(09-21-2020 03:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 01:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 10:05 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Here's the new score:

Categories of two type of BB bluebloods:

Current (recent) elites: UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, MSU, Louisville, Syracuse, Villanova, Cincinnati, Maryland, OSU, Michigan.

Legends: UCLA, Indiana, Illinois, & Notre Dame (marginal, perhaps)

.

Last five:

Marquette (33 NCAA bids; 20 top 25 teams since 1955)
Utah (29 NCAA bids; 20 top 25 teams since 1949)
Purdue (30 NCAA bids; 19 top 25 teams since 1955)
NC State (25 NCAA bids; 17 top 25 teams since 1949)
Oklahoma State (28 NCAA bids; 17 top 25 teams since 1949)

Of these five schools, Marquette comes the closest to being comparable with the bluebloods listed above. Utah and Purdue would be considered marginal bluebloods by some fans.

Marquette and Utah would clearly fit into the Legends category, while Purdue would definitely be considered a current(recent) elite.

NC State and Oklahoma State are probably too marginal to be considered true BB blueblood schools, so I'd be inclined to drop them from these categories.

I didn't get a chance to go over every D1 BB in detail, including some from major conferences, so this list of "bluebloods" isn't comprehensive. There are doubtless at least 3 or 4 other true bluebloods of the current or legends type, but for now, here is the...

...Final score:

Categories of the two types of BB bluebloods mentioned here :

Current (very recent) elites: UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, MSU, Louisville, Syracuse, Villanova, Cincinnati, Maryland, OSU, Michigan, & Purdue.

Legends: UCLA, Indiana, Illinois, Marquette, Notre Dame (marginal ?), and Utah (marginal)

NOTE: Most of the "Legends" on this list have had some degree of success within the past 10-15 years, and could thus be described as "somewhat recent elites" among the ranks of the bluebloods.
.

I'm guessing that there might be some Indiana and Illinois fans who might find fault with these type of classification, but it's just a first draft, and "nothing ventured, nothing gained."

Agreed that Kentucky, UNC, Duke, and KU are bluebloods.

My school, Oklahoma, is not a blueblood, but is not chopped liver. OU, since 1949, has 29 NCAA appearances and 19 top 25 rankings. Oklahoma State is listed above in a third tier, while Oklahoma has more NCAA appearances and more top 25 rankings. Oklahoma leads the all-time series 140-100. The only thing OSU has on OU is two national championships from 1944 and 1945, during World War II and when the NCAA tournament was a new event. OU basketball fans especially take pride in this, as OU is a football school where basketball is second banana. OSU is considered a basketball school, and OU leads them in all historical categories except national championships (1988 vs. KU will always hurt).

Again, we're not a blueblood, but we're a top 20-30 all-time basketball program. And we're on at least the same level as Oklahoma State, if not higher.

20 years ago, I used to say that the SEC was Kentucky and a bunch of A-10 type programs. Even then, the Big 12 was a huge step above the SEC.

Since then, the Big 12 lost 3 of its 4 worst programs (Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M). Its other worst program (Baylor) struck magic, while Texas Tech and Texas sunk serious money into their programs and hired great coaches. They also added a top program in West Virginia, and what we all thought was a perennial bottom feeder in TCU... until TCU hired Jamie Dixon.

Today the Big 12 is a basketball gauntlet. It's not as large as the ACC or Big 10, but it's arguably the best conference top-to-bottom.

You can make a case that the B12 is arguably the best conference top-to-bottom. But suggesting that the B12 is a basketball “gauntlet” is exaggeration.

With the last realignment, the B12 lost a lot of basketball dead-weight. Unfortunately, basketball doesn’t pay as well as football...therefore, losing A&M and Nebraska also cost the B12 a lot of future TV revenue. Colorado was literally addition-by-subtraction in terms of conference revenue and basketball commitment. At this point, basketball-wise all B12 teams seem to invest somewhat in basketball.

To be a gauntlet, the B12 needs a few more elite teams. Kansas still dwarfs the rest of the conference. Texas Tech has had a few excellent seasons, but they need more. Playing Duke, UNC, UVA, Louisville and Syracuse can be called a gauntlet...and what FSU and ND did to win recent ACC regular season championships should be commended. The B12 has basketball balance, but not a lot of excellence.

Via Wikipedia,

Kansas has won or shared 18 Big 12 regular season titles. The rest of the conference has 10 combined. Kansas won or shared the Big 12 title 14 years in a row (2005 to 2018).

Kansas has a .818 regular season record in the Big 12. The next best is Texas at .607.

Kansas has won 11 out of 23 Big 12 Tournaments. Their record in tournament games is 46-12 or .793. Missouri (now in SEC) is next with .576 followed by Oklahoma State and West Virginia at .533.

How come Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Michigan State don't have the same conference statistics that Kansas has? Is Kansas a better team? No. It's because they play in better conferences. Duke and North Carolina aren't going to win the ACC 14 times in a row because they have each other and recently Virginia is a 3rd team. Kentucky still has Florida and Michigan State has plenty of challengers in the Big Ten. How come not one team could beat Kansas outright 14 straight years? In that 14 year span, Kansas lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA Tournament 3 times and the 1st round twice but even when they sucked they still were good enough to at least win a share of the Big 12.