Some of these guys wallow in misery just for the fun of it
Does KU pass us in wins AGAIN this season ????
- Thread starter Wildcats1st
- Start date
And you'll notice that this person will never respond in the entire thread, even if it goes 20 pages long. They drop these little grenades and then run off and giggle like a clown.
Here’s a link to a 43-minute interview of Coach Rupp (audio interview), answering lots of questions about his early years at both Kansas and Kentucky. Pretty interesting. Seems like a really nice guy.
Wish he coulda cheated at least a bit. I mean, at KU, I’m sure we at least TRIED to teach him….🤷🏻♂️
ANNNYway…here’s the link to the interview (on the UK Athletics site: “kentucky-oral-history-dot-org”):
Rupp interview (written transcript included), courtesy of UK Athletics’ “Oral History Project”
**To hear the interview, you must tap on the “Play Interview” tab.
Wish he coulda cheated at least a bit. I mean, at KU, I’m sure we at least TRIED to teach him….🤷🏻♂️
ANNNYway…here’s the link to the interview (on the UK Athletics site: “kentucky-oral-history-dot-org”):
Rupp interview (written transcript included), courtesy of UK Athletics’ “Oral History Project”
**To hear the interview, you must tap on the “Play Interview” tab.
Last edited:
I’ll take some money from you on that bet. I say over .500. How about $500 on it?
Why do I feel like if I click your link I'll get a virus?
Winning % was the more important stat even when we had the all time wins lead.
Winning % was the more important stat when we gave it up
Winning % is still the most important stat now that we have all time wins back
There is literally no argument that can ever be made that all time wins is more important when teams play an unequal amount of games.
It's like prioritizing counting stats over rate stats. There's a reason why people have moved on from discussing the number of turnovers a team has and rather discusses turnover % on the basis of total possessions. Ditto rebounding.
Winning % was the more important stat when we gave it up
Winning % is still the most important stat now that we have all time wins back
There is literally no argument that can ever be made that all time wins is more important when teams play an unequal amount of games.
It's like prioritizing counting stats over rate stats. There's a reason why people have moved on from discussing the number of turnovers a team has and rather discusses turnover % on the basis of total possessions. Ditto rebounding.
When we winnin I ain’t negative bro. We ain’t winnin and it’s a legit scenario.
Does Kansas pass the Miami Hurricanes football program in felonies this year?
Not sure about that, he has been about the NBA ever since he arrived. Maybe if he respected our history and tradition better he would have put more emphasis on protecting it.
When one of our records fall it is clear he does not care from his actions. I just wish he was UK first. I think if he put UK first and the fans knew he had UK's best interest at heart maybe the down years would be easier to stomach.⁸
It’s funny because the people jumping on you are pretty weanie. Stick to your frame, dawg.
Exactly. Fans don't feel he is serious about the tradition of winning. He's said as much. My point was that maybe it's easier for him to claim his purpose is greater (ending generational poverty) than focusing on winning for the greater glory of the Program and BBN. Titles don't matter to him because his ulterior motive is greater, he claims. This is not some fabrication on my part but his own words. He will always talk out of both sides of his mouth, so you never know if there's any real truth in anything he says. Reality of results is his only truth and is why Cal's reality of results is so troubling in recent years. Hope he does better with this team.
Last edited:
Cal doesn't care about the regular season either. Or the NCAAT.
It's only DRAFT NIGHT that matters!
Wrong answer.
If that were true in any way, shape or form, there would be an abundance of 1 win, 0 loss QBs in the NFL Hall of Fame.
I was going to say same, only two things are important: 1) changing generational poverty and 2) draft night.
Your right there needs to be a large number of games.
A 100% win rate doesn’t mean much if you are 1-0.
But taking about UK and KU where thousands of games have been played you definitely use win pct.
People say this but Cals comments have suggested otherwise.
People mention draft night and generational poverty cause those are things Cal brings up. Yet everyone ignores it when he says his goal is for an undefeated season or catching UCLA lol
Cal has a massive ego. I think everyone here can agree on that. There is zero chance that man doesn’t care about winning
Nobody ignored it when he said his goal was catching UCLA. But that was a long, long time ago and his priorities and motivation have clearly changed. He has no chance now.
I still disagree.
But for the sake of argument - and I don't really even feel that motivated for the discussion so not sure why I'm doing this - how many games does a program need to have played for winning percentage to be the most important stat? And if there is one, where is that standard defined or listed?
Im not sure. But at the same rate if one team has 100 wins and no losses and another team is 105-105 at what point is it ridiculous to consider the 105 win team to be the better overall program.
Like, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid per se, but I'm still not going to be overly negative until we get to Jan or so.
I get it, but that doesn't answer the question. To which I can assume that you are one of the few people who thinks that way and even you aren't sure about it.
FWIW I'm not saying that win pct is the "most important stat". I'm just saying that it's more indicative of how good a program is overall than total wins. Take a look at the programs that are on the list for most wins. Sure you got your blue bloods, the teams that most would agree on but you also have some other teams that not many people would agree are among the better teams. Do you know who is ranked 6th in overall wins? Temple. Does anyone on the face of earth consider Temple to be the 6th best program? Temple also has just a .635 win pct. Which is more indicative? Syracuse 7th? Notre Dame 8th? St Johns 9th? I mean I went to St Johns but I would never put them in the top 10.
I mean there's many ways one can go about this. Some would argue that titles matter the most and thus whoever has the most titles should be considered the "best" overall.
Heck if I google "all time wins ncaa basketball" the first result is literally a Wikipedia page that lists teams in order of overall wins..........but also includes a column for win pct lol.
They will pass us next year.
As stated however they played more games than us + they have been in a crap conference for decades.
Once the SEC got serious about basketball it was only a matter of time before UK lost ground.
Top 10 you can judge by wins, win %, finals 4 and titles. You can explain your position however you'd like. At the end of the day most rational people would put UK #1 as the best program of all time.
As stated however they played more games than us + they have been in a crap conference for decades.
Once the SEC got serious about basketball it was only a matter of time before UK lost ground.
Top 10 you can judge by wins, win %, finals 4 and titles. You can explain your position however you'd like. At the end of the day most rational people would put UK #1 as the best program of all time.
B12 isn't that bad....
Baylor has won a title....TTU was runner-up. Three staright years, they put a team in the title game.
2019- Texas tech
2021--Baylor
2022--KU
Kasnsas State two Elite 8's past 5 NCAAT. Iowa States had some good teams.
Yes losing OU and TX----But added Houston, Cincy, and BYU.
Big 12 has been Kansas and everyone else (in league games for the most part). They seem to just win in that conference, like KENTUCKY did for all those years in the SEC. Now the SEC is a much stronger conference and teams are better 1-14 soon to be 1-16 in basketball. Might change back but highly doubt it. SEC and BIG 10 will continue to get stronger and stronger. Big 12 and ACC will be fair to good top to bottom. Hope I am wrong and Big 12 just gets some really good teams and coaches to go against Self but just do not see it at this time. UC and BYU do upset some teams every once and again but for the most part are harmless foes. Houston will have a good year every few years but do not see them. Baylor and Houston do play some decent bball as does Ok State and Kansas St (every few years) and TTU every few years.
Houston will always be a force as long as KS is there...Same with Baylor. Neither is some "Johnny come lately..." Or a one hit wonder.
I loathe KU....But the B12 is not that bad of a conference...Especially the past 10 years, or so.
I'll argue for the B10.,....But the SEC with Oats, Mussleman as youngsters, is getting better and better---Now you add TX and OU...B!0 adding UCLA and Oregon.
