Is UCLA Still a Blue Blood?

[tarheel0910]

So this question came up on another message board that I post on and I wanted to see what you guys thought. My first reaction was no, but I wanted to run some numbers to see if that would change my opinion. I ran those numbers for the past 40 years (that's technically 41 seasons) because 40 years is a decent timeframe to lose or gain blue blood status, it's a round number and it helps with my narrative.

I've included UNC, duke, UK and KU as my blue blood comparison. I included Florida, Nova and UConn to compare "recent" multiple title winners, but not schools that are traditionally considered blue bloods.

Most people just look at national titles to determine this, but I thought more numbers should be included to reach and keep that blue blood status. I used number of national champs, conference tournament champs, regular season conference champs, FF in addition to championship years and top 10 rankings as positives. For negatives I used the number of missed NCAA tournaments and years with losing records. I then ranked them in each category and gave them an average ranking and program ranking. UCLA is well behind the 4th place program (KU) and is actually tied with Nova.

Average category ranking
UNC 1.7
duke 2.1
UK 2.9
KU 3.3
UCLA 5.7
Nova 5.7
UConn 6
Florida 7.1

Program ranking
1. UNC
2. duke
3.UK
4. KU
T 5. UCLA
T 5. Nova
7. UConn
8. Florida

 

[Raising Heel]

I’m gonna need to see your work

 

[tarheel0910]

I’m gonna need to see your work

I was going to included it originally, but couldn't get it to format properly. Good luck reading it.

UNC duke UK KU UCLA FL Nova Uconn
national champ 5 5 3 2 1 2 3 4
con tour champ 11 16 19 15 4 4 6 9
con reg champ 19 13 18 24 11 7 11 10
FF 8 8 6 7 4 3 1 1
top 10 ranking 28 29 24 21 9 4 9 11
missed tourn 3 4 6 5 6 19 12 20
losing record 1 3 1 2 4 11 6 8

national champ 1 1 4 6 8 6 4 3
con tour champ 4 2 1 3 7 7 6 5
con reg champ 2 4 3 1 5 8 5 7
FF 1 1 4 3 5 6 7 7
top 10 ranking 2 1 3 4 6 8 6 5
missed tourn 1 2 4 3 4 7 6 8
losing record 1 4 1 3 5 8 6 7
average 1.714286 2.142857 2.857143 3.285714 5.714286 7.142857 5.714286 6
ranking 1 2 3 4 5 8 5 7

 

[Raising Heel]

I need a third poll option, which allows blue bloods to lose status but requires more failure than UCLA has experienced. Right now I’d still consider them a blue blood, and your analysis confirms that.

National titles are a terrible way of evaluating program success IMO. Dean was here for what, 25 years before he finally won one? To me, regular season championships will always be more valuable than any tournament win because they emphasize consistency over a player or team getting hot for a day or two.

 

[dadika13]

I disagree that 40 years is the timeframe. Make it 25 and I bet their numbers crumble.

 

[tarheel0910]

I need a third poll option, which allows blue bloods to lose status but requires more failure than UCLA has experienced.

You want a third option. The question is have they lost it now, not is it's possible to lose it at some point.

ETA: I added another option just for you and because it's Friday.

National titles are a terrible way of evaluating program success IMO. Dean was here for what, 25 years before he finally won one? To me, regular season championships will always be more valuable than any tournament win because they emphasize consistency over a player or team getting hot for a day or two.

100% agree.

 

[tarheel0910]

I disagree that 40 years is the timeframe. Make it 25 and I bet their numbers crumble.

They would look horrible, but I don't think 25 is long enough. I was surprised they were tied with Nova using my metrics.

 

[TarHeelMark]

So I guess Indiana has no claim at blue blood anymore either (if they ever really did).

 

[strummingram]

It definitely depends on the time frame.

Take football, for example. In the 1930's and 40's Minnesota and Army were perennial powerhouses.

If we're talking during the longevity of the sport- College Basketball- then yes, they will probably ALWAYS be a Blue Blood because of the complete dominance that they had for such a long time. I think that complete dominance permanently cements their legacy as a blue blood. You'll NEVER see a dominance like they exhibited in the 60's and 70's.

UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan State, and the durham team are much more consistent over the last 60 years.

Break it down into decades, and then rank them by those.

 

[strummingram]

So I guess Indiana has no claim at blue blood anymore either (if they ever really did).

They did. Indiana is where they filmed Hoosiers!

 

[strummingram]

When Bill Walton dies, then they will cease to be a blue blood team... unless someone comes along and reestablishes them as a winning program.

I'll tell you who I predict will be a future blue blood team:

 

[tarheel0910]

So I guess Indiana has no claim at blue blood anymore either (if they ever really did).

I thought about including them, but that's another team that has done little to nothing the past couple of decades. It would essentially be the same question as to if they still belong. Plus, some think they were somewhat borderline to begin with.

 

[Raising Heel]

ETA: I added another option just for you and because it's Friday.

(Thanks, but it says "no")

 

[tarheel0910]

It definitely depends on the time frame.

Take football, for example. In the 1930's and 40's Minnesota and Army were perennial powerhouses.

If we're talking during the longevity of the sport- College Basketball- then yes, they will probably ALWAYS be a Blue Blood because of the complete dominance that they had for such a long time. I think that complete dominance permanently cements their legacy as a blue blood. You'll NEVER see a dominance like they exhibited in the 60's and 70's.

UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan State, and the durham team are much more consistent over the last 60 years.

Break it down into decades, and then rank them by those.

But have they really had dominance for a long time though? Before Wooden, they were an average team at best. Is 15-20 years a long time? All the teams that finished ahead of them in my analysis have been good to great in every decade.

 

[Raising Heel]

I disagree that 40 years is the timeframe. Make it 25 and I bet their numbers crumble.

40 years is outside the dominance they experienced under Wooden. Their title in his final year of coaching was 1975.

 

[tarheel0910]

(Thanks, but it says "no")

My bad. Must have been my subconscious. I added a yes, but could lose it. For some reason I couldn't edit the option.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I disagree that 40 years is the timeframe. Make it 25 and I bet their numbers crumble.

25 would take out our 82 and 93 titles. It would probably make UConn look really good as well. So I'm all for the 40 year timeframe.

ETA: I added another option just for you and because it's Friday.

I picked the third option, but it should say "Yes, but they could lose it in the future"
#timestamps

 

[strummingram]

But have they really had dominance for a long time though? Before Wooden, they were an average team at best. Is 15-20 years a long time? All the teams that finished ahead of them in my analysis have been good to great in every decade.

No, they really haven't. But... that dominance when Wooden was there is never going to be matched. They will always have that attached to them. So, whenever a new coach comes along, there's always that legacy to point to in the trophy cases. They will always be a blue blood that is ready to reawaken.

ETA: It reminds me of an HBO special that was talking about the Michigan/OSU rivalry. When Bo Schembechler came to UM, the program was in the shitter. And, his staff were appalled that the facilities were still the way they were when Fielding Yost was the coach. And, he used Fielding Yost as the motivation! So... all it takes is a coach with the ability to win.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

National titles are a terrible way of evaluating program success IMO.

I certainly agree that there should be more than just national titles that are considered, but I think they should be weighted the heaviest in that analysis. Every team begins the season with their ultimate goal (realistic or unrealistic) of winning the championship.

But that could be a good poll as well. In a 4 year span, would you rather have 1 National Championship year and 3 sub-.500 sneaking into the NIT years, or 4 years where you win the ACC regular season but never make it past the S16? I'd probably take the former.

 

[Raising Heel]

I certainly agree that there should be more than just national titles that are considered, but I think they should be weighted the heaviest in that analysis. Every team begins the season with their ultimate goal (realistic or unrealistic) of winning the championship.

But that could be a good poll as well. In a 4 year span, would you rather have 1 National Championship year and 3 sub-.500 sneaking into the NIT years, or 4 years where you win the ACC regular season but never make it past the S16? I'd probably take the former.

Good point. I agree NCs should be weighted more heavily. I'm just saying they shouldn't be the only measuring stick. But if I'm being honest, as an non-objective fan I want the nattys because they provide the ultimate bragging rights.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

I'd say they're on the brink. Definitely not a team I think of as being among the top programs now, but with their early dominance, the mid-90s title and then the string of Final Fours in the mid-00s kind of do just enough to keep them in the discussion, for now. Another five or ten years without a top team and I'd argue they're no longer relevant as a blue blood.

 

[tarheel0910]

Looking up all these stats was just another reminder to me of how great Dean was. He had us ranked in the top ten in 22 of his years. That includes nine in a row in the 80's.

 

[strummingram]

I certainly agree that there should be more than just national titles that are considered, but I think they should be weighted the heaviest in that analysis. Every team begins the season with their ultimate goal (realistic or unrealistic) of winning the championship.

But that could be a good poll as well. In a 4 year span, would you rather have 1 National Championship year and 3 sub-.500 sneaking into the NIT years, or 4 years where you win the ACC regular season but never make it past the S16? I'd probably take the former.

I'd take the latter, in a 4 year period.

The NIT sucks.

 

[tarheel0910]

Here's a question no one has asked. Should UCLA's titles during the Wooden era be discounted somewhat knowing that Sam Gilbert helped buy those titles? I would think UCLA would have one or two less titles if it wasn't for Sam.

 

[Raising Heel]

I picked the third option, but it should say "Yes, but they could lose it in the future"
#timestamps

Psst. There's now a 4th option.

 

[Grayhead]

Im upset you didnt include MOO