(09-25-2020 08:42 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 07:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 04:28 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 03:23 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-25-2020 02:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I consider BYU and Gonzaga high-major programs that are members of a mid-major conference (the WCC).

Of the non-P6 in men's hoops, I consider the American a "major" conference (but definitely not a power league) that is part of the "Major 7." I view the Mountain West and Atlantic 10 as major conferences that are a notch below the AAC and a step above the West Coast Conference.

The American is home to what I feel are seven "high-major" programs but no "blueblood" or "power" programs such as Duke, UK, Syracuse, UConn, Indiana, Kansas, UNC, Villanova, etc.

The Mountain West offers three "high-major" programs: UNLV, San Diego State and New Mexico

The A10 offers high-major program Dayton and lots of very good major programs (like Davidson, Saint Louis, UMass, etc.).

Many disagree with me on this. That's fine.

Cincinnati's credentials are nearly identical to Villanova's, though both are a solid notch below Kansas, Duke, etc. If you consider Villanova a blueblood, which most probably do, it's hard to keep Cincinnati out of that category. Either they both go in, or they're both a notch behind the bluebloods.

They've both had approximately 25 AP Final Top 25 teams and have sent a very similar number of teams to the NCAA tournament. Villanova (3-1) has played in 4 NCAA championship games, but Cincinnati (2-1) is right behind them, having played in 3 NCAA championship games.

On paper, your points are well made, Jed. However, consider this: Villanova has enjoyed the bulk of its success (NCAA wins, sending players to the NBA, NIT wins, etc.) post-1980.

In contrast, Cincinnati has enjoyed most of its similar success prior to 1980.

And as we all know, college basketball became vastly more competitive after roughly 1980, the point at which full racial integration, TV/media coverage, recruiting and countless solid programs emerged.

In other words, Nova has accomplished more (some would argue "considerably" more) during a time when doing so was much more difficult and competitive (than prior to 1980).

And though I'm a UC fan and love the city of Cincinnati, I have to be fair and honest about this. That is why I put Villanova in a grouping above Cincy. I'm very optimistic UC is about to get "very good again and very quickly." And if UC elevates and, say, makes it back to the Final Four in the next five year or so and if Nova dips a bit ... how I view the two programs could change.

We may be talking apples and oranges to some extent, because in my view, "blue blood" refers to total achievements and is not influenced by when the achievements occurred, while it seems that you're trying to argue that past successes aren't worth as much as current successes.

I keep "elites" separate from "blue bloods" by saying "elites" refer to any particular point in time, whereas "blue bloods" refer to all-time achievements.

I get your point that things have gotten more competitive, in your view, but I'd like to know exactly what you mean by that. Yes, the overall talent level has increased for many different reasons, but I don't think it's any harder or any easier for a team to have success today than it did 40 years ago. It was hard then, and it's hard now.

Are you suggesting that a sign of more competition is that there are seem to be more upsets now than there once were, with the result that it's harder for the blue-ish blood schools to dominate their conferences?

If that's your view, I would question whether there are slightly more upsets (the number seems to have been fairly stable to me) or not, it's now harder than ever for "mid-major" conferences to get more than one team into the NCAA field. The deck is heavily stacked in favor of the power conferences, and this makes the situation somewhat less competitive in my view with respect to the entire field of teams

In other words, now that we have "power" conferences, I think that it has become incredibly easy (and actually less competitive) for the upper-tier teams from each conference to make the conference. For example, it's hard to remember the last time Duke didn't make the tournament. If things were so competitive, Duke shouldn't have been so dominant for so many years.

As I see it, things have only gotten more competitive (i.e., more challenging) for the "have nots," as opposed to the "haves," with only a few teams like Dayton and Cincy and Houston being able to penetrate the world of the "haves" from one season to the next.

But, if that is true, then the increase in competition for the "have nots" doesn't signify that the top tier teams have to compete harder than ever to remain at the top. They've always had to compete hard, but the top tier programs have major recruiting advantages. Kentucky never has trouble recruiting top athletes, and as a result, they've got a yellow-brick road to the Elite Eight almost every year.

UCLA was a dynasty, too, of course, and so was Indiana in its day, but things are as dynastic today as they ever were.

The 1966-67 Bruins, led by future NBA players, including the all-time superstar Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Lucius Allen went 30-0.

The 1973-74 Bruins had 8 future NBA players on their roster, including Bill Walton, Jamaal Wilkes, and Marques Johnson. How many recent NCAA teams could have defeated them?

Let's step away from CBB and switch to NBA for a moment: Do you really think that the players today are much better than the players in the late 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were? Guys like:

Pete Maravich
Wilt Chamberlain
Cazzie Russell
Walt Frazier
Willis Reed
Bill Bradley
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Bob Lanier
Bob Cousy
Jerry Lucas
Dave Bing
Bill Russell
John Havlicek
Elgin Baylor
Lew Alcindor
Michael Jordan
Julius Erving
James Worthy
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Moses Malone
John Stockton
Reggie Miller
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
Artis Gilmour
Clyde Drexler
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kevin McHale
George Gervin
Spencer Haywood
George McGinnis
David Thompson
Karl Malone
Isaiah Thomas

man.... I'm just getting started!

You're trying to tell me that the game is much more competitive than it was between 1965 and 1995? Are you kidding?

I guess my main point is that starting in the mid- to late 1970s (let's just say 1980), college basketball began to change dramatically — primarily due to full racial integration. And by 1990-1995, there were vastly more (both as a raw number and as a percentage) quality teams, players and coaches. Now, that doesn't mean the game broadly was more competitive at that point than it had been from 1950 to 1980. But it was (and has been) more difficult do dominate. We will never again see what UCLA did in the 1960s and 1970s. Those were great teams (I'll always remember as a kid seeing the Bruins and William Theodore Walton III manhandled my Memphis Tigers) that would be strong today, too. But it has simply been tougher to do well since 1980 than it was from 1950 to 1980.

I've been following Cincy hoops since the mid-1970s and always cheer for the Bearcats — except when they play Memphis (when my father and I pull for UM and my brother, a UC grad, roots for Cincy).

UC is a top 20 all-time program, no doubt. But I simply place Villanova a notch above, just like I place Kentucky a notch above Nova.

I love conversations like this, when there is no right answer, but there doesn't need to be. It's all about the ideas that get tossed around and how they make you think, and appreciate and remember.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Temple basketball fan, and never imagined that I would ever be arguing that Cincinnati is one of the 20 or 25 greatest CBB programs of all time, but I am honest enough to have been able to go through the archives in an objective way, and that's one of the surprising stories that the data tell.

Now, regarding UCLA, I'm going to stand my ground, because I believe that the greatest days of college basketball may well have been in the decades when the NIT tournament was every bit as meaningful as the NCAA tournament.

I can say that because I remember those days, by which I mean that I was such a huge basketball fan as a kid that I still have vivid memories of the times when the major networks covered both the NIT and NCAA tournaments, and when the NIT semifinals were sometimes even more interesting than than the NCAA final four. Not for nothing did Marquette Coach Al McGuire turn down an invitation to play in the 1970 NCAA for a matchup vs. Kentucky where the KKK-cats of that era would've have had the home court advantage, and when they won that NIT tournament, I remember considering them the most thrilling team in college basketball (as opposed to the [b]racist [/b]Adolph Rupp-coached nemesis, Kentucky).

You spoke of the days when black athletes were first starting to get a chance to play in the big dance or in the NIT. My alma mater (Temple) was one of the first to field a team with black athletes such as Guy Rodgers and Hal Leer in the late 1950s when they played an all-white (by design) Kentucky team and nearly beat them in the NCAA final four. That whole dynamic was partly why Al McGuire was such an inspiration to me, and why I was so thrilled to be at Temple when John Chaney was coaching there to continue the struggle to give African-American athletes an equal opportunity to succeed at the highest level.

.

But the reason I beg to differ somewhat about UCLA is that there were clearly great, great coaches (including the legendary Harry Litwack) in college basketball in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The history of Big Five basketball alone attests abundantly to that. Those were glory days! There was nothing like college basketball in that era.

Importantly in this regard, I actually remember John Wooden's coaching during tournament seasons. He was not only a legend. He was the greatest college basketball coach of all time, by far.

If John Wooden were alive and coaching today, he would dominate the game, just as much as he did in the 60's and into the 70's. For those who remember the great Denny Crum and his major success at Louisville, it has to be noted that he was John Wooden's protege.

Everybody who came after that, the Bobby Knights and the Pitinos, the Dick Vitales, Johnny Orrs, Gene Keady's, Coach K's, Dean Smith's and all the rest got to be great college basketball coaches because they learned from the master, John Wooden.

I don't know if Wooden would necessarily win 11 NCAA titles if he were reincarnated to coach again at UCLA, but I wouldn't bet against it...