Blue Bloods and Elites

[Two for Two]

It seems clear that parity is growing in WCBB. Some Blue Bloods are fading while new programs are establishing themselves as elite. Here is my take on the Blue Bloods and Current Elite in rank order. Blue Bloods based on 2 or more Natty's...Current Elite based on multiple Regional Championships in last 15 years. Any thoughts?

Blue Bloods: UCONN, TN, STAN, ND, BAYLOR, SOUTHERN CAL, LA TECH
Current Elite: UCONN, STAN, BAYLOR, NOTRE DAME, S. CAROLINA, LOUISVILLE, MISS ST, MARYLAND

 

[stwainfan]

I think Tennessee has made a lot improvements since Harper came in. The roster next year is loaded. I think the team can challenge for the SEC title.

 

[triaddukefan]

It seems clear that parity is growing in WCBB. Some Blue Bloods are fading while new programs are establishing themselves as elite. Here is my take on the Blue Bloods and Current Elite in rank order. Blue Bloods based on 2 or more Natty's...Current Elite based on multiple Regional Championships in last 15 years. Any thoughts?

Blue Bloods: UCONN, TN, STAN, ND, BAYLOR, SOUTHERN CAL, LA TECH
Current Elite: UCONN, STAN, BAYLOR, NOTRE DAME, S. CAROLINA, LOUISVILLE, MISS ST, MARYLAND

Miss State? Say what?

 

[BRS24]

Gotta say, I really hate the term "Blue Bloods". Always thought it was incredibly elitist on the MBB side, as no one ever wanted to talk about anyone else but UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke. And the definition is - "membership in a noble or socially prominent family", which reeks of those schools that were perennially at the top, although, upon some thought, was UCLA ever considered a BB? IMHO there are also other connotations of that phrase, but not necessarily on the WBB side.

Thinking about this, what are the phrases used for the historical favorites and champions such as TN and others?

 

[triaddukefan]

Not sure if WBB had been around long enough to have true blue bloods.

Gotta say, I really hate the term "Blue Bloods". Always thought it was incredibly elitist on the MBB side, as no one ever wanted to talk about anyone else but UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke. And the definition is - "membership in a noble or socially prominent family", which reeks of those schools that were perennially at the top, although, upon some thought, was UCLA ever considered a BB? IMHO there are also other connotations of that phrase, but not necessarily on the WBB side.

Thinking about this, what are the phrases used for the historical favorites and champions such as TN and others?

I don't really consider Duke to be a true blue blood on the men's side.

 

[BRS24]

Not sure if WBB had been around long enough to have true blue bloods.



I don't really consider Duke to be a true blue blood on the men's side.

It could just be my perception of the media portrayal, although last week, whoever was on a halftime show must have said the word "elite" at least 5x when talking about Duke, the players, the coach, the program, specific plays, ad nauseam.

 

[UcMiami]

I think you should include TX and maybe UNC in the historic category and drop MsSt from the latter as they really had a very short run..

I agree that blue blood is not a good term with some negative connotations.

 

[Two for Two]

Gotta say, I really hate the term "Blue Bloods". Always thought it was incredibly elitist on the MBB side, as no one ever wanted to talk about anyone else but UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke. And the definition is - "membership in a noble or socially prominent family", which reeks of those schools that were perennially at the top, although, upon some thought, was UCLA ever considered a BB? IMHO there are also other connotations of that phrase, but not necessarily on the WBB side.

Thinking about this, what are the phrases used for the historical favorites and champions such as TN and others?

Yeah, not sure what the "right" term is for the historical favorites...but I think they (or at least) many their fans still see their programs as "above" some of the new elite...and find it hard to acknowledge them. So kind of elitist.

 

[triaddukefan]

I think you should include TX and maybe UNC in the historic category and drop MsSt from the latter as they really had a very short run..

Hey hey hey

 

[nwhoopfan]

Not sure if WBB had been around long enough to have true blue bloods.

Exactly. And if anyone qualifies, I think UConn and Tennessee are the only 2 who would be comparable to what are considered blue bloods on the men's side. Maybe Stanford? Baylor hasn't been good for long enough to qualify.

Some of those early successful programs have faded so far that you can't seriously consider them to be in an elite category--Old Dominion, Louisiana Tech, USC.

One other thing. In men's hoops, the programs transcend star players or a mega successful coach. Blue bloods have known success throughout different eras and multiple different coaches. With women's hoops having much less history, many of what have been considered the best programs have done that under only one coach. Tennessee hasn't been nearly the same without Pat. Eventually we will find out what happens to UConn and Stanford without Geno and Tara. Baylor is probably gonna fade quickly without Mulkey. Duke since Gail left, big downturn. Texas is promising with Vic, but they've never gotten close to what they were w/ Conradt so far, etc. etc.

 

[UcMiami]

Hey hey hey

Was waiting for you!
I thought about Duke, but their best period sort of straddled this former/current divide.

To some degree the universe of Pat/Sylvia/Rene/Jody/etc. ... ruled the transition from AIAW to NCAA - Tara was the junior member of that group until she disappear into the far west!

And then along came Geno (trained by that turncoat Debbie Ryan)

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Exactly. And if anyone qualifies, I think UConn and Tennessee are the only 2 who would be comparable to what are considered blue bloods on the men's side. Maybe Stanford? Baylor hasn't been good for long enough to qualify.

Some of those early successful programs have faded so far that you can't seriously consider them to be in an elite category--Old Dominion, Louisiana Tech, USC.

One other thing. In men's hoops, the programs transcend star players or a mega successful coach. Blue bloods have known success throughout different eras and multiple different coaches. With women's hoops having much less history, many of what have been considered the best programs have done that under only one coach. Tennessee hasn't been nearly the same without Pat. Eventually we will find out what happens to UConn and Stanford without Geno and Tara. Baylor is probably gonna fade quickly without Mulkey. Duke since Gail left, big downturn. Texas is promising with Vic, but they've never gotten close to what they were w/ Conradt so far, etc. etc.

I don't really know what a blue blood is. I guess you could say a program that has flourished under multiple coaches for many years.

There aren't really too many multi-coach Big successes in WBB.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I don't really know what a blue blood is. I guess you could say a program that has flourished under multiple coaches for many years.

There aren't really too many multi-coach Big successes in WBB.

I kind of think of it like "old money." You can get filthy rich now, but you'll be nouveau riche, not old money.

Are there ANY multi coach big successes in WBB? I honestly can't think of one.

 

[triaddukefan]

Was waiting for you!
I thought about Duke, but their best period sort of straddled this former/current divide.

To some degree the universe of Pat/Sylvia/Rene/Jody/etc. ... ruled the transition from AIAW to NCAA - Tara was the junior member of that group until she disappear into the far west!

And then along came Geno (trained by that turncoat Debbie Ryan)

I wasn't complaining about Duke not being listed. That other school you listed though......

 

[DefenseBB]

So as there are 40 years of NCAA Titles (1982-2022) and another 11ish of the AIAW Titles from 1972-1982. The 1982 season was split as 3 top 20 teams (#8 Rutgers-Chris Daily!, #5 Texas, #11 Villanova) stayed in the AIAW Tournament while everyone else bolted to the NCAA.

As noted, very few programs have had multiple coaches success during the 50+ years. But yes, in the 50 years, you can bifurcate into before 2000 and after to make it simple. Teams would need to have had good success in both halves of the bifurcation. Old Dominion, La Tech, USC,

Tennessee, UConn and Stanford are clearly BlueBloods. Other "pedigree" teams would be Texas, LSU, Georgia, NC State, North Carolina, Duke, Maryland (yes before Brenda, the Terps were good), Vanderbilt are few that had pre-2000 noted success and post 2000 success. Notre Dame made the Final Four in 1997 so they also qualify.

This link shows the listing of NCAA qualifying by school and year (scroll halfway down) so you can see schools with success on both sides of the year 2000. It is sorted by # of appearances.

NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Two for Two]

I like the term pedigreed for the teams you mention above...but are they still elite? I ask that because that term "elite" is used so much in the media to hype programs or matchups between teams. How many years can you go not making the elite 8 or final four and still be considered elite? Is there a better measure than on court performance. Some will point to their hall of fame bound coach or number of McDonald All Americans or fan attendance, but what really matters?

 

[UcMiami]

When I was looking at various school records in NCAA I was surprised that LSU had a streak of 5 FF from 2004-2008 (spanning three coaches) and never reached the FF before or since. They had one E8 game in 1986 and another in 2003 and that was it. Surprised me.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

When I was looking at various school records in NCAA I was surprised that LSU had a streak of 5 FF from 2004-2008 (spanning three coaches) and never reached the FF before or since. They had one E8 game in 1986 and another in 2003 and that was it. Surprised me.

That one I actually knew, probably because RU beat them in the 2007 FF. Didn't realize the 3 coaches, or that they did make it in 2008. During the 2007 final four they actually had an interim as Pokey had just been fired. Bob Starkey. He later coached with Gary Blair.

Pokey was an interim in 2004, the wins were credited to Sue Gunther, but she was too ill to coach. Van Chancellor the last year, I guess.

 

[ThatCG1801]

It seems clear that parity is growing in WCBB. Some Blue Bloods are fading while new programs are establishing themselves as elite. Here is my take on the Blue Bloods and Current Elite in rank order. Blue Bloods based on 2 or more Natty's...Current Elite based on multiple Regional Championships in last 15 years. Any thoughts?

Blue Bloods: UCONN, TN, STAN, ND, BAYLOR, SOUTHERN CAL, LA TECH
Current Elite: UCONN, STAN, BAYLOR, NOTRE DAME, S. CAROLINA, LOUISVILLE, MISS ST, MARYLAND

Mississippi State?!?! Huh?

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I kind of think of it like "old money." You can get filthy rich now, but you'll be nouveau riche, not old money.

Are there ANY multi coach big successes in WBB? I honestly can't think of one.

I'm not sure. Did La Tech have two coaches win titles?

 

[garddog]

There are elite coaches in WBB. Not sure any program can be called elite till they do it under multiple coaches.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'm not sure. Did La Tech have two coaches win titles?

Sonja Hogg and Leon Barmore. Hogg was head coach the first 2 championships, Barmore the last. 1 of Hogg's was AIAW.

The year after the 2nd championship, they became "co-head coaches" for several years until Hogg left.

 

[diggerfoot]

I question the premise that parity is growing. High School involvement actually has been shrinking during the new millennium, making the pool smaller, which generally favors those at the top.

The proof is in the pudding though, what is the proof that parity is here. Starting the season there were three favorites thought to be above the rest, they all made the Final Four. Each year there are three or four favorites and a winner outside those three or four seldom occurs, the last time being Texas A&M.

The period when Uconn won four straight had more lower seeds in the Final Four, one of them a seventh seed, than since then.

You can point to the most double digit seeds winning this year as evidence, but they did not last.

You can point to more different teams winning than just UConn and Tennessee as evidence. This is valid, but only to the extent that the three or four teams above the rest each year now rotate more. There still seems to be a concentration at the too that favors three or four teams at a time.

 

[visitingcock]

There are elite coaches in WBB. Not sure any program can be called elite till they do it under multiple coaches.

I agree:

In football, Bama is a blue blood because of Bear and Saban. Etc etc.

Women’s basketball simply hasn’t been around long enough for there to be true blue bloods but UConn has to be considered the king of the hill.

Maybe Tennessee and Notre Dame can return.

I’m happy with new blood elite

 

[SECbbfan24]

When I was looking at various school records in NCAA I was surprised that LSU had a streak of 5 FF from 2004-2008 (spanning three coaches) and never reached the FF before or since. They had one E8 game in 1986 and another in 2003 and that was it. Surprised me.

LSU was a bunch of chokers with some of those rosters to not get it done