Started By
Message
re: AJC: Can the SEC ever become a basketball league?
Posted on 3/16/16 at 6:56 pm to RTR America
Posted on 3/16/16 at 6:56 pm to RTR America
It's weird because of the environment of the city. The city truly is such a major pro sport town that even though there are 4 million people, the vast majority don't really care. And thats before you split the numbers that do care between UCLA and USC. But it's not really only in LA you see that. You really don't see any major population centers care about college sports outside of DFW and Houston.
It's why the pro teams are pretty much always well attended
It's why the pro teams are pretty much always well attended
This post was edited on 3/16/16 at 6:58 pm
1
Posted on 3/16/16 at 6:56 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Aside from a 10 year run for Wooden, UK is far ahead in every category and it's not even close to debatable.
Literally guffawed at this. Ignore maybe the greatest decade-long run by an team in any sport ever
Posted on 3/16/16 at 6:59 pm to craigbiggio
quote:
Literally guffawed at this. Ignore maybe the greatest decade-long run by an team in any sport ever
It is brought up because we are talking about programs that have been around for over a 100 years and span all sorts of era's and coaches. This isn't a discussion on who had the greater dynasty. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:03 pm to RTR America
You can't grasp why it is absurd to disregard one of the greatest dynasties? That's not a factor in this debate?
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:05 pm to AHM21
There are a few schools that could consistently produce good teams (outside of Kentucky), but I think the problem is the quality of high school basketball in most Southern states. Our basketball sucks. It's usually just a bunch of athletes with awful fundamentals. That's why SEC teams get whipped by the Butlers and Gonzagas of the world in the dance. SEC teams usually have plenty of athleticism, but struggle with turnovers, passing, and free throws. Unless the conference can start recruiting on a national level (especially the East Coast, NE, and Midwest), they will never be a basketball conference.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:07 pm to craigbiggio
The debate wasn't about dynasty, it was about best program. Nobody is saying UCLA didn't have an impressive run.
More impressive to me was their 88 game win streak. That is fricking unbelievable.
More impressive to me was their 88 game win streak. That is fricking unbelievable.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:09 pm to UKWildcats
The only program Kentucky fans consider to be our peer is North Carolina. Kansas is close as well.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:14 pm to UKWildcats
quote:
The debate wasn't about dynasty, it was about best program
I know. I just think it sounds silly when someone says to forget one of the most historically successful runs ever.
And I get what he was saying. If you do remove the 60s and 70s they only have one championship. I just think it's disingenuous to exclude their dynasty because it was so dominant.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:15 pm to craigbiggio
It's even more ridiculous to act like the program isn't a blue blood
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:20 pm to craigbiggio
quote:Well more to my point, if you exclude Kentucky's best decade ever, we're still second on the list in titles behind UCLA. If you exclude UCLA's, well....they are somewhere around Ohio State and Oregon in the pecking order. Again, my point is sustained excellence. Kentucky has it. North Carolina and Kansas do as well. No other program does.
I know. I just think it sounds silly when someone says to forget one of the most historically successful runs ever.
And I get what he was saying. If you do remove the 60s and 70s they only have one championship. I just think it's disingenuous to exclude their dynasty because it was so dominant.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:40 pm to UKWildcats
quote:lol
Again, my point is sustained excellence. Kentucky has it. North Carolina and Kansas do as well. No other program does.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 7:54 pm to UKWildcats
You keep bringing up 10 year run...as if your total bias tries to pigeon-hole UCLA.
UCLA
6 Final Fours in the 60's
7 Final Fours in the 70's
1 Final Fours in the 80's
1 Final Fours in the 90's
3 Final Fours in the 2000's
Again, that's more than a 10-year run!
What about Kentucky's 40 year run of just 3 measly Titles?
Kentucky - 1958, 1978, 1996
I can flip the tables and show your ineptitude for a LONG period of time. You knock UCLA for one great run that overshadows the rest but glorify your absence in the 1960's and most the 1970's and all of the 80's?
UCLA
6 Final Fours in the 60's
7 Final Fours in the 70's
1 Final Fours in the 80's
1 Final Fours in the 90's
3 Final Fours in the 2000's
Again, that's more than a 10-year run!
What about Kentucky's 40 year run of just 3 measly Titles?
Kentucky - 1958, 1978, 1996
I can flip the tables and show your ineptitude for a LONG period of time. You knock UCLA for one great run that overshadows the rest but glorify your absence in the 1960's and most the 1970's and all of the 80's?
This post was edited on 3/16/16 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 3/16/16 at 8:14 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
You really don't see any major population centers care about college sports outside of DFW and Houston.
Atlanta is probably the poster child of the opposite of LA
This post was edited on 3/16/16 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 3/16/16 at 8:15 pm to craigbiggio
quote:
Literally guffawed at this. Ignore maybe the greatest decade-long run by an team in any sport ever
Kind of like the "well if you take out Bryant"....
Posted on 3/16/16 at 8:33 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
6 Final Fours in the 60's
7 Final Fours in the 70's
quote:
1 Final Fours in the 80's
1 Final Fours in the 90's
3 Final Fours in the 2000's
It is almost as if that 10 year run could have spanned two of those 10 year windows
quote:
What about Kentucky's 40 year run of just 3 measly Titles?
Kentucky - 1958, 1978, 1996
Umm I'm pretty sure 1958 + 40 = 1998, which just so happens to also be a year when UK won a title. It was also their 4th different head coach to win a title in those 40 years. They were also runnerups in 97.
UCLA won their last title of the 70's in 75, so using this whole 40 years thing that you seem to like so much they have only won 1 title in the last 41 years.....
Posted on 3/16/16 at 8:50 pm to craigbiggio
quote:
Literally guffawed at this. Ignore maybe the greatest decade-long run by an team in any sport ever
I guess Saints fans don't understand excellence over time. Forgive me, I didn't consider the audience.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 8:51 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
lol
I agree, Duke has been a powerhouse for over 40 years. He left them out.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 8:56 pm to kywildcatfanone
and kansas is the exact opposite of consistently winning national championships
Posted on 3/16/16 at 9:01 pm to WestCoastAg
Kansas is such a weird case.
Posted on 3/16/16 at 9:31 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:I already responded to that with facts in a previous post showing that Kentucky was quite active and relevant. It's best not to throw around words like ineptitude when you haven't done your due diligence. Time for you to settle down now Yankee.
You keep bringing up 10 year run...as if your total bias tries to pigeon-hole UCLA.
UCLA
6 Final Fours in the 60's
7 Final Fours in the 70's
1 Final Fours in the 80's
1 Final Fours in the 90's
3 Final Fours in the 2000's
Again, that's more than a 10-year run!
What about Kentucky's 40 year run of just 3 measly Titles?
Kentucky - 1958, 1978, 1996
I can flip the tables and show your ineptitude for a LONG period of time. You knock UCLA for one great run that overshadows the rest but glorify your absence in the 1960's and most the 1970's and all of the 80's?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News