Wolverine247 Board

UCLA, Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Indiana for me

I feel like the basketball blue bloods are much more defined. I think the generally held idea of the basketball blue bloods is the super six (titles):

1. UCLA (11)
2. Kentucky (8)
3. Indiana (5)
4. UNC (5)
5. Duke (4)
6. Kansas (3)

UConn is the only other program with more than 2 titles, but just lost the only coach they've ever been successful with. Not a blue blood to me yet. Kansas is up there with 3 while UConn isn't because they are kinda like the Michigan of basketball. James Naismith, Allen Fieldhouse, playing since like forever ago, etc.

Louisville and Cincinnati both have two and have been excellent for a long time. They're next on my list.

MSU has two and is great when Michigan isn't Florida is a blueblood of the 2000s, but not of the sport. NCState has two, as well, but it's sort of a 'you know it when you see it' situation.

Other programs to at least think about with this include Arizona (not enough titles, Lute Olsen is similar to Jim Calhoun), Syracuse (Boeheim is the same), and then there are a bunch of Big Ten teams with titles, title game appearances, and winning histories but they beat up on each other too much (Purdue has the most Big Ten titles!) or couldn't win the big one (Ohio State vs. Cincy in the 60s, Michigan vs. other Big Ten teams and the Fab Five, Illinois in general).

Agree on the Super Six: UCLA, Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, Duke, Kansas. I don't think you can have a list of basketball blue bloods without Kansas on it. Naismith invented the game and then became Kansas' first coach!

After Kansas it becomes very argumentative - a lot of these team's success is based upon a single coach (Syracuse, UConn, Arizona). The next group of teams for me would be those 3 plus MSU and Louisville. If we were having this discussion in the 1980's I think you could make great arguments for Temple, St. John's, and Georgetown as blue bloods as well.

It might have something to do with Michigan being the all-time wins leader and win % leader. Apparently, the goal in sports is to win and we've won a lot.

Shut up

First, Michigan claims far more titles than that, and we all know the football championship thing is messed up beyond belief.

For the record, Michigan claims 11 National Championships.

Painfully dumb

So, championships in football only count from time periods when you want them to?

Don't see how you could possibly lose any arguments on this board with that reasoning.

I didn't really think that was an arbitrary time period to pick but oh well. I'll drop it, really not trying to cause trouble over here.

Kentucky was the first team to 500 wins, 1,000 wins, and now 2,000 wins. They have been throughout time the most dominant program by far. UCLA has more titles total, but all those came in a very close span of each other then 1 (?) in the 90's. Kentucky has won a NC in several decades... and i'm pretty sure they've had more coaches win NC's at UK in their career than coaches that haven't won an NC but not 100% on that one.

The other programs have been mentioned; UCLA, UNC, Duke, Kansas, and Indiana.

There's nothing magical about the AP Poll. It was one method used to determine the national champion (from 1936 until 1997), but it wasn't the only method. And it wasn't used for the first half century of college football, because it didn't exist yet. Prior to the advent of the AP Poll, several other well respected methods were used instead. Ironically, the AP really hasn't been used itself since 1997. Are we supposed to throw out all the AP titles because we switched to the BCS? And are we planning to throw out all the BCS titles when we go to a four team playoff in 2014? Every era of CFB has had its unique aspects, including different ways of selecting the NC. But you don't throw out all the history every time you change something. The history is still the history. The history endures.