South Carolina Brawl Game Anniversary

[Goose]

wades

Yes, they were the last team invited in 1977. They also were preseason #1 in the country and were #1 the following season and the best program in the country at that point.

[Shooter McGavin]

How many teams were in the tournament in the 70s?  16? 32?

[Goose]

shooter


32

[Shooter McGavin]

That’s what i thought so as the last at large team back then you were still absolutely one of the best teams in the country. 

Obviously the championship proved that theory.

[Goose]

Shooter

The '76 and '77 teams were loaded. I favor '76 over '77 but that is my opinion. '76 we entered the NCAA ranked #2, with one loss, but were put in the same region as undefeated Indiana and lost in the regional finals. '77 was a messed-up year, but IMO they were one of the top 2-3 teams, even with the losses. They were stacked with talent.

For a point of reference six players from the '76 played in the NBA.

[Galway Eagle]

Brother Galway:

You have to realize just how far we have fallen. For example, we are ranked 25th this week. Hats off to the team and to Coach Shaka for the accomplishment. They've worked hard and it's my view that we're building something that will be lasting. But, during Coach McGuire's tenure, a ranking of 20 (then the lowest ranked position) would have triggered major angst both locally and nationally.

During the 1970s, we were consistently a Top 10 and usually a Top 5 team. We were THAT good. We regularly had among the top recruiting classes in the nation. Had we not lost three of our very best players to the NBA at mostly odd times of the year -- Jim Chones, Maurice Lucas and Larry McNeill -- we probably would have multiple final four banners and at least one more NCAA Championship banner hanging in the FiServ. Had the NCAA been seeded then, we probably would have been a 1 seed every year from 1971 to 1978. At worst, we would have been a 2.

I get times have changed. Heck, North Carolina isn't in the Top 25 and Duke barely made it (one ahead of us). Talent has been more broadly distributed and more schools are good at college basketball. But we really had something special and the 40 years of crap comment was a function of comparing then to now. I'd argue the only years that were even close were 2003 and a few of the better Buzz years.

What I see as the difference between then and now is the fact that we've had a few very good teams, several good teams but nothing (with the exception of a few years under Buzz) that has been sustainable. We get really good and then fade quickly. With stability of coaching and Coach Shaka with us hopefully for the long haul, the sustainability that has eluded us may finally be gone!

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree, I absolutely realize and respect how great we were back then. I'm just sick of seeing that same tired line that pretty much makes it seem like we lost to Miami (OH) then in 40yr there was 1yr of Wade and nothing else since the present, that better describes Loyola Chicago's history than ours and that's cause for the frustration.

The bottom line is we had 6yrs being truly a notch above everything we've seen since but that doesn't mean there haven't been great teams since and it's also fair to point out Al didn't win a tournament game every year (75) so we logically can't discount modern great years where we had a great seed and were ranked all year but didn't make a sweet 16 (96, 02, 07-09, 19).

[Goose]

Galway

I fully understand your point and also understand it is hard for you to understand what that era of MU basketball looked like. Like I see in another thread, I 100% hope that any pre Al fans gets to see 75% of what that era looked like. If it happens, you will understand and write about when you are as old as dirt.

[Galway Eagle]

Galway

I fully understand your point and also understand it is hard for you to understand what that era of MU basketball looked like. Like I see in another thread, I 100% hope that any pre Al fans gets to see 75% of what that era looked like. If it happens, you will understand and write about when you are as old as dirt.

68-70 were pretty much matched based on avg rankings and tournament success during my time at MU, so that's 33% I've seen! not exactly the 33% of Al years I'd have personally picked but beggars can't be choosers

Here's to hoping we both get to live through a level that overshadows Al the way Jay overshadowed Rollie!

[DoctorV]

Shooter

The '76 and '77 teams were loaded. I favor '76 over '77 but that is my opinion. '76 we entered the NCAA ranked #2, with one loss, but were put in the same region as undefeated Indiana and lost in the regional finals. '77 was a messed-up year, but IMO they were one of the top 2-3 teams, even with the losses. They were stacked with talent.

For a point of reference six players from the '76 played in the NBA.

I was born in 83 and I know a decent amount of history, but admittedly not enough on those teams from that era beyond what I see here.

If the 77 squad was so good, why the regular season losses and the near miss of the dance?

Follow up- I’m sure everyone is glad things ended up the way they did, but is that season then considered a major letdown with a loss early in the dance?
What happens to Al’s legacy in that case?

Am I right in remembering that he had announced he would step away from coaching prior to the postseason run or I’m making that up?

Thanks to all you young bucks for the info in advance

[Dickthedribbler]

I was born in 83 and I know a decent amount of history, but admittedly not enough on those teams from that era beyond what I see here.

If the 77 squad was so good, why the regular season losses and the near miss of the dance?

Follow up- I’m sure everyone is glad things ended up the way they did, but is that season then considered a major letdown with a loss early in the dance?
What happens to Al’s legacy in that case?

Am I right in remembering that he had announced he would step away from coaching prior to the postseason run or I’m making that up?

Thanks to all you young bucks for the info in advance

Al announced in December 1976 that he would finish the 1976-77 season and then walk away. That season was wild including I believe a 3 game home losing streak in February. There was plentiful booing on Senior Night. Everyone realized that the party that lasted nearly 10 years, was over. Imagine the range of emotion. On March 1, 1977 none of us thought they were even going to get a Tournament bid. On  March 28, 1977 everyone was running down Wisconsin Avenue as National Champions..

[Its DJOver]

Do even UCLA fans talk about the 70's this much?

[79Warrior]

My understanding is that there was never an invite and the discussion among the powers was there was no need to join any conference. Was the balance of my statement accurate?

Correct. There was never an invite. Joining a conference was never really discussed during my time. Program was elite at that time and unfortunately that clouded the vision of the future for many. Handing the baton to Hank without any serious search was the beginning of a most difficult swoon.

[Scoop Snoop]

Do even UCLA fans talk about the 70's this much?

Bill Walton does.

[4everwarriors]

Do even UCLA fans talk about the 70's this much?

To be fair, they don't need to. Winning National Championships was as common place for UCLA as peeing in the shower or farting in the bathtub is for the rest of us, hey?

[dgies9156]

The bottom line is we had 6 yrs being truly a notch above everything we've seen since but that doesn't mean there haven't been great teams since and it's also fair to point out Al didn't win a tournament game every year (75) so we logically can't discount modern great years where we had a great seed and were ranked all year but didn't make a sweet 16 (96, 02, 07-09, 19).

Brother Galway:

Point of clarification. In 1975, we did not win a game in the NCAA, that's fact. But that was a very painful year that involved problems we haven't had since. As that year started, we were national runner-ups in the NCAA. After we finished second in 1974, with what we had returning plus what Al recruited, we were expected to be a favorite for national champions. Best line-up since Jim Chones left.

Then came the Maurice Lucas problem. It's been largely forgotten but it was the reason 1975 was disappointing.

Maurice Lucas was teetering between coming back and going pro. As September came, Mr. Lucas was drafted. Marquette was prepared to sue the NCAA and force them to allow Mr. Lucas to play when the Spirits of St. Louis, an ABA team, paid Mr. Lucas a buttload of money and late in September, Mr. Lucas turned pro.

We lost in the first round because we had no inside bruisers.

Our starting line-up with Mr. Lucas probably would have been Butch Lee and Lloyd Walton at Guards, Bo Ellis and Earl Tatum at forwards and Mr. Lucas at center. We'd have been unbeatable. When we brought in Jerome Whitehead with otherwise the same line-up in 1976, we almost were!

[Goose]

dgies

We went from Lucas to Jerry Homan as a starting center in short order for the '75 season.

[romey]

Al was 22-30 in his first two years.  He won 21 games or more each season for the rest of his career.  68-20 in years 3-5, and 179-27 (including 7 losses in his last season) for the rest of his term at MU.  DOMINANCE.  Second winningest program in the 70's to the all-time greatest college team ever - John Wooden's 70's UCLA Bruins.

[Galway Eagle]

Genuinely sucks that it changed that quick. And I see things like that thrown out as defenses for why Al wasn't running a dynasty of final fours/championships and I buy into much of it.

But similarly I don't see many defenses from people from your era of 08/09 when Dom broke his foot or 04/05 when Travis went down & we were 13-1. I don't see people saying what we would've been in 13/14 if Vander hadn't left early or if McKay had stayed. 

Point is people leaving early, getting injured, transferring, etc happens. It sucks, but why is it only defended for Al and every other era is just lumped into the years and years of mediocrity when there's genuinely some pretty huge "what ifs" in there.

Again I'm not saying we've been Al good but it'd be nice to see some old timers 1) Hold the same reverence for great teams regardless of era 2) defend season changing issues consistently.

[Uncle Rico]

Genuinely sucks that it changed that quick. And I see things like that thrown out as defenses for why Al wasn't running a dynasty of final fours/championships and I buy into much of it.

But similarly I don't see many defenses from people from your era of 08/09 when Dom broke his foot or 04/05 when Travis went down & we were 13-1. I don't see people saying what we would've been in 13/14 if Vander hadn't left early or if McKay had stayed. 

Point is people leaving early, getting injured, transferring, etc happens. It sucks, but why is it only defended for Al and every other era is just lumped into the years and years of mediocrity when there's genuinely some pretty huge "what ifs" in there.

Again I'm not saying we've been Al good but it'd be nice to see some old timers 1) Hold the same reverence for great teams regardless of era 2) defend season changing issues consistently.

Bwahahahaha

[Goose]

Galway

There has plenty of very good basketball over the years and we saw the greatest player to wear a MU uniform in DWade. I loved the KO era, the Crean and Buzz era’s. The problem was sustainability and excitement. Every up period was followed by a downward period that seemed longer than the good times.

I will never dismiss the post Al era teams and they are part of the history. I have no problem if someone says any era was the best because it based that person’s experiences.

I cannot speak for anyone, but to me, the Shaka style of play, kids on the team and direction of the program puts the program in its place for long term success. Winning and winning big is awesome and hoping it happens under Shaka.