Blue Blood

[dgies9156]

OK, I've been wondering about this a lot lately.

I recently moved from Illinois to Florida and in the process of packing up found a lot of old memorabilia from the McGuire era in my basement and tucked away in bookcases. As I looked back on that era -- after more than 45 years -- you begin to realize how special it was and how we at the time took Marquette's greatness for granted. We've tried for decades to get there but, for one reason or another (all of which have been well-documented on Scoop), we've not quite reached what we were. For one, I tended to fail to realize how good we really were!

So two questions -- what do you think? And, what's really in our way. I'll start!

McGuire was a fluke of sorts. He was coaching down at a small college in North Carolina when the Jesuits hired him. I don't think anybody had any idea of what's coming. We tried the same thing with Bob Dukiet and got what we probably should have gotten hiring from Belmont Abbey. We've had some winners -- O'Neal, Crean and Williams come to mind. But they never had the longevity to make Marquette THE destination. All left for Power 5 programs. None really did better than they did at Marquette. Buzz may be the exception, but we will see.

In short, to become a blue blood again, we need coaching stability from a coach that's a proven winner. I'm mildly optimistic about Coach Smart -- he did a great job last year -- but I'm yet to be convinced he can produce the results Coach McGuire did, which are consistent Top 10, annual NCAA invites and deep penetration in the tournament. We'll see what happens with recruiting but Marquette still has a long way to go.

[wadesworld]

No.

I don't see Marquette winning a national title in my lifetime.  And if you don't win a single national title in a nearly 100 year (God willing) period, you aren't a blue blood.

Not to mention, even a program like Gonzaga is not a blue blood and they've been to three Sweet Sixteens, two Elite Eights, and two National Title games in the last 7 NCAA Tournaments.  Marquette isn't having a run close to that anytime soon.

[brewcity77]

Become a blue blood? Probably not. I guess it depends on your definition. UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and Kansas seem like the most established blue bloods. Let's look at their credentials:

• UCLA: 11 national titles, 18 Final Fours, monster program in 1960s & 1970s, but far less prolific since (one title under Harrick, 3 straight FFs under Howland, Cronin seems like he's moving them back to prominence).
  
• Kentucky: 8 national titles, 17 Final Fours, probably the first blue blood and has maintained that status.
  
• UNC: 6 national titles, 21 Final Fours, maybe the most consistent blue blood with Final Fours in each of the last 9 decades and at least one title in each of the past 4 decades.
  
• Duke: 5 national titles, 17 Final Fours, good program that moved to blue blood status in the 40 years of Coach K. Interesting to see if they'll sustain that status without him.
  
• Kansas: 4 national titles, 16 Final Fours, their last 6 coaches have all taken the program to at least one Final Four dating back to Phog Allen's tenure dating back to 1919.

After that, there are legacy blue bloods like Indiana, Louisville, UConn and Michigan State that might like to think of themselves as blue bloods, but probably aren't anymore or never quite got to that level. There are also the "new bloods" like Villanova, Gonzaga, Baylor, and Florida State, though I'm not sure anyone outside Tallahassee takes their claim very seriously with one Final Four appearance 50 years ago.

Honestly, as much as we might have been one of the best programs of the 1970s, I'm not sure Marquette was ever a blue blood. We had a great decade run, but we never had the Final Four appearances or titles to really be on par with UCLA or Kentucky. Looking at us in the 1970s, we seemed similar to the level a Baylor or Gonzaga is at now. Exciting, great program, but really not all that successful on a national level beyond the (then) current run. So let's break it into tiers:

• New Bloods: This is attainable. While it's a new term, programs like Marquette in the 1970s, Georgetown in the 1980s, Arkansas in the 1990s, Florida in the 2000s, and Villanova in the 2010s all got there for a time. They were elite in the moment, but not generationally elite as programs. If Shaka gets us to 2-3 Final Fours over a 10-15 year span while cutting down the nets at least once, we can hit this status.
  
• Legacy Blue Bloods: If we get to New Blood status, I don't think Legacy Blue Blood is that far away. It would probably take 2-3 titles, similar to what Jay did at Villanova, and 1-2 more Final Fours. If we got to 3 national titles and 7 Final Four appearances (2 titles and 2 non-title F4s would do it) then we would be on par with what programs like Indiana, Louisville and UConn have done historically.
  
• Blue Bloods: Smart would have to have a K like run over the next 25-30 years. At least 4 national titles and 6 non-title winning Final Fours. If he coaches 30 years, wins a title roughly every 7 years, and goes to a Final Four every 4, then we're maybe being called a Blue Blood when he steps away in 2050 or so. Is that possible? It's hard to imagine, but as we've seen with guys like Donovan, Wright, and Few, success breeds success. Start winning, get to another Final Four, build on it, and stay in Milwaukee, and I guess anything's possible.

[Uncle Rico]

Unlikeky

[Newsdreams]

OK, I've been wondering about this a lot lately.

I recently moved from Illinois to Florida and in the process of packing up found a lot of old memorabilia from the McGuire era in my basement and tucked away in bookcases. As I looked back on that era -- after more than 45 years -- you begin to realize how special it was and how we at the time took Marquette's greatness for granted. We've tried for decades to get there but, for one reason or another (all of which have been well-documented on Scoop), we've not quite reached what we were. For one, I tended to fail to realize how good we really were!

So two questions -- what do you think? And, what's really in our way. I'll start!

McGuire was a fluke of sorts. He was coaching down at a small college in North Carolina when the Jesuits hired him. I don't think anybody had any idea of what's coming. We tried the same thing with Bob Dukiet and got what we probably should have gotten hiring from Belmont Abbey. We've had some winners -- O'Neal, Crean and Williams come to mind. But they never had the longevity to make Marquette THE destination. All left for Power 5 programs. None really did better than they did at Marquette. Buzz may be the exception, but we will see.

In short, to become a blue blood again, we need coaching stability from a coach that's a proven winner. I'm mildly optimistic about Coach Smart -- he did a great job last year -- but I'm yet to be convinced he can produce the results Coach McGuire did, which are consistent Top 10, annual NCAA invites and deep penetration in the tournament. We'll see what happens with recruiting but Marquette still has a long way to go.

Deep penetration....

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Extremely unlikely but certainly possible. All it really takes is hiring the right young coach, getting them to stay 20+ years, and find a successor who can step in seamlessly and build on their predecessor's success.

Unfortunately, there a very very very few of those right young coaches and every time you hire a new one you have to invest at least three years in them before trying again if they aren't the right one.

[bilsu]

We can have a good run, just like we did under McGuire. However, that will not make us a blue blood.

[Hards Alumni]

I always assumed most of the Blue blood in the US was in the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky.

[94Warrior]

Let’s trying winning the Big East Regular Season (something we haven’t done in 10 years) or the BET just once (something we have never done).  Then let’s repeat 10 of the next 12 years, win a couple Natty’s and then we’ll be in Villanova territory.
Are they a blue blood?  I would say no, they were close, but no cigar now that Jay Wright has retired.

[MU82]

I still say that, with the right coach (and a little luck), Marquette could do what Nova and Gonzaga have done the past 20 years.

I agree it would be extremely difficult, but nobody in 2000 was saying, "Just watch how good Nova and Gonzaga are gonna be over the next couple of decades, especially starting in 2015 or so."

But I agree with brewski that as good as Wright's and Few's programs became, they weren't really blue bloods, and I don't think Marquette can be one, either.

[BCHoopster]

MU had a chance after they went to the final 4, but Crean was never able to recruit a quality big.  Just like Raymond’s lost Aquirre and McCray.  That would have made MU elite for 5 more years. Not being able to recruit better when Doc Rivers was here.  Loss of Ricky Olson and Joe Wolf killed Majurus.  It can happen but it first starts with kids from Wisconsin to go to MU. Kon Kneuppel would be start,  Crean had 3 from Wisky that were really good. Need some local kids.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Let’s trying winning the Big East Regular Season (something we haven’t done in 10 years) or the BET just once (something we have never done).  Then let’s repeat 10 of the next 12 years, win a couple Natty’s and then we’ll be in Villanova territory.
Are they a blue blood?  I would say no, they were close, but no cigar now that Jay Wright has retired.

I would say that Villanova is over halfway done with their journey to blue blood status. If Neptune can build on Wright's success, they will be a genuine blue blood. That's a big if though

[tower912]

Villanova. had a hell of a run, but are not considered blue bloods.    I think the Villanova run is MU's dream,  but that will not return MU to blue blood status.

Realistically,  I think Buzz's run is as close as MU is likely to get. 

[Scoop Snoop]

Dgies, I was at Marquette about 7 years ahead of you and completely understand your feeling of being there during the "Al Era". Now in regard to your 2 questions:

 I think that only a very patient, long term Villanova/Jay Wright approach can get us back to national prominence. It's possible, but post Wright Nova, Xavier, Creighton, and UCONN stand in the way (just addressing our own conference for the upcoming season). I like your optimism and fervent hopes for a rebirth of Al Era success, but we are at 45 years post Natty and counting. In the post Al years, success has been umm...erratic. Reality check time.

I'll try to end on a more positive note. I think Shaka is the guy who can pull it off and I can see him as a "lifer" (although I didn't when it was down to him and Moser). He's back to his VCU coaching and that's a good sign for Marquette.

[muwarrior69]

Become a blue blood? Probably not. I guess it depends on your definition. UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and Kansas seem like the most established blue bloods. Let's look at their credentials:

• UCLA: 11 national titles, 18 Final Fours, monster program in 1960s & 1970s, but far less prolific since (one title under Harrick, 3 straight FFs under Howland, Cronin seems like he's moving them back to prominence).
  
• Kentucky: 8 national titles, 17 Final Fours, probably the first blue blood and has maintained that status.
  
• UNC: 6 national titles, 21 Final Fours, maybe the most consistent blue blood with Final Fours in each of the last 9 decades and at least one title in each of the past 4 decades.
  
• Duke: 5 national titles, 17 Final Fours, good program that moved to blue blood status in the 40 years of Coach K. Interesting to see if they'll sustain that status without him.
  
• Kansas: 4 national titles, 16 Final Fours, their last 6 coaches have all taken the program to at least one Final Four dating back to Phog Allen's tenure dating back to 1919.

After that, there are legacy blue bloods like Indiana, Louisville, UConn and Michigan State that might like to think of themselves as blue bloods, but probably aren't anymore or never quite got to that level. There are also the "new bloods" like Villanova, Gonzaga, Baylor, and Florida State, though I'm not sure anyone outside Tallahassee takes their claim very seriously with one Final Four appearance 50 years ago.

Honestly, as much as we might have been one of the best programs of the 1970s, I'm not sure Marquette was ever a blue blood. We had a great decade run, but we never had the Final Four appearances or titles to really be on par with UCLA or Kentucky. Looking at us in the 1970s, we seemed similar to the level a Baylor or Gonzaga is at now. Exciting, great program, but really not all that successful on a national level beyond the (then) current run. So let's break it into tiers:

• New Bloods: This is attainable. While it's a new term, programs like Marquette in the 1970s, Georgetown in the 1980s, Arkansas in the 1990s, Florida in the 2000s, and Villanova in the 2010s all got there for a time. They were elite in the moment, but not generationally elite as programs. If Shaka gets us to 2-3 Final Fours over a 10-15 year span while cutting down the nets at least once, we can hit this status.
  
• Legacy Blue Bloods: If we get to New Blood status, I don't think Legacy Blue Blood is that far away. It would probably take 2-3 titles, similar to what Jay did at Villanova, and 1-2 more Final Fours. If we got to 3 national titles and 7 Final Four appearances (2 titles and 2 non-title F4s would do it) then we would be on par with what programs like Indiana, Louisville and UConn have done historically.
  
• Blue Bloods: Smart would have to have a K like run over the next 25-30 years. At least 4 national titles and 6 non-title winning Final Fours. If he coaches 30 years, wins a title roughly every 7 years, and goes to a Final Four every 4, then we're maybe being called a Blue Blood when he steps away in 2050 or so. Is that possible? It's hard to imagine, but as we've seen with guys like Donovan, Wright, and Few, success breeds success. Start winning, get to another Final Four, build on it, and stay in Milwaukee, and I guess anything's possible.

So digies is being nostalgic for the McGuire years and asks if we can return to that status. Most here don't think so, but I'm the whiner when I factually stated the last 10 years have sucked. I don't want us to be the team that pulled the big upset. I want us to be the team that was upset. Right now we are not even close to being that kind of team.

[Lennys Tap]

Become a blue blood? Probably not. I guess it depends on your definition. UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and Kansas seem like the most established blue bloods. Let's look at their credentials:

• UCLA: 11 national titles, 18 Final Fours, monster program in 1960s & 1970s, but far less prolific since (one title under Harrick, 3 straight FFs under Howland, Cronin seems like he's moving them back to prominence).
  
• Kentucky: 8 national titles, 17 Final Fours, probably the first blue blood and has maintained that status.
  
• UNC: 6 national titles, 21 Final Fours, maybe the most consistent blue blood with Final Fours in each of the last 9 decades and at least one title in each of the past 4 decades.
  
• Duke: 5 national titles, 17 Final Fours, good program that moved to blue blood status in the 40 years of Coach K. Interesting to see if they'll sustain that status without him.
  
• Kansas: 4 national titles, 16 Final Fours, their last 6 coaches have all taken the program to at least one Final Four dating back to Phog Allen's tenure dating back to 1919.

After that, there are legacy blue bloods like Indiana, Louisville, UConn and Michigan State that might like to think of themselves as blue bloods, but probably aren't anymore or never quite got to that level. There are also the "new bloods" like Villanova, Gonzaga, Baylor, and Florida State, though I'm not sure anyone outside Tallahassee takes their claim very seriously with one Final Four appearance 50 years ago.

Honestly, as much as we might have been one of the best programs of the 1970s, I'm not sure Marquette was ever a blue blood. We had a great decade run, but we never had the Final Four appearances or titles to really be on par with UCLA or Kentucky. Looking at us in the 1970s, we seemed similar to the level a Baylor or Gonzaga is at now. Exciting, great program, but really not all that successful on a national level beyond the (then) current run. So let's break it into tiers:

• New Bloods: This is attainable. While it's a new term, programs like Marquette in the 1970s, Georgetown in the 1980s, Arkansas in the 1990s, Florida in the 2000s, and Villanova in the 2010s all got there for a time. They were elite in the moment, but not generationally elite as programs. If Shaka gets us to 2-3 Final Fours over a 10-15 year span while cutting down the nets at least once, we can hit this status.
  
• Legacy Blue Bloods: If we get to New Blood status, I don't think Legacy Blue Blood is that far away. It would probably take 2-3 titles, similar to what Jay did at Villanova, and 1-2 more Final Fours. If we got to 3 national titles and 7 Final Four appearances (2 titles and 2 non-title F4s would do it) then we would be on par with what programs like Indiana, Louisville and UConn have done historically.
  
• Blue Bloods: Smart would have to have a K like run over the next 25-30 years. At least 4 national titles and 6 non-title winning Final Fours. If he coaches 30 years, wins a title roughly every 7 years, and goes to a Final Four every 4, then we're maybe being called a Blue Blood when he steps away in 2050 or so. Is that possible? It's hard to imagine, but as we've seen with guys like Donovan, Wright, and Few, success breeds success. Start winning, get to another Final Four, build on it, and stay in Milwaukee, and I guess anything's possible.

Brew,

Excellent synopsis but (even though you qualified their inclusion) how does Florida State even bear a mention?

[MU82]

So digies is being nostalgic for the McGuire years and asks if we can return to that status. Most here don't think so, but I'm the whiner when I factually stated the last 10 years have sucked. I don't want us to be the team that pulled the big upset. I want us to be the team that was upset. Right now we are not even close to being that kind of team.

I never called you a "whiner." I said it was silly to talk about the last 10 years when looking ahead to the future. The last 10 years have nothing to do with 2022-23 and beyond.

We all want to win.

We Are Marquette!

[Dr. Blackheart]

Agree that Indiana has slipped a long way from blue blood status as has Michigan State. No B1G national championships this century. Time to stop living in the past.

I would argue that Wisconsin and Michigan are the blue bloods of the B1G now.

[Uncle Rico]

Agree that Indiana has slipped a long way from blue blood status as has Michigan State. No B1G national championships this century. Time to stop living in the past.

I would argue that Wisconsin and Michigan are the blue bloods of the B1G now.

Michigan State is ahead of both of them and I’m a Spartans despiser.  They were in the Final 4 in 2019

[Dr. Blackheart]

Michigan State is ahead of both of them and I’m a Spartans despiser.  They were in the Final 4 in 2019

I would agree as Indiana and MSU shouldn't have even been mentioned together by me. But, doesn't a "blue blood" have to win or get to the national championship game fairly recently to hold that title? Michigan and Wisconsin have at least?

[Uncle Rico]

I would agree as Indiana and MSU should even have been mentioned together by me. But, doesn't a "blue blood" have to win or get to the national championship game fairly recently to hold that title? Michigan and Wisconsin have at least?

I think Michigan State’s run of excellence in the Izzo era surpasses what the other two have done recently.  They’re still the gold standard of the league and the last to win it all.  They’ll be in big games early in the year regardless of roster.  No one is fighting to get Wisconsin on TV in a big game in November or December.  Michigan is probably much closer to the Spartans than UW

[MU82]

Plus, Michigan State has Vanilla Soft Serve.

A letter-writing dynasty!

[Newsdreams]

We have had plenty of blue wieners

[bilsu]

I do not consider UCLA to be a blue blood.

[Herman Cain]

OK, I've been wondering about this a lot lately.

I recently moved from Illinois to Florida and in the process of packing up found a lot of old memorabilia from the McGuire era in my basement and tucked away in bookcases. As I looked back on that era -- after more than 45 years -- you begin to realize how special it was and how we at the time took Marquette's greatness for granted. We've tried for decades to get there but, for one reason or another (all of which have been well-documented on Scoop), we've not quite reached what we were. For one, I tended to fail to realize how good we really were!

So two questions -- what do you think? And, what's really in our way. I'll start!

McGuire was a fluke of sorts. He was coaching down at a small college in North Carolina when the Jesuits hired him. I don't think anybody had any idea of what's coming. We tried the same thing with Bob Dukiet and got what we probably should have gotten hiring from Belmont Abbey. We've had some winners -- O'Neal, Crean and Williams come to mind. But they never had the longevity to make Marquette THE destination. All left for Power 5 programs. None really did better than they did at Marquette. Buzz may be the exception, but we will see.

In short, to become a blue blood again, we need coaching stability from a coach that's a proven winner. I'm mildly optimistic about Coach Smart -- he did a great job last year -- but I'm yet to be convinced he can produce the results Coach McGuire did, which are consistent Top 10, annual NCAA invites and deep penetration in the tournament. We'll see what happens with recruiting but Marquette still has a long way to go.

MU had the chance to get to the Villanova based on the foundation Crean /Buzz built. Wojo flushed all that hard work down the toilet .

So now Shaka has to start over . He got out of the blocks with a winning season and made it to the tournament . Now he just has to put up a 20 year run of sustained excellence to get to that Villanova level .

The True Current Blood Bloods have attractive campuses , deep pockets and multiple decades of sustained excellence . They select the players they want . MU cannot achieve that level .

Al was a force of nature and had MU as the number 2 program in the country. Teams were afraid of MU and the toughness of The Warriors . The Best urban players wanted to come to MU. MU made a huge mistake not hiring Denny Crumm and going with Hank instead.

[Nukem2]

MU had the chance to get to the Villanova based on the foundation Crean /Buzz built. Wojo flushed all that hard work down the toilet .

So now Shaka has to start over . He got out of the blocks with a winning season and made it to the tournament . Now he just has to put up a 20 year run of sustained excellence to get to that Villanova level .

The True Current Blood Bloods have attractive campuses , deep pockets and multiple decades of sustained excellence . They select the players they want . MU cannot achieve that level .

Al was a force of nature and had MU as the number 2 program in the country. Teams were afraid of MU and the toughness of The Warriors . The Best urban players wanted to come to MU. MU made a huge mistake not hiring Denny Crumm and going with Hank instead.

Yep.  Hank really was very good from a coaching perspective. But, he was simply too nice a person to prevail at a high level as a program manager. His years were far from poor, but was a huge downgrade from the Al era. Then, Rick was not quite ready. As for Dukiet, we’ll, I will try to be nice here but…… It’s just really really hard to get back to Al’s gold standard.

[Viper]

Agree that Indiana has slipped a long way from blue blood status as has Michigan State. No B1G national championships this century. Time to stop living in the past.

I would argue that Wisconsin and Michigan are the blue bloods of the B1G now.

Wisconsin and Michigan? Ah, no. Michigan State the BIG king, and still the king.
To the question on MU returning to ‘70’s glory and blue blood status? ‘70’s glory can happen. No reason MU can’t reach a couple FF’s in a decade. Heck, RED did. As we know, MU is basketball centric. Solid conference. Fiserv Forum. Decent national exposure. More than adequate recruiting budget. But, need a difference-maker recruit more often than MU has, imo. Blue blood status? No.

[brewcity77]

Brew,

Excellent synopsis but (even though you qualified their inclusion) how does Florida State even bear a mention?

I'm pretty sure they coined the term, which is why they always get a mention when "new bloods" comes up. But I don't think they're close to truly being in any of these three.

[dgies9156]

Wow, interesting perspectives. Especially Brew's.

Being nostalgic, we were Blue Blood in college basketball at the time. In the late 1960s through 1980, the prominent teams were North Carolina, UCLA, Marquette, Kentucky. UCLA was so dominant for so long that they obscured what else was going on in college basketball.

All that said, I do think we can return to consistently being among the best programs in college basketball. As others have said, we were close with Crean/Buzz and good things were happening when the wheels fell off.

I'm more optimistic than most because Shaka came from a Power 5 school and assembled talent that should have gone far further than it did at Texas. While I can't say I know Shaka at all, I'm of the view that Marquette offers him what he wants and he's likely to be here for the long-haul. That's why I'm of the view that we have work to do but we again can consistently be among the best teams in college basketball.

The landscape is different in college basketball now than it was in the 1970s, as the talent is far more diffused than it ever used to be and there's far more competitive basketball programs now versus then, but we can do it. We have to have the will to be the best!

Keep in mind that it took Al two years to build the team he needed and 12 years to get to the promised land. We had our share of misfires and "oops" in the NCAA tournament (1969, 1971, 1972, 1975 all come to mind).

As a further note, Indiana fell off the consistently best list (blue bloods) largely because of coaching instability. I still think Michigan State is a blue blood but a re-energized Michigan program is giving them a run for their money with in-state talent.

[rgoode57]

Someone here said they do not consider UCLA to be a blue blood. Apparently they don't know much about the history of college hoops.

Kentucky, UCLA, Duke, NC, and Kansas are the only true blue bloods. That has been the case fir a long, long time.  There is always some one like Villanova, Baylor, Gonzaga, etc making a run. But to get to blue blood level takes decades of success and multiple national titles. Even in the heyday of MU basketball, we were never in danger of becoming a blue blood - and Al would have hated that anyway.

[JWags85]

I think Michigan State’s run of excellence in the Izzo era surpasses what the other two have done recently.  They’re still the gold standard of the league and the last to win it all.  They’ll be in big games early in the year regardless of roster.  No one is fighting to get Wisconsin on TV in a big game in November or December.  Michigan is probably much closer to the Spartans than UW

Yea, over the last 20 years, MSU has 4 more E8s and 3 more FFs than anyone else in the B10.  Michigan, UW, and even Purdue are all pretty close in that span.  No more than 1 S16 or 1E8 separating them.

But I agree with the latter point.  Wisconsin is 5 years removed from a S16 and 7 from an E8.  In that span, Michigan has racked up 5 S16s, 2 E8s, and a runner up.  Different trajectories.  Hell, even PU has 3 S16s and an E8 since Wisconsin made the second weekend.

[NCMUFan]

Shaka report card is totally incomplete.
It was nice to get into the NCAA tournament.
Don't expect to see results much different than at Texas and VCU.
If you can live with that Marquette BB will entertaining and worth watching.
If not, well start looking for your next coach.

[muwarrior69]

Someone here said they do not consider UCLA to be a blue blood. Apparently they don't know much about the history of college hoops.

Kentucky, UCLA, Duke, NC, and Kansas are the only true blue bloods. That has been the case fir a long, long time.  There is always some one like Villanova, Baylor, Gonzaga, etc making a run. But to get to blue blood level takes decades of success and multiple national titles. Even in the heyday of MU basketball, we were never in danger of becoming a blue blood - and Al would have hated that anyway.

We can argue this until we're blue in the face. Here is a list of NCAA Champions with 3 or more:

UCLA — 11
Kentucky — 8
North Carolina — 6
Duke — 5
Indiana — 5
Kansas — 4
UConn — 4
Villanova — 3

UCLA won 10 of those titles under Wooden over one decade, all of Dukes titles were won under Coach K, Kansas has as many titles as UConn and Villanova has one 3 titles under two coaches. I would call them all Blue Blood programs, but to leave other schools out and other schools in I find odd. We can argue how many final 4s or Elite 8s each school has achieved over the course of time and though some of these teams are not playing at the level their history has shown does not mean they are not "Blue Bloods" with an elite history of college basketball.

[Scoop Snoop]

So digies is being nostalgic for the McGuire years and asks if we can return to that status. Most here don't think so, but I'm the whiner when I factually stated the last 10 years have sucked. I don't want us to be the team that pulled the big upset. I want us to be the team that was upset. Right now we are not even close to being that kind of team.

Factually? How is this a "fact"? Where is your definition and/or parameters? And who else agrees with them? Are you going to cherry pick the blowout loss to NCAA runner up UNC and neglect to consider the sweep of Nova in your declaration that we "sucked "last season? Did we suck in '18-19' because of the Murray State game alone?

[Newsdreams]

Factually? How is this a "fact"? Where is your definition and/or parameters? And who else agrees with them? Are you going to cherry pick the blowout loss to NCAA runner up UNC and neglect to consider the sweep of Nova in your declaration that we "sucked "last season? Did we suck in '18-19' because of the Murray State game alone?

We just suck....

[willie warrior]

Hmmmm...Thought everybody here agreed that Shaka kahn was the guy to bring MU back. Not much faith here

[tower912]

If Shaka brought MU  to Villanova levels under Wright, that would still will not make MU a blue blood.

[Uncle Rico]

Hmmmm...Thought everybody here agreed that Shaka kahn was the guy to bring MU back. Not much faith here

Thanks, wanky

[muwarrior69]

Factually? How is this a "fact"? Where is your definition and/or parameters? And who else agrees with them? Are you going to cherry pick the blowout loss to NCAA runner up UNC and neglect to consider the sweep of Nova in your declaration that we "sucked "last season? Did we suck in '18-19' because of the Murray State game alone?

What success did we have over the last ten years? Is getting into the tournament twice in the last 10 years and losing both games success? In both those seasons the team pretty much crashed at the end playing dismally in February and March; so no it was not those two loses, but they were the culmination of how badly the team was playing at the end. Our Big East Tournament record is just appalling. Having such a talent as Markus, along with Sam, not resulting in post season success really sucked. So you tell me how great the last ten years were.

[bilsu]

Someone here said they do not consider UCLA to be a blue blood. Apparently they don't know much about the history of college hoops.

Kentucky, UCLA, Duke, NC, and Kansas are the only true blue bloods. That has been the case for a long, long time.  There is always some one like Villanova, Baylor, Gonzaga, etc making a run. But to get to blue blood level takes decades of success and multiple national titles. Even in the heyday of MU basketball, we were never in danger of becoming a blue blood - and Al would have hated that anyway.

I was the one that posted this, and I was waiting for someone to disagree. There is no doubt that UCLA is a great program. They are 7th on the all-time wins list with 1,849 wins. Duke, a blue blood is 4th with 2,115. To put this in perspective UCLA might catch Duke in wins in 10 years, if Duke gave up basketball today. There are only four blue bloods. UNC, Kentucky and Kansas each have over 2200 wins. I am not going to figure it out, but each of these four schools in the 21st century have had considerably more number 1 seeds than UCLA.

I would put UCLA in the next category down form the blue bloods, which is where I would put Villanova, Gonzaga, Michigan St., etc.

I started going to MU games in 1962, so I was around for the great UCLA era. I actually was at a double header in Chicago where MU played Loyola and UCLA played Northwestern. Thompson and Alcinder were sophomores.

How many weeks has UCLA been ranked number 1 in the 21st century?

UCLA has not done enough in the 21st century to be consider a blue blood in my book. Wisconsin has done more than UCLA in the 21st century.

[Uncle Rico]

I was the one that posted this, and I was waiting for someone to disagree. There is no doubt that UCLA is a great program. They are 7th on the all-time wins list with 1,849 wins. Duke, a blue blood is 4th with 2,115. To put this in perspective UCLA might catch Duke in wins in 10 years, if Duke gave up basketball today. There are only four blue bloods. UNC, Kentucky and Kansas each have over 2200 wins. I am not going to figure it out, but each of these four schools in the 21st century have had considerably more number 1 seeds than UCLA.

I would put UCLA in the next category down form the blue bloods, which is where I would put Villanova, Gonzaga, Michigan St., etc.

I started going to MU games in 1962, so I was around for the great UCLA era. I actually was at a double header in Chicago where MU played Loyola and UCLA played Northwestern. Thompson and Alcinder were sophomores.

How many weeks has UCLA been ranked number 1 in the 21st century?

UCLA has not done enough in the 21st century to be consider a blue blood in my book. Wisconsin has done more than UCLA in the 21st century.

I’m on board with this (not that it matters).  UCLA and Indiana are not blue bloods anymore.  UCLA will find it even harder to be relevant in basketball joining the Big Ten.  Realignment has been bad for basketball schools save maybe Louisville who have shot themselves in the foot.  I know Syracuse has made a Final Four but they’re an afterthought in the ACC.  UCLA might find some success from time-to-time but they’ll never be Kentucky or UNC again.

[Newsdreams]

What success did we have over the last ten years? Is getting into the tournament twice in the last 10 years and losing both games success? In both those seasons the team pretty much crashed at the end playing dismally in February and March; so no it was not those two loses, but they were the culmination of how badly the team was playing at the end. Our Big East Tournament record is just appalling. Having such a talent as Markus, along with Sam, not resulting in post season success really sucked. So you tell me how great the last ten years were.

You need to embrace the COLE

[MU82]

What success did we have over the last ten years? Is getting into the tournament twice in the last 10 years and losing both games success? In both those seasons the team pretty much crashed at the end playing dismally in February and March; so no it was not those two loses, but they were the culmination of how badly the team was playing at the end. Our Big East Tournament record is just appalling. Having such a talent as Markus, along with Sam, not resulting in post season success really sucked. So you tell me how great the last ten years were.

Marquette made the tournament 4x in the last decade, 5 if one counts 2020 (which one should).

And again, for the bazillionth time, what happened the last decade or the last 50 years or the last century will have zero influence on what happens the next decade.

We Are Marquette!

[Scoop Snoop]

What success did we have over the last ten years? Is getting into the tournament twice in the last 10 years and losing both games success? In both those seasons the team pretty much crashed at the end playing dismally in February and March; so no it was not those two loses, but they were the culmination of how badly the team was playing at the end. Our Big East Tournament record is just appalling. Having such a talent as Markus, along with Sam, not resulting in post season success really sucked. So you tell me how great the last ten years were.

"I have factually stated the last ten years have sucked" are your words, not mine. You own them. You have supplied no definition, no parameters which a logical, rational person would do. Instead, you presented your ranting opinion as fact. Put up or shut up.

Last October, you wrote "I would have picked us last as I have no idea how this team will perform on the court"   

We were on campus about the same time. Logic was a required course for Freshmen. Did you flunk it?

I believe that you totaled 28 posts on the NIL thread before you finally stopped pushing your tuition theory. Are you going to top that here?

I posted the Cambridge Dictionary definition of the word "outlook" for you on that thread as you are clearly confused as to its meaning. Like this thread, it is about the future. Maybe I should post a definition of future for you also.

[Mu8891]

Can MU be a “ Blue Blood “ ??
LOL… ummm , NO.  Not even a 1% chance

For them to get to the Nova or Gonzaga level would take 20 years, and be damn close to a miracle.

And … for those of you that think Shaka will stay here for 10 years ( let alone 20)
those days are in the past

Let’s win a game in the NCAAT first.
Go from there

[BCHoopster]

Can MU be a “ Blue Blood “ ??
LOL… ummm , NO.  Not even a 1% chance

For them to get to the Nova or Gonzaga level would take 20 years, and be damn close to a miracle. 


When you can recruit Top 10 players every year you can become a Blue Blood, Al did it, Shaka starts really winning, maybe.  Al got George then Dean came, the rest is history.  Start winning you might get a Top 10 player to at least visit.  Winning a game or two in the tourney is a start.

And … for those of you that think Shaka will stay here for 10 years ( let alone 20)
those days are in the past

Let’s win a game in the NCAAT first.
Go from there

[brewcity77]

Can MU be a “ Blue Blood “ ??
LOL… ummm , NO.  Not even a 1% chance

For them to get to the Nova or Gonzaga level would take 20 years, and be damn close to a miracle.

And … for those of you that think Shaka will stay here for 10 years ( let alone 20)
those days are in the past

This is simply silly. It's not likely, but it isn't less than 1% and it wouldn't take a miracle and the days of coaches staying beyond 10 years at programs isn't over. Mark Few took over a Gonzaga program that was less than what Marquette is now and has been there more than 20 years. Scott Drew is going on 20 years at Baylor, and they were in a far worse state when he took over than what Shaka. Tony Bennett has been at Virginia more than a decade, they were a lesser program than ours when he got there.

Leonard Hamilton at FSU, Mike Brey at Notre Dame, Fran McCaffrey at Iowa, Matt Painter at Purdue, Dana Altman at Oregon, Greg McDermott at Creighton, Ed Cooley at Providence, all have more than 10 years at their current job, all are either first or second all time in coaching wins wins in program history. None of those programs were demonstrably better historically than Marquette is now.

I'll give you that it's not likely, but if Shaka is here for 10 years, Al is the only person he should be looking up at. And this is someone who's already had the big job at Texas (whose fans think they are a blue blood by right, not results) so it's entirely possible that living close to where he grew up might appeal to him more than just chasing the next gig.

It would take an incredible run. Doing something like what Buzz did, but for twice as long and building upon that level of success. But it's far from impossible.

[wadesworld]

This is simply silly. It's not likely, but it isn't less than 1% and it wouldn't take a miracle and the days of coaches staying beyond 10 years at programs isn't over. Mark Few took over a Gonzaga program that was less than what Marquette is now and has been there more than 20 years. Scott Drew is going on 20 years at Baylor, and they were in a far worse state when he took over than what Shaka. Tony Bennett has been at Virginia more than a decade, they were a lesser program than ours when he got there.

Leonard Hamilton at FSU, Mike Brey at Notre Dame, Fran McCaffrey at Iowa, Matt Painter at Purdue, Dana Altman at Oregon, Greg McDermott at Creighton, Ed Cooley at Providence, all have more than 10 years at their current job, all are either first or second all time in coaching wins wins in program history. None of those programs were demonstrably better historically than Marquette is now.

I'll give you that it's not likely, but if Shaka is here for 10 years, Al is the only person he should be looking up at. And this is someone who's already had the big job at Texas (whose fans think they are a blue blood by right, not results) so it's entirely possible that living close to where he grew up might appeal to him more than just chasing the next gig.

It would take an incredible run. Doing something like what Buzz did, but for twice as long and building upon that level of success. But it's far from impossible.

The idea that coaches don’t stay for 10 years was a dumb comment. But I’d agree it’s a less than 1% chance MU ever becomes a blue blood. Gonzaga just happened to beat the less than 1% odds. Because they hit the lottery doesn’t make better programs’ chances any higher. And with all the success Few has had, Gonzaga STILL isn’t a blue blood. They have 0 titles.

MU has been to a single Final Four in nearly half a century. We are very far away from a blue blood.

Not to mention, NIL is going to change the landscape, plus there’s a higher chance that there become football super conferences that break away from the NCAA before Marquette has a chance to make their 5+ Final Fours and win their 2+ national titles they’d need to become a blue blood.

Is it a 0.00% chance it happens? No. Is it above a 1% chance? To me, also no.

[brewcity77]

The idea that coaches don’t stay for 10 years was a dumb comment. But I’d agree it’s a less than 1% chance MU ever becomes a blue blood. Gonzaga just happened to beat the less than 1% odds. Because they hit the lottery doesn’t make better programs’ chances any higher. And with all the success Few has had, Gonzaga STILL isn’t a blue blood. They have 0 titles.

MU has been to a single Final Four in nearly half a century. We are very far away from a blue blood.

I think getting to the new blood type status is more likely and plausible, but with a title in hand, all it takes is one championship and we're in pretty rare company.

Not to mention, NIL is going to change the landscape, plus there’s a higher chance that there become football super conferences that break away from the NCAA before Marquette has a chance to make their 5+ Final Fours and win their 2+ national titles they’d need to become a blue blood.

Is it a 0.00% chance it happens? No. Is it above a 1% chance? To me, also no.

First, I don't think NIL does change the landscape much. Everyone says that, but I don't buy it. The blue bloods will continue to be blue bloods. Bigger programs will poach players from smaller programs. Guys will move up, more will move down. Ultimately, though, it really won't change all that much. I mean, Miami apparently splurged on transfers and I don't hear anyone picking them for the top-10. Hell, they aren't even sniffing the top-25.

And I think the breakaway simply doesn't make sense. There aren't enough football super conference programs to put out a viable product that doesn't include other leagues. Eliminate or severely restrict auto-bids? Sure. Vacuum up most of the at-large bids? Sure again. But they aren't creating a league of 40-60 teams and running a 24-32 team playoff. And they aren't trimming back to even 64 teams and just having them play each other. No one wants the inevitable 3-28 Northwestern or 5-26 Oregon State that would come out of that.

The Big East isn't going anywhere unless the schools representing the league fold. I find it far, far more likely that Marquette and the rest of the Big East goes belly up and shutters all the universities than the Big East is left out of whatever the college basketball playoff looks like in 2032 and beyond. The only people proposing anything remotely like that are Chicken Littles with no rationalization of how it would happen. That isn't being talked about by Sankey or media. It's just some "sky is falling" paranoia being made up by fans who fear change.

[The Equalizer]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/page/earlytop25062822/duke-kansas-rise-way-too-early-top-25-men-college-basketball-rankings-2022-23

And I think the breakaway simply doesn't make sense. There aren't enough football super conference programs to put out a viable product that doesn't include other leagues. Eliminate or severely restrict auto-bids? Sure. Vacuum up most of the at-large bids? Sure again. But they aren't creating a league of 40-60 teams and running a 24-32 team playoff. And they aren't trimming back to even 64 teams and just having them play each other. No one wants the inevitable 3-28 Northwestern or 5-26 Oregon State that would come out of that.

You're right about a 40-60 team breakaway.

However, an FBS breakaway would give you a 130 team organization that addresses every single one of your concerns, and could generate a significant revenue bump that wouldn't require waiting until 2033.

Plus it would have the advantage of eliminating revenue sharing with 950 other D1, D2, and D3 teams, plus a good portion of the NCAA overhead.  An FBS organization could replicate the function of the NCAA for a fraction of what the NCAA spends because they'd be doing it for a fraction of the number of teams. 

The Big East isn't going anywhere unless the schools representing the league fold. I find it far, far more likely that Marquette and the rest of the Big East goes belly up and shutters all the universities than the Big East is left out of whatever the college basketball playoff looks like in 2032 and beyond.

Assume an FBS split (not your 40 to 60 team straw man).

At that point, what would the FBS have to gain by including the Big East?  It's the same argument people here make about bringing St. Louis or Dayton to the Big East itself. Would the new teams increase revenue enough to offset the payouts to those teams? 

The Big East consists of mostly small schools, and TV ratings are relatively smaller. Would the increased ratings drive revenue growth in excess of what you have to pay the Big East teams? 

The only people proposing anything remotely like that are Chicken Littles with no rationalization of how it would happen. That isn't being talked about by Sankey or media. It's just some "sky is falling" paranoia being made up by fans who fear change.

The rationalization is simply this:
If the FBS as a group left the NCAA, they could negotiate a new basketball tournament television contract beginning as soon as 2024. It's been said that such a contract could be worth as much as $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year, whereas the NCAA is locked into a contract that gave them only $870 million for 2022, with minimal increases out to 2032.

9 years (2023 to 2032) of an incremental $630 million to $1.13 billion annually ain't chump change and is more than enough to at least consider the viability.

Then figure that the larger revenue pool would then be split across 130 schools, and eliminate 220 D1, 303 D2, and 437 D3 schools from sharing in the revenue. 

It takes an incredibly huge amount of naivete to even think that Sankey, the media, or anyone else involved in the process would say a word publicly about any split until iron-clad contracts are finalized. They're certainly not going to tip their hand and give the NCAA and the 950 teams left behind time to fight the move.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That sounds great except the P5 (P2? P2.5?) have zero interest in bringing the rest of the FBS along for the ride. Do you seriously believe that the Sun Belt is getting an invite to the new world order?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And there is little, if any smoke to any of this.

[wadesworld]

I’m not saying a split is likely. I’m just saying that it’s more likely to happen than for Marquette to become a blue blood.

[brewcity77]

If they're sharing, it sure as hell isn't with other FBS schools that will lessen the value of their product.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Horseshoe Crabs

[The Equalizer]

That sounds great except the P5 (P2? P2.5?) have zero interest in bringing the rest of the FBS along for the ride. Do you seriously believe that the Sun Belt is getting an invite to the new world order?

Yes.

First, their largest interest lies in Brew's observation that 60 teams aren't enough to stage a championship that will generate large media rights.  They might not want to, but bringing along an extra 70 or so teams is a necessary cost associated with getting a multibillion-dollar media rights package for their basketball tournament.  In other words, if you don't allow the sunbelt along for the ride, you're not getting your increased payday. 

Second, carrying those 70 extra teams is a lot more attractive than continuing to bring 950 extra teams, as is the case today.

Third, there are 41 bowl games, so you already set a minimum of 82 teams would be needed--and that's if EVERY team goes to a bowl--you would still need teams to absorb the losses so you dont' wind up with an 0-12 team in a bowl game. 

Fourth, those P2/P5 teams are still going to need some teems to fill the buy-game opposition to fill the December calendars. The last four in still need to get to 18+ wins.  Someone has to take those losses.

[cheebs09]

Wouldn’t the Big East schools be more attractive to the P5 football schools? They could help the basketball product without any impact to the football money, which is what everyone cares about.

Isn’t part of the reason for the desire to split because the P5 football schools don’t want to share with the Sun Belt? Look at how the non-P5 schools get treated in playoff rankings. Unless it’s overwhelmingly obvious, they aren’t getting in.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The rationalization is simply this:
If the FBS as a group left the NCAA, they could negotiate a new basketball tournament television contract beginning as soon as 2024. It's been said that such a contract could be worth as much as $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year, whereas the NCAA is locked into a contract that gave them only $870 million for 2022, with minimal increases out to 2032.

9 years (2023 to 2032) of an incremental $630 million to $1.13 billion annually ain't chump change and is more than enough to at least consider the viability.

Then figure that the larger revenue pool would then be split across 130 schools, and eliminate 220 D1, 303 D2, and 437 D3 schools from sharing in the revenue. 

It takes an incredibly huge amount of naivete to even think that Sankey, the media, or anyone else involved in the process would say a word publicly about any split until iron-clad contracts are finalized. They're certainly not going to tip their hand and give the NCAA and the 950 teams left behind time to fight the move.

I think you are underestimating the legal liability here. The D1 schools consented to the expanded media rights contract due to their membership in the NCAA. They aren't going to be able to simply say "OK we're out" and set up their own TV deal and leave CBS/Turner hanging. I am pretty sure the P5 goal, one that I think the BE agrees with BTW, is to increase the number of at large bids and tweak the win share formula to benefit them. I think everyone is stuck with the NCAA contract for the next 10 years.

BTW, 80% of the NCAA's revenue goes to conduct D1 championships and to fund distributions back to D1 based on conference performance in basketball (win shares.)  Only about 5% of the revenue is used to conduct D2 and D3 championships.

[brewcity77]

First, their largest interest lies in Brew's observation that 60 teams aren't enough to stage a championship that will generate large media rights.  They might not want to, but bringing along an extra 70 or so teams is a necessary cost associated with getting a multibillion-dollar media rights package for their basketball tournament.  In other words, if you don't allow the sunbelt along for the ride, you're not getting your increased payday.

If they break away, they will be benefited by having viable programs. Cutting out the Villanova and Gonzaga types in favor of Akron and Georgia State is ludicrous. They'll more likely get rid of auto bids knowing that the addition of 27 at-large bids will primarily go to them, while allowing everyone else in to keep the tournament viewed as legitimate. Why on god's green earth would they bring 70 extra teams when all they have to do is hand out 15-20 bids to non-P5 schools instead of the 30-35 they do now?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Wouldn’t the Big East schools be more attractive to the P5 football schools? They could help the basketball product without any impact to the football money, which is what everyone cares about.

Isn’t part of the reason for the desire to split because the P5 football schools don’t want to share with the Sun Belt? Look at how the non-P5 schools get treated in playoff rankings. Unless it’s overwhelmingly obvious, they aren’t getting in.

This is exactly the issue with Equalizer's suggestion. The Big East is much more valuable than the Sun Belt. It's not even close. There's no world where the Sun Belt gets taken but the Big East gets left out.

If there is a split, there will be around 50-70 football teams and 120-150 basketball teams that make the cut. You need 120+ basketball teams for a successful basketball league. You don't need nearly that many for a successful football league. The 50-70 football schools that break off will fill their basketball league with basketball only leagues that they don't have to share their football money with or programs that will either drop football or keep their football in whatever Division 2 nonsense is left in the NCAA but put their basketball in the new league, that the P5 again won't need to share their football money with.

The idea that the p5/P3/P2.5/P2 is going to share their football money with the Sun Belt and Conference USA when they could keep it all and bring in better basketball leagues  is absurd.

[MU82]

The idea that the p5/P3/P2.5/P2 is going to share their football money with the Sun Belt and Conference USA when they could keep it all and bring in better basketball leagues  is absurd.

Yessir.

[The Equalizer]

If they break away, they will be benefited by having viable programs. Cutting out the Villanova and Gonzaga types in favor of Akron and Georgia State is ludicrous. They'll more likely get rid of auto bids knowing that the addition of 27 at-large bids will primarily go to them, while allowing everyone else in to keep the tournament viewed as legitimate.
Why on god's green earth would they bring 70 extra teams when all they have to do is hand out 15-20 bids to non-P5 schools instead of the 30-35 they do now?

I think you continue to miss the point that the whole purpose behind a breakaway exercise is that the current NCAA media rights are capped at a level severely under current market value. A new contract could perhaps double revenue, but that requires schools to leave the NCAA and form a new association.

In other words, the issue isn't coming up with new ways to split the existing pie--it's that there's an opportunity for a massive increase in the size of the pie, and the only way you get access to that pie is to leave the NCAA.

The fact that the new, larger pie will have fewer slices is a side benefit. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think you continue to miss the point that the whole purpose behind a breakaway exercise is that the current NCAA media rights are capped at a level severely under current market value. A new contract could perhaps double revenue, but that requires schools to leave the NCAA and form a new association.

In other words, the issue isn't coming up with new ways to split the existing pie--it's that there's an opportunity for a massive increase in the size of the pie, and the only way you get access to that pie is to leave the NCAA.

The fact that the new, larger pie will have fewer slices is a side benefit.

But if they leave the NCAA, what possible motivation would they have of bringing the Sun Belt with them over the Big East?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think you continue to miss the point that the whole purpose behind a breakaway exercise is that the current NCAA media rights are capped at a level severely under current market value. A new contract could perhaps double revenue, but that requires schools to leave the NCAA and form a new association.

You are again ignoring the fact that this may not exactly be legally easy to do with the NCAA being a membership organization.

[The Equalizer]

But if they leave the NCAA, what possible motivation would they have of bringing the Sun Belt with them over the Big East?

The Sun Belt provides buy game opponents in both football and basketball.

The Big East can only provide basketball, and there is no indication they'd be happy as a buy-game opponent.

[brewcity77]

I think you continue to miss the point that the whole purpose behind a breakaway exercise is that the current NCAA media rights are capped at a level severely under current market value. A new contract could perhaps double revenue, but that requires schools to leave the NCAA and form a new association.

No, I just don't think that point is particularly salient. For numerous reasons discussed ad nauseum in the past, it's a straw man argument with little grounding in reality.

It would be far more likely if they broke off that only 2-5 leagues would break away, start a tournament, then invite who they chose to fill it out. And they sure as hell aren't choosing Georgia State over Villanova. Because whatever they might be, they aren't stupid. And proposing automatic inclusion for the MAC, Sun Belt, and even American members over the Big East and juggernauts like Gonzaga is stupid.

And in terms of the long game, they can consolidate a lot more by waiting out this current deal and then deciding on the future in 2032 than by trying to make a move now that includes the dregs of FBS.

[The Equalizer]

You are again ignoring the fact that this may not exactly be legally easy to do with the NCAA being a membership organization.

Actually, it appears to be very easy.  You can review the handbook yourself, but I don't see any reference to an exit fee, waiting period, advance notice.  In fact, if a school simply stopped paying it's $1800/year dues, ($900 for a conference), t's departure would be automatic.

20.2.5.3 Failure to Pay Dues. If an active member fails to pay its annual dues for one year, its membership shall be
automatically terminated.
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The Sun Belt provides buy game opponents in both football and basketball.

The Big East can only provide basketball, and there is no indication they'd be happy as a buy-game opponent.

Why do they need 61-81 buy game opponents in football?

To answer my own question, they don't.

[Herman Cain]

Nebraska was one of the bluest of blue bloods in Football ( never helped it’s basketball though). Sustained excellence for 4 decades .

Had an incredible stretch run with Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne that lasted from 1962 to 1997. Multiple National Titles , Almost every year in a top 4 bowl , numerous Heisman , multiple All Americans and high draft choices . Rabid fan base .

They made the mistake of firing Frank Solich , who was doing a solid job in the post Osborne era but made the faux pas of having one .500 season . After Solich  the program lost its momentum , kept changing out mediocre coaches , and now is arguably one of the worst in The Big Ten .

I don’t think there are many people in Nebraska fandom that believe the program can get back to its prior glory.

Will be interesting to see what happens to Duke post Coach K. They had a nice history before him but nothing spectacular . Wonder if their future is likenNebraska football

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Actually, it appears to be very easy.  You can review the handbook yourself, but I don't see any reference to an exit fee, waiting period, advance notice.  In fact, if a school simply stopped paying it's $1800/year dues, ($900 for a conference), t's departure would be automatic.

20.2.5.3 Failure to Pay Dues. If an active member fails to pay its annual dues for one year, its membership shall be
automatically terminated.
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008

That's not my point. My point is that CBS/Turner isn't going to sit back and just allow its contract with the NCAA to be watered down while the cream of D1 goes ahead and sets up its own tournament.

[Uncle Rico]

Nebraska was one of the bluest of blue bloods in Football ( never helped it’s basketball though). Sustained excellence for 4 decades .

Had an incredible stretch run with Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne that lasted from 1962 to 1997. Multiple National Titles , Almost every year in a top 4 bowl , numerous Heisman , multiple All Americans and high draft choices . Rabid fan base .

They made the mistake of firing Frank Solich , who was doing a solid job in the post Osborne era but made the faux pas of having one .500 season . After Solich  the program lost its momentum , kept changing out mediocre coaches , and now is arguably one of the worst in The Big Ten .

I don’t think there are many people in Nebraska fandom that believe the program can get back to its prior glory.

Will be interesting to see what happens to Duke post Coach K. They had a nice history before him but nothing spectacular . Wonder if their future is likenNebraska football

Man, you need to read some Nebraska football forums 😂

[The Equalizer]

Why do they need 61-81 buy game opponents in football?

To answer my own question, they don't.

You didn't actually run numbers did you? 

Say 64 total "p2/4/5" teams that each would regularly need two buy-game opponents.  Demand, therefore is for 128 total games needed.

Then, let's say that each team in your non P2/4/5 can supply play two buy games per year each.  Supply is from the Sun Belt (14 teams), Mountain West (12 teams) MAC (12 teams), American (11 teams), CUSA (11 teams), etc, is willing to play 2 buy games per year. (60 teams --> 120 games).

So, yes, you do need more teams than you think.

Furthermore, in your overall organization, you needs enough teams to support your revenue generating post-season activity:

Football:  130 teams currently support 43 bowl games
Basketball: 130 teams can effectively support a 64 team single-elimination tournament, addressing all concerrns about it not being a legitimate tournament, or that you would have to dilute quality to build the field.

The roughly 130 FBS teams are already affiliated with each other, appears to be rightly sized to meet basic scheduling requirements, and would yelid an appropiately sized organziation for an effective basketball tournament.

The argument in favor of adding the Big East, Gonzaga, etc. to this organization is that they're good today.
The arguments against is that a) they introduce "basketball only" menbers, which has traditionally caused conflicts and b) the Big East collectively would probably not bring in incremental revenue in excess of what you would wind up paying them. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You didn't actually run numbers did you? 

Say 64 total "p2/4/5" teams that each would regularly need two buy-game opponents.  Demand, therefore is for 128 total games needed.

Then, let's say that each team in your non P2/4/5 can supply play two buy games per year each.  Supply is from the Sun Belt (14 teams), Mountain West (12 teams) MAC (12 teams), American (11 teams), CUSA (11 teams), etc, is willing to play 2 buy games per year. (60 teams --> 120 games).

So, yes, you do need more teams than you think.

Furthermore, in your overall organization, you needs enough teams to support your revenue generating post-season activity:

Football:  130 teams currently support 43 bowl games
Basketball: 130 teams can effectively support a 64 team single-elimination tournament, addressing all concerrns about it not being a legitimate tournament, or that you would have to dilute quality to build the field.

The roughly 130 FBS teams are already affiliated with each other, appears to be rightly sized to meet basic scheduling requirements, and would yelid an appropiately sized organziation for an effective basketball tournament.

The argument in favor of adding the Big East, Gonzaga, etc. to this organization is that they're good today.
The arguments against is that a) they introduce "basketball only" menbers, which has traditionally caused conflicts and b) the Big East collectively would probably not bring in incremental revenue in excess of what you would wind up paying them.

They need exactly 0 buy games. That's the problem with your math. You are thinking in an NCAA paradigm. If they leave the NCAA, there is a negative value to them scheduling buy games. They make exponentially more filling their schedules with games against other teams within the 50-70 teams that break off. And even if they want to schedule a few buy games, they can schedule them against the teams they left behind without offering them a slice of the pie. Just like they schedule games against FCS, Division 2, 3, and NAIA teams now.

You only need 50-70 teams to make a successful college football league. You need 120-150 to make a successful college basketball league due to March Madness being the main driver. That difference of 50-100 teams is not going to be populated by Louisiana-Monroe and Troy over teams like Villanova and Marquette.

You made a more convincing argument when you were stating that the P5 were going to break off and reduce March Madness to 32 teams or less. This is just pure absurdity.

[dgies9156]

One of the big differences between football and basketball is the number of teams that can make a run and end up in the elite of the sport in any given year.

In football, not even much vaunted Notre Dame has an easy time of it. Sure, the attraction of the Domers gets them into the Final Four of the FBS, but does anyone objectively believe Notre Dame is in the same league with Alabama, Georgia, Clemson and Ohio State? There's probably less than a dozen true football schools really capable of consistently being in the Top 4 or 6 of college football.

Heck, the day UCF or Cincinnati "really" competes for an NCAA championship berth will be the day the sky falls in!

By contrast, schools like Villanova, Gonzaga, Loyola and Butler are legitimate candidates in any given year to be in the Final Four. Heck, in 2003, one great player and four very good ones got us within breathing room of a Natty (yeah, I know, Kansas killed us but...). In any given year, a series of good recruits could lead to something special for someone we've never heard of before.

That's why basketball can't exist without an expanded Power -- whatever.