Kentucky Basketball: Devastating Deja Vu
Watching the University of Kentucky basketball team thoroughly dismantle, dismember, and just generally "dis" the Wake Forest Demon Deacons 90-60 Saturday night, I was taken back. Transported, via my memory bank, to March of 1996. Seeing this inexperienced (Kansas was experienced, right?), yet bewilderingly talented group of Wildcats pilfer the spirit and will of an opponent, an NCAA Tournament opponent no less, flooded my mind with thoughts of Tony Delk, Antoine Walker, Ron Mercer, Derek Anderson, Walter McCarty and the rest of the '96 national title 'Cats. And although the 1996 championship team was longer in the tooth than the 2010 'Cats, the domination remains the same.
UK 110, San Jose State 72, and UK 84, Virginia Tech 60 ... sound eerily familiar? Kentucky won their first two 1996 NCAA Tournament games by an average margin of 31 points; The 2010 edition of the 'Cats have jitter-bugged their initial two Big Dance foes by an average of 29.5 points per game. The 1996 'Cats averaged 97 points per game through their first two tourney tilts, and the '10 'Cats have responded to the challenge by averaging 95 points per game. UK's first two tourney opponents in '96 averaged 66 points per game, while the 2010 'Cats have held their opposition to 65.5 points per game.
Once again, cue the "Jaws" soundtrack ... duh dunt, duh dunt ... cue the ominously over-sized dorsal fin, effortlessly gliding toward the soon-to-be capsized cutter ...
Not unlike man-eater versus man, it's domination to the extent of being unfair. It's what UK fans pine for, it's what UK fans cherish, it's what allows UK fans to effortlessly float to work on March Monday mornings, rendering the rat race an afterthought. Instead of big blue minds being occupied with seemingly meager paychecks, spousal shortcomings, children on the verge of being anarchists, and the state of the economy, they are delightfully pressing the replay button on UK's two rounds of utter evisceration:
- Field Goal % -- Kentucky: 69 - 123 (56.1%); Opponents: 44 - 128 (34.4%).
- Three-point field goal % -- Kentucky: 22 - 54 (40.7%); Opponents: 6 - 32 (18.8%).
- Two-point field goal % -- Kentucky: 47 - 69 (68.1%); Opponents: 38 - 96 (39.6%).
- Points off Turnovers -- Kentucky: 28; Opponents: 18.
- Points in the Paint -- Kentucky: 90; Opponents: 62.
- Fast Break Points -- Kentucky: 41; Opponents: 30.
Has it been one or two 'Cats that have led the surge? No. It's been the deadly combination of all five starters, as well as major contributions from those who spend more time watching than playing:
- John Wall -- 31 points on 10 of 16 shooting (6-10 threes), and 18 assists.
- Eric Bledsoe -- 42 points on 15 of 20 shooting (9-12 threes), six assists, and six steals.
- DeMarcus Cousins -- 24 points on 10 of 12 shooting, 16 rebounds, five assists, and five blocks.
- Patrick Patterson -- 26 points on 11 of 16 shooting, nine rebounds, and three blocks.
- Darius Miller -- 25 points on 8 of 14 shooting, 10 rebounds, and zero turnovers.
- DeAndre Liggins -- Seven assists and zero turnovers in 44 minutes.
- Daniel Orton -- 14 points on 6 of 8 shooting, seven rebounds, and four blocks in 26 minutes.
- Perry Stevenson -- Six rebounds and three blocks in 20 minutes.
Tremendous individual numbers to be sure: All five starters averaging double-figures, all five starters making well over 50.0% of their field goal attempts, and all 13 players performing as a unit -- As a team, UK has handed out 48 assists on 69 made field goals, an impressive 69.6% assist rate.
Imploring ones uber-talented performers to play as a team is often the fiercest challenge facing a coach lucky enough to boast multiple superstars, but John Calipari has proved himself worthy of the tag, "Salesman of the Year." Calipari has sold his team on ... What's good for the team is good for me; Calipari has sold his team on victories being more important than individual achievement; and Calipari has sold his team on giving up individual glory, for the glorification of the team ... Sound eerily familiar? Rick Pitino, as coach of the '96 'Cats, also perpetrated a "Zig" Ziglar-like sales pitch, convincing his overly talented charges to willingly sacrifice statistics and individual glory, for the good of the team.
The other, just as telling aspect of this team's manifestation of their potential, can be found in their defense. And make no mistake, the suffocating defense the 'Cats have played thus far in the NCAA Tournament has been the primary factor that has propelled UK toward two wide-margin victories. Defense, though, is most often a place for youth-oriented teams to rest, not excel. Because, youth doesn't understand disruptive defense starts offense ... youth doesn't understand making an opponent work for a shot, will, in the final minutes of the contest, make the bad guys' legs tired and their shots short. What this Kentucky team understands and embraces is defense starts the devastating break, which results in the defense prematurely ending the (no) contest.
So what is to be made of UK's quick-silver start to the 2010 national title tournament? Afterall, the 'Cats have dispatched two much lower seeds, one a fifth place finisher in the Atlantic Sun Conference. The other, a middle of the pack team out of a less-than-beastly ACC.
I say, it mattered not who the 'Cats were playing. Their execution on both ends of the floor, including incredibly accurate shot-making, and sticky man-to-man D, has Kentucky finally fulfilling the promise that leads to hanging banners. And no, it's not a coincidence that the emergence of the new and improved Killer 'Cats has coincided with the start of the NCAA Tournament. As many opined throughout the SEC season, the keep-it-close 'Cats were waiting on the season that matters most to unveil their full complement of abilities. And as much as I disdain a team cruising, that may be exactly what this team did over the last half of the SEC slate. Which is what led many to espouse that a team filled with such youth was incapable of "putting teams away," and still others went so far as to theorize the missing killer-instinct would eventually spell doom for UK's brigade of neophytes.
What this team is now doing, though, is playing with the same intensity and focus, not for 15 or 20 minutes, but for the full 40. All season the 'Cats have intermittently displayed the ability to humiliate an opponent, letting off the gas just as the threshold of invincibility was becoming clearly attainable. But no more.
Now the goal is clearly defined and understood -- Win, and leave nothing to chance. No heartbreaking game winning three-pointers for an opponent overmatched, no last second zebra interference, no final minute meltdown. Leave the opponent wanting ... wanting the game to end.
Does Kentucky's first two tournament games foreshadow deja vu all over again? Will that eerily familiar feeling continue? Ivy League representative, the Big Red of Cornell, will be the first to find out.
Thanks for reading, and Go, Go 'Cats!
1 recs |
113 comments
|
Comments
Very Nice....Go Cats!!!
I’m forecasting a 20pt + victory for Big Blue…forget this Cornell team. They have played mediocre teams so far and they think they are the “shiz-tzu”. Well, they are not. Their confidence will soon be put to rest when the first half is over and UK is on a hot streak leading into the 2nd half :).
they did almost beat KU at Norman...
hope the team is taking it more seriously.
:)
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 21, 2010 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You're fight about Cornell's comp, with the exception of their game at
KU, which memphis mentions, and the tourney wins they have so far, but they remind me of the 1991-92 UK team in that they play as if they’ve played together for years, and any team that can shoot as well as they do will always give me pause.
But, with that said, UK is overwhelmingly more athletic … but so was Kansas.
by Ken Howlett on Mar 21, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus...
I think (just my opinion) that UK > KU this year. If it were UK vs KU, I think UK would win by double digits…maybe 10/15. So, that being said, Cornell has never played against such talent this year, so THEY better be the ones that do not underestimate…just b/c they won a few, doesn’t mean they can hang w/ the Big Boys.
Also, RE: Wisconsin. I said they were mediocre team, and I meant it. Look at the teams that started strong, but slowly went off the radar (Texas, UNC, UConn) Wisconsin was in that boat going downstream. I really saw that in them during the end of the season and in the Big 10 tourney. Lets not forget how Wofford ALMOST took Wisconsin out to begin with.
So that being said, Wisconsin was vulnerable and Cornell was the benefactor in that. UK, however, is not vulnerable and is very high in confidence, hence my logic that UK stomps Cornell by 20 :).
Off my box now :P
by kentuckyrules on Mar 21, 2010 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
since my first reply
i have been surfing the web and came across Cal’s interview of Jay Bilas – bilas made the point that he was impressed with how far Cal had brought along the freshmen. i have been drinking the kool-aid all season but i may be getting ready to swim in it!!!
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 21, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
see below website...
scroll down about 7 posts – maybe on second page, but called something like calipari puts bilas on the hot seat
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 22, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I like uk in this game but I wouldn’t say Cornell only played mediocre teams…check their sched!! It’s not a knockout but it’s pretty damn tough for an ivy school.
by collegebballfan on Mar 22, 2010 4:12 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Truly scary team.
It really sinks in when you read quotes from those left twisting in the wind after a game. This one from Wake Forest coach Dino Gaudio after the Kentucky game gave me a chill:
I’ve been in the ACC 10 years. That’s as good a basketball team as we’ve played against in the 10 years I’ve been here.
Yes, the same ACC with teams like Maryland, Duke, Georgia Tech and last years National Champion – North Carolina. We are surely living in stratified air.
Not one National Champion
But THREE…
Duke won in 2002 and Maryland followed up with their own NC in 2003.
Duke 2001
Maryland 2002 and Syracuse 2003.
Off by a year.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Which even
makes it more impressive (scary?) for other teams to ponder. And I don’t think these freshmen etal have any idea or care; they just want to win – BIG!
Ken is fired up baby!
The UK team you are describing will not lose. I hope they show up 4 more times.
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
UK = National Championship
I’ve been telling everyone that UK is where its at.
Wasn’t surprised KU lost to Northern Iowa, because Northern Iowa is good, and KU is just plainly overrated
eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK
We appreciate it, especially coming from a 'Nova fan.
by Ken Howlett on Mar 21, 2010 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
hahaha, I can't tell if you're serious or not but, yeah no problem
eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK
By all means I'm serious.
It’s especially classy of you to stop by after ‘Nova lost. Won’t find any U of L fans doing what you did :)
Yep, Thanks...
And Good Luck to you guys, I’m really pulling for Kentucky to win. John Wall has great character, especially his “John Wall jerkin dance”
eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK
Cornell
will be our toughest opponet I believe. Strong on the insdie and outside much like we are. Big ole boys that can shoot lights out. I am glad you put the opposing three point percentage up there…..I was wondering. Cornell is the best three point shooting team in the nation. We don’t match up always with a hot three point shooting team. Not just this year but in years past.
BTW, Game time is 9:57 eastern time…just saw it on facebook from John Clay.
UK would be the best if they played in the Ivy League too....
I was more worried about WF than I am about Cornell….We always play teams w/ the “best this” or “best that” in the nation, look where it led them (usually).
I think 3’s will be traded, but in the end, UK by 20+.
by kentuckyrules on Mar 21, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I appreciate
your enthusiasm I really do but Cornell dominated today. I watched quite a bit of it. Wisconsin is not mediocre. They are a very good team. Cornell shut them down! The match up will be tough…….can we win…….for sure. Will we win…….most likely. I just think not to take this team seriously …………could cost us number eight.
Cornell
and Northern Iowa………looking like two teams who could beat anyone. For anyone who said that Kansas played horrible didn’t really watch that game. Northern Iowa took taht game from them…….they almost coughed it up at the end…..but they pulled it out. Cornell looks like a team that could do the same.
i admit i only watched the last 7 mins
but to me it looked like KU took UNI lightly and when things got close they got tight – despite pulling within 1 near the end. also, UNI played to win as that last 3 attests to and hit it. not disrespecting UNI, but they had a great game and hit a few key shots when it counted. reminds me of our loss to south carolina
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 21, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Kansas came out really soft and sluggish in both its games.
Just didn’t look at all ready to fight.
Northern Iowa was tough as could be, fought and fought and fought.
I agree with your assessment here, tenk.
I watched that entire game earnestly. Kansas flat out got beat. UNI’s bigs (though they be small, they are fierce!) simply took it to KU’s big men. UNI successfully manhandled KU like they just knew they could do it.
At the end, what I saw was a desperate KU defense against a tiring UNI team. Had it gone to overtime, KU would have simply had more gas in the tank. UNI’s fatigue toward the end is, in my estimation, the only reason KU had a chance at the end of the game at all. Without the fatigue factor, UNI wins that game by 10. Word.
We're all just a banana peel away from eternity.
ICQ: 591535544
Yahoo IM: jacksbrain
Well, I never to not take them serious...
Every game should be treated as if the opponent was the best team in the nation. If they just focus (which they should just do) then it will be a slaughter. UK just executes like they always do, and play the D, we will win.
Cornell will get tired. Wisconsin isn’t a team to really run, so Cornell kept their breath. UK will run them, surround them and hustle with them. Toe-to-toe, UK wins, by a lot.
But, they need to focus and treat it like they did the first and second round, no matter WHO the opponent is. When they start worrying like some of us fans do, thats when it gets to them in their heads, and they’ll lose it.
by kentuckyrules on Mar 21, 2010 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Great post Ken
Wake looked exactly like they wanted it…..wanted it to end.
Now since we are cuing Jaws music and fins and all, Cornell will be wishing they had a bigger boat, cause we have a plane !! ’-)
Blue... there is no other color to Bleed !!!
Thanks a2d2
and LOL to your “bigger boat …”
by Ken Howlett on Mar 21, 2010 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions
If/When Cats W Next 4 Games
I think they will be the best UK time of my lifetime and likely better than 1948 Cats also.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 21, 2010 9:40 PM EDT reply actions
Team, Not Time (Sorry)
Typo. No edit function.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 21, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Forty
Congrats to Painter and Purdue. I had them losing early. They’ve really come together.
by Ken Howlett on Mar 21, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Me, Too
I picked Siena to beat them.
Never thought we could beat Tx A&M either.
29 W (today) ties school record for most W in a season.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 21, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
They have not dominated like the '96 Cats.
The ’96 Cats did not wait until the NCAA tourney to pound teams. They pounded teams all year long. And they had 7 NBA draft picks. This team probably has 5 lottery picks (PP, Wall, Cuz, Bledsoe, Orton) and maybe 2 or 3 more NBA draft picks (among Liggins, Miller, Dodson, Hood all have the potential to get drafted in the next 3 years), but maybe not. In other words, it is too late for this team to be better than the ’96 Cats.
But I’m not complaining. I’ll gladly take second best team, with some of the best players ever, and #8.
I didn't write anything about the regular season, just the first two games of the tourney.
by Ken Howlett on Mar 21, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
As A Matter Of Fact, They Have
96 Cats were 34-2. So are 2010 Cats.
The talent is higher on this team than 1996.
You take Delk, Walker, Mercer, Anderson, and McCarty.
I’ll take Wall, Cuz, Patterson, Bledsoe, Orton. I’ll win.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 21, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
This team has not been as good a TEAM as '96.
I agree that this year’s team’s parts are really great. But it does not have the objective support for being a better team, nor the emotion I had for the ’96 team.
The SEC was tougher in ’96. The ’96 team lost to two FF teams, and also beat those same teams. This team lost to South Carolina and one team still in the tourney. The ’96 team beat its opponents by more than 20 points per game. And EVERY game was 20 points per game (I have a wooden plaque on my office wall with every game score that year – its ridiculous how not close every game was – and I can compare it to the same type of plaque for the ’98 team, which had wins more like this team). This team beats a few teams by 30, and just about everyone else by 2-12 points per game for a 15 point per game margin average.
Given the ‘96 team’s season long domination of its opponents, I still think it is the greatest NCAA team ever. This year’s team has just played too close to too many inferior opponents to deserve that title.
But this team has some great players.
If your argument is “who would win” a head to head game (I think you underestimate ’96’s defense on this young team), then it makes no sense to mention the 1958 team. That team couldn’t beat any of the top 10 seeds in this year’s tournament. That team lacked the height or athleticism of today’s players and teams, but it was a great team in 1958.
What happened in 2008? Sigh...
rhetorical question….
by kentuckyrules on Mar 21, 2010 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
1948 Makes Perfect Sense
Undefeated against SEC opponents. Won NCAA title. Won Olympic Gold Medal.
Won UK record 36 games.
The best Rupp team.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 7:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey, now quit changing the standards on me.
I argue that the ‘96 team was more dominant, and you come back with the roster of this year’s team could beat the roster of the ‘96 team. Those are two different standards. (Though I don’t think it is clear at all that this team could beat ’96 in a hypothetical head to head.)
Using the standard of how they fared against their competition in the day, 1948 has a great argument for greatest team ever. As does 1996 based upon domination and great pay with 2 losses to 2 final four teams they also beat.
But if you are claiming that the 1948 team of a bunch of midwestern and Kentucky white boys, with one 6’7" center (Groza) and everyone else 6’4" and under could beat any good team today, you are dreaming. But that argument is entirely different.
It would be like putting any great historic football team up against almost any NFL team today. With lineman weighing about 50-100 pounds more than the linemen of history and running twice as fast, it would be no contest. The undefeated Dophins wouldn’t post a winning record, maybe not one win, today. The game is simply bigger and faster.
1948 Team IS One Of UK's 4 Best Teams Ever
Others are 1978, 1996, and 2010.
Alex Groza was the best big man of his era. My words? No. ARNIE FERRIN of Utah told me that a few years ago.
Ralph Beard was the best giard of his era, better than Bob Cousy.
No one on 1996 team was best anything of his era. Wall has that potentil on 2010 team.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Turner most accomplished PG in NCAA history.
At least one thing the “most” about that team.
"all the way"
Not Even Close To That (Most Accomplished PG In NCAA)
Bobby Hurley made 4 FF in a row and won 2 NCAA titles.
UCLA had PG in late 1960’s who won 3 NCAA titles.
Turner barely made All-SEC and wasn’t A-A ever.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
In terms of wins and losses
I have to disagree with you and say you are absolutely wrong.Turner, 3 final games in 3 years, no one you mentioned approaches that. Turner is without a doubt the most accomplished PG in NCAA history, and rivals Laetner as the most accomplished PLAYER of all time in NCAA.
"all the way"
Hurley > Turner In Terms Of NCAA Accomplishments
I’m not even close to being wrong.
Turner was back-up PG in 1996 (played little as frosh) and 1997 but started in 1998 and 1999.
Hurley started all 4 years as made A-A as senior.
Turner was good but not close to Hurley.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
When all else is equal
I go for the UK guy. To me,Hurley was the third-most overarrated player in history behind Wojohowski(Who Turner embarrassed on national TV), and Jayson Williams, who had his own set of rules, that only applied to him(in regards to what was and was not a foul, kinda like Maddux and a strike in the nineties).
"all the way"
I Prefer Turner In That Sense
But Hurley was the more accomplished, better PG.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Hurley STARTED 3 Straight NC Games
Runner-up in 1990, back-to-back champs in 1991 and 1992. Consensus 1st team A-A as senior in 1993.
Turner was little used back-up PG in 1996, more in 1997, started in 1998 and 1999. Never made A-A. Made 2nd or 3rd All-SEC one year,.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions
All good points...
…if one is arguing “best” by comparison to the era standards.
Of course, I still say the best team doesn’t have to have the best of anything. It can have, simply, the best team. Not many college teams have 5-8 NBA players on the roster, even if none are the top pick.
To make my point, the ‘96 team might not have had the best of any position. I don’t think any players were first team all americans. Yet they dominated the best big man (Duncan), beat the best forwards (Camby, Wallace and Van Horn) and simply won by 20+ a game nearly every night.
Delk Was 2nd Team A-A
Only A-A on 1996 team.
And they DIDN’T win by 20 every night. They beat UMass by 7 and Syracuse by 9.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Great points, Jack
But another aspect that many people do not consider is how drastically the game has changed in 15 years—and it will continue to change, I promise. Also, the relative strength of our opponents has changed as well. I love this team, and am now old enough to really grasp what teamwork and leadership mean, as I see it. I was a young one when the ’96 and ’98 banners were hung in the rafters at Rupp, and I do feel much differently about this current team than I did about the teams during those years.
Regardless, this team IS absolutely the best that we’ve had since those last two C-ships, and I’m grateful for that. And, let’s be honest: why even compare the two? Just appreciate and enjoy this season for what it is, and hope to God that this is our year to shine!
GO CATS
1978 > 1996
The 78 Cats also beat every team on their schedule and each of the other 3 FF teams.
1996 team is in contention for best UK team but the UCLA teams of late 60’s and early 70’s or UNLV teams of early 90’s are the best teams ever.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 7:15 AM EDT up reply actions
'90 UNLV
Was the best college team I’ve ever seen. I go back to the mid to late ’70’s, as far as really paying attention to college bb’s other (than UK) teams.
The '78 team did not dominate its opponents like the '96 team.
And I agree that the UNLV teams are in the conversation. I’m not willing to let UCLA in the conversation. :)
78 Certainly Did
Beat its strongest opponent by 34 (Soviets in preseason).
1996 won FF games by 7 and 9 points. Dominating?
UCLA averaged 20+ ppg margin of victory those years.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I said after the Tennessee loss-
That we would not lose again this year, and I still believe that…
"You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"
I wonder what in the world Cal said to them at half-time,
to get them to come out fighting even harder, when they’d had a beautiful first half and were already up by… what was it? 16?
They came out and just demolished Wake. It looked like Kentucky on steroids. (God, shouldn’t say that. Someone will be investigating Cal six ways to Sunday.) But really… Did anyone think our guys could play like THAT?
Total domination, take-no-prisoners, you-might-as-well-just-lay-down-and-die-right-now, because we are running and jumping and shooting baskets right over your cold, dead boy? Like that?
And can they do it again? Like that? (Oh, please, please tell me they can.)
96 cats
If these guys stuck around like the 96 team they would be ridiculous! I’d have to wait and see….will they win an NCAA tittle? Will 5-6-7 of them go on to the pros for a decade? Win titles ? They are good but the 96 team was sick! They were like the early 80s Boston team in a sense that when they were playing it wasn’t really fun to watch because you aleTa knew the outcome. If DA wasn’t hurt that teAm
woulda had 3 straight!
by collegebballfan on Mar 22, 2010 12:49 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
btw
Anderson said he was fine and wanted to play but Rick held him out. Supposedly to be sure DA didnt ruin his pro career. I’ll never forgive him for that. Coulda had 3 in a row.
by bigbill992001 on Mar 22, 2010 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Amen!
I never forgave him for that. Good write as usual Ken.
Happy Days are here again The sky is all ways BLUE again Happy days are here again !
I never forgave him either, oldcat.
I was at the ’97 game in Indy, and we should have won that game.
And not only did Derek claim he was fine, the team doc declared him to be 100%.
Pitino said something about not hurting his chances at and NBA career by risking injury, but many of those players had potential NBA careers.
I just always assumed that when the doctors told Anderson that his college career was over that he had hired an agent and couldn’t play no matter what. Just a hunch.
But He Did Play (Briefly)
Made 2 FT in one of the FF games.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I had fogotten that....
…if I ever knew it.
Kinda rings a bell.
Pitino just put him in long enough to shoot the free throws?
Regardless
IF he signed with agent and ineligible, he could have shot those FT.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Typo (No Edit Function)
Could NOT have shot FT if he were ineligible.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Why, in the name of all that is holy and righteous,
did Pitino not play him?
UK was exhausted from pressing the whole game, and it didn’t seem to bother Arizona’s guards at all.
Once it went to overtime, I knew we were done.
Who was the guy who berated me earlier in the year for making that point?
Saying Pitino did the right thing in regard to Anderson? IMHO, 97’ team WITH Anderson most explosive UK team in MY forty years of watching UK.
"all the way"
That's The Point
This team is WAY younger than a veteran 96 team, yet the talent level (> 1996) allows it to dominate the same way.
The 96 team had a relatively mediocre experience in the NBA. Few stars, mostly journeymen.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 7:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree...
this team will have more stars in the nba than 96 team. also, taking youth into account, i believe they are better. until now 78 was always my sentimental favorite but this team is challenging that position….
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 22, 2010 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe
But doubtful.
Too much talent to win 2 years in a row, much less 4 years.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree doubtful.
The thing that is easy to forget is that if we assume our players stay four years, we should assume the same for others. How good would Ohio State be if their freshman a few years ago had stayed 4 years? What about Melo’s Syr team? What about UNC which has sent a few rosters to the NBA, all but Tyler early? We aren’t so clearly the best when other team’s hypothetical rosters are in the mix.
Talent is relevant in diluted NCAA
Early exits to the NBA NCAA wide now,make 96’ UK better, playing against better players, (Duncan, IE). No player in tournament now that rivals Duncan, a polished player. I am in no way talking about potential, but the ACTUAL PRODUCT ON THE COURT.
"all the way"
4 Games To Go
But UK gets 4 W, then 2010 > 1996.
38-2, SEC champs, SECT champs.
34-2, SEC champs, SECT runner-up.
2010 > 1996 IF they W out.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Cornell scares me
How in the world are we going to defend the Coury flurry?!?
/sarcasm
Seriously, though, we should pound that team into the hardwood. Of course Cornell is “good” – it’s the final 16 of the NCAA’s, you don’t get there without being good. So no disrespect to them, but they have not seen anything like our skill, speed, and athleticism. The only team that can beat us is us. I’ll take our chances.
2 down, 4 to go. . .
best part is that this looks like the "sexy" upset pick...
Cal will be able to use that as motivation and keep this talk of UK being the favorite to win it all at a minimum.
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 22, 2010 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, they have.
They nearly beat Kansas. Kansas certainly has something like our skill speed and athleticism. KU was good despite their upset.
Obviously if we do not take Cornell lightly (like most folks here) then we should be in good shape. If we do, then we could be in serious trouble. They can really shoot and we can, if inclined, play down to anyone’s talent level.
I don’t think we will, but my memory is not shortened after merely 3 blowouts in 2 weeks. We came back from the Tenn game and laid an egg against MSU and should have got beat. We do not know that our team is now the team we saw last weekend. It could be the team we saw most of the season – which is good but capable of getting beat b/c it lets lesser teams play close games.
Just
I would say that us that seem to be taking them lightly...
Are merely trying to say “this isn’t the end of the world, we’ve faced better and have prevailed”. Nobody got this nervous about WF really….
Does anyone seem to think WV will get crushed by Washington? They have been playing good, but most of us are writing the ticket for WV…
I think we are just anxious to shut the media up about Cornell….
Remember: #14 Ohio crushed Georgetown, but Tenn shut them up real quick.
by kentuckyrules on Mar 22, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I get it.
It doesn’t really matter if we take them lightly or just want the media to shut up. The players are what counts. I just hate trash talking a team that is hot. I am nervous about every game.
I hope they treat that Ivy like Round Up.
I know, we are all nervous all the time..we want to win....
But I just see too much building up for Cornell. THEY should be the ones nervous.
by kentuckyrules on Mar 22, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Been thinking about that
If Washington upsets WV, UK could get to the Final Four and never beat a team seeded better than #9. Has that ever happened before? Not saying it’s a bad thing, per se, as we can only play whoever is next up in the bracket, but I thought it was interesting.
I Think Cincy Got There In 1992 Versus High Seeds
Not sure if #9 or higher though.
by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 22, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
cincinnati was a 4 seed.
beat 13 seed delaware, 5 seed Michigan St., beat 9 seed UTEP, and 6 seed Memphis St. to make the final 4, where they lost to 6 seed Michigan.
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!
by UKWildCatFanatic on Mar 22, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Washington is another example of a hot high seed.
They have won 9 in a row and have a strong playing star carrying them.
WV should be concerned not to take them lightly also. Though no one should expect Wash to win.
Cornell doesn't scare me
They have no one to guard Cousins and Patterson.
They shoot the 3 really well, but I put my faith in Cal to devise a gameplan to negate that.
Cats by 15+
West Virginia is a tougher matchup for the Cats than Cornell, who beat an A-10 team and a middle of the pack Big 10 team to get to this point.
Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still. Followed by millions of dumbfounded dips**ts.
Lemme shed some light on this 3pt % thing.....
Cornell is #1 in the nation in 3pt %….here are some other thoughts from the other top 10 teams that are in that same ranking:
- - Utah State (eliminated)
- - BYU (eliminated)
- - Saint Mary’s (Sweet 16)
- - Kansas (eliminated)
- - Marquette (eliminated)
- - Montana (eliminated)
- - Minnesota (eliminated)
- - Portland (not in the tourney)
- - Lehigh (eliminated)
Lets take ’em out.
Thats supposed to be #2-#10 LOL....my bad...
by kentuckyrules on Mar 22, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
i was wondering about the other top 10...
good stuff…just don’t show it to the team :)
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 22, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I aim to ease some early tension...
Our boys will take them seriously and take them out…no doubt.
by kentuckyrules on Mar 22, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
My favorite memory of the entire 96 campaign was Pitino
giving Antoine the stare down in the MSU tourney game. Pitino stared at him like he wanted him dead, and after that the Cats faltered and eventually lost. Not sure what transpired between the two, but it sure got Antoine’s attention.
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
We are getting "giddy" again
like we did before the South Carolina loss.. I’m just saying..
"all the way"
only difference is
back then “we” did not think we could lose. having lost twice since then, we know we can…hopefully that keeps us sharp
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 22, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Coach Cal yesterday said....
The only film of the Wake game he showed the team was Mark Krebs 3 ball make, and their reaction from the bench. His point, how they act as a team, and where they can go with it. How good is that for everyone?
i don't know, better ask gottlieb...
only one rule in my house - uk has to be your favorite college bball team
by memphis wildcat on Mar 23, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

by 














