The goal is Titles. And damn, we are in the hunt every single year under Cal but one! We are in the hunt this year and are already looking strong for next year. Damn it's great to be a true Kentucky fan!
Time to change the recruiting methodology
- Thread starter Goingfor9
- Start date
No, you are cherry picking the only stat you can. An objective assessment shows this as one of the brightest moments in our history. There's no argument to the contrary.
You fail to consider circumstances like injuries on those final fours. You fail to consider that we even got to more final fours than in the past. I can go on and on.
You want to consider just one fact and build a case against an iconic coach at an iconic program in an iconic period in its history, fine, that's on you. Don't expect anyone with broader perspective to either accept or allow such a narrow minded position to go unchallenged.
I agree that the goal is not final fours, it is titles. But the tournament is different than it was 40-70 years ago. Then the favorite won it more often than not. But over the past 30 or so years, the favorite only wins it about 1/3 of the time. You just want to have a good enough team to be in a position to have a decent chance at winning it. And I think 4 final fours in 7 years is a decent enough chance.
Well those 2 in the 90s came under two different coaches. So neither Pitino or Tubby achieved Rupp's level of success either. You didn't mention that. I wonder why.
And just like that you're minimizing making a final four - an achievement to be celebrated and praised. Everyone - bluebloods and nobodies alike - hangs banners for final fours. So, first point, that's a crazy take, symptomatic of a spoiled fan base. Good Lord, how many times was uttered "he can't make a final four!" during Tubby's tenure?
But you're premise isn't even right. Your sentiment properly phrased is "we've done better in ever metric aside from national titles."
Cal > Rick:
- total wins: Cal 234, Rick 209
- winning percentage: Cal 82%, Rick 76%
- NCAAT wins/record: Cal 23-5, Rick 15-5
- average seed: Cal 3, Rick 4
- times with 1 seed: Cal 3, Rick 1
- final fours: Cal 4, Rick 2
- elite 8s: Cal 5, Rick 3
- losses to worse seeds: Cal 2 (WVa, Indiana), Rick 4 (Cal, Morehead St, UK, Michigan St)
- embarrassed school, sex on table variety: Cal 0, Rick 1
- embarrassed school, hookers in dorms variety: Cal 0, Rick 1
- Level 1 NCAA violations: Cal 0, Rick 1
Etc. We could do this all day. Cal does everything better than Rick, which ironically just causes ridiculous expectations - his success is used by his fan base against him.
In a perfect world 2 sure fire one and dones per year would be perfect mixed in with vets. But under Cal many, many have gone that shouldn't have due to the atmosphere that has been created here.
Last edited:
I said there were no significant differences, then you lay out secondary accomplishments, many of which are barely different, then leave out the most important stat, titles. I despise Pitino, but he has accomplished nearly as much in general stats as Cal, has a higher % winning the title once making the final four and has done it with players who would never start here. You can minimize that if you wish. It's pretty startling to me.
As for the significance of making a final four, I'll ask you the same question. If we make the final four every year the rest of Cals tenure, but never win a championship, would you be happy.
You don't need to agree with me. However, I'm pretty sure you're going to be questioning things in a few years.
The point isn't Tubby or Pitino. I was responding to your statement. I already know Cal gets to the final four a lot. The question is why we don't win more often. The answer is depending primarily on freshmen who do wilt under the pressure.
That's fair but what I'm really saying is we don't have that great of a chance. The freshmen are pulling the wagon then get to a high pressure situation they've never experienced before and wilt. I hope Cal makes me eat 20 servings of crow, I just don't think that's gonna happen. To each his own. As Brian knows, this isn't a knee jerk response from me. It's been my position all along.
Last edited:
UK Rick vs UK Cal, we had 1 seeds in 93,95,96,97.... we had awesome teams those years, and Rick only won the title once.
The key issue still imo is inflated expectations because of recruiting rankings. If Cal should've won more titles, Rick should've won more titles too; Mashburn was a beast should've beaten Michigan, Mercer went on an absolute tear in 97 should've beat Zona, 95 was really almost as good a team as 96 and on and on.
Last edited:
1. you call them secondary. I call them the very definition of success. Wins, seeding, tournament wins, avoiding losses to worse seeds, NCAA trouble - if all of that is secondary, then you are by definition going to be happy unless we win a title. Which means you're going to be unhappy most of the time, the vast majority of the time. Good luck.
2. that's a stupid question, a stupid way to frame the issue. No one will ever make the final four every year for an extended time, it's a hypothetical so untethered from reality that it offers no insight to the issue discussed. If God himself mysteriously delivered to your door 25 Victoria Secret models for life, would you eventually tire of coitus with Victoria Secret models? You probably would, but I don't take that to mean that right now you would or should turn it down.
I wasn't really aware of what Cal has done until I saw a graph at, of all places, a Kansas message board. They were lamenting their near annual loss to some low seed, and someone pointed out that Cal just doesn't do that. Line by line, year by year - when you see it in black and white (rather than just a general description, like I give here) it is striking. There are no Bucknells, Bradleys or Northern Iowas for Cal, no Butlers or Morehead States like Rick has had, and you can go on down the list. The only coach in the whole country who passes your test - meaning, you should win the title the majority of the time you make the Final Four - is K. And even then, he has those bad losses (Lehigh, Mercer, VCU) that Cal has avoided.
I have offically blocked the moronic op . YOU RECRUIT THE BEST PLAYERS. PERIOD.
So we recruit worst players so that we have better stability down the road. Sure. Maybe you can start a petition.
Duke OAD are usually better skilled but are not as athletic. Allen was a boarder line one and done and should have left last year. Kennard is a volume scorer could go late first round. Every top 20 recruit sees themselves as a OAD. Most bigs take time to develop unless they are 6'9 to 6'10 and 250 plus pounds. UCLA, AZ and KU get their share of OADs.
K won't play a OAD over an experienced player. Matt Jones over Frank Jackson for instance. Bolden never plays.
Cal doesn't recruit small forward that can hit shots from the outside.
K won't play a OAD over an experienced player. Matt Jones over Frank Jackson for instance. Bolden never plays.
Cal doesn't recruit small forward that can hit shots from the outside.
Latest
-
01
KSR Football
College GameDay is Picking Kentucky to Beat Florida (and I don't like it)
-
02
KSR Football
Brad White's Florida Defense has Similar Issues to Late Kentucky Struggles
-
03
KSR Basketball
Jamal Mashburn reacts to UK's narrow win: 'That's not Kentucky Basketball'
-
04
KSR Football
CFB Cheat Sheet: Week 11
-
05
KSR Football
Bio Blast: Florida Gators