I know. I was kind of kidding, but UCLA is not on the same level as the big four right now. They ARE the greatest college basketball program of all time. But within the last 40 years they‘ve reached the final four 5 times and produced one championship. To put in perspective, look at the big 4:
Kansas 10FF/3 Ships
North Carolina 13FF/5 Ships
Duke 13FF/5 Ships
Kentucky 9FF/3 Ships
Different level.
You act like 15 years is a long time ago. Given the majority of programs never go to more than 1 and then the dropoff is almost as great from 1 to 2 I’d say 4 Final Fours in 17 years is doing very well.
We’re talking elite blue bloods. If you pull UCLA into the conversation based on the past 40 years, then you better invite Villanova, UConn, Michigan State, and Florida into the mix.
Past 40 years given the 20 before that
Then you are bringing Yale and Princeton back into the fold for football
So am I bringing Princeton and Yale back in due to each’s 5 CFP appearances and one championship each in last 40 years, or for their 10 championships each in the 20 years before that?
Dang that means in those decades spanning 1960s and 70s nobody but Princeton or Yale won a cfb championship. Given that level of P and Y greatness, (if it indeed happened 
), sure they are cfb blue bloods.
Ok. Im 45 years old and started watching college basketball when I was 9-10 years old. If I didn’t know history at all and solely had to choose what are considered blue blood programs for the last 4 decades, would UCLA be on my list?
Who watches basketball for 30+ years and never takes the time to learn some of the history?
That isn’t my point. Remember the criteria is consistency, tradition, and resources. Please show me where UCLA has been consistent over the past 40 years.
I just don’t think you can limit it to 40 years, especially in the case of ucla given their overwhelming dominance just before that. The age range given just about describes me (give or talk a couple years) and I absolutely have them in. And there’s no way someone could follow basketball for 35 years and not know that history. That legacy gives them leeway when they only make 20% of the last 17/18 final fours.
I mean you’re just cherry picking what history you think is relevant and what isn’t. If you stretched that time frame back another 10 years you’d have to add two titles. If you stretched it back 20 you’d have to add 8 more on top of that. If you shortened the length 10 years, you cutout UCLAs worst decade and their numbers look much more competitive with the other blue bloods. I mentioned this earlier but UCLA is also 7th (and rising) all time in wins and 5th all time in win %. They also churn out NBA talent even when they’re down so the brand is still nationally relevant. Add in the fact that they’ve seen a recent uptick under Cronin and I think UCLA is fine. They’ll win one under Mick.
The criteria is like the criteria for obscenity.
Agree. I would guess anyone over the age of say 50 believes UCLA is without a doubt a blue blood…just way too much top-notch history that feels relevant to us old farts.
The fact @T-Moar says Kansas isn’t a blue blood means we shouldn’t listen to anything he every says about college basketball.
ND’s last title in football was in 1988.
Guess what?
Still a blue blood based on their history and brand.
Same for UCLA in basketball.
The basketball game in the dome blue blooded us. We made college basketball with that. We are a national brand in basketball.
We may be a national brand, but with no natties, and such a long period of irrelevance, I don’t think that many people would describe us as a blue blood.
Houston isn’t a blue blood in basketball. We need to win a few championships for that conversation to start.
But that being said. We win one and continue making deep runs into march and the conversation will change almost immediately.
Personally, I measure Blue Blood status by number of final fours and number of HOFs on your team. By that metric, the Blue Bloods are:
To me, UH is the only one who should be on that list who has not won a title, mainly because of the players that have come through our doors over the years. We are one of the only schools (UNC, Kentucky and UCLA the others) that had three players or more on the NBA 50 and 75 greatest ever teams. E, Dream and Clyde. That says something. Or, imagine if you put a team of the best UH players ever against the best ever from Duke, UCLA, UNC and Kentucky. Who would win? We got Dream, E, Clyde, Michael Young, Rob Williams, Jarace Walker, Grimes, Don Chaney, Otis Birdsong, Bennie Anders. I would take those guys against anyone UNC, UCLA, Kentucky or Kansas could put up any day of the week.
It’s a generational thing. Most basketball fans under age 20 have no idea how dominant UCLA was under John Wooden. Unless your a UH fan, most basketball fans nationally under age 30 have never heard of Elvin Hayes, UH’s greatest basketball player. The may remember Don Chaney for coaching. The names most associated with UH basketball nationally are Olajuwon and Drexler - 39 years ago.
CKS is setting the foundation to establish UH as a blue blood.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com