Everyone will know it when they see it. Not everyone will want to admit it though. If tangible results are needed, competing for B10 titles, being legit FF contenders.
3-4 seasons with single digit loses. S16 or better in those seasons while also top 3 conf finishes
The OP asks about “blue blood elite status”. Imho blue blood and elite are different things. The way I see it is that an elite program is currently elite. That doesn’t necessarily mean the program has performed at an elite level every recent year, but they can’t be a “has been” program. A blue blood is a program that used to be an elite program. imho we are a blue blood program, and even if we are never an elite program again, we will still be a blue blood. 5 national championships ensure that.
now, for being back, I can’t help but flash back to the Crean era when the “we’re back” tee shirts were being worn by IU fans. We were never truly back, if being back means being an elite program. It takes more than just a couple of top 10 seasons. It takes consistency over many, many seasons. Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t be a media story. Wasn’t IU football on the cover of Sport Illustrated 5 or so years ago? The media loves a good story.
But, imho for ME to think that IU is an elite program again it will take at least 5 years of sustained excellence. Not one or two tourney runs, but something more well rounded like being a top 10 team consistently for 5 seasons at least, and in those seasons competing for BT titles most of those years.
5 years may still not be enough to actually convince me we are an elite program again.
in the meantime, one elite eight and IU fans will be selling tee shirts saying we are back and the media will be writing stories. Just like during the Crean era.
@gerdis Personally, I always had a wary eye on the door when Crean was here. And I say that while also admitting the Vic/Cody teams are up there with my favorite IU teams of all time. And my excitement level, at times, during those years was about as high as it could get. But there were moments, games, stretches of seasons, etc... during even those best Crean years where it was obvious, to me, that what we were seeing wasn't going to last.
I reference this game often when describing this. I've done research now, so I know it was in late February of 2013. IU was 24-3, on the verge of putting an outright B10 title on the books. The game started how one would expect it to start, we were out and running, Hulls was cooking. Then the Mad scientist started experimenting with defenses, then he takes Hulls out with roughly 10 minutes left in the half, and plays him about 7-8 minutes total the rest of the game for some mother F'ing reason...no foul trouble, no injuries...and again, he's on fire from the 3. We lost that game, to a team we should have never lost to, solely because of Crean and how he managed that game.
I told anyone that would listen, mostly in my own family, that Crean would never win anything of note at IU. Many scoffed... but when we lost at home to OSU later, then lost to Wisky in B10 tourney, then struggled to beat Temple... then Syracuse happened... with THAT team. It was obvious.
After that... 2016 was fun. Lots of exciting games. But there was ALWAYS the governor on the excitement because there was zero chance Crean would be disciplined and consistent enough in his approach to have his teams be consistent enough to do things we all want done again.
Soooo... when we have a team that plays with an identity, that is consistent and committed to that style and identity, AND they go out and consistently beat good teams playing to and with that identity...THEN we'll be "back". Its been since Cheaney's teams, truthfully, since we had that.
Natty
GOAT SHITPOSTER
I think it starts with winning the conference or tourney. At this point, I think winning the BTT would be bigger, just because we're 0-fer and to me the unbalanced conference schedule makes it less important. So, I'd say getting a conference title of some sort, make playing and beating top 10 teams an annual occurence each season (think of the mileage we got out of the Wat shot and beating UK), and a couple E8 or better appearances in that stretch. Or, win a national title! We didn't lose elite status overnight and we probably can't win it back either.
My own feelings is that while I think we're on our way out as a blue blood, our name and following still resonates on a national scale, but I don't see how anyone argues we're elite; that ship sailed awhile ago.
@gerdis Personally, I always had a wary eye on the door when Crean was here. And I say that while also admitting the Vic/Cody teams are up there with my favorite IU teams of all time. And my excitement level, at times, during those years was about as high as it could get. But there were moments, games, stretches of seasons, etc... during even those best Crean years where it was obvious, to me, that what we were seeing wasn't going to last.
I reference this game often when describing this. I've done research now, so I know it was in late February of 2013. IU was 24-3, on the verge of putting an outright B10 title on the books. The game started how one would expect it to start, we were out and running, Hulls was cooking. Then the Mad scientist started experimenting with defenses, then he takes Hulls out with roughly 10 minutes left in the half, and plays him about 7-8 minutes total the rest of the game for some mother F'ing reason...no foul trouble, no injuries...and again, he's on fire from the 3. We lost that game, to a team we should have never lost to, solely because of Crean and how he managed that game.
I told anyone that would listen, mostly in my own family, that Crean would never win anything of note at IU. Many scoffed... but when we lost at home to OSU later, then lost to Wisky in B10 tourney, then struggled to beat Temple... then Syracuse happened... with THAT team. It was obvious.
After that... 2016 was fun. Lots of exciting games. But there was ALWAYS the governor on the excitement because there was zero chance Crean would be disciplined and consistent enough in his approach to have his teams be consistent enough to do things we all want done again.
Soooo... when we have a team that plays with an identity, that is consistent and committed to that style and identity, AND they go out and consistently beat good teams playing to and with that identity...THEN we'll be "back". Its been since Cheaney's teams, truthfully, since we had that.
all good thoughts. Then throw in roster construction issues. It seemed like he was caught flat footed anytime someone left (whether early or not).
@mohoosier I agree with Tammany that IU has lost its blue blood status. It has been 38 years since the last banner, 23 years since the last final four. A B1G title or two is not blue blood. If that were the case Purdue would be blue blood and they are not. Even their final four last year does not get them to that category. Even freaking UCONN has passed IU up and they were nothing back when IU was a blue blood. IU has a long way to go to get back to that status and winning another natty is the only way to do it. May never happen again.
@gerdis For sure. He had an eye for talent, and seemed to be decent at developing talent, but he was pretty awful at developing depth. I think its another example of his overall issue of never really foundationally developing anything reliable or consistent. His personality seemed to be that he thought he was smarter than everyone else, and that he needed to always be fixing, changing, fidgeting with things. Rather than digging in and becoming the best at common, repeatable, core principles that he could rely on, recruit to, etc... The next coach that does that, will be the first one since RMK. And I think Indiana will have a tremendous amount of sustainable success when we get a coach that does it. Hopefully we already have one. Early signs are good, I would say.
my comparison of Crean to Doug Collins with the Bulls. I put it out there after the loss to Syracuse. I knew then it was over. The talent that team had we should have won a title.
For us to reach and sustain blue blood/elite status again a lot of good stuff has to happen over several consecutive seasons. And yes, I did put a lot of thought and study into this . And I have a feeling we may have the coach to do it.
@auburnhoosier I hate to say it, but we’re not a blueblood anymore. We haven’t won much in 30 years, especially compared to other bluebloods, and there isn’t any way to paper over that. Even worse, we’ve flat out stunk for the last decade. When people list the bluebloods, we’re usually left off the list nowadays. UConn took our spot.
Now, we still have all the characteristics of a blueblood minus the winning — huge fanbase, traveling support, big resources, history/culture, facilities, etc. I won’t give up the idea that IU is a wonderful basketball platform with a very high ceiling. The right coach can do very well here.
To be a blueblood again we need to win a title or have a run of several F4s. To be “back” I generally agree with the idea we need to be make multiple deep tourney runs and consistently seriously compete for the conference. Basically, we need to be a significant part of the national CBB conversation again over the course of several years.
The common way to look at it that I usually agree with is IU is and will always be a blue blood. The history does not go away and by most criteria our history still stands up on most top 10 lists of things (while steadily falling out of most of those).
IU, though, is not Elite and hasn't been for ages.
AFA as this thread goes, I'd think a couple FF runs would do it. I don't think we'd have to win a title to clear the stink although that would certainly solidify it.
A Roy/Kansas run or even Howland/UCLA run would have the talking heads hyping IU up. Heck, we had TONS of national press off of Crean's back-to-back 'good years' and we never even made it past a S16.
Opposing fans? Who knows. Multiple FF would do it I think exempting PU fans. IU could probably win 3 or 4 new titles and PU fans would still downplay it as not pertinent.
@hoosiers94 that's probably a good comp. NBA comps are hard because Collins had to largely use the guys the Owner and GM put around him...and it wasn't until Reinsdorf and company got the right blend of luck and foresight to put guys like Pippen, Harper, Rodman, Grant, etc... around Jordan, that he broke through and won titles. Put maybe to your point...one of the greatest things Jackson/Winters did was install a system that suited Jordan...but then were incredibly disciplined and focused on it. Most of the top, top, elite level players will thrive in any system. How you get great is then filling in the gaps around those guys with specific types of guys that will thrive in your system.
Crean never had anything like that. He was always tinkering, he recruited every type of player you can imagine... he never got consistently great at any singular concept or style.
Latest Post: Iran War Has Started Our newest member: Jason Thiry Recent Posts Unread Posts
