The Modern Era

[tzznandrew]

I think (especially now) it's fascinating to look at who the leaders in national championships back in 1985 when the tournament expanded.

UCLA: 10 (1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975)
Kentucky: 5 (1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978)
Indiana: 4 (1940, 1953, 1976, 1981)
NC State: 2 (1974, 1983)
UNC: 2 (1957, 1982)
Cincinnati: 2 (1961, 1962)
San Francisco: 2 (1955, 1956)
Oklahoma State: 2 (1945, 1946)

What's crazy is how different the modern list looks, and what the fan from 1985 would have drawn. Indiana and Kentucky were neck and neck, and Indiana would tie them in two years led by the coach of the US Olympics. UCLA hadn't won a title in 10 years, but had a 1980 Final Four. NC State had tied UNC and was just in the E8 in 1985: it seemed they were poised to pass perennial choker Dean Smith and fully usurp UNC.

Kansas had a great past, but hadn't been to the E8 since 1974. Cincy, OSU, San Fran were obviously programs tied to a set of players, but that history was in some cases closer to 1985 than Indiana's last title is to today.

The idea that Duke, who had just finished 8-6 in the ACC, a 3-seed upset by Boston College, would go on the run they went on would be absolutely stunning. But, somehow even crazier, a UConn team that was 13-15 (6-10), leapt over NC State and tied Indiana.

To freeze that title list there and think about the Modern Era—which of those schools stayed strong, which faded, and which burst onto the scene—it to deepen our since of wonder and awe at how fortunate we've been.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I had a conversation with a (very young) coworker (who happens to be an Indiana alum) yesterday in something similar.

In the early 1990's, when talking about college football, who the top programs were, who the historic programs were, nobody every viewed what happened before 1930 as part of the discussions. In the decades before the great depression, ivy league schools, U Chicago, even Carlisle Indian school were powers but none of their accomplishments from six decades earlier were ever viewed as being a valid part of any argument. My point on this is that equaling that view to college basketball today, anything that happened prior to 1960 should also be taken with a grain of salt.

If 1960 were to be used as a cutoff (I can make a few solid arguments on why this would be valid) our accomplishments in comparison to the field are even more striking and this is with us giving the (alleged) blue bloods a head start of roughly 50% of the time frame.

 

[61cygni]

I had a conversation with a (very young) coworker (who happens to be an Indiana alum) yesterday in something similar.

In the early 1990's, when talking about college football, who the top programs were, who the historic programs were, nobody every viewed what happened before 1930 as part of the discussions. In the decades before the great depression, ivy league schools, U Chicago, even Carlisle Indian school were powers but none of their accomplishments from six decades earlier were ever viewed as being a valid part of any argument. My point on this is that equaling that view to college basketball today, anything that happened prior to 1960 should also be taken with a grain of salt.

If 1960 were to be used as a cutoff (I can make a few solid arguments on why this would be valid) our accomplishments in comparison to the field are even more striking and this is with us giving the (alleged) blue bloods a head start of roughly 50% of the time frame.

I'm an 80's kid, so curious as to the arguments for 1960 if you could share. The 1985 expansion makes sense to me but I'm unaware of the significance of 1960 in particular.

 

[pepband99]

I would argue for either 1970 or 1975.

1970 - Marquette picks NIT over NCAA. NCAA changes rule to prevent in future
1975 - NCAA rescinds one bid per conf, eliminates byes, expands to 32. Really the first tourney that is similar to the present one.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Also can’t ignore that for many of UK and Indiana’s championships, college basketball was still pretty heavily segregated.

 

[tzznandrew]

Also can’t ignore that for many of UK and Indiana’s championships, college basketball was still pretty heavily segregated.

For UK, so defiantly so they have one fewer title because of their refusal to integrate.

 

[bendm]

For UK, so defiantly so they have one fewer title because of their refusal to integrate.

kentucky did not have an african american player on their team until 1970. total joke so take away 4 titles. but even so i dont consider any titles won before 1975 as legitimate.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm an 80's kid, so curious as to the arguments for 1960 if you could share. The 1985 expansion makes sense to me but I'm unaware of the significance of 1960 in particular.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I don't view it as any demarcation point but there are valid reasons why it can be viewed as every bit as relevant as football before the great depression could be separated in the 1990's, basically using the same time frames.

Basketball, college more than the NBA has evolved quite a bit over the decades so there are quite a few inflection points to consider.

• Late 1950’s to early 1960’s – NCAA Tournament overtaking the NIT (I can elaborate the importance later)
• Early to mid 1960’s – Loyola Chicago won the NCAA’s with a majority of African American players in the starting lineup. Texas Western (now UTEP) won the title playing only African Americans in the game.
• Mid 1970’s – Tournament allowed at large bids to schools that did not win their conference’s automatic bid.
• Mid 1980’s – Tournament expanded to remove byes for higher seeds
• Mid 1980’s – NCAA added three point line and shot clock (can also elaborate later)

1960 can be defended as a point for a few reasons:

• The NCAA tournament fully overtook the NIT in terms of prestige by then. This began building slowly after WWII, received a large boost with the early 1950’s betting scandal and by the end of the 1950’s schools would no longer choose the NIT over the NCAA tournament.
• The NBA started being viewed as a major sports league, leading to more interest in the game by higher level athletes looking to pursue professional careers. Similar to football, college was the minor league for basketball.
• By the 1960’s only southern schools resisted integration. This, coupled with the above increase in interest among athletes to play at a collegiate level increased the overall talent pool.
• By the start of the decade television became ubiquitous in this country and throughout the decade exposure continued to increase through television.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Had to continue on a second post

Yes, using 1960 as a starting point is arbitrary but any point would be arbitrary. Referencing back to the early 1990’s (which for someone my age does not seem an excessive amount of distance) when discussing football, pre-depression era results (Ivy league schools dominating, many small schools competing with the largest schools in the country) would always be set aside as it would be ridiculous to compare a Princeton, Harvard or U Chicago from the mid 1920’s with FSU, Miami or any school that at that point was a consistent power but likely didn’t play football (FSU was female only at the time) in the 1920’s.

 

[Billy Jack]

One of the problem with the OP’s list is that it only uses NCAA tournament titles as equivalent to national titles when this is far from the fact in the early years. As a general rule, it probably makes sense to treat the 2 tournament champions as national co-champs before 1955 with a few exceptions.

An obvious exception was 1950 when CCNY won both tournaments and was therefore a true national champion. However, the year before, the NIT champs were also the clear national champion based on what was achieved on the court. Kentucky participated in both tournaments, but was eliminated in the NIT before going on to win the NCAA tournament. NIT champ San Francisco would seem to be the clear national champion under these circumstances.

The Red Cross games during WW II are often pointed to as the tie breaker between the 2 tournaments for the 3 years they were played. This would be true in 1943 and 1945, but again participation in both tournaments mucked things up. Utah participated in both tournaments and was eliminated in the first round of the NIT. They were then added to the NCAA field and went on to win that tournament. That would seem to leave NIT champ, St. John’s as the true national champion. But then the two met in the Red Cross game with Utah winning that game. So, was Utah therefore national champs? For them, postseasons became double elimination while St. John’s was not given a second bite at the Apple after it’s first postseason loss. Given that circumstance, the final result seems indeterminate.

Back to UConn. Given that 2 of Indiana’s 5 NCAA tournament titles came in that era, I see them as having 3 true national championships and 2 co-champnships. That does not put them on the same footing as UConn with 5 undisputed national titles.

 

[Billy Jack]

Had to continue on a second post

Yes, using 1960 as a starting point is arbitrary but any point would be arbitrary. Referencing back to the early 1990’s (which for someone my age does not seem an excessive amount of distance) when discussing football, pre-depression era results (Ivy league schools dominating, many small schools competing with the largest schools in the country) would always be set aside as it would be ridiculous to compare a Princeton, Harvard or U Chicago from the mid 1920’s with FSU, Miami or any school that at that point was a consistent power but likely didn’t play football (FSU was female only at the time) in the 1920’s.

I agree that equating the level of basketball played eons ago with that which is played today is just silly. Same would be true of any sport. Comparing track runners before and after the sub-4 minute mile makes that abundantly clear. Watching any tennis match from back in those days does the same thing.

But as a student of history, I can’t just write off the history of the sport. The level of play was what it was but what matters to me is that there was competition. The games were played and they helped to build the sport into what it is today. Schools take legitimate pride in a history of accomplishment just as we take pride in what our teams accomplished in the 1990s.

Where the comparison with football breaks down is that there was not true national competition in college football except for bowl games which were singletons and determining a national champion was left to a vote by sports writers and was not determined by play on the field.

Postseason national competition began with the NIT in 1938 and the number of teams competing doubled with the birth of the NCAA tournament a year later. I believe that the mistake has been to treat the NCAA tournament as the true national title all the way back to its inception when that was clearly not the case. I believe that all of that history is relevant but that the first couple of decades needs to be interpreted a little bit. It’s all part of the history of the sport whether it’s 5 years ago or 75 years ago.

 

[MexicoHusky]

The college basketball world keeps talking about blue bloods. Are we in the same category as UCLA, Kentucky, etc? Some kentucky fan cries "No!". Then someone astutely brings up the Modern Era. "You cant count championships pre (pick a date). College basketball was different back then!"


Thats a fair argument, but are we even in the Modern Era still? NIL and transfers rules are a significant change. I'm not sure what we did in the 90s and 2000s can be compared to today. Just like a championship in the 30s isn't the same as our 99 win.

All that said, we may have just won the first championship in the Modern Modern Era. Maybe Kansas did last year and we are tied with them.

Either way, DH and staff absolutely crushed the transfer pool. Made a lights out team and we are leading the pack in the Modern Modern Era with a coaching staff that knows how to utilize the new tools.

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

Moot thread. I only care about Helms Titles.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

The college basketball world keeps talking about blue bloods. Are we in the same category as UCLA, Kentucky, etc? Some kentucky fan cries "No!". Then someone astutely brings up the Modern Era. "You cant count championships pre (pick a date). College basketball was different back then!"


Thats a fair argument, but are we even in the Modern Era still? NIL and transfers rules are a significant change. I'm not sure what we did in the 90s and 2000s can be compared to today. Just like a championship in the 30s isn't the same as our 99 win.

All that said, we may have just won the first championship in the Modern Modern Era. Maybe Kansas did last year and we are tied with them.

Either way, DH and staff absolutely crushed the transfer pool. Made a lights out team and we are leading the pack in the Modern Modern Era with a coaching staff that knows how to utilize the new tools.

Question, are teams as good as they used to be?

I feel like the golden age of college basketball was the start of the one and done era all the way until the breakup of the Big East.

College basketball got all the best talent possible. And before transfer and NIL all that talent stayed on one team to build chemistry together.

Kind of feel like transfers have hurt the “blue bloods” more than anyone because now they can’t stack talent on their bench until they’re ready to play. Guys leave immidiately leaving coaches to bring in replacements that have to learn to play in their system and with a new team.

Going to be hard to see a 2009 UNC or UConn squad again filled with talented upperclassmen who played together for years and were tough to be beat because of it.

Also won’t see a 2012 Kentucky because now an AD kind of talent can just go to the G League.

 

[Rocktheworld]

The cutoff should be 1975. They refused to take more than one team per conference before them. What a joke

 

[storrsroars]

I threw together a quick sheet from 1975-present, putting a value on each step (except R32 as everyone was in R32 from 1975-1984). So 1 pt for making tourney, 2 for Sweet Sixteen, 3 for Elite Eight, 4 for Final Four, 5 for NC game, and 6 for winning it all.

There are 16 teams with at least 100 points. We're 8th.

I don't want to hear about vacated titles. I watched the games. Just like I watched Bruce Jenner win the decathlon.

UNC only missing 4 tourneys in 48 years is pretty incredible. Other than Florida, UConn has the fewest tourney appearances of the 16. As they say, gotta be in it to win it.

 

[Kolumbo]

I threw together a quick sheet from 1975-present, putting a value on each step (except R32 as everyone was in R32 from 1975-1984). So 1 pt for making tourney, 2 for Sweet Sixteen, 3 for Elite Eight, 4 for Final Four, 5 for NC game, and 6 for winning it all.

There are 16 teams with at least 100 points. We're 8th.

View attachment 86993

I don't want to hear about vacated titles. I watched the games. Just like I watched Bruce Jenner win the decathlon.

UNC only missing 4 tourneys in 48 years is pretty incredible. Other than Florida, UConn has the fewest tourney appearances of the 16. As they say, gotta be in it to win it.

Nice!! Now if you could show the totals by year and then graph it, that would be cool. You'd see UCONN hovering at ground zero for a while with a very steep incline.

 

[giddyup]

I had a conversation with a (very young) coworker (who happens to be an Indiana alum) yesterday in something similar.

In the early 1990's, when talking about college football, who the top programs were, who the historic programs were, nobody every viewed what happened before 1930 as part of the discussions. In the decades before the great depression, ivy league schools, U Chicago, even Carlisle Indian school were powers but none of their accomplishments from six decades earlier were ever viewed as being a valid part of any argument. My point on this is that equaling that view to college basketball today, anything that happened prior to 1960 should also be taken with a grain of salt.

If 1960 were to be used as a cutoff (I can make a few solid arguments on why this would be valid) our accomplishments in comparison to the field are even more striking and this is with us giving the (alleged) blue bloods a head start of roughly 50% of the time frame.

If I recall correctly, Duke’s big break onto prominence happened when they recruited the top center in the county… a 7 footer from Monroe, CT… Mike Gminski. That was unbeknownst to many the beginning of the hatred towards Duke. Flash forward to today and the next great 7 football center from CT stayed home and remedied the sins of the past.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

As others have pointed out, the problem with titles before 1960 are:

1) Basketball was not considered a major sport for much of the country, so the talent pool was thin.

2) The NIT and NCAA tournaments were equivalent enough that top teams were at least split between the two.

3) Segregation should be a show stopper for anyone comparing teams across eras. Would anyone consider a modern winner a champion if it only beat all-white teams? Adolph Rupp’s “championships” don’t count.

 

[nomar]

I think (especially now) it's fascinating to look at who the leaders in national championships back in 1985 when the tournament expanded.

UCLA: 10 (1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975)
Kentucky: 5 (1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978)
Indiana: 4 (1940, 1953, 1976, 1981)
NC State: 2 (1974, 1983)
UNC: 2 (1957, 1982)
Cincinnati: 2 (1961, 1962)
San Francisco: 2 (1955, 1956)
Oklahoma State: 2 (1945, 1946)

What's crazy is how different the modern list looks, and what the fan from 1985 would have drawn. Indiana and Kentucky were neck and neck, and Indiana would tie them in two years led by the coach of the US Olympics. UCLA hadn't won a title in 10 years, but had a 1980 Final Four. NC State had tied UNC and was just in the E8 in 1985: it seemed they were poised to pass perennial choker Dean Smith and fully usurp UNC.

Kansas had a great past, but hadn't been to the E8 since 1974. Cincy, OSU, San Fran were obviously programs tied to a set of players, but that history was in some cases closer to 1985 than Indiana's last title is to today.

The idea that Duke, who had just finished 8-6 in the ACC, a 3-seed upset by Boston College, would go on the run they went on would be absolutely stunning. But, somehow even crazier, a UConn team that was 13-15 (6-10), leapt over NC State and tied Indiana.

To freeze that title list there and think about the Modern Era—which of those schools stayed strong, which faded, and which burst onto the scene—it to deepen our since of wonder and awe at how fortunate we've been.

Great post.

Weird that KU, Duke and UNC are “obvious” blue bloods given these facts. 1985 isn’t ancient history.

 

[tzznandrew]

Great post.

Weird that KU, Duke and UNC are “obvious” blue bloods given these facts. 1985 isn’t ancient history.

Those UCLA teams were like Michael Jordan in the 1990s: they took titles from a number of programs and in doing so made their legacies look far weaker in a culture that values titles over all else.

Among the schools with the richest histories, the runners-up to ULCA were:

• Duke
• Michigan
• North Carolina
• Purdue
• Villanova
• Kentucky

Kansas was down for a lot of UCLA's run, and would only be able to face UCLA in the Final Four (because they were really regional). But UCLA did beat them in a Final Four in 1971.

Indiana was also mostly down for UCLA's run, but they got Bobby Knight in the 1973 Final Four.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If I recall correctly, Duke’s big break onto prominence happened when they recruited the top center in the county… a 7 footer from Monroe, CT… Mike Gminski. That was unbeknownst to many the beginning of the hatred towards Duke. Flash forward to today and the next great 7 football center from CT stayed home and remedied the sins of the past.

Gminski started in the 1977 national title game as a sophomore. One item that often gets overlooked is where Duke was just a few years before K became head coach.

Duke did however make a number of final fours throughout the 1960's. The Spanarkle/Gminski squad wasn't the first team they had at that level.

 

[tzznandrew]

Duke did however make a number of final fours throughout the 1960's. The Spanarkle/Gminski squad wasn't the first team they had at that level.

Only one team per conference made the tournament and the ACC was probably the best or second best conference (behind Big Ten).

Final AP Poll (ACC)

1960​

Duke: 18 (E8)​

Wake: 19​

​

1961​

Duke: 10​

UNC: 5​

Wake: Unranked (won ACC tournament, E8)​

​

1962​

Duke: 10​

Wake: Unranked (won ACC tournament, Final Four)​

​

1963​

Duke: 2 (Final Four)​

​

1964​

Duke: 3 (Runner-up)​

​

1965​

Duke: 10​

NC State: Unranked (won ACC tournament, lost S16...i.e. Round 1 for them)​

​

1966​

Duke: 2 (Final Four)​

​

1967​

UNC: 4 (Final Four)​

​

1968​

Duke: 10​

UNC: 4 (Runner-up)​

​

1969​

South Carolina: 13​

UNC: 4 (Final Four)​

To that point, Duke was one of the top programs of that decade. UCLA won 5, Cincy won 2, Ohio State won 1, Loyola (IL) won 1, and UTEP (Texas Western) won 1. But Duke finished 7 out of 10 season in the Top 10, and made 3 Final Fours and one title game. Four of those years, they weren't even able to compete in the NCAAT because of the rules at the time.

Point being, Duke's history doesn't start with K. K is a great coach, but Vic Bubas built that program up to a level where, when K got there he was expected to compete for titles.

Calhoun...well, we just hoped he'd get us out of the bottom of the BE...

 

[nomar]

Those UCLA teams were like Michael Jordan in the 1990s: they took titles from a number of programs and in doing so made their legacies look far weaker in a culture that values titles over all else.

Among the schools with the richest histories, the runners-up to ULCA were:

• Duke
• Michigan
• North Carolina
• Purdue
• Villanova
• Kentucky

Kansas was down for a lot of UCLA's run, and would only be able to face UCLA in the Final Four (because they were really regional). But UCLA did beat them in a Final Four in 1971.

Indiana was also mostly down for UCLA's run, but they got Bobby Knight in the 1973 Final Four.

True. Clyde Drexler would be a much bigger star today if not for MJ.

Goes to show how much titles are worth.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Question, are teams as good as they used to be?

I feel like the golden age of college basketball was the start of the one and done era all the way until the breakup of the Big East.

College basketball got all the best talent possible. And before transfer and NIL all that talent stayed on one team to build chemistry together.

Kind of feel like transfers have hurt the “blue bloods” more than anyone because now they can’t stack talent on their bench until they’re ready to play. Guys leave immidiately leaving coaches to bring in replacements that have to learn to play in their system and with a new team.

Going to be hard to see a 2009 UNC or UConn squad again filled with talented upperclassmen who played together for years and were tough to be beat because of it.

Also won’t see a 2012 Kentucky because now an AD kind of talent can just go to the G League.

I think it is closer than most perceive and teams today are very good. Not quite as good as in parallel BE heyday say 80-2004 (then BE exp & one&done). The schools and sport aren't as enjoyable b/c the greatest players mostly don't stay more than 1 or 2 years tops, but this is counterbalanced by advances in training and although it is oft-criticized, AAU does give the kids a ton more reps and they all come to college with much more game experience often translating to better freshman skills than 20-30yrs ago. Recently listened to Al Horford talk about how kids coming into NBA are now much more skilled than when he first entered the league.