Mr. 63%: Why Context Is Inseparable from the Statistic

[Im The Village Idiot]

DISCLAIMERS --- THIS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE
This is intended to be a thorough, thoughtful and comprehensive response to an argument. This means it is going to be very long-winded and detailed, so anyone who doesn't like long posts should exit the room now. You've been warned, so anyone complaining about the length of the post has no legs to stand on --- I told you what to expect in the first paragraph. Also, my post does not intend to prove that Mark Pope is going to be great at Kentucky. That is something I am not sure that I believe in the first place. I'd also prefer to reveal my own bias: I am uncertain whether or not I trust Mark Pope as the head coach of the program I love so deeply. I, however, sincerely want it to work for many reasons. That could be a subject I cover in another post somewhere down the line. For now, as a reader, please understand this --- I want Mark Pope to be criticized openly, rebuked sharply and corrected accurately when there are genuine concerns and fair critiques. His career winning percentage is not one of those. Therefore, I will slay the beast with a sword of truth.
(Also, AI was used as an editor, more particularly in the final sections. This is 100% my research, my methodology, my conclusions, etc but readability needed the help.)

INTRODUCTION --- THE ARGUMENT ITSELF
"Mark Pope has a career winning percentage of 63%. That's what he is. That's what he has always been...and that's what he will always be." Perhaps, you have seen an argument like this before on X, TikTok, YouTube comments or message board posts. Maybe you were convinced by it, finding it to be analytically sound and logically informed. Some of you were probably put off by it, feeling it to be misleading and lacking the context needed to be effective. Regardless of how we feel about it, many of us have encountered it and "Mr. 63%" has become part of the lexicon of certain members of Big Blue Nation. The argument is very simple --- Coach Mark Pope's past will predict his future. Anyone waiting for a dramatic change in performance does so in vain. I will set out to examine this argument further in this set of posts.

THE MOTIVATION --- WHY REFUTE IT?
I've long believed discourse is most optimized when arguments are honest, defensible and robust. This allows debate to resonate as a means for intellectual growth, learning and understanding. We're currently at a crossroads with Mark Pope and most of us, even if we don't always articulate it precisely, remain undecided about the efficacy of a Mark Pope-run Kentucky basketball program. Yet, we see many people who are so certain that he will lead the program to national championships/Final Fours or that he will destroy the program, leading it into dark doldrums of futility. I, like many others, would appreciate more clarity myself with regards to whether Mark Pope is the person who will restore our program back to the national forefront. Sifting through bad argumentation is part of my own journey in finding those answers. I have to say --- the "Mr. 63%" argument stands as one of the most disingenuous arguments being regularly circulated at this time. I absolutely believe there are many serious concerns about Mark Pope and would be happy to discuss those in other posts, if requested. So, this refutation is for the health of Big Blue Nation, an invitation to sincere dialogue and a repudiation of poor argumentation. I will set out to argue --- success for Pope will be dictated by his performance at Kentucky, not what happened in the nine seasons prior to becoming the most polarizing figure in the commonwealth.

SETTING THE TABLE --- THE LIMITATIONS OF PREDICTIVE POWER / CONTEXTLESS/DISANALAGOUS MESS?
The "Mr. 63%" argument sets its foundation on the predictive power of winning percentage. The idea that Pope's Kentucky performance will closely mirror what he was prior to Kentucky simply may or may not be true. We don't know that yet. I do know this though --- his career winning percentage when he was hired is not good evidence for it either way. Don't believe me? In order to demonstrate just how ineffective it is to predict the later stages of a coach's career solely based on early-career winning percentage, I have listed several coaches' records for you. Challenge yourself to determine who the coaches are for each of these datasets:

COACH 1: 21-8, 21-9, 18-13, 19-12, 20-10, 16-12, 27-6, 23-8, 29-5 WINNING PERCENTAGE 70.0%
COACH 2: 18-17, 28-7, 24-9, 17-15, 12-15, 22-13, 19-14, 29-8, 25-10 WINNING PERCENTAGE 64.2%
COACH 3: 11-14, 20-8, 19-9, 14-11, 9-17, 17-13, 10-17, 11-17, 24-10 WINNING PERCENTAGE 53.7%
COACH 4: 31-5, 20-9, 25-8, 29-8, 27-10, 31-5, 25-9, 28-6, 22-17 WINNING PERCENTAGE 75.6%
COACH 5: 13-16, 10-19, 7-22, 16-12, 22-11, 15-12, 20-11, 23-9, 17-13 WINNING PERCENTAGE 53.4%
COACH 6: 19-7, 12-11, 12-12, 12-13, 12-14, 14-12, 13-13, 19-8, 24-6 WINNING PERCENTAGE 58.8%
COACH 7: 10-18, 9-18, 12-15, 19-12, 22-10, 24-7, 26-5, 19-13, 15-16 WINNING PERCENTAGE 57.8%
COACH 8: 13-17, 25-6, 8-21, 14-18, 23-10, 17-15, 25-10, 26-8, 16-17 WINNING PERCENTAGE 57.8%
COACH 9: 12-18, 17-17, 23-11, 25-10, 24-8, 20-7, 24-11, 19-15, 23-11 WINNING PERCENTAGE 63.3%
COACH 10: 6-21, 10-17, 18-9, 21-7, 19-12, 23-10, 32-5, 27-8, 26-9 WINNING PERCENTAGE 65.0%
COACH 11: 15-12, 20-13, 16-14, 28-8, 24-7, 26-7, 37-2, 26-7, 23-12 WINNING PERCENTAGE 72.4%

All eleven coaches I included in the datasets above were measured for their first nine seasons as a Division I college basketball coach. The reason I chose nine years --- that is how much Division I head coaching experience Mark Pope brought with him to Kentucky. I expect that, devoid of much-needed context, you will find it a considerable task to properly name each of the coaches above. Why? Each coach had his own journey, his own challenges, his own progression and his own set of circumstances that played into the winning percentage they earned. Many want to cite a winning percentage and disallow the context to tell the full story. If we do such a thing for Pope, we should do it for other coaches as well, right? I think such an approach is lacking. I'll reveal the names later, in a future section of this post. For now, ask yourselves which of the coaches went to multiple Final Fours? Which ones were national champions? Which ones are current Hall of Famers? Do you need more information than the career winning percentage to know? If you do, you're finding the winning percentage argument to be lacking already...

Purely for the hilarity, I included the first five years of three coaches that many Kentucky fans are familiar with. If you guess these correctly, pat yourself on the back:

BONUS COACH 1: 25-7, 27-6, 29-5, 21-12, 21-13 WINNING PERCENTAGE 74.1%
BONUS COACH 2: 10-11, 15-9, 12-9, 20-8, 13-13 WINNING PERCENTAGE 58.3%
BONUS COACH 3: 27-9, 28-12, 29-7, 27-9, 26-9 WINNING PERCENTAGE 74.9%

MOVING OF THE GOALPOSTS / EXPOSING THE INCONSISTENT STANDARD
As we delve further into this topic, we are certain to encounter a couple of obstacles. I've listed eleven (and three bonus) coaches and asked you to assume which ones were successful (choose your own definition of success and apply the definition equally) and which ones were not. However, when the names are revealed, you will notice the goalposts move. Many will begin citing the much-needed context for why certain names are not fair examples. However, this endeavor actually violates their own rules --- referring to Pope as "Mr. 63%" is devoid of the context that explains why his percentage is what it is so far.

I expect many of you reading this to immediately object once the names are revealed. You'll say the comparisons aren't fair because the circumstances were different. If that's your reaction, then you've already accepted the premise I'm asking you to consider: context matters.

More on that later. There is, however, a larger problem here that goes unseen by many. There is cognitive bias at play here --- hindsight bias. Many will correctly point out that comparing Mark Pope to Dan Hurley is disanalogous. They're right. Every coaching career is shaped by unique circumstances. That's precisely the point. If every coaching journey is different, then context isn't optional—it is part of the evidence. However, some will prefer to use the 63.3% as a proof-text, while throwing a penalty flag if Hall of Famers are mentioned. The moment context begins helping Dan Hurley, Bill Self, or Mike Krzyzewski, context becomes indispensable. The moment context begins helping Mark Pope, context suddenly becomes an excuse. Why does this happen? In part because of hindsight bias. Once we know how a story ends, our brains naturally begin to think it was more predictable than it really was. Sure, we may not have known how the career of Dan Hurley would turn out early on, but we now see the name and immediately recognize him for the future first ballot Hall of Famer that he is. We know of the national championships, the final fours and the dominance. I do not argue that Pope will compare to anyone in the list above, including Hurley. We do not know that. The point is not that early-career performance tells us nothing. The point is that, standing alone, it does not tell us nearly as much as its advocates claim. We all suffer from hindsight bias. I do. You do. Everyone does. Once we know the finish, we become convinced that it was obvious all along. Dan Hurley becoming Dan Hurley feels inevitable now. It wasn't. Bill Self becoming Bill Self feels inevitable now. It wasn't. Mike Krzyzewski becoming Coach K feels inevitable now. It wasn't. That's exactly why I'm asking you to evaluate these coaching records before seeing the names attached to them. That's why this exercise matters. I'm asking you to evaluate these records as they would have appeared at the time, not through the lens of careers we already know the ending to.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

REVISITING THE TABLE --- REVEALING THE CARDS / NOW CAN WE ALLOW SOME CONTEXT?
Remember when we set the table by listing eleven coaches earlier? I told you we would reveal the names so that you could see how predictable their careers would be based on contextless win percentage:

COACH 1: Greg Marshall - 70.0%
COACH 2: TJ Otzelberger - 64.2%
COACH 3: Mike Krzyzewski - 53.7%
COACH 4: Jamie Dixon - 75.6%
COACH 5: Kelvin Sampson - 53.4%
COACH 6: Jim Calhoun - 58.8%
COACH 7: Jay Wright - 57.8%
COACH 8: Dan Hurley - 57.8%
COACH 9: Mark Pope - 63.3%
COACH 10: Bill Self - 65.0%
COACH 11: Bruce Weber - 72.4%

BONUS COACH 1: Mark Fox - 74.1%
BONUS COACH 2: Joe B. Hall - 58.3%
BONUS COACH 3: Shaka Smart 74.9%

How many of you immediately looked at Coach K and thought "Yeah, but he wasn't a finished product"? Or Dan Hurley and thought: "His circumstances were completely different." Or Bill Self and thought: "You have to consider where he started." Good. That's exactly what I've been hoping you'd do. Because you've just demonstrated that context is inseparable from the statistic.

Let us suppose you've been hired to identify the next college basketball coach for your school. Someone hands you the list of names and shows you the winning percentage from their first nine seasons as a DI coach...I'd hope you're demanding to know why the percentages are what they are. If career winning percentage after nine seasons were the reliable predictor many claim it is, these would be perfectly rational hiring decisions.

Hire Jamie Dixon instead of Mike Krzyzewski.
Hire Bruce Weber instead of Dan Hurley.
Hire Greg Marshall instead of Jay Wright.

Almost no athletic director in America would defend those decisions today. Why?

Because we instinctively understand that career trajectories are more complicated than one percentage. If your instinct after seeing those names was to ask for context, then you've already accepted the central premise of this article.

Not all winning percentages are created equal. We need the context. We all want know the WHY rather than simply the WHAT, right? So next we will do a year-by-year assessment about the conditions that led to Pope's winning percentage.


POPE'S JOURNEY — HIS PRE-KENTUCKY CAREER VIEWED THROUGH A REASONABLE LENS

We've now established a principle that I hope most of us agree upon: context is inseparable from the statistic. If we are willing to grant Coach K, Dan Hurley, Bill Self and Jay Wright the benefit of context when evaluating their early careers, then intellectual honesty requires us to do the same for Mark Pope. We asked for context when evaluating Coach K, Dan Hurley, Bill Self, Jay Wright and everyone else. Intellectual consistency now requires us to extend that same courtesy to Mark Pope.

Let's examine the "63.3%" that so many are eager to cite.

Utah Valley (2016–2019)

Mark Pope accepted the Utah Valley job on March 31, 2015. The Wolverines had just finished 11-19 overall and 5-9 in the WAC under Dick Hunsaker.

The challenge became even greater when examining the roster he inherited. Utah Valley's three leading scorers from the previous season were Mitch Bruneel, Zach Nelson and Donte Williams. Bruneel graduated, Williams did not return, and Nelson failed to log a single minute during Pope's first season. In practical terms, Pope inherited an entirely new roster.

2016: In his first season as a Division I head coach, Pope guided Utah Valley to a 12-18 record and 6-8 in conference play. Both represented modest improvements despite returning no double-digit scorers in a pre-transfer portal era at a lower-resource WAC program.

2017: Once again, Pope was forced to rebuild. All three of the previous season's leading scorers were gone. Despite another major roster overhaul, Utah Valley improved to 17-17 while remaining 6-8 in conference.

2018: For the first time, Pope was able to coach a relatively experienced roster. Returning key contributors Kenneth Ogbe, Conner Toolson and Brandon Randolph, the Wolverines jumped to 23-11 and 10-4 in the WAC. Unfortunately, four of the team's six leading scorers exhausted their eligibility after the season.

2019: Rebuilding yet again around Jake and Conner Toolson, Pope produced the best season in program history to that point, finishing 25-10 and 12-4 in conference play.

Viewed chronologically, the progression becomes obvious:

11-19 (before Pope) -> 12-18 -> 17-17 -> 23-11 -> 25-10

That trajectory—not merely the final winning percentage—is what caught BYU's attention.

When BYU hired Pope on April 10, 2019, his career winning percentage stood at 57.9%. Standing alone, that number appears ordinary. Placed in context, it represented a coach who had inherited one of the WAC's weaker programs, navigated repeated roster turnover, steadily improved each season, and ultimately built a consistent winner. BYU did not hire a 57.9% winning percentage. They hired the coach responsible for the trajectory behind it.

BYU (2020–2024)

Pope's next opportunity came at BYU following Dave Rose's retirement. Rose's final team finished 19-13 overall and 11-5 in the WCC. BYU was unquestionably a step above Utah Valley, but it was hardly a national powerhouse waiting to happen.

2020: Pope immediately elevated the program to 24-8 and 13-3 in conference play. The Cougars finished 18th in the final AP Poll—their highest finish in nearly a decade—and were projected as a No. 5 seed before the NCAA Tournament was canceled because of COVID-19.

2021: Once again, Pope faced significant roster turnover. None of BYU's double-digit scorers from the previous season returned. Nevertheless, the Cougars finished 20-7, earned a No. 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament, and eventually lost to a UCLA team that went on to the Final Four.

2022: After losing Brandon Averette and Matt Haarms, Pope returned only one player who had averaged more than seven points per game. Even with another substantial roster reset, BYU finished 24-11 and narrowly missed the NCAA Tournament before advancing to the NIT quarterfinals.

2023: This was, in my opinion, Pope's clearest disappointment before arriving at Kentucky. The Cougars slipped to 19-15 and failed to build on the momentum of previous seasons. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Every coach's resume contains seasons that fall short of expectations. The important question is not whether disappointing seasons exist, but whether those seasons should be evaluated without any surrounding context.

2024: BYU entered perhaps the most difficult transition of Pope's career, moving from the WCC into the Big 12. Many preseason projections placed the Cougars near the bottom of the conference. Instead, BYU finished 23-11, went 10-8 in arguably the nation's toughest league, defeated ranked Baylor and Kansas, earned a No. 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament, and finished fifth in the conference standings. That season ultimately made Pope one of the most attractive coaching candidates in college basketball and led directly to Kentucky's decision to hire him.

Context matters. Athletic directors don't hire percentages. They hire trajectories. Every employer who evaluated Pope's resume concluded he was capable of succeeding at a higher level than his previous job.

SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING THE BIGGER PICTURE

Notice what I have—and have not—done. I have not argued that Mark Pope is destined to become the next Dan Hurley, Bill Self or Mike Krzyzewski. I have not argued that every season was a success. I have not argued that legitimate concerns about his resume do not exist.

Instead, I have done exactly what this article has advocated from the beginning: I examined the context behind the statistic.

Viewed through that lens, Pope's pre-Kentucky career tells the story of a coach who repeatedly inherited roster turnover, steadily improved programs, earned progressively better opportunities, and experienced both successes and setbacks along the way.

You may ultimately conclude that Mark Pope will succeed at Kentucky.

You may ultimately conclude that he will fail.

Reasonable people can disagree on that question.

But after examining his career year by year, one conclusion should be difficult to escape:

The number 63.3% tells only a fraction of the story. The context is not an excuse for the statistic. It is the explanation for the statistic.

FINAL CONCLUSION
Nothing in this article proves Mark Pope will succeed. It was never intended to. If, after reading this, you still believe he will fail, that's a perfectly reasonable position. My argument is simply that career winning percentage, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion.

 

[UKCowboys]

LMAO

 

[UKBB4Ever]

None of those coaches had an open portal and NIL with which to build.

Pope wins at the same percentage with and without those at his disposal.

But I agree that it’s not the only measure. Maybe not even a significant measure given different circumstances and conferences and expectations.

Just watch a Pope coached team play if you want to judge his coaching.

No one can watch a Pope team play and see a well coached team. Win or lose.

The record will reflect the coaching over time though.

He’s 20-16 in the SEC. The worst 2 year record in the SEC of any UK coach in history. That’s with an open checkbook and portal.

1000 paragraphs will not change what he is.

And I haven’t mentioned yet that his teams quit. But I will now.

 

[bgoad72]

Was that the Iliad, the odyssey, or a George R Martin book?

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

@Im The Village Idiot If you’re in the mood to research, I’d be interested in seeing who the above coaches inherited from the year before their first year.

Many of the “63% derp derp guys” spew the portal thing. I’d be willing to bet many of those coaches benefited from there NOT being a portal.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

None of those coaches had an open portal and NIL with which to build.

Pope wins at the same percentage with and without those at his disposal.

But I agree that it’s not the only measure. Maybe not even a significant measure given different circumstances and conferences and expectations.

Just watch a Pope coached team play if you want to judge his coaching.

No one can watch a Pope team play and see a well coached team. Win or lose.

The record will reflect the coaching over time though.

He’s 20-16 in the SEC. The worst 2 year record in the SEC of any UK coach in history. That’s with an open checkbook and portal.

1000 paragraphs will not change what he is.

And I haven’t mentioned yet that his teams quit. But I will now.

I actually think we’re closer to agreement than disagreement.

My article isn’t trying to prove Mark Pope is a great coach or that he’ll succeed at Kentucky. It’s trying to show that “63%” isn’t a strong argument by itself.

You even acknowledge that when you say it’s “maybe not even a significant measure.” That’s really the point I’m making.

If your argument is now that you don’t think Pope’s teams are well coached, that’s a different discussion entirely. Reasonable people can disagree about offensive execution, defensive principles, player development, late-game coaching, or SEC performance.

But notice what happened: we moved away from “63%” and started talking about actual basketball. That’s exactly where I think the conversation should be.

If someone wants to criticize Pope for his SEC record, his tournament results, his X’s and O’s, or the way his teams look on the floor, those are all fair topics. Whether I agree with those criticisms or not, at least they’re discussing his coaching directly instead of treating one career winning percentage as if it settles the entire debate.

 

[BBNinSCar]

Averages can be thrown out a window when we’re talking about Kentucky basketball. There is an incalculable advantage inherent to the program.
These advantages, facilities, fan base, money, esteem, history are only afforded at the most elite schools and UK is the top of that short list.
The minimal expectation is championship contention.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

@Im The Village Idiot If you’re in the mood to research, I’d be interested in seeing who the above coaches inherited from the year before their first year.

Many of the “63% derp derp guys” spew the portal thing. I’d be willing to bet many of those coaches benefited from there NOT being a portal.

I’d love to look into that as well. Won’t be today though. Great idea for a topic.

 

[Bowfreak.]

I’d venture to guess that however much time you spent on that post was time wasted. It could have the best information in the world but nobody will read it.

 

[LongliveWildcatDon]

You put a lot of thought, time and effort into this post but for me the context is what I see with my eyes.

We all know about the poor roster construction of last yr. But he had enough talent to not get embarrassed as often as he did.

He has a lot to prove this yr and I hope he does it. But unfortunately he has put himself into a position where we need to be a Final Four caliber team this yr to save his job.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I’d venture to guess that however much time you spent on that post was time wasted. It could have the best information in the world but nobody will read it.

That’s fair. Most people probably won’t read all of it.

I didn’t write it expecting everyone to. I wrote it for the people who actually want to examine the argument instead of trading one-liners. If only a handful of people read the whole thing and it causes them to think twice about using “Mr. 63%” as a standalone argument, then it wasn’t time wasted.

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

I’d love to look into that as well. Won’t be today though. Great idea for a topic.

Roy Williams isn’t the best example because he would have been good anyway but if there was a portal when he went to UNC he may not have that ‘05 NC.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Averages can be thrown out a window when we’re talking about Kentucky basketball. There is an incalculable advantage inherent to the program.
These advantages, facilities, fan base, money, esteem, history are only afforded at the most elite schools and UK is the top of that short list.
The minimal expectation is championship contention.

I don’t disagree with your expectations for Kentucky. Where we disagree is the evidence. If Kentucky’s advantages are as unique as you describe, then they actually make a coach’s pre-Kentucky winning percentage less predictive, not more. That’s why I think “Mr. 63%” is a weak standalone argument. Whether Pope ultimately meets Kentucky’s standard is a separate question.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Roy Williams isn’t the best example because he would have been good anyway but if there was a portal when he went to UNC he may not have that ‘05 NC.

I do know Coach K took over a 3 win Army team so not all of the coaches in that list had advantageous situations. That actually serves my point. Mr. 63% isn’t an argument — it’s a lazy one-liner that ignored all of the surrounding factors.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

You put a lot of thought, time and effort into this post but for me the context is what I see with my eyes.

We all know about the poor roster construction of last yr. But he had enough talent to not get embarrassed as often as he did.

He has a lot to prove this yr and I hope he does it. But unfortunately he has put himself into a position where we need to be a Final Four caliber team this yr to save his job.

That’s a fair argument, but it’s a different one than the one I’m addressing.

If your criticism is that Pope’s teams are poorly coached, let’s debate that. My point is simply that “63%” isn’t enough to prove it.

I actually think it’s progress if the conversation moves from a career winning percentage to discussing roster construction, X’s and O’s, player development, and results on the floor. Those are much stronger arguments than “Mr. 63%.”

 

[Supafuzz75]

I dipped after the first 3 words..

 

[TellurideCat]

I tend to agree with some of the OP but I do have a rebuttal on a couple points. It's long, like the original post, so forgive me but:

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!
To him an heir was afterward born,
a son in his halls, whom heaven sent
to favor the folk, feeling their woe
that erst they had lacked an earl for leader
so long a while; the Lord endowed him,
the Wielder of Wonder, with world’s renown.
Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him,
son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.
So becomes it a youth to quit him well
with his father’s friends, by fee and gift,
that to aid him, aged, in after days,
come warriors willing, should war draw nigh,
liegemen loyal: by lauded deeds
shall an earl have honor in every clan.
Forth he fared at the fated moment,
sturdy Scyld to the shelter of God.
Then they bore him over to ocean’s billow,
loving clansmen, as late he charged them,
while wielded words the winsome Scyld,
the leader beloved who long had ruled....
In the roadstead rocked a ring-dight vessel,
ice-flecked, outbound, atheling’s barge:
there laid they down their darling lord
on the breast of the boat, the breaker-of-rings,
by the mast the mighty one. Many a treasure
fetched from far was freighted with him.
No ship have I known so nobly dight
with weapons of war and weeds of battle,
with breastplate and blade: on his bosom lay
a heaped hoard that hence should go
far o’er the flood with him floating away.
No less these loaded the lordly gifts,
thanes’ huge treasure, than those had done
who in former time forth had sent him
sole on the seas, a suckling child.
High o’er his head they hoist the standard,
a gold-wove banner; let billows take him,
gave him to ocean. Grave were their spirits,
mournful their mood. No man is able
to say in sooth, no son of the halls,
no hero ‘neath heaven, — who harbored that freight!
Now Beowulf bode in the burg of the Scyldings,
leader beloved, and long he ruled
in fame with all folk, since his father had gone
away from the world, till awoke an heir,
haughty Healfdene, who held through life,
sage and sturdy, the Scyldings glad.

 

[Dward13]

I actually think we’re closer to agreement than disagreement.


My article isn’t trying to prove Mark Pope is a great coach or that he’ll succeed at Kentucky. It’s trying to show that “63%” isn’t a strong argument by itself.


You even acknowledge that when you say it’s “maybe not even a significant measure.” That’s really the point I’m making.


If your argument is now that you don’t think Pope’s teams are well coached, that’s a different discussion entirely. Reasonable people can disagree about offensive execution, defensive principles, player development, late-game coaching, or SEC performance.


But notice what happened: we moved away from “63%” and started talking about actual basketball. That’s exactly where I think the conversation should be.


If someone wants to criticize Pope for his SEC record, his tournament results, his X’s and O’s, or the way his teams look on the floor, those are all fair topics. Whether I agree with those criticisms or not, at least they’re discussing his coaching directly instead of treating one career winning percentage as if it settles the entire debate.

“not a strong argument by itself”. i’m a 63%er but i also agree with this.

I think we have a really good roster this year. But we had one his first season too.
Hes beat some really good teams. Hes gotta figure out how to do it consistently now.
There in lies my hope.

He’s been consistently mediocre throughout his career but he’s never had the pressure to do better until now. Maybe that forces his evolution as a coach.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

“not a strong argument by itself”. i’m a 63%er but i also agree with this.

I think we have a really good roster this year. But we had one his first season too.
Hes beat some really good teams. Hes gotta figure out how to do it consistently now.
There in lies my hope.

He’s been consistently mediocre throughout his career but he’s never had the pressure to do better until now. Maybe that forces his evolution as a coach.

That’s a fairer framing than “Mr. 63%.”
I’d push back on “consistently mediocre.” His career shows progression, to my eyes. He took Utah Valley from 11–19 to 25 wins, earned the BYU job, elevated that program, then succeeded in BYU’s first Big 12 season enough to land Kentucky.
Whether that translates to championship-level coaching at Kentucky remains to be seen, and his pre-Kentucky winning percentage doesn’t answer it. My arguments are deeper than pointing out that other great coaches got off to a “bad start” as well — I’m actually pointing out the 63% really doesn’t tell the story of how well Pope coached pre-Kentucky. It’s all on him now to do it at Kentucky or he will be correctly removed

 

[UKWildcats1987]

63% isn't the whole story.

Its the lack of game preparation. How many games have we gotten down double digits n 2 seasons against legit power conference teams? Pretty sure its an embarrassing number and high.

Also losing 14 games by double digits n 2 seasons. Losing both ncaa tournament games by an *** kicking.

Recruiting inconsistently. Ill grant kudos to getting Mom and the 5 star for next season. Issue is pope may not even be here next season so hard to get too excited. Yet.

 

[Jeff Hoyt]

None of those coaches had an open portal and NIL with which to build.

Pope wins at the same percentage with and without those at his disposal.

But I agree that it’s not the only measure. Maybe not even a significant measure given different circumstances and conferences and expectations.

Just watch a Pope coached team play if you want to judge his coaching.

No one can watch a Pope team play and see a well coached team. Win or lose.

The record will reflect the coaching over time though.

He’s 20-16 in the SEC. The worst 2 year record in the SEC of any UK coach in history. That’s with an open checkbook and portal.

1000 paragraphs will not change what he is.

And I haven’t mentioned yet that his teams quit. But I will now.

I probably watched BYU play second most to watching Kentucky play. One could not watch BYUs Pope coached teams and say they were not well coached, fun to watch, and outperformed their talent. I think Pope coached well his first year here, particularly after watching Cal coach all those years. The second year I think the team composition was horrible. We will learn a lot more the next few years.

 

[*Fox2Monk*]

@Im The Village Idiot If you’re in the mood to research, I’d be interested in seeing who the above coaches inherited from the year before their first year.

Many of the “63% derp derp guys” spew the portal thing. I’d be willing to bet many of those coaches benefited from there NOT being a portal.

Coaches at top schools benefit way more from the portal that not having one. You think Duke cares about having a portal? Anyone leaves they probably replace them with a better player. Also I think in Hurley’s case it shows he couldn’t recruit that well. He’s an ***, but being able to pay guys allowed him to build a competitive roster which combined with his coaching set him up for what he is today.

 

[*Fox2Monk*]

Roy Williams isn’t the best example because he would have been good anyway but if there was a portal when he went to UNC he may not have that ‘05 NC.

That’s possible for sure but I think his name and record was such that those guys would have stayed after they hired him as well. He has a history of NBA players and top notch teams.

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

I probably watched BYU play second most to watching Kentucky play. One could not watch BYUs Pope coached teams and say they were not well coached, fun to watch, and outperformed their talent. I think Pope coached well his first year here, particularly after watching Cal coach all those years. The second year I think the team composition was horrible. We will learn a lot more the next few years.

Agree. I think too many people conflate the two years. That first year’s team had some clunkers for sure but that team was fun to watch, could beat anyone and I believe injuries affected that team far more than they did the second year. No excuse for the second year

That team was dysfunctional and a bad mix of players. That’s on Pope for the construction and losing that team at times but I don’t think he’s forgotten how to coach.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Agree. I think too many people conflate the two years. That first year’s team had some clunkers for sure but that team was fun to watch, could beat anyone and I believe injuries affected that team far more than they did the second year. No excuse for the second year

That team was dysfunctional and a bad mix of players. That’s on Pope for the construction and losing that team at times but I don’t think he’s forgotten how to coach.

What many don’t understand is that Pope’s record pre-Kentucky was only for nine seasons. This means the Utah Valley turnaround, which took two seasons, accounts for almost a quarter of Pope’s career record to that point. So, naturally a 39-35 two-year record to build things at Utah Valley will mean the overall winning percentage suffers. This is basic stuff.

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

Coaches at top schools benefit way more from the portal that not having one. You think Duke cares about having a portal? Anyone leaves they probably replace them with a better player. Also I think in Hurley’s case it shows he couldn’t recruit that well. He’s an ***, but being able to pay guys allowed him to build a competitive roster which combined with his coaching set him up for what he is today.

Sure they benefit more today. If a mid major player shows a pulse, he’s jumping. Before the portal they would think twice about transferring and sitting out a year.

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

That’s possible for sure but I think his name and record was such that those guys would have stayed after they hired him as well. He has a history of NBA players and top notch teams.

I agree with you but he inherited at least 4 players that were the core of the ‘05 championship. Couple of those guys leave for whatever reason (if it were like it is today), Roy doesn’t have that NC.

 

[JwUKFan11]

No one is taking the 63% and just running with it. We all understand he was at lower programs until now, and naturally, he won't have a terrific winning percentage. A huge factor in his hiring was that he played here. The context is that he is no longer at those programs and has been given every opportunity to outperform what he did at those schools and live up to UK expectations, and has failed miserably in many games.

All that "research" to say a few select coaches eventually took a low winning percentage and outperformed once they reached the right school and situation. Rocket science I guess. Does Mark need 40 million to perform to expectations?

 

[KYAnywhereEverywhere]

Thought I would chirp in and say that I read the whole thing and that you have excellent talent as a writer. I think the rebuttal that would be pervasive if people actually read the whole thing is that Pope hasn't shown any level of dominance yet. That's what the naysayers towards Pope are wanting to see, teams that can go out and put a beating on most of the competition and be competitive in against the remaining competition. Pope has won some high level/important games, but he hasn't consistently beat the pants off of lower level, but still Power 4 competition. He hasn't had a dominant season yet. I realize that I am not making a direct argument against the career winning percentage argument you are making. My argument falls more in line with what people call the "eye test." People want to know that when UK plays a bad LSU or bad Mississippi State team, the outcome is not going to be uncertain.

As for me personally, I'm willing to give him another year or two before I draw conclusion. Last year's team was badly constructed, actually terribly constructed. They didn't get along. They didn't play for each other. They didn't have the talent that people claim they had (the, "they should have been better than they were regardless," argument. The pieces that could play didn't compliment each other at all. All that said, I really enjoyed Pope's first year and I think it showed that with the right pieces that have fun and that put out high effort, Pope can coach and can be pretty successful with teams that are fun to watch. Of course, "Pretty successful," won't be enough to satisfy a very vocal subset of the fan base. Some people will only be appeased with absolute dominance, generational dominance, without realizing how rare that is. People became fans during the Pitino years or the early Cal years and they think years like those years are the only acceptable level of performance .

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

No one is taking the 63% and just running with it. We all understand he was at lower programs until now, and naturally, he won't have a terrific winning percentage. A huge factor in his hiring was that he played here. The context is that he is no longer at those programs and has been given every opportunity to outperform what he did at those schools and live up to UK expectations, and has failed miserably in many games.

All that "research" to say a few select coaches eventually took a low winning percentage and outperformed once they reached the right school and situation. Rocket science I guess. Does Mark need 40 million to perform to expectations?

You ended up exactly where my article takes the conversation even though we take different approaches to get there — 63% tells us very little. Instead, the context matters. When we take a closer look at why his winning percentage was low, the number makes much more sense. He was on a positive trajectory as a program builder. That’s why he ended up getting the job at Kentucky.

Now, he has to win to a Kentucky level. Completely agree there. The two year sample is too small to form a conclusion, but make no mistake, what matters is now. And Pope’s future is in his own hands.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Thought I would chirp in and say that I read the whole thing and that you have excellent talent as a writer.

Crafting methodologies is a strength. I’m not so sure about my writing though. The first post is authentically my writing, but there was a whole slew of issues with the second post. I had to use an AI editor to fix it. I appreciate the compliment though

I think the rebuttal that would be pervasive if people actually read the whole thing is that Pope hasn't shown any level of dominance yet.

I think anyone who really reads the entire thing would have no choice but to agree it’s an airtight argument. The “Mr. 63%” stuff is insufficient at best.

There are many of us who want the coach to succeed, but remain unsure how it will turn out. He hasn’t been to a Final Four, hasn’t had a #1 seed, hasn’t had a dominant team — we hope to see that. The truth is it takes time to manufacture those results.

That's what the naysayers towards Pope are wanting to see, teams that can go out and put a beating on most of the competition and be competitive in against the remaining competition. Pope has won some high level/important games, but he hasn't consistently beat the pants off of lower level, but still Power 4 competition. He hasn't had a dominant season yet.

Agreed.

I realize that I am not making a direct argument against the career winning percentage argument you are making. My argument falls more in line with what people call the "eye test." People want to know that when UK plays a bad LSU or bad Mississippi State team, the outcome is not going to be uncertain.

Which is fair.

As for me personally, I'm willing to give him another year or two before I draw conclusion. Last year's team was badly constructed, actually terribly constructed. They didn't get along. They didn't play for each other. They didn't have the talent that people claim they had (the, "they should have been better than they were regardless," argument. The pieces that could play didn't compliment each other at all. All that said, I really enjoyed Pope's first year and I think it showed that with the right pieces that have fun and that put out high effort, Pope can coach and can be pretty successful with teams that are fun to watch. Of course, "Pretty successful," won't be enough to satisfy a very vocal subset of the fan base.

Agreed on this also.

Some people will only be appeased with absolute dominance, generational dominance, without realizing how rare that is. People became fans during the Pitino years or the early Cal years and they think years like those years are the only acceptable level of performance .

I hope we return to that type of dominance. It is rare, like you said, but I eagerly hope for it. It is theoretically possible with Pope. It’s also possible he flames out. It’s possible he winds up mediocre. If there’s anything this study shows, predictability isn’t easy when it comes to greatness.

 

[SenseMaker_Cats]

Crafting methodologies is a strength. I’m not so sure about my writing though. The first post is authentically my writing, but there was a whole slew of issues with the second post. I had to use an AI editor to fix it. I appreciate the compliment though


I think anyone who really reads the entire thing would have no choice but to agree it’s an airtight argument. The “Mr. 63%” stuff is insufficient at best.

There are many of us who want the coach to succeed, but remain unsure how it will turn out. He hasn’t been to a Final Four, hasn’t had a #1 seed, hasn’t had a dominant team — we hope to see that. The truth is it takes time to manufacture those results.

Agreed.

Which is fair.

Agreed on this also.


I hope we return to that type of dominance. It is rare, like you said, but I eagerly hope for it. It is theoretically possible with Pope. It’s also possible he flames out. It’s possible he winds up mediocre. If there’s anything this study shows, predictability isn’t easy when it comes to greatness.

“There are many of us who want the coach to succeed, but remain unsure how it will turn out.” <— This

Full disclosure: if I were forced to bet my house on whether Pope would “make it”. I’d bet with the 63% guys. There’s been many it seems to me that have gotten to the point they’d rather be right than Pope be successful.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

“There are many of us who want the coach to succeed, but remain unsure how it will turn out.” <— This

Full disclosure: if I were forced to bet my house on whether Pope would “make it”. I’d bet with the 63% guys. There’s been many it seems to me that have gotten to the point they’d rather be right than Pope be successful.

I’m pretty close to in the middle personally.

But gun to my head and I’m forced to decide whether Pope succeeds majorly or gets let go at Kentucky, I’d say the second option is a little more likely.

What would I prefer? I’d prefer him to crush it. There’s built in advantages to Pope that we won’t find elsewhere.

 

[ComebackCats98]

I focus less on his 63% win % and more on the fact he is an Oweh half court bank shot away from not winning a tournament game in 10 of 11 seasons as a coach.

After 11 seasons including two at Kentucky a team coached by him has still never won a conference regular season or tournament title. At some point you have to win something if you want to be taken seriously.

In their first 11 years:
Coach K: 1 regular season title and 1 tournament title.
Hurley: 1 regular season title and 1 tournament title.
Calhoun: 3 regular season titles and 2 tournament titles.
Sampson: 0 regular season and 0 tournament titles.
Wright: 2 regular season and 2 tournament titles.
Marshall: 6 regular season and 7 tournament titles.
TJ Otzelberger: 2 regular season and 3 tournament titles.
Jamie Dixon: 2 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Bill Self: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Bruce Weber: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Mark Fox: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Shaka Smart: 0 regular season and 2 tournament titles.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I focus less on his 63% win % and more on the fact he is an Oweh half court bank shot away from not winning a tournament game in 10 of 11 seasons as a coach.

After 11 seasons including two at Kentucky a team coached by him has still never won a conference regular season or tournament title. At some point you have to win something if you want to be taken seriously.

In their first 11 years:
Coach K: 1 regular season title and 1 tournament title.
Hurley: 1 regular season title and 1 tournament title.
Calhoun: 3 regular season titles and 2 tournament titles.
Sampson: 0 regular season and 0 tournament titles.
Wright: 2 regular season and 2 tournament titles.
Marshall: 6 regular season and 7 tournament titles.
TJ Otzelberger: 2 regular season and 3 tournament titles.
Jamie Dixon: 2 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Bill Self: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Bruce Weber: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Mark Fox: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Shaka Smart: 0 regular season and 2 tournament titles.

Sounds like you agree “Mr. 63%” isn’t a good argument

I focus less on his 63% win % and more on the fact he is an Oweh half court bank shot away from not winning a tournament game in 10 of 11 seasons as a coach.

After 11 seasons including two at Kentucky a team coached by him has still never won a conference regular season or tournament title. At some point you have to win something if you want to be taken seriously.

In their first 11 years:
Coach K: 1 regular season title and 1 tournament title.
Hurley: 1 regular season title and 1 tournament title.
Calhoun: 3 regular season titles and 2 tournament titles.
Sampson: 0 regular season and 0 tournament titles.
Wright: 2 regular season and 2 tournament titles.
Marshall: 6 regular season and 7 tournament titles.
TJ Otzelberger: 2 regular season and 3 tournament titles.
Jamie Dixon: 2 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Bill Self: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Bruce Weber: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Mark Fox: 4 regular season and 1 tournament title.
Shaka Smart: 0 regular season and 2 tournament titles.

It is off topic a little here but I agree with your point — 63% isn’t a good place to focus.

I will say that I think the lack of conference titles is partly a function of just how quickly Pope moved through the coaching ranks. I believe he would have won conference titles in the WAC if he had stayed longer at Utah Valley. It is worth pointing out that New Mexico State was running things in dominant fashion during that era. Pope had Utah Valley rolling though.

Not sure he was likely to win a conference title in the WCC. That was peak powers of Gonzaga there.

Now, can he win conference titles at Kentucky? I don’t know. That remains to be seen. Doesn’t look likely this year in my mind, but it’s possible.

 

[ComebackCats98]

How good would Greg Marshall have done at a major program if not for his issues? His teams at Winthrop and Wichita State dominated their conference and some of them made noise in the NCAA tournament.

 

[ComebackCats98]

Sounds like you agree “Mr. 63%” isn’t a good argument

It is off topic a little here but I agree with your point — 63% isn’t a good place to focus.

I will say that I think the lack of conference titles is partly a function of just how quickly Pope moved through the coaching ranks. I believe he would have won conference titles in the WAC if he had stayed longer at Utah Valley. It is worth pointing out that New Mexico State was running things in dominant fashion during that era. Pope had Utah Valley rolling though.

Not sure he was likely to win a conference title in the WCC. That was peak powers of Gonzaga there.

Now, can he win conference titles at Kentucky? I don’t know. That remains to be seen. Doesn’t look likely this year in my mind, but it’s possible.

That’s what kept Sampson from winning his first 11 years. He didn’t coach in a small conference. He eventually broke through at Oklahoma, but coaching in the PAC 10 and Big 8/Big 12 and then Big Ten. He’s probably coaching in his worst conference now at Houston. While a lot of these guys won titles in smaller conferences

 

[theKybluedude]

Looks like he overachieved at Utah State and BYU.

I’m surprised nobody takes the crippling injuries he dealt with in his first 2 UK teams into effect. Those certainly cost him wins. Nobody could anticipate those.(

I think he’s getting his arms around this huge job. This year’s roster is more balanced and has his type guys who buy into his chemistry driven approach.
I’m looking forward to this season as my measuring stick as to his true ability.
OP’s article details that it takes a little time for most coaches to get a successful program going. CMP realized where he needed help and has made changes.
I’m just enjoying the journey but then again I’m a long time true blue UK fan who chooses to support the coach through thick and thin. Makes the good seasons more special.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Looks like he overachieved at Utah State and BYU.

I’m surprised nobody takes the crippling injuries he dealt with in his first 2 UK teams into effect. Those certainly cost him wins. Nobody could anticipate those.(

I think he’s getting his arms around this huge job. This year’s roster is more balanced and has his type guys who buy into his chemistry driven approach.
I’m looking forward to this season as my measuring stick as to his true ability.
OP’s article details that it takes a little time for most coaches to get a successful program going. CMP realized where he needed help and has made changes.
I’m just enjoying the journey.