CBS goes full logical fallacy and cherry picks

UKGrad24 · Mar 27, 2026

Most Mens titles since….1999

quit cut off a few months and leave Kentucky out of it!!

It is absolutely incredible and most people watching absolutely buy this crap. If it wasn’t so hilarious I’d be offended. I have never seen more “in this cherry picked timeframe” as I have this year. It’s on this board constantly it’s in the media, it’s everywhere. He’ll Mark is doing it. College needs to “matter” again because the need for intro to philosophy and logic courses is greatly needed.

hint - if you’re using any data and start with “since”, it’s invalid. For example “since” 2016 Duke has no national championships! UConn has TWO. UConn = better than Duke. They wouldn’t dare.

Black Sheep ITVI · Mar 27, 2026

Choosing to select a timeframe for a dataset isn’t a logical fallacy or invalid. Flat wrong. If someone uses a “since X” timeframe but specifically omits data within that dataset or hides context that could undermine the point, it becomes a misleading use of otherwise valid data. I’m no expert but am very familiar with that point you’re trying to make. I’m professionally trained for data analysis, but don’t have experience like JonathanW2. He could confirm what I’m saying. Wrong on this, Morg. I do agree with you though that I think logic needs to be brought back as a major scholastic focus.

And yes, the Duke slurping is nauseating by CBS/ESPN etc.

Edit: BTW I’ll add…datasets that cover a select timeframe are not intended to cover data outside that timeframe.

If I say “No Kentucky men’s basketball team has won the national championship in the last three years”, that is not a logical fallacy. You may argue it is insufficient data to draw an inference from, but small sample size alone does not equate to fallacy.

HERE’S A GOOD RESOURCE FOR REVIEWING THE CHERRY PICKING FALLACY THAT YOU’RE TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO:

Cherry-Picking Fallacy: Definition, Examples & How to Fix It

Cherry-picking uses selective data to prove a point. Learn to ask for full context and balanced evidence.

fallacyguide.com

SECHonk · Mar 27, 2026

UKGrad24 said:
Most Mens titles since….1999

quit cut off a few months and leave Kentucky out of it!!

It is absolutely incredible and most people watching absolutely buy this crap. If it wasn’t so hilarious I’d be offended. I have never seen more “in this cherry picked timeframe” as I have this year. It’s on this board constantly it’s in the media, it’s everywhere. He’ll Mark is doing it. College needs to “matter” again because the need for intro to philosophy and logic courses is greatly needed.

hint - if you’re using any data and start with “since”, it’s invalid. For example “since” 2016 Duke has no national championships! UConn has TWO. UConn = better than Duke. They wouldn’t dare.

Oh you're offended. You can't help yourself

Bichoto · Mar 27, 2026

UKGrad24 said:
Most Mens titles since….1999

quit cut off a few months and leave Kentucky out of it!!

It is absolutely incredible and most people watching absolutely buy this crap. If it wasn’t so hilarious I’d be offended. I have never seen more “in this cherry picked timeframe” as I have this year. It’s on this board constantly it’s in the media, it’s everywhere. He’ll Mark is doing it. College needs to “matter” again because the need for intro to philosophy and logic courses is greatly needed.

hint - if you’re using any data and start with “since”, it’s invalid. For example “since” 2016 Duke has no national championships! UConn has TWO. UConn = better than Duke. They wouldn’t dare.

It’s almost like we have made more progress than the last coach since 2020

UKGrad24 · Mar 27, 2026

Black Sheep ITVI said:
Choosing to select a timeframe for a dataset isn’t a logical fallacy or invalid. Flat wrong. If someone uses a “since X” timeframe but specifically omits data within that dataset or hides context that could undermine the point, it becomes a misleading use of otherwise valid data. I’m no expert but am very familiar with that point you’re trying to make. I’m professionally trained for data analysis, but don’t have experience like JonathanW2. He could confirm what I’m saying. Wrong on this, Morg. I do agree with you though that I think logic needs to be brought back as a major scholastic focus.

And yes, the Duke slurping is nauseating by CBS/ESPN etc.

Edit: BTW I’ll add…datasets that cover a select timeframe are not intended to cover data outside that timeframe.

If I say “No Kentucky men’s basketball team has won the national championship in the last three years”, that is not a logical fallacy. You may argue it is insufficient data to draw an inference from, but small sample size alone does not equate to fallacy.

HERE’S A GOOD RESOURCE FOR REVIEWING THE CHERRY PICKING FALLACY THAT YOU’RE TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO:

Cherry-Picking Fallacy: Definition, Examples & How to Fix It

Cherry-picking uses selective data to prove a point. Learn to ask for full context and balanced evidence.

fallacyguide.com

Cherry picking is absolutely a logical fallacy in these cases. “Since X” with the implication that a team is better than another without the full complete picture is not how you determine who the best teams are historically. “Since 1999” is not a real position, what is special about 1999? Nothing. So it’s being used to determine a conclusion without complete evidence. When CBS puts a headline up “since 1999” it is irrelevant. That’s not when the games began and 1999 holds no significance. Go back a few months and wow Kentucky adds 2 titles. But that’s not what they wanted they wanted to hand pick a conclusion. You determined that by logical fallacy. 1999 has no meaning it is used to brainwash fans. There isn’t any reason to use that year other than to sway opinions and make certain teams appear better then they are

Also the idea that “basketball became relevant in year ****” is void of complete data. Again we’re determining who the best programs are, that is the implication regardless if it’s said. Take 1955 for example, all teams competed at the same rate, if it was so easy everyone would have been winning. Guess what? They weren’t. You had great teams and great coaches of their time. In the year 2100 today’s games were watching are relevant. Recency bias, is cognitive bias.

If you want to say since X this team has performed the best in that time frame? You can do that if you’re not implying anything more than that. But that’s not what they’re doing. In the past 3 years Tennessee has been better than Kentucky so they have a superior program! Logical fallacy. And don’t say that’s not the point yes when people pick cherry pick dates they are doing so to try and solidify their own bias and so they intentionally leave out data.

JohnRambo82 · Mar 27, 2026

Black Sheep ITVI · Mar 28, 2026

UKGrad24 said:
Cherry picking is absolutely a logical fallacy in these cases. “Since X” with the implication that a team is better than another without the full complete picture is not how you determine who the best teams are historically. “Since 1999” is not a real position, what is special about 1999? Nothing. So it’s being used to determine a conclusion without complete evidence. When CBS puts a headline up “since 1999” it is irrelevant. That’s not when the games began and 1999 holds no significance. Go back a few months and wow Kentucky adds 2 titles. But that’s not what they wanted they wanted to hand pick a conclusion. You determined that by logical fallacy. 1999 has no meaning it is used to brainwash fans. There isn’t any reason to use that year other than to sway opinions and make certain teams appear better then they are

Also the idea that “basketball became relevant in year ****” is void of complete data. Again we’re determining who the best programs are, that is the implication regardless if it’s said. Take 1955 for example, all teams competed at the same rate, if it was so easy everyone would have been winning. Guess what? They weren’t. You had great teams and great coaches of their time. In the year 2100 today’s games were watching are relevant. Recency bias, is cognitive bias.

If you want to say since X this team has performed the best in that time frame? You can do that if you’re not implying anything more than that. But that’s not what they’re doing. In the past 3 years Tennessee has been better than Kentucky so they have a superior program! Logical fallacy. And don’t say that’s not the point yes when people pick cherry pick dates they are doing so to try and solidify their own bias and so they intentionally leave out data.

A ‘since X’ statistic is valid as long as it’s clearly defined. It only becomes misleading if it’s used to imply something beyond that timeframe. You’re assuming the date was chosen to mislead, but you haven’t shown evidence of that. Without that, it’s not a logical fallacy—it’s just a stat you don’t like.

BoneToPick · Mar 28, 2026

I have always thought it interesting when people want to dismiss national championships from the 40s and 50s, when the players were actually student athletes.

CBS goes full logical fallacy and cherry picks

UKGrad24

All-American

Black Sheep ITVI

Junior

Cherry-Picking Fallacy: Definition, Examples & How to Fix It

SECHonk

Junior

Bichoto

Junior

UKGrad24

All-American

Cherry-Picking Fallacy: Definition, Examples & How to Fix It

JohnRambo82

Senior

Black Sheep ITVI

Junior

BoneToPick

All-Conference