re: Calipari is NOT interested in the NBA

They have 11 titles ... 7 in a row ... Yes, their last title was in '95, I am aware of this, but up until 2 days ago, Kentucky's last title was in '98.

They had an epic run under Wooden. No coach will ever have the championship success he had (10 of UCLA's 11). That said, Kentucky has won a championship 5 different decades with 5 different coaches.

UCLA was most dominate under Wooden and is one of the top programs. Kentucky is the better overall program. No bias when the numbers back it up (All-time wins and etc). As said, I'd put UNC over them as well as an all-time program because of sustained success through multiple coaches and decades.

UCLA also went to 3 straight Final Fours a couple of years ago...so it's not like they were some two-decade wonder like people are acting like.

UCLA 18 Final Fours, tied with North Carolina.

Since Wooden won the title (10) almost every time he went to the Final Four - it's not all him.

UK
Winning Seasons - 92
Consecutive Winning Seasons - ?
AP Poll No. 1 (Weeks Ranked All Time) - 99
Conference Champions - 47
Tournament appearances - 52
Sweet 16 (starting in 1975) - 22
Final Fours - 15
Final Four Wins - 19
Runner-up - 3
National Titles - 8
Undefeated Seasons - 0

UCLA
Winning Seasons - 73
Consecutive Winning Seasons - 54
AP Poll No. 1 (Weeks Ranked All Time) - 134
Conference Champions - 40
Tournament appearances - 44
Sweet 16 (starting in 1975) - 17
Final Fours - 18
Final Four Wins - 25
Runner-up - 2
National Titles - 11
Undefeated Seasons - 4

North Carolina's a greater program than both of those schools. They've been dominant against far tougher competition in the ACC. I have them at #1 followed by Kentucky and UCLA with Kansas, Duke, and Indiana in the second tier.

Depends what your criteria is but North Carolina has 5 national titles just like Kansas and Indiana.

It seems you prefer longevity and winning %.

I don't see why head-to-head winning % is such an important factor when they're in different conferences and Duke/UNC are going to dominate in the number of matchups while a team like UCLA far out west has a low number of meetings.

Naming UNC #1 in basketball sort of feels like naming Michigan the greatest college football program of all time.

During the '60s, the NCAA only awarded one bid to every conference. UNC only made three NCAA tournament appearances from 1960-1971 because of that rule. During that time, Duke won the ACC four times and made it to three final fours, NC State had a great program with Everett Case and Norm Sloan, Wake Forest won two conference titles and made it to a final four, South Carolina had a good program under Frank McGuire, Maryland was starting to build up their program with Bud Milliken and Lefty Driesell and so on. Kentucky and UCLA never had even close to that type of competition in the Pac-8 and SEC. USC had a pretty good program for a couple years and that was basically it. Kentucky didn't have any rivals in the SEC because the teams in the SEC were so lackluster.

quote:

---

If it was so much tougher why didn't they win a single National Title in the 60's and 70's over weaker UCLA, Kentucky or Indiana? NCAA champions by Conference: PAC - 15 ACC - 12 SEC - 11 B1G - 10

---

If it was much tougher?

UK has played in the shite-tastic league known as the SEC. (No offense to the SEC fans on here, but it's not a basketball conference) I can't gurantee, because they are not in the ACC, but if UK actually had to play a tough conference schedule every year, then yea, you wouldn't be biased at all ...

quote:

---

During the '60s, the NCAA only awarded one bid to every conference. UNC only made three NCAA tournament appearances from 1960-1971 because of that rule. During that time, Duke won the ACC four times and made it to three final fours, NC State had a great program with Everett Case and Norm Sloan, Wake Forest won two conference titles and made it to a final four, South Carolina had a good program under Frank McGuire, Maryland was starting to build up their program with Bud Milliken and Lefty Driesell and so on.

---

So much problem with this.

quote:

---

Kentucky and UCLA never had even close to that type of competition in the Pac-8 and SEC. USC had a pretty good program for a couple years and that was basically it.

---

1) You leave out a ton of info -
Talk about Duke or whoever blocking UNC's path to the NCAA?

Wooden couldn't get to the NCAA in the 50's because of Pete Newell and his CAL teams! (which you conveniently leave out) Cal - NCAA Champ, NCAA runner-up...) Newell won the last eight he coached at Cal against Wooden.


2) You operate under the premise that conferences are stagnant or they're a mirror of what they're today. Do you really think the ACC today is the same as yesterday and likewise for every other conference? You are taking what you see NOW. Because really, you're going to compare conferences from eyes that never watched them? If so, the only valid way to compare is titles won. It's not subjective.

Case in point -
3) You say only the conference champion was invited and UNC was hampered because the ACC was so tough...then pray tell - where are all the ACC National Champions????

Between 1958 and 1980 the ACC won ONE national title

That's not North Carolina - that's the Conference.

Fact is you have no way of knowing which conferences were the greatest - except for which conference produced the champion. This is all just stat nonsense, making stuff up. ACC was not producing the champion...would you buy this argument in football? Pac 12 is really the best, but the SEC produces the champion?

quote:

---

Kentucky didn't have any rivals in the SEC because the teams in the SEC were so lackluster.

---

What they said about Alabama football. In the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's - the birthplace of the Powers in football - the Big 10...as the first great powerhouse...Michigan and Big 10 football was perceived to be the toughest/best in the country by the public and media.

So once again, right or wrong...your North Carolina argument feels like the Michigan Football argument - even down to the Duke was blocking UNC, like Ohio State blocking Michigan football. It can be made but both UNC and Michigan lack the transcendent trophies and hardware to make that claim.

Finally, I'll leave you with what Coach Wooden said about Dean Smith..."I always thought he tended to overcoach his teams." And that hurt them. As Pete Newell said...players are "over-coached but under-taught."

UNC is a great program but they frankly weren't good enough for far too long a period...beating Duke when no one from your conference is winning a National Title for a large part of the 20th century does not make you the greatest ever. Like Michigan in football...you beat Ohio State but can't beat USC in the Rose Bowl.

Nobody could beat UCLA when it matter most.