Next Coach?
- Thread starter Knight
- Start date
chronicbucks
Member
You're slipping a bit, Baldi, per your trolling.
You may wanna do this in the meantime....
He's getting beat to shit on both boards, it brings a smile to my face every single day. Nothing makes me happier than seeing that schmuck called out.
He's also a massive snitch, so watch out, he ran with his tail between his legs and tattled on me on JJ.
Ricky Smith
Member
http://www.foxsports.com/collegebas...xavier-prove-magic-can-happen-in-march-020413
Building a mid-major basketball school into a relevant national program is a Sisyphean-enough task without the obstacles immediately thrown in front of Marshall, who’d engineered one of the most impressive low-major program turnarounds in NCAA history in his nine years at Winthrop. At mid-majors like Wichita State — or Creighton, or Gonzaga, or Butler, or Xavier, or any smaller schools we only notice come March — the top recruits look past you and head straight to the bluebloods. There’s the question of not having as much money, or not having the best facilities, or not having a coach who’ll hang around much past that first Sweet 16 appearance.
Building a mid-major basketball school into a relevant national program is a Sisyphean-enough task without the obstacles immediately thrown in front of Marshall, who’d engineered one of the most impressive low-major program turnarounds in NCAA history in his nine years at Winthrop. At mid-majors like Wichita State — or Creighton, or Gonzaga, or Butler, or Xavier, or any smaller schools we only notice come March — the top recruits look past you and head straight to the bluebloods. There’s the question of not having as much money, or not having the best facilities, or not having a coach who’ll hang around much past that first Sweet 16 appearance.
Ricky Smith
Member
You're slipping a bit, Baldi, per your trolling.
You may wanna do this in the meantime....
He's getting beat to shit on both boards, it brings a smile to my face every single day. Nothing makes me happier than seeing that schmuck called out.
He's also a massive snitch, so watch out, he ran with his tail between his legs and tattled on me on JJ.
Snitch lol. You were embarrassing yourself. I helped you out
This is an interesting article as it takes my position which is a school is a mid major if it plays in a mid major conference. That's the definition. Note that they include Gonzaga in this group as well. Many have argued with me that Gonzaga is no longer a mid major, but they are. They play in a mid major conference, as did Creighton, Butler and Xavier before they played in the new BE. They were mid majors, no matter how strong their programs are, and they are, as Marillac's post points out. Again, The line between major and mid major is either right above or below the BE and AAC at this point. (though I like to think it's actually between the two). The line that's actually blurry is the line between mid major low major. Baldi has no clue what he's talking about but the blind squirrel has come across at least the remnant of the same nut he found last week.
The question is, is the new BE a mid major conference. On this the jury is still out so it is hard to say that the three teams in question have made the leap from mid major to major. But once the new conference becomes better defined either those three will be majors or the rest of the conference will be mid majors. That's just the way it works.
Class of 72
Active member
Both you and Baldi are missing the whole point of this "old" article written BEFORE the new reconstituted Big East! The article was about the resurgence of Wichita basketball under coach Marshall. Brad Stevens was still coach at Butler. But Austour you seemingly like to think the majors in football are equivalent to the majors in basketball. Pay attention this time when I say for the last time------then the SEC is a midmajor in basketball by most power rankings. Take UK and Florida out of their equation and what other basketball programs stand out?
Austour, you are not alone in thinking that the football schools are, by association, better at basketball because they play football. As far as I know few defensive backs are playing point guard at any program, big or small. You see, that's not how it works with college basketball. In fact, the author spelled it out for you with the following missive:
"This, really, is the story of college basketball, a world in which schools that don’t even have football can go toe-to-toe with the nation’s wealthiest, most tradition-rich schools, and win.
Every year March descends into madness because college basketball is America’s most egalitarian sport. People always say the NCAA tournament is the most fascinating tournament in sports. Schools like Wichita State are the ones that make it so."
Finally, major basketball powers should be judged by the schedule they play both in and out of conference and by their power rankings such as RPI. Doubters like you and Baldi seemingly throw out the window the fact that Big East programs were considered "majors" for three decades and include the founding members and teams such as Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, Marquette and now includes the best teams from the old A10.
Stop believing the ESPN hype and propaganda and you will see that in college basketball there are likely 6 major conferences and the Big East is firmly entrenched in that group.
It's not about opinion, nor did I state mine, it's about definition. Prior to the split there were 6 major conferences. Now there's either 5, 6 or 7. I don't think anyone has pinned a label of major or mid major on the new BE or the AAC as of yet. That's all I was alluding to. There are plenty of mid major programs with better short and long term histories and prospects than some of the majors so its not about how well you play. Every major conference has a doormat program or three as well. Doesn't mean they're not majors. Obviously this year the BE looks like a major, let's hope it stays that way once the conference has completed a post transition recruiting cycle. There's no top 10 elite program in the conference (there are in all of the other majors) but top to bottom the BE is looking good so far.
Class of 72
Active member
You stated in your first sentence it was your "position".
You also now state that there is no top 10 elite program in the new Big East but I guess Villanova escaped your definition of top 10 for the argument.
You also missed the point the writer made that " Every year March descends into madness because college basketball is America’s most egalitarian sport." Why? Because in any given year a Northern Iowa, Wichita State, or Utah can be top 25 teams and have a chance at reaching a sweet 16.
The ONLY definition of a so-called "power conference" that has been propagandized by the conferences themselves and by their television partners pertains to those conferences playing semi-professional football on the college level. It does not, nor never has, applied to the sport of basketball.
Long before the mega billion television deals for football the "basketball blue bloods" always included the likes of Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA and Kansas. Unlike their football programs that usually sucked, except at UCLA, those schools defined high major as they do now and have won most of the national championships. It had nothing to do with the numbers 5, 6 or 7. It had to do with great Hollywood brand name coaches that attracted recruits like Calipari did at Memphis, like Jerry Tarkanian did at UNLV, like Ray Meyer did at DePaul or Jim Calhoun at UCONN. It had little to do with conference affiliation but more to do with paying in the millions for the "handful" of coaches that keep the blue bloods Duke, Kentucky, Kansas or Carolina "blue".
You stated in your first sentence it was your "position".
You also now state that there is no top 10 elite program in the new Big East but I guess Villanova escaped your definition of top 10 for the argument.
You also missed the point the writer made that " Every year March descends into madness because college basketball is America’s most egalitarian sport." Why? Because in any given year a Northern Iowa, Wichita State, or Utah can be top 25 teams and have a chance at reaching a sweet 16.
The ONLY definition of a so-called "power conference" that has been propagandized by the conferences themselves and by their television partners pertains to those conferences playing semi-professional football on the college level. It does not, nor never has, applied to the sport of basketball.
Long before the mega billion television deals for football the "basketball blue bloods" always included the likes of Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA and Kansas. Unlike their football programs that usually sucked, except at UCLA, those schools defined high major as they do now and have won most of the national championships. It had nothing to do with the numbers 5, 6 or 7. It had to do with great Hollywood brand name coaches that attracted recruits like Calipari did at Memphis, like Jerry Tarkanian did at UNLV, like Ray Meyer did at DePaul or Jim Calhoun at UCONN. It had little to do with conference affiliation but more to do with paying in the millions for the "handful" of coaches that keep the blue bloods Duke, Kentucky, Kansas or Carolina "blue".
I am a little confused.
Is a school considered major, mid-major based on conference, success, budget? Hate to belabor the point. Can a major school rarely appear in post-season play?
By most peoples standards Gonzaga is a major BB school, even though they are in a midmajor conference. Its all semantics and not clearly defined. Theoretically DePaul is a major BB school, w midmajor success, this last decade.
You stated in your first sentence it was your "position".
You also now state that there is no top 10 elite program in the new Big East but I guess Villanova escaped your definition of top 10 for the argument.
You also missed the point the writer made that " Every year March descends into madness because college basketball is America’s most egalitarian sport." Why? Because in any given year a Northern Iowa, Wichita State, or Utah can be top 25 teams and have a chance at reaching a sweet 16.
The ONLY definition of a so-called "power conference" that has been propagandized by the conferences themselves and by their television partners pertains to those conferences playing semi-professional football on the college level. It does not, nor never has, applied to the sport of basketball.
Long before the mega billion television deals for football the "basketball blue bloods" always included the likes of Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA and Kansas. Unlike their football programs that usually sucked, except at UCLA, those schools defined high major as they do now and have won most of the national championships. It had nothing to do with the numbers 5, 6 or 7. It had to do with great Hollywood brand name coaches that attracted recruits like Calipari did at Memphis, like Jerry Tarkanian did at UNLV, like Ray Meyer did at DePaul or Jim Calhoun at UCONN. It had little to do with conference affiliation but more to do with paying in the millions for the "handful" of coaches that keep the blue bloods Duke, Kentucky, Kansas or Carolina "blue".
I am a little confused.
Is a school consider major, mid-major based on conference, success, budget? Hate to belabor the point. Can a major school rarely appear in post-season play?
You stated in your first sentence it was your "position".
You also now state that there is no top 10 elite program in the new Big East but I guess Villanova escaped your definition of top 10 for the argument.
You also missed the point the writer made that " Every year March descends into madness because college basketball is America’s most egalitarian sport." Why? Because in any given year a Northern Iowa, Wichita State, or Utah can be top 25 teams and have a chance at reaching a sweet 16.
The ONLY definition of a so-called "power conference" that has been propagandized by the conferences themselves and by their television partners pertains to those conferences playing semi-professional football on the college level. It does not, nor never has, applied to the sport of basketball.
Long before the mega billion television deals for football the "basketball blue bloods" always included the likes of Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA and Kansas. Unlike their football programs that usually sucked, except at UCLA, those schools defined high major as they do now and have won most of the national championships. It had nothing to do with the numbers 5, 6 or 7. It had to do with great Hollywood brand name coaches that attracted recruits like Calipari did at Memphis, like Jerry Tarkanian did at UNLV, like Ray Meyer did at DePaul or Jim Calhoun at UCONN. It had little to do with conference affiliation but more to do with paying in the millions for the "handful" of coaches that keep the blue bloods Duke, Kentucky, Kansas or Carolina "blue".
Hope you don't mind I cut down the post a little. Obviously while I take my position and base it on what appears to be the commonly accepted definition there is room for debate. That's why you keep bringing up the counterpoint. So with that we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a major conference or program.
With regard to Top 10, I"m not talking about right now as in this week's AP listing, I'm talking about year in year out and no, one flukey National Title in 1985 does not make one a top 10 program. I threw that number out there but my list would probably be, in no particular order, JCLA, AZ, Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, Michigan State. You could probably argue that in the recent past UConn should replace UCLA but you'd be ignoring the likely future for UConn. Since 1991 those 11 teams have won all but 2 national titles and those 2 went to big state schools. Of that list, by the way, only Syracuse and Michigan State to a lesser extent have had all their success under one coach. So I'm not sure I agree with your analysis.
Brings me to the next point. Sure some mid majors have isolated periods of success, and some extended. Gonzaga is obviously the exception not the rule. So I can see why many call them a major even though they play a mid major schedule in a mid major conference. That was the writers point, it's not the rule. Cinderella's slipper moves from school to school and it's based on one weekend of good ball. Winning two games. The big difference is in the NCAA tournament Cinderella NEVER gets the prince, except in that one flukey 1985 tournament run for Nova (though you could argue that Kemba and co were kind of Cinderella's as well despite the program's stature).
However the only reason the original article was posted by Baldi was because the writer referred to Butler, Creighton and Xavier as Mid Majors so let's not give the writer or the article more credit than it deserves.
Class of 72
Active member
You stated in your first sentence it was your "position".
You also now state that there is no top 10 elite program in the new Big East but I guess Villanova escaped your definition of top 10 for the argument.
You also missed the point the writer made that " Every year March descends into madness because college basketball is America’s most egalitarian sport." Why? Because in any given year a Northern Iowa, Wichita State, or Utah can be top 25 teams and have a chance at reaching a sweet 16.
The ONLY definition of a so-called "power conference" that has been propagandized by the conferences themselves and by their television partners pertains to those conferences playing semi-professional football on the college level. It does not, nor never has, applied to the sport of basketball.
Long before the mega billion television deals for football the "basketball blue bloods" always included the likes of Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA and Kansas. Unlike their football programs that usually sucked, except at UCLA, those schools defined high major as they do now and have won most of the national championships. It had nothing to do with the numbers 5, 6 or 7. It had to do with great Hollywood brand name coaches that attracted recruits like Calipari did at Memphis, like Jerry Tarkanian did at UNLV, like Ray Meyer did at DePaul or Jim Calhoun at UCONN. It had little to do with conference affiliation but more to do with paying in the millions for the "handful" of coaches that keep the blue bloods Duke, Kentucky, Kansas or Carolina "blue".
Hope you don't mind I cut down the post a little. Obviously while I take my position and base it on what appears to be the commonly accepted definition there is room for debate. That's why you keep bringing up the counterpoint. So with that we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a major conference or program.
With regard to Top 10, I"m not talking about right now as in this week's AP listing, I'm talking about year in year out and no, one flukey National Title in 1985 does not make one a top 10 program. I threw that number out there but my list would probably be, in no particular order, JCLA, AZ, Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, Michigan State. You could probably argue that in the recent past UConn should replace UCLA but you'd be ignoring the likely future for UConn. Since 1991 those 11 teams have won all but 2 national titles and those 2 went to big state schools. Of that list, by the way, only Syracuse and Michigan State to a lesser extent have had all their success under one coach. So I'm not sure I agree with your analysis.
Brings me to the next point. Sure some mid majors have isolated periods of success, and some extended. Gonzaga is obviously the exception not the rule. So I can see why many call them a major even though they play a mid major schedule in a mid major conference. That was the writers point, it's not the rule. Cinderella's slipper moves from school to school and it's based on one weekend of good ball. Winning two games. The big difference is in the NCAA tournament Cinderella NEVER gets the prince, except in that one flukey 1985 tournament run for Nova (though you could argue that Kemba and co were kind of Cinderella's as well despite the program's stature).
However the only reason the original article was posted by Baldi was because the writer referred to Butler, Creighton and Xavier as Mid Majors so let's not give the writer or the article more credit than it deserves.
Ok, so I guess for us to be considered "major" we would (a) be a state school funded by tax payers, (b) belong to one of only 4 conferences whose teams you reference and have a school who, over the past 20 years or so has been in the top 10 (not 15, or 20 or 25), and (d) play crapping football. :dry:
Of course your reference for all of your points come from past records over the past 25 years and only the "winners" of the NCAA championship are mentioned in the criteria and not the final 4 that actually have made it. It's convenient to your debate to now exclude the dominant Uconn teams, Butler final 4's, Georgetown years, etc. The correlations you reach are mostly statistically invalid because "state schools" have always dominated the college landscape because they have, for decades, been the most numerous members of any given conference. Since Frank McGuire left St. Johns for North Carolina the difference maker has been what the state schools were able to pay their marquee coaches which, in my criteria, is what separates the majors from the rest of the field. Other than the "name coach" advantage, all schools that are consistently top 50 RPI year after year offer exactly the same thing to elite athletes: free tuition, room and board, stipends, training facilities and television exposure. Private schools like Georgetown, Villanova, Syracuse, Duke and Gonzaga have had perennial top 25 programs because of their coaches, not their conference affiliation. My examples were of schools that dominated the top 25, not for 2 or 3 years but but some, close to a decade when they had such coaches and who quickly faded without them. My examples were UNLV, Memphis and way back, even DePaul. The only thing that has changed is the huge television contracts and the athletes see none of that money but those Hollywood coaches certainly do.
All this monotonous discussion about what constitutes an elite college basketball program leads me back to the thread topic of "Next Coach". That is, if the Big East schools are willing to compete with the state schools for the 30 or so Hollywood coaches or find up and comers by paying competitive salaries the playing field gets quite leveled.
Therefore, for those anxiously waiting for StJ's "next coach", you better hope that it is as big a name as Steve Lavin to attract top 100 recruits. The bottom line is Duke, Kentucky and Kansas have just so many scholarships to give. Brand name coaches will get the rest of the players regardless of whether they are named State U or Gonzaga, St. John's, Georgetown or Villanova.
FWIW, and I'm pretty much done, but State Schools have always dominated the college landscape because they have been the most numerous members of not all conferences but the MAJOR conferences or is it the other way around?
PS since you don't want me talking only about championships, since 1991 only 12 of the 96 teams(12.5%) made the Final Four from a non major, and of those 4 of those teams were later in Major conferences (Cincy, Utah, Marquette and Louisville) Butler is the only one to make more than one Final Four. Again, it's lightning in a bottle. Over the same period those 11 teams took up 56 spots of the Final Four. But you wan t to go on about how the Gregg WInthrop's of the world are evidence of competitive balance you go ahead.
PS since you don't want me talking only about championships, since 1991 only 12 of the 96 teams(12.5%) made the Final Four from a non major, and of those 4 of those teams were later in Major conferences (Cincy, Utah, Marquette and Louisville) Butler is the only one to make more than one Final Four. Again, it's lightning in a bottle. Over the same period those 11 teams took up 56 spots of the Final Four. But you wan t to go on about how the Gregg WInthrop's of the world are evidence of competitive balance you go ahead.
Class of 72
Active member
OK, fair enough. I am glad you partially agree.
Statistically state schools from major conferences have, and will continue to get more than just the one token bid to the dance. That token bid has been dominated by mid to low majors. The old Big East and certainly the new Big East never was a league with token bids. Any conference that has or will continue to get 4 or more bids in college basketball is a major conference in my opinion and obviously the opinion of the NCAA selection committees over the years. Since you like numbers, 7 of the 33 conferences since 1979 have consistently gotten more than 3 bids per year. Of those 7 conferences, as you stated, close to 90% are composed of state supported schools. That is a huge advantage in reaching the final round of 4. Since 1979 when the Big East originally formed there have been 39 schools in the final 4 that were not members of the current power 5 made up of mostly state schools.
That means that 25% of the final 4 teams came from outside the current power 5. Since the power 5 are now basically defined by "football schools" you should note that those schools that have actually won more than 3 NCAA Championships are schools that have never been known for having good, and in most cases, lousy football teams. Their only common denominator was having great coaches which, as I have stated, is the major factor in becoming a "major" program. If you take UCLA off the list with their 10 consecutive championships the rest of the list is made up of lousy football schools that had Hall of Fame coaches.
Most NCAA Championship Titles
11 - UCLA
8 - Kentucky
5 - Indiana
5 - North Carolina
4 - Duke
3 - Connecticut
3 - Kansas
Class of 72
Active member
Then let me summarize for you: Unless your next coach can recruit "and coach" elite athletes and who will be recognized on the national scene, you can kiss St. John's being considered a major basketball program goodbye. In my book if you hire a mid to low major coach that is who you will become.
Hey I agree with pretty much all of that. Now we have to see if the BE can continue to get 4+ bids per year and if they can attract big time coaches when some spots open up. It's early to say the new BE is the old BE. The true power teams are all gone. They represented most of the coaching money as well. So let's see how it goes.