College Basketball: Sweet and disappointing

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mat,

What are "Blue Blood" teams?  Just for the sake of regional interest it would be fun to see South Carolina v. North Carolina in the final.  You know I was born in North Carolina and have tons of family up that way.  If South Carolina were to, by chance, win (fingers crossed for this weekend and April 3) I have a feeling my North Carolina family would be less than thrilled.

Blue Bloods = UK, UNC, Michigan St, Kansas, Arizona, the school's that are good year in, year out. The don't have to go after recruits, recruits line up for them.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

[Rhom]

2 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

It's so hard to say when the NCAA has been incredibly inconsistent with their penalties in the past. There have been teams treated more harshly for less and teams treated less harshly for more. The NCAA lacks standards and they have not expressed real interest in establishing any. What's more, the tone of the conversation surrounding the controversy frequently carries undertones less of genuine desires for 'just punishment,' but, rather, of sports tribalism flavored with pettiness, rivalry, and holier-than-thou-art smugness. Regardless of what I may think about what UNC has done, I also cannot ignore the hypocrisy of the judgment directed towards UNC either. I doubt that you can honestly tell me that the calls for infractions, including the severity of infractions that people have urged, are motivated entirely by a sense of justice and not the petty tribalism of sports. And when these calls are coming from fans of top conference teams who are pretending that their shit don't stink? Yeah, it's difficult not being miffed about this shit. 

I don't disagree that the NCAA has been inconsistent at all.  However, I don't think that's an excuse to allow programs to run roughshod across the rules into the future either.  The NCAA's inconsistency is particularly egregious in this case because of the changes to the NOI multiple times.  UNC's defense essentially saying that the NCAA has no right to police their fraudulent courses was particularly rubbing the NCAA's nose in it as well and I think that's why we saw men's basketball returned to the allegations.

UofL stepped up and self-imposed a postseason ban.  Personally, I don't think that's enough for the brazen nature of their crime; but the fact that UNC still holds to a position saying "We did nothing wrong" is definitely a step too far.

And yes, we all resort to our tribalism as you say... its what makes sports worthwhile!  If we ever get to a day where a UK fan can't hate a UofL fan, a Big XII fan can't hate Kansas, or the entire sporting world hate Duke; then what sort of ungodly world have we wrought?!!?

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Blue Bloods = UK, UNC, Michigan St, Kansas, Arizona, the school's that are good year in, year out. The don't have to go after recruits, recruits line up for them.

Eh... my definition is a bit more exclusive than that.  (And I don't think I'm alone.)  There are five true "Blue Bloods" in the sport of basketball.  UK, UNC, Kansas, Duke, and UCLA.  Interestingly, they all have blue as a team color too.   

Its not like football where you have at least a dozen schools who try to lay claim to some sort of historical legitimacy.  Those five teams have their own claims to some sort of true royalty to the sport.  UK, UNC, and Kansas for sustained excellence over the better part of a century.  Duke for unrivaled excellence for the past 30 years.   And UCLA for putting together the best decade the sport will ever see and then mostly being pretty decent since.

Michigan State, Arizona, IU, and UofL would be teams I put on the next tier down... but its a long way down.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

37 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Michigan State, Arizona, IU, and UofL would be teams I put on the next tier down... but its a long way down.

I don't disagree with your assessment but this comment makes me wish we had some IU fans on this board. Their level of buttmad would be extreme.    

Speaking of which, the AP just yesterday released its ranking of the all-time top 100 programs. Look who checks in tied for that coveted 100 spot!    

[Rhom]

3 minutes ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

I don't disagree with your assessment but this comment makes me wish we had some IU fans on this board. Their level of buttmad would be extreme.    

Speaking of which, the AP just yesterday released its ranking of the all-time top 100 programs. Look who checks in tied for that coveted 100 spot!    

No one wants to be around IU fans.     You know it wasn't all that long ago (at least I don't like to think of it as that long ago) when IU was tied with Kentucky for the second most titles.  Both schools had five.  Since then though, Kentucky won titles in 96, 98, and 12 while Duke and UNC jumped up even or above IU in the title count.

That article may have made its rounds prominently across several UK fan sites I visit.   

[S John]

For me the UNC thing isn't only about the NCAA double standard with regard to punishing blue bloods, it is also just a little bit of schadenfreude because of WVU's rocky relationship with the ACC.  WVU has always been kept out by the snobbier schools in the conference with WVU's academics being the excuse (even flimsier now w/ Louisville in there).  Then lo and behold, one of the high and mighty bastions of academic snobbery as it pertains to athletics gets caught in a fake classes scandal.  It's hard not to mentally Nelson laugh @ UNC for getting caught with their pants down on this one.   

[Ramsay B.]

4 hours ago, Rhom said:

Eh... my definition is a bit more exclusive than that.  (And I don't think I'm alone.)  There are five true "Blue Bloods" in the sport of basketball.  UK, UNC, Kansas, Duke, and UCLA.  Interestingly, they all have blue as a team color too.   

I agree with that. No way MSU or Arizona are part of that group (I also like how my team has more championships than one of those Blue Blood snobs).

Speaking of the lower tier teams, Freshman Vance Jackson and Sophomore Enoch of Uconn are both transferring. This is very disheartening. I don't know what's going on but Ollie seems to have lost complete control. Enoch was soft as hell and I would bet that half this board could back him in, but Jackson seemed like he could've been one of our best shooters for the next few years. It's just more negativity and raises a lot more doubts. I hate this. I miss you, Jimmy!

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

1 hour ago, Ramsay B. said:

I agree with that. No way MSU or Arizona are part of that group (I also like how my team has more championships than one of those Blue Blood snobs).

Ok, you're guys assessment of who is Blue Bloods and who isn't, just ups the level of snobbery and expectancy that much more worse. I mean yea, those schools dominated, but their domination was way in the past. We've had a a lot of different champs in the last 20 years, so the Blue Bloods ain't  much of anything anymore. The certainly don't live up to their expectations in the way some seem to think they do. KANSAS, 2-5 in Elite 8 under Self. Kentucky, certainly should have more championships with all the talent coming through there. Duke, might be the most consistent. UNC, gets a championship every few years it seems, but their academics leave a lot to desire. I think it's a ego thing to think of yourselves as Blue Bloods. Especially when, WVU takes the leftovers and can compete with any of those schools. Sorry, since the expansion of the tourney we've seen that being a Blue Blood means little to nothing, other than making the fan base feel special. Sorry, I find it funny to say the least.

[Ramsay B.]

Oh I agree, the whole being a Blue Blood thing means close to nothing at the end of the day. But it can be used as a nice recruiting tool and for the media to sell some hype. Beyond that it's just for fans of those teams to feel a little superior. I mean UCLA was a powerhouse in the fucking 60's and 70's, but they do have the most titles to brag about I guess?

My original point was just saying that when I think of teams that are a Blue Blood it is very limited, not that it means anything special and it isn't an eye-rolling, snobbish term.

[Ded As Ned]

Is this really what the offseason turns into so quickly?

See you guys after football season!

Go South Carolina!  

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I would also include IU as a Blue Blood school, albeit one that has fallen behind. So the traditional tally would probably be Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, and UCLA. And if you look at Ferrum Aeternum's link that he posted, these schools incidentally occupy the top 6 spots in the list. Being a Blue Blood may not mean next to nothing at the end of the day, especially with the exciting amount of New Blood, but it's neat to consider that in the past 50 years, there have only been about four years in which one of these teams have not been in the Final Four. 

[Rhom]

38 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I would also include IU as a Blue Blood school, albeit one that has fallen behind. So the traditional tally would probably be Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, and UCLA. And if you look at Ferrum Aeternum's link that he posted, these schools incidentally occupy the top 6 spots in the list. Being a Blue Blood may not mean next to nothing at the end of the day, especially with the exciting amount of New Blood, but it's neat to consider that in the past 50 years, there have only been about four years in which one of these teams have not been in the Final Four. 

 

You can think that being a "blue blood" doesn't convey significance, but in a sport where the winner is selected in a "win or go home" single elimination format; the only way to ensure opportunity is to win consistently.  Be there with a high seed at the end of the season year in and year out.  The five that I listed (six that MFC goes with) have shown a consistent dedication through the decades to excellence. 

Al McGuire once said of Kentucky basketball tradition:  "They had it before, they had it during you, they'll have it when you're gone."

The same can be said for UNC and Kansas.  IU has struggled a bit with that transition and it remains to be seen what will happen to Duke.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Yes, I understand the why's of being a Blue Blood are beneficial. I'm just willing to expand upon that hollowed 5 or 6. UCLA? Besides what they accomplished in the 60's and 70's they've had 1 championship since then. In the past 20 years, UConn has as many as Kentucky. And, only reason UConn is still not pulling big recruits and dominating is because of football and the break up of the Big East, and the ACC's robbery of Cuse. Not having the true Big East is a travesty to College Basketball. Michigan St. has won two NC's, the same as Blue Blood Kansas. I just say, it doesn't really matter, because unless your winning it every year, your going home like everyone else, a loser. So, that's why (in my mind) there are far more than 5 or 6 Blue Bloods. Indiana? Come on, that is a joke, right? 

And, I am not jealous as a WVU fan. I know we'll never pull big recruits year in year out. When Huggy leaves, we'll suck for 10 years at least, until we find a decent coach. And then, some Blue Blood will rob us of him. I just think there are at least 10 schools you can call Blue Bloods in this day and age. And, that 4 or 5 of them change as coaches come and go.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

8 minutes ago, Triskan said:

If UCLA hadn't had that little run under Howland where they went to three straight final fours I think people would be lumping them in with the IU's of the world far more than with the KU's, UK's, Dukes, and UNC's.  But that little era plus a few 16's since brought some prestige back.

 I consider them a Blue Blood and Here's why, they can bring in top recruits consistently because of their name alone. Same with MSU, Arizona, Syracuse, Ohio St and a few more im probably forgetting. 

[dbunting]

Im not a big college basketball fan so I may have an outsider perspective. When I think college basketball and elite or blue blood only three teams enter my mind. Duke, UNC and Kentucky. I know I am gonna get bashed but that is exactly what comes to mind when I hear college BB "blue bloods". One of those teams is ALWAYS in contention and one of them wins it every couple years.

Kansas in basketball to me is kind of like Michigan is in college football. They always seem to be in the mix but rarely actually win it. Michigan in the 70's - 90's won 1 National Championship but always were in top 10. Kansas has only one championship in like 30 years, but they are always in top ten so they seem and feel like "blue bloods" when really IMO they aren't.

I mean hell Michigan basketball team has been to 4 national championship games since last winning, 89, the same amount as Kansas but no one would consider them blue bloods. (yes I know Kansas won it all in 88 but 89 serves by point better for me!)

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Going back to 1987 we have 16 different National Champions. Here's a look at who and how many.

1. Duke-5

2. UConn-4

2. UNC-3

3. Kentucky-3

4. Kansas-2

5. Florida-2

6. Michigan, Indiana, UNLV, Syracuse, Michigan St, Villinova, Louisville, Maryland, Arizona, UCLA and Arkansas all with 1.

Why isn't Florida considered a Blue Blood? They have made a bunch of Elite 8's and Final 4's in that time. UCLA has 1 National Championship and they're considered a Blue Blood? Doesn't make sense and seems HIGHLY subjective. UConn has been more successful than anyone beside Duke for the last 30 years.

[sperry]

2 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Going back to 1987 we have 16 different National Champions. Here's a look at who and how many.

1. Duke-5

2. UConn-4

2. UNC-3

3. Kentucky-3

4. Kansas-2

5. Florida-2

6. Michigan, Indiana, UNLV, Syracuse, Michigan St, Villinova, Louisville, Maryland, Arizona, UCLA and Arkansas all with 1.

Why isn't Florida considered a Blue Blood? They have made a bunch of Elite 8's and Final 4's in that time. UCLA has 1 National Championship and they're considered a Blue Blood? Doesn't make sense and seems HIGHLY subjective. UConn has been more successful than anyone beside Duke for the last 30 years.

 

It basically boils down to where the best recruits will go to play, and it's overwhelmingly at those 5 schools. They are just a step above, which I don't like admitting because of how insufferable their fans are.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

9 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

It basically boils down to where the best recruits will go to play, and it's overwhelmingly at those 5 schools. They are just a step above, which I don't like admitting because of how insufferable their fans are.

I agree @sperry, it's just I think that list as of 2017 has expanded. I get those 5 have the best chance at getting all the heavy hitters, but there are other schools who've been taking those 5 stars from them, more and more often.

Hell, the Teddy (forget his last name), player of the year from Nebraska has signed with WVU and all signs point to him moving from a 4* to a 5* by the end of the year. Now, this scares me as a WVU fan, because the last 5* Bball recruit we got, didn't play and ended up serving 10 years in prison. I like how Huggy recruits and I think we'll be better than last year. We have a real nice class coming in.

[S John]

7 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I agree @sperry, it's just I think that list as of 2017 has expanded. I get those 5 have the best chance at getting all the heavy hitters, but there are other schools who've been taking those 5 stars from them, more and more often.

Hell, the Teddy (forget his last name), player of the year from Nebraska has signed with WVU and all signs point to him moving from a 4* to a 5* by the end of the year. Now, this scares me as a WVU fan, because the last 5* Bball recruit we got, didn't play and ended up serving 10 years in prison. I like how Huggy recruits and I think we'll be better than last year. We have a real nice class coming in.

We'll almost certainly be better next year.  If KU hadn't won the Big 12 13 times in a row I'd say WVU might be the pre-season front-runner to win the conference, but since nobody can seem to unseat the Jayhawks they've gotta be the favorite by default.  

But I think out of the top half of the conference this year, WVU returns the most firepower.  But of course, KU will be right there no matter what, TCU will soon grow into a dangerous team, OU will be better and I think potentially dangerous, Texas *should* be better with a real PG coming in.  ISU, Baylor, TTU, Okie Lite I expect to regress a little bit due to attrition of key players (or coaches in OSU's case).  Not sure what KSU's deal is.   So we'll see, but I feel good that next years' WVU squad will be at least as good as this one.

[sperry]

54 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I agree @sperry, it's just I think that list as of 2017 has expanded. I get those 5 have the best chance at getting all the heavy hitters, but there are other schools who've been taking those 5 stars from them, more and more often.

Hell, the Teddy (forget his last name), player of the year from Nebraska has signed with WVU and all signs point to him moving from a 4* to a 5* by the end of the year. Now, this scares me as a WVU fan, because the last 5* Bball recruit we got, didn't play and ended up serving 10 years in prison. I like how Huggy recruits and I think we'll be better than last year. We have a real nice class coming in.

 

Those 5 schools sign on average about 50% of the top 10 recruits every year, and that's not changing. They've also been the ones who were always there. Indiana used to be in that group, but haven't been relevant in 25 years.  Louisville is the only program you could talk me into saying belongs with that group of 5. Arizona would be up next, although they need to have more postseason success.  Uconn, Michigan St., and Florida need to sustain success over a longer period and through multiple different coaches.