Here's the thing about UCLA's ten national championships

[tzznandrew]

The NIT Champ was always considered among the best teams in the country.

Certainly, up through the mid to late 1950s this is true. Teams like Kentucky and San Francisco were getting bids through that time. Teams ranked #1 in the AP poll would go to both. But by the early 1960s, that had really changed. By 1961-62, the eastern and midwestern independents and catholics that had been the strongest supporters of the NIT were getting invites into the NCAAs, and turning down the NIT to go there (as I detailed a bit above).

The tournament still had luster, and the NIT champ was considered a very good team, but the NCAA champ was the champ, pretty much indisputably.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

There were a lot of differences back then beyond just KAJ and Walton wouldn't have stayed 4 years. UCLA was playing teams like Long Beach State in the Final 8 because the tournament was regionalized. There were only 24 or 26 teams back then. I don't know how many titles UCLA would have won if they had the same teams in the modern format, but it would not have been 10.

That's true and prior to 1950 the NIT tourney had more prestige.
The cheating scandal hurt eastern basketball for almost 25 years.
There was a stench associated with college Basketball in NYC.
It was a different time. UCLA and a Wooden helped make the game as big as it is today.They actually brought the game back to National importance.

At One point the NCAA was pretty much restricted to conference champions.
It was an elitist event.
If you had a tourney it was tourney champ. That's why the NIT remained viable.You might get a Kentucky regular season champs who were upset by Vandy in the SEC tourneyunless they turned down the bid. When it went to 64 it grabbed pretty much all the best teams.almost killing the NIT. But at no time in my life as a serious BB fan (1955) was the NIT more prestigious.
This years UConn team wouldn't have made the old NCAA limited tourney.
Does that diminish our accomplishment?
If 30 or 40 years from now the women's game equals the parody of the men's someone will certainly try to diminish Geno's accomplishments. That would be equally wrong.
Accomplishments or history for that matter is limited to the time it occurs , revisionism is plain stupid.

 

[Scalito]

Would Ted Williams hit .406 in the modern game if he had to face Mariano regularly?

Impossible to say, but, if batting averages were calculated as they are now back then he'd have hit 411 (sacrifice flies counted against you back then).

 

[Husky25]

The NBA's rule of not allowing 4 year Seniors is still in effect, but there is another rule that makes it all but obsolete. The early entrant needs to show financial need and the thresholds are ridiculously low. The rule implemented that gives rise to the one-&-dones supersedes the show cause rule. Aside from being sued in the early 70's, the NBA had to relax the 4 year rule, because the ABA had no such rule and was drafting Juniors, while promising money they didn't have (as franchises were folding and popping up all over the country).

 

[Mr. Hand]

Who did Shaq lose to in his final college game?

I just can't seem to remember. Anyone want to help me out?

BYU.

He lost to UConn the previous year in the first round, which was largely why he chose to return to school.

Unfortunately for him, Dale Brown was still his coach, a man who truly did less with more than just about anyone.

 

[slumdog]

I don't know. I was just speculating.

And I didn't do it quickly, there are a number of things that come into play when judging the UCLA streak. For example, there were no at large bids, so he field was weakened. And there's the fact a UCLA booster paid players and gave them free apartments and other gifts during the Wooden run. That would be almost impossible in today's digital age.

I am merely saying that UCLA had advantages that are no longer available and this should be considered when examining their accomplishments. The largest of which is having the best player in college for three years, something that is not possible in the 21st century.

Bill Walton has been quoted as saying UCLA's basketball team had the highest payroll of any team in California. The rationalizations or explanations, although interesting and fun, the bottom line is, they have 11 and that's the number to beat.

 

[Senore]

I don't know. I was just speculating.

And I didn't do it quickly, there are a number of things that come into play when judging the UCLA streak. For example, there were no at large bids, so he field was weakened. And there's the fact a UCLA booster paid players and gave them free apartments and other gifts during the Wooden run. That would be almost impossible in today's digital age.

I am merely saying that UCLA had advantages that are no longer available and this should be considered when examining their accomplishments. The largest of which is having the best player in college for three years, something that is not possible in the 21st century.

The teams Wooden won his 2 first titles with, with 2 6 foot guards and no starter over 6' 5", great shooters, fast break basketball were the most fun teams to watch in basketball at the time. Goodrich and Hazzard were just awesome. Denny Crum was Wooden's assistant at the time and that's the game he brought to Louisville in 1970. Full court press - it was the birth of the modern era of Louisville basketball imo.

95-98% of players for UCLA were from California, in another interesting fact. Alcinder/Clay (I call him Clay) was from Power Memorial but just about everyone else was local.

Another factoid deals with - back then - only conference winners got bids to the tourney. There were years when USC was the #2 team in the country and they rarely even made the NCAA's.

 

[Senore]

Joe Louis was 137 years old when he fought that white boy, Maricano.

 

[husky8273]

If anyone is interested, here are the brackets for each of UCLA's championship years:

1964: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1964Bracket.pdf
1965: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1965Bracket.pdf
1967: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1967Bracket.pdf
1968: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1968Bracket.pdf
1969: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1969Bracket.pdf
1970: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1970Bracket.pdf
1971: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1971Bracket.pdf
1972: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1972Bracket.pdf
1973: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1973Bracket.pdf
1975: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1975Bracket.pdf
1995: http://a.espncdn.com/ncaatourney/brackets/1995Bracket.pdf

Regional 3rd place games? Can you imagine? When did they end?

 

[CL82]

Shout out to the 1964 UConn team ("Perno stole the ball! Perno stole the ball!" (from Bill Bradley.))

 

[Husky999]

UCLA was one of the dirtiest programs in history (2nd to maybe only Kentucky)… paying players… gifts, fake jobs… during there Wooden golden years. Wooden knew of all the booster activity and was 100% complicit. It's why Tarkanian sued and won a judgement against the NCAA.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...0140121/john-wooden-book-excerpt-sam-gilbert/

 

[TheChamps990411]

I think this argument is ludicrous. They have 11 titles get over it. Uconn has been hated on by people trying to invalidate our program and we turn and do the same thing to someone else? weak! Wooden and Ucla get my respect and all their titles are legit just like ours.

In 2011 there were people trying to invalidate our title with some going as far as saying we were the worst team to ever win a national title. We should be celebrating the fact that we have 4 not trying to knock schools that have more.

4 NATIONAL TITLES PEOPLE!!! 4!!!!! LET THAT SINK IN!!! 4!!!!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think this argument is ludicrous. They have 11 titles get over it. Uconn has been hated on by people trying to invalidate our program and we turn and do the same thing to someone else? weak! Wooden and Ucla get my respect and all their titles are legit just like ours.

In 2011 there were people trying to invalidate our title with some going as far as saying we were the worst team to ever win a national title. We should be celebrating the fact that we have 4 not trying to knock schools that have more.

4 NATIONAL TITLES PEOPLE!!! 4!!!!! LET THAT SINK IN!!! 4!!!!

No one is saying those UCLA teams weren't great, but comparing those championships to championships won today is like comparing apples to bananas. The format was so different that to say winning a championship today was the same as winning one in 1971 is simply a false statement. Those ancient championships do not count as much as today's championships do. I am also ignoring the fact that prior to Magic and Bird, basketball was a tertiary sport that did not attract the best athletes either, or the fact that basketball was not really integrated until the early 60's.

Modern college basketball started in either 1975 or 1985, depending on your point of view. Championships won prior to that point are still championships, but they should not be counted the same as championships won during the modern era.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Top 10 teams were skipping the NCAA Tournament into the late 60's to go to the NIT instead. I believe #8 Marquette was the last one to do it in 1970. New York had better media exposure and prior to the mid-60's, Segregation in the south was a problem for some teams.

It was just a different sport prior to the tournament expansion in 1976.

Marquette skipped the NCAA Tournament and opted for the NIT in 1970 because the NCAA wanted to send them to the Midwest Region instead of the customary Mideast Region to where fans had already purchased tickets and made plans. Marquette Coach Al McGuire, incensed and convinced that Adolph Rupp was behind it, took his team to the NIT instead where, as expected, they rolled to the championship. Because of the smaller NCAA field and the fact that conferences could only send one team to the NCAA tournament, the NIT was a very popular tournament back in the day. Huge, in fact.

 

[Onions]

No it isn't.

They didn't play against at-large teams or in a 64 team tournament. They played Utah State and Santa Clara in the Final 8 about half those years. Those are facts. They didn't win 4 or 5 games each tournament against quality opponents to win their titles. That is also a fact. UCLA had some great players and great teams and Wooden was a great coach. They wouldn't have won 10 titles even at that time if the NCAA used the modern format.

Either the accomplishment of winning a championship in 1971 was the same as winning one in 2014 or it wasn't. I think it wasn't. You think it was. I have facts on my side. Your argument is "na na na na na"

I will leave the na na na's to you, I will try some basic logic. Is the tournament much harder to win now than it was in Wooden's era.? Absolutely. Does that prove that UCLA was incapable of winning it under these present conditions? No it does not. The only fact is that they won it under the previous conditions. Speculations about what they "might" have done under present conditions are just that - speculations. The fact that they won 88 games in a row might convince some that they were so far superior to all the teams of that era that they would have just as easily swept a field of 64 or any other size. Given that you are so sure that they wouldn't have won 11 titles in a row, based purely on the fact that the tourney setup is harder now, how many titles do you think they would have won? 8, 3, none? It actually doesn't matter. What UCLA did in Wooden's era was totally dominate college basketball for over a decade in a way that no other program has even come close to replicating.

I find the demeaning of a teams achievement simply because they happened at an earlier time quite egocentric. I guess the Celtic's 11 Championships in 13 years is meaningless too and forget about the Yankees winning 5 world series in a row, that was so '50s. In fact let's throw out all records and all statistics before some cut off point that you are comfortable with - because things are different now and who cares what happened 40 years ago - in fact let's forget about everything that happened before you saw it, because if you didn't see it what could it matter.

 

[VAUConnFan]

The won three with Lew Alcinder later KAJ. They also won three with Bill Walton. Both of those players would be one and dones today.

They basically have six national championships for what would translate into two this century.

So I'm figuring it's really more like six.

For factual accuracy, Bill Walton's UCLA teams only won two titles; thwarted by David Thompson and NC State in 1974.

I, too, have no doubt that UCLA would not have won as many championships. The reasons/differences:
1. Smaller fields
2. Regional seedings
3. First round byes
4. No shot clock
5. Only conference champions were invited to the tournament
6. Very few at large bids
7. Freshmen were not eligible until 1971
8. Black ballplayers were not as heavily recruited
a. Rosters rarely to never were over half black
b. Rarely did a team put more than three black players on the floor at the same time
c. there were still entire conferences in the south that did not have any black ballplayers
9. UCLA's program received very little NCAA scrutiny

And, can we please stop promoting the fallacy of the no dunking rule being implemented to thwart Alcindor's/KAJ's scoring advantage? For one thing, Coach Wooden eschewed the dunk; Didn't like it and never adapted. But, the no dunk rule was championed by Adolph Rupp after his 1966 Kentucky team was totally demoralized by Texas Western and their high flying style of play. There is an article here that pretty much articulates my sentiments:
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-24/sports/48494966_1_dunk-texas-western-march-madness

 

[Onions]

For factual accuracy, Bill Walton's UCLA teams only won two titles; thwarted by David Thompson and NC State in 1974.

I, too, have no doubt that UCLA would not have won as many championships. The reasons/differences:
1. Smaller fields
2. Regional seedings
3. First round byes
4. No shot clock
5. Only conference champions were invited to the tournament
6. Very few at large bids
7. Freshmen were not eligible until 1971
8. Black ballplayers were not as heavily recruited
a. Rosters rarely to never were over half black
b. Rarely did a team put more than three black players on the floor at the same time
c. there were still entire conferences in the south that did not have any black ballplayers
9. UCLA's program received very little NCAA scrutiny

And, can we please stop promoting the fallacy of the no dunking rule being implemented to thwart Alcindor's/KAJ's scoring advantage? For one thing, Coach Wooden eschewed the dunk; Didn't like it and never adapted. But, the no dunk rule was championed by Adolph Rupp after his 1966 Kentucky team was totally demoralized by Texas Western and their high flying style of play. There is an article here that pretty much articulates my sentiments:
http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-24/sports/48494966_1_dunk-texas-western-march-madness

My question is - did UCLA play by some unique set of rules, or did they play with the exact same set of rules that all the other teams of it's era did? If the answer is that the rules back then were the same for everybody, then why didn't some other team take advantage of them to win at least 1 title in those 10 years back then. There were some pretty good players on a lot of those other teams, and they had to stay for 4 years, and they got 1st round buys, and they played without a shot clock, and yet they could never, not once in ten years, beat UCLA, including years without either Alcindor or Walton. So why was that?

 

[VAUConnFan]

My question is - did UCLA play by some unique set of rules, or did they play with the exact same set of rules that all the other teams of it's era did? If the answer is that the rules back then were the same for everybody, then why didn't some other team take advantage of them to win at least 1 title in those 10 years back then. There were some pretty good players on a lot of those other teams, and they had to stay for 4 years, and they got 1st round buys, and they played without a shot clock, and yet they could never, not once in ten years, beat UCLA, including years without either Alcindor or Walton. So why was that?

To answer your question, UCLA won with the rules of their era. But, to do what they did in their era with their rules and tournament setup would be much more difficult with the changes that have since been implemented. I distinctly remember the 1970 championship game against Jacksonville when UCLA sat on its lead for the better part of five minutes.
Winning three and four games is not the same as winning six games.
Playing with a shot clock is not the same as playing with one. Strategies change. Going back to the 1970 championship game, UCLA shot something like 30 more free throws than Jacksonville and made less than 70% of them. Is UCLA, as great as they were, winning a national championship shooting below 70% in today's game?

 

[Danzz]

I don't want to slight Wooden because he was a great coach but he got any recruit he wanted. Think of Kentucky with the players staying 4 years. You still have to win it all with these players (unlike Kentucky). IMO Walton was the best college basketball player ever. UCLA had great, great teams and I don't see any teams today beating them in the Walton and Alcindor years. There supporting cast was also incredible.
There is much more parody today and that is great for college basketball.

 

[diggerfoot]

Tim Duncan stayed four years in the modern era. It's less likely for that to happen, but because of differences in culture more than the rules. Out of Walton and Alcindor maybe one stays, one doesn't. Maybe neither does. Who really knows?

Even if you got players staying, for both UCLA and their opponents, I think it less likely for them to make such a run in the modern era with a 64-team field. However, this faulting a program's accomplishments because of a different era works both ways. UCLA dominance in the current era? Unlikely. UConn's 2011 and 2014 runs back when the fields were more restricted? Impossible. We would not even be in the tourney. If you want to fault UCLA for not being able to do it now, it's only fair to fault us for not being able to do what we just did back then. Best to just bask in the fact that given what the conditions are now we are the best program in college basketball.

 

[Senore]

Any time discussion about "the best teams ever" arises, certain teams share the light - Ohio State with Jerry Lucas, Larry Siegfried and John Havlichek won every tournament game by 19 or more. Say what you want about how ancient the USF NC's were, anyone who watched Bill Russel and KC Jones steamroll through the NBA like a house on fire understands they were amazing. The UCLA teams of Wooden's were equally unbelievable.

Putting aside era arguments and remembering athletes and teams makes the past worthwhile and adds nuance to an interesting debate. The fact is, the point-shaving bastids that earned their way out of the entire sport at Kentucky - Groza, Spivey and All American Frank Beard - who could have combined with Hagan and Ramsay later - was probably the greatest amalgam of individual talent college basketball has ever seen. Rupp just got Calipari'd, lol.