I respect your opinion, but to say that mine is shortsighted is being a bit hypocritical on a number of fronts. There are by no means 6 to 8 teams every year that have had the talent that Cal has had on numerous occasions. It would be fine if one or two years he had the best talent and did not win it all, but this has happened way more than that. I have always defended Cal to haters, but not winning it this year was the straw that broke the camels back for me. This team should have been champions, as should have 2010, 2008 Memphis team; and in both 2011 and 2013 we were the most talented team in the final four and could not win either one.
Go back and read my post again but this time pay attention to what I said instead of picking and choosing words and taking them out of context so that they fit your agenda. I did not say that it was the same 6 to 8 teams every year. Only Cal has been able to pull that one off. I said that there are 6 to 8 teams each year that have the "talent to win". "Talent to win" was the phrase you used as your argument that Cal should win. MY point is that while he usually does have enough talent to win, so do 6 to 8 other coaches every year. You are shortsighted by arguing that Cal should win it every year that he has ample talent but that the 5 to 7 other coaches who also have ample talent should never win it if Cal has a team in the mix.
Why should he have won it this year? Because he had the best team? Most of us know that the best team usually doesn't win out against a field of 64 but in case you didn't know several of us have posted the statistics in this thread for you. Again, the favorite only wins the tourney about 25% of the time. Why should Cal be any different?
Since he has been at UK, Cal has a better percentage for going all the way than any other coach at UK, better than Coach K, Pitino, Roy Williams, Dean Smith, Bobby Knight and anybody not named John Wooden. I stand by the facts, your post was very shortsighted.
