Greatest example of card fan stupidity....maybe ever....
- Thread starter JC for 3
- Start date
If that is the argument, then the only program that could be even possibly considered a "dynasty" is UCLA. UK is easily the second best program (at worst), so to take shots at the history of the program is silly when you consider that EVERY program (except maybe one) is not as good.
Not surprisd. UofL fans love to discout our 48, 49, 51, & 58 titles because they are "before modern basketball".
I'm not lying either, I've heard this from a Cards fan's mouth before. Hell I've heard it multiple times.
that's not even close to the stupidest thing i've read over on the tards board. they're better than uk because they have won a nc more recently than uk; they don't want any o&d players because they like to keep doing things "the lousiville way," blah, blah, blah, etc....
They do not want to count titles in the years their program was nothing but a pimple on a monkey's ass.
They only want to go as far back as to when their program was starting to become relevant and since then it has been hit or miss. More often times miss than hit. They lucked up in landing Pitino. If they had hired a coach that wasn't as good as apitino your looking at a 20 win max program and not invited to the ACC. Would of stayed in the AAC
They only want to go as far back as to when their program was starting to become relevant and since then it has been hit or miss. More often times miss than hit. They lucked up in landing Pitino. If they had hired a coach that wasn't as good as apitino your looking at a 20 win max program and not invited to the ACC. Would of stayed in the AAC
I think this presumes some fundamental frontal lobe function. Not sure you can assume that exists with the arbitrary card fan. Might try counting on fingers or using pennies or something of that nature, though 8 exceeds the number of digits they are likely to have on one hand thus making it incomprehensible. I'm afraid relational operators such as ">" will just be lost on them.
(Sorry, I'm practicing trash talking. It doesn't come easily.)
Not even top 100. UL forums pump out an incredible amount of stupidity on a regular basis.
Hmmm. Not a lot of difference between 1958 and 1964, when UCLA started their run. So presumably, unless there's some magic about 1960, you're going to have to leave out some or all of UCLA's titles. Meaning there are exactly no historical giants. Everyone is equal, including Little Bro. It's like the Y or something, we can't keep score.....
their 80 and 86 titles were also before what is considered "the modern era"
ul fans always try to pick time frames, that just shows how insecure they really are
Damn you Derek Anderson's knee. Damn you straight to hell.
Whether it was pre 1950 and only 8 teams or this year with 64 teams it is still a Championship. Yes, the '48 and '49 NC it was more of an invite tourney and not the top teams but it is still a CHAMIONSHIP!!!!! The games in '51 had 16 teams but it was still a Championship!!!!
I know most look to 1975 as the "modern era" because it went to a 32 team tourney but the other are Championships!!!!!
Just because the first two were more of an invite tourney of not the best and only 8 teams and the other two were still more of an invite tourney of not the best teams and only 16 teams does not change the fact these are still Championships!!!! If we only went by the "modern day" tourney then Duke would be the best but that is not how the NCAA looks at it.
Bite me Turd fans!!!!!!!
I know most look to 1975 as the "modern era" because it went to a 32 team tourney but the other are Championships!!!!!
Just because the first two were more of an invite tourney of not the best and only 8 teams and the other two were still more of an invite tourney of not the best teams and only 16 teams does not change the fact these are still Championships!!!! If we only went by the "modern day" tourney then Duke would be the best but that is not how the NCAA looks at it.
Bite me Turd fans!!!!!!!
Two of their 3 titles are in the "short-pants, no shot clock, no 3-pt" era. Very few weeks in their history being ranked #1. Maybe two or 3. They are not a top program...now or then.
In 1948 UK played the #20, #3, and #11 ranked teams to win the title (and then won the olympic trials to represent the U.S.A. in the olympics)
In 1949 UK played the #14, #4 and #2 ranked teams on their way to the title.
In 1951 UK played (unranked) UofL, #9, #5, and #4 to win the title
In 1958 UK played #8, #5, and #18 to win the title.
I think maybe in 1948 you could argue some of the top teams went to the NIT instead of the NCAA tournament, but UK was ranked #1 all year, and not only won the NCAA but the Olympic trials. I guess I just take exception to the notion that UK's older titles were not against top teams. They definitely were.
Put 8 joints in one bag and 3 joints in the other. Tell them they can only have one and ask which they want.
This is off topic but
Becuase 1938 was befor the NCAA, would Temple's 1938 NIT title count as a championship?
Becuase 1938 was befor the NCAA, would Temple's 1938 NIT title count as a championship?
A sports dynasty is subjective and is something for sports fans to debate. I think anybody that follows college basketball would say UK is a dynasty and that Louisville is not a dynasty.
i'm betting if you put the three joints in a really big bag, with lots of shiny glitter on it, most of them would want the big bag.
I'm guessing they'd set fire to the bags, try counting their money to see if they can buy the lot or heads would explode trying to decide which bag to pick.
The most likely outcome would be the question:
"Why are you wearing blue?"
Is that supposed to be an insult? If that is this guy's standard of discounting success then maybe, he should tone down his idiocy for a second and consider that even if you discount 4 of our titles, that is still more than every school but Indiana, UNC, UCLA, and Duke. Three of those schools all have titles over 50 years ago.
There are only a handful of teams who have ever won 4 or more titles...
11 UCLA
8 Kentucky
5 Duke
5 UNC
5 Indiana
4 UConn
So since 1939, these are the only programs to do this yet Louisville doesn't consider it a success. Another thing he fails to comprehend is that unlike the majority of the teams mentioned above, Kentucky did not have their success under just one coach. There have been 5 different coaches win a title at Kentucky spanning from the 40s to 2012. So how is that not a dynasty?
Louisville fans are the worst.
There are only a handful of teams who have ever won 4 or more titles...
11 UCLA
8 Kentucky
5 Duke
5 UNC
5 Indiana
4 UConn
So since 1939, these are the only programs to do this yet Louisville doesn't consider it a success. Another thing he fails to comprehend is that unlike the majority of the teams mentioned above, Kentucky did not have their success under just one coach. There have been 5 different coaches win a title at Kentucky spanning from the 40s to 2012. So how is that not a dynasty?
Louisville fans are the worst.
Louisville fans are always awesome at cherry picking stats. "Well, since 1980...." always leaves off 1978.
Last edited:
Right, and Siva is faster than Wall, 4 star players turn into 5 star players after one year of experience, Elisha Justice will be the difference in the UL/UK game, and UK pays its players via poker games.
I used to read that stuff for a laugh, but now I'd rather take a power drill to the forehead.
I used to read that stuff for a laugh, but now I'd rather take a power drill to the forehead.
I refuse to type the infernal cliché, "lol" for any reason. However, that^^^ made me laugh out loud.
And I can't figure this out. If I had a choice between reading a board like that or watching reruns of Bevis And Butthead, I'd take the show mainly because it would be more intellectually stimulating. I haven't met a UL fan that had any anything on the ball since John Dromo coached.
No, when dealing with Louisville fans you always put the 3 joints in a Crown Royal bag.
Ignore them and their boards. Pure and simple. You will seriously lose about 10 I.Q. points for even clicking on the site. They are bitter haters who want so badly to act superior, but when facts are thrown in their faces that support the contrary, they get defensive and the stupidity bleeds through and you get dumb comments like that. It's an epidemic among card fans lately and it is sad and pathetic and REALLY not worth your time.
My bad habit continues.... and led to this one:
"We all know he is desperate to be Coach P and why he's always talking about him or trying to make jabs. he is the best recruiter money can buy in the history of the game. AND HAS ONE TITLE. and multiple final fours vacated. i do think he is a decent coach if I'm being real- decent as far as meshing egos (or stroking them
) and managing a pro farm team. not a great college coach for X's and O's as he's demonstrated over and over and not great in cruch time or game management. If Pitino or Izzo had the talent he had this year or the last 5, they'd have 3 or 4 titles in that span. so deep down I definitely believe he knows he's not on their level. he is no HOFer in my book no matter what induction occurs."
Let's try to dissect this one:
1. Cal is 7-1 vs. "Coach P" and yet he's "desperate to be Coach P"
2. "not a great college coach for X' and O's as he's demonstrated over and over and not great in crunch time or game management" ...Again, 7-1 v. Loserville. 38-1 season. Last year's tournament run to the finals as an 8 seed.
...I guess my faith in humanity is strong and I hope to see the 'good' in people, or at least people with some 'sense'. I've come to the conclusion that this simply does not exist on "Planet Red".
"We all know he is desperate to be Coach P and why he's always talking about him or trying to make jabs. he is the best recruiter money can buy in the history of the game. AND HAS ONE TITLE. and multiple final fours vacated. i do think he is a decent coach if I'm being real- decent as far as meshing egos (or stroking them
Let's try to dissect this one:
1. Cal is 7-1 vs. "Coach P" and yet he's "desperate to be Coach P"
2. "not a great college coach for X' and O's as he's demonstrated over and over and not great in crunch time or game management" ...Again, 7-1 v. Loserville. 38-1 season. Last year's tournament run to the finals as an 8 seed.
...I guess my faith in humanity is strong and I hope to see the 'good' in people, or at least people with some 'sense'. I've come to the conclusion that this simply does not exist on "Planet Red".
I've always asked UL fans what would they do if their program actually won some titles in their early days of existence. Would they discredit them like they try to do with UK? They act like their program has only been around for like 30 years, as opposed to 100.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Transfer Portal BIG BOARD - Player Ratings Thread
- Latest: billoliver40
-
-
-
