(06-23-2017 12:15 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 03:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 02:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

Too many people twist the definition of "blue blood". It's not about simply winning championships or even being elite, but the fact that you won those championships A LONG TIME AGO. In essence, arguing that a program hasn't had as much recent success is pretty irrelevant with defining whether a school is a blue blood. By its very definition, "blue blood" means "old money" (NOT recently earned "new money"). The proper title for these types of threads should really be "Is [insert school] still an elite program?", but too many people improperly use the "blue blood" reference (and it becomes a loaded term).

But Indiana and UCLA hasn't had success in a LONG time. Indiana hasn't won a title in 30 years. UCLA it's been 22 years. UCLA is totally a school that was one coach one generation. They've won a single title after Wooden left.

Indiana has still been to 2 more Final Fours since its last title and UCLA has had a championship and 4 Final Fours (plus a vacated 5th) since Wooden retired. It might be not be as stellar as prior generations, but there's still multi-generational success there. Regardless, the "long time ago" success is the entire crux of being a "blue blood". That's the entire point of the definition.

Exactly.

Since Wooden's retirement in 1975, UCLA has been a better program than Georgetown:

1 National Title each
6 Final Fours for UCLA (although one was vacated) vs 4 for Georgetown
19 Sweet 16s for UCLA vs 11 for Georgetown

UCLA's down decades were better than Georgetown's best decades.

From 1980 to present, non-vacated years:

Won National Championships:
- Georgetown 1, UCLA 1.

Advanced to National Finals Monday Night Loss:
- Georgetown 2, UCLA 1.

Advanced to Final Four:
- UCLA 2, Georgetown 1.

Advanced to Elite-8's:
- Georgetown 4, UCLA 2.

Total Elite-8's or Beyond:
- Georgetown 8, UCLA 6.

Note that Jim Harrick accounted for 2 of these 6 for UCLA, and the chances of him having not cheated is pretty slim.

Meanwhile, Georgetown has run a clean program throughout.

Also, yes, UCLA has a bunch of Sweet-16's, but if we're deciding who is elite, we should be looking at stuff beyond Sweet-16's.

Also, from 1980 through 2004, a 25-year period which starts with the rise of ESPN:
Elite-8's or beyond:
Georgetown 7.
UCLA 3.
Providence 2.

Or, said differently, in the first 25 years of the ESPN era, the Friars have more non-vacated or "non-Jim-Harrick-probable-cheating" Elite-8's or beyond than UCLA. And if you count Harrick, then Providence only trails UCLA 3-2.