Lets settle this blue blood debate and honor the new bloods

ThePhog08

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2008
4,578
879
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
 

JimboBBN

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2016
10,428
13,084
113
The Bluegrass State
Team
Kentucky
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.
 

Random UK Fan

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2018
9,348
18,254
113
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.
 

ThePhog08

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2008
4,578
879
113
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.
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.
 

RR30

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2013
4,843
5,393
113
Team
Kentucky
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.
 

ThePhog08

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 2, 2008
4,578
879
113
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.
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.
 

RR30

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2013
4,843
5,393
113
Team
Kentucky
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.

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.
 

Big_C_KU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 27, 2004
16,261
6,200
113
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.
 

IUBtown

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2016
1,843
2,049
113
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.
 

Big_C_KU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 27, 2004
16,261
6,200
113
Only 3 titles for Kansas always gives me a pause. To me they need to win this years to stay in it.

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

Afamu

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
3,922
1,069
113
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.
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.
 

RR30

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 16, 2013
4,843
5,393
113
Team
Kentucky
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.

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

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
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

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
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.


Agreed, but the main point of being a blue blue is NCs
 

JVDBeak'em

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 2, 2007
3,434
805
113
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.
 

IUBtown

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2016
1,843
2,049
113
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
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

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
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.


It's much harder winning in the Big 10 historically than the Big 8. So winning % to me is not a huge metric
 

IUBtown

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2016
1,843
2,049
113
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.
Winning % will do that when you don't play in a mid major conference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkit3113

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
They're a step in front of MSU and San Francisco. This game with Nova is essentially a blue blood play in game.


Agreed. The only thing that impresses me about them and all the metrics is their Final Four appearances. Which is impressive
 

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
Their finals winning % is another metric that pushes them away. Blue bloods win when it matters.


Correct. Also, much like Nebraska in football, I am not impressed with them kicking the shit of out little schools of the Plains.
 

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
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.
 

IUBtown

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2016
1,843
2,049
113
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?
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

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
I'd like to see your argument that the B1G isn't the historically deepest league. Everyone who knows basketball knows this.


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

The rest of them are solid.
 

ExitFlagger

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
11,061
7,578
113
Team
Kansas
I'd like to see your argument that the B1G isn't the historically deepest league. Everyone who knows basketball knows this.
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? 🤣
 

ExitFlagger

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
11,061
7,578
113
Team
Kansas
Still think it's UK. In reality those two are the only true blue bloods. Everyone else has faults.
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. 🤣
 

IUBtown

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2016
1,843
2,049
113
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? 🤣
Micro vs macro. Try thinking big picture with that little brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkit3113

hawkit3113

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2011
89,350
41,644
113
Micro vs macro. Try thinking big picture with that little brain.


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
 

Jaycg15

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2008
7,898
7,878
113
Team
Illinois
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.
Was Blood
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimboBBN