Im feeling good about next year.

[Westtncat]

We might not be as good as we were last season ever again. There's an entire universe between "terrible" and what we saw last year. Teams can win titles and not be nearly as good as last year's team.

I still think we need at least one more, maybe two, to be a legit contender. There's a multitude of unknowns, beginning with somebody like Alex Poythress. Poythress has never been consistent in his career at UK, not once, and he's going to be the anchor of the team. That's troubling.

To be honest, how good were we last year? I know we had a good record but so did Wichita St. the year before. Were they as good as us? Who did we really beat? Don't get me wrong we were definitely good but I think 2012 team beats this team, I think the John Wall team beats this team. As it turns out in the end a very weak SEC and some teams that weren't as good as advertised helped our record a lot.

[KevinHall]

I am not sure I expect a whole lot from Poythress next season. He's never been consistent to start with and now coming off a major injury its going to be even tougher to find that consistency. That's a big reason I'm not having big expectations for next season. Probably an NCAA team if most things go well but not one that will probably advance very far in the tourney.

[Westtncat]

If you go by the final USA today poll, we were 2-1 against top ten teams. Dukes record against top ten teams was 8-2 so the better team is definitely debatable. I think the amount of talent we had was misleading.

[Joneslab]

To be honest, how good were we last year?

Historically good. One of the two or three best I've ever seen at UK. Never seen a team defensively like that and we'll never see it again.

Anything can happen in a one-game situation but that team was SERIOUSLY good. Wichita St. was a very good team as well but that conference has teams like Drake, Loyola Chicago, and Evansville in it. Great achievement to win that many games in a row regardless of competition but Kentucky wasn't just beating teams. It absolutely decimated teams who would end up in the NCAA Tournament.

'96 was the only team I've ever seen who would beat last year's team assuming both teams played their best. 2012 Kentucky was very close. The Wall team had a major Achilles heel with their shooting and were thus flawed.

Going back to the main point of the thread: these kinds of conversations sound good. I.e. that the pressure will be off next year and we can just get back to following a regular team.

But Kentucky fans don't operate like that. When the team loses, there are going to be questions. And this team simply has very uneven, very unproven personnel right now.

A lot of things have to go right.

[Joneslab]

And if you weren't that impressed by what we just witnessed then God help you when you take a look at next year's bunch.

[Joneslab]

If you go by the final USA today poll, we were 2-1 against top ten teams. Dukes record against top ten teams was 8-2 so the better team is definitely debatable. I think the amount of talent we had was misleading.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Kentucky didn't play a lot of AP top ten teams so we couldn't amass any kind of record. Against the top of the RPI we were right there with Duke and Virginia.

There are way more meaningful statistics, though, notably defensive efficiency. The kind of defense Kentucky was putting up was unreal and will never again be replicated at this school.

We were beaten by a very good basketball team with two seriously good players and a lot of experience. No shame in that, although it shouldn't have happened. Coaching sort of led us there IMO.

But this past Kentucky team was insane. "Talent" has become this empty argument that people use both negatively and positively. This past team had way more than talent. They had skill, big-game experience, depth, and they played hard.

They were unlucky in that they got a very tough field. Put that team in the 2014 or 2013 field and they roll through it.

[J.Jennings]

And if you weren't that impressed by what we just witnessed then God help you when you take a look at next year's bunch.

I can't stand the AAU ball philosophy. Great team defensively but at times it felt like the game was being played in the 60's prior to the shot clock era. Impressive yes, fun to watch not really.


Safe to say I am a fan of the up and down trap style of play or the Loyola Maramount /UNLV style of play back in the day. Probaly why I like the NBA because it's a up and down game with scoring.......

[Joneslab]

I can't stand the AAU ball philosophy. Great team defensively but at times it felt like the game was being played in the 60's prior to the shot clock era. Impressive yes, fun to watch not really.

I think it was the opposite of "AAU ball philosophy." Cal was way too tight on the reigns.

Give Andrew Harrison more room to operate and he'd be a much more dynamic player. Cal overcoaches at times, but a lot of these guys do.

Kentucky wasn't an outstanding offensive team for a couple of reasons. Aaron never turned out to be the shooter we really needed. And WCS could be negated in a halfcourt game. But you had to have Willie out there for defensive reasons. That was the catch-22 that hurt us against Wisconsin.

[Joneslab]

And it's funny that now people ask how good Kentucky was.

I remember people's posts during the season, and nobody questioned Kentucky's greatness. We lose one game and it's "I can't stand the AAU mentality" and "Were we really that good?"

Odd.

[Joneslab]

Safe to say I am a fan of the up and down trap style of play or the Loyola Maramount /UNLV style of play back in the day. Probaly why I like the NBA because it's a up and down game with scoring.......

The NBA is a much better game.

The shot clock has a lot to do with that, and there isn't as much overt physicality. Guys can make a living in college just being enforcers. The NBA is a much smoother game.

Way too much emphasis on "efficiency" in college. Coaches try and play it safe, protect the ball, work for good shots. In the NBA if they have a chance to go get a basket, they go.

It's very one-on-one oriented a lot but I think that's the lifeblood of the game. Ironically, it's kind of the "AAU ball philosophy"; the difference is in the NBA they have the talent and skill to make those plays.

Cal came to Kentucky with that mindset (the DDMO, etc.) but has this weird tendency to go away from it when the game gets tight late.

[Westtncat]

"Kentucky didn't play a lot of AP top ten teams so we couldn't amass any kind of record." That's my point. Stats are very suspect depending on your competition. Im not complaining about our season or this team but when you put them on this pedestal like we will never see this again in our lifetime I have to disagree. I think there were teams better than this at UK, I think there were teams as good or better than us this year. What were our stats against like competition? The SEC was horrible this year, IMO no one deserving of a top 25 ranking other than us.

This team was a good, you have no argument here, statistically historically good I agree. My argument is that we didn't play anyone all year really. I guess you can count Louisville as a decent team but our two toughest games were Notre Dame and Wisconsin.

Let me ask you this. In a ten game series do you think we dominate Wisconsin? I don't. Do you think we dominate Notre Dame in a ten game series? Yes we were good but not as head and shoulders above everyone as some like to think. We were one of the top 5 best teams all year. Our schedule helped us out tremendously as far as records and stats go.

[Joneslab]

"Kentucky didn't play a lot of AP top ten teams so we couldn't amass any kind of record." That's my point. Stats are very suspect depending on your competition. Im not complaining about our season or this team but when you put them on this pedestal like we will never see this again in our lifetime I have to disagree. I think there were teams better than this at UK, I think there were teams as good or better than us this year. What were our stats against like competition? The SEC was horrible this year, IMO no one deserving of a top 25 ranking other than us.

This team was a good, you have no argument here, statistically historically good I agree. My argument is that we didn't play anyone all year really. I guess you can count Louisville as a decent team but our two toughest games were Notre Dame and Wisconsin.

Let me ask you this. In a ten game series do you think we dominate Wisconsin? I don't. Do you think we dominate Notre Dame in a ten game series? Yes we were good but not as head and shoulders above everyone as some like to think. We were one of the top 5 best teams all year. Our schedule helped us out tremendously as far as records and stats go.

We'll never agree on most of that so we should probably agree to stop talking about it. I think you're way underselling how good that team was we just saw.

One thing you're right about is that we wouldn't "dominate" Wisconsin in a ten-game series. Nobody would argue that. Wisconsin was a seriously good basketball team. Duke became one once they bought in defensively. I think Arizona could have beaten Kentucky four or five times out of ten. Gonzaga would've gotten two or three.

It was a tough year. That was the problem. Kentucky wins the title in most years.

I also agree with the point that there's something more pleasing about following a flawed team and then being surprised. 2014 and 2011 were tremendous and on the whole way more "fun" than last season.

But the problem is so many of those teams that underachieve during the season don't make those late runs. They're more like 2013: they just keep underachieving all the way through.

Looking at our roster, the thought crosses my mind that this Kentucky team may be one of those teams. Just so many questions.

[KevinHall]

I think it was the opposite of "AAU ball philosophy." Cal was way too tight on the reigns.

Give Andrew Harrison more room to operate and he'd be a much more dynamic player. Cal overcoaches at times, but a lot of these guys do.

Kentucky wasn't an outstanding offensive team for a couple of reasons. Aaron never turned out to be the shooter we really needed. And WCS could be negated in a halfcourt game. But you had to have Willie out there for defensive reasons. That was the catch-22 that hurt us against Wisconsin.

I don't understand this AAU thing either. My conception of AAU ball is that it is basketball without any structure or very little anyway. Basically not much defense and helter-skelter offense. That was far from what UK did last year. If you want to say Cal over coached then that may be a better way of saying it. IMO, he was way too controlling on the offensive end. A little more push it up the floor may have made this team even more dynamic. But still they were 38-1 and just a couple of bad possesions on offense away from playing for the national championship.

[J.Jennings]

And it's funny that now people ask how good Kentucky was.

I remember people's posts during the season, and nobody questioned Kentucky's greatness. We lose one game and it's "I can't stand the AAU mentality" and "Were we really that good?"

Odd.

Well it's very easy to sip on the KOOL AIDE when you have a team that's undefeated. Still, no identity on offense really hurt us in the end and our defense actually looked confused against Wisconsin in the first half. Not sure if it was lack of preparing for a team like Wisconsin or what???

[J.Jennings]

I don't understand this AAU thing either. My conception of AAU ball is that it is basketball without any structure or very little anyway. Basically not much defense and helter-skelter offense. That was far from what UK did last year. If you want to say Cal over coached then that may be a better way of saying it. IMO, he was way too controlling on the offensive end. A little more push it up the floor may have made this team even more dynamic. But still they were 38-1 and just a couple of bad possesions on offense away from playing for the national championship.

We had the defense down because we had talent and if you didn't play defense, Cal would hold it against you and sit you on the bench. As for the offense, it was helter-skelter on offense in my opinion. It's easy to say we finished 38-1 "so what's the problem" but it's also easy to say that with "talent like that", you should have been 38-1 or better.