Elite Programs

[dgies9156]

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.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

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.

[breadtree]

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. 

[brewcity77]

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.

[mattyv1908]

@ 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.

[brewcity77]

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.

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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

Last year I reran the math and we passed villanova but with us being so down this year we likely fall back to 17

[keefe]

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.

[mattyv1908]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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.  

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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.  

[MU82]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[WarriorPA]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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.

[WarriorPA]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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.

[mattyv1908]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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. 

[wadesworld]

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.