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

[.S&C.]

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.

Are we talking about the same thing? I was making a point that if we are going to hold Dukes first round flameouts over the fire when discussing the "team of the decade", then of course UK's NIT season is going to fit into the formula for purposes of finding the answer. Because "we don't care" doesn't mean jack shit. If that's not what you're talking about, then fine. For the record I haven't mentioned the NIT game and didn't even watch it. While other UK fans were talking about the worthless NIT game at Memorial in 08 and how "magical" the atmosphere was, I was laughing. I'm just making the point that inside of this discussion, it matters.

And trust me the pumpers on this board are far worse than anything. There's about 6 or 7 that are completely insufferable.

 

[Aike]

Are we talking about the same thing? I was making a point that if we are going to hold Dukes first round flameouts over the fire when discussing the "team of the decade", then of course UK's NIT season is going to fit into the formula for purposes of finding the answer. Because "we don't care" doesn't mean jack shit. If that's not what you're talking about, then fine. For the record I haven't mentioned the NIT game and didn't even watch it. While other UK fans were talking about the worthless NIT game at Memorial in 08 and how "magical" the atmosphere was, I was laughing. I'm just making the point that inside of this discussion, it matters.

And trust me the pumpers on this board are far worse than anything. There's about 6 or 7 that are completely insufferable.

The 2013 season is fair game. It was a mess - although losing Nerlens crushed any momentum we had.

I'm talking about comparing first round NCAA tourney losses when you are a 2 seed to losing an NIT game that was of no consequence.

 

[.S&C.]

The 2013 season is fair game. It was a mess - although losing Nerlens crushed any momentum we had.

I'm talking about comparing first round NCAA tourney losses when you are a 2 seed to losing an NIT game that was of no consequence.

Oh, I see.

Of course, as far as weight goes, there's little difference in NIT vs. 1st round flameout. I'd probably rather have an NIT year (as long as it's a decent season) than being known for having lost to 2 1st round 15 seeds as a 2 seed. That's really bad, and its why I think Duke is only slightly ahead through 2015. Had Duke made a final four one of those years, Duke is way ahead.

We've got plenty of time to turn that around though.

 

[dezyDeco]

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.

^^^Opposing fans probably don't even know that ^^^ Calipari basically used it as a benefit for RM.

After that game ended, I remember thinking: "Good. Now I won't have to keep track of whatever kind of schedule the NIT uses."

 

[dlh331]

Quick question.....

Who is the all time #1 basketball
Program?

Darryl

 

[.S&C.]

Quick question.....

Who is the all time #1 basketball
Program?

Darryl

All day....

 

[dezyDeco]

Quick question.....

Who is the all time #1 basketball
Program?

Darryl

UK!!!!!!!!

; )

 

[dlh331]

With less titles than UCLA?

Darryl

 

[dezyDeco]

With less titles than UCLA?

Darryl

Yep, I'd say so. The calculations for "all time" would involve a lot more factors... the kind of things that don't really apply to the shorter term, IMO.

Considering the entire span (100+ years) of college basketball makes 8 to 11 comparable, and including a factor like the sustained success of UK across many decades with 5 different coaches helps to diminish that 3 title difference. Throw in the Most Wins, and UK gets the edge.

That's hard to do with less time for comparisons. Though, this thread shows that people look at it from different points of view. For instance, I've always thought UK's (bookend titles) 1996-1998 run was better than the back-to-backs of Dook and UF... but it is never mentioned in comparison.

 

[TUL]

Ehhh... Both programs have had pretty solid five years or whatever. Cal's run is maybe the best since Ks run in 87-92... Two titles, another title game, and two final fours. But two titles in five years, with two different teams? That's fantastic. I wouldn't trade my last five years for what you guys have had. Final Fours and great regular seasons don't last that long... I mean, Dukes regular seasons have been INSANE in the last five years, and nobody discusses it. Likewise, most of you wouldn't trade with me. So be it!

 

[dlh331]

Yep, I'd say so. The calculations for "all time" would involve a lot more factors... the kind of things that don't really apply to the shorter term, IMO.

Considering the entire span (100+ years) of college basketball makes 8 to 11 comparable, and including a factor like the sustained success of UK across many decades with 5 different coaches helps to diminish that 3 title difference. Throw in the Most Wins, and UK gets the edge.

That's hard to do with less time for comparisons. Though, this thread shows that people look at it from different points of view. For instance, I've always thought UK's (bookend titles) 1996-1998 run was better than the back-to-backs of Dook and UF... but it is never mentioned in comparison.

Really nice reply and exactly how I feel.

Darryl

 

[dezyDeco]

Ehhh... Both programs have had pretty solid five years or whatever. Likewise, most of you wouldn't trade with me. So be it!

Yeah... but...


how'd we do in your computer game program?

 

[cats2010]

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 NIT doesnt matter at all and honestly why i wish UK would just call it a day on seasons like 2013. I dont watch NIT basketball nor will i watch NIT basketball, regardless if UK is in it or not. I for one thought it was funny when we lost to RM that year and was honestly glad they did. There was something about that team that for me personally i could just never identify with and while still a UK team, had to be my least favorite team of all time. I never got really invested with them at all. Season ended for me when they lost to Vandy in the SEC tournament.

 

[CUT-NETS]

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

Its freaking amazing man. Ive been preaching this for 2 months on here. The thing is, people here truly think that the 2 early flameouts by Duke cancel out their one more title than UK in the same time period. It never fails, you could say "Duke has 2 titles and UK only 1 in the Cal era" and like clockwork someone will come on and say "yeah but they lost to Lehigh and Mercer" as if that somehow strips them of that additional title. Amazing.

2>1 regardless of any other variables. Its about winning titles period. Cal said himself "can you imagine, they only hang banners for national championships"

 

[dlh331]

I am even more convinced my original post is correct when this guy Cut Nets so obviously disagrees with
it. I have been a member here for many years and he may possibly be the worst poster on this site.

Darryl

 

[Hoskins91]

If we hadn't gone to the NIT, I could see an argument for us. Unfortunately we did. Duke's made the tourney every year and they have the two titles. When we have made the tourney, we usually make it farther than they do, but they've reached the ultimate goal more.

 

[.S&C.]

Really nice reply and exactly how I feel.

Darryl

it's spot on

 

[mj2k10]

Though, this thread shows that people look at it from different points of view. For instance, I've always thought UK's (bookend titles) 1996-1998 run was better than the back-to-backs of Dook and UF... but it is never mentioned in comparison.

This is a really interesting point.

Duke and Florida did their back-to-backs with what was essentially one great core group of players. UK went to 3 straight title games, winning 2, while shedding hugely important players. Creating one great core group players is fairly rare, but in a lot of ways, creating a program where you can lose key guys and still thrive is more impressive.

Think about what happened at UK from 96-98. UK lost Tony Delk, Antoine Walker, Walter McCarty, and Mark Pope in 96. Then UK came back with a team (despite only signing 1 recruit) that was almost as dominant, before Derek Anderson went down. Then, even after Anderson (best player on the team) goes down, they come agonizingly close to winning the title. Then take Anderson, Mercer, Epps, and Prickett off the team (and add no recruits who played important roles), and what happens? They win it all again.

Fans fixate on star players, so they remember Laettner/Hurley/Hill, and (to a lesser extent) Noah/Horford/Brewer, while forgetting specifics about who was on what UK team from 96-98. But in a lot of ways, that's a testament to just how good UK was in that run. And no post-UCLA program can top 104-11 with 3 consecutive appearances in the title game, and 2 wins.

 

[catillac32]

Duke has been to 2 Final Fours in the last 10 years. UK has been to 4 out of the last 5 Final Fours. It's not even close!

 

[dezyDeco]

This is a really interesting point.
Think about what happened at UK from 96-98. UK lost Tony Delk, Antoine Walker, Walter McCarty, and Mark Pope in 96. Then UK came back with a team (despite only signing 1 recruit) that was almost as dominant, before Derek Anderson went down. Then, even after Anderson (best player on the team) goes down, they come agonizingly close to winning the title. Then take Anderson, Mercer, Epps, and Prickett off the team (and add no recruits who played important roles), and what happens? They win it all again.
.

...and, just for fun, factor in a coaching change!

2 coaches with 3 different (major changes) teams = Title --- OT runner-up --- Title.

What an amazing run.

 

[CUT-NETS]

Duke has been to 2 Final Fours in the last 10 years. UK has been to 4 out of the last 5 Final Fours. It's not even close!

So final fours are the ultimate goal?

I can't believe this is being debated so heavily. The object is to win the title. Thats it. The point is to win the title. In the Cal era Duke has one more title than UK. I wouldn't care if Duke went to the NIT in every other season. They have one more title. Theres no way to justify anything else. 2>1. Cal said himself "they only hang banners for national championships"

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

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.

OK. Now you're doing exactly what you accused the other Pukie of doing and putting words in my mouth. I said nice point, that's it. I didn't say anything about your stance or feelings about anything. Nothing! I simply thought he made a valid point about Rivers and Parker. I didn't even read your previous post, so I don't even know what you said about either. To be honest, I could really care less about either player or your feelings towards them. I know that many Pukies have said lots of negative remarks concerning the O&D approach to recruiting and how Puke would never resort to such despicable methods of recruiting and how they do things the right way and blah blah blah. And then this year happened and now its quite the opposite tune being sung by many Puke fans. With that said, I don't know if you are one of those Pukies or not but I thought that the other Pukie post made a good point about the overall attitude of your fan base and a couple of the players he mentioned. I'm sorry if you take offense to that but it doesn't really surprise me much, UK fans and Puke fans don't have much in common and don't agree much either.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

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.

It wasn't embarrassing? Huh? I know I wasn't feeling pride as the fans were storming the court at RMU. How can that loss be irrelevant in a discussion like this when you are comparing 2 teams during a specific time period span?
I just can't understand your way of thinking on this RMU loss. As much as I'd like to just wipe it away from my memory, that just can't happen. It did happen and your argument to say it was relevant because that team was a mess, or because Cal had quit on the team, or because of the venue change, or because of whatever is just bizarre to me. Nobody talks about it? I guarantee it gets talked about more than if we had made the tournament and gotten beat by whomever we had met in the 1st round. It gets brought up in the same types of discussions and arguments as this and same for when the Mercer and LeHigh losses get brought up for Duke fansor rival fans. When else does this type of stuff get brought up? Around tournament time on some broadcasts but I've seen the RMU game brought up there as well. Same types of discussions. Nobody cares about the venue, injuries, players, or whatever. That's just perceived as excuses. Only thing people recall is that mighty Kentucky got beat by little ole Robert Morris. That's it.
It was embarrassing and it was shocking and I'd love to make it go away but you can't just dismiss it because you want to in a discussion. Specifically in this discussion such as this thread, about 2 teams during a certain time period. It has to count. If you're going to mention Mercer and LeHigh, you have to mention RMU for us. Well, if you want any credibility at least in your argument. You just cant simply dismiss it for those illegit reasons or any other reasons also. Those are always just perceived as excuses.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

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 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.

I think this is a great post! It looks as though we all have a slightly different criteria on what matters most to us as fans and what we view as the ultimate success.
I , as well, am all about the championships. I think it is what separates us from the rest and is the major factor that I use to judge the best of the best. It is the reason why we are the all time greatest program ahead of schools like Kansas, UNC, IU, Duke, Syracuse, and so on. Now, some would say.....well then you think UCLA is the best all time program, right? Well, no I don't because I also use other factors such as recent success as a factor of being the elite. That's why I consider KU as an elite level school right now although they do not have the championship numbers to be up against the others and the reason why UCLA is not at the top of the list. A tradition of winning and sustained excellence is another factor that I deem important as well as several other that factor in. A combination of all these factors are used when I judge the best all time programs, with championships being the main criteria.
Now, if I'm asked to judge or compare a specific short 5 yr time span between 2 teams such as this thread and I would tell you that only 1 thing matters to me and that's championships. Hands down, its the most important criteria. It's different than comparing all time programs in history. That's just what it's all about to me. Banners are hung for championships and not regular seasons. Doesn't mean that I don't think a season is successful without a title, its just what I deem to be the ultimate team success. So, would I trade Duke's 5 yr run over our run during that same span if I could? In a heartbeat.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Granted I had a blast with the 2011 and 2014 tournament runs but I'd be willing to take two embarrassing first round losses to get another title.

Is there anyone here that wouldn't take two titles over what we did? I know we are snooty when it comes to this but I only care about national titles. From 1999-2010, I just wanted to make a Final Four again but after we did, I only care about winning titles. Nothing else means anything in the grand scheme.

In reality, Duke has two titles because we crapped the bed against inferior teams in 2010 and 2015. In reality, we should have won three to four titles from 2010-2015.

 

[yoshukai]

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.

This is how I feel .

 

[Big Cat fan]

Duke winning the

So final fours are the ultimate goal?

I can't believe this is being debated so heavily. The object is to win the title. Thats it. The point is to win the title. In the Cal era Duke has one more title than UK. I wouldn't care if Duke went to the NIT in every other season. They have one more title. Theres no way to justify anything else. 2>1. Cal said himself "they only hang banners for national championships"

The final 4 is a big deal to every program that gets in. The NCAA has promote the final 4 as the main target, once you are in yeah you try to win. Those 4 teams have made a dream come to life of making it.

You do understand what awesome run it has been since Cal became head man here, right? Our winning streak and run to the Final 4 got more press then Duke winning the title.

 

[mbc82584]

This is the old Florida Marlins versus New York Yankees debate from the 90's and 00's. Would you rather have a team that multiple championships with ugly seasons sandwiched in between, or a team that wins less championships but has massive other accomplishments in the other seasons? Its really a matter of preference. For me, personally, I'd take the titles.

But either way is pretty sweet. You could always be an Expos fan.

 

[Aike]

It wasn't embarrassing? Huh? I know I wasn't feeling pride as the fans were storming the court at RMU. How can that loss be irrelevant in a discussion like this when you are comparing 2 teams during a specific time period span?
I just can't understand your way of thinking on this RMU loss. As much as I'd like to just wipe it away from my memory, that just can't happen. It did happen and your argument to say it was relevant because that team was a mess, or because Cal had quit on the team, or because of the venue change, or because of whatever is just bizarre to me. Nobody talks about it? I guarantee it gets talked about more than if we had made the tournament and gotten beat by whomever we had met in the 1st round. It gets brought up in the same types of discussions and arguments as this and same for when the Mercer and LeHigh losses get brought up for Duke fansor rival fans. When else does this type of stuff get brought up? Around tournament time on some broadcasts but I've seen the RMU game brought up there as well. Same types of discussions. Nobody cares about the venue, injuries, players, or whatever. That's just perceived as excuses. Only thing people recall is that mighty Kentucky got beat by little ole Robert Morris. That's it.
It was embarrassing and it was shocking and I'd love to make it go away but you can't just dismiss it because you want to in a discussion. Specifically in this discussion such as this thread, about 2 teams during a certain time period. It has to count. If you're going to mention Mercer and LeHigh, you have to mention RMU for us. Well, if you want any credibility at least in your argument. You just cant simply dismiss it for those illegit reasons or any other reasons also. Those are always just perceived as excuses.

I'll issue you the same challenge that I mentioned to someone else:

List 5 relevant NIT games. Any 5. 5 that anyone cares about enough to discuss.

You can't, because they don't exist. The NIT doesn't matter.

Only 1 NIT game seems to matter, and that is the UK/RMU game.

It is a talking point for trolls and nothing else.

I'll give you some time, though. I'm sure you would love to talk up some of UCLA's crushing NIT defeats. Come on now...Google is your friend.

 

[mj2k10]

Duke winning the


The final 4 is a big deal to every program that gets in. The NCAA has promote the final 4 as the main target, once you are in yeah you try to win. Those 4 teams have made a dream come to life of making it.

You do understand what awesome run it has been since Cal became head man here, right? Our winning streak and run to the Final 4 got more press then Duke winning the title.

Don't even bother.

He hates Cal. Period. Every single thing he posts is designed to diminish what Cal has accomplished. If you flipped UK and Duke for the last 6 years, he'd be still be arguing that Duke's run was better, talking about how terrible Cal was for losing to Lehigh and Mercer.

 

[king of cali]

I'll issue you the same challenge that I mentioned to someone else:

List 5 relevant NIT games. Any 5. 5 that anyone cares about enough to discuss.

You can't, because they don't exist. The NIT doesn't matter.

Only 1 NIT game seems to matter, and that is the UK/RMU game.

It is a talking point for trolls and nothing else.

I'll give you some time, though. I'm sure you would love to talk up some of UCLA's crushing NIT defeats. Come on now...Google is your friend.

For the purposes for which this thread was created you can't just dismiss the NIT and say it's not relevant and no one cares. Especially when you're trying to hammer Duke for losing twice in the first round to lesser teams. In that same time period UK didn't make the big tournament AND lost in the first round of the NIT. How is that not relevant? Because I'm too lazy to look it up, when is the last time a defending champ failed to make the tourney the next season before UK did it in 2013? That's a tremendous ding on its resume when we're talking about a specific 5 year period.

As others have said, it's all a matter of preference. Some value titles above all else. Some think the 4 finals 4s in 5 years is better. Nothing is wrong with either line of thinking. There is no right or wrong answer.

 

[dlh331]

NCAA Champs that did not make the NCAA tourney the next season include:

2007 Florida
2009 North Carolina
2012 Kentucky
2014 UConn

Darryl

 

[Aike]

For the purposes for which this thread was created you can't just dismiss the NIT and say it's not relevant and no one cares. Especially when you're trying to hammer Duke for losing twice in the first round to lesser teams. In that same time period UK didn't make the big tournament AND lost in the first round of the NIT. How is that not relevant? Because I'm too lazy to look it up, when is the last time a defending champ failed to make the tourney the next season before UK did it in 2013? That's a tremendous ding on its resume when we're talking about a specific 5 year period.

As others have said, it's all a matter of preference. Some value titles above all else. Some think the 4 finals 4s in 5 years is better. Nothing is wrong with either line of thinking. There is no right or wrong answer.

I never said to throw out the 2013 season. Obviously it is the largest blemish on our recent resume.

My post was dealing with the earlier assertion that our first round NIT loss and Duke's first round NCAA losses are equivalent. They aren't.

Our 2013 season was essentially over before we ever played RM. We didn't even care enough to find a way to play at home.

Yes, the 2013 season stunk. But I'm tired of "remember Robert Morris" being the battle cry of our legion of trolls - aided and abetted by several of the locals.

 

[hbilskie]

duke over uk.
duke has had very good seasons, and won two titles. Just not as much consistent tourny success.
if you want to argue uk over uconn, that may be more credible, but i think almost everyone would rather have the two titles.

 

[ChapelTower]

Would these weights reflect most fans' preferences?

NCAA championship: 4 pts
NCAA runner-up: 1.5 pts
NCAA final-four: 1 pt
First round NCAA loss: -1 pt
Going to NIT, but winning NIT championship: 0 pt.
Going to NIT, w/o winning NIT championship: -1.5 pts
First round NIT loss: -2 pts

Based on these weights, I have Devils score a bit better than Cats. Both programs did great.

 

[BurpinTurpin]

Would these weights reflect most fans' preferences?

NCAA championship: 4 pts
NCAA runner-up: 1.5 pts
NCAA final-four: 1 pt
First round NCAA loss: -1 pt
Going to NIT, but winning NIT championship: 0 pt.
Going to NIT, w/o winning NIT championship: -1.5 pts
First round NIT loss: -2 pts

Based on these weights, I have Devils score a bit better than Cats. Both programs did great.

No

 

[bthaunert]

One point of clarification is I do not believe UK has more regular season wins (someone correct me if I am wrong) during that span. Personally, I think the regular season records (Duke 85% winning percentage, UK 84% winning percentage) and conference records (Duke 81-21, UK 82-20) are so ridiculously close, those are a wash. So, you start talking about postseason. Personally (and I know people differ on this), when you're talking about such a short period of time (6 years), then I would take titles over anything else. We have the winningest program of all time, and 8 titles in 76 years. That shows you just how tough it is to win it all. I would 100% trade Duke's postseason over ours the last 6 years.

 

[mj2k10]

Would these weights reflect most fans' preferences?

NCAA championship: 4 pts
NCAA runner-up: 1.5 pts
NCAA final-four: 1 pt
First round NCAA loss: -1 pt
Going to NIT, but winning NIT championship: 0 pt.
Going to NIT, w/o winning NIT championship: -1.5 pts
First round NIT loss: -2 pts

Based on these weights, I have Devils score a bit better than Cats. Both programs did great.

You're never going to get people to agree on anything quantifiable, because everyone is going to bring an agenda to whatever type of scoring you come up with. But your numbers don't seem too bad to me. I would make a few changes, using this for the truly elite programs:

NCAA title: 4 points
NCAA runner-up: 2 points. You played for the title, and winning games in the FF is hard. Ask John Calipari, ask Tom Izzo, ask Rick Pitino, and most of all, ask (if you could) Dean Smith.
FF: 1 pt
Sweet 16 or Elite 8: 0 points. This is sort of a baseline level of achievement for elite programs.
1st OR 2nd round loss: -1 pt. If you're an elite program, something went wrong if you can't win your 1st 2 NCAA Tourney games.
Missing the tournament: -2 points. Big fail, and it makes no difference what happens in the NIT.

Using that system, UK gets a 6 since Cal's been here, and so does Duke. Which strikes me as about right. Given where UK is at right now, I'd take the 2 titles, but in the broader historical picture, you can't just dismiss the fact that UK has won 5 more NCAA tournament games than Duke in Cal's 6 years, or that UK has twice as many FF appearances.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

I'll issue you the same challenge that I mentioned to someone else:

List 5 relevant NIT games. Any 5. 5 that anyone cares about enough to discuss.

You can't, because they don't exist. The NIT doesn't matter.

Only 1 NIT game seems to matter, and that is the UK/RMU game.

It is a talking point for trolls and nothing else.

I'll give you some time, though. I'm sure you would love to talk up some of UCLA's crushing NIT defeats. Come on now...Google is your friend.

So, you're saying that the RMU loss doesn't count because it was in the NIT? Just wipe it away from the records? So, a loss must occur in the NCAA tournament to be called embarrassing? That's ridiculous. I never said that it means more than an NCAA game because it obviously does not but you can't just dismiss it and say it never happened or is completely irrelevant because it was not the NCAAs. It is relevant because it was Cal's only "bad" season at UK and the fact that we are UK and they're tiny RMU makes it news. Rival fans are going to bring it up just like we bring up Mercer and LeHigh to Duke fans.
Who else brings up the Duke losses to Duke fans? Rival fans and trolls. Of course we don't like to talk about it. It sucked but that doesn't mean it never happened or that it didn't suck.
You can't simply dismiss it from history because it had no baring on the national championship. Neither did Duke's loss. It is a ridiculous argument to say it doesn't count because it was the NIT. That's like saying....well, since we weren't very good that year and didn't make the NCAA tournament, nothing from that season counts. That's just dumb.
You can't just forget about bad losses and bad seasons just because you want to and that's exactly what youre doing cause your reasoning is just silly.

 

[CUT-NETS]

I'll issue you the same challenge that I mentioned to someone else:

List 5 relevant NIT games. Any 5. 5 that anyone cares about enough to discuss.

You can't, because they don't exist. The NIT doesn't matter.

Only 1 NIT game seems to matter, and that is the UK/RMU game.

It is a talking point for trolls and nothing else.

I'll give you some time, though. I'm sure you would love to talk up some of UCLA's crushing NIT defeats. Come on now...Google is your friend.

Aike, ask yourself this; would you rather have a first round loss in the NIT or a first round loss in the NCAA tournament?