My concern about many UK fans (UK-Ark)

[B.B.H.]

To me the concern about at least some chance of a (1-6?) Cal beating us is based on reality, for the reasons you said. But his idea of Cats fans putting signs in Pope's yard if we lose that one is just out there. That's got nothing vaguely to do with the reality of Cats fans----although it is exactly the way Pat Forde/Digger Phelps types have always loved to paint us.

Some fans are dumb. I’ll just be honest. If Arkansas played the game of their lives and win, yet we go on to a 3/4 seed in NCAAT, it’s not something I’ll lose sleep over. Some people are just chomping at the bit to go after Pope. Never underestimate that there are plenty of wolves at the prowl waiting for something to go wrong.

 

[BlueSince92]

Some fans are dumb. I’ll just be honest. If Arkansas played the game of their lives and win, yet we go on to a 3/4 seed in NCAAT, it’s not something I’ll lose sleep over. Some people are just chomping at the bit to go after Pope. Never underestimate that there are plenty of wolves at the prowl waiting for something to go wrong.

Maybe in a sense. I could certainly see some of Cal's holdouts pulling something like that. Because that legit was a cult by the end. But I can't see anyone doing that who's rooted hard for Pope to win any game this year. And I wouldn't think of anyone else as an actual fan.

 

[aikenite4uk]

If we lose to Arkansas we don't deserve to do anything, they are awful.

How can you say that the #54 team in Kenpom is awful? They're not great by SEC standards, but by no means are they a pushover. Vandy is # 48 in those rankings and they're a formidable opponent.

 

[B.B.H.]

Maybe in a sense. I could certainly see some of Cal's holdouts pulling something like that. Because that legit was a cult by the end. But I can't see anyone doing that who's rooted hard for Pope to win any game this year. And I wouldn't think of anyone else as an actual fan.

Completely agree.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

They won a game so crisis averted lmao.

 

[ArtLaibsGhost]

Oh, I think the entire BBN is nervous/anxious about the game if everyone is being honest. It's one of those you just win and get the hell out of there, similar to the Louisville games when they suck and UK is good. A win is "you should have won" and a loss is "code red never recover from this."

I am no more anxious about this game than any other. It is one game in a long season. Some of our fans have been obsessing about it since the schedule came out. Thier desperate need to BEAT Cal seems to define the season for them. Some remind me of the O St football fans who wanted to fire Ryan Day because he lost to Michigan, he only went on to win a National Championship. I guarantee you if we lose to Arky you will hear the same NONSENSE from some of our fans. Ive read on here somewhere that our fans seek vindication by beating Cal and reveling in Arkys demise. My question is vindication with who. The sports media? Good luck with that. I want to beat Arkansas yes but it is NOT a season defining game.

 

[Digger-Cat]

I’m still pretty surprised. UGA look solid against us.

They look great at home, but they're 2-4 for a good reson.

 

[Digger-Cat]

Not really sure what you're arguing at this point - so you're saying that Arkansas is clearly worse without Boogie, correct?

They just won without him. You keep focusing on how bad they were offensively, ok cool - they still won the game, correct? They played their worst offensive game of the season and still won. Maybe they're better defensively now without Boogie? Maybe they're about to get more stops defensively than with Boogie.

Point being, they don't HAVE to have his 15 ppg, especially if they're going to be better defensively. They don't HAVE to get Boogie's 15 pts as long as they get a few more from Adou, a few more from DJ, Knox, Brazille, etc.

I hope they're worse without him. But it's no guarantee, that's my point. UK was better without BJ Boston, UK was better without Sahvir, etc. Like you said, all kinds of examples of this in sports.

And no, I don't think I'm some kind of revolutionary coach who's the first to think of this, but apparently you hadn't thought of it so it seemed relevant to point out

So wait, you think that because they won the game and lost the.orevious 5, it means they are better? The competition doesn’t matter?

That was the worst SEC team they played at home by far. They played Ole Miss, Florida @ UT, @ LSU and @ Mizzou. So, in your mind, Arkansas is now able to beat those teams because Fland is out?

Competition matters and all they did last night, was beat the worst team they have played at home.

If they played LSU at home, they probably win, with, or without Fland and if they played UGA in Athens, they lose, with or without Fland.

How do you not consider the competition? In your world, Arkansas would beat Florida and Ole Miss now that Fland is gone, because they eeked past UGA. . It doesn't work that way.

That was their worst offensive performance all year last night, but you think they're better because they beat 2-4 UGA at home? Gotcha.

 

[CatsFanIL]

So wait, you think that because they won the game and lost the.orevious 5, it means they are better? The competition doesn’t matter?

That was the worst SEC team they played at home by far. They played Ole Miss, Florida @ UT, @ LSU and @ Mizzou. So, in your mind, Arkansas is now able to beat those teams because Fland is out?

Competition matters and all they did last night, was beat the worst team they have played at home.

If they played LSU at home, they probably win, with, or without Fland and if they played UGA in Athens, they lose, with or without Fland.

How do you not consider the competition? In your world, Arkansas would beat Florida and Ole Miss now that Fland is gone, because they eeked past UGA. . It doesn't work that way.

That was their worst offensive performance all year last night, but you think they're better because they beat 2-4 UGA at home? Gotcha.

It's amazing that you only seem to fathom, or latch onto, the extremes. What a terrible, anxious world you must live in.

You keep going back to "worst offensive performance" - honestly, it shows how little you know ball. So they WON their worst offensive performance of the season, and some how you think you're proving some point....you're proving MY point. They WON their worst offensive performance of the season, that's pretty significant, wouldn't you agree? Crazy to me that you don't see your own undoing here. If a team, in any sport, wins the game in which they don't play well offensively, that's a big time win. That's a win that shows how good you can be defensively. That's a win that proves, even when not playing at your best, you can still get the victory.

Love all your nonsensical hypotheticals. I'm sure you would've said UK would win at Clemson, I'm sure you would've said UK would win at Georgia, and I'm sure you would've said UK would lose at Gonzaga without Butler. Well guess what, you still have to go and play the games. So make all the claims about Ark playing at Georgia or LSU at home, but you ain't proving anything, you're just throwing out hypotheticals that have no way of being proven correct. Nice try. Moving on

Here's a challenge for you: go back and show where I said Arkansas would beat Florida and Ole Miss. Go ahead youngster, I'll wait patiently. Find a quote from me that said, now that Fland is out, Arkansas would beat Florida and Ole Miss. Waiting...waiting...waiting...

Oh yeah that's right, you just made it up. Do you ever argue in real, relevant assertions?

 

[Digger-Cat]

It's amazing that you only seem to fathom, or latch onto, the extremes. What a terrible, anxious world you must live in.

You keep going back to "worst offensive performance" - honestly, it shows how little you know ball. So they WON their worst offensive performance of the season, and some how you think you're proving some point....you're proving MY point. They WON their worst offensive performance of the season, that's pretty significant, wouldn't you agree? Crazy to me that you don't see your own undoing here. If a team, in any sport, wins the game in which they don't play well offensively, that's a big time win. That's a win that shows how good you can be defensively. That's a win that proves, even when not playing at your best, you can still get the victory.

Love all your nonsensical hypotheticals. I'm sure you would've said UK would win at Clemson, I'm sure you would've said UK would win at Georgia, and I'm sure you would've said UK would lose at Gonzaga without Butler. Well guess what, you still have to go and play the games. So make all the claims about Ark playing at Georgia or LSU at home, but you ain't proving anything, you're just throwing out hypotheticals that have no way of being proven correct. Nice try. Moving on

Here's a challenge for you: go back and show where I said Arkansas would beat Florida and Ole Miss. Go ahead youngster, I'll wait patiently. Find a quote from me that said, now that Fland is out, Arkansas would beat Florida and Ole Miss. Waiting...waiting...waiting...

Oh yeah that's right, you just made it up. Do you ever argue in real, relevant assertions?

The problem is you are not considering the oppnent and where the game was played. Truth is, Arkansas should beat UGA at home with, or without Fland
If I was an Arkansas fan, I would definitely be happy with the win, but I would also he real about it, they beat a mediocre team at home, but that offense is a massive concern.
Now, with, or without Fland, they would/will beat Oklahoma tomorrow, because Oklahoma is not good, so let's see how they do against good competition, or on the road.
You're trying to act like they just beat Auburn on the road, you have to at least consider the opponent.
If I use your logic, I could say "well, they beat Michigan with Fland in the lineup. Michigan is their best win, they don't win that game without Boogie.

 

[CatsFanIL]

The problem is you are not considering the oppnent and where the game was played. Truth is, Arkansas should beat UGA at home with, or without Fland
If I was an Arkansas fan, I would definitely be happy with the win, but I would also he real about it, they beat a mediocre team at home, but that offense is a massive concern.
Now, with, or without Fland, they would/will beat Oklahoma tomorrow, because Oklahoma is not good, so let's see how they do against good competition, or on the road.
You're trying to act like they just beat Auburn on the road, you have to at least consider the opponent.
If I use your logic, I could say "well, they beat Michigan with Fland in the lineup. Michigan is their best win, they don't win that game without Boogie.

Wait, did I miss the part where you went back and found me allegedly saying they'll beat Florida and Ole Miss without Fland? Thought you were going to go back and find that quote for me? Ah, well I guess it's just fair to conclude you completely made that up, right?

I don't think you full grasp the meaning of the word "logic", proven by your final sentence. I never used that logic. So here we go, one last attempt, and as clearly as I can make it...

Sometimes, teams perform better when their "best scorer" leaves the lineup. They might defend better without him. They might have better chemistry without him. They might have other guys score more points without him. They might share the ball/increase ball movement without him. They might take higher % shots without him. They might execute their sets/actions without him. They might replace him with a better passer. They might get more loose balls without him. All of these things could lead to the team playing better without their "best scorer".

I look forward to seeing how you try and spin this one, but from the get-go that has been my point. You can argue it or not, rather poorly I might add, but that's been my point from the jump

 

[Digger-Cat]

Wait, did I miss the part where you went back and found me allegedly saying they'll beat Florida and Ole Miss without Fland? Thought you were going to go back and find that quote for me? Ah, well I guess it's just fair to conclude you completely made that up, right?

I don't think you full grasp the meaning of the word "logic", proven by your final sentence. I never used that logic. So here we go, one last attempt, and as clearly as I can make it...

Sometimes, teams perform better when their "best scorer" leaves the lineup. They might defend better without him. They might have better chemistry without him. They might have other guys score more points without him. They might share the ball/increase ball movement without him. They might take higher % shots without him. They might execute their sets/actions without him. They might replace him with a better passer. They might get more loose balls without him. All of these things could lead to the team playing better without their "best scorer".

I look forward to seeing how you try and spin this one, but from the get-go that has been my point. You can argue it or not, rather poorly I might add, but that's been my point from the jump

Arkansas beat Lipscomb at home, with Boogie Fland. They won by 16.
Arkansas, without Fland, only beat Georgia at home by 3.

There you go, Arkansas is better with Boogie in the lineup.

 

[Digger-Cat]

Okay, here is Arkansas SEC schedule to date. Here is where I would rank them based on difficulty of winning:

1) @ Tennessee
2) Florida
3) @ Missouri
4) Ole Miss
5) @ LSU
6) Georgia
7) Oklahoma (tomorrow)

Arkansas eeked by the worst team out of the 6 teams they played so far.

If they played LSU at home, they beat LSU with, or without Fland, but since it was a road game, it is easily tougher than UGA and Oklahoma at home.

There is no way Arkansas beats any of the top 5 without Fland and in fact, probably gets beat by a lot more in all 5 of those games.

Does anyone disagree with this? You have to consider the opponent and where the game is played.

Call me when Arkansas beats someone with a pulse.

 

[ciphercomplete]

Yeah, I don't get this full-throated defense of Arkansas "possible play quality ceiling". Maybe they will improve but what I watched wasn't an improvement in quality of play- they just managed to somehow win the game this time.

Maybe if they had Pat Kelsey as coach, which hate or love UL, that dude has navigated injuries better than any coach I have seen recently, I'd be saying "watch out for them". I don't really have any confidence with Cal when it comes to injuries. His teams always seem to get worse.

Like I said in my earlier post, We'll see what they do from here on out. I don't know how you manage to project future wins based on this terrible game.

 

[jedwar]

What some are wary of is Arkansas coming in, being juiced up, especially Cal and the former UK players and playing well enough to beat us. I don't see that as a horrible take. Could they beat us? Absolutely. Will they, probably not. But beating Cal is paramount to the situation because it's Cal and Pope needs to get that one.

 

[Digger-Cat]

What some are wary of is Arkansas coming in, being juiced up, especially Cal and the former UK players and playing well enough to beat us. I don't see that as a horrible take. Could they beat us? Absolutely. Will they, probably not. But beating Cal is paramount to the situation because it's Cal and Pope needs to get that one.

100% agree with this. Cal has shown he can motivate his team in a 1 game scenario and pull off a stunner.

But, he is the same guy that lost 10 games last year with a roster full of legit playmakers that can actually shoot. There is no Reed, Rob, Mitchell, or Reeves on this Arkansas team. If they had an Antonio Reeves, I'd be concerned, but Davis couldn't hold Reeves' left shoe.

The problem with this roster is, they can't shoot, that greatly hampers their ability to pull off a stunner.

They just shot 30% from the field and 13% (LOL) from 3 point range. If they were playing a team at the middle, or top of the SEC, they get beat badly, home or away.

 

[Myth Buster51]

In the event Arkansas finds a way to win, I’m turning RR off for a week or so. Don’t need all the drama that would follow a loss to the Hogs.

And Sidney Moncrief is still my favorite razorback, with U.S. Reed a distant 2nd!!

 

[The_Answer1313]

While obviously I'd like to win that game, having a better season than Arkansas matters more IMO. And we are currently doing just that.

 

[ukfan1622]

I absoulutely do not think Arky can beat the Cats in Rupp.

I will also be damned nervous because that would be the LAST game I'd want to see UK to lose this year.

 

[CatsFanIL]

Arkansas beat Lipscomb at home, with Boogie Fland. They won by 16.
Arkansas, without Fland, only beat Georgia at home by 3.

There you go, Arkansas is better with Boogie in the lineup.

So again, to be clear, you did NOT go back and find anywhere me saying that Arkansas would be Florida or Ole Miss without Fland? You keep dodging this, so I'd just like to be clear on why? Is it because you completely made it up? Again, just trying to be clear here and establish some kind of ounce of credibility for you...

 

[CatsFanIL]

Okay, here is Arkansas SEC schedule to date. Here is where I would rank them based on difficulty of winning:

1) @ Tennessee
2) Florida
3) @ Missouri
4) Ole Miss
5) @ LSU
6) Georgia
7) Oklahoma (tomorrow)

Arkansas eeked by the worst team out of the 6 teams they played so far.

If they played LSU at home, they beat LSU with, or without Fland, but since it was a road game, it is easily tougher than UGA and Oklahoma at home.

There is no way Arkansas beats any of the top 5 without Fland and in fact, probably gets beat by a lot more in all 5 of those games.

Does anyone disagree with this? You have to consider the opponent and where the game is played.

Call me when Arkansas beats someone with a pulse.

Maybe this will help you, I'll repost for you below in hopes that you don't miss it, don't selectively choose to ignore the actual point, and fail once again at a poor attempt to spin the narrative...

"Sometimes, teams perform better when their "best scorer" leaves the lineup. They might defend better without him. They might have better chemistry without him. They might have other guys score more points without him. They might share the ball/increase ball movement without him. They might take higher % shots without him. They might execute their sets/actions without him. They might replace him with a better passer. They might get more loose balls without him. All of these things could lead to the team playing better without their "best scorer".

 

[JDHoss]

How can you say that the #54 team in Kenpom is awful? They're not great by SEC standards, but by no means are they a pushover. Vandy is # 48 in those rankings and they're a formidable opponent.

Yep. The margin for error in any SEC game is slim on a given day.

 

[Digger-Cat]

So again, to be clear, you did NOT go back and find anywhere me saying that Arkansas would be Florida or Ole Miss without Fland? You keep dodging this, so I'd just like to be clear on why? Is it because you completely made it up? Again, just trying to be clear here and establish some kind of ounce of credibility for you...

You misunderstand, you are saying Arkansas is better without Fland, because they beat UGA at home, but you're not considering the opponent.

My question to you is, are you saying Arkansas would now beat Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU on the road, or Missouri on the road?

That's what I'm getting at, UGA at home, was, by far, the easiest SEC game they have played. Do you agree, or no?

Last thing, Arkansas' best win, is Michigan by 2 on a neutral. Boogie Fland scored 20 with 7 assists, only 2 turns. Are you saying Arkansas actually beats them by more without Fland?

 

[Digger-Cat]

Maybe this will help you, I'll repost for you below in hopes that you don't miss it, don't selectively choose to ignore the actual point, and fail once again at a poor attempt to spin the narrative...

"Sometimes, teams perform better when their "best scorer" leaves the lineup. They might defend better without him. They might have better chemistry without him. They might have other guys score more points without him. They might share the ball/increase ball movement without him. They might take higher % shots without him. They might execute their sets/actions without him. They might replace him with a better passer. They might get more loose balls without him. All of these things could lead to the team playing better without their "best scorer".

You're the one not comprehending. They didn't play any better, in fact, they played their worst offensive game of the season.

They won, because they played the worst SEC team on their schedule to this point.

They literally played worse, the competition just wasn't as good.

 

[CatsFanIL]

You misunderstand, you are saying Arkansas is better without Fland, because they beat UGA at home, but you're not considering the opponent.

My question to you is, are you saying Arkansas would now beat Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU on the road, or Missouri on the road?

That's what I'm getting at, UGA at home, was, by far, the easiest SEC game they have played. Do you agree, or no?

Last thing, Arkansas' best win, is Michigan by 2 on a neutral. Boogie Fland scored 20 with 7 assists, only 2 turns. Are you saying Arkansas actually beats them by more without Fland?

So again, can you address my question? Why do you keep dodging it? I don't feel like it's that big of a challenge, just go back and show where I said Arkansas would be Florida and Ole Miss without Fland. Come on man, go ahead and do it.

Or....

Admit you completely made it up and lied about it to try and score some points in the argument

That's it, those are the options. Or keep avoiding it and we'll all know the kind of poster you really are