Top tier programs....just making MM or Sweet 16 and up?

[Xavier2005]

Just asking the question: What defines a top tier program year after year after year? Does just making March Madness and being one of 68 teams to start MM enough to be elite or top tier program? Or does a program need to make the Sweet 16 and up in order to define Elite or top tier program? After the first game of play is over for the field of 64, there are already 36 teams that have lost. Only 32 teams remain to play for the Sweet 16. The vast majority of the field play just one or two games and they are out of MM. Then just 16 so called elite teams play out the tournament. Each year a lot of teams make the Dance, just to get blown out by the better programs in game 1 or in game 2. Is March Madness enough for the X followers? Is a one seed enough and then losing the second game and out enough? X has made a lot of Sweet 16s and a few Elite 8's...but is that enough? What is the current year to year expectations of X fans ? To just make the Dance ? or what?

[kyzrex]

IMO you don’t become elite until you stand at the very top, or among the group that stands at the very top, on a consistent basis. Butler made the championship games twice in a row, but I wouldn’t consider them elite. Kentucky hasn’t won a championship in awhile, but I do consider them so. I think of the elite as those teams that are consistently a threat to win it all.

As far as your 2nd question….what is “enough” for X followers? Enough for what? Enough to consider a season successful? Enough to keep me as a fan? Enough to get me excited and make me happy? I really think that it comes down to what one’s expectations for the program are, and taking a realistic look at what and who X is to determine expectations. I think that each individual has their own expectations. Mine are not that X is going to be an elite program. I don’t think that the system is set up in such a way that we can ever expect X to be in that position. In fact, I think that the new NIL rules and transfer rules make that even less likely to happen. But since my expectations are not as high as some others might be, I might also say that something less than that is “enough” for me. I do feel that X should finish in the top 1/2 of the conference, be a consistent tournament participant, and at the very least, a sweet 16 threat every year. That would be enough for me. So I’m certainly not happy with the last 3 years. I will remain a fan, but I’m certainly disappointed by where I see the program at this time.

[skyhops]

Agreed

[Anti-Homer]

The first three years have been disappointing, but Mack did leave the cupboard bear the first year. Last year was the pandemic, and though I don't think it affected X that much more adversely than most other teams, it was a disruption. Roster construction has been very awkward during his time (early years not his fault) and was exacerbated when the worst three point shooters (Marshall and Goodin in his first two years) took the lion's share of the treys.

I think Steele's biggest flaw is making his players adjust to his system, as opposed to designing his offense around the skillsets of his team. He employs an offense with few set plays, predicated on our guy beating theirs. Huge departure from Miller, and even Mack. This is by far the most talented, well balanced, and deepest team during his era, and so far so good. More than a few prognosticators have opined that this team could make a deep run. Matchups always play a part, but I need X needs three things to go past the first weekend.

1. Get consistent PG play. Scruggs ain't the answer, He plays out of control, and does not have a good enough handle. He actually passes well, but also dribbles into traps and out of bounds too frequently. I'd love Jones as a one, but he is too good at the wing. I'd love Odom to get more minutes, but he needs four other good offensive players (especially shooters) because his repertoire is limited to a decent 15 foot jumper and drives in the lane. His D is tenacious though.

2. Steele has to adjust better, and demand more discipline from his players on both sides. He is a player's coach, and has a high tolerance for multiple mental and physical errors made by certain players, which is odd, considering the quality depth X has.

3. Be more consistent from the line.

This league not only has parity, but it has high caliber parity. The Big 12 & Pac 12 are the best leagues this year, then I think either the BE or Big 10 is 3rd. Any of the aforementioned can get 7 or more teams in the Dance. The SEC was way overrated, as was the ACC. As usual, only ten or so mid-major teams will make noise, particularly Gonzaga, and Houston to a lessor extent.

Tonight is a must win with a high quality opponent. You have to hold serve at home in this league. There are only two bad teams, who would compete for a top three-four spot in the the mid-major leagues. Assuming there are no major scratches on either side, my algorithm (who predicted every single football game accurately btw, except for embarrassingly predicting the Bengals would win 20-17, not 19-16. Oooops!) has X winning 74-66.

[AirJordan]

By Steele's own admission, making the dance is not enough. Recall that in his interviewing process to replace Mack, Steele presented a plan to take X to the "next level". The term next level is important here because in the season that had just concluded, X enjoyed the top seed in its region. Steele promised to improve on that, which I understood, at the time, to mean consistently advance deep in the tournament. To me, "deep' starts at the, but does not end, at Sweet Sixteen.

In his interview with Christopher, It was reported that Steele presented a detailed PPT identifying his strategy and detail necessary for the Muskies to reach that improved performance. I'm sure there are viewers of this board who recall that. Christopher effectively endorsed that plan when he hired Steele. I have never seen the plan and I assume no one on this board has either. But, one may infer that Steele's plan resulted in the roster and game strategy we see today. Of course without seeing the actual plan, I do not know for sure.

Regardless of what I know about the strategy, my expectation based on the reporting at the time, is that X needs to regularly advance to the round of sixteen, occasionally advance beyond it and, at least once in Steele's tenure, get to the Final Four. Not sure that equates to "elite" but it sure as hell means we do better than we have so far under Steele; zero appearances in March Madness. I've seen many comments on this board expressing we must make the tournament this year. Many on this board have endorsed that requirement. But, just making the tournament, even though it represents improvement from Steele's first three years, is really a low bar. If achieved but X does not advance beyond the round of Sixty Four, we have not attained what Steele promised. That is not the "next level" given where X was four years ago. That is, instead, a step backward.

[pdxmuskie]

Elite would be going to the sweet 16 and beyond most years. Occasional down years happen but should be rare.

Achieving expectations and beyond is what I expect for X. That depends on the talent available and what they are capable of. This year X should be a sweet 16 team with upside beyond that. Scruggs could be a great player. He is not a PG but he could fill that roll and still be great with coaching. Nunge is a legit center. Plays both ends at a high level. Has the ability to hit 3s when open with time to shoot. Hunter is a capable defender and scorer but lacks game awareness. Johnson plays tight defense but does get beat to the rim a bit too often. Has a truly great shot but is currently looking a bit less than great. Kunkel is a legit player to bring off the bench. Miles can be an asset in certain matchups, serviceable in situations of foul trouble and great depth to give guys rest. Odom plays with great intensity on defense, can attack the rim and understands his limitations. Jones does a bit of everything and rarely makes mistakes.

The team is long and athletic. They are capable of playing elite defense. They are capable of shooting efficiently if they chose to improve their shot selection. Limit careless turnovers and attack the glass and they can be great.

Making the round of 32 and finishing 4th or better in the BE is acceptable this year. Making the sweet 16 or beyond would also be acceptable. Finishing 2nd or better in the BE would also be acceptable. Teams can get lucky or unlucky in the tournament given the 1 loss and you are out situation so I can accept conference success in place of tournament success every once in a while. Consistently performing poorly in the tournament and good in conference is not acceptable but would still be an upgrade from what we have had recently.

[Anti-Homer]

By Steele's own admission, making the dance is not enough. Recall that in his interviewing process to replace Mack, Steele presented a plan to take X to the "next level". The term next level is important here because in the season that had just concluded, X enjoyed the top seed in its region. Steele promised to improve on that, which I understood, at the time, to mean consistently advance deep in the tournament. To me, "deep' starts at the, but does not end, at Sweet Sixteen.

In his interview with Christopher, It was reported that Steele presented a detailed PPT identifying his strategy and detail necessary for the Muskies to reach that improved performance. I'm sure there are viewers of this board who recall that. Christopher effectively endorsed that plan when he hired Steele. I have never seen the plan and I assume no one on this board has either. But, one may infer that Steele's plan resulted in the roster and game strategy we see today. Of course without seeing the actual plan, I do not know for sure.

Regardless of what I know about the strategy, my expectation based on the reporting at the time, is that X needs to regularly advance to the round of sixteen, occasionally advance beyond it and, at least once in Steele's tenure, get to the Final Four. Not sure that equates to "elite" but it sure as hell means we do better than we have so far under Steele; zero appearances in March Madness. I've seen many comments on this board expressing we must make the tournament this year. Many on this board have endorsed that requirement. But, just making the tournament, even though it represents improvement from Steele's first three years, is really a low bar. If achieved but X does not advance beyond the round of Sixty Four, we have not attained what Steele promised. That is not the "next level" given where X was four years ago. That is, instead, a step backward.

Recall that in his interviewing process to replace Mack, Steele presented a plan to take X to the "next level".

This promise of breaking the glass ceiling is stated in 100% of the introductory press conferences of every newly hired coach.