Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College Basketball Board' started by ThroughBlue, Mar 12, 2020.
MrBaracus, I know how you feel.
KU had a good chance.
Ditto, I just don’t feel more sorry for Kansas than any other team that was a legit contender, despite the fact that Kansas was hands down the favorite. Sadly the truth is we will never know what would have happened and never will.
But congrats on a helluva season Jayhawks fans, it’s a shitty way to see it end, no doubts about it.
It would suck. And I'd be pissed. But I damned sure wouldn't lobby for a banner to be GIVEN to us. Any championship not won on the court is hollow.
I can’t say anything for certain about you personally, but, again, it’s easy to say this when you’re not in that position.
I can guarantee that a very large portion of your fanbase would have expected to be recognized. In the minds of many, it was the greeeeatest team ever and was going to carve through the tourney with ease.
You may be right about the rest of the fans, but I assure you I wouldn't have wanted it. It's worse than Helms banner imo.
Obviously nothing can carry the same weight as a tourney championship, but I just wonder...does everyone saying this denounce every football title awarded before the late 90s?
Doesn't Kentucky claim a football title from the 40s or something?
This is dumb. 99% of America would absolutely claim a title given to them if the NCAA approved it. We aren't the competitors here at all so let's not pretend like statements of "I'd rather win one on the court against the best" apply to us. We're just morons on computers who need ammo and a title given to us would only add to that arsenal.
Everybody, again, I'm claiming this title with or without the NCAA. There is no argument you can make that will change my mind.
It's been established that 3 of Kentucky's were done during the most sketchy period of any school's history in all of college basketball.
I mean, they won them so we definitely have to count them but let's not pretend like those titles have as much validation as their 1990's titles or 2012 title or any other blueblood title except for UCLA's.
But let's not make this thread about Kentucky, k?
I know these are desperate times, but yikes. KU fans wanna pass UConn in titles bad huh?
So titles that were won in the 50s don’t count as much as titles that weren’t actually won?
So, technically, we're tied at 6?
If the NCAA says they won them then they won them. We can place value on which ones mean more though. Most of us seem to think that UCLA won most of theirs with Sam Gilbert's help. Plenty of people think Kentucky's titles in 1948, 1949 and 1951 were assisted since that was right smack dab in the middle of the timeframe when they were paying players, playing ineligible players and had other guys involved in gambling scandals. If KU were awarded one in 2020 then most people would look down on it just like the titles mentioned above.
They all count though. Except for 2013 Louisville for some reason which is the most deserving compared to the established ones mentioned above plus KU's hypothetical title.
So just curious. Does cheating matter from the 50s as much as it does today?
Depends on what the cheating is.
No it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways. Either cheating and titles matter the same from the 50s or current cheating and results matter more.
In 1948, the NIT field included the 2nd ranked team in the country, along with #4, #5, #6, #7, and a few other highly ranked teams.
I'm sure nobody would debate the legitimacy of a tourney this season that didn't include Gonzaga, Florida St, Baylor, San Diego St, Creighton, and others.
In 1949, Kentucky successfully defended their NCAA title, yet also participated in the NIT and lost.
Obviously, Helms titles are kind of a joke. But to say these titles are equal to a modern title is also asinine.
I never said that titles from the 1950’s mattered less. I said that Kentucky’s titles from 1948, 1949 and 1951 and UCLA’s titles are all thought to be sketchy considering what Kentucky got in trouble for at that time and for what we now know about Sam Gilbert. They still count though. We can look down on them though compared to other schools titles that appear to be won without assistance. Like 1958 Kentucky.
That's a different debate. We have to acknowledge what the NCAA recognizes, but yeah those early titles won weren't exactly the same as those won in the 64 team tournament era. This includes 1952 Kansas, ftr.
This is bull shit.
Kansas first title was in 1952. UK's first title happened in 1948.
So what the fvck happened in four years?
This is pure stupidity.
You are one hurting dude are you not?
Not only did UK win the 1948 NCAA they won the damned Olympic games.
I am out of this thread. It is stupidity. WOW.
Do you accept that UCLA is the premier basketball school then since they have the most titles?
Their resume is not better than Kentucky’s so no. I’m not sure how you correlated my post to that statement
How is it not?
11 titles > 8 titles
I don't mean to single you out in particular but lots of UK fans I know like to dismiss the championship won in UCLA's golden era but prop up championships won as a differentiator vs other programs like Kansas.
Because titles aren’t all that matters. 3 titles doesn’t make up for UK winning pretty much every other category.
I don’t think everyone has the same bar for greatness. For example I’d trade every final four in the world for another title. But I’m sure number of final fours is something some fans value more than i do. Everyone can remember when their team makes the final four, but no one remembers every team to make the final four as time goes on. Hell I don’t even remember who Michigan beat in the final four in 2013 before we met up in the final.
Final fours are overrated imo, one team cuts the nets not 4. I also don’t buy in to the line of thinking that losing game in the elite 8 makes it a decent season, but winning that one game and making the final four makes it a special season. Or the fact that making the final fours is just as celebrated as being the runner up. But each to his own.
Titles are far more important than anything else though by a longshot. UCLA ranks very highly in all the other metrics too.
As a Duke fan, I'm ok conceding that UCLA is the best basketball program of all time historically.
That’s fine, I think most people will agree it’s Kentucky. Most non biased
When the topic of KU vs Kentucky in the modern era came up, you guys claimed that more titles (3 to 2) trumped the fact that KU checks every other box.
But, of course, this logic makes more sense.
I’m not sure who you guys are but I will gladly look at both resumes.
Who do you think is the best all time? Curious
I'd give it to Kentucky, but I think UNC is knocking on the door.
Not much happened. I’m not discounting those first UK titles. I’m saying that fans look at those early Kentucky titles and the UCLA with much disregard, mainly because of what we know about the programs at the time. Kentucky got in trouble for the most serious of crimes just after those titles and we now know a lot of Sam Gilbert and the help he gave the UCLA program at the time. The NCAA still recognizes them all. I’m fine with that but me and many other fans of the sport don’t think that highly of them.
Fair. I have UNC at two as well.
Unfortunately for Bill, I don't think he's very high on NCAA friend's list at the moment.
Doesn’t matter even if they don’t award them.
They’re still #1 in my heart.
I watched all the games dude. I am an old man, remember?
11 titles > 8 titles
8 titles > 5 titles
5 titles > 3 titles
Do I need to go into more detail?
Kansas was not unanimous #1 in final AP poll. Mythical banner goes up in smoke.