No one doubts everything changes, but I'm wondering from this group, what is an elite program.
From what I'm reading, and I don't disagree, Marquette is a good program but no longer elite. We were probably close before the Hillbilly left and may have been close until the Tanned One left and also may have been close when KO left. So who is? And what does it take for Marquette to be an elite team again.
My argument is coaching stability. We attract good coaches but they leave. Change that with the Hillbilly or perhaps even with KO and we could have been elite again.
So here is who I think the elite and good programs are today:
Elite: Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan State, Villanova, Louisville, Arizona
Near Elite: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Georgetown, Virginia, Florida (though not this year), Syracuse (though this soon may change too), UConn (would be elite if they were playing in a real conference)
Good: Marquette, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, LSU, Missouri, Texas, Iowa State (let them get past the second week of the tournament first), UCLA, Maryland, Kansas State
Average: About 60 to 80 programs.
We're candidly not even good this year. But with the amount of money we spend on our program, what's coming in and the chance to play in a new arena, we're good. We may be near elite within two years if Wojo pulls off what we think he can.
Any thoughts?
UConn winning 2 championships in the last five years puts them squarely in the elite category.
Iowa? LOL
You also missed Arizona...
Would drop Villanova to near elite. Drop Virginia and Georgetown to good. I don't like your grouping of good schools. Marquette is way above many of those schools in that category imo.
Quote from: AirPunches on March 08, 2015, 04:55:32 PM
Would drop Villanova to near elite. Drop Virginia and Georgetown to good. I don't like your grouping of good schools. Marquette is way above many of those schools in that category imo.
Many of those schools, particularly the Big 10 schools, play in strong conferences where their teams are tested most every night. I think Iowa is a good basketball school based on reputation but I also think they have not been nearly as good lately as their legacy. Same for LSU though they have a great class coming in too.
Blue Bloods
North Carolina
UCLA
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
Elite
Indiana
Syracuse
UConn
Arizona
Michigan State
Georgetown
Michigan
Near Elite
UNLV
Ohio State
Villanova
Marquette
Temple
Memphis
Marquette, historically has every right to be in the 2nd or 3rd line of the elite (referring to TAMU's list). Not a Kentucky type of program but the success and history is there.
Currently, no, we are nowhere near elite. (12-18) But this is a transition year.
The strange thing with MU is the program acts the part of elite. They embrace the history, play in a big gym, spend a crap ton of money, and are bringing in an elite recruiting class.
If Wojo is the real deal and stays here for a long time...I see no reason why Marquette cannot become elite.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 05:40:43 PM
Blue Bloods
North Carolina
UCLA
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
Elite
Indiana
Syracuse
UConn
Arizona
Michigan State
Georgetown
Michigan
Near Elite
UNLV
Ohio State
Villanova
Marquette
Temple
Memphis
No way Indiana is Elite, or Marquette Near Elite.
Quote from: willie warrior on March 08, 2015, 05:51:19 PM
No way Indiana is Elite, or Marquette Near Elite.
Or Memphis either. And Syracuse is falling fast... that load of bricks is the Syracuse program headed for irrelevancy
Michigan ehhhhhhh.
NO WAY UCLA is a blueblood. They are a faded glory at best
Generous rankings.
Where'd ya think the Badgers belong on these here lists?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 08, 2015, 06:02:26 PM
Where'd ya think the Badgers belong on these here lists?
Ivy league.
Where you been at dude? Family weddin' or chit? We all miss your wisdom, hey?
I'm taking the school's entire history into account. Not just the last decade. Using that standard, Marquette is absolutely a top 20 program in college basketball history
Tamu has it. How you put Nova in elite and Michigan in good I will never understand.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 08, 2015, 06:15:33 PM
Where you been at dude? Family weddin' or chit? We all miss your wisdom, hey?
hikin' Mt Everest.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 05:40:43 PM
Blue Bloods
North Carolina
UCLA
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
Elite
Indiana
Syracuse
UConn
Arizona
Michigan State
Georgetown
Michigan
Near Elite
UNLV
Ohio State
Villanova
Marquette
Temple
Memphis
I would put UW ahead of any team on the near elite list. They will probably win 30 games again this year, which will be the third time they have done that under Bo Ryan. MU has never won more than 28 games.
Quote from: bilsu on March 08, 2015, 06:35:20 PM
I would put UW ahead of any team on the near elite list. They will probably win 30 games again this year, which will be the third time they have done that under Bo Ryan. MU has never won more than 28 games.
I'd agree that UW needs to be on the list but that stat is irrelevant since less games were played during MU's best years
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 08, 2015, 04:53:14 PM
UConn winning 2 championships in the last five years puts them squarely in the elite category.
Strongly disagree. With the coaching change and conference change they need a few years to show they can stay at the previous elite status. Is the norm last year, or this year?
Others I disagree with. LSU. They have been bad for awhile. This year they are moderately good. Next year they have a great class coming in, but for now, they are just in the average category.
I thought this guy did a great job breaking it down.
http://fansided.com/2014/10/21/75-greatest-college-basketball-programs-time-statistically-ranked/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament_all-time_team_records
You can sort by games played, wins, or win percentage
Quote from: Bricky on March 08, 2015, 07:03:03 PM
I thought this guy did a great job breaking it down.
http://fansided.com/2014/10/21/75-greatest-college-basketball-programs-time-statistically-ranked/
No way. They have Miami (Ohio) ranked ahead of MU
Marquette has not been elite since Al roamed the sidelines. We fell fast and hard and had pretty much bottomed out just 10 years after Al left. We have had 2 good runs in the NCAA tournament in the past 38 years, where we have advanced past the Sweet 16. That is not elite or even near elite.
Marquette recruited zero McDonalds All-Americans from 1982-2014. Most elite teams bring some in most every year if not every other, and the near elite teams bring one or two in every 5-7 years.
Marquette does have a good commitment to basketball, and it usually has attendance that ranks in the top 25 throughout the nation, give or take a couple years like this one. It has great facilities, supports it student athletes in the classroom, and graduates its players a a fairly high level. Since finding its bearings again under Kevin O'Neill, and having some good-to-great years under Tom Crean and Buzz Williams, Marquette is a good program that occasionally can have a breakout year.
I love Marquette and follow every game. But I would have to say in reality Marquette is not close to being an elite or near elite program. We are a good program that has had two down years in a row after a nice eight year run. I hope we can catch lightening in a bottle again like the run in the 1970's under Al - let's see if Wojo can right this ship and lead us up the college basketball ranks.
So Billy Packer was right, hey?
Quote from: bilsu on March 08, 2015, 06:35:20 PM
I would put UW ahead of any team on the near elite list. They will probably win 30 games again this year, which will be the third time they have done that under Bo Ryan. MU has never won more than 28 games.
Again, I'm not looking at just the last decade. I'm looking at the last 50 years (did college bball even exist before then?). Bo Ryan has the Badgers humming in the right direction but before that they were hot garbage. It's the same reason I don't have Florida on my list.
Quote from: willie warrior on March 08, 2015, 05:51:19 PM
No way Indiana is Elite, or Marquette Near Elite.
From 1970-1999 Indiana was a top 10 basketball program. They've fallen hard in the last decade but that's why I put them in elite instead of Blue Blood. Many still consider them to have blue blood status.
If you look at the last 50 years of basketball, Marquette is a top 20 program. Did most of their heavy lifting come in the 1970s? Yes. But you've got to take that history into account. Most other schools that I have heard people throw out there are teams that have been good recently but have no history of success. You'll have hard time finding a team not on my list that has had more consistent success than Marquette.
Quote from: dgies9156 on March 08, 2015, 05:54:06 PM
Or Memphis either. And Syracuse is falling fast... that load of bricks is the Syracuse program headed for irrelevancy
Michigan ehhhhhhh.
NO WAY UCLA is a blueblood. They are a faded glory at best
Memphis was the last one to make my cut and I think they've been consistent enough to warrant conversation.
Syracuse has been elite for the past 30 years. A national championship, three final fours, no losing season since 1969, ranked in the top six for winning percentage and NCAA berths. These recent infractions may kill their program, but they are elite as of right now. Top 10 program all time, I'd argue.
Michigan has sucked in the last decade but were dominate in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Fab 5 makes the case for elite IMHO.
If UCLA isn't a blue blood, I don't know who is. There has never been a more dominate program in the history of college basketball. In the 60s and 70s UCLA was unbeatable. They have 11 national titles, more than any other school. They have 17 final fours. 20 consensus all-americans (more than any other school). In the last 10 years they have 9 tournament berths, 1 sweet 16, 2 final fours, and 1 national championship appearance. That doesn't seem like faded glory.
Quote from: Bricky on March 08, 2015, 07:03:03 PM
I thought this guy did a great job breaking it down.
http://fansided.com/2014/10/21/75-greatest-college-basketball-programs-time-statistically-ranked/
It's a nice try at it...but they award way too much to mid-major programs that have just been beating up on scrub programs for decades. A conference title in a bottom feeding conference shouldn't be used to measure greatness.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 08:03:32 PM
Memphis was the last one to make my cut and I think they've been consistent enough to warrant conversation.
Syracuse has been elite for the past 30 years. A national championship, three final fours, no losing season since 1969, ranked in the top six for winning percentage and NCAA berths. These recent infractions may kill their program, but they are elite as of right now. Top 10 program all time, I'd argue.
Michigan has sucked in the last decade but were dominate in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Fab 5 makes the case for elite IMHO.
If UCLA isn't a blue blood, I don't know who is. There has never been a more dominate program in the history of college basketball. In the 60s and 70s UCLA was unbeatable. They have 11 national titles, more than any other school. They have 17 final fours. 20 consensus all-americans (more than any other school). In the last 10 years they have 9 tournament berths, 1 sweet 16, 2 final fours, and 1 national championship appearance. That doesn't seem like faded glory.
Why isn't Cincinnati above Marquette? One fewer tournament win, but 2 national championships, a 3rd Final Four, and over 100 more wins overall. Also sitting on a 4 year tourney streak and projected to be in this year for a 5th.
Quote from: Norm on March 08, 2015, 07:20:07 PM
Marquette has not been elite since Al roamed the sidelines. We fell fast and hard and had pretty much bottomed out just 10 years after Al left. We have had 2 good runs in the NCAA tournament in the past 38 years, where we have advanced past the Sweet 16. That is not elite or even near elite.
Marquette recruited zero McDonalds All-Americans from 1982-2014. Most elite teams bring some in most every year if not every other, and the near elite teams bring one or two in every 5-7 years.
Marquette does have a good commitment to basketball, and it usually has attendance that ranks in the top 25 throughout the nation, give or take a couple years like this one. It has great facilities, supports it student athletes in the classroom, and graduates its players a a fairly high level. Since finding its bearings again under Kevin O'Neill, and having some good-to-great years under Tom Crean and Buzz Williams, Marquette is a good program that occasionally can have a breakout year.
I love Marquette and follow every game. But I would have to say in reality Marquette is not close to being an elite or near elite program. We are a good program that has had two down years in a row after a nice eight year run. I hope we can catch lightening in a bottle again like the run in the 1970's under Al - let's see if Wojo can right this ship and lead us up the college basketball ranks.
This is spot on Norm. When looking without the blue and gold goggles on, this is a very fair assessment.
Quote from: Norm on March 08, 2015, 07:20:07 PM
Marquette has not been elite since Al roamed the sidelines. We fell fast and hard and had pretty much bottomed out just 10 years after Al left. We have had 2 good runs in the NCAA tournament in the past 38 years, where we have advanced past the Sweet 16. That is not elite or even near elite.
Marquette recruited zero McDonalds All-Americans from 1982-2014. Most elite teams bring some in most every year if not every other, and the near elite teams bring one or two in every 5-7 years.
Marquette does have a good commitment to basketball, and it usually has attendance that ranks in the top 25 throughout the nation, give or take a couple years like this one. It has great facilities, supports it student athletes in the classroom, and graduates its players a a fairly high level. Since finding its bearings again under Kevin O'Neill, and having some good-to-great years under Tom Crean and Buzz Williams, Marquette is a good program that occasionally can have a breakout year.
I love Marquette and follow every game. But I would have to say in reality Marquette is not close to being an elite or near elite program. We are a good program that has had two down years in a row after a nice eight year run. I hope we can catch lightening in a bottle again like the run in the 1970's under Al - let's see if Wojo can right this ship and lead us up the college basketball ranks.
Agreed with this assessment. After 2012-2013, MU was playing at a near elite level, and this program by all means can return to that - but until it happens for 25/30 seasons, you're not elite.
I wasn't an MU fan before I started school in 2008, but the program was pretty bad for decently long stretches over the past 30 years. Hopefully Wojo can make this year the last in the new streak, and get us back to the tourney and winning Big East basketball next season.
To me it only matters what a recruit sees. They are 17/18 years old when they are being recruited and their fathers are probably under 45. So from a recruit's stand point they might have been watching college basketball the last 10 years and maybe their father has been watching the last 30 years. Prior to that nothing really matters.
I haven't been here near as long as a lot if you, but this feels like the 10th time we've done this. :)
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 05:40:43 PM
Blue Bloods
North Carolina
UCLA
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
Elite
Indiana
Syracuse
UConn
Arizona
Michigan State
Georgetown
Michigan
Near Elite
UNLV
Ohio State
Villanova
Marquette
Temple
Memphis
Where the hell is Wisconsin??
Quote from: keefe on March 08, 2015, 09:27:43 PM
Where the hell is Wisconsin??
90 miles west of Near Elite.
Nova is not on that level.
Quote from: Eldon on March 08, 2015, 07:06:27 PM
No way. They have Miami (Ohio) ranked ahead of MU
Must have seen that NCAA tournament game in 1978.
Quote from: breadtree on March 08, 2015, 08:18:45 PM
Why isn't Cincinnati above Marquette? One fewer tournament win, but 2 national championships, a 3rd Final Four, and over 100 more wins overall. Also sitting on a 4 year tourney streak and projected to be in this year for a 5th.
I looked at the last 50 years. Both of Cincy's championships were over 50 years ago. The 80s were also brutal for the Bearcats.
Quote from: keefe on March 08, 2015, 09:27:43 PM
Where the hell is Wisconsin??
Nowhere near this list, where they belong. Teams that miss the tournament for 47 straight seasons don't get to call themselves above average, let alone elite.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 05:40:43 PM
Blue Bloods
North Carolina
UCLA
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
Elite
Indiana
Syracuse
UConn
Arizona
Michigan State
Georgetown
Michigan
Near Elite
UNLV
Ohio State
Villanova
Marquette
Temple
Memphis
Sorry, but there is no way MU can be on this list and not UW. As much as it pains me to say it.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 08, 2015, 11:16:23 PM
Sorry, but there is no way MU can be on this list and not UW. As much as it pains me to say it.
Believe the list was over the course of 50 years. Not weighing one year (more recent ones) more heavily than the others. If the list was the last 15 years, then the Badgers would be ahead of MU probably. Although, in the last 12 years MU has a final four, 2 sweet 16s, and an elite eight to go with a conference usa championship and a big east championship. These last two years have been rough, but it's not like MU has been irrevelent.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 08, 2015, 11:16:23 PM
Sorry, but there is no way MU can be on this list and not UW. As much as it pains me to say it.
Does it pain you? You bring up the Badgers every chance you get.
The Badgers missed the tournament from 1947 to 1994. They can't be considered elite. Not yet at least. The Badgers aren't even in the top 50 college programs.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 09, 2015, 12:21:09 AM
Does it pain you? You bring up the Badgers every chance you get.
The Badgers missed the tournament from 1947 to 1994. They can't be considered elite. Not yet at least. The Badgers aren't even in the top 50 college programs.
I wouldn't go that far. They've been to 2 Final Fours (3 if you count the peach basket in 1941), even at 2, that puts then behind only about 30 teams and the other schools with 2, they are ahead of a number of them, including Lasalle, Depaul, Oregon St, Witchita St, and Bradley. I don't like Wisconsin in any way, but they are in the top 50.
Some television ratings which show how the elite schools rank and where the Big East schools are at.
College Basketball
Saturday
0.91 rating CBS 12:00 pm Georgetown at St John's
1.31 rating CBS 2:00 pm #15-North Carolina at Miami
1.96 rating CBS 4:00 pm #18-Arkansas at #1-Kentucky
0.46 rating FOX 2:00 pm #6-Villanova at Xavier
0.86 rating ESPN 12:00 pm Michigan at #14-Maryland
0.74 rating ESPN 2:00 pm #10-Northern Iowa at #11-Wichita State
1.01 rating ESPN 5:00 pm Texas at #8-Kansas
1.40 rating ESPN 7:00 pm Syracuse at #4-Duke
0.84 rating ESPN 9:00 pm #7-Arizona at #13-Utah
Sunday
0.86 rating CBS 2:00 pm #21-SMU at Connecticut
1.24 rating CBS 4:00 pm Michigan State at #5-Wisconsin
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 06:21:33 PM
I'm taking the school's entire history into account. Not just the last decade. Using that standard, Marquette is absolutely a top 20 program in college basketball history
This was done in 2012, and i'm sure was discussed ad nauseam at the time, but i don't think there would be much change for us adding and E8 and 2 yrs of suckitude. I don't have time to adjust the scoring to reflect the past 2 years but I'm sure Princeton, Penn and Temple wouldn't hold their spots and UW is undervalued but it's still a pretty good measuring stick. I personally would like to see recent (last 15 years) weighted heavier than 40 years ago but not so much that I'm going to spend the time developing that view.
I think you'd have a tough time arguing a higher ranking than #17 and an equally tough time arguing a lower rank if you look at the total body of work of a program. Elite? Not sure but that's a darn good number and there are plenty of "good" programs that don't come close to it.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series)
Here's my take:
Blue Bloods
These programs are great year-in and year-out with a chance to go to the Final Four every year. They are long-lasting programs that can survive coaching changes, player turnover, and still land McDonald's All-Americans regularly. These are also the "sex-appeal" type programs that kids dream about from the time they are young and are still good when they are making their college decisions. They also must be basketball schools ahead of being football schools -- to be a blue blood, fans MUST think of you as a basketball school when your name is mentioned.
Kentucky
Duke
North Carolina
Kansas
Near-Elite
Programs that are either at the top now or close to it, but have either fallen off for periods or just not sustained success long enough to be in that next tier.
Louisville
UCLA
Florida
Michigan State
Arizona
UConn
Georgetown
Syracuse
Quality Programs
Top-25 programs, but something missing from being a truly top program. Some are fatally flawed and can never reach that top tier, some may be closer to blue blood than than the teams in the near-elite tier.
Marquette
Ohio State
Villanova
Maryland
Virginia
Michigan
Wisconsin
UNLV
Cincinnati
Texas
Memphis
Indiana
Best of the Rest
These teams are regularly flirting with being top-25 programs, but for whatever reason cannot maintain. Pretty much the "also considered" list.
Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Temple
Purdue
Illinois
Georgia Tech
NC State
St. John's
Xavier
LSU
Kansas State
Some of the schools simply can't reach that top tier. Schools like Michigan State and Florida are always going to be viewed as football-first. UCLA and Louisville are close to the top tier, but I feel Louisville needs to sustain this success beyond Pitino while UCLA has to get back to where they were 5 years ago. In the third tier, I think it's more likely that schools like Marquette, Villanova, Maryland, or Memphis could become blue-bloods than some of the schools ahead of them (like MSU & Florida). Those are basketball-first schools, but the first two would to have sustained success (regular conference titles, trips to the second and third weekend) while also recruiting an average of 1+ McDAA per year, while the latter two would have to have the kind of on-court success to match recruiting success.
As far as the "where's Wisconsin" question, they likely will never be a blue blood without some radical shifts. It's not possible under Bo. He just doesn't play an appealing enough style that make them must-watch and attracts elite recruits. Also, they would need their basketball program be more emblematic of the school in fans eyes than their football program. I don't see this state ever allowing that to happen.
Honestly, it's more likely DePaul would become a blue-blood than Wisconsin simply because they can at least put basketball first. And no, that's not to say DPU will ever be a blue blood, but consider Florida. No matter how much wild success Billy Donovan has, they aren't usually considered a blue blood. Two titles, five Final Fours since 1994, and they regularly get top recruits. But they're a football school, even when the basketball program is better. That's a defining line that will forever keep Wisconsin from that level of recognition.
Wisconsin is like Gonzaga. They may win a ton year-in and year-out, they may go dancing every year, but that's not enough to be be elite. If the Zags started attracting elite recruits, though, they'd have a better shot at becoming a blue blood than Bucky, and I didn't even put the Zags on the list (WCC just sucks too much).
Quote from: Bricky on March 08, 2015, 07:03:03 PM
I thought this guy did a great job breaking it down.
http://fansided.com/2014/10/21/75-greatest-college-basketball-programs-time-statistically-ranked/
Agree. Elite, Blue Bloods are just terms that come and go over time. We are in pretty good company.
Brew -- best analysis I have read yet. Only argument is that one or more of these schools can change status with prolonged excellence. We're not there yet but if Wojo lives up to his press clippings, we will see.
Quote from: jakeec on March 09, 2015, 02:26:42 AM
Some television ratings which show how the elite schools rank and where the Big East schools are at.
College Basketball
Saturday
0.91 rating CBS 12:00 pm Georgetown at St John's
1.31 rating CBS 2:00 pm #15-North Carolina at Miami
1.96 rating CBS 4:00 pm #18-Arkansas at #1-Kentucky
0.46 rating FOX 2:00 pm #6-Villanova at Xavier
0.86 rating ESPN 12:00 pm Michigan at #14-Maryland
0.74 rating ESPN 2:00 pm #10-Northern Iowa at #11-Wichita State
1.01 rating ESPN 5:00 pm Texas at #8-Kansas
1.40 rating ESPN 7:00 pm Syracuse at #4-Duke
0.84 rating ESPN 9:00 pm #7-Arizona at #13-Utah
Sunday
0.86 rating CBS 2:00 pm #21-SMU at Connecticut
1.24 rating CBS 4:00 pm Michigan State at #5-Wisconsin
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that may be...this doesn't mean anything.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 11:09:23 PM
Nowhere near this list, where they belong. Teams that miss the tournament for 47 straight seasons don't get to call themselves above average, let alone elite.
Apparently 'the last 50 seasons' applies only to Cincinnati and not Wisconsin.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 09, 2015, 09:47:56 AM
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that may be...this doesn't mean anything.
Agreed. Honestly, when determining who elite programs are, it's probably more important to look at ratings in November and December than in March. By this time of year, everyone knows who the good teams are. Early in the season, people are going to watch Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas regardless of how good they may end up being. It's how much attention you get when it's not your year, when you aren't a title favorite, that determines whether you are a blue blood or not.
Is anyone going to bother watching Wisconsin next November when Kaminsky, Jackson, Gasser, and possibly Dekker are gone? Seems doubtful, which again speaks to how Wisconsin isn't close to being a blue blood.
@ Forgetful/Brew
Considering that both Kentucky and North Carolina have both missed the NCAAT recently, there is no reason at this point to suggest the 17-13 season that UConn is putting together as anything more than a down year.
They've cut the nets down four times since 1999. That's at least two more titles than Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Louisville and Michigan St. during that same span.
How they're not an elite program is beyond me.
I'd also be willing to go out on a limb and bet they're not playing in the AAC five years from now. Ollie's had two top 20 classes back to back in his first two opportunities. I think they'll be just fine.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 10:06:48 AMI'd also be willing to go out on a limb and bet they're not playing in the AAC five years from now. Ollie's had two top 20 classes back to back in his first two opportunities. I think they'll be just fine.
I think they'll be fine, but right now, the American is an anchor on them. Not a ton of national publicity and that league becomes very forgettable come January 1. They tick every other box for me, but not being in a major conference hurts, and the simple truth is that conference isn't very good. Half their conference schedule is played against teams that would be marginal buy games in November and December.
Also, they need to sustain success under Ollie. The cloud of that NCAA suspension from Calhoun coupled with likely not going to the tournament two of the first three years under Ollie has them taking a step back. They have been one of the best programs of the past 30 years. If Ollie can make 8 of the next 10 tournaments and get to the second or third weekend in half of those, they'll be back. Especially if they do it in another league, but I don't see the ACC, Big 10, or Big 12 calling any time soon, and the Big East likely won't take them unless they downgrade football (not happening).
More likely what they need is for the other programs in the league to become competitive. If 2-3 of Tulane, ECU, USF, Houston, and UCF can become perennial top-100 teams that make the NCAA or NIT about half the time, the American will be fine. If not it will be a hard sell to convince people that UConn is much more than a school like Gonzaga, beating up on a weak conference.
Quote from: naginiF on March 09, 2015, 05:56:08 AM
This was done in 2012, and i'm sure was discussed ad nauseam at the time, but i don't think there would be much change for us adding and E8 and 2 yrs of suckitude. I don't have time to adjust the scoring to reflect the past 2 years but I'm sure Princeton, Penn and Temple wouldn't hold their spots and UW is undervalued but it's still a pretty good measuring stick. I personally would like to see recent (last 15 years) weighted heavier than 40 years ago but not so much that I'm going to spend the time developing that view.
I think you'd have a tough time arguing a higher ranking than #17 and an equally tough time arguing a lower rank if you look at the total body of work of a program. Elite? Not sure but that's a darn good number and there are plenty of "good" programs that don't come close to it.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series)
Last year I reran the math and we passed villanova but with us being so down this year we likely fall back to 17
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 08:03:32 PM
Memphis was the last one to make my cut and I think they've been consistent enough to warrant conversation.
You must not be factoring in the proud tradition of cheating at Memphis State. Dana Kirk, Larry Finch, and Coach Cal were all hammered by authorities ranging from the NCAA to Federal prosecutors for an incredible variety of shenanigans. One of the most toxic programs in the tawdry history of college hoops. And that is saying a lot.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 09, 2015, 10:16:45 AM
I think they'll be fine, but right now, the American is an anchor on them. Not a ton of national publicity and that league becomes very forgettable come January 1. They tick every other box for me, but not being in a major conference hurts, and the simple truth is that conference isn't very good. Half their conference schedule is played against teams that would be marginal buy games in November and December.
Also, they need to sustain success under Ollie. The cloud of that NCAA suspension from Calhoun coupled with likely not going to the tournament two of the first three years under Ollie has them taking a step back. They have been one of the best programs of the past 30 years. If Ollie can make 8 of the next 10 tournaments and get to the second or third weekend in half of those, they'll be back. Especially if they do it in another league, but I don't see the ACC, Big 10, or Big 12 calling any time soon, and the Big East likely won't take them unless they downgrade football (not happening).
More likely what they need is for the other programs in the league to become competitive. If 2-3 of Tulane, ECU, USF, Houston, and UCF can become perennial top-100 teams that make the NCAA or NIT about half the time, the American will be fine. If not it will be a hard sell to convince people that UConn is much more than a school like Gonzaga, beating up on a weak conference.
Gonzaga has been good enough the last decade to be top half of the old BE and top 1-3 in the new BE almost every year.
Their conference hurts them come tournament time. Playing in a better conference may mean a couple of more losses on the schedule but the benefit of seeing quality opponents in January and February would be worth it.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 08, 2015, 11:09:23 PM
Nowhere near this list, where they belong. Teams that miss the tournament for 47 straight seasons don't get to call themselves above average, let alone elite.
Keep kidding yourself and living in the distant past. UW has made the tourney for the past 16 years. They've been to two Final Fours...and are likely going to a third. Let that sink in for a moment. Meanwhile, MU hasn't sniffed the tourney for the past two years...and it may be another two before they're back.
But hey, keep thinking it's still 1977. ::)
One of the highest attendances in the country, 11th all time for ncaa appearances, national championship, tied for 11th for final four appearances, sustained success over various coaches and various levels of competition.
I'd say we're second tier and given the amount of ncaa appearances we've underperformed with plenty of opportunities to actually be elite. As much love as I have for Al that turning down the NCAA tournament could've been a great year and very helpful for making an elite case.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 09, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
Keep kidding yourself and living in the distant past. UW has made the tourney for the past 16 years. They've been to two Final Fours...and are likely going to a third. Let that sink in for a moment. Meanwhile, MU hasn't sniffed the tourney for the past two years...and it may be another two before they're back.
But hey, keep thinking it's still 1977. ::)
No one is "likely" going to a Final Four any year. That's an absurd premise and is not supported by previous evidence.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 09, 2015, 11:38:46 AM
Keep kidding yourself and living in the distant past. UW has made the tourney for the past 16 years. They've been to two Final Fours...and are likely going to a third. Let that sink in for a moment. Meanwhile, MU hasn't sniffed the tourney for the past two years...and it may be another two before they're back.
But hey, keep thinking it's still 1977. ::)
Is arkansas an elite program to you? They certainly were in the 90s. But they're pretty terrible beyond that. Yes Wisconsin is one of the best in the country at this point. Does not make them elite all time. 20 ncaa appearances with 4 nits is pathetic when trying to say theyre all time elite.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 09, 2015, 09:03:54 AM
Here's my take:
Blue Bloods
These programs are great year-in and year-out with a chance to go to the Final Four every year. They are long-lasting programs that can survive coaching changes, player turnover, and still land McDonald's All-Americans regularly. These are also the "sex-appeal" type programs that kids dream about from the time they are young and are still good when they are making their college decisions. They also must be basketball schools ahead of being football schools -- to be a blue blood, fans MUST think of you as a basketball school when your name is mentioned.
Kentucky
Duke
North Carolina
Kansas
Near-Elite
Programs that are either at the top now or close to it, but have either fallen off for periods or just not sustained success long enough to be in that next tier.
Louisville
UCLA
Florida
Michigan State
Arizona
UConn
Georgetown
Syracuse
Quality Programs
Top-25 programs, but something missing from being a truly top program. Some are fatally flawed and can never reach that top tier, some may be closer to blue blood than than the teams in the near-elite tier.
Marquette
Ohio State
Villanova
Maryland
Virginia
Michigan
Wisconsin
UNLV
Cincinnati
Texas
Memphis
Indiana
Best of the Rest
These teams are regularly flirting with being top-25 programs, but for whatever reason cannot maintain. Pretty much the "also considered" list.
Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Temple
Purdue
Illinois
Georgia Tech
NC State
St. John's
Xavier
LSU
Kansas State
Some of the schools simply can't reach that top tier. Schools like Michigan State and Florida are always going to be viewed as football-first. UCLA and Louisville are close to the top tier, but I feel Louisville needs to sustain this success beyond Pitino while UCLA has to get back to where they were 5 years ago. In the third tier, I think it's more likely that schools like Marquette, Villanova, Maryland, or Memphis could become blue-bloods than some of the schools ahead of them (like MSU & Florida). Those are basketball-first schools, but the first two would to have sustained success (regular conference titles, trips to the second and third weekend) while also recruiting an average of 1+ McDAA per year, while the latter two would have to have the kind of on-court success to match recruiting success.
As far as the "where's Wisconsin" question, they likely will never be a blue blood without some radical shifts. It's not possible under Bo. He just doesn't play an appealing enough style that make them must-watch and attracts elite recruits. Also, they would need their basketball program be more emblematic of the school in fans eyes than their football program. I don't see this state ever allowing that to happen.
Honestly, it's more likely DePaul would become a blue-blood than Wisconsin simply because they can at least put basketball first. And no, that's not to say DPU will ever be a blue blood, but consider Florida. No matter how much wild success Billy Donovan has, they aren't usually considered a blue blood. Two titles, five Final Fours since 1994, and they regularly get top recruits. But they're a football school, even when the basketball program is better. That's a defining line that will forever keep Wisconsin from that level of recognition.
Nicely done, brew.
One can quibble with a choice here or there -- for example, I would say Gonzaga should be on the list because they have become kind of a national brand now, as well as winners year-in and year-out -- but this is a good, comprehensive thesis.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 11:26:11 AM
Gonzaga has been good enough the last decade to be top half of the old BE and top 1-3 in the new BE almost every year.
Their conference hurts them come tournament time. Playing in a better conference may mean a couple of more losses on the schedule but the benefit of seeing quality opponents in January and February would be worth it.
No. Just no.
They are the most overrated program in the history of NCAA basketball, in my opinion.
As far as the discussion goes, I could not care less about whether a school is a football school or not. Michigan State is a blue blood program, no doubt about it. Florida may be as well.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on March 09, 2015, 11:56:43 AM
Is arkansas an elite program to you? They certainly were in the 90s. But they're pretty terrible beyond that. Yes Wisconsin is one of the best in the country at this point. Does not make them elite all time. 20 ncaa appearances with 4 nits is pathetic when trying to say theyre all time elite.
I'm looking at the past 20 years. Earlier than that, no one cares. You think recruits give a damn about what happened 40 years ago? Get real. They look at UW and see a team that plays in a Power 5 conference...never misses the tourney...has gone to two Final Fours (with a third on the way)...and plays in a new arena in front of sellout crowds every night. If they're not elite, they're pretty damn close. Certainly closer than MU.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 09, 2015, 12:32:01 PM
I'm looking at the past 20 years. Earlier than that, no one cares. You think recruits give a damn about what happened 40 years ago? Get real. They look at UW and see a team that plays in a Power 5 conference...never misses the tourney...has gone to two Final Fours (with a third on the way)...and plays in a new arena in front of sellout crowds every night. If they're not elite, they're pretty damn close. Certainly closer than MU.
Recruiting factors in. To really be elite, you need to attract kids from across the country. That speaks to how powerful your brand is. Do the top players from other states want to go there? If the answer is no (and it usually is for UW) then you aren't elite.
Also...I wouldn't punch that Final Four ticket just yet. Unless you think they will make it to and beat Kentucky in the Elite Eight.
Does UW-Madison really play in front of a sellout every night? In their non-conference schedule when the football team is playing they can barely get students there. Went to the MU/UW-Madison game back in the seniors freshman year when the football team was playing in the BIG championship game in Indianapolis later that day. Student section was far from full and just days before the game we got great seats. It's a football school, basketball is always secondary there.
Quote from: WarriorPA on March 09, 2015, 01:03:05 PM
Does UW-Madison really play in front of a sellout every night? In their non-conference schedule when the football team is playing they can barely get students there. Went to the MU/UW-Madison game back in the seniors freshman year when the football team was playing in the BIG championship game in Indianapolis later that day. Student section was far from full and just days before the game we got great seats. It's a football school, basketball is always secondary there.
As opposed to the BC, where it's standing room only every time MU takes the court, right? I hate defending the Vadgers, but this nonsense that MU is somehow superior to UW right now is silly.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 09, 2015, 01:08:53 PM
As opposed to the BC, where it's standing room only every time MU takes the court, right? I hate defending the Vadgers, but this nonsense that MU is somehow superior to UW right now is silly.
I didn't say anything about comparing MU/UW-Madison attendance. Just making a point that they likely are not selling out every game and their basketball program is second fiddle to the football program, that is not the case at the 'Elite' schools. I bet nearly every UW-Madison fan would agree with that.
Quote from: WarriorPA on March 09, 2015, 01:11:22 PM
I didn't say anything about comparing MU/UW-Madison attendance. Just making a point that they likely are not selling out every game and their basketball program is second fiddle to the football program, that is not the case at the 'Elite' schools. I bet nearly every UW-Madison fan would agree with that.
Perhaps, but there's also not a single UW fan who would trade hoops programs with MU these days.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 09, 2015, 12:21:19 PM
No. Just no.
They are the most overrated program in the history of NCAA basketball, in my opinion.
2015: wins over St. John's, UCLA, Memphis and an OT loss to Arizona
2014: weaker schedule but still some decent victories with Arizona ending their NCAAT
2013: wins over WV, Oklahoma, Davidson, Kansas St, Baylor, Ok St. Losses to Illinois and Butler
2012: wins over Arizona, Notre Dame, Butler, Xavier and WV (NCAAT) losing to OSU in the NCAAT (Sullinger's team)
2011: wins over Marquette, Xavier, Baylor, Ok St, St John's (NCAAT) losing to BYU in the NCAAT (Jimmer's team)
2010: wins over Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Florida St (NCAAT) - losses to Duke, Michigan St and Syracuse (NCAAT)
2009: wins over Ok St, Maryland, Tennessee, Indiana - losses to UConn, Arizona and North Carolina in the NCAAT (they were national champs)
2008: down year with wins over UConn and Utah.
2007: wins over North Carolina, Texas, Washington and Baylor. Losses to Butler, Duke, Virginia and Indiana (NCAAT)
2006: wins over Maryland, Michigan St, Ok St, Virginia, Xavier (NCAAT), Indiana (NCAAT). Losses to UConn, Washington, Memphis, UCLA (NCAAT who lost in the final)
That's the last ten seasons. Most teams would kill to have wins outside of conference that Gonzaga has. You could say that they've underperformed in the tournament, but when those losses include North Carolina (national champs), UCLA (runner up), Ohio St (POY candidate Sullinger), BYU (POY candidate Jimmer), and a Davidson team where Steph Curry introduced himself to the national media I'd say it's more of a bad draw.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 01:39:32 PM
2015: wins over St. John's, UCLA, Memphis and an OT loss to Arizona
2014: weaker schedule but still some decent victories with Arizona ending their NCAAT
2013: wins over WV, Oklahoma, Davidson, Kansas St, Baylor, Ok St. Losses to Illinois and Butler
2012: wins over Arizona, Notre Dame, Butler, Xavier and WV (NCAAT) losing to OSU in the NCAAT (Sullinger's team)
2011: wins over Marquette, Xavier, Baylor, Ok St, St John's (NCAAT) losing to BYU in the NCAAT (Jimmer's team)
2010: wins over Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Florida St (NCAAT) - losses to Duke, Michigan St and Syracuse (NCAAT)
2009: wins over Ok St, Maryland, Tennessee, Indiana - losses to UConn, Arizona and North Carolina in the NCAAT (they were national champs)
2008: down year with wins over UConn and Utah.
2007: wins over North Carolina, Texas, Washington and Baylor. Losses to Butler, Duke, Virginia and Indiana (NCAAT)
2006: wins over Maryland, Michigan St, Ok St, Virginia, Xavier (NCAAT), Indiana (NCAAT). Losses to UConn, Washington, Memphis, UCLA (NCAAT who lost in the final)
That's the last ten seasons. Most teams would kill to have wins outside of conference that Gonzaga has. You could say that they've underperformed in the tournament, but when those losses include North Carolina (national champs), UCLA (runner up), Ohio St (POY candidate Sullinger), BYU (POY candidate Jimmer), and a Davidson team where Steph Curry introduced himself to the national media I'd say it's more of a bad draw.
Agree with this. If anything, I think Gonzaga is underrated by most fans because they aren't in a power conference.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 01:39:32 PM
2015: wins over St. John's, UCLA, Memphis and an OT loss to Arizona
2014: weaker schedule but still some decent victories with Arizona ending their NCAAT
2013: wins over WV, Oklahoma, Davidson, Kansas St, Baylor, Ok St. Losses to Illinois and Butler
2012: wins over Arizona, Notre Dame, Butler, Xavier and WV (NCAAT) losing to OSU in the NCAAT (Sullinger's team)
2011: wins over Marquette, Xavier, Baylor, Ok St, St John's (NCAAT) losing to BYU in the NCAAT (Jimmer's team)
2010: wins over Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Florida St (NCAAT) - losses to Duke, Michigan St and Syracuse (NCAAT)
2009: wins over Ok St, Maryland, Tennessee, Indiana - losses to UConn, Arizona and North Carolina in the NCAAT (they were national champs)
2008: down year with wins over UConn and Utah.
2007: wins over North Carolina, Texas, Washington and Baylor. Losses to Butler, Duke, Virginia and Indiana (NCAAT)
2006: wins over Maryland, Michigan St, Ok St, Virginia, Xavier (NCAAT), Indiana (NCAAT). Losses to UConn, Washington, Memphis, UCLA (NCAAT who lost in the final)
That's the last ten seasons. Most teams would kill to have wins outside of conference that Gonzaga has. You could say that they've underperformed in the tournament, but when those losses include North Carolina (national champs), UCLA (runner up), Ohio St (POY candidate Sullinger), BYU (POY candidate Jimmer), and a Davidson team where Steph Curry introduced himself to the national media I'd say it's more of a bad draw.
After the 1st round in the NCAA Tournament every team is going to be very strong or have a very good player (or both). That's not an excuse for being a 1 or 2 seed and losing in the 2nd round. They are 100% overrated. They have 5 Sweet 16 appearances and 1 Elite 8 appearance with no Final Four appearances in the last 20 years, but 3 of those Sweet 16s (and their only Elite 8) all came 15 years ago, and never made the NCAA Tournament before then. They have made 2 Sweet 16s and 0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years. For a team that is constantly ranked in the top 10 in the country, that is pretty underwhelming.
They get a couple decent wins every year (let's be honest, St. John's, UCLA, and Memphis are all okay but not great, none of those teams are even near the top 25, and without going back and looking I'm guessing most of the teams on this list are similar to those teams, while getting a big win here and there), play absolutely nobody in conference (St. Mary's is the same story...have an incredible record because they play nobody good), and then bow out in the NCAAs before their seed suggests they should. Their record against top 25 opponents since the 1998-1999 season is 25-47.
Over the last 13 seasons they have made the NCAA Tournament every year and have a record of 12-13. Their seeds in those years have been 6, 9, 2, 3, 3, 10, 7, 4, 8, 11, 7, 1, and 8. They were much more successful in the years prior to that when they were double digit seeds going to the Sweet 16 3 straight times.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 09, 2015, 02:06:27 PM
After the 1st round in the NCAA Tournament every team is going to be very strong or have a very good player (or both). That's not an excuse for being a 1 or 2 seed and losing in the 2nd round. They are 100% overrated. They have 5 Sweet 16 appearances and 1 Elite 8 appearance with no Final Four appearances in the last 20 years, but 3 of those Sweet 16s (and their only Elite 8) all came 15 years ago, and never made the NCAA Tournament before then. They have made 2 Sweet 16s and 0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years. For a team that is constantly ranked in the top 10 in the country, that is pretty underwhelming.
They get a couple decent wins every year (let's be honest, St. John's, UCLA, and Memphis are all okay but not great, none of those teams are even near the top 25, and without going back and looking I'm guessing most of the teams on this list are similar to those teams, while getting a big win here and there), play absolutely nobody in conference (St. Mary's is the same story...have an incredible record because they play nobody good), and then bow out in the NCAAs before their seed suggests they should. Their record against top 25 opponents since the 1998-1999 season is 25-47.
Over the last 13 seasons they have made the NCAA Tournament every year and have a record of 12-13. Their seeds in those years have been 6, 9, 2, 3, 3, 10, 7, 4, 8, 11, 7, 1, and 8. They were much more successful in the years prior to that when they were double digit seeds going to the Sweet 16 3 straight times.
'Playing to seed' is a horrible way to judge a team's success. Just look at this example.
Duke (99-14, same span as you used for Gonzaga) - 1,1,1,1,3,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,1,2,2,3. For this calculation I gave both Gonzaga and Duke expected wins-losses as #1 seeds of 4-1 since technically reaching the final four is all that is expected of a #1 seed.
According to your rationale, Duke should be 53-16 over that stretch. In reality they're 38-14 and that's with them winning the NCAAT twice.
If almighty Duke who always seems to be placed in the most favorable region both geographically and in opposing teams can only play to their seed line in 70% of their NCAAT games then either A) Duke is a vastly overrated program as well or B) Using NCAAT seeding is a poor way to judge a team's success in March.
To much subjectivity.... so I'm going to invoke the doctrine of K.I.S.S.
"Elite" Program: Any team who has been to an Elite 8 within the last four years.
"Near Elite" a/k/a "Sweet" Program: Any team who has been to a Sweet 16 within the last four years.
Blue Blood: Any team that has been Elite or Sweet more often than not throughout the lifespan of a person whose age reflects the U.S. median and has at least one championship in that same period of time and also has some shade of blue on their uniform.
I guess that means Marquette was a blue blood program up until the clock struck midnight on last year's tourney. So be it.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 02:39:51 PM
'Playing to seed' is a horrible way to judge a team's success. Just look at this example.
Duke (99-14, same span as you used for Gonzaga) - 1,1,1,1,3,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,1,2,2,3. For this calculation I gave both Gonzaga and Duke expected wins-losses as #1 seeds of 4-1 since technically reaching the final four is all that is expected of a #1 seed.
According to your rationale, Duke should be 53-16 over that stretch. In reality they're 38-14 and that's with them winning the NCAAT twice.
If almighty Duke who always seems to be placed in the most favorable region both geographically and in opposing teams can only play to their seed line in 70% of their NCAAT games then either A) Duke is a vastly overrated program as well or B) Using NCAAT seeding is a poor way to judge a team's success in March.
But unlike Gonzaga Duke actually has NCAA Tournament success as well. They've won the National title twice in that time span and have multiple FFs and E8s. Gonzaga? None of either. Duke has won as many titles as Gonzaga has been to the S16 in the last 15 years.
Again, 25-47 against ranked teams. 0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years. Consistently ranked in the top 10 in the country. O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D
Quote from: Benny B on March 09, 2015, 02:59:07 PM
To much subjectivity.... so I'm going to invoke the doctrine of K.I.S.S.
"Elite" Program: Any team who has been to an Elite 8 within the last four years.
"Near Elite" a/k/a "Sweet" Program: Any team who has been to a Sweet 16 within the last four years.
Blue Blood: Any team that has been Elite or Sweet more often than not throughout the lifespan of a person whose age reflects the U.S. median and has at least one championship in that same period of time and also has some shade of blue on their uniform.
I guess that means Marquette was a blue blood program up until the clock struck midnight on last year's tourney. So be it.
I would add one more. Walk into any sports apparel shop across the country and you'll see a blue blood school's gear on the shelves.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 09, 2015, 03:52:30 PM
But unlike Gonzaga Duke actually has NCAA Tournament success as well. They've won the National title twice in that time span and have multiple FFs and E8s. Gonzaga? None of either. Duke has won as many titles as Gonzaga has been to the S16 in the last 15 years.
Again, 25-47 against ranked teams. 0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years. Consistently ranked in the top 10 in the country. O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D
Winning 2 NCAA tournaments while having nine #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, and two #3 seeds while having your choice of McDonald's All Americans is the definition of overrated.
Georgetown and Syracuse have performed worse playing to their seed than Gonzaga over the same time span. Surprisingly only UConn and Marquette have exceeded their seeding during the same span. Guess that makes the Big East overrated and validates all the critics of the league the last few years.
I guess Marquette's record of 37-63 against ranked opponents during the same 15 year stretch makes our program garbage as well.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 04:09:30 PM
Winning 2 NCAA tournaments while having nine #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, and two #3 seeds while having your choice of McDonald's All Americans is the definition of overrated.
Georgetown and Syracuse have performed worse playing to their seed than Gonzaga over the same time span. Surprisingly only UConn and Marquette have exceeded their seeding during the same span. Guess that makes the Big East overrated and validates all the critics of the league the last few years.
I guess Marquette's record of 37-63 against ranked opponents during the same 15 year stretch makes our program garbage as well.
Yawn. Let me know when they do anything in the tournament. Of course teams underperform in the NCAA Tournament sometimes. But when you make Elite 8s, Final Fours, and National titles you also are doing some things right. Gonzaga? Well, they were good in the very early 2000s when they were coming in with a double digit seed? Since then? Nothing to note.
Every one of those programs you have mentioned have been to multiple Elite 8s and at least 1 Final Four in the last 20 years. Gonzaga has 1 Elite 8. Congrats to them!
I could have sworn VA Tech was an Elite school.
That's what a charismatic, bald-headed feller kept preaching. He had an colorful sweater too.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 09, 2015, 06:08:29 PM
Yawn. Let me know when they do anything in the tournament. Of course teams underperform in the NCAA Tournament sometimes. But when you make Elite 8s, Final Fours, and National titles you also are doing some things right. Gonzaga? Well, they were good in the very early 2000s when they were coming in with a double digit seed? Since then? Nothing to note.
Every one of those programs you have mentioned have been to multiple Elite 8s and at least 1 Final Four in the last 20 years. Gonzaga has 1 Elite 8. Congrats to them!
Let's clarify. I never once listed them as elite or even made mention of it. If I were to categorize I'd put them floating around the top 25-35 over the last couple of decades. They (along with a couple other schools) have rewritten the book on how to compete on a national level as a mid major, but I would never consider them an elite level program.
You made the statement that they are the most overrated team in college basketball history, a statement that simply isn't true.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 06:15:49 PM
Let's clarify. I never once listed them as elite or even made mention of it. If I were to categorize I'd put them floating around the top 25-35 over the last couple of decades. They (along with a couple other schools) have rewritten the book on how to compete on a national level as a mid major, but I would never consider them an elite level program.
You made the statement that they are the most overrated team in college basketball history, a statement that simply isn't true.
Your first paragraph is fair and I can completely agree with that.
I don't think Gonzaga is looked at historically as one of the best programs in college basketball history, but over the last 10 years they have been glorified way beyond what they are. In my opinion they should never be ranked in the top 10 in the country unless they beat multiple top 25 teams in non-conference and one of the teams they beat proves itself to be a legitimate top 10 team as well. Same with the #1 seed...they simply never deserve that unless they have beaten multiple quality opponents. The fact that, up until they lost to BYU, they were ranked above Wisconsin is a joke, and it shows how completely overrated they were and continue to be, in my opinion. They simply don't play anybody, their record blows up because they play nobody, and then they get a high seed that they simply don't deserve based on their resume. 30-3 is awesome. But given their schedule, it's what they should do.
Quote from: keefe on March 09, 2015, 11:13:45 AM
You must not be factoring in the proud tradition of cheating at Memphis State. Dana Kirk, Larry Finch, and Coach Cal were all hammered by authorities ranging from the NCAA to Federal prosecutors for an incredible variety of shenanigans. One of the most toxic programs in the tawdry history of college hoops. And that is saying a lot.
Quit being so negative, Keefe. People who can't read and write need a college degree too!
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2015, 02:39:51 PM
'Playing to seed' is a horrible way to judge a team's success. Just look at this example.
Duke (99-14, same span as you used for Gonzaga) - 1,1,1,1,3,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,1,2,2,3. For this calculation I gave both Gonzaga and Duke expected wins-losses as #1 seeds of 4-1 since technically reaching the final four is all that is expected of a #1 seed.
According to your rationale, Duke should be 53-16 over that stretch. In reality they're 38-14 and that's with them winning the NCAAT twice.
If almighty Duke who always seems to be placed in the most favorable region both geographically and in opposing teams can only play to their seed line in 70% of their NCAAT games then either A) Duke is a vastly overrated program as well or B) Using NCAAT seeding is a poor way to judge a team's success in March.
NCAA tournament is a crap shoot
Quote from: wadesworld on March 09, 2015, 06:29:01 PM
Your first paragraph is fair and I can completely agree with that.
I don't think Gonzaga is looked at historically as one of the best programs in college basketball history, but over the last 10 years they have been glorified way beyond what they are. In my opinion they should never be ranked in the top 10 in the country unless they beat multiple top 25 teams in non-conference and one of the teams they beat proves itself to be a legitimate top 10 team as well. Same with the #1 seed...they simply never deserve that unless they have beaten multiple quality opponents. The fact that, up until they lost to BYU, they were ranked above Wisconsin is a joke, and it shows how completely overrated they were and continue to be, in my opinion. They simply don't play anybody, their record blows up because they play nobody, and then they get a high seed that they simply don't deserve based on their resume. 30-3 is awesome. But given their schedule, it's what they should do.
I get what you're saying, but what I think you forget is that they HAVE to schedule one of the most difficult non conference schedules every season due to the conference they play in. I'll agree with you that once conference comes around they have an advantage in the rankings as it's easier to pile up the W's, but they get their ranking in November and December by playing quality competition and winning a high percentage of those games. You also have to remember that Gonzaga has to play far more non conference games away from home in order to play top shelf opponents because most high major programs don't want to sign up for home and homes. Marquette and others get the luxury of playing most of their non conference schedule either at home or on neutral courts.
Living in Washington, I was probably one of the few Marquette fans who thought the Huskies were the better team regardless of seeding that year in the opening round of the NCAAT. I follow the Big East closer than any other league, but in my opinion it's not so much east coast bias as much as that many quality programs are playing games when most people in other time zones are sleeping. It's why Arizona is always overlooked. I don't care who you are, playing at BYU or New Mexico is a tough environment to win in period. While there will never be the concentration of basketball programs on the west coast like there is back east, a lot of programs get overlooked.
The year Gonzaga was awarded the #1 seed (which IMO should have been a #2 seed), they cleaned out the top half of the Big 12 amongst other tough OOC games. What more can they do?
The two biggest things that hurt Gonzaga come tournament time which will not change as long as they're in the WCC are:
1. Very few serious tests after January 1st. I think this hurts them for obvious reasons.
2. The WCC conference tournament takes place a week before the Big East, ACC, B1G, etc. (leaving 9-11 days of inactivity).
The best thing that could happen for Gonzaga and St. Mary's is for the Mountain West to accept them as basketball only members. It's highly unlikely to happen but something to that effect would need to take place for them to eliminate the problems they have in late March.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
NCAA tournament is a crap shoot
I agree Chicos, that's why I think it's hard to call a team overrated based on their tournament success.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
NCAA tournament is a crap shoot
Are you using 'crap shoot' to mean 'completely random'? I mean, this can't be true because then we would see 15 and 16 seeds advance a lot more than they actually do.
Or by 'crap shoot' do you mean like an actual roll of dice, where, say, the number 7 has the greatest chance of showing, but is not certain to show? (where 7 is the dice-roll analog of a high seed advancing)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
NCAA tournament is a crap shoot
In some regards it is, but there are definitely trends. Izzo seems to succeed no matter his seed or matchups. Others, like JTIII, always flame out early. I do feel there is something to coaches that can put together a game plan on the fly and engineer a quick turnaround between games. I also think it's a different animal than conference play. It shows how well coaches can adapt to different play styles and referees.
There is some luck of the draw, but there's also a bit of separating the men from the boys. One reason why Tom Izzo will always be a better coach than Bo Ryan.
I think Izzo is simply the end of the bell curve on the crap shoot. Also worth mentioning he'll likely win 1 or fewer games in the tourney this year, making it two of the last 5 that he's done so. He has first round losses to George Mason, Nevada, NC St, and UCLA on his resume too.
Regardless, noting that there's one coach who consistently seems to do well in the tournament doesn't disprove the idea that there's a lot of luck involved. Basically every other coach has several notable flameouts.
Put another way, people keep winning the Powerball every month or so. Doesn't mean it's likely. Simply means there's a large sample size.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 10, 2015, 07:01:00 AM
In some regards it is, but there are definitely trends. Izzo seems to succeed no matter his seed or matchups. Others, like JTIII, always flame out early. I do feel there is something to coaches that can put together a game plan on the fly and engineer a quick turnaround between games. I also think it's a different animal than conference play. It shows how well coaches can adapt to different play styles and referees.
There is some luck of the draw, but there's also a bit of separating the men from the boys. One reason why Tom Izzo will always be a better coach than Bo Ryan.
brew, did you really let yourself get sucked into Chico's "crap shoot" debate?
He loves to throw that out there and see how everybody reacts to it.
Quote from: Eldon on March 09, 2015, 11:11:26 PM
Are you using 'crap shoot' to mean 'completely random'? I mean, this can't be true because then we would see 15 and 16 seeds advance a lot more than they actually do.
Or by 'crap shoot' do you mean like an actual roll of dice, where, say, the number 7 has the greatest chance of showing, but is not certain to show? (where 7 is the dice-roll analog of a high seed advancing)
Is it completely random...of course not....because teams are seeded to prevent such randomness from happening. If teams were seeded randomly, you would see more random results. YET, despite the structured seeding by experts who determine on a seeding line who is better than another team, the results show that the best team or even the four #1 seeds (presumably the 4 best teams) do not win the NCAA title
The best team doesn't always win the NCAA championship in basketball. In fact, more often than not does not win the NCAA title. The NCAA Championship crowns a champion of a tournament, it doesn't quantify who the best team in the country is. Some years it gets both right, but less than half the time. With no do overs, with pseudo home court advantages at times, with one so-so game and it's all over....it's a crap shoot.
Each year there are four #1 seeds. In theory, all four of them should make the Final Four if the experts picked them correctly. It's only happened once in history. Three times no number one's have made it. Nearly half the time only one number 1 has made it....25% of the number 1's. So on and so forth.
Totally random....nope...by design not to happen because of seeding lines. The results, however, have shown how often things don't remain to form because of the nature of the closeness of the teams, one team having an off night, another team having a surreal night, etc. This is a tournament where the 11 seed in one's own conference can get hot and be crowned national champion three weeks later. Crap shoot.
Quote from: MU82 on March 10, 2015, 11:48:11 PM
brew, did you really let yourself get sucked into Chico's "crap shoot" debate?
He loves to throw that out there and see how everybody reacts to it.
Me, Jay Bilas, Al McGuire, Coach K, recently USA Today and the Sporting News, on and on. It's a crap shoot. Is what it is....it's like settled science. ;)