# 40-0?



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

Nope sorry Coach C. I do not think they are even a top 5 team right now


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

Kentucky is a top 5 team but they are not going 40-0.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Yep, I'm with you Ender. 

Were judging them as being not a top 5 team, after a season where they lost every significant contributor from a title team, and had two of the most overrated prospects (Goodwin/Poythress) from a weak high school class. Also the Noel injury hurt them a lot. Even Calipari acknowledged that last year was going to be a challenge.

Now, insert a team with 7-8 possible first round picks and three guys that are top 5 level picks (Harrison twins and Randle). This team is going to be really, really good. Least we forget he has at least reached the elite eight in 3 of his 4 seasons. Kentucky will be fine, they have a lot of NBA talent, and Calipari will get them playing at a high level. 

They won't go 40-0, but they will win a lot of games and compete for a title.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

They're supremely talented.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

They'll go 37-3


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Arizona final 4


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Controversial picks


----------



## shupioneers1 (Feb 28, 2008)

I see them maxing around 36-4, 37-3 something in that area. No chance they go 40-0.


----------



## David HD (Nov 7, 2013)

Kentucky's lack of senior leadership is no small problem. They have much more in common with last year's team than they do with the team from two years ago. I think they're going to struggle again this year. 

They did look good in their first two games, but they were playing weak teams.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

They will be much closer to 11/12 than 12/13. Next year's squad will be 12/13 esque.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

David HD said:


> Kentucky's lack of senior leadership is no small problem. They have much more in common with last year's team than they do with the team from two years ago. I think they're going to struggle again this year.
> 
> They did look good in their first two games, but they were playing weak teams.


No struggling for this team. They won't go 40-0 of course. I see them losing 4 games. How anyone can say UK's not a top 5 team is way beyond me.


----------



## David HD (Nov 7, 2013)

BlueBaron said:


> No struggling for this team. They won't go 40-0 of course. I see them losing 4 games. How anyone can say UK's not a top 5 team is way beyond me.


Simple general analysis really. If you look at the totality of college basketball, in any given year half the teams who start off in the preseason top 25 won't be there at the end of the year, and eight or nine of them will miss the tournament entirely. 

The teams that the prognosticators most commonly badly miss are highly ranked teams without established upperclassmen. Just look at last year's Kentucky team. 

Again, that's just generally speaking. There are specific examples of that not being the case, but more often than not those are the teams that fall in the rankings. Maybe Kentucky is that good, but they missed the tournament entirely last year, they have a lot of new players, and their coach is complaining about how unfair it is that they have to play Michigan State this early. If they win tonight, or play well in a losing effort, then I'll be on board with them, but not until then. 

Just so you understand me. I'm not saying they're definitely not legit. I'm just not saying that they definitely are legit either. 

At this time last year, anyone who said that Miami would win the ACC and finish ranked in the top ten, whereas Kentucky would miss the tournament entirely, would have been thought of as being completely out of their minds. But, they would have ultimately been right.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

David HD said:


> Simple general analysis really. If you look at the totality of college basketball, in any given year half the teams who start off in the preseason top 25 won't be there at the end of the year, and eight or nine of them will miss the tournament entirely.
> 
> The teams that the prognosticators most commonly badly miss are highly ranked teams without established upperclassmen. Just look at last year's Kentucky team.
> 
> ...


General analysis says you. Of course if you look at it like that this team is just set up for failure. Last year's team was beyond horrible. This year's team makes last year's team look like a bunch of old ladies. Poythress and Cauley-Stein have improved. Randle is playing like an upperclassmen, same for the twins. They will not only beat Michigan St., they will beat them by at least 10.


----------



## SpiderInThePastaBowl (Feb 4, 2004)

LeGoat06 said:


> They'll go 37-3


Only because the SEC stinks outside Florida and UK.


----------



## SpiderInThePastaBowl (Feb 4, 2004)

SpiderInTheMixingBowl said:


> Only because the SEC stinks outside Florida and UK.


That said I think they're definitely a title contender. Teams with large numbers of one and dones are just going to have more off nights during the regular season than veteran squads.


----------



## SpiderInThePastaBowl (Feb 4, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> Controversial picks


You can see from his avatar that he really likes underdogs.


----------



## shupioneers1 (Feb 28, 2008)

LOL of all the teams in basketball and only Wichita still has the chance to finish 40-0. And imagine them knocking off Kentucky and this "greatest class ever??"


----------

