Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 112
  1. #31
    Speechless
    Points: 865,405, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    CycloneErik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Jamerica
    Posts
    56,033
    Points
    865,405
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,870
    Given: 1,610

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Odd as it is, I'm not sure UCLA fits anymore. They had the amazing and historic run, and there have been some good teams since, but they aren't consistently there anymore.

    Kansas, Duke, UNC, Kentucky fit.
    UConn might just put themselves there. Florida and Michigan State are elite, but not at that very top tier.


    I just sat down and counted, because this made me curious. Apparently, 25 teams have won the championship since 1955. Most of the one-time champions in that stretch are either programs that managed to land a future NBA Hall of Famer (like Ohio State with John Havlicek or Cincy with Oscar Robertson, or San Francisco with Bill Russell) or recently, programs that consistently won at a high level and finally broke through one time (Arizona, Maryland, Syracuse).

    Apparently, it's difficult to win a championship or something.


    Since we are an elite team now, let's go get that One Cyclone Moment.
    Make this one for the ages!




    http://rememberingdoria.wordpress.com/

  2. #32
    Walk On
    Points: 5,972, Level: 22
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Muscatine, IA
    Posts
    137
    Points
    5,972
    Level
    22
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4
    Given: 0

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by ImJustKCClone View Post
    Interesting list, but I wonder about your criteria. Blue Bloods were not always powerful, and some that were amazingly good in the past are less so now.

    Consider this: The school you left off has the most NCAA championships (including, I believe, the most consecutive)...
    UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
    The rest of the schools with more than one NCAA championship:

    Kentucky 8 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012
    North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
    Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
    Connecticut 4 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014
    Duke 4 1991, 1992, 2001, 2010
    Louisville 3 1980, 1986, 2013
    Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008
    Florida 2 2006, 2007
    Michigan State 2 1979, 2000
    North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983
    Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962
    San Francisco 2 1955, 1956
    Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946
    What is interesting is that this list contains the seven schools that have won the last 11 championships. Proving that success comes in bunches and can leave as quickl.y



  3. #33
    Addict
    Points: 76,757, Level: 86
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 1,593
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registered50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    ImJustKCClone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6,607
    Points
    76,757
    Level
    86
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,488
    Given: 1,790

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    My point with posting those two sets of tables was this: "blue blood" means whatever someone wants it to mean. There is no one team that has been a consistent powerhouse since the beginning of the tourney (a decent measuring tool).

    Of the four that seem to be mentioned most frequently as blue bloods (KU, UK, UNC & Duke) well -

    KU gets to the dance a lot but falters all too frequently. They have three NC's, with 56 years between the first & third. Consistency?

    Duke has four, but they're relative newcomers compared to the other three with their first in 1991, and only nineteen years between the first & last.

    UNC is getting up there with five, the first coming in 1957 and the most recent in 2009, a span of 52 years. Basically, one championship per decade.

    Then you have KU, with 8 NC's, spanning 64 years from 1948 to 2012. Of the four, they probably have the best history.

    All four teams get to the dance at about the same rate.


    UCLA's first NC came in 1964, after KU (48), UK (52) and UNC (57), but 25 years BEFORE Duke. They have one less NC than Duke, KU & UNC, COMBINED. They have been to the tournament, and advanced, about as well as any of the other four.

    So...if blue blood means you're currently relevant, then UConn has just as good a case as the other four. If it means you're historically relevant, UCLA has a better case than Duke. In the 60's, KU, Duke & UNC would have been laughed out of the room if they put themselves in the same category as UCLA.



  4. #34
    Addict
    Points: 113,893, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    madcityCY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    5,776
    Points
    113,893
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 97
    Given: 199

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Some folks using "never" and "always" don't obviously mean never and always.

    I highly doubt that UNC, UK, KU, and Duke are ALL still considered bluebloods (the top four on anyone's list) in 100 years.

    Northwestern used to be awesome in football. Things change. And will continue to change.



  5. #35
    Legend
    Points: 215,541, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    Rabbuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,263
    Points
    215,541
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 950
    Given: 51

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Isufb username is apt.



  6. #36
    Addict
    Points: 86,073, Level: 91
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,377
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Cyclonesince78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,708
    Points
    86,073
    Level
    91
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,045
    Given: 1,210

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyFive View Post
    Let's start with a Final Four and go from there.
    You must have forgotten about the 1940's.



  7. #37
    All-Star
    Points: 31,389, Level: 54
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 561
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Psiclone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    1,602
    Points
    31,389
    Level
    54
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 94
    Given: 116

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by ImJustKCClone View Post
    My point with posting those two sets of tables was this: "blue blood" means whatever someone wants it to mean. There is no one team that has been a consistent powerhouse since the beginning of the tourney (a decent measuring tool).

    Of the four that seem to be mentioned most frequently as blue bloods (KU, UK, UNC & Duke) well -

    KU gets to the dance a lot but falters all too frequently. They have three NC's, with 56 years between the first & third. Consistency?

    Duke has four, but they're relative newcomers compared to the other three with their first in 1991, and only nineteen years between the first & last.

    UNC is getting up there with five, the first coming in 1957 and the most recent in 2009, a span of 52 years. Basically, one championship per decade.

    Then you have KU, with 8 NC's, spanning 64 years from 1948 to 2012. Of the four, they probably have the best history.

    All four teams get to the dance at about the same rate.


    UCLA's first NC came in 1964, after KU (48), UK (52) and UNC (57), but 25 years BEFORE Duke. They have one less NC than Duke, KU & UNC, COMBINED. They have been to the tournament, and advanced, about as well as any of the other four.

    So...if blue blood means you're currently relevant, then UConn has just as good a case as the other four. If it means you're historically relevant, UCLA has a better case than Duke. In the 60's, KU, Duke & UNC would have been laughed out of the room if they put themselves in the same category as UCLA.
    The point of starting this thread was that many CF posters seem to be complaining that the "blue bloods" seem to get the 5-star recruits (see first sentence), not the number of championships a school has won. So, an apt historical chart would show the number of highly ranked recruits by school. I think there will be a very high correlation between the number of highly ranked recruits and the success of the programs.


    "Of course the people don't want war ... the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
    -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

  8. #38
    Addict
    Points: 144,929, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Farnsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    7,697
    Points
    144,929
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 561
    Given: 268

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    I think you have to take the new state of college basketball into perspective when talking about blue bloods as well. Yes some of these schools aren't getting deep into the tourney lately on a consistent basis (see KU and UNC), however they still land all the good recruits. With all the top recruits leaving school early, it makes it a little more difficult for these schools to win the big dance, although they are still blue bloods as they are eating up all the top recruits.



  9. #39
    Addict
    Points: 76,757, Level: 86
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 1,593
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registered50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    ImJustKCClone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6,607
    Points
    76,757
    Level
    86
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,488
    Given: 1,790

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by Psiclone View Post
    The point of starting this thread was that many CF posters seem to be complaining that the "blue bloods" seem to get the 5-star recruits (see first sentence), not the number of championships a school has won. So, an apt historical chart would show the number of highly ranked recruits by school. I think there will be a very high correlation between the number of highly ranked recruits and the success of the programs.
    Sorry - I got sidetracked by the NEVER and ALWAYS claims of some posters. I think "blue blood" is a poor descriptor, because those who consider themselves blue bloods have very different definitions for the term.

    There's no doubt that success begets success...recruiting is easier when you have a powerful program. However, power goes in waves. If you lose your premium coach to poaching or retirement, or your school gets hit with major sanctions, or conference re-alignment puts you with a whole new set of teams to play that powerful program can become a memory. Conversely, if you get a hot coach who starts winning and who stays on to become a legacy your program can become powerful, with that power increasing as recruiting becomes easier and 5 stars start giving you the time of day.

    Will Duke be the same recruiting draw without Coach K? KU stayed relevant when Ol' Roy bolted for UNC because they brought in a good replacement with Bill Self...but would they have survived if the Big 12 had dissolved several years ago? When conferences realign, football drives the bus. KU, Duke, UNC? Not real strong in football (KU had a shot, but they fired the guy that was doing it for them).

    Bottom line, whatever your definition of blue blood, the concepts of "once a blue blood, always a blue blood"and "if you aren't there already, you never will be" are fallacies. :)



  10. #40
    Walk On
    Points: 5,133, Level: 21
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 417
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered5000 Experience Points
    MuseumFaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ames
    Posts
    160
    Points
    5,133
    Level
    21
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 37
    Given: 90

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    The whole term 'blue blood' as reference to college basketball has always seemed to refer to the programs rich in tradition and commonly agreed to have been dominant during the early stages of the game (or at least for an extended period of time) creating a storied tradition and legacy of success. It isn't just getting the best recruits year in and year out, or just winning a national championship (or 3), or just having the most players in the NBA, or just having an incredible fan base/facilities/etc... It is a mixture of all of those that helps to create a widespread and compelling narrative that reaches beyond the specific fan base of a school.

    I feel that MSU, UCONN, perhaps Florida, and some of the other programs that have had a great deal of success in recent years may be counted in the blue blood category in years to come, but it will take time and no small amount of compelling narrative to reach that level. The key ingredient is time to allow the legacy to become more defined within the context of their accomplishments.

    Regardless of UCLA's improprieties if you would have had this conversation in the 1970's the Bruins would have topped this list and perhaps in some people's minds they still do, but the fact that that can be debated just goes to show that through the lens of time the perceptions and criteria of who is or isn't a blue blood can be fluid. The narrative became tarnished, thus the perception of what their unrivaled success means became debatable.

    Will ISU ever be a blue blood? Definitely a possibility in my opinion, especially if Fred stays long enough to get to some of those coaching milestones and wins a couple national championships, but there is no way that the term blue blood will be used until a great deal of time has passed after those accomplishments (if they do happen as the fan base hopes) and those accomplishments have become enshrined in the greater legacy of college basketball.


    "Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses." -George Washington Carver

  11. #41
    Pro
    Points: 24,750, Level: 48
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 800
    Overall activity: 21.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,085
    Points
    24,750
    Level
    48
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 289
    Given: 354

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by IAStubborn View Post
    So outside of coach K duke has won zero titles but are a blue blood but UCLA has won titles with multiple coaches spanning multiple decades and aren't? I dont get your logic. It is just a dumb term. What matters is how it effects your ability to compete now. The more recent success certainly effects it more.
    Duke has been a significant factor in the national scene consistently since 1960, with only a dip from 67-77. Keep in mind that until 1975 only ONE team per conference was allowed to go to the NCAA tourney and Duke had Carolina to contend with in the ACC. UCLA had ZERO competition in the PCC/PAC 8. The amazing John Wooden had 15 years of mediocrity at UCLA before Gilbert started handing out benefits to recruits and players. So IN MY OPINION, I rank Duke higher than UCLA. If you want to not call Duke a Blue Blood, that's fine, it's certainly debatable as I said. It's Kentucky, Kansas, Carolina and then everyone else.



  12. #42
    Pro
    Points: 12,581, Level: 33
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 59.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class3 months registered10000 Experience Points
    bigdaddykane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ames
    Posts
    2,072
    Points
    12,581
    Level
    33
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 439
    Given: 259

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    What about Syracuse?


    BDK
    Cyclone state

  13. #43
    Bench Warmer
    Points: 6,915, Level: 24
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 135
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rural U.S.A.
    Posts
    293
    Points
    6,915
    Level
    24
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 34
    Given: 0

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by ISUFB View Post
    Iowa State will NEVER and I repeat NEVER be a Blue Blood.
    your blue Blood Programs goes as this:
    Kentucky
    Kansas
    Duke
    Indiana
    Florida
    Michigan State
    North Carolina

    Those are my top Programs. Iowa State will never sniff the greatness those programs have seen.

    Florida? No. You forgot UCLA. If that isn't a blue blood, I don't know what is. I'd put UCONN and Syracuse on there before Florida.



  14. #44
    Addict
    Points: 97,873, Level: 97
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 1,177
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    everyyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    5,939
    Points
    97,873
    Level
    97
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 56
    Given: 109

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by CyArob View Post
    All it takes to become a blue blood is one legendary coach.
    Exactly. A legendary coach who stays for a long legendary career can make a program elite.


    ALL IN
    www.cyclonejerseys.com
    Always buying historically relevant ISU gear

  15. #45
    Pro
    Points: 55,936, Level: 73
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 1,114
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience Points
    uro cy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,362
    Points
    55,936
    Level
    73
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 88
    Given: 70

    Re: Becoming a Blue Blood - Article

    Quote Originally Posted by twocoach View Post
    UCLA is no different than any of today's traditional powers. They had a really awesome run of 14 years (produced largely by the most ridiculously obvious recruiting violations in the history of the sport to go unpunished). Outside of that 14 year window they have one title and four Final Fours, which puts them pretty middle of the pack.
    Quote Originally Posted by twocoach View Post
    Nope. They should have received the death penalty 10 times over. Most feel that the Lakers were the only team with a higher payroll than the UCLA men's basketball team. The Sam Gilbert year's will forever mark UCLA's Wooden success as a giant asterisk in the books for me.
    Oh. I discredit teams that hire recruit's fathers. So scratch at least 2 titles, and I'm too lazy to look up anything from 1952. While we're at it, how about a -1 for failing to win a championship with Wilt.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • TV: FS1
  • Iowa State @ Oklahoma State
  • October 4, 2014
  • 11:00 AM