BasketvolsFan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,626
- Likes
- 1
You are right---fan support and attendance at games has absolutely nothing to do with having an elite program. Most of the top basketball schools have little to no fan support or attendance when they play---perfect logic.
Attendance doesn't really matter for the purposes of whether or not UT is an elite program. Duke plays in a high school sized gym every year and they are elite. Being top 5 or top 10 in attendance does not mean you are elite. Having meaningful banners in your arena, churning out great players, building up a national program is what does it. Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, Syracuse, UCLA, Uconn, these are elite programs. I'm sorry but UT just isn't there yet. They have been good for the past 3-4 years, but that doesn't make you elite. UT has come a long way from where they were. Be happy.
The programs you name fill their "gym" every game they play regardless of the size. Syracuse is larger than UT. No question that winning ultimately determines an elite program. The emphasis of this post is can you recruit elite players and build an elite program with poor fan support---I don't think so.
I think we are actually saying the same thing--at least conditionally. I happen to believe that strong fan support does help a program, helps the team win, helps in recruiting, and ultimately helps a program become elite. Every thing goes together. Without outstanding players, winning, etc. fan support is not strong. We are winning and consistently making the tournament now and still can't fill our arena except for certain games--that's the point.
Being top 5 or top 10 in attendance does not mean you are elite. Having meaningful banners in your arena, churning out great players, building up a national program is what does it. Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, Syracuse, UCLA, Uconn, these are elite programs. I'm sorry but UT just isn't there yet. They have been good for the past 3-4 years, but that doesn't make you elite.
Neat thing is that one coach can take a program and make it elite. Take away Pitino and UK is still elite, same for Kansas, UNC Duke and UCLA, but take away Boeheim and Calhoun and neither school is "elite".
If Bruce decides to stick around here in Knoxville for 20 years, I think he can bring UT to elite status. He has had glaring deficiencies so far in some aspects of X's and O's that are apparent to basketball coaches and not apparent to most fans. That is also why a lot of the people on here seem as condescending as gnostics. They think that if you do not see that we are failing in some fundamental parts of halfcourt offense and defense that you do not understand basketball at all. They cannot imagine that some people think that Bruce had to play the hand that he was dealt and are withholding judgment as to whether his player friendly coaching can take us to the Final Four until after he has had a few great recruiting groups back to back.
2010 and 2011 are shaping up to be the best years talent wise Bruce has ever had as a coach. That is exciting for those of us who are fans of both the basketball program and the coach.
If the next two years results in recruiting elite talent and we still can't become an elite program and go further than the Sweet 16, what is our defense of the program at that point?