Blue bloods...

rabbitTown

Senior
May 1, 2017
918
756
93
The recent ESPN article title (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...make-interesting-hard-believe-2018-final-four), referencing Villanova and Michigan as Blue Bloods got me thinking. What does it mean to be a college basketball Blue Blood?... what are the subjective criteria used to delimit college basketball's nobility? To me there are only three college basketball Blue Bloods... three programs that have made the most significant and time-tested impacts on the sport. UK, KU, and UNC, in order of their current all-time wins.
I put together a graph (http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=29693267689815092912) that captures some of the cumulative history of these programs over time. I won't try to interpret it here, you can each do that for yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kizzy
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
12,185
0
I can't see your graph, but I think it's obvious there are now 4 superpowers in the sport: Duke, UK, UNC, KU. Taken all markers of success and tradition into consideration, those 4 stand alone. Wins. Tournament wins. Titles. Final Fours. Recruiting. Television ratings. They are the 4 glamour programs. That list used to include Indiana and UCLA, but they've been in the barely relevant status for so long - as I said the other day, Yale won a ton of national titles in football back in the day, but at some point that's nothing more than a historical footnote. They have fallen back into the next tier with programs like Arizona, Michigan State, Louisville, Connecticut, Florida, Villanova, and some others I'm probably forgetting.

But your note about the headline at ESPN (saw a similar one on Sports Illustrated) just indicates some sloppiness on the part of journalists these days. At 30,000 feet, is there a lot of difference between say the number 13 program of all time and the number 3, when there are 351 programs and your comparing that program with someone like Loyola? Probably not. The point is one is big time and one is not. But as far as real blue bloods, there are 4.
 

rabbitTown

Senior
May 1, 2017
918
756
93
I apologize for having to use a free file upload page to make it available. If any of you have a better/safer place to post it, please feel free. Thanks.
 

SpartanState

Senior
Feb 3, 2011
11,054
663
0
Winning percentage might be a better stat to use than all time wins. Kentucky is way far ahead of the next tier of UNC & KU who are far ahead of Duke. Duke is closer in winning percentage to UNLV & UCLA than they are to KU & UNC. I think UK, UNC & KU have historically been on or near the top of college basketball most years while every other program has had long droughts of irrelevance, including Duke. Once Coach K retires I think Duke falls back to where UCLA has been since Wooden retired - irrelevant most years.
 

thepip

All-Conference
Dec 31, 2009
7,467
2,351
0
I think I heard Matt say yesterday that UL is a top five program and they are a blue-blood.
Really?
He wouldn't scew it would he?
 

wcc31

Heisman
Mar 18, 2002
26,971
88,545
98
This isn’t difficult. There are SIX blue bloods- UK, Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UCLA and Indiana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatsnRoses

Lovebaskelball

All-Conference
May 11, 2009
3,011
2,565
113
 

irishcat1965

Heisman
Apr 22, 2012
20,775
44,525
113
I think I heard Matt say yesterday that UL is a top five program and they are a blue-blood.
Really?
He wouldn't scew it would he?
What a brainless comment by Jones. UL isn’t even in the top 20 in wins, hasn’t won a NCAA title since 1986 and has only one final four since then. They also have exactly one win in the ACC tournament since they joined the conference. UL is a mediocre program.
 

Bkocats

Heisman
Jan 2, 2011
80,871
69,823
67
Winning percentage might be a better stat to use than all time wins. Kentucky is way far ahead of the next tier of UNC & KU who are far ahead of Duke. Duke is closer in winning percentage to UNLV & UCLA than they are to KU & UNC. I think UK, UNC & KU have historically been on or near the top of college basketball most years while every other program has had long droughts of irrelevance, including Duke. Once Coach K retires I think Duke falls back to where UCLA has been since Wooden retired - irrelevant most years.
Good post and one you really can’t argue

I think the term blue blood is no longer relevant tbh
Superpower teams might be more accurate
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankUnderwood

MiamiWolv

Heisman
Nov 2, 2006
12,749
22,857
113
Michigan fan here.

I think there are six bluebloods - UK, KU, UNC, UCLA, Duke and Indiana.

The second tier are Louisville, Uconn, Syracuse, Villanova, Arizona, Michigan State; maybe Georgetown. Schools with great hoops tradition where b-ball is king.

I’d put three football schools like Michigan, OSU and Florida to some extent almost in their own category in that they’ve proven you can win big there with different coaches. Texas and OU could go here but they’ve never won anything and their history isn’t quite as deep.
 

rabbitTown

Senior
May 1, 2017
918
756
93
This isn’t difficult. There are SIX blue bloods- UK, Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UCLA and Indiana.
I think there are six bluebloods - UK, KU, UNC, UCLA, Duke and Indiana.

Considering their significant gaps in significance, and that the bulk of their success can only be tied to one (maybe two) coaches... I have a hard time including UCLA, Duke, and Indiana. If there truly are six Blue Bloods, then there are certainly three that are heads and shoulders above the others.
 

Rush2112 UK

All-Conference
Dec 3, 2006
4,743
2,344
0
Michigan fan here.

I think there are six bluebloods - UK, KU, UNC, UCLA, Duke and Indiana.
.

In the last 3 decades- more than 1/3 of the NCAA tournament era- Indiana has zero titles and has been to all of 2 Final Fours. Prior to the Bob Knight era, they did win 2 NCAA titles, but were more often mediocre, recording 9 losing seasons from 1938-71, and two more .500 campaigns. In the 40 years prior to Knight's arrival, they managed to win only 4 Big 10 championships.

Indiana is, essentially, a 16 year (1972-87) run under Knight, and not much else. They're anything but a "blue blood," and have been in decline for so long it's difficult to imagine how anyone would think otherwise.

UCLA makes a somewhat better case due to the sheer volume of titles, but they were absolutely nothing prior to Wooden, and in the 43 years since he left they've won only 1 title and have, more often than not, been irrelevant on the national stage.
 

wcc31

Heisman
Mar 18, 2002
26,971
88,545
98
Considering their significant gaps in significance, and that the bulk of their success can only be tied to one (maybe two) coaches... I have a hard time including UCLA, Duke, and Indiana. If there truly are six Blue Bloods, then there are certainly three that are heads and shoulders above the others.

UCLA has more titles than anyone by a good margin.

Indiana has two coaches with multiple titles.
 

jc2010

All-Conference
May 13, 2008
4,593
4,369
62
How does it look if your subtract the Sam Gilbert years at UCLA and the AFAM years at UNC?
 

JAC71

All-American
Jun 28, 2015
5,015
9,428
113
I would go by how relevant a program has been over the 50 or 60 years. I know everyone likes to include Duke but they didn't start winning titles untill 1991 but that's my take.
 

JeepCSC_anon

Sophomore
Nov 17, 2005
178
136
0
Regular-season wins don’t really mean much to me. I think Temple scores better on that than IU, but the Owls aren’t playing in the B10. Also we have the greatest tournament in the world so we might as well use its results when doing this at any rate. Here are some candidates:

UCLA*- 18 Final Fours spread over 47 years (2008 last), 11 titles over 32 years (1995 last)
UK- 17 FFs spread over 74 years (2015), 8 titles over 64 years (2012)
UNC- 20 FFs spread over 71 years (2017), 6 titles over 60 years (2017)
Duke- 16 FFs spread over 52 years (2015), 5 titles over 24 years (2015)
Indiana- 8 FFs spread over 62 years (2002), 5 titles over 47 years (1987)
UConn- 5 FFs spread over 15 years (2014), 4 titles over 15 years (2014)
Kansas- 15 FFs spread over 78 years (2018), 3 titles over 56
years (2008)
Louisville*- 10 FFs spread over 54 years (2013), 3 titles over 33 years

*I’m going by hardwood results just because.

So some things stand out.
- UConn did a yeoman’s work in a short period of time. However they obviously lack the history that defines being a blue-blood.
- UCLA’s decade plus of dominance is UConn on steroids and HGH, but FFs in 5 decades with 5 coaches plus a title outside their window means they are a blue blood.
- Indiana has the longevity and titles of a blue blood, but the dormancy on the last FF is getting laughable.
- Duke is UCLA-lite or UConn-heavy (take your pick) with one coach doing the heavy-lifting. They are actually the only one on the list to have had only one title-winning coach, but they’ve had 3 coaches take them to the FF during a half-century stretch so there isn’t much more to say.
- Kansas inherited a fortune but is risk-averse and has less to show for it than others. You can’t beat him on lineage however, he is the bluest of blue bloods.
- Louisville is the guy whose grandfather made a fortune in oil, so he thinks he is blue blood but deep down you know there is a burlesque show or three in their family’s closet.
- UK and UNC are simply the gold standard for consistency. Rarely rattled even when the chips are down because they know they will be back and soon.

So UConn and Louisville are struck off from my blue blood list. UConn needs about 2-3 more decades of consistently contending for titles. Louisville is close to blue blood status but needs some spit and polish to get over the rough edges. Winning a title post-this would help. Duke, UK, UNC, and Kansas are in as blue bloods and living in the best mansions on the block at the moment. UCLA has the largest mansion, but renovations sure would look nice right now. Indiana still lives in their mansion, but it’s falling apart and they’ll get an eviction notice before too long if they aren’t careful.
 
Last edited:

FLAHawk

Freshman
Jul 2, 2002
25,704
67
0
KU fan here weighing in...

Duke has had success with one coach. You can’t say the same about UK, UNC and KU. When your school has won multiple championships that stretch across generations and multiple head coaches, to me that’s what defines true basketball royalty. UK, UNC and KU (in that order) are basketball royalty. Sure most people think UCLA and Indiana are Blue Bloods, and I probably agree. Probably throw Duke in there too - looking forward to the Rat finally hanging them up in the next 5-10 years.

By the way, you guys are great fans and I love reading your threads in this forum.
 

FLAHawk

Freshman
Jul 2, 2002
25,704
67
0
I think I you also have to look at a program’s imprint in the history of college basketball. No programs come close to UK, UNC and KU.
 

Rush2112 UK

All-Conference
Dec 3, 2006
4,743
2,344
0
I keep seeing support for Indiana in this thread.

How many years have to pass before their reputation matches their reality? 40? 50? 100?
smh
 

Kizzy

Senior
Dec 29, 2015
1,747
576
0
I can't see your graph, but I think it's obvious there are now 4 superpowers in the sport: Duke, UK, UNC, KU. Taken all markers of success and tradition into consideration, those 4 stand alone. Wins. Tournament wins. Titles. Final Fours. Recruiting. Television ratings. They are the 4 glamour programs. That list used to include Indiana and UCLA, but they've been in the barely relevant status for so long - as I said the other day, Yale won a ton of national titles in football back in the day, but at some point that's nothing more than a historical footnote. They have fallen back into the next tier with programs like Arizona, Michigan State, Louisville, Connecticut, Florida, Villanova, and some others I'm probably forgetting.

But your note about the headline at ESPN (saw a similar one on Sports Illustrated) just indicates some sloppiness on the part of journalists these days. At 30,000 feet, is there a lot of difference between say the number 13 program of all time and the number 3, when there are 351 programs and your comparing that program with someone like Loyola? Probably not. The point is one is big time and one is not. But as far as real blue bloods, there are 4.
You made a good post but also remember, you remove our old history and we drop to 4 relavent titles.Really 3 because 78 was 40 years ago my age.

So in the modern era we have three titles. Just saying i know what you're saying but it also applies to us.
 

lonnie boyd

Junior
Feb 20, 2005
191
312
22
KU fan here weighing in...

Duke has had success with one coach. You can’t say the same about UK, UNC and KU. When your school has won multiple championships that stretch across generations and multiple head coaches, to me that’s what defines true basketball royalty. UK, UNC and KU (in that order) are basketball royalty. Sure most people think UCLA and Indiana are Blue Bloods, and I probably agree. Probably throw Duke in there too - looking forward to the Rat finally hanging them up in the next 5-10 years.

By the way, you guys are great fans and I love reading your threads in this forum.
thanks FLAHAWK great post good luck in final 4
 

420grover

All-American
Mar 26, 2006
7,703
7,860
0
I think I heard Matt say yesterday that UL is a top five program and they are a blue-blood.
Really?
He wouldn't scew it would he?
I doubt you heard that. He has said they were 7-10 for a long time. Losing a banner didn't bump them up the list.
 

rabbitTown

Senior
May 1, 2017
918
756
93
Blue bloods are royalty... and royalty is defined by lineage... there is no greater lineage that that of KU... Naismith to Allen/Hamilton/Allen. From that lineage, sprang Rupp to UK in '30 and Smith to UNC in '66. The Royal Family (= blue bloods) are KU (starting 1898), UK (1903), and UNC (1910). There have other significant lineages that have sprang up independently (IU, UCLA, UL, UCONN, etc.), some multiple times, but they've ended... gone extinct.
Among all coaches, Rupp's performance is unprecedented (especially the rate at which he won from '47 to '67). During which we eclipsed KU and then UNC in all-time wins and won 4 championships. We are the gold-standard from Rupp on... our only deductions being the short tenures of Sutton and Gillespie.
 

12375CAT

All-Conference
Feb 15, 2012
87,743
1,270
113
Had Bear Bryant stayed @ UK then you would be the only blue blood in both football & hoops:)
 

Rush2112 UK

All-Conference
Dec 3, 2006
4,743
2,344
0
You made a good post but also remember, you remove our old history and we drop to 4 relavent titles.Really 3 because 78 was 40 years ago my age.

So in the modern era we have three titles. Just saying i know what you're saying but it also applies to us.

In the last 40 years, we're 4th in number of NCAA titles, trailing only Duke, UNCheat and UConn. Our titles are spread out- the mark of a truly great program- so that there's no era in which we're out of the top 5.
 

CATofninelives

All-Conference
Apr 1, 2004
686
1,006
0
Why? UConn has four and no one calls them a blue blood, do they? Maybe they do but I've never heard it.

It comes down to age. If you are 40 or under, some, not all will see Villanova as a blue blood and Connecticut as a has been.
 
Last edited:

Midwestfella12

Redshirt
Mar 7, 2018
149
42
0
Blue bloods goes beyond NCs. Its history, winning records, conference championships and who you recruit against.

Duke has 4 McDonalds All Americans. KU has 3. This is year in and year out. Nova UConn Mich do not normally have such success. Those are the teams that have a good 3-4 year span and then drop off for 10 years
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lmh1992