I saw a thread about Indiana basketball and there was some blue blood talk.

Wiki actually has an entry called "Blue bloods in college basketball" and it makes some very good points,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_bloods_in_college_basketball

Quote:

---

The men's programs of Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, UConn, UNC, and Indiana are often included when listing blue bloods.

---

UCLA and Indiana are often excluded from the list due to the majority of their success and championships coming under one coach or occurring during one particular stretch.

Another writer said this:

"New bloods" are Virginia, Gonzaga, Villanova and Michigan.
"True bloods" are Michigan State and UConn because they aren't consistent enough.

There is another article that is based on a point system. Example is 50 points for national championship since 1960; 10 points for Elite 8 appearances and so on. https://gojoebruin.com/2023/07/26/college-basketball-ranking-the-nine-blue-blood-programs/2

In this scenario of a point system I'd almost eliminate four teams (Villanova -1,179 points; Michigan State - 1,284 points; Indiana - 1,316 points; and UConn - 1,536 points) because historically the top five teams are so much more defined and successufl.

1. Kentucky - 2,889 points
2. UNC - 2,506
3. UCLA - 2,495
4. Kansas - 2,395
5. Duke - 2,126

I agree with UCLA. I thought maybe not, but they've been a #2 seed three times and a #3 and #4 all in the last 20 years. Last national title was 1995 - 30 years ago. They've also won 30+ games five times in last 20 years and went 31-6 in 2022-23.

Yeah, the different coaches is what really makes UCONN stand out.

I tend to think "programs" as a concept are overrated because every program is only as good as its current coach and its ability to hire the next one.

Like Houston and Baylor are, whether we like to admit it or not, college basketball powerhouse programs at the moment. But if Drew or Sampson retire, I don't think it's an absolute slam dunk that those programs stay at a high level. Houston isn't even going to do a national coaching search and do we think Baylor can lure away a top level coach that isn't connected to their program (like a McCasland)?

Yeah they're in that group still, but they're probably a full step below the others.

The key is who the broadcasters and selection committees believe come with eyeballs. LA will get the benefit of the doubt because their natural market is huge.

Aren't we really talking about historically "basketball schools" that have had longstanding success through multiple decades? All time wins list would get that to you.

Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, UCLA then the list gets a little weird: St. Johns, Temple, Notre Dame, Purdue, BYU, Indiana, Arizona, Louisville, Cincinnati. ND, BYU will always be more football than basketball. Temple, St Johns are only basketball. Indiana (sans this year) and Arizona are known for being more basketball than football. Might add them into the original list.

Going on titles is misleading: UCLA (but 90% under Wooden), Kentucky (sustained multi coach success), UNC (same), UConn (same), Duke (one coach), Indiana (2 coaches) , Kansas

So if you combine the two lists. you go with Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, UConn, Duke, UNC, Indiana, Syracuse. The rest are really just nipping at the heels (Nova, Cincy, Louisville, Purdue, Arizona)

Texas_Ag11 said:

---

Aren't we really talking about historically "basketball schools" that have had longstanding success through multiple decades? All time wins list would get that to you.

Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, UCLA then the list gets a little weird: St. Johns, Temple, Notre Dame, Purdue, BYU, Indiana, Arizona, Louisville, Cincinnati. ND, BYU will always be more football than basketball. Temple, St Johns are only basketball. Indiana (sans this year) and Arizona are known for being more basketball than football. Might add them into the original list.

Going on titles is misleading: UCLA (but 90% under Wooden), Kentucky (sustained multi coach success), UNC (same), UConn (same), Duke (one coach), Indiana (2 coaches) , Kansas

So if you combine the two lists. you go with Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, UConn, Duke, UNC, Indiana, Syracuse. The rest are really just nipping at the heels (Nova, Cincy, Louisville, Purdue, Arizona)

---

Out of that list, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC are all straight from the Naismith root. That just goes to show you how powerful tradition can be in college basketball.

This "all-time AP poll" backs up the assertion that there are 4 clear blue bloods with UCLA as a 5th: https://elipowell.com/all-time-ap-poll/

There is a clear cutoff between the top 4 and UCLA and then again between UCLA and the rest of the field.

(Aggies are #74 all time, passing Creighton last week and on pace to be about #70 by the end of the season)

- The last time Syracause was in the AP Poll was Dec. 10, 2018
- Maryland has never been ranked #1 for even one single day
- George Mason has never even been in the AP Poll. Can you say NCAAT Cinderella?

KU, UK, Duke and UNC. After that the rest are posers who have had success in the tourney ( not that I'm not jealous of them believe me I am ).
Those first four have had success, unbelievable fan support and home court advantages that anyone would be envious of. That translates into recruiting advantages which almost guarantee annual success in basketball. When those four struggle a coaching change soon follows as the fanbase is spoiled and entitled

Man, F UCLA.

Okay - It will not let me do it. Imagine a picture of two UCLA defenders grabbing Donald Sloan's arms as he tries to make the game-tying bucket in the NCAA tournament.

I don't necessarily endorse this article, but the photo is here.

aggie.devil said:

---

This "all-time AP poll" backs up the assertion that there are 4 clear blue bloods with UCLA as a 5th: https://elipowell.com/all-time-ap-poll/

There is a clear cutoff between the top 4 and UCLA and then again between UCLA and the rest of the field.

(Aggies are #74 all time, passing Creighton last week and on pace to be about #70 by the end of the season)

---

San Francisco and Duquesne really hanging on there.

Charlie Moran said:

---

KU, UK, Duke and UNC. After that the rest are posers who have had success in the tourney ( not that I'm not jealous of them believe me I am ).
Those first four have had success, unbelievable fan support and home court advantages that anyone would be envious of. That translates into recruiting advantages which almost guarantee annual success in basketball. When those four struggle a coaching change soon follows as the fanbase is spoiled and entitled

---

UConn belongs on your list with your second sentence.

greg.w.h said:

---

The key is who the broadcasters and selection committees believe come with eyeballs. LA will get the benefit of the doubt because their natural market is huge HUGE.

---

Nm

be rough to ranked behind City College New York who was last ranked in 1950.

Not sure why you would put Duke in as a blue blood and not UCLA. UCLA won the majority of their championships under one coach while Duke won ALL their championships under one coach. What's the difference? Duke's tournament success prior to K boils down to 2 coaches: Bill Foster and Vic Bubas.

Meanwhile, other than Wooden, Harrick won a championship at UCLA. The following coaches got close (at least Final Four): Gene Bartow, Larry Brown, Ben Howland and Mike Cronin. Additionally, Steve Lavin and Steve Alford went to 3 or more Sweet 16s. Meanwhile, Cougar High (just to name what most consider a good program) has never won a championship, has 2 finals losses, 4 additional FF appearances, and 11 more Sweet 16s. t.u. doesn't even come close to that, and neither does Baylor save their one title.

So yeah, UCLA definitely qualifies.

Jmo, blue blood "status" based on 20+ yrs ago should mean exactly nothing. For example I'd argue that Gonzaga or Houston for example are considerably more successful hoops program in the 21st century vs UCLA or Indiana.

Weird Observation : The current generally accepted list of "blue bloods" incl Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and UConn/UCLA if you want to include them - all have blue in their team colors.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Not sure why you would put Duke in as a blue blood and not UCLA. UCLA won the majority of their championships under one coach while Duke won ALL their championships under one coach. What's the difference? Duke's tournament success prior to K boils down to 2 coaches: Bill Foster and Vic Bubas.

Meanwhile, other than Wooden, Harrick won a championship at UCLA. The following coaches got close (at least Final Four): Gene Bartow, Larry Brown, Ben Howland and Mike Cronin. Additionally, Steve Lavin and Steve Alford went to 3 or more Sweet 16s. Meanwhile, Cougar High (just to name what most consider a good program) has never won a championship, has 2 finals losses, 4 additional FF appearances, and 11 more Sweet 16s. t.u. doesn't even come close to that, and neither does Baylor save their one title.

So yeah, UCLA definitely qualifies.

---

I think because ucla hasn't won a title in like 30 years