Stop the Witch Hunts, Let People Enjoy A Good Offseason

[Cattorney]

Many want Pope Faaarred for his first two years at UK based on record only. They would have fired Hurley. Im not spending the day with you, lol. See ya.

No one wants Pope fired based on 2 season. That's just a fallacy. People never wanted Pope hired because his prior 9 years were trash as a HC. Now he has been at UK 2 years and we have regressed.

Pope has had NIL, transfer portal and possibly the highest budget in CBB or at least among them. We have regressed since he was hired.

You are comparing that to Hurley who already had a solid resume prior to UConn, took over a team on probation, prior to the portal and NIL. And he turned them around pretty quickly.

How the hell do you logically compare that the Pope and UK? Do tell!

Some of You all are just throwing **** at the wall to see what will stick in defense of Pope. Little advice: it ain't sticking!

 

[RunninRichie]

Nice try. By Richie’s very own definition, Hurley would have been fired and run out of town after year two. No debate.

Hurley had NIL, the portal, and no probation when he got to Uconn? Interesting.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

There are coaches in my study that didn’t have much more success than Coach Pope early in their career. People see some of the names and assume it was always obvious they’d develop into great coaches but it isn’t true. I also push back on early career Pope not having equity. Pope at Kentucky has to be better. Period. That’s uncontested. But people think winning an argument is more important than being charitable in their criticisms. Pope’s early career winning percentage was tanked by recovering an abysmal Utah Valley program. That’s why he, despite having a poor win percentage, got the BYU job.

The winning percentage isn't what matters about having equity. He's never WON anything. League title, league tournament, or NCAAT game even before coming to UK. That's not having equity.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

Lol, no you didn't. You lied and got caught. Now you deflect. It's what you do.

Also, Pope returned 7 players from the previous season and coach. So over half his Roster returned. Not quite the dramatic rebuild you claim.

I don't blame you for giving up. You're embarrassing yourself and Pope.

For whatever reason, it always takes about three-five paragraphs for people to explain Pope's successes.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

Pope bad. That’s as deep as it goes.

Sometimes it doesn't need to go much deeper. FWIW, Pope not bad. But Pope not good. Pope somewhere in between. Pope better get better. Or Pope gonna be not bad/not good somewhere else real soon.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

Same ole crap from you. It is describing his behavior. You've claimed you don't care about name calling anyway. I never owed you an explanation in the first place and I'm not going to bother rehashing the same garbage with you over and over. You and this guy have no interest in good faith discussion.

Same ole crap from you. A lot of words to try to mansplain and Popesplain the successes of Mark Pope.

 

[Johnny_Jeepers]

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

The winning percentage isn't what matters about having equity. He's never WON anything. League title, league tournament, or NCAAT game even before coming to UK. That's not having equity.

So the fact that he had a team ranked #1 and #2 in the country in his conference during his two second place WCC finishes makes him vastly inferior to a coach who won his crap conference against a bunch of nobodies in your mind?

 

[Mdnerd]

No one wants Pope fired based on 2 season. That's just a fallacy. People never wanted Pope hired because his prior 9 years were trash as a HC. Now he has been at UK 2 years and we have regressed.

Pope has had NIL, transfer portal and possibly the highest budget in CBB or at least among them. We have regressed since he was hired.

You are comparing that to Hurley who already had a solid resume prior to UConn, took over a team on probation, prior to the portal and NIL. And he turned them around pretty quickly.

How the hell do you logically compare that the Pope and UK? Do tell!

Some of You all are just throwing **** at the wall to see what will stick in defense of Pope. Little advice: it ain't sticking!

Define the word "regressed" and shown how it applies here...

 

[Cattorney]

Define the word "regressed" and shown how it applies here...

Well, what's your record been, has it improved or gotten worse? Have we finished higher or lower in the SEC since we hired him? Have we been seeded higher or lower in SEC tournaments?

So, answer those and you should likely see what I am referring to. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Mdnerd]

Well, what's your record been, has it improved or gotten worse? Have we finished higher or lower in the SEC since we hired him? Have we been seeded higher or lower in SEC tournaments?

So, answer those and you should likely see what I am referring to. This isn't rocket science.

So the standard is the SEC and SEC tourney SEED? Thats some goalpost moving. You left out SEC tourney results and the giant one...NCAA tourney results. Any standard excluding tournament results is disingenuous at best. That is the single biggest factor of determining success or failure.

Given TOURNAMENT results of Pope's 2 years vs Cal's final years, we have most certainly not "regressed".

You've got to be a truly awful lawyer. Too stupid to make an argument that can even be mistaken as logical.

 

[Farsight Clone]

That’s all.

No it is not this is all.

There was no witch hunt.

However......................

There was a....................

MITCH HUNT

 

[*Fox2Monk*]

Lets just start with 1 of them:

Hurley took Wagner from 13-17 to 25-6 in 1 year. That was his first job. They finished 2nd in their conference year 2.

He then went to an awful RI program with like 7 wins the year before he got there, and had them 23-10 in year 3. Tied for 2nd in the conference. He then proceeded to win a conference championship and tournament there as well as a-10 COY. Also took them to back to back NCAA tournaments and won games both years.

He then took over a uconn program on probation, and by year 3 had them back in the tournament 3rd in the Big east. Years 5 and 6 were national championships.

That was without a portal, NIL or any benefit Pope has had at UK.

Now you do pope!

Tom Izzos first 6 years of coaching he went to 3 F4s and won a NC. Are you serious with this ****? Lol

Exactly, not all win % or records are created equal. A simple look at some of these situations and where they ended up shows exactly the point people are making about Pope’s win %. He just now won his first tourney games here. He has vastly underperformed Kentucky expectations, especially with the resources he has. Yes he has had very bad luck, but he also has a lot of issues that have nothing to do with injuries.

 

[Cattorney]

Exactly, not all win % or records are created equal. A simple look at some of these situations and where they ended up shows exactly the point people are making about Pope’s win %. He just now won his first tourney games here. He has vastly underperformed Kentucky expectations, especially with the resources he has. Yes he has had very bad luck, but he also has a lot of issues that have nothing to do with injuries.

He recruited a lot of guys with injury histories. That's on him.

 

[Cattorney]

So the standard is the SEC and SEC tourney SEED? Thats some goalpost moving. You left out SEC tourney results and the giant one...NCAA tourney results. Any standard excluding tournament results is disingenuous at best. That is the single biggest factor of determining success or failure.

Given TOURNAMENT results of Pope's 2 years vs Cal's final years, we have most certainly not "regressed".

You've got to be a truly awful lawyer. Too stupid to make an argument that can even be mistaken as logical.

Yea, the SEC tournament is kind of a factor of seeding.

What goalpost was moved?

It's not at all. We have a sw16 as a 4 seed and a rd of 32 exit thanks to a miracle shot in the rd of 64. That good to you?

Except we have regressed. Going 1 rd further 1 yr doesn't change that. Good try though.

Has our overall record gotten better or worse each season? Has our SEC finishes gotten better or worse in that period? Did we just play on Wednesday for the first time ever in the SEC tourney? Has recruiting stayed the same, gotten better or worse during that period? Have we been getting blown out more times that before during that period?

Going a rd further in the tournament when you were literally the betting favorite to doesn't change everything we have regressed in. Pop Pope's cock out of your mouth for a second and pay attention. It's not hard to see.

If you think I'm so dumb, then why waste your time? That says more about you!

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

So the fact that he had a team ranked #1 and #2 in the country in his conference during his two second place WCC finishes makes him vastly inferior to a coach who won his crap conference against a bunch of nobodies in your mind?

He had seven other seasons. It's a results driven business. How many NCAAT games did he win in those two seasons? What was the WCC rankings in those two years? Btw...those happened in back-to-back seasons. Was that a one off with a good group? What about his other seven years? Those two seasons are what all you Pope supporters point to. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. They'd have been awesome in a trash conference if it weren't for the team that was awesome that won the conference and was one of the best teams in the country? Cool. More explaining success to me.

I think Pope COULD be really good at UK. History shows he hasn't BEEN really good anywhere, ever. No matter how many times you try to mansplain it, the fact remains he's never won anything worth winning. Hopefully that changes soon.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

He had seven other seasons. It's a results driven business. How many NCAAT games did he win in those two seasons? What was the WCC rankings in those two years? Btw...those happened in back-to-back seasons. Was that a one off with a good group? What about his other seven years? Those two seasons are what all you Pope supporters point to. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. They'd have been awesome in a trash conference if it weren't for the team that was awesome that won the conference and was one of the best teams in the country? Cool. More explaining success to me.

I think Pope COULD be really good at UK. History shows he hasn't BEEN really good anywhere, ever. No matter how many times you try to mansplain it, the fact remains he's never won anything worth winning. Hopefully that changes soon.

Goalpost moved once again. One season winning a crap conference is plenty enough evidence for you when it is another coach but anything good in relation to Pope's career is quickly dismissed (mansplained or anti-Popesplained away in your vernacular) every time by you.

In 8 seasons pre-Uconn Hurley's best season SRS (rating of performance vs. schedule played) was 12.88. Pope in 9 seasons pre-UK posted three seasons with an SRS of 15.19, 16.93, and 19.33.

Hurley's best SRS his first four seasons at UConn was 16.40 compared to 19.13 and 21.26 for Pope's first two seasons at UK. Pope has outdone Hurley's best SRS in his first 12 seasons as a college head coach (after gaining 9 years head coaching experience at the high school level) 4 times in his 11 seasons.

 

[RunninRichie]

So the standard is the SEC and SEC tourney SEED? Thats some goalpost moving. You left out SEC tourney results and the giant one...NCAA tourney results. Any standard excluding tournament results is disingenuous at best. That is the single biggest factor of determining success or failure.

Given TOURNAMENT results of Pope's 2 years vs Cal's final years, we have most certainly not "regressed".

You've got to be a truly awful lawyer. Too stupid to make an argument that can even be mistaken as logical.

If only the NCAAT mattered, you’d have a great point.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

If only the NCAAT mattered, you’d have a great point.

I take it this is just lame sarcasm?

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

So the standard is the SEC and SEC tourney SEED? Thats some goalpost moving. You left out SEC tourney results and the giant one...NCAA tourney results. Any standard excluding tournament results is disingenuous at best. That is the single biggest factor of determining success or failure.

Given TOURNAMENT results of Pope's 2 years vs Cal's final years, we have most certainly not "regressed".

You've got to be a truly awful lawyer. Too stupid to make an argument that can even be mistaken as logical.

The SEC tourney and seed were greatly affected by an obvious BS call against Auburn anyway.

 

[KYFOSSIL]

You are in essence, arguing Pope could be like legendary coaches, if we just give him some time. Despite nothing in his resume suggesting he is that.

I think the point is there was no proof at the time that Kay was gonna be legendary. I think he's gonna be coach Kane no as much as I hate Ralph face. They're very few coaches overall career that could ever be on his level.

 

[KYFOSSIL]

Exactly, not all win % or records are created equal. A simple look at some of these situations and where they ended up shows exactly the point people are making about Pope’s win %. He just now won his first tourney games here. He has vastly underperformed Kentucky expectations, especially with the resources he has. Yes he has had very bad luck, but he also has a lot of issues that have nothing to do with injuries.

I believe his first year, looking at where he started with the team,could be considered very successful, especially with the injuries. The second year was a failure. The build of the team was poorly done, but the most disappointing aspects regardless of injuries was significant periods of poor effort and lack of fight by the team and to me that was excusable. I believe we have enough talent and depth and length for this team to be top four in the SEC and minimally go to an elite eight that should go to the final four, but it all depends on their drive and effort in his in game decisions. Unless there's a vast improvement from last year, then I believe this should be Pope last year. I am fully supporting him this year as I always have, but he still has to perform to uk standards..

 

[*Fox2Monk*]

I believe his first year, looking at where he started with the team,could be considered very successful, especially with the injuries. The second year was a failure. The build of the team was poorly done, but the most disappointing aspects regardless of injuries was significant periods of poor effort and lack of fight by the team and to me that was excusable. I believe we have enough talent and depth and length for this team to be top four in the SEC and minimally go to an elite eight that should go to the final four, but it all depends on their drive and effort in his in game decisions. Unless there's a vast improvement from last year, then I believe this should be Pope last year. I am fully supporting him this year as I always have, but he still has to perform to uk standards..

I agree the first year was a lot of fun, injuries definitely derailed it. My main issue was even healthy that team showed in games where they didn’t show up the way his teams get blown out. It’s a troubling thing with him and happens out of nowhere it seems. I just don’t think he is a great game planner, even though he has strong second half adjustments. I don’t know why it takes so long for him to do that and not be ready from the tip. I will definitely be behind them all year, but he needs to have a great year. Definitely like 7-8 losses max would be a great start to me. If he can’t do that he needs to go. Legit compete for the league title, make a run in the SECT for once.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

Goalpost moved once again. One season winning a crap conference is plenty enough evidence for you when it is another coach but anything good in relation to Pope's career is quickly dismissed (mansplained or anti-Popesplained away in your vernacular) every time by you.

In 8 seasons pre-Uconn Hurley's best season SRS (rating of performance vs. schedule played) was 12.88. Pope in 9 seasons pre-UK posted three seasons with an SRS of 15.19, 16.93, and 19.33.

Hurley's best SRS his first four seasons at UConn was 16.40 compared to 19.13 and 21.26 for Pope's first two seasons at UK. Pope has outdone Hurley's best SRS in his first 12 seasons as a college head coach (after gaining 9 years head coaching experience at the high school level) 4 times in his 11 seasons.

Blah, blah, blah...Twice in nine years Pope finished second in his conference. Every other year it was fifth or worse. Seven of nine seasons fifth or worse. I believe in nine seasons he appeared in two conference tourney finals. He'd also won the same amount of NCAAT games as you as a head coach. But sure, lets remember those two glorious seasons his teams finished second to the Zags (one of those seasons being unranked).

You keep comparing him to Hurley. Let me let you in on a little secret the rest of the college basketball world already knows. He ain't Dan Hurley.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Blah, blah, blah...Twice in nine years Pope finished second in his conference. Every other year it was fifth or worse. Seven of nine seasons fifth or worse. I believe in nine seasons he appeared in two conference tourney finals. He'd also won the same amount of NCAAT games as you as a head coach. But sure, lets remember those two glorious seasons his teams finished second to the Zags (one of those seasons being unranked).

You keep comparing him to Hurley. Let me let you in on a little secret the rest of the college basketball world already knows. He ain't Dan Hurley.

You are presented with easily verifiable facts that clearly defy your position and you respond in a very childish manner. If you ever bothered to research anything you would know it is four second place finishes (two were at Utah Valley) not two.

You know full well the comparison has only been made to the first 11-12 years of Hurley's career which is reasonable since Pope has been a head coach 11 seasons. The entire point has been an example of a coach improving dramatically well into his career as you should be able to comprehend without having to be reminded dozens of time now.

 

[Johnny_Jeepers]

You know full well the comparison has only been made to the first 11-12 years of Hurley's career which is reasonable since Pope has been a head coach 11 seasons. The entire point has been an example of a coach improving dramatically well into his career as you should be able to comprehend without having to be reminded dozens of time now.

It hurts me how loudly dumb some of our fans are....like this guy.

The crux of your argument is fallacious. Hurley is the exception, not the rule.

It's like arguing smoking isn't bad for you because your grandpa smoked two packs a day all of his life and lived to 90. It's irrational to base your beliefs on exceptions.

For every Hurley there are literally hundreds and hundreds of other coaches who are mediocre at best and remain that way until the day they step down or are fired.

It's pretty obvious to me what Pope is at this point. The guy has advantages 99% of coaches would cut off an arm for to have. There are so many coaches who would absolutely kill it at Kentucky. Unfortunately, Pope isn't one of those guys.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

So the standard is the SEC and SEC tourney SEED? Thats some goalpost moving. You left out SEC tourney results and the giant one...NCAA tourney results. Any standard excluding tournament results is disingenuous at best. That is the single biggest factor of determining success or failure.

Given TOURNAMENT results of Pope's 2 years vs Cal's final years, we have most certainly not "regressed".

You've got to be a truly awful lawyer. Too stupid to make an argument that can even be mistaken as logical.

Its like being the smartest kid with down syndrome using Cals last 2 years to act like pope has done a good job. We have done slightly better n ncaa tourney but still not close to winning anything that matters.

But yes you are correct, not a regression. But still a continued embarrassment for the Uk brand.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

You are presented with easily verifiable facts that clearly defy your position and you respond in a very childish manner. If you ever bothered to research anything you would know it is four second place finishes (two were at Utah Valley) not two.

You know full well the comparison has only been made to the first 11-12 years of Hurley's career which is reasonable since Pope has been a head coach 11 seasons. The entire point has been an example of a coach improving dramatically well into his career as you should be able to comprehend without having to be reminded dozens of time now.

My mistake, four seconds. Not sure why I forgot that. Truly the mark of a future great. Surely his breakout season is on the horizon, right? This team is going to win the SEC or the SECT and make a FF run. I can feel it!

Hurley showed consistent progress. Pope is fairly inconsistent, no? Utah St improved. BYU regressed. His UK tenure has been a roller coaster at best.

I hope (such a fun and overused word) you can point and laugh at me at the end of this season. I will take no joy in being correct if you can’t.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

It hurts me how loudly dumb some of our fans are....like this guy.

The crux of your argument is fallacious. Hurley is the exception, not the rule.

It's like arguing smoking isn't bad for you because your grandpa smoked two packs a day all of his life and lived to 90. It's irrational to base your beliefs on exceptions.

For every Hurley there are literally hundreds and hundreds of other coaches who are mediocre at best and remain that way until the day they step down or are fired.

It's pretty obvious to me what Pope is at this point. The guy has advantages 99% of coaches would cut off an arm for to have. There are so many coaches who would absolutely kill it at Kentucky. Unfortunately, Pope isn't one of those guys.

His lives on the premise Pope COULD be great. There’s no evidence to suggest it. I COULD bed Sophia Bush tonight. Evidence suggests no, but hey…it’s not impossible!

 

[RunninRichie]

Blah, blah, blah...Twice in nine years Pope finished second in his conference. Every other year it was fifth or worse. Seven of nine seasons fifth or worse. I believe in nine seasons he appeared in two conference tourney finals. He'd also won the same amount of NCAAT games as you as a head coach. But sure, lets remember those two glorious seasons his teams finished second to the Zags (one of those seasons being unranked).

You keep comparing him to Hurley. Let me let you in on a little secret the rest of the college basketball world already knows. He ain't Dan Hurley.

Yeah, but if we just wait he could be Coach K. Coach K sucked his first 2 years at Duke. What if we fire him and he turns into Mormon Dan Hurley?

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Yeah, but if we just wait he could be Coach K. Coach K sucked his first 2 years at Duke. What if we fire him and he turns into Mormon Dan Hurley?

So you are claiming his third year at Duke was awesome when he went 11-17? Would you have demanded he be fired after three years of those results?

His fourth year at Duke looked better record wise at 24-10 against a SOS of 6.92 and an SRS of 11.86 and his fifth year at 23-8 with a SOS of 7.38 and an SRS 18.38. These metrics for year four and five still fall short of Pope's first two seasons at UK metric wise when schedule is considered even with no consideration for the injuries Pope dealt with..

For about the hundredth time I have never claimed that Pope approaches the legendary career that followed but this is another example of a coach that showed vast improvement well into his career.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

So you are claiming his third year at Duke was awesome when he went 11-17? His fourth year at Duke looked better record wise at 24-10 against a SOS of 6.92 and an SRS of 11.86 and his fifth year at 23-8 with a SOS of 7.38 and an SRS 18.38. These metrics for year four and five still fall short of Pope's first two seasons at UK.

You’re wasting your time, Paul. I don’t think Richie actually cares how you really feel about it. He’s flexing for the people. That’s all it is — a show. In his mind, you’re a Popette on the bad team so carefully understanding what you have to say isn’t worth his time.

 

[RunninRichie]

You’re wasting your time, Paul. I don’t think Richie actually cares how you really feel about it. He’s flexing for the people. That’s all it is — a show. In his mind, you’re a Popette on the bad team so carefully understanding what you have to say isn’t worth his time.

I understand what he’s saying, he’s saying Pope could be like Coach K or Dan Hurley. If we just wait it out.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

I understand what he’s saying, he’s saying Pope could be like Coach K or Dan Hurley. If we just wait it out.

No, that isn’t what he’s saying. He’s saying we don’t know what Pope will be yet because of a small sample size. He’s using a bookend example to drive the point. I just don’t like how y’all ridicule the guy for making very fair mild points. It’s pathetic.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

So you are claiming his third year at Duke was awesome when he went 11-17? Would you have demanded he be fired after three years of those results

His fourth year at Duke looked better record wise at 24-10 against a SOS of 6.92 and an SRS of 11.86 and his fifth year at 23-8 with a SOS of 7.38 and an SRS 18.38. These metrics for year four and five still fall short of Pope's first two seasons at UK metric wise when schedule is considered even with no consideration for the injuries Pope dealt with..

For about the hundredth time I have never claimed that Pope approaches the legendary career that followed but this is another example of a coach that showed vast improvement well into his career.

Did his teams just quit? Were his teams out of shape? It's not about the record. No one wanted Pitino fired when he went 14-14 his first year here. It's just a straw man argument for Popettes to talk records. Stevie Wonder can see that pope's teams don't play hard. Stevie can also see that Pope players do not improve. Of course, Stevie is not willfully blind.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

I understand what he’s saying, he’s saying Pope could be like Coach K or Dan Hurley. If we just wait it out.

Would you have thought Coach K to be destined to have one the greatest careers of All Time 3 or even 5 years into his career at Duke?

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Did his teams just quit? Were his teams out of shape? It's not about the record. No one wanted Pitino fired when he went 14-14 his first year here. It's just a straw man argument for Popettes to talk records. Stevie Wonder can see that pope's teams don't play hard. Stevie can also see that Pope players do not improve. Of course, Stevie is not willfully blind.

Your imagination is all that makes you believe what you believe and it is not based on any kind of actual evidence.

 

[RunninRichie]

Would you have thought Coach K to be destined to have one the greatest careers of All Time 3 or even 5 years into his career at Duke?

Coach K had NIL and the portal in the 80s?

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Coach K had NIL and the portal in the 80s?

That is not the magic wand that erases all reality that you believe it to be. Coach K took over a program on a successful 3 year run with a quality roster with 3 returning starters from an Elite Eight team including Gene Banks not a roster that consisted of only incoming freshman Travis Perry in mid April.

 

[Eagles_Ball_69]

No, that isn’t what he’s saying. He’s saying we don’t know what Pope will be yet because of a small sample size. He’s using a bookend example to drive the point. I just don’t like how y’all ridicule the guy for making very fair mild points. It’s pathetic.

His sample size isn’t small. It also isn’t awful. It also isn’t good. It’s kinda like Pope in general. Just okay. Pretty meh. Cool for places that don’t aim to be elite.