Who did you vote for Jim?:sssh:

Who did you vote for Jim?:sssh:

 

The vote's public; check for yourself.

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.

 

Seriously dude. I know you love Duke and all, but your arguments are off because you have no idea what your talking about. I think other Duke fans would rather you not argue on their behalf. :lol: You say not to count an NIT. When Rupp won an NIT it is nothing like the NIT is now. Do the research on it. Then you say Rupp didn't beat black players when they beat a Seattle team led by Elgin Baylor to win a title. You also say that Rupp fell off late in his career when his win total was still excellent and a Mike Casey car wreck quite possibly cost him another title.

 

I'm sorry, but its just comical. Come up with some facts and get back with us.

Seriously dude. I know you love Duke and all, but your arguments are off because you have no idea what your talking about. I think other Duke fans would rather you not argue on their behalf. :lol: You say not to count an NIT. When Rupp won an NIT it is nothing like the NIT is now. Do the research on it. Then you say Rupp didn't beat black players when they beat a Seattle team led by Elgin Baylor to win a title. You also say that Rupp fell off late in his career when his win total was still excellent and a Mike Casey car wreck quite possibly cost him another title.

 

I'm sorry, but its just comical. Come up with some facts and get back with us.

 

You're right, they only had to win 3 games back then. :sssh: Granted I don't know nor care what the difference between the NIT and the tournament that is in place today was or when that even came into place, I'm just messing with ya... Anybody care to enlighten me? Not getting into this debate because there is no clear cut answer. Of course I think Coach K is more impressive because he's doing it in this era but I wasn't around back then so I wouldn't know. I do know it is much harder to win 6 games than it is to win 3. Without taking the time to research, how many of Rupp's National Championships only took 3 wins in the tournament to do it?

Edited April 20, 201016 yr by GRC4LIFE

Seriously dude. I know you love Duke and all, but your arguments are off because you have no idea what your talking about. I think other Duke fans would rather you not argue on their behalf. :lol: You say not to count an NIT. When Rupp won an NIT it is nothing like the NIT is now. Do the research on it. Then you say Rupp didn't beat black players when they beat a Seattle team led by Elgin Baylor to win a title. You also say that Rupp fell off late in his career when his win total was still excellent and a Mike Casey car wreck quite possibly cost him another title.

 

I'm sorry, but its just comical. Come up with some facts and get back with us.

 

What's really funny? The biggest UK homer and the biggest Duke hater on this board is telling me my argument and that I am comical? :lol: That's the real humor to me. I figured you would be somewhere going over next year's Duke schedule and bracketology to lay the foundation for your next Duke argument.

 

 

In all seriousness, this is not a Duke/UK debate. This is a Rupp/Krzyzewski debate and the other Duke fans could have voted for Rupp and could be on your side. With all due respect to my Duke brethren on here(Kyle is coming back!!!!!!!!) my feelings and my stance on this debate are my own individual feelings.

 

Feel free to go back through the thread and note where I pointed out that until a few years before the 'Glory Road' game there was a gentleman's agreement that didn't allow more than 3 blacks on the floor at the same time. I found that in my research. In fact before the 'Glory Road' game it was Loyola in the 1962-63 season that started 4 blacks at the same time which began to truly usher in integration in men's basketball. To act as though beating an Elgin Baylor led Seattle team is monumental feather in Rupp's cap when Baylor's rib injury that he suffered in the Kansas State game was misdiagnosed and treated by the UK doctor brings even more skepticism from me despite the racial inequalities in men's college basketball. As I stated earlier, Coach K is winning titles against a much more talented product than Rupp was because Coach K is winning titles against completely integrated teams. Rupp never won a title against a completely integrated team. See 'Glory Road'. He won games, many many games against completely integrated teams after 1966, but he never won any titles after that and titles are always the ultimate measuring stick.

 

 

I can't count an NIT title because the argument can be made that he didn't beat the best teams because some of the best teams may have played in the other prestigious tournament.

 

If Duke wins it all next year, which is possible, and Coach K has 5 NCAA titles will he be considered better than Rupp then or is that when Rupp's NIT titles and Helm's Awards take on more significance?

 

 

This question is for everyone..........What will it take for Coach K to be considered better than Rupp?

Edited April 20, 201016 yr by PurplePride92

OK, I will try one last time to get my point across about integration. It is a non factor in this debate. The coaches are competing against other coaches in their era under the same rules. Coach K competes against integrated teams WITH AN INTEGRATED TEAM! Rupp coached teams that were not integrated against other teams that were not integrated. The coaches all got players from the same pool and then coached them up. Neither coach has an advantage or disadvantage because of integration. Integration is not a factor in this discussion.

 

As to your argument Rupp didn't win a title after integration, so what. Coming into this season Coach K had not won a title in 8 years. What caused that? Winning titles isn't easy and the fact that a coach goes 5 or 10 years without winning one doesn't mean they aren't a good coach anymore.

 

What will it take for me to consider Coach K better than Rupp? Coach K will never catch Rupp in winning percentage so that is out of reach. Keep winning 80% plus games. Get to 1,000 wins. Win at least one more title. Then Coach K will be close to the dominance in his era that Rupp had in his. By the way, I think all those are attainable by Coach K. Five more years with one title in those years is all it will take.

This question is for everyone..........What will it take for Coach K to be considered better than Rupp?

 

The easy answer for that question, at least when it comes to most of this board, is "When Coach K wins a national championship as UK's coach."

The easy answer for that question, at least when it comes to most of this board, is "When Coach K wins a national championship as UK's coach."

ding ding ding....we now have a winner.

Easily Rupp, K would not have lasted long back then. Rupp also took UK and created the juggernott UK is today and maintained it over all those years after creating it from scratch.

What's really funny? The biggest UK homer and the biggest Duke hater on this board is telling me my argument and that I am comical?:rolleyes: :lol: That's the real humor to me. I figured you would be somewhere going over next year's Duke schedule and bracketology to lay the foundation for your next Duke argument.

 

 

In all seriousness, this is not a Duke/UK debate. This is a Rupp/Krzyzewski debate and the other Duke fans could have voted for Rupp and could be on your side. With all due respect to my Duke brethren on here(Kyle is coming back!!!!!!!!) my feelings and my stance on this debate are my own individual feelings.

 

Feel free to go back through the thread and note where I pointed out that until a few years before the 'Glory Road' game there was a gentleman's agreement that didn't allow more than 3 blacks on the floor at the same time. I found that in my research. In fact before the 'Glory Road' game it was Loyola in the 1962-63 season that started 4 blacks at the same time which began to truly usher in integration in men's basketball. To act as though beating an Elgin Baylor led Seattle team is monumental feather in Rupp's cap when Baylor's rib injury that he suffered in the Kansas State game was misdiagnosed and treated by the UK doctor brings even more skepticism from me despite the racial inequalities in men's college basketball. As I stated earlier, Coach K is winning titles against a much more talented product than Rupp was because Coach K is winning titles against completely integrated teams. Rupp never won a title against a completely integrated team. See 'Glory Road'. He won games, many many games against completely integrated teams after 1966, but he never won any titles after that and titles are always the ultimate measuring stick.

 

 

I can't count an NIT title because the argument can be made that he didn't beat the best teams because some of the best teams may have played in the other prestigious tournament.

 

If Duke wins it all next year, which is possible, and Coach K has 5 NCAA titles will he be considered better than Rupp then or is that when Rupp's NIT titles and Helm's Awards take on more significance?

 

 

This question is for everyone..........What will it take for Coach K to be considered better than Rupp?

 

Show me what I've said that has been a homer comment in the last year. I don't believe I've said anything that makes me a UK homer. Now a Duke hater.....well guilty as charged. Now you said Adolph Rupp didn't beat black players to win titles and you were wrong and are now trying to twist it around. All I'm saying is have the argument you want, just please try to be accurate.

 

The NIT was very different then. The best teams typically played in it too when UK won. A matter of fact in 49 I believe, when UK lost the NIT that was the game where there was the infamous point scandal that got UK in trouble. So UK won the NCAA tournament and lost the NIT. I'm not saying it should mean as much as an NCAA title, but it was a much bigger deal then than now.

 

The moral of the story is be accurate. :thumb:

Easily Rupp, K would not have lasted long back then. Rupp also took UK and created the juggernott UK is today and maintained it over all those years after creating it from scratch.

 

Your post can't be credible simply because of the first word of your post.

What's really funny? The biggest UK homer and the biggest Duke hater on this board is telling me my argument and that I am comical? :lol: That's the real humor to me. I figured you would be somewhere going over next year's Duke schedule and bracketology to lay the foundation for your next Duke argument.

 

 

In all seriousness, this is not a Duke/UK debate. This is a Rupp/Krzyzewski debate and the other Duke fans could have voted for Rupp and could be on your side. With all due respect to my Duke brethren on here(Kyle is coming back!!!!!!!!) my feelings and my stance on this debate are my own individual feelings.

 

Feel free to go back through the thread and note where I pointed out that until a few years before the 'Glory Road' game there was a gentleman's agreement that didn't allow more than 3 blacks on the floor at the same time. I found that in my research. In fact before the 'Glory Road' game it was Loyola in the 1962-63 season that started 4 blacks at the same time which began to truly usher in integration in men's basketball. To act as though beating an Elgin Baylor led Seattle team is monumental feather in Rupp's cap when Baylor's rib injury that he suffered in the Kansas State game was misdiagnosed and treated by the UK doctor brings even more skepticism from me despite the racial inequalities in men's college basketball. As I stated earlier, Coach K is winning titles against a much more talented product than Rupp was because Coach K is winning titles against completely integrated teams. Rupp never won a title against a completely integrated team. See 'Glory Road'. He won games, many many games against completely integrated teams after 1966, but he never won any titles after that and titles are always the ultimate measuring stick.

 

 

I can't count an NIT title because the argument can be made that he didn't beat the best teams because some of the best teams may have played in the other prestigious tournament.

 

If Duke wins it all next year, which is possible, and Coach K has 5 NCAA titles will he be considered better than Rupp then or is that when Rupp's NIT titles and Helm's Awards take on more significance?

 

 

This question is for everyone..........What will it take for Coach K to be considered better than Rupp?

 

I am a diehard UK fan and I voted for Coach K. However, while some UK fans do let their judgement be clouded, you have to see where yours appears in places to be clouded as well, ... just a different shade of blue. To point out the integration of the time as the reason that Rupp's titles really don't count the same, it just plain ridiculous. Using the 'Glory Road', a movie which was not entirely based on all the actual facts and was tilted towards projecting Rupp and UK as the enemy, (even per the Texas Western players) doesn't give your argument any more merit.

 

The bottom line is that while it is EXTREMELY difficult to compare the eras they won in, the fact is that they BOTH won in their respective eras. Remember that Rupp was one of the first coaches to petition the SEC to end the segregation. He was shot down both times. Fact it the man just wanted to win.

 

Given all that, I voted for Coach K. The reason is that IMHO, his overall postseason numbers are better. Tied on titles and looking at the entire picture, I gave Coach K the edge. I realize that trashing UK fans (subtly or directly)on here has become 'vogue', but it isn't necessary.

Frankly, I'm surprised the poll is as close as it is.

Show me what I've said that has been a homer comment in the last year. I don't believe I've said anything that makes me a UK homer. Now a Duke hater.....well guilty as charged. Now you said Adolph Rupp didn't beat black players to win titles and you were wrong and are now trying to twist it around. All I'm saying is have the argument you want, just please try to be accurate.

 

The NIT was very different then. The best teams typically played in it too when UK won. A matter of fact in 49 I believe, when UK lost the NIT that was the game where there was the infamous point scandal that got UK in trouble. So UK won the NCAA tournament and lost the NIT. I'm not saying it should mean as much as an NCAA title, but it was a much bigger deal then than now.

 

The moral of the story is be accurate. :thumb:

 

I have been accurate. You just aren't following me and that's fine. It's just as hard for me at work to explain why I feel the way I do about the racial inequalities that plagued men's college basketball. I guess I danced around what I should have been trying to say too much so I'll try to be more blunt now....... Until 1966, there was never 5 black men on the court at the same time. In my opinion, black men make up a large majority of the great and more talented basketball players. Again, that is my opinion. Doesn't make it right, but it is my opinion. When Rupp was coaching he was not coaching against predominately black teams, he was coaching against predominately white teams that may have had 3 black men on the whole team. If I am not mistaken, the Elgin Baylor Seattle team had Elgin and Charley Brown on it and I believe that was it. Opportunities for young black men to play college basketball were nowhere near as prevalent and available as they have been since the late 1960's and early 70's when Texas El Paso proved that it is actually okay to put 5 black guys out on the court at the same time. So when I say 'completely integrated' I am meaning that more than 5 black guys were allowed on the court at the same time. Until 1966, no team had put 5 black guys on the court at the same time. 4 was the most until that point and things were still bad for black men at the time. Rupp was winning games when the quality of basketball was nowhere near where the quality of basketball is now. The quality of the game is not even close. Wasn't the dunk outlawed at some point during his time period? So forgive me when I interject race because I think the racial inequalities affected the quality of the game and that because Rupp adapted to the game is still one of the greatest coaches ever, I just don't think he is better than Coach K. That will never be swayed. Period.

 

 

Also, please, go back to my first post when I admitted I was biased.:isurrender:

 

 

Have a good one.:thumb: I am sure our paths will cross again.

Edited April 21, 201016 yr by PurplePride92

I am a diehard UK fan and I voted for Coach K. However, while some UK fans do let their judgement be clouded, you have to see where yours appears in places to be clouded as well, ... just a different shade of blue. To point out the integration of the time as the reason that Rupp's titles really don't count the same, it just plain ridiculous. Using the 'Glory Road', a movie which was not entirely based on all the actual facts and was tilted towards projecting Rupp and UK as the enemy, (even per the Texas Western players) doesn't give your argument any more merit.

 

The bottom line is that while it is EXTREMELY difficult to compare the eras they won in, the fact is that they BOTH won in their respective eras. Remember that Rupp was one of the first coaches to petition the SEC to end the segregation. He was shot down both times. Fact it the man just wanted to win.

 

Given all that, I voted for Coach K. The reason is that IMHO, his overall postseason numbers are better. Tied on titles and looking at the entire picture, I gave Coach K the edge. I realize that trashing UK fans (subtly or directly)on here has become 'vogue', but it isn't necessary.

 

No one is trashing UK fans. Where am I trashing UK fans? Show me and I'll apologize. Nowhere have I intentionally or subtly trashed UK fans. I am using Glory Road as a reference point and that's all. I never even watched the movie. This is a discussion about Rupp and Coach K and like it or not, Rupp was coaching in one of the most historical games in the history of basketball. Relax, this has been a great debate all the way through. One in which I have found to be civil and informative. I have gone out of my way to not come off as a condescending UK/Rupp hater because I really don't want to have that image. I am simply trying(and obviously failing) to present my beliefs and trying to do so in an intellectual debate. The subject of race is always hard for a black man to explain to a mostly white audience but I am trying. If I have offended you, I apologize because honestly I am trying my hardest to present the mind of most black men on this subject without sounding ignorant and give a mostly white audience a different perspective and maybe open up some eyes on how most black people truly feel about basketball in that time period. What you call ridiculous is not ridiculous at all to a large majority of black people who are older than me and have always followed basketball. You can call it blue clouded glasses or whatever. I said it before and I'll say it again, this is not a Duke/UK argument it's a Coach K/Rupp argument. As was said before, it is impossible to contrast and compare these two coaches from two different eras but I tried. I'll always try. I love a good debate. I can't help myself. No hard feelings.:thumb: