There isn't a blue blood out there that has a more tenuous spot in the blue blood family right now than Duke. At some point we need to ask the tough question, is Duke a true blue blood or are they just riding the coat tails of one coach's success?
Take away Coach K and what do you have at Duke?
ZERO championships
2 Final Fours
7 Elite 8s (one of those with Coach K's players)
How is that a blue blood? It's not.
Compare that to KU, UNC, KY, UCLA and UConn. All of those schools have had success with multiple coaches. You take Coach K away from Duke and they're no better than the Tennessees and Illinois of the CBB world.
If Scheyer doesn't produce anything and the next coach doesn't produce anything it's time to revoke Duke's BB status.
Duke has been a good program. They do not have the following locally that most blue blood programs have; however, they have a national following equal to many. So
Duke has been a good program since the mid-1960's. They did not win a title until the '90's but they have been super since, under one coach, but you can't take that away.
Now do we talk about
UCLA? No titles in a long, long time. 11 in a short period of time (10 under cheating John Wooden) when they were cheating out the ass with a car dealer millionaire that let the boys have girls in his homes as a recruiting tool so they could covert in while playing at
UCLA.
UConn is the hottest program this last 25 years, but prior to that NOTHING. So that is not a blue blood historically, but right now they are the program of this century. If
Duke is a blue blood with 5 titles then what is
UConn with 6?
UNC, without the NCAA ignoring fake classes they take a big hit; however,
UNC has to be considered a blue blood. They have too many wins and too much history to ignore.
KU has been a good team for decades. They have not won much, but they are in my book a blue blood because they have been good for a long, long time.
Kentucky has sucked lately. I think that my team is a blue blood but three titles in 30 years sucks. Do blue bloods do that poorly that long? In that span
UK has had Pitino, Smith, Gillispie and Cal as coaches and they came up with three titles with a bunch of talent that most teams would lust after. Cal did less with the most talent than any coach in NCAA history.
Indiana is a blue blood in my book. Why are they not included in your post? They have 5 titles. They had one of the best coaches of all time. They have tradition and a following few teams can match. I hate
Indiana down to the marrow of my bones but they are a fine basketball program. I have been to Bloomington often to watch
Indiana and it is a mecca of basketball. So let us be honest.
Indiana is a blue blood.
I am down on Kentucky right at this moment. The last 8 years we had a coach that could care less about the team that he coached. It sucks. But when it comes to who is a blue blood: then the teams I mentioned are, in my opinion,
BLUE BLOODS.
