women's and men's sports are on completely different levels
it is kind of compelling...i mean any team winning 89 straight games in any sport is tough..although it also speaks in the lack of parity in women's sports compared to men....no men's team would even get close to the streaks and numbers that the uconn women have now a days....that's why it's funner to watch men's basketball and especially the NCAA tourney...lot's and lot's of great finishes and upsets
it's also questionable to compare the uconn women's streak and the UCLA men....because again there is the fact this is uconn WOMEN....and their level of play is much different than that of the men's. To be honest, a good high school team or AAU team could beat the lady huskies. It's not an offense to them...but it shows the difference between men and women athletically...that's why i think it's hard to compare the two streaks......or give credibility to the uconn women for beating ucla's record
also, Auriemma is a douche and how long has Maya Moore been there...gotta atleast be 5 years i mean cmon
There wasn't a whole lot of parity during UCLA's streak either, it was just UCLA. You didn't have really good mid-majors like Xavier, Butler, Gonzaga etc etc. You didn't have other teams pulling in the #1 recruiting class, only UCLA. Just like the UCONN's women, there wasn't much parity at all back then.
UCLA would never come close to their record now a days. In this era, they wouldn't be getting the five best players in each recruiting class, and they all wouldn't stay 4 years.
ETA: Even if UCLA did pull in the 5 best players in each class now like they did then, they would all leave after one season.
