You are not using it against me. I am just asking everyone's opinion for discussion. I think you have to recruit the best talent every year, especially if most of your team leaves every year. My only question was I guess answered fairly quickly - NBA talent does not equal NCAA championships.
Most lottery picks in NCAA since Cal has been here
- Thread starter BBBLazing
- Start date
Neither. I hate the fact that only some people on this board are able to participate in a fair discussion. The people that say you are a troll or dumb, are dumb. Debate is a good thing. Everyone agreeing is a bad thing. Explain your position and discuss it without name calling.
Only one team each year is champion. I'd like to have more championships for sure, but every year we are a high profile team and most years we have been in serious contention for the championship.
Plus, the number of pros and future all-stars and superstars Cal is putting in the league is going to bear fruit for this program for many, many years after Cal leaves.
What I hope for is that Cal retires from UK and remains associated with the program for the rest of his life, like Dean Smith at UNC.
Plus, the number of pros and future all-stars and superstars Cal is putting in the league is going to bear fruit for this program for many, many years after Cal leaves.
What I hope for is that Cal retires from UK and remains associated with the program for the rest of his life, like Dean Smith at UNC.
On a board designed for debate, you are losing. "Picking arguments" and asking other people's opinions are the same thing, unless you are intimidated by people that don't share your opinion.
No, their is a difference between between debating and being a prick or a smart a**. From what I have seen both can describe you. I don't get intimidated by anyone physically or on a damn board for that matter. I'll give you credit for being more civil than what I have seen out of you in the past, but your intimidation comment is laughable.
Last edited:
Then debate me instead of telling me how you don't get intimidated physically. I never made a comment about physical intimidation by the way tough guy. If you think I am being a prick or a smart ass (I have no idea why you spelled out prick and was afraid to say ass) oppose my view with an argument instead of name calling.
You missing the point is what everyone questions. Even a 9 year old kid can tell you it's hard to win with freshmen. And somehow it has eluded you. Hmmm? Time for the mods to take out the trash.
Just stop. Just because we've had the most draft picks, doesn't mean we've had the best teams.
We've had the best team one year for sure, and that was 2012, and we won the tournament.
The 2015 team was really good, but so were four other teams. Remember, the 2015 team had a number of close calls, and were not a very great defensive rebounding team.
There's a difference between high draft picks, and really good college teams. Come on, you're smarter than this.
Had to delete my prior post because your internet tough guy statement made my blood boil. I'm not afraid to say anything and you know exactly what I meant. I'll debate with you because I don't understand how anyone can complain with our coach considering the success he has had here. Dominating our rival, multiple final fours, a national title, getting to see all of these kids make their dreams come true in the NBA draft, the charitable things he has done and had our players do outside of the game, etc. I've had a blast watching our teams since Cal has been here and I look forward to this coming season and the future of our program under his leadership
When the 2015 team lost in the final four it hurt. The best team doesn't always win the tournament and that was a good example of that. It's really hard to win a title. Tougher then a lot of people realize.
Your post is exactly what I am talking about. Debate me. Don't tell me that nine year old kids can see what I don't see. Tell me what nine year old kids see. Anyone that calls the "mods" out is a whiner. All I asked is for a fair debate. I got some great responses. Plenty of people pointed out how difficult it is to win with Freshman. My initial question was really whether NBA draft talent equals NCAA championship talent. A few people entered that debate and stated their position. The rest of you started calling me names and crying to the "mods".
Thanks for a good response. Remember that team had Willie and KAT. My point is why were we not a "very great defensive rebounding team?"
Best of 7 series he wins it in 2010, 2012, and 2015. I've said it before, NCAA basketball might be the hardest in all sports to win. Only 7 teams that started out pre season #1 in the last 45 years has won the title and unlike many of coach Cal's teams, I'm sure the majority of those teams ranked #1 that failed to win were loaded with experienced talent.
There's a difference between talent (what the NBA drafts on, which is largely based on athletic potential) and current production (what matters for winning college basketball games). You somewhat acknowledge that, but you don't grapple with it. You completely ignore that no program has LOST more talent than UK during the Cal era, and it's not close. Aside from those 2 glaring errors, I guess?
Exactly.
Do I agree with everything Cal has done or said? No. Would I trade him for anyone? HELL NO!
He's had us in a run for a title in every year besides 2013 & 2016. Pretty good percentage
I think a better question might be: is there any statistic that has a high correlation to championships?
I'd venture to say there is no objective statistical measure of any sort that correlates to winning the NCAA championship. If there were, sports betting in general and picking the NCAA champion in particular would be much easier.
In the NBA I'm guessing there are strong correlations for some statistics because of the series format of the playoffs. Same in MLB. (I'd be curious to know if payroll is a strong indicator).
But there is such a high level of variability that no one single statistic, including roster experience, is a strong indicator of probability of winning a championship.
Would be an interesting topic for an in-depth statistical analysis.
I'd venture to say there is no objective statistical measure of any sort that correlates to winning the NCAA championship. If there were, sports betting in general and picking the NCAA champion in particular would be much easier.
In the NBA I'm guessing there are strong correlations for some statistics because of the series format of the playoffs. Same in MLB. (I'd be curious to know if payroll is a strong indicator).
But there is such a high level of variability that no one single statistic, including roster experience, is a strong indicator of probability of winning a championship.
Would be an interesting topic for an in-depth statistical analysis.
Here's an article heavy on statistical analysis:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/harvar...prediction-model-for-the-ncaa-tournament/amp/
This person developed a model that was pretty accurate statically. He got 44 out of 67 games correct and two FF teams in 2011. That's considered highly accurate.
A quote from the article:
"Predicting NCAA Tournament success is a more subtle problem than simply identifying the “best team” from the regular season. The Tournament’s single-elimination format makes results far more random than most other playoff formats, which use multiple-game series."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/harvar...prediction-model-for-the-ncaa-tournament/amp/
This person developed a model that was pretty accurate statically. He got 44 out of 67 games correct and two FF teams in 2011. That's considered highly accurate.
A quote from the article:
"Predicting NCAA Tournament success is a more subtle problem than simply identifying the “best team” from the regular season. The Tournament’s single-elimination format makes results far more random than most other playoff formats, which use multiple-game series."
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Larry glover live kentucky insider founder stated- Latest: Cold Stout Beer
-
-
-
