Consistent Success or Risk/Reward?

[jesmu84]

Interesting blurb about Pitt and Madison in the Forde Minutes (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6056787) today:

Despite losing Monday night to Notre Dame, Pittsburgh (10) is again having a brilliant season. Once again, Pitt is ranked in the top five. Once again, the 19-2 Panthers are among the elite in the toughest conference in America.

And once again, everyone wonders whether Pitt will still be around when the going gets serious in late March and early April. More than ever after the home pratfall against the Fighting Irish.

Meanwhile, in the Midwest, Wisconsin (11) throttled Northwestern 78-46 Sunday to run its record to 15-4. Once again, the Badgers are nationally ranked and forwardly placed in the powerful Big Ten.

And once again, you won't find many people willing to bet on Bucky making a Final Four run.

Both recruit more for stylistic fit than for outrageous talent, and they do it extremely well. But while Pitt and Wisconsin have established admirable consistency, those well-established styles seem to have placed a lid on how high they can climb. Come NCAA tournament time, the party always ends early.

In seven-plus seasons under Jamie Dixon (12), Pittsburgh has won 79 percent of its games and 72 percent of its Big East contests -- but just 59 percent of its NCAA tourney games. Each of the past three years, Pitt has lost before its seeding dictates it should.

In nine-plus seasons under Bo Ryan (13), Wisconsin has won 73 percent of its games and 71 percent of its Big Ten contests -- but just 57 percent of its NCAA tourney games. Until 2009, Ryan had never beaten a team seeded in the top half of the field; he counterbalanced that breakthrough upset of No. 5 seed Florida State with a second-round loss to No. 12 seed Cornell in 2010.

So here are the pertinent questions for their fans:

Are you OK with always being good, but never being good enough to win it all? Would you rather have the security of a 25-win season that maxes out at the Sweet 16, or the boom-and-bust cycles that can come with recruiting a lot of early-entry NBA prospects? Are the national title runs and Final Fours worth the occasional humility of missing the Big Dance? Would you trade the rock-solid chemistry and consistency of four-year players for the risk/reward of potential high-maintenance one-and-done guys?

Dixon and Ryan don't recruit future first-round talent. From an NBA perspective, the vast majority of their players over the years have been JAGs -- Just A Guy.

The evidence shows pretty conclusively that teams consisting solely of even the smartest, toughest and most cohesive JAGs don't win national titles. Teams with pros do.

Dixon has never had a first-rounder (that's partially the fault of the NBA, which somehow let DeJuan Blair slip into the second round in 2009). Ryan has had just two (lottery pick Devin Harris in '04 and overall No. 29 pick Alando Tucker in '07). Yet neither coach has missed an NCAA tourney even once in their current jobs, and they sure won't miss this year."

I, personally, would love to run a clean program, maybe get some lower top 100 talent, yet win consistenly more than the occassional Final Four/years where we don't make the NCAAs. 

Anyone else have thoughts? I feel like I read a lot of opinions on this board that want either great Top 25 talent with Final Fours. Yet others seem content with just consistent winning.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've thought about this a lot.  I guess I don't understand Forde's premise about not making the Final Four with Pitt and Wisconsin, as if they have no chance.  Pitt had the talent to do so and lost to Villanova for that right.  Wisconsin went to the Final Four in 2000 and played for the Final Four in 2005.  It's not as if these teams haven't been on the cusp or actually there.

To me, I'd rather be consistently successful every year and go to 10 straight NCAA tournaments knowing you can't get to the Final Four unless you get into the tournament.  I'd rather have that then every 25 years getting on a gold streak and riding to the Final Four with a lot of NIT or non appearances in between.

[tower912]

Run a clean program, get to the dance nearly every year and hope you get hot.    The tourney is a crap-shoot anyway.    I would like a little more tourney success than we have had lately, but getting out of the first weekend every other year would be adequate.     Being human, once we had that I would want more.    But for now, get in every year and hope to get hot. 

[jesmu84]

I've thought about this a lot.  I guess I don't understand Forde's premise about not making the Final Four with Pitt and Wisconsin, as if they have no chance.  Pitt had the talent to do so and lost to Villanova for that right.  Wisconsin went to the Final Four in 2000 and played for the Final Four in 2005.  It's not as if these teams haven't been on the cusp or actually there.

I think he's more contrasting Pitt/Wisconsin's consistentcy within their national rankings, conference wins, NCAA appearances more so than NCAA tourney success.  Contrast those two programs in the last 10 years with the likes of Florida, Kentucky, UCLA... they've had their share of Final Fours/national championships, but also more NIT appearances, missing Top 25 rankigs and sub-.500 conference records compared to Pitt/Wisconsin.

[radome]

From where we sit now, I would love to have their success.  Nevertheless, I can appreciate the sense of underachieving in the post-season.  There aren't any slugs in the tournament after the first round (with some big upsets and only the highest seeds) though so they are all tough games.  Does any coach have a better winning % in the post season that in the regular season?  Probably not, the competition is better.  79% regular season, even in the Big East, includes the early pre-conference gimmes.  Is 59% that bad in the tournament?  I think not.

[MerrittsMustache]

From where we sit now, I would love to have their success.  Nevertheless, I can appreciate the sense of underachieving in the post-season.  There aren't any slugs in the tournament after the first round (with some big upsets and only the highest seeds) though so they are all tough games.  Does any coach have a better winning % in the post season that in the regular season?  Probably not, the competition is better.  79% regular season, even in the Big East, includes the early pre-conference gimmes.  Is 59% that bad in the tournament?  I think not.

Tom Izzo .714 regular season, .745 in the NCAA Tournament.


I think that what works to the advantage of schools like Wisconsin and Pitt is that they're football-first schools. If their basketball teams are successful but flame-out in the NCAA Tournament, that's fine because spring practice is just around the corner.

For basketball-first/only schools like Marquette, I believe that the similar success to Wisco/Pitt would eventually be met with much more scrutiny and fans/boosters would want to see some more positive postseason results.

[brewcity77]

I think he's more contrasting Pitt/Wisconsin's consistentcy within their national rankings, conference wins, NCAA appearances more so than NCAA tourney success.  Contrast those two programs in the last 10 years with the likes of Florida, Kentucky, UCLA... they've had their share of Final Fours/national championships, but also more NIT appearances, missing Top 25 rankigs and sub-.500 conference records compared to Pitt/Wisconsin.

Of course, I'd rather be like Duke than any of the above, making it every year and winning it some years. But of the two, I'd sooner be like a Florida or UCLA. Making it every year but not being able to break through just smacks of frustration. When you do happen to lift that trophy, that's something everyone remembers. It's easy for opposing fanbases to forget about the occasional Sweet 16 or even Elite 8 run, but if you do manage a title, no one forgets about that. I'd rather make 2 Sweet Sixteens, 1 Elite Eight, 3 Final Fours, and win a title while also missing the tournament 3 times in the next 10 years than make it every year with 2 Elite Eights and 5 Sweet Sixteen appearances.

[jesmu84]

Of course, I'd rather be like Duke than any of the above, making it every year and winning it some years. But of the two, I'd sooner be like a Florida or UCLA. Making it every year but not being able to break through just smacks of frustration. When you do happen to lift that trophy, that's something everyone remembers. It's easy for opposing fanbases to forget about the occasional Sweet 16 or even Elite 8 run, but if you do manage a title, no one forgets about that. I'd rather make 2 Sweet Sixteens, 1 Elite Eight, 3 Final Fours, and win a title while also missing the tournament 3 times in the next 10 years than make it every year with 2 Elite Eights and 5 Sweet Sixteen appearances.

Although your preferred scenario sounds great, I can't imagine what these boards would be like in those 10 years. Doom/gloom/apocalypse on the years where you didn't make it. i can't even fathom...

For me, though, I'd prefer a more even-keel winning path.  If we got "hot" 1 of those 10 years and went Final Four/Runner-up or National Champion, i'd enjoy that much more.  Reaslistically, I'm not sure MU will ever be in a position to get the necessary recruits/talent over a 10 year period to be a UCLA or Florida.  So i guess my preference comes from what i think is more realistic

[radome]

Tom Izzo .714 regular season, .745 in the NCAA Tournament.


I think that what works to the advantage of schools like Wisconsin and Pitt is that they're football-first schools. If their basketball teams are successful but flame-out in the NCAA Tournament, that's fine because spring practice is just around the corner.

For basketball-first/only schools like Marquette, I believe that the similar success to Wisco/Pitt would eventually be met with much more scrutiny and fans/boosters would want to see some more positive postseason results.

That Izzo stat is amazing. Where did you find it?  Is he the only one?

[MerrittsMustache]

That Izzo stat is amazing. Where did you find it?  Is he the only one?

Actually, he was the first guy that came to mind so I did a Google search of his regular season and postseason record. It said he had the third-highest NCAA Tournament winning percentage but I'm not sure who is ahead of him, although I'd assume John Wooden is.

[CTWarrior]

Winning the national championship is really, really hard.  Getting to the Final Four is really, really hard. 

I'm not one who thinks that the NCAA tournament is the only thing that matters.

I would take lots of joy in things like winning a Big East Regular Season Championship or a Big East tournament championship.  Those things are also really, really difficult, too, but UW and Pitt challenge for conference crowns year in and year out and there is something fun for the fan in that.  I might be mistaken, but we've won maybe two regular season championships and one league tournament title ever.

Frankly, I get great enjoyment out of rooting for my alma mater Marquette, but other than those few championships, one Final Four run and one sweet 16 run, we have practically never won anything of importance since McGuire left.  We have lots of nice regular season wins to look back at, but since I set foot on campus in 1979 we haven't done a ton of winning of important things (Great Alaska Shootouts excepted)