Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2023 3:26 pm**

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... blue-blood

I am of the mind that the list of Blue Bloods is not open for editing and additional success cannot just add you to it. If your program doesn't trace back through the roots of the sport them you aren't a blue blood. Kansas, Kentucky, Carolina and Indiana are my list with Duke and UCLA eligible as "I won't argue a lot about them but I don't think they really are".

I don't why people can't just be OK being on the list of current power programs? That's where UConn and Nova both are, no matter how many more titles either wins.

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2023 3:40 pm**

I recall talking about this just before the NCAA title game last season.
Titles simply aren't everything.
They're a top notch program with good history - but it doesn't compare to the aforementioned.

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:13 pm**

I'd say UCLA is...their history goes as far back as Indiana's. Duke probably is. UConn is not, Zona is not, MSU is not. None of those can get there.

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:14 pm**

If you want to be technical...Kansas Carolina, Kentucky are tier 1. And no one else is allowed, can't get there.

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:48 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:14 pm If you want to be technical...Kansas Carolina, Kentucky are tier 1. And no one else is allowed, can't get there.

^^^^^

Posted: **Tue Dec 05, 2023 7:35 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:14 pm If you want to be technical...Kansas Carolina, Kentucky are tier 1. And no one else is allowed, can't get there.

QFT

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 6:15 am**

Ask 100 people who are somewhat knowledgeable about college basketball who the top 10 college basketball programs in terms of wins are and most will say Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, and then have no idea who the other 4 are.

twocoach said, "If your program doesn't trace back through the roots of the sport them you aren't a blue blood. Kansas, Kentucky, Carolina and Indiana are my list with Duke and UCLA eligible".

UConn's history dates back to 1901.
UNC's isn't that old.
Kentucky's isn't that old.
Duke's isn't that old.
UCLA's isn't that old.

Unrelated side note - I bet there isn't a single one of you reading this that knows the University of Washington had a basketball program before the University of Kansas did.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 7:17 am**

so, blue blood?

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 7:48 am**

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 6:15 am Ask 100 people who are somewhat knowledgeable about college basketball who the top 10 college basketball programs in terms of wins are and most will say Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, and then have no idea who the other 4 are.

twocoach said, "If your program doesn't trace back through the roots of the sport them you aren't a blue blood. Kansas, Kentucky, Carolina and Indiana are my list with Duke and UCLA eligible".

UConn's history dates back to 1901.
UNC's isn't that old.
Kentucky's isn't that old.
Duke's isn't that old.
UCLA's isn't that old.

Unrelated side note - I bet there isn't a single one of you reading this that knows the University of Washington had a basketball program before the University of Kansas did.

I bet there's at least one....

Considering a I went there for part of undergrad and did my masters degree there.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:14 am**

the Indiana State Sycamores have one of the oldest D1 programs (1896 inaugural season)…if you don’t know their most famous alum, you suck

St. Francis (of Brooklyn) also debuted in 1896, but apparently scrapped their entire athletics program recently

KU - 1898
uk - 1903
unc - 1910
iu - 1901
ucla - 1919
duke - 1905
uconn - 1901
sparty - 1898
‘nova - 1920

vanderbilt - 1893
geneva college - 1893
drexel - 1894
temple - 1894
univ. chicago - 1894
iowa - 1894
yale - 1897
penn - 1897

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:26 am**

I think Blue Bloods can come and go, in a sense, but to become one or to loose the distinction is a very slow burn.

I think the qualifications are some comprehensive body of work over the decades, yes some given to a certain history, but also a certain nod given to still being a top program contemporaneously too.

Ottomh, the only school I think that often gets the blue blood treatment but maybe the distinction is compromised, is UCLA.

You just don’t win that many rings in a row unless like every single player in your team is given the SDS/Billy Preston/Zion treatment, like every day, twice on game days.

I dunno why their run should be so revered back then, if we’re expected to take down banners for that shit in real time.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:37 am**

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 6:15 am Ask 100 people who are somewhat knowledgeable about college basketball who the top 10 college basketball programs in terms of wins are and most will say Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, and then have no idea who the other 4 are.

twocoach said, "If your program doesn't trace back through the roots of the sport them you aren't a blue blood. Kansas, Kentucky, Carolina and Indiana are my list with Duke and UCLA eligible".

UConn's history dates back to 1901.
UNC's isn't that old.
Kentucky's isn't that old.
Duke's isn't that old.
UCLA's isn't that old.

Unrelated side note - I bet there isn't a single one of you reading this that knows the University of Washington had a basketball program before the University of Kansas did.

Many teams existed back then. Few had history that mattered to the game like Kansas, Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana. Maybe I overestimated that people would understand the difference.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:42 am**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:13 pm I'd say UCLA is...their history goes as far back as Indiana's. Duke probably is. UConn is not, Zona is not, MSU is not. None of those can get there.

UCLA was irrelevant prior to the 60s. Their coach in the 20s and 30s was a lawyer who coached the team part time. Indiana started to matter in the 20s under Everett Dean and won the second ever NCAA tourney in 1940.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:48 am**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:26 am I think Blue Bloods can come and go, in a sense, but to become one or to loose the distinction is a very slow burn.

I think the qualifications are some comprehensive body of work over the decades, yes some given to a certain history, but also a certain nod given to still being a top program contemporaneously too.

Ottomh, the only school I think that often gets the blue blood treatment but maybe the distinction is compromised, is UCLA.

You just don’t win that many rings in a row unless like every single player in your team is given the SDS/Billy Preston/Zion treatment, like every day, twice on game days.

I dunno why their run should be so revered back then, if we’re expected to take down banners for that shit in real time.

UCLA is only mentioned because of the volume of titles won by Wooden over a period of 12 years when his roster was purchased for him by Sam Gilbert in an era of NIL Gone Wild. Outside of the Same Gilbert era, UCLA is basically Michigan State.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:56 am**

not really a fan of wiki, but i do agree with this take generally:

There is debate among which teams should be considered blue bloods.[3] Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina (UNC), and UCLA are the schools most often written about by sports media when discussing blue bloods.[1][3][4] Sports media writers generally consider these schools among the best due to being among the winningest teams in the regular season, as well as having won a considerable amount of championships.[6]

UConn has also earned some consideration as a blue blood, and their 2023 championship solidified such a status for many media writers.[7][8][9] O'Neil wrote that "Maybe UConn's delayed entry [into blue blood membership] is due to the fact that the Huskies don't quite fit the mold. The Huskies are more feisty than refined," adding that "they also read more blue-collar than blue-blooded."[4] Villanova's Final Four and championship game appearances in the 2010s and 2020s has also garnered them consideration for blue blood status.[3] When Duke, Kansas, UNC, and Villanova all made the Final Four in the 2022 NCAA tournament, numerous basketball media writers discussed the occasion as the first time all Final Four teams were blue bloods.[9][10][11]

UCLA and Indiana are sometimes excluded from lists of blue bloods, or have had their status as a blue blood program called into question.[3][6][12] This is due to the majority of their success and championships coming under one coach or occurring during one particular stretch.[12] Writing for Sports Illustrated's FanNation in 2021, Davis Wallace described the two programs, as well as Michigan State and UConn, as "True Bloods", stating that these schools "aren't consistent enough to be considered a top-tier Blue Blood, but they still have a history that's respected."[12] Wallace also listed Virginia, Gonzaga, Villanova, and Michigan as "New Bloods" due to their more recent success.[12] In 2022, Will Backus of 247Sports noted that Indiana's inclusion on listings of blue bloods has become more "tenuous" in recent years.[1] The blue blood status for Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC have a wider consensus.[2][5]

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:01 am**

It seems that fans of programs who AREN'T Blue Bloods will inevitably have a different definition of what a Blue Blood is.

Writers, they just pitch the widest net.

Duke has a better argument than UCLA but to me, they are Tier 2 just below KU, UK, Carolina and Indiana.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:11 am**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:14 pm If you want to be technical...Kansas Carolina, Kentucky are tier 1. And no one else is allowed, can't get there.

I think Blue Blood status is a composite of history, success, indispensability, passion and trajectory.

So, I can’t argue much with your view!

In my opinion, UCONN (like Villanova) doesn’t have the history.

Indiana fails for contemporary success and trajectory.

UCLA fails for passion.

If we allow Duke in the club, I think it would be on some sort of probationary basis. I think you have to be able to do it with multiple coaches - I think that is a hard requirement. And we just don’t know yet with Scheyer.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:20 am**

I can agree with all of that

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:22 am**

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:14 am the Indiana State Sycamores have one of the oldest D1 programs (1896 inaugural season)…if you don’t know their most famous alum, you suck

St. Francis (of Brooklyn) also debuted in 1896, but apparently scrapped their entire athletics program recently

KU - 1898
uk - 1903
unc - 1910
iu - 1901
ucla - 1919
duke - 1905
uconn - 1901
sparty - 1898
‘nova - 1920

vanderbilt - 1893
geneva college - 1893
drexel - 1894
temple - 1894
univ. chicago - 1894
iowa - 1894
yale - 1897
penn - 1897

UW 1895/96
Oregon State 1900

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:34 am**

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:11 am
TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:14 pm If you want to be technical...Kansas Carolina, Kentucky are tier 1. And no one else is allowed, can't get there.
I think Blue Blood status is a composite of history, success, indispensability, passion and trajectory.

So, I can’t argue much with your view!

In my opinion, UCONN (like Villanova) doesn’t have the history.

Indiana fails for contemporary success and trajectory.

UCLA fails for passion.

If we allow Duke in the club, I think it would be on some sort of probationary basis. I think you have to be able to do it with multiple coaches - I think that is a hard requirement. And we just don’t know yet with Scheyer.

Duke made one tourney prior to 1960. Their success in making three Final Fours and a title game in the 60s is the only thing that keeps them from being truly a one-coach program. I've officially talked myself out of including them to my list, thank you for the assist!

Kansas Crimson

Blue Bloods

Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods

Re: Blue Bloods