So, if a kid had an offer from UC, or Purdue, for instance, and he's your kid, my guess is that you'd say he had some major D1 offers. Just sayin'.

Who still says Indiana is "elite"?

 

The referenced quote was "Outside of IU, who are the major programs missing?"

 

Maybe we are just quibbling over semantics of "major" and "elite"

Maybe we are just quibbling over semantics of "major" and "elite"[/color]

I don't think those terms are remotely synonymous in the vernacular of college hoops; that isn't semantics. Arkansas is a "major" program. So is Ole Miss. They aren't high major, but they are major. Elite is about 6 programs, maybe 8, but that is it. IU hasn't been in that team photo in 20 years. They are a very good high, high major program, undoubtedly, but not Elite. NOVA would be of that ilk. And Florida. Just off the top of my head.

So, if a kid had an offer from UC, or Purdue, for instance, and he's your kid, my guess is that you'd say he had some major D1 offers. Just sayin'.

 

If we're going that route, why don't we just list all the teams from the PAC12, Big 12, B1G, ACC, SEC, and BEast that aren't on the list. Those are considered "major" in terms of level they play at, but if we're talking about major programs in relation to the NCAA tournament, they have to have some sort of NCAA tournament pedigree or been a major national player in recent memory. Outside of Nova, the rest mentioned have all had quite a few really bad seasons in the time-frame being discussed.

FWIW, I am somewhat surprised to see Pittsburgh in the top 21. They'd be on my list of underachievers as well.

 

Fields / Blair / Young won a LOT of games.

 

Pitt's seeds since 2002 (didn't make tourney in '00 or '01)

 

2002: #3 (lost in Sweet 16 to Kent St)

2003: #2 (Lost in Sweet 16 to Marquette)

2004: #3 (Lost in Sweet 16 to OK State)

2005: #9 (Lost in 1st Round to Pacific)

2006: #5 (Lost in 2nd Round to #13 Bradley)

2007: #3 (Lost in Sweet 16 to UCLA)

2008: #4 (Lost in 2nd round to Michigan St)

2009: #1 (Lost in Elite 8 to #3 Villanova)

2010: #3 (Lost in 2nd Round to Xavier)

2011: #1 (Lost in 2nd round to Butler)

2012: No Tournament Appearance

2013: #8 (Lost in 1st round to #9 Wichita State)

2014: #9 (Lost in 2nd Round to #1 Florida)

2015: No Tournament Appearance

2016: #10 (Plays #7 Wisconsin)

 

That's not good. They might actually earn the #1 spot on Colonelcrazy's List of Biggest NCAA Tournament Busts, despite being on the Top 21 List of most wins.

Side Note: I refuse to acknowledge the play-in games as the 1st round.

Side Note: I refuse to acknowledge the play-in games as the 1st round.

 

Thank you! Not only that, the play-in games have created a dilemma for me. I refuse to acknowledge Coyote Navel Ring State gets a tournament win by beating another below .500 school. But I do not apply the same to the 11 seeds which play one another.

 

Maybe we are just quibbling over semantics of "major" and "elite"[/color]

 

Pretty much.

 

I view the terms as similar in this discussion. To me that list is very short. Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Michigan State, KU, Louisville, Arizona, UCLA, IU. Those are the blue-bloods. Those are the major/elite programs. It's just semantics.

Side Note: I refuse to acknowledge the play-in games as the 1st round.

 

People who do should be locked up.

I would have assumed Duke and MI ST would be 1-2. Just keep forgetting Kansas which is not a smart thing to do.

I don't think those terms are remotely synonymous in the vernacular of college hoops; that isn't semantics. Arkansas is a "major" program. So is Ole Miss. They aren't high major, but they are major. Elite is about 6 programs, maybe 8, but that is it. IU hasn't been in that team photo in 20 years. They are a very good high, high major program, undoubtedly, but not Elite. NOVA would be of that ilk. And Florida. Just off the top of my head.

 

Since I can't give this a like...

 

Since I can't give this a like...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]55248[/ATTACH]

 

Maybe @MentschTrachtGottLacht could share with the rest of us how he is giving them.

I have always disliked that they make the AQ teams play in the play in round, stupid, they earned their way in, they should be in, not have to play in.

I have always disliked that they make the AQ teams play in the play in round, stupid, they earned their way in, they should be in, not have to play in.

 

I agree with you.

The thing that stands out to me, and maybe this addresses @MentschTrachtGottLacht query, is that there are only 2 members of the "new" Big East on that list.

 

Not too long ago, the "old" Big East was considered the best college basketball conference in the NCAA. At that time Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and Cincinnati were all consider at the upper end of the major programs in the country. Just 3 years later....