We’re alrready NCAA BB royalty. Just need to seal it with a NC or 2. Eastcoast got it right in his post
1 Like
Still kinda new to the world of College Basketball…but wouldn’t at least 1 National Championship be a pre-requisite to being considered a Blue Blood?
In my view, it takes two or more natties and several final fours to even put a school in the “blue blood” conversation.
I look at that list, I wouldn’t consider Georgetown a blue blood. Other than the John Thompson era, they’ve been been mediocre for the most part. A year or two of success, but that’s been the exception rather than the rule. I consider us in that same sphere. Until CKS came along, our only true success was with one coach.
Is Cincinnati a blue blood? Very good in the late 50’s early 60’s. OK St? Two titles in the 40’s and two FF’s since?
To me, for us to be a blue blood, we need to win multiple NC’s and be a constant fixture the second and third weekends of the tournament. The Big XII will buff up the resume with what should be constant tournament appearances. But, once you’re there, you have to win. Also, sustained success with multiple coaches. Once Mark Few leaves Gonzaga, how successful will they be?
We’re not blue blood yet, but I feel we’re on our way.
We literally have a whole era dedicated to several teams and a bunch of NBA greats.
We were in the first televised game
There’s documentaries about our program.
We’re blue blood.
3 Likes
Maybe if we’d knocked off UCLA once in the 60’s, not choked against NCST in the 80’s , and not completely fallen off in the 90s/00s wed have a case. The blue blood discussion breaks out multiple times a season across various boards. I’ve never even see UH be discussed as a possible blue blood by any non-UH fan. That alone tells you everything you need to know.
1 Like
I’m not cherry picking anything. I’m talking about the consistency aspect. UCLA just hasn’t had it like the four horseman (Duke, UK, UNC, and KU) for the past 35+ years. If they were a blueblood on the elite level, then you’d see it in the eyes of the AP voters preseason every year. I did some digging, and you can check for yourself on Men’s Basketball | College Poll Archive
I broke down each school’s preseason ranking for the past 35 seasons, and you can clearly see that one does not look like the others. For the times the schools weren’t ranked preseason, I gave them an arbitrary ranking of 27 (2 spots outside the top 25). The highlighted cells at the bottom is the average ranking of the four horsemen and UCLA. If UCLA had the coaching, the pedigree, and the recruits, then they would have been treated like a blue blood during preseason rankings every single season.
This brings me to my point about @uhlaw97 saying Notre Dame is a blueblood regardless of their last championship in 1988. Yeah, well Notre Dame is on their own TV contract with a major network. They are a Catholic school which is by far the number one religion in the country. Anytime Notre Dame catches lightning in a season, the entire football world goes nuts. I don’t see that with UCLA in basketball.
Btw, their average preseason ranking is 13.56 for the past 35 seasons. They also finish high in recruiting rankings each season due to their exposure and branding. Ever since 247 started ranking college basketball teams (2011), you’ll find that UCLA is all over the place. They’ve been ranked in the 70s a couple of times and as high as 2 another time. Bluebloods finish near the top almost every time.
He gets it. Greatest Game of the Century, played by UH in the 8th wonder of the world, before a record breaking crowd of 50k plus which stood the test time for decades before broken. Phi Slama Jama still talked about to this day as part of CBB folklore. UH has been in some epic games. (3) throw in Chaney on Defense (4) Top 50 NBA all time players. HOF coach etc. We’re a blue, purple blood or whatever adjective you want to use, to show this program has history few others have in CBB
1 Like
No rings = we are a good, strong red-blooded program, but not blue.
2 Likes
I would agree with that.
I was surprised to find out that Cincy has already won 2 National Titles in their Basketball history, and we have none.
You are cherry-picking but that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. Most people do consider UCLA a blue blood though for the reasons I listed.
Indeed.
We hold the dubious distinction of being the school with the most Final Fours without a championship.
Hopefully, that changes this season.
At that point, another of my alma maters, Illinois, will be number one in that regard with five.
We’re purple blood at best. True blue bloods can withstand a coaching change.That’s a slim few. Kansas, UNC, UK, UCLA.
But UCLA couldn’t at times. They’ve been through 7 coaches since ‘83 and have taken some lumps. Kentucky’s been through 6 and somehow sustained success at a much higher clip than UCLA.
With blue bloods, I look at it like money. Rich is rich. But there’s money and there’s old money. UCLA is old money.
2 Likes
And that’s why Kentucky is the #1 program of all time. But just because UCLA is less than Kentucky doesn’t mean they aren’t a blue blood. After all you seem to consider Duke a blue blood and yet they’ve never won a title outside K.
UH can be proud that it is part of a historically significant event in college basketball history, the Game of the Century. No debate there. I would also point out that UH was more accepting of black basketball athletes than most of the major Texas schools in the 1960s.I think that is something we all should be proud of.
However, if the blue blood criteria is decades or generations of sustained greatness on the court, UH is not in the conversation.
2 Likes
There can be a difference between blue blood and significant.
You can argue that we aren’t a blue blood but can’t argue that we aren’t historically significant.
We changed basketball twice. The game of the century made basketball important. Phi Slamma Jamma made basketball above the rim.
Couple that with 6 Final Fours…yeah we are really important
UCLA is a legacy blue blood. Said that from the very beginning. I also said they are the greatest program of all-time, but that doesn’t translate to you being an elite blue blood for the entirety of the sport.
I can name a slew of programs who’ve been just as successful as UCLA for the past 40 years. They aren’t considered elite blue bloods, but somehow UCLA is because of the run they made in the 60s-70s.
Again, if you’re a blue blood, your preseason ranking is going to show it. Look at Texas in football. They’ve got a couple of BCS bowls and one natty to show for it since 2000. Every season the hype machine gets behind them they come in overrated with a high ranking. And even if they’re not ranked high preseason, they shoot up the rankings faster than anyone with a couple of wins to start the season. They are getting the blue blood treatment.
UCLA does not get that same treatment.
I hate disagreeing with my fellow Coog, but Louisville’s “Doctors of Dunk” predated Phi Slama Jama by two years. I will say that Phi Slama Jama is a much cooler name.