Totally agree. Pitino had elite talent that had multiple years to learn his system. Cal has elite talent that plays together for a few months. Apples and oranges.
Kentucky tops teams that have underachieved with great recruiting classes
- Thread starter Cardiotonic
- Start date
Totally agree. Pitino had elite talent that had multiple years to learn his system. Cal has elite talent that plays together for a few months. Apples and oranges.
It was Camelot while Pitino was there, Calipari has turned it into the Doo drop Inn.
Amazingly, nobody in college basketball would remotely agree with this. Didn't we recently go to the championship game as an 8 seed? Beating the 1 and whatever you were seeded that year?
You mean no one would agree that higher seeding leads to an easier path to the Final Four? Go ahead and take that survey.
And why do coaches want better seeds? Why not just randomly fill in the bracket?
"Elite program", my a$$...
Pitino had a stacked roster by the time he left in '97. No way he had that level of talent for most of the prior seven years, and nowhere close to the talent on LPT's roster today.
"Elite program", my a$$...
What the hell are you talking about?! EVERYBODY, with the exception of some $ec wanks, would agree that the $ec basketball is beyond pitiful. be you just wait until the academic scandal that's brewing over uahkay's basketball graduation rates rears it's ugly head and buries Cal. Those so called basketball grad rates are an absolute joke.
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
I was referring to your statement of UK ( I have no idea of what an LPT is) should automatically never be higher than a 3 or 4. Even for you that's a stretchYou mean no one would agree that higher seeding leads to an easier path to the Final Four? Go ahead and take that survey.
And why do coaches want better seeds? Why not just randomly fill in the bracket?
"Elite program", my a$$...
When you play a crap basketball schedule, you shouldn't get a shot at a one-seed. It's as simple as that. Anyone who plays a good basketball schedule will agree. LPT is not entirely responsible for its SEC schedule, at least in the short run. But when the majority of your OOC schedule is comprised of teams like Eastern Kentucky, Albany, and the New Jersey Institute of Technology, you get little credit for trying to schedule good teams, and you should be correspondingly seeded come March.
Just to make sure, is this a fan of LPT and the SEC trying to take the moral high on off-the-court issues? Wanna make sure so I can go get my camera!
"Elite program", my a$$...
Kansas, North Carolina, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona State, Valpo
Those are some of the teams on the upcoming OOC schedule for UK.
Not sure what you are talking about as far as a weak OOC schedule. Cal always has a tough OOC schedule, every year.
Those are some of the teams on the upcoming OOC schedule for UK.
Not sure what you are talking about as far as a weak OOC schedule. Cal always has a tough OOC schedule, every year.
bobby elvis you understand that YOU ARE ON OUR BOARD and if one of us were on your board saying similar things to what you are saying here we would be "gone", period. That's the difference between intelligent (somewhat) discourse. I am aware that the truth hurts and no one despises what happened at Minardi Hall more than I do but we are cleaning up that mess. At uahkay those very things get covered up with magic fax machines and such. The reported grad rates at uahkay are a major joke and other schools, especially those in the $ec are getting damned sick and tired of it. They are about to bust your gonads. You can stick your head in the sand all you want but just remember where you heard it.
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
Our OOC is generally ranked one of the better in the country. There are stats to back that up.
I do agree that our SEC schedule is usually weak. Maybe one top 25 team per year
I do agree that our SEC schedule is usually weak. Maybe one top 25 team per year
UK U of L
2016 39 46
2015 31 15
2014 3 85
2013 71 9
2012 28 3
2011 15 25
2010 53 19
Avg 34.28571 28.85714
Not that big a disparity between SoS ranks really.
I'm not really going to get into a rigorous analysis of the schedules. No one but an LPT fan is going to claim that a schedule with 25 or so unranked basketball teams is a good D1 schedule.
What I recall is that LPT plays a disproportionate number of RPI 30-100 teams. Those teams help your overall SOS, but they don't challenge your team like Elite 8 or Final 4 teams will. Except for LPT, the SEC is a basketball dumpster fire. But 8 of the 13 SEC teams besides LPT were in the RPI Top 100 last year.
That doesn't mean the SEC is better than most people think, that teams better than RPI 100 are generally good teams, or that the SEC is underrated. It means you have to look at schedule stats a little more closely.
"Elite program", my a$$...
What I recall is that LPT plays a disproportionate number of RPI 30-100 teams. Those teams help your overall SOS, but they don't challenge your team like Elite 8 or Final 4 teams will. Except for LPT, the SEC is a basketball dumpster fire. But 8 of the 13 SEC teams besides LPT were in the RPI Top 100 last year.
That doesn't mean the SEC is better than most people think, that teams better than RPI 100 are generally good teams, or that the SEC is underrated. It means you have to look at schedule stats a little more closely.
"Elite program", my a$$...
I'm a numbers guy. If you want to discuss numbers, I'm your man zipp. If you want to have an anecdotal conversation about what constitutes a good schedule, you're barking up the wrong tree. Numbers say UK and U of L play VERY similar scheudles. Numbers say UK has advanced further in the tourney 6 of the 7 years Cal has been at UK. Is it a product of our "weak" schedule and overseeding? The numbers say no.
You're like the dude at the poker table who wins a few hands as a 65-35 dog and assumes that's the norm. Like your faulty opinion, that isn't sustainable long term. I'll trust math every day. Math has no opinion and doesn't argue with anyone, because it is right.
And I say all of that with respect because damnit, when you take a position you will go to the ground to support it, which is admirable. But you're wrong here.
I'm a numbers guy as well. But I don't keep mining the same numbers to tell the same story...
LPT finished #11 in the RPI last year, while U of L finished #17. Not that different.
LPT played one team in the Top 10 in the final ranking; U of L played four games against teams in the Top 10.
LPT played five games against Top 20 teams; U of L played eight.
And a stat that I really haven't seen summarized in too many places... LPT played one game last year against teams ranked higher than it finished. Ranked not much lower, U of L played in six such games.
I don't really care how good or bad the bottom half of your schedule is compared to U of L's--although it should be noted that LPT lost to two teams ranked 100+ meaning those games aren't a sure thing. But neither team should be losing to teams ranked lower than 100. And if U of L plays more 200+ or 250+ teams, I don't care.
LPT doesn't routinely play nearly enough of the games to DO matter to justify a high seed.
"Elite program", my a$$...
when it boils down to it every game can't be against upper echelon competition. Louisville plays quite a few cupcakes OOC to offset their rigorous conference slate. Kentucky is the opposite. We try to schedule premier opponents in the OOC to offset out sub par conference.
It's hard to keep final four teams on the schedule every year because you play the same team for three or four years on a contract, plus we have two games a year that rotate between three opponents. I feel comfortable that scheduling Louisville, UNC, Kansas, Michigan St, Duke will give us pretty good competition to see where we stand nationally.
Our schedule hasn't hurt our tournament success yet and I don't expect it to moving forward
It's hard to keep final four teams on the schedule every year because you play the same team for three or four years on a contract, plus we have two games a year that rotate between three opponents. I feel comfortable that scheduling Louisville, UNC, Kansas, Michigan St, Duke will give us pretty good competition to see where we stand nationally.
Our schedule hasn't hurt our tournament success yet and I don't expect it to moving forward
Your OOC schedule isn't nearly as "premier" as it's alleged to be. I'll leave the names off...here's your OOC schedule RPIs:
107
207
20
146
196
229
113
102
211
99
74
17
1
That averages out to a ranking of 117. These are games you have the most choice in playing. And to underscore that scheduling myth, the average RPI rank of the conference portion of your schedule was 92 last year. You guys actually played harder teams in the SEC on average than you did OOC.
Again, you don't wanna try arguing that the SEC is strong (6th in conference RPI).
When you're as old as I am, who has time to sleep?...
UofL fans will say UK fans "expect" a title, but that number of fans is extremely low. The majority of UK fans, just like UofL fans, hope for, believe it can happen, and desire a NC. Far more similarities than differences when it comes to expectations for their BB programs.
I think what is difficult to grasp sometimes in understanding the UK fanbase is that they are made of 3 groups, educated, uneducated and then the ones that truly believe that no matter what year, what coach, what players they have, they are the best team in the country. Other fan bases have these kind of fans but not in the same numbers. You will never shake that belief, it's like the sun will come up in the morning. As rivals we would just say this group falls into the uneducated group but they refer to themselves as "true blue"
