PDA

View Full Version : The official UK will beat UC thread!



WVRed
03-19-2005, 06:41 PM
Couldnt resist. Go Wildcats! :D

Rocket_Fuel
03-19-2005, 09:06 PM
I mentioned it in another thread, there is no reason why Kentucky shouldn't blow UC away. This UC team is down by UC's standard and lacks mental and physical toughness. When they play teams like Illinois and Louisville they back down to easily. Same thing happened with South Florida. If Kentucky lets UC hang around there will probably be a mutiny in Lexington. I'm a huge UC fan but Kentucky is probably going to win by at least 15 points and will have at least a double-digit lead at the half. UC just doesn't have any offense and the defense has soften as the season has gone on (giving up 80 points to South Florida).

WVRed
03-20-2005, 12:51 AM
This thread won:D.

macro
03-20-2005, 12:53 AM
Rocket, I wasn't around to say this before or during the game, but you gave UC less credit than everyone in the media, who were all picking them to beat UK. Were you just trying to jinx UK? ;) It put you in a no-lose situation, you know.

Sweetstop
03-20-2005, 01:01 AM
:D :D Woo Hoo! Wildcats! Nice win! :thumbup:

Big Donkey
03-20-2005, 02:37 AM
It's a good night for us Briars :thumbup: :thumbup:

Red Hot Reds
03-20-2005, 03:31 AM
All I have to say is WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! GO WILDCATS! UK has bragging rights for another 15 years!

Rocket_Fuel
03-20-2005, 12:38 PM
Rocket, I wasn't around to say this before or during the game, but you gave UC less credit than everyone in the media, who were all picking them to beat UK. Were you just trying to jinx UK? ;) It put you in a no-lose situation, you know.

I don't know if you can call it bragging rights with how bad UC is this year. Kentucky should have won by 20 points. It's not that I didn't give UC credit, UC is just not good this year and last night showed that. Kentucky pretty much dominated that game other then a short run by UC. Kentucky is just loaded with talent, this UC team has two MAYBE 3 good players, and even that is suspect. Now, UC is going to have a ridiculously loaded team next year and will rival Kentucky in talent so I won't be so down on UC if they matched up with UK then. But there wasn't a chance in hell that this year's UC team should have been on the same court as Kentucky and it showed. Kentucky has a great frontline, a great bench, a solid PG, a fantastic backcourt and a good offense and fantastic defense. UC has a small, thin frontline, no bench, a horrible backcourt, a horrible offense, and a nice defense. I'm seriously shocked that Kentucky let UC back in the game for a few minutes.

Matt700wlw
03-20-2005, 01:24 PM
I don't know if you can call it bragging rights with how bad UC is this year. Kentucky should have won by 20 points. It's not that I didn't give UC credit, UC is just not good this year and last night showed that.


UC is definitely having a down year, but Huggins getting 25 wins this season out of the weak team that they are has to say something

He's a good coach, and the kids have a lot of heart -- regardless of the image that many believe them to have


The two schools need to make this game happen....

RedRoser
03-20-2005, 02:36 PM
Any chance that Huggins goes to UT?

KronoRed
03-20-2005, 09:57 PM
Any chance that Huggins goes to UT?

To me that seems to be a step down, at UC basketball is pretty much king, at UT, he's 3rd banana to football and the ladies team..also IMO the SEC is a tougher conference then the new big east

MWM
03-20-2005, 10:04 PM
I agree with Rocket. UC just wasn't very good this year. I knowthere record was worse a couple of years ago, but this is the worst team UC has had in several years (pre- Martin), IMO. Now next year they should have a pretty strong team. One thing this game proves is that this has the potential to be a GREAT rivalry. I talked to a couple of my friends from Cincinnati and they said the city was absolutely electric with anticipation for this game. It should happen, but I'm sure it won't.

WVRed
03-20-2005, 11:23 PM
also IMO the SEC is a tougher conference then the new big east

Im a UK fan, but I would rank the Big East ahead of the SEC for the depth of teams. The last two national champions(Syracuse and UConn) came from the Big East. Add in current teams in Notre Dame, Villanova, and WVU, plus Cincinnati and Louisville coming into the league, and they are a match.

Plus, the SEC is consistently UK with certain teams having peak years(this year LSU, last year Mississippi St, etc).

KronoRed
03-20-2005, 11:39 PM
Im a UK fan, but I would rank the Big East ahead of the SEC for the depth of teams. The last two national champions(Syracuse and UConn) came from the Big East. Add in current teams in Notre Dame, Villanova, and WVU, plus Cincinnati and Louisville coming into the league, and they are a match.

Plus, the SEC is consistently UK with certain teams having peak years(this year LSU, last year Mississippi St, etc).

Ahh..I forgot the teams in the Big E that aren't in the football part..whoops :help:

I think you forgot an SEC team there.... ;)

MWM
03-21-2005, 01:23 AM
Outside of Kentucky, the SEC is pretty weak most years, IMO.

Sweetstop
03-21-2005, 09:19 AM
Once again, UK is the only SEC team going to the Sweet Sixteen.

WVRed
03-21-2005, 10:31 AM
I think you forgot an SEC team there.... ;)

No I didnt.;)

KronoRed
03-21-2005, 10:37 AM
No I didnt.;)
Wow.....

How bad is uk then to lose TWICE to an unmentionable??


;)

Reds/Flyers Fan
03-22-2005, 10:47 AM
Any chance that Huggins goes to UT?

Or he may go to the Cleveland Cavs to coach Labron James now that Paul Silas is fired.

Also, I don't understand why UC fans think that this wasn't the year to play UK. UC still won 25 games and was ranked in the top 25 all year. How is that a down year? Compared to what? I guess UC should only play UK when UC is ranked No. 1 and peaking in December and UK is having a "down" year. Let's face it...UC is second round material every year (including this year). Nothing ever changes in that regard. So how, exactly, was this not a good year to play UK?

WVRed
03-22-2005, 01:06 PM
Or he may go to the Cleveland Cavs to coach Labron James now that Paul Silas is fired.

Cleveland native Flip Saunders is the front-runner for that job.

Redsfaithful
03-22-2005, 03:10 PM
So how, exactly, was this not a good year to play UK?

I've been a UC basketball fan for the last fifteen years or so, and it was pretty clear that this team was one of the least talented that Huggins has coached. They seriously overachieved to win those 25 games.

We're talking about a team that was 8 deep. That doesn't happen at UC very often.

Reds/Flyers Fan
03-22-2005, 04:24 PM
They seriously overachieved to win those 25 games.


Then that's exactly the team you should want to play Kentucky. I would always want my team to overachieve, no matter the talent level.

Redsfaithful
03-22-2005, 07:27 PM
Then that's exactly the team you should want to play Kentucky. I would always want my team to overachieve, no matter the talent level.


They overachieved to lose to Kentucky by nine. That's kind of the point.

Look at UC's seeds over the years. Seven is, I think, the second lowest of the past decade.

Scrap Irony
03-22-2005, 10:53 PM
Sure, UC may have been a bit underwhelming this year, but, by the same token, so is UK.

The Cats have all kinds of talent-- serious, McDonalds HS All-American talent, but all of it is young. Freshmen young. Mistakes in pressure situations, inexperienced in the Big Dance, Adam's Apple bobbing up and down young.

Two starters-- center and point guard-- were freshmen. Neither can apparently hit a free throw in a pressure situation and both had struggled mightily in the SEC Tournament.

On top of that, the shooting guard is a transfer from a mid-level Division I program who's a step too slow offensively and incredibly streaky. A lamp post would score 25 against Sparks.

The small forward is a junior chastised in the past by the head coach for playing "like Jane" despite a body "like Tarzan". He wasn't that heavily recruited out of high school and was the fourth option last year on a good squad who made it only to the second round of the tournament.

The power forward is undersized, can't jump, and also failed to win McD's acolades after a great HS career at a small Christian school in California. (Kansas pulled its scholarship offer hours before Hayes was to accept it.)

The sixth man is a walk-on , so little thought of out of high school that he was ignored by most DI programs.

Not to mention no McD's AA's in sophomore, junior, and senior classes largely made up of projects (Woo, Alleyne) and role players (Carrier, Stockton, Perry).

And you say UC is experiencing a down year talent-wise, and that they overachieved?

In all likliehood, this would be the only year out of the next three UC would be able to keep the final score under 15.

Redsfaithful
03-22-2005, 11:04 PM
In all likliehood, this would be the only year out of the next three UC would be able to keep the final score under 15.

UC's going to be much improved next year, so I'd certainly take that bet if the games were going to happen, which of course they won't.


The Cats have all kinds of talent-- serious, McDonalds HS All-American talent

Right. The Bearcats have no McDonalds HS All-American caliber talent, which is kind of the point I was making. Most years UC fields a much stronger team. This is a fairly typical Kentucky team, in my opinion, and it received it's fairly typical 2 seed in the tournament. UC generally is seeded much higher than 7.

MWM
03-22-2005, 11:41 PM
UC has been somewhat down for three straight years, but 3 of the 4 years prior to that, UC finished ahead of UK in the final rankings. So yes, UC has been the better team plenty of times. It goes in cycles. Right now, UK is up and UC is down. It won't always be that way.

Scrap Irony
03-23-2005, 12:05 AM
Cyclical?

Kentucky defies cycles.

They have been one of the top five teams in each decade since the 1940's, enjoying most dominant title in the 1940's (no one close), 1950's (two NCAA championships and an undefeated season), and the 1990's (arguably, as that decade also included the Dookie run).

Seven national championships.
1900+ wins.
Best winning percentage in basketball history, both regular season and NCAA Tournament.

Cincinnati is a good team with a fine pedigree.
But two or three years out of 40 is not a cycle.

Reds/Flyers Fan
03-23-2005, 11:04 AM
Kentucky defies cycles.


I have to agree. NFL football goes in cycles. The elite in college sports do not. Kentucky basketball, Duke basketball, Ohio State football, Michigan football. Down years for those programs are any year when they do not finish in the top 5.