KU may lead in all-time wins, but
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
I’ve been saying this for years. Does it suck they passed us? Of course. But they’ve played over 100 more games. We also have double their titles. It’s not even close as to who is the king.
Nice to see that someone else on this board likes to look at things with a positive perspective.
By the way did you get to see Devin Booker in game 2 Tuesday night?
By the way did you get to see Devin Booker in game 2 Tuesday night?
The all time wins list is pretty meaningless to me, now that the NCAA decide to not punish programs for cheating.
Do not worry Cal will figure out a way to lose the % record.
The Commonwealth has a very proud history of round ball. That's why all four schools basically being substandard this season was pathetic.
Thats impressive. 3 Kentucky Universities and 1 Kentucky commuter school.
Spin it how ever you want. We were the all time wins leader and Cal screwed around and lost it.
When the number of games varies by that much overall wins is a pretty meaningless metric. Sure we might like to have it to put on our list of UK records and accomplishments but winning percentage is a better overall indicator.
If we were allowed to cheat, we'd have never lost it.
For those saying the most wins doesn't mean anything, I think it's just a way of downplaying a designation we lost. Damn right, it's important to me. And I'm pissed we no longer can say it.
You never hear any media person calling the game saying, "Kentucky, the best winning percentage in history..."
They just say, "The most winning program..."
I want it back!
You never hear any media person calling the game saying, "Kentucky, the best winning percentage in history..."
They just say, "The most winning program..."
I want it back!
I can only speak for me personally, but I’m just looking at it logically. Logic says the team that has a handful more wins than the other while playing over 100 more games does NOT have a statistical advantage. If one is intelligent and looks at everything in its totality, there is no argument. UK is FAR superior.
I agree completely. But I still want the most wins. That's always mentioned by the media.
Man, you’re totally right, factually, in that stance & I do agree that we’re still the top program ever. But, my problem with that POV is that very few of us (UK fans in general), in my experiences, cared about win % until we lost the wins lead. When we had the lead, the vast majority of the fanbase took great pride in that & I RARELY, if ever, heard anyone refer to us as the win percentage kings. Winningest, to us, has always meant all-time wins. Using win percentage NOW just comes off as copium, IMO. And, that’s not a good look for a gold standard organization, IMO.
And I want to be compared against teams who play by the rules.
I just don't care about accolades and achievements if were going up against someone that isn't playing the game fairly. For all intents and purposes, Kansas should have gotten a death penalty, and many wins stripped.
I don’t think it’s copium at all. Prior to KU passing us and when the possibility popped up was the first time I looked at the actual numbers aside from oh cool we have most wins. It was only during that time did I realize, while we still had the lead, that KU had lost around 100 more games than UK.
At that point, even prior to losing the lead, it was readily apparent that the all times win metric is more for braggadocio than anything since the number of seasons played is so vastly different among programs.
It’s copium, IMO, bc the goalposts have been moved since we lost the lead, regardless of why, or, what circumstances caused some to recognize the win % factor. When we consider ourselves the winningest program for decades, by using all time wins as the barometer, only to change the criteria once we fell behind, that is the definition of coping.
But that’s JMO. I respect your opinion & I can see why you feel that way. I just disagree. If we were UL, or, any other school that’s not at the top of the food chain I’d be much more inclined to agree. But, it’s a weak look for what is supposed to be the best of the best, IMO. If we weren’t going by win % when we had the lead, we shouldn’t do it now.
1. Win% is genuinely more meaningful to me in this context. If we played as many games as Kansas we would have a commanding lead in this stat.
2. I will never admit that to anyone outside of a Kentucky sports forum because I know how much of a dork I’ll sound like when I say “sure they have more wins, but let’s talk about win%”.
3. We had a big enough lead over Kansas when Cal took over that this shouldn’t even be a conversation regardless of wins or win% being better.
2. I will never admit that to anyone outside of a Kentucky sports forum because I know how much of a dork I’ll sound like when I say “sure they have more wins, but let’s talk about win%”.
3. We had a big enough lead over Kansas when Cal took over that this shouldn’t even be a conversation regardless of wins or win% being better.
UNC alone could have lost decades worth of games if their scam occurred 40 years ago instead of under today's NCAA.
Plus Louisville would have had the death penalty and Kansas would have lost plenty of games and been on probation.
Rupp lost 1 season to the point shaving scandal. And we have been hit hard a couple of times before we got our crap together.
Plus Louisville would have had the death penalty and Kansas would have lost plenty of games and been on probation.
Rupp lost 1 season to the point shaving scandal. And we have been hit hard a couple of times before we got our crap together.
The problem is and what people keep ignoring on this forum is KU has been gaining on UK for decades. I posted a stat about how many games KU gained on UK during each espn.com tenure and it wasn't pretty, starting with Sutton.
I desperately want the all time Wins lead back. I have also pointed out for many years that the Win % was the much more impressive stat on Kentucky's part.
Of course, there are exceptions. I know some ppl have had the same outlook as you. But, it’s a very small portion of the fanbase. It could be that I just looked in all the wrong places for the last 20-30 years & was never exposed to it. But, based on what I’ve seen, heard & read, very few ppl were touting our win % as the barometer when we had the lead. But, after KU passed us, it became a much more popular stat.
All-time wins is nice, but it's only something you tout AROUND championship totals. With the state of the program we may as well be leading in NAIA wins. Cal seemed to have a lot of fire on day 1, but since then all I've seen and heard from him is "we're young", "these kids aren't robots", "every opponent is OUR Super Bowl", rinse and repeat. He has zero fire now. I'd wager that this recruiting class is almost ALL on the staff.
I think we can agree they are both very important.
Thankfully we had a big enough lead in the Win % from the early years, as we have been letting them gain in that aspect as well. In the last 50+ years (1970 and on). UK 75.87% KU 76.48%
I totally get where you’re coming from, and I do agree for the most part. However, I’m a stats man. I’ve ALWAYS noticed the percentage differential, the true indicator of dominance, and always took pride in that. To ME it takes a highly uneducated mind to see team A has 10 more wins than team B, but has played in over 100 more games over the last 120+ years so they have to be better. No lol. That’s just not the case. Plus we have double the titles.
It stings and it sucks that Cal has failed us, but we are still king. At least for now… Don’t let the media or other uneducated fools tell you otherwise. It’s not copium to think logically or to look beyond a stale statistic without context.
If the all time wins list wasn't important, UK wouldn't have been crowing about being atop it for all these years. It's been in school media guides and game program for years. I think it was even part of the records that rotate on the digital billboard in front of the scorers table at Rupp.
Saying the all time wins lead isn't important is a simple justification for accepting mediocrity. Which is exactly what Calipari has brought to the program.
Saying the all time wins lead isn't important is a simple justification for accepting mediocrity. Which is exactly what Calipari has brought to the program.
No one is saying it isn’t important, my man lol. It’s very important. Fact is though, we’re still king based on 5th grade education interpretation of statistics and accomplishment, and that is my point as well as many others.
You’re just rinsing and repeating the same tired rhetoric. NO ONE here in this post is accepting mediocrity. I’ve been ready to move on from Cal for 3 years now, but I also won’t pretend that the all time wins amount means more than percentage when one team has played 100+ more games. It sucks being good at math lol you then find yourself arguing way too much.
UNCheat took it for awhile thanks to the ncaa but Pitino quickly returned us to the top. Tubby and Billy G let the lead slip dramatically then Cal restored a comfortable cushion. Shockingly we are now behind and I think it should be of utmost importance to right the ship pronto and regain the lead. I get the frustrations and most of the criticisms of Cal but it gets rather old and unproductive for my taste. I have to think Cal is eyeing retirement within the next few seasons and you got to think any competitor would love to ride off on a high. I accept the reality he is our coach at least next season and constantly running him down is not very helpful.
Another interesting Kentucky sports fact is that three of the top ten most winning high school football teams are from Kentucky, and there are seven in the top thirty (not basketball related, but still).
And, 2 KY high schools are in the top 10 in all-time basketball wins (boys) too, with Ashland at #6 & Paducah Tilghman at #9.
You’re not wrong. I’ve always been a stat nerd, too, & have always recognized & appreciated the win %, as well. I also agree, that our history is better & that KU SHOULD have more wins, considering how many more games they’ve played. But, since we had the lead, despite that, & lost it, I think factoring in the game totals NOW is a cop out. We weren’t mentioning that a lot when we were #1.
My only point is that our fanbase RARELY referenced win % when we held the lead. Some ppl did, sure. But, not a lot. I remember a race to 2K, not .765. The VAST majority of UK fans took great pride in having the most wins & that was the consensus barometer until KU passed us. From then on, a lot of our fans have started saying win % is the true definition of “winningest” & it seems disingenuous to me. It’s moving the goal posts to find a way to justify remaining #1.
The fact that we held a pretty good lead over KU & lost it makes it harder for me to accept win % now, too. But, I’m not saying that you’re disingenuous bc, like I said, I know some ppl have always believed in win % just as much as overall wins. Youre one of my favorites on here & I don’t mean for any of this to sound insulting. But, based on my experiences, it was a very small fraction of the fanbase who cared more about win %. Most pointed to overall wins. I just think it looks bad for the fanbase, as a whole, to change the criteria after we lost the lead when win % was always a footnote, at best, when we had the lead.
Totally get where you’re coming from, man. Fact is, no matter how you slice it, we’ve dropped off and we’re all frustrated. It’s time to get back to the top
Similar threads
