In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 525
Online now 526 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The Bluebloods in Football are of course: Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, Ohio State,Texas and Oklahoma
Who are the Blue Bloods in Basketball? Can you say Duke? I dont think they were relevant before the UNLV victory? UCLA? North Carolina?
UCLA, Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Indiana for me
"Those Who Stay...Will be Champions"
UCLA, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas for me.
This post was edited by Amazinglyblue78 13 months ago
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).
UCLA. Kentucky. Kansas. North Carolina. Indiana. Duke. Any reasonable college hoops fan will recognize those six programs as the sport's true blue b
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by hardware_sushi 13 months ago
You must be young. Duke had not won a national championship prior to that year. However they were relevant. There is no conversation about the bluebloods of college basketball that does not include Duke. Also Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas. Louisville is most likely in also.
This post was edited by Georgem80 13 months ago
Go Blue & Gig Em'!
I will also admit that I am rooting for Indiana to win the title this year if Michigan doesn't. Can't imagine Duke, Florida (read: SEC fans even though their league is garbage), Louisville, or MSU fans if any of them win. Ugh. Indiana fans don't bother me.
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.
So we've learned that MSU isn't elite because they only have 2 titles which is less than the top 6. Why doesn't this apply to football? I just read this thread and PK's UM has caught MSU thread and the number of titles is referenced over and over and over.
School Championships Seasons
Alabama 10 1961, 1964, 1965 (AP), 1973 (Coaches), 1978 (AP), 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012
Notre Dame 8 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1966, 1973 (AP), 1977, 1988
Oklahoma 7 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974 (AP), 1975, 1985, 2000
USC 7 1962, 1967, 1972, 1974 (Coaches), 1978 (Coaches), 2003 (AP), 2004 (AP)*
Miami 5 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991 (AP), 2001
Nebraska 5 1970 (AP), 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997 (Coaches)
Ohio State 5 1942, 1954 (AP), 1957 (Coaches), 1968, 2002
Minnesota 4 1936, 1940, 1941, 1960
Texas 4 1963, 1969, 1970 (Coaches), 2005
Florida 3 1996, 2006, 2008
LSU 3 1958, 2003 (Coaches), 2007
Army 2 1944, 1945
Auburn 2 1957 (AP), 2010
Florida State 2 1993, 1999
Michigan 2 1948, 1997 (AP)
Michigan State 2 1952, 1965 (Coaches)
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.
Also, Michigan has 11 national championships. It seems like you need help counting.
Agree with what you guys are calling the "super six" teams. I think the big measures that people forget are that all of these teams are relevant and almost always end up in recruits' final selections, even if they're struggling, which is pretty significant. Perhaps over time this can change, but these are the teams I would select as the elite programs.
Basketball Analyst For BTPowerhouse & Wolverine 247 - Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tbeindit
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.
I know that, it was broken down as post AP era sometime in the 30's on the website I went to. I'm sorry if wins from before helmets were used doesn't do anything for me. Every comment on BBall is what have you done for me recently.
Woo, arbitrary timelines!
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.
Michigan has a 4-2 record against MSU basketball in their last 6 games. Clearly, we're twice as good as them.
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.
Your're not????? Could have fooled me.
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.
When it comes to football there is only one Blue Blood and that is Michigan. Everyone elses blood is so contaminated with steroids that it is sort of a piss yellow. Yes, I'm trying to be open minded but it's hard you know.
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.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 13 months ago
they DOMINATED those high school teams in AA from 1900-1930..gotta give them respect!
laying in the weeds
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports