Our recent piece on schools that should be perennial powers received a good deal of feedback, so we figured it's the perfect time to capitalize and bring more of the same content.

All jobs aren't created equal. There are some schools that have more funding, more prestige and better resources at their disposal to make recruiting (and, by extension, winning) more sustainable. As an attempt at pegging which jobs in the major conferences are best and which are most difficult based on those factors, we developed a seven-prong tier system, ranging from the perennial blue bloods to the spots with annual uphill battles.

A good coach can raise their program a tier, perhaps even two if there's longevity involved. These rankings fluctuate slightly as a result of the man in the head chair, but are largely dependent on factors outside of who the boss is right now.

As a hoops league, the Pac-12 is one of the weakest major conferences out there. Call it East Coast bias if you will, but many of the middle-upper tier teams struggle to sustain success once they build it. Combine that with a couple of the worst power-6 jobs in the country and a whole bunch of large programs without a winning tradition and the lack of hoops prestige is evident.

Our recent piece on schools that should be perennial powers received a good deal of feedback, so we figured it's the perfect time to capitalize and bring more of the same content.

All jobs aren't created equal. There are some schools that have more funding, more prestige and better resources at their disposal to make recruiting (and, by extension, winning) more sustainable. As an attempt at pegging which jobs in the major conferences are best and which are most difficult based on those factors, we developed a seven-prong tier system, ranging from the perennial blue bloods to the spots with annual uphill battles.

A good coach can raise their program a tier, perhaps even two if there's longevity involved. These rankings fluctuate slightly as a result of the man in the head chair, but are largely dependent on factors outside of who the boss is right now.

In the ACC, everyone knows who the two national blue bloods are in Duke and Carolina. Beyond them is a deep conference of teams who trade shots at being third in line, a few teams who are in their shadow and two schools who struggle to create or sustain momentum. 

The longer you're in this business, the more you understand the factors outside of just coaching impact winning. Administration, boosters, financial components, facilities, campus, prestige, location, recruiting backyard, television exposure, conference... all these matter in real ways and create tiers within power conferences.

As such, there area couple schools (and coaches) who are slightly underachieving. These are schools that aren't quite blue bloods but have the power at their disposal to put themselves in the tournament every year. Blue bloods are really the list that follows: UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina.

So, which schools need to be mentioned in a tier just below those schools that don't quite have the history of basketball success?

Here's the big question: how do you rank teams who didn't play close to the same amount of games this season?

In a COVID world where game cancellations are wreaking havoc, we may find ourselves in a situation where some teams have played fewer than 15 games and still make the NCAA Tournament. For the at-large bids, it's a crazy scenario trying to figure that out.

Sprinkle in there the lack of non-conference schedules for some teams to take advantage of and comparing one league to another has become infinitely more challenging. You want to reward those who have made it through a normal schedule without penalizing those who haven't. Paradoxical in its own right, the committee has a pretty unenviable task at this point.

I still have questions about travel, isolation and risk involved with a single-site tournament in Indianapolis. Is there enough time for all teams to travel, quarantine and test negatively so the games are safe? An outbreak that rolls through the tournament could be this year's major storyline.

Alas, we persevere and prepare for what a tournament may look like. Here's our first attempt at a Bracketology session, predicting where the field stands as of early Feburary.

We're currently navigating the most trying, unorthodox and unique college basketball season ever. At the Division III level, almost half the country is cancelled from competition. Schools will close, opening the flood gates to transfer markets, coaching crunches and a whole lot of uncertainty. In Division II, there are lost seasons, sure. But budgetary concerns are primary: many institutions see a decrease in donations and fundraising efforts, which fuel so many scholarships. At a level already flushed with transfers, the movement at D2 will be insane next year, both with those searching for D1 opportunities and those looking for money wherever they can get it.

In the D1 world -- the world most everyone sees or thinks about -- things aren't quite as drastic, but heavy interruptions to the season bring severe financial implications. The stunted D1 football season and lack of "buy" game in major sports will crush some athletic department budgets. Some D1 conferences, like the Ivy League, have cancelled outright. Games are being postponed, delayed and added on a weekly basis with contract tracing and outbreaks as the enemy. Nobody knows about an NCAA Tournament, nobody knows how a vaccine might factor in.

What we do know is that things won't go back to the way they were as soon as fans are allowed back in arena and all levels are resuming. There will be either lasting ramifications/ changes to the college basketball landscape or trickle-down effects that impact future classes of players. Here's a list of a few thoughts that could change these levels, D1 in particular.

Some notes:

1. As a finisher, JJ was good at jumping off two feet and square. Rarely got shots blocked and was able to adjust in air as a result
2. He didn't have a great left hand, but it didn't matter. His shot got defenders close to him, so a quick first step or attacking closeouts on the left side meant he could get to an inside-hand finish
3. Everything comes down to FOOTWORK. Pre-catch, his footwork would allow him to catch it on his left and rise quickly. 
4. His hip-turn is elite. Those are traits of great shooters. If guys want to work on something fluidly for their body, try to open up and loosen their hips. If they can, then teach aligning right hip to the rim