Are we really a top 5 team this year?

Where should we be ranked in preseason?

  • Top 5

    Votes: 88 30.1%
  • 5-10

    Votes: 117 40.1%
  • 10-15

    Votes: 71 24.3%
  • Top 25

    Votes: 16 5.5%

  • Total voters
    292
#78

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
8,853
Likes
5,443
#78
College basketball history didn't begin when Dickey hired Wade Houston.
You keep moving the goalposts here. When I say that Texas is more accomplished than Tennessee, you say "well the SWC was bad and they only allowed one team per conference in, and we were in the SEC with Kentucky and that's why we didn't make it." When I say that Texas is still more accomplished than Tennessee in the Big 12/expanded tournament era, you say "CBB history didn't start in the early 90s."

I think you are too quick to discount what Texas did in the pre-Big 12 era, but even in the modern era when the two teams can be more effectively compared, Texas has accomplished more than Tennessee has. Not by some huge margin or anything like that, but they have achieved some more things than we have.
 
#80

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
18,493
Likes
9,314
#80
You keep moving the goalposts here. When I say that Texas is more accomplished than Tennessee, you say "well the SWC was bad and they only allowed one team per conference in, and we were in the SEC with Kentucky and that's why we didn't make it." When I say that Texas is still more accomplished than Tennessee in the Big 12/expanded tournament era, you say "CBB history didn't start in the early 90s."

I think you are too quick to discount what Texas did in the pre-Big 12 era, but even in the modern era when the two teams can be more effectively compared, Texas has accomplished more than Tennessee has. Not by some huge margin or anything like that, but they have achieved some more things than we have.
This was my first thought.

He is seemingly ignoring every aspect of the discussion that paints Texas in a more positive light than Tennessee, and instead is choosing to cherrypick stats that support the opposing theory (# of All-Americans for example).

Texas is historically recognized as more of a prestigious program than Tennessee by almost everyone, universally. Both programs have a rich tradition of individually talented players, but for many reasons, Texas has been more successful as a program.
 
#83
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
23,546
Likes
12,498
#83
You keep moving the goalposts here. When I say that Texas is more accomplished than Tennessee, you say "well the SWC was bad and they only allowed one team per conference in, and we were in the SEC with Kentucky and that's why we didn't make it." When I say that Texas is still more accomplished than Tennessee in the Big 12/expanded tournament era, you say "CBB history didn't start in the early 90s."

I think you are too quick to discount what Texas did in the pre-Big 12 era, but even in the modern era when the two teams can be more effectively compared, Texas has accomplished more than Tennessee has. Not by some huge margin or anything like that, but they have achieved some more things than we have.
No goal posts moved by me. I said that Texas isn't under a microscope any more so than Tennessee is. I also said that TN's BB history isn't less than Texas's. But you put something in quotes and incorrectly state that they're my words. I've cited many facts to support my comments. YOU are the one moving the goal posts.
 
#84
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
53,306
Likes
21,057
#84
No goal posts moved by me. I said that Texas isn't under a microscope any more so than Tennessee is. I also said that TN's BB history isn't less than Texas's. But you put something in quotes and incorrectly state that they're my words. I've cited many facts to support my comments. YOU are the one moving the goal posts.
And you are wrong, and then moved the goalposts to try to make yourself right by cherry picking parts that favor UT and ignoring all the rest that doesn't.
 
#85
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
23,546
Likes
12,498
#85
And you are wrong, and then moved the goalposts to try to make yourself right by cherry picking parts that favor UT and ignoring all the rest that doesn't.
That's not moving the goalposts. It's posting facts to support a comment. It's cherry picking to use ONLY NCAAT records while ignoring the related criteria and history. As my posts indicate, I'm not using the NCAAT as the only measure of program history comparison. The goalposts were moved by someone else by suggesting that ONLY recent NCAAT results should be considered when evaluating program history. Head-to-head. Wins versus the winningest program in college basketball history. All-Americans. Conference competitiveness. Those are valid criteria as well as the most recent results in the NCAAT.
 
#86
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
53,306
Likes
21,057
#86
That's not moving the goalposts. It's posting facts to support a comment. It's cherry picking to use ONLY NCAAT records while ignoring the related criteria and history. As my posts indicate, I'm not using the NCAAT as the only measure of program history comparison. The goalposts were moved by someone else by suggesting that ONLY recent NCAAT results should be considered when evaluating program history. Head-to-head. Wins versus the winningest program in college basketball history. All-Americans. Conference competitiveness. Those are valid criteria as well as the most recent results in the NCAAT.
Um “ONLY recent NCAAT results” wasn’t the only thing considered; older NCAAT results were presented and you dismissed that too.
 
#87
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
23,546
Likes
12,498
#87
Um “ONLY recent NCAAT results” wasn’t the only thing considered; older NCAAT results were presented and you dismissed that too.
Um... ONLY recent NCAAT results was one of the two criteria cited as proof of Texas's superiority in earlier arguments that I didn't agree with. ALL of the NCAAT results was a different argument that I disagreed with. I posted why each alone aren't valid for the comparison. I'll revisit for you.

The last 25 years doesn't represent "all of history". Pretty simple.

All NCAAT results include the time frame when the NCAAT was a less prestigious tournament, it had a very small field, and grabbing the one conference bid in the SWC was far easier than getting the single bid in the SEC.

The latter is when the winningest program in college basketball was getting most of the exclusive, one team conference bids. The former (the most recent 25 years) includes Texas's best era and much of TN's worst.

I offered additional criteria (H2H, AAs, etc) to evaluate which program has the better history. Cherry picking, which you are doing, is selecting some criteria while discounting other criteria to proclaim which is the historically superior program.

It's not that difficult.
 
#88

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
8,853
Likes
5,443
#88
Um... ONLY recent NCAAT results was one of the two criteria cited as proof of Texas's superiority in earlier arguments that I didn't agree with. ALL of the NCAAT results was a different argument that I disagreed with. I posted why each alone aren't valid for the comparison. I'll revisit for you.

The last 25 years doesn't represent "all of history". Pretty simple.

All NCAAT results include the time frame when the NCAAT was a less prestigious tournament, it had a very small field, and grabbing the one conference bid in the SWC was far easier than getting the single bid in the SEC.

The latter is when the winningest program in college basketball was getting most of the exclusive, one team conference bids. The former (the most recent 25 years) includes Texas's best era and much of TN's worst.

I offered additional criteria (H2H, AAs, etc) to evaluate which program has the better history. Cherry picking, which you are doing, is selecting some criteria while discounting other criteria to proclaim which is the historically superior program.

It's not that difficult.
Posted facts over the entire life of both programs: "Misleading - SWC wasn't good, only one team per conference allowed, and we were in the SEC with Kentucky"
Posted facts from just the Big 12/expanded tournament era forward: "Irrelevant - our basketball history didn't start then"

That is a tautology and the definition of moving the goalposts. I presented evidence in response to your claim, which you dismissed and asked for a different set of evidence. When I played along and provided that set of evidence too, you dismissed it and reverted back to your previous claim. You have structured your argument in a way where no set of evidence is good enough for you. I am cherry picking nothing; I am posting the same set of facts from both eras. You can't say that the full historical period is irrelevant, but then when the more recent and relevant era is discussed, revert back and say "well you're cherry picking and not looking at the full history." In both eras, both the one you say is irrelevant and the one that is more relevant, Texas appears to be the more accomplished program.

Whether or not Texas is under a bigger microscope than Tennessee is subjective. I happen to think they are because factually they are the somewhat more accomplished program historically, either from the beginning of their program or in the modern era.
 
#89

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
18,493
Likes
9,314
#89
Um... ONLY recent NCAAT results was one of the two criteria cited as proof of Texas's superiority in earlier arguments that I didn't agree with. ALL of the NCAAT results was a different argument that I disagreed with. I posted why each alone aren't valid for the comparison. I'll revisit for you.

The last 25 years doesn't represent "all of history". Pretty simple.

All NCAAT results include the time frame when the NCAAT was a less prestigious tournament, it had a very small field, and grabbing the one conference bid in the SWC was far easier than getting the single bid in the SEC.

The latter is when the winningest program in college basketball was getting most of the exclusive, one team conference bids. The former (the most recent 25 years) includes Texas's best era and much of TN's worst.

I offered additional criteria (H2H, AAs, etc) to evaluate which program has the better history. Cherry picking, which you are doing, is selecting some criteria while discounting other criteria to proclaim which is the historically superior program.

It's not that difficult.
So, to review, conference championships are irrelevant, earlier NCAAT results are irrelevant, and recent NCAAT results are irrelevant...all in a sport whose champion is decided in the NCAAT?

And the most relevant markers are H2H matchups and # of All-Americans when it comes to determining which program is more historically successsful/accomplished?

Is that your position?

Btw, I got news for you. The NCAAT has been more prestigious than the NIT for much more than 25 years. The decline of the NIT and the advancement of the NCAAT dates back to more like 45-50 years ago in the early to mid-70s.
 
#90
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
53,306
Likes
21,057
#90
Um... ONLY recent NCAAT results was one of the two criteria cited as proof of Texas's superiority in earlier arguments that I didn't agree with. ALL of the NCAAT results was a different argument that I disagreed with. I posted why each alone aren't valid for the comparison. I'll revisit for you.

The last 25 years doesn't represent "all of history". Pretty simple.

All NCAAT results include the time frame when the NCAAT was a less prestigious tournament, it had a very small field, and grabbing the one conference bid in the SWC was far easier than getting the single bid in the SEC.

The latter is when the winningest program in college basketball was getting most of the exclusive, one team conference bids. The former (the most recent 25 years) includes Texas's best era and much of TN's worst.

I offered additional criteria (H2H, AAs, etc) to evaluate which program has the better history. Cherry picking, which you are doing, is selecting some criteria while discounting other criteria to proclaim which is the historically superior program.

It's not that difficult.
Apparently it is for you, because in the convaluted world you've created H2H and beating Kentucky more than anyone is on the same level of criteria as the other criteria presented.

And even then, a 3-3 H2H record against Texas and 44 wins against UK really isn't that impressive; especially the UK part since we also have 96 losses for a whopping .314 winning percentage against them.

ROFL, and you have the nerve to accuse anyone else of cherry picking.
 
#92

VolFan..But

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
571
Likes
586
#92
National Titles in Basketball

Pac-12 Conference 15
Atlantic Coast Conference 14
Southeastern Conference 11
Big Ten Conference 10
Big East Conference 8


Southwest Conference/Big 8/Big 12 ??

Based on the current membership, the Big 12 has 5. They do not count the previous SW or Big 8.

Overall, those that are in love with ACC basketball, the SEC football conference isn't bad. 4 ACC schools have National Titles (not counting Louisville as they where not in the ACC when it happened). 3 SEC schools have a National Title.

Final Fours. 6 different SEC schools. KY, GA, LSU, SC, Ark, FL

ACC 6 (since Syracuse made it in 2016) MD, Duke, NC, NC State, Syr, VA

The great ACC really doesn't have that much more success then the ACC. But ESPN wants you to have that impression.
Missed Mississippi State. They also had a Final Four. So 7 SEC schools have been to the Final Four to 6 for the ACC.
 
#93
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
23,546
Likes
12,498
#93
LSU is more successful than Texas in the NCAAT. TN has more SEC championships than LSU.

And the SWC absolutely was a s****y basketball conference. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, SMU, Baylor, and Rice. Oh, my! Imagine TN in a conference of ETSU, MTSU, TN State, UT-C, Lipscomb, Vandy, and Memphis State for the majority of their history.

And TexasFanBoy05... arguments are relevant that the NCAAT was nothing like it is today 40+ years ago ("history") and beyond. TN's most recent "history" includes 15 or 20 years of their worst seasons in "history". Some of, if not most, of TN's best programs in "history" were concurrent with much if Kentucky's all-time greatest runs... when the post season fields were a fraction of what they are in the recent "history". Post season might be a fine way to measure today's success, but isn't nearly as valid the further back in "history" you look. So TN being #2 to Kentucky in the earlier part of "history" is more impressive than Texas dominating the Texas Intra-State Conference.
 
#94

therealitytheory

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
2,194
Likes
1,257
#94
Tennessee usually does bad with hype
Yep - true of various UT sports teams through the years.

But this is Rick Barnes' team and imo it just feels different. And we're due to be injury-free for a change. Knock wood.

This is probably one of the top 2 or 3 most hyped seasons in school history. That in itself is a major miracle, considering the dumpster fire we were just a few short years ago. I'm enjoying the hell out of it.
 
#96

hUTch2002

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
1,395
Likes
823
#96
I can be as big a homer as anyone. And, i'm not saying we won't be really good, but are we really a top 5 program? IMO 10-15 isn't out of the question. Even making a deep run into the elite 8 or final 4 isn't out of the question.

I just can't see us being sold as a top 5 team with all the elite programs out there. Guess it's just hard to wrap my head around us having a basketball team getting so much pre season respect. Not to mention, it'll give us something to look to should football season take a turn for the worse.
I think it depends on what you mean. Will we end the regular season ranked in the top 5? I don’t think so. Not with our schedule. I could see something around 23-8. However, I do believe we will be among the last 8 standing and quite possibly among the Final Four! For once we are the team no one wants to play in the conference. But the SEC is even better and the OOC schedule is tough again. We will be ready for March Madness! I can’t wait for the season!
 
#97

hUTch2002

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
1,395
Likes
823
#97
The Big 12 hasn't even been in existence for 25 years yet. Actually, from the Big 8 you can add Missouri and OK State as having a better basketball history than Texas. I was only thinking of Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma as better programs. The SWC was a horrible basketball conference. TN was #2 to KY, the winningest program in college basketball, for a long time before Dickey's neglect allowed them to slip. The NCAAT only took 1 team per conference until the mid 1970s. If KY was in the SWC then the rest of those schools may have never even been invited.

KY is the winningest team in college basketball. Which school has more wins than any other against them?

The SEC doesn't take a back seat to any conference not named the ACC.

I was using the attendance to confirm that Texas is not under more of a microscope than TN, not to say TN is more of a basketball school than Duke.
The SEC could very well be on par with the ACC this coming year. Historically that is not the case of course.
 
#98

hUTch2002

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
1,395
Likes
823
#98
Ok then...

Tournament appearances
Texas - 34 (first in 1939)
Tennessee - 21 (first in 1967)

Sweet 16s
Texas - 10
Tennessee - 7

Elite 8s
Texas - 7
Tennessee - 1

Final Fours
Texas - 3
Tennessee - none

Conference regular season titles
Texas - 25
Tennessee - 10

Neither Texas or Tennessee is a particularly accomplished basketball program - both are clearly football schools, but Texas does have more basketball history than Tennessee does. We've had some recent success in basketball, generally expectations have risen since Pearl, and we are a football school who currently sucks at football, so I think there is a tendency to think that our basketball program is better historically than what it actually is.
Hard to argue with those numbers. Also, for many years the men’s team took a backseat to the Lady Vols. Of course TN does have some good history but there are more years of irrelevance than there are of success. Based on UT history they have been on a pretty good run the last 20 years since Jerry Green took over and even at that they’ve only made the tournament 12 of those 20 years. We are here to stay a while now!
 
#99

hUTch2002

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
1,395
Likes
823
#99
Do you remember the debates about 2 years ago when I was drinking the Rick Barnes Kool-Aid?
You wouldn’t have gotten any argument from me. I knew we would be a tournament team last year based on how we played the prior year. I didn’t think we would be as good as we were though. I thought like a 8/9 seed at best. We play hard, play smart, and have good fundamentals. Do you remember watching the crap show that was Buzz Ball? I’ve never seen anything like it. Our opponents got to the rim anytime they wanted and we couldn’t penetrate inside the free throw line. Average shot distance isn’t a stat you ever see but when your opponent is shooting everything within 10 feet and you are shooting everything outside 15, especially late in the shot clock, your odds of winning are not good. Thank goodness for Coach Barnes!
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
53,306
Likes
21,057
Hard to argue with those numbers. Also, for many years the men’s team took a backseat to the Lady Vols. Of course TN does have some good history but there are more years of irrelevance than there are of success. Based on UT history they have been on a pretty good run the last 20 years since Jerry Green took over and even at that they’ve only made the tournament 12 of those 20 years. We are here to stay a while now!
For on court success and national pub, sure, but not in terms of attendance, TV ratings, and money made. Other than one year in the Buzz years, the men have always done better in those areas. For as spotty as the men's history has been, they've still been pretty popular considering.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top