Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DefenseBB, post: 3287578, member: 7492"] I sort of Blame you directly for my spending hours on this assessment of the programs as I wanted to prove a “good WCBB history” for you! LSU was good but has slipped under Caldwell quite badly actually. [USER=591]@KnightBridgeAZ[/USER] brought up a few points to ponder- to me, trends and consistency make for historical programs (note NOT history). I mean Old Dominion had history but they are not historically good. Same with USC, they had a run in the 80s but nothing sustainable since-is that historically good? I think not. Auburn was awesome then bad and except for 2009 has been bad. If you have not been relevant for 20 years, can you have a historically good program? No program can sustain excellence over 40 years but downward trends need to be reversed and upward success sustained for a few years to combat those slumps. I don’t see that with Auburn based on the data. To me, the SEC has 3 historically good programs- Tenn, Georgia,LSU. Vandy wants to think that but the data says no. Texas A&M, SC, MSU are building great programs that have shown sustainability. I do agree with my Rutgers colleague that Missouri has NOT be a good program until Pidgeon got there. The sort I did was on conference win percentage and I did not state they had a History of good basketball. Their trend is flat but more promising then the has beens of Auburn and Vandy. Can the SEC reverse the conference slide and stop relying on history for glory but get back to the top ahead of PAC-12 and ACC? Not in the near term. Hopefully my daughters analysis in 15 years will tell this forum the answer! [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,443

Messages: 4,396,428

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl