Who are the Blue Bloods of college basketball?

[jerseycat1]

A couple of days ago I heard (Seth Greenberg and Jay Williams) refer to UConn as a Blue Blood. No doubt if they win it this year, 5 titles in 24 years is very impressive, but not sure they are Blue Bloods. They are probably at or near the top of the second tier behind who most folks consider the true Blue Bloods: Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas and Duke (and maybe UCLA).

Everyone has their own definition, what is yours?

 

[the nail at the foul line]

I would go

Auburn
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke

 

[Smashcat]

A couple of days ago I heard (Seth Greenberg and Jay Williams) refer to UConn as a Blue Blood. No doubt if they win it this year, 5 titles in 24 years is very impressive, but not sure they are Blue Bloods. They are probably at or near the top of the second tier behind who most folks consider the true Blue Bloods: Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas and Duke (and maybe UCLA).

Everyone has their own definition, what is yours?

UConn isn't a blue blood but that's all you will hear for a long time if they win it all. I will say at least UConn has stopped the espn types from the 24/7 praising of Dook, for at least a while. 🤪

 

[calamitybone]

Kentucky
- large gap -
Kansas
UNCheat

 

[HagginHall1999]

Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, UCLA

That is it.

These are the teams that built the sport. They are teams that have continued winning for decades. UCLA gets a pass as they are all time NCAAT winner and have to be on list even though they are going on 30 years without a title. IU used to be but are no longer IMHO.

Duke, UConn and others are historically great programs but IMHO if a team never won a title prior to expansion of tourney field they cannot be on this list.

 

[truebluewildcat]

Uconn is perhaps the penultimate "blue blood" basketball school because they have dominated WBB and they have enough FFs and titles to be considered a top tier MBB program...if they win one more, I don't even think it's a discussion.

Nobody else can claim elite multi title winning men's and women's programs.

 

[HagginHall1999]

UConn has 4 titles and 6 FF since 1999. They win this year and are 5/6 in FF (champs), which is staggering.

A few more staggering stats:

Since 1999 despite winning 4 NCAAT:

- they've missed tourney 9 times

- they've lost in first/second round 7 times

- in the 9 seasons they made tourney and didn't get bounced in first weekend they've gone to 6FF and so far won 4 titles, possibly 5

(THIS LAST ONE MAKES ME WANT TO PUNCH A HOLE IN A WALL!!!!)

 

[SemperFiCat]

IF UConn wins...

Kentucky
Kansas
UNCheat
UConn

Then,
UCLA
Duke

You have to have multiple banners, with multiple coaches, over multiple decades. There's a lot that goes into the formula, but this I just my opinion.

 

[502 Wildcat]

Tier 1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Kansas
Duke
UCLA

Tier 2
UConn
Indiana
Villanova

Note: UConn moves into Tier 1 with a win this season. After years of denial from me, can't justify it anymore. 5 Titles in 24 years is absolutely elite (we have 8 in over 100 years, to illustrate how impressive this is). They'd be head and shoulders above everybody else in the 3-point line era (1987-), which is especially impressive when you consider the sport became even more competitive at that point.

 

[CincyUKFan]

A couple of days ago I heard (Seth Greenberg and Jay Williams) refer to UConn as a Blue Blood. No doubt if they win it this year, 5 titles in 24 years is very impressive, but not sure they are Blue Bloods. They are probably at or near the top of the second tier behind who most folks consider the true Blue Bloods: Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas and Duke (and maybe UCLA).

Everyone has their own definition, what is yours?

You can use whatever terms. The only term I care about is CONTENDER. And Cal has made sure that we’re not one year in and year out. And we won’t be one as long as he’s here.

It will be interesting to see the excuses that people make for him next year.

 

[BlueBomb]

This is the way I look at it. The definition of blueblood is basically someone who is born noble. That means they were a big deal from the very beginning. The only thing that then becomes debatable is how you define "beginning."

By this definition, Kentucky is the bluest of the blue, winning four championships before 1960. No wonder "blue" is our team color! Kansas and UNC won in the 50s. UCLA dominated the 60s and 70s. And IU was a huge force for a long time.

Then the next thing to consider is a program's relevance through the years. That removes IU from the equation, I would add Duke to the equation given they became prominent in the 60s and have remained so.

That leaves the true blue bloods of the sport: Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, UCLA and Duke.

By definition, UCONN cannot be a Blue Blood. At least that's the way I look at it. Neither can any other program, because no other program was "noble" from the beginning.

Word.

 

[Jamal Mercer]

UConn has 4 titles and 6 FF since 1999. They win this year and are 5/6 in FF (champs), which is staggering.

A few more staggering stats:

Since 1999 despite winning 4 NCAAT:

- they've missed tourney 9 times

- they've lost in first/second round 7 times

- in the 9 seasons they made tourney and didn't get bounced in first weekend they've gone to 6FF and so far won 4 titles, possibly 5

(THIS LAST ONE MAKES ME WANT TO PUNCH A HOLE IN A WALL!!!!)

That is insane efficiency when they actually make the tourney.

It rivals UKs efficiency on the offensive end. Unmatched.

 

[ukcatz12]

Tier 1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Kansas
Duke
UCLA

Tier 2
UConn
Indiana
Villanova

Note: UConn moves into Tier 1 with a win this season. After years of denial from me, can't justify it anymore. 5 Titles in 24 years is absolutely elite (we have 8 in over 100 years, to illustrate how impressive this is). They'd be head and shoulders above everybody else in the 3-point line era (1987-), which is especially impressive when you consider the sport became even more competitive at that point.

This is the correct answer. UCLA's success is certainly mostly historic, but they still have a title in the '90s, three straight Final Fours under Howland and a Final Four a few years ago. And the vast majority of Duke's success came under K, but they still had title game appearances before him. Both teams are blue bloods.

 

[EliteBlue]

Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, UCLA

That is it.

These are the teams that built the sport. They are teams that have continued winning for decades. UCLA gets a pass as they are all time NCAAT winner and have to be on list even though they are going on 30 years without a title. IU used to be but are no longer IMHO.

Duke, UConn and others are historically great programs but IMHO if a team never won a title prior to expansion of tourney field they cannot be on this list.

This is the correct answer. Duke has been pushed into the narrative by media types the same as UConn now and even Villanova was for a bit. Those programs have climbed into CBB royalty but the term “blueblood” means you were there from the beginning and never left. That’s only UK, Kansas, UNC, UCLA, (and maybe Indiana but they’ve loss relevancy)

But the media has just turned it into which programs are on the all time great programs list w multiple titles (espn hq’d in Connecticut also loves pushing those Northeast programs including Duke w their largely NE alumni base)…that isn’t the origin of the word though.

 

[HagginHall1999]

That is insane efficiency when they actually make the tourney.

It rivals UKs efficiency on the offensive end. Unmatched.

Pretty crazy they've either been bounced early or not made the tourney in 16/25 seasons and in the same time span are playing for a 5th title this weekend.

When I type it like that is is even more ridiculous.

 

[HagginHall1999]

Tier 1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Kansas
Duke
UCLA

Tier 2
UConn
Indiana
Villanova

Note: UConn moves into Tier 1 with a win this season. After years of denial from me, can't justify it anymore. 5 Titles in 24 years is absolutely elite (we have 8 in over 100 years, to illustrate how impressive this is). They'd be head and shoulders above everybody else in the 3-point line era (1987-), which is especially impressive when you consider the sport became even more competitive at that point.

JMHO but this isn't what "Blueblood" means.

UConn is now moving into historically great/significant program, but similar to Duke they are not and will never be a Blueblood. It is splitting hairs because I think the historical significance matters in the big picture, but CBB was built on the backs of UK, UNC, Kansas and UCLA.

Bluebloods are "old money" and everyone else that matters are "new money"

And then there is Indiana, who had the old money but the wrong nephew with a coke habit inherited it 🤣

 

[EliteBlue]

Tier 1
Kentucky
North Carolina
Kansas
Duke
UCLA

Tier 2
UConn
Indiana
Villanova

Note: UConn moves into Tier 1 with a win this season. After years of denial from me, can't justify it anymore. 5 Titles in 24 years is absolutely elite (we have 8 in over 100 years, to illustrate how impressive this is). They'd be head and shoulders above everybody else in the 3-point line era (1987-), which is especially impressive when you consider the sport became even more competitive at that point.

You just listed who the all time top programs are…that’s the same incorrect justification that the media types use when they classify Them a blueblood and essentially dumbing down the word to be a synonym for top program or elite program historically.

You aren’t wrong…those are the tiers of elite programs historically. But the term blueblood had origins meaning originators, founders, literally meaning the purest bloodline (there from the beginning). UConn is a top 5 program all time but they aren’t a blueblood. They didn’t win their first title until 1999. Maybe in year 2100 the timeline of CBB will be long enough to where pre2000 is a smaller part of the timeline and they’ve sustained for over 100 years…and they elevate to quasi-blueblood. But currently they’ve been good for a mere 25-30 years (arguably the top program in that timeframe). But that’s not historical roots in the game…aka blueblood

 

[kats23]

I’m sorry but UCONN has become a blue blood at the expense of UK. They took two titles from us. Multiple decades of success with hardware makes you a blue blood. Especially in the modern era of college basketball.
UK
Duke
UNC
UCLA
Kansas
UCONN

That’s my list.

 

[YardCat]

Kansas
Kentucky
UCLA
North Carolina
Duke

 

[RondoBaller21]

UCONN is easily a blue blood if they get their fifth.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

People can say whatever they want but if they pass Duke n titles (say uconn wins 2 this decade and Duke doesnt) then whatver blood they are is the best program of the last 30 years if they have 6 titles by 2029 from 99 to 2029

 

[TFCats11]

For now, there’s only 4 true Blue Bloods. After that , there’s 4 that used to be or are getting close.

Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke

UCLA
Indiana
UCONN (“IF” they win it this season)
Villanova (holding steady, but could drop out)

 

[CatFanInIlliniLand]

No particular order:

UCLA
UK
Kansas
UNC
DUKE
IU

If UCONN wins, they tie Duke & IU with 5 titles. You can argue that they are “Johnny come lately’s” but they did it with more than one coach. They are either on the list or Duke & IU are off.

 

[RunninRichie]

Nope. Had to be good since the start. UK, UNC, KANSAS.

 

[Jamal Mercer]

Nope. Had to be good since the start. UK, UNC, KANSAS.

This. Nobody can “become a blue blood”.

The definition of blue blood makes that impossible.

Kentucky, UNC, Kansas….and MAYBE UCLA.

 

[IndyCat1995]

Kentucky, Kansas, and UNC will always be the OGs and it won't ever change.

All three school have been winning since the game was damn near invented

 

[ukjenning44]

- in the 9 seasons they made tourney and didn't get bounced in first weekend they've gone to 6FF and so far won 4 titles, possibly 5

(THIS LAST ONE MAKES ME WANT TO PUNCH A HOLE IN A WALL!!!!)

Fortunately for them Cal was the opposing coach with talent to stop them from winning 2 of those titles.

 

[Patriot202]

A couple of days ago I heard (Seth Greenberg and Jay Williams) refer to UConn as a Blue Blood. No doubt if they win it this year, 5 titles in 24 years is very impressive, but not sure they are Blue Bloods. They are probably at or near the top of the second tier behind who most folks consider the true Blue Bloods: Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas and Duke (and maybe UCLA).

Everyone has their own definition, what is yours?

Maybe UCLA they have as many titles as Duke & UNC combined. Even without a recent title they clearly a blue blood lol

 

[Finna_Go_HAM]

This is the way I look at it. The definition of blueblood is basically someone who is born noble. That means they were a big deal from the very beginning. The only thing that then becomes debatable is how you define "beginning."

By this definition, Kentucky is the bluest of the blue, winning four championships before 1960. No wonder "blue" is our team color! Kansas and UNC won in the 50s. UCLA dominated the 60s and 70s. And IU was a huge force for a long time.

Then the next thing to consider is a program's relevance through the years. That removes IU from the equation, I would add Duke to the equation given they became prominent in the 60s and have remained so.

That leaves the true blue bloods of the sport: Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, UCLA and Duke.

By definition, UCONN cannot be a Blue Blood. At least that's the way I look at it. Neither can any other program, because no other program was "noble" from the beginning.

Word.

I like how you positioned this. Makes me think of living here in Nashville, where you have an area called Belle Meade, which is the "old money" part of town - most of these people inherited their wealth and have maintained their status for decades up to the current. Then there's the suburbs of Brentwood & Franklin, which is primarily "new money." These are your country music stars and executives, healthcare leaders, Nissan execs, Titans and Predators... UConn is definitely new money.

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Maybe UCLA they have as many titles as Duke & UNC combined. Even without a recent title they clearly a blue blood lol

Long term hard times though. Something we did not experience until now.

 

[blackcat714]

Ucla Uconn Kansas North Caralina and Duke thats the big boys indiana and Ky used to be.

 

[EKYCard643]

What's your definition of blue blood? Conference domination? Winning games? Winning titles? Final Fours? Recruiting banners? Rappers at games? All Americans?

UNC has the most Final Fours with 21.
UCLA has 19
Duke and UK at 17
Kansas at 16

Then a drop off with Louisville, Ohio State and Michigan State with 10.

Title game appearances? UCLA has 13. UK and UNC have 12.

Titles? Obviously UCLA leads with 11, UK with 8, UNC with 6, IU with 5, KU and UConn with 4...Nova and UofL with 3.

I don't personally put much weight in conference domination because each conference is too different. I don't put much stock in all time wins because - every school started at different times and have went through a century of changes.

If we look at winning % we see the same familiar faces in the top 10....UK, KU, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Nova and UofL.

You can rank them in whatever order you choose but the same 10 schools pop up no matter how you sort the stats.....UK, UNC, Duke, KU, UCLA, IU, UConn, UofL, Nova and Michigan State.

 

[Johnfarrel]

Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, UCLA

That is it.

These are the teams that built the sport. They are teams that have continued winning for decades. UCLA gets a pass as they are all time NCAAT winner and have to be on list even though they are going on 30 years without a title. IU used to be but are no longer IMHO.

Duke, UConn and others are historically great programs but IMHO if a team never won a title prior to expansion of tourney field they cannot be on this list.

Blueblood teams, like blueblood families, must be around for generations. A team winning for a couple of decades is a flash in the pan.

 

[bthaunert]

A blueblood for me is a program that has had success over decades and generations. UCONN's first Final Four was 24 years ago. That just doesn't do it for me. Here is my list:

TIER ONE
Kentucky
National Championships in the 40's, 50's, 70's, 90's and 2010's.
Final Fours in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's 90,s, 2010's

UNC
National Championships in the 50's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's
Final Fours in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's, 2020's

Kansas
National Championships in the 50's, 80's, 2000's, 2020's
Final Fours in the 40's, 50's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's, 2020's

TIER TWO
UCLA
National Championships in the 60's, 70's, 90's
Final Fours in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2020's

Duke
National Championships in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's
Final Fours in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's, 2020's

Indiana
National Championships in the 40's, 50's, 70's and 80's
Final Fours in the 40's, 50's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's

 

[UKhoopCat]

This is the way I look at it. The definition of blueblood is basically someone who is born noble. That means they were a big deal from the very beginning. The only thing that then becomes debatable is how you define "beginning."

By this definition, Kentucky is the bluest of the blue, winning four championships before 1960. No wonder "blue" is our team color! Kansas and UNC won in the 50s. UCLA dominated the 60s and 70s. And IU was a huge force for a long time.

Then the next thing to consider is a program's relevance through the years. That removes IU from the equation, I would add Duke to the equation given they became prominent in the 60s and have remained so.

That leaves the true blue bloods of the sport: Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, UCLA and Duke.

By definition, UCONN cannot be a Blue Blood. At least that's the way I look at it. Neither can any other program, because no other program was "noble" from the beginning.

Word.

I agree and I’d put UCONN in a NEW blood category.

 

[jbne222]

Moving away from the definition of “blue blood” a little bit but I think right now UK, Duke, UNC, and Kansas are the big 4. UCLA has been great historically but still a step below those 4. UConn is right there too especially if they win the championship this year

 

[Neue Regel]

I guess it depends on what you’re looking at. People trip themselves up quite a bit with inconsistent criteria. UConn has missed 8 NCAA Tournaments since 1999. (Somone said 9 but they counted the COVID year when no one had a Tournament) Let Duke or Kansas or Kentucky miss 8 NCAA tournaments in this day and age and let’s see if there’s any chatter about it yet UConn can somehow get away with that and no one bats an eye. No one says "their program is dead", they just crawl out of the void and get on the precipice of a title and it's like people are salivating over a 5th title they have yet to even win.

Tying Indiana and Duke with 5 titles doesn't hurt those schools any more than the Huskie's passing Kansas in National Championships would hurt the Jayhawks. Like John Wooden said, a lot of coaches have won one in a row. If they get a 5th one it certainly is a great achievement, but it doesn’t remove anyone else from what they have achieved. For me it’s about the totality of work not just strictly titles, not strictly wins, not strictly Final Fours and consistency matters. Being in the hunt most years matters that's what having a "program" is all about. That's what KY, UNC, Duke, Kansas and UCLA have done in their histories for very long stretches of time hence their ranking in all-time wins. UConn has not. They ebb and flow like the stock market but when they're hot they're hot.

 

[IowaMuse]

UConn has 4 titles and 6 FF since 1999. They win this year and are 5/6 in FF (champs), which is staggering.

A few more staggering stats:

Since 1999 despite winning 4 NCAAT:

- they've missed tourney 9 times

- they've lost in first/second round 7 times

- in the 9 seasons they made tourney and didn't get bounced in first weekend they've gone to 6FF and so far won 4 titles, possibly 5

(THIS LAST ONE MAKES ME WANT TO PUNCH A HOLE IN A WALL!!!!)

Would you (or anyone) take UCONNs results or UKs results in that same timeframe? Let’s take it back to 1998 or even 1996?

 

[Wildcats1st]

Kentucky, Kansas, and UNC will always be the OGs and it won't ever change.

All three school have been winning since the game was damn near invented

What was UNC winning? They didn’t won’t a title until 1957 by then we had 3. KU 1 IU 1.

Here are the blue bloods
Kentucky the bluest
UCLA is right behind us eclipse us if they win another title before we do
UNCheat had that undefeated 57 season been relevant since
Duke the list does grow over time
IU. Yes they have to be a blue blood with 5 titles the first in 53
And UCOnn a modern blue blood for sure but they’ve done what it takes

 

[CaptainBoogerBuns]

Let’s hear fans of other schools’ lists.