Do you think the rules changes regarding players even weakens their position further?
6 in the last 13 but 3 of those 6 were 11, 12 and 13 years ago. Interesting cherry picking on those numbers.
I think the transfer rules weaken their position but I think NIL could strengthen it. In theory, the bluebloods should have the most NIL money available due to their larger followings.
According to Boilerzz the "Bloods" are sitting at 30% in the last decade. That is their worst showing in the last 70 years.
lol, sorry for posting facts? Nova and UConn aren't blue bloods but they are still top 10 programs. The big boys aren't going anywhere, you don't have to worry.
Yeah, I can't lie I'm not even sure what the definition is. I think it applies to the top programs based on their overall win %, titles, F4s, etc over the time span of decades not just a decade or two. I'm sure there's more variables depending on who you ask. Maybe a program needs to show elite level under multiple coaches, etc.
That really wasn't the question. The question is more about rule changes (one and done, paying players) bringing parity to CBB.
Oh sorry if I misunderstood. I was unaware we were eliminating the results prior to the rule changes. This removes a couple failed marriages and really bad jobs off my resume. I like it.
Since 2000, Duke has won 3 National titles....UNC has won 3. Kansas and Kentucky have one each...UCLA has been to 4, Final Fours... In other words, bluebloods have won 8 of the past 21 titles.
Paying players is in its first year----And it sure the hell isn't going to create parity. If anything, it will widened the gap. One and done has been a non-issue as well. Baylor didn't win their title with any....Nor did Virginia....Or Villanova.
We have seen UK, UNC, and Duke struggling at the same time. Has that ever happened before?
One and done didn't begin until 2006. We are talking about Blue blood and not solid teams.
They also have a combined 7 national titles, 14 Final Fours and 25 Elite 8's in that time frame. Last year was an outlier. I wouldn't count on what happened last season, becoming the norm.
You said, former "no names"---Villanova, Gonzaga, Virginia aren't former no names... Maybe you could make an argument with the Zags...But dudes have been very good for well over 20 years..Not to mention, All three have been fixtures atop CBB for quite some time. Same with UConn. AS I said, the only former no name making noise is Baylor. Other than that, everyone else has played at a high level, for a long time.
It was also during a global pandemic, that effected everything about everyone.
UVA has not been a fixture for quite some time, or played at a high level for a long time. They have been to 3 FFs two of those in the 80s, and the last 8 yrs or so have been strong. They have had a few decent teams here and there prior to Bennett but nothing memorable. They are certainly doing great now but have avg to below avg tradition.
Yeah, I think the top 30 or so will be stronger and deeper than ever, but I don’t necessarily think it’s going to allow average programs to close the gap with the top teams.
Thing to remember with Duke is, they were in it with a chance to win it, multiple years prior to K. 1966 UK beat their all white team in the Final Four. 1978, UK Goose Givens put up 41 to keep them from winning it. That's all I can recall due to bias, but they've had a good team for years prior to K.
People seem to forget, or simply ignore Duke, before K...Lot of very good coaches---Cameron won 226 games, at a 70% clip. He coached before the advent of the NCAAT. Otherwise, he would have had quite a few trips...Vic Bubas won 76% of his games.. Went to 4 NCAAT....2 FF's...runner-up, and an E8....Foster took over a struggling program...His first few seasons were rough. But after that, in his last 3, he went to 3 straight NCAAT's: Runner-up and a regional final. He also won a combined 3 ACC titles(2 tourney/ 1 reg. season.
