In part 1, I identified the chasm that has existed over the past decade between (A) the 13 teams I identified as either being "legacy programs" or having "legacy coaches," and (B) the other 73 teams in the seven power conferences. Here were the 13:

But, as Domer99 pointed out, maybe this is just ex post facto and circular analysis. Was I just defining the term "legacy" to include all the teams that did the best in the past decade, thus making the analysis somewhat meaningless? It's a fair question.

To tell the truth, I started with the baseline of ESPN's list of the 50 best all-time college basketball programs (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series). That list's top-10 goes as follows:

• North Carolina
  
• UCLA
  
• Kentucky
  
• Duke
  
• Kansas
  
• Louisville
  
• Indiana
  
• Syracuse
  
• Connecticut
  
• Arizona

I made the decision to cut off the list at No. 8 in defining "legacy programs." That certainly is arbitrary, but it was a sort of gut feel: Which of these schools do I expect to continue to compete at an elite level, even if they have to replace their current coach?

I recognize that it seems odd to include Duke and Syracuse—who have only won titles under a single coach—but not UConn, which has now won titles under multiple coaches. As far as Duke and Syracuse go, Krzyzewski and Boeheim have been so good for so long at those places, that they've not just created the impression that they are elite coaches, but their program is historically elite as well. I never got that sense from Calhoun, though I could be wrong. I recognize that Ollie won a title, but that could have just been his Tubby Smith/Les Miles "follow-the-legendary-coach-and-win-a-title-with-his-players" victory.

However, I recognize how subjective this "legacy" definition is, so I've considered trying to use objective criteria to define legacy programs ex ante. Let's start with a simple potential definition: Maybe legacy programs, as of 2005, were those 13 programs that had at least 2 NCAA Tournament titles. Here's that list:

A couple teams are on that list that immediately make it clear we need to narrow the definition to exclude them, as they are clearly not legacy programs: They are not the blue-bloods of the sport who are perennial powers to the disadvantage of all the other power-conference teams. The obvious ones are San Francisco, Oklahoma State, and Cincinnati. We can exclude these teams by limiting the definition to schools that haven't won a title within the past 40 years.

North Carolina State is a little trickier. Its titles are far more recent, but still remote. As of 2005, the Wolfpack only had 1 title in the previous 30 years. North Carolina State's era of dominance is over, and it was over in 2005. Thus, I could eliminate North Carolina State by defining "legacy programs" to be those that have won at least 2 titles within the past 30 years. But this would create a problem. As of today, UCLA has only 1 title in the past 39 years, and this definition would exclude the Bruins. Reflective equilibrium says I need to re-consider the definition.

Here's what I came up with: When multiple coaches have won a title at a school, I think it's fair to classify that program as a legacy program, expected to be elite. The second category of legacy programs are those programs that have had only a single coach produce multiple titles AND those titles have come within a relatively recent timeframe. (I've defined that as 30 years, but it's fair to argue some other number.)

Going back to the start of our sample, the 2005 season, I looked to see which schools had the following:

• At least 2 different coaches had won titles prior to 2005; or
  
• One coach won at least 2 titles between 1975 and 2004.

EDIT - I forgot NC State had 2 different coaches to win a title. So I might just add them back to the calculations.

In the chart below, I've compiled the the NCAA Tournament data for 2005-2014, considering only those teams that, as of 2005, could have been considered "legacy programs" based on the above criteria. (I've labeled the schools that meet the second criteria as "Legacy Coach" schools, and I realize that's a little confusing, but I'd have to re-code some of the formulas in order to change that. Plus, it does reflect that the school became a legacy program solely based on results under a single coach.)

So what did the composite data reveal about those two types of legacy programs, considered ex ante, for the decade from 2005-2014? I'm glad you asked.

Using this ex ante definition, here's how the legacy programs compare to the non-legacy power-conference teams. And, because we've clarified the definition, remember now that there are only 9 teams classified as legacy programs, compared to 77 power-conference non-legacy schools.

In sum, even if we constrain ourselves to identifying an ex ante definition of "legacy" programs based on objective criteria, there's a tremendous disparity in success rates comparing legacy and non-legacy power-conference schools. Those nine legacy programs make up a mere 10.5% of the power-conference teams, but from 2005-2014 accounted for:

• 33.82% of all Sweet Sixteen appearances by power-conference teams;
  
• 34.73% of all Tournament wins by power-conference teams;
  
• 44.74% of all Elite Eight appearances by power-conference teams; and
  
• 56.76% of all Final Four appearances by power-conference teams.

Most notably, those nine teams, as identified by ex ante criteria, won eight out of the ten NCAA Tournament titles between 2005 and 2014. That is an incredible feat by a group of just 9 schools.

But, though they were dominant, they did not monopolize the success of power-conference teams. Some teams clearly have raised their profiles significantly in the past decade and achieved remarkable successes. In fact, one school with far less history than Notre Dame has currently turned a corner to reach the Round of 64 in eight of ten years, amass an incredible 26 Tournament wins in the decade, and win two national titles.

In Part 3, I'll examine the schools who had the most success from 2005-2014 despite the fact that they could not be classified as "legacy" programs prior to 2005.

Part 1: Carefully Observing The Landscape

In order to fairly consider what are realistic expectations to have for Notre Dame, we must first consider what level of success other programs are experiencing. That requires a careful review of the data, and a consideration of where we fit into the picture.

That review produces a landscape in stark relief. Over the last decade, it has become clear that college basketball programs, even within the power conferences, are divided into two groups: (1) the legacy programs and teams with legacy coaches in one group, and (2) everybody else. And the chasm between the two groups is wide.

Every year, 68 teams make the NCAA Tournament. There are 32 automatic berths for conference winners. Of those 32, 19 come from conferences that will almost certainly receive only a single berth into the Tournament. Thus, the teams from the remaining 13 conferences are vying for 49 spots.

However, under the current operating procedures, 4 of those spots go to teams playing in play-in games to try to get to the Round of 64. I think it's fair to consider only the teams that make the Round of 64 to truly be NCAA Tournament teams. So, instead of 49, there are only 47 spots for the teams from those 13 conferences.

Those 13 conferences are not created equal. There are power (or "high-major") conferences and mid-major conferences. The power conferences are generally stronger and are rewarded with getting a higher number of at-large berths into the Tournament.

Until the break-up of the Big East, there were six clear power conferences. Now, you can argue whether there are five (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC), six (add the re-formed Big East), or seven (add the American). For our purposes, I'll consider the American to be a power conference, as it stands to reason the conference could produce four or more NCAA Tournament berths in a single year (e.g., UConn, Cincy, Temple, and Memphis). So we have those seven power conferences, and six mid-major conferences.

Although the recent realignment makes this analysis a little tricky, it's fair to expect the mid-major conferences (the A10, C-USA, the MAC, the Missouri Valley, the Mountain West, and the West Coast) to produce an average of two teams in the Tournament every year—one automatic berth and one at-large selection. That reduces the total number of available spots in the field of 64 by 12, from 47 to 35.

So the teams in the seven power conferences are vying for about 35 Tournament spots every year. In those seven power conferences, there are a total of 86 teams. If all the power conference teams were created equally, we would expect each team to get into the Tournament about 40% of the time (35÷86=0.407). In fact, here are the numbers for to see what the "average" power-conference team achieved, with regard to the NCAA Tournament from 2005-2014:

But they're not created equal.

History shows that the small percentage of the 86 power conference teams that are legacy programs or have "legacy coaches" — the kind of coach that instantly makes a team a legitimate contender — are far more likely to make the Tournament, and far more successful once in the Tournament. Let's define these terms.

That's 13 programs out of 86. They make up only 15 percent of the teams in power conferences, but over the past decade they have accounted for:

• 29.65% of all Round of 64 appearances by the current power-conference teams;
  
• 48.47% of all wins from the Round of 64 on in the NCAA Tournament;
  
• 48.53% of all Sweet Sixteen appearances by power-conference teams;
  
• 61.84% of all Elite Eight appearances by power-conference teams; and
  
• 75.68% of all Final Four appearances by power-conference teams.

Here's the breakdown by team:

The upshot of all of this is that the other 73 power-conference teams—the non-legacy teams like ND—are realistically competing for a far more limited number of NCAA Tournament spots (and wins, once in the Tournament) than if all 86 power-conference teams were on an equal footing. Because, on average, those 13 schools occupy 11 of the approximately 35 spots available the remaining 73 teams are really competing over 24 or 25 available spots in the Round of 64. That drops the likelihood of a team making the Round of 64 down from a theoretical average of about 40% to an effective average of about 33.2%.

And the competition is only getting more intense. For example, because of the recent realignment, several teams that were regularly reaching the Round of 64 from mid-major conferences are now non-legacy teams in the power conferences. Accordingly, non-legacy teams' effective participation rate in the Round of 64 will likely go down in the decade of 2015-2024, as compared to 2005-2014. In fact, the non-legacy schools currently in the seven power conferences reached the tournament a total of 263 times in the previous decade. But, for those 73 schools to reach that number between 2015 and 2024, when considering the current average impact of the legacy programs (11 berths per year), the Selection Committee would have to reduce the at-large selections given to mid-majors from an an average/estimate of 6 per year (which is the number we have this year) to just 3.9 per year. That's highly unlikely.

But, even assuming the 73 non-legacy teams all keep up their previous paces, their success is dwarfed by that of the 13 legacy programs. Here's the data from 2005-2014:

This is from where our discussion of expectations for ND basketball must begin. And there are some questions to ask:

• What can we learn from a decade of results from the legacy programs and teams with legacy coaches?
  
• Can we ever become a legacy program?
  
• Can Mike Brey become a legacy coach?
  
• Which non-legacy teams have been the most successful in the past decade, and what can we learn from their levels of success?
  
• Does the depth of a conference's strength impact a non-legacy team's ability to perform close to legacy standards?

I'm not sure when I'll post next, but I'll try to make it some time this weekend.

Tags:
hoops

- No text -

Unfortunately, I'm tied up right now and can't articulate them as well as I'd like. But I'm going to try to post something on this tonight.

- No text -

I wonder how much of this rancor is because we're so used to talking about things in a heightened atmosphere? Does all the bluster and passion -- not to mention the corresponding toxicity -- that goes along with ND Football help or hinder this discussion?

Point of fact: Most successful, and PROFITABLE athletic departments in the NCAA depend on two revenue-driving sports to sustain. I paraphrase this statement from something Swarbrick has said, so its not me just creating some talking point.

Yet the fact that ND hoops is into its second decade with Brey, has had postseason struggles for the better part of that tenure, and still doesn't garner the support of Muffet's crew (local or on a national level), is that a factor?

To another point, if it's difficult for ND to win in the crooked world of CFB, how much more difficult is it to win as a second-banana program in an even more corrupt ecosystem, when elite basketball players aren't coming to South Bend for a 1-and-done experience?

Every victory should be one that's breaking down barriers, right? Or is this again the product of College hoops only being about MARCH MADNESS, so success isnt defined by regular season success. (Ask Iowa State if this is a successful campaign...)

To me, I think it's a simple thing. After all the shouting and importance of NDFB, I just give way less shits about NDBB. But for a guy that's super into the basketball team, I'm guessing this almost makes it more intolerable, as the bandwagon group with absolutely zero context for basketball just uses their supposed knowledge an overwhelming passion to take broad brush to all of Brey's efforts and/or shortcomings.

Do you think Oklahoma BBall fans have the same issue? Does anybody care about anything else at Alabama than football?

Do you think we hold other ND sports, hockey, baseball, etc. to different expectations because of the ND name brand? Should we use the $$$ built by football to chase the dragon that is basketball?

Or should ND just beat Butler, get to the Sweet 16 and cross the postseason struggles off Brey's list and celebrate a historic season with a team led by two of the best senior leaders you could ever ask for?

"every sport at ND has Championship on its mind...Should men's hoops be any different?"

I guess ND could win its next 5 games and win a title but it would have to be viewed as an historic run on a par with '85 Villanova and would make me think long and hard whether or not Hesburgh called in a favor (almost serious).

College BB is a very dirty business and getting worse by the year. Choosing to reliably compete at its highest level runs counter to ND's primary mission.

That's not to say we can't make to occasional deep run. Someone else mentioned sweet 16 60% of the time. That might be a little high. I'm not going to pour over the schools who've made 60% of the past 10 sweet 16's but I would imagine it to be pretty samll and populated by 1 school with whom ND has even a passing affinity.

March, 2011: http://bluegraysky.com/forum/index.php?id=50110

I'm all for hurrahs on the regular season at this point
by Jay, San Diego, Monday, March 07, 2011

But what happens if we crap out in the first or second round, like we always have under Brey? I'm not sure the stellar regular season will amount to much at that point. In fact, it may become a millstone. Brey will have had his finest season on record, only to end in the same ignominious way.