What makes a team a blue blood?
- Thread starter LXWildcat
- Start date
Its pretty much like porn...you know it when you see it.
Tradition of winning at the highest levels over many eras.
Here's a side question: is Uconn a blue blood now?
Won titles under three coaches, all 5 titles were with almost entirely different teams (unlike some programs who have back-to-backs). All titles in modern era basketball.
They should at least have passed Indiana, and be seen as on par with UCLA. You could argue they are the best program from 99 until now.
Won titles under three coaches, all 5 titles were with almost entirely different teams (unlike some programs who have back-to-backs). All titles in modern era basketball.
They should at least have passed Indiana, and be seen as on par with UCLA. You could argue they are the best program from 99 until now.
If UConn wins it again this year the debate is over. They would def be one.
As of right now I would consider them one.
This. But I’ll take it one step further, winning championships IMO.
All about titles and winning for me. If a team gets more than three titles, that’s pretty impressive. But blue blood status requires a history of success over a long period.
Thats the knock on Uconn. Right? They've only been doing it at this level for 25 years..
However, for me, the titles in the 40s 50s and 60s continue to hold less and less weight as time moves on. Uconn might not have the history.. but I'd trade some titles in the 60s for titles in this era. But that's just me.
Sustained success (have to have won multiple championships as well) over multiple decades.
To be honest, I would replace IU with UConn. IU hasn't accomplished much of anything since 1987.
UConn has had sustained success in the 90s, 00s, 10, and now 20s. That coupled with 5 championships elevates them, in my opinion, to a blueblood.
To be honest, I would replace IU with UConn. IU hasn't accomplished much of anything since 1987.
UConn has had sustained success in the 90s, 00s, 10, and now 20s. That coupled with 5 championships elevates them, in my opinion, to a blueblood.
I don't think they are. Even though they have a lot of titles they just don't have the total wins or win percentage as the blue bloods. I think it's undisputed that UK, Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UCLA are blue bloods.
That set of five teams are ranked 1-5 in total wins. UConn is 25th. That set of five teams is ranked 1-5 in winning percentage. UConn is 16th.
They have five titles, but two of them are extremely flukey (2011 and 2014). I don't think you can call a team a blue blood because they've been uncommonly successful in a random, single elimination tournament. I think it requires a lot more historical success overall, which UConn just doesn't have.
Good since the start and over many different decades
Blue bloods
UK
UNC
Kansas
Hesitant to throw duke in but sure
Great historical programs but not bluebloodd
Indiana
UCLA
Uconn
Michigan state
Louisville
Blue bloods
UK
UNC
Kansas
Hesitant to throw duke in but sure
Great historical programs but not bluebloodd
Indiana
UCLA
Uconn
Michigan state
Louisville
50+ years of winning at the highest level meaning titles in multiple decades and consistently viewed as a top 25 team in non title years with E8 and beyond finishes.
Blueblood means you were royalty originally, born into to, had it before you and will have it after you. Currently UConn is the closesest to warning Blueblood status but 99-2024 isn’t enough time. 2050 and beyond you’ll start to have very few people alive that recall a time that UConn wasn’t special (that’s if UConn doesn’t fall off the map)
Blueblood means you were royalty originally, born into to, had it before you and will have it after you. Currently UConn is the closesest to warning Blueblood status but 99-2024 isn’t enough time. 2050 and beyond you’ll start to have very few people alive that recall a time that UConn wasn’t special (that’s if UConn doesn’t fall off the map)
And in 50 years when the NCAA tourney is 500 teams those titles will "have less value". Its dumb. Titles are titles.
I agree with much of what's been said. I'd sum it up by saying sustained excellence.
But there's one more thing and it's hard to define -- and that's program brand. And IMO, the UConn national brand is just not at the level of UK, UNC, Duke and Kansas. Like I said, you can't easily define it. But it exists.
But there's one more thing and it's hard to define -- and that's program brand. And IMO, the UConn national brand is just not at the level of UK, UNC, Duke and Kansas. Like I said, you can't easily define it. But it exists.
When a school has multiple titles, with multiple coaches, over multiple decades. One coach doesn't make a blue blood program. Also, being a legit threat to win a title multiple times a decade, every decade. Those two things combined are the qualifications to be a real blue blood, IMO.
In my opinion, the only real blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, and UNCheat. UConn is right there. UCLA and Duke are technically not, IMO. UCLA probably never will be. Duke can certainly get there.
In my opinion, the only real blue bloods are Kentucky, Kansas, and UNCheat. UConn is right there. UCLA and Duke are technically not, IMO. UCLA probably never will be. Duke can certainly get there.
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 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.
UCLA would be argued by some, but almost all of their success came under 1 coach.
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 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.
UCLA would be argued by some, but almost all of their success came under 1 coach.
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.
^^This (kinda)... the term blue blood should be abandoned in reference to college basketball programs. Definitions matter; if you have to fundamentally alter the meaning to fit a narrative... don't.
One can't become or even aspire to be a blue blood... you either are or you aren't. And it implies no contemporary significance or even competence aside from existing.
Similar threads
