Which teams do you consider to be Blue Bloods?

[OPButtrey]

So? They have made 4 straight Sweet 16, 2 Elite 8, and one Final Four in the last 4 years.

So that means they're close to being a blue blood but not there yet.

 

[madcityCY]

Syracuse anyone?
in a previous decade (or two?), maybe Georgetown?

 

[Dryburn]

So that means they're close to being a blue blood but not there yet.

Yet, none of the others on most people's list have made the last 4 Sweet 16s.

 

[InAWord]

I definitely think Michigan State belongs on the list now with Izzo.

 

[OPButtrey]

Yet, none of the others on most people's list have made the last 4 Sweet 16s.

I understand what you're saying but I still think an NCAA championship in the modern era is a requirement. I think you'd have to consider Louisville too if you're going to include Ohio State.

 

[State43]

I always considered it just Duke, UK, KU & UNC. The next tier has quite a few more like UCLA, UL, UConn, Florida, GTown, Syracuse, Indiana, Michigan St & Ohio State. Might be a few others

 

[CYphyllis]

It's true, UCLA has not won a championship in 18 years......but they will always get included on any list like this because of the 10 championships in 12 years and 7 straight. That will likely never be topped.

John Wooden is dead. Blueblood status isn't something that is engraved in stone, while not overly fluid, it is something that I think can be gained and lost.

 

[mcblogerson]

Ohio St is a football blue blood, not basketball.
UCLA is good one b/c they're just hanging on to their legacy. A true blue blood wouldn't be as mediocre ad they've been for 20 years. How many blue bloods got blown out by ISU in the tourney. I can only think of one.

 

[Dryburn]

I understand what you're saying but I still think an NCAA championship in the modern era is a requirement. I think you'd have to consider Louisville too if you're going to include Ohio State.

I did include Louisville.

 

[bringmagicback]

It think you guys are confusing the term blue blood with teams that have been really good in the past 10 years. Ohio state as a blue blood is laughable, as is louisville and florida.

 

[OPButtrey]

I did include Louisville.

Well then you're wrong on that too! :wink:

 

[boone7247]

When I think Blue Blood I Currently relevant with a deep rich history.

KU
UK
UNC
Duke
IU

UCLA has the history, has only been marginally relevent, I would keep them on the list, but with Alford coaching them they will probably lose blue blood status shortly.

MSU doesn't qualify, other than what Magic did there they don't have a deep history. Claiming they are blue blood would be like claiming Bill Gates is a Blue Blood.

Ohio State while currently relevant with some history doesn't have near the history of those other programs and doesn't qualify.

Syracuse is only good because of Boehiem, not a bad thing but not Blue Blood. Same with UCONN, Jim Calhoun made them.

My criteria doesn't mean teams can't become blue blood it just means it takes longer than 20 years to be blue blood. Duke, UNC, KU, UK, IU and UCLA have deep rich histories that have made the game what it is today. MSU, UConn, OSU and Syracuse while good teams that have potential to be blue bloods haven't had the impact on the game the others have had. Perfect example is Georgetown, they are good to be sure with history, but they are no where near the class of those other six schools.

 

[NickTheGreat]

UCLA, IU are a purple blood, meaning that they are fading away from blue blood status. And the teams like MSU, Ohio St, maybe UConn , are purple bloods, fading towards a blue blood status.

 

[GoSTATE71]

Nobody really cares about UCLA anymore. I would scratch them off of the list

Yeah you're right, the team with the most NCAA championships shouldn't be considered a blue blood even with their 2 recent final four appearances within the last 10 years. Good call

 

[Dingus]

Like a few others have posted, I consider the blue bloods Duke, UNC, KU, Kentucky. Next group (OSU, MSU, UConn, UCLA, IU, etc.) maybe not blue bloods, but that doesn't mean they are not as good, or even better than any of the blue bloods recently.

For me, blue bloods are sustained and consistent success and seen as top tier for recruits. Most of the '2nd' tier has had some period in the recent past to be put down 1/2 a notch. Not a hard and fast rule, just how I see it.

 

[CarlHungus]

Blue Bloods: Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, UCLA
2nd tier: Michigan State, Arizona, Ohio State, Florida, UCONN, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville. I'm sure I'm forgetting some

 

[CycloneVet]

I always considered it just Duke, UK, KU & UNC. The next tier has quite a few more like UCLA, UL, UConn, Florida, GTown, Syracuse, Indiana, Michigan St & Ohio State. Might be a few others

This, their color is blue and they are highly successful program over decades.

 

[fsanford]

John Wooden is dead. Blueblood status isn't something that is engraved in stone, while not overly fluid, it is something that I think can be gained and lost.

You take out Woodens final 4 appearances UCLA still has 7, final 4 appearances which still ranks in the top 10 of all time. Pretty impressive.

 

[cyclones500]

Blue Bloods: Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, UCLA
2nd tier: Michigan State, Arizona, Ohio State, Florida, UCONN, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville. I'm sure I'm forgetting some

2nd tier is fairly complete, but if Arizona, UConn & Florida are there, Michigan makes the cut, too. (And the more we include, hairs begin to split).

 

[kilgore_trout]

This seems about right. The Blue Bloods and the Bluish Bloods. I might swap MSU for UCLA, though.

Blue Bloods: Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, UCLA
2nd tier: Michigan State, Arizona, Ohio State, Florida, UCONN, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville. I'm sure I'm forgetting some