When you say heavily weighted, what exactly do you mean? In what context? Who is creating the parameters around the weighting of such accomplishments? How did that person arrive at those parameters? Are their biases involved?
We're not talking about helms titles. IU's run in the 70's up there with UK 3 dynasties.
I take them more seriously than the three teams mentioned. They all went down a notch.
Depends on the discussion. All time history everything is weighted equally. Current great programs recent success is definitely weighted more. That's it.
Dude, only took a year to get access to this board. I emailed the moderators like 6 times over the past year to grant me access, would never respond. Eventually emailed subscriptions@rivals.com and was finally granted access lol.
So you think KU’s success is stack ranked as more significant than IU’s history due to recency? I’m not debating you, just confirming.
I understand that it feels that way because not many people were around for things farther back. But should it?
Yes. ESPN and every respectable publication back then agreed. I would guess you did not watch the games live.
You can't own a whole decade if the first half was owned by another team. It's not rocket science.
I wrote a well-thought-out response but Rivals has been glitching lately every time I post from mobile and it’s pissing me off, so I won’t re-write it.
I’m familiar with the glitch, but your public demands it.
No doubt. I am 37 and have seen UK win 3 championships in my lifetime.
UK sucked the second half of that decade. Between Tubby's last two years and the drunk's only two years, UK was tough to watch.
IU went to FF's in 73, 76, 81, 87 and 92. Elite 8's in 75, 84, 91 and 93. Title in 76, 81 and 87.
Eh...guess it just comes down to how you define a dynasty, which was kind of the spirit of this particular thread.
No, you were right before. Don’t let a couple of cheese dogs sway what you know to be true.
