No one's saying he did anything besides one poster calling him a slime ball. You defended him. Your username is Drew. Your name being Drew defending Scott Drew is the joke. Everyone got it but you.
John Calipari to Arkansas
- Thread starter Drew0311
- Start date
So, he should recruit less talented players, so they stick around a year or two longer? Any coach is going to take the most talented players, the hard part is getting them to play together as a team. The guy had a lot of success doing exactly that. Sure, he got beat early in the tournament a couple of times, but that is going to happen now more than in the past to the blue bloods because kids can do the one and done deal. The days of having Michael Jordan for three years before he can go pro is over, the coaches have to adjust to bringing in new talent every year.
It really depends how you define it. They've been weird compared to the other Blue bloods in that they have not had the consistent level of overall success Blue bloods have had even though they've had the title runs. Compare elite 8s for example.
But I think the consistent level of success is much more of an accurate look at Blue blood status then championships because championships are somewhat random,
This graphic is 2 years old so Uconn has a couple more as does duke. There's a pretty wide gap between the blue bloods and UConn
One could also look at tournament appearances as a measure of consistent success.
Most of the Blue bloods have NCAA appearance streaks going back decades, and even when the streak is broken one yearit's usually just one year and then another long streak of appearances. UConn has been more feast or famine.
They've produced championship teams for 4 decades. They've been the premier program in a once great and now good conference for 4 decades also. The list of great players from there is as good as anyone. At some point you have to add them to the list. And to do it with 3 coaches.
Last edited:
If Kentucky squanders the opportunity to unite the country by hiring Rick Pitino it will be a sad day.
I simply disagree. The true blue bloods UK\KU\UNC\Duke are on another level because they've sustained a high level even when they're not winning championships, which are somewhat random since its a single elimination tournament. For this reason I don't think you can look at championships alone as a measure of blue blood status, though it should be considered as a factor.
We could also look at sweet 16s, where all of the blue bloods have at least 30 appearances, and UConn just has 18.
Time in the AP poll could also be another metric of 'blue-bloodness'.
The All-Time AP Poll
Eli Powell’s all-time men’s basketball program ranking based on the AP Poll
elipowell.com
Clearly UConn has the numbers in the championships stat. But you look at every other stat and there's a really wide gap between the blue bloods and everyone else that really pops off the page. They're on that next rung down though, which certainly isn't a bad place to be.
Sounds like Arkansas doesn't owe Kentucky a dime which is crazy. They also have several active billionaire doners in Tyson, Jerry and the Walton family.
Maybe. You still take talent but make sure it’s talent that fits your system, culture, and team. That is very, very obvious based on the last couple of years of college basketball results.
Posted this in the Calipari thread but Hurley explains it well.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I simply disagree. The true blue bloods UK\KU\UNC\Duke are on another level because they've sustained a high level even when they're not winning championships, which are somewhat random since its a single elimination tournament. For this reason I don't think you can look at championships alone as a measure of blue blood status, though it should be considered as a factor.
We could also look at sweet 16s, where all of the blue bloods have at least 30 appearances, and UConn just has 18.
Time in the AP poll could also be another metric of 'blue-bloodness'.
The All-Time AP Poll
Eli Powell’s all-time men’s basketball program ranking based on the AP Poll
Clearly UConn has the numbers in the championships stat. But you look at every other stat and there's a really wide gap between the blue bloods and everyone else that really pops off the page. They're on that next rung down though, which certainly isn't a bad place to be.
How would those Sweet 16s stack up since Calhoun arrived in 1986? Since then, they have more 30 win seasons than losing seasons, and even made Kevin Ollie look OK for a while.
As a KU fan I agree with a lot you are saying and think conference titles should also be thrown In there but if UConn wins it tonight I think they should be the exception. With that many titles you would have to be considered a Blue Blood.
Isn't that just a given for most coaches, they are bringing in kids that they think fit their system and what we want to do. At ISU, I could see TJ passing on kids that while they may be great at scoring the ball, refuse to play defense.
Getting the talented kids interested in your program is the hard part, schools like UCONN and Kentucky can pick and choose players, much more than programs like ISU. Winning brings in talent, and the more you win, the more kids that want to play for the program.
This topic is interesting to think about.
What is it that makes UK/KU/UNC/Duke clearly "Blue Blood" status but UConn is borderline/questionable? Championships won? Regular-season conference titles? Advanced to round X at least Y times in Z years?
UCLA used to be a "Blue Blood" but no longer is, why not? I know roughly "why not" (they don't win much anymore) but why more specifically?
For me it's mostly about recruiting, those four teams have been getting the best recruiting classes for many years (and handing out the biggest bags).
What is it that makes UK/KU/UNC/Duke clearly "Blue Blood" status but UConn is borderline/questionable? Championships won? Regular-season conference titles? Advanced to round X at least Y times in Z years?
UCLA used to be a "Blue Blood" but no longer is, why not? I know roughly "why not" (they don't win much anymore) but why more specifically?
For me it's mostly about recruiting, those four teams have been getting the best recruiting classes for many years (and handing out the biggest bags).
Blue Blood to me is about a history of sustained success going back a long time. UCONN is new blood. Whatever you call UCONN it really doesn't matter because Calhoun turned it into one of the best programs in the sport. There is alot of talent in the old Big East area and it seems that one of those programs is always doing well. Whether it is UCONN, Nova, Syracuse, St Johns etc. Whatever school is getting that talent is going to be competing at the top level.
Yes, there's a ton of talent in the East. I saw something the other day that stated since Wooden retired KU is the college west of the Mississippi with multiple championships. Seems crazy, but I can't think of another school with at least 2.
UCLA, Kansas, Oklahoma State and San Francisco are the only 4 west of the Mississippi with more than one title period and you have to go back to the 40s for Oklahoma State and the 50s for USF.
