What makes a "blue blood" program?

[alexrgct]

Who are the "blue bloods" of WCBB? Well, to answer that, we'd have to know what the criteria are. UConn is clearly a blue blood by any criterion, but other candidates won't "feel" right. I'll articulate possible objections (and yet, they may still be blue bloods by some arguments), and from the arguments, we may have some criteria to clarify. I think it'll make for a fun discussion.

Is Tennessee a blue blood?

My visceral response is that Tennessee, with its many national championships, is a blue blood. Still, something doesn't feel quite right. The program is in a state of disarray, so much so that 2008, though not that long ago chronologically, sure feels like a distant memory. Tennessee hasn't really contended for national championships in some years now, and the LVs are without their legendary head coach. So that raises a couple of questions: how stable and established does a coaching situation have to be, how recent does a NC have to be, and to what extent does a program have to contend for national championships? Texas A&M raises the same issue. Their NC was recent and their coaching situation is stable, but they don't make a bunch of Final Fours. Stanford, meanwhile, has a wonderful HC and consistently contends for all the marbles, but it hasn't won an NC in more than 20 years. The objection to Stanford raises another interesting question, namely...

...Is Notre Dame a blue blood?

The coaching situation for ND is terrific. After only rarely making the Final Four (1997 and 2001), it's become a regular accomplishment. But yes, there's only the 2001 NC, i.e., more than 10 years ago. And of course, there's only one NC. So here's another question: how many NCs are enough to make a program a blue blood? If the answer is "more than one at least", are Tennessee's issues sufficiently made up for to be a blue blood program by virtue of eight NCs? And does "within 10 years" seem to satisfy the criterion of how recent the NC has to be? Oh yeah, one other question...

...Is Maryland a blue blood?

I mean, their lone NC is at least within 10 years. They haven't made a bunch of final fours, but they do make the Elite 8 with some frequency. UMD is very stable as a program and from a coaching standpoint. And yet, something seems to be missing. If anything, Maryland has been routed the past couple of seasons in the tourney or been upset. It just doesn't feel like they're close to winning another one. What about the program with two NCs in the past 10 years...

..so, is Baylor a blue blood?

They kind of have to be, don't they? They won the 2005 NC, barely contended again until Brittney Griner's freshman campaign, and threatened in one form or another her entire career (including the 2012 NC). Mulkey's situation is stable as can be. It seems like this program is where it should be.

So, UConn is clearly a blue blood. NCs? Oh yes. Recent ones? Obviously. Stable program? As long as Geno is around. Consistent contention for an NC? Six straight Final fours and 18 of 20 Elite 8s would indicate as much. There's nothing missing. But make the cases for other programs. A&M, Stanford, Notre Dame, Maryland, Baylor, and Tennessee, have all been brought up. What are your thoughts about all of them? Is their blood blue? After all, everyone on here bleeds blue- we're UConn fans!

 

[Phil]

UConn Yes
TN No
Stanford Yes
ND Yes
MD no
Baylor Yes
TAMU No

 

[UcMiami]

Interesting question and my response would be obviously you can define 'blue blood' any way you want but ... blue blood is typically defined or used as a way of referring to the nobility or the aristocracy based on the early belief that their blood was actually blue! (So by definition of course you can't get any more aristocratic in this country than bleeding national flag blue!) But taking nobility or aristocracy as the definition - you didn't actually need to be king to be a blue blood nor did you actually need to be distantly related to the current or a former king. SO ... taking that over to sports teams it would seem to rule out simply having an NC in your history to qualify. Just being superior to the hoi polloi should qualify you for some level of blue bloodedness.
Personally I would say:
1. Consistently being in the top 25 with at least frequent forays into the top 10
2. Having facilities and financial backing from your institution
3. Having decent history
4. Having a tradition of sound coaching
5. Having consistent success in the NCAAs

So yes TN, Stanford, ND, Maryland, Duke would all qualify. I am sure their are others.
It gets more interesting with teams like Baylor - a younger and upstart line of the aristocracy perhaps? UNC and Texas collateral lines that almost died out but are hanging on?

Of those listed above of course only Duke and UNC 'bleed blue' but it is a paler more watered down blue than the National Flag Blue of the true aristocracy.

 

[pinotbear]

The Fighting Horseshoe Crabs of Henlopen High School

 

[ChicagoGG]

Or as Geno says in the pre-game video...."when you leave all the blood in your body on the court, then you can bleed blue".

 

[ChicagoGG]

Seriously, I would say that ND became blue blooded with their title win. It would take at least one more NC to cement them as truly blue blooded. But a power, for sure.
Tenn is like an aristocratic family on the decline, still blue blooded, but needs an infusion of new genes.
Maryland can't QUITE make the leap to the aristocracy. Almost, but no ermine in a long time, (since the princeling JW departed).
Baylor is an arriviste, the neighbor who is living in the manor, even tho some of the other neightbors are a little sniffy about them. They do have a title ,after all.
Duke, well, they won't be getting into the inner circle until they can go the distance.
That Downtown Abbey enough as a description? JMO...

 

[rocky rococo]

Blue blood usually refers to "old money", and nothing represents that so well in US wcbb as Tennessee, even though Pat is "Gone With the Wind". UConn of course, by virtue of having the prevailing current dynasty. Stanford yes it's old money still in the elite, Baylor and ND yes although parvenus they've proven themselves top shelf with multiple lineups, that's where I would draw the line.

 

[Phil]

The problem with carrying that analogy too far is that with the real reference to blue blood and old money, Tennessee would be nouveau riche. The blue bloods of New England are the Cabots and the Lodges. If your greatgrandfather wasn't born here, you are a newbie. Earned your money in the 20th century (maybe even late 19th) - nouveau riche. On that time scale, all of basketball is a johnny-come-lately sport. even if you adjust the time scale, Tennessee is still relatively recent on the Timeline of women in basketball.

You need to be talking about the All American Redheads or the Edmonton Grads if you want blue bloods.

 

[Oxford Bob]

I only see 3 "Blue Blood" programs: Tenn, Stan and UConn. Long sustained history of winning, championships and final fours.
ND and Baylor are relatively new (last 15 years or so). Blue Bloods can have some down years in a row, like Tenn did but they come back. La Tech and ODU started strong but have become irrelevant the last 10-15 years. Maryland,UNC and Duke also come up short (in my opinion only UNC is close, but still a ways away).

 

[Drumguy]

I only see 3 "Blue Blood" programs: Tenn, Stan and UConn. Long sustained history of winning, championships and final fours.
ND and Baylor are relatively new (last 15 years or so). Blue Bloods can have some down years in a row, like Tenn did but they come back. La Tech and ODU started strong but have become irrelevant the last 10-15 years. Maryland,UNC and Duke also come up short (in my opinion only UNC is close, but still a ways away).

As much as I hate TN, there is no question they are a BB of women's bball. I think ND is knocking on the door but needs another NC to join the top 3 as a true blue blood. If you add ND how about Louisville, Baylor? Interesting how there's maybe 10-15 programs on the Men's side but I'd agree only 3-4 on the Women's. UConn and TN have been SO dominating over the last 2 decades it's closed the door for many of the "storied" programs and kept new ones out. Blue Bloods are different from top programs and I'd add UNC, MD, Duke, Baylor, OK, LV to that designation. KY USC, USC, UCLA, Cal may be knocking on the top door but they are a long way from being blue bloods.

 

[watanabe]

I don't see what the problem is with less members of the club. I only see UC and TN. The rest are wannabees. After five NCs, the school proves an unwavering commitment and tradition. The other programs are good no doubt, but still have to prove it. As far as recent/past records go, there is no relationship. It's about achieving, not striving. TN and UC will always be members of the club even if they don't win another game. Legend and reputation. Announcers will forever be using UC and TN to describe any other teams accomplishments until they rewrite history themselves. One or two hit wonders will always exist, but 5 NCs+? that's blueblooded commitment.

 

[Bayareahusky]

This is an interesting question..... I agree with Oxford Bob that UConn, Tenn and Stanford stand alone..... but then you juxtapose Notre Dame vs. accomplishments of the others.... if UConn "reign" started with 1991 FF appearance..... ND had a NC in 2001 and was probably very good for a time before that.... and I never remember them being a non-player..... so they deserve consideration..... one knock on ND, may be their lack of memorable players to come through their program (testimony also to Muffet's coaching abilities)..... I mean, RuthRiley, Niele Ivey, Diggins.... I am sure there are others ...but they do not come to mind....

When think of the term "blue blood" ... of course you think nobility.... social strata, etc.. know in the mens game..... the other day was thinking about this...... there are 6 programs I immediately thought of that have that sort of tradition..... North Carolina, Indiana, UCLA, Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky..... IMHO.... winning..... tradition..... etc....

When the term is transferred to WCBB..... I really do not think any program is a true "blue blood" ..... no program has been relevnt, not to mention in existence that long..... Tennessee Stanford and UConn were all brought to the top of the mountain by a single person as coach..... and look at the current situation..... for instance.... if Tenn doesn't make a key decision or two in the next couple of years..... they may fall out of the top 7 or 8 in country, which is akin to falling out of the top 50 in the mens game..... TN, Stanford, as well as us... we always will be relevant..... but to stamp as a "blue blood" is way premature, I believe....

I would rather use the term "elite" to describe the current prowess of programs at the top..... while waiting for history to run off a few years before declaring a program a long term gold standard...

 

[pinotbear]

With men's programs, ya gotta add Louisville.

 

[mhshuskies]

It's about the long haul and being more than lucky once (only one NC). That means:
UCONN: obviously yes
Stanford: yes
Tenn: once was but is slipping
nd & Md: a tier below and need to prove more

 

[Fightin Choke]

It's about the long haul and being more than lucky once (only one NC). That means:
UCONN: obviously yes
Stanford: yes
Tenn: once was but is slipping
nd & Md: a tier below and need to prove more

I'm not sure how you can count Stanford as a blue blood but not Tennessee ("because they are slipping"). Stanford hasn't won a NC in over 20 years whereas Tennessee has 8 total and had 2 in a row just 6 years ago. And if you count Stanford with its 2 NC, then you have to count Baylor, as they have 2 with both in the past 10 years.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

As an outside observer. if you asked a casual fan, they would say UCONN and Tennessee. I attended my first women's basketball game when I was in high school in the early 80's. At that time, it was Tennessee, Louisiana Tech and Old Dominion who were at the top of people's minds. Stanford, Notre Dame and Duke are a notch below. I can't stand Baylor or Kim Mulkey, so I'm ignoring them.

 

[Icebear]

I'm not sure how you can count Stanford as a blue blood but not Tennessee ("because they are slipping"). .

Because something orange can only have the blues not be blue.

 

[Phil]

I'm not sure how you can count Stanford as a blue blood but not Tennessee ("because they are slipping"). Stanford hasn't won a NC in over 20 years whereas Tennessee has 8 total and had 2 in a row just 6 years ago. And if you count Stanford with its 2 NC, then you have to count Baylor, as they have 2 with both in the past 10 years.

NCs are the ultimate goal, but not the only thing that counts.

1. Stanford is one year removed from five consecutive Final Fours.
   
2. Tennessee has five consecutive years without a Final Four.

The first is impressive , the second is "slipping"

 

[Icebear]

A blue blood program is one suffering from a lack of oxygen.

 

[Drumguy]

This is an interesting question..... I agree with Oxford Bob that UConn, Tenn and Stanford stand alone..... but then you juxtapose Notre Dame vs. accomplishments of the others.... if UConn "reign" started with 1991 FF appearance..... ND had a NC in 2001 and was probably very good for a time before that.... and I never remember them being a non-player..... so they deserve consideration..... one knock on ND, may be their lack of memorable players to come through their program (testimony also to Muffet's coaching abilities)..... I mean, RuthRiley, Niele Ivey, Diggins.... I am sure there are others ...but they do not come to mind....

When think of the term "blue blood" ... of course you think nobility.... social strata, etc.. know in the mens game..... the other day was thinking about this. there are 6 programs I immediately thought of that have that sort of tradition..... North Carolina, Indiana, UCLA, Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky..... IMHO.... winning..... tradition..... etc....

When the term is transferred to WCBB..... I really do not think any program is a true "blue blood" ..... no program has been relevnt, not to mention in existence that long..... Tennessee Stanford and UConn were all brought to the top of the mountain by a single person as coach..... and look at the current situation..... for instance.... if Tenn doesn't make a key decision or two in the next couple of years..... they may fall out of the top 7 or 8 in country, which is akin to falling out of the top 50 in the mens game..... TN, Stanford, as well as us... we always will be relevant..... but to stamp as a "blue blood" is way premature, I believe....

I would rather use the term "elite" to describe the current prowess of programs at the top..... while waiting for history to run off a few years before declaring a program a long term gold standard...

I was in agreement until you left off UConn on the men's side. We are the winningest program in the last 20 years bar none. We have the 2nd highest professional sports earnings, not counting Bynum - and you'd probably have to add Michigan state. Just cause a team won LONG ago doesn't mean they are blue bloods anymore. Multiple championships makes it more relevant and so UConn, MSU and LV are all blue bloods on the mens side. That's why there's so few on the women's side. UConn and TN have been SO dominating.

 

[CL82]

Blue blood requires excellence (NCs) plus longevity, but not necessarily current at a championship level.
Elite requires sustained current success.

In woman's basketball...

UConn and Tennessee and are blue bloods.

UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, Baylor and ND are elite.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

To define the blue bloods of women's basketball, I looked to see how the blue bloods of men's basketball were defined.

According to ESPN:

There are six college hoops blue bloods, as we currently define them (in no particular order): Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA. They're the elite of the elite, the kind of programs who blend historical success and influence with sheer cultural force, and thus maintain the highest set of expectations each and every season. Those expectations are simple, even singular: Win the national championship. Anything less, even in this diffuse modern era of the sport, is unacceptable.

The 2013 Final Four was the first since 1985 -- the dawn of the modern 64-team tournament format -- that has not featured at least one of the traditional blue bloods in men's basketball.

The article also goes on to discuss Louisville and Syracuse (as well as the other 2013 Final Four teams) and how close they are to "blue blood status."

For women's basketball, the are only two "blue bloods," as I see it - UConn and Tennessee. Now, there are certain programs who have had historical success on a national level (USC in the 1980s, Louisiana Tech in the 1980s and 1990s). There are programs that have multiple national titles and have had periods of national excellence (Stanford from 1990-1997 and from 2008-present). There are other programs who have won a national title, made another Final Four, but have emerged with recent national success (Notre Dame from 1997-2001 and from 2010-present). There are programs with multiple national titles and eras of dominance, but not consistent national championship expectations (Baylor 2005-2006, 2010-2013). And then there are the programs who have made multiple Final Fours and who expect to be Final Four contenders on a regular basis (Duke in 1999, from 2001-2007, and from 2010-present; LSU in the mid-1990s).

For me, a women's basketball blue blood is the program by which every other program measures itself. It is not just a national title contended on an annual basis; it is a program that redefines the sport. And there are only two blue bloods in women's basketball - UConn and Tennessee. And only Stanford is close to breaking into that group.

 

[watanabe]

Blue blood requires excellence (NCs) plus longevity, but not necessarily current at a championship level.
Elite requires sustained current success.

In woman's basketball...

UConn and Tennessee and are blue bloods.

UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, Baylor and ND are elite.

Yes, exactly. Good you differentiated.

 

[Fishy]

In women's basketball, it might just be UConn and Tennessee.

Given the accomplishments there, every other program comes up well short.

 

[mhshuskies]

I'm not sure how you can count Stanford as a blue blood but not Tennessee ("because they are slipping"). Stanford hasn't won a NC in over 20 years whereas Tennessee has 8 total and had 2 in a row just 6 years ago. And if you count Stanford with its 2 NC, then you have to count Baylor, as they have 2 with both in the past 10 years.

Good point on Baylor, but they haven't done it long enough, but they are close. Stanford always seems to be in the mix.