a hoops program expectations thread

by Jay @, San Diego, Friday, March 20, 2015, 11:09 (3737 days ago)

circa 2013. There have been a few over the years but this is a good one.

http://bluegraysky.com/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=201065

Any revisions, extensions, updates?

Data-driven Expectations, Part 2: Re-Thinking "Legacy"

by Ken Fowler, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 21:50 (3736 days ago) @ Jay
edited by Ken Fowler, Sunday, March 22, 2015, 07:10

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:

[image]

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:

[image]

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.)

[image]

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.

[image]

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.

[image]

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.

[image]

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.

First, both of these are awesome. Some thoughts on Legacy

by KelleyCook @, Sunday, March 22, 2015, 07:55 (3735 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

First things first this excellent work needs a wider audience besides the feathery confines of the pollo group.

But I think I know why you ran into a difficulty when objectively defining "Legacy Program".

I actually thought your first subjective list was a very good one. It was much better I do not agree with the second "objective" list. NC State is not legendary program. Michigan State is doubtful -- Jud was a excelllent coach, but he didn't have the Must-Go-There vibe that Izzo has.

The problem is no matter how good you are it is extremely difficult to actually win the tournament which requires winning 5 or 6 games in a row against very good to outstanding competition. Numerous outstanding teams have been waylaid.

For example, the odds are still against Kentucky winning this year.

On the other hand, having a Bill Russell on your team can give San Fransisco a pair of titles.

So that being said, I think your Legacy Programs might be able to be redefined using some objective number (I'd iterate through with 3 to 6 and see what comes out) of Final Fours that took place under multiple coaches with a caveat the other appearance needs to be 3+ years apart from the other coach to eliminate the coattails scenario.

Now despite what I said (and I don't have the data in front of me), with this criteria NC State nor Cincinatti won't be legendary which is good. Duke is also not legendary (yet), but Michigan State is. I think that is OK.

I think coaches staying 30+ years make it hard.

by Savage, Around Ye Olde Colonial College, Sunday, March 22, 2015, 09:18 (3735 days ago) @ KelleyCook

To make the football analogy, FSU was certainly an elite program before their title two years ago, even though they had had success under only one coach. In hoops that seems even more common (Duke, Syracuse, are the two I'm primarily thinking of, but Arizona under Lute Olsen probably too until their recent re-emergence).

I don't disagree but now his Legendary Coach picks them up

by KelleyCook @, Sunday, March 22, 2015, 10:23 (3735 days ago) @ Savage

Counterexample: Paterno built himself to be a legend on the field. But what if Post-Paterno Penn State never is good again. Then should the school get credit for being a legendary school?

For many years, I'd argued this about Florida: for nearly a century the only times they were good was due to Spurrier. So Florida was not a Program. Meyer, of course, changed that perception -- Florida is now a Program.

But I also see your side that if Legendary Coach more than say twenty years at that one institution then it counts too. The School realized they has a great thing and did what it took to keep him.

Its Ken's treatis of course, so he can do what he wants.

Data-driven Expectations for ND Men's Basketball

by Ken Fowler, Friday, March 20, 2015, 23:37 (3737 days ago) @ Jay
edited by Ken Fowler, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 07:43

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:

[image]

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.

[image]

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.

[image]

Here's the breakdown by team:

[image]

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:

[image]

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

Random thoughts about "legacy" coaches

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 11:50 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler
edited by Jim (fisherj08), Saturday, March 21, 2015, 11:53

Can Mike Brey become a legacy coach?

(that's a term I really like, by the way)

The legacy coaches/programs have dominated the national championship picture for the past two decades of college basketball (picked 20 years because it is a nice round number.)

Based on your criteria, in that timeline, Tom Izzo, Calhoun, Donovan, Ryan, and Matta have entered the "legacy" category.

Brey is 55, has been a head coach for 20 seasons. Which seems like a long time! However, at the time of their first Final Four...

Izzo: 33, head coach for four years
Calhoun: 56, head coach for 27 years
Donovan: 35, head coach for six years
Ryan: 67, head coach for 29 years
Matta: 40, head coach for seven years.

So it isn't *necessarily* unheard of for a coach to make "the leap" to elite status after quite some time at a school. And in the case of the guys who took a longer time, it typically happened in cases where they had to build a program out of scratch (UConn and Wisconsin had nothing before Ryan/Calhoun showed up, while MSU/Ohio State had a pretty strong basketball tradition.) Billy Donovan is just a weird case, because he parlayed a few great recruiting classes into some historically amazing teams. So that could, in fact, point to great potential things for Brey, if things start to break the right way. (After these guys ascended to "legacy" status, recruiting truly started to take off as well, leading to easier future success)

The other thing that stands out when reviewing the national championship picture over the past however many years is the one true outlier- Maryland in 2002. Gary Williams was a good college basketball coach who managed to a Final Four in 2001, a championship in 2002, then nothing of note for the rest of his career. I wonder if Notre Dame wants to ascend to that level, the Maryland model (build an incredibly strong, veteran team capable of multiple runs) is our best bet.

Nit: Wisconsin was not nothing before Bo Ryan.

by ndroman21, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 13:37 (3736 days ago) @ Jim (fisherj08)
edited by ndroman21, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 13:41

Their rise to prominence started with Dick Bennett. He took UW to the Final Four in 2000.

Ryan has taken them to another level. It is fun for me to read about Bo Ryan in this context. Attending his camps at UW-Platteville is a find memory, along with Bennett's at UWGB.

great work

by Mike (bart), Saturday, March 21, 2015, 09:49 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

- No text -

superior formatting too

by Jay @, San Diego, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 09:06 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

Nice use of the list/bullet tags!

Great stuff. I can sort of see where this analysis is leading and I'm guessing it will confirm the general consensus around what expectations we should have for ND hoops. (Make the tournament; play to seed).

I could actually use formatting help

by Ken Fowler, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 09:57 (3736 days ago) @ Jay

I have a Google spreadsheet with all the data, and I'd like to share that with everyone in case anyone wants to use it and/or check to see if I made any errors.

But when I tried to embed it according to the Formatting Help instructions, I was unable to do so.

Here are the links:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RxYgbbMYOaR2EsmRNFqG6FVQ_04UG_WE1DKxa8tMk5o/edi...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RxYgbbMYOaR2EsmRNFqG6FVQ_04UG_WE1DKxa8tMk5o/pub...

I think we have to update the google spreadsheet integration

by Jay @, San Diego, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 10:11 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

They changed their URL scheme. You can still do it with our tag but you sort of have to know what to parse out. We should just update the tag.

Super busy today, but just wanted to say great work!

by Savage, Around Ye Olde Colonial College, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 08:06 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

- No text -

great approach

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 07:33 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

Who are some of the high-end teams in the non-legacy category? Are we one of them?

A little bit uncertain how legacy is being defined

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 07:29 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

Is it ex post facto in that the NCAA wins accumulated during the 10 year stretch defines who qualifies as legacy? I guess I can understand some of that.

But then I am trying to reconcile that with Notre Dame a little bit. Brey has qualified for the NCAAs 7 times in the given time frame. Or better than some of the identified legacy coaches.

Are you saying Brey's record in the NCAAs mitigates his chances for his legacy status? Because he's surely getting to the tournament in a similar stratosphere as the bottom end of the legacy coaches.

That's a great question, and one I'll address later today or

by Ken Fowler, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 08:32 (3736 days ago) @ Domer99

tomorrow.

Thank you.

by ndroman21, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 06:45 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler
edited by ndroman21, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 06:48

Great use of data. I'm no statistician, but this confirms what I've suspected. It's an uphill battle for the non-traditional powers.

Now, I don't see any reason why ND shouldn't beat the averages, given, but as you said it's a place to start.

My one nit: I'd list Pitino as a legacy coach at Louisville.

This is very good data.

by LaFortune Teller ⌂ @, South Bend, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 05:46 (3736 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

I also look at expectations through this lens, and tournament performance needs to be understood in the context of seed as well. A program that gets in the tournament 9 out of 10 years but rarely/never gets a 1,2,3,4 seed shouldn't be expected to make deep runs. It shouldn't consistently flame out either, of course, but legacy teams get 1-4 seeds with regularity. They have more success in the tournament overall in large part because they consistently have much better regular seasons than a program like ours.

We just had one of the best pre-tournament seasons in our history. And we got a 3 seed. A season like this one needs to be turned in regularly, and probably needs to be even better somehow to consistently get seeded in the 1-4 line in the tournament. Is a regular season like this one something we can regularly expect as a program? I really don't know.

I need to correct the graph of legacy team results.

by Ken Fowler, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 00:03 (3737 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

The team names don't match up to their correct results. Sorry. Will do tomorrow.

I dunno, I just don't like basketball.

by Joe ⌂ @, North Endzone Goal Line, Friday, March 20, 2015, 15:07 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

- No text -

At least you didn't say baseball.

by Bill, Murrieta, CA, Friday, March 20, 2015, 19:37 (3737 days ago) @ Joe

- No text -

Fascist.

by NDTerp, I am not Jay. I never have been Jay., Friday, March 20, 2015, 17:30 (3737 days ago) @ Joe

Hag.

I have a bunch of thoughts on this

by Ken Fowler, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:53 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

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.

Interested in your take on this tbh

by NDTerp, I am not Jay. I never have been Jay., Friday, March 20, 2015, 17:27 (3737 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

Cause I just don't know much about the economic model.

In the meantime:

[image]

Fran has not lived up to my praise of him in that post.

by MattG, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:05 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

- No text -

Second banana sports in a historically 1-sport school

by KA123 @, Manhattan Beach, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:03 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

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?

For whatever it is worth

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Friday, March 20, 2015, 17:11 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

Alabama just fired Anthony Grant after six unimpressive seasons

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25108922/alabama-f...

Are we giving too many f*#ks about ND mens hoops?

by oviedoirish @, Oviedo, Florida, Friday, March 20, 2015, 16:51 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck#tmhmdj:gftL

Sorry, it just seemed appropriate to our recent discussions. :-)

And I know nothing about this guy. Someone sent it to me.

Do you really think people care more about

by Jack @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:18 (3737 days ago) @ KA123
edited by Jack, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:23

ND women's basketball than men's? Or did I misread that?

Didn't misread.

by KA123 @, Manhattan Beach, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:15 (3737 days ago) @ Jack

Attendance and local economics is largely what drives sports outside of football. The $$ from NCAA hoops is largely unchanged -- If I remember reading, Turner literally tried to give away the basketball deal that they made and had no takers, certainly not ESPN.

So it's up to community and attendance to drive revenues. The cottage industry that was SkyDigg seemed like the perfect storm. Helps having a supermodel play hoops, but Demetrius hasn't turned South Bend into an ND men's hoops town, though he sticks around for 2 more years, that could still happen.

Yeah, but for those of us who aren't local

by Jack @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:29 (3737 days ago) @ KA123
edited by Jack, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:39

Which is the vast majority, that really doesn't mean much in terms of overall interest.

In any case, if we continue to play like we did over the weekend, I don't think it will matter where the star players are from. That DJ's from Mishawaka would then be a nice bonus for the area, but wouldn't be the primary driver.

This is what I was referring to last week in the accidentally deleted thread. And my point in that thread was that hell yes it would matter if we made the Final Four, which why I was bummed we'd run into Kentucky first if we get that far - that we probably wouldn't get any farther, which is exactly what happened in the '79 tournament when one of our best teams ran into Magic Johnson's Michigan State team in the Elite 8 and got buzzsawed (I still have nightmares about the Magic to Kelser alley oops). Making the Final Four is like winning a major bowl, and what that does for the following football season in terms of interest and optimism, and optimism sells tickets. It also sells recruits.

When I was at ND we had terrific teams. Yeah, women's basketball was just beginning and still a club sport, but that's not the point. The point is we had exciting, consistent teams that either had mega-star players like Adrian Dantley or immediately following had great balanced teams like the teams from '77 though '80 that put multiple players in the NBA. We were a truly elite team for about five years.

Football was just as dominant then at ND as it is now, but believe me, basketball was very big. When I was at ND they sold out the season before it even started, except for one or two games during Christmas break.

Get a run like that going and I would hope things would change. I still don't understand the current attendance problems considering the league we're now playing in, the quality of our team, and the quality of the teams we're playing, but a great tournament run might finally wake people up.

I was at ND from 99-03

by Jeremy (WeIsND), Offices of Babip Pecota Vorp & Eckstein, Friday, March 20, 2015, 15:08 (3737 days ago) @ Jack

After Doh beat OSU my freshman year, the student section was full for almost every single game during those 4 years. I don't know what's happened since that time (apart from some down years and disappointing results in March), but it certainly seems like the excitement for the program just isn't there.

But NDMBB produces multiples of NDWBB's revenue

by Ken Fowler, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:24 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

- No text -

Maybe I'm looking at it like baseball's VORP

by KA123 @, Manhattan Beach, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:30 (3737 days ago) @ Ken Fowler

But EVERY solid men's program has more revenue than a women's team. From the Value over Replacement Program POV, Brey's program is lagging and largely stagnant until this season.

I actually think the gigantic stadium expansion largely reflects the fact that ND almost understands that it'll never sell its soul enough to live in the elite world of BB programs.

But to do that, it needs to find a way to keep driving revenues, it needed to feed some of the demand for big $$$ seats, boxes, etc in Notre Dame Stadium.

Then I'm not sure I understand your initial point

by Ken Fowler, Friday, March 20, 2015, 15:08 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

You asked if it was a factor that, among a couple other things, that the men's team "still doesn't garner the support of Muffet's crew (local or on a national level)."

I understand your VORP comparison to explain that you're saying it's more about relative levels of interest. But why would it matter if, at ND, the relative interest in women's hoops (compared to the interest in the men's team) was higher than at other schools? I mean, shouldn't it be? ND women's basketball has won a national title under Muffet and is now in the middle of a string of Final Fours.

As a secondary point, I think the revenue factor shows that attendance is a poor barometer to use when comparing the national level of fan interest of two teams that play in the winter in South Bend representing a school with an alumni and fan base spread throughout the country. The interest in ND men's basketball clearly outstrips the interest in ND women's basketball on the national level, even though it's not the case locally.

it's very odd

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:21 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

But there's just not a local following for MBB while there is for women. Maybe you're right and it's largely Diggins inspired.

Considering the elder nature of the fans at WBB games, I do wonder if the lack of weekend afternoon games is a big part of it.

Pricing is a factor. WBB gave away tickets at gas stations

by Buck Mulligan, Martello Tower, Friday, March 20, 2015, 19:53 (3737 days ago) @ HumanRobot

and built a loyal following with certain groups - kids, the elderly, softball leagues, etc.

Add success + Diggins and here we are. No more giveaways.

I went all the time as a student, and shared a pair of season tickets with a buddy for years. Prices went up much more than the value and we got bored with it and fell away. This is pretty common among the local crowd, the poster bk aside. He's a die hard.

I did not grow up an IU fan. That was a common refrain during the Knight era but it hasn't held water for a long time.

Without the success, the crowd wouldn't be there

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Friday, March 20, 2015, 20:17 (3737 days ago) @ Buck Mulligan
edited by Domer99, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 06:01

But the attendance issue blows me away.

Pricing is cheaper for women's basketball at UConn, Tennessee, Louisville, and [s]Baylor[/s] too. Do you think the women's team out draws the men's there?

There's obviously a lot if factors that came together but outdrawing the men's team by 1,400 is astonishing.

Baylor & Notre Dame

by Eric M, Western New York, Friday, March 20, 2015, 20:54 (3737 days ago) @ Domer99

Were the two programs I found after a quick search from 2013.

Baylor men- 6,705
Baylor women- 9,160

Notre Dame men- 8,242
Notre Dame women- 8,979

Penn State and Stanford were really close too.

--
-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix

Numbers for 2014

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 05:51 (3736 days ago) @ Eric M
edited by Domer99, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 06:02

Notre Dame men: 7,715 http://www.und.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/teamcume.html
Notre Dame women: 8,696 http://www.und.com/sports/w-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/teamcume.html

I think I said earlier that at one point the men trailed the women by 1,400 per game. That gap was closed due to sellouts for the Syracuse and Clemson games, but the favorable women's delta was still around 1,000 fans per game this past year (which was one of ND's best ever on the men's side).

UConn numbers:

Men: 10,957 http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/teamcume.html
Women: 8,930 http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/teamcume.html

UConn?

by ndroman21, Friday, March 20, 2015, 21:40 (3737 days ago) @ Eric M

- No text -

Thanks for the info

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Friday, March 20, 2015, 21:06 (3737 days ago) @ Eric M

It's certainly an anomaly and one that I don't think that the price of tickets solely explains (not that Buck made that point).

The locals all grew up Hoosier basketball fans.

by Bill, Murrieta, CA, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:28 (3737 days ago) @ HumanRobot

- No text -

Based solely on attendance at the games

by Jeremy (WeIsND), Offices of Babip Pecota Vorp & Eckstein, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:21 (3737 days ago) @ Jack

He's right.

This is a phenomenon that doesn't even exist at UConn

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Friday, March 20, 2015, 16:16 (3737 days ago) @ Jeremy (WeIsND)

The country's most powerhouse dominant collegiate program currently, and maybe ever.

At last check (and it's been a few weeks), ND's women's team was averaging more than 1,400 more fans a game in a 9,000 seat arena.

I know that women's tickets are a fraction of men's. But that's true for every program. Hell, most other schools don't charge for women's basketball games. I think there was a Skylar "bump" but it's continued for 2 years after she left the program.

That's local. I can't imagine it's the least bit true for

by Jack @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:24 (3737 days ago) @ Jeremy (WeIsND)
edited by Jack, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:31

TV ratings.

Maybe it's generational or something, but if I said to any of my friends that ND women's basketball was bigger than men's among the alums or subalums they'd look at me like I'd been smoking my shoelaces.

How about just on this board? I don't recall many threads on women's basketball here. Unscientific, I know, but can I have a show of hands of anyone here who follows the women's team more than the men's?

I think it's a different set of fans

by irishvol @, Music City, USA, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:46 (3737 days ago) @ Jack

On the ND Fan Venn Diagram, the overlap between die hard football fans and die hard MBB fans is probably pretty significant. I'd venture a guess that's not necessarily the case between ND football and WBB. At least, that's the case at Tennessee (where the hierarchy of sport interests is somewhat similar to ND).

That said, I'd be surprised if there were more ND women's hoops fans than men's. Perhaps at Tennessee, but not yet at ND.

it's definitely an older crowd...

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:10 (3737 days ago) @ irishvol

- No text -

What's the venn diagram

by CW (Rakes) @, Harlan County, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:48 (3737 days ago) @ irishvol

For ND football fans and Indiana/Butler basketball fans?

The Butler basketball fans I know who like ND football

by Jack @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:57 (3737 days ago) @ CW (Rakes)

All attended Butler. Which, of course, doesn't have a Div 1 football team.

But then, neither does Indiana.

Pumpsy weeps

by crazychester @, Chicago, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:44 (3737 days ago) @ Jack

- No text -

Agreed

by Jeremy (WeIsND), Offices of Babip Pecota Vorp & Eckstein, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:32 (3737 days ago) @ Jack

- No text -

Regarding your third to last paragraph...

by irishvol @, Music City, USA, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:15 (3737 days ago) @ KA123
edited by irishvol, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:19

I can speak as an alum/fan of another school where football rules the roost - there's absolutely a smaller number of fans for Tennessee basketball than there are for Tennessee football. In fact, there's a reasonable number of folks from West TN who root for Tennessee football and Memphis basketball. Even worse (inexcusable in my mind), there is a sizable group in East TN who root for UT football and KY basketball.

That said, there's absolutely a good number of Tennessee fans/alums who passionately care about the basketball program - which I'd say is roughly on-par with ND in terms of historical success and annual budget. The size of that group of hard core fans ebbs and flows depending on (1) program success and (2) the coach - it reached a fever pitch under Pearl. I imagine it's a similar dynamic at most "second banana" schools - there's absolutely some bandwagonning that comes along with the intermittent success periods.

I probably attended 75% of the home games when I was a student - I'd call myself a bigger Tennessee hoops fan than football. And one of the more die hard hoops fans among my circle of friends. It's grinds my gears a bit when my buddies will attempt to insert themselves into the hoops conversation every couple years, but in many cases, I'm more negative than they are. It's not just the bandwagon folks who are negative.

Just one small point

by Jeremy (WeIsND), Offices of Babip Pecota Vorp & Eckstein, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:09 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

Some folks here seem to be lumping the "negative" folks (for lack of a better word) into the "bandwagon" category. I think that might be the case in other places. However, on this board, I believe that many of the posters who are seem as being "negative" are those who follow the team pretty closely and regularly appear after most, if not all, games to comment upon the status of the team and their play in that particular game.

the lumping, labeling, and generalizations

by Jay @, San Diego, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:33 (3737 days ago) @ Jeremy (WeIsND)

just cripple the discussion and completely stem the flow of fruitful and fun disagreements and dialogue. If you disagree with someone, by all means bring it up and discuss it. This is a small enough forum where everyone can do that. We should be facilitating and fostering good conversation.

Just wanted to make the point

by Jeremy (WeIsND), Offices of Babip Pecota Vorp & Eckstein, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:42 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

That I completely disagree with "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"

The folks on this forum who have been critical of Brey appear to be watching every game (or at least most of the games) during the season as they often post immediately after said game.

agreed; wasn't singling you out

by Jay @, San Diego, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:04 (3737 days ago) @ Jeremy (WeIsND)

Just wanted to use your post as an opportunity for some additional commentary that had been rattling around in my brain today.

I'm sure like a lot of you, I facilitate a ton of meetings as part of my daily life. We have this meeting guideline checklist that is sort of cheesy, but it does help keep the discussion humming without a lot of bickering (or shouting). A couple of ground rules include "Make your thinking clear" and "don't make assumptions; ask for clarification".

I would post some of these here but you all would kick me out of the forum for being a corporate douche.

In any case, you get the point. So much of the useless bickering in these discussions (and in life!) stem from poor communication, often followed by misguided assumptions.

An interesting quote from Steven Covey (7 Habits)

by Joe I @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:57 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

Which is strangely relevant even in the Internet world:

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”

I'd actually be curious to see any of the other guidelines in that list which you feel are worthwhile. Those two are very good ones...

here's a mashup of some of them

by Jay @, San Diego, Friday, March 20, 2015, 15:08 (3737 days ago) @ Joe I

Ground rules come in and out depending on the purpose of the meeting and the number of attendees. But whichever ones I use it's always important to go over them aloud at the beginning so everybody is on the same page. (And so you can bring the hammer if things get off track). Ideally they are posted in the conference room for easy and casual reference.

----------

Come prepared to discuss and decide - review pre-read prior to the meeting

Use the time effectively - respect the agenda, honor the time limits

Use a Parking Lot for unresolved issues

Listen

One person talks at a time; limit side-bar conversations

Be honest, respectful, and constructive

Make your thinking clear

If you have a question, it is likely others do as well – contribute, participate!

Help others clarify, re-state, elaborate on their thoughts for the group’s benefit

Avoid assumptions

Raise issues -- no "elephants in the room"

The past is the past; focus today on where we go from here

Be aware of the non-verbal cues of others in a discussion, draw out and engage those not participating

Strive for team success

Move to agreement

Visibly support decisions

Expect and accept accountability for decisions, outcomes and action items

Very good stuff here!

by Joe I @, Friday, March 20, 2015, 18:00 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

Oh, if only people had any clue about them. Hence, the value in posting them on the wall...

Here's the thing

by Greg, seemingly ranch, Friday, March 20, 2015, 15:06 (3737 days ago) @ Joe I

I didn't really read your post, but I just wanted to say that I think you're wrong.

Actually, that quote was most perfectly put into parody by Tina Fey-Palin when she said "I'm going to ignore your question and talk about Israel." And it's a very truthy thing to say, and I can think of 100 ways it was true in the work week this week. I need a drink.

--
The 2007 ND-UCLA game was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope

I didn't see your point as being about Jeremy

by Mike (bart), Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:25 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

it was more about some of the people in this thread who would rather refer vaguely to faceless "groups" of people rather than name names

and in another sense

by Jay @, San Diego, Friday, March 20, 2015, 14:12 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

I see this forum as an extended Second City team improv. If you have ever done improv you know the goal isn't to get one over on your teammates; it's to listen first, and set up the other guy to deliver the zinger. That makes the show good.

So don't kill the show!

Good point on Iowa State

by MattG, Friday, March 20, 2015, 13:07 (3737 days ago) @ KA123

I know quite a few ISU grads - I'm married to one. The Big12 tournament title is not providing them much consolation at the moment.

Regarding your post in that thread.....

by crazychester @, Chicago, Friday, March 20, 2015, 11:38 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

"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.

heh

by Jay @, San Diego, Friday, March 20, 2015, 11:29 (3737 days ago) @ Jay

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.

powered by my little forum