NCAA and integration

[Duke Blu]

The Loyola University (Chicago) teams of the early 1960s, coached by George Ireland, are thought to be responsible for ushering in a new era of racial equality in the sport by shattering all remaining color barriers in NCAA men's basketball. Beginning in 1961, Loyola broke the longstanding gentlemen's agreement (not to play more than three black players at any given time), putting as many as four black players on the court at every game. [1] For the 1962-63 season, Ireland played four black Loyola starters in every game. That season, Loyola also became the first team in NCAA Division I history to play an all-black lineup, doing so in a game against Wyoming in December 1962. [2]

In 1963, Loyola shocked the nation and changed college basketball forever by starting four black players in the NCAA Tournament, as well as the Championship game. Loyola's stunning 60–58 overtime upset of two-time defending NCAA champion Cincinnati was the crowning achievement in the school's nearly decade-long struggle with racial inequality in men's college basketball, highlighted by the tumultuous events of that year's NCAA Tournament. [3][4] Loyola's 1963 NCAA title was historic not only for the racial makeup of Loyola's team, but also because Cincinnati started three black players, making seven of the ten starters in the 1963 NCAA Championship game black. [5]

Taking the aforementioned information into account, I’ve always wondered how schools who won NCAA championships prior to the 60’s, view those championships? Do they even think about it? Do you even think it matters? I’ve just always wondered how teams and organizations could consider themselves TRUE national champions when a significant group of people were not even allowed to participate and immediately after they were allowed, changed the game forever.

 

[nets on nets on nets]

I've always said Duke actually has more titles than Kentucky for this exact reason.

5>4.

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

Some of the best players weren’t allowed to play.

No shot clock.

Tournament consisted of 8 teams and games were played on the home court.

No 3 point line.

They’re still titles, but bragging about them is the equivalent of bragging about being the tallest midget.

 

[SwatX1]

This is one of those threads that could go the wrong direction quickly, but immediate thought is that those days showed how ignorant and stupid a society can be. And individually, still are. And the sad thing is, I doubt it ever changes.

 

[Duke Blu]

This is one of those threads that could go the wrong direction quickly, but immediate thought is that those days showed how ignorant and stupid a society can be. And individually, still are. And the sad thing is, I doubt it ever changes.

Yes, but why? It happened. And so the question is a rather simple one.

Did the gentlemen’s agreement and policies preceding that, significantly weaken and or restrict the level of competition during that time? And are the titles won during that time a fair comparison to a time when EVERYONE who was capable allowed to play? I don’t even think this is a complicated question with a lot of gray in it. I don’t even see why we can’t just stick to the effect ON THE COURT as opposed to anything else.

 

[SwatX1]

Yes, but why? It happened. And so the question is a rather simple one.

Did the gentlemen’s agreement and policies preceding that, significantly weaken and or restrict the level of competition during that time? And are the titles won during that time a fair comparison to a time when EVERYONE who was capable allowed to play? I don’t even think this is a complicated question with a lot of gray in it. I don’t even see why we can’t just stick to the effect ON THE COURT as opposed to anything else.

I say it absolutely weakened it.
I would say that if everyone was allowed to play, the last national champions list might look very different. Maybe not... Maybe the teams that win, still win because they would have access to those other players as well. But did it impact the level of talent and skill? I say it had to

 

[dukebluesTX]

As far as "are the titles won during that time a fair comparison" it's all relative. Would Babe Ruth even play pro baseball today? (To quote Steinbrenner in Seinfeld, "Babe Ruth was a fat old man with little girl legs") Would John Wooden have one so many titles if he had played a tournament with more games like we have now (more chances to lose)? Would the best team of the 1970's have a chance against Duke today? I don't think there is really an answer but I think you have to judge teams and players for that matter, based on the era they played in, regardless of who was allowed to play. Who knows....

 

[SwatX1]

As far as "are the titles won during that time a fair comparison" it's all relative. Would Babe Ruth even play pro baseball today? (To quote Steinbrenner in Seinfeld, "Babe Ruth was a fat old man with little girl legs") Would John Wooden have one so many titles if he had played a tournament with more games like we have now (more chances to lose)? Would the best team of the 1970's have a chance against Duke today? I don't think there is really an answer but I think you have to judge teams and players for that matter, based on the era they played in, regardless of who was allowed to play. Who knows....

Yeah, there's no way to know for sure, and comparisons of different era's are really difficult, but I gotta believe there were some guys sitting on benches who, if allowed to play, would have came in and dominated, but, maybe those guys were on the teams that won the titles anyway??

I liked your baseball analogy also. When i first read the original post, I thought what would it have been like if Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige had been on whatever MLB team that was the Yankees biggest threat??

 

[df64]

I think one of the most important aspects of this issue to keep in mind is that it is easy to be blind to the "big picture" when you are in the middle of the picture. Often, it is easier to judge the past than it is to evaluate the present. All of us are probably guilty of tolerating things we should not because we are used to those things being tolerated. It is our norm.

 

[Dattier]

Taking the aforementioned information into account, I’ve always wondered how schools who won NCAA championships prior to the 60’s, view those championships? Do they even think about it? Do you even think it matters? I’ve just always wondered how teams and organizations could consider themselves TRUE national champions when a significant group of people were not even allowed to participate and immediately after they were allowed, changed the game forever.

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think it's an important thing to include in our discussions and considerations when we look at the history of the game.

 

[Devilinside]

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think it's an important thing to include in our discussions and considerations when we look at the history of the game.

National champions back then were determined by the rules, written and unwritten, which were in effect back then, be they stupid, prejudiced, and bad rules. Those teams were the true national champions back them, even though they were not the best teams that could have been assembled back then. However, although it pains me to say so, I think Dat is absolutely right because the absence of inclusiveness back then surely stunted development of the game for awhile just as it has stunted, and is stunting, many other aspects of our society.

OFC

 

[BeerPoisoning]

The disgusting segregation crap pretty much left the south in the dark as far as competing for championships. Miss St / Loyola story mentioned above cracked the door for integration. Texas Western’s all black lineup beating Rupp’s all white UK team in ‘66 was the door completely opening. As the racial ignorance was ending, the wealthy Uncle Sam turns John Wooden into a legend for nearly a decade.....

Lew / Kareem is ready to commit to Michigan, Wooden... Or, Uncle Sam Gilbert flies Lew to LA. Picks him up in a Mercedes limo and the plot is unknown (SHADDDDYYYYY) Conclusion: Alcindor signs with UCLA. Suddenly every great talent is going to LA. John Wooden and UCLA were irrelevant before magically signing Lew Alcindor. Uncle Sam comes along and UCLA gets it all. Whatever kind of money and “miscellaneous” acts the KingPin (Sam Gilbert) had up his sleeve for the most talented basketball players in the country through the late 60s and early-mid 70s made UCLA untouchable to competition. They of course got away with it because the NCAA didn’t “police” or investigate anything until 1980 or ‘81.

I believe that the rest of the country finally caught on by the mid 70s and ripped a page out of the Sam Gilbert playbook and it was the dark times of college basketball until 1980 or ‘81 the NCAA finally began to play “police” and the madness ended.

In conclusion and to answer your questions... I think all of college basketball before 1980 should be eradicated. For decoration, there wasn’t even a 3PT line before then. Fans of schools with pre-1980 championships will scoff at the idea. They count all their championships, even if they couldn’t tell you a single player on that 1950s team.

Disclaimer: I grew up in a family that’s obsessed with college hoops, I’ve heard many stories. I’ve researched some things pertaining to UCLA’s success and also read a lot of random crap about basketball in my day. That being said - This is all my personal opinion on it. I’m not claiming to have insider information or anything fancy.

 

[kwyjibos13]

The disgusting segregation crap pretty much left the south in the dark as far as competing for championships. Miss St / Loyola story mentioned above cracked the door for integration. Texas Western’s all black lineup beating Rupp’s all white UK team in ‘66 was the door completely opening. As the racial ignorance was ending, the wealthy Uncle Sam turns John Wooden into a legend for nearly a decade.....

Lew / Kareem is ready to commit to Michigan, Wooden... Or, Uncle Sam Gilbert flies Lew to LA. Picks him up in a Mercedes limo and the plot is unknown (SHADDDDYYYYY) Conclusion: Alcindor signs with UCLA. Suddenly every great talent is going to LA. John Wooden and UCLA were irrelevant before magically signing Lew Alcindor. Uncle Sam comes along and UCLA gets it all. Whatever kind of money and “miscellaneous” acts the KingPin (Sam Gilbert) had up his sleeve for the most talented basketball players in the country through the late 60s and early-mid 70s made UCLA untouchable to competition. They of course got away with it because the NCAA didn’t “police” or investigate anything until 1980 or ‘81.

I believe that the rest of the country finally caught on by the mid 70s and ripped a page out of the Sam Gilbert playbook and it was the dark times of college basketball until 1980 or ‘81 the NCAA finally began to play “police” and the madness ended.

In conclusion and to answer your questions... I think all of college basketball before 1980 should be eradicated. For decoration, there wasn’t even a 3PT line before then. Fans of schools with pre-1980 championships will scoff at the idea. They count all their championships, even if they couldn’t tell you a single player on that 1950s team.

Disclaimer: I grew up in a family that’s obsessed with college hoops, I’ve heard many stories. I’ve researched some things pertaining to UCLA’s success and also read a lot of random crap about basketball in my day. That being said - This is all my personal opinion on it. I’m not claiming to have insider information or anything fancy.

There was policing, just turning people in. Robert Parish had all his NCAA records scrapped at Centenary in the 70s because the Gents admitted him with the ACT, which was a no-no at the time. Everybody did it, but all the schools turned Centenary in because a small school landed Parish. They essentially gave Centenary the death penalty. The funny thing, mere days after the draconian ruling, the NCAA changed the rules. Parish stats at least got reinstated to be recognized by the NCAA last year.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

There was policing, just turning people in. Robert Parish had all his NCAA records scrapped at Centenary in the 70s because the Gents admitted him with the ACT, which was a no-no at the time. Everybody did it, but all the schools turned Centenary in because a small school landed Parish. They essentially gave Centenary the death penalty. The funny thing, mere days after the draconian ruling, the NCAA changed the rules. Parish stats at least got reinstated to be recognized by the NCAA last year.

I always tease my family (IU fans) that the Hoosiers ‘76 perfect season wouldn’t of happened if the NCAA didn’t go postal on Centenary. Dude yeah, didn’t they change the test score conversion rule within like 4-5 days of confronting them? I remember reading a really old Sports Illustrated article from 1975 on the story, it’s posted on the internet somewhere. I reckon I shouldn’t say the NCAA didn’t police things, they did, it would just initially have to be brought to their attention... Tools and technology of today were vastly different decades ago. Sealed lips went a long way.

Like the old point shaving scandal from the 50’s. Rupp’s boys were getting paid to cover those spreads. I think one of them got offered $2,000 to dump a game. Doesn’t seem like much but in 1950 that would probably just about pay for a house. Kids were stuffing their pockets until that Manhattan kid tattled.... I guarantee it still continued happening, at least until Gilbert had the smarter idea of being a booster.

Crazy thing is, in 2060 they’ll look back on this era and be just as baffled as we are about the past.

 

[kwyjibos13]

I always tease my family (IU fans) that the Hoosiers ‘76 perfect season wouldn’t of happened if the NCAA didn’t go postal on Centenary. Dude yeah, didn’t they change the test score conversion rule within like 4-5 days of confronting them? I remember reading a really old Sports Illustrated article from 1975 on the story, it’s posted on the internet somewhere. I reckon I shouldn’t say the NCAA didn’t police things, they did, it would just initially have to be brought to their attention... Tools and technology of today were vastly different decades ago. Sealed lips went a long way.

Like the old point shaving scandal from the 50’s. Rupp’s boys were getting paid to cover those spreads. I think one of them got offered $2,000 to dump a game. Doesn’t seem like much but in 1950 that would probably just about pay for a house. Kids were stuffing their pockets until that Manhattan kid tattled.... I guarantee it still continued happening, at least until Gilbert had the smarter idea of being a booster.

Crazy thing is, in 2060 they’ll look back on this era and be just as baffled as we are about the past.

It was like days after. It was nuts.

Funny story, blocks wasn't a stat then (but schools can do whatever they want with record books, add blown assists if they want) . So our individual game record for blocks is 10 by Parish (at Houston, not surprised that was kept). But our team game record is 11. We had a kid "break" the blocks record. I promoted it, of course, but told him thank his lucky stars blocks really were not kept before the 80s...

 

[Dattier]

The disgusting segregation crap pretty much left the south in the dark as far as competing for championships. Miss St / Loyola story mentioned above cracked the door for integration. Texas Western’s all black lineup beating Rupp’s all white UK team in ‘66 was the door completely opening. As the racial ignorance was ending, the wealthy Uncle Sam turns John Wooden into a legend for nearly a decade.....

Lew / Kareem is ready to commit to Michigan, Wooden... Or, Uncle Sam Gilbert flies Lew to LA. Picks him up in a Mercedes limo and the plot is unknown (SHADDDDYYYYY) Conclusion: Alcindor signs with UCLA. Suddenly every great talent is going to LA. John Wooden and UCLA were irrelevant before magically signing Lew Alcindor. Uncle Sam comes along and UCLA gets it all. Whatever kind of money and “miscellaneous” acts the KingPin (Sam Gilbert) had up his sleeve for the most talented basketball players in the country through the late 60s and early-mid 70s made UCLA untouchable to competition. They of course got away with it because the NCAA didn’t “police” or investigate anything until 1980 or ‘81.

I believe that the rest of the country finally caught on by the mid 70s and ripped a page out of the Sam Gilbert playbook...

If Loyola cracked the door and Texas Western fully opened it, it sounds like UCLA ripped out an entire wall and put in hangar doors.

I know it's a cynical way of looking at it, but weighing the integration and the cheating, I call it a net gain. I'm willing to look the other way for that, like when Elliott Ness throws Frank Nitti off the roof in The Untouchables.

 

[Devilinside]

I am not sure that what happened at

If Loyola cracked the door and Texas Western fully opened it, it sounds like UCLA ripped out an entire wall and put in hangar doors.

I know it's a cynical way of looking at it, but weighing the integration and the cheating, I call it a net gain. I'm willing to look the other way for that, like when Elliott Ness throws Frank Nitti off the roof in The Untouchables.

I am not sure that what went on at UCLA had a net positive effect. It may have restrained the development of a large number of other programs who were not able to recruit on the same level because they did not cheat. Don't really know the answer, but it may be that in this case the end did not justify the means.

 

[Dattier]

I am not sure that what happened at

I am not sure that what went on at UCLA had a net positive effect. It may have restrained the development of a large number of other programs who were not able to recruit on the same level because they did not cheat. Don't really know the answer, but it may be that in this case the end did not justify the means.

Yeah, I was giving them credit for their contribution to integration... but that was likely going to happen on an almost identical timeline anyway if it hadn't been for them, and if they're really that responsibility for opening the door to corruption, you're right -- that would be a net loss.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Some of the best players weren’t allowed to play.

No shot clock.

Tournament consisted of 8 teams and games were played on the home court.

No 3 point line.

They’re still titles, but bragging about them is the equivalent of bragging about being the tallest midget.

Hope you aren't a Yankees fan. How many WS's wins before integration?

 

[BlackKnightNut]

Sam Gilbert definitely had a lot to do with UCLA's dominance, but to say they were irrelevant before Alcindor is not true. They went to a Final Four in 62 and won back to back titles in 64 and 65 before Alcindor got there. We should know, as they beat us in 64 to do it. And nobody at the time would have accused them of doing it with more talent, they didn't have a starter over six foot five lol.

 

[DukeRulesBasketball]

Cam is carrying us so far

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

Hope you aren't a Yankees fan. How many WS's wins before integration?

I’m not. Don’t care much for baseball anymore. I like going to games, but I’m not watching a game on TV unless it’s the World Series and even then I might not.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

Sam Gilbert definitely had a lot to do with UCLA's dominance, but to say they were irrelevant before Alcindor is not true. They went to a Final Four in 62 and won back to back titles in 64 and 65 before Alcindor got there. We should know, as they beat us in 64 to do it. And nobody at the time would have accused them of doing it with more talent, they didn't have a starter over six foot five lol.

I believe Sam Gilbert is behind the dominance. He’s noted as appearing at the UCLA games in the early 60s passing out apples to the players, as weird as it sounds. As far as sources or speculation to his shady ways there’s not any true note of it until Alcindor arrived on campus. I don’t know if he played a role in grabbing players for Wooden before Alcindor but given all the stuff he had done in the future seasons... I would find it hard to believe his hands were clean. I just find it really strange that Wooden does nothing in the 40s or 50s, but all the sudden blossoms in the 60s when the man with a fruit basket starts appearing.

I was born in ‘91 and saw my first game in ‘98. I have all the good stuff of the 90s on DVD, I’ve done my homework and then some for the 80s but... I’ll be real honest with ya - I can tell you the years Duke lost in title games before K’s era and I can list you the noteworthy players. Even throw a few statistics your way. But as far as thoroughly knowing Duke basketball before 1980, count me out. Couldn’t recall a damn thing about UCLA’s 1964 roster.