Is Villanova a blueblood?

[brewcity77]

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[Benny B]

Minimum criteria for blue bloods is that they must have blue on their uniforms....

UK, KU, UCLA, UNC, Dook.

Nova certainly fits that criteria.

[GooooMarquette]

3rd all time win % does that make you happier?

Ecstatic.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[MU82]

No.

I clearly saw the blood the Gillespie kid had on his uniform last night, and the blood was red.

Case closed.

[GooooMarquette]

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....

[Marcus92]

"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.

[dgies9156]

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!

[Its DJOver]

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.

[MomofMUltiples]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[war1980rior]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[D'Lo Brown]

"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.

[Nukem2]

Blue bloods are just the flavor of the day.  Some last more days.

[Babybluejeans]

"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.

[Marcus92]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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

[Marcus92]

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.