The Blue Bloods?

Posted by: Jayhawk1952

The Blue Bloods? - 05/10/19 11:50 AM

Except for KU still working on its rooster for this coming season, basketball news is getting kind of low right now. Click on this address to read an interesting article about, “Who Are the Blue Bloods in NCAA Basketball?”

https://bustingbrackets.com/2019/05/07/n...tm_medium=email

First, he states four obvious ones: UNC, Duke, KU and UK.

Then he states four that many might consider: UCLA, UCONN, Michigan St., and NOVA.

Finally he mentions three more that could be under consideration: Indiana, Temple, and Gonzaga.

What should be the criteria for being a blue blood? The answer would go a long way in who would be considered a blue blood..

The first four mentioned fit about any criteria you would want to list. They all have an excellent all-time history, great total wins and winning percentages (the only schools with over 2,000 wins and over a .700 winning percentage), and they have excellent NCAA tourney stats. The rest fall short in some way in all time stats. If you limit the criteria to certain time periods, then I could see how some of the others might be listed, maybe even some he doesn’t list.
Posted by: KUCO_VOC

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/10/19 12:05 PM

Wichita falls State, for sure. Also, Gonzaga.
Posted by: zimsjim

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/10/19 03:31 PM

I disagree wholeheartedly with Temple in that category and am not sold on UConn either. UCLA is more of a past blue blood due to lack of recent success, but I think you keep them in there. I'd keep Gonzaga as well as Michigan State and the usual suspects
Posted by: moose1

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 09:50 AM

UCLA yes. They have the most championships. They are down right now but they will be back again.

MSU yes. I heard something everyone of Izzo’s 4 year players has gone to a Final 4. They are good year in year out.

Indiana yes. More based off of past success. A couple more average years and I would say no.

UCONN yes. They have the championships to prove it. They have been down a little lately but will be back.

Nova not quite yet. They are close and the run they have been on the last 5 years is great but to me they are not there yet.

Gonzaga no. Close but not quite enough.

Temple there is no freakin way.

Just my opinion. When I think about it is there much difference between UCONN and Nova, probably not, but that is just how I view them.
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 09:53 AM

A team has to have 5 national championships to be considered a blue blood. KU only has 3. KU is not a blue blood, sorry.

KU has a long, established history of underachieving.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 10:01 AM

Wrong gay parade...if you have over 10 F4s...over 2000 wins...been in more than 7 title games...and 3 NCs then you are definetly a blue blood. ..so it is indeed UK...KU...Duke...UNC and UCLA...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 11:31 AM

If some want to really narrow down what a blue blood is, then let's use this one: there must be a Kansas connection. Of course KU's connection to Kansas is quite obvious.

UK's connection is Adolph Rupp. He was born and raised in Kansas and played basketball for KU. He was so important to them that their arena is named after him.

UNC's connection is Dean Smith who also born and raised in Kansas and played basketball for KU. He was so important to them that they named their arena after him.

Of course there is also the Smith disciple, Roy Williams, who coached at KU for 15 years.

Another interesting tid bit is that these three Kansas connected schools are the three winningest basketball schools in the NCAA in both total wins and winning percentage.

Blue Blood and Kansas nicely fit together. cool
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 12:20 PM

No that is not correct...Duke...UCLA has no relationship to KU....hence your logic is flawed...senile brain cells are to blame..and Jimbo is somewhat correct. KU is the most underachieving of the true blue bloods.
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 01:16 PM

Originally Posted By: PHOGUSHER
Wrong gay parade...if you have over 10 F4s...over 2000 wins...been in more than 7 title games...and 3 NCs then you are definetly a blue blood. ..so it is indeed UK...KU...Duke...UNC and UCLA...


You are describing a team that has only won 3 times. Everything else you describe is a loss.

KU is not a blue blood. KU is a midwest pretender.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 02:17 PM

Take away a brief 12 year period and no one would even be mentioning UCLA.
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 03:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Take away a brief 12 year period and no one would even be mentioning UCLA.


DURR HURR TAKE AWAY X'S WINS AND NO ONE WOULD BE MENTIONING THEM.

What the hell is your point?
Posted by: moose1

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 04:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Take away a brief 12 year period and no one would even be mentioning UCLA.


And if your dad was a woman he would be your mom. UCLA has 11 championships. That means something. I don’t care if it was in one era. They are still the tops in the stat that matters most. They have managed to screw that up, but really there should be no reason why they are not a top team year after year.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 04:37 PM

So sorry that you are having such a tough time getting the point.

The point is that UCLA had a tremendously famous 12 year run in which their record is par to no one. Replace that 12 year run with John Wooten's record during the previous 15 years at UCLA and no one would pick UCLA as a blue blood. During the 12 year run their winning percentage was .938, unmatchable. Replace that with the previous 15 year winning percentage of .679 and they lose 93 wins from their total, actually even more as they wouldn't have all of those NCAA Tourney wins. In stead of being # 7 on the all time win list, they now become # 17, one win behind Western Kentucky. I haven't heard of anyone clamoring for them to be called a blue blood. Also, UCLA's NCAA record would be devastated!

Do a similar thing to any of the doubtless blue bloods, UK, KU, UNC and Duke, using any 12 year period you would want to choose and their over all record nor their NCAA record will be much effected. What really counts in determining blue bloods is their total history -- total wins and winning percentage, as well as their overall NCAA tourney record.

Only if you give greater weight to certain periods of time can others be considered blue bloods, such as a great recent record, or another period of time in which they had a great record, their early years or middle years or whatever.

That's exactly what people are doing when they call UCLA a blue blood, they are giving extra weight to a brief 12 year period. Now if that's part of the rules for determining a blue blood, so be it. Personally, I don't see that way. If others do, more power to them.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 05:13 PM

Let's really make this simple. Since winning a NCAA championship is the ultimate, let's consider every team who has won at least one title as being a blue blood. We now officially have 36 blue bloods in NCAA basketball. No other criteria necessary.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 06:56 PM

Stupid and old....10 F4s or more appearances plus 2000 or more wins and 3 or more NCs are the true criterion...nothing else should be considered...especially being related to another Blueblood...thats is terrible logic
..
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 07:31 PM

Guess you have a problem with some humor having a touch of sarcasm. Re-read the final paragraph of my original post to see what I actually advocate concerning blue bloods. However, I actually agree with you 100% as to the criteria for blue bloods you just gave. There has been a lot of nonsense posted here and I've been responding to the nonsense. Loosen up!
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/11/19 09:46 PM

Its your sphincter thats tighter than a closed rusted vice after a week of rain...I am loose as Jimbos love canal after the fleet comes in...lol old man...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 04:43 PM

When determining who the NCAA Blue Bloods are, we need to look at the numbers and not who our favorites are. The following stats should help to determine who the Blue Bloods are. These are for all time season results as well as several for the NCAA Tourney. The top 10 are listed in the various categories as well as some who’ve been mentioned as possibilities for being a Blue Blood. Their ranking is the number preceding their name. I’ve given at least five different categories on which to base a decision. More factors could be considered including conference championships. But I haven’t.

All Time Season totals:
School . . . . . .Wins . . Losses . .$age. . Seasons
UK . . . . . . . . . 2293. . . 706. . . . .765 . . 116
KU . . . . . . . . ..2274. . . 865. . . . .724. . .121
UNC. . . . . . . . 2261. . . 799 . . . . 739. . .109
Duke. . . . . . . . 2176. . . 887. . . . .710 . . 114
Temple. . . . . . 1926 . .1079 . . . . .641 . . 123
Cuse. . . . . . . . 1904. . . 908 . . . . .667 . . 118
UCLA . . . . . . . 1887 . . .852. . . . . 689. . 100
N. Dame . . . . .1880 . .1028 . . . . .646. . 114
St. John. . . . . .1854. . 1029. . . . .643. . .112
Indiana. . . . . . 1836 . .1034. . . . .640. . .119
27Mic. St. . . . .1721 . .1088. . . . .613. . .120
28UConn. . . . .1712 . . .979 . . . . .637. . 116
37Zaga . . . . . .1668. . .1098. . . . .603 . . 111

Only three schools have won over 2,200 games, one has won over 2,100 games and two over 1,900. Only four have a .700 winning record. They're the same four schools that have won over 2,100 games. Only two other schools have won over 1900 games. That will soon change. Only one other team is remotely close to a .700 winning percentage, UCLA.

NCAA Tourney Records for top 10 appearing + 3 others:
School . . . . Appear . S16 . E8 . F4 . .Final . Champ
1UK . . . . . . . . 58 . . . . 44 . . .38 . .17 . . 12 . . . . .8
2UNC. . . . . . . 50 . . . . 34 . . .28 . .20 . . 11 . . . . .6
3KU. . . . . . . . .48. . . . .31 . . .24 . .15 . . . 9 . . . . .3
4UCLA . . . . . .47. . . . .33 . . .21 . .17 . . 12 . . . .11
5Duke . . . . . . .43. . . . .31 . . .22 . .16 . . 11 . . . . .5
6Cuse . . . . . . .40 . . . . 23 . . .10 . . . 6. . . 3 . . . . .1
7Indiana . . . . . 39 . . . . 22. . . 11 . . . 8. . . 6 . . . . .5
8Louisville . . . .38 . . . . 17 . . .13 . . . 5. . . 3 . . . . .3
9Nova . . . . . . .39 . . . . 17. . .13 . . . 5. . . 3 . . . . . 3
10N. Dame. . . .36 . . . . 17. . . .7 . . . 1. . . 0 . . . . . 0
15 Mg. St. . . . . 33. . . . .20 . . 14 . . 10. . . 3 . . . . . 2
16 Temple. . . . .33. . . . . .7 . . . 8 . . . 2. . . 0 . . . . . 0
42 Zaga . . . . . . 22. . . . .10 . . . 4 . . . 1. . . 1 . . . . .0

This chart has listed in order of NCAA appearances. Also, the number of times a team has reached the S16, etc. are given. Only 15 teams have won more than one title. An additional 21 have won one title. The tourney covers 81 seasons. This shows how difficult it is to win a championship and how few teams have been able to do so. It is still a big accomplishment just to get invited to the tournament.

NCAA Tourney Total Games, Wins & %ages & Consec. App.
School. . . . . . Games .Wins losses . %age - - consecutive app.
UK . . . . . . . . . 172 . . . 130 . 53 . . .751 - - - - - -KU . . . 30*
UNC. . . . . . . . 172 . . . 125. .47 . . .729 - - - - - UNC . . 27
KU. . . . . . . . . .155 . . . 108. .47 . . .697 - - - - - Duke . . 24*
Duke. . . . . . . . 154 . . . 115. .39 . . .748 - - - - - -Mic. St. 22*
UCLA. . . . . . . 148 . . . 106. .42 . . .716 - - - - - -Zaga. . . 21*
Louisville. . . . 121 . . . . 77. . 44 . . .636 - - - - - -Wis. . . .19
Cuse . . . . . . . .109 . . . . 69. . 40 . . .633 - - - - - -Ind. . . . 18
Indiana . . . . . .100 . . . . 66. . 34 . . .660 - - - - - UK . . . .17
Nova. . . . . . . .100 . . . . 65 . .37 . . .637 - - - - - UCLA. . 15
Mich. St . . . . . .99 . . . . 67. . 32 . . .677 - - - - - G. Twn .14
UCONN. . . . . . 89 . . . . 59. . 30 . . .663 - - - - - Azon. . .14
Florida. . . . . . . .69 . . . . .49. . 20. . .710 - - - - - Cincin. . 14
N. Dame . . . . . .78. . . . . 38. . 40. . .487 - - - - - Texas . . 14
Temple . . . . . . .65 . . . . ..33 . .32. . .508
Zaga . . . . . . . . .54 . . . . . 32 . .22. . .593
*Current consecutive appearances

These are the top 15 schools in games played in the tourney and the top 10 in consecutive appearances. There were eight teams invited to the tournament each of the first 12 years. That was increased to 16 in 1951 for the next 12 years. It was incrementally increased during the following years until in 1985 it was set at 64. In 2011 the number was increased to 68 with four play-in games. So it was much more difficult to get into the tournament during those earlier years.

Look it over and see who you think should be considered Blue Bloods. I am still sticking with the four obvious teams: UK, KU, UNC and Duke. The only other team that I see as a possibility is UCLA and I’ve already shared my thoughts about them. I do believe that the author of the original article was off base on some he suggested as possibilities.

The NCAA Tournament should carry some weight, but certainly not any more than the full season and most likely less. Every team gets to play a full season. That makes for about a 30 game schedule plus the conference tourneys. The results of the full season and conference tourneys provide the basis of who gets into the Big Dance. That is at most six games and only two teams get to play that many. As we all know, the best team does not always win the tournament. Several times a team has gotten hot during the tournament and has won all the marbles, including the 1988 KU team. Doubtless, several of these teams would not have won it all in a rematch of their games to the title.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 04:53 PM

Oh crap this sorry old hayseed must have harvested the back 40. Now he is going to bore us with facts anyone with Internet access could look up. Guess he has to do something with himself...like waste internet space...
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 05:02 PM

Thanks 52 appreciate the info. Go suck a tube steak phogo.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 06:09 PM

I will whip your arse sucka. Nbd...sure 52 lengthy diatribe would be of use to those that even cared to could research themselves. Most true college hoops fans have already determined who they think are the true blue bloods. Its the same as 52's novel points out...that being UK..KU...UNC...and Puke...UCLA on the fringe. There is no need for a 50000 word novella to prove those facts..
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: madcapper
Thanks 52 appreciate the info. Go suck a tube steak phogo.


Thanks. You have to take Phoggy with a grain of salt. He has a terribly loud bark but a much less menacing bit. I enjoy putting together such stats. It does take some time but I believe it results with some worthwhile info. No one has to read what I write, including old Phoggy, but I suspect a good number do.
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
long pointless spin post


None of this changes the only stat that matters: national championships.

5 is minimum for blue blood status. A bunch of wins against inferior competition doesn't mean [censored].
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 09:01 PM

I wasted my time and read all of your obvious to everyone post. But hey thanks for your efforts..because you're a old cowhand on da Rio Grande....lol.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 11:43 PM

Sorry you went and wasted you time, but glad you read my book. I'm enjoying watching the beautiful green wheat waving in the gentle breeze as a beautiful sunset once again forms in the Western blue sky while the Western meadow lark sings away and the hawk glides over the cool breeze. Soon it will be time to hit the hay as I listen to the coyote howl in the darkness and I soon fall fast asleep dreaming of the upcoming Jayhawk basketball season bringing more jubilant wins and another waltz to the Big Dance for our 31st consecutive trip. The dream will probably be topped off with another good laugh at some dumb post by JW about how bad he think are Jayhawks are. Maybe JW stands for Jumbled Whinner! His thinking is all jumbled up and he is quite a whinner. All this just gives me more reason to awaken alive and well, ready to give a toast to the Blue Blood Kansas Jayhawks, one of four great Blue Blood Basketball teams of all of college basketball! What a wonderful life it is!
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/13/19 11:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Sorry you went and wasted you time, but glad you read my book. I'm enjoying watching the beautiful green wheat waving in the gentle breeze as a beautiful sunset once again forms in the Western blue sky while the Western meadow lark sings away and the hawk glides over the cool breeze. Soon it will be time to hit the hay as I listen to the coyote howl in the darkness and I soon fall fast asleep dreaming of the upcoming Jayhawk basketball season bringing more jubilant wins and another waltz to the Big Dance for our 31st consecutive trip. The dream will probably be topped off with another good laugh at some dumb post by JW about how bad he think are Jayhawks are. Maybe JW stands for Jumbled Whinner! His thinking is all jumbled up and he is quite a whinner. All this just gives me more reason to awaken alive and well, ready to give a toast to the Blue Blood Kansas Jayhawks, one of four great Blue Blood Basketball teams of all of college basketball! What a wonderful life it is!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_madness
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 01:12 AM

Dream on mad dreamer. All is well on the great prairies.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 09:34 AM

Prairie madness...lol...good one Jimbo Elrod..
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 09:42 AM

Also try to understand this 52. Jimbo may be a SanFran YMCA Nancy boy but he has never said he dislikes the Jayhawks. In fact I am pretty sure KU is his team of choice. What he has stated is he doesnt think they are a blue blood team due to underachieving ..and they have underachieved especially in the tournament. 3 NCs out of 9 chances to win it all is pathetic. They need to do better when given that opportunity.
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 09:52 AM

Opinions are like azzholes Phogo, everyone has one. Just because they don't agree with you doesnt make them wrong. Lighten up and let everyone have a say without your interrnet tough guy replies.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 09:55 AM

I don't know much about him. He just seems to pop up now and then on this board blathering and blowing bubbles about how KU isn't a Blue Blood and other nonsense. If he is one, he doesn't seem to be much of a Jayhawk fan. For all I know, he may be living in a forgotten and overlooked cell in Alcatraz. Guess that would fit in with San Fran as you mentioned.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 10:59 AM

Originally Posted By: madcapper
Opinions are like azzholes Phogo, everyone has one. Just because they don't agree with you doesnt make them wrong. Lighten up and let everyone have a say without your interrnet tough guy replies.


I am the Ultimate Warrior on the Interweb. Sure everyone has an opinion. And thats my point...most individuals on this forum haa most likely had their blue blood teams already determined. No need for 52 to post a novella with stats trying to convince us that KU belongs in that group. Sort of like preaching to the choir...nomsayin
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: JimWest
Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
long pointless spin post


None of this changes the only stat that matters: national championships.

5 is minimum for blue blood status. A bunch of wins against inferior competition doesn't mean [censored].


Such thinking is really mindless! To consider your criteria as the mark of a Blue Blood makes no sense! This would literally mean that only one game each season has any meaning. The 25 - 30 plus wins during the season have no weight. The wins during decades, actually over 100 years for everyone, have no sway. That is absolute nonsense. To say that all the appearances and wins in the NCAA tourney don't mean anything without a championship is ridiculous. Championships are great and everyone wants one. But to say that they are the only mark of determination of a Blue Blood is ludicrous. They are part of the equation, but certainly not the only consideration.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 12:43 PM

You have a point...Jimbutt has a point...KU is indeed a Blueblood. But its a Blueblood that has underachieved much more than any other true Blueblood. Again they need to perform better once making a F4. If not they will always be the worst of the Bluebloods.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 08:18 PM

Thanks for giving me some credit for making a point my Phoggy friend and I do consider you a friend. The question is, “Who are the Blue Bloods?”, not who is the top dog and who is the bottom dog of the Blue Bloods. Considering who is the top or bottom Blue Blood based only on one category, national championships, is being too narrow.

If we are trying to consider who is the top dog and who isn’t, there needs to be numerous categories considered and I believe such a decision would be somewhat difficult to come up with. So let me share a few findings with you. KU is # 2 in total all time wins, Duke is # 4 and is 98 wins behind KU. In top percentage of wins, KU is # 3, Duke is # 4. In total NCAA tourney appearances, KU is # 3 and Duke is # 5. In total NCAA games played, KU is # 3 and Duke is # 4. In Consecutive NCAA tourney appearances, KU is # 1 and UK is # 8.

As you can see, the Blue Bloods bounce around in standings on these various categories and KU is not at the bottom of all of them or even most of them. If someone wanted to figure out who might be # 1, etc. overall, it would have to be figured out how much weight to give each category and just which categories should be or should not be considered. So to simply say that KU is the worst of the four Blue Bloods can’t be based on one category, which is what you are doing. And of course that JW person uses that to eliminate KU as a Blue Blood, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 08:42 PM

No like Jimbo says once you reach multiple F4s all that counts after that is how you close...KU cant close...Kentucky..Duke...and UNC has closed much better....hell Roi has 3 NCs in 16 yrs...actually in 14 yrs...that equates KU whole history...pull up all the conference titles...winning % you want....KU cant close the deal....UK...UNC..abd Duke can....currently they are superior programs....now go snort some more alfafa and try some weak debate with me later...you will lose that debate...
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 08:48 PM

Also dum dum KU has played D1 ball for a lot more yrs than Duke and UNC...so your total wins thing is not revelant...we even played afew yrs longer than Kentucky...you should check all stats outside of the ones convinient to trying to make your weak point...I will excuse your senility for being the problem once again...lol
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
This would literally mean that only one game each season has any meaning.



Please show me a list of all the national champions that won only one game.

Winning a championship takes more than winning one game. It takes winning a series of games. It takes the tenacity to not fold. It takes the hatred of settling.

Non-blue blood programs accept less than complete victory. KU fans make excuses for not winning championships. KU is a non-blue blood program.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: JimWest
Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
This would literally mean that only one game each season has any meaning.



Please show me a list of all the national champions that won only one game.

Winning a championship takes more than winning one game. It takes winning a series of games. It takes the tenacity to not fold. It takes the hatred of settling.

Non-blue blood programs accept less than complete victory. KU fans make excuses for not winning championships. KU is a non-blue blood program.


So the truth finally comes out, all those other games do count! Glad you agree with me.
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Originally Posted By: JimWest
Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
This would literally mean that only one game each season has any meaning.



Please show me a list of all the national champions that won only one game.

Winning a championship takes more than winning one game. It takes winning a series of games. It takes the tenacity to not fold. It takes the hatred of settling.

Non-blue blood programs accept less than complete victory. KU fans make excuses for not winning championships. KU is a non-blue blood program.


So the truth finally comes out, all those other games do count! Glad you agree with me.


Did your wind-swept, blind-JimWest-hating brain tell you something different before?

Try to keep up.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/14/19 11:40 PM

I don't hate you, just strongly disagree with you. I don't hate anyone. Glad you realize the importance of winning games during the season.
Posted by: JimWest

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
I don't hate you, just strongly disagree with you. I don't hate anyone. Glad you realize the importance of winning games during the season.


Just so we're clear, the "importance" of winning games during the season is to qualify for the tournament. However, my point is simpler. The tournament requires winning, at minimum, SIX games. You can't win a national championship by only winning one game.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 12:23 PM

You can believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. No amount of hot air from either of us is going to change the other's mind.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 02:34 PM

Ok simpleton farm boy and simpleton left coast Nancy boy...this is the last time I repeat this...there are 4 Bluebloods...they rank UK...UNC...Duke..then KU. KU is a Blueblood but the worse one. Please dont overthink this debate because neither of you two have the brain power to do so...get it...got it ....good.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 04:32 PM

And you're free to your own views and to share your hot air as well as the rest of us.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 05:52 PM

What is in error about my post...it is 100% correct...at least it wasnt a 40000 word diatribe. It was concise and accurate...thats not hot air...40000 word novellas consist of hot air...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 06:02 PM

You are correct concerning the four Blue Bloods. That lines up with my research. You may or may not be correct concerning KU being # four. There's a lot of factors concerning that and you have only given your opinion, no facts except the number of national titles. I've only shared stats on the teams. They don't conclusively rank the teams. Another consideration hasn't been discussed and that's the intangible influence each of the schools have made on basketball. I know KU's has been quite considerable, such as who its coaches have been, development of the NCAA, the Tournament and basketball becoming a part of the Olympics. There's other considerations that I won't go into.
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 06:10 PM

Face it phogo you are hot air, in one letter or less.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/15/19 09:36 PM

Or less..come get some...You live in KC???...Lol
I just like giving the old man a hard time. I know he has nothing better to do out in the western Kansas hinderlands. If posting 40000 word posts about KU's greatness in hoops so be it...but they are 4th among the Bluebloods...FACT...
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 05:27 AM

Ok phogo you da man.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 09:49 AM

Yes...yes I am...lol
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 11:28 AM

Before you get too excited Phoggy, Madcapper forgot to finish the last word of his sentence. He surely meant "mania." Yes, You da mania. laugh
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 11:59 AM

At least I dont need 40000 words to prove my mania...you on the other hand.....
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 01:23 PM

Face it, you're just jealous that you can't string 40, 000 words together.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 04:08 PM

Would never find a need to...especially about obvious factoids. Your 40000 word diatribes consist of a lot of repitition...hey I get it...ancients like you tend to repeat themselves..it happens along with soiling your Depends...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 04:18 PM

Another stab at the Blue Bloods. This one goes with the top 20. I think 20 is way over the top, but go to this site and see what they have to say.

https://fansided.com/2019/05/15/college-...tm_medium=email

Here's their list starting at 20 and going to 1:
20. Gonzaga
19. N. C. St.
18. Wisconsin
17. Maryland
16. Michigan
15. Florida
14. Ohio St.
13. Georgetown
12. Villanova
11. Arizona
10. UConn
. 9. Louisville
. 8. Syracuse
. 7. Michigan St.
. 6. Indiana
. 5. KU
. 4. Duke
. 3. UNC
. 2. UCLA
. 1. UK
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 04:21 PM

This list is not only longer than the one first shared on this thread, but quite different.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 04:45 PM

Yes ..KU rates 5th...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 05/16/19 09:52 PM

The first site says that, “UK, KU, UNC & Duke are obvious Blue Bloods.” The second site says that, “Duke and KU certainly qualify.” I assume that he would also include UK and UNC due to the rest of his article.

The first site includes UCLA, UConn, Michigan St. And Nova in his 2nd tier of four. He considers these as schools that probably should be Blue Bloods, but lack just a bit compared to the first four. Indiana, Temple and Gonzaga are in his 3rd tier, just three. These are possible contenders for being Blue Bloods, but lack a bit more than the other eight.

The second site places UCLA in the top four (#2), UConn in the 3rd four (#10), Michigan St. In the 2nd four (#7), Nova in the3rd four (#12), Indiana in the 2nd four (#6), Gonzaga in the 5th four and Temple isn’t listed. Each team is given a ranking from 1 - 20. This is probably an impossible task seeing how just these two sites differ so much on their selections.

Not only are the lists much different in how many, but where some of the various schools are placed. This only shows that there’s considerable difference on what different people think about who the Blue Bloods are and how many there are. It seems that most people consider UK, KU, UNC and Duke as Blue Bloods. That’s a good place to start and stop.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 08:56 AM

I just happened to come across an old post from three years ago. Daniel D. Zillmer had written an article ranking the 75 Greatest College Basketball Programs.using the following criteria:

NCAA Championship-- 10 points
Championship Game Runner up-- 6 points
Pre-NCAA Tournament Appearance-- 2 points
Final Four-- 5 points
Elite Eight-- 4 points
Sweet Sixteen-- 3 points
NCAA Tournament Appearance-- 2 points
Conference Championship-- 8 points

It has some bearing on the Basketball Blue Bloods and their rankings. He primarily uses the NCAA Tournament for his criteria, leaving out all time season records. I've updated it adding in the past 3 years points:

The top five schools:
UK with 932 points + 31 points = 963
KU with 858 points + 41 points = 899
UCLA with 782 points + 7 points = 789
UNC with 742 points + 31 points = 773
Duke with 560 points + 23 points = 583

So much for KU not being a Blue Blood or at the bottom of the Blue Bloods, especially when considering the NCAA Tournament..
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 09:38 AM

Only mid majors count conference championships...lol...who am I imitating...And jeebus 52 we agree KU is a Blueblood...why the consistant rant trying to prove such...Actually conference titles should only be 4 pts at the most...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 10:31 AM

Phoggy, I'm not talking about you when talking about Blue Bloods. I'm very aware that you regard KU as a Blue Blood. Almost no one disagrees about KU being a Blood Blood, though there is one in particular who makes the claim that KU isn't a Blue Blood. But let's say that you are correct about conference titles only being 4 pts. Here's the recalculated figures for the top five:

UK . . . 759 points
KU . . . 655 points
UCLA. 641 points
UNC . .609 points
Duke . 488 points

It doesn't change the standings order. KU is not the worst of the 4 commonly accepted Blue Bloods. However, you are incorrect about conference championships not being important, they are, just as all time season records are important, but not included in this criteria. All time wins would certainly be favorable for KU.
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 10:38 AM

You play in a conference for a reason, 18 games, it damn well mean something.
Posted by: tmcats

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 10:57 AM

i could not name a soul who considers ku anything but a blue blood, no one. and to suggest otherwise is silly.

Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 11:12 AM

You don't follow this board that closely than.
Posted by: tmcats

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 11:23 AM

well, it depends on how one defines the term 'blue blood' but my top ten, if that's it, would be:

kentucky
ucla
duke
unc
ku
indiana
uconn
michigan state
louisville
nova


Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 11:29 AM

Your response didn't respond to my statement. There is someone on this board who doesn't accept KU as a blue blood. Why don't you try to figure out who it is?
Posted by: tmcats

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 11:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Your response didn't respond to my statement. There is someone on this board who doesn't accept KU as a blue blood. Why don't you try to figure out who it is?


because i don't care.

Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 12:09 PM

Then why are you are this board?
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Then why are you are this board?

Probably a lot of people have asked that question!
Posted by: parkhawk3319

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 12:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Jayhawk1952
Then why are you are this board?


If you are in Manhattan KS you are always looking for somewhere else to be.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 12:49 PM

Not really...he is banned from the crimson crappy..Emaw board probably suks goat tittays like their fanbase does...hence he is here...
Posted by: tmcats

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 03:03 PM

not in mhk, not until football season. and it's cold and windy at the lake today, so here's a logical default.

Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 05:08 PM

LOL!!!
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 05:12 PM

Not the only logical default. Lol they really shut down the Emaw board in the off season...talk about hick sticks...hilarious yet pathetic...
Posted by: parkhawk3319

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 06/17/19 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: tmcats
not in mhk, not until football season. and it's cold and windy at the lake today, so here's a logical default.



exactly....
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/03/19 09:55 PM

Some more thoughts on the Blue Bloods during our basketball downtime.

I recently did some internet surfing on the question of who are the best NCAA basketball schools. I randomly found 10 different means of measuring this. They all are different from the means of measurement previously done on this post. The first 10 sites found were used. Most of them are opinions with some using a bit of criteria for measurement and others simply a matter of opinion. First I list the sites and then give the results of each site. Only the top five schools are listed but I ranked the top 10 and am giving 10 points for a 1, 9 points for a 2, etc. A _ indicates not ranked in the top 10. The year the site was posted is also given. Nine points separate the top four. UCLA follows # 4 by 20 points.

Site . . . .1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 .Total . Rank
UK . . . . _ . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 4 . 1 . 4 . . 1 . . 84 . . . .1
Duke. . . 3 . 2 . 2 . 4 . 4 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 . . 5 . . 83 . . . .2
KU . . . . 1 . 3 . 3 . 5 . 5 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 4 . . 2 . . 77 . . . .3
UNC . . . 4 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 1 . . 1 . . 75 . . . .4
UCLA . . _ . _ . 5 . 2 . 2 . 4 . _ . 3 . 3 . . 3 . . 55. . . . 5

Site
1. Most Consistent Past Decade, 2014
2. America’s Best Colleges in Getting Players into the NBA, 2019
3. Best College Basketball Programs All Time, 2019
4. College Basketball 10 Greatest Programs Of All Time, 2019
5. Power Ranking The Top 20 College Of All Time, 2010
6. AP Top 100 Programs Based on Poll All Time, 2017
7. Top 25 Basketball Programs Statistically Last 10 Years, 2018
8. Best College Basketball Team From Every Decade (1930s, 1940s, etc., 3 picked), ranking indicates how many times a school was picked.
9. Top 50 Teams of All Time, 2012
10. Top 75 Teams of All Time, 2015

UK being # 1 doesn’t surprise me. There seems to be much weight given UCLA for their great decade plus. It was great, but what about all the time before and after? Notice, they weren’t even ranked in three of the categories. The following comment was made where they were # 2 in the 10 Greatest Programs of All Time: “UCLA is 2nd all-time in NCAA Tournament appearances, an especially impressive feat considering that they have played in 200 - 300 fewer games than Kentucy, North Caroline, Duke and Kansas.” That statement makes no sense at all as the Tournament didn’t start until 1939, meaning that all the schools have played a similar number of games since that time. UCLA’s appearances are impressive but they haven’t played 200 - 300 games less than the other schools since 1939! Such thinking indicates an undue predigest. The main value of this chart is the number of opinions it is based on. That tends to even out some of the predigest. Based on this, it is clear who the top four Blue Bloods are. Nine points separate the top four. UCLA follows #4 by 20 points!
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 09:49 AM

Lengthy diatribe sighting...lol...
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 09:56 AM

It's football season who cares about basketball now.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 10:05 AM

Basketball season is never over for KU fans!
Posted by: madcapper

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 10:14 AM

Lmao
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 11:45 AM

The temperature level of interest varies throughout the year. It is always fairly high, but changes in accordance with what’s happening – Season almost to start, early games, signing period, winding up non-conf., starting conf., mid-conf., winding up conf. and conf. tourney, NCAA tourney, who’s staying and going, verbal commitments, some down time, Late Night, repeat the cycle . . . Our interest in Jayhawk basketball never stops. This is not meant to be exact and may vary some from year to year, but it gives you the idea of KU basketball fan interest . . . It would be great if KU football interest could someday have a similar scale. I believe that it has recently gone up several degrees, but time will tell if it continues up or really cools off again.

Temp. . 200̊ .205̊ .210̊ .212̊ .218̊ .225̊ .240̊ .220̊ .212̊ .190̊ .185̊ .205̊
Month . Oct. Nov. Dec.Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. .Aug. Sept.
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: PHOGUSHER
Lengthy diatribe sighting...lol...


I did it for you! Appreciate it!
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 10:07 PM

No...I have known KU is one of the true 4 bluebloods for a long time. Why do you have to go on about trying to prove it over and over is beyond me....but I guess you got to do something in the western Kansas hinderlands....better than slitting your wrists I guess...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/04/19 11:52 PM

Glad that you are one of many on this board that belives KU is a blue blood, one of the four true historical blue bloods. Sad to say there has been some on this board who don't think so. Such non believers will probably never be convinced. That's their problem. I simply enjoy posting stats and will continue to do so whenever I feel like it. There are some who even enjoy my stat posts. You don't like them, don't read them. It really doesn't make me difference. Really looking forward to the upcoming season.
Posted by: PHOGUSHER

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/05/19 09:27 AM

52's super power I D is Mega Boring Diatribe Dude...
Posted by: Jayhawk1952

Re: The Blue Bloods? - 09/05/19 12:27 PM

Originally Posted By: PHOGUSHER
52's super power I D is Mega Boring Diatribe Dude...

They may be MBDD but they do get your attention!!!!!! laugh laugh laugh laugh