ESPN: Kentucky #1 All Time

by btcoop71 on Oct 5, 2009 1:18 PM EDT Comment 28 comments

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

Jeff Sagrin and ESPN teamed up to rate each Division I program. Feel free to question the math.

I have to agree with UK being #1 (yeah I know, duh)...although I'd have UNC higher than 4, just my opinion. And Illinois over Duke? That one actually made me happy.

Then you have the haters. Pat Forde will not take it sitting down:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4531910

Update: Andy Katz's take: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=4532209

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Pat Forde must not be done

performing his birds-eye view Pitino colonoscopy yet……

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Oct 5, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm

not sure how colonoscopy and “birds-eye view” could possible go together. But then, maybe I don’t want to know… :)

by Gobe Igbloo on Oct 5, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as coop would say

+1…..lol

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Oct 5, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Sypher was the one with the bird's eye view south of Pitino's Mason Dixon line...

zing…..

First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...

by btcoop71 on Oct 5, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think she gets the front side and Forde gets the back.....

its a Tag-Team thing…….oh wait….did I say that???……must’ve been someone else….lol

Remember, we're having fun now!!!

by ALLBLUCAT on Oct 5, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ABC,

perhaps you intended to spell that coloNOSEcopy. Just sayin . . .

No moral victories--it's all about Ws and Ls!!!

by oldcat'69 on Oct 5, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forde's logic (?)

Sagarin ranks the based on performance “all time.”
Forde argues the “all time” great ranking should not take into consideration how great teams were “all time” but only more recently.

With logic like that, wouldn’t it be an insult to your brain to read (Forde’s case) any farther?

by Gobe Igbloo on Oct 5, 2009 2:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It is very common for people to define the greatness of an athletic program by the quantity of championships or other markers of top achievement. And by this metric, Kentucky is always near or at the top on all-time lists.
However, Sagarin’s method surely accounts also for medium vs. poor performance. By the latter method, for example, a student who makes grades of B, B, B, is better than the student who brings home C, A, F. Even though one student can say, “I have more A’s than you!”
Kentucky, of course, is consistently B-grade or above, and usually is A-grade.

by Gobe Igbloo on Oct 5, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two Thoughts

One, obviously Forde has little respect for history or the truly great past accomplishments. In his defense, the trait is a common – and, yes, historical – human foible.

Two, the project demonstrates the pure folly of attempting to judge any thing, any entity, as the greatest ever. An example would be undertaking to assess the greatest nation ever. Parochialism would suggest 20th century USA but good arguments can be made for Rome under the Caesars, Greece under Alexander, perhaps the Mongols under the Khans, or dynastic China. In all cases I would suggest that judgment must be made relative to the competition.

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
—Thomas Jefferson

by Wild Weasel on Oct 5, 2009 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

RE: Forde's column

Is UNC really just 4 wins behind us? I thought for sure they were closer to 10 games back.

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Oct 5, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Uh, yes,

unfortunately, it really is just 4 wins that separate us and UNC. We are currently at 1988 and they sit at 1984. Although, when you take into account their 30+ win seasons as of late, and our, well, not even close to reaching 30+ win seasons, it really isn’t all that surprising to discover that they have closed the gap considerably. Oye

by BigSkyCat on Oct 5, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

on the plus side

we should definitely break 2,000 before them. that’s an amazing feat—first team to 2,000 wins—that won’t be diminished if UNC does somehow manage to overtake us (and I don’t think they will).

by chstrckwl on Oct 5, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh,

and sorry for the redundancy on listing the # of wins. I actually made my post before I bothered to read Forde’s article (although, who can blame me for skipping Forde’s piece?). After reading the piece, I see that he clearly lists the number of wins for each team, (UNC and UK) so for me to list them again was overkill, wasn’t it? : )

by BigSkyCat on Oct 5, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN Got UCLA Wrong

The Bruins didn’t become NCAA school until early 1950’s.

Until Wooden arrived in 1949-50, the Bruins were NAIB (today’s NAIA) school and not eligible for NCAA tourney until 1950.

Ditto Louisville. Cards didn’t join NCAA until 1950 season. They were NAIB too.

by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 5, 2009 4:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not Happy With Rankings?

Do your own in Re-Rank Poll (UK #1 at time of posting).

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
—Thomas Jefferson

by Wild Weasel on Oct 5, 2009 4:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fan Polls Even Less Meritous Than ESPN List

ESPN failed to follow its own criteria.

by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 5, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pat Who???

Forde was suspended by the Courier while he worked here. The rumor was it had something to do with the UofL program but the point is he was suspended.

How many sports columists get suspended? He constantly harps on UK’s past trangressions so it makes you wonder if UK was somehow involved in his suspension.

The underlying point is…..who cares what Pat Forde thinks?

by UKlvrJM on Oct 5, 2009 8:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't...lol

by Bluehound on Oct 5, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As the story goes

He nailed a UL cheerleader…..seriously…..

First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...

by btcoop71 on Oct 6, 2009 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tell us bt

tell us more. I love gossip. I bet you got it all straight from the cheerleader.

by ParisGuy on Oct 7, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blah blah blah!

Pat Forde’s a tool. But we already knew that.

by chicagoblues on Oct 6, 2009 7:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Funny

how Forde bashes UK for its “rap sheet” but makes absolutely no mention of UCLA’s many transgressions (just ask K. Howlett) under Wooden……surprise, surprise.

by wldcatsfreak on Oct 7, 2009 6:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not Just Under Wooden

Definitely in 1990’s under Harrick, too.

My stepdaughter was witness to that era.

by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 7, 2009 6:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't know that

but definately not surprised. Harrick is a weasel.

by wldcatsfreak on Oct 7, 2009 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares?

I mean seriously, is the ratings that big a deal?

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Oct 7, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

First time I shot her, shot her in the side.
Hard to watch her suffer, but with the second shot she died...

by btcoop71 on Oct 7, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol coop

No, not a big deal at all. But still something interesting to talk over in the offseason.

I think Forde makes one very good argument—that the strictly computerized rankings do spit back some weird stuff that just doesn’t pass the common sense test. And I agree with him that the formula not giving added weight for NCAA titles is kind of crazy. But I think he also makes one very big, very human error in his argument, one that wild weasel alluded to; recentism—placing way too much emphasis and importance on recent events that he himself has witnessed. I don’t buy the argument that things that happened after the 78 Magic/Bird game should have greater weight than those before—that the game exploded in popularity after that is irrelevant (imo). The judgment is on the greatest program all time—the whole point of the exercise is to view programs in a long-term, historical sense. So to my mind, one of the most important factors in the judging should be that every era of the game should be given equal importance, without adding extra significance to more recent happenings. A championship won in 1948 should have exactly the same weight as one won in 2008, in other words, because we’re trying to view this not from the perspective of sitting here in 2009, where 2008 seems way more significant and important than 1948—but in a broader, more historical sense.

Frankly, a very strong argument could be made for UCLA (or UNC or possibly Kansas) being #1 over Kentucky, but I don’t think Forde proved that very well here.

by blue kentucky girl on Oct 7, 2009 4:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pat Forde Knows...

which pots to stir to make a career for himself. He may by smoking some too. I offer as evidence the blunders mentioned by all of you above as well as many others. Again he singles out UK for the ugly racist past of many schools(and Society at large)…. including Duke. His article is meant to incite like those annoying cheap used car commercials that scream at you and make you remember them as you clinch your fist in anger. Now, excuse me I need to go the Kia store…Oh wait.

by LyricSmith on Oct 7, 2009 9:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs