Define "relevance". Otherwise, I can't show you how wrong you are about the single digits.
I did your homework for you. The number is 23. Having looked at all of the teams one would think to look at in the power conferences and including the handful of midmajors who have made names for themselves, the list of teams that would count as more relevant than us is 23. Since it's a nebulous argument, the criteria was appropriately as nebulous.
The methodology was basically this:
- The 14-15 season was the starting point. I assume most count this as the beginning of the end and it somewhat lines up with the 'almost a decade' comment in the post I replied to.
Then it's sort of a waterfall of criteria.
- NCAAT appearances is the primary qualifier. They have to have 4 or more. If just 4, like us, they had to be a damn impressive 4. Ones with 5 were pushed into the next bucket to see if they should be included or not. The obvious idea behind this is 5 tournaments with mostly first round exits (observed to be the case with these teams) isn't much, if at all, more relevant than 4 tournaments with 3 'deep' runs.
- Records. Of the teams not clearly ahead in NCAAT success, simply, their records were observed. I don't have all day for this, so I eyeballed it. Teams that looked like they were winning 20+ games most of the time, got the nod (power conference teams that is, nobody cares about midmajors winning 20 or 24 games. Play somebody).
- Top 25 rankings. Looked at in conjunction with records. Seasons that peaked higher than ours were given more weight, but I wasn't giving teams 'relevance' credit if they worked their way up to a couple seasons in the top 25 surrounded by 14 and 16 win seasons.
Fun observation: You would all be gobsmacked at how common losing seasons are for 'successful' programs.
So, I'll say with confidence and having analyzed this with deference to ranking teams ahead of us, that 23 programs can say they've been more relevant since 2015. That doesn't make us 24th; we're in that next tier of about a dozen teams. I'm not interested in splitting those hairs. And I'm not posting my list, for this very reason. I'd rather put a gun in my mouth and blow my brains out than argue about if team xyz belongs ahead of us.
To the point I made about teams since 2014 being irrelevant for most of those years, the number is not single digits. It appears to be about 14, depending on how that's defined. If a team goes to the Sweet 16, then has a losing season, then goes back to the tournament, is that 2 or 3 years of relevance? IDK, but the answer would also necessitate that we adjust Syracuse's relevance accordingly. That was a rhetorical question, btw. I'm not interested in the answer.
