Considering the success we have in all sports, we're in a class by ourselves. Let it be that pining for basketball "blue blood" status is for basketball schools. It's beneath us.
And add in the fact that we beat UCLA twice in the F4/NCG and have beated UCONN, Duke and Carolina in tournament games too during our F4 history.
Even over on Rupp Rafters, one UK fan said they need to face it, that Florida has been the class of the SEC this century. Of course, the other posters didn't want to hear it.
Sure, but no one would try to argue that teams like that are contending for BB status. The all time AP poll is just another metric, that in conjunction with others (like tournament success, titles, consistency, fan base, recency., etc.) help paint the picture. The all time poll does go to show who has had long term success. The data has to be looked at with these other factors in mind though...
Now that's hard to argue against: Natties: UF: 3 UK: 1 Runner up: UF:1 UK: 1 Final 4: UF: 5 UK: 4 Elite 8: UF: 9 UK: 9
I’ve always put UNC, KY, Duke, Kansas and UCLA in its own tier. After that, I think there are 10-12 teams that comprise the next. Teams that have had tremendous success but have also had longer gaps of mediocrity. UCONN, Louisville, AZ, Mich st. etc. and I believe UF is firmly in the middle of it.
Your blue bloods list happens to be precisely the only programs with more titles than Florida. Villanova has been called a blue blood by the talking heads and as far as I'm concerned, we are at their level now. I think we disposed of them in an Elite Eight during one of our championship runs. To me, a blue blood has to have DNA that transcends the greatness of a single coach in a single era. UCLA and Indiana do not really meet this criteria. But Florida can if Golden can sustain success. Even if he struggles to win another championship, if he can establish deep tournament runs as a habit here like Donovan did, we're it as far as I'm concerned.
More reddit insight. BTW, r/collegebasketball is a great sub if you're not there already. There are dolts of course, but the discussions are generally very civil, humourous, self effacing...
Indiana and UCLA were great under one coach in one era. Blasphemy I know, but they're living in faded glory. Kentucky is the blueprint for a blue blood, with eight titles under 5 different head coaches between 1948 and 2012. There are seven teams with more titles than us now. All are considered blue bloods by the talking heads. Three others with the same or fewer titles than us are also considered to be in the conversation by the media: Villanova, Michigan State, and Louisville. Sustained excellence under Todd Golden with regular deep tournament runs should put us solidly in blue blood territory, even if we struggle to win it all again.
I think that's why UF has been overlooked to some degree because so much of our success was under Donovan and he didn't stick around for 30 years. I think you can add Duke to the success under one coach. Their success is more recent, but K built them and we really won't know for at least a few more years if Schyer will continue that success or just always be close but never winning it.
Blue bloods - come from priveledged noble families who are wealthy and powerful. A blue blood doesn't guarantee a particular merit, competence or expertise. Probably refrencing royal families back many years ago. I rather my team be known as elite than a blue blood. If I was to put a list of bb blue bloods, I will start in the year when the number of participating teams in the tourney were 32. Only 8 teams played when NCAA tournament started. So à lot of the known BBs are already in EE just by making the tournament. LOL
I think our football success hurts objectivity when viewing the hoops program. Duke, UNC, UConn, Kansas and UK are generally historical football doormats. Hoops is all they are known for among revenue sports. We are victims of our deep success in multiple sports including the richest of them all, Football.
Hockey nerds like myself find this to be true with teams like Toronto. They are considered hockey royalty although the last time they won a Stanley Cup there were only 6 teams...in the entire league! I think modern era success should matter. UCLA and Indiana, I am talking to you.
As long as the Administration gives him the resources to succeed, I think CTG will be a Gator for many years and he will take us to the Final Four multiple times. It will cement the Gators as a blue blood by demonstrating that we aren't a one-trick pony. We were on the cusp before, but Mike White let the brand slip. In three years, CTG brought us back. Actually two, because we were close last year. We've turned a lot of portal heads with our brilliance, so it'll be interesting to see who we get. Who wouldn't want to be a Gator?
What will be needed, per my earlier observation elsewhere is FAN EXPECTATIONS, which become tangible to others in the form of butts-in-seats, merchandise, concessions, etc. We have a reliable base of more sold-outs with a) the greatest amount of 'free time', b) minimal real-world problems, and c) proximity to the venue: The Students, and from what I see, the Rowdy Reptiles are doing their part. We need Gainesvillians that have admittedly fuller calendars, more problems and might have to drive to get down to the Dome to "get up and go", to help make it the House of Horrors it once was.
