[quote
author=Tiger link=topic=9258.msg219049#msg219049 date=1423239338]
In what time period? If you mean in the next million years, the answer is yes. If you mean in the next 25 years, the answer is probably not.
Look at most urban schools - Providence (better academic institution), Northeastern (better academic institution), Boston University (better academic institution), Loyola (better academic institution). De Paul competes academically with SJU and their basketball seems to be on the upswing, but they are a long way from being a basketball power.
Urban schools can't compete with suburban and rural schools when it comes to the attractiveness of the campus. When most high school kids describe their dream college, they will describe tree lined roads, ivy covered buildings, some lawn area, an active campus life. SJU offers
none of that. As a consequence, SJU will be at a recruiting disadvantage for at least the next 25 years.
Fortunately, in the next million years, SJU should be able to recruit a kid who is an athletic 6-3 guard in high school, but then has a growth spurt and arrives on campus as a 6-9 freak
. And to make it better, he has a girl friend on campus so he stays for his sophomore year.
[/quote
] Good points made, but as with most things in life, probably not might be the case if only for the current and future landscape of college bball.
Even if one day we get "that" coach, the one who will put together the recruiting, winning bball, academics, excitement, etc., all in one beautiful ball of NYC, it probably will not be able to be sustained to make it even a debate if we will arguably become a perennial top 15-20 program.
However, your breakdown of the "urban vs. suburban" and other desirable qualities in a school looked at by players, I think the majority of players have a more limited view of what they want: A winning team, either short term (last 10, even 5 years) or long term overall (might be some recent down years); playing time, thereby helping the player's chance to get to the pros, whether NBA or overseas; a good vibe with current players and the head coach/staff; and any "wild cards" (campus, top notch facilities, dorms, girls, etc.)
Every case has exceptions, but at the end of the day, the coach and staff have the most sway. There are many examples of schools that are outside of your criteria that are getting it done with lesser qualities than SJ's has to offer. But those coaches are getting it done. VCU was nothing before Anthony Grant. When I was down in Richmond in the late 90s, early 2000s, it was really run down by a lot of the spread campus in the city. It was nothing to write home about. The housing recession hit Richmond a little bit later than DC or NYC, but the budget for renovations since the late 2000s pressed on for VCU. When I'm down there these past 5 years (my daughter's in pre-dental program), it's incredible to see all the infrastructure build up in the city really following along with the school's additional buildup. Every case is different. That being said, after seeing how beautiful SJ's campus has become, I'd probably still choose SJ's for what I wanted in a school. But I'm not a recruit looking through that lens. Go through programs that were nothing that have been getting it done the past 10 years - Zaga, before going to 16 straight tourney appearances, just had Dan Munson's 3 year run, one appearance in '95, and nothing else to speak of but a pedestrian .540 win pct. for the preceding 50 years. With Smart and Few, both schools are positioned to continue their run of recent success. With 4,800 undergrads in a private school setting, I've never heard the Gonzaga campus talked about like a Pepperdine or some other "blow you away" beautiful campus school. Players started going there because of Mark Few and his success.
We need "that" guy that can put all the pieces together. It is not easy as we know. We need an administration that's willing to go all out to make sure the infrastructure is there to the utmost of their resources, and I don't think SJ's is there fully - no one on this board would argue that. However, solid strides have been made getting the resources in line to get the program back where it should be - one that should be having (at a minimum) some really good years (top 3 conf.), some good years (top 5 conf.), and maybe a few down years every ten or so year time frames. This is my measuring stick in today's Beast. It is attainable, and striving for anything less is a disservice to the program's history. Winning it all? Well, a long shot at best in the current 2A environment. Is it ok to not be confident about the chances for a title - I think so. It doesn't mean we should accept having mundane teams most years.