If not, where in the tier of college ball do they lie?
GO CATS!!!!
WOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
GO CATS!!!!
WOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
Is Gonzaga a blue blood?
- Thread starter lyngz
- Start date
One of the most cringe debates in sports. Is random programs ''becoming'' a blueblood. You can't become a blueblood. They've already been settled 70 years ago.
There are 4 blue bloods: UK, KU, Duke, UNC
Blueblood? No
A good respectable program ? Definitely yes
A good respectable program ? Definitely yes
Not even near close enough to warrant this discussion.
There's another 50 schools ahead of them.
There's another 50 schools ahead of them.
No, they are not. They have been a good basketball program under Few getting to the NCAA's 24 straight years but have no titles and only recently got to a final four. Solid program but not a blue blood. Who knows what they will be like when Few retires which could be soon.
No but they are are a very dominate west coast High School team . In the best division of HS hoops west of the rockies . Very best
As much as it pains me to say it, UL, UCLA, and IU can be included as well.
Oh yeah, a titleless program should be up there with schools who have won multiple titles, over multiple decades.
Very good mid major who has moved up the ranks the last couple decades; but a blue blood they are not.
Very good mid major who has moved up the ranks the last couple decades; but a blue blood they are not.
UNCONN is almost there. IU and U6 once were.
UK, UNC, KU, Duke, UCLA.
People here might disagree about UCLA but the rest of the college basketball world doesn't. They do have a title from the '90s and made three straight Final Fours in the '00s. Their success is definitely backloaded, but they're still a blue blood.
UConn isn't and won't be for quite a while. The tournament is flukey and they've been the beneficiary of some incredibly unlikely championship runs. If you run the '11 and '14 tournaments 100 times they probably win one or two of them. If you compare their total wins and win percentage against the five blue bloods they're also very far behind.
The top 5 in wins is UK, KU, UNC, Duke, UCLA. UConn is 25th. The top 5 in winning percentage is UK, UNC, KU, Duke, UCLA. UConn is 16th.
Their title count matches other blue bloods because they won the tournament lottery twice, but their don't have the same historical.
People here might disagree about UCLA but the rest of the college basketball world doesn't. They do have a title from the '90s and made three straight Final Fours in the '00s. Their success is definitely backloaded, but they're still a blue blood.
UConn isn't and won't be for quite a while. The tournament is flukey and they've been the beneficiary of some incredibly unlikely championship runs. If you run the '11 and '14 tournaments 100 times they probably win one or two of them. If you compare their total wins and win percentage against the five blue bloods they're also very far behind.
The top 5 in wins is UK, KU, UNC, Duke, UCLA. UConn is 25th. The top 5 in winning percentage is UK, UNC, KU, Duke, UCLA. UConn is 16th.
Their title count matches other blue bloods because they won the tournament lottery twice, but their don't have the same historical.
They sit in the Johnny-come-lately tier that is coach dependant.
Once Few is gone the program will sink back to their natural mediocrity.
Once Few is gone the program will sink back to their natural mediocrity.
You win the idiot award of the day.
I guess people need to understand what the term Blue Blood means. Growing up, Blue Blood families were those that made their money around the time of the Civil War, and just had money from what their ancestors did. Those people were blue bloods. I don't think you can become one, I think you had to be one. There are new bloods, nouveau riche people, that got their money later, but they were not blue bloods. So I'd say the actual blue bloods are UK, UCLA, UNC and UCLA. Duke and UConn are nouveau riche. Everyone else is trying to get there.
Plenty of blue bloods went broke, but they were still blue bloods.
I consider UConn, IU, and Villanova to be blue bloods as well.
Thank you. It is asinine that some think this is an ever living list.
Well probably not UL, but UCLA and IU can most definitely be included. And why shouldn't they? Enlighten me
I honestly don’t put Duke in there. I feel that you have to win a national championship with more than one coach. I believe they need another great run with another coach after K to be on that list. The other 3 teams on that list are on another level all time in my opinion.
The whole “who is a blueblood” discussion is pure cringe. I guess the fans of these programs got into a room together and decided over Cohibas and Cognac.
Last edited:
UConn has to be in the conversation, especially if they win another natty this season. They’d be tied with UNC and have more than Duke. And all of them since 1999, which is damn impressive.
As of right now for me...The Blue Bloods
1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. Kansas
4. UNC
5. Duke
The New Bloods:
1. UCONN
1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. Kansas
4. UNC
5. Duke
The New Bloods:
1. UCONN
You think UL should be a blue blood? Please tell us all the definition of a blue blood and the criteria they meet to be one.
I've always thought that you can't add teams as blue bloods, but you can lose your status as a blue blood. Blue blood to me spans decades upon decades.
IMO, 3 programs are 100% blue bloods
UK - first FF in 1942, FF in 7 decades, 1st all-time in wins, 8 national championships with 5 different coaches. Still very relevant today.
UNC - first FF in 1946, FF in 9 decades, 3rd all-time in wins, 6 national championships with 3 different coaches. Still very relevant today.
Kanas - first FF in 1940, FF in 8 decades, 2nd in all-time wins, 4 national championships with 4 different coaches. Still very relevant today.
I can see an argument for:
Duke - first FF in 1963, FF in 7 decades, 4th all-time in wins, 5 national championships with 1 coach. Still very relevant today.
UCLA - first FF in 1962, FF in 5 decades, 5th all-time in wins, 11 national championships with 2 coaches. Still pretty relevant today.
Indiana was a blue blood at one time, but their irrelevance since the mid 90's (1 Elite Eight in the past 30 years) dropped them from the list.
UConn just hasn't been there long enough. You can argue they are the best team of the the last 25 years, while also not saying they are a blue blood.
IMO, 3 programs are 100% blue bloods
UK - first FF in 1942, FF in 7 decades, 1st all-time in wins, 8 national championships with 5 different coaches. Still very relevant today.
UNC - first FF in 1946, FF in 9 decades, 3rd all-time in wins, 6 national championships with 3 different coaches. Still very relevant today.
Kanas - first FF in 1940, FF in 8 decades, 2nd in all-time wins, 4 national championships with 4 different coaches. Still very relevant today.
I can see an argument for:
Duke - first FF in 1963, FF in 7 decades, 4th all-time in wins, 5 national championships with 1 coach. Still very relevant today.
UCLA - first FF in 1962, FF in 5 decades, 5th all-time in wins, 11 national championships with 2 coaches. Still pretty relevant today.
Indiana was a blue blood at one time, but their irrelevance since the mid 90's (1 Elite Eight in the past 30 years) dropped them from the list.
UConn just hasn't been there long enough. You can argue they are the best team of the the last 25 years, while also not saying they are a blue blood.
NO. But they are a very solid, consistent D1 program. The conference they play in and not winning anything keeps them from being one. I do not even consider them with other solid teams who have actually won something. Teams like Baylor, UCONN (they are getting close), would be before Gonzaga.
Similar threads
