This year is so weak.

[Jkwo]

There are no teams this year that are going to pummel people night in and night out.

That includes us. But thankfully, we have a couple of hyper skilled players who absolutely abhor losing, which can save us at the end in games with inconsistent play.

And we also have John "rolls the balls out" Calipari, who despite idiots still mumbling under their breath that he's an average coach somehow magically has fewer embarrassing upsets in his time at UK than any other "top level" guy - including the ones who also have burger boys coming off the bench - Roy, Self, Izzo, Pitino, the mighty K, you name it - all of them have more unforgivable losses and more losses in general.

It's so easy to predict - only one or two 1 seeds will make the Final Four, and we will be one of them. Maybe a 2 seed, and then like a 4 and a 6. You can't count on anybody else.

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

Careful. We are 4-0 with a resounding win over #5 Duke on a neutral court.
We are young and have Poythress gettting stronger.
We have the best player in the country and a 3 headed PG Monster.
We have Skal who will get better by the day too.
Dont lump UK in with"everybody else"

 

[fatguy87]

Last season was a little extraordinary in the volume of top level teams. Arizona, Duke, UK, and Wisconsin were all "best team" caliber in the average basketball season. The next or second tier of teams weren't slouches either. Nova, Zags, and Virginia, were all very good. It was as healthy of a top 7 or 8 teams we've seen in college basketball in quite awhile.

 

[83Cat]

There is pummeling yet to come. I guess you are hankering for a game like we had against Kansas last year. If we play like we did against Duke against a lesser team and they get their heads down, we could fast-break them into the ground and bury them.

 

[Jkwo]

There is pummeling yet to come. I guess you are hankering for a game like we had against Kansas last year. If we play like we did against Duke against a lesser team and they get their heads down, we could fast-break them into the ground and bury them.

Not hankering. We're gonna beat a lot of so-so teams by like 8-10 points, and I don't mind it, as long as the guys consistently pull out those last couple minutes of the game.

Last year was special and I just want people to appreciate that. Teams with margins over 20 ppg and double digit margins over ranked teams are crazy rare, and we had one last year - and it also happened to be a year with 4 other squads that would be #1 this year.

This team we have is going to be inconsistent, because it's primarily based around guards - and no matter how awesome those guards are, they can have cold shooting nights, and that can get us an L. We could've shot 20% from the field outside of dunks and layups and still won most of our games last year. Not so this year.

That said, this team, when it's on, is better than everybody else in the country. And Cal's teams improve a crazy amount from November to March - and like I said, he drops stupid baffling games way less often than other elite coaches - so I'm encouraged looking forward.

 

[JerseyCat84]

That's why it's vital that Skal learns to establish himself against stronger players. We won't have to rely on our guards nearly as much.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

I agree with sentiments in this thread regarding Poythress. Due to his injury, he's basically like a frosh again in terms of physically coming into his own. So, essentially, we have at least four rotation guys who - physically - are on their first rodeo.

They can't ride for eight seconds yet, but they're legitimate future NBA players, and Cal has proven that by March, they'll probably exceed the eight second ringer.

 

[FishersBlue]

Since Cal has been at KY there have been few great teams. I hope we dont look back and feel as though we missed out on multiple titles when we were easily the most talented team many of those years.

 

[Poetax]

Since Cal has been at KY there have been few great teams. I hope we dont look back and feel as though we missed out on multiple titles when we were easily the most talented team many of those years.

Try being AZ, Kansas, and unc, all who hasn't won since we did in 2012. If you look back at the Cal years with regrets, you must be very young and do not remember the years after 1998. An remember this, Cal does say he would rather have awesome young talent over experience but he never said it guaranteed national championships.

 

[Jkwo]

we were easily the most talented team many of those years.

*Easily* the most talented? That's just objectively not true. UNC, Duke, and Kansas have had burger boys coming off the bench basically every single year - their star averages have been close to identical to ours, and Cal has done much better than Roy and Self, and about equally well as K, who is arguably the GOAT. No idea how he's underperforming, then, when comparing him to other HOFers.

Florida and Ohio State and Arizona and UCONN have been just a step or two below.

I'm not going to get into the in depth explanation of why top recruiting class every year doesn't automatically mean by far the most talent, because it should be so obvious and I'm so tired of doing it.

You're only considering the output of the system. In short, if you recruit 5 5 stars a year and 4 kids leave a year, you don't have more 5 stars than the team who gets 2 a year but they rarely leave early.

 

[Jazzycat]

There is also more parity this year. Look at Wright State. They played UK very smartly until UK woke up and came to life long enough to put the game away. I expect UK I will lose a few on the road this year to teams they should not lose to. UCLA is Unranked, but will be a war. No opponent court is safe this year.

 

[Mojocat]

Last season was a little extraordinary in the volume of top level teams. Arizona, Duke, UK, and Wisconsin were all "best team" caliber in the average basketball season. The next or second tier of teams weren't slouches either. Nova, Zags, and Virginia, were all very good. It was as healthy of a top 7 or 8 teams we've seen in college basketball in quite awhile.

Yep. We picked a particularly bad year to shoot for 40-0.......

 

[Mojocat]

...we were easily the most talented team many of those years.

And easily the youngest and least experienced. That counts too.....

 

[FishersBlue]

And easily the youngest and least experienced. That counts too.....

Come on...sure UK has been young. But the level of talent compared to other teams hasnt been close.

 

[Mojocat]

Come on...sure UK has been young. But the level of talent compared to other teams hasnt been close.

You'd need to show me year by year, comparing the personnel on each uk team to the other most talented teams, before I buy the discrepancy is as much as you say.

Second, I think you're grossly underplaying the experience factor. Wall, Cousins, Davis etc are surely talented - but they were 17 or 18 years old. I can remember when it was said the best thing about a freshman is he will eventually be a sophomore. This isn't Dean Smith, losing with, for one example, Jordan and Perkins as juniors.....

 

[FishersBlue]

You'd need to show me year by year, comparing the personnel on each uk team to the other most talented teams, before I buy the discrepancy is as much as you say.

Second, I think you're grossly underplaying the experience factor. Wall, Cousins, Davis etc are surely talented - but they were 17 or 18 years old. I can remember when it was said the best thing about a freshman is he will eventually be a sophomore. This isn't Dean Smith, losing with, for one example, Jordan and Perkins as juniors.....

Mojo,
The experience factor certainly plays a role. I think that's a fair point, and our title team probably doesn't win the title without a senior in Miller and 2 other guys who played in a FF (Lamb, Jones).

The teams who have won titles during Calipari's UK tenure (Duke twice, UCONN twice, Louisville) featured experienced players.

But I think UK has been talented enough to get to 4 FFs and another championship game, so the inexperience didn't prevent them from making deep runs. And last year's UK team featured a junior (WCS) who had experience and 2 sophomores who played in a FF the year before.

My point is that if Cal stays at UK for ten years and has one title and 5-7 FF appearances, then it will be an amazing accomplishment. But it will also feature a decade level of talent that will never be duplicated again in college basketball. In that context one title will be viewed as a disappointment.

 

[Bluegrass79]

Yep. We picked a particularly bad year to shoot for 40-0.......

from what Ive seen your right. It would be 10X times easier to go 40-0 this year

 

[Blue Decade]

Careful. We are 4-0 with a resounding win over #5 Duke on a neutral court.
We are young and have Poythress gettting stronger.
We have the best player in the country and a 3 headed PG Monster.
We have Skal who will get better by the day too.
Dont lump UK in with"everybody else"

I never lump Kentucky with everyone else, because that would be ignorant. We have the top college basketball program in the country. But it remains to be seen how good Duke is this year. I was not impressed with Duke's overall team speed, and I didn't see much quality depth. There are better teams out there than Duke, and some will test us. I wouldn't be surprised if Kentucky sticks in the top spot in the polls for most of the year, but we will run into some good competition from SEC teams like LSU, Texas A&M, Vandy. The OP may have a point about parity this year, but it's way too early to know. Let's not forget that Kentucky starts 3 freshmen who are going to be much better players in March than they are now. Calipari's teams typically peak in February and March.

 

[CatsIndy2010]

I dunno about this thread.....every year is like magic. You never know how it works out but someone wins the ncaa championship some how.

Im about to watch the following game:

ESPNU has Harvard vs Boston University @ 12:30pm today

We play Boston next week?

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

There are definitely no Kentucky or Duke level super teams this year, like there were last year. Not saying there aren't teams above the rest though.

 

[UKDUNK]

Every year people watch a few games and declare it a down year. You can't expect teams to look elite in friggin November. There are plenty of teams with the tools to become elite by March.

 

[Smashcat]

Every year people watch a few games and declare it a down year. You can't expect teams to look elite in friggin November. There are plenty of teams with the tools to become elite by March.

Don't even have to be elite. THE WVU team that knocked us out in 2010 was one of the worst shooting teams to make a FF. After the regular season, you better be ready to play EVERY NCAA game.

 

[Blue Decade]

There are definitely no Kentucky or Duke level super teams this year, like there were last year. Not saying there aren't teams above the rest though.

I am not ready yet to say that this year's Kentucky team won't be as good as last year's Kentucky team. It's a high bar, because IMO last year's team was 1 of the best college basketball teams ever. Last year's Kentucky team might have been the best defensive team we have ever had. But last year's team did not have a scorer with the explosive potential to take over and dominate games like Jamal Murray. This year's team doesn't quite have the depth of last year's team, but there is still more than enough depth this year. The big question is about Labissiere and Humphries. If our 2 freshmen bigs learn to become plus defenders in the interior, and if Labissiere stays out of foul trouble in the big games, this is an incredibly good team by any standard that will just keep getting better and better.

 

[Poetax]

I dunno about this thread.....every year is like magic. You never know how it works out but someone wins the ncaa championship some how.

Im about to watch the following game:

ESPNU has Harvard vs Boston University @ 12:30pm today

We play Boston next week?

Cat, isn't that Boston College playing Harvard?

 

[Tannerdad]

Because there are no super teams doesn't make it weak. Going to be a great year to watch games.

 

[Hoskins91]

Because there are no super teams doesn't make it weak. Going to be a great year to watch games.

Yes it does. There is parity, but it's because no one this year is all that special.

 

[Jkwo]

Every year people watch a few games and declare it a down year. You can't expect teams to look elite in friggin November. There are plenty of teams with the tools to become elite by March.

The hell are you talking about? Last year, UK, Duke, Virginia, Arizona, and Wisconsin all looked like monsters.

In 2012, UK, Syracuse, and UNC (when healthy) were absolutely eviscerating people.

You're just saying things that are objectively untrue.

 

[brianpoe]

Since Cal has been at KY there have been few great teams. I hope we dont look back and feel as though we missed out on multiple titles when we were easily the most talented team many of those years.

Come on...sure UK has been young. But the level of talent compared to other teams hasnt been close.

This is straight from the CutNets school of thought.

An 18 year old with a high NBA draft projection does not equal best college basketball player.

Pelphrey, Woods, Farmer, and Feldhaus beat many "talented" players.

 

[Jkwo]

Come on...sure UK has been young. But the level of talent compared to other teams hasnt been close.

You didn't address my post on this issue. What you're saying is only true if you ignore half of the other blue bloods.

Unless you can address the absolute number of 5 stars vs average rating argument presented above, you're just making a faulty argument. Again, the only way you can argue that UK has been *far* more talented than even the other elite recruiting schools is to use the absolute number argument, which is so awful and poorly reasoned that it's endorsed by Zipp. Mull over that for a bit.

 

[FishersBlue]

j

You didn't address my post on this issue. What you're saying is only true if you ignore half of the other blue bloods.

Unless you can address the absolute number of 5 stars vs average rating argument presented above, you're just making a faulty argument. Again, the only way you can argue that UK has been *far* more talented than even the other elite recruiting schools is to use the absolute number argument, which is so awful and poorly reasoned that it's endorsed by Zipp. Mull over that for a bit.

jkwo,
Forget "stars," though using that method I'm sure Kentucky would look pretty good. Just look at NBA talent, which is the better barometer as they are not always the same thing. Cal has had 19 players drafted, 15 in the first round, and the only time multiple 1st rounders have been drafted 5 consecutive years. Compared to the teams that ultimately won NCAA titles during Cal's era, UK looks pretty good. No?

Stop trying to pretend Kentucky hasn't had the most talent of any team in college basketball from top to bottom during Cal's tenure.

 

[irishcat1965]

Because there are no super teams doesn't make it weak. Going to be a great year to watch games.

I completely agree. I don't think college basketball is down, there is just a lot of parity. That will make for a very exciting March.

 

[Jkwo]

j

jkwo,
Forget "stars," though using that method I'm sure Kentucky would look pretty good. Just look at NBA talent, which is the better barometer as they are not always the same thing. Cal has had 19 players drafted, 15 in the first round, and the only time multiple 1st rounders have been drafted 5 consecutive years. Compared to the teams that ultimately won NCAA titles during Cal's era, UK looks pretty good. No?

Stop trying to pretend Kentucky hasn't had the most talent of any team in college basketball from top to bottom during Cal's tenure.

It's a far worse barometer, because you're talking about how good they became later. The NBA drafts on potential. Almost exclusively. Look at Eric Bledsoe's production on the pro level versus Tyler Hansbrough. Their production now says nothing about how prepared that kid was to contribute in college. So no, production as developed grown men does not tell you how skilled your roster was at 18. You know what gives you a better idea? How well thought of those kids were out of high school. You're literally penalizing Cal for his kids developing later and having long-term potential.

And UK probably has had the most talent - but you keep saying by far, that there's nobody else close, which is ridiculous, when you talk about number of supposedly elite college players on a roster, which is what matters. Again, Duke, UNC, and Kansas have had burger boys off the bench every year as well. We set the record last year with 9 on a roster - but we shared that record with the very same Duke team that won it.

We won the championship with the 1 and 2 picks, and Kansas went 25-10 and lost to a 10 seed with the 1 and 3 picks. And a higher percentage of their burger boys didn't develop enoug over the past few years - even ones with good size and athleticism for their position who *should've* had good pro potential, like Selby, Henry, Selden, Robinson, etc. Same story with UNC. How is that Cal's fault?

You ignore *those* types of facts and fault Cal because our burger boys ended up better in the league than theirs? I think I'm starting to figure out why you have 7k messages and 4 likes - people catch on quick to your trolling.

 

[irishcat1965]

j

jkwo,
Forget "stars," though using that method I'm sure Kentucky would look pretty good. Just look at NBA talent, which is the better barometer as they are not always the same thing. Cal has had 19 players drafted, 15 in the first round, and the only time multiple 1st rounders have been drafted 5 consecutive years. Compared to the teams that ultimately won NCAA titles during Cal's era, UK looks pretty good. No?

Stop trying to pretend Kentucky hasn't had the most talent of any team in college basketball from top to bottom during Cal's tenure.

And that is one of the reasons UK has been to 4 out of the last 5 final fours. It only happens to be the greatest run in UK's basketball history since late 1940s early 1950s.

 

[nyron]

And that is one of the reasons UK has been to 4 out of the last 5 final fours. It only happens to be the greatest run in UK's basketball history since late 1940s early 1950s.

IDK, I think one missed Nazr free throw away from 3 straight titles was pretty good.

 

[irishcat1965]

IDK, I think one missed Nazr free throw away from 3 straight titles was pretty good.

He did miss it and UK didn't win three straight. However you could argue the two titles in 96,98 was the second best run since there were three straight title games. I guess it depends on how far this run by Cal continues.

 

[UKDUNK]

The hell are you talking about? Last year, UK, Duke, Virginia, Arizona, and Wisconsin all looked like monsters.

In 2012, UK, Syracuse, and UNC (when healthy) were absolutely eviscerating people.

You're just saying things that are objectively untrue.

In this thread we have people saying it's a down year but there is not enough evidence yet to say this year's UK or Michigan State teams can't be as good as the elite teams from last year. The UK and Duke teams are probably the only unreachable ones, but the others on that list weren't just ridiculously stacked with talent.

 

[nyron]

He did miss it and UK didn't win three straight. However you could argue the two titles in 96,98 was the second best run since there were three straight title games. I guess it depends on how far this run by Cal continues.

Correction, he missed them - 4 in regulation. Cincinnati was a blown goaltending call away from 3 straight in the 60's.

 

[OHIO COLONEL]

Not hankering. We're gonna beat a lot of so-so teams by like 8-10 points, and I don't mind it, as long as the guys consistently pull out those last couple minutes of the game.

Last year was special and I just want people to appreciate that. Teams with margins over 20 ppg and double digit margins over ranked teams are crazy rare, and we had one last year - and it also happened to be a year with 4 other squads that would be #1 this year.

This team we have is going to be inconsistent, because it's primarily based around guards - and no matter how awesome those guards are, they can have cold shooting nights, and that can get us an L. We could've shot 20% from the field outside of dunks and layups and still won most of our games last year. Not so this year.

That said, this team, when it's on, is better than everybody else in the country. And Cal's teams improve a crazy amount from November to March - and like I said, he drops stupid baffling games way less often than other elite coaches - so I'm encouraged looking forward.

The only slight disagreement I have with you is the above statement about being...based around guards. Very true if you're talking about guards who primarily are outside shooters, but ours are not. They can be cold as ice from outside but still score based on their ability to create shots, drive and dish, etc. Even if we have a 20% game from the field, and don't have the dunks like last year, with Ulis, Murray, and Briscoe they can still score and make assists. Here's hoping we don't have any of those 20% games though.

 

[Untouchables22]

It's a far worse barometer, because you're talking about how good they became later. The NBA drafts on potential. Almost exclusively. Look at Eric Bledsoe's production on the pro level versus Tyler Hansbrough. Their production now says nothing about how prepared that kid was to contribute in college. So no, production as developed grown men does not tell you how skilled your roster was at 18. You know what gives you a better idea? How well thought of those kids were out of high school. You're literally penalizing Cal for his kids developing later and having long-term potential.

And UK probably has had the most talent - but you keep saying by far, that there's nobody else close, which is ridiculous, when you talk about number of supposedly elite college players on a roster, which is what matters. Again, Duke, UNC, and Kansas have had burger boys off the bench every year as well. We set the record last year with 9 on a roster - but we shared that record with the very same Duke team that won it.

We won the championship with the 1 and 2 picks, and Kansas went 25-10 and lost to a 10 seed with the 1 and 3 picks. And a higher percentage of their burger boys didn't develop enoug over the past few years - even ones with good size and athleticism for their position who *should've* had good pro potential, like Selby, Henry, Selden, Robinson, etc. Same story with UNC. How is that Cal's fault?

You ignore *those* types of facts and fault Cal because our burger boys ended up better in the league than theirs? I think I'm starting to figure out why you have 7k messages and 4 likes - people catch on quick to your trolling.

Listen you're right on the money with your analysis. People have already forgotten that in 2010 UK and Kansas were co-favorites and had similar talent going into the tournament and in 2012 if Kendall Marshall hadn't got hurt North Carolina was in the same class talent wise as UK. But I can also assure you that you aren't going to be able to change his opinion lol It's going to be another year just like both of UCONN last two championships.

 

[Jkwo]

The only slight disagreement I have with you is the above statement about being...based around guards. Very true if you're talking about guards who primarily are outside shooters, but ours are not. They can be cold as ice from outside but still score based on their ability to create shots, drive and dish, etc. Even if we have a 20% game from the field, and don't have the dunks like last year, with Ulis, Murray, and Briscoe they can still score and make assists. Here's hoping we don't have any of those 20% games though.

This is a very reasonable point. Still not quite as reliable as a big who likes to dunk everything, but this does certainly help matters.