All-time Wins

[rabbitTown]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

 

[BlueBomb]

First of all, not counting Duke as a blue blood is a little silly IMO. That's wishful thinking.

Yes, the wins lead is very important because it's referred to often on telecasts, ESPN, etc. It's certainly good branding. That 16-game lead over KU could potentially really shrink in the next month. It's possible that we flame out early in both post season tournaments and Kansas wins both the Big 12 and the NCAAT. Just saying it's "possible." If that were to happen, that lead could shrink to 9 or 10 games.

I'm glad that soon, Self will be gone and KU on probation.

 

[HerrosHeroes]

All time wins

 

[Cawood86]

All time wins.
Second would be most all time tournament wins.

Those two mean sustained excellence imo.

It means UK wins a lot, but also means UK wins a lot when it matters most.

I think UK also has the most tournament appearances. Another example of sustained success.

 

[rabbitTown]

First of all, not counting Duke as a blue blood is a little silly IMO. That's wishful thinking.

Not to get off the subject (though I was 'asking' for a response like that)... but, Blue Bloods are defined by nobility... noble birth. The only three programs I feel it applies to us, UNC, and KU. I can see the arguments either way, just my opinion (maybe some wishful thinking). I view Duke as a Temple with more championships.

 

[UKcatXXXL]

Not saying I put this at the top, but I would like to see us get to #1 for Final Fours

 

[rabbitTown]

I'm glad that soon, Self will be gone and KU on probation.

Now, that is wishful thinking! Nothing will happen to them... not going to get my hopes up again.

 

[IndyCat1995]

UK's lead was down to 4 before Cal took over

 

[bnewt]

don't think Kansas will ever be on probation.....should have already happened if it was going too,
LSU, Arizona & UL were all caught red handed & they are still playing
UNC cheated for over 20 years & got nothing

 

[legalbeagle123]

We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

We re-took the lead at the end of the 1996 season.

 

[rabbitTown]

We re-took the lead at the end of the 1996 season.

You're right... we were tied after '94-95.. and went three up at the end of '95-96. We lost it to UNC during the '89-90 season. And took it from Kansas in '61-62.
The numbers on my spreadsheet were a year off. Thanks.

 

[rabbitTown]

UK's lead was down to 4 before Cal took over

Tubby had an 11 win lead when he took over... got it to 39... and handed it off to BCG with 34 wins. In two years (two really down years for us and really up years for UNC), the lead was only 4 wins.

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

All-time wins for sure. It distinguishes us as the best ever. I don't like how close KU is, but I also still wonder if they will have some games or a season taken away at some point. They are only 3 games up on us this year and looking at their recruiting class coming in I don't see them gaining any more ground next year and I would think we take some back next year.

 

[Ed323232]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

KU may lose a few

 

[Ben101er]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

And KU is closest, for now. Let's wait and see what happens with the NCAA investigation. They may have to vacate some wins. An entire year would be nice.

 

[JPScott]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

Kentucky didn’t take over the all-time victory lead in 1959-60. Oregon State held the lead. It would be nearly another decade before the Wildcats took over the lead.

In fact in the early years there were a number of different schools which held the lead, many that would be surprising to hear.

Below is a link to a progression of the all-time wins leaders at different points in time.

Link to All-Time Wins Historic Progression

Also, the actual time period that UK overtook Oregon State coincided with the quest to be the first program to record 1000 victories. The race between UK, Kansas and Oregon State was extremely tight but UK pulled through. I describe it at the following link.

The Race for 1,000 Victories

 

[Indyadolph]

1. Most National Titles
1A. Most Wins
2. Final Four Appearances

More than anything, I hated it when Dean Smith passed Adolph in all-time wins. And since Dean, 6 others have passed Rupp.
It was inevitable, but I still hate it.
Of course, there SO many more games played per season now days than the 30s and 40s. Heck, Rupp's first year in 1930-31 there were only 18 games played!

Go Big Blue!!!

 

[MdWIldcat55]

Even if Kansas avoids probation, forfeiting the De Sousa wins, and a show-cause penalty for Self, they are heading into a downturn after this year. Kentucky has a much better chance of having a 30-plus win team next year, depending on who stays and goes, than Kansas does of reaching 25 wins without Azibuike and Dotson and a couple others, with an ordinary recruiting class coming in.

It'd be nice if they pulled a "Northern Iowa" or "VCU" in the tournament.

 

[bnewt]

Even if Kansas avoids probation, forfeiting the De Sousa wins, and a show-cause penalty for Self, they are heading into a downturn after this year. Kentucky has a much better chance of having a 30-plus win team next year, depending on who stays and goes, than Kansas does of reaching 25 wins without Azibuike and Dotson and a couple others, with an ordinary recruiting class coming in.

It'd be nice if they pulled a "Northern Iowa" or "VCU" in the tournament.

Most thought the same thing about this year

 

[rabbitTown]

Kentucky didn’t take over the all-time victory lead in 1959-60. Oregon State held the lead. It would be nearly another decade before the Wildcats took over the lead.

As I prefaced... only looking at the Blue Bloods.. and Duke. : )

 

[KRJ1975]

All time wins probably matters absolutely least for me. Programs like Temple, Purdue, Utah, St. John's and WKU pepper the top 15. Any team behind them with multiple titles wouldn't (and shouldn't) trade places with them.

 

[rabbitTown]

Even if Kansas avoids probation, forfeiting the De Sousa wins, and a show-cause penalty for Self, they are heading into a downturn after this year. Kentucky has a much better chance of having a 30-plus win team next year, depending on who stays and goes, than Kansas does of reaching 25 wins without Azibuike and Dotson and a couple others, with an ordinary recruiting class coming in.

It'd be nice if they pulled a "Northern Iowa" or "VCU" in the tournament.

Posters here (including me) were saying the same thing about KU on here after last season. Fact is, they'll always have seasoned/talented upperclassmen. I wish we did. They will be consistent, maybe not elite, but consistent enough to get at least 25ish wins. Plus, transfers can change the face of a program perhaps much more than freshman. KU isn't #1 w/o Moss this year.
I'm not wishing bad luck on anybody else... we take care of what we can control and we're good. We don't need help from anyone. Self said he did nothing wrong... then he'll get his chance. Maybe it will get swept under his rug... maybe not. Either way, I'm not concerned, I'll give it no negative thought... the UNC fiasco broke me of that.

 

[rabbitTown]

All time wins probably matters absolutely least for me. Programs like Temple, Purdue, Utah, St. John's and WKU pepper the top 15. Any team behind them with multiple titles wouldn't (and shouldn't) trade places with them.

Yeah... but we're not talking about the top 15... talking about THE ALL-TIME WINNINGEST PROGRAM!!

 

[rabbitTown]

1. Most National Titles
1A. Most Wins
2. Final Four Appearances

Except we don't currently own 1 or 2. The question was which of the many categories we currently lead, would you take over all the others.

 

[KRJ1975]

Yeah... but we're not talking about the top 15... talking about THE ALL-TIME WINNINGEST PROGRAM!!

Understood, but that’s a weird stance to take IMO. It’s basically saying “I care most about all time wins as long as we are #1 on that list.”

 

[rabbitTown]

Understood, but that’s a weird stance to take IMO. It’s basically saying “I care most about all time wins as long as we are #1 on that list.”

Re-phrased... Of the many categories we lead in, which one are you most proud of?

 

[RunninRichie]

we currently have 129 tournament wins most alltime UNC is 2nd at 126 we can stretch that this year

 

[MdWIldcat55]

Most thought the same thing about this year

Only when Dotson was testing the NBA waters and it wasn't clear Azibuike was coming back. Once those two were back, it was pretty clear they'd be a decent team, unless the NCAA moved with more alacrity than they normally do -- and that didn't happen.

 

[NerlensCat]

If what has been written in news reports about the Under Armour trial is proven by the NCAA, the lead will grow over KU.

 

[WildMoon]

Championship
Final Four

is big deal, we caught up quite a bit in final four during Cals tenure...i mean A LOT, since he doubled up on everyone.

All time wins and all tourney wins is nice too.

I would say those 4 metrics are big deal.

(I didn't properly lead the OP)

 

[sluggercatfan]

All time wins because it's a reality right now, but was hoping to pass UCLA, but that is a pipe dream of big proportions.

 

[BradleyCrawford08]

Think about it this way, we have:
2000+ victories over 117 years of basketball
8 NCs won by 5 coaches(Rupp, Hall, Pitino, Tubby, Cal)
17 FFs
129 NCAAT wins

The consistency that UK has had is what to me makes us the best program in college basketball. Look at UCLA. They have 11 championships with most of them coming in one span and they haven’t won any titles since the 1990s. It would nice to catch up and then pass them up in titles at some point.

Edit: National championships mean the most to me, followed by Final Fours, and then all-time wins.

 

[Ed323232]

My favorite thing is we have 8 titles won by 5 coaches. That shows the program is bigger that individual coaches.

 

[TheBlueMax]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

The stat that matters to me most is how many NCAA championships we have, but a close second is all-time wins. Third, our overall winning percentage. With some luck we would be right there on Final Four appearances, and then comes SEC titles and SECT titles. I LOVE how we have sustained our excellence since Rupp arrived in 1930. That alone puts our program in rarified air more than any other.

In many respects, we're similar to Jack Nicklaus. He won 73 tournaments total, of which 18 were majors, but he also finished second in tournaments an astounding 19 times. I feel like with just a little better luck we would have won in 1966, 1970, 1997, and 2015. We were also close last year. Like Jack, we have been close

 

[CB3UK]

Titles is the most important. Always.

 

[rabbitTown]

Titles is the most important. Always.

Agreed... But we don't own that one yet.

 

[uksam21]

My favorite thing is we have 8 titles won by 5 coaches. That shows the program is bigger that individual coaches.

Love this stat, and I also love how we dominate the conference we are in for the last 80 years.

 

[actionjaksen]

It's the statistic that matters to me the most. Given a single choice among the many metrics we lead, it's the one I would want to hold onto. It feels good to be referenced as the "all-time winningest program".
Only the other Blue Bloods (UNC and KU) and Duke (not a blue blood) are factored in as ever having a chance to catch us (in my lifetime anyway).
We have been behind by as much as 176 wins (1925-26) and ahead by as many as 61 wins (1978-79). Currently we are ahead of KU (+16), UNC (+43), and Duke (+117).
We have held the all-time wins distinction from 1959-60 (taking it away from KU) through 1987-88 and since 1993-94 (from UNC).

Of the many stats we lead in, what is most important to you?

All time wins and Championships are 1 and 1a to me.

But remember how we all used to get so nervous about losing the 3point streak? It was such a big deal. But we blow it in the tourney two years ago and I haven't thought of it again until now.