One Final Four banner hanging in our gym.

[ZagsGoZags]

In your opinion, can we call ourselves an Elite team, or Real Blue Blood program until we get another one? If you name the teams you consider Blue Blood Programs, wouldn't all of them have more than one Final Four on the rafters?
Darn that virus, my guts tell me we might have added one more this year.

[TravelinZag]

No. Lots of teams can, and have gotten there once.

[GoZags]

The Gonzaga programs has been playing Elite level basketball the last half decade. But GU isn't a Blue Blood ... not even close.

With domestic recruiting on the upswing ... the future remains bright. Gonzaga Basketball's best days on the floor continue to lie ahead.

At least that's my opinion.

[gonzagafan62]

The Gonzaga programs has been playing Elite level basketball the last half decade. But GU isn't a Blue Blood ... not even close.

With domestic recruiting on the upswing ... the future remains bright. Gonzaga Basketball's best days on the floor continue to lie ahead.

At least that's my opinion.

This

[bdmiller7]

I think most consider blue bloods to be Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina. Those 4 teams have storied history for decades now. They have been consistantly top teams year after year with very few exceptions. GU is there equal over the last 5-7 years, just need 30 more to really cement that blue blood status.

[23dpg]

I think most consider blue bloods to be Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina. Those 4 teams have storied history for decades now. They have been consistantly top teams year after year with very few exceptions. GU is there equal over the last 5-7 years, just need 30 more to really cement that blue blood status.

I used to include Indiana and UCLA to that mix. Now I’m not so sure.
UConn, Louisville, Michigan St, Arizona and Syracuse all got close. Probably others.
Now I’d say MSU, Villanova and maybe still UConn if they can bounce back.
Zags need 2 more final 4s at least to be considered.

[CB4]

Gonzaga is in West Egg.

[gonzagafan62]

I used to include Indiana and UCLA to that mix. Now I’m not so sure.
UConn, Louisville, Michigan St, Arizona and Syracuse all got close. Probably others.
Now I’d say MSU, Villanova and maybe still UConn if they can bounce back.
Zags need 2 more final 4s at least to be considered.

I’d say what they really need is a championship

[MickMick]

It is physically impossible to surpass the speed of light, but there is a theory behind bending space and time.

Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA will never be surpassed in our lifetimes. Fans that dream of such status can watch a dog chase it's tail to help further ponder this.


Having said that, let us discuss the past decade. You can start with the number of consecutive sweet sixteens relative to not just the field, but to college basketball royalty. Take a look at the preconference tournaments as well. (Maui, Atlantis, etc.) GU is typically either winning these preconference tournaments outright or playing in the championship game Yes, let's narrow it all down to recent post season success or preconference tournaments to eliminate the conference affiliation counter argument.

GU has tried to play challenging schedules. More often than not, it is the "tough" power conference teams scheduled that fail to live up to their pre season billing. All you can do is schedule the best that you can, sometimes two and three years in advance, and hope that your opponents live up to their reputation as a worthy opponent. I'm not just pointing at North Carolina last season, but various reputable teams over the past decade. If anything, I am beginning to lose respect for the supposed consistency of excellence for some of these "great" programs.

Right here and right now, Gonzaga is a top 5 program. Historical legacy is one thing, Consistently lining up a great squad with NBA picks and All Americans, winning 30 games a year, and at a minimum, advancing to the second weekend of the tournament is another.

[JPtheBeasta]

I know it's not the spirit of the thread, but being a blue blood seems to entail trappings that I would not want to be associated with, including bogus classes, pay-to-play, and college admittance test fraud. I understand that this isn't a distinguishing factor because it is pervasive in college sports. I'm just happy that Gonzaga is Gonzaga.

To be fair, I have always looked at the term blue blood somewhat negatively, so I kind of don't ever want GU to grouped in with them.

That said, I agree that championships are the major deciding factor for me. GU has sustained the success that most teams would envy, is a household name, and is having success recruiting the top athletes. GU needs at least one championship, and preferably multiple championships-- or one championship and multiple trips to the national championship game-- in my opinion to go from a great college program to an elite one (although I admit that the distinction there would be fuzzy if your pressed me on it).

[RenoZag]

Gonzaga is in West Egg.

And Dr. T. J. Eckleberg has season tickets. . .

[jazzdelmar]

And Dr. T. J. Eckleberg has season tickets. . .

Prefer Bob over Leo in the lead role.

[ZagsGoZags]

remember when opponents in the WCC would chant "overrated" sometimes when we would play them in the 2000's? Because we might be ranked 22 or something like that?
And SF would often remind us of their national championships in the mid 1950's? At that time I remember thinking well yes but that was a long time ago, so I dismissed their argument as sour grapes thinking to myself what the heck winning national championships is like talking about how often you have won the big lottery. Super glad to be ranked at all.
Now I think about this thread and I am asking people for their definitions of ''Blue Blood' and 'Elite teams' because I truly did not know whether we are both, or neither, and wanted to hear opinions.
So thank you everyone for contributing your views, now I see we are not blue bloods and are a long way from that, but are one of about 7 or 8 teams in the last 5 years playing at an Elite level. Obvious to some, but some of my friends and I could not have said that with understanding before, some of them were calling us Blue Bloods.

[webspinnre]

Blue Blood, no. Elite? Absolutely.

[drvenkman05]

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 1960, 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.

remember when opponents in the WCC would chant "overrated" sometimes when we would play them in the 2000's? Because we might be ranked 22 or something like that?
And SF would often remind us of their national championships in the mid 1950's? At that time I remember thinking well yes but that was a long time ago, so I dismissed their argument as sour grapes thinking to myself what the heck winning national championships is like talking about how often you have won the big lottery. Super glad to be ranked at all.
Now I think about this thread and I am asking people for their definitions of ''Blue Blood' and 'Elite teams' because I truly did not know whether we are both, or neither, and wanted to hear opinions.
So thank you everyone for contributing your views, now I see we are not blue bloods and are a long way from that, but are one of about 7 or 8 teams in the last 5 years playing at an Elite level. Obvious to some, but some of my friends and I could not have said that with understanding before, some of them were calling us Blue Bloods.

[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_D..._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.