Some of us are just here for the lulz.
I predict K wins the natty.
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
Y'all is they who knows who I am talking about, Jimbo. Don't go getting all sassy now. You know I love you.
Possibly, but I would hope not. At least not unsolicited. If he is ready to retire, he should just do so.
I will say this. I am sure he and Jon will speak. I also expect him to be around the University in some capacity. But I hope he moves on from hoops. Wish they had suites in that damn little HS gym.
. He could hide in one of those if he decides to see a game.
You think Davis out kicked his coverage?
How can anyone not be impressed with this dude. So many waves of negativity coming his way and he stood fast.
I’m on record of not feeling the hire but I also said let’s give him a chance. I never bashed him on here, didn’t see the need but I am surprised on what he’s done. Hubert is the only coach in ACC history to play in a FF and coach in one. Very impressive.
Final four in their first year is a head start.
You have to feel good about that.
64/1 Scheyer doesn't do it.
Roy isn't involved at all. I would bet K will be way more involved than Roy. Roy enjoys going to the game and supporting the program. He is a UNC guy who can afford to do it. He would do it if he had never coached a game though. There is only one coach who orchestrated a year long farewell tour for attention and it ain't Roy.
UNC’s the GOAT if they win. Duke is unquestionably the best of the modern era if they win. KU has as many modern era titles as Kentucky if they win. And Villanova would have more modern era titles if they win.
But you guys probably don’t care about any of that.🤣
That’s not trolling. They’d have a great argument.
If you throw in head to head record, you'd sound like a UNC fan.
So you are saying he pays for his tickets. And K isnt the only one to do it and, oh never mind, you are a fan of a school that cheated and has no clue about transitions since your coaches quit.
I bet you are still ok with the way DES did it, huh?
Maybe go back and review Dukes success prior to K. Might change your mind. I think dukedevilz posted something on this or another thread.
It's pretty obvious why you would want a coach-in-waiting. It's so your recruiting doesn't suffer. Scheyer was able to sign the #1, the #2, and #3 recruits (per Rivals).
Also, K has already stated what his post-retirement role will be.
The gap between Kentucky and UNC is substantial. As it is, UNC is currently third on my rankings. They would, however, pass UCLA if they were to win the national title. UNC's total score would bump up to 1372, while UCLA will be at 1368.
Kansas and Duke would flip-flop places, if KU wins it all. And if Villanova were to win it all, they would pass UConn and move into 8th place all-time.
Maybe he won't be. I hope not because I think he carries a lot of pull obviously.
UNC had a coach in waiting as well.
You can justify K wanting his victory lap any way you want and he is 100% within his right to do that. He definitely wanting a year long celebration of himself and his tenure though. Unless he simply isn't very smart he knew what he was doing. I'm sure the hardcore naive Duke fans think he is sacrificing by letting everyone tell him how great he is for a year but my guess is only one poster on this board believes that.
The two coaches handling it the way they did wasn't surprising. They are very different people. Both have huge egos and are arrogant in their own ways but they are very different. Someone dumb enough to think Roy is hanging out so everyone sees him and knows he is there is going to face some pushback from me on that. He isn't like K who is now a Duke fan because he coached there for years (and there is zero wrong with that). He was always a UNC fanboy who would attend the games if he was a lifelong greeter at Wal-Mart. It's just a dumb thing to say.
UNC had a coach in waiting? I don't remember that at all.
So why bring it up? You're talking about someone that's been the Duke coach for more than half of his life.
What's a dumb thing to say?
I mean, Hubert was the coach in waiting. There was never another legit candidate.
Why bring what up? The contrast of K and Roy? Seemed to fit. It illustrates why Roy is at all these UNC games. He isn't there to control or be involved. He would be there regardless. If K chooses to be at Duke games next year that's great. I wouldn't blame him at all. Dude has dedicated his life to that program. However, if K chooses not to be at Duke games moving forward it isn't really comparable to Roy. He never would have been at them before he coached there where Roy would have 100% been at UNC games regardless of it he never was the coach for all of those years.
It is dumb for those who say Roy is at the games or around to try and coach or be seen or because he wants to still be involved.
The gap between Kentucky and UNC is substantial. As it is, UNC is currently third on my rankings. They would, however, pass UCLA if they were to win the national title. UNC's total score would bump up to 1372, while UCLA will be at 1368.
Kansas and Duke would flip-flop places, if KU wins it all. And if Villanova were to win it all, they would pass UConn and move into 8th place all-time.
Yeah, a title is great for UNC but Kentucky is still the top program historically regardless.
There's a difference between having a coach-in-waiting - and having a lead candidate. Was the job already his before Roy retired?
I never questioned Roy's fanhood. That was never something I brought up in the first place.
And it seems kind of strange to be arguing a hypothetical point.
I never claimed he was coaching behind the scenes. Feels like this response was meant for someone else.
This is the 83rd NCAA Tournament. Imagine how different things on a historical level could look 100 years from now? Heck, Tennessee might win 12 national titles over the next 100 years.
This is only the 2nd time in Final Four history where all four teams are top 10 programs all-time (per my flawed rankings). #3 UNC, #4 Duke, #5 Kansas, and #9 Villanova. The other time occurred in 2012 with #1 Kentucky, #5 Kansas, #6 Louisville., and #10 Ohio State.
1993, 1999, and 2009 were also really close (Michigan State and Michigan are ranked 11th and 12th, respectively).
1993, 1999, and 2009 were also really close (Michigan State and Michigan are ranked 11th and 12th, respectively).
The fanhood point was more related to why he is at the games, which people have questioned. I was mainly just ranting about what people in general have said about Roy though, lol.
But yes, the guy was always Hubert. It wasn't an official coach in waiting but it was his job before Roy retired.
The gap between Kentucky and UNC is substantial. As it is, UNC is currently third on my rankings. They would, however, pass UCLA if they were to win the national title. UNC's total score would bump up to 1372, while UCLA will be at 1368.
Kansas and Duke would flip-flop places, if KU wins it all. And if Villanova were to win it all, they would pass UConn and move into 8th place all-time.
Where is the significant gap between Kentucky and UNC if they win this title?
Conference titles and a decent gap in win %, right? That's the difference between SEC and ACC. And the SEC also played a big role in their titles/final fours in the 40s/50s.
UNC has 4 more final fours and would have more tourney wins, and a lot more success in the modern era.
The conference ships is always a hard one to quantify. I'm still looking at tinkering those numbers a bit.
But, here's what the differences looked like before the tournament...
Tournament Appearances: +8
Sweet 16: +11
Elite 8: +10
Final Four: -3
Title Games: +1
Titles: +2
NIT Champs, 1946 (The 1940's NIT ships would have rivaled NCAA Tournaments; I didn't reward with as many points, though)
NIT Runners-UP, 1947
Conference Championships: +12
Top-10 finishes: +7
Top-25 finishes: +2
.800+ seasons: +12
sub .500 seasons: +5 (5 fewer than UNC)
I've included 14 metrics in my formula. Even with a 7th title, UNC would still be 193 points behind Kentucky. That's a substantial gap. They would jump UCLA, however.
I think there'd be a good argument for both sides. IF they win it.
Some of these numbers look more impressive than they are when given context. For example, a lot of those Elite 8s are from an era in which every tourney appearance was an Elite 8 appearance. And with only conference winners getting an invite, being in the SEC was a nice advantage.
I could care less whether UNC, KU, UCLA or UK are number one. I like basketball.
@ExitFlagger only purpose in life is to demean Kentucky and praise Kansas.
I can deal with that. I simply don't like the constant bullshit.
@ExitFlagger only purpose in life is to demean Kentucky and praise Kansas.
I can deal with that. I simply don't like the constant bullshit.
Nope. Not at all. Obviously Kentucky is going to come up if we're comparing top programs. I don't think it's "demeaning" to suggest that another school could have an argument for being #1 in the future.
Some of you will downplay Gonzaga's success all day long, but aren't willing to admit that playing in the SEC was an advantage vs some other programs back then?
God bless Exit the Big "8", "10", "12", "13" or whatever it is in any particular year, is a piece of shit conference compared to the SEC.
Kentucky has had a good team for 100 years no matter what conference they played in. hell for a long time Kentucky was in the same conference as Duke and UNC, but UK beat them.
Kansas has never been in a good conference. Give me a damned break.
They were in the same league as Duke and NC in the 30s before the tourney era.
I wasn't comparing to the Big 6/8/12, but they were a much better league than the SEC in the early tourney era. Oklahoma St won a few national titles and the league produced a bunch of final fours. Who, besides Kentucky, did anything in the SEC at that time?
The SEC has two top 40 all time programs other than Kentucky. Arkansas and Florida. Arkansas wasn’t in the SEC in those days and Florida was terrible back then.
Three Big 6 programs other than KU are top 25 all time, and a few of them were among the very best in those days.
Historically, the ACC is a much stronger conference than the SEC, yes. And while most know UNC has been better than Kentucky in the modern era, I think you could even go back to when Dean Smith started (1962 season, I believe), and UNC would still top UK. However, Kentucky dominated the 40's and 50's - and that's what given them a HUGE advantage.
I tend to think the SEC and ACC/Southern were more or less even in the 40's and 50's. And this is significant, because Kentucky gaining their historical advantage during the early years in a quality conference means more (they weren't stockpiling points against a creampuff league). By the 60's, the ACC had certainly surpassed them. Here's a look at how many times teams from the SEC and ACC/Southern had been to the Final Four or nationally ranked between 1939-1959. The SEC has a combined 27 seasons (obviously UK helps a bit, but NCSU and UNC match that #), while the ACC has a combined 24 seasons. FWIW, the polls were only 20 deep back then.
SEC
Kentucky (14)
Vanderbilt (3)
Miss State (3)
LSU (2)
Alabama (2)
Auburn (2)
Tulane (1)
ACC/Southern
NC State (8)
UNC (6)
Duke (4)
Wake (3)
Maryland (2)
West Virginia (1)
Between 1939-1950, the tournament only fielded 8 teams. Kentucky was in there four times, while UNC was in there twice. So, only plus two from that. Yet, Kentucky actually won the SEC 10 times during that 12 year span. There weren't enough spots for all of the conference champs (and certainly some schools deferred to the NIT). I believe Kentucky was a legit Final Four/Title contender in 46, 47, and 50. Also, the '54 Kentucky team was undefeated. They declined to play in the postseason in 1954 because three of their starters were ruled ineligible - due to already having graduated (rule has since changed). That team was ranked #1 in the country. That's 4 squads that easily could have racked up way more points for Kentucky - not to mention all of the conference champs that were left out of the tourney.
The AP Poll started in 1949. Of the first 7 years of the AP Poll (1949-1955), Kentucky finished in the top 3 every season - while UNC didn't have a top 10 finish until the 1957 season. I personally don't think it's splitting hairs. Kentucky is ahead of UNC by almost every metric. I think the best argument to make for UNC is they've had more success in the past half-century - and it's certainly more challenging to win championships in the modern era. But, I don't feel like it's necessarily fair to discount titles from the early years if we really want this to be a true representation of all years. I don't give title teams from the 40's credit for Round of 32 and Sweet 16 wins, however - because they obviously didn't have to play those games.
Similar threads
