Most lottery picks in NCAA since Cal has been here

[BBBLazing]

And still 1 championship. I know I am going to be called a troll or UL fan for starting this thread, but I am honestly wanting an honest discussion about this.

In the draft thread last night, someone brought up the idea that we had so many high draft picks, we should have a better tournament record. Someone responded that last year we lost on a last second shot to the ultimate tournament winner, and "who has a better record than Cal since he's been at Kentucky?" We lost to the ultimate tournament winner because they beat us. If we would have beat them, we would have been the ultimate tournament winner. We have gone deep, but lost except for 2012.

I agree that we have a better record than anyone since Cal has been here overall. But, both Duke and UConn have won two championships to our one and we have had much better players, at least as far as the draft and NBA are concerned, than they have had. The dichotomy of the number of lottery picks and championships surely deserves a conversation.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Of all the lottery picks, Fox, Monk, and Bam were the last ones playing in the NCAA Tournament besides Collins of Gonzaga.

That in of itself is a microcosm for the reality that the most talented guys (potential-wise) don’t always advance the farthest in the tournament.

Look at UNC last year and Nova the year before, or UConn in 2014; Louisville in 2013; UConn in 2011; Duke in 2010.

Were any of them the most NBA-talented teams in their respective tournaments? Not one of them was. The most talented team, by NBA potential standards, seldom wins it all.

 

[Mojocat]

There's an easy answer. When assessing what a coach has to work with, the basic components are talent and experience. Anyone who only looks at the talent part - for example by focusing exclusively on where kids were drafted - without also looking at the experience part either has an agenda or doesn't understand the game. Yes Cal has had more talent than anyone. He also relies heavily on freshmen and has close to zero continuity from one season to the next. As others have said, in a very short time the criticism de jure went from "Calipari is an idiot to think he can win that way" to "Calipari should win more than he does." I think 26-6 relying mostly on 18 year olds is remarkable....

 

[BBBLazing]

Agreed that what he has done is great, "remarkable" if that is the word you want to use. My question for debate is should we have more experience and win more? We always have more talent. More talent should win.

 

[kybassfan]

And still 1 championship. I know I am going to be called a troll or UL fan for starting this thread, but I am honestly wanting an honest discussion about this.

In the draft thread last night, someone brought up the idea that we had so many high draft picks, we should have a better tournament record. Someone responded that last year we lost on a last second shot to the ultimate tournament winner, and "who has a better record than Cal since he's been at Kentucky?" We lost to the ultimate tournament winner because they beat us. If we would have beat them, we would have been the ultimate tournament winner. We have gone deep, but lost except for 2012.

I agree that we have a better record than anyone since Cal has been here overall. But, both Duke and UConn have won two championships to our one and we have had much better players, at least as far as the draft and NBA are concerned, than they have had. The dichotomy of the number of lottery picks and championships surely deserves a conversation.

I think that trying to equate talent alone to some expectation of championships just illustrates a profound ignorance of the tournament process and all that needs to converge to actually win the tourney. Such a naive perspective ignores tourney seeding, teams that get on a hot streak, players that have bad games, officiating inconsistencies, injury status, team chemistry, and many other facets of tournament success. More over, it makes the rather uninformed presumption that the NBA is evaluating and drafting on exactly the same criteria that leads to tournament success.

I think we know our chances are better with players of the best quality. I think we have a few 'special' fans that are incapable of understanding that does not equate to any sort of guarantees or expectation of tournament championships.

 

[Supafuzz75]

If you're not happy with the results,, go cheer on someone else.. We're competitive every year and have a chance to win it all.. That's all I care about.. The titles will come.. We're 3-4 missed shots from having 2 titles.. I don't understand your kind of peoples logic..

 

[BengalWACO]

BBBlazing, I think you are highly discounting the amount of coaching ability you need to get these guys to all buy in and play together when they have basically been the sole focus player on a team for years. Along with youth and what not. I mean, we go deep almost every year and HAVE one championship and one runner up... along with multiple final fours. NO other coach has explored this territory before Calipari.. he is doing it the BEST.

 

[Aike]

Novel approach to pretend like this is some fresh topic that isn't beaten to death dozens of times every year.

Maybe some of your buddies will show up to help.

 

[irishcat1965]

And still 1 championship. I know I am going to be called a troll or UL fan for starting this thread, but I am honestly wanting an honest discussion about this.

In the draft thread last night, someone brought up the idea that we had so many high draft picks, we should have a better tournament record. Someone responded that last year we lost on a last second shot to the ultimate tournament winner, and "who has a better record than Cal since he's been at Kentucky?" We lost to the ultimate tournament winner because they beat us. If we would have beat them, we would have been the ultimate tournament winner. We have gone deep, but lost except for 2012.

I agree that we have a better record than anyone since Cal has been here overall. But, both Duke and UConn have won two championships to our one and we have had much better players, at least as far as the draft and NBA are concerned, than they have had. The dichotomy of the number of lottery picks and championships surely deserves a conversation.

Not this shit again.

 

[irishcat1965]

Agreed that what he has done is great, "remarkable" if that is the word you want to use. My question for debate is should we have more experience and win more? We always have more talent. More talent should win.

Duke had 5 players drafted in the top 30 this year. They couldn't get to the sweet 16. They had more talent so explain that to me.

 

[skcatfan]

And still 1 championship. I know I am going to be called a troll or UL fan for starting this thread, but I am honestly wanting an honest discussion about this.

In the draft thread last night, someone brought up the idea that we had so many high draft picks, we should have a better tournament record. Someone responded that last year we lost on a last second shot to the ultimate tournament winner, and "who has a better record than Cal since he's been at Kentucky?" We lost to the ultimate tournament winner because they beat us. If we would have beat them, we would have been the ultimate tournament winner. We have gone deep, but lost except for 2012.

I agree that we have a better record than anyone since Cal has been here overall. But, both Duke and UConn have won two championships to our one and we have had much better players, at least as far as the draft and NBA are concerned, than they have had. The dichotomy of the number of lottery picks and championships surely deserves a conversation.

It's really not too difficult to understand. Most NBA teams draft players based solely on potential. Justin Jackson was the best player for UNC who won the NCAA championship deservingly or not. But UK, a team they managed to beat (John Higgins cough cough) had 3 players drafted ahead of him. All because they're younger and have a higher upside as viewed by most NBA teams. So while a team may have more draft picks and therefore more talent it doesn't always guarantee success over a veteran team. Especially when that talent is so inexperienced.

 

[Fawrules]

I feel like you could make the case if we hadn't been so close on multiple other occasions. If we hadn't sniffed a Final Four since, then yeah, sure, "FAAR CAL!" To me it boils down to more bad luck/always getting stuck in the most loaded region than anything.

Coach K, who many consider to be the best coach in college basketball history, had a team that many people in the media were debating on if they could possibly go 40-0 last season, plus tons of experience, yet couldn't make the Sweet 16. Anything can happen in a single game elimination format.

 

[Fawrules]

Agreed that what he has done is great, "remarkable" if that is the word you want to use. My question for debate is should we have more experience and win more? We always have more talent. More talent should win.

More talent will win most of the time, but doesn't mean they're incapable of having an off game/another team coming out and shooting the lights out. The Golden State Warriors were far and away the most talented team in the NBA this season, but even they could be beaten in a one game scenario.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

It's soooo simple, and a few others have already said as much: Everything he gains in terms of talent he totally surrenders in terms of experience. Talent is obviously more important, as no one else has gone 26-6 in the NCAA tournament since 2010.

Soon- very possibly in 2019- he'll strike the balance again, a la 2012 and 2015. We'll see what comes of it...

 

[TheKentuckyKid]

Maybe you are not a troll but you are a curmudgeon, an old bitter curmudgeon.

 

[TheKentuckyKid]

Let me use one of your own quotes against you.

What are you suggesting OP? Not recruit the best players and get guys that we know will be here 4 years?

 

[bbn93]

Why even follow a team if you're never going to be happy with the results? It doesn't get much better than this. It's going to be impossible to get on this board once cal leaves.

 

[BlueSince92]

Since Cal got here there have been two schools to win more titles than he won.

One did it under two different coaches.

So there has been one single coach to win more titles than Cal during Cal's era at UK. And that happens to be the coach known for being the most protected both by referees and by the selection committee.

Also, in the case of all FOUR of these other championships, Cal had us ranked higher at the time than the school that actually won it all.

But please yes let's have new threads like this as often as possible so we can figure out why Cal's approach is wrong.

 

[Cefiro]

The NCAA tournament is so random, it's the toughest championship to win. Cal should have 1 more but that's just how it goes. There's a reason we only average one a decade.

 

[Mike-D]

How many times does this shit need to be explained? Can we stick one of these to the top of the board? The amount of talent that has run through here is immaterial when they're all staying 1-2 years tops and we are rebuilding entirely new teams each year. This moron already knew that.

 

[Deli owl]

And still 1 championship. I know I am going to be called a troll or UL fan for starting this thread, but I am honestly wanting an honest discussion about this.

In the draft thread last night, someone brought up the idea that we had so many high draft picks, we should have a better tournament record. Someone responded that last year we lost on a last second shot to the ultimate tournament winner, and "who has a better record than Cal since he's been at Kentucky?" We lost to the ultimate tournament winner because they beat us. If we would have beat them, we would have been the ultimate tournament winner. We have gone deep, but lost except for 2012.

I agree that we have a better record than anyone since Cal has been here overall. But, both Duke and UConn have won two championships to our one and we have had much better players, at least as far as the draft and NBA are concerned, than they have had. The dichotomy of the number of lottery picks and championships surely deserves a conversation.

18 year old kids aren't developed fully yet. Hardest thing to do. Cal is amazing.

 

[shutzhund]

BBBLazing is either a troll or dumber than a sack of rocks. Probably both.

 

[Bungalow Bill]

Every lottery pick played one year at UK as a FRESHMEN except Kanter who didn't play at all. It's not like we are under achieving with upper class men. 7 months to put together a team and get them playing well enough with mostly 1st year guys to win the NC is really difficult. It's hard to win one with a team you have 3 or 4 years to put together like Carolina this year. Anybody who doesn't understand this just doesn't want to or is ignorant of how it works.

 

[Chuckinden]

I actually despise our system, but you can't complain about the results.

 

[sambowieshin]

Higgins cost us one this year, not Cal or his system.

 

[UKWildcatT]

Folks, this OP is a f'ing clown.

I knew exactly what his post would be before opening the thread. He's the old buzzard that went on a drunken rant about Cal a year and a half or so ago.

I'd usually put clowns like him in ignore, but like to call him on his bs

 

[permdaddy]

Having the best team or most talent and not winning the tourney is not unique to UK or Cal.

Indiana in 75, UNLV in 91, G-town in 85 there have been a bunch of really good really talented and experienced teams that didn't win it all. Dean Smith 5 or 6 times.

Just at UK Rupp in 66, Hall had a couple of teams that were uber talented, Sutton in 87-88. Tubby didn't have the most talent in 02 and 03 but we had the best team. Cal 09-10 and 14-15.

It happens to great programs, great coaches and great teams. One and done makes it very hard to win 6 in a row.

 

[specialkd24]

There have been 79 championships since 1939 and we've won 8 (10%). The only team better than that is UCLA (14%). So basically we win a title every 10 years. It doesn't happen every year.

We are 26-6 under Cal in the NCAA Tournament. We are in a position basically every year to win the title (save 2013 and maybe 2016). Had it not been for a missed shot clock violation and 3 bad possessions, we win it all in 2015, finish 40-0 and its the greatest team in NCAA history. Then NOBODY is talking about this. But it didn't happen. That is the randomness of the tournament. That same randomness is how UConn won in 2014. If you think Kevin Ollie is a better coach than Cal, then nobody can help you.

I want to win titles. But would you rather be in position to win, or have one good year (i.e. Final Four) then 3 bad years? We are winning lots of games every year and putting ourselves into position.

 

[Gothic1960]

These passive /aggressive troll posts drive me friggin' nuts...
1. Would you trade all this talent for the good ole Drunk Billy Clyde & Tubby days? They had lots of players stay multi years and they got 1 NC between them--- with Pitino's players.
2. What coach do you think would have done better with Cal's players? K? hell no... deck's gotta be 100% stacked for K to do sjhit.. Self? yeah right... Ole Dadgummit Roy? maybe but no thanks to the slimy bastard... Rick.. hell no.. even slimier than Ole Roy.. Boeheim? hell no.. Izzo? yeah how'd all that great talent that work out this past year? Miller? how many NC's he got?

Cal has done more for UK basketball than any coach except Rupp.. and that includes Slick Rick. People on here are sure willing to give RP passes for lots of boneheaded shit.. Laetner's shot, Not playing DA against AZ, the meltdown against UNC in the E8, on and on...

 

[crawfords corner]

Thank goodness for the UConn loss right OP.

 

[blubo]

It's becsuse cal is working with mostly freshmen, every year.

 

[Catsgloves1]

The portion of the fan base on here isn't a good indicator of how most fans feel. Fans are getting frustrated with the results.

 

[skcatfan]

The portion of the fan base on here isn't a good indicator of how most fans feel. Fans are getting frustrated with the results.

Lmao so I guess you speak for the majority of the fanbase? I think you should speak for yourself because most fans I know are smarter than that.

 

[Catsgloves1]

Lmao so I guess you speak for the majority of the fanbase? I think you should speak for yourself because most fans I know are smarter than that.

Ok, I'm just going off what I hear in conversation in person. Learning disabilities are not something to make fun of.

 

[kybassfan]

Ok, I'm just going off what I hear in conversation in person. Learning disabilities are not something to make fun of.

Troll. He never said a thing about LDs. I figure you are the OP who lacks the guts to defend his thread.

 

[Woodrow_Call_1998]

Troll. He never said a thing about LDs. I figure you are the OP who lacks the guts to defend his thread.

He's definitely a troll. Can tell by the posts he likes and his responses.

 

[Woodrow_Call_1998]

Ok, I'm just going off what I hear in conversation in person. Learning disabilities are not something to make fun of.

Dont understand why you and some others like to troll and start problems.

 

[Woodrow_Call_1998]

I've seen the OP start problems in the lair in the past. Always a smart a** picking arguments with people. Doesn't shock me to see him post a bs thread like this.

 

[Catsgloves1]

Troll. He never said a thing about LDs. I figure you are the OP who lacks the guts to defend his thread.

I think he has valid points.

 

[BBBLazing]

Maybe you are not a troll but you are a curmudgeon, an old bitter curmudgeon.

definitely a curmudgeon, not a troll.