Kentucky fans are so jealous of Duke program
- Thread starter Rocketman101
- Start date
You ruin any credibility at all and become immediately disregarded by the very first word of your post. You need to learn a little about effective rhetoric.
Even so, in what universe is UNC clearly ahead of Duke? They have the exact same amount of National Championships and, despite playing for over one hundred years, are separated by a mere 78 wins.
Duke fans are too busy out purchasing 2015 National Championship merchandise to worry about lame attempts at put downs.
Son, let ME give you a little history lesson. First off, who had the most wins from 1960-1967 and the second-most in the 60's? UK? UNC?, no, DUKE. Duke always been somewhat close in terms of wins and final fours. Duke caught up in titles in 1992, 2001 and then again in 2015). And I applaud UNC going to two final fours before Duke despite the fact UNC had to beat NYU by 8 points in 1946.
And let's look at tournament history. Kentucky won HALF its titles during an era where only the conference champion got in. Who the hell did Kentucky play while the state of North Carolina had a JUGGERNAUT four schools to go through to even get to the tournament? And on top of that, the first 13 ACC Tournaments where at freaking Reynolds Coliseum on the campus of NCST! And with not everyone not getting a bid except conference winners, do you know who would have been on the top-8 s-curve by the NCAA in 2015 (I am including Wisconsin despite the fact they should have not been there thanks to a really sad missed out-of-bounds call)? 1. UK 2. Villanova 3. Wisky 4. Arizona 5. Gonzaga 6. Iowa State 7. Notre Dame 8. Northern FREAKING Iowa (and if we take out Wisky, UK would have SMU). So how many more final fours would UNC, NCST and Duke have if they were not kicking the shit outta each other in the 50's and 60's?
Finally, do not get your panties in a wad when some of us have the GUMPTION (oh, the horror!) to suggest Duke may have been better than UK this year. We will never know for sure, but UK did not nearly have the impressive number of wins Duke had. Also, there were some signs from early on to point to the fact that UK may have not been the media-proclaimed best team ever from very early on (losing at half at home to Columbia and Buffalo? Really?).
And on another note, why are the media so far up UNC's ass? They return basically everyone from a sweet 16 caliber team and added no one of consequence. They may be very good, I do not know. But I am still scratching my head...
There seems to be a misunderstanding on here. When I said the Big Blue, I didn't mean UNC. I meant THE BIG BLUE a.k.a The Kentucky Wildcats. I mean don't get me wrong, Duke has a good little basketball program. It just pales in comparison to the school with the most wins in history. Not only do we have more wins thank Duke, we have more NCAA championships, a much larger fan base, better facilities, and when it comes to tradition, we have had 5 different head coaches win national championships. So dream on.
That's nice. I'm sure you're happy. Duke fans surely are with more National Championships in the last five decades than anyone but UCLA. (The Bruins 11 all time of course leads all schools.)
Looks like it works out for both groups.
Kudos to KY on dominating an era when the best players weren't allowed to play, no shot clock, no three point line, and the tournament consisted of 8-12 teams playing on their home court. Congrats on being the tallest midget.
Kentucky wouldn't have the most wins all-time if they played in a real conference. The rest of the SEC cares about football, football, and more football. Again, congrats on being the tallest midget.
Meanwhile, the rest of us living in the modern era know who the top dog is: http://duke.forums.rivals.com/threa...ams-since-1984-85-modern-era.4539/#post-76632
Maybe someday you can leave the I Love Lucy era and join us in the modern era. It's quite nice. You might like it.
All hail mighty UK. They have made a living filling the ledger with wins over outstanding, tradition-rich basketball programs like Mississippi St., South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Auburn.
Kentucky 2015 40-0 national championship t-shirts are a lot cheaper though.
Kentucky fans are so jealous. I am sure they will try to talk Cal in to not playing Duke this year. Duke is so great that it might be best to just cancel this season and give the title to Duke without playing a game. Duke will probably win every game by 40 points. You guys are awesome.
I agree K is a great coach. However you are in a fantasy land if you think he is a better coach than John Wooden. All anyone has to do is review past history. Wooden not only has double the NCAA titles but also has the longest winning streak by far.
Nice to see a Kentucky fan taking up for John Wooden considering the man's success is nothing but trashed endlessly on the Kentucky boards.
My favorite brass ring rhetoric that has come out recently between the THRs and RR's of the world, is that somehow when K retires Duke will be a mediocre program. Additionally, they state that "the jury is still out on whether duke can sustain past 1 coach."
Question? Does that mean that the last 35 years of sustained excellence was meaningless? And what jury? And what kind of success counts to this made up jury? Do we have to win a title in the first year or two after K retires? Does that count? Or do we circle back 40 years after K retires and see how those stacked up. I can almost assure you they wont, since other than Wooden's dynasty in the late 60s-70s, no other stretch in MBB has been seen like the one K has drawn up in the last 35+ years at Duke.
I'm not going to use this as a trashing board on Wooden, but I would again, like to point to my case for why K can be consider the greatest coach in history of the game. And there have been multiple people that have stated as much after we won that were not Duke fans. But if you open your eyes and consider the case, one can surely see how it's not beyond comprehension as you so callously tried to suggest.
Question? Does that mean that the last 35 years of sustained excellence was meaningless? And what jury? And what kind of success counts to this made up jury? Do we have to win a title in the first year or two after K retires? Does that count? Or do we circle back 40 years after K retires and see how those stacked up. I can almost assure you they wont, since other than Wooden's dynasty in the late 60s-70s, no other stretch in MBB has been seen like the one K has drawn up in the last 35+ years at Duke.
I'm not going to use this as a trashing board on Wooden, but I would again, like to point to my case for why K can be consider the greatest coach in history of the game. And there have been multiple people that have stated as much after we won that were not Duke fans. But if you open your eyes and consider the case, one can surely see how it's not beyond comprehension as you so callously tried to suggest.
I think I said this in another thread at some point, but K's legacy is vast and one of the largest aspects of it will be what he has done to the Duke "brand." Duke was a very solid program with sporadic winning history (though no banners) before he took over. He has turned it into one of the premier programs and jobs in the country, and the definitive college basketball program of the modern era. The Duke name rings out and gets in any door now and has a lot of cachet with recruits and coaches. The team is on national television more than any other program. All of that will still be the case when K retires because of all he has done to make Duke marquee. To expect the program to fall off the map after he leaves is, for lack of a better word, unbelievably stupid.
I don't know what THR has said but the funny thing is that in the last season before K started (1980), Duke won the ACC Championship (spanking UNC en route) and went to the elite 8. Two years before that Duke was 1978 ACC Champions and lost in the National Championship game to Kentucky, so any UNC fan who is a few decades removed from their pacifiers should be well aware of Gene Banks, Mike Gminski, Jim Spanarkel and Bill Foster. ( Not to mention that Vic Bubas dominated the ACC for most of the 1960's and beat up on Dean Smith during his "hung in effigy" days. Vic was an insane 22-6 in the ACC Tournament and was in the title game 8 out of 10 trips. 106-32 in the ACC Regular Season (77%). Third most wins in College Basketball for the 1960's decade. (213-67 record. 76%) His 1963 team went undefeated in the ACC and his 1964 team lost one league game. Duke briefly overtook UNC in the late 1960's in all-time wins but few are even aware of this.)
Last edited:
They had plenty of banners- Southern Conference and ACC Championships, Final Fours, etc. just not the ultimate yet. But let's not pretend that these last four decades have only been kind to Duke.
When K was hired in 1980, UNC had ONE NCAA title. Kansas had ONE NCAA title. Now it's five and three respectively for those two. The field of 64 era has been very important for bumping up both UNC and KU'S Championship pedigree.
I see no reason why either program should be jealous of the other. I wouldn't trade Cal for any coach out there and I'm sure you guys wouldn't trade K for anybody either. Duke and Kentucky are the 2 premiere college basketball programs out there right now and everyone knows it. I look at the Duke/Kentucky thing as a rivalry amongst powerhouses, nothing more. I was devastated when we lost last year and yeah Duke winning didn't make me feel any better but hey, we pretty much gave the game away and despite what some say, we'll never know who would have really won the title game.
Unfortunately there are people in both fan bases who will be obnoxious about their opinions but for the most part I've found you guy to be about 1000 times more pleasant to deal with than Louisville fans and I enjoy a civil conversation with intelligent people on other boards.
Anyway that's my take on this whole thing. Peace, my sports loving brothers!
Unfortunately there are people in both fan bases who will be obnoxious about their opinions but for the most part I've found you guy to be about 1000 times more pleasant to deal with than Louisville fans and I enjoy a civil conversation with intelligent people on other boards.
Anyway that's my take on this whole thing. Peace, my sports loving brothers!
A reasonable poster like this is welcome here any time. Thanks for remaining objective.
So let me see if I understand this. You are saying that everything that happened before you won your first championship in 1991 doesn't matter. O.K. with that being the case then. Let's go ahead & wipe Babe Ruth & his 714 home runs out of the record books. And alot of us thought that Muhammad Ali was the greatest heavyweight ever, but I guess we were wrong about that because his boxing career happened before 1991. But I can't leave without asking the question... If winning national championships was so easy in the 1940's & 50's..... Why didn't you guys win one?
Not sure I got that either. I would crow about any championships no matter how old. Heck, I crow about the old Iron Dukes - only University football team that went the regular season unbeaten, untied, and unscored upon. Duke - while better - certainly is not the football powerhouse it used to be, but it is still a fun thing to brag about. Kudos to UK they beat who they had to at the time (Duke and every other school had the same opportunities) - but I do understand the point that BB is better now than then. There is a certain pride in being King of the modern age.
We both have plenty of which to be proud.
8 team tournament field's didn't help as invites were not easy. Eddie Cameron's best Duke team went 22-2 in 1942, won it's league and then their season ended. No invite.
I don't think anyone is contending old championships aren't impressive. Duke fans are just proud to be the marquee team of the modern era.
here's the thing about different fan bases. Every fan base, no matter how fair and balanced they attempt to be, cannot help but to be biased and spin things in their favor. It's just human nature. Duke fans will spin the fact that the ones in the 40s and 50s aren't as impressive as the ones in the modern era b/c there is much more competition- in the field, in recruiting, in overall players, in selection etc. UK/UNC fans will complain about Duke getting easy paths and favorable calls....both ironic, but never the less, that is their spin. We're going around in circles here.
Just to add to his comment suggesting we're saying anything before 91 doesn't matter. Is he kidding? why would we want to diminish EIGHT (8) Final Fours and/or NCAA title game appearances for Duke? I doubt anyone is saying that. What some are probably doing is trying to draw a distinction between an eight team NCAA Tournament field and a 64 NCAA Tournament field. Let's not pretend like Kentucky fans have not made similar arguments to absolutely try and diminish UCLA and John Wooden. How many times have we heard the old "only played West teams until the title game", "bye into the Final Four", etc etc type of rhetoric from you guys?
Where did I say everything that happened before 1991 doesn't matter? Please provide the exact quote.
Are you this dense in real life or only when you post online?
Duke was the best team last year. Kentucky was the second best team last year even though we lost to Wisconsin. Wisconsin had something that helped them a lot called the "revenge" factor. They had to keep that taste in their mouth from the year before when Aaron nailed that buzzer beater to send them home. Even with that, UK HAD and I emphasize Had, that game won until Cal went to stall ball. Some other facts, in my opinion, Coach K is the best coach ever, period. Cal, even though K has done great and is doing and will continue to recruit top classes, Cal is the best recruiter. K is the best in game coach no doubt. Cal is the master of the media and a great motivator. The two best teams in basketball now and in the future will be Duke and Kentucky. I can't stand Duke. I love it when my team beats Duke but the fact is, last year Duke was the best team. I love Cal and wouldn't trade him for Coach K BUT I feel if K had been coaching Cal's players last year and also with the Wall/Cousins team, UK would of been cutting down the nets both years. I love the rivalry and come in peace.
Thanks. Good post. It's nice to see post like this from a Kentucky fan and I respect that you can't stand Duke because I feel the same about UK. I will pull for UK when they play UNC simply because I can't help it. It's UNC and it's my nature to do that. As far as I'm concerned you can post here anytime when you post like that. Your are a guest here and the posters will treat you as one as long as you act as one and will treat you with respect. OFC
x2
kyhillbilly1, this board is always open and welcome to non-Duke fans who want to be objective and simply talk hoops. While I don't agree with some things you said, I can chalk them up to your being a UK fan and supporting your team. I can't hate against that, because I'll do the same every day of the week for Duke. Welcome!
Kyhillbilly, I agree with Sky, and Mark...good post. No one is going to hate you for being a UK fan as long as you show respect for Duke basketball, and our posters
OFC.
OFC.
Thanks guys, I appreciate it. I'm a huge UK fan……but I can take my blue tinted glasses off to step into reality as well. I'm looking forward to our game in Chicago in November. I wouldn't put money on either team, I'm just not sure what to expect from the Cats early on. I think it will be a tight one. I like our freshmen coming in as I'm sure you guys like yours, but I think our season may hinge on how well Poythress is healed from that ACL injury. He had 20 the last time we met. If he can spring for 20 again, I like our chances. Good luck to your team and lets hope its an injury free season and let the best team win it.
Duke had the best team by far. Look at who they beat during year. UK played some overrated teams preconference and then played in the Soft Eastern Conference.
I'm in the same boat. I'll always root against Duke until they play Louisville. Or UNC. I still think Kentucky had the best team last year but no excuses. They lost cuz they didn't bring it in crunch time and Wisconsin did. Sucks cuz Duke/Kentucky would have been a great title game.
And my point is, if you feel that way, fine. But my problem are those that think and act like Duke does not have an argument. I understand the best team does not always win. But, earlier in this thread, I laid out a great case of why Duke had a dog in the fight to say they were the best.
And I am sorry, as a big believer in karma and being very superstitious, imho Cal pissed off the gods a whole hell of a lot more than would make me comfortable...
My argument is that by the time the tournament started, there were three teams who could claim a best team moniker, with Duke and UK a cut above the rest.
And if you look at the tournament runs of the two respective teams, Duke's bears out as tougher. Discounting the 1/16 matchups, the RPI of UK's four opponents was 36-22-10-2, totaling 70, an average of 17.5. Duke's four opponents' RPI rankings were 26-13-8-15, totaling 62, an average of 15.5. And that does not take into account Duke's final game, where they beat the #2 RPI Wisconsin team that had dispatched UK. UK was really good last year, but in any definitive measure Duke was better.
