Sorry, Duke's Decade Is NOT Greater Than UK's; Titles NOT Only Factor

[dlh331]

No one with any historical perspective believes ONLY titles matter in determining overall greatness/success
for a basketball (or football) program. EVERYTHING matters; regular season success (which is afterall, 80%
of the entire season); conference titles; conference tourney titles; AP rankings; 25-30 win season; then of
course; total NCAA tourney wins; Sweet 16s; Elite 8s; Final 4s and NCAA title appearaces.

Anyone that feels for 2010-15 UConn with 2 titles > UK is beyond dumb. Likewise for Duke.

UK has more regular season wins, more conference titles, more conference tourney titles, more NCAA tourney wins, more Sweets 16s, more elite 8s, more Final 4s, the same number of title game appearances
and 1 less title than Duke for this decade. There is NO way their program ranks higher.

If ONLY titles matter:

All time UConn > Kansas, UL, Ohio State, Michigan State, etc

Florida AND San Francisco > Ohio State, Syracuse, Michigan, Villanova, etc

Oh and by the way UCLA> Kentucky

UK is BY FAR the program of this decade; there are 5 years left and things can change....

Darryl

 

[KA4Prez]

Technically, the decade would start in 2011 if there are 5 years left. That would also eliminate a Duke title. Otherwise, 4 years left.

 

[Neue Regel]

Technically, the decade would start in 2011 if there are 5 years left. That would also eliminate a Duke title. Otherwise, 4 years left.

That's not how the NCAA counts decades though. 2009/2010 would be included with 2014/15 based on how they tabulate wins by decade. They counted the 90's for example beginning with 1989/1990 and ending with 1998/1999. 2000's beginning with 1999/2000-2008/2009

 

[dlh331]

My bad; 4 years left

UK's still #1

Darryl

 

[GYERater]

I would take less overall wins and an extra title any day.

 

[JFCats22]

Duke's is better....UK is an extremely close #2 but I would swap UK's 2010-2015 run with Duke's in a second.

 

[ThroughBlue]

If we got beat by Lehigh and Mercer in the tourny this states population would be cut in half.

 

[Neue Regel]

If we got beat by Lehigh and Mercer in the tourny this states population would be cut in half.

But not Robert Morris?

 

[Neue Regel]

Duke's is better....UK is an extremely close #2 but I would swap UK's 2010-2015 run with Duke's in a second.

Eh just depends on the point of view. Some are always going to be titles first and some aren't so there will always be varying opinions. Neither would swap with UNC! ;-)

 

[mrschwump]

Pesky ole NCs really get in the way of true eval, no question.

 

[Aike]

But not Robert Morris?

You aren't a troll, but this is a troll post. UK and Cal mailed it in after Nerlens went down. The only people who ever cared about the Robert Morris game were rival fans.

 

[Neue Regel]

You aren't a troll, but this is a troll post. UK and Cal mailed it in after Nerlens went down. The only people who ever cared about the Robert Morris game were rival fans.

Wasn't meant to be but do you not agree that it does count? And if you agree it counts why is it unfair to bring it up when someone lives on bringing up L+M? maybe K mailed it in after his brother died that one year? doesn't mean it's not going to count.

 

[bucsrule8872]

The decade is 2010-19.

A decade starts on January 1 of a 0 year and ends December 31 of a 9 year.

80-89 is the decade of the 80's.

90-99 is the decade of the 90's.

00-09 is the decade of the 00's.

 

[dezyDeco]

Wasn't meant to be but do you not agree that it does count? And if you agree it counts why is it unfair to bring it up when someone lives on bringing up L+M? maybe K mailed it in after his brother died that one year? doesn't mean it's not going to count.

Big difference between a team that (due to a major injury, for the most part) couldn't make the NCAAT, and a 2 and 3 seeded team that should've won on talent alone... wouldn't you say?

I guess it's the Realm of Expectations. Most of the UK fans that I know felt like RM put us out of our misery that year. I doubt you guys had anything similar to that in the L & M years.

 

[jt drowns]

Come on guys.... Kansas has had the best decade. They have won every single Big 12 title.

 

[Aike]

Big difference between a team that (due to a major injury, for the most part) couldn't make the NCAAT, and a 2 and 3 seeded team that should've won on talent alone... wouldn't you say?

I guess it's the Realm of Expectations. Most of the UK fans that I know felt like RM put us out of our misery that year. I doubt you guys had anything similar to that in the L & M years.

What he said. Fans and players were ready for the 2013 season to end. Not comparable to a team with Title dreams getting bounced by a mid-major in the NCAA.

 

[Neue Regel]

What he said. Fans and players were ready for the 2013 season to end. Not comparable to a team with Title dreams getting bounced by a mid-major in the NCAA.

I understand what you're saying but I don't know how much title dreams a team has that had lost a key starter to injury late in the season, had been blown out at home in their final regular season game, lost in the ACC Tourney semi-finals and then tanked in their NCAA opener could have (1-3 in final four games of season) with chemistry killer Austin Rivers. But nonetheless it counts.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...yan-kellys-injury-hampers-dukes-title-chances

 

[KA4Prez]

The decade is 2010-19.

A decade starts on January 1 of a 0 year and ends December 31 of a 9 year.

80-89 is the decade of the 80's.

90-99 is the decade of the 90's.

00-09 is the decade of the 00's.

Then he was wrong saying 5 years left. That was my point, whether it's 2011-2020 or 2010-2019. couldn't be 2010-19 with 5 years left...

 

[bowfreak]

No one with any historical perspective believes ONLY titles matter in determining overall greatness/success
for a basketball (or football) program. EVERYTHING matters; regular season success (which is afterall, 80%
of the entire season); conference titles; conference tourney titles; AP rankings; 25-30 win season; then of
course; total NCAA tourney wins; Sweet 16s; Elite 8s; Final 4s and NCAA title appearaces.

Anyone that feels for 2010-15 UConn with 2 titles > UK is beyond dumb. Likewise for Duke.

UK has more regular season wins, more conference titles, more conference tourney titles, more NCAA tourney wins, more Sweets 16s, more elite 8s, more Final 4s, the same number of title game appearances
and 1 less title than Duke for this decade. There is NO way their program ranks higher.

If ONLY titles matter:

All time UConn > Kansas, UL, Ohio State, Michigan State, etc

Florida AND San Francisco > Ohio State, Syracuse, Michigan, Villanova, etc

Oh and by the way UCLA> Kentucky

UK is BY FAR the program of this decade; there are 5 years left and things can change....

Darryl

Whatever makes you feel better.....

 

[Aike]

I understand what you're saying but I don't know how much title dreams a team has that had lost a key starter to injury late in the season, had been blown out at home in their final regular season game, lost in the ACC Tourney semi-finals and then tanked in their NCAA opener could have (1-3 in final four games of season) with chemistry killer Austin Rivers. But nonetheless it counts.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...yan-kellys-injury-hampers-dukes-title-chances

We don't have many early flameouts to talk about, but I am still slightly bothered by losing to MTSU in the first round in 1982.

I hated getting beaten by Ohio St. in the first round in Rex Chapman's freshman year, even though we were no title threat.

The Robert Morris loss does not register - accept as a nuisance when it is constantly brought up by rival fans. Constantly.

For the record, I don't think your L and M losses are that big a deal. If I were a Duke fan, they would sting. The only time I bring them up is when the whole silly "Coach K is God" debate pops up.

Most teams have ugly first round tourney losses. It's a tricky deal. UK is incredibly lucky to have so few. Fortunately, our fan base finds other things to fret about.

 

[BlueBomb]

I'll trade a national championship for a couple bad seasons. If you told me, you can win a title in '16 but you'll have to go to the NIT in '17 and only win 10 games. I'll take that in a heartbeat. It's too hard to win it all.

 

[Supafuzz75]

Lol,, downgrading Dukes success.. I'll take an early flameout for an extra banner in between.. Gotta love our sunshine pumpers here..

 

[BurpinTurpin]

2009–10 Duke 35–5 13–3 T-1st NCAA Champions
2010–11 Duke 32–5 13–3 2nd NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2011–12 Duke 27–7 13–3 2nd NCAA Round of 64
2012–13 Duke 30–6 14–4 2nd NCAA Elite Eight
2013–14 Duke 26–9 13–5 3rd NCAA Round of 64
2014–15 Duke 35–4 15–3 2nd NCAA Champions

2009–10 Kentucky 35–3 14–2 1st (East) NCAA Elite Eight
2010–11 Kentucky 29–9 10–6 2nd (East) NCAA Final Four
2011–12 Kentucky 38–2 16–0 1st NCAA Champions
2012–13 Kentucky 21–12 12–6 T–2nd NIT First Round
2013–14 Kentucky 29–11 12–6 T–2nd NCAA Runner-up
2014–15 Kentucky 38–1 18–0 1st NCAA Final Four

2009–10 UConn 18-16 7-11 T-11th NIT Second Round
2010–11 UConn 32–9 9-9 T-9th NCAA Champions
2011–12 UConn 20-14 8-10 T-9th NCAA Round of 64
2012–13 UConn 20-10 10-8 T-7th No postseason (due to APR)
2013–14 UConn 32-8 12-6 T-3rd NCAA Champions
2014–15 Duke 20-15 10-8 T-5th NIT First Round

I would take Kentucky over the past 6 years. Looking at the above comparisons, I don't think it makes me a homer to take Kentucky.

I guess it depends on perspective and to what degree you value Championships over Final Fours and other factors. Some people would put UConn's past 6 years over Kentucky too; and while I understand why, I just don't agree. Same with Duke.

 

[StubbornPenny]

I understand what you're saying but I don't know how much title dreams a team has that had lost a key starter to injury late in the season, had been blown out at home in their final regular season game, lost in the ACC Tourney semi-finals and then tanked in their NCAA opener could have (1-3 in final four games of season) with chemistry killer Austin Rivers. But nonetheless it counts.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...yan-kellys-injury-hampers-dukes-title-chances

Your entire thought process is weak. RM loss happened in the NIT. No one, and I mean no one, should care about the NIT. Criticize the whole 2013 season all you want, as it deserves it. But RM is a small, pointless needle while losing to Mercer and LeHigh is a big, nationally watched embarrassment on the biggest stage.

Quick name ANY other NIT upset that anyone brings up in March. See, NO ONE CARES WHAT HAPPENS IN TNE NIT

 

[dezyDeco]

This is definitely one for the Philosophy section. It's an Enjoying The Moment vs. Hindsight debate.

I'm going to put it in a MLB context: From 1991 to 2005, the Atlanta Braves had one heckofa run and won their division every time. They made it to the World Series 5 times, but only have 1 Championship.

Back then, if I didn't already have a favorite baseball team, it would've been a lot of fun to be a Braves fan... but after the fact, I'd probably pick somebody with more championships.


I'm a Kentucky Boy, and that will never change... and I've loved The Cats for many years, through thick and thin. I'm always going to root for UK to add glorious new chapters to its story... but History promotes the victors. As far as this decade is concerned, so far, it pains me to say an unbiased jury would determine that Dook's 2 trophies > anything less than 2 trophies.

 

[Neue Regel]

Your entire thought process is weak. RM loss happened in the NIT. No one, and I mean no one, should care about the NIT. Criticize the whole 2013 season all you want, as it deserves it. But RM is a small, pointless needle while losing to Mercer and LeHigh is a big, nationally watched embarrassment on the biggest stage.

Quick name ANY other NIT upset that anyone brings up in March. See, NO ONE CARES WHAT HAPPENS IN TNE NIT

I have a problem with this thought process, the idea that it's somehow only a bad thing when you make the NCAA's and lose vs not making it and losing. You put Duke in the NIT and there's no way in hell it's not a MAJOR talking point from every rival fan. Come on now, you darn well know it would be!

 

[Nick Horvath]

I understand what you're saying but I don't know how much title dreams a team has that had lost a key starter to injury late in the season, had been blown out at home in their final regular season game, lost in the ACC Tourney semi-finals and then tanked in their NCAA opener could have (1-3 in final four games of season) with chemistry killer Austin Rivers. But nonetheless it counts.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...yan-kellys-injury-hampers-dukes-title-chances

Hey boss, without Austin Rivers on that Duke team we would have been about a 7-seed in the tournament. Rivers bailed us out of multiple games that year. He was not a chemistry killer, and you make all Duke fans look bad when you say something like that.

That 2012 Duke team wasn't going to win a national title (or make the Final Four for that matter) regardless of whether or not Ryan Kelly got hurt. That was an inherently flawed team that would have lost double digit games and bowed out in the 1st round ala '07 against VCU without Austin Rivers. It's a damn near guarantee that's what would have happened had we not had Rivers on that team. Rivers actually masked the glaring flaws that team had, which was no versatility or ability to create whatsoever.

You are seriously embarrassing other Duke fans by posting shit like this dude. I think you should retract that statement. Was Jabari Parker a "chemistry killer" too because we lost to Mercer? Jesus dude. I CAN NOT STAND how so many of our fans want to use Rivers and Parker as scapegoats for those two seasons where we weren't going to win anything anyway, and the only reason we didn't lose double digit games in BOTH of those seasons is because we had Rivers and Parker.

You're probably one of those people who wanted us to "stop recruiting 1-and-dones" before this season because you thought it was the fault of Rivers and Parker that those two teams lost in the 1st round. Get a grip dude.

 

[BurpinTurpin]

This is definitely one for the Philosophy section. It's an Enjoying The Moment vs. Hindsight debate.

I'm going to put it in a MLB context: From 1991 to 2005, the Atlanta Braves had one heckofa run and won their division every time. They made it to the World Series 5 times, but only have 1 Championship.

Back then, if I didn't already have a favorite baseball team, it would've been a lot of fun to be a Braves fan... but after the fact, I'd probably pick somebody with more championships.


I'm a Kentucky Boy, and that will never change... and I've loved The Cats for many years, through thick and thin. I'm always going to root for UK to add glorious new chapters to its story... but History promotes the victors. As far as this decade is concerned, so far, it pains me to say an unbiased jury would determine that Dook's 2 trophies > anything less than 2 trophies.

That would also mean UConn = Duke.
Not trying to pick on you, but that's just not true either. There is no definitive answer.

 

[Neue Regel]

Hey boss, without Austin Rivers on that Duke team we would have been about a 7-seed in the tournament. Rivers bailed us out of multiple games that year. He was not a chemistry killer, and you make all Duke fans look bad when you say something like that.

That 2012 Duke team wasn't going to win a national title (or make the Final Four for that matter) regardless of whether or not Ryan Kelly got hurt. That was an inherently flawed team that would have lost double digit games and bowed out in the 1st round ala '07 against VCU without Austin Rivers. It's a damn near guarantee that's what would have happened had we not had Rivers on that team. Rivers actually masked the glaring flaws that team had, which was no versatility or ability to create whatsoever.

You are seriously embarrassing other Duke fans by posting shit like this dude. I think you should retract that statement. Was Jabari Parker a "chemistry killer" too because we lost to Mercer? Jesus dude. I CAN NOT STAND how so many of our fans want to use Rivers and Parker as scapegoats for those two seasons where we weren't going to win anything anyway, and the only reason we didn't lose double digit games in BOTH of those seasons is because we had Rivers and Parker.

You're probably one of those people who wanted us to "stop recruiting 1-and-dones" before this season because you thought it was the fault of Rivers and Parker that those two teams lost in the 1st round. Get a grip dude.

You have some nerve, insulting on one paragraph and then putting words in my mouth on the next. If I'm not a fan of Rivers that's my damn business and not yours and don't you dare try to create what my position is on anything because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

You aren't a troll, but this is a troll post. UK and Cal mailed it in after Nerlens went down. The only people who ever cared about the Robert Morris game were rival fans.

It's not a troll post, I think it's a good point made responding to a previous post about Duke's embarrassing recent losses. It's not a bash towards the program but a good point that we also have an embarrassing loss recently. The circumstances around the loss is irrelevant. Even without Noel, we should have never loss to team like RMU. It's OK to recognize that and it doesn't mean you're a troll. It simply means that you can look at situations for what they are rather than always looking through blue tinted glasses. Nobody mentions the injuries or any other circumstances when mentioning Duke's embarrassing losses because nobody cares, all that matters is that they lost to Mercer and LeHigh. Same for us. It is what it is. It obviously wasn't the end of the world for either program or coach.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

You have some nerve, insulting on one paragraph and then putting words in my mouth on the next. If I'm not a fan of Rivers that's my damn business and not yours and don't you dare try to create what my position is on anything because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Dukie vs Dukie!!!!!

I like it!

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

Hey boss, without Austin Rivers on that Duke team we would have been about a 7-seed in the tournament. Rivers bailed us out of multiple games that year. He was not a chemistry killer, and you make all Duke fans look bad when you say something like that.

That 2012 Duke team wasn't going to win a national title (or make the Final Four for that matter) regardless of whether or not Ryan Kelly got hurt. That was an inherently flawed team that would have lost double digit games and bowed out in the 1st round ala '07 against VCU without Austin Rivers. It's a damn near guarantee that's what would have happened had we not had Rivers on that team. Rivers actually masked the glaring flaws that team had, which was no versatility or ability to create whatsoever.

You are seriously embarrassing other Duke fans by posting shit like this dude. I think you should retract that statement. Was Jabari Parker a "chemistry killer" too because we lost to Mercer? Jesus dude. I CAN NOT STAND how so many of our fans want to use Rivers and Parker as scapegoats for those two seasons where we weren't going to win anything anyway, and the only reason we didn't lose double digit games in BOTH of those seasons is because we had Rivers and Parker.

You're probably one of those people who wanted us to "stop recruiting 1-and-dones" before this season because you thought it was the fault of Rivers and Parker that those two teams lost in the 1st round. Get a grip dude.

Ive never said this about a Duke fan's post but.....Nice post!! Great point.

 

[Aike]

It's not a troll post, I think it's a good point made responding to a previous post about Duke's embarrassing recent losses. It's not a bash towards the program but a good point that we also have an embarrassing loss recently. The circumstances around the loss is irrelevant. Even without Noel, we should have never loss to team like RMU. It's OK to recognize that and it doesn't mean you're a troll. It simply means that you can look at situations for what they are rather than always looking through blue tinted glasses. Nobody mentions the injuries or any other circumstances when mentioning Duke's embarrassing losses because nobody cares, all that matters is that they lost to Mercer and LeHigh. Same for us. It is what it is. It obviously wasn't the end of the world for either program or coach.

As others have noted, no other NIT losses by any team ever have ever been discussed. Ever. Because nobody cares.

Only trolling rival fans or some of our own more annoying fans ever bring up that game. As someone else noted, that season was a mess, but nobody cared about that game.

It wasn't embarrassing. It was irrelevant. Like all NIT games. It was so irrelevant that we agreed to go play on the road as a one seed, rather than work to find a suitable local alternative. Because it didn't matter.

 

[Poetax]

It's not a troll post, I think it's a good point made responding to a previous post about Duke's embarrassing recent losses. It's not a bash towards the program but a good point that we also have an embarrassing loss recently. The circumstances around the loss is irrelevant. Even without Noel, we should have never loss to team like RMU. It's OK to recognize that and it doesn't mean you're a troll. It simply means that you can look at situations for what they are rather than always looking through blue tinted glasses. Nobody mentions the injuries or any other circumstances when mentioning Duke's embarrassing losses because nobody cares, all that matters is that they lost to Mercer and LeHigh. Same for us. It is what it is. It obviously wasn't the end of the world for either program or coach.

We have two dukie fans arguing over dook history, on a UK site, you're right it's not a troll post its become a stupid thread, lol.

 

[Neue Regel]

Ive never said this about a Duke fan's post but.....Nice post!! Great point.

No there is nothing great whatsoever about that post. Manufacturing someone's position on something(such as OAD) and then trying to attack them for it in the same post is utterly pathetic. I am all for going after the best players and have said so. As for Rivers, whether or not I'm a fan of a particular player is hardly based strictly on how many points they scored and nor does it matter to me how long they stayed. I will maintain my position that he was not a great teammate by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[.S&C.]

As others have noted, no other NIT losses by any team ever have ever been discussed. Ever. Because nobody cares.

Only trolling rival fans or some of our own more annoying fans ever bring up that game. As someone else noted, that season was a mess, but nobody cared about that game.

It wasn't embarrassing. It was irrelevant. Like all NIT games. It was so irrelevant that we agreed to go play on the road as a one seed, rather than work to find a suitable local alternative. Because it didn't matter.

The loss is definitely worthy of discussion, and for the record, I didn't give a rats ass. I've purposely missed 2 UK games that I can remember. Both were the only NIT games UK's been in since I've been alive.

But if we are going to consistently pound Duke in the discussion about team for the decade over for having 2 first round losses, then our NIT appearance not only is worthy of being measured, but it has to be. Just because we don't care doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't matter.

 

[dezyDeco]

That would also mean UConn = Duke.
Not trying to pick on you, but that's just not true either. There is no definitive answer.

I appreciate your courtesy, and agree with you that there is no definitive answer. I was trying to use the baseball analogy to illustrate the different perspectives, but at the end of the day... there's nothing wrong with either point of view. I guess it just poses the question: Which fan are you?

As a fan(atic) of The Cats, it's difficult for me to look at it without my Go Big Blue glasses. I'm more of a win-it-all trying to convert to more of an enjoy-the-ride, if you know what I mean.

As far as this decade goes, the Cons join Dook in the assessment. One can look at how their other/non-championship seasons turned out, which gives Dook the edge, but their multiple crowns trump other records, IMHO.

 

[.S&C.]

I agree, right now Duke is in the driver seat. Had we not gone to the NIT in 2013, it might be different. But its not over. There's 4 more years to take this thing, and if anyone can flip the script, Cal can.

In 2012 I thought we were driving away with this discussion on a rocket, and we were. Thats how fast things can shift. Duke isn't safe, as I'm sure something will happen that will shift it again. But right now, it's Duke by a small margin.

 

[ArmyWildcat81]

I'll trade a national championship for a couple bad seasons. If you told me, you can win a title in '16 but you'll have to go to the NIT in '17 and only win 10 games. I'll take that in a heartbeat. It's too hard to win it all.

I said the exact same thing after 2012. I'll take a Title followed by an NIT all day every day.

 

[Aike]

The loss is definitely worthy of discussion, and for the record, I didn't give a rats ass. I've purposely missed 2 UK games that I can remember. Both were the only NIT games UK's been in since I've been alive.

But if we are going to consistently pound Duke in the discussion about team for the decade over for having 2 first round losses, then our NIT appearance not only is worthy of being measured, but it has to be. Just because we don't care doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't matter.

The only people who want to discuss any NIT game ever are UK rival fans who want to discuss the Robert Morris game. If you can name me 5 more NIT games that are ever discussed, I will concede your point.

NCAA tournament games are discussed until the end of time. Outside of title games and possibly Elite Eight games, the most discussed games are 1st round upsets by mid-majors - especially when the victim is a blueblood.

Honestly, some of you are needlessly contrary.