Season Predictions
- Thread starter Da_Bull
- Start date
Well nothing is, there are more teams in the tourney now. It's not like you can go back in time and change it. You can only play the format offered. UK also has a few NIT titles too, BTW.
If the one or two teams that could beat you aren't participating, what does it prove?
Everyone wants to compare accomplishments from different eras as if they're apples to apples when they're not. Even decades later, when UCLA dominated CBB, it simply was a completely different landscape than today. There's no way in hell a program could duplicate that today.
Last edited:
And personally I'd have no issue with that. I don't see why anyone does. No different than college football before the intro to a playoff.
All titles have meaning. Always will. Shit 50 years from now people will look for a way to discredit titles of today. To me it's a silly argument. An argument with zero relevance. A title in 1950 is no different than a title from 2017. They were both won under the criteria required.
I predict at least 5 new ref conspiracies by the UK fan base this season if they win all the games against UK, Kansas, and Louisville.
If they lose to Duke, Kansas, and/or Louisville the new conspiracy number will easily be in double digits.
If they lose to Duke, Kansas, and/or Louisville the new conspiracy number will easily be in double digits.
They are playing themselves this year? Can't wait to watch that.
If they lose to Louisville....... good one! RollLaugh
If they lose to UL, I'll not only avatar bet, but quit posting for a year. Curious if a single UL fan will match.
There's some UL fans here that make bets and never follow through.
I was more referring to the guy that didn't hold up a bet for UL getting punished.
It's all good.
Anyone who targets UK specifically, is welcome.
Last edited:
I am the worst at trying to get along.It was probably this guy.
I try,keep my bets. Part of the fun is laughter
None are. That holds true in EVERY sport. Not just CBB. Hell the World Series used to be nest out of 9. Two of the WS titles won the Giants, they wouldn't have won 10, 20 or 25 years ago. There was no wild card. Shit what, 8 teams make the MLB playoffs now? Use to be only 4. And you had to win your division. You can examples of this in all.sports.
This is one of the worst arguments ever. It's stupid, really. IMO it's simply a way folks try to justify having less titles than someone else.
I'll take that spread. Give me UL and 20? We can bet whatever. UL's going to be better than most expect. And the games at UL. Plus, when was the last time UK beat UL by 20+, at UL?
Beat 'em by 20 at Freedom Hall in '96. So they're due again! I said I "expect" a 20 point win.... didn't say I'd bet on them winning by 20, but get at me closer to game day and we'll see. I'm not gonna make a bet like that in August either way. Laughing
Those aren't comparable examples.
So, if the NCAA suddenly decided to adopt a system which led to 5 of the top 10 teams in the country (and 3 of the top 5) being excluded from the tourney, you would argue that it's still just as valid of a way to determine the national champ. Is that what you're telling me?
This isn't true at all. The NIT took place before the NCAA and schools could participate in both tournaments. Matter of fact, New York won both of them in 1950 (beating Bradley in both title games). Of course, there were only 8 teams (1 from each district) in the NCAAT until the early 50's, too.
I wasn't denying that they could participate, but the bottom line is that they didn't have to face the best (according to rankings).
I'm not a Helms apologist, but if you're going to play the "that's how they determined a champ at the time" card, well, the same applies. In the '20s, teams knew they had to put together the best season to get voted "national champs." Sure, it was lame, but (to a lesser extent) so were the early NCAA tourneys. Both were a poor way to determine the best team in the country.
Not at all the same. You're talking about one having to actually win a tournament against other worthy teams, versus one random dude's opinion and no tournament whatsoever. There is a reason Kansas and UNC are two of the only schools that actually recognize those as "titles". Also, in the 20's teams knew nothing, because Helms didn't even come along until the mid-30s, retroactively awarding mythical titles, which makes it even worse. Do you remember who the best teams were 15 years ago? Let me remind you, there is no videotape to go back and watch replays.
Schools that claim pre-NCAA Tournament basketball championshipsEdit
Many schools claim or recognize pre-tournament era national college basketball championships by virtue of being selected by third-party selectors, such as the Helms Athletic Foundation, including the University of Kansas,[18] Purdue University,[19] Stanford University,[20] the University of North Carolina,[21] the University of Pittsburgh,[22] the University of Wisconsin,[23] Syracuse University,[24] and Washington State University.[25] In addition, in some years teams won playoff series or tournaments played on the court for a national championship. For example, LSU claims the 1935 championship by virtue of winning the American Legion Bowl game against Pittsburgh in a match-up of regional powers.[26]
Three schools claim a national championship based on their NIT championships: DePaul (1945),[27] Utah (1947),[28] and San Francisco (1949).[29] Long Island also recognizes its selection as the 1939 national champion by the Helms Athletic Foundation.[30]
The following table is a partial list of schools that claim a national championship from the pre-NCAA Tournament era of college basketball. See also Helms Athletic Foundation Basketball National Champions. Not all schools recognize national championship honors bestowed by third-party selectors.
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Year (pre-1939) School Source
1904 Hiram[31][32][33][34][35][36] 1904 Olympic Games college championship tournament
1908 Chicago[37][38] National Championship Playoff
1912 Wisconsin Helms Athletic Foundation
1914 Wisconsin Helms Athletic Foundation
1915 Illinois Helms Athletic Foundation
1916 Utah[39]
Wisconsin AAU tournament
Helms Athletic Foundation
1917 Washington State Helms Athletic Foundation
1918 Syracuse Helms Athletic Foundation
1920 New York University[39]
Pennsylvania[40] AAU tournament
National Championship Playoff
1922 Wabash[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]
Kansas First National Collegiate Championship Tournament
Helms Athletic Foundation
1923 Kansas Helms Athletic Foundation
1924 North Carolina
Butler[39] Helms Athletic Foundation
AAU tournament
1925 Princeton
Washburn[39] Helms Athletic Foundation
AAU tournament
1926 Syracuse Helms Athletic Foundation
1927 Notre Dame Helms Athletic Foundation
1928 Pittsburgh Helms Athletic Foundation
1929 Butler
Montana State Veteran Athletes of Philadelphia
Helms Athletic Foundation
1930 Pittsburgh[50] Naismith Basketball HOF Championship Game, Helms Athletic Foundation
1931 Northwestern Helms Athletic Foundation
1932 Purdue Helms Athletic Foundation
1934 Wyoming Helms Athletic Foundation
1935 LSU[51] American Legion Bowl Game
1936 Notre Dame Helms Athletic Foundation
1937 Stanford Helms Athletic Foundation
1938 Temple Helms Athletic Foundation, NIT
More schools claim helms titles than don't. Just as an FYI
Yeah, I forgot that the 20s Helms were awarded retroactively.
I wasn't saying it's the same thing. Just that neither is a good way to determine the best team.
The following year, Kentucky played in both tournaments. They defended their NCAA title, but lost in the NIT quarterfinals.
Even today the selection process isn't ideal, but it is what it is, and it's the same for everyone. Kentucky's 1951 NCAA title doesn't carry as much weight as their 2012 title, same as Kansas' 1952 title doesn't carry as much as their 2008 title. I doubt many would argue that. Then again, I can only really speak of what I know, and I know I wasn't alive in the 50s, much less the 20s.
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Why did the NCAA not invite St. Louis?
God you dig really deep for shit.
Kentucky's early titles were EARNED on the court. Plus the UK teams basically won the olympics in 1948, so go suck on that for a while.
Basically Phog Allen and Kansas did the same thing 4 years later.
I'm just glad all 5 of Duke's titles were earned fair and square in the 64 team NCAAT era.
Modern college basketball began in 1985 and that's how I choose to see it. SmokinSmile
Modern college basketball began in 1985 and that's how I choose to see it. SmokinSmile
Indeed. Most folks don't realize Duke was good before K, they just couldn't ever win anything. You all have been spoiled for nearly 40 years though. There are gonna be a few broken hearts when he finally hangs it up. I wouldn't want to be the coach that has to follow him....
In most cases, it's all they have. Or they need to shine up what little they do have.
Some fans would be entirely different if they had five coaches with at least one title, instead of one coach with five titles.
What dobyou mean " not comparable"? Of course they are. They show change. Which happens in every sport. As for your example, a lot of really, really good teams get left out of the CFB playoff. MOF, 6 of the Top 10; which is close to your example. So in your opinion, when the CFB playoff is expanded, that makes the titles won by Alabama, less ? That's silly. As is your example. Your hypothetical scenario would never happen. The NCAA didn't "ban" teams. Those teams just chose to play in the NIT. Or in some cases both. Hey, under your line of thinking, maybe CCNY is the best team ever??? I mean after all. They did win BOTH , NCAA and NIT, in the same year. And all this time here was some of us idiots thinking it was a Duke, UL, UVLA or an Indiana. Seesh.
Why?You do realize that if today's NCAAT were played under the guidelines of the 40's and 50's, a lot of teams, including Duke, wouldn't even had made the field. Even into the 70's; Look at NC State. Top 5 team. Didn't make the field because you had to win your conference. I mean that's brutal. And it led to the change we see today.
So again, modern vs early era is a silly comparison. I could make an argument for as to why both were harder to win.
Also, you realize you'll be on the opposite end of this argument in 30 years, right?? Unless of course, you don't think there's ever gonna be change.
Yeap, Duke could not make it against the strong, less than 64, field. Of course modern basketball began in 1985 because that is when Coach K made Duke strong. So nothing before that counts. You sound like a Nova or UConn fan.
Why? I've never understood this. I know, I know...It shows how great UK is? I think. Look no doubt where UK stands. Arguably best program of all time. But to me that has little to do with having 5 coachrs whom have won titles. Just means UK made the right hire. Or said coach came in at the right time; See Tubby. Or even Hall. Though personally, I thought and still feel he's one of the most underrated coaches, of all time. Kentucky is no different than IU, UNC, KU or Duke. It's a place that with the right hire, you can win a National title. But make the wrong one? Or two...Or three? Well, you get Indiana.
I always hated the BCS system and the playoff is only slightly better. But at least the playoff includes the four perceived best teams. Not some random selection of whoever the hell decides to show up.
Since you like to split hairs, let's change the scenario. Suppose that over the next several years, teams could choose between the NCAAT and another brand new tourney, resulting in many of the top teams entering the other field. Then suppose that KU won the NCAA tourney without having to contend with 3 of the top 5 teams in the country. Are you telling me that every CBB fan on the planet wouldn't want to slap a fat asterisk on it? You're delusional. Same f***ing thing. But for some reason, since it happened in the 40s, and "thaaaat's the way it was," it's equally valid to a system in which the best teams all participate. Makes sense.
85 is widely considered the beginning of the modern era. It's not just a random year. First year of the 3 pointer.
Similar threads
