NCAA Record broken
 

UConn Women broke the NCAA Record for consecutive wins in NCAA Basketball with their 89th straight victory.

Cue NCAA Men's v. Women's argument in 3...2...1...

Apples And Oranges ...
 

I don't care what the eighty-nine wins in a row were for. Even if were a game of "Chutes and Ladders", that's a pretty impressive feat. It is what it is.

To me, it's like the streak of national wrestling championships Iowa ran up in the 80s. It's impressive, but it's not that impressive.

Geno is no Coach Wooden.

Wooden's record stands.

One Person's Opinion ...
 

"My grandfather would have been thrilled. He would have been absolutely thrilled to see his streak broken by a women’s basketball team. And he thought, especially in the last 10 years, that the best basketball was played at the collegiate level, and it wasn’t by the men." (Greg Wooden, grandson of former UCLA coach John Wooden)

It just total apples and oranges. If there's some guy who wins 90 NCAA games of chess in a row, does he break the record?

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Would Wooden have been thrilled? Probably. But I do not buy that women are playing the best basketball. Your average NAIA division II school would destroy the UConn women's team.

It's an impressive streak, I'm not saying it isn't. I enjoy watching girls and women play basketball, but whether it's "better" is purely subjective and aesthetic. By any objective standard, it's not true.

As some caller said on the radio, "The women are better at the fundamentals. The fundamentals are boring."

+1

By the same token, they need at least 30 more wins to tie the record. Cael Sanderson won 119 wrestling matches in a row.

Correction, Dan Gable won 181 matches in a row, so sit back folks, it's going to be a while.

There was some discussion during the broadcast concerning the era differences between the UCLA 88 win streak & UConn Women's current streak.

Now as far as ESPN is concerned, the next big game is gonna be UConn vs. Stanford on the 30th.

Although the score says otherwise, Florida State did do their best to try & stay in the game.

I don't even buy that they are better at the fundamentals. It's just that the fundamentals are all they have. Not a lot of 360 degree tomahawk jams in the women's game.

It probably depends on how you define fundamentals. FT percentages? Shooting percentages? I'm not sure what those comparisons would reveal, but just thinking "out loud."

I remember being glued to the TV as Austin Carr made basket after basket. I might scan a headline or maybe not with the UConn win. Probably not since I know the outcome.

"Doesn't that tofu taste just like meat?"

"No. It doesn't."

LOL, the true vegetarians I know don't want it to taste like meat.

True vegetarians are not a happy lot. As a whole.

I have no numbers to back it up, but I don't think the women do anything better than the men. Is there one woman who has a better free throw percentage than any man? Possibly. From top to bottom, do the women do anything better than the men? I doubt it.

With regard to athletic ability, I say the following: How many women in the country can dunk a basketball? A handful

Pick a big high school randomly. 1000 students. How many boys are there in this school that can dunk that don't even play basketball?

Agree. It's just a made-up record by ESPN hyping a show that they wanted to get viewers for. The win streak applies only and solely to Womans NCAA D1 basketball. You can't compare it to D2 or D3 Womans basketball, let alone Mens D1, D2, or D3. Or junior college. Or NAIA. Or high school basketball. Or competitive Grade 1 basketball.

Hell, none of 'em are close to the Globetrotter's record for consecutive wins anyway.

Kudos to the UConn ladies. But they hold the record for Womens D1 basketball only.

It was on ESPN? And I missed it? Like I missed the first 88? Dang!

And with any luck ESPN will get 87 viewers to watch it. Womans D1 basketball is a niche sport on television, same as the WNBA.

Actually it was on ESPN2

Nope - Toooo easy. Not even going to go here. It wouldn't be right. Kind of like UConn playing the women of the Luther Home and not allowing walkers on the court! Nope - not gonna do it. :D

Remember the measles outbreak that forced the NAC tournament in Hartford a number of years ago to be played in an empty arena with all of the cardboard cutout 'people' in the stands? I'm thinkin' sumpin' similar.

Irrelevant...athleticism does not equate to "basketball". Lots of slam dunk phenoms can't play. And men are clearly better at athleticism. I don't think anyone has ever debated that point.

However, if you're talking about "pure basketball"...passing, screening, teamwork, etc., there is no reason why women couldn't be just as good or better.

That, of course, doesn't make it more fun to watch, but it could be "better".

The only thing that is comparable is free throw percentage. Everything else is completely different. You can't compare field goal percentage because that is affected by defense. Put men up against some women's team and see what their stats are for that game.

The most basic skills needed for a basketball player are to be able to run fast and to jump. Women can't do either one nearly as well as men.

When I was in college (D-III) the women's basketball team was pretty decent. For a couple practices they got 2 of the offensive linemen from the football team to come and play with them. The guys were athletic of course but they couldn't jump really high, they weren't super fast, and they weren't the slightest bit good at basketball. They didn't play basketball in HS, there is no way they would have made the team. If you would see their shooting form you would understand what I am saying. Well they just dominated the women. Just think what would have happened if these guys were even average HS players.

I was thinking that as I wrote it. Good point.

The only reason I didn't go with high school is coaching. Frankly, I'd guess you could go into a YMCA on any Saturday morning and pick 8 or 9 guys who could form a team and beat the UConn team for the very reasons you state.

To me this isn't a mens basketball vs. womens basketball thing. Yes, they are completely different in that I don't think the women's record should be THE record everyone else is judged by. I think there is a men's record and a women's record. I don't think the UCONN record is as impressive, and it has nothing to do with how good women are at basketball. It has to do with the fact that womens D1 basketball is EXTREMELY watered down. A handful of programs dominate the sport and the rest have no chance year in and year out. How many womens teams have a shot at a national title before the season starts? Five or six?...And that's in one of these years when UCONN isn't as dominant. I think you could honestly say that 20 or more mens teams have a shot at a national title before the season starts.

Why is this a discussion. Its good the players involved, but other than them and their families and the organization who cares?

The state of Connecticut?

And all 20 of its citizens?

Didn't JR say there were 89?

A person could of heard crickets if the crowd was that small, the attendance was over 16,000.

Actually athleticism does play a part in all of it. More physical strength makes it possible to make the tough pass. More speed and quickness makes it possible to get in position to make the screen. But the main point is the addition of athleticism changes the overall game so much that I find it difficult to compare the two and find it unacceptable that the women feel that they have "broken the men's record."

The extra athleticism is balanced by the extra athleticism of the opposing team. The ability to get to a new position quicker is countered by an opponent doing the same. Yes, the women are slower, but, that doesn't automatically make them worse. It is entirely possible that they could execute a better "game". I'm not saying I enjoy it or thing is is more fun to watch, I don't generally watch it much at all...but the elements of execution do not necessarily correlate to the absolute speed at which they are executed but relative to the base abilities of those involved.

He can't play compared to other men. Put that guy on the women's team at his high school and it would shock me if he wasn't the best player on the team.

Of course there are some things, like teamwork, that the men and women can do equally as well, but you are not more likely to see those things in a women's game. You might as well just watch the men's games because the level of play is so much higher. I would think that an average men's team would beat this UCONN team by 80 points every game. That is only outscoring them by 2 points per minute which might even be too low. When the level of play is that much lower I don't really see how it could be considered a "good" game no matter how well they pass and how much teamwork they use.

+1.

Some womens college teams have better fundamentals than either some D1 mens teams or NBA teams.

But it's still boring to me. It's up to the individual whether they want to watch it, same as any sport.

Checkmate ...
 

Depends? Did he have to play against women?

Competitive or non-competitive?

Running clock rule or no running clock rule?

Day game or night game?

Maybe Tony knows, or if I wasn't too lazy today, I'd google it...But I believe I heard UNC womens soccer had a streak of over 100 wins in a row with over 15 national championships in the last 20-30 years?

Guess I am the fix-it guy today.:D

Probably just as accurate.:)

I was with you until then. :eek:

To summarize: (about time, too)

How can you possibly think you broke my record if you never
did/will/could possibly compete directly against me or even in a format which was anywhere near the same?

The Penn State Women's Volleyball team had a win streak of 109 matches going until it was broken in September. Why aren't they getting more press than UConn?

It's nice that they have a record for Women's Basketball...but that's all it is.

If all this hype had come when they surpassed the previous women's record, I'd understand more. Acting as if it has anything to do with Wooden's record, however, is a turn-off.

What was the previous women's record, and who held it?

Anyone know?





Or care?

The real turn off is listening to any interview involving Auriemma. Could the chip on his shoulder be any bigger? Every time he shows up on a TV interview, I just want to walk up to it and give him a smack.

We've been force fed Women's College Basketball for some reason in this country despite them not being able to draw flies in 99.9% of the venues in the US. If we as a nation don't care, why is it promoted so heavily? Oh, I know this answer -- ESPN broadcasts the tournament and is just promoting the sports it covers. It's also why you see no hockey highlights anymore on SportsCenter.

It was UConn and 70 games. I saw it in an article this morning. And no, I don't care.

I was actually grumpy that I knew that, to be honest. I could have (of) put other information in that spot.

Uh...not really
 

Nope.
In addition to the women's record, they also have the record for the most consecutive wins in NCAA basketball. Not soccer, volleyball, cricket, or tiddly-winks. NCAA basketball. It's a remarkable feat regardless of gender.

No, they have the record for womens' basketball and that's it.

Just as you don't compare NCAA baseball and softball records, you can't compare mens' and womens' basketball records.

It's like comparing Favre's streak of starts with Ripken's streak.

Congratulations
 

This is an impressive program that set an equally impressive mark in which several teams were involved. Speaks well for the quality of female athlete/player that UCONN is able to draw.

However, the women's NCAA game is completely different than the men's game so let's just appreciate an impressive feat and move on.

I for one will make time to watch a final this year, if it comes to pass, between Baylor and UNCONN. Until then, I don't see myself making women's NCAA hoops into any sort of appointment television. (sorry ESPN)

Maybe part of my problem is my complete disdain for Coach Aurienema. He's like coach Krewsewooski but without the redeeming charm.

You and I feel the exact same way. Every time I see the d-bag on TV I change the channel. I can't watch SportsCenter this morning, that's for sure.

Nope
 

I'm not talking about comparing volleyball to rugby or soccer to lacross - I'm talking about basketball. Whether you (or I) like it or not UConn now has the record for the most college wins in basketball as is evidenced by the copied headline below:

December 21 2010 Last updated at 09:13 PM ET
UConn Women Break Record for Most Consecutive Wins in College Basketball

"Maybe part of my problem is my complete disdain for Coach Aurienema. He's like coach Krewsewooski but without the redeeming charm."

I totally agree, at least 100%, with your view above of their coach. He's a toad.

I couldn't care less what the headline says. No one is arguing that they won more consecutive games than UCLA did. I'm telling you they're separate records.
Just like you can't compare mens' baseball records to the female version, or mens' and womens' soccre. I'm not even using different sports here. Even in the 60's, mens' college basketball had more parity than modern day women's ball.

You are comparing basketball to women's basketball....there is a big difference. The women are just so slow, so unskilled, so nonathletic, that it is a completely different sport. The sports are not comparable in any way. As was said earlier you could go find 10 guys at the average YMCA that could go out and beat the UCONN team.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. Whether there is more parity now or before is irrelevant. What is, is. You seem to be under the false impression that there can only be two separate records, one for men and one for women. There is #3 "the most" period. You may not care, but it still belongs, now, to UConn. Yes, there can be 'the most consecutive wins in women's soccer' or 'men's soccer'. But there is also going to be a 'most consecutive wins by a college team.' Whether that is a men's team or a women's team, I have no idea and I'm not interested enough to look it up. But I can tell you who has it for basketball.

Seriously, now I will say it. You could just as easily compare this record to the Penn State volleyball streak, or Edwin Moses' hurdle streak. They're different sports. And whether the NCAA recognizes this, I don't know. Do they? Or is this just a reason for ESPN to bump up their ratings, and for women's basketball fans and employees to try to say their sport is on par with the men's game?

Parity does matter. It's why this streak isn't as impressive as Wooden's streak.

Yup, what is, is. And the record for most consecutive wins by a basketball team is currently 436 and counting. The UConn wimmen have got a long way to go to match that. That record is held by the Mount Padgett Middle School Grade 1 Competitive Co-ed team of Portland, Ore...the famed Dexters.

It's true, it's true...and if you don't believe me, look it up.

Apples and oranges......

NCAA Division 47B guy breaks weightlifting record for most bench presses in 1 minute, a record which has stood for 50 years.***












***Since he's Division 47B instead of DI, he was allowed to use lighter weights.

I don't believe you.

But I do believe in apples and oranges.

Merry Dexter

How much lighter does a 200 lb. weight weigh in Division 47B?

Do not misconstrue - I don't believe that what UConn has achieved is even remotely as impressive as what Wooden's team did. That was a phenomenal achievement and one that I probably won't witness in what is left of my lifetime. I never said nor intimated that women's basketball is even remotely on par with men's. However, the fact that I believe that what Wooden's team did is vastly more impressive is also irrelevant. Evidently the NCAA thinks the same as this is a headline from their website:
UConn eclipses UCLA with 89th win
Subheadline: Moore's career-high 41 leads three Huskies in double figures
I do know that if I'm on The Million Dollar Question and they ask me 'what college basketball team has the most consecutive wins', I'm going to say UConn and not the Mt Padgett Dexters.

And you'd go home broke.

The correct answer is the Wayland Baptist University womans team that won 131 consecutive college basketball games between Nov. 7, 1953 and March 20, 1958.

And if you don't believe me, look it up.

And btw, I knew that without having to look it up....because wimmens basketball is my life.

I read that article on the NCAA web site. It feels to me like they are pushing too hard.

And just to take the discussion further off-track:

Top 10 all-time / all-divisions / all-sports win streaks
Wins Team Division Year(s)
137 Miami (Fla.) men’s tennis I 1957-64
130 BYU-Hawaii women’s tennis II 2002-05
109 Penn State women’s volleyball I 2007-10
92 North Carolina women’s soccer I 1990-94
89 Connecticut women’s basketball I 2008-current
89 Stanford women’s tennis I 2003-07
88 TCNJ women’s lacrosse III 1992-96
88 UCLA men’s basketball I 1971-1974
81 Washington-St. Louis women’s basketball III 1998-01
75 Concordia-St. Paul women’s volleyball II 2008-10

What is BYU-Hawaii? Did they combine teams? Is it a branch campus?

While I find it interesting, I don't really care in the end whether the NCAA recognizes a joint record. It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether it should be recognized as such; which is what we're having.

And a headline on the NCAA's splashpage is hardly proof they count it as an official record. It's good publicity, so there's no surprise that a publicity whore like the NCAA would try to take advantage of it that way. And it's just those headlines I find to be ridiculous. UConn did not eclipse UCLA, any more than Geno eclipsed Wooden.

BYU-Hawaii is an affiliate campus of BYU (or BYU-Provo), there's also BYU-Idaho (used to be Ricks College). Each campus has it's own admissions & administrative departments as well as athletics programs.

There's also BYU-Salt Lake, which is a branch campus of BYU-Provo. There's also BYU-Nauvoo & BYU-Jerusalem (neither has athletics, mainly theological studies) which are travel study programs (1-2 semesters).

BYU-Idaho has only intramural athletics, however when still as Ricks College they had one of the best JC Football programs in the nation, as well as being the largest JC in the US. As Ricks became BYU-Idaho, the athletics program changed to intramural by result of the LDS Church First Presidency in order to not create a conflict with BYU-Provo Athletics with the 2 being 5 hours apart.

It wouldn't be the first time. I'm impressed! Off the top of your head with the number and dates even! But, hey, wimmens basketball is your life. I understand.
I should have specified 'NCAA' - my bad. I can appreciate how they got so good. I've been to Plainview, TX, (reminds me of the desert in Iraq), and I went to a Baptist college like theirs where you couldn't drink or smoke, or (for women) cross the campus in a pair of shorts. For women there was nothing left to do but play basketball. At that time they should have still been playing half court.

Almost right. I am a former student at Ricks College and a graduate of BYU (Provo). BYU-I (formerly Ricks College) does not have an athletic department. They quit playing intercollegiate sports 1 year after the name change was made. I used to work in the league they played basketball in and it used to be a great place to ref.

Wasn't it UConn who "rigged" the start of the game in cooperation with the other team to let a player score two points to break a scoring record?

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."

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

I added a bit more to my comments as my wife (CHSLadyEagle) was a student there during the transitional period. She filled in some of the blanks I missed.

Several were of discord over the name change to BYU-Idaho, as they were wanting it changed to BYU-Ricks. My wife was one of them protesting the name change.

She'd rather it be called BYU-Ricks or Ricks University with regular athletics participating in either NCAA Div. II or III Athletics. Looking at current enrollment BYU-Idaho could participate in NCAA Div. I-AA Athletics.

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?

BYU-Ricks & other LDS Colleges
 

I hope I helped clarified the info concerning BYU-Ricks (um...Idaho) athletics. I was greatly opposed to them doing away with athletics & reducing it to intramural, especially with it being a feeder for BYU & BYU-Hawaii athletics, as well at Utah State, Boise State, and University of Utah who benefited from BYU-I athletics transfers. The last year of athletics the Football team did win the Real Dairy Bowl, as they were a perennial powerhouse. LDS Business College once had athletics, not to mention a very good basketball program w/ many undefeated seasons, but their sports program was chopped in the 50s/60s. I attended there a few semesters to keep up w/ my studies when I went to Salt Lake to work for a while. The campus has also moved from 400 East & South Temple to the old Triad Center (former KSL studios), west of Temple Square. BYU-Salt Lake is basically evening classes only & holds their classes in LDSBC's campus. There's a little know BYU campus in the South Pacific that has a athletic program too. There's also Southern Virginia University, not church owned, but owned by LDS Businessmen & ran like BYU and it's other campuses. They are a Division 2 school, but have done well in sports. They are often nicknamed BYU-East. I know they have Basketball, Soccer, and Cross Country programs, but can't remember all sports programs they have. A few years back, 2 girls from Connell HS played Soccer for them. BYU has 1 Girls Basketball player & 2-3 for Football from Connell. :):D:p

All good, except BYU-I doesn't participate in intercollegiate athletics with the NCAA or NAIA at all.

And the size of the school has little to do with whether a school participates as a D1, D2, or D3 school. It is quite unlike HS sports. It is more based on the number of sports they participate in and the number of scholarships they give out.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.;)

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.

It's A Setup ...
 

Yes. It was Nykesha Sales. Against Villanova. Now she's third on the all time list. A black eye for Connecticut.

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

I think we're about done here
 

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.

Dangit, I lost that quote.

Hey, I'm Not Dead Yet ...
 

When I got up this morning, I went out to the paper box, and got my morning paper. I opened up the paper, like I do every morning, and saw that my name was not listed in the obituaries. Then I knew for sure, that it was going to be a great day.

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.

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.

I ask again: where is this single record documented at the NCAA? They're separate records.

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...

I am not 100% certain, but I believe women's college basketball was under a different umbrella before becoming an NCAA-sponsored sport sometime in the early '80's. That may explain why the Wayland team isn't listed under NCAA stats, because it wasn't an NCAA team.

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).

All true, but not what I was asking. BBallRules seems to be basing his argument on the fact that the NCAA considers this a single record (most division 1 basketball wins in a row), but I can't find that stat on their website. They separate everything.

Actually my argument is not solely from the fact that the NCAA considers this a single record, although they sure seem to with this headline from their website:
UConn eclipses UCLA with 89th winSubheadline: Moore's career-high 41 leads three Huskies in double figures
They didn't seem to split anything.
My argument is one from logic and is really answering the basic question: What NCAA basketball team has the most consecutive wins? There can only be one with "the most". That would be UConn without adding any additional qualifiers. Wayland Baptist was not NCAA. They were AAU. Whether the UConn record should be accorded the same acclaim as the men is a secondary question that can encompass all the other minutia.