Can Syracuse become a blueblood over the next decade?

[We Are Syracuse]

That's the thing...the blue blood programs have both.

IU does? They haven't won a chip since what, 1987? Or even really been that close

 

[HOFCeluck]

IU does? They haven't won a chip since what, 1987? Or even really been that close

Depends on if you put Indiana in that category or not.

 

[We Are Syracuse]

Right NOW blue bloods are: UL, Syracuse, UK, Duke, UNC, and Kansas

 

[shermstheman]

As much as I would like this to be true, it isn't.

Why so negative? Over the last 30 years nary a losing season- Duke, NC, UCLA can't say that. The coach has more 20 wins seasons than anyone. Currently, Cuse has best 4-5 year record they've ever had. 4 FF's in last 25 years (tied with UConn, Michigan State, only Duke, NC, Kentucky, Kansas have more. Arizona doesn't, UCLA doesn't, Florida doesn't, Georgetown doesn't, Louisville doesn't). 4 sweet 16's in last 5 years. The only thing lacking is the number of titles but as I said before- one kid who did not go to class, one injury and one last second shot cost Cuse 4 titles. It's a very, very short list of schools who've performed better over the last 10, 20, 30 years. If "blueblood" means top 3 then Cuse isn't there, if it's top 5 they are darn close if not there. 300+ other D1 programs would gladly trade places.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Right NOW blue bloods are: UL, Syracuse, UK, Duke, UNC, and Kansas

I hate being that guy, but Syracuse doesn't belong in the same category as Ku Kentucky or UNC.

More final fours, more titles, better recruiting, and a period of excellence that spans multiple head coaches.

 

[ImperialOrange]

A "blue blood" is tough to quantify. T0 me it's a program that other teams circle on the schedule and realize could beat them every time out. KU, UNC, KU, Lville and Duke fit that mold currently. I would say Syracuse is right there as well. UCLA has 11 national championships but only 1 since 1975 and that 1 was 19 years ago. They are currently irrelavent and have been for most years the past decade. No one is afraid to see UCLA on the schedule anymore similar to the Dallas Cowboys, the Chicago Bulls, or Nebraska Football.

I suppose the question would be how long can a team be stagnent before they lose the title of "blue blood" or can it not be lost once it's gained?

 

[jekelish]

I hate being that guy, but Syracuse doesn't belong in the same category as Ku Kentucky or UNC.

More final fours, more titles, better recruiting, and a period of excellence that spans multiple head coaches.

What does multiple head coaches have to do with anything? UNC has had some bad ones in there. So has Kentucky. Should SU be knocked because we have only had one coach for almost 40 years? Same with Duke?

 

[HOFCeluck]

The only thing lacking is the number of titles but as I said before- one kid who did not go to class, one injury and one last second shot cost Cuse 4 titles.

That's a two way street.

If Gmac hit five instead of six threes in the first half

If Kansas hit a couple more FTs

If Warrick was a step slow on Michael Lee

If Keith Langford was teen wolf.

 

[Eric15]

The only teams I consider "blue bloods" in terms of history and current relevance are Kentucky, Kansas, Duke and UNC.

I think you absolutely have to put UCLA in that group - they went to 3 consecutive Final Fours from 2006-2008.

 

[jekelish]

That's a two way street.

If Gmac hit five instead of six threes in the first half

If Kansas hit a couple more FTs

If Warrick was a step slow on Michael Lee

If Keith Langford was teen wolf.

The KU free throws is ridiculous. They scored more points off offensive boards on those misses than they would have if they had just made the free throws. That is a fact.

 

[HOFCeluck]

What does multiple head coaches have to do with anything? UNC has had some bad ones in there. So has Kentucky. Should SU be knocked because we have only had one coach for almost 40 years? Same with Duke?

I don't put a Duke with UNC o Kansas, either.

It has to be the program more than just the coach. Otherwise Connecticut would be a blue blood instead of the gutty Mid major they are.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The KU free throws is ridiculous. They scored more points off offensive boards on those misses than they would have if they had just made the free throws. That is a fact.

I find it funny that this is what you harped on rather than the possibility of the Jaynawks having a teen wolf on their roster.

 

[jekelish]

I find it funny that this is what you harped on rather than the possibility of the Jaynawks having a teen wolf on their roster.

Because lycanthropy is a serious affliction and no laughing matter.

My second cousin was killed by a teen wolf. Dunked on him so hard it killed him.

 

[Knicks411]

To me the big 4 are Duke/Kansas/UK/UNC. Those teams are great year in and year out. Obviously there are down years every now and then, but A) they are rare, and B) we've had them too. Our program has been great since 2009, but even just in that time frame, all of those 4 schools have won national titles (ok, KU won in 2008, but they also made the title game in 2012).

Over the last 30 years or so, we've always been good, and some of the time we've been great. For the last 5 years or so we've been great just about every year, so maybe we're getting there.

Final fours over the last 30 years:
Duke- 11
Kentucky-7
UNC-9
Kansas-8
SU-3

Even our run the last 5 years, as good as it's been, you're talking one final four trip and an elite 8 trip. On a regular season basis we've been right there, for the most part, but for better or worse, you really get judged on what happens in March.

The KU free throws is ridiculous. They scored more points off offensive boards on those misses than they would have if they had just made the free throws. That is a fact.

I feel like I looked at this 8 years ago, and then promptly forgot the results.

 

[Knicks411]

Sped through the box score, i have KU with 8 points off missed FT. They missed 18 FT. Just eyeing the guys who took the FT, based on their normal percentages, KU "should" have made an extra 5 or 6 FT, compared to the 8 points they got. Big key was that 27 of thei 30 FT were taken by guys (Collison, Graves, Langford) who were no better than 65% shooters.

 

[senorpalmer]

Why so negative? Over the last 30 years nary a losing season- Duke, NC, UCLA can't say that. The coach has more 20 wins seasons than anyone. Currently, Cuse has best 4-5 year record they've ever had. 4 FF's in last 25 years (tied with UConn, Michigan State, only Duke, NC, Kentucky, Kansas have more. Arizona doesn't, UCLA doesn't, Florida doesn't, Georgetown doesn't, Louisville doesn't). 4 sweet 16's in last 5 years. The only thing lacking is the number of titles but as I said before- one kid who did not go to class, one injury and one last second shot cost Cuse 4 titles. It's a very, very short list of schools who've performed better over the last 10, 20, 30 years. If "blueblood" means top 3 then Cuse isn't there, if it's top 5 they are darn close if not there. 300+ other D1 programs would gladly trade places.

Not negative, just a realist. They're easily inside the top 10 in the last 35-40 years, and I have no complaints about that. I just can't buy saying SU is top 2-3 in that span. My disagreement with your post was in saying that SU was in the top 2-3 programs, but now you've walked that back a bit (nothing wrong with that). Like you said I guess it's a case of how you define blue blood. I don't buy the idea that SU just missed winning 4 titles though. Almost doesn't count for much if anything. A Duke, UNC, Kansas or Kentucky fan might be able to argue that they just missed winning 10 more titles by that logic.

 

[senorpalmer]

Because lycanthropy is a serious affliction and no laughing matter.

My second cousin was killed by a teen wolf. Dunked on him so hard it killed him.

Teen wolf is a tough match up. Here are some thoughts on how to play against him

 

[senorpalmer]

To me the big 4 are Duke/Kansas/UK/UNC. Those teams are great year in and year out. Obviously there are down years every now and then, but A) they are rare, and B) we've had them too. Our program has been great since 2009, but even just in that time frame, all of those 4 schools have won national titles (ok, KU won in 2008, but they also made the title game in 2012).

Over the last 30 years or so, we've always been good, and some of the time we've been great. For the last 5 years or so we've been great just about every year, so maybe we're getting there.

Final fours over the last 30 years:
Duke- 11
Kentucky-7
UNC-9
Kansas-8
SU-3

Even our run the last 5 years, as good as it's been, you're talking one final four trip and an elite 8 trip. On a regular season basis we've been right there, for the most part, but for better or worse, you really get judged on what happens in March.



I feel like I looked at this 8 years ago, and then promptly forgot the results.

Good post except for the Final 4 tally. SU has 4 in that span, shame on you!

 

[bnoro]

Gotta win one championship before we can win two.

One thing that needs to happen for Cuse to move into the blueblood category is for JB to get more top 5 recruits. We are going thru our best recruiting age in recent memory but we are still not getting those elite NBA out of HS prospects. Since Melo we haven't had one. UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. get those guys every other year. It's great that we are consistently a top 10 team now. But to get over the hump in March/April it would help to have a Jabari Parker or Andrew Wiggins to compliment our 4 year program players.

Top 5 recruits? Apparently you don't understand that we run our program looking for best fits rather than "top 5" kids. And quite obviously it's worked out pretty damn well the last few years.

 

[Knicks411]

Good post except for the Final 4 tally. SU has 4 in that span, shame on you!

Haha yup, wow, what a terrible job by me. I guess the one last year totally slipped my mind; we had been stuck on the 3 for about a decade it was burned into my mind

 

[RF2044]

Top 5 recruits? Apparently you don't understand that we run our program looking for best fits rather than "top 5" kids. And quite obviously it's worked out pretty damn well the last few years.

Very astute. More than perhaps any other top 20-ish caliber team, we recruit system.

 

[Alsacs]

Syracuse needs atleast 2 more championships to become a blue blood. Uconn has 3 championships, but they aren't a blue blood because they doesn't have any history prior to Calhoun. Syracuse has more history, but doesn't have the championships. Syracuse wins more championships it goes from a top 10 program all-time to top 5 all-time. We need the rings 2 more rings we are the Skull and Bones. Right now we are just members at the country club.

Blue bloods Skull and Bones- UCLA, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana

Members of the country club-Arizona, UNLV, Michigan State, Florida, UConn, Louisville, Syracuse. I am probably missing 1 or 2 teams as well.

Louisville is 1 more NC away from blue blood status. UConn/UNLV are probably maxed out because of their conference affliation and I don't see UConn over coming its history problem unless stay up for another 10 years.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Syracuse needs atleast 2 more championships to become a blue blood. Uconn has 3 championships, but they aren't a blue blood because they doesn't have any history prior to Calhoun. Syracuse has more history, but doesn't have the championships. Syracuse wins more championships it goes from a top 10 program all-time to top 5 all-time. We need the rings 2 more rings we are the Skull and Bones. Right now we are just members at the country club.

Blue bloods Skull and Bones- UCLA, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana

Members of the country club-Arizona, UNLV, Michigan State, Florida, UConn, Louisville, Syracuse. I am probably missing 1 or 2 teams as well.

Louisville is 1 more NC away from blue blood status. UConn/UNLV are probably maxed out because of their conference affliation and I don't see UConn over coming its history problem unless stay up for another 10 years.

I think a legit argument exists for putting Lville in that top tier...NCs in 80, 86, and 2013.

 

[PoppyHart]

Many people seem to be caught up in the objective stats; wins, FFs, NCs. If that's how you define "blue blood", than simply plug the data into the formula and spit out your results. And don't shortchange MSU, UCONN, Louisville, Florida, Arizona, etc... and now we're simply back to the same question of which are the "best programs".

To me, the terms are not synonymous. There are intangibles that separate them. There is an aura or mystique about them that is hard to measure, may be unfairly embellished by the media and general public, but serves as a valuable differentiator.

It happens across sports. A few examples

MLB:
I believe the Cubs are one of the few "blue bloods". They are the heart and soul of the sport, and represent so much about what we love about the game; history, fandom, nostalgia, game day experience, etc... But going by a purely objective measure, the Marlins would probably have a better claim to "blue blood" status.

NHL:
The Maple Leafs are most certainly what the sport is "about", despite disastrous on ice success in recent times. Ditto, to a lesser extent, the Rangers and Canadiens. But the Devils? Now there's a true blue blood.

NBA:
The NBA's roots and soul is in cities like Boston, New York, LA. But apparently Miami and San Antonio are the real blue bloods.

Perhaps to achieve "blue blood" status, you almost have to be born with it. That is, you may have to be involved in raising the sport to its level of popularity, while always capturing the imagination of those looking back in time.

 

[two3zone]

As long as we're not blue balls I'm good.