The UNC basketball program has about as much shame, as those helms titles do credibility.The Carolina Way!
UNC** put up a billboard claiming 7 championships
- Thread starter YouKay
- Start date
Football has historically not had a universally accepted method of determining the National Champion until fairly recently.
Basketball has had a solution in place since the start of the NCAA tournament.
Given this, it's a false equivalence to compare the two sports in terms of what is claimed with respect to National titles.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
Well that's just a great big ole' middle digit to the NCAA if I do say so myself. I would be laying low after the actions taken against UofL if I was UNC. However, that does require one to have common sense.
And we can all agree that a program that states...yes we committed academic fraud but you cant punish us or our student athletes cause there is nothing wrong with giving them fake classes to remain academically eligible....lacks the basic mental ability for which to build common sense upon.
And we can all agree that a program that states...yes we committed academic fraud but you cant punish us or our student athletes cause there is nothing wrong with giving them fake classes to remain academically eligible....lacks the basic mental ability for which to build common sense upon.
Last edited:
I wasn't counting Helms that overlap with NCAA titles.
Prior to the current playoff format, all football titles were poll titles. Even in the BCS era, the winner of the BCS title game was only assured of being ranked #1 in the Coaches/USA Today poll. Several times the AP had a different #1 ranked team. Auburn and Southern Cal in the early 2000's come to mind.
UK's claim to a title in 1950 is just as legitimate as any title claim, since UK finished first in a poll. there have been several split national titles over the years during the poll era.
UK's claim to a title in 1950 is just as legitimate as any title claim, since UK finished first in a poll. there have been several split national titles over the years during the poll era.
You know very little about CBB tournament history. The NIT was never considered a national title tournament. The first NCAA tournament was held in 1939 and was considered the tournament for the national title. The NIT was second tier status for teams that were not selected for the NCAA tournament.
Except it's not, as already mentioned earlier in this thread.
The NIT may have been more glamorous and was more lucrative in the 1940's, but at no time (including during the 40s when the tournament fields were largely comparable) was the NIT confused as the legitimate national championship.
Certainly after the 1951 Gambling Scandal the NIT wasn't on the same competitive level with the NCAA.
The NIT for their part became more known as a small school option, until the late 60s when they had a brief revival by accepting runners-up of major conferences. But even that didn't last very long as the NCAA responded by expanding their field and extending multiple bids to teams in the same conference.
UNC's elitism is just a scarecrow staring blankly in the garden.
Nothing there.
Nothing there.
Leon is a two hump camel because he says "
On the other hand...you make me appreciate our Board. The empty brains and caustic crap at UL's domain would drive me to drinking.
Leon, if I was a Mod, I would send you packing. We all know who you ARE NOT (us).
On the other hand...you make me appreciate our Board. The empty brains and caustic crap at UL's domain would drive me to drinking.
With Leon around you can read what the bird brains are saying without visiting their board
This is great.
I don't agree with the majority on this one. I used to, but not anymore.
Half of the blue bloods brag about titles we call irrelevant, but even espn ran a headline stating unc won its 7th national title. They made licenced gear showing 7 titles. Now a billboard goes up for everyone to see, 7 titles.
Watch Kansas on Espn. They always give them the bread banner camera shot.
I've got friends who are followers of college ball that don't understand the details and differences of a bread banner or an ncaa title banner.
So I'm sick of it. Kentucky should start to give credit to those other two teams.
When I speak of it from now on, it will be said that we have 10 titles. This will actually make me feel totally different about our program. That's a lot of ships.
When I'm making the case for UK to people, it will be like this - "well we have 10 titles etc etc."
When they say I thought you had 8, I'll say we do, but 10 COMBINED Ncaa and pre-ncaa titles.
And it's f'n true.
This board should adopt this.
Yep. UL was never losing that championship. UK was never getting Kevin Knox. Diallo was never coming back and now Carolina is never going to lose a title. To be fair, UL hasn't technically lost tang wins yet but it looks like the fat lady is singing.
Jon Scott can give you plenty of reasons why the Helms titles should not be taken seriously, I can't remember them all, but I seem to remember it was one man who had never seen the teams play deciding who was champ
http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/helms.html
JPS makes the point that the 1924 UNC team (and others), at best, received a title. They never won a championship as the billboard suggests. Many UNC fans who have visited this board have agreed with that assessment.
The billboard is an attempt to deceive the public. As such, it fits UNC perfectly. UNC is all show and little substance. Take away the cheating and they probably only have a Helm's Banner and nothing else.
Helms may be questionable but ALL athletic titles back then were questionable lol. We should count them if everyone else is imo. Part of our 100+ year history.
And at the risk of being repetitious, the "glamor" came from the fact that it was in NY and was heavily slanted to east coast schools. Schools just didn't travel as much back then, so it wasn't always feasible to have the "best" teams there.
The NCAA was the tourney for conference champions. Right or wrong, that is a statistically valid way of determining the most deserving participants.
(Side note: I believe the NIT and NCAA champs played each other three times in the 40's, with the NCAA winner taking 2 of the 3. This is a small sample size, but felt like pointing it out.)
Im sure JS has some good ones, but we're looking back 75 years later. At the time it could have been percieved differently.
I don't care anyway. If ESPN and these other blue bloods are going to do it, ee should too.
Kentucky, home of the TEN time national champs.
No there will be an asterisk next to Louisville for the 2013 tournament and Michigan will remain runner up.
Actually the NCAA champion beat the NIT champion all three of those games. They were played as charity games for the Red Cross.
Kentucky, as the 1946 NIT champion, was actually supposed to play the NCAA champion (Oklahoma A&M) but they had problems getting it organized.
The two teams faced each other the following season in New Orleans as part of the Sugar Bowl festivities and UK lost.
Have a point here, I didn't realize it until now..
All these programs KU and UNC*** boost their helms titles and try to make it seem like they have more championships.
we should just do the same and we have 10 titles but we should label them as Helms, that way when people see them they say what's that and it will be brought up that Kansas and UNC hung theirs first and didn't label them as Helm's and we do... it null in voids the whole point.
because we know the only real reason Kansas and UNC*** do it is to try and seem like they are closer to UK or everybody who has more, or further away from a Duke for example
This stuff is so petty really.. but that's the way it's got to be I guess with these other schools.'
SO YES, KENTUCKY HAS 10 titles now.
I'm on board
and for years I spit on KU and UNC for hanging them, but if we need to hang ours too to null and void theirs and spit back in their face, I'm all for it... it's ridiculous, but we need to label ours HELMS to show we are not trying to Deceive the public like they do by labeling them National Titles.
I end with f...k UNC*** and their cheating Carolina way... they should have 2 or 3 titles stripped.
If you had taken the time to actually read the article which was linked, you'd know that not only was I able to find information in the LA84 archives (the group which houses the Helms Foundation papers) probably written by Bill Schroeder himself which essentially admits that the Helms Committee was in fact based on the selections of a single individual, but that when his retroactive picks were published they were met with largely indifference.
Many athletes who were on those early retroactive teams had no idea of the honor until years or decades later, if ever.
The idea that Helms picks were widely known, much less universally accepted, during the time the picks were made is a recent phenomenon, and largely pushed by a few UNC & KU fans trying to defend their emphasus on Helms titles.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Had a Surreal Dream Last Night About 24/25 Season
- Latest: NKYWildcat
-
