You have to be in it to win it. WARNING: numbers

[StubbornPenny]

This is for the dummies today bemoaning the players leaving. Read the numbers and weep.. or go find another team.

Let's look at what teams have had a legit shot (Elite 8 or up) under their elite coaches:
Team: (number of chances) in (number of years as head coach), titles, (% of chances, % of titles)

Gonzaga: 2 shots in 18 years, 0 (11%, 0%)
UNC: 8 shots in 14 years, 3 (57%, 21%)
Duke: 14 in 37 years, 5 (38%, 13%), and more of these came 20 years ago than you'd like to admit
Kansas: 7 in 14, 1 (50%, 7%)
Louisville: 6 in 16, 1 (37%, 6%)
Arizona: 3 in 8, 0 (37%, 0%)
Villanova: 3 in 16, 1 (19%, 6%)
Wisconsin: 3 in 16, 0 (19%, 0%) *two coaches
Mich St: 9 in 22, 1 (41%, 5%)

Kentucky: 6 in 8, 1 (75%, 12%)

Legit shots in total years: 55 in 145 for (37%). So if you have an elite coach, you probably have around a 37% chance at being "in it." Cal obliterates that percentage with 75%. No one else is even close.

Titles per legit shot: So for 9 elite coaches' legit shots, we have 12 titles out of 55 chances for 22%. Not a surprise that if a few balls bounced our way, we're sitting at 25% clip on titles, which would be WELL above the average. As we are, we're on the lower side of normal.

Let's take out UNC and Duke because of the obvious preferential treatment that us, Nova, Gonzaga or even Kansas will never get. Now we have a cool 30% of elite coaches getting a shot. Now we have 3 titles in 33 shots for 9%. Cal is destroying any coach not named K or Roy, and not at a school named Duke or UNC. The titles will come with shots, we can see that. You can only look at NCAA titles with a longitudinal eye.

Can you still argue Cal's system doesn't work? Yes, we've been on the unlucky side of things, or in some cases, on the bad side of officiating. But we're beating most of the averages by far, and the ones we aren't can be attributed to the random nature of the tournament. It sucks to deal with a loss, but in the grand scheme, we are in a better place than any program not named UNC or Duke, with a coach a decade and change younger. THE TITLES WILL COME WITH CHANCES. One year means nothing. Many years mean everything.

 

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

This is for the dummies today bemoaning the players leaving. Read the numbers and weep.. or go find another team.

Let's look at what teams have had a legit shot (Elite 8 or up) under their elite coaches:
Team: (number of chances) in (number of years as head coach), titles, (% of chances, % of titles)

Gonzaga: 2 shots in 18 years, 0 (11%, 0%)
UNC: 8 shots in 14 years, 3 (57%, 21%)
Duke: 14 in 37 years, 5 (38%, 13%), and more of these came 20 years ago than you'd like to admit
Kansas: 7 in 14, 1 (50%, 7%)
Louisville: 6 in 16, 1 (37%, 6%)
Arizona: 3 in 8, 0 (37%, 0%)
Villanova: 3 in 16, 1 (19%, 6%)
Wisconsin: 3 in 16, 0 (19%, 0%) *two coaches
Mich St: 9 in 22, 1 (41%, 5%)

Kentucky: 6 in 8, 1 (75%, 12%)

Legit shots in total years: 55 in 145 for (37%). So if you have an elite coach, you probably have around a 37% chance at being "in it." Cal obliterates that percentage with 75%. No one else is even close.

Titles per legit shot: So for 9 elite coaches' legit shots, we have 12 titles out of 55 chances for 22%. Not a surprise that if a few balls bounced our way, we're sitting at 25% clip on titles, which would be WELL above the average. As we are, we're on the lower side of normal.

Let's take out UNC and Duke because of the obvious preferential treatment that us, Nova, Gonzaga or even Kansas will never get. Now we have a cool 30% of elite coaches getting a shot. Now we have 3 titles in 33 shots for 9%. Cal is destroying any coach not named K or Roy, and not at a school named Duke or UNC. The titles will come with shots, we can see that. You can only look at NCAA titles with a longitudinal eye.

Can you still argue Cal's system doesn't work? Yes, we've been on the unlucky side of things, or in some cases, on the bad side of officiating. But we're beating most of the averages by far, and the ones we aren't can be attributed to the random nature of the tournament. It sucks to deal with a loss, but in the grand scheme, we are in a better place than any program not named UNC or Duke, with a coach a decade and change younger. THE TITLES WILL COME WITH CHANCES. One year means nothing. Many years mean everything.

Tell that to the @ZaytovenCat 's of the world. They will still complain that Cal doesn't win it every year.

 

[North Carolina Blue Wildcat]

This is for the dummies today bemoaning the players leaving. Read the numbers and weep.. or go find another team.

Let's look at what teams have had a legit shot (Elite 8 or up) under their elite coaches:
Team: (number of chances) in (number of years as head coach), titles, (% of chances, % of titles)

Gonzaga: 2 shots in 18 years, 0 (11%, 0%)
UNC: 8 shots in 14 years, 3 (57%, 21%)
Duke: 14 in 37 years, 5 (38%, 13%), and more of these came 20 years ago than you'd like to admit
Kansas: 7 in 14, 1 (50%, 7%)
Louisville: 6 in 16, 1 (37%, 6%)
Arizona: 3 in 8, 0 (37%, 0%)
Villanova: 3 in 16, 1 (19%, 6%)
Wisconsin: 3 in 16, 0 (19%, 0%) *two coaches
Mich St: 9 in 22, 1 (41%, 5%)

Kentucky: 6 in 8, 1 (75%, 12%)

Legit shots in total years: 55 in 145 for (37%). So if you have an elite coach, you probably have around a 37% chance at being "in it." Cal obliterates that percentage with 75%. No one else is even close.

Titles per legit shot: So for 9 elite coaches' legit shots, we have 12 titles out of 55 chances for 22%. Not a surprise that if a few balls bounced our way, we're sitting at 25% clip on titles, which would be WELL above the average. As we are, we're on the lower side of normal.

Let's take out UNC and Duke because of the obvious preferential treatment that us, Nova, Gonzaga or even Kansas will never get. Now we have a cool 30% of elite coaches getting a shot. Now we have 3 titles in 33 shots for 9%. Cal is destroying any coach not named K or Roy, and not at a school named Duke or UNC. The titles will come with shots, we can see that. You can only look at NCAA titles with a longitudinal eye.

Can you still argue Cal's system doesn't work? Yes, we've been on the unlucky side of things, or in some cases, on the bad side of officiating. But we're beating most of the averages by far, and the ones we aren't can be attributed to the random nature of the tournament. It sucks to deal with a loss, but in the grand scheme, we are in a better place than any program not named UNC or Duke, with a coach a decade and change younger. THE TITLES WILL COME WITH CHANCES. One year means nothing. Many years mean everything.

You're trying to use data and logic to argue against emotion. That will never do!

 

[UKEE]

Where's UConn?

 

[BlueBomb]

What constitutes a "legit shot?"

 

[spotter34]

What constitutes a "legit shot?"

For most schools it's at least reaching the elite eight. For dUKe and UNC it's making the tournament.

 

[StubbornPenny]

Where's UConn?

I didn't include them since Calhoun is no longer in the game. He coached 26 seasons, with 9 legit shots (34%) which is on the high side of normal, and 3 titles (33% of his shots) which is absolutely absurd. His title rate is a total outlier. He got extremely lucky with his chances. In retrospect I should have left out Wisconsin for the same reason, except that's one of those "senior laden" programs everyone likes. Calhoun would bump the title numbers a bit, but again, his rate is a complete outlier.

 

[ZaytovenCat]

This is so flawed.

First you're comparing Cal to the rest of the coaches and teams on that list as if they all have equally talented teams. Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up.

Also, what sticks out to me is the two outliers in that group: Kansas and Kentucky. We've essentially become KU and Self. Having a bunch of chances and choking away nearly every single one. And what's even more ironic, Cal and Self's single title have come against each other. If Kansas doesn't play Memphis there's a good chance Kansas finds a way to blow that title. If we had played, say, UNC in the title instead of Kansas then I really don't know that we have 8 right now. I truely believe the 2012 team was one of the best college teams in the past 20 years but there is an unquestionable pattern with Cal teams here. They make deep runs only to blow it when they likely should have been that years champion. 2012 had some different animals on that team but you never know.

 

[StubbornPenny]

What constitutes a "legit shot?"

Elite 8 and up, and I said it in my OP.

 

[GoCatsForever2k15]

This is so flawed.

First you're comparing Cal to the rest of the coaches and teams on that list as if they all have equally talented teams. Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up.

Also, what sticks out to me is the two outliers in that group: Kansas and Kentucky. We've essentially become KU and Self. Having a bunch of chances and choking away nearly every single one. And what's even more ironic, Cal and Self's single title have come against each other. If Kansas doesn't play Memphis there's a good chance Kansas finds a way to blow that title. If we had played, say, UNC in the title instead of Kansas then I really don't know that we have 8 right now. I truely believe the 2012 team was one of the best college teams in the past 20 years but there is an unquestionable pattern with Cal teams here. They make deep runs only to blow it when they likely should have been that years champion. 2012 had some different animals on that team but you never know.

It takes something serious cajones to call someone else's post flawed and to then post this bull shit

 

[OldEvilleCat]

This is so flawed.

First you're comparing Cal to the rest of the coaches and teams on that list as if they all have equally talented teams. Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up.

Ask Coach K how well he did with all the talent he had...

 

[ZaytovenCat]

Ask Coach K how well he did with all the talent he had...

Uhh he's got 5 titles. Including 2 since Cal has been here. I'd gladly take that right now.

 

[StubbornPenny]

This is so flawed.

First you're comparing Cal to the rest of the coaches and teams on that list as if they all have equally talented teams. Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up.

Also, what sticks out to me is the two outliers in that group: Kansas and Kentucky. We've essentially become KU and Self. Having a bunch of chances and choking away nearly every single one. And what's even more ironic, Cal and Self's single title have come against each other. If Kansas doesn't play Memphis there's a good chance Kansas finds a way to blow that title. If we had played, say, UNC in the title instead of Kansas then I really don't know that we have 8 right now. I truely believe the 2012 team was one of the best college teams in the past 20 years but there is an unquestionable pattern with Cal teams here. They make deep runs only to blow it when they likely should have been that years champion. 2012 had some different animals on that team but you never know.

"Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up" is an inherently more flawed concept that anything I put up here.. there is absolutely no way to even begin to prove what you said. At least I'm trying.

Time doesn't care about the individual talent of any given team, and the randomness of the tournament doesn't either. Like in 2015, we had one of the most talented teams ever but there were also two other mega teams looming (Duke and Wisconsin). Other years, much worse teams win. The idea is the the best teams get the most chances and eventually those pay off. They almost HAVE to.

I get what you're saying, but when two great coaches go against each other, one HAS to lose. In the tournament, all the great coaches go against each other, and they all lose except one. There aren't enough titles to go around for elite coaches. It's futile to point out who beat who and how through the lens of time. Even K and Roy lose in the tournament and title game pretty often. It's a non starter.

Let's suppose what you say is true: In reality, maybe we ARE Kansas. It is possible that despite the treatment, K and Roy are just better (ugh) than everyone else. Okay. What now? Ditch Cal? For who? For what? Who can match his rates? Who can possibly match Roys or Ks? What is you plan of action?

Again, K and Roy can't win it every year. Eventually our chances pay off. Sometimes they pay off in bunches. Sometimes they don't. All I know is that K and Roy have few years left, and Cal could have 10-15 more.

 

[StubbornPenny]

Uhh he's got 5 titles. Including 2 since Cal has been here. I'd gladly take that right now.

Statistically, you do have him. Better in fact, in some ways. Over time, you might see that.

 

[spotter34]

This is for the dummies today bemoaning the players leaving. Read the numbers and weep.. or go find another team.

Let's look at what teams have had a legit shot (Elite 8 or up) under their elite coaches:
Team: (number of chances) in (number of years as head coach), titles, (% of chances, % of titles)

Gonzaga: 2 shots in 18 years, 0 (11%, 0%)
UNC: 8 shots in 14 years, 3 (57%, 21%)
Duke: 14 in 37 years, 5 (38%, 13%), and more of these came 20 years ago than you'd like to admit
Kansas: 7 in 14, 1 (50%, 7%)
Louisville: 6 in 16, 1 (37%, 6%)
Arizona: 3 in 8, 0 (37%, 0%)
Villanova: 3 in 16, 1 (19%, 6%)
Wisconsin: 3 in 16, 0 (19%, 0%) *two coaches
Mich St: 9 in 22, 1 (41%, 5%)

Kentucky: 6 in 8, 1 (75%, 12%)

Legit shots in total years: 55 in 145 for (37%). So if you have an elite coach, you probably have around a 37% chance at being "in it." Cal obliterates that percentage with 75%. No one else is even close.

Titles per legit shot: So for 9 elite coaches' legit shots, we have 12 titles out of 55 chances for 22%. Not a surprise that if a few balls bounced our way, we're sitting at 25% clip on titles, which would be WELL above the average. As we are, we're on the lower side of normal.

Let's take out UNC and Duke because of the obvious preferential treatment that us, Nova, Gonzaga or even Kansas will never get. Now we have a cool 30% of elite coaches getting a shot. Now we have 3 titles in 33 shots for 9%. Cal is destroying any coach not named K or Roy, and not at a school named Duke or UNC. The titles will come with shots, we can see that. You can only look at NCAA titles with a longitudinal eye.

Can you still argue Cal's system doesn't work? Yes, we've been on the unlucky side of things, or in some cases, on the bad side of officiating. But we're beating most of the averages by far, and the ones we aren't can be attributed to the random nature of the tournament. It sucks to deal with a loss, but in the grand scheme, we are in a better place than any program not named UNC or Duke, with a coach a decade and change younger. THE TITLES WILL COME WITH CHANCES. One year means nothing. Many years mean everything.

I love posts like this. Thanks for putting the time in to get this info together. Very informative.

I was arguing with my dad this morning about Cal's success at UK. Now he loves Cal but he just doesn't think Cal will have future success at winning national championships. He just doesn't think you can do it continuously relying on freshmen. I just disagree with that line of thinking. It's more difficult, I'll admit, but this has never been done before what Cal is doing. There is a lot of trial and error that goes into perfecting a new process for doing anything. I'm convinced if Cal stays at UK another 7 or 8 years he could end up with 2-3 more titles. He's figuring this out and he and us are going to reap the rewards. The only caveat is seeding and officiating and those are completely out of his control but he's taking that into consideration now in how he constructs his rosters annually. I forgot how many years the crook Calhoun was at UConn before he won his first title but it was around 15-18 years I'm guessing. He then went on a nice little streak of titles in a short amount of time. I think Cal is on the verge of the same thing. Or at least I hope.

 

[OldEvilleCat]

Uhh he's got 5 titles. Including 2 since Cal has been here. I'd gladly take that right now.

I doubt it...then you'd bitch cause he didn't have 3.

 

[YouKay]

The last line of the OP is the most important. Mike Krzyzewski and Roy Williams are at the end of their coaching careers. What they have done is indisputably great. But they're done. Would not totally shock me if both of them retire next week. John Calipari just extended his contract for another 7 years. He's the new coach of the USA under-19 team, which K used so effectively to land top-10 talent. Last year he got Bam Adebayo out of North Carolina, a guy Roy really wanted.

I think Cal's best days may still be ahead of him. Can't say that about any of those other coaches.

 

[StubbornPenny]

I love posts like this. Thanks for putting the time in to get this info together. Very informative.

I was arguing with my dad this morning about Cal's success at UK. Now he loves Cal but he just doesn't think Cal will have future success at winning national championships. He just doesn't think you can do it continuously relying on freshmen. I just disagree with that line of thinking. It's more difficult, I'll admit, but this has never been done before what Cal is doing. There is a lot of trial and error that goes into perfecting a new process for doing anything. I'm convinced if Cal stays at UK another 7 or 8 years he could end up with 2-3 more titles. He's figuring this out and he and us are going to reap the rewards. The only caveat is seeding and officiating and those are completely out of his control but he's taking that into consideration now in how he constructs his rosters annually. I forgot how many years the crook Calhoun was at UConn before he won his first title but it was around 15-18 years I'm guessing. He then went on a nice little streak of titles in a short amount of time. I think Cal is on the verge of the same thing. Or at least I hope.

I hate Calhoun, but man is he underrated. His legit shots were better than most, and his title rate was unreal, and if you count Ollie's title as his doing, it's even crazier.

 

[Blueaz]

Tell that to the @ZaytovenCat 's of the world. They will still complain that Cal doesn't win it every year.

Basically I meant that we should have won 2 titles so far in Cal's 8 seasons at bare minimum. Truthfully it should really be 3 but just 2 would be enough to overlook the other blown opportunities and be satisfied with what Cal has done so far.

With the players and teams we have had and as many times we have made the Final Four, hell no 1 out of 8 isn't enough.

The homers will never admit it but we are underachieving and pissing away one of the best opportunities UK has ever had to win titles.

^^^ doesn't understand how much sheer luck/chance goes into winning a title due to the enormous parity in college basketball coupled with a single elimination tournament.

The guy who just won his third title last night? After his second, he went seven seasons without even making it to a final four.

who? this guy?

 

[ZaytovenCat]

"Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up" is an inherently more flawed concept that anything I put up here.. there is absolutely no way to even begin to prove what you said. At least I'm trying.

Time doesn't care about the individual talent of any given team, and the randomness of the tournament doesn't either. Like in 2015, we had one of the most talented teams ever but there were also two other mega teams looming (Duke and Wisconsin). Other years, much worse teams win. The idea is the the best teams get the most chances and eventually those pay off. They almost HAVE to.

I get what you're saying, but when two great coaches go against each other, one HAS to lose. In the tournament, all the great coaches go against each other, and they all lose except one. There aren't enough titles to go around for elite coaches. It's futile to point out who beat who and how through the lens of time. Even K and Roy lose in the tournament and title game pretty often. It's a non starter.

Let's suppose what you say is true: In reality, maybe we ARE Kansas. It is possible that despite the treatment, K and Roy are just better (ugh) than everyone else. Okay. What now? Ditch Cal? For who? For what? Who can match his rates? Who can possibly match Roys or Ks? What is you plan of action?

Again, K and Roy can't win it every year. Eventually our chances pay off. Sometimes they pay off in bunches. Sometimes they don't. All I know is that K and Roy have few years left, and Cal could have 10-15 more.

Nice post.

At this point I think Roy and K are better than everyone else, that includes Cal.

I don't think there's a better realistic option than Cal as of now. Cal has all the tools to take the top spot as the best coach but he has to make a couple changes to the way he does things and unfortunately for us, the main thing he needs to change is the one thing he won't budge on. We have GOT to start returning some of our good freshmen. Relying on 5-7 freshmen every year to be the main part of your team just isn't going to work. There has to be balance.

 

[spotter34]

I hate Calhoun, but man is he underrated. His legit shots were better than most, and his title rate was unreal, and if you count Ollie's title as his doing, it's even crazier.

My main point with Calhoun though is the fact that he didn't even make a final four for a long time (13 years). He started at UConn in 1986 and didn't win his first title until 1999. Then he won again in 2004 and 2011, (he assembled the team in 2014). Now you can make the point that his team ended up on probation (and hopefully Roy's will too) but there is a trend that shows some of these elite coaches had their titles come in short periods of time.

 

[StubbornPenny]

Another big caveat: when K and Roy go away, their absurd amount of chances have to go to someone. Who do they go to? Will the be randomly distributed? Not likely. I know we love to rag on Self, but he's a great age, just like Cal is. I think you will start to see those chances fall to Kansas and Kentucky more, and you start seeing those chances pay off more.

This especially would be true if UNC or Duke makes a bad hire. UNC has already made a bad hire before Roy (Doherty), and if K insists on an in house, anything can happen.

 

[Titles1]

Cal apologists. Some are more a fan of him than UK.

 

[brianpoe]

Nice post.

At this point I think Roy and K are better than everyone else, that includes Cal.

I don't think there's a better realistic option than Cal as of now. Cal has all the tools to take the top spot as the best coach but he has to make a couple changes to the way he does things and unfortunately for us, the main thing he needs to change is the one thing he won't budge on. We have GOT to start returning some of our good freshmen. Relying on 5-7 freshmen every year to be the main part of your team just isn't going to work. There has to be balance.

Cal recruited prior to the season endings expecting Bledsoe, Teague, Lamb, Dakari, and Booker to return. Only Eric and Devin improved to the point that they were solid picks.

 

[brianpoe]

Cal apologists. Some are more a fan of him than UK.

Some whine and complain about him in every post.

 

[StubbornPenny]

Nice post.

At this point I think Roy and K are better than everyone else, that includes Cal.

I don't think there's a better realistic option than Cal as of now. Cal has all the tools to take the top spot as the best coach but he has to make a couple changes to the way he does things and unfortunately for us, the main thing he needs to change is the one thing he won't budge on. We have GOT to start returning some of our good freshmen. Relying on 5-7 freshmen every year to be the main part of your team just isn't going to work. There has to be balance.

Emotionally, I get what you're saying. I feel that way too. But my question is, "do the numbers back up what we feel?" As of now, I'm feeling like the numbers do not back up what we feel. It looks like there's a direct correlation in chances and titles. The rest, which includes who wins in any given year, who shoots well that day, who has a bad call against them, or who get an injury, are all dumb luck. You can have a whole team of seniors shoot 3-33 in the second half on one day, but I bet with 12-13 legit shots, you will luck into two titles. Probably with your two worst teams!

 

[gracetoyou]

This is so flawed.

First you're comparing Cal to the rest of the coaches and teams on that list as if they all have equally talented teams. Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up.

Also, what sticks out to me is the two outliers in that group: Kansas and Kentucky. We've essentially become KU and Self. Having a bunch of chances and choking away nearly every single one. And what's even more ironic, Cal and Self's single title have come against each other. If Kansas doesn't play Memphis there's a good chance Kansas finds a way to blow that title. If we had played, say, UNC in the title instead of Kansas then I really don't know that we have 8 right now. I truely believe the 2012 team was one of the best college teams in the past 20 years but there is an unquestionable pattern with Cal teams here. They make deep runs only to blow it when they likely should have been that years champion. 2012 had some different animals on that team but you never know.

I guess when one is confronted with facts, like yourself, your only defense is to turn to speculation...lol.

I really wish we could prune fans like you off the BBN vine.

 

[StubbornPenny]

My main point with Calhoun though is the fact that he didn't even make a final four for a long time (13 years). He started at UConn in 1986 and didn't win his first title until 1999. Then he won again in 2004 and 2011, (he assembled the team in 2014). Now you can make the point that his team ended up on probation (and hopefully Roy's will too) but there is a trend that shows some of these elite coaches had their titles come in short periods of time.

Absolutely, and this is one area where UK may have a disadvantage. Can that momentum be carried through teams of completely different players? Would the entirety of Kentucky's titles be more scattered? Or are these things that look like "streaks" actually just "good luck" and our brains try to lump them into something logical?

 

[CHAMPCAT11]

Some whine and complain about him in every post.

BRIAN- You and I seem to be civil towards one another even when we don't agree but I may piss you off here and that is NOT my intent. I have to say that I pretty much agree that a number of posters seem to be Cal fans more so than UK fans. Of all the programs in the NCAA I would think UK fans would be far and away more supportive of the program than the coach. Do you disagree with me on this ?

 

[Slowwalker]

This is so flawed.

First you're comparing Cal to the rest of the coaches and teams on that list as if they all have equally talented teams. Give those other schools what we have had and their numbers go up.

Also, what sticks out to me is the two outliers in that group: Kansas and Kentucky. We've essentially become KU and Self. Having a bunch of chances and choking away nearly every single one. And what's even more ironic, Cal and Self's single title have come against each other. If Kansas doesn't play Memphis there's a good chance Kansas finds a way to blow that title. If we had played, say, UNC in the title instead of Kansas then I really don't know that we have 8 right now. I truely believe the 2012 team was one of the best college teams in the past 20 years but there is an unquestionable pattern with Cal teams here. They make deep runs only to blow it when they likely should have been that years champion. 2012 had some different animals on that team but you never know.

LOL

 

[Hoskins21]

BRIAN- You and I seem to be civil towards one another even when we don't agree but I may piss you off here and that is NOT my intent. I have to say that I pretty much agree that a number of posters seem to be Cal fans more so than UK fans. Of all the programs in the NCAA I would think UK fans would be far and away more supportive of the program than the coach. Do you disagree with me on this ?

What has Cal done so horribly to the program that he doesn't deserve support?

 

[StubbornPenny]

Another interesting project would be titles by age. I think most coaches win their titles later in their career, which would mean Self and Cal are both poised to add a lot of titles once K and Roy go away. Seriously, can K and Roy go away? Please?

 

[Mojocat]

Cal apologists. Some are more a fan of him than UK.

Cal critics. Most are more dumbass than anything else.

 

[brianpoe]

BRIAN- You and I seem to be civil towards one another even when we don't agree but I may piss you off here and that is NOT my intent. I have to say that I pretty much agree that a number of posters seem to be Cal fans more so than UK fans. Of all the programs in the NCAA I would think UK fans would be far and away more supportive of the program than the coach. Do you disagree with me on this ?

My post was referring specifically to the poster I replied to. He has been here 2 weeks and has been nonstop.

Name the posters who like Cal better than UK?

Sure as hell isnt me, you can search the 5000 times I have said his coaching cost us in 10, 14, and 15.


Again, please tell us who is on this list?

 

[Blueaz]

BRIAN- You and I seem to be civil towards one another even when we don't agree but I may piss you off here and that is NOT my intent. I have to say that I pretty much agree that a number of posters seem to be Cal fans more so than UK fans. Of all the programs in the NCAA I would think UK fans would be far and away more supportive of the program than the coach. Do you disagree with me on this ?

not answering for Brian...but I have seen Brian post that we should have more under Cal. But basically why beat that horse to death? We are in it 7 outa 8 years! What really more can one ask for or expect in this current system the NBA has set up?
Is Cal the best coach ever? Hell, no!
Is he arguably the best coach for the OADs? Hell, yes! Can anyone else basically take a new team every year and expect to be "in it"? nope

 

[kydmb99]

Only in the minds of a few ridiculous, borderline mentally ill Kentucky basketball fans (Zaytoven mainly) could praising a coach who has 1 title, 4 Final Fours, 2 Elite 8's, 4 30+ win seasons, etc. in only 8 seasons qualify you as an "apologist".

 

[new era cat]

Op, you can't count this year in all fairness.
Higgins put us in a terrible hole.
Sure, I believe Cal should have used or made sure his players knew to call that TO at the end, but that is a small mistake compared to intentional sabotage...

 

[anon_013cn8yrfncx2]

I love posts like this. Thanks for putting the time in to get this info together. Very informative.

I was arguing with my dad this morning about Cal's success at UK. Now he loves Cal but he just doesn't think Cal will have future success at winning national championships. He just doesn't think you can do it continuously relying on freshmen. I just disagree with that line of thinking. It's more difficult, I'll admit, but this has never been done before what Cal is doing. There is a lot of trial and error that goes into perfecting a new process for doing anything. I'm convinced if Cal stays at UK another 7 or 8 years he could end up with 2-3 more titles. He's figuring this out and he and us are going to reap the rewards. The only caveat is seeding and officiating and those are completely out of his control but he's taking that into consideration now in how he constructs his rosters annually. I forgot how many years the crook Calhoun was at UConn before he won his first title but it was around 15-18 years I'm guessing. He then went on a nice little streak of titles in a short amount of time. I think Cal is on the verge of the same thing. Or at least I hope.

We all have hope. Truthfully, tho, I don't see any trial and error on Cal's part. He hasn't changed a thing other than using the platoon which he abandoned down the stretch in 2015.
BTW, shouldn't Cal make the elite eight 6 out of every 8 years with the level of talent he's able to recruit. The only variable is the strength or weakness of any particular HS class. I would give him a met expectations so far. I fully expect 6 out of the next 8 as well. Else what good is the approach?

 

[Comebakatz3]

Uhh he's got 5 titles. Including 2 since Cal has been here. I'd gladly take that right now.

Coach K was in his 11th season before winning a title at Duke. Cal won one with Kentucky in just three years. Coach K, after winning back to back, then went 9 more seasons before winning another title. Cal has only been here 5 since winning his first. Coach K then went another 9 years before winning another title in 2010, and during that time he lost in the Sweet 16 or earlier 7 out of the 9 years. It took K another 5 years before winning again. That is looking at 36 years. If you merely focus on certain 8 year periods then even Coach K can look much less impressive. Cal has only been here a relatively short time and despite that his record is outstanding.

Here is the real question though... who would you prefer that could actually do better? You going to hire away Coach K or Roy Williams? Hell, even Williams had an 8 year period between his titles. So, what makes you believe they'd do better than Cal in just 8 years here?

 

[ruppcat]

This is for the dummies today bemoaning the players leaving. Read the numbers and weep.. or go find another team.

Let's look at what teams have had a legit shot (Elite 8 or up) under their elite coaches:
Team: (number of chances) in (number of years as head coach), titles, (% of chances, % of titles)

Gonzaga: 2 shots in 18 years, 0 (11%, 0%)
UNC: 8 shots in 14 years, 3 (57%, 21%)
Duke: 14 in 37 years, 5 (38%, 13%), and more of these came 20 years ago than you'd like to admit
Kansas: 7 in 14, 1 (50%, 7%)
Louisville: 6 in 16, 1 (37%, 6%)
Arizona: 3 in 8, 0 (37%, 0%)
Villanova: 3 in 16, 1 (19%, 6%)
Wisconsin: 3 in 16, 0 (19%, 0%) *two coaches
Mich St: 9 in 22, 1 (41%, 5%)

Kentucky: 6 in 8, 1 (75%, 12%)

Legit shots in total years: 55 in 145 for (37%). So if you have an elite coach, you probably have around a 37% chance at being "in it." Cal obliterates that percentage with 75%. No one else is even close.

Titles per legit shot: So for 9 elite coaches' legit shots, we have 12 titles out of 55 chances for 22%. Not a surprise that if a few balls bounced our way, we're sitting at 25% clip on titles, which would be WELL above the average. As we are, we're on the lower side of normal.

Let's take out UNC and Duke because of the obvious preferential treatment that us, Nova, Gonzaga or even Kansas will never get. Now we have a cool 30% of elite coaches getting a shot. Now we have 3 titles in 33 shots for 9%. Cal is destroying any coach not named K or Roy, and not at a school named Duke or UNC. The titles will come with shots, we can see that. You can only look at NCAA titles with a longitudinal eye.

Can you still argue Cal's system doesn't work? Yes, we've been on the unlucky side of things, or in some cases, on the bad side of officiating. But we're beating most of the averages by far, and the ones we aren't can be attributed to the random nature of the tournament. It sucks to deal with a loss, but in the grand scheme, we are in a better place than any program not named UNC or Duke, with a coach a decade and change younger. THE TITLES WILL COME WITH CHANCES. One year means nothing. Many years mean everything.

Factor in UCONN.

They have four titles since 2009 IIRC.