We're in the 20-30 range as a program. Seeing as blue blood status will probably always be a bridge too far, the long-term aspiration is top 15. But this definition is still too vague, because I think fans disagree on what they define as short-term goals and how much weight they give them. Some fans value the regular season, some value the NCAA tournament, and the value of the Big 12 Tournament is debated every time the Cyclones bow out in March. Fans also disagree on the more subjective, but important, benchmark that is program trajectory.
I'm just glad we don't hire and fire coaches based on fan polls.
Aside: I'd define a blue blood as a program that's too big to fail, or can't be kept down for long in times of transition. I think Indiana and UCLA's current states make them less than blue blood. KU, UK, Duke, and UNC would be mine. Their brands and fanbases are too strong for them to ever spend much time in mediocrity in this internet age of national recruiting.
Another aside, taken from Google: "'Blue blood' is a literal translation of the Spanish 'sangre azul'. This was the designation attributed to some of the oldest and proudest families of Castile, who claimed never to have intermarried with Moors, Jews, or other races."
Who knew?