Same. I’m all for wearing blue tinted lenses, but UK isn’t the only team that has won college basketball championships. The wins over IU and UofL are more meaningful when those two programs are successful. I suppose reasonable minds can differ.
Indiana fan delusion about "blueblood status", and the winning percentage of their last six coaches.
- Thread starter Son_Of_Saul
- Start date
I have my reasons:
Although UCLA trails in all time wins rank, 5th compared to 2nd, UCLA obliterates Kansas in championships leading eleven to four. UCLA has been to 18 final fours, while Kansas has 15 (16 if you count their vacated one). Both teams have made the same amount of elite eights. It really wasn’t a difficult decision for me. If UCLA didn’t have the championship under Harrick in 1995 and the multiple final fours in recent decades you could argue UCLA is just a program from the 60s and 70s but honest scrutiny doesn’t lead me to that conclusion. UCLA > Kansas as an all-time program. That doesn’t mean the UCLA brand is more prestigious and it doesn’t mean they have the same value in current landscape but the facts are the facts. I actually have very meticulously ranked each school on facts, not just emotion and it took me a few weeks of shuffling to get those ranks.
Indiana had a case for being a blueblood when Bob Knight was still in his prime at Indiana, which was through about 1994. That year the team finished 21-9 and went to a Sweet 16, but Knight was already starting into his decline. His antics had become well know and his coaching tactics had been publicized.
Since then, they've had 1 season of much success at all, which was in 2002. They haven't had another Elite 8 since 1993. They haven't had a title since 1987. I understand wanting to claim to be a blueblood, but the numbers don't bear it out.
The numbers bear it out unquestionably, just not when you hand select the ones you want in favor of recency bias. Good luck arguing Kentucky is a top program using the same logic you just espoused.
Don't we play them next year?
Dec. 20, 2025 – Rupp Arena at Central Bank Center, Lexington, Ky.
Return of UK vs IU
Hey BBH, we can agree to disagree on this fine Thanksgiving day. I think UK's numbers compare favorably to anyone. Indiana has 5 titles, 3 of which came under 1 coach in an 11 year span. None since 1987. UK has 8 titles, under 5 different head coaches in 5 different decades, including one in 2012. There is no real comparison between the two, but we can argue if you prefer. Indiana has 5 titles, which is great, but the real argument is recency with the Hoosiers. As I said above, no titles since 1987. Not even a Final Four since 2002. The argument for Indiana was solid in the 1980s, as you say, it was undeniable then. Maybe we should define what blueblood really means...
In total wins, it's UK, Kansas, UNC, and Duke- Indiana is #10.
In winning percentage, it's UK, UNC, Kansas, Duke, UCLA- Indiana is #20.
In Final Fours, UNC has 21, UCLA has 18, UK has 17, Duke has 17, Kansas has 15. Indiana has 8, which is #8.
Your best argument is titles
In titles, it's UCLA, UK, UNC, UConn, Indiana. Your problem is measuring up in other areas and also recency. What have you done for me lately?
I definitely agree Kentucky is superior to Indiana. I am, after all, a Kentucky fan. Indiana’s resume has them in the top 7 of all programs of college basketball and waving a magic wand to say “what have you done for me lately?” is precisely the issue I have with your point. There are some who use an extension of your very same argument to say that Kentucky is no longer a blue blood. They will say that UConn, Duke and North Carolina remain blue bloods while Kentucky, UCLA and Indiana are not. After all, Kentucky had only one championship this side of the millennium. I love that you correctly pointed out Kentucky has won championships in the 1940s, 1950s, 1970s, 1990s and 2012. Indiana has won championships in four decades themselves. Indiana remains, as you noted, top 10 in all time wins despite an abysmal recent history. Every college program outside of Kentucky and North Carolina has some serious flaws in certain metrics. All I’m saying, as not just a Kentucky fan, but a college basketball fanatic, let’s not carve out little slices of history and decide who is a blue blood that way. I’ll close by saying I am fairly new to this site and will no doubt run some the wrong way by defending IU, but they deserve the defense. They are integral to the history of CBB and that’s why defeating them in 1975 was so special. That’s why kicking their tails when they do come back will be fun yet again.
