That’s a very different statement than they were last relevant in 1975.
They’ve had FOUR Final Fours since 2006.
Definitely relevant and highly successful recently.
If that’s not relevant and highly successful recently…then UH isn’t relevant or highly successful recently by comparison (with only ONE Final Four since 1984).
Give it up.
As long as the name John Wooden is attached to UCLA they will be blue blood.
Kind of like Dave Williams and UH golf. I know, I know UH golf is bad now.
But it will probably never be dominated like the Coogs did back in the day
By your own reasoning UCLA is the undisputed Basketball blue blood and ought to come first in any conversation.
It appears with its other peers among the five UNDISPUTED blue bloods.
And as far as all-time natties go…it is without peer.
UConn is certainly the team of this millennium, but its final fours and natties are all since 1999, so they really don’t have the kind of multi-generational domination needed for blue blood status.
UCLA does, having many more Final Fours going all the way from the 1960s to the 2020s.
UCLA really isnt a blue blood anymore. Last title was in the 90s
2 Likes
But their last final four was only a few years ago, and they have the most natties and second most final fours in HISTORY, including at least three Final Fours in the last 25 years.
Definitely a blue blood.
1 Like
Why don’t you just post your blue blood algorithm. Take the guess work out of it. It sounds like you make it up as you go.
1 Like
if anyone should be kicked out of that club it’s indiana, no recent final fours and they aren’t even the flagship program in their state anymore lol
2 Likes
Hardly.
As I said…the criteria is this: multi-generational high-level performance (in the form of final fours and natties).
UCLA has it; most natties and second most final fours in history…and that high-level performance extends over multiple generations (early 1960s to the 2020s in the case of Final Fours).
The other blue bloods I mentioned also fit that pattern.
UConn doesn’t. Their 6 natties and 7 final fours are among the best, but they are all since 1999.
Not multi-generational really.
UH has no natties in its history and only one Final Four since the 1980s.
Also not a blue blood.
1 Like
Ive never considered Indiana a blue blood
Had you asked me 20 years ago, I probably would have said yes.
Now, Indiana in basketball is a bit like Nebraska in football.
A “fallen” or “ex” blue blood.
1 Like
People can waste their time with gatekeeping semantics all they want. If you want to draw the line based around how successful teams were back in the days of no shot clock or three point line, have at it.
The bottom line is no team this generation has been more successful than UConn. They have more titles than Duke, Indiana, and Kansas who few argue the status of. They are tied for third all time with UNC. They are #11 in win percentage all time. They’ve had success with multiple coaches. This is not some flash in the pan program. “Traditionalists” may not like it but UConn has earned blue blood status at this point.
9 Likes
On that point, I AGREE.
But being a blue blood, at least to me, is a matter of multi-generational high-level success, as defined by natties and final fours.
As I said, only five programs, in my mind, truly meet that criteria, and they are the ones I posted above.
I feel that UConn has achieved blue blood status.
You can make the argument that once you’ve achieved blue blood status you never lose it. It may become diminished over time but there’s still a hint of it. I look at it like money. There’s old money and new money. The Vanderbilts, Astors, Rockefellers, Fords are old money (some older than others.) Do they have as much as Gates, Bezos, or Waltons? Maybe not. But there is still a bit of an aura about the names.
Duke really is newer money. They didn’t win a title until Coach K, but had been successful, albeit with no title before then.
Kansas is old money, but are still top tier.
UNC has enough titles and is still relevant.
UConn. Six title is six titles.
UCLA and Indiana are like old money, but haven’t been keeping up.
I feel like you need at least 3 titles to be considered a blue blood, not that you are one, but at least considered…
The Athletic has an article about tiers a couple of months ago. It was interesting. It had Houston rated lower that I thought they deserved. Especially when you consider some of the schools above them. Whorns? Really??
I feel each national title gives you a tinge of blue blood. Each title makes it bluer.
1 Like
By now…you should have learned…Ryon (note the unique spelling) never misses an opportunity to argue ANYTHING worthwhile.
1 Like
Only 9 teams out of 351 (2.5%) have both 35 or more 20+ win seasons and 3+ national championships.
Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, UCLA, Kansas, Louisville, Villanova, Indiana, UConn.
Some may be struggling as of late and some may be turning it up. IMO, this is the short list for blueblood status. The first six have over fifty 20+ win seasons if you want to narrow it.
NC State, OSU, and Cincy have 35 or more 20+ win seasons but only 2 national championships.
Sorry Ryon. Beg your pardon. It was autocorrected.
Worthwhile?
2 Likes
Blue blood know blue blood
1 Like