Since it’s an interesting topic (imo)

[Tida Nysage]

What is your actual definition of a Blue Blood?

Is it a National Championship in multiple decades? Let’s say, 3?

Multiple FF’s through multiple decades? Again, min of 3

Is it the teams that basically started it all around the 30’s-40’s & had sustained success?

Is it the sheer # of champions?

What (in your opinion) is the criteria to be labeled a true blue blood and not some pretender or wannabe?

 

[TheDude73]

Yes, interesting topic. So interesting that this is now the third or fourth created thread on the SAME TOPIC.

I'm sure you could have just typed this up in the existing threads. But you literally recreated the same questions from the other threads.

 

[Tida Nysage]

Yes, interesting topic. So interesting that this is now the third or fourth created thread on the SAME TOPIC.

I'm sure you could have just typed this up in the existing threads. But you literally recreated the same questions from the other threads.

Well pardon me.

The others seemed preoccupied more with ‘who is a blue blood’ as opposed to what defines a blue blood imo.

It’s nice you took the time to reply, even tho u seem not pleased.

 

[WildcatNC]

Hard to boil it down to precise terms for sure.

 

[CatFanInIlliniLand]

UK
Kansas
UNC
UCLA
Duke
(In no particular order)…..

UConn - an argument to be made here

IU
Louisville - Storied programs that like to be mentioned but aren’t there for lack of enough recent success. Yes, I know about UofL’s hooker banner.

Villanova - honorable mention

 

[Tida Nysage]

UK
Kansas
UNC
UCLA
Duke
(In no particular order)…..

UConn - an argument to be made here

IU
Louisville - Storied programs that like to be mentioned but aren’t there for lack of enough recent success. Yes, I know about UofL’s hooker banner.

Villanova - honorable mention

Nice list. All are valid imo.

How about how you (or others) would define a blue blood? Once we can agree (to an extent) what the terms are, the more ppl can list them on similar criteria.

I think the ONLY ones beyond reproach are:

UK
KU
UNC

Those seem to meet any and all aspects of an all time list. Others have great arguments & possibly are true blue bloods but aren’t universally accepted.

Again, until we have some basic criteria, it’s all subjective

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Nice list. All are valid imo.

How about how you (or others) would define a blue blood? Once we can agree (to an extent) what the terms are, the more ppl can list them on similar criteria.

I think the ONLY ones beyond reproach are:

UK
KU
UNC

Those seem to meet any and all aspects of an all time list. Others have great arguments & possibly are true blue bloods but aren’t universally accepted.

Again, until we have some basic criteria, it’s all subjective

Because of needing to be significant in all decades, only Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas are.

We are currently working on making it only two.

 

[catsfanbgky]

I think it is all subjectable. There is NO criteria stated in black and white. I guess success for multiple decades with titles in multiple decades. But what clouds the debate is when do you start ? How far back you go ? Say a team has done it the last 25 years and not 50 or so ? If we consider last 25 years, UCONN definitely fits the mold. Myself, I look at from multiple decades with multiple titles. (say at least 30 years and 3 titles or more). I do consider UCONN a blue blood. UCLA based on all the titles, has to be considered, but MOST of them coming from the Wooden era makes it a little debatable.

 

[bucsrule8872]

To me the Blue Bloods have 4 or more titles and sustained excellence over the years:

UK
UNC
KU
Duke

Those stand out.

The next tier includes:

UConn
Nova
UCLA
IU

UConn is the new kid on the block. They were nobodies before ‘99. That knocks them down to the second tier.

IU and UCLA are the opposite. They use to be, but have fallen off. If it’s been 20+ years since you’ve won a title, you are no longer a top tier program.

Nova has three titles and some sustained excellence. That puts them in tier two.

Unless I am forgetting someone, that’s my take.

 

[bucsrule8872]

UK
Kansas
UNC
UCLA
Duke
(In no particular order)…..

UConn - an argument to be made here

IU
Louisville - Storied programs that like to be mentioned but aren’t there for lack of enough recent success. Yes, I know about UofL’s hooker banner.

Villanova - honorable mention

Nova has more titles than UofL and have won two titles recently as well as one in the 80’s. Plus no scandals.

Got to put Nova above Lil Bro.