Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SWC75, post: 3730212, member: 289"] These are the 20's. :cool: When I started following college basketball in the 60's, there were only a few hotbeds of enthusiasm around the country: the inner cities, Indiana, Kentucky. That was about it. The NCAA basketball championship would be presented on "Wide World of Sports". When UCLA played Houston in a regular season game in the Astrodome in 1968 and it was presented on national TV in Prime Time, that was a very big deal. [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e31mA5clAg']1968 Game of the Century - YouTube[/URL] Far fewer people were playing the game and if you had a guy who could really play, he was your star and you fed him. If the other team didn't have a star, you won. if they did, it was about if your star could outscore their star. if a team had multiple players who would be stars on other teams, they were an historically great team. The top teams all had stars and the battle for the national scoring race got as much publicity as the battle for the national championship. An All-American scored 30 points a game and probably got 12-15 rebounds a game. The top teams all have 2-3 guys like that and All-Americans average about half that. The nation's leading scorer is often someone on a team on the periphery of Division 1. You've probably never heard of him and probably never will. (Actually this year Luke Garza of Iowa is leading the list but the next two guys are from Oral Roberts and Detroit. The top ten also has players from Lafayette, IUPU, Hampton, App State and Akron.) there are many more people playing the game, many more good players and many more good teams. What is lacking are four year players and four year star players. That makes attaining and sustaining excellence harder. But so does the number of good team you will play. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?