Here’s the record of each SEC team’s past 13 gms vs Big12 teams: (SEC=37% win% vs Big 12.) =UK racking up wins&win% vs SEC teams who struggle vs Big12

[Another P.O.S. KU fan?]

The following rant is …just a BIT wordy. Sorry. (Longest post of all time?) And I might have grammatical & spelling errors, and the notorious RuppRafters software might produce some formatting errors after I press “send”, and I might even repeat myself myself, so apologies in advance. But I don’t like to go back to edit, so you’ll just have to live with my errors. (tough titties)

——-

Anyway, as a KU fan, I LIKE reading Rupp Rafters. I love the passion of your fanbase, and the discussions. I even love the ignorant knuckleheads.


——-

Fanbases have to keep each other in-check, though, because we all get off-track SOMEtimes. We all “wear ‘blinders’” (Blue[blood] tinted glasses) and sometimes can’t see the truth. Statistics can be hard to wade through, and the weeds get in the way. But here’s what I was thinking:

Ever since Kansas overtook Kentucky in all-time wins (on the court), there’s been a lot of chatter about how UK’s win% is more important than KU’s total wins, which is inarguably illogical, since that stance very much disregards Kentucky’s usually lesser quality of opponents, compared to KU’s.
Kentucky has almost always bolstered its wins totals and win% vs SEC teams, and often voluntarily schedules “cupcakes” or “mediocre” teams, instead of top teams or high mid-majors.

———

Here is each SEC team’s record, in its last 13 games, vs Big XII teams:

53% win% vs Big 12:

Tenn (7-6)

Ark (7-6)

————

46% win% vs Big 12:

Uk (6-7)

Aub (6-7)

A&M (6-7)

———-
38%win% vs Big 12:

Bama (5-8)

MissSt (5-8)

UGa. (5-8)

SCar. (5-8)

———-
30% win% vs Big 12:

Fla (4-9)

Lsu (4-9)

Vand. (4-9)


———-
23% win% vs Big 12:

Mizzou (3-10)

OleMiss. (3-10)

——-

And how much worse would the SEC’s “vs Big XII” record be if the Big XII had been allowed to play the SEC’s bottom-four teams each year (like Kentucky regularly gets to do?!?

——

Future SEC (Big 12) member Oklahoma is 20-7 vs SEC teams since Cal arrived at UK. Texas is 11-6.
——

Below: Total number of Final Fours in these TEN, SEC programs’ histories, and SEVEN of these programs haven’t been able to win 40% of their recent games vs the Big 12, and these win percentages would be even worse for the SEC, if the Big 12 had been able to play the SEC’s annually worst programs, at least a little:

Total Final Fours:

Auburn: 1 (46% recent win% vs Big 12)

S.Carolina 1

MissSt 1

UGa 1

T a&m 0 (46% recent win%)

Tenn 0 (53% recent win%)

Vandy 0

Bama 0

Mizzou 0

OleMiss 0


That’s Six SEC teams (UK opponents) with zero Final Fours, and four more with one. That means only THREE of UK’s 13 SEC opponents (Ark, Fla, Lsu) have more than one Final Four, and the Big 12 has been handling Florida and Lsu just fine (both 4-9 vs Big 12 recently = 30% win%).

———

By the way, I like how Cal dodged playing Texas in 2021, announcing, a week ahead, that Texas (a ranked team) couldn’t come to Rupp next week, because of Covid (supposedly a UK basketball manager had Covid a week before the Texas game). Conveniently, that game was cancelled when UK was in the midst of a 7-of-8 games losing streak, or it would’ve been 8 of 9.
KenPom says the SEC is usually average or just above, whereas Kansas usually finishes as the 1st- or 2nd-best national team in (KenPom) strength-of-schedule, while regularly winning one of the hardest leagues.

———

Every SEASON, KU has had to face every Big 12 team two — sometimes three — times, many of whom are ranked, including going on the road, every year (vs teams who regularly beat SEC teams). (What’s Cal’s road record like these days? Still cringy?) KU doesn’t shy away from competition, or over-celebrate after games when beating at-least-finally-decent SEC teams (see UK players’ reactions last year, dancing around and laughing after they beat, say, a Tennessee).

———

How would Kentucky have faired in the Big 12 all these years? NOT VERY WELL. How would Kansas have done in the SEC all these years. Statistically, it’s guaranteed KU would have racked up a lot more wins.

—-
Ku vs ranked teams: 2015-16 thru 2022-23 (eight seasons), KU has 61 ranked wins during this time, whereas UK has played only 62, total “vs ranked teams” games.
KU: 61 ranked wins (36 losses)

UK: 28 ranked wins (34 losses)

And during that time, last I counted, UK’s had 34 “Rivals 5-star” players (fall of 2015 through present).

Kansas has had less than 1/4 of that number, and several of those were unavailable during NCAA tournaments, plus, KU obviously didn’t have its coach in the last year’s tournament (in a 1-point loss to Arkansas — which was full of NBA players).

Auburn: 6 five-star players over eight seasons

Duke: 30
Villanova: 3
Unc: 9
Michigan St: 5
Michigan: 3
————— (end of part 1, of 2)…(to be continued…)

 

[Another P.O.S. KU fan?]

(Part 2, of 2)

From the timeframe dating back to the very early 1970s, up through the present, compared to Kentucky, KU has accumulated more wins, a higher win %, and played against often statistically harder competition.
—————

UK celebrates multiple NCAA championships when there were only 8 or 16 teams allowed in the tournaments. Question: If a tournament has only eight teams, and you win it, then you are the champion of only eight teams, right? How many great teams were left out of those “national championship” tournaments? And what about how all the tournaments before the late 1970s had no seeding? So if you were a decently-coached team who played in a very weak geographical area (competition-wise), you could win just one or two games and easily advance to a “national Final Fours”, whereas a league with a bunch of really good teams could only send ONE team to the tiny “championship” tournament. The system was broken. That’s why they fixed it, and why UCLA stopped winning. Not a great way to decide a true champion.
—————


UK’s large, head-to-head lead over KU is because UK would regularly play KU only when Ted Owens coached KU…when UK was 12-1 vs his KU teams. Then, after that, once KU’s Roy Williams’ team beat Pitino (by 55) and Pitino cussed out Roy, he vowed to never play KU again — not after the following year’s return game, anyway.


Kentucky took the ball and didn’t want to play Kansas anymore.
—————-


At least Tubby Smith wasn’t afraid to schedule ranked teams (while he was winning five of 10 SEC titles). If he was such a bad and fireable coach, how was he still dominating the mighty SEC?UK fans & admins. ran Tubby off because he lost (close) games to a lot of ranked teams. “Losing is not acceptable, Tubby. Play easier teams, Tubby.” After he left, new UK coaches came in, talked with admin., and soft scheduling/bolstered wins/win% commenced, because, after all, ALL win totals and win percentages are equal, here at UK! We’ll gloat about “win percentage” vs football schools. But anyway, at least Tubby was trustworthy, kind, and fearless. He understood that TRUE Bluebloods don’t hide from ranked competition, even if they lose games for a fanbase that generally doesn’t understand “quality of opponents” and thinks they have the best program, and thinks that “vs 8-teams” geographically-based, unseeded) championship have the same value as “vs 68-team” (seeded, at large) championships.

KU is the better program with the better history in the better league, and it doesn’t have an ugly campus.
—————-
When KU was about to reach 2000 wins before UK, UK quickly & mysteriously found old, hidden wins vs “basketball teams”, and made your “2000 wins” t-shirts, before KU, once again without respect to quality of opponents.
—————-
A real blueblood only has eight head-coaches it its entire history (not 22, like UK), including the inventor of the game and the coach who taught Rupp and Dean Smith. KU doesn’t have a coach who used John Robic’s strong X’s & O’s assistant coaching (Robic learned at a KU, too — like Cal did), along with WWW’s “connections” to “get” Cal his early UK rosters & banners.

———

Yet UK fans rejoiced last week, when someone not associate with KU gave a KU student-to-be (DeSousa) $2500 to complete his educational requirements to go to college. Both he and KU have already been punished multiple times over this. But they didn’t want to look weak, so they punished KU again. And now you have a tiny five-game lead on KU. Well, we all know how THAT’S not going to last, DON’T we??

———-

“Kansas IS (We ARE) college basketball.”

———-


Now u can be real mad at me for how I’ve spun all the above info, but there’s at least SOME truth in everything I’ve said, or else you wouldn’t be so mad at Kansas (its program and fans). The reason you hate KU so much is because, deep down, you (and the average KU fan) realize that KU has a program every BIT as good, if not better, than Kentucky, and you KNOW you haven’t been playing as good of competition, and have been WAY more talented than both KU AND SEC opponents, yet KU has STILL been gaining on you. Jayhawks have built your program, and will probably continue to do so.

———

How many of your UK head coaches (heck, I haven’t even COUNTED all your Jayhawk ASSISTANT coaches) were educated in Kansas? I count at least EIGHT.

——-
Your days of glory were in the times of old-and-flawed tournament systems, and you’ve annually built your “best win percentage” against rather uncompetitive conference competition and your unwillingness to play higher quality teams, even though you’ve had much more talent.

———

This season, I DO think you’ll ultimately be the better, deeper team, and will beat KU in November (and in March, if they were to play).

———
There are a lot of statistics out there which point to Kansas being the better program, overall, now, but fair discussion is welcomed. Taking the ball and leaving again, however, is not.

———
Heck, maybe I’m wrong about a lot of this, but it’s hard for KU fans to take gloating UK fans seriously. We understand that you feel you (UK) are the best. But OUR opinion is: NOT you aren’t, because NOT ALL wins — or tournament championships, for that matter — ARE EQUAL.

———

Kansas has the most historic, best basketball program, playing consistently better competition, in undoubtably the best venue (I’ve been to both Allen FH and Cameron Indoor), with the loudest, most excited fans…your…

…”more championships, best win% and most wins”, OR NOT.

———
I may be wrong about my perspective and conclusions about SOME of this stuff, comparing our programs, I ADMIT, but some of you aren’t educated in why Kansas fans think they have the better program.

———

You all have a good rest of your week! Really!

(A little rivalry banter never hurt anyone.)

I DO have respect for your program…but not all the time. (Works both ways, probably, right?)

———
Oh, one last thing: Your crazy fanbase drove Eddie Sutton (a Kansan) to drink. He was a great coach at OSU. All the other Big8/12 coaches & players liked him a lot. He’d walk onto the court to shake the hands of KU players, in the closing seconds of games (risk technical fouls).
Don’t take basketball too seriously (…I say to myself, too).

———
Sorry again about the length of this dumb post.

——-
And we Jayhawks are taking this sanction news really well.

 

[WeWant9]

God bless any UK fan who actually reads all that

 

[Another P.O.S. KU fan?]

Fell asleep. OP’s a douche.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

That post is almost as long as the criminal rap sheets for battering women of Bill Self recruits Josh Jackson, Sherron Collins, Lagerald Vick, Carlton Bragg, Arterio Morris and Silvo DeSousa. Hell, it's almost as long as the list of NCAA violations for lying and cheating Self rolled up on the way to being cited for "loss of institutional control."

Not quite, but almost.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Sorry OP, I'm on a boat in Mexico and ain't got time to read that propaganda BS. All my fellow UK fans at home don't either. Everyone instead go print off the OP and wipe their big blue asses with it.

Thanks guys.

 

[Friedas_Boss]

OP’s username checks out

 

[Padsfs07]

Winning % doesn't count now. LMAO. To even compare the B12/8 to the SEC is ridiculous also.

Kansas played 132 more games than Kentucky (even after you remove the 15 vacated games) - 1375 wins vs 1370.

Total Win % - KU: 72.8%, UK: 76.0%

Pre-1950 - KU got 84 more wins than UK, but had a worse WIN% of 69.0% to 73.0% (168 more GP)
1950-1980 - KU got 150 less wins that UK, and had a worse WIN% of 66.2% to 79.2% (60 less GP)
1980-2023 - KU got 61 more wins that UK, and had a better WIN% of 78.8% to 75.9% (24 more GP)

If you go by the Calipari/Self era:
2010-2023 - KU got 13 more wins that UK, and had a better WIN% of 81.3% to 77.4%

So the biggest advantage KU has was prior to 1950 (Naismith & Phog era) while UK had a huge advantage during the Rupp era (1950-1980), then KU has gotten a lot more wins and a better win % out of Self vs Tubby, BCG, and even Calipari.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Yeah, I'm not reading that lol.

I appreciate the various fanbases, several in this very thread, who need the approval of UK fans. It's nice to be reminded who is at the top of the mountain.

 

[Another P.O.S. KU fan?]

Winning % doesn't count now. LMAO. To even compare the B12/8 to the SEC is ridiculous also.

Kansas played 132 more games than Kentucky (even after you remove the 15 vacated games) - 1375 wins vs 1370.

Total Win % - KU: 72.8%, UK: 76.0%

Pre-1950 - KU got 84 more wins than UK, but had a worse WIN% of 69.0% to 73.0% (168 more GP)
1950-1980 - KU got 150 less wins that UK, and had a worse WIN% of 66.2% to 79.2% (60 less GP)
1980-2023 - KU got 61 more wins that UK, and had a better WIN% of 78.8% to 75.9% (24 more GP)

If you go by the Calipari/Self era:
2010-2023 - KU got 13 more wins that UK, and had a better WIN% of 81.3% to 77.4%

So the biggest advantage KU has was prior to 1950 (Naismith & Phog era) while UK had a huge advantage during the Rupp era (1950-1980), then KU has gotten a lot more wins and a better win % out of Self vs Tubby, BCG, and even Calipari.

I do appreciate your info, but don’t understand how UK regularly beating up on a big ‘ole pile of average SEC teams (bolstering wins and win%) and claiming “national championships” in tiny, too-exclusive tournaments makes UK the better program, and I don’t understand how it’s “ridiculous” to compare two, top programs’ quality of opponents, especially when the two conferences have regularly played lots of head-to-head games over the past 20 years (14 SEC teams X 13 recent “vs. Big 12” games each = 182 recent “vs Big12” games). Plus, the statisticians, talking heads, and most fans will tell you: the SEC doesn’t provide UK with much competition — not like the Big 12 does for KU, and then KU regularly and purposely schedules more statistically difficult opponents than UK…yet KU still wins and gains on UK’s total wins number (actually overtakes UK, but then the NCAA instantly takes 15 wins away, leaving KU five wins behind) and also gains on UK’s win% numbers. These are all, imo, valid points when comparing wins and win%. From the mid-to-late 1980s through today (close to 40 years), KU’s advantage in both wins and win% is quite large. And like I said, from the very early seventies until today, KU ALSO has more wins and a better win%. But I agree: It’s really picked up steam in recent decades.

 

[CUJO_1970]

Why do fans of other programs constantly come over here seeking our approval?

 

[kywildcats8]

Kentucky 8 championships and Kansas 4- enough said

 

[WeWant9]

Why do fans of other programs constantly come over here seeking our approval?

They all like to claim they just want to talk hoops. But somehow, they almost always show up when UK is down and try and inflate their own programs.

 

[yoshukai]

(Part 2, of 2)

From the timeframe dating back to the very early 1970s, up through the present, compared to Kentucky, KU has accumulated more wins, a higher win %, and played against often statistically harder competition.
—————

UK celebrates multiple NCAA championships when there were only 8 or 16 teams allowed in the tournaments. Question: If a tournament has only eight teams, and you win it, then you are the champion of only eight teams, right? How many great teams were left out of those “national championship” tournaments? And what about how all the tournaments before the late 1970s had no seeding? So if you were a decently-coached team who played in a very weak geographical area (competition-wise), you could win just one or two games and easily advance to a “national Final Fours”, whereas a league with a bunch of really good teams could only send ONE team to the tiny “championship” tournament. The system was broken. That’s why they fixed it, and why UCLA stopped winning. Not a great way to decide a true champion.
—————


UK’s large, head-to-head lead over KU is because UK would regularly play KU only when Ted Owens coached KU…when UK was 12-1 vs his KU teams. Then, after that, once KU’s Roy Williams’ team beat Pitino (by 55) and Pitino cussed out Roy, he vowed to never play KU again — not after the following year’s return game, anyway.


Kentucky took the ball and didn’t want to play Kansas anymore.
—————-


At least Tubby Smith wasn’t afraid to schedule ranked teams (while he was winning five of 10 SEC titles). If he was such a bad and fireable coach, how was he still dominating the mighty SEC?UK fans & admins. ran Tubby off because he lost (close) games to a lot of ranked teams. “Losing is not acceptable, Tubby. Play easier teams, Tubby.” After he left, new UK coaches came in, talked with admin., and soft scheduling/bolstered wins/win% commenced, because, after all, ALL win totals and win percentages are equal, here at UK! We’ll gloat about “win percentage” vs football schools. But anyway, at least Tubby was trustworthy, kind, and fearless. He understood that TRUE Bluebloods don’t hide from ranked competition, even if they lose games for a fanbase that generally doesn’t understand “quality of opponents” and thinks they have the best program, and thinks that “vs 8-teams” geographically-based, unseeded) championship have the same value as “vs 68-team” (seeded, at large) championships.

KU is the better program with the better history in the better league, and it doesn’t have an ugly campus.
—————-
When KU was about to reach 2000 wins before UK, UK quickly & mysteriously found old, hidden wins vs “basketball teams”, and made your “2000 wins” t-shirts, before KU, once again without respect to quality of opponents.
—————-
A real blueblood only has eight head-coaches it its entire history (not 22, like UK), including the inventor of the game and the coach who taught Rupp and Dean Smith. KU doesn’t have a coach who used John Robic’s strong X’s & O’s assistant coaching (Robic learned at a KU, too — like Cal did), along with WWW’s “connections” to “get” Cal his early UK rosters & banners.

———

Yet UK fans rejoiced last week, when someone not associate with KU gave a KU student-to-be (DeSousa) $2500 to complete his educational requirements to go to college. Both he and KU have already been punished multiple times over this. But they didn’t want to look weak, so they punished KU again. And now you have a tiny five-game lead on KU. Well, we all know how THAT’S not going to last, DON’T we??

———-

“Kansas IS (We ARE) college basketball.”

———-


Now u can be real mad at me for how I’ve spun all the above info, but there’s at least SOME truth in everything I’ve said, or else you wouldn’t be so mad at Kansas (its program and fans). The reason you hate KU so much is because, deep down, you (and the average KU fan) realize that KU has a program every BIT as good, if not better, than Kentucky, and you KNOW you haven’t been playing as good of competition, and have been WAY more talented than both KU AND SEC opponents, yet KU has STILL been gaining on you. Jayhawks have built your program, and will probably continue to do so.

———

How many of your UK head coaches (heck, I haven’t even COUNTED all your Jayhawk ASSISTANT coaches) were educated in Kansas? I count at least EIGHT.

——-
Your days of glory were in the times of old-and-flawed tournament systems, and you’ve annually built your “best win percentage” against rather uncompetitive conference competition and your unwillingness to play higher quality teams, even though you’ve had much more talent.

———

This season, I DO think you’ll ultimately be the better, deeper team, and will beat KU in November (and in March, if they were to play).

———
There are a lot of statistics out there which point to Kansas being the better program, overall, now, but fair discussion is welcomed. Taking the ball and leaving again, however, is not.

———
Heck, maybe I’m wrong about a lot of this, but it’s hard for KU fans to take gloating UK fans seriously. We understand that you feel you (UK) are the best. But OUR opinion is: NOT you aren’t, because NOT ALL wins — or tournament championships, for that matter — ARE EQUAL.

———

Kansas has the most historic, best basketball program, playing consistently better competition, in undoubtably the best venue (I’ve been to both Allen FH and Cameron Indoor), with the loudest, most excited fans…your…

…”more championships, best win% and most wins”, OR NOT.

———
I may be wrong about my perspective and conclusions about SOME of this stuff, comparing our programs, I ADMIT, but some of you aren’t educated in why Kansas fans think they have the better program.

———

You all have a good rest of your week! Really!

(A little rivalry banter never hurt anyone.)

I DO have respect for your program…but not all the time. (Works both ways, probably, right?)

———
Oh, one last thing: Your crazy fanbase drove Eddie Sutton (a Kansan) to drink. He was a great coach at OSU. All the other Big8/12 coaches & players liked him a lot. He’d walk onto the court to shake the hands of KU players, in the closing seconds of games (risk technical fouls).
Don’t take basketball too seriously (…I say to myself, too).

———
Sorry again about the length of this dumb post.

——-
And we Jayhawks are taking this sanction news really well.

Damn dude , you may have made some good points in there but nobody (at least me) will ever know because……who’s got time to read a novel , lol .

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

like I’m going to read that garbage. Approval seeking noted.

 

[UK90]

Why do fans of other programs constantly come over here seeking our approval?

It’s not so much “other programs” recently as much is it is just KU fans. Seems like about 90% of these sort of posts from opposing fans in the last couple years have been from Kansas posters.

Those KU folks really need to find some sort of second hobby.

 

[The_Answer1313]

You bring up good points but

The first thing is a team only plays HALF it's schedule vs their own conference. I get it. The Big 12 has been a better conference than the SEC in recent history. But that's only 1) half the schedule and 2) that fluctuates from year to year. UK and Kansas has been playing basketball for a long long time. I don't think it's accurate to say that just because recent history suggests the Big 12 has been the better conference, you can't apply that logic to the entire history.

Unless you have evidence to suggest that KU has played a tough schedule than UK when factoring in the entire history of the two programs, I think the conference argument isn't relevant. The amount of games played totally is and I can't see how anyone could think otherwise. You play more games, you are more than likely going to have more wins. It's just common sense. This is why even though UK's lead is only a few games, the win pct difference is drastic. It took that drastic win pct difference just to make up for the additional games that KU has played.

If there was a drastic difference, than I'd say hell yes that matters. Take Gonzaga for example. Say the comparison was with them and we were talking win pct. Well given the fact they play in a conference with maybe one or two other decent teams, it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I just don't think there's this drastic difference between the SEC and Big 12 and I'm certain that in some years the SEC has been the better conference.

 

[CB3UK]

There's a reason why you see turds like OP on our board but you don't see us on theirs.

 

[The_Answer1313]

To further drive home the point about conferences, let's just look at the last 5 years for sake of comparison. I'll use Kenpom conference figures because I can't think of another place with this information.

Year Big 12 Rating SEC Rating Difference Difference over 70 poss
2023 17.99 12.57 5.42 3.79
2022 18.74 14.46 4.28 2.99
2021 16.55 14.32 2.23 1.56
2020 15.73 10.98 4.75 3.32
2019 17.68 14.64 3.04 2.12

The difference between an average SEC team and an average Big 12 team over the past 5 years is 2.75 points. On a neutral court, a .500 Big 12 team would be favored by that over a .500 SEC team.

However, Kenpom goes back till 99 and this is what I see.

From 1999 to 2004 the SEC was rated the better conference.
05 Big 12
2006 and 2007 SEC
From 08 onward Big 12.
From 99 to 07 the SEC was rated higher with the exception of one year.

The conferences fluctuate and I'd imagine that over history it's balanced out

 

[Mike-D]

Yeah, I'm not reading that lol.

I appreciate the various fanbases, several in this very thread, who need the approval of UK fans. It's nice to be reminded who is at the top of the mountain.

Yeah, I'm not either. A for effort I guess. If you want anyone to take you serious on a rival board, at least compile the shit down into 3 of 4 paragraphs. Or else, nobody gives a shit to read all of it.

 

[Blueisbest]

I guess the corn harvesting is over in Kansas and their fans have a lot of extra time on their hands now.

 

[RunninRichie]

I do appreciate your info, but don’t understand how UK regularly beating up on a big ‘ole pile of average SEC teams (bolstering wins and win%) and claiming “national championships” in tiny, too-exclusive tournaments makes UK the better program, and I don’t understand how it’s “ridiculous” to compare two, top programs’ quality of opponents, especially when the two conferences have regularly played lots of head-to-head games over the past 20 years (14 SEC teams X 13 recent “vs. Big 12” games each = 182 recent “vs Big12” games). Plus, the statisticians, talking heads, and most fans will tell you: the SEC doesn’t provide UK with much competition — not like the Big 12 does for KU, and then KU regularly and purposely schedules more statistically difficult opponents than UK…yet KU still wins and gains on UK’s total wins number (actually overtakes UK, but then the NCAA instantly takes 15 wins away, leaving KU five wins behind) and also gains on UK’s win% numbers. These are all, imo, valid points when comparing wins and win%. From the mid-to-late 1980s through today (close to 40 years), KU’s advantage in both wins and win% is quite large. And like I said, from the very early seventies until today, KU ALSO has more wins and a better win%. But I agree: It’s really picked up steam in recent decades.

Lol you moron. The 8 team tournament was the top 8 teams in America. Imagine if the tournament today started in the elite 8. That's how the NCAAs were back then. Kansas fans saying titles won against Elgin Baylor, and tough teams from the east coast don't count but then hanging up fake championship banners from the 20s is too funny.

 

[RunninRichie]

It’s not so much “other programs” recently as much is it is just KU fans. Seems like about 90% of these sort of posts from opposing fans in the last couple years have been from Kansas posters.

Those KU folks really need to find some sort of second hobby.

Kansas fans have this weird inferiority complex when it comes to Kentucky. I think it comes down to them thinking we stole Rupp from them.

 

[kybassfan]

Fell asleep. OP’s a douche.

Actually my hat’s off to that OP. It was the most laser perfect absolutely accurate name in rafters history.

Not really worth my time debunking all that statistical quagmire but it is a classic case of restating the same point over and over but with different ratios and prose. That said, I will address one point. That being the winning percentage. That remains the only means of levelizing the comparison. This is a frequent means of bringing number to a common ground. Other forms are stats per 40 minutes, etc. The OP in an attempt to thwart this argument resorts to hand waving with tripe regarding strength of schedule.

In summary, boys you need your hip boots on this one. It’s full of BS.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I get it tho.
I mean it's a KU fan that wants his team to be considered the best.

They had the overall wins total. It's possible they could attain that again maybe even before next season is over. The win pct is a bit harder. It would take much longer to get and it's likely they never will get that (or any other team for that matter)

So it makes sense for them to prioritize overall wins.

 

[blackcat714]

Big 12 may be better than the sec but sec better than the ovc

 

[The_Answer1313]

And I also understand the argument of well that's what the media mostly presents. You are far more likely to see an all-time wins table than a win pct table.

But at least IMO that shouldn't play a role in this. For so long in baseball, we used pitcher wins to determine whether a pitcher was good. We used batting average to determine how good a batter was. We continue to use counting stats all the time, completely ignoring playing time (or in the case the number of games played).

But we are slowly moving away from all of this. Thankfully.

 

[Ukgold]

God bless any UK fan who actually reads all that

here the cliff notes, yawn yawn snore snore

 

[NC Weasel]

I fell asleep right after it said " it was the best of times, it was the worst of times".

 

[RonRajon]

Members who wore a Big 12 patch on their jerseys have only won three national titles, total…pitiful. SEC has had three different national champion institutions since 1990.

 

[The_Answer1313]

You know that always brings up an interesting point.
People always say you need to be battled tested. And they point to Gonzaga playing in that weak conference and not winning a title.

But honestly, lately the two highly rated conferences in college basketball has been the Big 12 and Big Ten. And yet both seem to underperform vastly to their seeding with it comes tournament time.

It's almost as if playing TOO MANY games against great competition hurts more than helps.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Normally you'd say this is a small sample issue but I believe this is happening consistently. Maybe something to look into.

You could say maybe we just aren't good at ranking conferences but I don't think that's the case. Vegas does a pretty good job at setting lines that mirror team strength accurately. But I guess maybe given the bulk of non conference games happen at the beginning of the year, maybe some conferences do a better job at their teams improving during the year compared to other conferences and that wouldn't be reflected in conference strength since later on it's just one conference team playing another and the effect cancelling out. We know that under Cal for the most part UK has started off slow and has gotten better over the course of the season. So maybe it plays into it.

 

[phyrekat]

Vacated Final Fours in the last 5 years -
Big 12 - 1
SEC - 0

 

[UKWildcats1987]

Vacated Final Fours in the last 5 years -
Big 12 - 1
SEC - 0

Even with that it's 3 final fours to 1 for big 12 and 2 national Champs to 0.

 

[phyrekat]

Even with that it's 3 final fours to 1 for big 12 and 2 national Champs to 0.

I was just going with the vacated ones....

 

[Another P.O.S. KU fan?]

Lol you moron. The 8 team tournament was the top 8 teams in America. Imagine if the tournament today started in the elite 8. That's how the NCAAs were back then.

From article

March Went Mad Gradually and Inadvertently, by J. Samuel Walker​

“The turning point in the sport’s signature event came following the 1973–1974 season, when the NCAA decided to break precedent by allowing more than one team per conference to participate. At the time, the organization had no inkling that this change would set the stage for the phenomenon we now call ‘March Madness’.

…

“It was now apparent that the NCAA tournament had emerged as a top-drawer national sports event. It also seemed apparent to some insiders that the tournament’s format, which had been in place since 1953, needed improving. As early as 1970 Tom Scott, athletic director at Davidson College and chair of the NCAA’s basketball committee, took the lead in lobbying for changes. He urged that the tournament field be expanded to thirty-two teams and that worthy conference runners-up be eligible. He argued that expansion was advisable because of the growing number of NCAA members and of conferences that were clamoring for an automatic bid. Scott also insisted that including well-qualified second-place conference finishers would help ensure that the best teams in the country would compete for the national title, whether or not they won their own league crowns.

“Scott’s proposals received support from NCAA executive director Walter Byers and his staff, but they met strong opposition from other members of the basketball committee. The committee’s approval was an essential first step for changing existing arrangements, and it voted unanimously against both aspects of expansion in July 1971 (with Scott abstaining). Scott’s committee colleagues were particularly troubled about allowing teams that did not win their own conference a chance to play for the national title. In 1972, after ‘extensive discussion’, the committee voted in favor of expanding the tournament field to thirty-two teams, but it held fast against the more controversial step of inviting more than one team per conference.

“The events of the 1973–1974 season finally persuaded the NCAA to revise its rules. Coaches, athletic directors, fans, and writers complained about an unjust system when two excellent teams, Indiana University and the University of Southern California, failed to qualify for the tournament after placing second in their conference standings. Followers of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) were even more impassioned in their protests. The ACC was one of two major conferences that held its own tournament to determine its champion. In 1974 an outstanding Maryland team lost in overtime in the finals to a North Carolina State squad that eventually captured the national championship. The quality of play was so exquisite that some experts consider it the greatest game in college basketball history. To many informed observers, it illustrated the folly of denying highly-ranked teams that fell short of their conference title a trip to the NCAA tournament while including conference champions with losing records or weak schedules. The poster child for critics was the University of Texas, which represented the Southwest Conference in the 1974 tournament despite its ungainly 10–12 record.

“Within five months after the 1973–1974 season ended, the NCAA voted, with little discussion or dissent, to allow two teams per conference to play in the tournament (the second would not necessarily be the runner-up). The organization sought to make modest improvements in its selection process. It did not realize that the new format opened the gates to what became commonly known as ‘March Madness’ by the late 1970s.

“The size of the tournament and the television money it commanded grew, rapidly, after 1974. The NCAA expanded the field to forty in 1979, then to forty-eight in 1980 (with no limit on the number of teams per conference), then to sixty-four in 1985, and finally to sixty-eight in 2011.”

— —- — —- —- —- —- —- —- —- —-

“1973-74 was the final season that ONLY conference champions and independents could participate in the NCAA tournament.


“During this season, the Collegiate Commissioner’s Association decided to hold a 2nd-place teams tournament in St. Louis (i.e., they invited only the second-place teams, from eight conferences, to meet and compete). Once word of this new, small, 2nd-place tournament spread, fans were excited, so the NCAA scrambled to change their own system, to compete.


“The 1974 Commissioner’s Association understood that there was unfairness in the current system. — that the best teams, by season’s end, weren’t winning titles, and not only not winning — they weren’t even allowed to compete. Say (hypothetically) that a great team loses a game very early in their conference season — perhaps having the misfortune of playing the top conference team early on, and on the road. And then, let’s say they lose by only one point. What if they go on to improve more than any other team yet, by season’s end, their record ultimately isn’t quite as good as the league’s 1st-place finisher (who had a more favorable schedule)? Everyone agrees that, by late season, the one-loss team (with the harder schedule) is significantly better than the undefeated team. Under the old system, that one-loss team wouldn’t get invited to compete for a national title. Nor would dozens of other championship-caliber (“2nd-place”) teams (who improved more and had harder schedules). Without great teams being able to compete, a true “best team” could never be found, and lesser teams were crowned “national champions”.

—-

“ Being held annually in NYC’s Madison Square Garden, the NIT often received more coverage than the NCAA tournament. Additionally, good teams were often excluded from the NCAA tournament, because each conference could only have one bid, and conference champions were even excluded because of the 8-district system before 1950. Through the first decade, teams often competed in both the NIT and NCAA tournaments, with City College of New York winning both the NIT and NCAA tournaments, in 1950. Soon, the NCAA banned teams from participating in both tournaments, which greatly hurt the NIT and greatly helped the NCAA. Also, increasing television exposure and huge TV deals greatly helped the NCAA.”

A 1951 North Carolina newspaper article (by sportswriter Oscar Fraley) explains how, at the time, the NIT was more popular than NCAA Tourney, because it was played in NYC (big media) and took simply the 12, best-available teams, rather than being “locked-into only one representative from each geographical region, where there were weak regions and representatives (like in the NCAA Tournament).”

Fraley goes on to say:

“It’s a far cry from the past few seasons, when the NCAA took only one team, from eight different sections and, thus, left the cream for the NIT. But the NCAA helped itself by increasing its qualifiers to 16.

…

The NCAA was hobbled because it had those eight, rigid districts.”

“Thus, whenever there were two outstanding teams in one district, only one could be selected by the NCAA. The Missouri Valley Conference and the Big Seven, for example, both might have had great, championship-caliber teams, but unfortunately only one team could be taken from that district.”

(Note: That east coast writer, there, obviously knew the Jayhawks, and the conference it played in [the Big Seven] were very good. — too good/balanced to invite just one Big Seven or Missouri Valley team [whether the NCAA knew it, or not]. Those teams were restricted by a flawed champion-finding system.)

(Ps, UCLA greatly benefited from the tournament’s old, geographically-based format, and its [overall] small tournament size. The Bruins also benefitted from having an affluent LA booster and the best players each year — not that Wooden wasn’t also an outstanding coach.)

And lots of people back then knew it was a flawed system. They just couldn’t agree on how to fix it — how to crown a true champion. But they did the best they could. So did the NIT. Writers back then were saying that the NIT was the better format, because the NIT simply went looking for the best teams, period. (No geographical restrictions. No taking only one team.)

Thankfully, people kept complaining every year and, therefore, decision-makers kept trying to fix it, a little at a time, to find a true(r) champion.

Kentucky’s first two “NATIONAL” championships were part of that very small, eight-team format. Hey, it was the best system the NCAA had at the time, made to try to compete with the more popular NIT (which came before the NCAA Tournament), but it was a small format and not a good system. Countless very good-to-great teams were NOT allowed into the NCAA “national” tournament, and unfortunately, mediocre, geographically-chosen teams WERE (allowed in).

So, not all tournament formats or “national” championships are/were created equal(ly).

There are lots of sources on why changes were repeatedly made, because there were so many complaints.


Rock Chalk🏀

 

[BrickandMortar]

Total word count - 43,589 words
Total time spent reading - 20 seconds, mostly reading post logging on, reading OP name, and laughing
Total thoughts - ...


OP when you play with fire you're bound to get burned. Any reason why this couldn't be on your own board? They would actually appreciate the time you spent to find all those facts.