Blue Blood - does Florida qualify? | Page 5 | The Boneyard
.-.

Blue Blood - does Florida qualify?

TheChamps990411 said:
Kansas is the gatekeeper with 4. Tie them and youre in the discusssion, surpass them and youre in. It makes sense in my mind so dont ask.
Expand ...
Idk KU was still a blue blood with 3. We tied them in 2011 and passed them in 2014 (Then they tied us in 2022) yet we didn’t become a BB until we got 6 in 2024. Rigged.
 
Last edited:
auror said:
Duke does have UNC/UCLA/Kentucky history to them as long as you're not strictly talking about titles. "Some final fours" is a funny way of saying 8 final fours before 1991 (which is still more than UConn has as a program now). They literally lost to UCLA and UK in title games in the 60s and 70s. They have more wins overall as a program than UCLA. UConn has like 500 less. They're 5th in tournament appearances, and the ones above them are all the names you'd expect (UK, Kansas, UCLA, UNC). They were anointed without fanfare because they already fit all the aspects. We're 14th in bids. They're 4th in Sweet 16s (UK, UNC, UCLA, then them), we're 12th.
Expand ...
Duke is a private school - the economics change the funding formulas.
 
We really need to stop caring about this. Florida is easily a top 10 program in the modern era.

I will grant some respect to teams that were good back in the early days, good most of the time since and are still good now, but that's really only Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina. Duke has a fair case as well as @auror points out. Some teams with history, like the orange Canadians, haven't maintained success. Nor has UCLA or Indiana.
 
.-.
bendm said:
Idk KU was still a blue blood with 3. We tied them in 2011 and passed them in 2014 (Then they tied us in 2022) yet we didn’t become a BB until we got 6 in 2024. Rigged.
Expand ...
Anyone questioning Kansas as a blue blood. Knows nothing about college basketball. They have been a power since the game began. Before there even was an NCAA tournament, Kansas was one of the nationally recognized programs. They have had a team in the final four in every decade except the 1960s since the NCAA tournament began. They won two Helms titles in the 1920s pre NCAA. There last Championship was 2022.

To get back to the original question though, you aren’t a blue blood because you wo 2 titles a 15 years ago then another one.
 
freescooter said:
Anyone questioning Kansas as a blue blood. Knows nothing about college basketball. They have been a power since the game began. Before there even was an NCAA tournament, Kansas was one of the nationally recognized programs. They have had a team in the final four in every decade except the 1960s since the NCAA tournament began. They won two Helms titles in the 1920s pre NCAA. There last Championship was 2022.

To get back to the original question though, you aren’t a blue blood because you wo 2 titles a 15 years ago then another one.
Expand ...
major land grant colleges have been around so long the alum and donations are massive. The haves can afford it which is chalk.
 
freescooter said:
Anyone questioning Kansas as a blue blood. Knows nothing about college basketball. They have been a power since the game began. Before there even was an NCAA tournament, Kansas was one of the nationally recognized programs. They have had a team in the final four in every decade except the 1960s since the NCAA tournament began. They won two Helms titles in the 1920s pre NCAA. There last Championship was 2022.

To get back to the original question though, you aren’t a blue blood because you wo 2 titles a 15 years ago then another one.
Expand ...
Blue bloods seems to derive from morrill land grant act which gave UCLA, KU, UK, etc land for university property and dates back to the 1860s. UConn gained land grant status after the Yale dispute and the Storrs Bros pushed it thru.

Hence there is the OGs under Morrill that seems to want to be the blue bloods for how long they have existed and have been competitive while they tend to have UConn not in that list as we came somewhat after.

So overall this is us vs them kind of argument that largely sits on Morrill but due to expansion and “the modern era” it starts to erode that argument.
 
Last edited:
Blue bloods never stop being one, see the Vanderbilts as an example. So UCLA will always be one, albeit a faded one. UConn is almost over the “new money” hump, hell I think consensus after the last few years is we are part of the club. It’s a combination of lots of factors but in the end it’s what your peers and the public believe more than anything. Teams like Nova are part of an upper tier but, like Florida, IMO are barely approaching new money territory let alone the hallowed halls.
 
UConn is the JP Morgan of college basketball. Ruthless Titan but has saved the BE Conference from demise many times over!!
 
IndyLives said:
UConn is the JP Morgan of college basketball. Ruthless Titan but has saved the BE Conference from demise many times over!!
Expand ...
I am a UConn former student athlete and working at JP Morgan. How ironic to that post.
 
.-.
freescooter said:
Anyone questioning Kansas as a blue blood. Knows nothing about college basketball. They have been a power since the game began. Before there even was an NCAA tournament, Kansas was one of the nationally recognized programs. They have had a team in the final four in every decade except the 1960s since the NCAA tournament began. They won two Helms titles in the 1920s pre NCAA. There last Championship was 2022.

To get back to the original question though, you aren’t a blue blood because you wo 2 titles a 15 years ago then another one.
Expand ...
I don't think anyone questioned them. As I've said a few times, the fans are rather proud of their historic contribution to the sport of college basketball. Not only what KU has done on the court, but the state and program under Phog Allen producing both Dean Smith and Adolph Rupp, leading to the other two most obvious "blue bloods". They still shouldn't count the Helms as titles though.
 
Lafayette said:
Blue bloods seems to derive from morrill land grant act which gave UCLA, KU, UK, etc land for university property and dates back to the 1860s. UConn gained land grant status after the Yale dispute and the Storrs Bros pushed it thru.

Hence there is the OGs under Morrill that seems to want to be the blue bloods for how long they have existed and have been competitive while they tend to have UConn not in that list as we came somewhat after.

So overall this is us vs them kind of argument that largely sits on Morrill but due to expansion and “the modern era” it starts to erode that argument.
Expand ...
We also didn’t compete at the same level. UConn was never willing to seriously challenge Yale athletically until the 1980s. We and the rest of the Yankee Conference schools didn’t play D1 football because the Ivies de-emphasized athletics in the 1950s so the thinking went we couldn’t have major programs either.
 
freescooter said:
Anyone questioning Kansas as a blue blood. Knows nothing about college basketball. They have been a power since the game began. Before there even was an NCAA tournament, Kansas was one of the nationally recognized programs. They have had a team in the final four in every decade except the 1960s since the NCAA tournament began. They won two Helms titles in the 1920s pre NCAA. There last Championship was 2022.

To get back to the original question though, you aren’t a blue blood because you wo 2 titles a 15 years ago then another one.
Expand ...
No one is questioning KU as a blue blood.
 
freescooter said:
We also didn’t compete at the same level. UConn was never willing to seriously challenge Yale athletically until the 1980s. We and the rest of the Yankee Conference schools didn’t play D1 football because the Ivies de-emphasized athletics in the 1950s so the thinking went we couldn’t have major programs either.
Expand ...

Titles before UTEP’s deserve asterisks.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Titles before UTEP’s deserve asterisks.
Expand ...
Kansas actually sort of does that. When you look at their records they distinguish them by the size of the NCAA tournament. As I recall they distinguish between 8, 16 and 32 teams. Those are upper limits since I think there were years when it was 12 and 14 teams.

And I agree that Helms titles aren’t comparable. I just referenced them to show tha Kansas was considered a major power in the sport before the NCAA held its tournament.
 
.-.
HuskyHawk said:
We really need to stop caring about this. Florida is easily a top 10 program in the modern era.

I will grant some respect to teams that were good back in the early days, good most of the time since and are still good now, but that's really only Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina. Duke has a fair case as well as @auror points out. Some teams with history, like the orange Canadians, haven't maintained success. Nor has UCLA or Indiana.
Expand ...
I feel as if the Canadiens don't belong in this conversation whatsoever.

For me "Blue Bloods", essentially mean the equivalent of "old money." Once you are in the club, you're in. For me, national championships are an indispensable part of the test. I like the comment above that says four national championships get you in the conversation and five put you in the club. I would also add some sort of "sustained excellence" standard where championships needed to be won in more than one decade, preferably over at least three decades.
 
freescooter said:
That would be why now? And are you doing that for every sport? Just want to understand how to tell Yankee fans that the 1927 yanks don’t really count.
Expand ...

Do I really have to explain why any World Series title before Jackie Robinson deserves an asterisk?

Old college basketball titles, as I mentioned above, have the following issues:

1) Prior to the early 60’s many conferences had “gentlemen’s agreements” about how many black players teams could have.

2) the NCAA tournament had many structural issues prior to the mid 70s that made it not really a true national championship.

3) prior to the latter half of the 60s, the best eastern and independent teams often preferred the NIT because of the New York media. Marquette, in 1970, was the last team to turn down an NCAA bid to play in the NIT.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Do I really have to explain why any World Series title before Jackie Robinson deserves an asterisk?

Old college basketball titles, as I mentioned above, have the following issues:

1) Prior to the early 60’s many conferences had “gentlemen’s agreements” about how many black players teams could have.

2) the NCAA tournament had many structural issues prior to the mid 70s that made it not really a true national championship.

3) prior to the latter half of the 60s, the best eastern and independent teams often preferred the NIT because of the New York media. Marquette, in 1970, was the last team to turn down an NCAA bid to play in the NIT.
Expand ...
Baseball has many ghosts but the expansion of teams added more rounds and thus more postseason stat records so as amazing as the 1927 Yankees were they don’t hold many postseason records for the lack of rounds.

For college hoops the NIT has faded and the NCAA has expanded but winning with 4 games played is the equiv of UConn getting a bye until the Elite 8. Kinda silly to hold 1968 and prior NCAA titles with the same merit as today. Plus UCLA had byes so were always in the dance.

But as said the Morrill act gave land to many blue bloods and their sustained attendance, alums, boosters and money lend to chalk and talk of exclusion of others (e.g. us) while holding onto whatever “blue blood” definition they want.

Reeks of the same stuff of privilege and many other names.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
344
Guests online
14,193
Total visitors
14,537
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,616
Messages
4,486,644
Members
10,359
Latest member
didUCwin


Top Bottom