I wasn't using that as a synonym for raw talent. I think those teams had plenty of capable college players. I'm basing that more on eye test than hype. Not every roster can look like those from 2010, 12 or 15.
There's an element of randomness to the tourney (but of course this doesn't stop people from downgrading KU historically for being a basket away from three more titles), but I also think some of his teams have underperformed in the regular season. Was the SEC strong enough in 13, 14 and 18 to justify an average of 11.5 losses? Especially the year that 40-0 shirts were printed.
So is it your opinion that the sports media and Kentucky fanbase expects too much in most years, and that Calipari has gotten everything reasonably possible out of his teams? What do you expect from next year's team?
I think your last paragraph pretty much summarizes where we differ. Yes, of course the expectations are overhyped for UK in most years because they account for upside and not downside risk (and honestly, who the eff cares about fans printing 40-0 shirts?).
The 2012-13 team, which was replacing damn near everyone with unknown quantities, was preseason #2 because guys like... Archie Goodwin and Harrow and Noel (who was very good). That team finished 55 in KenPom. How many losses should that team have? There's no eye test in the world that says that team should have been good, especially after Noel, the only productive player, went down. FFS, just look at that roster with the benefit of hindsight!
You bring up a good point about regular seasons. On average, I would expect that teams relying on freshmen and lacking continuity would struggle more (and have higher variability) in the regular season than teams with veterans and continuity. That's common sense, and I would be stunned if any empirical research contradicted that. The model that Cal has followed - intentionally or not (a lot of kids leave that weren't realistically projected to go, such as SGA and Booker, leave) - lends itself to more regular season losses than a model that chases more continuity and experience. Does that mean that UK "underperformed in the regular season," or is that a necessary (and frankly unwanted) byproduct and the sense of underperforming based on unreasonable expectations? I submit the latter. I also posit that such teams are likely to improve more than teams relying on experience and continuity. In admittedly noisy samples, that appears to be the case.
Re: your small text on tournament variability, I agree that the same logic applies to KU's lack of titles, but I note that the sample size is much larger. But I don't dunk all over, say, 1997 UK or 2003 KU for losing close title games (although for trolling purposes, all bets are off).
I assume that the teams you say "had plenty of capable players" you mean the 2017, 2019, and 2020 teams. They did, and they performed within the range of reasonable outcomes that we should have, and did (rational people), expect.
I have no idea who will be on next year's team. If we bring back Quickley, I think expectations will be justifiably high and a reasonable outcome would be an Elite 8 or better. But, as with all UK teams that are relying on freshmen (and significant improvements from sophomores), the variance of outcomes will be high. If your goal is championships, generally a higher variable strategy is a better approach (at least when there's not a huge production disparity), so I'm generally okay with this approach. It's sort of like the approach that the Houston Rockets have taken over the last several years - big swings for a title - versus that taken by, say, Utah. And Houston's 2018 team, like 2015 UK, was one of the best non-title teams of all time. See, e.g., Nate Duncan, John Hollinger, Zach Lowe, and Ben Taylor.
