Need your objective opinion

[UcMiami]

An elite program should transcend the coach, or else you are just talking about an elite coach.

An elite program should be able to draw great talent in spite of coaching downturns, as long as those downturns also get reversed because of the attraction of the program.. For most schools we do not yet know if the program is elite.

Texas continues to recruit well and keeps attracting coaches who should in theory work. I have a feeling that with Schaefer we are about to discover that Texas really is an elite program that experiences periods of latency.

Tennessee is a little harder to call. The school itself does not have the same cache as Texas, but they continued to recruit well through the Warlick years. They have only turned to alumnus coaches to date, so it’s hard to know what the school’s prospects are of attracting great coaches.

We will not know about Stanford until after VanDerveer leaves, but I imagine they will be like Texas in their ability to draw top talent and coaching in perpetuity. Will UConn without Auriemma? Don’t know yet, we just know we have an elite coach right now.

I do not think Louisville is an elite program, but they have an elite coach. Walz has recruited well, but never has been in the top three or four of recruiting if you consider rolling four year averages. Making the Final Four on a semi regular basis constitutes elite coaching when you consider that, with very few exceptions, the championship almost always goes to one of the few schools that are recruiting at the top level over that timeframe.

I'll disagree ... with coaches coaching for 25-40 years and most successful ones staying at a single school for most of that span it is hard to really classify most programs except by a single successful coach.

And how many college or professional programs have actually transitioned their success between coaches, especially in the modern era of free agency (professionally.)

At the college level, I look at transcending a recruiting cycle - Walz has proven successful over 3 cycles, Graves for example has not yet.

 

[Sifaka]

Whether it be blue bloods or elites, you have set the criteria. Until that is established, you can't have a reasonable discussion.

So what's the criteria? What say ye Boneyarders.

Damned good question.

Here's some food for thought. I propose that a program must be in the top 5% for >75% of the last ____x years. Does x=5? 10?

 

[diggerfoot]

I'll disagree ... with coaches coaching for 25-40 years and most successful ones staying at a single school for most of that span it is hard to really classify most programs except by a single successful coach.

And how many college or professional programs have actually transitioned their success between coaches, especially in the modern era of free agency (professionally.)

At the college level, I look at transcending a recruiting cycle - Walz has proven successful over 3 cycles, Graves for example has not yet.

What is the difference then between a program and a coach? The two words are defined differently, so there must be something a program offers independently of a coach.

I agree successful wcbb coaches last a long time, making it hard to distinguish between program and coach, but as long as words have meaning there must be something different between a program and a coach, and hence an elite program and elite coach, even if programs have not lasted long enough yet for those differences to manifest themselves.

Of course, you could work around this by defining a program as that which a coach implements, hence when the coach changes so does the program. I preferred to look at it as what a school offers, since the OP was referring to a school, not a coach, in which case there are elements of a school’s program that transcends whomever is coaching.

I don’t think Louisville has been an elite program due to its historical track record, I do think Walz is an elite coach.

 

[Two for Two]

Damned good question.

Here's some food for thought. I propose that a program must be in the top 5% for >75% of the last ____x years. Does x=5? 10?


View attachment 75138

 

[Two for Two]

What is the difference then between a program and a coach? The two words are defined differently, so there must be something a program offers independently of a coach.

I agree successful wcbb coaches last a long time, making it hard to distinguish between program and coach, but as long as words have meaning there must be something different between a program and a coach, and hence an elite program and elite coach, even if programs have not lasted long enough yet for those differences to manifest themselves.

Of course, you could work around this by defining a program as that which a coach implements, hence when the coach changes so does the program. I preferred to look at it as what a school offers, since the OP was referring to a school, not a coach, in which case there are elements of a school’s program that transcends whomever is coaching.

I don’t think Louisville has been an elite program due to its historical track record, I do think Walz is an elite coach.

To me when you define a programs status, you take into account much more than the coaches ability. For example, I think Wes Moore can coach...but that does not necessarily make NC State Elite. You also have look at recruiting, player performance, fan support, facilities, and most importantly are you relevant today (last 10-12 years)....are you consistently winning, making the sweet sixteen, elite eight, final four, finishing in the top 5-10 annually. Also, really, you can't be elite today, because of your historical track record. Tell that to the 2002-2019 New England Patriots.

 

[diggerfoot]

To me when you define a programs status, you take into account much more than the coaches ability. For example, I think Wes Moore can coach...but that does not necessarily make NC State Elite. You also have look at recruiting, player performance, fan support, facilities, and most importantly are you relevant today (last 10-12 years)....are you consistently winning, making the sweet sixteen, elite eight, final four, finishing in the top 5-10 annually. Also, really, you can't be elite today, because of your historical track record. Tell that to the 2002-2019 New England Patriots.

I would have thought we were saying the same thing until the end.

Moving forward Louisville may attract more coaches like Walz, they may start recruiting like the top three or four universities, whereas maybe fifteen years from now they are considered an elite program.

UConn may or may not be an elite program once Auriemma retires. Now that we are out of the AAC we stand a chance, just as Tennessee was indicating to be an elite program when they continued to recruit so well after Summitt left. Fortunately for us they since hired two alumnus as coaches who have yet to prove themselves as elite and even recruiting has lost some luster, but I bet they still will reemerge as an elite program once the coaching rights itself.

On the other hand, La Tech and Barmore = dominant, but La Tech an elite program, no. They suffered immediately, substantially and irrevocably once Barmore left.

But as I mentioned before, if you want to define a program as that which a coach implements with the tools they have to work with, including conference affiliation, etc, then yes, most college programs with an elite coach by definition become elite programs … for the time being … and what happens before or after that coach is not relevant. What is elite only has meaning for the moment.

It’s certainly an OK way for framing the issue, but I would have worded the OP differently in that case.

 

[visitingcock]

I would have thought we were saying the same thing until the end.

The Patriots got to the Super Bowl with two different coaches during that time, so on the surface that fits a successful program, not just a coach. But it seems you think that refutes me because they have not always been elite historically? That misconstrues my meaning.

Moving forward Louisville may attract more coaches like Walz, they may start recruiting like the top three or four universities, whereas maybe fifteen years from now they are considered an elite program.

UConn may or may not be an elite program once Auriemma retires. Now that we are out of the AAC we stand a chance, just as Tennessee was indicating to be an elite program when they continued to recruit so well after Summitt left. Fortunately for us they since hired two alumnus as coaches who have yet to prove themselves as elite and even recruiting has lost some luster, but I bet they still will reemerge as an elite program once the coaching rights itself.

On the other hand, La Tech and Barmore = dominant, but La Tech an elite program, no. They suffered immediately, substantially and irrevocably once Barmore left.

But as I mentioned before, if you want to define a program as that which a coach implements with the tools they have to work with, including conference affiliation, etc, then yes, most college programs with an elite coach by definition become elite programs … for the time being … and what happens before or after that coach is not relevant. What is elite only has meaning for the moment.

It’s certainly an OK way for framing the issue, but I would have worded the OP differently in that case.

Please name all schools who have won National Championships in WBB under two or more coaches.Louisiana Tech. Are there any others? Is LaTech the only blue-blood?

 

[diggerfoot]

Please name all schools who have won National Championships in WBB under two or more coaches.Louisiana Tech. Are there any others? Is LaTech the only blue-blood?

???? What in my response relates to term blue bloods? Championships with different coaches? Not considering the present?

You not only set up a strawman argument, it’s like you are responding to a different post entirely.

Fwiw, at one time La Tech might have been considered an elite program, but that distinction left them long ago because the present is a factor.

 

[visitingcock]

???? What in my response relates to term blue bloods? Championships with different coaches? Considering the present?

You not only set up a strawman argument, it’s like you are responding to a different post entirely.

Fwiw, at one time La Tech might have been considered an elite program, but that distinction left them long ago because the present is a factor.

But do they retain blueblood status forever like in football?

Does Tennessee?

Are they elite at this time?

Not arguing, just throwing stuff out there. You can call the "stuff" straw. Just throwing it out there.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

???? What in my response relates to term blue bloods? Championships with different coaches? Not considering the present?

You not only set up a strawman argument, it’s like you are responding to a different post entirely.

Fwiw, at one time La Tech might have been considered an elite program, but that distinction left them long ago because the present is a factor.

Yes La Tech was an elite program and is no longer. Rutgers was at least in the next tier down and is no longer.

La Tech's downfall wasn't so much Barmore leaving (although that was a factor) as it was the changing scape of Women's Basketball where teams from smaller schools in mid-major or worse conferences cannot attract the talent to excel as they once did. And in the stacked world of NCAA tournament seeding, it would be very difficult to come into the tournament with any advantage.

There are good mid-major teams, but their chance of becoming elite and even making a final four are (in the women's game) slim.

 

[diggerfoot]

But do they retain blueblood status forever like in football?

Does Tennessee?

Are they elite at this time?

Not arguing, just throwing stuff out there. You can call the "stuff" straw. Just throwing it out there.

OK. Btw, my post had a brain fart that your response to it unfortunately captured. Oh we…

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Whether it be blue bloods or elites, you have set the criteria. Until that is established, you can't have a reasonable discussion.

So what's the criteria? What say ye Boneyarders.

IMO, a Blue Blood goes to the Final Four at least a third of the time with an occasional NC. By that measure, Louisville is the next tier. Right now, I'd only put SC, UCONN, Stanford and possibly ND in that category. It looks like Niele Ivey appears to be rapidly returning ND to where they were a few years ago.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Would you consider L’ville one of WBB’s elite programs?

Yeah.

 

[tigers4ever]

Would you consider L’ville one of WBB’s elite programs?

Yes La Tech was an elite program and is no longer. Rutgers was at least in the next tier down and is no longer.

La Tech's downfall wasn't so much Barmore leaving (although that was a factor) as it was the changing scape of Women's Basketball where teams from smaller schools in mid-major or worse conferences cannot attract the talent to excel as they once did. And in the stacked world of NCAA tournament seeding, it would be very difficult to come into the tournament with any advantage.

There are good mid-major teams, but their chance of becoming elite and even making a final four are (in the women's game) slim.

Agreed, just because you were elite at one time doesn't make you elite forever. LSU went to 5 consecutive final 4's. Since then, not so much. Hoping Kim Mulkey can bring us back to those days.

 

[JonathanXIV]

As noted by some posters, whether a program is "elite" depends on one's definition of "elite." For me, I distinguish between "top" programs and "elite" programs. I think Louisville is a top program. I don't think it's an elite program, particularly since they have yet to win a title, let alone multiple titles. As for the current elite programs (Tennessee is a formerly elite program) - UConn, South Carolina, Stanford, and Baylor. You could add Notre Dame, as their elite status was recent, but they have had some a couple of very tough years since they were one of the elite programs. My two cents.

 

[psconn]

This Wikipedia chart tells you all you need to know. As I stated in another thread [LINK] there's basically UConn, Tennessee and Stanford [GAP] and the rest of the field. Who is Elite and where do you draw the line? I'm looking at the history of the NCAA Women's Tourney here and even adding some recency bias... these are the ROYALTY in the game. Others are great right now and might get there, but they have a ways to go. Some have been great, but are no longer (LouTech).

If you want to define "elite" to just who's killing it right now or over the past 5 years, you can add more, or different teams like South Carolina. I was looking at teams that are in the realistic championship conversation every year for literally decades. Maybe there's a distiction to be made between "Elite" and "Royalty".

NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Not sure we've established there are WBB blue bloods. Just individual coaches.

 

[stwainfan]

TN hasn't made an E8 game in five years and is 12 years removed from a FF - they have an incredible history, but haven't made noise in over a decade.

Tennessee went into the NCAA tournament. Without the best player Horston on the team. Still made a S16.