Mack to Louisville?

[Eldon]

UCONN is a blueblood

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

UCONN is a blueblood

At this point?  Disagree.

[MU82]

Again, depends on definition.

UConn is as much a blueblood as IU and UCLA, probably more.

[We R Final Four]

UCLA is absolutely a blueblood.
UConn has been a very program—nowhere near a blueblood, IMO.

[GooooMarquette]

I don't consider UConn a blue blood, but if they are, they're hanging by a thread.  Kinda like UCLA and IU a number of years back...

[Galway Eagle]

UCLA is absolutely a blueblood.
UConn has been a very program—nowhere near a blueblood, IMO.

4 titles and the 09 final four in 20 years and you're saying they aren't a blue blood?

That's more titles than Kansas and certainly more success than every other program over that stretch.

Now that's because I think you can be a blue blood for a period and lose that status. Maybe you don't believe that?

[MuMark]

Uconn was 1 of those schools that had great success but was never really considered a blue blood.

Now that Calhoun is gone and they are in a crappy conference they certainly aren't in that category......if they were they would be getting 5 stars every year.......they aren't.

Again follow the recruits......they will tell you who the blue bloods are.....UCLA still recruits tons of 5 star kids even with mediocre results.....'being a blue blood blood is about more then continued excellence.....if that was the only standard then Michigan State would be 1.....but they have always been a step behind.

[We R Final Four]

4 titles and the 09 final four in 20 years and you're saying they aren't a blue blood?

That's more titles than Kansas and certainly more success than every other program over that stretch.

Now that's because I think you can be a blue blood for a period and lose that status. Maybe you don't believe that?

I think you made my point.
UConn had a very good—better than KU. However, the highest level recruits were still picking KU over UConn.
Again, very solid program, but not a blueblood.

[MuMark]

I think you made my point.
UConn had a very good—better than KU. However, the highest level recruits were still picking KU over UConn.
Again, very solid program, but not a blueblood.

Yep

[GooooMarquette]

Seems to me a school that hasn't won a championship in 23 years (UCLA) is kind of a stretch to call a blueblood. And for IU, it has been 31 years.

They've been good on and off over the ensuing years, and they still get some 5-star recruits. But every high-major level kid being recruited today was born well after either team last won the title.

[frozena pizza]

This is my point, there is no definition.  Michigan State doesn't have the level of historical success or current brand power to qualify with those other schools.  Are they any better off right now than, say, Florida?

UCLA has by far the best history and still carries a lot of brand power even though the program has had some missteps.

As of right now, Villanova is a top 5 program.  And until 2 days ago Xavier was borderline top 10.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Pure blue bloods? Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Kansas. (History and current dominance)
Old Money? Indiana and UCLA (History but lost the dominance)
Next Tier? Louisville, UConn, Michigan State, Arizona, Villanova, Syracuse

Don't think anyone else qualifies for consideration at this point. Louisville, Arizona, and UConn may soon lose their next tier status due to sanctions/conference realignment.

[Goose]

I think TAMU lis is pretty spot on. Probably several others could be added to next tier, but pretty much spot on, IMO.

[frozena pizza]

On the point about recruiting and developing players, I looked at basketball reference to get NBA draft picks by school since 1998.  Pretty much backs up what we've been saying but still interesting (these are just the schools I pulled, not a full ranking):

Kentucky - 38
Duke - 35
UCLA - 30
Kansas - 29
UNC - 28
UConn - 21
Michigan St - 16

[Galway Eagle]

Pure blue bloods? Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Kansas. (History and current dominance)
Old Money? Indiana and UCLA (History but lost the dominance)
Next Tier? Louisville, UConn, Michigan State, Arizona, Villanova, Syracuse

Don't think anyone else qualifies for consideration at this point. Louisville, Arizona, and UConn may soon lose their next tier status due to sanctions/conference realignment.

Never understood the Zona and Cuse love no more success than say Georgetown

[Its DJOver]

What are people's thoughts on UNLV.  One of the dominant programs of the 90's, but dropped off the table when Tarkanian left and was in a non power conference.  Definitely a blue blood of the 90s, but could not sustain success.  I see a lot of similarities between them and Uconn, although Uconn had significantly more success under Calhoun, and some of that even carried over to Ollie.  Both made critical mistakes, UNLV with problems with the NCAA due to drugs among other things, and Uconn with selling their soul to football.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Seems to me a school that hasn't won a championship in 23 years (UCLA) is kind of a stretch to call a blueblood. And for IU, it has been 31 years.

They've been good on and off over the ensuing years, and they still get some 5-star recruits. But every high-major level kid being recruited today was born well after either team last won the title.

Interesting way to look at it... who has been a blue blood in HS recruits'/transfer elgible players' lifetimes (1996 onward)

UConn: 4 championships
Duke: 3
UNC: 3
Kentucky: 3
Florida: 2
Villanova: 1 (maybe 2 soon)
MSU: 1
Arizona: 1
Syracuse: 1
Louisville (it happened, I saw it with my own 2 eyes): 1
Kansas: 1
Maryland: 1

UConn should be a new age blue blood hands down... but they added football and couldn't join up with the New BEast. As-is in the AAC... they're just not.

Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Kansas (12 consecutive B12 reg season titles in addition to)

Those 4 without question

Villanova & MSU have the most claim to be added to that list. MSU sustained success, iconic coach, several final fours in addition to the title. But they have a program overhang with the allegations surrounding, and Izzo is getting old. If Nova takes the title this year, they're definitely the 5th modern blue blood, no questions asked.

Florida hasn't proven it past Donovan yet.

Arizona could have been considered... but they might be toast for a while. Same with Louisville... will reserve judgememnt until Mack proves otherwise. Cuse needs to prove it beyond Boeheim.

Maryland not a chance in hell.

IU & UCLA do not factor into the conversation.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Never understood the Zona and Cuse love no more success than say Georgetown

Consistency. Cuse has been a top 20 program since the 1970s, Arizona since the 1980s. Most other programs have had down long down periods but the Orange and Wildcats just keep chugging away.

Georgetown was dominant in the 80s, possibly the best team of that time period. They were nobody before that, decent in the 90s, and have been pretty blah in the 2000s, especially in recent years.

All IMHO of course.

[Galway Eagle]

What are people's thoughts on UNLV.  One of the dominant programs of the 90's, but dropped off the table when Tarkanian left and was in a non power conference.  Definitely a blue blood of the 90s, but could not sustain success.  I see a lot of similarities between them and Uconn, although Uconn had significantly more success under Calhoun, and some of that even carried over to Ollie.  Both made critical mistakes, UNLV with problems with the NCAA due to drugs among other things, and Uconn with selling their soul to football.

Could say Arkansas was one of those temp bloods as well under Nolan richardson

[Galway Eagle]

Consistency. Cuse has been a top 20 program since the 1970s, Arizona since the 1980s. Most other programs have had down long down periods but the Orange and Wildcats just keep chugging away.

Georgetown was dominant in the 80s, possibly the best team of that time period. They were nobody before that, decent in the 90s, and have been pretty blah in the 2000s, especially in recent years.

All IMHO of course.

Which I agree with but I mean most that success hasn't amounted to final fours and championships which are all that's looked at when considering blue bloods (at least that I usually hear compared)

[MU82]

Pure blue bloods? Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Kansas. (History and current dominance)
Old Money? Indiana and UCLA (History but lost the dominance)
Next Tier? Louisville, UConn, Michigan State, Arizona, Villanova, Syracuse

Don't think anyone else qualifies for consideration at this point. Louisville, Arizona, and UConn may soon lose their next tier status due to sanctions/conference realignment.

Perfectly summarized.

[frozena pizza]

Could say Arkansas was one of those temp bloods as well under Nolan richardson

Yeah, I thought about those too.  I think the problem with UNLV and Arkansas is that they only won one title, even though they were iconic teams.  On that note what about Michigan, especially if they win it or at least make the final this year?

[Benny B]

Are we really having this discussion about "what constitutes a blue blood" again?

[Mr. Nielsen]

Blue bloods to me are ones that turn the needle. So, there are only two that really turn the needle. It's Duke and Kentucky.

[LAZER]

Blue bloods to me are ones that turn the needle. So, there are only two that really turn the needle. It's Duke and Kentucky.

Turn the needle?