This is getting sad. Please move along, I’m sure you have some summer school work to get to. Or is Katina and her crew taking care of that for you as well?
looking like Reid Travis may be heading to UK
- Thread starter mebeblue2
- Start date
The first one was just because you said “any” Uk fan. It was still a joke though. As was the 2nd
did you really think anything less in a thread about UK on this board
any UK thread brings the rival cockroaches out of the woodwork
Disagree he will be our best player. I think Hagans or PJ will be. But I’m very excited to have him and I think he fits our team well.
Offseason probably has something to do with it as well. But yea I get your point
I highly doubt he'd be the best player on the team and plenty of players could put up numbers like that on that Stanford team. They flat out were not good. The fact that they finished with a winning record in the Pac 12 just shows how bad the Pac 12 was. Again, his FG% was not very good. He was a volume scorer.
Thought about him, too. I figured we would be so stacked at guard, he might not get the attention like some of our front court guys who will see more minutes. But if you told me he’d be our MVP at the end of the year, I could totally see it
53% is actually pretty good for a volume scoring face up 4. At a certain point it becomes more impressive because he played on a bad team. You're using the bad team argument to imply that he was the only option, but that also means opposing defenses were likely game planning around stopping him.
^ he had a 27.5 and 25.5 PER the last two years. And playing with bad teammates tends to bring down efficiency while increasing per game stats. So he'll likely be more efficient even while his per game numbers decline. Either way, he's contributing more than all but maybe 10 or so freshmen next year, and at a position of need for UK. What's not to love?
I could see this as well. We really won’t have a “superstar” on next years team, I don’t think. KJ could easily be the best player
I agree. Great defender and a great motor. He's not going to have to hit the 3 so much. We've got some really good shooters. Quade, Baker and Herro. If anyone else can hit a 3, its gravy. Gonna be a fun, scary team to watch.
We have no worry about Louisville. Cal has beaten you 90% of the time. We would love to play you anytime. Guaranteed win 90% of the time. Louisville has no title in decades. You are irrelevant in basketball.
UK is so stacked, that on any given night, a different player could be the leading guy.
Kentucky isn't winning it. What they have 1 championship this millennium
Kentucky isn't winning it. They have one championship this millennium. Give me the teams that return juniors and seniors players.
Did it sound so good to you in your head you had to post it twice? If I was a Kansas fan, the last thing I would want to talk with Kentucky is titles.
Wonder why he stopped at 2000?
Well, titles from the 40s have little bearing on what Calipari is going to do this year. This millennium is a little more relevant.
I'd brag about 8 national titles too, but Kentucky fans get carried away. During the early years of the tourney you often didn't even have to face the best teams. Hell, the NIT was the more prominent tourney in some years.
If KU fans have to disown the Helms titles (and I'm fine with that), there should be an asterisk next to some of the early tourney champs.
I'd brag about 8 national titles too, but Kentucky fans get carried away. During the early years of the tourney you often didn't even have to face the best teams. Hell, the NIT was the more prominent tourney in some years.
If KU fans have to disown the Helms titles (and I'm fine with that), there should be an asterisk next to some of the early tourney champs.
NCAA Championships
UK won in 98 and 96. So stopping at 2000 is obvious.
But back to topic after some derailing attempts. Rumors abound he's enrolled at UK.
Now can we teach Washington to hit 50% of his free throws?
Not to start a fight, but that middle paragraph is so wrong that it is laughable.
At one time the NIT was a really good tourneyment because the NCAA was a smaller field; however, it was NEVER better as the NCAA tourney got the conference winners. So the NCAA always got the best teams unless you are trying to tell us that the conference winners were somehow magically able to win the conference by being lesser.
Well, it's opinion, of course, but some have argued that the NIT field was better overall in some years. Winning one more game than team B doesn't automatically make team A the more talented. I'm guessing that most people would agree that Duke was better than Virginia by the end of this season and they finished 4 games back.
Regardless, there were many years where many/most of the top 10 teams in the country weren't in the field (including #2), and that ain't how you determine a national champ.
Maybe you should look at the record books and see how they determine the national champions. You might be enlightened.
Don't remember saying they shouldn't "count." But I do put more weight on titles from the modern era. So, 3-2 UK.
Bottom line is that the "Kansas shouldn't talk about titles" line is worn out. As if games from the 40s/50s have anything to do with Bill Self or Calipari or the state of the game itself.
It’s not worn out if anything “Kansas shouldn’t talk titles” has stood the test of time. You had basketball before the rest of us I can only imagine the choke jobs you guys displayed in those times
The tourney only included conference winners until '75. Of course there were highly ranked teams that weren't included. In fact, there were several teams that went UNDEFEATED in the regular season but didn't make the field because they lost their conference title game.
Similar threads
