Marty McFly
Resident Lurker
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Messages
- 1,473
- Like
- 2,990
I'd add to that, You know you're a blue blood if you expect preferential treatment from the refs... There are a handful of teams that you face, and know it's 5 on 8.
Blue Bloods
- Thread starter SWC75
- Start date
I'd add to that, You know you're a blue blood if you expect preferential treatment from the refs... There are a handful of teams that you face, and know it's 5 on 8.
H
HOFCeluck
Guest
SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,636
- Like
- 64,745
SoBeCuse
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 12,140
- Like
- 14,887
Yeah I don’t really mind them being lumped in as a blue blood. They have historical relevance and success. Michigan was very good with Bill Frieder before Steve Fisher took over.
Indiana has really tailed off. Not sure about them still deserving that label which is still so subjective and nebulous. UCLA still deserves it, IMO. They did go to 3 straight F4s under Howland and if not for a hot Kentucky team last year in the Tourney probably would’ve been there again.
Last edited:
UCLA is a blue blood still.
They won a NC in 1995.
They went to the Final Four 3 times in a row 2006, 2007, 2008.
They couldn’t beat those Horford, Noah, Brewer Florida Gators teams.
Indiana has been replaced by Michigan State in their own conference. The Hoosiers only have 1 Final Four the last 25 years.
They won a NC in 1995.
They went to the Final Four 3 times in a row 2006, 2007, 2008.
They couldn’t beat those Horford, Noah, Brewer Florida Gators teams.
Indiana has been replaced by Michigan State in their own conference. The Hoosiers only have 1 Final Four the last 25 years.
H
HOFCeluck
Guest
I think the whole Frieder/Fisher thing from 1989 is crazy.
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,040
- Like
- 15,116
Don't be fooled by the total wins as sever teams racked up wins when they were the only real hoops team in their conference and only conference champs were invited to the tourney. Yes, things have changed in our lifetime, but the numbers are skewed to those with long-standing conference affiliations where no one else played high quality hoops.
SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,636
- Like
- 64,745
Do we have an exact definttion of a "blue blood"? To me it's about a program's place in basketball history as opposed to where they stand now, who is having a good decade or how good they have been under Coach Soandso. I'm not sure you can lose blue blood status once earned, even if you are not adding to the legacy at the moment.
SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,636
- Like
- 64,745
omniorange
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,757
- Like
- 2,963
I think many believe the definition of 'blue blood' is what you have above. Once 'blue blood' always 'blue blood'. But yes, in my opinion one can lose 'blue blood' standing since I prefer the following definition...
"What defines a 'blue blood'? Most notably, a long standing tradition. The times have changed. The game has changed. But, these programs and these teams have maintained a degree of success while remaining relevant on a national stage. Above all else, 'blue blood' must have a long-standing tradition that includes "legendary" coaches, great players..."
The above definition was put forth by a college football fan, before he went on to define the programs he thought were blue blood in that sport. But for me the key part that sticks out is "remaining relevant on a national stage". How does one define that? In football it is easy to understand that Army no longer remains relevant on a national stage, even though they still have many fans. In basketball Indiana still has many fans as well, but their last championship was three decades ago and their last Final Four was 15 years ago. They have only made 4 Sweet 16 appearances in the last 23 years. Now interestingly enough, if they were to go on a significant run again, similar to the one Michigan has been on this decade, they likely would be back to being a 'blue blood' - one can lose the status, but one has to be one, then lost it, in order to regain it.
In football, it seems to me it is understood that despite what Miami and FSU have accomplished on the field, they were simply too late to the party to be considered 'blue bloods' in college football. While they certainly can be considered Elite, I just don't see them ever being considered 'blue blood' - just as I don't see any program outside of UK, UNC, Duke, KU, UCLA, or Indiana as ever being a 'blue blood'. The best that programs like Louisville, SU, Michigan State, UConn, Nova, Arizone, Ohio State, Michigan, and Florida can ever attain is Elite status. And honestly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Which is why I actually prefer 'elite' to 'blue blood'.
Looking forward to the day our Orange has at least 3 NCAA men's basketball championships to cement Elite status. And
at the 'blue bloods'. LGO!!! Really, who wants to be in the same grouping as UK, UNC, and Duke. 
Those are my thoughts on the topic.
Cheers,
Neil
orange79
Internet Sleuth
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 41,614
- Like
- 127,722
Really, who wants to be in the same grouping as UK, UNC, and Duke.
