Bilas and Calipari Disagree

[IUfanBorden]

I did not mean to mean to rustle you so bad; however, 11 is impressive. No other team at the moment can get close. Of course many of those 11 were top flight players coming out of high school, but so were some of the IU kids.

You didn't rustle me my friend....THough it seem as I may have done so to you? Your good in my book, Bert. Always have been.

As for the IU kids being "Top flight"? Oladipo certainly was not. Thomas Bryant was a 4*...OG Anunoby wasn't even ranked. The others, Vonleh, Zeller and Gordon were higly ranked kids.

 

[ExitFlagger]

You didn't rustle me my friend....THough it seem as I may have done so to you? Your good in my book, Bert. Always have been.

As for the IU kids being "Top flight"? Oladipo certainly was not. Thomas Bryant was a 4*...OG Anunoby wasn't even ranked. The others, Vonleh, Zeller and Gordon were higly ranked kids.

Two former 3 stars starting in the league?

Since we draw conclusions based on a few examples around here, one would have to say that the development skills of Crean and Beard are unparalleled.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Two former 3 stars starting in the league?

Since we draw conclusions based on a few examples around here, one would have to say that the development skills of Crean and Beard are unparalleled.

Both were 1st rounders, too..........Oladipo the SECOND overall pick. OG was 23rd. Would have been higher if not for injury.

 

[kyjeff1]

I don't worry. I wish he and a few others would worry less about me.

Or "smirk" less...y'know, whatever he wants to label it.

We're not worrying about you, we're trying to get you to realize that you appear to be a guy that is completely obsessed with everything UK, but you won't listen.

Yeah, you post in a lot of UK threads, but I have seen you slam UK in threads that had nothing to do with UK.

IDK, maybe you're having a tough time with the word "obsessed", would you feel better if we used "rustled" or "ate up"? Just let us know which one is more comfortable to you.

 

[ExitFlagger]

We're not worrying about you, we're trying to get you to realize that you appear to be a guy that is completely obsessed with everything UK, but you won't listen.

Yeah, you post in a lot of UK threads, but I have seen you slam UK in threads that had nothing to do with UK.

IDK, maybe you're having a tough time with the word "obsessed", would you feel better if we used "rustled" or "ate up"? Just let us know which one is more comfortable to you.

And you come across as completely obsessed with the Big 12. And Tennessee. But I know...in your case, it’s just “fun,” while in my case, it’s “hate.”

Again, I’ll point out that a large portion of your fans are “ate up” with KU (among others). Those threads I provided are a good example. Is it that surprising to you that a KU fan might give your fanbase a little more attention than say, Duke? Considering that Duke fans, by and large, show no bitterness or ill will toward KU? Shocking how that works.

Would you rather I take the approach of the guy in the other thread who labeled Kentucky fans trash? Or the jhmossy approach of dismissing you as idiots and hillbillies? I’d say my pokes are pretty mild in comparison to a lot of other things that are said.

Maybe you should focus more on why your fanbase hates anyone and everyone? And don’t try to disown the Rafters population. I know you post there regularly. If you think I have an obsession, you must think those people need to be committed. Oh, wait, you probably don’t even see it, because they’re on “your team.”

 

[kyjeff1]

She might say that. If so, that's because she's got thicker skin than you. You clearly can't take what you dish.

I could play that card too. "What have I said that's untrue?"

As for the B12...you've said a lot that's untrue actually, by any reasonable standard. You've called it a "god awful" conference, despite it being rated highly by national analysts and computers. #1 several times, in fact. You've also claimed that several other schools could have matched KU's streak--false. And you've claimed that the SEC has been far better in the tourney historically, yet they have fewer all-time tourney wins.

Need more?

Bolded = false. You're lying. I've stated that the KU conference record certainly could not be matched by UK because UK is always too young and there was that 2013 Nerlens Noel season.

I also never called the conference God awful. Find it, quote it and post it here. What I DID say was for many years, the conference was KU, followed by a bunch of also rans. Meaning, KU was always head and shoulders better than all the other teams in the conference and that all the other teams were basically the same. They played different styles, but were first weekend teams. You're making crap up to fit your agenda now.

Another bad look for you.

 

[kyjeff1]

LOL. First you disagree with me about the mods being trigger-happy; now it's "what would you expect?"

I can guarantee you that Kentucky fans aren't banned for frivolous or nonexistent reasons on the KU boards.

It's not like this an uncommon take. I've seen about 100 complaints on this board and others.

We'll have to move on from this conversation. Obviously it's over your head.

 

[kyjeff1]

And you come across as completely obsessed with the Big 12. And Tennessee. But I know...in your case, it’s just “fun,” while in my case, it’s “hate.”

Again, I’ll point out that a large portion of your fans are “ate up” with KU (among others). Those threads I provided are a good example. Is it that surprising to you that a KU fan might give your fanbase a little more attention than say, Duke? Considering that Duke fans, by and large, show no bitterness or ill will toward KU? Shocking how that works.

Would you rather I take the approach of the guy in the other thread who labeled Kentucky fans trash? Or the jhmossy approach of dismissing you as idiots and hillbillies? I’d say my pokes are pretty mild in comparison to a lot of other things that are said.

Maybe you should focus more on why your fanbase hates anyone and everyone? And don’t try to disown the Rafters population. I know you post there regularly. If you think I have an obsession, you must think those people need to be committed. Oh, wait, you probably don’t even see it, because they’re on “your team.”

Man, you are really reaching, I have zero issues with KU, UT or the BIG12. Heck, the only time I've brought any of those names up here is just in response to your accusations.

As far as someone calling UK fans trashy, so what, there are some trashy UK fans, we have more trashy fans than any other cbb program, I'll fully admit that, but there are more respectable UK fans by a thousand miles.

Are you kidding on the jhmossy crap? That's the joking-est dude on this board. You have to be kidding with that take. Sheesh.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Man, you are really reaching, I have zero issues with KU, UT or the BIG12. Heck, the only time I've brought any of those names up here is just in response to your accusations.

As far as someone calling UK fans trashy, so what, there are some trashy UK fans, we have more trashy fans than any other cbb program, I'll fully admit that, but there are more respectable UK fans by a thousand miles.

Are you kidding on the jhmossy crap? That's the joking-est dude on this board. You have to be kidding with that take. Sheesh.

In a quick search, here are the first related posts I came across:

“So, KU is the only program that could have won 14 BIG12 titles in a row? Hmm, interesting. So, they dominate their conference, then get a fat lip when they get in the NCAAT.”

“Which is equivalent to being the hero on the driving range. Put them on the real course and they flounder.”

I do remember you finally admitting that Kentucky couldn’t have pulled it off due to your lame youth excuse, but clearly you think that multiple others could have. And if not, why would you knock it or downplay it?

As for KU being head and shoulders more talented than everyone else in the league each year.....no. Practically every year there’s at least one team that is their equal or close. Hell, Barnes arguably had more talent throughout his entire tenure at Texas.

Yeah, they’re easily the best program in the league but that doesn’t mean that certain programs don’t step up and bring some really good teams to the table.

How many times has Calipari not had way more talent than the rest of the league btw? Wasn’t he the clear favorite this year? What happened? By your logic, it should’ve been a slam dunk.

 

[ExitFlagger]

We'll have to move on from this conversation. Obviously it's over your head.

Oh, yes...so far above my head. God, you’re just so complex and deep. It’s hard to follow you.

Listen, numbskull...the fact that you think it’s normal and expected to be banned just for visiting a rival board says it all. Clearly you have little experience with home boards outside of Kentucky’s and Louisville’s.

Again...there’s a reason so many people single out Rafters for this.

 

[RondoBaller21]

This thread reeks of jealousy.

 

[IUfanBorden]

This thread reeks of jealousy.

Agree....I'm pretty envious of the Wildcats right now. WHo wouldn't be....I mean, fvck......










Two titles the past 4 years. Damn right I'm jealous of Villanova.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Agree....I'm pretty envious of the Wildcats right now. WHo wouldn't be....I mean, fvck......










Two titles the past 4 years. Damn right I'm jealous of Villanova.

 

[kyjeff1]

In a quick search, here are the first related posts I came across:

“So, KU is the only program that could have won 14 BIG12 titles in a row? Hmm, interesting. So, they dominate their conference, then get a fat lip when they get in the NCAAT.”

“Which is equivalent to being the hero on the driving range. Put them on the real course and they flounder.”

I do remember you finally admitting that Kentucky couldn’t have pulled it off due to your lame youth excuse, but clearly you think that multiple others could have. And if not, why would you knock it or downplay it?

As for KU being head and shoulders more talented than everyone else in the league each year.....no. Practically every year there’s at least one team that is their equal or close. Hell, Barnes arguably had more talent throughout his entire tenure at Texas.

Yeah, they’re easily the best program in the league but that doesn’t mean that certain programs don’t step up and bring some really good teams to the table.

How many times has Calipari not had way more talent than the rest of the league btw? Wasn’t he the clear favorite this year? What happened? By your logic, it should’ve been a slam dunk.

First, why the hell did you include those quotes to defend YOUR arguement?

It's funny, because those two quotes proved that you lied and made shit up to try to look like I literally said the BIG12 was a crap league. I never said it. Another bad look for you.

Yeah, the BIG12 does usually have 1 legit challenger to KU. Oklahoma, West Virginia and now Texas Tech.

That's great, but you only really have to worry about that 1 team and as long as you win your home games, that challenger has come in second place every time (until last year) because they always lose a game or two that they shouldn't.

You keep bringing up conference rankings, well, of course the BIG12 is going to rank high. From top to bottom, the league is very good. But what do you value? Up until last year, the league only ever had 1 legit FF caliber team (modern era). The rest were simply good enough to be tournament teams. There just isn't any bad teams in the league.

I don't view that as a tough league. I think the ACC (1), BIG10 (2) and the SEC (3) are stronger because it's tougher to win on the road in those leagues and there are always more top end teams that are capable of making a FF run. It's been proven by how many teams those leagues have put in the FF recently.

As far as my thoughts on what other teams could have pulled off what KU has done in the BIG12, I would start with Duke, UNC, Michigan State and Gonzaga. Those are all programs that have stuck in the top 10 of the rankings and made consistent deep tournament runs.

Why not? KU has beat the league up, looked like world beaters, only to get smoked in the NCAAT by mid majors (at least 4 of them).

So you mean to tell me that all these BIG12 teams are great, but they fall to KU every year, then watch KU get beat by Bradley, Bucknell, WSU and Northern Iowa? Come on man, there is something wrong there.

The fact that y'all lost to those mid majors tells me KU wasn’t actually any good those years. So the years Duke, UNC, Gonzaga and/or MSU were down, they still could have hid in the BIG12 and won the conference. You can't hide in those other leagues, because the top end teams will expose you. When you play "also rans" all conference season long, you can hide.

You simply cannot deny these facts and yes, I fully admit UK could not have done it, not with the one and done system in place and Calipari as the coach.

The youth excuse isn't lame, it's the truth. I would love to see Bill Self take start over from scratch every year with a bunch of high school kids. You wouldn't be winning B12 titles, that's for damn sure.

Lastly, about your "how many times has Cal had more talent than everyone else in the league?". Well, several and they've won the league more times than not, but it's a stronger league than the b12, simply because there are more teams that can win the league. Thanks for putting that meatball on a tee for me. You actually helped me prove my point.

The B12 is a good league, it's just that they never truly had multiple challengers that could actually win the league. When you win the league, then turn around and lose the first weekend to a mid major… . FOUR TIMES, you and your league just weren't that good.

 

[kyjeff1]

Oh, yes...so far above my head. God, you’re just so complex and deep. It’s hard to follow you.

Listen, numbskull...the fact that you think it’s normal and expected to be banned just for visiting a rival board says it all. Clearly you have little experience with home boards outside of Kentucky’s and Louisville’s.

Again...there’s a reason so many people single out Rafters for this.

Have you actually seen your posts? Have you ever gone back and read them? You obviously haven't.

You can't control your UK hate. There is no way you could last 10 minutes on a UK forum. You simply can't control your UK hate.

It's called obsession.

 

[BasketBallJunkie-UK]

Oh, yes...so far above my head. God, you’re just so complex and deep. It’s hard to follow you.

Listen, numbskull...the fact that you think it’s normal and expected to be banned just for visiting a rival board says it all. Clearly you have little experience with home boards outside of Kentucky’s and Louisville’s.

Again...there’s a reason so many people single out Rafters for this.

Somehow me thinks it was just more than a visit....

 

[ExitFlagger]

First, why the hell did you include those quotes to defend YOUR arguement?

It's funny, because those two quotes proved that you lied and made shit up to try to look like I literally said the BIG12 was a crap league. I never said it. Another bad look for you.

Yeah, the BIG12 does usually have 1 legit challenger to KU. Oklahoma, West Virginia and now Texas Tech.

That's great, but you only really have to worry about that 1 team and as long as you win your home games, that challenger has come in second place every time (until last year) because they always lose a game or two that they shouldn't.

You keep bringing up conference rankings, well, of course the BIG12 is going to rank high. From top to bottom, the league is very good. But what do you value? Up until last year, the league only ever had 1 legit FF caliber team (modern era). The rest were simply good enough to be tournament teams. There just isn't any bad teams in the league.

I don't view that as a tough league. I think the ACC (1), BIG10 (2) and the SEC (3) are stronger because it's tougher to win on the road in those leagues and there are always more top end teams that are capable of making a FF run. It's been proven by how many teams those leagues have put in the FF recently.

As far as my thoughts on what other teams could have pulled off what KU has done in the BIG12, I would start with Duke, UNC, Michigan State and Gonzaga. Those are all programs that have stuck in the top 10 of the rankings and made consistent deep tournament runs.

Why not? KU has beat the league up, looked like world beaters, only to get smoked in the NCAAT by mid majors (at least 4 of them).

So you mean to tell me that all these BIG12 teams are great, but they fall to KU every year, then watch KU get beat by Bradley, Bucknell, WSU and Northern Iowa? Come on man, there is something wrong there.

The fact that y'all lost to those mid majors tells me KU wasn’t actually any good those years. So the years Duke, UNC, Gonzaga and/or MSU were down, they still could have hid in the BIG12 and won the conference. You can't hide in those other leagues, because the top end teams will expose you. When you play "also rans" all conference season long, you can hide.

You simply cannot deny these facts and yes, I fully admit UK could not have done it, not with the one and done system in place and Calipari as the coach.

The youth excuse isn't lame, it's the truth. I would love to see Bill Self take start over from scratch every year with a bunch of high school kids. You wouldn't be winning B12 titles, that's for damn sure.

Lastly, about your "how many times has Cal had more talent than everyone else in the league?". Well, several and they've won the league more times than not, but it's a stronger league than the b12, simply because there are more teams that can win the league. Thanks for putting that meatball on a tee for me. You actually helped me prove my point.

The B12 is a good league, it's just that they never truly had multiple challengers that could actually win the league. When you win the league, then turn around and lose the first weekend to a mid major… . FOUR TIMES, you and your league just weren't that good.

First off, you're the ultimate SEC homer. Very few national analysts would agree that the SEC has been better than the Big 12 throughout that span (aside from this past season). But you try to pass it off as fact. Even if it were only the 4th-strongest league, it's still mind-boggling as to why someone would dismiss winning that league 14 times straight.

The SEC does not usually have several final four contenders. Completely ridiculous. You catch lightning in a bottle once in awhile with a fluke run by a South Carolina or Auburn, and Florida has a good team now and then. A typical year in the SEC is top 10 Kentucky vs 1 or 2 teams at the bottom of the top 25. A real gauntlet.

As for the youth excuse...we can go in circles about that all day, but they nearly always have more than enough talent/ability to overcome their youth. There's a reason that they're always ranked top 5 in preseason. But don't forget, that only relates to 2010-present anyway. What about the several years before that? You went to the NIT in 09. The year before, you went 18-13 (yet 12-4 in that awesome league) and got bounced in the 2nd round. The two previous teams lost 12 and 13 games and lost in the first weekend. Bottom line: Kentucky could not have come close to matching the streak.

As for the others you mentioned? You've obviously done zero research. North Carolina had an NIT team in that stretch, plus a few mediocre teams that earned 8 seeds. Michigan State had a 20-15 team a few years ago, a 19-15 team, and some others that finished 6th and 7th in the B10. Not happening there either. Gonzaga is kind of hard to evaluate season by season, considering that any decent team could amass a lot of wins in that league. However, one season that they for sure would not have won the Big 12 was 2011-12. They finished second in their own league to #24 St Mary's. The Big 12 included #3 Missouri and #9 Baylor that year. Not happening for Gonzaga. As for Duke...they're the closest to being able to do it, but even they've had a couple average teams that finished 6th in their league with double-digit losses. The 06-07 team, in particular, would definitely not have finished ahead of top 10 A&M or the Durant Texas team.

But go ahead and keep diminishing the accomplishment and pretending that anyone and everyone could have done it. Even though you're completely wrong. That's never stopped you before.

As for losing to Bucknell, Northern Iowa, etc....are you seriously saying that the team that lost to N Iowa wasn't very good? The team that lost to Bucknell limped to the finish line and wasn't healthy. That wasn't too shocking. Dismissing Wichita State as a lowly midmajor is pretty ridiculous, considering how good they've been in the tourney over the years. That particular team was underseeded and better than KU at that point in the season (several players injured, suspended or not 100%). Then you have the Embiid injury, Azubuike, etc etc. Yet they're still, what, #2 in tourney wins in Self's tenure? Just awful. So badly exposed every year in the tourney, amirite?

Nevermind that the GOAT has 5 first weekend losses in the last decade or so (including Lehigh and Mercer), Michigan St lost to a 15 a few years ago, along with a slew of 1st/2nd round losses. Gonzaga nearly always fails in the tourney; Villanova loses in the 2nd round most years; Bennett did nothing in the tourney before this season, etc etc. But clearly KU and the B12 are vastly overrated due to a few tourney failures that generally involved teams that didn't enter the tourney at full strength...

 

[ExitFlagger]

Btw....Did a little research for you, Jeff.

I compared the rankings of SEC and Big 12 teams going back to the '03 season (the last season listed on ESPN).

In that span, the SEC has produced 7 top ten teams other than Kentucky (16 total) and 42 top 25 teams. The Big 12, meanwhile, has produced 18 top ten teams other than KU (28 total) and 60 ranked teams.

Here is what the previous 10 years look like for the SEC, prior to this season (which I admitted was better than the Big 12's season):

18: #13 Tenn, 18 UK, 19 Auburn, 23 UF
17: #5 UK, 20 UF
16: #10 UK, 15 A&M
15: #1 UK, 21 Arkansas
14: #1 UF
13: #14 UF (Kentucky's NIT team tied for 2nd)
12: #1 UK, #25 UF, #20 Vandy
11: #11 UK, #15 UF, #25 Vandy
10: #2 UK, #15 Tenn, #21 Vandy
09: #21 LSU

The SEC had literally ONE top 10 team, other than Kentucky, for a decade. A DECADE. And yet, according to you, there are always more top end teams that are capable of making a FF run.

Are you fuggin kidding me?

Sorry....Auburn getting hot + a fluke run by South Carolina doesn't offset those numbers.

Get out of here, homer.

 

[sgrooms]

For years I was banned on Nuttin'ButNet.

I was banned here once. I corresponded with Cats Illustrated and told them I would not continue my premium membership if I could not post on the National Board. My ban was lifted.

MrBaracus, you need to take message boards a little lighter.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[IUfanBorden]

You liked that.....huh?

 

[kyjeff1]

Btw....Did a little research for you, Jeff.

I compared the rankings of SEC and Big 12 teams going back to the '03 season (the last season listed on ESPN).

In that span, the SEC has produced 7 top ten teams other than Kentucky (16 total) and 42 top 25 teams. The Big 12, meanwhile, has produced 18 top ten teams other than KU (28 total) and 60 ranked teams.

Here is what the previous decade looks like for the SEC, prior to this season (which I admitted was better than the Big 12's season):

18: #13 Tenn, 18 UK, 19 Auburn, 23 UF
17: #5 UK, 20 UF
16: #10 UK, 15 A&M
15: #1 UK, 21 Arkansas
14: #1 UF
13: #14 UF (Kentucky's NIT team tied for 2nd)
12: #1 UK, #25 UF, #20 Vandy
11: #11 UK, #15 UF, #25 Vandy
10: #2 UK, #15 Tenn, #21 Vandy
09: #21 LSU

The SEC had literally ONE top 10 team, other than Kentucky, for a decade. A DECADE. And yet, according to you, there are always more top end teams that are capable of making a FF run.

Are you fuggin kidding me?

Sorry....Auburn getting hot + a fluke run by South Carolina doesn't offset those numbers.

Get out of here, homer.

So, are you going to tell me that KU would or could win 14 straight in any other league?

I'm telling you now, the answer is no. In each of the other P5 conferences, there has been at least one other team, besides the biggest name, that dominated the conference for a period of time. The BIG12 never had that. KU has always been the lead dog. You might have an argument for the PAC12, hell, I think a lot of teams could win that conference 14 straight years.

Your argument against Gonzaga is lame, they fall short in the NCAAT constantly? There was a thread on this a while back. They have played to seed expectation every year but one or two. How often has KU done that?

This is ehat I'm talking about. The BIG12 is… .was KU and a pack of teams that are just chasing KU, waiting for them to slip up.

Congrats, KU was consistently good for 14 straight years, but there's no other league out there that they could pull win 14 straight times.

So, I'm an SEC homer? If I was such a homer, why did I put the SEC 3rd? I'm no fan of the BIG10. They haven't won a title since 2000. That's telling. But I still think it's a better league than the BIG12 or SEC. Again, the conference thing comes down to what you value. I don't value a conference that just has one lead dog and a pack of average teams chasing it. Apparently you do.

You use the word "fluke" a lot when talking about tournament runs. The two don't go together. That South Carolina team was loaded with extremely good veteran talent and size. Auburn took out three very good blue bloods, two of them in blowout fashion and had UVA beat in the FF. One missed travel and they were sent home.
Florida's runs certainly weren't flukes either.

But again, tell me, what league could KU have won 14 straight times. I'll wait.

 

[ExitFlagger]

So, are you going to tell me that KU would or could win 14 straight in any other league?

I'm telling you now, the answer is no. In each of the other P5 conferences, there has been at least one other team, besides the biggest name, that dominated the conference for a period of time. The BIG12 never had that. KU has always been the lead dog. You might have an argument for the PAC12, hell, I think a lot of teams could win that conference 14 straight years.

Your argument against Gonzaga is lame, they fall short in the NCAAT constantly? There was a thread on this a while back. They have played to seed expectation every year but one or two. How often has KU done that?

This is ehat I'm talking about. The BIG12 is… .was KU and a pack of teams that are just chasing KU, waiting for them to slip up.

Congrats, KU was consistently good for 14 straight years, but there's no other league out there that they could pull win 14 straight times.

So, I'm an SEC homer? If I was such a homer, why did I put the SEC 3rd? I'm no fan of the BIG10. They haven't won a title since 2000. That's telling. But I still think it's a better league than the BIG12 or SEC. Again, the conference thing comes down to what you value. I don't value a conference that just has one lead dog and a pack of average teams chasing it. Apparently you do.

You use the word "fluke" a lot when talking about tournament runs. The two don't go together. That South Carolina team was loaded with extremely good veteran talent and size. Auburn took out three very good blue bloods, two of them in blowout fashion and had UVA beat in the FF. One missed travel and they were sent home.
Florida's runs certainly weren't flukes either.

But again, tell me, what league could KU have won 14 straight times. I'll wait.

I’m not sure why you’re asking that question when that’s never been argued or mentioned.

You debate like a 4th-grader. Endlessly shifting the goalposts to different arguments, each more childish than the last, in a desperate attempt to “win.”

Well, sorry....you lose.

No one has argued that KU would have/could have won 14 straight in the other top leagues. The question was “could anyone else have done what they did?” The answer is no. A few may have come close. But no one else would have won 14 straight in the B12. Therefore, it’s insane and pathetic to bash something that literally no other team could have matched. Something that your own team wouldn’t have come close to pulling off. It’s not rocket science here.

And yes, you’re a pitiful SEC homer. You claimed that the SEC has had far more “top end” teams, yet they’ve had far less. 1 effing top 10 team not named Kentucky in an entire decade? What a gauntlet Cal has had to face.

You also claimed that the SEC has been way better in the tourney historically, yet they actually have fewer all-time tourney wins. Yes, you’re an SEC homer.

 

[kyjeff1]

I’m not sure why you’re asking that question when that’s never been argued or mentioned.

You debate like a 4th-grader. Endlessly shifting the goalposts to different arguments, each more childish than the last, in a desperate attempt to “win.”

Well, sorry....you lose.

No one has argued that KU would have/could have won 14 straight in the other top leagues. The question was “could anyone else have done what they did?” The answer is no. A few may have come close. But no one else would have won 14 straight in the B12. Therefore, it’s insane and pathetic to bash something that literally no other team could have matched. Something that your own team wouldn’t have come close to pulling off. It’s not rocket science here.

And yes, you’re a pitiful SEC homer. You claimed that the SEC has had far more “top end” teams, yet they’ve had far less. 1 effing top 10 team not named Kentucky in an entire decade? What a gauntlet Cal has had to face.

You also claimed that the SEC has been way better in the tourney historically, yet they actually have fewer all-time tourney wins. Yes, you’re an SEC homer.

Jeez, this is funny. I debate like a 4th grader, because you simply don't get it.

How do you not put two and 2 together on this?

You're claiming the Big12 is a better conference and that nobody else could do what KU has done (14 straight years). But you can't figure out the correlation between KU's dominance of the Big12 and how KU would fare in the other P5 conferences???

How do you not understand that side of the debate?

It's this simple: how can you say the B12 is this great conference, if the team that has dominated the league for 14 straight years, couldn't even come close to doing it in the pathetic SEC? Riddle me that one batman.

KU wasn’t winning the SEC in 06 or 07, they weren't winning it in 18 or 19 and there were many years when other programs stepped up and won the league when UK didn’t.

Then, there's the fact that KU lost to 4 mid majors after dominating the BIG12. That's very telling. It didn't just happen 1 time, it happened FOUR times. All on neutral courts.

Look, I still think the BIG12 is a hell of a conference, I just think it's harder to win on the road in the ACC, BIG10 and the SEC than it is in the BIG12. That's just how I feel, it's my opinion.

You're saying it's a homer take, but how can it be when I have the SEC in third place behind a league that hasn't won a title since 2000? I've been very consistent with that.

However, I think the Big12 is about to change it's perception. I think Texas Tech is going to be a consistent challenger to KU for a long time. That will change that league for sure. I mean, Oklahoma was really good for a couple years, but they appeared to be more of a fraud than anything. Both years, they had 1 guy carrying the team, that's not going to work. Texas Tech is the real deal.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Jeez, this is funny. I debate like a 4th grader, because you simply don't get it.

How do you not put two and 2 together on this?

You're claiming the Big12 is a better conference and that nobody else could do what KU has done (14 straight years). But you can't figure out the correlation between KU's dominance of the Big12 and how KU would fare in the other P5 conferences???

How do you not understand that side of the debate?

It's this simple: how can you say the B12 is this great conference, if the team that has dominated the league for 14 straight years, couldn't even come close to doing it in the pathetic SEC? Riddle me that one batman.

KU wasn’t winning the SEC in 06 or 07, they weren't winning it in 18 or 19 and there were many years when other programs stepped up and won the league when UK didn’t.

Then, there's the fact that KU lost to 4 mid majors after dominating the BIG12. That's very telling. It didn't just happen 1 time, it happened FOUR times. All on neutral courts.

Look, I still think the BIG12 is a hell of a conference, I just think it's harder to win on the road in the ACC, BIG10 and the SEC than it is in the BIG12. That's just how I feel, it's my opinion.

You're saying it's a homer take, but how can it be when I have the SEC in third place behind a league that hasn't won a title since 2000? I've been very consistent with that.

However, I think the Big12 is about to change it's perception. I think Texas Tech is going to be a consistent challenger to KU for a long time. That will change that league for sure. I mean, Oklahoma was really good for a couple years, but they appeared to be more of a fraud than anything. Both years, they had 1 guy carrying the team, that's not going to work. Texas Tech is the real deal.

No...you simply don't get it. And it's sad.

Again....for the 50th time....it makes little sense for you to knock something that NO other team could have accomplished. Particularly when your team could not have come close to it. Comprende? Yes? No?

To say that they could have won 14 straight in any league in the country would basically be saying that they were the best team in the country every year for 14 years. Apparently, to you, anything short of this is unimpressive. Just mind-boggling.

Would they have won 14 straight when facing the likes of Duke, UNC, Mich St? Of course not. But they'd have won their share anywhere. And a shitload in the SEC, if you swapped them with Kentucky.

I've never claimed the Big 12 to be "great," but it's clearly better than you give it credit for. And the SEC is clearly worse than the superhomer perception you have. One top 10 team other than Kentucky for an entire decade is absolutely pitiful. And you sit there and claim it to be a top league that pumps out contenders left and right. Something doesn't add up, does it?

Since you keep coming back to the midmajors thing to "prove" that KU and the Big 12 aren't that good....let me remind you that Bill Self has won 9 of the last 10 vs Roy, K and Calipari. The one loss being a depleted team that traveled to Rupp. As of a few years ago, he was something like 19-3 vs top 10 teams. Now how in the hell has he pulled that off if he can't beat midmajors, nimrod?

Shit happens in the tourney. It's a great event--wouldn't have it any other way--but also very unpredictable.

The team that was thought to be Izzo's best ever lost to a 15 seed in the first round. Was that proof that they actually sucked? Coach K lost to a 15 and a 14 in recent years. Did those teams suck as well? How did the team that won the ACC by 4 games two years ago make history by losing to a 16 seed by 20 points? Does that mean we have to declare the ACC sucky as well? Why does Nova either win it all or lose in the 2nd round to a scrub? Did the Uconn team that lost to George Mason suck? Was Loyola really one of the top teams in the country?

Does everybody but Kentucky and the SEC secretly suck?

Is it possible that N Iowa and Wichita St were solid teams that were underseeded due to playing vs weak competition? Is it also possible that having multiple players sidelined and a hobbled Perry Ellis had something to do with the WSU loss? If the team that lost to Bradley sucked, then how awful was Kentucky and the rest of the SEC that year, considering that KU beat them by 25? They also beat them in Rupp the previous year, before losing to Bucknell (with hobbled star players).

Ever wonder why they call it March Madness? Hrmmmm.

Also, players simply don’t get as hyped to play Bucknell as they would North Carolina. They’re human beings, not programmed robots. That leaves them a bit more vulnerable, especially to an underrated midmajor like Wich St. You should know...two loaded Kentucky teams nearly lost to them.

And as for the whole "easier to win on the road" thing...there's really no logic behind that opinion. First off, it's hard to even compare something like that across an entire league, particularly two leagues that differ greatly in size. But have you ever watched a KU game in Manhattan? Ames? Morgantown? Stillwater? Some of the weakest atmospheres tend to be home to some of the strongest teams, like Texas and Baylor. Therefore, not exactly gimmes either. And do you really think that teams don't get up for the program that won their league 14 straight times? Just another in a long line of absurd takes. You've been on a roll.

 

[IUfanBorden]

<<<<< ^^^^^^^^Needs Cliff Notes for this shit...

 

[kyjeff1]

No...you simply don't get it. And it's sad.

Again....for the 50th time....it makes little sense for you to knock something that NO other team could have accomplished. Particularly when your team could not have come close to it. Comprende? Yes? No?

To say that they could have won 14 straight in any league in the country would basically be saying that they were the best team in the country every year for 14 years. Apparently, to you, anything short of this is unimpressive. Just mind-boggling.

Would they have won 14 straight when facing the likes of Duke, UNC, Mich St? Of course not. But they'd have won their share anywhere. And a shitload in the SEC, if you swapped them with Kentucky.

I've never claimed the Big 12 to be "great," but it's clearly better than you give it credit for. And the SEC is clearly worse than the superhomer perception you have. One top 10 team other than Kentucky for an entire decade is absolutely pitiful. And you sit there and claim it to be a top league that pumps out contenders left and right. Something doesn't add up, does it?

Since you keep coming back to the midmajors thing to "prove" that KU and the Big 12 aren't that good....let me remind you that Bill Self has won 9 of the last 10 vs Roy, K and Calipari. The one loss being a depleted team that traveled to Rupp. As of a few years ago, he was something like 19-3 vs top 10 teams. Now how in the hell has he pulled that off if he can't beat midmajors, nimrod?

Shit happens in the tourney. It's a great event--wouldn't have it any other way--but also very unpredictable.

The team that was thought to be Izzo's best ever lost to a 15 seed in the first round. Was that proof that they actually sucked? Coach K lost to a 15 and a 14 in recent years. Did those teams suck as well? How did the team that won the ACC by 4 games two years ago make history by losing to a 16 seed by 20 points? Does that mean we have to declare the ACC sucky as well? Why does Nova either win it all or lose in the 2nd round to a scrub? Did the Uconn team that lost to George Mason suck? Was Loyola really one of the top teams in the country?

Does everybody but Kentucky and the SEC secretly suck?

Is it possible that N Iowa and Wichita St were solid teams that were underseeded due to playing vs weak competition? Is it also possible that having multiple players sidelined and a hobbled Perry Ellis had something to do with the WSU loss? If the team that lost to Bradley sucked, then how awful was Kentucky and the rest of the SEC that year, considering that KU beat them by 25? They also beat them in Rupp the previous year, before losing to Bucknell (with hobbled star players).

Ever wonder why they call it March Madness? Hrmmmm.

Also, players simply don’t get as hyped to play Bucknell as they would North Carolina. They’re human beings, not programmed robots. That leaves them a bit more vulnerable, especially to an underrated midmajor like Wich St. You should know...two loaded Kentucky teams nearly lost to them.

And as for the whole "easier to win on the road" thing...there's really no logic behind that opinion. First off, it's hard to even compare something like that across an entire league, particularly two leagues that differ greatly in size. But have you ever watched a KU game in Manhattan? Ames? Morgantown? Stillwater? Some of the weakest atmospheres tend to be home to some of the strongest teams, like Texas and Baylor. Therefore, not exactly gimmes either. And do you really think that teams don't get up for the program that won their league 14 straight times? Just another in a long line of absurd takes. You've been on a roll.

Seems like a lot of excuses to me in all of that mess.

Let me rephrase my original question for you. I'm going to simplify it. It's a simple yes or no question:
Could KU have won 14 straight in the SEC?

Heck, I don't see where they could have won 5 straight, but you tell me.

Oh, and stop with the hyperbole. 2015 was not Izzo's best team.

And yes, the Duke teams that lost to 14 and 15 seeded teams did suck. They were built around one guy doing everything, a true team will be a huge challenge to any team built that way.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of that, we're going around in circles, it's stupid.

The bottom line is you are obsessed with UK, you can't hide the hate, yet you are denying it, which is hilarious. That's what this was all about, but somehow it got off the rails.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Seems like a lot of excuses to me in all of that mess.

Let me rephrase my original question for you. I'm going to simplify it. It's a simple yes or no question:
Could KU have won 14 straight in the SEC?

Heck, I don't see where they could have won 5 straight, but you tell me.

Oh, and stop with the hyperbole. 2015 was not Izzo's best team.

And yes, the Duke teams that lost to 14 and 15 seeded teams did suck. They were built around one guy doing everything, a true team will be a huge challenge to any team built that way.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of that, we're going around in circles, it's stupid.

The bottom line is you are obsessed with UK, you can't hide the hate, yet you are denying it, which is hilarious. That's what this was all about, but somehow it got off the rails.

Again...never said they’d have won 14 straight in the SEC. But they’d have won a shitload. Just looking at the decade I posted above, they’d have won 9 out of those 10. Florida would have won in ‘14, but KU would’ve won the rest. If you disagree, tell me which years an SEC team would have won. None were ranked higher than 13th (most way lower), aside from that Florida team.

And nitpick Duke, Mich St etc all you want—those were very good teams that were far better than the teams they lost to. Hence, flukes. They couldn’t “hide” or earn a higher seed than deserved, given that they play in the leagues that you admit are tops. But UMBC is really the only example I need to show how random the tourney can be.

It’s beyond ridiculous to argue that a few tourney failures “prove” that a team isn’t that good, particularly when the same coach has a ridiculous record vs top teams and coaches. And when one of those teams clowned Kentucky by 25 and another won in Rupp. Lots of holes in that argument.

 

[kyjeff1]

Again...never said they’d have won 14 straight in the SEC. But they’d have won a shitload. Just looking at the decade I posted above, they’d have won 9 out of those 10. Florida would have won in ‘14, but KU would’ve won the rest. If you disagree, tell me which years an SEC team would have won. None were ranked higher than 13th (most way lower), aside from that Florida team.

And nitpick Duke, Mich St etc all you want—those were very good teams that were far better than the teams they lost to. Hence, flukes. They couldn’t “hide” or earn a higher seed than deserved, given that they play in the leagues that you admit are tops. But UMBC is really the only example I need to show how random the tourney can be.

It’s beyond ridiculous to argue that a few tourney failures “prove” that a team isn’t that good, particularly when the same coach has a ridiculous record vs top teams and coaches. And when one of those teams clowned Kentucky by 25 and another won in Rupp. Lots of holes in that argument.

And round and round we go.

Yup, losses to mid majors do happen, but 4 times?

Time-framing is fun isn't it? My opinion, based on actual results, is that KU couldn’t come close to winning 14 straight in any other P5 conference. What does that tell you about the BIG12?

 

[crazyqx83]

See, its post such as these, with absolute zero thought , that give some UK fans a bad name. Lets start at the top......

Wall---#1 rated recruit....#1Pick......I mean, dude, he should be an NBA starter.
Cousins--#2 rated recruit...#5 Pick...Again...he should be an NBA starter.
Davis---#2 rated recruit...#1 Pick....Again..........
Randle---#2 recruit....# 7 pick....Yep.
KAT--------#5 recruit.....#1 pick....See above.
Booker--- 5*...29th rated....lotto....I'll give here a little.
WCS--- Top 40 kid....#6 pick...Good deal, here. BUT....he did stay 3 years. SO there is that.
Murray---Wasn't rated. Canadian kid. WOuld have been a highly rated recruit. No miracle here.
Fox--#6 recruit.....#5 Pick....Seeing a pattern here?
SGA--- 4*...#34 recruit..Good deal here as well..
Knox---#10 recruit... #9 Pick...No miracle here either...

SO....Out of the 11 guys you named----7 were Top 10 recruits coming out of HS... 5 were Top 5.....Four were 1 or 2. Another, Murray, would have been a Top 10 recruit if he had played HS ball in the US.

Not as amazing when you break it down, huh? Also, you forgot to mention guys such as....

Aaron and Andrew Harrison...Who are those former Top 5 HS recruits starting for? Better yet---where were they drafted? What about Skal? #1 recruit of HS....Who's he starting for? What about Briscoe? Top 10 recruit.....Or Monk....Or Teague? Both Top 10; Teague Top 5. That's six, Top 10 kids who don't start...MOF, Three weren't even drafted. Now go ahead, spin it as you do, Crazy. Tell me how those kids didn't try....were overrated...this and that...I expect such. Its what you do.

Look, Cal is great at getting kids to the NBA. No doubt. He gets the best out of these kids. Is marvelous at showcasing their skills. But c'mon, man...Enough with the Christmas Miracle shit. OK?

You and @MrBaracus dumbasses were saying?

 

[ExitFlagger]

And round and round we go.

Yup, losses to mid majors do happen, but 4 times?

Time-framing is fun isn't it? My opinion, based on actual results, is that KU couldn’t come close to winning 14 straight in any other P5 conference. What does that tell you about the BIG12?

Are you seriously trying to say that winning all but a few is somehow much less impressive than winning them consecutively? This just gets more ******ed. I mean, if winning 9 of 10 wouldn’t impress you, then you’re essentially agreeing that the SEC is garbage.

You’re getting more and more like kl. Must be in the water. You ignore 90% of what is said and keep copying/pasting the same ridiculous mantra. In this case, “But...but midmajors!” So what exactly are you saying? That winning 30 games every year, posting absurd records vs top teams and top coaches, and being near the top in tourney wins is all an illusion, and what we should really judge them on is their performance in a few games? Do you even think about this shit before you type it out?

Again, there are plenty of explanations, including injury, tourney randomness, and the fact that two of the teams were very good, underseeded teams from the Missouri Valley. This isn’t 1960. There's parity now, if you haven’t noticed. Plenty of “midmajors” that are equal to or better than many high majors. Wichita was probably more like a 3 than a 7 that year, and KU was missing two players, with their star also hobbled. The KU team that lost to UNI was loaded. They had an off day vs a team that was probably more like a 5 than a 9. Shit happens. It’s not easy to seed teams that pile up wins vs bad teams all year, now is it? Kentucky has lost plenty of games over the years to teams that had waaaaay less talent. Does that mean each of those teams were way overrated? The team that lost to Bucknell limped to the finish and the team that lost to Bradley was very young and inconsistent (without any greats like Wall, Cousins, Davis). They beat Kentucky by 25, lost to Bradley. Lost to Texas by 25, then later beat them by double digits.

Your league has had multiple seasons recently in which there was only one ranked team. You had one top 10 team not named Kentucky in an entire decade. One year, the SEC went something like 1-30 vs ranked teams in the non-con. They get bent over almost every year in the Big 12 challenge. Just stop bashing other leagues while homering the friggin SEC.

 

[ExitFlagger]

View embedded media

You and @MrBaracus dumbasses were saying?

Talk about a ridiculous stat to support your agenda.

First off, he rarely brings in recruits outside the top 40. So this is comparing his rate of getting 30ish ranked players to the league vs the rate of other coaches getting much lower ranked players drafted.

I’m betting that percentage goes way up if you narrow it to the 26-40 range.

Care to post Calipari’s list?

 

[kyjeff1]

Are you seriously trying to say that winning all but a few is somehow much less impressive than winning them consecutively? This just gets more ******ed. I mean, if winning 9 of 10 wouldn’t impress you, then you’re essentially agreeing that the SEC is garbage.

You’re getting more and more like kl. Must be in the water. You ignore 90% of what is said and keep copying/pasting the same ridiculous mantra. In this case, “But...but midmajors!” So what exactly are you saying? That winning 30 games every year, posting absurd records vs top teams and top coaches, and being near the top in tourney wins is all an illusion, and what we should really judge them on is their performance in a few games? Do you even think about this shit before you type it out?

Again, there are plenty of explanations, including injury, tourney randomness, and the fact that two of the teams were very good, underseeded teams from the Missouri Valley. This isn’t 1960. There's parity now, if you haven’t noticed. Plenty of “midmajors” that are equal to or better than many high majors. Wichita was probably more like a 3 than a 7 that year, and KU was missing two players, with their star also hobbled. The KU team that lost to UNI was loaded. They had an off day vs a team that was probably more like a 5 than a 9. Shit happens. It’s not easy to seed teams that pile up wins vs bad teams all year, now is it? Kentucky has lost plenty of games over the years to teams that had waaaaay less talent. Does that mean each of those teams were way overrated? The team that lost to Bucknell limped to the finish and the team that lost to Bradley was very young and inconsistent (without any greats like Wall, Cousins, Davis). They beat Kentucky by 25, lost to Bradley. Lost to Texas by 25, then later beat them by double digits.

Your league has had multiple seasons recently in which there was only one ranked team. You had one top 10 team not named Kentucky in an entire decade. One year, the SEC went something like 1-30 vs ranked teams in the non-con. They get bent over almost every year in the Big 12 challenge. Just stop bashing other leagues while homering the friggin SEC.

All I see in all that garbage is a bunch of excuses for why KU lost to mid majors in the NCAAT after dominating the great BIG12.

IDC if WSU was underseeded, they were underseeded in the 2017 tournament too, UK beat them. They were the overall #1 seed in 2014, 8th seeded UK beat them.

Yeah, UK has lost to a few lower seeded teams (have beaten more higher seeded teams than lost to lower seeded teams), but none of them were mid majors.

Make all the excuses you want, but the bottom line is, KU has been given much better seeds than UK, because they appeared to be this dominant team all these years.

Yet, KU got in the tournament and floundered more times than not. It's a bad look. Dominate the BIG12, then turn around and lose to the likes of Bucknell and Bradley??? Come onnnn man.

If this was UK we were talking about, you would be in every thread talking about how UK lost to 4 mid majors, but because it's KU it happened to… 4 times… ..you feed us a bunch of excuses.

Meanwhile, UK gets an 8 seed in 2014, beats 4 teams seeded much higher and gets to the title game. Has KU ever done anything close to that in the modern era?

The SEC kicked the crap out of UK that year, but look what that team did. The SEC more than prepared UK for that run.

What has the BIG12 done to prepare KU for the NCAAT?

There's a reason the ACC has a boatload of tournament titles, the league prepares those teams for the tournament, the BIG12, not so much.

I just feel like the BIG12 is made up of a bunch of average teams with KU being the only true player (until last year).

Texas Tech is going to change that, but Texas, Baylor, ISU, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and KSU are just average teams that aren't going to do anything all that great in the tournament beyond a surprise FF (Oklahoma).

The positive side of it though, is the BIG12 just never has any really bad teams in it. That's awesome, but celebrating mediocrity is pretty pathetic, even for you.

 

[crazyqx83]

Talk about a ridiculous stat to support your agenda.

First off, he rarely brings in recruits outside the top 40. So this is comparing his rate of getting 30ish ranked players to the league vs the rate of other coaches getting much lower ranked players drafted.

I’m betting that percentage goes way up if you narrow it to the 26-40 range.

Care to post Calipari’s list?

You're a blubbering idiot. I'd venture to guess that Cal's 64% draft rate among players rated lower than 25th is better than the rest of the nation's success rate on get top 25 talent drafted.

 

[ExitFlagger]

All I see in all that garbage is a bunch of excuses for why KU lost to mid majors in the NCAAT after dominating the great BIG12.

IDC if WSU was underseeded, they were underseeded in the 2017 tournament too, UK beat them. They were the overall #1 seed in 2014, 8th seeded UK beat them.

Yeah, UK has lost to a few lower seeded teams (have beaten more higher seeded teams than lost to lower seeded teams), but none of them were mid majors.

Make all the excuses you want, but the bottom line is, KU has been given much better seeds than UK, because they appeared to be this dominant team all these years.

Yet, KU got in the tournament and floundered more times than not. It's a bad look. Dominate the BIG12, then turn around and lose to the likes of Bucknell and Bradley??? Come onnnn man.

If this was UK we were talking about, you would be in every thread talking about how UK lost to 4 mid majors, but because it's KU it happened to… 4 times… ..you feed us a bunch of excuses.

Meanwhile, UK gets an 8 seed in 2014, beats 4 teams seeded much higher and gets to the title game. Has KU ever done anything close to that in the modern era?

The SEC kicked the crap out of UK that year, but look what that team did. The SEC more than prepared UK for that run.

What has the BIG12 done to prepare KU for the NCAAT?

There's a reason the ACC has a boatload of tournament titles, the league prepares those teams for the tournament, the BIG12, not so much.

I just feel like the BIG12 is made up of a bunch of average teams with KU being the only true player (until last year).

Texas Tech is going to change that, but Texas, Baylor, ISU, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and KSU are just average teams that aren't going to do anything all that great in the tournament beyond a surprise FF (Oklahoma).

The positive side of it though, is the BIG12 just never has any really bad teams in it. That's awesome, but celebrating mediocrity is pretty pathetic, even for you.

Everybody kicked the crap out of UK in '14 before they got their shit together at the end of the year. I know you guys love to spin that as an incredible success story, conveniently leaving out the "greatest recruiting class ever" hype and 40-0 shirts, but it was embarrassing to be an unranked 8 seed. A tourney run had been expected.

Yeah, your 40-0-to-be squad squeaked by overall #1 Wich St. Which, again, brings me to the point of how ******ed it is to dismiss Wichita as a feeble midmajor. KU lost to a team that was the OVERALL #1 the previous year, reached the final four the year before that, and has won a bunch of tourney games under their current coach....yet you're treating them like they're on the level of Evansville. Unbelievable. Gonzaga is a "midmajor," too, tard. In fact, Gonzaga is the only midmajor that has been better than Wichita St in recent years.

Yes...congrats...Kentucky squeaked by Wichita a few times. We all know. And the KU teams responsible for the biggest tourney failures each clowned Kentucky--once by 25. Your point?

Again, I ask....what exactly are you trying to say? That winning 9 of the last 10 vs K, Cal and Roy means nothing? Going 19-3 vs top 10 teams means nothing? Playing one of the toughest OOC schedules every year means nothing? Winning 30 games almost every year means nothing? That they secretly aren't good because they choked a few times? Are you that idiotic? And are you going to keep ignoring the facts I post like a child?

Self has won 4 more tourney games than Duke in his tenure at KU. Despite getting Bucknelled, Bradleyed, etc. A program that has had similar consistency, seeding and is led by the "GOAT." Duke has failed to reach the second weekend 5 times in that span, and only made it past the Sweet 16 5 times. How has Duke done so well in the league that you admit is tops, yet has won fewer tourney games than Self? Weren't they better prepared by the ACC? Oops.

The "celebrating mediocrity" comment is absolutely hilarious coming from someone trying to pump up the frigging SEC. But let me reiterate that I've never claimed that the B12 is great--I've only said that it's better than the shitty SEC. The numbers I posted should embarrass you. But you don't even acknowledge them because you're a homer. Who celebrates mediocrity.

I'm done going in circles and trashing your stupid arguments.

 

[kyjeff1]

Everybody kicked the crap out of UK in '14 before they got their shit together at the end of the year. I know you guys love to spin that as an incredible success story, conveniently leaving out the "greatest recruiting class ever" hype and 40-0 shirts, but it was embarrassing to be an unranked 8 seed. A tourney run had been expected.

Yeah, your 40-0-to-be squad squeaked by overall #1 Wich St. Which, again, brings me to the point of how ******ed it is to dismiss Wichita as a feeble midmajor. KU lost to a team that was the OVERALL #1 the previous year, reached the final four the year before that, and has won a bunch of tourney games under their current coach....yet you're treating them like they're on the level of Evansville. Unbelievable. Gonzaga is a "midmajor," too, tard. In fact, Gonzaga is the only midmajor that has been better than Wichita St in recent years.

Yes...congrats...Kentucky squeaked by Wichita a few times. We all know. And the KU teams responsible for the biggest tourney failures each clowned Kentucky--once by 25. Your point?

Again, I ask....what exactly are you trying to say? That winning 9 of the last 10 vs K, Cal and Roy means nothing? Going 19-3 vs top 10 teams means nothing? Playing one of the toughest OOC schedules every year means nothing? Winning 30 games almost every year means nothing? That they secretly aren't good because they choked a few times? Are you that idiotic? And are you going to keep ignoring the facts I post like a child?

Self has won 4 more tourney games than Duke in his tenure at KU. Despite getting Bucknelled, Bradleyed, etc. A program that has had similar consistency, seeding and is led by the "GOAT." Duke has failed to reach the second weekend 5 times in that span, and only made it past the Sweet 16 5 times. How has Duke done so well in the league that you admit is tops, yet has won fewer tourney games than Self? Weren't they better prepared by the ACC? Oops.

The "celebrating mediocrity" comment is absolutely hilarious coming from someone trying to pump up the frigging SEC. But let me reiterate that I've never claimed that the B12 is great--I've only said that it's better than the shitty SEC. The numbers I posted should embarrass you. But you don't even acknowledge them because you're a homer. Who celebrates mediocrity.

I'm done going in circles and trashing your stupid arguments.

Why are you so angry? You called me a "tard", a "child" and asked if I'm that "idiotic". Resorting to that kind of response is an indicator that you're struggling mightily with this debate.

First, that 2014 didn't "get the crap kicked out of them by everybody". That's a false statement. They lost to Michigan State by 4, lost in Chapel Hill by 5, at Arkansas by 2, @LSU by 5, Florida by 5 etc…

The only time they got blown out was when they played @Florida where they lost by 19. Same Florida team that was #1 for most of the year.

So I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they got their asses handed to them all year. That's another lie/exaggeration from you.

Secondly, you're trying to make KU's loss to WSU seem to not be so bad. Yeah, they were a good team, but UK beat them when they were at their absolute best in a year where "everyone beat the crap out of uk", yet KU lost to them the year after they made the FF. Keep on making excuses.

Third, now you're throwing duke under the bus to try to support your argument. See, unlike KU, Duke wasn’t dominating their league. Go back and look. UNC and UVA have been winning the ACC, not duke. Know why? Because Duke is playing mostly freshmen, just like UK.

Still, Duke has more than held its own in the NCAAT. KU has lost to more mid majors and has fallen flat on its face more than any of the others in this discussion.

So let me ask you this, what are your conference rankings? Where do you rank the SEC and the BIG12? Are we that far apart? Do you have the BIG12 ahead of the BIG10?

Here are my rankings:
ACC
BIG
SEC
BIG12


PAC12

Like I initially said, it comes down to what you value and to me, tournament success trumps conference/regular season success.

Lastly, dude, you calling me a homer is like Cartman telling Taylor Swift she's fat and ugly.

You are the biggest homer/UK hater on this board by a mile. Wow.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Why are you so angry? You called me a "tard", a "child" and asked if I'm that "idiotic". Resorting to that kind of response is an indicator that you're struggling mightily with this debate.

First, that 2014 didn't "get the crap kicked out of them by everybody". That's a false statement. They lost to Michigan State by 4, lost in Chapel Hill by 5, at Arkansas by 2, @LSU by 5, Florida by 5 etc…

The only time they got blown out was when they played @Florida where they lost by 19. Same Florida team that was #1 for most of the year.

So I have no idea where you're getting the idea that they got their asses handed to them all year. That's another lie/exaggeration from you.

Secondly, you're trying to make KU's loss to WSU seem to not be so bad. Yeah, they were a good team, but UK beat them when they were at their absolute best in a year where "everyone beat the crap out of uk", yet KU lost to them the year after they made the FF. Keep on making excuses.

Third, now you're throwing duke under the bus to try to support your argument. See, unlike KU, Duke wasn’t dominating their league. Go back and look. UNC and UVA have been winning the ACC, not duke. Know why? Because Duke is playing mostly freshmen, just like UK.

Still, Duke has more than held its own in the NCAAT. KU has lost to more mid majors and has fallen flat on its face more than any of the others in this discussion.

So let me ask you this, what are your conference rankings? Where do you rank the SEC and the BIG12? Are we that far apart? Do you have the BIG12 ahead of the BIG10?

Here are my rankings:
ACC
BIG
SEC
BIG12


PAC12

Like I initially said, it comes down to what you value and to me, tournament success trumps conference/regular season success.

Lastly, dude, you calling me a homer is like Cartman telling Taylor Swift she's fat and ugly.

You are the biggest homer/UK hater on this board by a mile. Wow.

Bwahaha...I'm not 1/10th the homer that you are. You claimed that a league that had one top 10 team other than Kentucky for a decade consistently churns out top end teams. And that's just one of a million delusional comments that emerge from your keyboard.

I'll ask again, for the 100th time...is it your claim that all the numbers I posted are meaningless, and that KU is a fraud because a few of their lesser teams (plus a great team that choked) lost to midmajors?

I just told you that Duke/K have 4 fewer wins in the tourney during Self's tenure at KU, despite similar seeding and being "prepared" by the ACC. Yet, to you, they've "more than held their own," while KU has failed miserably and is a fraud. I'm done talking about this. It's like debating with a brick wall.

 

[ExitFlagger]

You're a blubbering idiot. I'd venture to guess that Cal's 64% draft rate among players rated lower than 25th is better than the rest of the nation's success rate on get top 25 talent drafted.

Crazy train, let me know if I made any mistakes. I threw this together hastily.

Here's a complete list of Calipari's recruits from the 26-100 range at Kentucky.

Drafted: Herro (36), SGA (34), Booker (29), Diallo (34), Cauley-Stein (40).

Undrafted: Mulder (90), Humphries (47), Hood (40), Vargas (26).

Transferred: Poole (33), Baker (82), Wynyard (89), Matthews (48).

First off, LOL @ how short this list is, considering we're talking about a decade of players. Many coaches that he'd be compared to would have a far bigger sample, which would likely lower their draft rate. But you knew that.

In summary, a handful got drafted, a handful didn't, and another handful transferred.

Obviously the stat didn't factor in the transfers (all of which have gone undrafted so far). That leaves us with 5 of 9 that were drafted (one in the 2nd round). All top 40 players; one top 30.

Top 40 players are supposed to get drafted eventually, crazy train. That's not an amazing feat.

Lame, lame stat.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Bwahaha...I'm not 1/10th the homer that you are. You claimed that a league that had one top 10 team other than Kentucky for a decade consistently churns out top end teams. And that's just one of a million delusional comments that emerge from your keyboard.

I'll ask again, for the 100th time...is it your claim that all the numbers I posted are meaningless, and that KU is a fraud because a few of their lesser teams (plus a great team that choked) lost to midmajors?

I just told you that Duke/K have 4 fewer wins in the tourney during Self's tenure at KU, despite similar seeding and being "prepared" by the ACC. Yet, to you, they've "more than held their own," while KU has failed miserably and is a fraud. I'm done talking about this. It's like debating with a brick wall.

Since 2000 Florida has two titles and Kentucky one. That equals your team's total all time. KU's three titles are a lot less than UK's 8 titles. Florida's 2 and Arkansas' 1 leaves the SEC with 11. Tell us again how many titles does your conference have?

Sorry dude but you need to gets some facts on your side.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Since 2000 Florida has two titles and Kentucky one. That equals your team's total all time. KU's three titles are a lot less than UK's 8 titles. Florida's 2 and Arkansas' 1 leaves the SEC with 11. Tell us again how many titles does your conference have?

Sorry dude but you need to gets some facts on your side.

I'm the only one who has been using facts to support my argument, while he throws out ludicrous opinions over and over.

He claimed that the SEC consistently has several "top end" teams, yet for a decade prior to this season, the only top 10 team other than Kentucky was Florida in '14. Spin that all you want, but it's a homerish and completely bogus statement.

If your argument is that the SEC has had more tourney success in the last few decades, sure, that’s a reasonable statement. All-time, Big 12 teams have actually won more tourney games.

 

[oldsports_]

You guys are great, keep it up!