Kentucky's historical tournament dominance continues [graph]

[catfan220]

Sweet Sixteen x Tournament appearances graph

I was just scrolling through this Reddit college basketball thread and thought you all might enjoy it. It's a good visual representation of why the blue bloods are the blue bloods, and why UK is at the top of the heap. The comments are fun too, as some other CBB fans realize where UK ranks historically.

I can't see a way to post the actual graph in this thread, if someone else knows how please add it!

 

[NothinButNylon]

Sweet Sixteen x Tournament appearances graph

I was just scrolling through this Reddit college basketball thread and thought you all might enjoy it. It's a good visual representation of why the blue bloods are the blue bloods, and why UK is at the top of the heap. The comments are fun too, as some other CBB fans realize where UK ranks historically.

I can't see a way to post the actual graph in this thread, if someone else knows how please add it!

 

[BlueBomb]

This is a great example of something being "off the chart!"

 

[southvillecat]

I think it was sportscenter the other day. They were talking about the games that day and talked about Kentucky and Illinois blah blah blah. Then they talked about Duke and how they have the second most sweet 16s. From I understand Kentucky has the most sweet 16s but they didn’t even mention it when they talked about us. I know it’s a crazy Kentucky fan conspiracy but I just thought that was crazy to not say we had the most but mention Duke has the second most.

 

[NothinButNylon]

I think it was sportscenter the other day. They were talking about the games that day and talked about Kentucky and Illinois blah blah blah. Then they talked about Duke and how they have the second most sweet 16s. From I understand Kentucky has the most sweet 16s but they didn’t even mention it when they talked about us. I know it’s a crazy Kentucky fan conspiracy but I just thought that was crazy to not say we had the most but mention Duke has the second most.

Not for sure why this popped into my head, but this post reminds me of this:

In 1973, The racing horse Sham posted the second fastest time ever at the Kentucky Derby. Losing to the fastest horse of all time, Secretariat.​

 

[dynastydreamuk]

It's really dumb when opposing fans try to argue things like history and wins before the 1985 tournament expansion to 64 shouldn't count.
I see things like, "the basketball players weren't as good and a high-school team from today could beat them"

These same fans are assuming it will stay like it is right now forever. We already expanded to 68 and you know the ncaa wants to go even further for more money. Who is to say we wont be at 96 teams in 20 years. Who is to say players wont be genetically altered or have bionic arms and legs in 100 years. Then people will say "when they were merely regular humans those games don't count"

Just 20 years ago nobody imagined players getting paid millions like they are now with NIL and free agency like transfers.

My team from 100 years ago competed while your team competed 100 years ago and my team was better in that time period, that's what F'n Matters.

 

[CUJO_1970]

So Kentucky is basically Secretariat, and the rest of college basketball is the 1973 Belmont Stakes.

 

[Smashcat]

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Selective numbers by media.

Some only count S16's since Tournament went to 64.

I saw a figure that had UNC number 1 since. Duke may have overtaken them.

Remember the very early tournament didn't even have 16 teams. I will look and see what year had the first at least 16 team field.

1951.

 

[dynastydreamuk]

Selective numbers by media.

Some only count S16's since Tournament went to 64.

I saw a figure that had UNC number 1 since. Duke may have overtaken them.

Remember the very early tournament didn't even have 16 teams. I will look and see what year had the first at least 16 team field.

1951.

So what do we do when it expands to 76 or 92 teams , who knows?
Even if the tournament had only 16 teams at one point, you know what that means? It means the regular season was more important and each game mattered more. Winning regular season games was how you got invited to get into the big tournaments, so a sweet 16/ tournament birth just meant more then. It's kind of the opposite of now; we have 68 team field and many people say the first four games don't count. To me the first four really shouldn't count as a tournament birth or a tournament win... it's a play in game. To each his own I guess. But once we add more teams to the tournament, then the round of 32 is going to have more prestige. Not sure if I made my point correctly, haha oh well.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

So what do we do when it expands to 76 or 92 teams , who knows?
Even if the tournament had only 16 teams at one point, you know what that means? It means the regular season was more important and each game mattered more. Winning regular season games was how you got invited to get into the big tournaments, so a sweet 16/ tournament birth just meant more then. It's kind of the opposite of now; we have 68 team field and many people say the first four games don't count. To me the first four really shouldn't count as a tournament birth or a tournament win... it's a play in game. To each his own I guess. But once we add more teams to the tournament, then the round of 32 is going to have more prestige. Not sure if I made my point correctly, haha oh well.

I agree.

I am just telling you how the media selectively promotes Duke/ Carolina.

 

[bthaunert]

This is our 46th Sweet 16. Half of those have come since expansion in 1985.

An even more amazing stat is that we are 34-11 in our 45 prior Sweet 16 games. So, we have made 34 Elite Eights when the tournament was 16 teams or more.

 

[Myotis]

This does pretty much separate out the blue bloods (UK, UNC, UCLA, Duke and Kansas) as well as a fairly obvious "best-of-the-rest" (Syracuse, Louisville, Mich St, IUsedToBe, Arizona, UConn and Villanova)

 

[the nail at the foul line]

This does pretty much separate out the blue bloods (UK, UNC, UCLA, Duke and Kansas) as well as a fairly obvious "best-of-the-rest" (Stanford, Louisville, Mich St, IUsedToBe, Arizona, UConn and Villanova)

I think that is Syracuse.

 

[EliteBlue]

It's really dumb when opposing fans try to argue things like history and wins before the 1985 tournament expansion to 64 shouldn't count.
I see things like, "the basketball players weren't as good and a high-school team from today could beat them"

These same fans are assuming it will stay like it is right now forever. We already expanded to 68 and you know the ncaa wants to go even further for more money. Who is to say we wont be at 96 teams in 20 years. Who is to say players wont be genetically altered or have bionic arms and legs in 100 years. Then people will say "when they were merely regular humans those games don't count"

Just 20 years ago nobody imagined players getting paid millions like they are now with NIL and free agency like transfers.

My team from 100 years ago competed while your team competed 100 years ago and my team was better in that time period, that's what F'n Matters.

It’s also a fallacy of how much better players are today. The same “pre-2000s played against plumbers” argument. Rules were enforced differently like carrying, walks, etc so less “creativity” was allowed. ….you still had guys jumping and touch the top of the backboard etc.

Cameras are much higher quality now too so the high shutter speeds and HD allows a crisper capturing of what’s happening in real time. Even 2 different networks filming different angles with diff quality cameras of the same team makes the game look vastly different today. Guys like Kobe played in the pre-4k HD era in their prime and their end of career highlights look “more athletic” bc they look bigger/stronger/faster due to the clear quality and multiple angles…obviously old head Kobe wasn’t more athletic than prime

 

[Myotis]

I think that is Syracuse.

Corrected.

Do you have any idea how much I enjoyed not having to put IUsedToBe among the blue bloods?

 

[the nail at the foul line]

1951, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988*, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2025

 

[RunninRichie]

It's really dumb when opposing fans try to argue things like history and wins before the 1985 tournament expansion to 64 shouldn't count.
I see things like, "the basketball players weren't as good and a high-school team from today could beat them"

These same fans are assuming it will stay like it is right now forever. We already expanded to 68 and you know the ncaa wants to go even further for more money. Who is to say we wont be at 96 teams in 20 years. Who is to say players wont be genetically altered or have bionic arms and legs in 100 years. Then people will say "when they were merely regular humans those games don't count"

Just 20 years ago nobody imagined players getting paid millions like they are now with NIL and free agency like transfers.

My team from 100 years ago competed while your team competed 100 years ago and my team was better in that time period, that's what F'n Matters.

I always respond, if it was so easy, why didnt your team rack up a few?

 

[catfan220]

This is a great example of something being "off the chart!"

Right, UK literally set the parameters for both axes

 

[bbncal02]

Not for sure why this popped into my head, but this post reminds me of this:

In 1973, The racing horse Sham posted the second fastest time ever at the Kentucky Derby. Losing to the fastest horse of all time, Secretariat.​

That record will NEVER be beaten. I wasn’t alive to see Secretariat, but being a Kentuckian I’ve looked up his videos and my goodness. The dude was PULLING AWAY despite the already obnoxious gap he had between him and second place.

That horse will always be the best horse to ever run. Period.

 

[RunninRichie]

That record will NEVER be beaten. I wasn’t alive to see Secretariat, but being a Kentuckian I’ve looked up his videos and my goodness. The dude was PULLING AWAY despite the already obnoxious gap he had between him and second place.

That horse will always be the best horse to ever run. Period.

Man o war.

 

[BlueSince92]

That’s a thing of beauty.

 

[catfan220]

I think it was sportscenter the other day. They were talking about the games that day and talked about Kentucky and Illinois blah blah blah. Then they talked about Duke and how they have the second most sweet 16s. From I understand Kentucky has the most sweet 16s but they didn’t even mention it when they talked about us. I know it’s a crazy Kentucky fan conspiracy but I just thought that was crazy to not say we had the most but mention Duke has the second most.

I hate to be the aggrieved UK fan but recently Bilas was rattling off the "blue blood" programs as part of a larger answer and mentioned everyone but UK... annoyed me more than it should

 

[dynastydreamuk]

That record will NEVER be beaten. I wasn’t alive to see Secretariat, but being a Kentuckian I’ve looked up his videos and my goodness. The dude was PULLING AWAY despite the already obnoxious gap he had between him and second place.

That horse will always be the best horse to ever run. Period.

Secretariat had a heart 3 times the size of a normal race horse.. .over 20 lbs.
The heart of a champion !!
That's what it comes down to, Heart !
Our Team has Heart this year !

Ok i'm done being corny haha

 

[BurnTheCouch]

I hate to be the aggrieved UK fan but recently Bilas was rattling off the "blue blood" programs as part of a larger answer and mentioned everyone but UK... annoyed me more than it should

He's just upset his dukies lost to UK in a rebuild year despite having statistically one of their best teams and superman flagg.

Kentucky is arguably the bluest of blue bloods so maybe he was putting us up in our own tier 😁

 

[bbncal02]

Man o war.

Was a good horse. Secretariat is better in my mind.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

Was a good horse. Secretariat is better in my mind.

No question. Secretariat won the Derby, Preakness and Belmont in record times.

And all 3 records still stand today. 🐎

 

[TheBlueMist]

1951, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988*, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2025

Really underscores how bad the last 5 years have been historically.

 

[bthaunert]

Really underscores how bad the last 5 years have been historically.

It’s pretty wild that in the last 20 years, we have had our two longest Sweet 16 droughts in program history (non-probation). From 1951 - 2005 (not counting probation ), we never went more than 2 years between Sweet 16’s.

 

[TheBlueMist]

It’s pretty wild that in the last 20 years, we have had our two longest Sweet 16 droughts in program history (non-probation). From 1951 - 2005 (not counting probation ), we never went more than 2 years between Sweet 16’s.

Yeah. If you lived those two periods, they felt similar...a divorce was needed.

 

[berniecarbo]

Selective numbers by media.

Some only count S16's since Tournament went to 64.

I saw a figure that had UNC number 1 since. Duke may have overtaken them.

Remember the very early tournament didn't even have 16 teams. I will look and see what year had the first at least 16 team field.

1951.

At one point during Rupp's most powerful years, the NIT got many of the top teams because teams got expense money and to travel to MSG. The NCAA was losing so many good teams in their tournament that they started requiring conference champions to play in the NCAA tournament. UK doesn't get enough credit for some of those teams.

 

[TheDude73]

Huh....I really can't see IU anywhere, unless that red "I" next to Looville is theirs.

 

[berniecarbo]

Tev Laudeman tells a story in The Rupp Years. You got into the NCAA then by invites and they only invited 8 teams at the time. The NCAA asked Rupp to play a play in game with NC State. UK was rated higher, were the defending champions, had beaten the #1 team and had fared better against common opponents. The pres of the NCAA was an NC State man though. Rupp thought they were bluffing and would back down, so he said no because UK deserved the bid outright. They weren't bluffing and UK didn't get to play.

 

[Bogansback2Basil]

Was a good horse. Secretariat is better in my mind.

The Two Greatest Horses of All-Time