NCAA Record broken

[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.

[Adam]

If parity in womens' ball today was equal to the parity of mens' ball in the 70s, I'd consider this streak as equivalent. But it's not.

Just for fun, out of boredom, I checked some numbers.

The 11 championships between 1960 and 1980 that UCLA did not win were divided among 10 teams. Only Cincinnati won two. The 13 championships that UConn did not win from 1990-2010 are divided among only 8 teams; with Stanford winning twice and Tennessee winning 6. If I go back just three more years, we get two more TN titles.

Final four: 11 years, 1965 through 1975. 28 teams made the mens' Final Four.
2000 - 2010. 18 teams made the womens' FF.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If parity in womens' ball today was equal to the parity of mens' ball in the 70s, I'd consider this streak as equivalent. But it's not.

Is the parity among golfers the same today as it was when Jack and Arnie played?

Is the parity among baseball teams the same today as it was when the Babe played?

My point is you may be right in saying things were/are different between the 2 streaks, but almost all of the same arguments can be used when comparing stats in any sport. Did Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth all play against comparable competition? Were the equipment and fields exactly the same? Were the pitchers each faced of equal caliber? If not, then how can you say they all belong on the same career home run list, because there were different circumstances involving each player. (And I'm not even bringing steriods into the discussion.)

It's still a college basketball win streak. How each of us qualifies it after that is where we take turns hitting that poor horse...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Is the parity among golfers the same today as it was when Jack and Arnie played?

Is the parity among baseball teams the same today as it was when the Babe played?

My point is you may be right in saying things were/are different between the 2 streaks, but almost all of the same arguments can be used when comparing stats in any sport. Did Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth all play against comparable competition? Were the equipment and fields exactly the same? Were the pitchers each faced of equal caliber? If not, then how can you say they all belong on the same career home run list, because there were different circumstances involving each player. (And I'm not even bringing steriods into the discussion.)

It's still a college basketball win streak. How each of us qualifies it after that is where we take turns hitting that poor horse...

And those arguments are made repeatedly; but the thing Hank has in common with Barry is they were each playing against the best in the world at their sport. They played the same sport.

If the UConn women want to be compared to UCLA, they should be playing against the men. They could start with playing the intramural champion at UConn.

Comparing respective streaks is ok, but they aren't even close to the record for consecutive victories by an NCAA Division I team. Seems to me the applicable numbers were/are 70 (the previous DI Women record) and 137 (Miami Men's Tennis Team).

[26 Year Gap]

Height may be the same. But the difference in the basketball size is significant. When the NCAA merges stats, records, etc., then I will be more convinced of your argument. I doubt either will happen, though.