FanPost

Elite Program, or Irrational Fan Base?

It appears that nothing irritates the Bruin fan base more than being called "irrational", especially when it comes at the hands of a particular LA times columnist. "Irrational" usually implying that the Bruin faithful are still stuck in the late '60s-early '70s and expect the respect and adulation that comes from being an elite program when the program is no longer in elite mode. So, I thought, what's the truth here?

Let's use 1975-1976 as our starting point (i.e. life after Coach). I'll make this simple and define an elite program as any program in the past 42 years that has a) made the NCAA tournament more than half of those years (21) and b) has won at least 2 national titles. I don't want to get more complicated than that: elite programs still have ups and downs and in my opinion, the elite status of a program is more of a long term label rather than a short term production value (see Ben Howland about that point). There are 9 programs that meet this criteria. Let's examine their stat lines during the last 42 years (again, life after Coach):

Duke (arguably one of the two most dominant programs in the country) has won 13 regular season conference championships, 16 conference tournament championships, and has made the NCAA tournament 36 times (86% of the time). Of those 36 times, they flamed out in the Sweet 16 25% of the time, but made the Final 4 36% of the time and have won 5 national championships (meaning they win a natty 14% of the time when they make the tourney).

UNC (arguably the other most dominant program in the country): 21 regular season conf., 12 tournament conf,. 39 NCAA app (93%). 18% sweet 16 rate, 36% Final Four rate, 5 nattys (13%).

Kentucky: 19 reg season, 17 tournament, 35 NCAA (83%). 11% sweet 16 rate, 29% Final Four rate, 4 nattys (11%)

UConn: 11 reg season, 10 tournament, 22 NCAA (52%). 23% sweet 16 rate, 23% Final Four rate, 4 nattys (18%)

Indiana: 11 reg season, 0 tournament, 40 NCAA (95%). 23% sweet 16 rate, 13% Final Four rate, 3 nattys (8%)

Louisville: 16 reg season, 17 tournament, 33 NCAA (79%). 27% sweet 16 rate, 21% Final Four rate, 3 nattys (9%)

Kansas: 24 reg season, 14 tournament, 35 NCAA (83%). 23% sweet 16 rate, 23% Final Four rate, 2 nattys (6%)

Michigan State: 10 reg season, 5 tournament, 29 NCAA (69%). 14% sweet 16 rate, 19% Final Four rate, 2 nattys (6%)

Villanova: 11 reg season, 5 tournament, 27 NCAA (64%). 7% sweet 16 rate, 11% Final Four rate, 2 nattys (7%)

(Sorry, Florida. I respect 2 nattys, but shake my head at only 20 NCAA appearances.)

Notice only 3 of the 9 programs make the Final Four at a higher percentage than they do exiting in the Sweet 16. So, making the Sweet 16 is a big deal and it is no shame to exit out at that stage. The 3 programs that consistently make it past that point have at least 4 national titles apiece.

The average stat line for these 9 programs is 15 reg season conference titles, 11 conference tournament titles and 33 NCAA appearances (77%). In the tournament, on average, teams go out in the sweet 16 19% of the time, make the Final Four 23% of the time, and win a title 10% of the time that they make the tournament.

UCLA's stat line: 14 reg season, 4 tournament (I know, the Pac-12 tourney is fairly recent, so we'll let that slide), 32 NCAA appearances (76%). UCLA has gone out in the Sweet 16 30% of the time, made the Final Four 15% of the time, and won 1 national championship (3%).

Given that the Pac-12 is traditionally more of a football league, UCLA should be more dominant than they are. Let me throw out one more significant piece of information: Since the 1975-76 season, Duke and Louisville have had all of 2 head coaches. Michigan State and Villanova have had 3 different head coaches. UNC, UConn, and Kansas have had 4 different head coaches. Indiana has had 5. Kentucky has gone through 6 different coaches. Average of these schools: 4 coaches.

In that same time frame, UCLA has had 9 different head coaches.

So, elite program, or irrational fan base? I think the UCLA fan base boils down to three groups. The first are the optimists (my favorite): always seeing UCLA for the gem that it is and supporting the teams always, never criticizing. The second group are the realists (my people): we see the state of things as an up and down cycle. Was I totally disgusted by the 2015-2016 basketball season? Yes. Do I worry about football? Not so much, it's a warm up for the main event in Pauley. (Having said that, this really needs to be a hot seat season for Mora). What do I think of Alford? I think he did a great job this season (given how abysmal the previous season was). I worry about our new found Calipari-esque approach to recruiting. I do believe Alford is a mid-major coach at a major program school. I have consistently said that given his Christian outlook and his ties to Indiana (as well as his coaching ability), the absolute best fit for him would be to coach Valparaiso. Do I sweat a sweet 16 exit? No, as long as it's balanced by some Final Four action. (Btw, it's not just a Steve Alford issue. Clearly, UCLA's NCAA tournament pattern is to exit the Sweet 16 at a rate double that of making it to the Final Four.)

The third group is kind of irrational (and it's a small minority). There is a subset of the fan base that is relentlessly negative and does seem to be unaware of how far UCLA has slipped. The college basketball landscape has changed and UCLA in many respects has not kept up. At least, that's what the numbers look like to me.

So, is UCLA an elite program? It should be. Given the rich pedigree and history of the program, the Los Angeles setting, a veritable Shangri-La of college campuses, new facilites....this program should recruit itself. And it has, when you think of Love, Holiday, Westbrook, LaVine, etc. But, the program needs to keep kids longer (see UNC this year), needs a solid major level coach, an upgrade in atmosphere (Pauley needs to rock every game, not just the big ones), and a commitment from the athletic department to make good hires and let them do their thing.

I'll leave with one last note: What are the other schools that, since 1975-1976, have won 1 national championship (just like UCLA)? North Carolina State, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgetown, Marquette, Maryland, Michigan, UNLV, Syracuse. Not basketball royalty, but pretty well respected. That's seems to be the level we're at. We need to get back to an elite level, but also weather the ups and downs when they come.

Go Bruins!

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Trending Discussions