Being historically 100% correct isn't irrelevant. To report it as Coach K being the first NCAA D1 coach to get 1,000 wins is a straight up lie. Pat Summit is on official NCAA record as the first to do it regardless of if you like it or not.Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:
Quite literally irellevant. women's basketball is like men's in the 60s and 70s; the talent gap between the 3 best women's teams and the rest of division one is so astronomically high there's practically no chance of them losing on a regular basis.
Like going to the casino and betting on the house.
This. Pope's opinion is irrelevant to the fact that Pat Summit technically did it first. The media's ass-kissing festivities were destined to overlook the reality of factual evidence.Originally posted by wildcatsboston1984:
Being historically 100% correct isn't irrelevant. To report it as Coach K being the first NCAA D1 coach to get 1,000 wins is a straight up lie. Pat Summit is on official NCAA record as the first to do it regardless of if you like it or not.Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:
Quite literally irellevant. women's basketball is like men's in the 60s and 70s; the talent gap between the 3 best women's teams and the rest of division one is so astronomically high there's practically no chance of them losing on a regular basis.
Like going to the casino and betting on the house.
The women's game is actually very competitive.I give as much credit to her as Coach K.Neither is better and congrats to both.Childish to bash one to build up the other.Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:
And because she was "technically" the first d1 coach, we should all boycott ESPN because of the Duke bias, right?
K was the first to reach 1,000 in competitive college basketball. Quit being so salty about it.
Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:
And because she was "technically" the first d1 coach, we should all boycott ESPN because of the Duke bias, right?
More like the 30'sOriginally posted by Pope John Wall II:
Quite literally irellevant. women's basketball is like men's in the 60s and 70s; the talent gap between the 3 best women's teams and the rest of division one is so astronomically high there's practically no chance of them losing on a regular basis.
Like going to the casino and betting on the house.
How is it Duke's fault that KU, Syracuse and yes, UK, choked like dogs in that year's tournament? If the best 4 teams had made the Final Four it would have been great. The problem is there is way too much parity nowadays, while there was nearly none in the UCLA era of the 60s/70s.Originally posted by .S&C.:
Uummmmmm........
Men's college baskrtball was no cakewalk in the 60's and 70's. Why is this myth said over and over? I'd actually argue it was harder to win a championship in 1978 than it is at its current position. The game is very watered down right now. 2010 Duke won a championship for Petes sake. And they played world beater BUTLER to win it. The game itself is not that great right now. I don't care how young and biased someone is.
Winning on a regular basis might be a little harder, because there's more games and more teams. But anyway. Not totally on topic just something I see a lot that drives me nuts.
This post was edited on 1/25 8:25 PM by .S&C.
To "first D-1 mens basketball coach". Go Cats!!Originally posted by TnKat:
Just change the record to "first D-1 "MENS" coach to reach 1,000 and report it that way. Good grief.
That was funny.Originally posted by Gary4UK:
Steve Spurrier makes no difference between the two sports.... Men basketball is just as good, or bad as womens..... Football is the only thing that matters and the rest are just a misuse of funds...