NCAA Basketball 2017: Final Four cont.

[Rhom]

2 hours ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

There is something that I have seen floated around in the comments section about the Villanova win: Is Villanova now a 'blue blood' program? If not, which schools are or are not? At what point does a school become a 'blue blood' program?

Is UConn?

I think that’s your litmus test.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, sperry said:

 

Yes, college basketball is great. Especially in that short of a time frame, the product has not changed appreciably.

 

10 hours ago, Rhom said:

College basketball is now and has always been great.  But you have to realize what it is, and what it is not:

 

Idk, I find it to be boring outside of the really high end games. The pace of play is too slow, they can’t shoot and they pack the paint like it’s the 1980’s. Furthermore, like with college football, they aren’t developing players for the pro game. I wish more teams played like Villanova, which was actually a breath of fresh air.  College basketball needs to modernize itself.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

10 hours ago, Rhom said:

Also, I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned... but I have hated that buzzer in the Final Four games.

First time I heard it I thought it was some awful noisemaker some fan had snuck into the building. 

[S John]

I say varying shades of blue blood.  

Kansas, UNC, Duke, Kentucky

Indiana, UCLA

UCONN, Villanova, MSU... maybe Arizona?

I think the top line has recent success and historical program strength that sets them apart from the others, then there's historical programs that stand out in everyone's mind as great programs but haven't won a championship in 20+ years (UCLA, Indiana), but I'm not one to argue against recent results getting you in the club if not quite as elevated as those who've been doing it all along. 

I feel like the basketball blue blood list is a lot more exclusive than the football one.  There's basically only 1 or 2 in every conference in basketball, whereas in football there's like 2-4 in the major conferences.  In the SEC alone you'd have Bama, LSU, Florida with good arguments to be made for Auburn, Tennessee.  Several in the B1G - OSU, UM, PSU.  Texas and OU in the Big 12, etc, etc.    

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

6 hours ago, Rhom said:

Is UConn?

I think that’s your litmus test.

I'm sure UConn would be thrilled by that. I am somewhat inclined to consider UConn a blue blood school. They do have more championships than unquestionable blue blood schools like Kansas. They are in the Top 25 teams in terms of win ratios, but not in terms of total wins. UCLA and Indiana are traditionally considered blue bloods, but many would consider them riding on the coattails of past success, blue bloods who have fallen in grace. 

I like SJohn's sense of blue bloods. 

[RedEyedGhost]

1 hour ago, S John said:

Kansas, UNC, Duke, Kentucky

Indiana, UCLA

Old money

1 hour ago, S John said:

UCONN, Villanova, MSU

New money

IMO, new money =/= blue blood.  If Wright (and his successor, depending on how long he plans on being there) can maintain the level of success they've had over the past decade for the next three, then I think they will qualify as a blue blood.  I think he's on track to being this era's coach K.  I have seen differing quotes from him regarding the NBA and the intriguing possibilities of it, so maybe he bolts for an $8 mill per year salary - I don't think he will though, I think he'll be a lifer at Villanova (hence the K analogy).

[S John]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Final_Four_appearances_by_school

This is kind of interesting to marinate on.  It suggests I probably over-inflated Arizona and should have replaced them with Louisville.  Arizona is just one of those schools that I always associate with good basketball, but their actual tournament resume doesn't really hold up to blue blood status.  

Ohio State with 10 Final Fours surprised me a little, but their only championship is quite dated (1960).  Also based on this, it looks like Ohio State, UCLA, Florida, or Michigan would have the closest claim to two-sport blue blood status.  Though the B1G schools and Florida are a little flimsy on the bball side, while UCLA is a little flimsy on the football side.  Florida would be the best candidate for the first real two-sport blue blood if they can snag another couple championships in basketball in the near future.  

[S John]

9 minutes ago, RedEyedGhost said:

Old money

New money

IMO, new money =/= blue blood.  If Wright (and his successor, depending on how long he plans on being there) can maintain the level of success they've had over the past decade for the next three, then I think they will qualify as a blue blood.  I think he's on track to being this era's coach K.  I have seen differing quotes from him regarding the NBA and the intriguing possibilities of it, so maybe he bolts for an $8 mill per year salary - I don't think he will though, I think he'll be a lifer at Villanova (hence the K analogy).

Agreed.  As a WVU fan, I'll take ANY money.  

[Ferrum Aeternum]

44 minutes ago, Triskele said:

ESPN has their too early top 25 for next year.  The Pac-12 sneaks one team in at #25!  That would actually represent an improvement on this year if just one team made it to the round of 32.  Baby steps.  

Bol Bol tho!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Now that the tournament is over, we can reflect on how we did. I finished exactly in the middle, 10/19, getting eight fewer picks correct this year compared to last year (I think I finished top 3 last year, and I had more correct picks last year than the winner did this year and I got the champion correct). The left side of my bracket was busted hard early. I had AZ in the FF and the Tar Heels winning it all, so that fell apart fast. Furthermore, I got all my upsets wrong and I think I only had one correct elite eight pick (Michigan). On the other hand, the right side of my bracket was damn near perfect. I went 6/8 in the SS, 3/4 in the EE. 2/2 in the FF and correctly picked Villanova to make it to the title game. I actually originally picked them to win, but the Heels did me good last year so I swapped them last minute. All in all it wasn't a bad year given how many upsets there were.

And most importantly, I beat Ned and Rhom's kids! 

[dbunting]

My first time on the boards since the game Monday. Man, from the start I really had my hopes up. Wagner looked like he was a man of destiny, then the adrenaline rush faded and Clark Kent stepped out of that fcking telephone booth and took over the game and Villanova never looked back. Where the hell did he come from! Honestly with an avg performance from him it would have been really close. He picked the perfect time to play balls out.

I'm still happy with Michigans' season since it came out of the blue.

As to blue bloods, for me there are only a few. Duke, UNC, Kentucky...probably Kansas. I think of long term consistent success(including multiple championships), over 3-4 decades when I think blue blood.

[sperry]

The only programs that have had decades of sustained success over multiple coaches are Kansas, UNC and Kentucky. Everyone else has either not maintained that success (Indiana, UCLA) or really been the product of one coach (Duke, UConn).

 

Louisville probably would have belonged on that list if they hadn't had to vacate most of Pitino's success.

[Rhom]

10 minutes ago, Triskele said:

*I actually think that team was very good and got screwed by getting a 3 seed and having to play D'Aaron Fox's Kentucky team a round too early...team was good enough and played well enough to make the 8 but got an 8 or 4 matchup in the round of 16 and lost.

I’ve seen some ridiculous brackets in my day, but that one took the cake.  UNC, Kentucky, and UCLA all in the same bracket? Having already played during the regular season?  They had no business putting them all in that bracket and it hurt the tournament as a result.  

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Westbrook, Love, Mbah Amoute, Collison team

Damn, that's quite the team.  Don't really remember that.

I agree that Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, and Duke are the unquestioned top tier.  You can say Duke has had only one coach, sure, but I have every expectation that whenever K retires, it will be similar to UNC after Smith - everyone will want the job and they'll eventually find the right fit.

[RedEyedGhost]

Duke did have four Final Fours before coach K, and were the runner up twice.  He's been there nearly 40 fucking years though, and has been so successful that it's impossible to separate him and the program.  I think he's done enough that Duke will not fall apart when he does retire.  It will certainly be interesting to watch.

[Ramsay B.]

So two guys Uconn is going after for 2019... Akok Akok and Kofi Cockburn. Amazing.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

20 minutes ago, Ramsay B. said:

So two guys Uconn is going after for 2019... Akok Akok and Kofi Cockburn. Amazing.

Some parents want their kids to be doctors, some lawyers, and some aspire for them to make the all-name team. 

[Ramsay B.]

54 minutes ago, Triskele said:

What an awesome fact. Both outstanding, arguably historic, entries into the all name team.  But two with a cock theme in the same year for the same program?  One imagine the signs....I could actually see UConn fans taking the lead on this as a pre-emptive strike.  Something like "Fear the Cocks" or "Rock around the Cock" or who knows what else.  

The possibilities are endless. Akok is from CT and Cockburn NYC, so we have a real shot at this.  

Sadly, Uconn is not going after PA product and top 100 recruit, Isaiah Wong. Hurley should stop giving that kid the shaft and go after him hard. 

[sperry]

Basically everyone has declared for the draft, which is a bummer. Usually the elite prospects should all go, but this draft is so stacked that it makes sense for some guys to come back. Dudes who will go #12 this year could go #3 next year. 

[Rhom]

Isaac Haas of Purdue drops the old "But the health department told me I was clean!" in a lawsuit.

Slow news week...