NCAA Record broken

[Jurassic Referee]

Upon further review....

The NCAA did NOT sponsor womans basketball as a sport during the 1950's. Does that mean that any records set by universities playing major college womans university basketball games during that period just didn't happen? At that time, Wayland Baptist University won 131 consecutive womans basketball games at the major college level. That should be the recognized major college womens basketball record for consecutive wins, not the crappy l'il 89 game streak of UConn's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_streak_(sports)

In the immortal words of the late and great philosopher, BillyMac...I'm mad as hell and I'm just not going to take this anymore."

[26 Year Gap]

I've got a question. Do they use the same basketball? Or is there a difference?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I've got a question. Do they use the same basketball? Or is there a difference?

I've got a couple of questions.

Do they use the same baseball now as they did when Babe Ruth played? Or is there a difference?

Do they use the same golf equipment now as when Hogan and Snead played? Or is there a difference?

When the Babe played, did he use the same equipment as his competitors? When Tiger plays, does he use the same equipment as his competitors? When UConn won their games, did they use the exact same basketball as their competitors?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I've got a couple of questions.

Do they use the same baseball now as they did when Babe Ruth played? Or is there a difference?

Do they use the same golf equipment now as when Hogan and Snead played? Or is there a difference?

When the Babe played, did he use the same equipment as his competitors? When Tiger plays, does he use the same equipment as his competitors? When UConn won their games, did they use the exact same basketball as their competitors?

Has the size of the ball varied in your examples?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Has the size of the ball varied in your examples?

In the case of golf, I believe it has. The equipment alone has changed drastically over the past 20-30 years. Is it fair to say Jack Nicklaus isn't as good as Tiger, because he never hit it as far, or played on the same-sized courses as Tiger?

The only true comparisons are against the competition each one faces, not against different eras. Jack's record against his contemporaries speaks for itself; we can only speculate how Jack would play against Tiger if they were both in their prime at the same time and both using the same equipment on the same courses. So, can we say Jack's record of major victories is "better" or "worse" than Tiger's, because the equipment was different? Or is the number of victories what is important? Jack had his victories against his competition; Tiger's victories were against a different set of competitors, with different equipment, and on many different courses. Is golf exactly the same now as it was then?

UCLA's record was impressive, because it came against their contemporaries. UConn's record is equally as impressive. Are they exactly the same? No. But a victory against your current competition is a way to measure "success", and both UCLA and UConn have had great success in their own right the sport of basketball. Speaking strictly in numbers, UConn now has more consecutive basketball victories than UCLA. I don't know if that makes them "better", but it does mean they have more consecutive victories.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the case of golf, I believe it has. The equipment alone has changed drastically over the past 20-30 years. Is it fair to say Jack Nicklaus isn't as good as Tiger, because he never hit it as far, or played on the same-sized courses as Tiger?

The only true comparisons are against the competition each one faces, not against different eras. Jack's record against his contemporaries speaks for itself; we can only speculate how Jack would play against Tiger if they were both in their prime at the same time and both using the same equipment on the same courses. So, can we say Jack's record of major victories is "better" or "worse" than Tiger's, because the equipment was different? Or is the number of victories what is important? Jack had his victories against his competition; Tiger's victories were against a different set of competitors, with different equipment, and on many different courses. Is golf exactly the same now as it was then?

UCLA's record was impressive, because it came against their contemporaries. UConn's record is equally as impressive. Are they exactly the same? No. But a victory against your current competition is a way to measure "success", and both UCLA and UConn have had great success in their own right the sport of basketball. Speaking strictly in numbers, UConn now has more consecutive basketball victories than UCLA. I don't know if that makes them "better", but it does mean they have more consecutive victories.

We will not agree. Jack & Tiger still play[ed] golf. Still hit from the same tees. Jack is still better when the measure is majors won, and that may still be the case in 10 years. While it is an impressive streak in women's basketball it is still a women's record. And parity in women's basketball is nowhere near what it was/is in men's basketball. It is likely that if the size of the ball had not been reduced, that the game would be 20 years behind what it is today. And have even less viewership. I remember when the University of Vermont had a streak of 50 regular season wins in women's basketball, which was a record at the time. I doubt many outside of Vermont knew or even cared. Same with this. Best basketball team of all time? UCLA in the 60s & early 70s. Nobody has even come close. And five years from now, nobody will remember who broke the UConn streak. Except the participants and ESPN if they televise and make a special out of it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

We will not agree. Jack & Tiger still play[ed] golf. Still hit from the same tees. Jack is still better when the measure is majors won, and that may still be the case in 10 years. While it is an impressive streak in women's basketball it is still a women's record. And parity in women's basketball is nowhere near what it was/is in men's basketball. It is likely that if the size of the ball had not been reduced, that the game would be 20 years behind what it is today. And have even less viewership. I remember when the University of Vermont had a streak of 50 regular season wins in women's basketball, which was a record at the time. I doubt many outside of Vermont knew or even cared. Same with this. Best basketball team of all time? UCLA in the 60s & early 70s. Nobody has even come close. And five years from now, nobody will remember who broke the UConn streak. Except the participants and ESPN if they televise and make a special out of it.

UCLA and UConn play(ed) basketball. The basket is still the same height. I know that because I've seen Hoosiers.

Are you trying to say the difference in technology in golf equipment today makes less of a difference in the game between eras than the different size ball does in basketball? How about the length of the courses? How about the overall athleticism of the competitors between eras? If television ratings are one of the main measuring sticks, then obviously Tiger is better than Jack because he has had to perform in front of a larger television audience than Jack ever did.

All I'm saying is the only comparison is the numbers against each one's competiton in a particular sport, and in this case, UConn has more consecutive victories than UCLA. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not necessarily mean women's basketball is better or worse than men's. Of course the 2 sports are slightly different, just like the sport of golf is slightly different today than it was 30 years ago. We can argue all day as to the similarities and differences in eras, or who would beat who if they played against each other, but the bottom line is Jack has won the most majors in professional golf, and UConn has the longest consecutive victory streak in college basketball. Whether one is "better" than another is for minds larger than mine.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Do they use the same baseball now as they did when Babe Ruth played?

No, they lost it. It was getting awful dirty anyway.

[BBrules]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Upon further review....

The NCAA did NOT sponsor womans basketball as a sport during the 1950's. Does that mean that any records set by universities playing major college womans university basketball games during that period just didn't happen? At that time, Wayland Baptist University won 131 consecutive womans basketball games at the major college level. That should be the recognized major college womens basketball record for consecutive wins, not the crappy l'il 89 game streak of UConn's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_streak_(sports)

In the immortal words of the late and great philosopher, BillyMac...I'm mad as hell and I'm just not going to take this anymore."

This is correct - the Wayland Baptist wins were about 20 yrs prior to the NCAA. You are also correct that they should receive the recognition of having won the most consecutive basketball games. That is a basic question easily answered - just look at the numbers. The same with the basic question of what NCAA team has won the most consecutive games. UConn - just look at the numbers. Last time I checked 89 was more than 88. The problem we are encountering now is that too many are trying to answer a basic, tier 1 question with a second tier answer. A second tier question would be: do they deserve the acclaim bestowed on Wooden's team; did they get it honestly; are the courts the same; is the ball the same, etc. Those are secondary questions that are legitimate and, I'm sure, will be analyzed and debated for some time to come. My initial statement was based on a basic question as stated above. It is still correct - UConn. What college basketball team has won the most consecutive games? The Flying Queens of Wayland B. Do they deserve the same acclaim as UCLA, or UConn for that matter? That's a second level question. I don't know what college level WB plays on. You said they play on "the major college level". I won't dispute that. I just don't remember them. Did they play on an NCAA D1 level? These address second level questions. They don't affect the basic question.

[Adam]

I still haven't seen proof that the NCAA considers this one record in their books.

[26 Year Gap]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Dangit, I lost that quote.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BBrules

This is correct - the Wayland Baptist wins were about 20 yrs prior to the NCAA. You are also correct that they should receive the recognition of having won the most consecutive basketball games. That is a basic question easily answered - just look at the numbers. The same with the basic question of what NCAA team has won the most consecutive games. UConn - just look at the numbers. Last time I checked 89 was more than 88. The problem we are encountering now is that too many are trying to answer a basic, tier 1 question with a second tier answer. A second tier question would be: do they deserve the acclaim bestowed on Wooden's team; did they get it honestly; are the courts the same; is the ball the same, etc. Those are secondary questions that are legitimate and, I'm sure, will be analyzed and debated for some time to come. My initial statement was based on a basic question as stated above. It is still correct - UConn. What college basketball team has won the most consecutive games? The Flying Queens of Wayland B. Do they deserve the same acclaim as UCLA, or UConn for that matter? That's a second level question. I don't know what college level WB plays on. You said they play on "the major college level". I won't dispute that. I just don't remember them. Did they play on an NCAA D1 level? These address second level questions. They don't affect the basic question.

Looking at the NCAA's wesite, they don't combine these records. In fact, on the page trumpeting the win, they list "Top 10 all-time / all-divisions / all-sports win streaks" and include UCLA, UConn, and the others we've mentioned.

Your argument seems to have hinged on the fact that the NCAA recognizes this as a single record when they don't.

As for me, if they do, they shouldn't. But it sure seems they're doing it right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BBrules

This is correct - the Wayland Baptist wins were about 20 yrs prior to the NCAA. You are also correct that they should receive the recognition of having won the most consecutive basketball games. That is a basic question easily answered - just look at the numbers. The same with the basic question of what NCAA team has won the most consecutive games. UConn - just look at the numbers. Last time I checked 89 was more than 88. The problem we are encountering now is that too many are trying to answer a basic, tier 1 question with a second tier answer. A second tier question would be: do they deserve the acclaim bestowed on Wooden's team; did they get it honestly; are the courts the same; is the ball the same, etc. Those are secondary questions that are legitimate and, I'm sure, will be analyzed and debated for some time to come. My initial statement was based on a basic question as stated above. It is still correct - UConn. What college basketball team has won the most consecutive games? The Flying Queens of Wayland B. Do they deserve the same acclaim as UCLA, or UConn for that matter? That's a second level question. I don't know what college level WB plays on. You said they play on "the major college level". I won't dispute that. I just don't remember them. Did they play on an NCAA D1 level? These address second level questions. They don't affect the basic question.

I remember them. They played D1 under the AAU banner, same as all major college womens basketball teams did at that time. They hold the D1 womens basketball record for consecutive wins, not UConn. Last time I looked, 131 was more than 89.

Hell, in the 40's and early 50's the NIT tournament mens champion was usually recognized as the national champion, not the NCAA tournament champion. The NCAA tournament was considered second-tier to the NIT.

[BBrules]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I remember them. They played D1 under the AAU banner, same as all major college womens basketball teams did at that time. They hold the D1 womens basketball record for consecutive wins, not UConn. Last time I looked, 131 was more than 89.

Exactly. It also means that UCLA is 3rd on the list of the most consecutive wins by a college basketball team. I must admit that it is hard for me to believe that Wayland could be classified as a D1 school with a student population of about 500. Of course, I guess you could be considered "D1" if the AAU had only 1 "D", even though I don't think AAU had any "D's" back then.