Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Over a period of 10 or so years, how many championships did UCLA win?
I'm not saying it is the SAME....just that it is MORE comparable than many people realize. I doubt you find that an outrageous claim.
|
I agree. Its actually quite comparable.
The difference in talent that UCLA was getting back then in comparison to what most other teams were getting is staggering. There were a few teams back then that went undefeated. If not for injuries in 1975, the hoosiers would probably have done it two years in a row. Isn't it interesting that since that 1976 Hoosier team, no NCAA men's team has finished undefeated? Why is that?
The game was much different then. There were a maximum of 25 teams in the tournament until 1975 when they expanded to 32 teams.
Recruiting was different then. It was more regional. There certainly weren't any other teams out west that were getting kids to come nationally like UCLA was. Other programs simply weren't paying the kind of money to kids that UCLA had been paying. That being the case, UCLA had a huge advantage. Sure they played midwest and east coast powers too, but a majority of the win streak came against overmatched west coast schools. Then they get to the tournament when you have to play a couple of tough games but the tourney for them back then was only like three games with no conference tourney.
Basketball was a much different game then. Yes, if you had a mens basketball team go on an 88 game winning streak TODAY, comparing UCONN'S winning streak would be pretty dumb. But taking into account the differences in the men's game back then and UCLA's massive competitive advantage over its foes, I think the streaks are much more comparable than some think.