UK Shirt Made Me Laugh

[PurplePride92]

First of all I hear where you're coming from. :thumb:

 

As to difficulty, maybe this brings perspective beyond "how many games to win a title."

 

1948: Defeated defending champ Holy Cross with the great Bob Cousey. Held Cousey to 0 Field Goals while Kenny Rollins (starter) was in. That's a pretty good player/team to defeat to win it all.

 

1954: Defeated the NCAA Champ by 13 in the season and Hall of Famer Bob Pettit to finish 25-0.

 

1958: Defeated Four Time All-NBA Guard Guy Rogers and Temple (twice that year) and the All Time Great Elgin Baylor to win the Title.

 

1978: Had to defeat 5 teams but they included Magic Johnson's MSU (Sparty won the title the next year with the same squad) and Sidney Moncrief's Arkansas.

 

While they didn't have to play as many games then, only conference champs were invited and some of the all time greatest players had to be defeated to win it all.

 

Duke has just as impeccable a resume for the last 20 years but as an older coot myself, I can't dismiss what came before me or it's merit. :thumb:

 

This post right here explains it all. They way you guys hang on to the past I guess we shouldn't be surprised you guys hang on to the almost 20 year old Laettner shot.

[LRCW]

This post right here explains it all. They way you guys hang on to the past I guess we shouldn't be surprised you guys hang on to the almost 20 year old Laettner shot.

 

 

So it's ok for you guys to hold on to the past, as long as the past is only 20 years? I don't get it. :confused::confused::confused:

[PurplePride92]

So it's ok for you guys to hold on to the past, as long as the past is only 20 years? I don't get it. :confused::confused::confused:

 

Past 37 years for me which is my lifetime.

 

 

Just messing with my friend Hatz though. Don't read too much into it.

[GRC4LIFE]

:thumb::thumb: Exactly, GRC obviously thinks we need to only use the time line since he's been alive. I've got news for him, there are a lot of older folks on here.

 

I'm not ignorant. I know there are lots of older folks on this board, and I'd hope so. I'm not ready to be called an old folk just yet. I'm just saying, what has happened in your lifetime, you care more about. Whether that be 20 years, 30 years, or if you are 50. If you were around since 1950, then heck yes you'd care about what happened in 1958 just as much as in 2011. But do you care as much about what happened in say 1930? Sure you are aware of it, and even acknowledge the accomplishments that has been made. But I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd put a bit more stock into caring about what has happened that you can remember for certain as opposed to just hearing about things that have happened. We all have our own reference times.

 

Prime example would be with Barry Bonds breaking the home run record. Sure, Hank Aaron had the record before him and that is an amazing feat, but I witnessed Bonds do that exact same thing and it sticks out to me more than opposed to hearing about Hank Aaron. We all know Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds were both amazing players, Bonds just sticks out to me more because it happened in my lifetime. :thumb:

[GRC4LIFE]

First of all I hear where you're coming from. :thumb:

 

As to difficulty, maybe this brings perspective beyond "how many games to win a title."

 

1948: Defeated defending champ Holy Cross with the great Bob Cousey. Held Cousey to 0 Field Goals while Kenny Rollins (starter) was in. That's a pretty good player/team to defeat to win it all.

 

1954: Defeated the NCAA Champ by 13 in the season and Hall of Famer Bob Pettit to finish 25-0.

 

1958: Defeated Four Time All-NBA Guard Guy Rogers and Temple (twice that year) and the All Time Great Elgin Baylor to win the Title.

 

1978: Had to defeat 5 teams but they included Magic Johnson's MSU (Sparty won the title the next year with the same squad) and Sidney Moncrief's Arkansas.

 

While they didn't have to play as many games then, only conference champs were invited and some of the all time greatest players had to be defeated to win it all.

 

Duke has just as impeccable a resume for the last 20 years but as an older coot myself, I can't dismiss what came before me or it's merit. :thumb:

 

Those are some great stats, info about those past teams. Thanks for sharing that info! I had heard that they had to beat Cousey in one of the years and Magic Johnson in 1978. All our valid points and show that they weren't just handed the championship.

 

I think where I'm coming from is this. Yes they had to win their conference tourney to make the dance and that in it self is a hard thing to do. But once they are in, they've got to win three games against stiff competition. Compare that to this year to say, Louisville. They would have had to win 6 games to bring home the trophy (we all know they were a good basketball team). Albeit those first 1, maybe even 2 games are against lower competition and some teams might not even have to play stiff competition until the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. What happened to Louisville? They got upset by Morehead St in the first round before they even thought about playing that stiff competition.

 

I think what I'm trying to say ( I think :lol: ) is that I find it more impressive when a team has to play at a very high level, or close to it, for 6 games as opposed to only playing at a high level for three games. We see very good basketball teams in this type of tournament set up go home very early because they just weren't on top of their game for just 1 half, or 1 game. The VCU's and the Butler's of the world knocking off the big dogs. The chances of a team not performing at a very high level are greater when they have to win 6 games as opposed to only winning 3. That is why I value a championship in this day and age as opposed to back then.

 

What does everybody think?

[CatsCatsCats]

Typical UK fan response I've received since I was born. Sure, if you want to brag about stuff that has happened 50 years ago by all means do. Myself, I put a little more stock into what has happened in my lifetime which is the last 20 years. And the results in this time span, cannot be argued.

 

I just want to be clear... I'm not taking away anything for UK fans and their championships in the 50's and back then. We even had a thread a bit back discussing this... I don't have enough knowledge of how the tournament was back in that time except that I do know they only had to win 3 games to be crowned champion, one time 4 games. To me that just isn't as impressive to what the tournament is like know and has been in my lifetime. I was open to people in the other thread trying to explain how it was back then, and I'm still open.

 

I have to be honest as a fellow young guy I think that's a sad attitude to have about it. The only things that matter are what happened in your lifetime? I don't get it, because I think consciously or subconsciously it's skewing the argument in the direction that favors the team you like. Let's say Duke & UK switched histories, whether you admit it or not, I would almost guarantee your opinion would change.

 

Now if we were talking football and an Army fan was talking about having more history than say Florida, I would tend to agree more with the Gator fans because Army hasn't been relevant in decades & there is no true National Champion. But in basketball we have one champion, and it's basically always been decided the same way give or take a game or two in the tourney.

 

I'll say this right now I believe that Duke & UNC are the two premier programs going because of their continued success the last two decades. But don't discount UK's history simply because you didn't live to see it. Historically speaking there is no relevant argument anyone could possibly make that would say UK is not a better program overall than Duke, if the entire history is looked at.

 

Is Wilt Chamberlain less great because you didn't see him play? Unitas? Babe Ruth? Oscar Robertson or Pistol Pete?

[CatsCatsCats]

GRC I'll add UK is either 1st or 2nd in almost every major category in terms of overall success for a team in the entire NCAA. That has to count for something.

[Hatz]

Past 37 years for me which is my lifetime.

 

 

Just messing with my friend Hatz though. Don't read too much into it.

 

 

In my best Randy Jackson voice: "We're good dog." :lol:

[Hatz]

That is still laughable. I guess Knight should have been ejected last night for his groin tap?

 

Hey, now you've gone too far!

 

If Knight doesn't get razzed for that next year (NCAA or NBA) something is wrong. :lol:

[PurplePride92]

I understand exactly where GRC is coming from and my attitude is the same. I didn't see Wilt Chamberlain score 100 but I saw Kobe score 81. I didn't see Hank Aaron hit 755 homers but I saw Bonds hit 755+. I didn't see the Celtics or UCLA win 10 straight championships but I saw the Lakers dominate the 80's, the end of the millenium and current day. I was 4 when UK won in 78, I vaguely remember UK in the 80's and saw them win in 96 and 98 and should have won in 97. I saw Duke start a stretch of postseason consistency in the 80's that is almost unrivaled and win 4 championships along the way as well as do it all with one coach who, by the way, is 4 wins away from being the all time winningest coach in men's basketball history. GRC's post about things we had seen rings true with me. I understand what he is saying.

[PurplePride92]

In my best Randy Jackson voice: "We're good dog." :lol:

 

 

Fist pound homey.

[PurplePride92]

Hey, now you've gone too far!

 

If Knight doesn't get razzed for that next year (NCAA or NBA) something is wrong. :lol:

 

 

 

I'd rather getting 'stomped' by Laettner than have Knight molest me on the court.

[Original Rookie]

I understand exactly where GRC is coming from and my attitude is the same. I didn't see Wilt Chamberlain score 100 but I saw Kobe score 81. I didn't see Hank Aaron hit 755 homers but I saw Bonds hit 755+. I didn't see the Celtics or UCLA win 10 straight championships but I saw the Lakers dominate the 80's, the end of the millenium and current day. I was 4 when UK won in 78, I vaguely remember UK in the 80's and saw them win in 96 and 98 and should have won in 97. I saw Duke start a stretch of postseason consistency in the 80's that is almost unrivaled and win 4 championships along the way as well as do it all with one coach who, by the way, is 4 wins away from being the all time winningest coach in men's basketball history. GRC's post about things we had seen rings true with me. I understand what he is saying.

 

I see both sides of it. You may have a different opinion though if the resumes were reversed.

[GRC4LIFE]

I see both sides of it. You may have a different opinion though if the resumes were reversed.

 

 

I'd probably agree with that 100%.

[oldrambler]

Take away those three championships when you only had to win 3 games tops to be the CHAMPION, and they are right on par. Over the past 20 years, heck yeah UK would like to be Duke.

So, as I understand this you have the ability and know enough about everything that you know what U.K. fans want. Dang you're good. :lol:

 

Typical UK fan response I've received since I was born. Sure, if you want to brag about stuff that has happened 50 years ago by all means do. Myself, I put a little more stock into what has happened in my lifetime which is the last 20 years. And the results in this time span, cannot be argued.

Again, you are amazing. I had no idea that the game and any records only began when you were born. Thanks again for enlightening everyone of your many years and knowledge of the game of basketball. :notworthy:

I just want to be clear... I'm not taking away anything for UK fans and their championships in the 50's and back then. We even had a thread a bit back discussing this... I don't have enough knowledge of how the tournament was back in that time except that I do know they only had to win 3 games to be crowned champion, one time 4 games. To me that just isn't as impressive to what the tournament is like know and has been in my lifetime. I was open to people in the other thread trying to explain how it was back then, and I'm still open.

Keep going, we are all clearer on what you're about.

 

I wasn't the one who started that. Ironically enough, I think it was a UL fan. Nonetheless, a UK fan retaliated by throwing out history as their arguement, which is the basis of a normal UK response. Then I said my peace.

 

What I think is funny, and what most people don't even realize, is the fact that I root for UK in any and every game that they play as long as it doesn't include Duke. So I've rooted for UK in every game in the past 10 years... UK fans are unlike any other. For the good, and definitely for the bad.

Again,i am glad that you know enough to know what a normal U.K. response is,you are so wise beyond your years . I, as a U.K. fan for 53 yrs now appreciate that you have found it in your heart to root for U.K., i guess that makes you one of the U.K.. fans that you are talking about so much since you have put U.K. fans all in one category :popcorn: Welcome, but you really shouldn't put yourself down so much. :lol:

 

I'm not ignorant. I know there are lots of older folks on this board, and I'd hope so. I'm not ready to be called an old folk just yet. I'm just saying, what has happened in your lifetime, you care more about. Whether that be 20 years, 30 years, or if you are 50. If you were around since 1950, then heck yes you'd care about what happened in 1958 just as much as in 2011. But do you care as much about what happened in say 1930? Sure you are aware of it, and even acknowledge the accomplishments that has been made. But I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd put a bit more stock into caring about what has happened that you can remember for certain as opposed to just hearing about things that have happened. We all have our own reference times.

 

Prime example would be with Barry Bonds breaking the home run record. Sure, Hank Aaron had the record before him and that is an amazing feat, but I witnessed Bonds do that exact same thing and it sticks out to me more than opposed to hearing about Hank Aaron. We all know Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds were both amazing players, Bonds just sticks out to me more because it happened in my lifetime. :thumb:

:confused: Uh?? :lol: Again, so you think the history of the game, any sport obviously, only counts in your lifetime. :idunno:

O.K. but just some advice that you might consider.....GRC, if you would take some time to read and learn more about the past players and the sport then imo you would have an even more appreciation of it and then may understand more about the paticular sport. Trust me, there were actually some very good teams and players in all sports past 20 years.

 

Those are some great stats, info about those past teams. Thanks for sharing that info! I had heard that they had to beat Cousey in one of the years and Magice Johnson in 1978. All our valid points and show that they weren't just handed the championship.

 

I think where I'm coming from is this. Yes they had to win their conference tourney to make the dance and that in it self is a hard thing to do. But once they are in, they've got to win three games against stiff competition. Compare that to this year to say, Louisville. They would have had to win 6 games to bring home the trophy (we all know they were a good basketball team). Albeit those first 1, maybe even 2 games are against lower competition and some teams might not even have to play stiff competition until the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. What happened to Louisville? They got upset by Morehead St in the first round before they even thought about playing that stiff competition.

 

I think what I'm trying to say ( I think :lol: ) is that I find it more impressive when a team has to play at a very high level, or close to it, for 6 games as opposed to only playing at a high level for three games. We see very good basketball teams in this type of tournament set up go home very early because they just weren't on top of their game for just 1 half, or 1 game. The VCU's and the Butler's of the world knocking off the big dogs. The chances of a team not performing at a very high level are greater when they have to win 6 games as opposed to only winning 3. That is why I value a championship in this day and age as opposed to back then.

 

What does everybody think?

GRC, Championships were just as earned/impressive years ago in that is what everyone had to do to win, just bc the game is so much bigger, more schools and conferences, tournament games doesn't make championships won in the past less impressive. Years ago teams did have fewer games to play to win it all. The NCAA has kept growing and expanding to the point that at least imo may be getting too big,too man teams in. Actually teams today do not have to win as much as past teams had to just to qualify for post season.

 

I don't expect you to agree with all that I or others are saying, just don't disregard other teams and players that played before you were born, maybe that is a trait of a Duke fan :popcorn:. I wouldn't know. :thumb:

GRC I'll add UK is either 1st or 2nd in almost every major category in terms of overall success for a team in the entire NCAA. That has to count for something.

 

:thumb::thumb: Agreed,it counts for alot imo.