The Official “Regular Posters of the Basketball Forum” Thread

#5,051
#5,051
gainesvol82 said:
The SEC was much more of a premier league through Grant's career than Ellis'.

Much more high level competition and better basketball. Better top to bottom coaching staffs and more distribution of talent. No doubt in my mind that Grant is the second best player UT has had and is the best winner we have ever had.

I'd take our 2018-2019 team over any other team in UT history and I don't think it's very close.
Click to expand...

yep.

I will say this IF Arkansas and Mizzu had been in the league the older was better wrong thinking would have been correct. Those two programs were legit at that time
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82
#5,052
#5,052
I'm an older guy and started following UT basketball at about 10 years old. I listened to the names Justice, England, Edwards, etc on the radio per John Ward. Was a freshman at UT when Ernie & Bernie played their last year together. Stokely was absolutely electric every game. The Devoe years were fun, but not as much fun as the King/Grunfeld era. Tony White, Dale Ellis, and a few others were terrific. Pearl turned the program up a couple of notches with his tenacity and that was fun, at least until the roof caved in. The Grant/Admiral two-year run was exciting and awesome. Winners on the court and off the court was special and made me proud to be a Vol.

I try to make comparisons between the different periods, but I've come to decide there is no way to compare different athletes playing in different time periods, at least for me. So, I just savor what I have seen and I'm thankful I got to experience all the stuff I've seen. Above all, hopefully I have learned to respect others even if I don't always agree with them. I'm glad to have the knowledge I've acquired as an older guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruinVol
#5,053
#5,053
Thunder Good-Oil said:
1983: 8 of the 10 SEC teams were 10-8, 9-9, or 8-10. When the entire league beats up on each other they don't get the NCAAT seeds that top heavy league leaders get by beating up on the cellar dwellers and padding their records.
Click to expand...

No idea what this has to do with anything unless you want to prove there was parity.
but Since you brought it up.

80-83 saw 25/40 teams finish 8-10 or better.

The last four years 40/56 teams finished 8-10 or better

so thanks for showing us the stats that show 62.5 % of the teams didn’t sucked during Ellis times while over 71% don’t sucked now

That’s some nice improvement over the years using your own measuring tools!
 
#5,054
#5,054
BruinVol said:
No idea what this has to do with anything unless you want to prove there was parity.
but Since you brought it up.

80-83 saw 25/40 teams finish 8-10 or better.

The last four years 40/56 teams finished 8-10 or better

so thanks for showing us the stats that show 62.5 % of the teams didn’t sucked during Ellis times while over 71% don’t sucked now

That’s some nice improvement over the years using your own measuring tools!
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't read the second sentence. You argued that the lack of high NCAAT seeds proves that the early 1980s SEC is inferior. But when the losses are equally distributed it reduces NCAAT invitations and high seeds.
 
#5,055
#5,055
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Maybe you didn't read the second sentence. You argued that the lack of high NCAAT seeds proves that the early 1980s SEC is inferior. But when the losses are equally distributed it reduces NCAAT invitations and high seeds.
Click to expand...

Yes when the Co SEC champs get a 6 and 8 seed that clearly means there weren’t any elite teams in the league that regular season.
End of story. The SEC was very mediocre that year
 
#5,056
#5,056
BruinVol said:
Yes when the Co SEC champs get a 6 and 8 seed that clearly means there weren’t any elite teams in the league that regular season.
End of story. The SEC was very mediocre that year
Click to expand...

That's a function of balance, not mediocrity. Less domination at the top simply reflects that the wins and losses are more equally distributed top to bottom instead of concentrated at the top and bottom. There were far fewer at-large NCAAT spots available in the early 1980s so balanced conferences were penalized relative to recent history. The Big 10 was going to have around 11 teams in the 2020 field.

Again, your "guess" was that the early 1980s SEC was far inferior to the last couple of years, not simply which was better.
 
#5,057
#5,057
Thunder Good-Oil said:
That's a function of balance, not mediocrity. Less domination at the top simply reflects that the wins and losses are more equally distributed top to bottom instead of concentrated at the top and bottom. There were far fewer at-large NCAAT spots available in the early 1980s so balanced conferences were penalized relative to recent history. The Big 10 was going to have around 11 teams in the 2020 field.

Again, your "guess" was that the early 1980s SEC was far inferior to the last couple of years, not simply which was better.
Click to expand...

just stop

A higher % of teams had that Magic 8-10 record the last 4 seasons than in your older but better days AND the SEC had higher seeds. That parity AND depth of the league didn’t stop Tenn from getting a 2 and 3 seed because the sec was better regarded nationally and that is clear


You really need to stop.
 
#5,058
#5,058
Rudy Macklin. Another great player from the early 1980s that was not previously listed.

Sam Bowie and Melvin Turpin, the original Twin Towers.
 
#5,059
#5,059
BruinVol said:
just stop

A higher % of teams had that Magic 8-10 record the last 4 seasons than in your older but better days AND the SEC had higher seeds. That parity AND depth of the league didn’t stop Tenn from getting a 2 and 3 seed because the sec was better regarded nationally and that is clear


You really need to stop.
Click to expand...

You should have stopped long ago when your guess was shown to be nonsense. Take your "L" and sit down.
 
#5,060
#5,060
Thunder Good-Oil said:
. The Big 10 was going to have around 11 teams in the 2020 field.

.
Click to expand...

Glad you brought up another point to disapprove your Older is better thinking

The last bracket projection had the big 10 some how miraculously had a 3, 4,4 and 5 seed in the tourney. They survived the deep league with parity to have 4 teams with higher seeds than the mighty 83 SEC teams that had their Co champs get an embarrassing 6 and 8 seeds. Just no respect for that 83 SEC group I guess

Well other than our older is always better poster
 
#5,061
#5,061
cardvolfan said:
I'm an older guy and started following UT basketball at about 10 years old. I listened to the names Justice, England, Edwards, etc on the radio per John Ward. Was a freshman at UT when Ernie & Bernie played their last year together. Stokely was absolutely electric every game. The Devoe years were fun, but not as much fun as the King/Grunfeld era. Tony White, Dale Ellis, and a few others were terrific. Pearl turned the program up a couple of notches with his tenacity and that was fun, at least until the roof caved in. The Grant/Admiral two-year run was exciting and awesome. Winners on the court and off the court was special and made me proud to be a Vol.

I try to make comparisons between the different periods, but I've come to decide there is no way to compare different athletes playing in different time periods, at least for me. So, I just savor what I have seen and I'm thankful I got to experience all the stuff I've seen. Above all, hopefully I have learned to respect others even if I don't always agree with them. I'm glad to have the knowledge I've acquired as an older guy.
Click to expand...
Your level of reasonableness and maturity have no place on a message board where strangers show up to argue their opinions as facts!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan
#5,062
#5,062
BruinVol said:
Glad you brought up another point to disapprove your Older is better thinking

The last bracket projection had the big 10 some how miraculously had a 3, 4,4 and 5 seed in the tourney. They survived the deep league with parity to have 4 teams with higher seeds than the mighty 83 SEC teams that had their Co champs get an embarrassing 6 and 8 seeds. Just no respect for that 83 SEC group I guess

Well other than our older is always better poster
Click to expand...

How many false narratives and invalid points can you make in one argument?

The SEC did not have co-champs in 1983.

You cite a 6th seed and an 8th seed as (apparently) 1982 being a failed year for the SEC. It was actually a 6th and 9th seed while the SECT champion had a 4. Despite the unfavorable seeding, the SEC still managed to have 2 teams in the final AP top 15. A 6th seed indicates that the "experts" you're relying on to support your wrong assumption expected that team to be 21st-24th best, not top 15.

I've not once said that "older is always better", but if you check out the TBA rafters 3 of the 4 numbers hanging up there are from the 10 year period ended in 1983.

But let's just agree that you are trying to deflect from your original sad comment that you guess the early 1980s SEC is far inferior than the recent era. Go find BTO to carry on with your failed arguments. But I'd suggest that you learn to count to 6 first.
 
#5,064
#5,064
Thunder Good-Oil said:
How many false narratives and invalid points can you make in one argument?

The SEC did not have co-champs in 1983.

You cite a 6th seed and an 8th seed as (apparently) 1982 being a failed year for the SEC. It was actually a 6th and 9th seed while the SECT champion had a 4. Despite the unfavorable seeding, the SEC still managed to have 2 teams in the final AP top 15. A 6th seed indicates that the "experts" you're relying on to support your wrong assumption expected that team to be 21st-24th best, not top 15.

I've not once said that "older is always better", but if you check out the TBA rafters 3 of the 4 numbers hanging up there are from the 10 year period ended in 1983.

But let's just agree that you are trying to deflect from your original sad comment that you guess the early 1980s SEC is far inferior than the recent era. Go find BTO to carry on with your failed arguments. But I'd suggest that you learn to count to 6 first.
Click to expand...

Sorry wrong again
1982
Kentucky and Tennessee both had 13-5 records at the top of the SEC standings

Kentucky was a 6 seed and the vols a
9(even worse than the 8 I said lol )

Terrible respect for the Sec.
Just awful but at least you are holding the torch high old timer
 
#5,065
#5,065
IMHO, the argument of who was better, Ellis or GW, is yet to be determined. Dale Ellis had a very productive career in the NBA, and Grant Williams is less than one season into his career. Personally, I would be surprised if Grant performs as well as Dale in the long run. I just don’t see him carving out a career as a starter for the Celtics.
 
#5,066
#5,066
Rrcox1951 said:
IMHO, the argument of who was better, Ellis or GW, is yet to be determined. Dale Ellis had a very productive career in the NBA, and Grant Williams is less than one season into his career. Personally, I would be surprised if Grant performs as well as Dale in the long run. I just don’t see him carving out a career as a starter for the Celtics.
Click to expand...

I am the biggest Williams there is and there is very little chance he is as good as Ellis was in the NBA but that isn’t the discussion as I see it.

imo Williams did more for his team to win in a tougher SEC than Ellis for his in a weaker league with less success.
 
#5,070
#5,070
Reggie Johnson and that SEC Tourney Championship team made me fall in love with Tennessee Basketball, listening to the magic voice and story telling of John Ward helped. Then came Dale Ellis and soon followed by still my favorite Vol Balla, Tony White and I've been hooked ever since on Volunteer Basketball. Just saying
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top