Calipari: Only Kentucky Could Win 38 Straight

[two3zone]

Not in today's instant gratification sports culture and the modern 24/7 sport media.

I don't dispute that they were good, but they won't be remembered [outside of UK fans] much beyond that boundary, except for failing to win it all.

I'm not a Patriots fan nor even really an NFL fan and can tell you they won 18 straight. I couldn't tell you who won the past 10 Super Bowl's though.

 

[skurey]

All of our seasons except 1 haven't accomplished anything then

 

[RF2044]

All of our seasons except 1 haven't accomplished anything then

Right. Because all of our seasons we've been ranked #1 wire-to-wire, and been the prohibitive favorites to win the championship.

Other than that, how'd you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

 

[skurey]

I don't see how you can say they didn't accomplish anything when they:

won their conference
won their conference tourney
made the Final Four
lost a single game the entire season

 

[two3zone]

Right. Because all of our seasons we've been ranked #1 wire-to-wire, and been the prohibitive favorites to win the championship.

Other than that, how'd you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

RF, with all due respect that's not what this is about, it's not about wire to wire #1, it's about accomplishments just like you said, and you and others have said that if you don't win it all it's not an accomplishment. All skurey said was that we've only accomplished things one time in our history, which by your reasoning would be correct. Another reason I don't believe that "winning a title" is the only thing that can be considered an accomplishment. Going 38-0 in basketball or 18-0 in football is an accomplishment that should't be diminished. If it was anybody but Calipari or say like Jay Wright, I have a feeling that it would be considered an accomplishment.

 

[RF2044]

I don't see how you can say they didn't accomplish anything when they:

won their conference
won their conference tourney
made the Final Four
lost a single game the entire season

Ever hear of the saying, the bigger they are, the harder they fall?

But yippee--they won the SEC! Won't prevent them from going down in history as a flop.

 

[skurey]

I agree they should have won the championship, failed their goal at winning the championship and going undefeated, and will be looked upon as a failure.

Doesn't mean they didn't accomplish anything.

 

[RF2044]

RF, with all due respect that's not what this is about, it's not about wire to wire #1, it's about accomplishments just like you said, and you and others have said that if you don't win it all it's not an accomplishment. All skurey said was that we've only accomplished things one time in our history, which by your reasoning would be correct. Another reason I don't believe that "winning a title" is the only thing that can be considered an accomplishment. Going 38-0 in basketball or 18-0 in football is an accomplishment that should't be diminished. If it was anybody but Calipari or say like Jay Wright, I have a feeling that it would be considered an accomplishment.

Under normal circumstances and for most teams, I'd agree. But there are certain teams that transcend that viewpoint. A UK team so good that they could platoon a second unit better than most teams, and went wire-to-wire undefeated has a different set of expectations and scrutiny than most teams. Relative to the expectations set for them, they came up short. Comparatively, the Wisconsin team that beat them will probably be recognized as the team that slew goliath this past season, as opposed to the team that lost the national championship game. Everything's relative.

The 18-1 Pats squad is similar. Of course they were phenomenal, that team was an offensive juggernaut. But not winning the superbowl that year was a black mark, and despite how outstanding they were, they will never be mentioned in conversations for the greatest team ever. Why? Because they didn't win it all. Right, wrong, fair or unfair, that's just the way it is.

 

[skurey]

That's funny because I do view the 07 Pats as the greatest team ever

 

[RF2044]

That's funny because I do view the 07 Pats as the greatest team ever

Edit: Other than Pats fans and skurey, no one will mention them in the conversation for best teams ever because they didn't win the superbowl.

 

[two3zone]

Under normal circumstances and for most teams, I'd agree. But there are certain teams that transcend that viewpoint. A UK team so good that they could platoon a second unit better than most teams, and went wire-to-wire undefeated has a different set of expectations than most teams. Relative to the expectations set for them, they came up short. Comparatively, the Wisconsin team that beat them will probably be recognized as the team that slew goliath this past season, as opposed to the team that lost the national championship game.

The 18-1 Pats squad is similar. Of course they were phenomenal, that team was an offensive juggernaut. But not winning the superbowl that year was a black mark, and despite how outstanding they were, they will never be mentioned in conversations for the greatest team ever. Why? Because they didn't win it all. Right, wrong, fair or unfair, that's just the way it is.

Even with one loss for each of those teams they need to be and probably will be considered the best ever. Uconn won a few years ago with what, 10-12 losses? Because they won a title does that make that team better than last years UK team? Giants still better than the Patriots that season? One game doesn't change you from being the best ever to irrelevant. The best team doesn't always win and in both cases the two teams were talking about were the best teams that year. Judging a team by one game over a larger sample size is very close minded.

 

[RF2044]

Even with one loss for each of those teams they need to be and probably will be considered the best ever. Uconn won a few years ago with what, 10-12 losses? Because they won a title does that make that team better than last years UK team? Giants still better than the Patriots that season? One game doesn't change you from being the best ever to irrelevant. The best team doesn't always win and in both cases the two teams were talking about were the best teams that year. Judging a team by one game over a larger sample size is very close minded.

No, because the transitive property doesn't apply. But it did make uconn [barf] the national champion despite those 10-12 losses, which is a far more meaningful accomplishment than going 38-1.

In 2012, we went 34-3, but lost in the elite eight. Louisville--who we beat twice, and had a worse regular season, won the BET and made it the the final four. By every objective measure, they had a better season than we did. Rightly so, even though I wouldn't trade the 34-3 or the experience of going 30-1 in the regular season. I'm not sure why you are introducing the topic of irrelevancy; not a term I used.

And yes, the Giants WERE the better team... on that night. Unless I'm mistaken, they won the game. If they played 100 games, the Pats probably win 80 or more. But that night, for all the marbles, NE lost, and NY won the championship.

It isn't closed minded, it's how single elimination sports work.

We weren't better than uconn [barf] in 2003--they kicked our ass twice, and would have kicked our asses again if we played them in the tourney. But they lost, and we won out. Our accomplishment winning the championship trumps them being "better," and nobody today cares about uconn 2003 [or most other teams that don't win the NC], beyond the fan base that has a rooting interest in that team. In 10 years, nobody will care about the UK team that lost last year; I doubt that many UK fans will look back favorably on last year's team, relative to expectations.

 

[two3zone]

No, because the transitive property doesn't apply. But it did make uconn [barf] the national champion despite those 10-12 losses, which is a far more meaningful accomplishment than going 38-1.

In 2012, we went 34-3, but lost in the elite eight. Louisville--who we beat twice, and had a worse regular season, won the BET and made it the the final four. By every objective measure, they had a better season than we did. Rightly so, even though I wouldn't trade the 34-3 or the experience of going 30-1 in the regular season. I'm not sure why you are introducing the topic of irrelevancy; not a term I used.

And yes, the Giants WERE the better team... on that night. Unless I'm mistaken, they won the game. If they played 100 games, the Pats probably win 80 or more. But that night, for all the marbles, NE lost, and NY won the championship.

It isn't closed minded, it's how single elimination sports work.

We weren't better than uconn [barf] in 2003--they kicked our ass twice, and would have kicked our asses again if we played them in the tourney. But they lost, and we won out. Our accomplishment winning the championship trumps them being "better," and nobody today cares about uconn 2003 [or most other teams that don't win the NC], beyond the fan base that has a rooting interest in that team. In 10 years, nobody will care about the UK team that lost last year; I doubt that many UK fans will look back favorably on last year's team, relative to expectations.

In sports the best teams don't always win, the best team doesn't have to win the title, the best team may not win a series, but it's not even that we're talking about that, we're talking about an accomplishment, 18-1 and 38-1 is an accomplishment.

Are you trying to say that JB has only accomplished 1 thing in 40 years?

 

[RF2044]

In sports the best teams don't always win, the best team doesn't have to win the title, the best team may not win a series, but it's not even that we're talking about that, we're talking about an accomplishment, 18-1 and 38-1 is an accomplishment.

Are you trying to say that JB has only accomplished 1 thing in 40 years?

If the Yankees only won one WS in 40 years, their fan base would argue that they'd only accomplished 1 thing in 40 years.

You don't need to convince me of all people that the journey is often rewarding, regardless of outcome. But let's be honest, there ARE posters who consistently express that it is all about postseason success [final four or bust]. And from the perspective, everyone else goes home unhappy except for one team.

You're right, the "best" subjective team doesn't always win the title. But when they don't, then they aren't the objective "best" team, the team that defeated them is. Sports that utilize series tend to statistically mitigate outliers [i.e,. the Villanova-type championships], but in single elimination sports, a lot more significance is placed on the outcome of individual games. Just the way it is.

But enough of this hair splitting. The point of this thread was to discuss Calipari's claim that only UK could go 38-1. I think that the comments were rationalized and asinine. Lots of teams have approached being undefeated in recent years, it is admittedly rare, but doesn't only happen at UK.

 

[orangefog]

UK pays for championships. Calipari is a good, not great coach. His strengths are controlling the narrative and making UK attractive to recruits by any mean$ necessary. But, a collection of talented players don't always make the best team. They were obviously very good last year, but I never thought they were one of the best teams I've ever seen.

 

[Alsacs]

First Calipari is a dope. They were a great team but the SEC sucking made it easier for them. Columbia was up like 12-0 at Rupp.
Kentucky had the best defense in the country with their NBA length but the team was flawed offensively.

Note I as a Pats fan that 2007 team was special but because they didn't win it all they are just footnotes in history. The pressure of being undefeated did eventually get to them. They could have lost a couple of games a MNF game in Baltimore, the last game against the NY Giants and the AFC title game versus San Diego were all tight games.

The Giants outplayed them in Arizona and won. I do believe that Pats team was a better team but just like the SB versus the Rams were better I thought before and the Pats won that game.