Would you rather...

[brewcity77]

I'm curious what Scoopers would prefer in terms of results. Someone like Tubby Smith or Kevin Ollie that has a national title but minimal other substantial results, or being a constant contender like John Beilein or Tony Bennett that never cuts down the final nets?

For purposes of the poll, these are known quantities. If you knew 100% that you could celebrate that title but other years would be bubble at best, or you knew you would always be amongst the best, but never reach the pinnacle.

[RushmoreAcademy]

This is a great poll. I went with the title, because it would be unforgettable, but it's a tough choice.

[Cheeks]

Define mediocrity because the definition used on Scoop comes from a dictionary only a few seem to have...a special definition only they get to use.

[NickelDimer]

Define mediocrity because the definition used on Scoop comes from a dictionary only a few seem to have...a special definition only they get to use.

5 years. Zero conference titles. Zero tourney wins. That qualifies as an example

[Cheeks]

5 years. Zero conference titles. Zero tourney wins. That qualifies as an example

Mediocrity: "means the quality of being average or ordinary"

So you're telling me that the AVERAGE or ORDINARY men's basketball program in Division I goes to the NCAA tournament twice in the last three years, has three straight post season appearances, is ranked top 15 for much of the year, has 10 Q1 wins  (only two other programs had more), etc, etc.

That's why I ask, because the definition of the word has changed apparently.  Just making the NCAA tournament, is not ordinary or average.  Being a top 15 team much of the year, is not average or ordinary. I could go on.  Now, if you want to say by "Marquette's standards"....have at it, but even then you are going to run into trouble depending how you slice up the data.

[NickelDimer]

Mediocrity: "means the quality of being average or ordinary"

So you're telling me that the AVERAGE or ORDINARY men's basketball program in Division I goes to the NCAA tournament twice in the last three years, has three straight post season appearances, is ranked top 15 for much of the year, has 10 Q1 wins  (only two other programs had more), etc, etc.

That's why I ask, because the definition of the word has changed apparently.  Just making the NCAA tournament, is not ordinary or average.  Being a top 15 team much of the year, is not average or ordinary. I could go on.  Now, if you want to say by "Marquette's standards"....have at it, but even then you are going to run into trouble depending how you slice up the data.

In this context it's a relative term. Based on relativity to the program Wojo took over his results have been mediocre.

[Markusquette]

Pretty easy answer on picking a championship.

[Cheeks]

In this context it's a relative term. Based on relativity to the program Wojo took over his results have been mediocre.

The program that Buzzard left to go to a WORSE program, the one where he didn't bother his last year, and the one where he crapped on the conference as he went to Tech...that one?

[Galway Eagle]

If contender means michigan state like success the past 18yrs then I'd take that over a random title amongst a bunch of scattered tournament appearances of first round exits.

[Cheeks]

Pretty easy answer on picking a championship.

Imagine winning the title in 2021, and then being "truly mediocre" and not making the NCAA tournament the next 25 years.  Yeah, I'm not sure I would go for that.  I like having a relevant team more often than not.

[brewcity77]

Define mediocrity because the definition used on Scoop comes from a dictionary only a few seem to have...a special definition only they get to use.

Did you read the post? Think Tubby Smith/Kevin Ollie.

[NickelDimer]

The program that Buzzard left to go to a WORSE program, the one where he didn't bother his last year, and the one where he crapped on the conference as he went to Tech...that one?

Program, not team cheeks. Big difference. You've used all the mileage you can from that excuse. How has Buzz done with the team and program he inherited? You know, the one that was a dumpster fire compared to the privileged job Wojo got?

[Johnny B]

Well its unclear what that means. Are we top ten in the polls for 25 years most of the time and just happen to never win it all? Are we a team that sometimes squeaks into the tournament and has a miracle.run for a title one year but mediocre for the other 24 years? Yeah i would take be a contender every year

[brewcity77]

Well its unclear what that means. Are we top ten in the polls for 25 years most of the time and just happen to never win it all? Are we a team that sometimes squeaks into the tournament and has a miracle.run for a title one year but mediocre for the other 24 years? Yeah i would take be a contender every year

Did you read the post? Are the respective careers to date of Tubby Smith, Kevin Ollie, Tony Bennett, & John Beilein not fairly self-explanatory?

[Cheeks]

Did you read the post? Think Tubby Smith/Kevin Ollie.

I read the Kevin Ollie part...1 NCAA bid in the 4 years since winning it.  OK, so my 25 years was extreme, I'll correct it to say 6 NCAA bids over 25 years.  Yeah, I would rather take being relevant each year.

[CountryRoads]

I don't think there's any debate. Perrenial contender every year even if you never win it. Are there any examples of a team that fits this bill? At least ones who haven't won a title in the last 40 years or so. I'd say Bucky is close to that recently.

[Johnny B]

Did you read the post? Are the respective careers to date of Tubby Smith, Kevin Ollie, Tony Bennett, & John Beilein not fairly self-explanatory?

Dont know much about the long term picture of any of them so excuse me sir

[tower912]

I don't think there's any debate. Perrenial contender every year even if you never win it. Are there any examples of a team that fits this bill? At least ones who haven't won a title in the last 40 years or so. I'd say Bucky is close to that recently.

Mark Few.

[muguru]

Here's what i would take...A National Championship without question, then in the tournament almost every single year after that.

[brewcity77]

I'd take the title. I think if I had been more cognizant in 1977 I'd say otherwise, but I don't have that memory.

The end of the year always sucks unless you win it all. It doesn't matter if it's a blowout loss to an underdog like Murray State, an overtime loss to a good Stanford team, a loss to a conference rival with the Final Four on the line, or getting destroyed on the biggest stage. Whether the season ends on a close loss, a blowout loss, a buzzer beating loss, or any other loss is irrelevant. The only experience that is different is ending the season with a win.

I would rather get one national title and miss the tourney the next 20 years than have every one of those 20 years end with the same disappointment.

[rocky_warrior]

Mark Few.

My first thought.

[brewcity77]

Here's what i would take...A National Championship without question, then in the tournament almost every single year after that.

That's not an option. After the title you'll miss more often than make (hence the "bubble at best" comment).

[muguru]

I'd take the title. I think if I had been more cognizant in 1977 I'd say otherwise, but I don't have that memory.

The end of the year always sucks unless you win it all. It doesn't matter if it's a blowout loss to an underdog like Murray State, an overtime loss to a good Stanford team, a loss to a conference rival with the Final Four on the line, or getting destroyed on the biggest stage. Whether the season ends on a close loss, a blowout loss, a buzzer beating loss, or any other loss is irrelevant. The only experience that is different is ending the season with a win.

I would rather get one national title and miss the tourney the next 20 years than have every one of those 20 years end with the same disappointment.

This is so perfectly stated. You ALWAYS take the National Championship. I for one, could live with whatever happened after that with the program if they reached the Pinnacle again, once more in my lifetime.

[CTWarrior]

Do I get magic forget I made a choice after I made the choice?  If not, I would choose not to make a choice, if it was possible.  If I knew I made a choice, what would be the point of following the team if I KNEW they weren't going to win conference championships or do much in the tournament after winning the championship, as a mediocre bubble team would.  And if we were really good every year but I KNEW we weren't going to win a national title, why am I watching?  That would be frustrating beyond measure.

If I made the choice and then got to forgot about it, I would prefer perennial contenders.  I'd prefer being a Red Sox fan from 1968 to 2003 than being an Indians fan from 1948 to 1983, for example.  Having hope every year would be fun until the end.

[Cheeks]

Program, not team cheeks. Big difference. You've used all the mileage you can from that excuse. How has Buzz done with the team and program he inherited? You know, the one that was a dumpster fire compared to the privileged job Wojo got?

New Orleans?  Not sure, he bailed on those kids after one year and then settled a lawsuit with UNO later.  Is that the one you are talking about?

For the millionth time, Buzz is a very good coach.....that doesn't mean he is good at other things that SOME universities also want.