The Blueblood Programs of Women's College Basketball

[visitingcock]

Okay. this thread is for fun. Let's not get too heated over this. It used to be fun arguing on now-defunct college baseball boards as to whether Florida State (under legendary coach Mike Martin) could be considered a "blueblood" when they had appeared in a zillion World series and made it to a bunch of title games but never won it all. Same could apply here.

1. Is at least one title required?

2. More than one required?

3. How many?

4. Can a program be a blueblood with a "decade or so" of high level success without a title? How long?

5. Who are your blueblood programs?

6. Who is close but not there yet. (This is the one to work on being friendly) friendly

Don't bother listing La. Tech, Tennessee, or UConn. They stand above the fray as Royalty, and in the case of LaTech, Dynastic Royalty. Once a blue blood - always a blueblood

 

[CL82]

Don't bother listing La. Tech, Tennessee, or UConn

 

[nwhoopfan]

Once a blue blood - always a blueblood

Forever though? Is UCLA still a blueblood in men's hoops? It's been a LONG time since Wooden retired, and they haven't done much since. Or Indiana for that matter. My point is, I think at some point you have to slip out of blueblood status when you clearly aren't at that level any more and haven't been at that level for decade after decade.


Women's hoops just doesn't have nearly as much history as men's, so establishing blueblood status is a bit different. I know you said don't, but you have Tennessee and UConn of course as the two programs that just stand well above all the others as far as what they have done.

After that maybe Stanford is next, Notre Dame...Baylor more recently and of course Dawn has turned South Carolina into a juggernaut..

I'm not sure anyone else qualifies. Texas was good fairly early on, but has been mostly a sleeping giant. Louisville might be the next closest of anybody. There are a few schools with one Championship and not much else, really can't include them. USC was another early powerhouse that faded away for several decades, maybe is finally reawakening. LSU had a good run under Pokey and now are back again with Mulkey, maybe they can get there. Maryland was maybe knocking at the door but instead of pushing through, they've faded away.

 

[CL82]

Blue blood seems to be an amorphous ever changing designation designed to protect those in the club and keep out those on the outside. It means different things to different people at different times.

If the choices weren't curtailed in the question, I would say the big three above are the Blue Bloods of women's college basketball.

South Carolina is knocking on the door, but not quite there, in my opinion. They are, indisputably in my view, the top current women's basketball program. Not a bad consolation prize

 

[12au]

Personally I think blue blood is decided by the opponent. If there is X amount of fear from your opponent, you're a blue blood. Tennessee was a blue blood under Summitt, perhaps under Warlick for a few years, but never since then. UConn is one obviously. South Carolina became one probably around the time A'ja arrived? Baylor was one during Mulkey era, but not since then. LSU is now a blue blood. Texas is now a blue blood under Vic. Louisville might still be one since Walz is still there. Blue blood is more about aura, not empirical measures. UCLA/USC are not blue bloods. Stanford is a blue blood still, but that may be gone in a week or two if we discover the aura's gone. Notre Dame is a tough one, but I think the've lost it. Clearly a rung down since Muffet's departure.

 

[militarydog]

Okay. this thread is for fun. Let's not get too heated over this. It used to be fun arguing on now-defunct college baseball boards as to whether Florida State (under legendary coach Mike Martin) could be considered a "blueblood" when they had appeared in a zillion World series and made it to a bunch of title games but never won it all. Same could apply here.

1. Is at least one title required?

2. More than one required?

3. How many?

4. Can a program be a blueblood with a "decade or so" of high level success without a title? How long?

5. Who are your blueblood programs?

6. Who is close but not there yet. (This is the one to work on being friendly) friendly

Don't bother listing La. Tech, Tennessee, or UConn. They stand above the fray as Royalty, and in the case of LaTech, Dynastic Royalty. Once a blue blood - always a blueblood

The criteria has to be adjusted based on the sport. Normally I’d require a program be able to maintain an elite status over the course of more than one coach, even though not necessarily back to back tenures. However with the relative youth of women’s basketball that is obviously impossible. Another big factor I’ve always required of a blue blood is fan support. That is what normally makes a blue blood program desirable to a prominent coach. I’m not talking just numbers at games but individuals actually engaged in the program.
I’m torn regarding a national title but I’d lean towards at least one being a requirement. To not would require unique circumstances such as Florida State in baseball.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Strongly disagree with above, if the status can be gained or lost in an instant, that's not blueblood. It's built on long standing history and tradition, you don't get it right away and you also don't lose it quickly.

And no way is Texas a blueblood under Vic. Only 1 conference championship (shared) in 4 years and zero Final 4's. One 30 win season. That just doesn't cut it. Mississippi St. was closer to being a blueblood under Vic than Texas has been so far. His last 5 years at MSU he was 1st or 2nd in the SEC, 3 30 win seasons and 2 National Runner-Ups. That is way, way more than he's accomplished in Austin.

 

[visitingcock]

list of candidates IMHO not including one time champs which is insufficient to me:

Immaculata
Old Dominion
Louisiana Tech (the only champs under two coaches. The only true "dynasty.)
Tennessee (gotta be Pat had an empire)
UConn (gotta be Geno has an empire))
Stanford
Notre Dame
Baylor
South Carolina (new blood. Has their ten year period of excellence been long enough?)

U$C (meh 2 time champs and that's about it)

Feel free to add.

Let me discuss U$C a bit more. 2 Championships might be enough if they were part of a more extended period of excellence. Let's say a 300 win decade. As it is, they are a candidate because they had 3 excellent years. but I don't make it in. Now, if they win a championship this year. . . they would become only the second true dynasty.

What about a Louisville? Not yet, but let's say they win a championship this year. They have had an extended period of excellence. Would they be considered?

Of course, it's all in the eye of the beholder. A Louisville fan's perspective is different than a UConn fan. ATennessee fan is going to argue that blueblood status doesn't go away. An LSU fan might argue that only recent history matters. The purpose of the thread is fun discussion while we await the season.

 

[militarydog]

list of candidates IMHO not including one time champs which is insufficient to me:

Immaculata
Old Dominion
Louisiana Tech (the only champs under two coaches. The only true "dynasty.)
Tennessee (gotta be Pat had an empire)
UConn (gotta be Geno has an empire))
Stanford
Notre Dame
Baylor
South Carolina (new blood. Has their ten year period of excellence been long enough?)

U$C (meh 2 time champs and that's about it)

Feel free to add.

Let me discuss U$C a bit more. 2 Championships might be enough if they were part of a more extended period of excellence. Let's say a 300 win decade. As it is, they are a candidate because they had 3 excellent years. but I don't make it in. Now, if they win a championship this year. . . they would become only the second true dynasty.

What about a Louisville? Not yet, but let's say they win a championship this year. They have had an extended period of excellence. Would they be considered?

Of course, it's all in the eye of the beholder. A Louisville fan's perspective is different than a UConn fan. ATennessee fan is going to argue that blueblood status doesn't go away. An LSU fan might argue that only recent history matters. The purpose of the thread is fun discussion while we await the season.

Looking back over the course of their history I have to admit LSU has an argument. They have a national title as well as a prolonged history of winning big. At one stretch in the early 2000s they went to five straight final fours under three different coaches. I also don’t see them slowing down anytime soon.

 

[visitingcock]

The criteria has to be adjusted based on the sport. Normally I’d require a program be able to maintain an elite status over the course of more than one coach, even though not necessarily back to back tenures. However with the relative youth of women’s basketball that is obviously impossible. Another big factor I’ve always required of a blue blood is fan support. That is what normally makes a blue blood program desirable to a prominent coach. I’m not talking just numbers at games but individuals actually engaged in the program.
I’m torn regarding a national title but I’d lean towards at least one being a requirement. To not would require unique circumstances such as Florida State in baseball.

I agree in baseball and football where you have a much longer history. Here, one can argue that the history of wbb reaches back only to Title IX or the first NCAA tournament (though I look back at the AIAW champs and Immaculata's beautiful history.)

 

[militarydog]

I agree in baseball and football where you have a much longer history. Here, one can argue that the history of wbb reaches back only to Title IX or the first NCAA tournament (though I look back at the AIAW champs and Immaculata's beautiful history.)

I agree with that. That is what I was arguing for a couple of sentences after that sentence. For example UConn absolutely deserves it. That is why the lack of multiple national titles also isn’t an instant disqualifying factor.

 

[triaddukefan]

I'm inclined to believe that there are no blue bloods in WCBB. Give it another 25 years and we can have this conversation again

 

[Bone Dog]

The ancient rule still applies: a minimum of 6 NCs. This is as it ever was and ever shall be.

 

[visitingcock]

The ancient rule still applies: a minimum of 6 NCs. This is as it ever was and ever shall be.

Nope. Louisiana Tech made the ancient rules you buncha newbies

 

[bballnut90]

On the men's side, there is ample identity in Duke/UNC/Kentucky being basketball schools and they put forth resources to make sure the program stays relevant and continues to be known as a blue blood basketball school. I don't think the same exists on the women's side aside from Tennessee/Connecticut having strong identities as elite level basketball programs. Tennessee though has not shown commitment to restoring women's basketball to prominence with their last several coaching hires and pay packages. If they were serious about wanting to get the program back to a Final Four and keep attendance high, they would've canned Holly earlier and ponied up a lot more money to find a better coach than Harper and a more proven one than Caldwell.

Most often though, once a legendary coach steps down, there usually is a notable drop off in team success and the program is remembered for having a great stretch or decade rather than being known as a women's basketball school or a blue blood in the sport. Even Baylor now I don't think many folks think of as a women's basketball powerhouse, the identity of their women's basketball program was Kim Mulkey rather than the brand of Baylor women's basketball. Once Geno hangs it up it'll be interesting to see if UCONN ponies up money to hire a top coach and if they can stay a top threat, or if they'll follow suit and struggle to get back to a Final Four like most programs have once their legendary coach steps down.

 

[nwhoopfan]

On the men's side, there is ample identity in Duke/UNC/Kentucky being basketball schools and they put forth resources to make sure the program stays relevant and continues to be known as a blue blood basketball school. I don't think the same exists on the women's side aside from Tennessee/Connecticut having strong identities as elite level basketball programs. Tennessee though has not shown commitment to restoring women's basketball to prominence with their last several coaching hires and pay packages. If they were serious about wanting to get the program back to a Final Four and keep attendance high, they would've canned Holly earlier and ponied up a lot more money to find a better coach than Harper and a more proven one than Caldwell.

Most often though, once a legendary coach steps down, there usually is a notable drop off in team success and the program is remembered for having a great stretch or decade rather than being known as a women's basketball school or a blue blood in the sport. Even Baylor now I don't think many folks think of as a women's basketball powerhouse, the identity of their women's basketball program was Kim Mulkey rather than the brand of Baylor women's basketball. Once Geno hangs it up it'll be interesting to see if UCONN ponies up money to hire a top coach and if they can stay a top threat, or if they'll follow suit and struggle to get back to a Final Four like most programs have once their legendary coach steps down.

I'd just add to this that we're about to find out with Stanford if they can continue to maintain their place in the wcbb world without Tara.

 

[Bone Dog]

there is ample identity

This is an interesting phrase. In effect, we’d be asking if a program has produced a player who can continue the winning identity established by her coach… at the same school. We might take as a benchmark a player who returns to an NC-winning program and wins an NC there. This would be an alternative to measuring salaries or other indicators of institutional investment. This version of the blue blood question is about the school.

However, an implication of posing the question in terms of identity is that the institutional connection might be a red herring. A different version of the blue blood question might be, “How many coaches who have won an NC have trained players who went on to win an NC as a coach at any school?” This version asks about the quality of a coach’s program as a tradition that can be replicated by one of its students anywhere. Omitting the institution and focusing on the coaches and players also fits the genealogical sense of the term “blue blood.”

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any players who have been able to replicate their coach’s success (ie winning an NC) as a coach in their own right. The closest candidate would be Dawn, who played in three Final Fours and one NC under Debbie Ryan at UVA, and went on to coach SC to NCs. Pat, Tara and Geno have won NCs, but their students haven’t replicated their achievement … yet. Only Kate Paye is in a position to accomplish this at the same school. Time will tell.

 

[GoUconn7961]

Take the men's side #UConn has SIX national championships and they STILL aren't considered to be a Blue Blood.
They have more titles than Duke & Indiana, and are tied with KY. To me, it makes the term meaningless, especially since they have the most championships in the last 25 years.

 

[triaddukefan]

Take the men's side #UConn has SIX national championships and they STILL aren't considered to be a Blue Blood.
They have more titles than Duke & Indiana, and are tied with KY. To me, it makes the term meaningless, especially since they have the most championships in the last 25 years.

Meh. Duke MBB isn't a Blue Blood either. Ive never seen a Duke fan complain about it. . Its not just about the number of championships.

 

[Dillon77]

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any players who have been able to replicate their coach’s success (ie winning an NC) as a coach in their own right. The closest candidate would be Dawn, who played in three Final Fours and one NC under Debbie Ryan at UVA, and went on to coach SC to NCs. Pat, Tara and Geno have won NCs, but their students haven’t replicated their achievement … yet. Only Kate Paye is in a position to accomplish this at the same school. Time will tell.

Niele Ivey has won national championships as a player and assistant coach at Notre Dame and has the strongest team she's yet assembled as a head coach at her alma mater. She's certainly in the running.

 

[Bone Dog]

Niele Ivey has won national championships as a player and assistant coach at Notre Dame and has the strongest team she's yet assembled as a head coach at her alma mater.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[GoUconn7961]

Meh. Duke MBB isn't a Blue Blood either. Ive never seen a Duke fan complain about it. . Its not just about the number of championships.

Interesting because that's all over X. It's mostly KY fans hating on everyone, but the men's fans I see from Duke consider themselves Blue Bloods. Honestly, I don't care, I think it really is meaningless. All that matters is what happens on the court, and how the season ends.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Meh. Duke MBB isn't a Blue Blood either. Ive never seen a Duke fan complain about it. . Its not just about the number of championships.

They aren't? I thought it was Duke, Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas. UCLA and Indiana if you are feeling nostalgic.

 

[visitingcock]

They aren't? I thought it was Duke, Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas. UCLA and Indiana if you are feeling nostalgic.

At my age, I’m always nostalgic. Yes, UCLA and Indiana are blue bloods of mbb to me.

 

[nwhoopfan]

At my age, I’m always nostalgic. Yes, UCLA and Indiana are blue bloods of mbb to me.

UCLA had a run that will never be equaled, but they had 1 good decade. That was it. And it ended 50 years ago!

Indiana's glory isn't quite that far in the rear view mirror, but they haven't really done anything since the early 90s. That's been a few years too.