Poll: Can MU Regain Blue Blood Status

[Herman Cain]

MU was once a college basketball blue blood. Arguably, we were the consensus Number 2 program of the Era. Clearly we were the non UCLA team no one ever wanted to play.

Although , we have fallen from those lofty levels, I believe we have  the fundamentals in place to make a charge back up the mountain. Our athletic department is very solid and provides a quality base line to build off of.  The school is willing to spend the resources on facilities and everything necessary to compete.  We are in a top tier conference. So the only thing left is the high level winning tradition  for 15 years and a Hall of Fame level coach.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Depends on what you mean by blue blood. To be one of the top 10 programs of all time? Sure. To be one of the top 4 or 5 teams of a decade? Yes. I don't think we can ever be as dominate as we were in the 70s. I just think there is too much parity for any team to raise to that level again.

[dgies9156]

I believe we can and we will.

We've been close a couple of times only to lose our coach and start over. The key for us is to ensure our coach has all the tools and wants to stay. I'm hopeful we have that in Wojo.

I would note that in 1976 or 1977, no one thought Duke was a blue blood either. Being that good comes from a commitment by the university to give the program what it needs, the alumni to support the program and the community to embrace it. I think we have all of these in place at Marquette and if Wojo stays on the current track, we'll be there.

Keep in mind, it took Al about four years before we were REALLY good in a world that was entirely different than what we face today.

[Anti-Dentite]

MU wasn't blueblood even when we were blueblood, junkyard dogs, yes, blueblood, no.

[blikemike2]

Love MU but blueblood status?? Not happening although it will be interesting to see what happens at Duke, NC, Kansas and Kentucky with their next coaching changes. The wrong coach/recruiter at ANY school can spell problems.


Go MU

[naginiF]

I voted 'no'.  Did we have a great run in the '70's?  absolutely.  does one NC and a great run make a blue blood even for that decade?  No Way.

It would take multiple national championships and regular 3rd and 4th weekend tournament appearances to have a decent argument about being a blue blood.  In addition, Anti-Dentite is correct, even if we get that level of success we are essentially Al Czervik - we may be a member of the club but founding members would never recognize us, nor should we downplay the less polished aspects of our persona/history.

[brewcity77]

It depends on your definition. Can we be what Villanova currently is? Absolutely. We can have a period of perennially competing for titles and being ranked in the top-10. But let's remember Nova missed the tournament in 2012. And as good as their run has been, I don't see it lasting forever. They caught some lightning in a bottle with Hart, Arch, Brunson, Bridges, Jenkins, and Ochefu all overlapping and they rode it all the way. We could do that too.

But a blue blood like Kentucky or Kansas where we're considered a contender not just year after year but decade after decade? That I doubt.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Bluebloods no matta.

[Jay Bee]

It would take multiple national championships and regular 3rd and 4th weekend tournament appearances to have a decent argument about being a blue blood.

What happens on this 4th weekend you speak of??

[naginiF]

What happens on this 4th weekend you speak of??

Parade to the lake

[bilsu]

We can be an elite program again, but we never were and never will be a blue blood.

Look at it this way, if Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Duke dropped their basketball programs it would take about 25 years to catch them in all time wins. Over the next 100 years, if we average 5 more wins a season than these teams we would still not catch them.

[Daniel]

I think a reasonable goal is a regular Top 25 team, making it into Top 10 sometimes, regular appearances in the NCAA tourney, and some deep runs in e tourney.  Maybe win one.  That is doable.  And Wojo can do it. 

[GGGG]

Marquette can do what Villanova has done.  I have no doubt about that.  Become a "blue blood?"  Very doubtful.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Villanova/Michigan St. level is doable (and I would be thrilled should we get there). If Wojo stays 15 years and a few things break right (players healthy at the right time, guys like Grimes start committing, we maintain a lucrative national tv contract, etc.) then I'd say odds are strong we get there.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I think a better question is Marquette a strong enough program to recruit players that can compete for a national championship?  That answer is yes.

Blue Blood terminology is incredibly arbitrary.  Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA and Indiana are all considered blue bloods - but UCLA and Indiana have come nowhere close to the level of success they each experienced under one coach (Wooden and Knight, respectively).  Michigan State is in the conversation every year to win a national championship, although they have "only" won once.  Arizona is in the same boat.  Cincinnati has won twice, but none close since the 60's.

The aspect that (will) always hurt Marquette's pursuit of attaining blue blood status is the awful stretch our program saw from 84-92: zero NCAA appearances.  From 92-01, we also "only" made four NCAA tournaments, along with the stretch of 14-16 where we didn't make any.  Blue bloods don't go through stretches where they don't make tournaments - they are too good for that.  Frankly, I am shocked that Indiana is still considered a blue blood due to the Sampson disaster, and Crean's first four years rebuilding. 

With our program's history, and our collection of coaches, we should always be in the running for making tournaments.  We can still recruit well enough to make deep runs, and - occasionally - compete for a run for a national championship. 

[Marcus92]

Michigan State is in the conversation every year to win a national championship, although they have "only" won once.

Minor correction: Michigan State has won 2 men's basketball championships — the first in 1979 under Jud Heathcoate, and the second in 2000 under Tom Izzo.

MSU is one of 7 schools with 2 national titles. The others are Cincinnati (1961 & 1962), Florida (2006 & 2007), NC State (1974 & 1983), Oklahoma State (1945 & 1946), San Francisco (1955 & 1956) and Villanova (1985 & 2016).

Personally, I don't consider any of those programs blue bloods. The definition of "blue blood" is "aristocratic, noble, or socially prominent lineage." The aristocracy is a privileged upper class, the elite, especially the hereditary nobility.

The "hereditary" part is key. It's status that passes from generation to generation. Only a handful of programs have won national championships in multiple (3 or more) different decades:

UCLA (1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995)
Kentucky (1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012)
North Carolina (1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009, 2017)
Duke (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015)
Indiana (1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987)
Connecticut (1999, 2004, 2011, 2014)
Kansas (1952, 1988, 2008)

Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana and Kansas are the "old money" of college basketball — with a history of winning at the highest level that stretches back for 80 years.

You could probably include UCLA in this category, as well, although 10 of its 11 titles were earned by a single coach. Of these schools, UCLA and Indiana are hanging onto the elite status of their past glory by a thread. Kentucky and UNC are the giants, the Rockefellers of college basketball.

By comparison, Duke and UConn are the "nouveau riche" — those whose wealth or status has been attained within their own generation. Ask most fans to name a single Duke coach or player before Coach K. The same goes for Jim Calhoun at UConn. Will their success and elite status continue into the future? Remains to be seen.

I'd put programs like Louisville (3 titles under Denny Crum and Rick Pitino), Michigan State (2 titles as mentioned above) and Villanova (2 titles under Rollie Massimino and Jay Wright) just below. They either haven't won enough, or won for long enough. But that could change.

Marquette has a long way to go to join such elite company. But it's entirely possible.

[79Warrior]

I voted 'no'.  Did we have a great run in the '70's?  absolutely.  does one NC and a great run make a blue blood even for that decade?  No Way.

It would take multiple national championships and regular 3rd and 4th weekend tournament appearances to have a decent argument about being a blue blood.  In addition, Anti-Dentite is correct, even if we get that level of success we are essentially Al Czervik - we may be a member of the club but founding members would never recognize us, nor should we downplay the less polished aspects of our persona/history.

We actually had two final four appearances, one NC as well as an NIT championship in the 70's, back when that tournament actually meant something.
That was a tremendous run, especially when you factor in how few teams actually were invited to the NCAA tourney back then.

[Marcus92]

It all comes down to how you define "blue blood." The term is used to describe social status — one's position or rank within a group. And there's no one set of clearly understood or universally accepted rules for inclusion.

Here's one simple rule you can apply. The top 1% of anything is certainly the elite. With 351 schools competing in Division I men's basketball, only 3 or at most 4 programs belong to the top 1%. I think most would agree that Kentucky and UNC are beyond question. The same goes for Duke. There's your true blue bloods.

So was MU at that level during the Al McGuire era? I believe there were fewer than 200 Division I men's basketball programs at that time. So only 1 or 2 programs would have represented the top 1%. UCLA was a lock at the time. Kentucky had the legacy, but MU would have been right up there — that was before Dean Smith or Bobby Knight (let alone Coach K) became legends.

[dgies9156]

It all comes down to how you define "blue blood." The term is used to describe social status — one's position or rank within a group. And there's no one set of clearly understood or universally accepted rules for inclusion.

I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:

1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.

2) Regular Elite 8 team.

3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.

4) One to three or more NCAA Championships.

We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.

Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).

Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?

[Jay Bee]

I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:

1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.

2) Regular Elite 8 team.

3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.

4) One to three or more NCAA Championships.

We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.

Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).

Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?

You went through criteria without truly giving any.

[Warrior1969]

Texas Arkansas and UNLV ???? Are you kidding me?

[GGGG]

I would argue blue blood in college basketball means as follows:

1) Consistent NCAA tournament team over an extended period of time.

2) Regular Elite 8 team.

3) Competitor for 5-star talent and consistently strong recruiter.

4) One to three or more NCAA Championships.

We aren't there yet, but I would argue the NCAA bluebooks today are Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Michigan State, Arizona, Florida, Kansas.

Fallen bluebloods include us, Indiana, UConn, UCLA (perhaps not), Texas, Georgetown (very far), Arkansas, UNLV (since Tark left).

Guys and Warriorchick, your thoughts?

Texas has been to as many Final Fours as Marquette and has never advanced to the championship game.  They have never been a blue blood.

I also think Arkansas, UNLV, Florida, Michigan State and Arizona are a little "overseeded" in your designations.

[Galway Eagle]

Arkansas had arguably a better run in the 90s than we did in the 70s. If you're going to claim we are a fallen blue blood they would be to.

There's certain teams that hit that level temporarily like Florida, us, Gtown, etc but they are not blue bloods

[Jay Bee]

Arkansas had arguably a better run in the 90s than we did in the 70s. If you're going to claim we are a fallen blue blood they would be to.

There's certain teams that hit that level temporarily like Florida, us, Gtown, etc but they are not blue bloods

Arkansas in the 90s... never more than back-to-back seasons of .800 winning.

MU? Almost every year (though not in our nat'l championship year.

[GGGG]

Texas was never a blue blood.  Three final fours, no championship games.