Kindly give me your preseason top 5

[weatherbird]

"These players are essentially sophomores when the tournament rolls around"? No they're not, and that's a Calism if I've ever heard one.

"Figuring it out is his philosophy"? So let me get this straight; you don't think having experience means a bit of difference, yet Cal relies on freshmen to accomplish his philosophy of "letting them figure it out"? How much sense does that make?

Cal: "my philosophy when the game gets tight is to just wait for them to figure it out" (his words for team USA loss)

How can a team of all freshmen figure anything out when they have zero experience to draw from?

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Since Cal's philosophy is to "let them figure it out" when things get tight, shouldn't he have some players that have the experience to draw upon?

OK, now I will give you the stats from the Cal era:
This is from players who averaged 10 or more minutes, experience points as follows, 1 for Sophomore, 2 for Junior, 3 for Senior, and obviously 0 for a freshman. These are divided as evenly as possible.

3 out of 8 years Cal has played with 5 experience points or less, averaged 34 wins, 5.333 losses, 4.67 NCAA tourney wins
2 out of 8 years Cal has played with 6-7 experience points, averaged 33.5 wins, 5 losses, 4 NCAA tourney wins
3 out of 8 years Cal has had 8-10 experience points, averaged 26.67 wins, 9 losses, 1.3 NCAA tourney wins.

And as I said before, I don't necessarily discount experience as a whole, I just do when it comes to Cal, because it comes with a trade off. Teams that build rosters for years depend on experience and a system. Cal is not a system coach. And I would say the way Cal does it is as good as it gets. As Cal says, he is routinely the youngest team every year, or the least experienced, yet who has more tournament wins than him since he has been here? And even look at the tournament losses that he has had, they have all been within 1 seed line of him, twice to a 1 seed as a 1 and 2 seed, once to a 2 seed as a 1 seed, once to a 3 seed as a 4 seed, once to a 5 seed as a 4 seed (the only time we've made the tournament and not made at least an Elite 8 appearance, with the second most experienced team he had), once to a 7 seed as an 8 seed. No one else has had that kind of success.

If experience was such a big key, then how in the world did Cal's youngest team beat 3 teams returning most of their players from final four teams the year before? All of those games came down to the wire, yet it was our freshmen that made the plays, not the returning juniors and seniors from the final four teams. Many of those same freshmen returned from making all those winning plays to make mistakes as sophomores against the same team they beat the previous year. So you would think with another year of basketball they would have dominated the last 4 minutes against Wisconsin, but they didn't. And you were probably one of the ones claiming we needed to take those Sophomores out and replace them with Freshmen.

 

[gwilli8714]

"These players are essentially sophomores when the tournament rolls around"? No they're not, and that's a Calism if I've ever heard one.

"Figuring it out is his philosophy"? So let me get this straight; you don't think having experience means a bit of difference, yet Cal relies on freshmen to accomplish his philosophy of "letting them figure it out"? How much sense does that make?

Cal: "my philosophy when the game gets tight is to just wait for them to figure it out" (his words for team USA loss)

How can a team of all freshmen figure anything out when they have zero experience to draw from?

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Since Cal's philosophy is to "let them figure it out" when things get tight, shouldn't he have some players that have the experience to draw upon?

OK, now I will give you the stats from the Cal era:
This is from players who averaged 10 or more minutes, experience points as follows, 1 for Sophomore, 2 for Junior, 3 for Senior, and obviously 0 for a freshman. These are divided as evenly as possible.

3 out of 8 years Cal has played with 5 experience points or less, averaged 34 wins, 5.333 losses, 4.67 NCAA tourney wins
2 out of 8 years Cal has played with 6-7 experience points, averaged 33.5 wins, 5 losses, 4 NCAA tourney wins
3 out of 8 years Cal has had 8-10 experience points, averaged 26.67 wins, 9 losses, 1.3 NCAA tourney wins.

And as I said before, I don't necessarily discount experience as a whole, I just do when it comes to Cal, because it comes with a trade off. Teams that build rosters for years depend on experience and a system. Cal is not a system coach. And I would say the way Cal does it is as good as it gets. As Cal says, he is routinely the youngest team every year, or the least experienced, yet who has more tournament wins than him since he has been here? And even look at the tournament losses that he has had, they have all been within 1 seed line of him, twice to a 1 seed as a 1 and 2 seed, once to a 2 seed as a 1 seed, once to a 3 seed as a 4 seed, once to a 5 seed as a 4 seed (the only time we've made the tournament and not made at least an Elite 8 appearance, with the second most experienced team he had), once to a 7 seed as an 8 seed. No one else has had that kind of success.

If experience was such a big key, then how in the world did Cal's youngest team beat 3 teams returning most of their players from final four teams the year before? All of those games came down to the wire, yet it was our freshmen that made the plays, not the returning juniors and seniors from the final four teams. Many of those same freshmen returned from making all those winning plays to make mistakes as sophomores against the same team they beat the previous year. So you would think with another year of basketball they would have dominated the last 4 minutes against Wisconsin, but they didn't. And you were probably one of the ones claiming we needed to take those Sophomores out and replace them with Freshmen.

I am absolutely one of those guys that felt the freshman should have played a larger role especially when the upperclassmen were tricking away the game away down the stretch. I remember asking TJ a direct question "If there was any scenario where Tyler Ulis could outplay Harrison for the starting point guard position? The answer was no. That told me all I needed to know. Coaches generally prefer to err on the side of upperclassmen unless they are forced due to necessity.

 

[3 fan]

What is it that makes people believe that upperclassmen are essential to a title run?? Because we do realize that Seniors make the same mistakes as Freshmen, only it gets attributed to just having an off game. When a senior makes a play, it's because he's so experienced he knew what to do. When a freshmen makes a play, it's because a senior told him what to do, set the pick, distribution his homework or some other nonsense. Here's a truth for those that believe this, the players who make plays, win, regardless of age. I love how people think we wouldn't have won without D Miller's leadership, even though AD and MKG were clearly the leaders. We didn't win because Miller was a Senior, we won because he was a 6'7" versatile forward who made over 40% of his 3 point attempts.

Because no team has ever won the title relying solely on freshmen? And in a program like UK, a sophomore can be considered an upperclassman. UK had two guys named Terrence Jones and Doron Lamb along with Miller, remember?

 

[3 fan]

Bamba gets threw around bad on the low block due to lack of strength and his back to the basket game leaves a lot to be desired... His talent level is not on par with a player like Anthony davis..

In all fairness you said you thought Richards was better than Bamba, not Davis

 

[weatherbird]

Because no team has ever won the title relying solely on freshmen? And in a program like UK, a sophomore can be considered an upperclassman. UK had two guys named Terrence Jones and Doron Lamb along with Miller, remember?

It seems you have only seen half the battle. I addressed those three previously. I agree nobody has done it relying solely on freshmen, but how many have tried?? By my count, 2, and they both made title game appearances. So the nobody has ever done it argument is pretty weak. There have been infinitely more teams try to do it without any freshmen, and failed. Nobody ever flew, until they did.

There is no evidence that it matters. There is more evidence to support that it doesn't matter than that it does. You know what else they said in reference to freshmen?? Well the argument started with you can't win with mostly freshmen, but then someone did, Syracuse. Then it was you can't win with a freshmen PG, then we did. The experience factor has slowly started to fade. It is only a matter of time before a freshmen starting 5 wins the title, and it could happen this year. If we won the title this year starting Green, Diallo, Knox, Washington, and SKJ, people would jump on the SKJ being experienced as the reason why.

 

[weatherbird]

I am absolutely one of those guys that felt the freshman should have played a larger role especially when the upperclassmen were tricking away the game away down the stretch. I remember asking TJ a direct question "If there was any scenario where Tyler Ulis could outplay Harrison for the starting point guard position? The answer was no. That told me all I needed to know. Coaches generally prefer to err on the side of upperclassmen unless they are forced due to necessity.

And I'm fine with the people who said that, though I don't agree that it would have made a difference. And my argument has never been that I wouldn't play an upperclassmen over a freshman. The argument was that you don't need upperclassmen to win. Some just seem to weigh the experience factor way, way more than they should. In fact, the only thing close to a real test we've ever had was the early 90's Michigan team, and the back to back UK-Wisconsin final four games. Both teams had all freshmen starting lineups their first year, and at least a majority return for another year. The problem is Michigan lost in the championship game both years, and UK with freshmen beat Wisconsin, while the more experienced team lost to essentially the same Wisconsin team the next year. The evidence is actually the opposite of what a lot of people claim.

 

[bucsrule8872]

There's no magic formula for how to win it all. You need talent and lots of luck.

2016 and 2017 proved to me that having experience does not mean as much as I thought.

In 2016 we had a 5-star, top 10 rated Senior, a 5-star top 20 rated Junior, plus two other Juniors in the regular rotation. Throw in an All-American Soph. It resulted in our worst finish in the NCAA tourney.

Last year we had three Seniors and and a couple of Sophs and fared a little better. Of course having three future lottery picks helped more than anything, IMHO.

What I want to see is Cal sign at least one top 5 stud, along with a couple of top 10 guys, giving us three elite OAD studs.

Add 2-3 top 25 guys who will likely return.

Then have 2-3 returnees that were in the top 25 range in previous years.

That's the balance I think we need: three stud OAD, 2-3 returnees, 2-3
Top 25 Freshmen. That's the 7-8 man rotation I would like to see every year.

Still the main ingredient that can not be counted on is luck. Got to have lots of luck.

 

[gwilli8714]

What is it that makes people believe that upperclassmen are essential to a title run?? Because we do realize that Seniors make the same mistakes as Freshmen, only it gets attributed to just having an off game. When a senior makes a play, it's because he's so experienced he knew what to do. When a freshmen makes a play, it's because a senior told him what to do, set the pick, distribution his homework or some other nonsense. Here's a truth for those that believe this, the players who make plays, win, regardless of age. I love how people think we wouldn't have won without D Miller's leadership, even though AD and MKG were clearly the leaders. We didn't win because Miller was a Senior, we won because he was a 6'7" versatile forward who made over 40% of his 3 point attempts.

Because no team has ever won the title relying solely on freshmen? And in a program like UK, a sophomore can be considered an upperclassman. UK had two guys named Terrence Jones and Doron Lamb along with Miller, remember?

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible. I am old enough to remember the Fab Five coming pretty damn close. It is only a matter of time.

 

[The_Answer1313]

This is a perfect example...
We have the most knowledgable fans, but we also have the least perspective. Every year we think UK is going to win it all. Every. single. year.
We don't even have ONE returning player thats a difference maker, not one recruit in the top 5 and possibly the 2nd worse PG in the Cal era.......and we're one scotch away from predicting 40-0.

Almost every year Cal has had them in a position to win a title. We've been to four final fours despite constant turnover. It seems reasonable to me that fans predicting a title is fair

 

[Primedfor9]

I don't see the Michigan State hype. They weren't that good last year.

If Bagley goes to either Duke or Zona they become #1. Its not a question. The loser in the Bagley sweepstakes lands at 2

As for the Cats, I just can't see us cutting down the net. At some point in the tourney you gotta have someone step up in a bind. Usually this is where your older players save the day. We don't have that. Our sophomores are Gabriel, SKJ and Tai. If we have to have one of them to put up a monster game to advance well...

It doesn't matter if a team was good the previous year or not anymore, hasn't for a long time plus Mich st had holes in their lineup all year due to several injuries (Bridges had to play power forward, five star top 10 Jaren Jackson will this year) plus they were very young. That won't be the case this year, they possibly have a top 10-15 player at each position and a lot of depth. Ward And Bridges are two of the best players in the country and Izzo is a great coach.

 

[hootervillearnolds]

Alabama
FL ST
Ohio St
USC
Michigan

Or were you talking basketball?

 

[hootervillearnolds]

There's no magic formula for how to win it all. You need talent and lots of luck.

2016 and 2017 proved to me that having experience does not mean as much as I thought.

In 2016 we had a 5-star, top 10 rated Senior, a 5-star top 20 rated Junior, plus two other Juniors in the regular rotation. Throw in an All-American Soph. It resulted in our worst finish in the NCAA tourney.

Last year we had three Seniors and and a couple of Sophs and fared a little better. Of course having three future lottery picks helped more than anything, IMHO.

What I want to see is Cal sign at least one top 5 stud, along with a couple of top 10 guys, giving us three elite OAD studs.

Add 2-3 top 25 guys who will likely return.

Then have 2-3 returnees that were in the top 25 range in previous years.

That's the balance I think we need: three stud OAD, 2-3 returnees, 2-3
Top 25 Freshmen. That's the 7-8 man rotation I would like to see every year.

Still the main ingredient that can not be counted on is luck. Got to have lots of luck.

In the past it wasn't (IMO) experience alone that hurt freshman dominated teams, it was physical development. Rick P (and before him Denny C) would seem to get better in February with older teams while young players would hit a wall. Remember how Izzo would beat up teams on the way to the FF every year? Not so much anymore. Why?

In the last decade players are coming to school with years of longer and more competitive traveling AAU experience and conditioning. And from basketball factory HS teams that travel and play game after game. And Cal has (when not getting guys hurt) learned how to make them tough by March. So when March comes they are fit and ready.

 

[bucsrule8872]

In the past it wasn't (IMO) experience alone that hurt freshman dominated teams, it was physical development. Rick P (and before him Denny C) would seem to get better in February with older teams while young players would hit a wall. Remember how Izzo would beat up teams on the way to the FF every year? Not so much anymore. Why?

In the last decade players are coming to school with years of longer and more competitive traveling AAU experience and conditioning. And from basketball factory HS teams that travel and play game after game. And Cal has (when not getting guys hurt) learned how to make them tough by March. So when March comes they are fit and ready.

Excellent post!

 

[weatherbird]

In the past it wasn't (IMO) experience alone that hurt freshman dominated teams, it was physical development. Rick P (and before him Denny C) would seem to get better in February with older teams while young players would hit a wall. Remember how Izzo would beat up teams on the way to the FF every year? Not so much anymore. Why?

In the last decade players are coming to school with years of longer and more competitive traveling AAU experience and conditioning. And from basketball factory HS teams that travel and play game after game. And Cal has (when not getting guys hurt) learned how to make them tough by March. So when March comes they are fit and ready.

You hit the nail on the head, and it's something many people don't understand. 15-20 years ago freshmen came in with little playing experience, not much physically, and not ready for the grind or spotlight of college basketball. Now with AAU and these basketball prep high schools, these players come in having played on big stages, and in roughly 3 times the number of games. Not to mention they have played against the best, and are routinely lifting weights and conditioning. The transition isn't nearly as hard today as it was back then. Because of this, experience has become less and less important, provided you are signing the type of classes that Cal signs. If we go back to signing 4 stars and lower 5 stars, like when Cal does finally leave, experience may play a bigger role.

 

[Bryo72]

Cats aren't number 1. Duke is definitely above us right now.
Our class is very overrated...zero super stars. Our best player was ranked 8th overall, and our point guard is no Fox, Wall, Knight or Teague.

Troll alert!

 

[Louis_Skunt]

Troll alert!

Blue tinted glasses everywhere. Im a huge UK fan, but facts are facts. We don't have a Fox this year, our PG is the lesser rated of the Cal era....excluding hop a long from NC State.

 

[Bryo72]

Uh Cal's first pg at UK just got a $200+plus extension....I think Coach...knows what he's doing....

 

[Bryo72]

Keep worring about the wolfpack....last time they we're relevant...83