Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
61 - 80 of 110 Posts

·
Registered
St. Bonaventure
Joined
·
6,769 Posts
Interesting read on Pat Kelsey's last minute change of heart on taking the UMass job. In part:

"Kelsey played for the late Skip Prosser at Xavier and was his assistant at Wake Forest until a summer day in 2007 when Prosser died in his office after jogging. He walked away from a five year, $4 million deal in Amherst that would’ve quadrupled his income. No official reason was given, but word had it that two UMass players had asked Kelsey if they’d be getting the same financial arrangement they had with deposed coach Derek Kellogg. Those two players are still in the game and playing for a team that’s in the NCAA title hunt". You can probably make a good guess on the two players alleged to be involved.

Keeping Score: Potential that wasn’t:
Considering the tenures of Calipari, Ford, Kellogg, and now Bergeron, it’s doubtful such activity was isolated to Jarreau and Gresham.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #64 ·
These days, I think the "blue blood" list pretty much stops after North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, and (I guess) Indiana.
I'm okay with a "if we're debating them, then they probably aren't" policy. Which would make it:

Unanimous: Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, UCLA
Probably: Duke, Syracuse, Louisville, Michigan State
Up For Debate: Indiana, Florida, UConn, Villanova
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
Any "unanimous" blue blood list that doesn't include Duke isn't worth the pixels we read it on.
See, that's what we all thought until the whole "Old Money" thing was brought up and I looked up some stuff. If a blue blood is someone who's a dominant power in college basketball usually, and pretty much always has been... does Duke meet the "always has been?"

A handy resource is the "Top 20 most winning-est programs of the decade" lists the NCAA has. Kentucky (9), and UNC and Kansas (7 of 9 decades) have just ALWAYS BEEN POWERS. UCLA doesn't show up quite as much, but the different Wooden, Harrick, Howland eras had titles/Final Fours; and they dominated their conference in the 1920s and 1930s.

Indiana doesn't make the list until the 70s and is gone by the 90s. Always a national power? Before Bob Knight showed up in 1971, they won 3 Big Ten titles ever.
Duke... never makes the list until the 1990s. Duke has 44 NCAA bids.... but 6 in the first 35 years with zero titles.

90% of Duke's success and 80% of Indiana's came under Coach K and Bob Knight. Their EMERGENCE as national powers just coincided with basketball being on TV, so "no one remembers when they weren't national powers" and they get lumped in with UK, KU and UCLA, who've been national powers for 90 years.

People will refer to Syracuse and Michigan State as "New bloods" when SU, MSU and Duke all became national powers around the same time: Syracuse was in the 1975 Final Four, Duke was in the 1978 Final Four, Michigan State won the 1979 National Championship.

Duke has been the best program of the last 45 years, hands down. But if the distinction is "Old Money vs New Money" then how long do you have to hold New Money before it becomes Old Money? I don't think the list of Blue bloods can be 6 teams, it's either 4 or 8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,017 Posts
If "always has been" is part of the definition, then nobody else can ever become a blue blood. I also wonder if UCLA still belongs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
See, that's what we all thought until the whole "Old Money" thing was brought up and I looked up some stuff. If a blue blood is someone who's a dominant power in college basketball usually, and pretty much always has been... does Duke meet the "always has been?"

A handy resource is the "Top 20 most winning-est programs of the decade" lists the NCAA has. Kentucky (9), and UNC and Kansas (7 of 9 decades) have just ALWAYS BEEN POWERS. UCLA doesn't show up quite as much, but the different Wooden, Harrick, Howland eras had titles/Final Fours; and they dominated their conference in the 1920s and 1930s.

Indiana doesn't make the list until the 70s and is gone by the 90s. Always a national power? Before Bob Knight showed up in 1971, they won 3 Big Ten titles ever.
Duke... never makes the list until the 1990s. Duke has 44 NCAA bids.... but 6 in the first 35 years with zero titles.

90% of Duke's success and 80% of Indiana's came under Coach K and Bob Knight. Their EMERGENCE as national powers just coincided with basketball being on TV, so "no one remembers when they weren't national powers" and they get lumped in with UK, KU and UCLA, who've been national powers for 90 years.

People will refer to Syracuse and Michigan State as "New bloods" when SU, MSU and Duke all became national powers around the same time: Syracuse was in the 1975 Final Four, Duke was in the 1978 Final Four, Michigan State won the 1979 National Championship.

Duke has been the best program of the last 45 years, hands down. But if the distinction is "Old Money vs New Money" then how long do you have to hold New Money before it becomes Old Money? I don't think the list of Blue bloods can be 6 teams, it's either 4 or 8.
Lumping Duke and Syracuse together is jarringly off no matter when they first started getting good. Duke gets one/two seeds and wins national titles, Syracuse has to 'good loss' their way every year.

There are only four programs in the country that have more Final Fours than the difference of Final Fours between Duke and Syracuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
See, that's what we all thought until the whole "Old Money" thing was brought up and I looked up some stuff. If a blue blood is someone who's a dominant power in college basketball usually, and pretty much always has been... does Duke meet the "always has been?"

A handy resource is the "Top 20 most winning-est programs of the decade" lists the NCAA has. Kentucky (9), and UNC and Kansas (7 of 9 decades) have just ALWAYS BEEN POWERS. UCLA doesn't show up quite as much, but the different Wooden, Harrick, Howland eras had titles/Final Fours; and they dominated their conference in the 1920s and 1930s.

Indiana doesn't make the list until the 70s and is gone by the 90s. Always a national power? Before Bob Knight showed up in 1971, they won 3 Big Ten titles ever.
Duke... never makes the list until the 1990s. Duke has 44 NCAA bids.... but 6 in the first 35 years with zero titles.

90% of Duke's success and 80% of Indiana's came under Coach K and Bob Knight. Their EMERGENCE as national powers just coincided with basketball being on TV, so "no one remembers when they weren't national powers" and they get lumped in with UK, KU and UCLA, who've been national powers for 90 years.

People will refer to Syracuse and Michigan State as "New bloods" when SU, MSU and Duke all became national powers around the same time: Syracuse was in the 1975 Final Four, Duke was in the 1978 Final Four, Michigan State won the 1979 National Championship.

Duke has been the best program of the last 45 years, hands down. But if the distinction is "Old Money vs New Money" then how long do you have to hold New Money before it becomes Old Money? I don't think the list of Blue bloods can be 6 teams, it's either 4 or 8.
It basically comes down to if the existing "old money" accepts you as part of their group (essentially when someone new becomes a member of royalty by being granted a title or something, moving forward their family would be "blue bloods"). If you never get that title, then you're still a wealthy member of the elites, just not part of the extra exclusive club.

I personally feel like the other blue bloods might consider Duke one of their own at this point. Syracuse not so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
A handy resource is the "Top 20 most winning-est programs of the decade" lists the NCAA has. Kentucky (9), and UNC and Kansas (7 of 9 decades) have just ALWAYS BEEN POWERS. UCLA doesn't show up quite as much, but the different Wooden, Harrick, Howland eras had titles/Final Fours; and they dominated their conference in the 1920s and 1930s.
Sports reference begs to differ. Did you mean they were dominated BY their conference in the 20s and 30s? UCLA Bruins Index | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

They didn't dominate anyone until Wooden. Speaking of pre-greasy greasy.

Indiana doesn't make the list until the 70s and is gone by the 90s. Always a national power? Before Bob Knight showed up in 1971, they won 3 Big Ten titles ever.
Duke... never makes the list until the 1990s. Duke has 44 NCAA bids.... but 6 in the first 35 years with zero titles.

90% of Duke's success and 80% of Indiana's came under Coach K and Bob Knight. Their EMERGENCE as national powers just coincided with basketball being on TV, so "no one remembers when they weren't national powers" and they get lumped in with UK, KU and UCLA, who've been national powers for 90 years.

People will refer to Syracuse and Michigan State as "New bloods" when SU, MSU and Duke all became national powers around the same time: Syracuse was in the 1975 Final Four, Duke was in the 1978 Final Four, Michigan State won the 1979 National Championship.

Duke has been the best program of the last 45 years, hands down. But if the distinction is "Old Money vs New Money" then how long do you have to hold New Money before it becomes Old Money? I don't think the list of Blue bloods can be 6 teams, it's either 4 or 8.
Sort this by Nattys or FF's.. School Index | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Then nitpick about blue bloods. Duke had some significant non-K success.

My blue bloods are Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, Duke.
My old but good bloods are Indiana, Ohio State, Louisville
My new blood is Michigan State

SU would be nowhere to be found. They literally had no success outside of Boeheim. Although he's been very good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,748 Posts
Sports reference begs to differ. Did you mean they were dominated BY their conference in the 20s and 30s? UCLA Bruins Index | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

They didn't dominate anyone until Wooden. Speaking of pre-greasy greasy.


Sort this by Nattys or FF's.. School Index | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Then nitpick about blue bloods. Duke had some significant non-K success.

My blue bloods are Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, Duke.
My old but good bloods are Indiana, Ohio State, Louisville
My new blood is Michigan State

SU would be nowhere to be found. They literally had no success outside of Boeheim. Although he's been very good.
UNC should be on your list?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #73 ·
Hey, I'm all in favor of shitting on Syracuse. I'd like to burn the campus to the ground and salt the earth so nothing there ever grows again.

But to me, that's an argument for saying there's LESS bluebloods, and not including Duke.

Kansas, UNC and Kentucky are no-doubt bluebloods because they've been national contenders in pretty much ever generation of college basketball. Those PROGRAMS are bluebloods. Coaches come and go, but UK/UNC each won titles in 5 different decades. Kansas is at 3 decades. They seem to fall short more often but are always in the mix.

UCLA's Wooden dynasty, PLUS the Harrick/Howland Final Fours/Title gives them that status in our mind. It's like Wooden Dynasty + Matching Syracuse = Blue Blood.

Indiana is probably somewhere between that status (2 titles, no Dynasty) + Bobby Knight. Towards the end of Knight's run, they looked an awful lot like Syracuse now (although the Zone gives them deep runs that makes them look like title contenders from the bubble).

Now, Duke has the Coach K 35-year run of elite excellence. It's basically like a "modern-era Dynasty" like the Salary Cap era pros have the Patriots winning 6 in 25 years, but no one's winning four straight like the 1980-83 New York Islanders, or 8 of 11 like the Celtics. I can see the all-time stats on Final Fours and National Championships and Duke under Coach K is a freaking machine. But can anyone definitely say that's the PROGRAM and not exclusively Coach K?


And I would like to point out that the NCAA Tournament spent a few decades being open to only 8 or 16 conference champions when only 60% of college hoops was in conferences. The 85+ predominantly northeast schools -- Nova, most of us A-10 schools and Syracuse, et al - were independents. Then they had regional qualifying tournaments for us in the 70s, but the NIT from 1938 til the mid 60s was far more significant. Marquette declined an NCAA bid to go to the NIT instead as late as 1971! ). So some of the "National Championship" stats and Final Fours are misleading during the Dueling Tournaments era.

And I do think we put too much stock in Natty's vs consistency given the nature of the tournament. Kansas has 3 titles, not like Coach K's five. But despite the long title droughts in their history, they compete for one pretty much every damned year. Kansas has been a Top 20 team 64 years in the last 72 seasons. That's twice as long as Coach K has been doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Hey, I'm all in favor of shitting on Syracuse. I'd like to burn the campus to the ground and salt the earth so nothing there ever grows again.

But to me, that's an argument for saying there's LESS bluebloods, and not including Duke.

Kansas, UNC and Kentucky are no-doubt bluebloods because they've been national contenders in pretty much ever generation of college basketball. Those PROGRAMS are bluebloods. Coaches come and go, but UK/UNC each won titles in 5 different decades. Kansas is at 3 decades. They seem to fall short more often but are always in the mix.

UCLA's Wooden dynasty, PLUS the Harrick/Howland Final Fours/Title gives them that status in our mind. It's like Wooden Dynasty + Matching Syracuse = Blue Blood.

Indiana is probably somewhere between that status (2 titles, no Dynasty) + Bobby Knight. Towards the end of Knight's run, they looked an awful lot like Syracuse now (although the Zone gives them deep runs that makes them look like title contenders from the bubble).

Now, Duke has the Coach K 35-year run of elite excellence. It's basically like a "modern-era Dynasty" like the Salary Cap era pros have the Patriots winning 6 in 25 years, but no one's winning four straight like the 1980-83 New York Islanders, or 8 of 11 like the Celtics. I can see the all-time stats on Final Fours and National Championships and Duke under Coach K is a freaking machine. But can anyone definitely say that's the PROGRAM and not exclusively Coach K?


And I would like to point out that the NCAA Tournament spent a few decades being open to only 8 or 16 conference champions when only 60% of college hoops was in conferences. The 85+ predominantly northeast schools -- Nova, most of us A-10 schools and Syracuse, et al - were independents. Then they had regional qualifying tournaments for us in the 70s, but the NIT from 1938 til the mid 60s was far more significant. Marquette declined an NCAA bid to go to the NIT instead as late as 1971! ). So some of the "National Championship" stats and Final Fours are misleading during the Dueling Tournaments era.

And I do think we put too much stock in Natty's vs consistency given the nature of the tournament. Kansas has 3 titles, not like Coach K's five. But despite the long title droughts in their history, they compete for one pretty much every damned year. Kansas has been a Top 20 team 64 years in the last 72 seasons. That's twice as long as Coach K has been doing it.
Duke was in the national title game twice and Final Four four times before Coach K. Syracuse has been in the national title game three times and Final Four six times ever.

If you get rid of Coach K's five championships and ignore his entire tenure then you can compare Duke and Syracuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,261 Posts
Geno Auriemma would like to talk to you about dynasties and blue bloods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,017 Posts
Hey, I'm all in favor of shitting on Syracuse. I'd like to burn the campus to the ground and salt the earth so nothing there ever grows again.

But to me, that's an argument for saying there's LESS bluebloods, and not including Duke.

Kansas, UNC and Kentucky are no-doubt bluebloods because they've been national contenders in pretty much ever generation of college basketball. Those PROGRAMS are bluebloods. Coaches come and go, but UK/UNC each won titles in 5 different decades. Kansas is at 3 decades. They seem to fall short more often but are always in the mix.

UCLA's Wooden dynasty, PLUS the Harrick/Howland Final Fours/Title gives them that status in our mind. It's like Wooden Dynasty + Matching Syracuse = Blue Blood.

Indiana is probably somewhere between that status (2 titles, no Dynasty) + Bobby Knight. Towards the end of Knight's run, they looked an awful lot like Syracuse now (although the Zone gives them deep runs that makes them look like title contenders from the bubble).

Now, Duke has the Coach K 35-year run of elite excellence. It's basically like a "modern-era Dynasty" like the Salary Cap era pros have the Patriots winning 6 in 25 years, but no one's winning four straight like the 1980-83 New York Islanders, or 8 of 11 like the Celtics. I can see the all-time stats on Final Fours and National Championships and Duke under Coach K is a freaking machine. But can anyone definitely say that's the PROGRAM and not exclusively Coach K?


And I would like to point out that the NCAA Tournament spent a few decades being open to only 8 or 16 conference champions when only 60% of college hoops was in conferences. The 85+ predominantly northeast schools -- Nova, most of us A-10 schools and Syracuse, et al - were independents. Then they had regional qualifying tournaments for us in the 70s, but the NIT from 1938 til the mid 60s was far more significant. Marquette declined an NCAA bid to go to the NIT instead as late as 1971! ). So some of the "National Championship" stats and Final Fours are misleading during the Dueling Tournaments era.

And I do think we put too much stock in Natty's vs consistency given the nature of the tournament. Kansas has 3 titles, not like Coach K's five. But despite the long title droughts in their history, they compete for one pretty much every damned year. Kansas has been a Top 20 team 64 years in the last 72 seasons. That's twice as long as Coach K has been doing it.
To continue the debate regarding Duke and UCLA. If Duke should be considered exclusively Coach K, then should UCLA be considered exclusively John Wooden? UCLA has won 11 national championships, ten of which were under Wooden from 1964 to 1975. The other National Championship was under Harrick in '95. Wooden coached UCLA for 27 years from 1948 until 1975. Those years count but Coach K's 35 years don't?
 
61 - 80 of 110 Posts
Top