To those who get their knowledge from CBS and don't know college basketball's past, that is probably true. Take nothing away from Wooden and his 10 titles are amazing. But he won over 200 games less than Rupp, lost almost as many in 11 fewer seasons and Rupp's winning percentage is better than Wooden's. Some might be surprised by that knowing the long winning streaks UCLA had under Wooden. The casual fans know as much about Rupp as they do his contemporaries, Hank Iba and Phog Allen. Rupp is too far in the past for those surface level fans. But if you take the time and look at Rupp's numbers, they are incredible and almost as dominating as Wooden's 10 year title run.

 

College basketball wasn't nearly as big back then in Rupp's day. Not nearly as competitive. Not as many teams truly competing for the crown. Certainly Rupp was a pioneer and HUGE in Kentucky-just as two great coaches you mention-Allen is HUGE in Kansas and IBA in Oklahoma, but across the country they aren't as revered as Wooden is IMHO.

 

Coach K has been brilliant at Duke and 99 times out of 100 I am rooting against the Blue Devils.

College basketball wasn't nearly as big back then in Rupp's day. Not nearly as competitive. Not as many teams truly competing for the crown. Certainly Rupp was a pioneer and HUGE in Kentucky-just as two great coaches you mention-Allen is HUGE in Kansas and IBA in Oklahoma, but across the country they aren't as revered as Wooden is IMHO.

 

Coach K has been brilliant at Duke and 99 times out of 100 I am rooting against the Blue Devils.

 

If I play devil's advocate to your comments, I would say it was even tougher for Rupp to win in his era because there were fewer teams. That would have put more talent on the teams that were competing versus spreading it out like it is today. But I think it is too difficult to compare different eras. All you can do is look at the era the coach competed in and compare him to his peers. That is why I say Rupp is better because he clearly was much more dominant in his era than Coach K is in his.

If I play devil's advocate to your comments, I would say it was even tougher for Rupp to win in his era because there were fewer teams. That would have put more talent on the teams that were competing versus spreading it out like it is today. But I think it is too difficult to compare different eras. All you can do is look at the era the coach competed in and compare him to his peers. That is why I say Rupp is better because he clearly was much more dominant in his era than Coach K is in his.

 

No question it is difficult to compare eras. Who were the Cats big competitors then back in Rupp's day? Nobody stands out, and that is because college hoops were just not that big of a deal to most folks in the country. It is hard for people to believe that in today's age, but it is true. To Rupp's credit he was very competitive and took advantage of Kentucky's head start in the sport.

 

To Coach K-I would say it would not be a stretch to say I don't believe any other college basketball coach in my lifetime will gather 4 NCAA crowns. The only one I think with an outside chance would be Izzo at Michigan State, and that is because he is such a great tournament coach. The field is too large these days with too many distractions.

No question it is difficult to compare eras. Who were the Cats big competitors then back in Rupp's day? Nobody stands out, and that is because college hoops were just not that big of a deal to most folks in the country. It is hard for people to believe that in today's age, but it is true. To Rupp's credit he was very competitive and took advantage of Kentucky's head start in the sport.

 

To Coach K-I would say it would not be a stretch to say I don't believe any other college basketball coach in my lifetime will gather 4 NCAA crowns. The only one I think with an outside chance would be Izzo at Michigan State, and that is because he is such a great tournament coach. The field is too large these days with too many distractions.

 

I think that is a good point about the NCAA titles. Calhoun, Donovan and Roy Williams each have two. I don't see Calhoun getting 2 more but I could see Williams getting 2 more. Donovan, I am not as sure about getting 2 more. Then you have Self, Boeheim, Izzo, Pitino, Tubby and Gary Williams all active coaching with 1. Self and Izzo are the two there that are young enough and in programs that they could get 3 more. There is no doubt Coach K is at the top of this era. I just am not sure that he is as dominant in his era as Rupp was. Also, Rupp has 7 titles if you include the 2 Helms championships (one before there was an NCAA tourney and one for the 1954 undefeated team that did not play in the NCAA tourney) and the 1946 NIT champion, which at that time was as prestigious if not more as the NCAA tourney.

I'll be a homer and vote for Rupp.

 

It's hard to compare guys from completely different eras. And, I wasn't alive when Rupp coached anyway, so I truly have no idea.

 

One thing I will say...both guys are/were the best in their time.

College basketball wasn't nearly as big back then in Rupp's day. Not nearly as competitive. Not as many teams truly competing for the crown. Certainly Rupp was a pioneer and HUGE in Kentucky-just as two great coaches you mention-Allen is HUGE in Kansas and IBA in Oklahoma, but across the country they aren't as revered as Wooden is IMHO.

 

Coach K has been brilliant at Duke and 99 times out of 100 I am rooting against the Blue Devils.

 

Here's a list of teams that won the NCAA or were runner-up from 1945 to 1960 (Rupp's last title):

 

Oklahoma State (A&M), NYU, Oklahoma, Holy Cross, Baylor, UK, CCNY, Bradley, Kansas State, Kansas, St Johns, Indiana, LaSalle, Iowa, UNC, Seattle, West Virginia, California, Ohio State

 

Here's the same list from 1995 to 2010:

 

UCLA, Arkansas, UK, Syracuse, Utah, UConn, Duke, Michigan State, Florida, Arizona, Maryland, IU, Kansas, Georgia Tech, UNC, Ohio State, Memphis, Butler

 

I'm not sure MORE teams were competing than before. There are a lot of different teams on each list and more different representatives than in the last 15 years.

 

The tourney was smaller, no doubt; but there was less dominance than some realize among the different teams that played for a National Title in those days.

 

:thumb:

No question it is difficult to compare eras. Who were the Cats big competitors then back in Rupp's day? Nobody stands out, and that is because college hoops were just not that big of a deal to most folks in the country. It is hard for people to believe that in today's age, but it is true. To Rupp's credit he was very competitive and took advantage of Kentucky's head start in the sport.

 

To Coach K-I would say it would not be a stretch to say I don't believe any other college basketball coach in my lifetime will gather 4 NCAA crowns. The only one I think with an outside chance would be Izzo at Michigan State, and that is because he is such a great tournament coach. The field is too large these days with too many distractions.

 

Legitimate question.

 

Of the teams that Rupp faced in an NCAA Final in the 40's and 50's:

 

1948 vs. Baylor. Not a good team really that got hot but fell apart vs. UK.

(Footnote that UK beat Holy Cross in the Semi-Finals in New York. The Crusaders were the defending champ and had the great Bob Cousy at guard but he was shut down to a couple of points)

 

 

1949 vs. Oklahoma State. Henry Iba (one of the all time wins leaders) won the first back to back titles ever and had a good team that could not match up with Groza and UK.

 

1951 vs. Kansas State. Lew Hitch was the KSU center but UK rolled in the 2nd half.

 

1958 vs. Seattle. The great Elgin Baylor played for Seattle. In the semi-final UK defeated Temple with the future 4 time All-Star Guy Rodgers.

 

Some of these teams were far from stiffs and had some All-Time great talent on their squads. :thumb:

I voted for Coach K, but have to admit that comparing eras is hard.

I voted for Rupp just because I am a UK fan and don't like Duke.

I voted Rupp. Seriously both coaches are extraordinary. Coach K deserves all the credit he has gotten for being a great coach. Coach Rupp is underrated IMO and very misunderstood. Rupp also has an NIT title that at the time was as big of a deal as a NCAA title from what I understand. When you look at what a monumental figure he is, hes the reason why we are so basketball-obsessed in this state!

 

Coach K is a great coach. Hes won in so many different ways. When Boozer went down the team played fast and smaller. This year they had 3 good scorers and had a bunch of big men who were basically bangers inside and won that way. He deserves a lot of credit for what hes done.

Rupp's NIT title or Helm's award titles shouldn't count in the discussion. If Coach K had an NIT title he'd be laughed at not to mention who is to say he wouldn't turn down an NCAA bid to play in a "more prestigious" tournament? How many titles would he have overall if there was such a thing as a "more prestigious" tournament.

 

I don't buy the 'there are more coaches with more wins now so it's easier' argument either. On the contrary, sounds like it is harder if there are more coaches who have 700-800 wins of experience as opposed to 2 or 3.

 

Rupp also had the best talent to choose from because much like the women's game the best group of talent was attracted to a few schools. Way more parity now than back then and once again, the game is fully integrated now. Hard to make the claim that Rupp was beating the best when a whole lot of talent likely wasn't even in college due to the ways of the world. Yeah yeah, he adapted to who was out there but his stock fell quickly after complete integration.

Rupp's NIT title or Helm's award titles shouldn't count in the discussion. If Coach K had an NIT title he'd be laughed at not to mention who is to say he wouldn't turn down an NCAA bid to play in a "more prestigious" tournament? How many titles would he have overall if there was such a thing as a "more prestigious" tournament.

 

I don't buy the 'there are more coaches with more wins now so it's easier' argument either. On the contrary, sounds like it is harder if there are more coaches who have 700-800 wins of experience as opposed to 2 or 3.

 

Rupp also had the best talent to choose from because much like the women's game the best group of talent was attracted to a few schools. Way more parity now than back then and once again, the game is fully integrated now. Hard to make the claim that Rupp was beating the best when a whole lot of talent likely wasn't even in college due to the ways of the world. Yeah yeah, he adapted to who was out there but his stock fell quickly after complete integration.

 

Sure they should.

Rupp's NIT title or Helm's award titles shouldn't count in the discussion. If Coach K had an NIT title he'd be laughed at not to mention who is to say he wouldn't turn down an NCAA bid to play in a "more prestigious" tournament? How many titles would he have overall if there was such a thing as a "more prestigious" tournament.

 

I don't buy the 'there are more coaches with more wins now so it's easier' argument either. On the contrary, sounds like it is harder if there are more coaches who have 700-800 wins of experience as opposed to 2 or 3.

 

Rupp also had the best talent to choose from because much like the women's game the best group of talent was attracted to a few schools. Way more parity now than back then and once again, the game is fully integrated now. Hard to make the claim that Rupp was beating the best when a whole lot of talent likely wasn't even in college due to the ways of the world. Yeah yeah, he adapted to who was out there but his stock fell quickly after complete integration.

 

Come on now, our favorite Dukie groupie. Do your research. You say Rupp's stock fell after integration. Sorry but his winning percent his last 5 years was almost exactly the same as it was for his career - 82% (higher than Coach K's). He had 3 elite 8's and 2 Sweet Sixteens in his last 5 years. UK finished the year ranked in the top 10 in 4 of those last 5 seasons and top 20 in the other. Rupp actually was going as strong as ever those last 5 years.

 

As to it being easier today to get to 700 wins, if Duke was playing only those coaches getting all those wins, then you might have a point. But Duke isn't playing those coaches every night. When there were only 5 coaches over 600 wins at Rupp's retirement and there 35 or so today, it tells us about the era and who the dominant coach is.

Rupp's NIT title or Helm's award titles shouldn't count in the discussion. If Coach K had an NIT title he'd be laughed at not to mention who is to say he wouldn't turn down an NCAA bid to play in a "more prestigious" tournament? How many titles would he have overall if there was such a thing as a "more prestigious" tournament.

 

Rupp also had the best talent to choose from because much like the women's game the best group of talent was attracted to a few schools.

 

Dismissing the NIT and Helm's out of hand just shows ignorance of the different era's. The NIT then vs the NIT now aren't even remotely close.

 

As to your second point, I think Hatz covered it.

 

Here's a list of teams that won the NCAA or were runner-up from 1945 to 1960 (Rupp's last title):

 

Oklahoma State (A&M), NYU, Oklahoma, Holy Cross, Baylor, UK, CCNY, Bradley, Kansas State, Kansas, St Johns, Indiana, LaSalle, Iowa, UNC, Seattle, West Virginia, California, Ohio State

 

Here's the same list from 1995 to 2010:

 

UCLA, Arkansas, UK, Syracuse, Utah, UConn, Duke, Michigan State, Florida, Arizona, Maryland, IU, Kansas, Georgia Tech, UNC, Ohio State, Memphis, Butler

One thing that should be considered when making the difficult comparison between eras and whether a win = a win no matter when it occurs:

 

It could fairly be said that a lot of Rupp's wins could be discounted for the simple fact that a great deal of them were amassed during an era when SEC schools -- of whom most of Rupp's wins came against -- considered men's basketball about as important as women's sports. At best, most SEC schools looked at basketball as a way for football players to stay in shape.

 

By the same token, the current era of college basketball features schedule-packing of unprecedented levels, with Duke being one of the most notorious over the years for lining up a baby-soft non-conference schedule. As a result, you can also take many of Coach K's wins with a grain of salt.

 

In this light, total wins by either coach is a wash, given the competition they were facing in piling up a significant chunk of those wins.