One Final Four banner hanging in our gym.

[Birddog]

I wouldn't get caught-up on the "Blue Blood" moniker simply because Kansas is considered, with a straight face, a "Blue Blood." The "glory days" for Kansas ended just after Phog Allen retired in the mid-50s, Just like USF, Kansas has to constantly talk about the distant past. Kansas is nothing but consistently overrated. Since 1970, Kansas has won two national championships, the same as Cincinnati, NC State, Michigan State, and Florida. The teams with three NCs in the same timeframe are Louisville, Villanova, and Indiana. The teams with four or more national championships in that time frame are Connecticut, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA.

I disagree, IMO Kansas is a Blue Blood.

Kansas Jayhawks
Tournament Appearances: 46
Final Fours: 14
Championships: 3 (1952, 1988, 2008)
Win-Loss: 103-45

[229SintoZag]

I wouldn't get caught-up on the "Blue Blood" moniker simply because Kansas is considered, with a straight face, a "Blue Blood." The "glory days" for Kansas ended just after Phog Allen retired in the mid-50s, Just like USF, Kansas has to constantly talk about the distant past. Kansas is nothing but consistently overrated. Since 1970, Kansas has won two national championships, the same as Cincinnati, NC State, Michigan State, and Florida. The teams with three NCs in the same timeframe are Louisville, Villanova, and Indiana. The teams with four or more national championships in that time frame are Connecticut, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA.

Just to be accurate here: Cincinnati has a total of zero national championships since 1970. (They did win a couple in the early 1960s, however).

[drvenkman05]

Yes, they go to the tournament a bunch but don't win. No other school gets the preferential treatment they get - a conference built for football and having the conference tournament in their
backyard. If Kansas is a Blue Blood, so is Connecticut, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, UCLA, Louisville, Villanova, Indiana, NC State, Michigan State, and Florida.

I disagree, IMO Kansas is a Blue Blood.

Kansas Jayhawks
Tournament Appearances: 46
Final Fours: 14
Championships: 3 (1952, 1988, 2008)
Win-Loss: 103-45

[Birddog]

Kansas rankings in NCAA Tournament

Tournament. Champs 3 rank 7th 1st UCLA 11
Championship game appearances 9 rank 5th 1st UCLA 12
Final Fours 15 rank 5th 1st UNC 20
Tournament appearances 47 rank 3rd 1st Kentucky 57
Consec Tournaments 30 rank 1st 1st Kansas
tournament victories 107 rank 4th 1st Kentucky 127

In the above categories the only teams also appearing consistently in the top 5 are UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and UCLA, and UCLA hasn't done much lately.

I guess you haven't watched any Big 12 BB games in the last 15 years. They are consistently one of the top 3 conferences with the Big10 and the ACC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament_records#NCAA_Championships

[FloridaZagFan]

Impossible for Zag's to be a blue blood at this moment. Gonzaga definitely the "new blood" and a force in college basketball though.
In five to ten years with a couple of national Champ's and similar consistancy to the last 10 years, I think you might be able to say blue blood.
Zag's are one of the elite programs in the nation now. For the term BB to stick with Gonzaga we need to stay there for a little longer.
Doesn't really matter there will always be some Yahoo's that can't accept the Zag's as a national power. It's ok with me I just enjoy it more when Few&Co. roll into town and put a thumping on them!

[seacatfan]

You can always count on this topic coming back around. My feeling is, if you aren't already a blue blood, you aren't going to become one. Have to have a LONG history of success as well as continued current relevance. If schools like Louisville, UConn and Villanova didn't become blue bloods after multiple Championships (they didn't), Gonzaga isn't even close. One Final 4 ever, how is this even a discussion?

[Birddog]

You can always count on this topic coming back around. My feeling is, if you aren't already a blue blood, you aren't going to become one. Have to have a LONG history of success as well as continued current relevance. If schools like Louisville, UConn and Villanova didn't become blue bloods after multiple Championships (they didn't), Gonzaga isn't even close. One Final 4 ever, how is this even a discussion?

QFT

[willandi]

You can always count on this topic coming back around. My feeling is, if you aren't already a blue blood, you aren't going to become one. Have to have a LONG history of success as well as continued current relevance. If schools like Louisville, UConn and Villanova didn't become blue bloods after multiple Championships (they didn't), Gonzaga isn't even close. One Final 4 ever, how is this even a discussion?

Shouldn't any schools that have been found guilty, self reported also not be considered blue bloods? I know UNC denied the NCAA had the authority to govern their transgressions after the self reported them, so THEY should be disqualified.
If any payments to Zion become exposed then Duke should be out, and the same holds true with Kansas.

If the cheaters are disqualified, does that change the equation?

I should also add that I don't care whether the Zags are or aren't. I just think that playing by the rules should be rewarded and not abiding by them should be punished.

[seacatfan]

Shouldn't any schools that have been found guilty, self reported also not be considered blue bloods? I know UNC denied the NCAA had the authority to govern their transgressions after the self reported them, so THEY should be disqualified.
If any payments to Zion become exposed then Duke should be out, and the same holds true with Kansas.

If the cheaters are disqualified, does that change the equation?

I should also add that I don't care whether the Zags are or aren't. I just think that playing by the rules should be rewarded and not abiding by them should be punished.

Kentucky has been busted in several different eras. UCLA had Sam Gilbert involved in the Wooden years. Are there any blue bloods left without a scandal? I don't think there are.

So should the bar be lowered if you are ruling out any school that has cheated in any way at any time in it's history? You'd still have to lower the bar a long way to include Gonzaga as a "blue blood." Their story is great, but you're still talking about no Championships and one Final Four. Noted basketball schools like South Carolina and Mississippi St. can claim the same. Are they blue bloods?

[gonstu]

I love the zags. They are at the top of the sport with others currently. Year in and year out for at least the time being, they are right up there with ANY program for likelihood of making the dance, getting a strong seed, advancing and even winning it all.

Having said that, “blue blood” has a historical connotation and the zags are nowhere close. Unless there’s a qualifier like blue bloods of the last decade or something like that. Blueblood to me infers numerous final 4 appearances and national titles over a longer time period then 10 or even 20 years.

At the end of the day, don’t think it matters at all though. And if being a blueblood requires cheating or scandals, I’ll take Few’s program over all the others any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Ladyzag12]

Can't call us much of anything until we win a natty or win a national championship (part of what makes losing our golden opportunity this year so hard). Not sure many people call UCLA a blue blood anymore, given that they had to hire Cronin this past off season. I would never, ever put the Big 12 as a top 3 basketball league in college basketball. ACC, Big 10, and Big East are the clear top three, with either the Pac 12 or the SEC normally being better than the Big 12.

[willandi]

At the end of the day, it seems that, to be a blue blood, a school has to cheat, not on the small stuff but on the big stuff as well, and do it repeatedly.

I propose that instead of using the term 'blue blood' (which can be used parenthetically as an explanation), we substitute the word 'cheater'.

[Shanachie]

You can always count on this topic coming back around. My feeling is, if you aren't already a blue blood, you aren't going to become one. Have to have a LONG history of success as well as continued current relevance. If schools like Louisville, UConn and Villanova didn't become blue bloods after multiple Championships (they didn't), Gonzaga isn't even close. One Final 4 ever, how is this even a discussion?

This.

Blue Blood = Nobility. To me, that implies being good over a long period, going back to the 50's or so. That means Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina for sure. UCLA is hard to leave out given the '60s. Duke maybe, but they were late to the party. That's pretty much the list I think.


BTW, I like this site to get a quick sense of a school's past success (as defined by the NCAA tourney anyway): http://mcubed.net/ncaab/gonzaga/index.shtml Kind of a dated design, but it's easy to click through the teams and get a visual impression of their past performance.

[mgadfly]

To me, the blue bloods are locked in on those schools with great history up to about 2008. That's my age and perception. At some point (assuming GU continues the way they have the past two decades), when the basketball world is governed by millennials, they won't remember a time that GU wasn't a top 10 team with national title hopes every season. To them, when you ask them to name the elite, they won't hesitate to say Gonzaga.

Their kids will see it differently. And so forth.

I don't think UCLA is a lock to be a blue blood just because they dominated the 1960s. At some point a generation of basketball fans will ask that they do something at least during their life time. I don't think GU is forever locked out. Cincinnati, North Carolina State ... I remember playing with older guys that wouldn't shut up about those programs and their national championships and their great teams in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. To them North Carolina State was the powerhouse of all powerhouses. Duke was a joke by comparison with them reluctantly admitting they had a few good teams in the mid 60s. Things change even if we are slower to accept that change. I'll go to my grave believing Duke and Kansas are the bluest of blue bloods even if they don't do anything at all for the next 40 years. But that's more about my perception and experiences than about who will be perceived by a majority of fans as powerhouse programs in the 2050s.

[Ladyzag12]

There are two discussions worth having. One is who are the blue bloods? We are not on that list. The other is who has a chance to win a national title over the next 5 years? For me that list includes Virginia, UNC, Duke, Louisville, Kentucky, Michigan, Michigan State, Villanova, Kansas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oregon, Arizona, and Gonzaga. I am more than happy to be in that second list. I never thought we would get there, let alone to have a top seed more often than not.