Either a lot of people didn't vote, or there are no lurkers on this board.
Poll: When Does The Modern Era Begin?
- Thread starter dukedevilz
- Start date
If it completely changed the dynamics, strategies and style of play of the game, sure.
I don’t think any of this is particularity black or white. I think you could make the case that adding a shot clock or reducing it to 35 then 30 had as big of an impact on the game as some of the items above.
Even if you watch replays of games in the 90s, the style was completely different. It’s hard to even call that truly “modern”. I personally prefer to just break them up by decades because it’s easier and doesn’t require us to argue on when to start the clock, or just including everything since it’s all relevant to historical discussions.
Even if you watch replays of games in the 90s, the style was completely different. It’s hard to even call that truly “modern”. I personally prefer to just break them up by decades because it’s easier and doesn’t require us to argue on when to start the clock, or just including everything since it’s all relevant to historical discussions.
On one hand KU fans like to claim Naismith as inventor of basketball. A lot of coaches come from said program.
On the other. lets' focus on "modern era".
They seem disjointed. Same with some other fanbases.
On the other. lets' focus on "modern era".
They seem disjointed. Same with some other fanbases.
Not sure what's inconsistent about being proud of tradition and also believing that games in the modern era carry a little more weight.
Btw, I thought you hated generalizations? You seem pretty uptight when anybody brings up Rafters.
Some of them are quick to point out older championships mean less, but at the same time, want credit for producing the coaches that won them. I also know for a fact if Kansas had more titles pre modern era (if it was so easy what happened?) they would brag about them the same way other schools do.
haha. I couldn't give two flips about Rafters. You got me on the generalizations though.
I hate to single folks out. I should work on that.
Point remains.
plenty of compelling arguments for different years but given the way the sport has evolved, that the tournament is the most important thing, I believe that makes 1985 the MOST reasonable year to use as the cut off of the modern period.
Just like arguing about bubble teams there will always be arguments that can be made to include a certain year or a particular team but it is ultimately a subjective choice by the OP and he asked for some input to help frame his data.
Probably the other compelling date to me would be the Bird/Magic year as that really seems like it ushered in a new era of basketball but I believe truly that was more substantial at the nba level.
Fun discussion but the tournament is the dominant aspect of the current sport and so I believe you go with the year that the 64 team format was created (68 does not really change anything from a championship pov...all champs since 85 have won 6 games)
Just like arguing about bubble teams there will always be arguments that can be made to include a certain year or a particular team but it is ultimately a subjective choice by the OP and he asked for some input to help frame his data.
Probably the other compelling date to me would be the Bird/Magic year as that really seems like it ushered in a new era of basketball but I believe truly that was more substantial at the nba level.
Fun discussion but the tournament is the dominant aspect of the current sport and so I believe you go with the year that the 64 team format was created (68 does not really change anything from a championship pov...all champs since 85 have won 6 games)
Can't speak for everybody else, but my issue is that the early NCAA titles weren't won against the best of the best. Only conference winners were allowed, and many of the highest-ranked teams weren't involved. I think it's much different to win 6 games against the best in an era with far more parity. Not sure why that's so controversial.
If Calipari had coached in the 40s, I'll bet he would have dominated with that format and probably would have won as many titles as Rupp. It's much harder to do that now.
Not sure why you always want to compare to what KU did in that era. I've never denied that Kentucky was better at that time.
For the record I voted 85. Common sense to me. I guess my issue is people want to belittle titles won before x year or y year, and I have a hard time with that. Because If all you had to do was win your conference and win 3 tournament games, more schools should have titles from the 40s and 50s, right?
Many are quick to point out that winning a title today is so much harder than 70 years ago, but there’s no hardware in their trophy cases to back that argument up. Unless you are saying a program like Kansas is light years better now than they were back in the day. That isn’t a shot at Kansas, either. I think they are the perfect example for my argument.
KU is considered the bluest of the blue bloods, and one of the more impressive histories in college basketball. They’ve won three titles in the modern era and one before that. With the tournament being harder now, it’s crazy to me they’ve been so much more successful in the modern era than their storied history before that. Hope that makes sense.
Not sure why you're saying that certain schools should have won more in the 40s/50s. They were what they were. KU/Duke/UNC weren't what they are now during those years.
And it's not just that it's harder to win now, it's that it's earned vs a field that includes the best. If the same format existed today, two of this year's Final Four teams would have been left out of the field, and 5 of the Elite 8. Are you saying that winning that hypothetical tourney should be viewed the same?
KU was very up and down throughout the 60s/70s. Not even close to what they've been the last 40 years. They were very good in the pre-tourney era, and good throughout the 40s/50s. 1 title to show for it, but also a couple of 1 pt title game losses. It's like asking why Calipari only has one title and failed to win in 2015. Shit happens.
If we're being serious now, I'm pretty sure that you'd be annoyed by a lot of the stuff that KU fans hear. How often does your fanbase bring up the all-time head to head record to imply superiority, even though most of those wins happened before many of us were born and have nothing to do with the current state of the programs? How often does a UK fan mention that you have twice as many titles?
I'm curious....do you think that pre-Super Bowl championships should carry the same weight as Super Bowls? If you were a Packers fan, would you laugh at Patriots fans for having half as many championships all-time? No, I think you'd feel silly doing that.
Is it ok for UK to claim superiority due to walking in your house and ass raping you? Is that an extra exemption.
You are contradicting yourself. without even knowing it.
Just say, we're not #1 due to down times. the criteria is a crutch.
*note I love reading your rants. Gold.Hope you keep doing them. "let's think about it this way" is my fav.
Last edited:
For fun, I decided to look up the (Power Five) teams with the most NCAAT appearances since each cutoff date. Granted, it's just one small metric (and I didn't take the time to total every team, just the ones I knew would have more than 15 or so...), but it's still interesting:
Since 1980
39 - North Carolina
38 - Kansas
37 - Duke
35 - Kentucky
31 - Indiana, Arizona, Michigan State
30 - Villanova, Purdue
29 - UCLA, Oklahoma
28 - Syracuse
27 - Louisville, Illinois, Georgetown, Arkansas
26 - Texas
25 - Maryland, Missouri
24 - Iowa, Wisconsin
23 - Virginia
21 - Ohio State, UConn, Oklahoma State, Florida, LSU, Notre Dame, Pitt
20 - Michigan, Marquette, Tennessee
Since 1985
36 - Kansas
35 - Duke
34 - North Carolina
31 - Arizona, Michigan State (rough early '80s!)
30 - Kentucky
27 - UCLA, Purdue, Oklahoma
26 - Indiana, Texas
25 - Villanova, Syracuse
24 - Illinois, Wisconsin
22 - Louisville, Georgetown, Arkansas
21 - UConn, Maryland, Florida, Missouri
20 - Michigan, Oklahoma State, Iowa
19 - Virginia, Notre Dame, Pitt
18 - Ohio State, LSU
17 - Marquette, West Virginia, Creighton
Since 1980
39 - North Carolina
38 - Kansas
37 - Duke
35 - Kentucky
31 - Indiana, Arizona, Michigan State
30 - Villanova, Purdue
29 - UCLA, Oklahoma
28 - Syracuse
27 - Louisville, Illinois, Georgetown, Arkansas
26 - Texas
25 - Maryland, Missouri
24 - Iowa, Wisconsin
23 - Virginia
21 - Ohio State, UConn, Oklahoma State, Florida, LSU, Notre Dame, Pitt
20 - Michigan, Marquette, Tennessee
Since 1985
36 - Kansas
35 - Duke
34 - North Carolina
31 - Arizona, Michigan State (rough early '80s!)
30 - Kentucky
27 - UCLA, Purdue, Oklahoma
26 - Indiana, Texas
25 - Villanova, Syracuse
24 - Illinois, Wisconsin
22 - Louisville, Georgetown, Arkansas
21 - UConn, Maryland, Florida, Missouri
20 - Michigan, Oklahoma State, Iowa
19 - Virginia, Notre Dame, Pitt
18 - Ohio State, LSU
17 - Marquette, West Virginia, Creighton
And I assume you realize why certain fans dismiss these points.
You can pretend that all-time #s are all that matters to you, but if it were true, your fanbase wouldn't have been on suicide watch throughout last season and after the St Peter's game. 😆
Just noticed I lumped KU fans into one. I should say @ExitFlagger or any other name he wants to go by.
I'm assuming he's all of them.
I'm assuming he's all of them.
Bwahahaha....as soon as I typed that, I knew at least one of you would bring up the game this year. Even after KU won the title and you were bounced by a team no one's ever heard of in the first round. 🤣
Not contradicting myself at all.
So is it only acceptable to rant about Helms titles (which the vast majority of KU fans don't claim or care about) or to demean the Big 12 title streak? Just give me a list of what's acceptable to discuss and/or nitpick for the future.
A non-KU fan creates a poll to ask for opinions about when the modern era started, and the vast majority choose 1985. And your takeaway is "KU fans want to cancel everything before '85"
Seems reasonable. 😆
Personally I have no issues with Kansas at all. I congratulated you guys on the win, even admitted I was rooting for you. Any and all shots I take at Kansas are 99.9 percent retaliation for coming at Kentucky. But sure, any trolls can be annoying.
Regarding your first paragraph, I'm just making the point that those three schools you named, even if they weren't what they are now, were still the cream of the crop of college basketball. Still a leg up on other schools and the competition. If they weren't, we wouldn't talk about them as blue bloods. So I think its a very valid point to make that they didn't win maybe as much as they should in the so called "easier era".
All schools, especially the blue bloods, have a ton of "what if" moments in history. Hell, I think UK has made the elite eight almost forty times, and they've lost a decent chunk over half of those. So the shit happens argument is sound with me, totally get it.
That NFL comparison is a little different than what we are talking about. I have never debated and don't anticipate I will ever debate about titles pre NCAA tournament. Just don't care too. I don't count UK's titles before the tournament. Do I think the Packers have just as much right to brag about Super Bowl One as the Rams do Super Bowl 56? Probably not. But you can't punish the teams that won during those rules just because your team didn't thrive in them.
As I said before, I had a hard time chosing between 1985 and 1987 when they added the 3 point line. The biggest reason I chose 1987 is because adding 64 teams changed the tournament for sure, but did it really change the game itself like the 3 point line did?
On the flipside, one could ask why did Kentucky win as many titles in a 10 year span as they have in the 60+ years since, if it weren't easier?
Saying that it was easier isn't the same as saying anyone could do it. I don't think anybody's questioning that Kentucky was the best program from the late 40s to late 50s.
I think the NFL comparison is valid. From the early 30s to late 60s, there were NFL championship games. Different format and league structure, but if you use the same logic, those championships were just as valid as a Super Bowl. But I don't think many Packers fans are going to brag about their all-time superiority over the Patriots.
If modern science and technology allow us to dig up Adolph Rupp, it can happen 😎
In all seriousness, sports is a very "what have you done for me lately" business. So even if the two formats were equally difficult, the later champions would feel better about their title and rightfully so.
I am certainly not arguing when Kentucky won more things were harder, I think they were just a different kind of difficult. Evidence being that a lot of other successful schools as of late weren't as successful in the previous eras.
certainly valid. I went with 85 because tournament success and tournament titles are the focus of the sport. Absolutely the 3 point line has made an incredible difference on how the actual game is played however no one in these forums argues that the best 3 point shooting team has a claim for bonus points/superiority/etc, they do regarding advancing in the tourney and/or titles...that is why I opted for 85. Ultimately, there are objective and subjective criteria, that is what makes it interesting...we all have different values/different ideas and sometimes they are not completely aligned with what makes our favorite program appear better.
The correct answer is 1979 - Bird v Magic. I believe still the highest rated game in history. Everything else followed from that “start” of the modern era. Without that boost CBB is still a nothing activity that no one gives a shit about. They did the same for the NBA- completely elevated the franchise.
As a side note - any championships before that are invalid and shouldn’t be counted. 😂
As a side note - any championships before that are invalid and shouldn’t be counted. 😂
I don't see why you think 85 is common sense. It seems pretty arbitrary to me. I picked 87 because 3 pts shots changed the game and the game is what matters, not changing the number for the tourney.
85 makes to sense and neither do any of the others.
85 is the first year you needed to win 6 games to win the title. That is the bottom line for me.
It would seem to me that the switch from shooting the ball into a peach basket to a metal hoop with net would be more monumental that switching from the NIT to NCAA tourney.
You are entitled to your opinion. Modern era = modern way to win the title. Most agree on that, but obviously its subjective.
Jimbo, you are pretty polite in your incorrectness, so I suppose I'll just have to drop it. 🙂
Anyone have any idea what the win totals look like starting at 1985 until now? I imigine we are all up there, but I wonder if there are some surprises.
I thought the purpose of the poll is about the game and when it became the modern version that it is today. The tournament, as great as it is, isn't the game. It's an event.
