What is an Elite Program?

[muwarrior69]

Only 35 schools have won the NCAA championship since 1939. Of the 35 schools 14 have won it 2 or more times. UCLA had that great run from 1964-1975, then only 1 championship in the last 34 years. Kentucky with 7 and Indiana and North Carolina with 5 each are the only other schools that stand out. From where I sit it is the coach at the time that makes the program "elite", not the school itself. Sure some kids do like to play for their state school, but most want to play for the coach. So all this talk about a coach leaving one school for another because it is a better program is nonsense. Did Gelispie leaving Texas A&M make Kentucky an elite program? Does Calipari going to Kentucky make it an elite program? We'll have to see. Its all up to the coach. I also think Tom Crean left one the best coaching positions at MU for another position at IU; and whether its an "elite" position is all up to him. However, if there are "elite programs": listed below are the 35 that can claim that title.

School   Titles   Years   
Arizona 1 1997
Arkansas 1 1994
California 1 1959
Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
CCNY 1 1950
Connecticut 2 1999, 2004
Duke 3 1991, 1992, 2001
Florida 2 2006, 2007
Georgetown 1 1984
Holy Cross 1 1947
Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
Kentucky 7 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998
La Salle 1 1954
Louisville 2 1980, 1986
Loyola (Chicago) 1 1963
Marquette 1 1977
Maryland 1 2002
Michigan 1 1989
Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
Ohio State 1 1960
Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
Oregon 1 1939
San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
Stanford 1 1942
Syracuse 1 2003
UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
UNLV 1 1990
UTEP (Texas Western) 1 1966
Utah 1 1944
Villanova 1 1985
Wisconsin 1 1941
Wyoming 1 1943

[bma725]

From where I sit it is the coach at the time  that makes the program "elite", not the school itself

Completely disagree.  The programs that are considered elite are looked at that way because they've had sustained success regardless of who the coach is, and they continue on that level with multiple different coaches throughout the years.  At the beginning it may be about the coach, but once a program reaches a certain level, it takes on a life of it's own independent of any one coach. 

UNC is elite because they've managed to have high level success regardless of who the coach is.  They were one of the great programs prior to the NCAA championship existing, and they've continued that under Frank McGuire, Dean Smith, Bill Guthridge and Roy Williams.

Kentucky is elite because as Al once said, "they were there before you, they were there during you, they'll be there after you".  UK's success started because of Rupp, sure.  But it continued on with Hall, Pitino, and Smith...and likely will continue with Calipari.

Arizona, on the other hand, is not elite at least not yet because their success is almost completely tied Lute Olsen and they didn't show prior to him being there that they were an elite school.  If Miller can take them to those levels again that can change.

Did Gelispie leaving Texas A&M make Kentucky an elite program?

No, UK was an elite program regardless of BCG's decision, and would have continued to be one if he stayed at another school.  Gillispie being at UK and winning could have turned him into an Elite coach just like it did for Tubby, but his being their does not make the program one of the elite programs it already was without him.

[Marquette84]

Only 35 schools have won the NCAA championship since 1939. Of the 35 schools 14 have won it 2 or more times. UCLA had that great run from 1964-1975, then only 1 championship in the last 34 years. Kentucky with 7 and Indiana and North Carolina with 5 each are the only other schools that stand out. From where I sit it is the coach at the time that makes the program "elite", not the school itself. Sure some kids do like to play for their state school, but most want to play for the coach. So all this talk about a coach leaving one school for another because it is a better program is nonsense. Did Gelispie leaving Texas A&M make Kentucky an elite program? Does Calipari going to Kentucky make it an elite program? We'll have to see. Its all up to the coach. I also think Tom Crean left one the best coaching positions at MU for another position at IU; and whether its an "elite" position is all up to him. However, if there are "elite programs": listed below are the 35 that can claim that title.

I might be a tougher judge, but I don't see anywhere close to 35 elite level programs.  I'd go with eight, and UConn and Michigan State are the last two in. 

Of the others on the list, there are 10 that won in another era, and the modern game has passed them by. 

The others (including MU) are not quite at that level, but not dismissed as has beens either--although I'd say that Cincinnati, NC State, Cal,  Michigan, Maryland, and Arizona are probably a notch below the others.

I think there are some programs that transcend the coach.  The comment was made about Kentucky--the notion that Calipari or Gillepie would have anything to do with their eliteness is not an appropriate comparison--the question is whether Kentucky lost its relevance with its national following under Gillespie, and whether Calipari would do anything to bring it back.  With that filter, I don't think Kentucky ever stopped being an elite program.  Compare that to Loyola for example.  Fan interest in Loyola even in a great year never reached the level of Kentucky in an off year. 

FInally, I think some measure of whether a team is elite or not is based on the national following. 

Kentucky has 4482 visitors on their board today--middle of April.
Kansas has 1761
Indiana has 820 today.
UCLA has 438
UNC has 376
Duke has 275

Marquette currently has 138 on the other board, 48 here--although I would guess that a fair percentage of the 48 here have a session on the other board open, and I didn't look for other boards for any other team.


Still, even accounting for the difference in attendance levels, its hard to not conclude that KU, UK, IU and even UCLA fans are more passionate about their program than just about any other teams. 

Here are my views on the 35 teams:
Bold = elite
Italics = borderline
Strikethrough = has-been

Arizona 1 1997
Arkansas 1 1994
California 1 1959
Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
CCNY 1 1950
Connecticut 2 1999, 2004
Duke 3 1991, 1992, 2001
Florida 2 2006, 2007
Georgetown 1 1984
Holy Cross 1 1947
Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
Kentucky 7 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998
La Salle 1 1954
Louisville 2 1980, 1986 
Loyola (Chicago) 1 1963
Marquette 1 1977
Maryland 1 2002
Michigan 1 1989
Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
Ohio State 1 1960
Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
Oregon 1 1939
San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
Stanford 1 1942
Syracuse 1 2003
UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
UNLV 1 1990
UTEP (Texas Western) 1 1966
Utah 1 1944
Villanova 1 1985
Wisconsin 1 1941
Wyoming 1 1943


Finally, I'd add the following programs to the "near elite" group that haven't been fortunate enough to win a title, but are still quality programs.
Illinois
Texas
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Memphis
Virginia
Wake Forest
Gonzaga

[bma725]

84, for the most part I agree with your thoughts, my only dispute would with UConn over Louisville.  Take a look at the head to head numbers:

Championships, Louisville 2, UConn 2
NCAA Tournaments:  Louisville 35, UConn 28
Final Four: Louisville 8, UConn 3
Elite Eight: Louisville 11, UConn 9
Sweet Sixteen: Louisville 23, UConn 15

Not only that, but Louisville also has an NIT title from the era when the NIT was just as big if not bigger than the NCAA tournament, and they even have a NAIA title from the era when that was seen by most as being equal to an NCAA or NIT title.  Further, they've had success under 4 different coaches.

UConn only made the tournament 3 times without Calhoun.  They had a nice run in the Yankee Conference, but they were never really on the national scene prior to his arrival, even when they were in the Big East. Their success is almost solely tied to his being there, and while they haven't had a chance to show it yet, to be truly elite they'll have to do it without him.

[bilsu]

Marquette was an elite program in the 1970's,  but is not an elite program now. An elite program consistently recruits McDonald all-americans and is consistently expected to be a final four contender.  An elite program can suffer if it hires the wrong coach. We just saw that happen at Kentucky.
With Callipari they will be bringing in the McDonald's all-americans again.

[dwj]

I might be a tougher judge, but I don't see anywhere close to 35 elite level programs.  I'd go with eight, and UConn and Michigan State are the last two in. 

Of the others on the list, there are 10 that won in another era, and the modern game has passed them by. 

The others (including MU) are not quite at that level, but not dismissed as has beens either--although I'd say that Cincinnati, NC State, Cal,  Michigan, Maryland, and Arizona are probably a notch below the others.

I think there are some programs that transcend the coach.  The comment was made about Kentucky--the notion that Calipari or Gillepie would have anything to do with their eliteness is not an appropriate comparison--the question is whether Kentucky lost its relevance with its national following under Gillespie, and whether Calipari would do anything to bring it back.  With that filter, I don't think Kentucky ever stopped being an elite program.  Compare that to Loyola for example.  Fan interest in Loyola even in a great year never reached the level of Kentucky in an off year. 

FInally, I think some measure of whether a team is elite or not is based on the national following. 

Kentucky has 4482 visitors on their board today--middle of April.
Kansas has 1761
Indiana has 820 today.
UCLA has 438
UNC has 376
Duke has 275

Marquette currently has 138 on the other board, 48 here--although I would guess that a fair percentage of the 48 here have a session on the other board open, and I didn't look for other boards for any other team.


Still, even accounting for the difference in attendance levels, its hard to not conclude that KU, UK, IU and even UCLA fans are more passionate about their program than just about any other teams. 

Here are my views on the 35 teams:
Bold = elite
Italics = borderline
Strikethrough = has-been

Arizona 1 1997
Arkansas 1 1994
California 1 1959
Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
CCNY 1 1950
Connecticut 2 1999, 2004
Duke 3 1991, 1992, 2001
Florida 2 2006, 2007
Georgetown 1 1984
Holy Cross 1 1947
Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
Kentucky 7 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998
La Salle 1 1954
Louisville 2 1980, 1986 
Loyola (Chicago) 1 1963
Marquette 1 1977
Maryland 1 2002
Michigan 1 1989
Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
Ohio State 1 1960
Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
Oregon 1 1939
San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
Stanford 1 1942
Syracuse 1 2003
UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
UNLV 1 1990
UTEP (Texas Western) 1 1966
Utah 1 1944
Villanova 1 1985
Wisconsin 1 1941
Wyoming 1 1943


Finally, I'd add the following programs to the "near elite" group that haven't been fortunate enough to win a title, but are still quality programs.
Illinois
Texas
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Memphis
Virginia
Wake Forest
Gonzaga

Sorry, just wondering how Indiana qualifies as an "elite" program.

Disclaimer:  Don't really care to enter into any Crean issues.  I think moving to Indiana was a step up from Marquette.  He went to a state school in a state that produces much more talent than Wisconsin.

Anyway, Indiana is not an elite school.  We can point to how many fans are on their message boards, sure, but if we're looking at results, well, an enormous amount of schools bypass them. Hell, Marquette is practically equal to them:

Marquette: 1994: Sweet Sixteen.  2003: Final Four.

Indiana: 1994: Sweet Sixteen.  2002: NCAA Final.

Those are both schools best finishes in the past fifteen years.  There's no argument here.  Personally, I think the 2002 final was a fluke (they were a 5 seed), but admittedly, that doesn't matter much, as they did make the final, regardless of whether they should've or not.  Either way, I'm utterly confused as to why Indiana is an Elite program.  I mean, how many years are we supposed to give them to right the ship?  Indiana is competing with Purdue, Notre Dame, and Louisville, who already stole a few of the 2010 prospects:

According to Rivals Top 150:

Dominque Ferguson:    Medium Interest: Indiana, Duke, North Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisville, Ohio State...many more.

DeShaun Thomas (Fort Wayne, IN) : Ohio State (committed)

Justin Martin (Indianapolis, IN): Louisville (committed)

Travis Carroll (Danville, IN Danville CC)  Purdue (committed)

Russell Byrd (Fort Wayne, IN)  Michigan State (committed)

Terone Johnson (Indianapolis, IN) Purdue (committed)

Clearly he's not locking up Indiana like IU fans hoped he would.  But hey, I don't blame him; Indiana isn't an elite program anymore, and they haven't been for years.

[HoopsMalone]

I think Indiana became an elite program because of Coach Knight, just like every other program with a great coach.  Without him, they have done very little.  Recruiting in one's own state is not what it used to be either.  While location is still a factor, these kids play all over the country in AAU and get to find a good fit for their style of play and personality.  Meshing with the coach and the system likely takes precedence over geography now. 

Having a good history does help generate excitement for the program because people associate it with winning.  The name recognition Al Maguire gave Marquette will help us for years to come as it is a positive that our recruits' parents grew up at a time when Marquette was one of the best teams in the country.

[bma725]

I think Indiana became an elite program because of Coach Knight, just like every other program with a great coach.  Without him, they have done very little. 

Very little?  They won two NCAA titles before Knight ever set foot on campus.

[augoman]

I agree w/ "Hoops", but how long does that 'glow' last?  I mean, I feel MU became an 'elite' program when we were ranked in the to ten for a decade, w/o falling out! winning the tournament was the icing. going back to the sweet 16, then again and the final 4 all help to 'refresh' things, but..., how long?

[4everwarriors]

If Buzz keeps recruiting like a madman, you can put us back in the elite category.

[CTWarrior]

My definition of an elite school is one where every freshman who enrolls to play basketball resonably expects to make a final four, even if the current coach leaves.  I think there are four ultra-elite schools:

Kentucky
Kansas
UCLA
North Carolina

There are probably 50-60 other schools that can be elite with the right coach.  These are schools were an incoming freshman has a good realistic shot at a Final Four at some point in his career as long as the current coach hangs around.  The following are examples of schools that are currently elite because of conference affiliation plus the right coach:

UConn
Syracuse
Louisville
Duke
Michigan State

Despite conference affiliation, Memphis was in this tier but is out now that Calipari is gone.  Arizona was there but is out because Lute is gone.  Gonzaga misses out because conference affiliation kills them.  This group is a little fluid even when the coach stays.  Five years ago, I would have put Maryland with Gary Williams in this group but don't now.  Two years ago I'd have put Florida and Donovan in this group but don't now (I think Florida and Maryland belongs in yet another group of schools that have benefitted from an incredible influx of talent over a short period of time like Phi Slamma Jamma Houston and Duncan's Wake Forest).   

Some schools are getting close to this level right now - like Villanova and Georgetown from the Big East and Oklahoma and Texas from the Big 12.  Going through the conferences, at various times over the past 40 years Georgetown (Thompson), Marquette (McGuire),  St. John's (Carnesseca), Cincinnati (Huggins), Notre Dame (Phelps), Maryland (Dreisell), Oklahoma (Tubbs), LSU (Brown), Indiana (Knight), Michigan (Freider/Fischer), UNLV (Tarkanian), plus a bunch more I'm sure.  A lot of these coach/team combinations didn't actually make a lot of final fours, but they were regularly top 10 for long periods so a Final Four every 3 or four years was certainly not an unreasonable expectation.

There are a lot of coaches out there doing great work who never get to this tier, like Crean at MU and Ryan at Wisconsin.  I think in the end, the University of a State has a better chance of being good because their default fan base is larger, which is what makes Indiana a better job than Marquette and which is why I don't fault Crean for moving on.

[StillAWarrior]

The programs that are considered elite are looked at that way because they've had sustained success regardless of who the coach is, and they continue on that level with multiple different coaches throughout the years.  At the beginning it may be about the coach, but once a program reaches a certain level, it takes on a life of it's own independent of any one coach.

I agree.  Based on this, I typically think of UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana and UNC as elite schools.  Perhaps that list is too narrow, and it's certainly not very original.

But here's my question:  what about Duke?  Have they reached that "certain level?"  I really am curious to see what happens at Duke after Coach K leaves.  I think many people assume that Duke has reached that level.  I'm not so sure.

[bma725]

I agree.  Based on this, I typically think of UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana and UNC as elite schools.  Perhaps that list is too narrow, and it's certainly not very original.

But here's my question:  what about Duke?  Have they reached that "certain level?"  I really am curious to see what happens at Duke after Coach K leaves.  I think many people assume that Duke has reached that level.  I'm not so sure.

I'm a little more lenient with Duke than with places like Arizona or UConn.  Those schools really have their history of success with one coach.  Duke had a lot of success before Coach K was there.  In the 1960s, they had Vic Bubas, a Hall of Fame coach that, took Duke to an Elite Eight and 3 Final Fours throughout the decade.  In the 1970s they had Bill Foster, who took them to the Championship game in 1978 and the Elite Eight in 1980.

Yes Coach K expanded it beyond what those guys had done, but it's not as if Duke was a minor program before him like some other places.