Should There Be Any Single Team That Should Officially Be Considered a “Newblood”?
- Thread starter Random UK Fan
- Start date
Has Gonzaga been good long enough to replace a fallen blueblood, or is it primarily about titles ? 🤔
Syracuse is due.....for a new coach.
All the ingredients are there for successful runs.
Whats the current list?
UK
Kansas
Unc
Is Duke now a blue blood? Or do we need to see them post K?
Is ucla still a blue blood? Indiana?
If Zona wins a couple under Loyd, I think they could be considered.
If nova can can get another under post Wright and a solid decade, maybe.
UK
Kansas
Unc
Is Duke now a blue blood? Or do we need to see them post K?
Is ucla still a blue blood? Indiana?
If Zona wins a couple under Loyd, I think they could be considered.
If nova can can get another under post Wright and a solid decade, maybe.
If you're being serious, how could UCLA not be a blueblood? There's no decent argument for excluding them.
You can't earn something like that in a decade. But they rank highly in pretty much every category and have had success with several different coaches.
Villanova and Louisville were knocking on the door, but they've got a long way to go now.
Hard to still call Indiana one considering they have have only made the tournament 9 times since they made the title game 21 years ago.
6 of 9 were first round exits, and the other 3 all lost in sweet sixteen.
Can you be a blue blood if no one on your team was alive the last time you were relevant?
Hard to still call Indiana one considering they have have only made the tournament 9 times since they made the title game 21 years ago.
6 of 9 were first round exits, and the other 3 all lost in sweet sixteen.
Can you be a blue blood if no one on your team was alive the last time you were relevant?
MSU, UConn, Cuse, Arizona all not even in the same galaxy when you compare the numbers of an actual blue blood.
Similar threads
