Post by kiyoat on Jun 22, 2023 9:07:47 GMT -5
I'm certainly no expert on what programs are currently elite in D-1 WVB, but it is an interesting topic, and relevant to the thread. A small point I'd like to interject is that the definitions of "blue blood" or "elite" programs are, of course, relative to your criteria. Some people in this discussion are comparing apples and oranges, in terms of scale and time.
All three of Stanford, Texas and Nebraska (if we are to call them "top tier" in terms of desirability to both recruits and coaches), are programs that are both "blue bloods" AND currently considered "elite". The same cannot be said of Wisconsin, despite the recent championship and sustained success. They are "elite" but not "blue blood". Others might be "blue blood", but not currently "elite". USC is probablybuoyed propped-up in many ways by their blue-blood status, allowing them to still pull top talent. So the combination of both recent and historic and sustained success is the salient point, in my estimation. With the right coach or a couple of great recruiting classes, programs like Hawaii, UCLA, USC, and Penn State could probably get into that "top tier" more quickly than a recently elite program, I think. (I could be wrong)
The term "blue blood" is probably a little over-used and pretentious/snobby, but you could say "historically elite" or something like that. You could probably have an intermediate category that looks at the last 10 or 20 years (within a recruit's lifetime) - whatever that would be called.
Some say that in sports, past success and status does not matter anymore- that recruits are looking at recent success almost exclusively. While there is likely some truth to that, I would say that past sustained success isn't just about reputation, but the culture it creates; expectations, fans, donors, etc. And I'd guess that it still matters a good deal in Volleyball.
JMO
BTW, I'm sure this topic has never been discussed to death on VolleyTalk, and nobody could pull up multiple necro threads discussing it at-length.... totally a new revelation on my part.
All three of Stanford, Texas and Nebraska (if we are to call them "top tier" in terms of desirability to both recruits and coaches), are programs that are both "blue bloods" AND currently considered "elite". The same cannot be said of Wisconsin, despite the recent championship and sustained success. They are "elite" but not "blue blood". Others might be "blue blood", but not currently "elite". USC is probably
The term "blue blood" is probably a little over-used and pretentious/snobby, but you could say "historically elite" or something like that. You could probably have an intermediate category that looks at the last 10 or 20 years (within a recruit's lifetime) - whatever that would be called.
Some say that in sports, past success and status does not matter anymore- that recruits are looking at recent success almost exclusively. While there is likely some truth to that, I would say that past sustained success isn't just about reputation, but the culture it creates; expectations, fans, donors, etc. And I'd guess that it still matters a good deal in Volleyball.
JMO
BTW, I'm sure this topic has never been discussed to death on VolleyTalk, and nobody could pull up multiple necro threads discussing it at-length.... totally a new revelation on my part.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/W34E6WUZKNAYPJECX7XWMXTMRM.JPG)
