Have won 18 of the last 22 national championships. This counts Kansas and Kentucky as blue bloods but not Florida, Az, and Mich St. Those 3 have combined for the only 4 NC's not won by the ACC, Big East, UK, or KU.
ACC, Big East, and Blue Bloods
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Very broad-strokes history since the end of the gentleman's agreement/the last 50 years:.
1963 - 1983. 20 year reign of UCLA getting half the titles, ten in total. Two schools that were willing to break racial norms also win (Loyola and Texas Western.) Marquette wins a similar sort of title later with urban east coast players going to play for McGuire. Also one win each by Kentucky, Louisville, NC State, Indiana. Basically blue bloods or geographic neighbors of them.
1984 - 2013. Era of ESPN, the Big East, and the new wealth. Titles by non blue bloods like Georgetown, Villanova, UNLV, Arkansas, Syracuse, Florida balanced out by titles by Kansas, Duke, UNC, UCLA. Uconn seems like the king of new wealth for titles until the Big East falls apart. Louisville in the rare position of a quasi blue blood and also a Big East school by the end, but then vacated. Michigan State, Arizona, Maryland somewhere in between.
Also a lot of non-traditional runner ups like Butler, Seton Hall, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, Houston, Gonzaga.
Overall, more parity and ups and downs than the earlier Kentucky and then UCLA eras.
2014 - 2018. Welcome to the new age. Two Villanova titles, one Duke, one UNC. Too early to rate it but clearly Villanova could end up in the same discussion with sustained success as earlier dynasties.
At first I thought we'd see the break up of the Big East and football money/TV contracts end some of the parity we saw as the Big East started to shake up college basketball in the 80s. But this year was pretty equal feeling until the end.
Assuming the one and done rule goes by the way side, it'll be interesting to see how that and increased transfers play out. My guess is might be a return of the blue bloods, just with an expanded line up. Less of the random Marquette title/Butler runner up sort of situations?
1963 - 1983. 20 year reign of UCLA getting half the titles, ten in total. Two schools that were willing to break racial norms also win (Loyola and Texas Western.) Marquette wins a similar sort of title later with urban east coast players going to play for McGuire. Also one win each by Kentucky, Louisville, NC State, Indiana. Basically blue bloods or geographic neighbors of them.
1984 - 2013. Era of ESPN, the Big East, and the new wealth. Titles by non blue bloods like Georgetown, Villanova, UNLV, Arkansas, Syracuse, Florida balanced out by titles by Kansas, Duke, UNC, UCLA. Uconn seems like the king of new wealth for titles until the Big East falls apart. Louisville in the rare position of a quasi blue blood and also a Big East school by the end, but then vacated. Michigan State, Arizona, Maryland somewhere in between.
Also a lot of non-traditional runner ups like Butler, Seton Hall, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, Houston, Gonzaga.
Overall, more parity and ups and downs than the earlier Kentucky and then UCLA eras.
2014 - 2018. Welcome to the new age. Two Villanova titles, one Duke, one UNC. Too early to rate it but clearly Villanova could end up in the same discussion with sustained success as earlier dynasties.
At first I thought we'd see the break up of the Big East and football money/TV contracts end some of the parity we saw as the Big East started to shake up college basketball in the 80s. But this year was pretty equal feeling until the end.
Assuming the one and done rule goes by the way side, it'll be interesting to see how that and increased transfers play out. My guess is might be a return of the blue bloods, just with an expanded line up. Less of the random Marquette title/Butler runner up sort of situations?
The Big East got a great TV deal from FOX. The teams get about $5 million per year and dont have to fund football. Most in the industry thought that was too much just for basketball. Consider the American got only $1.5 million per team per year including football. Fox was desperate for programming and took a chance on the Big East. It has 8 years left on it. It will be interesting to see what it gets the next go around. The Big East could end up getting left behind.
It has been 18 years now since the Big 10 won a title (Michigan State.)
They've had A LOT of losses in the final four/title game since then -- Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois. Maybe Purdue and Indiana, I don't recall honestly.
They've had A LOT of losses in the final four/title game since then -- Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois. Maybe Purdue and Indiana, I don't recall honestly.
Yup. Big Ten likes to lose in the Finals.
02- Indiana, 05- Illinois, 07- Ohio State, 09- Michigan State, 10/11- Butler (honorary Midwest team), 13- Michigan, 15- Wisconsin, 18- Michigan
Hard to imagine the ACC, Big East, Blue Blood trend ending anytime soon.
02- Indiana, 05- Illinois, 07- Ohio State, 09- Michigan State, 10/11- Butler (honorary Midwest team), 13- Michigan, 15- Wisconsin, 18- Michigan
Hard to imagine the ACC, Big East, Blue Blood trend ending anytime soon.
I think it goes:
1. Blue Bloods: Duke, UNC, UK, KU
2. Almost Blue Bloods: Mich St, Mich, Az, Florida, Lou, UCLA, Nova, Syr, UConn, maybe a few more.
3. A ton of schools like Pitt
2. Lesser P6 teams like PSU, Rutgers, DePaul, and decent mid-majors
1. Duquesne, Fordham, East Carolina, Tulane, etc
I think your tiers are pretty solid.
When it came to bluebloods it is hard not to include Indiana and UCLA when you go back in history. BUT....you can't include them because they been down for so long. You would think each job would have the ability to attract the best and the brightest of coaches. I don't think either is ready to assume roles back as "blue bloods", I think the best they can do is the next level. Indiana I think could have the most trouble, they could become a Pitt or Syracuse in football where they have the history, but never get back to an elite level again.
The Almost Blue Bloods seem fairly stable also. Can't argue with any of those on your list. I also think Father Football keeps schools like Ohio State and Texas from occupying spots on that level just because God is a fair god and he wants to spread the wealth, so you can either be smart or good looking, your choice. LOL. If you get the analogy.
Pitt is on that 3rd level with everyone else, where the right coach and they could be a top 10 team, a contender, the wrong coach they can be a train wreck.
Butler showed what Indiana could be. Brad Stevens had a good portion of local players on those teams. But yeah if you divide that talent between N.D., Purdue, Butler, Indiana, players leaving the state...not as elite.
Georgetown is not a Blue Blood. They have won 1 Big East Tournament in the past 29 years. They won 1 national championship, 1984. That does not make them a Blue Blood.
Yea, IU and UCLA have just been down too long. Cant see either ever becoming a blue blood again. Great teams occasionally? Yes, but not sustained excellence like Duke, UNC, KU, and UK
I posted the below on the championship game thread.
------------------------
Mid-Major Villanova talk made me laugh. Let's look at some traditional Blue Bloods in hoops.
I'm using 1976 as the starting point since 1975 was the end of UCLA's domination.
In the last 42 years we have -
UCLA has won 1 NCAA title, that was in 1995.
Kansas has won 2 NCAA titles, 1988 & 2008
Kentucky has won 3 NCAA titles, 1978, 1996 & 2012.
Indiana has won 3 NCAA titles since, including 1976's unbeaten team (the last to do so), 1981 & 1987. None in the past 30 years with just one other appearance in the finals, 2002.
Louisville has won 3 NCAA titles, 1980, 1986 & 2013.
UConn has won 4 NCAA titles, 1999, 2004, 2011 & 2014, that's a pretty good run in 15 years.
UNC has won 5 NCAA titles, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009 & 2017.
Duke has won 5 NCAA titles, 1991, 1992, 2001, 2010 & 2015.
Villanova has won 3 NCAA titles, 1985, 2016 & 2018.
I'd say that makes them much more than a mid-major.
Last edited:
I can see UCLA with the right coach. I still can't believe they went for Alford and he is still there. Alford belongs at IU.
The problem with UCLA, and Arizona, as I see it is the PAC-12. That league has just been too bad for too long. I just don’t think it’s capable of preparing a team for a run anymore. I posted here when the bracket was announced that Arizona would lose early because their schedule was just awful.
There's really no help in store for that league either. The West Coast just doesn’t produce enough high-end talent. West Coast basketball is almost like NY/New England football. Big population but just no talent. Plus the best Cali kids seem to come East often.
Is "mid major" a definition of status, or is it a structural definition? It's tough to know. If a mid major is a school that doesn't play big time football, then Nova is a mid major, albeit a very good one. If the quality of your program determines status, then Nova is clearly a major. What is DePaul though? I can easily name several programs outside of the P5/BE that are clearly well above DePaul, such as VCU, Dayton, URI, UConn, Houston, Wichita, Temple, Cincy, Gonzaga, and St. Mary's for starters. Are those schools majors or mid majors? When I look at the BE schools other than Nova, they look a lot like those schools I just mentioned. How are they majors while the other schools aren't? If UConn and Memphis return to form, the AAC will become a very strong league. If this happens, do the other schools in the AAC suddenly become majors?
Marquette's title was hardly random. They were in the Final in 1974, and were a power of the first magnitude under Al McGuire. Had McGuire not retired in his prime, they may have added more titles in the 1980s. You always have to wonder about a team that does most of it's winning under one coach. UCLA has been good, but hardly elite since Wooden retired. Georgetown has done virtually nothing in it's history without a Thompson at the helm. Duke was good, but nothing special before coach K. How will they do after he's gone? It's not a guarantee they'll keep rolling. Carolina has much more going for it, and even they became a 20 game loser when they hired the wrong coach.
Last edited:
I think part of the difficulty in labeling basketball schools, or conferences, as mid-major, Power Five, Blue Blood, etc comes from the fact that there are 200 more basketball schools than there are football schools.
There are a lot more powerful programs in hoops than there are in football. I know, not exactly groundbreaking, but I think that is where the difficulty in labeling comes in for this.
Sure, you can have a Boise State, UCF, Utah, etc in football but in basketball it is much more likely to happen that teams we don't really pay attention to make a run in the tournament. Plus, there are a lot less players in hoops than football.
As for DePaul, they are like a bunch of other Catholic schools in major cities that used to be a big deal, when cities were made up a lot differently. Duquesne is in that category as well. Marquette too. Al McGuire recruited the East Coast like crazy.
There are some very good teams in some of these other conferences. I mean, look at Gonzaga, I don't even know in what conference it is that they play. Butler had its most notable success before joining the Big East, right?
Sure, if UConn gets back on track they will be a force to be reckoned with, same with Memphis. Louisville made its mark as a member of the Metro Conference, right? And before that they were in the Missouri Valley Conference.
The Atlantic 10 plays some very good basketball. I don't know where Pitt would have placed there this season, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been in the top-five. Nor would we have placed in the top-five in this year's Big East.
I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing with you. Nor am I trying to be difficult. I'm just saying that I look at basketball a bit differently than I do football.
I agree Marquette's run was not random and they had a great run there. But it was unique in that a lot of it was due to McGuire recruiting mostly low income black players other schools were passing on, not unlike Loyola and Texas Western in that they found a sort of market inefficiency due to prejudice (though in the case of Ireland at Loyola my sense is he recruited more prep school black players to the extent they existed in the early 60s.) You can't replicate something like that now unless someone builds a pipeline to get all the best players in Serbia to come to the US or something.
Duke, was good before K. The 3 years before K came, Duke played in the champ game, was an Elite 8 and had another NCAA berth. Under Vic Bubas in the 60's they were in the Final 4 three times, Elite 8 four times.
But you also showed, even a power like UNC or Kentucky, if they hire the wrong coach, they can plummet right off the national scene. But it will always be temporary with them. Though a program like Indiana, which has a rich, rich history also shows a blue blood can become an also ran. Indiana hasn't been past the Sweet 16 since Pitt's first year as an NCAA participant under Ben Howland. If you are truly a blue blood, you shouldn't have a dry spell that long.
I know Duke was good before K, but they were something like a Wisconsin back then. K took them to elite status. Indiana was really damaged by the Kelvin Sampson thing. The sad part is that the violations were actually fairly minor, but the NCAA came down hard because he had done it before, and they felt that he hadn't gotten the message. Because of this, what might have been a fairly short dry spell, became a long dry spell. Because recruits are young, if you're dry for more than 7-8 years, you become ancient history, kinda like Pitt football, and it gets hard to climb out of the hole.
"you can't include them because they been down for so long."..sure you can as that is what the term blue blood means...old money etc...
Time makes one a blue blood and it stems from a noble birth (ie, a long long stretch of success from the past).
This is UCLA after Wooden and his dominance....
NCAA Bids
1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980*, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999*, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017
Elite 8's
1976, 1979, 1980*, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2006, 2007, 2008
Final Fours...
1976, 1980, 1995, 2006, 2007, 2008
Champs
1980 (vacated), 1995
Blue Blood.
UCLA is a blue blood. It's not a debate, they're one of the top programs all time very easily. The three final four teams with Ben Howland basically filled the NBA with some big names, they were very close to winning another.
That is the right model, you need to get the top California kids (Westbrook, Love, Jrue Holiday, Arron Affalo, Jordan Farmar, Trevor Ariza, Ryan Hollins, Malcolm Lee, Darren Collison, Wear brothers, Cedric Bozeman, Larry Drew, Shabbazz Muhammad, Norman Powell, Dijon Thompson) and then augment with national/international recruiting (Kyle Anderson, Mbah A Moute, Dragovic.) The talent is still there in California and Washington too, Howland's teams were about 90% from the west coast. Los Angeles is still an appealing city, UCLA just isn't getting those players anymore.
That is the right model, you need to get the top California kids (Westbrook, Love, Jrue Holiday, Arron Affalo, Jordan Farmar, Trevor Ariza, Ryan Hollins, Malcolm Lee, Darren Collison, Wear brothers, Cedric Bozeman, Larry Drew, Shabbazz Muhammad, Norman Powell, Dijon Thompson) and then augment with national/international recruiting (Kyle Anderson, Mbah A Moute, Dragovic.) The talent is still there in California and Washington too, Howland's teams were about 90% from the west coast. Los Angeles is still an appealing city, UCLA just isn't getting those players anymore.
Blows my mind UCLA hasn't been better given their history and LOCATION. UCLA's campus is gorgeous, I'm surprised kids don't choose to play in LA and instead go to the midwest.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
My guess as to why this site is STILL in 'no mans land' at the moment
- Latest: Guyasuta Genac
-