Could Kentucky Compete In The NBA?

http://www.wfaa.com/story/sports/ncaab/march-madness/2015/03/20/kentucky-basketball-nba-larry-brown/25092061/


Could Kentucky compete in the NBA?
Doyle Rader, WFAA Sports contributor 1:56 p.m. CDT March 20, 2015








A few days before SMU was upset in their first game in the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, head coach Larry Brown took to the air waves of local radio for an interview. He talked about SMU's first tournament bid since 1993, his history coaching in the tournament, SMU's opponent UCLA, and the undefeated Kentucky Wildcats. What he said about Kentucky was interesting, to say the least.

I think they'd honestly make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference if they were in the NBA," he said, according to ESPN. Brown, in his own way, is just commenting on the quality of play in the maligned East. Only six of the 16 teams have a .500 record or better at the time of this writing. This is a striking contrast to the Western Conference, which boasts 10 teams with a .500 or greater record.

It's common knowledge that the Western Conference is the tougher of the two NBA conferences. Eastern teams regularly squeak into the post season with sub-.500 records. However, to state that the best team in college basketball can make the playoffs in the NBA's Eastern Conference is unequivocally absurd.

This isn't to say that the Wildcats aren't talented. Willie Cauley-Stein and Karl-Anthony Towns are potential lottery picks in this summer's NBA Draft. Devin Booker could also be a first round pick. Even twins Aaron and Andrew Harrison could find themselves in the NBA at some point. No one is questioning the talent that John Calipari has once again assembled at Kentucky. However, it doesn't matter how good Kentucky's players are or that they are coached by Calipari, one of the most heralded and successful contemporary basketball coaches. What matters is that this is a team of amateurs who compete against amateurs.


Yet, Brown thinks they could make the NBA playoffs. Let's indulge Brown's fantasy and look at what Kentucky would be up against. The Wildcats would be faced with an 82-game schedule, 32 of these games would be against the Western Conference. At a glance, Kentucky's best chance to notch a win against any of the teams in the West would be against the Los Angeles Lakers. With Kobe Bryant sidelined and the team dealing with a host of injuries, they seem to be the most vulnerable. However, they still don't have the worst record in the West. That distinction belongs to the Minnesota Timberwolves. The likes of Ricky Rubio, Kevin Martin, Andrew Wiggins, Zach Lavine, and company would still run the Wildcats out of the gym.

That leaves the East. As mentioned, the East is the lesser of the two conferences. The Philadelphia 76ers are in full tank mode and the New York Knicks have decided to join them in a race to the bottom this season. It's not inconceivable to imagine the Wildcats taking a game or two against these teams if everything lines up in their favor. That said, these are still NBA teams and the Knicks recently defeated the San Antonio Spurs.

But those are the bottom feeders in the East. If Kentucky was to vie for a playoff spot, they would be jockeying with the likes of the Miami Heat, Boston Celtics, Indiana Pacers, and Charlotte Hornets.

Each of these teams is within a game-and-a-half of each other and is playing for the final two playoff seeds in the East. Of the four teams, Charlotte currently has the worst record at the time of this writing. Maybe Michael Kidd-Gilchrist would cut his former college some slack and go easy on them if they played. It's doubtful that Kemba Walker, Mo Williams, Lance Stephenson, and especially Al Jefferson would be as sympathetic.

The Pacers are up next and are just out of the playoff picture. With Paul George out for the season, Indiana has fallen on hard times. However, they still have Roy Hibbert's stout defense, the scoring punch of George Hill and Rodney Stuckey, and the veteran leadership of David West. Head coach Frank Vogel isn't going to let his team lose to a bunch of teenagers.

It may surprise some that the Celtics are currently in the final playoff position in the East with all the trades they have made this season. However, here they are. They are a young team with a young coach in Brad Stevens. He used to be the head coach at Butler University before being pegged to lead Boston's rebuilding effort. On paper, these teams might actually be a decent matchup. The likes of Avery Bradley, Brandon Bass, and Evan Turner skew the odds in Boston's favor, though.

That leaves the Heat. LeBron James no longer resides in South Beach, but the Heat restocked with the likes of Luol Deng and recently acquired Goran Dragic. Combine those two with Dwyane Wade and the emergence of Hassan Whiteside and the Heat are more than enough to best Kentucky even with Chris Bosh and Josh McRoberts out for the season.

To even get to a position to compete with these teams for a playoff spot, the Wildcats would have to be competitive. Sure, in a long season, they could possibly notch some wins due to scheduling, injuries, and lightning occasionally striking for them. But the competition they would face on a nightly basis would be superior in almost every way.

In the 1992-93 season, the Dallas Mavericks won just 11 games. The following season, they won 13. In the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season, the Charlotte Bobcats set a record for the lowest win percentage in the history of the NBA. They won just seven of their 66 games. Kentucky would be lucky to win seven games.

It's always fun to contemplate the "what ifs" in life. Year after year, the debate about whether the best college team can compete with the worst professional team grows more popular. It's just innocent banter, after all.

However, to suggest that the Kentucky Wildcats could make the NBA playoffs take the cake of hyperbolic sports statements. The reality is, no matter how good a college team is, they wouldn't stand a chance of making the postseason playing through the rigors of an NBA schedule.




bob



.

Celtics vs Kentucky

I'll spot KY 30 points, no three pointers for the Celtics, and I'll give 1000 to 1 odds for a $100 bet.

Kentucky scored only 64 points on a number 8 seed team in the tournament. Adjusting from 40 to 48 minutes, that's only 77 points in an NBA-length game against less-than-stellar college competition.

It's absurd to think they could beat an NBA team.

This story appears to have more "legs" than I expected.  I just can't understand the appeal, maybe in large part because I'm not fond of hypotheticals.

It's at about the same level as a question my mother once posed to me as I was taking her and my dad on a plane trip to Florida, late in their lives, to visit relatives.  

Not long after we had what was, for both of them, a white-knuckle takeoff and we finally leveled off, she tried to play it cool, as if I hadn't seen her chalky knuckles.  She looked over at me in my middle seat and asked, "What do you believe the birds think of the plane?"  I mumbled some inane answer and immediately went to the back of the plane, ostensibly to use the head.  But, in reality, I hatched a plan with a flight attendant.

I returned to my seat and immediately closed the eye on my mother's side, keeping the other eye open.  For the rest of the trip, when the attendant came around (much more frequently in those days, I'd blink once for "Yes" and twice for "No."  My dad was in on the deal; heck, he lived with it every day.

It probably wasn't the nicest thing to do to this very fine person, but this woman believed that any moment of time without noise was a crime.  When I was about age 6, the same woman took me to see the original animated cartoon version of Cinderella.  Midway in the movie, she leaned over and asked, "Isn't the person who's playing Cinderella a wonderful actress?"  I was six, mind you, and I was so stunned that I currently remember it as clearly as I now recall so vividly even tiny details of Celtics games from 1956 to 1969.

Sam

Outside wrote:Kentucky scored only 64 points on a number 8 seed team in the tournament. Adjusting from 40 to 48 minutes, that's only 77 points in an NBA-length game against less-than-stellar college competition.

It's absurd to think they could beat an NBA team.

Is 36-0 a bad thing? Kentucky started out ice cold, then settled into their normal game, they have so much talent that they win even when they play bad.

bobc33 wrote:Celtics vs Kentucky

I'll spot KY 30 points, no three pointers for the Celtics, and I'll give 1000 to 1 odds for a $100 bet.

would you make that bet vs the Knicks present roster?

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobc33 wrote:Celtics vs Kentucky

I'll spot KY 30 points, no three pointers for the Celtics, and I'll give 1000 to 1 odds for a $100 bet.

would you make that bet vs the Knicks present roster?

I'd hedge a bit and only spot KY 20 against the Knicks.

bobc33 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobc33 wrote:Celtics vs Kentucky

I'll spot KY 30 points, no three pointers for the Celtics, and I'll give 1000 to 1 odds for a $100 bet.

would you make that bet vs the Knicks present roster?

I'd hedge a bit and only spot KY 20 against the Knicks.

I'll take that bet all day vs Knicks

Cow,

Have you been watching these college games? It is striking to me how poorly these guys shoot the ball and the overall mediocre quality of play. They work really, really hard -- there's no shortage of hustle -- but even the better teams can't shoot, they run rudimentary offensive sets, and any type of size down low on defense shuts down the opposing offense.

Even the pathetic Knicks average 92.3 points per game, which would be 76.9 points per 40 minutes, and that's against grown-man NBA defenses. Jason Smith (listed at 7-0, 240), Quincy Acy (6-7, 233), Cole Aldrich (6-11, 245), Louis Admunson (6-9, 225), and Lance Thomas (6-8, 225) would be more than a match for Kentucky's size, their key advantage over college competition. Bargnani would turn into Kevin Durant against college competition. What does it say that Cleanthony Early, a Wooden All-American last season, has played only 498 minutes for the Knicks, which is second-lowest on the team and only ahead of Alexey Shved, who didn't arrive until the trading deadline? They'd run Kentucky off the court.

See how many of these Kentucky players a) make it in the NBA; b) achieve any measure of success in the NBA. James Young was the second-leading scorer on last year's Kentucky team that had many of the same players as this year's team, yet Young can't even sustain a meaningful role on the Celtics.

Even the ridiculous Knicks are good enough to beat the Spurs when the Spurs have an off game. Even their post-Carmelo lineup has won a few games. They're a lousy NBA team, but they're an NBA team. We see them play so often that we take for granted how good NBA players and teams are. They are the best in the world, by a long shot.

Kentucky is a very good college team. However, even if they win the tournament, they're not in the conversation for best college teams of all time as some commentators with short memory spans are saying. It's not like the old days when players stayed four years, or even three. They'd be crushed by the great Alcindor and Walton teams at UCLA. I don't even think they're better than the Florida teams that won back-to-back titles in 2006 and 2007. They're just the best team in the current depleted college landscape.

Now if Anthony Davis (would be a senior), Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (senior), Nerlens Noel (junior), and Julius Randle (sophomore) had stayed in school, I might consider the notion of them beating the Knicks a game or two in a seven-game series. But this year's Kentucky team? I just don't see it.

outside

All good points, wonder why James Young hasn't shown more?

I think Kentucky's frontline overpowers the Knicks frontline and ours. Cauley-Stein is a great perimeter defender, he reminds me alittle of KG and Noah defensively, Towns and Johnson are better defenders right now than any big we have in the paint.

Kentucky could play up on our shooters, taking away easy looks, forcing us to drive into the teeth of their defense, not our strength, we would score some, but their inside abilities and size would eventually shutdown the paint, opening up their transition game. I don't know about you, but right now I'd take Cauley-Stein, Towns, Johnson and the versatile Lyles over Zeller, KO, Jerabko and Bass anyday. We have no rim protection, they have it at a historical level for college.

Have you been watching the games Outside?

cow

cow

I'd take the Wildcat big guys over Zeller, Bass, KO and Jarabko also.  They have far more upside than our preset bigs and will probably be better players in a year or two.

But in a game between the Wildcats and the Celtics as of right now, my money would be on the Celtics.

Hell, they can even allow James Young to play for his old team and I'd still take the Celtics.

Why hasn't James Young shown more?  Why can't he get minutes ahead of Gigi?  Well, Young is a kid a couple of years out of high school.  Gigi is a grown man of 27 who's played years of Euro ball and has a year of NBA experience.

Come back in a year and Young may well leave Gigi in the dust.  But as of right now Gigi is making a far more significant contribution.  It's a man versus a boy.  I think the same can be said of the Wildcat bigs vs our's as of right now.

At present, Young's a one-trick pony who only pulls the trick once a game.  GiGi may score more or less than Young but has much more impact potential at this point.

Sam

I'm not so sure about the great UCLA teams that featured Lew Alcindor and, later, Bill Walton. Their complementary players did not impress.

But there was one college team that IMHO was capable of beating many pro teams, then and now: the USF Dons led by Bill Russell and KC Jones.

Sloopjohnb wrote:I'd take the Wildcat big guys over Zeller, Bass, KO and Jarabko also.  They have far more upside than our preset bigs and will probably be better players  in a year or two.

But in a game between the Wildcats and the Celtics as of right now, my money would be on the Celtics.

Hell, they can even allow James Young to play for his old team and I'd still take the Celtics.

Why hasn't James Young shown more?  Why can't he get minutes ahead of Gigi?  Well, Young is a kid a couple of years out of high school.  Gigi is a grown man of 27 who's played years of Euro ball and has a year of NBA experience.

Come back in a year and Young may well leave Gigi in the dust.  But as of right now Gigi is making a far more significant contribution.  It's a man versus a boy.  I think the same can be said of the Wildcat bigs vs our's as of right now.

finally a voice of reason, even right now that Kentucky frontline of bigs is so much bigger and more dominant than our bigs presently, forget later, thats obvious, but right now our bigs are Charmin tissue paper soft.

oh this again.....

I'd take the Wildcat bigs because of their potential and on a rebuilding team potential upside is a really major consideration. The Kentucky bigs may be really fine NBA players down the line but if the Wildcats played the Celtics as presently constituted the Celtics would blow their doors off.

"I'm not so sure about the great UCLA teams that featured Lew Alcindor and, later, Bill Walton. Their complementary players did not impress.

But there was one college team that IMHO was capable of beating many pro teams, then and now: the USF Dons led by Bill Russell and KC Jones."

Alcindor played with Lucius Allen who had a good pro career. Indeed, some think that his missing the playoffs because of injury in 1974 allowed the Celtics to win their first post Russell title.

Walton played with Keith Wilkes who was one cold-eyed assassin in big games during his NBA career.

But I can't recall any other teammates making any impact as pros. Notwithstanding the Walton gang's 88 straight wins and Alcindor's polishing his game to a blindingly refined sheen before he entered the NBA, I don't think either of these groups could have competed with the NBA teams of their day.

Russell's USF Dons though is intriguing to speculate about. Was Russell so far ahead of all other players? Some have said that Russell instantly rendered all other centers obsolete when he entered the league. Russell himself said that he knew he was the best player in the NBA after one month in the league.

The NBA was also a very different place then. The Celtics won their first title starting three rookies: Russell, Heinshon and Jim Luscotoff. No one wins a title starting three rookies now. Titles are won by veteran teams. And no rookie, no matter how great, would be the best player in the league after his first month.

Dismissing the UCLA players other than Kareem and Walton as "complementary players who did not impress" is showing a lack of familiarity with those teams.

Players on the Jabbar teams:

• Lucius Allen - averaged 15.5 and 15.1 points in his two years with Kareem, All-American, 3rd overall pick in the 1969 draft, averaged 13.4 points and 4.5 assists in a 10-year NBA career and was a very good defender.

• Mike Warren -- averaged 12.7 and 12.1 points in his two years with Kareem, All-American, recognized in team awards as UCLA's best defender in 1966 and best team player in 1967 and 1968. Never played in the NBA but instead went on to have a successful acting career.

• Lynn Shackleford -- another double-figure scorer during his years with Kareem, had a distinctive high-arching shot from the corner that spread the floor for Kareem. Played one year in the ABA.

• Curtis Rowe, Sidney Wicks, Steve Patterson, John Vallely -- none had distinguished NBA careers, and Wicks holds a special place as a target of derision by Celtic fans, but they were excellent college players who went on to win two NCAA titles after Kareem left and before Walton arrived. All played in the NBA. These guys were not scrubs.

Players on the Walton teams:

• Jamaal (Keith) Wilkes -- All American, 11th pick overall in the 1974 draft, NBA rookie of the year, three-time NBA all-star, two-time NBA all-defense, inducted into the Hall of Fame.

• Henry Bibby -- All American, had a solid pro career.

• Marques Johnson, Dave Meyers, Richard Washington -- all went on to become All-Americans in the years after Walton left. All had good or very good pro careers.

• Swen Nater -- Walton's backup, never started at UCLA but went on to have a very good pro career, including two all-star games and leading the league in rebounding twice.

• Ralph Drollinger, Greg Lee, Andre McCarter, Larry Hollyfield, Larry Farmar -- all played in the NBA. Most had short careers but were good enough to make an NBA roster.

Lee in particular was memorable to me for his time with Walton as an excellent guard who didn't score much but made precise entry passes and lobs. He's an integral part of Walton's great 44-point, 21-of-22 performance in the 1973 title game as shown in the following video. Lee's play is shown throughout, but if you watch starting at the 2:55 mark of this video, you'll see three straight plays where Walton scores off of excellent Lee passes.



Lee scored an unremarkable five points in that game but had 14 assists and a huge impact, and that's what he did throughout his career at UCLA. He is an example of the excellent role players UCLA had during that time. These were excellent teams, top to bottom, not just teams that featured Kareem or Walton with "complementary players [who] did not impress."

The UCLA teams would have had to chance to beat the worst NBA teams, not because they were stocked at every position with players who would have successful NBA careers (though they had many of those), but because they were seasoned veterans who played together exceptionally well as a team.

They won seven straight titles and 10 in 12 years. They won five titles without Kareem or Walton. Their achievement is in some ways even more remarkable than the Celtics because of the roster turnover inherent in college. The UCLA Wooden dynasty is every bit as worthy of recognition and respect as the Russell Celtic dynasty. Both attained unparallelled success due to supreme talent led by superior coaching to achieve team goals through selfless play.

Thanks for the video on Walton. Forgot how quick he was back then and he looked like a man among boys.

What shot did he miss to not have a perfect night?

Bob,

He missed an ordinary shot in the first half. He also had another basket disallowed due to offensive goaltending on what I recall as a marginal call.

Here are a couple of quotes from Walton about the miss:

"The easiest shot I had all night, I missed."

"I remember the shot I missed. It was in the first half, and I knew immediately that I missed it. Coach Wooden tells me to this day, 'Walton, I used to think you were a good player until you missed that shot.'"

I get a kick out of Wooden teasing him about the miss. Wooden had a special relationship with many of his players, but he and Walton particularly enjoyed each other as the years passed.

Walton is one of my favorite players. He is second from the right in the photo that serves as my avatar (which also includes Kareem, Russell, and Nate Thurmond). He was such an athletically talented and skilled player who played the game with energy and joy, all in the selfless pursuit of team goals. It's a shame his feet weren't built to allow a long career.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe . . . it's possible ... from a certain perspective . . . I could have been (gulp!) wrong. No apologies, but thanks for a most eloquent defense of Mr. Wooden's dynasty.

Thanks for the memories Outside.

I remember it was once a standard sports trivia question to name the UCLA center between Alcindor and Walton.

You could amaze all your friends by saying Steve Patterson.

I forgot that Henry Bibby played with Walton. I recall that his 76'ers teammates called him "Julio" because they thought he looked Hispanic and he shot free throws all the way from the side of the free throw key.

UCLA was the gold standard of college basketball but I still don't think any of those teams could have competed in the NBA.

In Walton's rookie year, Alcindor, who by then was Kareem Abdul Jabbar, made it a point to light him up for over 50 points in a very hyped nationally televised game. Welcome to the league fellow alumni, this ain't UCLA no more and I'm the king.

Walton played injured but this schooling by Kareem supposedly did affect him. But whatever negative effect existed were thrown off a few years later when Walton's 'Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers on the way to the title.

I loved watching Walton with the Trailblazers that year they won a title. What a natural. Everything he did was so smooth and instinctual and he played with a joyous ferocity that reminded me of Dave Cowens.

Too bad Walton had such bad feet. As Bird liked to tease him, Walton's HOF induction speech was longer than his career.

Outside wrote:Dismissing the UCLA players other than Kareem and Walton as "complementary players who did not impress" is showing a lack of familiarity with those teams.

Players on the Jabbar teams:

• Lucius Allen - averaged 15.5 and 15.1 points in his two years with Kareem, All-American, 3rd overall pick in the 1969 draft, averaged 13.4 points and 4.5 assists in a 10-year NBA career and was a very good defender.

• Mike Warren -- averaged 12.7 and 12.1 points in his two years with Kareem, All-American, recognized in team awards as UCLA's best defender in 1966 and best team player in 1967 and 1968. Never played in the NBA but instead went on to have a successful acting career.

• Lynn Shackleford -- another double-figure scorer during his years with Kareem, had a distinctive high-arching shot from the corner that spread the floor for Kareem. Played one year in the ABA.

• Curtis Rowe, Sidney Wicks, Steve Patterson, John Vallely -- none had distinguished NBA careers, and Wicks holds a special place as a target of derision by Celtic fans, but they were excellent college players who went on to win two NCAA titles after Kareem left and before Walton arrived. All played in the NBA. These guys were not scrubs.

Players on the Walton teams:

• Jamaal (Keith) Wilkes -- All American, 11th pick overall in the 1974 draft, NBA rookie of the year, three-time NBA all-star, two-time NBA all-defense, inducted into the Hall of Fame.

• Henry Bibby -- All American, had a solid pro career.

• Marques Johnson, Dave Meyers, Richard Washington -- all went on to become All-Americans in the years after Walton left. All had good or very good pro careers.

• Swen Nater -- Walton's backup, never started at UCLA but went on to have a very good pro career, including two all-star games and leading the league in rebounding twice.

• Ralph Drollinger, Greg Lee, Andre McCarter, Larry Hollyfield, Larry Farmar -- all played in the NBA. Most had short careers but were good enough to make an NBA roster.

Lee in particular was memorable to me for his time with Walton as an excellent guard who didn't score much but made precise entry passes and lobs. He's an integral part of Walton's great 44-point, 21-of-22 performance in the 1973 title game as shown in the following video. Lee's play is shown throughout, but if you watch starting at the 2:55 mark of this video, you'll see three straight plays where Walton scores off of excellent Lee passes.



Lee scored an unremarkable five points in that game but had 14 assists and a huge impact, and that's what he did throughout his career at UCLA. He is an example of the excellent role players UCLA had during that time. These were excellent teams, top to bottom, not just teams that featured Kareem or Walton with "complementary players [who] did not impress."

The UCLA teams would have had to chance to beat the worst NBA teams, not because they were stocked at every position with players who would have successful NBA careers (though they had many of those), but because they were seasoned veterans who played together exceptionally well as a team.

They won seven straight titles and 10 in 12 years. They won five titles without Kareem or Walton. Their achievement is in some ways even more remarkable than the Celtics because of the roster turnover inherent in college. The UCLA Wooden dynasty is every bit as worthy of recognition and respect as the Russell Celtic dynasty. Both attained unparallelled success due to supreme talent led by superior coaching to achieve team goals through selfless play.

As usual, Outside backs his claims up with solid research and evidence.


bob



.

Sloopjohnb wrote:Thanks for the memories Outside.

I remember it was once a standard sports trivia question to name the UCLA center between Alcindor and Walton.

You could amaze all your friends by saying Steve Patterson.

I forgot that Henry Bibby played with Walton.  I recall that his 76'ers teammates called him "Julio" because they thought he looked Hispanic and he shot free throws all the way from the side of the free throw key.

UCLA was the gold standard of college basketball but I still don't think any of those teams could have competed in the NBA.

In Walton's rookie year, Alcindor, who by then was Kareem Abdul Jabbar, made it a point to light him up for over 50  points in a very hyped nationally televised game.  Welcome to the league fellow alumni, this ain't  UCLA no more and I'm the king.

Walton played injured but this schooling by Kareem supposedly did affect him.  But whatever negative effect existed were thrown off a few years later when Walton's 'Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers on the way to the title.

I loved watching Walton with the Trailblazers that year they won a title.  What a natural.  Everything he did was  so smooth and instinctual and he played with a joyous ferocity that reminded me of Dave Cowens.

Too bad Walton had such bad feet.  As Bird liked to tease him,  Walton's HOF induction speech was longer than his career.

competed? sure they could, could they be competitive against the worst 3 teams of the NBA at that time....ofcourse

Sloopjohnb wrote:UCLA was the gold standard of college basketball but I still don't think any of those teams could have competed in the NBA.

In Walton's rookie year, Alcindor, who by then was Kareem Abdul Jabbar, made it a point to light him up for over 50 points in a very hyped nationally televised game. Welcome to the league fellow alumni, this ain't UCLA no more and I'm the king.

I agree that even those UCLA teams couldn't compete in the NBA. My point in bringing them up was as a comparison to this year's Kentucky team and to illustrate these points:

• How far the level of play has fallen at the college level now that most good underclassmen jump to the pros.

• That this Kentucky team going undefeated in that depleted college landscape doesn't make them "great" from an all-time perspective, just very good in the current college basketball environment.

• That it's ridiculous for all these various pundits to say that Kentucky going undefeated against lesser competition means that they could actually compete against NBA teams. A guy like Larry Brown knows better, and maybe he said what he did just for kicks or to give his program some extra publicity. Everyone else needs to gain a little historical perspective beyond the "one and done" era.

If I can shed a little light along the way on the greatness that was the Wooden dynasty, that's just a side benefit.