I think we lose 3, so 31 - 3 before the NCAA tournament.
One loss against the Duke/Kansas/UNC trio, lose two on the road in conference play.
One loss against the Duke/Kansas/UNC trio, lose two on the road in conference play.
Season Predictions
- Thread starter Da_Bull
- Start date
Let's face it, titles are harder to achieve now than in the 40s. Especially when you factor in that some of the best teams in the country didn't even participate in the NCAA tourney then.
If UNC matched Kentucky in titles, along with more final fours (and roughly the same win% in a better league), I don't think there's any question they'd be the GOAT. They'd have a good argument with one more. Hell, they could make an argument now.
Arkansas has two juniors and two sophomores on their roster the rest are freshman. I know IU is bringing in 6 new players, but with the returning talent and Juwan Morgan IU will not get blown out and should win.
Oh I know. But I don't care if they have 9 freshman in wheelchairs. That's as tough of a place to play as anywhere.
True. But Anderson’s better teams have all been very experience laden. Those teams are nearly impossible to beat in that place. They’re vulnerable this year imo. Not even projected as a top 6 team in the sec. probably struggle to make the tourney.
Very true. I believe they only return Gaffey. Also, they are picked to finish 10th. I'm more concerned with the atmosphere. Outside of Morgan, McBob and Green, we will rely heavily on frosh/soph. I don't think there's any question we are better. And if this game were at a neutral site, I'd feel quite confident. But it ain't. So I'm not.
Illinois
I'm expecting 18 wins with 7-8 wins in conference. This team has a lot more grit than last season, so I think we'll win a few we shouldn't have.
I'm expecting 18 wins with 7-8 wins in conference. This team has a lot more grit than last season, so I think we'll win a few we shouldn't have.
I hope so. Going to need a few guys to step up.
Not having Mark Smith on the court is going to help. Losing Leron hurts though.
If it was sooooooooooo easy to win back then, you would think KU would have racked up more titles.
I'm just waiting on the "The NIT was more prestigious" and "Helms titles count" comments.
Indeed! Helms are my favorite. Nothing better than mythical titles retroactively awarded based on the opinion of one person. We should hang banners for that. RollLaugh
Arkansas is SEC and the SEC is NOTHING compared to a Big Ten school.
Indiana by 50!
If UNC wins two more before Kentucky wins another, they'd absolutely deserve to be called "da greatest."
Here's a little fact for you guys: in '48, the NIT field included the #2, #4, #5, #6, and #7 ranked teams. Apply that to this year and the team that won in dominant fashion would instead have dominated the NIT. Oh, and the rest of the final four would have been excluded from the field too.
What a farce, right, DaBull?
1 year isn't a very good sample size. I'd like to see from 1920-1960, final standings comparing the NCAA field to the NIT to field, then maybe i'll believe it.
He was a bad teammate and his parents fed into the situation. It was so bad his high school coach informed some recruits from nearby schools that the issues at Illinois also occurred in high school.
That example is all that's needed to prove my point. As a KU fan, I'd love to go back and remove Villanova from the field last year. And in 2016 for that matter.
And I'm not sure why you're talking about ending any farces when you don't know that the first NCAA tourney was in 1939.
Ummm, ruh-roh.Who was in the field in 1922 and 1923?
Not that I am a huge proponent of Helms titles, but who else would have been the champion that year? To say that they didn't play a tourney so no one gets to be champion would do a disservice to the members of the teams that were playing back then. FYI a little used guard on the 1923 team was Adolph Rupp. That team had 2 of the 5 all Americans and the national player of the year. Won the hardest conference at the time and finished 17-1. That is why they were retroactively crowned national champs, they had the best resume. I mean college football didn't have a playoff until just recently....does that mean that none of the past teams can be awarded champion because they didn't play a tourney?
Good points. Being that UK was Helms champs in '33 and '54 I am going to say they have 10 now. SmokinSmile
1 example is an outlier. Go back to math class.
Who was in the field in 1922 and 1923?
I didn't personally hang those banners, so I'm not sure what it has to do with me.
Though it would seem that Kentucky's early titles and the Helms titles share something in common: neither involved winning a tourney vs the best of the best. Laughing
If it was so easy why wasn't Kansas just racking them up back in the day then, NCAA or NIT, rather than hanging mythical banners from when tournaments weren't played at all?
The guy who asked for 1920s info about a tourney that started in 1939 is telling me to go back to math class. Laughing
Sorry....not going to research every damn year to make the point. There were plenty of other years in which some of the top teams were in the NIT.
That title was weak. Period.
He will prove his hate for UK, nothing else applies. It is odd, I must say. UK and Kansas aren't even rivals.
I've never claimed that KU was better than Kentucky in the 40s, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.
Again, using last year as an example...do you think it would have been more or less difficult for KU to win the tournament if Villanova and several other top ten teams were excluded?
With the shit clock change I’m not sure titles won before are meaningful. Would have changed the outcomes of all games.
Yet you certainly never miss a chance to claim those titles are worthless, although KU couldn't win them.
