Blue Blood - does Florida qualify?

[CL82]

The "blue blood" debates are meaningless because "blue blood" is an undefined term. To some people it means schools that were good in the 1950s. To others it means schools that are good now. To still others it means schools that have had multiple national championships.

Anytime someone wants to have this debate, the first paragraph of any article needs to be for the purposes of this article, this the definition of blue blood..

 

[RuffRuff]

The "blue blood" debates are meaningless because "blue blood" is an undefined term. To some people it means schools that were good in the 1950s. To others it means schools that are good now. To still others it means schools that have had multiple national championships.

Anytime someone wants to have this debate, the first paragraph of any article needs to be for the purposes of this article, this the definition of blue blood..

Kind of like this criteria of winning an NC in 4 diff decades and with multiple coaches.

 

[FightOnCT]

The "blue blood" debates are meaningless because "blue blood" is an undefined term. To some people it means schools that were good in the 1950s. To others it means schools that are good now. To still others it means schools that have had multiple national championships.

Anytime someone wants to have this debate, the first paragraph of any article needs to be for the purposes of this article, this the definition of blue blood..

This is true, but I still say no. We were cemented within the consensus just recently and Florida’s history is much thinner with less natties.

 

[CL82]

Kind of like this criteria of winning an NC in 4 diff decades and with multiple coaches.

That would be a very small list

 

[CL82]

This is true, but I still say no. We were cemented within the consensus just recently and Florida’s history is much thinner with less natties.

I'm inclined to agree. But, again, without any clearly delineated standard, the reference is largely arbitrary.

 

[Derucky]

No. They are in the next group with Nova, Louisville, and Michigan State.

Donyell's Marshall's missed free throws led to them being one. I would have to say yes, given that they have 3 NCs, like Nova, the only "football school" to qualify.

 

[Derucky]

They had one great coach for 40 years so maybe it was just a fluke. UConn has won more titles and with three coaches.
Then there's the women's team with one coach for 40 years but with 12 titles!
UConn is not a one hit wonder either by coaching longevity or diversity.

UConn is the best in modern times, PERIOD, especially now that we've gotten over the "Kansas hump."

 

[Derucky]

I'm inclined to agree. But, again, without any clearly delineated standard, the reference is largely arbitrary.

Their blood doesn't have to be as blue as UConn's to qualify.

 

[Lafayette]

To the OP question, no but let’s see what happens this and next season.

As for certain voters or rankers there will always be those keeping others excluded yet for some reason they want UCLA as a blue blood when the bulk of their nattys were when you had 8 teams or so playing for it.

We are, people who disagree are not “one of us” so no need to really get bothered.

 

[CL82]

Their blood doesn't have to be as blue as UConn's to qualify.

Again, that really depends on the definition. What's yours?

 

[Mokum]

Let’s keep in mind that some of these schools won national championships back when there were way less teams involved, and the NIT was the top post season tournament.

 

[NewBlood]

We didn’t have espn pimping us 24/7 and we weren’t giving jobs and big houses to the parents of 5*’s.

I am so glad someone said this. Duke has had 30 years of a propaganda machine supporting it in ESPN. Between Vitale then hiring Duke talking heads, they have had a marketing advantage that none can compete with. Which is why when we whoop their asses, and when we get #7 it will be that much sweeter.

The blue blood convo is boring to me because it's factoring in decades of a game that doesn't even compare to modern basketball. If you want to say who are the new blue bloods of the sport, one that goes back to the field of 68 and the 3 point line, then we can have a conversation. UCLA barely registers in this conversation, neither does Indiana.

Also, having a fuckton of regular season victories means little to championship winners. Ask anyone here if they would trade in 2 of our six to have 5-6 more high quality regular seasons that didn't end in a championship, I doubt you'll find many takers

 

[bendm]

How is Nova not in your second group?

b/c then i'd have to include Michigan. these are the objective modern era bball rankings, which began in 1975 when the tourney expanded to 32. the criteria for inclusion is reaching a Final and the values for each round are based on the fibonacci sequence, starting with 1. A school like UConn that's had most of its success post-1985 when the tourney expanded to 64 gets dinged but so does a school like UCLA which had most of its success pre-1975. in other words, it's a balance of past and present.

Rank 1975+	School	Bids	x1	Sweet 16	x2	Elite 8	x3	Final 4	x5	Final	x8	Champ	x13	Total
1	Duke	42	42	30	60	21	63	15	77	10	80	5	65	387
2	UNC	46	46	31	62	22	66	15	75	9	72	5	65	386
3	UK	42	42	30	60	22	56	11	55	7	56	4	52	321
4	KU	43	43	24	48	16	48	10	50	6	48	3	39	276
5	UConn	27	27	17	34	12	36	7	35	6	48	6	78	258
6	Lville	36	36	21	42	12	36	8	40	3	24	3	39	217
7	UCLA	38	38	23	46	11	33	8	40	4	32	2	26	215
8	MSU	36	36	20	40	13	39	9	45	3	24	2	26	210
9	IU	39	39	18	36	8	24	5	25	4	32	3	39	195
10	UF	25	25	12	24	10	30	6	30	4	32	3	39	180
11	UM	27	27	15	30	10	30	6	30	6	48	1	13	178
12	Nova	31	31	13	26	10	30	5	25	3	24	3	39	175
13	Cuse	37	37	21	42	8	24	6	30	3	24	1	13	170
14	Zona	38	38	21	42	11	33	4	20	2	16	1	13	162
15	Gtown	30	30	11	22	8	24	4	20	3	24	1	13	133
15	Ark	32	32	14	28	8	24	4	20	2	16	1	13	133
17	UVA	26	26	10	20	7	21	4	20	1	8	1	13	108
18	UH	16	16	9	18	6	18	5	25	3	24	0	0	101
19	Zags	27	27	14	28	6	18	2	10	2	16	0	0	99
20	UMD	30	30	14	28	3	9	2	10	1	8	1	13	98
21	Marq	28	28	9	18	4	12	2	10	2	16	1	13	97
22	UNLV	20	20	10	20	5	15	4	20	1	8	1	13	96
23	NCSt	21	21	8	16	4	12	2	10	1	8	1	13	80
24	Baylor	14	14	5	10	3	9	1	5	1	8	1	13	59

 

[Lafayette]

Golfed with a class act this morning. Settled it with yes we wish we had your titles and if you add the women it’s absurd debate dude. We had beers after.

 

[superjohn]

b/c then i'd have to include Michigan. these are the objective modern era bball rankings, which began in 1975 when the tourney expanded to 32. the criteria for inclusion is reaching a Final and the values for each round are based on the fibonacci sequence, starting with 1. A school like UConn that's had most of its success post-1985 when the tourney expanded to 64 gets dinged but so does a school like UCLA which had most of its success pre-1975. in other words, it's a balance of past and present.

Rank 1975+	School	Bids	x1	Sweet 16	x2	Elite 8	x3	Final 4	x5	Final	x8	Champ	x13	Total
1	Duke	42	42	30	60	21	63	15	77	10	80	5	65	387
2	UNC	46	46	31	62	22	66	15	75	9	72	5	65	386
3	UK	42	42	30	60	22	56	11	55	7	56	4	52	321
4	KU	43	43	24	48	16	48	10	50	6	48	3	39	276
5	UConn	27	27	17	34	12	36	7	35	6	48	6	78	258
6	Lville	36	36	21	42	12	36	8	40	3	24	3	39	217
7	UCLA	38	38	23	46	11	33	8	40	4	32	2	26	215
8	MSU	36	36	20	40	13	39	9	45	3	24	2	26	210
9	IU	39	39	18	36	8	24	5	25	4	32	3	39	195
10	UF	25	25	12	24	10	30	6	30	4	32	3	39	180
11	UM	27	27	15	30	10	30	6	30	6	48	1	13	178
12	Nova	31	31	13	26	10	30	5	25	3	24	3	39	175
13	Cuse	37	37	21	42	8	24	6	30	3	24	1	13	170
14	Zona	38	38	21	42	11	33	4	20	2	16	1	13	162
15	Gtown	30	30	11	22	8	24	4	20	3	24	1	13	133
15	Ark	32	32	14	28	8	24	4	20	2	16	1	13	133
17	UVA	26	26	10	20	7	21	4	20	1	8	1	13	108
18	UH	16	16	9	18	6	18	5	25	3	24	0	0	101
19	Zags	27	27	14	28	6	18	2	10	2	16	0	0	99
20	UMD	30	30	14	28	3	9	2	10	1	8	1	13	98
21	Marq	28	28	9	18	4	12	2	10	2	16	1	13	97
22	UNLV	20	20	10	20	5	15	4	20	1	8	1	13	96
23	NCSt	21	21	8	16	4	12	2	10	1	8	1	13	80
24	Baylor	14	14	5	10	3	9	1	5	1	8	1	13	59

Michigan has 1 national championship in their entire history and it was gifted to them by John Clougherty.

 

[bendm]

Michigan has 1 national championship in their entire history and it was gifted to them by John Clougherty.

they've also made 6 finals, same as UConn and 2x Nova

 

[superjohn]

they've also made 6 finals, same as UConn and 2x Nova

You must be a Bills fan.

 

[7774]

b/c then i'd have to include Michigan. these are the objective modern era bball rankings, which began in 1975 when the tourney expanded to 32. the criteria for inclusion is reaching a Final and the values for each round are based on the fibonacci sequence, starting with 1. A school like UConn that's had most of its success post-1985 when the tourney expanded to 64 gets dinged but so does a school like UCLA which had most of its success pre-1975. in other words, it's a balance of past and present.

Rank 1975+	School	Bids	x1	Sweet 16	x2	Elite 8	x3	Final 4	x5	Final	x8	Champ	x13	Total
1	Duke	42	42	30	60	21	63	15	77	10	80	5	65	387
2	UNC	46	46	31	62	22	66	15	75	9	72	5	65	386
3	UK	42	42	30	60	22	56	11	55	7	56	4	52	321
4	KU	43	43	24	48	16	48	10	50	6	48	3	39	276
5	UConn	27	27	17	34	12	36	7	35	6	48	6	78	258
6	Lville	36	36	21	42	12	36	8	40	3	24	3	39	217
7	UCLA	38	38	23	46	11	33	8	40	4	32	2	26	215
8	MSU	36	36	20	40	13	39	9	45	3	24	2	26	210
9	IU	39	39	18	36	8	24	5	25	4	32	3	39	195
10	UF	25	25	12	24	10	30	6	30	4	32	3	39	180
11	UM	27	27	15	30	10	30	6	30	6	48	1	13	178
12	Nova	31	31	13	26	10	30	5	25	3	24	3	39	175
13	Cuse	37	37	21	42	8	24	6	30	3	24	1	13	170
14	Zona	38	38	21	42	11	33	4	20	2	16	1	13	162
15	Gtown	30	30	11	22	8	24	4	20	3	24	1	13	133
15	Ark	32	32	14	28	8	24	4	20	2	16	1	13	133
17	UVA	26	26	10	20	7	21	4	20	1	8	1	13	108
18	UH	16	16	9	18	6	18	5	25	3	24	0	0	101
19	Zags	27	27	14	28	6	18	2	10	2	16	0	0	99
20	UMD	30	30	14	28	3	9	2	10	1	8	1	13	98
21	Marq	28	28	9	18	4	12	2	10	2	16	1	13	97
22	UNLV	20	20	10	20	5	15	4	20	1	8	1	13	96
23	NCSt	21	21	8	16	4	12	2	10	1	8	1	13	80
24	Baylor	14	14	5	10	3	9	1	5	1	8	1	13	59

“objective rankings” haha

 

[Derucky]

Again, that really depends on the definition. What's yours?

I would go National Championships #1, consistent relevance #2, relative recency #3. UCLA hasn't won the National Championship since 1995, but for some reason, they have never "gone away", even though their heyday was in the 60s and 70s, not recent at all. They are UCLA - the best in the West - I'm envious that Villanova has beaten them multiple times, blowing them out on their court and on National TV at least once. I felt the same thing about Villanova/Kansas until we finally beat that big, stupid bird. UConn played UCLA once, their aforementioned NC year in 1995, and they outran us in the Elite 8, despite 36 from Walter Ray to end his sophomore year. Conversely, no disrespect to them, and they could turn it around at any time, and good luck to their meteoric football team in my humble opinion, Indiana's blue-bloodedness began to fade right about when UConn's began to form despite their 3+ National Championships before the UNLV/Duke/NC/Fab 5/Arkansas era - the early to mid-90's. Michigan and Michigan State have been close, especially MSU with all those and only 2 Natty's, one of which being Magic's defeat of Bird's team, but in my humble opinion, to be a BB, you should have 3+ now, 1 of which that comes since the last 30 years. Villanova clears that hurdle, but even Kansas barely clears that hurdle. After their CONTROVERSIAL defeat of Seton Hall in 1989, if Michigan and the Fab Five had beaten Duke or NC in those back to back years and then beaten Louisville in 2013 or Villanova in 2018, Michigan would supplant Villanova as a Blue Blood, but they did not. Though the bigger and better the football conference, the more they are mostly filled with teams who do not meet this standard of blue-blood, Florida is the only football school who does, whether I like it or not. Calipari was right that Kentucky is a basketball school, and if it wasn't for him trying to corner the market with "diaper-dandy" talent (and then not having them long enough to develop more than one NC team, Kentucky, even with a Tubby Smith as coach, MIGHT have won enough NCs to own the title of best contemporary basketball program over UConn, but I guess we Calipari to thank because they did not.

 

[Derucky]

They had one great coach for 40 years so maybe it was just a fluke. UConn has won more titles and with three coaches.
Then there's the women's team with one coach for 40 years but with 12 titles!
UConn is not a one hit wonder either by coaching longevity or diversity.

They have had too much talent and playing Euroball (basketball as a game and not a physical sport) since Hurley, Laettner, and the Hills left. Krysewski had like 18 Final Fours and 5 Nattys. Do you think Calhoun would accept those percentages?

 

[bendm]

You must be a Bills fan.

So chips post 1975 or 1985 are all that matter? That logic doesn’t support your subjective top 10 ranking

 

[Windham4th]

"National Flag Blue" Blood is the only one that matters

 

[superjohn]

So chips post 1975 or 1985 are all that matter? That logic doesn’t support your top 10 ranking

What? You brought up that Michigan lost a bunch of title games. I responded you must be a Bills fan.

It's crazy to have Michigan over Villanova.

 

[bendm]

What? You brought up that Michigan lost a bunch of title games. I responded you must be a Bills fan.

It's crazy to have Michigan over Villanova.

I brought up the fact that Michigan has made six finals and has 1 chip and you dismissed that as compared to Novas 3 finals and 3 chips. Therefore You seemed to imply that only winning the championship matters but That would be inconsistent with your ranking and your statement that Duke has a bunch of final fours, so please set the record straight. I give the most weight to winning chips of course but making deep tourney runs is also worth something. So What value are you assigning chips versus making the final four in your rankings?

 

[RuffRuff]

What? You brought up that Michigan lost a bunch of title games. I responded you must be a Bills fan.

It's crazy to have Michigan over Villanova.

Not even close. Nova has one of the most iconic NC's in tourney history, a total of 3. Had multiple eras of very good hoops, finished with Jay Wright's run. They're still on the outside.

The most debateable blue blood to me, is UCLA. It's really how much weight an epic run in the 70s is worth, John Wooden, bags of cash, Lou Alcindor.

MSU, Indiana, Nova, Ville, Florida, are all on the outside. Any one of them could be very much in the convo with a title anytime soon.

 

[superjohn]

I brought up the fact that Michigan has made six finals and has 1 chip and you dismissed that as compared to Novas 3 finals and 3 chips. Therefore You seemed to imply that only winning the championship matters but That would be inconsistent with your ranking and your statement that Duke has a bunch of final fours, so please set the record straight. I give the most weight to winning chips of course but making deep tourney runs is also worth something. So What value are you assigning chips versus making the final four in your rankings?

Again, what? I have Duke ranked below UConn.

 

[bendm]

Again, what? I have Duke ranked below UConn.

If chips are all that matters you would have simply ranked the top 10 by number of chips, but you didn’t.

 

[bendm]

Not even close

Hyperbole. You can see the numeric values assigned to each round of the tourney. It’s based on the Fibonacci sequence where the 2 proceeding numbers equal the next, starting with 1. You seem to agree with the top 10 but take great exception to 11 versus 12. That seems subjective.

 

[superjohn]

If chips are all that matters you would have simply ranked the top 10 by number of chips, but you didn’t.

They're not all that matters but they matter way more than anything else.

Having Michigan over Nova is ridiculous.

 

[bendm]

They're not all that matters but they matter way more than anything else.

Having Michigan over Nova is ridiculous.

I did value them more than anything else. But Ok So you’re arguing with the value Ive assigned to winning in each round. Winning a game in the tournament gets progressively harder with each round so the Fibonacci sequence is fitting. How would you assign the values so chips are worth even more? Would you double the value for each successive round? I don’t think it’s twice as hard to win in each successive game but I wouldn’t call you ridiculous for thinking it. But it is kinda ridiculous to say that to someone else with nothing more than a subjective top 10 to back it up.