… if you take away Rupp and Wooden, UK is clearly the more successful program.

I think people get too much caught up in moments in time, and don’t look at the broader picture. I think MIke Miller did, and very effectively.

… is that UCLA had the greatest coach in history, but absent Wooden, they have been an inferior program to UK, even if you take away Rupp’s accomplishments also. We have had four coaches win NC’s at UK, and no other team in America can claim that. That speaks to program strength a lot more than Wooden’s cult of personality does about UCLA’s program.

No argument from me that Wooden is hands down the most successful college coach in history, and all those national championships are versus the years of his career are likely untouchable. Yeah, Rupp had the higher winning percentage over more years, but ten national championships undeniably win that one, especially since their winning percentage is actually very close (.808 vs .822 respectively).

Yes, if Rupp had stayed at Kansas we never would have sniffed a basketball program. No Rupp… no Hall. No Hall… no Sutton. No Sutton… no Pitino. No Pitino… no Tubby. You are absolutely correct.

But the argument being made here is not about program building… its about program sustainment over the long haul. UCLA and Duke clearly do not have that. Kentucky has by far the best argument here, but Kansas and UNC can also say that they do okay without their best coach in the discussion.

This is a nonsense argument, and you know it.

The point was relative to program success, and one way to measure program vs. an individual coach. The two are definitely separable, and the argument you are implicitly making is that they aren’t.

We have seen many examples of excellent coaches taking ordinary programs to untold heights. Connecticut is one example, UNLV is another, and Florida is yet another. When these coaches move on, these programs usually return to ordinary status. Duke was actually a very good program before Krzyzewski came, and it will return to very good status when he leaves, most likely — just like UCLA did when Wooden retired.

So please don’t make irrelevant points, and this one most definitely is irrelevant to the argument. It is a complete red herring.