UConn still doesn't feel like a powerhouse

[OregonDucks]

They cant replace any of those historically.

gotcha

 

[CatsTopPac]

They are, but that was amassed by Calhoun. What will be interesting is to see how Ollie does once the program is entirely his. All but the freshmen came to UConn for Calhoun. So now that it's Ollie's team, we'll see how he is able to recruit, coach, and develop players. Don't get me wrong, props to him for winning the NC. But he did it with Calhoun's players. Again, take nothing away, an NC is an NC. But it remains to be seem what he will be able to accomplish once he has recruited and is playing all of his own players, and the program is entirely his. They are definitely a powerhouse, but will they continue to be (?) is still to be decided.

I tend to wonder the same thing after coaches leave who have essentially built their programs, directly to what they are, today ('Cuse, Duke, MSU, UF, etc.).

 

[Steelboy84]

They are, but that was amassed by Calhoun. What will be interesting is to see how Ollie does once the program is entirely his. All but the freshmen came to UConn for Calhoun. So now that it's Ollie's team, we'll see how he is able to recruit, coach, and develop players. Don't get me wrong, props to him for winning the NC. But he did it with Calhoun's players. Again, take nothing away, an NC is an NC. But it remains to be seem what he will be able to accomplish once he has recruited and is playing all of his own players, and the program is entirely his. They are definitely a powerhouse, but will they continue to be (?) is still to be decided.

I tend to wonder the same thing after coaches leave who have essentially built their programs, directly to what they are, today ('Cuse, Duke, MSU, UF, etc.).

He installed his own system. This was also his second year as HC. They went 20-10 last year. They went 32-8 this year.

By the "Calhoun's players" standard, you also have to label last year's season in the same manner.

This is very much Kevin Ollie's team.

 

[CatsTopPac]

He installed his own system. This was also his second year as HC. They went 20-10 last year. They went 32-8 this year.

By the "Calhoun's players" standard, you also have to label last year's season in the same manner.

This is very much Kevin Ollie's team.

It was Calhoun's team last year. He retired a month before the season started. He recruited all of the players, and directed every second of the recruiting, coaching, and developing, until he retired.

This was Ollie's first year where he was at the helm from summer, all the way through March. But you still have to remember, the vast majority were still Calhoun's players. That's what I'm getting at. The longevity of his coaching will be determined by his ability to have recruited and coached all of the players on his team. Then it will be his program. All of his starters, and his entire team (except for 3 players) are from Calhoun. I'm saying, that his success will depend on his ability to recruit, coach, and develop, all of his own players. If he can't then people will say that he essentially took Calhoun's team all the way. Take nothing away from his ability to do win the NC. But they weren't his players. It may have been his system, but they are not his players. That's a huge difference.

 

[Steelboy84]

It was Calhoun's team last year. He retired a month before the season started. He recruited all of the players, and directed every second of the recruiting, coaching, and developing, until he retired.

This was Ollie's first year where he was at the helm from summer, all the way through March. But you still have to remember, the vast majority were still Calhoun's players. That's what I'm getting at. The longevity of his coaching will be determined by his ability to have recruited and coached all of the players on his team. Then it will be his program. All of his starters, and his entire team (except for 3 players) are from Calhoun. I'm saying, that his success will depend on his ability to recruit, coach, and develop, all of his own players. If he can't then people will say that he essentially took Calhoun's team all the way. Take nothing away from his ability to do win the NC. But they weren't his players. It may have been his system, but they are not his players. That's a huge difference.

Then u have to label the 20-10 in the same manner.

He's still the one coaching them. They could have just as easily been no more than an NIT team and the argument would have been "look at what he's done with Calhoun's players". The point is that the coaching/strategy has a lot do with it regardless of who recruited who.

Matt Doughtery had a top tier class in 2002-03, but that year they were no better than an NIT team. The next year NCAA tourney and then a national title under Roy Williams. He may have not recruited all of the players, but they won under Roy Williams. We cannot dismiss the person coaching them.

 

[Codaxx]

Then u have to label the 20-10 in the same manner.

He's still the one coaching them. They could have just as easily been no more than an NIT team and the argument would have been "look at what he's done with Calhoun's players". The point is that the coaching/strategy has a lot do with it regardless of who recruited who.

Matt Doughtery had a top tier class in 2002-03, but that year they were no better than an NIT team. The next year NCAA tourney and then a national title under Roy Williams. He may have not recruited all of the players, but they won under Roy Williams. We cannot dismiss the person coaching them.

I find this to be a bit a of a fallacy. That UNC team was rocked by injuries. May is particular. 2 years later they win a title, must be coaching. We believe that, but it is a guess. Players are 2 yrs older. They are healthy. Quite possible the players were just better. This case you have a senior guard, so not a lot of babysitting was needed. We wont know how good of a coach he is for a couple more years

 

[CatsTopPac]

Then u have to label the 20-10 in the same manner.

He's still the one coaching them. They could have just as easily been no more than an NIT team and the argument would have been "look at what he's done with Calhoun's players". The point is that the coaching/strategy has a lot do with it regardless of who recruited who.

Matt Doughtery had a top tier class in 2002-03, but that year they were no better than an NIT team. The next year NCAA tourney and then a national title under Roy Williams. He may have not recruited all of the players, but they won under Roy Williams. We cannot dismiss the person coaching them.

Again, I do put the year before last's team in that category. And again, props to Ollie for coaching them. Like I said, take nothing away from his ability to still win the NC with them. That's still an awesome feat. But coaching is just more than stepping in with players who are already there, and winning (although that certainly is a part of it. But Ollie has yet to show that he can sustain the success of UConn with all of his own players. And that is all I am saying. It's going to take a few years of cycling out Calhoun's players, bringing in his own recruits, coaching them, developing them, and also winning, to be able to say that he has definitely sustained the program.

Think about it: AZ brings in an NAIA coach (Russ Pennell) after Lute left. The guy has never coached a DI game in his life. AZ made him a one-year interim coach until they found Sean Miller and brought him in. They went to the Sweet 16 that year. But he had two guys on that team that Lute had brought in, ultimately went pro (Jordan Hill and Chase Budinger), and Hill was 8th, overall. Hell, almost all of those players were Lute's. No one thought, "Wow, this guy took AZ to the Sweet 16 in his first year, he must be a really good coach." Because everyone knew that he did it with Lute's team, and the eventual pros that Lute had recruited, coached, and developed. When Miller came in, no one went out and rushed to get Pennell. He went and coached DII for a few years, and just got hired as the coach for Central Arkansas (DI). So you see? It goes both ways.

The point is, you never really know how someone really is as a coach, until they absolutely control every aspect of the program. They need to have all of their own coaches, they need to fully recruit players, bring them in, schedule games, coach the team under their system, develop talent under that system, and also win games. Then it is their program, and winning or losing completely falls on them. That's why many coaches get at least 3-5 years with a program in their first contract. Because the AD wants to see how they will do when every aspect of the program is under their control. I'm not saying that Ollie is a bad coach. No matter what, he still had to coach the players, and get them to win, all the way through Dallas. I'm just saying that before we go around assuming that he is just going to pick up where Calhoun left off and go to FF/ win the NC, just because he did it this year, is a little premature. We just don't know that yet, until he has his own guys, and then prove he can do it.

 

[podsox]

I have to agree with the OP. Their last 2 titles seemed flukey. neither team was very good all season and somehow managed to win 6 straight games against elite competition when it counted. the previous 3 teams that won titles were powerhouses though

 

[Malibu]

They are and have been for awhile now.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

They are and have been for awhile now.

A while? Not really.

 

[CatsTopPac]

A while? Not really.

I'd say ≈25 years.

I think the reason why you feel that way is because in the 25 years since they made their first run in March, they have as many times not making the tourney as they do FFs. They made it past the first weekend 15 times, and failed to 10 times. It seems like if they make it passed the first weekend, they do pretty well (5 EE, 5 FF, 4 NC), but then near half the years, they don't get passed the first first weekend, or don't make it at all. And sometimes when they go far in the tourney, they weren't a very high seed, so they didn't necessarily dominate in the regular season.

I'd compare them a lot with AZ, but AZ has only missed 2 tourneys in the last 30 years, but they only have one NC. AZ has done better in the reg season. The two teams have been pretty similar in the amount of times that they have made it passed the first weekend in the last 25 years, but with those differences:

AZ has done better in the reg season, so they had higher seeds
AZ has only missed 2 tourneys in the last 30 years (UConn 5)
But UConn has more NCs, but only one more FF (they have success in the FF)

I really think that they are pretty similar, all things considered. I'd put MSU and Cuse in that same category.

I think that you have your blue bloods (who have been dominant for a half century or longer (IU, UNC, KU, UK, UCLA)

Then you have the ones who are really knocking on the door, because they have really racked up the FFs, and are only a few titles away from being a blueblood (Duke and 'Ville)

After that, you have the ones who have been very solid under one coach, but nothing passed that, and it's really going to take that next coach for a couple decades to get them to the blueblood level because they just haven't been at it long enough (UConn, 'Cuse, AZ, MSU).

And then you have the ones who are still solid, have done well under a coach or two, but are still looking for that consistency. (GTown, 'Ville, UF, OSU, etc.).

 

[Cincyfan78]

Ollie deserves a ton of credit for coachig these guys up.

What I think many are saying is: Let's see what kind of talent he can get when he's the one doing the recruiting and not a famed coach like Calhoun. Fair question to wonder if Ollie will be able to continue that kind of recruiting.

THat, however, still does not take away that he coached this team to a NC. His players or no, he made it work, and that speaks volumes for his ability as a coach. Even if he does look like someone stole his blankey at nap-time each time the camera is on him during the game.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

My take (prior to the NC game) in another thread:

Yeah, I can't really decide what to do with UConn if they win.

In terms of Championships, it puts them tied with Duke @ 4 which is pretty rarefied air, but UConn doesn't have the longevity (yet) that I would typically associate with the bluebloods. But then again, I may see it differently than a lot of people.

Personally, I think when you're talking bluebloods, longevity is almost as important as Championships. It's not just about success, but sustained success. UCLA sometimes gets a bad rap for being a one trick pony, but Harrick also won in the 90's and UCLA is also one of the most recent schools to go to 3 consecutive Final Fours so they've stayed pretty good over the years, but if you look at the other programs up there, Kentucky, UNC, Indiana... they sustained success over multiple decades. Yeah, they've all had a couple of down years (who hasn't) but they've all been pretty successful in terms of making deep tourney runs regularly. If IU doesn't get their shit together, they may be in danger of losing their blueblood status but I think the rest are pretty safe.

I think another Championship puts UConn squarely in the 2nd tier (which sounds like an insult until you look at the company they're in) which is teams like Duke, Kansas, Louisville, Michigan State. They all have managed to stay prominent and win multiple championships under multiple coaches. (Except Duke, but they were making Final Four runs long before K ever showed up) Incidentally if Duke had even 1 Championship prior to K, I think they'd be a lock for the top tier, but they really are the only program out of all the ones listed so far, to only win titles under one coach. If/when the next guy at Duke hoists another banner, then I say they're a lock for top tier.

Next tier down is where you have teams like Florida, Syracuse, Ohio State, Maryland, Arizona, and other teams that have at least one banner, and have generally been successful more years than not.

After that you can sort 'em out how ever you want.

I know a lot of people will be inclined to put Duke and maybe MSU in the top tier, and I wouldn't argue if that's how you want to define it, and a lot of people will want to put Florida up a level too, and I wouldn't have a big issue with that either. Like I said, this is just how I would define it and I like keeping the very top pretty exclusive, and I just don't think UConn is there quite yet.

I still think to be in the very top tier you have to have sustained success under multiple coaches. But they are unquestionably one of the top 5 programs of the last 20 years.