M-Borg vs. THE Flavortown U Thread, Orig. by Buckeye Paul, absconded w/by talent.

[iam416]

There is a case for Illinois in the top 3 ahead of OSU based on winning percentage and a decisive head to head of 103-70.

[hack]

Interesting links; thanks for providing. Great to see the conference dominating overall. That said, these are measures of history, and as such provide a part of the story only. The original question, to me, was which are elite programs. ``Are'' is the active word there. I'm not seeking to address ``were'' or ``have been''.

Overall, my criteria are national success over conference titles, because in this sport there is a legitimate national champion, and consistency. My own personal criteria are probably uncommon in that they undervalue conference play, but I did not grow up with the win-your-conference-first mentality. I grew up thinking that as long as you get into the playoffs, in whatever sport, everybody forgets what happened in the regular season anyways. Nobody cares about a Tuesday night in December when what really counts happens in springtime, in basketball. We've agreed that even elite programs have down years. Rebuilding is necessary sometimes. But if you're not making the tournament at least, say, 7 of 10 years, and maybe winning the conference at least 2/3 times a decade and being a contender come February at least 6 times, then I don't think elite is a word that applies. You can't spend more than 2/3 years irrelevant and still be elite.

I also value less a team that derives all its bragging rights from one or two decades or stretches than a team that has had consistent success through perhaps never dominated a decade or a 3-4-5-year period. If you've had 20 years in the wilderness at any point in the last 30 years, you're not an elite program in my eyes. Maybe even 10 years. Elite implies a rebuilding job on a regular basis but never becoming a losing team for an extended period. Elite also implies, to me, a now-and-in-the-future sort of thing along with the historical accomplishments. The latter help create momentum for the former in some cases, but in some cases, especially when it's been so long that the recruits weren't even alive back then, it museum kinda history rather than the continuation of a long-running narrative. Purdue is a good example: it's been 32 years since they made a Final 4, and that does not imply eliteness to come. Anyways, here's my subjective take on the conference:

INDIANA

1. Yes, the Ohio of basketball. The talent is there and it is steered toward the Hoosiers and therefore this program's history is of use today and that makes up for the decade of irrelevance. They've made a Final Four in the post-Knight era.

NEXT GROUP:

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, OSU. How to rank them is difficult. Most of OSU's success is museum history; there was a 31-year break between final fours. MSU had a spurt and a nice run with Izzo, but has yet to prove that it's the program itself, and not the occasional person involved, responsible. Illinois lacks a title but has been there consistently over the decades and has a nice young coach. Michigan spent close to 20 years in the wilderness and still isn't out of the woods, but it's very relevant in my book that they've been in the Final Four in four of the last five decades. That's consistent success and that implies that it's never going to be down for very long, if they care to be there, which they didn't for a good bit of the last 20 years. The program is a program in the true sense of the word. Success is thanks to factors beyond one coach or player.

Ultimately I'd hold my nose and put OSU at the head of this group, although it's just as likely that another long period of mediocrity is ahead as another long period as an elite program. Factors there include tougher competition for recruits with the rise of Indiana and Michigan and the serial cheating (not trashtalking here, but it's a factor and perhaps one day they might actually pay the price). After OSU I'd have to put MSU for now, although I think Michigan overtakes them very soon. However if MSU maintains its success in the post-Izzo era, that's very impressive and perhaps evidence that it is indeed an elite program and not just one that has had 2 impressive stints. Another Final Four in the post-Izzo era and I'd put them past OSU and at a solid#2 behind Indiana. Or they could sink. Hard to know. Illinois is a solid program but lacks cache/buzz whatever and is lucky to have Chicago to keep it relevant, but the results speak for themselves. So:

2. OSU
3. MSU
4. Michigan
5. Illinois

AFTER THAT:

Purdue's not going away -- it's going to be a team that will flirt with the Top 25 in more years than not, and it's going to make the tournament and win a few. Wisconsin? Well, I don't know. Beaome relevant on a regular basis in an era in which two traditional powers, Michigan and Indiana, are down. Not a ton of recruiting overlap though, if I'm not mistaken, and they've maintained success with more than one coach. Plus, that team is a great ensemble cast and they seem to be able to thrive with just 1 or 2 very good college players, and typically they have precisely that many. So, to me both of these teams are solid conference depth, and likely to field an elite team now and again, but fall short of being elite programs. However if Purdue put together a run, I could see it becoming an elite team again. I just don't think it's likely.

IOWA

Better than the rest. Significant success in the past under multiple coaches, but made the tournament just twice in the last decade. No reason to think about this too hard for now, but no reason to be surprised if the program becomes more relevant.

THE REST:

is the rest. Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Penn State also compete in Big Ten basketball. It's tempting to put Minnesota up a category, but that's only because of Tubby Smith and the results since he arrived don't provide the trends one would want to see. Maybe if there's big success next year with Mbakwe back.

So that's my take on this discussion. Chip away at it; I'm open to be persuaded otherwise and admit that mine is a very very qualitative, subjective take on the matter.

[iam416]

I largely agree with your current rankings.

If you've had 20 years in the wilderness at any point in the last 30 years, you're not an elite program in my eyes.

I also generally agree with this, though it means no B10 team is elite.

As a side note to this -- in the historical context -- M basically accumulated their "numbers" between 1964-93. They went 19 years without a B10 title (1929 to 1948) and then another another 16 years (1948 to 64). One title from 1929 to 1964. And, of course, recently they went from 1986 to this season. Those are huge, huge gaps and one more reason I'd rate M where I did, historically.

they've been in the Final Four in four of the last five decades.

Well, I'd say 4 of the last 6 -- heh -- we're in a new one. I'd say OSU has been in the FF each of the last 3 decades and 7 of 9 overall. Semantics, I suppose.

The "current" best programs -- and this is almost entirely subjective -- my standard is who do I think will field the best teams over the next 5 years:

Indiana, OSU, MSU, M, Wisky, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, NU, UNL, PSU.

Illinois is so hard to figure -- they could rocket up. The potential is there for that program, but Groce is a question mark. OSU, Wisky and MSU all have coaches who have proven they can win regularly in the B10 and IU and M have coaches that are the verge of doing that, so the Groce question mark is enough to put the at 6 for me.

Historically, I rate them:

1. IU
-----
2.3.4 OSU, Purdue, Illinois
-----
5.6 M, MSU
-----

Beyond that, meh.

In any event, good post. I'll have to read through more carefully tomorrow, but it's a good read and offers lots to talk about.

[hack]

Thanks, and hope so. As for eliteness in the past 30 years, Michigan spent almost 15 years in the wilderness in that period, if you take that Ellerbe-led B10 tourney victory team in 98 as a last accomplishment before their fall. MSU, OSU, Indiana have not. Indy had a lost decade. But right now OSU and MSU are the only elite programs in the conference.

[WM Wolverine]

The issue is they don't differentiate themselves much; #2 - #6 is quite close historically.

[hack]

A solid #2 spot could have been there for the taking for Michigan had they not played armadillo for 15 years after the Fabs. Frustrating.

[iam416]

As sort of an aside/tangent, OSU and M have largely the same history. Each had a couple player-driven teams and each had a nice prolonged period of success where they brought in lots of talent.

Michigan had the Cazzie Russell teams of the 60s and Hubbard teams of the 70s. Ohio State had the Lucas teams of the 60s and the Jackson teams of the late 80s/early 90s.

Michigan's run from Gary Grant to the Fab 5 was really strong. A consistent run where they turned the team over 3 or 4 times and really didn't miss a beat.

OSU is the midst of a similar run starting with Oden/Conley and going to the present.

The stretch M had in 80s/90s and the stretch OSU is in -- that's what being elite is about, IMO. It's not about one good class; it's about a string of good classes. But it's so f'n hard to do in hoops. Even Matta's run had a hiccup when Koufas sucked (NIT champs!) and when Byron Mullens sucked (ridiculous loss to Siena).

#2 - #6 is quite close historically

For reasons stated above, I think #2-#4 are close and there's a bit of gap between 5/6 -- historically. The B10 has always been about conference titles, so I think that has to be a major consideration. Hack and I differ, but that's fine -- if you follow Hack's approach, then 2-6 are closer.

[hack]

Yes -- reloading, with no more than a year or two a decade outside the tourney and a 3/4-seed or higher most years.

[iam416]

Apparently Bob Foster is slowly working his way back into the good graces of the OSU staff. Fingers crossed.

Also, UFM is has apparently redoubled -- perhaps retripled -- his efforts to get Anzalone.

[lineygoblue]

hello

[Rob F]

HI!

[SeanB]

Also, UFM is has apparently redoubled -- perhaps retripled -- his efforts to get Anzalone.

Apparently his tact of sending in chubby, balding sexual predators backfired on him. Good to see he's giving it the ol' college try, though. He should've asked Kiffin and Pearl how it's done.

[Mike]

Actually, he should have asked Calipari how it's done. Wait. Nevermind. That's no secret.

[iam416]

Apparently his tact of sending in chubby, balding sexual predators backfired on him

I wouldn't say Hoke is balding. But it is weird that UFM asked him to help with Anzalone.

[Optimus Prime]

Hilarious, perhaps harassment or even stalking may be added to the litany of charges against OSU...suppose it is the sick nature of the sexually deviant, Jerry Sandusky was relentless too.