Please. I got to Lexington in '71. Were you even born yet?
Didn't think so.
Just a little context.
Top 7 Programs Vs Each Other: UK The Best, UL The Worst, Kansas #6
- Thread starter dlh331
- Start date
Please. I got to Lexington in '71. Were you even born yet?
Didn't think so.
Just a little context.
And UNCheat has has 110 of those 120, so again the difference is you guys have a team like UNCheat and the SEC doesn't. I'll give you guys that distinction.
I arrived the same year, go figure. I use my real name. Came from Bracken County to Lex when I was about 3. Still here.
And yes you have defended KU and liked pro Duke posts. You and the faker both joined around the same time and have about the same number of posts intermittently.
If you are a real UK fan, so be it, but I am not the first person to call you out.
Just a little more context.
Reply to poster 'Mr. Anderson 23',
I do appreciate your good research -- very interesting. But I gotta say: at first I was confused by your term "modern era", and there's a chance someone else who thought about it may've been too, and there may've been several reasons for that confusion (NOT that we've never heard the term "modern era" before, or its definition -- we have). Let me explain the possible confusion:
You defined "modern era" as "since the tournament expanded to 64 teams". Ok, yes: March of 1985 was, in fact, the first time the Tourney expanded to 64 teams (up from 53 in 1984's tourney). Researching your records here, it seems you included all wins & losses starting in the fall of 1984, right? For example, you show that UK and KU have squared off 12 times since (in your words) "the tourney expanded", with UK having won seven of those 12, and so, looking back through the records of those 12, most-recent, UK-KU match-ups, that would mean you began your stats with their Dec. 31, 1984 match-up. Ok.
I understand THAT 'fine & dandy'...but here's where there might be confusion:
Most people (as far as I know) do not consider the '84-'85 season as a "modern era" SEASON (just the tournament, [as the first 'modern'] when comparing tournaments), because, still at that time ['84-'85 season], there was no shot clock -- till the following season --- so, for that reason, occasionally someone will refer to the following season (the '85-'86 season) as the "beginning of the 'modern era' (season)". (Note: 1985-86 was also the first season for officially recorded steals and blocked-shots, so I could definitely understand someone calling THAT season ('85-'86) #1 of the 'modern era'.) However, much more commonly (I think you'll find) "modern era (season)" is defined as "since the beginning of the '86-'87 season, when the collegiate 3-point line was univerally adopted. Now, yes, both the shot clock ('85-'86) and the 3-pt line ('86-'87) dramatically changed the game, but I've definitely most often heard "modern era SEASON" in reference to the beginning of the 3-pt line adoption ('86-'87). However, YOUR definition of "modern era" ("the introduction of the 64 team tournament") could also be a very good one, but I think THAT definition (of "modern era") ("when the Tourney expanded") should only be used for modern era *Tourney* stats (not season stats/season match-up results). I know you probably had to just "hurry & pick a year" and then quickly get to work with crunching the match-up numbers since that year, but the match-up results can vary quite a bit, depending on the year chosen, so I wanted to say that, plus open-up this thread to other opinions on definitions of "modern era", because it can be misunderstood. I know I'm just "digging" (for stuff), but it's been fun! Thanks again for the informative post!
Again, to clarify, basically, it appears you've included the 84-85 match-ups as within your "modern era", yet there was nothing really "modern" about the '84-'85 season (no shot clock or 3-pt line), and this might be important because some 'blueblood' head-to-head results-stats might change a surprising amount if you were to include two extra games (any between fall of '84 and spring of '86 -- for example, there were two UK-KU series games played during that time).
(Side-note follow-up: since the beginning of the '86-'87 season [the first, generally-agreed-upon 'modern-era' SEASON] UK's beaten KU 6 games to 4, with UK having won the last 3, and UK's 10-game point-total being 733 points and KU's being 744. UK's ahead of KU 7-5 in their last 12 games, 6-5 in their last 11, and 6-4 in their last 10.)
That is corr
You are correct, sir. I started the with the season that the tournament expanded to 64 teams, 84-85. I should have been clearer, sorry.
You are correct, sir. I started the with the season that the tournament expanded to 64 teams, 84-85. I should have been clearer, sorry.
You are brave for using your real name, man. The internet is full of scary people.
As with all boards, some folks take issue when their own fans introduce too much objectivity, which is why, when some folks have "called me out", for example, they couldn't do so by refuting points made, only by accusing me of trollhood. I respect (while also hating) both Dook and KU as well as UNC, so my posts don't carry the same element of spin that some of our other fans' do.
It's fine.
Last edited:
Hmmmm... it really just looked like you were having a conversation with yourself these last few posts...
But I will take your word for it. GBB
)
Looking at the records it should be a top 5 programs of all-time list. Cant take UofL seriously because they have a losing record against everybody, and cant take Kansas seriously because they only have a winning record against UofL (and claim helms titles).
Further team-ranking considerations, and some tourney evolution history:
Post-1984 Final Fours:
Number of Final Fours since -- and including -- the 1985 Tourney, when the Tourney expanded to 64 teams (up from 53 teams in 1984, 52 teams in '83, 48 in '82, 40 in '79, 32 from '75-'78, and 25 from '69-'74):
Duke: 12
Unc: 9
UK: 8
KU: 8
Uconn: 5
Louisville: 4
Ucla: 4
Indiana: 3
Note: Some people (like myself) would claim 1975 was the birth-year of 'the modern era' tourney, yet some (younger folks) claim 1985 was. Both answers could be at least partially correct, but the later tournaments (1985) owe their strengths to the previous ones (e.g., 1975). Also, the answer "1979" could be correct. See, "1975" is a good answer, imo, because it introduced a way more competitive format (and 7 teams were added), "1985" could be partially correct because that tourney added nine teams (introduced the famous "64-team format") and an "'85" answer includes the two subsequent seasons, when two, major, rules changes were adopted (the shot clock ['fall '85] and 3-pters [fall '86]), and "1979" could be a partially correct answer, too, because that tourney gained eight teams and was the first in which all teams were seeded (with the top-six in each regional receiving byes to the 2nd round, while seeds 7-10 played in the 1st round. It was also notable as the last Final Four played in an on-campus arena).
--
Championships 1987- present:
Number of NCAA championships since the induction of the 3-pt line:
Duke: 5
Uconn: 4
Unc: 3
UK: 3
Kansas: 2
Indiana: 1
Louisville: 1
Ucla: 1
Note: Three-pointers were universally allowed, beginning fall of '86, and that season ('86-'87) is often viewed as the birth-year of the "modern SEASON" (as opposed, of course, to birth-year of the "modern TOURNEY").
Post-1984 Final Fours:
Number of Final Fours since -- and including -- the 1985 Tourney, when the Tourney expanded to 64 teams (up from 53 teams in 1984, 52 teams in '83, 48 in '82, 40 in '79, 32 from '75-'78, and 25 from '69-'74):
Duke: 12
Unc: 9
UK: 8
KU: 8
Uconn: 5
Louisville: 4
Ucla: 4
Indiana: 3
Note: Some people (like myself) would claim 1975 was the birth-year of 'the modern era' tourney, yet some (younger folks) claim 1985 was. Both answers could be at least partially correct, but the later tournaments (1985) owe their strengths to the previous ones (e.g., 1975). Also, the answer "1979" could be correct. See, "1975" is a good answer, imo, because it introduced a way more competitive format (and 7 teams were added), "1985" could be partially correct because that tourney added nine teams (introduced the famous "64-team format") and an "'85" answer includes the two subsequent seasons, when two, major, rules changes were adopted (the shot clock ['fall '85] and 3-pters [fall '86]), and "1979" could be a partially correct answer, too, because that tourney gained eight teams and was the first in which all teams were seeded (with the top-six in each regional receiving byes to the 2nd round, while seeds 7-10 played in the 1st round. It was also notable as the last Final Four played in an on-campus arena).
--
Championships 1987- present:
Number of NCAA championships since the induction of the 3-pt line:
Duke: 5
Uconn: 4
Unc: 3
UK: 3
Kansas: 2
Indiana: 1
Louisville: 1
Ucla: 1
Note: Three-pointers were universally allowed, beginning fall of '86, and that season ('86-'87) is often viewed as the birth-year of the "modern SEASON" (as opposed, of course, to birth-year of the "modern TOURNEY").
You have to be the loneliest KU fan on the planet.
You know you already lost the argument when you're forced to narrow down the facts to fit an agenda. "If we only look at it this way then this is true." is a horrible take. It's basically grasping at straws to appear relevant to a topic.
In all your twisted ramblings, you do realize other teams were still trying to win prior 87, 85, 75, and what other time line you come up with.
The best teams stand the test of time and don't need to resort to lame tactics.
KU fans tout their historic program from peach basket to Helms title and then want to start counting titles in the 70's , we hear ya Kansas .
Yet another method to try to rank 'the Bluebloods':
Topic:
The exact moment of all NCAA Tourney exits, the past-30 seasons, for 'the Bluebloods':
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
--
First point:
# of 'Did Not Plays' in NCAA Tourneys (past-30 seasons):
Here's a great question: Just how much should missing one NCAA Tourney tarnish a program's overall, 30-year, NCAA accomplishments? It should obviously dock a program some significant amount (when compared to the other 'Bluebloods'), but just how much? I mean, if a program misses the NCAA Tourney, that means it wasn't a Top-25 program -- technically-speaking -- however, like UK in 1987-88, we won the SEC regular season and SEC tourney championships, so to say we weren't one of the Top-25 teams is absolutey ludicrous. (At least we were able to compete in the Tourney that season, to see where we stood, before the vacations.) But, missing the Tourney due to not being good enough should dock a Blueblood significantly in relation to stacking-up against other Bluebloods, imo. (But, just how much?)
UK = 5 DNPS
Three times, UK didn't win enough to earn an NCAA Tourney bid (88-89, 08-09 and 12-13).
Also, UK was banned twice (89-90, 90-91), plus, you'll notice, under the following 'Sweet 16 finishes' category, notation of the vacated, 1988 S16 finish.
--
UNC = 3 DNPs
Three times, UNC didn't win enough to earn an NCAA Tourney bid (2001-02, 2002-03, 2009-10).
--
Duke = 1 DNP
One time, Duke didn't win enough to earn an NCAA bid (1994-95).
--
KU =1 DNP (banned in 1989 and then finished 6th in Big 8 [19-12][i.e., also didn't win enough for a bid])
--
Clear, 30-year Advantage: Duke & KU
Clear, 30-year DISadvantage: UK
---------------------------------
30 seasons, Round of 64 and 32 exits, for
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively)::
R64: 4, 1, 2, 2
R32: 3, 7, 5, 8
(Note: To calculate percentages for all of these individual #s, take each number and divide it by 30 [seasons][e.g., over the past 30 seasons, 4xs Duke has exited in the Round of 64 [1st Round], so = 4/30 = 13.33% of the time = 1st round exit.)
Comment: No program wants to NOT get past the first weekend, so the lower the # here ...the better.
combined subtotals: 7, 8, 7, 10
30-year DISadvantage: KU
--------------------------
30 seasons, Sweet 16 and Elite Eight exits for:
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
S16: 8, 5, 2 (+1 vacated), 7
E8: 2, 5, 7, 4
Comment: This is at least a respectable tourney finish; it means your program is one of the top 8 or 16 teams, which is good, unless your fanbase expected much better in a given season or, more importantly, unless one or more of your rivals made it further.
Subtotals: 10, 10, 9(+1), 11
At least, a respectable tourney finish:
Advantage or DISadvantage to NONE of the four
--------------------------
30 seasons, Final Four exits or championships for:
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
FF Semi: 3, 6, 3, 3
Rnr-Up: 4, 0, 2, 3
Champ: 5, 3, 3, 2
30-years -- At least a 'Final Four' finish:
Subtotals: 12, 9, 8, 8
30-year advantage: Duke
---------------------------
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
30-years -- 1st or 2nd-place finish:
Subtotals: 9, 3, 5, 5
Clear Advantage: Duke
30-yr DISadvantage (although not major): UNC
----------------------------
30 years -- Championships:
Subtotals: 5, 3, 3, 2
30-yr advantage (although not 'major', unless maybe compared to KU): Duke
-----------------------------
Below: Another way of looking at the above data:
Below stats (different) order (Duke and UK are shown side-by-side)(past-30 seasons):
Unc, Duke, UK & KU, respectively:
DNPs: 3, 1, 5, 1
R64 exits: 1/30, 4/30, 2/30, 2/30
R32 exits: 7/30, 3/30, 5/30, 8/30
S16 exits: 5/30, 8/30, 2 (+1 vacated)/30, 7/30
E8 exits: 5/30, 2/30, 7/30, 4/30
Nat'l Semi (FF) exits: 6/30, 3/30, 3/30, 3/30
Nat'l R-Up: 0/30, 4/30, 2/30, 3/30
Champ: 3/30, 5/30, 3/30, 2/30
-----
Note: this post does not include the Tourney exits/finishes between 1975 (the birth-year of the 'real' Tournament, imo) and 1985.
Note 2: 1975 Tourney was 41 seasons-ago.
Note 3: possible topic for future discussion:
How far did the team which beat you end-up advancing? I mean, sometimes underdogs turn-out to be damn good (e.g., George Mason, 2006), so a "bad loss" (to them) may prove to be "not so bad".
Topic:
The exact moment of all NCAA Tourney exits, the past-30 seasons, for 'the Bluebloods':
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
--
First point:
# of 'Did Not Plays' in NCAA Tourneys (past-30 seasons):
Here's a great question: Just how much should missing one NCAA Tourney tarnish a program's overall, 30-year, NCAA accomplishments? It should obviously dock a program some significant amount (when compared to the other 'Bluebloods'), but just how much? I mean, if a program misses the NCAA Tourney, that means it wasn't a Top-25 program -- technically-speaking -- however, like UK in 1987-88, we won the SEC regular season and SEC tourney championships, so to say we weren't one of the Top-25 teams is absolutey ludicrous. (At least we were able to compete in the Tourney that season, to see where we stood, before the vacations.) But, missing the Tourney due to not being good enough should dock a Blueblood significantly in relation to stacking-up against other Bluebloods, imo. (But, just how much?)
UK = 5 DNPS
Three times, UK didn't win enough to earn an NCAA Tourney bid (88-89, 08-09 and 12-13).
Also, UK was banned twice (89-90, 90-91), plus, you'll notice, under the following 'Sweet 16 finishes' category, notation of the vacated, 1988 S16 finish.
--
UNC = 3 DNPs
Three times, UNC didn't win enough to earn an NCAA Tourney bid (2001-02, 2002-03, 2009-10).
--
Duke = 1 DNP
One time, Duke didn't win enough to earn an NCAA bid (1994-95).
--
KU =1 DNP (banned in 1989 and then finished 6th in Big 8 [19-12][i.e., also didn't win enough for a bid])
--
Clear, 30-year Advantage: Duke & KU
Clear, 30-year DISadvantage: UK
---------------------------------
30 seasons, Round of 64 and 32 exits, for
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively)::
R64: 4, 1, 2, 2
R32: 3, 7, 5, 8
(Note: To calculate percentages for all of these individual #s, take each number and divide it by 30 [seasons][e.g., over the past 30 seasons, 4xs Duke has exited in the Round of 64 [1st Round], so = 4/30 = 13.33% of the time = 1st round exit.)
Comment: No program wants to NOT get past the first weekend, so the lower the # here ...the better.
combined subtotals: 7, 8, 7, 10
30-year DISadvantage: KU
--------------------------
30 seasons, Sweet 16 and Elite Eight exits for:
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
S16: 8, 5, 2 (+1 vacated), 7
E8: 2, 5, 7, 4
Comment: This is at least a respectable tourney finish; it means your program is one of the top 8 or 16 teams, which is good, unless your fanbase expected much better in a given season or, more importantly, unless one or more of your rivals made it further.
Subtotals: 10, 10, 9(+1), 11
At least, a respectable tourney finish:
Advantage or DISadvantage to NONE of the four
--------------------------
30 seasons, Final Four exits or championships for:
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
FF Semi: 3, 6, 3, 3
Rnr-Up: 4, 0, 2, 3
Champ: 5, 3, 3, 2
30-years -- At least a 'Final Four' finish:
Subtotals: 12, 9, 8, 8
30-year advantage: Duke
---------------------------
DUKE, UNC, UK and KU (respectively):
30-years -- 1st or 2nd-place finish:
Subtotals: 9, 3, 5, 5
Clear Advantage: Duke
30-yr DISadvantage (although not major): UNC
----------------------------
30 years -- Championships:
Subtotals: 5, 3, 3, 2
30-yr advantage (although not 'major', unless maybe compared to KU): Duke
-----------------------------
Below: Another way of looking at the above data:
Below stats (different) order (Duke and UK are shown side-by-side)(past-30 seasons):
Unc, Duke, UK & KU, respectively:
DNPs: 3, 1, 5, 1
R64 exits: 1/30, 4/30, 2/30, 2/30
R32 exits: 7/30, 3/30, 5/30, 8/30
S16 exits: 5/30, 8/30, 2 (+1 vacated)/30, 7/30
E8 exits: 5/30, 2/30, 7/30, 4/30
Nat'l Semi (FF) exits: 6/30, 3/30, 3/30, 3/30
Nat'l R-Up: 0/30, 4/30, 2/30, 3/30
Champ: 3/30, 5/30, 3/30, 2/30
-----
Note: this post does not include the Tourney exits/finishes between 1975 (the birth-year of the 'real' Tournament, imo) and 1985.
Note 2: 1975 Tourney was 41 seasons-ago.
Note 3: possible topic for future discussion:
How far did the team which beat you end-up advancing? I mean, sometimes underdogs turn-out to be damn good (e.g., George Mason, 2006), so a "bad loss" (to them) may prove to be "not so bad".
Last edited:
Lot of cherries for one basket.
All, I consider this an excellent example of statistical constipation. After much effort and straining, we find a lot of numbers compressed into a big pile of . . . You get the idea.
To the poster with the stupid handle, I think, after all the grunting you've proven cherry picked numbers can be manipulated into whatever propaganda one chooses. Posers have been trying and failing to do that here for years. You should be more efficient in your fabrication. Fertilizer is more effective spread out. Piled so deep, makes easy to spot by smell alone.
After I made the prior post I thought that tripe was familiar. Looking back at the thread, I find the poster has indeed covered the full spectrum of gastric distress with aimless trivia. My apologies for the nearly duplicate points on the same thread. I rarely encounter this magnitude of drivel so consistantly. Caught me by surprise. Now that I recognize the smell . . .
