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.

 

He has no titles after the 1950's correct? That's what I was alluding to. He has no titles when complete integration was in play.

 

 

All of the dominant coaches of today's era have won all of the championships this past decade. Coach K(2), Roy Williams(2), Jim Calhoun, Jim Boeheim, Bill Self, Billy Donovan(2) and Tom Izzo. Only the best of the best win titles and they pass them amongst each other.

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.

 

Playing ranked teams at neutral sites makes your schedule 'baby soft'?

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.

 

Somewhat, but my whole point is that a lot of talent wasn't playing because of the color of their skin. Realistically, when 70-80% of the NBA is black you can't ignore the huge elephant in the room that is screaming that the game was played at a different level then and Coach K won titles in an era that was completely integrated(meaning 5 black guys could start at the same time thus rendering the gentleman's agreement obsolete) and Rupp didn't.

 

For me, right or wrong, that goes a long way into determining who the better coach might be and the perspective I have in this discussion. I really don't know how to have a perspective not involving the racial environment of the game of basketball during the time period when Rupp was the dominant coach. Yes, Rupp beat teams that had blacks on them, but he never won titles against any of them. Coach K has. For me, that makes a big difference.

Playing ranked teams at neutral sites makes your schedule 'baby soft'?

 

Just because they started adding a few decent non-con games in the last few years doesn't wash away 30 years of weak scheduling out-of-conference. You know, those days when it seemed Boeheim, Coach K and John Thompson the Elder had a standing bet at the beginning of each season over who could remain undefeated the longest.

Just because they started adding a few decent non-con games in the last few years doesn't wash away 30 years of weak scheduling out-of-conference. You know, those days when it seemed Boeheim, Coach K and John Thompson the Elder had a standing bet at the beginning of each season over who could remain undefeated the longest.

You have any schedule rankings to back that up?

Somewhat, but my whole point is that a lot of talent wasn't playing because of the color of their skin. Realistically, when 70-80% of the NBA is black you can't ignore the huge elephant in the room that is screaming that the game was played at a different level then and Coach K won titles in an era that was completely integrated(meaning 5 black guys could start at the same time thus rendering the gentleman's agreement obsolete) and Rupp didn't.

 

For me, right or wrong, that goes a long way into determining who the better coach might be and the perspective I have in this discussion. I really don't know how to have a perspective not involving the racial environment of the game of basketball during the time period when Rupp was the dominant coach. Yes, Rupp beat teams that had blacks on them, but he never won titles against any of them. Coach K has. For me, that makes a big difference.

 

UK beat Seattle with Elgin Baylor in 1958.

 

It's all relative to the era. All teams were playing in the same environment under the same conditions and Rupp totally dominated.

 

But we can split hairs ad infinitum. I don't think there is a clear, definitive argument that can be made for one over the other. I am a UK fan so I believe Rupp was better. You are a Duke fan so you go with Coach K. They both are clearly at the top of their eras and at the top of all time and I think we both agree on that.

UK beat Seattle with Elgin Baylor in 1958.

 

How many other blacks were on that team because the gentleman's agreement didn't expire until 1963ish so no more than 3 blacks could start and so I wonder how many were even on that Elgin Baylor led team.

If the black player is such a significant advantage, the fact that Rupp was winning without them seems to further prove how good a coach he was. He was winning with lesser talent.

If the black player is such a significant advantage, the fact that Rupp was winning without them seems to further prove how good a coach he was. He was winning with lesser talent.

 

He also was never playing against better talent either. That's the point I am trying to make.

UK beat Seattle with Elgin Baylor in 1958.

 

It's all relative to the era. All teams were playing in the same environment under the same conditions and Rupp totally dominated.

 

But we can split hairs ad infinitum. I don't think there is a clear, definitive argument that can be made for one over the other. I am a UK fan so I believe Rupp was better. You are a Duke fan so you go with Coach K. They both are clearly at the top of their eras and at the top of all time and I think we both agree on that.

 

:thumb:

 

I agree wholeheartedly but you must admit that it makes for a great debate. I enjoy a good civil debate.:thumb:

Just because they started adding a few decent non-con games in the last few years doesn't wash away 30 years of weak scheduling out-of-conference. You know, those days when it seemed Boeheim, Coach K and John Thompson the Elder had a standing bet at the beginning of each season over who could remain undefeated the longest.

 

I will revisit this when I have more time. I'll be back.:thumb:

He also was never playing against better talent either. That's the point I am trying to make.

 

I think throughout the 60's, surely the last 5 years of his career he was playing against teams with black players and his winning percentage was still 82%. I just don't think that is a valid argument. The pool of talent is the same for all the teams of an era and the coaches are pulling from that same pool.

Just because they started adding a few decent non-con games in the last few years doesn't wash away 30 years of weak scheduling out-of-conference. You know, those days when it seemed Boeheim, Coach K and John Thompson the Elder had a standing bet at the beginning of each season over who could remain undefeated the longest.

 

I am no Duke apologist, but I have to admit that for many of those years, the ACC was one the top basketball conferences year in and year out. The in conference schedule was been pretty tough during many of those years.

I think throughout the 60's, surely the last 5 years of his career he was playing against teams with black players and his winning percentage was still 82%. I just don't think that is a valid argument. The pool of talent is the same for all the teams of an era and the coaches are pulling from that same pool.

 

I never said he wasn't winning, I said he wasn't winning titles. I am impressed with his winning percentage more than anything else he did.

I am no Duke apologist, but I have to admit that for many of those years, the ACC was one the top basketball conferences year in and year out. The in conference schedule was been pretty tough during many of those years.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it was counterbalanced by an awful OOC schedule most of the time. To Rupp's credit, he did a reverse of this and would often play a very demanding OOC schedule to make up for the joke teams he beat up on in the SEC.