Villanova and Michigan are blue bloods?
- Thread starter WojoRising
- Start date
I think I saw the stat on ESPN, Nova has the most wins in a 5 year stretch ever- if they keep this up the next couple of seasons...
Being a blue blood requires more than a winning culture; its also about having the iconic gym, fanbase, coach, traditions, etc.
Villanova and Michigan will never be blue bloods but it really doesn't matter.in the grand scheme of things if they keep winning. They"ll be realized as peer programs.
Villanova and Michigan will never be blue bloods but it really doesn't matter.in the grand scheme of things if they keep winning. They"ll be realized as peer programs.
Give me a minute. Let me find stats where either are top whatever.
I did find this;
I did find this;
Last edited:
Michigan, sure, you have a point. Football is still boss hog at that school, albeit they truly care about their other programs & the fans show up. You won't see the same passion, various sports, at OSU - a school with a hoops title and double digit FF appearances. Moreover, MI fans show up for their genuine blue blood hockey program.
Villanova is part of the Big East which is becoming a great hoops league, despite the gutting via expansion. The Big East is positioned, long-term, to be a great basketball league. They don't have to worry about football, the footprint is genuinely Midwest as well. In fact, half the teams are based in states that also have a BIG school. In certain ways, they actually excel against their in-state BIG rivals, in large part because they don't have to focus on football baggage and large state budgets.
Both programs have at least 5 FFs and have played in at least 3 NC games a piece, stretching back to 1965. Nova played in the 1939 FF. Michigan didn't appear in FF til 1964. Bottom line, neither program is a sudden basketball power - they've succeeded in many eras of CB.
Give me a minute. Let me find stats where either are top whatever.
I did find this;
I do agree that all-time wins should factor into blue blood status, but historically, the BIG is really unlike other P5 conferences. It's a tough conference to dominate - nearly every coach who has held jobs in multiple conferences, career wise, says winning on the road in the BIG is more difficult compared to other conferences. I can't seem to figure it out, but a lot of evidence seems to back these claims - esp when you look at distribution of conference titles and now conference tourney winners - per school. For example, Purdue has more BIG titles than IU, yet no titles.
Furthermore, look at the FF appearances by the BIG - various schools. Or, simply look at the past 20 years & BIG NC game appearances: Wisconsin (2015), Mi (2013), MSU (2009), OSU (2007), Ill (2005), IU (2002). 6 different teams! That's head-scratching & probably depressing for BIG fans (none of those teams won it).
I have a bunch of mountain top property to sell in South Florida to anyone who believes this shit!
Hurry up the bids are coming in rapidly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RollLaugh
She got crushed in the comment section, which is always a glorious read on espn.
Not a shock coming from a fan of a team that has dominated the SEC. Thank God FL came up the past 20 years.
The facts speak in my case - plenty of actual stats - I even gave you some.
Btw, I do have immense respect for Ky's tradition. Like my facts & stats argument, hard to counter Ky's success & their dominance suggests an SEC that has been unbalanced much of the past 70 years.
Parity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_regular_season_champions
Lopsided Dominance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southeastern_Conference_men's_basketball_champions
I'm not even going to bother posting KU vs the rest of the Big8-12
Last edited:
True failure.
You don't respect Kentucky success at all, you simply distain it. Just be honest. The ACC was nothing before the 1990. Lot at the damned record. For decades the competition was from the B1G.
Florida had done nothing to take Kentucky off the top run of SEC basketball, nor has Tennessee, LSU, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas A&M et.al.
You truly know nothing about SEC basketball.
USA Today & SI also had articles saying something to the effect of 3 bluebloods and a cinderella...I assume these are very young, underpaid writers
You're an odd duck that is genuinely clueless here. (1) I made it clear that neither Mi nor Nova are bluebloods & that the latter has more potential reaching this status down the road, (2) the BIG simply has historical parity, which is indisputable fact. Purdue has won the most BIG conference titles and has never won a NC. MSU has less conference titles than IU, Purdue, Wi, Ill, & OSU and yet only IU has more NCAA titles.
Pointing out Ky's statistical dominance of the SEC is also simple fact. It is what it is. I can respect Ky's dominance here, but not praise the rest of the SEC, minus Fl the past 20 years, for not putting up much of a fight.
To suggest the ACC was nothing before 1990 is absurd: UNC won it's first title as an ACC member in 1957. This conference would go onto to win 3 more titles before the tourney field was expanded (1974, 1982, 1983). ACC schools, whether in the Southern League or ACC, appeared in FFs & NC games from the beginning. Wake Forest made it to the last four of the inaugural 1939 Tourney, UNC was in the title game in 1946. It was actually NCSt that broke an impressive run of titles by Wooden's UCLA (1974).
I can type fast and love college basketball history, actually a damn nerd in this area. You're not being offensive at all. I know the stakes with most message boards.
We used to interact plenty on here when I was under RocknSoul.
We hardly use this account now, minus tourney time.
Out of all of those FF appearances how many titles does the conference have? Greatness is built on getting the job done, not coming close.
Kentucky may be the most corrupt of all collegiate basketball programs. And in time soon, they will have national titles removed because of Calipari. Also, with the recruiting classes he gets every year. He should be winning national titles every two years. Proof he's not that great of a coach. Give me his classes and I would have won at least 5 national titles. KAABOOOMMM... You just got served. GO BLUE.
That's about all you Kentucky fans can say because it's true.
Clearly they should have consulted this board, before they wrote that article.
No doubt born around the mid 80s
ESPN hack journalist wrote something dumb surely this is the first time this has ever happened
I agree, but only so much.
BIG has 10 titles under actual membership, 11 now that Maryland is a member. BIG is also in a 17+ year drought since their last title. But make no mistake other conferences have longer current droughts, Pac12. Moreover, other P5 conferences have also had longer droughts in the past. I’d suggest doing your own research. Either way, the BIG has more titles than the Big 8/12 & Big East, but 1 less than the SEC (actual membership) and they’re certainly behind the Pac12 n ACC.
But is it just NCs? It’s becoming common for some to argue IU doesn’t deserve blue blood status despite 5 titles due to inconsistency. They were certainly in the CG in 2002, not exactly long ago. IU has also won a title in various eras, including the so-called modern era. They were the last team to go undefeated and they beat Mi in the title game, which marked the first time one conference represented the CG. You could also partly argue IU helped end the Wooden dominance, which was needed. Of course the tourney format changed, also needed.
And if I’m reading you right, you’re arguing conference strength is largely based on national titles. I can’t fully buy your argument, especially when certain programs dominate this stat line for respective conferences. Under current membership, UCLA owns 11 of the Pac8-10-12’s 16 titles. UNC and Duke = 10 of the ACC’s 16 titles (3 inherited via Louisville), Ky 8 of 11 SEC titles and KU has won 3, more than half of the Big 12’s 5 titles. You can’t make this argument with the BIG. Outside IU’s 5 titles, 5 other teams own titles: MSU, MI, MD, OSU and WI.
I think it is many factors that determine a blue blood: regular season wins, conference titles, conference tourney titles, tourney winning %, final fours, titles and runner ups, etc. and all over a period that goes back to the first NCAA tourney - 1939. In this case, traditional BIG powers do not fare well when it comes to regular season wins, as well as conference titles - so much historic parity. On the other hand, the BIG has been a very well rounded and successful tourney conference, runners up being their weak point. BIG most certainly has the second best tourney winning %, all time, behind only the ACC.
Last edited:
NC State has 2 titles, 1974 and 1983. UNC 6, Duke 5, Syracuse 1. If you never been a champion how are you considered great?
Last edited:
The more ane more so called "journalist" write, the more I'm convinced this board has the smartest college basketball fans in the world.
Which part? The fact you are a national title caliper coach or Calipari's titles are coming down. You were pretty convincing on both.
National Championships are not a good way of determining overall conference strength. It's much much better at determining program strength. Was the American Athletic Conference the best conference in basketball in 2014 when UConn won the title? Not even close.
One team winning the national championship doesn't automatically mean that other teams in that conference were good too. National titles are better for ranking programs than they are for ranking overall conference strength.
All I’m saying as a conference you would look a lot better with some titles on your resume.
Sure, and I'm just saying that a conference can still be considered strong without a national championship or can still be weak with a national championship.
Who do you think is the best conference in college basketball this season?
Pretty sure my post states "titles" matter in the equation of a great team. On the other hand, you're cherry picking my previous posts and seem to be conflating great teams vs. great conferences. I stand firmly behind the evidence that the BIG is a pretty fine basketball league, all time. I wouldn't put it above the ACC, no way. ACC is the best and they've proven it. But the BIG is the 2nd best despite less titles than the Pac12 and SEC.
When it comes to the BIG's best teams, I'd only consider the programs who've won a NC in the top line. Albeit, Illinois has demonstrated long-term success based on FF appearances over the decades.
Interesting you mention NCSt, a program that I have fond memories of - I most certainly remember their 83 title. My brother was a huge Houston fan at the time. I was rooting for the Wolfpack. NCSt hasn't sniffed an elite eight since 1987. Every BIG program that has won a title (WI, MSU, MI, OSU, & IU) have all played in at least 2 FFs and 1NC game since - MI & MSU have appeared in multiple NC games, each earning a title. So does that mean NCSt is not a great program? Are they a better program than any of the above who've not won a 2nd title. I don't think so. But in terms of consistency, they don't measure up these days & they've most certainly fallen behind in tourney performance.
As I said above, and you merely underscored it (btw, Syracuse did not win a NC as an ACC member) - conference greatness is often determined by 1-2 programs in terms of NCAA titles. The ACC doesn't fit this category, but Duke and UNC have surely dominated this category throughout ACC history. I think the addition of Lville and Syracuse have helped offset this perception. Moreover, I think this metric accurately highlights the lopsided perception of the SEC (Ky, much of the time - though Fl has emerged as a formidable power), Big 12 (KU), and Pac12 (UCLA & only AZ the past 30 years). The BIG is more like the ACC, albeit less titles and no one in the BIG measures up to UNC or Duke's consistency and all-time greatness - but IU can change such perception quickly by merely winning a NC (a tall order).
And Maryland didn’t win one as a Big 10 member. Other than that I can see your argument.
Similar threads
