Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
College Basketball Tiers
Author Message
EdwordL Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 747
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation: 100
I Root For: KU, WVU
Location:
Post: #81
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-14-2020 07:05 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I actually did this about 5 years ago in a lot of detail. 7 tiers. Here are the first 3 tiers.

If I was doing it again, I'd probably make a few changes (such as moving Virginia up 2 tiers to bottom of Tier 2, moving Wichita and San Diego State up to 3rd tier and dropping Temple and UNLV down to 4th tier).

Top tier:
North Carolina
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Duke

Top tier, but not a notch below:
Michigan State
Connecticut
Louisville
Michigan State
Syracuse

2nd tier:
Georgetown
Ohio State
Oklahoma State
Villanova
(middle of 2nd tier)
Arizona
Cincinnati
Illinois
(bottom of 2nd tier)
Arkansas
Marquette
Maryland
NC State
Florida

3rd tier
(top of 3rd tier)
Georgia Tech
Kansas State
Louisiana State
West Virginia
(middle of 3rd tier)
Michigan
Nevada - Las Vegas
Oklahoma
Purdue
Texas
Utah
Wisconsin
(bottom of 3rd tier)
Arizona State
Boston College
Brigham Young
Butler
California
Creighton
Gonzaga
Hartford
Iowa State
Memphis
Missouri
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
St. John's
Stanford
Temple
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest
Xavier

The next tier had 41 teams in it.

I may have missed it, but where is UCLA?
09-17-2020 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WhoseHouse? Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,080
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 482
I Root For: UH
Location:
Post: #82
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 03:41 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I wouldn't say ECU was major. A few tennis and baseball players were having people write papers for them. Something that probably happens at every school in the general student body. The true Academic Fraud was UNC that went on for decades with fake classes, etc. ECU was not ECU it was the a few student-athletes, UNC was the actual school and athletic department. Devil is in the details

Just to piggy back off this, neither was UH's. There was a tutor who wrote essays for four student athletes in exchange for cash. Once the athletic department caught wind he was fired and we self reported. UNC ran entire fake classes. They shouldn't have even been in the NCAAT in 2017 when they won. The fact that they didn't even receive a postseason ban for that scandal is 100% confirmation of their blue blood status. lol
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 07:20 PM by WhoseHouse?.)
09-17-2020 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #83
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 03:41 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I wouldn't say ECU was major. A few tennis and baseball players were having people write papers for them. Something that probably happens at every school in the general student body. The true Academic Fraud was UNC that went on for decades with fake classes, etc. ECU was not ECU it was the a few student-athletes, UNC was the actual school and athletic department. Devil is in the details

Just to piggy back off this, neither was UH's. There was a tutor who wrote essays for four student athletes in exchange for cash. Once the athletic department caught wind he was fired and we self reported. UNC ran entire fake classes. They shouldn't have even been in the NCAAT in 2017 when they won. The fact that they didn't even receive a postseason ban for that scandal is 100% confirmation of their blue blood status. lol

Kentucky gets nailed to the wall when they have issues. Players shave points-death penalty. Money in Fedex package-2 years in Siberia. Kentucky builds extravagant dorm for athletes-they are immediately outlawed by the NCAA. But North Carolina skates. Maybe because most college presidents are Ivy League, Big 10, UVA, UNC, Cal, UCLA or Stanford grads. UNC is in the club.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 09:13 PM by bullet.)
09-17-2020 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #84
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 09:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 03:41 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I wouldn't say ECU was major. A few tennis and baseball players were having people write papers for them. Something that probably happens at every school in the general student body. The true Academic Fraud was UNC that went on for decades with fake classes, etc. ECU was not ECU it was the a few student-athletes, UNC was the actual school and athletic department. Devil is in the details

Just to piggy back off this, neither was UH's. There was a tutor who wrote essays for four student athletes in exchange for cash. Once the athletic department caught wind he was fired and we self reported. UNC ran entire fake classes. They shouldn't have even been in the NCAAT in 2017 when they won. The fact that they didn't even receive a postseason ban for that scandal is 100% confirmation of their blue blood status. lol

Kentucky gets nailed to the wall when they have issues. Players shave points-death penalty. Money in Fedex package-2 years in Siberia. Kentucky builds extravagant dorm for athletes-they are immediately outlawed by the NCAA. But North Carolina skates. Maybe because most college presidents are Ivy League, Big 10, UVA, UNC, Cal, UCLA or Stanford grads. UNC is in the club.

Hello! It is a good ole boy connection. If you are in the club yours doesn't smell as bad as those who aren't.

The deal is the club is about to change. There isn't going to be a break away of the P5, there is is going to be chiseling away of those who can't afford pay for play, NIL rights, and a tacit separation of athletics and academics. Those who can't or won't go there will remain in the NCAA where amateurism is the standard, though a standard that the courts will alter, and then there are going to be those who do go there because the national prominence is a major advantage in the recruitment of students. Those are going to have a new governance structure because the NCAA isn't set up to manage that. It's not their organizing principle.

When this happens, probably a court ruling that precedes the expirations of the GOR's it will alter in part all of the current P5 conferences and outpace what the vast majority of G5 programs can afford to do. The current 65 could easily become 48, and I think at most 56.

When this happens conferences will be reduced to 2 or 3 and all of Jed's projections and schadenfreude will be for naught.

So why continue to argue with him over esoteric and meaningless distinctions. They are meaningless within the current structure and are likely to be wholly irrelevant within a few years.

What's about to happen will be the result of a natural downsizing of higher education which will culminate in the streamlining of current university structures, and among the larger state schools who do make the jump part of their desire to play in the upper tier is almost all of them are increasing enrollment and significantly increasing it at that. The competition for students will be palpable.

The demographics for all of this has been coming for some time now and the upper tier will merely be the beneficiary of the networks desire to maximize brand and brand play or there wouldn't be an incentive to move up in commitment to athletics. But by shrinking their number of participants, doing it by the choice of the universities segregating themselves along lines of what they can afford, and shrinking the conference overhead by consolidating those who make the jump into fewer conferences with much less overhead and duplication of functions it will pay well enough to make it not only feasible but desirable.

There's a new world coming and it is gong to be even more exclusive. Petty whizzing contests about current status will be irrelevant because the schools themselves will make the decisions that place them in the new classifications.

And they will be irrelevant because in a pay for play world which is what we've had in ore form or another for nearly 100 years, there will be no sanctions and legal taxes will be played and the players will not have to be complicit in an under the table arrangement.

In that world if a UConn says, as it essentially did to the AAC, that we really can't afford to play football at a committed level then they have chosen their position.

The same decisions will be before all of the G5 and P5 schools. If a G5 school wants to make the commitment it won't be waiting on a P5 invitation they'll simply put up the cash and join. If they can't they won't. Nobody to blame, no good ole boys club to curse or feel animus toward, just your own decisions to live with.

So in the meantime why even argue about such petty meaningless details as who has been caught cheating. As one who followed up on allegations, only not for the NCAA, I can tell you the rate of cheating out there is nearly 100% but not quite and figuring out who isn't is pretty easy, just check the cellar of each conference.
09-17-2020 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huskies12 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 369
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #85
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 10:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 09:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 03:41 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I wouldn't say ECU was major. A few tennis and baseball players were having people write papers for them. Something that probably happens at every school in the general student body. The true Academic Fraud was UNC that went on for decades with fake classes, etc. ECU was not ECU it was the a few student-athletes, UNC was the actual school and athletic department. Devil is in the details

Just to piggy back off this, neither was UH's. There was a tutor who wrote essays for four student athletes in exchange for cash. Once the athletic department caught wind he was fired and we self reported. UNC ran entire fake classes. They shouldn't have even been in the NCAAT in 2017 when they won. The fact that they didn't even receive a postseason ban for that scandal is 100% confirmation of their blue blood status. lol

Kentucky gets nailed to the wall when they have issues. Players shave points-death penalty. Money in Fedex package-2 years in Siberia. Kentucky builds extravagant dorm for athletes-they are immediately outlawed by the NCAA. But North Carolina skates. Maybe because most college presidents are Ivy League, Big 10, UVA, UNC, Cal, UCLA or Stanford grads. UNC is in the club.

Hello! It is a good ole boy connection. If you are in the club yours doesn't smell as bad as those who aren't.

The deal is the club is about to change. There isn't going to be a break away of the P5, there is is going to be chiseling away of those who can't afford pay for play, NIL rights, and a tacit separation of athletics and academics. Those who can't or won't go there will remain in the NCAA where amateurism is the standard, though a standard that the courts will alter, and then there are going to be those who do go there because the national prominence is a major advantage in the recruitment of students. Those are going to have a new governance structure because the NCAA isn't set up to manage that. It's not their organizing principle.

When this happens, probably a court ruling that precedes the expirations of the GOR's it will alter in part all of the current P5 conferences and outpace what the vast majority of G5 programs can afford to do. The current 65 could easily become 48, and I think at most 56.

When this happens conferences will be reduced to 2 or 3 and all of Jed's projections and schadenfreude will be for naught.

So why continue to argue with him over esoteric and meaningless distinctions. They are meaningless within the current structure and are likely to be wholly irrelevant within a few years.

What's about to happen will be the result of a natural downsizing of higher education which will culminate in the streamlining of current university structures, and among the larger state schools who do make the jump part of their desire to play in the upper tier is almost all of them are increasing enrollment and significantly increasing it at that. The competition for students will be palpable.

The demographics for all of this has been coming for some time now and the upper tier will merely be the beneficiary of the networks desire to maximize brand and brand play or there wouldn't be an incentive to move up in commitment to athletics. But by shrinking their number of participants, doing it by the choice of the universities segregating themselves along lines of what they can afford, and shrinking the conference overhead by consolidating those who make the jump into fewer conferences with much less overhead and duplication of functions it will pay well enough to make it not only feasible but desirable.

There's a new world coming and it is gong to be even more exclusive. Petty whizzing contests about current status will be irrelevant because the schools themselves will make the decisions that place them in the new classifications.

And they will be irrelevant because in a pay for play world which is what we've had in ore form or another for nearly 100 years, there will be no sanctions and legal taxes will be played and the players will not have to be complicit in an under the table arrangement.

In that world if a UConn says, as it essentially did to the AAC, that we really can't afford to play football at a committed level then they have chosen their position.

The same decisions will be before all of the G5 and P5 schools. If a G5 school wants to make the commitment it won't be waiting on a P5 invitation they'll simply put up the cash and join. If they can't they won't. Nobody to blame, no good ole boys club to curse or feel animus toward, just your own decisions to live with.

So in the meantime why even argue about such petty meaningless details as who has been caught cheating. As one who followed up on allegations, only not for the NCAA, I can tell you the rate of cheating out there is nearly 100% but not quite and figuring out who isn't is pretty easy, just check the cellar of each conference.

UConn's still paying for football. Just the Big East for everything makes more sense than a Southern conference.
09-18-2020 06:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #86
RE: College Basketball Tiers
Is UCLA still a Blueblood or just an elite team?

I'm kinda torn...they have great history but haven't done much lately and they draw crap at Pauley Pavilion.
09-18-2020 01:44 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WhoseHouse? Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,080
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 482
I Root For: UH
Location:
Post: #87
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-18-2020 01:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is UCLA still a Blueblood or just an elite team?

I'm kinda torn...they have great history but haven't done much lately and they draw crap at Pauley Pavilion.

Personally I think only Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas are clear cut blue bloods (and in that order). However, if people are going to consider Indiana a blue blood then UCLA gets in easily. Since Indiana's last title run in '87, UCLA has more FF's, S16'S, tournament appearances, and conference championships.
09-18-2020 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,410
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #88
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-18-2020 01:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is UCLA still a Blueblood or just an elite team?

I'm kinda torn...they have great history but haven't done much lately and they draw crap at Pauley Pavilion.

I still believe in UCLA as a blue-blood, although I’m not convinced that Indiana is there. (for the record, there is no question about UK, KU, UNC and DU being the elite of the elite)

UCLA still gets consistently good recruits...which is a sign of excellent facilities, coaching and visibility. They were consistently achieving stellar results under Ben Howland...which was only within the past decade.

On the other hand, Indiana is only making the tournament 50% of the time this century. The Hoosiers have only been a 1, 2 or 3 seed (teams that compete for championships) once in the past 25 years. After multiple generations of having mediocre results, the blood lines are fading.
09-18-2020 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,379
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #89
RE: College Basketball Tiers
I basically consider both UCLA and Indiana bluebloods. Admittedly, as a long-time fan, I'm biased toward the Hoosier program. But the IU history, tradition, resources, fan base, etc., remain in place. What has been missing are NCAA Tournament wins.

UCLA is a bit of a different animal compared to UK, KU, UNC, IU and even private school Duke because its fan base is not as rabid as those of the other five. But, you can't overlook the achievements, the coaches, the tourney wins, the NBA players produced, etc.
09-19-2020 08:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #90
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-19-2020 08:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I basically consider both UCLA and Indiana bluebloods. Admittedly, as a long-time fan, I'm biased toward the Hoosier program. But the IU history, tradition, resources, fan base, etc., remain in place. What has been missing are NCAA Tournament wins.

UCLA is a bit of a different animal compared to UK, KU, UNC, IU and even private school Duke because its fan base is not as rabid as those of the other five. But, you can't overlook the achievements, the coaches, the tourney wins, the NBA players produced, etc.

Indiana doesn't get the elite recruits like the other 5, but a little winning and it would be clear they are still blueblood.

Now continue down for another decade or so and they drop into the 2nd tier as Minnesota, a national football power back in 1960, completely dropped from consciousness.

But those 5 titles, same as Duke, don't quickly fade away.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2020 01:25 PM by bullet.)
09-19-2020 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,379
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #91
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-19-2020 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-19-2020 08:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I basically consider both UCLA and Indiana bluebloods. Admittedly, as a long-time fan, I'm biased toward the Hoosier program. But the IU history, tradition, resources, fan base, etc., remain in place. What has been missing are NCAA Tournament wins.

UCLA is a bit of a different animal compared to UK, KU, UNC, IU and even private school Duke because its fan base is not as rabid as those of the other five. But, you can't overlook the achievements, the coaches, the tourney wins, the NBA players produced, etc.

Indiana doesn't get the elite recruits like the other 5, but a little winning and it would be clear they are still blueblood.

Now continue down for another decade or so and they drop into the 2nd tier as Minnesota, a national football power back in 1960, completely dropped from consciousness.

But those 5 titles, same as Duke, don't quickly fade away.


I agree with all this.
09-19-2020 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #92
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-18-2020 02:16 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(09-18-2020 01:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is UCLA still a Blueblood or just an elite team?

I'm kinda torn...they have great history but haven't done much lately and they draw crap at Pauley Pavilion.

Personally I think only Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas are clear cut blue bloods (and in that order). However, if people are going to consider Indiana a blue blood then UCLA gets in easily. Since Indiana's last title run in '87, UCLA has more FF's, S16'S, tournament appearances, and conference championships.

The one thing that separates Duke, Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky from UCLA is that the first four schools on this short list have had considerably more success in recent decades.

Perhaps it would clarify things to divide all the blueblood schools (the all-time greatest BB schools, most outstanding achievements, regardless of recent performance) into two groups:

I. Currently (or very recently) top tier bluebloods, or "The Elite" (UNC, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, ...)

"Elite" suggests the current or very recently elite. These teams have been ranked among the top 20 within the past five years, and a significant amount of their total success, historically, has taken place within the past 15-20 years (as opposed to more than 20 years ago).

II. Formerly elite bluebloods, or "The Legends" (UCLA, etc....)


Unfortunately for this classification approach, UCLA doesn't fit perfectly into the "Legends" category, since the Bruins finished as the #8 school in the Final AP Top 25 in 2017. Yet, on the other hand, a significant amount of their total success has not happened in the past 20 years.

So, since I'm forcing myself to make a choice to make this system potentially useful, I'm going to have to call UCLA more of a "Legends" type of blueblood school, but very close to being a "recent elite".

In fact, that might be the best way to solve this conundrum - - to divide up the Legends into schools that are totally "Legends of the past" and Legends that have been elite in recent years.
.

.

Next step: try to classify the next batch of BB schools, all of which would be widely considered to be bluebloods, although being a notch below the top 5 above:

Michigan State, Louisville and Arizona are bluebloods clearly belong in the current/recent elites group in every respect, although they haven't had the accomplishments that the top-tier all-time bluebloods that UNC, UCLA, etc. have had.

Syracuse, Illinois, and Indiana don't fall perfectly into either category. However, Syracuse comes close enough to being among the current/recent elite, due to having finished in the AP top 25 in 11 of the past 19 years.

Illinois hasn't been in the final AP top 20 since 2006, and Indiana has only had 4 AP top 20 finishes since 2000.

Louisville (39 NCAA bids; 33 top 25 teams since 1952)
Indiana (39 NCAA bids; 27 top 25 teams since 1950)
Syracuse (40 NCAA bids; 27 top 25 teams since 1973)
Arizona (33 NCAA bids; 26 top 25 teams since 1948)
Illinois (30 NCAA bids; 24 top 25 teams since 1949)
Michigan State (33 NCAA bids; 24 top 25 teams since 1957)


Categories of two type of BB bluebloods:

Current (recent) elites: UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, MSU, Louisville, Syracuse

Legends: UCLA, Indiana, Illinois


Next batch of what some would consider bluebloods, although to a somewhat lesser degree.

Villanova* (38 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1949)
+Cincinnati* (33 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1951) (*indicates non-P5 school)
+Notre Dame (36 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1953)
+Maryland (27 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1954)
Ohio State (29 NCAA bids; 22 top 25 teams since 1949)
+Michigan (25 NCAA bids; 22 top 25 teams since 1964)

Every one of these schools, except Notre Dame, fits very well or somewhat well into the "current(recent) elites category."

Michigan would be a somewhat marginal match if they hadn't finished in the AP Final Top 25 in 2018 and 2019., but they did, and they would certainly be considered a BB blueblood school by some fans.

It's hard to think of Notre Dame as being a truly "elite" program in the same that UNC and Kentucky are. They're clearly a notch below. Moreover, they've only had 6 top 20 teams in the past two decades. That's enough to move them into the "Legends" category, although some would be uncomfortable with the notion that Notre Dame should be included in the same category with the elite schools of all time, such as UCLA and Indiana.

.

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."
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2020 05:32 PM by jedclampett.)
09-20-2020 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,379
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #93
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-20-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-18-2020 02:16 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(09-18-2020 01:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is UCLA still a Blueblood or just an elite team?

I'm kinda torn...they have great history but haven't done much lately and they draw crap at Pauley Pavilion.

Personally I think only Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas are clear cut blue bloods (and in that order). However, if people are going to consider Indiana a blue blood then UCLA gets in easily. Since Indiana's last title run in '87, UCLA has more FF's, S16'S, tournament appearances, and conference championships.

The one thing that separates Duke, Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky from UCLA is that the first four schools on this short list have had more success in recent decades.

Perhaps it would clarify things to divide all the blueblood schools (the all-time greatest BB schools, most outstanding achievements, regardless of recent performance) into two groups:

I. Currently (or very recently) top tier bluebloods, or "The Elite" (UNC, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, ...)

"Elite" suggests the current or very recently elite. These teams have been ranked among the top 20 within the past five years, and a significant amount of their total success, historically, has taken place within the past 15-20 years (as opposed to more than 20 years ago).

II. Formerly elite bluebloods, or "The Legends" (UCLA, etc....)

.

.

Ok, so let's see how these categories function, by attempting to classify the next batch of BB schools, all of which would be widely considered to be bluebloods, although being a notch below the top 5 above:

Michigan State, Louisville and Arizona are bluebloods clearly belong in the current/recent elites group in every respect, although they haven't had the accomplishments that the top-tier all-time bluebloods that UNC, UCLA, etc. have had.

Syracuse, Illinois, and Indiana don't fall perfectly into either category. However, Syracuse comes close enough to being among the current/recent elite, due to having finished in the AP top 25 in 11 of the past 19 years.

Illinois hasn't been in the final AP top 20 since 2006, and Indiana has only had 4 AP top 20 finishes since 2000.

Louisville (39 NCAA bids; 33 top 25 teams since 1952)
Indiana (39 NCAA bids; 27 top 25 teams since 1950)
Syracuse (40 NCAA bids; 27 top 25 teams since 1973)
Arizona (33 NCAA bids; 26 top 25 teams since 1948)
Illinois (30 NCAA bids; 24 top 25 teams since 1949)
Michigan State (33 NCAA bids; 24 top 25 teams since 1957)


Categories of two type of BB bluebloods:

Current (recent) elites: UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, MSU, Louisville, Syracuse

Legends: UCLA, Indiana, Illinois


Next batch of what some would consider bluebloods, although to a somewhat lesser degree.

Villanova* (38 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1949)
+Cincinnati* (33 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1951) (*indicates non-P5 school)
+Notre Dame (36 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1953)
+Maryland (27 NCAA bids; 23 top 25 teams since 1954)
Ohio State (29 NCAA bids; 22 top 25 teams since 1949)
+Michigan (25 NCAA bids; 22 top 25 teams since 1964)

Every one of these schools, except Notre Dame, fits very well or somewhat well into the "current(recent) elites category."

Michigan would be a somewhat marginal match if they hadn't finished in the AP Final Top 25 in 2018 and 2019., but they did, and they would certainly be considered a BB blueblood school by some fans.

It's hard to think of Notre Dame as being a truly "elite" program in the same that UNC and Kentucky are. They're clearly a notch below. Moreover, they've only had 6 top 20 teams in the past two decades. That's enough to move them into the "Legends" category, although some would be uncomfortable with the notion that Notre Dame should be included in the same category with the elite schools of all time, such as UCLA and Indiana.

.

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.


.

Final score:

Here's the new score:

Categories of the two types of BB bluebloods:

Current (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)


.

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."


Excellent work. A good read.

A very underrated program is Arkansas. Passionate fan base and some strong history. As a Memphis fan, it pains me to say it, but the Razorback hoops program is topnotch.
09-20-2020 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WhoseHouse? Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,080
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 482
I Root For: UH
Location:
Post: #94
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-20-2020 03:50 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-18-2020 02:16 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(09-18-2020 01:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Is UCLA still a Blueblood or just an elite team?

I'm kinda torn...they have great history but haven't done much lately and they draw crap at Pauley Pavilion.

Personally I think only Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas are clear cut blue bloods (and in that order). However, if people are going to consider Indiana a blue blood then UCLA gets in easily. Since Indiana's last title run in '87, UCLA has more FF's, S16'S, tournament appearances, and conference championships.

The one thing that separates Duke, Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky from UCLA is that the first four schools on this short list have had more success in recent decades.

Perhaps it would clarify things to divide all the blueblood schools (the all-time greatest BB schools, most outstanding achievements, regardless of recent performance) into two groups:

I. Currently top tier bluebloods, or "The (current) Elite" (UNC, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, ...)

II. Formerly elite bluebloods, or "The Legends" (UCLA, Indiana, etc....)

That way, people can still consider UCLA and Indiana full-fledged BB blueblood schools of the "Legends" type, as being on the same plane of all-time achievement with the UNCs and Dukes, even though they're not among the current elite.

Yes but if we're looking at the composite UCLA is still tops in championships, T-2 in Final Fours, and 4th in NCAAT appearances. That places them above at least one blue blood in every significant metric of tourney success. Because of that I can't equate them with Indiana or drop them out of the T-5. After looking more thoroughly at the data here's how I see it.

Blue Bloods
1. Kentucky (2nd in championships, T-2 in Final Fours, Most NCAAT appearances)
2. UNC (3rd in championships, 1st in Final Fours, 2nd Most NCAAT appearances)
3. UCLA (1st in championships, T-2 in Final Fours, 4th in NCAAT appearances)
4. Duke (T-4 in championships, 4th in Final Fours, 5th in NCAAT appearances)
5. Kansas (T-7 in championships, 5th in Final Fours, 3rd in NCAAT appearances)

Tier 2
6. Indiana (T-4 in championships, T-8 in Final Fours, 7th in NCAAT appearances)
7. Louisville (T-9 in championships, T-8 in Final Fours, 7th in NCAAT appearances)
8. Villanova (T-7 in championships, T-15 in Final Fours, 9th in NCAAT appearances)
9. UConn (6th in championships, T-15 in Final Fours, T-17 in NCAAT appearances)
10. Michigan St. (T-9 in championships, 7th in Final Fours, T-12 in NCAAT appearances)

After that I see a 3rd tier consisting of Arizona, Michigan, Syracuse, NCST, Cincinnati, Georgetown, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Ohio St, Marquette (Not necessarily in that order). Everyone in that group has a title (post 1940), 3+ Final Fours, 25+ NCAAT appearances. The only other school that checks all of those boxes and hasn't already been listed is Utah and given that title came in 1946 and that 20 is a more rounded than 21, I have no problem excluding them from tier 3.
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2020 06:04 PM by WhoseHouse?.)
09-20-2020 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnintx Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,393
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #95
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.
09-20-2020 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,477
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #96
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.
09-21-2020 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,379
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #97
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.


SEC hoops from the point of racial integration in the early 1970s to the point at which Florida emerged as a major men's basketball player in the late 1990s was probably not as strong as many SEC fans contended at the time but likely better than the label given to it by those who were very critical of the league. It is now a truly excellent men's basketball league.

Agree with you that the Big 12 has become outstanding in men's hoops.
09-21-2020 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,410
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #98
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.
09-21-2020 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,379
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #99
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.

To your point (and I agree), Wahoowa84: The ACC has the most "Top 15-ish" all-time programs: Duke, Louisville, Syracuse and North Carolina of any of the P5 leagues.

The Big 12 has only one all-time top 15 program: Kansas. But I agree strongly with you about the league's balance. Very impressive.

To be fair, the Big 12 has only 10 teams to the ACC's 15.
09-21-2020 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,573
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 637
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #100
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.
09-21-2020 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.