NCAA College Basketball Talk

[VU2014]

Coaches may be barred from Peach Jam in the future.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-ncaa-is-likely-to-make-this-the-last-peach-jam-college-coaches-can-attend-and-that-would-be-a-mistake/

There would be no point of it if College Coaches couldn't attend.

I think if the NCAA keeps moving down the path it does it will take power out of AAU coaches (a good thing) and make HS coaches more influential. There are some scum HS/Prep coaches but there seems to be fewer them. I don't think it would be the end of the world to end these giant AAU tournaments. If kids are talented, coaches will find them.

[IrishDawg]

There would be no point of it if College Coaches couldn't attend.

I think if the NCAA keeps moving down the path it does it will take power out of AAU coaches (a good thing) and make HS coaches more influential. There are some scum HS/Prep coaches but there seems to be fewer them. I don't think it would be the end of the world to end these giant AAU tournaments. If kids are talented, coaches will find them.

The college coaches can't contact kids directly during this time anyway, so their actual attendance isn't as important as their ability to watch the kids play, which I can guarantee the AAU circuit will continue to offer video access even if this does go through.  Peach Jam oversold their ticket allotments this year at $50 a pop for spectators, so it's clearly popular enough.  The level of basketball on the AAU circuit is undoubtedly higher than it will ever be at a camp or high school setting, especially at these mega tournaments once it gets into bracket play on Saturday. 

If the NCAA truly wanted to take the power out of the shoe companies without sacrificing the quality of basketball or opportunities, then instead of regional camps where individual players are invited, what they should do is host their own AAU tournament events in the different regions that the coaches can go to, and then have a National tournament at the very end of the month, and don't differentiate between Nike, Adidas or Under Armour or non-affiliated programs.

For the other side though, there is still the April evaluation period, so guys can still be discovered during that time, but by taking away the July evaluation period and putting guys in a camp setting where they likely haven't played with a lot of the guys they'd get paired with, the basketball won't be as good, and the evaluations will therefore be much harder for coaches to make, in my opinion.

[VUGrad1314]

I wish Northwestern had given that honor to us or Loyola or at least UIC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-northwestern-opener-new-orleans-20180719-story.html

[VU2014]

I wish Northwestern had given that honor to us or Loyola or at least UIC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-northwestern-opener-new-orleans-20180719-story.html

The reasons for not scheduling Loyola probably go beyond basketball. LU would have a shot to beat NU and they don't want to "legitimize" Or even acknowledge the existence of Loyola's basketball program. It's a similar reason why Butler refuses to schedule a series Valpo.

[bbtds]

I wish Northwestern had given that honor to us or Loyola or at least UIC.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-northwestern-opener-new-orleans-20180719-story.html

The answer is in this paragraph in the story in bold:

NU has opted to open with a mid-major because 1) any opponent is likely to sell out the newly remodeled (cost: $110 million), 7,039-seat gym; 2) the Wildcats want to christen the place with a victory; 3) the team has a bunch of new faces, with only six returnees who played extensively last season; and 4) NU will play 13 high-major teams at home, including 10 from the Big Ten.

[IrishDawg]

The reasons for not scheduling Loyola probably go beyond basketball. LU would have a shot to beat NU and they don't want to "legitimize" Or even acknowledge the existence of Loyola's basketball program. It's a similar reason why Butler refuses to schedule a series Valpo.

The reason that these series aren't scheduled is because most seasons, there is nothing to gain for Northwestern or Butler, from either a perception or tournament standpoint.  You've said so yourself that you don't want everyone "knighting" Loyola and bowing down to their program because this is the first tourney appearance that they've had in 30+ years.  So why should a Big Ten school like Northwestern give Loyola a home game in a 4,500 seat arena when there's no guarantee after next year that they'll be a top 50 program?

Butler doesn't schedule a series with Valpo for the same reason.  Is Valpo good enough that they could beat Butler, especially if the game is at Valpo?  Absolutely.  Would a road win benefit Butler at all come selection Sunday most years?  No.  Also, Valpo took a buy game against Northwestern last season.  Butler is a better basketball program than Northwestern.  Valpo wouldn't accept a buy game from Butler.  You are free to feel the way you'd like, this is your board, but generally speaking, it can be completely construed as basketball reasons why these things don't happen currently.  If major programs are going to take the risk of going on the road for a game, there needs to basically be a guaranteed tangible benefit.  Until schools can consistently show that they are going to be a team that gets counted as a quality win come selection Sunday, not just in a single year or years, it's going to be really hard to get teams to give up a home game and agree to come to your arena.  Gonzaga went through it, Xavier went through it, Butler went through it, Wichita State went through it.

If Loyola or Valpo or any team proves themselves over a 5+ year stretch, that's usually when you'll start to see a perceivable change in scheduling.  Even then, you can't expect every team to do you a solid and play at your gym.  Butler hasn't had an actual home game against IU, Purdue or Notre Dame in the last 20ish years.  Butler accepted a buy game from IU after the 2 National Title runs.  Life moves on.  If Valpo becomes a successful program, then you aren't going to need a home game against Butler to prove your mettle.  Other teams will step in and be those quality opponents.  Once that happens, if Valpo continues to prove itself, then invites to even better non-conference tournaments, neutral site games and home and homes will come.

[ml2]

Would a road win benefit Butler at all come selection Sunday most years?

Using the recently introduced Quadrant system, a win at the ARC would have counted as a coveted Quadrant 1 victory 5 of the last 8 seasons (RPI of 75 or better on Selection Sunday). In the other 3 seasons a win at Valpo would have been a respectable Quadrant 2 once and an admittedly useless Quadrant 3 twice (2013-14 and last season).

[VUGrad1314]

Fun post including three of the most iconic moments in UNI\MVC tournament history. Hopefully we can do the conference proud like this one day. A bit bummed and surprised that "Th Shot" didn't make it. I guess they couldn't find a spot for it that fit the meter of the song.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/20/17592496/some-mid-major-upsets-set-to-africa-by-toto-theres-nothing-that-a-hundred-men-or-more-could-ever-do

[vu72]

The reasons for not scheduling Loyola probably go beyond basketball. LU would have a shot to beat NU and they don't want to "legitimize" Or even acknowledge the existence of Loyola's basketball program. It's a similar reason why Butler refuses to schedule a series Valpo.

The reason that these series aren't scheduled is because most seasons, there is nothing to gain for Northwestern or Butler, from either a perception or tournament standpoint.  You've said so yourself that you don't want everyone "knighting" Loyola and bowing down to their program because this is the first tourney appearance that they've had in 30+ years.  So why should a Big Ten school like Northwestern give Loyola a home game in a 4,500 seat arena when there's no guarantee after next year that they'll be a top 50 program?

Butler doesn't schedule a series with Valpo for the same reason.  Is Valpo good enough that they could beat Butler, especially if the game is at Valpo?  Absolutely.  Would a road win benefit Butler at all come selection Sunday most years?  No.  Also, Valpo took a buy game against Northwestern last season.  Butler is a better basketball program than Northwestern.  Valpo wouldn't accept a buy game from Butler.  You are free to feel the way you'd like, this is your board, but generally speaking, it can be completely construed as basketball reasons why these things don't happen currently.  If major programs are going to take the risk of going on the road for a game, there needs to basically be a guaranteed tangible benefit.  Until schools can consistently show that they are going to be a team that gets counted as a quality win come selection Sunday, not just in a single year or years, it's going to be really hard to get teams to give up a home game and agree to come to your arena.  Gonzaga went through it, Xavier went through it, Butler went through it, Wichita State went through it.

If Loyola or Valpo or any team proves themselves over a 5+ year stretch, that's usually when you'll start to see a perceivable change in scheduling.  Even then, you can't expect every team to do you a solid and play at your gym.  Butler hasn't had an actual home game against IU, Purdue or Notre Dame in the last 20ish years.  Butler accepted a buy game from IU after the 2 National Title runs.  Life moves on.  If Valpo becomes a successful program, then you aren't going to need a home game against Butler to prove your mettle.  Other teams will step in and be those quality opponents.  Once that happens, if Valpo continues to prove itself, then invites to even better non-conference tournaments, neutral site games and home and homes will come.

Valpo is looking for quality wins too. Not sure a 6th place team qualifies. 

[EddieCabot]

Valpo is looking for quality wins too. Not sure a 6th place team qualifies. 

Agreed.  Have they done anything since their one lucky run?  We need to be aiming higher.

[IrishDawg]

Would a road win benefit Butler at all come selection Sunday most years?

Using the recently introduced Quadrant system, a win at the ARC would have counted as a coveted Quadrant 1 victory 5 of the last 8 seasons (RPI of 75 or better on Selection Sunday). In the other 3 seasons a win at Valpo would have been a respectable Quadrant 2 once and an admittedly useless Quadrant 3 twice (2013-14 and last season). 

They only introduced the quadrant system this past year, and the RPI isn't the end all, be all metric the committee uses (even though for whatever reason TV analysts still look at it as a major factor). Also, the tournament committee stated that the quadrant system would be a factor this year, but if you look at who got in the tournament vs. who didn't this past year out of the bubble teams, they (and keep in mind half of these members are mid-major reps) didn't care about road wins, NCSOS or Q1 or Q2 record last year.  Middle Tennessee's numbers looked like a total no-brainer.  33 RPI. 12th (by RPI) strongest NCSOS.  12-1 on the road. 2-3 vs. Q1 and 3-1 vs. Q2, which was the 2nd best winning % against those 2 quadrants out of the bubble teams (St. Mary's had the best).

Before you cry foul on all mid-majors, you can also look at USC as getting hosed out of a bid, if those metrics truly mattered.  USC's RPI was 37.  62nd ranked NCSOS.  6-5 on the road.  9-10 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2, which was only behind Alabama in the Q1 and Q2 record.  Guess who got in ahead of them?  Texas, whose RPI was 52.  96th ranked NCSOS. 4-7 on the road.  10-18 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2.

So the question then becomes what exactly is the tournament committee using to pick who does or doesn't get in the tournament?  I honestly don't know, because there doesn't appear to be a single metric or metric type that they're using for all teams, but I'm sticking to the criteria that if you're not a team in a major conference, it takes consistency in making the the tournament to be a team that major conference teams are going to take the risk in coming to the ARC, because that's when they'll see the benefit in taking the risk.

Valpo is looking for quality wins too. Not sure a 6th place team qualifies. 

Agreed.  Have they done anything since their one lucky run?  We need to be aiming higher.

[justducky]

They only introduced the quadrant system this past year, and the RPI isn't the end all, be all metric the committee uses (even though for whatever reason TV analysts still look at it as a major factor). Also, the tournament committee stated that the quadrant system would be a factor this year, but if you look at who got in the tournament vs. who didn't this past year out of the bubble teams, they (and keep in mind half of these members are mid-major reps) didn't care about road wins, NCSOS or Q1 or Q2 record last year.  Middle Tennessee's numbers looked like a total no-brainer.  33 RPI. 12th (by RPI) strongest NCSOS.  12-1 on the road. 2-3 vs. Q1 and 3-1 vs. Q2, which was the 2nd best winning % against those 2 quadrants out of the bubble teams (St. Mary's had the best).

Before you cry foul on all mid-majors, you can also look at USC as getting hosed out of a bid, if those metrics truly mattered.  USC's RPI was 37.  62nd ranked NCSOS.  6-5 on the road.  9-10 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2, which was only behind Alabama in the Q1 and Q2 record.  Guess who got in ahead of them?  Texas, whose RPI was 52.  96th ranked NCSOS. 4-7 on the road.  10-18 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2.

So the question then becomes what exactly is the tournament committee using to pick who does or doesn't get in the tournament?  I honestly don't know, because there doesn't appear to be a single metric or metric type that they're using for all teams, but I'm sticking to the criteria that if you're not a team in a major conference, it takes consistency in making the the tournament to be a team that major conference teams are going to take the risk in coming to the ARC, because that's when they'll see the benefit in taking the risk.

We get that it is a struggle for you to come up with a clear and understandable path forward which could lead to success. I think you just roundabout admitted that we can not get there from here.  What I would like to point out is that if the 1994 Butler program was brought forward to 2018 they couldn't get there from here either.

[IrishDawg]

We get that it is a struggle for you to come up with a clear and understandable path forward which could lead to success. I think you just roundabout admitted that we can not get there from here.  What I would like to point out is that if the 1994 Butler program was brought forward to 2018 they couldn't get there from here either.

Unless the committee actually comes up with a criteria that they follow consistently, it's hard for anyone to be able to devise up a clear path to success for any program.  I think this is the biggest issue for any team, is that no one actually knows what the target is that they're supposed to hit.

I wouldn't ever say that Valpo can't continue to progress as a program.  You're in the MVC now, which is stronger than the Horizon League, even when the league was at its best.  It's harder to do now, for sure, but it's not impossible.  If Valpo keeps bringing in the right kind of guys via transfers and finds a diamond or two in the rough, like they may have with DFL and Sackey, it's absolutely possible for Valpo to become the program in the MVC, and then who knows what could happen.  Where Valpo's at right now is in an infinitely better spot than where Butler was at in 1994.  Butler hadn't made the tournament in 32 years at that point, and only had 3 winning seasons in their previous 10 years.

[wh]

They only introduced the quadrant system this past year, and the RPI isn't the end all, be all metric the committee uses (even though for whatever reason TV analysts still look at it as a major factor). Also, the tournament committee stated that the quadrant system would be a factor this year, but if you look at who got in the tournament vs. who didn't this past year out of the bubble teams, they (and keep in mind half of these members are mid-major reps) didn't care about road wins, NCSOS or Q1 or Q2 record last year.  Middle Tennessee's numbers looked like a total no-brainer.  33 RPI. 12th (by RPI) strongest NCSOS.  12-1 on the road. 2-3 vs. Q1 and 3-1 vs. Q2, which was the 2nd best winning % against those 2 quadrants out of the bubble teams (St. Mary's had the best).

Before you cry foul on all mid-majors, you can also look at USC as getting hosed out of a bid, if those metrics truly mattered.  USC's RPI was 37.  62nd ranked NCSOS.  6-5 on the road.  9-10 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2, which was only behind Alabama in the Q1 and Q2 record.  Guess who got in ahead of them?  Texas, whose RPI was 52.  96th ranked NCSOS. 4-7 on the road.  10-18 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2.

So the question then becomes what exactly is the tournament committee using to pick who does or doesn't get in the tournament?  I honestly don't know, because there doesn't appear to be a single metric or metric type that they're using for all teams, but I'm sticking to the criteria that if you're not a team in a major conference, it takes consistency in making the the tournament to be a team that major conference teams are going to take the risk in coming to the ARC, because that's when they'll see the benefit in taking the risk.

We get that it is a struggle for you to come up with a clear and understandable path forward which could lead to success. I think you just roundabout admitted that we can not get there from here.  What I would like to point out is that if the 1994 Butler program was brought forward to 2018 they couldn't get there from here either.

I guess it depends on what the definition of success is. In my book moving from the Mid Con to the Horizon to the Missouri Valley Conference in the past 10 years reflects a highly successful program track record. When Valpo becomes a perennial top tier program within the MVC, it will have solidified that success. With extreme rarity (Butler being one), this is as good as it gets in the Mid Major world, of which there are 250+ programs. If the program never makes another move, it will have accomplished more than most mid major programs could only dream of. Now if we can win a few championships where we're at, I will be content for many years to come.

[FieldGoodie05]

They only introduced the quadrant system this past year, and the RPI isn't the end all, be all metric the committee uses (even though for whatever reason TV analysts still look at it as a major factor). Also, the tournament committee stated that the quadrant system would be a factor this year, but if you look at who got in the tournament vs. who didn't this past year out of the bubble teams, they (and keep in mind half of these members are mid-major reps) didn't care about road wins, NCSOS or Q1 or Q2 record last year.  Middle Tennessee's numbers looked like a total no-brainer.  33 RPI. 12th (by RPI) strongest NCSOS.  12-1 on the road. 2-3 vs. Q1 and 3-1 vs. Q2, which was the 2nd best winning % against those 2 quadrants out of the bubble teams (St. Mary's had the best).

Before you cry foul on all mid-majors, you can also look at USC as getting hosed out of a bid, if those metrics truly mattered.  USC's RPI was 37.  62nd ranked NCSOS.  6-5 on the road.  9-10 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2, which was only behind Alabama in the Q1 and Q2 record.  Guess who got in ahead of them?  Texas, whose RPI was 52.  96th ranked NCSOS. 4-7 on the road.  10-18 vs. Quadrants 1 and 2.

So the question then becomes what exactly is the tournament committee using to pick who does or doesn't get in the tournament?  I honestly don't know, because there doesn't appear to be a single metric or metric type that they're using for all teams, but I'm sticking to the criteria that if you're not a team in a major conference, it takes consistency in making the the tournament to be a team that major conference teams are going to take the risk in coming to the ARC, because that's when they'll see the benefit in taking the risk.

We get that it is a struggle for you to come up with a clear and understandable path forward which could lead to success. I think you just roundabout admitted that we can not get there from here.  What I would like to point out is that if the 1994 Butler program was brought forward to 2018 they couldn't get there from here either.

I guess it depends on what the definition of success is. In my book moving from the Mid Con to the Horizon to the Missouri Valley Conference in the past 10 years reflects a highly successful program track record. When Valpo becomes a perennial top tier program within the MVC, it will have solidified that success. With extreme rarity (Butler being one), this is as good as it gets in the Mid Major world, of which there are 250+ programs. If the program never makes another move, it will have accomplished more than most mid major programs could only dream of. Now if we can win a few championships where we're at, I will be content for many years to come.

Well put WH.  Some of us (including myself) worries about being the small fish in the big pond.  Put in a timeline perspective these are solid progressions.

Maybe the new expectation is occasional titles, littered with prolific new rivalries at the pinnacle of the mid major conferences.

[justducky]

I guess it depends on what the definition of success is. In my book moving from the Mid Con to the Horizon to the Missouri Valley Conference in the past 10 years reflects a highly successful program track record. When Valpo becomes a perennial top tier program within the MVC, it will have solidified that success. With extreme rarity (Butler being one), this is as good as it gets in the Mid Major world, of which there are 250+ programs. If the program never makes another move, it will have accomplished more than most mid major programs could only dream of. Now if we can win a few championships where we're at, I will be content for many years to come.

While I agree with everything you said, let me take it a step forward to illustrate the frustration that you and I and everybody on this board shares.

By my thinking the MVC in 18-19 could and maybe should have 4 members in the top 85 with several others not far behind. What are the early odds of the Valley generating an at-large candidate I would say 25% or less.

Let's jump to the 19-20 season when we will have a bench full of talent and experience with at-large aspirations. What are our chances? Can anybody in the MVC get an at-large in either year? The odds are against us.

[VUGrad1314]

I guess it depends on what the definition of success is. In my book moving from the Mid Con to the Horizon to the Missouri Valley Conference in the past 10 years reflects a highly successful program track record. When Valpo becomes a perennial top tier program within the MVC, it will have solidified that success. With extreme rarity (Butler being one), this is as good as it gets in the Mid Major world, of which there are 250+ programs. If the program never makes another move, it will have accomplished more than most mid major programs could only dream of. Now if we can win a few championships where we're at, I will be content for many years to come.

While I agree with everything you said, let me take it a step forward to illustrate the frustration that you and I and everybody on this board shares.

By my thinking the MVC in 18-19 could and maybe should have 4 members in the top 85 with several others not far behind. What are the early odds of the Valley generating an at-large candidate I would say 25% or less.

Let's jump to the 19-20 season when we will have a bench full of talent and experience with at-large aspirations. What are our chances? Can anybody in the MVC get an at-large in either year? The odds are against us.

And pray tell, what would those chances have been in the Horizon? Here are  the big reasons we didn't have an at-large candidate last year or realize the goal of 4 in the top 85:

1. Loyola (and others) underscheduled
2. Illinois State was inconsistent
3. UNI crapped the bed in conference play
4. Elgin and the MVC University  presidents missed the opportunity to add another strong top 85 caliber team in Murray State and embrace a 11\20 format that would have boosted everyone's schedule\RPI
5. The MVC is a tough conference from top to bottom. The teams beat on\cannibalize each other.

Loyola is working on issue #1 and doing a good job
Illinois State and UNI should be better equipped at handling issues 2 and  3 this year
If the MVC is successful in resolving issues 1-3 then issues 4-5 won't matter as much AND it has enjoyed tournament success in the post-Wichita State era, which gives the conference respect and credibility and should help come Selection Sunday.

I think two bids is very possible if Loyola and Illinois State take care of business, and if programs like UNI and our Crusaders can show well against tougher slates to provide support along with SIU and Bradley, and other teams do well in the  nonconference while the in-conference  cannibalization quiets down some allowing our best teams to rise to the top. We might even have some talk of three bids if we get a vintage performance from UNI or things come together for Valpo early and\or things get crazy in the conference tournament. If the A10 can do it so can the MVC.

[wh]

I guess it depends on what the definition of success is. In my book moving from the Mid Con to the Horizon to the Missouri Valley Conference in the past 10 years reflects a highly successful program track record. When Valpo becomes a perennial top tier program within the MVC, it will have solidified that success. With extreme rarity (Butler being one), this is as good as it gets in the Mid Major world, of which there are 250+ programs. If the program never makes another move, it will have accomplished more than most mid major programs could only dream of. Now if we can win a few championships where we're at, I will be content for many years to come.

While I agree with everything you said, let me take it a step forward to illustrate the frustration that you and I and everybody on this board shares.

By my thinking the MVC in 18-19 could and maybe should have 4 members in the top 85 with several others not far behind. What are the early odds of the Valley generating an at-large candidate I would say 25% or less.

Let's jump to the 19-20 season when we will have a bench full of talent and experience with at-large aspirations. What are our chances? Can anybody in the MVC get an at-large in either year? The odds are against us.

A major change to the at-large selection metric will soon be announced by the NCAA. There is hope out there that the new metric will be more favorable to the Mid Major world. Time will tell.

MVC hopes new 'metric' leads to multiple NCAA bids

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/basketball/men/mvc-hopes-new-metric-leads-to-multiple-ncaa-bids/article_dc5f6c43-ccec-5051-b6f0-159d98df87d8.amp.html

[IrishDawg]

A major change to the at-large selection metric will soon be announced by the NCAA. There is hope out there that the new metric will be more favorable to the Mid Major world. Time will tell.

MVC hopes new 'metric' leads to multiple NCAA bids

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/basketball/men/mvc-hopes-new-metric-leads-to-multiple-ncaa-bids/article_dc5f6c43-ccec-5051-b6f0-159d98df87d8.amp.html

Even if it does appear to favor mid-majors, it all depends if the committee actually uses it.  They didn't exactly follow their quadrant metrics last year when it came down to the bubble teams.

[a3uge]

A major change to the at-large selection metric will soon be announced by the NCAA. There is hope out there that the new metric will be more favorable to the Mid Major world. Time will tell.

MVC hopes new 'metric' leads to multiple NCAA bids

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/basketball/men/mvc-hopes-new-metric-leads-to-multiple-ncaa-bids/article_dc5f6c43-ccec-5051-b6f0-159d98df87d8.amp.html

Even if it does appear to favor mid-majors, it all depends if the committee actually uses it.  They didn't exactly follow their quadrant metrics last year when it came down to the bubble teams.

This. They're adding a metric to replace a metric they didn't even use. They don't need to add metrics to help the mid majors. Quality mid majors already have decent RPI, a good quadrant winning %, etc. The addition of these metrics only make it easier to justify adding head-scratchers to the tournament, because they might stand out in one of the 5 criteria.

[VU2014]

Yeah I'm pretty skeptical this will improve mid-majors fortunes.

[VUGrad1314]

Not South Florida bad but a pretty weak effort here.

https://twitter.com/Pitt_MBB/status/1021399470007889921

[VUGrad1314]

Part III is here: In it, Craig discusses the need for "catalyst players" guys that just make things happen and make teammates better. They are leaders and may even  have the ability to be stars but don't necessarily relish the role\attention. The more of these players you have, the better. Balanced attacks are harder to gameplan against on short notice, which aids these teams come tournament time. Note the difference in Florida's experience playing Jimmer Fredette's BYU team vs. Butler. Heavy focus on Butler--especially their second run to the Finals in 2011 keyed by Matt Howard. Also of note is Jim Larranaga's considerable influence on "The Butler Way" despite having no affiliation with Butler.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/24/17605218/the-cinderella-code-part-3-the-unassuming-shepherd-boy-matt-howard-butler-brad-stevens-hayward

[IrishDawg]

Part III is here: In it, Craig discusses the need for "catalyst players" guys that just make things happen and make teammates better. They are leaders and may even  have the ability to be stars but don't necessarily relish the role\attention. The more of these players you have, the better. Balanced attacks are harder to gameplan against on short notice, which aids these teams come tournament time. Note the difference in Florida's experience playing Jimmer Fredette's BYU team vs. Butler. Heavy focus on Butler--especially their second run to the Finals in 2011 keyed by Matt Howard. Also of note is Jim Larranaga's considerable influence on "The Butler Way" despite having no affiliation with Butler.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/24/17605218/the-cinderella-code-part-3-the-unassuming-shepherd-boy-matt-howard-butler-brad-stevens-hayward

I'm not going to say that the writer is wrong, but every great team, whether they're a power program or a mid-major program has these guys, so it's not a "Cinderella Code".  Howard was a top 100 recruit coming out of high school, scored nearly 2,000 points in his career and sits in the top 10 in career statistics of points (5th), rebounds (4th) and blocks (3rd).  If you wanted a real "no stats all-stars" from the 2010 and 2011 Butler teams, Ron Nored would have qualified better than Howard.  Villanova was filled with those kinds of players last year.  Also, Butler didn't have a "balanced" attack during their second run.  They had 2 guys who averaged double figures during the tournament.  BYU had 3.  Florida had the Butler game well in hand too until late where Butler stormed back late to tie it and then take it in overtime when Shelvin Mack took over.

Jim Larranaga had slightly more influence on the Butler Way as you or I did.  Literally look at Dick Bennett's (he was also at this meeting) 5 core values that he taught his teams and tell me you don't see a direct influence on the Butler Way.

Bennett's Core Values:
1. Humility
2. Passion
3. Unity
4. Servant Attitude
5. Thankfulness

The Butler Way's 5 Pillars
1. Humility
2. Passion
3. Unity
4. Servant Attitude
5. Thankfulness

The difference was that Collier took the time to write this down into a mission statement known as the Butler Way: The Butler Way demands commitment, denies selfishness and accepts reality, yet seeks constant improvement while promoting the good of the team above self.

Honestly the article is pretty disappointing.  Butler's runs weren't like George Mason's or Loyola's.  Those truly were teams that didn't have NBA level talent, but played together so well that fact didn't matter.  Butler, Wichita State and Gonzaga all had multiple NBA players on their Final 4 teams.  Butler had an NBA coach.  Their run also can't be replicated today because they were allowed to play defense in a way that isn't allowed anymore.  That's what makes Loyola's run even more special.

[VUGrad1314]

I'm not sure I agree that Loyola doesn't have NBA talent. If Custer turns in another strong year and Loyola does well, I can see him getting plenty of NBA looks. Same with Krutwig if he keeps developing; though it's harder to see with him because the NBA doesn't like low-post scoring Centers anymore.