It's less about the actual uniforms and more about the connections made from that brand's AAU circuit. I think Chad has mentioned it before but guys who play in the Nike and Adidas leagues likely will go to schools with connections to that brand.
Fresno State and Oakland University (both Jordan brand schools) definitely aren't mid-majors. Get a grip man, who cares about uniforms? Every school is sponsored by a big time apparel company and we have a great contract with UA that pays us a lot of money.
Was just pointing out time ares changing, and may be wrong since I didn't do a ton of research. But the only schools I saw listed were Michigan, UNC, Georgetown, and Marquette.
To be clear, I don't really care about uniform brand. I was just using it as a reference. A throw away comment, that for some reason people really care about.
Now if you would like to have a conversation about defining "Elite", success, or expectations of the current program, I would welcome the insight.
I am arguing that this isn't 1990.
I am not arguing that UC can't be or isn't already Elite. As a fan base, we just need to have a perspective that isn't constantly judging on a past model.
I would suggest UC has built an excellent program, and would be considered a top 25 program. Elite is hard to define, but success is not. I feel the team is poised to constantly have success every year, make the NCAA tournament, and has the talent to make the occasional run. I would also suggest that 30 wins is a pretty elite team, and I am excited about what the future brings.
However, to think that somehow UC is going to recruit with the likes of UK and UNC in this decade, I find that insane. Gonzaga, who is arguably the best mid-major, struggles to get recruiting classes much better than UC. So if we are defining Elite by the talent coming in, no UC is not going to be it.
Also if Elite is being defined by magazine covers and national talk show coverage, I think Gonzaga has proved this year that success doesn't get you this. ESPN rarely spoke about Gonzaga and they were number 1 for pretty much the entire season. However, I am pretty sure ESPN pounded into everyone's head the next big game for UK, or the next UNC/Duke game.
In short, don't expect the 90s to come back. This doesn't mean UC isn't an elite program in today's world.
It's less about the actual uniforms and more about the connections made from that brand's AAU circuit. I think Chad has mentioned it before but guys who play in the Nike and Adidas leagues likely will go to schools with connections to that brand.
Was just pointing out time ares changing, and may be wrong since I didn't do a ton of research. But the only schools I saw listed were Michigan, UNC, Georgetown, and Marquette.
To be clear, I don't really care about uniform brand. I was just using it as a reference. A throw away comment, that for some reason people really care about.
Now if you would like to have a conversation about defining "Elite", success, or expectations of the current program, I would welcome the insight.
ESPN should have nothing to do with this conversation.
What's the point of discussing it with you? You're an excuse guy, you're just going to make excuses. When most major publications and respected sports media outlets have ranked our program as a Top 25 program of all-time that's all the proof I need to say we're an "Elite" program.
You'll talk about shifting landscapes and all the reasons we aren't elite but the problem is they're just excuses. The sports world is constantly changing and evolving that's nothing new, but the excuse guys always have excuses. The excuse guys made excuses for Mick early on because of what he inherited, they made excuses during the Big East days because we just couldn't compete with the big dogs, and they make excuses now because we don't play in a good enough conference. You'll ALWAYS have excuses no matter what.
Meanwhile the climate in college basketball will continue to change and evolve and the winners will continue to change and evolve with the sport and continue to win. I agree that we haven't been "Elite" for the last 12 years or so but that's not because our program isn't capable of it, history proves that our program is more than capable. We haven't been "Elite" because we don't have an "Elite" coach. Now Mick has made strides in recent years and as one poster said "we will make our run and Mick will be the coach". I really hope that's true but to pretend like it's somehow impossible for any coach to make UC an "Elite" program is ridiculous.
Mick will either figure out how to be elite or he won't but the facts will always be that our program is considered by most to be a top program of all time. That makes us "Elite" despite who our current coach is. Personally, I believe Mick Cronin is the worst possible coach for our school and I've said it for years. He's good enough to be good but not great. He'll never do enough to get himself fired but he'll never do enough to live up to our program's historical billing. You'll continue to make excuses because you're an excuse guy and I'll continue to point out that anything less than "Elite" is not acceptable because I'm a get shit done guy who hates excuses.
I don't get why you keep mentioning the modern world and our apparel brand. The players you've cited aren't modern and are obviously bussed bc they wore those uniforms. Was UA even around when they played? Look at the athletes UA sponsors. Brady, Newton, Curry, Speith, Harper just to name a few. This is as with the times as you can possibly be. They also have UCLA, ND, Wisconsin, and 42 other D1 schools. It grows every year too. I believe UCLA's deal with them was the biggest ever when it happened.
Was just pointing out time ares changing, and may be wrong since I didn't do a ton of research. But the only schools I saw listed were Michigan, UNC, Georgetown, and Marquette.
To be clear, I don't really care about uniform brand. I was just using it as a reference. A throw away comment, that for some reason people really care about.
ESPN should have everything to do with a conversation of Elite and national brand. They dominate sports media and talking points. Not sure what to say if you don't see that.
ESPN has like 5 schools they care about. They said 'Jordan Evans' on our highlights once. They use to say Sean Kirkpatrick all game. They have no idea about college basketball outside of UK, KU, UNC, and Duke. Terrible gauge imo. ESPN is for people who say they're sports fans but don't actually watch sports. The coverage is embarrassing. As a network, they care about NFL and NBA. And when they are forced to cover college bball, like I said, it's like 4 or 5 schools per year.
You can hate ESPN all you want, but they still drive the national talking points and dictate the household names. ESPN is what the casual sports fan watch and read.
You are correct in that they only talk about 4-5 schools, and that is what I was referring to about the term Elite. If the fan base expects UC to become one of those teams getting national coverage on talk shows, it isn't happening when ESPN drives the conversation.
We could win 30 games every season and they still wouldn't give us coverage. I think we agree on that. And that is why imo they aren't the ones who determine who is elite. They may try. But they don't have any credibility with anyone who actually follows the sport.
We could win 30 games every season and they still wouldn't give us coverage. I think we agree on that. And that is why imo they aren't the ones who determine who is elite. They may try. But they don't have any credibility with anyone who actually follows the sport.
I disagree. If your good enough, you'll get coverage. I think it's that simple. We were a 6 seed this year. 20 years ago when we were great, we got a ton of coverage. Having said that, I don't think college bball is as big these days so it gets less coverage as a whole. But if you good, people take about you
I disagree. If your good enough, you'll get coverage. I think it's that simple. We were a 6 seed this year. 20 years ago when we were great, we got a ton of coverage. Having said that, I don't think college bball is as big these days so it gets less coverage as a whole. But if you good, people take about you
Gonzaga was excellent this year. Were they not good enough to deserve coverage? Because they surely didn't get it.
I would say College Basketball is still big, but has moved to a regional sport instead of a national. I would view it similar to MLB or NHL.
Gonzaga played 15 nationally televised games in the regular season all of which were broadcast on the ESPN family on networks. To say they didn't get coverage is flat out untrue. They play on the West Coast so a lot of those games start at 11pm or later EST, but that is true of all West Coast hoops. Facts have a way of being pesky.
15 games on TV!?!? What!?!?
No one is talking about the WCC TV deal. I mean, who else are they going to show? My comment on ESPN coverage has more to do with how much they are discussed on podcasts, College Gameday, how knowledgeable the announcers are for the games, how much they promote their upcoming games, when the highlights are shown on SC etc. And from what I gathered, most of the ESPN analysts know 2 players on Gonzaga.
No stats. I think it's a fact though. The casual fans don't really care about regular season anymore. I'm sure you could find stats but I don't want to lookDo you have stats or any information on why you don't think college bball is as big theses days? Just curious, because I think so highly of it and I hate to see it come less popular each year.