Outside of regular UK pressure to hang banners every year (let's get that out of the way first), what more could Pope have done in year one? He got a mid April hire so high school recruits were not an option. The Kentucky roster was empty with only incoming Travis Perry willing to stay committed. The Transfer Portal was already open and the contacts he had made at BYU weren't exactly SEC caliber people so he had to shift and make new relationships. Mark Pope built a staff and a competitive veteran basketball team in roughly 3-4 weeks out of portal scraps. He was basically building the plane while flying it.
Which brings me to my point, the other serious coaching candidates. Did Baylor, UConn, or Gonzaga have a better season than UK last year? Only Nate Oats did, and he wasn't leaving Alabama for UK. Maybe you could argue that Bruce Pearl was considered (who also had a better season), but I really doubt the board would have let that happen and was probably more fanbase wishing than an actual consideration for head coach by the university. UK had it's deepest tournament run in years with no healthy point guard, our starting four's back limiting him, Oweh beat up, and our only NBA talent (projected coming into the season) done for the year.
Without blue tinted glasses, what Mark Pope did in year 1 was nothing short of remarkable with what he had to work with. And most everyone around college basketball says as much. Year 2 we can scrutinize him a lot more. He finally got a full year of recruiting in, got the portal guys he wanted. We need to be competitive in the SEC and near the top, same for the SEC tournament, and a second weekend run in the NCAA tournament (probably Elite 8) needed to consider this year a success and building upon year 1. Barring severe injuries to several key players I think that is the bar most fans set, we want more of course, but I think an Elite 8 finishing in the top 3 in the SEC in year 2 is another large stepping stone to righting the ship Cal crashed into the reef his last 5 years here.