Give a basketball hot take

[kyjeff1]

Sweet Jesus. Take this trash to Rafters.

As much as you clowns try to distance yourself from that shithole and pretend it's a poor representation of the fanbase, all it takes is a slight nudge to bring it out in full force.

What did I say that was false? Sorry buddy, but Oklahoma and Texas have better resumes than Houston and Arizona.

Again, Arizona just went 3 straight years without reaching the tournament and haven't seen a FF since 1997.

Houston made it to one NCAAT from 1992-2017 and while they recently reached a FF (2021), so did Oklahoma (2016). In my eyes, Oklahoma is a much better program as a whole. Houston is a mid major and Kelvin Sampson isn’t going to coach forever. Without Kelvin, Houston isn’t shit.

 

[kyjeff1]

Do you really need someone to explain why it's trash to compare the Big 12 accomplishments of a team that hasn't played a single game as a member of the league to a program that spent 80+ years in the league?

Holy shit...

Dude, that was a joke, lighten up Francis, the rest of that post was 100% factually correct.

 

[kyjeff1]

Did I say they suck? I said that Arizona and Houston are better programs. Which literally everyone but you would agree with. And even you would've agreed with no hesitation before they joined the mighty SEC. 🤣

Last year was the first time Texas won more than one tourney game in almost two decades, and they lost the coach who recruited that team.

Since 2010, Arizona has as many tourney wins as Texas and OU combined. Add Houston and it's 27-15. But sure, they've been equals. 🤣

And if you wanna talk all-time numbers, Dukedevilz' rankings have Arizona at #15 all time. Oklahoma is 28 and Texas 38. You won't find a ranking that has either close to or above AZ.

You've got no rational angle here, but why would that stop you now?

Arizona's 1997 title is the only reason Arizona is rated at 15, without that title, they would he ranked where Oklahoma and Texas are and since that 1997 title is outside your favorite timeframing years, it does you no good.

 

[kyjeff1]

And we all know that you people think that ancient history is somehow a predictor of future success.

4 straight Sweet 16s, with a final four and two Elite 8s. Sure, "jury's out." Is the jury still out on Sampson, too? Just a young pup with potential...

The jury is definitely out on the TX and OU coaches. And the likelihood is that neither ever touches Kelvin Sampson as a coach.

If Houston had to play in a real conference, would they get the high seeds they have been getting? I mean, playing Tulane, Memphis and Cincinnati is not exactly murderers row.
Your path as a 2 or 3 seed, is much easier than it would be from the 4-6 seed lines.

 

[ExitFlagger]

If Houston had to play in a real conference, would they get the high seeds they have been getting? I mean, playing Tulane, Memphis and Cincinnati is not exactly murderers row.
Your path as a 2 or 3 seed, is much easier than it would be from the 4-6 seed lines.

Hate to break it to ya, but getting a high seed doesn't automatically put you in the Final Four. Everybody's playing tough competition after the first game or two.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Arizona's 1997 title is the only reason Arizona is rated at 15, without that title, they would he ranked where Oklahoma and Texas are and since that 1997 title is outside your favorite timeframing years, it does you no good.

Nope. Not even close. A national title earns you 30 points in Devilz' system. Arizona is almost 200 points above Oklahoma and 247 points above Texas. And maybe you missed the part about Arizona having as many tourney wins in the last decade plus as OU/Texas combined. Houston is well above either as well. Sorry....Texas and OU get dongslapped whether you want to look at recent history or all-time.

And let me get this straight....the lack of success by Texas/OU over the last few decades is irrelevant, but a decent year or two by Alabama/Auburn is a sign of future SEC dominance? Weird logic.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you two keep yapping about "timeframing." Of course I'm timeframing. We're talking about the current state of these programs and trying to predict the near future, right? Last I checked, recent success and current HC tend to be the most relevant factors when predicting the near future.

Even if you only want to focus on all-time numbers (for some weird reason), that doesn't exactly help your argument. KU's new conference mates will have twice as many national titles as Kentucky's new SEC mates (6 to 3), and 33 final fours to 26.

 

[ExitFlagger]

LOL, so wait, when I talked about Florida's 06 and 07 titles, you said "Are we supposed to pretend that Billy Donovan is still at Florida?"

But it's okay for you to bring up Arizona's 1997 title???

This makes sense to you?

Did I even bring up Arizona's title, or are you making things up again?

 

[ExitFlagger]

What did I say that was false? Sorry buddy, but Oklahoma and Texas have better resumes than Houston and Arizona.

Again, Arizona just went 3 straight years without reaching the tournament and haven't seen a FF since 1997.

Houston made it to one NCAAT from 1992-2017 and while they recently reached a FF (2021), so did Oklahoma (2016). In my eyes, Oklahoma is a much better program as a whole. Houston is a mid major and Kelvin Sampson isn’t going to coach forever. Without Kelvin, Houston isn’t shit.

Dude, are you even trying to be slightly honest? 😂

First off, everyone "missed" the tourney in 2020, in case you've forgotten. The following year they were banned from the postseason. Yes, before that, they had a down year at 17-15. In the other years during the Sean Miller/Lloyd era, they've averaged 29 wins/season, with more tourney success than Texas/Oklahoma combined.

OU has been shit so far under Porter Moser, while Arizona's off to a solid start under Lloyd, and Houston has been very good for several years under Sampson.

Texas FINALLY had a solid year after a decade plus of nothing.....unfortunately, the guy who built that team is gone and they're stuck with a mediocre coach.

The only advantage that either of those schools have is that OU might slightly edge Houston historically (300 pts vs 275 in Devilz' system). Unfortunately for OU, they've sucked for several years, while Houston has been a perennial contender. And there's no reason to think that Moser is building anything substantial.

 

[ExitFlagger]

1 SEC football title, from a program like UK, is a bigger accomplishment than 14 (not sure where you got 20 from) BIG12 basketball titles by the best program in the league by far… yes, 100%.

Where did I get it? Right here:

I don't care if KU won 20 straight BIG12 titles, it is not in par with UK winning the SEC in football, it just isn’t.

You really shouldn't label anyone else a homer after posting shit like this. 😆

And context is important here....you said that no one gives a shit about conference titles. We weren't discussing the level of difficulty. So do people care or not? Besides, Kentucky's a much improved football program, right? That's what I've been hearing anyway.

Spare me the over-the-top hyperbole about SEC football. There are a few great teams at the top, but the middle and bottom of that league is ridiculously overrated.

When did the word "currently" become a thing when comparing Houston, Arizona, Oklahoma and Texas? Remember now, if we have to go by "currently", you don't get to use Arizona's 1 title and if you can’t do that, well, Arizona is no better than Texas and Oklahoma and, besides that, Arizona didn’t even make the NCAAT in 18, 19, or 20. Houston made the dang NCAAT one time from 1992-2017 and you think you’re getting a better program??? Houston made a final 4 in 21, well, Oklahoma made a FF in 2016, but what do you think is going to happen whe Kelvin Sampson hangs it up?

Aside from the fact that Arizona destroys either Texas/OU currently AND historically....you're getting Porter Moser's OU and Rodney Terry's Texas. And who knows what will happen when Sampson hangs it up? Why would you assume they'll hire a shitty coach? I'd be willing to bet they'll find someone better than Moser or Terry.

No, KU would not have faired better in the SEC than UK has, you forget, UK whipped everyones asses from 2010-2017, but UT, Arkansas, Auburn and Alabama have surged since then, so no, KU would not have done better than UK and UK proved it in Lawrence just 2 years ago.

So because Kentucky "whipped everyone's asses" for a handful of years, that means that KU wouldn't have won more league titles over the last two decades? Interesting logic. None of the other schools you mentioned are even close to KU's level, so why would they stand in the way? That's your logic when it comes to the Big 12, right? KU's way better than everyone else traditionally, so they should be expected to win it every year? So why wouldn't they be expected to win a shitload of SEC titles? And why doesn't Kentucky consistently win the SEC? They're way better than everyone else historically, right?

KU's worst season under Self is a 4 seed. Kentucky's had a 9-16 season, three NIT appearances, and a bunch of low seeds. Claiming that KU wouldn't have fared better in the SEC is homerism at its finest.

Way to work in another brag about the game in Lawrence, btw. It's sad that you guys keep bringing that up, and I have no idea how it "proved" anything in relation to KU being able to win SEC titles, but I get it...you can't help yourself. That's what fans of powerhouse programs do, right? Brag about regular season wins vs the national champs?🤣

I wonder what it proved when little bro K-State knocked Kentucky out of the tourney twice? I'm pretty sure you have to go back about a decade and 20 or so games to find two KU losses vs K-State.

Yes, the SEC certainly is going to be better than the big12, you think loading up with mid major programs is going to make that league stronger??? You keep thinking Arizona is some powerhouse, but the results say otherwise. Again, they recently went 3 straight seasons without getting to the tournament and consistently fall short of expectations. You’re overselling both programs.

I never called AZ a powerhouse, but they're better than any program in the SEC other than Kentucky.

SEC's "certainly" going to be better than the Big 12, eh? Is that opinion based on anything other than homerism?

 

[JC for 3]

You're saying that tallying all-time numbers is the best way to predict their future success?

Apparently you don't even agree with yourself on this one...

Cincy isn't shit...haven't been for years and very doubtful they will against better comp.

There are Blueblood programs that have traditions of winning and plenty of hardware to show for it, and then there are programs that don't. Both the SEC and Big 12 will have a mix of both kinds of programs.
It doesn't shock me that you don't want to measure the 2 against each other using All Time numbers because you know who will come up short.

If you want to keep trying to predict the future, go have fun with your little crystal ball. Cincy was at their best in the early 60's and then had a little run in the 90's with 'JUCO Bob', who annually played one of the worst schedules in college hoops and then wondered why they were bounced from the tourney in the first or 2nd round. The only Final Four they reached since the pinnacle of their success in the 60's was in large part, thanks to the Kansas Jayhawks, who lost to UTEP before they could play against Cincy.

Since then, like I said, Cincy hasn't been shit and you trying to prop them up as a shiny new addition to the Big 12 is laughable.

 

[JC for 3]

Nope. Not even close. A national title earns you 30 points in Devilz' system. Arizona is almost 200 points above Oklahoma and 247 points above Texas. And maybe you missed the part about Arizona having as many tourney wins in the last decade plus as OU/Texas combined. Houston is well above either as well. Sorry....Texas and OU get dongslapped whether you want to look at recent history or all-time.

And let me get this straight....the lack of success by Texas/OU over the last few decades is irrelevant, but a decent year or two by Alabama/Auburn is a sign of future SEC dominance? Weird logic.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you two keep yapping about "timeframing." Of course I'm timeframing. We're talking about the current state of these programs and trying to predict the near future, right? Last I checked, recent success and current HC tend to be the most relevant factors when predicting the near future.

Even if you only want to focus on all-time numbers (for some weird reason), that doesn't exactly help your argument. KU's new conference mates will have twice as many national titles as Kentucky's new SEC mates (6 to 3), and 33 final fours to 26.

So 'Devilz' system is the be all, end all for you? ....mmmmkay.

'Timeframing' is being thrown at you, because that is your consistent go to. What's weird about that is that your really don't have to do that. You're a fan of a Blueblood program.

Once an argument is a timeframed argument, it loses. It's like taking a little piece out of a pie chart and trying to get it to make a statement against the whole pie. It just doesn't work, but you be you.

 

[kyjeff1]

Hate to break it to ya, but getting a high seed doesn't automatically put you in the Final Four. Everybody's playing tough competition after the first game or two.

No shit, but playing a 16/8/4 is a whole lot easier path than what everyone else has to play, so your path to the FF is a whole lot easier as a 1 seed.

 

[kyjeff1]

Nope. Not even close. A national title earns you 30 points in Devilz' system. Arizona is almost 200 points above Oklahoma and 247 points above Texas. And maybe you missed the part about Arizona having as many tourney wins in the last decade plus as OU/Texas combined. Houston is well above either as well. Sorry....Texas and OU get dongslapped whether you want to look at recent history or all-time.

And let me get this straight....the lack of success by Texas/OU over the last few decades is irrelevant, but a decent year or two by Alabama/Auburn is a sign of future SEC dominance? Weird logic.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you two keep yapping about "timeframing." Of course I'm timeframing. We're talking about the current state of these programs and trying to predict the near future, right? Last I checked, recent success and current HC tend to be the most relevant factors when predicting the near future.

Even if you only want to focus on all-time numbers (for some weird reason), that doesn't exactly help your argument. KU's new conference mates will have twice as many national titles as Kentucky's new SEC mates (6 to 3), and 33 final fours to 26.

Hmm, maybe it's because Arizona was playing in a tougher conference than Tx and Oklahoma.

 

[kyjeff1]

Did I even bring up Arizona's title, or are you making things up again?

Go back and look, we went over all this shit. You contradict yourself a lot.

 

[kyjeff1]

Dude, are you even trying to be slightly honest? 😂

First off, everyone "missed" the tourney in 2020, in case you've forgotten. The following year they were banned from the postseason. Yes, before that, they had a down year at 17-15. In the other years during the Sean Miller/Lloyd era, they've averaged 29 wins/season, with more tourney success than Texas/Oklahoma combined.

OU has been shit so far under Porter Moser, while Arizona's off to a solid start under Lloyd, and Houston has been very good for several years under Sampson.

Texas FINALLY had a solid year after a decade plus of nothing.....unfortunately, the guy who built that team is gone and they're stuck with a mediocre coach.

The only advantage that either of those schools have is that OU might slightly edge Houston historically (300 pts vs 275 in Devilz' system). Unfortunately for OU, they've sucked for several years, while Houston has been a perennial contender. And there's no reason to think that Moser is building anything substantial.

Your post proves my point. You spent this entire post talking about the coaches being the real reason these programs succeed or fail.

What do you think is going to happen to Houston when Kelvin leaves? Take a look at how bad Houston was before Kelvin got there?

As far as Lloyd, so far he's really accomplished very little. He's better than Sean Miller, but that's not saying much. Both coaches got plenty of talent, but both coaches have done very little with what they have had. I'm not impressed withArizona and I really don'tcare what Duke Devils' ranking system shows, all things are not equal.

 

[kyjeff1]

Where did I get it? Right here:

I don't care if KU won 20 straight BIG12 titles, it is not in par with UK winning the SEC in football, it just isn’t.

You really shouldn't label anyone else a homer after posting shit like this. 😆

And context is important here....you said that no one gives a shit about conference titles. We weren't discussing the level of difficulty. So do people care or not? Besides, Kentucky's a much improved football program, right? That's what I've been hearing anyway.

Spare me the over-the-top hyperbole about SEC football. There are a few great teams at the top, but the middle and bottom of that league is ridiculously overrated.



Aside from the fact that Arizona destroys either Texas/OU currently AND historically....you're getting Porter Moser's OU and Rodney Terry's Texas. And who knows what will happen when Sampson hangs it up? Why would you assume they'll hire a shitty coach? I'd be willing to bet they'll find someone better than Moser or Terry.



So because Kentucky "whipped everyone's asses" for a handful of years, that means that KU wouldn't have won more league titles over the last two decades? Interesting logic. None of the other schools you mentioned are even close to KU's level, so why would they stand in the way? That's your logic when it comes to the Big 12, right? KU's way better than everyone else traditionally, so they should be expected to win it every year? So why wouldn't they be expected to win a shitload of SEC titles? And why doesn't Kentucky consistently win the SEC? They're way better than everyone else historically, right?

KU's worst season under Self is a 4 seed. Kentucky's had a 9-16 season, three NIT appearances, and a bunch of low seeds. Claiming that KU wouldn't have fared better in the SEC is homerism at its finest.

Way to work in another brag about the game in Lawrence, btw. It's sad that you guys keep bringing that up, and I have no idea how it "proved" anything in relation to KU being able to win SEC titles, but I get it...you can't help yourself. That's what fans of powerhouse programs do, right? Brag about regular season wins vs the national champs?🤣

I wonder what it proved when little bro K-State knocked Kentucky out of the tourney twice? I'm pretty sure you have to go back about a decade and 20 or so games to find two KU losses vs K-State.



I never called AZ a powerhouse, but they're better than any program in the SEC other than Kentucky.

SEC's "certainly" going to be better than the Big 12, eh? Is that opinion based on anything other than homerism?

Homer take, after homer take, after homer take.

When I compare UK winning the SEC championship in football being a bigger deal than KU winning the BIG12 in basketball, it just is. When you look at the football programs in the SEC, you would understand what I'm talking about. UK is decades behind those other programs, so the shock value of UK winning the SEC, would be much higher than KU beating a bunch of teams like Oklahoma and Texas.

The funny thing is, you've been shitting all over Oklahoma and Texas for 2 days on here, but those two schools were KU' s toughest competition during that 14 year run, so why should anybody be impressed with KU's winning streak when, as you say, KU's toughest competition sucked???.

 

[kyjeff1]

I mean, if 1 school wins the conference 14 straight years, but then that school goes on to get upset in the NCAAT 4 times by mid majors, well, maybe the league simply wasn't very good.

If the league was as good as these guys say it is, there's no way one school wins 14 straight.

It’s a good league that has one top tier program and a bunch of 2nd and 3rd tier programs and since you play a true round robin, you only have to win a few tough road games and protect your home court.

In the SEC, you don't get a round robin, so you might get Arkansas and Auburn on the road, but not at home. If you lose those road games, you most likely aren't winning the league, so for that reason, I'm saying KU would never win 14 straight in the SEC.

Duke Devils' ranking system doesn't compensate for this.

 

[IUfanBorden]

People want to keep misrepresenting what I'm saying, but I've made my position clear. If I could wave a wand and suddenly have 5 titles over the last 25 years (along with the rest of UConn's resume), I'd do it. But if we're talking about actually living through it...y'know, watching every minute of every game, following recruiting and team news year round, etc...I wouldn't trade being a perennial contender for suffering through several straight losing seasons, 1 tourney win in 8 years, and a lot of mediocrity.

Basically you're saying that it's worth enduring a bunch of bad to mediocre years just to be able to brag to anonymous people online about 1 statistic. Seems kinda silly to me. And apparently UConn fans agree, because a fanbase that used to be pretty well-represented online during the Calhoun years completely disappeared for almost a decade, and only briefly returned for a few weeks after winning the damn national title.

So if you could sleep through it---Good to go. But if ya had to watch at---Pass?

What ****ing sense does that even make?

Several STRAIGHT losing seasons? Ollie had losing records his last two years---Hurley his first. Since Jim left in 2012, UConn has had 3 losing seasons: 2017, 18 and 19. 3 losing seasons in 11 years, isn't several straight.

"Brag about one statistic"?---Even if that ONE statistic is 5 fuking national titles? For you its better to brg about being good every year, making the NCAAT, and winning a bunch of conference titles? Okie, doke. UConn missed 9 NCAAT's---Kansas in that span lost 8X's in the first or second round---Whts the huge difference?

Yes I would take every bit of what Uconn has endured, to have 5 more natty's---Absolutely without a ****ing doubt.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Homer take, after homer take, after homer take.

Yep, you've had a hell of a lot of 'em. 🤣

You actually think that Kentucky was as consistently good as KU during that stretch, don't you? Let me guess....they only went to multiple NITs and had a bunch of low seed teams because the SEC was secretly stacked?

When I compare UK winning the SEC championship in football being a bigger deal than KU winning the BIG12 in basketball, it just is. When you look at the football programs in the SEC, you would understand what I'm talking about. UK is decades behind those other programs, so the shock value of UK winning the SEC, would be much higher than KU beating a bunch of teams like Oklahoma and Texas.

Nice try. That's not what you said. You compared winning the SEC ONE time to winning the Big 12 TWENTY CONSECUTIVE times. That's the most homerish take I've seen in some time. 😆

And again, this was brought up because you said that "no one gives a shit" about conference titles. I mean...you either care or you don't, right?

The funny thing is, you've been shitting all over Oklahoma and Texas for 2 days on here, but those two schools were KU' s toughest competition during that 14 year run, so why should anybody be impressed with KU's winning streak when, as you say, KU's toughest competition sucked???.

I never said that Oklahoma is a shitty program historically. I said they've been weak in recent years, and off to a poor start under Moser. The last 7 years, their average finish (in a 10 team league) has been 7th. In a league that you think is overrated. But now that they're joining the SEC, that's somehow impressive, right? Maybe the ghost of Billy Tubbs is going to join the staff?

As for Texas, before last season, they'd won one tourney game in 8 years. Is that good? They were a really solid program and a thorn in KU's side during Barnes' first 10 years or so. Over the last 15 or so years, they've been mediocre and at times bad. Hell, they've finished in the top 25 like three times in that span.

Do you actually follow any non-SEC teams?

 

[ExitFlagger]

Why should anybody be impressed with KU's streak? Well, let's take a look.

Self has failed to win the Big 12 three times since arriving at KU. Here's how the season ended for the other winners:

2021: Baylor - Won the nat'l title in blowout fashion
2019: Texas Tech - Lost in OT of the nat’l title game
2004: Ok St - Went to the Final Four

Almost seems like you have to be kinda good to finish higher than Bill Self's team.

These teams tied KU atop the league:

08: Texas - Elite 8
06: Texas - Elite 8

Some non-winners:

23: Texas - finished 2nd - Elite 8
18: K-State - finished 4th - Elite 8
18: Texas Tech - tied for 2nd - Elite 8
16: OU - finished 3rd - Final 4
12: Baylor - finished 2nd - Elite 8
10: Baylor - tied for 2nd - Elite 8
10: K-State - tied for 2nd - Elite 8
09: OU - finished 2nd - Elite 8
03: Texas - finished 2nd - Final 4
03: OU - finished 3rd - Elite 8
02: OU - finished 2nd - Final 4

KU also reached the Elite 8 one year when they didn't win the league.

Definitely supports the idea that KU's run was due to weak competition, right?

Now let's see how SEC winners not named Kentucky have fared over the last decade:

Alabama - lost in Sweet 16
Auburn - destroyed in 2nd round by 10 seed Miami
Alabama - lost in Sweet 16 to an 11 seed
LSU - lost in Sweet 16
Auburn - lost by 30 in 2nd round
Tenn - lost in 2nd round to 11 seed
A&M - lost in Sweet 16 by double digits to a 7 seed Big 12 team

Well, you could definitely make the argument that you don't have to be consistently great to win ONE of these leagues...but I don't think it's the one you think it is.

Btw, does the fact that Alabama's dominated the conference since their resurgence take any shine off SEC football? Nahhh, of course not.

 

[kyjeff1]

Why should anybody be impressed with KU's streak? Well, let's take a look.

Self has failed to win the Big 12 three times since arriving at KU. Here's how the season ended for the other winners:

2021: Baylor - Won the nat'l title in blowout fashion
2019: Texas Tech - Lost in OT of the nat’l title game
2004: Ok St - Went to the Final Four

Almost seems like you have to be kinda good to finish higher than Bill Self's team.

These teams tied KU atop the league:

08: Texas - Elite 8
06: Texas - Elite 8

Some non-winners:

23: Texas - finished 2nd - Elite 8
18: K-State - finished 4th - Elite 8
18: Texas Tech - tied for 2nd - Elite 8
16: OU - finished 3rd - Final 4
12: Baylor - finished 2nd - Elite 8
10: Baylor - tied for 2nd - Elite 8
10: K-State - tied for 2nd - Elite 8
09: OU - finished 2nd - Elite 8
03: Texas - finished 2nd - Final 4
03: OU - finished 3rd - Elite 8
02: OU - finished 2nd - Final 4

KU also reached the Elite 8 one year when they didn't win the league.

Definitely supports the idea that KU's run was due to weak competition, right?

Now let's see how SEC winners not named Kentucky have fared over the last decade:

Alabama - lost in Sweet 16
Auburn - destroyed in 2nd round by 10 seed Miami
Alabama - lost in Sweet 16 to an 11 seed
LSU - lost in Sweet 16
Auburn - lost by 30 in 2nd round
Tenn - lost in 2nd round to 11 seed
A&M - lost in Sweet 16 by double digits to a 7 seed Big 12 team

Well, you could definitely make the argument that you don't have to be consistently great to win ONE of these leagues...but I don't think it's the one you think it is.

Btw, does the fact that Alabama's dominated the conference since their resurgence take any shine off SEC football? Nahhh, of course not.

I Just think it’s funny how you say Texas and Oklahoma are mediocre programs, but then try to say KU's 14 straight conference championships are more impressive than UK winning the SEC in football. Texas and Oklahoma were KU's toughest competitors during that 14 year run.

It is my opinion that UK winning the SEC in football is more impressive than KU winning the BIG12 in basketball in a round robin format, for 14 straight years.

If there was another top shelf program in the BIG12 and it wasn't a round robin format, I would be more impressed.

For UK to win the SEC in football right now, they would have to beat @UGA, UT, Florida, Mizzou, @Miss State, Alabama and @South Carolina.
That’s not even listing LSU, Auburn, Texas A & M, or Ole Miss, we would play some combination of those teams, PLUS Oklahoma and Texas, next year.

Dude, it's not even close. The odds of going through that football schedule unscathed, is crazy low, much lower than KU winning the BIG12 in basketball in a round robin format for 14 straight years, it just is.

KU getting each opponent at home, every year, is a huge advantage that you aren't recognizing.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I mean, if 1 school wins the conference 14 straight years, but then that school goes on to get upset in the NCAAT 4 times by mid majors, well, maybe the league simply wasn't very good.

If the league was as good as these guys say it is, there's no way one school wins 14 straight.

Yeah, let's just conveniently leave out the fact that KU has several more tourney wins this century than any other program. Or that they've averaged a final four every 4 years for 4 decades, and an Elite 8 every other year. Let's also ignore the fact that Self has an extremely high win % vs top 5 and top 10 teams (and he's faced a lot of them). While we're at it, we should also probably ignore that he's 4-0 against UNC in the tourney, 1-0 vs K, 8-1 vs the ACC (only loss being in Self's first year), 6-2 vs the Big East, and 6-2 vs the Big 10.

Also, don't forget that there were four co-champs during the streak, and a lot of Elite 8/Final 4 teams from the B12. Many of KU's titles went down to the last game too. Some teams needed a late comeback. They weren't winning it by four games every year. And like I pointed out in the previous post, in the seasons that Self didn't get at least a share, the Big 12 winners all went to the Final Four. Two of the three were in the title game and one won it in a blowout.

But you're right, dude.....a few losses to midmajors (one of which was a top 10ish team on Kenpom, another was top 25, and another won 5 tourney games in dominant fashion) proved that KU was clearly a fraud.

Can you just stop with this idiocy already?

It’s a good league that has one top tier program and a bunch of 2nd and 3rd tier programs and since you play a true round robin, you only have to win a few tough road games and protect your home court.

Like the SEC?

And please tell me you don't think Kentucky plays more tough road games than KU. That would just be icing on the homer cake. KU literally has the #1 SOS almost every year.

In the SEC, you don't get a round robin, so you might get Arkansas and Auburn on the road, but not at home. If you lose those road games, you most likely aren't winning the league, so for that reason, I'm saying KU would never win 14 straight in the SEC.

Duke Devils' ranking system doesn't compensate for this.

More nonsense. I like how you pretend that not having a round robin means that Kentucky gets all the tough SEC teams on the road each year. As if it doesn't benefit them too. Just another silly homer take that doesn't consider both sides of the coin. You actually think a round robin, in a league with virtually no bad teams, makes it easier? LOL. KU doesn't get the luxury of a down night, or emptying their bench when up by 35 vs South Carolina. They're playing a quad 1 game every night out.

 

[kyjeff1]

Yeah, let's just conveniently leave out the fact that KU has several more tourney wins this century than any other program. Or that they've averaged a final four every 4 years for 4 decades, and an Elite 8 every other year. Let's also ignore the fact that Self has an extremely high win % vs top 5 and top 10 teams (and he's faced a lot of them). While we're at it, we should also probably ignore that he's 4-0 against UNC in the tourney, 1-0 vs K, 8-1 vs the ACC (only loss being in Self's first year), 6-2 vs the Big East, and 6-2 vs the Big 10.

Also, don't forget that there were four co-champs during the streak, and a lot of Elite 8/Final 4 teams from the B12. Many of KU's titles went down to the last game too. Some teams needed a late comeback. They weren't winning it by four games every year. And like I pointed out in the previous post, in the seasons that Self didn't get at least a share, the Big 12 winners all went to the Final Four. Two of the three were in the title game and one won it in a blowout.

But you're right, dude.....a few losses to midmajors (one of which was a top 10ish team on Kenpom, another was top 25, and another won 5 tourney games in dominant fashion) proved that KU was clearly a fraud.

Can you just stop with this idiocy already?




Like the SEC?

And please tell me you don't think Kentucky plays more tough road games than KU. That would just be icing on the homer cake. KU literally has the #1 SOS almost every year.




More nonsense. I like how you pretend that not having a round robin means that Kentucky gets all the tough SEC teams on the road each year. As if it doesn't benefit them too. Just another silly homer take that doesn't consider both sides of the coin. You actually think a round robin, in a league with virtually no bad teams, makes it easier? LOL. KU doesn't get the luxury of a down night, or emptying their bench when up by 35 vs South Carolina. They're playing a quad 1 game every night out.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying Kansas sucks and I'm not saying Bill Self is a bad coach, actually, I think Self reinvented himself and implemented a modern system and it's working. I think he's an incredible coach, he’s far better than the individual UK has.

I'm also not saying the SEC is a better basketball conference. I've said numerous times that the SEC is currently a step behind the B12. Where I disagree with you is your take on the SEC, it's not what you are making it out to be.

You mentioned there were 4 years when KU was a co champion, but you failed to mention that 3 of the 4 of those co championships were shared with Texas (twice) and Oklahoma (once), the two programs you have been shitting on for 2 days.

As far as the mid-majors KU lost to, you tried very hard to put dresses on those turds, but the bottom line is, those teams KU lost to, didn't do squat after beating KU.

Northern Iowa lost their next game to Michigan State

Bradley beat Pitt, but then got smoked by Memphis

Bucknell lost to Wisconsin in their next game.

Wichita State lost by 11 to Notre Dame in the next round.

I mean, at least Saint Peters and Kansas State made it to the E8 after beating UK.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I Just think it’s funny how you say Texas and Oklahoma are mediocre programs, but then try to say KU's 14 straight conference championships are more impressive than UK winning the SEC in football. Texas and Oklahoma were KU's toughest competitors during that 14 year run.

If you've actually read what I posted, you'd see that I've made my position very clear and been consistent. Texas was good for a decade under Barnes. Barnes is not there anymore. Oklahoma had some good years under Tubbs and Sampson, and a few under Kruger. They have not been that good in recent years. What is complicated about this?

It is my opinion that UK winning the SEC in football is more impressive than KU winning the BIG12 in basketball in a round robin format, for 14 straight years.

If there was another top shelf program in the BIG12 and it wasn't a round robin format, I would be more impressed.

So does that mean you're extremely unimpressed that Kentucky hasn't won half as many league titles as KU in that span, despite being in a league that's widely considered the lesser conference, with zero programs that are even close to top shelf? Using your logic, you definitely should be.

For UK to win the SEC in football right now, they would have to beat @UGA, UT, Florida, Mizzou, @Miss State, Alabama and @South Carolina.
That’s not even listing LSU, Auburn, Texas A & M, or Ole Miss, we would play some combination of those teams, PLUS Oklahoma and Texas, next year.

Dude, it's not even close. The odds of going through that football schedule unscathed, is crazy low, much lower than KU winning the BIG12 in basketball in a round robin format for 14 straight years, it just is.

Holy shit....you just keep doubling down on it. While calling ME the homer. I love it. 🤣

On average, Kentucky faces 1, maybe 2 ranked teams in the East division each year. Right now, there are two consistently top tier programs in the SEC. And Kentucky plays Alabama, what, once every three years? It's not quite the gauntlet that you homers make it out to be. Kentucky's had two teams that won 10 games vs that crazy gauntlet in recent years, right? So you're saying that, to take that a slight step further and win a couple more games would be a bigger achievement than winning a very good basketball league 20 times in a row. Sweet Mother of Mary. 😂

KU getting each opponent at home, every year, is a huge advantage that you aren't recognizing.

LOL. It's not a huge advantage when they have to play every opponent ON THE ROAD too. So poor Kentucky is at a severe disadvantage because they MIGHT occasionally have to play a top league opponent on the road without a return game? Opponents that, btw, haven't done shit in the tourney in that span? And didja forget that Kentucky sometimes gets the fortune of landing those teams at home too? Are you just going to keep leaving out that detail? Kinda cancels it out, doesn't it? Not to mention that KU plays far more games vs quality teams. Last year alone, 11 of KU's 18 conference games were against ranked teams. Kentucky had 3.

Literally no one on the planet outside of SEC country would make this argument.

 

[JC for 3]

^^^He's never gonna get it that a team not named Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida or Auburn winning the SEC championship in football would be a monumental event.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying Kansas sucks and I'm not saying Bill Self is a bad coach, actually, I think Self reinvented himself and implemented a modern system and it's working. I think he's an incredible coach, he’s far better than the individual UK has.

I'm also not saying the SEC is a better basketball conference. I've said numerous times that the SEC is currently a step behind the B12. Where I disagree with you is your take on the SEC, it's not what you are making it out to be.

I think the SEC has improved and always has plenty of talent/athleticism. But I think they've fallen short in coaching over the years. They have a handful of solid coaches now. Hence the improvement. But there's no logical reason to think the SEC will be stronger than the Big 12 in basketball soon. Could it happen? Of course. But why would you expect that?

You mentioned there were 4 years when KU was a co champion, but you failed to mention that 3 of the 4 of those co championships were shared with Texas (twice) and Oklahoma (once), the two programs you have been shitting on for 2 days.

Come on, dude.....do I really have to explain this again? You're just ****ing with me, right? If the Denver Broncos were joining your team's division next year, would you be intimidated because they used to have Manning and Elway? Good Lord, man.

As far as the mid-majors KU lost to, you tried very hard to put dresses on those turds, but the bottom line is, those teams KU lost to, didn't do squat after beating KU.

Northern Iowa lost their next game to Michigan State

Bradley beat Pitt, but then got smoked by Memphis

Bucknell lost to Wisconsin in their next game.

Wichita State lost by 11 to Notre Dame in the next round.

I mean, at least Saint Peters and Kansas State made it to the E8 after beating UK.

I'm just pointing out facts. I think KU should have won most or all of those games. But K should've beaten Lehigh and Mercer too. Wright shouldn't have been bounced in the 2nd round as a 1 seed every other year. Shit happens in the tourney. No one goes to the Final Four every year and no one avoids upsets.

If you think I'm trying to paint any of those midmajors out to be powerhouses, I'm not. We all know how this works. Those teams usually have one great effort in them, and then they generally get exposed in the second game of the weekend.

Northern Iowa losing to a top 10ish Mich St team shouldn't be a surprise. Doesn't mean they didn't deserve their Kenpom rating. And yes, KU should have beaten them. That KU team was very talented and deep. That was the most disappointing loss in the Self era.

Bradley was #25 per Kenpom, with a couple NBA bigs on the roster, and they beat a really green 4 seed. Again, that's a game I'd expect Self to win (and I doubt it would happen now), but it wasn't the most shocking upset ever.

Trashing KU for losing to Wichita St is ignorant though. That was a 30-win team, with a core group that was the freaking #1 overall seed the year before, for God's sake. They were #13 on Kenpom and KU was #12. At that point in the season, especially with some injuries mounting, they were just the better team. And a good team. Let's not forget that the ND team that beat them also had Kentucky's most talented team ever on the ropes in the Elite 8.

I have no excuses for the Bucknell game. That was the one legitimately shitty team that Self lost to in the tourney. Langford wasn't healthy and he killed them that day. But I think they should've been able to overcome that to beat a team like Bucknell. On the last play, Simien caught a perfect baseball pass for an open look from the FT line to win it. Couldn't believe he missed.

Keep in mind that Self has evolved as a coach and hasn't lost to a weak team in the tourney in a long time.

 

[ExitFlagger]

^^^He's never gonna get it that a team not named Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida or Auburn winning the SEC championship in football would be a monumental event.

As always, context is kinda important, isn't it?

No one said it wouldn't be a big deal for Kentucky to win the SEC. We're comparing it to winning TWENTY STRAIGHT BIG 12 titles.

 

[kyjeff1]

If you've actually read what I posted, you'd see that I've made my position very clear and been consistent. Texas was good for a decade under Barnes. Barnes is not there anymore. Oklahoma had some good years under Tubbs and Sampson, and a few under Kruger. They have not been that good in recent years. What is complicated about this?



So does that mean you're extremely unimpressed that Kentucky hasn't won half as many league titles as KU in that span, despite being in a league that's widely considered the lesser conference, with zero programs that are even close to top shelf? Using your logic, you definitely should be.



Holy shit....you just keep doubling down on it. While calling ME the homer. I love it. 🤣

On average, Kentucky faces 1, maybe 2 ranked teams in the East division each year. Right now, there are two consistently top tier programs in the SEC. And Kentucky plays Alabama, what, once every three years? It's not quite the gauntlet that you homers make it out to be. Kentucky's had two teams that won 10 games vs that crazy gauntlet in recent years, right? So you're saying that, to take that a slight step further and win a couple more games would be a bigger achievement than winning a very good basketball league 20 times in a row. Sweet Mother of Mary. 😂




LOL. It's not a huge advantage when they have to play every opponent ON THE ROAD too. So poor Kentucky is at a severe disadvantage because they MIGHT occasionally have to play a top league opponent on the road without a return game? Opponents that, btw, haven't done shit in the tourney in that span? And didja forget that Kentucky sometimes gets the fortune of landing those teams at home too? Are you just going to keep leaving out that detail? Kinda cancels it out, doesn't it? Not to mention that KU plays far more games vs quality teams. Last year alone, 11 of KU's 18 conference games were against ranked teams. Kentucky had 3.

Literally no one on the planet outside of SEC country would make this argument.

Couple things:

Who cares that UK was in a weaker league, the NCAAT has nothing to do with league play.

If you sit down and think about it, I'm not being a homer when I say UK football winning the SEC would be a bigger accomplishment. If you actually think about it, I'm literally saying that UK's football program is not good enough to win the SEC and that KU's basketball program is unsurprisingly good enough to win the BIG12 14 times in the row… .I was actually shitting on UK and complimenting KU. I thought this was obvious, but I guess not.

I have literally stated the following:
-The BIG12 is better than the SEC
-KU is a great program
-Self > Cal
-It's not surprising that KU could win the B12 14 straight years
-UK football is not very good.

Yet you still call me a homer as you argue every single point that MIGHT make KU and Self less than elite. Out of the 2 of us, I am not the homer.

 

[kyjeff1]

^^^He's never gonna get it that a team not named Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida or Auburn winning the SEC championship in football would be a monumental event.

He obviously doesn't know shit about college football.


Check that, he doesn't know shit about anytning outside of the BIG12. He’s a huge conference homer.

 

[kyjeff1]

I think the SEC has improved and always has plenty of talent/athleticism. But I think they've fallen short in coaching over the years. They have a handful of solid coaches now. Hence the improvement. But there's no logical reason to think the SEC will be stronger than the Big 12 in basketball soon. Could it happen? Of course. But why would you expect that?



Come on, dude.....do I really have to explain this again? You're just ****ing with me, right? If the Denver Broncos were joining your team's division next year, would you be intimidated because they used to have Manning and Elway? Good Lord, man.



I'm just pointing out facts. I think KU should have won most or all of those games. But K should've beaten Lehigh and Mercer too. Wright shouldn't have been bounced in the 2nd round as a 1 seed every other year. Shit happens in the tourney. No one goes to the Final Four every year and no one avoids upsets.

If you think I'm trying to paint any of those midmajors out to be powerhouses, I'm not. We all know how this works. Those teams usually have one great effort in them, and then they generally get exposed in the second game of the weekend.

Northern Iowa losing to a top 10ish Mich St team shouldn't be a surprise. Doesn't mean they didn't deserve their Kenpom rating. And yes, KU should have beaten them. That KU team was very talented and deep. That was the most disappointing loss in the Self era.

Bradley was #25 per Kenpom, with a couple NBA bigs on the roster, and they beat a really green 4 seed. Again, that's a game I'd expect Self to win (and I doubt it would happen now), but it wasn't the most shocking upset ever.

Trashing KU for losing to Wichita St is ignorant though. That was a 30-win team, with a core group that was the freaking #1 overall seed the year before, for God's sake. They were #13 on Kenpom and KU was #12. At that point in the season, especially with some injuries mounting, they were just the better team. And a good team. Let's not forget that the ND team that beat them also had Kentucky's most talented team ever on the ropes in the Elite 8.

I have no excuses for the Bucknell game. That was the one legitimately shitty team that Self lost to in the tourney. Langford wasn't healthy and he killed them that day. But I think they should've been able to overcome that to beat a team like Bucknell. On the last play, Simien caught a perfect baseball pass for an open look from the FT line to win it. Couldn't believe he missed.

Keep in mind that Self has evolved as a coach and hasn't lost to a weak team in the tourney in a long time.

Yes, I do believe the SEC will be better than the BIG12 very soon, y'all have a bunch of mid major programs coming in. Right now, your strength is the fact the league doesn't have any bottom feeders, well, you're about to and when Sampson retires, it will really hurt the league.

You just did it again, you're trying to make those mid major teams something they weren't. I don't care that Wichita State was the #1 overall seed in 2014, that doesn't mean dick in 2015, especially when they get stroked the game after they beat KU. You shoukd be embarrassed, should I say 2016 UK was great, because the 2015 team went 38-1?

Out of the 4 mid major upset losses, only 1 of those teams won a game after beating KU, face it, they weren't very good, is what it is.

You talk about the 14 straight BIG12 titles, but then, when I talk about the competition KU played during that streak, you tell me to talk about what's happening now and not 10 years ago. Makes no sense. During that 14 year run, Texas and Oklahoma were KU's biggest challengers, that’s very true. While they have been down, they are still power 5 programs and the BIG12 is replacing them with a bunch of mid majors and an overrated Arizona. That’s the point I'm making. Yeah, Houston is very good right now, but watch what happens when Sampson leaves. Cincinnati sucks, TCU is meh, BYU (seriously?), Colorado (do they even play basketball there?), Arizona State, Utah… .I mean come on man, just invite Portland state and get it over with.

How you think this improves the BIG12, is crazy to me. Cincinnati, BYU, Colorado and Arizona state are going to kill the strength of that conference.

 

[ExitFlagger]

So if you could sleep through it---Good to go. But if ya had to watch at---Pass?

What ****ing sense does that even make?

Several STRAIGHT losing seasons? Ollie had losing records his last two years---Hurley his first. Since Jim left in 2012, UConn has had 3 losing seasons: 2017, 18 and 19. 3 losing seasons in 11 years, isn't several straight.

"Brag about one statistic"?---Even if that ONE statistic is 5 fuking national titles? For you its better to brg about being good every year, making the NCAAT, and winning a bunch of conference titles? Okie, doke. UConn missed 9 NCAAT's---Kansas in that span lost 8X's in the first or second round---Whts the huge difference?

Yes I would take every bit of what Uconn has endured, to have 5 more natty's---Absolutely without a ****ing doubt.

Not sure why you're getting heated over this. It's a friggin' opinion. I've already said that if I could rub a lamp and trade titles with Uconn during that span, I would. What more do you want?

Btw, three is several, by definition.

My point was that there are two ways to look at this. Do you just want to be able to brag today about winning 5 titles in 25 years, or would you actually prefer to live through all those years? How long does the shine last after a title? Not really that long, especially for a casual. And if you’re not a casual, then you’re gonna really struggle through 3 straight losing seasons and 1 tourney win in 8 years. Let’s be honest…everyone forgot that UConn existed for nearly a decade. Hence, no fan presence online, even though every other top program is well-represented (and UConn used to be as well under Calhoun). The difference in titles is a few
games played over 25 years. When KU has a tough tourney loss, it stings. But it would sting a lot more to know you’re out of the race before it begins year after year. I’m the kind of fan that watches every minute of every game, and follows recruiting news and other news year round. I’m not the type who just shows up for the Final Four.

 

[kyjeff1]

The shine on 5 titles in 25 years last a hell of a lot longer than the shine of 2 titles and some good years, that’s for damn sure.

 

[ExitFlagger]

The shine on 5 titles in 25 years last a hell of a lot longer than the shine of 2 titles and some good years, that’s for damn sure.

You guys spent years bragging about Calipari's "dominance," before losing your damn minds and reaching for the pitchforks after one shitty year. Less than a decade removed from a nat'l title. I'd love to see your reaction after three straight losing seasons and 1 tourney win in an 8 year span.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Couple things:

Who cares that UK was in a weaker league, the NCAAT has nothing to do with league play.

Who said it did?

If you sit down and think about it, I'm not being a homer when I say UK football winning the SEC would be a bigger accomplishment. If you actually think about it, I'm literally saying that UK's football program is not good enough to win the SEC and that KU's basketball program is unsurprisingly good enough to win the BIG12 14 times in the row… .I was actually shitting on UK and complimenting KU. I thought this was obvious, but I guess not.


I have literally stated the following:
-The BIG12 is better than the SEC
-KU is a great program
-Self > Cal
-It's not surprising that KU could win the B12 14 straight years
-UK football is not very good.

Yet you still call me a homer as you argue every single point that MIGHT make KU and Self less than elite. Out of the 2 of us, I am not the homer.

LOL. Sure, you're not a homer at all. Kentucky winning a few more football games than they did two years ago would be a bigger achievement than winning 20 straight Big 12 titles. Nothing homerish about that take. And Texas and OU are currently better programs than Arizona and Houston. I'm sure a lot of people would back you up on that one. Or claiming that Kentucky was just as good as KU throughout the streak, which included the BCG years and NIT seasons.

So do you think that Kentucky winning twenty straight SEC basketball titles would be a lesser achievement than one SEC football title?

After all, you acknowledge that the B12 is better than the SEC, and acknowledge that the SEC has no one else that's close to Kentucky's level as a program.....so why aren't they piling up the titles? And if they did win 14 in a row, it wouldn't be impressive, right? After all, you're not impressed by a 14 year run in an admittedly better league.

 

[ExitFlagger]

He obviously doesn't know shit about college football.


Check that, he doesn't know shit about anytning outside of the BIG12. He’s a huge conference homer.

The irony here is just too damn much. Holy shit.... 😂

 

[kyjeff1]

You guys spent years bragging about Calipari's "dominance," before losing your damn minds and reaching for the pitchforks after one shitty year. Less than a decade removed from a nat'l title. I'd love to see your reaction after three straight losing seasons and 1 tourney win in an 8 year span.

Not sure what this has to do with the shine of 5 national titles vs 2, but okay.

Here's the thing, UConn has done it with three different coaches. Calhoun more than proved his worth, after his first 2 titles, he could lose all his games the next 2 years and he would have been fine.

Kevin Ollie won a title, then shit the bed and got replaced, not much for fans to bitch about really, not even UK fans.

Now they have Hurley, he just earned the right to suck for a while.

5 national titles in 25 years will quiet any fanbase.

1 national title, 2 missed tournaments, worst season in program history and worst NCAAT loss in program history, all while being the highest paid coach with 10 times the NBA talent as the next best program, is a whole different story.

If Cal had more than 1 title, the BBN wouldn’t be on his ass so much, but he has shit the bed way too many times now.

The 2 situations are not the same.

 

[kyjeff1]

Who said it did?



LOL. Sure, you're not a homer at all. Kentucky winning a few more football games than they did two years ago would be a bigger achievement than winning 20 straight Big 12 titles. Nothing homerish about that take. And Texas and OU are currently better programs than Arizona and Houston. I'm sure a lot of people would back you up on that one. Or claiming that Kentucky was just as good as KU throughout the streak, which included the BCG years and NIT seasons.

So do you think that Kentucky winning twenty straight SEC basketball titles would be a lesser achievement than one SEC football title?

After all, you acknowledge that the B12 is better than the SEC, and acknowledge that the SEC has no one else that's close to Kentucky's level as a program.....so why aren't they piling up the titles? And if they did win 14 in a row, it wouldn't be impressive, right? After all, you're not impressed by a 14 year run in an admittedly better league.

And around and around we go.

You said:
"Kentucky winning a few more football games than they did two years ago would be a bigger achievement than winning 20 straight Big 12 titles."
You do realize that the "few more games" you are talking about, would be against Georgia, Florida, Alabama aTm, LSU and Auburn, right?

Yes, it definitely would be more impressive and it's not close. That’s not a homerish take, not when the SEC has owned college football for the last 20 years.

Yes, if UK won 20 straight SEC basketball championships, I would not be as impressed than I would be with that one football championship.

Part of the reason would be, if UK won 20 straight, then it's not about UK being that great (unless they won multiple titles and had a bunch of deep tourney runs), it more than likely means the league sucked and since nobody in the BIG12 did anything in the NCAAT during that 14 game streak, it tells me the league just wasn't that good. Hate to break it to you, but that's what it means.

The level of competition in SEC football is ten times better than it is in BIG12 and SEC basketball, it just is, so therefore, if you win an SEC football championship, it's more impressive, especially when you're a lower tiered program like UK.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Yes, I do believe the SEC will be better than the BIG12 very soon, y'all have a bunch of mid major programs coming in. Right now, your strength is the fact the league doesn't have any bottom feeders, well, you're about to and when Sampson retires, it will really hurt the league.

Cool. You keep droning on about the impending retirement of a coach who just signed an extension a few months ago, in a discussion about the next few years. Didn't you say "that status will change very soon?" Or were you talking about a few decades down the line?

How many national analysts do you think would back up this take? How many do you think would agree that Houston is just a lowly midmajor that's only had deep tourney runs due to playing in a weak league? How many do you think would agree that OU and Texas are better programs currently and historically than AZ? I'll tell you: zero.

You just did it again, you're trying to make those mid major teams something they weren't. I don't care that Wichita State was the #1 overall seed in 2014, that doesn't mean dick in 2015, especially when they get stroked the game after they beat KU. You shoukd be embarrassed, should I say 2016 UK was great, because the 2015 team went 38-1?

I should be embarrassed for saying that the #13 team on Kenpom, which included several core players from the #1 overall seed the year before, wasn't a shitty team. Okay, dude. I'm embarrassed!!

Out of the 4 mid major upset losses, only 1 of those teams won a game after beating KU, face it, they weren't very good, is what it is.

You talk about the 14 straight BIG12 titles, but then, when I talk about the competition KU played during that streak, you tell me to talk about what's happening now and not 10 years ago. Makes no sense. During that 14 year run, Texas and Oklahoma were KU's biggest challengers, that’s very true. While they have been down, they are still power 5 programs and the BIG12 is replacing them with a bunch of mid majors and an overrated Arizona. That’s the point I'm making. Yeah, Houston is very good right now, but watch what happens when Sampson leaves. Cincinnati sucks, TCU is meh, BYU (seriously?), Colorado (do they even play basketball there?), Arizona State, Utah… .I mean come on man, just invite Portland state and get it over with.

How you think this improves the BIG12, is crazy to me. Cincinnati, BYU, Colorado and Arizona state are going to kill the strength of that conference.

It's very simple. Two of the teams coming in are better programs than the two going out. Not that complex. If you disagree, you either don't follow basketball or you're delusional.

Not sure how adding some middling programs along with them is supposed to kill the league and make them inferior to the SEC. The SEC already has a bunch of schools at their level or worse.

More teams just means more potential depth. And many of the teams coming in have been in the tourney somewhat frequently. Say there were 9 tourney teams, rather than the usual 6 or 7, but a few weak teams at the bottom that weren't there before. Somehow that's a worse league to you?

KU, Baylor, Houston and Arizona are all perennial top 10ish programs right now. How many does the SEC have? Zero?

 

[JC for 3]

You guys spent years bragging about Calipari's "dominance," before losing your damn minds and reaching for the pitchforks after one shitty year. Less than a decade removed from a nat'l title. I'd love to see your reaction after three straight losing seasons and 1 tourney win in an 8 year span.

"I don't make generalized statements." --EF

 

[ExitFlagger]

And around and around we go.

You said:
"Kentucky winning a few more football games than they did two years ago would be a bigger achievement than winning 20 straight Big 12 titles."
You do realize that the "few more games" you are talking about, would be against Georgia, Florida, Alabama aTm, LSU and Auburn, right?

Yes, it definitely would be more impressive and it's not close. That’s not a homerish take, not when the SEC has owned college football for the last 20 years.

Sweet Jesus. I'd love to see you find one non-SEC homer to back up that take. 😂

Yes, if UK won 20 straight SEC basketball championships, I would not be as impressed than I would be with that one football championship.

Part of the reason would be, if UK won 20 straight, then it's not about UK being that great (unless they won multiple titles and had a bunch of deep tourney runs), it more than likely means the league sucked and since nobody in the BIG12 did anything in the NCAAT during that 14 game streak, it tells me the league just wasn't that good. Hate to break it to you, but that's what it means.

I guess you didn't read the post in which I pointed out that the three other teams that won the Big 12 outright all went to the Final Four, and two to the title game. And the long list of Final 4/Elite 8 teams from the Big 12 during those years. You're right, though....they're just playing scrubs night in and night out. Good call.

Btw, Alabama's dominated the SEC. They won 7 conference titles in 10 years. They've actually won a higher percentage of outright conference titles than Self has in the Big 12. Doesn't that mean it's overrated? Just trying to stay consistent with your logic.