Blue Blood - does Florida qualify?

[bendm]

Do people judge MLB franchises or NBA franchises historically based on making the playoffs or winning a round?

No but I would never compare the nba and the ncaa that’s just silly. You also dodged the question

 

[superjohn]

No but I would never compare the nba and the ncaa that’s just silly. You also dodged the question

I already said putting a numerical value to national championships is silly.

Where would Syracuse rank for you as a program based on your chart in relation to UConn before 2023 and before 2014?

 

[superjohn]

So if it’s silly then how does your ranking factor in the other things you mentioned like final fours? How much weight do they carry by comparison? Is it just a feeling that’s very serious and not at all silly?

I'll ask for a third time.

Where would Syracuse rank for you as a program based on your chart in relation to UConn before 2023 and before 2014?

 

[bendm]

I'll ask for a third time.

Where would Syracuse rank for you as a program based on your chart in relation to UConn before 2023 and before 2014?

And I’ll ask for a fourth time, if it’s silly then how exactly does your ranking factor in the other things you mentioned like final fours? How much weight do they carry by comparison to chips? Is it all based on a very serious feeling that’s not at all silly?

Idk where Cuse would rank in a given year id have to recalculate based on their respective tourney success to that cutoff date but it currently factors in tourney success from 1975-2025.

 

[superjohn]

And I’ll ask for a fourth time, if it’s silly then how exactly does your ranking factor in the other things you mentioned like final fours? How much weight do they carry by comparison to chips? Is it all based on a very serious feeling that’s not at all silly?

Idk where Cuse would rank in a given year id have to recalculate based on their respective tourney success to that cutoff date but it currently factors in tourney success from 1975-2025.

Final 4's don't carry much weight with me at all, it's all about national championships. It's why I have UConn ahead of Duke, I already said this.

My guess is you would've had Syracuse ahead of UConn as a program before 2014 and possibly had Syracuse ahead of UConn before 2023. I would like you to weigh in on this.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Michigan's one title is probably the most controversial win in the last 50 years too, with an absolutely terrible call to simply hand Michigan the win.

They are not remotely close to Villanova until they win again.

 

[bendm]

Final 4's don't carry much weight with me at all, it's all about national championships. It's why I have UConn ahead of Duke, I already said this.

My guess is you would've had Syracuse ahead of UConn as a program before 2014 and possibly had Syracuse ahead of UConn before 2023. I would like you to weigh in on this.

You’ve made it crystal clear how you rank UConn against Duke and that’s about it. I’m not going through the trouble of recalculating UConn versus Cuse in 2014 and 2023

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The "Blue Bloods" door may be closing for good. Championships are simply going to be purchased going forward, so tradition and reputation are going to become irrelevant. There is no point in having a designation if it is simply a measure of which university wants to blow the most cash on its affiliated professional team.

Baseball will be the model. The Dodgers and Yankees are not blue bloods, they are simply the two markets with the most money. Astros, Rangers, Red Sox and Giants all challenge, all from big, wealthy metro areas. The next 10 franchises are fighting for scraps, and everyone after that does not matter, they may collectively make 1 or 2 World Series every decade.

 

[RuffRuff]

The "Blue Bloods" door may be closing for good. Championships are simply going to be purchased going forward, so tradition and reputation are going to become irrelevant. There is no point in having a designation if it is simply a measure of which university wants to blow the most cash on its affiliated professional team.

Baseball will be the model. The Dodgers and Yankees are not blue bloods, they are simply the two markets with the most money. Astros, Rangers, Red Sox and Giants all challenge, all from big, wealthy metro areas. The next 10 franchises are fighting for scraps, and everyone after that does not matter, they may collectively make 1 or 2 World Series every decade.

Twas my argument on why the Cinderella is dead and tourneys will be chalky. Economics driving a massive wedge in the talent gap.

 

[auror]

Only thing I have to add is that Duke was anointed Blue Blood almost immediately after winning three or four without much debate. Their history is only 8 years more than ours (yes, they had some final fours before that). Their first in 91, our first in 99. And their last is 8 years older than our last. Just saying they don't have some UNC, UCLA, Kentucky history to them.

Duke does have UNC/UCLA/Kentucky history to them as long as you're not strictly talking about titles. "Some final fours" is a funny way of saying 8 final fours before 1991 (which is still more than UConn has as a program now). They literally lost to UCLA and UK in title games in the 60s and 70s. They have more wins overall as a program than UCLA. UConn has like 500 less. They're 5th in tournament appearances, and the ones above them are all the names you'd expect (UK, Kansas, UCLA, UNC). They were anointed without fanfare because they already fit all the aspects. We're 14th in bids. They're 4th in Sweet 16s (UK, UNC, UCLA, then them), we're 12th.

 

[Hoophound]

Duke does have UNC/UCLA/Kentucky history to them as long as you're not strictly talking about titles. "Some final fours" is a funny way of saying 8 final fours before 1991 (which is still more than UConn has as a program now). They literally lost to UCLA and UK in title games in the 60s and 70s. They have more wins overall as a program than UCLA. UConn has like 500 less. They're 5th in tournament appearances, and the ones above them are all the names you'd expect (UK, Kansas, UCLA, UNC). They were anointed without fanfare because they already fit all the aspects. We're 14th in bids. They're 4th in Sweet 16s (UK, UNC, UCLA, then them), we're 12th.

We’re definitely new money compared to Duke and UK, but to younger people, 35 years of excellence isn’t new money.

 

[businesslawyer]

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..

What are you, a lawyer? Taking the fun out of everything? (Not that you’re not right.)

 

[NHUConnfan]

What the heck is this list lol

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Twas my argument on why the Cinderella is dead and tourneys will be chalky. Economics driving a massive wedge in the talent gap.

Eh, that is kind of your argument. The problem with your argument is that you think that there is some magic with the "P4". Whatever problems basketball may have with competitiveness, football's are going to be 5x worse. The performance gap between #1 and #50 in hoops will be smaller than the gap between #1 and #15 in football. The performance gap between #1 and #100 in basketball will be smaller than the gap between #1 and #30 in football. Without a major shock to the system, which is unlikely but not out of the question, the future of football is decided. Everyone on the outside today in football, and that includes most of the P4, has already lost. Show is over, train has left the station, ship has sailed, use any analogy you want. It. Is. Over. With basketball, there is potential for movement for a bunch of reasons that are worth their own thread.

 

[Lafayette]

Weird that anyone can put UCLA as a blue blood but does not see that the field was like 18-24 teams for some of theirs and barely expanded for the bulk.

1964!

 

[gtcam]

UConn - 6 championship game appearances with 6 victories - all in the modern/expanded era
Until someone else comes close to that then lets talk (I know UCLA in the 60s)
UConn is the model of consistency in THE most important contest
That's Blueblood stuff

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

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

I’m begging you to stop saying “chip.”

 

[RuffRuff]

Weird that anyone can put UCLA as a blue blood but does not see that the field was like 18-24 teams for some of theirs and barely expanded for the bulk.

1964!

View attachment 115206

UCLA so hard to qualify given their run was pre-modern, but not that long before. It was so impressive, it's hard to discount, having icons like Wooden, Lou, Big Red. They have Pawley, the unis, a NC in the 90s along with other F4's. I suppose they're more like Indiana in some ways, but have show more success recently. They have a F4 as recently as 2021, and made 3 in a row from 2006-2008. I'd put them in based on the aggregate and brand.

 

[Lafayette]

UCLA so hard to qualify given their run was pre-modern, but not that long before. It was so impressive, it's hard to discount, having icons like Wooden, Lou, Big Red. They have Pawley, the unis, a NC in the 90s along with other F4's. I suppose they're more like Indiana in some ways, but have show more success recently. They have a F4 as recently as 2021, and made 3 in a row from 2006-2008. I'd put them in based on the aggregate and brand.

Agree but we got to Elite 8 in ‘64 before it was call that I guess when it expanded the name made sense.

In all things there are “golden ages” and “silver ages” like comic books and baseball.

Guess in college hoops they don’t want that so UCLA was king until Uncle Geno got 12 in the modern era.

So persistence is counting and nattys count but for teams it’s different than players else Robert Horry (Big shot Bob) would be the goat with 7 himself.

However this plays out this season this thread should not be archived as a means to say “who was right and who was just guessing”.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Agree but we got to Elite 8 in ‘64 before it was call that I guess when it expanded the name made sense.

In all things there are “golden ages” and “silver ages” like comic books and baseball.

Guess in college hoops they don’t want that so UCLA was king until Uncle Geno got 12 in the modern era.

So persistence is counting and nattys count but for teams it’s different than players else Robert Horry (Big shot Bob) would be the goat with 7 himself.

However this plays out this season this thread should not be archived as a means to say “who was right and who was just guessing”.

UCLA's championships are really in the gray area. I deeply discount the pre-1966 championships because the NIT was the more prestigious tournament on the east coast until the late 60's, and because many colleges had official or unofficial limits on African American players. UCLA's run mostly post-dates both those things, but not completely, and not by so much that those things were no longer a factor. The tournament's set up was regionalized which gave UCLA a huge advantage, which attracted top talent. Wooden was also a massive cheater. UCLA stopped dominating when the NCAA de-regionalized the tournament, showing a clear cause and effect.

 

[FearThePups]

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

Maybe so, but you have to close the deal.

 

[ctchamps]

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

I'm enjoying the ride following the mens and women's bb programs. Other than a possible recruit wanting to come to UConn because of the hype I couldn't care less about these debates.

However I do have a question as to the valuations given for each category. Shouldn't the values reflect the number of teams that make it into the category. Using the post 85 numbers 64 teams make it into the tourney and are given one point. Why aren't teams that get into the rd of 32 given 2 pts, teams making it into the Sweet 16 given 4 points, teams making it into the round of 8 get 8 points, teams that make it into the final four get 16 points and the champions get 64 points. Do the same math for 75-85 where everything is factored with 32 pts for winning. And go back to 1939 and factor things dependent on total numbers of teams that were involved. Take the aggregate and come up with the numbers. Then there is no need to compromise.

All six of our NCs would garner 64 pts each whereas those championships prior to 85 would get less depending on the numbers entering the tournament.

 

[freescooter]

I would say that I don’t think blue bloods is necessarily defined by championships. It comes from something else. In fact for a number of years until the 70s you could make a case that the NIT was the more prestigious tournament. It was absolutely the more competitive one. And it wasn’t uncommon for teams to decline NCAA bids to play in the NIT or the other way around because they thought they had a better shot in the NCAA even. And the NCAA was pretty limited in who got selected. Conference champs and a few at large teams since many especially in the northeast were not in leagues. So teams didn’t play in the NCAA tournament by choice or because they finished second in their league or even tied for first but lost out by conference rule. At least one had a rule that in case of a tie the team who hadn’t been there the longest got selected. We tend to see the NCAA tournament from 1956 as comparable to 2025. It wasn’t.

But blue blood isn’t just who won the most championships. It applies to teams that helped establish the game and define it over time. So Florida? Nah. Kansas and Kentucky absolutely. UNC and Duke, Yes. UConn? Maybe since we were one of the programs that helped define college basketball in New England along with Holy Cross, PC and Rhode Island. We kept at it. They didn’t. Syracuse is a little like us. Deep roots in the northeast. Long term success. Indiana, yes I think so. Ohio State? Please don’t be silly.

 

[RuffRuff]

I would say that I don’t think blue bloods is necessarily defined by championships. It comes from something else. In fact for a number of years until the 70s you could make a case that the NIT was the more prestigious tournament. It was absolutely the more competitive one. And it wasn’t uncommon for teams to decline NCAA bids to play in the NIT or the other way around because they thought they had a better shot in the NCAA even. And the NCAA was pretty limited in who got selected. Conference champs and a few at large teams since many especially in the northeast were not in leagues. So teams didn’t play in the NCAA tournament by choice or because they finished second in their league or even tied for first but lost out by conference rule. At least one had a rule that in case of a tie the team who hadn’t been there the longest got selected. We tend to see the NCAA tournament from 1956 as comparable to 2025. It wasn’t.

But blue blood isn’t just who won the most championships. It applies to teams that helped establish the game and define it over time. So Florida? Nah. Kansas and Kentucky absolutely. UNC and Duke, Yes. UConn? Maybe since we were one of the programs that helped define college basketball in New England along with Holy Cross, PC and Rhode Island. We kept at it. They didn’t. Syracuse is a little like us. Deep roots in the northeast. Long term success. Indiana, yes I think so. Ohio State? Please don’t be silly.

This is highly subjective - I do think a BB is the combination of objective data plus subjectivity on the more qualitative aspects. A team has to have felt like it's etched in place in history, and at this point post dominant B2B, across 4 decades of NC's, it fits the bill.

 

[bendm]

However I do have a question as to the valuations given for each category. Shouldn't the values reflect the number of teams that make it into the category

Never seen it done like that but I kinda like it.