Mack to Louisville?

[Goose]

Piper

I fully understand how much things have changed since Al laughed at X. I have stated many times that I would be the happiest guy in MKE if MU's program resembled X's current program. I cannot stress enough how impressive their success has been, plus their ability to survive coaching changes.

All that said, I have been around for all 27 of those NCAA appearances have a different perspective on it. X was not in the national spotlight for many of the 80's and 90's NCAA appearances. They were playing in mid tier conference and many folks did not take the program seriously, including me. Over the past 15 years or so, they have been in the national spotlight and kudo's to them.

My point is that they either have the smartest admin and athletic department or some luck has been involved. Likely a combination of both. Of course I am biased, but if MU cannot sustain a top 25 program, I believe that X is one bad hire from a mighty fall. We have seen at MU how a bad hire can change the trajectory of a program and how hard it is to rebuild. Buzz Williams, by many fan's standard, was the most successful coach in the post Al era and one last season took MU down big time. To the point that many feel Wojo had a tougher road to navigate than KO.

So, if MU's second most successful coach can dismantle a program on the rise with a single season, a bad hire can take top 25 program back to the dark ages. The way I look at, X is not a great job for many guys. They have tough competition in their own city and recruit against the Big 10 and the BE. If I were an X fan, I would be fearing going back to the laughable Muskie's at this time.

Lastly, there is no one pulling harder for X to maintain than me. I want them to maintain for the BE, because every kid only knows X as being good and that is a positive. Furthermore, I want them to succeed because if they can be top 25 program year in and year out, there is zero excuse for MU not to achieve the same success.

[Norm]

We have seen at MU how a bad hire can change the trajectory of a program and how hard it is to rebuild. Buzz Williams, by many fan's standard, was the most successful coach in the post Al era and one last season took MU down big time. To the point that many feel Wojo had a tougher road to navigate than KO.

Anyone who says that never walked through the old Gym, watched the Dukiet years, or knew the roster that KO inherited. KO inherited Tony Smith for a year, but nowhere near the facilities, budget or Admin support that Wojo walked in to.

[Goose]

Norm

As you know, the debate has been beaten to death on here. While I am in complete agreement with you, those on the other side have equally strong conviction in that. IMO, it is an excuse mechanism to defend Wojo's four years at MU. But, that is my take on it.

[LAZER]

Piper

I fully understand how much things have changed since Al laughed at X. I have stated many times that I would be the happiest guy in MKE if MU's program resembled X's current program. I cannot stress enough how impressive their success has been, plus their ability to survive coaching changes.

All that said, I have been around for all 27 of those NCAA appearances have a different perspective on it. X was not in the national spotlight for many of the 80's and 90's NCAA appearances. They were playing in mid tier conference and many folks did not take the program seriously, including me. Over the past 15 years or so, they have been in the national spotlight and kudo's to them.

My point is that they either have the smartest admin and athletic department or some luck has been involved. Likely a combination of both. Of course I am biased, but if MU cannot sustain a top 25 program, I believe that X is one bad hire from a mighty fall. We have seen at MU how a bad hire can change the trajectory of a program and how hard it is to rebuild. Buzz Williams, by many fan's standard, was the most successful coach in the post Al era and one last season took MU down big time. To the point that many feel Wojo had a tougher road to navigate than KO.

So, if MU's second most successful coach can dismantle a program on the rise with a single season, a bad hire can take top 25 program back to the dark ages. The way I look at, X is not a great job for many guys. They have tough competition in their own city and recruit against the Big 10 and the BE. If I were an X fan, I would be fearing going back to the laughable Muskie's at this time.

Lastly, there is no one pulling harder for X to maintain than me. I want them to maintain for the BE, because every kid only knows X as being good and that is a positive. Furthermore, I want them to succeed because if they can be top 25 program year in and year out, there is zero excuse for MU not to achieve the same success.

Your concerns about Xavier are no different than almost every other program in the country.  On top of that, tons of solid programs rebound from stretches of bad years. Hell-look at Michigan and Villanova throughout the 90's and early 00's. It'll take more than one bad hire by X to unravel 20 years of sustained success as long as there is commitment to their program by the fans and admin.

[tower912]

One bad hire can cause a 5 year hiccup.    Then the question becomes whether the team can regain former stature. 

[Goose]

Lazer

Buzz unraveled MU in three months. Don't fool yourself. You are correct on other programs, but they usually are elite athletic programs.

[Goose]

Tower

Blue bloods can rebound from a five year hiccup. The X's, Marquette's of the world can see a five year hiccup last far longer.

[LAZER]

Lazer

Buzz unraveled MU in three months. Don't fool yourself. You are correct on other programs, but they usually are elite athletic programs.

You preach how quickly programs can turnaround. If there's a commitment to basketball, a committed fanbase, and a history/tradition of success, one bad hire won't be the demise of a program.

[LAZER]

Tower

Blue bloods can rebound from a five year hiccup. The X's, Marquette's of the world can see a five year hiccup last far longer.

This is why I don't get your concern about X.  With the exception of a handful of programs, most programs (even the good ones) are in the same position.

[GGGG]

It's much easier for a program to correct the mistakes of a bad hire in a conference like the Big East.  Look at Nova for example.  Steve Lappas left the program decidedly mediocre and Wright had them contending in a few years.  It takes multiple bad hires and poor support from the administration for the program to completely fall apart.  (Hello DePaul!!)

If you're stuck in a one bid conference, it can be a struggle however.

[Goose]

Lazer,

You are correct that I preach that programs can turnaround quickly. How is that accomplished? By having a coach that recruit stud basketball players. Hence, the importance of having stud players. If X had a five year hiccup, do you really think it would be easy for them to recruit studs to play there as it is today?

By most people's opinion, MU has a commitment to basketball, committed fanbase, history/tradition of success and have little on court success for last five years. What if next year looks a lot like this year? Than it is six years of limited (no success, IMO) success on the court. Some on here believe Wojo should get the axe if that happens. Then it is a new assistant coach taking over and everyone is giving him a five year pass. Before you know it, a decade has passed and no success.

[MU82]

Is Villanova a blueblood? Semi-blueblood? X-ish? Marquette-ish?

From 1997-2004 - spanning the last 4 years under Steve Lappas and the first 3 under Jay Wright, Nova was 123-100, had 1 season with a winning conference record and made 1 NCAA tourney appearance (losing in the first round).

In, say, 2002-03, there weren't many people saying, "Wow, what a program!" This despite the fact that it had been a pretty darn good program - and even an NCAA champion - under Massimino.

Starting in Wright's 4th season - 2004-05 - they began looking like the fine program they are today. But even so, there have been hiccups - most notably going 13-19 in 2011-12, which came in the middle of a 4-season stretch in which they couldn't make it past the first weekend of the NCAA tourney.

Was Lappas a "bad hire"? He led Nova to a 75-25 record with 3 NCAA bids in his 3rd, 4th and 5th seasons?

Was Wright a great hire? Didn't look like it 3 years in.

[Goose]

Lazer

My concern for X is simple, I do not believe the BE is strong enough top to bottom to have a top tier program go backwards. When new BE started I expected it to be a bust, and I was wrong. In watching the BE this year, I was not overly impressed and believe benefited from SOS due to playing Nova and X twice. The middle 4-6 teams were not very good and without SOS, it might have 4-5 team dancing this year. If X does not provide top tier value, than BE goes backwards. That is my concern. Other than that, X can implode for all I care.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Big Easts issue is lack of a true blue blood. Top to bottom I'd argue were one of the top two conferences. But we lack strength at the top. Nova had carried us since the league started. The middle is strong compared to other conferences,  the bottom is strong,  but the top is weak.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Big Easts issue is lack of a true blue blood. Top to bottom I'd argue were one of the top two conferences. But we lack strength at the top. Nova had carried us since the league started. The middle is strong compared to other conferences,  the bottom is strong,  but the top is weak.

I mean....traditionally?  Nova has got to be concerned a blue blood at this point, and the BE had 2 #1 seeds this year.  I think the fact that only 2 teams spent the majority of the year in the top 25 hurt recognition a bit, but several teams were just outside the top 25.

[Goose]

J5

The middle was ranked or close to being ranked due to SOS. The middle was 4-5 teams that were good, not great. I just think the BE needs a strong upper side of the conference every year. In addition, it helps if it is the same 3-4 teams.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Is Villanova a blueblood? Semi-blueblood? X-ish? Marquette-ish?

From 1997-2004 - spanning the last 4 years under Steve Lappas and the first 3 under Jay Wright, Nova was 123-100, had 1 season with a winning conference record and made 1 NCAA tourney appearance (losing in the first round).

In, say, 2002-03, there weren't many people saying, "Wow, what a program!" This despite the fact that it had been a pretty darn good program - and even an NCAA champion - under Massimino.

Starting in Wright's 4th season - 2004-05 - they began looking like the fine program they are today. But even so, there have been hiccups - most notably going 13-19 in 2011-12, which came in the middle of a 4-season stretch in which they couldn't make it past the first weekend of the NCAA tourney.

Was Lappas a "bad hire"? He led Nova to a 75-25 record with 3 NCAA bids in his 3rd, 4th and 5th seasons?

Was Wright a great hire? Didn't look like it 3 years in.

More and more, I've become convinced that a program outside of blue blood status pretty much needs to have a coach in place for 10+ years to really start having sustained high level success. At that point the brand is in place, the coach knows what he wants on the recruiting trail to fill gaps/roles, compund intrerest starts paying dividends. Need some interim successes before the 10-year mark to build on, but the real fun starts 10 years in. That's why I really want Wojo to be here past the K retirement. If that event is 5 years away, it'll be at the 9/10 year mark, just when it's about to get good. If he leaves the process has to start all over again.

[🏀]

Lazer,

You are correct that I preach that programs can turnaround quickly. How is that accomplished? By having a coach that recruit stud basketball players. Hence, the importance of having stud players. If X had a five year hiccup, do you really think it would be easy for them to recruit studs to play there as it is today?

By most people's opinion, MU has a commitment to basketball, committed fanbase, history/tradition of success and have little on court success for last five years. What if next year looks a lot like this year? Than it is six years of limited (no success, IMO) success on the court. Some on here believe Wojo should get the axe if that happens. Then it is a new assistant coach taking over and everyone is giving him a five year pass. Before you know it, a decade has passed and no success.

Goose

I don't think your concern needs to be specific for X. The Big East will continue to be cyclical, and likely will always be that way. The Big East needs Marquette, Georgetown, St. John's to build and replace X. X will be down for some time as they rebuild. If no one can step up, the conference will suffer.

[frozena pizza]

The most ambiguous term that gets thrown around constantly on this board is blue blood.  Who, exactly, are the blue bloods?  Maybe Duke, UNC, Kansas...UCLA?  No program in the country is clearly in a stronger position than Villanova right now.  The Big East's strength is not defined by "blue bloods" but rather the overall strength of the programs top to bottom.  Of the 10 schools, all of them have what they need to be successful and competitive with any other program, with the possible exception of DePaul which has systemic problems.

[Goose]

PTM

You are correct, to some degree. Only issue, no one has proven to have ability to step up. It does not need to be X, but I do not see the schools noted moving to X status anytime soon. Thus, a backwards BE upper tier school hurts the overall conference.

[GooooMarquette]

The most ambiguous term that gets thrown around constantly on this board is blue blood.  Who, exactly, are the blue bloods?  Maybe Duke, UNC, Kansas...UCLA?  No program in the country is clearly in a stronger position than Villanova right now.  The Big East's strength is not defined by "blue bloods" but rather the overall strength of the programs top to bottom.  Of the 10 schools, all of them have what they need to be successful and competitive with any other program, with the possible exception of DePaul which has systemic problems.

Totally agree with the underlined.

Regarding the term “blue blood,“ it’s kind of like “middle class.“  Everybody uses them, but there is no consensus about what they really mean....

[MuMark]

The most ambiguous term that gets thrown around constantly on this board is blue blood.  Who, exactly, are the blue bloods?  Maybe Duke, UNC, Kansas...UCLA?  No program in the country is clearly in a stronger position than Villanova right now.  The Big East's strength is not defined by "blue bloods" but rather the overall strength of the programs top to bottom.  Of the 10 schools, all of them have what they need to be successful and competitive with any other program, with the possible exception of DePaul which has systemic problems.

No brainer Blue bloods are UNC, Kentucky, Duke and Kansas.

Others with great history but probably a step below.....UCLA, Louisville, Michigan State and IU(yes IU is still considered a premier program even with less then stellar results for a long period of time).

Nova certainly would deserve to be in the conversation if they win another Championship.

Look at who gets the one and dones.......those are typically the blue bloods.....those that can reload every season no matter how many kids they lose to the NBA.

[frozena pizza]

PTM

You are correct, to some degree. Only issue, no one has proven to have ability to step up. It does not need to be X, but I do not see the schools noted moving to X status anytime soon. Thus, a backwards BE upper tier school hurts the overall conference.

10 years ago people would have laughed pretty hard if you had said that Georgetown has no ability to reach the status of Xavier anytime soon. 

[MU82]

The most ambiguous term that gets thrown around constantly on this board is blue blood.  Who, exactly, are the blue bloods?  Maybe Duke, UNC, Kansas...UCLA?  No program in the country is clearly in a stronger position than Villanova right now.  The Big East's strength is not defined by "blue bloods" but rather the overall strength of the programs top to bottom.

Totally agree with this.

Outside the obvious few - and UCLA ain't one of 'em, and neither is Indiana - Villanova is as bluebloody as anybody.

In the 14 seasons since Wright first made the NCAAs, Nova is 368-119 (an average record of 26-9), with 13 NCAA appearances, 1 NC, 2 other FF, 1 E8 and 2 S16.

Win it all again this season, that's 2 titles in 3 years - along with all the other goodies. Plus, it's a  classy, clean program (that we know of).

So I don't know what the "rules" are for bluebloodedness, but ...

If there is such a thing as the "blueblood ladder," Villanova is one rung lower than Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. And that's it. Period.

To me, it's impossible to reason that Indiana won 3 titles from 1976-87 and therefore that's a blueblood but Nova, Louisville and Michigan State aren't.

[frozena pizza]

No brainer Blue bloods are UNC, Kentucky, Duke and Kansas.

Others with great history but probably a step below.....UCLA, Louisville, Michigan State and IU(yes IU is still considered a premier program even with less then stellar results for a long period of time).

Nova certainly would deserve to be in the conversation if they win another Championship.

Look at who gets the one and dones.......those are typically the blue bloods.....those that can reload every season no matter how many kids they lose to the NBA.

Yes, I meant to include Kentucky.  UConn is as much of a blue blood as your second tier teams - 4 national titles in the last 20 years.