Big East needs another Nova, who will it be?

[scoscox]

We know Wells' departure wasn't his fault. The Lyons situation was a little complicated.

Overall, with the BE affiliation in his quiver, I believe we're going to see great things out of Mack on the recruiting trail and in terms of building strong teams. We're already trending in that direction.

Yea, I agree. It has been a little frustrating though just how many snags Mack and co. have dealt with and it's hard not to assign him at least some of the responsibility. Unfortunately, they have affected some of our very best teams. I don't see it as being a systemic problem though or keeping us from continuing to improve down the road. He is still recruiting extremely well.

[herodotus]

That said, Id have to think Georgetown has the name and history to be as good as anyone in this conference. I just wonder if GT3 has what it takes. The right coach could bring everything back.

Yes, the right coach could bring it back. It ain't easy finding the right coach. If you don't believe me, ask St. John's and DePaul. No one 25 years ago would have thought that St. John's would fall off like they have, or that DePaul would absolutely crater. I just think they have to be very careful before they pull the plug on JT3 for all the reasons I pointed out in the other thread.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I don't think the conference necessarily "needs another Nova." We should be wary of setting unrealistic expectations as a conference. As others have pointed out if our standard is to be the ACC now, with 6 teams in the Top 20 and 4 teams being a 3 seed or higher, our expectations are way out of whack. Short of 2 horrific injury setbacks to 2 all-league players we would have realistically had a shot at 4 teams getting top 5 seeds in the tourney this year IMO. That's phenomenal. Just about every program is trending up. Why not just point to that and be content we are on the right track? I find it comical to offer up L'ville, UNC, Duke, KU, UK as the programs to compare ourselves to. These are all time programs with HOF coaches. Why set that as the bar?

Lastly I keep seeing comments from fans of the 3 new/rising Midwest teams in the league regarding their upptick in recruiting and just assuming that their respective programs will take a big jump because of it. My only piece of advice is don't get too caught up in the # next to these kids rankings. Sometimes it is a blessing (Trevon Blueitt, Angel Delgado) and sometimes it's not (I. Copeland / Dom Cheek). Sometimes these highly ranked kids step on campus and expect to be the star and don't put in the work to earn their spot. Others come in somewhat unheralded (Darrun Hilliard, K Martin) and take off. Back in the old BE Nova brought in a monster class with 3 Top 25 kids and another in the Top 60. 2nd only to the UK team with John Wall & co. Three years later it was the worst team Nova had in the Jay W era. Nothing wrong with sprinkling high end talent in but if the goal is to try to recruit like John Calipari, I think some programs might lose what makes them special.

[kayako]

Found this on vuhoops and I think this is a fairly relevant pov on this topic from a syracuse fan...

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/big-east-di ... um=twitter

[kayako]

if the goal is to try to recruit like John Calipari, I think some programs might lose what makes them special.

I don't think we have anything to worry about.

[GumbyDamnit!]

if the goal is to try to recruit like John Calipari, I think some programs might lose what makes them special.

I don't think we have anything to worry about.

I use hyperbole to make a point. Be who you are. Jay has figured out what type of kid works for his vision. Josh Hart, Kris Jenkins, Mikael Bridges, Donte D, Darrun Hilliard, Dante Cunningham. These are all kids that were in the 60-150 range that he developed. I no longer question who Jay brings ina nd do not worry about the # nexst to their recruiting ranking. Let the Blue bloods race for the one and done's. I like our recruiting strategy to counter that dynamic. And the Butler way is the Butler way b/c of the kids they are bringing in. Be careful what you wish for and don't just assume getting 4 and 5 star kids is going to magically improve your program.

[Bill Marsh]

Found this on vuhoops and I think this is a fairly relevant pov on this topic from a syracuse fan...

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/big-east-di ... um=twitter

Excellent article. Thanks for the link, Kayako, I enjoyed reading it.

[Xudash]

Found this on vuhoops and I think this is a fairly relevant pov on this topic from a syracuse fan...

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/big-east-di ... um=twitter

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting article.

[MUBoxer]

Villanova has been a consistently successful program ever since Al Severance first stepped on campus during the mid 30s. Only St. John's is within shouting distance of them overall. There have been zero extended stretches of bad play in Nova's history. Any hiccups have been quickly corrected. Nova, along with St. John's, was a power from the 30s, through the end of the independent era in the mid 70s. This was a time when Syracuse, and Georgetown were garbage, and Xavier, Butler, and Creighton were little known. When long time Catholic powers like Bona, Duquesne, and Holy Cross fell off in the 70s, Nova rolled on. When Cuse, and Georgetown emerged in the late 70s, Nova ran right with them. When St. John's, and DePaul began to stumble, Nova stayed on it's feet. When the football schools began to dominate the BE, and schools like Seton Hall, and PC began to get ground under, Nova competed with no problem. Even the much maligned Lappas years would have been seen as highly successful for most of the schools in this league. You have to really hand it to Villanova; they've run their program very very well, for 80 years.

Umm you seem to completely skim over the 70s ignoring the team that was by far the best of all of us in the 70s...

I know Marquette was great under McGuire, but you're missing the point. There were lots of teams who had great runs. PC was also a monster in the 60s and 70s, but what were they and MU during the 30s, 40s, and 50s? Not on Villanova's level, that's for sure. Even when MU was at it's peak, Villanova made the Final, and gave UCLA it's toughest Championship Game of the Wooden era. Yeah Xavier had a good team when they won the NIT, but there were a lot of not so good years as well. Villanova has been very good in every era since the mid 30s. Even St. John's can no longer say that.

Please don't tell me you just compared 70s Nova and Providence to us

Nova 70s: 173-116 (and don't get me started on how they cheated that FF season while we played by the rules with a similar situation and it ended up ending our season early)

Providence 70s: 209-84

Marquette 70s: 251-41

If you want to talk about the peach basket era to establish who can be the no 2 go ahead but the only other team in this conference who's had an era on our 70s level is 80s Georgetown and Nova right now.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't think the conference necessarily "needs another Nova." We should be wary of setting unrealistic expectations as a conference. As others have pointed out if our standard is to be the ACC now, with 6 teams in the Top 20 and 4 teams being a 3 seed or higher, our expectations are way out of whack. Short of 2 horrific injury setbacks to 2 all-league players we would have realistically had a shot at 4 teams getting top 5 seeds in the tourney this year IMO. That's phenomenal. Just about every program is trending up. Why not just point to that and be content we are on the right track? I find it comical to offer up L'ville, UNC, Duke, KU, UK as the programs to compare ourselves to. These are all time programs with HOF coaches. Why set that as the bar?

Lastly I keep seeing comments from fans of the 3 new/rising Midwest teams in the league regarding their upptick in recruiting and just assuming that their respective programs will take a big jump because of it. My only piece of advice is don't get too caught up in the # next to these kids rankings. Sometimes it is a blessing (Trevon Blueitt, Angel Delgado) and sometimes it's not (I. Copeland / Dom Cheek). Sometimes these highly ranked kids step on campus and expect to be the star and don't put in the work to earn their spot. Others come in somewhat unheralded (Darrun Hilliard, K Martin) and take off. Back in the old BE Nova brought in a monster class with 3 Top 25 kids and another in the Top 60. 2nd only to the UK team with John Wall & co. Three years later it was the worst team Nova had in the Jay W era. Nothing wrong with sprinkling high end talent in but if the goal is to try to recruit like John Calipari, I think some programs might lose what makes them special.

Great post, Gumby. You make a number of excellent posts.

I just want to pick up on your point about comparisons with all time programs. Just for the sake of discussion and just to add my 2 cents.

We often hear reference to the "blue bloods" as though their success is inevitable. (Not referring to you.) those schools invest a lot in their programs and facilities. They set high expectations. They fire even successful coaches if they don't win championships. All of those things contribute to making them special. OTOH, even with all of that, it's still hard for them to maintain that success.

UCLA has one won title in the 41 years since Wooden retired and have been to 6 F's. That's what Syracuse has done since 1975. SU is an excellent program, but they're not a blue blood.

Kentucky went for 37 years between 1958 and 1996 winning only 1 title, and went to only 4 F4's in all that time. With all their resources they struggled to compete for titles after Pitino left, missing the F4 for a dozen years in a row until Calipari got them back there.

All of Duke's titles have come since 1991, and all have come under Coack K. They were a good program before him, having gone to 4 F's, but their history wasn't as good as St John's, or San Francisco's, or Cincinnati's, or Ohio State's, or NC State's. In other words, there wasn't anything blue bloodish about them until coach K got there. Very similar to UConn and Calhoun although starting from a higher point.

Kansas gets credit as a blue blood because they have a history that goes back to James Naismith in the pre-tournament era, and because they had tournament success back in the 40's, 50's, and '70's before the open era. Also they played in the storied triple OT game with Wilt against Carolina. But they built their reputation when the NCAA tournament was not a national tournament; it was 4 regional tournaments. They had easy access because they were the only basketball school in a football conference and because the Midwest region was by far the weakest of the 4 regional tournaments. Frankly it's shocking that they didn't have more than the 6 F4's and 1NC that they compiled in the 37 years before the tournament became truly national. I think their history is way overhyped. Nonetheless they deserve lots of credit for what they've done since 1986. Yet for all that their 2 titles are the same as Villanova's since the mid '80's.

Think about Indiana as a blue blood before Knight got there. Two national titles is significant, but not a single other F4 in 35 years bedore Knight's first F4. And both of their national titles in that early era were disputed. The Helms Foundation named USC over them in 1940 and Seton Hall's NIT champs were probably the better team in 1953. Since the F4 team that Knight left to his successor in 2002, they haven't back to the F4 and they haven't won a title in 30 years.

The only program which has been consistently successful over a long period of time under multiple coaches has been North Carolina - although Kentucky can obviously put in a claim for that as well.

Sorry to ramble on for so long, but I just wanted to make the point that the success of most of these programs has been highly dependent on a few great coaches - Wooden, Coach K, Knight, Rupp/Pitino/Calipari - or the program has been overhyped (Kansas). And I'm not so sure how good a coach Calipari is since scandals have followed him everywhere. I'd put Calhoun ahead of him.

All of these schools provide great institutional support for their programs. Without that support, those coaches wouldn't have been as successful. But even with that support, when those schools didn't have those Hall of Fame coaches they were no better than any other strong program of their era.

On another note, Duke is going to have a very hard time maintaining its level of success. The next great coach winning championships at an academically rigorous private school may have just won his first in a string of titles in 2016.