There's an argument that the Earth isn't flat?
Haarms update.
- Thread starter IndyCat1995
- Start date
There's an argument that the Earth isn't flat?
She looks pretty good
I mean it may be the jeans. But it looks like she has a round, flat ***. There is a difference in round and phat. She does not has a thick, phat ***.
Take a pizza pan for an example. Round and flat. So it can be both.
All hail to the round, thick, phat ***! 
Somedays when I feel a little down about my intellect, I always know I can come here and feel better. Now my brain feels phat.
Little further than 3 hours. I’m in Louisville and it takes a good 3 hours to get to campus for me.
Haarms said he wouldn't drag this out and I know it's only been a couple of weeks, but most Grad Transfers decide pretty quickly. If he was on board with being a cat he would be already. It's true he could be waiting to see how it goes with other players, but honestly, we could use 2 bigs. Usually, when we have gone after a Top 5 Grad we have landed them quickly like RT and Sestina so this is starting to feel a bit like Blackshear. I just can't see what this guy is going to prove by going to Gonzaga and playing SF, Pepperdine, etc..
He wants to be noticed by the NBA and there is no better stage than UK and it could be argued that Gonzaga is one of the worse stages in terms of top teams and exposure, competition and scouts in the stands. Maybe this works out, but the longer it goes the more I doubt it. With the reclass option being so easy this year we should just try to talk a top guy into coming and playing 30+ minutes a night. I mean I wanted Haarms, but I'm starting to wonder if he's Kentucky material. When you look at his list and then the rosters for each one UK is the clear cut slam dunk for exposure, competition at practice and in games along with plenty of playing time. Yet something is causing him to hesitate.
We have to bring a talented big in ASAP so it's **** or get off the pot time. Everything lines of UK on this one. The Zags have a pro-quality big that may or may not stay, but then even behind him, they have some quality guys. The holdup doesn't look good and after missing on so many last year I just hope Cal is in deep with Plan B already. Greg Brown isn't coming here, at least it doesn't feel that way and even if he did he's a PF and doesn't want to be locked in to the 5. We actually need this guy and some of the others just want him as a luxury. I honestly can't figure out why he hasn't jumped at the chance after Nick and EJ both left, but I'm a UK fan.
He wants to be noticed by the NBA and there is no better stage than UK and it could be argued that Gonzaga is one of the worse stages in terms of top teams and exposure, competition and scouts in the stands. Maybe this works out, but the longer it goes the more I doubt it. With the reclass option being so easy this year we should just try to talk a top guy into coming and playing 30+ minutes a night. I mean I wanted Haarms, but I'm starting to wonder if he's Kentucky material. When you look at his list and then the rosters for each one UK is the clear cut slam dunk for exposure, competition at practice and in games along with plenty of playing time. Yet something is causing him to hesitate.
We have to bring a talented big in ASAP so it's **** or get off the pot time. Everything lines of UK on this one. The Zags have a pro-quality big that may or may not stay, but then even behind him, they have some quality guys. The holdup doesn't look good and after missing on so many last year I just hope Cal is in deep with Plan B already. Greg Brown isn't coming here, at least it doesn't feel that way and even if he did he's a PF and doesn't want to be locked in to the 5. We actually need this guy and some of the others just want him as a luxury. I honestly can't figure out why he hasn't jumped at the chance after Nick and EJ both left, but I'm a UK fan.
Haarms will be at Kentucky if he wants to be. Been sounding like maybe he doesn't want to be.
I think that when you lose 8/9ths of your roster, you need to replace the outgoing talent with incoming players who can make up for your losses. The better your incoming players, the better your chances are at doing that. The 2014 team had five top 10ish players. None of them quite in that Kuminga/Clarke range (outside Randle, as you noted), but two or three in that Boston range (both twins and Young). To automatically put Boston ahead of those guys is mere opinion. We all thought the twins would be in that elite level when they came here, just like we're projecting with Boston. So I place all those guys in the same category of production. Boston likely gives us around 12 points/game - same as Aaron and James Young level production.
The counter to your question, the 2014 team didn't win a title. Vegas had UK at a disadvantage in most of their tournament games, and that was with a roster that had six RSCI top 12 players (if you count Poythress). Do you think if that UK had landed, say, Wiggins or Parker it might have bolstered their chances? That's my main point (and it also why Cal wanted Wiggins and recruited him into the spring). You want more definitive high level players than question marks with any roster, right? Additionally, let's let Clarke and Randle cancel each other out for a moment. Do you think Askew, Boston, Fletcher, Mintz, Brooks, Ware, and Jackson are capable of replicating those numbers that Poythress, Aaron Harrison, Andrew Harrison, Young, Johnson, Hawkins, and Lee (and Willie in the first two rounds) put up in the tournament? By the way, part of the reason we got past the first two rounds was because we had two returners - Willie and Alex - on the court. If Brooks plays anywhere close to how Alex did as a sophomore, we'll be in good shape at the 4 spot. It's no guarantee that he will, however.
James Young was good for about 13-14 points/game. That's actually really, really good and what was needed for that UK team to advance. You also had the twins who consistently gave you double digits. That's four guys who performed consistently in March among your freshman class. And yet, that team also struggled all season before it finally turned it on. They came within a bank three pointer (thank you, Aaron) of losing to a 1 seed in the second round. So if that's your baseline measurement for what is capable, that's fine, but you also noted we had three guys who you would rank as at least being in that "stud" range. Presently, the '20-21 team has two. If you project Brooks or Askew in that range, I'd respectfully contend that you could have done the same with Aaron Harrison and Poythress (or WCS) in '13-14. That is to say, the baseline of projection for Askew/Brooks next year probably looks a lot like the actualities of Poythress/Aaron in '14. That leaves next year's roster one key player short of the mark, even if you add Haarms - whose lack of skill in the post will look a lot like Johnson or Willie from an impact level.
So will next year's roster have enough? You'll have two top 10 guys on next year's roster, one main returner, and four guys in the 25-50 range (plus Mintz and maybe Haarms). The '13-14 team had one top 5 guy, four guys in the 6-12 range, and two key returners in Alex and Willie. Going into the season, which roster would you choose?
Can you catch lightning in a bottle next year with the current roster like the 2014 team (it should be noted that it was a historical anomaly, as you know)? Sure. But my point is that you don't want to depend on historical anomalies to promote your team's chances at a national title. The '14 team made a deep run because they had four dependable players for the entire tournament and two other guys who were mostly dependable. Right now, I see a '20-21 team that looks like it will be one consistent scorer away from making a title run. Mintz and Haarms are role players. Askew is probably going to look a lot like freshmen-year Quickley. Brooks is a long way from even being on Poythress' level. Haarms gives you role player numbers as well. You're left with a lot of question marks, which is why I'm a huge advocate of adding one more legitimate player.
It should be noted that so is Calipari.
if OK state can hire Cade’s brother why can’t we offer his girl a scholarship?Heck lets take the bull by the horns and just move his pretty lady to UK for the rest of her schooling.
1. I don’t know of anyone who isn’t a huge advocate of adding one more legitimate player. The only thing better: Adding 2 legitimate players. I suspect Cal has a couple more cards to play.
2. There are lots of question marks on the roster for next year. There were just as many heading into 2013-14.
3.Im far from in love with the fact that eight guys are gone from the roster. But it’s a fact, and I’d rather spend my time imagining realistic scenarios by which Kentucky overcomes that challenge than spend the next six months figuring it is hopeless. One realistic scenario: a repeat of 2014, in which guys like Jackson, Ware, Askew perform in the same range as guys Iike Dakari and Lee and maybe even Young, who was a consolation prize for Wiggins.
That 2014 NCAAT run was a once in a lifetime thing. Using that season as an example of what 20/21 could be is a pretty poor choice.
Prior to the tournament, that UK team was a hot mess, sure they put it together right at the end of the year, but after the first NCAA game, every game needed a miracle thing to happen at the end to pull off a win. Thinking that could be duplicated because we saw it happen 1 time, is foolish.
Remember, that team was an 8 seed, 9.5 times out of ten, you will lose in the 2nd round.
Not to mention, 2014 actually had talented bigs and the toughest Alpha male in the county in Julius Randle. Had sophomore 7 footer WCS and Dakari Johnson, plus a pretty damn good backcourt. That team had balance, 20/21 doesn’t have that at this point. Not even close.
Prior to the tournament, that UK team was a hot mess, sure they put it together right at the end of the year, but after the first NCAA game, every game needed a miracle thing to happen at the end to pull off a win. Thinking that could be duplicated because we saw it happen 1 time, is foolish.
Remember, that team was an 8 seed, 9.5 times out of ten, you will lose in the 2nd round.
Not to mention, 2014 actually had talented bigs and the toughest Alpha male in the county in Julius Randle. Had sophomore 7 footer WCS and Dakari Johnson, plus a pretty damn good backcourt. That team had balance, 20/21 doesn’t have that at this point. Not even close.
Lmao I say this to my wife on a daily basis. She probably thought it was her name there for a long time. [laughing]
Good post.
I will add this, the 2014 team had four players averaging between 11 points and 15 points/game - all of them were freshmen. For all the lumps that team took early on and for all the lack of long-term sustainability three of their careers took in the NBA, we've never had four freshmen average at least 11 points/game in one season. That is to say, those guys performed when they had to and carried the team. If UK features even three freshmen performing at that clip next year, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
That team also had three players who averaged 14 to 15 points/game. They also had a 5th guy in Poythress who averaged 11 points/game the previous year. That means there were at least five guys who could be depended on to score baskets.
I'm not sure next year's squad has that. Even if Clarke gives us 16 or so a game and Boston fills the Young role at about 14/game (which might be a bridge too far considering that's a really hard number to get to consistently), we're left in a position where we'll likely be searching for that third guy all season or depending on a conglomerate of role players to consistently perform at a decent clip.
I'm with you, though. I want this team to succeed, but I just don't see it at this point. If feels we'll be moving "uphill" all season based on the players presently on the roster. I obviously hope you're right on this one.
Nobody is crying though.
This is a message board and we are discussing UK basketball, good and bad.
We didn't get an NCAAT and there are no sports on TV… .period.
We just lost 8 of the 9 guys that played in 19/20. I don't care how big of a pumper you are, that is a concern worth discussing .
I'm not sure why so many of you go right to this "whining and crying" bullcrap. It's very odd.
But you can't deny that our 13/14 team was a hot mess before the SECT and needed crazy bounces to go our way for 4 straight games to advance. You pointed to that particular team as an example that our next team can follow even though 20/21 looks like it could be missing several key pieces.
If Haarms doesn't commit and we don't get Kuminga, we may want to hope COVID19 causes the season to be cancelled. 2 hotshot freshmen aren't going to be able to make up for all the missing pieces.
Lastly, yeah, Cal has fielded 8 teams that were threats to win it all, but he only closed the deal once despite having far more talent. It's not because he isn't a good coach, it's because you can't win under the bright lights with freshmen.
If Cal can find a way to land Luminga and Haarms, I'll be a believer, because when you lose 8 out of 9 players, you need an epic recruiting class if you want to be in the mix the next year.
You probably disagree with most of that and that's okay, you can lean on 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19, but 21 won’t be on that list if we don't add 2 more bigtime pieces.
The same ones trying to make those arguments are the same folks who'll say you want Cal fired and aren't as much of a fan, because you dare ask those questions. Bad SOS!!!
I think there are two main viewpoints being promoted on the message board.
Group 1. Those of us who favor having every talent advantage readily available for a tournament run and have emphasized those seasons where a deficiency we all noticed early on (often before the season) came back to plague us. A few examples: a lack of point guard play in 2018; a lack of shooting depth in 2010; a lack of a pure three man in 2015 after Poythress went done (and even before, which is why the Johnson recruiting miss was huge); a lack of a wing forward in 2017; etc. Our perspective is one that often sees the accumulation of instant-impact talent at the best way to mitigate these potential shortcomings in an unforgivable tournament often decided by a possession or two. Therefore, we often promote the paradigm of landing as many legitimate lottery-level talents as possible.
Group 2. Those who favor merely being in the discussion every year. For many of them (obviously, not all of them - I understand nuanced opinion), it is enough to compete for a shot at advancing in the tournament. If UK falls short of a Final Four or title, there's almost an instant counter that places emphasis on the "years before Calipari" or the historical averages of wins per year or the condition of other programs. These purveyors of "we have enough to compete" are also quick to downplay recruiting misses when we strike out guys like Miles Bridges, Andrew Wiggins, or Stanley Johnson. Once the tournament loss occurs, they often dismiss what was actually missing on the court and once more emphasize historical precedent (which Cal is on par with from a title level but ahead of on a Final Four and Elite Eight level) or the Tubby Smith and Billy Clyde years, strangely almost treating those years as the historical median from which we could easily return.
I tend to favor the first group, but I do appreciate those who find themselves in the second. I think there is a place for both groups on this message board.
Last edited:
We should all hope COVID 19 cancels the season, that would mean our country is in great shape.
I'll give you some credit...you are very consistent in your whining.
Meanwhile I along with most will continue to follow our program and coach who continues to win at a ridiculous rate.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't get it. Contrarian perspectives are a good thing, right? I'm not sure what some of them want from our message board community. A thousand posts all reflecting the same "ra-ra-isms?" Just eat your greens and be glad we're not Tennessee or Auburn? Is that it?
It might be easy for someone to counter this by saying, "yeah, but you guys are always negative." That's easily refutable, however. In 2012, we were all in lockstep. During much of the 2015 run, we were in lockstep. During the fall of 2009, we were in lockstep. When we landed that prized class of '13 with Randle and company, we all exuded eagerness and excitement.
The fan base comes together when there's reason to do so. We all cheer for the team in March, and we all hail elite recruiting victories with a common anthem of anticipation. Ultimately, we all want to win a title. The differences aren't really that pronounced, so the "arguments" often fall within the lines of what forms of recruiting paradigms fans favor or what type of playing style should be emphasized given a particular roster construction.
And yes, we've got it made as a fan base and we're definitely spoiled. But that's also because we have 81 years of the best tradition in the sport. There's going to be some expectations when you have that type of paradigm. Trying to get everyone to just "go with the flow" when you have a tradition like Kentucky's is completely unreasonable.
Wow, what a punk move. "Well, I can't really argue with what he is saying, so I'll just say he's whining". Nobody is whining, but you keep hanging on to just being one of the teams that could win the title, even though we always have the most talent.
Obviously you're good with the roster turnover and reaching the elite 8. I'm not.
My issue is with people claiming Cal is pushing kids out the door, I couldn't disagree more... I also think some lack perspective here. Our tradition is great and all don't get me wrong, but we also have won just 4 titles since 1959. 4 of our 8 were in a decade when basketball was infinitely different.
I don't think some realize how great we have it. JMO
You’re not discussing anything, you just seem to be under the belief things are always going to go badly. You clearly don’t seem to have a good grasp on reality if the last 5 years since our last final four are, in your view, a reason to be deeply concerned.
Last edited:
No you don’t. At least if you think you can fit me in that extremely reductive categorization that could’ve easily been explained in a lot less words.
Great post SoS!
You and I don’t always agree with each other, and that is okay. We have had some good dialogue with each other on this board because of this.
It’s good to discuss things and it’s fun to argue when it’s not the basic “you’re stupid because you don’t see it my way” comments.
What fun would it be if we all just agreed with each other every time we posted?
That sounds boring.
Just because you don’t think we are going 40-0 every year doesn’t mean you are negative and just because you are optimistic about the team every season doesn’t make you a “sunshine pumper.”
The best posters on here know it’s not all rainbows and sunshine and it’s not all storm clouds either.