Top 25 CBB programs of all time by (Lost Letterman)

[TrollyMcTroller]

So just because you aren't as big of an asshole to me as you are to 95% of people on here that I should be thankful or something? You're still an asshole. I can see it without you being such an overt one to me. Calling you out doesn't make me a fucking girl. You calling me one for doing so just makes you more of an asshole.

I've never denied being an asshole. I'm quite comfortable with it. I own it.

You on the other hand are a fucking liar, and refuse to admit it.

What you don't understand is that facts stand on themselves.

Not when they're just bullshit that you fucking made up.

They don't require you to be an asshole for them to hold more weight. You are pretty blind to the correct statements people make and automatically view everything as bullshit if someone states facts that are wrong.

Well in your case since it's pretty clear you just pulled your "facts" out of thin air, I'm very comfortable with calling them bullshit, since that's pretty much the accepted definition of the word.

You think that you politely correct people but you are always pretty condescending. Polite isn't telling people that most of what they say is wrong, when only a minority of the content is actually wrong. And again, as we can agree, you were not as big of an asshole as you are to 95% of people you attack.

No, I think I have varying degrees of asshole, and you don't seem to get the point when I had it dialed down, so here we are with me calling you a fucking liar instead.

You get so worked up because you want to be right and push your facts in everyone's face all the time. You blow things out of proportion to in order to prove how wrong people are. You personally attack people for being wrong. I'm an addict because I smoke a bowl after a long day? You hyperbolize and you don't need to. Just let the facts do the talking for you.

Go fuck yourself you goddammed hypocrite. Nearly everything you asserted about UCLA was fucking hyperbole.

I admitted I wad wrong like three times, and you couldn't leave it alone.

Really. Where? Which posts? God. Dammed. Liar.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Watch out, it was me saying that UCLA is definitely better that struck a nerve in Trolly to call me out and have me list facts. We have to keep our opinions at arguably, or we're claiming victories without fighting the battle.

Okay, fuckstick. You make an argument for UCLA being a better program than UK right now (like gpm said) and I'll call him out like I did you.

But if you can't make a fucking argument for it, it isn't fucking arguable, is it?

Christ almighty you're fucking dense. I love assholes that go out of their way to pick fights about shit that they're wrong about.

 

[jonvi]

Syracuse higher than Michigan State is absolutely laughable. I don't think there is a more overrated program of all time.

What's to be overrated about SU. They have one NC and a few FF's. There's nothing to over rate. They are not in the discussion with UK, Duke, UNC, UCLA and a few others that just don't come to mind right now.

MI State is a great program as well. I wouldn't say one is much better than the other but on a scale you have to rub in opinions of weight to make a final decision.

So calling it laughable just means you are a huge homer. Which is ok. Another term is fan. And I'm good with that from fans.

 

[tducey]

Yeah, UCLA should be #1 on that list. All those national titles speak for themselves.

 

[gpm1976]

Watch out, it was me saying that UCLA is definitely better that struck a nerve in Trolly to call me out and have me list facts. We have to keep our opinions at arguably, or we're claiming victories without fighting the battle.

LOL!! I've had more than my fair share of run-ins w/trolly. He is w/out a doubt as low class as it gets... and I'm not even sure why it matters so much to him. Who cares whether you're 1 or 2 in this poll when it's really all opinion and speculation anyways. UCLA can enjoy the outstanding run they had in the 70s and their 11 titles and UK can enjoy all the great talent they keep pulling in.

 

[gpm1976]

Okay, fuckstick. You make an argument for UCLA being a better program than UK right now (like gpm said) and I'll call him out like I did you.

But if you can't make a fucking argument for it, it isn't fucking arguable, is it?

Christ almighty you're fucking dense. I love assholes that go out of their way to pick fights about shit that they're wrong about.

What the hell is wrong with you? He actually apologized a couple of times for not having the right numbers. Did you miss that? You can call me out all you want, but there's no real metric for best team of all time, so it's just your opinion against everyone else's. I still do take UCLA, and it has a lot to do w/those 10 titles in 12 years... and by the way, it's not like UCLA has dropped off the face of the earth. They had a pretty decent run in the tourney this year.

 

[Wamu]

Pretty cool list. It would have been neat if it was broken down to each program's best starting 5 using only their CBB #'s though.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

What the hell is wrong with you? He actually apologized a couple of times for not having the right numbers. Did you miss that?

Yes. I did. Perhaps you can show me where, because I didn't see anything remotely like an apology.

You can call me out all you want, but there's no real metric for best team of all time, so it's just your opinion against everyone else's. I still do take UCLA, and it has a lot to do w/those 10 titles in 12 years... and by the way, it's not like UCLA has dropped off the face of the earth. They had a pretty decent run in the tourney this year.

You silly fuckers just want to fight don't you? I FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU. I was taking YOUR side, not his. I don't care who you have ranked where. It's all opinions. My issue with CTP was all of the bullshit he used to try and justify his opinion.

 

[Codaxx]

I agree, when it comes down to it, it's a point of view.

One either thinks that a teams like UK or UNC are better because they might have more success in some areas and less in others, but they are the more consistent program. Others might like UCLA because they are consistent, although not as consistent as UNC or UK, but they also had a decade plus of success that is far beyond what anyone will ever accomplish in the sport again. Dominance or consistency. Take your pick.

I'm not taking up the cause for any other reason but because I think that UCLA is the better program in history. I choose dominance. 11 titles with all the FFs is my benchmark. Everyone has their own benchmarks that they hold up. It's all your point of view.

And I think that you can't separate what a coach did from the program, again, if he was that dominant. Duke, Syracuse, Arizona, and UConn are all near the top because of one coach that made the program.

NOw all that said, I do think that UCLA is on its way down from the top spot. I think UK is only a few years of sustained success for doing that, for me. A few years away, in the history of CBB shows how close I think they are. But I think they are still the best program. With the great argument of what 7 coaches have done at UK, Wooden did more than all of them combined (in terms of NCs). It's just another way of thinking about it.

I'd take AZ over UCLA moving ahead as well, but not prior. Again, I don't see anyone as upset that IU is at #6 when they have had a very very significant drought over the last 3 decades that doesn't seem to be subsiding anytime soon. But over the history of CBB, they are #6 to me.

You dont separate the coach from the program, but you need to put it in context. The reason I dont have UCLA there is mostly because they can no longer guarantee success. The elite of the group pretty much can cherry pick coaches. That is why they are the elite. Its not the state of the current team or its history. What separates programs like UNC or Kentucky is that they rarely have to take their second choice in a coaching search and they get to pick from a bigger field than the vast majority of schools.. That is probably the biggest factor for a program's long term success. It is the thing that keeps a program from having a decade of mediocrity

 

[gpm1976]

Yes. I did. Perhaps you can show me where, because I didn't see anything remotely like an apology.

Go back and re-read his posts. You can't miss it.

You silly fuckers just want to fight don't you? I FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU. I was taking YOUR side, not his. I don't care who you have ranked where. It's all opinions. My issue with CTP was all of the bullshit he used to try and justify his opinion.

My side? I wasn't arguing w/CTP in the first place. My issue w/you is how nasty you get when trying to prove your point. Posting on this message board is not a job, it's just something we do to pass the time and it's not like we have all day to sit and research numbers. So who cares if someone is a little off with what they post?

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Go back and re-read his posts. You can't miss it.

Nope. Sorry. Can't find it. But since you seem to know exactly where these multiple apologies are, perhaps you can point them out to me.

My side? I wasn't arguing w/CTP in the first place. My issue w/you is how nasty you get when trying to prove your point. Posting on this message board is not a job, it's just something we do to pass the time and it's not like we have all day to sit and research numbers. So who cares if someone is a little off with what they post?

Still suck at reading comprehension I see.

CTP suggested that I should start a fight with you because you said UK was definitely better than UCLA right now (a point that is inarguable) because he's an obtuse asshole and can't figure out the difference between what he said and what you said. (or he does know the difference, and he's just being an asshole... either way, he's being an asshole) But I actually agree with what you said that time.

And I would suggest if you don't have all day to research numbers, that you don't fucking make them up. If you don't know that UCLA is 1st all-time in winning percentage then don't say they are. Or god fucking forbid, you just say they are near the top, if you're so fucking lazy that you can't spend 30 seconds to do a google search before you type. Plenty of time to spout of bullshit though. No shortage of time to just fucking make shit up.

 

[gpm1976]

You dont separate the coach from the program, but you need to put it in context. The reason I dont have UCLA there is mostly because they can no longer guarantee success. The elite of the group pretty much can cherry pick coaches. That is why they are the elite. Its not the state of the current team or its history. What separates programs like UNC or Kentucky is that they rarely have to take their second choice in a coaching search and they get to pick from a bigger field than the vast majority of schools.. That is probably the biggest factor for a program's long term success. It is the thing that keeps a program from having a decade of mediocrity

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's cherry picking when you offer to make a guy the highest paid coach in the game if he comes to your program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a time when UK had hard times and ended up making a coaching change? I guess it all depends on what a program is willing to do to get back to the top. In football, Alabama was a joke for a long time. They got tired of it and paid top dollar to bring in a coach that could get the job done. Who knows, maybe UCLA will get to that point as well.

 

[gpm1976]

Nope. Sorry. Can't find it. But since you seem to know exactly where these multiple apologies are, perhaps you can point them out to me.

FROM CTP> "Great work. Thanks for correcting me. I now know exactly where UCLA lines up in those categories. If I was you, I'd be all over it too.

Knowing what I know about the information, I still have UCLA unless UK gets a few more FFs or another NC."

Sounds like an apology to me.

Still suck at reading comprehension I see.

CTP suggested that I should start a fight with you because you said UK was definitely better than UCLA right now (a point that is inarguable) because he's an obtuse asshole and can't figure out the difference between what he said and what you said. (or he does know the difference, and he's just being an asshole... either way, he's being an asshole) But I actually agree with what you said that time.

And I would suggest if you don't have all day to research numbers, that you don't fucking make them up. If you don't know that UCLA is 1st all-time in winning percentage then don't say they are. Or god fucking forbid, you just say they are near the top, if you're so fucking lazy that you can't spend 30 seconds to do a google search before you type. Plenty of time to spout of bullshit though. No shortage of time to just fucking make shit up.

??? You said you were going to call me out as well.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

FROM CTP> "Great work. Thanks for correcting me. I now know exactly where UCLA lines up in those categories. If I was you, I'd be all over it too.

Knowing what I know about the information, I still have UCLA unless UK gets a few more FFs or another NC."

Sounds like an apology to me.

Sounds to me like you don't know what an apology is.

Sounds to me like it was a sarcastic reply from an asshole that was annoyed at having his bullshit called out repeatedly, not someone that was sorry for having made an error.

??? You said you were going to call me out as well.

You can't possibly be that fucking stupid, can you?

I said I would call you out, IF HE COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR UCLA BEING BETTER THAN UK RIGHT NOW. The point being he obviously can't, which makes his suggestion that I call you out for not saying "arguably" pretty fucking stupid.

Sorry for the confusion. I temporarily forgot I was dealing with a fucking idiot.

 

[gpm1976]

Sounds to me like you don't know what an apology is.

Sounds to me like it was a sarcastic reply from an asshole that was annoyed at having his bullshit called out repeatedly, not someone that was sorry for having made an error.



You can't possibly be that fucking stupid, can you?

I said I would call you out, IF HE COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR UCLA BEING BETTER THAN UK RIGHT NOW. The point being he obviously can't, which makes his suggestion that I call you out for not saying "arguably" pretty fucking stupid.

Sorry for the confusion. I temporarily forgot I was dealing with a fucking idiot.

Wow! I can't imagine being you.. it must REALLY suck!

 

[Codaxx]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's cherry picking when you offer to make a guy the highest paid coach in the game if he comes to your program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a time when UK had hard times and ended up making a coaching change? I guess it all depends on what a program is willing to do to get back to the top. In football, Alabama was a joke for a long time. They got tired of it and paid top dollar to bring in a coach that could get the job done. Who knows, maybe UCLA will get to that point as well.

Bama went on probation. Even then they hired what was considered a great coach in Price. He went to a strip club and that ended. They were in their last yr of probation and hired Saban. Money is a big part of the success though. Elite programs have 0 issue spending it and raising. That is why I think basing it just off of NCs is short-sighted.

 

[gpm1976]

Bama went on probation. Even then they hired what was considered a great coach in Price. He went to a strip club and that ended. They were in their last yr of probation and hired Saban. Money is a big part of the success though. Elite programs have 0 issue spending it and raising. That is why I think basing it just off of NCs is short-sighted.

I agree.. and had they disappeared from basketball altogether after that run I wouldn't have them at number 1. They may not quite have been as dominant like UNC or UK lately, but they continue to above average year in and year out with some deep runs in the tourney mixed in. Again, all speculation. You can make a case for each team to be at the top.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I've never denied being an asshole. I'm quite comfortable with it. I own it.

You on the other hand are a fucking liar, and refuse to admit it.



Not when they're just bullshit that you fucking made up.



Well in your case since it's pretty clear you just pulled your "facts" out of thin air, I'm very comfortable with calling them bullshit, since that's pretty much the accepted definition of the word.




No, I think I have varying degrees of asshole, and you don't seem to get the point when I had it dialed down, so here we are with me calling you a fucking liar instead.



Go fuck yourself you goddammed hypocrite. Nearly everything you asserted about UCLA was fucking hyperbole.



Really. Where? Which posts? God. Dammed. Liar.

Jesus, again with all the hyperbole and exaggeration. Bullshitting as I understand it is when you know something is wrong and you put forth the argument anyway in an attempt to convince someone who doesn't know any better. That clearly is not the case with my argument. I genuinely thought that UCLA led in NC, FF, and winning %. As far as a liar, unless your definition is that anyone who speaks incorrectly of a fact is a liar, then it's just called being wrong, which I have admitted to being, numerous times. The overwhelming majority of what I post is true, although I can certainly understand that not all of it is. That doesn't warrant calling that bulshitting, or that I'm a liar. And making shit up is also very loose. I guess technically, any lie is "made up" but you are insinuating that I am trying to be deceitful by just making shit up, and clearly that's not the case.

Being that you already admit to being an asshole, how about you incorporate that into your filter of posting. Maybe think, damn, I'm probably going to blow this person's position all to hell with passive aggressive personal attacks and a perception that this person is trying to be deceitful, when he/she might just be misinformed.

As far as admitting when I was wrong, I was very clear about that also. You can misinterpret that as being sarcastic, but when I put myself in your shoes, acknowledging that I also agree with holding people to the truth (without being an asshole), then you should probably calm the fuck down and take it as genuine.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Sounds to me like you don't know what an apology is.

Sounds to me like it was a sarcastic reply from an asshole that was annoyed at having his bullshit called out repeatedly, not someone that was sorry for having made an error.



You can't possibly be that fucking stupid, can you?

I said I would call you out, IF HE COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR UCLA BEING BETTER THAN UK RIGHT NOW. The point being he obviously can't, which makes his suggestion that I call you out for not saying "arguably" pretty fucking stupid.

Sorry for the confusion. I temporarily forgot I was dealing with a fucking idiot.

Trolly talking shit, ad nauseum.

 

[CatsTopPac]

You dont separate the coach from the program, but you need to put it in context. The reason I dont have UCLA there is mostly because they can no longer guarantee success. The elite of the group pretty much can cherry pick coaches. That is why they are the elite. Its not the state of the current team or its history. What separates programs like UNC or Kentucky is that they rarely have to take their second choice in a coaching search and they get to pick from a bigger field than the vast majority of schools.. That is probably the biggest factor for a program's long term success. It is the thing that keeps a program from having a decade of mediocrity

I can certainly agree with this, and I can certainly understand its importance in determining UK as #1. I think it has a lot to do with it, but not entirely (to me). Like someone else said, UK and UNC also went through stretches of bad coaches and floundering to stabilize the program. I think it's more a marker of current elite programs (which UCLA certainly is not), but less important to me, if we are going all the way back to 1939.