quote:
If Team A has 24 wins but doesn't make the NCAA Tournament... but Team B has 18 wins and makes the NCAA tournament, everyone regards Team B as having the better season. Wins without NCAA tournament play are pretty much worthless.

Historically, this is a fallacious argument. Particularly up until the mid 70's when the NCAA Tournament only took two teams from each conference. In addition, there was a time when the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA tournament. I can remember 20 win years in the days when seasons were 24-27 games... and we still didn't go to the tournament.

Those were different days then - when I was growing up, my family doctor averaged about 28/gm for Mississippi St and was drafted by the Celtics. He turned the Celtics down to go to medical school, because he would make more money. This was back in the 1950's.

You are correct in that championships ultimately define a program. But... wins get you to championships. If championships are the end, the goal to get there is to win - and iIn that regard, over time, Alabama has done pretty well - particularly in the SEC. Alabama's record against Kentucky is pretty dismal (but then again, whose isn't?) and is only one loss down to Arkansas. Against everyone else, we own the head-to-head records.

I do think that one cold argue with the historical record of success, Alabama has underachieved in the post season despite a significant overall winning record in both tournaments.

Nonetheless, I think Alabama is headed in the right direction after a few years of stagnation under Grant and Gottfried. Both had winning records but the excitement was gone that many fans remember under Wimp Sanderson. Avery Johnson is certainly bringing back an immense level of enthusiasm.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.