UK number one with UNC and Duke after that. Then Kansas. Then UCLA. Then Indiana. UCLA did almost everything in a 12 year span over 30 years ago. I just can't put them over all those other teams that have done so much since that point.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by rockchlkjayhku11

Cincinnati, OH

Member since Aug 2006

36775 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 10:38 pm to Palm Beach Tiger

kansas over duke and i agree

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Baloo

Formerly MDGeaux

Member since Sep 2003

49645 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 10:39 pm to Zamoro10

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

I don't think it's a difficult concept. The quality of play was low overall, as was interest. The NCAA tournament still struggled with the NIT being of rival prestige. As late as 1970, Marquette declined an NCAA bid to play in the NIT. The NIT was arguably a tougher tournament until the late 60s or early 70s.

Also, due to the structure of the tourney, UCLA avoided the toughest teams. The tourney truly was regional back then, so they just had to beat the Big West or WCC champs en route to the Final Four. UCLA's first title featured a run to the title game in which UCLA did not play a single ranked team until the title game. A tourney like that in today's game is simply unimaginable. It WAS easier for UCLA, as they were the lone powerhouse out west while the more competitive East and Midwest had the teams knock each other out. Also, UCLA had to win all of four games to win the title.

It was easier back then. Much easier. Credit to UCLA for actually doing it, I'm not trying to say their titles don't count or anything, but context matters.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bench McElroy

Member since Nov 2009

34684 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 10:42 pm to Zamoro10

quote:
UCLA has 6 Final Fours post Wooden.

Kentucky has 9 Final Fours post Rupp.

Rupp took Kentucky to 6 Final Fours winning 4.

Wooden took UCLA to 11 Final Fours...winning 10.

Quite frankly, I don't put much worth into NCAA titles before 1975. It was a completely different game with no at-large bids given to teams that didn't win their conference and 25 team fields. In 1974, the second best team in college basketball that year was Maryland and they didn't even make the NCAA tournament because the NCAA tournament per conference. It was a completely different. I would equate it to the pre and post merger eras in the NFL. When people talk about different eras in the NFL, they always mention the NFL before the AFL-NFL merger and after the AFL-NFL merger because it was a completely different game after the merger happened. The same can be said about college basketball before and after the expansion of the tournament fields.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Palm Beach Tiger

Orlando, Florida

Member since Jan 2007

30109 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 10:48 pm to rockchlkjayhku11

quote:
kansas over duke and i agree

It is close. Duke has more final fours, more national titles, and more tourny wins. I do agree it can go either way though because Kansas is right on them for all of those things. For me Duke is over them though.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Zamoro10

Member since Jul 2008

14743 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 11:54 pm to Bench McElroy

quote:

Quite frankly, I don't put much worth into NCAA titles before 1975

Okay...well, we're arguing all time.

When we have a discussion about the greatest programs of the last 30 years...you can certainly chime in then.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by genro

Member since Nov 2011

62646 posts

Posted on 3/20/13 at 12:00 am to HoLeInOnEr05

UK is number one. UCLA has the greatest dynasty ever, but not enough sustained success over the years.

Kansas is a distant 3rd or 4th along with UNC. And is not in the conversation

Page 1 2 3