Greatness Of Coach Rupp Can't Be Overstated; 45 Years After His Retirement Still Top 3 Coach Ever

[dlh331]

Folks tend to forget that Rupp did not win 4 titles in 42 seasons; the NCAA tourney started in 1939 so he won 4 titles in 34 seasons. He also won the very tough 1946 NIT title so one could give him credit for winning 5 national type titles in those 34 years.

And yes they did not have to win 6 games for a title but EVERY NCAAT game was nearly always versus a top 10 type opponent. And in those years before bracket balancing UK was always in the murderous Mideast/Southeast Regional.

After all these years and only Wooden and Coach K can be ranked above him. Don't give me Dean Smith, Knight, Calhoun, Roy Williams, etc. None can match his regular season AND his post season
triumphs.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Most impressive in my mind is that he coached over 1000 games and had a staggering .82 winning percentage.

 

[wcc31]

Rupp is perpetually underrated.

 

[FrankUnderwood]

Different era , but very impressive nonetheless.

 

[Louis_Skunt]

Impressive to be the best at that time, but these days are much more difficult.

If Rupp was born in the 70's, how good would he be today? I think he'd be successful, he had the passion and intelligence...but would he be AS successful? I doubt it, but we'll never know.
Its like comparing Wilt Chamberlain to Lebron. Wilt was great, but would he kill it like he did back then? No way.

 

[Cawood86]

Most impressive in my mind is that he coached over 1000 games and had a staggering .82 winning percentage.

This. Not even 200 losses. He was/is the best. Revolutionized the game with the fast break.

 

[uky8unc5]

If Rupp was born in the 70's, how good would he be today? I think he'd be successful, he had the passion and intelligence...but would he be AS successful? I doubt it.

So what you're saying is the COACHES TODAY would not be successful back in Rupp's era, right?

I mean, that makes as much sense as you suggesting that the most charismatic, fiercely competitive, creative and innovative coach of his era would somehow not measure up to fill-in-the-blank. Bull Snot. You're too young to have witnessed the greatness of the Baron, so I forgive you.

 

[uky8unc5]

Different era , but very impressive nonetheless.

George Washington and Abe Lincoln were Presidents in "different eras".
Great leaders are timeless....

 

[Louis_Skunt]

So what you're saying is the COACHES TODAY would not be successful back in Rupp's era, right?

I mean, that makes as much sense as you suggesting that the most charismatic, fiercely competitive, creative and innovative coach of his era would somehow not measure up to fill-in-the-blank. Bull Snot. You're too young to have witnessed the greatness of the Baron, so I forgive you.

Todays game has more competitors. Winning a title in the 50's was less difficult. You think John Wooden would roll off title after title in todays game? No way.

 

[uky8unc5]

Todays game has more competitors. Winning a title in the 50's was less difficult. You think John Wooden would roll off title after title in todays game? No way.

We're talking Coach Rupp, not John Wooden.

What I'm saying: Coach Rupp was the very best Coach in the game. The very best. He built our program and won 4 NCAA titles in about 34 years. He made UK a National power and created Big Blue Nation. You are his Grandson.

Yes he would be that good in today's game, no doubt about it (in my mind).

 

[Seth_C]

Todays game has more competitors. Winning a title in the 50's was less difficult. You think John Wooden would roll off title after title in todays game? No way.

If he could still get away with buying the top players? Sure he would.

 

[TopCatCal]

Of all the coaches with over 800 wins. Coach Rupp has the "HIGHEST" winning pct. of any of them. If Rupp would have coached as many games as Krzyzewski has. Coach Rupp would have 1,152 wins. And just imagine if Rupp could have recruited black players during the 60's, Wes Unseld, Jim McDaniels, Jim Rose, Butch Beard, ect... WOW!!!! We would be talking about 2 more NCAA championships, & nearly 1,200 wins But as we all know, it wouldn't have been safe to take black players to places like Alabama & Mississippi during that time.

 

[JPScott]

Todays game has more competitors. Winning a title in the 50's was less difficult.

This is a commonly held belief by many, but I don't think this is necessarily true. There were fewer teams participating in the NCAA tournament in the 40's and 50's but that just meant it was harder to be invited. Both UK's 1996 and 2012 teams (aka two of the greatest teams in UK history) would not have even earned a NCAA tournament bid under most rules during those early eras because they didn't win their conference tournament.

Also even though there are today 300+ schools in NCAA Division I today, of those only about 15 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the title any given year when all is said and done. Compared to the 1940's, 50's, 60's, you name the era, there were still about that number of teams with a legitimate shot at being named champion. Thinking of it in that way, it's really not much of a difference for a top team. They need to beat out a dozen or so rivals for the crown.

Another thing to consider. Those who claim it's so much harder today than in the past seem to discount the fact that the top programs recruit the top players from all around the country. Doesn't that give them some advantage? Compare to previous eras where the large majority of a team came from the local area. If John Calipari had to recruit most of his players from the state of Kentucky and the Ohio Valley region, would he consider it easier to compete nationally?

Note I'm not saying one era was definitely easier than another. I'm saying they were different and each held it's own challenges. Those who assume it is a lot harder today I don't think really account for the differences.

 

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

I saw a stat on Twitter the other day that said Coach K would have to win like 400 games in a row to have the same winning percentage as Rupp. Most consider Coach K the best college coach ever but he would have to go 40-0 10 years in a row to have the same percentage as Rupp. That is just insane.

 

[Hoopcatjc]

Impressive to be the best at that time, but these days are much more difficult.

If Rupp was born in the 70's, how good would he be today? I think he'd be successful, he had the passion and intelligence...but would he be AS successful? I doubt it, but we'll never know.
Its like comparing Wilt Chamberlain to Lebron. Wilt was great, but would he kill it like he did back then? No way.

Yes he would. Wilt Chamberlain would be just as dominant today and maybe more so as there isn't the defensive centers in the league that he played against.

 

[Hoopcatjc]

There is this long-standing misconception that yesterday's players couldn't compete in today's game. Oscar Robertson would be the best PG in the League right now. Unitas would be one of the best QB's in the NFL today. Ruth would put up 40 home runs. Ali would clean out the Heavyweight division.

Fans that have never seen the all- time greats are quick to assume that the players today are better and that is just not true. If anything, our games are diluted with fewer great players

 

[Deli owl]

Different era , but very impressive nonetheless.

They still all played by the same rules. No one back then did what he did.

 

[Sawnee Cat]

This is a commonly held belief by many, but I don't think this is necessarily true. There were fewer teams participating in the NCAA tournament in the 40's and 50's but that just meant it was harder to be invited. Both UK's 1996 and 2012 teams (aka two of the greatest teams in UK history) would not have even earned a NCAA tournament bid under most rules during those early eras because they didn't win their conference tournament.

Also even though there are today 300+ schools in NCAA Division I today, of those only about 15 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the title any given year when all is said and done. Compared to the 1940's, 50's, 60's, you name the era, there were still about that number of teams with a legitimate shot at being named champion. Thinking of it in that way, it's really not much of a difference for a top team. They need to beat out a dozen or so rivals for the crown.

Another thing to consider. Those who claim it's so much harder today than in the past seem to discount the fact that the top programs recruit the top players from all around the country. Doesn't that give them some advantage? Compare to previous eras where the large majority of a team came from the local area. If John Calipari had to recruit most of his players from the state of Kentucky and the Ohio Valley region, would he consider it easier to compete nationally?

Note I'm not saying one era was definitely easier than another. I'm saying they were different and each held it's own challenges. Those who assume it is a lot harder today I don't think really account for the differences.

A voice of reason and understanding of the history of college basketball.

 

[JonathanW]

I fully support UK, Calipari, Rupp, and nearly everything else UK related.

But you can't ignore college basketball was different 45-85 years ago than since then.
Back then there were maybe a fraction as many programs really trying to win, or with a legitimate chance to win, compared to the modern era. That made it more easy back then.
There were also way less teams (I think 16-24) in the tournament compared to 64-68. Sure those bottom 30 aren't going to win 6 straight, but they do knock out some of those top teams every year, making the path tougher than it was.
If Rupp (or other coaches) got a stud player back then, they knew they had him for 3 years. Not true today.

I think the truly great coaches (Rupp, Wooden, Knight, K, Smith) would be great in any era, even if it meant doing things somewhat differently.

 

[JonathanW]

This is a commonly held belief by many, but I don't think this is necessarily true. There were fewer teams participating in the NCAA tournament in the 40's and 50's but that just meant it was harder to be invited. Both UK's 1996 and 2012 teams (aka two of the greatest teams in UK history) would not have even earned a NCAA tournament bid under most rules during those early eras because they didn't win their conference tournament.

Also even though there are today 300+ schools in NCAA Division I today, of those only about 15 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the title any given year when all is said and done. Compared to the 1940's, 50's, 60's, you name the era, there were still about that number of teams with a legitimate shot at being named champion. Thinking of it in that way, it's really not much of a difference for a top team. They need to beat out a dozen or so rivals for the crown.

Another thing to consider. Those who claim it's so much harder today than in the past seem to discount the fact that the top programs recruit the top players from all around the country. Doesn't that give them some advantage? Compare to previous eras where the large majority of a team came from the local area. If John Calipari had to recruit most of his players from the state of Kentucky and the Ohio Valley region, would he consider it easier to compete nationally?

Note I'm not saying one era was definitely easier than another. I'm saying they were different and each held it's own challenges. Those who assume it is a lot harder today I don't think really account for the differences.

It is very possible (some might say "likely") the 96 and 12 teams would not have lost their SEC tournament games if they knew that was the only way into the tournament. Not sure if I believe it, but many think Pitino lost the 96 SEC title game on purpose (or didn't mind losing it).

But the biggest difference between 40's-60's to the 80's-10's is the number of games you have to win. Sure those bottom 30 teams are not going to win 6 straight. But every year they do knock off a few of those top 15 teams, not even letting them make it to the Sweet 16. Whereas before the tournament expansion, the top teams were pretty much guaranteed to make it to the Sweet 16 (with the top teams getting 1st round bye's until the tournament expanded to 32 teams in 1975). Go ask Calipari if it would be an easier path to get a bye to the Sweet 16.

Rupp, and the top coaches recruited from outside their areas. Maybe not the West coast so much. But Rupp got players from NY, PA, ect...
Comparatively, when Rupp brought in a great player (Issel, Hagan, Ramsey, Dampier, etc...) he knew he had that player for 3 years.

 

[JPScott]

It is very possible (some might say "likely") the 96 and 12 teams would not have lost their SEC tournament games if they knew that was the only way into the tournament. Not sure if I believe it, but many think Pitino lost the 96 SEC title game on purpose (or didn't mind losing it).

But the biggest difference between 40's-60's to the 80's-10's is the number of games you have to win. Sure those bottom 30 teams are not going to win 6 straight. But every year they do knock off a few of those top 15 teams, not even letting them make it to the Sweet 16. Whereas before the tournament expansion, the top teams were pretty much guaranteed to make it to the Sweet 16 (with the top teams getting 1st round bye's until the tournament expanded to 32 teams in 1975). Go ask Calipari if it would be an easier path to get a bye to the Sweet 16.

So you're saying if a team knew they had to win their conference tournament against a very good team (for example Mississippi State in '96 or Vandy in 2012) then many people think they likely would have won those games. On the other hand having to play a low ranked team in an early round do-or-die game is an incredible additional burden that today's team's endure that past teams didn't ?

I don't know that I buy that. Depends on the year but I don't know that having to beat two low level teams on a neutral floor to advance is necessarily harder than having to beat out your top competitor from a major conference (a team who's already faced you a couple times already.)

Also remember in the 40s it wasn't even you had to be considered best in your conference to receive an invite, you had to be voted by committee as best in your regional district!

In 1950 UK was two-time defending NCAA Champion and was ranked top five in the country and still didn't get invite, which went to NC State instead.

 

[dlh331]

Here are some of the routes Coach Rupp faced in the various tournaments to reach the Final 4/win titles (Using AP rankings)

1948 #14 Columbia, #4 Holy Cross (defending NCAA Champs), #10 Baylor

1949 #14 Villanova, #4 Illinois, #2 Oklahoma A&M

1951 UR UL, #9 St John's, #5 Illinois, #4 Kansas State

1958 UK Miami, #8 Notre Dame, #5 Temple, #18 Seattle

1966 #19 Dayton, #9 Michigan, #2 Duke, #3 Texas Western

In 1961 and 1962 we faced #1 Ohio State both years in the Elite 8

Coach Rupp's last 3 years he faced in order #9, #4, #7, #2, #7, #10

Coach Rupp's teams played 48 NCAAT games and faced 35 ranked opponents; 27 were against Top 10 teams. 14 were against top 5 teams. Every single game was against a conference champion or a top 3 independent.

**Rankings from 1942 to 1948 were from ESPN's Premo Power polls because the AP started in 1949**

 

[dezyDeco]

In 1950 UK was two-time defending NCAA Champion and was ranked top five in the country and still didn't get invite, which went to NC State instead.

Yep. Can't win it, if they don't even let you IN it.
Somebody call me, when something like this happens in "today's era."

 

[dezyDeco]

UK was 25-0 in 1954... then the NCAA said our top guys (the Grad Students) couldn't play in the NCAAT.

Anyone think that would've happened to Koach Krybabyschitzki and John Wooden'thavewonifNCAAappliedrules in "today's game???"

 

[JonathanW]

So you're saying if a team knew they had to win their conference tournament against a very good team (for example Mississippi State in '96 or Vandy in 2012) then many people think they likely would have won those games. On the other hand having to play a low ranked team in an early round do-or-die game is an incredible additional burden that today's team's endure that past teams didn't ?

I don't know that I buy that. Depends on the year but I don't know that having to beat two low level teams on a neutral floor to advance is necessarily harder than having to beat out your top competitor from a major conference (a team who's already faced you a couple times already.)

Also remember in the 40s it wasn't even you had to be considered best in your conference to receive an invite, you had to be voted by committee as best in your regional district!

In 1950 UK was two-time defending NCAA Champion and was ranked top five in the country and still didn't get invite, which went to NC State instead.

I think you are confusing a single game to a set of games. In the single game scenario, I would bet on 96-UK or 12-UK in any 1 single game. Maybe they were a little more tired (3 games in 3 days), and had it been their only way IN the coaches would have rested the players more in the first 2 games. Maybe MSU & Vandy were a little more motivated, a bit more adrenaline going, than our guys. Which could have been different under a different scenario. In Economics, you often study changes in a condition with the assumption "all other things remain the same", even though it is a known fact that factors are rarely independent of one another, there is almost always some level of correlation (>0). You can't assume that all of these difference between the eras wouldn't affect each other. But over the past 10 years, an average of 5.2 top 4 seeds have lost before even getting to the Sweet 16. That is a 32.5% chance of not even making it. Also over that 10 year period, 70% of the time 1 of the #1 seeds did not make it to the sweet 16 (prior to 75 those teams would have gotten a bye to the Sweet 16). 82.5% of #1's make it to Sweet 16, 65% of #2's, 60% of #3's, and 62.5% of #4's make it. Should you bet on a single #1 seed to make it? Yes. Should you bet on all 4 #1's making it? No.

Sure there are examples (like 1950 UK, or 1974 Maryland) where a top 5 team did not get an invite, but they were rare. Nearly all top 5 teams, and most top 10 teams got a bye to the Sweet 16. Now once there, the tournament for a long time was stacked against the teams from the South and East, because there were more good teams from there than out West.

 

[Hoopcatjc]

I fully support UK, Calipari, Rupp, and nearly everything else UK related.

But you can't ignore college basketball was different 45-85 years ago than since then.
Back then there were maybe a fraction as many programs really trying to win, or with a legitimate chance to win, compared to the modern era. That made it more easy back then.
There were also way less teams (I think 16-24) in the tournament compared to 64-68. Sure those bottom 30 aren't going to win 6 straight, but they do knock out some of those top teams every year, making the path tougher than it was.
If Rupp (or other coaches) got a stud player back then, they knew they had him for 3 years. Not true today.

I think the truly great coaches (Rupp, Wooden, Knight, K, Smith) would be great in any era, even if it meant doing things somewhat differently.

You can compare the women's game to the men's from the 50's and 60's. There are far fewer real competitors and that's why UConn has been on a 1966-1975 UCLA-type run

 

[morgousky]

Todays game has more competitors. Winning a title in the 50's was less difficult. You think John Wooden would roll off title after title in todays game? No way.

100% false.

 

[morgousky]

U

I think you are confusing a single game to a set of games. In the single game scenario, I would bet on 96-UK or 12-UK in any 1 single game. Maybe they were a little more tired (3 games in 3 days), and had it been their only way IN the coaches would have rested the players more in the first 2 games. Maybe MSU & Vandy were a little more motivated, a bit more adrenaline going, than our guys. Which could have been different under a different scenario. In Economics, you often study changes in a condition with the assumption "all other things remain the same", even though it is a known fact that factors are rarely independent of one another, there is almost always some level of correlation (>0). You can't assume that all of these difference between the eras wouldn't affect each other. But over the past 10 years, an average of 5.2 top 4 seeds have lost before even getting to the Sweet 16. That is a 32.5% chance of not even making it. Also over that 10 year period, 70% of the time 1 of the #1 seeds did not make it to the sweet 16 (prior to 75 those teams would have gotten a bye to the Sweet 16). 82.5% of #1's make it to Sweet 16, 65% of #2's, 60% of #3's, and 62.5% of #4's make it. Should you bet on a single #1 seed to make it? Yes. Should you bet on all 4 #1's making it? No.

Sure there are examples (like 1950 UK, or 1974 Maryland) where a top 5 team did not get an invite, but they were rare. Nearly all top 5 teams, and most top 10 teams got a bye to the Sweet 16. Now once there, the tournament for a long time was stacked against the teams from the South and East, because there were more good teams from there than out West.

Rupp was revolutionary. He would absolutely adjust to the times and win big. There is no evidence that today's game would be more difficult for Rupp to be great. Yea yea, economics class, statatisticks yada. Means nothing.

In 100 years there will be short sighted people, and we see them everywhere today, where "modern" means "better", and they will try and discount and erase everything Calipari did in his time at Kentucky. Would you tell them Calipari wouldn't be able to keep up in 2090?

We all know greats are great because they adapt to their life's work and grind. The rules and game changes yes, but goats do not. The ones from 200 years ago have the same heart and drive that the goats today have.

 

[JonathanW]

100% false.

So you're saying Wooden would or could run off 9 titles in a row today! That is utterly ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JonathanW]

U


Rupp was revolutionary. He would absolutely adjust to the times and win big. There is no evidence that today's game would be more difficult for Rupp to be great. Yea yea, economics class, statatisticks yada. Means nothing.

In 100 years there will be short sighted people, and we see them everywhere today, where "modern" means "better", and they will try and discount and erase everything Calipari did in his time at Kentucky. Would you tell them Calipari wouldn't be able to keep up in 2090?

We all know greats are great because they adapt to their life's work and grind. The rules and game changes yes, but goats do not. The ones from 200 years ago have the same heart and drive that the goats today have.

These are points that I addressed/made earlier, that Rupp (& other great coaches) would be great in any era, because they are/were innovators and could adjust.
That does not change the FACT that it is more difficult to win today than it was 60 years ago.

 

[JonathanW]

In 1980 the field expanded to 48 teams.
Prior to 1980, 16 teams entered the NCAA tournament undefeated. Since 1980, only 3 teams have.

Prior to 1980, 15 teams entered the NCAA tournament #1 in the AP, UPI or USA-Today polls, AND won the tournament. Since 1980, only 6 teams have.

Prior to 1980, UCLA won 7 in a row, UK won 2 in a row, Okl A&M won 2 in a row, San Francisco won 2 in a row, Cincinnati won 2 in a row, UCLA won 2 in a row. Since 1980 only Florida and Duke and won 2 in a row (once each).

Prior to 1980, only 6 schools were more than a 1 season wonder and won 2+ championships. Since 1980, 9 schools have won 2+ championships.

Since 1980 4 teams seeded 6 or higher (6,7,8) have won a championship. Prior to 1980 those teams would not have had to been played in the tournament by the top seeds.

Getting into the tournament was MUCH MUCH harder pre-1980. But winning one has been harder since 1980.

 

[FrankUnderwood]

George Washington and Abe Lincoln were Presidents in "different eras".
Great leaders are timeless....

Ehhh

 

[morgousky]

So you're saying Wooden would or could run off 9 titles in a row today! That is utterly ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sayin Wooden couldn't do it today if Sam Gilbert was supplying a Lakers payroll for 4 year NBA players?

If the NCAA allowed today what they allowed then, yes, he could do it. They bend rules and give easy brackets to coach k and He's going on 6.

The game isn't a sign hard as you're making it sound today. Rupp could dominate this landscape. If you're really good the first two rounds are nearly given anyway.

 

[Hoopcatjc]

How many titles would we have over the past 8 seasons if all our guys stayed 4 years?

 

[uky8unc5]

So you're saying Wooden would or could run off 9 titles in a row today! That is utterly ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!

Wooden's roster was that good in all but one season. Heck, he had Kareem for 3 and Bill Walton for 3. And that was far from the depth of talent. Swen Nater essentially never got off the bench in college, and was a first round draft choice!

 

[JonathanW]

Are you sayin Wooden couldn't do it today if Sam Gilbert was supplying a Lakers payroll for 4 year NBA players?

If the NCAA allowed today what they allowed then, yes, he could do it. They bend rules and give easy brackets to coach k and He's going on 6.

The game isn't a sign hard as you're making it sound today. Rupp could dominate this landscape. If you're really good the first two rounds are nearly given anyway.

The data I presented above, say otherwise. 26% of #1 or #2 seeds the past 10 years haven't even made it to the Sweet 16.
Wooden & Gilbert would have multiple titles together in the modern era, but NOT 7 in a row, or 9 in 10 years! Gilbert's money couldn't have recruited much better teams the past 10 years than we had in 10, 12 or 15. That is part of what makes it tougher today, is that you only have the best players for 1 year. Wooden had Alcinder for 3, and then Walton for 3 more.

 

[JPScott]

In 1980 the field expanded to 48 teams.
Prior to 1980, 16 teams entered the NCAA tournament undefeated. Since 1980, only 3 teams have.

Prior to 1980, 15 teams entered the NCAA tournament #1 in the AP, UPI or USA-Today polls, AND won the tournament. Since 1980, only 6 teams have.

Prior to 1980, UCLA won 7 in a row, UK won 2 in a row, Okl A&M won 2 in a row, San Francisco won 2 in a row, Cincinnati won 2 in a row, UCLA won 2 in a row. Since 1980 only Florida and Duke and won 2 in a row (once each).

Prior to 1980, only 6 schools were more than a 1 season wonder and won 2+ championships. Since 1980, 9 schools have won 2+ championships.

Since 1980 4 teams seeded 6 or higher (6,7,8) have won a championship. Prior to 1980 those teams would not have had to been played in the tournament by the top seeds.

Getting into the tournament was MUCH MUCH harder pre-1980. But winning one has been harder since 1980.

How big the tournament was at any given point in time is largely irrelvant IMO. All it means is that the focus shifts more toward how a team performs in the tournament and away from how they perform in the regular season and conference tournaments.

At the end of the day, my argument is that for any given season there's really only about 15 teams that are built to be named national champions. For a team to become champion, they need to win out over their competition.

At the end of the day the size of the tournament doesn't really matter, the team that is crowned champion still has to beat out their competition. Whether that means they need to beat out their fellow local schools for a conference title or a district nomination, from which they can enter the NCAA tournament, or whether they can receive a NCAA invite just with a winning record and have to play a few extra games in the NCAA tournament because the tournament field has expanded. (or even if they decided to expand the tournament to let everyone in). At the end of the day the champion needs to beat the competition that's put in front of them.

FWIW, the idea that it was easier to succeed in past eras because less teams were serious about basketball I think is ludicrous. As I said there's really only about 15 teams capable of winning the title and in the 1920's, 1930's, you name the decade there were certainly a sufficient number of teams to fit the bill. Many of those schools may not be household names today but there were competitive for the era.

 

[JPScott]

I think you are confusing a single game to a set of games. In the single game scenario, I would bet on 96-UK or 12-UK in any 1 single game. Maybe they were a little more tired (3 games in 3 days), and had it been their only way IN the coaches would have rested the players more in the first 2 games. Maybe MSU & Vandy were a little more motivated, a bit more adrenaline going, than our guys. Which could have been different under a different scenario. In Economics, you often study changes in a condition with the assumption "all other things remain the same", even though it is a known fact that factors are rarely independent of one another, there is almost always some level of correlation (>0). You can't assume that all of these difference between the eras wouldn't affect each other. But over the past 10 years, an average of 5.2 top 4 seeds have lost before even getting to the Sweet 16. That is a 32.5% chance of not even making it. Also over that 10 year period, 70% of the time 1 of the #1 seeds did not make it to the sweet 16 (prior to 75 those teams would have gotten a bye to the Sweet 16). 82.5% of #1's make it to Sweet 16, 65% of #2's, 60% of #3's, and 62.5% of #4's make it. Should you bet on a single #1 seed to make it? Yes. Should you bet on all 4 #1's making it? No.

Sure there are examples (like 1950 UK, or 1974 Maryland) where a top 5 team did not get an invite, but they were rare. Nearly all top 5 teams, and most top 10 teams got a bye to the Sweet 16. Now once there, the tournament for a long time was stacked against the teams from the South and East, because there were more good teams from there than out West.

You bring up a good point that to win your conference tournament you indeed need to win 3 (sometimes 4) games. I'm not sure that helps your point though.

If the choice came down to whether it's easier for a top team in a major conference to win three straight games vs. three different conference opponents (teams which they've faced multiple times already) in three straight games, all in order to earn an invitation to the Sweet 16, that sounds pretty hard to me.

Harder, I'd venture in most cases, than beating at least one low level non-conference team in the first round and then beat a mediocre non-conference team two days later.

I'm not going to argue motivation or the fact that it's hard to predict what would happen when circumstances change. But you seem to be ignoring your own argument. You give great stats on how difficult it is for top seeds to make their way to the Sweet 16, even though those teams know they're playing in a do-or-die situation. But then you try to argue that if a team knew they were in a do-or-die situation (as they would be if they needed to win their conference tournament to be invited to the NCAA tournament) they would try harder. That's probably true, but you seem to overlook the fact that in that situation, the opponents of the favorite might also be extra motivated as well, not only to pull the upset but because that's their only path to reach the NCAAs.

 

[Catsgloves1]

The smokers try to even diminish Rupp's accomplishments. Blinded by infatuation.

 

[trinity45]

Impressive to be the best at that time, but these days are much more difficult.

If Rupp was born in the 70's, how good would he be today? I think he'd be successful, he had the passion and intelligence...but would he be AS successful? I doubt it, but we'll never know.
Its like comparing Wilt Chamberlain to Lebron. Wilt was great, but would he kill it like he did back then? No way.

I disagree, a guy of Chamberlains physical abilities and size would still be a dominant player, he was considered a freak of nature in his day.