- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: John Wooden's UCLA basketball or Nick Saban's Alabama football?
Posted on 1/23/21 at 6:39 am to GardenDistrictTiger
Posted on 1/23/21 at 6:39 am to GardenDistrictTiger
quote:
UCONN girls basketball has a claim in the discussion.
even less competition at the top than CFB the last 10 years
They did not even have 3 or 4 teams with a realistic shot like football has had the last decade
1
Posted on 1/23/21 at 7:36 am to gthog61
you played fewer games back then to win the tourney, fewer teams made it.
Until '74, only 25 teams made it (a lot of byes back then in the first round)
Until '74, only 25 teams made it (a lot of byes back then in the first round)
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 7:37 am
Posted on 1/23/21 at 8:09 am to McGregor
quote:
you played fewer games back then to win the tourney, fewer teams made it.
Correct, which means you played REALLY good teams in the tourney. Go take a look at the Indiana's 76 team beat in the tourney alone. And UCLA and Bama both cheat(ed) a ton but were good at hiding it which is the game too right? No national exposure to be had like now for UCLA which makes their "recruiting" even more incredible. It's UCLA...and I hate UCLA and Wooden (for being such a hypocrite). Not taking away anything from Bama's run.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 8:14 am to JackVincennes
No national exposure made UCLA's recruiting much easier. There were only 2 or 3 college hoops programs with any national recognition - of which UCLA being one. Plus, back then the media didn't cover scandals like Sam Gilbert buying players for Wooden.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 8:15 am to JackVincennes
For the hell of it I looked it up again. Indiana beat #17 St John's, #6 Alabama, #2 Marquette (In the fricking Elite 8), #5 UCLA, #9 Michigan. I don't know what the hell that really means for the discussion but you guys like sports so thought this would be interesting. Maybe the fact that less teams didn't necessarily take away from the accomplishment but actually add to it.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 8:18 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
No national exposure made UCLA's recruiting much easier.
True on the Gilbert issue but my Dad coached college back then at a pretty big school and always said it was a ton of mostly regional recruiting back then. Who knows? but fun topic anyway. maybe Dad sucked at recruiting. And Semper Fi, 0311 here.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 8:29 am to RollTide1987
BB for sure. what he did at UCLA will never be repeated. What NS has done at Alabama will be repeated someday, just not in our lifetime
Posted on 1/23/21 at 8:42 am to RollTide1987
Back then you basically had to win your Conference to get invited to the 32 team tournament who were all champs.
Then you had to win 4 games against the best of the best without one slip up or a night out or a bad foul.
No margin for error in basketball. You can't just out muscle steroid teams.
And to do this every year when one wrong bucket can cost you game? I don't care if Jordan and Kareem and Bird are on your team, they're bound to lose a game.
But Wooden didn't. With College turnover.
It's the most impressive feat on sports for 10 years. It's so easy to lose in basketball... every game can be be a bad tip or pass away from a loss. Football you can recover for sucking or just out muscle the opponent.
But a fickle evenly balanced and totally subjective officiated sport like basketball where everyone was against UCLA? That's damn near impossible.
Then you had to win 4 games against the best of the best without one slip up or a night out or a bad foul.
No margin for error in basketball. You can't just out muscle steroid teams.
And to do this every year when one wrong bucket can cost you game? I don't care if Jordan and Kareem and Bird are on your team, they're bound to lose a game.
But Wooden didn't. With College turnover.
It's the most impressive feat on sports for 10 years. It's so easy to lose in basketball... every game can be be a bad tip or pass away from a loss. Football you can recover for sucking or just out muscle the opponent.
But a fickle evenly balanced and totally subjective officiated sport like basketball where everyone was against UCLA? That's damn near impossible.
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 8:52 am
Posted on 1/23/21 at 9:21 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
But a fickle evenly balanced and totally subjective officiated sport like basketball where everyone was against UCLA? That's damn near impossible.
Are you kidding? In the 1970 finals UCLA played Jacksonville University who featured two 7-footers, future Hall of Famer Artis Gilmore and Pem Burroughs. The UCLA player guarding the A-Train was only 6'8". UCLA shot 35 FTs to JU's 8. That is still the largest differential in finals history. The establishment did not want an upstart beating the bluest of bloods.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 9:44 am to SoFla Tideroller
This is true...... however 7 straight titles and an 88 game win streak will never happen again.......
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:01 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
No national exposure made UCLA's recruiting much easier. There were only 2 or 3 college hoops programs with any national recognition - of which UCLA being one. Plus, back then the media didn't cover scandals like Sam Gilbert buying players for Wooden.
If this theory's true, just more parity in college basketball then than it is for college football now, where it's basically 5 Power 5 teams competing for the championship every year with few exceptions, to further illustrate my point: TEXAS WESTERN won a national championship in 1966, UTAH made the Final Four that same season, PRINCETON made the Final Four the year prior, not exactly powers, DAYTON played UCLA in the national championship game one year, I can go on with all the good teams UCLA had to beat in their hey day. Alabama doesn't have to deal with that except a couple of games on the schedule because the drop-off from the top elite teams to the second tier is MASSIVE as we saw this season and others. To your theory, if that was truly the case then why all the parity then? That era consisted of some if not most of the greatest players and coaches ever, many great teams of the era, maybe recruiting for them was "easier" but doesn't nullify the fact those other contenders existed across the board.
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:04 pm to JackVincennes
quote:
Correct, which means you played REALLY good teams in the tourney.
I'm with you, way too much parity in college basketball THEN and NOW so for UCLA to do what they did in an era consisting of some of the greatest players, coaches, and teams of all-time is really extraordinary
quote:
No national exposure to be had like now for UCLA which makes their "recruiting" even more incredible.
Exactly and that translated to so much parity in the sport, parity still exists in the sport now with the overexposure but no dominant runs like Wooden's though
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:07 pm to ThePTExperience1969
College basketball is basically the same as college football is right now except for ONE THING...... You have 64 teams in the NCAA tourney in March..... Every team from a 13 seed on up has a great chance at winning the title... In college football, like you said has maybe 7-8 teams are able to put themselves in a position to win the Title......
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:10 pm to dukke v
quote:
College basketball is basically the same as college football is right now except for ONE THING...... You have 64 teams in the NCAA tourney in March..... Every team from a 13 seed on up has a great chance at winning the title... In college football, like you said has maybe 7-8 teams are able to put themselves in a position to win the Title......
Exactly my point, there's like 4-5 elite teams per year then the rest are second tier basically no chance, massive drop-off
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:20 pm to WaterLink
Miami, Clemson and FSU all had longer win streaks simply because they played in that seemly weak conference and then would play one big bowl game or two playoff games every year. So the chances of them losing to all this terrible teams were extremely small
As for Woodens UCLA, they had a really great run no doubt about that. However they cheated at an insane level using Sam Gilbert. Wooden didn’t even really have to recruit. Gilbert did it for him. And that eventually became too much and landed UCLA in trouble with the ncaa.
It’s interesting to look at woodens coaching record from the time he was hired until about 1967 or so versus his record from 1967 til he retired. What’s significant about 1967? That’s when Sam Gilbert became involved in the UCLA program
As for Woodens UCLA, they had a really great run no doubt about that. However they cheated at an insane level using Sam Gilbert. Wooden didn’t even really have to recruit. Gilbert did it for him. And that eventually became too much and landed UCLA in trouble with the ncaa.
It’s interesting to look at woodens coaching record from the time he was hired until about 1967 or so versus his record from 1967 til he retired. What’s significant about 1967? That’s when Sam Gilbert became involved in the UCLA program
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:22 pm to WestCoastAg
Please provide evidence of Alabama cheating
As many assistant coaches and former players who have left and not all of them on good terms. You would think at least one of them would have mentioned them at some point and tried to turn them in or get them in trouble
As many assistant coaches and former players who have left and not all of them on good terms. You would think at least one of them would have mentioned them at some point and tried to turn them in or get them in trouble
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:24 pm to RollTide1987
It’s UCLA and it isn’t even close. Their competition wasn’t as good because bama is dealing with Clemson and the sec but it’s UCLA. Only one I can compare to is UConn women four straight.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 1:26 pm to RollTide1987
In terms of Dynasties UCLA and Celtics are far ahead of Alabama football.
But, it’s not a fair comparison because the era was so much less competitive then.
Same reason Saban is light years better than Bryant.
But, it’s not a fair comparison because the era was so much less competitive then.
Same reason Saban is light years better than Bryant.
Posted on 1/23/21 at 2:19 pm to JackVincennes
quote:
For the hell of it I looked it up again. Indiana beat #17 St John's, #6 Alabama, #2 Marquette (In the fricking Elite 8), #5 UCLA, #9 Michigan. I don't know what the hell that really means for the discussion but you guys like sports so thought this would be interesting. Maybe the fact that less teams didn't necessarily take away from the accomplishment but actually add to it.
That team was an unbeatable team but I agree with Knight that 75 was a better team but May's injury fricked them over big-time in the tourney, breaks of the game
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News