Kenlucky

[CusefanATL]

the point still stands

I am not sure what you mean by that.

Somebody said that UK didnt have to play any 1 seed and that they all 1 seeds were with out a key member. It was refuted because UK was missing a player in 2003.

But cuse still had to play 2 1 seeds that year, both at full strength. So UK missing a player in 2003 (I am not even sure who) has nothing to do with who UK got to play in 2012.

 

[longtimefan]

I am not sure what you mean by that.

Somebody said that UK didnt have to play any 1 seed and that they all 1 seeds were with out a key member. It was refuted because UK was missing a player in 2003.

But cuse still had to play 2 1 seeds that year, both at full strength. So UK missing a player in 2003 (I am not even sure who) has nothing to do with who UK got to play in 2012.

Keith Bogans.

 

[armory]

The trophy says Kentucky. Thats all anyone will remember from this year. Does anyone remember how great Texas or Kansas was in 2003? No...they remember Carmelo cutting nets down.

It's really all about getting the monkey off the back. You can't claim elite legitimacy without at least one ring (and relatively recently). Otherwise every conversation until the end of time is dominated by its absence if you don't.

 

[Garbs]

I am not sure what you mean by that.

Somebody said that UK didnt have to play any 1 seed and that they all 1 seeds were with out a key member. It was refuted because UK was missing a player in 2003.

But cuse still had to play 2 1 seeds that year, both at full strength. So UK missing a player in 2003 (I am not even sure who) has nothing to do with who UK got to play in 2012.

the point was about one seeds missing a key player, not about having to play one seeds

 

[All4SU]

Having games fall your way during the tournament is the other part of it, as we seen in 2003.

How do you figure 2003 was the same? SU had to play TWO #1 seeds, and ONE #2 seed to win it all. SU ran the gauntlet.

 

[CusefanATL]

the point was about one seeds missing a key player, not about having to play one seeds

but the difference is that all 3 1 seed for UK were missing players (for 2, their most important players). Cuse caught that break with one 1 seed.

and hardly that, because iirc bogans played vs marquette

 

[otto123]

Gottlieb of all people said this morning on ESPN that UK won in part due to a watered down Final 4. Went on to say they didnt have to face the only 2 teams that could beat them. UNC with Marshall and Cuse with Melo.

Gottlieb must read this forum he stole my post

 

[PoppyHart]

Sounds like there's probably a way to determine that every championship in every sport is somehow not legitimate because of some extraneous force.

 

[otto123]

Sounds like there's probably a way to determine that every championship in every sport is somehow not legitimate because of some extraneous force.

When is the last time in any sport 3 of the top four teams were missing key players going into the playoffs?

 

[PoppyHart]

When is the last time in any sport 3 of the top four teams were missing key players going into the playoffs?

How do you know who the top 4 teams are until its over? Are you asking 3 of the top 4 "seeded" teams? Either way, seems rather arbitrary. And sounds like you narrow argument only contemplates situations where one of those 4 teams wins it all, when we clearly know that teams can improve to the point where they are playing the best of anyone at the end of the regular season but still not be seeded at or near the top.

 

[CorduroyG]

kentucky got an extremely favorable draw. their 2 seed gets bounced in the 1st round. they get a 4 seed in the final 4. and a 2 seed that wasnt playing that well in the tourny and was gift wrapped a win in 2nd round. if our road from elite 8 on was a 3 seed, 4 seed, and a 2 seed that needed multiple big time comebacks to get that far id love our chances to cut down nets.

reminds me of 2010 when cuse, kansas and kentucky were 3 best teams all year and duke somehow wins it all without playing any of them.

Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk

 

[CusefanATL]

kentucky got an extremely favorable draw. their 2 seed gets bounced in the 1st round. they get a 4 seed in the final 4. and a 2 seed that wasnt playing that well in the tourny and was gift wrapped a win in 2nd round. if our road from elite 8 on was a 3 seed, 4 seed, and a 2 seed that needed multiple big time comebacks to get that far id love our chances to cut down nets.

reminds me of 2010 when cuse, kansas and kentucky were 3 best teams all year and duke somehow wins it all without playing any of them.

Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk

or uconn last year.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Its always easy to say someone had an easy path after they win 6 in a row. Its hard to win 6 games in a row in March...thats all there is to it. Haven't we seen enough huge upsets to know this by now?

 

[otto123]

How do you know who the top 4 teams are until its over? Are you asking 3 of the top 4 "seeded" teams? Either way, seems rather arbitrary. And sounds like you narrow argument only contemplates situations where one of those 4 teams wins it all, when we clearly know that teams can improve to the point where they are playing the best of anyone at the end of the regular season but still not be seeded at or near the top.

You didn't answer my question because the answer is never. Those were the top 4 teams at the start of the playoffs, when has 3 of the top 4 been missing a key player in any sport? Never

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I remember back when we were recruting Lamb. It was said, that growing up in the Queens it was his dream to play for Syracuse. For some reason we weren't too keen on him. That kid has always been a nasty shooter/scorer. There were various reasons given by some here on the board. If any of you are reading this would you mind stepping forward and giving us your arguments (at that time) against Lamb?

Dion Waiters

 

[Jasonrob44]

How do you figure 2003 was the same? SU had to play TWO #1 seeds, and ONE #2 seed to win it all. SU ran the gauntlet.

Agreed, but, we also matched up well with those teams. Who would have you rather seen in the Final 4 that year? A UConn team that owned us that year, or a Texas team that we were seeing for the first time? Perfect example here...

 

[ORRange]

Gottlieb of all people said this morning on ESPN that UK won in part due to a watered down Final 4. Went on to say they didnt have to face the only 2 teams that could beat them. UNC with Marshall and Cuse with Melo.

I agree with that. But I firmly believe that excuses are for losers and will gladly give kudos to Kentucky on a very nice run.