I've addressed this issue very generally in other posts. I don't have a specific answer to the questions posed. But let me repeat the general argument I think correctly reflects the circumstances. Apologies to others if this is repetitive. (By the way, this is largely informed by the analysis and argument presented by Stephen Jay Gould in his book "Full House", specifically the middle section on the "The Decline of the .400 Hitter". If you've never read it, you should.)
1. In the past, WCBB likely reflected the performance of players that were, on the whole, less talented, less athletic, poorer passers, shooters, cutters, defenders, etc. than those playing today. This is, of course, an assumption. But it seems sound. Why? Because in every single sport that measures performance by reference to some absolute (such as a stop clock, and height, a distance, etc.), athletes today manifest performance that is objectively better than those performing 50 years ago. Why would this not be true in a sport like basketball? (Indeed, I am guessing that if one had the data, you might find that overall FT pct. has gone up over the decades in WCBB. I mention FT because it has the feature of measuring success by reference to an absolute that does not depend on competing against another player.)
2. Better performance is probably the result of a number of factors, including: larger pools from which to draw available talent (you see this in baseball, from the 1900s to the 2000s); better training; better diet; development and refinement of techniques; etc.
3. In sports that measure achievement (if only in part) by reference to direct competition between/among players/teams, the difference between the best and the worst will narrow over time, with overall performance of all athletes/teams improving (with the limitations of flesh and blood constituting the absolute barrier to possible achievement-- no one will ever be able to run a marathon in 90 minutes; no one will ever run the 100 meters in 5 seconds). You see this, for example, in the women's marathon. In the 1960s record time was over 3 hours. it was down to 2:20+ by the mid-80s. By the early 2000s, it was down to 2:15+. As the limits of human achievement are reached, the records get broken by fewer and fewer increments of time. Meanwhile, the difference between the best and the worst (among elite competitors) becomes less and less. (Again, you can verify this by looking at results in many sports.)
4. If we apply these assumptions to WCBB, then one would assume that the best teams are getting better over time, while the overall performance of all teams reflects general improvement as compared to teams playing 50 years ago. (It is in this respect that I hazard to guess that today's best teams would, on average, probably beat the best teams of 30 years ago and perhaps even 20 years ago.)
Of course, there will always be statistical variation. Nonetheless, as ability, technique, performance, etc. increases over time, the difference between best and second best, best and worst will narrow. Things may reach a point where it will be difficult to detect statistically significant differences between, say, the 2018-19 Huskies and the 2002-03 Huskies.
Footnote: I read an article awhile back suggesting that there has been a decline in the number of young women pursuing collegiate basketball, in lieu of other collegiate sports. If so, then that would constitute a stabilization or perhaps decrease in the pool of available talent.
Additionally, in order to make meaningful comparisons the above must be understood within the context of a normalization of rules, among other things.
)
