(05-04-2018 10:17 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

While Villanova has been impressive as of late, they need to win one more natty before they can tie UConn as a theoretical "blue blood". That said, Kansas has one less natty than UConn but is a definite blue blood. Kansas has a long term resume that edges out UConn. Villanova, while always historically solid and one of the better teams, still doesn't have the overall resume that Kansas or UConn has (but is closing the gap). So, I would say the definite blue bloods are Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Kansas. UCLA hasn't done much in recent years, but their monumental historical resume under Wooden makes them a blue blood due to historical necessity. As for Indiana, they haven't done enough to be considered a blue blood any more as their glory years are ancient history (last natty in 1987). So, while UConn is "new money" in that their power years started in the early 90's, their overall resume is still better than Villanova's. UConn currently has more of a right to the term blue blood than Indiana or Villanova, although calling UConn blue blood is still a stretch.

As for Louisville, I also still consider their pedigree better than Nova's even with one less actual natty and the recent scandals. They have been more important nationally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC..._champions

Very Steveresque in your analysis, I'm impressed. Villanova is less than UCONN because of one fewer championship, and is also less than Louisville, due to the overall body of work. Fair enough regarding Louisville, but in the head to head with UCONN, outside of the natty's Nova leads 6-5 in Final Fours, 14-11 in Elite Eights, ties 18-18 in Sweet Sixteens, leads 38-33 in overall NCAA tournament appearances, and is also trending in a better direction at the present time than UCONN. So which is the determining factor, number of titles, or overall body of work? Can't have it both ways.

(05-03-2018 04:05 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 03:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  As for your comment, Bogg, it's not over-analysis. Kids just have more options now, and for elite programs, to remain elite, you have a choice about recruiting this player who only wants a year or two, is good enough to play immediately, and seem like a good (enough) fit for the program, or be more selective or liberal and invest in guys near the top but are adjustable and could be better contributors. I think the bigger issue is...when did the top 100 expect to all go pro ahead of playing a full career in college? And when did the next tier infer so much compromise?

Oh, sure, there are definitely multiple ways to be successful, I'm not inferring that being a one-and-done factory is the only way to be sustainably good. I may have misunderstood you, but I'm getting strong hints of "just wait until Duke goes back to REAL team-building" in this thread. It's obvious that K's of the belief that the best way to build a contender is to assemble as much talent as possible and let the minutes fall where they may. Certain posters (and if this isn't you, my mistake) seem to think this results in Duke operating with one hand tied behind their back and opens a window for other programs that wouldn't otherwise be open. At a very minimum, we know K disagrees there.

Well, how would anyone be able to tell? A season or two without a tournament could be attributed for any number of reasons. It's no different than assuming Duke or UK not winning it this year is because their reliance on one-and-done's.

Kentucky was always a great program. Coach Cal and the current regulations placed on aspiring pro's just made Kentucky's program culture that much more effective in the college game. It's not a "wait until UK goes back to really building teams," but "what happens under new guidelines with a program like..." I wouldn't attach a coach to it, probably because they may not even be in the equation at that time. And at that point, again, you have way too many variables in play.

I think, with Villanova, you just have to look at a program that does it kind of "old school" with a coach who's probably among the best in the college game, maybe among the all-time greats, and look at this current point in cbb. I think he'd be great in the pro's. He's classy as ****, and almost too good for how bad the college game has gotten. And, as a Big Five fan, and one who hasn't wanted to like Villanova over St. Joe's or Temple, he really has made Philly a one-team town, with four or five others nearby just also-rans. I'll say that Wright hasn't changed the face of college basketball. But I will say that Philly has never had a college coach like this. Chaney, Dunphy, Martelli, and even Rollie are those blue-collar underdog types...Wright's a diamond standard. I don't know if anyone in Philly, Villanova included, matches him in my lifetime, and maybe even longer.