ADVERTISEMENT

Lets settle this blue blood debate and honor the new bloods

T

ThePhog08

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2008
5,703
1,917
113
Definition of blue blood

A school rooted in the establishing the history and tradition of college basketball.

Multiple winning decades, including titles, conference titles, finals fours in multiple decades

The official Blue bloods

Kansas, UK, Duke, UCLA, UNC

Maybe - Indiana, they have been nothing for almost 20 years.

New Bloods

Can't be blue bloods but we can consider them new money. New bloods

Villanova
Uconn
Michigan State
Louisville
Florida
 
Indiana hasn't won a title in almost 40 years. Don't think they can be linked to the other five. I also agree you can't add to the "blue blood" list. Programs that have come up since the modern era are in a different category.
 
Right now, I’m glad UK being a blueblood is still widely accepted . . . but if something doesn’t change in terms of results I fear UK’s stagnation may be sliding towards irrelevance. I LOVE the term “newblood”. In fact, I think it may be more important to be one (on the rise) than a blueblood, although this FF would be exhibit A as to why that’s probably faulty thinking.
 
Random UK Fan said:
Right now, I’m glad UK being a blueblood is still widely accepted . . . but if something doesn’t change in terms of results I fear UK’s stagnation may be sliding towards irrelevance. I LOVE the term “newblood”. In fact, I think it may be more important to be one (on the rise) than a blueblood, although this FF would be exhibit A as to why that’s probably faulty thinking.
Click to expand...
Cal has 4 final fours, multiple conference and conference tourney titles, a Champions and UK has 8 titles . They will never not be a blue blood

UCLA, UK, KU and UNC are locks for life.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Jperry1987, Mrs.Jeans15, TheBlueCat and 2 others
UK
UCLA
UNC
Duke
KU

That order for the blue bloods

Villanova, Louisville, Indiana, UConn in some other after that. All 4 have various claims to being a blue blood.
 
RR30 said:
UK
UCLA
UNC
Duke
KU

That order for the blue bloods

Villanova, Louisville, Indiana, UConn in some other after that. All 4 have various claims to being a blue blood.
Click to expand...
The only thing holding KU back is Titles

Most wins all time
Most conference titles and conference tourney titles
4 in Final Fours
Naismith first coach
Rupp and Dean Smith played here.
 
ThePhog08 said:
The only thing holding KU back is Titles

Most wins all time
Most conference titles and conference tourney titles
4 in Final Fours
Naismith first coach
Rupp and Dean Smith played here.
Click to expand...

Yup. 2 less titles than Duke. 3 less than UNC. 5 less than UK. 8 less than UCLA. IU has more. I think UConn does too.
 
My thoughts on this.

The bluest of the blue- UK/Duke/UNC/KU

They’re the 4 teams who have continued to win throughout the history of college basketball from the beginning to the present. They are the 4 most consistent programs in the modern era. You can make the argument against KU because of overall NC wins but their history is so intertwined with college basketball, still have 3 NCs, and incredible year to year consistency. Duke you could argue against as well because all their titles have come in the modern era but they had solid success before Coach K and been the best program in the modern era. Hell UNC didn’t win their 2nd title until 1982. UK is UK best win % overall and 2nd most titles.

Traditional Blue Bloods- UCLA and Indiana

Their incredible # of wins and # of titles before Modern Era. The reason they aren’t quite in the “bluest of blue” to me is because 95% of UCLA’s success spans over a 15 year period instead of 70-80 years like the other programs. For Indiana the reason is they haven’t had anywhere close to that level of success of the others except for a year here or there for 35 years now.

New Bloods- Villanova, UCONN, Michigan State

I like this term for this group. They are the programs who have really made a stamp in the modern era and have had great success. I would consider Louisville and Florida for this group as well but not sure they’ve had the same stamp on college basketball during the modern era as those 3 programs.
 
Also Indiana was kicked when they won only 6 games in 2009. I doubt any other blue blood has a season since 1915 with single digit wins.
 
IUBtown said:
Only 3 titles for Kansas always gives me a pause. To me they need to win this years to stay in it.
Click to expand...

I get the argument against KU because of the NC #s but KU’s history is so interwoven with college basketball and the histories of UK and UNC that it’s hard to remove them from the list unless they spend a decade or so in the shitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdbearde
Big_C_KU said:
My thoughts on this.

The bluest of the blue- UK/Duke/UNC/KU

They’re the 4 teams who have continued to win throughout the history of college basketball from the beginning to the present. They are the 4 most consistent programs in the modern era. You can make the argument against KU because of overall NC wins but their history is so intertwined with college basketball, still have 3 NCs, and incredible year to year consistency. Duke you could argue against as well because all their titles have come in the modern era but they had solid success before Coach K and been the best program in the modern era. Hell UNC didn’t win their 2nd title until 1982. UK is UK best win % overall and 2nd most titles.

Traditional Blue Bloods- UCLA and Indiana

Their incredible # of wins and # of titles before Modern Era. The reason they aren’t quite in the “bluest of blue” to me is because 95% of UCLA’s success spans over a 15 year period instead of 70-80 years like the other programs. For Indiana the reason is they haven’t had anywhere close to that level of success of the others except for a year here or there for 35 years now.

New Bloods- Villanova, UCONN, Michigan State

I like this term for this group. They are the programs who have really made a stamp in the modern era and have had great success. I would consider Louisville and Florida for this group as well but not sure they’ve had the same stamp on college basketball during the modern era as those 3 programs.
Click to expand...
Not sold on MSU as a New Blood and questioning Uconn as well due to what I think the next 10 years will be for them.
 
Big_C_KU said:
My thoughts on this.

The bluest of the blue- UK/Duke/UNC/KU

They’re the 4 teams who have continued to win throughout the history of college basketball from the beginning to the present. They are the 4 most consistent programs in the modern era. You can make the argument against KU because of overall NC wins but their history is so intertwined with college basketball, still have 3 NCs, and incredible year to year consistency. Duke you could argue against as well because all their titles have come in the modern era but they had solid success before Coach K and been the best program in the modern era. Hell UNC didn’t win their 2nd title until 1982. UK is UK best win % overall and 2nd most titles.

Traditional Blue Bloods- UCLA and Indiana

Their incredible # of wins and # of titles before Modern Era. The reason they aren’t quite in the “bluest of blue” to me is because 95% of UCLA’s success spans over a 15 year period instead of 70-80 years like the other programs. For Indiana the reason is they haven’t had anywhere close to that level of success of the others except for a year here or there for 35 years now.

New Bloods- Villanova, UCONN, Michigan State

I like this term for this group. They are the programs who have really made a stamp in the modern era and have had great success. I would consider Louisville and Florida for this group as well but not sure they’ve had the same stamp on college basketball during the modern era as those 3 programs.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with what you're saying, but I don't think you can knock UCLA for being one coach centric while keeping Duke there. UCLA has titles in 3 different decades as well and have been in a FF in 6 different decades. They have similar/better success than Duke without Wooden versus K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_C_KU
IMO, you need a minimum of 5 NCs to be a blue blood.

So IMO, KU doesn't qualify. But if they did get to 5, they would be right towards the top of the heap

You just can't be a blue blood with 3 NCs. There are alot of programs with 3 NCs
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HawksJ
Big_C_KU said:
I get the argument against KU because of the NC #s but KU’s history is so interwoven with college basketball and the histories of UK and UNC that it’s hard to remove them from the list unless they spend a decade or so in the shitter.
Click to expand...


Agreed, but the main point of being a blue blue is NCs
 
Indiana with 9 tournament wins in 20 years in inexcusable no matter who the coach is.
They've missed the tournament more than they've made it during that span. No blue blood would ever do that.
20th all time in winning percentage.
 
hawkit3113 said:
IMO, you need a minimum of 5 NCs to be a blue blood.

So IMO, KU doesn't qualify. But if they did get to 5, they would be right towards the top of the heap

You just can't be a blue blood with 3 NCs. There are alot of programs with 3 NCs
Click to expand...
They're a step in front of MSU and San Francisco. This game with Nova is essentially a blue blood play in game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR30 and hawkit3113
JVDBeak'em said:
Indiana with 9 tournament wins in 20 years in inexcusable no matter who the coach is.
They've missed the tournament more than they've made it during that span. No blue blood would ever do that.
20th all time in winning percentage.
Click to expand...


It's much harder winning in the Big 10 historically than the Big 8. So winning % to me is not a huge metric
 
JVDBeak'em said:
Indiana with 9 tournament wins in 20 years in inexcusable no matter who the coach is.
They've missed the tournament more than they've made it during that span. No blue blood would ever do that.
20th all time in winning percentage.
Click to expand...
Winning % will do that when you don't play in a mid major conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkit3113
IUBtown said:
They're a step in front of MSU and San Francisco. This game with Nova is essentially a blue blood play in game.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The only thing that impresses me about them and all the metrics is their Final Four appearances. Which is impressive
 
IUBtown said:
Their finals winning % is another metric that pushes them away. Blue bloods win when it matters.
Click to expand...


Correct. Also, much like Nebraska in football, I am not impressed with them kicking the shit of out little schools of the Plains.
 
Also, I think a criteria for being a blue blood is that you play in a historical arena.

So I don't see anyone being added anytime soon.
 
ExitFlagger said:
You losers are so pathetic. 🤣

Which impressive feat is next for the Big 10? Becoming the first league to lose 10 teams in the first weekend?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see your argument that the B1G isn't the historically deepest league. Everyone who knows basketball knows this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkit3113
IUBtown said:
I'd like to see your argument that the B1G isn't the historically deepest league. Everyone who knows basketball knows this.
Click to expand...


He is just the little dick dude amongst the KU posters.

The rest of them are solid.
 
IUBtown said:
I'd like to see your argument that the B1G isn't the historically deepest league. Everyone who knows basketball knows this.
Click to expand...
It's kinda similar to your claims that the B1G was sooooo deep this year. What did that do for you?

Worked by St Peter's, St Mary's, Richmond, and a few more double digit seeds. Illinois needed help from the refs to escape Chattanooga. Which is the midmajor conference again? 🤣
 
IUBtown said:
Still think it's UK. In reality those two are the only true blue bloods. Everyone else has faults.
Click to expand...
I like how you needle dicks always think that your opinions weigh more than all basketball historians and analysts. Congrats on achieving AuHoosier level of idiocy. 🤣
 
ExitFlagger said:
It's kinda similar to your claims that the B1G was sooooo deep this year. What did that do for you?

Worked by St Peter's, St Mary's, Richmond, and a few more double digit seeds. Illinois needed help from the refs to escape Chattanooga. Which is the midmajor conference again? 🤣
Click to expand...
Micro vs macro. Try thinking big picture with that little brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkit3113
IUBtown said:
Micro vs macro. Try thinking big picture with that little brain.
Click to expand...


He is so desperate, he tries to go from historical to this season, lol.

What a loser. This Blue Blood shit really matters to him, lol
 
JimboBBN said:
Indiana hasn't won a title in almost 40 years. Don't think they can be linked to the other five. I also agree you can't add to the "blue blood" list. Programs that have come up since the modern era are in a different category.
Click to expand...
Was Blood
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimboBBN
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WeAreDePaul

Duke most likely blue blood to lose BB status

Replies
69
Views
6K
College Basketball Board
Blueheart32
Blueheart32
JVDBeak'em

Ranking programs based on the last 50 years

Replies
7
Views
2K
College Basketball Board
Bert Higginbotha
Bert Higginbotha
KStateFootball82

My updated blue blood top 10+1

Replies
52
Views
6K
College Basketball Board
RockChalk82
RockChalk82
WeAreDePaul

Rank the uniforms of the blue bloods

Replies
68
Views
4K
College Basketball Board
ExitFlagger
ExitFlagger
T

2023 News bloods or the Blue bloods

Replies
5
Views
2K
College Basketball Board
AWilli6995
AWilli6995
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back