If you make a little stretch for Kansas, it’s an all blue blood Final Four.

[auror]

Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, and UNC have at least 16 final fours each.

Nobody else has more than 10. It's a real clear delineator. Those 5 have had the most total, the most consistent, and the longest success. Plus they're all blue uniforms.

Duke, UNC, and Kansas have each made a Final Four in every single decade since the 1960's, including the 2020's. 7 straight decades with at least 1 FF for each. Kentucky missed the '00s and hasn't gotten '20s yet, but made 4 in the decade in-between. UCLA missed the '10s and technically their 1 in the '80s was vacated, but they have the 2nid most in total.

Nova, for comparison, has 6 FF total. 10 less than all of the above. 4 since 2009 makes them a New Blood, not a Blue Blood.

 

[District-Husky]

Three championships since 2016 would be impressive. Nova has had an amazing run.

 

[MexicoHusky]

I dont care for the "who is a blue blood" discussion

 

[HuskyHawk]

What makes Duke a blue blood? Slightly older recent success? Nova is definitely not a blue blood, but our Wildcat friend knows that.

The phrase “blueblood” is the Roshack test of college basketball. It means whatever people want it to mean. Old time programs that were good half century ago? Most NCAA championships? Most consistent winning percentage? No one really knows.

Honestly, "blue blood" clearly relates to, as the dictionary says "membership in a noble or socially prominent family". As applied to basketball, it's not primarily about championships, it's about history. It's "old money" rather than "new money". Villanova is new money. UConn is, to some extent, new money (with some decent history). Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, Duke and North Carolina are old money that have remained relevant. Indiana is old money trying to become relevant again.

Does it matter? No. Just as being royalty isn't as useful as being Elon Musk. This is the era of kids making money from their Instagram profile. Ancient history isn't moving the needle although it may help those few that have managed to remain relevant. Look at football, Nebraska is a "blue blood" but that isn't winning them recruits or games anymore. UConn needs to worry about UConn. Whoever wins these next 3 games won't make any difference.

 

[CL82]

Honestly, "blue blood" clearly relates to, as the dictionary says "membership in a noble or socially prominent family". As applied to basketball, it's not primarily about championships, it's about history. It's "old money" rather than "new money". Villanova is new money. UConn is, to some extent, new money (with some decent history). Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, Duke and North Carolina are old money that have remained relevant. Indiana is old money trying to become relevant again.

Does it matter? No. Just as being royalty isn't as useful as being Elon Musk. This is the era of kids making money from their Instagram profile. Ancient history isn't moving the needle although it may help those few that have managed to remain relevant. Look at football, Nebraska is a "blue blood" but that isn't winning them recruits or games anymore. UConn needs to worry about UConn. Whoever wins these next 3 games won't make any difference.

Don’t disagree, except when you add Duke to the blueblood list using your definition. Their first Natty was in 1991.

 

[auror]

Don’t disagree, except when you add Duke to the blueblood list using your definition. Their first Natty was in 1991.

They made 8 Final Fours before that, though.

They had as many Final Fours before the tournament expanded in 1985 as Villanova has now in total. They had very good old history, great modern history (80s, 90s), and great present.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Don’t disagree, except when you add Duke to the blueblood list using your definition. Their first Natty was in 1991.

They are 4th in all time wins. They were pretty good for a long time.

 

[August_West]

"If i make a little stretch I have a 12 " cack".

Enjoy your run @Zissou

 

[dennismenace]

Nova is a Bud Light living in a Guinness world.

Stout?

 

[Zissou]

Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, Duke and North Carolina are old money

When was Duke’s first title? Old money?

 

[CL82]

They made 8 Final Fours before that, though.

They had as many Final Fours before the tournament expanded in 1985 as Villanova has now in total. They had very good old history, great modern history (80s, 90s), and great present.

Don’t disagree, but it all comes back to how you are defining Blue Bloods.

 

[Zissou]

Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, and UNC have at least 16 final fours each.

Nobody else has more than 10. It's a real clear delineator. Those 5 have had the most total, the most consistent, and the longest success. Plus they're all blue uniforms.

Duke, UNC, and Kansas have each made a Final Four in every single decade since the 1960's, including the 2020's. 7 straight decades with at least 1 FF for each. Kentucky missed the '00s and hasn't gotten '20s yet, but made 4 in the decade in-between. UCLA missed the '10s and technically their 1 in the '80s was vacated, but they have the 2nid most in total.

Nova, for comparison, has 6 FF total. 10 less than all of the above. 4 since 2009 makes them a New Blood, not a Blue Blood.

to:dr. Overvalue Final Fours, undervalue titles

 

[Zissou]

Don’t disagree, except when you add Duke to the blueblood list using your definition. Their first Natty was in 1991.

Right. Duke’s first is in the 1990s. Hardly old money by the argument previously floated.

Nova 1985 title, long history of winning, and Final Fours in 1939 and 1971.

If New Money is an issue, Duke falls in behind Nova.

 

[CL82]

They are 4th in all time wins. They were pretty good for a long time.

Yup, and we are fifth in all time wins and have been pretty good for a long time. The difference is, arguably, one more Natty, yet Duke is often included with the blue bloods in Connecticut is not. The distinction seems fairly arbitrary.

Since”Blue blood“ was a term that was already in play as basketball “old money“ before Duke won its first national championship, then they definitionally are not one. Now, if we want to re-define “blue blood“ to be the currently top five strongest programs, that’s fine we can do that, but then you leave out UCLA. Or I guess you could define it as any group of schools with at least three national championships, but all those are different things. The randomness of how the term is used is vaguely annoying to me.

 

[CL82]

Right. Duke’s first is in the 1990s. Hardly old money by the argument previously floated.

Nova 1985 title, long history of winning, and Final Fours in 1939 and 1971.

If New Money is an issue, Duke falls in behind Nova.

Lol, when you find yourself arguing that one school should be included and another not based upon the difference in first title date of 6 to 10 years, I think your argument is tortured. But, it’s essentially a meaningless term at this point.

For what it’s worth, I’m rooting for Villanova the rest of the way based upon the faint praise of you guys being the least objectionable program left. So… Go Wildcats?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yup, and we are fifth in all time wins and have been pretty good for a long time. The difference is, arguably, one more Natty, yet Duke is often included with the blue bloods in Connecticut is not. The distinction seems fairly arbitrary.

Since”Blue blood“ was a term that was already in play as basketball “old money“ before Duke won its first national championship, then they definitionally are not one. Now, if we want to re-define “blue blood“ to be the currently top five strongest programs, that’s fine we can do that, but then you leave out UCLA. Or I guess you could define it as any group of schools with at least three national championships, but all those are different things. The randomness of how the term is used is vaguely annoying to me.

UConn is 28th all time in wins. Too much emphasis on "championships" and not enough on winning games, year after year.

 

[CL82]

UConn is 28th all time in wins. Too much emphasis on "championships" and not enough on winning games, year after year.

Well, in our defense, there were four times that we would’ve been willing to play more games, but there was no one left to play.

 

[UCDaveD]

If you didn’t take out some Duke insurance via futures bet then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[auror]

to:dr. Overvalue Final Fours, undervalue titles

Those 5 schools are also the top 5 in tournament appearances and total tournament wins. TL: DR value wins.

 

[Dutch Boyd]

To me the blue bloods are UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Duke and Kansas. I think Indiana at one point was also considered with 5, but in my mind have dropped down into the next tier. Indiana, UConn, Ville, Nova, Mich St and Zona. Florida and Cuse just behind them.

 

[Zissou]

Lol, when you find yourself arguing that one school should be included and another not based upon the difference in first title date of 6 to 10 years, I think your argument is tortured. But, it’s essentially a meaningless term at this point.

For what it’s worth, I’m rooting for Villanova the rest of the way based upon the faint praise of you guys being the least objectionable program left. So… Go Wildcats?

No no - you have my list…. UNC, Duke, UConn, Ville, Kentucky, Nova. 3 or more titles in the modern era.

I’m just saying that Duke as old money is a flawed argument. First Title 1991, after Nova’s first title (and Nova was in the first Final Four). Duke and UConn are same tier.

Kansas has a ton of wins. But only 2 titles in the modern era. UCLA as well, plus all the Wooden titles. Arizona has one title all time. Indiana hasn’t been relevant since BK. They are all 2nd tier with the recency bias of modern era. IMHO

 

[mauconnfan]

Kansas? Pretty sure we have to stretch Villanova a lot harder than the Jayhawks lol. Wow Howard Porters didn’t even count and he’s not Wilt Chamberlain by any stretch.

 

[billybud]

No no - you have my list…. UNC, Duke, UConn, Ville, Kentucky, Nova. 3 or more titles in the modern era.

I’m just saying that Duke as old money is a flawed argument. First Title 1991, after Nova’s first title (and Nova was in the first Final Four). Duke and UConn are same tier.

Kansas has a ton of wins. But only 2 titles in the modern era. UCLA as well, plus all the Wooden titles. Arizona has one title all time. Indiana hasn’t been relevant since BK. They are all 2nd tier with the recency bias of modern era. IMHO

Shhhh!

Don't tell the nation...that Duke isn't a Blue Bllod....they think that they are.

Duke is 7-3 over Nova...

 

[Deadrody]

Kansas is close enough

LOL!!! You have to make a FAR bigger stretch to imagine that Villanova is a "blue blood" in the class of UNC, Duke, or Kansas

 

[RJScootin]

Need nova to win to win softball league bracket. Let’s go Nova.

Kansas is blue blood as anyone.