1) Michigan 2) Florida State 3) Virginia 4) St. John's 5) Arizona State 6) Missouri 7) Oregon State 8) Georgia 9) Rutgers 10) South Carolina http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999 I agree with a lot of these, especially #1, 4, 5, 6, and 8, but I think Virginia, in particular, is out of place. They've really had a decent amount of success as of late. They haven't dominated the ACC, but hell, it's the ACC, are they supposed to? They've achieved just what we all expected them to achieve. I'd replace them with Notre Dame on that list. There's a school with an amazing tradition of excellence in both academics and athletics. Their football program is second to none, yet they've never won anything in basketball, not even with All-American talents like Torin Francis. I'd also throw Colorado in there. They've only had two NCAA Tournament appearances since 1976, even with guys like Chauncey Billups, Matt Bullard, David Harrison, and Richard Roby. You'd think they would have at least made the tournament more than twice sine the mid-70's.
Oregon State just sucks, they haven't really underachieved they just never have much talent. They have to battle with Washington, Oregon, Gonzaga, and now Washington State for local talent and it's safe to say that they are not a national recruiting threat. Michigan and Georgia definitely, and I agree with VC that Notre Dame should definitely be up there. Notre Dame always has good teams and a chance at success but always fall short.
VC, I couldn't have said anything you did any better. How Notre Dame isn't in that top 5 I cannot understand. It must be nice to be as bullet-proof as the Irish I also agree with Shard about the Beavs. It's not like they're getting the OJ Mayo's of the world, they're just limping along with what they can get. The Badgers have probably gotten similarly talented players to OSU over the years, but we've had the good fortune of having very good coaching. People call UW an overacheiving team, and that's probably correct on a lot of levels. Just because a school like OSU doesn't overacheive doesn't mean that they underacheive.
<div class="quote_poster">Schaddy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I also agree with Shard about the Beavs. It's not like they're getting the OJ Mayo's of the world, they're just limping along with what they can get. The Badgers have probably gotten similarly talented players to OSU over the years, but we've had the good fortune of having very good coaching. People call UW an overacheiving team, and that's probably correct on a lot of levels. Just because a school like OSU doesn't overacheive doesn't mean that they underacheive.</div> Exactly. Michigan is #1 because they have a great athletic tradition and have won a title as recently as 1989. Comparing them to Oregon State, who have relatively no athletic tradition, is simply unfair, especially when Michigan also has the advantage of bringing in McDonald's All-Americans on a consistent basis over the past ten years. Another team that I'd throw on that list is Miami. They were decent in 1999-00, but the post '00 Miami squads have been real underachievers. For one, they underrecruit for a school located in Florida, which is not only a hotbed state for high school talent but is also one of the most attractive locations for out-of-state recruits. Even with the talent they do get, they don't win nearly as much as they should. They've had some decent, NBA caliber players like Darius Rice (Miami Heat), Guillermo Diaz (Los Angeles Clippers), Robert Hite (Miami Heat), John Salmons (Sacramento Kings), and James Jones (Phoenix Suns). Would a tournament appearance be too much to ask for from them?
Wow, that's actually a pretty good case against Miami. I hadn't really thought of them as underacheivers, since they've been bad for so long I was kinda thinking of Iowa, too. I mean, it's not like they're bad by any means, but you always seemed to hear that everyone was disappointed in them at the end of their seasons under Alford. I think he got a lot of unfair criticism, also, so maybe I'm being a bit hard on them in bringing them up here.
Rutgers @ #9. They really should be higher. With the talent in state, and in New York, no reason why they can't compete for the Big East championship every year. We've been close with some big time recruits, but haven't consistently landed the blue chippers. So far new coach Fred Hill Jr. has done a good job with recruiting. We are looking to land a really good 2008 class (hopefully land Samardo Samuels ranked #6 by Rivals, or Devin Ebanks ranked #11 by Rivals)
