Cal's top priority is not winning basketball games. He doesn't even have to tell us that. You can see it by his actions or lack thereof.
UK’s best lineup and Cal’s agenda…
- Thread starter Mdnerd
- Start date
Unbelievable.. can I buy some of what you're smoking? Doesn't have to be much.. just a little.
Cal neutered Reeves. Cal neutered him when he got his second foul in the first half and Cal neutered him again when Reeves picked up his 3rd foul in the Second half just when we went on a 7-0 run AFTER Cal FINALLY got Reed
and Dilly in the game.
Reeves finished the game with 4 fouls. Refs didn't neuter him. The coach did by choosing not to play him with 2 and 3 fouls.
Exactly what I've been saying. Same for Edwards. I bet Edwards comes out of his funk FAR faster had he come off the bench.
It's either purposeful sabotage or he's the biggest idiot in college basketball. No two ways around it.
Watched him get wide open off a pick and never got one look his way. Reed would've hit him for a massive dunk, but whoever had the ball then didn't even have their head up to see the court.
Megan has a lot of free time this weekend. Good for her
I asked my son “when is Cal going to play Reeves, when there’s three mins to go and we’re down 15?”
You’d think Cal would’ve just rolled with Reeves since he doesn’t care about the SECT. Like, who cares if he fouled out?
I wasn't being that nice. Cal has some of the dumbest "coaching rules" of any major coach I have ever seen.
He never takes into account anything like time, score, individual involved. Just follows his little personal coaching quirks. Ugh.
Ugo had 2 effing rebounds and 2 blocks and 2 points in 19 mins.
Z had 2 rebounds and 3 blocks and 7 points in 17 minutes.
This notion that Ugo is somehow better defensively because of rebounding and blocks just isn’t true. Even if he were better, he’s infinitely worse offensively. He can’t catch, and when he actually catches he struggles to finish. Ever wonder why Ugo doesn’t get the same lobs thrown to him that Z does?
Pg - Reed
2g - Wagner
3- Reeves
4- Edwards
5 - Thiero
RD0 - 6th man
7- Ugo/Z/AB . Whoever playing better other 2 sit most of game
8 - Mitchell
Sadly I think if we only had 1 7 footer whoe er it was would be alot better an a huge help. When you have too many sometimes it makes really have none
2g - Wagner
3- Reeves
4- Edwards
5 - Thiero
RD0 - 6th man
7- Ugo/Z/AB . Whoever playing better other 2 sit most of game
8 - Mitchell
Sadly I think if we only had 1 7 footer whoe er it was would be alot better an a huge help. When you have too many sometimes it makes really have none
Officials didn’t sit him down Cal did. Officials don’t sit anybody until they get 5 fouls. Coaches who sit players with 2, then 3, then 4,fouls out their own players by sitting them down guaranteeing the same result as fouling out. It makes no sense at all.
Let them play and you’ll get more minutes and more production out of them than taking them out after every foul, then letting them back in playing tentative and with no rhythm knowing they will go back out the next foul again.
I agree with everything except the he's not a liar part. You're right, he didn't lie about the point you're making, but he's lied about tons of other crap.
I could see sitting a big in a physical game because they are prone to fouling. But sitting your best guard? Guards can get away with playing more cautious on defense, especially when we aren't really a defensive team anyway and have to score points to win.
Cal is a liar.
It doesn't take ANY balls to stay with your agenda, even though it is a proven loser, IF you have a lifetime contract.
Cal dug his heels in and "quit" coaching for program wins before the ink dried on that lifetime contract.
IF his employment was dependent upon actually leading a legitimate winning program, you would see a different Cal.
His money and his success is HIS top agenda. The rest is just BS.
"Criminal" is a bit strong IMO. Mitchell was 3-3 from the field and led the team with 9 rebounds.
That's what has killed me so much is some people are so much against Z, but he's always saddled with a broken down Tre. No lineup has looked good with Tre for a month. Just throw Reed, Dilly, Reeves, Theiro and Z out there and watch them run. Watch Z and Dilly run the pick and roll to prefetion. It isn't rocket science.
"How about if I.....?"
Hilarious. How about if you tried it last game to see if it worked? How about that?
"Hey, everybody. I'm really a genius! I just thought of this! I have ZERO other ideas, and i haven't told my "bigs" what to do when they DO come in, but it's still a great idea, right?! Am I not a genius for using my bench?!" - THE coach who hasn't sniffed a FF for about a dozen draft picks or more
If Cal has some sort of obligation or promise to start DJ, then how dumb does DJ feel being a starter just like starting the walk-ons for senior night only to have the 'real' starters sitting at the scorers desk at the tip off. You believe DJ is so dumb that he doesn't know who is playing better and what the starting lineup should be. Or has Salesman Cal sold him that he is just as good.
I will give you that maybe starting Dillingham could be risky since he is rather high energy and could easily pick up a quick two fouls but absolute coaching malpractice by not starting Reed. Putting a young team down early is just so wrong.
I will give you that maybe starting Dillingham could be risky since he is rather high energy and could easily pick up a quick two fouls but absolute coaching malpractice by not starting Reed. Putting a young team down early is just so wrong.
fantastic post you are all over it, guy has gone full metal jacket with fanbase and would rather burn it down rather than win, his press conference at his house last night literally outlined where he is at with the fans. He needs to go
Yeah there may be a few situational times I'd break my own rule but in the end it doesnt change the misguided logit of it all in that when you sit them down afraid of fouling you're doing the same thing as if they did foul out. The end result is they arent on the court contributing.
And the problme with that logic is when you go ahead and sit them down yourself out of fear of what MIGHT happen, you're guaranteeing to get at least some of the down side of actually fouling out when many of those time they may never have ever got their 5th foul by letting them play it out.
So why not get all the upside you can of their production leaving them on the floor to play in the rhythm of the game without fear of sitting on every touch foul and with still the bigger upside that they never get a 5th foul
vs.
Lets sit them 3 or 4 mintues from foul number 2 on guaranteeing them to miss at least 12 minutes (the same as fouling out at the 12 mintue mark of the second half) and losing prodcution when they are in because they are out of rhythm and playing tentatively because of foul trouble in their heads.
it just doesnt make any logical sense but coaches are programmed to do the same thing.
I know some say we need to save them for late game situations but if you'd had more floor time and better production from them during the game you wouldnt need them for late game situations. Points count the same early in the game as late.
"Foul Trouble" is a self inflicted phenomenom IMO
First off, Rob and Reeves foul situations often dictate their playing time. Next...
The "promises" thing is amusing to me. You think if DJ is going to ask for any kind of "promise", it's going to be that he starts? You don't think it's embarassing for him to be subbed out 2 mins into the game? That's incredibly embarassing for starters, especially if they're not even in foul trouble. There's no way they asked for a promise to start, just no way. A promise for NIL, a promise for minutes played, a promise for shot attempts - but to want a guarantee to start but be ok with getting subbed out 2 mins into the game is foolish
I think Cal is trying to start the guys who typically play pretty solid defense, and hopefully to get a couple quick buckets to get some confidene going. It's a mistake, I agree - I'd rather Rob and Reed start - but I don't think it has anything to do with promises.
This post is kind of funny. My post said nothing of playing time, it spoke of lineups. There isn’t a single reason that could exist that Cal never went to his best lineup. Unless someone is injured, that lineup is ALWAYS available for a stretch in any game.
Also you proved my point without meaning to as far as my take on “promises”. It is in fact embarrassing to start and then get yanked 2 minutes in, yet Cal does it EVERY SINGLE GAME. So why would he choose to embarrass these guys like that when the outcome is guaranteed? Kinda seems like a starting spot may have been “promised”.
I’m also not at all against the theory of Cal embarrassing some starters due to gross negligence. Maybe no promises, he may just be a stubborn idiot. Either theory is good by me.
I outlined why, potentially, he goes with that lineup to start the game - and it still having NOTHING to do with promises. He could EASILY start either Rob or Reed in place of Adou. Unless you're telling me he promised Adou a starting lineup. Also, wouldn't make any sense for Justin and DJ to be "promised" a starting lineup but not Bradshaw? Bradshaw was a top 10 recruit and even rated higher than DJ. DJ has been a UK lock since practically birth, no promise needed.
This idea of a promise is peddled by the lazy fans or the Cal haters. Simple as that.
He never plays that lineup again because he knows it's a bad lineup with which he has no chance to win. So why start that lineup? So many people have bought into the "it doesn't matter who starts, just how many minutes they get", but why is it that none can give reasons why it's good to keep 2/3 best players on the bench at the start of each half? That starting lineup has cost us several games and is not the reason we've won any of our games. Instead, we've had to overcome that lineup to win our games. It's stupidity or the wrong guys are starting because they were promised starting in high school. No other options...
Last edited:
You’re hopelessly in love with Cal. Good on ya. Us debating this is pretty useless.
Ah yes, the even lazier mindset of, "if a poster doesn't blatantly bash Cal, poster must be in love with Cal"
I knew I had you pegged right away as lazy. You're right, we're not even debating. At least one of us isn't....
I rolled my eyes when Cal called a quick timeout because A&M got out to a quick start, DUH, and didn't sub during that timeout. Stubborn mule, that Cal.
If your star player has some foul trouble, you tell him to be smart, and give up a bucket if it means not fouling, because his presence is worth more. Two fouls and you sit rules are lazy and dumb.
🤣 I’m disengaging due an old saying you made me think of. Something about arguing with a fool…
Another saying about the fool who thinks he is wise comes to mind as well.
Similar threads
