ADVERTISEMENT

Isaiah Moss to KU

JC for 3 said:
No, because the facts say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Imo, Duke is the premiere name in the sport. Nobody is really even close to being on their level over the last 35 years. Maybe North Carolina but that's it. I know you don't like timeframes but they do matter to most fans because people mostly care about events they've witnessed. Some believe Notre Dame is still #1 or #2 all time in football but most wouldn't agree because they just don't compare to programs like Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State anymore.

You could also argue that Kentucky playing in one of the weakest major conferences back in the 40's and 50's really helped out their stats more than they would have by playing in the Big 10, ACC or some other conferences. Had they been in a powerhouse league they likely don't have as many total wins, conference championships, NCAA tournament appearances and NCAA tournament wins. They may even be down a Final Four or two and/or a title. What Duke has done in the last 35 years is a lot more impressive than anything Kentucky has done. The fact that they've done it in the toughest league and with the best coach goes a long way.

Since I know you guys are so hung up on all time being the only thing that matters, I'll agree with you that it is Kentucky, but it's a lot closer than you guys think it is, IMO. North Carolina is pretty much equal to you guys and Duke isn't very far behind at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84, HRTheCard and sgrooms
schoonerwest said:
Imo, Duke is the premiere name in the sport. Nobody is really even close to being on their level over the last 35 years. Maybe North Carolina but that's it. I know you don't like timeframes but they do matter to most fans because people mostly care about events they've witnessed. Some believe Notre Dame is still #1 or #2 all time in football but most wouldn't agree because they just don't compare to programs like Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State anymore.

You could also argue that Kentucky playing in one of the weakest major conferences back in the 40's and 50's really helped out their stats more than they would have by playing in the Big 10, ACC or some other conferences. Had they been in a powerhouse league they likely don't have as many total wins, conference championships, NCAA tournament appearances and NCAA tournament wins. They may even be down a Final Four or two and/or a title. What Duke has done in the last 35 years is a lot more impressive than anything Kentucky has done. The fact that they've done it in the toughest league and with the best coach goes a long way.

Since I know you guys are so hung up on all time being the only thing that matters, I'll agree with you that it is Kentucky, but it's a lot closer than you guys think it is, IMO. North Carolina is pretty much equal to you guys and Duke isn't very far behind at all.
Click to expand...

I give far more weight to titles won in the modern era than in the 40s. Quite simply, those games weren't played against the best of the best. The early NCAA tourney fields sometimes excluded several top 10 teams. Not to mention only conference winners were eligible. You only had to win once to reach the Final Four.

Far cry from winning a title today. You can make a very good argument for North Carolina as the GOAT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KisteK and HRTheCard
lurkeraspect84 said:
I'm envious of everyone that has a better stat than UK. I'm codependent like that.

I take solace in being better than most, and it irks me when someone has a better stat than us.

#bluebloodproblems
Click to expand...

Crazyq must’ve taken over your account
 
schoonerwest said:
Imo, Duke is the premiere name in the sport. Nobody is really even close to being on their level over the last 35 years. Maybe North Carolina but that's it. I know you don't like timeframes but they do matter to most fans because people mostly care about events they've witnessed. Some believe Notre Dame is still #1 or #2 all time in football but most wouldn't agree because they just don't compare to programs like Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State anymore.

You could also argue that Kentucky playing in one of the weakest major conferences back in the 40's and 50's really helped out their stats more than they would have by playing in the Big 10, ACC or some other conferences. Had they been in a powerhouse league they likely don't have as many total wins, conference championships, NCAA tournament appearances and NCAA tournament wins. They may even be down a Final Four or two and/or a title. What Duke has done in the last 35 years is a lot more impressive than anything Kentucky has done. The fact that they've done it in the toughest league and with the best coach goes a long way.

Since I know you guys are so hung up on all time being the only thing that matters, I'll agree with you that it is Kentucky, but it's a lot closer than you guys think it is, IMO. North Carolina is pretty much equal to you guys and Duke isn't very far behind at all.
Click to expand...

Good thing that FACT beats opinion every day and twice on Sundays.

The 'weak conference' argument has been tried by every UK detractor known to man and it simply doesn't work. OOC wins are a big factor in being the program with more wins than any other. It clearly shows that the program's success isn't limited to just being in the SEC.

NCAA Titles are NCAA Titles, end of story. They're not bread titles or NIT titles, they're NCAA Titles. When people try to devalue them based on when they were won, it's just a weak attempt to talk down on something their program doesn't have.

Interesting selection of 'last 35 years' to make a point about dUKe. UK has 3 titles in that span, 4 if you go back to '78.... a title earned at duke's expense.
 
JC for 3 said:
....to take on the current 'Big Dogs' of the Big 12 Texas Tech? That's not weaseling out of anything.
Click to expand...
it's stupid to even suggest UK doing anything. IIRC, it's not up to UK on who they play in the SEC/Big 12 matchup. I'm surprised some are dim enough to suggest it as some sort of gotcha.
 
JC for 3 said:
Good thing that FACT beats opinion every day and twice on Sundays.

The 'weak conference' argument has been tried by every UK detractor known to man and it simply doesn't work. OOC wins are a big factor in being the program with more wins than any other. It clearly shows that the program's success isn't limited to just being in the SEC.

NCAA Titles are NCAA Titles, end of story. They're not bread titles or NIT titles, they're NCAA Titles. When people try to devalue them based on when they were won, it's just a weak attempt to talk down on something their program doesn't have.

Interesting selection of 'last 35 years' to make a point about dUKe. UK has 3 titles in that span, 4 if you go back to '78.... a title earned at duke's expense.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you explain to me why the “weak conference” argument doesn’t work.

You can absolutely make the claim that some NCAA titles were harder to earn than others. Do you really believe Holy Cross winning the 1947 title over Oklahoma, CCNY and Texas is as impressive as Kansas winning over Memphis, UCLA and North Carolina in 2008? In your mind they appear to be of equal value. I don’t think many people would agree with you.

Duke has 5 over that same time period. Kentucky would have to increase their title count by 67% to equal them. That’s a massive number. They also have a lot more wins and Final Fours over that time period. And they do it in a much more difficult conference. Funny you hate the timeframe aspect but you adjust my timeframe to include another Uk title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRTheCard
schoonerwest said:
Why don’t you explain to me why the “weak conference” argument doesn’t work.

You can absolutely make the claim that some NCAA titles were harder to earn than others. Do you really believe Holy Cross winning the 1947 title over Oklahoma, CCNY and Texas is as impressive as Kansas winning over Memphis, UCLA and North Carolina in 2008? In your mind they appear to be of equal value. I don’t think many people would agree with you.
Click to expand...
UK has winning record against 95% of teams OOC. KU is a blue blood and 2nd winningest team in history and we're 23-9 against them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC for 3
schoonerwest said:
Why don’t you explain to me why the “weak conference” argument doesn’t work.

You can absolutely make the claim that some NCAA titles were harder to earn than others. Do you really believe Holy Cross winning the 1947 title over Oklahoma, CCNY and Texas is as impressive as Kansas winning over Memphis, UCLA and North Carolina in 2008? In your mind they appear to be of equal value. I don’t think many people would agree with you.
Click to expand...

He probably doesn't even understand the history that he brags about daily.

Imagine boasting every day of your life about games that you not only haven't ever seen, but would never even WANT to watch. While arrogantly dismissing titles piled up in recent times by Duke and UNC. Laughing
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HRTheCard
MrBaracus said:
He probably doesn't even understand the history that he brags about daily.

Imagine boasting every day of your life about games that you not only haven't ever seen, but would never even WANT to watch. Laughing
Click to expand...
I’ve just never understood why some people can’t understand that accomplishments in the modern era are a lot more impressive than ones that happened during an 8 team tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KisteK, sgrooms and HRTheCard
MrBaracus said:
He probably doesn't even understand the history that he brags about daily.

Imagine boasting every day of your life about games that you not only haven't ever seen, but would never even WANT to watch. While arrogantly dismissing titles piled up by in recent times by Duke and UNC. Laughing
Click to expand...
this is cute. I'm so glad we don't have to do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC for 3
schoonerwest said:
I’ve just never understood why some people can’t understand that accomplishments in the modern era are a lot more impressive than ones that happened during an 8 team tournament.
Click to expand...
i never understood why ppl dismiss history. We all played in those tournaments. KU hangs Helms banners next to NCAA banners. It's all relative and cherry picking time frames is a crutch for the weak.
 
schoonerwest said:
I’ve just never understood why some people can’t understand that accomplishments in the modern era are a lot more impressive than ones that happened during an 8 team tournament.
Click to expand...

Titles....you either have them or you don't. What you seem to be suggesting is adding a 3rd column alongside Wins/Losses called 'Degree of Difficulty'.
 
MrBaracus said:
He probably doesn't even understand the history that he brags about daily.

Imagine boasting every day of your life about games that you not only haven't ever seen, but would never even WANT to watch. While arrogantly dismissing titles piled up by in recent times by Duke and UNC. Laughing
Click to expand...

8 still a bigger number than anyone's amount of titles not named UCLA. Why that continues to elude you is mind boggling, but consider the source.
There are the way things are and the way you wish they were. The reality of the way things are trumps any argument you try to float against it.
 
JC for 3 said:
8 still a bigger number than anyone's amount of titles not named UCLA. Why that continues to elude you is mind boggling, but consider the source.
There are the way things are and the way you wish they were. The reality of the way things are trumps any argument you try to float against it.
Click to expand...
It's nice not having to spin things. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC for 3
lurkeraspect84 said:
i never understood why ppl dismiss history. We all played in those tournaments. KU hangs Helms banners next to NCAA banners. It's all relative and cherry picking time frames is a crutch for the weak.
Click to expand...
It’s not dismissing history. It’s simply pointing out that some titles are a lot more impressive than others. I mean people on this board from all programs tend to devalue some of Uconn’s titles from this decade. Why wouldn’t some of those same people not believe that Duke’s 2015 title is a lot more impressive than one from 1947?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KisteK and HRTheCard
schoonerwest said:
It’s not dismissing history. It’s simply pointing out that some titles are a lot more impressive than others. I mean people on this board from all programs tend to devalue some of Uconn’s titles from this decade. Why wouldn’t some of those same people not believe that Duke’s 2015 title is a lot more impressive than one from 1947?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with ppl having an opinion. Again,we all played basketball back then. Everyone was trying to win. One of my favorite stats about UK is the fact we've had 5 coaches win titles over multiple decades. 4 titles after Rupp. Again,I'm very comfortable with our stats. We can talk all time or 4 titles since '78. I do understand why some want to cherry pick time eras. I would too, if I didn't have a choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC for 3
schoonerwest said:
It’s not dismissing history. It’s simply pointing out that some titles are a lot more impressive than others. I mean people on this board from all programs tend to devalue some of Uconn’s titles from this decade. Why wouldn’t some of those same people not believe that Duke’s 2015 title is a lot more impressive than one from 1947?
Click to expand...

...it's unnecessary dissecting. You either own a title or titles.... or you don't.
 
lurkeraspect84 said:
I have no problem with ppl having an opinion. Again,we all played basketball back then. Everyone was trying to win. One of my favorite stats about UK is the fact we've had 5 coaches win titles over multiple decades. 4 titles after Rupp. Again,I'm very comfortable with our stats. We can talk all time or 4 titles since '78. I do understand why some want to cherry pick time eras. I would too, if I didn't have a choice.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s just the argument for other programs. I did say I believe Kentucky is the top program but I think it’s a lot closer than some think. Duke is far and away the best program in our lifetimes and the argument for why them or Carolina are equal all time has merit.
 
schoonerwest said:
Yeah it’s just the argument for other programs. I did say I believe Kentucky is the top program but I think it’s a lot closer than some think. Duke is far and away the best program in our lifetimes and the argument for why them or Carolina are equal all time has merit.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with their recent success. They've earned it. Just like in '47 every team put their best effort forward and tried to win. Same as today. Roy is killing it at UNC. It's silly to try and take away from that. It's silly to try and take away from any team. We have to be pretty conceited to think that what we've witnessed is better than what others witnessed.
 
lurkeraspect84 said:
I have no problem with their recent success. They've earned it. Just like in '47 every team put their best effort forward and tried to win. Same as today. Roy is killing it at UNC. It's silly to try and take away from that. It's silly to try and take away from any team. We have to be pretty conceited to think that what we've witnessed is better than what others witnessed.

Imagine that thought with war. WWII was a cake walk compared to the weapons today.:confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not using that argument because today’s players are better. The way I’m using it has to do with there only being an 8 team tournament with several highly ranked teams being left out. Tournaments for the last 35 years have included all teams that have a shot at winning it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRTheCard
lurkeraspect84 said:
i never understood why ppl dismiss history. We all played in those tournaments. KU hangs Helms banners next to NCAA banners. It's all relative and cherry picking time frames is a crutch for the weak.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That's the point. There are a lot of contenders and very good teams that did NOT play in those early tournaments. Therefore, you can't deem it equal to a tourney that includes all the best teams in the nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KisteK and HRTheCard
MrBaracus said:
Wrong. That's the point. There are a lot of contenders and very good teams that did NOT play in those early tournaments.
Click to expand...
Isn't that their own fault?

you're acting as though UK was somehow treated differently. Every team was trying to win back then, they all put their best team forward. I'm not going to apologize if another team couldn't make it. That's on them. Get better.
 
JC for 3 said:
OOC win/loss record.
Click to expand...
Don’t most blueblood teams have a win/loss record against OOC opponents?

That argument is flawed. The overall strength of the SEC is what is weaker than that of the Big 10, ACC or Big 8/12, especially back in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Kentucky still would’ve been really good in any conference but they would have been playing a tougher schedule than what they were used to. That means more close games, more losses, likely less conference championships which would mean they would have less opportunities to make noise in the NCAA tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRTheCard
schoonerwest said:
I’m not using that argument because today’s players are better. The way I’m using it has to do with there only being an 8 team tournament with several highly ranked teams being left out. Tournaments for the last 35 years have included all teams that have a shot at winning it.
Click to expand...
Today's players are better. However, yesteryear's players was matched amongst themselves.
 
schoonerwest said:
Don’t most blueblood teams have a win/loss record against OOC opponents?

That argument is flawed. The overall strength of the SEC is what is weaker than that of the Big 10, ACC or Big 8/12, especially back in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Kentucky still would’ve been really good in any conference but they would have been playing a tougher schedule than what they were used to. That means more close games, more losses, likely less conference championships which would mean they would have less opportunities to make noise in the NCAA tournament.
Click to expand...
We'll never know. We only have history to look back on. UK has been beating up teams from all conferences dating back to the '40's
 
MrBaracus said:
It's their fault that there was a stupid system in place that didn't allow 2nd place finishers to participate?
Click to expand...
2nd place seems to suck.they should have worked on that.

speaking of which, why are we talking about 2nd place teams. didn't first place go on and compete?

loser's mentality.
 
schoonerwest said:
Don’t most blueblood teams have a win/loss record against OOC opponents?

That argument is flawed. The overall strength of the SEC is what is weaker than that of the Big 10, ACC or Big 8/12, especially back in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Kentucky still would’ve been really good in any conference but they would have been playing a tougher schedule than what they were used to. That means more close games, more losses, likely less conference championships which would mean they would have less opportunities to make noise in the NCAA tournament.
Click to expand...

....when UK is the ALL TIME leader in wins, conference affiliation is irrelevant.
 
lurkeraspect84 said:
We'll never know. We only have history to look back on. UK has been beating up teams from all conferences dating back to the '40's
Click to expand...
It’s just fun to look at history and try and make sense of why things happened the way they did. Kentucky benefitted from playing in the SEC. I think that much is obvious but they would’ve been elite no matter what conference they were in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC for 3 and lurkeraspect84
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Erock-conn

No Surprise Here: Kansas Asked to not play at UConn

Replies
12
Views
762
College Basketball Board
ExitFlagger
ExitFlagger
AuHoosier420

Duke fans. Isaiah Evans...

Replies
12
Views
440
College Basketball Board
dukedevilz
dukedevilz
T

Post your predicting starting lineup

Replies
25
Views
2K
College Basketball Board
Blueheart32
Blueheart32
T

M-I-Z …. F-K-U

Replies
17
Views
822
College Basketball Board
Fighter of the Nightman
Fighter of the Nightman
lurkeraspect84

Counting Vacated Wins

Replies
51
Views
4K
College Basketball Board
dukedevilz
dukedevilz
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back