Well. I was doing fine until you mentioned it. Thanks!
I still randomly think..... Wisconsin? Am I alone in this?
- Thread starter xtra12
- Start date
UCONN beat the crap out of UK in 2011 in Maui. UK improved but so did UCONN. UK lost a hard fought game where they were not clearly the better team, both teams looked about equal by April IMO.
And 2014 lost because of no WCS IMO. No rim protector and Randle and/or Poy was hurt, I can't remember which for sure.
It was not a colossal upset. Take off the homer glasses. Wisconsin was a damn good team and many picked them to win anyway.
The Wisconsin loss hurt, but they all hurt. At least with Wisconsin there's the knowledge that we cost them a title the year before. They would have beaten UConn.
I don't understand the people trying to dig up a loss worse than Wisconsin. It doesn't exist. It probably never will. No, we weren't so superior to Wisconsin that we never should've lost. It's WHAT we lost by losing that game. It's likely most of us will never see another run at perfection by Kentucky in our lives. We were thisclose to being the first 40 win team in history and just totally shitting all over every other blue blood in the process.
Similar, and I think it's because how much was stacked against us. It felt bad from the jump. And by the half I had a weird feeling we would not win the game. The calls, as usual, weren't great. Never felt like Kentucky was able to play their game, but that's in big part to Wisconsin's style. Beating a Notre Dame squad at the very end.. a team that beat the eventual champion not once, but twice.. seemed to take a lot out of us.
In retrospect though, part of me is glad we lost there. There was zero chance they let Kentucky become 40-0 by beating Duke for the title. Even Commodus would have looked on like "Damn..".
In terms of what we missed out on by losing that game, I agree. But you don't have to "dig" to find bigger upsets in terms of "that team A was too good to lose to team B" because they happen every year
Wisconsin was the one team all year you didn't really want to see (ask Bilus, he's mentioned it a bunch since then that he said UW was the biggest threat), but there were 3-4 really good teams that year. I think we were 4 point favorites at the tip.
Wisconsin was a worse matchup for us and Duke a better one, but still as others have said......if losing to Wisconsin at 38-0 in the Final Four is bad, how much worse would losing to Duke in the title game going for 40-0 be? We were the better team, but recall K had those guys ready, especially the point guard and Grayson Allen......
Wisconsin was a worse matchup for us and Duke a better one, but still as others have said......if losing to Wisconsin at 38-0 in the Final Four is bad, how much worse would losing to Duke in the title game going for 40-0 be? We were the better team, but recall K had those guys ready, especially the point guard and Grayson Allen......
I've said it since, a lot of people didn't seem to realize Kentucky '15 had some giant holes that probably would been exploited along the way. I was nervous when I saw our draw, I just knew we weren't going to get through.
It's a good example of why statistical metrics are overrated. We overpowered teams throughout the year because of depth, but you only get to play 5 at a time, and we had no AD on that team. Towns was great but not AD, not then. And I also think Cal was far too vanilla throughout that process. Not popular here but it's my opinion.
I think it's one of Cals best teams for sure, however slightly overrated. Won't make sense to some and that's fine.
It's a good example of why statistical metrics are overrated. We overpowered teams throughout the year because of depth, but you only get to play 5 at a time, and we had no AD on that team. Towns was great but not AD, not then. And I also think Cal was far too vanilla throughout that process. Not popular here but it's my opinion.
I think it's one of Cals best teams for sure, however slightly overrated. Won't make sense to some and that's fine.
Meh, I fish up in northern WI a couple of times every year and it doesn't even cross my mind. Too many fish and too much good beer to worry about.
That team was incredible. Their numbers were way up there - among the best that have ever been produced, and just as good against ranked teams.
BUT that Wisconsin team had the strongest offense ever ranked by Kenpom.
So it's not exactly some David getting in a lucky shot.
Agree with most of this, including Wisconsin taking 3/10.
It's a testament to how f-ing good '15 UK was that they beat '15 Wiscy 7/10.
As for "should've" lost to Notre Dame, that's silly. That game was THEIR 1/10 that it was even that close.
The coulda/shoulda/woulda catches up with most teams - the law of averages sees to it that even the very best teams lose 4-5 games every year (leaving aside mid majors).
Not '15 UK. It took a very special team with an all time great offense to take them out. A handful of teams could have, if things went right, but the odds for any given game have to be relatively miniscule if a team goes 38 wins straight.
Don't you think in hindsight we were great due to depth, but in the tournament setting and 5 on 5, we weren't? I think it's overlooked.
We had no natural 3 forward, lyles was a bit underwhelming at that time to me. The Harrison's were really good ball players, but not great. Stein had a ton of offensive issues etc. I just don't feel we were as good of a tournament team as most. Nowhere near as good as '12. That team was built for the tournament.
I feel like Duke had a lot more balance. A true 3, a dominant center, a good ball distributor, and guys like Jefferson playing alongside Okafor etc..... seems like we were kind of choppy. Imo anyway
Last edited:
The 2015 UK team may have been the best defensive team ever..but their offense was UGH, boring, 1 demensional, and just mediocre. That team didn't get out of the 50s at home vs. Columbia and Providence. They didn't get out of the 50s vs UL or South Carolina..on the road but still. Didn't get out of the 60s vs. Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Georgia (At home) Texas, Vandy, or Cincy. Took Double OT to get to 70 @Texas A&M. Barely got into the 70s several times. Their offense was very BLAH. 2012 UK wins best out of 7 4-1 over 2015 UK..no doubt about it.
Last edited:
I disagree the 2011 loss to UConn was that huge of a disappointment, at least in hindsight. They were young like us, so it took them awhile to figure it out. They had the best player in Kemba. They had other guys that would go on to play in the NBA. We didn't play well, but it wasn't a guarantee we won that game anyway.
I'd agree in that the tournament's longer rests allowed opponents to recover against us during timeouts and made the team slightly less deadly - but they still had the biggest sweet 16 MOV in history.
Their metrics all season long were absolutely in the conversation with the best 2-3 teams in the modern era. So whatever step-down there was in granting opponents those tournament breaks, it wasn't gonna be enough to call any other team the best. There's just no way.
But that also happened to be the strongest season since maybe 2008... UK, Wisconsin, Duke, Arizona, and healthy Virginia (with that star kid who got hurt in conference) all would've been the #1 team nearly any other year in recent memory. And as I've pointed out, even if you give UK a 90% to take every round in the tournament, that's still only a 50/50 shot to win it. And I don't care who you are, '96 UK or '91 UNLV doesn't even have a 90% shot vs those other 4, and presuming we'd have to face 2 to win that championship.. the numbers just are what they are. It would be less than 50% for any team I've ever seen.
Yea and that's kinda my point. I get the metrics, but i just think that team is a tad overrated. Not that they weren't one of our best teams we've had, I think they wohld be. But I think they're well behind 96 UK, '12 UK, and maybe even '10 UK.
I go back to the offense as you do. Stein was an offensive liability. We lacked a 3 although we were able to hide it because of great perimeter defense. I just think in a tournament, especially in the final stages, we weren't going to be as dominant as SEC play. Those games tighten up and we just had too many holes. I do think Duke was the most balanced team and had plenty of talent.
To me that was Cals worst coaching moment. Pound the ball relentlessly inside to Towns is not a strategy. We were way too easy to plan for.
All imo. It's not popular I know that.
Last edited:
That one was rough. I had a harder time losing to Marquette in 2003, but the Wisconsin game stings.
The 2015 team succumbed to the pressure. Too many guys stopped rowing putting too much on too few. Booker, I'm looking at you. Willie, I'm looking at you. Aaron didn't play well.
We looked tight the first two rounds. Then we destroyed West Virginia but I knew that was trouble because in sports when one team completely dominates like that it's hard for them to bring their A game the next time. They expect the next team to roll over after a few punches. That's what happened against Notre Dame. Then we faced a team that had watched us dogpile on their half of the court in the last year's Final Four. A team that was talented enough to beat us anyway.
If Booker and Willie and Aaron had been playing well, we still would have won. But everyone put it on Andrew and Karl.
We looked tight the first two rounds. Then we destroyed West Virginia but I knew that was trouble because in sports when one team completely dominates like that it's hard for them to bring their A game the next time. They expect the next team to roll over after a few punches. That's what happened against Notre Dame. Then we faced a team that had watched us dogpile on their half of the court in the last year's Final Four. A team that was talented enough to beat us anyway.
If Booker and Willie and Aaron had been playing well, we still would have won. But everyone put it on Andrew and Karl.
The Wisconsin game could have been a colossal upset if UK was playing to their full potential but they weren't.
Once Calipari decided to essentially go away from his team's greatest strength (which was depth) in favor of a more conservative and standard 7-8 man lineup, suddenly Wisconsin's lineup was competitive with UK's lineup. So it wasn't really that great of an upset, in fact it was fairly predictable.
The sad thing is that even today people still haven't learned the lesson and still try to act like the rotation should always be tightened down the stretch, just because that's what coaches usually do.
I agree that it makes sense to tighten the rotation, if it is advantageous given your personnel (which may be the case 99+% of the time). But if you're in be rarified air where it goes directly against your strength, then it's the wrong move IMO.
I believe that UK not only should have stuck with platoons that year but actively worked to develop and enhance each unit into its own distinct core. (With the Blue squad being a punishing, physical grind-it-out crew and the White squad being a running, three-point shooting, pressing team).
Having two complete cohesive units with completely different styles which never got tired and rarely ran into foul trouble would be nearly impossible to prepare for and beat.
As it was, UK handicapped themselves and still nearly won the game. They had Wisconsin on the ropes late in the game but because they themselves were exhausted couldn't put the Badgers away.
Huge missed opportunity as far as I'm concerned.
But. Lose to Duke and it becomes the greatest college win of all time.
We would've smashed Duke that year. Wisconsin created match up problems for us and still got lucky to beat us. Everything Duke did well we would have negated easily. We created match up problems for Duke.
The FF loss to Georgetown in 1984 was the worst for me. We were up 12 at halftime and clearly the better team with Bowie and Turpin having their way with Ewing. If you saw this game, there is no way you can forget that team not scoring for the first 13+ minutes of the second half.
Ima big Falcons fan
The only positive about the super bowl is that I think about it more often than Wisconsin.
The only positive about the super bowl is that I think about it more often than Wisconsin.
Yeah, sometimes, mostly when reminded on this board, I give thought to what could have been that season. But, I just get over things like that much easier than I did when I was younger. As someone else stated, I love my Cats dearly, but there are so many more important daily things going on in life that put things in perspective. I think it bothers real young fans more than we well seasoned Cats fans. Doesn't mean we don't feel the passion for UK any less, just disappointments are looked at differently or we just have a way of getting over stuff easier, I guess.
These + Texas Western in 66,Jacksonville in 70,UCLA in 75 and a few others scattered thru out nearly 60 years of following the Cats.I can't say that the Wisconsin game hurts more it is just the most recent scar on that comes with being part of the most passionate fan base in college basketball.The bad comes along with the good,at the end of the day there is much more good than bad,those 2000+ and counting wins help out.
It's basketball. Stuff happens. As much as anything, I think that was a situation where the SEC being horrible caught up with us. We went three full months without playing a real basketball team. The first one we faced (Notre Dame) almost beat us and the second one did.
Wisconsin team was legit. They had an answer for everything that year ... except Grayson Allen.
Wisconsin team was legit. They had an answer for everything that year ... except Grayson Allen.
That's foolish talk. UK would have had an answer for Okafor, but they didn't have one for Winslow. And no, Lyles was not it. The SF position has been an ongoing problem since 2012 and Winslow would have feasted. Dekker took UK to school just by creating mismatches. Sure UK could have won a hypothetical game, but saying they would have smashed a damn good Duke team is way too much hyperbole.
Yep and in actuality the difference might have been closer to 6/4 than 7/3
It's amazing how underrated that Wisconsin team still is. They had the most efficient offense in college basketball history since that stat has been kept.
I always say it takes a little luck to win March Madness. Dekker went 2-3 from 3 point line against us and air balled a wide open three to start the Duke game (0-6 that game). That hurt.
The thing that sticks out to me is the lack of fouls called in that final four. UK was an efficient 9-10 from the free throw line for the ENTIRE game. Pretty amazing considering UK only attempted 5 threes in the game. UK being superior athletically didn't need a game where they "let them play". That usually helps less athletic teams stay in front if their man. Just wasn't meant to be.
The thing that sticks out to me is the lack of fouls called in that final four. UK was an efficient 9-10 from the free throw line for the ENTIRE game. Pretty amazing considering UK only attempted 5 threes in the game. UK being superior athletically didn't need a game where they "let them play". That usually helps less athletic teams stay in front if their man. Just wasn't meant to be.
This is correct. UK was a -4.5/-5 favorite, which is barely in solid favorite territory. Wisconsin had the #1 KenPom ranked offense in his database (going back... I think 15 years), and they had 2 scoring wings that we had no answer for after Poythress went down. 2015 had 4 great teams - UK, Duke, Wisconsin, and Arizona. It's probably the most top-heavy year since 2008 (2012 might have been close had Marshall not gone down for UNC).
No, I will never get over that loss. I've never felt like a game was stolen from Kentucky quite as much as I did that game. If I felt Wisconsin straight up beat us, I'd gotten over it a long time ago. This year vs. UNC was really poorly reffed, but I got over that loss like a week later. I felt the refs in that game were blatantly doing everything they could at the end to make sure Wisconsin won. That shock clock violation, the phantom foul call on Aaron Harrison, etc. It felt like the refs had their orders and handed the game to Wisconsin to me and that makes that loss really hard to take.
If Sam Dekkar had played against us like he did against Duke we easily win that game. We seem to always have players go off against us in big games. Sam could;t buy a shot against Duke.
