ESPN has TOTALLY lost it

[MrBug708]

Compares Duke of now to UCLA of yesteryears.... (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1742207)


:rolleyes:

This obsession with Coach K is rather disturbing and the logic of this article is way off target.

[SackAttack]

Yeah, I mean, c'mon, what has UCLA ever done that they should be compared to Duke?

:D

[GoldenEagle]

*yawn*

[k0ruptr]

omg i didnt read the article, but if they really compared duke to ucla back in the day, whoever wrote that article should be fired.

[MrBug708]

Their logic is that Duke had a much tougher run to any championship and therefore would have dominanted back in that time period as well.

When Duke wins 88 in a row, then maybe you have something in common.

[WSUCougar]

C'mon now. Did you guys read the article? The author gives multiple props to UCLA as the "peerless" (his word) king of NCAA basketball dynasties. He's just making a case that Duke's dominance of the modern era is equally impressive. When you're done shrieking with agony ;), consider it rationally and make a case against his points.

I for one agree with him.

[Ksyrup]

Duke will be trying to avoid its third consecutive loss at Florida State this weekend.

Now, what was this all about?

[corbes]

*SHRIEKING IN AGONY*

[MrBug708]

The NCAA Tournament did not expand to include non-champions of major conferences until 1975, the year of John Wooden's final national championship. Duke has contended with an expanded field throughout its best 15 years.

So, Duke is really worried about the Marist and Niagara's of the world?

Due to the smaller field at the time, only twice (1975, 1976) did UCLA have to win as many as three NCAA Tournament games to reach the Final Four. Duke needed four wins each for its nine Final Four trips of the Mike Krzyzewski era.

Smaller field? Are we forgetting the fact that talent was not as spread out at a lot of schools? Not to mention the fact that UCLA probably wouldnt have lost to any of the teams that DIDN'T make the tournament?

Due to exclusive geographic bracketing, UCLA played only West Region teams prior to the Final Four. And, until 1973, it always met the Midwest Region champion in the national semifinals. This meant UCLA could not face an ACC, Big Ten or SEC team until the title game. The first time UCLA was ever bracketed to face an eastern team in the semifinals (1974), it lost to North Carolina State. Duke, playing in the more "open" 64-team era, faces anyone and everyone.

I don't get it? So, UCLA doesnt play every team, they should have an astriek by their championship? Could it be that Kentucky was the SEC's best team and they were too racist earlier on that they weren't that much threat? Big-11? Pul-lease.

Think St. Bonnie's, UC Irvine, and TCU had much of a chance at beating UCLA?

UCLA's 48-4 tournament elimination record from 1962 to 1976 is peerless. But Duke, at 59-12, has also won at a remarkable rate when the two mini-dynasties are combined. Even discounting first-round games over No. 15 and No. 16 seeds (which the Bruins would never have had a chance to play), the Blue Devils are 46-12. That makes just two fewer NCAA Tournament victories over no worse than equal (and arguably better) competition.

More in less WITHOUT combining 2 "mini dynasties"

one could also argue that Duke has had considerably more regular season success than UCLA did while dominating the weaker Pac-8 of the 1960s and early 1970s.

Who cares about the regular season. Had UCLA lost, the "weak" PAC-8 would make a world of difference.

They didn't....

ESPN needs to end the Coack K boy toy love.

When you're done shrieking with agony , consider it rationally and make a case against his points.

Better?

[corbes]

Okay:


Is it harder to earn a top seed in the NCAA Tournament or to win it?


Um, win it, you crazy bastard.

Due to exclusive geographic bracketing, UCLA played only West Region teams prior to the Final Four. And, until 1973, it always met the Midwest Region champion in the national semifinals. This meant UCLA could not face an ACC, Big Ten or SEC team until the title game. The first time UCLA was ever bracketed to face an eastern team in the semifinals (1974), it lost to North Carolina State. Duke, playing in the more "open" 64-team era, faces anyone and everyone.

Fair. However, I argue that it is very difficult to play against a "mediocre" stretch of teams, and then all of a sudden play a great team. This is why coaches now obsess over playing the most difficult schedule possible -- so that their teams will have experience playing against a great team. So for UCLA to play "mediocre" teams and then play the "best" team -- and still beat them, TEN TIMES, says to me that UCLA had a singularly dominant program.

UCLA 48-4; Duke 46-12
That makes just two fewer NCAA Tournament victories over no worse than equal (and arguably better) competition.

I don't see how that's a valid comparison. Seems to me that losses are the real judge of NCAA tournaments. 48-4 in fourteen years, or 46-12 in fifteen years? There's a big difference there.

[RendeR]

umm....


just a thought but.....









BASKETBALL SUCKS ASS





we now return you to your regularly scheduled boredom.....

[Greyroofoo]

most teams today would dominate the ncaa of yesteryear, what's the point of all this?

[Noop]

wow... now I know how some of you feel when I defend my Noles... talk about be a blind homer.

[GoldenEagle]

MrBug is a UCLA homer :)

[Neuqua]

Exactly, this is why i kindly stay away from all of his threads :)

Except this one. But I'll keep my mouth shut.

[OldGiants]

"Think St. Bonnie's, UC Irvine, and TCU had much of a chance at beating UCLA?"

Umm, know any history? St Bonaventure with Bob Lanier went unbeaten and deep into the the NCAA tourney until Lanier broke his leg in the Eastern Regional final. Without him, they almost beat Artis Gilmore and Jax, and might have broken UCLA'a streak that season. We'll never know for sure.

But they had more than a slim chance of winning that game, if Lanier could have played.

[SplitPersonality1]

Okay:
Um, win it, you crazy bastard.


LOL. Great line.

[MrBug708]

Exactly, this is why i kindly stay away from all of his threads :)

Except this one. But I'll keep my mouth shut.

How....big...of you.

I forget this board is biased to the East :D

[finkenst]

Just to quote our friend, TK:

Duke really sucks.

[Noop]

Just to quote our friend, TK:

Duke really sucks.
Your a Florida State fan?

[Leonidas]

Just to quote our friend, TK:

Duke really sucks.

Must either be from Stanford or St. Joe's.

[tucker342]

When Duke wins 7 championships IN A ROW and 80 STRAIGHT WINS then they can have a claim to being as good as UCLA back in the day. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even mentioning the Duke "dynasty" in the same article as the UCLA dynasty is a joke.

And no I'm not a UCLA fan

[GoldenEagle]

When Duke wins 7 championships IN A ROW and 80 STRAIGHT WINS then they can have a claim to being as good as UCLA back in the day. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even mentioning the Duke "dynasty" in the same article as the UCLA dynasty is a joke.

And no I'm not a UCLA fan

Ok, MrBug :)

[MrBug708]

Come on Tim, my sentence's are not structured that well when sober....

[GoldenEagle]

Come on Tim, my sentence's are not structured that well when sober....

It is obvious your not sober everytime you head over to the RWBL webstie. ;)

[MrBug708]

tell me about it. i see the Cardinals in 3rd place in the weak NL Central, 2 games over .500.

[GoldenEagle]

tell me about it. i see the Cardinals in 3rd place in the weak NL Central, 2 games over .500.

I see your team with three more wins than I have with you having much, much more talent. Plus I play in a tougher division.

[k0ruptr]

lol. yea tell duke to win a few championships instead of making the tourney a few times

[SteelerFan448]

No way is Duke like those UCLA teams, but they have a GREAT program with a better Coach and you really can't deny that.

[WSUCougar]

Point of the article (IMO): Given the modern era of college basketball, Duke's extended period of success, particularly in the tournament, is as impressive as UCLA's undefeated run of championships back in the day.

We're talking about hugely different periods in the evolution of college basketball. It's apples and oranges, guys. Lighten up.

[MrBug708]

No way is Duke like those UCLA teams, but they have a GREAT program with a better Coach and you really can't deny that.

Better coach? :rolleyes:

[The_herd]

Hmmmmm....John Wooden or Coach K? I'm gonna take Wooden. As would 99% of non Duke fans.

[WSUCougar]

I'm gonna take Wooden. As would 99% of non Duke fans.
I'm not so sure that's correct.

[MrBug708]

Based on....?

[WSUCougar]

Based on....?
Based on the fact that I think it's silly to believe 99% of the "non-Duke fans" think Wooden was a better coach then Coach K. Whether you like Duke or not, I don't see how you can so easily dismiss Coach K. Just because a guy was one of the all-time greats doesn't mean he was the best coach ever. Do 99% of college football fans think Bear Bryant is the best ever?

It's just my opinion of course, but the closed-mindedness being demonstrated in this thread is remarkable.

[The_herd]

* UCLA record: 620-147
* Led Bruins to four 30-0 seasons (1963-64, 1966-67, 1971-72, 1972-73)
* Led Bruins to 88 consecutive victories
* Led Bruins to 38 straight NCAA tournament victories
* Led Bruins to 149-2 record at Pauley Pavilion
* Led Bruins to 19 PAC 10 championships
* Led Bruins to 10 national championships, including seven in a row (1966-73)
* NCAA College Basketball Coach of the Year six times (1964, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973)
* During 40 years of coaching, compiled a 885-203 (.813) record

Not to take anything away from Coach K he's arguably the best coach of this era, however, he still doesn't hold a candle to John Wooden.


Edit: it has nothing to do with closed mindedness. John Wooden's numbers are mind boggling, numbers noone else will approach.

[corbes]

Oh, I'm very openminded about hating Duke. I hate all Dookies equally.

Sorry, can't help it. I went to Carolina.

[WSUCougar]

I’m not disputing that Wooden’s numbers are phenomenal. He’s the Wizard of Westwood, I know. I’m a Pac-10 lad, so I know how incredible the guy was, believe me

However, Krzyzewski’s numbers are pretty damn incredible in their own right, and they have been compiled in the modern era of college basketball. Do you think Wooden’s numbers would be as good in the same era as Krzyzewski’s?

* Duke record: 590-175 (not counting this year)
* 20 consecutive NCAA tournament appearances (21 with this year)
* 9 Final Four appearances, including 5 in a row (1988-92)
* 3 NCAA Championships, including 2 in a row (1991-92)
* 9 first place finishes in the ACC (arguably the premier conference in college basketball), as well as 4 second place finishes, plus eight ACC championships
*12 National Coach of the Year honors

I'm not dissing Wooden! All I'm saying is that it is not as cut-and-dried a choice as some of you seem to think.

[k0ruptr]

Point of the article (IMO): Given the modern era of college basketball, Duke's extended period of success, particularly in the tournament, is as impressive as UCLA's undefeated run of championships back in the day.


I dunno, I personally don't think duke has as much success, particularly in the tournament as most people. 91-92 they won back to back. then in 01 they won it all. but it seems duke like to choke more often then not when they are favored in the tournament.