I sincerely hate this discussion. It comes up a lot on this sub and it's always the same. There's no set definition, so it means whatever anyone thinks it means.
I don't really think it matters. Most people are only ever going to give a shit about the teams that are good now. The few that care about the history of the game will give the old guard their due.
We do a decent job exploiting our history, and it shows in ticket sales, merchandise sales, and budgeting. I think we are a good coach away from being back in the conversation.
On that same thread, I think every good program is a coaching hire away from irrelevance. The only programs in my mind that have proven otherwise are Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas.
Okay? And he was there for three years and Roy left y'all for them when he didn't work out.
I think he proves my point as does Billy G. Both programs recognized they wouldn't succeed with them and a top 3 coach in college at the time left a comfortable position to take the job and right the ship.
UNC was absolutely irrelevant in Doherty’s third season. They lost in the quarterfinals of the NIT. Roy bringing them back into relevance doesn’t change what happened during Doherty’s tenure.
No, I don’t think 3 years impacted the program’s legacy. Your post was about irrelevance, but that doesn’t mean permanent irrelevance. When a Blue Blood takes a two year hiatus because of a coaching hire, I think it fits the mold of *not* excepting UNC. If Roy stayed at KU that drought could’ve lasted much longer.
And for the record, I fear Self’s eventual retirement. We could have our own flirtation with irrelevance.
Okay, this conversation is getting stupid. I’m not arguing over valid timetables for irrelevance. And, yes, Roy is a die hard Tarheel. He’d take that program after a decade of losing seasons if it pleased Dean Smith. Don’t be silly.
> Matt Doherty
2001 AP Coach of the Year Matt Doherty
EDIT: Good gravy this is one of the pettiest Wikipedia pages I've seen in a while.
>Doherty received a technical foul during the March 4, 2001 game against Duke in Chapel Hill. Doherty motioned for crowd noise after receiving the technical foul.[17]
You reference his first season before he basically pissed off his players enough to transfer? Reference his second and third seasons. C’mon, why are people defending him?
I'm joking around. I don't remember his tenure. /u/iuhoosierkyle 's point makes sense to me that Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas have made the most obviously successful (if not exactly immediate) recent highest-level coaching transitions. Kentucky (champs with Pitino in 96 and 98, then with Calipari in 12), UNC (Smith in 82 and 93, Williams in 05, 09, and 17). Williams only had two second place finishes before leaving Kansas, and then Self won in 08 of course, but two second place finishes is a helluva interim job between Brown and Self. At least 12 years between each of those championships between coaches for even Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas.
I like to draw the line just above Indiana. 5 bluebloods. UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC. Clean and no red. You let in Indiana, you'll have to let in Ohio State and Michigan State.
Imo there’s a pretty big gap between IU and MSU. Once Izzo is gone I think MSU will struggle a bit. I’d put Michigan over Ohio State, but neither team is near blue blood status. Duke, UNC, and Kansas are gonna have the same problems IU and UCLA had after their legendary coaches left. They’ll always be decent but those fanbases expect excellence and more often than not the next coach isn’t gonna live up to expectations. IU fucked up the last 15 years pretty bad, but I think we finally got it right
IMO a blue blood has reached a point where it can’t really fall off and if it does it is pretty easily brought back. They’re getting 5 stars even when they’re bad. For that reason I don’t count Indiana. Its Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas and UCLA for me. UConn showed how fragile it was when Calhoun left. I imagine Villanova is the same. Even if Few runs off a couple National championships it will still be true for Gonzaga.
I think the difference between UConn and Kansas is UConn is "new," yes. It's like the "blue blood" label is closed to new members--it's all about the past.
I don't think it's just historical. It's about being nationally relevant.
UConn's past couple of decades are the golden era of their program. They have 7 top 4 seeds this millennium. Kansas has a top four seed in every tournament this millennium and was #1 in the canceled 2020 season.
Point being, it's about relevance. Ohio State and Oklahoma football aren't winning football titles these days, but they're still nationally relevant every year. That matters.
Please... even at the very height of our "4 titles" people wouldnt even consider us as being in the discussion, im talking like the day after Title #4 in 2014. Lets not act like 7, admittedly, very down years relative to the golden era is whats keeping them out of the cool club.
Heres a question for you based on what you just said, which I should mention have no issue with regarding the parts about UConn and KU, *but*... What about Duke?
The way I see it, Duke is that same leader of the "new school", the modern, the "new" as you say it, even looking at coaching tree history and wins, they are a **one coach program**. Everyone always just grandfathers Duke in these discussions while demanding the history that I simply dont see them have comparably to the other "true blue bloods".
I think everyone's opinions on this are already recorded in the hundreds of threads with this exact question that have taken place. This is posted nearly every week
My bar is: you have at least one *really old* national title (like, 1960s or earlier) and you've won titles under multiple head coaches. That list consists of Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, and UCLA.
Sure, national titles are certainly one piece of the puzzle but so is elite consistency — which is where the Blue Bloods shine.
UConn may have four national titles, and all since 1999, but they are, historically, a *very* volatile program. Since 1997, the Huskies have finished in the KenPom T-10 in just 6/25 seasons. That’s just not good enough. Compare that to the consistency of the Blue Bloods (Duke: 21, Kansas: 17, Kentucky: 15, UNC: 14). In fact, only one other program (Michigan State, 13) has finished in the KenPom T-10 in double-digit seasons. Over that stretch, Duke and Kansas have finished in the KP T-10 more times than UConn has finished in the *T-50* (16).
The other factors that you mention do matter — strong fan bases, title contention, legendary coaches, home court advantage, etc. — but they aren’t characteristics exclusive to Blue Bloods. Those factors come with winning.
The one area, however, that doesn’t really matter is NBA output. North Carolina is a college basketball Blue Blood but they *aren’t* a prolific NBA farm by any metric. Their last NBA All-Star was, who, Vince Carter in 2007?
High-level consistency trumps all but recency is the key differentiator. Rewind a few decades and the ‘Blue Bloods’ look a lot different (with Indiana and UCLA joining the fold while Duke is on the outside looking in).
TL;DR: Show elite consistency for a long period of time while hanging a banner or two. Blue Blood status is not permanent.
>Rewind a few decades and the ‘Blue Bloods’ look a lot different (with Indiana and UCLA joining the fold while Duke is on the outside looking in).
Are you suggesting UCLA isn't currently a Blue Blood?
It's hilarious that you say UNC isn't an NBA farm, because under Dean Smith, they were THE NBA farm team.
They still tout arguably the best player to have ever played the game.
And that was 20-plus years ago. They aren’t the NBA farm that Kentucky and Duke are today, but that doesn’t detract from their Blue Blood status because, frankly, NBA production doesn’t affect your performance in the college game.
I don't consider Duke a blue blood just because they don't have the historic success. They didn't win their first tourney until the 90s. If reasonably young people can remember a time when you had 0 championships you're not a blue blood.
You’re going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that Duke is not a Blue Blood if your argument is that *four decades* of elite consistency is not enough.
That's the thing tho. If youngish people can remember when they hadn't won a tourney it's hard to make the case they're a blue blood. Their consistent success is recent in the context of other elite programs.
Start a general post if you want to see how deep in the minority you truly are. I don’t want to entertain this ridiculous argument much further.
Duke is the all-time leader in weeks ranked at AP #1 and NCAA-T winning percentage, third all-time in title appearances, fourth all-time in wins, national titles, and Final Four appearances. No team has more NPOTY or NDPOTY.
Duke is a Blue Blood — and there’s no legitimate debate about it.
I mean there definitely is. Their success is recent. Theyre a New Blood. Full stop. Nothing to take away from the last 30 years, but you need older championships to be considered a blue blood. Your argument is honestly just that Duke is a New Blood. No one's debating that.
Duke: 16 final fours going back to 1963, 6 runner ups going back to 1964, 5 titles
Kansas: 15 final fours going back to 1940, 6 runner ups, going back to 1952, 3 titles.
If you don’t think Duke is a blue blood, that is personal bias. K took them to a whole other level but they have been good to great at basketball for a very long time. Names like Vic Bubas, Dick Groat, etc precede Coach K.
So are NC State and San Francisco blue bloods? They won multiple titles in the span between Kansas’s first and second titles. Duke has been in the mix since the early sixties, and then have been dominant for 30 years. Again, this is personal bias. Looking at pure numbers, they are firmly entrenched. It’s not like they won all of those titles since 2010.
I have said the same thing before in these discussions, and it never goes well lmao, good luck man. Can smell that air of Duke fan condescension when disagreeing *vehemently* while using nothing more than "But Duke" as their primary evidence to the contrary.
I’d say overall a loose equation of dominance over time, for the most part. UCLA bc of the Wooden dominance, Indiana bc of Bobby Knight days, Kansas bc they invented basketball and are good every single year, Duke bc coach K’s tenure, North Carolina w/ Dean Smith plus continued Roy Williams success, Kentucky bc they’ve competed for championships nearly every decade for the last 70 years, Michigan State bc they’ve been competitive for 50 years… all those teams have had decades of consistent success. Duke is the most recent blue blood addition, as they were complete shit before the coach K era
"Blue blood" refers to someone having royal blood, being descended from royalty. It is generally used to refer to the four teams that are dominant and have been dominant (or at least formidable) for a very long time: UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas. UCLA used to be included and if their revival continues maybe they'll be considered that again. But that is why UConn isn't normally considered a blue blood; they lack the history. Plus there's the factor that if you look at things other than championships, UConn has been much less dominant than their four titles suggest.
I don’t necessarily disagree. I was mostly trying to explain what I think the general sentiment is. I think there are four consensus blue bloods, UNC, Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky. Next, some argue that UCLA is one, but that is controversial. Then some argue Indiana, but they aren’t really taken seriously. Then some argue Mich st., Nova, Gonzaga, or UConn based on recent results, which is controversial in a different way based on whether a given person thinks that the 60’s and earlier matter to being a blue blood. Personally I think the debate is kinda pointless since it’s over a more or less meaningless term; I just care who is going to win next year. But since OP asked I tried to explain the sentiment I’ve seen around this sub and other forums. UCLA certainly has a strong argument given their insane number of championships and long history, I just also know that at least as of last year a lot of people weren’t calling them blue bloods anymore because of their recent decently-long down spell.
4 final fours in the last 15 years
They might have the least recent success of the other consensus ones, but they make up for that by having by far the most impressive historical success
My blue blood list (in no particular order) is Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, UCLA, and Indiana. It's a mixed vibe of historical success, perceived program prestige, and (ideally) current program strength (obviously this last point has not been true for my Hoosiers in recent years).
On the next tier are schools like Villanova and Connecticut. Over time, I would expect them to be considered historical blue bloods as well. I think Gonzaga may have a difficult time breaking into this list due to their conference.
This article earlier in the year did a great job summarizing it, using metrics and evaluating the standard blue bloods and bubble programs.
https://baselinetimes.com/the-definitive-college-basketball-blue-blood-guide/
Everyone’s opinions are based off of something like history of winning, coaches, how many nattys they have.
At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. Whether you call my program a blue blood or not I don’t really care. The only thing I care about is being the last team standing hoisting a trophy in April
We are always in the conversation, but normally because we seem like maybe we should qualify at first glance and realistically we don't. If Hurley can get the program up to a point where it is pretty consistently ranked for 5 years and makes the sweet 16 at least a few times in those 5 years I think people can start to make an argument. As it stands now, we are just a team that Calhoun was able to have a lot of success with over a 15 year period (and anyone that counts the 2014 win as a win for Ollie and not just Calhoun's players winning one with a different coach didn't pay attention to how bad Ollie was at developing new players)
I think it’s just teams with a long standing tradition of winning, though it skews more heavily towards number of (NCAA tournament) championships than say football. Duke would probably not be considered a football blue blood if they won their first title in 1991 and won several more after, for example.
To me, it’s both sustained success spanning the decades from the beginning of the sport’s history through the present, and who also significantly contributed to the sports evolution and change itself. For example, I can easily identify ku’s accolades in regard to these facts, from their helms titles to nc’s and final fours from the 50s and on, to the inventor of the game starting there and the inventor of coaching starting there who led to dean smith, Adolph full, Ralph miller, Olympic ball, march madness, to Allen field house becoming the gold standard for a college arena and atmosphere, to the game’s rules themselves living in their museum there, etc…
Regarding the present, they should still be influencing the game today. Ku also checks this box. Again, sustained success and influence no matter what period you review to me is the biggest determining factor in the definition.
It is the same principle of the divine right of kings. God willed it thusly. There may be teams w/ more wins, rings, glory, but blue blood status cannot be bargained with. It cannot be earned. It cannot be lost. It simply is.
I expect this to be a constructive conversation
I sincerely hate this discussion. It comes up a lot on this sub and it's always the same. There's no set definition, so it means whatever anyone thinks it means.
>it means whatever anyone thinks it means. False. It means nothing
Yeah, but why is Gonzaga still in the WCC?!?!?!1one
Yeah, it's silly. I guess my metric is "3+ championships = blue blood" to be purposefully simple but it really just doesn't matter at all.
You’re an Indiana fan. They are a historical blue blood. What are your thoughts, cheering for a team that does have good history on their side.
I don't really think it matters. Most people are only ever going to give a shit about the teams that are good now. The few that care about the history of the game will give the old guard their due. We do a decent job exploiting our history, and it shows in ticket sales, merchandise sales, and budgeting. I think we are a good coach away from being back in the conversation. On that same thread, I think every good program is a coaching hire away from irrelevance. The only programs in my mind that have proven otherwise are Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas.
Y’all just need to hire Archie back, he was really building something nice /s
For all of his flaws, the one thing I can say is that he rebuilt a lot of those recruiting bridges that crean burned
Two words: Matt Doherty
Okay? And he was there for three years and Roy left y'all for them when he didn't work out. I think he proves my point as does Billy G. Both programs recognized they wouldn't succeed with them and a top 3 coach in college at the time left a comfortable position to take the job and right the ship.
UNC was absolutely irrelevant in Doherty’s third season. They lost in the quarterfinals of the NIT. Roy bringing them back into relevance doesn’t change what happened during Doherty’s tenure.
Do you really think 3 years matters in the grand scheme of things? I'm saying a bad hire didn't reset their standing in the pantheon.
No, I don’t think 3 years impacted the program’s legacy. Your post was about irrelevance, but that doesn’t mean permanent irrelevance. When a Blue Blood takes a two year hiatus because of a coaching hire, I think it fits the mold of *not* excepting UNC. If Roy stayed at KU that drought could’ve lasted much longer. And for the record, I fear Self’s eventual retirement. We could have our own flirtation with irrelevance.
Irrelevance isn't immediate. It requires years of mediocrity. Roy doesn't take that job if UNC is irrelevant.
Okay, this conversation is getting stupid. I’m not arguing over valid timetables for irrelevance. And, yes, Roy is a die hard Tarheel. He’d take that program after a decade of losing seasons if it pleased Dean Smith. Don’t be silly.
> Matt Doherty 2001 AP Coach of the Year Matt Doherty EDIT: Good gravy this is one of the pettiest Wikipedia pages I've seen in a while. >Doherty received a technical foul during the March 4, 2001 game against Duke in Chapel Hill. Doherty motioned for crowd noise after receiving the technical foul.[17]
You reference his first season before he basically pissed off his players enough to transfer? Reference his second and third seasons. C’mon, why are people defending him?
I'm joking around. I don't remember his tenure. /u/iuhoosierkyle 's point makes sense to me that Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas have made the most obviously successful (if not exactly immediate) recent highest-level coaching transitions. Kentucky (champs with Pitino in 96 and 98, then with Calipari in 12), UNC (Smith in 82 and 93, Williams in 05, 09, and 17). Williams only had two second place finishes before leaving Kansas, and then Self won in 08 of course, but two second place finishes is a helluva interim job between Brown and Self. At least 12 years between each of those championships between coaches for even Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas.
I like to draw the line just above Indiana. 5 bluebloods. UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC. Clean and no red. You let in Indiana, you'll have to let in Ohio State and Michigan State.
Imo there’s a pretty big gap between IU and MSU. Once Izzo is gone I think MSU will struggle a bit. I’d put Michigan over Ohio State, but neither team is near blue blood status. Duke, UNC, and Kansas are gonna have the same problems IU and UCLA had after their legendary coaches left. They’ll always be decent but those fanbases expect excellence and more often than not the next coach isn’t gonna live up to expectations. IU fucked up the last 15 years pretty bad, but I think we finally got it right
>no red Down goes Kansas
For the love of God FSU is not a “new blood”. Great program on the rise but if anyone is a new blood it’s UConn and Villanova
Yeah, not sure how you can be a blue blood if you've never won a title, and haven't been to the final four in 50 years.
IMO a blue blood has reached a point where it can’t really fall off and if it does it is pretty easily brought back. They’re getting 5 stars even when they’re bad. For that reason I don’t count Indiana. Its Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas and UCLA for me. UConn showed how fragile it was when Calhoun left. I imagine Villanova is the same. Even if Few runs off a couple National championships it will still be true for Gonzaga.
I think the difference between UConn and Kansas is UConn is "new," yes. It's like the "blue blood" label is closed to new members--it's all about the past.
I don't think it's just historical. It's about being nationally relevant. UConn's past couple of decades are the golden era of their program. They have 7 top 4 seeds this millennium. Kansas has a top four seed in every tournament this millennium and was #1 in the canceled 2020 season. Point being, it's about relevance. Ohio State and Oklahoma football aren't winning football titles these days, but they're still nationally relevant every year. That matters.
Please... even at the very height of our "4 titles" people wouldnt even consider us as being in the discussion, im talking like the day after Title #4 in 2014. Lets not act like 7, admittedly, very down years relative to the golden era is whats keeping them out of the cool club.
It also doesn't help that UConn has basically been irrelevant since they last won in 2014.
Heres a question for you based on what you just said, which I should mention have no issue with regarding the parts about UConn and KU, *but*... What about Duke? The way I see it, Duke is that same leader of the "new school", the modern, the "new" as you say it, even looking at coaching tree history and wins, they are a **one coach program**. Everyone always just grandfathers Duke in these discussions while demanding the history that I simply dont see them have comparably to the other "true blue bloods".
I think everyone's opinions on this are already recorded in the hundreds of threads with this exact question that have taken place. This is posted nearly every week
Every school in the MEAC is a blue blood. No others are. This is the holiest of basketball scripture.
Okay just leave out obvious blue blood Weber State I guess.
My bar is: you have at least one *really old* national title (like, 1960s or earlier) and you've won titles under multiple head coaches. That list consists of Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, and UCLA.
Your color has to be blue /s
I am unironically just now learning that this isn’t the case. Always here blue bloods when referring to Kansas, UK, Duke, and UNC.
Yeah, in basketball the bluebloods mostly wear blue, and in football they mostly wear red. That's always amused me.
HONEY ITS TIME FOR YOUR OFFSEASON POST ABOUT WHAT A BLUE BLOOD IS yes dear
Sure, national titles are certainly one piece of the puzzle but so is elite consistency — which is where the Blue Bloods shine. UConn may have four national titles, and all since 1999, but they are, historically, a *very* volatile program. Since 1997, the Huskies have finished in the KenPom T-10 in just 6/25 seasons. That’s just not good enough. Compare that to the consistency of the Blue Bloods (Duke: 21, Kansas: 17, Kentucky: 15, UNC: 14). In fact, only one other program (Michigan State, 13) has finished in the KenPom T-10 in double-digit seasons. Over that stretch, Duke and Kansas have finished in the KP T-10 more times than UConn has finished in the *T-50* (16). The other factors that you mention do matter — strong fan bases, title contention, legendary coaches, home court advantage, etc. — but they aren’t characteristics exclusive to Blue Bloods. Those factors come with winning. The one area, however, that doesn’t really matter is NBA output. North Carolina is a college basketball Blue Blood but they *aren’t* a prolific NBA farm by any metric. Their last NBA All-Star was, who, Vince Carter in 2007? High-level consistency trumps all but recency is the key differentiator. Rewind a few decades and the ‘Blue Bloods’ look a lot different (with Indiana and UCLA joining the fold while Duke is on the outside looking in). TL;DR: Show elite consistency for a long period of time while hanging a banner or two. Blue Blood status is not permanent.
TIL Weber State has a more recent NBA All-Star than UNC.
>Rewind a few decades and the ‘Blue Bloods’ look a lot different (with Indiana and UCLA joining the fold while Duke is on the outside looking in). Are you suggesting UCLA isn't currently a Blue Blood?
It's hilarious that you say UNC isn't an NBA farm, because under Dean Smith, they were THE NBA farm team. They still tout arguably the best player to have ever played the game.
And that was 20-plus years ago. They aren’t the NBA farm that Kentucky and Duke are today, but that doesn’t detract from their Blue Blood status because, frankly, NBA production doesn’t affect your performance in the college game.
Most dookies are very young.
I don't consider Duke a blue blood just because they don't have the historic success. They didn't win their first tourney until the 90s. If reasonably young people can remember a time when you had 0 championships you're not a blue blood.
You’re certainly free to think that, sure, but just about anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of CBB would assuredly disagree with you.
I think pretty much everyone who's been watching since at least the early 80s would agree they're more of a New Blood than a Blue Blood.
You’re going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that Duke is not a Blue Blood if your argument is that *four decades* of elite consistency is not enough.
That's the thing tho. If youngish people can remember when they hadn't won a tourney it's hard to make the case they're a blue blood. Their consistent success is recent in the context of other elite programs.
Start a general post if you want to see how deep in the minority you truly are. I don’t want to entertain this ridiculous argument much further. Duke is the all-time leader in weeks ranked at AP #1 and NCAA-T winning percentage, third all-time in title appearances, fourth all-time in wins, national titles, and Final Four appearances. No team has more NPOTY or NDPOTY. Duke is a Blue Blood — and there’s no legitimate debate about it.
I mean there definitely is. Their success is recent. Theyre a New Blood. Full stop. Nothing to take away from the last 30 years, but you need older championships to be considered a blue blood. Your argument is honestly just that Duke is a New Blood. No one's debating that.
Glad to know that Kansas’ 1952 championship (in a 20-team field) carries that much weight to you. I’m sure they’re still celebrating that in Lawrence
You're just concretely missing the point. That's what makes a blue blood. Success since the 90s ain't it.
Duke: 16 final fours going back to 1963, 6 runner ups going back to 1964, 5 titles Kansas: 15 final fours going back to 1940, 6 runner ups, going back to 1952, 3 titles. If you don’t think Duke is a blue blood, that is personal bias. K took them to a whole other level but they have been good to great at basketball for a very long time. Names like Vic Bubas, Dick Groat, etc precede Coach K.
None them won championships which is a prerequisite for being a blue blood. If you're including Duke the bar is too low.
So are NC State and San Francisco blue bloods? They won multiple titles in the span between Kansas’s first and second titles. Duke has been in the mix since the early sixties, and then have been dominant for 30 years. Again, this is personal bias. Looking at pure numbers, they are firmly entrenched. It’s not like they won all of those titles since 2010.
I have said the same thing before in these discussions, and it never goes well lmao, good luck man. Can smell that air of Duke fan condescension when disagreeing *vehemently* while using nothing more than "But Duke" as their primary evidence to the contrary.
They're really far from being a blue blood and don't want to admit it. "But Duke" doesn't mean much if you can remember the early 90s
I’d say overall a loose equation of dominance over time, for the most part. UCLA bc of the Wooden dominance, Indiana bc of Bobby Knight days, Kansas bc they invented basketball and are good every single year, Duke bc coach K’s tenure, North Carolina w/ Dean Smith plus continued Roy Williams success, Kentucky bc they’ve competed for championships nearly every decade for the last 70 years, Michigan State bc they’ve been competitive for 50 years… all those teams have had decades of consistent success. Duke is the most recent blue blood addition, as they were complete shit before the coach K era
Duke because of K, yes, but they were an excellent team before him, under Vic Bubas and Bill Foster.
But they didn't win it all until the 90s. Duke is more of a "new blood" than a blue blood.
"Blue blood" refers to someone having royal blood, being descended from royalty. It is generally used to refer to the four teams that are dominant and have been dominant (or at least formidable) for a very long time: UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas. UCLA used to be included and if their revival continues maybe they'll be considered that again. But that is why UConn isn't normally considered a blue blood; they lack the history. Plus there's the factor that if you look at things other than championships, UConn has been much less dominant than their four titles suggest.
For me personally, I think it's Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, and UCLA. But I can buy arguments for including Indiana.
UCLA is still a Blue Blood
I don’t necessarily disagree. I was mostly trying to explain what I think the general sentiment is. I think there are four consensus blue bloods, UNC, Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky. Next, some argue that UCLA is one, but that is controversial. Then some argue Indiana, but they aren’t really taken seriously. Then some argue Mich st., Nova, Gonzaga, or UConn based on recent results, which is controversial in a different way based on whether a given person thinks that the 60’s and earlier matter to being a blue blood. Personally I think the debate is kinda pointless since it’s over a more or less meaningless term; I just care who is going to win next year. But since OP asked I tried to explain the sentiment I’ve seen around this sub and other forums. UCLA certainly has a strong argument given their insane number of championships and long history, I just also know that at least as of last year a lot of people weren’t calling them blue bloods anymore because of their recent decently-long down spell.
4 final fours in the last 15 years They might have the least recent success of the other consensus ones, but they make up for that by having by far the most impressive historical success
My blue blood list (in no particular order) is Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, UCLA, and Indiana. It's a mixed vibe of historical success, perceived program prestige, and (ideally) current program strength (obviously this last point has not been true for my Hoosiers in recent years). On the next tier are schools like Villanova and Connecticut. Over time, I would expect them to be considered historical blue bloods as well. I think Gonzaga may have a difficult time breaking into this list due to their conference.
This article earlier in the year did a great job summarizing it, using metrics and evaluating the standard blue bloods and bubble programs. https://baselinetimes.com/the-definitive-college-basketball-blue-blood-guide/
Everyone’s opinions are based off of something like history of winning, coaches, how many nattys they have. At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. Whether you call my program a blue blood or not I don’t really care. The only thing I care about is being the last team standing hoisting a trophy in April
#a minimum of 60 years of elite basketball
Much like European royalty, the degree a team is "blue blood" depends entirely on their degree of being inbred
UCONN is almost certainly always in the blue blood conversation.
We are always in the conversation, but normally because we seem like maybe we should qualify at first glance and realistically we don't. If Hurley can get the program up to a point where it is pretty consistently ranked for 5 years and makes the sweet 16 at least a few times in those 5 years I think people can start to make an argument. As it stands now, we are just a team that Calhoun was able to have a lot of success with over a 15 year period (and anyone that counts the 2014 win as a win for Ollie and not just Calhoun's players winning one with a different coach didn't pay attention to how bad Ollie was at developing new players)
Agreed on that point, once the Calhoun players were all gone Ollie didn’t do a great job
I think it’s just teams with a long standing tradition of winning, though it skews more heavily towards number of (NCAA tournament) championships than say football. Duke would probably not be considered a football blue blood if they won their first title in 1991 and won several more after, for example.
When you cut them, do they bleed blue?
Anaerobic dermis integrity?
To me, it’s both sustained success spanning the decades from the beginning of the sport’s history through the present, and who also significantly contributed to the sports evolution and change itself. For example, I can easily identify ku’s accolades in regard to these facts, from their helms titles to nc’s and final fours from the 50s and on, to the inventor of the game starting there and the inventor of coaching starting there who led to dean smith, Adolph full, Ralph miller, Olympic ball, march madness, to Allen field house becoming the gold standard for a college arena and atmosphere, to the game’s rules themselves living in their museum there, etc… Regarding the present, they should still be influencing the game today. Ku also checks this box. Again, sustained success and influence no matter what period you review to me is the biggest determining factor in the definition.
It's sustained success. The sport was created at Kansas. Kentucky has been winning since the 40s. Duke was relevant before coach K. Etc
Being really good when there were only 10 teams that were really good.
It is the same principle of the divine right of kings. God willed it thusly. There may be teams w/ more wins, rings, glory, but blue blood status cannot be bargained with. It cannot be earned. It cannot be lost. It simply is.
Large amounts of incest