If Kentucky was to win the Championship

[uky8unc5]

I know most dismiss this point of Cal's legacy:
Cal has established UK on the Pro level for the first time in our history.

That means something special to Old Timers like me, because in the Pre-Cal days, we were dwarfed by UNC UCLA etc. in the NBA.

But UK today (and in the near future) is King of the Hill.
We should take pride in that.

 

[Slowwalker]

They beat them in the first or second game of the season when Rick had not settled on a lineup yet. Pitino beat Cal when it mattered and that was in the final 4. Cal has been here twice as long as Rick was and still hasn’t won the second title with all of the talent he has had. The UK name is worth a bunch of wins each season regardless of who the coach is. You will get better talent at UK vs same person coaching elsewhere. So best and final is still Pitino is a much better game coach than Cal could ever hope to be.

His record versus Pitino would disagree with you. But hey, don’t let your agenda stop you from facing facts.

 

[TNCatfanforever]

If he gets a second title, he’s the clear #2 for me. He might be there right now for some, but a second title takes away the debate between Pitino.

No one is passing Rupp barring a dynasty type run, which isn’t happening in the current landscape.

This exactly

 

[know1]

Let's be clear. Cal is the sole reason we've had all that talent. Enough already

You are right. But it's infuriating that he couldn't be bothered to actually coach the team. It's fraudulently lazy never to scout opponents, switch defenses, run out of bounds plays, play the players that will most help the team regardless of draft status, etc.

For me, his winning percentage and national championship total could be exactly what it is now, and if he'd just held up his end of coaching bargain and ran the program with the #1 goal of winning college basketball, I'd be one of his biggest fans.

I don't even care about his condescending attitude and the liberties he takes with the truth. He just needed to be running the program with the right goal.

 

[CB3UK]

 

[The_Answer1313]

I've always said if Cal got a 2nd you really can't argue his place here.

Sure people will still say he should have done more with the talent he's had but regardless it puts him in rarified air if he gets 2nd.

 

[HouseofSheppards]

You have to give the edge to Calipari in this case.

 

[HouseofSheppards]

Win another title and he is #2.

Somehow win two more and it becomes a really interesting conversation about another topic.

So many ifs and buts....but if he could have closed deal in '10, '14, '15, '17, '19...even just one more time this season would have people thinking he could do down as best to ever do it here.

I have 100% respect for our history and tradition but winning a title since desegregation and the tourney expansion holds way more weight now than 70 years ago....it just does.

I can see where you’re coming from, but I have to agree to disagree. When evaluating a teams historical position and giving labels from that record, a championship will n 1958 is just as impressive as one from today. For one, Adolph Rupp was a winner and that wouldn’t change based on era it’s just who he was. Also winning championships in any era is extremely difficult, at the time of Rupp, he had much smaller room for error to even have a chance to compete for a championship. Today average teams get a chance to win it. So simply because of that reason I think it’s a wash when all is evaluated.

Bottom line is there’s really no reason to even think about which is harder in reality because a championship is a championship. And UConn winning 5 in 25 years, or Kentucky of the 90’s, or UNC from 05-17 definitely shows what Rupp did then would more this likely be repeated today, and also I don’t think it’s quite as hard as many here like to believe. Because of our snake bit ways under Cal, we like to think it’s insanely hard when it’s just hard, the same as it’s ever been. It’s not that the tournament is too difficult to win in bunches today, Cal just has an unorthodox way and probably undervalues a few key principles making it likely to get beat at some point as opposed to winning in bunches.

But if Cal does get two, by default, he’s the best modern era coach of UK.

 

[STL_Cat]

First? Come on bro. You make me ashamed of those letters in your username!

 

[STL_Cat]

People forget Cal’s UMass team beat the 1996 Cats

Literally no one forgets that. Unless you just were not old enough to remember that season.

We also did not forget that we played later that very season in the Final Four and sent them home on our way to the title.

 

[jeffky]

Can you imagine Cal, trying to coach the unforgettables?😂😂😂

Man I just wished pelphrey instead of backing away would have went up and knocked that damn ball away like groundhog day us Kentucky fans have to live it over and over again never will let it die hell now they are doing a tire commercial about it vintage pitino team no doubt one of the greatest and innovators of the game

 

[GoCats-GoHerd88]

Literally no one forgets that. Unless you just were not old enough to remember that season.

We also did not forget that we played later that very season in the Final Four and sent them home on our way to the title.

Cal did the same to Pitino in the final four. Difference is, it took Pitino’s best team of his lifetime and in his only title season.

 

[Whoppercat]

He would be 2nd and it wouldn't be debatable.

I dispute that, showing your statement is incorrect. I could easily make a case for Pitino.

 

[STL_Cat]

Cal did the same to Pitino in the final four. Difference is, it took Pitino’s best team of his lifetime and in his only title season.

Okay, fine. I’m not making any arguments one way or the other. Just pointing out that comment you made about people forgetting that UMASS beat Kentucky early in the 1995-1996 season. No one forgets it, except maybe youngsters like I assume you are that just don’t have a memory of it. Your comment made very little sense and I called you out on it. That’s it.

 

[GoCats-GoHerd88]

Okay, fine. I’m not making any arguments one way or the other. Just pointing out that comment you made about people forgetting that UMASS beat Kentucky early in the 1995-1996 season. No one forgets it, except maybe youngsters like I assume you are that just don’t have a memory of it. Your comment made very little sense and I called you out on it. That’s it.

Cool.

Have a nice day.

 

[HouseofSheppards]

Cal did the same to Pitino in the final four. Difference is, it took Pitino’s best team of his lifetime and in his only title season.

I think in the end of the argument, Kentucky is what made the difference for both coaches. Pitino was never the same without the UK brand and Cal wasn’t either. I think the program itself is much more important in the discussion than some realize.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I can see where you’re coming from, but I have to agree to disagree. When evaluating a teams historical position and giving labels from that record, a championship will n 1958 is just as impressive as one from today. For one, Adolph Rupp was a winner and that wouldn’t change based on era it’s just who he was. Also winning championships in any era is extremely difficult, at the time of Rupp, he had much smaller room for error to even have a chance to compete for a championship. Today average teams get a chance to win it. So simply because of that reason I think it’s a wash when all is evaluated.

Bottom line is there’s really no reason to even think about which is harder in reality because a championship is a championship. And UConn winning 5 in 25 years, or Kentucky of the 90’s, or UNC from 05-17 definitely shows what Rupp did then would more this likely be repeated today, and also I don’t think it’s quite as hard as many here like to believe. Because of our snake bit ways under Cal, we like to think it’s insanely hard when it’s just hard, the same as it’s ever been. It’s not that the tournament is too difficult to win in bunches today, Cal just has an unorthodox way and probably undervalues a few key principles making it likely to get beat at some point as opposed to winning in bunches.

But if Cal does get two, by default, he’s the best modern era coach of UK.

I don't think it's the same as all. Sure every championship counts as one. But I have no doubt in my mind winning a title these days is a lot harder than it was previously.

More teams are able to win it now. And with the randomness of a one and done tournament, the field expanding and having to win more games to win a title makes it all the more harder.

The field has leveled out a bit. You still have your blue bloods but some of the rise of certain schools that have had success you would have never seen in previous eras.

 

[STL_Cat]

I think in the end of the argument, Kentucky is what made the difference for both coaches. Pitino was never the same without the UK brand and Cal wasn’t either. I think the program itself is much more important in the discussion than some realize.

It’s true. Throughout their careers, they’ve both been very good but both of their Apex’s came at Kentucky. Both were very successful outside of their time at Kentucky, but they also both had all their biggest success at Kentucky. They’re both excellent but it’s obvious that the Kentucky name made them even better.

 

[HouseofSheppards]

I don't think it's the same as all. Sure every championship counts as one. But I have no doubt in my mind winning a title these days is a lot harder than it was previously.

More teams are able to win it now. And with the randomness of a one and done tournament, the field expanding and having to win more games to win a title makes it all the more harder.

The field has leveled out a bit. You still have your blue bloods but some of the rise of certain schools that have had success you would have never seen in previous eras.

I think the difficulty of the modern tournament is a bit overplayed when talking about the former system. Early years it was really hard just to have a chance at one. Today it’s harder to complete the tournament but much easier to get there. As I said, UConn has had no problems winning the tournament over the last 25 years. It’s doesn’t take as much luck as many seem to think.

I just don’t think it’s easy in any era. Rupp at 40 would win around the same rate today in my opinion.

 

[HagginHall1999]

I can see where you’re coming from, but I have to agree to disagree. When evaluating a teams historical position and giving labels from that record, a championship will n 1958 is just as impressive as one from today. For one, Adolph Rupp was a winner and that wouldn’t change based on era it’s just who he was. Also winning championships in any era is extremely difficult, at the time of Rupp, he had much smaller room for error to even have a chance to compete for a championship. Today average teams get a chance to win it. So simply because of that reason I think it’s a wash when all is evaluated.

Bottom line is there’s really no reason to even think about which is harder in reality because a championship is a championship. And UConn winning 5 in 25 years, or Kentucky of the 90’s, or UNC from 05-17 definitely shows what Rupp did then would more this likely be repeated today, and also I don’t think it’s quite as hard as many here like to believe. Because of our snake bit ways under Cal, we like to think it’s insanely hard when it’s just hard, the same as it’s ever been. It’s not that the tournament is too difficult to win in bunches today, Cal just has an unorthodox way and probably undervalues a few key principles making it likely to get beat at some point as opposed to winning in bunches.

But if Cal does get two, by default, he’s the best modern era coach of UK.

Appreciate your opinion, but agree to disagree too. The simple fact that basketball was a segregated sport in the 50's made it easier immediately. Also, basketball wasn't nearly as popular and no one played it in comparison to today. Lastly, again, tourney expansion is a major factor in the level of difficulty in navigating a one and done tournament in a sport full of parity.

 

[HouseofSheppards]

Appreciate your opinion, but agree to disagree too. The simple fact that basketball was a segregated sport in the 50's made it easier immediately. Also, basketball wasn't nearly as popular and no one played it in comparison to today. Lastly, again, tourney expansion is a major factor in the level of difficulty in navigating a one and done tournament in a sport full of parity.

I can for sure understand the logic but think it’s a bit faulty, at least to the degree many believe. Were players as talented then as today? No. But that was the system for everyone obviously. To me it’s not really a big enough distinction when all is said and done. Rupp would more than likely be just as successful today in his prime as then. Uconn should easily dispel the myth that it’s a crap shoot today and too difficult to win in bunches. And I also think if it was as easy back then as many believe, guys like Rupp and an few others would have just been trading championships every season.

Personally I tend to stay away from the argument all together because it ends by diminishing former player accomplishments and it’s not fair thing to do. You just can’t compare eras in sports. They are what they are, championships are hard regardless of the degree of difficulty in any era.

 

[Whoppercat]

His record versus Pitino would disagree with you. But hey, don’t let your agenda stop you from facing facts.

By this logic, UK is UNC’s bitch. But 8-5 says otherwise.

 

[Disappointed Cat]

Let’s say Kentucky ends up cutting the nets down in early April, where would Cal be on the all time coaches list at Kentucky? Would you put him first?

How is living in fantasy land? Got the talent.......but it ends the same as the last 9 years!!

 

[bigbluedon]

I think in the end of the argument, Kentucky is what made the difference for both coaches. Pitino was never the same without the UK brand and Cal wasn’t either. I think the program itself is much more important in the discussion than some realize.

I tried to explain that to Gocatsgoherd and he just doesn’t get it. Hasn’t been around very long and it shows.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

Let’s say Kentucky ends up cutting the nets down in early April, where would Cal be on the all time coaches list at Kentucky? Would you put him first?

No Rupp will probably always be #1; 4 titles in 11 years.

 

[Slowwalker]

By this logic, UK is UNC’s bitch. But 8-5 says otherwise.

I believe it is 9-4 and all time, yes, we trail UNC, but Cal has made them this bitch too, just like he has with about 99% of the schools and coaches he has faced. In fact, he is 6-1 against AP top 10 ranked UNC teams.

To your point though, 8-2 is a little bit different than 8-5 IMO. Cal has owned Pitino in every facet of the game head to head. On the recruiting trail, on the court, and in the back of restaurants in the presence of skanks.

 

[Slowwalker]

I can for sure understand the logic but think it’s a bit faulty, at least to the degree many believe. Were players as talented then as today? No. But that was the system for everyone obviously. To me it’s not really a big enough distinction when all is said and done. Rupp would more than likely be just as successful today in his prime as then. Uconn should easily dispel the myth that it’s a crap shoot today and too difficult to win in bunches. And I also think if it was as easy back then as many believe, guys like Rupp and an few others would have just been trading championships every season.

Personally I tend to stay away from the argument all together because it ends by diminishing former player accomplishments and it’s not fair thing to do. You just can’t compare eras in sports. They are what they are, championships are hard regardless of the degree of difficulty in any era.

You believe Rupp would win 4 titles in just over a decade today, or are you basing success on some other metric? To most UK fans, success is final four or better….

Not saying he wouldn’t be successful, but I can’t imagine any program or coach winning titles were won back then.

 

[Bleedin Blue in Ohio]

Right now

# 1 - Rupp - The dynasty creator
#2 - Pitino - Quickly brought team out of probation hell and back on map. 92 thry 97 was a great time as a fan. Even 98 had his finger prints all over it.
#3 - Cal - First 6 years felt like Pitino years were back then last 6 have been like mid to late Tubby Smith years.
#4 - Hall
# 5 - Tubby

If Cal wins another

#1 - Rupp
#2 - Cal
#3 - Pitino
#4 - Hall
#5 - Tubby

 

[clevenger32]

Let’s say Kentucky ends up cutting the nets down in early April, where would Cal be on the all time coaches list at Kentucky? Would you put him first?

Would put him first? You are kidding right?

 

[clevenger32]

If he gets a second title, he’s the clear #2 for me. He might be there right now for some, but a second title takes away the debate between Pitino.

No one is passing Rupp barring a dynasty type run, which isn’t happening in the current landscape.

If Pitino would have been able to stay, I think he would have won at least 4 and maybe more and that would have been the 2nd UK dynasty. In my opinion if Cal wins 2nd, my question is with all the talent he has had, why only 2?

 

[clevenger32]

Right now

# 1 - Rupp - The dynasty creator
#2 - Pitino - Quickly brought team out of probation hell and back on map. 92 thry 97 was a great time as a fan. Even 98 had his finger prints all over it.
#3 - Cal - First 6 years felt like Pitino years were back then last 6 have been like mid to late Tubby Smith years.
#4 - Hall
# 5 - Tubby

If Cal wins another

#1 - Rupp
#2 - Cal
#3 - Pitino
#4 - Hall
#5 - Tubby

Joe B. Hall needs to be 2nd Period. Show me a man who followed a sports legend and did it successfully. He was the most successful coach in any sport following a legend. He kept it going very successfully. He won one. went to two other final fours, successfully integrated the program, which set it up for the success that Sutton, Pitino, Tubby, and Cal had. The greatness and impact that Joe B. had is cannot be overstated.