So, Texas A&M and Ole Miss took KY to overtime, but if the game would have been at ND instead, then there is "no chance" KY loses?
Are y'all saying Duke will beat Kentucky @ the Dance. WELL?
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
- Status
Well what's awesome is that UK will lose in the tourney and/or the season will be vacated after Cal bolts (if not sooner). Hey, what a crazy statement given Cals past, right? Lol
Yes, lol. Although UK hasn't played a single team currently ranked in the AP top 8 or gone to the gym of a team ranked in the top 15 (the closest was a good, but flawed Louisville squad that Duke dominated far more convincingly throughout), only had one contest against a team currently ranked in the AP top 15 (in November), and played 0 other road contests against teams that are currently ranked in the top 25, it's inconceivable that UK could have lost a game if it played a schedule that not included @ Louisville, but also included @ UVA, @ Wisconsin, @ UNC, and @ ND -- which is Duke's schedule.
UK's clearly a great team and worthy of its status as the heavy favorite. But, I don't view this team as more dominant than, for instance, UNC 08-09 or even the UF title teams from last decade --- I mean, seriously, give me Noah (Jr.) / Horford (Jr.) / Richard (Sr.) / Speights (Fr.) frontcourt any day of the week over UK's current group. UK deserves credit for pulling out games they easily could have lost, but the fact that they're undefeated doesn't make me think they're better than a lot of great teams that lost a few games. If UK goes on and wins a title, they will certainly deserve a lot of adulation -- but that doesn't vault them above a lot of great teams that happened to lose a game or two, and if they lose, it will certainly not be a shock. There have been many teams as good or better than this UK squad that have failed to win a title -- whether it be Houston '83, UNC '84, Georgetown '85, UNLV 90-91, Michigan 92-93, Kansas 96-97, UNC 97-98, Duke 98-99, UCLA 07-08 [people forget that team had Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, and Darren Collison], etc. etc.
This post was edited on 3/3 3:46 PM by aah555
Also to add to UNLV and Wichita St i forgot about St Joseph all those teams played in a NON power 6 conference UK is doing this in a power 6 conf and played a very good non conference slate. Say what you will but at the time we played KU, UL, UNC,Texas were in the top 10 and UCLA and Providence were in the top 25. The SEC has 6 NCAA T teams right now also. Ok against current NCAA T teams were 11-0 with avg win margin of 15 points. Play @Georgia tonight a projected #8 seed.
So UVA has one loss and it's to us.. If they would of beat us and we're currently undefeated as well would people be claiming they were also possibly one of the best teams of all time? I'll even go ahead and say I believe UVA has better D then UK. By many accounts if people looked at things without fan glasses UVA could be considered better then UK. Great D one loss to a very very good team and played a lot of ACC games WITHOUT a key player
So you're argument is that UK beat a lot of teams that people mistakenly thought would be very good before the season began, but turned out to not be very good? You're obviously free to trumpet a home win against Texas as a "Top 10" win and UCLA as a "top 25" win, but reality is they're both 18-12 bubble teams that may very well may not make the NCAA tournament.
That's about as logical as Duke puffing its chest out about a double digit "top 20" win against MSU -- which, notice, people almost never mention b/c it doesn't stand up anymore.
Again, my point is not to criticize UK. They're very good. But, the point is that -- without assigning UK any blame for scheduling -- reality is that UK's schedule has not included a lot of the tough road games that usually generate losses for top-end teams, and faced many squads reflective of the type of teams UK is likely to see once it gets to the Sweet 16. I think UK's extremely good and may very well win all of them. But, the fact that UK played a good home game against Arkansas and dominated Miss. State on the road doesn't tell me a ton.
I'd add, while it's true UNLV, Wichita St. and St. Joseph's were the only ones to get to the NCAA tourney, you're completely forgetting Illinois 04-05 -- that team started 29-0 and didn't lose until the final road game of the year (a 1 pt. loss @ OSU). What happened to that team? It should have lost in the elite 8 (came back from a 13 or so point lead in the final 4 minutes), and then lost to UNC in the title game. I do think this UK squad is better, but the resume (in terms of W/Ls) of that Illinois squad was every bit as good as UK at the same stage.
Excellent post.
Nobody is knocking KY. They're obviously a great team, but they're not going to be remembered amongst the greatest of all-time unless they win the championship and/or go undefeated, while beating some very good teams along the way. Otherwise, they'll be forgotten much like the Illinois team in '05.
This post was edited on 3/3 9:19 PM by FearTheBeard
Nothing to do with a Duke-UK match up but watching UK and Fla. play today I noticed that Alex Murphy pretty much has the same role there as he had for us. A little more pt per game (see team stats) but pretty much else the same. Also he is listed as a Jr. and unless he has a bust out season I can't see where the transfer has been beneficial to him. I think if he had stayed he would get a little more pt and be playing for a winning program with a shot at a NC. Just a thought and although Michael G. is having a good season at cuse the future doesn't look to bright for him playing for an NC. Maybe he's looking for another transfer.OFC
Look, Uk hasn't lost. That's great. But, they DO NOT have wins at UVA, at Wisky. Duke may have lost 3 times, and 2 were bad losses. But NC State will make the tourney and Miami is a bubble team. The other loss is to a ND at ND that is ranked 12th and only by 4. Then Duke beat them 10 days later by 30.
UK would not be undefeated playing the schedule that Duke has. And, Duke is the only team in the country that has proven they can win at great teams places. And, Uk could very well lose early in the tourney if they don't make shots (something that is a problem for them at times) and if one player gets hot and hits a couple of key shots.
I actually think Duke is the best team in the country. We have better pro prospects. We have the better coach and Duke is also proven they can beat the other great teams.
UK would not be undefeated playing the schedule that Duke has. And, Duke is the only team in the country that has proven they can win at great teams places. And, Uk could very well lose early in the tourney if they don't make shots (something that is a problem for them at times) and if one player gets hot and hits a couple of key shots.
I actually think Duke is the best team in the country. We have better pro prospects. We have the better coach and Duke is also proven they can beat the other great teams.
The SEC has 2 teams shooting above 35% from 3, and one is awful.
The ACC has 6 teams shooting above 35% from deep, including three around 40%.
If UK is vunerable anywhere it's getting rained on. Their offense isn't anything special. If a tourney team shoots close to 50% from deep, they could lose.
The ACC has 6 teams shooting above 35% from deep, including three around 40%.
If UK is vunerable anywhere it's getting rained on. Their offense isn't anything special. If a tourney team shoots close to 50% from deep, they could lose.
UK is deserving of their rank, but I'm really pleased with our team. I think we're on the short list of who can beat them. If we get the opportunity to play them, our players won't be intimidated. I definitely think we can beat them, but that's the least of our worries right now. One game at a time.
OFC
OFC
Try not to compare that UNLV team to UK. UNLV were grown men. Regardless of size, the game was dirty, players played with attitudes and the physical presence was unreal. Larry Johnson, George Ackles, and Moses Scurry would probably be an animals and scare RUPP arena. Different type of players.
Actually we only have eight as of now. But I'd like to respond to your comment.
First off, so many people think that the 1966 UK vs Texas Western game was the first time a black player played in a Tournament. It was the first time a all black starting five team beat a all white starting five team. Was it historic? Absolutely!!!
Just because the ACC and the SEC was segregated up until the mid to late 60's doesn't mean that all Colleges were. There were many black players that played in the NIT and NCAA tournaments way before then. The 1950 CCNY team that won both Championships started three Jewish players and two black players. In 1950 Jews were not being recruited by a lot of schools as well. That was a very historic game that's never mentioned. And guess who kicked the crap out of to win the Championship? UK. By 30+.
At at that time we had already won 2 National Championships in 48 and 49. We have won six more since then. 51,58,78,96,98, and 2012. And by the way, there were black players playing in 48 and 49. So yes, the NIT and NCAA tournaments did have black players. So to answer your question, yes we did play teams during those championships that had black players.
Just because the Southeastern and ACC conferences did not allow black people to be students, let alone play sports, it doesn't mean neither conferences didn't play against teams with black players. Duke didn't have a black player until 65. UK not until 69. I think it's safe to say that neither of our fans or schools should act like this didn't happen at all southern schools.
I guess you failed to read the part where your associate UK "fan" stated that he/she hoped they choked for a 9th time. That is where I derived the "9" titles that are supposedly going to be here at seasons end.
Thank you for googling a history lesson for yourself, but again, many of these EIGHT current (and 9 supposed) titles came prior to the FULL integration of collegiate basketball. The competition just wasnt as strong in the NCAA's then. Accept it and move on.
Thank you for googling a history lesson for yourself, but again, many of these EIGHT current (and 9 supposed) titles came prior to the FULL integration of collegiate basketball. The competition just wasnt as strong in the NCAA's then. Accept it and move on.
So what was everyone who won a Championship back then to do? Not play? Duke played, UNC played,Kansas played,UCLA played,Indiana played, hell every big dog in college basketball today played back then.
So UK does not deserve to recognize any of their championships until "All" colleges integrated? What do all the colleges that won championships with black players do during that time? Forfeit theirs because of unfair advantage?
Are you listening to yourself? You're a great poster and like you but you're writing history the way you want it to be not the way it was. UK won all their championships when black players played in tournaments. Do you think Duke should not recognize all their wins?
If Duke won championships during that time we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Im in my early 40's and born the same year Joe. B Hall took over in 72 and im not THAT old and heres what weve done since then
- 4 titles, avg a title every 10 years
- 10 F4's, avg a F4 every 4 years
- 20 SEC reg season titles, avg win SEC outright every 2 years
- 14 SEC T titles, avg win SEC T every 2 years, SEC T ended in the early 50's didnt start back till early 80's
- Also won a NIT in 75-76 when it was nearly the same as winning the NCAA T
- Not counting this year which if we go 40-0 all these stats go up even more
Id say thats pretty darn good for people saying we did everything in the 40's. The 4 titles we won were by 4 different coaches also so unless your just a terrible coach you almost surely get a title if you coach UK.
- 4 titles, avg a title every 10 years
- 10 F4's, avg a F4 every 4 years
- 20 SEC reg season titles, avg win SEC outright every 2 years
- 14 SEC T titles, avg win SEC T every 2 years, SEC T ended in the early 50's didnt start back till early 80's
- Also won a NIT in 75-76 when it was nearly the same as winning the NCAA T
- Not counting this year which if we go 40-0 all these stats go up even more
Id say thats pretty darn good for people saying we did everything in the 40's. The 4 titles we won were by 4 different coaches also so unless your just a terrible coach you almost surely get a title if you coach UK.
You Kentucky guys heart will be broken in a few weeks. You will not win the championship, better start coming up with a excuse for losing. Every season your fans claim to be the best lol!!
I think you're thinking about Kansas. This kentucky team will have to be beat. They have to much talent and depth to give it away.
"You Kentucky guys heart will be broken in a few weeks. You will not win the championship, better start coming up with a excuse for losing. Every season your fans claim to be the best lol!"
...and you base this on what? Thinking that maybe Lehigh or Mercer might be in UK's bracket?
...and you base this on what? Thinking that maybe Lehigh or Mercer might be in UK's bracket?
I agree and vote to lock it up....It only attracts visitors and there is no sense to having a conversation about Kentucky because nobody knows who they may even play and you won't find one Kentucky fan that will even admit the slightest bit of chance that they get beaten....So then you are left with token comments about Lehigh and Mercer.
- Status