Blue Blood Monopoly...your thoughts

[Gophers2Omaha]

I consider the following teams the "Blue Bloods" of college basketball: Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA. Other teams have had great runs lately, Connecticut and Michigan St. come to mind, but when these other 6 teams are mentioned I think college basketball. Probably could throw Louisville in there as well.

Since 1986, at least 1 of these teams has made the Final Four every year. Often two of them make it. Sometimes three!

From 1986-2012, 22 of the 27 National Championship games played has had at least one of these 6 teams playing in the game. 1989, 2000, 2004, 2007, and 2011 are the five years that none of them made the championship games.

Here is what the Final Fours have looked like since 1986:

1986: Duke, Kansas, Louisville, LSU
1987: Indiana, Providence, Syracuse, UNLV
1988: Duke, Kansas, Arizona, Oklahoma
1989: Duke, Illinois, Michigan, Seton Hall
1990: Duke, Arkansas, Georgia Tech, UNLV
1991: Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, UNLV
1992: Duke, Indiana, Cincinnati, Michigan
1993: Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Michigan
1994: Duke, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida
1995: North Carolina, UCLA, Arkansas, Oklahoma St.
1996: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi St., Syracuse
1997: Kentucky, North Carolina, Arizona, Minnesota
1998: Kentucky, North Carolina, Stanford, Utah
1999: Duke, Connecticut, Michigan St., Ohio St.
2000: North Carolina, Florida, Michigan St., Wisconsin
2001: Duke, Arizona, Maryland, Michigan St.
2002: Kansas, Indiana, Maryland, Oklahoma
2003: Kansas, Marquette, Syracuse, Texas
2004: Duke, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma St.
2005: North Carolina, Illinois, Louisville, Michigan St.
2006: UCLA, Florida, George Mason, LSU
2007: UCLA, Florida, Georgetown, Ohio St.
2008: Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA, Memphis
2009: North Carolina, Connecticut, Michigan St., Villanova
2010: Duke, Butler, Michigan St., West Virginia
2011: Kentucky, Butler, Connecticut, VCU
2012: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Ohio St.

Here are some questions I'd like to hear opinions on:

Is it good for NCAA hoops to be dominated but such a small group of teams?

Do you like when the Blue Bloods are in the Final Four?

Are you bored with the Blue Bloods being in the Final Four year after year?

Do you need a Blue Blood in the Final Four so you have someone to root against?

Is this trend going to continue or will parity in college basketball eventually end this streak?

Conspiracy?

I guess, just in general, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on these teams ruling the sport. Personally, I find it boring to have them in the Final Four year after year. I'm not even going to watch the game tonight. I've already seen Kansas and Kentucky numerous times and both have already won National titles in the past.

 

[Winnipegopher]

Indiana? 3 times in 25 years and 2002 was a fluke.

Michigan State 6 times in the last 13 years. Indiana is closer to Gopher football than Kentucky basketball.

Kansas-Ohio State was a great game. Tonight's might be as well. Recent years have seen Butler play for the championship and VCU in the Final 4. This did not use to happen.

 

[NateDawgUM]

That's pretty much the case with every college sport. A lot of pro sports too. College Football is far more "blue blood dominated," at least in college basketball some lesser programs have made (and won) the Championship game.

And then there's women's college basketball...yikes.

 

[GophersInIowa]

The thing is, it's not like any of these teams are getting to the Final 4 all the time. Since 2000 (last 13 seasons), only three programs have made it to the Final 4 more than three times (Michigan St. 5, Kansas and UNC 4). Also since 2000, 29 different programs have made it to the Final 4. I think that's pretty good. The six programs you mentioned have only accounted for 17 of the last 52 spots in the Final 4 (32.7%)

Women's, on the other hand, has had only 19 different teams make the Final 4 in that time frame. UConn has been there 10 times, TN 7, and Stanford and LSU 5 times each. Those four programs have accounted for 27 of 52 spots since 2000. That's 52%. Add in Baylor, Duke, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame and those eight programs have accounted for 39 of 52 spots.

I enjoy the parody, but also like seeing one or two of the big programs in there every year. Like I said, it's not like any of these teams are making it to the F4 all the time like in the women's game.

 

[lewiscountybrarhopper]

The thing is, it's not like any of these teams are getting to the Final 4 all the time. Since 2000 (last 13 seasons), only three programs have made it to the Final 4 more than three times (Michigan St. 5, Kansas and UNC 4). Also since 2000, 29 different programs have made it to the Final 4. I think that's pretty good. The six programs you mentioned have only accounted for 17 of the last 52 spots in the Final 4 (32.7%)

Women's, on the other hand, has had only 19 different teams make the Final 4 in that time frame. UConn has been there 10 times, TN 7, and Stanford and LSU 5 times each. Those four programs have accounted for 27 of 52 spots since 2000. That's 52%. Add in Baylor, Duke, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame and those eight programs have accounted for 39 of 52 spots.

I enjoy the parody, but also like seeing one or two of the big programs in there every year. Like I said, it's not like any of these teams are making it to the F4 all the time like in the women's game.

Ahem... in Kentucky we would call that parity. That being said, I would like to wish you all the best next year. It's no secret that I don't care for tubby but this board for the most part is made up by good, decent people who love college basketball despite their different opinions on how to best get their school to the next level.

 

[CrocShots]

At least it's not red like baseball. #betterdeadthanred

 

[Bad Gopher]

Are you bored with the Blue Bloods being in the Final Four year after year?

That's the one, at least for me.

That said, a person has to recognize this as the almost inescapable nature of college sports the way it's defined. So if a person has a problem with this, maybe following college sports isn't for you, dude. To me, the more confounding situation is major league baseball. They could change the game to be like the other pro sports and institutionalize competitive balance, but they choose not to. That's a lot of the reason I don't like MLB much any more.

 

[tjgopher]

That's the one, at least for me.

That said, a person has to recognize this as the almost inescapable nature of college sports the way it's defined. So if a person has a problem with this, maybe following college sports isn't for you, dude. To me, the more confounding situation is major league baseball. They could change the game to be like the other pro sports and institutionalize competitive balance, but they choose not to. That's a lot of the reason I don't like MLB much any more.

News flash - MLB does have competitive balance:

2011 - St. Louis Cardinals
2010 - San Francisco Giants
2009 - New York Yankees
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies
2007 - Boston Red Sox
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals
2005 - Chicago White Sox
2004 - Boston Red Sox
2003 - Florida Marlins
2002 - Anaheim Angels
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks

Nine different teams have won the last 11 World Series.

NFL?? Not as much. Seven teams have won last 11 Super Bowls.

NBA? Not as much. Six teams have won last 11 NBA titles.

 

[The Truth]

News flash - MLB does have competitive balance:

2011 - St. Louis Cardinals
2010 - San Francisco Giants
2009 - New York Yankees
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies
2007 - Boston Red Sox
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals
2005 - Chicago White Sox
2004 - Boston Red Sox
2003 - Florida Marlins
2002 - Anaheim Angels
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks

Nine different teams have won the last 11 World Series.

NFL?? Not as much. Seven teams have won last 11 Super Bowls.

NBA? Not as much. Six teams have won last 11 NBA titles.

Honestly? I count 8-9 storied, historically rich franchises who spend massive money on payroll to get where they are. Pretty much the same "argument" really. Every now and then a wildcard pops up and wins it (like the Marlins or D-Backs) but it's the "bluebloods" of baseball, the big spenders, who are winning for the most part.

 

[GophersInIowa]

News flash - MLB does have competitive balance:

2011 - St. Louis Cardinals
2010 - San Francisco Giants
2009 - New York Yankees
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies
2007 - Boston Red Sox
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals
2005 - Chicago White Sox
2004 - Boston Red Sox
2003 - Florida Marlins
2002 - Anaheim Angels
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks

Nine different teams have won the last 11 World Series.

NFL?? Not as much. Seven teams have won last 11 Super Bowls.

NBA? Not as much. Six teams have won last 11 NBA titles.

The biggest reason there isn't a lot of competitive balance in the NFL in my opinion is because of the QB. The QB position is so much more important than any other position in any other major sport. Look at the last 15-20 Super Bowl Champions. Many of them have Hall of Fame or future Hall of Fame QB's. The only two who were probably average to below average were Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer, and they both played on teams with historically great defenses.