Believe Marquette broke the 1977 record for wins over ranked teams?

[bamamarquettefan]

Wow, I'll do something more on this on Cracked Sidewalks but looking through my Basketball Encyclopedia today and the AP weekly polls, it looks like this years squad set the all-time school record for wins over ranked teams this year.  AP rankings have always been the poll used, but for years prior to the AP poll, I use the Top 25s in the Basketball Encylopedia.  I'll go back and check the math before a bigger article, but it appears the record for most wins over a ranked team are:

7 - 2011 season
6 - 1977 season
5 (5 times) 1974, 1994, 1996, 2003, 2007
4 (3 times) 1971, 1976, 2010
3 (8 times) 1923, 1955, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1997, 2004, 2009
2 (2 times) 1924 first time, 2008 last time
1 (23 times)
0 (37 times)
So 40% of our seasons we didn't beat a ranked team, and only 35% of our seasons we beat more than one, and this year we beat 7.

Now critics will point out we lost to 10 ranked teams, which is true, but even that 41% winning percentage is better than the 35% of games we've won all-time against ranked teams.  What that really points out is the ridiculous fact that we had to play a total of 17 ranked teams this year - SIX more than any Marquette team had ever had to play in the past if my math is correct:

17 games vs. ranked teams - 2011
11 games (2nd best) - 1977 and 2010

You've got to love the Big East.

All-time I have us at 127 wins in 365 games vs. ranked teams for a 35% winning percentage, which is certainly much better than most teams do.  As for the best winning percentage against ranked teams all-time for a Marquette team with at least 3 games ranked teams:

1971 and 1976 - won 4 of 5 vs. ranked teams, 80%
1923, 1955 and 1978 - won 3 of 4, 75%
1974, 1996 and 2003 - won 5 of 7, 71%
1939 and 1969 - won 2 of 3, 67%
2007 - won 5 of 8, 63%

If you look at those top 3 lines (8 teams), I don't think i need to tell you about the four 1970s teams, but 1923 was the only Marquette team ranked in the Basketball Encyclopedia Top 25, coming in at 8th place.  The 1955 team was our first Elite 8 teams.

[marquette99]

One typo under teams with 2 wins against ranked teams - there are actually over a dozen teams with 2 wins not just those two years listed.  That was just the 1st and last year it happened.

[Lennys Tap]

Wow, I'll do something more on this on Cracked Sidewalks but looking through my Basketball Encyclopedia today and the AP weekly polls, it looks like this years squad set the all-time school record for wins over ranked teams this year.  AP rankings have always been the poll used, but for years prior to the AP poll, I use the Top 25s in the Basketball Encylopedia.  I'll go back and check the math before a bigger article, but it appears the record for most wins over a ranked team are:

7 - 2011 season
6 - 1977 season
5 (5 times) 1974, 1994, 1996, 2003, 2007
4 (3 times) 1971, 1976, 2010
3 (8 times) 1923, 1955, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1997, 2004, 2009
2 (2 times) 1924 first time, 2008 last time
1 (23 times)
0 (37 times)
So 40% of our seasons we didn't beat a ranked team, and only 35% of our seasons we beat more than one, and this year we beat 7.

Now critics will point out we lost to 10 ranked teams, which is true, but even that 41% winning percentage is better than the 35% of games we've won all-time against ranked teams.  What that really points out is the ridiculous fact that we had to play a total of 17 ranked teams this year - SIX more than any Marquette team had ever had to play in the past if my math is correct:

17 games vs. ranked teams - 2011
11 games (2nd best) - 1977 and 2010

You've got to love the Big East.

All-time I have us at 127 wins in 365 games vs. ranked teams for a 35% winning percentage, which is certainly much better than most teams do.  As for the best winning percentage against ranked teams all-time for a Marquette team with at least 3 games ranked teams:

1971 and 1976 - won 4 of 5 vs. ranked teams, 80%
1923, 1955 and 1978 - won 3 of 4, 75%
1974, 1996 and 2003 - won 5 of 7, 71%
1939 and 1969 - won 2 of 3, 67%
2007 - won 5 of 8, 63%

If you look at those top 3 lines (8 teams), I don't think i need to tell you about the four 1970s teams, but 1923 was the only Marquette team ranked in the Basketball Encyclopedia Top 25, coming in at 8th place.  The 1955 team was our first Elite 8 teams.

Maybe this year wasn't such a disappointment after all.

Interesting that Buzz will likely become MU's second leading coach all time in wins over ranked teams next year - in only his 4th season!

[4everwarriors]

Upon further review, you'll find MU played far more games this season than in 1977 as well.

[bamamarquettefan]

Only five more games, so even if the 1977 team played five more games all against ranked teams they would not have played as many ranked teams as this year's squad did.

17 of 37 games played this year were among ranked teams, so 46% of the time MU took the floor it was against a ranked team

11 of 32 games played in 1977 were against ranked teams, so 34% of the tim MU took the floor it was against a ranked team (2-5 during the regular season with no road wins)

Every time someone yells, "Marquette hasn't beaten any ranked teams on the road!" I'd ask them to remember that Al McGuire's Marquette teams beat FOUR ranked teams on the road in 13 seasons.  In 10 of 13 seasons, Al McGuire did not beat a single ranked road team.

In 1971 his only road win over a ranked team was the OT win at Fordham.

In 1972 his only road win over a ranked team was a 1-point win at South Carolina.

Only in 1976 did MU have two road wins over ranked teams with wins at Louisville and Notre Dame.

So one more basket allowed in regulation in each of those two games and McGuire would have had no road wins over ranked teams in 12 of 13 seasons.

My point is it is almost impossible to beat a ranked team on the road whether it's Kansas this year or Al McGuire with all of his great teams.

1977 regular season road record vs. Top 20: 0-2

1977 regular season home record vs. Top 20: 2-3

I can't imagine what the doom and gloom was like before MU ran through 5 teams (4 of them ranked) in the tourney!

[dgies9156]

Every time someone yells, "Marquette hasn't beaten any ranked teams on the road!" I'd ask them to remember that Al McGuire's Marquette teams beat FOUR ranked teams on the road in 13 seasons.  In 10 of 13 seasons, Al McGuire did not beat a single ranked road team.

What everyone is forgetting is that in the Al era, about the only time we played ranked teams was occasionally in December and during March. Our schedule was what we would today call a "mid-major" schedule, with lots of schools like Dayton, Detroit, Loyola, Fordham (for Al's Madison Square Garden fix), Bradley and Drake.

The problem then was that everyone would play us -- on their home court. Nobody would come to the Arena unless they had to. We rarely lost at home and most schools knew that it was futile to play us in Milwaukee.

Our schedules tended to have two to three Big Ten match-ups -- Wisconsin plus a local Big Ten team such as Iowa and Minnesota -- Notre Dame, DePaul (I guess that counts as a mid-major today), at least one New York team and a couple of intersectional games, such as Florida, UCLA (in the 1960s), a Big 8 team etc.

We just did not play anyone really good until the tournament.

[Hards Alumni]

What everyone is forgetting is that in the Al era, about the only time we played ranked teams was occasionally in December and during March. Our schedule was what we would today call a "mid-major" schedule, with lots of schools like Dayton, Detroit, Loyola, Fordham (for Al's Madison Square Garden fix), Bradley and Drake.

The problem then was that everyone would play us -- on their home court. Nobody would come to the Arena unless they had to. We rarely lost at home and most schools knew that it was futile to play us in Milwaukee.

Our schedules tended to have two to three Big Ten match-ups -- Wisconsin plus a local Big Ten team such as Iowa and Minnesota -- Notre Dame, DePaul (I guess that counts as a mid-major today), at least one New York team and a couple of intersectional games, such as Florida, UCLA (in the 1960s), a Big 8 team etc.

We just did not play anyone really good until the tournament.

What you should probably remember then, is that there really weren't the 'mid-majors' back then, like there are now.

[2TimeWarrior]

Do I see a banner in our future?

[marquette99]

No, the discussion here is pointing out how much tougher the schedules are now then back then, and therefore critics shouldn't jump on modern teams for losing road games to ranked teams.

Obviously the 1970s teams were better - second only to ucla.

[dgies9156]

No, the discussion here is pointing out how much tougher the schedules are now then back then, and therefore critics shouldn't jump on modern teams for losing road games to ranked teams.

Obviously the 1970s teams were better - second only to ucla.

Amen

And I was there in the 1970s. Nobdy back then played a schedule like we did last year. Ou 2010-2011 schedule was a bruiser. Given that the NCAA Championship team had seven losses in 1977 (including some really crappy ones), there is no telling how many losses that team would have had if they played our 2010-2011 schedule.

Look, we had a great team in the 1970s. But the point is that many of us, myself included, underestimated the body of work Marquette compiled in 2011. Heck, beating UConn in Hartford alone is incredible given that they did not lose again all season.

Good job Buzz.

[Hoopaloop]

Upon further review, you'll find MU played far more games this season than in 1977 as well.

Upon further further review, you'll also find that back in 1977 there was only the top 20, but now the top 25.  An increase of 25% more ranked team opportunities in which to grab a victory over a ranked team.  The 1977 team also played as an independent which deprived them of an opportunity to play in a mega conference with essentially built in rankings during conference play.

With all due respect dgie, the 1977 team would destroy the 2010 team.  The body of work for Marquette in 2011 was nice from a ranking perspective, but to compare the actual level of quality of ranked teams in 2011 to ranked teams in the past is laughable.  College hoop quality isn't what it used to be.  It's not even as good as it was a five to ten years ago.

[warthog-driver]

With all due respect dgie, the 1977 team would destroy the 2010 team. 

No question:

Boylan v Cadougan/Buycks
Butch v DJO
Toone v Butler (Neary starting was a McGuire motivational tool)
Bo v Crowder
Whitehead v Otule

Payne, Rosenberger, Byrd, Butrym, Neary, Dudley, Lavin

Blue, Gardner, Fulce, Williams, Jones, Frozena

[Hards Alumni]

With all due respect dgie, the 1977 team would destroy the 2010 team. 

Depends.  If we put the old guys on the same workout routines, maybe.

Straight up, I'd take last year's team... The difference in athleticism and size is probably the biggest difference.

[MUMac]

No question:

Boylan v Cadougan/Buycks
Butch v DJO
Toone v Butler (Neary starting was a McGuire motivational tool)
Bo v Crowder
Whitehead v Otule

Payne, Rosenberger, Byrd, Butrym, Neary, Dudley, Lavin

Blue, Gardner, Fulce, Williams, Jones, Frozena

People tend to forget how good a team that was because of the number of losses during the season.  They were ranked 2nd, I believe (top 5 for sure) in the preseason rankings.  Had Al not announced his retirement during the season, I really believe they could have been the special team all season long.

[GGGG]

This is kind of a futile excercise.  On the one hand, teams play much better defense now than they did in 1977.  On the other, the game was a lot less physical because it was called closer.  And are we playing with no three point line and no shot clock?

I personally tend to think that sports progress over time.  For instance, I think the current Lakers would wipe the Showtime Lakers of the 80s.  However I think that that 1977 team was relatively better than last year's team.

[bamamarquettefan]

I wouldn't go so far as to say comparing this year's team to 1977 is a futile exercise, but you have to define if you mean; 1) we could put the 1977 team in a time machine and play them against last years team (in which case last year's team would kill them), or 2) relative to their era, the 1977 team was a much better team than last year's team, which is correct of course.  If you mean the former, then this statement is wrong:

With all due respect dgie, the 1977 team would destroy the 2010 team. 

To me, that's like saying "Jesse Owens would destroy Usain Bolt" because he was a much great track star.  If by that you mean if we put Jesse Owens in a time machine and let him race Usain Bolt, then you are wrong.  Bolt would destroy Owens - 9.58 to 10.2 in the 100 if you go by their best times. 

I remember when ESPN Classic got out and friends said, "Wow, I used to think all the old boxers and basketball players would beat the modern ones until I started watching and realizing just how much weaker they were back then."  Any of us who plop in a DVD of the 1977 championship periodically like I do would say almost immediately that if you put the 1977 team in a time machine and put them on a floor in a modern game they - or any other team from that long ago - would be destroyed.  Every generation learns from the previous.  They find out what the best players are doing and break it down into slow motion and teach moves that only one player might have done (e.g. Pele in soccer) and trainers learned what works over the years.  Today's players are simply much too athletic to have any problem winning against teams who didn't have these advantages 40 years ago.  In fact, there are plenty of high school teams today who could beat college teams from 40 years ago.  I believe if you put Babe Ruth in the box to see his first modern slider from Randy Johnson, he ain't making contact having never seen the progression of pitching.  Doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest ever relative to his era, but you can't hit a pitch that was developed and improved for 70 years after you played.

What I think you mean is that the 1977 team RELATIVE TO THE REST OF BASKETBALL IN 1977 was a much better team than today's team.

On that front, there is lots of research on how to compare eras from Bill James to Jeff Sagarin.  That's what I built on when I wrote the historic book, and I believe a fair position by position comparison is the Win Credits from each starter (and I'll take Toone over Neary since that was proposed).  Last year's players had a few more games to accumulate stats (37 to 32) but that is balanced by how much harder wins were to get due to the much tougher strength of schedule, so on balance I believe comparing Win Credits by position is a fair appraisal of the play at each position:

Boylan (3.1 Win Credits) nudges Buycks (2.9) - certainly Boylan the better point guard (seeing the floor, avoiding turnovers, etc.), but on a given day Buycks had more upside and could explode.  All these are "relative to eras" comparisons - I'm sorry but on the "time machine" basis I'd bet that if someone can ask him after a Bucks game next year that Boylan would freely admit he couldn't possibly have stopped Buycks from getting to the rim.

Lee (6.8) over DJO (4.6) - National Player of the Year the next year over 2nd team Big East - DJO just drew the wrong matchup!

Butler (5.8) over Toone (0.7) - don't care whether you start Neary or Toone, this is the one spot last year's team dominates.  By Toone's senior year (543 pts, 230 rebounds, 62 assists) that would have been a classic match-up, but the sophomore Toone that had only 141 points, 69 rebounds and 9 assists is no match for Jimmy Butler now.

Ellis (6.8) over Crowder (4.9) - Crowder is my favorite player but can't win the matchup with the only guy to ever be on TWO Marquette Final Four teams.

Whitehead (4.9) over Otule (1.6) - certainly the huge matchup problem would be that it's hard to imagine Whitehead and Ellis not being able to foul out Otule and Crowder and dominate inside.

So relative to the eras they played in, yes 1977 has the edge in 4 of 5 spots, and was very strong at exploiting MUs weakness on the glass.  So it would take Jimmy F Butler going crazy to pull the upset.

Sagarin says we were 9 points worst than the best team in the country this year, so I don't see any reason we'd expect to lose by more than that to the best team most years.  In fact, i think the 1977 squad relative to it's era is very similar to the UConn team this year - a team that underachieved during the regular season due to some weak stretches, but with enough talent to put it all together for the big run.

The fact that this year's team went into UConn and beat the eventual national champions on their home court leaves no doubt that on a given night, this year's team could have beaten the 1977 champions even dismissing the advances and conditioning and the sport.

However, I do believe the match-up issues of trying to stop Ellis and Whitehead underneath in the end would have made the 1977 squad a pretty strong favorite and probably given them a 10-point win on an average, obviously worse if this year's team played like they did against UNC.

[4everwarriors]

Not really worthy of a response, but, this year's team couldn't carry the '77 Warriors' jockstraps. Nowhere near debatable.

[NersEllenson]

Upon further further review, you'll also find that back in 1977 there was only the top 20, but now the top 25.  An increase of 25% more ranked team opportunities in which to grab a victory over a ranked team.  The 1977 team also played as an independent which deprived them of an opportunity to play in a mega conference with essentially built in rankings during conference play.

With all due respect dgie, the 1977 team would destroy the 2010 team.  The body of work for Marquette in 2011 was nice from a ranking perspective, but to compare the actual level of quality of ranked teams in 2011 to ranked teams in the past is laughable.  College hoop quality isn't what it used to be.  It's not even as good as it was a five to ten years ago.

With all due respect Hoopaloop - the 2010 team would DESTROY the 1977 team.  College hoop athleticism is so far beyond where things were at in 1977, it is laughable that you want to compare the quality level of players in 2010 to 1977.  College ball quality hasn't declined in the least bit - it is just that there is so much parity now due to so little disparity in opportunities and exposure for 12-17 year old kids via AAU.  The amount of time, effort and energy kids now put into specializing in 1 sport does not result in players being less talented...

[bamamarquettefan]

Not really worthy of a response, but, this year's team couldn't carry the '77 Warriors' jockstraps. Nowhere near debatable.

LOL.  Your memories are playing tricks on you - sometimes you just need to go back and look at footage.  I have the 1977 title game on DVD and this year's win at UConn on VCR, and noone can watch those two back-to-back and honestly believe that the 1977 team or any 1970s team could beat this year's MU team.  It is almost as bad as when i had to go back to watch the Villanova video because my memory was tricking me into remembering that Jerel left his many to guard Redding when the tape clearly reminded me he left his man to guard the camera man or an imaginary player three feet to the right of the lane.  The difference is, I'm happy to admit my mistakes and you aren't.

Sounds to me like you might be a little sore that I called you on your claim that this year's team played many more games than the 1977 team, since I thought every MU fan would know that the 1977 team played 32 games (25-7, unless you want to claim 26-6 for the Minnesota forfeit).  When your implied argument is that playing 6 more ranked teams means nothing because you played 5 more total games, then it is obvious you have made an objective or mathematical mistake.  So I understand you making a much more subjective statement this time like that one team can't carry another team's jock straps - but while noone can prove or disprove a hypothetical assertion, you seem to run into a common sense credibility issue.

I doubt the members of the 1977 team would agree with you that any of Marquette's 12 other Sweet 16 teams, including this one, "couldn't carry their jock straps," but if you make really subjective statements there is no real way to debate the point, so you can keep believing it.  But subjectively, this team played 5 Top 10 teams in the regular season (to one in 1977), beating two of them, PLUS beat the eventual national champion on the road.

So here are three objective statements that I believe almost anyone else would agree to:

1. The 1977 team was a greater team than the 2011 team relative to their era.  I believe everyone is in agreement that the 1977 team is better than this year's team.  They weren't as good as Chones teams that went 49-1 until he went to the pros.  The Basketball Encyclopedia can list them as one of the worst 10 championship teams of all time, and Al McGuire could say they might have been his worst team of the 1970s, and they may have been the last team selected for the NCAA tourney, but they came through and won the title.

2. If you actually put the two teams on the court together, the 2011 team would easily win.  (PLLLEEEEASSSSEE go pick up a DVD of the title game at the book store if you really don't believe this, or just watch ESPN Classic for a few horus).

3. Since joining the Big East Marquette plays MUCH tougher schedules than the 1970s team had to, and there records would be MUCH better if they could still play the 1970s schedule, so don't compare records.

These really aren't hard facts to grasp or calculate.

[bamamarquettefan]

Upon further further review, you'll also find that back in 1977 there was only the top 20, but now the top 25.  An increase of 25% more ranked team opportunities in which to grab a victory over a ranked team. 

Yeah, before posting don't think it would have taken you long to look at this year's schedule and realized that this year's team played 15 Top 20 teams, so I guess you can throw out Vandy and Gonzaga this year's team still has four more games against Top 20 teams.

MU also went 2-3 against TOP 10 teams during the regular season PLUS beat the eventual National Champ (#14 at the time).
MU went 1-4 against top 10 teams during Al McGuire's last 5 regular seasons COMBINED.

This isn't real hard to grasp that the schedules are much, much tougher now that we are in the Big East. 

I'm thrilled that MU went 251-41 in the 1970s, that's an 86% winning clip that has only been topped twice by a team for a decade.  But the way some fans go after the team now every time they lose a couple of games indicates they don't understand that playing in the Big East MU is never going to win 86% of their games again - when you play 17 ranked teams in a season you can lose 14 games and still ultimately be a Sweet 16 team, and hopefully build on that to advance further.

[ATL MU Warrior]

bama's getting fired up!  I love it. 

[4everwarriors]

You may call it "fired up," others may say it's insanity when DJO, Butler, Otule, Buycks, and Crowder are considered better than Butch, Bo, Jay, JB, and Neary. Come on dude, get real. LOL

[rocky_warrior]

it's insanity when DJO, Butler, Otule, Buycks, and Crowder are considered better than Butch, Bo, Jay, JB, and Neary.

Depends on the comparison...

2011 DJO, Butler, Otule, Buycks, and Crowder > 1977 Butch, Bo, Jay, JB, and Neary

But, if you were somehow able to transplant one team forward or backward by 34 years, adjusting athleticism and skill (and rule changes!) to match that of the times, then yes,  1977 > 2011.

[brewcity77]

4ever, the two of you are making an apples and oranges comparison. If you were to put both teams, exactly as they played and as they were on the court together, the 2011 team would wipe the floor with the 1977 team. Conditioning, athleticism, strength, it's simply not comparable what athletes today do compared to what athletes did back then.

However, as I believe rocky inferred, if you were to compare their relative ability to the rest of the country at the time they played, the 1977 was a more accomplished team in their era than the 2011 team was in theirs, so yes, they were a better relative strength team.

But no way, no how would the 1977 team as they were have beaten 2011 straight up. There's not a single team from the 1970s (or 60s, 50s, 40s) that would have beaten the 2011 Marquette team (or likely any other team in the top 40 in the country) simply because the athleticism, strength, and conditioning of today's athletes destroys that of athletes from 30+ years ago.

Heck, beating UConn in Hartford alone is incredible given that they did not lose again all season.

Who didn't lose again all season? UConn? So they didn't lose to West Virginia on the road a week later? And they didn't lose to Notre Dame at home in the regular season finale? It's great that UConn went on that run and all, but why do so many people seem to think Marquette was the last team to beat them? We weren't.

UConn went 1-4 in their last five Big East games, and two of those losses came after they lost to Marquette (including one home game). No amount of revisionist history will change that, and frankly, it's a bit silly to go for a revision of history when that history is barely 2 months old.

[NCMUFan]

JFB would of had Neary fouled out in 10 minutes and would of eaten Toone alive.  Ulice Payne would of been the best matchup against Jimmy Butler.  Bo Ellis versus Crowder would of been a good matchup.  Two completely different type of players.  I think Whitehead versus Otule would of been close.  Whitehead was never known as a scorer.  But Whitehead was a force guarding the rim and grabbing rebounds.  As much I love DJO he would of been no match for Butch.  The game of Butch versus the USA Olympic Team still was the most amazing individual effort I ever saw.  Boylan was very crafty and an effectively 1st year player of Junior would of had a hard time with Boylan.

[Hoopaloop]

Not really worthy of a response, but, this year's team couldn't carry the '77 Warriors' jockstraps. Nowhere near debatable.

Count me in your camp.  The notion of comparing Jesse Owens to Bolt I find to be one of the more bizarre comparisons I've seen.  The inside presence of the 1977 team would not be stopped by this past year's team.

The topper, this year's Lakers team would beat the Showtime Lakers.  What are some of you on?  This year's Lakers team has one Hall of Fame player.  The Showtime Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players to ever play the game in history and a total of 3 Hall of Fame players on the roster.

Let's look at this another way.  When the basketball writers of America and the other experts on sport rank the best teams of all time, are the 2010-11 Lakers going to make the list or are the Showtime Lakers going to?

Or this one "there is not a single team from the 1970's" that would have beaten the 2011 Marquette team.  Wow.  I can tell there are a bunch of fans here that were in diapers or not even alive back in the day.  One would think by their observations that it was a miracle these teams could get up and down the court.  That players like Oscar Robertson, Pete Maravich, Wilt Chamberlain and others were a facade.


Today's athletes do not destroy yesterday's athletes.  If that were true, then you would see that in all sports.  Are today's non steroid baseball players out-hitting yesteryear's?  No. Why not just talk to the coaches and players of both eras and they can certainly tell you how great the player were back then.  Sure, the conditioning is better today but let's not get overboard.  The stupidity of players today is also much higher.  The lack of fundamentals of today's player much worse than yearspast.  Just several examples.

[GGGG]

Hoop...have you seen how they play defense now compared to then?  The speed and length that was on the court?  James Worthy was a 6'9" power forward.  The Lakers can put a front line on the floor that have three guys taller than that, one of which is a fairly decent three point shooter.  They were considered the big "fast break" team of the era...but when I watch them now, it's like they're playing in oatmeal compared to most teams today.

And look, I'm 43 years old.  I grew up watching the supposed "golden era" NBA of the 80s.  When teams put on the court now is *SO* much better you can't really compare. 

[Hards Alumni]

Count me in your camp.  The notion of comparing Jesse Owens to Bolt I find to be one of the more bizarre comparisons I've seen.  The inside presence of the 1977 team would not be stopped by this past year's team.

The topper, this year's Lakers team would beat the Showtime Lakers.  What are some of you on?  This year's Lakers team has one Hall of Fame player.  The Showtime Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players to ever play the game in history and a total of 3 Hall of Fame players on the roster.

Let's look at this another way.  When the basketball writers of America and the other experts on sport rank the best teams of all time, are the 2010-11 Lakers going to make the list or are the Showtime Lakers going to?

Or this one "there is not a single team from the 1970's" that would have beaten the 2011 Marquette team.  Wow.  I can tell there are a bunch of fans here that were in diapers or not even alive back in the day.  One would think by their observations that it was a miracle these teams could get up and down the court.  That players like Oscar Robertson, Pete Maravich, Wilt Chamberlain and others were a facade.


Today's athletes do not destroy yesterday's athletes.  If that were true, then you would see that in all sports.  Are today's non steroid baseball players out-hitting yesteryear's?  No. Why not just talk to the coaches and players of both eras and they can certainly tell you how great the player were back then.  Sure, the conditioning is better today but let's not get overboard.  The stupidity of players today is also much higher.  The lack of fundamentals of today's player much worse than yearspast.  Just several examples.

No.

The game wouldn't even be close.  Today's players would blow the doors off the old school players.

[NersEllenson]

No.

The game wouldn't even be close.  Today's players would blow the doors off the old school players.

+1 - Completely agree.

Today's athletes do not destroy yesterday's athletes.  If that were true, then you would see that in all sports.  Are today's non steroid baseball players out-hitting yesteryear's?  No. Why not just talk to the coaches and players of both eras and they can certainly tell you how great the player were back then.  Sure, the conditioning is better today but let's not get overboard.  The stupidity of players today is also much higher.  The lack of fundamentals of today's player much worse than yearspast.  Just several examples.

First of all - baseball requires the least amount of athleticism to play - as long as you have GREAT hand eye coordination, you can be a very good baseball player.  You are stationary 98% of the time in baseball, the exact opposite in basketball.  I don't think anybody would deny that in their era Maravich, Chamberlin, Worthy, Magic, Bird, etc - weren't great players - they were the best of their time - but to suggest if you put our 1977 team on the floor against our 2011 team in their same physical conditions of their time at MU - the 2011 squad destroys 1977.  The strength, speed, agility, quickness, jumping ability all would overwhelm the 1977 team in their condition.  And as for the stupidity and fundamentals argument - considering the players are playing at about twice the speed as they were in 1977 - you will see a few more turnovers, fewer textbook chest and bounce passes

[GGGG]

Oh I didn't even see the lack of fundamentals line.  That may have been the case 15 years ago, but it certainly isn't the case now.  Honestly, I think fundamentally most college and pro basketball players are at least as equal to a generation ago.  The NBA today, for instance, is a very fundamentally sound league.  It went through some stretches where the fundamentals were lacking in the post-Jordan era, but I think the coaching is better now, and the European influence have reversed that trend substantially.

AND they play better defense.  That is the thing that is so striking about 70s and 80s era games.  The defenses are so much quicker and longer now. 

[Lennys Tap]

[quote author=Hoopaloop link=topic=26867.msg303189#msg303189 date=1304056


Today's athletes do not destroy yesterday's athletes.  If that were true, then you would see that in all sports.  Are today's non steroid baseball players out-hitting yesteryear's?  No. Why not just talk to the coaches and players of both eras and they can certainly tell you how great the player were back then.  Sure, the conditioning is better today but let's not get overboard.  The stupidity of players today is also much higher.  The lack of fundamentals of today's player much worse than yearspast.  Just several examples.
[/quote]









In every sport in which performance is quantifiable today's athletes BLOW AWAY the athletes of yesteryear. World record holders in swimming, track and field, etc., etc.,  from the 70's and 80's would be hard pressed to make D1 teams today. Evolution, nutrition, training equipment and methods all contribute. Why aren't baseball hitters outhitting guys from the 70s? Maybe because middle reliefers throw in the mid 90s today, something only a handful of the best starters did back then.

For their era, the 77 team (and all the MU teams of the 70s) blow away anything we've seen since. All comparisons should start with those three words. Without them, comparisons are unfair and meaningless.

[Skatastrophy]

For their era, the 77 team (and all the MU teams of the 70s) blow away anything we've seen since. All comparisons should start with those three words. Without them, comparisons are unfair and meaningless.

+1

[Hoopaloop]

So I have this straight, the UCLA teams of the 1960's and 1970's would lose to Marquette's 2011 team?  That is what I read, can someone confirm this is what was actually meant?  The North Carolina teams of the 1990's, the Duke teams of early 2000's, all would have been blown out?  Not just beaten, but blown out.  UNLV?  Jimmy Butler led team would blow away UNLV.  Do you guys hear yourselves?  It seems the offseason has begun because more crazy talk was spoken last night than in a long time.

Secondly, where is the cutoff?  Is it a decade thing or was there a magical year in which all of a suddent today's players are better?  For example, it has been nearly a decade since MU went to the Final Four. That Final Four team with DWade would get blown out by Jimmy Butler, Vander Blue, DJO and squad?  Must be true, because the players today are so much faster, better conditioned.  Or was it a date in which magically everyone agrees that the comparisons only take effect prior to June 1, 2005 (random date)?

Why would coaches like Bobby Knight who coached all the way until a few years ago say some of his teams back then would be any team today?  Are coaches like him wrong?  When other college experts say the quality of college basketball today is a shadow of what it was 10, 20, 30 years ago, are they wrong?

[rocky_warrior]

coaches like Bobby Knight who coached all the way until a few years ago

Bob Knight would probably be out recruiting in Russia if he were still coaching...

"Don't forget the Russian ice skaters," Knight said. "I'm telling you, these guys, it must be 40 people, men and women, and they are the most athletic people. ... There's a girl that gets 11 hoops going at one time from head to toe while she's skating. ... I've never seen a group of athletes like this."

That's right...the best athletes in the world according to Bob Knight...Russian Ice skaters.

[Lennys Tap]

So I have this straight, the UCLA teams of the 1960's and 1970's would lose to Marquette's 2011 team?  That is what I read, can someone confirm this is what was actually meant?  The North Carolina teams of the 1990's, the Duke teams of early 2000's, all would have been blown out?  Not just beaten, but blown out.  UNLV?  Jimmy Butler led team would blow away UNLV.  Do you guys hear yourselves?  It seems the offseason has begun because more crazy talk was spoken last night than in a long time.

Secondly, where is the cutoff?  Is it a decade thing or was there a magical year in which all of a suddent today's players are better?  For example, it has been nearly a decade since MU went to the Final Four. That Final Four team with DWade would get blown out by Jimmy Butler, Vander Blue, DJO and squad?  Must be true, because the players today are so much faster, better conditioned.  Or was it a date in which magically everyone agrees that the comparisons only take effect prior to June 1, 2005 (random date)?

Why would coaches like Bobby Knight who coached all the way until a few years ago say some of his teams back then would be any team today?  Are coaches like him wrong?  When other college experts say the quality of college basketball today is a shadow of what it was 10, 20, 30 years ago, are they wrong?

If you can put a 2011 Sweet 16 team in a time capsule and send them back 34 years, yes they would beat the 1977 champs. Much like a 1977 Sweet 16 team would beat the national champ from 1943.

[brewcity77]

Secondly, where is the cutoff?  Is it a decade thing or was there a magical year in which all of a suddent today's players are better?  For example, it has been nearly a decade since MU went to the Final Four. That Final Four team with DWade would get blown out by Jimmy Butler, Vander Blue, DJO and squad?  Must be true, because the players today are so much faster, better conditioned.  Or was it a date in which magically everyone agrees that the comparisons only take effect prior to June 1, 2005 (random date)?

I'd say the cutoff is probably the late 1980s to early 1990s where the jump really happened. Once the workouts of guys like Walter Payton became public, more and more athletes started training to that level in the offseason across all sports. By the early 1990s teams started to institute year-round weightlifting programs, and as the NFL became a year-round sport in terms of conditioning, other sports followed.

Do you really think the conditioning of teams in the 70s and early 80s was comparable to what it's like today? Do you really think they put themselves through a year-round grind the way high-level competitors do today? We're constantly looking for bigger, faster, stronger. You can see it most markedly in sports like track, where records are consistently broken. That training doesn't reflect as obviously in terms of stats for team sports, but it seems a bit naive to believe that it isn't just as stark a difference, if not even more so because there is so much more money poured into (and revenue gained from) team sports like basketball and football.

Would today's Marquette destroy the 2003 team? Of course not. Would they destroy the Duke teams of the early 2000s? I doubt they'd even beat them. I think they'd also have trouble against both the UNC and UNLV teams of the early 1990s. But against the teams of the 1970s? Too much changed in that roughly 15-year period in terms of training to think that all those teams are equal.

[Hoopaloop]

So arbitrarily you have selected late 1980's and early 1990's.  Do you see why I find these arguments overstated? 

Let's be clear that today's players are stronger and in better condition.  That doesn't make them better basketball players, it makes them better athletes.  Even said, there have been players going back to the 1960's with insane vertical jumps, quickness, basketball skills, etc.  As an example, why was free throw shooting so much better back in the 1970's, 1960's, etc.  The rim didn't change.  The distance didn't change.  Are players smarter today vs then?  I have my opinion on that one, especially with so many kids leaving earlier, babied from day one in AAU, etc.

I find it hard to justify a comment that says MU 2011 would blow out ANY TEAM from the 60's, 70's, 80's.   

The 1982 North Carolina Tar Heels with James Worthy, Sam Perkins, Michael Jordan.  Laughable
Who would stop Walton on UCLA or Kareem?  Ewing on Georgetown?  Those teams would destroy Marquette's 2011 team. 

[GGGG]

As an example, why was free throw shooting so much better back in the 1970's, 1960's, etc.  The rim didn't change.  The distance didn't change.  Are players smarter today vs then?  I have my opinion on that one, especially with so many kids leaving earlier, babied from day one in AAU, etc.

Free throw percentages haven't changed for fifty years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html

The game progessively gets better as a whole.  This means that middle of the pack teams can beat the champions of decades ago.  There isn't some sort of cut-off line.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you can put a 2011 Sweet 16 team in a time capsule and send them back 34 years, yes they would beat the 1977 champs. Much like a 1977 Sweet 16 team would beat the national champ from 1943.

Agree with the second sentence, not so sure on the first.  Like everything, there is a diminishing returns principle.  The players of 1977 were much better than 1943.  Are the players of 2011 equally as better?  I don't think so.  The incrementality doesn't stay consistent.  The curve flattens out.

Whether or not the 1977 team would lose to the 2011 team, who knows.  I tend to think people are overvaluing what they've seen most recently and forgetting the quality of the past.  It's like listening to Flaker fans out here talking about how good Kobe is and trashing Jordan in the process.  The longer Jordan is out of the game, the memories fade.  I'd take Jordan over Kobe 24/7 and 365, despite Kobe being so much stronger, faster, quicker and whatever else is supposed to be happening these days because those old farts from decades past couldn't play.  

[Hoopaloop]

Free throw percentages haven't changed for fifty years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html

The game progessively gets better as a whole.  This means that middle of the pack teams can beat the champions of decades ago.  There isn't some sort of cut-off line.

You definitely kicked my butt on the free throws.  Great article on free throw shooting.  Disagree with the rest of your comments.  The curve of getting better plateaus or only incrementally gets better by smaller margins.  Decades ago is the 1990's and no way Marquette of this year could beat the 1990 UNLV team, the 1996 Kentucky team, 97 Arizona team, 91 UNLV team (they weren't even the champions). 

It's not a straight linear curve where with each succeeding year or decade the quality continues to improve at the same rate.  You say there is no cutoff line.  So by that you mean to say the 2011 MU team was better than the Final Four team from 2003?   

[GGGG]

No I don't mean that at all, and of course the line is more of a curve and there are diminishing marginal returns.  It doesn't mean that the 2011 team could beat the 2003 final four team.  What it means is that the average team from 2011 beats the average team from 2003...and the average team from 2003 beats the average team from 1977.

Now if a below average team from 2011 faces an above average team from 2003, they would likely lose...but the average continues to rise.

[RawdogDX]

Hoops, 
Saying 'late 80's or early 90's' isn't an arbitrary year.  A generation is 20 years. 

It is very hard for me to see any team, being bigger, stronger and faster than players 20 years after them. 

As for your fundamentals thing.  No.  They spend more time, doing more drills from the time they are in middle school.

No one is saying 77 wasn't a GREATER team, but how many of those guys could do the vince carter elbow dunk?  Now every team has 3 guys who can hit their heads on the rim.  But this shouldn't offend you, greatness is measured by the teams you play.