Back on the topic of things I can easily find from playing with the data (your question would take a bit more time) : There are two teams over the last 3 tourneys that made each tourney, yet didn’t make any sweet 16s – Illinois and Colgate.**
Let’s dispense with Colgate. I think the conclusion there is low major that’s dominating its league, but can’t knock off a 1 or 2 or 3 seed, or whatever.
But – and this is obviously my bias speaking – I think Illinois kinda proves the point. Have they been nationally relevant? Sorta, yeah. They won the Big Ten (outright, maybe?) one of those years. But their lack of tourney success has kept them from becoming like, really nationally relevant.
** Oops – also Iowa. For me, pretty similar to Illinois.
The problem with going to the data is that as you’ve just found, there’s a lot of overlap between “lot of success” and “occasionally reaching the Sweet 16.” Which makes it hard to determine which of those two things is driving perception.
The other problem is that “national relevance” really is a matter of subjective personal perception.
To me it means you’re consistently in the conversation, a recurring contender (doesn’t have to be a perennial one, everyone has down years… actually maybe that’s the point, your non-contending years are viewed as “down years”), no one is the least bit surprised to see you in the Top 10. And for me (key words!) that’s all a cumulative impression, which means seeing those rankings every week is the biggest driver.
How often do national media devote entire segments to those programs? Hardly ever.
This discussion started because of what Goodman and Dauster said about our program — which wasn’t the first time in the past several months.
They discuss UVa precisely because UVa is relevant. Because UVa and its style are lightning rods — almost the hoops equivalent of modern politics: divisive. You either love what Virginia does or you hate it. Two camps and not much in between.
Good point – after I listened to the whole segment, Goodman’s other answers were Auburn and Bama and maybe one more I’m forgetting. I don’t think it was the exact topic, but he basically seemed to be giving teams that have been very good recently that he expected to take a step back.
If your enjoyment of UVa basketball is dependent on its “national relevancy”, that says a lot more about you than it does about the success of Virginia’s hoops. And, what it says isn’t all that positive!
I agree! So for the … [Haney pauses to count] … zero of you who said or implied that UVa’s national relevancy is a predicate for your enjoyment of UVa hoops, I think this is an important point for you to consider.
(to be clear, I would definitely PREFER that UVa be nationally relevant, wouldn’t you?)
But Lodger how often has the national media framed a discussion about UVA positively in the last four years? During Vegas and in the immediate aftermath there was some talk about UVA being a contender, but that went away pretty quickly with Reece’s injury. You are right that we are more relevant than Illinois or Iowa by virtue of being a recent national champion, but it seems like in the last four years there is way more “what is wrong with UVA” questions when we are discussed nationally vs. “UVA has a blueprint for success.”
I will watch and enjoy the team regardless of success. I always have. Since we are relevant I would prefer that the networks and analysts who shape and frame the discussion during the season have something positive to say about us.
I will be honest here. I have a ton of resentment against ESPN skipping a step in their narrative arch about us. We went from the “underdog who is challenging Duke and UNC” to almost immediately being “boring to watch/ bad for basketball” when we had a couple of years of sustained success. I will never get over the fact that the larger narrative (apart from a couple commentators) was not that we were a clean program succeeding against the odds, with an incredibly efficient offense and defense. I take a lot of pride in our programs and the fact that we were so quickly cast as a villain will always bother me. I should get over it, but probably will not.
Edit: I just want to note Bilas takes both sides with us. I actually generally like Bilas as a commentator, but as much as he respects CTB and the clean program he runs, most of his comments about the pace of play and our physical nature on defense are not really positive.
