Questions of the day: Mid-Majors, NCAA Tournament, UNC vs. NCAA

Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by ufla5220, Sep 5, 2013.

  1. ufla5220
    Offline

    ufla5220 Editor & Reporter

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    15,812
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,784
    1. With Butler, VCU and Wichita State crashing the Final Four party in the last three years, it’s obvious Cinderella is alive and well in college basketball. Which of the following teams do you think has a chance to get to the Final Four next April?: (1) Creighton; (2) VCU; (3) Wichita State; (4) Gonzaga; (5) LaSalle; (6) Saint Louis; (7) Middle Tennessee.

    2. Since UCLA’s streak of seven consecutive NCAA titles was broken by North Carolina State in 1974, only Duke (1991-92) and Florida (2006-07) have claimed back-to-back NCAA championships. Why is it so difficult to repeat? Is it early entry in the NBA? Is it parity? Or is the culprit the NCAA Tournament, which expanded to 64 teams in the 1980s?

    3. North Carolina has already lost a huge amount of respect due to the football probation under Butch Davis. Now it appears basketball has been getting a boost from academic improprieties that include grade changing to bogus courses in the African-American Studies department. Does the NCAA have the guts to drop the hammer on one of basketball’s blue bloods?
  2. InstiGATOR1
    Offline

    InstiGATOR1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,966
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +36
    1. Probably Creighton has the best chance given they have a player they might be able to ride to four NCAA tourney wins.

    2. In 1964 UCLA won their first title by winning 4 games. In 1975 UCLA won their last title under Wooden by winning 5 games. The odds of winning 6 games in a row against good competition are much less than winning 5 or for that matter 4. Also the regions were not balanced and UCLA played in the relatively weak western regional year in and year out. No school gets those two advantages these days. Still what UCLA did in those days was amazing. More schools trying since basketball became a revenue sports also affects the chances of repeating.

    3. The NCAA has no rules under which they could sanction UNC for the classes. The classes were open to non-athletes and the NCAA is not an accrediting agency. The accrediting agency SAC is demanding that UNC clean up its act:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/12/2675141/accrediting-agency-wants-clear.html

    So unless we get a PSU type situation where a cabal at UNC wants athletics and basketball in particular brought to heel and offers to accept sanctions for non-NCAA rule breaking, then the NCAA will do nothing formally about these classes. On the other hand they might bring the hammer down harder on the Hairston situation because they can not do anything about the bogus classes that UNC was offering to athletes and other students.
  3. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,652
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +598
    1. Creighton? I don't know, thats my guess.

    2. Parity, helped along by early entry. Considering statements made by past UCLA players like Bill Walton, those titles would have been vacated if today's NCAA existed back then - or maybe just if today's media had existed back then.

    3. No question the NCAA is willing to hammer a blue blood. I just see no evidence they're willing to hammer a school named UNC. Insti's point is correct, but its a cop out. Its absolutely laughable that the NCAA will decide which high schools are operating fairly and which aren't - yet, when it comes to their very own member institutions, they have no ability to act? Any reasoning behind this is simply a technicality for them to hide behind. After PSU, we've all seen that they can act however they choose. Keep in mind that its more than the presence of fraudulent classes, its that athletes (by staff admission) were funneled into them.

    The Hairston situation is another head scratcher. There is solid evidence that a party promoter has rented cars for and had relationships with star athletes for almost a decade at UNC. Meanwhile, the NCAA has neither contacted this man nor UNC about the matter.

    Also, the guy the NCAA sent to investigate the academic fraud was, wait for it, a UNC alum.
  4. InstiGATOR1
    Offline

    InstiGATOR1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,966
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +36
    It is not a cop out, it is required for the NCAA to exist. Harvard is not going to have UK have a vote on its curriculum. UK is not going to have UL or Western Kentucky or Kentucky State have a vote on its curriculum. The only way the better schools are willing to be in an athletics rule making organization like the NCAA is for academics and curriculum to be strictly off limits. And better as the UK example above shows is a relative thing. Also this keeps NCAA rules from running afoul of the regional accrediting agencies.

    If the major conferences break off and form their own new body as is constantly discussed, they will not venture into academics either. Stanford nor Ohio State nor Michigan nor Duke etc is giving Mississippi State or Clemson or Arizona State a vote on their curriculum either.
  5. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,572
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +552
    1. Creighton has the best team, but eventually, Gonzaga will have a breakthrough tournament eventually. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but when you consistently are a good team, eventually you get hot and make a run. Gonzaga is due.

    2. Couple of reasons. First is back during UCLA's run, regionals were exactly that, regional. UCLA played western teams, at Pauley, until the Final Four. One of the best Arizona teams pre-Lute Olson was the 1976 team that gave UCLA a scare for 30 minutes before the Bruins pulled away late. Had the game been played at a neutral arena, with fans getting behind the under-dog, who knows.

    The other reasons do include parity and early NBA entrants. While it is possible to win a championship with ones-and-dones, Kentucky's latest championship is still not the norm. And they didn't even make the tourney in their title defense year. In short, too many good teams, too many players leaving, either to the league or to transfer, and just too difficult to win 6 neutral games. It really takes a special coach and special team, like Florida had, to win back-to-back championships.

    3. I'd love to see UNC get what it deserves. Never like crying Roy, and have felt Tobacco Road teams get away with more than just about any other basketball program. But I doubt it will ever happen. UNC is a basketball cash cow, and therefore it's basketball program is sacred.
  6. GatorPlanet
    Offline

    GatorPlanet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Maitland, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +586
    1. All of them have a chance, but none of them are likely.
    2. The NCAA tournament has changed a LOT since the UCLA Reign Of Terror. Yes, the field has expanded, but the key factor is regional seeding. At the time of the ROT, teams were all placed in regions close to home. Most of the really good teams were in the east and midwest. In the far west, there were UCLA and a bunch of trash teams. So the Bruins had a cakewalk through their region each year. They'd make the Final Four without breaking a sweat.
    3. The NCAA has come down hard before on elite programs (see UCLA). UNC is not immune.
  7. regurgigator
    Online

    regurgigator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,496
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Ratings Received:
    +1,575
    2. One-and-done players contribute to the parity, but I don't think that's a major factor since the title streaks ended before one-and-dones (and high schoolers going straight to the pros) became an issue.

    Regurgitation of my answer on the pay-side thread:


    2. I think it's parity. The UCLA streak was something of a "perfect storm" with a great coach also collecting the best talent - plus Alcindor followed by Walton certainly helped keep the streak going until the incomparable David Thompson and that great NC State team got in the way.

    What players can compare to Alcindor and Walton in their dominance on the college level? Ralph Sampson? Even as a non-fan of Virginia, it was kind of frustrating watching Sampson surrounded by such mediocrity (teams would sag all over Sampson and no one on that team could hit the wide open jumpers they typically could take any tome they wanted).

    I'm a little vague on Shaq at LSU. I remember being impressed by him and - if memory serves - Stanley Roberts when I caught a few minutes of their games, but as little as I saw of those teams, it didn't seem like they controlled tempo at all.

    Now, with the one-and-done situation, a dominant player will generally move on before winning multiple championships. So, the chances have gotten less due to that, but that doesn't explain the 70's, 80's and 90's not having more repeat champions.



    (Additional note: I didn't realize that UCLA only played teams in their geographical region until the Final Four. I'm sure that helped them, but I tend to think they would have won most of those titles anyway, because they were so dominant.)
    • Like Like x 1
  8. ApexNC
    Offline

    ApexNC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings Received:
    +868
    1. VCU

    2. All of the above

    3. Football took the bullet for unc in this one.
  9. number1
    Offline

    number1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +332
    1. Creighton

    2. Anyone can be beat in the NCAA tournament format. It is hard enough to win 1 title, let alone win consecutive titles.

    3. No
  10. BEH
    Offline

    BEH Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +41
    1. Creighton. Louisville was lucky to beat them last year.

    2. UCLA, most years never played a top twenty team until the final four due to the geographical setup; whereas, the teams from the east had to go through the top twenty at every stop. Additionally, Sam Gilbert made the life of a basketball player at UCLA the same as a rock star with all the surroundings the same and as many girls. The same will never exist again. Seeding the last twenty years has basically been fair and make repeats very hard. Above, one poster made the statement that 4 games was much easier than 6 and I say bull. Most first round games for a high seed is meaningless. Whereas if there are 16 good teams first round upsets are the rule.

    3. North Carolina should pay but the NCAA will not touch UNC or Duke in basketball. The idea that you can have classes and get grades without a professor, a room or a trip to class has no place at any college. And one states that the NCAA has no rules on that? Again bull crap. They stuck many schools, ask Georgia, for far less.
  11. jagervol01
    Offline

    jagervol01 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +10
    Just to expand on what BEH said regarding UCLA's run under Wooden: Gene Bartow wrote a letter to an NCAA enforcement official named David Berst pleading with him to investigate Alabama (while Bartow was at UAB) in that letter he explained that he left UCLA when he did because he was afraid that Sam Gilbert (who had mafia ties that included Henry Hill of Goodfellas fame) would blame him if UCLA went on probation. An investigator named Walter Byers wanted desperately to put an end to UCLA's connection to Gilbert but wasn't allowed to do so while Wooden was coaching. They held no such respect for Bartow and were going to throw the book at UCLA when Byers was mysteriously removed from the investigation. Bartow interpreted this to mean that either Byers or Berst had been threatened by Gilbert's henchmen and feared for himself as well and left UCLA to basically start UAB from scratch which was even more bizarre at the time than it seems now. In short, Wooden and UCLA were a complete fraud.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. ufla5220
    Offline

    ufla5220 Editor & Reporter

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    15,812
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,784
    Byers was never an NCAA investigator. He was the president of the NCAA from 1951-88 and was a close friend of John Wooden's. When Wooden retired, Byers allowed the NCAA to investigate Sam Gilbert and the result was a probation in 1981. None of the violations cited in 1981 involved Bartow's two years (1976-77) at UCLA or Wooden's tenure, although it's well known that Gilbert was the sugar daddy for UCLA players during the Wooden era. Bartow left UCLA to start the program at UAB in 1978. He did write a letter to David Berst asking him to investigate Wimp Sanderson and the basketball program at the University of Alabama. In that 5-page letter, he thanked Berst for "saving his life" because he feared Gilbert, who in November, 1987, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida on charges of conspiracy, racketeering and money-laundering. Gilbert never stood trial because the indictments were handed down four days after he died of heart failure at the age of 74. At the trial in 1990, it was revealed that Gilbert and his buddies used an international money laundering scheme to build an offshore casino, paying $12 million in cash supplied by a drug smuggler to pay for the casino.

Share This Page