The Value of the first 4 titles

[BookofMormon]

In a debate with a Duke fan, and the message is that the value of the first 4 titles is close to zero at this point

Argument is that if they count, then we should be calling Yale a Blue Blood in college football since they have the most titles all time.

He brought up the fact that nameless schools were winning in hoops back then, like CCNY, Seattle and Wyoming. What do ya'all think?

 

[UKWildcats1987]

They count the same as the more modern ones. I mean 78 was 50 years ago. All things ahe over time. Its part of life.

 

[Ridinwithpope]

If you do that, you will have to take away the prestige of programs like Ohio state and Michigan in football. Count how many titles those teams have in 65 years. Yet, they are always thought of being great and two of the top programs in the history of football. I know it’s a different sport, but same rules apply.

 

[UKCowboys]

In a debate with a Duke fan, and the message is that the value of the first 4 titles is close to zero at this point

Argument is that if they count, then we should be calling Yale a Blue Blood in college football since they have the most titles all time.

He brought up the fact that nameless schools were winning in hoops back then, like CCNY, Seattle and Wyoming. What do ya'all think?

Simple. If you are talking about All Time programs, of course they count. Do UCLA's titles not count?
If you want to say "Modern Era" or "Last 40 years" that's fine too, but the only people who think the first four shouldn't count are teams that trail on the all time list...like Duke for example

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

In a debate with a Duke fan, and the message is that the value of the first 4 titles is close to zero at this point

Argument is that if they count, then we should be calling Yale a Blue Blood in college football since they have the most titles all time.

He brought up the fact that nameless schools were winning in hoops back then, like CCNY, Seattle and Wyoming. What do ya'all think?

What I think is that of course a Duke fan would think that.

 

[Im The Village Idiot]

Well that guy is wrong. Yale does not have the most titles of anyone.

In a debate with a Duke fan, and the message is that the value of the first 4 titles is close to zero at this point

Argument is that if they count, then we should be calling Yale a Blue Blood in college football since they have the most titles all time.

He brought up the fact that nameless schools were winning in hoops back then, like CCNY, Seattle and Wyoming. What do ya'all think?

The Duke fan is wrong. They must be double-counting seasons by counting Helms and Premo Poretta as separate titles in the same year. You’re arguing against someone who doesnt know history. If you count pre-NCAA tournament titles, Kentucky is ahead of everyone including UCLA. You’re wasting your time with someone like that.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

Is Notre Dame an elite college football program, routinely in the discussion for the sport’s Mt. Rushmore? They have zero titles in 38 years.

So yeah, program history is probably the single most significant factor in setting the hierarchy of greatness.

 

[RunninRichie]

If it was so easy to win back then, why didn’t Duke rack up a few?

 

[chroix]

**** Duke.

 

[Agent Redbone]

If Duke had won a few titles back then, the guy wouldn’t be making that argument.

 

[UKgrad22]

If it was so easy to win back then, why didn’t Duke rack up a few?

This exactly, if it was so easy to the point where these titles shouldn’t count, then why didn’t they win them? Reality of it is you have to respect the titles of the past, present, and future because all of them were hard to win in their own rights.

 

[BookofMormon]

Is Notre Dame an elite college football program, routinely in the discussion for the sport’s Mt. Rushmore? They have zero titles in 38 years.

So yeah, program history is probably the single most significant factor in setting the hierarchy of greatness.

Yeah yeah - have heard a lot of:

Is there even video footage?
Can most Kentucky fans name a player off the first title?
Must mean Oklahoma A&M is a Blue Blood.
Do titles during segregation count?
Were there nets or peach baskets then?

 

[Wunky]

LOL. At least our titles are post-WWII. Kansas and UNC both try to claim titles from the freaking 1920’s, when there wasn’t even a tournament. So spare me the dookie, dookie

 

[RunninRichie]

Yeah yeah - have heard a lot of:

Is there even video footage?
Can most Kentucky fans name a player off the first title?
Must mean Oklahoma A&M is a Blue Blood.
Do titles during segregation count?
Were there nets or peach baskets then?

Should Duke's Pre-NIL era titles count? There was no NIL or portal, so they could stack talent....it's a new "modern era".


See how stupid this is? When you're a UK fan, you gotta deal with this. UNC fans are famous for saying "since 2000". Uconn fans love saying "last 25 years". They can't compete across all eras with UK. UK has 8 titles, with 5 coaches, in 5 different decades. The next closest is UNC, with 6 titles, 3 coaches in 5 decades. That's why UK is the GOAT.

 

[BookofMormon]

Should Duke's Pre-NIL era titles count? There was no NIL or portal, so they could stack talent....it's a new "modern era".


See how stupid this is? When you're a UK fan, you gotta deal with this. UNC fans are famous for saying "since 2000". Uconn fans love saying "last 25 years". They can't compete across all eras with UK. UK has 8 titles, with 5 coaches, in 5 different decades. The next closest is UNC, with 6 titles, 3 coaches in 5 decades. That's why UK is the GOAT.

All true - on this side, you get a lot of "half your titles" were before electricity was invented, you have 1 in the last 30 years.

Meanwhile, they are in their largest gap ever. Will be interesting to see if Duke, UNC, UK go titleless this decade. UNC has one won each of the last 4 decades, Duke the last 3. UConn currently has one per decade for 4 decades. Kansas has taken a couple off.

 

[RunninRichie]

All true - on this side, you get a lot of "half your titles" were before electricity was invented, you have 1 in the last 30 years.

Meanwhile, they are in their largest gap ever. Will be interesting to see if Duke, UNC, UK go titleless this decade. UNC has one won each of the last 4 decades, Duke the last 3. UConn currently has one per decade for 4 decades. Kansas has taken a couple off.

Last 30 years, would be 3 titles. 1996, 1998, 2012.

 

[BluWildcatz]

More fundamentally, they hate American history and tradition. "Arguing" with parrots is pointless.

 

[berniecarbo]

Duke has won one Helms title and no NIT titles. UNC has one Helms and their NIT was after the NIT was no longer a top tournament. UK with Cowboy Edwards (national POY) won a Helms in 1934. They won another in 1954. They won a NIT in 1946 when they chose it over the NCAA. If we add those, we actually increase our lead. History does matter.

 

[0r1c]

In a debate with a Duke fan, and the message is that the value of the first 4 titles is close to zero at this point

Argument is that if they count, then we should be calling Yale a Blue Blood in college football since they have the most titles all time.

He brought up the fact that nameless schools were winning in hoops back then, like CCNY, Seattle and Wyoming. What do ya'all think?

There are 100 arguments you could make and win, but the most important one is...

"You are a Duke fan, you live in denial about other teams accomplishments, just to make yourself feel better. That's basic psychology of a low IQ person. Discredit objective reality because it doesn't support your fragile world view and bias. And, you are a nobody so it don't matter what you think."