Assuming this is true, perhaps the biggest justification to have continuity and team building year over year instead of a rebuild of untested talent
Kansas, UNC-W losses don't matter?
- Thread starter TankedCat
- Start date
Meh. I’ll take the field. ESPN has an article similar. I think it was AP top 10/15 in week 5/6 has won the title every year for so many years. Goes a long way back. I’ll have to look. Anyway, I don’t much buy into this arbitrary stat.
I saw that same stat. So if against Kansas, Reeves hits 4/17 instead of 3/17 three point attempts we would meet that criteria.
The biggest if is if AB, who will full strength for the last 22 games of the regular season, had played against KU we would meet that criteria.
you don't know that
matter of fact , at this point you don't know what we have in terms of a team because its still an experiment to Cal. We're 2 weeks away from starting SEC play and we don't have a set lineup or honestly any idea who will be getting minutes in our front court.
What UK fans have at the moment is the optimism to believe this team could be a final four team but only if the best combination of players are determined and played consistently.
Agreed. Cal could still fvck this all up. However, we would most likely be top 5 in NET if we had won that KU game. That UNCW game might’ve hurt, though.
The first sentence of that tweet is about as dumb a leap in flawed logic as you’ll ever see. If I had to choose between those five and the remaining field, I would absolutely bet on the latter …in a heartbeat.
Of those five, I like Zona the best.
Then Baylor and then Houston.
Purdue usually flames out early.
BYU isn’t winning it all.
Then Baylor and then Houston.
Purdue usually flames out early.
BYU isn’t winning it all.
yea but that's the same logic I get from people who say we were one shot away from a final four.
I heard that about Tubby , now I hear it about Cal.
There is no "one shot away" from anything in college basketball.
this idea that we *could* be whatever *if* only is just rationalization for coming up short.
I suspect most people would take the field given that group of teams, but the bigger point here is its hard to argue against that our chances for a title would be greatly improved if we started the year out with a team in place that was prepared to face good competition. Teams that win big in December overwhelmingly win big March.
He meant the AP top 12 (ESPIN), which we would absolutely be top 12. We would be top 12 with a win againsnt UNCW, never mind KU.
Also, the NET has been around for 4 seasons so far. That's quite the small sample size.
Man, it must be nice to already not have to worry about this season. We will invite you back on board another year when we meet the NET and AP poll criteria after 8 games.
there were many years when that was a given for UK
now you're trying to justify why its meaningless. That's your world you live in for Kentucky basketball
God forbid its too much to ask to expect UK to be top 10 in December with an uber talented team.
I'm curious, are these going to be posted on a weekly basis?
"Since the creation of the NET, every champion has been ranked in the top ____ on December 23...January 1....January 17...February 25...and so on?"
not by me, can't speak for others
but if it highlights concerns for the program, then I would say probably so
Who knows, maybe they will pull a Virginia this year and prove me wrong. They have been terrible in the tournament the last 3 years:
2023 - 1 seed losing to 16 seed
2022 - 3 seed losing to a 15 seed
2021 - 4 seed losing to a 13 seed
The caveat with this is that Cal's teams are notorious for not being great in December, and then coming along very nicely in February and March. Metrics will never mean much for me, when it comes to assessing who Kentucky is in mid December.
Kentucky might not have won the title in 2011 and 2014, but they did get TO the title game, and I would bet neither would have been top5 in Net at this time.
Kentucky might not have won the title in 2011 and 2014, but they did get TO the title game, and I would bet neither would have been top5 in Net at this time.
2014 was a decade ago, and of course the obvious statement, neither won the national title.
2011 was a different animal team though - Liggins was a veteran who came on strong along with Jorts, they definitely punched above their weight class as a spoiler.
2014 was probably the only true Cal blueprint team along with 2016 on - and if you compare them in that light, they did well but the others did not come on strong in March and some flamed out spectacularly. So 1 out of 6?
I get why people are excited, this team is closer to 2015 than any team Cal has had of recent, but the challenge will always be, a freshmen group of players facing very good talent in a one and done tournament where the team they are facing understands what it means to take a ill advised shot, to make an errant foul or slack on defense at the wrong time - something that our freshmen teams do not are most likely going to go home earlier than we want
Last edited:
That's fine but the info still stands.
1. Cal's teams almost always get better, and have a much different trajectory than 99% of other teams.
2. We weren't top5 in December in NET, yet we wound up being just one or two wins away from the title (And we likely would have won the titles if we weren't cheated by things such as Shabazz Napier flopping).
Kentucky could very well find it's way to the top5 in NET, come February.
trajectory maybe, but lets not act like all teams stay static while Cal's team improve each game.
The Kansas team we faced in November will be a better team (barring injury) in March
of course we have to get past Kansas St before we face Kansas
with all the rationalizing going on right now, woe to the fans if this team doesn't make the final four this year
Makes sense for now ,we haven't a clue what this team is since there are so many missing pieces currently.
How will Bradshaw mesh with the team, how will he develop?
Will Ugo help, how different will he be from last year?
Will Z be cleared, what does he bring to the table?
WWCD? (What will Cal do with AB, Ugo and Z)
Does Edwards get his act together?
So many questions, so many possible answers., so little time for it all to fit together
Maybe potential to be great, maybe the whole thing never gets off the ground.
So what exactly are we asking or saying here that because of that statistic we should say we have no chance of winning?
I'm just pointing out two things that I find particularly interesting to me about Kentucky fans at the moment.
1. one is the rationalization that a loss to UNC-W doesn't matter. It does. It was an embarrassing loss to this program, and even more concerning is people aren't even surprised by it. I've seen some people say that its to be expected that we lose to a team like this because Cal has put together a team of freshmen. Its going to happen.
which leads to the second point is why that rationalization exists which is that Cal teams are "notorious" for being better in March , which in the overall scheme of things regardless of how you want to size it up is at best a 50% proposition as of late and that's taking into consideration the juggernaut early years of Cal here.
The better statement should really have nothing to do with March and everything to do with Cal wins when he has overwhelming talent to the extent it makes up for the lack of experience. In other words his teams are so talented they win in spite of themselves.
So going back to your question, if we are at a point where losing to a UNC-W is now expected due to us having a freshmen loaded team, AND now the "because we are title contender in March" is at best 50% accurate
then why do we continue down this path as a program, when its objectively better to have teams that are strong in December and carry that thru to March?
Last edited:
We need to worry about UNC. Not polls, articles or what's going on at Lou.
The case can be made that Cal has overwhelming talent on this team. So UNCW was a Chaminade vs Virginia kind of thing?
No, we should not ever lose a team like that but one loss to a team like that is not the reason why Team doesn’t go all the way specially, when you consider we beat the number eighth rank team and we had the number one team on the ropes shorthanded
Why, why, WHY do people keep betting on Purdue in March? They have NO track record of major success and have lost to a 15 seed and 16 seed in the past two seasons.
Why do we continue down this path? The HC wants to construct teams this way. If these five star freshmen don’t come to UK they will never get to the NBA and thus end generational poverty.
Similar threads
