Which teams do you consider to be Blue Bloods?
- Thread starter OPButtrey
- Start date
Yes. Three consecutive Final Fours (including a championship game) as recently as 2005-2008. People are naive if they think UCLA isn't on the list.
When I think of the term "blue blood," I think of the schools that a recruit would consider purely because of their name. These schools, IMO, would include KU, UK, UNC, Duke, IU, and UCLA. I would say that Louisville, Michigan State, and Michigan are the top of the next tier.
Louisville has 3 national championships, 10 Final fours, 39 NCAA tournaments, and has 1700 wins. If Louisville isn't a Blue Blood than neither is Duke. After Louisville, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, Indiana, Duke, North Carolina you would have Arizona, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse, UCONN.
I agree with most people so far. I do think Georgetown has a good shot at being in the "next group in." I feel like they can straight up dominate the new Big East with Marquette (as long as they keep Buzz).
actually, the fact that most of the top happen to have "blue" of some kind as a school color is coincidence. Blue blood indicates royal or aristocratic blood - the highest social class.
I would put Syracuse halfway in the top category. They have had 34 twenty win seasons under Boeheim. 29 NCAA's, 5 final fours, 1 NC, 10 Big East titles, and has over 1800 wins as a program. I would almost go ahead and say they have become a blue blood program.
According to Gopher fans, they think they're the best school in the running for Vaughn because of how good of a history they have. I'd definitely put Minnesota ahead of Duke, Kentucky, and all the other schools because their fans clearly aren't idiots.
I hope everyone knows that I'm being sarcastic here. Michigan State, Louisville, and maybe even Florida can be added to that list. Florida has two championships in the past ten years, 4 Final 4 appearances since '94, and has won 5 SEC regular season championships. So here's my list:
Blue Bloods: Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan State, Florida, Louisville
Second Tier: UCLA (used to be but haven't done much recently), Syracuse, Georgetown, Ohio State
Third Tier: Iowa, Prarie View A&M, Grambling, UNI, and Minnesota
I hope everyone knows that I'm being sarcastic here. Michigan State, Louisville, and maybe even Florida can be added to that list. Florida has two championships in the past ten years, 4 Final 4 appearances since '94, and has won 5 SEC regular season championships. So here's my list:
Blue Bloods: Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan State, Florida, Louisville
Second Tier: UCLA (used to be but haven't done much recently), Syracuse, Georgetown, Ohio State
Third Tier: Iowa, Prarie View A&M, Grambling, UNI, and Minnesota
I'd throw in Louisville as well -- multiple Final Fours under two HOF coaches and at least two(?) Nat'l Championships; add in Syracuse, and possibly Michigan State.
Last edited:
Florida is not a blue blood. They are a school who has had a nice run under a single coach, and are a top current program, but they are not a blue blood. They are not in the top 50 in total wins. Their 4 final fours ties them for 18th. They are tied for 9th in total NCAA Championships. They don't have any alums that have made a significant contribution to the game (ie Hall of Fame members) that I can find. Kentucky, Tennesse, LSU and Alabama have all won more conference championships. Iowa State has won as many conference championships as UF.
I think to be a "Blue Blood" requires a few criteria:
1. Success - ie total wins + conference championships + tournament success (final fours and titles).
2. Longevity - Have you been consistently at the top over multiple decades and with multiple coaches.
3. Contribution to the Game - Have you done things or produced people who have played a significant role in making the game of basketball what it is today (ie KU with Naismith inventing the game and Allen starting the NCAA and Olympic basketball tournament, Wooden's Dynasty, UK playing against Tex Western). Basically, in what way has your school left it's fingerprint on the game?).
Looking at those things have traditionally seen KU, UNC, UK, UCLA, Duke, and IU but I think with this past years win Louisville matches up as well.
I think to be a "Blue Blood" requires a few criteria:
1. Success - ie total wins + conference championships + tournament success (final fours and titles).
2. Longevity - Have you been consistently at the top over multiple decades and with multiple coaches.
3. Contribution to the Game - Have you done things or produced people who have played a significant role in making the game of basketball what it is today (ie KU with Naismith inventing the game and Allen starting the NCAA and Olympic basketball tournament, Wooden's Dynasty, UK playing against Tex Western). Basically, in what way has your school left it's fingerprint on the game?).
Looking at those things have traditionally seen KU, UNC, UK, UCLA, Duke, and IU but I think with this past years win Louisville matches up as well.
traditional blue bloods:
KU
Kentucky
Indiana
UCLA
UNC
Contemporary Blue Bloods:
Mich St
KU
Louisville
Kentucky
Duke
UNC
I don't know about all this blue blood stuff, but I definitely consider the Jayhawks to be browneyes.
They only have one tournament championship apiece. They are solid programs and Boheim is up there with Coach K and Knight and Wooden, but they do not have the status and history of schools like UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, Kansas, and Kentucky.
I like that. The ones in both are really top notch. I guess I don't know enough about Duke -- why aren't they also traditional?
