Helms Titles
- Thread starter Five Nattys
- Start date
Maybe don't cheat and that won't happen.
Unlike Helms, the NCAA is an organization that has rules every program has to abide by and KU got caught.
You can cry about it and say the NCAA was wrong, but you would be incorrect. The proof has been laid out for you and everyone else, to see.
I'm not surprised you compared Helms titles to getting caught cheating. Never change homer, never change.
I’m not crying. I’m laughing, per usual.
“Every program has to abide by.” 😂
And yet, somehow, KU gets charged for discussing the demands of a player that went to Duke, while Duke is allowed to “self investigate.” That’s almost as funny as your Hagans take.
Who beat Duke to go to the final four in 2018? I remember it pretty clearly. But according to you, it never happened. Weird.
Ranting about fake titles while beating your chests about a fake advantage in wins. Never change. 😂
What are you basing this on? And what is modern?
Doesn't KU have an NCAA title from 1952?
When they adopted the current tourney format. '85-present. I was baiting, but it's true that those titles don't equate to modern titles. For several reasons.
There were only 8 teams in the field in the early days of the tourney. It took half as many wins to be national champs. Only conference winners were invited. A lot of the best teams in the nation didn't participate. The NIT was considered a more prestigious tourney in those days and often had a better group of teams. A lot of teams chose the NIT over the NCAA until the 70s.
And?
From the late 40s to the 70s (time period you gave above), UK has 5 NCAA championships and 2 NIT championships...KU has one combined (you can correct me if I am wrong).
How do you value that? You make it way too simplistic...
I've never denied that Kentucky had more success during that period. My point has always been: would you rather have an advantage in the 40s/50s or presently and over the last 40+ years? That covers my entire lifetime, but goofs want us to feel inferior because Kentucky won more NCAA titles 80 years ago when it wasn't even the most prestigious tourney.
What am I making too simplistic? And what could be more simplistic than the standard Kentucky retort of "8>4?"🤣
I mean, Kansas is inferior to UK...and Duke, and UNC, and UCLA...I couldn't care less if fans of those teams (or goofs as you say) want KU fans to feel inferior about KUs place...KU is inferior, and those are straight up facts.
You may have missed my point/question...you are downplaying the NCAA tourney back in the 40s through the 70s, b/c according to you it was less prestigious than the NIT. Well UK has two NIT titles as well, so how do you go about making a judgment call on how those should be weighted? How do you view UKs 1978 championship over Duke?
I never gave any retort about 8>4...unless you are referring to someone else.
UConn has won 5 championships in the last 25 years...would you rather have that "modern" history or KUs? Since you seem to put so much weight on modern performance, UConn is a better program, no?
Facts? LOL. Those are called opinions, champ. Using the same logic, I could say "Alabama football is inferior to Yale." Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it? Just like it's dumb to claim to be superior to a program that's won 6 of the last 8, 3 of the last 4 in Rupp, with more tourney wins and titles this century, and more overall success in the last 4 decades. Try were superior. That works a little better.
No KU fan born after 1980 would have any reason to think they're "inferior" to Kentucky without pulling out a history book.
All I've said is that modern titles carry more weight than early NCAA (or NIT) titles. Btw, I'm pretty sure that Kentucky has one NIT championship from when it was the more prestigious event. The other was in the late 70s.
Yeah, I put more weight on the modern era, but I didn't say that titles are the only measure of success. Is UCLA superior to Kentucky all-time?
Naw...all those programs are superior to KU. All the stats back that up (btw good thing history books do exist, don't want my children thinking only 2000-forward matters in life)...
Why do KU fans obsess about just recent history, or just the past couple decades? I have a strong feeling if KU had more championships from the 40s through the 80s, they would let other programs know about it...I haven't encountered fans of any other teams who constantly try to promote only recent accomplishments and denigrate historical accomplishments. Weird to say the least.
Seeing as how UConn has 5 titles since 1999, and KU 2, they are superior to KU...great logic. If I was a UConn fan born in 1999, I wouldn't have any reason to feel inferior to KU. Good to know.
I was actually born in 1986. Since I am a Bulls fan, guess they are superior to every other franchise in NBA history (outside the Lakers). Good to know as well.
Nothing weird about it. It's called common sense. No one would say that an Alabama fan is unreasonable for weighing recent success over Yale's ancient success, would they? Is the logic really that hard for you to see?
And unlike a lot of you, I'm consistent in my stances. For example, I don't talk trash to K-State about football or claim superiority, despite the fact that KU still has a big advantage in all-time stats. It just comes off as silly and pathetic.
You can keep your logic and embrace only 2000 forward, I will keep my logic and embrace everyone's history.
Yale football hasn't won/claimed a national title since 1927 yet this dumbass keeps comparing them to UK basketball.
On the contrary, Yale has not had any success past the early 1900s, that is an automatic disqualifier. Alabama has had sustained success in almost every decade, the mark of a marquis program.
If UK had 8 championships all from the 40s and 50s, similar to UCLA in 60s and 70s, then of course they could not be considered as the greatest of all time.
But because of their sustained success through each decade, most people think they are. That's why I look at the totality, not just recent history. If it was up to you, you would have to take UConn as a superior program to KU...I do not though, because I take the totality of a programs accomplishments.
Yale football hasn't won/claimed a national title since 1927 yet this dumbass keeps comparing them to UK basketball.
So 100 years ago = irrelevant, but 80 years ago = just as relevant as today. Do I have that right, timeframer? 🤣
You're comparing a program that won all of their championships prior to 1927 and has had no success since to a program that won in the 40s, 50s, 70s, 90s, and 2010s. Great comparison afamu jr. You continue to wow the board with such intelligent posts.
Thanks for clarifying the rules. Is there a book of qualifiers I can reference?
Yale is obviously an extreme example, but frankly it shouldn't matter. I'm told by UK fans that timeframing's unacceptable and only all-time stats matter. Since we're suddenly okay with timeframing, at what point do accomplishments become irrelevant? Is there a specific cutoff point?
If you want another example, how about a Utah fan looking down on Gonzaga b-ball? Their all time numbers are better, but something tells me a Gonzaga fan would laugh at the idea that they're inferior to Utah.
Again, the KU-UConn comparison isn't a good one. No matter what timeframe you look at, UConn only checks one box when compared to KU. And if that one box is all that matters, then UCLA is the best program of all time by a pretty comfortable margin.
You apparently define "sustained success" as nat'l titles when referring to UCLA, KU, etc, but not Kentucky. What did Kentucky do in the 2000s? Didn't even reach a final four. They were pretty average in the 80s, haven't done anything so far this decade, weren't that good over their first 30 years, etc.
You say that UCLA "of course" can't be considered the GOAT because too much of their success is confined to a few decades. Well...Kentucky won as many titles in a 10 year span in the 40s/50s as they've won in almost 70 years since. A big chunk of your success is from one coach and one era too.
UCLA's been to the final four in six different decades and won titles in three decades. They were winning at a high level 100 years ago and are again in recent years. Who's to say their success isn't spread out enough? And even if they fall a little short in consistency, who's to say that having three more titles and more final fours doesn't make up for it?
Cracks me up that you guys think you make the rules, and the rules are obvious and everybody has to abide by them.
I've literally never heard anyone but a Kentucky fan claim that the modern era isn't relevant. Such a funny and sad argument made by people who can't stand to see other programs get attention or notoriety. Look at the top of this board and you'll see an all-time ranking and a modern era ranking. Believe it or not, they can co-exist. Spoiler...those rankings weren't created by a KU fan. One UK fan literally threw a tantrum because someone had the gall to create a modern era ranking. 🤣
That childish "we deserve it all" mentality is why your fans catch crap and deservedly so.
But at the end of the day, when deciding which program "is" better, all it really comes down to is the current coach and state of the program. To say that KU is inferior to Kentucky is to say that Self is inferior to Calipari, and that's laughable.
Last edited:
Oh goodie, another reference to football. What does that have to do with basketball?
Is there a book of qualifiers I can reference?
Yeah, it's in the library… non-fiction section. It’s called "Common sense".
Oh, I don't lose any sleep over it. I know that those games happened. I was just correcting an inaccurate statement.
Last edited:
Well, I'm glad you know those games happened, unlike all the games UK has played, some of KU's don't count.
If it was reversed and UK lost those wins, you would be jackin' off all over this board just thinking about it.
Nothing gets you harder than something bad happening to UK.
You should charge the BBN rent for the large amount of time we own your mind.
Well, I'm not the one asking questions that only require common sense to answer.
Seems to be a common theme with you KU guys.
Why is over half your post ranting about UK fans? Who cares that much about another team's fans?
And I never defined sustained success as titles only, not even close to saying that.
I am not going to address everything you said, cause you are too ate up with UK fans, very odd to say the least.
I will address your last paragraph, where you say when it comes down to deciding which program is better, it comes down to the current coach and state of program. That is beyond ridiculous. The better program is based upon historical achievements throughout the life of the program, not your current coach/state of the program. You have lost credibility dude, sorry. Not one person who follows college athletics would ever agree with or affirm that statement.
Last edited:
LOL
Even if I actually were what you described, so what? Your entire fanbase is ate up with KU.
About 10 Kentucky posters were crying about the TCU game the second it ended. They never miss a chance to take shots. Can't imagine what RR looked like. Why do these clowns even care so much about a team that isn't in their conference?🤣
Last edited:
Little bit of an exaggeration, but it's because you're spouting the same nonsense that I see often from your tribe. You make generalizations about KU fans, but it's weird or obsessive for me to do it? Typical whiney victim BS.
Like I said, I've never heard anyone but a UK fan claim that modern era stats are irrelevant. It's just an attempt to spin everything in your favor and downplay the mediocrity of recent years.
The current state of a program and its history are two very different things. Not sure what's so complicated about this. The fact that Rupp won a bunch of games a million years ago didn't help Gillispie win, did it?
Last edited:
Where did I ever say that modern era stats are irrelevant? Why do you keep making things up that I never said?
And if there are UK fans that say that, they are idiots.
You clearly said the better program comes down to the current coach/state of the program. You said that. That is categorically wrong, as would any follower of college athletics say the same thing.
The better program takes into consideration all the accomplishments through the life of the program, which guess what, includes modern era accomplishments as well....(see!!!! the modern era is not irrelevant, which you keep claiming I am saying, which I clearly I am not).
Congrats on KU having a better 5 year stretch than UK. Good for KU and its fans. But under no circumstances does that make KU a better program than UK. Those are just facts that not one person would disagree with...except you apparently.
We all know who the top program all time is and that's UK, damn the modern era shit, timeframing and all that. IMO UNC is closer to UK followed by duke.
Had KU, UNC, duke or whoever won titles back in the 40's and 50's fans of those teams would of been pumping them up just like UK fans are and deservedly so.
UNC hangs a Helms banner for the undefeated 1924 team. Recognizing Helms titles is good but they're not titles so whoever claims them as titles is crazy. Any school that has a Helms title should hang a banner for that and opposing fans who have a problem with that should get a life.
Had KU, UNC, duke or whoever won titles back in the 40's and 50's fans of those teams would of been pumping them up just like UK fans are and deservedly so.
UNC hangs a Helms banner for the undefeated 1924 team. Recognizing Helms titles is good but they're not titles so whoever claims them as titles is crazy. Any school that has a Helms title should hang a banner for that and opposing fans who have a problem with that should get a life.
UNC has the best claim other than UK of being the top program of all time...if UNC would have held on against KU back in 2022, I would probably put them ahead of UK...
Would have 7 titles with the 21 final fours...that is flippin impressive. Not to mention the great head to head UNC has against UK, and are only 30 some wins all time behind UK, but that is with playing in a conference traditionally more challenging then the SEC.
Yes, the better current program is the one with the better current coach and more recent success. What a crazy statement, right?
Not sure what's so difficult to understand about differentiating between current state of a program and the past.
They've had a better 40 year stretch. That's half of the entire history of the tourney. There's a reason that Kentucky's success slowed down when the modern format started, despite getting all the talent in recent years. It's far more difficult to win titles now.
I have no problem with saying that. Has any Kentucky fan ever admitted that they're not the best in the modern era?
We're not the best in @dukedevilz modern-era rankings. Pretty close but not the best.
Now you have it.
I've had that debate with you before and admitted they weren't.
