Lets settle this blue blood debate and honor the new bloods

[ExitFlagger]

Micro vs macro. Try thinking big picture with that little brain.

It's just the most recent example of your league getting exposed. Of course one of your 9 bids slips into the final four now and then, and of course Indiana used to win championships a billion years ago.

The Big 12/8/6 has several top 25ish all time programs. And in this century they've had some good "new blood" programs. Like I mentioned in the other thread, the league has appeared in almost a quarter of the national title games played, with a bunch more final four appearances.

Yet your dumbass probably sincerely believes that the difference between Indiana and KU's win % is competition. 🤣

 

[hawkit3113]

It's just the most recent example of your league getting exposed. Of course one of your 9 bids slips into the final four now and then, and of course Indiana used to win championships a billion years ago.

The Big 12/8/6 has several top 25ish all time programs. And in this century they've had some good "new blood" programs. Like I mentioned in the other thread, the league has appeared in almost a quarter of the national title games played, with a bunch more final four appearances.

Yet your dumbass probably sincerely believes that the difference between Indiana and KU's win % is competition. 🤣

Not 1 fvcking Big 8/12 team in the all time top 25 besides Kansas, lololol.

You beat up on fairies, lol

 

[ExitFlagger]

He is so desperate, he tries to go from historical to this season, lol.

What a loser. This Blue Blood shit really matters to him, lol

Trust me, Wee Man, I couldn't care less about your opinion about blue blood status.

Now run along and start another thread crying about how unfortunate it is that you're an Iowa fan. 😂

 

[ExitFlagger]

Not 1 fvcking Big 8/12 team in the all time top 25 besides Kansas, lololol.

You beat up on fairies, lol

Wee Man, no one cares about your top 25. You probably have Iowa in it. 🤣

 

[IUfanBorden]

Indiana hasn't won a title in almost 40 years. Don't think they can be linked to the other five. I also agree you can't add to the "blue blood" list. Programs that have come up since the modern era are in a different category.

SO you can subtract from, but not add to? Then exactly how is Duke on the(original) list? Before their first title(1991)----UCLA had 10, UK and IU with 5, UNC and KU with 2...

Just curious....

 

[Jaycg15]

Says the guy who's savior has yet to make even a sweet 16 which your program hasn't done in 17years.

 

[hawkit3113]

Trust me, Wee Man, I couldn't care less about your opinion about blue blood status.

Now run along and start another thread crying about how unfortunate it is that you're an Iowa fan. 😂

You live in these threads trying to prove KU belongs, blahahahahahaha

 

[IUfanBorden]

Still think it's UK. In reality those two are the only true blue bloods. Everyone else has faults.

Probably the correct answer here....

KU---lack of titles
IU----dormant for 20 years
Duke---99% of their success under "K"---And yes, I know---Duke was solid before "K".
UCLA--Dominant in the 60's/70's--Only 1 title since Woodens last in 1975(1995).

I mean you could lay some claim with UK, with over their titles coming before 1959...Beat up on a football conference for 50 years...But, they have been extremely consistent.

Same with UNC----Had some great, GREAT teams under Smith, but just 2 titles; and got huge breaks in both of those---"The pass and The timeout". But like UK, extremely consistent---and could pick up title #7 here soon.

IMO, Kansas, Indiana, UK, UCLA, Duke and UNC will always be the standard that HISTORIANS look at, and compare to. But , over the years, schools have cemented themselves among the elite---MSU , UVA Nova, Louisville, UConn(though they have been pretty meh since Calhoun left town), Arizona...

Schools that have been solid, consistent recently---and even historically for period of time--- OSU, Michigan, Baylor(not historically)----probably could place Lousivlle in this spot as well...

Its a fun debate....But at the end of the day, schools like Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, KU, Duke and Indiana are gonna be the programs that CBB is defined by...And as bad as Indiana has been, their brand is still as good as anyone's. Just, well, a tremendous amount of bad hires----athletically, and admistrative wise.

 

[RockChalk82]

Definition of blue blood

A school rooted in the establishing the history and tradition of college basketball.

Multiple winning decades, including titles, conference titles, finals fours in multiple decades

The official Blue bloods

Kansas, UK, Duke, UCLA, UNC

Maybe - Indiana, they have been nothing for almost 20 years.

New Bloods

Can't be blue bloods but we can consider them new money. New bloods

Villanova
Uconn
Michigan State
Louisville
Florida

Blue bloods: KU, Duke, UNC, UK, UCLA

Indiana is in pergatory - a “sky blue”

More new bloods or “teal” bloods I call them:

Villanova
UConn
Syracuse
Arizona
Michigan
Florida
Sparty
Oklahoma State
Maryland
Cincy
LouisVille

3rd tier:

Virginia
OU
Wake
NC State
Texas
Wisconsin
Oregon
Georgetown
Illinois
Nc state
Ohio state
Kstate
Memphis

 

[HawksJ]

Also Indiana was kicked when they won only 6 games in 2009. I doubt any other blue blood has a season since 1915 with single digit wins.

Every school has mediocre seasons.

Except Kansas, of course.

 

[hawkit3113]

Every school has mediocre seasons.

Except Kansas, of course.

The NC run in 88 and then the hiring of Roy Williams were HUGE for KU basketball. It's the reason the success has continued to this day.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Probably the correct answer here....

KU---lack of titles
IU----dormant for 20 years
Duke---99% of their success under "K"---And yes, I know---Duke was solid before "K".
UCLA--Dominant in the 60's/70's--Only 1 title since Woodens last in 1975(1995).

I mean you could lay some claim with UK, with over their titles coming before 1959...Beat up on a football conference for 50 years...But, they have been extremely consistent.

Same with UNC----Had some great, GREAT teams under Smith, but just 2 titles; and got huge breaks in both of those---"The pass and The timeout". But like UK, extremely consistent---and could pick up title #7 here soon.

IMO, Kansas, Indiana, UK, UCLA, Duke and UNC will always be the standard that HISTORIANS look at, and compare to. But , over the years, schools have cemented themselves among the elite---MSU , UVA Nova, Louisville, UConn(though they have been pretty meh since Calhoun left town), Arizona...

Schools that have been solid, consistent recently---and even historically for period of time--- OSU, Michigan, Baylor(not historically)----probably could place Lousivlle in this spot as well...

Its a fun debate....But at the end of the day, schools like Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, KU, Duke and Indiana are gonna be the programs that CBB is defined by...And as bad as Indiana has been, their brand is still as good as anyone's. Just, well, a tremendous amount of bad hires----athletically, and admistrative wise.

If UNC won this thing, they'd be one title behind Kentucky, with 4 more final fours and more tourney wins.

I think that modern titles just mean more than those in the 40s/50s. Kentucky was basically guaranteed a tourney berth in the SEC in those days. Once there, they'd face a field that excluded a bunch of the highest-ranked teams in the nation. One win put them in the final four, and two more wins was a national title. Can you really say that's equal to winning six games vs the best of the best, in an era with a lot more parity?

 

[IUfanBorden]

If UNC won this thing, they'd be one title behind Kentucky, with 4 more final fours and more tourney wins.

I think that modern titles just mean more than those in the 40s/50s. Kentucky was basically guaranteed a tourney berth in the SEC in those days. Once there, they'd face a field that excluded a bunch of the highest-ranked teams in the nation. One win put them in the final four, and two more wins was a national title. Can you really say that's equal to winning six games vs the best of the best, in an era with a lot more parity?

I get that argument, but one can easily argue it was more difficult to win the tourney then...Yeah UK was pretty much guaranteed a tourney berth being the SEC, but.......can you imagine in todays tourney your 1st round opponent being a Top 5, or Top 10 team? Because that's what it was then...

Imagine KU opening the tourney up with Villanova, opposed to TX Southern?

 

[ExitFlagger]

I get that argument, but one can easily argue it was more difficult to win the tourney then...Yeah UK was pretty much guaranteed a tourney berth being the SEC, but.......can you imagine in todays tourney your 1st round opponent being a Top 5, or Top 10 team? Because that's what it was then...

Imagine KU opening the tourney up with Villanova, opposed to TX Southern?

How would playing half as many games be tougher? You have to beat really good teams to win it now too, obviously, and there's way more parity.

Having no competition in your league was a huge factor. You could be the 2nd best team in the nation, or even the most talented team, but maybe you had an off day and finished 2nd in your league, and you're not invited. And there were years when the #2 ranked team didn't participate, along with several other top 10 teams.

Imagine Nova being left out of the tourney this year in favor of Providence, and UNC and other top teams being left out.

It was a really poor way of determining a champion.

 

[imajericho]

Also Indiana was kicked when they won only 6 games in 2009. I doubt any other blue blood has a season since 1915 with single digit wins.

Unc had 8 one year I believe.

 

[hawkit3113]

Why does this seem to matter more in basketball than football?

 

[UNC71-00]

UK
UCLA
UNC
Duke
KU

That order for the blue bloods

Villanova, Louisville, Indiana, UConn in some other after that. All 4 have various claims to being a blue blood.

Carolina has the most tournament wins (tied) and most final 4s. 3rd most all time wins.

And a winning head to head record against all of the other 4.

Carolina is at the top of the heap.

 

[IUfanBorden]

How would playing half as many games be tougher? You have to beat really good teams to win it now too, obviously, and there's way more parity.

Having no competition in your league was a huge factor. You could be the 2nd best team in the nation, or even the most talented team, but maybe you had an off day and finished 2nd in your league, and you're not invited. And there were years when the #2 ranked team didn't participate, along with several other top 10 teams.

Imagine Nova being left out of the tourney this year in favor of Providence, and UNC and other top teams being left out.

It was a really poor way of determining a champion.

Not sure it was a poor way----more as to the way it was....It was different then. I mean, what up until 1974, only conference champs went(NCAAT), right?

Hell, IU was lucky in 1940. IU was ranked higher, had the better record, beat PU in their only meeting, BUT, finished one game behind PU in the B10. Purdue, being the good folks they are, declined NCAA invite, and insisted IU go-----We went onto win the title..

Anyways----There's an argument to be made for both sides. A title is a title----A Final Four is a FInal FOur...Unless of course you wanna give back that title from 1952......those Runner-up banners from 1940, 53 and 57....Or the FF's from 1940, 52, 53, 57, 71 and 74?

 

[hawkit3113]

Not sure it was a poor way----more as to the way it was....It was different then. I mean, what up until 1974, only conference champs went(NCAAT), right?

Hell, IU was lucky in 1940. IU was ranked higher, had the better record, beat PU in their only meeting, BUT, finished one game behind PU in the B10. Purdue, being the good folks they are, declined NCAA invite, and insisted IU go-----We went onto win the title..

Anyways----There's an argument to be made for both sides. A title is a title----A Final Four is a FInal FOur...Unless of course you wanna give back that title from 1952......those Runner-up banners from 1940, 53 and 57....Or the FF's from 1940, 52, 53, 57, 71 and 74?

Interesting points both ways between you and @ExitFlagger . I can see both points. Better chance of winning it, when you are there all the time. And I see your point that there were no cheap dates.

I say we go back to 32, so CBS can't sell us Cinderella, lol

 

[IUfanBorden]

Interesting points both ways between you and @ExitFlagger . I can see both points. Better chance of winning it, when you are there all the time. And I see your point that there were no cheap dates.

I say we go back to 32, so CBS can't sell us Cinderella, lol

 

[hawkit3113]

Oh you know it. It's all rigged.

 

[CUJO_1970]

Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke

(That's it. That's the list.)

Kansas is too far behind the other Blue Bloods in titles. They need it worse than anyone left.

 

[hawkit3113]

Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke

(That's it. That's the list.)

Kansas is too far behind the other Blue Bloods in titles. They need it worse than anyone left.

No Indiana?

 

[IUfanBorden]

Oh you know it. It's all rigged.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Not sure it was a poor way----more as to the way it was....It was different then. I mean, what up until 1974, only conference champs went(NCAAT), right?

Hell, IU was lucky in 1940. IU was ranked higher, had the better record, beat PU in their only meeting, BUT, finished one game behind PU in the B10. Purdue, being the good folks they are, declined NCAA invite, and insisted IU go-----We went onto win the title..

Anyways----There's an argument to be made for both sides. A title is a title----A Final Four is a FInal FOur...Unless of course you wanna give back that title from 1952......those Runner-up banners from 1940, 53 and 57....Or the FF's from 1940, 52, 53, 57, 71 and 74?

Just because that’s the way it was done doesn’t make it a good way to crown a champ. I think almost anyone would agree that a champ should have to earn it vs the best of the best.

Everyone has their opinions. Just saying that I would consider UNC the GOAT if they won this.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Just because that’s the way it was done doesn’t make it a good way to crown a champ. I think almost anyone would agree that a champ should have to earn it vs the best of the best.

Everyone has their opinions. Just saying that I would consider UNC the GOAT if they won this.

But, I mean, thats exactly what it was Exit----best of the best. There were no 15-18 MEAC conference champs invited.....And its just how it was then....

Also are you saying KU's FF's I listed, and title(1952), are, well, not earned? If so, exactly now where do you put KU on the totem poll?

Thats only 2 "earned titles"---6 less FF's.....

I mean, those are Lousiville/Ohio State type of numbers....

 

[ExitFlagger]

But, I mean, thats exactly what it was Exit----best of the best. There were no 15-18 MEAC conference champs invited.....And its just how it was then....

Also are you saying KU's FF's I listed, and title(1952), are, well, not earned? If so, exactly now where do you put KU on the totem poll?

Thats only 2 "earned titles"---6 less FF's.....

I mean, those are Lousiville/Ohio State type of numbers....

So if today the format changed to only conference winners, you would call it the best of the best?

That would exclude Villanova, UNC, Baylor, Texas Tech, Purdue, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc.

I never said old titles should be thrown out. Just that modern titles should carry more weight.

 

[hawkit3113]

So if today the format changed to only conference winners, you would call it the best of the best?

That would exclude Villanova, UNC, Baylor, Texas Tech, Purdue, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc.

I never said old titles should be thrown out. Just that modern titles should carry more weight.

I would agree. There is a larger talent pool now, as far as players go. The game had grown big time.

But UK still has 3 NCs since 96 under 3 different coaches.

 

[IUfanBorden]

So if today the format changed to only conference winners, you would call it the best of the best?

That would exclude Villanova, UNC, Baylor, Texas Tech, Purdue, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc.

I never said old titles should be thrown out. Just that modern titles should carry more weight.

No, I am saying thats how it was then----and that is how the NCAA saw, "the best of the best.".

Sports evolve----they get bigger----which leads to expansion, i.e. tourney's, playoffs, etc, etc...

Not sure why a title NOW, should meanmore than a title in 1948...or, well say, 1952, Are you saying KU only has two titles worth a shit, or carry any weight? Or that the FF's KU went to in the 50's are, well, less than that of today's?

If so, that's quite the stance.....

Today's format meets todays demand.....1948 format met 1948's demand..

Is it harder today? I dunno....Possible. You have to win more games----OK. But for the most part, your top teams are basically, for the most part, getting byes to the SW 16.(1 and 2 seeds)...Which, I mean is really no different than starting a tourney with just 16 teams; which started in 1951. Then exapnaded again a year later to 25 teams....How often does a non-Top 10- 15'ish team make the Elite 8? Very, very seldom do we not get the best of the best at that point of the tourney....

We can agree to disagree----Enjoy the convo very much....And trust me, for some UK'ers, I;d love to use your analogy----but to me, well, a title is a title...

 

[HawksJ]

Is it harder today? I dunno....Possible. You have to win more games----OK. But for the most part, your top teams are basically, for the most part, getting byes to the SW 16.(1 and 2 seeds)...Which, I mean is really no different than starting a tourney with just 16 teams; which started in 1951. Then exapnaded again a year later to 25 teams....How often does a non-Top 10- 15'ish team make the Elite 8? Very, very seldom do we not get the best of the best at that point of the tourney....

One and two seeds “basically get byes to the S16” and “non-top 10-15’ish teams” very, very seldom make the E8?

Have you watched college basketball?

But you don’t have to have watched cbb - or any sports - to know that adding games, even against shitty teams, makes it harder. That’s just math.

 

[hawkit3113]

One and two seeds “basically get byes to the S16” and “non-top 10-15’ish teams” very, very seldom make the E8?

Have you watched college basketball?

Good point. And didn't top seeds get home games back in then?

 

[IUfanBorden]

One and two seeds “basically get byes to the S16” and “non-top 10-15’ish teams” very, very seldom make the E8?

Have you watched college basketball?

Plenty......Since seeding, 1 and 2 seeds have won 31 of the 41 National titles... 27 times a 1 or a 2 was runner-up....Combined, they have 47 National title game appearances...

1 seeds have won 79% of all NCAAT games....2 seeds 71%...

Since 1979, 1 seeds are 79-19 in the SW 16......2 seeds are 52-20. Between the two, that is 131-39. Menaing, since 1979, a 1 or 2 seed has made the SW 16 170 times... And have 121 Elite * appearances...

Next closest is 3 seeds with 57 appearances(SW16)---with 28 ELite 8 appearances...

Better question is, do you watch CBB?

 

[IUfanBorden]

Good point. And didn't top seeds get home games back in then?

Not really----see above...^^^^^

 

[HawksJ]

Plenty......Since seeding, 1 and 2 seeds have won 31 of the 41 National titles... 27 times a 1 or a 2 was runner-up....Combined, they have 47 National title game appearances...

1 seeds have won 79% of all NCAAT games....2 seeds 71%...

Since 1979, 1 seeds are 79-19 in the SW 16......2 seeds are 52-20. Between the two, that is 131-39. Menaing, since 1979, a 1 or 2 seed has made the SW 16 170 times... And have 121 Elite * appearances...

Next closest is 3 seeds with 57 appearances(SW16)---with 28 ELite 8 appearances...

Better question is, do you watch CBB?

Literally not a word of that directly supports the two specific claims you made.

 

[ExitFlagger]

No, I am saying thats how it was then----and that is how the NCAA saw, "the best of the best.".

Sports evolve----they get bigger----which leads to expansion, i.e. tourney's, playoffs, etc, etc...

Not sure why a title NOW, should meanmore than a title in 1948...or, well say, 1952, Are you saying KU only has two titles worth a shit, or carry any weight? Or that the FF's KU went to in the 50's are, well, less than that of today's?

If so, that's quite the stance.....

Today's format meets todays demand.....1948 format met 1948's demand..

Is it harder today? I dunno....Possible. You have to win more games----OK. But for the most part, your top teams are basically, for the most part, getting byes to the SW 16.(1 and 2 seeds)...Which, I mean is really no different than starting a tourney with just 16 teams; which started in 1951. Then exapnaded again a year later to 25 teams....How often does a non-Top 10- 15'ish team make the Elite 8? Very, very seldom do we not get the best of the best at that point of the tourney....

We can agree to disagree----Enjoy the convo very much....And trust me, for some UK'ers, I;d love to use your analogy----but to me, well, a title is a title...

Byes to the Sweet 16? Everyone calls Jay Wright the best coach in the game now, and he's lost in the 2nd round as a 1 like 4 times.

But anyway...all titles count. Wasn't saying otherwise. I just think if someone really wants to get down to a debate about which programs have consistently been the best throughout history, these kinds of details should be considered, as opposed to just totalling up titles and final fours.

And, aside from the debate of which carries more weight, certainly a modern title means more to us as fans. How many fans do you think have ever seen or even attempted to find their national championships from the 40s? And most of those who did probably watched grainy footage for about two minutes before getting bored and shutting it off. It was barely the same sport that people brag about today. And a moment that’s etched into your memory forever is a little different than a blurb you read in a history book.

The Packers are probably the most successful NFL franchise of all time. They won a ton of pre-Super Bowl championships. But imagine a Packers fan sneering and looking down on a Patriots fan. He’d look pretty foolish, right?

Any fan should be proud of history, while also being able to acknowledge that the present and recent past is always most important to them.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Literally not a word of that directly supports the two specific claims you made.

Literally, it does.....
1/2 seeds have played in 170 SW 16 games...Next closest is a 3 seed with 57..

In other words, basically a bye to the SW 16.....

 

[JimboBBN]

SO you can subtract from, but not add to? Then exactly how is Duke on the(original) list? Before their first title(1991)----UCLA had 10, UK and IU with 5, UNC and KU with 2...

Just curious....

There’s no doubt Duke is the last or “newest” of the blue bloods. But they had a lot of prior success before winning the first title. And they are without a doubt the best team of the modern era.

As far as the list, I actually think the logic is there. The past is the past and can’t be changed. There are a handful of teams that were great from the time the tournament started and have continued to be successful through the modern era. Teams successful in the modern era only don’t have the history that comes with being a blue blood, so therefore, they can’t be added to the list.

I really don’t feel strong one way or the other as far as taking teams off. I was kinda kidding when I said we were kicking UCLA off. If you said Indiana was a blue blood, I would disagree with you, but at the same time, I definitely think there’s an argument.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Byes to the Sweet 16? Everyone calls Jay Wright the best coach in the game now, and he's lost in the 2nd round as a 1 like 4 times.

But anyway...all titles count. Wasn't saying otherwise. I just think if someone really wants to get down to a debate about which programs have consistently been the best throughout history, these kinds of details should be considered, as opposed to just totalling up titles and final fours.

And, aside from the debate of which carries more weight, certainly a modern title means more to us as fans. How many fans do you think have ever seen or even attempted to find their national championships from the 40s? And most of those who did probably watched grainy footage for about two minutes before getting bored and shutting it off. It was barely the same sport that people brag about today. And a moment that’s etched into your memory forever is a little different than a blurb you read in a history book.

The Packers are probably the most successful NFL franchise of all time. They won a ton of pre-Super Bowl championships. But imagine a Packers fan sneering and looking down on a Patriots fan. He’d look pretty foolish, right?

Any fan should be proud of history, while also being able to acknowledge that the present and recent past is always most important to them.

I'm not gonna yack anymore about this.....An yes, basically a bye to SW 16....SInce 1979, a 1 seed has lost a whopping 20 times in the 2nd round....

I have showed the #'s----It ain't close in comparison to 1 and 2 seeds, historically, getting to the SW 16....I think 7 seeds have won like 19% of their games vs 2 seeds, and 10 seeds someting like 8%---

1 and 2 seeds have played over 170 SW 16 games----next closest seed is a 3 at 57.....then it drops drastically....

Everyone see's 3 beat a 14----5 beat a 12-----4 beat a 13, and get all excited....Well, I mean that is great. But its not a 1 or a 2....DOn't get them confused.

 

[IUfanBorden]

There’s no doubt Duke is the last or “newest” of the blue bloods. But they had a lot of prior success before winning the first title. And they are without a doubt the best team of the modern era.

As far as the list, I actually think the logic is there. The past is the past and can’t be changed. There are a handful of teams that were great from the time the tournament started and have continued to be successful through the modern era. Teams successful in the modern era only don’t have the history that comes with being a blue blood, so therefore, they can’t be added to the list.

I really don’t feel strong one way or the other as far as taking teams off. I was kinda kidding when I said we were kicking UCLA off. If you said Indiana was a blue blood, I would disagree with you, but at the same time, I definitely think there’s an argument.

I honestly feel no matter what happens, CBB is always going to be defined by UK, UNC, KU, Duke, IU and UCLA...Its the standard that every historian will use when speaking in terms of "basketball royalty" so to speak..

TBH, Jimbo---I couldn't care less----I just wanna win again, baby....

 

[ExitFlagger]

I'm not gonna yack anymore about this.....An yes, basically a bye to SW 16....SInce 1979, a 1 seed has lost a whopping 20 times in the 2nd round....

I have showed the #'s----It ain't close in comparison to 1 and 2 seeds, historically, getting to the SW 16....I think 7 seeds have won like 19% of their games vs 2 seeds, and 10 seeds someting like 8%---

1 and 2 seeds have played over 170 SW 16 games----next closest seed is a 3 at 57.....then it drops drastically....

Everyone see's 3 beat a 14----5 beat a 12-----4 beat a 13, and get all excited....Well, I mean that is great. But its not a 1 or a 2....DOn't get them confused.

I think bye is a pretty strong word. A 16 seed is a bye. An 8/9 is much different. You sure it's only happened 20 times? Hell, Jay Wright's got about 4 of those.

You can run into a pretty damn good (or hot) team in the 2nd round. Somebody forgot to tell Baylor and the Wichita St that they had byes. 🤣

Sure, the odds are in your favor as a 1 in that game, but with more parity, it's happening more often. And even though the 1 usually wins, it's often a competitive game.