Better all time BB program?

[JasonS]

Just to play devil's advocate:

What about NIT championships back when the NIT was the premier tournament? Do those count?

Should championships in a day and age where there was no 3 point line, no shot clock, much fewer teams, ineligible teams, a rival tournament, and freshman not playing count the same as a championship today?

I don't know, after watching this year's tournament and the lack of any offense whatsoever (UK aside), maybe this year's tournament shouldn't count.

 

[User Name:]

I don't know, after watching this year's tournament and the lack of any offense whatsoever (UK aside), maybe this year's tournament shouldn't count.

Haha. Yeah this tournament has been pretty awful minus UK.

Best game of the tourney was probably that UK/IU game. Has there even been any buzzer beaters?

 

[Eternal E]

Haha. Yeah this tournament has been pretty awful minus UK.

Best game of the tourney was probably that UK/IU game. Has there even been any buzzer beaters?

Louisville-Florida, Wisconsin-Syracuse and Cincinnati-Florida State were the 3 best games. Each had a Big East team, so you see where the dominant conference resides.

 

[waterhead]

Just to play devil's advocate:

What about NIT championships back when the NIT was the premier tournament? Do those count?

Should championships in a day and age where there was no 3 point line, no shot clock, much fewer teams, ineligible teams, a rival tournament, and freshman not playing count the same as a championship today?

The Helms Foundation divied up national champs independently from 1901 to 1980's. Since the NCAA tourney was started they only had 4 differences. 1940, 1941, 1944, 1954. I think many people refer to 1939 on the "modern era" so that is what I used. It's somewhat arbitrary I agree.

One can certainly argue that back then it would have been easier to win because there were less teams in each tourney and the talent was split between tourneys.

However, even if we do this the relative rank between OSU and UC doesn't change much. OSU and UC's national championships came in the early 60's and the majority of their FF's were early 60's and before. Since then OSU has us 4-1 on FF's. Neither team had a Helms national championship award prior to their NCAA national titles. I would say the extra NC for UC makes up for 3 more recent FF's from OSU.

 

[User Name:]

The Helms Foundation divied up national champs independently from 1901 to 1980's. Since the NCAA tourney was started they only had 4 differences. 1940, 1941, 1944, 1954. I think many people refer to 1939 on the "modern era" so that is what I used. It's somewhat arbitrary I agree.

One can certainly argue that back then it would have been easier to win because there were less teams in each tourney and the talent was split between tourneys.

However, even if we do this the relative rank between OSU and UC doesn't change much. OSU and UC's national championships came in the early 60's and the majority of their FF's were early 60's and before. Since then OSU has us 4-1 on FF's. Neither team had a Helms national championship award prior to their NCAA national titles. I would say the extra NC for UC makes up for 3 more recent FF's from OSU.

Great points all around.

Unfortunately there is no clear cut criteria despite what Ralph says to decide who's program is 'better'. Its like arguing who was better in his prime - Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali. Or whos the better RB - Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith, Jim Brown, etc. Or who a better president was. Or who's a better actor.

Its like all this polling being done around certain issues. Whoever comes up with the criteria/polling questions, can set up the results they want

 

[waterhead]

Great points all around.

Unfortunately there is no clear cut criteria despite what Ralph says to decide who's program is 'better'. Its like arguing who was better in his prime - Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali. Or whos the better RB - Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith, Jim Brown, etc. Or who a better president was. Or who's a better actor.

Its like all this polling being done around certain issues. Whoever comes up with the criteria/polling questions, can set up the results they want

I agree it is difficult...unless you are a fan of one or the other My main point is that there is plenty of ammo for UC fans to use when confronted with the "out of touch" idea that OSU is/has been/or ever was UC's big brother (in BB). The footing is relatively equal. To be sure...there are shorter time spans when one could argue that either program was bigger/better than the other...but over the long haul...I just don't see any domination from one to the next.

 

[ralph1950]

That was 50 years ago Mick. What has UC done against OSU since then? It is a "what have you done lately world" and you are just a bit out of touch.

Well since as you say it is a what have you done lately world then UC has a superior football program to Ohio State. 2011 final rankings UC football #24 Ohio State "not ranked".

 

[handwaver]

I don't know, after watching this year's tournament and the lack of any offense whatsoever (UK aside), maybe this year's tournament shouldn't count.

Didn't see any lack of offense with NC vs. Ks. - Hell, it was47-47 at the half...that's as many points as Louisville/Cincy in the entire BE final