Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#2040708 - 05/10/19 11:50 AM The Blue Bloods?
Jayhawk1952 Online   content
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 01/18/08
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.

Top
#2040710 - 05/10/19 12:05 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
Wichita falls State, for sure. Also, Gonzaga.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style, that is)!

Top
#2040711 - 05/10/19 03:31 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
zimsjim Offline
Junior Jayhawk

Registered: 09/16/10
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

Top
#2040715 - 05/11/19 09:50 AM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
moose1 Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 12/29/06
Loc: Wichita
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.

Top
#2040717 - 05/11/19 09:53 AM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
JimWest Offline
))<>((

Registered: 11/29/12
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.
_________________________
I'm the slickest they is
I'm the quickest they is
Did I say I'm the slickest they is?

Top
#2040718 - 05/11/19 10:01 AM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
PHOGUSHER Online   content
Original AFH Gangsta

Registered: 11/01/05
Loc: Western Kansas Hinderlands
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...
_________________________
No more .net hate. Just here to share incredible special moments with my Jayhawk brethren.

Top
#2040719 - 05/11/19 11:31 AM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
Jayhawk1952 Online   content
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 01/18/08
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

Top
#2040720 - 05/11/19 12:20 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
PHOGUSHER Online   content
Original AFH Gangsta

Registered: 11/01/05
Loc: Western Kansas Hinderlands
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.
_________________________
No more .net hate. Just here to share incredible special moments with my Jayhawk brethren.

Top
#2040721 - 05/11/19 01:16 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: PHOGUSHER]
JimWest Offline
))<>((

Registered: 11/29/12
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.
_________________________
I'm the slickest they is
I'm the quickest they is
Did I say I'm the slickest they is?

Top
#2040722 - 05/11/19 02:17 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
Jayhawk1952 Online   content
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 01/18/08
Take away a brief 12 year period and no one would even be mentioning UCLA.

Top
#2040723 - 05/11/19 03:10 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
JimWest Offline
))<>((

Registered: 11/29/12
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?
_________________________
I'm the slickest they is
I'm the quickest they is
Did I say I'm the slickest they is?

Top
#2040724 - 05/11/19 04:33 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
moose1 Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 12/29/06
Loc: Wichita
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.

Top
#2040725 - 05/11/19 04:37 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: JimWest]
Jayhawk1952 Online   content
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 01/18/08
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.

Top
#2040726 - 05/11/19 05:13 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
Jayhawk1952 Online   content
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 01/18/08
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.

Top
#2040727 - 05/11/19 06:56 PM Re: The Blue Bloods? [Re: Jayhawk1952]
PHOGUSHER Online   content
Original AFH Gangsta

Registered: 11/01/05
Loc: Western Kansas Hinderlands
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
..


Edited by PHOGUSHER (05/11/19 06:59 PM)
_________________________
No more .net hate. Just here to share incredible special moments with my Jayhawk brethren.

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Preview