The old Blue Blood argument | Syracusefan.com

The old Blue Blood argument

jekelish

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
22,278
Like
36,915
On ESPNU right now, Katz and Greenburg are arguing whether any blue bloods will make the final four.

Syracuse - and for that matter Arizona - are not mentioned as being blue bloods.

I know it means precisely jack, but man. Frustrating to have the success we have had, as one of the winningest programs ever, and not be mentioned in the conversation.
 
Of course Katz just mentioned Ennis as a serious Wooden contender, so there's that. Mostly in passing, but after the big four (McDermott, Smart, Parker, Randle), Ennis was the first guy he mentioned.
 
On ESPNU right now, Katz and Greenburg are arguing whether any blue bloods will make the final four.

Syracuse - and for that matter Arizona - are not mentioned as being blue bloods.

I know it means precisely jack, but man. Frustrating to have the success we have had, as one of the winningest programs ever, and not be mentioned in the conversation.
Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. You know who they meant.

We are in the 1A group: Cuse, Zona, MSU, Louisville.
 
well heck you ain't even a has been you're a never was!

replace04.jpg
 
Blue Bloods

Duke
UNC
Kansas
Kentucky

New Bloods

Cuse
Uconn (has been in 10 yrs possibly)
Michigan St

Has Beens

Indiana
UCLA
 
This is possibly a dumb question, but it's serious: is it just a coincidence that the "blue blood" programs all have blue as their primary color? I mean, I understand this term existed prior to its use in college basketball lingo, but is this part of the genesis of the use of the term for these particular teams?

Bottom line about this is, I don't think this is a club that is accepting new members. We could win 5 titles and not be in the club because it's not the hall of fame, there are no strict requirements to get in because it is a grouping that was created post-facto. If Syracuse being the 5th winningest program of all time with well over 100 years of winning tradition, home to many all-americans, one of the greatest coaching legends of all time, etc is not enough to get into that club, nothing is.
 
Blue Bloods

Duke
UNC
Kansas
Kentucky

New Bloods

Cuse
Uconn (has been in 10 yrs possibly)
Michigan St

Has Beens

Indiana
UCLA

Blue Bloods

Duke
UNC
Kansas
Kentucky

Orange Bloods

Syracuse

Has Beens

Indiana
UCLA
Uconn
Michigan St (the only team besides Michigan State to bust my bracket is Pittsburgh)
 
Oh I know. They mentioned UCLA and IU as well. I feel like, in other terms, they are "old money" and we are "new money" and we will never quite be accepted into high society.
You, sir, are almost even money in the post to like department... Tee him up!
 
Why do some people on this forum go off in a huff when we aren't mentioned amongst the blue bloods ? We are not a blue blood & will never be considered a blue blood until we win a couple of more NCs. Also, we have only been to the FF 6 times. I figure if we can get 4 more final fours and two more titles in the next 5 to 10 years then we can be part of that conversation.

That is a tall order, but that will be what it takes from where we are right now.

It is a real shame because it is only a Keith Smart j and an AO injury that has kept us from one or two more titles. We are so close I can taste it, but we need to earn our blueblood spot on the court & to date we are lagging well behind the four blueblood programs plus UCLA, Indiana, and Lville as well.
 
Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. You know who they meant.

We are in the 1A group: Cuse, Zona, MSU, Louisville.
Indiana and UCLA are clearing their throats
 
Maybe we should start wearing our blue uniforms to be considered blueblood???
 
On ESPNU right now, Katz and Greenburg are arguing whether any blue bloods will make the final four.

Syracuse - and for that matter Arizona - are not mentioned as being blue bloods.

I know it means precisely jack, but man. Frustrating to have the success we have had, as one of the winningest programs ever, and not be mentioned in the conversation.

I guess it depends on how many "bluebloods" there are. After UNC, Duke, UK, and Kansas...Cuse and Arizona have been as good as anyone for the past 30 years.
 
Oh I know. They mentioned UCLA and IU as well. I feel like, in other terms, they are "old money" and we are "new money" and we will never quite be accepted into high society.

Mentioning UCLA and IU is quite laughable. Seriously. Neither has really done a thing in the past 6 seasons. UCLA won their last title in 1995, sure, but they are LONG gone from the Wooden years. And IU? Please! They should mention **cough cough gag** UConn before mentioning IU. Blech!! At least they were relevant in the past 15 years.

Syracuse will never be considered a "Blue Blood" program in the sense of what that term really means, and I'm fine with that. We're more modern era elite.
 
Mentioning UCLA and IU is quite laughable. Seriously. Neither has really done a thing in the past 6 seasons. UCLA won their last title in 1995, sure, but they are LONG gone from the Wooden years. And IU? Please! They should mention **cough cough gag** UConn before mentioning IU. Blech!! At least they were relevant in the past 15 years.

Syracuse will never be considered a "Blue Blood" program in the sense of what that term really means, and I'm fine with that. We're more modern era elite.

Agreed. UCLA won in 95, but they really weren't that great for a long time before that title either. And they've been incredibly inconsistent since 95. They're really not that big of a deal anymore.

Indiana has been mediocre for 20 years now. They started getting bounced from the tournament in round 1 like every year in the 90's until the Knight fiasco that led to his firing, and they have been flat out bad as often as they've been good since then. We kick their butts every time we play them now.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,507
Messages
4,707,698
Members
5,908
Latest member
Cuseman17

Online statistics

Members online
271
Guests online
2,167
Total visitors
2,438


Top Bottom