ADVERTISEMENT

UK vs. UCLA

Audobaby

New Member
Mar 22, 2014
1
0
1
No, I don't think UCLA is the best program of all-time. They had the best dynasty--a dynasty that will likely never be matched.

That said, the Bruins have not enjoyed the sustained success of programs such as Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas.

UCLA had a losing program in its first 27 seasons with a record of 256-293. While UK established itself as a basketball powerhouse in the 1930s, UCLA never made the NCAA Tournament before Wooden arrived. By the time UCLA advanced to its first Final Four in 1962, UK already had four titles.

Interestingly, Rupp and Wooden retired only three years apart. So here's a look at the achievements of each program in the post-Rupp and post-Wooden eras.

UCLA's 1980 season and UK's 1988 season are not included in these numbers because they were both vacated.

Titles:

Kentucky 4
UCLA 1

Final Fours:

Kentucky 11
UCLA 5

Elite 8 appearances:

Kentucky 21
UCLA 8

NCAA Tournament Victories:

Kentucky 90
UCLA 51

Conference championships:

Kentucky 19
UCLA 14

UCLA mustered *1* Final Four between 1977 and 2005 and only won a total of *2* NCAA Tournament games throughout the 1980s (again, these numbers exclude UCLA's vacated 1980 season).

In the modern era, UCLA has not enjoyed the regular season and tournament success as other blueblood programs. Without Wooden, UCLA is nothing more than a middle-of-the-pack program. Conversely, even without Rupp's titles, Kentucky would surpass Kansas in national championships.

Kentucky is not defined by a single coach or one stretch of dominance. Five coaches have won national championships at Kentucky, and UK has consistently ranked as one of the top programs in winning percentage each decade dating back to the 1930s.
 
As a hardcore fan and UCLA alumni, I can't argue with the facts you've presented. Except for a few runs in the late 80's, early 90's and our 3 straight Final Fours under Howland several years back, we've been pretty average.

A lot of alumni want Alford gone, but his buyout is so huge , he's going to be around for at lest 2 more years. We'll see what he dos with the huge '16 class he has coming in. This will be make or break
 
No team will ever accomplish what UCLA has in basketball. However, the basketball program is merely a single part of the greatest athletic program in college sports and at a world class university.
 
No, I don't think UCLA is the best program of all-time. They had the best dynasty--a dynasty that will likely never be matched.

That said, the Bruins have not enjoyed the sustained success of programs such as Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas.

UCLA had a losing program in its first 27 seasons with a record of 256-293. While UK established itself as a basketball powerhouse in the 1930s, UCLA never made the NCAA Tournament before Wooden arrived. By the time UCLA advanced to its first Final Four in 1962, UK already had four titles.

Interestingly, Rupp and Wooden retired only three years apart. So here's a look at the achievements of each program in the post-Rupp and post-Wooden eras.

UCLA's 1980 season and UK's 1988 season are not included in these numbers because they were both vacated.

Titles:

Kentucky 4
UCLA 1

Final Fours:

Kentucky 11
UCLA 5

Elite 8 appearances:

Kentucky 21
UCLA 8

NCAA Tournament Victories:

Kentucky 90
UCLA 51

Conference championships:

Kentucky 19
UCLA 14

UCLA mustered *1* Final Four between 1977 and 2005 and only won a total of *2* NCAA Tournament games throughout the 1980s (again, these numbers exclude UCLA's vacated 1980 season).

In the modern era, UCLA has not enjoyed the regular season and tournament success as other blueblood programs. Without Wooden, UCLA is nothing more than a middle-of-the-pack program. Conversely, even without Rupp's titles, Kentucky would surpass Kansas in national championships.

Kentucky is not defined by a single coach or one stretch of dominance. Five coaches have won national championships at Kentucky, and UK has consistently ranked as one of the top programs in winning percentage each decade dating back to the 1930s.

Wow...this is your first post, ever, and its all about how UCLA basketball doesn't stack up against Kentucky? Interesting choice...

While I can't disagree with the facts you mention, what you fail to mention is that Kentucky also has JC level academic requirements (106 spots behind UCLA academically to be exact) and hands out bags of cash that would make $UC blush.

What makes schools like Stanford, UCLA, Duke, ND, UM, etc...exceptional is that they are top academic institutions that also excel at athletics. But yep, UK sure is good at BB.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT