(09-27-2020 10:58 AM)jedclampett Wrote: [ -> ].
(09-27-2020 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, these are the only “Blue Bloods”, and it is based on a trophy case (no matter how dusty) and history: UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas.
Those are probably the uncontested blue bloods, although Indiana's credentials aren't quite as solid as the others are. Yet, they are #4 on the list of all-time NCAA championships (with 5; they are (2 NCs ahead of Villanova and 3 ahead of Cincy).
UCLA (11 NCs), Kentucky (8 NCs), UNC (6 NCs), Duke (5), Kansas (5), & Indiana (5).
The first 5 are certainly the top 5 most uncontested blue bloods, with Indiana being added by some because they're tied for 4th in total National Championships.
If Indiana is to be included as a blueblood (of the "legends" rather than "current elites" variety), a strong case can be made that Syracuse and Louisville should be included as well, because their accomplishment match or exceed those of Indiana in some respects, and because they have been more successful in the past decade.
However, Indiana has had fewer NCAA bids, fewer finishes in the AP Top 25, and their recent credentials aren't quite as solid as the others are.
1) UCLA (11 NCAA championships; 47 NCAA bids; 44 top 25 teams since 1949)
2) Kentucky (8 NCAA championships; 58 NCAA bids; 43 top 25 teams since 1949)
3) UNC (6 NCAA championships; 50 NCAA bids; 50 top 25 teams since 1956)
4) Duke (5 NCAA championships; 43 NCAA bids; 47 top 25 teams since 1952)
5) Kansas (5 consensus national championships (3 NCAA NCs); 48 NCAA bids; 44 top 25 teams since 1950)
----------------------------line of demarcation-------------------------------
6) Indiana (5 NCAA championships; 39 NCAA bids; a notch below Kansas, with only 27 top 25 teams since 1950)
7) Syracuse (3 consensus national championships (1 NCAA NC); 40 NCAA bids; 27 top 25 teams since 1973)
8) Louisville (2 NCAA championships (+1 vacated NCAA NC); 39 NCAA bids; 33 top 25 teams since 1952)
* If Louisville's NCAA violations are comparable to those of UConn, they probably don't belong on this list.
.
(09-27-2020 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]UConn has won four titles in the last 21 years — all since IU has won their last in ‘87 — so there is an argument there. UConn is still a little nouveau riche, but as time goes on with continued success they will surely join the upper crust.
You don't seem to know the entire background of the Calhoun/Ollie scandal at UConn, and so what follows is not intended as a criticism of your post, but only of the idea of UConn as a possible future blueblood, which some fans of the game consider a preposterous notion.
Here's why:
All of UConn's NCAA championship wins and almost all of their other major accomplishments took place during a 17 to 25 year era which came to an end when both of UConn's Head Coaches (Calhoun and Ollie) were summarily fired by the University and disgraced after being found guilty by the NCAA of an ongoing and unremitting pattern of major recruiting and other serious rule violations.
Since of of their glorious "accomplishments" are severely tainted by scandals by two successive head coaches, and because the University created a climate of tolerance for serious misbehavior, the idea of UConn being high on the list of future "blue bloods" is truly appalling.
I'm aware that Rick Pitino was fired after a recruiting violation at Louisville, but to my knowledge, it pales in comparison with what Coaches Calhoun and Ollie's wanton violations that took place over a period of at least 17 years, and possibly over 20 years.
If I'm wrong about Louisville, then perhaps they should be bumped off the blue blood contenders list
At the very least, wouldn't you agree that any seasons that were tainted by an ongoing pattern of serious recruiting or other violations should not be counted toward blue blood status?
That seems only fair, because otherwise, it sends out the message that cheating is tolerated to such an extent that winning by cheating is 100% ok - - and surely that is not the case.
.
The other reason why UConn doesn't come close to blue blood status in some peoples' view is that they didn't finish a single season on the Final AP Top 20 list until 1990 (a year after their severely tainted HC Calhoun took over their program).
What that means is that the only UConn teams that have ever ended a season in the Final AP Top 20 were coached by two Head Coaches (Calhoun and his collaborator and former assistant, Ollie) who were fired and disgraced for an ongoing pattern of major NCAA rule violations over a two-decade period.
To be a dyed in the wool "blue blood," most people would agree that a program would have to have had made their way onto a Final top 20 list before 1960 or 1965, at the latest. All of the other schools on the list above (including Indiana, Syracuse, and Louisville pass that Final AP Top 20 (not top 25) test with flying colors).
.
The only way to prevent wanton violations of major NCAA rules is to establish and enforce something close to a zero tolerance policy, or something like a "two strikes and you're out" policy.
It would be one thing if we didn't give a damn about sportsmanship or ethics, or the broader meaning of higher education for young student athletes, but we do - - at least most of us do, and if the day comes when no one cares about those things any more, then that's the day when college athletics will become a foul and utter travesty.
Hence my nouveau riche comment. They’ve laid a foundation and have the ability to cite that in the future.
(09-27-2020 12:47 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2020 09:15 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2020 08:38 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]There is an easier way to do this:
Power: over half the teams consistently receive bids P6*
Major: ~ a quarter of the teams consistently receive bids AAC A10
Mid-Major: a couple teams consistently receive bids MWC# WCC
Small: consistently a one bid conference SoCon
I agree, these days there seems to be no difference between the Mid-Major and Small conferences with leagues like the MVC being overtly screwed out of multiple bids.
*The Pac 12 hasn’t performed like a Power since 2016, and is trending towards Major.
#The MWC looks like a Major on paper, but has performed like a Mid-Major the last five years or so.
IMO, these are the only “Blue Bloods”, and it is based on a trophy case (no matter how dusty) and history: UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas.
UConn has won four titles in the last 21 years — all since IU has won their last in ‘87 — so there is an argument there. UConn is still a little nouveau riche, but as time goes on with continued success they will surely join the upper crust.
I agree with this overall. But if I were to characterize the MWC as "mid-major" in men's hoops (I doubt I would), I would make clear that some programs in that league are major (UNLV and New Mexico, in particular).
I don’t categorize programs in a power/major/mid-major context, just conferences. That’s just me, otherwise I’d go crazy.
You are not alone, esayem. That is the more practical and commonly done method.
However, I do categorize based on individual programs because as a long-time fan of Cincinnati, DePaul and Memphis, I sometimes over the years have been forced to deal with nonsense from fans (not you, to be clear) who are either 1. clueless or 2. smartasses.
I don't want to "penalize" outstanding people, organizations, athletic programs, etc., for circumstantial associations with others and for which they have little, or no, control.
Some people categorize the Atlantic 10 as a "mid-major" league. I don't. But even if so, A10 member Dayton is a major to high-major program that has earned that designation through its own strong efforts. I give full credit. Same with Gonzaga in the WCC.
Dazz, sometimes rich people live below their means and keep less than desirable company.
My philosophy: classifying programs happens for us on the hardwood each season, no need to try and do it ourselves.
(09-28-2020 07:31 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]Dazz, sometimes rich people live below their means and keep less than desirable company.
My philosophy: classifying programs happens for us on the hardwood each season, no need to try and do it ourselves.
Fair enough. Many would agree with you.
Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.
(09-28-2020 09:30 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.
I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can't underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
(09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 09:30 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.
I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
(09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 09:30 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.
I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
(09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 09:30 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.
I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
(09-28-2020 02:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 09:30 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a national championship victory stripped away; UConn has not. Louisville may have had longer-term tournament success in the form of bids, S16s/E8s/F4s, but it is UConn that has more national championships. Both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. A slight edge needs to be given to UConn due to their national championship victories.
I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
I predict UConn hoops is about to elevate itself significantly. However, that could come at the expense of a fellow Big East program or two.
UConn simply has more resources (fans, money, history/tradition, fertile NE recruiting area, facilities, etc.) than most of the other Big East programs.
(09-28-2020 02:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ]I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
I predict UConn hoops is about to elevate itself significantly. However, that could come at the expense of a fellow Big East program or two.
UConn simply has more resources (fans, money, history/tradition, fertile NE recruiting area, facilities, etc.) than most of the other Big East programs.
You’re optimistic. UConn is coming back to a very different Big East with a very different program.
Good news for UConn is that Georgetown and Marquette aren’t as good as they used to be. StJohns, Providence and DePaul are also still mediocre.
One problem is that Nova is at a historic level; while Creighton and Xavier have added new depth to the conference; and the Hall has been rising for 5 years. Second problem is that although Hurley shows some promise, he’s not really at the level of Calhoun...and it took Calhoun several years to recruit Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton.
(09-28-2020 04:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
I predict UConn hoops is about to elevate itself significantly. However, that could come at the expense of a fellow Big East program or two.
UConn simply has more resources (fans, money, history/tradition, fertile NE recruiting area, facilities, etc.) than most of the other Big East programs.
You’re optimistic. UConn is coming back to a very different Big East with a very different program.
Good news for UConn is that Georgetown and Marquette aren’t as good as they used to be. StJohns, Providence and DePaul are also still mediocre.
One problem is that Nova is at a historic level; while Creighton and Xavier have added new depth to the conference; and the Hall has been rising for 5 years. Second problem is that although Hurley shows some promise, he’s not really at the level of Calhoun...and it took Calhoun several years to recruit Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton.
And UConn is not the UConn of old. As much as people want to blame the AAC for the results the past 5 seasons, they recruited better than the rest in the conference and still could not finish in the top half of what most on here to be a horse-shyte conference comprised entirely of “bad” basketball teams.
(09-28-2020 04:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 04:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ]All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
I predict UConn hoops is about to elevate itself significantly. However, that could come at the expense of a fellow Big East program or two.
UConn simply has more resources (fans, money, history/tradition, fertile NE recruiting area, facilities, etc.) than most of the other Big East programs.
You’re optimistic. UConn is coming back to a very different Big East with a very different program.
Good news for UConn is that Georgetown and Marquette aren’t as good as they used to be. StJohns, Providence and DePaul are also still mediocre.
One problem is that Nova is at a historic level; while Creighton and Xavier have added new depth to the conference; and the Hall has been rising for 5 years. Second problem is that although Hurley shows some promise, he’s not really at the level of Calhoun...and it took Calhoun several years to recruit Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton.
And UConn is not the UConn of old. As much as people want to blame the AAC for the results the past 5 seasons, they recruited better than the rest in the conference and still could not finish in the top half of what most on here to be a horse-shyte conference comprised entirely of “bad” basketball teams.
Agree fully that the current UConn program is not like the outstanding version under JC.
But for some reason, I simply have this feeling the Husky program is going to get very good very fast.
We'll know in two to four years.
(09-28-2020 04:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
I predict UConn hoops is about to elevate itself significantly. However, that could come at the expense of a fellow Big East program or two.
UConn simply has more resources (fans, money, history/tradition, fertile NE recruiting area, facilities, etc.) than most of the other Big East programs.
You’re optimistic. UConn is coming back to a very different Big East with a very different program.
Good news for UConn is that Georgetown and Marquette aren’t as good as they used to be. StJohns, Providence and DePaul are also still mediocre.
One problem is that Nova is at a historic level; while Creighton and Xavier have added new depth to the conference; and the Hall has been rising for 5 years. Second problem is that although Hurley shows some promise, he’s not really at the level of Calhoun...and it took Calhoun several years to recruit Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton.
I was not impressed with Hurley in his first year in the AAC. But last season (his second) ... he did rather well. During the UConn games I watched, I saw some coaching moves (clock management, player substitution, play calling, etc.) that were very solid.
The next two season are huge for the UConn program.
(09-28-2020 08:56 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ]Agree fully that the current UConn program is not like the outstanding version under JC.
But for some reason, I simply have this feeling the Husky program is going to get very good very fast.
We'll know in two to four years.
I wouldn't call it sudden. They improved both years under Hurley and they are bringing in a top 25 recruiting class. Had they stayed in the AAC another year they would likely have finished in the top 4 (probably behind Memphis and Houston) and would have made the tourney. They may not finish quite that high in the NBE this year but I'd lay money they make the tourney.
As for whether or not they will ever return to the prominence of the JC days, who can say. What I do know is that you've got to be in the tourney to win it and I'm confident Hurley can at least get them to being a tournament fixture.
I have no idea what will happen with UConn/Hurley moving forward, however Hurley's track record speaks for itself:
At Wagner, he goes from 13-17 in year 1 to 25-6 in year 2. At Rhode Island, he goes from 22-39 in his first two years, to 51-18 over his last two years. He finished 16-17 in his first year at UConn, to 19-12 last year. At every program he has led, the trend always goes up. Personally, I think UConn is a top-4 program in the BE this year (behind Villanova, Creighton and Seton Hall). Long-term, between their history, their resources, the current coaching staff and their presence in the NE, I think UConn will be an annual threat for the crown of the Big East.
For many reasons, UConn Basketball was a declining stock in the AAC - for many self-inflicted reasons as well as a few external reasons. Regardless, a course correction has been made and they are back home where they belong. Moving forward, even in a down year in the BE, they are still in a like-minded conference like-minded members (which was just never going to be the same case, no matter how many on here would want to argue it otherwise).
(09-29-2020 09:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what will happen with UConn/Hurley moving forward, however Hurley's track record speaks for itself:
At Wagner, he goes from 13-17 in year 1 to 25-6 in year 2. At Rhode Island, he goes from 22-39 in his first two years, to 51-18 over his last two years. He finished 16-17 in his first year at UConn, to 19-12 last year. At every program he has led, the trend always goes up. Personally, I think UConn is a top-4 program in the BE this year (behind Villanova, Creighton and Seton Hall). Long-term, between their history, their resources, the current coaching staff and their presence in the NE, I think UConn will be an annual threat for the crown of the Big East.
For many reasons, UConn Basketball was a declining stock in the AAC - for many self-inflicted reasons as well as a few external reasons. Regardless, a course correction has been made and they are back home where they belong. Moving forward, even in a down year in the BE, they are still in a like-minded conference like-minded members (which was just never going to be the same case, no matter how many on here would want to argue it otherwise).
There is one element in your assessment (and I agree with you 95 percent of the time you post) with which I disagree:
UConn truly "belongs" in the ACC with Syracuse, BC and Pitt and for the Husky football program and strong baseball program. The Atlantic Coast makes vastly more sense than the Big East. There is absolutely no doubt about this. It's not a jab at the BE. It's simply the reality.
Similarly, UConn makes considerably more sense in the BE than the American. The latter was a semi-disaster for the Husky program.
(09-29-2020 09:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020 09:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what will happen with UConn/Hurley moving forward, however Hurley's track record speaks for itself:
At Wagner, he goes from 13-17 in year 1 to 25-6 in year 2. At Rhode Island, he goes from 22-39 in his first two years, to 51-18 over his last two years. He finished 16-17 in his first year at UConn, to 19-12 last year. At every program he has led, the trend always goes up. Personally, I think UConn is a top-4 program in the BE this year (behind Villanova, Creighton and Seton Hall). Long-term, between their history, their resources, the current coaching staff and their presence in the NE, I think UConn will be an annual threat for the crown of the Big East.
For many reasons, UConn Basketball was a declining stock in the AAC - for many self-inflicted reasons as well as a few external reasons. Regardless, a course correction has been made and they are back home where they belong. Moving forward, even in a down year in the BE, they are still in a like-minded conference like-minded members (which was just never going to be the same case, no matter how many on here would want to argue it otherwise).
There is one element in your assessment (and I agree with you 95 percent of the time you post) with which I disagree:
UConn truly "belongs" in the ACC with Syracuse, BC and Pitt and for the Husky football program and strong baseball program. The Atlantic Coast makes vastly more sense than the Big East. There is absolutely no doubt about this. It's not a jab at the BE. It's simply the reality.
Similarly, UConn makes considerably more sense in the BE than the American. The latter was a semi-disaster for the Husky program.
Bill, those programs you reference are not truly institutional peers of UConn. Syracuse, Boston College and Pittsburgh have decades of high-level involvement in college football, including associations (via football) with many "power" programs that are considered within the P5 today. UConn is considered an infant to those programs, as they are barely 20 years old as a D1/FBS program. Unfortunately (or fortunately), they invested way too late, and, as a result, do not have the same associations or peer involvement with other NE schools like the ones you reference. Thus, they really do not belong in the ACC (due to the lack of football history/commitment that those other schools you reference have). Conversely, UConn is also not associated with other NE programs among the likes of Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, UMass, etc., because their football program has been elevated to the FBS/D1 level longer than any of those programs too.
With all things considered, UConn - for many reasons - is really an isolated and individualistic case within the FBS/P5. There aren't really any comparable examples that fit its present situation historically. Even in the Big East, UConn is the lone public/land-grant institution among a league full of Private/Catholic institutions. Still, the Big East brand is very much elite level basketball, rooted in the NE (NYC); in this regard, UConn is very much an institutional fit as well as anyone in the Big East (if not more), and the best possible fit given the current parameters for UConn and its athletic program. Perhaps an ACC/non-football association would be better, but even in that regard, there are examples of that being a poor fit as well.
(09-29-2020 10:51 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020 09:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2020 09:12 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what will happen with UConn/Hurley moving forward, however Hurley's track record speaks for itself:
At Wagner, he goes from 13-17 in year 1 to 25-6 in year 2. At Rhode Island, he goes from 22-39 in his first two years, to 51-18 over his last two years. He finished 16-17 in his first year at UConn, to 19-12 last year. At every program he has led, the trend always goes up. Personally, I think UConn is a top-4 program in the BE this year (behind Villanova, Creighton and Seton Hall). Long-term, between their history, their resources, the current coaching staff and their presence in the NE, I think UConn will be an annual threat for the crown of the Big East.
For many reasons, UConn Basketball was a declining stock in the AAC - for many self-inflicted reasons as well as a few external reasons. Regardless, a course correction has been made and they are back home where they belong. Moving forward, even in a down year in the BE, they are still in a like-minded conference like-minded members (which was just never going to be the same case, no matter how many on here would want to argue it otherwise).
There is one element in your assessment (and I agree with you 95 percent of the time you post) with which I disagree:
UConn truly "belongs" in the ACC with Syracuse, BC and Pitt and for the Husky football program and strong baseball program. The Atlantic Coast makes vastly more sense than the Big East. There is absolutely no doubt about this. It's not a jab at the BE. It's simply the reality.
Similarly, UConn makes considerably more sense in the BE than the American. The latter was a semi-disaster for the Husky program.
Bill, those programs you reference are not truly institutional peers of UConn. Syracuse, Boston College and Pittsburgh have decades of high-level involvement in college football, including associations (via football) with many "power" programs that are considered within the P5 today. UConn is considered an infant to those programs, as they are barely 20 years old as a D1/FBS program. Unfortunately (or fortunately), they invested way too late, and, as a result, do not have the same associations or peer involvement with other NE schools like the ones you reference. Thus, they really do not belong in the ACC (due to the lack of football history/commitment that those other schools you reference have). Conversely, UConn is also not associated with other NE programs among the likes of Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, UMass, etc., because their football program has been elevated to the FBS/D1 level longer than any of those programs too.
With all things considered, UConn - for many reasons - is really an isolated and individualistic case within the FBS/P5. There aren't really any comparable examples that fit its present situation historically. Even in the Big East, UConn is the lone public/land-grant institution among a league full of Private/Catholic institutions. Still, the Big East brand is very much elite level basketball, rooted in the NE (NYC); in this regard, UConn is very much an institutional fit as well as anyone in the Big East (if not more), and the best possible fit given the current parameters for UConn and its athletic program. Perhaps an ACC/non-football association would be better, but even in that regard, there are examples of that being a poor fit as well.
All very good points and I agree in many respects, GWII.
I still, for various reasons, feel UConn would be a "better" fit in the ACC (though not overwhelmingly) than it is for the Big East. For example, the ACC offers "state" universities, football, big-time baseball and an "Eastern Seaboard" element that all lend themselves to what UConn wants as an overall athletic program and university.
I'm probably not the best person to weigh in on this because I would prefer the Big East be all-Catholic, all private and all "city located." I'm a bit hard-core about this. Having noted that, UConn is a fantastic exception to my rule and makes sense for the Big East on many levels, as you correctly note.
I would be curious to poll 1,000 smart, fair and reasonable UConn fans, faculty, athletics officials, etc. to see which of the two leagues they collectively would prefer. My gut feeling is the ACC, but I could be wrong.
It's all a moot point as UConn likely will be in the Big East for many, many years to come.
(09-28-2020 02:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 02:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 12:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2020 11:49 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ]I give the slight edge to Louisville, GW11. UL still "won" those titles when they were played. And I would say the same thing about UConn if it had all its titles stripped. Those title games were played. Also worth noting: UL won the NIT in the mid-1950s, when the NIT was as big a deal (if not bigger) than the NCAA.
Three things of note:
* From the mid-1940s to the late 1980s, UL was considerably better than UConn (lots more NCAA and NIT wins, players sent to the pros, big national wins on TV, etc.)
* UL has had (seemingly) three nationally significant coaches to UConn's two.
* UL has achieved impressive success despite being an "urban public university" located in the same state as University of Kentucky basketball. That is almost stunning when you think about it. How it was done over the years in an intangible we simply can underestimate. That alone is worth major props.
I do agree with you that both are elite-level, not blue blood, basketball programs. But I give the slight edge to Louisville. Many will disagree with me. That's fine.
I personally don't believe in the "vacated" title punishment by the NCAA. You can take away a trophy, rip down a banner, erase the wins from the record books, but it doesn't take away the memory, per se, of a team's accomplishments. However, since the NCAA is the official governing body, it is what it is. I don't agree with it, but there needs to be some basis for determining on-court postseason success.
I think it giving tiers to programs, not only the number of championships a program has won is considered, but when they won is also a big consideration. UConn, for this reason alone, will never be a blue blood, simply because all of their elite level success has occurred within the past 25 years. Louisville has been steady for much longer and with more consistency. However, once again, UConn still has more national championships (condensed or not), so more value needs to be placed there. St. John's, for example, has five NIT Championship victories (four which occurred between 1943 and 1965); if we add those on, like we are discussing right here given the time-frame, then St. John's would have as many nationally recognized championships as Indiana or Duke.
All strong points, particularly the "when" a team won a title (NCAA or NIT).
Clearly, Louisville and UConn are in the tier below the four to six blue bloods and are extremely close in stature. An argument could be made for "ranking" one slightly above the other, with you giving the slight edge to UConn and me to UL. And then I would have St. John's (and your Marquette Warrriors, for example) in the third tier (a prestigious grouping also). Obviously, any program in the first three tiers (about 25 to 35 programs total) is outstanding.
Louisville and UConn have very different backgrounds, but they are both elite and are somewhat knocking at the ceiling...trying to enter the next level.
Louisville has been elite for generations. They are somewhat in the shadow of the Kentucky Wildcats, which hurts their status. Yet they have had great players since the 1950s and 1960s...for example, Wes Unseld and Butch Beard were great in college and the pros. They have won multiple championships under two long-tenured hall-of-fame coaches. Louisville is now a destination for great coaches...lots of resources, opportunities and a great tradition.
UConn was one of the top 2 or 3 programs for a couple of decades. From 1994 until 2014, Jim Calhoun built great teams that excelled at tournament time. It’s too early to tell whether UConn can maintain an elite level...it’s been rough during the past half dozen years.
I predict UConn hoops is about to elevate itself significantly. However, that could come at the expense of a fellow Big East program or two.
UConn simply has more resources (fans, money, history/tradition, fertile NE recruiting area, facilities, etc.) than most of the other Big East programs.
Do they have the money?
They have been bleeding Red for years. The hoops fanbase obviously will be reengerized this year. How many fans are allowed will affect everyone's bottom line.
If Hurley fails it could set back UConn for a decade.