Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
Author Message
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,718
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 474
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #61
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

Too many people twist the definition of "blue blood". It's not about simply winning championships or even being elite, but the fact that you won those championships A LONG TIME AGO. In essence, arguing that a program hasn't had as much recent success is pretty irrelevant with defining whether a school is a blue blood. By its very definition, "blue blood" means "old money" (NOT recently earned "new money"). The proper title for these types of threads should really be "Is [insert school] still an elite program?", but too many people improperly use the "blue blood" reference (and it becomes a loaded term).
06-21-2017 01:40 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,299
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

But Indiana and UCLA hasn't had success in a LONG time. Indiana hasn't won a title in 30 years. UCLA it's been 22 years. UCLA is totally a school that was one coach one generation. They've won a single title after Wooden left.
06-21-2017 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,718
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 474
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #63
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 02:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

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

Indiana has still been to 2 more Final Fours since its last title and UCLA has had a championship and 4 Final Fours (plus a vacated 5th) since Wooden retired. It might be not be as stellar as prior generations, but there's still multi-generational success there. Regardless, the "long time ago" success is the entire crux of being a "blue blood". That's the entire point of the definition.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2017 03:22 PM by Frank the Tank.)
06-21-2017 03:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,718
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 474
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #64
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
Think of multi-generational success another way: not counting the 1930s (as the first NCAA Tournament was in 1939), Indiana has made it to at least one Final Four in every decade that the NCAA Tournament has been in existence with the exception of the 1960s and the current decade. That's at least one Final Four in 6 different decades. The only other schools to have that multi-decade success are the other blue bloods that we have been talking about: UNC, Kentucky, Kansas and Duke. (UCLA has had Final Four appearances in 4 different decades if you don't count the vacated appearance in 1980 --- it would be 5 different decades if you do count that one. Ohio State, Louisville and Michigan State have more total Final Fours than Indiana, but like UCLA, they were more highly concentrated in a few specific periods of time as opposed to across many decades like the true blue bloods.)
06-21-2017 03:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #65
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

Nope. No chance Duke is considered a Blue Blood. I don't care what metric you put to them, if Duke is considered a Blue Blood, then so is UCONN and you've made it abundantly clear you don't think UCONN is a Blue Blood.
06-21-2017 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,718
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 474
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #66
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 03:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

Nope. No chance Duke is considered a Blue Blood. I don't care what metric you put to them, if Duke is considered a Blue Blood, then so is UCONN and you've made it abundantly clear you don't think UCONN is a Blue Blood.

Duke has been to at least one Final Four in every decade since the 1960s (including 4 prior to Coach K being there). They are absolutely a blue blood in terms of multi-generational/multi-coach success. And I say that as someone that hates Duke basketball more than any other team in any sport (whether college or pro). All of UConn's Final Fours and championships have come since 1999 and, outside of 2014, were under a single coach of Jim Calhoun (and 2014 is largely attributed to Calhoun's players). That's a big difference in terms of determining "old money" versus "new money".

Of course, I don't understand why people get their undies in a bunch about whether they're a "blue blood" or not. Like I've said, Bill Gates isn't a blue blood and neither is Mark Zuckerberg, and my guess is that all of us would trade bank accounts with them in a hearbeat over the bank account of a Rockerfeller.
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2017 03:56 PM by Frank the Tank.)
06-21-2017 03:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,964
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #67
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
On the subject, I can't believe Kansas has only 3 titles. Talk about historically underachieving. Heck, one came in the early 50's and another was during a Cinderella run. As successful and prolific as they have been, they should have 7 or 8 at least.
06-21-2017 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 397
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 58
I Root For: Umass
Location: Van by the River
Post: #68
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 03:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

Nope. No chance Duke is considered a Blue Blood. I don't care what metric you put to them, if Duke is considered a Blue Blood, then so is UCONN and you've made it abundantly clear you don't think UCONN is a Blue Blood.

Once again - a distorted and delusional UConn perspective. Goody for you that YOU don't think Duke is a Blue Blood - almost everyone else seems to disagree with you.....

I am starting to think that LaVar Ball is a Uconn Grad - that would explain A LOT?
06-23-2017 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NBPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,383
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: OM/ECU/G'town
Location: The Hilltop
Post: #69
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 03:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

Nope. No chance Duke is considered a Blue Blood. I don't care what metric you put to them, if Duke is considered a Blue Blood, then so is UCONN and you've made it abundantly clear you don't think UCONN is a Blue Blood.

I'm not sure how Duke isn't a blue blood. Can you expound on these metrics?
06-23-2017 08:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,806
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 137
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #70
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
The question isn't about Georgetown being a blue blood. The question should be whether Georgetown can recruit well enough to win the national championship. Georgetown can.
06-23-2017 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NBPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,383
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: OM/ECU/G'town
Location: The Hilltop
Post: #71
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-23-2017 10:16 AM)chess Wrote:  The question isn't about Georgetown being a blue blood. The question should be whether Georgetown can recruit well enough to win the national championship. Georgetown can.

What? They've won a national championship before, so that question is redundant.
06-23-2017 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,195
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #72
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-21-2017 03:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 02:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

UCLA's down decades were better than Georgetown's best decades.
06-23-2017 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billyjack Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,283
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 81
I Root For: Providence
Location: Rhode Island
Post: #73
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-23-2017 12:15 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 03:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 02:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(06-21-2017 01:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It always cracks me up when I see these "Is [insert school] a blue blood?" threads and then the majority of the posts argue about whether the school has or hasn't had *recent* success. The entire definition of being a "blue blood" is that it is NOT about recent success, but rather that they have multi-generational wealth (or in the case of sports, championships) that was earned long ago. Bill Gates isn't a blue blood despite being the richest person in the world, whereas the descendants of the Rockerfellers and the Vanderbilts are very much blue bloods despite not having the wealth of Gates. Indiana and UCLA have had multiple generations of success that go back decades even if they have had relative down periods in recent years, so they are blue bloods of college basketball. Georgetown's success was largely based on a single coach during a single period in time, so that's not blue blood-type success. It's a very prominent program, but it's not a blue blood. To me, the only college basketball blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana and UCLA. There are a lot of great programs in the next tier, but they don't have the multi-generational/multi-coach successes of the other 6 schools.

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

From 1980 to present, non-vacated years:

Won National Championships:
- Georgetown 1, UCLA 1.

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Georgetown has run a clean program throughout.

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

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

Or, said differently, in the first 25 years of the ESPN era, the Friars have more non-vacated or "non-Jim-Harrick-probable-cheating" Elite-8's or beyond than UCLA. And if you count Harrick, then Providence only trails UCLA 3-2.
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2017 01:56 PM by billyjack.)
06-23-2017 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,528
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 280
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
the problem IMO though is that you can't just look at vacated things like they didn't happen. Everyone knows USC in football was a damn good team in 2005 even if they vacated that. Or Michigan in the final 4's with the Fab 5. You can act all pious and everything and act like it didn't happen, but to casual fans, that's not realistic.

Also the problem is that since 2004- UCLA has been to the at least the elite 8 3 times(all 3 going to final 4). And another 3 sweet 16's. Georgetown on the other had has been to the elite 8 only once and only 1 other sweet 16. Georgetown has got to get back it's mojo. Georgetown can be an elite program. Is it UCLA? no. But very few programs are.

Now someone saying UCLA's down decades better than Georgetown's best decades- now that is ignorant. Georgetown in the 80's had 10 tourney appearances, 1 title, 2 runner ups, 3 final 4's, 6 elite 8's, 25 tourney wins. UCLA in the 10's has had 5 tourney bids(out of 8 years), 3 sweet 16's, and only 7 tourney wins. That's is just about the dumbest statement anyone has made on this board in a while. And that takes something.
06-23-2017 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,964
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #75
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
Nothing short of a point shaving scandal or the use of blatantly ineligible players (i.e. guys off the street) will ever get me to take a penalty like that seriously. An asterisk does really well as a reminder.
06-23-2017 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 397
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 58
I Root For: Umass
Location: Van by the River
Post: #76
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
So by your argument Providence s a Blue Blood?

03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao
05-nono05-nono05-nono05-nono05-nono
06-25-2017 09:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billyjack Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,283
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 81
I Root For: Providence
Location: Rhode Island
Post: #77
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(06-25-2017 09:04 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  So by your argument Providence s a Blue Blood?

03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao
05-nono05-nono05-nono05-nono05-nono

No, of course not. It's to point out that for a significant chunk of time (ESPN's first 25 years), UCLA had a huge slump... 1980 through 2005... to the point where even Providence had only 1 fewer Elite-8 than UCLA in that time period. In those 25 years, Georgetown was significantly better than UCLA.
06-26-2017 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,496
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 332
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #78
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
We each will have our own definition of what qualifies as a "blue blood" or an "elite". For me, the lack of a clearcut way of identifying the best teams before 1951 (the year that the NCAAT went to 16 teams, and essentially supplanted the NIT as the premier post season tourney) makes that something of a cutoff.

I define a blue blood as a school with at least 10 Final Four appearances since that time, at least two of which came more than fifty years ago. By that standard, there are only five schools who qualify (# of FFs in parentheses):

North Carolina (18)
UCLA (18)
Duke (16)
Kentucky (14)
Kansas (13)

Combined, they represent 30% of all Final Four appearances since 1951.

Louisville (10) and Michigan State (9) come close, but with only one each before 1968. Some may want to add these two, but I'm comfortable defending my list.

If you look only at FF's since the tourney field was expanded to 48 in 1980 (removing the limits on how many teams from one conference could be invited), four of these schools also rank at the top. Only UCLA doesn't make that list, with only 5 appearances (tied for 7th with Syracuse and Florida). From 1962-1976, UCLA made it a staggering 13 times, missing only in 1963 and 1966 before a run of 10 straight. I believe the second longest streaks of FF appearances belong to Cincinnati, with 5 visits between 1959 and 1963 and Duke, which did it from '88-92.
07-11-2017 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 727
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(07-11-2017 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  We each will have our own definition of what qualifies as a "blue blood" or an "elite". For me, the lack of a clearcut way of identifying the best teams before 1951 (the year that the NCAAT went to 16 teams, and essentially supplanted the NIT as the premier post season tourney) makes that something of a cutoff.

I define a blue blood as a school with at least 10 Final Four appearances since that time, at least two of which came more than fifty years ago. By that standard, there are only five schools who qualify (# of FFs in parentheses):

North Carolina (18)
UCLA (18)
Duke (16)
Kentucky (14)
Kansas (13)

Combined, they represent 30% of all Final Four appearances since 1951.

Louisville (10) and Michigan State (9) come close, but with only one each before 1968. Some may want to add these two, but I'm comfortable defending my list.


If you look only at FF's since the tourney field was expanded to 48 in 1980 (removing the limits on how many teams from one conference could be invited), four of these schools also rank at the top. Only UCLA doesn't make that list, with only 5 appearances (tied for 7th with Syracuse and Florida). From 1962-1976, UCLA made it a staggering 13 times, missing only in 1963 and 1966 before a run of 10 straight. I believe the second longest streaks of FF appearances belong to Cincinnati, with 5 visits between 1959 and 1963 and Duke, which did it from '88-92.

I like your definition because it includes historical success.

Blue Blood - historical success which has built a name & recent success which makes the program relevant
---
Consistent Contender - some previous success, some recent success (at least 1 championship)
Elite - a lot of recent success which makes the program relevant (at least 1 championship), some historical success
Old Guard - a lot of historical success which has built a name (at least 1 championship), some recent success
---
New Blood - recent success without a championship, limited historical success
Ghost - historical success without a championship, limited recent success

3 examples of each:

Blue Blood: North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky
---
Consistent Contender: Villanova, Louisville, Michigan St
Elite: Connecticut, Florida, Arizona
Old Guard: Indiana, Georgetown, North Carolina St
---
New Blood: Gonzaga, Wichita St, Butler
Ghost: Houston, Seton Hall, DePaul
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2017 10:52 AM by BePcr07.)
07-11-2017 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,336
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 544
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #80
MyBB RE: Is Georgetown a basketball blue blood?
(07-11-2017 10:51 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  We each will have our own definition of what qualifies as a "blue blood" or an "elite". For me, the lack of a clearcut way of identifying the best teams before 1951 (the year that the NCAAT went to 16 teams, and essentially supplanted the NIT as the premier post season tourney) makes that something of a cutoff.

I define a blue blood as a school with at least 10 Final Four appearances since that time, at least two of which came more than fifty years ago. By that standard, there are only five schools who qualify (# of FFs in parentheses):

North Carolina (18)
UCLA (18)
Duke (16)
Kentucky (14)
Kansas (13)

Combined, they represent 30% of all Final Four appearances since 1951.

Louisville (10) and Michigan State (9) come close, but with only one each before 1968. Some may want to add these two, but I'm comfortable defending my list.


If you look only at FF's since the tourney field was expanded to 48 in 1980 (removing the limits on how many teams from one conference could be invited), four of these schools also rank at the top. Only UCLA doesn't make that list, with only 5 appearances (tied for 7th with Syracuse and Florida). From 1962-1976, UCLA made it a staggering 13 times, missing only in 1963 and 1966 before a run of 10 straight. I believe the second longest streaks of FF appearances belong to Cincinnati, with 5 visits between 1959 and 1963 and Duke, which did it from '88-92.

I like your definition because it includes historical success.

Blue Blood - historical success which has built a name & recent success which makes the program relevant
---
Consistent Contender - some previous success, some recent success (at least 1 championship)
Elite - a lot of recent success which makes the program relevant (at least 1 championship), some historical success
Old Guard - a lot of historical success which has built a name (at least 1 championship), some recent success
---
New Blood - recent success without a championship, limited historical success
Ghost - historical success without a championship, limited recent success

3 examples of each:

Blue Blood: North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky
---
Consistent Contender: Villanova, Louisville, Michigan St
Elite: Connecticut, Florida, Arizona
Old Guard: Indiana, Georgetown, North Carolina St
---
New Blood: Gonzaga, Wichita St, Butler
Ghost: Houston, Seton Hall, DePaul

I'd consider adding Cincinnati under "Old Guard". Plus, it's not like they've disappeared even now...
07-11-2017 11:03 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.