Started By
Message
The Basketball Blue Bloods should start their own conference
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:55 pm
Watching Kentucky vs. Kansas last night got me thinking...
Kentucky has somewhat of a basketball rivalry with a bunch of other blue bloods:
Louisville- UK has played Louisville 41 times in the last 40 seasons.
Indiana- UK has played Indiana 49 times in the last 52 seasons.
N. Carolina- UK has played UNC 18 times in the last 21 seasons.
Kansas- UK has played Kansas 8 times in the last 10 seasons.
UCLA- UK will soon play UCLA for the 6th time in the past 7 seasons.
Duke- UK has played Duke 3 times in the last 9 seasons
Kentucky Basketball probably has more memorable moments and more memorable games played outside its own league in the last several decades than it does within the SEC. IMO Kentucky doesn't have a real basketball rivalry within the SEC, and even when it comes to football, their biggest rival is arguably Louisville... outside the SEC.
Kentucky vs. Tennessee is probably the closest thing to an in-conference rivalry for the Wildcats. But is it even a real rivalry if it is always so lopsided? Tennessee leads the "rivalry" in football 33-3 since 1985 (91.7%). Meanwhile, Kentucky leads the series in basketball 43-17 since 1992 (71.7%).
One thing that all these blue bloods have in common is that they all mostly have terrible football programs that are only occasionally relevant. Maybe they should all breakaway and form their own conference. Since many of them are also academically strong (i.e. Duke, UNC), they could also take away some of the smaller, academically minded schools to fill out their league so that it wouldn't be so competitive. You'd need a few respectable bottom feeders.
This new conference might look something like this:
**Kentucky and Vanderbilt from the SEC. Since the 2012 expansion, Kentucky and Vandy rank 12th and 13th in SEC football winning percentage out of 14 teams.... both below 32% winning percentage in league play. Neither has come close to winning an SEC football title in the past 40 years.
**Kansas from the Big 12. The Jayhawks are a distant last in Big 12 football winning percentage since their league last shuffled their numbers back in 2012... in fact Kansas is just 9-71 in football league play (11.3%) which is 16 fewer wins than the next worst team.
**Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, and Northwestern from the Big 10. Since 2014 Big 10 expansion, only Northwestern has had a football winning percentage of above 37% in league play.
**North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, and Wake Forest from the ACC. In terms of football, five of these seven programs have been at the very bottom in ACC winning percentage since the conference expanded in 2014. North Carolina and Louisville have performed best on the gridiron, but even still both are below .500 in conference football winning percentage since 2014.
These 14 teams are mostly very good at Basketball (Northwestern, BC, and Vandy being the three weakest) and all historically struggle in their current respective leagues in football. If all banded together, they could produce a somewhat competitive league in football in which all would have a much better shot of being relevant and winning their conference. But most importantly it would automatically catapult this new league to being the best Basketball Conference in the history of the sport.
This new conference would include 7 of the Top 8 basketball programs in terms of all-time NCAA Tournament appearances.
Since 2000, 13 of these 14 schools (everyone but Northwestern) have all reached the NCAA Tournament at least 7 times, and six of the 14 have reached the NCAA Tournament at least 15 times.
In total since 2000, they combine for 174 NCAA bids (12.4 each) and 88 Sweet 16 appearances (6.3 each). They combine for 29 Final Four appearances (2.1 each) and a total of 12 National Titles..... that's 60% of all the national titles won in basketball since 2000.
The SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 could all reshuffle a bit to absorb the remaining ACC teams, which would in effect eliminate the ACC all together.
The Big 10 would have 10 remaining teams (after losing 4) so they could take on NC State, Virginia Tech, Pitt and let West Virginia slso slide in from the Big 12 since that makes way more sense... bringing them back up to 14 teams.
The SEC could add on Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami to get up to 16 total teams.
The Big 12 would be left with just 8 teams, so could either stay put at 8 or add some current mid-majors like Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU, or Boise State if they felt the need to expand.
Kentucky has somewhat of a basketball rivalry with a bunch of other blue bloods:
Louisville- UK has played Louisville 41 times in the last 40 seasons.
Indiana- UK has played Indiana 49 times in the last 52 seasons.
N. Carolina- UK has played UNC 18 times in the last 21 seasons.
Kansas- UK has played Kansas 8 times in the last 10 seasons.
UCLA- UK will soon play UCLA for the 6th time in the past 7 seasons.
Duke- UK has played Duke 3 times in the last 9 seasons
Kentucky Basketball probably has more memorable moments and more memorable games played outside its own league in the last several decades than it does within the SEC. IMO Kentucky doesn't have a real basketball rivalry within the SEC, and even when it comes to football, their biggest rival is arguably Louisville... outside the SEC.
Kentucky vs. Tennessee is probably the closest thing to an in-conference rivalry for the Wildcats. But is it even a real rivalry if it is always so lopsided? Tennessee leads the "rivalry" in football 33-3 since 1985 (91.7%). Meanwhile, Kentucky leads the series in basketball 43-17 since 1992 (71.7%).
One thing that all these blue bloods have in common is that they all mostly have terrible football programs that are only occasionally relevant. Maybe they should all breakaway and form their own conference. Since many of them are also academically strong (i.e. Duke, UNC), they could also take away some of the smaller, academically minded schools to fill out their league so that it wouldn't be so competitive. You'd need a few respectable bottom feeders.
This new conference might look something like this:
**Kentucky and Vanderbilt from the SEC. Since the 2012 expansion, Kentucky and Vandy rank 12th and 13th in SEC football winning percentage out of 14 teams.... both below 32% winning percentage in league play. Neither has come close to winning an SEC football title in the past 40 years.
**Kansas from the Big 12. The Jayhawks are a distant last in Big 12 football winning percentage since their league last shuffled their numbers back in 2012... in fact Kansas is just 9-71 in football league play (11.3%) which is 16 fewer wins than the next worst team.
**Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, and Northwestern from the Big 10. Since 2014 Big 10 expansion, only Northwestern has had a football winning percentage of above 37% in league play.
**North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, and Wake Forest from the ACC. In terms of football, five of these seven programs have been at the very bottom in ACC winning percentage since the conference expanded in 2014. North Carolina and Louisville have performed best on the gridiron, but even still both are below .500 in conference football winning percentage since 2014.
These 14 teams are mostly very good at Basketball (Northwestern, BC, and Vandy being the three weakest) and all historically struggle in their current respective leagues in football. If all banded together, they could produce a somewhat competitive league in football in which all would have a much better shot of being relevant and winning their conference. But most importantly it would automatically catapult this new league to being the best Basketball Conference in the history of the sport.
This new conference would include 7 of the Top 8 basketball programs in terms of all-time NCAA Tournament appearances.
Since 2000, 13 of these 14 schools (everyone but Northwestern) have all reached the NCAA Tournament at least 7 times, and six of the 14 have reached the NCAA Tournament at least 15 times.
In total since 2000, they combine for 174 NCAA bids (12.4 each) and 88 Sweet 16 appearances (6.3 each). They combine for 29 Final Four appearances (2.1 each) and a total of 12 National Titles..... that's 60% of all the national titles won in basketball since 2000.
The SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 could all reshuffle a bit to absorb the remaining ACC teams, which would in effect eliminate the ACC all together.
The Big 10 would have 10 remaining teams (after losing 4) so they could take on NC State, Virginia Tech, Pitt and let West Virginia slso slide in from the Big 12 since that makes way more sense... bringing them back up to 14 teams.
The SEC could add on Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami to get up to 16 total teams.
The Big 12 would be left with just 8 teams, so could either stay put at 8 or add some current mid-majors like Cincinnati, Memphis, BYU, or Boise State if they felt the need to expand.
13
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:57 pm to BHMKyle
VOLS have beaten UK hoops 3 out of the last 4
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:58 pm to BHMKyle
Vanderbilt is a basketball blue blood? When was the last time they made the Final Four? To echo the sentiments above we've held our own vs Kentucky as of late as well.
This post was edited on 12/2/20 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:59 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:
VOLS have beaten UK hoops 3 out of the last 4
And the Cats have beaten the Vols in football 1 of the last 1 times they've played.... does that mean the football rivalry is competitive?
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:00 pm to SCgamecock2988
quote:
Vanderbilt is a basketball blue blood?
Try reading the entire thing next time. Had you done so, you'd have seen this:
quote:
they could also take away some of the smaller, academically minded schools to fill out their league so that it wouldn't be so competitive. You'd need a few respectable bottom feeders.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:01 pm to BHMKyle
You typed too much.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:02 pm to BHMKyle
Why would we want to make conferences more unbalanced?
Part of what makes some of the blue blood games fun to watch is many of them don't play each other multiple times a year.
Part of what makes some of the blue blood games fun to watch is many of them don't play each other multiple times a year.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:02 pm to SCgamecock2988
quote:
You typed too much.
Curious minds crave details. Small minds can only handle short sentences.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:02 pm to BHMKyle
How about, No.
We are a charter member of the SEC and our job is to take a beating from y'all in football and administer one in basketball. We like being on the rant with fellow southerners and don't want to be mixed in with a bunch of damn Yankees. We already play them enough and besides Florida and Arkansas are as blue blood as many in your proposed conference. We hate Louisville, IU, UNCheat, and Puke and don't want to share a conference with them.
We are a charter member of the SEC and our job is to take a beating from y'all in football and administer one in basketball. We like being on the rant with fellow southerners and don't want to be mixed in with a bunch of damn Yankees. We already play them enough and besides Florida and Arkansas are as blue blood as many in your proposed conference. We hate Louisville, IU, UNCheat, and Puke and don't want to share a conference with them.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:03 pm to BHMKyle
So- a Blue Blood only basketball league- and fill it out with bottom feeders?
Got it.
Makes sense.
Got it.
Makes sense.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:03 pm to BHMKyle
This is actually a dumb idea.. I didn't need to read anymore.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:06 pm to BHMKyle
I'n sure the blue bloods would LOVE that.... ensure that just about everyone has a damn near .500 conference record heading into March
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:08 pm to rockiee
quote:
Why would we want to make conferences more unbalanced?
Part of what makes some of the blue blood games fun to watch is many of them don't play each other multiple times a year.
There would still be plenty of solid basketball programs in other leagues: Gonzaga, Villanova, Michigan, Michigan State, etc. By consoidating so many into one league, you'd actually get far more of these games played each season. In fact, during the regular season you'd get multiple of these games every week because they'd be playing league play.
By adding Vanderbilt, Boston College, and Northwestern into the new conference, you'd give those 3 programs a better fit for football, but you'd also give the new league a few teams that could theoretically sit at the bottom of the conference standings most years so that it is not so competitive that it keeps some of these big programs from missing the tournament.
Last season, it was looking like the Big 10 was going to get 10 out of 14 teams into the NCAA Tournament field before COVID took its toll. I suspect with this new league, they could reach that number of bids most every year due to its overall strength.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:09 pm to BHMKyle
Basketball matters enough to generate revenue a month out of the year.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:10 pm to BHMKyle
In theory, a lot of what you're proposing describes the impetus of the modern Big East Conference.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:14 pm to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
We like being on the rant with fellow southerners and don't want to be mixed in with a bunch of damn Yankees.
You share a state with Louisville. Indiana minus Gary is essentially a southern state that was on the other side of the river during the civil war. Duke, UNC, Vandy, and Wake are all also southern in terms of geography. And if you've ever been to Kansas, its very similar to the South in terms of culture.
quote:
besides Florida and Arkansas are as blue blood as many in your proposed conference.
Arkansas has a lot of historical success (not so much in the past two decades) and Florida is a new money type of program. They are basically like the Spelling family... struck it rich in the '90s and have since fallen back on hard times.
Yes, they've both enjoyed varying degrees of tangible success on the hardcourt, but both are FOOTBALL schools where football interest dwarfs any interest that comes in basketball.
quote:
We hate Louisville, IU, UNCheat, and Puke
This is my point. You have more of a rivalry with them already.
This post was edited on 12/2/20 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:15 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
There would still be plenty of solid basketball programs in other leagues: Gonzaga, Villanova, Michigan, Michigan State, etc.
Sure but still more unbalanced then it was before
quote:
By consoidating so many into one league, you'd actually get far more of these games played each season. In fact, during the regular season you'd get multiple of these games every week because they'd be playing league play.
I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. The appeal of Duke and Kansas matching up in the tournament helps because they have at most played once already during the year. If its match up number 5, not sure it will have the same appeal over the years. As a basketball fan, I'm watching either way but not sure that is actually the best thing for the game.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:16 pm to BHMKyle
Money, as much as anything, is what drives conference affiliation, and the money in college sports, at the conference level, is almost entirely in football. Remember, conferences control football TV, but only regular season TV for basketball--the NCAA runs the basketball tournament. So, while a basketball focused conference might produce some more interesting regular season matchups, regular season basketball TV money is peanuts. Blue bloods don't have trouble selling tickets for beatdowns of lesser teams, so that's not really an untapped revenue potential, either.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:18 pm to schatman
quote:
So- a Blue Blood only basketball league
When did I say Blue Blood "only" ??
I completely described the conference as having a home for all the blue bloods who also struggle at competing in football but that it should also be filled out with "respectable" bottom feeders. That "bottom feeder" is relative. Wake Forest, Vandy, and Boston College have all been to 8, 8, and 7 of the past twenty NCAA Tournaments respectively. Yes, they are a "Bottom Feeder" compared to Duke, Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas, but they have respectable basketball programs or at least have typically had respectable programs in the past.
Only Northwestern is not a fit in basketball, but since they are small and private this new league makes more sense for them.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:34 pm to scott8811
quote:
I'n sure the blue bloods would LOVE that.... ensure that just about everyone has a damn near .500 conference record heading into March
Nah, you'd have four programs (Vandy, Northwestern, Boston College, Wake Forest) who would have occasional good years but would mostly lose to those bigger programs and miss the Tournament. Indiana is for sure a blue blood, but they've struggled the past 10 to 20 years. And between Syracuse, Maryland, and Purdue, they are all likely to have mostly good years but an occasional down year as well.
You'd still likely see Kansas, Duke, UNC, and Kentucky at the top most seasons and probably winning over 60% of their league games most seasons.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News