There were 8 teams in the field. A tourney appearance was an automatic elite 8. You said everybody had the same opportunity to reach the tourney/Elite 8. They didn’t.
Helms Titles
- Thread starter Five Nattys
- Start date
There were 8 teams in the field. A tourney appearance was an automatic elite 8. You said everybody had the same opportunity to reach the tourney/Elite 8. They didn’t.
Literally nobody is arguing in favor of the BCS, or Helms football stuff, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
Let me ask you this, why doesn't college football have a 68 team tournament?
Why do college football teams only play between 10 and 13 games, instead of the possible 40 games that college basketball teams could possibly play?
Why is football played on grass and basketball played on a hardwood court?
Why does each football team get to play 11 players on each play and basketball only gets to play 5?
You said only teams that won their conference got to go to the tournament. Well, for one, there was no tournament until the late 30's, so I'm not sure what the hell you’re talking about. But if you're referring to the teams I listed from 2008, 2010 and 2016, well, maybe you don't know, but those teams were NCAAT eligible, so they are eligible for opinionated banners (aka: Helms), why wouldn’t they be? If we were voting on who the best teams were, they would get my vote. That’s how opinions work, bud. That’s my point.
Oh my god, you are so pathetic. You’re twisting what was said. So stupid.
When the NIT and/or NCAAT only had 8 teams, every team had the opportunity to get to that tournament. They had to win their conference.
You’re ether playing dumb, or you are dumb.
Should be obvious why we bring it up. What’s not obvious is why you’re asking those questions or what they have to do with claiming “fake titles” determined by opinion.
We were talking about early Elite Eights, right? You said everybody had the same opportunity to get one.
Imagine if all those Big 12 regular season titles that you downplay were automatic Elite 8 appearances and KU was beating their chests about their Elite 8 streak.
Borden’s point was you can debate the validity of a lot of things. Should we add asterisks to the early tourney titles because it was only an 8 team field that didn’t include a lot of the best teams and was considered less prestigious than the NIT?
Quit acting like your take is the only one that matters, especially when you don’t know the history.
You should really learn to comprehend what you read before calling anybody else dumb. 😆
Like I already said, opportunities weren’t equal.
Example A: small school that only plays other unranked small schools wins its league and goes to the tourney.
Team B plays in a conference that includes several top 10 teams, including the #1 team in the country.
Equal opportunity for an “Elite 8?”
Lol, I'm acting like my take is the only one that matters? That's what you say when you're losing the battle. Do you understand how debates work? Obviously not.
Every team had the same opportunities back then. Win your conference and get in the tournament. Y'all like to use football, well, that's close to what college fb is right now, so there you go.
So what, those small teams have talent that is what you would expect to see at mid major programs.
What's the difference, the BIG12 plays a true round robin, the SEC does not, so it is not apples to apples. Sorry bud, the world isn't fair.
Has nothing to do with what I was saying, but all right...
Apparently you reset every few posts and forget what you're even debating. And then declare yourself the "winner" anyway. 😆
"Losing the battle," aka "my opinion is the correct one." 🤣
Sure, guy. Suuuuure.
Is this how you are in person? Just keep doubling down and ignoring every sensible counterpoint until somebody pats you on the head and tells you you're right? 🤣
You’re saying the same things over and over again and you're wrong each time you say it.
The bottom line is, one guy determined who would have been the best team each year and did it 20+ years after the seasons were played.
You keep saying you don’t support those banners hanging in AFH, but you're doing everything you can to defend Helms banners. That’s the bottom line with this whole debate.
But you literally have no sensible argument. I have proved my points over and over again.
Borden tried to help you and his research was flawed.
You thought you had a buddy to help you, but that's just not the case. There is no denying that one guy determined who the title should go to for each season, like he was some sort of God and you guys keep trying to defend it by comparing it to another sport that has nothing in common with basketball.
Sorry, but your takes on this, are nothing more than a bunch of garbage.
Do I believe my takes are superior? Uh, yeah, that’s how everyone feels about what they say. If I wasn't sure about my takes, I would be asking questions, not making statements.
You aren't even following what I'm saying but I'm "wrong." Too funny. Meanwhile, you actually have gotten the facts wrong. Of course, that tends to happen when you make things up as you go.
Once again, I wouldn't hang them but I also wouldn't apologize for them. Just like no one apologizes for their "fake" CFB titles. Not complicated.
Proven your point? 😂
I haven't said anything that isn't sensible. And you're definitely not the arbiter of what's sensible. Sorry to break it to you.
Nobody said that Helms are equal to tourney titles or that it was a good method for determining a champ. We've just pointed out the hypocrisy of bashing one "fake" title while accepting another, which proves that your only goal is to push an agenda.
Frankly, you can easily make the argument that Kentucky's early tourney titles aren't equal to modern titles either, but I'm sure you'd throw a 10-page tantrum if we went there.
9 pages. Good grief, guys and gals.
Helms titles are worthless. Who cares if Kansas wants to put them in a promotion or not. Any casual fan of CBB knows they have four championships.
Helms titles are worthless. Who cares if Kansas wants to put them in a promotion or not. Any casual fan of CBB knows they have four championships.
LOL, actually, Borden posted a quote that stated Helms titles are equal to NCAA titles. I'm not sure if.he was quoting someone, or it was his take, I'll have to find it.
Im not arguing for or against, but this is a pretty massive counterpoint to the entire argument you’ve been making. Play on the court and who is the only measure a Helm’s “voter” would have had to go on.
Seems silly to argue that point given your stance here.
Yeah, that made zero sense. Maybe sit this one out.
Conversation was over anyway, why pour gas on the embers?
Your argument is play on the court and against who is what matters. Those are your literal words. That’s literally all a Helms voter would have to vote on: who they played and the result.
That comment based on your earlier arguments just struck me as odd.
Yeah, that was total incompetence by the officials. Should have been TCU with the advantage and up two and the officials decided to just change the outcome of the game.
Happy you guys got the help you needed. One of the worst calls I’ve ever seen
Well, they did hand TCU two points for a blatant flop shortly before that, but all that matters is the last call, right?
I said I’m happy for you. No need to be offended. Kansas needed help and got it
So was the flop a good call? Both resulted in two late points.
I’m thinking Kentucky would have needed a lot more help than one call vs TCU today.
Don't forget the shove-off jumper that gave them the go-ahead points.
But hey, it's a close game where a big upset almost happened. People are only going to remember the calls that benefitted KU. Not the calls that benefitted TCU.
KU does it all the time. I'm sure UK does as well. No doubt UK has had calls go their way at home as well. Or does your crowd not intimidate the refs enough?
TCU was up 2 about to have a 4 on 5 with under a minute left. It completely altered the game in a way 99 percent of other calls don’t. Home teams do get favorable calls sometimes. The officials had time to review and still screwed the Frogs
I'd say that getting two freebies with a flop, then getting away with a blatant push-off for a 4 point swing to take that lead is pretty impactful.
But I get it. Underdog close to pulling off an upset on the road. You're only going to see the bad calls that go against the underdog. I've been guilty of the same.
They did have time to review. The guy did swing down, and it was as he was looking at him. There's no way in that situation he wasn't aware of where he was. It was a chop to his face. All players do it and get away with it most of the time, but that doesn't mean it isn't intentional.
That being said, I wouldn't have called it. I'd have let them play on. But Udeh was dumb to try getting away with it that late in the game. BTW, he did the same thing last year when he played for us and got called for a similarly soft elbow.
And hey, even in AFH it doesn't always benefit KU. I remember when OSU beat KU in AFH because of an elbow that didn't even connect. The elbow was 3 inches from Smart's face, and never came close to touching him. He flopped and they called the T on KU, and OSU then won the game. Nobody defended KU then...cause of course, an underdog winning in AFH. So I'm not going to feel bad about this one.
So the awful call 30 seconds earlier that handed TCU 2 pts didn't alter the game? Interesting.
Which call was this? TCU got away with a push off that wasn’t called. But the officials didn’t review that. It’s laughable you defend this crap.
They called a foul on KJ when he made no contact, sending TCU to the line. Which is what gave TCU the two point lead.
Such a stupid take, they are giving their opinions on what would happen if everyone played and they did it 20+ years after the fact.
When you don’t play a tournament, or a series, you didn't prove it on the court.
The teams in contention, did not play the same teams, or schedule, so you can’t assume who would win.
Again, maybe sit this one out, bud.
