October 7, 200916 yr If you're talking all time, UNC will have more wins....most of UK's success was when black people couldn't play......I agree with Forde, I hate it, but UNC and UCLA are the top dogs. I love that you always have to break out your pet excuse to downplay UKs history of success. Keep at it though if it makes you feel better. Most wins and 2nd most titles. I'll take that any day. Especially if the next few years go as well as they could.
October 7, 200916 yr I love that you always have to break out your pet excuse to downplay UKs history of success. Keep at it though if it makes you feel better. Most wins and 2nd most titles. I'll take that any day. Especially if the next few years go as well as they could. How many titles have you SEEN? That's all that matters to me.
October 7, 200916 yr If you're talking all time, UNC will have more wins....most of UK's success was when black people couldn't play......I agree with Forde, I hate it, but UNC and UCLA are the top dogs. I think we've had this conversation before. :ohbrother: It's a half truth. While many blacks were kept from playing as prominent a role as they deserved do we say the same for the Celtics? BTW, UK played vs. Solly Walker and St Johns in 1952. (twice) Who do you think was on the Seattle team and Temple team (twice) that UK beat to claim the 1958 NCAA crown? (Probably because you don't remember I'll let you know: Elgin Baylor and Charley Brown played for Seattle and Guy Rogers for Temple) So if you want to base it all on the racial equation here is the FACT: UK won at least four of their seven when African American athletes were involved. Unlike some SEC brethren of the time (Alabama in '56 and Miss State more than once), UK would play teams with African-American players. In fact they had USC and UCLA on the schedules in the early 60's. I'm not saying KY doesn't deserve its black eyes in the debate, but get the FACTS straight RockPride.
October 7, 200916 yr How many titles have you SEEN? That's all that matters to me. I don't know about him but I saw the '78, '96 and '98 titles. I also saw the '75 runner-up, '84 Final Four, '93 Final Four and '97 Runner-up teams. (Throw in the '76 NIT too since that was when the NCAA was only 32 teams deep and only 2 from a conference were invited, making the NIT a pretty good tourney) I won't count the '66 Runner-up squad because I was alive but not following Basketball yet.
October 7, 200916 yr The only thing that kept UCLA and Sam Gilbert not being busted was an apparent blind eye by the NCAA. IMO the only one of the top 3 without a glaring blemish is UNC. Place the word known in front of "glaring" and I agree with you.
October 7, 200916 yr If you're talking all time, UNC will have more wins....most of UK's success was when black people couldn't play......I agree with Forde, I hate it, but UNC and UCLA are the top dogs. And most of UCLA's success was when there were only 32 teams in the tournament and the Bruins usually got to play the first two games close to their home in order to qualify for the Final Four. It was quite a bit easier back in those days.
October 7, 200916 yr Place the word known in front of "glaring" and I agree with you. No one knew about Sam Gilbert?
October 7, 200916 yr And most of UCLA's success was when there were only 32 teams in the tournament and the Bruins usually got to play the first two games close to their home in order to qualify for the Final Four. It was quite a bit easier back in those days. I doubt if letting in 32 other teams would have had an impact on UCLA's run.
October 7, 200916 yr If you're talking all time, UNC will have more wins....most of UK's success was when black people couldn't play......I agree with Forde, I hate it, but UNC and UCLA are the top dogs. But they don't so that makes no sense. That's like saying UK WILL have more titles than UCLA..
October 7, 200916 yr Author If you're talking all time, UNC will have more wins....most of UK's success was when black people couldn't play......I agree with Forde, I hate it, but UNC and UCLA are the top dogs. Will have more wins? They are 4 behind UK and atleast to start the year UK will be ranked ahead of UNC. As for winning vs. black people its hard to argue with Hatz facts. This was just another dig he was trying to get in concerning UK.
October 7, 200916 yr I think we've had this conversation before. :ohbrother: It's a half truth. While many blacks were kept from playing as prominent a role as they deserved do we say the same for the Celtics? BTW, UK played vs. Solly Walker and St Johns in 1952. (twice) Who do you think was on the Seattle team and Temple team (twice) that UK beat to claim the 1958 NCAA crown? (Probably because you don't remember I'll let you know: Elgin Baylor and Charley Brown played for Seattle and Guy Rogers for Temple) So if you want to base it all on the racial equation here is the FACT: UK won at least four of their seven when African American athletes were involved. Unlike some SEC brethren of the time (Alabama in '56 and Miss State more than once), UK would play teams with African-American players. In fact they had USC and UCLA on the schedules in the early 60's. I'm not saying KY doesn't deserve its black eyes in the debate, but get the FACTS straight RockPride. :thumb: :thumb: Facts are fun!!!
October 7, 200916 yr If you're talking all time, UNC will have more wins....most of UK's success was when black people couldn't play......I agree with Forde, I hate it, but UNC and UCLA are the top dogs. I'm not sure if UK should be #1 on the list or not, but I believe the rankings were not limited to the time period before college basketball was desegregated, which makes your argument pointless.
October 7, 200916 yr I think Forde wanting people to talk about his article and enjoys getting the attention he receives when he involves UK into his arguments. It's the only way he knows to stir any type of conversation. I think he's a joke. I think you nailed it. He will never reach the level of some of the great sportswriters, so he has to take shortcuts to get noticed.
October 7, 200916 yr I love that you always have to break out your pet excuse to downplay UKs history of success. Keep at it though if it makes you feel better. Most wins and 2nd most titles. I'll take that any day. Especially if the next few years go as well as they could. You said it, and now I don't have to. :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.