The greatest programs: A postmoterm - Beyond the Arc - msnbc.com
Missed this yesterday, but Mike Miller explains his rankings and gives a lot of detail into how he arrived at his conclusions.
Very interesting read. Recommended.
about 1 year ago
Truzenzuzex
22 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Miller cites the same factor I do whenever I’m arguing for Kentucky in the “Greatest of All Time” debate: consistency.
by BBallSophist on Oct 10, 2008 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I Count Titles Won And FF Appearances
Get 2 points for NC and 1 point for FF.
UCLA = 11 × 2 and 18 × 1 = 40 points.
UK = 7 × 2 and 13 × 1 = 27 points.
UNC = 4 × 2 and 17 × 1 = 25 points.
Duke = 3 × 2 and 14 × 1 = 20 points.
Those are my Top 4 programs.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 10, 2008 3:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Using those numbers
UK top 4 Coach
Rupp 14-4NC and 6FF
Hall 5- 1NC and 3FF
Pitino 5-1NC and 3FF
Smith 3-1NC and 1FF
So is this the pecking order of UK coaches,using your numbers?
by -Zoso- on Oct 10, 2008 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, That's How I've Always Ranked Them
Rupp >>> Pitino or Hall > Tubby >>> Sutton.
Hall gets an edge over Pitino due to 8 SEC titles in 13 seasons compared to 2 (or 3) in 8 years.
Pitino gets the edge back with 5 SECT championships in 8 years compared to 1 in 7 years.
You could even count Rupp’s NIT title and 3 FF in NIT during 1940’s. (NIT = NCAA then)
But Rupp > Pitino, Hall, and Tubby (combined).
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FortyYearCatFan
You have posted that many times but there is more to it than just championships and final fours as Mike Miller pointed out.
by SevenRings on Oct 10, 2008 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
FF And NC Are What's Missing At UK In The 2000's
I don’t understand why fans who are Down On The 2K’s (Results) aren’t applying similar criteria to the Best Of All Time.
I do – UCLA is #1.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 10, 2008 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To each his own.
I agree with Miller, and disagree strongly with Forty. I think excellence over the decades is more important than a decade of excellence.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Oct 10, 2008 6:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I Respect Other Views
But 11 NCAA titles over 3 different decades (60’s, 70’s, 90’s) and 18 FF over 5 different decades (60’s through 2K’s) is more than a decade of excellence by UCLA.
In a 15 year span (62 thru 76), the Bruins made 13 FF appearances (all but 63 and 66) and won 10 NCAA titles. Sheer dominance over consecutive decades and the only team EVER to win 90% of its games over an extended period of time.
UK is clearly #2 (and was #1 going into the 60’s) and has been since the 70’s ended.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 10, 2008 8:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's your mistake
UCLA got most of their NCAA wins during a time where teams were placed geographically and being out West played inferior competition AND the tourney had fewer rounds so had a MUCH easier trip to get to the final game.
What UCLA did was phenomenal but it’s not unlike a rec league getting some momentum then steamrolling their competition until the system is changed to balance the playing field.
I have to give Kentucky the edge over UCLA.
by Clandestine on Oct 10, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not So
The western teams weren’t easier to beat. You just didn’t see them on TV much. But they were just as good as eastern teams.
If the trip to the FF was so easy from 62 thru 76, how come Kentucky just made 2 trips despite having enormous talent (Nash, Riley, Dampier, Issel, Casey, Pratt, Parker, et al) then?
That dog won’t hunt. UCLA earned every one of those FF appearances and NCAA titles by dominating competition, east or west.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
AND UCLA Had To Win The Pac-8 (Then) Conference Every Year To Get INTO NCAA
Wooden would have excelled (and dominated) in any decade.
Rupp struggled in the 60’s because UK failed to integrate (despite trying hard to do so) but he would have continued to dominate if he had players like Unseld, Beard, or McDaniels on his teams.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It cossed two decades ...
… but it was really only one. Yes, they dominated that time period like no other, but there was really nothing on either side of Wooden. Yes, they have been better lately and they won one NC in the 1990’s, but in my opinion, they are pretty much a one-trick pony compared to UK.
You are simply mistaken. UK is not clearly #2. You have simply ignored the reality and fallen for the same arguments many other people have. You are entitled to your opinion, but in mine, it is wrong, pure and simple.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Oct 11, 2008 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's All About The Titles
UK has 7 NCAA and 2 NIT titles plus 13 FF appearances (17 if you count FF in NIT).
But UCLA has more. UK and North Carolina are next but the Bruins are the top program.
John Wooden won 80% of his games from 1949 through 1975. He was darn good in the 50’s too.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 8:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
UCLA Joined NCAA In 1948 When Wooden Arrived (They Were NAIB Like Louisville B4 That)
1948-1949 22 7 .759
1949-1950 24 7 .774
1950-1951 19 10 .655
1951-1952 19 12 .613
1952-1953 16 8 .667
1953-1954 18 7 .720
1954-1955 21 5 .808
1955-1956 22 6 .786
1956-1957 22 4 .846
1957-1958 16 10 .615
1958-1959 16 9 .640
1959-1960 14 12 .538
1960-1961 18 8 .692
1961-1962 18 11 .621 Final Four
1962-1963 20 9 .690
1963-1964 30 0 1.000 Championship
1964-1965 28 2 .933 Championship
1965-1966 18 8 .692
1966-1967 30 0 1.000 Championship
1967-1968 29 1 .967 Championship
1968-1969 29 1 .967 Championship
1969-1970 28 2 .933 Championship
1970-1971 29 1 .967 Championship
1971-1972 30 0 1.000 Championship
1972-1973 30 0 1.000 Championship
1973-1974 26 4 .867
1974-1975 28 3 .903 Championship
+ 1975-1976 28 4 .875 Final Four
1976-1977 24 5 .831
1977-1978 25 3 .893
1978-1979 25 5 .833
1979-1980 22 10 .688 Final Four
1980-1981 20 7 .741
1981-1982 21 6 .778
1982-1983 23 6 .793
1983-1984 17 11 .607
1984-1985 21 12 .636
1985-1986 15 14 .517
1986-1987 25 7 .781
1987-1988 16 14 .533
1988-1989 21 10 .677
1989-1990 22 11 .667
1990-1991 23 9 .719
1991-1992 28 5 .848
1992-1993 22 11 .667
1993-1994 21 7 .750
++ 1994-1995 32 1 .979 Championship
1995-1996 23 8 .742
1996-1997 24 8 .750
1997-1998 24 9 .727
1998-1999 22 9 .710
1999-2000 21 12 .636
2000-2001 23 9 .719
2001-2002 21 12 .636
2002-2003 10 19 .345
2003-2004 11 17 .393
2004-2005 18 11 .621
2005-2006 32 7 .821 Final Four
2006-2007 30 6 .833 Final Four
2007-2008 35 4 .897 Final Four
(and)
John R. Wooden 1948-75 27 620 147 .808
Gene Bartow 1975-77 2 52 9 .852
Gary Cunningham 1977-79 2 50 8 .862
Larry Brown 1979-81 2 42 17 .712
Larry Farmer 1981-84 3 61 23 .726
Walt Hazzard 1984-88 4 77 47 .621
Jim Harrick 1988-96 8 192 62 .756
Steve Lavin 1996-03 7 145 78 .650
Ben Howland 2003- 5 126 45 .737
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 9:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Duke In The 1990's
http://www.sportsstats.com/AP/alldecade.html 5th best or #1 – it depends.
Duke won 2 NCAA titles, made 4 championship games, and 5 FF appearances in 90’s. No one had better results in 90’s. (UK had 2, 3, 4 respectively)
Titles and FF are what count the most.
Coaches Rupp, Hall, and Pitino are revered for that more than any other achievements.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All-Time NCAA Tourney Results
http://webpages.charter.net/dbwoerner/coaches/schl108.htm Duke #1, UCLA #2 (in terms of W-L record) but UCLA leads Duke in titles won, championship games, and FF appearances.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
UCLA is ranked 4th in Millers rankings because there is more too it than...
championships and final fours. Just because you keep repeating it doesnt make it true.
by SevenRings on Oct 11, 2008 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I Understand Why But
I don’t agree.
The most valid criticism of the 10 years Post Pitino at UK is the lack of FF appearances.
UK averages 2 FF per decade but only made 1 FF in those 10 years.
UK averages 1 NC per decade. Check.
UK averages 1 SEC title every 2 years. Check.
UK averages 1 SECT championship every 2 years. Check.
What’s missing is FF appearances. That’s obviously the most important thing.
So UCLA is #1 of all-time. Check. #1 in NCAA titles, #1 in FF appearances.
Like the Yankees in baseball.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One More > This Is Blog To Express Opinions
UK made 4 FF appearances and won 2 NC in the 1990’s.
UK made 4 FF appearances (TOTAL) and won 1 NC in 1960’s – 70’s – and 80’s.
Why are the 1990’s revered and the other 3 decades not so much?
FF appearances and NC won.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 1:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
and NO ONE
can express opinion more repetitively than 40 so you might as well let it go, 7 ; )
by blue kentucky girl on Oct 11, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've Given Evidence
Stats. Reasons. Etc, etc, etc.
UCLA #1 and UK #2 edging UNC #3.
by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 11, 2008 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 3/31/2009]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
