Most Prestigious
by Nestor on Jul 25, 2008 4:00 PM PDT
in Basketball
Email
PrintSo the folks over at WWL have been counting down the most prestigious basketball programs since 1984-85. Curious choice on their part to start measuring from 1984-85, I know. And the sounded defensive about it right off the bat:
The 1984-85 season was when the NCAA tournament expanded to 64 teams, making it the first time a national champion had to win six tournament games to cut down the nets. It was also the start of the fairest inclusion in the NCAA tournament: Before that season, even the best conferences got only one team in the field. And with the introduction of the 3-point line in 1985-86, the past 24 seasons can be considered the most modern era of college basketball.
Okay whatever ... I am sure we can debate on and on about the merit of that argument. We will leave that for another day. But still using the matrix they outlined UCLA checked in at number 7 (behind UConn, Arizona, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and (SHOCKINGLY) Duke at number 1). Here is their lowdown on UCLA:
7. UCLA BRUINS, Pac-10
Positives: 15 conference titles (8 regular-season); 19 20-win seasons; 21 postseasons (19 NCAA, 2 NIT); 11 Sweet 16s; 4 Final Fours; 1995 national title; 38 NCAA tourney wins; 6 All-Americans; 5 NBA top-10 picks
Negatives: 2 losing seasons; tied with Arizona for most losses to 12-16 seeds with 4: lost to 13th-seeded Penn State in 1991, lost to 12th-seeded Tulsa in 1994, lost to 13th-seeded Princeton in 1996, lost to 12th-seeded Detroit in 1999
Total points: 272
Did you know? If this was an all-time list, the Bruins would be sitting on top of the heap. They are still near the top with their four Final Four appearances (including three in the last three years) and don't forget the 1995 national title. However, that was their first title since the 1975. Believe it or not, the Bruins haven't even won the most Pac-10 regular-season and tourney titles since 1985. That honor would belong to Arizona, which won 21, six more than the Bruins.
Ok, that's not bad considering we were coached by a joker for seven years following Jim Harrick.
We sure hope WWL decides to run the same survey five years from now. Shoot ... with Howland in charge not sure it will take that long to go back to the spot where we belong ... or which belongs to us ... at least if one uses the only measuring standard that actually matters ... number of national championships.
GO BRUINS.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The full wording was:
“NCAA first-round loss to a 12-16 seed … -2”
by SuperBruinMan on Jul 25, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Despite his inability to reach the next level
Lavin still had a better record than a lot of really good coaches, (Boeheim until Carmelo showed up; Roy Williams until he returned to Chapel Hill) sure, alot of that was due to the kind of talent we get in basketball regardless who is coaching, not to mention he took over right after Harrick took us to the promised land. He was a nice guy, he just wasn’t ready to lead a team/program of this caliber. Despite his mediocrity, he was a better coach than anybody SC ever sent out there. And, that includes Bibby, Raveling, and Timmeh.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
I agree with your comments except the last sentence.
George Raveling gave us fits with lesser talents. He would have accomplished more with Larry Farmer’s players than Farmer ever could.
Henry Bibby is enigmatic, difficult to know. To this day, I wonder why he ever coached the Trojans. Timmy Boy is the absolute pit. An outright failure in the pros, he came to SC loudly proclaiming his allegiance to the standards in the desert. Well, the worst is yet to come.
something that speaks true for UCLA
has always been ALL of our athletic accomplishments in such a relatively short period of time. a lot of schools started filling up their trophy cases at the turn of the century, whereas our beloved school sorta “turned it on” in the 1950’s, and managed to jump out to the lead at that. i too thought it was very interesting to see them start with 1985, but what’re ya gonna do. howland is tooling an new era of domination himself.
The biggest problem is the points system
A few issues:
- A 30-win season is worth 4 more points than a 29-win season.
- Having the #10 pick in the draft is worth 2 more points than the #11 pick.
- NIT and NCAA berths have the same value.
- A Conference Championship and a Sweet Sixteen appearance are of equal value.
Transcript of when WWL dreamt this up
The Man: We need to preclude UCLA and its unparalleled accomplishments from being the de facto number one of our top college basketball program list…
The Man: But we can’t look like we are doing it on purpose, so think of something after the 70’s that can give our bullshit criteria some legitimacy…
Peon junior sports-writer: I know, let’s use the ‘84-’85 64 team format…
Seems to me that UCLA would have dominated even with those rules in the Wooden Era. I have to admit, it is funny to watch them try to work around the 800 lbs gorilla in the college hoops history room. Still, they should qualify every idiotic “Top-XX” list in college hoops with “Excluding UCLA, which as we all know is the greatest college basketball program of all time and probably will never be surpassed…” That would make me feel better.
I'm with Nestor
Being #7 on a list that doesn’t include the years in which we had the most dominant franchise in all of sports isn’t too bad. And by taking a quick look at the teams in front of us, it sure looks like we are going to be climbing this ladder over the next few years.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
