Imagination: Do the Wildcats Have Any?

by Truzenzuzex on Feb 7, 2009 10:45 PM EST in Commentary Comment 63 comments

Has a lack of imagination been largely responsible for Kentucky's recent woes?

I harken back to the days of Eddie Sutton, January 25th, 1987. UK's opponent was #18 Navy, who had on their team The Admiral, Daivd Robinson. Robinson was an amazing talent, and had lead Navy to many victories and of course, became a legend in the NBA. He was a dangerous player, and many wondered how we would stop him when he brought the Midshipmen into town. Kentucky was unranked at the time, and appeared to have no answer for Robinson.

So Eddie Sutton used his imagination.

Instead of trying to hold Robinson down, UK allowed him to go off for 45 points on 17-22 shooting, 11-12 from the foul line. Sounds very much like a recipe for disaster, right?

Wrong. Besides Robinson and Derek Turner, no other Navy player had more than 4 points. That's right, Navy had six players score, and only two of them had more than four points. In fact, only three of them had as many as four points, including Robinson and Turner. UK won handily, 80-69.

Sutton used his imagination. He reckoned that David Robinson, if opposed, could not score 75 or 80 points. Robinson was a very smart player and would not force shots when he didn't have great position. Oh, he got great position plenty, and UK could not match up to him. And even though he shot a remarkable percentage, UK largely dominated the game by stopping everyone else.

Enter Rick Pitino in his first year. Pitino knew that UK's weak leftovers could not beat many people playing a conventional style, but he knew that he had a few guys who could shoot the basketball. So instead of worrying about post position and rebounding, Pitino's team worried about making three point shots, and made enough that a UK team that had no business winning more than five or six games managed 14 wins that season. Pitino's teams never played exactly that way again.

Last year, Billy Gillispie discovered that the only way we could consistently win was to shorten the game and work for the very best shot possible. It was ugly basketball, by UK standards, but it had one redeeming virtue -- it worked. UK found its way into the NCAA tournament after one of the worst starts in Kentucky history.

Which brings us to now. I think that largely, the last three games have represented a failure of imagination on the part of the team and the coaching staff. Against Ole Miss, the team could not imagine a scenario in which struggling Ole Miss defeated then 5-0 UK led by Jodie Meeks and Patrick Patterson, who were tearing teams up. Their lack of imagination cost them, as Ole Miss took Jodie Meeks completely out of the equation, and Patrick Patterson was not enough.

Then, South Carolina came into Rupp. Billy Gillispie had to know that the Gamecocks were going to take Meeks away, just like Ole Miss did. Did he make any changes? Nope. As you might expect, the result was exactly the same, if much closer.

Then came Mississippi State. By now, surely everyone knows what the game plan is defensively. Not only that, Ole Miss presented some serious mismatches offensively. Kentucky came out and played exactly the same kind of game as in the previous two. The result -- the same.

I think even a blind man could see this pattern by now. Every team in the SEC knows how to beat Kentucky if they didn't know before. The method is tried and true, and has succeeded 100% of the times it has been tried. Has Kentucky done anything different? Not to the extent that even my experienced eye can see it. It looks like we are playing the same way we did against Tennessee and Alabama and Vanderbilt.

The difference is, other teams are playing Kentucky differently, and have found a recipe that has yielded remarkable success. So if Billy Donovan does not come in and play exactly the same kind of defensive game, he is a fool -- and he is no fool. And if UK does not make an adjustment of some kind, something more or less radical, the result will almost certainly be the same.

What we have is a lack of imagination. It's time Gillispie dreamed up something new.

0 recs | Comment 63 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I completely agree...

I mentioned something similar after watching the MSU game that their coach has basically spelled out how to play defense against the Cats and win. I know that BCG is stubborn but I am hoping that we do come out with some imagination against Florida. I will be unable to watch the game (as it is 3am-5am local time here) but I know how important this is for our team. GO CATS!

by Clay Mason on Feb 8, 2009 6:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This Is What I Think

We need to play an NBA style of offense that give us scoring options like: Pat 1, Jodie 2, Stevenson 3, Miller 4, and Liggins 5. The team would then understnad that we don’t just have two guys that are allowed to shoot the ball. This concept must be injected into the team’s mindset or we will struggle the rest of the season. The quick hook mentality will and should be adandoned for the rest of the season aswell. A good shot is within the offense, but not when another team member passes up a shot to get in the hands of well defended team member that always leeds to a turnover. We must see a totally different team on Tues or we will look to next year and if asked go to the NIT.

by cswcat78 on Feb 8, 2009 7:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Very Good Tru

I think this is for sure thinkgs that UK is lacking… We will truly see what kind of team we have over the next eight games… I think they have to go at least 4 and 4 and win one game in the SEC tourney to get in the tourney because of a low RPI… I really thought prior to Ole Miss UK could play with anyone in the country on a neutral court and I guess I need to retract that statement… Either I am an idiot for making such a statement, to much of a homer and did not see the issues or the players have lost faith in their coach, his system and each other… As I said the next eight games will tell… Most important stretch for BCG so far…

I remember the NAVY game well… I had just gotten out of the NAVY about one month before the game… You mentioned Wojcik before in your blog a few days back and he had a bad day that day with five turnovers but did have nine assists… I played ball with him one summer in Norfolk while he was on assignment for the Academy… We would be the only white guys in the gym (no other intention here except we just thought it was funny and we would always end up guarding each other if we were on opposite teams)… I think he lead the nation in Assists in 86 which was not hard to do with Robinson in the post… Sutton did do a great job that day… That game was played on Super Bowl Sunday…

ShagOnSports - "people should know when they are conquered"

by ShagOnSports on Feb 8, 2009 9:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

You were in the Navy virtually at the same time I was. I got out of the Navy in September of 1986. I was in Norfolk after my ship was commissioned out of Newport News Naval Shipyard from about June of 1985 to February of 1986 when we took the USS Olympia, SSN 717 around to Pearl Harbor, where I was for the rest of my time.

I remember the game very well, as David Robinson wanted to be a submariner just like I was. I had doubts about whether or not Kentucky could stop him, but they didn’t really try. They just held down everyone else.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Feb 8, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have the answers but..

I would like to see this team try some run and gun. I think we are long enough and athletic enough that running, gunning and pressing defensively would work. We already turn the ball over too much so why not try it. Plus, our big men run the floor exceptionally well and Meeks is awesome in transition. Last year’s team needed the style we are playing right now. This year’s team does not in my opinion. Take a page out of VMI’s book and shoot before you turn it over. Then press. That’s what I would like to see.

Xbox Live Gamertag: hoopchi

by hoopchi on Feb 8, 2009 10:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I remember when Gillispie was first hired

There was some talk about creating some “special teams” to try to get the maximum use out of some players’ skills. We never really saw that, and I’m not surprised as it’s one of those things that are easy (and fun) to talk about in the abstract but when it comes to actual games it’s hard to follow through on.

I think there are some ways that thinking can help this team though. For instance, if someone is really good at setting screens in practice then get them on the floor for a series of possessions to set screens for Meeks. Even if they don’t lead to good shots, it will force the defense to run through them. Most players don’t want to continue to fight through screens, they just get tired/aren’t tough enough and UK can gain an edge if they can wear out opponents that way – especially if it happens early.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 10:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Overall talents...

I think much of the problem is that outside of Meeks and Patterson there isn’t a whole lot of talent on this team. I think they are athletic and have good size but the god given talent,especially on offense,isn’t there. But also the lack of imagination by BG and the coaching staff is causing some problems as well and I think BG’s ego and pride gets in his way. I think that was evident after the SC game when he wouldn’t shake Horn’s hand because BG knew we was outcoached. I think he needs to use the big bodies this team has to set screen after screen to get Meeks and Patterson the looks they need. They are our only hope.

by maysvilleblue on Feb 8, 2009 12:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This Year Not Last Year

Last year’s strategy of shortening game, working for shot and giving team the opportunity to win at the end was successful due to a couple of reasons: personnel and clutch performance. Just ponder for a moment how many closely contested games Cats pulled out in last 3-5 minutes. Some of that was due to decisive functioning by two rejuvenated seniors and a great part was due to the gods of basketball. On the personnel contribution I would suggest that the 2007-8/2008-9 disparity can be attributed to the “missing 25-30%”. Last season UK had 3 prime scoring options: Crawford, Bradley and — prior to his late season injury — Patterson; and to a lesser extent Jasper and, even less, Stevenson. This year those options are limited to, as recent games have so accentuated and affirmed, Meeks and Patterson with approximately the same from Stevenson. Not to be overlooked in the equation is the notable quantity of minutes played by last year’s options especially Crawford and Bradley — the reason being of course: the bench was undependable. Prime members of that talent-challenged, untrustworthy bench were Porter and Harris, now members of the starting lineup; and that’s pretermitting the impactive experience factor. Adding up the deficiencies of last year’s Cats vis a vis this year’s one can easily arrive at the “missing 25-30%”, presumptively more. Point is Gillispie’s imagination, if you will, covered up much last season but this year the talent and experience hole is such scope that no matter the innovation and inventiveness it cannot be filled. maysvilleblue put it quite succinctly:

I think much of the problem is that outside of Meeks and Patterson there isn’t a whole lot of talent on this team. I think they are athletic and have good size but the god given talent,especially on offense, isn’t there.

Until Cat fans accept that fact and realize that only by overachieving will UK realize success they will be subject to much frustration and disappointment. I’ve chosen, for the sake of my mental health, reduced expectations.

by Wild Weasel on Feb 8, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I had reduced expectations at the end of last year.

But during the summer they grew. I began to believe that Liggins and Miller would provide the needed scoring and ability that left when Crawford and Bradley graduated. Unfortunately, I now know that it is foolhardy indeed to expect a freshman, no matter how talented, to replace a senior. It’s just the eternal optimist in me I guess. I read too much about recruits and basketball in the off season which lead me to grandiose expectations of their performance. Add in serious expectations for Galloway and Harrellson and that just makes it worse.

You are correct though. There is still a talent deficiency when comparing us to many top tier schools and in many ways even the SEC. I love Harris and his work ethic and defensive skills but his inability to dribble and drive without losing the ball is baffling. Porter works his guts out but he’s playing so out of position and is not suited to extended stretches at point. Even Meeks has trouble at times with turnovers. How many times has he dribbled the ball off his foot when driving this year? It’s not a far stretch when seriously considered to understand why this team has struggled at times considering what we lost from last season which in itself was a difficult year. Crawford, Bradley and Jasper are huge shoes that will not be filled overnight.

But even so, I like this team. At times they can drive me insane, but if things would just click with them, I think we can finish strong and make the tournament, possibly even make some noise. Here’s hoping that happens.

Xbox Live Gamertag: hoopchi

by hoopchi on Feb 8, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Talent

To be honest, I’m getting a little sick of the “we don’t got no talent” argument I keep reading/hearing from UK fans as a reason for the team’s struggles. LOTS of basketball teams play well without having great talent at most positions – in fact that’s the status of nearly every D1 program. Unless you are UConn or UNC, you have to give non-star quality players a lot of minutes. UK is no different this season and, in fact, has an advantage over a vast majority of BCS conference teams due to the presence of not one, but two AA-quality players in Meeks and Patterson. Teams have done more with less before and there is no reason UK shouldn’t be doing better too.

I’m not suggesting that they should be able to win a title with this bunch, but it should be enough to win the SEC East and, this year, enough to win the SEC. They’ve had some struggles, but the talent level of the team isn’t the main reason – the coaching, decision making, and development are the main culprits.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

The 2008 seniors were talented. So were 2008 transfers Legion and Jasper.

The 2008 recruits (who replaced them) are either less talented or haven’t gotten a chance to show their talent.

The talent of the mid 1990’s at UK is rare in college basketball, yet some UK fans expect it (always).

Pitino was 219-50 or 81% in 8 years as coach in the 1990’s. He is 186-71 or 72% in 8 years as coach in the 2000’s.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 8, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Legion At Champaign

Did you watch Legion today vs Purdue? 5 minutes in mop up duty. Have you watched him at all? During a recent TV game the analyst said something to the effect that he didn’t play a lick of defense and shouldn’t be on the court. Legion leaving UK was good riddance.

by Wild Weasel on Feb 8, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually checked the score of that game, and then checked Legion's recent output

His numbers have been all over the place, including PT. He was getting a lot a few weeks ago, and putting up solid numbers (many games in double digits). The last 2 weeks, he’s only seeing 5-8 minutes/game, and not scoring much. He also seems to be very turnover-prone. I wonder if he’s happy with his decision. I’m guessing he expected to immediately start and play 25+ minutes/game once he was eligible there, and that’s just not happening for him. From a regret standpoint, he likely would have played much more at UK this year.

I think had he stayed, and had he gotten over himself enough to commit to Gillispie’s game plan, he would have been a strong defender and a major contributor on offense.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.

by blbskue on Feb 8, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Said He's Talented (And He Is)

Not that he played a lot today.

It’s hard to blend in, mid year.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 8, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Par Talent At Best

Taken as a whole roster UK’s basketball talent is inferior to UF, UT, USC in SEC East and not expansively better than Vandy. In the SEC West LSU and Arkansas have more physical talent while Ole Miss and MSU are quite comparable.

Oh, by the way, in your mention of elite talented teams you omitted: Duke, UCLA, Pitt, Wake Forest.

by Wild Weasel on Feb 8, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those teams do not have elite talent at every position

Duke and Wake both have 3 very good players and solid supporting casts, but nobody who is better than say Stevenson or Miller. I’ve seen less of Pitt and UCLA, but from what little I’ve seen and read, they aren’t in the same class as UNC and UConn talent-wise.

As for USC, they do not have more talent than UK. Florida might be a smidge more talented, but not so much that they are clearly better. Tennessee has more, but they don’t have much to show for it – more evidence to my main point that it is not a lack of talent that is keeping UK from achieving.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

USC has..

4 players averaging double figures and the starting five average almost 6 points per game more than Kentucky’s. I think the talent level is very close and seeing as how they beat us on our own court, they might be better. I didn’t take time to look at all stats but in this area, they win. Granted, our two studs are quite a bit better than their players (excepting Downey) but it takes a team to win.

Xbox Live Gamertag: hoopchi

by hoopchi on Feb 8, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's more to talent than scoring

But just looking at Offensive Ratings:

Of the USC players who have played in most of their games this season, only 2 have an Ortg above 110. Evaldas Baniulis shoots 3’s and that’s about it. He’s very good at what he does, but it’s all he does. Dominique Archie is a bit more well rounded, but is nothing special. Fredrick and Downey are both pretty good, but both have Ortgs below 110.

Contrast that with UK, who has 3 players above 110 (though Stevenson is just barely). Patterson and Meeks are well above that mark and of course we all know what they can do. Harrellson is above 100, and while the rest of the players are below that mark, I think that says more about their lack of shots than it does about their talent. Most of them are right around 11-12% whereas most of SC’s main players are around 14-15% – that makes a big difference.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do think our lack of talent is part of the problem, but there are other issues too

The point guard position is obviously a weak spot. Porter is a good kid, but he would not be starting at USC, FL, Tenn, Ark, LSU, etc. Liggins is more talented, but he’s not nearly the player many were expecting. He has to improve his decision making and he has to improve his outside shooting. I do think he will be a really good player next year, but he’s not there yet.

The small forward position is also another weak spot. Harris and Miller struggle with turnovers and neither one provides much help in the scoring department.

Stevenson is a decent player, but he’s still inconsistent and not aggressive enough at times.

Galloway and Stewart have contributed very little this year and I don’t see either one playing a big role next year.

I do like Harrellson a lot and I would like to see him get more playing time.

GBB!!!

by OGETARTS on Feb 8, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He Wasn't Recruited To Start At PG For Kentucky Either

Jasper (PG) and Meeks (SG) were the starters in the 2006 recruiting class. Porter, back-up to both.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 8, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup, I know Porter wasn't recruited to start

…..but he is starting and that shows that the level of talent at UK is not where it needs to be.

But I’m not blaming all of our struggles on lack of talent. I do think CBG has done a poor job with this team and I think there are probably some internal problems/chemistry issues too.

GBB!!!

by OGETARTS on Feb 9, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I expect no changes

and this team will have to “learn” on their own how to play better.They have had an entire week to prepare for UF, and should get the win at home.A loss would be one foot in the grave for this team,this season.I have not lost faith in this team,or it’s ability to make the NCAA.We really need this win,and bad.

by -Zoso- on Feb 8, 2009 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ah, Faith

Perhaps the greatest surveyor and critic of things American, H.L. Mencken summed up faith for me:

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

I fear that it is illogical that UK will have a lengthy or successful post-season and improbable that it will qualify for the 65. Thus my lack of faith but not hope. Why else would I watch?

by Wild Weasel on Feb 8, 2009 6:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think ...

… we will easily qualify for the tournament.

I fear our tour will be brief, however.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Feb 8, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did some investigation that may even make Forty envious.

UK’s RPI is now something like 75th. Here is a list of the last teams invited based on their respective RPI:

2008 / 50 / Purdue
2007 / 50 / Virginia
2006 / 51 /Utah State
2005 / 53 /North Carolina State

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RPI Not That Important Any More

The NCAA selectors don’t use RPI as Be All, End All.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 8, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really? How so? Since when?

Do you have some sort of insight that I haven’t seen? Please do share.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Pay Attention On Selection Sunday

You should try it.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 8, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

You can pay attention while still thinking up these witty retorts?

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you think we're getting in with an RPI of 75 you're crazy

It is just not going to happen. If the field was selected today we wouldn’t be invited. However, I do ~~think~~ hope that the Cats can turn it around and get their RPI lower. Win a few games and the RPI will move nicely closer to 50 which would make me much more comfortable.

by Clay Mason on Feb 9, 2009 3:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The NCAA Field Is Selected In Mid March

The RPI today will have no bearing on it.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 9, 2009 5:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Money Money Money Money!!!

Hoze, you are forgetting the almighty dollar. UK brings attention and fans to tournament sites. UK will make the NCAA some money, I firmly believe that UK has been helped this in the past. You saw it last season and you also see it in bowl selections.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Feb 8, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the secondary bowl game selections where filling the stadiums in Memphis is important,

but that is not the case with the basketball tourney. If money was a driver, they would have never moved to a geographically balanced seeding.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Money is always a driver

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Feb 9, 2009 9:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's not really true

The RPI is used to frame the discussion on certain teams, but it doesn’t decide it. Other factors are included to be sure, but the RPI is an important one. It’s not impossible to get an at-large selection with an RPI in the 70’s, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

That said, there’s no point in worrying about the RPI at this point – either UK will turn things around and start winning enough that the RPI will take care of itself, or they will continue to lose games they should win in which case it won’t matter.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RPI

It’s one factor but not the Be All, End All factor.

That’s what members of the Selection Committee say every Selection Sunday. No one seems to remember until the next Selection Sunday when they say it again.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 8, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your the one who keeps typing

Be All, End All…not anyone else. To use your well worn phrase, ‘…I didn’t say that…’

The RPI plays a major role in determining who gets in…certainly there are other considerations such as number of teams per conference, end of season performance, etc. But it’s not a coincidence that over the past four years the bubble burst in the low 50’s in RPI.

I think the above data just reinforces how important the UF game is like we all know.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Conference affiliation doesn't play any role

At least, not directly. There is a “conference SOS” component that is looked at due to all the unbalanced conference schedules, but there is no quote system in place.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking more on the 'back end'

…meaning that like last year, I think Illinois State was screwed because they already had two teams from the MVC even though ISU had a RPI up in the high 30’s. I also think the same thing happened to Syracuse when it was ‘determined’ that there was a sufficient number of teams already in from the Big East.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, there are always going to be some teams squeezed out

I would have to go back and read to remember Illinois State, but with Syracuse I remember quite well that they were excluded for a) playing a pathetic non-conference schedule and b) for accruing a Big East record by beating the worst teams and losing to all the good ones (one such reason why the Conference SOS exists).

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two years ago Syracuse had a RPI of 32....Illinois State had a 36 and was left out last year.

I don’t know how weak Syracuse’s non-conference schedule was, but the two scenarios you recalled would have been accounted for with the RPI, right? From my recollection, although the committee wouldn’t admit it, the determining factor was likely the fact that the Big East that year was sufficiently represented by the number of teams already in.

But yes, you’re correct…someone always seems to get squeezed.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Conference means nothing

Actually,seen a special on ESPNU last season,and a member from the selection committee was a guest.He said BCS has zero impact on seeding and selection.He called it “branding” and it not allowed.Basically,overall W-L record,quality wins,and last 10 games carry the most weight.Wins against the top 50 and top 100 are also used,when comparing team A to team B.

by -Zoso- on Feb 9, 2009 6:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For me....

….I listen to what people say, but believe what they do.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 10, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It Does Not (Any More)

Selection Commitee members say (over and over) it’s The Total Body Of Work.

That’s the words they use.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 9, 2009 6:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It was always the total body of work

It’s true that for a long time the MEDIA pushed the idea that selection was based entirely upon RPI or that RPI was the most significant factor, but that is not reality, nor has it ever been.

Joe Lunardi started the trend of looking at what actually goes into the selection process, and for many years he was a voice in the wilderness because no matter how often he demonstrated otherwise, fans and media and talk radio always proclaimed that selections were based on RPI and conference affiliation. A few years ago the NCAA selection committee started inviting national media to participate in and write about a mock selection process and that was the time that you started to see writers talk about the other factors.

But that doesn’t mean there was a change in what the committee looks at – what changed was the media’s understanding of the process and hence more coverage and emphasis on the other factors.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 9, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course there are other factors

Nobody is saying there aren’t. But the nature of the RPI is such that if a team does well in those other factors (plays well down the stretch, wins games away from home, plays and beats tough competition) their RPI is going to be high. If their RPI is low, then more than likely they do poorly in those other areas as well. Not always, but 90% of the time.

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 8, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 8, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

one question

you say that those are the last teams invited, and their respective RPIs. But what are the highest RPIs in each of those tournaments?

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Feb 9, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Help me with the math

65 teams get into the NCAA. A number of teams get in on the basis of being a conference champion — what is it 12 teams or so. Including the OVC champ and champs from similar conferences.

So we have roughly 50 teams who do not get automatic bids who are selected on selection sunday.

And if a team like Georgia, which would never have been selected on selection sunday, last year wins the automatic bid, that cuts down on the number of selection slots.

So if we are 75 now, we need to move up something like 30 places. Given the weakness of the SEC this year, that’s a challenge.

What are the odds?

by Fortunatus on Feb 9, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

However, you can’t really forecast what needs to be done. It’s not only a function on what your team does or doesn’t do, but what the teams do in front of you as well. But for UK to be even considered, they better move north of the Top 55 in my humble opinion.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 10, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are more automatic bids than that

There are 31 automatic bids and 34 at large bids

...when you let other people tell you what success is, you already have no chance of ever finding it. - Doug Glanville

by JLeverenz on Feb 10, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Change the temp...

Someone said earlier to increase the tempo and press a litte. This is a very good suggestion. We have the athletes to put full court pressure on people. We are long enough and fast enough to force turnovers and speed up the game. Our guys are in shape, several of them have played the whole game. The few games early this season when we pressed it worked. I have not seen it since.

If we can’t speed it up…
Then put someone in the game who can shoot the ball. Slone may be that guy. But they say he’s too slow on defense, have we played a zone defense one time this season?? Why not try it. If it will allow you to get some shooters on the court then play a zone. If they start hitting some shots, the lane opens up, Patterson scores more and Meeks has room to penetrate.

GO CATS!!!!!

by UKfan79 on Feb 8, 2009 8:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Slone

As much as I like him, he simply cannot defend.

He’s been blown-by on a number of occaisions, most notably last Tues. versus MSU.

Of course, lately no one on the team has defended well …

by Ken Howlett on Feb 8, 2009 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Got a 3 blocked

He attempted a 3-pointer, which got blocked by a smallish guard about six inches out of his fingertips. I want the kid to succeed, and I know he wants to succeed, and his rep is that he can hit 3s, but he hasn’t demonstrated it yet.

by Fortunatus on Feb 9, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Comparison

Team A 16-7 (5-3)
Good Wins
@ Tennessee
vs. WVU (Neutral)

Bad Losses
vs. VMI

Tough Losses
@ UL (by 3)

Team B 20-4 (13-1)
Good Wins
vs. WVU (Neutral)
NC State

Bad Losses
vs. College of Charleston

Tough Losses
@ Oklahoma (by 4)

I’m sure its pretty obvious which teams these are but I found their resumes surprisingly similar.

by Clay Mason on Feb 9, 2009 3:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why am I not figuring out Team B?

I’m assuming it’s not a current-season team (has some team played 14 conference games already???).

I know A = UK this year. . .

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.

by blbskue on Feb 9, 2009 7:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Guess

Davidson aka Curry University

by Wild Weasel on Feb 9, 2009 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahh. I checked

and in that you would be correct. I gues the lesser conferences play less OOC games?

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.

by blbskue on Feb 9, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We need to win. That will make sure we get into the tourny. We do not have 1 quality non conference win. Yeah we beat W Virginia, but they aren’t playing good in conference play nor is Kansas St. The only way we shut all of these commentaters up is to win. Non of them like UK anyway. The rpi ranking is a big deal because for the people that don’t watch SEC basketball, that is what they rely on. If u don’t watch a conference play all season how do u know how good a team is other than rpi. We need to start playing hard and win. If the kids don’t play hard, sit them on the bench. There is someone else on the bench who wants to. Forgive my grammer and spelling because I am on my phone. Haha
GO CATS!!!!!

by UKfan79 on Feb 9, 2009 12:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As Kentucky fans.....

I truly feel we don’t have a leg to stand on. Imagination. The last coach we had supposedly had no imagination, but all he did was win he had the second highest percentige behind Rupp. He won a Ncaa ttitle and numerous sec leage and tournament titles and it was never enough for the majority of the big blue nation. Now Tubby has gone on to another twenty win season and a national ranking of 19 the only problem is its with another team. I just wish everyone would shut up with what the coach is or isn’t doing and show some loyalty. After the way Tubby was treated and now the way Billy is being treated we better be happy with what we got because we’ll be lucky if anyone else would take the job.

by bigbluefan on Feb 9, 2009 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pitino had a better record than Tubby

by Clay Mason on Feb 9, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not In The 2000's

Pitino is 186-71 (2002 thru 2009 so far).

Tubby is 191-69 (same timeframe).

Pitino won 1 NCAA, 2 SEC (3 if U count 1991), and 5 SECT at UK.
Tubby won 1 NCAA, 5 SEC (2 are shared), and 5 SECT at UK.

by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 9, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Imagination...

Yes, Adolph Rupp was the originator of “let the star shoot; strangle the rest”. He did it against Cazzie Russell, Dave Bing and Jerry West. All scored big but lost to the Cats. I don’t know what is wrong with our current Cats at the moment. However, something is obviously not right. We should be 8-0 in the SEC. We must beat Florida. They are not that good.

by craggycat on Feb 9, 2009 1:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs