Started By
Message
re: Is Kentucky still the Alabama of basketball?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:25 am to NocaHomas Teepee
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:25 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
UAB
21 years ago
quote:
ULM
Literally his last loss to an unranked team. 13 seasons ago with his 1st Alabama team that finished 7-6.
So thank you for proving my point.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:26 am
1
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:26 am to SummerOfGeorge
Literally tho?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:27 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
People argued that the playoff would be the great equalizer for Saban as Alabama would now have to beat 2 great teams to win a title. Alabama has won 3 of the 7 playoffs and lost in the title game of 2 of the other 4.
But a small field playoff has a far lower threshold for a potential trip up.
My larger point is that CBB uses the worst possible way to pick it's champion. Since 1985 when the tournament expanded, only 20 of the 34 National Champions have been #1 seeds.
Comparing a basketball program to a football program when the way they run their seasons and post-seasons are so drastically different is an apples and oranges comparison at best.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:27 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
Literally tho?
Apologies - let me rephrase
Since his 1st season at Alabama, 13 seasons ago, Nick Saban has literally won 95 straight games against unranked opponents.
When Nick Saban has had a good team at Alabama (every season since 2008), he literally does not lose to unranked teams.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:28 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:30 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
My larger point is that CBB uses the worst possible way to pick it's champion. Since 1985 when the tournament expanded, only 20 of the 34 National Champions have been #1 seeds.
In the College Football Playoff, the #4 seed has won the title as many times as the #1 seed.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:33 am to colbycovington
I googled college basketball national titles to see how many Kentucky had won, and I learned it is 8, 2nd only to UCLA.
What is amazing, though, is that UCLA won 10 from 1964 to 1975.
Also interesting to me that Boston Celtic's dynasty was at basically the same time. 13 titles from 1959 to 1976.
What is amazing, though, is that UCLA won 10 from 1964 to 1975.
Also interesting to me that Boston Celtic's dynasty was at basically the same time. 13 titles from 1959 to 1976.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:36 am to bamameister
quote:
In the College Football Playoff, the #4 seed has won the title as many times as the #1 seed.
Which doesn't remotely compare to a 64-team single elimination tournament.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:37 am to SummerOfGeorge
There is absolutely no reason to use the word literally unless there is also a figure of speech or an idiom existing of your statement.
Example - You are on a long hike and you just reached the last high point on any terrain for the rest of the hike:
You look at your hiking buddy and say, "it is literally all down hill from here."
Sorry for donning my Grammar Nazi Waffen SS uniform. I am working with an EE who says things like "this software literally uses a SQL database." Because "this software uses a SQL database" is not a figure of speech, then there is absolutely no reason add the literally qualifier to that statement.
Example - You are on a long hike and you just reached the last high point on any terrain for the rest of the hike:
You look at your hiking buddy and say, "it is literally all down hill from here."
Sorry for donning my Grammar Nazi Waffen SS uniform. I am working with an EE who says things like "this software literally uses a SQL database." Because "this software uses a SQL database" is not a figure of speech, then there is absolutely no reason add the literally qualifier to that statement.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:38 am to BamaWins15
quote:
No. BAMA doesn’t have losing records.
Wrong!
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:40 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
There is absolutely no reason to use the word literally unless there is also a figure of speech or an idiom existing of your statement.
Example - You are on a long hike and you just reached the last high point on any terrain for the rest of the hike:
You look at your hiking buddy and say, "it is literally all down hill from here."
Sorry for donning my Grammar Nazi Waffen SS uniform. I am working with an EE who says things like "this software literally uses a SQL database." Because "this software uses a SQL database" is not a figure of speech, then there is absolutely no reason add the literally qualifier to that statement.
I feel you - I generally hate the modern liberal use of the word literally (more so in conversation), but in this case we'd been discussing a specific time period (2009-present), and the word more liberal message board use of the world literally fit.
Also known as the Chris Traeger usage.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:41 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:42 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Since 1985 when the tournament expanded, only 20 of the 34 National Champions have been #1 seeds.
That's about 59%, which is much higher than I would have suspected. I'm pretty sure the percentage is much lower in the college football playoffs for the #1 ranked team.
edit: didn't take into consideration there are 4 #1 seeds in basketball
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:44 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:43 am to BLG
quote:
I googled college basketball national titles to see how many Kentucky had won, and I learned it is 8, 2nd only to UCLA.
What is amazing, though, is that UCLA won 10 from 1964 to 1975.
Also interesting to me that Boston Celtic's dynasty was at basically the same time. 13 titles from 1959 to 1976.
For what it's worth, I think what sets us apart is that we've won 8 National Championships under 5 different coaches (Rupp, Hall, Pitino, Smith, and Calipari). And if we did what both UNC and Kansas does, we'd have 1933 Helms Title but we don't "claim" pre-NCAA ones.
I think it's fair to say Wooden is the Saban of CBB. But if we're talking program success, Kentucky is the Alabama equivalent and that hasn't changed in one shitty COVID-19 season. We're still the winningest program in CBB (all-time winning percentage of 76.5%). We're #1 in NCAA Championship Game Appearances, #1 in Elite Eight appearances, #1 in Sweet 16 appearances, and #1 in NCAA Tournament appearances.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:44 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
But if we're talking program success, Kentucky is the Alabama equivalent and that hasn't changed in one shitty COVID-19 season. We're still the winningest program in CBB (all-time winning percentage of 76.5%). We're #1 in NCAA Championship Game Appearances, #1 in Elite Eight appearances, #1 in Sweet 16 appearances, and #1 in NCAA Tournament appearances.
Absolutely
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:45 am to colbycovington
Great question. Shows your intellect. Good job.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:47 am to SummerOfGeorge
Nice P&R reference 
.
I just can't get on board with adding the literally qualifier to Saban not losing to an unranked team since the DJ Hall suspended suspension game though.
It is a hell of an accomplishment though.
. I just can't get on board with adding the literally qualifier to Saban not losing to an unranked team since the DJ Hall suspended suspension game though.
It is a hell of an accomplishment though.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 8:48 am
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:47 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Which doesn't remotely compare to a 64-team single elimination tournament.
In the 7 years, we have been doing this playoff thing the #1 seed has won twice.
Not sure how to break this to you but basketball is built for tournaments and the best of seven in the NBA. Football, not so much.
KC had to win 3 games to win the Super Bowl, the same as ALABAMA had to win to get another NC.
When college football goes to 8 playoff teams that number will increase to 4. That's plenty even by NFL metrics.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:52 am to bamameister
quote:
Not sure how to break this to you but basketball is built for tournaments and the best of seven in the NBA. Football, not so much.
Best of seven in NBA =/= NCAA Tournament. Again, another apples and oranges comparison.
If winning the NC in the NCAA Tournament was easy, Kentucky would have more than 8 NCs. Using that as your sole measure for a successful program in CBB is a poor one. Kentucky is successful in basketball because of far more than just being #2 in NCs. Those stats have been laid out for you here but you still ignore them.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:54 am to bamameister
quote:
KC had to win 3 games to win the Super Bowl, the same as ALABAMA had to win to get another NC.
When college football goes to 8 playoff teams that number will increase to 4. That's plenty even by NFL metrics.
and, of course, it isn't practical for a football playoff of even 16 teams, as that would require 4 games, and since football is a much more physical game, it would be nearly (see that qualifier?) impossible to play with 2 days rest, as some of the basketball tournment games are played.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 8:55 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
I just can't get on board with adding the literally qualifier to Saban not losing to an unranked team since the DJ Hall suspended suspension game though.
Also just because the world needs a little more Jamm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 9:08 am to BluegrassBelle
and the 1946 NIT which at that time was as big if not a bigger tournament than the NCAA.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News