UT Basketball Blue Blood

#26
#26
We could start with winning an SEC Tournament.

I do think that Coach Barnes and the team will eventually win one, but that comes first. Right now, we've won a lot of regular season games but haven't brought home any hardware. That has to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catbone, Zues1 and TrumpedUpVol
#27
#27
k-town_king said:
Michigan State isn't a Blue Blood.

K has been at Duke 40 years. No team that is not a blue blood will become one.

Not unless it's a Duke situation with 35 tourney bids in 36 years. So I guess with 40 years of good to great teams it could happen.
Click to expand...
Lol. If MS and Izzo haven't earned Blue Blood status, who can. 24 years 22 Tourney appearances. 14 SW16 or better. 8 FFs or better and a natty. If that 's not BB what is? Unless you're just speaking of entitlements, Izzo's earned it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aWhiteLoftonChism, Cosmo Kramer, VOLnMiami and 3 others
#29
#29
calban said:
Lol. If MS and Izzo haven't earned Blue Blood status, who can. 24 years 22 Tourney appearances. 14 SW16 or better. 8 FFs or better and a natty. If that 's not BB what is? Unless you're just speaking of entitlements, Izzo's earned it.
Click to expand...

I agree. MSU is an elite program and has been for awhile. I wonder what the drop off will be when Izzo retires.

If Billy D would have stayed at Florida, I would almost bet he wins another title and been to a few more final fours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aWhiteLoftonChism
#30
#30
calban said:
Lol. If MS and Izzo haven't earned Blue Blood status, who can. 24 years 22 Tourney appearances. 14 SW16 or better. 8 FFs or better and a natty. If that 's not BB what is? Unless you're just speaking of entitlements, Izzo's earned it.
Click to expand...
Elite. Not blue blood.

Florida in football is a good comparison. Still a new money team. A lot of success the last 25 years. Still not a blue blood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol
#31
#31
What's the criteria for being a blue blood? IMO, I base it off championships. UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Indiana are blue bloods. Some may be currently down, but historically they have the most championships. UConn with four NCs should probably be in the discussion. After that, Kansas and Villanova have three apiece.

The ultimate measure of success is winning the NC. Does winning one or two make you a blue blood? Does just making the tournament a lot make you a blue blood? Like I said, I base it off actual championships myself, and historically, the teams I mentioned above have the most NCs.
 
#32
#32
Weezer said:
What's the criteria for being a blue blood? IMO, I base it off championships. UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Indiana are blue bloods. Some may be currently down, but historically they have the most championships. UConn with four NCs should probably be in the discussion. After that, Kansas and Villanova have three apiece.

The ultimate measure of success is winning the NC. Does winning one or two make you a blue blood? Does just making the tournament a lot make you a blue blood? Like I said, I base it off actual championships myself, and historically, the teams I mentioned above have the most NCs.
Click to expand...

For me it's the ones that helped popularize the game and have generally remained strong through the years. I've always seen the "blue bloods" as a highly exclusive club, and that generally goes for every sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k-town_king
#33
#33
orangepridenation said:
For me it's the ones that helped popularize the game and have generally remained strong through the years. I've always seen the "blue bloods" as a highly exclusive club, and that generally goes for every sport.
Click to expand...
So who are your blue bloods?
 
#36
#36
orangepridenation said:
Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, and Indiana for sure. I will include Duke purely out of respect for Coach K.
Click to expand...
Nice of you to include Duke being they have only won 5 National titles which by the way ties them with Indiana for 4th all time....Kansas has only won 3.
 
#37
#37
VOLnMiami said:
Nice of you to include Duke being they have only won 5 National titles which by the way ties them with Indiana for 4th all time....Kansas has only won 3.
Click to expand...

Coach K is Duke basketball. They’ve accomplished great things no doubt. I only included that qualifier because the other programs I mentioned have success that goes farther back and spans multiple coaches.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
For us to be thought of in the same regards as Duke,UNC,Kansas,and Kentucky we're gonna need about 20 more years like these last 2 and we're gonna need to squeak in a national title or 4 and about 6 Final 4s.

We're not on the same planet as them.
 
#39
#39
SweetDaddy said:
For us to be thought of in the same regards as Duke,UNC,Kansas,and Kentucky we're gonna need about 20 more years like these last 2 and we're gonna need to squeak in a national title or 4 and about 6 Final 4s.

We're not on the same planet as them.
Click to expand...


Lol the last two years would be down years at every blue blood but UCLA and IU. And UCLA just fired a coach that basically had a better four year stretch than Barnes did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol
#40
#40
Sustained Success is the name of the game. Consistently being a top 3-4 team in the SEC, rarely falling below a 5 or 6 seed and having an overall program identity that is set with a good foundation are what we need . What we have now is the foundation to keep building on. When we get to the point where we lose and it’s a big deal to other rivals, that means we are doing something right. That means people are starting to hate us. I welcome when fans from schools that have zero affiliation with us start to applaud a Vol loss in January. That means we matter big picture. I want us to be hated .
 
#41
#41
treali94 said:
Lol the last two years would be down years at every blue blood but UCLA and IU. And UCLA just fired a coach that basically had a better four year stretch than Barnes did.
Click to expand...
Really all over the place aren't you. Now using a coach that was fired for rules violations or suspicion of. Really doesn't help your argument. Same as the Bruce you say we let get away.
 
#42
#42
calban said:
Really all over the place aren't you. Now using a coach that was fired for rules violations or suspicion of. Really doesn't help your argument. Same as the Bruce you say we let get away.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Alford was fired because UCLA has over inflated expectations.
 
#45
#45
treali94 said:
Name something I made up.
Click to expand...
When you were comparing Barnes to Dawkins you said his winning percentage in the time period he was at Stanford was higher than Barnes. And then you added that the Pac 10/12 was rated higher 4 of those 8 years than the B12. All unfactual.
My apologies to Alford but it did get you to say that the expectations of fans and admin at UCLA were too high as were anyone dissing Barnes for not making a F4 in his 4th season with coached up 3 stars.
 
#46
#46
calban said:
When you were comparing Barnes to Dawkins you said his winning percentage in the time period he was at Stanford was higher than Barnes. And then you added that the Pac 10/12 was rated higher 4 of those 8 years than the B12. All unfactual.
My apologies to Alford but it did get you to say that the expectations of fans and admin at UCLA were too high as were anyone dissing Barnes for not making a F4 in his 4th season with coached up 3 stars.
Click to expand...

Lol I can’t keep the six of you stalkers straight. Aren’t you the subjective/ objective guy. Because 4 of 8 years the tournament performance of the PAC-12 was better than the Big 12. Imagine trying to claim that a subjective claim like that is untrue. And forgive me for be a few decimal points off in my mental calculations. But one math error in all my posts. Damn I’m even smarter than I thought. That’s impressive to debate a pack of braying pump boys and make only one error. Wish you guys could be equally in control of your facts.
 
#47
#47
treali94 said:
Lol I can’t keep the six of you stalkers straight. Aren’t you the subjective/ objective guy. Because 4 of 8 years the tournament performance of the PAC-12 was better than the Big 12. Imagine trying to claim that a subjective claim like that is untrue. And forgive me for be a few decimal points off in my mental calculations. But one math error in all my posts. Damn I’m even smarter than I thought. That’s impressive to debate a pack of braying pump boys and make only one error. Wish you guys could be equally in control of your facts.
Click to expand...
We're not talking opinions when rating conferences. Maybe you are smarter than KenPom and the RPI rating system. Seem to think you are evidently. Little hint. If you'd quit with the asinine insults you wouldn't be stalked and could actually indulge in an objective conversation. And it wasn't a few decimal points. Dawkins was sub 500 in conference play in the Pac10/12.
 
#48
#48
To be a basketball school the coach needs to have the ability to recruit 2 or 3 top 50 players every season. To do that you need some very special recruiting skills, possibly undetectable payment methods and very close ties with the NBA. You must be a pipeline to the NBA. It's hard to get that pump primed and even harder to keep the pump pumping. I don't think UT or Barnes wants to jump into that mess plus its a limited group. In order to get in someone must be kicked out so its very competitive, ask Bruce Pearl.
 
#50
#50
treali94 said:
What the hell are you talking about? Alford was fired because UCLA has over inflated expectations.
Click to expand...

You sure it had nothing to do with having a top 10 recruiting class then a top 5 recruiting class, then going 21-12 and then 7-6.........with the wheels falling off.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top