This is the halfway point of Cal at UK, how many

[treuxbleux]

titles will he win in the next 8 years?

With the mass exodus of players and a great recruiting class coming in this feels like a halfway mark in Cal's UK tenure.

Assuming he does stay 8 more years will he win one or two more titles in your opinion?

What a hell of a first half of a tenure btw!

 

[caneintally]

It will be at least 1 more title and very easily 2 more . Not more then 2 more though with the way refs , the ncaa ect are though.

 

[cawoodsct]

2 and then he takes over as AD to help with coaching transition.

 

[ukfan79]

1. Should be more. He really could have a special run going here. I mean he does but could you imagine 3 or 4 titles in 8 years?

We should have that now but the NCAA simply isn't allowing Calipari to be the one to have the second most impressive run in NCAA history.

 

[JerseyCat84]

maybe 1

 

[CBBCrazy]

I think he wins 1 more, the days of multiple championships have passed. We have won 5 in my 68 years, winning another in 8 more years of Cal should happen.

 

[Smashcat]

I'd like to see one more and would be thrilled with two. If we have multiple returnees for '18-'19 and can plug in freshman big Marvin Bagley, a title in 2019 will be difficult to deny.

 

[harlancatfan]

zero unless some stuff changes.

 

[YouKay]

I would never predict a championship. Didn't think I would have to wait 18 years for another one after 1978.

 

[mapcatfan]

I love to win national championships as much as any UK fan, but I know that the best team wins the whole thing probably less than half the time. When you get as far as the Elite Eight, pretty much anything can happen.

It's always amusing to hear rival fans and Cal detractors claim that he has underachieved with the talent he has had. Really? Every season, we generally have one of if not the best records, and he has put us in the position to be right there at the end, with few exceptions. THAT is an incredible feat.

I know that the national title is the "be all, end all" with the NCAA and the majority of fans, but if you view it realistically, it doesn't always prove who the best team is. It proves who had the best 6-game run. Many variables such as match-ups, cold shooting nights, the other team playing out of their minds, (and not the least) bad officiating, play into the outcome. To lay all of that at the feet of the coach is pretty short-sighted, imo.

But to answer the OP, i sure hope he wins another (or 2, 3), national titles, but I'm more than pleased with the job he is doing at UK no matter what.

 

[Blueisbest]

We should probably have at least 2 more but, between the refs screwing us over (I'm talking about you Higgins), and the NCAA always giving us the most difficult path, we have fallen short of that.

With the players we sign year end and year out we should be one of the favorites practically every year and I would think we would win at least 1 or 2 more titles despite the blatant bias against us.

 

[harlancatfan]

I love to win national championships as much as any UK fan, but I know that the best team wins the whole thing probably less than half the time. When you get as far as the Elite Eight, pretty much anything can happen.

It's always amusing to hear rival fans and Cal detractors claim that he has underachieved with the talent he has had. Really? Every season, we generally have one of if not the best records, and he has put us in the position to be right there at the end, with few exceptions. THAT is an incredible feat.

I know that the national title is the "be all, end all" with the NCAA and the majority of fans, but if you view it realistically, it doesn't always prove who the best team is. It proves who had the best 6-game run. Many variables such as match-ups, cold shooting nights, the other team playing out of their minds, (and not the least) bad officiating, play into the outcome. To lay all of that at the feet of the coach is pretty short-sighted, imo.

But to answer the OP, i sure hope he wins another (or 2, 3), national titles, but I'm more than pleased with the job he is doing at UK no matter what.

That is bologna, 9 times out of 10 the team with the most overwhelming talent wins it all. Now, if it is a year where there is no dominant team, it is a crap-shoot. With that being said however, 2015 we should have been champs...as times goes on and we see about 4 future nba all stars emerge from that team, along several other really good pros, it will be an embarrassment that we did not even reach the title game that year.

 

[JerseyCat84]

More of your reverse psychology? Sad.

my bad....8 out of 8...better?

 

[mapcatfan]

That is bologna, 9 times out of 10 the team with the most overwhelming talent wins it all. Now, if it is a year where there is no dominant team, it is a crap-shoot. With that being said however, 2015 we should have been champs...as times goes on and we see about 4 future nba all stars emerge from that team, along several other really good pros, it will be an embarrassment that we did not even reach the title game that year.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that 9 times out of 10 the team with the most talent wins the NCAA championship. And I'd say that more times than not, there isn't just that one dominant team that is head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[JC CATS]

zero unless some stuff changes.

Harlan, he isn't talking bout Louisville, this is about UK...

 

[JC CATS]

That is bologna, 9 times out of 10 the team with the most overwhelming talent wins it all. Now, if it is a year where there is no dominant team, it is a crap-shoot. With that being said however, 2015 we should have been champs...as times goes on and we see about 4 future nba all stars emerge from that team, along several other really good pros, it will be an embarrassment that we did not even reach the title game that year.

Um, those players were 18 at the time, think they might get better and were drafted some on potential. Why don't you run back on over to your board troll

 

[morgousky]

We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that 9 times out of 10 the team with the most talent wins the NCAA championship. And I'd say that more times than not, there isn't just that one dominant team that is head and shoulders above the rest.

Maybe not 9 out of ten, but most of the time, the team that wins the tournament had one of the better college teams of the year. A good bit of the time it's the best team. It's a total myth that it takes luck. It doesn't.

Just look back over the last 75 years or so.

Kentucky
UCLA
Indiana
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Uconn

That's over 40 national titles between JUST those programs. To believe it's a crap shoot and luck is bull.

 

[JeffGoodmansVestigialTwin]

That is bologna, 9 times out of 10 the team with the most overwhelming talent wins it all. Now, if it is a year where there is no dominant team, it is a crap-shoot. With that being said however, 2015 we should have been champs...as times goes on and we see about 4 future nba all stars emerge from that team, along several other really good pros, it will be an embarrassment that we did not even reach the title game that year.

You really are a miserable individual

 

[JC CATS]

Maybe not 9 out of ten, but most of the time, the team that wins the tournament had one of the better college teams of the year. A good bit of the time it's the best team. It's a total myth that it takes luck. It doesn't.

Just look back over the last 75 years or so.

Kentucky
UCLA
Indiana
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Uconn

That's over 40 national titles between JUST those programs. To believe it's a crap shoot and luck is bull.

to believe that the best team wins it every year is foolish

 

[morgousky]

to believe that the best team wins it every year is foolish

75ish years, same teams won the title over 40 times. The best team does not always win it, but the BETTER teams do. And lots of times the best team does.

Luck is an overused term in the tournament. The facts simply to not bear that out.

 

[mapcatfan]

I a

........"but most of the time, the team that wins the tournament had one of the better college teams of the year. A good bit of the time it's the best team. It's a total myth that it takes luck. It doesn't.

Just look back over the last 75 years or so.

Kentucky
UCLA
Indiana
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Uconn

That's over 40 national titles between JUST those programs. To believe it's a crap shoot and luck is bull.

I'm not saying much of what you are implying I said. I agree that most of the time "one of the better teams of the year wins". I still maintain it's not the very best team each season a good percentage of the time. Would be an interesting study.

Never said it's all a crap shoot, and don't think I even mentioned "luck". But there are many variables that come into play.

But again, I agree with your first statement 100%.

 

[Jkwo]

75ish years, same teams won the title over 40 times. The best team does not always win it, but the BETTER teams do. And lots of times the best team does.

Luck is an overused term in the tournament. The facts simply to not bear that out.

See, that's a slippery trick you used there.

Someone rightly points out that the best team doesn't win it 90% of the time (of course they don't).

You attack the straw man version, which is that one of the better teams doesn't win 90% of the time (I've never seen anyone dispute this).

Hell, if you stretch the definition of "better" far enough, then it occurs 100% of the time. Put your life savings on one of the best 10 teams winning.

But from the perspective that is relevant to this discussion, which is the standpoint of the grumpy fan, "one of the better" can never be conflated with "best".

This is a really important point - implicit in the 90%/most talented claim is that you and specifically you should be absolutely livid if your team fails to take advantage of it and start to wonder if there's something deeply wrong, while every other fanbase feels just fine because they only had a 10% chance collectively.

That's just dumb, and it's not how things work, and anyone who is halfway rational knows that.

With the 90%/one of the more talented claim, you have a bunch of fans who are angry, but then it applies to every big coach not named Calhoun or Wooden. All of the rest of the top coaches have failed miserably and should be faaaaaard for losing with one of the more talented teams the vast, vast, vast majority of the time they entire the tournament.

 

[anon_q409idbs5m40a]

to believe that the best team wins it every year is foolish

Takes more than talent alone along with being the best team to win a title. A lot has to fall into place and there are intangibles that influence the outcome of tournament games (see Higgins). Looking over the years one could say that UCONN in 2014, Villanova in 1985, NC State in 1983, Kansas in 1988, Arizona in 1997, UCLA in 1975, Marquette in 1976 were not the best teams. The list goes on but the point is that it's very true that the best team doesn't always win.

 

[bucsrule8872]

It's a simple equation:

Talent wins titles.

The elite teams get more talent.

So the elite teams win more titles.

 

[morgousky]

See, that's a slippery trick you used there.

Someone rightly points out that the best team doesn't win it 90% of the time (of course they don't).

You attack the straw man version, which is that one of the better teams doesn't win 90% of the time (I've never seen anyone dispute this).

Hell, if you stretch the definition of "better" far enough, then it occurs 100% of the time. Put your life savings on one of the best 10 teams winning.

But from the perspective that is relevant to this discussion, which is the standpoint of the grumpy fan, "one of the better" can never be conflated with "best".

This is a really important point - implicit in the 90%/most talented claim is that you and specifically you should be absolutely livid if your team fails to take advantage of it and start to wonder if there's something deeply wrong, while every other fanbase feels just fine because they only had a 10% chance collectively.

That's just dumb, and it's not how things work, and anyone who is halfway rational knows that.

With the 90%/one of the more talented claim, you have a bunch of fans who are angry, but then it applies to every big coach not named Calhoun or Wooden. All of the rest of the top coaches have failed miserably and should be faaaaaard for losing with one of the more talented teams the vast, vast, vast majority of the time they entire the tournament.

If you look around, you'll see the phrase "it takes luck to win the tournament". No, it doesn't. It takes having one of the best teams.

If that's a straw man for the point that poster was making then that's my mistake. I'm just so used to seeing "luck" thrown around like it's what really matters.

The teams I named have won the majority of national championships and most of those are blue bloods. Blue bloods are ususally the best teams. It's not luck.

If you also add Arizona, Michigan state, Cincinnati, Florida, Louisville, etc it's probably around 15 teams than normally win it since the 40 season.

My attack is on the "luck" argument. Not sure if we agree or not since my post was off topic a bit.

 

[morgousky]

It's a simple equation:

Talent wins titles.

The elite teams get more talent.

So the elite teams win more titles.

Pretty much.

 

[morgousky]

I a



I'm not saying much of what you are implying I said. I agree that most of the time "one of the better teams of the year wins". I still maintain it's not the very best team each season a good percentage of the time. Would be an interesting study.

Never said it's all a crap shoot, and don't think I even mentioned "luck". But there are many variables that come into play.

But again, I agree with your first statement 100%.

It would be impossible to pin it down. It's too subjective. In my opinion North Carolina had the best team this year. Returning starters from a championship game team, upperclassman, NBA players, and the biggest mismatch on the floor. They won. Someone else might argue they weren't the best team using raw talent as an argument. I don't buy it

That's why I just say "luck" is an overused term. for top teams throughout the season, the odds are one of them will win the title.

Luck is drawing 5 correct lottery numbers over millions of people and becoming a millionaire.

Not sayin you disagree. I pulled one on ya with your original post. I'm quick to chime in when I see "luck" being used like we've failed because we were just unlucky. It's an excuse some people use to justify coming up short.

 

[lennyd250cat]

He will not win another one. Too many mass exodus every year. It has become the norm at this point. 2015 was his ticket to multiple championships. There will be several more elite eights and final fours but will never have contributing upperclassmen to win another championship. However, we will have exciting, winning seasons over the next eight years. He will also send a record number of kids to the NBA. Helping these kids reach their dream is really what is all about and I'm all for it. If I had a OAD player as a son I would want Cal to be his coach. Enjoy the ride!

 

[cawoodsct]

^He will not leave without a 2nd title. If it's 8 or if it's 15 years, he will move ahead of Hall, Pitino and Smith at some point. No matter what he says that is very important to him and his legacy.

 

[harlancatfan]

Um, those players were 18 at the time, think they might get better and were drafted some on potential. Why don't you run back on over to your board troll

Troll.....so original, you guys must room together huh?

 

[Kybluedude]

to believe that the best team wins it every year is foolish

Villanova just last year proves your point.

 

[JC CATS]

Troll.....so original, you guys must room together huh?

Just say we live outside of Jefferson county

 

[mapcatfan]

Who did most say was the best team this year? UNC, Right? Who won? UNC..look back over the years at the rosters who won titles, can you name one team without top end talent winning it? No way.

Yes, I'd probably say that UNC was the best team this season. Again, I agree that in general, teams that win it all have "good talent"...................just not necessarily the best. The best team doesn't always win the championship. They just don't. I don't think UConn was the best team a few years back. Just like I don't think Duke was in 2010, nor 2015. UK in 1998? Doubtful.

Saying a team with great talent usually wins is different than saying the most talented or even the best team wins.

This year? Probably.

 

[JC CATS]

75ish years, same teams won the title over 40 times. The best team does not always win it, but the BETTER teams do. And lots of times the best team does.

Luck is an overused term in the tournament. The facts simply to not bear that out.

Yes I agree a better team wins it. I mean you do have to win 6 in a row to win it, not many awful teams are going to do that. The best team does not win it every year though which is a different animal. I agree a good team usually wins the NCAA tourney

 

[JC CATS]

Takes more than talent alone along with being the best team to win a title. A lot has to fall into place and there are intangibles that influence the outcome of tournament games (see Higgins). Looking over the years one could say that UCONN in 2014, Villanova in 1985, NC State in 1983, Kansas in 1988, Arizona in 1997, UCLA in 1975, Marquette in 1976 were not the best teams. The list goes on but the point is that it's very true that the best team doesn't always win.

You are exactly right. Who was the best team in 15 UK, who was not the best team in 98, UK. Vegas 91 the best team does not win it the majority of the time and there is no arguing that. If they want to argue one of the better teams usually win it, then OK

 

[UKWildcats#8]

I'll say he wins 1 more. 2 titles, and probably 7-8 Final Fours if he stays 15 years. He is already the 2nd best coach in UK basketball history with 1 title and 4 Final Fours.

 

[Bungalow Bill]

That is bologna, 9 times out of 10 the team with the most overwhelming talent wins it all. Now, if it is a year where there is no dominant team, it is a crap-shoot. With that being said however, 2015 we should have been champs...as times goes on and we see about 4 future nba all stars emerge from that team, along several other really good pros, it will be an embarrassment that we did not even reach the title game that year.

In what universe does the team with the most overwhelming talent win it all 9 out of 10 times? Not this one.That's nonsense. Sure the 15 team should have won it but it's nothing to be embarrassed about. If your program used hookers to recruit or had fake classes to keep players eligible then that would be embarrassing.

 

[The_Answer1313]

It takes both talent and luck tho

Talent because you have to be one of the best. Luck because when you are facing another top team well someone has to win and someone has to lose. There's not much difference at the top. That's why before the tournament starts you can usually pick 5 to 7 teams and know it's coming from one of those teams. Which one? Partly determined by luck.

Cal might win 1 more and if he was 2 in all his years that's a success to me


Heck even if he doesn't it's been a success

 

[The_Answer1313]

Most years that's the thing tho

There is no Overwhelming favorite.

Even in 15 when We were dominate the odds weren't overwhelming in our favors

One of the biggest misconceptions on this board. I dunno if it was the undefeated record or the massive underrating of Wisconsin Duke.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Most years that's the thing tho

There is no Overwhelming favorite.

Even in 15 when We were dominate the odds weren't overwhelming in our favors

One of the biggest misconceptions on this board. I dunno if it was the undefeated record or the massive underrating of Wisconsin Duke.

Wisconsin did not lose a game in 2015 fully healthy until Duke in the title game from what I recall. So why they had 3 losses, they were much closer to a 1 loss or undefeated team IMO. People just underrated them.