ADVERTISEMENT

Kentucky just blew out one of the best pro teams in South America

To be fair they were without a few players too one being their best.

Good showing though we controlled game, shot the ball really well and defended when we needed too
I think that UK was missing a five* from this game as well...
 
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Yes, we had more better players than UNC. Narrowly beat them, then narrowly lost. Play 10 times, probably go 5-5.

I’m not sure this UK team will be as good as either of those teams from 2017, but they might be.

We should be one of the few teams with a realistic shot at winning the tournament. My biggest hope is that we get out of the gates fast and position ourselves for a 1 seed. It is way more important than many want to believe.

We may not even have to be better than 2017 if we take care of business and line up an easier path.
Not the way the NCAA stacks the deck against UK as a one seed... It really doesn't matter... The other 3 one seeds do matter a lot, as you say...
 
Not the way the NCAA stacks the deck against UK as a one seed... It really doesn't matter... The other 3 one seeds do matter a lot, as you say...

Eh, it’s just math. We’ve gotten a 1 seed 3 times since Cal’s been here, with 2 Final Fours those years to show for it. I’ll take those odds.

I shouldn’t say it’s just math. It’s partly math. A 1 has a statistically easier path than a 2, etc. But it isn’t all math, because to get a 1, you had to be pretty good and play consistently well to begin with. At least most teams need to be that and do that to get a 1.

But one of our biggest hurdles since Cal has been here is that we were good enough by March to be a 1, but didn’t play well enough throughout the year to earn the 1. So when you have the ability of a top 4 team, but box yourself into a tougher path, it becomes a lot about math.

Not that I think the committee does us any favors. They tend to err on the side of sticking it to us. Which is why our resume must be impeccable.
 
This team is better than 2017 without a doubt! When you replace Willis with PJ or KJ, when you got a man sized Travis and nick Richards to replace Bam, when you have not two but 4-5 stud guards. This team is deeper and much more versatile. Better doesn’t mean better results but I believe this team is without a doubt a title contender. I never felt that way with the 2017 team bc we didn’t have a true 4, not great depth, relied on bam to get it done in the paint, lack of a true rim protector on and on and on. That 2017 team had some major deficits this team does not


100% Agree, Go Big Blue.
 
Eh, it’s just math. We’ve gotten a 1 seed 3 times since Cal’s been here, with 2 Final Fours those years to show for it. I’ll take those odds.

I shouldn’t say it’s just math. It’s partly math. A 1 has a statistically easier path than a 2, etc. But it isn’t all math, because to get a 1, you had to be pretty good and play consistently well to begin with. At least most teams need to be that and do that to get a 1.

But one of our biggest hurdles since Cal has been here is that we were good enough by March to be a 1, but didn’t play well enough throughout the year to earn the 1. So when you have the ability of a top 4 team, but box yourself into a tougher path, it becomes a lot about math.

Not that I think the committee does us any favors. They tend to err on the side of sticking it to us. Which is why our resume must be impeccable.
We were 39-0 with a one seed and lost... I'm not saying that the one seed doesn't profit other teams... UK, take a look at why Cal is usually mad every year... They stack the deck against us as a 1 seed, or a 4 seed...
 
We were 39-0 with a one seed and lost... I'm not saying that the one seed doesn't profit other teams... UK, take a look at why Cal is usually mad every year... They stack the deck against us as a 1 seed, or a 4 seed...

We are better off as a 1. Whatever you choose to believe about “stacking the deck,” it is much easier to make the path harder when we are a 2, 3, or 4 seed.

If you honestly don’t think it profits us to be a 1 instead of a lower seed, I don’t know what else to say.
 
We are better off as a 1. Whatever you choose to believe about “stacking the deck,” it is much easier to make the path harder when we are a 2, 3, or 4 seed.

If you honestly don’t think it profits us to be a 1 instead of a lower seed, I don’t know what else to say.

We are better off as a 1. Whatever you choose to believe about “stacking the deck,” it is much easier to make the path harder when we are a 2, 3, or 4 seed.

If you honestly don’t think it profits us to be a 1 instead of a lower seed, I don’t know what else to say.
Not wanting to argue, I have my thoughts... You're not reading what I'm saying... I said that there will be 3 #1 seeds that will profit a lot by a one seed... Under Cal, the NCAA seems to stack the deck against UK... If you don't see that, then I don't know what to say... I'll give you the last word and we'll agree to disagree....
 
Not wanting to argue, I have my thoughts... You're not reading what I'm saying... I said that there will be 3 #1 seeds that will profit a lot by a one seed... Under Cal, the NCAA seems to stack the deck against UK... If you don't see that, then I don't know what to say... I'll give you the last word and we'll agree to disagree....

I am reading exactly what you’re saying. And I’m not arguing at all that we haven’t faced some stacked decks. You’ve probably seen me pick the selection committee apart with my posts on multiple occasions.

But even if you think the other 3 number 1 seeds get an easier path than us - and that may sometimes be the case - we are still better off as a 1 than as a lesser seed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary4UK
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT