NCAA tournament since 2016

[yoshukai]

Villanova 14-2, 2 final 4s; 2 titles
UNC 14-3; 2 final 4s; 1 title
Gonzaga 12-4, 1 final 4
Kansas 11-4, 1 final 4
Virginia 10-3, 1 final 4, 1 title
Michigan 10-4, 1 final 4
Duke 9-4 0 final 4s
Kentucky 9-4 0 final 4s

Duke 9 1st rounders
UK 12 1st rounders

 

[gbl97]

So you're saying in Cal's worst stretch at UK, there are only 6 schools outperforming him? Not bad really.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

We're all chapped about the last two games, but talk about committing the special pleading fallacy: To start IMMEDIATELY AFTER a five year period in which Kentucky won 1 title and went to 4 Final Fours, and to ignore Elite Eight appearances, for which Kentucky easily leads everyone since 2010, is what I'd expect of a Kentucky basher.

I wonder if people wrote hand-written letters to newspapers in 1965 about Rupp that ignored 1948 to 1958: "Record since 1959: Six Years, 0 Titles. 0 Final Fours."

 

[track42]

So you're saying in Cal's worst stretch at UK, there are only 6 schools outperforming him? Not bad really.

Proud to be number 7.

 

[uky8unc5]

Congratulations! You timeline parallels the timing of the FBI uncovered cheating scandal.

I'm certain your point is: Here's proof Cal plays by the rules.

 

[gbl97]

Not to mention that arguably the best coach in college basketball history is tied with Cal during this stretch.

 

[FishersBlue]

I think the point is to consider the trajectory and not the cumulative results.

Who here really believes the next 5 years will produce a FF team based on all the factors at hand?

 

[uky8unc5]

Who here really believes the next 5 years will produce a FF team based on all the factors at hand?

If I thought you were looking for an opinion, I would respond.
But what you really want is an argument, right?

 

[Crankdatmustard]

Stupid.

Its easy to pick years.

If you go since 2014 UK is 18-6. See how easy that was?

 

[RunninRichie]

Here's a comparison to point out just how LUDICROUS and FOOLISH all these posts like this one have been today that carve out a five-year period beginning in 2016 to attack a coach like Calipari who has a proven track record of success:

In the five seasons between 2005 and 2009 Duke and Coach K DIDN'T REACH THE ELITE EIGHT even once.

That's right: Cal's worst five years at Kentucky are much more successful than a recent stretch by K: Cal has two Elite Eights in that span, one that ended in an OT loss and one marred by horrific officiating that still went to a final second shot. Of course, K has won two titles in the years since his five-year stretch of not advancing past the Sweet 16. And so will Cal. At a minimum. Unless imbeciles run him off.

good post. Puts things into perspective. I don’t think any logical fan wants cal gone, I mean wtf? (the guy was made for UK) we just want some change regarding youth.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Why 16?

Why didn't you go back to 15 or 14?

Anything to fit an agenda i guess lol

 

[hamidousvertical]

Not having a tournament last year has only added fuel to some posters fire. It is understandable as it feels like quite a while since we have seen a quality team on the court, but I do believe Cal had a squad to make noise last year.

Oh. Well.

 

[kb22stang]

Why 16?

Why didn't you go back to 15 or 14?

Anything to fit an agenda i guess lol

I would guess he was attempting to measure the decline since Cal's great run.

I read these stats as proof that the one and done model isn't working since the two teams with most draft picks had the worst overall tournament record.

 

[cats2010]

We're all chapped about the last two games, but talk about committing the special pleading fallacy: To start IMMEDIATELY AFTER a five year period in which Kentucky won 1 title and went to 4 Final Fours, and to ignore Elite Eight appearances, for which Kentucky easily leads everyone since 2010, is what I'd expect of a Kentucky basher.

I wonder if people wrote hand-written letters to newspapers in 1965 about Rupp that ignored 1948 to 1958: "Record since 1959: Six Years, 0 Titles. 0 Final Fours."

no ones cherry picking anything to fit an agenda. The last 5 years show the trajectory of the program and no signs it’s turning around anytime soon. Why are you being so Obtuse? Is it deliberate?

Year 6 of this trajectory sees us start the season with one retuning player, one. A whole new freaking roster (in college). First game I got to watch was Richmond and if our players weren’t wearing KY jerseys I wouldn’t have even known that was our team. Last 2 second halves were some of the worst basketball I’ve witnessed, worse than BG years by a long shot and that’s on Cal because he doesn’t coach, just sits and screams (at his least favorite players) and hope they figure it out on the fly during a game. That’s total horseshit IMO!!!!

 

[The_Answer1313]

Here's a comparison to point out just how LUDICROUS and FOOLISH all these posts like this one have been today that carve out a five-year period beginning in 2016 to attack a coach like Calipari who has a proven track record of success:

In the five seasons between 2005 and 2009 Duke and Coach K DIDN'T REACH THE ELITE EIGHT even once.

That's right: Cal's worst five years at Kentucky are much more successful than a recent stretch by K: Cal has two Elite Eights in that span, one that ended in an OT loss and one marred by horrific officiating that still went to a final second shot. Of course, K has won two titles in the years since his five-year stretch of not advancing past the Sweet 16. And so will Cal. At a minimum. Unless imbeciles run him off.

The worst part of all of this isn't the fact they made posts like this but rather when you even point out the cherry picking, they fail to see an issue with it.


Also this "decline" is completely assinine. The last three years of the tournament, we made two elite 8s and came within one possession of a final four each time.

 

[mbc82584]

I think there is a broader feel to it than just what the record may show.

In that same time frame, we are no longer getting hyper elite players in classes anymore. We are still getting really good ones, who sometimes develop, but none who dominate from day one.

Simultaneously, we have more questionable early entries and transfers than ever. Losing guys after 1-2 years who are not obvious pros probably hurts the most, because we all know it’s what leads us to these early season pains.

This year, both of those things are particularly amplified. And then you can add to them the fact that this season is gonna be way shorter with markedly less chances for encouraging wins and more chances for ugly losses.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I think there is a broader feel to it than just what the record may show.

In that same time frame, we are no longer getting hyper elite players in classes anymore. We are still getting really good ones, who sometimes develop, but none who dominate from day one.

Simultaneously, we have more questionable early entries and transfers than ever. Losing guys after 1-2 years who are not obvious pros probably hurts the most, because we all know it’s what leads us to these early season pains.

This year, both of those things are particularly amplified. And then you can add to them the fact that this season is gonna be way shorter with markedly less chances for encouraging wins and more chances for ugly losses.

This is a good point.
We aren't getting any Anthony Davis/John Wall/Karl Towns etc etc type of players anymore.

Having said that, who really is on a consistent basis?

The talent gap between the top teams are only going to get smaller IMO not larger. As the superstars just skip college completely, that gap will only get smaller and smaller. Cal is right. We'll still eat first but the difference in talent will no longer be as large and thus make it even harder to win titles.

I think the sooner people come to this realization, the better.

 

[STL_Cat]

For the (fat chance) last time, it’s not cherry picking. It’s trend analysis. That isn’t the same thing.

 

[STL_Cat]

There are mounds of other metrics that support the case of a downward trend in addition to the lack of NCAA tournament success(I.e. no final four appearances) for the “yeah but we got close!” crowd.

 

[The_Answer1313]

For the (fat chance) last time, it’s not cherry picking. It’s trend analysis. That isn’t the same thing.

Why include 16 then? Why ignore 15? You are picking a starting point that completely coincides with the narrative people are creating.

How is 16-19 a trend but 17-19 isn't?

I mean I could easily say hey 17-19 we've made two elite 8s. That's a "trend" right.

And maybe some people will say "yeah but even if we look at 17-19 we are downward trending". Downward trending based on what tho? The only difference between the final fours in the beginning of the era and the elite 8s at the end of the era was an OT and a last second shot by the team that eventually won the title.

 

[STL_Cat]

Why include 16 then? Why ignore 15? You are picking a starting point that completely coincides with the narrative people are creating.

How is 16-19 a trend but 17-19 isn't?

I mean I could easily say hey 17-19 we've made two elite 8s. That's a "trend" right.

And maybe some people will say "yeah but even if we look at 17-19 we are downward trending". Downward trending based on what tho? The only difference between the final fours in the beginning of the era and the elite 8s at the end of the era was an OT and a last second shot by the team that eventually won the title.

Because that’s the line of demarcation. That’s when things changed. If you want to analyze trends there has to be a line somewhere. You want to include 15, fine, but things have changed a lot since then.

 

[STL_Cat]

Why include 16 then? Why ignore 15? You are picking a starting point that completely coincides with the narrative people are creating.

How is 16-19 a trend but 17-19 isn't?

I mean I could easily say hey 17-19 we've made two elite 8s. That's a "trend" right.

And maybe some people will say "yeah but even if we look at 17-19 we are downward trending". Downward trending based on what tho? The only difference between the final fours in the beginning of the era and the elite 8s at the end of the era was an OT and a last second shot by the team that eventually won the title.

Again, there are mounds of OTHER evidence outside of just the lack of NCAA tournament success, such as our record against top 25 opponents in that span of time as well. I tagged you in a post about it the other day. If I missed your reply I apologize.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Again, there are mounds of OTHER evidence outside of just the lack of NCAA tournament success, such as our record against top 25 opponents in that span of time as well. I tagged you in a post about it the other day. If I missed your reply I apologize.

I think that our record vs top 25 opponents speaks more about the landscape of college basketball as a whole.

I had mentioned this in the other thread but no one would ever debate that we have the same talent we had back in say 10 through 15. It's clearly obviously that we are no longer getting those superstar players.

The talent gaps are no longer what they used to be. To be honest, I'm not sure what we saw in 2010, 2012 and 2015, we'll see again IMO.

We don't have the dominant teams anymore.

The question really becomes do we still have enough of a talent gap to compete for (and win) titles based on the last three years or so. I feel we do. Others do not. I guess we'll see.

 

[UKWildcatT]

Stupid.

Its easy to pick years.

If you go since 2014 UK is 18-6. See how easy that was?

Boss calls you in for to discuss yearly performance review to discuss a raise.

Boss: Mustard, your sales from 2010 to 2015 were fantastic. It helped us grow and expand

Mustard: wow, thanks boss!

Boss: On the other hand, these last five years...well, let’s say they’ve been up and down and look to be trending downward

Mustard: Quit cherry picking!

 

[STL_Cat]

I think that our record vs top 25 opponents speaks more about the landscape of college basketball as a whole.

I had mentioned this in the other thread but no one would ever debate that we have the same talent we had back in say 10 through 15. It's clearly obviously that we are no longer getting those superstar players.

The talent gaps are no longer what they used to be. To be honest, I'm not sure what we saw in 2010, 2012 and 2015, we'll see again IMO.

We don't have the dominant teams anymore.

The question really becomes do we still have enough of a talent gap to compete for (and win) titles based on the last three years or so. I feel we do. Others do not. I guess we'll see.

See to me, this is all just mental gymnastics to convince yourself there’s no trend outside of the raw numbers that are right in front of you.

Well this is because of that, and we got close a few times, etc etc etc. eventually you just have to allow the numbers to speak for themselves

 

[mbc82584]

This is a good point.
We aren't getting any Anthony Davis/John Wall/Karl Towns etc etc type of players anymore.

Having said that, who really is on a consistent basis?

The talent gap between the top teams are only going to get smaller IMO not larger. As the superstars just skip college completely, that gap will only get smaller and smaller. Cal is right. We'll still eat first but the difference in talent will no longer be as large and thus make it even harder to win titles.

I think the sooner people come to this realization, the better.

That’s right.

Which is why the second point I made is even more relevant now. If we accept that we will get fewer or zero top-tiers, and that the talent gap is closing, then it becomes even more important to not Have 6 guys who aren’t ready for the pros leave every year to remain competitive.

 

[The_Answer1313]

See to me, this is all just mental gymnastics to convince yourself there’s no trend outside of the raw numbers that are right in front of you.

Well this is because of that, and we got close a few times, etc etc etc. eventually you just have to allow the numbers to speak for themselves

I don't think it's mental gymnastics. I think it's just me realizing the one and done nature of a tournament and realizing the difference between an Elite 8 where we lost close games and a final four where we hit last second shots to make is just extremely small.

Despite not grabbing top 5 guys or guys that are superstars, I still believe we get better in March and I still believe most seasons we are prepared to make runs. And that's what the numbers say. Two of the last three tournaments we had chances of making the final four. We were as I like to say in the conversation.

If we stay in that conversation, Cal will win another title here. Maybe more than one IMO.

 

[STL_Cat]

I don't think it's mental gymnastics. I think it's just me realizing the one and done nature of a tournament and realizing the difference between an Elite 8 where we lost close games and a final four where we hit last second shots to make is just extremely small.

Despite not grabbing top 5 guys or guys that are superstars, I still believe we get better in March and I still believe most seasons we are prepared to make runs. And that's what the numbers say. Two of the last three tournaments we had chances of making the final four. We were as I like to say in the conversation.

If we stay in that conversation, Cal will win another title here. Maybe more than one IMO.

Again, this is a why I also pointed out our bad overall record against top 25 opponents in the same time span. And don’t kid yourself ... by our standards it’s bad.

 

[The_Answer1313]

That’s right.

Which is why the second point I made is even more relevant now. If we accept that we will get fewer or zero top-tiers, and that the talent gap is closing, then it becomes even more important to not Have 6 guys who aren’t ready for the pros leave every year to remain competitive.

I agree. Do you have any ideas on how to keep kids in college?
Some are going to return and others won't. Some years we'll get guys back and other times we won't.

I mean the other option becomes don't go for top talented guys but lesser talented players in the hopes they stay multiple years and pan out eventually.

I don't think that's ever going to happen tho with Cal. He believes the more talent you get the better. It's just that talent wants to go to the NBA.

Besides, getting multiple year guys would take years to work. I just watched this fan base freak out over 2 games and never want to see Askew on the court again lol.

 

[Slowwalker]

What have you done for me lately. That is the attitude of our fan base? No appreciation for the complete dominance he showed in his first five years here. The Cal haters all want to start his tenure in 2016.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Again, this is a why I also pointed out our bad overall record against top 25 opponents in the same time span. And don’t kid yourself ... by our standards it’s bad.

What was our record vs Top 25 opponents from 10-15?
And what was it from 16-20?

I'm sure it has gotten worse. We no longer have the same talent gap we once had.

I don't know. I know some people hate this mindset but teams have gotten better. I think we are moving away from a sport where blue bloods are absolutely dominant anymore. We are approaching a period where Villanova wins multiple titles, where Virginia wins a title, where Gonzaga makes a final. I think times are changing, not just for UK but Duke, Kansas, Michigan St etc etc.

 

[dlh331]

What was our record vs Top 25 opponents from 10-15?
And what was it from 16-20?

I'm sure it has gotten worse. We no longer have the same talent gap we once had.

I don't know. I know some people hate this mindset but teams have gotten better. I think we are moving away from a sport where blue bloods are absolutely dominant anymore. We are approaching a period where Villanova wins multiple titles, where Virginia wins a title, where Gonzaga makes a final. I think times are changing, not just for UK but Duke, Kansas, Michigan St etc etc.

Cal versus AP top 25:
2010-15 he was 41-14 for 74.5%
2016-21 he is 22-19 for 53.7%

 

[The_Answer1313]

Cal versus AP top 25:
2010-15 he was 41-14 for 74.5%
2016-21 he is 22-19 for 53.7%

Thanks. Definitely a stark difference.

 

[dlh331]

Thanks. Definitely a stark difference.

Even worse is our record versus the rivals UNC, Duke, IU, UL, UCLA, KU and Tennessee.

2010-15 Cal was 26-7 for 78.8%
2016-21 Cal is 14-18 for 43.8%

 

[Wildcats1st]

So you're saying in Cal's worst stretch at UK, there are only 6 schools outperforming him? Not bad really.

With 12 draft picks that’s pretty poor actually

 

[dlh331]

With 12 draft picks that’s pretty poor actually

We actually have 12 1st rounders and 16 draft picks in that time frame

 

[mbc82584]

I agree. Do you have any ideas on how to keep kids in college?
Some are going to return and others won't. Some years we'll get guys back and other times we won't.

I mean the other option becomes don't go for top talented guys but lesser talented players in the hopes they stay multiple years and pan out eventually.

I don't think that's ever going to happen tho with Cal. He believes the more talent you get the better. It's just that talent wants to go to the NBA.

Besides, getting multiple year guys would take years to work. I just watched this fan base freak out over 2 games and never want to see Askew on the court again lol.

With Cal I don’t think it’s possible unfortunately.

I think some kids, even very talented ones, are wired to want to go to school for several years. We’ve seen this at tons of other programs.

But the recruiting pitch and culture around UKs program currently is fast-track-or-bust. The high 4 low 5* kids who want to enjoy the process simply don’t look at Kentucky, by and large.

Maybe they want a better school, maybe they want less pressure, or maybe they don’t want to play on a brand new team each of their would-be 2/3 seasons in college.

My gut says it stays this way as long as Cal is around, which IMO will only get us to the mountaintop when we have 1-2 AD, Wall, or KAT types to go with the current 2nd tier types we’ve been filling our rosters with.

 

[Bluesnky]

There are only two teams that try to do it the way Kentucky and to a lesser extent Duke does it. I don’t think these numbers really tell us anything. Both Duke and Kentucky were very serious title contenders twice during that period.

I guess what we all know is that Kentucky has had three seasons since Cal has been here where the team was dominant from the beginning of the season. And those were all in the first six years. In the subsequent six years (including this year) they all took some lumps to one extent or another and so far only two of the teams became anything close to title contenders in my opinion.

I think it’s unquestionable that things are not as good as they were.