Now that the UConn women’s basketball streak is over, they have the longest D-1basketball winning streak. I think that UCLA’s streak was more impressive simply because the level and amount of competention is so much higher in mens basketball. So what is the doper view Uconn or UCLA?
I disagree that the competition is “so much higher” in men’s basketball. I think the two streaks are roughly equal.
I have to go with UCLA’s. There is so much more parity in the men’s game than the women’s. Look at the NCAA tourneys for each, compare the number of upsets in each. Right now you could count the number of teams with a realistic shot at the women’s title on one hand, for the men’s it might take both hands and part of a foot. When you only have a few teams in the nation capable of beating a number one team, long streaks aren’t surprising.
Equally impressive because both were accomplished against a respective level of competition and in a league (college sports) which is very transient and competitive. The competition UConn faced in achieving their streak was relative to UCLA’s.
I agree; the competition UConn faced was relative (or proportional) to the competition UCLA faced.
Equal
UCLA by a lot.
If you’re contending that men play basketball better, then UConn’s streak was at least as impressive as UCLA’s because UConn had to contend with that inferiority.
Just to clarify, “level of competition” means that there are more schools at a higher level in men’s basketball than women’s How many “top” teams are there in women’s D-1 play and how many are there in men’s D-1. The idea is that UCLA played more schools closer to their ability than UConn.
Had I meant higher level of ability I would have said that.
UCLA by tons. Mens college basketball had many great teams every year, Women’s bsaketball has only a couple. UCLA’s streak showed how good they were, UConn’s streak shows how bad everyone else is.
Of course folks realize that back in UCLAs streak days only one team could make it into the NCAA tournament, for example and that the PAC-10 was hardly juggernaught outside of UCLA.
I just thnk the debate is stupid and it minimizes both accomplishments to try and make the comparison.
Hehe, please. We are not even talking apples and oranges. There are male high school basketball teams that have won more consecutive games than UCONN has, and they would handily beat the best lineup UCONN could put together, regardless of time frame. Heck, male middle school teams would wipe the floor with a UCONN all-star team. That we are even have this discussion is a symptom of the lingering PC mis-informed Title IX BS infecting our nation.
Was that also true from 1971-1974? Parity and depth tend to increase over time. UCLA’s streak included three championships and UConn had two. Both had two full defeated seasons in a row. I believe UConn’s streak included wins over more ranked teams than UCLA had to beat, so they do have that point in their favor. I think the streaks are pretty much equal.
Interesting point: UCLA and UConn’s winning streaks were both bookended by losses to the same team. UCLA lost to Notre Dame in January 1971, then won 88 in a row before losing to Notre Dame. UConn lost to Stanford in the national semifinals in 2008, then won 90 in a row before they lost to Stanford again this past week.
I’m not all that impressed by UConn’s streak; it is not at all surprising to me that one team would be vastly better than all but one or two other teams at the top of women’s college basketball. The comparison itself tends to suggest that nobody is really impressed with their streak, necessitating a comparison to something actually impressive. However, it has the opposite effect. Rather than getting some impressiveness from UCLA, both streaks seem less impressive for the comparison.
I can’t really understand this reasoning. I win 100 games in a row in my local squash league and … eh, I give up…
Never mind. Rambling dissertation deleted as irrelevant.
I say UCLA, for the record.
Who cares? We’re comparing college basketball to college basketball. I agree that the men’s and women’s games are very different and the eras are too different to do an exact comparison. One point that has not been mentioned is that there were no three-point shots in college ball during UCLA’s winning streak. I don’t think dunking was allowed either, although there’s virtually none in women’s college basketball anyhow. There are high school winning streaks longer than UConn’s and longer than UCLA’s also. That’s not relevant. What’s relevant is how good the team is relative to the competition it faces. EDIT: I do think this “UConn has the NCAA Division 1 record” thing is nonsense. There’s a record in the men’s game and a record in the women’s game. The rest is just marketing.
No. We are not. We are trying to shoehorn a comparison between liquids and solids. They are not even remotely comparable.
If you say so. I think they’re too different to make a true conclusion but it’s not an incomprehensible topic.
So in the interest of fairness, exactly how competitive WAS Men’s NCAA Basketball back when UCLA set the record. For sure, such a streak now days would be a phenomenal achievement, but I know very little about the league at the time.
Interesting in that UConn’s streak didn’t begin until they stopped playing the only other dominant program in NCAA Women’s Basketball. Tennessee was one of the very few teams that WERE close to their ability, and they stopped playing after 12 straight seasons. Tennessee beat UConn their last three games prior to the series being ended.
The last time the schools played was in January 2007, which is about a year and a half before UConn’s streak started. So that’s not exactly true. It’s also true that Tennessee has not been that good since they won the championship in 2008. Maybe they’re back now.