Villanova hasn’t had many quality big men, but their play of space and pace has changed the dynamics of college basketball by emphasizing more 3pt shots rather than the inside game. Arguably Loyola and UMBC used the same approach in the tournament. This approach knocks down UNC and Kentucky a bit, much like Golden State offense doesn’t revolve around big men.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4heOz3cG7Gg

Not really

Jay Wright and Villanova have displaced UConn as the Eastern/5th blueblood of college hoops in the 21st Century (Duke/UNC/UK/KU).

I'd be interested in the NCAA adopting an NBA-length three point line. It looked like it worked very well in the NIT this past year.

(05-02-2018 06:54 AM)NoDak Wrote:  Villanova hasn’t had many quality big men, but their play of space and pace has changed the dynamics of college basketball by emphasizing more 3pt shots rather than the inside game. Arguably Loyola and UMBC used the same approach in the tournament. This approach knocks down UNC and Kentucky a bit, much like Golden State offense doesn’t revolve around big men.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4heOz3cG7Gg

Jay Wright is a great coach that runs a fantastic program, but this notion that he's changing college basketball is giving him waaaay too much credit. This is just a macro trend across all levels of basketball where data analytics show that the 3-point shot is the most efficient shot that you can take (e.g. even accounting for lower shooting percentages from the 3-point line, your average expected "return" across all 3-point shots that you attempt in a game is higher than all of the 2-point shots that you attempt), so teams should be taking more of them. It's hard to call Wright as some type of visionary on this front here when NBA teams have been openly employing more 3-point shooting and less big man post play for several years at this point. He's simply using an offensive system that fits the talent that he has, which is what any good coach should be doing.

UMBC was more of a classic upset formula - they simply got insanely hot from the outside and that mitigated the severe size disadvantage that they had against UVA. That has been the formula for smaller teams upsetting bigger teams in the NCAA Tournament for many years even before we started looking at data analytics.

Nova has achieved great success without needing a bonafied 1-and-done. It's okay to stay three or four years. You can still get to the NBA. So in that sense, yes they are changing the face of college basketball.

Realize this about Villanova and Jay Wright's career there: he's had tournament-caliber teams most of his time there. Until the last three years, and about ten years ago, he suffered from very disappointing results once in the tournament.

We should have been talking about these guys far sooner than 2016. Here's hoping those "yips" from 2010-2015 are far behind Wright. Granted, it struck again in 2017, but, that gets forgiven when it's sandwiched between championships.

What Villanova does have is a system built for college ball, and not a one-and-done factory or hybrid. Wright is a team-builder, and not a guy who builds a team out of studs. In a lot of respects, he's just doing what college basketball did for years before the NBA entry adjustments changed the system...just old school. Nothing really earth-shattering...more like reinforcing the old norm.

It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

I think Duke and Kentucky are their "normal" selves - the "new normal" for them is to reload every year with top tier 1-and-dones. That translates into what we perceive to be up-and-down variances year-to-year due to high roster turnover (albeit in a relative sense where a "down" year is a 4-seed for a program like Kentucky). Villanova's teams are just built differently - the success that they have had is more in line with a program like Michigan State with Tom Izzo (more roster stability year-to-year, not as much reliance on 1-and-dones) than it does with Duke or Kentucky. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer from a competitive perspective - you can have 1-and-done-laden teams with so much talent that they'll overpower experience, and then you'll have more upperclassmen-oriented teams that gel together well. It's going to be different depending upon the team and year.

The format of the NCAA Tournament itself is already one that is prone to very high variances in outcomes (e.g. you can play it 10 different times and get 10 different champions), so I'm wary of any broad overarching themes to what makes a successful team versus what doesn't make a successful team. Duke and Kentucky have Formula A while Villanova and Michigan State have Formula B... and either formula could win (or lose) in the context of the highly variable NCAA Tournament.

(05-02-2018 08:45 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Jay Wright and Villanova have displaced UConn as the Eastern/5th blueblood of college hoops in the 21st Century (Duke/UNC/UK/KU).

The blue blood talk always gets a ton of interesting debate here.

I don't think you can qualify Villanova as a blue blood. They have had an incredible run with two recent championships, and they had already won a championship in 1985. The thing about true blood bloods is that they are elite programs that have consistently been at the highest levels throughout the decades. This is what makes Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas as - in my opinion - the only true current blue bloods. Others like UCLA and Indiana were dynasties at various points, but have since lost their consistent NCAA Championship-potential and are no longer recognized as such. I think UConn and Villanova are in a tier by themselves - programs that have won multiple championships across several eras, but they are condensed enough where they are not included with that 'old guard' grouping.

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

Duke and Kentucky have both recently won national championships, just like Villanova. I don't think there is a direct correlation to one another.

(05-02-2018 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

I think Duke and Kentucky are their "normal" selves - the "new normal" for them is to reload every year with top tier 1-and-dones. That translates into what we perceive to be up-and-down variances year-to-year due to high roster turnover (albeit in a relative sense where a "down" year is a 4-seed for a program like Kentucky). Villanova's teams are just built differently - the success that they have had is more in line with a program like Michigan State with Tom Izzo (more roster stability year-to-year, not as much reliance on 1-and-dones) than it does with Duke or Kentucky. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer from a competitive perspective - you can have 1-and-done-laden teams with so much talent that they'll overpower experience, and then you'll have more upperclassmen-oriented teams that gel together well. It's going to be different depending upon the team and year.

The format of the NCAA Tournament itself is already one that is prone to very high variances in outcomes (e.g. you can play it 10 different times and get 10 different champions), so I'm wary of any broad overarching themes to what makes a successful team versus what doesn't make a successful team. Duke and Kentucky have Formula A while Villanova and Michigan State have Formula B... and either formula could win (or lose) in the context of the highly variable NCAA Tournament.

Right, but if the one and done goes away, you would assume Duke will be back to how they were before with the way they build their roster. Duke had been extremely sucessful with building 3 and 4 year guy teams.

(05-02-2018 10:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 08:45 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Jay Wright and Villanova have displaced UConn as the Eastern/5th blueblood of college hoops in the 21st Century (Duke/UNC/UK/KU).

The blue blood talk always gets a ton of interesting debate here.

I don't think you can qualify Villanova as a blue blood. They have had an incredible run with two recent championships, and they had already won a championship in 1985. The thing about true blood bloods is that they are elite programs that have consistently been at the highest levels throughout the decades. This is what makes Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas as - in my opinion - the only true current blue bloods. Others like UCLA and Indiana were dynasties at various points, but have since lost their consistent NCAA Championship-potential and are no longer recognized as such. I think UConn and Villanova are in a tier by themselves - programs that have won multiple championships across several eras, but they are condensed enough where they are not included with that 'old guard' grouping.

Yes, it's always a pet peeve of mine because blue blood has a very specific definition and soooooooo many people seem to have the exact opposite definition that's completely wrong. Recent success does NOT make you a blue blood. The very definition of blue blood is that it comes from inherited multi-generational wealth and NOT earned recently.

The Rockerfellers and Vanderbilts are blue bloods because their wealth was earned several generations ago.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are NOT blue bloods because they earned their wealth in the present generation. This is despite the fact that they are actually wealthier today than the blue blood families noted above.

So, I cringe every single time that someone points to "this team is now a blue blood because it won a championship last year" - it's a completely wrong application of the definition of blue blood. The only thing that I disagree with in the post here is that this means Indiana and UCLA are *still* blue bloods - their status gained over multiple generations isn't taken away because of recent on-the-court performance just as the Rockerfeller blue blood status wouldn't be taken away if they had a recent poor investment performance.

That doesn't mean that blue bloods are inherently better. I'd rather have the bank account of Bill Gates compared to the bank account of a Rockerfeller just as I'd rather have more recent national championships than old ones as a sports fan. It's just that I wish people would use the term "blue blood" appropriately.

(05-02-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

Duke and Kentucky have both recently won national championships, just like Villanova. I don't think there is a direct correlation to one another.

To think there would be no risk for Villanova when Duke and Kentucky change back to not focusing on one and dones is frankly comical. Villanova these last few years reminds me a lot of the old Duke program quite frankly. Guys who are there 3 and 4 years.

(05-02-2018 10:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 08:45 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Jay Wright and Villanova have displaced UConn as the Eastern/5th blueblood of college hoops in the 21st Century (Duke/UNC/UK/KU).

The blue blood talk always gets a ton of interesting debate here.

I don't think you can qualify Villanova as a blue blood. They have had an incredible run with two recent championships, and they had already won a championship in 1985. The thing about true blood bloods is that they are elite programs that have consistently been at the highest levels throughout the decades. This is what makes Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas as - in my opinion - the only true current blue bloods. Others like UCLA and Indiana were dynasties at various points, but have since lost their consistent NCAA Championship-potential and are no longer recognized as such. I think UConn and Villanova are in a tier by themselves - programs that have won multiple championships across several eras, but they are condensed enough where they are not included with that 'old guard' grouping.

It's true. I think some of this is on Villanova itself, failing to follow up on great seasons in the tournament. Six Big East conference or tournament crowns since 2000. Eight appearances as a top-3 seed or better in that same span. Maybe not a blue-blood, but certainly "elite."

(05-02-2018 10:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

I think Duke and Kentucky are their "normal" selves - the "new normal" for them is to reload every year with top tier 1-and-dones. That translates into what we perceive to be up-and-down variances year-to-year due to high roster turnover (albeit in a relative sense where a "down" year is a 4-seed for a program like Kentucky). Villanova's teams are just built differently - the success that they have had is more in line with a program like Michigan State with Tom Izzo (more roster stability year-to-year, not as much reliance on 1-and-dones) than it does with Duke or Kentucky. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer from a competitive perspective - you can have 1-and-done-laden teams with so much talent that they'll overpower experience, and then you'll have more upperclassmen-oriented teams that gel together well. It's going to be different depending upon the team and year.

The format of the NCAA Tournament itself is already one that is prone to very high variances in outcomes (e.g. you can play it 10 different times and get 10 different champions), so I'm wary of any broad overarching themes to what makes a successful team versus what doesn't make a successful team. Duke and Kentucky have Formula A while Villanova and Michigan State have Formula B... and either formula could win (or lose) in the context of the highly variable NCAA Tournament.

And what Kentucky does varies year by year. You can't say Calipari doesn't adjust to his players. He's had teams without much center play.

(05-02-2018 10:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 08:45 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Jay Wright and Villanova have displaced UConn as the Eastern/5th blueblood of college hoops in the 21st Century (Duke/UNC/UK/KU).

The blue blood talk always gets a ton of interesting debate here.

I don't think you can qualify Villanova as a blue blood. They have had an incredible run with two recent championships, and they had already won a championship in 1985. The thing about true blood bloods is that they are elite programs that have consistently been at the highest levels throughout the decades. This is what makes Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas as - in my opinion - the only true current blue bloods. Others like UCLA and Indiana were dynasties at various points, but have since lost their consistent NCAA Championship-potential and are no longer recognized as such. I think UConn and Villanova are in a tier by themselves - programs that have won multiple championships across several eras, but they are condensed enough where they are not included with that 'old guard' grouping.

One can make the argument that it is ALWAYS the coach that guides a program's fortunes in any given era. Duke had some success prior to K, but it was as sporadic as say, Nova or UConn. You wouldn't be wrong to throw in Mich State or Cuse into the picture, but again, Cuse is successful due to Boeheim.

If you were to sue the metrics of sustained success punctuated by Final Four appearances and occasional NC across several eras and multiple coaches, then there are really only three that pass the test: UNC, UK and KU. Those programs may endure a bad year or two, but never a bad run or stint.

Next tier, and really, just a tad below is IU, UCLA, Duke, Syracuse, UConn, Louisville and Michigan State.

The next tier would be Georgetown, Florida, NC State, Michigan, Ohio State, Arizona--big boys who have either won consistently over the years but have endured fallow periods or don't have quite the legacy of the teams just above.

Then, I would start with Gonzaga, Memphis, et al.

But none of this is scientific.

(05-02-2018 10:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

Duke and Kentucky have both recently won national championships, just like Villanova. I don't think there is a direct correlation to one another.

To think there would be no risk for Villanova when Duke and Kentucky change back to not focusing on one and dones is frankly comical. Villanova these last few years reminds me a lot of the old Duke program quite frankly. Guys who are there 3 and 4 years.

There's really nothing preventing Duke and Kentucky from doing exactly that right now if they felt it was the best way for them to field a contending roster. The fact that actively choose NOT to live in the 40-120ish recruit ranking range is proof that they believe this isn't the case.

(05-02-2018 10:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how things change for Villanova when Duke gets back to their normal as well as the other programs like even Kentucky.

Duke and Kentucky have both recently won national championships, just like Villanova. I don't think there is a direct correlation to one another.

To think there would be no risk for Villanova when Duke and Kentucky change back to not focusing on one and dones is frankly comical. Villanova these last few years reminds me a lot of the old Duke program quite frankly. Guys who are there 3 and 4 years.

And it is comical, yet unsurprising, to me that you would only reference one specific school, from one specific conference, being potentially and negatively impacted by the "return" of such schools to their normal selves. Duke and Kentucky haven't gone anywhere. They have maintained their elite status in men's basketball by fully transitioning to a specific type of roster configuration and recruitment by design. Specifically, only naming Villanova as a potential effect of such a progression ignores the bigger question for college basketball.

The real question isn't "how will things change for Villanova", it will be "how things will change for college basketball?" We will potentially see these elite players not even go the college route (if the NBA changes its model), or even go overseas. Programs like Kentucky, Duke and Villanova, among many others, won't be affected due to their brand, history and prestige. They will still attract top-level talent. The game will potentially change because, overall, more and more teams will be experienced - and the ability to completely makeover a team in one offseason will be greatly diminished.

Having said that, however, do not discount the pursuit of "elite" players still going to college for two, or however long, years. The exposure, resources, facilities and instruction in college basketball, IMO, is still better than what can be offered in the G-League or overseas. Will you get paid more money sooner if you don't go to college? For sure. The potential to make even more, however, is still best by going the college route (unless you are within a very small number through basketball history - Bryant, James, Garnett).

(05-02-2018 10:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 10:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 08:45 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Jay Wright and Villanova have displaced UConn as the Eastern/5th blueblood of college hoops in the 21st Century (Duke/UNC/UK/KU).

The blue blood talk always gets a ton of interesting debate here.

I don't think you can qualify Villanova as a blue blood. They have had an incredible run with two recent championships, and they had already won a championship in 1985. The thing about true blood bloods is that they are elite programs that have consistently been at the highest levels throughout the decades. This is what makes Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas as - in my opinion - the only true current blue bloods. Others like UCLA and Indiana were dynasties at various points, but have since lost their consistent NCAA Championship-potential and are no longer recognized as such. I think UConn and Villanova are in a tier by themselves - programs that have won multiple championships across several eras, but they are condensed enough where they are not included with that 'old guard' grouping.

Yes, it's always a pet peeve of mine because blue blood has a very specific definition and soooooooo many people seem to have the exact opposite definition that's completely wrong. Recent success does NOT make you a blue blood. The very definition of blue blood is that it comes from inherited multi-generational wealth and NOT earned recently.

The Rockerfellers and Vanderbilts are blue bloods because their wealth was earned several generations ago.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are NOT blue bloods because they earned their wealth in the present generation. This is despite the fact that they are actually wealthier today than the blue blood families noted above.

So, I cringe every single time that someone points to "this team is now a blue blood because it won a championship last year" - it's a completely wrong application of the definition of blue blood. The only thing that I disagree with in the post here is that this means Indiana and UCLA are *still* blue bloods - their status gained over multiple generations isn't taken away because of recent on-the-court performance just as the Rockerfeller blue blood status wouldn't be taken away if they had a recent poor investment performance.

That doesn't mean that blue bloods are inherently better. I'd rather have the bank account of Bill Gates compared to the bank account of a Rockerfeller just as I'd rather have more recent national championships than old ones as a sports fan. It's just that I wish people would use the term "blue blood" appropriately.

Hail Frank,

Agree with your definition of "blue blood", but honestly I just wish everyone would stop using the term at all. You make a great analogy about the Rockerfellers vs Bill Gates, but does anyone outside of the blue blood rich themselves use the term anymore? I doubt Gates, Bezos, Buffet, Zuckerberg, etc. care about the term at all.

And so, to me, it is more about the old blue bloods trying to maintain relevancy in a world that (outside of inherited $$$) pretty much has passed them by.

Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and Kansas have not been "passed by" even by the likes of the recent multiple NC winners like UConn and Nova. They remain significantly relevant in the sport. Elite, to me, remains the best way to categorize the best programs.

Cheers,
Neil