What is a "Blue Blood"?
- Thread starter CuseJacket
- Start date
mstranahan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,561
Top four all have 2,000+ wins and > 70% winning percentage. No other school has either, much less both.
Temple is #5 in all time wins with about 1880. UCLA is 7th and Indiana is 11th. Syracuse is 6th, Notre Dame 8th, St John's 9th and Louisville 10th.
The gap between top four and the next bunch is huge.
Temple is #5 in all time wins with about 1880. UCLA is 7th and Indiana is 11th. Syracuse is 6th, Notre Dame 8th, St John's 9th and Louisville 10th.
The gap between top four and the next bunch is huge.
FightWinDrink
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,377
Yeah it's pretty impressive looking at them. Only 17 losing seasons ever, and 7 of them came before 1914. So only 10 losing seasons in the last century. Meanwhile we have 10 since 1999
- Messages
- 12,296
- Location
- Marietta, GA
I had the Top 4 and added Indiana... but they were very border line to me. Briefly consider UCLA, but nope, not BB.
It was nice to see that I wasn't out in left field (wrong sport but you get the point) compared to those here that follow college basketball much more religiously than I do.
It was nice to see that I wasn't out in left field (wrong sport but you get the point) compared to those here that follow college basketball much more religiously than I do.
Deleted member 2897
Guest
For example, Ashton Hagans just committed to Kentucky. And Crean just lost his key assistant head coach too. Everyone's running for the doors, LOL.
Kentucky had NINE guys on their roster this year who were 5*. They already have at least 2 that I know of committed to go there next year. And they went 10-8 in a weak SEC, finishing 5th, and lost about a third of their games overall. But here we go, with more folks lining up to not be developed as players and just hop on the bandwagon.
Kentucky had NINE guys on their roster this year who were 5*. They already have at least 2 that I know of committed to go there next year. And they went 10-8 in a weak SEC, finishing 5th, and lost about a third of their games overall. But here we go, with more folks lining up to not be developed as players and just hop on the bandwagon.
Techster
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 18,397
I wonder what the All Time win records for teams are SINCE the Tournament Era started.
okiemon
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,794
Amazing, isn’t it? I guess it’s all about “visibility” to the NBA.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Messages
- 19,627
Does last night's win change anyone's opinion of UConn being a blue blood?
They finished last of the available teams in this poll 5 years ago, yet they now have as many national championships as Duke and Indiana (5) and more than Kansas (4).
Based on everyone's stated definitions 5 years ago, it would seem like last night doesn't change much, but thought it would be interesting to revisit.
They finished last of the available teams in this poll 5 years ago, yet they now have as many national championships as Duke and Indiana (5) and more than Kansas (4).
Based on everyone's stated definitions 5 years ago, it would seem like last night doesn't change much, but thought it would be interesting to revisit.
- Messages
- 5,141
I saw an interesting stat this weekend. Only 3 times in the last 16 (iirc) years has a team won it all that wasn't a 1 or 2 seed. All 3 times it has been UConn. I say they are a blue blood as they have won nattys under two different coaches. That says they have the infrastructure in place and is not dependent on just one coach (Tech and CBC, UNLV under Tarkanian, Florida and Donovan as some examples). Throw in the history of their women's team and I say they qualify as blue clood status. The only thing holding thm back is all their nattys have been in the last quarter of a century or so. If they had been spaced out a bit maybe they might have more "tradition". But 5 nattys puts them tied for 4th all time and they are in the midst of all others that we say are blueebloods.
Root4GT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,373
Actually they have won NCs under 3 coaches. Calhoun, Ollie and Hurley. They look poised to be good for a long time
- Messages
- 5,902
Kentucky, Kansas, UNC and Duke are all obvious because they have multiple national titles under multiples coaches in multiples generations.
I would probably consider UCLA a blue blood, but it is sort of a close call.
Indiana was for awhile but I would not consider them one now.
UConn is probably deserving of being called a modern blue blood (IND and UCLA you could call historical blue bloods). All of their titles come in the last 25 years, but they have 2 big pluses in my mind that makes them a blue blood right now. First, they have 5 - That is an amazing number - and think during the last 25 years only Duke and UNC have more than 2 (3 each). More importantly, UConn has had 3 different coaches win national titles, only KY has had more than 1 coach win a National title in the last 25 years - Tubby Smith in 1998 and John Calipari in 2012.
Here's the list of National Title winners in the last 25 years
UConn - 5 - 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023
UNC - 3 - 2005, 2009, 2017
Duke - 3 - 2001, 2010, 2015
KY - 2 - 1998, 2012
Villanova - 2 - 2016, 2018
Kansas - 2 - 2008, 2022
Florida - 2 - 2006, 2007
Baylor - 1 - 2021
Virginia - 1 - 2019
L'ville - 1 - 2013
Syracuse - 1 - 2003
Maryland - 1 - 2002
Michigan St - 1 - 2000
The big 4 are pretty obvious. I'd probably put UConn as a blue blood. UCLA has the best argument of the others. It does have a national title in 1995 under Harrick and then 4 Final Four's in the 21st Century including a most recent appearance in 2021.
All the others either don't have a recent enough title or their multiple titles tended to occur under one coach in rapid succession, suggesting it was more of a group of players than a long term program item.
I would probably consider UCLA a blue blood, but it is sort of a close call.
Indiana was for awhile but I would not consider them one now.
UConn is probably deserving of being called a modern blue blood (IND and UCLA you could call historical blue bloods). All of their titles come in the last 25 years, but they have 2 big pluses in my mind that makes them a blue blood right now. First, they have 5 - That is an amazing number - and think during the last 25 years only Duke and UNC have more than 2 (3 each). More importantly, UConn has had 3 different coaches win national titles, only KY has had more than 1 coach win a National title in the last 25 years - Tubby Smith in 1998 and John Calipari in 2012.
Here's the list of National Title winners in the last 25 years
UConn - 5 - 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023
UNC - 3 - 2005, 2009, 2017
Duke - 3 - 2001, 2010, 2015
KY - 2 - 1998, 2012
Villanova - 2 - 2016, 2018
Kansas - 2 - 2008, 2022
Florida - 2 - 2006, 2007
Baylor - 1 - 2021
Virginia - 1 - 2019
L'ville - 1 - 2013
Syracuse - 1 - 2003
Maryland - 1 - 2002
Michigan St - 1 - 2000
The big 4 are pretty obvious. I'd probably put UConn as a blue blood. UCLA has the best argument of the others. It does have a national title in 1995 under Harrick and then 4 Final Four's in the 21st Century including a most recent appearance in 2021.
All the others either don't have a recent enough title or their multiple titles tended to occur under one coach in rapid succession, suggesting it was more of a group of players than a long term program item.
lv20gt
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,588
IMO you have to look at more than just national championships. Under Calhoun they came a lot closer. Especially from 1990 to when Clahoun retired, they were almost a lock for the NCAAT (75-80% ish), finished 1st or 2nd 12 times in conference, and 13 second weekend appearance or later, and 3 championships.
But under the last two coaches, 11 years, UCONN has made the NCAAT just 5 times. 2 championships, 1 round of 32, and 2 rounds of 64. They also haven't finished higher than 3rd in their conference over that time period, and winning just 56% of their conference games. The championships are great, but it's about the only thing that would have them in the conversation IMO.
To Compare, Duke under K missed just 2 NCAATs from 83 with 26 second weekend or better trips and finished 1st or second 25 times over that span.
In 17 years under Williams, UNC missed 2 NCAATs had 10 second weekend or better appearances, and finished 1st or second 10 times. There was a three year gap with Doherty that was bad, but that was 3 years out of about the last 50. Guthridge finished 2nd 3rd 3rd and had 2 final fours. You can imagine what Smith's numbers would look like.
Kansas hasn't missed an NCAAT since 89, finished lower than second in conference just 3 times in that time period, two of those being 3rd place finishes, and has something like 19 second weekend trips. And really that streak pretty much goes back to the early 80s with Larry Brown and prior to that things were different with how the NCAAT was treated.
Kentucky is the most turbulent. In 14 years under Cal they've missed the NCAAT just twice, finished 1st or second in conference 11 times, and have 8 second weekend trips. Gillespi was two years of nothingness (although they did make the NCAAT one of those years). 10 years under Tubby, they never missed the NCAAT, finished 1st or 2nd 7 times, and 6 second weekend trips. Pitino was more of the same, only missing the NCAA twice in 8 years because of not being eligible, although probably would have missed it in year one anyways, and being dominant the last 6. Sutton was there for 4 years, 3 NCAAT two 1st place finishes in conference and 2 second weekend trips, and got out before the executioner for his cheating. Before that was Hall and Rupp and you can guess the story.
Yes, the championships are nice, and had they continued to be what they were under Calhoun in terms of year in year out, but compared to the other blue bloods they've missed more NCAATs in the last 11 years than most of them have since going back to the 80s. And the lack of success in conference regular season is really a stark contrast to the others.
To me it's like the difference between Rich, and what the *** Rich. For instance, Michael Jordan is rich by almost any metric. But he isn't particularly close to guys like Musk, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates.
But under the last two coaches, 11 years, UCONN has made the NCAAT just 5 times. 2 championships, 1 round of 32, and 2 rounds of 64. They also haven't finished higher than 3rd in their conference over that time period, and winning just 56% of their conference games. The championships are great, but it's about the only thing that would have them in the conversation IMO.
To Compare, Duke under K missed just 2 NCAATs from 83 with 26 second weekend or better trips and finished 1st or second 25 times over that span.
In 17 years under Williams, UNC missed 2 NCAATs had 10 second weekend or better appearances, and finished 1st or second 10 times. There was a three year gap with Doherty that was bad, but that was 3 years out of about the last 50. Guthridge finished 2nd 3rd 3rd and had 2 final fours. You can imagine what Smith's numbers would look like.
Kansas hasn't missed an NCAAT since 89, finished lower than second in conference just 3 times in that time period, two of those being 3rd place finishes, and has something like 19 second weekend trips. And really that streak pretty much goes back to the early 80s with Larry Brown and prior to that things were different with how the NCAAT was treated.
Kentucky is the most turbulent. In 14 years under Cal they've missed the NCAAT just twice, finished 1st or second in conference 11 times, and have 8 second weekend trips. Gillespi was two years of nothingness (although they did make the NCAAT one of those years). 10 years under Tubby, they never missed the NCAAT, finished 1st or 2nd 7 times, and 6 second weekend trips. Pitino was more of the same, only missing the NCAA twice in 8 years because of not being eligible, although probably would have missed it in year one anyways, and being dominant the last 6. Sutton was there for 4 years, 3 NCAAT two 1st place finishes in conference and 2 second weekend trips, and got out before the executioner for his cheating. Before that was Hall and Rupp and you can guess the story.
Yes, the championships are nice, and had they continued to be what they were under Calhoun in terms of year in year out, but compared to the other blue bloods they've missed more NCAATs in the last 11 years than most of them have since going back to the 80s. And the lack of success in conference regular season is really a stark contrast to the others.
To me it's like the difference between Rich, and what the *** Rich. For instance, Michael Jordan is rich by almost any metric. But he isn't particularly close to guys like Musk, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates.
I mean it wasn’t bad. Tubby won a natty and they won the sec almost every year. They definitely plateaued in the tournament and that’s what lead to him getting canned, similar to what’s happening with cal right now.
mstranahan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,561
UConn misses the tourney frequently. They've got five titles but have whiffed entirely 8 or last 25 years (believe that's correct, going by memory). I think part of being a Blueblood is consistency and they have not had that.
Agree that Indiana was in the conversation but they haven't been for a while. UCLA is probably still hanging on, but it's tenuous.
Agree that Indiana was in the conversation but they haven't been for a while. UCLA is probably still hanging on, but it's tenuous.
- Messages
- 5,141
This is analogous to the Gailey vs. Johnson debate from a few years back on the FB board. For me, I would rather have UConn's program over a Gonzaga any day of the week. I would take a few wins over Uga and some Orange Bowls with the occasional losing season over a steady diet of 7 wins and low tier bowl games in FB. (Although the last 6-7 years of FB do have me pining for the "boredom" of the Gailey era.)
leatherneckjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,155
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
I picked the top four plus UCLA and Indiana.
Fatmike91
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,298
- Location
- SW Florida