So wrong.
Some of his good runs where when he did not win the ACC. In the old days he would not have even been in the NCAA.
Why does winning titles with multiple coaches matter to some of you?
- Thread starter bignish
- Start date
Some of his good runs where when he did not win the ACC. In the old days he would not have even been in the NCAA.
On the flip side, Duke was going up against unc and a then consistent NC State program in those days. It's not that impressive that a team like Kentucky was able to make the tournament when they were the Gonzaga of college basketball back then.
Not sure why you don't think the game didn't change or K didn't have to adapt over a period of 4 decades.
It is strange to think that Kentucky’s reputation was truly built as the Gonzaga of their era. What an eye opening statement.
Now think about if UK had to win as many tourney games as modern Gonzaga in order to win a natty.
This started as a joke, but has quickly taken a sharp turn toward reality. Kentucky would essentially have zero titles.
It wasn't as hard for a group of white boys to win back then like it is now. Gonzaga is well behind the times.
Bull shit. UNC? NC State?
The SEC and the Big Ten were far, far better conferences than the ACC. GEEZE.
Kentucky was never Gonzaga. Hell Kentucky in the old Southern conference was far better than UNC or Duke.
The game changes for sure but it was not against the favor of Duke.
Address the years that Duke did not get to go to the NCAA because they could not win the wimpy ACC. Yet wimpy UK kept winning the SEC who had some really good teams. Sorry, but you argument really get stressed when you address the good teams in the SEC and Big Ten back when basketball was basketball and sheep ran scared.
Who were the really good teams in the SEC? Had NC State been in the SEC, Kentucky probably loses a couple of years. Kentucky has been benefiting from a weak conference since you could legally shoot someone for cheating at cards. Second place in all time SEC championships has a single digit number of tournament championships and 11 regular season championships. All time. Kentucky has almost 40 more than second place. You can say that is representative of how dominant Kentucky has been, but reality shows how historically weak the SEC has been for a very long time.
From 1939 to 1975 the SEC had two teams reach the FF. One was LSU one time. The ACC had 3 teams reach the FF multiple times with WF also making an appearance. One sounds weaker than the other. But I think conference pride is gay, so whatever.
