Blue blood Schools...?

[dukebluesTX]

Every year coaching vacancies get filled and fanbases hope their latest hire can return their school to the glory days of years past. What schools do you guys still consider to be blue blood powerhouses? My list would look like this:

Definitely (consistent success):
Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Kansas
Michigan State

Not any longer / no consistent future success in sight:
Indiana
UCLA
Florida
Uconn
Louisville
Georgetown

Wannabes/possible future powerhouses:
Villanova
Ohio State
Michigan
Texas
Arizona
Virginia

 

[pisgah101]

Blue bloods-
Duke
Kentucky
UNC
Kansas
Indiana

 

[BNM79]

Should the zags make the first or last list? Or not looking mid major

 

[dukebluesTX]

Should the zags make the first or last list? Or not looking mid major

Good point. They may belong on the list. Maybe the last list.

 

[christophero]

I'd argue that Gonzaga, Villanova and Arizona are blue bloods. Yes I know AZ had a bad year. Maybe Gonzaga is recent but they've built a program that isn't going away.

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

Blue bloods-
Duke
Kentucky
UNC
Kansas
Indiana

This, but IU is close to having its membership revoked.

 

[SwatX1]

I think first you have to define what is a blue blood. To me, it's a schools with a very long history of success. I would probably measure by final four appearances. By that criteria, I would only list
Duke, unc, ucla, Kansas, and ky.

The fewest appearances by any of those schools is 14 by Kansas. Ohio state is next with 10, mich state has 9, Indiana and Louisville 8, Gomzaga only has 1. I guess with Indiana's 5 titles, it's still hard to keep them off, but it seems like they haven't been relevant for a long time...

It's an interesting question. I googled and looked at several sites and never really found a definitive list.

 

[christophero]

True Gonzaga doesn't have the history. But the last 15 years, I mean they're good EVERY year. So maybe a recent blue blood. But they probably need more time. I really wish they won last year.

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

I'd argue that Gonzaga, Villanova and Arizona are blue bloods. Yes I know AZ had a bad year. Maybe Gonzaga is recent but they've built a program that isn't going away.

Gonzaga hasn’t gotten the championship yet, so I’d argue they shouldn’t be considered. Arizona has had some great teams but only one championship 20 years ago and they’re about to be dismantled. Villanova needs sustained success and a couple more championships over an extended period of time.

 

[SwatX1]

Gonzaga hasn’t gotten the championship yet, so I’d argue they shouldn’t be considered. Arizona has had some great teams but only one championship 20 years ago and they’re about to be dismantled. Villanova needs sustained success and a couple more championships over an extended period of time.

I agree. To me, it should be difficult to make the list. It should take a lot of accomplished and sustained success, or else why even have a list?

 

[SwatX1]

If gonzaga should be there with no championships and one final four, then should San Francisco be there? They win back to back titles.....so did Cincy and Florida

 

[christophero]

Ok I see your point.

 

[SwatX1]

It really is a question that you won't get a room full of people to agree to, but it is interesting to talk about!! One thing is for sure, no way we are left off!!

 

[christophero]

I'm sure UCLA fans think they're at the top of the list. But they've fell off recently.

 

[DiehardDukeFan4Life]

IMO a blue blood is a school that has a long history of success and is still maintaining that success. Teams that have multiple NCAA championships, multiple championship game appearances (even when they didn’t win), multiple Final Fours, multiple conference tournament championships and consistently win lots of games season after season.

 

[SwatX1]

IMO a blue blood is a school that has a long history of success and is still maintaining that success. Teams that have multiple NCAA championships, multiple championship game appearances (even when they didn’t win), multiple Final Fours, multiple conference tournament championships and consistently win lots of games season after season.

You're not getting off that easy.....post your list!!!

 

[DiehardDukeFan4Life]

You're not getting off that easy.....post your list!!!

I knew someone was going ask me what my list would be lol

My list would be
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Kentucky

Because those are the teams that have consistently done the things and still consistently continued to do that I listed in my first post

 

[SwatX1]

I knew someone was going ask me what my list would be lol

My list would be
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Kentucky

Because those are the teams that have consistently done the things and still consistently continued to do that I listed in my first post

I agree. I think I have to add UCLA because of all the titles, but they haven't been significant for a while.....I really wouldn't have much argument with anyone leaving them off

 

[tripleb71]

Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Kansas

UCLA has been served an eviction notice.

 

[RanDEVILman]

I believe at least some of it should depend on the schools ability to succeed as a program beyond just a good run. If you look at it that way, and it pains me to say this, but UK and UNC are top dogs. They have had serious success with at least 3 different coaches. There it's more about the school than the coach. (Rupp, Pitino, Smith, Cal) and (Smith, Roy, Guyhridge, McGuire). After that Kansas has the next most success not dependant on one guy (Phog, Self, Roy, Brown). Finally, Duke, IU and UCLa belong. But for all 3 the success of the one legendary coach far outweighs the accomplishments of the rest of the program (K, Wooden, Knight). I know some old timers will jump at this and tell me about how Duke was good under Groat and Bubas and I get that. But neither guy had near the success of K. Same for Howland at UCLA and everyone else at IU.

 

[Dattier]

It's a subjective designation, so I am a bit resistance to objective criteria.

Part of my definition is that you're practically immune to dips. It's therefore harder to become a blue-blood than it is to lose that status. Once you're in, you're in, barring some extreme. So asking, "Is UConn in?" is a debate-worthy question, but asking, "Is UCLA still in?" is almost as good as saying they are.

Blue bloods: Duke, KU, IU, UCLA, UK, UNC

Singularly most debatable: Luhvuhl

Maybs: UConn, MSU

You thought about it, but stop it: Zona, G'town, N'western, Marquette, Central Florida

 

[DukeRulesBasketball]

Duke, Kansas, UNC, KY

These are the blue bloods IMO. Only schools with 2,000+ wins, and multiple National Championships.

 

[selector77]

Every year coaching vacancies get filled and fanbases hope their latest hire can return their school to the glory days of years past. What schools do you guys still consider to be blue blood powerhouses? My list would look like this:

Definitely (consistent success):
Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Kansas
Michigan State

Not any longer / no consistent future success in sight:
Indiana
UCLA
Florida
Uconn
Louisville
Georgetown

Wannabes/possible future powerhouses:
Villanova
Ohio State
Michigan
Texas
Arizona
Virginia

I would argue the UCLA and Georgetown have long been out of the running. Over the last 40 years each school has won only one National Championship. I personallly believe that Georgetown never was part of the upper echelon and has settled for mediocrity since the 90's and I don't believe that's going to change with their current coach.

 

[pisgah101]

IMO a blue blood is a school that has a long history of success and is still maintaining that success. Teams that have multiple NCAA championships, multiple championship game appearances (even when they didn’t win), multiple Final Fours, multiple conference tournament championships and consistently win lots of games season after season.

Yeah some people don't seem to know what blue blood means lol

 

[HeLooks2MuchLikeDave]

It's a subjective designation, so I am a bit resistance to objective criteria.

Part of my definition is that you're practically immune to dips. It's therefore harder to become a blue-blood than it is to lose that status. Once you're in, you're in, barring some extreme. So asking, "Is UConn in?" is a debate-worthy question, but asking, "Is UCLA still in?" is almost as good as saying they are.

Blue bloods: Duke, KU, IU, UCLA, UK, UNC

Singularly most debatable: Luhvuhl

Maybs: UConn, MSU

You thought about it, but stop it: Zona, G'town, N'western, Marquette, Central Florida

UCF is only a blue blood in football. National Champs!

 

[nets on nets on nets]

Indiana is NOT a blue-blood, haven't been for 20 years....

Duke
UNC
UK
Kansas

UCONN and UCLA are closer to getting that fifth spot than IU is.

 

[JayhawkinGeorgia]

Another way to look at it is to compile a "resume" for each school that you think might be a "blue-blood." I think you'll see that the cream of the crop just overwhelm all the wannabes when you look at their qualifications in resume form.

 

[PixelDevil]

Florida is new money

 

[dukedevilz]

1 seeds:
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas

2 seeds:
UCLA
UConn
Indiana
Louisville

3 seeds:
Michigan State
Villanova
Syracuse
Arizona

4 seeds:
Michigan
Georgetown
Florida
Ohio State

 

[DiehardDukeFan4Life]

I agree. I think I have to add UCLA because of all the titles, but they haven't been significant for a while.....I really wouldn't have much argument with anyone leaving them off

The reason I left UCLA off was because even though they have 11 NCAA titles, they only won one of those NCAA titles after 1975 and they’ve only been to the Final Four 6 times after 1975 with the last time being in 2008 and they’ve only won their conference tournament 4 times.

 

[Dattier]

1 seeds:
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Kansas

2 seeds:
UCLA
UConn
Indiana
Louisville

3 seeds:
Michigan State
Villanova
Syracuse
Arizona

4 seeds:
Michigan
Georgetown
Florida
Ohio State

Oooh, I like that approach. I'm w/ you through the 3-seeds w/ the possible exception of Nova, and there are more viable candidates once you get to 4.

 

[HeLooks2MuchLikeDave]

Not sure why Florida is even in this conversation. Might as well name San Francisco and Oklahoma A&M since they are also back-to-back champions. No appearances in the tourney before '87 and one Sweet 16 before '94.Pffff

 

[Dattier]

Not sure why Florida is even in this conversation. Might as well name San Francisco and Oklahoma A&M since they are also back-to-back champions. No appearances in the tourney before '87 and one Sweet 16 before '94.Pffff

That's a fair point. "Blue blood" implies something eternal and constant, so we shouldn't be too enamored with recency if it really has been only a short time period.

I think Duke was the 6th member in this club and faced some resistance until our 3rd title, the knock being (erroneously) that It was all recent w/ no success to speak of before K. 34 NCAAT appearances and 5 titles in 35 years going all the way back to '84 constitutes as big a chunk of "all-time" as anybody else, practically, even if it is the most recent chunk.

How about UConn then? They're obviously further along than Florida and have sustained greatness over a much longer period of time, but is reluctance to accept them largely b/c they had no FFs before '99? Does Ollie's demise keep them from making the final leap?