KU Hoops in a Comparative Spotlight: Time for Some "Real Talk"

Well, that was certainly a royal kick in the groin...

In the wake of last night's NC game debacle, I got to thinking about KU's place on the national stage. Looking beyond, if you will, the overarching and undeniable impact that KU's basketball stewards (Naismith and Phog) have had on the history of the game itself, and focusing intently, instead, on sheer championship-level success.

In other words, I can't help but focus on the standard by which all teams in all sports are ultimately judged. The same standard by which NFL elite status is granted, and that results in the Steelers (6), Patriots (5), 49ers (5), Cowboys (5), Packers (4), and Giants (4) being considered the cream of the crop. The same standard by which the Yankees (27 crowns), Cardinals (11), A's (9), Red Sox ( 8 ), and Giants ( 8 ) are treated in MLB annals.

Viewed in this light, it strikes me that KU fans fall into one of three "archetype" categories when it comes to how they judge KU in the comparative, historical sweep of "elite" program status: Deniers, Realists, and Fence-Sitters.

Here's a back-of-the-napkin take on each category, followed by some overarching thoughts (loose but still thoughts) on what the hell it all means:

Deniers: These KU fans dismiss the relevance of the NCAA tourney altogether, despite the fact that national championships are the currency by which teams are judged in all college and professional sports. Deniers can include tourney format critics ("The 6-game format isn't a good way to decide a champion."), positivists ("KU has Naismith and Phog, and look at all the Final Fours we've been to!"), and rationalizers. The latter are particularly prominent. They prefer to trot out laundry lists of reasons why KU shouldn't be held to the same standard as other elite historical programs. For example, "KU is in flyover country, and it's harder to recruit the elite players there than at UK, Duke, and UNC." Or "Casual fans place too much emphasis on national championships, and not enough on league play."

Realists: Realists are KU fans who have had it with all the rationalizing away of the program's relatively modest historical tournament success, and its notable "third-tier" position with respect to national championship crowns. They point to the fact that not only will KU never sniff the fumes of UCLA's vaunted 11 titles, but that UK has almost tripled KU in crowns (8 to 3) while UNC has now doubled up on KU (6 to 3). They point to Duke (5 titles), Indiana (5 titles), and UConn (4 titles) as second-tier championship programs that KU seemingly has no business being behind with respect to national post-season stature. And they note that KU has fallen to third-tier status when it comes to post-season success, situated with the likes of Louisville (3 titles) as well as several 2-title teams that could -- with one good title-run year -- suddenly be at KU's level (schools like Florida, Michigan State, Villanova, NC State, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati, San Francisco).

Realists include explicit Bill Self (and Roy while at KU) critics, who point to all the times Self and Roy have come close with elite teams at KU yet come up short in the Dance -- yet also point to Roy's incredible success since he moved to Chapel Hill. On the other hand, realists also can include those who respect and appreciate Bill Self for his exceptional regular-season success, who do not wish to run him out on a rail, yet also wonder why in the world his outstanding, perennial 1-seed teams so often come up empty-handed in the tournament while the likes of the TarHeels and Roy Williams consistently meet or exceed expectations.

Fence-sitters: These KU fans see it both ways. They are often well-versed in the steeped minutiae of KU's historical lineage, league dominance, and success in such categories as all-time wins. However, they also believe that KU can and should do better in the NCAA tournament. In contrast to realists, though, they are exceedingly patient, believing that in due time KU's post-season success has to even out in the form of several additional NC crowns.

---

I don't know where others on this board come down on this, and I know it isn't a static thing: fans can move over time from one category to another. Speaking just for myself, I have historically alternated between all 3 categories-- depending on my mood, the season, and the person or group with whom I was discussing hoops (e.g., a fellow KU fan where "real talk" is allowed, versus a KU-bashing fan of some other school, where my defensive instincts kick in).

One thing that will never change is my defense of KU's place in the history of the game. Whether that's the opening stewardship of the program by the inventor himself, the incredible on-court and off-court innovations and brainchilds of the good Doctor Allen, or the venerable "cathedral" status of Allen Fieldhouse, that stature and place in the pantheon of the game is undeniable and is coursing on a daily basis through my veins. (See: My Signature Line)

Over the past decade, however, I have firmly moved more toward the middle rather than the "denier" category. And after last night's outcome, on the heels of so many other disappointing NCAA outcomes in recent years, I must say that I am beginning to move ever more steadfastly and inexorably into the "Realist" category. (Perhaps it's because I'm also a broken-hearted Chiefs fan: always the bridesmaid, never the bride, and that is rubbing off on my hoops fandom as well)

Folks, let's get real here. Roy Williams and UNC have won THREE crowns in the last 12 years. 3 titles in just over a decade! That's one crown every four years. You know what that's called? It's called embracing the big stage, executing in the bright lights, and bringing home the jewels. UConn (UConn!!!) has won THREE crowns in 13 years. Seriously? Duke has won THREE crowns in the last 17 years. Kentucky has won 3 crowns in the last 21 years. KU? KU has won just two crowns in the last 65 years.

Something is markedly and definitively wrong with that picture. And, speaking bluntly, objectively, and frankly with fellow KU hoops aficionados, it's getting rather tired, trite, and shopworn to hear others routinely say that "the tourney is just a crapshoot," and/or to deny or run from the fact that KU is almost always (under Self) a top 5 team and 1 seed at the start of the tournament, yet has only one crown since Danny Manning graced the hardwood. Hell, let's extend that to Roy as well, for he had perennially elite teams as well that also came up short in the Dance time and time again. I also think it's far too easy to fall back on the "But we've won 13 league crowns in a row!" argument, which -- to be honest, folks, on a national level, with most other non-KU fans you'll talk to -- is increasingly dismissed as KU simply dominating a league that has no elite competition. I know that critique can seem to unfairly diminish an exceptional KU feat under Self, but it is true that we're not playing in an ACC-type league where the likes of UNC and Duke are always in the national title mix. The Big 12 is a big, heaping, steaming pile of you-know-what when it comes to post-season elite success, outside of the two KU rings has garnered since '88.

Sometimes I feel like we're cursed, honestly, in the post-season, going back all the way to the controversial 1966 call with JoJo against Texas Western. One year it's "Well, we just ran into the hot team and they wound up going all the way" (see: Arizona, Villanova). The next year it's "Well, there's just some reason why teams play their best game against us," even when they subsequently turn around and falter when facing another team (see: Michigan, VCU, Oregon, and too many others to count or list!) At the end of the day, those are nothing but excuses -- and constantly changing, re-invented excuses at that.

Looking just at the Self era, in addition to the 2008 team, and just limiting this to the Self era (since Lord knows there are many in the Roy era), KU has had truly legitimate NC-caliber teams in 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2017. I would add the 2012 team to that, since it actually made the NC game, even though that year it was obviously UK's crown to lose given Unibrow and his merrymen. That is 5 years in which we are a legit, solid NC threat and yet we've come away completely empty-handed. In the years since Self turned over the Williams-carryover personnel and coached his own guys, he has earned SEVEN #1 seeds out of 11 seasons (the other years we were a #2 three times and a #3 once). And yet, only one crown...

If we go back and include the full Roy era alongside that of Self's tenure, you realize, sadly, that we are a couple Memphis regulation free throws or a missed Chalmers shot away from literally and figuratively being to college hoops what Marty Schottenheimer, Marv Levy and Bud Grant are to professional football. Heck, with the exception of Marty, I take that back, since at least Marv and Bud got to the Super Bowl multiple times, rather than coming up short routinely in conference post-season play (see: Marty). So, take away the Super Mario miracle, and we're Marty Schottenheimer. A perennial regular-season winner, chock-full of solid and, in some cases, even great players (see: Derrick Thomas, Joe Montana, Marcus Allen), yet a team that can't find its way in the post-season, when the lights turn bright. A team seemingly cursed by paths that always seem littered with obstacles that vary each year yet produces the same mind-numbing, head-banging-against-wall outcome (see: Kansas going 12-30 from the charity stripe against Syracuse after Dean TTS pigeonholes Roy in his hotel room at 4am on the eve of the NC game; Northern Iowa hitting three after three; VCU embarrassing a loaded squad in a complete blowout; Trey Burke hitting one from the parking lot and our guards having a brain freeze in getting the ball across mid-court; the refs taking Devonte out of a razor-close Villanova game; and KU crapping the bed against an imminently-beatable Oregon team on a virtual Jayhawk home court in KC). Yes, I missed several here, but you get the picture...

---

I don't have any magical thoughts on where we go from here. I will say that I still believe in Bill Self, but I think he HAS to look in the mirror first when pondering why it is that his elite-level Top 5/1-seed regular-season teams keep floundering and coming up short in sight of the final weekend. The one painful constant with all of those teams that failed to live up to expectations is that they all had the same coach pacing the sidelines. That is an undeniable fact, even to the deniers out there.

I believe Coach Self showed immense and very heartening adaptability this season, when he went to the four-guard offense for the first time and enjoyed great success with it. (Never mind the fact that, when the chips were down and the going got rough against Oregon, he mistakenly ordered his team to go back to the high-low on far too many pivotal possessions, first with an offensively challenged Lucas and later even with an inexperienced Coleby. And never mind the fact that recent KU teams under Self have lost the elite defensive status we used to enjoy, when Danny and Dooley were on staff.)

I commend Self on the recent adaptability front, for that was the one trait that, in the past, many could critique him for lacking. However, I believe he needs to double down on this going forward, which is to say that I believe -- strongly -- that he needs to go deep into the "mentorship offseason program" and go sit at the feet of two guys he knows, loves, and admires: Larry Brown and Gregg Popovich. He needs to openly and objectively ask them for system, personnel, and offensive/defensive tweaks he can make. And he needs to seek their advice on how to adjust his psychological profile and approach to Elite Eight/Big Stage games -- and how to translate positive, player-enabling, success-empowering mental approaches to his players.

I admire, respect, and believe in Self. He's a proven winner. But for the sake of a beloved, truly historical basketball school, he has to set his and his team's expectations at the highest goal (national championships), and bring home a couple if not several more crowns over the next decade. Is that a harsh standard? Nope. Just ask UNC fans with Roy.

We are either elite or we're not!

---

Thoughts? Reactions? Riffs? Slings? Barbs?

All are welcome. But let's keep it to real talk, since we're among friends and committed fans here.

 

I had every intent of last night's "flush" post being my last for months. But I woke up with the taste of a $*&% sandwich in my mouth, and had to get some things off my chest.

How about some substantive reaction beyond that, amigo?

It is a perspective thing in many ways. We all view these things based upon our values and upbringing and memories. I remember when making the tournament was a fantastic accomplishment in and of itself. There was no Final Four hype. the media didn't run brackets for months up to the start of the tournament. It was a victory in and of itself to be in it, let alone win the thing.

With the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird match up, thing changed dramatically.The Final Four hype began and the media played up that game unlike anything in college bball up till then. But most people realized that the tournament set up (specially the way it is today) is a very fickle thing. I always point to two KU teams for evidence of this. The 86 team was far and away the best team in the nation - they didn't win it. The 88 team was far and away NOT the best team in the nation - they won it.

I have, traditionally, valued conference championships (specially when we had those heated rivalries). The conference games always represented what college athletics was all about. Long term rivalries where both sides know everything about their opponent and hate them for it (in a good way).

But things evolve and the NCAA tourney gets all the hype, gets all the spot light and things that were once very important, become less so. Now the measure, whether right or wrong (wrong in my opinion) is that NCs are what counts. Forget that the best team does not always win, you either have them or you don't.

But just NCs alone are not the answer. UCLA's dominance is very much in the past. Does that make the Elite today? UCONN had a run, but were they elite before and after? UNC and Dook are definitely currently elite, but neither is as consistent as KU in getting to the tournament, they have down years far worse than KUs. Does that matter? I think it should.

So are we an elite program? If you go by NCs we are a very very good program, not necessarily elite. If you go by overall history, then yes we are. 8 coaches in its history (5 of which are in the Hall of Fame), all teh conference championships, Phog's contribution to the sport, Phog's pushing for the NCAA tourney and the inclusion into the Olympics, programs who derived from KU (Rupp, Smith, Mclendon, etc.)

Do I wish we had more NCs? Absolutely. Is our lack of them ruining the game for me? Absolutely not. Many, many other changes are taking the joy out of the sport for me. And will eventually lead me to stop watching college basketball the way I stopped watching most pro sports.

Concur en toto, JR. And especially with your assessment on this season. The two teams that played last night were not worthy of hoisting a crown, in my view. KU was clearly the superior team when it was on its game. And yet, it's much like the old Springsteen tune:

I had a friend was a big baseball player
Back in high school
He could throw that speedball by you
Make you look like a fool boy
Saw him the other night at this roadside bar
I was walking in, he was walking out
We went back inside sat down had a few drinks
But all he kept talking about was
Glory days, well, they'll pass you by
Glory days, in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days

In other words, our opinion that KU was the best team is nothing but empty "woulda coulda shoulda" bravado to a non-KU outsider. And yet, we know it's the truth. Objective, non-KU-loving hoops experts like Dan Dakich said before the FF that KU was the best team that didn't get there; I heard him say that the Purdue game was the best basketball he had seen in college in years--utterly dominating. And yet... (FACE PLANT)

By contrast, this UNC team is absolutely nothing special. Very pedestrian. And yet, there they sit, with another freaking crown. The 3rd just since Roy left and took over there. It's frustrating. Mind-boggling. Galling.

PS: Very sorry about the board. I don't know what to tell you anymore since I don't control the software, other than copy before you post.

Thanks, Kong. I definitely appreciate your perspective, and that's why I posted...to include the "archetypes" element, because clearly the fan base is comprised of diverse types when it comes to expectations and hopes.

I will say this, regarding your point about one's upbringing and so forth:

I remember when making the tournament was a fantastic accomplishment in and of itself.

My formative years for KU hoops were during the "rebirth" of the program under Larry Brown, when I attended the university. I was just too young (or perhaps too focused on the KC pro teams--Royals and Chiefs--to notice) to follow KU hoops when it was in the throes of its worst era, the Ted Owens era. I know that some are quick to defend him, but facts are facts and stats are stats, and despite his occasionally having a good team (and potentially great ones like the JoJo/Wesley 1965-66 team and the Robisch/Stallworth 1970-71 team), KU was very up and down in that era. It was also the era in which we got our butts handed to us over and over again at the hands of Kentucky, which built up its immense winning edge in head-to-head games against KU. To wit, Kentucky beat Ted-coached KU teams 13 out of 14 times, which explains a lot about their all-time 22-8 edge over the Hawks. Take out the Ted era, and it's almost even-steven at 9 wins for UK, 7 wins for KU.

That might explain a lot about my current expectations, which have been formed over three successive coaching eras that represent a continuous flow of excellence: Larry, Roy, Bill. During that time, KU has been as good as any other program when it comes to elite-level winning and consistency, with one exception: national championships. It just so happens that every sport measures ultimate success by championships. I don't know what to tell you about that, it is what it is and that's just the way we humans operate. We keep score. We crown champions.

I won't address the stuff you put in about KU history, because I already caveated my opening remarks to say that KU's place in the history of the game (impact on the game of its stewards) is without parallel. This is not about that. It's about championship-level success that is commensurate with KU's impeccable and elite history. Our program is elite, but for whatever reason (curses, bad luck, off-timing, bad match-ups, the most excruciating run of randomized bad dice rolls, and so on and so forth), we have far too many times been the bridesmaid and not the bride--or not even made it up to the altar to stand next to the bride when we deservedly should have.

Anyway, just my added $.02... There is no right answer, and I'm not seeking validation here. I just like seeing and hearing where others are, as a collective pulse-taking, if you will. And I'm sickened...really sickened...at seeing an exceptional coach like Self (and before him, Roy at KU) not get to attain and enjoy the type of post-season success and glory that his overall winning ways should deservedly reward him with. The guy deserves better, as do his players. And honestly, though you and others may not believe this, THAT hurts me far more than my self-identity as a fan. My heart literally aches for Frank Mason right now, and it has since we flamed out against Oregon. No one worked harder, came farther, gave more to his program, deserved to be in the NC game more, and to win it all, than that kid.

That's our hope, bklynhawk!

To start, as a minor aside to your original post, Konza, I know when you wrote "the overarching and undeniable impact that KU's basketball stewards (Naismith and Phog)", you were looking at the guys that did what they did while at KU. I would expand that KU impact by just one degree of separation to include the impacts of KU grads McLendon (Naismith protégé), and Rupp and Smith (Allen protégés) – but especially McLendon. If Naismith is the inventor of the game and Phog the Father of Basketball Coaching, McLendon is the father of modern basketball, with its fast break offense and pressure defense. And it is funny to me that he developed the fast break philosophy because of Doc Naismith telling him (over 25 years after Doc telling Phog "you don't coach basketball") that the game was meant to be and should be played as quickly as possible.

Also: “I think people really don’t know how important McLendon is to the game. He’s responsible for all the major breakthroughs in terms of race, really, in basketball. You can really see him almost like the Jackie Robinson of basketball — not as a player, but he’s the guy that’s really giving the players the opportunities. He’s the guy that’s really breaking down barriers.” - University of Kansas alumnus and Professor Kevin Willmott, in his documentary film “Fast Break: The Legendary John McLendon“.
==========

Now, to your main premise that we must win more NCs to be be considered "elite" using that national barometer -- lack of modern success has been something of an albatross for our coaches and our program. But the more CBB I see and the more I pay attention to the details, the more I am convinced that the money, both legit and illegit, prefers that the major population area schools win.

I am more convinced every year that money is passed sub rosa to referees to help ensure certain teams win, whether in title games or in games leading to the FF.

When was the last time KU beat a major market school for a title?

1952 St Johns, and the game was just not as relevant back then.

Since 1985:

1988 Oklahoma
2008 Memphis

More to the point, look at the tarred heels success in this tournament.
After the first game the referees had significant impacts in UNC's favor in every game that was played.
One or even two games, okay.
But 5? In a row?
No, no, no.

But I digress. There are other reasons to examine besides conspiracy theories about game fixing.

For example, does KU really get the same quality of players as the Elites?

Why can Roy suddenly win it all 3 times in 14 years (5 FFs) with the tarred ones when he couldn't win it once in 15 years at KU despite 4 FFs and a multitude of NBA caliber players in that same time?
Were the players on those tarred teams significantly better than the ones he had at KU? Or are the scales just balancing out for an extremely talented coach? Or does the money... ?

Larry got KU to 2 FFs and 1 NC in the 5 years he was there.
His best team fell in the FF due to injury and bad reffing.
His '88 team was playing OU, KU was the better story going forward, and who outside of the state of OK boundaries cared if OU won?
Would he have had continued similar success if he decided to stay?
A waste of time conjecture, but we know he had difficulty recruiting due to his already established nomadic coaching career, and his best team, save for Danny and Cedric, started Ted's kids.

Maybe it comes down to just a karmic balance of the scales? The program that is, more than any other, the foundation for all the success and popularity of the college game, being kept just a bit humbler by the Basketball Powers that Be by keeping its postseason success more modest than that of the 6 (and yes, there are just 6 -- UCLA, UK, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UConn) programs that are ahead of it in NC titles?

There is no question that Bill needs to get to the FF more. He knows it and feels it more than any of us ever could. And this year was very encouraging to me in large part because of the changes in coaching style he adopted due to the personnel he had available. Yet he once again had a team fail, for the most part, to show up in the game that has proved to be his albatross.

Larry broke through twice in 5 years, winning an NC, showing it can be done.
Roy broke through 4 times in 15 (better than once every 4 years) while at KU, but never grabbed the gold ring.
Bill now has just twice in 14, once every 7 years, and it is disheartening.

But for some more perspective, I've restated and added to some of your earlier data [(#) after name is # of NCAA titles in program history]:

UNC(6): 3 crowns in 12 years (every 4), 4 in the last 25 (just over every 6 years)
UConn(4): 3 crowns in 13 years (just over every 4 years), 4 in 18 (one every 4.5 years since 1999)
Duke(5): 3 crowns in the last 17 years (just under every 6 years)
Kentucky(8 ): 3 crowns in the last 21 years (1:7)
KU(3): 2 crowns in the last 30 years (also 65 years, as you noted; won't bother with the ratio)

plus, to complete the 6 teams ahead of KU in NCs
UCLA(11): 0 crowns in the last 20 years, 3 FFs; 1 title in the last 30 years, 6 FFs
Indiana(5): 0 crowns in the last 30 years, 1 FF

How fickle fate can be. I'll take our recent history compared to that of UCLA and IU.

Of course, there are those who argue that UCLA and IU are no longer elite programs. And in fact, the only area in which they exceed KU is in NCAA titles. For example, neither program will sniff 2000 wins for several years yet. Yes, allowing for UCLA starting 21 years after KU, it would probably be in the 2000 wins club (current members: KU, UK, UNC and Duke) if it had started earlier (current total is 1849 wins, and 20 years at 10 wins a year -- a great total back in those days of 10-15 game seasons --
would have them in the top 5 just 40 games behind #4 Duke). But IU started just 2 years after the Jayhawks fielded their first team, and still has 199 wins to go to break the 2000 barrier (currently at 1801).

I also hope Bill takes the summer to learn from Larry, Greg and any other great coach willing to share their insights with him. I would love to have Larry around the program for a whole year in one role or another, just to be there for Bill.

I also hope that with this recruiting class (another late spring adventure in recruiting!) Bill can bring in some more solid talent that can learn fast and play tough and play now. Because I want our ratio (counting since 1988) to jump to just over 1 crown every 10 years with a title win in 2018.

Rock Chalk!

Another tidbit as to KU's claim to Elite status today.

Much noise has been made of the 13 straight conference titles, most good, but some disparaging given Bill's postseason record.

A big point that has been made is that both KU and UCLA accomplished this despite playing in major conferences.

Let me make a bigger point of that.

During it's 13 season streak, from 1967 through 1979, UCLA's conference opponents (Pac 8, then Pac 10 starting with the 1978-79 season) finished the season ranked in the final AP poll in just 3 cases. For 10 of those seasons, none of UCLA's conference opponents finished the season in the AP Poll.

Adjusting KU's comparison to UCLA for the AP being a Top Ten poll from 1961-68, and just a Top 20 thereafter until the 1989-1990 season, during it's 13 season streak, KU opponents finished the season ranked in the AP Poll 24 times, and EVERY season there was at least one conference foe finishing ranked in the final AP Poll. And in 11 of those 13 seasons, at least 1 opponent finished the season ranked in the Top Ten (there were 2 Top Ten opponents in 2009 and 2012, for a total of 13 Top Ten foes in the period)!
People then say “Yeah, but the Big 12 still doesn't compare to the ACC.”
To that I say look at the final rankings again.
From 2005 through 2017, the Big 12 averaged 3.62 teams in the Top 25, whereas the ACC averaged 3.54 teams in the Top 25.And that doesn't even begin to add in the computer rankings like Pomeroy that consistently rank the Big 12 as one of, if not the, top conferences in the nation in recent years.

No, winning 13 straight conference titles is not the NC standard that the lay person readily grasps, but it is one fantastic accomplishment, arguably harder to do than win an NC, as it is unheralded doing it against the level of competition KU has faced.

Here's to Bill and our young men next year bringing home a truly and clearly unprecedented 14th straight title, and the next National title to add to the rich history of Kansas basketball. It would be great for them to strike gold and then platinum, wouldn't it?

Source: collegepollarchive.com/mbasketball/ap/se...id=2010#.WORSz4jyuM8

Konza said, "It just so happens that every sport measures ultimate success by championships. I don't know what to tell you about that, it is what it is and that's just the way we humans operate. We keep score. We crown champions."

Totally agree, understand, and accept that. I am far from a "participation trophy" guy. I believe you play every game to win and that the ultimate goal is to win it all. So I understand how the lack of NCs can be frustrating. It just isn't as important to me as it is to others. If I was a participant, I would be after that NC with every waking moment. I would be crushed to get so close and constantly not get there.

But as a fan, I have a different perspective. I find that the sport is a representation of much more than the athletic competition. I feel the team represents my University and therefore reflects on me. (A very silly sentiment to say the least). I find their off court behaviour to effect my love of the team. I find joy in the Frank Masons out there. I want the team to succeed, but am not crushed when they don't in a one and done situation. If we continually lost best of 5s or best of 7s I might think differently as the better team should win those. In one and done situations, it is about that moment, not necessarily best teams. This is partially why I love the conference championships. It is about overall best, not a moment in time.

Will I critique the games? Sure. Will I question Self in those situations? Absolutely. Specially if I think he is doing something radically different from what has been successful for him through out the year.

I think we all want NCs for differing reasons. School glory. Success for young men and women who are giving of their effort for our alma mater. To stave off the digs by other school fans.(far less an issue with Moo completely relegated to irrelevance). But none of that really effects us as individuals. As such, it has probably a lot less meaning for me than it might others.

Not certain if that gets anywhere near to what you were thinking about, but it is how I view the NC.

BLUF: I want more FFs and NCs, too, JR, no question about it.

To UCLA's streak being slightly more impressive because it involved Wooden, Bartow (2 years) and Cunningham (2 years), I would point out that both of the latter gentlemen benefitted from Wooden recruits in an era where players stayed for 4 or 5 years.

This is especially true for Bartow, who proved over his career to be a good but not great coach. He won 85% of his games in his two years at UCLA, but just 63% for the other 32 years of his 34 year college coaching career.

The seniors and juniors of Cunningham's first year, and the seniors of his second, were the tail end of the Wooden recruits.

Larry Brown's first year (1980) was the year that ended UCLA's streak, and also the first "Wooden recruit free" year for the Bruins. It's a testament to Brown's coaching ability that despite his Bruins finishing 4th in the Pac-10 in 1980, he still got them to the title game that year -- but they were only in the tournament at all because it had expanded to 48 teams for the first time. Then, of course, in 1981 the NCAA finally slammed UCLA for the years of Sam Gilbert's influence and infractions, but without tying it to Wooden at all, who reportedly turned a blind eye to the Gilbert goings on while he was the coach.

Factor in all the rebuilding that Self has had to do over the course of his run due to the prevalence of early entry into the NBA draft and his run is even more impressive.

There is no denying UCLA sealed the deal with its NCAA titles run. But it is good to remember that back in those days, because of the smaller size of the tournament, Wooden only had to win 4 games to earn 9 of his titles, with his 10th requiring just 5 wins. Most experts agree that with the 64/68 format and 6 wins needed, it is highly unlikely we will ever again see a program dominate the tournament as UCLA did back then.

Finally, noting the comments of others regarding coaching experience (aging like fine wine) leading to more titles, I submit the following:

YEARS COACHING AT PROGRAM BEFORE EARNING FIRST NCAA TITLE
YRS COACH
5 Bill Self at Kansas (1 total; won it in year 15 of his CBB coaching career: ORU 4; Tulsa 3, Illinois 3)
21 Dean Smith at UNC (2 total, both sealed by bone head plays by opposing player as time was running out)
17 Roy Williams (15 years at KU and 2 at UNC; 3 total titles in 14 years at UNC)*
16 John Wooden at UCLA (10)
13 Jim Calhoun at UConn (3)
11 Mike Krzyzewski at Duke (5)
9 Adolph Rupp at Kentucky (starting with 1939, first year of the NCAAT; 4 total)
7 Rick Pitino at Kentucky (1 at UK, 2 total; NB: 12 years at Louisville before winning one)
5 Bob Knight at Indiana (3 in 29 years at IU)
*I combined Roy's tenures because he went from one blueblood to another.
(If we included squid starting at UMass, then Memphis, and finally UK, he won his only title in year 20 of his college career, with a 3 year NBA stint tucked in between UMass and Memphis)

Still, after all that, bottom line is as noted up front -- while I really appreciate what Bill has done so far, I, too, want more FFs and NCs.