Warrior General Games

Originally posted by aariafromarty
What Kansas? Not even in the top 5 of most historic programs. Dean Smith gave UNC Roy Williams more so than anything he did out west.

UCLA
UK
UNC
Indiana
Duke

all > Kansas

42 years at UK overshadows Rupp's time as a player at Kansas.

Not top five of most historic? Are you kidding me? I can understand if maybe you had a case against number one, but not top five?

KU is number three in wins and winning percentage, only trailing two teams whose best coaches learned to coach at KU (North Carolina and Duke). KU has 52 regular season conference titles (first) in 102 seasons of playing in a conference. KU has reached the final four under six separate head coaches (more than anyone), and has played in a Final Four at least once every decade since 1940. They won titles in the 1920s, 1950s, 1980s and 2000s.

KU is first in consensus first-team All Americans, and first in All-American awards (some players were named twice). As I said, they're also first in conference championships. KU is in the top three in wins, winning percentage and national championships, and is fourth in title game appearances, NCAA tournament bids and Final Fours. They're fifth in tournament wins, tournament winning percentage and NCAA titles (two of KU's titles were Helms titles).

So, to recap, what do you need for historic programs?

Is it innovation? (KU boasts the Father of Basketball in Naismith and the Father of Basketball Coaching in Allen along with a dominant player who changed the rules of the game in Chamberlain)

Is it a prolonged period of success? (obvious check)

Is it a coaching tree? (Allen is obviously an HOF'er, and so are five coaches that he taught to coach. BTW, the six coaches in the Hall of Fame is more than any other school)

Is it the players? (again, Chamberlain and more consensus AAs than any other school)

Is it the titles? (top five in either total titles or NCAA titles)

What is your factor here? Because I'm pretty sure you just vomited out something without realizing how wrong you are. KU is pretty much in the top five in any meaningful category, and other top five schools that you might argue for, Kentucky and North Carolina, propped their programs up with coaches who learned the trade at KU. Shoot, Kentucky's new coach even served as a grad assistant at KU.

Not top five? I can't believe you actually had the nerve to say that. You must not follow much basketball.

Originally posted by flaredog
Originally posted by aariafromarty

What Kansas? Not even in the top 5 of most historic programs. Dean Smith gave UNC Roy Williams more so than anything he did out west.

UCLA
UK
UNC
Indiana
Duke

all > Kansas

42 years at UK overshadows Rupp's time as a player at Kansas.

Not top five of most historic? Are you kidding me? I can understand if maybe you had a case against number one, but not top five?

KU is number three in wins and winning percentage, only trailing two teams whose best coaches learned to coach at KU (North Carolina and Duke). KU has 52 regular season conference titles (first) in 102 seasons of playing in a conference. KU has reached the final four under six separate head coaches (more than anyone), and has played in a Final Four at least once every decade since 1940. They won titles in the 1920s, 1950s, 1980s and 2000s.

KU is first in consensus first-team All Americans, and first in All-American awards (some players were named twice). As I said, they're also first in conference championships. KU is in the top three in wins, winning percentage and national championships, and is fourth in title game appearances, NCAA tournament bids and Final Fours. They're fifth in tournament wins, tournament winning percentage and NCAA titles (two of KU's titles were Helms titles).

So, to recap, what do you need for historic programs?

Is it innovation? (KU boasts the Father of Basketball in Naismith and the Father of Basketball Coaching in Allen along with a dominant player who changed the rules of the game in Chamberlain)

Is it a prolonged period of success? (obvious check)

Is it a coaching tree? (Allen is obviously an HOF'er, and so are five coaches that he taught to coach. BTW, the six coaches in the Hall of Fame is more than any other school)

Is it the players? (again, Chamberlain and more consensus AAs than any other school)

Is it the titles? (top five in either total titles or NCAA titles)

What is your factor here? Because I'm pretty sure you just vomited out something without realizing how wrong you are. KU is pretty much in the top five in any meaningful category, and other top five schools that you might argue for, Kentucky and North Carolina, propped their programs up with coaches who learned the trade at KU. Shoot, Kentucky's new coach even served as a grad assistant at KU.

Not top five? I can't believe you actually had the nerve to say that. You must not follow much basketball.



This.

I love it when Flare gets loose on a fool.

Originally posted by aariafromarty
What Kansas? Not even in the top 5 of most historic programs. Dean Smith gave UNC Roy Williams more so than anything he did out west.

UCLA
UK
UNC
Indiana
Duke

all > Kansas

42 years at UK overshadows Rupp's time as a player at Kansas.

It's cool that they let retarded people play GLB too.

Originally posted by snoodmonger
Originally posted by aariafromarty

What Kansas? Not even in the top 5 of most historic programs. Dean Smith gave UNC Roy Williams more so than anything he did out west.

UCLA
UK
UNC
Indiana
Duke

all > Kansas

42 years at UK overshadows Rupp's time as a player at Kansas.

It's cool that they let retarded people play GLB too.

they don't want to discriminate although they could probably put all these guys in the same league where they all get trophies on their agent page for participating that would be nice.

Number of men's basketball Final Four appearances by program.
App. School
18 North Carolina, UCLA*
14 Duke
13 Kansas, Kentucky
10 Ohio State*
8 Indiana, Louisville

Top-ranked teams

Only six teams, since the beginning of the seeding process in 1979, have entered the tournament ranked #1 in at least 1 poll and gone on to win the tournament:

* 1982: North Carolina
* 1992: Duke
* 1995: UCLA
* 2000: Michigan State
* 2001: Duke
* 2007: Florida

Prior to the seeding system, teams like North Carolina (1957), UCLA (1967, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973), and Indiana (1976) were ranked #1 and won the championship.

Winners
For non-NCAA championships claimed by schools, see Mythical national championship and Helms Athletic Foundation.
School ↓ Titles ↓ Years ↓
Arizona 1 1997
Arkansas 1 1994
California 1 1959
Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
CCNY 1 1950
Connecticut 2 1999, 2004
Duke 3 1991, 1992, 2001
Florida 2 2006, 2007
Georgetown 1 1984
Holy Cross 1 1947
Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
Kentucky 7 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998
La Salle 1 1954
Louisville 2 1980, 1986
Loyola (Chicago) 1 1963
Marquette 1 1977
Maryland 1 2002
Michigan 1 1989
Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
Ohio State 1 1960
Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
Oregon 1 1939
San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
Stanford 1 1942
Syracuse 1 2003
UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
UNLV 1 1990
UTEP (Texas Western) 1 1966
Utah 1 1944
Villanova 1 1985
Wisconsin 1 1941
Wyoming 1 1943

Kansas has 3 national championships and fewer final four appearances. When you start playing with the big boys you can claim a spot. So fifth in titles is wrong. 3 titles puts them behind ULCA, UNC, UK, Indiana and tied with Duke. With Duke having the edge on Final Four appearances.

OMG A retard made you look stupid!

Originally posted by letan24
Gators are the best at everything.

I like this style of arguing. Your facts bore me.

Thanks for the support. I have doubts about E'ci's chances of winning this game.

Gunston on paper is formidable beyond anything Africa AAA has to offer.

They have so many GMs, PMs are out of the question. Best of luck, Drunks, in the Flamevault.

Dude. Fifth in titles is correct. It's tied for fifth, which is still fifth. I wasn't the one who called you a retard, but I don't understand how a functioning human being can't understand that. When you add in the Helms titles, KU has more than Duke, which wasn't really relevant until much later (and remember that we're arguing for "historic").

Duke didn't win its first title until 1991, and only made the freaking NCAA tournament once before 1960. Duke also only has 21 conference titles, compared to KU's 52 and has fewer all-time wins. Duke has had a nice run, but nobody can honestly argue that it's as historic as Kansas, at least not with a straight face.

UCLA had a fantastic run, winning 10 of its 11 titles between 1964 and 1975. But the Bruins also don't have the extended history that KU has. To be fair, they started playing a little late (though remember, we're talking historic here), but in the 30 years they played prior to John Wooden, UCLA was almost completely irrelevant. They didn't make the tournament and had a record of 287-283 (even worse when you look at the 125-164). They lack KU's prolonged excellence, overall win number, winning percentage and conference titles.

Kentucky and North Carolina are more of a match, but of course, like I said, a HUGE portion of both teams' successes are owed to coaches whose history traces back to Kansas. Both Smith and Rupp are in the top five in wins, and both learned how to coach from (and constantly credited) Phog Allen. Kentucky was a mediocre program until Rupp came along, and Smith was UNC's most successful coach.

Indiana has fewer final fours, fewer wins, a worse winning percentage, the same number of overall titles, fewer conference titles and only made the tournament four times before 1967.

None have the long history that KU has, and KU has also been relevant recently, winning two titles in the last 21 years, and winning more games in the last two decades than any team. In its history, KU only had one coach with a losing record, and that was Naismith (who believed that you couldn't coach basketball, and was proven wrong by Allen).

But, since you cited wikipedia earlier, what about looking at KU's page:

"Perhaps no program in the world has as many ties to the foundation and history of the sport as the University of Kansas. From Dr. James Naismith's early development, to Phog Allen's modernization of the game, to the team's enormous success in recent decades, Kansas basketball is interwoven to each step of the sport's identity."

Again, KU is in the top five of pretty much any category you throw out there. Not one or two. The Jayhawks have also been relevant longer than pretty much every team you listed there, and boast both the father of basketball and the person who essentially created basketball coaching.

Some schools may have played basketball a little better than KU at times. But not one has been more historic.


Originally posted by aariafromarty
Number of men's basketball Final Four appearances by program.
App. School
18 North Carolina, UCLA*
14 Duke
13 Kansas, Kentucky
10 Ohio State*
8 Indiana, Louisville

Top-ranked teams

Only six teams, since the beginning of the seeding process in 1979, have entered the tournament ranked #1 in at least 1 poll and gone on to win the tournament:

* 1982: North Carolina
* 1992: Duke
* 1995: UCLA
* 2000: Michigan State
* 2001: Duke
* 2007: Florida

Prior to the seeding system, teams like North Carolina (1957), UCLA (1967, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973), and Indiana (1976) were ranked #1 and won the championship.

Winners
For non-NCAA championships claimed by schools, see Mythical national championship and Helms Athletic Foundation.
School �� Titles �� Years ��
Arizona 1 1997
Arkansas 1 1994
California 1 1959
Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
CCNY 1 1950
Connecticut 2 1999, 2004
Duke 3 1991, 1992, 2001
Florida 2 2006, 2007
Georgetown 1 1984
Holy Cross 1 1947
Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
Kentucky 7 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998
La Salle 1 1954
Louisville 2 1980, 1986
Loyola (Chicago) 1 1963
Marquette 1 1977
Maryland 1 2002
Michigan 1 1989
Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
Ohio State 1 1960
Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
Oregon 1 1939
San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
Stanford 1 1942
Syracuse 1 2003
UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
UNLV 1 1990
UTEP (Texas Western) 1 1966
Utah 1 1944
Villanova 1 1985
Wisconsin 1 1941
Wyoming 1 1943

Kansas has 3 national championships and fewer final four appearances. When you start playing with the big boys you can claim a spot. So fifth in titles is wrong. 3 titles puts them behind ULCA, UNC, UK, Indiana and tied with Duke. With Duke having the edge on Final Four appearances.

OMG A retard made you look stupid!

ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK!!!

Originally posted by BillSaidSux
Originally posted by letan24

Gators are the best at everything.

I like this style of arguing. Your facts bore me.

Thank you. Seems easier to me than looking up all these facts that most people aren't going to bother reading anyways. Plus I presented no stats for you to even argue against me with. Flawless argument imo.

i believe the correct answer to this is Tusken IMO- greatest college basketball team ever...closely followed by UCONN of course

Originally posted by flaredog
Dude. Fifth in titles is correct. It's tied for fifth, which is still fifth. I wasn't the one who called you a retard, but I don't understand how a functioning human being can't understand that. When you add in the Helms titles, KU has more than Duke, which wasn't really relevant until much later (and remember that we're arguing for "historic").

Duke didn't win its first title until 1991, and only made the freaking NCAA tournament once before 1960. Duke also only has 21 conference titles, compared to KU's 52 and has fewer all-time wins. Duke has had a nice run, but nobody can honestly argue that it's as historic as Kansas, at least not with a straight face.

UCLA had a fantastic run, winning 10 of its 11 titles between 1964 and 1975. But the Bruins also don't have the extended history that KU has. To be fair, they started playing a little late (though remember, we're talking historic here), but in the 30 years they played prior to John Wooden, UCLA was almost completely irrelevant. They didn't make the tournament and had a record of 287-283 (even worse when you look at the 125-164). They lack KU's prolonged excellence, overall win number, winning percentage and conference titles.

Kentucky and North Carolina are more of a match, but of course, like I said, a HUGE portion of both teams' successes are owed to coaches whose history traces back to Kansas. Both Smith and Rupp are in the top five in wins, and both learned how to coach from (and constantly credited) Phog Allen. Kentucky was a mediocre program until Rupp came along, and Smith was UNC's most successful coach.

Indiana has fewer final fours, fewer wins, a worse winning percentage, the same number of overall titles, fewer conference titles and only made the tournament four times before 1967.

None have the long history that KU has, and KU has also been relevant recently, winning two titles in the last 21 years, and winning more games in the last two decades than any team. In its history, KU only had one coach with a losing record, and that was Naismith (who believed that you couldn't coach basketball, and was proven wrong by Allen).

But, since you cited wikipedia earlier, what about looking at KU's page:

"Perhaps no program in the world has as many ties to the foundation and history of the sport as the University of Kansas. From Dr. James Naismith's early development, to Phog Allen's modernization of the game, to the team's enormous success in recent decades, Kansas basketball is interwoven to each step of the sport's identity."

Again, KU is in the top five of pretty much any category you throw out there. Not one or two. The Jayhawks have also been relevant longer than pretty much every team you listed there, and boast both the father of basketball and the person who essentially created basketball coaching.

Some schools may have played basketball a little better than KU at times. But not one has been more historic.


Originally posted by aariafromarty

Number of men's basketball Final Four appearances by program.
App. School
18 North Carolina, UCLA*
14 Duke
13 Kansas, Kentucky
10 Ohio State*
8 Indiana, Louisville

Top-ranked teams

Only six teams, since the beginning of the seeding process in 1979, have entered the tournament ranked #1 in at least 1 poll and gone on to win the tournament:

* 1982: North Carolina
* 1992: Duke
* 1995: UCLA
* 2000: Michigan State
* 2001: Duke
* 2007: Florida

Prior to the seeding system, teams like North Carolina (1957), UCLA (1967, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973), and Indiana (1976) were ranked #1 and won the championship.

Winners
For non-NCAA championships claimed by schools, see Mythical national championship and Helms Athletic Foundation.
School �� Titles �� Years ��
Arizona 1 1997
Arkansas 1 1994
California 1 1959
Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
CCNY 1 1950
Connecticut 2 1999, 2004
Duke 3 1991, 1992, 2001
Florida 2 2006, 2007
Georgetown 1 1984
Holy Cross 1 1947
Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
Kentucky 7 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998
La Salle 1 1954
Louisville 2 1980, 1986
Loyola (Chicago) 1 1963
Marquette 1 1977
Maryland 1 2002
Michigan 1 1989
Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
Ohio State 1 1960
Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
Oregon 1 1939
San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
Stanford 1 1942
Syracuse 1 2003
UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
UNLV 1 1990
UTEP (Texas Western) 1 1966
Utah 1 1944
Villanova 1 1985
Wisconsin 1 1941
Wyoming 1 1943

Kansas has 3 national championships and fewer final four appearances. When you start playing with the big boys you can claim a spot. So fifth in titles is wrong. 3 titles puts them behind ULCA, UNC, UK, Indiana and tied with Duke. With Duke having the edge on Final Four appearances.

OMG A retard made you look stupid!


lol @ aariafromarty

Originally posted by PhnxFyr
i believe the correct answer to this is Tusken IMO- greatest college basketball team ever...closely followed by UCONN of course

That sounds like something Hitler would say.

Originally posted by Davidlando
ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK!!!


Good post IMO.

When you're wrong about KU basketball, your team loses by 72. Just sayin'. You should apologize to your teammates.