Posted by gillispie1 on 2/1/2016 10:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by CoachSpud on 2/1/2016 7:08:00 PM (view original):
gillespie1, I think you just settled any debate before it starts with your masterful post. You have made a believer out of me.
But allow me, if you will, to pick a few nits. First, be careful how you devalue the accomplishments of some of the other programs. "i never liked the UCLA argument, being amazing for 15 years under special circumstances" What you call special circumstances some would call a period with a coach among the top handful ever to coach college basketball. You surely give full credit for KY's great coaches; allow others to take credit for theirs. Secondly, some might say that UCLA succeeds despite the special circumstance they face, that being the plethora of athletic opportunities available year 'round to young men and women in the southern California area. Many who might have played basketball do some other sport.
Finally, don't forget perhaps the greatest special circumstance of all, the huge amount of rabid quality prep basketball programs throughout KY and southern Indiana. Certainly Kentucky, Louisville and arguably a few other schools benefit tremendoiusly from that force.
agreed - the special circumstances primarily revolve around them having arguably the best basketball coach of all time, at any level. calling that special circumstances was not meant to diminish that. the whole sam gilbert thing, as part of the special circumstances, maybe diminishes it a little. i'm not convinced that what gilbert did at the time, was really worse than what the other schools were doing. however, i'm definitely not convinced it wasn't worse, either. i mean, taken on its own - by today's standards - it's pretty bad. but, back then, obviously he wasn't the only one. was it widespread, giving players so much to play, or was it not normally of that scale, i really don't know that.
i probably shouldn't say special circumstances there, but the 15 season run of greatness surrounded by a lot of time of just goodness is the big thing to me. IMO, the mark of a great historical program, in any sport, is success across multiple eras, multiple coaches, which allows an argument that the program itself is truly special, truly a dynasty, not just the product of one special individual or collection of individuals. that is what i was getting at, there's no doubt, UCLA was the most dominant ever for a stretch, not even close, its really amazing. i just think it takes more than one incredible set of individuals, over a relatively short stretch, to make a historical tier 1 dynasty.
Just going to throw this out there to somewhat contradict one of your points. Between 1959 and 1995, Kentucky won a grand total of ONE National Championship (1978). Half of their 8 championships came between 1948 and 1958 (when most serious people would agree that the game was vastly different. Hell, the SEC hadn't even come close to having begun integrating their teams). That almost sounds like a program being extremely dominant for a stretch and then being really good for the next 37 years. And let's not even get into probations, player scandals, etc. Again, maybe the premier program, maybe not. Hell, probably. But again, not nearly as clear cut as you want to make it seem.
As for naming the "dominant" program of a decade, is there any decade since the 1950's where you can "clearly" say that Kentucky has been THE top program? The 60's were UCLA's. The 70's were probably still UCLA (based on their success in the first half, which trumps anything any other team did for the full decade). The 80's could be Louisville or Indiana, maybe Georgetown had they not been upset in 1985. The 90's would be your best bet so far but Duke actually trumps Uk's numbers. UK had 2 titles, a runner-up, and another Final Four. But Duke also had two titles, and THREE runners-up (90, 94, 99). The 00's would probably be UNC, with Florida as an honorable mention. UK has the early lead in the 10's (maybe, simply because Duke already has two titles: 2010 and 2015 but early flame outs as well), but the decade is only half done.
Sounds very conspicuously like a program that, from the late 50's, has been VERY GOOD for a long time but "dominant"? That's a very debatable description.
That's what's great about sports, each fan will stick by their team to the bitter end and very rarely are GOAT questions ever as clear cut as they seem (except, as you said, the Yankees and **** on the Yankees. If baseball ever institutes a salary cap, the Yankees are doomed. Boston and LA too).
2/2/2016 1:06 AM (edited)