Coach Rupp Still Better Than Coach K

[KyCatFan1]

You take Rupp's winning percentage and give him the number of games a year Coach K has gotten to coach, he likely has 1,100+ wins. No one hardly mentions the number of games being played these days compared to Rupp's day. All you really have to do is be a good coach and stay at the same place 30+ years and you will be high up the wins list (Boeheim). That is why there are like 5 coaches to pass Rupp in the last 20 years. Coach K is a very good coach, but he doesn't walk on water like Dick Vitale seems to think.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[UKcats1988]

Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

 

[pascat]

Coach K deserves a great deal of respect. While I not like the way the media portrays him as being classy (Coach K is as audacious, foul, and conniving as they come), there is no doubting he is one of the best of all time. He took Dean Smith's four corners and improved upon it, making his one of the best spacing coaches in history.

Of all his accomplishments, however, I think his laying down the gauntlet against UNC for ACC supremacy is his all-time greatest. It's the ACC equivalent of somebody coming in to the SEC with the tradition of say, LSU (a mostly good team with a few tourney runs in them but not much more), and 30 years later putting them on par with Kentucky. It is an extraordinary accomplishment.

This post was edited on 1/25 5:48 PM by pascat

 

[zannmann]

Rupp also built UK. Duke was already good they had just played us in the championship game 2 years before K arrived.

 

[hotelblue]

rupp held the record over 30 years. smith like 6. knight like 10. k will get like 15 years, then all the games totals will catch up and some younger coach will pass him. the game has also changed so much. a great accomplishment by k. it will last a while but he's not better than rupp imo.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

If Rupp coached 1308 games, then he would be at 1075. Coaches from different eras should be compared by winning % and titles. Total wins is very biased towards recent seasons.

 

[trinity45_rivals378029]

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

But you also have to look at it from the other side, you had to be really good to make the tournament, now days a so so season will get a name brand team in and then a good bracket or do what UK did and get hot. Those early round games don't mean much unless you are Duke.

 

[.S&C.]

Also for cats 1988 you need to remember Adolph Rupp actually invented certain styles and schemes that are ran today. When you actually helped invent the way the game is played you got to give them an edge. How many things do coaches, including coach K, do that no one realizes Rupp envisioned that in his mind. It's a different level altogether.

Just because they were years ago doesn't deminish what they did. That's the ultimate immature and ignorant stance to take. It would be the equivalent of sayijg in 50 years what K did really doesn't matter.....and why? Because some stupid kids weren't alive to see it?

Please.

This post was edited on 1/25 7:14 PM by .S&C.

 

[UKcats1988]

Originally posted by .S&C.:
Also for cats 1988 you need to remember Adolph Rupp actually invented certain styles and schemes that are ran today. When you actually helped invent the way the game is played you got to give them an edge. How many things do coaches, including coach K, do that no one realizes Rupp envisioned that in his mind. It's a different level altogether.

Just because they were years ago doesn't deminish what they did. That's the ultimate immature and ignorant stance to take. It would be the equivalent of sayijg in 50 years what K did really doesn't matter.....and why? Because some stupid kids weren't alive to see it?

Please.

This post was edited on 1/25 7:14 PM by .S&C.

I said he was a top 4 college coach of all time, how in the world is that deminishing him? Just because I don't believe he's number 1 doesn't deminish a thing. I was pointing out to the guy who said K coaches more games that there's another side to that when it comes to their NCAA tourney success. So I'm not sure how you got from my post that what Rupp did didn't matter because it was 50 years ago.

 

[anon_013cn8yrfncx2]

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

You do realize that the first 2 games for current title teams are laughers. Add more teams to the earlier tourneys and Rupp gets more wins.

 

[WildMoon]

Once you get to the top echelon of anything, it becomes way to hard to compare.

Coach K is in discussion for top 5 coach of all time in CBB. That's it. Nothing greater or less.

 

[Waterview Catfan]

No one can intelligently argue that K is not a really good coach. That being said, part of his legacy will also be teaching kids to flop like fish out of water on hot coals, and that will be what I will remember him for the most, and to me it takes away some of his greatness. It's disrespectful to the game in my opinion, and drops him down my list of all time best coaches.

 

[JPScott]

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

I always love this argument about # of games in the NCAA tournament.

I hope people realize that having fewer teams in the tournament only means that it's more difficult to even make the tournament in the first place. If the rules that Rupp was under was still in force, neither the 1996 nor the 2012 UK teams would have even received an invite to the NCAA tournament.

 

[UKserialkiller]

In my personal opinion, Coach Rupp could kick K's *** in a fight.

 

[JC CATS]

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

In Rupp's first 10 years his team played between 18 and 22 games. You are correct in the number of wins K had to win to win the title, but then again it was harder to be invited to the tournament in Rupp's time

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

I always love this argument about # of games in the NCAA tournament.

I hope people realize that having fewer teams in the tournament only means that it's more difficult to even make the tournament in the first place. If the rules that Rupp was under was still in force, neither the 1996 nor the 2012 UK teams would have even received an invite to the NCAA tournament.

Great point!

 

[buster3.0]

Originally posted by Son_Of_Saul:

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

I always love this argument about # of games in the NCAA tournament.

I hope people realize that having fewer teams in the tournament only means that it's more difficult to even make the tournament in the first place. If the rules that Rupp was under was still in force, neither the 1996 nor the 2012 UK teams would have even received an invite to the NCAA tournament.

Great point!

If they still did that and based the conference qualifier on some weekend tournament, then there would be outrage and they would have to change that rule. It should be based on regular season championship. UK won the REAL SEC Championship title in 1996 and 2012. Some fluke occurance in a weekend tournament doesn't and should never change that.

One thing I think Coach K would have in favor over Rupp is wins over ranked teams. I browsing through Jon Scotts site Rupps teams didn't play hardly any ranked opponents until tourney time. I know much of this is a product of how awful SEC basketball is, but still. Don't get me wrong, I would still put Rupp in top 3 with Wooden and K. I would never dare rank that top 3, but they are the top 3.

 

[preacherfan]

Originally posted by buster3.0:

Originally posted by Son_Of_Saul:

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

I always love this argument about # of games in the NCAA tournament.

I hope people realize that having fewer teams in the tournament only means that it's more difficult to even make the tournament in the first place. If the rules that Rupp was under was still in force, neither the 1996 nor the 2012 UK teams would have even received an invite to the NCAA tournament.

Great point!

If they still did that and based the conference qualifier on some weekend tournament, then there would be outrage and they would have to change that rule. It should be based on regular season championship. UK won the REAL SEC Championship title in 1996 and 2012. Some fluke occurance in a weekend tournament doesn't and should never change that.

One thing I think Coach K would have in favor over Rupp is wins over ranked teams. I browsing through Jon Scotts site Rupps teams didn't play hardly any ranked opponents until tourney time. I know much of this is a product of how awful SEC basketball is, but still. Don't get me wrong, I would still put Rupp in top 3 with Wooden and K. I would never dare rank that top 3, but they are the top 3.

Maybe I am wrong but no we didn't win the REAL SEC Championship title in 96 or 12. The NCAA automatic qualifier is the conference tournament winner. The team that wins the season may or may not get an at-large bid.

In many of the mid-major tournaments, the ONLY team that goes to the NCAA is the tournament winner. The regular season winner ends up in the NIT.

 

[Poetax]

Originally posted by zannmann:
Rupp also built UK. Duke was already good they had just played us in the championship game 2 years before K arrived.

Zann you are right. After losing to us in 1978 NCAA finals, they went 22-8 and 24-9 before Foster left. Its funny K went 17-13, 10-17, 11-17, 24-10, and 23-8 before he got pass the round of 32 in the NCAA tournament. And it took him 10 years to win his first NC, can anyone imagine what would be said about CAL if he hadn't won a NC in that amount of time?

 

[pascat]

Originally posted by preacherfan:

Originally posted by buster3.0:

Originally posted by Son_Of_Saul:

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

I always love this argument about # of games in the NCAA tournament.

I hope people realize that having fewer teams in the tournament only means that it's more difficult to even make the tournament in the first place. If the rules that Rupp was under was still in force, neither the 1996 nor the 2012 UK teams would have even received an invite to the NCAA tournament.

Great point!

If they still did that and based the conference qualifier on some weekend tournament, then there would be outrage and they would have to change that rule. It should be based on regular season championship. UK won the REAL SEC Championship title in 1996 and 2012. Some fluke occurance in a weekend tournament doesn't and should never change that.

One thing I think Coach K would have in favor over Rupp is wins over ranked teams. I browsing through Jon Scotts site Rupps teams didn't play hardly any ranked opponents until tourney time. I know much of this is a product of how awful SEC basketball is, but still. Don't get me wrong, I would still put Rupp in top 3 with Wooden and K. I would never dare rank that top 3, but they are the top 3.

Maybe I am wrong but no we didn't win the REAL SEC Championship title in 96 or 12. The NCAA automatic qualifier is the conference tournament winner. The team that wins the season may or may not get an at-large bid.

In many of the mid-major tournaments, the ONLY team that goes to the NCAA is the tournament winner. The regular season winner ends up in the NIT.

It would be pretty difficult to not win the SEC championship when you are undefeated in conference play. UK was undefeated in 1996 and 2012, losing in the final of the SEC Tournament in both years.

 

[JPScott]

Originally posted by buster3.0:

One thing I think Coach K would have in favor over Rupp is wins over ranked teams. I browsing through Jon Scotts site Rupps teams didn't play hardly any ranked opponents until tourney time. I know much of this is a product of how awful SEC basketball is, but still. Don't get me wrong, I would still put Rupp in top 3 with Wooden and K. I would never dare rank that top 3, but they are the top 3.

Below are listed Rupp's 102 games vs. ranked teams. Note a few things:

1.) AP rankings did not begin until the 1948-49 season
2.) In the early years the AP did not release their ranking until a few weeks after the season began (i.e. by the time rankings were released, UK had already played many of their non-conference opponents and thus didn't get credit for playing a ranked opponent)
3.) The AP poll was the top 20 until 1990 (when they expanded to top 25, likely because of the CNN/USA Today poll)

While many ranked teams UK faced was indeed in the NCAA tournament, they also played a lot of ranked non-conference teams. UK has historically played probably the toughest non-conference schedule of any school ever.


2/5/1949 Bradley W 18 AP
3/5/1949 Tulane W 7 AP
3/14/1949 Loyola (Chicago) L 16 AP
3/21/1949 Villanova W 14 AP
3/22/1949 Illinois W 4 AP
3/26/1949 Oklahoma A&M W 2 AP
12/23/1950 St. Johns W 13 AP
3/22/1951 St. Johns W 9 AP
3/24/1951 Illinois W 5 AP
3/27/1951 Kansas State W 4 AP
12/17/1951 St. Johns W 2 AP
12/29/1951 St. Louis L 12 AP
3/22/1952 St. Johns L 10 AP
12/21/1953 Duke W 13 AP
12/22/1953 LaSalle W 20 AP
12/28/1953 Minnesota W 8 AP
3/9/1954 Louisiana State W 7 AP
12/21/1954 Utah W 15 AP
12/22/1954 LaSalle W 4 AP
1/29/1955 Vanderbilt W 18 AP
2/21/1955 Vanderbilt W 20 AP
2/28/1955 Alabama W 12 AP
3/11/1955 Marquette L 8 AP
12/21/1955 Dayton L 4 AP
1/28/1956 Vanderbilt L 7 AP
2/1/1956 Duke W 10 AP
2/20/1956 Vanderbilt W 6 AP
2/25/1956 Alabama L 7 AP
3/17/1956 Iowa L 4 AP
12/21/1956 Southern Methodist W 4 AP
12/22/1956 Illinois W 5 AP
1/26/1957 Vanderbilt W 13 AP
2/18/1957 Vanderbilt W 18 AP
3/16/1957 Michigan State L 11 AP
12/14/1957 St. Louis W 9 AP
12/20/1957 West Virginia L 8 AP
12/21/1957 Minnesota W 10 AP
1/18/1958 Tennessee W 13 AP
2/10/1958 Mississippi State W 17 AP
3/15/1958 Notre Dame W 8 AP
3/21/1958 Temple W 5 AP
3/22/1958 Seattle W 18 AP
12/11/1958 Southern Methodist W 18 AP
12/13/1958 St. Louis W 9 AP
12/20/1958 West Virginia W 7 AP
2/9/1959 Mississippi State L 11 AP
2/21/1959 Auburn W 2 AP
3/14/1959 Marquette W 20 AP
12/28/1959 Ohio State W 3 AP
1/2/1960 Georgia Tech L 10 AP
1/25/1960 Georgia Tech L 6 AP
2/20/1960 Auburn L 17 AP
12/13/1960 North Carolina W 5 AP
12/22/1960 St. Louis L 16 AP
3/18/1961 Ohio State L 1 AP
12/4/1961 Southern California L 4 AP
12/23/1961 Kansas State W 4 AP
2/12/1962 Mississippi State L 9 AP
3/17/1962 Ohio State L 1 AP
12/22/1962 West Virginia W 7 AP
1/28/1963 Georgia Tech L 7 AP
2/11/1963 Mississippi State L 8 AP
2/23/1963 Auburn W 9 AP
12/31/1963 Duke W 8 AP
1/6/1964 Vanderbilt L 6 AP
2/17/1964 Vanderbilt W 7 AP
3/14/1964 Loyola (Chicago) L 8 AP
12/7/1964 North Carolina L 13 AP
12/22/1964 St. Louis L 10 AP
1/5/1965 Vanderbilt L 9 AP
2/16/1965 Vanderbilt L 7 AP
1/15/1966 Vanderbilt W 3 AP
2/2/1966 Vanderbilt W 4 AP
3/11/1966 Dayton W 19 UPI
3/12/1966 Michigan W 9 AP
3/18/1966 Duke W 2 AP
3/19/1966 Texas Western L 3 AP
12/13/1966 North Carolina L 8 AP
1/14/1967 Florida L 10 AP
12/12/1967 North Carolina L 5 AP
1/6/1968 Vanderbilt W 4 AP
1/22/1968 Tennessee L 4 AP
2/12/1968 Tennessee W 5 AP
12/7/1968 North Carolina L 2 AP
12/28/1968 Notre Dame W 7 AP
3/13/1969 Marquette L 14 AP
12/8/1969 North Carolina W 7 AP
12/27/1969 Notre Dame W 11 AP
2/16/1970 Georgia W 20 AP
3/12/1970 Notre Dame W 9 AP
3/14/1970 Jacksonville L 4 AP
12/12/1970 Indiana W 11 AP
12/29/1970 Notre Dame L 14 AP
1/16/1971 Tennessee L 18 AP
3/6/1971 Tennessee W 14 AP
3/18/1971 Western Kentucky L 7 AP
3/20/1971 Marquette L 2 AP
12/4/1971 Kansas W 14 AP
12/18/1971 Princeton W 18 AP
1/22/1972 Tennessee W 19 AP
3/16/1972 Marquette W 7 AP
3/18/1972 Florida State L 10 AP

This post was edited on 1/25 10:32 PM by JPScott

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

Different era's, and it's hard to be certain Rupp would have won at the same rate if UK had played more games, especially against better teams. One things for sure though, they sure play a lot more games these days. Even the NCAA was only 4 games during Rupp's era. He definitely would have won a lot more NCAA tournament games if it had been 6 like it is now. The comparison's don't matter much to me. Rupp was a great coach for over 4 decades, and is the VERY reason UK basketball is what it is now. It's very appropriate that UK has played in Rupp arena for nearly 40 years because he will always cast a presence on this program. There are plenty here on this board like me who first became a fan while Rupp was still coaching.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Very difficult to compare since they were from such different eras. Yeah, only conference champs got invited to the NCAAT back then, but then very few schools cared anything about basketball. How many times did UK not get an invite because it failed to win the SEC? I think for much of the 40s, maybe even into the 50s, the field only had 8 teams (one reason we have so many elite 8 games). On the other hand, Rupp single handedly built what has become one of the best brands in college sports. Hard to give him too much credit for that - it's the work of genius.

My instinct is to put K and Wooden as the 2 best, with Knight and Rupp as the next 2. But that's top of my head.....

 

[Lonesome Hippopotamus]

Great post.

Originally posted by .S&C.:
Also for cats 1988 you need to remember Adolph Rupp actually invented certain styles and schemes that are ran today. When you actually helped invent the way the game is played you got to give them an edge. How many things do coaches, including coach K, do that no one realizes Rupp envisioned that in his mind. It's a different level altogether.

Just because they were years ago doesn't deminish what they did. That's the ultimate immature and ignorant stance to take. It would be the equivalent of sayijg in 50 years what K did really doesn't matter.....and why? Because some stupid kids weren't alive to see it?

Please.

This post was edited on 1/25 7:14 PM by .S&C.

 

[JPScott]

Originally posted by Mojocat:
Very difficult to compare since they were from such different eras. Yeah, only conference champs got invited to the NCAAT back then, but then very few schools cared anything about basketball.

I never really understood this. Why do people assume that 'very few schools cared anything about basketball' ?

Look at any era and there were plenty of competitive teams all across the country. They may not be household names today but they were competitive. The thing is that in the early part of the century most colleges recruited locally/regionally so if anything the talent was more evenly spread out across the country, and schools with one or two superstars could make a lot of noise, even if they were a relatively small school.

The way I see it any given year there's probably 15-25 teams with a legitimate shot at winning the title (regardless of how big the tournament field is). I honestly don't think that's changed much, whether you're talking about 1939 or 2009. (i.e. in terms of assessing how difficult it is for a coach to win a title during a particular era, I don't see that there's a whole lot of difference either way.)



This post was edited on 1/25 10:48 PM by JPScott

 

[ukalum_rivals311718]

Originally posted by preacherfan:

Originally posted by buster3.0:

Originally posted by Son_Of_Saul:

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by UKcats1988:
Rupp in my opinion is a top 4 all time college coach but I think K may be 1 or 2. Yes they play more games now but when Rupp won his 4 titles I think he only had to win a combined 14 games in the NCAA compared to K's 24 with his 4 titles in the modern era.

I always love this argument about # of games in the NCAA tournament.

I hope people realize that having fewer teams in the tournament only means that it's more difficult to even make the tournament in the first place. If the rules that Rupp was under was still in force, neither the 1996 nor the 2012 UK teams would have even received an invite to the NCAA tournament.

Great point!

If they still did that and based the conference qualifier on some weekend tournament, then there would be outrage and they would have to change that rule. It should be based on regular season championship. UK won the REAL SEC Championship title in 1996 and 2012. Some fluke occurance in a weekend tournament doesn't and should never change that.

One thing I think Coach K would have in favor over Rupp is wins over ranked teams. I browsing through Jon Scotts site Rupps teams didn't play hardly any ranked opponents until tourney time. I know much of this is a product of how awful SEC basketball is, but still. Don't get me wrong, I would still put Rupp in top 3 with Wooden and K. I would never dare rank that top 3, but they are the top 3.

Maybe I am wrong but no we didn't win the REAL SEC Championship title in 96 or 12. The NCAA automatic qualifier is the conference tournament winner. The team that wins the season may or may not get an at-large bid.

In many of the mid-major tournaments, the ONLY team that goes to the NCAA is the tournament winner. The regular season winner ends up in the NIT.

Jon Scott was saying that the 1996 and 2012 teams play under the rules that were in effect during Rupp's years. In Rupp's years there was no conference tournament; only regular season standings. Under Rupp's rules, UK wins the SEC in '96 and '12 and gets the automatic bid.

 

[JPScott]

Originally posted by ukalum:

Jon Scott was saying that the 1996 and 2012 teams play under the rules that were in effect during Rupp's years. In Rupp's years there was no conference tournament; only regular season standings. Under Rupp's rules, UK wins the SEC in '96 and '12 and gets the automatic bid.

Actually I was referring to the years that the SEC still had their tournament.

Incidentally, in 1951 they changed the rule so that the regular season champion received a NCAA bid. UK lost to Vandy in the SEC tournament final that year but because they were SEC regular season champions, they participated in the tournament and went on to win the title that year.

The point was not to go through the various rules variations at different times (the rules were constantly changing), but to have people understand that during the time period when the NCAA tournament was small, it was not a given that teams would receive a bid. The 1996 & 2012 teams did not win their conference tournament, and most years would not have received an invite because of it.

 

[BoulderCat_rivals187983]

Jon Scott was saying that the 1996 and 2012 teams play under the rules that were in effect during Rupp's years. In Rupp's years there was no conference tournament; only regular season standings. Under Rupp's rules, UK wins the SEC in '96 and '12 and gets the automatic bid.

If they let me make the rules for the day the regular season winner would still get an automatic bid. I'm of the opinion that a title won over 16-18 games and two months is more meaningful than one won in 3 days and games. Of course I realize that's not the prevailing mindset. Doesn't make for the made for TV drama. Perhaps it should be both get an automatic bid if they turn out to be different teams. At least for the big 5 conferences. The reality though is any team who wins the RS title in one of those conferences will get a bid. In fact both the '96 and '12 teams were a #1 seed, which again goes to show the biggest reason for the Big 5 to have a tournament is TV.

Bottom line I'll always believe the regular season title is more meaningful. It bugs me we haven't won the SEC in 4 years, but the fact is UK was the SEC champion in '96 and '12. I seriously doubt any SEC fan would argue that.

 

[jopo]

There are many good coaches but for me Coach Adolph Rupp is the greatest to step on a basketball court.

 

[Cawood86_rivals]

Originally posted by jopo:

There are many good coaches but for me Coach Adolph Rupp is the greatest to step on a basketball court.


Me too and it ain't even close. Rupp built UK. Made it what it is today.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Originally posted by BigBlueFanGA:
If Rupp coached 1308 games, then he would be at 1075. Coaches from different eras should be compared by winning % and titles. Total wins is very biased towards recent seasons.

It's going to be hard to make your claim based on this criteria. After all, we put a considerable amount of stock in being the all-time leader in wins in college basketball.
At the end of the day, any comparison between K and Rupp is subjective at best. Times change and so did the game...a few times actually. A lot of fans from other schools probably look at K's 1000th win much the same way as they did UK's 2000th. They see it as interesting and a unique milestone but, little more than that. I don't have any problem with K and Dook celebrating his 1000th win but, I sure do hope it has run its course by this time Monday night!

 

[ukalum_rivals311718]

In '96 and '12, both Pitino and Calipari knew they had a 1 seed already locked up going into those conference tournaments. If the rules were that the conference tournament winner got the invite, and everyone else stayed home, I think Pitino and Calipari would have taken those championship games more seriously. Many people think that both coaches blew off those games.

 

[JPScott]

Originally posted by ukalum:

In '96 and '12, both Pitino and Calipari knew they had a 1 seed already locked up going into those conference tournaments. If the rules were that the conference tournament winner got the invite, and everyone else stayed home, I think Pitino and Calipari would have taken those championship games more seriously. Many people think that both coaches blew off those games.

Maybe but we'll never know. Both the 1996 Mississippi State and 2012 Vanderbilt teams were legitimate teams.

But my point still stands. It was simply more difficult to make the tournament then than it is now.

An example being 1950. Kentucky was the two-time defending champion and ranked #3 in the country. They had the best record in the SEC and won the SEC tournament. A shoo-in correct ?

No. Not only did a team have to win their tournament to be their conference representative, but they also had to be chosen above all others in their district, which in Kentucky's case included most of the Southeast.

North Carolina State also had a great season and were ranked #5 in the country. The three-man committee charged with choosing the representative for the district included Roy Mundorff of Georgia Tech (SEC), Eddie Cameron of Duke (Southern Conference) and Gus Tebell of Virginia ('independent').

Predictably Mundorff went with Kentucky, Cameron went with N.C. State and it came down to the vote of Tebell. Tebell ended up voting for N.C. State. I'm sure if was only a coincidence that Virginia was looking at entering the Southern Conference at some point, and that prior to his decision Tebell was wined and dined at the Southern Conference tournament.

It's also noteworthy that one piece of information which somehow escaped the press at the time, was the fact that Tebell actually had coached the N.C. State Wolfpack in the 1920's.

 

[preacherfan]

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by ukalum:

In '96 and '12, both Pitino and Calipari knew they had a 1 seed already locked up going into those conference tournaments. If the rules were that the conference tournament winner got the invite, and everyone else stayed home, I think Pitino and Calipari would have taken those championship games more seriously. Many people think that both coaches blew off those games.

Maybe but we'll never know. Both the 1996 Mississippi State and 2012 Vanderbilt teams were legitimate teams.

But my point still stands. It was simply more difficult to make the tournament then than it is now.

An example being 1950. Kentucky was the two-time defending champion and ranked #3 in the country. They had the best record in the SEC and won the SEC tournament. A shoo-in correct ?

No. Not only did a team have to win their tournament to be their conference representative, but they also had to be chosen above all others in their district, which in Kentucky's case included most of the Southeast.

North Carolina State also had a great season and were ranked #5 in the country. The three-man committee charged with choosing the representative for the district included Roy Mundorff of Georgia Tech (SEC), Eddie Cameron of Duke (Southern Conference) and Gus Tebell of Virginia ('independent').

Predictably Mundorff went with Kentucky, Cameron went with N.C. State and it came down to the vote of Tebell. Tebell ended up voting for N.C. State. I'm sure if was only a coincidence that Virginia was looking at entering the Southern Conference at some point, and that prior to his decision Tebell was wined and dined at the Southern Conference tournament.

It's also noteworthy that one piece of information which somehow escaped the press at the time, was the fact that Tebell actually had coached the N.C. State Wolfpack in the 1920's.

Wow!

 

[Graves51]

Of course Rupp was better then than coach ratface is now. As some have said he coached when less games constituted a season. As many games are played now Coach Rupp would have had well over 1000 wins.

 

[Neue Regel]

Originally posted by Graves51:

Of course Rupp was better then than coach ratface is now. As some have said he coached when less games constituted a season. As many games are played now Coach Rupp would have had well over 1000 wins.

And if he had kept coaching maybe Wooden has 20 National Titles. Guess what? he doesn't have 20. But what he has is way more than any coach has ever won. John Wooden = # 1.

This board is all about "wins" and "titles" but somehow wants to devalue them or flat out ignore them if it's not Kentucky (or a Kentucky coach) that leads in the category. (Because it's viewed by many as somehow being at UKS' expense.

)



This post was edited on 1/26 8:51 AM by Neue Regel

 

[jc2010]

Originally posted by JPScott:

Originally posted by Mojocat:
Very difficult to compare since they were from such different eras. Yeah, only conference champs got invited to the NCAAT back then, but then very few schools cared anything about basketball.

I never really understood this. Why do people assume that 'very few schools cared anything about basketball' ?

Look at any era and there were plenty of competitive teams all across the country. They may not be household names today but they were competitive. The thing is that in the early part of the century most colleges recruited locally/regionally so if anything the talent was more evenly spread out across the country, and schools with one or two superstars could make a lot of noise, even if they were a relatively small school.

The way I see it any given year there's probably 15-25 teams with a legitimate shot at winning the title (regardless of how big the tournament field is). I honestly don't think that's changed much, whether you're talking about 1939 or 2009. (i.e. in terms of assessing how difficult it is for a coach to win a title during a particular era, I don't see that there's a whole lot of difference either way.)




This post was edited on 1/25 10:48 PM by JPScott

I always felt that because of the local/regional aspect, UK won because we had the best coach, not necessarily the best players.

 

[Graves51]

I am not like that Neue Regel, I was comparing Rupp and Coach K. John Wooden has set records with UCLA that will never be broken! I have him in my top 3 all time coaches.

 

[Comebakatz3]

Originally posted by Blueworld_3.0:

Originally posted by BigBlueFanGA:
If Rupp coached 1308 games, then he would be at 1075. Coaches from different eras should be compared by winning % and titles. Total wins is very biased towards recent seasons.

It's going to be hard to make your claim based on this criteria. After all, we put a considerable amount of stock in being the all-time leader in wins in college basketball.
At the end of the day, any comparison between K and Rupp is subjective at best. Times change and so did the game...a few times actually. A lot of fans from other schools probably look at K's 1000th win much the same way as they did UK's 2000th. They see it as interesting and a unique milestone but, little more than that. I don't have any problem with K and Dook celebrating his 1000th win but, I sure do hope it has run its course by this time Monday night!

Why shouldn't we put a considerable amount of stock into being the all-time leader in wins in college basketball? You know what is amazing about being the all time leader? We've also got the highest winning percentage of any team in the top 10 in terms of number of wins. We've won at a 76 percent clip. The next closest team is Kansas at 72 percent. So, while we might have the 4th or 5th highest number of seasons, we've also won at a higher clip than anyone else. Coach K cannot say that. K has a pretty high win percentage, but only two coaches (if I am not mistaken) have a win percentage of 80% or better... Wooden and Rupp.

Coach K is probably the 3rd greatest coach of all time behind Wooden and Rupp. I don't like to put Wooden up there because I think his teams were extremely tainted, but if you ignore that fact he is pretty much an undisputed number 1 with that many titles and with a win percentage that good.

 

[Cawood86_rivals]

Originally posted by Neue Regel:

Originally posted by Graves51:

Of course Rupp was better then than coach ratface is now. As some have said he coached when less games constituted a season. As many games are played now Coach Rupp would have had well over 1000 wins.

And if he had kept coaching maybe Wooden has 20 National Titles. Guess what? he doesn't have 20. But what he has is way more than any coach has ever won. John Wooden = # 1.

This board is all about "wins" and "titles" but somehow wants to devalue them or flat out ignore them if it's not Kentucky (or a Kentucky coach) that leads in the category. (Because it's viewed by many as somehow being at UKS' expense.

)




This post was edited on 1/26 8:51 AM by Neue Regel

It's a UK board brother. Besides, Rupp gets an unfair label and K gets biased sainthood. Neither are true. Amount of games is a factor. There were seasons that Rupp teams only played 18-22 games. Cut down some of K's seasons to that and he is nowhere close to a 1000.