**NCAA Basketball Thread**

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

Oh look, Kentucky fans thinking their program is the best of all time. I guess having elite players is not a requirement in their criteria.

Hard to refute a well articulated, thought out argument like this one..

[Lee3691]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Hard to refute a well articulated, thought out argument like this one..

Yep - it's not like the Kentucky fan listed his (or her) reasons for ranking Kentucky has the top program of all time, and it's not like I mentioned a criteria (something like elite players) or anything.

Kentucky fans are definitely the most insecure fans of any blue blood college basketball program, always trying to come up with lists like this.

[Jake]

Kentucky is easily in the top 6 or so all-time basketball traditions


UCLA
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
UCONN
Louisville
Kentucky


that seems about right...

[Lee3691]

I'm not sure anyone is arguing about Kentucky being considered one of the top 6 programs in history. In fact, I think most college basketball fans would say they are easily a top 3 program, despite their lack of elite players. I think Kentucky, North Carolina and UCLA all have reasons to think each is #1.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

Yep - it's not like the Kentucky fan listed his (or her) reasons for ranking Kentucky has the top program of all time, and it's not like I mentioned a criteria (something like elite players) or anything.

Kentucky fans are definitely the most insecure fans of any blue blood college basketball program, always trying to come up with lists like this.

That's a terrible criteria to judge a college program by... Well since that program didn't produce Michael Jordan, it can't be the greatest of all time. That's sound logic.

I was think most all time wins, highest all time winning percentage, most all time tournament wins, 2nd in titles, winning a title with 5 different coaches, etc. would be decent criteria but since that wasn't accomplished with a bevy of NBA all-stars, I guess you're right.

It's the off-season, I apologize for not making some random meaningless list to your liking.

[Rodey]

Success over a long period of time is certainly important, but UCLA has three more titles than anyone else. I'm not really sure how you can argue against them not being on top. Maybe if they had 9 to UK's 8 or something, but not when they have 11.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

I'm not sure anyone is arguing about Kentucky being considered one of the top 6 programs in history. In fact, I think most college basketball fans would say they are easily a top 3 program, despite their lack of elite players. I think Kentucky, North Carolina and UCLA all have reasons to think each is #1.

Pretty sure he was trolling.. Poorly, but still trolling.

I agree with this. Have no argument with any of these being listed #1.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

I'm not sure anyone is arguing about Kentucky being considered one of the top 6 programs in history. In fact, I think most college basketball fans would say they are easily a top 3 program, despite their lack of elite players. I think Kentucky, North Carolina and UCLA all have reasons to think each is #1.

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Pretty sure he was trolling.. Poorly, but still trolling.

I agree with this. Have no argument with any of these being listed #1.

obviously... Louisville?




wasn't the thread here "Kentucky basketball: We're the best of all time and we know it?"


doesn't that sum up Kentucky fan in a thread title? Best of all time for college hoops is betwixt UCLA, Kentucky, and Kansas. That's the way I see it.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

I guess I fon't get how you can say that UConn is a better program when you knock UCLA for a decade of dominance when UConn has basically done the same thing, only they weren't anywhere near as dominant.

During my lifetime, the Heat have been better than the Celtics, does that make them a greater all-time NBA franchise?

Sports is 'what have you done for me lately'. So Uconn has had a great run and UCLA has been largely mediocre for the last 30 years. Right now they are the better program. Seems like the "all time" thing is what everyone is so indignant over. Semantics but ok, UCLA has had a better history than Uconn BY FAR. But the last 15 years has not been kind to UCLA for the most part and Uconn has 4 titles and a shit ton of momentum. So right now, Uconn is a better program IMO. The Celtics just won a title 6 years ago so that's not a great comparison.

Listen, everyone doesnt need to get all butt hurt and start talking shit about kentucky because I have an unpopular opinion. We were having a good discussion and suddenly Lee can't handle that someone doesnt revere UCLA's 40 year old era of dominance anymore and Jake is....doing whatever Jake does. i'm not trashing UCLA I just don't look at them like a top 5 program anymore. Uconn has been far more successful in the last 20 years and the future certainly looks brighter there. If you don't agree with me, let's discuss it and stop with the immediate crying and shit talking over a difference of opinions.

[thebridge15]

Is it safe to say that the only inarguable blue bloods are Kentucky, Carolina, and UCLA?

Maybe Duke?

EDIT: And Kansas.

[kydmb99]

I think we can agree that #askemmert is the reason Twitter was invented.

http://onwardstate.com/2014/04/18/th...-of-askemmert/

[Lee3691]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

That's a terrible criteria to judge a college program by... Well since that program didn't produce Michael Jordan, it can't be the greatest of all time. That's sound logic.

You listed some important criteria (Final 4s, tourney wins, championships, etc), but having elite basketball players play at a particular school is also a criteria. More power to Kentucky for winning a lot of championships without these type of players, but having Jordan play at UNC, or KAJ at UCLA or Wilt at Kansas is something I feel helps the legacy of a program.

Originally Posted by whygohome?

Sports is 'what have you done for me lately'. So Uconn has had a great run and UCLA has been largely mediocre for the last 30 years. Right now they are the better program. Seems like the "all time" thing is what everyone is so indignant over. Semantics but ok, UCLA has had a better history than Uconn BY FAR. But the last 15 years has not been kind to UCLA for the most part and Uconn has 4 titles and a shit ton of momentum. So right now, Uconn is a better program IMO. The Celtics just won a title 6 years ago so that's not a great comparison.

Listen, everyone doesnt need to get all butt hurt and start talking shit about kentucky because I have an unpopular opinion. We were having a good discussion and suddenly Lee can't handle that someone doesnt revere UCLA's 40 year old era of dominance anymore and Jake is....doing whatever Jake does. i'm not trashing UCLA I just don't look at them like a top 5 program anymore. Uconn has been far more successful in the last 20 years and the future certainly looks brighter there. If you don't agree with me, let's discuss it and stop with the immediate crying and shit talking over a difference of opinions.

Love debating with insecure fans like whygo. You should reread my posts again, I said there are 3 programs who can really make logical claims to being the top. Question - if, when evaluating college basketball programs, we aren't allowed to use championships in the 60s & 70s, are we still allowed to use to championships won in the 40s and 50s?

Speaking of UConn, since they have had more championships than Kentucky the last 15 years (actually the last 35 years), why aren't they number 1 or 2?

Finally, in regards to the criteria of elite players - which by no means is the most important thing, but is something I feel is important, when the only 4 basketball hall of famers who played at your school, who are in the HoF for playing are Cliff Hagan, Frank Ramsey, Adrian Smith & Dan Issel, that's not helping your argument.

[Lee3691]

Originally Posted by thebridge15

Is it safe to say that the only inarguable blue bloods are Kentucky, Carolina, and UCLA?

Maybe Duke?

EDIT: And Kansas.

I feel like Indiana should be there, or at least the top of the next group.

[kydmb99]

You do realize UK has the 2nd most all-americans in college basketball history? How do you define "elite players"?

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by thebridge15

Is it safe to say that the only inarguable blue bloods are Kentucky, Carolina, and UCLA?

Maybe Duke?

EDIT: And Kansas.

Eh, UCLA is a 'blue blood' because of all those titles but for me their apathetic fan base and lack of relevance in the last 30 years hurts their case. I think "blue blood' teams should have rabid, die hard fan bases which i think we can all agree UCLA does not have.

I know I can't discount 11 titles but despite their insane amount of titles they don't have much else going for them in my book. But alas, titles are indeed what we play for and I can't dismiss that at all, I'm just saying the case for UCLA is only strong because of one factor. A team like Indiana has half as many titles as UCLA, and equally irrelevant in the years since, but a massive fan base of die hards. That adds a little to the equation IMO

[Lee3691]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

You do realize UK has the 2nd most all-americans in college basketball history? How do you define "elite players"?

Basketball Hall of Fame

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

You listed some important criteria (Final 4s, tourney wins, championships, etc), but having elite basketball players play at a particular school is also a criteria. More power to Kentucky for winning a lot of championships without these type of players, but having Jordan play at UNC, or KAJ at UCLA or Wilt at Kansas is something I feel helps the legacy of a program.



Love debating with insecure fans like whygo. You should reread my posts again, I said there are 3 programs who can really make logical claims to being the top. Question - if, when evaluating college basketball programs, we aren't allowed to use championships in the 60s & 70s, are we still allowed to use to championships won in the 40s and 50s?

Speaking of UConn, since they have had more championships than Kentucky the last 15 years (actually the last 35 years), why aren't they number 1 or 2?

Finally, in regards to the criteria of elite players - which by no means is the most important thing, but is something I feel is important, when the only 4 basketball hall of famers who played at your school, who are in the HoF for playing are Cliff Hagan, Frank Ramsey, Adrian Smith & Dan Issel, that's not helping your argument.

Damn you are seriously mad over my opinion man. Settle down, I promise I never care that much about anyone not holding my program in reverence. I never said anything about 'not counting' your titles because of how long it's been, you made that up. Use your own advice and re-read what I said. I said UCLA's incredible mediocrity in the 40 years since their dominance is why I don't consider them a blue blood anymore. And to your other points, i didnt make my post to argue with you and I don't even know what point you're trying to make about UK so I'll leave that alone.

My team is currently really relevant and I can present a coherent argument instead of butt hurt rambling so a UCLA fan grasping at straws so desperate to troll the person who made an off-hand comment that he didnt think UCLA was a top 5 program anymore (when it's rare your team even gets brought up) and calling ME insecure is QUITE RICH. you and jake should put your heads together and come up with an outline for how to troll more effectively.

But anyway, I made a post and people disagree. No idea where all the trolling and anger came from. It's like Lee has been waiting for someone to bring up UCLA so he could point out that UK hasn't had good players or something historically?

[YouNeverKnow25]

Just one guy's opinion but I think using what a player did after college to determine how good a college's talent is/was is a pretty bad way of looking at it.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

Basketball Hall of Fame

right, most people point to that before they look at all american team members

Also when talking about college players it's pretty stupid to need to bring in their pro careers to validate how good they were relating to your program. Lots of great college players don't do shit in the NBA, doesnt change the fact that they were great college players.

[YouNeverKnow25]

For example, Bobby Hurley was a freaking hell of a player. If you're trying to tell me that he doesn't count towards the talent that Duke has had over the years, you should go back to the NBA thread.

[whygohome?]

I'm curious Lee, what makes you think I'm so insecure as a UK fan? I'd think the guy rambling and arguing relevancy justification about his own team, who has had maybe 5 good seasons since reagan was in office, wouldn't be so quick to throw that term around but you surprise me.

[Rodey]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

Just one guy's opinion but I think using what a player did after college to determine how good a college's talent is/was is a pretty bad way of looking at it.

We agree on this.

[kydmb99]

Whygo.. So much anger.

[Lee3691]

Originally Posted by whygohome?

I'm curious Lee, what makes you think I'm so insecure as a UK fan? I'd think the guy rambling and arguing relevancy justification about his own team, who has had maybe 5 good seasons since reagan was in office, wouldn't be so quick to throw that term around but you surprise me.

Agreed. Only relevant seasons when looking at college basketball history are ones where Kentucky made the Final 4.

Care to answer the question about why UConn isn't ranked ahead of Kentucky on your 'list'?

[thebridge15]

only on ants would kentucky fans completely melt down when talking about blue bloods

[Lee3691]

Its odd that they have a top 3 program - possibly 1 - and are so defensive and insecure

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by thebridge15

only on ants would kentucky fans completely melt down when talking about blue bloods

Fail to see where I've "melted down".

[whygohome?]

yeah what did I do to melt down? how does lee coming in and freaking out about my opinion suddenly mean i melted down??

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by Lee3691

Agreed. Only relevant seasons when looking at college basketball history are ones where Kentucky made the Final 4.

Care to answer the question about why UConn isn't ranked ahead of Kentucky on your 'list'?

what the.... who said anything like that? I can't invent relevant seasons for UCLA man, sorry if that bothers you that UK has been more successful lately. I have no idea where all this anger is coming from and now apparently I've melted down. If you look at my original post i even explained my reasoning and didnt trash talk or anything, then you come in butt aflame and start talking about how UK doesnt have enough members of the hall of fame and how I'm insecure....i'm certainly confused.

Because UK has current success and past success. Pretty simple.

[thebridge15]

the paragraphs and paragraphs of discussion count as melting. UK is obviously a legitimate blue blood, so saying otherwise is trolling, just laugh it off