those seasons, to the final game twice, and won the Championship once. IMHO, that's the standard by which U.K. success can reasonably be judged.

And I should add that Calipari's teams have also done pretty well over his entire tenure, by my standard - though obviously not as well recently.

Right, post segregation Pitino and Cal runs are best we've had.

That is a blip on the radar and short sighted in terms of history of our program.

 

[ScrooDook92]

True. The one thing Cal does better than coach we have had, including Rupp is the have us in contention every year. Pitino did it well once probation was over, but he decided to leave, but he left the program well enough to win a natty.

Cal hasn't has us in contention for a title since the 2014-15 season. If you're not getting to the Final Four you're not in contention for anything. You've either won a game, or you haven't. That's reality. No participation awards, please.

 

[HagginHall1999]

Cal hasn't has us in contention for a title since the 2014-15 season. If you're not getting to the Final Four you're not in contention for anything. You've either won a game, or you haven't. That's reality. No participation awards, please.

Ha, that is funny...

 

[HagginHall1999]

Like you, I'm worn out from the "cheating refs" conspiracy theories. We simply weren't good enough to win those games. If Cal wouldn't crap his pants in the tournament, those close game situations wouldn't be happening.

I don't get in on the ref excuses, generally, but 2017 was ridiculous.

However, Cal didn't do the following:

1. 4-32 from 3 against WVU 2010

2. 4-12 from FT vs UConn 2011(1 pt loss)

3. 13-24 from FT, 5-16 from 3 vs Uconn 2014 (he also didn't make all the shots Aaron Harrison made)

*Wisky was his worst game IMO, + rooferee 2015, this has to be torture for Cal*

*Indiana was just better than us in 2016*

*We did get screwed by rooferee in 2017*

4. He didn't shoot 8-20 FT vs KSU, that was PJ in 2018

5. I think Auburn just beat us. Felt like our guys were tired and Auburn was red hot....they were a dangerous team.

 

[Ocornett]

After he coached and recruited at Kentucky for two years during which U.K. was on probation and thus not eligible for the NCAA tournament, Pitino's teams were eligible for the NCAA Tournament from 1992 through 1997. Out of those six seasons, the 'Cats went to the Elite Eight in five of those seasons, to the Final Four in three of those seasons, to the final game twice, and won the Championship once. IMHO, that's the standard by which U.K. success can reasonably be judged.

And I should add that Calipari's teams have also done pretty well over his entire tenure, by my standard - though obviously not as well recently.

So now the standard for Kentucky was created by RP. That's just stupid. Please next time you jump don't pull the ripcord, and save us from your out of this world post.

 

[ColonelCat]

My standard, which no one else ever accepts (which is fine with me) is that making the Elite Eight in today's highly competitive 68 team format is the equivalent of making the Final Four pre-1985. To get there, you have to win three games in the tournament, and avoid any bad losses-terrible upsets.
That is my mark of a successful season.

A Final Four is an exceptional season -- one to be remembered with a banner in the rafters and celebrated, no matter what else happens.

A Championship is an extraordinary season, one to embrace and cherish because it is as rare as it is exhilarating.

I've been a fan since Rupp's Runts, and I've only experienced four -- and that still puts me ahead of a vast majority of college basketball fans, especially when I add in the rich memories of years like 1966, 1975, 1984, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2003, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017 and others when the Cats did things I'll never forget, but fell short of a championship.

Maybe we should hang a banner for SEC Regular season and SEC Tourn championships, or like Kansas. hang a useless Helms Bakery Banner for a non-existent NC. Then maybe everyone will be happy.

 

[Mike-D]

Yeah, of course I thought we had a chance. I’m not a Higgins fan but I’m not the kind of guy that looks for excuses to make.

Well go watch the game and refresh your memory a little. I still recall Barkley saying that was worst officiated game he’s ever seen in the tournament. But yeah, we still had a chance to win.

 

[STL_Cat]

Well go watch the game and refresh your memory a little. I still recall Barkley saying that was worst officiated game he’s ever seen in the tournament. But yeah, we still had a chance to win.

Read my next post. I said the officiating was horrendous. But this dude acted like he knew we couldn’t win before we even tipped. I’m sorry but that’s a weak mentality and is one I hope our players don’t share.