Just when you thought you knew...

[NJHusky]

I hate the Post. But the sports page is a bellweather for what's hot on NY sports scene.

When I commuted into NYC it was WSJ in the am and Post in the pm.

 

[Jaydumo20]

When I commuted into NYC it was WSJ in the am and Post in the pm.

I miss the national and the sporting news dearly.

 

[Jaydumo20]

I think a big part of Georgetown being a historic program is that Big John was the first African American coach to win a title. Plus they made the FF4 3 times with a player like Ewing. After that they had some moderate success with Iverson, Motumbo and Mourning that ended in the early 90s

They were really relevant for a 10 year run….after that how are they different than St. John’s?

I have a soft spot for Georgetown basketball. A good friend of mine in L.A. who worked as an AAU scout and sports writer loves Georgetown but mourned the death of the program every time we spoke. He used to say "we need more than otto porter to return to glory"

 

[jibsey]

The Post has always had a great sports section and they've always been the best place for NY sports teams coverage.

I think Rupert Murdoch and Rick Pitino are wonderful successful people. They deserve each other. The Post has traded in innuendo, slander and lies for years some of it in sports under Murdoch. It’s a half step up from The Enquirer. They have some decent writers as any paper that size would. You want to separate that out and call it a great sports section go ahead.

 

[superjohn]

I think Rupert Murdoch and Rick Pitino are wonderful successful people. They deserve each other. The Post has traded in innuendo, slander and lies for years some of it in sports under Murdoch. It’s a half step up from The Enquirer. They have some decent writers as any paper that size would. You want to separate that out and call it a great sports section go ahead.

And they've always had a great sports section. Best coverage of NY teams by far.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I don't think it's more important. I think it's a factor. If had to pick one metric it would probably NCAA tournament games played. That reflects consistent excellence in getting in (which matters a lot) and deep runs. Conference championships matter as well (regular season > tournament).

I agree the era that matters most is the 64 team era. But reaching a final isn't critical to be a good program. Bama still hasn't done it. Texas and Notre Dame haven't done it yet have each played in over 80 NCAA tournament games and won 40. Is San Diego State more successful (26 games, 11 wins)?

I wish I could sort this by games played and eliminate at least everything pre 1975 and see what the results are. Guarantee UConn would be quite high.

It is nice and perhaps trendy to get all statistical about ranking 'programs' or team's success over the years. # of NCAA games is determined by winning enough to make the tournament, seeding often improved by winning conference tournaments and of course accumulating NCAA wins means some good things happen. But that metric weighs all NCAA wins the same, so a first round win is just as valued as making the sweet sixteen or final four? And of course it doesn't account for extraordinary successes, for example a 6-0 record in title games or a 12-1 record in final four games