(07-20-2013 08:47 AM)kardphan Wrote:  

(07-20-2013 07:56 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 02:50 PM)kardphan Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:09 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 03:17 PM)kardphan Wrote:  Yes but at least UCLA has gone to 3 final 4 since 2000. Which is way more than IU can say. They've won a title and been to 3 final 4s to IUs fluke run in 02. UCLA still gets blue blood considerations plus they've made it to a title game. Not many schools can say that.

He said UCLA belonged in the blueblood category but Indiana didn't. Indiana has been to a Final Four in every decade except one if I remember correctly (1960's I wanna say as well as the first year and decade, 1939). They, except in the fallout of the Sampson era, at least remain relevant more often. UCLA's 11 championships look really impressive on the surface but most were won in a 12 year stretch. Otherwise UCLA might as well be Syracuse, which is obviously very good but not blueblood worthy. But of course, you can't ignore that era.

I say all of this to say that they both belong.

I just agree to disagree on Indiana. No blueblood goes on the title drought they have been on. For them to win their first big 10 title since 93 doesn't scream blue blood to me. UK(SEC sucks I know), UNC, Duke, and Kansas have never went on a time lapse between conference titles like IU has. Louisville has more final 4s and NCAA tourney appearances than IU but many consider them a better program. IU has been leap frogged by Duke already and louisville damn near has a better overall resume save titles. I'm not saying IU is not top 7 they clearly are but people want them to be relevant and they are just barely right now. If anyone is being honest with themselves IU "right now" is not a blue blood. They arent close to the top 5. Michigan state has been the class of the big 10 since 97. No blue blood should ever lose grip on the conference crown like IU has.

The blue blood question is always an interesting debate. I think that the only way to resolve it is to set up your criteria first and then see who fits the criteria.

I'm not crazy about conference titles as one of the criteria. The SEC and Big 8/Big XII have always been football-first conferences and for a long time Kentucky and Kansas were the only ones who cared about basketball in those conferences.

The Big Ten has always cared about basketball. They won 2 of the first 3 NCAA tournaments - Indiana and Wisconsin. By 1960, a 3rd Big Ten team, Ohio State had won a title. Michigan State made it 4 in 1979 and Michigan made it 5 in 1989, by which time half the conference had won a tournament title. At that point Kansas and Kentucky were still the only ones to have won a title from their conferences.

The SEC did not produce a 2nd tournament champion until Florida won back-to-back titles 7 years ago. Neither the Big XII not the Big 6/7/8 before it has ever produced a national champion besides Kansas. Oklahoma State's 2 championships back in the 1940s came as an independent before they were a member of the conference.

Im not crazy about conference titles either to be honest. I was more so just saying that Indiana really hasnt been that competitive in their conference in a while. Just saying that the other blue bloods even in down years was still competitive. Of course big 10 is a hell of a lot tougher to win than most but im sure when it comes to resources Indiana has them to remain competitive and they shouldn't be a mid pack big 10 team. The conference is for the most part top heavy. When Maryland, nc st, and wake were really good duke and UNC still held serve. I believe you could stick UK, KU, duke, and UNC in that league and 9 times out of 10 they would all at minimum finish in the top 2. But 93 is a long time ago for IU and their fans take pride in winning that league.

The difference is that Maryland, NC State, and Wake were never really good at the same time unless you want to go back to the 1970s.

Just look at what a monster the Big Ten has been since Indiana last went to a Final Four (2002):

Michigan State (4 Elite 8's, 3 Final 4's)
Ohio State (3 Elite 8's, 1 Final Four)
Michigan (1 Final Four)
Illinois (1 Final Four)
Wisconsin (1 Elite 8)

That's 5 programs succeeding at the highest levels of national competition with 9 Final 4's in the past decade alone. I mean these guys aren't fooling around. In addition, Purdue and Indiana themselves have each been to a couple of Sweet 16's in that same period.

I appreciate that Indiana hasn't been a dominant program recently, but to say that they shouldn't be a mid pack Big ten team ignores what the Big Ten has become in the last 10-12 years.

There is no way that the Big Ten is a top heavy conference. It is a very deep conference and they all have great resources. In recent years there has been a parade of great coaches in that conference . There's no comparison to staying at or near the top of that conference and doing the same in the SEC or Big XII.

As for Indiana going 20 years between conference titles, they did tie for the conference regular season championship in 2002 and then went on to the Final Four. I'd say that was a pretty good year. The year before they were runner up in the conference tournament.

I get what you're saying about them slipping to being mostly just an average Big Ten team for a long time. I just don't want to minimize what they've been up against or compare that with what basketball historically has been in the SEC or Big 8/12.

(07-20-2013 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In my mind here are the College Basketball "blue bloods"

KU
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA

What defines a basketball "blue blood"? What does a program have to do to get on the list?

Kansas has 3 national championships. Louisville has 3 national championships.

Kansas has gone to 14 Final Fours. Louisville has gone to 10 Final Fours. But they also won an NIT back in the 1950's when that was as good as a Final Four. So, that's 11 Final Fours or their equivalent. Is 3 Final Fours the difference between a blue blood and a non-blue blood?

To turn the comparison the other way, what puts Kansas in the same category as Kentucky (8 NC, 15 F4), Duke (4 NC, 15 F4), North Carolina (5 NC, 18 F4), and UCLA (11 NC, 17 F4)? If the gap is too wide between Kansas and Louisville, how does Kansas bridge the gap between them and the other 4, all of whom have more NC and more F4 than they do? And Kansas was coming out of what was historically the weakest region of the country before the tournament introduced the S-curve but still couldn't match what the others accomplished.

(07-21-2013 03:54 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-20-2013 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In my mind here are the College Basketball "blue bloods"

KU
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA

What defines a basketball "blue blood"? What does a program have to do to get on the list?

Kansas has 3 national championships. Louisville has 3 national championships.

Kansas has gone to 14 Final Fours. Louisville has gone to 10 Final Fours. But they also won an NIT back in the 1950's when that was as good as a Final Four. So, that's 11 Final Fours or their equivalent. Is 3 Final Fours the difference between a blue blood and a non-blue blood?

To turn the comparison the other way, what puts Kansas in the same category as Kentucky (8 NC, 15 F4), Duke (4 NC, 15 F4), North Carolina (5 NC, 18 F4), and UCLA (11 NC, 17 F4)? If the gap is too wide between Kansas and Louisville, how does Kansas bridge the gap between them and the other 4, all of whom have more NC and more F4 than they do? And Kansas was coming out of what was historically the weakest region of the country before the tournament introduced the S-curve but still couldn't match what the others accomplished.

It's just my opinion. I have UofL and IU in the "next level down"...you may choose to put them in the Blue Blood category. Reality: it's all opinion and my list isn't any more valid than yours and etc. You can try to quantify things like this with stats and that's all good until you realize that even using stats will create different lists due to the metrics you choose to measure. Again, stats or no stats its all objective.

Indiana is a blueblood, period. It's like saying Notre Dame was not a college football blueblood before last year because they hadn't competed for a national title and had barely been relevant the past couple decades.

All of that history they created matters.

(07-20-2013 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In my mind here are the College Basketball "blue bloods"

KU
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA

Hard to argue with this. Again IU isn't close to the teams above. Again KU, UK, Duke, and UNC have had very few stretches of mediocrity. To say with conviction that IU belongs to be mentioned with those schools above is just inaccurate. IU is firmly in the next group with Louisville, Michigan st, and probably Ohio st but correct me if in wrong i think they have some vacated final 4s?

(07-21-2013 04:19 PM)kardphan Wrote:  

(07-20-2013 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In my mind here are the College Basketball "blue bloods"

KU
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA

Hard to argue with this. Again IU isn't close to the teams above. Again KU, UK, Duke, and UNC have had very few stretches of mediocrity. To say with conviction that IU belongs to be mentioned with those schools above is just inaccurate. IU is firmly in the next group with Louisville, Michigan st, and probably Ohio st but correct me if in wrong i think they have some vacated final 4s?

I wouldn't put OSU with UofL/IU....they would be the next level down from there in my book.

Can't leave IU out...they have won titles under 2 different coaches, a Total of 5 NCAA Titles which only UCLA & Kentucky have more & they have played for the title this century...

Right now you have 7 Elite Programs if you just go by the numbers:
UCLA
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas
Indiana
Louisville

All of the above except IU have double digit Final Fours and all of the above have @ least 3 NCAA Titles under multiple coaches.

The next tier is Michigan State, UConn, Florida, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Ohio State & Arizona IMO.

(07-21-2013 05:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  Can't leave IU out...they have won titles under 2 different coaches, a Total of 5 NCAA Titles which only UCLA & Kentucky have more & they have played for the title this century...

Right now you have 7 Elite Programs if you just go by the numbers:
UCLA
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas
Indiana
Louisville

All of the above except IU have double digit Final Fours and all of the above have @ least 3 NCAA Titles under multiple coaches.

The next tier is Michigan State, UConn, Florida, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Ohio State & Arizona IMO.

I agree with you order but i still say IU hasn't won since 87. All the others have won multiple since then save Kansas and UCLA. That drought of titles just kills the blue blood theory for IU. I never said they wasn't #6 but those others have sustained their success. I do agree with you list though.

With IU what saves them is that they did play for the Title under Mike Davis...

(07-21-2013 05:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  Can't leave IU out...they have won titles under 2 different coaches, a Total of 5 NCAA Titles which only UCLA & Kentucky have more & they have played for the title this century...

Right now you have 7 Elite Programs if you just go by the numbers:
UCLA
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas
Indiana
Louisville

All of the above except IU have double digit Final Fours and all of the above have @ least 3 NCAA Titles under multiple coaches.

The next tier is Michigan State, UConn, Florida, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Ohio State & Arizona IMO.

And as I said, IU has been to a Final Four every decade except the 1960's, even making one in a down decade (the 2000's). That's pretty consistent.

Also Kardphan messed up, Kansas has in fact won multiple titles since 1987 (1988, 2008) and Louisville just won their first since the year before, 1986. And Duke may have multiple titles but that's all they have in their history. You can't say IU isn't a blueblood and Duke is. Before Coach K, Duke was good but nothing special.

(07-21-2013 04:19 PM)kardphan Wrote:  

(07-20-2013 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In my mind here are the College Basketball "blue bloods"

KU
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA

Hard to argue with this. Again IU isn't close to the teams above. Again KU, UK, Duke, and UNC have had very few stretches of mediocrity. To say with conviction that IU belongs to be mentioned with those schools above is just inaccurate. IU is firmly in the next group with Louisville, Michigan st, and probably Ohio st but correct me if in wrong i think they have some vacated final 4s?

I'm just going to go ahead and call you out for putting Michigan St and Ohio St ahead of 3x National Championship winner UConn.

(07-21-2013 05:30 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-21-2013 03:54 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-20-2013 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In my mind here are the College Basketball "blue bloods"

KU
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA

What defines a basketball "blue blood"? What does a program have to do to get on the list?

Kansas has 3 national championships. Louisville has 3 national championships.

Kansas has gone to 14 Final Fours. Louisville has gone to 10 Final Fours. But they also won an NIT back in the 1950's when that was as good as a Final Four. So, that's 11 Final Fours or their equivalent. Is 3 Final Fours the difference between a blue blood and a non-blue blood?

To turn the comparison the other way, what puts Kansas in the same category as Kentucky (8 NC, 15 F4), Duke (4 NC, 15 F4), North Carolina (5 NC, 18 F4), and UCLA (11 NC, 17 F4)? If the gap is too wide between Kansas and Louisville, how does Kansas bridge the gap between them and the other 4, all of whom have more NC and more F4 than they do? And Kansas was coming out of what was historically the weakest region of the country before the tournament introduced the S-curve but still couldn't match what the others accomplished.

It's just my opinion. I have UofL and IU in the "next level down"...you may choose to put them in the Blue Blood category. Reality: it's all opinion and my list isn't any more valid than yours and etc. You can try to quantify things like this with stats and that's all good until you realize that even using stats will create different lists due to the metrics you choose to measure. Again, stats or no stats its all objective.

Okay. That makes sense. There's a certain validity to a list of schools who just conjure up a sense of basketball royalty, schools whose names just have a ring to them due to intangibles which have been built up over years and decades.

No problem with a list that is based on perception.

(07-21-2013 07:13 PM)kardphan Wrote:  

(07-21-2013 05:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  Can't leave IU out...they have won titles under 2 different coaches, a Total of 5 NCAA Titles which only UCLA & Kentucky have more & they have played for the title this century...

Right now you have 7 Elite Programs if you just go by the numbers:
UCLA
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas
Indiana
Louisville

All of the above except IU have double digit Final Fours and all of the above have @ least 3 NCAA Titles under multiple coaches.

The next tier is Michigan State, UConn, Florida, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Ohio State & Arizona IMO.

I agree with you order but i still say IU hasn't won since 87. All the others have won multiple since then save Kansas and UCLA. That drought of titles just kills the blue blood theory for IU. I never said they wasn't #6 but those others have sustained their success. I do agree with you list though.

IU has been to 2 Final Fours since '87.

UCLA went from '81 to '94 without a Final Four. KU went from '58 to '70 without a Final Four. Duke and UCLA weren't even on the landscape before '62.

Doesn't "blue blood" have something to do with a heritage that harkens back to success throughout the history of the sport, not just recent success?

(07-22-2013 04:51 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(07-21-2013 05:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  Can't leave IU out...they have won titles under 2 different coaches, a Total of 5 NCAA Titles which only UCLA & Kentucky have more & they have played for the title this century...

Right now you have 7 Elite Programs if you just go by the numbers:
UCLA
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas
Indiana
Louisville

All of the above except IU have double digit Final Fours and all of the above have @ least 3 NCAA Titles under multiple coaches.

The next tier is Michigan State, UConn, Florida, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Ohio State & Arizona IMO.

And as I said, IU has been to a Final Four every decade except the 1960's, even making one in a down decade (the 2000's). That's pretty consistent.

Also Kardphan messed up, Kansas has in fact won multiple titles since 1987 (1988, 2008) and Louisville just won their first since the year before, 1986. And Duke may have multiple titles but that's all they have in their history. You can't say IU isn't a blueblood and Duke is. Before Coach K, Duke was good but nothing special.

All Duke has in its history is multiple titles? How about this list of Final Fours under 3 different coaches?

1963
1964
1966
1978
1986
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1994
1999
2001
2004
2010

I said Duke had been good before Coach K. Good, but nothing special. Before Coach K's run of 7 Final Fours and 5 national title games in 9 years (1986-94), no one would confuse them with being a blueblood, Houston and San Francisco as a matter of fact were more of a blueblood at that time than Duke though that has obviously changed dramatically in the last 27 years.

(07-22-2013 07:08 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  I said Duke had been good before Coach K. Good, but nothing special. Before Coach K's run of 7 Final Fours and 5 national title games in 9 years (1986-94), no one would confuse them with being a blueblood, Houston and San Francisco as a matter of fact were more of a blueblood at that time than Duke though that has obviously changed dramatically in the last 27 years.

Let's not be so quick to put IU on the same level as Duke just because Duke's credentials rest so heavily on Coach K.

Before Coach Knight, what had IU done? Only 2 Final 4's.

Sure, they were both NCAA championships, but they were way back in 1940 and 1953 when the NIT was a very strong tournament. In 1940, only the 2nd NCAA tournament ever, that tournament had only 8 teams and wasn't yet recognized as the defining event to determine a national champion.

By 1953, the NCAA tournament had expanded to 16 teams and was in a much stronger position. However, the NIT still had a claim on producing the national champs some years. Indiana and Seton Hall, the NIT champ, were ranked 1-2 at the end of that season. Seton Hall had the better record and had earlier been ranked #1. So how did the voters decide on #1 at the end of the season? By looking at who had the last loss. Does that make any sense to you? Those 2 teams were essentially co-champs that year because neither tournament was able to collect the best teams in one tournament field.

The point is that both of IU's national championships before Knight were hardly definitive and those were in fact the school's only Final 4 appearances before Coach Knight. Duke's Final 4's in the 1960's and '70's were solid accomplishments. If you come down on the side of someone else as NC in the contested years of 1940, as the Helms Foundation did, and 1953, as many voters did, then IU has nothing else to fall back on and Duke outnumbers them in Final Fours prior to getting a Hall of Fame coach.

As for Houston, I get that they had a great run under Guy Lewis, but they have never won a national championship in the school's history. How can anyone who has never won a NC be considered a blue blood? And how were Houston's credentials back then more "blue blood" than Duke's? 5 Final Fours vs 4. Hardly a significant difference. And then we revert back to your anti-Duke argument, criticizing Duke for doing it all under one coach. What has Houston ever done when anyone besides Guy Lewis was coaching them?