- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,559
- Reaction Score
- 52,921
Let's look at Arizona, which you correctly characterize as having consistently great regular seasons though they tend to fall short in the Tournament.
Their program, despite fewer championships or Final Fours this decade, is in a much healthier position than ours. Why? Because they're always relevant and can sell recruits on that.
Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program. You lose that and you're finished, whatever your history might be. Recruits care about exposure.
If you're consistently great in the regular season, you get exposure. If you're consistently mediocre in the regular season, you're relying on improbable postseason runs for exposure.
Now we've gotten that a few times this decade, but it's not something this program should count on in the future.
On your last point I wholeheartedly agree - the fun of this forum is being able to have these debates.
Arizona is relevant because they have a history in a P5 conference. UConn would be as relevant as, say, Butler without the NCs. And by Butler I'm referring to a team that is not on the main channels as much as UConn is.
UConn gets exposure by the way.
AND, I would not call 2011 an improbable run. Not at all. More people picked UConn to win it all prior to the 2011 tourney than Gonzaga, Or UCLA, or Kentucky, or Arizona were this year.
