If you gave Tom Izzo...

[Fitch44]

Hard to follow with your consistent inability to properly use plurals. You butcher the king's english

I asked you in another thread last week what you do for a living and remarkably it is the only time you have failed to repair to me.
What to do you for a living? Job description? What is expected of you everyday, etc?
You must have a perfect fuc**ng track record and have live your life perfect to this point.
That is the only possible explanation for the crap
You bring to the board.
Or you are a duke fan.
I will go
With the latter.

 

[MakinMusic]

I don't think you would see much different results. If anything I don't think Izzo could manage the talent and freshman as well as Cal. Not to mention Izzo couldn't recruit those guys. They wouldn't play slow ball like Izzo wants. If if's and but's were candy and nuts.....

 

[Icecoldbrewdoggy]

Why are you asking questions that are completely impossible to answer?

Here's what we DO know. The results UK has had under Cal are better than the results the schools that have those other coaches have had. And that's the only thing that matters.[/QUOTE

He's asking questions to undermind Cal since he's not a UK fan. He avoids arguments to stay alive as a poster.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

But thats where you keep missing the point. Those other schools haven't had the talent to make it a fair comparison. The only way to know whether or not its a remarkable feat is to provide other coaches with the same level of talent and see what their results are. If they have the same amount of talent and fail miserably to have anywhere near the success Cal has had then its a rare feat and a remarkable feat by Calipari. But what if they have the same results or better? Then is it still remarkable?

You've demonstrated you have no concept of research or control groups etc etc. I believe this discussion is way over your head.

You have demonstrated that you are the ABSOLUTE worse UK fan in the entire history of the program. You make my skin crawl with your constant barrage of negativity and your backdoor jabs at Calipari. Research and control groups? Seriously? You sit hear and act like Cal just rolls the ball out and goes back to sit on the bench. You only view a great coach by what kind of plays they draw up or what kind of offense they run but you completely fail to mention or realize is that great coaches wear many different hats. Some coaches are best while on the court, some are best on the recruiting trail, some are best at development, some are best at getting the most of their players, etc. None of them are perfect or great at every aspect of coaching. Cal is great at recruiting, development, and getting the most out of his players in the shortest amount of time. Izzo is a great coach on the court but lacks in other departments. So, its a completely idiotic question to ask and completely unrealistic to ask. Not only does it not have an answer but is impossible to predict. There is no perfect coach in this game, so this question is just idiotic. Its laughable and ridiculous to say that what Cal has done is not remarkable. Are you serious? Its also hilarious that you say this is over anyones head. Thats just funny. So please stop trying to act like it's some intellectually advanced concept that is beyond our grasp because its quite the opposite CUTNETS. It's one of the dumbest questions that I've seen on here in a while and it doesn't surprise me that it's coming from the most negative fan. Go away please.

 

[tmuck]

If? If Izzo could recruit on Cal's level you wouldn't be asking this question. That said Izzo is one of my favorites and one of the best coaches so I'd expect about the same results, maybe a final four or two less. Cal is not only a better recruiter, but a better coach too and that's saying something vs Izzo.

Just pull the plug. Why is he allowed to start these agenda driven baiting posts? Put him out of his misery, Mr. Moderator. You did it with 3Rex, why not this guy? Is it because he's a paying member?

 

[DCFseattle]

Tell Izzo to get his own damn talent. Part of running a college basketball team is getting the best players you can. Cal does it WORLDS better than Izzo.

I also highly doubt Izzo can get a team of freshmen to perform at the level Cal does. He can't even get one to.

Come off it.

 

[Tannerdad]

He hates Cal and likely not even a UK fan. He never posts anything positive about Calipari or our team. He pines for coaches like Bruce Pearl who's team just lost to MTSU.

I think Calipari killed his dog or something.

Other than that, he has a point.

 

[kyjeff1]

What if you gave the talent Cal has had to Shaka Smart or Brad Stevens? They both made final fours with no where near the talent. What in your opinion would be their results in six years with the talent Cal has had?

What did those coaches do when they didn't make the FF though?
Plus, not all NCAAT brackets are the same. Look at last years brackets. Michigan State's bracket was a total joke
So I've been asking you who you would rather have as a coach instead of Cal since you obviously don't like Cal. It looks like Stevens, Smart and Izzo would be your choices since you have them listed here. Okay, that's fine, now compare their reseme's. Cal wins hands down.
As for the topic of this thread, Izzo constantly has veteran talent so he doesn't have to teach his system from scratch every season, Calipari has to start from scratch every year and his teams have outperformed Izzo's every year but one the last 6 years. Cal had what you could call a veteran team last year and look what he did with it. No shame in losing to Wisconsin but nonetheless, he's a better coach than Izzo. I know you hate that but the numbers don't lie.

 

[MakinMusic]

The question really doesn't deserve an answer. It's arbitrary and kind of silly...no offense to the OP.

 

[Icecoldbrewdoggy]

He hates Cal and likely not even a UK fan. He never posts anything positive about Calipari or our team. He pines for coaches like Bruce Pearl who's team just lost to MTSU.

I think Calipari killed his dog or something.

Other than that, he has a point.

Memphis fan and resident. Wakes up every morning and wonders what he did to deserve such a fate.

 

[Poetax]

the talent that Cal has had the past six years, what would be his results in your opinion?

I like Coach Izzo but he's been coaching at Michigan State like 21 years and won 1 national championship and has never had a season where he didn't lose 5 games or more. Your reasoning is coming from that you think he does more with less but the problem with that is he's always had experienced teams that have gotten better after bad starts. Give him the bad starts along with all true freshmen and I'm not sure that he wins one NC, in fact I would question whether he makes as many FFs. It just a way more tougher job to coach teams like ours then to coach teams where your players are in the program for 4 years.

 

[CHAMPCAT11]

Cal's a better recruiter and they can both coach just fine. Totally impossible to give an accurate answer to the question.

 

[TheTruCatsFan]

I can't believe that after 6 years, this many people still fall for the OP. Kudos, I guess.

 

[Jkwo]

I can't believe that after 6 years, this many people still fall for the OP. Kudos, I guess.

i don't get this "falling for" thing - the implication being that he's inauthentic and just trying to get a rise out of people.

If you don't think Cut actually has a thing against Cal, you're insane.

 

[TheTruCatsFan]

i don't get this "falling for" thing - the implication being that he's inauthentic and just trying to get a rise out of people.

If you don't think Cut actually has a thing against Cal, you're insane.

He most definitely has a thing against Cal. He is also most definitely just trying to get a rise out of people.

 

[KYCAT78]

I do not think many of you understand how hard it is to rebuild each year. Anyone that has managed people and a function realize how difficult it is to replace a key member of your staff much less 3 or 4 out of 5 like Cal and his staff must do. I personally think Izzo would have done less because I think it takes a special type of Coach and staff to do it year after year.

 

[stoneycat_20]

A better question..How many titles and F4's would Cal have with Self's teams...I say more than Billy...

 

[Blue Bigfoot]

You have demonstrated that you are the ABSOLUTE worse UK fan in the entire history of the program. You make my skin crawl with your constant barrage of negativity and your backdoor jabs at Calipari. Research and control groups? Seriously? You sit hear and act like Cal just rolls the ball out and goes back to sit on the bench. You only view a great coach by what kind of plays they draw up or what kind of offense they run but you completely fail to mention or realize is that great coaches wear many different hats. Some coaches are best while on the court, some are best on the recruiting trail, some are best at development, some are best at getting the most of their players, etc. None of them are perfect or great at every aspect of coaching. Cal is great at recruiting, development, and getting the most out of his players in the shortest amount of time. Izzo is a great coach on the court but lacks in other departments. So, its a completely idiotic question to ask and completely unrealistic to ask. Not only does it not have an answer but is impossible to predict. There is no perfect coach in this game, so this question is just idiotic. Its laughable and ridiculous to say that what Cal has done is not remarkable. Are you serious? Its also hilarious that you say this is over anyones head. Thats just funny. So please stop trying to act like it's some intellectually advanced concept that is beyond our grasp because its quite the opposite CUTNETS. It's one of the dumbest questions that I've seen on here in a while and it doesn't surprise me that it's coming from the most negative fan. Go away please.

 

[Cats78]

I know we've been loaded with talent, but the vast majority is very young talent. You can have tons of studs, but when they're 18 years old, it's a challenge to get them to learn and adapt to the college game quickly. I think that's what makes Calipari's run impressive. He gets them to play together and play together hard and unselfishly. Usually play great defense as well. Egos are usually put aside.

Not many college coaches can do that and succeed and that includes the supposed great ones like Izzo and Pitino. Everyone at first laughed at the notion that freshman loaded teams could make the final 4 regularly, no matter how talented they were. Now the narrative has changed that Cal can't coach cause he's only won one title doing it this way. I don't think it's fair to take coach whoever and assume they would do better. I know when Pitino gets elite players as freshman, things usually don't pan out.

 

[Untouchables22]

I'm kinda terrified to even post this....but is there a reasonable middle ground between the two positions to be found? Can you marvel at Cal's success so far but also be frustrated that we couldn't figure out West Virginia's 1-3-1 defense in 2010? Think that Cal is the absolute best person in the country to coach UK but re-watch the 2014 title game against UCONN and be frustrated that we had the better team but our guys played scared (except for Young) and Napier went off. Eagerly watch every game and love your former school and its program but be bummed out that we were a possible substitution away from 39-0. The ride that Cal has engineered for all the UK fan's the last several years has been amazing and I'm personally very appreciative but I don't think it's unreasonable to be frustrated by thinking we could easily have 9 or 10 titles right now?

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Cut Nets' basic implication on coaching:

Coaching a brand new team every season is easy peazy lemmon squeezy.

Also, retroactively measuring players according to their NBA careers 3 to 5 years after their college careers and using that as a determinant on whether or not their college coach failed seems to be his preferred method of critique.

I'm afraid you (Cut Nets) still significantly undervalue the concept of potential for freshmen as a real draft measurable - i.e., what was the true basis of their draft value and did they match anywhere close to their future value as freshmen? I'd say there are only a handful of guys who one could answer "yes" in regards to that question: Davis, MKG, Towns, Wall, Cousins (maybe Randle). To further my point, how was UK exponentially better than Wisconsin/Duke last season from a real talent comparison? UK had more draft picks, but as far as college impact in concerned, what was it about UK's 74ppg that screamed offensive juggernaut? Vegas doesn't create betting lines based on future NBA potential; they create them based on performance, and very few of Cal's teams have had the statistics to back up your implications that they've routinely been far and away better than the competition (2012 and 2015 were the two teams that measured significantly better than the rest of the pack).

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

I'm kinda terrified to even post this....but is there a reasonable middle ground between the two positions to be found? Can you marvel at Cal's success so far but also be frustrated that we couldn't figure out West Virginia's 1-3-1 defense in 2010? Think that Cal is the absolute best person in the country to coach UK but re-watch the 2014 title game against UCONN and be frustrated that we had the better team but our guys played scared (except for Young) and Napier went off. Eagerly watch every game and love your former school and its program but be bummed out that we were a possible substitution away from 39-0. The ride that Cal has engineered for all the UK fan's the last several years has been amazing and I'm personally very appreciative but I don't think it's unreasonable to be frustrated by thinking we could easily have 9 or 10 titles right now?

But you just nailed the bigger question at hand.

The 2014 team had more overall talent, but UConn's upperclassmen, Napier and Boatright, went off and proved a horrible matchup for the freshmen twins. That alone highlights the arbitrary nature of a one game tournament. People like Cut Nets consistently ignore this arbitrary aspect of a one game scenario.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Bigger question might be this:

If Izzo is such a great coach, why the hell can't he recruit better?

 

[Rhavicc]

Death, Taxes, and CUT-NETS b****ing about Cal.

 

[Rhavicc]

I'm kinda terrified to even post this....but is there a reasonable middle ground between the two positions to be found? Can you marvel at Cal's success so far but also be frustrated that we couldn't figure out West Virginia's 1-3-1 defense in 2010? Think that Cal is the absolute best person in the country to coach UK but re-watch the 2014 title game against UCONN and be frustrated that we had the better team but our guys played scared (except for Young) and Napier went off. Eagerly watch every game and love your former school and its program but be bummed out that we were a possible substitution away from 39-0. The ride that Cal has engineered for all the UK fan's the last several years has been amazing and I'm personally very appreciative but I don't think it's unreasonable to be frustrated by thinking we could easily have 9 or 10 titles right now?

We could easily have 9 or 10 titles. We could also easily have 7 still. People get lost in the fact that these are freshmen. Not every 5 star player is going to play like Kobe Bryant or Lebron James. 2010, it wasn't a matter of not figuring out the 1-3-1 zone, it was a matter of missing the shots that UK put up, and West Virginia lighting it up from deep. Against UConn, we lost a very important veteran player that went on to be a 1st team All-American the very next season, and started 5 freshmen in that game. Did UK lose to UConn? Yeah, but people want to forget about how many talented, experienced, and incredible teams that those kids beat (and that's what they were at the time, a bunch of kids).

I don't think Tom Izzo could coach this team, to answer the incredibly dumb OP. Izzo's coaching style is based on toughness and veteran players, and that's something that, for much of the season, most seasons (especially this one), Kentucky teams lack due to the youth. It didn't show last season because of the size, depth, and us having some veteran players back, but it also showed with Cal coaching, winning 38 consecutive games. Did he take the title home? No. Should he have? Yeah. Cal knows that, he owns it, but if we're comparing recent coaching success, it's Calipari, and it isn't all that close.

 

[SmoothRunner32]

Lol in every thread this guy is always hating on coach cal. I bet he had a freaking orgasm when UK lost to UCLA. Probably has a big poster of Bruce Pearl in his room.

 

[kyhillbilly1]

the talent that Cal has had the past six years, what would be his results in your opinion?

If Cut-Nets had never made the first post on Rafters.................in your opinion would it be a better place to talk UK basketball??? I say it was great before him, not hardly as great with him and will be even greater when he leaves.

 

[Poetax]

I'm kinda terrified to even post this....but is there a reasonable middle ground between the two positions to be found? Can you marvel at Cal's success so far but also be frustrated that we couldn't figure out West Virginia's 1-3-1 defense in 2010? Think that Cal is the absolute best person in the country to coach UK but re-watch the 2014 title game against UCONN and be frustrated that we had the better team but our guys played scared (except for Young) and Napier went off. Eagerly watch every game and love your former school and its program but be bummed out that we were a possible substitution away from 39-0. The ride that Cal has engineered for all the UK fan's the last several years has been amazing and I'm personally very appreciative but I don't think it's unreasonable to be frustrated by thinking we could easily have 9 or 10 titles right now?

Maybe we need to remember that the 2014 team was not a very good man to man team. And when Willie went down there was no one to correct our weaknesses. In 2010, we did fail to stop shooting 3's and missing them. That team was probably the best team to not win a NC.

 

[irishcat1965]

the talent that Cal has had the past six years, what would be his results in your opinion?

Izzo would be a catastrophic failure. He has no clue how to mold a new team in one year, every year. He depends on 3 and 4 year players to run his system. He is very good coach but he isn't in the same league as Cal. He has one NCAA title and seven final fours in 21 years. Cal has 4 final fours and one title in 6 years at UK. You pose a bating question because you hate Cal which if you are a UK fan, shows how clueless you truly are.

 

[brdmn22]

1. Izzo would then have to deal with teams of one and done or two and through players. How would Izzo cope without 4 year guys ?

2. Why does the OP completely ignore Cal's teams before coming to UK?

3. The op needs a few weeks time out because the constant cal bashing is now officially trolling

4. Why does the op post this when we are 9-1 and coming off a final four year?

Because OP's a douche. Pretty much explains all you need to know.

 

[michaeluk26]

Only 3 coaches in history have went to 4 final fours in 5 years. Wooden, K, and Cal. That's pretty damn remarkable. Only 2 coaches have taken 3 different teams to the final four. Pitino and Cal. 2 of them for Cal were mid majors. That's pretty damn remarkable.

Mods, why is the op allowed to do this crap? Today, like every other day this dude is on here, he started this thread to take shots at Cal. He jumped into no less than 3 other threads today that had nothing to do with Cal and posted shots at Cal baiting everyone like he does in EVERY POST HE MAKES ON THIS BOARD. Its inexcusable that this goes on unabated like it does.

 

[CharlieT71059]

Izzo has done very well with less

 

[Poetax]

Izzo has done very well with less

That is the impression and it's been mentioned before. But it's been with older players not true freshmen.

 

[ZaytovenCat]

I think Izzo would have at least 2 titles. 2012 and 2015. I don't know that he would have done as good in 2009 because I don't know if he could have worked with DMC like Cal. Final Fours would be the same or maybe one less. Izzo is a better bench coach but having to pick between the two as they are I'd still take Cal.

 

[PenetrateAndScore]

Honestly, another NC for certain. Otherwise, really not much difference.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

In college basketball you are not given anything. You have to go get it.

 

[UKBrassowTipIN]

the talent that Cal has had the past six years, what would be his results in your opinion?

Well, the problem with your question...is that he has the same opportunity to get the players we have...so its on him that he cant get them. 2. He actually does get them some times. We recruited Gary Harris...he got him.

 

[Wall2Boogie]

If you give cut nets a team full of future McDonald's all Americans in the 9th grade and he had to coach against a team like Michigan state could he pull off the upset?
I for one think so.

1. Excellent talent evaluator.
2. Can out coach cal
3. Better recruiter
4. Spot on and getting his point across
5. Michigan would forfeit to avoid embarrassment

 

[brdmn22]

Honestly, another NC for certain. Otherwise, really not much difference.

This might be the funniest post yet. How can you be certain of a hypothetical situation?

 

[Jkwo]

I'm kinda terrified to even post this....but is there a reasonable middle ground between the two positions to be found? Can you marvel at Cal's success so far but also be frustrated that we couldn't figure out West Virginia's 1-3-1 defense in 2010? Think that Cal is the absolute best person in the country to coach UK but re-watch the 2014 title game against UCONN and be frustrated that we had the better team but our guys played scared (except for Young) and Napier went off. Eagerly watch every game and love your former school and its program but be bummed out that we were a possible substitution away from 39-0. The ride that Cal has engineered for all the UK fan's the last several years has been amazing and I'm personally very appreciative but I don't think it's unreasonable to be frustrated by thinking we could easily have 9 or 10 titles right now?

Totally reasonable.

But that can be said for any decent coach in the country.

I just named three for K that seem utterly inexcusable in a vacuum - a 2/15 loss, a 3/14 loss, and failing to bring home the trophy with 5 lottery picks (including the #1), which is one more than Cal's best (last year).

Does that mean he sucks as a coach because he had moments where he fell short in an indefensible way?

No - it means even the very best have good days and bad days. And in a single elimination tournament, all it takes is one bad day to go home early.

Hell, the '96 Bulls and the '14 Warriors didn't win their first straight six games in the post season.

The format is exciting and crazy, and it is the second biggest ad draw in American sports - why? Because CBB is so huge in America? No - because it's GD insane and unpredictable, and no other level of basketball uses such a flawed/crazy/exciting format to pick a champion.