MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Herman Cain on August 19, 2017, 09:59:28 PM
-
MU was once a college basketball blue blood. Arguably, we were the consensus Number 2 program of the Era. Clearly we were the non UCLA team no one ever wanted to play.
Although , we have fallen from those lofty levels, I believe we have the fundamentals in place to make a charge back up the mountain. Our athletic department is very solid and provides a quality base line to build off of. The school is willing to spend the resources on facilities and everything necessary to compete. We are in a top tier conference. So the only thing left is the high level winning tradition for 15 years and a Hall of Fame level coach.
-
Depends on what you mean by blue blood. To be one of the top 10 programs of all time? Sure. To be one of the top 4 or 5 teams of a decade? Yes. I don't think we can ever be as dominate as we were in the 70s. I just think there is too much parity for any team to raise to that level again.
-
I believe we can and we will.
We've been close a couple of times only to lose our coach and start over. The key for us is to ensure our coach has all the tools and wants to stay. I'm hopeful we have that in Wojo.
I would note that in 1976 or 1977, no one thought Duke was a blue blood either. Being that good comes from a commitment by the university to give the program what it needs, the alumni to support the program and the community to embrace it. I think we have all of these in place at Marquette and if Wojo stays on the current track, we'll be there.
Keep in mind, it took Al about four years before we were REALLY good in a world that was entirely different than what we face today.
-
MU wasn't blueblood even when we were blueblood, junkyard dogs, yes, blueblood, no.
-
Love MU but blueblood status?? Not happening although it will be interesting to see what happens at Duke, NC, Kansas and Kentucky with their next coaching changes. The wrong coach/recruiter at ANY school can spell problems.
Go MU
-
I voted 'no'. Did we have a great run in the '70's? absolutely. does one NC and a great run make a blue blood even for that decade? No Way.
It would take multiple national championships and regular 3rd and 4th weekend tournament appearances to have a decent argument about being a blue blood. In addition, Anti-Dentite is correct, even if we get that level of success we are essentially Al Czervik - we may be a member of the club but founding members would never recognize us, nor should we downplay the less polished aspects of our persona/history.
-
It depends on your definition. Can we be what Villanova currently is? Absolutely. We can have a period of perennially competing for titles and being ranked in the top-10. But let's remember Nova missed the tournament in 2012. And as good as their run has been, I don't see it lasting forever. They caught some lightning in a bottle with Hart, Arch, Brunson, Bridges, Jenkins, and Ochefu all overlapping and they rode it all the way. We could do that too.
But a blue blood like Kentucky or Kansas where we're considered a contender not just year after year but decade after decade? That I doubt.
-
Bluebloods no matta.
-
It would take multiple national championships and regular 3rd and 4th weekend tournament appearances to have a decent argument about being a blue blood.
What happens on this 4th weekend you speak of??
-
What happens on this 4th weekend you speak of??
Parade to the lake
-
We can be an elite program again, but we never were and never will be a blue blood.
Look at it this way, if Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Duke dropped their basketball programs it would take about 25 years to catch them in all time wins. Over the next 100 years, if we average 5 more wins a season than these teams we would still not catch them.
-
I think a reasonable goal is a regular Top 25 team, making it into Top 10 sometimes, regular appearances in the NCAA tourney, and some deep runs in e tourney. Maybe win one. That is doable. And Wojo can do it.
-
Marquette can do what Villanova has done. I have no doubt about that. Become a "blue blood?" Very doubtful.
-
Villanova/Michigan St. level is doable (and I would be thrilled should we get there). If Wojo stays 15 years and a few things break right (players healthy at the right time, guys like Grimes start committing, we maintain a lucrative national tv contract, etc.) then I'd say odds are strong we get there.
-
I think a better question is Marquette a strong enough program to recruit players that can compete for a national championship? That answer is yes.
Blue Blood terminology is incredibly arbitrary. Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA and Indiana are all considered blue bloods - but UCLA and Indiana have come nowhere close to the level of success they each experienced under one coach (Wooden and Knight, respectively). Michigan State is in the conversation every year to win a national championship, although they have "only" won once. Arizona is in the same boat. Cincinnati has won twice, but none close since the 60's.
The aspect that (will) always hurt Marquette's pursuit of attaining blue blood status is the awful stretch our program saw from 84-92: zero NCAA appearances. From 92-01, we also "only" made four NCAA tournaments, along with the stretch of 14-16 where we didn't make any. Blue bloods don't go through stretches where they don't make tournaments - they are too good for that. Frankly, I am shocked that Indiana is still considered a blue blood due to the Sampson disaster, and Crean's first four years rebuilding.
With our program's history, and our collection of coaches, we should always be in the running for making tournaments. We can still recruit well enough to make deep runs, and - occasionally - compete for a run for a national championship.
-
Michigan State is in the conversation every year to win a national championship, although they have "only" won once.
Minor correction: Michigan State has won 2 men's basketball championships — the first in 1979 under Jud Heathcoate, and the second in 2000 under Tom Izzo.
MSU is one of 7 schools with 2 national titles. The others are Cincinnati (1961 & 1962), Florida (2006 & 2007), NC State (1974 & 1983), Oklahoma State (1945 & 1946), San Francisco (1955 & 1956) and Villanova (1985 & 2016).
Personally, I don't consider any of those programs blue bloods. The definition of "blue blood" is "aristocratic, noble, or socially prominent lineage." The aristocracy is a privileged upper class, the elite, especially the hereditary nobility.
The "hereditary" part is key. It's status that passes from generation to generation. Only a handful of programs have won national championships in multiple (3 or more) different decades:
UCLA (1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995)
Kentucky (1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012)
North Carolina (1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009, 2017)
Duke (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015)
Indiana (1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987)
Connecticut (1999, 2004, 2011, 2014)
Kansas (1952, 1988, 2008)
Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana and Kansas are the "old money" of college basketball — with a history of winning at the highest level that stretches back for 80 years.
You could probably include UCLA in this category, as well, although 10 of its 11 titles were earned by a single coach. Of these schools, UCLA and Indiana are hanging onto the elite status of their past glory by a thread. Kentucky and UNC are the giants, the Rockefellers of college basketball.
By comparison, Duke and UConn are the "nouveau riche" — those whose wealth or status has been attained within their own generation. Ask most fans to name a single Duke coach or player before Coach K. The same goes for Jim Calhoun at UConn. Will their success and elite status continue into the future? Remains to be seen.
I'd put programs like Louisville (3 titles under Denny Crum and Rick Pitino), Michigan State (2 titles as mentioned above) and Villanova (2 titles under Rollie Massimino and Jay Wright) just below. They either haven't won enough, or won for long enough. But that could change.
Marquette has a long way to go to join such elite company. But it's entirely possible.
-
I voted 'no'. Did we have a great run in the '70's? absolutely. does one NC and a great run make a blue blood even for that decade? No Way.
It would take multiple national championships and regular 3rd and 4th weekend tournament appearances to have a decent argument about being a blue blood. In addition, Anti-Dentite is correct, even if we get that level of success we are essentially Al Czervik - we may be a member of the club but founding members would never recognize us, nor should we downplay the less polished aspects of our persona/history.
We actually had two final four appearances, one NC as well as an NIT championship in the 70's, back when that tournament actually meant something.
That was a tremendous run, especially when you factor in how few teams actually were invited to the NCAA tourney back then.
-
It all comes down to how you define "blue blood." The term is used to describe social status — one's position or rank within a group. And there's no one set of clearly understood or universally accepted rules for inclusion.
Here's one simple rule you can apply. The top 1% of anything is certainly the elite. With 351 schools competing in Division I men's basketball, only 3 or at most 4 programs belong to the top 1%. I think most would agree that Kentucky and UNC are beyond question. The same goes for Duke. There's your true blue bloods.
So was MU at that level during the Al McGuire era? I believe there were fewer than 200 Division I men's basketball programs at that time. So only 1 or 2 programs would have represented the top 1%. UCLA was a lock at the time. Kentucky had the legacy, but MU would have been right up there — that was before Dean Smith or Bobby Knight (let alone Coach K) became legends.
-
It all comes down to how you define "blue blood." The term is used to describe social status — one's position or rank within a group. And there's no one set of clearly understood or universally accepted rules for inclusion.
I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:
1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.
2) Regular Elite 8 team.
3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.
4) One to three or more NCAA Championships.
We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.
Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).
Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?
-
I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:
1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.
2) Regular Elite 8 team.
3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.
4) One to three or more NCAA Championships.
We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.
Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).
Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?
You went through criteria without truly giving any.
-
Texas Arkansas and UNLV ???? Are you kidding me?
-
I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:
1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.
2) Regular Elite 8 team.
3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.
4) One to three or more NCAA Championships.
We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.
Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).
Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?
Texas has been to as many Final Fours as Marquette and has never advanced to the championship game. They have never been a blue blood.
I also think Arkansas, UNLV, Florida, Michigan State and Arizona are a little "overseeded" in your designations.
-
Arkansas had arguably a better run in the 90s than we did in the 70s. If you're going to claim we are a fallen blue blood they would be to.
There's certain teams that hit that level temporarily like Florida, us, Gtown, etc but they are not blue bloods
-
Arkansas had arguably a better run in the 90s than we did in the 70s. If you're going to claim we are a fallen blue blood they would be to.
There's certain teams that hit that level temporarily like Florida, us, Gtown, etc but they are not blue bloods
Arkansas in the 90s... never more than back-to-back seasons of .800 winning.
MU? Almost every year (though not in our nat'l championship year.
-
Texas was never a blue blood. Three final fours, no championship games.
-
Arkansas in the 90s... never more than back-to-back seasons of .800 winning.
MU? Almost every year (though not in our nat'l championship year.
Meant tournament success. Let's also not forget that schedules were vastly different between the two teams
-
Villanova is having a very nice run, but I don't class them as a blue-blood. Just like I wouldn't consider Maryland under Gary Williams, Michigan under Steve Fischer, or Arkansas under Nolan Richardson. They had some good years and won titles, but it was largely on the strength of 1-2 recruiting classes.
Get back to me after 15+ years of sustaining that success.
And honestly, I don't know that I'd consider Marquette to have ever been a blue blood in the first place. If so, we hit the bare minimum. Really, it was a decade of success under McGuire. We were never the type of program to echo across generations the way UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke/Syracuse have. The last two largely under 1 coach, but sustaining it because the coach was in place for 35+ years.
Blue bloods aren't determined by what happens over a 5-10 year period. Blue bloods are those programs that grandfather, father, and son all acknowledge to be among the best. That happens over decades, not years. If Wojo can build up to Duke-level success for the next 30 years and have a solid succession plan, then we can get there. But that's a long way off.
-
Kentucky Blue
Carolina Blue
Duke Blue devils
I think Kansas is also blue, but I am not a 100% sure about that.
A few years ago a commentator during a game I was watching said the term blue blood was started by a commentator that noted that the four top programs all had blue uniforms and then labeled them the blue bloods.
-
We were never a Blue Blood. Now having Blue Collar status I think even Al would agree.
-
I would wait until Wojo's Warriors at least win one NCAA tournament game before debating whether we're heading toward "blue blood" vs merely "elite" status.
-
Yes. Marquette was and will be a blue. Blood. We have traditionally been a basketball power house. I believe Coach Wojo has us on course to be a top ten team. We are filling the roster with great talent with great shooters, athletes and tough rebounder. I am bullish about our future. Go Marquette blue and gold!
-
Horse Shoe Crabs have blue blood.
-
Horse Shoe Crabs have blue blood.
Once we regain our blue blood status we can change our Mascot from Golden Eagle to the Horse Shoe Warrior Crabs.
-
Once we regain our blue blood status we can change our Mascot from Golden Eagle to the Horse Shoe Warrior Crabs.
Our mascot will be the heike crab, which resembles a scowling Samurai warrior:
(https://i0.wp.com/farm1.static.flickr.com/157/373216489_e18a6473af.jpg?w=1060)
This mascot would be used for eight years until deemed offensive not to the Japanese, but to decapod crustaceans. A search firm will be contracted to find an ocean dweller who is less offensive, but still embodies the rich oceanic history of Marquette University.
After two test marketing trials, three student polls, and four board member resignations, your Marquette sports teams will play the 2029-30 athletic seasons as the Fighting Anemones.
-
After two test marketing trials, three student polls, and four board member resignations, your Marquette sports teams will play the 2029-30 athletic seasons as the Fighting Anemones.
Don't blame me, I wrote in Sea Cucumbers
-
When we have a coach that stay 25-30 years.
-
Our mascot will be the heike crab, which resembles a scowling Samurai warrior:
(https://i0.wp.com/farm1.static.flickr.com/157/373216489_e18a6473af.jpg?w=1060)
This mascot would be used for eight years until deemed offensive not to the Japanese, but to decapod crustaceans. A search firm will be contracted to find an ocean dweller who is less offensive, but still embodies the rich oceanic history of Marquette University.
After two test marketing trials, three student polls, and four board member resignations, your Marquette sports teams will play the 2029-30 athletic seasons as the Fighting Anemones.
You missed the part where we were the Marquette Blowfish for a week.
-
You missed the part where we were the Marquette GoldBlowfish for a week.
8-)
-
After we win the 2019 and 2020 national titles, I'd say we'll be getting close!
-
I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:
1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.
2) Regular Elite 8 team.
3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.
We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.
Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).
Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?
Multiple national titles (more than 3), that's blueblood status.
As for your list: Nova - no, Louisville - no, Michigan State - no, Arizona - no, Florida - no. Gonzaga would be on the list before Florida and they are not a "blue blood."
Bluebloods are Duke (5 national titles), Carolina (6 national titles), Kansas (amazingly only 3 national titles), Kentucky (8 national titles), UConn (4 national titles), UCLA and Indiana (5 national titles). It's all about national title banners over time, not right now. Michigan State has 9 final four banners hanging in their arena but only 2 national title banners (and 3 finals appearances) to show for it.
Sorry, but MU isn't even on the cusp of "blue blood" status. More than 1 national title, more than 1 outright conference title in 27 years and 1 Final Four appearance in 41 years would be helpful. We have fewer national titles than San Francisco and NC State.
-
Multiple national titles (more than 3), that's blueblood status.
As for your list: Nova - no, Louisville - no, Michigan State - no, Arizona - no, Florida - no. Gonzaga would be on the list before Florida and they are not a "blue blood."
Bluebloods are Duke (5 national titles), Carolina (6 national titles), Kansas (amazingly only 3 national titles), Kentucky (8 national titles), UConn (4 national titles), UCLA and Indiana (5 national titles). It's all about national title banners over time, not right now. Michigan State has 9 final four banners hanging in their arena but only 2 national title banners (and 3 finals appearances) to show for it.
Sorry, but MU isn't even on the cusp of "blue blood" status. More than 1 national title, more than 1 outright conference title in 27 years and 1 Final Four appearance in 41 years would be helpful. We have fewer national titles than San Francisco and NC State.
Gonzaga would absolutely not be on the list before Florida.
Titles: UF 2 GU 0
Runner up: UF 1 GU 1
Final Four: UF 5 GU 1
Elite 8: UF 9 GU 3
Sweet 16s: UF 11 GU 8
NCAA appearances: UF 20 GU 20.
their programs took off at roughly the same time so this isn't ancient history. Florida has been a blue blood equal since 94
-
Everybody is missing the obvious here. All we have to do is change our nickname to the Bluebloods.
Voila: Instant Blueblood status.
-
OK guys, I'm not sure there is a whole lot of difference between blue blood and elite programs.
If you see blue blood as a very select group of long-term elite teams, then, yes, we never were one. Rather, we are an emerging elite team with considerable upside for now and a strong history.
The differentiating factor between elite and blue blood teams is coaching stability. If you look at today's blue bloods, Louisville, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and even Michigan State have one thing in common -- long-term, coaching stability. Four- and Five-Star recruits can attend these universities and know the coach will either be there for their tenure or his replacement will be one of the best in the country. Look at the transition at Louisville between Denny Crum and Slick Rick, for example. Seamless.
By contrast, look at us. We were an elite team when Coach McGuire was here. We did what North Carolina did with Bill Guthridge and Matt Doherty and transitioned to Coaches Raymonds and Majerus. Neither proved to be an elite coach at Marquette (though Majerus did at Utah). We then nearly killed the program with the Piano Man before Coach O'Neill brought us back to respectability. Another downturn with Mike Deane before the combination of Coaches Crean and Hillbilly made us a near-elite team again.
The lack of stability here since Coach McGuire has killed us. The same can be said for Indiana University since Coach Knight left. Too many coaches, too long a rebuilding process and too many restarts. You can't be an elite or blue blood team if you don't retain and build your coach. Period.
-
Everybody is missing the obvious here. All we have to do is change our nickname to the Bluebloods.
Voila: Instant Blueblood status.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Bloods_-_Gang_Sign.jpg/220px-Bloods_-_Gang_Sign.jpg)
-
Once we can get a coach who doesn't jump ship for a better opportunity then we degrade them as actually being horrible. Then we can talk about blue blood.