I’m gonna make the argument that we are now Blue Bloods. Modern blue bloods. 30 years is an entire generation. A generation of people that have grown up have NEVER seen an Indiana Final Four... I think we have had sustained success relatively from 94-25 - that's 30 years - 6 Final fours, 10 Elite 8s, 11 Sweet 16s with a 9-2 record, 7 SEC championships and 5 SEC tourney titles and 3 National Titles. Historically - I think people have considered Indiana, UNC, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Uconn, Mich St, Arizona and UCLA the Blue Bloods....But the past 30 years have changed that. UCLA has only made 4 Final Fours and Indiana has made ZERO since 1994. Uconn (7 Final Fours and 6 National Titles) Kentucky - Mr. Blueblood - has 5 Final Fours and TWO titles....less than us. Kansas has 4 Final Fours and TWO natty's - both less than us. Michigan State has 8 Final fours and ONE natty Arizona - 2 Final Fours since 1994... We are in the blueblood or Tier 1 conversation now.
The “blueblood” term seems to indicate history and perception more than actual results, IMO. Like saying these teams are historic powers and whatever, as opposed to these teams ARE the best right now. I’ve been a fan about 25 years and I respect/fear y’all (and UConn, etc) a lot more than Indiana. They’re not on my radar much at all. But I know older fans that still put Indiana and ucla on a pedestal above many of the more recently successful programs.
I agree with everything you said, but just one little nitpick - Indiana made the national championship game as a 5 seed in 2002. But yeah your point is still well illustrated.
I think the whole Blue Blood category is so old fashion and overrated. College athletics deserves a new and improved category called Orange and Blue Bloods. It requires any program to have won at least 3 football championships and 3 basketball championships. It could also be required that some arrangement of said championships also be back to back if so desired, but that might limit the scope of so many other programs from becoming a true Orange and Blue Blood. Just my 2 cents...
Blue Blood is a mythical label, of course… and I’m not sure there are any true metrics. On paper- absolutely we can get there… and maybe already arrived. But I’ve always assigned a kinda odd association with Blue Blood… and have thought of that grouping as the elite programs at which basketball is the dominant and revered sport.
We're closer to the Blue Bloods than the "New Bloods". We have as many championships as Nova and the same amount of Final Fours. We won our first championship only 7 years after UConn won their first. We have the same amount of Final Fours as Virginia and Baylor combined and more national championships than Virginia and Baylor combined too. Plus, I never want to be put in a list with Baylor basketball.
We have as many championships as Duke and UNC over the last quarter of a century. Only UCONN has more. I don't care about labels, especially when the criteria is fluid/subjective. We are just a damn good program.
Yeah because they don’t have to split the students up with football too. 3/3 ONLY US! We are the Shohei Othani of double sport schools. Actually of course all of our lady and mens sports. To me we are the best overall athletic program in the entire country. Bar none. edit: multiple sources say we were way outnumbered. My times article says at least doubled by Houston. Houston fans showed out edit: just keeping it real. No way it was gonna be different because it’s Texas. Either way, we represented more than we would have ever in a large stadium. Fan base is growing and specially because of this year.
yeah- I am not complaining that we have multiple championship-caliber programs. I am only offering my interpretation of “blue blood”. And that is one in which the sport of basketball is in the fan base blood. That seems a common trait among those typically labeled as such.
I interpret it as a by-product of fan expectations and logistics. LSU fills their baseball stadium, fill the CWS venues because they EXPECT that their team will be present and with high hope of victory. Most years, their faith in the team is justified. I'd say LSU is considered a baseball "blue-blood." Kentucky fans have (historically) filled the basketball venues to the point we simply expect the BBN to dominate in attendance because those fans EXPECTED to be there, and with high hopes for victory. Most years, their faith is justified. People don't build a budget to attend these far-off events if they think their team is going to lose. Teams will be better/worse some years but an expectation of a high baseline around which the numbers ebb and flow allows people to make plans to be certain places well ahead of the event. Remember too that the writers that use the adjective "blue blood" are more deeply imbued with the history of the sport they cover so they have awareness of the Woodens, the Knights, the names associated with relatively ancient experience.
