Toggle sidebar

Well, that ends an interesting

K

kevcat

Heisman
Feb 26, 2007
27,686
32,625
0
....regular season.

In all honesty, the final record was exactly what I figured. Lots of surprises in getting to that 26-5 mark though.

I didn't expect to lose to both UCLA and Kansas at home, but I also thought our SEC record would be 14-4, and not 16-2....so, all in all, pretty damn good job by the Cat's.

Now, it's time to turn the intensity on full throttle for 40 minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crpoore, howercat, KyFord and 7 others
K

kevcat

Heisman
Feb 26, 2007
27,686
32,625
0
mkasten25 said:
I think if we could flip the Kansas game to a win this seaosn is viewed as a A+ and we're looking at a 1 seed. A few bad minutes in January was enough.

The UCLA, UL, UT games wouldn't have (total 10 pts) as much as impact. Florida happens and we got our revenge.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crpoore and MarkPftw
C

CalsKittens

Senior
Nov 27, 2012
1,012
763
0
mkasten25 said:
I think if we could flip the Kansas game to a win this seaosn is viewed as a A+ and we're looking at a 1 seed. A few bad minutes in January was enough.

The UCLA, UL, UT games wouldn't have (total 10 pts) as much as impact. Florida happens and we got our revenge.
Click to expand...
This is soo true. But I will give them their bad stretch cause some of our players have been sick hurt and re hurt. Been another year with players having health problems. Fox still hasn't come back all the way to before his first injury. I think him being off and us having to play with so many different line ups has caused a bit of some of our slow starts. Today we missed a bunch of bunny layups and open shots. But then we got it going. I think Cal can still get them where we wanna be. Neutral sites and better refs will make a big difference too. We are not as bad as some seem to think we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBUK, Samurai Cat and MarkPftw
K

kyups01

All-Conference
Feb 25, 2007
18,170
3,085
0
I was actually just thinking about our final record, its an absolute miracle we didnt have 10 or so losses.
 
K

kevcat

Heisman
Feb 26, 2007
27,686
32,625
0
kyups01 said:
I was actually just thinking about our final record, its an absolute miracle we didnt have 10 or so losses.
Click to expand...
Lots of close wins. It could have been a lot different situation if we lose three of those close victories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crpoore
M

morgousky

Heisman
Sep 5, 2009
23,959
43,171
0
Jkwo said:
If Fox has zero injuries this year, this team is tied for 3rd best of Cal era with 2010.

They'd still have their flaws, but that slump was really exacerbated by Fox playing a step slow and getting beat in ways that just didn't happen earlier.
Click to expand...

Tied with Wall, Bled, Cuz, Patterson?

Some of you smdh.

No way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panthur, UKWildcatT and MarkPftw
J

Jkwo_rivals113955

All-American
Apr 6, 2007
28,225
7,410
0
morgousky said:
Tied with Wall, Bled, Cuz, Patterson?

Some of you smdh.

No way.
Click to expand...
Go ahead. Name names. I see this phenomenon in other places, too - notably with the '07 UF team - you get enough celebrity players who become household names in college and then who go on to be drafted, then as long as there are just a few high profile wins and blowouts to go off of, that team will be remembered as better than it actually was just based on the "name" factor.

If you go look at the results of '10, game by game, and compare those to the likes of '12 or '15 or '96, you'll realize that they weren't of the same caliber.

They were more like this team: if Fox had been healthy, we'd have 3 or 4 losses and some of the margins would've been pushed up. But besides the SEC tourney game against Tenn, '10 was not going around and mauling high ranked teams and crushing the others with impunity like those other teams I mentioned.

They were very good, but they had tons of single digit wins against unranked teams, just like these guys.

They usually beat teams in the 20s by 10 or so at Rupp. Okay, great. That's a good team, but it's not the legend you have in your mind.

Get the star power out of your foggy memory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wcc31 and MarkPftw
M

morgousky

Heisman
Sep 5, 2009
23,959
43,171
0
Jkwo said:
Go ahead. Name names. I see this phenomenon in other places, too - notably with the '07 UF team - you get enough celebrity players who become household names in college and then who go on to be drafted, then as long as there are just a few high profile wins and blowouts to go off of, that team will be remembered as better than it actually was just based on the "name" factor.

If you go look at the results of '10, game by game, and compare those to the likes of '12 or '15 or '96, you'll realize that they weren't of the same caliber.

They were more like this team: if Fox had been healthy, we'd have 3 or 4 losses and some of the margins would've been pushed up. But besides the SEC tourney game against Tenn, '10 was not going around and mauling high ranked teams and crushing the others with impunity like those other teams I mentioned.

They were very good, but they had tons of single digit wins against unranked teams, just like these guys.

They usually beat teams in the 20s by 10 or so at Rupp. Okay, great. That's a good team, but it's not the legend you have in your mind.

Get the star power out of your foggy memory.
Click to expand...

The competition this year is far worse than it was seven years ago. This team would have zero answer for Cousins and especially Patterson, who would dominate this team. Fox is not in Wall's galaxy. Bledsoe would be able to guard Monk enough to contain them.

It's an insane comparison. This team is overhyped and has been since the start of the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hubble88, billygoatnads, Cal4Pres. and 4 others
J

Jkwo_rivals113955

All-American
Apr 6, 2007
28,225
7,410
0
morgousky said:
The competition this year is far worse than it was seven years ago. This team would have zero answer for Cousins and especially Patterson, who would dominate this team. Fox is not in Wall's galaxy. Bledsoe would be able to guard Monk enough to contain them.

It's an insane comparison. This team is overhyped and has been since the start of the season.
Click to expand...
No it's not. That year was mediocre as hell, too.

That Duke team that won might be the worst champion in two decades. And the SEC had 3 ranked teams. And a bunch of the teams we squeaked by or lost to were garbage, with losing records (not in the SEC - I mean on the season, including their cupcakes). I'll illustrate that point in a minute.

You doing the player by player comparison is some school yard silliness.

Aw well, West Virginia has no answer for Wall and Cousins and...


Please. During that season we fell down by, what, 18? vs Miami(OH) taking a last second shot to beat them, and also had single digit wins against Auburn (losing record) Georgia (losing record) and Alabama (one game above .500) and lost to South Carolina (losing record).

Oh yeah, looking back, clearly the better competition that year was the difference. :confused:

Every single point I made in the last post stands exactly as typed.

Yes, this team was overhyped. Clearly. There were goobers on here trying to compare it to '12 and '15 after a few games, and they were a mile off.

But so is the '10 team. The '10 team had far worse results than '12 or '15 in a far weaker year than either of them played in.

It's not even close. The name matchup doesn't tell you anything. Going position by position, you can convince yourself that '10 would smoke '15 or that they'd at the very least play even against '12, and those are both hilariously wrong predictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kybluedude, Ron Mehico, Samurai Cat and 1 other person
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,941
25,080
113
I think it's still a valid debate which was better. I'll wait and see how this team finishes then make the assessment between this team and '10
 
J

Jkwo_rivals113955

All-American
Apr 6, 2007
28,225
7,410
0
UKcatXXXL said:
I will definitely agree that the duke team of 2010 was the weakest national champion I have ever seen and I've seen them all since 1989 (when I started)

and it's not even a debate

But head to head I'd give the 2010 UK squad the edge over this team.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree - I'd probably take '10 by a bit right now (could change based on the tournament), but my point is only that if the 2010 was nearly as good as '12 and '15 (as some short-memory types on here claim), then they did an absolutely incredible job in hiding it.
 
M

morgousky

Heisman
Sep 5, 2009
23,959
43,171
0
Jkwo said:
No it's not. That year was mediocre as hell, too.

That Duke team that won might be the worst champion in two decades. And the SEC had 3 ranked teams. And a bunch of the teams we squeaked by or lost to were garbage, with losing records (not in the SEC - I mean on the season, including their cupcakes). I'll illustrate that point in a minute.

You doing the player by player comparison is some school yard silliness.

Aw well, West Virginia has no answer for Wall and Cousins and...


Please. During that season we fell down by, what, 18? vs Miami(OH) taking a last second shot to beat them, and also had single digit wins against Auburn (losing record) Georgia (losing record) and Alabama (one game above .500) and lost to South Carolina (losing record).

Oh yeah, looking back, clearly the better competition that year was the difference. :confused:

Every single point I made in the last post stands exactly as typed.

Yes, this team was overhyped. Clearly. There were goobers on here trying to compare it to '12 and '15 after a few games, and they were a mile off.

But so is the '10 team. The '10 team had far worse results than '12 or '15 in a far weaker year than either of them played in.

It's not even close. The name matchup doesn't tell you anything. Going position by position, you can convince yourself that '10 would smoke '15 or that they'd at the very least play even against '12, and those are both hilariously wrong predictions.
Click to expand...

Of course anyone can't beat anyone. If that's your argument then the whole topic isn't pointless to discuss.

This team has trouble in MARCH against sub par teams at home because they lack key elements the 2010 team had. the only way beat '10 was to pray they go cold. This team can be beat in several ways and has matchup problems against many teams.

On paper it's not a close matchup.

Wall is better than fox.
Cousins is better than Bam.
This team would have ZERO answer for Patterson.

You can look at it however you like. If this team catches fire, wins the sec title, and goes past an eight we'll talk about them being in that class. But there's no way with this teams issues it's even close at this point. Can't actually believe someone is making an argument for it.

I'd also add that the SEC and basketball in general is weaker this year than it was in '10. Duke winning that title has nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Henry, UKWildcatT and docholiday51
M

morgousky

Heisman
Sep 5, 2009
23,959
43,171
0
UKcatXXXL said:
I will definitely agree that the duke team of 2010 was the weakest national champion I have ever seen and I've seen them all since 1989 (when I started)

and it's not even a debate

But head to head I'd give the 2010 UK squad the edge over this team.
Click to expand...

It's an easy bet. That team had better players at nearly every position. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Henry
J

Jkwo_rivals113955

All-American
Apr 6, 2007
28,225
7,410
0
morgousky said:
Of course anyone can't beat anyone. If that's your argument then the whole topic isn't pointless to discuss.

This team has trouble in MARCH against sub par teams at home because they lack key elements the 2010 team had. the only way beat '10 was to pray they go cold. This team can be beat in several ways and has matchup problems against many teams.

On paper it's not a close matchup.

Wall is better than fox.
Cousins is better than Bam.
This team would have ZERO answer for Patterson.

You can look at it however you like. If this team catches fire, wins the sec title, and goes past an eight we'll talk about them being in that class. But there's no way with this teams issues it's even close at this point. Can't actually believe someone is making an argument for it.

I'd also add that the SEC and basketball in general is weaker this year than it was in '10. Duke winning that title has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously not falling back on the platitude that anybody can beat anybody - you could be struck by lightning tomorrow, etc. I'm saying that you going down the roster, asking who wins player vs player is facile and that coaches don't look at the game that way.

Again, nobody with basketball knowledge is going to love '10s chances against '12 or '15 in a 7 game series, even though they might beat both in your schoolyard game.

What I do love is when someone goes through the trouble of posting at length and I have the luxury of pointing to my previous post to gut every single point. Those titans who played in such a tough year and couldn't be stopped, only contained, had just as many close calls with sub .500 teams as these guys, and didn't approach '12 or '15's record.

*points to previous post*

It's literally all there. You're living in a fairy tale land. You are vastly overrating that team because of the names.
 
MrKentucky

MrKentucky

Heisman
Mar 2, 2006
29,795
23,989
113
2010's "signature" wins didn't look so signature by the end of the season. UNC and UCONN didn't even finish ranked, after all. Indiana in Bloomington was a Kelvin Sampson induced mess. UofL ended up as an 8 seed. They also traded 2 SEC games this year's team had (16 game SEC schedule back then) for a couple of extra scrub opponents.

In the tournament, they beat teams seeded 16/8/12 and lost to a 2. They were amazingly talented, but just not constructed in a way that made them likely to blitz opponents in college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Henry
L

letitrainuk_rivals88012

All-Conference
Apr 9, 2007
2,886
1,764
0
mkasten25 said:
I think if we could flip the Kansas game to a win this seaosn is viewed as a A+ and we're looking at a 1 seed. A few bad minutes in January was enough.

The UCLA, UL, UT games wouldn't have (total 10 pts) as much as impact. Florida happens and we got our revenge.
Click to expand...
I think the slow starts have a little to do with how the officials have been call games early in the season. We're afraid to turn on the Jets, scared of getting a BS whistle and playing tight.
 
AllBall

AllBall

All-American
May 5, 2015
4,908
6,451
93
While 10' had enormous star studded talent those players are better pros than college prospects. This sometimes happens in the one n done landscape. The team with the most talent doesn't always win in college because its survive and advance and not a best of 5 series.
The 12' class (added to what came back) and the 14' class (top to bottom) comprised a more complete team. Just like 15 was absolutely loaded. Point being, 2009-2010 team had some of the best individual players but as a whole they had a major weakness: Shooting. It ultimately cost them a championship. 12' was a perfect balance as was 15' but again the best doesn't always win the NCAA.
 
J

JC CATS

Heisman
Jun 18, 2009
23,517
12,221
0
kyups01 said:
I was actually just thinking about our final record, its an absolute miracle we didnt have 10 or so losses.
Click to expand...
or we could have beat UT, lost by 2, UL, lost by 3, UCLA lost by 5. That would make us 29-2. I think like that but that's just me
 
  • Like
Reactions: kyups01
G

gatorcon

Freshman
Jun 25, 2005
122
71
0
Jkwo said:
Go ahead. Name names. I see this phenomenon in other places, too - notably with the '07 UF team - you get enough celebrity players who become household names in college and then who go on to be drafted, then as long as there are just a few high profile wins and blowouts to go off of, that team will be remembered as better than it actually was just based on the "name" factor.

If you go look at the results of '10, game by game, and compare those to the likes of '12 or '15 or '96, you'll realize that they weren't of the same caliber.

They were more like this team: if Fox had been healthy, we'd have 3 or 4 losses and some of the margins would've been pushed up. But besides the SEC tourney game against Tenn, '10 was not going around and mauling high ranked teams and crushing the others with impunity like those other teams I mentioned.

They were very good, but they had tons of single digit wins against unranked teams, just like these guys.

They usually beat teams in the 20s by 10 or so at Rupp. Okay, great. That's a good team, but it's not the legend you have in your mind.

Get the star power out of your foggy memory.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but that '07 team is probably being undersold. Sure they lost games, but they weren't touchable in the postseason. I've never had so much confidence going into every game as I did that year. I just couldn't see them losing.

The one notable exception was Greg Oden definitely scared me. But even then, we had the depth to deal with that. Jo Noah, Al Horford, Chris Richard, and Mareese Speights....that was plenty of depth to keep everyone fresh.

I get what you are saying that maybe I'm painting a better picture of them then they actually were....but we got dominated by Greg Oden and still won the national championship handily.

I'd still easily take the 07 team over the '14 team. And that '14 team only had 3 losses...even though they had 6 games against final four teams, including playing all of the other 3 on the road. I just don't see them being as good as '07.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Henry
S

Supreme Lord Z

All-Conference
Jan 7, 2016
3,447
2,393
0
I've been watching college ball for a long time and sorry but this team has early round exit written all over it.

I think we lose to a team like SMU in the Sweet 16. That is my official prediction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
N

NCukcat62

All-Conference
Jul 22, 2007
8,893
3,671
0
Supreme Lord Z said:
I've been watching college ball for a long time and sorry but this team has early round exit written all over it.

I think we lose to a team like SMU in the Sweet 16. That is my official prediction.
Click to expand...
A lot of people said the same thing 3 years ago or in 2011. The point being is you can't say any team has early exit written all over it. A good thing going for this team is that we are deep and can beat you in many many ways with many many players.
 
K

kevcat

Heisman
Feb 26, 2007
27,686
32,625
0
NCukcat62 said:
A lot of people said the same thing 3 years ago or in 2011. The point being is you can't say any team has early exit written all over it. A good thing going for this team is that we are deep and can beat you in many many ways with many many players.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

Look, it wouldn't shock any of us if this team loses in the second round, but we have a lot of weapons, and now that the defense has improved, this team has a realistic shot to get to Phoenix.

Now, that being said, I don't like our chances if Monk scores 6 points against the likes of UNC, Arizona, UCLA.....etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crpoore and NCukcat62
Midway Cat

Midway Cat

All-Conference
Feb 7, 2004
16,225
2,626
113
Some of you seem to forget that the 2010 team couldn't shoot.

As in, our best three-point shooter on the year was Eric Bledsoe (49/128 .383), and we shot 33.1% as a team (218th). That's not a deficiency you can overcome in college or the pros at this point.

This year, we have 2 guys comparable to Bledsoe in Willis (38/99 .384) and Mulder (32/84 .381) plus one of the best scoring guards in college basketball in Monk leading the way (92/225 .409).

Also ignored, this year's team defends the three far better than 2010 (32nd vs. 225th). Say what you will about "talent," but you saw what happened to the 2010 team. They didn't defend the perimeter against WVU and couldn't make shots to get back in it.

This year's group might go down, but I doubt it will be because they shoot 4/32 from three against a zone.
 
B

bigblueinsanity_rivals250340

Heisman
Apr 13, 2002
44,001
97,152
0
Supreme Lord Z said:
I've been watching college ball for a long time and sorry but this team has early round exit written all over it.

I think we lose to a team like SMU in the Sweet 16. That is my official prediction.
Click to expand...

We're ripe for it. An experienced, fundamental team who slows down the game, plays zone, and makes us defend for long periods.

Let a team like that hit some shots and us have a cold night; and it's over.
 
D

docholiday51

Heisman
Oct 19, 2001
22,011
26,718
0
It has been an interesting regular season.16-2 is probably better than most thought we would be in the SEC,26-5 is close to where most thought we would be overall.

Early on it appeared that we were going to get better than we were by mid January thru mid February.Late in February and so far in March we are better than it looked like we would be in mid January thru mid February.Honestly it is hard to tell where we are,our record is that of a very good team(maybe top 5) how we got there leaves things a bit more open for discussion.

Have we gotten about as much out of this team as there is to get(maybe) or does this team have enough for a run to the elite eight or final four(maybe)

If we get thru the first weekend I think it will be time to look around at who is left and see how we stack up.If we get to that point i think a case can be made that we have had a good year,if we win games beyond that we are approaching having a great year.

This team has been great fun to watch at times and very frustrating to watch at other times.I hope we get to see a few more games of the fun Cats before it is all said and done
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBUK, UKrazycat2_rivals and JerseyCat84_rivals57050
W

Whatsup

All-American
Feb 15, 2011
8,987
8,085
0
I think if our team can score more points than our opponent in every game they play in the big dance they will stand an excellent chance to win #9 this year. I’ll hang up and listen to your answer. Monk came home on Sunday.
 
Mike-D

Mike-D

Heisman
Jul 14, 2001
50,426
75,568
113
morgousky said:
The competition this year is far worse than it was seven years ago. This team would have zero answer for Cousins and especially Patterson, who would dominate this team. Fox is not in Wall's galaxy. Bledsoe would be able to guard Monk enough to contain them.

It's an insane comparison. This team is overhyped and has been since the start of the season.
Click to expand...

But...

We da best. Best team in da nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom