UConn is a six game win streak away from being tied with IU and Duke in championships.
It blows my mind how KU only has 3. With all the tradition, home court, coaching tree...etc. But I guess none of that matters come March.
Blue blood qualifications
- Thread starter JayhawkinGeorgia
- Start date
It blows my mind how KU only has 3. With all the tradition, home court, coaching tree...etc. But I guess none of that matters come March.
It would help your cause but you'd still be the program that everybody would focus on as the one who is the least qualified. Indiana is pretty far behind the rest in most major categories. Really, the 5 titles is the only thing keeping them in right now.
If KU wanted that blue blood status they shouldn’t have lost to IU in two title games. KU is the only blue blood candidate with a losing record in title games.
There are always anomaly's. KU's 3 titles with all their FF's and runner up's is one. Similar to the B1G not having any titles since 2000, despite 7 title game appearances.
It's the six normal ones with UConn, Louisvillle, and Villanova just outside. Though UConn has fallen off a cliff and Louisville will as well for the next 2 years at least.
If you want to separate the 6 bluebloods into tiers you'd have UK and UNC tier 1: a lot of championships over multiple decades with multiple coaches and are still at the top of the sport.
Tier 2 are the other four as they each have a flaw: Duke has only one coach win championships; UCLA and Indiana have much less consistent success, especially recently; Kansas has too few championships for their success in every other category.
If you want to separate the 6 bluebloods into tiers you'd have UK and UNC tier 1: a lot of championships over multiple decades with multiple coaches and are still at the top of the sport.
Tier 2 are the other four as they each have a flaw: Duke has only one coach win championships; UCLA and Indiana have much less consistent success, especially recently; Kansas has too few championships for their success in every other category.
That was the point of my post. Five titles prior to the internet doesn't mean much to a lot of fans, but you package them up with another one relatively soon and all of a sudden the perception changes dramatically.
You wouldn't put Mich St over UL? Tied at 2 titles a piece with ~ the same all time wins.
The officiating crew in the 1953 title game was made up of 2 Missouri grads and 2 other representatives from the Big 10. You can watch the game and clearly see uncalled fouls committed by Don Schlundt on B.H. Born at the 13:22, 10:11, 6:47 and 1:22 marks of the 1st half and then at the 19:22, 9:45 and 2:29 marks of the 2nd half. B.H. Born should've scored 40 points in that game but the officials held him to 26. This all resulted in a 1 point loss which clearly gave the Missouri grads what they wanted and gave the Big 10 officials more prestige for their home areas, resulting in better pay. You can look it up!If KU wanted that blue blood status they shouldn’t have lost to IU in two title games. KU is the only blue blood candidate with a losing record in title games.
This is a game I've reversed in my own record books but I realize that doesn't count to the rest of you.
I'm fine with that. I think them not winning a title in the last 20+ years hurts, but they went to three final fours in a row 10 years ago. Their history is far more than just one coach, even if 90% of their titles are from one.
I guess yeah with the vacated title they're even now. I just feel like MSU and the Big Ten have been overrated for like a decade, they just end up getting blitzed in the final four. So make the next in line order UConn, Nova, MSU, then Louisville.
Multiple championships but not knocking on the door: Florida, NC State, Cincinnati, Oklahoma St, San Francisco. Everyone else is 1 championship or less and not in the discussion.
Indiana being more efficient in title games doesn't make up for decades of mediocrity. KU's poor record in championship games is literally the only knock on the program. Everything else makes up for being a few behind in that dept.
Indiana is 20th in win %. They're behind Illinois, for God's sake. UCLA is 5th, by the way. With more total wins than Indiana despite giving them a 19-year head start. Laughing
But, look, DaBull...we'll allow you to stay in the club for now. But any more losing seasons or NIT appearances and you're out, okay?
Indiana is 20th in win %. They're behind Illinois, for God's sake. UCLA is 5th, by the way. With more total wins than Indiana despite giving them a 19-year head start. Laughing
But, look, DaBull...we'll allow you to stay in the club for now. But any more losing seasons or NIT appearances and you're out, okay?
Frankly with the rampant cheating going on at UofL the past 10 years they are completely out of the running. Not to mention it putting Pitinos time at UK under question, along with UKs long history of paying players, having SAT tests taken for players, the obvious paying of Anthony Davis, puts their status in question. UNCs obvious rampant cheating of fake classes their past two titles are severally questionable, UCLAs obvious cheating in the 60s and 70s. When combined with KU’s resume in titles clearly lacking there are only two true blue blood to be considered, Indiana and San Francisco.
I’m sorry but up until 10 years ago when you go 67 years with only two titles and are tied with schools like San Francisco and UofL your voice from the back of the room is too faint to hear.
He's saying Louisville, Kentucky and North Carolina's stats are dirty while lol at KU.
I wouldn't because UofL has more all time wins.
1,825 wins 915 losses .666 %
MSU
1,689 wins 1,081 losses .610 %
I would add being top 10 or top 15 in all time wins would be an additional qualifier...
MSU is 28th and UofL is 10th
I'm pretty sure 1825 is what UL had before the vacated losses. They vacated 123 wins.
Current top 10 in all time wins.
Last edited:
I forgot doh, but it still puts them over MSU....
10 years ago, Duke had 3 and UNC 4. Did they just join the club?
In all seriousness, Indiana doesn't deserve blue blood status at this point. You talk about UCLA's concentrated success, yet all of your success came from two coaches. Sucked before, sucked since. Even UCLA has titles under two different coaches.
I mean, as good as Indiana was from the 40s-80s, how bad did they have to be outside of that period to be sitting at 20th in win %? UCLA spotted you a 19-year head start and they're still ahead. Yet you wanna exclude them and their 11 titles. Funny stuff, dude.SmokinSmile
If my math is correct only 13 wins separate them, and MSU had titles before and after (2 coaches) UL's short run in the 80's (1 coach).
That’s what happens when you play in a major conference. That’s another knock against KU and UofL.
Conference competitiveness. The Big10 has 8 or 9 schools that have been to multiple FF's and five of them have been to at least 5. Then Wiscy has been to 4. Makes a difference over the course of 80-100 years.
There are 5-6 B1G programs that would have significantly better all time numbers had they played in the SEC, B6/7/8/12 or PAC for all those years. Saw a stat a couple years ago that showed UK having an all time conference winning percentage of 82 - and had winning % vs B1G opponents of 58. Still really good but factor that in over 8-10 decades and how many wins do they lose?
This may be valid to an extent, but if that were the only issue, you'd see a lot more tourney wins over the past 30 years.
The Big 10 only has about 10 more final fours than the Big 12 all-time and the Big 12 is notoriously lacking in that dept. The league is solid historically but has plenty of weaklings to help boost your win %.
Dude...Illinois has a higher win % than Indiana and they define mediocrity.
The multiple coaches with titles thing being a flaw in Duke's resume is laughable. Vic Bubas and Bill Foster were terrific coaches; Duke was a top 10-12 program even before K came around.
So Duke was like, what, Illinois or Utah or LSU? Good enough to make a handful of final fours and be among the best every once in a while, but never win it? Duke has a more flawed resume than UCLA and UCLA's isn't as complete as UNC or UK. There were tournaments for more than 50 years before Duke won one, no other blue blood has a gap like that.
Hadn't heard this conspiracy theory. True or not (no reason not to believe it), a lot can go wrong in a one game, high stakes scenario.
I mean, would a couple more free throw conversions by Nick Collison, or Wilt sinking his final shot equate to KU being a better coached, more talent-rich program over the last 120 years? Apparently.
Cool lets keep talking about college basketball during the Vietnam War.
Championships define greatness, not tradition or having multiple coaches.
Lots of KU and UK fans are just salty that UCLA has more titles than them tbh.
I think that ranking near the top in all major categories (like both Duke and UCLA) outweighs a lack of longevity or a few gaps.
So we shouldn't talk about Vietnam War era championships, yet you bring up UCLA who won all but one of their championships in that era?
My reasoning was pretty plain and not really arguable. UNC and UK are the most complete blue bloods, while the other four have things you can nitpick at. Doesn't mean they aren't blue bloods
I'm not saying it doesn't, just that UNC and UK don't really have any resume issues. If you want to decide which factors to weigh when comparing Duke and UCLA and Kansas, then its up to you. Indiana needs to get their game back together on the other hand, they are 10th in wins (behind the other 5 bluebloods who are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8) and 9th in final fours (the other 5 are easily in a class of their own at the top there).
Couple plays away from 2-3 more titles.
Indiana ain't quite a couple plays away from top 3 win%, 15 final fours, or top 4 in tourney wins.
Indiana = Oakland Raiders
disagree
no KU fan, but i would consider them the grandpa of bluebloods
some schools have passed them in a lot of categories but we can't deny what KU has meant to CBB since the beginning
i put both IU and UCLA in the blue blood fraternity because of the contributions they made to make CBB what it is today
Nova is not knocking on the door, they had a good 2/3 year run, so did Florida
i would put Uconn or UL (before whoregate and buying players) in over Nova
I agree, I really don't see how anyone could ever even start talking about nova being in the 2nd tier. It goes to show how shortsighted everyone is and only looks at today, and forgets about yesterday.
Meh...They are 6th in NCAAT appearmces. 7th in FF's....11th in All time wins. Top 10 in NCAA wins. And this while sucking ass since 1993. The 5 titles IS the major straw. But not the only straw. IU's a 2-3 year run away from being right back in the mix.
