Why do people talk of the 2019-20 team so glowingly?

[UkMccurdy]

Hear me out. I actually enjoyed that team but often hear them brought up and it’s with a great deal of hyperbole in recalling how good they were.

Yes, that team won the SEC. They also beat a solid Michigan St team, a UL team that would have been seeded 3 or so and won a dog fight against TTech on the road in a filthy, hostile environment over a NCAA team.

It also had home court losses to Evansville who was atrocious, UT (who wasn’t making tourney)… also lost to marginal Ohio St and Utah teams and a dreadful USC jr team in Columbia.

Yet, when people harken back to that team it’s like they think that team probably going to make a deep run. To my recollection, the last week of the season UK lost a 17 pt second half lead in Rupp and lost to UT. We had money phone Hagans video surface, he wasn’t with team after that and then needed the EJ miracle put back to beat a mediocre Florida team. It’s not like that team was ramping up for a run.

The team had good parts. I loved Maxey, Qucikley and Nick… but that team had deficiencies and would have been lucky to make it past a Sweet 16.

Maybe it’s just Cal defenders or maybe it’s we had good guards who often are key in March. I don’t know. I’m just confused why so many thought that team was special or something.

25-6 was good but SEC was down that season. The Cats had as many bad losses as good wins as well.

Good team but not some title threat.

Am I just clueless on this and getting senile?

Thoughts?

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

Main reason is because we had 3 players that will help you win in March. A quickly & maxey backcourt would have been lethal in March, along with nick Richards who was playing good and you have 3 solid pieces. Juzang & brooks were starting to give Kentucky something as well. Hagans was the wildcard but I’m sure they could have gotten him back to where he usually was. I don’t see a title like a lot of people do, but I definitely could have seen that team making a final four

 

[phunterd]

The team was definitely reeling at the end. The blown lead to UT where Hagans got into it with a player at mid court telling him to give him the ball. The UF game we were down significantly in the second half and furiously rallied to win the game. Those were the last two games.

Having said that, it’s easy to forget how much improvement Quickly and Richards made that season. They were both awesome that year.

Probably an elite 8 team but no more, IMO.

 

[kyboy1998]

They represented the university, and state, we support and were capable of making a run.

 

[catsfan3383]

Most of it is the “what could have been” thinking. Everyone’s been so desperate to get back the title we gave away in ‘15, a lot have circled that team as “the one” that would’ve done it.

Granted, with the guards we had, we certainly could’ve made a deep run and that team was the best ft shooting team we’ve ever had (80% as a TEAM) and that’ll win you a game or two you might otherwise not win in the tourney.

However, offset that with Cal’s propensity to “choke away” a title and end up losing to a vastly inferior team (see K StateX2, Auburn, St Peters, etc) and I’d bet we’d of ended up going out in round of 16 or elite 8 at best.

 

[CB3UK]

Hagans had a complete childish meltdown v Tennessee and had to sit at home when we played at Florida because of it. You can't have your PG doing shit like that in March. Plus Evansville.....totally inexcusable.

Anyone who thinks that team was complete enough to win the title is lost in revisionist thinking.

 

[HagginHall1999]

It was the guards + tangibles. Example...they led the nation is FT attempts per game and were 2nd in FT % at 80%.

They just seemed like a team built for the tournament. A really good and at times dominant big. A high volume, high percentage 3pt shooter and a couple of dynamic guards who could get to rim.

There were definitely weaknesses, will never know.

 

[HerrosHeroes]

Primarily because of the huge 2nd half comeback in Gainesville the last gm of the season. Plus the team finished 13-2 and 25-6 overall.
That team probably wins the National Title.
Us, Kansas or FSU.

 

[bthaunert]

It was a top 10 team that went 9-1 in their last 10 games. It’s not crazy to think they could have made a run.

 

[IowaMuse]

Because it allows the Cal sycophants to suggest that a title could have been won IF ONLY.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Thing is we'll never actually know.

But given we were like a projected 3 or 4 seed going into this tournament, I'd say we were just slightly out of those teams that would be contending for a title.

But again who knows.

 

[ruppcat]

Hear me out. I actually enjoyed that team but often hear them brought up and it’s with a great deal of hyperbole in recalling how good they were.

Yes, that team won the SEC. They also beat a solid Michigan St team, a UL team that would have been seeded 3 or so and won a dog fight against TTech on the road in a filthy, hostile environment over a NCAA team.

It also had home court losses to Evansville who was atrocious, UT (who wasn’t making tourney)… also lost to marginal Ohio St and Utah teams and a dreadful USC jr team in Columbia.

Yet, when people harken back to that team it’s like they think that team probably going to make a deep run. To my recollection, the last week of the season UK lost a 17 pt second half lead in Rupp and lost to UT. We had money phone Hagans video surface, he wasn’t with team after that and then needed the EJ miracle put back to beat a mediocre Florida team. It’s not like that team was ramping up for a run.

The team had good parts. I loved Maxey, Qucikley and Nick… but that team had deficiencies and would have been lucky to make a sweet 16.

Maybe it’s just Cal defenders or maybe it’s we had good guards who often are key in March. I don’t know. I’m just confused why so many thought that team was special or something.

25-6 was good but SEC was down that season. The Cats had as many bad losses as good wins as well.

Good team but not some title threat.

Am I just clueless on this and getting senile?

Thoughts?

Reminds me of the guy thinking about what could have been with a girl if they'd only gone out......never got rejected so he can always think he had a shot.

At least that's what I've heard some guys say.

 

[Wonky]

Hagans was a headcase. But even if he wasn’t, the main problem with that team was that Cal insisted on playing him at the point when it was clear as day Maxey should have ran it with Quickley at the 2. The team always looked the best when that was the combo in the game. Hagans played some great D at times but other times he gave up a lot. He also couldn’t make a jumpshot or finish layups.

I think the team had a FF ceiling if Cal had kept Hagans on the bench. But we’ll never know.

 

[CrimsonCats]

That was a high variance team that could beat just about anyone or lose to just about anyone on a given night. The combo of Quickley, Richards, and Maxey gave them some legit star power, so the optimism wasn’t totally unfounded. They weren’t a particularly deep team though, and the drama with Hagans was coming at a bad time, so I’m not sure I quite agree with those who act like we’d have been heavy favorites for a Final Four if not a championship had the tournament actually happened. They were a good, but flawed team and we’ll never know if they would have gotten hot at exactly the right moment or had a blow up game and bowed out early.

 

[Walt_McCartys_Attorney]

Two words: Nate Sestina

 

[fatguy87]

Because they didn't have a chance to play in the tournament. It allows us to extrapolate our innate fan bias into a rosy perspective of tournament potential.

 

[ukcatz12]

As others have said, Quickley and Maxey. Guards win in March. How many times has great guard play elevated a team and carried them to the Final Four? Hell, Kemba doing that is a reason we don't have another title.

Quickley and Maxey could shoot and were good from the FT line. That's a recipe for success in March.

 

[RunninRichie]

Two words: Nate Sestina

Nate was a solid player.

 

[WildcatNC]

Because we had a solid big, dynamic guards, and solid role players. Every tool needed for a March run.

Who knows what would have happened. We'd probably not have made it out of the second weekend, but we had the peices.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

Hear me out. I actually enjoyed that team but often hear them brought up and it’s with a great deal of hyperbole in recalling how good they were.

Yes, that team won the SEC. They also beat a solid Michigan St team, a UL team that would have been seeded 3 or so and won a dog fight against TTech on the road in a filthy, hostile environment over a NCAA team.

It also had home court losses to Evansville who was atrocious, UT (who wasn’t making tourney)… also lost to marginal Ohio St and Utah teams and a dreadful USC jr team in Columbia.

Yet, when people harken back to that team it’s like they think that team probably going to make a deep run. To my recollection, the last week of the season UK lost a 17 pt second half lead in Rupp and lost to UT. We had money phone Hagans video surface, he wasn’t with team after that and then needed the EJ miracle put back to beat a mediocre Florida team. It’s not like that team was ramping up for a run.

The team had good parts. I loved Maxey, Qucikley and Nick… but that team had deficiencies and would have been lucky to make a sweet 16.

Maybe it’s just Cal defenders or maybe it’s we had good guards who often are key in March. I don’t know. I’m just confused why so many thought that team was special or something.

25-6 was good but SEC was down that season. The Cats had as many bad losses as good wins as well.

Good team but not some title threat.

Am I just clueless on this and getting senile?

Thoughts?

Lost some games early while learning.

Why is the SEC down when we win by 3 games?

Quickley became SEC POY.

And he wasn’t the best player on the team. Hagans was a lock down defender. Maxey was ready to go off.

We had a 2 seed locked up and probably a 1 after we won the SEC tourney.

The season is a journey. We get better and better as it goes.

Especially with young talent.

One can wallow in the unexpected losses or one can appreciate the growth and apprenticeship.

It’s a choice.

 

[michaeluk26]

It was a top 10 team that went 9-1 in their last 10 games. It’s not crazy to think they could have made a run.

What I was gonna say. Good call sir.

 

[fatguy87]

That team ranked 29th in Kenpom and had the 52nd ranked adjusted defensive rating that season.

We are losing our minds over this year's team that's ranked 53rd lol.

 

[HenryMuto]

It was destined to win the ship

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

Here's 3 reasons I think they could've made a final 4 run:
When that team was at the best version of itself it had 1) a p.g. who could disrupt the other team's point of attack, 2) rim protection on the backside of the defense, 3) wings who could attack the basket AND knock down 3's. Guard heavy team w/ a good lob threat to supplement them.

 

[seccats04]

In case you for got how terrible the SEC was that year here ya go:
SEC Standings

Our PG was a headcase who flashed large wads of cash during the season and then got suspended at the end of the year for fighting with teammates. We lost our last home game to a .500 UT team. We were a miracle end of game tip in from EJ Montgomery, of all people, from losing to a mediocre Florida team the last game of the year.

We were headed for a 3 seed because of terrible losses to Evansville and Utah and the SEC being so weak. We probably would've won the SECT but the seedings are done for the NCAAT before the SECT title game.

 

[Smashcat]

It was a top 10 team that went 9-1 in their last 10 games. It’s not crazy to think they could have made a run.

Went 9-1 and had that great comeback at Florida. They also were great FT shooters, built for close games in the NCAA. Yup. They would have made a run.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

A lot of it is all coulda-woulda-shoulda. We had guards, we had the talent, we also had a head case point guard, a team that was fighting in the locker room. So who knows; that team could have just as easily crashed and burned in the 2nd round as a ran to the title.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

Went 9-1 and had that great comeback at Florida. They also were great FT shooters, built for close games in the NCAA. Yup. They would have made a run.

The tournament is crazy and never chalk. Otherwise a 1 or 2 would win every year

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

Hagans had a complete childish meltdown v Tennessee and had to sit at home when we played at Florida because of it. You can't have your PG doing shit like that in March. Plus Evansville.....totally inexcusable.

Anyone who thinks that team was complete enough to win the title is lost in revisionist thinking.

For whatever reason a lot of BBN has nostalgia for that team. Personally I found them frustrating. They lost to Evansville and Utah, on the other side beat Louisville, Auburn, Texas Tech, Michigan State.

 

[GoCats-GoHerd88]

Good teams find ways to win. That team found ways to win and was gearing up for a run. It’s not crazy to think they could have made a deep run based off anything at all other than Hagans but I think they could have got him straightened out in time for the tourney.

 

[OmahaCats]

Hear me out. I actually enjoyed that team but often hear them brought up and it’s with a great deal of hyperbole in recalling how good they were.

Yes, that team won the SEC. They also beat a solid Michigan St team, a UL team that would have been seeded 3 or so and won a dog fight against TTech on the road in a filthy, hostile environment over a NCAA team.

It also had home court losses to Evansville who was atrocious, UT (who wasn’t making tourney)… also lost to marginal Ohio St and Utah teams and a dreadful USC jr team in Columbia.

Yet, when people harken back to that team it’s like they think that team probably going to make a deep run. To my recollection, the last week of the season UK lost a 17 pt second half lead in Rupp and lost to UT. We had money phone Hagans video surface, he wasn’t with team after that and then needed the EJ miracle put back to beat a mediocre Florida team. It’s not like that team was ramping up for a run.

The team had good parts. I loved Maxey, Qucikley and Nick… but that team had deficiencies and would have been lucky to make a sweet 16.

Maybe it’s just Cal defenders or maybe it’s we had good guards who often are key in March. I don’t know. I’m just confused why so many thought that team was special or something.

25-6 was good but SEC was down that season. The Cats had as many bad losses as good wins as well.

Good team but not some title threat.

Am I just clueless on this and getting senile?

Thoughts?

The record was good. And we had solid guards and were incredible from the ft line. Those things help in the tournament. However the point difference all season was only an 8 point difference. Which means we won a lot of close games. The team could’ve made a deep run. But could’ve also lost very early. They didn’t have an incredible talent advantage like Cal’s early teams

 

[Mike-McD]

Hear me out. I actually enjoyed that team but often hear them brought up and it’s with a great deal of hyperbole in recalling how good they were.

Yes, that team won the SEC. They also beat a solid Michigan St team, a UL team that would have been seeded 3 or so and won a dog fight against TTech on the road in a filthy, hostile environment over a NCAA team.

It also had home court losses to Evansville who was atrocious, UT (who wasn’t making tourney)… also lost to marginal Ohio St and Utah teams and a dreadful USC jr team in Columbia.

Yet, when people harken back to that team it’s like they think that team probably going to make a deep run. To my recollection, the last week of the season UK lost a 17 pt second half lead in Rupp and lost to UT. We had money phone Hagans video surface, he wasn’t with team after that and then needed the EJ miracle put back to beat a mediocre Florida team. It’s not like that team was ramping up for a run.

The team had good parts. I loved Maxey, Qucikley and Nick… but that team had deficiencies and would have been lucky to make a sweet 16.

Maybe it’s just Cal defenders or maybe it’s we had good guards who often are key in March. I don’t know. I’m just confused why so many thought that team was special or something.

25-6 was good but SEC was down that season. The Cats had as many bad losses as good wins as well.

Good team but not some title threat.

Am I just clueless on this and getting senile?

Thoughts?

Maxie and Quickley were a joy to watch. Richards was really good too. Hagans was a headcase. Who knows what might have been.

 

[BradleyCrawford08]

The ultimate “what if” season. That year was wide open for a lot of teams to potentially win the title that year, no one was particularly THE favorite to win it all. UK was looking really good when tournament time was about to start. Really thought they were poised for a run at the championship with IQ, Maxey, and Nick Richards. Hagans too if he hadn’t had a complete meltdown near the end of the regular season. They just kept finding ways to win and continued to get better as the season went along.

 

[gharding07]

Thing is we'll never actually know.

But given we were like a projected 3 or 4 seed going into this tournament, I'd say we were just slightly out of those teams that would be contending for a title.

But again who knows.

We were projected as a 2 seed by most bracketologists.

 

[gharding07]

Won 9 of the last 10 games, our guards were dynamite and could shoot the lights out at the FT line to ice any game. Oh and player of the year in the SEC Nick Richards..yeah we were pretty damn good. That was a FUN team.

 

[Fox2monk]

Main reason is because we had 3 players that will help you win in March. A quickly & maxey backcourt would have been lethal in March, along with nick Richards who was playing good and you have 3 solid pieces. Juzang & brooks were starting to give Kentucky something as well. Hagans was the wildcard but I’m sure they could have gotten him back to where he usually was. I don’t see a title like a lot of people do, but I definitely could have seen that team making a final four

This ^. Guard play wins in March and Maxey and Quickley were studs by March. Richards was a monster and was a very good rim protector which all our best NCAA teams had. I think Hagans would have came back and done fine too. Juzang could have broken out too, who knows. He did the very next year. I just feel like that team was constructed well for a tournament setting. Brooks also won that Florida game IIRC.

 

[Fox2monk]

In case you for got how terrible the SEC was that year here ya go:
SEC Standings

Our PG was a headcase who flashed large wads of cash during the season and then got suspended at the end of the year for fighting with teammates. We lost our last home game to a .500 UT team. We were a miracle end of game tip in from EJ Montgomery, of all people, from losing to a mediocre Florida team the last game of the year.

We were headed for a 3 seed because of terrible losses to Evansville and Utah and the SEC being so weak. We probably would've won the SECT but the seedings are done for the NCAAT before the SECT title game.

If we make the final I think we get a 2 seed that year but regardless a 3 is basically a similar path.

 

[JonathanW]

1) They started slow until Quickly became starter. So after then, very good!
2) guard oriented team with Quickley and Maxey
3) rim protector in Richards who if you recall was being discussed on here in Jan as possible SEC POY.
4) great FT shooting team, maybe best ever at UK
5) had 3 guys could go to for a basket

Honestly the only flaw was Hagans head.

 

[Sparkaces1]

How can anyone that watches college basketball not think Maxey and Quickley couldn’t easily get a team to the final 4. Nobody will ever know but that certainly had a chance.

 

[Mike-McD]

How can anyone that watches college basketball not think Maxey and Quickley couldn’t easily get a team to the final 4. Nobody will ever know but that certainly had a chance.

I watched that whole season. One notable thing was that we had trouble putting teams away. We would build leads and then hang on to win by single digits, over and over. But we did win 25 games.