So what?4 of the top 45 career scorers in school history were on that team.
Look at the focus. It is a damn shame he could not keep it zipped. We’d had 2 or 3 more championships and they would have been talking P as the best not KdjgduibvnkklskiThe look of a man who put winning ahead of everything, because he tied his identity to winning:
Fair enough. but there's little chance that changes since guys don't stay 3 or 4 years anymore. Those guys would have slid a lot further down that list by now if guys were still playing 3-4 years in college like they used to. Besides, scoring 1000 pts in a college career in those days didn't necessarily make you the second coming. It more than likely meant you were a decent\solid player though.4 of the top 45 career scorers in school history were on that team.
2So what?
None of them were drafted. Hanson was the only one to play pro, earning 8 games of playing time with the Celtics as a favor from Pitino when he was with Boston.
Pitino said of that 1989-1990 team, ""It's the least amount of athleticism I've ever been associated with."
Again, it's weird that you're attempting to inflate the talent level on that team. The household names on that roster were still YEARS away from gaining the necessary experience that would turn them into the "unforgettables" a few seasons later.
You have to remember, we're talking about who they were in 1989-1990, not who they were in the Elite Eight game in 1992. In both cases, none of them were actual future pro players.
Are you saying being in the top 45 career scorers at UK makes you a "decent/solid" player? I think it might mean a little more.Fair enough. but there's little chance that changes since guys don't stay 3 or 4 years anymore. Those guys would have slid a lot further down that list by now if guys were still playing 3-4 years in college like they used to. Besides, scoring 1000 pts in a college career in those days didn't necessarily make you the second coming. It more than likely meant you were a decent\solid player though.
True about the SEC being better now, but UK should have evolved with the SEC, not moved behind other teams.I get it but we were playing chess then while everyone else was playing checkers. Plus the SEC was not as good then as it is now.
Think of it this way, back in the days of guys staying 4 years, 1000 pts means 250 per season. Let's say with regular season and tournament games they played 35 games per year. That would be an average of 7.14pts/gm over the course of that time. So, you really think that's earth-shattering in some way? I don't recall too many guys that I thought were great players that averaged 7pts/gm for their career. Maybe the player averages 2pts/gm in year 1, then 6, then 10 in year 3 and maybe 13 in year 4. Those are decent numbers, not great but certainly decent. I just don't think everyone in that top 45 was a "great" player, some got into that group just because of longevity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think too many of those guys were bad players either, in fact, I'd say they were all decent to great. But not all great.Are you saying being in the top 45 career scorers at UK makes you a "decent/solid" player? I think it might mean a little more.
Cal would have gone 2-22 with the same team lolAnd Cal would have lost back then because he cannot coach a lick.
He’s deadUMass Cal would destroy current Cal. We need to go find the current UMass Cal.
152 by 28 games is 5 minutes per game.And those walk ons played a total of 152 minutes the entire year, with Junior playing over 100 of them. I understand your point that Pitino is a great coach, but just don't lie and say that team didn't lose even though they were playing walk ons. The walk ons didn't play. And, the "leftovers" as you called them were good, but young and went to an Elite Eight and barely missed the Final Four. Our players didn't suck, we just didn't have a big guy. I was fortunate enough to go to most games that year. My son was at UK at the time and students got lower level midcourt seats then, and he was able to give me good seats if I bought a cheap ticket from a scalper.
Cal's protege at UL went 4-28 last year lol. His coaching, or lack thereof, sucks.Cal would have gone 2-22 with the same team lol
And he went 6-17. Probably the worst records for both schools under Cal and his “coaching tree”Cal's protege at UL went 4-28 last year lol. His coaching, or lack thereof, sucks.
Put that same team in today's SEC with Pitino as coach and they'd be lucky to win 1 home game. This comparison is pointless. I think it's an absolute shame we lost back to back home games but this is 3 decades later and times have changed. That's not an excuse that's simple facts.They had a roster filled with walk-ons and leftovers. They were in their first year of probation and still managed to go 8-0 in their conference at Rupp Arena.
They had ZERO NBA draft picks.
The current team has already dropped THREE home games, and we have at least 5 draft picks, and possibly as many as eight.
Think about that. Calipari has zero pride.
He's finished here. This is NOT Kentucky basketball.
Shaq
Chris Jackson
Robert Horry
Tell that to Shaq
And yet, Chris Jackson (Soph.), Stanley Roberts (Soph.), and Shaq (Fr.), went 26-9, finished the season ranked 19th in the AP Poll, 3rd in the SEC, and couldn't beat a Kentucky team with only one future NBA player on it. Kentucky's leading scorer was a Senior (Derrick Miller, 19.2 ppg), followed by a junior, Reggie Hanson, the lone future NBA player on the roster (16.4 ppg), and primarily played one senior, one junior, four sophomores, and a freshman (Jeff Brassow). Pitino was doing it with older players.And to Chris Jackson/Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, whom LSU had in addition to Shack when we BEAT THEM that season.
He wouldn’t have lost a 14 point lead to Kansas and sure wouldn’t have let UT score ten points in out of bounds plays.What would Pitino have done with the current amount of talent?
Put the fear of GOD in the rest of college basketball and espn puke feast.What would Pitino have done with the current amount of talent?
Yea and Cals SEC record other than last 3 years has been built on one of the weakest Conferences.Put that same team in today's SEC with Pitino as coach and they'd be lucky to win 1 home game. This comparison is pointless. I think it's an absolute shame we lost back to back home games but this is 3 decades later and times have changed. That's not an excuse that's simple facts.
What would Pitino have done with the current amount of talent?
He wouldn’t have lost a 14 point lead to Kansas and sure wouldn’t have let UT score ten points in out of bounds plays.
explain cals record at uk while pitino was at ulCoaching matters.
I agree, SEC has only been a top 3 conference in about half of Cals years here. Same concept applies though, you put this years UK team and have them play the probation teams SEC schedule and they go either undefeated or lose 1 game and win by 20+ majority of games. College basketballs landscape has changed a ton over 30+ years. It's not the same as it once was. Fans just seem to have a hard time realizing that.Yea and Cals SEC record other than last 3 years has been built on one of the weakest Conferences.
Wrote this in another post on TuesdayThey had a roster filled with walk-ons and leftovers. They were in their first year of probation and still managed to go 8-0 in their conference at Rupp Arena.
They had ZERO NBA draft picks.
The current team has already dropped THREE home games, and we have at least 5 draft picks, and possibly as many as eight.
Think about that. Calipari has zero pride.
He's finished here. This is NOT Kentucky basketball.
Oh and Antigua was terrible at USF. None of Cal’s coaching tree has averaged over .500😂And he went 6-17. Probably the worst records for both schools under Cal and his “coaching tree”
All you do is complain and attack other posters, Louis.Its hilarious how debbie downers always want to compare todays game to college basketball in the 80's or 90's.
Its a completely different game, the 3 point line is much farther out because players are more better than they used to be, full court pressure is now a liability on defense, the 5 spot weren't guarding the perimeter or shooting 3's, point guards weren't 6'6 and as much as this will hurt...Richie Farmer wouldn't even see the floor today for any SEC program.
That team was also very good as they had Rodney Dent at center. But when he went down, so did our chances of winning it all. I would say Rick had a lot less talent than Cal but did way more with it.In 1993-1994, Pitino had the following roster:
Tony Delk (Soph.)
Rodrick Rhodes (Soph.)
Travis Ford (Sr.)
Jared Prickett (Soph.)
Andre Riddick (Jr.)
Jeff Brassow (Sr.)
Walter McCarty (Soph.)
Jeff Sheppard (Fr.)
- Pitino lost to #21 Indiana on a neutral floor
- @ Georgia, giving up 94 points, to a team that finished 14-16 overall, and 7-9 in conference
- @ Florida - Florida won the SEC East that year, finished 14th in AP Poll
- v. Arkansas at Rupp - Ark. won SEC West, NCAA Championship
- @ #14 Syracuse, giving up 93 points
Back to back losses
@ South Carolina, in the last SEC game of the year, to a team that finished 9-19, 4-12 in SEC
***By the way, in this game, Kentucky led South Carolina by 9 at halftime.
They did turn it around and win the SEC Tournament, but lost in the second round of the NCAA to Marquette, who finished 24-9, #21 in AP Poll
Pitino also coached losses. Pitino also gave up leads. Pitino is a better coach that Calipari, but he was not invincible.
Nice narrative pics don't lie nicely doneThe look of a man who put draft picks ahead of winning, because he tied his identity to his NBA draft legacy:
That's the thing that pisses me off.UMass Cal would destroy current Cal. We need to go find the current UMass Cal.
The look of a man who put draft picks ahead of winning, because he tied his identity to his NBA draft legacy:
Until the early 70s freshman couldn't play, so players only played 3 years.Think of it this way, back in the days of guys staying 4 years, 1000 pts means 250 per season. Let's say with regular season and tournament games they played 35 games per year. That would be an average of 7.14pts/gm over the course of that time. So, you really think that's earth-shattering in some way? I don't recall too many guys that I thought were great players that averaged 7pts/gm for their career. Maybe the player averages 2pts/gm in year 1, then 6, then 10 in year 3 and maybe 13 in year 4. Those are decent numbers, not great but certainly decent. I just don't think everyone in that top 45 was a "great" player, some got into that group just because of longevity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think too many of those guys were bad players either, in fact, I'd say they were all decent to great. But not all great.