Is Gonzaga a blue blood?

[The_Answer1313]

Gonzaga is absolutely a blue blood. What they have accomplished over the last 25 years is unmatched by any program in college history. Title or not, Gonzaga has a claim for the #1 program and not one person can argue against it. Only a fool would try.

I guess this really just depends on what peoples definition of "blueblood" actually is. Are we just comparing the past 25 years or does it have to encompass an enter long period of history. At the end of the day, titles are still important and have to matter IMO.

I mean if we consider UK, UCLA, Kansas, Duke and UNC to be the "bluebloods" and they went that period, had success but resulted in no titles, no one would be happy.

 

[BlueSince92]

Gonzaga is a decent school and usually better than the paper tiger they are often suspected of being due to their pissant conference.

That’s the most you can reasonably say about them. In a world where most people won’t even recognize UCONN as a blue blood for flat out embarrassing everybody the past 25 years, nobody has any business thinking Gonzaga is anything special at all.

 

[BBUK]

View embedded media

A couple teams this season alone were not all that impressed..

 

[OBKYUK]

If they won a few titles (maybe 3-5) over the next 15-20 years then they would be in the conversation

 

[ZagsVisitor]

From a Zag fan, for what that's worth:

In my opinion, one of the many prerequisites to be a blue blook is winning multiple titles with different coaches. Any program that doesn't meet that criteria, "Do not pass go."

Common Misconceptions I notice as a Zag fan:

- "After Few retires, the program dies." We have made 24 straight tournament appearances with two different head coaches, so I do believe we can have sustained success. In the last 24 appearances, have made thirteen Sweet 16s, six Elite 8s, and two Final 4s, with eight consecutive Sweet 16s. Tommy Lloyd was already contracted for the HC position when Few retired. When the Arizona job was offered, it is rumored Lloyd asked Few whether he should take it, and Few indicated he had plenty of years left. I believe Brian Michaelson, who like Lloyd, has been with the program two decades, is well-suited take the job when Few retires. Few's coaching tree is a sapling, but a proven on, but if Michaelson still doesn't work out, I believe Gonzaga is a desired job that elite coaches would want.

- "They don't play anyone." Out of necessity, we play a brutal non-conference schedule, and we typically end up winning most or all our non-conference games. In the last 10 years, we also have a winning record against all P4 + PAC12 conferences, with the exception of the ACC,

Are we a blue blood? Firmly, no. Are we a good program with history and a bright future? I believe so.

 

[JesusCal26]

If not, where in the tier of college ball do they lie?


GO CATS!!!!
WOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Do I have a chance to have sex with Marisa Tomei?

 

[The_Answer1313]

From a Zag fan, for what that's worth:

In my opinion, one of the many prerequisites to be a blue blook is winning multiple titles with different coaches. Any program that doesn't meet that criteria, "Do not pass go."

Common Misconceptions I notice as a Zag fan:

- "After Few retires, the program dies." We have made 24 straight tournament appearances with two different head coaches, so I do believe we can have sustained success. In the last 24 appearances, have made thirteen Sweet 16s, six Elite 8s, and two Final 4s, with eight consecutive Sweet 16s. Tommy Lloyd was already contracted for the HC position when Few retired. When the Arizona job was offered, it is rumored Lloyd asked Few whether he should take it, and Few indicated he had plenty of years left. I believe Brian Michaelson, who like Lloyd, has been with the program two decades, is well-suited take the job when Few retires. Few's coaching tree is a sapling, but a proven on, but if Michaelson still doesn't work out, I believe Gonzaga is a desired job that elite coaches would want.

- "They don't play anyone." Out of necessity, we play a brutal non-conference schedule, and we typically end up winning most or all our non-conference games. In the last 10 years, we also have a winning record against all P4 + PAC12 conferences, with the exception of the ACC,

Are we a blue blood? Firmly, no. Are we a good program with history and a bright future? I believe so.

Yeah I never really got the argument of "they play no one". Gonzaga has scheduled out of conference tough games the past few years and have won their fair share of those games. Also feel like some underrate the conference they play in from time to time. Some years St. Marys has also been solid and when BYU was in the conference they weren't bad either.

The other thing was always this notion that if you aren't battle tested in a power conference, you can't do well. Although Gonzaga hasn't won a title, they've been to two finals in recent history. I think that should really put to bed the whole "they can't win cause of the conference they play in" argument.

Regarding whether they can sustain success when Few does retire, I think it remains to be seen. But to be honest, I don't think it's just a concern at a school like Gonzaga but a concern everywhere.

Tubby Smith left here and we hired Billy G who was only around for 2 years but drove this team into the ground. We rebounded when Cal was hire in 2010 but a lot of this will be who Gonzaga is able to bring in when Few does hang it up.

 

[JesusCal26]

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.

Another blue blood thread lol I love these no Gonzaga is not. Duke isn’t a blue blood either. The blue bloods of college basketball are UK KU UNC UCLA. That’s it, that’s the four. Duke and UConn are great programs they’re not blue bloods. Only four can fit on Mount Rushmore. Butler is more of a blue blood than the zags

 

[JesusCal26]

There are 4 blue bloods: UK, KU, Duke, UNC

UCLA no Puke

 

[DreadLox]

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.

UL and WKU were -- within some of our memories -- in the top 20 all time win programs. Ed Diddle at WKU is fondly remembered as one of the great coaches.

UL had Peck Hickman, Denny Crum, and (alas) Rick Pitino. There was a scandalous decade in there, but lots of aristocracies have scoundrels in their past.

 

[BC_Wader]

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 did come back with they probably shouldn't be. Their heyday they were without a doubt one of the best programs along with IU. Take your Big Blue Goggles off and tell me why IU or UCLA shouldn't be.

 

[JesusCal26]

I did come back with they probably shouldn't be. Their heyday they were without a doubt one of the best programs along with IU. Take your Big Blue Goggles off and tell me why IU or UCLA shouldn't be.

UCLA is obviously Indiana obviously not

 

[mebeblue2]

"blue bloods" are the teams that put CBB on the map and made it what is is today
they are
Kentucky
UNC
Duke
KU
Indiana
UCLA

the only other team that is remotely close is UConn

 

[darkshadesofblue]

No, they’re a New-blood. A Blue Blood to me is a more foundational program from the 40s & 50s when college basketball was fresh. Anything beyond that is New-blood territory

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

No. The big 4. Their window already looks to be closing and they didn't get much done during it.

 

[cats1920]

Gonzaga, no. Zero championships. Not even close.

In regards to UCONN, what does Blue Blood actually mean? Is it one of the most elite programs in college basektball? UCONN is very much there. If we're using the term to say that this school/program is one of the best programs of all time--UCONN has earned that.

If we're saying Blue blood isn't about winning, but about the origins of college basketball--then it would be a settled debate, and there's no reason to bring it up again

 

[Skyguyb27]

UL and WKU were -- within some of our memories -- in the top 20 all time win programs. Ed Diddle at WKU is fondly remembered as one of the great coaches.

UL had Peck Hickman, Denny Crum, and (alas) Rick Pitino. They was a scandalous decade in there, but lots of aristocracies have scoundrels in their past.

Been to Diddle arena many times. Grew up in BG.

 

[Skyguyb27]

I did come back with they probably shouldn't be. Their heyday they were without a doubt one of the best programs along with IU. Take your Big Blue Goggles off and tell me why IU or UCLA shouldn't be.

You mean besides they haven’t won anything in almost 40 years for both IU and UL? Again what criteria are you using to put those cockroaches into the same conversation as the main 4.

 

[BC_Wader]

You mean besides they haven’t won anything in almost 40 years for both IU and UL? Again what criteria are you using to put those cockroaches into the same conversation as the main 4.

I mean, IS there a criteria? Who invented the phrase? I think it's just a term to stir debate. I'm old school. In my youth, those schools you don't deem worthy were very much worthy. Sure IU, UL, and UCLA suck now. Can a team fall out of that made up tier? I actually eliminated UL but they have a case, albeit a small one. UCLA and IU has traditionally been better than UL. And who's to say there is only 4? Eliminate UL, which I did, and there are six teams and I feel there is no debate about that. But I guess we'll agree to disagree and that's cool too.

 

[Skyguyb27]

I mean, IS there a criteria? Who invented the phrase? I think it's just a term to stir debate. I'm old school. In my youth, those schools you don't deem worthy were very much worthy. Sure IU, UL, and UCLA suck now. Can a team fall out of that made up tier? I actually eliminated UL but they have a case, albeit a small one. UCLA and IU has traditionally been better than UL. And who's to say there is only 4? Eliminate UL, which I did, and there are six teams and I feel there is no debate about that. But I guess we'll agree to disagree and that's cool too.

It’s easy to minimize their shortcomings for you. To put it in perspective for you, there are kids in college now getting ready to graduate that their parents never saw these teams win a championship in their lifetimes. A blue blood might have had years (or a decade if your AD is a dumba$$ and gives out lifetime contracts), but working on half a century is a whole different conversation.

 

[BC_Wader]

It’s easy to minimize their shortcomings for you. To put it in perspective for you, there are kids in college now getting ready to graduate that their parents never saw these teams win a championship in their lifetimes. A blue blood might have had years (or a decade if your AD is a dumba$$ and gives out lifetime contracts), but working on half a century is a whole different conversation.

Thanks for not playing.

 

[TOMCATS1990]

There are 4 blue bloods: UK, KU, Duke, UNC

UCONN is a BLUEBLOOD

 

[Skyguyb27]

Thanks for not playing.

I guess you are not gonna tell me your criteria. Must be because you can’t defend your point of view.

 

[*CatinIL*]

Have they won anything that deserves that title? Hell NO! They're a poor mans Duke that the media likes to fawn all over every March.

 

[megablue]

No. Bluebloods do not play their schedule. Solid program, though.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

View embedded media

It's pathetic that our last banner was hung almost a decade ago.

 

[L.O.D.]

UCONN has a legit argument as being a blue blood . Gonzaga is a level below

 

[ukjenning44]

Are we still a blue blood is a better question?

We are closer to Indiana than blue blood sadly!

 

[UKAlum84]

They make noise in March.

Thats about it.

I hope we win today but I figure we have another hard game to play.

 

[MakinMusic]

No

 

[MakinMusic]

I believe Kentucky is higher on the list due to our winning championships with 5 different coaches. That is remarkable and a true testament to the program and strength of it.

 

[ukfan1622]

They are as blue as it gets...in the WCC.

 

[ukfan1622]

UCONN is a BLUEBLOOD

Yeah, they have too many championships to deny.

 

[rick64]

 

[ukwazoo]

Yes, everyone is a blue blood now. It's 2024.

 

[true blue1]

Few has done a great job out there but they’re not a blue blood school.

 

[Neue Regel]

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.

You can’t grade someone though based on something they haven’t won yet. You said if they win it this year they would have more than Duke, well, they currently have more than Kansas already! I’m sure Jayhawk fans would respond with a lineage list such as 11 other Final Fours (to UCONN’s 1) (12 for Duke) and a top 5 seat in all time wins. (Don’t know the totals now since the KU forfeit and Teflon Bill exoneration)

 

[crestcat]

I guess people need to understand what the term Blue Blood means. Growing up, Blue Blood families were those that made their lol 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.

Few has done a great job out there but they’re not a blue blood school.

About 50 years late.

 

[Lazlo7]

They were on track to be a New Blood

 

[FirewithFire]

No. They have only found success in recent times and under one coach, few. They also play nobody and have zero titles. If they can replicate it under another coach then maybe.

I would say:
UK
UCLA
Kansas
North Carolina
UCONN

Solid arguments for:
Duke
Villanova