[Paint Touches] A Brief History of the Modern College Basketball Rebuild

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

https://painttouches.com/2018/02/19/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-college-basketball-rebuild/

Inspired by some of the pre-Creighton discussion I decided to get more data on the questions "how long should a rebuild take?" Here is what I came up with.

[Herman Cain]

Good research report.

PS no need to rip on AAC and call them a mid major conference . They are a legit high major conference .

[Uncle Rico]

Good research report.

PS no need to rip on AAC and call them a mid major conference . They are a legit high major conference .

No, they are not

[GGGG]

The AAC is seventh in conference RPI.  They are closer to fifth (P12) and sixth (B10) than they are to eighth (A10).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Good research report.

PS no need to rip on AAC and call them a mid major conference . They are a legit high major conference .

I mean this with 100% sincerity, I was not ripping them. I was stating a fact and making people understood it in the context of the study. A bunch of data from the likes of ECU, Tulane, UCF, etc....would have skewed the study.

The AAC is seventh in conference RPI.  They are closer to fifth (P12) and sixth (B10) than they are to eighth (A10).

And the Atlantic 10 has been rated #6 in conference RPI before and the Mountain West has been rated #1 both in the last 5 years....and they are still mid-majors.

The American has never been rated higher than #7 in conference RPI and some years have been rated #8. They are another version of the Atlantic 10/WCC/MWC. I don't see any data driven argument to say they are a high major conference.

[MU86NC]

All the Wojo haters should be required reading!

[geps]

I mean this with 100% sincerity, I was not ripping them. I was stating a fact and making people understood it in the context of the study. A bunch of data from the likes of ECU, Tulane, UCF, etc....would have skewed the study.

And the Atlantic 10 has been rated #6 in conference RPI before and the Mountain West has been rated #1 both in the last 5 years....and they are still mid-majors.

The American has never been rated higher than #7 in conference RPI and some years have been rated #8. They are another version of the Atlantic 10/WCC/MWC. I don't see any data driven argument to say they are a high major conference.

The problem with the conference mid major label insinuates the programs are mid major and Cincy, Memphis, UConn, Temple, WSU, and maybe Houston are most certainly not.

[jesmu84]

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Many experts on this board, with self-proclaimed vast knowledge of college bball, have definitively stated that a rebuild, in this era and featuring long term success, should absolutely NOT have taken this long.

Your research, and all the data associated with it, is WRONG! FAKE NEWS!

[GoldenWarrior11]

NCAA Tournament Bids (Past 4 Years)
AAC: 2, 4. 2, 4 = 12 Total
A-10: 3, 3, 3, 6 = 15 Total

The American may have programs that have been traditionally strong in men's basketball - Memphis, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Wichita State, Tulsa.  However, if they have so many strong men's programs, why do they have fewer bids than the A-10 (a true mid-major conference)?  Why don't these historically strong programs continue to win in this new conference? 

The answer is because they always have a bottom quadrant that is truly awful.  The grouping of ECU, Tulane, USF, UCF (historically) and SMU (now that Larry Brown is gone) has really dragged down the perception of the basketball programs.  This was what Marquette and the C7 desperately tried to avoid when we were looking at a new Big East.  Look at what happened to UConn and Cincinnati.  They now play a national schedule in smaller gyms in recruiting areas that are no longer Midwest/East coast-based. 

The AAC is not in the same grouping of ACC/Big 12/B1G/PAC/SEC/BE.  It is its own tweener distinction with the A-10.

[Galway Eagle]

NCAA Tournament Bids (Past 4 Years)
AAC: 2, 4. 2, 4 = 12 Total
A-10: 3, 3, 3, 6 = 15 Total

The American may have programs that have been traditionally strong in men's basketball - Memphis, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Wichita State, Tulsa.  However, if they have so many strong men's programs, why do they have fewer bids than the A-10 (a true mid-major conference)?  Why don't these historically strong programs continue to win in this new conference? 

The answer is because they always have a bottom quadrant that is truly awful.  The grouping of ECU, Tulane, USF, UCF (historically) and SMU (now that Larry Brown is gone) has really dragged down the perception of the basketball programs.  This was what Marquette and the C7 desperately tried to avoid when we were looking at a new Big East.  Look at what happened to UConn and Cincinnati.  They now play a national schedule in smaller gyms in recruiting areas that are no longer Midwest/East coast-based. 

The AAC is not in the same grouping of ACC/Big 12/B1G/PAC/SEC/BE.  It is its own tweener distinction with the A-10.

Remember when the MWC and MVC were part of that tweener group? Talk about conferences that fell hard.

[Dr. Blackheart]

ROI analysis?

[Goose]

Jesmu

You make this board very difficult to read/follow. I will not ignore any poster, because I think different opinions are a good thing. That said, you really bring little to the table, and IMO, your posts diminish the quality of Scoop and fellow posters with similar opinions as yours. I do not agree with everyone on here, but never outright disliked a fellow scooper. Find this hard to say during Lent, but you might have broken the string for me.

Silver lining, I am very thankful that I only need to read your posts and do not have interaction with you in real life.

[jesmu84]

Jesmu

You make this board very difficult to read/follow. I will not ignore any poster, because I think different opinions are a good thing. That said, you really bring little to the table, and IMO, your posts diminish the quality of Scoop and fellow posters with similar opinions as yours. I do not agree with everyone on here, but never outright disliked a fellow scooper. Find this hard to say during Lent, but you might have broken the string for me.

Silver lining, I am very thankful that I only need to read your posts and do not have interaction with you in real life.

Here's the thing, I have no problem with different opinions. Seriously, I don't. But when someone's POV is shown to be incorrect/false by research/data/stats, and they refuse to accept it or double down on that POV without any evidence to support it, I think it's a little ridiculous.

Some people wish we still had Buzz as a coach. Fine.
Some people wish we'd spend less on the program. Fine.
Some people wish we'd play less of rowsey/Howard together. Fine.

Etc etc. It's not the differing opinions I mind. It's those that refuse to acknowledge that theirs might be incorrect that bother me. Especially when they condescend to others about their lack of knowledge or what have you.

Ironic that you think differing opinions are a good thing, but don't want to hear mine. We have legit trolls on this board. We have posters who insult coaches, awful or recruits. We have posters who have legitimately horrible personal opinions  like it's okay to have intentionally unprotected sex with a girl if she's drunk. But I'm the villain here. Okay.

Further, thanks for the personal shot. I can say that (mostly) when it comes to those posters that I continually disagree with or outright dislike, that I imagine we'd manage to enjoy a good beer summit together. Because I'm not so judgemental to think I can determine someone's whole being/personality/worth from (mostly) anonymous message board posts.

[muwarrior69]

Could Bennets' teams play defense?

[vogue65]

ROI analysis?

Isn't there more to life and basketball than ROI? 

[vogue65]

I mean this with 100% sincerity, I was not ripping them. I was stating a fact and making people understood it in the context of the study. A bunch of data from the likes of ECU, Tulane, UCF, etc....would have skewed the study.

And the Atlantic 10 has been rated #6 in conference RPI before and the Mountain West has been rated #1 both in the last 5 years....and they are still mid-majors.

The American has never been rated higher than #7 in conference RPI and some years have been rated #8. They are another version of the Atlantic 10/WCC/MWC. I don't see any data driven argument to say they are a high major conference.

"SKEWED DATA"  good going, I suggest you do a little more to clarify your point. I need a pie chart.

[KampusFoods]

5 years 2 judge

[Dr. Blackheart]

Isn't there more to life and basketball than ROI?

I am sure there are.  Let's stay on topic, please.

Here is what's generally in common.  Previous head coaching success and/or NBA ties. Schools go out and spend for those traits and expect the ROI.

[GGGG]

I've been reflecting on the Cuonzo issue over the past couple of days.

I really wanted him over Wojo at the time.  But when I see what he did at Cal, and what he is doing at Mizzou, I really think that would have been a bad choice.  He's trying to do the one-and-done thing, but he's never going to attract enough talent to make that work.  And he's not as good as Coach K or Coach Cal.

So he's probably going to end up like Gottfried did at NC State.  Recruit well enough to get the locals excited, and maybe they make a S16 run, but it's not a sustainable model.  There will be just as many disappointments as there are successes.

Well here's praying that Wojo isn't the next Herb Sendek...

[Goose]

jesmu

I did not know, nor care, what camp you believe I am in, but would like to state my opinion to clarify myself to you. It is as follows:

1. I am not anti, nor pro Wojo at the moment. Would add that I am skeptical if he has it takes to achieve the success I hope the university wants from the program.
2. I could not care less who the coach is, provided he meets the expectations set forth by the university.
3. I am a fan/supporter that has high hopes and expectations for the program. Provided the university wants an upper level team, my hopes are they are a year in and year out top twenty program.
4. As for investment in the program, I could not care less if they are middle of the road or highest budget in college basketball. It is not my money and only comment on it because it is mentioned often on here.
5. Follow up on the ball budget, if the budget is simply to make money for the university, great job is being done. If it is to field an upper level program, it fails IMO. My only issue has been, and remains, is what the university's objective is on having big budget program.
6. Lastly, I have my preference, but could not care less if they play zone, man to man, walk it up the court, full court press, traditional's vs. non traditional's , student scholars vs. struggling JUCO's, play at new arena or The Al, wear powder blue or gold, play in ACC, BE or MAC as long they compete on the national scene. If MU brass is happy with the state of the program, while I would disagree, I am very happy the university is happy. If they are not, I hope they accomplish what the their expectations for the program are in their overall agenda.

So, as for this guy, I will always support the program. If they want to be Kentucky or Bradley, I will be watching. Again, my preference is to compete on the national scene, not getting jacked up over stealing one in Omaha to keep the bubble dream alive.

[vogue65]

I am sure there are.  Let's stay on topic, please.

Here is what's generally in common.  Previous head coaching success and/or NBA ties. Schools go out and spend for those traits and expect the ROI.

ROI does not apply, can't be used in this analysis.  ROI is a profit analysis.  MU is a non-profit.  There are many non economic  benefits to a college basketball program which are not included in an ROI analysis.

[Golden Avalanche]

Jesmu

You make this board very difficult to read/follow. I will not ignore any poster, because I think different opinions are a good thing. That said, you really bring little to the table, and IMO, your posts diminish the quality of Scoop and fellow posters with similar opinions as yours. I do not agree with everyone on here, but never outright disliked a fellow scooper. Find this hard to say during Lent, but you might have broken the string for me.

Silver lining, I am very thankful that I only need to read your posts and do not have interaction with you in real life.

Grist for the mill for those who believe in the psychological projection theory.

Staying on topic, the rebuild is fine. Every basketball person I come across on the high school scene here in Jersey absolutely loves the Marquette program and Wojo. Recognizes it's steady building on firm ground.

[jesmu84]

jesmu

I did not know, nor care, what camp you believe I am in, but would like to state my opinion to clarify myself to you. It is as follows:

1. I am not anti, nor pro Wojo at the moment. Would add that I am skeptical if he has it takes to achieve the success I hope the university wants from the program.
2. I could not care less who the coach is, provided he meets the expectations set forth by the university.
3. I am a fan/supporter that has high hopes and expectations for the program. Provided the university wants an upper level team, my hopes are they are a year in and year out top twenty program.
4. As for investment in the program, I could not care less if they are middle of the road or highest budget in college basketball. It is not my money and only comment on it because it is mentioned often on here.
5. Follow up on the ball budget, if the budget is simply to make money for the university, great job is being done. If it is to field an upper level program, it fails IMO. My only issue has been, and remains, is what the university's objective is on having big budget program.
6. Lastly, I have my preference, but could not care less if they play zone, man to man, walk it up the court, full court press, traditional's vs. non traditional's , student scholars vs. struggling JUCO's, play at new arena or The Al, wear powder blue or gold, play in ACC, BE or MAC as long they compete on the national scene. If MU brass is happy with the state of the program, while I would disagree, I am very happy the university is happy. If they are not, I hope they accomplish what the their expectations for the program are in their overall agenda.

So, as for this guy, I will always support the program. If they want to be Kentucky or Bradley, I will be watching. Again, my preference is to compete on the national scene, not getting jacked up over stealing one in Omaha to keep the bubble dream alive.

No argument or disagreement about any of this. Thanks for providing your viewpoint

[brewcity77]

Excellent article, TAMU. Thanks for sharing. I think this also does a good job of showing that Marquette is doing okay as far as the timeline goes but it is probably too soon to consider Wojo's tenure decisively a success or failure. If we get in this year and have the expected results the next two years (improvement to the 4-7 line in 2019 and a protected seed in 2020 with the appearance of sustainability) it will be a success. If we miss this year and are a bubble team next year, then it might be Herb Sendek time.

I may be applauding this because it reinforces my preconceived beliefs, but regardless I am glad for the effort and feel it is an accurate assessment of things as they stand.

[fjm]

Whoa dude....
This article was the bees knees! Very well written. I have been a strong supporter of Wojo and am looking forward to what he does here. There have definitely been times this year though that I have found myself exhausted in my attempts to defend him because even I am getting a bit burnt out on the "no no no, he's got this..." line of thinking.

Having said that, I think he's got this.

Time will tell...