. . . that foul shooting is important? His Memphis teams were infamous for being poor foul shooting teams and it cost them several times in big games in the tournament and tonight poor foul shooting cost his Kentucky team a birth in the Final Four. They shot only 55% from the line going 16-29. There is a reason why they are called free throws. Do you think he'll ever learn and maybe add some time in practice for free throw shooting, at least once the tournament starts?

Kentucky was pathetic from the line tonight. I was watching the game with a friend and brought up at one point, if they were hitting their FTs at WV's rate, their deficit would go from 13 to 6.

Digger Phelps kept bringing up their 3pt shooting and FT shooting as a reason why they'd fall in the tourney. Calipari called him out on it..

Looks like the Digger was right again.

Yes, but if Chalmers misses that shot we dont talk about this. Sports are funny that way. If Memphis hits the FTs that game they win, but it still took a great play executed perfectly and a great shot to keep Cal from a championship.

Laley23 wrote: Yes, but if Chalmers misses that shot we dont talk about this. Sports are funny that way. If Memphis hits the FTs that game they win, but it still took a great play executed perfectly and a great shot to keep Cal from a championship.

still made ft's keep them out of that situation

Laley23 wrote: Yes, but if Chalmers misses that shot we dont talk about this. Sports are funny that way. If Memphis hits the FTs that game they win, but it still took a great play executed perfectly and a great shot to keep Cal from a championship.

No doubt about it.... BUT, if FT's are made, they're not in that situation to begin with.

Exactly. The whole game of basketball, and any sport where score is kept for that matter is to score more (or less in golf) points than your opponent. It's great to have a good defense, because it makes it that much easier to score more points than your opponent; but in the end the idea that you let the other team stay in consistently as Cal's teams always do by missing your free throws, is a fatal flaw in how to avoid getting beat. Instead of keeping pace with WVU by converting wide open baskets from 10 feet away, standing still, you get in a hole. And as a few have said above, if you make the FT's at the end of the memphis/KU game, you have successfully scored enough points that even WHEN Chalmers hits that 3, it doesn't matter. I don't have a stat right here in front of me, but I bet if you look over the last 25 years of college basketball, the teams who consistently get to the line AND who consistently shoot the best FT's in the country (Michigan State/Duke immediately jump to mind), are consistently some of the top teams in the country. There is little secret that fundamentals combined with immense talent, as Duke and MSU almost always get, wins you a ton of games. But you can't forget about one or push it to the side and hope to rely too heavily on the other, and that's what I feel like Cal does with his teams. He feels like he can win against anyone on pure athleticism alone and letting his super recruits ball, and that might get it against CUSA teams or the regular season SEC, but it's not going to get it against other top 10 programs in the nation. He's going to lose those games more times than he's going to win, and the past several years have proven that.

Maybe, IMO, the most overrated, overhyped coach in basketball. The guy, arguably has had the MOST TALENT in college basketball over the past handful of years...and can't get it done. He can recruit...but I don't think his game prep or management is that good at all. To settle for 30+ threes when you have the size advantage Huggy game plan. When Cal teams go up against teams with similar talent, and good coaching...he has struggled. I am not sure he will have a better team at UK then the one he had this year. He'll keep them rolling....but I really wonder if he'll ever get a title.

Laley23 wrote: Yes, but if Chalmers misses that shot we dont talk about this. Sports are funny that way. If Memphis hits the FTs that game they win, but it still took a great play executed perfectly and a great shot to keep Cal from a championship.

Actually, the NCAA would have kept Cal from a championship had Chalmers not hit that shot.

centralbucksfan wrote:

Laley23 wrote: Yes, but if Chalmers misses that shot we dont talk about this. Sports are funny that way. If Memphis hits the FTs that game they win, but it still took a great play executed perfectly and a great shot to keep Cal from a championship.

Actually, the NCAA would have kept Cal from a championship had Chalmers not hit that shot.

Touche my friend.

centralbucksfan wrote: Maybe, IMO, the most overrated, overhyped coach in basketball. The guy, arguably has had the MOST TALENT in college basketball over the past handful of years...and can't get it done. He can recruit...but I don't think his game prep or management is that good at all. To settle for 30+ threes when you have the size advantage Huggy game plan. When Cal teams go up against teams with similar talent, and good coaching...he has struggled. I am not sure he will have a better team at UK then the one he had this year. He'll keep them rolling....but I really wonder if he'll ever get a title.

I don't know if that's being overhyped because I would argue that in college 50% of coaching is recruiting. If you have the superior talent you'll beat 95% of the teams you play. If Tom Izzo had Cal's talent the past few years he would have won 4 or five national titles already.

krambman wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote: Maybe, IMO, the most overrated, overhyped coach in basketball. The guy, arguably has had the MOST TALENT in college basketball over the past handful of years...and can't get it done. He can recruit...but I don't think his game prep or management is that good at all. To settle for 30+ threes when you have the size advantage Huggy game plan. When Cal teams go up against teams with similar talent, and good coaching...he has struggled. I am not sure he will have a better team at UK then the one he had this year. He'll keep them rolling....but I really wonder if he'll ever get a title.

I don't know if that's being overhyped because I would argue that in college 50% of coaching is recruiting. If you have the superior talent you'll beat 95% of the teams you play. If Tom Izzo had Cal's talent the past few years he would have won 4 or five national titles already.

The point being, is that Cal is revered as one of the best coaches in the country. Well, what exactly has he done to earn this? Two vacated final fours? Only one of those in the last 15yrs, if you even want to count them.
Again, he has had as much or more talent then anyone in the past handful of years...and has had one vacated final four. Thats it. Sorry, I just don't think he deserves all this hoopla as some great coach. He gets its because he luvs to put his face on the TV and talk. When all things are equal, against quality teams/coaches...he hasn't exactly gotten it done.

Cal gets a lot of credit for not having won anything, I will give you that. But WHEN he takes UK to a Final Four he will be one of 2 coaches to take 3 teams to a FF (with Pitino) and he will have taken 2 mid majors with UMASS and Memphis. That is something, even if it isnt a title. So I dont put him in my top 5, but I wouldnt say he is overhyped. I guess it depends on who your talking to and how high they have him rated.

Laley23 wrote: Cal gets a lot of credit for not having won anything, I will give you that. But WHEN he takes UK to a Final Four he will be one of 2 coaches to take 3 teams to a FF (with Pitino) and he will have taken 2 mid majors with UMASS and Memphis. That is something, even if it isnt a title. So I dont put him in my top 5, but I wouldnt say he is overhyped. I guess it depends on who your talking to and how high they have him rated.

Not really sure you can give him a lot of credit for taking two mid majors to the final four when both have been vacated. A lot of people have questioned his recruiting methods as well. I still think it's a little early to judge him. This is his first job at a big time program, so we'll see how he goes from here. 35-3 isn't bad in your 1st year, but he was taken to school by Huggins last night. Huggins did it with a much less talented team, who was very limited with ball handlers.

Laley23 wrote: Cal gets a lot of credit for not having won anything, I will give you that. But WHEN he takes UK to a Final Four he will be one of 2 coaches to take 3 teams to a FF (with Pitino) and he will have taken 2 mid majors with UMASS and Memphis. That is something, even if it isnt a title. So I dont put him in my top 5, but I wouldnt say he is overhyped. I guess it depends on who your talking to and how high they have him rated.

Memphis mid major? NOt sure I go along with that. They definately had some history there to build on. Weak conference that helped inflate his record as well. And if you look at all the years he was there...he didn't exactly do great till his last few years.
And if you want to count those final fours....you don't mind if I count OSU final four with O'Brien, do you? BTW, I don't count that and if I did bring it up, would be ripped on by all of the anti OSU for doing so.

TheMightyGators wrote:

Not really sure you can give him a lot of credit for taking two mid majors to the final four when both have been vacated. A lot of people have questioned his recruiting methods as well. I still think it's a little early to judge him. This is his first job at a big time program, so we'll see how he goes from here. 35-3 isn't bad in your 1st year, but he was taken to school by Huggins last night. Huggins did it with a much less talented team, who was very limited with ball handlers.

Excuse me??? You cant give him credit because they were vacated? The whole point of this argument is because he cant coach in game and prepare his players. He coached 2 Mid Majors to the Final Four. How he got those players is irrelevant to this discussion. If youre are going to knock him because UK didnt shoot well all year and it was never corrected as an on going problem with Cals teams and because he was out-coached in game by guys you have to give him credit for taking 2 mid majors to the Final Four as well.

centralbucksfan wrote:

Memphis mid major? NOt sure I go along with that. They definately had some history there to build on. Weak conference that helped inflate his record as well. And if you look at all the years he was there...he didn't exactly do great till his last few years.
And if you want to count those final fours....you don't mind if I count OSU final four with O'Brien, do you? BTW, I don't count that and if I did bring it up, would be ripped on by all of the anti OSU for doing so.

I think people are mis-interpreting what I am trying to get across. I am simply counting it to point out that he CAN INDEED get it done in the tournament. Whether or not those FF stood or not doesnt take away that the players he had (legal or not) got it done. And Memphis is a mid-major because they are not part of the Big 6. Granted, they arent really a mid major when he was there, but that is what is considered mid major so you have to still acknowledge it.