Am I alone in feeling like

[Cowtown Cat]

And based on seeding that was correct. Because of stupid geography.

While that is true, it's still BS. The committee was trying to match us up with teams that had the best chance to beat us. Hell, they even said so on national television. Do you think for even one second that Duke or UNCheat would have received that draw, being undefeated?! I think not. Better yet, I know not.

 

[Xception]

In 1996, AI was at Georgetown, Ray Allen was at UConn, Camby was at UMass, Pierce was at KU, Fortson was at UC, Duncan was at Wake, etc. there are several other examples of how strong the field was in 1996 but I'll have to do some research. A down year, it was not.

One player on a team does not make a strong team or year, 98 that I used as an example of a strong year had multiple players on those teams. That Iverson team wasn’t that good, Forston at UC wouldn’t stack up either. Duncan at Wake got dominated by a lesser UK team than 96. The Kansas team was good and Umass was too but it was a down year in college or not a strong year at the least. One player is not loaded, in fact it illustrates just how bad 96 was. UK was the one stacked team that year but I get it that people want 96 cbb to appear strong because it reflects better on the 96 accomplishment.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Back to 1996 for a minute. Villanova had a good team with Kittles and Arizona was also really good. Texas Tech was undefeated for most of that season. I believe UConn was as well (I mentioned them above already). Mississippi State was no slouch. They beat us in the SEC Tourney final and damn near beat us in Starkville, IIRC. They had Jones, Bullard and Dampier. Jones was a stone cold killer. That was a very good Mississippi State team. Syracuse had Wallace and played that zone. Just because Duke sucked *** and UNCheat wasn't that good doesn't mean it was a down year. JMO.

Edit: it was the 1995 UConn team that was undefeated for a long time. Still, the 96 team only lost two games heading into the tournament.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

One player on a team does not make a strong team or year, 98 that I used as an example of a strong year had multiple players on those teams. That Iverson team wasn’t that good, Forston at UC wouldn’t stack up either. Duncan at Wake got dominated by a lesser UK team than 96. The Kansas team was good and Umass was too but it was a down year in college or not a strong year at the least. One player is not loaded, in fact it illustrates just how bad 96 was. UK was the one stacked team that year but I get it that people want 96 cbb to appear strong because it reflects better on the 96 accomplishment.

I can research if you would like. I was just naming off the top of my head. Several publications had KU as preseason #1 over us. Several others had UC as #1. Far from a down year.

 

[Xception]

I can research if you would like. I was just naming off the top of my head. Several publications had KU as preseason #1 over us. Several others had UC as #1. Far from a down year.

Here’s some research for you and you won’t find this much talent in 96, some of the players you mention are in 98 with more experience.

Arizona: Simon, Bibby, Terry and Dickerson

UNC: Jamison, S. Williams, Vince Carter, Haywood, Cota

Duke: Williams, Brand, Battier, Langdon

Kansas: Pierce, LaFrentz more experienced than 96

Utah: Doleac, Miller, Mottola

Stanford: Lee and Madsen

UK: we all know

Uconn: Hamilton, El-Amin

Cincinnati was good

Lol how did autocorrect change Doleac to adolescents

 

[Xception]

That’s what a strong year looks like, 96 didn’t come close to having that many good teams

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Of course 98 was a stronger year overall. I just don't think 96 was really weak. FWIW, 96 UK would win any year in the 90s thru current. There's not a modern era team that would have beat that team, completely focused. Best team I ever seen. Whether or not 96 was weak or not is I relevant. I get what you're saying, though, and I somewhat agree.

 

[Xception]

I’m not disparaging 96 UK at all, like you said it doesn’t matter what year they are in they are elite.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

We should have lost to Notre Dame in the Regional finals. Totally outplayed in that game.

Here's the box score.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=400787576

We shot better from the field than did ND, shot better from 3. We outrebounded them, and had 9 blocks to their 1. Oh, and we scored more points. Not sure how you can say we got outplayed - and certainly we didn't get "totally" outplayed.

This is what fans do. We compare our performance not to the other team's performance, but against our own expectations.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Here's the box score.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=400787576

We shot better from the field than did ND, shot better from 3. We outrebounded them, and had 9 blocks to their 1. Oh, and we scored more points. Not sure how you can say we got outplayed - and certainly we didn't get "totally" outplayed.

This is what fans do. We compare our performance not to the other team's performance, but against our own expectations.

I never thought we got outplayed either. It's just the narrative. I sure bet ND shot more free throws than we did, though.

 

[kevcat]

Here's the box score.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=400787576

We shot better from the field than did ND, shot better from 3. We outrebounded them, and had 9 blocks to their 1. Oh, and we scored more points. Not sure how you can say we got outplayed - and certainly we didn't get "totally" outplayed.

This is what fans do. We compare our performance not to the other team's performance, but against our own expectations.

We got outplayed. Notre Dame spread the floor and backdoored us to death. It’s a fortunate thing that ND shot a very poor pct from three. Otherwise they win the game. Oh, and before you start the nonsense that they were well guarded from three, they weren’t. I sat 5 rows behind those aholes bench, and they had really good looks.

 

[kevcat]

Here's the box score.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=400787576

We shot better from the field than did ND, shot better from 3. We outrebounded them, and had 9 blocks to their 1. Oh, and we scored more points. Not sure how you can say we got outplayed - and certainly we didn't get "totally" outplayed.

This is what fans do. We compare our performance not to the other team's performance, but against our own expectations.

Cowtown can like this post all he wants. We were outplayed. If you actually watched the game you would come to the same conclusion. I understand that the only thing that matters is the final score. I have never talked to a Fellow UK fan who thought we outplayed ND.

 

[Got8WeDue]

Of course they did and always have..They put us in the bracket with teams that had shooters and were bad match ups for us..Look in past years they have always put us in the bracket with teams we knocked off the year before or nationally rated teams we beat that year..Heck at one point we beat Utah in the sweet 16,next year the final eight and the following year in final four I believe..The years we don't shoot well the place us with physical teams that clog the middle and years we shoot well we play against the same

 

[kevcat]

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

We got outplayed. Norte Dame spread the floor and backdoored us to death. It’s a fortunate thing that ND shot a very poor pct from three. Otherwise they win the game. Oh, and before you start the nonsense that they were well guarded from three, they weren’t. I sat 5 rows behind those aholes bench, and they had really good looks.

That team was a bad matchup for us, as was Wisconsin later - as was Georgia earlier in the year. For most of that season, UK was the most statisticallly impressive defense in modern history. And that was legit - but it’s strength was in the paint, protecting the rim. Out on the floor we weren’t great, the twins weren’t the kind of athletes that can shut down someone, Booker was so-so on D (or terrible on occasion- see Wisconsin game), etc. Games like ND, Georgia, Wisconsin - teams that spread us out and put an emphasis on perimeter D - is where losing Poythres really hurt. So, I won’t agree we got outplayed, it was just a matchup problem. By the way, same was true for them - I’m sure to this day ND fans remember us going inside to KAT time after time after time, and they no doubt complain about getting outplayed or out coached or not having a suitable backup for the big who had foul trouble, or whatever.

 

[kevcat]

That team was a bad matchup for us, as was Wisconsin later - as was Georgia earlier in the year. For most of that season, UK was the most statisticallly impressive defense in modern history. And that was legit - but it’s strength was in the paint, protecting the rim. Out on the floor we weren’t great, the twins weren’t the kind of athletes that can shut down someone, Booker was so-so on D (or terrible on occasion- see Wisconsin game), etc. Games like ND, Georgia, Wisconsin - teams that spread us out and put an emphasis on perimeter D - is where losing Poythres really hurt. So, I won’t agree we got outplayed, it was just a matchup problem. By the way, same was true for them - I’m sure to this day ND fans remember us going inside to KAT time after time after time, and they no doubt complain about getting outplayed or out coached or not having a suitable backup for the big who had foul trouble, or whatever.

It doesn’t matter that we disagree. We won that game. Notre Dame was really good that year. They should have beaten us. They didn’t. It’s the last time we made the Final Four. Hopefully things change this season.

 

[1991greywildcat]

“Forbid”. Wow

2012 was a tough road. That Baylor team was super athletic and dangerous. Indiana in the sweet 16?

One of the more difficult paths we've faced.

Baylor never could shoot the ball real good that year, outside of Heslip. Indiana had major defensive issues, good as those teams was, they was never a real threat to Kentucky, was up 20 on Baylor at half, it took major home cooking from lndiana to beat Kentucky in Assembly that year

 

[morgousky]

Baylor never could shoot the ball real good that year, outside of Heslip. Indiana had major defensive issues, good as those teams was, they was never a real threat to Kentucky, was up 20 on Baylor at half, it took major home cooking from lndiana to beat Kentucky in Assembly that year

Eh, Baylor was very athletic and dangerous. It was a tough elite 8 draw. Indiana might have won the title that year had Kentuxky not been in their path. It took UK playing a stellar game to beat them. It was a hard road for a team that strong. You won't see Duke draw that road I guarantee that.

 

[morgousky]

We got outplayed. Norte Dame spread the floor and backdoored us to death. It’s a fortunate thing that ND shot a very poor pct from three. Otherwise they win the game. Oh, and before you start the nonsense that they were well guarded from three, they weren’t. I sat 5 rows behind those aholes bench, and they had really good looks.

We were lucky to win that game. Probably should have lost. When your game plan is to pound it into towns over and over and over and over and over, you're too easy to scheme against. That's always Cals problem, simplifying the offense works for our young guys, but you also give the opposition an easy game plan. Cal is too vanilla pound pound. No diversity or creativity, and it's cost him countless times.

 

[kevcat]

We were lucky to win that game. Probably should have lost. When your game plan is to pound it into towns over and over and over and over and over, you're too easy to scheme against. That's always Cals problem, simplifying the offense works for our young guys, but you also give the opposition an easy game plan. Cal is too vanilla pound pound. No diversity or creativity, and it's cost him countless times.

Spot on as usual.

 

[Whatsup]

Kentucky is always “up” in “up years” for college basketball and “down” in “down years?”

Two examples of the inverse that strike me are Louisville in 2013 and Villanova in 2016. Those were, in my opinion, good teams but not great teams that turned up-years for their programs into national championships during down years for the rest of the sport.

Conversely, every time we field a dominant roster, other teams are also in historic ascension, and we end up in a slugfest. It was that way in 2014-15, and it’s looking to head that direction again. Duke with the top three recruits, Kansas ridiculously loaded with experience and talent, Auburn, Tennessee, Gonzaga, and UNC all returning huge portions of their production (or all of it) and adding elite freshman talent?

I could also be suffering from recency and confirmation bias.

Feelings nothing more than feelings..... dot dot dot. I'd like a biscuit and some mustard Umm Good.