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

[Aike]

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

I would prefer to be in the tournament, of course. However, a first round loss in the NCAA bothers me much more. If UK is playing in the NIT, I don't care what happens.

 

[CUT-NETS]

I would prefer to be in the tournament, of course. However, a first round loss in the NCAA bothers me much more. If UK is playing in the NIT, I don't care what happens.

I think thats where the confusion has been with your dismissal of the NIT first round loss to RM. I get your point. When you play in the NIT pretty much the whole season has been a disaster so there is no expectation there, therefore a loss there doesn't sting. In the NCAA's, especially when you are a good seed, it stings much more to lose in the first round. I get where you are coming from.


The point others are making is that an NCAA first round loss is still a better season and better result than an NIT first round loss. Yes it may sting more and be remembered more because of the expectation, but make no mistake, I would rather lose in the NCAA tournament, even if early, than lose in the NIT because it means that my team was good enough to make the NCAA's. I mean when we got Calipari, I never ever ever imagined we would be in the NIT. Even with the loss of Nerlens we still had multiple 5-star kids on the roster. Still can't believe we went to the NIT.

 

[mj2k10]

I mean when we got Calipari, I never ever ever imagined we would be in the NIT. Even with the loss of Nerlens we still had multiple 5-star kids on the roster. Still can't believe we went to the NIT.

But you were hoping for it. So you could act like it was the end of the world, and a complete negation of the four FF's and national title that Cal's brought to UK.

You are truly awful, and the vast majority on this board would rejoice if you went back to wherever the hell you were from November through March of last season.

 

[.S&C.]

One thing I would mention is Duke lost multiple times in the first round as a high seed. When comparing our NIT (season) to dukes first round flameout(S) you have to take that into account and not forget it. I would rather go to the NIT once in this discussion than be blasted twice as a top seed by the SCLSU muddogs. I dont even know if that's happened before, but NIT seasons do happen.

Being that it's only a 6 year sample, it's a tough call. But Duke did well enough by making an additional elite eight and 2 final fours/2titles to come out ahead.

That's not what bothers me so much. Duke is looking super good for the next 2-3 years, and now they have the OAD appeal to top kids. This is a different Duke program right now, and we better start seeing that as such if we want to pull ahead the next four years. I is going out, and he's gonna do everything he can to win as many as he can while he's here; and unfortunately, the NCAA is going to do everything they can to make it happen.

 

[ChapelTower]

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.

I am actually more interested in having a "scientific" weighting scheme than the actual outcome of applying the scheme. I think this actually can be quantified if one really goes thru the process of surveying the fans with a sequence of binary choices. (I took one abstract microeconomics class which dealt with the existence of "utility function" over "apples vs oranges" -- so to speak.)

For example, I can establish that a NCAA runner-up should not be worth 2 pts if a Natty is benchmarked at 4. Just imagine yourself as a Butler fan ... would you not trade those two finals appearances for one title? Or alternatively, would you rather have two FF appearances or just one trip to the final (I think everyone would pick the two FFs).

 

[UK_ENGR1]

Hate Duke but titles trump any other stat in terms of program success.

 

[gjcollins79]

I wouldn't trade anything UK related for anything dook related, plain and simple.
We are living in the greatest era in Kentucky's illustrious history and some people are wanting to trade with an enemy? Some folks, myself included, are insufferable at times