Tender
Lexington population > Durham population
Ps- local Durham residents DESPISE duke racists
Lexington population > Durham population
Ps- local Durham residents DESPISE duke racists
i can't wait for the Duke game this year!
- Thread starter bigc45157
- Start date
Should be a good game.
That early, the key might be Ulis vs. Thornton. First big game for the Freshman and facing an elite college PG, maybe the best defensive PG in the country.
I think UK wins with it being early in the season.
That early, the key might be Ulis vs. Thornton. First big game for the Freshman and facing an elite college PG, maybe the best defensive PG in the country.
I think UK wins with it being early in the season.
Just going out on a limb to say I hate that every time you post I have to scroll past that stupid video of a guy putting a booger on another guy. Retire that and I might read what you have to say.
That's ignorant. Two of the greatest teams in the modern era were Duke teams that didn't win the title - 1999 and 2002. It's sad you don't even know your own history.
Just an observation, but I wouldn't expect a UNC fan to be an expert on every Duke team. (Assuming Ramhard is indeed a UNC fan)
I stand corrected. That makes the whole matter even more pathetic. A UNC fan commenting on the state of Duke and Kentucky.
I don't think they would have and they don't get any more UK blue than me...
Not as much a bad matchup as playing stall ball last four minutes with shot clock violations and tos...that is on the HC
I can't hear you over the afterglow of our four final fours and championship in recent years.
I see this thread has devolved. Trying to bring it back on point....
I'm really looking forward to this game as well. I think it will be a low-scoring game - maybe over/under around 130 - because the most experienced players on both squads are known most for playing solid D. I expect Poy to make Brandon miserable, while Amile and Plumlee - both very mobile and strong - harass Skal. Murray looks good but I like Matt Jones to really bother him. Thorton isn't a scorer but K calls him his best on-ball defender in years, so I expect him to negate Ulis or Briscoe. Overall I think the talent is very close.
Maybe it comes down to a less-well known player having a great game. Or which coaching staff can best disrupt what the other team wants to do. Obviously I'm pulling for Duke, ya'll will be insufferable otherwise. ;-)
I'm really looking forward to this game as well. I think it will be a low-scoring game - maybe over/under around 130 - because the most experienced players on both squads are known most for playing solid D. I expect Poy to make Brandon miserable, while Amile and Plumlee - both very mobile and strong - harass Skal. Murray looks good but I like Matt Jones to really bother him. Thorton isn't a scorer but K calls him his best on-ball defender in years, so I expect him to negate Ulis or Briscoe. Overall I think the talent is very close.
Maybe it comes down to a less-well known player having a great game. Or which coaching staff can best disrupt what the other team wants to do. Obviously I'm pulling for Duke, ya'll will be insufferable otherwise. ;-)
Still doesn't change my opinion. UK would have beaten Duke. However, it doesn't matter because it never took place. I'm over it.
You're proving you have nothing but a low basketball IQ. Keep the idiotic statements coming. You might be as true blue as they come, but that doesn't excuse your ignorance.
I still think it comes down to whether Thornton can handle the pressure that Ulis is going to put on him.
Teams with fairly even talent..usually comes down to coaching, unless one team gets hot. Coaches with flexible game plan, in game adjustments, etc., often make the difference if both teams are playing equally well or equally poorly.
Coach K is very very good at that...he's been doing it for for years...Cal appears to be getting better, but he isn't on Ks level quite yet. See no adjustments in Wisconain game.
Flame away.
Coach K is very very good at that...he's been doing it for for years...Cal appears to be getting better, but he isn't on Ks level quite yet. See no adjustments in Wisconain game.
Flame away.
Yea that's it, go back 22 years and SEC has 3 different teams to to win a championship, UK, UF and Ark, same # of teams as ACC
How is that relevant to anything, much less the upcoming Duke-Kentucky game?
duke is going to be really good next year imo. ingram and jeter have length that they haven't seen in a long long time. jeter a c but versatile. but like who? battier, grant hill? trying to think of forwards as long that have played for duke. i mean that could make defensive plays. dunleavy? i think is a step down defensively than these players. i could be wrong, on potential i'm not though.
if you've had to watch duke for years, like the braves on tbs (not because you want to, but because there's no other sports on sometimes, like duke the whole 00's would have games on sundays), if you're forced to tune in, you'll over time notice certain general patterns. like when k gets a couple really good defenders he usually does very very well. they are freshman, so we'll see. but you go down the line.
he had hill and davis in 91/92, he had battier/jones/duhon i think in 01, and in '10 it actually turned out to be zoubek lol and probably scheyer or thomas idk but you see it. winslow and cook this year. imo cal blows k away as an individual coach of defense and i think that shows on the next level. there's no overplay gimmicks it's straight one on one with probable rim protection of course, but out on an island otherwise. our help defense are not shifts, they are all instinctive guesses basically. but we attack the ball roughly the same at the end if it. only we do better inside the paint and duke does outside probably.
this year however not even that though. we have literally five guys who can hound the ball very well. hawkins, ulis, murray, mulder, matthews.
we always have better interior d, and they always seem to have better offense in these early season games. it would have remained similar had we not signed murray. however now we throw three playmakers out there on the perimeter. all who can create for others and take their man off the dribble. cats by 8.
duke will be high coming off a title, but it won't be a home game. i think we'll be better over all defensively for this game if poythress is 100%. although we maybe the only team you could say that about by the end of the year. i actually like the make up of the duke team. i like ours better of course so maybe the real matchup will be in april. that sure is starting to look like a clear projection for at least the next three years.
if you've had to watch duke for years, like the braves on tbs (not because you want to, but because there's no other sports on sometimes, like duke the whole 00's would have games on sundays), if you're forced to tune in, you'll over time notice certain general patterns. like when k gets a couple really good defenders he usually does very very well. they are freshman, so we'll see. but you go down the line.
he had hill and davis in 91/92, he had battier/jones/duhon i think in 01, and in '10 it actually turned out to be zoubek lol and probably scheyer or thomas idk but you see it. winslow and cook this year. imo cal blows k away as an individual coach of defense and i think that shows on the next level. there's no overplay gimmicks it's straight one on one with probable rim protection of course, but out on an island otherwise. our help defense are not shifts, they are all instinctive guesses basically. but we attack the ball roughly the same at the end if it. only we do better inside the paint and duke does outside probably.
this year however not even that though. we have literally five guys who can hound the ball very well. hawkins, ulis, murray, mulder, matthews.
we always have better interior d, and they always seem to have better offense in these early season games. it would have remained similar had we not signed murray. however now we throw three playmakers out there on the perimeter. all who can create for others and take their man off the dribble. cats by 8.
duke will be high coming off a title, but it won't be a home game. i think we'll be better over all defensively for this game if poythress is 100%. although we maybe the only team you could say that about by the end of the year. i actually like the make up of the duke team. i like ours better of course so maybe the real matchup will be in april. that sure is starting to look like a clear projection for at least the next three years.
1. It's very hard to win a title.
Only 35 programs (if I counted right) have won a NCAA title, in 76 seasons.
In the first 30 years, 20 different teams won titles. Teams like CCNY, Loyola, LaSalle, San Francisco, and Holy Cross won titles. They, of course, have fallen into relative obscurity in the sport. Teams like Oregon, Wisonsin, Wyoming, Utah, and Stanford also won their only titles in the early stages of the tournament.
So over the last 46 seasons, 21 teams have won at least one title.
2. It's even harder to win a title if you are not from a power conference.
Over the last 50 years, only 5 champions have been from non-power conferences and two of those titles came from UofL, which is now in a power conference. Another was from Marquette, which is also in a power conference.
3. It's really, really hard to win if you are not an already established power, especially recently.
Of the last 20 champions, 15 were from programs that already had at least one title.
And four programs, Duke(5), UConn(4), UK(3), and UNC(3) have accounted for 15 of the last 25 titles.
And in the last 15 years, Duke(3), UConn(3), UNC(2), and UK(1) have accounted for 9 of the 15 titles.
Bottom line, it's good to be one of the top programs, your chances of winning are significantly higher every year.
Just food for thought.
Only 35 programs (if I counted right) have won a NCAA title, in 76 seasons.
In the first 30 years, 20 different teams won titles. Teams like CCNY, Loyola, LaSalle, San Francisco, and Holy Cross won titles. They, of course, have fallen into relative obscurity in the sport. Teams like Oregon, Wisonsin, Wyoming, Utah, and Stanford also won their only titles in the early stages of the tournament.
So over the last 46 seasons, 21 teams have won at least one title.
2. It's even harder to win a title if you are not from a power conference.
Over the last 50 years, only 5 champions have been from non-power conferences and two of those titles came from UofL, which is now in a power conference. Another was from Marquette, which is also in a power conference.
3. It's really, really hard to win if you are not an already established power, especially recently.
Of the last 20 champions, 15 were from programs that already had at least one title.
And four programs, Duke(5), UConn(4), UK(3), and UNC(3) have accounted for 15 of the last 25 titles.
And in the last 15 years, Duke(3), UConn(3), UNC(2), and UK(1) have accounted for 9 of the 15 titles.
Bottom line, it's good to be one of the top programs, your chances of winning are significantly higher every year.
Just food for thought.
It was relevant to the poster talking about how weak the SEC is compared to the ACC, I guess I should have replied to the comment, never the less, carry on
As strong as the SEC has been historically, the gap between the quality of competition in the ACC and the SEC is quite large these days.
Last edited:
The ACC is stronger, especially with addition of UL and ND now, but people under estimate what it's like for UK on the road when every other SEC fan base circle the UK game on the calendar, their arenas are half empty for every other game because they don't care, but when UK comes to town it's a sellout, and basically their national championship game. UK takes everyone's best shot every SEC game, which helps prepare them for the NCAA tournament
Being in the ACC or SEC doesn't matter if you want to win a title.
Being Duke or UNC in the ACC or UK in the SEC is actually what matters.
10 of the 13 national champions from the ACC have been Duke(5) or UNC(5) teams.
8 of the 11 national champions from the SEC have been UK teams.
If you aren't one of those three programs, then you are just another ACC or SEC program.
Being Duke or UNC in the ACC or UK in the SEC is actually what matters.
10 of the 13 national champions from the ACC have been Duke(5) or UNC(5) teams.
8 of the 11 national champions from the SEC have been UK teams.
If you aren't one of those three programs, then you are just another ACC or SEC program.
Please tell me how much talent does Cal need...2010..2015 proves you ignorant...
How did UK come back from 8-9 points down twice in the Wisconsin game then? Obviously changes were made to help UK get it close, tie it, take a lead, etc. See, you don't want to acknowledge that part of it.
The same exact thing happens to Duke, except it's every game, not just ACC games.
Nope. Not the same.
In the ACC they also have UNC to get up for.
Some teams get more up for UNC.
In the SEC, the game of the year is when UK comes to town.
Similar threads
