Congrats on another paper championship. What's that? Number 249 since Cal got there?
Duke fans will continue to only worry about real championships.
Kentucky fans are so jealous of Duke program
- Thread starter Rocketman101
- Start date
Duke fans will continue to only worry about real championships.
If the championships Duke won now occurred during a time when some of the best players weren't allowed to play, no shot clock, no 3 point line, the tournament consisted of 8-12 teams playing on their home court, etc., then, yes....35 years from now I would not hold them in as high a regard as I would when all the aforementioned things weren't a factor.
Bragging about titles won with the aforementioned factors taken into account is like bragging about being the tallest midget....congrats?
I haven't participated in a good old KY thread like this in a while. I miss the days of abnormal amounts of free time.
No, you guys got 2nd again. https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/home/the-winners/2015-winners
If your so-called 'best recruiter in the biz' regains his touch, UK might just hold on for 2nd in the 2016 and 2017 recruiting classes. That will be 4 straight top-classes by Duke. Remind me, how good is Cal when he doesn't have an overwhelming talent advantage? Oh, nvm, I have his meltdowns in the ND and WI games to remind me.
Yes, desperation, which you followed up with.......more desperation.
- Towns vs Okafor? Really? Aren't we talking about a TEAM?
- pursuit of perfection in a weak, terribly weak, SEC
- no one said UK wasn't good, they just weren't the best team
- that same record-setting defense was pretty torn up by Wisconsin
Keep clinging to that paper title. 40 and oh.
Last edited:
ND didn't have much trouble scoring against UK either in the tournament. Well until the last minute or so anyway.
I happen to agree with the KYford here, I thought UK was the best team last year. Until the tournement. I don't think any reasonable person would say that anyone was playing better than Duke for the 6 games they played in March and early April. In fact, since Duke dismissed Sulaimon, they got better and better almost every time out. While playing a tough conference schedule.
I would ask that we be cordial to KY ford as well. He has been a civil guest while here.
I happen to agree with the KYford here, I thought UK was the best team last year. Until the tournement. I don't think any reasonable person would say that anyone was playing better than Duke for the 6 games they played in March and early April. In fact, since Duke dismissed Sulaimon, they got better and better almost every time out. While playing a tough conference schedule.
I would ask that we be cordial to KY ford as well. He has been a civil guest while here.
Huh? Could have sworn it meant we were the national champs.
IMO, the best team conversation is always such a waste of time. In my opinion, Duke had the best team in 86, 99, and 06 -- and clearly the most talented team in 02 (when they were trying to repeat). However, just as we get no credit for winning the "best team" award in those years, UK gets no credit for starting 38-0 last year. In the end of the day, all that matters is winning in the NCAAs.
Meh. None of this really matters. Duke won the national championship. UK had one helluva team but when the time came to prove they were worthy of a championship they failed.
I blame the Harrisons. They got way too many minutes that should've gone to Ullis and Booker. Platooning worked well against regular competition, but against great teams, it was a fail. Calipari should've abandoned it sooner. He tried to ride Towns in crunch time, which was a good idea, but other adjustments were lacking.
I agree, Denn, that he has been civil.
That said, I don't understand why any fan (UK, Duke, etc.) would go to a rival's board and argue their team's superiority (with hypotheticals) against the reality of a championship. It's a losing argument anywhere, let alone at DI. Some pushback is to be expected when a UK poster continues with such futile reasoning.
OFC
Thank you, I appreciate that. I have enjoyed talking with you guys, Duke has a lot of knowledgeable fans.
I would like to point out that I posted in this thread because it's title suggested that Kentucky fans are jealous of Duke's program. In no way was I trying to suggest that Duke didn't have a better year or anything like that. I was giving you all some reasons on why we are not jealous and shouldn't be.
You guys won the title and Kentucky did not, you are right that no one will remember anything other than Duke being champion. I was just pointing out that both of these programs are on top of things right now and there is no jealousy.
This is a valid point, Ulis and Booker were the better backcourt for sure. Booker especially should have played more minutes than Aaron.
I also think we missed Poythress more than we thought after that ACL injury.We could have really used his elite athleticism and defensive prowess in the tournament.
Coach K's new line of sports jackets, and men's wear...Nothing But Net. If you can't win it, then you can at least wear it. K is holding up 6 fingers for a reason...get your tix for six.
OFC
OFC
LOVE it!Coach K's new line of sports jackets, and men's wear...Nothing But Net. If you can't win it, then you can at least wear it. K is holding up 6 fingers for a reason...get your tix for six.
OFC
I am putting my head in the lions mouth, but there is not a lot of evidence that Kentucky was the best team. Hell, and losing to Wisconsin is a big one, there is not much evidence Kentucky was even second.
I would say Kentucky was the most impressive non-conference team, but even that is debatable. But the fact of the matter is, UK played 8 games against Ken Pom top-eight teams and was 7-1. Duke, 13-2. Duke won @UVA, @UNC (sweet 16), UNC (sweet 16), @L'Ville (sweet 16), @Syracuse, Syracuse (would have been a tournament team if eligible), vs NCST (sweet 16), ND (Elite 8), @wisconsin (nati), vs wisconsin (nati), vs Michigan State (2x) (ff), vs Gonzaga (elite 8), vs. Utah (sweet 16). Kentucky cannot compare to that resume.
And everyone points to a team's accomplishment after a major injury. How about Duke's resume after kicking off Rasheed? One loss, ONE to a team who would have beat UK had they remembered they had more than one player on the team in the last few minutes.
Then go to the tournament (ken pom, starting with 32 game)
34, 26, 9, 3 (average, 18)
Duke
27, 8, 7, 15, 3 (average 12, that is with an "outlier" in the f4 of MSU).
Kentucky, minus a win against West Virginia was completely unimpressive. Hell, even in their first game. Minus the final few minutes against Utah and about a minute against Bobby Morris, Duke pretty much dominated in the tournament and Kentucky looked completely unimpressive in a putrid conference. Take away the record, the eye test looked unimpressive since January (again, in an awful conference). Duke's two "bad" losses were to team on the road who made the sweet 16, where Duke has routinely played bad (but Duke is 2-0 in national championships the last two years Duke lost at NCST) and to a Miami team who did get runners-up in the NIT. Couple in a close loss at a great team in ND because bunnies could not go in (hey it happens, but it was easily double-digits close shots around the basket that rim out. 2-3 go in and that game is COMPLETELY different).
Hey, and Duke beat TWICE a team UK lost to...
Kentucky may have been better, but it is a murky argument at BEST.
I would say Kentucky was the most impressive non-conference team, but even that is debatable. But the fact of the matter is, UK played 8 games against Ken Pom top-eight teams and was 7-1. Duke, 13-2. Duke won @UVA, @UNC (sweet 16), UNC (sweet 16), @L'Ville (sweet 16), @Syracuse, Syracuse (would have been a tournament team if eligible), vs NCST (sweet 16), ND (Elite 8), @wisconsin (nati), vs wisconsin (nati), vs Michigan State (2x) (ff), vs Gonzaga (elite 8), vs. Utah (sweet 16). Kentucky cannot compare to that resume.
And everyone points to a team's accomplishment after a major injury. How about Duke's resume after kicking off Rasheed? One loss, ONE to a team who would have beat UK had they remembered they had more than one player on the team in the last few minutes.
Then go to the tournament (ken pom, starting with 32 game)
34, 26, 9, 3 (average, 18)
Duke
27, 8, 7, 15, 3 (average 12, that is with an "outlier" in the f4 of MSU).
Kentucky, minus a win against West Virginia was completely unimpressive. Hell, even in their first game. Minus the final few minutes against Utah and about a minute against Bobby Morris, Duke pretty much dominated in the tournament and Kentucky looked completely unimpressive in a putrid conference. Take away the record, the eye test looked unimpressive since January (again, in an awful conference). Duke's two "bad" losses were to team on the road who made the sweet 16, where Duke has routinely played bad (but Duke is 2-0 in national championships the last two years Duke lost at NCST) and to a Miami team who did get runners-up in the NIT. Couple in a close loss at a great team in ND because bunnies could not go in (hey it happens, but it was easily double-digits close shots around the basket that rim out. 2-3 go in and that game is COMPLETELY different).
Hey, and Duke beat TWICE a team UK lost to...
Kentucky may have been better, but it is a murky argument at BEST.
UK takes everyone's best shot in the SEC, the same way a bad VT team took Duke to OT last year.
In 6 years the Cats have been to 5 Elite Eights, 4 Final Fours, 1 Runner up and 1 National Championship. The SEC prepared Kentucky for the tournament by taking everyone's best during the season.
The SEC had 2 teams in the Final Four 2 years ago along with a nice run from Tennessee. The SEC has had 3 teams win multiple championships in the last 25 years just like the ACC.
The media tells you that SEC sucks though so it must be true.
Do you not follow recruiting? The SEC gets big time athletes and there is some good coaches in the league. No it's not the ACC but it's still a major conference.
In 6 years the Cats have been to 5 Elite Eights, 4 Final Fours, 1 Runner up and 1 National Championship. The SEC prepared Kentucky for the tournament by taking everyone's best during the season.
The SEC had 2 teams in the Final Four 2 years ago along with a nice run from Tennessee. The SEC has had 3 teams win multiple championships in the last 25 years just like the ACC.
The media tells you that SEC sucks though so it must be true.
Do you not follow recruiting? The SEC gets big time athletes and there is some good coaches in the league. No it's not the ACC but it's still a major conference.
Giving us UK's resume comes across as...well, desperate is a judgement call, but definitely needy...
You almost completely looked past the SEC this past season, and the SEC was terrible. Then you used one game between VT and Duke as a benchmark for the ACC vs SEC (in your only attempt to address the terrible SEC last year).
As stated above, I give credit for you being polite and obviously a true fan of UK, but you haven't grasped the fact that Duke was the best team last year (even though UK was pretty damn good) and that the SEC was, again, terrible.
As stated above, I give credit for you being polite and obviously a true fan of UK, but you haven't grasped the fact that Duke was the best team last year (even though UK was pretty damn good) and that the SEC was, again, terrible.
To me if you go starting 5 Duke was ALWAYS better than UK by a wide margin.
Besides Ulis and Booker off the bench UK's "depth" was unimpressive if you ask me so the whole depth argument doesn't hold much merit to me.
But we will never find out who would have won head to head because, come winning time, Kentucky could not beat a team that Duke managed to beat TWICE.
Congrats on a great season though.
Besides Ulis and Booker off the bench UK's "depth" was unimpressive if you ask me so the whole depth argument doesn't hold much merit to me.
But we will never find out who would have won head to head because, come winning time, Kentucky could not beat a team that Duke managed to beat TWICE.
Congrats on a great season though.
From 1987-1988 to 1992-1993 (six seasons), Duke went to 5 Elite 8s, 5 final fours, 1 runner-up, and 2 National Championships. So, while impressive, what Cal has done is not unheard of and certainly not to a Duke fan. During the 6 year span you posted of Cal at KY, Duke has less Final 4s, but more National Championships. Personally, I'll gladly trade two first round exits for an additional National Championship and no trips to the NIT.
The SEC was craptastic last year. No one is arguing KY didn't get everyone's best game. However, it is highly unlikely KY finishes the season undefeated had they played in the ACC or Big 10. Yes, KY beat some ACC teams, but play a home-and-home with teams like Duke, Cuse, UNC, ND, et al. and KY loses a few games.
Last edited:
Welp, they've now got an entire thread about the NCAA going to the S-curve instead of geographical seeding for the top seeds (good move btw). But they're using this as a soap box to say how Duke got nothing but a cakewalk and how great of a team ND was and how they got screwed having to play ND (the #5 team in the rankings after the tourney). I guess they should play the tourney, let the rankings come out and then seed the real tourney.
Just so they know...for their own moronic benefit. The last poll that came out before the tourney and how it would have gone down as an S-curve, drum roll please:
#1 UK- #8Notre Dame (OUCH guys....OUCH)
#2 Vill- #7Gonzaga
#3 Wisc- #6 UVA
#4 Duke- #5 Zona
Now they'll be the first to point out that Zona and Wisconsin should have never been paired together. However, their beef shouldn't be with Duke, it should be with the rankings that had Villanova who they bash as a fraud (along with zaga- convenient) to make their point. So if their argument that says Villanova was a fraud are true, then they should have been a 2 seed which slides everyone else down:
#1 UK- #8 ND
#2 Wisc- #7Gonzaga
#3 Duke- #6 UVA
#4 Zona- #Nova
Still playing ND guys, still doesnt matter. I do love how much love they're giving to the Irish though...the irish in their minds all of a sudden have become the most underrated team in the last 30 years not named UK. Pretty hilarious-because they beat Duke twice! GUYS THEY BEAT DUKE TWICE!!
Here's the reality- yes they should use an 'S' curve, i think anyone with a sane brain realizes that. But stop with the Duke gets all the favorable ________insert excuse here. Duke's the champs, let it go, you guys lost. Period. Blame it on Seeding, Blame it on Geography, Blame it on Refs, Blame it on Duke. I'm ok with the last one, blame it on us.
P.S. Duke had 3 top 10 teams in their region....
Just so they know...for their own moronic benefit. The last poll that came out before the tourney and how it would have gone down as an S-curve, drum roll please:
#1 UK- #8Notre Dame (OUCH guys....OUCH)
#2 Vill- #7Gonzaga
#3 Wisc- #6 UVA
#4 Duke- #5 Zona
Now they'll be the first to point out that Zona and Wisconsin should have never been paired together. However, their beef shouldn't be with Duke, it should be with the rankings that had Villanova who they bash as a fraud (along with zaga- convenient) to make their point. So if their argument that says Villanova was a fraud are true, then they should have been a 2 seed which slides everyone else down:
#1 UK- #8 ND
#2 Wisc- #7Gonzaga
#3 Duke- #6 UVA
#4 Zona- #Nova
Still playing ND guys, still doesnt matter. I do love how much love they're giving to the Irish though...the irish in their minds all of a sudden have become the most underrated team in the last 30 years not named UK. Pretty hilarious-because they beat Duke twice! GUYS THEY BEAT DUKE TWICE!!
Here's the reality- yes they should use an 'S' curve, i think anyone with a sane brain realizes that. But stop with the Duke gets all the favorable ________insert excuse here. Duke's the champs, let it go, you guys lost. Period. Blame it on Seeding, Blame it on Geography, Blame it on Refs, Blame it on Duke. I'm ok with the last one, blame it on us.
P.S. Duke had 3 top 10 teams in their region....
Last edited:
This is an argument that just isn't going to go anywhere.
We're foolish to argue UK wasn't a great team last year, and we're foolish if we say what they've done the past six years isn't impressive. But that isn't the argument in its entirety.
And their isn't anything wrong with UK fans, or Duke fans for that matter, being a little jealous sometimes. I was jealous when UK won it all in 2012 and I was jealous when UNC took it home in 2009. Fortunately we've had the pleasure of national championships in 2010 and 2015. Am I jealous of UK or UNCs program as a whole? No, I'm not. But that doesn't mean all of us don't fight bouts of jealousy. Hell, I was jealous of Mercer when I watched them play Tennessee in the 2014 tournament because we weren't there.
We're foolish to argue UK wasn't a great team last year, and we're foolish if we say what they've done the past six years isn't impressive. But that isn't the argument in its entirety.
And their isn't anything wrong with UK fans, or Duke fans for that matter, being a little jealous sometimes. I was jealous when UK won it all in 2012 and I was jealous when UNC took it home in 2009. Fortunately we've had the pleasure of national championships in 2010 and 2015. Am I jealous of UK or UNCs program as a whole? No, I'm not. But that doesn't mean all of us don't fight bouts of jealousy. Hell, I was jealous of Mercer when I watched them play Tennessee in the 2014 tournament because we weren't there.
Still too soon for me. I had to sit in a packed bar in Knoxville and watch that game with buddies and bite my tongue the entire game. Of course I had a Duke t-shirt underneath my sweater.
The Calipari years have been terrific for UK basketball. The results speak for themselves. And Duke has been quite good also. Either side can spin the stats that favor them. Kentucky more tournament success, but Duke has more hardware (2 NCAA titles)...and that's a great equalizer (or as us Duke fans would say...more than an equalizer .
38-1, Final Four...incredible season for UK. The problem with it is that way early on it became evident that anything less than 40-0 was unacceptable. At different points of the season I lurked the UK board, and they had numerous threads that practically screamed we're unbeatable. Not all the posters were caught up in it, but many were. It wasn't a matter of them winning the title...it was how dominant the run would be. Most never game any respect to Wisconsin. After the crushing of Kansas all sensibility vacated the UK fans. So, anything less than 40-0, and the championship is a failure...or it was...now some reality has set in (if you can call blaming the refs, and Duke was given a cakewalk reality).
And now to pour a little salt on the wounds. In 2010 and 2015 all Cal and UK had to do was to win one game to get to Duke...and both times they lost. The first loss against WVU, Cal said they were looking ahead to Duke. The second time UK had the chance they lost to Wisconsin, and Cal said they didn't even watch game film of the Badgers in preparation...again looking ahead to Duke. Duke is living rent free in Cal's noggin...hell, actually K owns the mortgage to that space.
OFC
.38-1, Final Four...incredible season for UK. The problem with it is that way early on it became evident that anything less than 40-0 was unacceptable. At different points of the season I lurked the UK board, and they had numerous threads that practically screamed we're unbeatable. Not all the posters were caught up in it, but many were. It wasn't a matter of them winning the title...it was how dominant the run would be. Most never game any respect to Wisconsin. After the crushing of Kansas all sensibility vacated the UK fans. So, anything less than 40-0, and the championship is a failure...or it was...now some reality has set in (if you can call blaming the refs, and Duke was given a cakewalk reality).
And now to pour a little salt on the wounds. In 2010 and 2015 all Cal and UK had to do was to win one game to get to Duke...and both times they lost. The first loss against WVU, Cal said they were looking ahead to Duke. The second time UK had the chance they lost to Wisconsin, and Cal said they didn't even watch game film of the Badgers in preparation...again looking ahead to Duke. Duke is living rent free in Cal's noggin...hell, actually K owns the mortgage to that space.
OFC
It's not an argument at all, nor have i seen many people on this board even remotely suggest that UK wasn't a great team....if they have and i missed it, well then they're morons. UK was a great team. I said all year long last year- if we play our best there isn't a team in the country we will not beat, not named UK. I thought UK was the only team in the nation last year that even playing at our best it wasn't a given we'd beat.
But the reality is, even when i'm jealous of other team's success- UNC's in 05 and really '09, or UK in '12 and then again in '14 when i felt they had no business being there, that's all it is- jealous. But i'm not going to sit there and point fingers and blame everyone else on why we lost. We lost b/c we lost, period. not the refs, not the seeding, not the brackets, it's because we lost and they got it done.
Moral of the story is stop blaming everyone else.
I think this is the best way to phrase it. We all get jealous from time to time on a particular success without being jealous of another program altogether.
I hate (but yes I still read) these types of threads that are really just designed to aggravate another fan base.
One things for sure, both programs (UK and Duke) are absolutely rolling right now while UNCheat** is rotting.
UNC has an excellant chance to win the title this year if no sanctions come down before the season. OFC
I wouldn't say excellent. There are no dominant teams like last year. They return alot of guys, but like Cal says , I'll take talent over experience every day of the week. K is now going with this philosophy as well.
