Big East record in jeopardy

[beast of the east]

St. John's has played 106 seasons of basketball. Yukon has played 110. St. John's in less seasons of basketball is ranked #7 in all time wins. Uconn in more seasons of basketball is ranked 27th in all time wins. St. John's first played yukon in 1951. From Feb 1981 through 1989 St. John's was undefeated against Yukon 17-0. From 1994 through 2010, Yukon dominated the, for lack of a better word, Rivalry. This included a 7-0 stretch from 1994-1996 and a 9-0 stretch in 2003-2010. By decade:

[ul]St. John's | Yukon
[li]50's 1-0[/li]
[li]60's 0-0[/li]
[li]70's 0-1[/li]
[li]80's 18-2[/li]
[li]90's 8-13[/li]
[li]00's 5-10[/li]
[li]10's 3-2[/li]
[/ul]

Overall: St. John's leads the "rivalry" including an edge in the most recent games. through the 1980s yukon would not even have been a mild consideration for one of the top teams all time - a time in which St. John's was ranked #4 in all time wins and historically St. John's had big wins and achievements that the NCAA has overshadowed where it once was upstart. Who's to say where the NCAA will be in a decade?
When bball was a genuinely amateur college sport there was no comparison. When big money and political weight went into hiring players and shady deals between state gov't (taxpayer money) and Calhoun, Yukon was masterful.
Considering the coaching drama of the 90s/00s, it is amazing that St. John's won 13 games against what was definitely one of the most dominant teams of that era.

The NCAA is complicit in focusing more on money than anything else. The wins that really matter are UCONN's 3 championships in my 17 year old's lifetime, as opposed to the zero appearances in the finals for SJU in my lifetime. If you want to talk about the 100+ year history of our program to make an argument, well, isn't it like talking about when Britannica ruled the waves? Even now, the British Commonwealth STILL has 50 nations. On that note, right now, there is an ocean between the two programs, although, you are right, who knows what the next ten years will bring.

 

[Red.Fans]

The NCAA is complicit in focusing more on money than anything else. The wins that really matter are UCONN's 3 championships in my 17 year old's lifetime, as opposed to the zero appearances in the finals for SJU in my lifetime. If you want to talk about the 100+ year history of our program to make an argument, well, isn't it like talking about when Britannica ruled the waves? Even now, the British Commonwealth STILL has 50 nations. On that note, right now, there is an ocean between the two programs, although, you are right, who knows what the next ten years will bring.

I'm adding facts to the discussion not making superfluous similes. To say that there is no rivalry is definitely arguable by the facts. To say which wins really matter in a way that discards all of the facts, is completely subjective. If that is all that matters to you, that is your prerogative but to state it as indisputable fact, is inaccurate.

 

[beast of the east]

The NCAA is complicit in focusing more on money than anything else. The wins that really matter are UCONN's 3 championships in my 17 year old's lifetime, as opposed to the zero appearances in the finals for SJU in my lifetime. If you want to talk about the 100+ year history of our program to make an argument, well, isn't it like talking about when Britannica ruled the waves? Even now, the British Commonwealth STILL has 50 nations. On that note, right now, there is an ocean between the two programs, although, you are right, who knows what the next ten years will bring.

I'm adding facts to the discussion not making superfluous similes. To say that there is no rivalry is definitely arguable by the facts. To say which wins really matter in a way that discards all of the facts, is completely subjective. If that is all that matters to you, that is your prerogative but to state it as indisputable fact, is inaccurate.

To use the Miriam Webster definition, we are no longer as good as or close to, UCONN. If you want to make a historical comparison, Rome has a pretty good overall record also, but that empire, like ours, has been gone for quite some time.

To even use the recent head to head comparison where our success against them was modest to say the least, ignores the reality of the situation. The reality is like comparing the head to head record of a team vs. the Yankees as being moderately successful when that team hasn't done very much over the past 20 years, and then pointing to the teams historical success in the league, say maybe the Baltimore Orioles. Now don't go running to look at Yankees vs. Orioles head to head - just there to illustrate the point.

 

[Red.Fans]

well I'm not going to go back and forth with you since as I said, I was just presenting actual facts not talking about the Britannica or the Roman Empire. I however, have not given up on the Roman Empire.

 

[beast of the east]

well I'm not going to go back and forth with you since as I said, I was just presenting actual facts not talking about the Britannica or the Roman Empire. I however, have not given up on the Roman Empire.

Not really back and forth. you presented cogent information, and that is what civil dialogue is about.