UCLA has more national championships, more final fours, and more conference titles. What makes them second? And why do they pass Ky if they win another title?
Who are the Blue Bloods of college basketball?
- Thread starter jerseycat1
- Start date
There is no definitive definition of what makes a school a blueblood. It doesn't exist. It is all a matter of opinion. Some go by titles, but only if you have some very old ones. Some go by long term status of being a contender, some go by other measures. Can you be a blueblood, then have a bad 20 year stretch, so now you're not a blueblood, but then you win three titles in 15 years, does that get you reinstated? I guess since there is no absolute definition or list of criteria, all you have to go on is majority opinion, and if you go by that, I think you are talking about
Ky
Duke
UNC
Kansas
UCLA
and maybe Indiana
If every basketball fan in the country voted on this, I think all those get in. I do not think Uconn would quite make it, but who knows.
They need more to overcome the wins deficit. Kentucky has done with 5 different coaches for 80 years. UCLA has a string of titles from 64 to 75 then nothing again until 95. For about 3-4 decades ucla did not have a good team. Certainly before 63. UCLA is 7th in wins. Kentucky is 1 or 2 in every major category. Cal has put our tradition up as a jump ball for sure. But to grab it ucla has to win a title before us.
Exactly, because there is no official one, nor the criteria to be on it.
Tough...I mean at the end of the day if you go back to '96 they still have more NCAA titles than us....4-3....could be 5-3.
Sh*t, if they win this year they have as many as we do since 1958!
Special Kind of ignorant or troll. KY use to be yet UCLA is a big boy?……. I’ll let you look up UCLAs last title and count KYs since then.
UCLA is West Coast IU that has finally found semi relevance again. If they didn’t dominate the 60s and 70s and only had 6 or less titles then they’d be a twin sister to IU
