New Gampel Court Design

[Gurleyman]

Butler had good runs for five years in a row under two different coaches, and they were back as a top 20 team this year. Gonzaga has been a top 20 team for almost 15 years, and were only knocked off this year because another mid-major got hot and upset them. Gonzaga and Pitt are basically identical since 2000, and nobody thinks of Pitt as a program that can't win - only one that hasn't.

There are a ton of major conference teams that don't do squat - ever. Don't recall seeing any of these teams in a Final Four in the 64-team era: Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Boston College, Ole Miss, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Penn State, Kansas State, Northwestern, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Tennessee, Colorado, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, USC, Arizona State, Pitt, Rutgers, DePaul, South Florida, St. John's (perhaps their FF was the first year of 64 teams). That's about half of the major conference pool. And that leaves out some teams like Wisconsin, Cincy, Seton Hall, Stanford, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, and Providence that just had one run and didn't win. Pitt might be the only successful program on that entire list that has had a lot of success, but just hasn't cracked the Final Four hurdle. I don't think NC State has been back since 1984, either, and it isn't because of their conference.

Or look at a school like Texas - swimming in money, huge recruiting base, own TV network. They have been to one Final Four (playing at home to get there) and lost in the semis - essentially tying them with Wichita State, VCU and George Mason for tournament success. They have all the resources and brand name advantages in the world, but haven't done squat with any of it in basketball.

The point is that you don't have to play the victim due to circumstances. There is not one team I mentioned above that wouldn't kill for Butler's resume in this millennium. We have a brand name in hoops that can and should continue on through conference realignment. We may lose a big time recruit or two here and there, but we won't lose our pedigree that easily.

 

[Husky25]

I agree with everything except for this.

Gonzaga and Pitt are basically identical since 2000, and nobody thinks of Pitt as a program that can't win - only one that hasn't.

Pitt doesn't get to the second weekend (Elite Eight) because of the brand of basketball that they play. The Big East was notorious for letting the Bigguns of the conference play and bang each other under the basket. That style doesn't play very well on the national stage and if they draw an evenly talented team with a ref crew from the PAC 12, ACC, or SEC, who like a more wide open game, Pittsburgh will likely be headed for foul trouble. That is what made the achievements of Louisville, Gtown, Cuse and especially UConn that much more impressive. The coaches know how to teach multiple styles...or at least can reign in the football mentality under the boards. I fear that Pitt is stuck in the mud until Dixon changes are leaves.

 

[UConn Dan]

The upside down verbiage on the nearside is the same as prior courts (it's blocked from view from cameras by press row) - I guess it's there to remind people who came to game and sat on the TV side that they're at the UCONN HUSKIES game and to freakin be excited about it.

They moved the camera-facing verbiage from mid-court to each corner because the camera is mostly focused on action happening around each basket. So, someone casually changing channels knows they're immediately watching UConn Huskies. Or highlights on sports center - UCONN HUSKIES. Most new courts are going this direction. I'm cool with it -- more exposure I guess.

 

[freescooter]

Butler had good runs for five years in a row under two different coaches, and they were back as a top 20 team this year. Gonzaga has been a top 20 team for almost 15 years, and were only knocked off this year because another mid-major got hot and upset them. Gonzaga and Pitt are basically identical since 2000, and nobody thinks of Pitt as a program that can't win - only one that hasn't.

There are a ton of major conference teams that don't do squat - ever. Don't recall seeing any of these teams in a Final Four in the 64-team era: Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Boston College, Ole Miss, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Penn State, Kansas State, Northwestern, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Tennessee, Colorado, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, USC, Arizona State, Pitt, Rutgers, DePaul, South Florida, St. John's (perhaps their FF was the first year of 64 teams). That's about half of the major conference pool. And that leaves out some teams like Wisconsin, Cincy, Seton Hall, Stanford, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, and Providence that just had one run and didn't win. Pitt might be the only successful program on that entire list that has had a lot of success, but just hasn't cracked the Final Four hurdle. I don't think NC State has been back since 1984, either, and it isn't because of their conference.

Or look at a school like Texas - swimming in money, huge recruiting base, own TV network. They have been to one Final Four (playing at home to get there) and lost in the semis - essentially tying them with Wichita State, VCU and George Mason for tournament success. They have all the resources and brand name advantages in the world, but haven't done squat with any of it in basketball.

The point is that you don't have to play the victim due to circumstances. There is not one team I mentioned above that wouldn't kill for Butler's resume in this millennium. We have a brand name in hoops that can and should continue on through conference realignment. We may lose a big time recruit or two here and there, but we won't lose our pedigree that easily.

sure , if your point is that lots of teams suck regardless of league, I agree. If your point is that some teams can't win big games I agree. But my point was that Mid majors do not win championships.

 

[GlastonTim]

UCONN will never be a mid major in basketball. Regardless of conference.

 

[Gurleyman]

The problem with making a sweeping statement like that is that only one team wins the crapshoot for a championship, and not necessarily the best one. If Gordon Hayward makes the shot vs Duke (not the half court prayer, the baseline fadeaway right before it), then Butler has a title. They aren't diminished as a program because he back rimmed it. They didn't win, but if you think they couldn't have won, you're simply wrong. They could have beaten us the next year, and they could have knocked off Florida in the Sweet 16 the year Florida repeated (an entirely different Butler team), and who knows from there. They wouldn't have surprised anyone reaching the FF this year with an entirely different team as well, but their top weapon (Clarke) didn't shoot well.

And if our current league makes us a mid-major, then so was the Metro and CUSA. So Louisville with Denny Crum won a couple titles (and reached a FF with Pitino), Memphis State, Cincinnati, and Marquette made Final Fours, etc. (as did UMass and St Joes from the A-10). There was also UNLV but nobody likes to count them. Arkansas in the SWC (another AAC-level league) made one and then built up to a championship team after only a couple years in the SEC.

The idea is to put yourself in contention consistently and give yourself a chance to win. Gonzaga - and Xavier too - has done that as well as anybody this millennium, and they don't have the pedigree that we do. We aren't going to become Holy Cross because we are in a second-tier league.

 

[freescooter]

The problem with making a sweeping statement like that is that only one team wins the crapshoot for a championship, and not necessarily the best one. If Gordon Hayward makes the shot vs Duke (not the half court prayer, the baseline fadeaway right before it), then Butler has a title. They aren't diminished as a program because he back rimmed it. They didn't win, but if you think they couldn't have won, you're simply wrong. They could have beaten us the next year, and they could have knocked off Florida in the Sweet 16 the year Florida repeated (an entirely different Butler team), and who knows from there. They wouldn't have surprised anyone reaching the FF this year with an entirely different team as well, but their top weapon (Clarke) didn't shoot well.

And if our current league makes us a mid-major, then so was the Metro and CUSA. So Louisville with Denny Crum won a couple titles (and reached a FF with Pitino), Memphis State, Cincinnati, and Marquette made Final Fours, etc. (as did UMass and St Joes from the A-10). There was also UNLV but nobody likes to count them. Arkansas in the SWC (another AAC-level league) made one and then built up to a championship team after only a couple years in the SEC.

The idea is to put yourself in contention consistently and give yourself a chance to win. Gonzaga - and Xavier too - has done that as well as anybody this millennium, and they don't have the pedigree that we do. We aren't going to become Holy Cross because we are in a second-tier league.

If ifs and buts were candied nuts we'd all have a hell of a Christmas, too. You're talking about almosts and Final Fours. I'm talking about Championships. You want to be Gonzaga and Xavier, I think that actually confirms what I'm saying. People here 2-3 years ago were arguing whether or not UConn ought to be considered a blueblood like Kentucky and North Carolina and Duke. Now you're saying we can be Xavier.But even using your standard, Final Fours, how many of those programs have been to multiple Final Fours? Butler, in back to back seasons. That's it. Over the past 15 years, there have been 9 mid-majors in the Final Four. So 9 of 120 Final Four teams. The rest came from power conferences. Just for a bit of perspective, there have been more Big East,Big 10, and ACC teams in the Final Four over that period than all mid-majors combined. If you look at it another way, if I gave you a combo of Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler and UNLV or Duke, and bet $5000 on who gets back to the Final 4 first which would you take? Who wins a championship first? Remember, you win if any of the four mid-majors do it...If you consider $5000 pocket change, you might think about taking the middies to make the Final Four, though you would probably want something more than a straight up bet. You'd never take them to win. Nobody who knew anything about college basketball would. So argue all you want that conference doesn't matter. It is just not true. It won't happen in 2013-14, but over time as a result of UConn's mishandling of the ACC situation, UConn basketball is looking at a gradual demotion from a national power to a mid-major power.

By the way, the Louisville titles under Crum happened in what is really a whole different era in college basketball, before the emergence of power conferences. They were really a transitional program in the late 80s as was UNLV. The power conferences really began to emerge in the mid-80s when the Big East sent 3 teams to the Final Four. But that's a whole different discussion. Prior to that conferences were not as relevant.

 

[Husky25]

By the way, the Louisville titles under Crum happened in what is really a whole different era in college basketball, before the emergence of power conferences. They were really a transitional program in the late 80s as was UNLV. The power conferences really began to emerge in the mid-80s when the Big East sent 3 teams to the Final Four. But that's a whole different discussion. Prior to that conferences were not as relevant.

Agreed with some of what you said, but this last paragraph isn't so much in my opinion. Prior to the Tournament expanding to 32 in 1975, only one team per conference was eligible, which is is also the reason why the PAC 10 and Big 10 did not have a conference tournament until quite recently. I'd say that makes conferences quite relevant.

 

[freescooter]

Agreed with some of what you said, but this last paragraph isn't so much in my opinion. Prior to the Tournament expanding to 32 in 1975, only one team per conference was eligible, which is is also the reason why the PAC 10 and Big 10 did not have a conference tournament until quite recently. I'd say that makes conferences quite relevant.

I agree with that to some extent, but prior to 1975, many teams weren't even in conferences, or if they were those conferences were more administrative and scheduling mechanisms like the old ECAC which provided officials and so forth in the northeast and helped teams coordinate scheduling. A few others were informal relationships more like the Philly Big 5 is than official leagues. The Big East was essentially formed out of a bunch of northeastern independents. If I recall correctly, only UConn among the original members was in anything resembling a real conference.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

If ifs and buts were candied nuts we'd all have a hell of a Christmas, too. You're talking about almosts and Final Fours. I'm talking about Championships. You want to be Gonzaga and Xavier, I think that actually confirms what I'm saying. People here 2-3 years ago were arguing whether or not UConn ought to be considered a blueblood like Kentucky and North Carolina and Duke. Now you're saying we can be Xavier.But even using your standard, Final Fours, how many of those programs have been to multiple Final Fours? Butler, in back to back seasons. That's it. Over the past 15 years, there have been 9 mid-majors in the Final Four. So 9 of 120 Final Four teams. The rest came from power conferences. Just for a bit of perspective, there have been more Big East,Big 10, and ACC teams in the Final Four over that period than all mid-majors combined. If you look at it another way, if I gave you a combo of Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler and UNLV or Duke, and bet $5000 on who gets back to the Final 4 first which would you take? Who wins a championship first? Remember, you win if any of the four mid-majors do it...If you consider $5000 pocket change, you might think about taking the middies to make the Final Four, though you would probably want something more than a straight up bet. You'd never take them to win. Nobody who knew anything about college basketball would. So argue all you want that conference doesn't matter. It is just not true. It won't happen in 2013-14, but over time as a result of UConn's mishandling of the ACC situation, UConn basketball is looking at a gradual demotion from a national power to a mid-major power.

By the way, the Louisville titles under Crum happened in what is really a whole different era in college basketball, before the emergence of power conferences. They were really a transitional program in the late 80s as was UNLV. The power conferences really began to emerge in the mid-80s when the Big East sent 3 teams to the Final Four. But that's a whole different discussion. Prior to that conferences were not as relevant.

You can't say that Louisville won championships in a "different era" without acknowledging that Uconn's current situation is completely unprecedented. There's really nothing to compare this to - there's never been a program that has had as much recent success as we have that found their conference situation deteriorate so quickly. You can compare us to Gonzaga, Butler, or whoever else, but those programs have been swimming upstream since day one. Between the recent championship, NBA players, and the strength of the Uconn brand, we're starting this conference mess at a much higher point than those other mid-major programs have ever been.

And let's be honest, it's all about recruiting. What's missing in your analysis (no doubt because you hate to admit it) is the fact that your favorite new head coach has already brought in two 5-star players for the class of 2014 - who I imagine are both very well-aware of what conference we play in. If we continue to get high-major players, we're not going to be a mid-major team.

 

[Husky25]

I agree with that to some extent, but prior to 1975, many teams weren't even in conferences, or if they were those conferences were more administrative and scheduling mechanisms like the old ECAC which provided officials and so forth in the northeast and helped teams coordinate scheduling. A few others were informal relationships more like the Philly Big 5 is than official leagues. The Big East was essentially formed out of a bunch of northeastern independents. If I recall correctly, only UConn among the original members was in anything resembling a real conference.

Tell that to Southern Cal, who were not only #2 in the PAC to UCLA for a lot of John Wooden's reign, but one of the best programs in the country. They didn't played in the NCAA Tournament during that time.

Basketball is different than football and like HuskyBBFan said, its really all about recuiting, and coaching by extension. I've mentioned the CenterStage interview with Calhoun many times. Michael Kay asked Coach outright how he convinced high quality talent to come to a little podunk cow town in northeast Connecticut over other basketball powerhouses of the day. Calhoun said he recruited by selling the Conference at first. But it got easier later in his career because the kids' #1 concern is, "Can this coach get me to the NBA?" Calhoun obviously demonstated that he could.

Their rookie coach lead a team, with no glory to play for, to a 20 win season, and he's recruited a "Blueblood" class for 2013-2014. The basketball program probably has their Dance ticket stamped for at least the next 5 years. If Ollie can get his kids to the NBA, he will continue to get the talent, regardless of conference. I'm guardedly optimistic about basketball...a tad more skeptical about the football situation, but we'll see.

 

[freescooter]

In fact it isn't unprecedented at all. In the late 80s early 1990s lots of teams that were considered powers struggled to keep up after getting locked out of major conferences. Louisville is a great example. They were an elite power program. The won 2 titles in 6 years, but also went to the Final Four in 72, 75, 82, and 83. Over a 15 year period they went to SIX Final fours and won twice. And the Sweet 16 in 74 and 79. But as the Metro morphed into C-USA and mid-majordom, it took them 20 years to get back to a Final Final Four. They made one more trip in their transition year to the Big East. They were one of those nice mid-majors who has a punchers chance of getting deep if things set up well. Like everyone's favorites Gonzaga or Butler. In 8 years in the Big East they have been to 4 Elite 8s, 3 Final Fours and won a title. In the 20 years after their 1986 crown they got to 1 Final Fours and 2 elite 8s. That is what UConn is facing, fellas and gals. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it not so.

 

[Gurleyman]

I am not saying we are looking up at Butler or Xavier, or holding them up as someone for us to now aspire to. I am putting Butler and Xavier ahead of all those other major conference schools and saying that they consistently put themselves in a position where they have a chance to make a tournament run. Then it is just a crapshoot from there. The last team standing can usually point to a lucky break along the way (ie Arizona missing for us, and Butler missing for Duke). It isn't like there's scientific evidence that a champion provides you, which reveals the only way you can win a championship. The sample size is small, and the margin between success and failure is often razor thin.

My point is that you can be a "woe is me" type, or you can go out there and get great players, coach them up with high expectations and try to win. We have already pulled in two McDonald's All-Americans since our conference situation fell apart (one transfer, and one who will almost certainly be named one this spring). We're not letting go of our pedigree that easily. And if championships are the only thing that matters, then we were just a meaningless program in 1998 - always had great teams, but couldn't get over the hump to the Final Four (and playing in a league that had slipped a lot since its glory days of 1985). Did you feel irrelevant or that the program couldn't win in 1998? I didn't.

Besides, if anything, in this really modern era where conference affiliation has really come to the forefront, mid-majors have been more successful. There wasn't a true mid-major Final Four team in between 1979 and 2006, but since then, there have been five. Gonzaga reached No. 1 this year - first time thats happened since Larry Bird's team. Teams are successful coming from all sorts of different conferences and histories - the Colonial has more Final Four teams since 2006 than the PAC 12. Butler has had 3 excellent chances to win titles in the last seven years, and according to you, a shot that missed by less than an inch devalues their success because they didn't win. You don't need a conference label to have success any more. We may miss out on some recruits who want to play in a bigger league, but we missed out on recruits all the time in the Calhoun Era too.

 

[HooperScooper]

If ifs and buts were candied nuts we'd all have a hell of a Christmas, too. You're talking about almosts and Final Fours. I'm talking about Championships. You want to be Gonzaga and Xavier, I think that actually confirms what I'm saying. People here 2-3 years ago were arguing whether or not UConn ought to be considered a blueblood like Kentucky and North Carolina and Duke. Now you're saying we can be Xavier.But even using your standard, Final Fours, how many of those programs have been to multiple Final Fours? Butler, in back to back seasons. That's it. Over the past 15 years, there have been 9 mid-majors in the Final Four. So 9 of 120 Final Four teams. The rest came from power conferences. Just for a bit of perspective, there have been more Big East,Big 10, and ACC teams in the Final Four over that period than all mid-majors combined. If you look at it another way, if I gave you a combo of Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler and UNLV or Duke, and bet $5000 on who gets back to the Final 4 first which would you take? Who wins a championship first? Remember, you win if any of the four mid-majors do it...If you consider $5000 pocket change, you might think about taking the middies to make the Final Four, though you would probably want something more than a straight up bet. You'd never take them to win. Nobody who knew anything about college basketball would. So argue all you want that conference doesn't matter. It is just not true. It won't happen in 2013-14, but over time as a result of UConn's mishandling of the ACC situation, UConn basketball is looking at a gradual demotion from a national power to a mid-major power.

By the way, the Louisville titles under Crum happened in what is really a whole different era in college basketball, before the emergence of power conferences. They were really a transitional program in the late 80s as was UNLV. The power conferences really began to emerge in the mid-80s when the Big East sent 3 teams to the Final Four. But that's a whole different discussion. Prior to that conferences were not as relevant.

Unless my math is way off there were only 60 teams in the Final Four over the last 15 years. 15 times 4 is 60. So 9 mid-majors out of 60, not 9 of 120. Still not great odds considering there are about 60 major conference teams and about 280 mid-major and low major teams in college basketball.

What makes a mid-major? In general it's the conference but I think a bigger reason is their athletic budget. There have been studies that show the teams with the largest athletic budgets have been the biggest winners in the revenue sports. UConn currently is up there with the majors in the size of their athletic budget. Will that continue in the AAC? I think that's the biggest question.

 

[Husky25]

In fact it isn't unprecedented at all. In the late 80s early 1990s lots of teams that were considered powers struggled to keep up after getting locked out of major conferences. Louisville is a great example. They were an elite power program. The won 2 titles in 6 years, but also went to the Final Four in 72, 75, 82, and 83. Over a 15 year period they went to SIX Final fours and won twice. And the Sweet 16 in 74 and 79. But as the Metro morphed into C-USA and mid-majordom, it took them 20 years to get back to a Final Final Four. They made one more trip in their transition year to the Big East. They were one of those nice mid-majors who has a punchers chance of getting deep if things set up well. Like everyone's favorites Gonzaga or Butler. In 8 years in the Big East they have been to 4 Elite 8s, 3 Final Fours and won a title. In the 20 years after their 1986 crown they got to 1 Final Fours and 2 elite 8s. That is what UConn is facing, fellas and gals. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it not so.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/colleges.cgi?college=louisville
http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/colleges.cgi?college=uconn

Denny Crum coach 28 future NBA'ers
Jim Calhoun coached 27 (By my count)

The difference is that Crum's rate of putting players in the NBA seemed to slowed as he aged, while Calhoun's stayed relatively consistent. For a while, Crum could only point to "Never Nervous" Pervis Ellison. Plus they were hit with sactions twice in the 90's. Crum "retired" in 2001.

 

[Gurleyman]

There are a ton of low major teams that aren't truly competing for titles. There's a big drop off once you get past the Missouri Valley, A10, Gonzaga group. If we end up in the MAAC or the America East, yeah, I'm on board with the "we're screwed" crowd. This AAC league makes it a little tougher, but then again, we were a cow college in the sticks with no modern success when Calhoun took over and he overcame the "you can't win there" label. The challenge is much less significant now that we're a house of banners.

If there is uncertainty moving forward, it may be whether KO can coach a team to a title. He's off to a great start, but winning those tight games under pressure in the postseason is something that isn't a given for anyone. It took JC 10 years of trying to get his first.

 

[Husky25]

Teams are successful coming from all sorts of different conferences and histories - the Colonial has more Final Four teams since 2006 than the PAC 12.

Well to be fair, the PAC 12 should be considered mid-major in basketball.

 

[Husky25]

There are a ton of low major teams that aren't truly competing for titles. There's a big drop off once you get past the Missouri Valley, A10, Gonzaga group. If we end up in the MAAC or the America East, yeah, I'm on board with the "we're screwed" crowd. This AAC league makes it a little tougher, but then again, we were a cow college in the sticks with no modern success when Calhoun took over and he overcame the "you can't win there" label. The challenge is much less significant now that we're a house of banners.

If there is uncertainty moving forward, it may be whether KO can coach a team to a title. He's off to a great start, but winning those tight games under pressure in the postseason is something that isn't a given for anyone. It took JC 10 years of trying to get his first.

I think getting Shabazz and Boat drafted in the first round will keep UConn relevant, but then he has to get Samuel and Facey into the Association, then the recurits who come in 2015, 16, and 17. It's a fluid process.

 

[aceboon]

I think getting Shabazz and Boat drafted in the first round will keep UConn relevant, but then he has to get Samuel, and Facey into the Association, then the recurits who come in 2015, 16, and 17. It's a fluid process.

Not exactly sure how Boat and Bazz's draft status tie into us remaining relevant. While remaining an NBA pipeline going forward is expected, this current team doesn't have the greatest of NBA talent on its roster right now(that doesn't necessarily tie into this year's expectations tho, I expect us to be top 20 at worst). Also, Samuel is ranked in the 100s, while we see lower ranked guys make the NBA all the time(some of our own, Trey Burke this year is a lottery pick and was ranked in the 100s), saying Ollie has to get him to the NBA when he hasn't even stepped on the floor yet is a bit much. For all we know we could easily sign a better PG in the next recruiting class and so on that limits him to a backup role.

 

[upstater]

In fact it isn't unprecedented at all. In the late 80s early 1990s lots of teams that were considered powers struggled to keep up after getting locked out of major conferences. Louisville is a great example. They were an elite power program. The won 2 titles in 6 years, but also went to the Final Four in 72, 75, 82, and 83. Over a 15 year period they went to SIX Final fours and won twice. And the Sweet 16 in 74 and 79. But as the Metro morphed into C-USA and mid-majordom, it took them 20 years to get back to a Final Final Four. They made one more trip in their transition year to the Big East. They were one of those nice mid-majors who has a punchers chance of getting deep if things set up well. Like everyone's favorites Gonzaga or Butler. In 8 years in the Big East they have been to 4 Elite 8s, 3 Final Fours and won a title. In the 20 years after their 1986 crown they got to 1 Final Fours and 2 elite 8s. That is what UConn is facing, fellas and gals. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it not so.

How was the Metro different from CUSA?

The strong powerful MAJOR CONFERENCE Metro during the years Ville won championships:

Cincy, Memphis, Tulane, So. Mississippi, Va. Tech, Florida St.!

Heck, teams like St. Louis even left this power conference in favor of the Horizon.

In many respects, the Metro is CUSA is the AAC.

 

[freescooter]

Tell that to Southern Cal, who were not only #2 in the PAC to UCLA for a lot of John Wooden's reign, but one of the best programs in the country. They didn't played in the NCAA Tournament during that time.

Basketball is different than football and like HuskyBBFan said, its really all about recuiting, and coaching by extension. I've mentioned the CenterStage interview with Calhoun many times. Michael Kay asked Coach outright how he convinced high quality talent to come to a little podunk cow town in northeast Connecticut over other basketball powerhouses of the day. Calhoun said he recruited by selling the Conference at first. But it got easier later in his career because the kids' #1 concern is, "Can this coach get me to the NBA?" Calhoun obviously demonstated that he could.

Their rookie coach lead a team, with no glory to play for, to a 20 win season, and he's recruited a "Blueblood" class for 2013-2014. The basketball program probably has their Dance ticket stamped for at least the next 5 years. If Ollie can get his kids to the NBA, he will continue to get the talent, regardless of conference. I'm guardedly optimistic about basketball...a tad more skeptical about the football situation, but we'll see.

Look, I agree with you about Conferences to some degree in the pre-expansion tournament. If you were in one, it mattered, but lots of top teams were not in conferences, especially in the east so they were irrelevant. Providence went to the Final Four in the Ernie D years and they were not in any conference, just as one New England example. St Johns was an independent starting in 1963 and before that were in an informal league of sorts with the other city schools.

Look this doesn't decline happen overnight. It will be a gradual slide, probably not even that perceptible until you look back. Again looking at Louisville, after the 1986 title they were still a pretty good team, but just not quite as good and began losing in the round of 32 and the Sweet 16 rather than getting over the hump. As I said, they went from being an elite program, and over a 20 year period from 1970 to 1990 Louisville was absolutely one of the elites of college basketball, to being one of the better mid-majors. You didn't want to see them in your bracket, because they could win a game, but you also didn't pencil them in to win the whole thing after about 1992 when it was obvious they were heading in a different direction. They made the tournament practically every year. Regularly won their league. 8 Metro/CUSA titles and 6 Regular season titles. They just were no longer elite. They were called things like "best of the mid-majors."

 

[upstater]

Look, I agree with you about Conferences to some degree in the pre-expansion tournament. If you were in one, it mattered, but lots of top teams were not in conferences, especially in the east so they were irrelevant. Providence went to the Final Four in the Ernie D years and they were not in any conference, just as one New England example. St Johns was an independent starting in 1963 and before that were in an informal league of sorts with the other city schools.

Look this doesn't decline happen overnight. It will be a gradual slide, probably not even that perceptible until you look back. Again looking at Louisville, after the 1986 title they were still a pretty good team, but just not quite as good and began losing in the round of 32 and the Sweet 16 rather than getting over the hump. As I said, they went from being an elite program, and over a 20 year period from 1970 to 1990 Louisville was absolutely one of the elites of college basketball, to being one of the better mid-majors. You didn't want to see them in your bracket, because they could win a game, but you also didn't pencil them in to win the whole thing after about 1992 when it was obvious they were heading in a different direction. They made the tournament practically every year. Regularly won their league. 8 Metro/CUSA titles and 6 Regular season titles. They just were no longer elite. They were called things like "best of the mid-majors."

Crum started sliding, Pitino brought them back--BEFORE the Big East.

Just like Brad Stevens has Butler in 2 national championships, just like Calipari and Memphis or Tarkanian and UNLV or Guy Lewis and Houston.

Coaching is what matters in college basketball. UConn will go as far as Kevin Ollie will take them.

Don't forget that Pitino took that Louisville job long before Ville had even an inkling they'd join the BE.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

In fact it isn't unprecedented at all. In the late 80s early 1990s lots of teams that were considered powers struggled to keep up after getting locked out of major conferences. Louisville is a great example. They were an elite power program. The won 2 titles in 6 years, but also went to the Final Four in 72, 75, 82, and 83. Over a 15 year period they went to SIX Final fours and won twice. And the Sweet 16 in 74 and 79. But as the Metro morphed into C-USA and mid-majordom, it took them 20 years to get back to a Final Final Four. They made one more trip in their transition year to the Big East. They were one of those nice mid-majors who has a punchers chance of getting deep if things set up well. Like everyone's favorites Gonzaga or Butler. In 8 years in the Big East they have been to 4 Elite 8s, 3 Final Fours and won a title. In the 20 years after their 1986 crown they got to 1 Final Fours and 2 elite 8s. That is what UConn is facing, fellas and gals. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it not so.

You didn't respond to the recruiting portion of my post. How does the fact that Rodney Purvis and Daniel Hamilton agreed to come to Uconn despite our conference situation play into your doomsday scenario?

 

[Husky25]

Not exactly sure how Boat and Bazz's draft status tie into us remaining relevant. While remaining an NBA pipeline going forward is expected, this current team doesn't have the greatest of NBA talent on its roster right now(that doesn't necessarily tie into this year's expectations tho, I expect us to be top 20 at worst). Also, Samuel is ranked in the 100s, while we see lower ranked guys make the NBA all the time(some of our own, Trey Burke this year is a lottery pick and was ranked in the 100s), saying Ollie has to get him to the NBA when he hasn't even stepped on the floor yet is a bit much. For all we know we could easily sign a better PG in the next recruiting class and so on that limits him to a backup role.

This is not my theory. This is right from Calhoun's mouth. Kids judge a program based on the chance they have of getting to the NBA. You're right, Boat and Bazz's draft status doesn't matter as much as they are on an NBA roster for openning night of the regular season, the Autumn following leaving school (by either declaring early, or by graduation.)

17 year olds don't care about endowment. They care about how often they will be on TV, if they will make the Tournament, and if the coach's system will allow them to showcase their talent. These kids are absolutely thinking that far ahead. As a college sports fan, I want them thinking like that. I hope they have that much confidence in their game. I want them to have as much as possible so long as it stops just below the point of arrogance...

 

[freescooter]

the bottom line here is that we can be a good mid-major. We probably will be. But over time it will be tougher and tougher to be relevant, to keep a pipeline of top players coming and to stay near the top with the real power conferences. If I were a betting man, I'd say Louisville is far more likely to get deep into the NCAA tournament on a regular basis than UConn is over the next decade, assuming we both stay in the leagues we're in. the odds of them remaining a national power are hugely higher than that we will. We'll become what Louisville was between 1990 and 2005,one of those tough out mid-majors with a punchers chance to get to the Final Four in our best seasons. You can list a bunch of schools in the same catagory. Memphis is one. Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, maybe to a lesser extent Xavier, Temple and VCU. With the new leagues I think Marquette, Georgetown and us and Cincy get added to that list since both the AAC and Biggish East are more or less comparable now. But now the argument has changed entirely. Its no longer is UConn one of the elite programs like UNC, Duke, etc. The new question is are we one of the top mid-majors? And can we remain one long term?