I Won't Compare Wooden and Geno, but...

[Huskies Rule]

Not in terms of their historic context in the game of basketball and relative accomplishments. But I reread "Coach Wooden's Pyramid of Success" the other day, and it's just amazing how uncannily similar their basketball philosophies and methods are.

The following are from Wooden's Pyramid, but if you didn't know better, you'd think they were Geno's words (were he that eloquent):

- "Success travels in the company of very hard work. There is no trick. There is no easy way."

- "Perform at your best when your best is required. Your best is required each day."

- "Stay the course. When thwarted try again; harder; smarter. Persevere relentlessly."

- "The star of the team is the team. 'We' supercedes 'me.'"

- "Much can be accomplished by teamwork when no one is concerned who gets credit."

- "Goals achieved with little effort are seldom worthwhile or lasting."

- "Big things are accomplished only through the perfection of minor details."

- "Make each day your masterpiece."

If you've heard Bill Walton talk about the life lessons beyond basketball that he learned from Wooden, it sounds exactly like Diana Taurasi when she speaks of her years with Geno. Biggest difference between them- 'goodness gracious sakes alive' were the harshest words the wizard ever spoke.

They were also both incredible control freaks- Wooden made his players put their socks on a specific way, punctuality, dress, hair length, etc. Geno with social media, the dress code, covering tats, etc.

(Check out HBO's excellent documentary on Wooden, "The UCLA Dynasty." )

 

[UcMiami]

It is not surprising - Geno grew up in a basketball sense during the two greatest dynasties in basketball history - The Boston Celtics of Russell and Auerbach and the UCLA teams of Wooden. Being a Philly guy he sure wasn't going to look at Boston!!! So he learned his craft from watching and reading about and reading Wooden. (I am sure he did watch and learn from Boston too - an appreciation for great guard play probably comes from them, but he would never admit it!)

 

[willtalk]

Geno really admired Wooden. This is not surprising since anyone who loves the game would. Geno is a systems coach. A system is a good foundation upon which to build any creative style. This is what lesser coaches do not understand. I think I stated that Geno is the John Wooden of Women's basketball and that is not an insult. I feel if Wooden were younger he would be coaching the women's game as well. He would not be comfortable coaching in the men's game as it now is. In fact it would be very hard for him to coach the game with the type of players that predominate the men's game. Unfortunately it appears that the women's game is gradually following that lead as well.

The thing with the socks wasn't just about control, it had a purpose and reflected a lesson for life. The idea was that if the socks were not put on right they would wrinkle up and create blisters which would impact the players game. It was about attention to detail in order to mitigated future potential problems. The little things ignored will come back to hurt you. It was not just a basketball lesson but one about life in general. Walton, the ultimate rebel, first thought Wooden was crazy but came to understand and admire him. He still talks about how much he learned about life form Wooden. Wooden was more than a coach. He was a philosopher who used the game of basketball as his medium to teach the game of life.

 

[UcMiami]

willtalk - on where Wooden would fit in today, I agree he would find a home in women's basketball, but I think he could find a similar home in men's basketball - not at the basketball mills like KY, but either finding a situation like coach K at Duke, or the Ivies, or at the mid-major level. We all see the one and done junk, but the big reason for greater parity in the men's game is that very few players who attend mid-majors make the early jump to the pros - they stay four years and because of that, those schools can really compete with the ones that are recreating their roster each year with the latest HS phenoms. He wouldn't be getting the same type of players, but I don't think that would bother him, nor would he experience the incredible success, which also probably wouldn't both him.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

"Much can be accomplished by teamwork when no one is concerned who gets credit."

The Best of the List.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Not in terms of their historic context in the game of basketball and relative accomplishments. But I reread "Coach Wooden's Pyramid of Success" the other day, and it's just amazing how uncannily similar their basketball philosophies and methods are.

The following are from Wooden's Pyramid, but if you didn't know better, you'd think they were Geno's words (were he that eloquent):

- "Success travels in the company of very hard work. There is no trick. There is no easy way."

- "Perform at your best when your best is required. Your best is required each day."

- "Stay the course. When thwarted try again; harder; smarter. Persevere relentlessly."

- "The star of the team is the team. 'We' supercedes 'me.'"

- "Much can be accomplished by teamwork when no one is concerned who gets credit."

- "Goals achieved with little effort are seldom worthwhile or lasting."

- "Big things are accomplished only through the perfection of minor details."

- "Make each day your masterpiece."

If you've heard Bill Walton talk about the life lessons beyond basketball that he learned from Wooden, it sounds exactly like Diana Taurasi when she speaks of her years with Geno. Biggest difference between them- 'goodness gracious sakes alive' were the harshest words the wizard ever spoke.

They were also both incredible control freaks- Wooden made his players put their socks on a specific way, punctuality, dress, hair length, etc. Geno with social media, the dress code, covering tats, etc.

(Check out HBO's excellent documentary on Wooden, "The UCLA Dynasty." )

Too often pundits and other say you cannot compare JOHN WOODEN and GENO but it is ligit and right to compare their successes.
You just keep Johns success in MEN's basketball and Geno's in WOMEN"s. Success is success and by number of Championships and WIN's comparing Geno to Wooden is fair and right. Humans are different yet some characteristics are the same. So go ahead and make the comparison and damn the torpedoes and charge ahead. The Neigh sayers shall always be with us!!!

As far as being "control Freaks", that is a bit insulting to both. They both had a vision of what they wanted/expected and in every great organization there is only one leader--in this case Wooden and Geno. Remember even the USA isn't Democracy.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Geno really admired Wooden. This is not surprising since anyone who loves the game would. Geno is a systems coach. A system is a good foundation upon which to build any creative style. This is what lesser coaches do not understand. I think I stated that Geno is the John Wooden of Women's basketball and that is not an insult. I feel if Wooden were younger he would be coaching the women's game as well. He would not be comfortable coaching in the men's game as it now is. In fact it would be very hard for him to coach the game with the type of players that predominate the men's game. Unfortunately it appears that the women's game is gradually following that lead as well.

The thing with the socks wasn't just about control, it had a purpose and reflected a lesson for life. The idea was that if the socks were not put on right they would wrinkle up and create blisters which would impact the players game. It was about attention to detail in order to mitigated future potential problems. The little things ignored will come back to hurt you. It was not just a basketball lesson but one about life in general. Walton, the ultimate rebel, first thought Wooden was crazy but came to understand and admire him. He still talks about how much he learned about life form Wooden. Wooden was more than a coach. He was a philosopher who used the game of basketball as his medium to teach the game of life.

I think you are correct Wooden today would be more comfortable and successful coaching men. Young folks today think that Free speech and Democracy (we are a Republic) means you can say what you want when you want and act anyway you want, that works only with your friends. Geno is successful because, like Wooden, he dictates how he wants HIS game played. If you don't like it go play for USC and see how great that is.

 

[Huskies Rule]

bwayva: "As far as being 'control freaks', that is a bit insulting"

A control freak is someone "who has an all-consuming need to exercise control and take command of any situation, who tries to dictate how everything around them is done, is very often a perfectionist." When it comes to basketball, 'control freak' is the very definition of coaches Wooden and Auriemma. Their uncompromising visions of how to create success, both in terms of the program and the players, likely never to be equaled, was achieved precisely because they micro-managed and insisted every little detail be done exactly as demanded. No excuses, no exceptions. Both men were unyielding, relentless and, yes, absolute control freaks.

If you don't think demanding that socks be put on exactly, precisely the way coach instructs, every single time, or that all tattoos, no matter how small, must be completely covered and hidden when playing...well, then I can't help you understand the meaning of the phrase 'control freak.'

Oh, yeah. One other 'control freak' who immediately comes to mind is the greatest genius of this half-century- Steve Jobs. Pretty good company.
"Insulting?" I don't think so.

 

[UcMiami]

bwayva: "As far as being 'control freaks', that is a bit insulting"

A control freak is someone "who has an all-consuming need to exercise control and take command of any situation, who tries to dictate how everything around them is done, is very often a perfectionist." When it comes to basketball, 'control freak' is the very definition of coaches Wooden and Auriemma. Their uncompromising visions of how to create success, both in terms of the program and the players, likely never to be equaled, was achieved precisely because they micro-managed and insisted every little detail be done exactly as demanded. No excuses, no exceptions. Both men were unyielding, relentless and, yes, absolute control freaks.

If you don't think demanding that socks be put on exactly, precisely the way coach instructs, every single time, or that all tattoos, no matter how small, must be completely covered and hidden when playing...well, then I can't help you understand the meaning of the phrase 'control freak.'

Oh, yeah. One other 'control freak' who immediately comes to mind is the greatest genius of this half-century- Steve Jobs. Pretty good company.
"Insulting?" I don't think so.

Geno in some interview or perhaps the Geno Project talked about his transition from a young coach who believed he controlled everything and if he just got it right, he could win every game, to the mature coach who realizes that he can only prepare the way forward for his players, and one the whistle sounds, he is at the mercy of the gods of basketball. He said most coaches start out that way, but soon realize the error of their ways. I think coaching the NT has further simplified his thinking on that subject. He talked about just getting out of the way in last years NC game in fact - just being there for the team if and when they needed him.
So ... within the confines of the practice facility - absolutely a control freak, with Miss Freak (CD) right next to him - in games, not so much!

 

[Gus Mahler]

One thing I always admired about Wooden was that once the game started, he sat back and watched and let his guys play, at least for a time. In general, he was not nearly the in-game administrator that Dean Smith and Denny Crum were.

I would point out that in modern American culture "control freak" has a bit of a pejorative connotation. It goes beyond the idea of highly detail-oriented and perfectionistic to include a psychological need for controlling others--one who gets off on power and control. I don't see either Wooden or Auriemma as fitting that profile.

 

[rugbymate]

There are so many levels in comparing Wooden to Geno. First, Wooden is undoubtedly the best coach in mens college basketball history. The question of the best women's college basketball coach in history leans Geno's way but is subject to debate. Within a few years, IMO, there will be no debate. Interestingly, while their program management principles and execution were/are based on the same philosophy ....they both were/are completely different personalities. Wooden was the erudite professor, calm, pontificator...i dare say pope-like. Geno...brash, cocky sometimes profane. However, they both shared the same value of caring deeply about their players.
If you think we speak reverently about Geno now...give it 5 years after he retires and then we will understand his greatness.

 

[Huskies Rule]

Geno in some interview or perhaps the Geno Project talked about his transition from a young coach who believed he controlled everything and if he just got it right, he could win every game, to the mature coach who realizes that he can only prepare the way forward for his players, and one the whistle sounds, he is at the mercy of the gods of basketball. He said most coaches start out that way, but soon realize the error of their ways. I think coaching the NT has further simplified his thinking on that subject. He talked about just getting out of the way in last years NC game in fact - just being there for the team if and when they needed him.
So ... within the confines of the practice facility - absolutely a control freak, with Miss Freak (CD) right next to him - in games, not so much!

Yes, at practice coach is clearly that insane control freak. There, he relentlessly directs, instructs, and demands an impossibly high level of effort and execution. But I disagree that it is anything different during games, that somehow the 'control freak' disappears during games. It's still there- Geno just puts a lid on it and manifests it differently. He knows the difference between what is okay to do and say at a closed practice and what behaviors are okay game day. He's only "getting out of the way" in games because he trusts his kids have learned their lessons well and will perform up to his expectations. Game decorum requires coach's calmer, more mellow demeanor- it works better for tv and public consumption, and for his kids. Coach knows. Over the years, Geno has done a pretty good job disguising the manic control freak people once watched, jaws agape, going berserk on the public stage. But I never doubt for a second that the same intense, control freak coach is there, at every game. Just incognito.

I never get the sense Geno feels that he can only prepare his players for games and that once the game starts he is at the "mercy of the gods of basketball." Coach may appear calm, but he's anything but. And while I like Holly Rowe a lot, I thought that was a ridiculous question she posed to coach in Tampa. Being the man he is, Geno responded in a way that most deflected the credit from himself (and his staff) and gave ALL the credit for the win to his players, referencing their hard work and how they really earned and deserved that Championship.

"IF AND WHEN THEY NEEDED HIM???" They always need coach, but the extent to which he is his insanely driven, control freak self during practices is exactly what enables him to APPEAR to be the professorial looking, fatherly gent, calmly observing the action from the sidelines. Geno is anything but. The control freak is always there, it's just a matter of how much Geno wants to show. Part-time control freak? I don't see it.

 

[stamfordhusky]

There's no doubt that Wooden was a great coach - but I think his accomplishments pale in comparison to Geno for two reasons:

1. The UCLA players for many years received huge amounts of illegal benefits from Sam Gilbert. Cars, free apartments, etc, etc, etc. How would UCLA recruiting have been affected without paying the players? Had the NCAA ever done a complete investigation of the program, they likely would have had to vacate at least some of their titles. As it was, they waited until Wooden retired and then put them on probation.

2. The NCAA tournament at that time was much smaller and set up strictly by geography. Thus UCLA many times only had to beat two good teams to win the championship - and never more than three.

 

[willtalk]

There's no doubt that Wooden was a great coach - but I think his accomplishments pale in comparison to Geno for two reasons:

1. The UCLA players for many years received huge amounts of illegal benefits from Sam Gilbert. Cars, free apartments, etc, etc, etc. How would UCLA recruiting have been affected without paying the players? Had the NCAA ever done a complete investigation of the program, they likely would have had to vacate at least some of their titles. As it was, they waited until Wooden retired and then put them on probation.

2. The NCAA tournament at that time was much smaller and set up strictly by geography. Thus UCLA many times only had to beat two good teams to win the championship - and never more than three.

I tried hard not to reply to your statements but I failed.

First of all this thread was not about either Wooden or Geno's accomplishments, rather their similar basketball philosophies. Why even bring up their records? Records do not always reflect a persons accomplishments and that is especially true with Wooden. He created his Pyramid to success in 1949 long before he even began to coach. That system is applicable to more than coaching. That is a big part of his legacy irrespective to his record as a coach. Wooden was an influence on Geno who obviously incorporated those principles within his system , as did many other coaches. There success is then also a testament to Wooden's system. Wooden philosophy impacted all those that followed.

In respect to the non NCAA investigations- We will never know it's impact on the program. It's pure speculation. This is not unique to the NCAA. Wooden won quite a few of his multiple championships with lesser talent that the teams he faced. His firs two come to mind. The year between Alcindor and Walton was another, as was his last one.

Your statement about the NCAA's being smaller was true. That plus the parity and nature of the mens game would make it far more difficult to equal Woodens record today. Actually almost impossible. Those factors would not, however, also apply to the womens game. For one the women's game does not have the parity we see presently on the men's side. They are also multiple other differences.

True during the Wooden era they went right from the Regionals to the final four. But each of those teams was a major conference champion and the field was not watered down like now. At that time the power was in the west so UCLA played no weak teams at all during the tournament. In fact for a few years USC was perhaps the second best team in the country but never even got to the tournament because they were in the same conference as UCLA. Many times the Western Regionals proved to be tougher than the Final four. A smaller field also means a stronger field. Silly to compare and use the argument about the number of teams UCLA had to play. How many good teams do the top WCBB teams play? Two perhaps three. Same as the numbers you give for UCLA.

 

[UcMiami]

One of the things that I find really interesting with Geno's coaching style is the yearly progression - he is incredibly hard on players, breaking them down in practice during the regular season, but come February the negativity disappears, and the support and build-up of confidence takes over - where they couldn't do anything right from October - January in his eyes, suddenly at the end of February, they can't do anything wrong and they are playing brilliantly based on what he tells them - maybe just a tweak here or there, but wow, keep it up!

 

[stamfordhusky]

True during the Wooden era they went right from the Regionals to the final four. But each of those teams was a major conference champion and the field was not watered down like now. At that time the power was in the west so UCLA played no weak teams at all during the tournament. In fact for a few years USC was perhaps the second best team in the country but never even got to the tournament because they were in the same conference as UCLA. Many times the Western Regionals proved to be tougher than the Final four.

That is not accurate. For most of Wooden's tenure, the West was the weakest region - with UCLA normally playing teams from the WCC, PCAA, WAC, and Big Sky. Only the WAC was a top ten conference in the 60's, with the PCAA sneaking into the top 10 in the 70's but being far from a strong conference. UCLA had to play two games to make the Final Four and the first of the two was usually against an unranked team. The Regional Final was typically against a team not in the Top 10, although a bit tougher than the round of 16.

Here are the West Region opponents for all of the Wooden championship teams (plus 1974 when they reached the Final Four), with the Sweet 16 opponent shown first:

1964 Unranked Seattle *, unranked San Francisco
1965 #9 BYU, unranked San Francisco
1967 Unranked Wyoming *, unranked Pacific
1968 Unranked New Mexico State, unranked Santa Clara
1969 #12 New Mexico State, #3 Santa Clara
1970 Unranked Long Beach State, #16 Utah State
1971 #20 BYU, #16 Long Beach State
1972 Unranked Weber State , #5 Long Beach State
1973 #16 Arizona State, #20 San Francisco
1974 #20 Dayton, unranked San Francisco
1975 Unranked Montana, #7 Arizona State

Note: from 1964-68, only 10 teams were ranked by the AP.
* = weak team, would not have ranked in Top 20.


So his 11 UCLA teams never had to play a team ranked better than #9 in the Sweet 16 and mostly faced unranked teams. In the West Region finals, they only had to face three Top 10 teams in 11 games. In total, over those 22 games, they played three strong teams: the 1969 Garibaldi Santa Clara team which was led by Dennis Awtrey; the 1972 Tarkanian LBS team, led by Ed Ratleff; and the 1975 Arizona State team, led by Lionel Hollins.

 

[willtalk]

That is not accurate. For most of Wooden's tenure, the West was the weakest region - with UCLA normally playing teams from the WCC, PCAA, WAC, and Big Sky. Only the WAC was a top ten conference in the 60's, with the PCAA sneaking into the top 10 in the 70's but being far from a strong conference. UCLA had to play two games to make the Final Four and the first of the two was usually against an unranked team. The Regional Final was typically against a team not in the Top 10, although a bit tougher than the round of 16.

Here are the West Region opponents for all of the Wooden championship teams (plus 1974 when they reached the Final Four), with the Sweet 16 opponent shown first:

1964 Unranked Seattle *, unranked San Francisco
1965 #9 BYU, unranked San Francisco
1967 Unranked Wyoming *, unranked Pacific
1968 Unranked New Mexico State, unranked Santa Clara
1969 #12 New Mexico State, #3 Santa Clara
1970 Unranked Long Beach State, #16 Utah State
1971 #20 BYU, #16 Long Beach State
1972 Unranked Weber State , #5 Long Beach State
1973 #16 Arizona State, #20 San Francisco
1974 #20 Dayton, unranked San Francisco
1975 Unranked Montana, #7 Arizona State

Note: from 1964-68, only 10 teams were ranked by the AP.
* = weak team, would not have ranked in Top 20.


So his 11 UCLA teams never had to play a team ranked better than #9 in the Sweet 16 and mostly faced unranked teams. In the West Region finals, they only had to face three Top 10 teams in 11 games. In total, over those 22 games, they played three strong teams: the 1969 Garibaldi Santa Clara team which was led by Dennis Awtrey; the 1972 Tarkanian LBS team, led by Ed Ratleff; and the 1975 Arizona State team, led by Lionel Hollins.

Have to give you props on your stats. Looks like you caught me with my pants down statistically. I suppose I should have not relied on my memory. I seemed to have focused on just a few years. Now that you brought it up the first game usually was a walkover. I had mis wrote and actually meant to change the statement that they played no weak teams at all during the tournament to few weak teams. I saw what I posted but was too lazy to change it. That first game was usually against a weaker team. But they still had to play 3 pretty good teams to win a championship. It must not have been that easy since it was no different than the other teams in the rest of the country had to fight through yet didn't win those same multiple championships. Remember you were the one who brought up the relative numbers of strong teams UCLA had to play IN COMPARISON TO THE STRENGTH OF THE TEAMS UCONN HAD TO PLAY. You stated that UCLA had to only play two may be three strong teams to win a championship. Well how many strong teams does the WCBB champion have to play? Usually two or three teams. The same amount you stated made UCLA'a road easy. That was the bottom line of my point. Even with the former format there has always been more parity in MCBB than in WCBB.

While I would certainly agree on there usually being one weak game in the West Regional schedule, the rest are not as weak as you make them out to be using AP rankings. One has to consider that the vast majority of the voters were from the East coast. The west coast teams were usually not given much credit unless they advance into the playoff where they could be seen by the eastern writers. Also the rankings you gave were not the final rankings but rather the rankings going into the tournament. I know this because of the non-ranking you supplied for the 1967 Pacific team. In the final rankings they finished somewhere in the second ten, which was actually still too low. They jumped from un-ranked into the final rankings based on their game against UCLA where the East Coast Writers got a chance to see them play. Pacific knocked of the defending champion Texas Western in the first round. Then in the Regional finals ended up being the only team to even give UCLA a game the entire year. They lost by about 15 points. The actually led at one time and were in the game thoughout until UCLA pulled away in towards the end of the game. It was easily UCLA toughest game all year. Pacific was unrated due to a distinct east coast bias. Most of the writers were in the east and never got to see many of the West coast teams. Pacific had some losses going in because they played in a pretty tough conference that had SF and Santa Clara, but until they got into the playoffs few knew how good they actually were due to a East Coast writers bias They were playing really well and, except for UCLA being in the field, they possibly might have won the National Championship like Texas Western did the previous year. There were also a couple of years when USC had really good teams but never got a chance to show it in the NCAA's because only the conference champion went.

For a time the UCLA team was so dominate that it wouldn't have mattered who they played they were going to win anyway. They still had to play the winners of the other regionals who were the best available teams in the rest of the country so what does it matter who they beat before they got there. They were so dominate that even the best teams had little chance to beat them. People have used similar arguments against Uconn. They say playing in a weak conference give them an advantage record wise in the final seedings so that it puts them in the regional with the weakest field. That to my way of reasoning is also total Bs because most of the early games are gimmie wins for the top teams anyways until they get to the last two or three games. In the case of UConn it usually the last two. So whats the difference. To use that sort of argument reflects nitpicking rationalizations to promote an agenda. Especially on a thread which was not about the comparison of records or even in respect to who was better.

I will remind you and other readers that my response was in respect to your statement that Woodens accomplishments as a coach pales in comparison to Geno's. That's a pretty harsh and unjustified statement. You use their comparative national championship records as an example. First of all you can not compare the two- they are apples and oranges. They were accomplished at different times and in different venues. I also responded to your saying that Wooden had an easier road to get his national championships, In that I totally disagree for reasons I stated apples and oranges and dissimilar conditions existing in different era's. As I stated Wooden's legacy as a coach transcends his won lost record. He laid the foundations and principles that many other after him coaches followed. It was because of that contribution that I admired him not because of the championships. If you were to talk to Geno I suspect he would strongly agree.

I will give you my reasons for my response to your statements. Often people in trying to build up a favorite player/entertainer/coach/etc. people sometimes automatically resort to diminishing someone they see as a rival for them. The diminishing of anyone does not make anyone else better. They are not better or worse despite any comparison. Your statements about the NCAA's lack of a extensive investigation into Wooden's program seems to fit that criteria. It implies that Woodens records were accomplished by cheating and so his records should be discounted. This sounds very similar to what I used to read on the Summit in regard to Geno and Uconn when it was still an open forum. There were all sorts of accusations about how Uconn got their recruits and how the NCAA was afraid to investigate and was letting Geno and Uconn slide. Stamford - I don't really know you but your posts sound similar in intent to some of the things I used to read on the Summit in respect to Geno and Uconn. I can not understand why you would bring up the things you did on a post that was about the similarities between their programs and basketball philosophies. I do remember their was some Eastern resentment too Wooden and UCLA's success or any west coast team for that matter. Perhaps it was carry over of some of that resentment that spurred your remarks.

I will repeat one more time that the records or national championships are not the most important factor in Woodens legacy. In my opinion anyway. Not everyone is given the same resources to work with or handycaps to overcome. Championships tend to bring recognition and that can be a factor into but should not exclusively define a persons legacy. The bottom line is that coaches are still teachers and so the impact they have on changing their players perspectives for the better trumps any accomplishments on the court. That was Wooden's perspective to coaching and is Geno's as well. That is what makes them both transcend their immediate roles as coaches. That's what this thread was about. Now unlike in the past when I have tried to present a objective perspective in defense of a certain coach who I was frankly indifferent too, with Wooden it's different. I admired him as both a coach and a person so my perspective is less objective and somewhat personal. Much like people on this site would tend to defend Geno if they felt he was being unjustly criticized, so would I Wooden. Especially in a thread where criticism was not appropriate in respect to the topic..

 

[willtalk]

Oh! If the West Regional truly was so weak then how come in 1966 which was the year UCLA didn't advance to the final four it was the West representative Texas Western who won the National Championship. How high were they ranked coming into the tournament? The west was always under-ranked due to East coast writers bias. Starting in the mid fifties the West has won more than it's share of NC.