And now Malik Monk to UK as well.
- Thread starter KellenPatrick
- Start date
Hahahahahahahaha, that's hilarious, Sky! Sorry I missed this earlier!
And if I remember correctly, sky, because rival fans were complaining about you not getting the ball out of the basket quickly enough that resulted in the very first 'delay of game' warning. I remember Boy Roy (coach of the rival team) was very pissed with you...he even called a timeout.
OFC
You know something dirt opposing players, coaches and fans actually accused me of shaking the basket their players were shooting at. Can you imagine that. Gotta a of nerve thinking I would do something like that. OFC
Did Duke not play basketball in the 40's? You all had just as much of a chance to win as we did and they would have counted the same.
I wish everyone would actually read this all the way through with a open mind. Because I had this same debate with my buds at THR about the racist talk.
These are FACTS, not opinions.
Duke was established in 1838. The university went through several names until 1924 when it was changed to Duke.
UK was established in 1865 and went through names as well until 1916 when it became the University of Kentucky.
The first black men's basketball player in the ACC was in 1965. Maryland. The first black men's basketball player in the SEC was in 1968. Vanderbilt. It took Duke another year to have a black player in the ACC. It also took UK another year to have a black player in the SEC.
If you go by when Duke was established (1838), it was 125 years before black students were allowed (1963). If you go by when the name was changed to Duke, it would be 39 years.
If you go by when UK was established (1865) it was 84 years before black students were allowed (1949). If you go by when the name was changed to UK it would be 33 years.
If you go by when Duke was established (1838) it was 128 years later before a black basketball player. If you go by when the name was changed to Duke (1924) it would be 42 years.
If you go by when UK was established (1865) it was 104 years later before a black basketball player. If you go by when the name was changed to UK (1916) it would be 53 years.
Duke basketball started in 1906 and UK started basketball in 1903. So, I would say that's as close as you could ask.
First black player in ACC 1965
First black player in SEC 1968
First black player at Duke 1966
First black player at UK 1969
Yep, you're right. We're a bunch of racist. Right along with y'all. Matter of FACT right along with all the other Southern teams back then. Has anyone not took a look at racism in the south during that time?
I'll never understand when another southern school wants to throw racism up at UK when their just as guilty.
By the way. The first black players allowed to play in the NCAA tournament was in 1950. The first tournament was in 1939. UK won 2 during that time. I guess the other 9 Championships don't mean anything.
And Duke played in 5 of those tournaments before they ever had a black player. I guess Duke's record from 1906 -1949 shouldn't be counted either.
I just don't get that fans want to throw up race when they don't know their own history. Or they just down right refuse to accept it.
Have a good night
These are FACTS, not opinions.
Duke was established in 1838. The university went through several names until 1924 when it was changed to Duke.
UK was established in 1865 and went through names as well until 1916 when it became the University of Kentucky.
The first black men's basketball player in the ACC was in 1965. Maryland. The first black men's basketball player in the SEC was in 1968. Vanderbilt. It took Duke another year to have a black player in the ACC. It also took UK another year to have a black player in the SEC.
If you go by when Duke was established (1838), it was 125 years before black students were allowed (1963). If you go by when the name was changed to Duke, it would be 39 years.
If you go by when UK was established (1865) it was 84 years before black students were allowed (1949). If you go by when the name was changed to UK it would be 33 years.
If you go by when Duke was established (1838) it was 128 years later before a black basketball player. If you go by when the name was changed to Duke (1924) it would be 42 years.
If you go by when UK was established (1865) it was 104 years later before a black basketball player. If you go by when the name was changed to UK (1916) it would be 53 years.
Duke basketball started in 1906 and UK started basketball in 1903. So, I would say that's as close as you could ask.
First black player in ACC 1965
First black player in SEC 1968
First black player at Duke 1966
First black player at UK 1969
Yep, you're right. We're a bunch of racist. Right along with y'all. Matter of FACT right along with all the other Southern teams back then. Has anyone not took a look at racism in the south during that time?
I'll never understand when another southern school wants to throw racism up at UK when their just as guilty.
By the way. The first black players allowed to play in the NCAA tournament was in 1950. The first tournament was in 1939. UK won 2 during that time. I guess the other 9 Championships don't mean anything.
And Duke played in 5 of those tournaments before they ever had a black player. I guess Duke's record from 1906 -1949 shouldn't be counted either.
I just don't get that fans want to throw up race when they don't know their own history. Or they just down right refuse to accept it.
Have a good night
And for a little trivia, the first black students that went to Duke in 1963 were upset because they had separate eating and bathroom facilities labeled "Colored" that they pushed Duke to establish a criteria to help others understand their heritage.
That's how African American Studies started in Universities. I thought y'all might like that.
That's how African American Studies started in Universities. I thought y'all might like that.
My words might have been a little harsh to some. But it's usually implied to UK. And people think our Championships before segregation shouldn't mean anything.
And if you go by segregation in NCAA tournament, that started in 1950. Does any team that wasn't segregated get to include their wins before then?
That's what I was trying to say. I post here and THR and I always hear race brought up when it comes to UK whether it be championships, wins, or coaches. I was just trying to remind everyone, all our teams and universities were guilty of the same thing.
I know you're always cool with me. I'll try to reword it better next time. Sorry
Oh I gotcha. I was jk when I said stuff about those titles they should most deff count and if we had em this wouldn't even be brought up. As for the racism people talk about UK it really bothers me. My mom is from Harlan KY and my papaw was one of the biggest UK fans I've ever seen I mean he lived it and he used to talk about how everybody talked about Rupp being racist and all that crap and he hated it said it wasn't true and I don't think it was either. You're a good poster JC and I like your input!
Small world. I'm still here in Harlan. 1 of about 3 Duke fans that I know and all 3 off us went to the title game last year. Was a fire sale of UK tickets. lol.
I'm curious, who said UK is racist? Pre-integration title significance has nothing to do with racism, but it has everything to do with race. Yes, the titles count on paper, but I personally will never take them seriously. Am I racist? Nope. I just see that college ball wasn't the same then.
You need to settle down with the racist assumptions.
You need to settle down with the racist assumptions.
Excellent post JCH....
May I add ...UK's rep was enhanced by the '66 title game against Texas Western (UTEP)
Haskins started 5 African-Americans against a all white team.
Most fans who belittle UK today because of that game don't know who UK beat in the semi.
Most don't know that UK replaced another team in the NCAA tourney once because that state wouldn't allow their univ team to compete against an intergrated team.
Rupp also took his team north (NEW YORK) to compete often. An all white team up there got attention and maybe started a reputation. People didn't realize that he couldn't take an intregrated team into the deep South.
But some people just won't let the facts ruin a good story. (fairy tale)
But, it's like you said, it was the way of life in the South.
Most thankful that things have changed.
May I add ...UK's rep was enhanced by the '66 title game against Texas Western (UTEP)
Haskins started 5 African-Americans against a all white team.
Most fans who belittle UK today because of that game don't know who UK beat in the semi.
Most don't know that UK replaced another team in the NCAA tourney once because that state wouldn't allow their univ team to compete against an intergrated team.
Rupp also took his team north (NEW YORK) to compete often. An all white team up there got attention and maybe started a reputation. People didn't realize that he couldn't take an intregrated team into the deep South.
But some people just won't let the facts ruin a good story. (fairy tale)
But, it's like you said, it was the way of life in the South.
Most thankful that things have changed.
But some people just won't let the facts ruin a good story. (fairy tale)-
tell that to all the RR and THR folks who make things up on a daily basis about our coach and try and pass it off as fact to help them deal with their jealousy. I'm sure you can empathize.
tell that to all the RR and THR folks who make things up on a daily basis about our coach and try and pass it off as fact to help them deal with their jealousy. I'm sure you can empathize.
you all continue to hold on tight to those titles, and we'll hold onto Duke's success in modern basketball. Fair?
I think I made it clear that I should have reworded it better and apologized.
My question to you is, why don't you take pre-integration titles seriously? Do you accept wins during that time? Or do you just accept wins after 1950 when black people were allowed to play in the NCAA tournament? Or 1966 when Duke accepted a black player on their team?
So is it 1950? 1966? Because Duke basketball started in 1906. So should Duke erase all their wins for 44 years? Or 60 years?
I mean, for 44 years years Duke played just like UK did. Segregated. And for another 16 years after the first black player was allowed to play in NCAA tournament, Duke stayed segregated. It took us 19 years.
So did Duke basketball start in 1950 or 1966? And did UK basketball start in 1950 or 1969? Because history says Duke started in 1906 and UK started in 1903.
So do we both wipe away the wins during this time? And Northern and Western Universities get to keep all their wins if they had a black player previous to 1950? Or do they have to only include their wins after 1950 when the first black player was able to play in NCAA tournaments?
I'm very interested in your opinion. This could rewrite history. I'd say by your opinion, a northern or western team would probably have the most wins in the history of NCAA basketball.
The three best southern schools (UK,Duke,UNC) will be sheet out of luck. And that's three of the best in history.
There's no jealousy here my friend. I think UK has nothing to be jealous about. The same goes for Duke and UNC.
All of our fanbases have a few that want recognize what the others have done. Not me.
I have the utmost respect for Duke and K. I don't like y'all.
but I respect the hell out of you.Reading is your friend, reading is your frrrriiiiiieeeennnndddddd.
I stated that, of course, they should count. Issue is that UK fans hold onto them and put them at the same relevance of a title today. Sorry, I just cannot see it, just like I wouldn't count a Duke win from 1951 as the same relevance as a win today. As I previously mentioned, keep holding onto those titles; you'll need them. Playing in the soft SEC isn't helping Cal and those prized recruits in crunch time.
Everyone knows that Duke had to only get up for one game last year in the tournament (Wisconsin) while UK had to get up for Notre Dame and Wisconsin. Wisconsin is the team that was screwed the most having to get up consecutively for Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, and finally Duke in the championship and it showed in the 2nd half of that game. If Duke followed that path they would have lost around the Elite Eight to Arizona. I'm a UK fan but, unbiasedly, Wisconsin most deserved the title and Duke least deserved it. Kentucky in the middle. Cal not playing Tyler Ulis is what cost us in the FF. Oh, and had we beaten Wisconsin we would have beaten Fluke by double digits. History will say 2015 Duke is the champions, so congrats making the most of the opportunity. Kentucky probably wasn't the best team in 1998 but got to enjoy a similar title.
I enjoyed that you were stupid enough to type all of that nonsense, and then try to claim at varying points that you speak for everyone, and that you are also unbiased. The drivel you just vomited out is the epitome of an extremely biased individual opinion (and a largely idiotic one at that). It both scares and amuses me that there are people that dumb.
And the notion of "deserving" the title. How do you even type that without being embarrassed? There literally can be no debate whatsoever about who "deserves" it, the notion itself is ridiculous. The team that "deserves" it is the team that goes out and gets it. I know it will annoy you for eternity, but the team that did that was the Duke Blue Devils. It is time to deal with that, lest you continue making yourself look like a moron.
Last edited:
Huffy, if it wasn't for the refs, the media and the NCAA, Duke wouldn't win a game, would never land a recruit and most likely than not Coach K would be behind bars for life without parole,
I wonder if they'll ever get tired of making excuses? Seriously, do you think they'll ever just man up and say Duke is who it is because of what they have accomplished? No, because it doesn't jive with their insecure narrative and it never will. They'll always make excuses for why Duke is ranked, or why Duke got a player or why Duke had a guy drafted or why Duke won a game, or why Duke got an award, or why Duke won a championship. It'll never end, and guess what, JIMMY CRACK CORN AND I DON'T CARE!
I wonder if they'll ever get tired of making excuses? Seriously, do you think they'll ever just man up and say Duke is who it is because of what they have accomplished? No, because it doesn't jive with their insecure narrative and it never will. They'll always make excuses for why Duke is ranked, or why Duke got a player or why Duke had a guy drafted or why Duke won a game, or why Duke got an award, or why Duke won a championship. It'll never end, and guess what, JIMMY CRACK CORN AND I DON'T CARE!
Well, then you might as well discount all the titles before about '86 or so, when in a year span, both the 64 team format and the three point line were introduced.
If we're introducing arbitrary cutoffs, that one is as good as any, seeing as how that combo revolutionized and changed the game as much as any other event in CBB history.
And bonus, it's similarly convenient for Duke as your prior cutoff.
Duke and UCONN then become the two greatest programs of all time, with probably UK, Kansas, Florida, and UNC rounding out the rest of the top 6 in some order.
Arizona becomes the greatest team in Pac 12 history, with UCLA a respectable second.
Indiana becomes the third greatest team in Big 10 history, after MSU and Michigan, and the only B10 team in the conversation for top 10 programs of all time is Mich State, who is maybe 7th or so.
Syracuse is also a top 10 program.
Sounds like an accurate way to talk about CBB history, right?
Ohh wait - I keep hearing from old timers that the game now is nothing like what they grew up with because of OADs. Maybe we should erase the 90s then and start over with the last couple years?
That's fine let's start in the one and done era we would still be on top with uconn
You're a bit late to this discussion, and obviously did a bit of selective reading. That's on par for a UK fan. But hey, you guys are the paper champs from last year so I'm sure that helps you sleep at night!
Right - the point is that those timeframes (both Crank's and mine) both paint really incomplete and inaccurate pictures of the CBB universe. UCONN and Florida are obviously not among the top 5 greatest programs in the sport.
Duke looks good no matter what era you use - which is why it's so silly for you to use selective timeframe arguments that little brother programs across the nation throw out to appear relevant. With UNC's history falling apart before our eyes, you could even make a not-entirely-unreasonable argument that Duke is the #2 all time program.
Only thing selective was your time frame, which for reasons stated above, is lame. There's nothing to take out of context when you brush away an entire chapter of history of the sport over one big game-changing event, but not for another. It's an arbitrary and poorly-thought-out distinction.
Last year's team aren't paper anything. Duke were the only champs. They deserved it, and nobody can take it away from them ever. But they were the second best team. Just like when you guys won it in '91. They weren't better than UNLV. When UCONN won in '99, they weren't the best team, either, Duke was. When UK won in '98, they weren't the best team either. But, I can enjoy that '98 banner, even knowing that my team wasn't the best in the country, because UK earned it by beating everyone who was in front of them.
Attempting objectivity is lots of fun. You should give it a try some time.
Again, your reading comprehension is just short of terrible. Please tell me where I said those pre-integration titles shouldn't be counted at all.
Also, your attempt to still make UK the best team last year is absolutely comical. UK played in an incredibly soft SEC, and then when they played strong competition, they struggled, both against ND and Wisconsin. But hey, paper champ titles help you feel confident. 40-oh baby.
Isn't fact presentation a key part of objectivity? Ok, well then:
Duke had to beat the following KENPOM ranked teams last year to win the title:
Wisconsin 3
Gonzaga 7
Utah 8
MSU 15
SDSU 27
RMU 176
UK?
Wisconsin 3 (lost)
ND 9 (barely won)
WVU 26
Cincy 34
Hampton 239
Yeah, I'd say UK was clearly the better team. Lol.
Duke had to beat the following KENPOM ranked teams last year to win the title:
Wisconsin 3
Gonzaga 7
Utah 8
MSU 15
SDSU 27
RMU 176
UK?
Wisconsin 3 (lost)
ND 9 (barely won)
WVU 26
Cincy 34
Hampton 239
Yeah, I'd say UK was clearly the better team. Lol.
Last edited:
Let's not let facts get in the way here: Duke always has the easiest path no matter what the numbers say
So would you say that our 38-0 start is a better accomplishment than a 40's -50's title?..much more difficult
You would agree that upsets happen ,right?? Had UK and Duke played vegas would have made UK a few pts favorite
Lol that's comical. Duke played tougher competition all year and was the better team. Stats prove it, not Vegas.
Just because UK started 38-0 doesn't mean they were a better team than Duke. Even without the ultimate trump card of being national champions, it could easily be argued that Duke had a better resume, with more quality wins.
Duke's Top 30 wins (final RPI ranking):
#2 - Road
#2 - Neutral
#7 - Road
#8 - Neutral
#9 - Home
#9 - Road
#10 - Home
#13 - Neutral
#15 - Neutral
#15 - Neutral
#19 - Road
#26 - Neutral
UK's:
#5 - Neutral
#9 - Home
#10 - Neutral
#19 - Road
#22 - Neutral
#23 - Home
#23 - Neutral
#25 - Home
Duke had 12 top 30 wins, including 7 against the RPI top 10 - 5 of which were either at neutral sites (2) or true road games (3).
UK had 8 top 30 wins, with 3 against the top ten, none of which were true road games.
UK fans will claim that Duke's bad losses even things out, but I would disagree. Two of Duke's losses came to the RPI top 10, obviously not a bad losses. The others were to RPI #32, a team that upset a #1 seed and played in the Sweet Sixteen. I wouldn't call that a "bad loss." The other loss was to RPI #47. Duke did not lose to a team outside the RPI top 50. Losing to #47 isn't great, but not like being shocked by a team outside the top 100 or something.
In addition, UK's conference only had one other top 40 team, while Duke's had five additional top 40 teams. The schedule discrepancy probably helps account for the loss discrepancy.
Duke's Top 30 wins (final RPI ranking):
#2 - Road
#2 - Neutral
#7 - Road
#8 - Neutral
#9 - Home
#9 - Road
#10 - Home
#13 - Neutral
#15 - Neutral
#15 - Neutral
#19 - Road
#26 - Neutral
UK's:
#5 - Neutral
#9 - Home
#10 - Neutral
#19 - Road
#22 - Neutral
#23 - Home
#23 - Neutral
#25 - Home
Duke had 12 top 30 wins, including 7 against the RPI top 10 - 5 of which were either at neutral sites (2) or true road games (3).
UK had 8 top 30 wins, with 3 against the top ten, none of which were true road games.
UK fans will claim that Duke's bad losses even things out, but I would disagree. Two of Duke's losses came to the RPI top 10, obviously not a bad losses. The others were to RPI #32, a team that upset a #1 seed and played in the Sweet Sixteen. I wouldn't call that a "bad loss." The other loss was to RPI #47. Duke did not lose to a team outside the RPI top 50. Losing to #47 isn't great, but not like being shocked by a team outside the top 100 or something.
In addition, UK's conference only had one other top 40 team, while Duke's had five additional top 40 teams. The schedule discrepancy probably helps account for the loss discrepancy.
I trust the guys in Vegas to know more about which teams should win over you and I....UK would for sure been the favorite over Duke had they played..Duke may have won, but it would have been a mild upset...
Lines are set in vegas based on metrics that will get as close to even money on both sides of the bet. They're also set for futures bets based on the amount the house could potentially lose. Would UK have been favored? Probably, but we will never know, nor does it matter. I'm cool with you believing you had the best team last year, thats your right especially as a fan of that team. However, the facts do lie in Duke's corner as provided above. We believed we had the best team- would have been a hell of a game, too bad though.