Blue Bloods?

#76
#76
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Funny you say that UCLA cheats which qualifies their blue bloodedness but KU’s blatant cheating isn’t relevant.
Click to expand...

It’s not a complicated point I’m making. Basically all of UCLA’s success came in a very short period when they were cheating more blatantly and broadly than anyone ever. Kansas has been successful across several decades (which is why they’re #2 in wins), and vague allegations that they were cheating that entire time are not the same as what happened at UCLA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLnVANDYland and ArdentVol
#77
#77
There isn’t another coach that was just average for over a decade, then started having players bought for him and won double digit titles. That’s not a “this happens everywhere” type of thing, and UCLA’s entire program rests on it
 
#79
#79
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Big time basketball players really just want to live in Lawrence effing Kansas.
Click to expand...

If this is your actual point, you’re getting very desperate. How many major programs are in destination cities? Recruits go to these schools for the platform/resources/coaching/surrounding talent/NBA preparation, not the tourist attractions. Comparing Kansas’s cheating to Wooden’s and Gilbert’s based on this vague ass innuendo is pretty baseless
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLnVANDYland
#80
#80
Duke is a one coach Blue Blood, we will see where they stand in 20 years. K has half their wins as a program, 80 percent of their NCAA appearances and all their titles.

As much as I hate them, Kentucky has done it across multiple coaches as has North Carolina.
 
#81
#81
NashVol11 said:
If this is your actual point, you’re getting very desperate. How many major programs are in destination cities? Recruits go to these schools for the platform/resources/coaching/surrounding talent/NBA preparation, not the tourist attractions. Comparing Kansas’s cheating to Wooden’s and Gilbert’s based on this vague ass innuendo is pretty baseless
Click to expand...

Resources = cash.

Comical that you call Wooden a cheater and disqualify UCLA as a blue blood but ignore the sleazy triumvirate of Larry Brown, Roy Williams, and Bill Self.

You’re the one that declared there is no way that UCLA or IU are more blue blooded than KU (“Kansas is way more of a blue blood than either Indiana or UCLA”). I’m saying yes, there is. UCLA has 11 NCs and IU has 5 to KU’s 3. Plus KU’s history was in a small, candy assed league giving them an easy path to the NCAA fields of 8, 16, 22, 25, 32, etc. when Final Fours were in the 2nd weekend.
 
#82
#82
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Resources = cash.

Comical that you call Wooden a cheater and disqualify UCLA as a blue blood but ignore the sleazy triumvirate of Larry Brown, Roy Williams, and Bill Self.

You’re the one that declared there is no way that UCLA or IU are more blue blooded than KU (“Kansas is way more of a blue blood than either Indiana or UCLA”). I’m saying yes, there is. UCLA has 11 NCs and IU has 5 to KU’s 3. Plus KU’s history was in a small, candy assed league giving them an easy path to the NCAA fields of 8, 16, 22, 25, 32, etc. when Final Fours were in the 2nd weekend.
Click to expand...

Wooden and Harrick are a pretty potent cheating combo
 
#83
#83
Brown coached at UCLA, too. He coached that '80 Championship Game against Louisville.
 
#84
#84
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Resources = cash.

Comical that you call Wooden a cheater and disqualify UCLA as a blue blood but ignore the sleazy triumvirate of Larry Brown, Roy Williams, and Bill Self.

You’re the one that declared there is no way that UCLA or IU are more blue blooded than KU (“Kansas is way more of a blue blood than either Indiana or UCLA”). I’m saying yes, there is. UCLA has 11 NCs and IU has 5 to KU’s 3. Plus KU’s history was in a small, candy assed league giving them an easy path to the NCAA fields of 8, 16, 22, 25, 32, etc. when Final Fours were in the 2nd weekend.
Click to expand...

You’ve missed my point about 5 times, which is that it’s not just that UCLA cheated, it’s that 95% of their success came in one 15-year period that lined up perfectly with the most egregious cheating in CBB history, and that without that time period their program is mostly irrelevant.

It’s comical that you keep trying to group Wooden with Roy Williams. It’s like comparing SMU’s death penalty to Lane Kiffin’s secondary violations. I’m a Duke fan, I’m the last person to defend Roy but that’s ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLnVANDYland
#85
#85
Blue bloods and cheating aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, it almost seems to be a prerequisite. KY, UNC, Dook… surely none of them cheat.
 
#86
#86
NashVol11 said:
You’ve missed my point about 5 times, which is that it’s not just that UCLA cheated, it’s that 95% of their success came in one 15-year period that lined up perfectly with the most egregious cheating in CBB history, and that without that time period their program is mostly irrelevant.

It’s comical that you keep trying to group Wooden with Roy Williams. It’s like comparing SMU’s death penalty to Lane Kiffin’s secondary violations. I’m a Duke fan, I’m the last person to defend Roy but that’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You’re the one cancelling UCLA because you’re certain that they are the worst cheater ever. But the NCAA hasn’t taken away Wooden’s NCs.

KU’s last 3 coaches, covering nearly 40 years, are blatant cheats. But, but Wooden.
 
#87
#87
I even said that the first 5 BBs are probably KY, UNC, Dook, UCLA, and KU but I also said that IU (with 5x NCs AND playing in a far better conference historically than KU has) is arguably in the 1st 5. 5 is greater than 3. Saying there’s NO WAY UCLA or IU is more blue blood than Kansas is just wrong.
 
#88
#88
Titles
UCLA - 11*
UK - 8
UNC - 6
Duke - 5
Indiana - 5
UConn - 4
Kansas - 3
Villanova - 3

Wins
UK - 2,327
Kansas - 2,323
UNC - 2,294
Duke - 2,214
Temple - 1,945
Syracuse - 1,940
UCLA - 1,928
Notre Dame - 1,915
St. John’s - 1,887
Indiana - 1,869

Final Fours
UNC - 20
UCLA - 18
UK - 17
Duke - 16
Kansas - 15
Michigan State - 10
Ohio State - 10
Indiana - 8
Louisville - 8

NCAAT Wins
UK - 129
UNC - 126
Duke - 114
Kansas - 108
UCLA - 101
Michigan State - 69
Indiana - 66

iNdIaNa Is BeTtEr ThAn KaNsAs
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLnVANDYland
#90
#90
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Indiana is in a better league.

Total wins… weak conferences and more season equals lots of wins.
Click to expand...

Kansas has 49 NCAAT appearances to IU’s 39, but 108 wins to IU’s 66. That’s the conference too right?

If anything, Kansas should have fewer tourney wins per appearance based on the smaller tournaments (and fewer free wins) that you mentioned
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLnVANDYland
#91
#91
NashVol11 said:
Kansas has 49 NCAAT appearances to IU’s 39, but 108 wins to IU’s 66. That’s the conference too right?
Click to expand...

Appearances? Absolutely. The NCAAT used to give 1 bid per conference. Then only a couple. Kansas has historically been in a far weaker conference than IU. IU had to stay ahead of Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin while KU was rarely challenged with Colorado, Iowa State, Nebraska, Iowa State. Wins are correlated to appearances.

3/49 < 5/39, and it’s not very close.
 
Last edited:
#92
#92
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Appearances? Absolutely. The NCAAT used to give 1 bid per conference. Then only a couple. Kansas has historically been in a far weaker conference than IU. IU had to stay ahead of Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin while KU was rarely challenged with Colorado, Iowa State, Nebraska, Iowa State. Wins are correlated to appearances.

3/49 < 5/39, and it’s not very close.
Click to expand...

I see you mostly ignored the second half of the question, but 42 more tournament wins in just 10 more appearances isn’t explained away by “wins are correlated to appearances” lol.

As I said, if Kansas was just running it up in tiny tournaments like you’re trying to say they were, their wins per appearance should if anything be lower than IU’s.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VOLnVANDYland
#94
#94
NashVol11 said:
I see you mostly ignored the second half of the question, but 42 more tournament wins in just 10 more appearances isn’t explained away by “wins are correlated to appearances” lol.

As I said, if Kansas was just running it up in tiny tournaments like you’re trying to say they were, their wins per appearance should if anything be lower than IU’s.
Click to expand...

You’re ignoring 11 NCs versus 3.
 
#97
#97
zjcvols said:
They’ve won one title in 45 years
Click to expand...
In 2006 they were in the finals and in 2007 they were in the final 4 and the last title they won was in 1995...They are in the tournament almost every year....Easily a blue blood....just because they don't win a title every year does not take that away from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er
#98
#98
VOLnMiami said:
In 2006 they were in the finals and in 2007 they were in the final 4 and the last title they won was in 1995...They are in the tournament almost every year....Easily a blue blood....just because they don't win a title every year does not take that away from them.
Click to expand...

They made the Final Four this year, which was their 5th since 1980. One more than Houston. Duke has 12 in that time.

Syracuse has been better than post-Wooden UCLA. Coaching searches have been a struggle for them too
 
Last edited:
#99
#99
In what I would categorize as the "modern" bluebloods - as in their standing over the last quarter century:

A1: Duke, Kentucky
A2: Kansas, UNC

B: Michigan St, Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova, Florida, Louisville
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top