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.
They probably could’ve gotten Dusty May if they had made a move after last season.
I agree with other posters that Pearl would kill it there
I agree with other posters that Pearl would kill it there
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.
I believe they already have unless it was dropped when calipari left
Yep, and even that was a total fluke run to the title game in 2002 as a 5 seed. A Hoosier team that finished the season with 12 losses. They did knock Duke out though and prevented them from repeating so I’ll give them credit for that. 😂
God forbid it happen, but if Kentucky doesn’t win a national championship within the next nine years (I think we will), there would be 20 year olds who would have never seen Kentucky win a national title. Are you as a fan, willing to concede, that we would no longer be a blueblood? Are you willing to say being CBB royalty is something that we can lose? I think it preposterous.
With respect to your points, it's really nowhere close to the same argument Jay Williams uses about Kentucky. UK has been to eight Final Fours in a span where Indiana only went to one, with UK winning three titles, and playing in five title games, while earning a #1 seed nine times.
UK has also been to fifteen Elite Eights in that span. UK also finished ranked in the AP top 10 nineteen times since 1993.
Not even remotely comparable in terms of what Williams suggested.
I'll give you that Indiana is ranked #7 all time, but the gulf between #6 with UConn and #7 with Indiana is about the size of the Grand Canyon.
Last edited:
Your first mistake is trying to make a credible argument based upon something Jay Williams said. 😜
UCLA won almost all their titles in one lump under John Wooden & shady recruiting. Jim Harrick won another. Other than that, they are just a good program. Their fanbase isn’t nearly as passionate as the rest of the blue bloods.
UCONN is a Johnny come lately. They didn’t win a title until 1999 and have now won 6 total.
If you remove IU & their five titles, you have to remove UCONN for sucking for the first 2/3rds of their existence. They had 3 Sweet 16 appearances and 1 Elite 8 appearance until the 1990’s.
IU definitely has lost their way, but when you think about college basketball (especially if you are 40 years old or above), you think about IU. 5 titles and a lot of history there.
UCONN is a Johnny come lately. They didn’t win a title until 1999 and have now won 6 total.
If you remove IU & their five titles, you have to remove UCONN for sucking for the first 2/3rds of their existence. They had 3 Sweet 16 appearances and 1 Elite 8 appearance until the 1990’s.
IU definitely has lost their way, but when you think about college basketball (especially if you are 40 years old or above), you think about IU. 5 titles and a lot of history there.
We also have a runner up and a multitude of final 4’s. Definite blue blood.
Not a blue blood... but historical program. Theres a difference. Michigan state has more prestige than they do in their conference in present day and more consistent. Imo- there are 4 bluebloods. UK, UNC, Kansas, Duke (they played in 4 final fours and 2 championships before K)
Ucla and Indiana have been too inconsistent.
IU has been irrelevant in modern basketball. They've been nothing since the three point line and shot clock have come into existence
Uconn is new blood, considering blueblood means noble birth.
So there once was a dude named John Wooden who coached at a place called UCLA…
Too inconsistent 🤣 There are at least 8 national player of the year trophies in the case inside Pauley Pavilion, along with at least 11 national championship trophies. I get that it was probably before your time, but that would mean Adolph Rupp was too.
Last edited:
"Those were the days sonny.....hey.....did I ever tell you about the greatest shot in IU history? No, well, it was wonderful. Waddua mean they won a title later? Nobody cares about titles! Pffft."
You’re choosing the parts we as Kentucky fans would agree with. You don’t see that you’re doing the same things Jay is doing but he is using a slightly different criteria being titles in the last 25 years. You’re choosing a more total body of work but still selecting more recent data. We have an entire history of college basketball and I think it is good to respect the whole thing. Let’s all remember it is an in house debate as we are all UK fans but let’s not be inconsistent in our thinking. If you’re conceding that you can become a blue blood and lose it, you at least crack the door open for the “yeah, half your titles occurred before the color barrier” noise. I prefer to be honest, complete and consistent as a college basketball fan and historian. I choose my sword with purpose. I think careful consideration of the totality of CBB history there are seven blue bloods, and by blue bloods I mean historical royalty of the sport. That doesn’t mean that each of those is equal in prestige. I love hearing each of your thoughts even if I disagree.
I don't really see the similarities to Jay's position at all.
UK has been to 16 Elite Eights since probation in 1992 and 25 since 1970. They've also been to eleven Final Fours in that span; seven title game appearances, and won four titles.
In that same span, Indiana has been to nine Elite Eights, and six Final Fours.
Since 1992, when UK came off probation, Indiana has been three Elite Eights to Kentucky's fifteen. They have 20% of the Elite Eights we have in that time period.
UK has 12 more Elite Eights in that span and six more Final Fours, three more titles, and four more title game appearances.
Kentucky's been relevant in every decade since the 1940s, even in the forgettable 2000s with Tubby when UK had #1 seed twice, went to five Sweet Sixteens, and even went to two Elite Eights.
Indiana hasn't been to a single Elite Eight since 2002. In that same span, UK has been to nine Elite Eights.
Last edited:
I don’t want to trouble you with being repetitive. I’ll cut straight to the chase and note the methodology Kentucky fans will use in an argument such as this. We will see a Jay Williams argument and say “Wow. That is extremely dumb. This dude is acting as though college basketball began in the year 2000.” We are correct in pointing out how silly it is to disregard decades of legacy and hand select recent data to show that Kentucky trails Villanova (notice how poorly such a thing ages) in the pantheon of CBB. Sure, you could say Kentucky has been to Final Fours, Sweet 16s, etc. Is that the metric Jay was using? No, it wasn’t. Many people will “selectively” choose the metrics that strengthen their case rather than allowing the entire body of work to prove their point. A Kansas fan may say, for example, their early Helms championships along with their basketball origin story make them the only true blue blood with both UNC and UK directly deriving their own success from KU (which is undeniably true). North Carolina boasts a proud legacy with the MOST final four appearances, while also being the home of the greatest basketball player of all time. Duke has been the most dominant college basketball program since 1990, bringing home five national championships during that period, while also making the NCAA tournament every year except two. UCLA leads all schools with eleven national titles. UConn has won the most national titles of anyone in the last 35 years, having won six since 1999. Their argument would be that most people do not care about what happened before 1999. They are THE best program in college basketball. WE would argue, and rightfully so, that the issue to each of those fan bases isn’t that their metric is wrong. It’s that you must evaluate the full body of work, but not just the recent body of work — the whole body of work. If you want to say IU isn’t a blueblood because of recency bias, I’d note you have no argument about UConn now being a blueblood lol. What I find funny is that fans will say UConn isn’t a blueblood. Why? Because of the early days of college basketball when they were terrible. Whoosh! Just be consistent. Go Cats!
And been been since Knight. Two things can simultaneously be true. Knight was at IU for a very very long time. The school’s history is undeniably tied to him. Similar to Coach K and Duke. Doesn’t change the truth overall though. Just don’t want us diminishing our own school’s shine unknowingly while diminishing another. At least that’s how this passionate nerd feels about the world of college basketball.
Yes, I agree with IU's "place". I just believe they are a one coach wonder. Similar to Duke.
I agree. Wonder if the same thing happens to Duke. Sheyer hasn’t exactly been impressive so far. We will see.
Latest posts
-
In the spirit of the day, I gotta say this was pretty cool- Latest: St.PatterSoN-54-
-
-
-
