AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Who are the true blue bloods in MBB?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I'd make an argument for MSU and nova. Indiana lacks the luster. Uconn... I dunno, I could be convinced, but I think I need more consistency from them? So much of "blue blood" is the aura around the program, not just the success. I don't think Uconn moves that needle.
Yeah. UConn's a really tough call. If they win this year and it's 5 titles in the past 25 years, I don't know if I could leave them out even though they don't seem to have much middle ground between Final Four seasons and irrelevant seasons.
I probably go all 9 and add a tenth in Louisville (3 titles, 10 Final 4s, 28 Sweet 16s). Got to ignore all wins and tourney results from 2011-2015 getting vacated by NCAA penalties.
What you have done lately does matter. UConn winning another title would almost have to put them in.
Indiana is an absolute no because of lack of recent success. They haven't been in a Final 4 in the time most of the players in this years tourney have been alive.
For a period of time UCLA was at risk of falling into the same category but they are back to at least competing for Final 4s.
Yes both have history but so do the Ivies and the service academies in football. Blue Blood requires a combination of history and recent success.
I think the list on the left are the "true" blue bloods of CBB. The ones on the right are certainly in the conversation but they're down a tier, and I'd probably add Louisville to that same tier. Indiana has actually accomplished more than KU historically but you don't think of them as one of THE programs in the sport and they haven't even been to a Final 4 in over 20 years.
I was kind of thinking the same thing about UCLA since if they don't win it all in the next couple of years it'll be just 1 title over the last 50 years. But at the same time their Sweet 16 rate is 50% since 1990 so they're still a tournament regular past the first weekend and belong in that top tier for the foreseeable future.
The most important thing is that Arizona should not be sniffing any blue blood or blue blood adjacent list at all.
Hidden Fees
Well-Known Member
I'm of the opinion that sustainability and the long term trump recency. Some thots:
A blue blood must have multiple natty's. These championships should be in different eras, or decades, or whatever time break works. A true blue blood wins the trophy with different head coaches.
A blue blood program is the brand of the school; when you think of school x (a blue blood) you immediately think of basketball. The brand and tradition recruits itself and can survive a period of mediocrity - the right hire puts them right back in the national conversation.
Let's look at multiple natty winners first:
Then let's apply the criteria I outlined above (with 2 categories - definite Blue Bloods and either Wannabe's or currently on BB Double Secret Probation)
Blue Bloods, fo sure
Wannabe's or currently on Blue Blood Double Secret Probation:
I struggled with Indiana, but they've won titles all the way back to the 40's. I struggled with Duke - that was an incredible 25 year history but I'm interested to see what happens now that coach K has retired. I think I would move UConn up if they win it all this year. I've included Meatchicken State in the second level as I would hate to play them (and Coach Izzo) in the first round of any tournament; however, their only other title had a guy named Magic Johnson running the show.
A blue blood must have multiple natty's. These championships should be in different eras, or decades, or whatever time break works. A true blue blood wins the trophy with different head coaches.
A blue blood program is the brand of the school; when you think of school x (a blue blood) you immediately think of basketball. The brand and tradition recruits itself and can survive a period of mediocrity - the right hire puts them right back in the national conversation.
Let's look at multiple natty winners first:
| team | titles |
| UCLA | 11 |
| Kentucky | 8 |
| North Carolina | 6 |
| Indiana | 5 |
| Duke | 5 |
| Kansas | 4 |
| Connecticut | 4 |
| Louisville | 3 |
| Villanova | 3 |
| Michigan State | 2 |
| Cincinnati | 2 |
| Florida | 2 |
| North Carolina State | 2 |
| Oklahoma State | 2 |
| San Francisco | 2 |
Then let's apply the criteria I outlined above (with 2 categories - definite Blue Bloods and either Wannabe's or currently on BB Double Secret Probation)
Blue Bloods, fo sure
| Team | Titles | # Coaches | Eras (or timestamps) |
| UCLA | 11 | 2 | 3 |
| Kentucky | 8 | 5 | 5 |
| North Carolina | 6 | 3 | 4 |
| Kansas | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Indiana * | 5 | 2 | 2 |
Wannabe's or currently on Blue Blood Double Secret Probation:
| Team | Titles | # Coaches | Eras (or timestamps) | Why? |
| Duke | 5 | 1 | 2 | only 1 coach; 25 year run |
| Connecticut | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 titles in 15 years |
| Louisville | 3 | 2 | 2 | vacated title in 2nd era |
| Michigan State | 2 | 2 | 2 | not just basketball |
I struggled with Indiana, but they've won titles all the way back to the 40's. I struggled with Duke - that was an incredible 25 year history but I'm interested to see what happens now that coach K has retired. I think I would move UConn up if they win it all this year. I've included Meatchicken State in the second level as I would hate to play them (and Coach Izzo) in the first round of any tournament; however, their only other title had a guy named Magic Johnson running the show.
Hidden Fees
Well-Known Member
I left one off my wannabe list -- Villanova. 3 titles, 2 coaches, 2 different eras. They're close....
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
UCLA made one as recently as 2021. They're a blueblood.
As I mentioned they are back into that group. For a period they were struggling including completely missing the tournament multiple years. Where they are now and with their history they are easily in the blueblood group.
Formerly_Medford
Well-Known Member
It's just those five and no one else is really in the conversation
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I'd put Duke in that group for now-I mean we'll have to see what happens with Jon Scheyer.
No way I would consider Indiana a blue blood anymore. Maybe at one time, but they've been a .500 team in conference play for the last 20 years. I don't even consider them in that 2nd tier at this point. They're just another decent B10 program.
Duke has to be in the group for now, but could easily drop without Coach K.
Izzo has had a special tenure at Michigan State, but I wouldn't consider them a blue blood until they prove they can sustain it after he leaves.
Nova and Connecticut are moving that direction, but are still a clear step below the others, imo.
Duke has to be in the group for now, but could easily drop without Coach K.
Izzo has had a special tenure at Michigan State, but I wouldn't consider them a blue blood until they prove they can sustain it after he leaves.
Nova and Connecticut are moving that direction, but are still a clear step below the others, imo.
K retiring hasn't hurt Duke's recruiting any. Now, they keep getting bounced early from the tournament, then I could see them falling some on how they are thought of. Duke is a brand though basically and K is still all over that program just not on the sideline. We shall see, like you said.
Just because Coach K is gone doesn't mean that the Duke fans, donors, or administration will settle for falling back and being just another program.
They will spend the money to find the right coach and give him the support they need to be back as a regular in the sweet 16 and contending for titles. If they have to replace a few coaches to do this they will gladly spend the money.
They won't settle for being average, winning at basketball is too important for them
Was it Bubas or whatever? Before my time, but I've heard the name before.
Yup.
WTAF Is everyone talking about here?
Duke lost single digit games this year and won the ACC tourney.
If you summarize THAT season as "getting bounced early" because they lost in the round of 32, isn't that the definition of a blue blood?
UNC didn't even make the tournament this year and no one is saying the same thing about them.
WTAF?
Yeah... but **** Duke.
Seriously, Duke is an absolute blue blood, but Scheyer has a lot to prove at the same time. For what it's worth, Hubert Davis also has a lot to prove. That's Roy's team he took to the championship game, and had a pretty epic flame out this year based on expectations. Both still the bluest of blue bloods with Kansas and Kentucky. UCLA needs to win another title soon or else they'll remain tier 1B of the blue bloods.
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
damn...so many closet Duke fans on this board...
The team Buffnik was referring to was coached by Bill Foster, and they lost in the finals. Vic Bubas was Duke's first great coach in the 60s, who took them to some FFs and at least one runner-up.
For what it's worth, I get all the Duke hate, but if you're somone that tries to argue Duke isn't a blue blood...your hatred is affecting your thinking.
Go Buffs and Go Nuggets....hope all is well in Allbuffs land.
The team Buffnik was referring to was coached by Bill Foster, and they lost in the finals. Vic Bubas was Duke's first great coach in the 60s, who took them to some FFs and at least one runner-up.
For what it's worth, I get all the Duke hate, but if you're somone that tries to argue Duke isn't a blue blood...your hatred is affecting your thinking.
Go Buffs and Go Nuggets....hope all is well in Allbuffs land.
To be clear- whether or not Hubert Davis succeeds at UNC, they'll still be blue bloods.
It just makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills when Duke seems to be in a much better position (UNC underperformed, is hemorrhaging talent to the portal, and is bringing in a class that's much less thought of than Colorado's), and everyone's like: Duke better shape up or I'm not going to consider them a blue blood anymore.
damn...so many closet Duke fans on this board...
The team Buffnik was referring to was coached by Bill Foster, and they lost in the finals. Vic Bubas was Duke's first great coach in the 60s, who took them to some FFs and at least one runner-up.
For what it's worth, I get all the Duke hate, but if you're somone that tries to argue Duke isn't a blue blood...your hatred is affecting your thinking.
Go Buffs and Go Nuggets....hope all is well in Allbuffs land.
Don't be such a stranger on this board!
They are to me for sure. We I said falling some on how they're thought of, I wasn't talking about what I would think about it. I hear ya on the Carolina stuff too.
Break in. When the cops come tell them they’re infringing on your right to practice your religion freely. I’ve got bail for you and @Darth Snow will be your lawyer.