Am I the only one that thinks Kentucky is bull****?

[Zimwillett]

I fail to see how a team with more talent winning every game is bull****? I mean they are still the best team. HAving the most talented players is part of being the best team. I do not comprehend what you are trying to get at. Having the most talent does not make a team bull****.

I mean if you are trying to say that Coach Cal isn't great b/c he has all this talent? OK i can see that.

But to say a team isn't that impressive because they have more talent than everyone else....ummm yeah, that is why they are impressive, b/c they have lots of talent

Exactly. Were the UCLA teams under Wooden "bull****"? Wooden was a great coach and a great man, but at the end of the day, it was the superior talent made UCLA the dynasty it was. That's just part of the game.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

It's kind of like when Oklahoma A&M had Bob Kurland, the tallest player in basketball at the time, and all they did was throw it to him, over the much shorter players on the other team, and he dunked it or laid it in (dunking may have been illegal). On the defensive end, goaltending was allowed so he sat under the basket and blocked most every shot. Back then, the tallest players on other teams were in the 6'4" or 6'5" range for the most part.

My dad went to his grave saying what OSU did in those days was not impressive because of how they did it. The same applies here for Kentucky.

So going undefeated b/c they have the most talent makes their accomplishments less worthy or impressive? Isn't the point of bball to win the game? Don't you want to bring in the best players possible? Since when is that looked down upon?

If you want to say what UK is doing is less impressive than another undefeated season of national champtionship team b/c of their talent fine. but that is not what the OP was stating

 

[Smash Williams]

I fail to see how a team with more talent winning every game is bull****? I mean they are still the best team. HAving the most talented players is part of being the best team. I do not comprehend what you are trying to get at. Having the most talent does not make a team bull****.

I mean if you are trying to say that Coach Cal isn't great b/c he has all this talent? OK i can see that.

But to say a team isn't that impressive because they have more talent than everyone else....ummm yeah, that is why they are impressive, b/c they have lots of talent

I'm with Bounce on this.

You can argue that it's commendable that these talented players are sacrificing minutes and numbers for the sake of winning. When OU or any other schools loses a recruit to a lesser program, it's because he feels entitled to a playing time he hasn't earned and is afraid of competition. On the other hand, if a recruit goes somewhere with other highly talented players, then the team doesn't deserve credit because it's too stacked. Should the 1985-86 Celtics be "discredited" for having five Hall of Famers?

 

[Price is Right]

So going undefeated b/c they have the most talent makes their accomplishments less worthy or impressive?

Obviously it makes it less impressive. Again not knocking Kentucky or their schedule but if OU 36-0 that would clearly be much more impressive.

 

[152219]

Exactly. Were the UCLA teams under Wooden "bull****"? Wooden was a great coach and a great man, but at the end of the day, it was the superior talent made UCLA the dynasty it was. That's just part of the game.

Depends on how big of a role Sam Gilbert played in Wooden's success in your opinion.

 

[thebigabd]

What would possibly be bull**** about Kentucky? They are the best program with the best fan support with the best players and the best coach. They are to be admired

Come on... nobody likes watching 7 NBA players kick the **** out of teams with nowhere near equal talent by 25 points, and only 25 because they lay off. If they really wanted to they could beat teams by 50 points. I honestly think Calipari doesnt want to do that for this very reason.. He worries about the perception of beating people by 50. He even said it in his conference last night, "thats not how I coach", he said. If he wanted it would be a lot worse than it is.

So going undefeated b/c they have the most talent makes their accomplishments less worthy or impressive? Isn't the point of bball to win the game? Don't you want to bring in the best players possible? Since when is that looked down upon?

It's looked down upon when the talent difference is so drastic that everyone else just has to bend over and take it. This isn't boxing when Mike Tyson was dominant, golf when Tiger Woods killed everyone, etc. This is college basketball, and the scales are tipped so far in the other direction that people are seriously asking if this team can beat other professional teams.

People underestimate how hard it is to get 18-20yo to play together every night. Sure he has lots of talent, but how many other schools have talent where it doesn't pan out because of bad apples?

No other schools have this much size and talent... Lots of teams in college basketball don't even have a legit 6'9'' guy.

Should the 1985-86 Celtics be "discredited" for having five Hall of Famers?

That's still pro players vs pro players. This is pro players vs amateur players. That is the difference.

He has made significant adjustments, that is the definition of coaching. That's more impressive to me than Jim Boeheim who sits in the same style year after year.

Calipari is a great coach, no doubt about it.

 

[campbest]

Depends on how big of a role Sam Gilbert played in Wooden's success in your opinion.

It's more convenient for people to ignore facts like this.

 

[bocabull]

Agree on your statement about Knight. But saying Calipari represents "everything that is right" is worse than delusional.

In my view his tenure at Kentucky has been exemplary. It's just not just the talent he brings in but also the off court behavior. His program at Kentucky represents not only talent but hard work and character. Just look at the guys who come through there and follow them in the NBA. Not a bad apple in the bunch. Quality individuals who work hard and do things the right way. You can say Cousins but to me he is just immature and growing out of it.

I could be missing something, but don't recall a single negative story about any of these kids. Worst thing is something about Bledsoe possibly getting paid back in high school by some agent.

He's a great guy who demands hard work and his players love and respect him. What more do you want out of a coach or program than what Kentucky has demonstrated under his tenure?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Obviously it makes it less impressive. Again not knocking Kentucky or their schedule but if OU 36-0 that would clearly be much more impressive.

This isn't what the thread is about.

 

[Zimwillett]

I'm still kind of baffled by this "too much talent" concept. Isn't that pretty much the hallmark of the vast majority of great teams? People don't still talk about they 1927 Yankees because they were a bunch of talentless hacks. They were the "Murderers Row" with Hall of Famers up and down their roster. It just doesn't make sense to diminish a team's accomplishments simply because they happen to be more talented than the teams they're competing against.

 

[Smash Williams]

Which college team had 7 NBA players on the same team 10 years ago?

The national champion 10 years ago had six NBA draft picks (including four lottery picks) plus Jawad Williams, who was undrafted but spent a few years in the NBA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004–05_North_Carolina_Tar_Heels_men's_basketball_team

Three of those lottery picks (Felton, May, and McCants) were juniors; the only one of those draft picks who was a freshman that year was Marvin Williams.

Look at Florida the following two seasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006–07_Florida_Gators_men's_basketball_team

The 2007 Gators had six NBA draft picks, including three of the top nine picks in the 2007 NBA draft (Horford, Noah, and Brewer) and the #16 pick in the 2008 draft (Speights). Horford, Noah, and Brewer were all juniors.

2004 UConn had seven picks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003–04_Connecticut_Huskies_men's_basketball_team

Okafor and Gordon were juniors that year, and they both went in the Top 3.

The big thing you're missing in arguing against the "10 years ago" thing is that experience matters, especially when you're looking at 18-22 year old players. Teams from 10+ years ago may not have been able to match 2015 Kentucky's depth of raw talent, but some of them had more experienced elite players. If you have one or two elite upperclassmen, that can offset a collection of deeper, less experienced, younger talent. The only upperclassman on this UK team that'll go in the first round is Cauley-Stein.

 

[Price is Right]

This isn't what the thread is about.

Yet I was responding to something you had posted in this very thread...

 

[IndySooner]

The big thing you're missing in arguing against the "10 years ago" thing is that experience matters, especially when you're looking at 18-22 year old players. Teams from 10+ years ago may not have been able to match 2015 Kentucky's depth of raw talent, but some of them had more experienced elite players. If you have one or two elite upperclassmen, that can offset a collection deeper, less experienced, younger talent. The only upperclassman on this UK team that'll go in the first round is Cauley-Stein.

I just look at the landscape of college basketball these days and it doesn't look and feel as strong. I don't think this OU team is as good as the Griffin teams, yet it's in the same place. I don't think this OU team is anywhere near the 2002 or 2003 teams, yet it's in this place.

I agree with you that the lack of upperclassmen in college basketball is a big key. I also don't really see any Blake Griffins or Carmelo Anthonys out there these days - including on the Kentucky team. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll sprout an NBA superstar or two, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[rickjames]

In my view his tenure at Kentucky has been exemplary. It's just not just the talent he brings in but also the off court behavior. His program at Kentucky represents not only talent but hard work and character. Just look at the guys who come through there and follow them in the NBA. Not a bad apple in the bunch. Quality individuals who work hard and do things the right way. You can say Cousins but to me he is just immature and growing out of it.

I could be missing something, but don't recall a single negative story about any of these kids. Worst thing is something about Bledsoe possibly getting paid back in high school by some agent.

He's a great guy who demands hard work and his players love and respect him. What more do you want out of a coach or program than what Kentucky has demonstrated under his tenure?

Your love of Calipari and Kentucky is truly disgusting. Pretty ignorant that you're fine with how Kentucky is winning games. They will be on probation sooner than later. Book it.

 

[campbest]

I agree with you that the lack of upperclassmen in college basketball is a big key. I also don't really see any Blake Griffins or Carmelo Anthonys out there these days - including on the Kentucky team. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll sprout an NBA superstar or two, but I'm not seeing it.

We are three years removed from Anthony Davis...who is about to finish top 5 in the MVP voting.

 

[campbest]

the national champion 10 years ago had six nba draft picks (including four lottery picks) plus jawad williams, who was undrafted but spent a few years in the nba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004–05_north_carolina_tar_heels_men's_basketball_team

three of those lottery picks (felton, may, and mccants) were juniors; the only one of those draft picks who was a freshman that year was marvin williams.

Look at florida the following two seasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006–07_florida_gators_men's_basketball_team

the 2007 gators had six nba draft picks, including three of the top nine picks in the 2007 nba draft (horford, noah, and brewer) and the #16 pick in the 2008 draft (speights). Horford, noah, and brewer were all juniors.

2004 uconn had seven picks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003–04_connecticut_huskies_men's_basketball_team

okafor and gordon were juniors that year, and they both went in the top 3.

The big thing you're missing in arguing against the "10 years ago" thing is that experience matters, especially when you're looking at 18-22 year old players. Teams from 10+ years ago may not have been able to match 2015 kentucky's depth of raw talent, but some of them had more experienced elite players. If you have one or two elite upperclassmen, that can offset a collection of deeper, less experienced, younger talent. The only upperclassman on this uk team that'll go in the first round is cauley-stein.

Not only are you posting facts, but coming with a complete bibliography.

 

[Price is Right]

I agree with you that the lack of upperclassmen in college basketball is a big key. I also don't really see any Blake Griffins or Carmelo Anthonys out there these days - including on the Kentucky team. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll sprout an NBA superstar or two, but I'm not seeing it.

For me its hard to really say for sure what the Kentucky guys will do at the next level. They have all bought into his system and play so unselfishly that we don't get to see these guys "take over games" like Blake, Carmelo, etc...

Has anyone on the roster had a big scoring game this season? like 25+?

 

[bocabull]

Which college team had 7 NBA players on the same team 10 years ago?

This is nothing new. North Carolina and UCLA used to do it all the time. How about James Worthy, Michael Jordan, Kenny Smith, Brad Daughtery, Sam Perkins, Matt Doherty

 

[MisterMarch]

I just look at the landscape of college basketball these days and it doesn't look and feel as strong. I don't think this OU team is as good as the Griffin teams, yet it's in the same place. I don't think this OU team is anywhere near the 2002 or 2003 teams, yet it's in this place.

I agree with you that the lack of upperclassmen in college basketball is a big key. I also don't really see any Blake Griffins or Carmelo Anthonys out there these days - including on the Kentucky team. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll sprout an NBA superstar or two, but I'm not seeing it.

AAU ball has a lot to do with it. Instead of going to camps and developing their skills during the off season, kids now have to play in non-stop tournaments with little to no real coaching going on. The system is designed to make money for the sponsors, not to help the kids become better players.

 

[IndySooner]

We are three years removed from Anthony Davis...who is about to finish top 5 in the MVP voting.

Do you see an Anthony Davis this year? That's kind of my point.