Up-to Date: Better Team All time: Depaul or Tennessee or Alabama?
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
His being "older than dert" probably has someone to do with it.
Even with Johnny come late stats, still have to go with Depaul.
My all-time table has them in this order:
42. DePaul
49. Alabama
52. Tennessee
The Sweet 16/Elite 8 appearances are about the same. But, DePaul has more top 10 & 25 finishes, more seasons with a winning percentage at .800 or higher, more Final Fours, and an NIT Championship and NIT Runner-up finish in the 1940's when it was HIGHLY competitive.
10 or 20 years from now, it's totally reasonable for Alabama and Tennessee to both surpass DePaul. But presently speaking, we're not there yet. DePaul, on a historical scale, is objectively a better all-time program than both Alabama and Tennessee.
My all-time table has them in this order:
42. DePaul
49. Alabama
52. Tennessee
The Sweet 16/Elite 8 appearances are about the same. But, DePaul has more top 10 & 25 finishes, more seasons with a winning percentage at .800 or higher, more Final Fours, and an NIT Championship and NIT Runner-up finish in the 1940's when it was HIGHLY competitive.
10 or 20 years from now, it's totally reasonable for Alabama and Tennessee to both surpass DePaul. But presently speaking, we're not there yet. DePaul, on a historical scale, is objectively a better all-time program than both Alabama and Tennessee.
TLDR: SUCK IT @della
Hopefully UT has a great season so they can finally pass St. Joe's historically. #babysteps
Although I personally would rank St Joes a lot higher just because of the tradition tehy have where the mascot flaps his "wings" the ENTIRE game.
Although I personally would rank St Joes a lot higher just because of the tradition tehy have where the mascot flaps his "wings" the ENTIRE game.
Don't be a dumbass Depaul. (I mean that as friendly as possible as I am fond of you) I have never made the claim that UT is some historical powerhouse. So, making a counter argument to something I never said earns you no points. I have said UT has been a power for years and sited a post of last 200 games. Regarding relevance, someone has to be alive for something to be relevant to them and there aren't many alive today that were touched by DePaul's almost wins back in 45.
Finally, if you take issue with me defending the Vols, don't attack them.
just messing with you Della, I'm very fond of you as well.
Just driving home my point that you were way off when you said DePaul was not historically relevant. You have yet to admit you were wrong about that and instead have double and triple downed on it. Just admit you were wrong about that one thing. I was more than happy to agree with you that DePaul is not currently relevant. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong about something?
You haven't proved me wrong, so that is kinda on you. You need to define relevant. I have given you my definition.
As an old fart who saw many SEC basketball facilities before the advent of ESPN, most SEC schools could have cared less about basketball. My high school gym in little Park City, KY was nearly as large as the Old Gator Alley. Alabama and Auburn played in large barns.
The good facilities were for Vandy, Kentucky and LSU. A lot has changed as college basketball got more popular and profitable with TV rights etc. but the SEC is still not basketball country like it should be.
The good facilities were for Vandy, Kentucky and LSU. A lot has changed as college basketball got more popular and profitable with TV rights etc. but the SEC is still not basketball country like it should be.
Sorry to bother, but what's your honest thoughts on Tennessee, DePaul, and Alabama? good and bad. Never mind the fans.
Are you calling me an Oklahoma fan or an old person?
Because you live in the past dude, I guess that's what you HAVE to do these days.
Yikes.
My all-time table has them in this order:
42. DePaul
49. Alabama
52. Tennessee
The Sweet 16/Elite 8 appearances are about the same. But, DePaul has more top 10 & 25 finishes, more seasons with a winning percentage at .800 or higher, more Final Fours, and an NIT Championship and NIT Runner-up finish in the 1940's when it was HIGHLY competitive.
10 or 20 years from now, it's totally reasonable for Alabama and Tennessee to both surpass DePaul. But presently speaking, we're not there yet. DePaul, on a historical scale, is objectively a better all-time program than both Alabama and Tennessee.
I thought this was just a thread meant to poke a little fun at Della and Alabama fans, but this just made it very real.
Oops.
Yep, @dukedevilz posting that was like Moses coming down from the mountain with the Commandment tablets.
It is really more like a construction company coming in and moving goal posts. It's like calling Yale relevant due to their success in the 1800's and early 1900's in CFB. No one calls Yale relevant.
It is an interesting point though. While UT is the better program now, it looks like DePaul has had higher highs than UT has.
I feel like it can change, if Rick Barnes can get UT to just one FF though.
Barnes has UT in the top 5-10 every season now a days. A title would be great, but I am thrilled with where we are. Anywho, hi Jeffy, how has your Summer been?
Ha it probably was meant to be a troll thread. But, it seemed like there was actual discussion going on about who the better program was. Just though I'd chime in for a second.
The goalpost has remained intact. The title of the thread is asking who's a better team all-time, not who's the better current program.
No, the goal posts have not. This was a troll thread until wearedepaul got involved and then it was a discussion. During the discussion I stated that UT and winin stated that bama were not historical powers.
I've been all over the place this summer, been busy. Even spent time down in Pigeon Forge at my Dad's place.
Yeah, Barnes has done a terrific job, I just don't think being in the top 10 consistently, is enough to move the needle. I thought he had the team to get to a FF last year, got to the doorstep, but just came up a little short.
It looks like Barnes is really hitting his stride these last few years, so maybe he can get the Orange over that hurdle before he hangs it up.
Purdue was a bad matchup for us. We had no answer for Eddy. We would have had a better chance against Uconn. The SEC is a lot tougher than it use to be. Barnes has us winning some titles, top 5-10 and advancing in the dance. He has done a great job.
I thought UT was better at all but the center position.
It’s hard to predict how these kids are going to perform in that tense moment. I mean, UK went into Auburn and pounded them, went to Knoxville and won, but couldn't beat Oakland University. Pressure does a number on these college kids.
Well, it's a lot more fun when you have a good idea of how your team is going to perform each game and it's also a lot more fun when your coach and players care at least a little about the name on the front of the jersey.
Win, or lose, I like the mindset and direction Pope and the players have going on.
The thing with UT and Barnes, there always seems to be a dude that steps up and fills the void left by the last stud. It’ll be interesting to see who fills the huge void Knecht left. That guy was a killer.
Yeah, you guys cleaned house, so who knows. We have a core of players, but will need the transfers to step up. Knecht was a special player, so I'm not counting on that, but hopefully we can be competitive.
DePaul was pretty good in the 60's and 70's and commanded respect or they would whip your ass.
Alabama during the C. M. Newton era (a good Kentucky grad and friend of mine) had some really good teams but they never really broke through as a national threat.
Tennessee during the Ray Mears era could cheat it way through the SEC but failed to have much of an impact on the national level.
Alabama, Tennessee and many other SEC teams considered the year a success if they beat Kentucky. Few ever preformed nationally until Georgia made the final four one year. I don't include South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri in this consideration as they came in later.
This is what happens when you go out of the office on business and some folks leave you notes on the back of a business card. You show back up the next day and the guys in the office are saying man you should have been here yesterday because these guys were looking for you.
Do you guys have junk like this sitting around?
The worst part of the Cal era, was all the guys that came to UK just to leave. They weren't there for UK, they were sold on the NBA-first mentality, so guys that didn’t even do anything worth a damn, bolt for the draft, even though they aren't even on draft boards.
Then, you see most of these guys blow up in the NBA the next season against the best players in the world.
But also, there were so many players that had 1 great season at UK, then left. There was never any continuity.
I'm glad that era is over. It ran its course years ago.
I agree totally. The first Cal team had all the needed elements to win it all, especially if they came back; but they left in wholesale numbers.
I sometimes think that Cal pushed them to leave so he could recruit another one and doner.
He built an NBA first culture and all the training and preperations were designed for the next level.
But the thing is, it was working from 09-19, but something changed after that. He went from "don't come here if you're not good enough, I can't hide you here", to "I can't take a players heart, that's someone's sone" (I guess the better college players sitting the pine don't have parents).
It got to a point where he was definitely making promises to get recruits and he knew he had to play these raw NBA prospects because he had to prep them for the NBA, he would hurt their stock if he didn’t play them and he had to make good on promises made. He sacrificed winning for kids that were getting drafted no matter what and he did it so he could tell everyone he got those players drafted and take credit for their big contracts.
He could have prioritized winning and still stuffed the draft each year, but he chose to sacrofice winning.
I get John Wall, Cousins, Randle, Towns, Fox, Monk, AD and Murray leaving after one season, they had to, but the one-and-done culture he created meant that everyone that came to UK was only coming there for the NBA connections and at most, they were only staying 2 years, no matter what.
The fact that Boston, Skal and Edwards left after the awful single season performances they had, tells me the NBA is after measurables and athletesism, they don't need Cal, but he thinks they do.
Hmm, if only there was a thread here where we could talk about Kentucky basketball.
Similar threads
