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

[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.