4 championships. 4-0 in title games, all in the last 15 years (I think).
Think they are now more popular for the Big Ten or ACC to claim?
Quote from: Norm on April 07, 2014, 10:23:34 PM
4 championships. 4-0 in title games, all in the last 15 years (I think).
Think they are now more popular for the Big Ten or ACC to claim?
The ACC just went pretty far west to take Louisville instead.
according to TAMU Eagle, they need to drop football so they can spend more on basketball. Makes sense....especially after tonight....and their last 15 years.
Quote from: Norm on April 07, 2014, 10:23:34 PM
4 championships. 4-0 in title games, all in the last 15 years (I think).
Think they are now more popular for the Big Ten or ACC to claim?
The answer to your question is, and will always be, "how did their football team do tonight?"
Follow the money
Quote from: LittleMurs on April 07, 2014, 10:25:22 PM
The ACC just went pretty far west to take Louisville instead.
Yes, and Clemson and FSU still don't care about UConn....or basketball. UL was added because it's more of a football school than UConn. It goes to show how little basketball plays in realignment.
Quote from: Heisenberg on April 07, 2014, 10:27:36 PM
The answer to your question is, and will always be, "how did their football team do tonight?"
Follow the money
correct.
Quote from: Norm on April 07, 2014, 10:23:34 PM
4 championships. 4-0 in title games, all in the last 15 years (I think).
Think they are now more popular for the Big Ten or ACC to claim?
Big Ten isn't taking a school that isn't part of the AAU academic club.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 10:31:53 PM
Big Ten isn't taking a school that isn't part of the AAU academic club.
Yes, we know. The Big 10 is all about academics. ::)
Ok, football rules, but when does UConn enter blue blood status for basketball?
Quote from: Groin_pull on April 07, 2014, 10:37:29 PM
Yes, we know. The Big 10 is all about academics. ::)
Not saying that, but to get it through for expansion, that is a major consideration. Large research institutions with presidents of each that like where they sit in the world.
Quote from: Norm on April 07, 2014, 10:38:49 PM
Ok, football rules, but when does UConn enter blue blood status for basketball?
Depends on what you go on? If you go on results, no doubt.
Having done it with 2 different coaches certainly helps the argument.
Anyway, back to the original question. I never include UConn on my shortlist, but I guess their results over the past several years would warrant their inclusion.
UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, MSU, Kentucky, Syracuse, Arizona...and UConn?
Quote from: Groin_pull on April 07, 2014, 11:03:28 PM
Anyway, back to the original question. I never include UConn on my shortlist, but I guess their results over the past several years would indicate otherwise.
UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, MSU, Kentucky, Syracuse, Arizona...and UConn?
Depends on criteria. Conference titles, NCAA titles, most wins, etc, etc.
If you want to go on NCAA titles, I'd revise your list
UCLA 11 titles
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
UCONN 4
Kansas 3
Illustrates how the right hire makes all the difference in the world. MU sticks with Hank and the program falters then plunges. We weren't able to capitalize on Al's Dynasty in any way.
UConn tried Blaney and recognized it for the disaster it was. Enter Ollie and they pass the torch.
Lesson learned, Marquette.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 11:07:49 PM
Depends on criteria. Conference titles, NCAA titles, most wins, etc, etc.
If you want to go on NCAA titles, I'd revise your list
UCLA 11 titles
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
UCONN 4
Kansas 3
UConn's four are all within the past 15 years: 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014.
I felt they were a Blue a Blood even before tonight's win.
I just hope Napier can eat now.....what a crock
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 11:15:26 PM
I just hope Napier can eat now.....what a crock
#KahlidEl-Amin
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 11:07:49 PM
If you want to go on NCAA titles, I'd revise your list
UCLA 11 titles
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
UCONN 4
Kansas 3
Technically correct but no context. Since Indiana last won a championship, Florida and Kansas have won twice, North Carolina and Kentucky have won three times and Duke and UCONN four. Post Knight IU has fallen from the blue bloods - none of the guys who played tonight were even alive when the Hoosiers last won. Four seasons at or near the bottom of the Big Ten in the last six, they've lost their blue blood status.
Quote from: Groin_pull on April 07, 2014, 11:03:28 PM
Anyway, back to the original question. I never include UConn on my shortlist, but I guess their results over the past several years would warrant their inclusion.
UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, MSU, Kentucky, Syracuse, Arizona...and UConn?
Syracuse? MSU? Arizona? Are you high?
UCONN solidified they're blueblood status over ten years ago after the 2nd championship
They've been a blue blood for a few years even prior to tonight. It's all about the ability to get top recruits and UConn's been doing that for some time.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on April 08, 2014, 12:15:22 AM
They've been a blue blood for a few years even prior to tonight. It's all about the ability to get top recruits and UConn's been doing that for some time.
Exactly
Bluebloods Rankings in Order: I'm ranking on titles, NCAA appearances, and recruiting consistency.
Elites
Kentucky
Florida
Kansas
UNC
Duke
Semi Elites
UCONN
Arizona
Louisville
MSU
Syracuse
Ohio St.
UCLA
Potential Semi Elites - Need several more Elite 8 or better seasons
Marquette Warriors -
Wisconsin
Michigan
Georgetown
Villanova
VCU
Indiana
If you are ranking on titles and you have the #1 and #3 title winners ranked that low, I'm guessing your weighting for titles didn't amount to much.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2014, 12:33:46 AM
If you are ranking on titles and you have the #1 and #3 title winners ranked that low, I'm guessing your weighting for titles didn't amount to much.
I would say that the relative strength of UCLA and Indiana programs at this point, is reflected fairly accurately in the scale.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 12:26:07 AM
Bluebloods Rankings in Order: I'm ranking on titles, NCAA appearances, and recruiting consistency.
Elites
Kentucky
Florida
Kansas
UNC
Duke
Semi Elites
UCONN
Arizona
Louisville
MSU
Syracuse
Ohio St.
UCLA
Potential Semi Elites - Need several more Elite 8 or better seasons
Marquette Warriors -
Wisconsin
Michigan
Georgetown
Villanova
VCU
Indiana
Wow. What a terrible list.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 12:38:41 AM
I would say that the relative strength of UCLA and Indiana programs at this point, is reflected fairly accurately in the scale.
That's why I asked....I suspect you are going on recent history, but it's hard for me to understand how a program that has 3 Final Fours in the last 8 years and the most NCAA titles ever is relegated to where you have them based on your said criteria.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2014, 12:43:44 AM
That's why I asked....I suspect you are going on recent history, but it's hard for me to understand how a program that has 3 Final Fours in the last 8 years and the most NCAA titles ever is relegated to where you have them based on your said criteria.
I should have communicated in a clearer fashion that this is more or less, a list that ranks the current strength of programs. Higher strength = recent deep tourney/title runs and recruiting of top classes. It's a rough draft, but I think is fairly close. Consistency is a huge factor, which is why I have Indiana way down the list and Florida @ 2. Kentucky is the top dog because of how well they recruit, recent title, and tonight's final game appearance.
UCLA is low because they haven't won a title in a long time and have had inconsistency in their program of late.
How many other teams have been to three final fours in the last ten years? You're much too quick to discount that. And UConn has won two titles in four years and four in the last twenty. By recent success they should be first on your list.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on April 07, 2014, 11:11:53 PM
UConn's four are all within the past 15 years: 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014.
I felt they were a Blue a Blood even before tonight's win.
+1
Depends if this was Ollie's first championship or Calhoun's last. The Sr. leadership was huge!
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 12:26:07 AM
Bluebloods Rankings in Order: I'm ranking on titles, NCAA appearances, and recruiting consistency.
Elites
Kentucky
Florida
Kansas
UNC
Duke
Semi Elites
UCONN
Arizona
Louisville
MSU
Syracuse
Ohio St.
UCLA
Potential Semi Elites - Need several more Elite 8 or better seasons
Marquette Warriors -
Wisconsin
Michigan
Georgetown
Villanova
VCU
Indiana
VCU? Where's Wichita State in this if VCU is in?
UConn is a blueblood for now. They've won 25% of the last 16 NCAA championships. They've now won with a second coach. That's a blue blood. How Ollie recruits will determine if they stay that way.
So who was the best team this year? That's what I want to know?
Quote from: Ganzer's Source on April 08, 2014, 06:46:01 AM
VCU? Where's Wichita State in this if VCU is in?
What about Michigan State??
Quote from: Atticus on April 08, 2014, 12:38:56 AM
Wow. What a terrible list.
No kidding. VCU listed as a "potential semi elite."
Outside of one Final Four run, they've never been past the first weekend in program history. By similar reasoning, pretty much any program in the country could be considered a "potential semi nonfat double foam mocha elite" or whatever he called it.
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on April 08, 2014, 07:31:03 AM
No kidding. VCU listed as a "potential semi elite."
Outside of one Final Four run, they've never been past the first weekend in program history. By similar reasoning, pretty much any program in the country could be considered a "potential semi nonfat double foam mocha elite" or whatever he called it.
Is that your avatar so people realize that you're spelling Chiclets correctly in your screen name? Looked wrong to me before a quick google...
I've always associated "blue blood" with having more to do with history than current performance. Sort of like Yale is a blue blood school, though Stanford may be ranked higher in many programs today.
"Comes from the medieval belief that aristocratic blood was blue. Usually used talking about nobelty and royal family members."
There is no moving in and out of Blue Blood status in college hoops.
Blue bloods have the momentum and advantage of having been elite since the beginning, but I don't really feel like there can be any additions/subtractions to that list.
Even if UCLA never gets to another tourney, they are still a blue blood in my opinion.
So here's my stab at that list:
Blue Bloods:
UCLA
Indiana
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Perennial Contenders (programs move in an out of this list) - I'd say 90% chance next year's NC comes from one of these schools:
UCONN
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
Florida
Louisville
Michigan State
The next step down (where MU is currently) is a bit more crowded, but I think we are close to breaking into the Perennial Contenders category if Wojo can build on the prior coach's progress as well as Buzz did.
Quote from: CTWarrior on April 08, 2014, 06:50:48 AM
UConn is a blueblood for now. They've won 25% of the last 16 NCAA championships. They've now won with a second coach. That's a blue blood. How Ollie recruits will determine if they stay that way.
I disagree that UCONN is a bluebood. Calhoun has recruited all of their national championship teams. Since Ollie's taking over of the program, best UCONN has done is #30 in the recruiting rankings the last 2 years. 2014's class isn't even top 40 according to ESPN.com. Last night, was the end of an era for UCONN. UCONN is on a downward trajectory with their recruiting. Had they recruited a top 20 class with Ollie, I would have put them in the elite group.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 12:26:07 AM
Bluebloods Rankings in Order: I'm ranking on titles, NCAA appearances, and recruiting consistency.
Elites
Kentucky
Florida
Kansas
UNC
Duke
Semi Elites
UCONN
Arizona
Louisville
MSU
Syracuse
Ohio St.
UCLA
Potential Semi Elites - Need several more Elite 8 or better seasons
Marquette Warriors -
Wisconsin
Michigan
Georgetown
Villanova
VCU
Indiana
UCONN is as Elite as they come!!
For some reason or another they are always the forgotten team when it comes to this and their athletic department is fantastic.
They have won something like 12 titles between Mens and Womens hoops in the past 15 years!! That is something else guys.
I think we forget about UCONN because they are in the northeast where big state schools are not the norm, and people dont hold blind allegiance to them.
The school i believe only has about 25,000 thousand and that includes Satellite campus' .
The fact that UCONN is such a juggernaut boggles the mind!!!
Quote from: Ganzer's Source on April 08, 2014, 08:20:08 AM
I've always associated "blue blood" with having more to do with history than current performance. Sort of like Yale is a blue blood school, though Stanford may be ranked higher in many programs today.
Blue bloods have the momentum and advantage of having been elite since the beginning, but I don't really feel like there can be any additions/subtractions to that list.
Even if UCLA never gets to another tourney, they are still a blue blood in my opinion.
So here's my stab at that list:
Blue Bloods:
UCLA
Indiana
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Perennial Contenders:
UCONN
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
Florida
Louisville
Michigan State
The next step down (where MU is currently) is a bit more crowded, but I think we are close to breaking into the Perennial Contenders category if Wojo can build on the prior coach's progress as well as Buzz did.
I think people are looking into history too much. Indiana has lost their Blue Blood status, especially with not making the tournament this year. If you look at their resume in the last 10 years, it's not that of a "Bluebood". Inconsistent recruiting from Crean knocks them back as well. I would say that a blueblood should average 4 star recruits at a minimum and Crean doesn't accomplish this.
UCONN is a blue blood. And they will be trading one the "A"s for a "C" in their conference affiliation initials very soon, whether BC likes it or not...
The biggest loser in all of this will be Cincinnati, who will be stuck with Memphis in CUSA redux
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 08, 2014, 08:37:52 AM
UCONN is a blue blood. And they will be trading one the "A"s for a "C" in their conference affiliation initials very soon, whether BC likes it or not...
If UCONN is a blueblood, explain to me why their recruiting doesn't reflect it over the last 2 years since Ollie has taken over?
If UConn is able to get into the ACC and maintain their recent level of success, then they have to be in the blue blood conversation. If they can't, the conversation will be different. But, congratulations to them on their second unlikely championship from a tough seed in the last few years.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 08:40:53 AM
If UCONN is a blueblood, explain to me why their recruiting doesn't reflect it over the last 2 years since Ollie has taken over?
I have to admit I am not very familiar with their recruiting since Calhoun stepped down, but I can assure you they will have no trouble recruiting now.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 08:36:24 AM
I think people are looking into history too much. Indiana has lost their Blue Blood status, especially with not making the tournament this year. If you look at their resume in the last 10 years, it's not that of a "Bluebood". Inconsistent recruiting from Crean knocks them back as well. I would say that a blueblood should average 4 star recruits at a minimum and Crean doesn't accomplish this.
So Kentucky missing the tournament last year lost their status? Or UNC missing it 4 years ago lost their status?
I think you are confusing Blue Blood and elite. Blueblood is all about history, lineage, etc. It comes from the definition about royalty.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 08:40:53 AM
If UCONN is a blueblood, explain to me why their recruiting doesn't reflect it over the last 2 years since Ollie has taken over?
Who cares about who UCONN recruits and how highly they are ranked. What does a recruiting "ranking" have to do with winning national championships. Its obvious UCONN has recruited who they need since they won 4 titles in the last 16 years.
The question is really where does UConn fit in among the elite basketball programs. Is there a definition for "blueblood"? In any case, they are without question one of the premier programs in the country with remendous success and an NBA pipeline. I wish we could still play them.
Also, it was UConn's feud with BC that kept them out of the ACC, not the football program. At the time Syracuse and Pitt broke off from the Big East, UConn was the reigning Big East football champion and was coming off a Fiesta Bowl appearance. They got screwed. Does anyone think Florida State and Clemson got excited to play Syracuse and Pitt?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 08, 2014, 08:42:28 AM
I have to admit I am not very familiar with their recruiting since Calhoun stepped down, but I can assure you they will have no trouble recruiting now.
From today's Hartford Courant on UConn recruiting.
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-mens-basketball/hc-uconn-men-notebook-0408-20140407,0,6206021.story
Late Run Is A Recruiting Gold Mine For UConnBy DOM AMORE, darmore@courant.comThe Hartford Courant
1:23 a.m. EDT, April 8, 2014
ARLINGTON, Texas – Now that the Huskies have won the title, athletic director Warde Manuel plans to sit down with coach Kevin Ollie and talk about a new contract, which will include more years and dollars.
"Right now, I'm going to go to [the women's championship] game tomorrow," Manuel said. "I'm going to enjoy this. And then we're going to sit down. Kevin knows how I feel about him. He knows I have a love for him, I know he has a love for this university. And when we sit down, I think it's going to be a great conversation."
Ollie made $1.2 million base salary this season, the lowest among coaches in the Final Four, but he was only in his second year. He has four years to go, but he is likely to get a longer deal.
RecruitingUConn's run to the championship game is bound to have a positive effect on several fronts, none more important than recruiting.
There is, after all, no better recruiting tool than March and April visibility.
"Recruiting comes naturally to me," coach Kevin Ollie said, "because I'm not making anything up."
Ollie was talking about his experiences and love for UConn, but when it comes to success on the court, he now has a proven track record to sell.
"People laughed at me when I said we were going all the way and now we're here," said Daniel Hamilton, a highly rated wing from Los Angeles who committed to UConn last May, via Twitter. "... This UConn team is special."
There was some worry that Hamilton would back out of his commitment to UConn, especially when he signed a financial aid agreement rather than a binding national letter of intent. But there seems little chance of that now. He will be playing in the Jordan Brand Classic in Brooklyn on April 28.
Guard Sam Cassell Jr., who is coming from junior college, has signed a letter of intent and has been tweeting out his excitement.
UConn could still look to improve its frontcourt. It has an oral commitment from 6-foot-8, 240 pound Rakim Lubin, but nothing firm yet.
From the Class of 2015, UConn has oral commitments from guards Prince Ali and Willie Jackson.
UConn will lose seniors Shabazz Napier, Niels Giffey, Tyler Olander and grad student Lasan Kromah, and with this run the possibility of Ryan Boatright or DeAndre Daniels moving on to the pros is possible but questionable. If the Huskies find themselves with scholarships available next year, this run makes them attractive to grad student transfers. The coaches love the experiences they've had with Kromah and R.J. Evans the past two years.
In any event, future UConn teams will be constructed much like the one – with an emphasis on guard play, ball pressure on defense, versatile big men, with Hamilton perhaps playing a role similar to Daniels.
Terrence Samuel, who found a niche late in the season, figures to play much more next year.
Same LineupsUConn won seven of eight games after going with the lineup of Shabazz Napier, Ryan Boatright, DeAndre Daniels, Niels Giffey and Phil Nolan at the start of the American Athletic Conference tournament in Memphis on March 13. They stayed with it for the championship game. ... Kentucky started its usual five freshmen: James Young, Dakari Johnson, Julius Randle, Aaron and Andrew Harrison. ... Napier, who won the Bob Cousy Award as the nation's top point guard, picked up the trophy at a luncheon in downtown Dallas on Monday afternoon. Kemba Walker, who won the award in 2011, was expected at AT&T Stadium, along with many other former Huskies. Rip Hamilton tweeted that he was on his way. ... Former Kentucky player Rex Chapman, who was the analyst for the Kentucky team cast on TNT for the semifinal game, reported via Twitter that coach John Calipari is going to coach the Lakers next season. Chapman called it a "done deal." ... Mike Stuart, the referee who ejected Ollie from the game at Gampel Pavilion on Jan. 18, was part of the Final Four roster of officials but was not assigned to either UConn game. He worked Kentucky-Wisconsin. ... UConn and Kentucky, despite their storied histories, never met before 2006. UConn won three of four meetings going into the championship game.
Copyright © 2014, The Hartford Courant
When a schools done so well recently that were only arguing about their four titles and ignoring that they have another final four in that time span you know they're a blue blood. Maybe not traditional blue blood in the way duke Kentucky unc are but definitely a blue blood in this era like Florida is or how in the 70s MU was.
Quote from: Ganzer's Source on April 08, 2014, 08:20:08 AM
So here's my stab at that list:
Blue Bloods:
UCLA
Indiana
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Perennial Contenders (programs move in an out of this list) - I'd say 90% chance next year's NC comes from one of these schools:
UCONN
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
Florida
Louisville
Michigan State
I like your list, although I'm not sure I agree about the zero movement of blue bloods. If so, when were they determined? That being said, I'd bump Duke up to the top and add Syracuse to the 2nd level.
Quote from: drewm88 on April 08, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
I like your list, although I'm not sure I agree about the zero movement of blue bloods. If so, when were they determined? That being said, I'd bump Duke up to the top and add Syracuse to the 2nd level.
Duke should be #1 on the top of blue bloods list.
Quote from: drewm88 on April 08, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
I like your list, although I'm not sure I agree about the zero movement of blue bloods. If so, when were they determined? That being said, I'd bump Duke up to the top and add Syracuse to the 2nd level.
Yeah, I would swap Indiana for Duke at least. Syracuse is easily in the second group, which could probably include about 5-6 more teams.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 11:07:49 PM
Depends on criteria. Conference titles, NCAA titles, most wins, etc, etc.
If you want to go on NCAA titles, I'd revise your list
UCLA 11 titles
Kentucky 8
Indiana 5
North Carolina 5
Duke 4
UCONN 4
Kansas 3
I think UCONN's 4 titles are the most impressive as they had to win 6 games for the title. When UCLA won the majority of their titles they only had to play 4 games, and always playing in the West Regional only had really 2 competitive games to win. Having said that those were the days when it was UCLA and then everyone else and they did have great teams. I would add Louisville to that list with their 3 titles.
Quote from: drewm88 on April 08, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
I like your list, although I'm not sure I agree about the zero movement of blue bloods. If so, when were they determined? That being said, I'd bump Duke up to the top and add Syracuse to the 2nd level.
I no longer think of Indiana as a blue blood. They haven't been all that relevant for a long time. They will occasionally throw in a good/great year every so often, but for the most part they are typically an average Big Ten team the past 20 years. They used to be a blue blood, but when does the designation end when you aren't at that level anymore?
Quote from: frozena pizza on April 08, 2014, 10:50:27 AM
Yeah, I would swap Indiana for Duke at least. Syracuse is easily in the second group, which could probably include about 5-6 more teams.
I'm trying to think of 5-6 more and I cant.
Syracuse - 5 FF's, 2x runners-up, 1 NC, 1902 all-time wins
Arizona - 4 FF's, 1x runner-up, 1 NC, 1697 all-time wins
edit:
Georgetown - 5 FF's, 3x runners-up, 1 NC (only 1 FF appearance since 85)
Quote from: drewm88 on April 08, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
I like your list, although I'm not sure I agree about the zero movement of blue bloods. If so, when were they determined? That being said, I'd bump Duke up to the top and add Syracuse to the 2nd level.
It's a fair debate... not to be a strict constructionist, but the definition of blue blood is pretty clear in all other forms... Bush & Kennedy are blue blood families.... Obama & Reagan aren't.
We can debate the relative success of each president, but Blue Blood has to do with their privilege, not their performance.
I guess I'd say a Kennedy would no longer be a "blue blood" once their name, fortune and connections ceased to give members of that family an advantage in accessing power? So similarly, UCLA would cease to be a Blue Blood when their brand is equivalent to a Wichita State or VCU, etc. Likely never.
Maybe we should refer to who are the true elites in basketball?
Quote from: Ganzer's Source on April 08, 2014, 12:40:07 PM
It's a fair debate... not to be a strict constructionist, but the definition of blue blood is pretty clear in all other forms... Bush & Kennedy are blue blood families.... Obama & Reagan aren't.
We can debate the relative success of each president, but Blue Blood has to do with their privilege, not their performance.
I guess I'd say a Kennedy would no longer be a "blue blood" once their name, fortune and connections ceased to give members of that family an advantage in accessing power? So similarly, UCLA would cease to be a Blue Blood when their brand is equivalent to a Wichita State or VCU, etc. Likely never.
Maybe we should refer to who are the true elites in basketball?
also building on this.... I don't know that the UCONN brand is near as strong as UCLA.... UCLA is still very respected, even if they had a decade of irrelevance.... I feel like UCONN wouldn't necessarily have that yet?
I think Duke is the closest of the non "true" blue bloods to having that serious cache with their name where they could survive a decade or two or irrelevance, etc.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 12:26:07 AM
Potential Semi Elites - Need several more Elite 8 or better seasons
Marquette Warriors -
Wisconsin
Michigan
Georgetown
Villanova
VCU
Indiana
So you can be a semi-Elite program, yet be a stepping stone program as well? LOL
Current elite tier 1:
(These schools will always remain at the top—no matter the coach. A recruit gets contacted by one of these schools and it's all over)
Kentucky
Kansas
Duke
North Carolina
Current elite tier 1a:
(These schools are close to tier 1, but are just a notch below)
UCLA
Florida
Michigan State
Arizona
Louisville
Syracuse
Ohio State
Indiana
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 08, 2014, 08:20:45 AM
I disagree that UCONN is a bluebood. Calhoun has recruited all of their national championship teams. Since Ollie's taking over of the program, best UCONN has done is #30 in the recruiting rankings the last 2 years. 2014's class isn't even top 40 according to ESPN.com. Last night, was the end of an era for UCONN. UCONN is on a downward trajectory with their recruiting. Had they recruited a top 20 class with Ollie, I would have put them in the elite group.
Your adhere that UCONN was on probation the last 2 years, which is why their recruitment has been stinky? Watch how UCONN's next 3 recruiting classes turn out with this NC they won last night.
Quote from: Ganzer's Source on April 08, 2014, 12:40:07 PM
It's a fair debate... not to be a strict constructionist, but the definition of blue blood is pretty clear in all other forms... Bush & Kennedy are blue blood families.... Obama & Reagan aren't.
We can debate the relative success of each president, but Blue Blood has to do with their privilege, not their performance.
I guess I'd say a Kennedy would no longer be a "blue blood" once their name, fortune and connections ceased to give members of that family an advantage in accessing power? So similarly, UCLA would cease to be a Blue Blood when their brand is equivalent to a Wichita State or VCU, etc. Likely never.
Maybe we should refer to who are the true elites in basketball?
If "blue blood" means championships in 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981 and 1987 but nothing in 27 years (Indiana) and "elite" means 8 championships in the last 24 years (Duke and UCONN) sign me up for "elite".
I'd take Blue blood or elite...we are neither.
Quote from: Atticus on April 08, 2014, 12:01:37 PM
I'm trying to think of 5-6 more and I cant.
Syracuse - 5 FF's, 2x runners-up, 1 NC, 1902 all-time wins
Arizona - 4 FF's, 1x runner-up, 1 NC, 1697 all-time wins
edit:
Georgetown - 5 FF's, 3x runners-up, 1 NC (only 1 FF appearance since 85)
You could definitely argue for Ohio State and Michigan based on those credentials. After that it kind of depends on how you view historical success (maybe NC State, Cincinnati) versus more recent relevance (Wisconsin - there I said it. Hard to argue with 7 sweet sixteens in the last 15 years).
My personal criteria for being a true "elite" school: If MU is recruiting a player, and we hear _________ is also interested, it's all over. Time to move on to the next guy.
Those schools would be: Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and Kentucky.
Quote from: Atticus on April 07, 2014, 10:26:23 PM
according to TAMU Eagle, they need to drop football so they can spend more on basketball. Makes sense....especially after tonight....and their last 15 years.
Never said need. Said that they should drop football and they would be able to spend more on basketball. Can you imagine what UConn could do if they spent Marquette levels of money on their bball program?
UConn basketball is profitable. UConn football is not...especially when you take into account the 6 women's sports that UConn has to sponsor in order to make room for football (Title IX).
Not sure why you took so much offense to that comment that you felt the need to bring it up in another thread
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 08, 2014, 08:37:52 AM
UCONN is a blue blood. And they will be trading one the "A"s for a "C" in their conference affiliation initials very soon, whether BC likes it or not...
The biggest loser in all of this will be Cincinnati, who will be stuck with Memphis in CUSA redux
I actually don't think it'll be that awful for Cinci and Memphis as they have Temple as well and SMU will be decent for as long as Larry Brown is still coaching.
Quote from: PunchingPiper on April 08, 2014, 01:16:36 PM
I actually don't think it'll be that awful for Cinci and Memphis as they have Temple as well and SMU will be decent for as long as Larry Brown is still coaching.
Temple that was 9-22 this year? Don't forget they are adding Tulsa (sans Manning), Tulane and East Carolina next year. I'm sure the champs are thrilled.
I'll take a stab at this:
Blue Bloods
North Carolina
UCLA
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
Indiana
2nd Tier (elite, nobility, whatever)
UConn
Syracuse
Michigan State
Arizona
Georgetown
I think UConn took a big step towards blue bloodedness, but I don't think they are there yet. The 4 championships is very impressive but I don't think you can call a program a blue blood if all their success has basically been in the past 15 years. Their is no history there. No nobility. They are Jay Gatsby, new money that is looked down upon by the affluent. And while I do think that Ollie is a helluva coach, he got lucky in this tournament and did it with Calhoun recruits. If he can keep them to another final 4 or a couple of elite 8s, I'll call them a blue blood.
And while I believe that it is hard to lose blue blood status.....Indiana is damn near close to doing it. The 5 titles keep them on the list for now.
FWIW, I think we are near the top of the next tier, along with teams like Villanova, Michigan, Florida, Ohio State, etc
Related question: assuming continuation of inconsistent results, at what point does Indiana lose its blue blood/elite status? How many years to they have to struggle before that happens? It's been nearly 30 years since their last championship. What's the expiration date on that? I'll grant that five championship gives you a lot of leeway, but I would think that at some point they drop from the club. Are they still a blue blood in 13 years when it's been 40 years since their last? How about in 23 years when it's been 50?
How much longer is Crean there? Sorry. Too easy.
Quote from: tower912 on April 08, 2014, 02:53:29 PM
How much longer is Crean there? Sorry. Too easy.
Yeah, that was low hanging fruit.
But the question could be asked for other teams, too. How long does a team have to be out of contention before it loses blue blood status? There are some teams that were powers in the 40s, 50s and 60s, and we don't speak of them in hushed tones any longer (and, in fact, didn't view them that way when I first started paying attention to college basketball in the late 70s and early 80s).
Look at DePaul. How long did it take them fall from the pinnacle they had in the 70's and 80's?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 08, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
I'll take a stab at this:
I think UConn took a big step towards blue bloodedness, but I don't think they are there yet. The 4 championships is very impressive but I don't think you can call a program a blue blood if all their success has basically been in the past 15 years.
UConn has been excellent since 1990, when they won their first Big East championship. So that is 25 seasons. Still don't know if that meets your blue blood standard, but its hard for me to call Indiana a blue blood and UConn not won when UConn has been the vastly superior program for a quarter century.
This is pretty simple
Blue blood comes from the royal terminology. Its based on history, long term success, etc. It is based on conference titles, NCAA titles, Final Fours, elite players (college and those that went on to do great things beyond). I also think you have to do it for decades.
You can be both elite and a blue blood, you can be a blue blood and not elite. You can be elite but not a blue blood. Mileage will vary for some based on criteria. Of course it is possible to be a blue blood and not elite only to regain elite status. I would argue IU is a blue blood but not elite. Ask me about Louisville five years ago, would they have been elite? Things can change awfully quick.
Blue Bloods...there were 6....now 7?
UCLA (11 titles, 18 Final Fours, 31 conference titles, 1700+ wins, great players)
Kentucky (8 titles, 52 conference titles, 2000+ wins, 16 Final Fours, great players)
North Carolina (5 titles, 18 Final Fours, 36 conference titles, 2000+ wins)
Indiana (5 titles, 8 Final Fours, 21 conference titles, 1700+ wins, great players)
Duke (4 titles, 15 Final Fours, 22 conference titles, 2000+ wins)
Kansas (3 titles, 14 Final Fours, 57 conference titles, 2000+ wins, great players)
UCONN (4 titles, 5 Final Fours, 29 conference titles, 1,500+ wins, great players)
As Eamon Brennan of ESPN eloquently stated, "Any reasonable college hoops fan will recognize those six programs as the sport's true "blue bloods." Each is steeped in enough history, tradition, success, resources and fan interest to qualify as the elite of the elite in the sport. They're the six jobs every college hoops coach dreams of one day obtaining, the six teams you always expect to be good, the six programs that spend huge amounts of money and effort each and every year assuring that their fan bases never have to confront the frightening notion that the "good old days" are lost and gone forever. UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana and Duke are the all-time college hoops aristocracy."
As he also wrote, if UCONN were to win a few more, they can be argued for admission into that club.
I would put them in there, though 1990 is still modern \ recent times IMO and they haven't done it for 40 or 50+ years.
Elite - different category altogether, but some overlapping
Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
UCONN
Michigan State
Arizona
UCLA
UNC
Syracuse
Could reach blue blood status with a couple more trophies and sustained success, but some have a long long long way to go
Arizona (2 titles)
Michigan State (2 titles)
Louisville (3 titles)
Cincinnati (2 titles)
NC State (2 titles)
Oklahoma State (2 titles)
Chicos I agree with almost everything you posted but might take away Oklahoma and Cinci.
Cinci because they aren't even the biggest program in there state anymore but still to me their titles came when CBB was just becoming legit so ok. Ok state though won theirs in the Stone Age. Oklahoma has two and one of them was at least in the days of real college basketball. But other than that critique I agree
So, Chicos...is is possible to lose blue blood status. If royals hang out with commoners for long enough, do they ever relinquish their status? And, if so, how long does it take?
FWIW, I've always ascribed to the "big 5" (and now +1) theory of college basketball royalty. I'm just wondering if others think that it's a lifetime membership?
Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 08, 2014, 04:56:18 PM
So, Chicos...is is possible to lose blue blood status. If royals hang out with commoners for long enough, do they ever relinquish their status? And, if so, how long does it take?
FWIW, I've always ascribed to the "big 5" (and now +1) theory of college basketball royalty. I'm just wondering if others think that it's a lifetime membership?
I don't think it is a lifetime membership, otherwise Navy or Army would have it for football blue bloods.
That being said, those "big 6" or whatever we call them have a national title and\or Final Four in 6 or 7 decades....usually consecutively (not always, but usually) They all have had down years, but they find a way to get to the Final Four, win conference titles, etc consistently. They rarely, if ever, have a bad decade. When you can go through nearly every single decade back to the 1940's or 1950's and find these schools in the Final Four every decade, that's staying power. UCLA was a little late to the game. UCONN is certainly much later to the game. If a school fell off the map, didn't win any more conference titles, went consecutive decades without a Final Four, consistently finished middle to bottom of the league, missed the NCAAs, etc....then I would say yes. Hard to imagine any of these schools with their history and resources allowing that to happen. Kentucky had some down years in the 2000's, not so much now. IU had some down years in the last 15, yet still managed to play for a national title in that stint and won several Big Ten titles. Etc.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 08, 2014, 01:14:40 PM
Never said need. Said that they should drop football and they would be able to spend more on basketball. Can you imagine what UConn could do if they spent Marquette levels of money on their bball program?
This is interesting. ::) So, UConn has now won 4 titles since 99 and 3 since 2000. I dont believe any bballl program in the country has done that. You are saying that if UConn spent the same money on basketball as MU has spent that they would have earned more NC's. Oh really? How many have we won in that time frame? I think UConn is spending a very adequate amount on basketball based on their results, dont you? I believe the Law of Diminishing Returns exists in college basketball. You clearly dont believe that.
The Department of Education figures suggested we spend the 2nd most amount of money on basketball. You cited it. Because Im a CPA, I can only laugh at those numbers. Tell me...which athletic departments pay for the use of the game day facility? Keep in mind that there are schools that own their facility but charge the use of it to its very own athletic department. I cant find that information in those numbers. Can you?
There are some schools that classify the expenditures of transportation of teams to away facilities as university costs because the teams are classified as 'ambassadors of the university.' The DoE numbers dont tell me which schools do that and which ones dont. Can you, please?
Bands. I have read that some schools require the music departments to pay for the transportation of its band members. Which ones? Do you know? Others require the athletic departments to cover the costs. Which ones? I cant find the breakdown in those DoE numbers. Hmmmm.
I could go on and on.
Quote from: Atticus on April 08, 2014, 07:02:38 PM
This is interesting. ::) So, UConn has now won 4 titles since 99 and 3 since 2000. I dont believe any bballl program in the country has done that. You are saying that if UConn spent the same money on basketball as MU has spent that they would have earned more NC's. Oh really? How many have we won in that time frame? I think UConn is spending a very adequate amount on basketball based on their results, dont you? I believe the Law of Diminishing Returns exists in college basketball. You clearly dont believe that.
The Department of Education figures suggested we spend the 2nd most amount of money on basketball. You cited it. Because Im a CPA, I can only laugh at those numbers. Tell me...which athletic departments pay for the use of the game day facility? Keep in mind that there are schools that own their facility but charge the use of it to its very own athletic department. I cant find that information in those numbers. Can you?
There are some schools that classify the expenditures of transportation of teams to away facilities as university costs because the teams are classified as 'ambassadors of the university.' The DoE numbers dont tell me which schools do that and which ones dont. Can you, please?
Bands. I have read that some schools require the music departments to pay for the transportation of its band members. Which ones? Do you know? Others require the athletic departments to cover the costs. Which ones? I cant find the breakdown in those DoE numbers. Hmmmm.
I could go on and on.
Would UConn's basketball team benefit from having more money? Yes or no?
That's all I was saying
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 08, 2014, 07:07:02 PM
Would UConn's basketball team benefit from having more money? Yes or no?
That's all I was saying
No, you were saying that, based on the DoE numbers, UConn would be more successful if they spent the equivalent of MU. Yet, MU doesnt have any NCs in the last 30 years.
Im saying that those DoE numbers are worthless.
Now you are asking me to answer the question of whether having more money would equate to more success for UConn. My answer is NO. They have already won more NCs than any other school in the country since 99. Oh, and they have have done it without a dedicated practise facility (i believe its being built right now but isnt yet complete). They are at the top of the mountain. Period. To say they could do better than would they have done would ignore the Law of Diminishing Returns....which most certainly exists in college athletics. More money wont make last second jumpers go in. More money wont make Calhoun or Ollie a better coach. More money wont cinvince the minds of players that they need to improve during the offseason.
Quote from: Atticus on April 08, 2014, 07:24:08 PM
No, you were saying that, based on the DoE numbers, UConn would be more successful if they spent the equivalent of MU. Yet, MU doesnt have any NCs in the last 30 years.
Im saying that those DoE numbers are worthless.
Now you are asking me to answer the question of whether having more money would equate to more success for UConn. My answer is NO. They have already won more NCs than any other school in the country since 99. Oh, and they have have done it without a dedicated practise facility (i believe its being built right now but isnt yet complete). They are at the top of the mountain. Period. To say they could do better than would they have done would ignore the Law of Diminishing Returns....which most certainly exists in college athletics. More money wont make last second jumpers go in. More money wont make Calhoun or Ollie a better coach. More money wont cinvince the minds of players that they need to improve during the offseason.
More Money? Sure, it can make things easier for the program. Does it make it a better program? It all depends on how that money is allocated. The best thing you can do with money is use it to hire assistants that can recruit well and free up the coach's schedule so he doesn't have to waste time on petty little things.
Nonetheless, you could argue that UCONN already makes do with their budget, concerning the success they've had without recruiting to top dogs like other schools. They have a keen eye for talented guards, and have done a superb job of developing them.
Quote from: Atticus on April 08, 2014, 07:24:08 PM
No, you were saying that, based on the DoE numbers, UConn would be more successful if they spent the equivalent of MU. Yet, MU doesnt have any NCs in the last 30 years.
Im saying that those DoE numbers are worthless.
Now you are asking me to answer the question of whether having more money would equate to more success for UConn. My answer is NO. They have already won more NCs than any other school in the country since 99. Oh, and they have have done it without a dedicated practise facility (i believe its being built right now but isnt yet complete). They are at the top of the mountain. Period. To say they could do better than would they have done would ignore the Law of Diminishing Returns....which most certainly exists in college athletics. More money wont make last second jumpers go in. More money wont make Calhoun or Ollie a better coach. More money wont cinvince the minds of players that they need to improve during the offseason.
Now your just being stubborn and refusing to concede a point.
The DoE numbers are not worthless, they are probably not 100% accurate but they are not useless.
More money does not make last second jumper go in, but it does hire better coaches.
More money does not make Calhoun and Ollie better coaches, but it does buy them more resources.
More money does not make player develop, but it does buy better facilities to facilitate that development.
More money also attracts better recruits.
Winning NCs isn't the only way to measure success. UConn would have the 4 NCs and more accolades if they spent more money.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 08, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Winning NCs isn't the only way to measure success. UConn would have the 4 NCs and more accolades if they spent more money.
Like MU? Or Duke? They beat both....combined. There is no precedent that supports your argument. Does Bama spend the mmost amount of money on football? LOL....please spare me the DoE numbers, please.