Reid Travis Visit?

[bucsrule8872]

I was born in 1988 (I am 29) . Duke had 0 championships 29 years ago when I was born, but they are a blue blood. When I was a sophomore in college (2009), Duke had 3 championships. I was 20 at the time. If someone was born in the year 2000, Nova has the same number of championships as Duke had 9 years ago.

I think it’s pretty ridiculous to say Nova needs 50 more years of success to be called a blue blood. You’re gonna stand there and tell me if Novas wins 2 more championships in the next 5 years they aren’t a blue blood with 5?

It's about more than titles. That is what you are not getting.

Duke has 16 Final Fours. They have played in 11 title games.

Duke went to Final Fours and title games in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

Duke has had tons of All-Americans in their history.

They have won several ACC titles.

They are part of what most consider the greatest rivalry in college bball.

They have a Hall of Fame coach, who many consider the GOAT.

If you cannot see the differences between the Duke tradition and the Nova tradition, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Bkocats]

My definition of blue blood is a bit different than some (I’ve always thought it had more to do with the coaching tree and long term - decades - success.)
But here is an article that has info on it
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nu...cuse-orange-tradition-success-ncaa-tournament

“ North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. That’s it. The Bruins are given the benefit of the doubt despite recent struggles because we’re still just a decade removed from them making three straight Final Fours, and their valleys are nowhere near what the Hoosiers have experienced.

But beyond those schools is a very large contingent of second-tier powers who can occasionally rise up and not just compete for titles, but win them. There’s consistency here too, but without the same access to resources and with interruptions in tradition here and there. If I have to make that list, it looks like this (in alphabetical order):

• Connecticut Huskies
• Georgetown Hoyas
• Indiana Hoosiers
• Louisville Cardinals
• Michigan State Spartans
• Syracuse Orange
• Villanova Wildcats

 

[InMyPinkston0]

It's about more than titles. That is what you are not getting.

Duke has 16 Final Fours. They have played in 11 title games.

Duke went to Final Fours and title games in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

Duke has had tons of All-Americans in their history.

They have won several ACC titles.

They are part of what most consider the greatest rivalry in college bball.

They have a Hall of Fame coach, who many consider the GOAT.

If you cannot see the differences between the Duke tradition and the Nova tradition, I don't know what to tell you.

Duke is an OCP, Nova has titles with multiple coaches, light years difference.

 

[CatfanMike47]

Duke is an OCP, Nova has titles with multiple coaches, light years difference.

Nova still isn’t a blue blood get over yourself Nova fans

 

[bucsrule8872]

Duke is an OCP, Nova has titles with multiple coaches, light years difference.

Duke has a lot more on their resume than Nova.

Titles are only one factor.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

I was born in 1988 (I am 29) . Duke had 0 championships 29 years ago when I was born, but they are a blue blood. When I was a sophomore in college (2009), Duke had 3 championships. I was 20 at the time. If someone was born in the year 2000, Nova has the same number of championships as Duke had 9 years ago.

I think it’s pretty ridiculous to say Nova needs 50 more years of success to be called a blue blood. You’re gonna stand there and tell me if Novas wins 2 more championships in the next 5 years they aren’t a blue blood with 5?

I'm trying to figure out the validity of using your lifespan as the frame of reference, or at least how that's apropos for everyone else. Can you enlighten us on that? Thanks.

 

[InMyPinkston0]

Duke has a lot more on their resume than Nova.

Titles are only one factor.

Nope, showing you can win titles with multiple regimes is the majority of the game, everything else is noise.

I'll admit K's blood is blue, Duke the program? not so much

 

[Rush2112 UK]

And for bucsrule: as I've demonstrated here many times, Indiana is essentially the first 17 years of the Bob Knight era, and that's it. They're no "blue blood" as we understand it. The numbers prove it beyond all doubt; I'll post them again if you'd like.

 

[Novanation11882]

I'm trying to figure out the validity of using your lifespan as the frame of reference, or at least how that's apropos for everyone else. Can you enlighten us on that? Thanks.

It’s one point of reference that I can relate to (and so can tens of thousands of other fans in their 20s and early 30s). Obviously I’m not representative of the entire population, but every day an older fan dies and a younger fan is born. Frankly, not many people give 2 sh*ts about who won in the 1930s/40/50s except for fans of the teams who won those years so they can brag about their numbers. Every year we move forward, those championships mean less and the ones that happened more recently count for more. I’m guessing exactly 0% of people on this board remember UK’s 1948 championship, very few were even alive (if any).

It’s clear that talent is going-up and teams now would absolutely wreck the championship teams from the 1930-70s (and probably up until the 90s). These teams are better now, so yeah winning now means you are putting some of the best college basketball teams/talent that’s ever played.

 

[Bkocats]

Nope, showing you can win titles with multiple regimes is the majority of the game, everything else is noise.

I'll admit K's blood is blue, Duke the program? not so much

While I agree that Duke is not a blue blood for other reasons, to say they didn’t have success before K is complete fallacy
Prior to K, they went to the final four in 1963,1964, 1966, and 1978 (losing to Kentucky in two of those four)

Villanova, prior to Jay Wright, has gone to the FF three times: 1939, 1971 and 1985, with 1971 being vacated.

And now I have to go take a hot shower; I just defended Duke

 

[bucsrule8872]

And for bucsrule: as I've demonstrated here many times, Indiana is essentially the first 17 years of the Bob Knight era, and that's it. They're no "blue blood" as we understand it. The numbers prove it beyond all doubt; I'll post them again if you'd like.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have my own. I hate IU and could be easily swayed to remove them from elite status.

But based on my criteria, I cannot.

IU had two titles before Bobby Knight arrived.

They have fallen on hard times, but you can't discount five decades of bball just because they haven't won a title in 3 decades.

Once again, it's more than titles. IU played in the title game in 2002. They have consistently made the tourney. They have had All-Americans.

They are the decline, for sure, but in nearly 80 years of bball, they have been relevant for a large chunk of it.

Look at the entire body of work, not just the past 20 or 30 years.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

It’s one point of reference that I can relate to (and so can tens of thousands of other fans in their 20s and early 30s). Obviously I’m not representative of the entire population, but every day an older fan dies and a younger fan is born. Frankly, not many people give 2 sh*ts about who won in the 1930s/40/50s except for fans of the teams who won those years so they can brag about their numbers. Every year we move forward, those championships mean less and the ones that happened more recently count for more. I’m guessing exactly 0% of people on this board remember UK’s 1948 championship, very few were even alive (if any).

It’s clear that talent is going-up and teams now would absolutely wreck the championship teams from the 1930-70s (and probably up until the 90s). These teams are better now, so yeah winning now means you are putting some of the best college basketball teams/talent that’s ever played.

If you're 29, the 1985 title should have no meaning for you; you weren't even alive. (BTW, I was there that night). Even for someone 40 or so, what would they remember about it? Most children under 10 aren't paying a lot of attention to college basketball, and even if they are, their memories would be hazy at best.

When you go down the "my lifetime" path, you open up a can of worms. I prefer to consider the history of the game in its entirety, whether I have personal memories or not. Perhaps this is because I can read about it.

 

[Bluesbrother]

Nope, showing you can win titles with multiple regimes is the majority of the game, everything else is noise.

I'll admit K's blood is blue, Duke the program? not so much

You make a good point that winning titles under different coaches becomes more impressive over the years. Nova has 3 titles with two coaches. Not sure how that looks with some of the other programs exactly but, like you say, Dukes titles have come under Coach K...can they continue to win after he leaves will be interesting to watch. UK has won 8 titles under 5 coaches over many years. As a fan, that sets the UK program apart in consistency in winning over time...which is a more difficult task. As a life-long UK fan, I have great respect for Nova and what they've done over the past three years...impressive for sure and I've enjoyed watching them play in the tournament. Keep up this level of success and Nova will indeed become a blueblood without argument...it that matters. Did Nova fans enjoy winning two titles in three years any less because a bunch of pinheads didn't think they were bluebloods? I'm sure you don't think UK fans are OK getting knocked out of the tournament because they can sit back afterwards and say, "Oh well, at least we're bluebloods". I don't think so. Keep winning and the ancillary crap takes care of itself. After all, It's all about winning that last game. Congrats to Nova, you deserve it...enjoy it.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

You are entitled to your opinion. I have my own. I hate IU and could be easily swayed to remove them from elite status.
But based on my criteria, I cannot.
IU had two titles before Bobby Knight arrived.
They have fallen on hard times, but you can't discount five decades of bball just because they haven't won a title in 3 decades.
Once again, it's more than titles. IU played in the title game in 2002. They have consistently made the tourney. They have had All-Americans.
They are the decline, for sure, but in nearly 80 years of bball, they have been relevant for a large chunk of it.
Look at the entire body of work, not just the past 20 or 30 years.

In the last 3 decades- more than 1/3 of the NCAA tournament era- Indiana has zero titles and has been to all of 2 Final Fours. Prior to the Bob Knight era, they did win 2 NCAA titles, but were more often mediocre, recording 9 losing seasons from 1939-71, and two more .500 campaigns. In the 40 years prior to Knight's arrival, they managed to win only 4 Big 10 championships.

1901-38: 14 losing seasons, only 2 Big 10 titles

1939-71 (NCAA tourney era prior to Knight):
A total of 5 NCAA appearances
Aside from the 2 anomalous NCAA title seasons... 3-3 in the NCAA
9 losing seasons
3 Big 10 titles in 33 years

1972-87: 3 titles, 4 Final Fours

1988-present:
0 titles
2 Final Fours
29-23 NCAA record
21 double-digit loss seasons

There you have it. Indiana is, essentially, a 16 year (1972-87) run under Knight, and not much else. They're anything but a "blue blood," and have been in decline for so long it's difficult to imagine how anyone would think otherwise.

 

[bucsrule8872]

In the last 3 decades- more than 1/3 of the NCAA tournament era- Indiana has zero titles and has been to all of 2 Final Fours. Prior to the Bob Knight era, they did win 2 NCAA titles, but were more often mediocre, recording 9 losing seasons from 1939-71, and two more .500 campaigns. In the 40 years prior to Knight's arrival, they managed to win only 4 Big 10 championships.

1901-38: 14 losing seasons, only 2 Big 10 titles

1939-71 (NCAA tourney era prior to Knight):
A total of 5 NCAA appearances
Aside from the 2 anomalous NCAA title seasons... 3-3 in the NCAA
9 losing seasons
3 Big 10 titles in 33 years

1972-87: 3 titles, 4 Final Fours

1988-present:
0 titles
2 Final Fours
29-23 NCAA record
21 double-digit loss seasons

There you have it. Indiana is, essentially, a 16 year (1972-87) run under Knight, and not much else. They're anything but a "blue blood," and have been in decline for so long it's difficult to imagine how anyone would think otherwise.

Nice argument.

I still consider IU a Blue Blood, though.

 

[kennycat1]

Well you did refer to some people as dicks...so....there’s that.

True.

 

[lkc1234]

Nice argument.

I still consider IU a Blue Blood, though.

Glad you consider IU a blue blood. No one else does. IU has not been relevant in basketball in 4 decades.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Glad you consider IU a blue blood. No one else does. IU has not been relevant in basketball in 4 decades.

I sometimes march to the beat of my own drum. I have a mind of my own.

 

[ok-cats-computer]

It’s clear that talent is going-up and teams now would absolutely wreck the championship teams from the 1930-70s (and probably up until the 90s). These teams are better now, so yeah winning now means you are putting some of the best college basketball teams/talent that’s ever played.

IMO, the '96 Championship Kentucky team would beat last year's Championship Nova team. You have a valid point that modern teams would put a beating on teams from the '30s through the '50s, but you stretch way too far saying that teams now would "absolutely wreck" teams from the '80s and '90s. The 1990 - 91 UNLV team didn't even win the Big Dance, but I believe that group of Runnin Rebels would beat the vast majority of Championship teams from the last decade.

 

[lkc1234]

While I agree that Duke is not a blue blood for other reasons, to say they didn’t have success before K is complete fallacy
Prior to K, they went to the final four in 1963,1964, 1966, and 1978 (losing to Kentucky in two of those four)

Villanova, prior to Jay Wright, has gone to the FF three times: 1939, 1971 and 1985, with 1971 being vacated.

And now I have to go take a hot shower; I just defended Duke

Wow. I am impressed.

 

[KYFOSSIL]

IMO, the '96 Championship Kentucky team would beat last year's Championship Nova team. You have a valid point that modern teams would put a beating on teams from the '30s through the '50s, but you stretch way too far saying that teams now would "absolutely wreck" teams from the '80s and '90s. The 1990 - 91 UNLV team didn't even win the Big Dance, but I believe that group of Runnin Rebels would beat the vast majority of Championship teams from the last decade.

I believe the 78 team could have also competed. Strong outside shooting, strength in the front court, a bruiser in Lee, and a lot of senior experience.

 

[willrocks4]

While I agree that Duke is not a blue blood for other reasons, to say they didn’t have success before K is complete fallacy
Prior to K, they went to the final four in 1963,1964, 1966, and 1978 (losing to Kentucky in two of those four)

Villanova, prior to Jay Wright, has gone to the FF three times: 1939, 1971 and 1985, with 1971 being vacated.

And now I have to go take a hot shower; I just defended Duke

I've enjoyed just reading this thread (the offseason is long) but I just wanted to make one observation. You're saying that Duke has a legacy of excellence because they went to four final fours before Coach K (three in a 4 year span, so basically one good team), and that is somehow markedly different from Villanova's three final fours before Jay Wright?

Obviously Coach K has been way more successful than Wright, Duke has been more successful as a program than Nova, Kentucky is the all time best program, and Nova has a lot more winning to do over a sustained period of time before they can even begin to be considered a blue blood. All that aside, I'm just trying to clarify the point you are making about Duke before Coach K.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

I've enjoyed just reading this thread (the offseason is long) but I just wanted to make one observation. You're saying that Duke has a legacy of excellence because they went to four final fours before Coach K (three in a 4 year span, so basically one good team), and that is somehow markedly different from Villanova's three final fours before Jay Wright?

Obviously Coach K has been way more successful than Wright, Duke has been more successful as a program than Nova, Kentucky is the all time best program, and Nova has a lot more winning to do over a sustained period of time before they can even begin to be considered a blue blood. All that aside, I'm just trying to clarify the point you are making about Duke before Coach K.

I imagine the point she is making is that while there isn't a lot to distinguish the two programs prior to the arrival of Coach K and Wright, the sheer weight (5 titles and 12 Final Fours) and longevity (37 years) of Duke's success under Coach K is so overwhelming that, even combined with the (more) modest success prior to his arrival, you'd have to say Duke is now a blue blood, albeit the most recent arrival to the party.

 

[Bkocats]

I imagine the point she is making is that while there isn't a lot to distinguish the two programs prior to the arrival of Coach K and Wright, the sheer weight (5 titles and 12 Final Fours) and longevity (37 years) of Duke's success under Coach K is so overwhelming that, even combined with the (more) modest success prior to his arrival, you'd have to say Duke is now a blue blood, albeit the most recent arrival to the party.

Exactly

 

[Bkocats]

I've enjoyed just reading this thread (the offseason is long) but I just wanted to make one observation. You're saying that Duke has a legacy of excellence because they went to four final fours before Coach K (three in a 4 year span, so basically one good team), and that is somehow markedly different from Villanova's three final fours before Jay Wright?

Obviously Coach K has been way more successful than Wright, Duke has been more successful as a program than Nova, Kentucky is the all time best program, and Nova has a lot more winning to do over a sustained period of time before they can even begin to be considered a blue blood. All that aside, I'm just trying to clarify the point you are making about Duke before Coach K.

FWIW..I wasn’t saying excellence, just a measure of success. The poster to whom I responded implied they didn’t have success before K.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Just a question, food for thought:

Let's say Northwestern, who made its first NCAA tourney last season, I believe, somehow wins the next twelve titles in a row.

Would Northwestern automatically become a Blue blood despite 80 or so years of ineptitude before their run?

Just curious what everyone thinks of that scenario.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

No. We’d finally have the “UCLA of the East.”

 

[Novanation11882]

If Northwestern won 12 titles in a row, they would be a blue blood. Utter domination for 12 years, most titles of all time, you are the club.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

If Northwestern won 12 titles in a row, they would be a blue blood. Utter domination for 12 years, most titles of all time, you are the club.

What if the coach responsible left and they reverted to being nothing for the next few decades?

It's all in one's definition. For me, and I expect many others, it takes more than one run- no matter how brilliant- to earn what should be a very difficult plateau of respect. That's especially true when it's a bolt from the blue with no precedent whatsoever. Programs like ours, UNCheat, and Kansas have very long, successful traditions and, for the most part, have never gone more than a few years between stints as a national contender.

Conversely, some very successful runs have given way to decades of relative mediocrity. Witness UCLA and Indiana- neither of which had been successful and/or consistent prior to Wooden and Knight, and have been nothing special since their departures.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Another scenario:

What if San Francisco won the title next season.

Are they automatically a Blue blood?

They would have 3 titles, the same as Nova.

 

[bucsrule8872]

What if the coach responsible left and they reverted to being nothing for the next few decades?

It's all in one's definition. For me, and I expect many others, it takes more than one run- no matter how brilliant- to earn what should be a very difficult plateau of respect. That's especially true when it's a bolt from the blue with no precedent whatsoever. Programs like ours, UNCheat, and Kansas have very long, successful traditions and, for the most part, have never gone more than a few years between stints as a national contender.

Conversely, some very successful runs have given way to decades of relative mediocrity. Witness UCLA and Indiana- neither of which had been successful and/or consistent prior to Wooden and Knight, and have been nothing special since their departures.

If you exclude UCLA and IU, then I guess Duke is out as well for you.

So essentially there are are three Blue bloods: UK, UNC, and KU.

Also does 30 years of cheating and not getting punished for it, make any difference for UNC?

Does a lack of titles make any difference for KU?

Just curious.

 

[Rush2112 UK]

If you exclude UCLA and IU, then I guess Duke is out as well for you.

So essentially there are are three Blue bloods: UK, UNC, and KU.

Also does 30 years of cheating and not getting punished for it, make any difference for UNC?

Does a lack of titles make any difference for KU?

Just curious.

I hate UNCheat with the intensity of 10,000 white hot suns. Kansas and Duke aren't far behind. I think we're the only authentic blue blood: we've been doing it longer, with fewer gaps, more coaches, and with more achievement than anyone else. To hell with the rest of them.

 

[mebeblue2]

If Northwestern won 12 titles in a row, they would be a blue blood. Utter domination for 12 years, most titles of all time, you are the club.

you really have no clue what a blue blood is
it is basketball royalty that has sustained basketball wealth
basketball wealth is more than just titles
not to mention 3 years ago you would not be on this board making a fool of yourself and showing your ignorance like you are now

 

[chhawaten64]

villanova a blue blood program get real you are dreaming you will wake-up this year

 

[Novanation11882]

I’ve said it 10x, I don’t think Nova is a blue blood. That said, plenty of media outlets call Nova a blue blood — their words not mine.

What would Nova have to do to join the club? Honest question. If Nova won 2 more titles and made 5 more final fours in the next 10 years, would you call them a blue blood? Is it 4 more titles and 10 more final fours in the next 20?

Most on here are calling Duke a blue blood, though they don’t want to. If Nova wins 2 more titles with 5 more final fours in the next 10 years, their profile is similar to Duke’s is now (while playing in the hardest conference from 1980-2013).

 

[bucsrule8872]

I’ve said it 10x, I don’t think Nova is a blue blood. That said, plenty of media outlets call Nova a blue blood — their words not mine.

What would Nova have to do to join the club? Honest question. If Nova won 2 more titles and made 5 more final fours in the next 10 years, would you call them a blue blood? Is it 4 more titles and 10 more final fours in the next 20?

Most on here are calling Duke a blue blood, though they don’t want to. If Nova wins 2 more titles with 5 more final fours in the next 10 years, their profile is similar to Duke’s is now (while playing in the hardest conference from 1980-2013).

It's a matter of time.

A band can have 20 hits in a row over the next few years, but it doesn't make them the Beatles or the Stones. Now if they have several great albums and sell out stadiums for the next 20 years, maybe they are in that conversation. Still, there are very few that can be in that category.

 

[Novanation11882]

Times are changing, obviously. It’s less about history and more about “what have you done lately”

I’m not saying if ignore 80 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. But eventually people stop caring about that and look at the current landscape — because, you know, people were alive for it.

Kentucky is undoubtedly a better program (historically and in modernity) than Nova. Literally no one is arguing otherwise unless they specially say in the last 4 years (which Nova has the most wins of any program ever over a 4 year span). But you’re not the only blue blood and people can lose their membership.

If IU sucks for 10 more years, they’ll be out. Too little in the last 30 years to stay in. If Nova can win 2 more and make 4-5 more final fours in the next 10-15 years (while consistently being top 10), I’ll start to think of us as a blue blood 100%.

 

[Fox2monk]

So any Reid Travis news?

 

[lkc1234]

So any Reid Travis news?

Yes. He is down to Villanova and Kentucky and will visit both.

 

[Bkocats]

Yes. He is down to Villanova and Kentucky and will visit both after Stanford’s graduation on June 17.

FIFY