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

[Rob F]

wow, there's so much to chew on here over the last dozen or so posts, but at this hour of the night, I'd be up way too long.

Now I have a better idea why Clash had a semi-meltdown Monday on the ND thread, though...

[iam416]

When Hoke successfully makes Meyer quit claiming he has health problems, then I will be willing to put him in Satan's class. Until then, I am in the camp of most everyone who say its ridiculous to suggest.

You could even just start with a conference title. To date: Saban 3 BCS Titles with 2 different schools; Hoke 0 Conference Titles with 3 different schools.

It's a non-debate. The Nick is the best.

[hack]

LOL. This thread.

As for hoops, IU is the premier name program in the B10 and Crean should keep them at the top. I'd expect Izzo to be there followed by Matta. Michigan probably fits into a 4th-6th area, which is what they are historically (well, 5th, at best, in the league). Beilein has, at least, restored them to their historical norm, which is toward the upper end of the middle tier.

The upside with hoops is that it has tons of year-to-year variance, and no B10 program is dominant enough to be top-shelf every year. Personally, I think IU will be probably be closest to that in the coming years, supplanting MSU over the past 10 years and Ohio State over the past 5 years. Meh. In any event, the league is getting really strong. I think Groce probably ends up doing a pretty good job at Illinois, which means they'll contend, too. And, of course, Painter at Purdue does a great job.

I don't see it. Indiana was what it was a very, very long time ago. Crean's got the program moving in the right direction and it will get the support in-state and perhaps start keeping its own talent. But, ultimately, I would lump Indiana in with the rest, for whom I agree that it's exceptionally difficult to be top-shelf every year.

As for the rest of them, I think MSU is in the most precarious position -- what would life be like without Izzo? I can see OSU recovering from time in the wilderness just as Michigan is in the early stages of doing now, but MSU -- well, it took not just one of the game's elite coaches but an exceptionally weak Michigan program and a bit of fate. Izzo's succession is going to be a huge challenge. Will coaches see it as a good job, or, assuming Michigan's renaissance continues, will they instead focus on the challenge of recruiting? Who knows anything about Crean? Would he come back? Is there anyone else?

While you're not giving Michigan its due historically, ultimately you're right that, over time, OSU's has been the stronger program than Michigan's. It didn't have to be that way -- Michigan could have managed far better its post-Fab 5 era had the university administration and athletic department not been so friggin ridiculous.

[whodean]

Judd Heathcote was a darn good coach pre-Izzo.

[hack]

And yet the program wasn't elite, which is exactly my point.

[iam416]

Crean's got the program moving in the right direction and it will get the support in-state and perhaps start keeping its own talent. But, ultimately, I would lump Indiana in with the rest, for whom I agree that it's exceptionally difficult to be top-shelf every

Just a matter of disagreement, I guess. I still think IU has a hoops cache that no other school in the B10 can match and I think Crean is doing well to capitalize on that advantage. Their problem is that, unlike football, they're not primarily recruiting against the B10; they're recruiting against UK, Kansas, UNC, etc. for the handful of difference-maker recruits. And they're still a step behind those name schools, so they'll have an occasional spotty season. Hell, UNC is heading for a spotty season. It's just really tough to stay on top year-after-year in hoops with the way the game is set up.

I can see OSU recovering from time in the wilderness just as Michigan is in the early stages of doing now, but MSU -- well, it took not just one of the game's elite coaches but an exceptionally weak Michigan program and a bit of fate

I think that is selling MSU short. I don't think MSU is any better or worse off than OSU or M when it comes to losing a coach. What we have seen is ANY program is on shaky ground with a coaching transition, even the likes of NC (Doh!) and IU. When Izzo leaves, MSU be on the same shaky ground. Personally, I don't expect them to spend 10 years floundering about, but who knows? -- it's possible. That said, Beilein is older than Izzo so it's quite possible that M will be back out on the limb in a hurricane before MSU is.

While you're not giving Michigan its due historically

I said 5th best in the conference, at best, and I didn't say it flippantly. I'm aware of M's history as a hoops program. Based on conference titles, NCAA tournament performance and head-to-head records, IU, Purdue, Ohio State are clearly ahead of M. I'd also rate Illinois ahead of them based on more conference tournaments same number of FFs (though M has slight upperhand in tourney performance) and head-to-head. Michigan State is a close question, historically. MSU has as many regular season titles and more tourney titles (lesser value b/c of sample size) and a better tourney performance. M has head-to-head, so that's a really close call. I could see 5th for either of them and 6th for either of them.

Now, 5th or 6th best in the B10 is comfortably top 20 overall, IMO. So, nationally, M is probably a top 20 program historically -- maybe top 15.

[hack]

Under Knight IU wasn't pulling in those recruits either. He got the most out of his talent, kept in-state kids in state, and once in a blue moon an elite kid from outside the midwest would have the appetite to try his luck with Knight. So while I agree about that cache, it's not as if Crean going head to head with KU, UNC and Kentucky for McDonalds All-Americans would be a return to normal for Indiana. That would imply recruiting better than ever.

Could be re MSU, but I doubt it. MSU's had a few very lucky bounces in its last 30 years of basketball - Magic Johnson first and then the Michigan implosion. They've capitalized on those opportunities brilliantly, but without either one there'd be very little history there for an AD to sell good coaching candidates on. It comes down to just two names that truly matter in the history of that program -- Magic and Izzo. Not enough.

I think programs like OSU and UM are far better equipped to attract a name coach or an in-demand up-and-comer. Pitino and Michigan flirting with each other some years back is an indication of that. Pitino was never gonna come here and Michigan was never going to hire him, but both sides knew the prestige of the other would result in a PR win if they flirted. It's an intangible argument I'm making here, so fair enough if you just don't see it that way, but that sort of scenario is a way to measure eliteness and I just don't see the potential for that with MSU.

I see your point re Purdue, but then again I don't. Twice in the Final Four, the last time being 1980. If you consider the likelihood of future success as well as adding up the performances of the past, it doesn't seem likely that Purdue's going back to seeing major success. And, re Illinois, they have no title to their name. In my subjective ranking of past performance, you need at least ONE if you wanna claim elite status. OSU hasn't won since 1960, but at least they won.

Again, it's all subjective, how past successes are ranked. The aughts were the first decade since the 1950s in which Michigan didn't make the final four at least once, and consistency counts. OSU has made it twice as many times as Michigan, but seven of those 12 were 50 years ago or more, and we all know how important it is to Buckeyes to eliminate the distant past from discussions of head-to-head matchups. That's why it pains me so to have endured 15 years of Michigan buffoonery in their approach to basketball. This didn't even have to be a discussion.

[iam416]

Under Knight IU wasn't pulling in those recruits either. He got the most out of his talent, kept in-state kids in state, and once in a blue moon an elite kid from outside the midwest would have the appetite to try his luck with Knight. So while I agree about that cache, it's not as if Crean going head to head with KU, UNC and Kentucky for McDonalds All-Americans would be a return to normal for Indiana. That would imply recruiting better than ever.

I agree that Knight was a great coach, but when he won, he had some great players. Only his 1987 team arguably didn't have a huge recruit. Even his 1993 team, which, I think, wins it all, had great recruits in Chaney and Henderson (could be wrong on the year -- the year Henderson got hurt in February).

Indiana also produces a ton of hoops talent. Crean is getting back in on it. Unfortunately. OSU was able to pilfer, e.g., Conley, Oden and Thomas from Indiana. Indiana is, IMO, a fair equivalent of Ohio in football. The talent base is there. If Crean wins, he'll get it.

As far as historical ratings go, I value conference performance, tourney performance and head-to-head. With tourney performance, you're correct that you need to take into account the tourney set-up since it's change so drastically over the years. One could argue 1976 as the watershed year (when more than 1 team from a conference could get in--otherwise, it's sort of duplicates conference performance) or 1985 with the move to 64. But, of course, you have to take into account the era of the tournament.

As far as B10 teams go, IU needs no explanation. Purdue is second in B10 regular season titles (or tied for first depending on how you view "vacated" things -- I count the "vacated" stuff, personally and based on your FF statement re M, I assume you do, too). Purdue has won 8, I think, more conference titles than M and owns them head-to-head. So, I think I'm on solid ground when I say Purdue is a top 3 B10 program. Ohio State has the most regular season and tournament titles and the most FFs of any B10 team. Speaking of decades, OSU made the FF in the 30s, 40s, 60s, 90s, 00s, 10s. 7 FFs since 1960. Their head-to-head is their downside vis-a-vis Purdue and Illinois (I think, need to check the latter).

I think Illinois is poor man's version of Purdue in conference play, so I think it's a closer call with M. I'd still rate them as 4th. I can't really sort out MSU or M -- I could see that going either way.

And, re Illinois, they have no title to their name. In my subjective ranking of past performance, you need at least ONE if you wanna claim elite status. OSU hasn't won since 1960, but at least they won.

I don't disagree with that statement. I don't consider Illinois elite. That said, just because you won a national title doesn't mean you're elite. I could run through a list of programs that have won national titles that are not elite -- Michigan included. I rate Illinois ahead of M and MSU historically, national titles factored in. If national titles trump everything else, then IU, MSU, OSU, M (OSU wins the tiebreak b/c they have an advantage in every other category).

M is something like 760-700 all-time in conference play. I think that illustrates nicely where they fit in.

[SeattleLionsFan]

M is something like 760-700 all-time in conference play. I think that illustrates nicely where they fit in.

And Ohio is 723-662...

[whodean]

And yet the program wasn't elite, which is exactly my point.

The Magic Johnson years were better than anything UM hoops achieved, weren't they?

[iam416]

we all know how important it is to Buckeyes to eliminate the distant past from discussions of head-to-head matchups.

Also, we can talk about any timeframe you want. I was speaking historically, all-time. In football, the all-time discussion is straight-forward. M, OSU, PSU -- well, UNL makes it harder, now, but it's straight-forward. But, if you want to talk post-1985, post -1975, last 50, last 60 -- doesn't matter to me.

Also, of some note, Illinois and Purdue also have huge winning percentage advantages over the likes of OSU, M and MSU (at least through 2008-09 -- the date of my encyclopedia, heh). Illinois, Purdue and IU were clustered in the 63-65% range and MSU, M and OSU were right around 60%. OSU is now probably a modestly comfortable 4th after their last 3 seasons.

Also, Purdue as 22 B10 titles, tied with OSU. IU is next. Illinois next.

Anyway, it's a fun discussion and there are plenty of close calls. I don't, however, think the top 3 is a close call. I think 4-6, as I said, is at least debatable, but I still think Illinois is a pretty solid 4th. Frankly, a number of all-time rankings would put Illinois in the top 3 and OSU at 4th, but I think those lean to heavy on all-time wins. I haven't seen an all-time ranking that has M any higher than 5th in the conference.

[hack]

I've never seen any all-time ranking of this type. Always just had this discussion based on own observations. Link? Maybe let me look before the discussion continues.

[hack]

The Magic Johnson years were better than anything UM hoops achieved, weren't they?

They won a championship and made the Elite 8. Do you think that Michigan has ever one a championship or made the Elite 8? If only there was a way to find out...

[iam416]

Here is Sagarin's thingy as of 2009 in conjunction with ESPN: http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

Here's NBC's jackwagon list: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/281165...ge_basketball/

I wish stats were easier to come by. It's a pain in the ass tracking down a lot of this stuff. But, it's interesting--at least to me. As for the above lists, I think Sagarin's is pretty decent historically -- the NBC list definitely weighs toward recent success, though Utah ahead of OSU is retarded.

[iam416]

Incidentally, all-time winning percentages:


Illinois -- 0.650
Indiana -- 0.638
Purdue -- 0.633
OSU -- 0.603
MSU -- 0.598
M -- 0.598


B10 titles (regular-tourney): Purdue 22-1, OSU 22-4, IU 20-0, Illinois 17-2, M 13-1, MSU 13-3


NCAAs (appearances-S16 1985-current-FFs-NCs): IU 36-8-8-5; OSU 28-7-11-1; MSU 26-12-8-2; M 23-5-6-1; Illinois 29-6-5-0; Purdue 26-7-2-0


Don't have the head-to-heads immediately available.