I’m 8 months. The girlfriend is 7
Helms Titles
- Thread starter Five Nattys
- Start date
Here you go, I just randomly picked one out. You are literally arguing that KU has an argument about being the top blue blood, because they have more recent titles and UK's titles from the 40's don't mean as much. you have tried to make this argument in multiple posts. Only a dipshit homer would try to argue this point.
Now, let's watch you homer your way out of it.
…… .
Exitflagger:
Okay, I take it back. You clearly don't know the difference between fact and opinion. 🤣
It's a fact that Kentucky has better numbers in some areas and more titles. It's an opinion that this combination of numbers makes them the "better" program. Rocket science it ain't.
Well, that's nice. Most people do care about accomplishments that occur in their lifetime.
It's hilarious that you guys will rant for days about claiming fake titles, while claiming a fake advantage in wins. That's so Rafters. 🤣
You think I'm the only one out of 1000 who would choose to be a KU fan over Kentucky right now? LOL. Sure, if their priority is to be able to brag about having more ancient titles that they never saw and never will. But I think there are plenty of people who'd love to have Self over Calipari, Allen Fieldhouse over Rupp, more modern era success, more consistency, no losing seasons or NIT appearances in their lifetime, most tourney wins this century, etc.
That's like saying no one would choose to be a Chiefs fan over the Packers.
Kentucky has the same # of infractions as KU in the modern era (actually more by your definition of modern era) and one fewer all-time. They got their money's worth with that late 70s case too. Packed about 15 charges into that one.
Keep throwing stones and proving that my generalizations are spot on. It's hilarious that the two of you try to distance yourself from RR. Just embrace it. You're exactly like the rest of those clowns.
…… .
I meam, a normal.person would chuckle and say "yeah, you got me". But right now, you're telling yourself to "hold my beer".
You have been arguing it for multiple pages man. But here us a quote from you that was right at the top of my last post:
Exitflagger:
Okay, I take it back. You clearly don't know the difference between fact and opinion. 🤣
It's a fact that Kentucky has better numbers in some areas and more titles. It's an opinion that this combination of numbers makes them the "better" program. Rocket science it ain't.
Kentucky Basketball is the all-time No. 1 team in the history of the AP Poll
No one has historically been better than Kentucky Basketball.www.aseaofblue.com
That’s called explaining the difference between fact and opinion. Not once did I say that KU’s #1 all time or in the modern era. I even specifically said I’m fine with ranking Kentucky #1 all time.
One of us is clueless, but it’s not me.
Why am I not surprised to see this response?
You were literally arguing that KU was the top blue blood program because of some recent title bullshit and titles from the 40's aren't as impressive. Just stop.
This is a prime example of why I ask you to prove your BS claims. I wonder what your perception would be if you didn't have a reading disability? 😆
I did prove my claims, I only had to go back a few posts on this page to find everything I needed to more than prove what I am saying and you STILL don't get it.
LOL. Yeah, that's gotta be it.
You have the smugness of Einstein combined with awful reading comprehension. On top of it, you try to tell people what they mean by their own comments. And you wonder why people like you catch shit. 🤣
Dude kept repeating that it's a "fact" that KU's history is inferior to UK's, UNC's, etc. I just pointed out that's an opinion, not a fact. You can support an opinion with facts, but that doesn't make an opinion fact. Pointing out that an opinion isn't fact doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with the opinion. If that doesn't clear it up for you, then it's hopeless.
There's a reason I practically begged you to quote me. Because I know you're not going to find what you're looking for without twisting or misinterpreting it. Aaaand I was right.
Last edited:
There are multiple people telling you the same thing and you refuse to listen. Literally nobody is telling me anything that you have said about me. Get a clue.
Everyone on this board knows what you are, some have tried to tell you, but you fight to the death to deny it, but you're such a big homer that even your defensive posts are homerish.
Yeah, one or two of your fellow Kentucky homers don't like what I post. Isn't that shocking?🤣
People tell you that you're full of shit all the time. Hell, I just saw it in another thread. I'm sure more would but they're too polite.
To quote that other guy (who was it?), you're one clueless SOB. 🤣
Dude who can't understand simple concepts feels sorry for me. Can't make it up. 😆
No, that’s not what I said.
The beginning of your second paragraph says otherwise.
Dude, I've spent the last several posts explaining this. I don't know how else to put it.
I hear you but that's what I and alot of others see when they read that. Everyone has an opinion and the consensus is it's UK, UNC, duke, KU, that's all time.
Breaking it down to other categories like Modern era is pointless to me but hey, that's my opinion but I'm not going to argue any point if I don't see a realistic way in proving it.
It's been a minute for UK when it comes to winning a title but KU has some serious droughts in between titles as well. KU won titles in 1952, 1988, 2003, 2012. runner up 6 times. 36 years between the first and second title, 15 for the next one, 9 after that.
KU is a blue blood but when it comes to ranking them they're 4th at best all time. If you want to break it down to other categories like modern era, decades etc handle your business but IMO that's splitting hairs.
Last edited:
Good post. Although as a minor correction (which would actually enhance your point about droughts)...KU has won titles in 1952, 1988, 2008, and 2022.
The entire point was that opinions can't be facts, even if 99.9% of the world agreed with those opinions. It's like saying "it's a fact that Jack Nicholson's a better actor than Marlon Brando" because he's won more Oscars. You can support that opinion with facts, but it will always be an opinion.
But while we're on the subject, there are a lot of factors to consider if you're really trying to determine which programs have consistently been the best throughout 120+ years of college basketball. Strength of conference/competition, changes in the game/tourney format throughout the years, unpredictability of a one and done tourney, etc.
The tourney didn't even begin until 40+ years after the first games were played. If we only focus on tourney results, that throws a third of CBB history out the window. Who were the "best" teams during those decades and how do we determine they were the best? And winning a title in the 40s just isn't the same as winning it today. A lot of the best teams in the country either weren't invited to the NCAA tourney in those days or they chose to play in the NIT instead. The NIT was considered the more prestigious tourney for awhile. Then you factor in that you only had to compete with 7 other teams vs 67 today. Winning 6 in a row vs all of the top teams in the country is obviously more difficult than winning 3 in a row vs a few semi random teams.
Imagine if we adopted the 40s format today. So we suddenly have an 8 team tourney instead of 68. And let's say that Tennessee and Kentucky both finish with the same conference record, but Tennessee wins the tiebreaker and goes to the tourney, leaving Kentucky out of the field. Tennessee wins three games against a field that doesn't include several top 10 teams and they're awarded national champs. Do you think Kentucky fans would consider Tennessee's title equal to their 2012 title? I don't think we need to ponder that one very long. 🤣
Then you have to consider that not every win or run is equal. 2021 Gonzaga didn't win the title but I think they have the 2nd highest rating in Kenpom history. Is 2014 UConn automatically a "better" team because they won it all? They were 15th on Kenpom in that year alone. Was '88 KU a better team than 2015 Kentucky?
But like I've said, I have no problem with ranking Kentucky #1 all time. Or having UNC above KU. Duke? I don't think there's a consensus at all that their history is better. Even dukedevilz' ranking has KU ranked above them. And you could make a pretty strong argument that UCLA's history is better than any of them.
Last edited:
See, the problem with your argument is the first paragraph. Example...the entire world says Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than Steve Kerr, and they cite all the historical evidence of both their playing careers; however, I say Steve Kerr is a better player.
By using your exact logic from your first paragraph, it cannot be a fact that MJ is better than Kerr, regardless of all the factual evidence, because 100% of people giving their opinion do not agree. See how ridiculous that logic is?
Kansas is a historically inferior program to UNC and UK. Those are the facts, and your opinion does not hold any weight when it is clearly debunked by the facts.
That’s exactly what he's saying, but then, when called out, he denies it. It’s a really fun game he likes to play.
Last edited:
Then why do you constantly say the modern era started in 1985 and claim it as fact?
Can you recite for the class how you came to that conclusion?
What's ridiculous is that some people can't understand the difference between fact and opinion even after it's explained 200 times. Yikes.
Btw....Kentucky is Jordan and KU is Steve Kerr? 😂🤣😂
Not sure how many times I have to say I'm not claiming that KU is #1 all-time or even in the modern era. That should've ended this ridiculous exchange long ago but here we are.
But the secondary point is that this is all subjective. The fact that Kentucky has more NCAA tourney titles is...a fact. The belief that this and/or other facts make them the "better" team historically is opinion.
By your logic, it's a fact that 1988 KU and 2014 UConn were both better teams than 2015 Kentucky. After all, they had the better tournament run and won it all. And if you have a different opinion, it's debunked by facts. According to you.
My take has been consistent. The majority consider '85 the start of the modern era. A smaller percentage would say it was '87 or '80, and a few would say 1975 or some other year.
You tried to claim that no one would agree with me that it started in '85, and that the "real" modern era started in the last decade or something. Which no one agrees with.
Last edited:
Your second and last paragraphs are totally crazy. Why do you try to twist what he's saying to fit your narrative?
But, you said opinion can't be fact. How can both be true?
So, just because the NCAAT structure is the same, that means 1985 is the beginning of the modern era? yeah, no, sorry, that’s garbage. The game is nothing like it was in the 80's. Nothing.
What’s crazy is the Kerr analogy. Comparing two players that were galaxies apart, instead of someone like Kareem or Wilt, is a sorry attempt to make a point.
In the last paragraph, I’m just using his logic. If we determine superiority mainly by adding up titles, that logic says every title winner is superior to every non-title winner. So Danny and the Miracles must be superior to 2015 Kentucky.
The main reason UNC’s history is considered superior to KU’s is 6 titles to 4. Which means the difference between the programs is basically one point in 1957. Wilt scores one more bucket in triple OT…KU and UNC both have 5 titles. Essentially one basket determined that KU’s 120+ teams were collectively inferior to UNC’s.
Point being, there are a lot of factors to consider beyond just a few numbers. Plus it’s hard to compare different eras. For example, every tournament appearance used to be an automatic Elite 8. And obviously implementing the shot clock, 3 point line, no jump ball after a made basket, etc drastically changed the game.
Like I mentioned before, how do we judge the pre-tourney era? How can you ignore a third of basketball history if you’re really trying to determine the best teams of all time?
Again, I’m not saying that KU is # 1 all time or in the modern era, so don’t get it misconstrued. The point was that a) opinions can’t be facts and b) there’s no established formula for such a thing anyway, which makes the “fact” take even more laughable.
Last edited:
I never called it a fact. All I’ve said is that the majority believe it’s 1985. Let me get this straight…we’re supposed to ignore the majority opinion in favor of yours, which nobody agrees with?
‘85 was the beginning of the modern tourney format that’s still in place. Not sure why it’s crazy to start it there.
Two of the three biggest rules changes in history happened between 85 and 86. Shot clock and the 3 point shot. No major rules changes have happened since. Starting the modern era in the mid 80s makes more sense than any time since then.
But you lean on those opinions and treat them as fact.
And I dgaf how many people voted for 1985, to me, the current college game is nothing at all like it was in the 2000's, let alone the 80's.
One-and-done is its own era. NIL is its own era, AAU changed the game and parity is growing with every year. There is no way 1985 is the same as 2023. Y'all are just wrong, simple as that.
But you talk out of both sides of your mouth every time you try to defend yourself and this is just the latest instance.
63 people voted on this board and 54% agree with you. Technically a majority, but I’d be interested in what a bigger data set would bring or if there were more options in the poll since it stops at 1987 and doesn’t have an option for “other”.
I don’t consider it the modern era but that’s just because the game is so vastly different in other rules, style of play, and coaching/recruiting styles. It’s technically not even the modern tournament format since there is now a first 4, but I get it because most people don’t really consider the tournament started until after those games are played.
I didn't realize you were this big of a homer. Your first 3 paragraphs proves that because you throw a bunch of what if's to back up your argument. When has "what if's" proved a point?
In 2012 KU beat UNC in the tourney. The starting back court didn't play in that game, you haven't seen me or any other UNC fan on here say we would won had Marshall and Strickland played. I will say our chances of winning would of been better had they played. Last year you and other KU fans used Self as an excuse because he wasn't on the side line when you lost to Arkansas but if others use a similar excuse you guys would call that person out.
Bottom line is through out this thread you have showned that you are consistently inconsistent when arguing your points. I'm not the only that sees that you call out others for the same exact thing that you do. I know you don't see it but some see what they want to see.
