Wow
Kihei should return to school, heâll make more in nil at uva
I donât understand why the lakers would workout Kihei without working out Reece at the same time. How would that even work?
Iâd be cool with you doubling down on that pact.
Knew i loved the Lakers Kihei bout to get Bron a ship
Clarkâs invited solely to test one of the other PGs on how they deal with a smaller, quicker defender.
You need bodies for these workouts. Kihei from LA and doesnât need travel paid.
I agree Dave, I think generally the average fan is not keeping tabs on regular season titles. The average fan is listening to who analyst tell them is relevant. For blue blood programs regular season titles are just confirmation for the analyst that those programs are still worth spotlighting. For UVA itâs not going to be enough. There are enough analysts that want to see the brand of basketball CTB brings to the table fail. Even for our really good teams the party line was UVA is bad for college basketball. Honestly, we will never shed that label at ESPN, but if we want to stay in the national conversation (even if it is as the villain) we have to be relevant in the spotlight. That means consistently being ranked top 10 so that we are getting a billing against Duke and UNC and other good teams in prime time, and/or gettin to and beyond the second weekend in the tournament. We have not done either in the last four years.
What will you offer up this time? Should you get web board approval first?
Trying to remember how it works ⌠but Iâm pretty sure itâs improbable to get to the Final 4 or a Title without getting to the Sweet 16 first? Just wondering.
We get a title 33% of the time we get to the Sweet 16 under CTB so the more often one gets to the Sweet 16 - the higher the odds a Final 4 happens maybe?
And the hidden part is there is so much less pressure after getting to the Sweet 16 as far as being a huge favorite and tightening up against a Cinderella. That factor has been our biggest bugaboo.
Letâs use Gonzaga as a use case. Theyâve been to 10 Sweet 16âs the last 20 years, including the last 8 years in a row.
Out of those 8 they made 3 Elite 8âs and 2 Final 4âs for a 25% Final 4 rate if getting to the Sweet 16.
UNC since 2007 has reached the Sweet 16 10 times.
3 Elite 8âs and 5 Final 4âs for a 50% Final 4 hit rate in Sweet 16 years.
Villanova since 2009:
5 Sweet 16âs and 4 Final 4âs for an 80% Final 4 hit rate in Sweet 16 years.
Just get to the sweet 16 regularly and Final 4 's will follow.
Come on, man, now youâre just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
My contribution on the ânational relevancyâ dialogue: itâs always a mix of things. I think our ACC run from 2014-2018 (regular and tournament) made us nationally relevant, but we added to that with a sweet 16 and an elite 8, plus we were beating teams in Duke and UNC that were winning titles and getting to final 4s. Obviously 2019 made us extremely nationally relevant.
Then, we have maintained a lot of (though not nearly the same level) ACC success the last 4 seasons, with 2 shared titles, and one tied for second place finish. Plus one ACC tourney finale in the 3 years itâs been played in the last 4 seasons. But when you match that with only 2 tourney appearances in 3 tries, and zero wins (and 2 losses to 13 seeds, both of whom lost by 14 or more points in the following round), plus what is widely considered a diminished ACC (except maybe for the year when we finished sixth), and add that up with no 5 stars and no Hauser level transfers, then you have diminished relevancy.
Another point on the sweet 16: while I agree with @jphat007 and others who say that nobody remembers sweet 16s, itâs also true, well akshully, you do. Hereâs what I mean: If I asked all of you, do you think the following four teams have had a good 3 years, I suspect most of you would answer yes.
- Gonzaga
- Arkansas
- UCLA
- Houston
Well, those are the only 4 teams who have been to each of the last 3 Sweet 16s.
You can keep going with this. What about these teams? Have they been good?
- Creighton
- Kansas
- Baylor
I suspect youâd say yes. Those are the three additional teams that have won at least one game in all three tourneys.
I feel like, on one hand, Iâm making a pedantic point even for me, but on the other, we keep arguing over this stuff. Point being: you do remember sustained tourney success, even if you forget that Princeton made it this year, and, unfortunately the converse, too. Folks do remember sustained tourney disappointment. Which is why we should all thank our lucky stars for Matt Painter. 
The average fan doesnât know who Goodman and Dauster are. The average fan knows about his or her team and maybe remembers a team or two in the Final Four, and perhaps the champ or a team that busted a bracket.
Average fans donât listen to college hoops podcasts or know Titus and Tate. Those are the fanatics. Huge difference.
That said, they might watch College Gameday from time to time â but Williams and Greenberg and Bilas speak very highly of Bennett and the program.
I donât think that list is proving the point you want to make. To do that, you need to include some teams that had good regular seasons but didnât make Sweet 16s, and see if folks feel any differently about those teams. That would demonstrate that itâs the Sweet 16s that drive the change in perception, not just general success.
I suspect if you included all the teams that have been consistently ranked the last 3 years without regard to tourney success, I would see them all as nationally relevant and as having had a good 3 years.
I do agree that sustained tourney disappointment is a narrative that sticks, though. (But you gotta really be a standout case to build that narrative. Virginia is currently the best example of this, sadly, though Purdue is giving us a run for our money.)
Actually Iâm not. Let me ask you a sincere question:
Would you rather:
A. Make the next 10 Sweet 16âs without knowing what happens after that
or
B. Make 3 of the next 10 Sweet 16âs and 1 guaranteed Final 4?
In that case, weâre having two entirely separate conversations. If the question is, âAre Sweet 16s good?â then I agree with you: They are.
The question I was addressing was âWhat makes you perceive a team as nationally relevant?â To that, my answer was that my perception is not driven by Sweet 16s or conference championships, because I donât even know who did those things (outside of the ACC).
If I had written an even longer post, I was gonna talk about Kansas from 2010 to 2020 or so, when they kept winning Big 12 titles but were having an underwhelming tourney run.** Like I said, itâs a mix of things, so reductive statements in either direction are always going to wrong-ish, but maybe truth-y, too!
** Whatâs the takeaway? Iâm not sure â Being Kansas is enough to stay nationally relevant? Winning umpteen Big 12 titles in a row is enough to stay nationally relevant? One final 4 run in a 10 year or so period when you always get 1 seeds is enough stay nationally relevant?
This was the short version??
Yes! That was me being brief.