Honestly, I feel like a blue blood is determined by how many bandwagon fans you have/fans that crawl out of the woodwork when you are good.
This Team...
- Thread starter CloniesForLife
- Start date
Honestly, I feel like a blue blood is determined by how many bandwagon fans you have/fans that crawl out of the woodwork when you are good.
Which is why UConn is considered a blue blood despite being more of a nouveau riche program compared to a Kentucky or Kansas.
Had they fallen off a cliff after Calhoun left, they may not be, but they’ve sustained it. Even Kevin Ollie won a natty.
Duke doesn’t seem to have skipped a beat when K left.
I still think they're not quite there because of how hard they've often dropped off between those championship years. They have the titles but not the mid-level track record (elite 8s, etc)
We expected Tamin to be the best guard, he's been great but Keshon was the clear best early on and now CuJo is just elite.
3 big transfers who mesh extremely well.
Bringing back Diante is going to pay huge in the recruiting sphere.
Really hope we can keep Conrad around as an S&C coach but will respect if he chases his dream military career.
Otz is proving what we thought he was way back when he was "just" a recruiter. Self put it perfectly about bringing in the right pieces.
3 big transfers who mesh extremely well.
Bringing back Diante is going to pay huge in the recruiting sphere.
Really hope we can keep Conrad around as an S&C coach but will respect if he chases his dream military career.
Otz is proving what we thought he was way back when he was "just" a recruiter. Self put it perfectly about bringing in the right pieces.
If you're never allowed to fall off for a year or two then the list of Blue Bloods is basically Kansas and Duke.
A year or two is one thing but I think this (from a couple years ago) speaks for itself
The only true blue bloods, imo, are unc, duke, Kansas, and Kentucky and there's a wide gap below
fascinating to see that graphic. Why not include UCLA?
How far back are we going? That chart looks like it counts our final 4 appearance from 1944. To me a blue bloods has been consistently good for the last 20-30 years. Multiple championships in that time span and win their conference about 50% of the time, or more.
I almost did. They're close. But their last title being 30 years ago (and their only title in the 64 team era) makes me question it.
I can accept that ... I just disagree. Either way, the building a BB program is decades away.
The minute they hire a coach that gets them back on track...like top ten track (if that is possible out there anymore)...the media will speak of UCLA like Wooden is still in charge out west!
Yeah, you can certainly make arguments either way. Their F4 appearances, for example, make a great argument for it. Only having one title in the last 50 years though doesn't scream blue blood to me.
