re: Help settle a debate against a Kentucky homer

Also, during Wooden's era, only one team could make the tourney per conference. The rules was changed in 1975, and the field expanded to 32. Before that, the largest field UCLA saw was 25, and they didn't have to play the same quality of team throughout.

Still, 10 out of 12 is incredibly impressive, but it is highly unlikely they would have pulled the same feat post-1975 and especially post-1985 in the 64 team era. I despise Duke, but I actually think Coach K's run is more impressive.

UCLA

Better players
18 Final Fours
45 NCAA Tournament appearances
41 Conference Titles

Oh, and this thing called 11 NATIONAL TITLES!!!!!!!

UCLA is 8th in program wins and 6th in winning percentage behind UK, KU, UNC, Duke, and Syracuse.

Well, look at the other schools in front of them. It isn't like they maintained sustained mediocrity. They are all super programs.

UCLA is a clear #1

quote:

---

Clearly behind UCLA and Kansas

---

How are they even in the conversation with only 3 NCAA titles?

people's gripe against ucla is basically that if you take 10 years away from ucla, they are absolutely fricked in the conversation. if you take away 10 years from everyone else, they are still in contention because their success is separated and sustained.

ETA: dont bring up duke as your counter-argument

Yeah, it's a bit like arguing Minnesota is the best football program of all time because they used to be awesome. Or Miami because of the 80s.

Know who has the most national titles in football? Princeton. With 26. Yale has 18. Bama's not even halfway to catching Princeton and they don't even play big-time football anymore. No one would seriously argue that either of those two programs are the best ever. Or even Pitt, who has 9, but only one in my lifetime.

UCLA has won one title in the entire time I've been alive, and I'm not THAT young. UCLA, in my lifetime, has never been the best current program going. I think if we're talking Best Program Ever, the modern era should weigh more heavily because it is so much harder to win a title post-1975 (and really, post-1985).

Actually, USC baseball is a great comp. They were absolutely dominant in an era which was wholly uncompetitive. Regionals didn't exist until 1975. A team from the Pac-10 won the title every year from 1965-81 except 1966 (OSU), 1975 (Texas), and 1979 (Fullerton). The South didn't win a title until 1982 (Miami), when the game first became truly national. Though USC won titles before this era and after this era, so they have a better case than UCLA in basketball. Their success isn't contained to just one relatively non-competitive era.

quote:

---

Their success isn't contained to just one relatively non-competitive era.

---

Don't really understand this "non-competitive era."

If someone isn't good enough or playing a sport - that's their problem.

And trust me, UNC and Kentucky were trying to win titles in the 60's and 70's - they just couldn't because of UCLA. UCLA made two of the greatest programs become irrelevant for two decades.

quote:

---

Didn't win anything in the 60's or 80's.

---

That's just stupid, and you know it. If we're just doing counting eras without titles, then that kills UCLA even more. But UK was consistently good, along with those 8 titles:

UK's been to 52 tourneys, 39 Sweet 16's, 34 Elite 8's, 15 Final Fours, and been to the title game 11 times. And they won the SEC 47 times. Yes, during the 60s and 80s as well.

Actually, the only decade in which UK did not go to the Final Four since the 40s is the 00's, when they still made the Sweet 16 four times and qualified for the tourney nine times. And that's their worst decade since WWII.