You might think that’s obvious. I might think that’s obvious. But it hasn’t been obvious to most on here for the whole season.
Michigan could replace Trey McKinney with just about any decent role player. He isn’t the engine making them run. Is it nice to have him? Sure. “Need” him? Not buying that. We watching the same team?
And just picked up a top recruit tonight. At some point Pope has to get a recruit.
Hurley >>> Underwood and May has proven his worth this season.
You say that until we go 4 or 5 seasons without a natty and then you'd be wanting a change.
If Michigan wins the title, it actually could be the dawn of a new trend. I don’t know yet. Could be but it’s a small sample size. On the other hand, eleven straight years of championship teams that are non-freshman led is significant. It makes me worry about the Stokes deal next year if I’m honest.
Why? He's not coming here anyway.
Yep just like the “man, at this point I’d be glad just to get to the second weekend.” Then, after we got to the second weekend, the same people declared that year “bad” (even though it was better than the statistical average) and will even get angry if you mention the Sweet 16. They’ll say “hang a banner”. People are justifiably angry but let it override reason.
This is false and been debunked so many times. Kentucky had not only poor roster continuity but also poor minutes continuity. To be fair, Michigan doesn’t have strong roster continuity but theirs is about 7 percentage points higher than ours and kept their heavy rotation together. Also, they returned two starter level guys from last year. We returned Oweh. Garrison was a mid level rotation guy.
I also remember people (and I was one of them admittedly) saying they would take literally ANYONE over Cal. Some of those same people threw a fit when Pope was hired and never did give him a chance. My point being, people say crazy crap on here all the time they don't honestly mean.
Well, I hope not. As I’ve always said.
Well you will have your wish and likely Pope will not be able to get the top portal targets either.
I know. And that’s the frustrating part. If people dial back the hyperbole you can have a real conversation that has meaningful distinction to it.
This isn't remotely true, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. Just because Kentucky followed the model and didn't win doesn't mean the model is flawed. Lots of teams follow the model and don't win because only one team can. What matters is that the team that wins virtually always follows it, and teams who don't virtually never win it all.
Players like Kenneth Faried don’t stay at schools like Morehead anymore because they can transfer and be immediately eligible. To me that is the biggest change.
What freshman dominated teams ever won?
I've seen posts like that too. It's just people who lack emotional self control. They know good and well it's not true but that's the only way they know how to vent. I'm glad you are passing them by. I'm working on that too.
Also 2003.
Three come to mind. 2012 Kentucky (AD, MKG, Teague), 2015 Duke (Okafor, Winslow, Jones) and 03 Syracuse (Carmelo Anthony and Gerry McNamara).
Yeah I’d take Zona’s final 4, I guess that isn’t successful anymore? I sure miss going 36-3.
You are just trying way too hard to deflect.
90% of what you just typed debunks literally nothing I said. Kentucky had low roster continuity from the ‘25 to ‘26 season. Actual fact. Far lower than the two teams playing for the title. How about you go debunk that instead of something I didn’t say? If you need help, I’ll tell you how to calculate it.
You state an objective viewpoint and then use the subjective for evidence. Kinda skewed.
