ESPN: Three blue bloods and a miracle

Donate To GopherHole
J

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
13,429
Reaction score
4,689
Points
113
Who agrees that Michigan and Villanova are blue bloods? They are major programs with some recent success, but not blue bloods. Kansas, yes.

Just thought it was interesting. Anyone else agree that Mich and Nova are blue bloods?
 

I just laughed my a$$ off last night thinking about how Loyola is in and Duke is out. Has the screaming from the Duke fans over some bad calls lessened yet? I think Loyola could give Michigan some real trouble, although I still am picking Nova.
 

JimmyJamesMD said:
Who agrees that Michigan and Villanova are blue bloods? They are major programs with some recent success, but not blue bloods. Kansas, yes.

Just thought it was interesting. Anyone else agree that Mich and Nova are blue bloods?
Click to expand...

To me, bluebloods are Duke, N. Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan State, Arizona.
 

JimmyJamesMD said:
Who agrees that Michigan and Villanova are blue bloods? They are major programs with some recent success, but not blue bloods. Kansas, yes.

Just thought it was interesting. Anyone else agree that Mich and Nova are blue bloods?
Click to expand...

Define blue blood. UCLA?
 

Blue Bloods in college basketball have always been: Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke & UCLA.

Others (but in a different category): Michigan State, Arizona, UCONN, Indiana, Nova, Syracuse.
 


Gopher Hockey surely is a Blue Blood program what with all of those national championships - Brooks and Lucia......er, ah, oops, wait.......wrong forum......never mind
 

ltf said:
To me, bluebloods are Duke, N. Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan State, Arizona.
Click to expand...

If you consider Michigan St and Arizona bluebloods, then Villanova is definitely in the conversation. Michigan is not. Villanova over the last 13 years under Jay Wright has been about as good as anyone, especially if they win another title this year, which I think they will.
 

Sparlimb said:
I just laughed my a$$ off last night thinking about how Loyola is in and Duke is out. Has the screaming from the Duke fans over some bad calls lessened yet? I think Loyola could give Michigan some real trouble, although I still am picking Nova.
Click to expand...

Duke has been preseason top 10 the last ten years, but five of those years failed to advance beyond the second round. Four 5 star freshmen and a 4 star senior this year along with a talented bench. Next season I believe they have the top 3 recruits in the nation on the way. I give Duke great credit for this, but just more fun to cheer for teams whose players have put in the time, like all big east academic Jalen Brunson.
 

Bluebloods = Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina (I can no longer include UCLA with these 4 despite the dominance of Wooden era)

There are quite a few I'd put in the next wave, including the likes of Arizona, Gonzaga, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UConn, Villanova, Wisconsin, and Xavier. Probably missing a couple.
 



GopherWeatherGuy said:
If you consider Michigan St and Arizona bluebloods, then Villanova is definitely in the conversation. Michigan is not. Villanova over the last 13 years under Jay Wright has been about as good as anyone, especially if they win another title this year, which I think they will.
Click to expand...

You may be right. In my mind Mich St. and Arizona excellence go back further and more consistently than Villanova.
 

Coach K did a crap job coaching this year. His entire starting 5 is projected to be 1st round draft picks and he couldn't make the final 4: http://www.nbadraft.net/2018mock_draft

I've thought for a while that Self is far superior coach to K.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Bluebloods = Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina (I can no longer include UCLA with these 4 despite the dominance of Wooden era)

There are quite a few I'd put in the next wave, including the likes of Arizona, Gonzaga, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UConn, Villanova, Wisconsin, and Xavier. Probably missing a couple.
Click to expand...

The other question is how many programs should you really have on a 'blue blood' list? 4 is a good number, no more than 8 IMO...? The turnover should be a very slow process,. i.e. UCLA falling off the list.

Not only the winning tradition, but do you have to have/get the marquee players (Ferrari's and Lamborghini's of college hoops). If we are talking the elite class, doesn't that have to be part of it, along with winning?
 

HOOP DREAMS said:
The other question is how many programs should you really have on a 'blue blood' list? 4 is a good number, no more than 8 IMO...? The turnover should be a very slow process,. i.e. UCLA falling off the list.
Click to expand...

Good point -- how long does it take to be taken off the list, how long should it take to get on? And can they sustain a coaching change?

Looking at SS's list, it's hard to disagree that Michigan State, Wisconsin, Villanova and Gonzaga all deserve to be there based on the past 15 or 20 years. That's a long time. But they've done it essentially with one coach the entire time, and they wouldn't have been considered before that. If those outsanding coaches leave, will they remain at that same level? Maybe.

Another factor I would consider: if a great high school player from outside of Minnesota gets offered by Minnesota and Duke, the decision is a no-brainer. If he gets offered by Minnesota and Wisconsin or Minnesota and Xavier, I think we have a chance, even though those are better programs than ours right now.
 



SelectionSunday said:
Bluebloods = Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina (I can no longer include UCLA with these 4 despite the dominance of Wooden era)

There are quite a few I'd put in the next wave, including the likes of Arizona, Gonzaga, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UConn, Villanova, Wisconsin, and Xavier. Probably missing a couple.
Click to expand...

I guess I think of a blue blood as being the sort of program with a name brand that will continue to attract top recruits regardless of who is coaching there. A handful of Final Fours and national championships certainly helps. Of the schools in your second tier, Gonzaga, Xavier, and Wisconsin don’t recruit on the levels of the others, and I’m pretty sure Xavier has never made a Final Four. Gonzaga and Wisconsin are similar in that they were kind of irrelevant programs until the 90’s and 2000’s and then had a prolonged run of success under a single coach, preceded by a breakout season or two under the previous coach (Monson/Bennett going to the 1999 Elite Eight/2000 Final Four before handing off the reigns). I think I’d put Florida ahead of any of those 3, and maybe Indiana or Ohio State.
 

Michigan has had all kinds of success over the years. They sucked in the early part of this century, but are now back on track. Solid, solid program. Villanova? They are close also. Kansas for sure. If you are only talking about the 4 as Blue Bloods, then I would say the main factor in a team being so is that they pay their players a good salary.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Bluebloods = Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina (I can no longer include UCLA with these 4 despite the dominance of Wooden era)

There are quite a few I'd put in the next wave, including the likes of Arizona, Gonzaga, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UConn, Villanova, Wisconsin, and Xavier. Probably missing a couple.
Click to expand...

If one uses a time frame of the NCAA field expanding to 64 teams (1985) I'd say you have to include Michigan, even if you discount the Fab 5 stuff. NCAA Title, a runner-up finish (to a vacated Lousiville) and now another Final 4.
 

Ope3 said:
If one uses a time frame of the NCAA field expanding to 64 teams (1985) I'd say you have to include Michigan, even if you discount the Fab 5 stuff. NCAA Title, a runner-up finish (to a vacated Lousiville) and now another Final 4.
Click to expand...

I'd have no problem with Michigan being on the list behind the The Big 4. If the games happened, I count them, so Michigan not hurt in that regard.

FWIW, the general time frame I'm using is since 1999-00 season. That's why a team like Indiana not on my list. Hoosiers have been mostly irrelevant for quite some time.
 

This easily would qualify someone as Blue Blood to me.

NCAA Tournament champions
1985, 2016
NCAA Tournament runner-up
1971*
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1939, 1971*, 1985, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1939, 1949, 1962, 1970, 1971*, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2006, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1951, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1970, 1971*, 1972, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2016, 2018
NCAA Tournament appearances
1939, 1949, 1951, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971*, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
*vacated by NCAA
 

SelectionSunday said:
I'd have no problem with Michigan being on the list behind the The Big 4. If the games happened, I count them, so Michigan not hurt in that regard.

FWIW, the general time frame I'm using is since 1999-00 season. That's why a team like Indiana not on my list. Hoosiers have been mostly irrelevant for quite some time.
Click to expand...

It should be viewed on some sort of a rolling time period, say past ~30 years +/-, would seem reasonable IMO.

Not sure, maybe it should be longer.
 

HOOP DREAMS said:
It should be viewed on some sort of a rolling time period, say past ~30 years +/-, would seem reasonable IMO.

Not sure, maybe it should be longer.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the key question, what kind of time frame are we all using?
 

I think a bare minimum for me to call a school a "blue blood" would be national championships under multiple coaches. To me, "blue blood" means more than just sustained success or a lot of nice tournament runs, but rather a school the has been successful enough that it can expect to win titles with any legitimate coach at the helm.
 

Only 10 schools have multiple titles with multiple coaches

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I think a bare minimum for me to call a school a "blue blood" would be national championships under multiple coaches. To me, "blue blood" means more than just sustained success or a lot of nice tournament runs, but rather a school the has been successful enough that it can expect to win titles with any legitimate coach at the helm.
Click to expand...

I like your definition, very solid. Ironically, Duke wouldn't be a blueblood because they haven't won any titles under anyone other than Coach Alphabet.

These 10 schools have won multiple titles under multiple coaches:

Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisville
Michigan State
North Carolina
NC State
UCLA
UConn
Villanova

That's an exclusive, impressive list, for sure. Interestingly, both Loyola and Michigan have a chance to join that list in the next week.
 

Playing the cynic here, shouldn't the definition of "blue blood" also include the likelihood the program would experience little to no punishment should it be caught in some sort of infraction by the NCAA? Under that criterion, Louisville is eliminated, Kentucky might be, and UCLA and North Carolina are the bluest of the blue.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Bluebloods = Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina (I can no longer include UCLA with these 4 despite the dominance of Wooden era)

There are quite a few I'd put in the next wave, including the likes of Arizona, Gonzaga, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UConn, Villanova, Wisconsin, and Xavier. Probably missing a couple.
Click to expand...

A coach shouldn't leave for a better program if you are a blue blood. Mack leaving Xavier fot Louisville tells ya something.
 


SelectionSunday said:
I like your definition, very solid. Ironically, Duke wouldn't be a blueblood because they haven't won any titles under anyone other than Coach Alphabet.

These 10 schools have won multiple titles under multiple coaches:

Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisville
Michigan State
North Carolina
NC State
UCLA
UConn
Villanova

That's an exclusive, impressive list, for sure. Interestingly, both Loyola and Michigan have a chance to join that list in the next week.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I think using my definition, Duke is an odd exclusion and NC State would be an odd inclusion (and UCLA might be getting stale as you pointed out earlier). Even though it was one coach, the fact that Duke won 5, spread out over 24 years (1991 to 2015) suggests that the national champion level success has been sustained enough, that I assume the recruiting and reputational advantages that come with blue blood status will continue after he retires, so I would grant them an exception from my rule.

Never winning a national title should be an absolute bar to consideration.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Thanks for the information. I think using my definition, Duke is an odd exclusion and NC State would be an odd inclusion (and UCLA might be getting stale as you pointed out earlier). Even though it was one coach, the fact that Duke won 5, spread out over 24 years (1991 to 2015) suggests that the national champion level success has been sustained enough, that I assume the recruiting and reputational advantages that come with blue blood status will continue after he retires, so I would grant them an exception from my rule.

Never winning a national title should be an absolute bar to consideration.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Duke is a worthy exception, no question about its blueblood status!
 

Just different for everyone. When i think of Blue Bloods i think of UCLA,UNC, DUKE, Kansas, Indiana. Not sure why i see UCONN and Louisville as more blue collar than blue blood. From California and did my under grad at UCLA from 64-67 and when you walk into Pauley and see those 11 national titles and nothing else, no final 4. no cheesy sweet 16. no Nit..... that is the epitome of arrogant blue blood. Then to have Wooden and all his wisdoms and his own status as one of the best college players in history. It is not just titles, Kansas has those but they have Naismith, Chamberlain, Dean Smith and the unmatched venue of the Phog. UNC has the former aura of academics proven to be a fraud but Smith, Jordan and winning. Indiana has the backdrop of a crazy basketball state, by far and away the most state wide passion for the game. High schools that draw 7-10,000 in a high school gym. 60,000 for state title games. That energy bleeds into the IU program, the legend of McCracken, Knight, Isiah, Assembley (best sightlines anywhere) Undefeated. Duke has the benefit of not only winning but of K, the olympic coach , ESPN to tell and talk of anything Duke, The extraordinary top rated school, the belief that they are the best and the brightest.
 

builtbadgers said:
Just different for everyone. When i think of Blue Bloods i think of UCLA,UNC, DUKE, Kansas, Indiana. Not sure why i see UCONN and Louisville as more blue collar than blue blood. From California and did my under grad at UCLA from 64-67 and when you walk into Pauley and see those 11 national titles and nothing else, no final 4. no cheesy sweet 16. no Nit..... that is the epitome of arrogant blue blood. Then to have Wooden and all his wisdoms and his own status as one of the best college players in history. It is not just titles, Kansas has those but they have Naismith, Chamberlain, Dean Smith and the unmatched venue of the Phog. UNC has the former aura of academics proven to be a fraud but Smith, Jordan and winning. Indiana has the backdrop of a crazy basketball state, by far and away the most state wide passion for the game. High schools that draw 7-10,000 in a high school gym. 60,000 for state title games. That energy bleeds into the IU program, the legend of McCracken, Knight, Isiah, Assembley (best sightlines anywhere) Undefeated. Duke has the benefit of not only winning but of K, the olympic coach , ESPN to tell and talk of anything Duke, The extraordinary top rated school, the belief that they are the best and the brightest.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot Kentucky, that's still my list too.
 

This has been a good discussion. I'm kind of stuck in old thinking, blue blood to me has always been: Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke and UCLA, the first 3 being the strongest.

Other category elite: Indiana, UCONN, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, Nova, Arizona & NC State

What is the criteria? We talked about time-frame, what else;

NCAA Championships
Final Four Appearances
NCAA Tournament Appearances
Conference Regular Season Titles
Win/Loss Percentage

Others:
Weeks ranked No. 1 in AP Top 25 Poll
Overall wins
# of top 'x' ranked recruits
Players drafted
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom