Your homerism knows no bounds. Kentucky gets a pretty good seed if Noel isn't injured? Could have won the Big 12? He was injured in mid-Feb. Missed 7 regular season games. They had been unranked since the beginning of Dec. But, yeah, I'm sure that his injury is the only thing that could have prevented a high seed or winning the Big 12 over a top 10ish K-State team and another top 20 team. Ah, but the SEC was a gauntlet, therefore they would have run through the B12 like butter, right? Yep, such a gauntlet that Kentucky's team that got Bob Morrissed still finished 2nd behind 14th-ranked Florida (the only ranked team in the league).
And that's only one season. No way in hell does Kentucky's other NIT team have a chance to win the Big 12 that year. Or the 8 seed that lost to KU in the 2nd round. Or multiple others.
Face it, your arguments are awful and homerish as can be.
Obviously nothing can be "proven" in hypotheticals--but common sense can be used.
Again....ONE top 10 team in a DECADE. Please get this through your head. That is not a high quality league. That is not a league that offers Kentucky multiple legit challengers each year, like you hilariously continue to claim. That's not a league that can look down on the Big 12, especially when they've been owned head to head.
And yes, of course we're talking about 05 to 18. That's when the streak occurred; therefore, those are the years we're evaluating when determining if another school could have done it. Derp. This isn't some hypothetical about the future (but the fact that you think that Kentucky could win 14 straight in the future over programs like Tech and WV is hilarious).
Also, how "awesome" have I claimed KU to be? All I've said is that no one else would have matched the streak. That isn't proclaiming them to be the best team in that stretch or anything of the sort. It just means that they were consistently good during that period, while everyone else had at least one or two off years. It's not that complicated.
I love how you proclaim that Kentucky was good enough to win the Big 12 since '15 as fact. Nevermind that it's a far cry from 14 straight, but it's also a huuuuge stretch, unlike the examples I've given. 16 Kentucky would have had a difficult time finishing ahead of Buddy Hield's final four OU team, or top 10 WV. They also would have had their hands full with WV and Tech in '18. It's also a stretch to say they'd have finished ahead of a Tech team that nearly won the national title. So, even your little hypothetical 5 year streak is extremely flawed.
You keep claiming that a million programs have outperformed KU in the tourney, despite the fact that I keep telling you that KU is #2 this century in tourney wins behind UNC. They've averaged a final four more than once every four years and a ton of regional finals. Despite the Bradleys and Bucknells.
Gonzaga has outperformed KU in the tourney? I'd love to hear the argument for this. I'm starting to think you don't even follow basketball outside of Kentucky games. Gonzaga literally lost in the 1st or 2nd round every year for about 15 years before finally reaching a few elite 8s and one final four in the last five years. They haven't even outperformed KU in that stretch, given that KU has three elite 8s and a final four in that time. Villanova also had terrible success in the tourney until the last few years. And I've told you several times that KU has four more tourney wins than Duke during Self's tenure. Y'know, that program from the top league that's had similar seeding, consistency and more talent? Ah, but somehow they've "more than held their own," while KU has "floundered." Trademark JeffLogic.
No one knows more than KU fans that they should have/could have reached a few more final fours and won another title or two in that stretch, but it ain't automatic. Especially with numerous injuries/suspensions. If you think they wouldn't have won more tourney games had they not played two tourneys w/out Azubuike, one without Embiid, and several others without top talents...you're delusional. Do you think less of the '15 Kentucky team because they didn't win or play in the championship? No, you still think it was an all-time great team. Do you think less of the Wall/Cousins team because they didn't reach the final four? Doubt it. But for every KU team that failed to reach the final four, it was because they and their league weren't that good.
Nah, you're not a hater or a homer at all.
I see I have triggered you.
Hypotheticals work both ways and now we all see that you're easily triggered when it's turned around and shoved back at you.
And again, you calling anyone a homer is beyond hilarious.
There is no way that KU would win 14 straight in any other conference, besides maybe the PAC12.
There are better programs than kU that haven't done it. These are programs that have proven themselves in the tournament.
As far as other programs, like UK, Duke, MSU and UNC winning 14 straight in the BIG12, you can't say it's not possible, unless you're going to say KU is just that much better than those programs. Is that what you're saying?
Also, each blue blood and second tier program has had a long run of dominance where they could have pulled it off. Maybe not from 05 through 18, but so what.
But there's a difference, in the ACC, you will never win 14 straight, not when there are two blue bloods and a handful of other programs that prioritize basketball.
Same thing with the SEC, you're not winning 14 straight when Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida and whichever other program crops up to be a legit conference challenger. Now Auburn is showing out.
Yeah, there were some years where the SEC was very weak, as you have so graciously pointed out (sarcasm), but KU was not going to ever win 14 straight in the SEC, remember, there is no round robin.
The BIG10 has Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio State. Wisconsin was really good for a while. You're not winning 14 straight in that league either.
I've fully admitted that the 14 year KU winning streak was impressive, but they did it in a league that has 1 top dog. 1 team has won a title in the modern era. I think Oklahoma State won a title or two back in the 40's, but in the modern era, the entire league has amassed 2 national titles and both were won by 1 school. You have to admit that that is a huge puss filled zit sitting right on the BIG12's nose.
Heck, the sucky SEC has 6 titles in the modern era, by three different programs. And I'm not even going to count the 1978 UK title, as that's too far back to be considered modern era.
I did you a favor by counting the 1988 title, even though that's not really considered modern era.
I love how you try to laugh off my posts and claim that they are ridiculous. Nobody is buying what you're selling, everyone knows you're the biggest homer on this board and they're all on to your act. You call me a homer, but if you had been.paying attention, you would know that this wholevshit show of a debate has been about KU and how you think nobody else could accomplish the REGULAR SEASON SUCCESS tha KU has had. I'm the one claiming that multiple schools, not just UK, could possible do it. How does that make me a homer? I hate UNC, but I can call a spade a spade, they're a strong enough program, stronger than KU, to do it.
This is my last post to you in this thread. It's pointless, seems like you want everyone to suck KU off. It's a great program, a true blue blood, nobody debates that.
Nobody, except KU fans, gives a shit about regular season success. It's about final fours and titles. Winning your league, then getting beat in the first round of the tournament, totally takes the air out of your regular season accomplishments.
Later.
