Program expectations?

[avfan2121]

Rankings by average finish since we joined the Big Ten (Using ESPN and I just went off display order, not tie-breakers/seeds):

1. Michigan St 2.89
2. Wisconsin 4.1
3. Maryland 4
4. Michigan 4.4
5. Purdue 4.8
6. Ohio State 5.6
7. Indiana 6.6 
8. Iowa 6.9
9. Minnesota 8.9
10.  Illinois 9.4
11. Northwestern 9.8
12. Nebraska 9.9
13. Penn State 10.9
14. Rutgers 13.2

 

I think you can split this into 4 Tiers:

Tier 1: Michigan St

Tier 2: Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, Purdue, Ohio State

Tier 3: Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois

Tier 4: Nebraska, Penn State, Northwestern, Rutgers

 

I would like to clearly separate ourselves from Tier 4 into Tier 3. If we can regularly hang out in Tier 3, I think that should at least put us close to the bubble most years. Move to the top of Tier 3, you're probably in with a decent non-con. Then you'll have some years where you get a chance to move to Tier 2 when other teams are down.

[GoBigRed]

Program expectations:

 

What Creighton is doing, no more is expected, but no less. If a school 45 minutes up the road in a less prestigious conference can accomplish this, then you damn well better believe we should be able to. 

 

2018 - NCAA First Round

2017 - NCAA First Round

2016 - NIT Quarterfinals

2015 - no postseason 

2014 - NCAA Third Round

2013 - NCAA Third Round

2012 - NCAA Third Round

2011 - CBI runner-up

2010 - CIT Semifinals

 

[brfrad]

4 hours ago, MilesDavis said:

Program expectations:

 

What Creighton is doing, no more is expected, but no less. If a school 45 minutes up the road in a less prestigious conference can accomplish this, then you damn well better believe we should be able to. 

 

2018 - NCAA First Round

2017 - NCAA First Round

2016 - NIT Quarterfinals

2015 - no postseason 

2014 - NCAA Third Round

2013 - NCAA Third Round

2012 - NCAA Third Round

2011 - CBI runner-up

2010 - CIT Semifinals

 

Maybe we could hire a bag man as an assistant coach.

[demone]

I've thought a lot about this but I just can't come up with a different answer - NU should be top half of the B1G every year and in contention for the NCAA tourney every year. In contention doesn't always mean we make it, but we should at least be in the conversation. If you are a big-time athletic department, I don't see accepting anything less.

[Dead Dog Alley]

1 hour ago, brfrad said:

Maybe we could hire a bag man as an assistant coach.

 

Creighton fans have the best of both worlds - they can cheat like crazy in basketball and it won't get any investigators looking into their football program.

[Dead Dog Alley]

7 hours ago, avfan2121 said:

 

I think you can split this into 4 Tiers:

Tier 1: Michigan St

Tier 2: Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, Purdue, Ohio State

Tier 3: Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois

Tier 4: Nebraska, Penn State, Northwestern, Rutgers

 

I would like to clearly separate ourselves from Tier 4 into Tier 3. If we can regularly hang out in Tier 3, I think that should at least put us close to the bubble most years. Move to the top of Tier 3, you're probably in with a decent non-con. Then you'll have some years where you get a chance to move to Tier 2 when other teams are down.

 

Here's the NCAA Tournament appearances for the current 14 Big Ten teams in the last 10, 20, and 30 years.  If the top 7 programs (Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland, and Indiana) and the next 3 (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois) all maintain or stabilize their coaching situations then there isn't much room to move up.  You can keep hiring decent to good coaches - and we've had decent to good coaches - and still fail like we've been doing.  We either need to shell out some money and get somebody really good, or just accept that we are who we are.

	Last 10 years	Last 20 years	Last 30 years
Michigan State	10	20	27
Wisconsin	9	19	21
Ohio State	8	14	17
Purdue	8	13	22
Michigan	8	8	16
Maryland	5	12	17
Indiana	4	12	22
Minnesota	4	6	11
Illinois	3	11	19
Iowa	3	6	12
Penn State	1	2	4
Nebraska	1	1	6
Northwestern	1	1	1
Rutgers	0	0	2

[The Polish Rifle]

5 minutes ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

You can keep hiring decent to good coaches - and we've had decent to good coaches - and still fail like we've been doing.

Have we had decent to good coaches? You use your measuring stick as NCAA tournament appearances, and we've literally never hired a coach that has won an NCAA game since Nee (who won one), and none of the coaches we fired won a tournament game after they left here. So judging by your own measure of success, we've never hired a successful coach...

[Fullbacksympathy]

9 hours ago, brfrad said:

Maybe we could hire a bag man as an assistant coach.

 

Yeah dirty hypocritical pretentious scumbag programs like Creighton should definitely not be our benchmark.  We’re better than that.  

[kldm64]

18 hours ago, MilesDavis said:

Program expectations:

 

What Creighton is doing, no more is expected, but no less. If a school 45 minutes up the road in a less prestigious conference can accomplish this, then you damn well better believe we should be able to. 

 

2018 - NCAA First Round

2017 - NCAA First Round

2016 - NIT Quarterfinals

2015 - no postseason 

2014 - NCAA Third Round

2013 - NCAA Third Round

2012 - NCAA Third Round

2011 - CBI runner-up

2010 - CIT Semifinals

 

 

Just to be clear, when you are saying 3rd round, that is really the 2nd round.  CU has never won 2 games in the tournament.  They at least get there but they have always been a one and done program.

[GoBigRed]

17 minutes ago, kldm64 said:

 

Just to be clear, when you are saying 3rd round, that is really the 2nd round.  CU has never won 2 games in the tournament.  They at least get there but they have always been a one and done program.

 

Correct, they've never been to the Sweet 16. Third round means second round. That's how Wikipedia lists it. Stupidest thing ever. Should be "Play-in games" followed by "First Round", but I digress. Point is, even Creighton's level of success isn't asking for a whole lot. 

[avfan2121]

12 hours ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

 

Here's the NCAA Tournament appearances for the current 14 Big Ten teams in the last 10, 20, and 30 years.  If the top 7 programs (Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland, and Indiana) and the next 3 (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois) all maintain or stabilize their coaching situations then there isn't much room to move up.  

 

I agree. That's why my only real expectation is separating from Northwestern, Penn State, and Rutgers. Get in the mix with the next tier up and hope for the best. It's laughable to expect us to consistently be in the top half of the conference. Too many good programs you would have to displace.

[HuskerFever]

11 minutes ago, MilesDavis said:

 

Correct, they've never been to the Sweet 16. Third round means second round. That's how Wikipedia lists it. Stupidest thing ever. Should be "Play-in games" followed by "First Round", but I digress. Point is, even Creighton's level of success isn't asking for a whole lot. 

 

That's just NCAA's way of trying to either expand the tournament or try to legitimize the play-in game as being part of the tournament. Marketing at its finest.

[GoBigRed]

I did some research. 

 

Against Power 5 (+ Big East) schools since our 2014 NCAA Tournament season, we are 44-74 (.373)
Against Power 5 (+ Big East) schools with a WINNING CONFERENCE RECORD since our 2014 NCAA Tournament season, we are 7-48 (.127)

 

Essentially in the last 5 years, when we play a power conference school that will end up with a better than .500 record in their own conference, we have a 12.7% chance of winning. 

[ladyhusker]

5 hours ago, MilesDavis said:

 

Correct, they've never been to the Sweet 16. Third round means second round. That's how Wikipedia lists it. Stupidest thing ever. Should be "Play-in games" followed by "First Round", but I digress. Point is, even Creighton's level of success isn't asking for a whole lot. 

And yet apparently it requires cheating to achieve even that...