FIRST: I did not know SB Nation had a lacrosse blog.

SECOND: I'm glad SB Nation has a lacrosse blog. Yay!

THIRD: I played one season of lacrosse my senior year of high school. I was not good, but I did enjoy beating people with sticks. This automatically makes me a bigger lacrosse fan than 99.7% of the inhabitants of my home state, Kentucky.

FOURTH: Can't wait to see how the championship shapes up. I'm not a real fan of any team in particular, though I do kind of like UVa just because I have some friends who went to school there. Good a reason as any, I suppose.

FIFTH: I hate Duke.

SIXTH: Am I the only one who thinks writing "lacrosse" "LAX" is kind of dumb? Your comments and insight on the issue will probably not be ignored!

FINALLY: Looking forward to getting into the game again. If y'all need a writer with absolutely no idea what he's talking about, let me know. I'm that guy.

Happened to run across a blurb from a new SI article about Louisville and Kentucky on Facebook today about the week leading up to the Final Four, so I clicked on it. First, I noticed that it was written by "William F. Reed." I thought that was familiar. Then, I noted the references to watching games in 1955, Ali/Frazier I, and thought - wait, that's Billy Reed.

I know lots of people hate Billy Reed but I've never really understood why. Then I read this:

Calipari and UK were made for each other. Calipari freely admits that he's running an NBA prep school for one-and-done superstars. This is just fine with those in Big Blue Nation, who have long regarded academics as mostly a nuisance. Unlike any Wildcat coach since Rupp, Calipari owns the fan base, and the true believers deeply resent any insinuations about Calipari's recruiting methods or his Final Four appearances that were vacated at UMass and Memphis (Calipari himself was never charged with any wrongdoing).

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/basketball/ncaa/mens-tournament/2012/03/29/kentucky.madness/index.html#ixzz1qXdP3ClH

Now I get it. Sentence No. 2:

Calipari freely admits that he's running an NBA prep school for one-and-done superstars.

False.
Sentence No. 3:

This is just fine with those in Big Blue Nation, who have long regarded academics as mostly a nuisance.

Also false, and a direct insult to Kentucky fans and alumni. Yeah, that degree hanging on my wall? Total nuisance, dude.
Look, I embrace Calipari's approach to this basketball program and the fact that, to me at least, he's doing what's in the kids' best interest rather than his own or even that of the team. But to say, even offhandedly, that fans don't care about academics is careless, insulting, and blatantly untrue. Do we, as fans, celebrate the team's accomplishments on the floor more than their performance in class? Of course we do; find me a fanbase that DOESN'T.
Sure, it's a nitpicky criticism of an otherwise fairly decent article, but this notion that all Kentucky fans are stupid is infuriating. Kiss my ass, William F. Reed, and best of luck with that new nom de plume.

Mississippi State is on a big slide (WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BIG SLIDE PUNS!). They'll look to cure what ails them (mercury-riddled catfish poisoning) tonight at The Hump against Kentucky. As well as Kentucky has played lately, a win for the Other Bulldogs does not look likely. Here's what I want to see from the Cats tonight:

1. Better defense. The past three games, Kentucky has surrendered .98, 1.03, and .94 PPP. I'd like to see that number drop some. Kentucky's average Adjusted Defense is about 87 points per 100 possessions; Ohio State's is more like 80 or 81. Turn the screws, Cats.

2. Darius Miller and Terrence Jones need to own Rodney Hood. Jones is getting more aggressive in spurts, but his is one game he needs to hang up the 2/10 WOULD NOT BANG meme and kick some ass. Dee Bost is what makes this team go, so I think it's safe to assume Michael Kidd-Gilchrist will be guarding him or Arnett Moultrie. Renardo Sidney is slow and lazy but he requires a double-team in the post. Arnett Moultrie is good and will probably get his. The X-factor, though, could be Hood. If Jones is not on the double-team in the post, he needs to deny Hood the ball on defense.

3. REBOUND. That should speak for itself; Kentucky has to do a better job hanging onto missed shots on both ends of the floor. State has a big, physical front court and the Cats will have to be faster.

Do those three things and the Cats win easy on Mardi Gras. The offense will take care of itself; State's defense is just average. GO CATS!

Wildcats vs Bulldogs coverage

For Whom the Cowbell Tolls

This isn't my typical "sky is falling" type post, but rather one that I thought was interesting: In last night's game against Florida, Kentucky (awesomely) held Florida below 40% eFG, which is a really, really good number, right? Yet when I checked out our PPP figures from the game, Florida registered at .98 PPP while Kentucky rang in at 1.32 (REAL GOOD). My question is, does the relatively low number of possessions have to do with why Florida shot so poorly yet seemed to be efficient in terms of PPP? I know KenPom leans a lot more on PPP or adjusted offense when compiling his ratings than he does eFG%, so I'm wondering what's really the better metric?

I was just looking at Scout's new Top 100 rankings yesterday, and it looks like we're in pretty good with 2013 top PG Andrew Harrison and his brother Aaron, along with some other good prospects. However, when I started to wonder "do we have a PG coming in from the 2012 class?" and looked at the list, Kentucky's not anywhere on it.

Do we have a 2012 PG? Do we need one? HALP.

**UPDATE: Didn't think of Ryan Harrow, but then I didn't know he was supposed to be a PG. CRISIS AVERTED?

People who are paid to vote on such things tapped Kentucky to top their polls this week. However, a look at KenPom's ratings grant some validity a feeling that I, paranoid UK fan, have had about this team for the past few weeks: we're not as good as our record. KenPom rates Kentucky SIXTH, behind Ohio State, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Syracuse. Kentucky is 7th in the country in adjusted offense and 11th in adjusted defense. Letting Alabama score at will in the paint on Saturday probably didn't help that number. Obviously, 7 and 11 are good, but Kentucky has slipped since league play started in both effectiveness categories.

From a bird's eye view, some of that is explicable. Think of how many 2 and 3 footers and layups this team seems to miss lately. It hasn't detracted from the bottom line, wins, but it is frustrating, and seems to be going the opposite direction.

So again I ask you: am I right to be concerned?

I've read the transcript from Calipari's press conference and checked over Marquis Teague's stats for the past few games, which is normal because I am a Kentucky basketball fan. Or not normal for normal people, but normal for Kentucky basketball fans. Yes, that's probably more accurate.

So should we be concerned that Calipari apparently can't get his team to play the way he wants them to? Yes, we lost nine games last year before we figured out how to play, but this isn't last year's team; these guys are supposed to be the GREATEST ASSEMBLY OF BASKETBALL TALENT IN EVER. It's not like my expectations are ridiculously high and out of proportion with this team's level of experience and maturity or anything.

In all seriousness, though, I haven't watched one game this team has played yet and thought: hey, that was a complete basketball game with no significant breakdowns. I'm concerned about Marquis Teague's understanding of what he's supposed to do. I worry about why we got outrebounded by a much smaller team last night. Is all this legit or am I a neurotic Kentucky fan?

YOUR WELL-REASONED KENTUCKY FAN COMMENTS ARE APPRECIATED IN ADVANCE.

Not sure if anyone in the braintrust caught this yet, but I think it's incredible: Gus Malzahn is leaving his OC position at Auburn to be head coach at Arkansas State. The same Gus Malzahn who was thisclose to being Vanderbilt's head coach just a year ago is now filling the shoes of Hugh Freeze, and is expected to make just $850,000 per year instead of the $1.3 million reasons he had to stay at Auburn.

This is weird. I know I was pretty disappointed that Vanderbilt couldn't land Malzahn last year, but it turns out, obvs, that David Williams made the right choice in hiring James Franklin. Stuff like this does make you wonder, though...what's wrong with that guy? Why leave a comfortable spot (apparently) at Auburn to take the reigns of a [/looks up conference] Sun Belt team heading to the GoDaddy.com Bowl? Seems like he either missed a golden opportunity to get a good HC job at a Big Six school or he just really likes....Arkansas? I guess?

Reports over the weekend (see: everywhere) have it that David Williams is upping Coach Franklin's salary to around $3 million annually and a real commitment to upgrading the football team's facilities. Williams and Vanderbilt are doing it right. They finally found a coach that produces results and believes that success in football is possible at the school, and are putting their money and support behind him. That's the way you build a program: find a guy who buys into winning, produces results, and making sure he, his staff, and players want to play at Vandy. Well done, bravo, and goddammit Kentucky get your shit together.

"Three straight SEC losses! HOLY SHITFIRE! The Dores had chances to win all three of those games, but spit the bit at every opportunity! Coach can't the the job done! Fire coach and hire someone who can!," said a fan who knows nothing about Vanderbilt football.

These close losses have to be hard on Vandy fans and players alike because, seriously, the Dores could have won each of its last three games. A false start penalty (GAHHH!) was basically the difference between Vandy having a chance to beat Florida AT FLORIDA and the ultimate result in yesterday's game. Vanderbilt should be proud of how they competed and played in each of their games this past month, but they have to be, and should be, angry at the way they lost. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a real turnaround in Vandy's favor.

The losses may hurt, but they're a hell of a lot more fun to watch this year than they were the last two.

It's been common knowledge for a while now that somehow, UofL has one of the most profitable basketball programs, and probably athletic programs, in the country. In terms of basketball only, a new Business Journal report shows that UofL is #2 in the country in basketball profitability (behind Duke) while Kentucky is #7. 7 is not a bad place to be, but I wonder why our basketball and gameday expenses are almost double what UofL's are?

To wit, UofL's basketball revenue is $25.9 million, with $9.1 million in basketball expenses and $1.5 million in gameday expenses, for a total annual profit of over $15 million per annum. Kentucky's revenue is $16.8 million, with $11.6 million in basketball expenses and $2.6 million in gameday expenses.

I just find it odd that our revenue is that much less and that our expenses are that much more in comparison to Louisville, given the fact that our venue is so much larger, as is our fanbase. I'm sure there are administrative and structural reasons for why that is, but does anyone really know the reason?

Because I know Glenn and SBN both love cross-pollination, I'll link to this excellent article by Bill Connelly on the big site regarding how college coaches have applied statistics to overcome difficult situations with their football teams. If you haven't read Michael Lewis's first book (and I just started it last night), it's about how the Oakland A's defied conventional baseball wisdom and started using measurable statistics to determine whether a player was any good or not, most notably OBP and, later, OPS. It's a good read, and I highly recommend it.

Hal Mumme used a different kind of approach, but his aim was to make an opposing defense defend more of the field than just the middle, i.e. the exact opposite of what Bill Curry and hundreds before him tried to do at UK: jam a square peg into a round hole that closed up wayyyyy too fast. Scouting high school football players is obviously more difficult than scouting college baseball players because of what is bound to be a lack of measurable statistics. However, it would seem that, given the ever-increasing exposure and scouting data on high school athletes, it would be possible for a coach, or even AD, to find some way to evaluate talent on more than height, weight, and a 40 time. I don't know what those are, but I bet there's a way to do it.

Think someone at Nutter Fieldhouse might think this is interesting?

This is a legitimate question. With Texas A&M, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse all switching conferences, and rumors all over the place about Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech finishing out the would-be Pac-16, we're all the closer to four "superconferences" in college sports. I think we're all aware, by now, that the conference re-shuffling is all driven by maximizing TV revenue from broadcasting football games. This begs the question, then, of where Kentucky might fall in all of this.

But Kentucky is in the SEC! you may be thinking. Surely they're safe?!?!

Maybe not. In the ever-shrinking swimming pool that is upper-level college football, Kentucky may find itself on the outside looking in. Sure, football seems like a priority for Kentucky, but let's be honest with ourselves: our football program does not bring much to the table. No one's banging on our doors to get us to move conferences, and why would they? While it may seem like Kentucky is above the fray thanks to already being in what is sure to be one of the four big conferences that will probably exist within the next ten years, I'm not sure UK's SEC brethren wouldn't think twice about shoving the Cats out in favor of bringing in a Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, or Texas if that's a possibility. Kentucky basketball, as great as it is, does not make the SEC money; football does.

This isn't probable, but I do think that it is remotely possible. The solution, even if the problem is off the grid, is for Kentucky to really dedicate itself to a winning football program. Let's hope that happens, so the above nightmare scenario doesn't play itself out.

Hey, everybody, long time, no see.  I thought I'd jump on the moaning, teeth-gnashing bandwagon while it was still rolling and put our fair fanbase into even more panic and turmoil by examining Kentucky's recruiting class for FOOTBALL in 2010.  You remember football, don't you?  The game with that oblong ball and the grass with pads and stuff?  Good.

I checked Rivals this morning because I'd noticed a complete dearth of comment on Joker's first freshman class as head coach and nearly had an aneurysm.  Brace yourselves, Cats fans: sliding in at last place in the SEC (and it's not even close), your own Kentucky Wildcats.  We have zero five star commitments (expected).  We have zero four star commitments (not expected at all).  We have fifteen three stars (meh).  And some other guys to carry Morgan Newton's Gatorade, I guess.

What gives?  Wasn't Joker's strategy of (1) Don't sign anyone early; (2)__________; (3) PROFIT! supposed to bring in some really stellar high school talent?  Wasn't that part of the whole "head coach in waiting" benefits package, recruiting continuity and improvement?  Why is that dog over there laughing at me?  These are a lot of questions that I would like to answer, but cannot.  Here's hoping Joker knows what he's doing, or his seat will start heating up before he even gets to sit in it.

Okay, that's that.  You may now resume attacking our basketball team via Twitter, Omegle, and YouFace.  Go Cats!

 

That's Lane Kiffin's house.  via riannanworld.typepad.com

I'll go ahead and preface this post by saying I'm not quite as confident going into Saturday's game as Ken is.  After the jump (in a continuing effort to keep Howlett's good work on the level), I'll explain in a little more detail why I'm less than enthused about our chances this weekend.  Oh, and whoever that guy is who always says "not a football fan, but Kentucky basketball forever!", come on, man.  Come. On..

Continue reading this post »

We're all well aware that the sages of Garnet and Black Attack and our very on Truwhateveritis are editors of the weekly SEC Power Poll.  Tru hasn't posted his votes (I don't think) just yet, so I thought I'd take a moment and put together my own.  Naturally, this doesn't count whatsoever in the big-boy poll, so I can put the Cats ANYWHERE I PLEASE, SUCK IT VOLZAAAAAHHHGGH!

Excuse me, blacked out there.  Anyway, hyah it is:

1. Alabama - The score was close but the game wasn't so much.  They were pretty dominant.
   
2. LSU - Washington outgained the Bayou Bengals and rolled up over 400 yards in a loss.  That Tiger D needs to get it together fast.
   
3. Ole Miss - Jevan Snead & Co. looked pretty shaky in the first half against Memphis.  Not sure whether or not to chalk it up to first-game jitters.  The D did look pretty solid.
4. Auburn - They were actually losing for a minute before the managed to take control and pile on a pretty good Louisiana Tech team.
   
5. Kentucky - Only here because they were the one of the few schools to play a D-1 team and beat them into the turf.
   
6. Tennessee - Yes, it was against Western Kentucky.  But they showed they had a lot more on offense than anyone thought.
7. Georgia - There are lots of excuses for losing that game, but Okie State's defense had a lot to do with it.
   
8. South Carolina - The defense was OMG scary, the offense was pretty terrible.  Still, a win over a BCS school should count for something.
9. Florida - Might as well have played a high school team.  Are they really worse than any of the teams above?  Of course not, but until they play someone other than a 1-AA team, they don't get the cred.
10. Vanderbilt - Looked great in their opener against Western Carolina.  But beating cupcakes won't get you very far in the SEC, it's common practice.
11. Arkansas - Petrino may have that offense in high gear again, but it's hard to tell against Missouri State.
    
12. Mississippi State - Could be better than we thought.  I don't think they put up 47 points in all of 2008.

Some caveats: Please remember this is a week-by-week deal.  Commies fans will not like being ranked where they are, but I ask that they remember that they played a bad team from the FCS.  Kentucky is probably not better than UT, Georgia, and definitely not Florida, but they looked better against tougher competition (marginally, anyway).  That being said, feel free to rip me apart in the comments.

Picture is unrelated. Via pictureisunrelated.com

So I, like some of you who can manage to distract yourselves from the "Guiding Light" episode that seems to be the everyday lives of Rick Pitino and Billy Gillispie, have been reading quite a few preseason picks for the SEC lately.  And I'd say 4 out of 5 of them have Kentucky finishing dead last in the SEC East.  In most years, I'd say that's par for the course and work on mending my tent so I could camp out for Midnight Madness tickets.  But if the last three years have taught us anything, it's that Kentucky doesn't totally suck at football anymore.  You've read what Ken, Tru et al. have had to say about the team.  It's probably better (if reports from camp are true) than it was last year, and even though last year was tough to swallow, it still ended in a bowl win.  So you'd think that other people might notice, right?  Wrong.  This one from Team Speed Kills in particular just really grinds my gears, disclaimer by the author notwithstanding:

 

Kentucky

 

DATE	OPPONENT	OUTCOME
5-Sep	@ Miami (OH)	W
19-Sep	Louisville	W
26-Sep	Florida	L
3-Oct	Alabama	L
10-Oct	@ South Carolina	L
17-Oct	@ Auburn	L
24-Oct	Louisiana-Monroe	W
31-Oct	Mississippi State	W
7-Nov	Eastern Kentucky	L
14-Nov	@ Vanderbilt	L
21-Nov	@ Georgia	L
28-Nov	Tennessee	L

Kentucky just wasn't very good last season, and they made it to bowl season largely on the back of a terrible non-conference schedule. The terrible non-conference schedule is back, but I just don't see improvement from the Wildcats that many of the other conference teams will make. Going with Mike Hartline under center over Randall Cobb didn't inspire confidence, and losing Jeremy Jarmon was the last straw.

One SEC win.  One.  With two All-America candidates in the defensive secondary.  With one of the few QBs in the league with actual game experience.  With a freaking stable of thoroughbred running backs and receivers that can apparently catch the football now. 

Are we still dealing with this?  The cupboard behind last year's starters wasn't bare, folks.  If Coach Brooks says we're better than we were last year, I believe him.  Some might chalk that up to coach-speak, but if there's one currency we know Papa Rich doesn't trade in, it's BS.  So am I right to get my shorts in a wad every time I read something like this, or should I just suck it up and let the Cats prove it on the field?  I'm inclined to do both, but let me know if you see it differently.

UPDATE:  Here's a link to the story.

I would have to guess that most anyone with a high school diploma read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 at some point in time.  It's not the most fun book to read but it does, in a roundabout fashion, warn its readers against the dangers of censorship and the relinquishment of control to authority in general.  Well apparently, the thinktank that put together the SEC's new media and ticketholder policy totally missed that week of English class or are huge fans of the George Orwell's 1984 antagonist, Big Brother, because check it out:

Continue reading this post »

via assets.espn.go.com

Take the above image and repeat about five or six times and you have Commies at Cats, 2008.  Several blogs lately have pointed out that the Doormat Bowl has evolved from answering the question of "who's going to be at the bottom of the league" to "who's going to be at the bottom of the league, but also gets to go to a bowl?"  That wasn't the case in 2008, as Kentucky got torched and still went to the Liberty Bowl.  It might not be the case in 2009, either, as South Carolina or Tennessee could easily fail their way to the same East basement that Vandy and UK have struggled so mightily to climb out of.  Of course, every conference game is important, but, because UK/VU tends to happen so late in the season, it always seems like a fulcrum-type game, and 2009 looks to shape up that way, too.  Chris Low calls the game a "fork in the road" for Kentucky, and Team Speed Kills calls it one of the 10 games that will shape the SEC this year.

Cocknfire over at TSK does a pretty good job breaking down the game, and I've taken a look at it myself recently, albeit a brief one.  Of all the games on the schedule this year for both the Cats and Commodores, this was the hardest one for me to pick (or push).  Here's a deeper look, and why it's probably not going to matter come November 14th anyway:

Continue reading this post »

I love Jimmy Buffett so I was going for the song thing in the title, but nothing rhymes with "strategy."  Moving on...

Recruiting isn't really Tru's thing, I know, and it's not mine, either.  I like to pretend that recruiting doesn't actually happen; that the kids that show up at Kirwan I every fall are there because they, you know, like it in Lexington or something.  Having to consider what actually happens on the recruiting trail hurts my headspot too much, so I ignore it for the most part.  That being said, one of the most profound things I took away from last week's Media Days event was a quote from Georgia defensive tackle Jeff Owens.  Owens said (and I'm paraphrasing because Larry Vaught likes to copyright everything he writes) that the problem Kentucky's had with competing in the SEC East comes down to talent. 

That's probably true, with some caveats.  NFL types, especially scouts, seem to think that all it takes to create a successful college football team is to amass some talent and put it out there on the playing field.  NFL types also think that it's acceptable to pay $8.00 for light beer at their games.  Talent is very important of course, but to say that it's everything belies the importance of coaching said talent once it reaches said field.  Going past the coaching edge, though, and you see why the Kentuckys and Vanderbilts of the SEC have struggled so mightily for so long: they can't get enough of the right kinds of players to fill out a roster.

Kentucky has some geographic and historical mountains to climb, but Coach Brooks recently addressed a sea change in the program's approach to college football's very lifeblood:

Continue reading this post »

[Editor's Note:  I have asked AnythingButGatorade to guest blog at A Sea of Blue for a while.  I hope you will all give him a proper welcome and enjoy his commentary.]

Funny, I thought the SEC East looked just like Tim Tebow.

via www.bethelinc.com

By this point, all of the pre-season fanboy mags are out, be it Athlon, Sporting News, Lindy's, or the sainted screed of Phil Steele.  Any chance his name is kind of close to Philistine?  I think not.  In any event, if you look at how the national and regional pundits have ranked the SEC you'll find Kentucky in its usual spot: dead last or second to dead last.

As Ken pointed out earlier, there are a lot of reasons why no one gives the Cats a chance to climb their way up the ladder and reach for the stars, etc.  Kentucky has an exceedingly difficult time beating SEC competition.  You know those streaks everyone likes to talk about?  The ones that make you want to drive your Rich Brooks edition Ford F-150 into the nearest telephone pole?  They're all against teams in our own division: Tennessee, Florida, and South Carolina.  The Cats have only beaten UGA once in the last fifteen tries.  Our record against Vanderbilt since 1990 is only 11-8.  And here's where the news gets even worse: everyone is getting better.

Yes, Rich Brooks and I both believe that this year's offensive unit will outperform last year's (how can it not?).  We know that the secondary is very good.  But let's look at this year's eastern division, briefly, and see how we stack up.

Continue reading this post »

As I watched the game washed my car last night, I noticed that the UK cheerleaders had new uniforms with the ubiquitous "UK" logo on them rather than the old block "K".  I have always liked the block "K" better, and now the "UK" logo is looking more and more like Houston's "UH" and some other team I can't remember at the moment.

 

The point is, what made the university change the logo?  I remember when it happened back in the late '90's, but I don't remember why.  Somebody help?