I'm glad you're prepared because I have a feeling when KU passes UK for most wins all-time, the win % argument will be used. Stay woke!
1,100th win by Coach K
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
I'm glad you're prepared because I have a feeling when KU passes UK for most wins all-time, the win % argument will be used. Stay woke!
Everything I’ve seen that ranks the best programs of all time shows most SEC teams ranked really low. Like lower than 40th. Way lower even, IIRC. They’ve been a much stronger conference in the last 25 years so is it a coincidence that other programs are now catching up to Kentucky in wins? I don’t know but surely that means something, right?
Crazy other coaches back then didn't put up same numbers. When Did UNC, Duke,KU etc start playing?
I’m responding to the K vs. Rupp discussion that became of this thread. Rupp never faced a schedule like K did. It wasn’t even close. You can hold onto the winning % as an argument as to why he’s better but I think most people today would say K had the better career.
Yeah. And most put Kentucky or UCLA at the top. Still though, the SEC was a pretty terrible conference for its first 75 years or so and a lot of Kentucky’s dominance came during that.
Well, Kentucky was always a top 5 team back then so it should be really good. What was his winning % against non-conference opponents? How good were those non-conference opponents as well? What was his record against the top 25? Top 10? What was his record in those games against road opponents? All of that stuff needs to be determined instead of just comparing their winning %.
22-9 against KU. I'd have to look at other blue bloods (best of their conference).
This gets hard to understand when Duke did not credit Coach Krzyzewski with the 1994-95 debacle. He got credit for the first of the season when they went 9-3 but the rest of the season was documented to his assistant.
But anyway Rupp played 1066 games in 42 years. He record was 876-190 for a percentage of 82.18%. He averaged playing 25.38 games a year.
Krzyzewski played 1437 games in 42.3 years (1994-95 season screws up the average). His record is 1100-337 for a percentage of 76.55%. He has averaged playing 33.97 games a year.
So I am sticking with my original statement. Nearly 9 more games a year makes a difference. The 5.5% difference is also stark.
That wasn’t Rupp’s record against KU. That’s all time. And you have to know that most of Rupp’s games against Kansas were when they were in their Indiana phase. They were a fringe top 25 program for like 15-20 years outside of a couple of Final Four runs. Since both have been elite on a yearly basis KU is up 8-6, I think (1990 to present day).
I remember UNC fans saying the same when they thought UNC was going to pass UK recently.
What bullshit.
When Rupp was the coach the ACC did diddly squat on a national level. Geeze man Rupp played in the same damned conference as Duke and UNC for years.
Do you believe that the SEC from 1940-1970 was as good as the ACC has been from 1980-present? Cause that’s what matters when comparing Rupp and K’s conference strength.
Schoonerwest, you are dreaming this shit up.
UK just took over as the winningest team a few years back.
I fully expect them to once again lose the lead; however, Kansas is still a couple years away for doing it unless UK goes on a big losing streak like they did under Gillispie.
The cherry picking is great. Stats are stats.
Inserting opinions with stats is not a great cornerstone for a point.
Inserting opinions with stats is not a great cornerstone for a point.
Bert, I’ve seen you make the argument for why the SEC has been better than the Big 12/8 historically and used national titles as your reason so let’s do that.
From 1940-1970 the SEC had 4 of them, all belonging to Kentucky.
From 1988-2017 the ACC had 10 split between 3 schools.
We can do Final Fours next if you like.
It's impossible to compare two teams/players/coaches from two eras.
What is possible is to see who dominated against the best of their era.
Fans 30 years from now will be convinced a younger coach will better than K and Rupp due to them not coaching in their present. Today's game will be perceived as weaker.
What is possible is to see who dominated against the best of their era.
Fans 30 years from now will be convinced a younger coach will better than K and Rupp due to them not coaching in their present. Today's game will be perceived as weaker.
Yeah. And K dominated his era more than Rupp. And he did it when it was harder to get Final Fours and Titles.
Yes.
What team in the ACC are historically great outside of Duke and UNC? none.
NC State had a couple good runs. Maryland a couple. That is it.
Hell when Rupp was a coach only one team from a conference got to go to the NCAA. During that time Duke could not even win the ACC. During K era multiple teams get invited.
K had not dominated his era more than Rupp. Geeze.
So how is it harder to get to a final four now? Hell the opposite is true.
Similar threads
