[Old School Hound]

Saw this quote from plantguyky  somewhere :  

 "Hopefully this offseason and lack of top transfer talent will open the eyes to UK fans that the name on the front of the jersey doesnt hold the same weight as it used to."

Is our boy right?  Does the Kentucky name not mean what it used to? I mean, it kinda feels that way to me. Other programs have caught up--- Florida, Bama, Auburn, Tennessee. Some could argue , with merit, that Gonzaga has been a better program , at least over the last decade.  I mean, Rupp was eons ago. Even the prosperous Pitino years were over a quarter of a century ago. Cal did amazing here for awhile, but that was a decade ago. Even Cal wasn't able to entice the quality of talent to Lexington like he did years before.   Does  KENTUCKY carry the same weight that it used to, in the minds of todays top basketball talent? Plantguyky says no. What say you???

[4 Quarters]

Saw this quote from plantguyky  somewhere :  

 "Hopefully this offseason and lack of top transfer talent will open the eyes to UK fans that the name on the front of the jersey doesnt hold the same weight as it used to."

Is our boy right?  Does the Kentucky name not mean what it used to? I mean, it kinda feels that way to me. Other programs have caught up--- Florida, Bama, Auburn, Tennessee. Some could argue , with merit, that Gonzaga has been a better program , at least over the last decade.  I mean, Rupp was eons ago. Even the prosperous Pitino years were over a quarter of a century ago. Cal did amazing here for awhile, but that was a decade ago. Even Cal wasn't able to entice the quality of talent to Lexington like he did years before.   Does  KENTUCKY carry the same weight that it used to, in the minds of todays top basketball talent? Plantguyky says no. What say you???

No it does not, but I think the same can be said for all schools.  Money has blinded all of the kids.

[plantmanky]

Thief

[Cactus Jack]

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

Put it like this-- Florida is on a pretty impressive streak of national championships, with three in the last 20 seasons. Kentucky has one in that same period. Even at a pretty unsustainable rate of 3 nattys every two decades to Kentucky's 1, the 'Cats would still lead 10 to 9 in the year 2065 and it'd only be 12 to 10 in the year 2085.

Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas have withstood the test of time throughout this generation. Duke and UConn have also excelled in the past 30-35 years. Villanova and now Florida have had nice runs over the past 20 years.

Past that, there have been good years for otherwise steady teams like Michigan State, UCLA, Louisville, and a roller coaster for almost everyone else.

The only other teams to win multiple national championships are Indiana, North Carolina State, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. Those 'chips were from long enough ago that they don't seem to be extremely relevant today, even though Indiana does have 5 total.


There's plenty more (all time wins, win percentage, conference championships, attendance records, etc.) that make it one of the best histories and traditions in the sport.

A victory over a Kentucky team that was ranked anywhere from third to seventh for most of conference play still seems to mean a lot to teams, even when compared to a win over a higher ranked Auburn or Alabama.

Things could change, but it's going to take a really long time and a lot of other things going right for any one SEC program to catch up.


This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.

[Old School Hound]

Thief

Lol. Hey, I agreed with you. I thought it had merit.  

[plantmanky]

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

Put it like this-- Florida is on a pretty impressive streak of national championships, with three in the last 20 seasons. Kentucky has one in that same period. Even at a pretty unsustainable rate of 3 nattys every two decades to Kentucky's 1, the 'Cats would still lead 10 to 9 in the year 2065 and it'd only be 12 to 10 in the year 2085.

Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas have withstood the test of time throughout this generation. Duke and UConn have also excelled in the past 30-35 years. Villanova and now Florida have had nice runs over the past 20 years.

Past that, there have been good years for otherwise steady teams like Michigan State, UCLA, Louisville, and a roller coaster for almost everyone else.

The only other teams to win multiple national championships are Indiana, North Carolina State, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. Those 'chips were from long enough ago that they don't seem to be extremely relevant today, even though Indiana does have 5 total.


There's plenty more (all time wins, win percentage, conference championships, attendance records, etc.) that make it one of the best histories and traditions in the sport.

A victory over a Kentucky team that was ranked anywhere from third to seventh for most of conference play still seems to mean a lot to teams, even when compared to a win over a higher ranked Auburn or Alabama.

Things could change, but it's going to take a really long time and a lot of other things going right for any one SEC program to catch up.


This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.


These two statements conflict each other, and also make my point. 

[Granny Bear]

Kentucky means as much to me as it always has.

[Cactus Jack]

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.


These two statements conflict each other, and also make my point. 

How do they conflict?

There's no Loyola Chicago, George Mason, or VCU. It was all #1 seeds, all power conferences, and all well funded programs, most of which had beaten most of the highest seeds possible (which also happened to be well funded teams from big conferences) on their path there.

Florida --> #3 Texas Tech --> #4 Maryland --> #8 UConn
Houston --> #2 Tennessee --> #4 Purdue --> #8 Gonzaga
Auburn --> #2 Michigan St. --> #5 Michigan --> #9 Creighton
Duke --> #2 Alabama --> #4 Arizona --> #9 Baylor

Look at the Elite Eight-- four SEC schools, two Big XII, one Big Ten, and one ACC school. All of those schools but Tennessee have recently been to a Final Four or better. Expand that to Sweet 16 and you'd add Kentucky, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and BYU-- three SEC and another Big XII school. All well funded and the upstart (Ole Miss) and reboot (Arkansas) hired coaches who've coached in the national championship game. BYU had their coach hired away by Kentucky, replaced him with someone from the NBA, have very deep pockets, and a fair amount of recent success.

It's going to be hard for a UMBC, Florida Gulf Coast, or St. Peter's to become the next Gonzaga with the way the transfer portal is set up-- one successful year (or two at most) and their coach is gone and talent raided. That leaves well-funded schools in power conferences fighting for championships, and Kentucky has a 50+ year head start on everyone else in the SEC.


We're about to embark on a time where it is ideal to be a Kentucky. Here are those eras, IMO:

1. Late 40's and early 50's
We had the competitive advantage of hiring an assistant named Rupp away from Phog Allen (aka "the father of coaching" & the only lineal descendant of James Naismith coaching tree) in an era where he could give 25+ players a scholarship just so other schools couldn't have them. Back then, we were only in competition with a handful of other schools and the tournament field was smaller.

2. Late 80's to mid 90's
UCLA's strange-hold was over, the majority of top players still played for their local high school or at most had transferred to a parochial school or regional power (i.e., the best player in DC goes to DeMatha, the only cross-country moves were to a prep school like Oak Hill or Hargrave). The shoe companies and AAU had seeped into but not entirely corrupted things. It was practically unheard of for a player to declare for the pros after one or two years of college, much less high school, so the best schools could count on having the best talent for a few years at a time. Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, and even UCLA all had really nice runs during this time, which doesn't seem like a coincidence.

3. Mid-2020's forward.
Here's why:

a. No more worries about a Calipari or Sutton scandal-- you can pay players in the open.

b. There's still a restriction on players entering the NBA Draft and the Overtime Elite experiment isn't looking as promising now as it did two years ago. Still, anything that has been lost in recruiting the top high schoolers is more than offset by being able to go into the portal like it's practically NBA free agency (only every player is in a contract year and we're the Celtics or Lakers). 2010 Butler can no longer afford to bring Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack back for their 2011 run. Everyone is taking from someone below them on the food chain and Kentucky is one of the few at the top.

c. Most of all, you are in THE most powerful conference in NCAA athletics. Sure, Kentucky doesn't have the same level of major donors like Duke, North Carolina, or UCLA, but the SEC helps offset that. There's a great structure with the SEC money/network deals, and they in a much better place than the Big Ten because it's a logical grouping of teams in contiguous states. Two of the other blue bloods (Duke and North Carolina) are locked into a horrible ACC deal that members are losing millions on and suing to get out of while taking flights to play Cal, Stanford & SMU in the meantime. The other blue blood (Kansas) is having to recalibrate to the Big XII's transition and zig-zag from WVU to BYU to UCF to Arizona State. One of "new blood" (UConn) will struggle because their football situation. We'll revisit Villanova & Indiana once a coach whose name isn't Wright or Knight does something significant.

Other SEC schools may be catching up, but there are 15 of them trying to beat each other out to be the #2 to Kentucky (or the #3 to Florida, at best). I'd worry more if it were Florida every year, but it's a Florida, Auburn, and Alabama run that's just happened to overlap a bit lately.

Do you think any of the recently successful SEC schools would take a Final Four for a CFP semifinal if they could only choose one? Do you think any SEC school not named Kentucky would? I don't, but would concede that Arkansas could be debateable. Are we even having this conversation if Auburn had won it? No. Houston? Probably not. We definitely aren't if it was Duke.

If you think it's a bad time to be Kentucky (as a program), I'm very interested in how many other programs you'd rather be, who they are, and why.

[Granny Bear]

Wow Jack!! That's an impressive post!!

[plantmanky]

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.


These two statements conflict each other, and also make my point.



Kentucky isnt getting the best talent through NIL and the portal....The name Kentucky, isnt bringing them in......The coach at Kentucky.....wont bring them in, finishing middle of the pack in the SEC will not bring them in, not the top talent.

[Cactus Jack]

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.

These two statements conflict each other, and also make my point.


Kentucky isnt getting the best talent through NIL and the portal....The name Kentucky, isnt bringing them in......The coach at Kentucky.....wont bring them in, finishing middle of the pack in the SEC will not bring them in, not the top talent.

High School Recruiting Class Rankings (per ESPN in January):

1. Duke
2. Houston
3. Arkansas
4. Kentucky
5. UConn
8. North Carolina
15. Kansas

Rivals has all of those teams still roughly in the same spots and there are few uncommitted players whose movement will drastically shake up the rankings.

Kentucky just signed three guys widely considered to be Top 15-30 in their class regardless which service is ranking them.


Portal rankings will be fluid for awhile given all the attrition, but I expect we end up with one of the Top 25 classes there at minimum. 247 Sports just listed Kentucky as it's current #3 in the Transfer Portal rankings.

Quaintance is a projected lottery pick-- he seems to be the epitome of "the best talent". The Athletic currently has Lowe #14, Quaintance #16, and Kam Williams #27 in their overall portal rankings (which factor in things like positional scarcity).


So if Kentucky isnt getting the top players in high school or from the portal, then who is? And if the name doesn't mean as much anymore, then whose does?

[4 Quarters]

Kentucky means just as much now as it ever has.

This year's chalk Final Four seemed to be pretty indicative of the top schools being able to get the best talent through NIL and the transfer portal.


These two statements conflict each other, and also make my point. 

How do they conflict?

There's no Loyola Chicago, George Mason, or VCU. It was all #1 seeds, all power conferences, and all well funded programs, most of which had beaten most of the highest seeds possible (which also happened to be well funded teams from big conferences) on their path there.

Florida --> #3 Texas Tech --> #4 Maryland --> #8 UConn
Houston --> #2 Tennessee --> #4 Purdue --> #8 Gonzaga
Auburn --> #2 Michigan St. --> #5 Michigan --> #9 Creighton
Duke --> #2 Alabama --> #4 Arizona --> #9 Baylor

Look at the Elite Eight-- four SEC schools, two Big XII, one Big Ten, and one ACC school. All of those schools but Tennessee have recently been to a Final Four or better. Expand that to Sweet 16 and you'd add Kentucky, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and BYU-- three SEC and another Big XII school. All well funded and the upstart (Ole Miss) and reboot (Arkansas) hired coaches who've coached in the national championship game. BYU had their coach hired away by Kentucky, replaced him with someone from the NBA, have very deep pockets, and a fair amount of recent success.

It's going to be hard for a UMBC, Florida Gulf Coast, or St. Peter's to become the next Gonzaga with the way the transfer portal is set up-- one successful year (or two at most) and their coach is gone and talent raided. That leaves well-funded schools in power conferences fighting for championships, and Kentucky has a 50+ year head start on everyone else in the SEC.


We're about to embark on a time where it is ideal to be a Kentucky. Here are those eras, IMO:

1. Late 40's and early 50's
We had the competitive advantage of hiring an assistant named Rupp away from Phog Allen (aka "the father of coaching" & the only lineal descendant of James Naismith coaching tree) in an era where he could give 25+ players a scholarship just so other schools couldn't have them. Back then, we were only in competition with a handful of other schools and the tournament field was smaller.

2. Late 80's to mid 90's
UCLA's strange-hold was over, the majority of top players still played for their local high school or at most had transferred to a parochial school or regional power (i.e., the best player in DC goes to DeMatha, the only cross-country moves were to a prep school like Oak Hill or Hargrave). The shoe companies and AAU had seeped into but not entirely corrupted things. It was practically unheard of for a player to declare for the pros after one or two years of college, much less high school, so the best schools could count on having the best talent for a few years at a time. Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, and even UCLA all had really nice runs during this time, which doesn't seem like a coincidence.

3. Mid-2020's forward.
Here's why:

a. No more worries about a Calipari or Sutton scandal-- you can pay players in the open.

b. There's still a restriction on players entering the NBA Draft and the Overtime Elite experiment isn't looking as promising now as it did two years ago. Still, anything that has been lost in recruiting the top high schoolers is more than offset by being able to go into the portal like it's practically NBA free agency (only every player is in a contract year and we're the Celtics or Lakers). 2010 Butler can no longer afford to bring Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack back for their 2011 run. Everyone is taking from someone below them on the food chain and Kentucky is one of the few at the top.

c. Most of all, you are in THE most powerful conference in NCAA athletics. Sure, Kentucky doesn't have the same level of major donors like Duke, North Carolina, or UCLA, but the SEC helps offset that. There's a great structure with the SEC money/network deals, and they  in a much better place than the Big Ten because it's a logical grouping of teams in contiguous states. Two of the other blue bloods (Duke and North Carolina) are locked into a horrible ACC deal that members are losing millions on and suing to get out of while taking flights to play Cal, Stanford & SMU in the meantime. The other blue blood (Kansas) is having to recalibrate to the Big XII's transition and zig-zag from WVU to BYU to UCF to Arizona State. One of "new blood" (UConn) will struggle because their football situation. We'll revisit Villanova & Indiana once a coach whose name isn't Wright or Knight does something significant.

Other SEC schools may be catching up, but there are 15 of them trying to beat each other out to be the #2 to Kentucky (or the #3 to Florida, at best). I'd worry more if it were Florida every year, but it's a Florida, Auburn, and Alabama run that's  just happened to overlap a bit lately.

Do you think any of the recently successful SEC schools would take a Final Four for a CFP semifinal if they could only choose one? Do you think any SEC school not named Kentucky would? I don't, but would concede that Arkansas could be debateable. Are we even having this conversation if Auburn had won it? No. Houston? Probably not. We definitely aren't if it was Duke.

If you think it's a bad time to be Kentucky (as a program), I'm very interested in how many other programs you'd rather be, who they are, and why.

With the nil and portal, the playing field has been leveled.

[Cactus Jack]

With the nil and portal, the playing field has been leveled.

Until schools like Kentucky have to start providing some form of compensation or buyout to schools like Drexel or Illinois State after they swoop in and take players that those schools have nailed the evaluation on and invested the time in developing, then the only schools who've "leveled the playing field" are other power conference schools that have donors interested enough in NIL funding for basketball. Right now, I don't see a lot of SEC or Big Ten schools that care more about basketball than football & whether the Big XII as configured has staying power or is any different if it does remains to be seen.


NIL and the portal as it's currently set up can help Louisville kneecap College of Charleston becoming the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State because they can hire their away their coach, who'll take his best returning players with him and buy better role players for the positions to fill the holes he knows he has.

I'll give you that it may help a school with some decades ago tradition like Georgia Tech get there quicker if they decide to commit the money to making that type of push.

I'll also give you that it keeps a school like TCU or SMU from getting hit with probation when their filthy rich donors decide to open the checkbooks, but it isn't like the schools with that type of support and funding weren't already doing the same thing, only to a lesser extent; it was just that it was more limited to splashy coaching hires, new facilities, and having to keep any under the table payments off of too many people's radar back then.


That said, it's my hill to die on that it is asinine to say that it's "leveled the playing field" as if all some mid-major or Mountain West Conference school has to do is either "stop being poor" or apparently starting to spend the millions more than the other schools have that must have stashed away on getting to the Final Four.

It's also not seeing the big picture if you think strong academic schools with tons of money committed to research, medicine, engineering and the like sees the NIL and portal and think "this is the perfect time to try and become a top sports program even though the past 100 years have shown that our university's community doesn't care about that at all".

[4 Quarters]

With the nil and portal, the playing field has been leveled.

Until schools like Kentucky have to start providing some form of compensation or buyout to schools like Drexel or Illinois State after they swoop in and take players that those schools have nailed the evaluation on and invested the time in developing, then the only schools who've "leveled the playing field" are other power conference schools that have donors interested enough in NIL funding for basketball. Right now, I don't see a lot of SEC or Big Ten schools that care more about basketball than football & whether the Big XII as configured has staying power or is any different if it does remains to be seen.


NIL and the portal as it's currently set up can help Louisville kneecap College of Charleston becoming the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State because they can hire their away their coach, who'll take his best returning players with him and buy better role players for the positions to fill the holes he knows he has.

I'll give you that it may help a school with some decades ago tradition like Georgia Tech get there quicker if they decide to commit the money to making that type of push.

I'll also give you that it keeps a school like TCU or SMU from getting hit with probation when their filthy rich donors decide to open the checkbooks, but it isn't like the schools with that type of support and funding weren't already doing the same thing, only to a lesser extent; it was just that it was more limited to splashy coaching hires, new facilities, and having to keep any under the table payments off of too many people's radar back then.


That said, it's my hill to die on that it is asinine to say that it's "leveled the playing field" as if all some mid-major or Mountain West Conference school has to do is either "stop being poor" or apparently starting to spend the millions more than the other schools have that must have stashed away on getting to the Final Four.

It's also not seeing the big picture if you think strong academic schools with tons of money committed to research, medicine, engineering and the like sees the NIL and portal and think "this is the perfect time to try and become a top sports program even though the past 100 years have shown that our university's community doesn't care about that at all".

I never intended to say that it would pull the mid majors and off brand conferences up to the level of the major brands of the world.  The NIL money will actually destroy the low and mid majors and the smaller conferences.  I guess with BYU joining the Big 12 helped them sign the #1 recruit.  By leveling the playing field, I meant it will keep the top tier teams more equal.

[Old School Hound]

With the nil and portal, the playing field has been leveled.

Until schools like Kentucky have to start providing some form of compensation or buyout to schools like Drexel or Illinois State after they swoop in and take players that those schools have nailed the evaluation on and invested the time in developing, then the only schools who've "leveled the playing field" are other power conference schools that have donors interested enough in NIL funding for basketball. Right now, I don't see a lot of SEC or Big Ten schools that care more about basketball than football & whether the Big XII as configured has staying power or is any different if it does remains to be seen.


NIL and the portal as it's currently set up can help Louisville kneecap College of Charleston becoming the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State because they can hire their away their coach, who'll take his best returning players with him and buy better role players for the positions to fill the holes he knows he has.

I'll give you that it may help a school with some decades ago tradition like Georgia Tech get there quicker if they decide to commit the money to making that type of push.

I'll also give you that it keeps a school like TCU or SMU from getting hit with probation when their filthy rich donors decide to open the checkbooks, but it isn't like the schools with that type of support and funding weren't already doing the same thing, only to a lesser extent; it was just that it was more limited to splashy coaching hires, new facilities, and having to keep any under the table payments off of too many people's radar back then.


That said, it's my hill to die on that it is asinine to say that it's "leveled the playing field" as if all some mid-major or Mountain West Conference school has to do is either "stop being poor" or apparently starting to spend the millions more than the other schools have that must have stashed away on getting to the Final Four.

It's also not seeing the big picture if you think strong academic schools with tons of money committed to research, medicine, engineering and the like sees the NIL and portal and think "this is the perfect time to try and become a top sports program even though the past 100 years have shown that our university's community doesn't care about that at all".

I never intended to say that it would pull the mid majors and off brand conferences up to the level of the major brands of the world.  The NIL money will actually destroy the low and mid majors and the smaller conferences.  I guess with BYU joining the Big 12 helped them sign the #1 recruit.  By leveling the playing field, I meant it will keep the top tier teams more equal.

That's how I interpreted your statement, and I think you are correct. Those seasons where we had one or two very dominant teams is likely gone for good.  Also, the chances of seeing a George Mason or Florida Atlantic in the F4 are over. Damn shame!!! NIL and portals suck ass!!!

[Cactus Jack]

With the nil and portal, the playing field has been leveled.

Until schools like Kentucky have to start providing some form of compensation or buyout to schools like Drexel or Illinois State after they swoop in and take players that those schools have nailed the evaluation on and invested the time in developing, then the only schools who've "leveled the playing field" are other power conference schools that have donors interested enough in NIL funding for basketball. Right now, I don't see a lot of SEC or Big Ten schools that care more about basketball than football & whether the Big XII as configured has staying power or is any different if it does remains to be seen.


NIL and the portal as it's currently set up can help Louisville kneecap College of Charleston becoming the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State because they can hire their away their coach, who'll take his best returning players with him and buy better role players for the positions to fill the holes he knows he has.

I'll give you that it may help a school with some decades ago tradition like Georgia Tech get there quicker if they decide to commit the money to making that type of push.

I'll also give you that it keeps a school like TCU or SMU from getting hit with probation when their filthy rich donors decide to open the checkbooks, but it isn't like the schools with that type of support and funding weren't already doing the same thing, only to a lesser extent; it was just that it was more limited to splashy coaching hires, new facilities, and having to keep any under the table payments off of too many people's radar back then.


That said, it's my hill to die on that it is asinine to say that it's "leveled the playing field" as if all some mid-major or Mountain West Conference school has to do is either "stop being poor" or apparently starting to spend the millions more than the other schools have that must have stashed away on getting to the Final Four.

It's also not seeing the big picture if you think strong academic schools with tons of money committed to research, medicine, engineering and the like sees the NIL and portal and think "this is the perfect time to try and become a top sports program even though the past 100 years have shown that our university's community doesn't care about that at all".

I never intended to say that it would pull the mid majors and off brand conferences up to the level of the major brands of the world.  The NIL money will actually destroy the low and mid majors and the smaller conferences.  I guess with BYU joining the Big 12 helped them sign the #1 recruit.  By leveling the playing field, I meant it will keep the top tier teams more equal.

That's how I interpreted your statement, and I think you are correct. Those seasons where we had one or two very dominant teams is likely gone for good.  Also, the chances of seeing a George Mason or Florida Atlantic in the F4 are over. Damn shame!!! NIL and portals suck ass!!!

Agree with all of that but the years of 1-2 very dominant teams being over. Think we'll see that again at some point in the not-so distant future. It probably won't happen as often, and we are definitely not going to see teams like '96 Kentucky, '97 Kansas, and '98 North Carolina where you have at least one NBA All-Star, 1-2 others with 10 year careers, and another 2 or more with multi-year careers.

Probably going to see more of the best college teams being built around a future NBA player (or two) and a ton of depth from players with one flaw that keeps them from being evaluated for anything more than a flyer in the NBA (read: guys who will make their money in college instead of leaving early). Good examples of those would be 2000 Michigan State, 2002 Maryland, or 2013 Louisville-- a lot of good college players but "tweeners" who were too short or slow to both score at and defend against their position in the NBA.

[4 Quarters]

I think Travis Perry just answered this question.

[Old School Hound]

I think Travis Perry just answered this question.

BINGO!!!

[jetpilot]

https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/showth...pid2506489