UCLA and Indiana….
- Thread starter AuHoosier420
- Start date
I dunno....Did they take away all of our wins, national titles,. FF's NCAAT wins, appearances,etc...? If so, then no..
Depends on your definition. One Final Four and zero titles in the last 35 years at least leaves it open to question.
At the end of the day tho, I don't really care. It's a silly moniker created by the media and they'll say whatever gets the most clicks.
Purdue has won the most big ten titles of all time. Should they be considered a blue blood also since you want to push regular season accomplishments so much?
Who is clearly not a blueblood and never has been. You a big fan of goalposts?
You seemed to want to take a shot at IU. Thus be prepared to receive a shot back.
Next time you’re in the mood to post idiotic takes, just remember that 99% of the world agrees with me. But you can probably find some good ol boy on the football board to side with you.
Agree with you about what? Indiana has just as much of a claim to blue blood status as Kansas. This isn’t really debatable
It's totally debatable.
What's not debatable is that you continue to display a profound lack of fundamental basketball knowledge.
Yep. There are like 9000 definitions of "blueblood" but anyone who suggests something that might not align with @AuHoosier420 is clearly wrong.
By your logic, Uconn does too. And Nova until a year ago.
One of the most common debates on this board “isn’t really debatable.” I rest my case.
They do as well. Kansas shouldn’t get a pass for many empty post seasons.
I think UCLA is as debatable as Indiana at being a blueblood. Ucla besides like an 11 year stretch has done exactly what in ncaa?
It's gotta piss off all the mids that Kansas was considered a Blue Blood back in the 1980s, when they only had one NCAAT Title.
🥂🥂🤣🤣🤣🤣
*Edit to keep the emojis together
Both Helms & NCAA Titles
Yeah. @ExitFlagger likes to bring up ucla had one dominant decade. I mean before 1987 which is is only 36 years ago Kansas had 1 title and duke had zero.
But let’s give passes for a generation of nothing.
So San Francisco is equal to Michigan St? See how easy it is to destroy your logic?
****ing football school fans.
Kansas (and Self) have been much better the past several decades, including 2 titles and 2 runner ups totaling 6 championships (4 NCAAT) all-time. If IU can win another title, they can revive their blue blood status.
Derp moment by me. Still, I think Kansas is more of a blue blood right now than IU.
What makes a program a so called, "blue blood"?
--Is it 20 years of work
---Is it 30 years
---is it 40
Ot is it ALL-TIME?
I mean are we breaking this down into segments? If so, I guess....
---UCLA quit being one a looooooooooong time ago.
---Duke just recently joined the band..
--Indiana has joined UCLA...
So maybe what-----Old blue blood money----and New blue blood money.
How do we gauge Kansas? Were they a blue blood by default, i.e. inventor of the game. Won a bunch of games and conference titles....But until 2008, only had 2 titles....Was KU always a blueblood b/c they won a bunch of games, made the NCAAT, etc....but just not at the levels of UK, IU and UCLA----until they won their 4th title? Or was it their thrid in 2008?
Or does it really not matter? You tell me.
Thing is ucla won a title in 95 and has been to the final 4 times 4 times since indiana last went.
I know....But if we are doing segments, I mean no title since 1995. One FF the past 15 years(miracle run in 21)....
Again, is this a segment thing? I mean when the folk say best programs of All-time, is that wht it means? Or is a segment based title?
I’m not saying that Indiana shouldn’t be considered a blueblood. I’m just laughing at the idea of ranking programs by title count alone.
But that’s the kind of shit that a bandwagon football school fan will post.
Similar threads
