Question for those who remember the Wooden years

[Jimbo]

With the UConn women remarkably having matched the UCLA men's 88-game winning streak for a second time, it seems like an appropriate time to pose for the resident BY hoops experts this two-part question I've been pondering lately. I must confess I was not around during John Wooden's UCLA tenure, but for those of you who were, I am curious to hear your thoughts about the following two things as they relate to the run our Huskies are currently enjoying:

1. As a pushback to the common complaint that Geno's run of dominance is not at all comparable to Wooden's, it has been argued that men's college basketball was at a similar stage of evolution in the late '60s and early '70s to where the women's game is today. Is there something to this? I realize that Wooden's best years occurred roughly 25-35 years after the NIT and NCAA tournaments began, which somewhat mirrors where we are now in relation to the women's NCAA tournament, but that seems to me a rather crude analysis. I'm not particularly interested in debating whose accomplishments are more impressive, but I would like to know how closely the competitive balance UConn faces now compares to what UCLA faced then.

And, if the two eras are in fact somewhat comparable…

2. How long do you think UCLA's run of dominance could have lasted if Wooden had continued to coach? In other words, did his retirement cause the UCLA dynasty to end prematurely, or was the rest of the country already catching up to the Bruins when he decided to step down? I know their streak of titles was snapped in Wooden's penultimate season, but that also came at the hands of a great team led by one of the greatest college players ever, so I don't know whether that was really a sign of changing times or more of an aberration. This has been on my mind because I think it's at least questionable whether the rest of the women's game is catching up to UConn right now, or whether the Huskies could conceivably continue this run (not necessarily winning every championship, but winning most of them) for as long as Geno remains coach. Certainly the immediate future looks bright, although of course anything can happen. Could Wooden have won, say, a dozen or so titles had he kept at it?

Anyway, apologies for the length of the post, but I'd greatly appreciate whatever wisdom or insights any of you could share about this.

 

[Monte]

With the UConn women remarkably having matched the UCLA men's 88-game winning streak for a second time, it seems like an appropriate time to pose for the resident BY hoops experts this two-part question I've been pondering lately. I must confess I was not around during John Wooden's UCLA tenure, but for those of you who were, I am curious to hear your thoughts about the following two things as they relate to the run our Huskies are currently enjoying:

1. As a pushback to the common complaint that Geno's run of dominance is not at all comparable to Wooden's, it has been argued that men's college basketball was at a similar stage of evolution in the late '60s and early '70s to where the women's game is today. Is there something to this? I realize that Wooden's best years occurred roughly 25-35 years after the NIT and NCAA tournaments began, which somewhat mirrors where we are now in relation to the women's NCAA tournament, but that seems to me a rather crude analysis. I'm not particularly interested in debating whose accomplishments are more impressive, but I would like to know how closely the competitive balance UConn faces now compares to what UCLA faced then.

And, if the two eras are in fact somewhat comparable…

2. How long do you think UCLA's run of dominance could have lasted if Wooden had continued to coach? In other words, did his retirement cause the UCLA dynasty to end prematurely, or was the rest of the country already catching up to the Bruins when he decided to step down? I know their streak of titles was snapped in Wooden's penultimate season, but that also came at the hands of a great team led by one of the greatest college players ever, so I don't know whether that was really a sign of changing times or more of an aberration. This has been on my mind because I think it's at least questionable whether the rest of the women's game is catching up to UConn right now, or whether the Huskies could conceivably continue this run (not necessarily winning every championship, but winning most of them) for as long as Geno remains coach. Certainly the immediate future looks bright, although of course anything can happen. Could Wooden have won, say, a dozen or so titles had he kept at it?

Anyway, apologies for the length of the post, but I'd greatly appreciate whatever wisdom or insights any of you could share about this.

The one thing I DO remember is, that no one said "it was bad for the game!"

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I don't think we have to worry about any fat cat donor/recruitment/keep um happy thing in Geno's program. Wooden's legend is deeply embedded in men's basketball, so the travesty is buried deep.

 

[UcMiami]

Good questions and I'll take a first stab.
1. The NCAA and the NIT just weren't that big a deal back in the 60s - no sporting events were except maybe the world series. The TV coverage was pretty minimal during the season for CBB, and even the newspapers would only give any space to local teams - and many wouldn't even have out of town scores. There were still teams that were startlingly white, the athleticism and size of players was quite limited and the game was mostly played below the rim. The number of really serious teams was pretty limited and the talent was pretty centralized - city schools thrived on locally grown talent and not that many schools had a really national recruiting presence. And the NCAA enforcement and rule book on recruiting was pretty non-existent - UCLA had a booster who was buying a lot of the talent that showed up in Westwood. The NCAA tournament was still regional so UCLA never travelled outside California until the final four and there wasn't much competition most of the time in the western region. And only 4 rounds - 1975 was the first year of a 32 team field for men so the UCLA streak varied between 22-25 teams in the tournament - no at large bids - which made the NIT in some years pretty comparable talent wise, it didn't become the consolation tournament until at large teams could go to the NCAA and it really fell in prestige when the NCAA went to 48 in 1980 and 64 in 1985. With most of the other quality teams on the eastern side of the Rockies, UCLA could pretty well pencil in a FF as long as they won their conference. Overall - yes, it was a very comparable period for men to the modern history for women. And during Wooden's run college kids could not jump to the pros (and there were fewer teams and a lot less money to tempt them) and they all had a red-shirt year when they could only play on the JV squad.

2. UCLAs dominance was doomed by the time Wooden retired - the NCAA was beginning to look at recruiting more closely, the game and competition were growing rapidly and the format of the tournament was changing quickly. If Wooden had stayed on, he might have had a few more great seasons, but he got out at the end of an era, and he would have struggled much more for success each year had he stayed on.

On your final question - I think the mediocrity of coaching and the fact that kids are available for four years gives Geno's run still more years. The limited number of WNBA jobs and the track record of players in the WNBA tends to concentrate talent and certainly doesn't hurt Uconn.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Good questions and I'll take a first stab.
1. The NCAA and the NIT just weren't that big a deal back in the 60s - no sporting events were except maybe the world series. The TV coverage was pretty minimal during the season for CBB, and even the newspapers would only give any space to local teams - and many wouldn't even have out of town scores. There were still teams that were startlingly white, the athleticism and size of players was quite limited and the game was mostly played below the rim. The number of really serious teams was pretty limited and the talent was pretty centralized - city schools thrived on locally grown talent and not that many schools had a really national recruiting presence. And the NCAA enforcement and rule book on recruiting was pretty non-existent - UCLA had a booster who was buying a lot of the talent that showed up in Westwood. The NCAA tournament was still regional so UCLA never travelled outside California until the final four and there wasn't much competition most of the time in the western region. And only 4 rounds - 1975 was the first year of a 32 team field for men so the UCLA streak varied between 22-25 teams in the tournament - no at large bids - which made the NIT in some years pretty comparable talent wise, it didn't become the consolation tournament until at large teams could go to the NCAA and it really fell in prestige when the NCAA went to 48 in 1980 and 64 in 1985. With most of the other quality teams on the eastern side of the Rockies, UCLA could pretty well pencil in a FF as long as they won their conference. Overall - yes, it was a very comparable period for men to the modern history for women. And during Wooden's run college kids could not jump to the pros (and there were fewer teams and a lot less money to tempt them) and they all had a red-shirt year when they could only play on the JV squad.

2. UCLAs dominance was doomed by the time Wooden retired - the NCAA was beginning to look at recruiting more closely, the game and competition were growing rapidly and the format of the tournament was changing quickly. If Wooden had stayed on, he might have had a few more great seasons, but he got out at the end of an era, and he would have struggled much more for success each year had he stayed on.

.

Agree with the above. Another reason its dominance was doomed is that NCAA investigators were starting to become aware of the massive corruption surrounding the program. As Wooden looked the other way, Sam Gilbert gave the players cars, apartments, and cash. But by 1975, a lot of stuff was starting to come out. One investigator who was pulled off the case in 1977 claimed he had enough evidence to give UCLA a lengthy probation. Around 1980, they finally did get put on probation and had to forfeit a number of wins. Had Wooden remained, he couldn't have dodged the inevitable forever.

 

[rugbymate]

Wooden could probably have won a few more but the game started to change fairly rapidly with the introduction of cable -tv and all the various sports channels. It has become a big money game and universities want their piece, hence an arms race for facilities such as arenas, training facilities , personal tutors, recruiting process etc. Further, the NBA wants to drag kids into its web as early as possible and this really changed recruiting. I suspect Wooden would not be a Pitino/Calipari type who are just fine with "one year and gone " types. I kind of preferred the old way, similar to women's basketball today, when you can watch a young player develop over four years. Just think how much fun we've had watching the sophomore leap with some of the UCONN kids. However, in the end, since its all about money, players should take the money as soon as they can. Selfishly, I hope all of this change doesn't happen to the women. Not sure Geno would hang around.

 

[Kurebeach5]

Wooden could probably have won a few more but the game started to change fairly rapidly with the introduction of cable -tv and all the various sports channels. It has become a big money game and universities want their piece, hence an arms race for facilities such as arenas, training facilities , personal tutors, recruiting process etc. Further, the NBA wants to drag kids into its web as early as possible and this really changed recruiting. I suspect Wooden would not be a Pitino/Calipari type who are just fine with "one year and gone " types. I kind of preferred the old way, similar to women's basketball today, when you can watch a young player develop over four years. Just think how much fun we've had watching the sophomore leap with some of the UCONN kids. However, in the end, since its all about money, players should take the money as soon as they can. Selfishly, I hope all of this change doesn't happen to the women. Not sure Geno would hang around.

Good points, I would say in answer to #1 - UCLA of 1964 under Wooden was one of the first to recruit nationally, after Alcindor in 1965 the gates really opened. The tournament was regional (geographic placement) in those days and in '64 UCLA only had to win TWO games to make the final four !! While not in Calif. the regionals were in Corvallis,Ore., Provo,Utah, Corvallis again and Albuquerque their first four title runs. Also Pauley Pavillon which opened I believe in 1967 was a great improvement over any facility of the day. As for query #2, Wooden being a definite "old-school" coach had a lot of trouble with the generational gap as personified by Bill Walton and his team in 1974. They never should have lost to NC St. (even though they were a fine team) in the semi's because they had a double- digit lead relatively late in the game before UCLA's sloppy and individualistic play cost them the game in OT. That was precisely the brand of basketball that Wooden abhored and I think he stuck around one more year so he wouldn't go out on such a sour note. It was a huge surprise that they won in 1975 and I'm sure he felt quite satisfied with THAT as his finale. And most assuredly there were NO cries of them being BAD for basketball. Much like Geno he demanded excellence and maximum effort and the UCLA games were a joy to watch and beautiful to behold.

 

[johnnyc]

UCLA was a great team to watch and learn. As a kid I was a fan because Kareem was from my area in Manhattan so I certainly didn't think they were bad for basketball lol. I don't remember any of that kind of talk though I'm sure people were tired of UCLA winning all the time. I was not a happy camper when Houston with Elvin Hayes beat them in the Game of the Century.

 

[borninansonia]

The kids stayed four years in those days. Just like with women's ball today

 

[UcMiami]

Wonderful expositions by some of you on the anti-UCLA, anti-Wooden point of view. Some of you might want to catch on with the new president.

Never left California? "Massive corruption" ? Wonderfully objective.

OK - so the 'never left California' was an exaggeration, but the idea was clear - and the corruption is pretty well documented. So I think it is those that believe the fairy tale of a white castle on the hill who would be happier headed to DC - the reality is much more pedestrian.

UCLA played wonderful ball, and they had incredible players through that run. Wooden was a great coach. But it was a very different era of men's basketball than what exists today, and there is a reason Wooden was such a fan of the women's game - he recognized it as the style of basketball he loved.

 

[Willie E.Gold]

Coach Wooden is the Greatest basketball coach ever.This man won his first Championship with a guard oriented team(Goodrich/Hazzard).He won a Championship with 6'9 Steve Patterson at center.He won his last Championship with a 6'9 forward Richard Washington leading the team.He won Championships with Forwards 6'9 Wicks and 6'8 Rowe.Other teams had great players also.Similar to Coach Geno's tenure.Kareem and Lucius Allen attended UCLA on academic scholarships.This allowed them to live off campus,without breaking NCAA rules.What will they be saying about Coach Geno 25 years from now?I'm sure someone will distort why he dominated Women College Basketball.Coach Geno was smart enough to read Coach Wooden's book(They Call Me Coach).Amazing how there is always somebody spreading false propaganda on why Coaches:Wooden,Lombardi,Bryant,Knight,and Wilkinson dominated.The reality is they were Great Coaches.They took what they had and developed them.This is exactly what Coach Geno is doing.Is Coach Saban a great coach?How about Krzyzewski,Meyer,and Harbaugh?Are they cheating ,or just great coaches?In closing,Coach Wooden and Coach Geno would win in any era.They needed no outside help.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Wonderful expositions by some of you on the anti-UCLA, anti-Wooden point of view. Some of you might want to catch on with the new president.

Never left California? "Massive corruption" ? Wonderfully objective.

You apparently never read any of the articles written after Wooden had retired or you wouldnt think that "massive corruption" is not objective. New cars, fancy apartments, cash payments to players, abortions for their girlfriends, etc, etc. I'd advise a little research before you shoot the messenger.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Following up on the above post, one author had this to say: "By violating eligibility rules that had long been in place, a generation of Bruin players did cheat, and thus a goodly number of their championships would have been vacated had the NCAA been endowed with both perfect knowledge and the political courage to confront a program led by an esteemed legend like Wooden." But he questions how much UCLA really gained by the cheating.

How much they gained, and whether Wooden would have been as wildly successful without the corruption is a question that can't be answered. But this is an issue that sets Wooden apart from Geno, who I firmly believe has not cheated and certainly has not had boosters paying his players.

 

[donalddoowop]

The poster who wrote about the corruption was absolutely correct! Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton stated admitted it and said coach Wooden should have known about the cheating even though he said he did not know it was going on. One of THE main reasons UCLA did not continue it's dominance is that the rule forbidding freshmen to play was dropped. Because of that many of the more talented players started committing to other schools so they could play immediately and the talent started spreading throughout the country. Wooden was a great coach but, there is documented evidence about the booster who was paying the players and he was eventually banned from the campus. Some people think that nothing negative should ever be said about coach Wooden but he was not perfect. He was a great coach, probably the greatest of his era, but not as squeaky clean as some would have people think. UCLA back then was like North Carolina and Duke are now. The NCAA did not want to punish them because they brought in too much money and did not want to tarnish Wooden's image. Willie Gold mentioned coach K. When Quinn Snyder lost his job at Missouri for cheating, he said he was only doing what coach K was doing at Duke when he played there. The NCAA never investigated after he made the statement. By the way, they lost that game to NC State because they had a team that was just as good and the officials were bold enough to make calls against UCLA in crucial situations for a change..

 

[greydog]

Wooden was a great coach and teacher, he rarely called time out, preferring to let the players work through situations on the court as they had been taught to do in practice - because he taught them the 'UCLA way' (sound familiar?).

His teams played at a different level than others, moving, passing with opportunistic fast breaks etc, a real pleasure to watch - no dunking during most of the 10 championship run due to the NCAA 'Lew Alcindor rule'. Also, his pay was standard professor pay, like around $30k.

 

[iamcbs]

With the UConn women remarkably having matched the UCLA men's 88-game winning streak for a second time, it seems like an appropriate time to pose for the resident BY hoops experts this two-part question I've been pondering lately. I must confess I was not around during John Wooden's UCLA tenure, but for those of you who were, I am curious to hear your thoughts about the following two things as they relate to the run our Huskies are currently enjoying:

1. As a pushback to the common complaint that Geno's run of dominance is not at all comparable to Wooden's, it has been argued that men's college basketball was at a similar stage of evolution in the late '60s and early '70s to where the women's game is today. Is there something to this? I realize that Wooden's best years occurred roughly 25-35 years after the NIT and NCAA tournaments began, which somewhat mirrors where we are now in relation to the women's NCAA tournament, but that seems to me a rather crude analysis. I'm not particularly interested in debating whose accomplishments are more impressive, but I would like to know how closely the competitive balance UConn faces now compares to what UCLA faced then.

And, if the two eras are in fact somewhat comparable…

2. How long do you think UCLA's run of dominance could have lasted if Wooden had continued to coach? In other words, did his retirement cause the UCLA dynasty to end prematurely, or was the rest of the country already catching up to the Bruins when he decided to step down? I know their streak of titles was snapped in Wooden's penultimate season, but that also came at the hands of a great team led by one of the greatest college players ever, so I don't know whether that was really a sign of changing times or more of an aberration. This has been on my mind because I think it's at least questionable whether the rest of the women's game is catching up to UConn right now, or whether the Huskies could conceivably continue this run (not necessarily winning every championship, but winning most of them) for as long as Geno remains coach. Certainly the immediate future looks bright, although of course anything can happen. Could Wooden have won, say, a dozen or so titles had he kept at it?

Anyway, apologies for the length of the post, but I'd greatly appreciate whatever wisdom or insights any of you could share about this.

The UCLA juggernaut wasn't because other teams were bad and there was no stage of evolution at that time that was any different than any other period, except for maybe the gambling scandal of the 50's. Wooden won because he was the best coach and while he got some of the best players in the country(Alcindor, Walton, Wilkes, Bibby, et. al.) he didn't all of them. That's a myth that Geno has to live with as well. UCLA won because they were the best-prepared, best-executing team I've ever seen and Wooden reigned with an iron fist and his players loved him, see the similarities to Connecticut.

Many people forget that UCLA won two Nattys after Coach Wooden stepped down, many believe that if Denny Crum, had taken the job instead of remaining at Louisville that the dynasty may have continued. I'm not one of those as I believe the college landscape changed in the mid-to-late 70's with Spencer Haywood's lawsuit and early entry into the NBA. That was the tipping point more than any evolution of the college game. Players started looking for schools to go where they could showcase themselves rather than being part of a dominant program.

 

[oldude]

Wooden was undoubtedly a great coach, but no discussion of UCLA's success in basketball is complete unless it includes the exploits of controversial booster, Sam Gilbert, a businessman and millionaire LA construction baron, who insured that Wooden maintained a steady stream of the top players in the country: Alcindor (Kareem), Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, Bill Walton, etc., and took care of those players throughout their stay at UCLA.

I would also point out that in the 70's basketball was a game that was dominated to a much greater extent by "post play." There was no 3-pt line and size often equated to success. UCLA had a steady stream of the best centers in basketball in Kareem, Walton and, although he wasn't exactly a center, Wicks could outplay any center in basketball including 7'2" Artis Gilmore in the national championship game vs Jacksonville.

 

[UConnNick]

The UCLA juggernaut wasn't because other teams were bad and there was no stage of evolution at that time that was any different than any other period, except for maybe the gambling scandal of the 50's. Wooden won because he was the best coach and while he got some of the best players in the country(Alcindor, Walton, Wilkes, Bibby, et. al.) he didn't all of them. That's a myth that Geno has to live with as well. UCLA won because they were the best-prepared, best-executing team I've ever seen and Wooden reigned with an iron fist and his players loved him, see the similarities to Connecticut.

Many people forget that UCLA won two Nattys after Coach Wooden stepped down, many believe that if Denny Crum, had taken the job instead of remaining at Louisville that the dynasty may have continued. I'm not one of those as I believe the college landscape changed in the mid-to-late 70's with Spencer Haywood's lawsuit and early entry into the NBA. That was the tipping point more than any evolution of the college game. Players started looking for schools to go where they could showcase themselves rather than being part of a dominant program.

UCLA only has one men's BB national title since Wooden's departure in 1975, when Jim Harrick's team won it in 1995. They beat UCONN 102-96 in the Elite Eight on their way to that title.

Comparing men's and women's BB is useless because they're two completely different games. Wooden's UCLA teams were great, but the mere fact that they enjoyed only one epic length win streak of 88 games tells you all you need to know about the differences between the two games and eras. Yes, UCLA was able to win 10 titles in 12 years, but Geno's teams have now gone on epic length win streaks twice, and are about to break their own 90-game win streak.

Despite the easier path to the title when you only had to win four games, men's BB in the 60's and 70's had far more parity than women's BB does today. There are a number of teams that can be counted on one hand that have any realistic chance to win the FF in any given WCBB season. Teams from 5-10 might pull an occasional upset over a top 5 team, and from 10-25 have no chance to win it all and very little chance of upsetting a top 5 team. There's no point in discussing teams from 26-350 or however many DI schools there are because they all have no chance, and their win total vs Top 25 teams is likely to be pretty abysmal during any given season.

Even during UCLA's run of 10 in 12 years, there were men's teams that could give them a game, and they did play in a major conference. They didn't routinely blow away conference teams by 40 or more points all the time. Their level of competition was significantly greater than what women's teams face today. Also, during the first half of that run, the NIT was a comparable tournament to the NCAA, and there were NIT champs that could have given UCLA a game. I'm not suggesting any of them would have beaten UCLA in a "real" NC game, but all the best teams didn't necessarily play in the NCAAs like they do now. Teams could opt to play in one tournament or the other. Prior to UCLA's run, the NIT was considered by many to be the premier tournament of the two.

The UCONN women are actually far more dominant in this era than UCLA was during theirs, but it's a meaningless comparison due to the lack of parity in the women's game compared to what those UCLA teams faced.

We now have the most combined DI NCAA titles of any team in the country...15. UCLA is second with 11 men's, and they also should get credit for their one AIAW women's title in 1978, so they are three behind us in second place with 12. While it is an outstanding achievement and worthy of UCONN's modern day title as the Capital of College BB, it will never be generally viewed as equal to or better than UCLA's run because WCBB will never be considered on par with MCBB of any decade due to the huge parity gap. Geno would likely have to win 30 NCs before any knowledgeable college BB historians or pundits would give him credit for being better than Wooden as a coach, even though he likely may be. Saying that one is better than the other is all relative and subjective anyway. It's interesting to debate but there will never be a right or wrong answer.

 

[Gus Mahler]

You apparently never read any of the articles written after Wooden had retired or you wouldnt think that "massive corruption" is not objective. New cars, fancy apartments, cash payments to players, abortions for their girlfriends, etc, etc. I'd advise a little research before you shoot the messenger.

I have read those things, going back many years, thank you.

 

[Suebird10fan]

Even during UCLA's run of 10 in 12 years, there were men's teams that could give them a game, and they did play in a major conference. They didn't routinely blow away conference teams by 40 or more points all the time. Their level of competition was significantly greater than what women's teams face today.

By my count, during the 88 game streak, UCLA won 15 games by less than 10 points, six of those games by less than five points. The fact that there were so many teams UCLA could NOT dominate is what made the streak so incredible.

BTW ... OP titled the thread, "Question for those who remember the Wooden years." My memory of the Wooden years is vague as I was pretty young. I do have a crystal clear recollection, however, of the big dent my father's fist put in our basement ceiling when the final buzzer sounded and the streak was broken!

 

[BroadwayVa]

With the UConn women remarkably having matched the UCLA men's 88-game winning streak for a second time, it seems like an appropriate time to pose for the resident BY hoops experts this two-part question I've been pondering lately. I must confess I was not around during John Wooden's UCLA tenure, but for those of you who were, I am curious to hear your thoughts about the following two things as they relate to the run our Huskies are currently enjoying:

1. As a pushback to the common complaint that Geno's run of dominance is not at all comparable to Wooden's, it has been argued that men's college basketball was at a similar stage of evolution in the late '60s and early '70s to where the women's game is today. Is there something to this? I realize that Wooden's best years occurred roughly 25-35 years after the NIT and NCAA tournaments began, which somewhat mirrors where we are now in relation to the women's NCAA tournament, but that seems to me a rather crude analysis. I'm not particularly interested in debating whose accomplishments are more impressive, but I would like to know how closely the competitive balance UConn faces now compares to what UCLA faced then.

And, if the two eras are in fact somewhat comparable…

2. How long do you think UCLA's run of dominance could have lasted if Wooden had continued to coach? In other words, did his retirement cause the UCLA dynasty to end prematurely, or was the rest of the country already catching up to the Bruins when he decided to step down? I know their streak of titles was snapped in Wooden's penultimate season, but that also came at the hands of a great team led by one of the greatest college players ever, so I don't know whether that was really a sign of changing times or more of an aberration. This has been on my mind because I think it's at least questionable whether the rest of the women's game is catching up to UConn right now, or whether the Huskies could conceivably continue this run (not necessarily winning every championship, but winning most of them) for as long as Geno remains coach. Certainly the immediate future looks bright, although of course anything can happen. Could Wooden have won, say, a dozen or so titles had he kept at it?

Anyway, apologies for the length of the post, but I'd greatly appreciate whatever wisdom or insights any of you could share about this.

You ask --unanswerable questions---Thought provoking, but without a real answer.

One is the competition Geno faces equal to the competition Wooden face--??? Women' against Women, against teams of the same quality, coaching, and talent (top 10 teams) in that Geno teams in OOC games face the same level of competition Wooden team face are equal--.
Geno has often pointed out --Women's team cannot effectively play men's team--for all the obvious and logical reasons.

Watching Wooden in his hey-day was equally thrilling to watching Geno's team. Watching Wooden alone was almost boring--he was like the quintessential professor, dignified, and proper unlike Geno who by himself is the entertainment Wooden wouldn't say horse-(manure) if he had a mouth full--Geno is --ahem --{"""-Colorful in language.""""

 

[BroadwayVa]

UCLA was a great team to watch and learn. As a kid I was a fan because Kareem was from my area in Manhattan so I certainly didn't think they were bad for basketball lol. I don't remember any of that kind of talk though I'm sure people were tired of UCLA winning all the time. I was not a happy camper when Houston with Elvin Hayes beat them in the Game of the Century.

Lew Alcindor went to Powers Memorial---when did Kareem go?? I was very happy the smaller Hayes beat Lew Alcindor and UClA. Baseball was king then--for a short period Mens BB became the new king--related to UCLA making the sport known??

 

[Husky1964]

Couple of observations. Sam Gilbert was the bag man for Wooden's teams. JW also cornered most of the good players because in those days there was no limit on schollies. The 88 streak ended in South Bend when with less than a minute to go Adrian Dantley stole the ball at mid court with the refs ignoring an apparent FOUL. Do things ever change??

 

[Duncan Idaho]

UCLA 88 streak included 16-18 games against ranked teams. I think UConn's had almost a third against ranked teams(though top 25), perhaps a tougher schedule.

 

[Jimbo]

Just want to thank everyone for all your thoughtful responses. Always grateful for the incredible wealth of basketball knowledge on this site.