My updated blue blood top 10+1

[KStateFootball82]

1) UNC - just seems to be the ultimate balance of all of them. Wins, natties, etc.
2) Kentucky - 1st all time winning. Most all time natties.
3) Kansas - #2 all time wins. 3 tourney natties, 5 all time. 34 consecutive tourney appearances which is a record.
4) Duke - 5 natties with coach k but was nothing before him.
5) UConn - 5 natties since 1998. Most of anyone by a mile. But too much recency. Reminds me of LSU football in that sense.
6) UCLA - can’t deny the 70’s dynasty and #5 all time wins
7) Louisville - 3 natties, recent 2013.
8) Michigan State - izzo been a legend. Multiple final fours, always in the tourney. 1999 natty.
9) Arizona - all time 19th wins isn’t great but the recency success hard to beat. Recent Natty in 1997
10) Indiana 10th all time wins, 4 tourney natties.


First out - Syracuse - all time #7 in wins but only one tourney natty.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

1) UNC - just seems to be the ultimate balance of all of them. Wins, natties, etc.
2) Kentucky - 1st all time winning. Most all time natties.
3) Kansas - #2 all time wins. 3 tourney natties, 5 all time. 34 consecutive tourney appearances which is a record.
4) Duke - 5 natties with coach k but was nothing before him.
5) UConn - 5 natties since 1998. Most of anyone by a mile. But too much recency. Reminds me of LSU football in that sense.
6) UCLA - can’t deny the 70’s dynasty and #5 all time wins
7) Louisville - 3 natties, recent 2013.
8) Michigan State - izzo been a legend. Multiple final fours, always in the tourney. 1999 natty.
9) Arizona - all time 19th wins isn’t great but the recency success hard to beat. Recent Natty in 1997
10) Syracuse - all time #7 in wins but only one tourney natty.

First one out; Indiana 10th all time wins, 4 tourney natties.

Not a bad list, but Kansas can't count Helm's titles.

 

[Erock-conn]

goood list but indiana still belongs on the list and so does villanova…. syracuse has no business on this list.

 

[Scotty00]

Umm Kentucky isn’t the all time leader in titles either.

 

[RR30]

Is @dukedevilz thread on this still stickied? For me it's
1. UK
2. UNC
3. UCLA
4. Duke
5. UConn
6. IU
7. UL

Kentucky gets the edge because I'm biased and they have 5 different coaches that have won titles. UNC win 1 more title and they'd probably be over UK. Duke, we'll see with Scheyer.

 

[829305]

Probably have to say 8>6 even though some of the UK titles (half) were kind of lame, all white dudes, but I think 7>8 if Heels get another before UK. Even though it’s very close right now in my biased opinion.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Probably have to say 8>6 even though some of the UK titles (half) were kind of lame, all white dudes, but I think 7>8 if Heels get another before UK. Even though it’s very close right now in my biased opinion.

Wow. UNC did the same. Plus UNC was not worth shit in the forties and early fifties.

 

[RR30]

Wow. UNC did the same. Plus UNC was not worth shit in the forties and early fifties.

Modern titles are more valuable than titles from back them. Not to say they aren't valuable, but if UNC wins a 7th before UK wins a 9th I'd say they are the better program without much thought. Would give them 4 coaches with a title and over 6 different decades. Until then, I'll stick with UK who is the best combination of titles, wins and overall success throughout different eras.

 

[Necessary Roughness]

Where's Tennessee?

 

[Sparty_57]

Probably have to say 8>6 even though some of the UK titles (half) were kind of lame, all white dudes, but I think 7>8 if Heels get another before UK. Even though it’s very close right now in my biased opinion.

Dean Smith should have won more titles, but it isn't easy.

 

[829305]

Wow. UNC did the same. Plus UNC was not worth shit in the forties and early fifties.

Heels had one white on white title. UK had 4.

 

[829305]

Dean Smith should have won more titles, but it isn't easy.

Yep. Roy>Dean. Roy got it done (at Carolina).

 

[Sparty_57]

Yep. Roy>Dean. Roy got it done (at Carolina).

No disrespect to Dean, but man, I hated watching that four corners crap.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Heels had one white on white title. UK had 4.

Because UNC were not good enough to get more than one. Sorry. Plus in the old days of regional tourneys Kentucky always had to go through the Big Ten. UNC was in the old East and had to go through St. Johns! The Mid East was a bear. The East was nothing.

Kentucky was an integrated school in the 40's, but the SEC was in Jim Crow South and Rupp could not take a black kid on the road. It sure as hell was not UK's lack of effort.

I lived in North Carolina in 1964 and 1965 and there were very few Tar Heel fan to be found. Few things in North Carolina were integrated. Hell I was engaged to a UNC girl and she had to go to Charlotte instead of Chapel Hill because UNC Chapel Hill was only for white men. So don't go down that road because Kentucky was far ahead of North Carolina on racial matters.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Modern titles are more valuable than titles from back them. Not to say they aren't valuable, but if UNC wins a 7th before UK wins a 9th I'd say they are the better program without much thought. Would give them 4 coaches with a title and over 6 different decades. Until then, I'll stick with UK who is the best combination of titles, wins and overall success throughout different eras.

Bull shit.

The early UK titles required them winning their conference title to even get into the tourney.

Granted that UNC has done much better later, but they did not have to go to class. The old UK titles required them to go to school!

 

[RR30]

Bull shit.

The early UK titles required them winning their conference title to even get into the tourney.

Granted that UNC has done much better later, but they did not have to go to class. The old UK titles required them to go to school!

I'm not saying they weren't difficult or they didn't matter. But it is a lot harder to win 6 games in a row than 4. That's simple math. It also has to do with post integration and the modern 3 point line which changed the sport. Like I posted originally, I think UK is the best program ever. A 2 title gap is quite a difference. Now if UNC wins one before us, it's a different story.

As for the academic fraud, that's a different beast entirely. They were guilty as shit but if the NCAA doesn't care, then why should random fans?

 

[AWilli6995]

Because UNC were not good enough to get more than one. Sorry. Plus in the old days of regional tourneys Kentucky always had to go through the Big Ten. UNC was in the old East and had to go through St. Johns! The Mid East was a bear. The East was nothing.

Kentucky was an integrated school in the 40's, but the SEC was in Jim Crow South and Rupp could not take a black kid on the road. It sure as hell was not UK's lack of effort.

I lived in North Carolina in 1964 and 1965 and there were very few Tar Heel fan to be found. Few things in North Carolina were integrated. Hell I was engaged to a UNC girl and she had to go to Charlotte instead of Chapel Hill because UNC Chapel Hill was only for white men. So don't go down that road because Kentucky was far ahead of North Carolina on racial matters.

An old man like yourself, this sensitive should be more happy but you been a grumpy, mad old man since I been posting here and no on here is impressed on who you knew or met.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

1) UNC - just seems to be the ultimate balance of all of them. Wins, natties, etc.
2) Kentucky - 1st all time winning. Most all time natties.
3) Kansas - #2 all time wins. 3 tourney natties, 5 all time. 34 consecutive tourney appearances which is a record.
4) Duke - 5 natties with coach k but was nothing before him.
5) UConn - 5 natties since 1998. Most of anyone by a mile. But too much recency. Reminds me of LSU football in that sense.
6) UCLA - can’t deny the 70’s dynasty and #5 all time wins
7) Louisville - 3 natties, recent 2013.
8) Michigan State - izzo been a legend. Multiple final fours, always in the tourney. 1999 natty.
9) Arizona - all time 19th wins isn’t great but the recency success hard to beat. Recent Natty in 1997
10) Syracuse - all time #7 in wins but only one tourney natty.

First one out; Indiana 10th all time wins, 4 tourney natties.

IU has 5

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

I'm not saying they weren't difficult or they didn't matter. But it is a lot harder to win 6 games in a row than 4. That's simple math. It also has to do with post integration and the modern 3 point line which changed the sport. Like I posted originally, I think UK is the best program ever. A 2 title gap is quite a difference. Now if UNC wins one before us, it's a different story.

As for the academic fraud, that's a different beast entirely. They were guilty as shit but if the NCAA doesn't care, then why should random fans?

UK got a three year probation for 'alleged' ACT test cheating before going to UK, but UK had to pay the price. UNC has a dean list player who never went to a damned class.

Plus this 6 or 5 versus 4 means a lot when you have to win your damned conference to be qualified. That is simple math. Now winning your conference does not matter. Tennessee won the conference and 7 other teams got in. I hate it. Winning the conference does not matter.

 

[829305]

Because UNC were not good enough to get more than one. Sorry. Plus in the old days of regional tourneys Kentucky always had to go through the Big Ten. UNC was in the old East and had to go through St. Johns! The Mid East was a bear. The East was nothing.

Kentucky was an integrated school in the 40's, but the SEC was in Jim Crow South and Rupp could not take a black kid on the road. It sure as hell was not UK's lack of effort.

I lived in North Carolina in 1964 and 1965 and there were very few Tar Heel fan to be found. Few things in North Carolina were integrated. Hell I was engaged to a UNC girl and she had to go to Charlotte instead of Chapel Hill because UNC Chapel Hill was only for white men. So don't go down that road because Kentucky was far ahead of North Carolina on racial matters.

Not talking racism. Just saying basketball wasn’t the same. It’s just a snarky response. Nothing but respect for you Bert. Appreciate the history lesson. But, for example, didn’t you only have to win like 3 games for a title then? Ripping off 4 during that era equates to like 2 nowadays in my biased opinion.

 

[RR30]

Not talking racism. Just saying basketball wasn’t the same. It’s just a snarky response. Nothing but respect for you Bert. Appreciate the history lesson. But, for example, didn’t you only have to win like 3 games for a title then? Ripping off 4 during that era equates to like 2 nowadays in my biased opinion.

Don't think that is fair either. Generally when you have less teams, the quality is better because only the cream of the crop make it so to speak. But it's unquestionably harder to win in todays game, between the extra games, three point line, etc.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Don't think that is fair either. Generally when you have less teams, the quality is better because only the cream of the crop make it so to speak. But it's unquestionably harder to win in todays game, between the extra games, three point line, etc.

It definitely wasn’t the cream of the crop in the early days of the tourney. NIT was considered the more prestigious tourney then and some teams opted to play in it vs the NCAA. Plus only conference winners were invited. So the field included teams that were only there because they won a weak league, and a lot of top teams would choose the NIT. I know there was a year in the late 40s when only about 4 of the top 10 teams played in the NCAA.

 

[IUBtown]

 

[thebasketballreasons]

The definition of blue blood can be a bit controversial, and depending on the metrics you use you may end up with different lists. UK is the only program that is a blue blood in every aspect, while other blue blood programs all have flaws that make their status as blue bloods at least debatable:

Duke: only won under 1 head coach.
KU: only has 4 national titles.
UCLA: no title in the 21st century.
UConn: historically irrelevant until 1990s.
UNC: has 6 titles but 2 may be vacated later(2005 and 2009).

So yeah UK is still the bluest blue blood program and will remain this way for a long time.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Not talking racism. Just saying basketball wasn’t the same. It’s just a snarky response. Nothing but respect for you Bert. Appreciate the history lesson. But, for example, didn’t you only have to win like 3 games for a title then? Ripping off 4 during that era equates to like 2 nowadays in my biased opinion.

It was an even playing field. If Kentucky could do it then why not UNC, Duke, Florida, UConn et.al.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

The definition of blue blood can be a bit controversial, and depending on the metrics you use you may end up with different lists. UK is the only program that is a blue blood in every aspect, while other blue blood programs all have flaws that make their status as blue bloods at least debatable:

Duke: only won under 1 head coach.
KU: only has 4 national titles.
UCLA: no title in the 21st century.
UConn: historically irrelevant until 1990s.
UNC: has 6 titles but 2 may be vacated later(2005 and 2009).

So yeah UK is still the bluest blue blood program and will remain this way for a long time.

There are also aspects of the blue blood concept beyond the obvious biggies: titles and wins that can keep an Indiana in the coversation.

The look and feel of the program, do they sell out? Do they have big ratings despite a slump in titles? Do their fans travel well? Have they maintained langstanding visible traditions? Do they sell a lot of gear? Do they have large non-grad fan bases? Do they recruit above their current success level? Do the feel like a blue blood even in down times? Is their arena a bucket list destination? Those things that an IU still has only carries you so long and are easy to shoot down...but I think it is why the name iss always in the conversation.

 

[ExitFlagger]

There are also aspects of the blue blood concept beyond the obvious biggies: titles and wins that can keep an Indiana in the coversation.

The look and feel of the program, do they sell out? Do they have big ratings despite a slump in titles? Do their fans travel well? Have they maintained langstanding visible traditions? Do they sell a lot of gear? Do they have large non-grad fan bases? Do they recruit above their current success level? Do the feel like a blue blood even in down times? Is their arena a bucket list destination? Those things that an IU still has only carries you so long and are easy to shoot down...but I think it is why the name iss always in the conversation.

Recruiting above current success level? First time I've seen anyone list underachieving as a blueblood trait.

 

[AWilli6995]

The definition of blue blood can be a bit controversial, and depending on the metrics you use you may end up with different lists. UK is the only program that is a blue blood in every aspect, while other blue blood programs all have flaws that make their status as blue bloods at least debatable:

Duke: only won under 1 head coach.
KU: only has 4 national titles.
UCLA: no title in the 21st century.
UConn: historically irrelevant until 1990s.
UNC: has 6 titles but 2 may be vacated later(2005 and 2009).

So yeah UK is still the bluest blue blood program and will remain this way for a long time.

How long have you been saying the 05/09 titles will be vacated?

 

[lurkeraspect84]

How long have you been saying the 05/09 titles will be vacated?

I think since 1993

 

[KStateFootball82]

Umm Kentucky isn’t the all time leader in titles either.

Yes they are.

In tourney era. 7. Unc 6?

 

[KStateFootball82]

goood list but indiana still belongs on the list and so does villanova…. syracuse has no business on this list.

I actually revised this on the MB and didn’t here. So made the change.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Yes they are.

In tourney era. 7. Unc 6?

 

[ExitFlagger]

Yes they are.

In tourney era. 7. Unc 6?

Good God, man.....I thought K-State fans actually knew a thing or two about this sport.

 

[Random UK Fan]

Because UNC were not good enough to get more than one. Sorry. Plus in the old days of regional tourneys Kentucky always had to go through the Big Ten. UNC was in the old East and had to go through St. Johns! The Mid East was a bear. The East was nothing.

Kentucky was an integrated school in the 40's, but the SEC was in Jim Crow South and Rupp could not take a black kid on the road. It sure as hell was not UK's lack of effort.

I lived in North Carolina in 1964 and 1965 and there were very few Tar Heel fan to be found. Few things in North Carolina were integrated. Hell I was engaged to a UNC girl and she had to go to Charlotte instead of Chapel Hill because UNC Chapel Hill was only for white men. So don't go down that road because Kentucky was far ahead of North Carolina on racial matters.

Bert, you’ve lived the life of 4 men.


I love it!

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Bert, you’ve lived the life of 4 men.


I love it!

That's what happens when you have a pecker 4x larger than normal.

Sorry, but it's impossible to not notice. which side he dresses.

 

[Random UK Fan]

There are also aspects of the blue blood concept beyond the obvious biggies: titles and wins that can keep an Indiana in the coversation.

The look and feel of the program, do they sell out? Do they have big ratings despite a slump in titles? Do their fans travel well? Have they maintained langstanding visible traditions? Do they sell a lot of gear? Do they have large non-grad fan bases? Do they recruit above their current success level? Do the feel like a blue blood even in down times? Is their arena a bucket list destination? Those things that an IU still has only carries you so long and are easy to shoot down...but I think it is why the name iss always in the conversation.

I agree. IU belongs on the list. Granted it’s been a while for them, and UK is on that track too as far as titles go. To me it’s very much a cultural, tradition thing too.

 

[LeroyOU12]

to me Kansas is the bluest of the blue bloods. They were/are the blue blood since the beginning of CBB and maintain their blue blood status to this day, even tho they don't have as many titles as UNC or UK, etc...

Both legendary coaches UK Adoph Rupp and UNC Dean Smith learnt their BB trade at Kansas. UNC and KU has strong ties to each other. When KU fell on hard time after Larry Brown, Dean Smith sent his top lieutenant to KU...some guy name Roy Williams to help out. He was in the stand cheering for KU when they beat Cal's Memphis team for the title in 2008.

Also, some guy name James Naismith founded basketball and coached at KU.

 

[MGO2022]

UCLA, UK, UNC, Duke, KU

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

to me Kansas is the bluest of the blue bloods. They were/are the blue blood since the beginning of CBB and maintain their blue blood status to this day, even tho they don't have as many titles as UNC or UK, etc...

Both legendary coaches UK Adoph Rupp and UNC Dean Smith learnt their BB trade at Kansas. UNC and KU has strong ties to each other. When KU fell on hard time after Larry Brown, Dean Smith sent his top lieutenant to KU...some guy name Roy Williams to help out. He was in the stand cheering for KU when they beat Cal's Memphis team for the title in 2008.

Also, some guy name James Naismith founded basketball and coached at KU.

Holy shit!

Then Tennessee is the bluest ("orangist") of the SEC blue bloods.

I find this funny as hell. Unbelievable.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

to me Kansas is the bluest of the blue bloods. They were/are the blue blood since the beginning of CBB and maintain their blue blood status to this day, even tho they don't have as many titles as UNC or UK, etc...

Both legendary coaches UK Adoph Rupp and UNC Dean Smith learnt their BB trade at Kansas. UNC and KU has strong ties to each other. When KU fell on hard time after Larry Brown, Dean Smith sent his top lieutenant to KU...some guy name Roy Williams to help out. He was in the stand cheering for KU when they beat Cal's Memphis team for the title in 2008.

Also, some guy name James Naismith founded basketball and coached at KU.

You left out Calipari has ties to Larry Brown and KU.

Next time young grasshopper.