(04-01-2011 08:17 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(04-01-2011 07:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yeah, guys like Lew Alcindor, Elvin Hayes, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Oscar Robertson were playing with peach baskets. Some basketball historian we have here ...

Sorry it's such a tough pill for you to swallow but everyone is behind Duke and Carolina. BTW none of them ever played with peach baskets. I never said they did. You've never been one to let facts get in the way of a good flame so I expected it newbie.

If you think everyone is behind Carolina and Duke, you must be talking about the last 10 years. But for the history of college basketball, both are behind UCLA, Indiana, and Kentucky.

Sorry if that bursts your ACC- arse kissing bubble.

I could care less how UConn is viewed nationally. I just want a national championship.

(04-01-2011 04:38 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-01-2011 04:06 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(04-01-2011 03:52 PM)Maize Wrote:  Plus you have to factor in the fact that the tournament wasn't seeded. It was very likely you could have 3 of the top 8 teams in the same region. You could virtually have in what would be in today tournament 2 Number 1 quality seeds in the same region.

It was purely geographical until 1979.

Agreed. Which is why teams in the West got screwed due to UCLA's dominance.

Quote:As for getting in the NCAA's in the 1974 ACC Tournament you had Number 1 NC State vs. Number 3 Maryland...NC State won the OT classic and went to the NCAA Tournament and won the title by ending UCLA National Title streak and beating current BIG EAST member Marquette...Maryland went to the NIT.

In today environment Maryland would have been a 1 Seed but in 1974 they went to the NIT. That why it is a chicken & egg argument. You gotta win 2 more games in the NCAA Tournament now but it is a BEAR to just get in back in the day.

Yes, it was a BEAR for NC State to get in the tourney that year. Not necessarily for the other teams that won their conferences that year because not all of those conferences had a team as strong as Maryland in them to compete with. You can't take one instance and apply it across the entire board to get to it was harder for ALL conference champs to get in back then.

Power conferences today, on average, have far more depth than they had in the past.

Cheers,
Neil

True but in a lot of cases some very very good teams didn't make it not only in the ACC but the old Missouri Valley. Another case in point was Louisville-Memphis, both were in the Top 10 but they both tied for the MVC Regular Season Title. Louisville won the playoff game and went to the NCAA and ended up in the Final Four. A very good Memphis team-(a year later played for the NCAA Title by the way) went to the NIT.

In 1972-1973 Louisville finished 2nd in the MVC-(which was a power conference) and finished with a 23-7 record but went to the NIT. Incredible, a year after going to the Final Four. Just think about it, in the same conference as the NCAA Runner-Up, you win 23 games and finish 2nd in that league and coming off a Final Four and you only go to the NIT...wow

Agreed. There were some years it was the Big Ten, some years the ACC, some years other conferences that had two or more tough teams, but ultimately, it usually was either one really great team or possibly two that a team would have to beat to get the NCAA bid for their conference.

Today there can be as many ten, but often 4, 5 or 6 to beat. The power conferences of today just have more depth.

Also once in, 7 of the Top 20 teams from 71-72 year were not in the field. And 7 is a typical number of Top 20 teams (.35%) not making the tourney back in the late 60s-early70s era of 22-25 teams getting invites. All of the Top 20 teams make the field nowadays. They don't all make the Sweet 16 but at least they have a chance to now - which puts some pressure on the auto-berth winners to know they could see a ranked team in the round of 16.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-01-2011 10:27 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Agreed. There were some years it was the Big Ten, some years the ACC, some years other conferences that had two or more tough teams, but ultimately, it usually was either one really great team or possibly two that a team would have to beat to get the NCAA bid for their conference.

In 1974, the Big East would have gotten 1 NCAA bid. In 2011, we got 11 bids. There's simply no comparison.

Bottom line is that (a) it's harder to win the tourney nowadays because there are more teams, but (b) it was harder to get in back then because .. there were fewer teams allowed in. And that is particularly true for the major conferences (for minor conferences, it isn't, because they only get 1 bid nowadays anyway). Overall, for a team in a BCS conference, it's probably a wash as far as winning the title is concerned.

Which is why nobody out there in the broad national basketball community makes the argument that the 1973 champ is somehow less of a champ than the 2003 champ.

(04-01-2011 08:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I thought you would not be discussing this anymore?

It is bad mojo to discuss this stuff before our Final 4 game so I will wait until its over.

I could careless what world think of UCONN basketball right now. For me we are one of the top 5 programs in the country right now. Others can disagree and I could careless. Our record speaks for itself. Old money or new money it makes no difference. Recent performance should carry way more weight than games 50 years ago. Indiana has no business on that blue blood list since they sucked for so long. Programs that won 20 years ago has no business discussing elite since they are not elite today.

You wanna cut off now to 20 years, not surprising since UConn was @ best the Number 5 program in New England behind Holy Cross, Providence, Syracuse and Boston College still would not rank as one of the Top 5 Programs.

Using the 85 argument UConn still would not rank in the Top 5.

Blue Blood that are still producing @ a high rate:
Duke 11 Final Fours, 4 NCAA Runner Up, 4 NCAA Titles
North Carolina 9 Final Fours, 1 NCAA Runner Up, 3 NCAA Titles
Kentucky 5 Final Fours, 1 NCAA Runner Up, 2 NCAA Titles
Kansas 7 Final Fours, 2 NCAA Runner Up, 2 NCAA Titles

Then you have a drop off
Michigan State 6 Final Fours, 1 NCAA Runner Up, 1 NCAA Title
Florida 4 Final Fours, 1 NCAA Runner Up, 2 NCAA Titles
UConn 4 Final Fours, 2 NCAA Titles

Blue Blood that have fallen off some:
UCLA 4 Final Fours, 1 NCAA Runner Up, 1 NCAA Title
Indiana 3 Final Fours, 1 NCAA Runner Up, 1 NCAA Title

Even the old "Blue Bloods" separate themselves from the upstarts. So really it would still be the "Blue Bloods" of UK, KU, UNC, Duke, KU & IU because they still win in their down periods over a very extended period of time. IU is suffering from what Kelvin Sampson did to that program and of the 3 just below using your "criteria" you almost have to give it to Florida since they played for the title 3 times over the 2 times of Michigan State and UConn.

Also one other note, Top 5 programs don't miss the NCAA 65/68 Field 2 out of the last 5 years including not even making the NIT and they don't have the 3 best regular season record in a particular conference the past 5 years as well-(Pitt has the best and they made the NCAA all 5 years, Louisville is 2nd and they made the NCAA 4 out of 5 years & using that time period because of conference realignment)...just say'n.

(04-02-2011 12:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2011 10:27 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Agreed. There were some years it was the Big Ten, some years the ACC, some years other conferences that had two or more tough teams, but ultimately, it usually was either one really great team or possibly two that a team would have to beat to get the NCAA bid for their conference.

In 1974, the Big East would have gotten 1 NCAA bid. In 2011, we got 11 bids. There's simply no comparison.

Bottom line is that (a) it's harder to win the tourney nowadays because there are more teams, but (b) it was harder to get in back then because .. there were fewer teams allowed in. And that is particularly true for the major conferences (for minor conferences, it isn't, because they only get 1 bid nowadays anyway). Overall, for a team in a BCS conference, it's probably a wash as far as winning the title is concerned.

Which is why nobody out there in the broad national basketball community makes the argument that the 1973 champ is somehow less of a champ than the 2003 champ.

Because it would be a very stupid argument and with the diluted product now it would be even a dumber argument.

(04-01-2011 09:29 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  I could care less how UConn is viewed nationally. I just want a national championship.

One would think being a great program and/or National Champion (again) would be enough for some....vs a nickname or some 'club' others say you are or are not in.

Final Four is just an accessory not a standard.
National championship is the only standard.

One is a fluke.
Two is a habit.
Three is a tradition.

(04-02-2011 10:32 AM)SO#1 Wrote:  Final Four is just an accessory not a standard.
National championship is the only standard.

One is a fluke.
Two is a habit.
Three is a tradition.

Likes that...if UConn wins it 3rd this weekend it part of the Elite, not a Blue Blood like UK, KU, IU, UNC, Duke or UCLA but Elite.

(04-02-2011 12:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-01-2011 10:27 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Agreed. There were some years it was the Big Ten, some years the ACC, some years other conferences that had two or more tough teams, but ultimately, it usually was either one really great team or possibly two that a team would have to beat to get the NCAA bid for their conference.

In 1974, the Big East would have gotten 1 NCAA bid. In 2011, we got 11 bids. There's simply no comparison.

Agreed. But under those circumstances, the Big East of today would never have come about so that is an immaterial point.

Quote:Bottom line is that (a) it's harder to win the tourney nowadays because there are more teams, but (b) it was harder to get in back then because .. there were fewer teams allowed in.

I'd say it's harder to win not just due to the fact that there are more teams but because in terms of relative strength of those teams there are a higher percentage of the best teams making the tourney nowadays then there were back then. It's why the NIT champs have legitimacy then but do not now.

Quote:Which is why nobody out there in the broad national basketball community makes the argument that the 1973 champ is somehow less of a champ than the 2003 champ.

Only one poster is making that argument and we all know his inability to see past the now.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-02-2011 10:32 AM)SO#1 Wrote:  Final Four is just an accessory not a standard.

I know that as a Uconn fan you'd want to believe that, because if you win this national title, your 3 will stand out as one of the best totals ever, whereas your four final 4s does not.

But sorry, a regional championship is a real achievement. Everyone recognizes that. So the best standard for determine elite/blue blood is a combination of national titles and final 4s, although obviously the national title counts more heavily.

(04-02-2011 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2011 10:32 AM)SO#1 Wrote:  Final Four is just an accessory not a standard.

I know that as a Uconn fan you'd want to believe that, because if you win this national title, your 3 will stand out as one of the best totals ever, whereas your four final 4s does not.

But sorry, a regional championship is a real achievement. Everyone recognizes that. So the best standard for determine elite/blue blood is a combination of national titles and final 4s, although obviously the national title counts more heavily.

Plus, to be a true "Blue Blood" you need to do it over a period of decades. UConn first Final Four wasn't until 1999, if they win their 3rd they become ELITE but still not @ the level of Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, Duke and UCLA. All of those programs have played for the NCAA Title-(except Kentucky) this century while winning in the 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, 80s & 90s.

(04-02-2011 01:11 PM)Maize Wrote:  Plus, to be a true "Blue Blood" you need to do it over a period of decades. UConn first Final Four wasn't until 1999, if they win their 3rd they become ELITE but still not @ the level of Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, Duke and UCLA. All of those programs have played for the NCAA Title-(except Kentucky) this century while winning in the 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, 80s & 90s.

Yes, the term definitely does connote a historical legacy of greatness.

Uconn, like Florida, is "nouveaux riche".

(04-02-2011 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-02-2011 01:11 PM)Maize Wrote:  Plus, to be a true "Blue Blood" you need to do it over a period of decades. UConn first Final Four wasn't until 1999, if they win their 3rd they become ELITE but still not @ the level of Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, Duke and UCLA. All of those programs have played for the NCAA Title-(except Kentucky) this century while winning in the 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, 80s & 90s.

Yes, the term definitely does connote a historical legacy of greatness.

Uconn, like Florida, is "nouveaux riche".

Agreed. But I'd much rather be Bill Gates today than a Rockefeller or a Vanderbilt.

So in this regard, as much as I hate to admit, SF Husky does have a point.

Cheers,
Neil

No doubt he has a point and nobody really disputed that but to they will never be unless you they do what Duke did and go to a boatload of Final Fours be part of that group.

They are like Florida and are "nouveaux riche"...not Bill Gates rich more like the founders of Google rich...just say'n

(04-01-2011 09:29 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  I could care less how UConn is viewed nationally. I just want a national championship.

Now that's an attitude and sentiment that I can relate to...

its nice to see the boyz here supporting uconn, we can win it all if we get by kensucky.........

(04-02-2011 09:08 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  its nice to see the boyz here supporting uconn, we can win it all if we get by kensucky.........

Not sure we would call support but some definitely are supporting us. This discussion should be for the off season and discussing it now is bad for mojo.

There is no definition of blue blood so who the hell cares? It seems people make it up as it fits their agenda.

I just want #3 on Monday night. Had Dyson not get hurt in 2009, we might be talking about #4 right now.

Husky you got our support, hell I was rooting for you guys like it was Louisville playing tonight...but just showing a little history lesson nd just showing that maybe you need to show "some" respect to others in the league that has also been to the Mountain Top quite a few times in their own right.

I know what you are feeling right now, in my lifetime been 6 of our Final Fours and 2 of our titles...Enjoy the moment and bring home Number 3 for UConn Monday and another title for the league...

The article was trying to make it if UConn would become a "Blue Blood" in most eyes no but still instead of being a member of the so-called Blue Blood just enjoy if it happens your 3rd title and being part of the "New Breed".

Like some1 said, who would you rather be Bill Gates or a Rockafeller...Kentucky is Rockafeller, if you win Monday you become Bill Gates...just say'n