Helms Titles

[ExitFlagger]

You’re seriously comparing the stone age to a sports era? How stupid is that?

Where did I say I think there should be 5 eras? While there can't be an era for every change, you can't just act like 2023 is the same game as 1985.

One-and-done is an era. NIL is an era. I get it, the introduction of the 3 point shot, was massive, but so are those other things.

And the introduction of the shot clock. Maybe the biggest change in the history of the game. Basketball was practically keep-away before that.

Nothing that’s happened since comes close to the impact of those rules. On top of it, you have the beginning of the tourney format that’s still in place today, and the seeding process started a few years earlier. Like it or not, there are plenty of good reasons to start the modern era there.

But again…none of this matters. The point was that I’m basing it on common opinion. You're trying to tell me I'm “wrong” for doing that. As if I'm supposed to give the bird to conventional belief and adopt kyjeff's opinion instead. 🤣

If/when someone references "the modern era," it has to be a period that's widely agreed upon. Not just random arbitrary dates in your head. It’s like arguing that somebody’s wrong for referencing the Cretaceous period because you think the timeframe should be different. It is what it is. Whether you or I disagree doesn't matter. Not sure why you can't get this.

 

[cdbearde]

 

[kyjeff1]

Around the start of the year you said he’s better because he’s projected to be drafted. Which is doubly hilarious, because you’re also the guy who constantly reminds everybody that draft stock is meaningless since freshmen are drafted on potential.

I said what??? Man, you twist everything to fit an agenda, so I'm not buying this.
But even if I did say it, Z is a 7'2" forward that can shoot threes. He played on a professional team overseas.
He’s not going to like the physicality of todays college ball, but he’s 7'2" and can shoot. Like, that’s nothing to sneeze at.

 

[kyjeff1]

And the introduction of the shot clock. Maybe the biggest change in the history of the game. Basketball was practically keep-away before that.

Nothing that’s happened since comes close to the impact of those rules. On top of it, you have the beginning of the tourney format that’s still in place today, and the seeding process started a few years earlier. Like it or not, there are plenty of good reasons to start the modern era there.

But again…none of this matters. The point was that I’m basing it on common opinion. You're trying to tell me I'm “wrong” for doing that. As if I'm supposed to give the bird to conventional belief and adopt kyjeff's opinion instead. 🤣

If/when someone references "the modern era," it has to be a period that's widely agreed upon. Not just random arbitrary dates in your head. It’s like arguing that somebody’s wrong for referencing the Cretaceous period because you think the timeframe should be different. It is what it is. Whether you or I disagree doesn't matter. Not sure why you can't get this.

I didn’t read the choices, what were the choices to pick from in that pole?

Sorry, but today's game is 180 degrees different than what is was in 1985. There is no way it's all one era.

 

[mcnicKY91]

I didn’t read the choices, what were the choices to pick from in that pole?

Sorry, but today's game is 180 degrees different than what is was in 1985. There is no way it's all one era.

I would just leave it alone dude.

The fact is UK has won championships in the 40s, 50s, 70s, 90s, and 2010s. UK has more wins than KU, has more final fours than KU, has more tourney wins than KU, and has double the championships as KU. Not to mention UK obliterates KU in the head to head.

KU is a historically inferior program to UK, and UNC as well. Those are undeniable facts that are backed up with evidence.

I am glad that as a UK fan I don't have to waste an inordinate amount of my time clinging to one period of my team's history. I can look back and look at greatness throughout the entirety of UKs history.

 

[FaithPlusOne]

I didn’t read the choices, what were the choices to pick from in that pole?

Sorry, but today's game is 180 degrees different than what is was in 1985. There is no way it's all one era.

I wonder how many head coaches were around then that are still coaching today. I think slick Rick started before the change, but I’m curious of the total. Even he may have been in the NBA at the time before coming back to the college game.

I also wonder how the poll would have been if the posters were given more options, particularly more recent ones.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I said what??? Man, you twist everything to fit an agenda, so I'm not buying this.
But even if I did say it, Z is a 7'2" forward that can shoot threes. He played on a professional team overseas.
He’s not going to like the physicality of todays college ball, but he’s 7'2" and can shoot. Like, that’s nothing to sneeze at.

That’s exactly what you said. But even if I took the time to dig it up, you’d just pretend you were kidding.

You really shouldn’t be accusing anyone of twisting comments to fit an agenda. You flat out lie on the regular and accuse me of shit like defending rape.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I would just leave it alone dude.

The fact is UK has won championships in the 40s, 50s, 70s, 90s, and 2010s. UK has more wins than KU, has more final fours than KU, has more tourney wins than KU, and has double the championships as KU. Not to mention UK obliterates KU in the head to head.

KU is a historically inferior program to UK, and UNC as well. Those are undeniable facts that are backed up with evidence.

I am glad that as a UK fan I don't have to waste an inordinate amount of my time clinging to one period of my team's history. I can look back and look at greatness throughout the entirety of UKs history.

And I’m glad to have Bill Self, Allen Fieldhouse, and more success in my lifetime (which coincides with the modern era). So I guess we’re both content.

Do you actually look back at games from the 40s? Have you ever watched one?

 

[ExitFlagger]

I didn’t read the choices, what were the choices to pick from in that pole?

Sorry, but today's game is 180 degrees different than what is was in 1985. There is no way it's all one era.

I’m not just referring to that poll by any means. Whenever I’ve seen a basketball fan or analyst reference the modern era, it was almost always mid to late 80s. A few would say 1980 or 1975.

Just Google it.

 

[mcnicKY91]

And I’m glad to have Bill Self, Allen Fieldhouse, and more success in my lifetime (which coincides with the modern era). So I guess we’re both content.

Btw, do you actually “look back” at games from the 40s? Have you ever watched one?

I have. They are fun to watch. Crazy to see the evolution in the game over the decades.

 

[kyjeff1]

I would just leave it alone dude.

The fact is UK has won championships in the 40s, 50s, 70s, 90s, and 2010s. UK has more wins than KU, has more final fours than KU, has more tourney wins than KU, and has double the championships as KU. Not to mention UK obliterates KU in the head to head.

KU is a historically inferior program to UK, and UNC as well. Those are undeniable facts that are backed up with evidence.

I am glad that as a UK fan I don't have to waste an inordinate amount of my time clinging to one period of my team's history. I can look back and look at greatness throughout the entirety of UKs history.

Oh no, I'm not trying to compare KU to UK, I'm just trying to figure out how anyone can possibly think the modern era started in 1985 and continues through today, like the game is 100% the same for 40 years. No way.

I know why he's doing it, that way he can try to say KU has 3 titles in the modern era. There is always a reason to his homeristic madness.

 

[kyjeff1]

I wonder how many head coaches were around then that are still coaching today. I think slick Rick started before the change, but I’m curious of the total. Even he may have been in the NBA at the time before coming back to the college game.

I also wonder how the poll would have been if the posters were given more options, particularly more recent ones.

Yeah, that’s why I was asking what the poll options were.
I never read the thread, but it's very odd to me that most people voted for 1985. I think there’s more to it than sir twist-a-lot is telling us.

 

[kyjeff1]

That’s exactly what you said. But even if I took the time to dig it up, you’d just pretend you were kidding.

You really shouldn’t be accusing anyone of twisting comments to fit an agenda. You flat out lie on the regular and accuse me of shit like defending rape.

I mean, he is on draft boards, so obviously he has shown something. Overseas players don't make it on draft boards if they are average.
I have no idea how good, or bad he is, but damn, Bradshaw and Ugonna have been damn good additions since they started playing. Adding another talented 7' 2" guy can only help.

 

[kyjeff1]

And I’m glad to have Bill Self, Allen Fieldhouse, and more success in my lifetime (which coincides with the modern era). So I guess we’re both content.

Btw, do you actually “look back” at games from the 40s? Have you ever watched one?

Heck, who even watches games from 2 years ago?

I don't watch any games fromm the 96, 98, 2012, or 2015 seasons, I just know they happened.

Do you mean to tell me you sit there and watch games from 1988? That's lame as fvck.

Plus, as far as the modern era goes, UK has more FF's and the same amount if titles, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[kyjeff1]

I’m not just referring to that poll by any means. Whenever I’ve seen a basketball fan or analyst reference the modern era, it was almost always mid to late 80s. A few would say 1980 or 1975.

Just Google it.

I've literally never seen that.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I have. They are fun to watch. Crazy to see the evolution in the game over the decades.

Like 30 seconds of a YouTube clip or start to finish? 😆

 

[FaithPlusOne]

Yeah, that’s why I was asking what the poll options were.
I never read the thread, but it's very odd to me that most people voted for 1985. I think there’s more to it than sir twist-a-lot is telling us.

Without looking I think the latest option was 1987 when the 3 point line was permanently implemented. Other options had to do with freshmen being allowed to play and when at large bids were introduced. All pretty long ago.

I’d be interested in another poll introducing more recent options, but I think @dukedevilz created it primarily because he was doing a point system for best programs all time and modern era. I could be wrong about that.

As for the argument that it changed the game, I’m not sure I’d agree. It may have changed how people scheduled some, but really it just changed how we crown a champion with a minimum of 6 tournament wins needed. If we’re talking about changes that impacted how the game was played, then I don’t think that would be it.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Heck, who even watches games from 2 years ago?

I don't watch any games fromm the 96, 98, 2012, or 2015 seasons, I just know they happened.

Do you mean to tell me you sit there and watch games from 1988? That's lame as fvck.

Plus, as far as the modern era goes, UK has more FF's and the same amount if titles, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I’ve seen the ‘88 title game multiple times. That was the golden age of the sport. Players that stay one year now stayed four. Teams were polished and had chemistry. What’s lame about that?

Let me guess, you’re subtracting the ‘18 final four?

 

[kyjeff1]

Without looking I think the latest option was 1987 when the 3 point line was permanently implemented. Other options had to do with freshmen being allowed to play and when at large bids were introduced. All pretty long ago.

I’d be interested in another poll introducing more recent options, but I think @dukedevilz created it primarily because he was doing a point system for best programs all time and modern era. I could be wrong about that.

As for the argument that it changed the game, I’m not sure I’d agree. It may have changed how people scheduled some, but really it just changed how we crown a champion with a minimum of 6 tournament wins needed. If we’re talking about changes that impacted how the game was played, then I don’t think that would be it.

Well no wonder why everyone voted for the 80's, those were the only options. Wtf?

 

[ExitFlagger]

I've literally never seen that.

So you haven’t seen the modern era ranking dukedevilz made? You’ll probably accuse me of hacking his acct. 🤣

I found about 10 examples on the first page of a Google search.

 

[kyjeff1]

I’ve seen the ‘88 title game multiple times. That was the golden age of the sport. Players that stay one year now stayed four. Teams were polished and had chemistry. What’s lame about that?

Let me guess, you’re subtracting the ‘18 final four? 😆

But those players weren't more polished back then. The athletesism and speed of the game was way down compared to todays game. Todays game is more physical, mote dpread out and faster.
Thanks to AAU and camps, these players are coming into college much more advanced than they used to be.
I'll say this, unless you're a retired old man with nothing to do on a rainy day, it's lame as hell to sit there and rewatch a game that you've already rewatched and you know the outcome.

Nice try on your little modern era thread btw, the only choices were years prior to 1990, so yeah, that explains why everyone voted for 1985. You purposely left these facts out. Why am I not surprised?

 

[kyjeff1]

So you haven’t seen the modern era ranking dukedevilz made? You’ll probably accuse me of hacking his acct. 🤣

I found about 10 examples on the first page of a Google search.

I have more important things to do. Obviously you don't if you're sitting there rewatching 1980's college games and googling useless shit.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I have more important things to do. Obviously you don't if you're sitting there rewatching 1980's college games and googling useless shit.

Yeah, you’re clearly too busy for something that takes two minutes. 🤣

 

[ExitFlagger]

But those players weren't more polished back then. The athletesism and speed of the game was way down compared to todays game. Todays game is more physical, mote dpread out and faster.
Thanks to AAU and camps, these players are coming into college much more advanced than they used to be.

The same dude who complains about raw OADs getting drafted on potential now claims that players are entering college polished?

Guys like Ewing and Manning stayed four years. Jordan stayed three years. Outside of the rare freak like Durant, no freshman today compares to those guys as juniors and seniors. Give me a break. Players might be a little more athletic now, but it’s a much weaker product overall.

Are you pretending like people don’t complain constantly about the state of the game? They sure as hell weren’t complaining when Magic, Bird and Phi Slamma Jamma played. The game was never more popular.

I'll say this, unless you're a retired old man with nothing to do on a rainy day, it's lame as hell to sit there and rewatch a game that you've already rewatched and you know the outcome.

Is it lame to watch movies you’ve seen before? It’s probably lame to listen to songs you’ve heard before too.

You’ll spend every day beating your chest about history, but you have no interest in seeing any of it? That figures.

Nice try on your little modern era thread btw, the only choices were years prior to 1990, so yeah, that explains why everyone voted for 1985. You purposely left these facts out. Why am I not surprised?

Nice try? Do you think I paid dukedevilz to limit the choices? 😂🤣

 

[kyjeff1]

The same dude who complains about raw OADs getting drafted on potential now claims that players are entering college polished?

Guys like Ewing and Manning stayed four years. Jordan stayed three years. Outside of the rare freak like Durant, no freshman today compares to those guys as juniors and seniors. Give me a break. Players might be a little more athletic now, but it’s a much weaker product overall.

Are you pretending like people don’t complain constantly about the state of the game? They sure as hell weren’t complaining when Magic, Bird and Phi Slamma Jamma played. The game was never more popular.



Is it lame to watch movies you’ve seen before? It’s probably lame to listen to songs you’ve heard before too.

You’ll spend every day beating your chest about history, but you have no interest in seeing any of it? That figures.



Nice try? Do you think I paid dukedevilz to limit the choices? 😂🤣

Wow, talk about twisting what was said.

Both statements are true. These top 20 freshmen come into college far more advanced in their development than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago. That is a fact.

However, those kids, as polished as they are, still have a very hard time adjusting to the speed and physicality of the game. If they stayed even 1 more year in most cases, they would be exceptional, but the NBA drafts on potential.

Take a look at Justin Edwards. Someone… everyone, totally missed on this kid. Yeah, he’s 6'8" and athletic, but he has a low skill level, can't shoot, has week hands and is completely lost on the court, but guess what, that dude is going to the NBA after this season, no matter what. Same with BJ Boston.

Now, look at Reed Shepard, dude was a 4 star, but is one of the best players in cbb and leads the NCAA in 3pt fg%. Hiw did he get that way? How did Dillingham get to be so good? How did Wagner get to be so polished?

Look what AD, Wall, Fox, Carmello, ,Beasley, Cade Cunningham, Barrett and Zion did as freshmen. I'm not sure Magic Johnson, Michael, Barkley or anyone from the 80's exploded on the scene like those guys did.

Lastly, there was no parity in the 80's. Nobody except a very small group of schools even cared about college ball. The money wasn't there, tv exposure wasn't there and the competition wasn't there. Now, you have mid majors getting to final 4's, you have 16's beating 1 seeds, you have 2's losing to 15's consistently and the talent is just better across the board. It’s not even close.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Wow, talk about twisting what was said.

Both statements are true. These top 20 freshmen come into college far more advanced in their development than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago. That is a fact.

However, those kids, as polished as they are, still have a very hard time adjusting to the speed and physicality of the game. If they stayed even 1 more year in most cases, they would be exceptional, but the NBA drafts on potential.

Take a look at Justin Edwards. Someone… everyone, totally missed on this kid. Yeah, he’s 6'8" and athletic, but he has a low skill level, can't shoot, has week hands and is completely lost on the court, but guess what, that dude is going to the NBA after this season, no matter what. Same with BJ Boston.

Now, look at Reed Shepard, dude was a 4 star, but is one of the best players in cbb and leads the NCAA in 3pt fg%. Hiw did he get that way? How did Dillingham get to be so good? How did Wagner get to be so polished?

Look what AD, Wall, Fox, Carmello, ,Beasley, Cade Cunningham, Barrett and Zion did as freshmen. I'm not sure Magic Johnson, Michael, Barkley or anyone from the 80's exploded on the scene like those guys did.

I didn't say that today's freshmen were inferior to freshmen from those days. I said that the junior/senior versions of Jordan, Ewing, Magic, etc were better than pretty much any freshmen today. Not sure how you can argue against that. Can you even imagine what a player like Durant would've done as a senior in college?

Having a little more athleticism on average doesn't automatically make a team (or the product) better, and it definitely doesn't make them more polished or knowledgeable players. We see young teams with superior athleticism and raw ability lose to experienced teams with high BB IQ all the time. In fact, that's what you're normally preaching about.

You're way exaggerating the difference in athleticism. Obviously an era that included Jordan and Phi Slamma Jamma had plenty of athleticism. Then you factor in better chemistry and BB IQ, better passing, players who didn't throw it out of bounds every other play and knew where to be on the court....it was just a better product.

You realize that you're in the extreme minority (again), right? People are constantly talking about the decline of the product, for those exact reasons. Like I said, the game was never more popular than the late 70s/80s.

Lastly, there was no parity in the 80's. Nobody except a very small group of schools even cared about college ball. The money wasn't there, tv exposure wasn't there and the competition wasn't there. Now, you have mid majors getting to final 4's, you have 16's beating 1 seeds, you have 2's losing to 15's consistently and the talent is just better across the board. It’s not even close.

Teams lose to midmajors now because they don't have future NBA all-stars who stay four years. It's not that the midmajors of today are incredibly skilled (and definitely not incredibly athletic), it's that the teams at the top are diluted.

Would you prefer to watch a mediocre team play a competitive game vs a midmajor, or a battle between two loaded teams with experienced NBA talent across the board AND high BBIQ?

 

[kyjeff1]

I didn't say that today's freshmen were inferior to freshmen from those days. I said that the junior/senior versions of Jordan, Ewing, Magic, etc were better than pretty much any freshmen today. Not sure how you can argue against that. Can you even imagine what a player like Durant would've done as a senior in college?

Having a little more athleticism on average doesn't automatically make a team (or the product) better, and it definitely doesn't make them more polished or knowledgeable players. We see young teams with superior athleticism and raw ability lose to experienced teams with high BB IQ all the time. In fact, that's what you're normally preaching about.

You're way exaggerating the difference in athleticism. Obviously an era that included Jordan and Phi Slamma Jamma had plenty of athleticism. Then you factor in better chemistry and BB IQ, better passing, players who didn't throw it out of bounds every other play and knew where to be on the court....it was just a better product.

You realize that you're in the extreme minority (again), right? People are constantly talking about the decline of the product, for those exact reasons. Like I said, the game was never more popular than the late 70s/80s.



Teams lose to midmajors now because they don't have future NBA all-stars who stay four years. It's not that the midmajors of today are incredibly skilled (and definitely not incredibly athletic), it's that the teams at the top are diluted.

Would you prefer to watch a mediocre team play a competitive game vs a midmajor, or a battle between two loaded teams with experienced NBA talent across the board AND high BBIQ?

So, there are no examples of veteran teams losing to mid majors in today’s game? Are you sure? See below.

It’s certainly not because kids aren't staying 4 years. Heck, I don't recall any of UK, or duke's true one-and-done teams losing to mid majors.

UK lost to Saint Peters with a veteran roster.

Duke had veteran rosters when they lost to Norfolk State and VCU.

Kansas had veteran rosters when they lost to Bradley, Bucknel, UNI and WSU.

Purdue was a veteran team when they lost to Saint Peters and FDU

Virginia had a veteran roster when they lost to UMBC.

What freshmen dominated teams lost to mid majors?

I assume we are only talking about NCAAT losses, but if not, we can bring up UVA losing to Chaminade when they had Ralph Sampson in the 80's. Your choice.

 

[ExitFlagger]

So, there are no examples of veteran teams losing to mid majors in today’s game? Are you sure? See below.

It’s certainly not because kids aren't staying 4 years. Heck, I don't recall any of UK, or duke's true one-and-done teams losing to mid majors.

UK lost to Saint Peters with a veteran roster.

Duke had veteran rosters when they lost to Norfolk State and VCU.

Kansas had veteran rosters when they lost to Bradley, Bucknel, UNI and WSU.

Purdue was a veteran team when they lost to Saint Peters and FDU

Virginia had a veteran roster when they lost to UMBC.

What freshmen dominated teams lost to mid majors?

I assume we are only talking about NCAAT losses, but if not, we can bring up UVA losing to Chaminade when they had Ralph Sampson in the 80's. Your choice.

KU didn't have a veteran roster at all when they lost to Bradley. Three of their top four were freshmen and the rest of the rotation were sophomores.

But none of that has anything to do with my point. The point is that today's top players and teams aren't as good as those from that era. The guy who most consider the freaking GOAT played three years back then. Other HOFers played four. Now you have guys jumping after a year who barely even contributed at the college level. Are you actually arguing the product wouldn't be better if players like Durant or Zion stayed 3-4 years? WTF?

 

[kyjeff1]

KU didn't have a veteran roster at all when they lost to Bradley. Three of their top four were freshmen and the rest of the rotation were sophomores.

But none of that has anything to do with my point. The point is that today's top players and teams aren't as good as those from that era. The guy who most consider the freaking GOAT played three years back then. Other HOFers played four. Now you have guys jumping after a year who barely even contributed at the college level. Are you actually arguing the product wouldn't be better if players like Durant or Zion stayed 3-4 years? WTF?

MJ didn’t become the GOAT until he was several years into his NBA career. He was good in college, but lets not act like he was getting 30ppg.

Of course, if Zion, AD, Barrett, Durant, Fox, Towns etc… stayed 4 years, they would kill college basketball, but here's the issue with your take, those guys were better in year 1, than anyone you can list from the 80's. MJ scored 13ppg his freshman year. Magic was one of the best, he scored 17ppg his 2 years in college. Well, the top freshmen these days are doing better than that, right out of HS and there are more of them now.

AAU and camps are responsible for that. These kids are coming in much further along in their development now than they did in the 80's and it's not debatable.

Now, I'm not saying they are ALL coming in polished and ready to dominate, but there are more now that are than there was in the 80's.

Go ahead and make a list of generational/transcendent dudes from the 80's that came in and dominated as freshmen and I'll give you my list of players in the real modern era… .todays game and I guarantee your list is going to be smaller by a mile. That’s the best way for me to show you how wrong you are.

 

[ExitFlagger]

MJ didn’t become the GOAT until he was several years into his NBA career. He was good in college, but lets not act like he was getting 30ppg.

The fact that the GOAT hadn’t peaked in college is a hot take. You realize that Anthony Davis wasn’t half the player in college that he later became, right?

Of course, if Zion, AD, Barrett, Durant, Fox, Towns etc… stayed 4 years, they would kill college basketball, but here's the issue with your take, those guys were better in year 1, than anyone you can list from the 80's. MJ scored 13ppg his freshman year. Magic was one of the best, he scored 17ppg his 2 years in college. Well, the top freshmen these days are doing better than that, right out of HS and there are more of them now.

So your opinion that players today are more polished coming out of HS is based on a few generational talents?

And since the very best freshmen today might be better than those from that period, this means that today's teams are better and the product is better? Weird take.

Again, teams in those days had generational talents staying in college for 3-4 years. How you can argue that this didn't create more loaded teams and a better product is anybody's guess. Further proof that you'll argue absolutely anything and never allow logic to get in your way.

AAU and camps are responsible for that. These kids are coming in much further along in their development now than they did in the 80's and it's not debatable.

Now, I'm not saying they are ALL coming in polished and ready to dominate, but there are more now that are than there was in the 80's.

Go ahead and make a list of generational/transcendent dudes from the 80's that came in and dominated as freshmen and I'll give you my list of players in the real modern era… .todays game and I guarantee your list is going to be smaller by a mile. That’s the best way for me to show you how wrong you are.

This from the guy who constantly preaches that teams full of OADs (even including polished OADs) are at a major disadvantage vs veteran teams. If those OADs are at a disadvantage vs today's vets, how do you think they'd fare if they were playing generational talents and future NBA all stars as juniors and seniors?😆

 

[Random UK Fan]

You realize that Anthony Davis wasn’t half the player in college that he later became, right?

That list is extensive. They all become phenoms after getting to the pros.

 

[kyjeff1]

The fact that the GOAT hadn’t peaked in college is a hot take. You realize that Anthony Davis wasn’t half the player in college that he later became, right?



So your opinion that players today are more polished coming out of HS is based on a few generational talents?

And since the very best freshmen today might be better than those from that period, this means that today's teams are better and the product is better? Weird take.

Again, teams in those days had generational talents staying in college for 3-4 years. How you can argue that this didn't create more loaded teams and a better product is anybody's guess. Further proof that you'll argue absolutely anything and never allow logic to get in your way.




This from the guy who constantly preaches that teams full of OADs (even including polished OADs) are at a major disadvantage vs veteran teams. If those OADs are at a disadvantage vs today's vets, how do you think they'd fare if they were playing generational talents and future NBA all stars as juniors and seniors?😆

Man, you sure love to twist the truth.

We were talking about incoming freshmen NOW, compared to incoming frosh in the 80's. Why you, all the sudden, changed it to players peaking in the NBA, is mind boggling. We're comparing freshman seasons dude.

Yeah, one-and-done teams are at a disadvantage in the college game. Doesn't mean they can't win at the highest level and it doesn’t mean a collection of freshmen can't be really good, but UK went 9-16 in 2021 for a reason, this UK team has an awful defense, because they're young, veteran teams keep getting to final 4's and winning titles for a reason.

All I'm saying is, there is so much for HS kids to learn to be successful at the college level. When an 18 year old kid is squaring up with a 24 year old that has been playing at this level for several years, that 18 year old is at a disadvantage. Doesn't mean the 18 year old can't win, but that 24 year old is more physical, he's stronger and he's been coached by college coaches for several years. He’s usually going to be the better college player.

As far as the generational talents staying 4 years back in the 80's, who are these guys? MJ stayed for 3, but he wasn't generational in college.
Magic only stayed 2 years, but that was the 70's.
Larry Bird also played in the 70's. Anyone that was generational, didn't play 4 years, but keep believing that lie.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Man, you sure love to twist the truth.

We were talking about incoming freshmen NOW, compared to incoming frosh in the 80's. Why you, all the sudden, changed it to players peaking in the NBA, is mind boggling. We're comparing freshman seasons dude.

Yeah, one-and-done teams are at a disadvantage in the college game. Doesn't mean they can't win at the highest level and it doesn’t mean a collection of freshmen can't be really good, but UK went 9-16 in 2021 for a reason, this UK team has an awful defense, because they're young, veteran teams keep getting to final 4's and winning titles for a reason.

All I'm saying is, there is so much for HS kids to learn to be successful at the college level. When an 18 year old kid is squaring up with a 24 year old that has been playing at this level for several years, that 18 year old is at a disadvantage. Doesn't mean the 18 year old can't win, but that 24 year old is more physical, he's stronger and he's been coached by college coaches for several years. He’s usually going to be the better college player.

As far as the generational talents staying 4 years back in the 80's, who are these guys? MJ stayed for 3, but he wasn't generational in college.
Magic only stayed 2 years, but that was the 70's.
Larry Bird also played in the 70's. Anyone that was generational, didn't play 4 years, but keep believing that lie.

I didn't twist anything. The point was never to compare that era's freshmen to this era's freshmen. You went off on your own tangent about that. The point is that the quality of ball was better then than now. As evidenced by the fact that the game was never more popular, and that people complain constantly about the decline of the product. Because the quality of play has declined overall.

If you had the Durants and Zions sticking around for 3-4 years and developing chemistry and improving their BBIQ, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the game would be a lot better than it is right now. And the athleticism of the average player is a little better than back then, but not nearly enough to offset that.

 

[kyjeff1]

I didn't twist anything. The point was never to compare that era's freshmen to this era's freshmen. You went off on your own tangent about that. The point is that the quality of ball was better then than now. As evidenced by the fact that the game was never more popular, and that people complain constantly about the decline of the product. Because the quality of play has declined overall.

If you had the Durants and Zions sticking around for 3-4 years and developing chemistry and improving their BBIQ, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the game would be a lot better than it is right now. And the athleticism of the average player is a little better than back then, but not nearly enough to offset that.

Stopped reading after the first sentence, because it's a lie and I've already showed you how it's a lie.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Not sure what I twisted. I was pointing out that it doesn’t exactly help your case to argue that the alleged GOAT wasn’t yet the GOAT in college. You can argue about whether he was “generational,” but Jordan averaged 20 ppg his last two years on teams full of future NBA players. Do you really think a junior Jordan wouldn't have dominated in this era?

Tons of great players played three or four years. Ewing played four. David Robinson four. Stockton four. Manning four. Pippen four. Larry Bird played three years. Shaq three years. Barkley three years. Hakeem three years. Karl Malone three years. Clyde Drexler three years. Dominique Wilkins three years. James Worthy three. The list goes on and on. I've already listed arguably four of the top 10 players of all time and several more that aren't far away.

No idea why you turned this into a comparison of freshmen from both eras. Even if there are more NBA-ready freshmen in this era, why would that matter if NBA greats were staying three or four years in those days?

 

[kyjeff1]

Not sure what I twisted. I was pointing out that it doesn’t exactly help your case to argue that the alleged GOAT wasn’t yet the GOAT in college. You can argue about whether he was “generational,” but Jordan averaged 20 ppg his last two years on teams full of future NBA players. Do you really think a junior Jordan wouldn't have dominated in this era?

Tons of great players played three or four years. Ewing played four. David Robinson four. Stockton four. Manning four. Pippen four. Larry Bird played three years. Shaq three years. Barkley three years. Hakeem three years. Karl Malone three years. Clyde Drexler three years. Dominique Wilkins three years. James Worthy three. The list goes on and on. I've already listed arguably four of the top 10 players of all time and several more that aren't far away.

No idea why you turned this into a comparison of freshmen from both eras. Even if there are more NBA-ready freshmen in this era, why would that matter if NBA greats were staying three or four years in those days?

I'm convinced you have ADD.

 

[ExitFlagger]

I'm convinced you have ADD.

😂 🤣

I know for a fact that you do. And/or an awful memory. How many times have you said "i dIdNt sAy tHaT" only for me to prove that you said it like two posts earlier? Your memory is either really poor or you're a habitual liar.

Still think that great players didn't stay in college for 3-4 years?

 

[kyjeff1]

😂 🤣

I know for a fact that you do. And/or an awful memory. How many times have you said "i dIdNt sAy tHaT" only for me to prove that you said it like two posts earlier? Your memory is either really poor or you're a habitual liar.

Still think that great players didn't stay in college for 3-4 years?

Go take your ritalin, Arnie.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Go take your ritalin, Arnie.

Further proof that you're the least self-aware poster here. 😂

What a caricature.

 

[Random UK Fan]

Welp, looks like this issue got worked out I guess?