Helms Titles
- Thread starter Five Nattys
- Start date
Do fanbases dismiss their favorite team's accomplishments prior to the modern era?
I remember Owns wasn't very popular. So I guess helms have as much weight as modern.
Forgive me, so much back and forth, I'm confused.
I remember Owns wasn't very popular. So I guess helms have as much weight as modern.
Forgive me, so much back and forth, I'm confused.
Nobody’s dismissing anything.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with modern era comparisons. Your fanbase doesn’t want to acknowledge the modern era because you want to believe that Kentucky’s the only program that ever mattered or ever will.
But here’s the funny thing: if people didn’t give more weight to modern accomplishments, no one would consider Kentucky the GOAT. They’re considered to be better than UCLA all time because they’ve had more success in the modern era. If several of UCLA’s 11 titles took place in the last 30 years, is there any question that they’d be almost unanimously considered the GOAT? Downplaying the weight of the modern era isn't a great play by Kentucky fans.
Rupp ain’t winning 3 NCAA titles in 4 years in this era and Wooden sure as hell wouldn’t win 10 of 12. Not even close. It only makes sense to evaluate the eras differently, especially with massive differences in how champions used to be named, and the fact that the NIT was once considered the more prestigious tourney (today the good programs decline to play in it).
Here's a question for you: if all titles from all eras are equal, how on Earth can K be considered the GOAT? He needed 40 years to win half as many titles as Wooden won in just over a decade. That says it all, doesn't it?
Last edited:
I don't think there is one UK fan who does not acknowledge accomplishments in the modern era. Has anybody said that in this entire thread? If any UK fans do say that, they are idiots. All accomplishments, regardless of the era, are incredibly important.
I personally don't weigh success in the modern era any heavier than accomplishments from the 40s-70s.
I look at programs in their totality. Not just certain eras. Just because you think the modern era matters more, it is an opinion. Which is fine. I don't agree with it. Which should be fine to.
And as a fan, I would want the team I support to have found success in all eras/decades, not just in one or two. But that is me.
You and others want to limit every discussion to all-time stats. You know this. One guy threw a tantrum because a poster had the gall to create a modern era ranking.
Well, obviously the people who consider K the GOAT don't agree with you. And if the modern era didn't carry extra weight, UCLA would be widely considered the GOAT. Can't have it both ways. UCLA's been winning since their inception and has final fours in almost every decade, so you can't say they accomplished everything in 1 or 2 decades.
I am not limiting any discussion to all time. Go ahead and talk about modern accomplishments all you want. I just so happen to not care about only modern (or place additional emphasis on them). I don't know why anyone would throw a tantrum about modern era rankings. Sounds like a loser.
I am not trying to have anything both ways. UK is historically superior to UCLA. I do not look at championships only when it comes to ranking blue bloods. There are lots of criteria, the majority of which UK comes out ahead, hence UK has a better claim to be greater all time than UCLA.
If someone thinks UCLA is greater, more power to them.
Hmm, I was literally trying to shrink the modern era to 2016, that actually limits UK to like 4th place in the modern era, but somehow, we have someone saying it means I'm trying to include the 1940's in my 2016-2023 modern era discussion.
Fine, lets go with 1985, that puts our 96, 97 and 98 teams in there, the 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 final 4's in there and the 2012 title. Cool, works for me, have it your way.
This is what happens when your A D D gets in the way WHILE you’re trying to twist whats being said.
Fine, lets go with 1985, that puts our 96, 97 and 98 teams in there, the 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 final 4's in there and the 2012 title. Cool, works for me, have it your way.
This is what happens when your A D D gets in the way WHILE you’re trying to twist whats being said.
I realize you're basically new here. Have you seen this thread? It's pinned at the top.
50 Greatest Programs of All-Time (Updated Through 2021)
Congrats Kentucky. It's now official. Remember to double-click on the screenshots to expand the images. Let me know what you think. This idea was presented to me by @hailtoyourvictor. I included a few more metrics recently. Here are a few links to the adjusted rankings for 2020 and 2021. 2020...
forums.rivals.com
Notice the gap we put on 2nd place.
Yep, I saw that the other day. Thanks for the link though! Noticeable gap, indeed.I realize you're basically new here. Have you seen this thread? It's pinned at the top.
50 Greatest Programs of All-Time (Updated Through 2021)
Congrats Kentucky. It's now official. Remember to double-click on the screenshots to expand the images. Let me know what you think. This idea was presented to me by @hailtoyourvictor. I included a few more metrics recently. Here are a few links to the adjusted rankings for 2020 and 2021. 2020...
Notice the gap we put on 2nd place.
Yeah, I think your ADD is getting in the way. I'm sure this made sense in your head though. 😆
I don't only care about modern era accomplishments either. But I do put more weight on modern tourney titles. Especially compared to the 40s and 50s NCAA tourney. There are good reasons for that.
All-American at Princeton and later NBA champion with the New York Knicks and United States Senator Bill Bradley stated:
You pretty much have to place extra emphasis on the modern era to rank Kentucky higher than UCLA all-time. Otherwise, it's really hard to argue that having a higher win % and more tourney appearances is enough to overcome 3 more titles and more final fours.
UK has 2 NIT titles as well.
Both the NCAA and NIT had top teams. Look at the brackets and the ranking of each team in the brackets. I see no difference. By 1951, more teams were playing in the NCAA than the NIT.
Also, if people think UCLA has a better history all time than UK, that is fine. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't agree with it, as the metrics do not bear that out, in my opinion.
The point is that these debates should be a little more nuanced than just adding up NCAA tourney numbers (especially when that ignores a third of basketball history).
Mentioned this before...
Imagine if we adopted the 40s format today. So we have an 8 team tourney instead of 68, and only one team from each region is eligible for the NCAA tourney. And say that Tennessee and Kentucky both finish with the same conference record, but Tennessee wins the tiebreaker and gets invited to dance, leaving Kentucky out of the field. Tennessee wins three games against a field that doesn't include several of the top teams in the nation and they're awarded national champs. Do you think that you and other Kentucky fans would consider Tennessee's NCAA title equal to UK's 2012 NCAA title?
Why don't the metrics bear it out? 3 more titles and more final fours. Consistent winning since day 1. Top 5 in all time win %. Each team's had a winning record in all but 20 seasons. Like I said, the reason that many people rank Kentucky #1 is because they've done more in the modern era.
If UT won the conference (outright or via a tiebreaker) and that was the rule, why would I complain about it? Yes, I would consider it equal to UKs 2012 NCAA championship...just like I consider KUs 1952 and UNCs 1957 championship equal.
To your point about UCLA...how does UK come out so far ahead of UCLA in dukedevilz model that is posted here? All championships and final fours are weighted the same. So how does UK pull so far ahead?? Obviously they must dominate in the majority of other metrics, otherwise UCLA would be ahead by quite a bit. (And I am not saying his model is the final word on this matter, just find it interesting that UK would be so far ahead when they trail in championships and final fours)
