Season Predictions

[IUfanBorden]

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.

Never said it was equal. I said they are just as meaningful as todays. And they are. Plus I could make the argument that it was HARDER to win in 40's, 50's, etc, etc...Only conference champs were allowed. So in some cases, your 1st round opponent was a Top 10 team. And at worse. A conference champ, i.e. Big 10, ACC, etc, etc.. That isn't remotely close to today's format. Hell in some instances, a team won't face anyone of Top 25 nature until the 3rd game; Much less the 1st gsme. In other words, I could argue that the titles IU won in 40 and 53 were much tougher to do so, due to the fact that the tourney wasn t as watered down as it is today. Same with UK's in the 40's and 50's.
It's a silly argument. Those titles won then are just as meaningful as titles won today. The only difference is the criteria. And imagine if today's criteria was that of which only conference winners were taken? No UNC...No Duke...No UL...No UConn...No Kentucky...No Purdue. No Indiana. Or Villanova. Michigan's FF'' s don't happen. So imagine the years where Duke, UK. Nova, MSU, UNC, etc, etc...had really good teams. But didn't win their conference? They would be excluded. So instead , we'd have a toirnament field with ONLY 5 Power conference teams. Rest would include MEAC, Sun Belt, OVC, MVC, Atlantic Sun, CUSA, AAC, Ivy League, CAA, Big West. So on and so on. Oh....and of course the SEC
Just kidding. Well, kinda of. My point is,we'd have a tourney, every year, with at least no Duke, UNC, UVA, UL, Syracuse, etc...No Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, IU, Purdue, Maryland, etc...No WVU, KState, Baylor, Oklahoma, etc...No Florida, UK.... No Villanova, Butler, Cincy, Xavier, etc, etc...
You see, there's an argument for both sides. But you only want to see one. Why?

 

[IUfanBorden]

85 is widely considered the beginning of the modern era. It's not just a random year. First year of the 3 pointer.

It's considered that because the field expanded to 64. Three point shot wasn t used in the NCAAT until 1987. Plus the 3 point.was used for years; First in 1961. It was strictly for conference play from the 70's, up until the NCAA official adopted the rule for the 1986-87 season. Just thought you'd like to know this. 1985 is considered the start of the modern era. But not because of the 3 point shot. It was because of the field being expanded to 64 teams.

 

[mebeblue2]

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.

how do you know they were all won fair and square?
you may choose to believe that, but that does not mean that it is the truth

 

[mebeblue2]

85 is widely considered the beginning of the modern era. It's not just a random year. First year of the 3 pointer.

87 was the first year of the 3 point line and the beginning of the modern era of basketball

 

[IUfanBorden]

87 was the first year of the 3 point line and the beginning of the modern era of basketball

Yeah I already scolded him on this...

 

[IUfanBorden]

87 was the first year of the 3 point line and the beginning of the modern era of basketball

Oops...Didnt see that last part. Though I could be wrong. But pretty sure '85 is considered the modern era; field expanded to 64. Or it could be the modern era of the NCAAT? Who knows. Doesn't matter. What I do know is this: titles won by IU and UK, in the 40's, 50's and 70's ain't going away. That I do know.

 

[mebeblue2]

Oops...Didnt see that last part. Though I could be wrong. But pretty sure '85 is considered the modern era; field expanded to 64. Or it could be the modern era of the NCAAT? Who knows. Doesn't matter. What I do know is this: titles won by IU and UK, in the 40's, 50's and 70's ain't going away. That I do know.

i agree that a title won is a title won and they all count the same (even the ones won in down years )

going to 64 teams never changed CBB
the 3 point shot changed the game forever

 

[IUfanBorden]

i agree that a title won is a title won and they all count the same (even the ones won in down years )

going to 64 teams never changed CBB
the 3 point shot changed the game forever

Thing is, three point shot wasin the game; and for quite some time. It was primarily a conference rule. First used in 1987. Which is why intend to agree (with you). But for some.reason, 1985 sticks in my head.

 

[ExitFlagger]

It's considered that because the field expanded to 64. Three point shot wasn t used in the NCAAT until 1987. Plus the 3 point.was used for years; First in 1961. It was strictly for conference play from the 70's, up until the NCAA official adopted the rule for the 1986-87 season. Just thought you'd like to know this. 1985 is considered the start of the modern era. But not because of the 3 point shot. It was because of the field being expanded to 64 teams.

Whatever. The point was that it's not an arbitrary year and is widely considered the start of the modern era.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Never said it was equal. I said they are just as meaningful as todays. And they are. Plus I could make the argument that it was HARDER to win in 40's, 50's, etc, etc...Only conference champs were allowed. So in some cases, your 1st round opponent was a Top 10 team. And at worse. A conference champ, i.e. Big 10, ACC, etc, etc.. That isn't remotely close to today's format. Hell in some instances, a team won't face anyone of Top 25 nature until the 3rd game; Much less the 1st gsme. In other words, I could argue that the titles IU won in 40 and 53 were much tougher to do so, due to the fact that the tourney wasn t as watered down as it is today. Same with UK's in the 40's and 50's.
It's a silly argument. Those titles won then are just as meaningful as titles won today. The only difference is the criteria. And imagine if today's criteria was that of which only conference winners were taken? No UNC...No Duke...No UL...No UConn...No Kentucky...No Purdue. No Indiana. Or Villanova. Michigan's FF'' s don't happen. So imagine the years where Duke, UK. Nova, MSU, UNC, etc, etc...had really good teams. But didn't win their conference? They would be excluded. So instead , we'd have a toirnament field with ONLY 5 Power conference teams. Rest would include MEAC, Sun Belt, OVC, MVC, Atlantic Sun, CUSA, AAC, Ivy League, CAA, Big West. So on and so on. Oh....and of course the SEC
Just kidding. Well, kinda of. My point is,we'd have a tourney, every year, with at least no Duke, UNC, UVA, UL, Syracuse, etc...No Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, IU, Purdue, Maryland, etc...No WVU, KState, Baylor, Oklahoma, etc...No Florida, UK.... No Villanova, Butler, Cincy, Xavier, etc, etc...
You see, there's an argument for both sides. But you only want to see one. Why?

Amen Borden. Good post.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Whatever. The point was that it's not an arbitrary year and is widely considered the start of the modern era.

It is. But did you know that by 1951, the NCAA had become a more prestigious event than the NIT? ALSO...if you wanna count shit just since 1985, that's good. But not really. UK still has more titles[4], than KU [2]. In other words, no matter what criteria, era you use, those silly Wildcats still win. Sucks, I know.

 

[ExitFlagger]

It is. But did you know that by 1951, the NCAA had become a more prestigious event than the NIT? ALSO...if you wanna count shit just since 1985, that's good. But not really. UK still has more titles[4], than KU [2]. In other words, no matter what criteria, era you use, those silly Wildcats still win. Sucks, I know.

What the hell? When did this become a KU vs UK comparison? I believe it was a Kentucky fan taking issue with a Duke fan who cited '85 as the beginning of the modern era.

But since you mentioned it, you could make a very good argument for KU being better than Kentucky since '85. More final fours, more tourney wins, 100+ more wins overall, far more league titles, and one fewer national title (not sure how you got 4--maybe use your toes next time).

 

[BasketBallJunkie-UK]

What the hell? When did this become a KU vs UK comparison? I believe it was a Kentucky fan taking issue with a Duke fan who cited '85 as the beginning of the modern era.

But since you mentioned it, you could make a very good argument for KU being better than Kentucky since '85. More final fours, more tourney wins, 100+ more wins overall, far more league titles, and one fewer national title (not sure how you got 4--maybe use your toes next time).

8>>>>>>3

 

[ExitFlagger]

8>>>>>>3

Not relevant, but when has that ever stopped you robots? Now back to swilling bourbon and pissing off your front porch.

 

[IUfanBorden]

What the hell? When did this become a KU vs UK comparison? I believe it was a Kentucky fan taking issue with a Duke fan who cited '85 as the beginning of the modern era.

But since you mentioned it, you could make a very good argument for KU being better than Kentucky since '85. More final fours, more tourney wins, 100+ more wins overall, far more league titles, and one fewer national title (not sure how you got 4--maybe use your toes next time).

My mistake on number of titles for UK. But curious....Why would I need my toes? Anyways....Sure you could make the argument KU's been better (since '85). But OK. I mean you still trail in titles by 5. Hell for that matter, you trail my fvckin Hoosiers by two. And we haven't won a title since 1987. But hey whatever...

 

[IUfanBorden]

Not relevant, but when has that ever stopped you robots? Now back to swilling bourbon and pissing off your front porch.

What's wrong with pissing off your fromt porch?

 

[ExitFlagger]

My mistake on number of titles for UK. But curious....Why would I need my toes? Anyways....Sure you could make the argument KU's been better (since '85). But OK. I mean you still trail in titles by 5. Hell for that matter, you trail my fvckin Hoosiers by two. And we haven't won a title since 1987. But hey whatever...

And....your point?

Are you trying out for the Kentucky fanbase or something? I seem to remember you (correctly) pointing out the hypocrisy of Kentucky fans and how they annoyingly interject their "list" in situations when it's irrelevant. Now you're doing the same, and therefore also being a hypocrite. But hey, whatever...

 

[ExitFlagger]

What's wrong with pissing off your fromt porch?

Well, I seem to remember you saying you grew up in the Louisville area, so this is no shock.

 

[IUfanBorden]

And....your point?

Are you trying out for the Kentucky fanbase or something? I seem to remember you (correctly) pointing out the hypocrisy of Kentucky fans and how they annoyingly interject their "list" in situations when it's irrelevant. Now you're doing the same, and therefore also being a hypocrite. But hey, whatever...

How is it irrelevant? First you talk about how titles from the 40's and 50's are not AD important. Then you start talking about "1985". I mean dude...If you'd quit moving the goal post. So which is it? You wanna talk about the 40's and the 50's? Or 1985....Or 2000...Just pick one. The reason I used overall stats is because you keep moving the era's. So which one?

 

[IUfanBorden]

Well, I seem to remember you saying you grew up in the Louisville area, so this is no shock.

And? What's wrong with pissing off your front porch? Does it somehow label someone ? By pissing off my porch, does it mean I'm stupid? A hillbilly? A red neck? What? Maybe it means I live on 148 acres, with no neighbors, and therefore if I choose to piss off of my front porch. Well then God damn it I will. Naaah. Red neck for sure. Right?

 

[IUfanBorden]

What the hell? When did this become a KU vs UK comparison? I believe it was a Kentucky fan taking issue with a Duke fan who cited '85 as the beginning of the modern era.

But since you mentioned it, you could make a very good argument for KU being better than Kentucky since '85. More final fours, more tourney wins, 100+ more wins overall, far more league titles, and one fewer national title (not sure how you got 4--maybe use your toes next time).

Kansas has a great tradition. But you talk waaaay to much smack.for a school that's BEHIND UCONN in titles. And tied with Villanova.

 

[kyjeff1]

What the hell? When did this become a KU vs UK comparison? I believe it was a Kentucky fan taking issue with a Duke fan who cited '85 as the beginning of the modern era.

But since you mentioned it, you could make a very good argument for KU being better than Kentucky since '85. More final fours, more tourney wins, 100+ more wins overall, far more league titles, and one fewer national title (not sure how you got 4--maybe use your toes next time).

Anytime you're involved it becomes a UK v KU thing. You did it right here in the post I quoted, just after you asked why it was a UK/KU thing. It's the reality of it when you post the way you do. Congrats.
Also, I don't care what criteria you use and what timeframe, KU doesn't match up.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

What the hell? When did this become a KU vs UK comparison? I believe it was a Kentucky fan taking issue with a Duke fan who cited '85 as the beginning of the modern era.

But since you mentioned it, you could make a very good argument for KU being better than Kentucky since '85. More final fours, more tourney wins, 100+ more wins overall, far more league titles, and one fewer national title (not sure how you got 4--maybe use your toes next time).

Pick you era and more league titles are the measure? Kansas has two titles since 1985. 2 of their 3. Geeze! UK has 3, the equal of Kansas all time. Damn it is hard to argue what you just argued.

 

[ExitFlagger]

How is it irrelevant? First you talk about how titles from the 40's and 50's are not AD important. Then you start talking about "1985". I mean dude...If you'd quit moving the goal post. So which is it? You wanna talk about the 40's and the 50's? Or 1985....Or 2000...Just pick one. The reason I used overall stats is because you keep moving the era's. So which one?

This started by me arguing that UNC could make a case for GOAT if they won another title, and that it would be hard to make a case against them if they won two before Kentucky won another. The opinion that those late 40s titles aren't equal to a title in today's format was in support of that take.

Then a Duke fan commented that he considered 1985 the beginning of the modern era and Bert took issue with it, implying that it was just an arbitrary year used to prop up Duke.

So...you tell me how KU's (or Indiana's) # of titles is relevant. I'll wait.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Anytime you're involved it becomes a UK v KU thing. You did it right here in the post I quoted, just after you asked why it was a UK/KU thing. It's the reality of it when you post the way you do. Congrats.
Also, I don't care what criteria you use and what timeframe, KU doesn't match up.

If KU doesn't measure up to UK since '85, then I guess UCLA is the best program of all time. Because the only way to justify it is to argue that only national titles matter.

Can't have it both ways, junior. Sorry.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

If KU doesn't measure up to UK since '85, then I guess UCLA is the best program of all time. Because the only way to justify it is to argue that only national titles matter.

Can't have it both ways, junior. Sorry.

Based on titles they are. In fact from 1963-1975 no program can ever equal that. Hell their second team would have won the NCAA. Geeze man, you don't know much about basketball do you.

Bill Walton's back up center, who never got to play, made the NBA.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Kansas has a great tradition. But you talk waaaay to much smack.for a school that's BEHIND UCONN in titles. And tied with Villanova.

Whether KU had won 10 titles or 0, it wouldn't change what I said. Especially since the argument was, y'know, never even about KU.

But along those lines, you talk waaay too much for a fan of a program with one decent tourney run since New Kids on the Block dominated the charts and 0 titles in the last three decades.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Based on titles they are. In fact from 1963-1975 no program can ever equal that. Hell their second team would have won the NCAA. Geeze man, you don't know much about basketball do you.

Bill Walton's back up center, who never got to play, made the NBA.

Yeah, I'm aware of how many titles they have. Obviously you missed the point.

 

[IUfanBorden]

This started by me arguing that UNC could make a case for GOAT if they won another title, and that it would be hard to make a case against them if they won two before Kentucky won another. The opinion that those late 40s titles aren't equal to a title in today's format was in support of that take.

Then a Duke fan commented that he considered 1985 the beginning of the modern era and Bert took issue with it, implying that it was just an arbitrary year used to prop up Duke.

So...you tell me how KU's (or Indiana's) # of titles is relevant. I'll wait.

So you do or Don t think titles from the 40's and 50's are just as relevant? I mean you say UNC could make a case [with a couple more] as GOAT. Which means you feel titles from that era are ok??? But then you argue with me they are not?? Dude I'm lost. You're a confusing fella.
IU and KU's titles are relevant because both school habe titles from those era's. Right?
Anyways...This has made its circle. I have no clue what it is you are talking about. Good luck this year.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Whether KU had won 10 titles or 0, it wouldn't change what I said. Especially since the argument was, y'know, never even about KU.

But along those lines, you talk waaay too much for a fan of a program with one decent tourney run since New Kids on the Block dominated the charts and 0 titles in the last three decades.

What smack.do I talk? Show me where I compare IU to KU, Duke, UK, etc, etc...? Show me where I try and diminish others titles. Show me where I give arbitrary time lines in effort to make my school look better. I dont. I know where IU is. I accept that. I don't try and create scenarios to probe otherwise. It is what it is. And you're right...no deep NCAA runs in a long time. Yet we still have more titles than KU. Better be careful. Before long, KU will be known as "Can't U". As in, can't finish. So many times as the bride's maid.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Anytime you're involved it becomes a UK v KU thing. You did it right here in the post I quoted, just after you asked why it was a UK/KU thing. It's the reality of it when you post the way you do. Congrats.
Also, I don't care what criteria you use and what timeframe, KU doesn't match up.

I was certain of this. Thanks for clarifying. Meaning, I knew somewhere, he made this about UK/KU. I for one wouldn't have.

 

[Kevin Bryan]

 

[ExitFlagger]

I was certain of this. Thanks for clarifying. Meaning, I knew somewhere, he made this about UK/KU. I for one wouldn't have.

LOL. Good God. You made it about KU vs Kentucky. Not me.

Prove me wrong.

 

[IUfanBorden]

LOL. Good God. You made it about KU vs Kentucky. Not me.

Prove me wrong.

My apologies. I didn't realize the 440 post between you and UK fans, pertained to UNC being the GOAT. Which is weird. You mention KU in a ton of those. But hey, my apologies.

 

[ExitFlagger]

So you do or Don t think titles from the 40's and 50's are just as relevant? I mean you say UNC could make a case [with a couple more] as GOAT. Which means you feel titles from that era are ok??? But then you argue with me they are not?? Dude I'm lost. You're a confusing fella.
IU and KU's titles are relevant because both school habe titles from those era's. Right?
Anyways...This has made its circle. I have no clue what it is you are talking about. Good luck this year.

You're confusing yourself. Nothing I said is contradictory. And I never said those titles are irrelevant. They're something to be proud of. But it wasn't an equally valid way to determine the best team in the nation as what we have now. I'm honestly not sure what is so controversial about this.

I mean, in 1949, Kentucky played in both the NCAA and NIT, winning the NCAA and losing in the quarterfinals of the NIT.

 

[IUfanBorden]

You're confusing yourself. Nothing I said is contradictory. And I never said those titles are irrelevant. They're something to be proud of. But it wasn't an equally valid way to determine the best team in the nation as what we have now. I'm honestly not sure what is so controversial about this.

I mean, in 1949, Kentucky played in both the NCAA and NIT, winning the NCAA and losing in the quarterfinals of the NIT.

Ok. You said they were "Not as hard". Easier to win. When you dismiss something as being less, you are calling it irrelevant; i.e. with less meaning. Rather you meant to or not.
Have a good rest of the summer. Good luck this year.

 

[ExitFlagger]

My apologies. I didn't realize the 440 post between you and UK fans, pertained to UNC being the GOAT. Which is weird. You mention KU in a ton of those. But hey, my apologies.

Actually, correction, it was the Kentucky fans that made it about KU vs UK (surprise).

Regardless, your comments still had nothing to do with my points.

I never made it about KU's place in history vs Kentucky's, and the 1985 thing wasn't about Kentucky vs KU.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I mean, in 1949, Kentucky played in both the NCAA and NIT, winning the NCAA and losing in the quarterfinals of the NIT.

And? Are you insinuating the NIT was stronger? Thus diminishing the NCAA title won [by UK]? If so, you should do better research.
The final of the 1949 NCAA Title game had the #1 and #3 teams.
The final of the NIT had the #6 and #16 teams.
MOF, UK Had to beat two, Top 10 teams to reach the final: Villanova and Illinois. Illinois in fact was ranked 4th.
I mean could it have been the case of a good team losing to another good team? Or a good team not playing well, this losing to an inferior team? I mean being a Kansas fan, you should know all about losing to inferior teams come March....

 

[IUfanBorden]

Actually, correction, it was the Kentucky fans that made it about KU vs UK (surprise).

Regardless, your comments still had nothing to do with my points.

I never made it about KU's place in history vs Kentucky's, and the 1985 thing wasn't about Kentucky vs KU.

You win.

 

[kyjeff1]

If KU doesn't measure up to UK since '85, then I guess UCLA is the best program of all time. Because the only way to justify it is to argue that only national titles matter.

Can't have it both ways, junior. Sorry.

The only people that would say KU > UK since '85 would be KU fans.
So yes, yes I can have it both ways.