Can Syracuse become a blueblood over the next decade?

[djdan]

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

You stole my post. I mean, guys, get real. They went to three straight final fours in the last decade. I buy into the idea that UCLA, UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas represent the true bluebloods. I also buy into the idea that we are firmly in the next tier but probably behind UConn, Indiana, and Louisville. I'd put us with Michigan State and Arizona right behind those three.

Ohio State is an interesting case. They're given credit for 11 Final Fours (which is 6th most of all-time) but three were from 1944-46, three more were from 1960-62, and they've obviously never won a national championship. However, Elite Eight last year, Final Four in 2012, Championship Game in 2007, Final Four in 1999. Firmly behind us on the list but not that far.

 

[Alsacs]

Yeah, Indiana has definitely slipped out of the top 5 and I would put them on par with Louisville.

Here is how I would group them. Using consistency, NCAA Tournament results/seeding, Titles, History

Top 5- Blue Bloods Skull and Bones (no order just alphabetically)
Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA

Top 10- Members of the Country Club with dining privileges but not in the elite of the elite (no order just alphabetically)
Arizona, Indiana, Louisville, Syracuse, UConn.

Top 15- Members of the Country Club (no order just alphabetically)
Georgetown,Florida, Michigan State, Ohio State, UNLV.

 

[Lawrinson14]

Never. Our blood will always be orange.

 

[CorduroyG]

We have won the 5th most games in college basketball history. We have a hall of fame coach. We play in arguably the most recognized arena in the country.

We are a blue blood program.

we have 1 championship and average 1 final four per decade. thats not blue blood. compare those #s to true blue bloods like kentucky, duke, unc, kansas, etc. theres no comparison. our elite 8 game in 2012 was our first elite 8 in 9 years. we can win all the regular season games we want, but we need more final 4's and more importantly another championship. obviously we got screwed in 2010 and 2012 or we'd probably be looking at 2 more final 4s and another title and that would certainly change things, but other than us nobody is gonna rememeber that. those will just be 2 more years syracuse underperformed in the tourny.

 

[BuffOrange]

IMO there are six of them which others have mentioned.

As much as everyone wants to separate reg season vs tournament I tend to think that stuff "converges to the mean" over a large sample size. I know it hasn't yet with Pitt, but Uconn had a similar dichotomy of results from 90-98 and eventually they got some breaks (so will Pitt, and so will we if we maintain the level of excellence of the last 5 yrs for another 20+ which admittedly will be hard to do).
There have only been a few spurts where we've competed for a #1 seed; 87-91 and 09-now. Way too many tournament games in between we've worn road jerseys in the 2nd round or Sweet 16 - that's pretty rare for Duke & Kansas.
Anyone remember discussions on the Scout board just a few years ago whether K was recruiting good enough athletes to win in the tournament because of their post '01 draught (which for the record I thought was ridiculous)? Then 2010 happened and their ~7th best team in 10 years got placed in the JV bracket. That'll happen for us eventually if we're good enough to be in the conversation for a 1seed every year.

Here's an old Pomeroy blog post on the Kansas FT's fwiw: