Fire your research team. The Big 10 has 51 FF's. The Big 12/8 has 29. That's 22 more. Not 10 or so.
Blue blood qualifications
- Thread starter JayhawkinGeorgia
- Start date
IU's an injury away from back to back, unbeaten seasons. Another injury from a possible title in 93. Another from a possible title in '83. See we can all play the " what if".
Uhh, do you know when the Vietnam war actually happened? All but one of their titles happened in that frame lol.
We all know you're an idiot but if you quit posting so much we may forget about it after a while.
To be honest, after the first tier it gets quite muddy. Nova has more titles than everyone else save UConn. UC won 2 titles 150 years ago. UL & Michigan State have multiple titles, etc.
The Raiders won all 3 of their super bowls in a 7 year stretch. IU's 5 titles stretch out to almost 50 years.
6th in tourney appearances, 6th in tourney wins, top ten in elite eights, final fours, overall wins ect...
I know you're trolling here but let's try not to be stupid.
I counted 49 for the Big 10. Might have been a few off, not sure, but I do know you're way off on the B12 total. It's 38, even if you want to include Colorado and Nebraska and exclude WV and TCU.
Derp.
20th in win %.
40 tourney wins and 6 national titles behind UCLA, with fewer overall wins despite 19 more seasons. Less than half as many final fours. To this Mensa, that adds up to "Indiana in, UCLA out."
Laughing
There are only 6 blue bloods of college basketball.
KU, UK, UCLA, IU, DUKE, UNC
End thread.
KU, UK, UCLA, IU, DUKE, UNC
End thread.
Big 10 still has more FF's over the past 20 years than any other conference (ACC may be within one or tied and BE is close) so not sure what you're talking about here. I'm not going to crunch the numbers over 30 years but pretty sure you're wrong based on last 20. The title drought just makes it seem worse than it is.
I count 28 FF's for the Big 6/7/8/12. And Kansas has 15 of them. You must be using Ok A&M's Iba years, Texas in the 50's, WV, etc. Those don't count any more than Maryland counts for the B1G..
Remove IU and Kansas from each conference's totals and it's:
B1G - 43
Big 6/7/8/12 - 13
That's a long way from "only about 10 more". Kansas can't play itself but IU has had to play 5-6 other programs that are relatively equal to them in everything except NC's over the course of history.
I prefer it that way but it's pretty much nuked any chance for IU or any B1G school to keep up in the all time wins and win% standings.
IU sucked before WW2 and Crean lost 70 games in three years. And Illinois had a sneaky good history up until about 10 years ago.
jace, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Nova was in the first FF in 1939. They were runner up in '71 and won a title in '85. That's better credentials than Duke had prior to K. Who's forgetting about "yesterday", me or you?
At what point did Duke become a blue blood? They're the only school to force their way in, so to speak. After they went B2B in '91/'92, they had 8 FF's and 2 NC's. Nova currently has 6 FF's and 3 NC's, and Wright seems to have the same momentum as K had in the early 90's. As of right now, that's why I give them a chance in the next 5-10 years - they seem to be following a similar course that Duke did.
All these other schools have pretty much shot their wad. JMO, but MSU and Cuse have more or less peaked, Louisville can't be taken seriously with their shenanigans the past few years, and UConn needs to beg the BE to take them back before they can even begin to climb back to their elite status.
Villanova is the only school with any history that is ascending right now.
And I can't believe I just typed all that sh!t defending VillaFreakingNova. I've never rooted for them in my life.
Probably not much. Being UK plays BIG OOC, they're playing the better of the BIG teams. If UK played the middle to bottom of the barrel of the BIG, once or twice over the years, they'd still rack up wins at a high pace.
Blue blood status is like the Hall of Fame in any sport. No one should get kicked out but if you’re winning at a high rate over decades at a time coupled with some FF’s and titles, then IMO you warrant consideration.
Villanova is also tied for 10th in all time winning percentage.
Even though they are 21st in all time wins due to a 1921 start, there are only 6 teams ahead of them with better win percentages
They have made the final 4 in 5 different decades (4 different coaches)
They have won their 3 titles with multiple coaches.
They are 8th in all time NCAA bids
They are 7th (tied with Kansas) in NCAA championships
Agree that they are not yet Blue Blood, but they are clearly in that 7-9 list with strong trajectory.
I agree with the 6 clear Blue Bloods and no one close, but this is all part of the fun.
I'm not off. Sports Reference is off. They show 9 FF for Big 12; 20 for the Big 8. Sports Alias shows the same. So does wikipedia.
Also the Big 10 has five schools who are in the Top 10 for Final Four appearances. As for the Big 12---they have one.
Big 12 is damn near the SEC. Fortunate for that conference, there's been some moments for WVU and Okl. Iowa State jere and there. Baylor shows up now and again. But make no mistake, just as UK carries the SEC, Kansas does the same with the Big 12.
This from a fan who's school has 3 titles. Three. You have less titles than fvckin UCONN. And your EIGHT titles behind UCLA. Congrats on being the biggest chokers in CBB history. Yeah Indiana has stunk it up. No doubt. But dude...KU's been great. But your known more for choking, than winning. Gonna change your motto:
From Rock Chalk, to Rock Choke Jayhawk.Laughing
My man. Hey, you know I love me some Kansas. But dude...Ya'll need to pit baracus back in the basement. He's embarrassing your fam base.
Well when you put it that way it’s a lot more obvious.
Yup, totally agree.
However, I made one crucial correction to your post. You're welcome.
I'm a IU fan, but I still think they deserve the "UCLA" treatment until they start acting like a blueblood again.
Actually, this isn't a bad idea...if we're treating this like the hall of fame, how about from here on out whenever one of the schools starts to crap the bed for over a decade, they get put in the closet of the hall of fame? Technically there still in, but no one really wants to see them right now?
This is dumb. UCLA has been to a final four (3x in a row in the 2000's) and won a title more recently. UCLA is a better program than Indiana. The titles are Indiana's biggest sticking point, and UCLA more than doubles them up there.
Fact is there are 6 blue bloods, with Indiana hanging on by a thread.
Illinois is a decent program. I threw in facts like that when comparing Indiana to UCLA. DaBull wanted to argue that UCLA isn't a blueblood yet Indiana is. There's no way to rationally justify that. You don't get to a top 5 win % (and near the top in everything else) by having a short, isolated period of success.
The only argument for Indiana as a blueblood is title count. Yet we're going to dismiss a program with more than twice the number, paired with far better numbers across the board? Makes zero sense.
Also, I think the sucking before WW2 and being mediocre over the last 3 decades has affected their win % a lot more than being in the Big 10. There are some solid programs in the league (although even some of those have had very sporadic success) but also several weaklings.
I haven't read the entire thread and for the most part I think these discussions are stupid but there is a big drop off in NCAA T wins after the top 5.
Here's the top 10.
UK 128
UNC 124
Duke 112
KU 107
UCLA 106
Lville 76
Cuse 67
IU 66
MSU 65
Nova 64
I think IU and UCLA absolutely belong but I also think modern era success is way way more important than winning 50, 60, 70 years ago. The difference in IU titles and KU titles is a 1 point championship game in 1953. Not sure how relevant or important that is today. I mean San Francisco has more titles than Arizona, Illinois, Cuse and as many as MSU. Is San Francisco a better program now and all time than Arizona?
Here's the top 10.
UK 128
UNC 124
Duke 112
KU 107
UCLA 106
Lville 76
Cuse 67
IU 66
MSU 65
Nova 64
I think IU and UCLA absolutely belong but I also think modern era success is way way more important than winning 50, 60, 70 years ago. The difference in IU titles and KU titles is a 1 point championship game in 1953. Not sure how relevant or important that is today. I mean San Francisco has more titles than Arizona, Illinois, Cuse and as many as MSU. Is San Francisco a better program now and all time than Arizona?
Are you mad? Speaking of embarrassing your fanbase. Jesus.
The biggest chokers in NCAA history are still a much better program than Indiana. Scoring 1 more point in 1953 doesn't change that. As is UCLA.
In case you failed to notice, the issue here was one of your fellow homers claiming that Indiana is a blueblood but KU/UCLA are not. Pure idiocy. The consensus among pretty much anyone is that if a program is "out of the club" or on shaky ground, it's Indiana.
Last edited:
Louisville needs to be reduced to 61 wins or Villanova increased to 68. Have to be consistent with vacated wins. Can’t remove one teams’ and keep another.
Even had you won that game, IU would still have more titles. Laughing
Your right. The consensus is if any teams on shaky grpund, it's Indiana. And I agree. But the consensus also agrees that Kansas is the biggest choke job artist come March. That's why I've officially changed KU's " Rock Chalk Jayhawk", to Rock CHOKE Jayhawk.Laughing
BTW, whoever said Kansas isn't a blueblood is an idiot.
But damn....17 FF's, and only 3 titles? And one of those you needed a miracle; well two kimda of. I mean we don't have a lot[8] but at least when we got there, we normally TCB, baby.
If ku won in 1953 it would be 4 to 4.Even had you won that game, IU would still have more titles. Laughing
Your right. The consensus is if any teams on shaky grpund, it's Indiana. And I agree. But the consensus also agrees that Kansas is the biggest choke job artist come March. That's why I've officially changed KU's " Rock Chalk Jayhawk", to Rock CHOKE Jayhawk.Laughing
BTW, whoever said Kansas isn't a blueblood is an idiot.
But damn....17 FF's, and only 3 titles? And one of those you needed a miracle; well two kimda of. I mean we don't have a lot[8] but at least when we got there, we normally TCB, baby.
And ku has 15 Final Fours, not 17.
FYI
Naaah...You guys would lost in '88.
Choke would've been past due. And yes, I know. Oklahoma was huge favorites.My bad on the 3-17. Make that 3-15Winking
Off the top of my head I think their Final Four record is 12-12? Not including 3 place games they would’ve played, if any.Naaah...You guys would lost in '88.
My bad on the 3-17. Make that 3-15Winking
Kansas is 12-12 ? Interesting. I know IU's lost in semis to UCLA [73] and Duke [92]. Lost title game in 2002 to Maryland. So that would make them 11-3. Not bad. More is coming...
You'll be closer to Bert's age than your current age before Indiana makes it to 12 Final Four wins.Kansas is 12-12 ? Interesting. I know IU's lost in semis to UCLA [73] and Duke [92]. Lost title game in 2002 to Maryland. So that would make them 11-3. Not bad. More is coming...
Book it. SmokinSmile
I'd bet any amount of cash IU wins another FF GAME, in the next 30 years. MOF, I think we get there in the next 2-3 years. Maybe sooner if Miller lands Brooks and TJD.
Maybe. You guys will be pretty good until K or Roy retires and Miller decides to leave for greener pastures. A Final Four appearance isn't out of the question.
