Can bluebloods have their own thread?
- Thread starter ThePhog08
- Start date
Cal has wiffed on any meaningful bigs the last couple of years. I had higher hopes for EJ Montgomery. Sestina can clearly be outworked. I haven't seen any progress from Nick (consistent progress) to expect anything more.
What teams are allowed in this thread. Just UNC, Duke, UK, and Kansas? How loosely are we throwing around the term “Blue Blood”
Killeya-Jones would have been a senior had he not transferred right? Doubt he would have stuck around (or could have) anyway. I guess Brooks slides to the 4 for a few minutes. Who else? I agree that 3 really isn't enough.
Regardless what you read, Sestina is 6'7 in real life.
EJ is.......
Nick had a great off season, doing what, no one knows
Other fans can just jump in here and make fun of us when we lose and get away with cheating and stuff.
Last edited:
Just sent a text to the UCLA fan. She'll be here in a bit to chime in.
She told me it might be awhile. She has some catching up to do.
Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, either Duke or UNC have made it to the regional finals 30 out of 35 times (missed in 1996, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2014). Yet, only three times have both schools made it in the same year - 1988, 1991, and 1998. Crazy that it's been over 20 years since Duke and UNC have both made it the Elite 8.
One of these days, the other one will hold up their end of the bargain for a FF/Natty matchup!
Seems like it should have happened already. For whatever reason one team is always flopping in March. 0 for 20 this century on having both teams in the Elite 8. But yes, you would think it will happen - eventually.
Just crazy when I compare that to Kentucky and Louisville. Those two schools have played each other 6 times during the NCAA Tournament.
To go a long with this, I just saw this as well (since 85):
- Duke: 1,005-243 (408-152 in the ACC); 5 titles, 12 Final Fours; 16 Elite Eights; 25 Sweet Sixteens
- North Carolina: 944-302 (390-171 in the ACC); 4 titles, 11 Final Fours; 17 Elite Eights; 23 Sweet Sixteens
- Kansas: 1,006-242 (437-115 in the Big 8 and Big 12); 2 titles, 9 Final Fours, 15 Elite Eights; 22 Sweet Sixteens
- Kentucky: 937-283 (439-149 in the SEC); 3 titles, 8 Final Fours, 17 Elite Eights, 22 Sweet Sixteens
Kansas- more wins
Kansas- less losses
UK- more Conference wins
KU- less Conference losses
Duke- more NCAA titles
Duke- more FF’s
UK/UNC- more Elight 8’s
Duke- more Sweet 16’s
I believe if the tournament was smaller, they would have prolly faced each other more often in the FF or title game. Since that would be the only time they could face each other due to Conference affliliation plus both teams usually getting high seeds, it makes it impossible when you add more rounds/teams that they have a chance to lose to before both get to the FF.
when is that time frame again? nvm got it. '85. Seems random, but good to know the stats since then. Blue bloods will blue blood.
I believe that’s when the NCAA tournament expanded to 64.
When the tournament expanded to 64 teams aka modern era
That's a pretty interesting thought. If they were to make it smaller, how many teams would be about right do you think?
We don't really need 68 teams to determine a national champion. The only reason to expand the field is to make more money. In a given year you might have 5-6 true contenders. A few others with an outside shot. Of course a lot of crazy stuff can happen in basketball. The three point shot can completely neutralize all of the strengths of another team. I love March Madness and I wouldn't change it. But it's not really necessary to have teams that were .500 in conference play being allowed to compete for the right to be crowned national champions. It kind of trivializes the regular season.
If we were trying to get a true national champion based on the body of work that occurred during the regular season, then I think 16 is about as far as we would need to go. Maybe 7 conference champs from the power conferences (AAC included) + 2 or 3 of the best mid-majors. The remaining 6-7 spots would be at-large bids.
^ So let's take last year, for example, and look at what the field may have looked like if the seeds were dependent on the AP final poll. I'm including the top three mid-majors in this scenario (Gonzaga, Buffalo, Wofford). It's a good-looking field with no crazy cinderellas in there. As it turns out, all four of the semifinalists from 2019 would have been in different regions.
-------------------------
EAST
1 Duke
19 Wofford
8 Michigan
9 Texas Tech
-------------------------
WEST
4 Gonzaga
13 Purdue
5 Michigan State
12 LSU
-------------------------
SOUTH
2 Virginia
15 Buffalo
7 Kentucky
10 Florida State
-------------------------
MIDWEST
3 North Carolina
14 Auburn
6 Tennessee
11 Houston
-------------------------
In this made-up scenario, Kansas would have been the second team out after Virginia Tech. In most years, you could expect Duke, KU, UK, and UNC in the field of 16. Now, I realize the tournament wouldn't be as fun without all of the madness that occurs during the first week. I just think if we really wanted to determine a champion based on the body of work, we could easily weed out 30+ schools every year.
-------------------------
EAST
1 Duke
19 Wofford
8 Michigan
9 Texas Tech
-------------------------
WEST
4 Gonzaga
13 Purdue
5 Michigan State
12 LSU
-------------------------
SOUTH
2 Virginia
15 Buffalo
7 Kentucky
10 Florida State
-------------------------
MIDWEST
3 North Carolina
14 Auburn
6 Tennessee
11 Houston
-------------------------
In this made-up scenario, Kansas would have been the second team out after Virginia Tech. In most years, you could expect Duke, KU, UK, and UNC in the field of 16. Now, I realize the tournament wouldn't be as fun without all of the madness that occurs during the first week. I just think if we really wanted to determine a champion based on the body of work, we could easily weed out 30+ schools every year.
Yep and the fact that Duke and KU have been the winningest programs in the modern era (in terms of overall wins) and only separated by one win and one loss.
Gang here’s some fun facts about Auburn vs our blueblood peers:
Most recent Final 4: Auburn (2019)
Most recent tourney result vs other bluebloods: Kansas (2019 - Win). UNC (2019- Win). Kentucky (2019 - Win).
Amazing but true fact: Auburn and Duke have never faced each other in the tournament. Crazy.
Most recent Final 4: Auburn (2019)
Most recent tourney result vs other bluebloods: Kansas (2019 - Win). UNC (2019- Win). Kentucky (2019 - Win).
Amazing but true fact: Auburn and Duke have never faced each other in the tournament. Crazy.
Whew. Had Duke not beat Auburn in Maui, that would’ve been a blue blood season sweep
I like the fact that a lot of underrated/underseeded midmajors have a chance to compete, but I think there are too many mediocre at-large teams. I think they should reduce the number of at-large bids. These are the teams that can realistically screw it up for a contender. Some bastards like NC St who were as average as can be all season (yet have some talent) can put it all together for one game.
Weed out the at-larges who have the talent to bust a bracket but no chance to make a serious run.
Last edited:
First the Hauser decision and now we can't be part of the Blue Blood thread.
Sucks not being a part of the "in" crowd.
