Poll
Question:
Is Villanova a blueblood?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 90
Option 2: No
votes: 45
Exactly what the question says...yes or no?
Are they on par with Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, et. al.?
Define blue blood. Who are your et al teams?
Is it championships won? Is it Final Fours appeared in? Is it all time wins? Is UCONN a blue blood as they have done more than Villanova and equal number of titles this decade. In my view, UCONN is not a blue blood and therefore Villanova cannot be.
Depends on what the definition is these days.
Quote from: WarriorDad on April 03, 2018, 09:26:23 AM
Define blue blood. Who are your et al teams?
Is it championships won? Is it Final Fours appeared in? Is it all time wins? Is UCONN a blue blood as they have done more than Villanova and equal number of titles this decade. In my view, UCONN is not a blue blood and therefore Villanova cannot be.
Depends on what the definition is these days.
I defined it in the original post. But feel free to use your own definition while voting. That is sort of the point of the poll...not everyone has exactly the same definition.
Quote from: WarriorDad on April 03, 2018, 09:26:23 AM
Define blue blood. Who are your et al teams?
If the et al is making it fuzzy for you, just focus on the three I listed. Is Nova on par?
Yes,
They will be #1 in the BE (and maybe overall) next year as well.
Best program in the country right now. Unlike most of the other bluebloods, they don't need a freshman to be their best player in order to win it all.
Quote from: WarriorDad on April 03, 2018, 09:26:23 AM
Define blue blood. Who are your et al teams?
Is it championships won? Is it Final Fours appeared in? Is it all time wins? Is UCONN a blue blood as they have done more than Villanova and equal number of titles this decade. In my view, UCONN is not a blue blood and therefore Villanova cannot be.
Depends on what the definition is these days.
I would argue UCONN was a blueblood from roughly 2004-2014. They lost that status shortly after, which coincided with them ending up in the AAC and Jim Calhoun retiring. Their last national championship (2014) technically happened after both events, but it was still players from the Calhoun/Big East era.
My personal opinion is that blueblood status can be won or lost....not overnight, but definitely over time.
Another former blue blood: Indiana
These debates are just exhausting. They clearly are one of the better programs now. That's really all that matters.
Quote from: Coleman on April 03, 2018, 09:29:34 AM
If the et al is making it fuzzy for you, just focus on the three I listed. Is Nova on par?
Appreciate the clarification. Good question and no doubt many different viewpoints. It was making it fuzzy because the three you listed are blue bloods in my view, but et al could mean Arizona, UConn, Duke, Michigan State, Syracuse, Indiana or teams like that. Some of those are, but not all.
If comparing to those three, I would say no using your definition. UNC and Kentucky many more national titles. Kansas same number, but KU also played for the national title 9 times to Villanova's four.
UNC
UCLA
Kansas
Duke
Kentucky
That's my blue blood list. Some will argue Indiana which probably makes it on their championships won, but that's only if you separate blueblood from elite as they are not the same (UCLA fits in same mold). UCONN, Villanova, MSU, Louisville, Arizona is that next grouping.
Quote from: #bansultan on April 03, 2018, 09:37:10 AM
These debates are just exhausting. They clearly are one of the better programs now. That's really all that matters.
I think they're fun. What is the point of a college basketball message board, if not this?
No. But they're getting closer. Would put them as a top 10 program all time, but there is still a gap between the top 5 (Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, and UCLA) and the next 5.
If I had to pick those next 5 it would be Louisville, Michigan State, Indiana, Villanova, and Syracuse in no particular order.
Only one way to find out: cut em open and see.
The image of blue blood status really factors in recency. Nova is a blueblood right now. UCLA and Indiana used to be, but have not been for a while. Will AZ still be considered one? Fame is fleeting.
Gotta read WSJ's peace on NCAA bb team values. Flexes and hanges yearly, butt good barometer ta use, aina?
They're the best program in the country right now. Does that make them a blueblood? I don't know. I wouldn't think so. Is Florida a blueblood? Were they a decade ago? I feel like that term applies after generations of success, not a great 5-10 years.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 03, 2018, 10:30:47 AM
They're the best program in the country right now. Does that make them a blueblood? I don't know. I wouldn't think so. Is Florida a blueblood? Were they a decade ago? I feel like that term applies after generations of success, not a great 5-10 years.
Then again, IN and UCLA have had generations of success. Not so much recently.
In my mind, a Blue Blood is a school that has success over a long period of time (multiple decades). So, no, I do not consider Nova a Blue Blood, but they could be if their program maintains a high level of success over the next 20 years or more.
Quote from: Nukem2 on April 03, 2018, 10:32:58 AM
Then again, IN and UCLA have had generations of success. Not so much recently.
They have. And while Villanova has a better program, I would say Indiana and UCLA are more bluebloods than Villanova. I'm not sure either are elite programs, but they earned it over time. If 'Nova is still here in 20 years, this topic becomes a lot more relevant.
Quote from: MarqKarp on April 03, 2018, 10:36:00 AM
In my mind, a Blue Blood is a school that has success over a long period of time (multiple decades). So, no, I do not consider Nova a Blue Blood, but they could be if their program maintains a high level of success over the next 20 years or more.
Nova has won as many national championships as Kansas.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2018, 10:41:44 AM
Nova has won as many national championships as Kansas.
When you're literally the birthplace of basketball you will get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I think they should have had more tourney success in the last decade or so given the talent level, but 12 straight B12 championships is extremely impressive regardless.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 03, 2018, 10:40:22 AM
They have. And while Villanova has a better program, I would say Indiana and UCLA are more bluebloods than Villanova. I'm not sure either are elite programs, but they earned it over time. If 'Nova is still here in 20 years, this topic becomes a lot more relevant.
UCLA has won just one national championship in 40+ years. Indiana hasn't won one in 30+ years.
They've got great history, but how is that even relevant now?
Let's not forget Nova's 1980s. It was a pretty good decade for them: 8 tournament appearances, 4 elite 8s, and a national championship.
I agree a blueblood needs to span generations. You could make an argument Nova has already done that. They are 6th all time in NCAA tournament appearances. If they are not blueblood, they are certainly right on the cusp.
NCAA Tournament champions
1985, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament runner-up
1971*
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1939, 1971*, 1985, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1939, 1949, 1962, 1970, 1971*, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2006, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1951, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1970, 1971*, 1972, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament appearances
1939, 1949, 1951, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971*, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
*vacated by NCAA
Conference tournament champions
1978, 1980, 1995, 2015, 2017, 2018
Conference regular season champions
1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1997, 2006, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
Absolutely not. The whole idea of a "blue blood" is time. You can't be a blueblood because you had a nice 5 years. UNLV isn't a blueblood, Florida, etc.
Quote from: Coleman on April 03, 2018, 10:50:26 AM
Let's not forget Nova's 1980s. It was a pretty good decade for them: 8 tournament appearances, 4 elite 8s, and a national championship.
I agree a blueblood needs to span generations. You could make an argument Nova has already done that. They are 6th all time in NCAA tournament appearances. If they are not blueblood, they are certainly right on the cusp.
NCAA Tournament champions
1985, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament runner-up
1971*
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1939, 1971*, 1985, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1939, 1949, 1962, 1970, 1971*, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2006, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1951, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1970, 1971*, 1972, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament appearances
1939, 1949, 1951, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971*, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
*vacated by NCAA
Conference tournament champions
1978, 1980, 1995, 2015, 2017, 2018
Conference regular season champions
1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1997, 2006, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
What'd they do in '71 to have everything vacated?
Rollie had a helluva run as well.. then they disappeared for a while, now they're great again. It would be like if we won a couple of natties and made the final 4 in 5 of the next 10 years, then based on our history plus the recent few years we'd be a blue blood as well... right?
They're as good as the blue bloods right now but not a blue blood...yet. Gotta wait 50 years to judge.
Quote from: Its DJOver on April 03, 2018, 10:54:30 AM
What'd they do in '71 to have everything vacated?
I think that was Howard Porter.
Villanova is definitely a trueblood but the question should be is UMBC a newblood or a blueblood?
Quote from: #bansultan on April 03, 2018, 10:48:21 AM
UCLA has won just one national championship in 40+ years. Indiana hasn't won one in 30+ years.
They've got great history, but how is that even relevant now?
I'm not sure it is. Personally, I don't care. But as avid CBB fans, we are aware of the top teams and programs on a year to year basis.
I think of blue bloods as the programs the general public views as perennially elite (whether accurate or not). It took Duke decades, Christian Laettner, and sustaining success after before they had that universal perception. And as hard as that perception is to gain, so is it to lose because the general public only pays attention for 4 weeks in Spring.
Quote from: Its DJOver on April 03, 2018, 10:44:41 AM
When you're literally the birthplace of basketball you will get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I think they should have had more tourney success in the last decade or so given the talent level, but 12 straight B12 championships is extremely impressive regardless.
I guess. Or a reflection of a historically mediocre basketball conference dominated by football-centric teams. One could argue that the BE round robin better prepares its top teams for the tourney (even before the NBE).
The B12/8 has won only one championship since 1990 with conference members at the time. Same as the B10/14. P12/14 has won two (95/97).
SEC and BE =6 (not counting UCONN's AAC win or UL's vacated BE win). ACC= 10. Nova has continued the BE and their tradition.
UCLA, Kansas and IU are old money, living off inflated, inherited seeds. You have to give UNC, Kentucky and Duke the blue blood title. Nova is more deserving than these others.
without a doubt.
I think to answer this question you have to speculate on where the program will be 10 year from now. A true Blueblood will be a competing for national championships 10 years from now. I'm pretty certain that will be the case with Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC. Will Nova. Hard to say for sure. What will happen when Jay Wright leaves. Will they be able to get any coach they want like UNC and Kansas did. Do today's first graders dream of playing for Nova? Because you'll want to be able to have your pick of the litter 10 years from now.
Its very hard to become a true Blueblood. Nova is certainly on their way. But they are pretty much in the same place UConn was 10 years ago and I don't think anyone would consider them Blueblood now.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2018, 11:12:44 AM
I guess. Or a reflection of a historically mediocre basketball conference dominated by football-centric teams. One could argue that the BE round robin better prepares its top teams for the tourney (even before the NBE).
The B12/8 has won only one championship since 1990 with conference members at the time. Same as the B10/14. P12/14 has won two (95/97).
SEC and BE =6 (not counting UCONN's AAC win or UL's vacated BE win). ACC= 10. Nova has continued the BE and their tradition.
UCLA, Kansas and IU are old money, living off inflated, inherited seeds. You have to give UNC, Kentucky and Duke the blue blood title. Nova is more deserving than these others.
I guess you're just stricter with the title of blue blood than I am, because other than IU, I'd give all those schools the title of blue blood. I don't care how little tourney success you have, if you win a P6 league every year for a decade+ you've earned the title IMO.
Also as Brew pointed out, it is very difficult to lose the title. UCLA hasn't done much relative to the other teams that are seem to be consensus blue bloods, but I would still consider them a BB. It's just too hard for me to ignore all the banners that they have, no matter how old they are. Maybe if they are irrelevant for years to come, but it'd take a lot to lose it IMO.
Quote from: Its DJOver on April 03, 2018, 10:54:30 AM
What'd they do in '71 to have everything vacated?
What would've happened to us if Jim Chones had signed and still finished out the season.
Quote from: Its DJOver on April 03, 2018, 10:44:41 AM
When you're literally the birthplace of basketball you will get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I think they should have had more tourney success in the last decade or so given the talent level, but 12 straight B12 championships is extremely impressive regardless.
The birthplace of basketball is widely known as Springfield, Mass. Hence the bball hall of fame. Kansas does not warrant inclusion as a blueblood in any event.
Quote from: WarriorFan on April 03, 2018, 10:55:14 AM
Rollie had a helluva run as well.. then they disappeared for a while, now they're great again. It would be like if we won a couple of natties and made the final 4 in 5 of the next 10 years, then based on our history plus the recent few years we'd be a blue blood as well... right?
Yes. The way that Villanova is perceived today is exactly what Marquette could be in 5 years if things break right.
Quote from: Babybluejeans on April 03, 2018, 11:27:17 AM
The birthplace of basketball is widely known as Springfield, Mass. Hence the bball hall of fame. Kansas does not warrant inclusion as a blueblood in any event.
My mistake, when the inventor of the game also founded your universities basketball program, you will get the benefit of the doubt more often than not.
Do you not consider regular season success when evaluating status? Because they don't have as many championships as other BB, but 12 straight B12 rings is hard to look past.
Quote from: Its DJOver on April 03, 2018, 11:32:11 AM
Do you not consider regular season success when evaluating status? Because they don't have as many championships as other BB, but 12 straight B12 rings is hard to look past.
Besides the historical point (which is strong), would you consider Gonzaga a Blue Blood under the conference criteria?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2018, 11:39:08 AM
Besides the historical point (which is strong), would you consider Gonzaga a Blue Blood under the conference criteria?
I wouldn't because of a lack of Final Fours and National Championships. Gonzaga is probably 2 national titles away from it. I'll give them this, they do have a place in the national zeitgeist because they are ALWAYS there come March and the general public now knows their name, but to be a blue blood I think you have to be able to shed that plucky underdog label that they have associated with them. It's almost impossible to reach that status if you aren't in a high-major.
Maybe need a category of "Light Blueblood"?
Quote from: Babybluejeans on April 03, 2018, 11:27:17 AM
The birthplace of basketball is widely known as Springfield, Mass. Hence the bball hall of fame. Kansas does not warrant inclusion as a blueblood in any event.
2nd in all time wins is kind of a big deal
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2018, 11:39:08 AM
Besides the historical point (which is strong), would you consider Gonzaga a Blue Blood under the conference criteria?
If Gonzaga would have had the same success in a power conference then I absolutely would consider them a BB. They play in a mid major conference so it is tougher to gauge there success relative to the top tier teams in a format other than the tourney. Based on what they have done and who they have done it against, I would put them in the tier right below BB, alongside programs such as Louisville, and Michigan State.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on April 03, 2018, 11:46:31 AM
Maybe need a category of "Light Blueblood"?
"The Bluebloods of Orange County"?
Quote from: Miep Gies on April 03, 2018, 11:07:20 AM
Villanova is definitely a trueblood but the question should be is UMBC a newblood or a blueblood?
If we go on a similar run would that make us a brewblood?
Quote from: Its DJOver on April 03, 2018, 11:32:11 AM
My mistake, when the inventor of the game also founded your universities basketball program, you will get the benefit of the doubt more often than not.
Yeah but he's the only one of their eight (!!!) coaches to have a losing record.
Marquette has had more coaches my my lifetime (9 over 50 years) than Kansas has had in its entire 120 years of playing basketball.
The answer is, who cares? (i know, I know, it's the off season.)
There are simply programs around the country that, for one reason or other, are perceived to be consistently better than others. For many years, there was a great deal of consistency among those programs -- UCLA, Kentucky, I4, Kansas, Duke, NC, whatever. Even now, when Chris Mack was offered the Louisville job, most perceived that as a "better" position than Xavier hc - whether that was because of money, or "challenge" or tradition is irrelevant. There are teams that always get the benefit of the doubt in national rankings, just because of the name on the front of the jersey. Of course, the preseason polls routinely start with Duke, NC, Kentucky, etc - but every now and then you see a new school up there. The past couple seasons that has been Villanova.
Just like in today's society, I think that college basketball currently has some "old money" programs, but many of them are starting to lose out to those gauche "new money" programs. Indiana and UCLA seem to have lost the family fortune a few years ago. Then you have, horror of all horrors, the "old money" programs where someone in the family tree went out and made vulgar "new money," e.g. the one-and done factories that are Kentucky, Duke and increasingly, Kansas. Over the long term, as in many years, there really are no bluebloods. There are programs that dominate for a time but get ignored after they fall on hard times for a couple (or 40) years. If you asked younger fans today which are the top programs in the country, I doubt any one of them would name UCLA or Indiana. Sort of like how "top movies of all time" lists suffer from recency bias, in today's world, what have they done lately reigns over what have they done over time.
Villanove is today's "it" program. I hope they can maintain consistency for many years. But there is no reason that Marquette can't become the next "it" program. Success begets continued success. Get the right recruits, make a couple deep runs in the tourney and have a coach that sees an opportunity to build on that at Marquette and not use it as a stepping stone to the perceived "better" gig.
Quote from: #bansultan on April 03, 2018, 11:59:26 AM
Yeah but he's the only one of their eight (!!!) coaches to have a losing record.
Marquette has had more coaches my my lifetime (9 over 50 years) than Kansas has had in its entire 120 years of playing basketball.
It's not just his record, but the prestige of his name. If MU produced basketball icons like James Naismith, Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp, and Phog Allen all of us here would be flaunting that every chance we got. Whether or not you think they have had the on court success to be considered a BB, the Kansas program has produced more than enough iconic college basketball personas to have the prestige of a BB IMO.
Quote from: Ellenson Family Reunion on April 03, 2018, 11:57:06 AM
If we go on a similar run would that make us a brewblood?
Judging by BAC, we are already in. I think KO and Deano put us over the top.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on April 03, 2018, 11:47:16 AM
2nd in all time wins is kind of a big deal
Where are they in all time games played? I'd bet they're right up there....
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 03, 2018, 12:23:45 PM
Where are they in all time games played? I'd bet they're right up there....
3rd all time win % does that make you happier?
Quote from: NotAnAlum on April 03, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
I think to answer this question you have to speculate on where the program will be 10 year from now. A true Blueblood will be a competing for national championships 10 years from now. I'm pretty certain that will be the case with Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC. Will Nova. Hard to say for sure. What will happen when Jay Wright leaves. Will they be able to get any coach they want like UNC and Kansas did. Do today's first graders dream of playing for Nova? Because you'll want to be able to have your pick of the litter 10 years from now.
Its very hard to become a true Blueblood. Nova is certainly on their way. But they are pretty much in the same place UConn was 10 years ago and I don't think anyone would consider them Blueblood now.
I don't disagree with you. The true test may be when the coach leaves. But what does that mean about Duke then? All of their success has been under Coach K. Nova has national titles under two coaches.
Quote from: Coleman on April 03, 2018, 12:42:22 PM
I don't disagree with you. The true test may be when the coach leaves. But what does that mean about Duke then? All of their success has been under Coach K. Nova has national titles under two coaches.
Totally untrue about Duke. Look at the years before K arrived. They may not have been a Blueblood, but they were a top-tier team with high level success under 2 different coaches before K.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 03, 2018, 12:52:10 PM
Totally untrue about Duke. Look at the years before K arrived. They may not have been a Blueblood, but they were a top-tier team with high level success under 2 different coaches before K.
Coach K has been there since 1980.
No titles prior. 7 total tournament appearances prior. 4 Final Fours, but three of those were in the 1960s with 20-25 teams in the field.
Minimum criteria for blue bloods is that they must have blue on their uniforms....
UK, KU, UCLA, UNC, Dook.
Nova certainly fits that criteria.
Scoop never fails to disappoint. Last week, we had someone arguing that UNC wasn't a blue blood. This week, we've got one arguing that Kansas isn't. Gotta love the off season.
I think NotAnAlum's comment is pretty interesting, and gets to the heart of the matter: where do you think the team will be in 10 years?
Building on this thought, if something that really, really mattered depended on it (your life savings, your house, etc.) and you had to pick four teams that you believe will be in the FF in 2028, who would you pick? I know that both UNC and Kansas would be on my list. Probably along with Duke and Kentucky.
No.
I clearly saw the blood the Gillespie kid had on his uniform last night, and the blood was red.
Case closed.
Quote from: #bansultan on April 03, 2018, 11:59:26 AM
Yeah but he's the only one of their eight (!!!) coaches to have a losing record.
Marquette has had more coaches my my lifetime (9 over 50 years) than Kansas has had in its entire 120 years of playing basketball.
Kinda blew my mind when I first learned that Naismith had a losing record at KU. Jayhawk nation must've been calling for his head....
"Blue blood" expresses social status, signifying membership in a noble or socially prominent family.
The term originated in Europe, where land, riches and power were passed down from one generation of nobility to the next. We don't have royalty in America. Here, "blue blood" is equated with old money (as opposed to the "nouveau riche.") Modern-day Vanderbilts, Rockefellers and Carnegies are blue bloods. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are not.
By that definition, Kentucky, UNC, Duke and Kansas are probably the only true blue bloods in college basketball. (Even Duke is a relatively recent addition by comparison.) No other program has enjoyed the same level of sustained success over the course of decades. Not Florida. Not Michigan State. Not Louisville.
So no, by that definition, Villanova is not a blue blood.
The problem with watching Villanova Monday against Michigan was it reminded us of how far we have to go yet to be back to where a lot of us want to be.
The talent they had -- the depth was amazing. To blow Michigan to kingdom come while having the national Player of the Year on the bench in four trouble was stunning. Imagine what would have happened to us if Howard or Rowsey were on the bench in a game against Michigan (yes, I know, they probably would have been).
Or the defense. Wow!!!!!!
We'll get there. Here's hoping it's in my lifetime!
Quote from: dgies9156 on April 03, 2018, 03:22:36 PM
The problem with watching Villanova Monday against Michigan was it reminded us of how far we have to go yet to be back to where a lot of us want to be.
The talent they had -- the depth was amazing. To blow Michigan to kingdom come while having the national Player of the Year on the bench in four trouble was stunning. Imagine what would have happened to us if Howard or Rowsey were on the bench in a game against Michigan (yes, I know, they probably would have been).
Or the defense. Wow!!!!!!
We'll get there. Here's hoping it's in my lifetime!
Being able to switch any position was the difference maker on defense.
Not sure where you're seeing all that depth. They only went 7 deep, and Gillespie didn't attempt a shot in his 16 minutes. Now, when 4 of the 7 could be in the NBA next year you don't really need that much depth so overall talent disparity was heavily in Nova's favor, but neither team went all that deep until the walk-ons in the last 60 seconds.
Even though Michigan was playing very well at the end of the season (and the rest of the B1G was not), we can't forget that Michigan was also a half-second (or two missed free throws) away from being eliminated by Houston. It should not be a surprise that 'Nova blew them out. That notwithstanding, the margins by which they won every game in the tourney was unprecedented. Amazing run. Do it 20 years in a row and you might be considered a blueblood.
Quote from: dgies9156 on April 03, 2018, 03:22:36 PM
Imagine what would have happened to us if Howard or Rowsey were on the bench in a game against Michigan
Let's see ...
I imagine Marquette played at Creighton on Feb. 17.
I don't know how Creighton's kenpom or RPI numbers compared to Michigan's back then, but I imagine it was close.
I imagine Creighton came into the game at 19-7, had just lost by 1 to Xavier and would beat Villanova a week later.
I imagine Markus went out with more than 5 minutes left in the first half due to a hip injury and didn't return.
I imagine that Sacar scored 26 points, Rowsey had 21 and 8 assists, Sam had 15 and 8 rebounds, and Elliott had 10 and 5 rebounds.
I imagine Marquette roared back from a 15-point deficit to earn a huge victory over an eventual NCAA tournament team.
Not sure if all that really happened, but I imagine it did!
I'm thinking to be a blue blood you really need to transcend changes over time as an institution. The traditional bluebloods probably feel they are entitled to the position they are in, but really it goes back to the institution surviving the changes.
Kentucky has endured the occasional "not as good as we thought" coaches and yet still contends most every year. UNC nearly died under Dougherty yet is still at the top. Bluebloods rarely get more than a slap on the wrist for infractions. Yes, some have gotten some tough sanctions, but UNC's title didn't get revoked despite phony classes. Coach Cal left two previous jobs under dark clouds, but is a god at UK.
Three star recruits don't bother knocking. Four stars really have to compete for a spot. Five stars are regulars.
I think schools can easily fall off the map of being a blueblood. UCLA is just not impressive right now, and has really gotten to where they are as the only "blueblood" out west. Like it or not, west coast kids don't like the east coast. It's a bonus for them that they just haven't been able to use to their advantage of late. I think they may not be a real one anymore.
MU probably would have been one had Hank been able to take us to the promised land again, then another solid one behind him. It was Al, not the school. Duke? To be honest, they are a blueblood, but they may fall off the list if someone other than Coach K can't make the runs, and get the 5 stars. Kansas gets the star recruits which tells me they are a blueblood, only because in my opinion their coaches don't carry the swagger of a Coach K. It's the institution. IU is an institution without a coach. Could easily return to Blueblood with the right coach. Right now, top recruits don't look at them as the top.
The Nova argument? Great one to get a 50/50 response from this crowd. I'm not the greatest basketball mind, just an avid MU fan, but Nova is real close. They are at the top of the heap that wants to be one. They have been able to be a great program over two really solid coaches. They will win another title, most likely, in the coming decade (maybe even in the next two years), to really solidify that argument, but it will be if there is another coach that comes along and is successful as well. That means it's the institution!
Like I said, I'm no great basketball mind, just an avid fan. I honestly think it's the institution (and a believable coach) that draws the attention of the 5 star recruits. UK, UNC, Duke and Kansas are there. UCLA ... fading. Next best option nationwide ... Villanova.
Quote from: Coleman on April 03, 2018, 12:55:04 PM
Coach K has been there since 1980.
No titles prior. 7 total tournament appearances prior. 4 Final Fours, but three of those were in the 1960s with 20-25 teams in the field.
Exactly, which meant it was a lot harder to get in the field. In the 20 years before K, Duke had more Final Fours than Marquette has had in their history. They weren't UCLA, but I'd be surprised if there were 10 teams with better resumes over that period. They were a high level program.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 03, 2018, 04:09:38 PM
Exactly, which meant it was a lot harder to get in the field. In the 20 years before K, Duke had more Final Fours than Marquette has had in their history. They weren't UCLA, but I'd be surprised if there were 10 teams with better resumes over that period. They were a high level program.
I interpret it the other way...once you were in the tournament, a Final Four was relatively easy to achieve. But I guess we are splitting hairs.
Quote from: Coleman on April 03, 2018, 04:15:19 PM
I interpret it the other way...once you were in the tournament, a Final Four was relatively easy to achieve. But I guess we are splitting hairs.
It's honestly pretty surprising that Al only managed it twice, what with it being "relatively easy" and all. Kind of makes you wonder why he's so respected around here...only making two FF in nine attempts.
Quote from: Marcus92 on April 03, 2018, 02:58:40 PM
"Blue blood" expresses social status, signifying membership in a noble or socially prominent family.
The term originated in Europe, where land, riches and power were passed down from one generation of nobility to the next. We don't have royalty in America. Here, "blue blood" is equated with old money (as opposed to the "nouveau riche.") Modern-day Vanderbilts, Rockefellers and Carnegies are blue bloods. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are not.
By that definition, Kentucky, UNC, Duke and Kansas are probably the only true blue bloods in college basketball. (Even Duke is a relatively recent addition by comparison.) No other program has enjoyed the same level of sustained success over the course of decades. Not Florida. Not Michigan State. Not Louisville.
So no, by that definition, Villanova is not a blue blood.
Wanted to make sure I/someone +1'd this. Having read through the responses, while all of them are certainly reasonable I would agree with your post the most.
Blue blood programs don't come and go on a year-to-year basis. If Uconn really "used to be" a blue blood back in 2014, they certainly ought to still be considered one today. And I definitely don't see Uconn as a blue blood at all, or really all that close. For whatever reason they are often cited as a borderline case.
Blue bloods are just the flavor of the day. Some last more days. ;)
Quote from: Marcus92 on April 03, 2018, 02:58:40 PM
"Blue blood" expresses social status, signifying membership in a noble or socially prominent family.
The term originated in Europe, where land, riches and power were passed down from one generation of nobility to the next. We don't have royalty in America. Here, "blue blood" is equated with old money (as opposed to the "nouveau riche.") Modern-day Vanderbilts, Rockefellers and Carnegies are blue bloods. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are not.
By that definition, Kentucky, UNC, Duke and Kansas are probably the only true blue bloods in college basketball. (Even Duke is a relatively recent addition by comparison.) No other program has enjoyed the same level of sustained success over the course of decades. Not Florida. Not Michigan State. Not Louisville.
So no, by that definition, Villanova is not a blue blood.
Glad you helped corral what "blue blood" even means. In this context, it's successive generations of elite success. So I agree with the programs you mentioned, but I think you'd also have to add UCLA and Indiana. Just like when the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers produce some fairly worthless offspring, that doesn't change the fact that they're still Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. Likewise, UCLA and Indiana. They're old money basketball royalty.
Indiana definitely has a strong pedigree: a Hall of Fame coach who predates the NCAA tournament, and 5 national titles after that. But the basketball program today is a shadow of its former self and struggles to maintain its family fortune (30 years since the last Hoosier championship).
UCLA is a similar story. 10 national titles made John Wooden a college basketball legend. But there's a huge drop-off after he retired; just one title in the past 40 years.
I posted this in the other blue blood thread:
True Blue Bloods: Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky
Old Money: UCLA and Indiana
Next Tier (in no particular order): Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, Villanova, Arizona, and UConn.
Quote from: Marcus92 on April 03, 2018, 05:38:57 PM
Indiana definitely has a strong pedigree: a Hall of Fame coach who predates the NCAA tournament, and 5 national titles after that. But the basketball program today is a shadow of its former self and struggles to maintain its family fortune (30 years since the last Hoosier championship).
UCLA is a similar story. 10 national titles made John Wooden a college basketball legend. But there's a huge drop-off after he retired; just one title in the past 40 years.
UCLA did make 3 FFs in a row that seems pretty blue to me
Since 1976, Indiana has 2 national titles (none in the past 3 decades) and 4 Final Four appearances. UCLA has one national title (1995) and 5 Final Fours.
During that same period, Kansas has 2 national titles and 9 Final Fours. Kentucky: 3 national titles, 10 Final Fours. Duke: 5 titles, 13 Final Fours. North Carolina: 5 titles, 14 Final Fours.
Indiana and UCLA are great basketball schools with rich histories. But they're nowhere near as dominant as they once were, and clearly not in the same class as KU, UK, Duke and UNC. That's why I'd knock them down a peg.