GRC4LIFE

But the Sweet 16 was where they usually got beat out. And last year how many people had Duke winning even as a one seed? The perception of them was different before the tourney last year, oh what a difference a year makes.

I agree, I didn't even have Duke winning it all. I had UK knocking them out in the Final Four... But they were definitely a serious threat hence their #1 seed.

Purple you and I both know few thought Duke was a major threat to win last year. Early exits came to be Duke's calling card in the 2000s.

Won it all in 2001, Final Four in 04' and sweet 16s in every year except the year VCU beat them in the first round I believe. They were a 1 seed how were they not a major threat?

Going exactly the way Butler wants it to go right now...

How about the part where you said UK's old championships were less relevant because they happened "50 years ago"? Or where you said you put more stock into stuff that happened in your lifetime. I guess my buddies newborn will have to say that UConn or Butler is the premier program of today?

 

I'm not overly sensitive about UK when it comes to this, I just think if the roles were reversed you would have a different slant to it. And I'm not saying alot of UK fans wouldn't if the roles were reversed. But I hate when anyone says they truly love sports and disregard the history of the game. That's JMO.

I never said they were less relevant because they happened 50 years ago. I explained why I didn't value them as much as I do championships now because of the quantity of games they had to play in the big dance and gave my reasons for that. Granted, I didn't know some of the facts that has been presented in this thread since then. I also said I "put more stock" into things that have happened in my lifetime because I can relate to those things better. Never once did I say I didn't respect the past and history of sports because that would be a lie if I said that.

I also would tend to agree with you that my view could very well be reversed if the situations were reversed. But we'll never know. I just don't get how I'm disregarding the history of the game when I said I acknowledge and respect everything in the past. I just value things that have happened in my lifetime and I can relate to.

I always wore the high socks... I love the look.

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?

Again, I did not say that the only things that matter only happened in my lifetime.

You guys are way too sensitive. You can degrade me, tell me I don't know anything about history, or say whatever you want. This is a prime example why some UK fans get the rep that they do, they will not agree or even acknowledge the other side if it does not suit them. I am not one of those that hates UK fans, because that is what my family and friends are and I even root for them as well. But, this is exactly why there are a ton of people who do not like UK fans because of this. The fact is I know quite a bit about history and I respect it as has already been stated whether you want to acknowledge that or not. With that said, it is perfectly normal to care more about what has happened that you can relate to compared to things that have happened before your time. That is no knock on history, just my personal feelings.

As for my first couple posts in this thread, I can see why I'm getting attacked. That was just my firing back at others in this post. But, continue to attack me, it's all good.

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%.

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?

: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:

It was a typical response from you saying UK wants to be Duke what do you expect in return?

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.

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.

Take away 3 championships and we are even! I have an idea for the next t-shirt. Can you help me with one for all time wins and win percentage?

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.

So Kentucky wants to give up 3 National Championships, over 100 wins, and a 7% better winning percentage?

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.

Think about how special that UK team was to Cats fans. That team overachieved so much, & meant so much for UK getting back from probation. They were about to upset Duke (sounds weird for UK to be the upset-er), & Leattner hits that shot. It's not just Leattner, it's everything that goes into that game IMO, is why the hate is there.

So will they hate Kemba for beating this underdog UK team and ending their magical run say 10 years from now?

I don't think you can make that judgement off of one t-shirt.

 

And I doubt the kids on the team really care what people wear. If they do then they are too sensitive.

I get what you are saying, and yes I'm stretching... but get my point?

Let the past be the past and enjoy and cheer on this years version of the Wildcats.

I am as True a fan as they got , I Love Uk basketball now and I loved it then and I still HATE Laetner also .:dancingpa:dancingpa

Cool, but why wear a shirt that says so? Why not wear a 2011 UK Final Four shirt in support of this years team instead?

Now, I'm sure they do that too. :thumb:

I know I know, I just feel like if I was on the team and saw that shirt I'd be aggravated. They deserve ALL the attention. :thumb:

And just what is a "true fan"?

Why not cheer on this current team instead of living in the past? I just don't get it.

To me that just goes to show they aren't a true fan...

Bourbon started the season against Estill and won 19-1. Mullins threw a no hitter and had 15 K's. Bourbon is in my point of view the best in their district and a top competitor in the region with their top 5 hitters, and their 3 aces in Clark, Norman, and Mullins

Until they do win it, I'll take the sure bet in GRC.

Wall didn't "throw a punch."

I'm pretty sure he landed one right in Z's midsection. He shouldn't of done what he did but I don't see it being a huge deal. Definitely have to retaliate but I believe a shove/push would have been the perfect retaliation.

I really like Quinn Cook.

If Irving miraculously comes back I see a complete log jam. Even without Irving, there is a heavy supply of guards.

Irving

Rivers

Curry

Dawkins

Cook

Thorton

Read my first post....

I saw it but with this NBA game still having 6 minutes to go, I was starting to wonder!

It's over now.

Will the guys be on ESPN?