Jimbo
Running to Stand Still
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 710
- Reaction Score
- 3,108
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.
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.