Winning a championship isn't easy in any sport. The best team wins the NBA crown more often than any other major American sport, I'd say probably followed by college football, then the NFL, then college basketball and finally Major League Baseball, although the last two might be flipped.
Because March Madness is a thrilling, unpredictable and very poor way of determining the best team in a given season it's great drama, consequential action non-stop and does create unique demands on players, teams and coaches that might be useful in determining who a 'worthy' champion really is. There are no mulligans, for good or for bad.
So, eight times Kentucky has won the NCAA Tournament.
My question to you: How many years was Kentucky the best team in the country, over the course of the whole season? That's not to imply they "should" or "shouldn't" have certain titles, because the tournament is the sport's method for that. Just wondering out of curiosity what you'd say. I would also say it might be fair to weigh how well everyone was playing at the end of the season more than earlier parts. That's still a limited sample of "best" just like the six-game tournament, but part of being the "best team" for a whole season is building to be great at the end.
My short answer take: UK probably should have four titles from Pitino through the current Calipari era, effectively fro '92 through '16. I think when you balance the years they should have won and didn't, the years they shouldn't have won and did (only one possibility, IMO), the years they were elite contenders and didn't win, and the years they flamed out but really should have made a run -- I think four is what they should have won. They conceivably could have won more if everything went right, but that doesn't happen. They conceivably could have had two but that'd be a disappointment.
I can't really give an opinion from personal experience or observation before about the 1992 season, which I vaguely remember as a very young but completely fixated sports TV binge watcher.
My take:
Kentucky was the country's best team from start to finish in:
2014-2015
2011-2012
2009-2010
2002-2003
1995-1996
Honestly, based on just my own personal feelings and memory, I don't think it's bad at all to win three championships in five years of being the best team. I did not put the 1997-1998 team as the best in the country for the whole year because I think North Carolina was better. However, that UNC team was also definitely lacking in depth so their loss to Utah is a little overrated as an upset in my opinion.
Of the years above they didn't win the title I would say the 2002-2003 loss, in hindsight, is kind of an, "Oh well, what can you do?" Keith Bogans' injury and Dwayne Wade's career since have proven that wasn't a total fluke, although UK was the better team. I also think that team probably peaked slightly early.
The 2009-2010 team's loss to West Virginia is absolutely devastating to a lot of you, as I've seen you post many times. I am a little different in that I don't really get that, because although they were the better team and very dominant at times, they also were a team that struggled at the FT line and from three, and Huggins' zone defense against those weaknesses and that youth -- plus his record against Calipari to that point and how good that WVU team was -- means it wasn't actually as huge a shock as people think.
The 2014-15 loss to Wisconsin was obviously the worst in my opinion, and probably the worst loss in the program's history if I had to guess the most dumbfounding and painful to many. Even more than '92 Duke, although they're tough to compare.
Now, taking this in a bit of a different direction, one step beyond that: How many other Kentucky teams had legitimate championship aspirations other than those teams? That's a judgment call because someone could say this year's team did. That's not the kind of team I mean.
I'm talking about 1996-97 Kentucky, which reached overtime of the national title game although I think Kansas was the best for the season, and I'd also throw in 1994-95 Kentucky, which may have been the most consistently strong of all the elites that year but might have been slightly behind UMass, UCLA and North Carolina for the whole season.
When you throw in those two plus the others, maybe a person starts to feel as though Kentucky should have won another title or two during that span from Pitino through Tubby and Calipari now. I think you can make a case that's a stretch. We can argue over "should" and the odds of the best team winning it, but in my mind even three titles in all of those great years is still pretty good. And that's saying one of the titles was probably fortunate, even if there were one or two that should have been won. It's hard to win a title.
There's another class of UK teams in this period that I'd call hindsight disappointments, which are only disappointing if I think we're being a little unfair. These teams may or may not have been close to a championship, but regardless of how they got their circumstances, at one point they found themselves in a legit position to make a run and win it. Here I mean:
2010-2011: Lost to UCONN in Final Four. Not a major upset but that UK team had just defeated OSU and UNC and was riding extremely high.
2005-06: They were the tournament's overall top seed but lost to UAB in the second round. I never thought they were the championship favorites because of the tight rotation and they lacked really star power, but they were good enough all year that if they had beaten UAB they conceivably could have won it.
1992-93: Although I don't necessarily think this UK team was "clearly" the best team in the country, they were in the Final Four and late in a dramatic game against the Fab Five, and Jamal Mashburn fouling out was devastating. They could have beaten UNC in the championship although it'd have been a good game. I think the Final Four was a good season for that team, but they certainly could have won it and they got close.
I'm not putting the '13-14 team there because while the loss to UCONN in the title had to be extremely disappointing, the team was frankly pretty fortunate to even be in the championship game given how the season went and the shots they had to hit to get there.
Long post, again (I know) -- but interested in your take.
Because March Madness is a thrilling, unpredictable and very poor way of determining the best team in a given season it's great drama, consequential action non-stop and does create unique demands on players, teams and coaches that might be useful in determining who a 'worthy' champion really is. There are no mulligans, for good or for bad.
So, eight times Kentucky has won the NCAA Tournament.
My question to you: How many years was Kentucky the best team in the country, over the course of the whole season? That's not to imply they "should" or "shouldn't" have certain titles, because the tournament is the sport's method for that. Just wondering out of curiosity what you'd say. I would also say it might be fair to weigh how well everyone was playing at the end of the season more than earlier parts. That's still a limited sample of "best" just like the six-game tournament, but part of being the "best team" for a whole season is building to be great at the end.
My short answer take: UK probably should have four titles from Pitino through the current Calipari era, effectively fro '92 through '16. I think when you balance the years they should have won and didn't, the years they shouldn't have won and did (only one possibility, IMO), the years they were elite contenders and didn't win, and the years they flamed out but really should have made a run -- I think four is what they should have won. They conceivably could have won more if everything went right, but that doesn't happen. They conceivably could have had two but that'd be a disappointment.
I can't really give an opinion from personal experience or observation before about the 1992 season, which I vaguely remember as a very young but completely fixated sports TV binge watcher.
My take:
Kentucky was the country's best team from start to finish in:
2014-2015
2011-2012
2009-2010
2002-2003
1995-1996
Honestly, based on just my own personal feelings and memory, I don't think it's bad at all to win three championships in five years of being the best team. I did not put the 1997-1998 team as the best in the country for the whole year because I think North Carolina was better. However, that UNC team was also definitely lacking in depth so their loss to Utah is a little overrated as an upset in my opinion.
Of the years above they didn't win the title I would say the 2002-2003 loss, in hindsight, is kind of an, "Oh well, what can you do?" Keith Bogans' injury and Dwayne Wade's career since have proven that wasn't a total fluke, although UK was the better team. I also think that team probably peaked slightly early.
The 2009-2010 team's loss to West Virginia is absolutely devastating to a lot of you, as I've seen you post many times. I am a little different in that I don't really get that, because although they were the better team and very dominant at times, they also were a team that struggled at the FT line and from three, and Huggins' zone defense against those weaknesses and that youth -- plus his record against Calipari to that point and how good that WVU team was -- means it wasn't actually as huge a shock as people think.
The 2014-15 loss to Wisconsin was obviously the worst in my opinion, and probably the worst loss in the program's history if I had to guess the most dumbfounding and painful to many. Even more than '92 Duke, although they're tough to compare.
Now, taking this in a bit of a different direction, one step beyond that: How many other Kentucky teams had legitimate championship aspirations other than those teams? That's a judgment call because someone could say this year's team did. That's not the kind of team I mean.
I'm talking about 1996-97 Kentucky, which reached overtime of the national title game although I think Kansas was the best for the season, and I'd also throw in 1994-95 Kentucky, which may have been the most consistently strong of all the elites that year but might have been slightly behind UMass, UCLA and North Carolina for the whole season.
When you throw in those two plus the others, maybe a person starts to feel as though Kentucky should have won another title or two during that span from Pitino through Tubby and Calipari now. I think you can make a case that's a stretch. We can argue over "should" and the odds of the best team winning it, but in my mind even three titles in all of those great years is still pretty good. And that's saying one of the titles was probably fortunate, even if there were one or two that should have been won. It's hard to win a title.
There's another class of UK teams in this period that I'd call hindsight disappointments, which are only disappointing if I think we're being a little unfair. These teams may or may not have been close to a championship, but regardless of how they got their circumstances, at one point they found themselves in a legit position to make a run and win it. Here I mean:
2010-2011: Lost to UCONN in Final Four. Not a major upset but that UK team had just defeated OSU and UNC and was riding extremely high.
2005-06: They were the tournament's overall top seed but lost to UAB in the second round. I never thought they were the championship favorites because of the tight rotation and they lacked really star power, but they were good enough all year that if they had beaten UAB they conceivably could have won it.
1992-93: Although I don't necessarily think this UK team was "clearly" the best team in the country, they were in the Final Four and late in a dramatic game against the Fab Five, and Jamal Mashburn fouling out was devastating. They could have beaten UNC in the championship although it'd have been a good game. I think the Final Four was a good season for that team, but they certainly could have won it and they got close.
I'm not putting the '13-14 team there because while the loss to UCONN in the title had to be extremely disappointing, the team was frankly pretty fortunate to even be in the championship game given how the season went and the shots they had to hit to get there.
Long post, again (I know) -- but interested in your take.
