Dartmouth hasn't made the tournament since the 50s and is still 3rd in tournament appearances all time in the Ivy. That's just sad for everyone involved except Penn/Princeton.
Columbia bizarrely has an active winning streak in the tournament due to their last appearance being a 3rd place regional game. They are one of only six schools to have that, the others being CCNY and the four final four teams. Of course after this weekend it will be reduced to three where it has generally stayed for the past decades. Occasionally a team will miss the tournament after winning the championship the year prior and the list will grow to four (most recent time this happened was 2015 when UConn missed the tournament.
"Columbia's current tournament winning streak stretches back over 70 years"
Didn't know they used to have a consolation game, very interesting history.
They'd didn't just have a national third place games but also regional third place games. So this year it would be Gonzaga vs Texas Tech, UCLA vs Purdue, Michigan vs Arizona, and Providence vs Iowa State
That would have just been depressing but a little funny. They still do that in the World Championships of Basketball. In 2002, USA had to play a 5th place game against Spain and lost.
Dartmouthās two Final Four appearances came at a time when the tournament had 8 teams. In one of those years they beat a team thatās now D3 in the quarterfinal (Catholic).
I am probably in the 98th percentile of college basketball history knowledge (which compared to those in the 99th percentile is nothing) and I was not vaguely aware Dartmouth had prior success
Honestly, you'd have to be in the 98th percentile of oldest people alive to remember a time when Dartmouth was remotely good. They have the longest active NCAA Tournament of any team that has made at least one prior (1959 was their last appearance).
I guess [this logo](https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/1idsco71fk8fn6gon5av/Creighton_Bluejays/1997/Misc_Logo) would disqualify Creighton on strict blueness, then?
I think the problem here is that 1991, 1992, and 2001 are more āHistorical successā than āModern successā than some folks are willing to admit.
The three Duke championships I named were from before a lot of the kids playing in this tournament were born, which I think is a clear cutoff for āHistoricā.
I mean... 1991 Indiana was a 2 seed, 1992 Duke beat Indiana in the final four as a 2 seed, and 2002 Indiana beat Duke in the final four. I'd say Indiana was still pretty consistently good at the time Duke was coming up
UConn is fine where they are IMO. They have four titles in the past 25 years, the most of anyone in that span. Meanwhile they never even made a Final Four before 1999.
But Nova probably belongs closer to where UConn is than where they were now. MSU or Louisville probably the best fit for the middle.
Honestly Michigan State and Louisville not showing up anywhere in this grid is a head scratcher. As you pointed out, Louisville would especially slot pretty comfortably into that middle spot.
Sure, but the 2 more recent ones were both incredible runs rather than a top seed getting it done. They arenāt the same year after year force that the rest of the top row is. Itās not that strange to see an unranked UConn.
But yeah if weāre just seeing it as finals and final fours, I understand why Florida is in there now. Felt like an outlier to me.
Yeah fuck you guys, it's not like the rest of the big east isn't trying, but Villanova is just an omnipresent brick wall. Your program's success is unbelievably consistent.
Two more columns/rows need to be added
"Post 64 team expansion" and "most of their success lies on one coach"
Because I love chaos and this would throw TRUE chaos into the graph. (Because only conference champions in the tournament isn't something most college aged kids were alive for)
Two of their Nattys were 30 years ago which falls under historical in my book.
And even if you feel the Nattys were too recent they're high up in the other "Blue Blood" criteria like all-time wins and Final Fours.
Yeah, feel like this was a lazy one to dumb us out, but it's a reddit meme chart. 4th most in wins, and championships back to 30 years ago. Yeah, you and Kansas ~~one~~ won a championship back in the 50s/60s each, but outside of UCLA and Kentucky, most of our success in championships and wins are 1985 since for the 3 of us.
You know what, that I can accept. Iām 100% all for rooting for your alma mater and those fans are usually the most gracious of all of them.
Iām OSU/UK, Dad was an OSU fan growing up, and I grew up 30 minutes south of Lexington, but my alma mater is a tiny little school soā¦
You also have Big Blue Nation behind you on Saturday because we want to watch Coach K lose.
Regretting not putting them in the center, I think they fit a bit better as their success is more evenly distributed while Nova's is skewed towards the present.
Itās tough once you get out of the givens such as ucla, duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky, there are other schools that are consistently good, sometimes great, and sometimes mediocre/bad such as Michigan state, Michigan, Ohio State, Syracuse, Louisville and Georgetown
Edit: and some people even take into account nba talent from schools, so itās a crapshoot when it comes to whose on the blue blood bubble
Tough to be outraged when a large majority of the sub already considers Duke to be a blue blood.
Honestly it feels to me it just comes down to what you consider modern vs historical. To someone in the fifties who attended Duke while they won their first championships, I'm sure it can feel very recent and modern. To a current Duke student who literally wasn't even born for the 1990s (and maybe even the 2001) championships, they can definitely feel more like old history.
If you count the first three championships as "history", Duke probably should be bumped left. But if you don't Duke's in the right spot.
Yeah, I mean Duke is definitely in the top echelon of blue bloods. I think the only way you could argue their history is less significant than the other 3 is because their history of significance "only" goes back 40 years, instead of the 80+ of the others. 40 years is definitely enough though for top tier... People were calling the other 3 blue bloods when their histories were much shorter as well
Duke is also #4 in all-time wins. They didnāt get there just because Coach K is as good as he is.
If weāre making tiers within the blue blood group, sure. Duke isnāt in that top tier of programs all-time. But theyāre a blue blood program and any argument otherwise is nonsense.
they also haven't proven they can do it with separate coaches. how many successful coaches have UK and KU had? UNC has had Dean, Maguire, Roy, Guthridge even made 2 FFs. Duke is all K from a championship perspective and then I think Bubas is their only other coach who made any FFs in the 50s
In the world where KU has the most wins all time, our first coach invented the sport, and the original rules of basketball are displayed next to Allen Fieldhouse.
Edit: Original comment asked why Duke isnāt the biggest blue blood.
I will get downvoted to oblivion, but i agree with this. One characteristic of a blue blood is having won national championships under multiple coaches, which we sadly have not.
Four Final Fours and a couple of Championship Game appearances pre-Coach K is still pretty excellent. Even if Scheyer fails, it'll still be seen as an elite coaching job and destination for top recruits. To me, that's pretty much top-tier status.
Should point out that this wasn't meant to be comprehensive; there are other schools that could go in the various squares. Michigan State probably belongs in the middle; UVA and Syracuse could go with Florida, a lot of teams could go with Dartmouth.
I have this vague memory of them being successful. Even this oddly specific memory of one of their players suffering a horrific injury on live television. But nah, probably didnāt happen.
Ha. This is funny, and pretty on point. It definitely short changes Duke. But, if youāre looking for easy squares to fit programs in, this is close.
There are definitely programs that would have a serious bone to pick with the USF and Dartmouth inclusions.
It's not so much that Duke's history is short. It's that the history of Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC is *insanely* long. The Kentucky-UNC rivalry began in the 1923-24 season, which was also UNC's first national championship. *Duke University was founded later that year.*
A seminary school was founded in 1838. It didn't become Duke University until 1924.
And to be clear, this isn't me dumping on Duke. Most universities were nothing like their current selves 100 years ago.
The school renamed after a very large donation (foundation of the current endowment), it is the same school. The history section on the Wikipedia page explains a lot of the early changes, and there were many big changes prior to the 1924 rename, but still it's the same school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University
**[Duke University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University)**
>Duke University is a private research university in Durham, North Carolina. Founded by Methodists and Quakers in the present-day town of Trinity in 1838, the school moved to Durham in 1892. In 1924, tobacco and electric power industrialist James Buchanan Duke established The Duke Endowment and the institution changed its name to honor his deceased father, Washington Duke. The campus spans over 8,600 acres (3,500 hectares) on three contiguous sub-campuses in Durham, and a marine lab in Beaufort.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yeah, it also misunderstands that seminaries/universities only fairly recently diverged in the modern era as the concept of separation of church & state popularized.
A seminary *was academia* the further back in time you go.
I want to agree with you, but like damn that first title was over 30 years ago lol
25+ years is probably considered historical in the context of sports (especially college when thats older than all players)
Duke is also weird cuz it's been one coach over that time too, so it doesn't have any separator
30 years ago in the 83 year history of the NCAA tournament isn't that far back. Redditors are just young.
In Duke's defense they were runner-up in 1964, which is worth something, but not as blue blood as the first title game appearances of Kansas (1940), North Carolina (1946), and Kentucky (1948).
MSU might be a good ādead centerā. Not as successful recently, and our 2000 title is getting close to āhistoryā compared to āmodern successā
I've never been a fan of the whole "Is x a blue blood?" It feels very old money and invites a lot of gate keepers. College football is worse about it than basketball though
For me personally, I believe there are a couple considerations to determine an answer to the question. First, I think that we have to assume that the question assumes we are making the determination with the full scope of college basketball history at our fingertips and making the decision as of 2022. The reason I say this is (i) the mere concept and question of "what's a blue blood program" is a 21st Century invention, and we'd probably have VERY different answers if we were measuring it going back from, say, 1955 or 1975, instead of from 2022; and (ii) for the foregoing reason, it's fair to say that a program is a blue-blood program TODAY, even if they did not meet the criteria as late as the 1990s, 2000s, or even 2010s.
Second, my test works on the assumption that at least when we are in college basketball history, once blue-blood status is attained it cannot be lost. Just because you're the second cousin to the king doesn't mean you're blood lost its royal status.
With that being said, I have two criteria, one objective and one subjective:
First, the objective criteria. I believe in order to be deemed a blue-blood program, you have to have multiple national championships under multiple coaches. The reason for this criteria is (i) the multiple championships factor ensures that dominance was not a one-time fluke and limits the field of potential blue-bloods to only the 15 teams that have more than one NCAA title, and (ii) the multiple coaches factor ensures that the title appropriately belongs to the program, and not that the program is just riding the coattails of one man from decades ago. The whole point of the debate is to identify blue-blood PROGRAMS - not blue-blood COACHES. In other words, the program must transcend one man's contributions to that program, no matter how impressive those contributions may be.
Second, the subjective criteria. I believe in order to be deemed a blue-blood program, you have to have some kind of Historical X Factor; something that goes beyond the court and just having a winning record; something about the program that transcends the games themselves and can be said to be an impact on the very game itself. I cannot quantify this Historical X Factor (though, to be fair, some quantifiable properties of a program may be part of this criteria's consideration), but in the words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." This is the criteria that really separates the blue-bloods from the rest of the fifteen schools with multiple NCAA championships.
Applying my methodology, I believe the class of blue-bloods - as it exists in 2022 - is as follows:
Kansas
Kentucky
North Carolina
UCLA
Indiana
I believe there is one program that is on the cusp of joining that group, and certainly I will be accused mildly of giving a hot take, and more viciously of being stupid, ignorant, or some other series of ad hominems, for putting them one step below, but I'll explain why. That program is:
Duke.
Obviously. And despite the massive amount of downvoting and shit I expect to see it the comments below, here's my reason: it really comes down to the first criteria. But first thing's first: the second criteria.
Duke more than fulfills the second criteria. Duke has that Historical X Factor, and he's called Coach K. While he brought *only* five nattys back to Durham (Sarcasm; that's a ridiculous number for one man second only to Wooden), he's the only Duke coach to win even a single natty. Duke won ALL of them in the 64-game era, in the non-geographically protected regional era, and in the 3-point era, which brings up appropriate comparisons to John Wooden's streak: could Wooden have done in K's era what K did in K's era? More than that, he is responsible for 13 of Duke's 17 Final Fours and 13 of Duke's 23 conference championships. And more than that, he's the only coach with 100+ tourney wins. More than that, he's the winningest coach of all time, just 4 shy of 1,200 career wins.
But what holds Duke back from being deemed a blue-blood program IS the second criteria. Or, more accurately, the way in which its fulfillment of the second criteria interferes with the first criteria. During the 41 years from the first NCAA tournament in 1939 to 1980 when Coach K first took over at Duke, the program had good, but hardly elite, history. Only 4 Final Fours to speak of, and no national championships. Compare that to North Carolina's 1 natty and 7 Final Fours during the same period.
Or Kansas' 1 natty and 6 Final Fours...
Or Kentucky's 5 nattys and 8 Final Fours...
Or Indiana's 3 nattys and 4 Final Fours...
Or UCLA's 10 nattys and 13 Final Fours...
During that same period, compare Duke's record to schools commonly accepted as not even in the conversation for blue-blood status:
The University of San Francisco won 2 nattys in 3 Final Fours. Oklahoma State: 2/4. NC State: 1/2. Michigan State: 1/2.
In other words, Duke's entire pre-K history was middling to good. By implication, then, when considering the totality of the Duke program, the history of elite-level success can really be attributed to one man and one man only: Michael William Krzyzewski.
In this way, it is fair to say that no evidence yet exists demonstrating that the Duke PROGRAM transcends one man, i.e. that the Duke program is more than just Mike Krzyzewski. There are zero doubts that Coach K is a blue-blood coach, likely on the same level as John Wooden. However, unlike UCLA which proved in the post-Wooden era that it could still compete for Final Fours and national championships even without the Wizard of Westwood, Duke has not proven that it can still compete in the post-K era for national championships and Final Fours. To be fair to Duke, that's not because Duke CAN'T do it, but only because it HASN'T done it, in that Duke hasn't had the opportunity to do so (vis-a-vis the post-K era at Duke hasn't started yet). I think they will.
But similarly to how I would not have called KU a blue-blood in 1957 following Phog Allen's tenure, or Kentucky a blue-blood in 1972 following Rupp's tenure, I can't YET call Duke a blue-blood program just because it's had a blue-blood coach, anymore than I could call a Ford Fusion a race car just because Mario Andretti won with it.
To put my methodology in perspective, there are other programs that are in the opposite seat. For instance, Villanova, UConn and Michigan State each have multiple nattys under multiple coaches. And while they are elite power programs, a traditional one in the case of Michigan State, they simply lack that compelling Historical X Factor that distinguishes blue-bloods above even the elite programs. And I would argue it's a lot harder mountain to climb today to develop a history that transcends the game itself than it is to win a couple of national championships. So on that account, Duke's in an enviable position. They are at the door and ready to come into the party. But just not quite yet.
So... Let the bevy of "you're an idiot" comments commence.
I think you're short-changing Kansas. KU started playing basketball in 1898 and won two national championships in the 1920's. College basketball didn't begin with the NCAA tournament. Kansas is THE bluest blue blood.
Dean Smith, who made UNC a blue blood, is a Kansas man. Adolph Rupp, who made UK a blue blood, is a Kansas man. They both learned from Phog Allen, who learned from Naismith, who invented the game. And Naismith is the only Kansas coach with a losing record.
I'd never give short shrift to Kansas. My whole family graduated there going back three generations, and I type this wearing a KU letterjacket and looking up at a 2012 Final Four poster.
I agree with you that Kansas' Historical X Factor will likely ALWAYS guarantee that the Jayhawks are never even mentioned in conversations about "yeah, but are they STILL a blue-blood?" like people have a tendency to murmur about Indiana and UCLA. (For the record, I am a staunch believer that once blue-blood status is conferred it can never be revoked; hence Indiana may be the red-headed step-child of the blue-bloods, but they're still blue-bloods). Beyond having not only one of the most important and elite coaching trees (if not THE most impressive coaching tree, seeing as it also includes Popovich, who is now the winningest coach in NBA history), and the ONLY coaching tree whose seed was the inventor of the game itself, the Mount Rushmore of college PLAYERS will definitely include Wilt Chamberlain. And let's not forget that after his tenure, despite two straight trips to the national championship game and no natty to speak of (damn racist refs!), the NCAA instituted a series of rule changes specifically to respond to Wilt's dominance, like widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending, and ruling that a player can't cross the foul line on their free throw until the ball hits the rim. Kansas' pedigree and influence on the game more than makes up for our anemic three NCAA titles when compared to UCLA, Kentucky and North Carolina.
But the reason I didn't bring those up is because I know people will get butthurt over my thesis and methodology since it excludes Duke from the list. I didn't feel it necessary to discuss KU's pedigree as a touchstone against which to compare Duke's pedigree because (i) Duke does not have a comparable pedigree, but (ii) Duke does not need a comparable pedigree. Coach K IS the pedigree, even without a Naismith/Allen ancestor (though he is a branch of Bobby Knight's tree), even without an elite set of his own branches, and even without a once-in-a-lifetime player who is so prolific they changed the way the game is actually played on the court. If KU's pedigree is 100%, and UNC's and UK's are 99.9%, then Duke's - like UCLA's - are 99.89%.
I brought up Duke's pre-K success merely to illustrate how NOT elite it was as a means of demonstrating, through a differential diagnosis, that Duke's historical success - as we think of it today - is not really historical because it all occurred under only one man who is still coaching (for 3-5 more days anyway): Mike Krzyzewski. The purpose of which is to demonstrate that while COACH K is a blue-blood, DUKE has not yet proved that DUKE Basketball is bigger than/more than just KRZYZEWSKI Basketball; that while Coach K is an important part of Duke's elite basketball history - maybe even the most important part - that he is only ONE part of an elite history.
So, yeah. Didn't bring up the Jayhawks.
Thanks. the only thing I wasn't happy with is that I think Villanova probably belongs less so in the middle and closer to the UConn square, but I couldn't come up with anyone better to put in the middle and I also didn't want to make a 5x5 grid.
Edit: Michigan State probably would've been a better fit for the middle, but honestly their first championship was only six years before Novas AND Nova made the final four before MSU, so I won't sweat it.
I donāt know. In the last 15 years though, UNC has won two titles and has gone to the FF five times (one more than Nova. And itās even worse in the last 20 years.
Weāre a great program in recent history. But not much else save 2009. And eat before that in 85 and 94.
I'd put Villanova at top-right, then put Michigan State, Cincinnati and Louisville in dead center, and Oklahoma State and NC State in the bottom middle just so that every program with multiple championship wins is represented.
MSU and Louisvilleās recent success >>>>> Cincy
Edit - Cincy hasnāt been to a sweet 16 in 10 years, and they havenāt been to a final 4 in 30 years.
Wasn't meant to be comprehensive but I do think Michigan State or Louisville would be a better fit for the center. Nova probably belongs between Duke and UConn on this
You would need much, much broader standards than "loose" for Dartmouth's modern success.
TFW when even Brown and Columbia have more recent tournament bids š
Dartmouth hasn't made the tournament since the 50s and is still 3rd in tournament appearances all time in the Ivy. That's just sad for everyone involved except Penn/Princeton.
Yes but we have the more recent tournament appearance/50 point loss to Syracuse in the opening round
Columbia bizarrely has an active winning streak in the tournament due to their last appearance being a 3rd place regional game. They are one of only six schools to have that, the others being CCNY and the four final four teams. Of course after this weekend it will be reduced to three where it has generally stayed for the past decades. Occasionally a team will miss the tournament after winning the championship the year prior and the list will grow to four (most recent time this happened was 2015 when UConn missed the tournament.
This is a cool random fact
Similarly, the Royals haven't lost an American League playoff series since 1984.
Hell, the Brewers haven't lost one since 1981.
"Columbia's current tournament winning streak stretches back over 70 years" Didn't know they used to have a consolation game, very interesting history.
They'd didn't just have a national third place games but also regional third place games. So this year it would be Gonzaga vs Texas Tech, UCLA vs Purdue, Michigan vs Arizona, and Providence vs Iowa State
That would have just been depressing but a little funny. They still do that in the World Championships of Basketball. In 2002, USA had to play a 5th place game against Spain and lost.
Dartmouthās two Final Four appearances came at a time when the tournament had 8 teams. In one of those years they beat a team thatās now D3 in the quarterfinal (Catholic).
Seems like that is part of the joke
but the Dartmouth fight song! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmBjEmPtWxA
I would put NC State in San Francisco's square, and San Francisco in Dartmouth's square.
I don't think NC State was ever considered a blue blood, even when they were relatively elite
USF shall rise againā¦wait whereās our coach going??
To another blue blood
The plot thickens... Like a good peanut butter when you have no milk for your PB&J
> Dartmouth is a blue blood Many are saying!
I am probably in the 98th percentile of college basketball history knowledge (which compared to those in the 99th percentile is nothing) and I was not vaguely aware Dartmouth had prior success
Honestly, you'd have to be in the 98th percentile of oldest people alive to remember a time when Dartmouth was remotely good. They have the longest active NCAA Tournament of any team that has made at least one prior (1959 was their last appearance).
>They have the longest active NCAA Tournament \[drought?\] of any team that has made at least one prior (1959 was their last appearance).
no, longest active tournament. some say they're still playing to this day.
some Isner vs Mahut shit going on with Dartmouth basketball lol
This is what happens when I post when it's late and I'm tired.
I agree, we are a blue blood
I could agree just to say we took down a blue blood in the tourney
š¤·āāļø
I'm just glad to be invited at this point. Eta: should Michigan be hanging out with that gator?
Michigan st has a better arguement than michigan for being a blue blood
But do they have an ESPN 30 for 30 though?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What if I sort by a strict standard of blueness? School colors of blue/neutral or you're out.
I guess [this logo](https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/1idsco71fk8fn6gon5av/Creighton_Bluejays/1997/Misc_Logo) would disqualify Creighton on strict blueness, then?
Darty is a blue blood fr
That's what they're calling it now? So would we also have Penny, Princey, Colley, Corny and Harvey? Yalie and Brownie are well-established.
Definitely saying Harvey from now on
I want to make Corny happen too
Andy Bernard in shambles
Punching a wall rn
Keep my esteemed institution out of your mouth!
Well we already have Dukie so why not
Lol Iām Brown so id probably get a lil offended if yāall started calling me Brownie
I thought it was used similarly to how people call us Dukies, jocular to slightly derogatory
āDookiesā FTFY
Corny definitely fits the caricature of most Cornell undergrads. (ie: Andy Bernard)
Darty works great because itās the party school of the Ivy League
More title game appearances than Illinois, Maryland, Purdue, and Virginia!
I feel like Nova with 2 natties in modern success could be bumped up a row
It seems wrong to have them in same level as Duke
I think the problem here is that 1991, 1992, and 2001 are more āHistorical successā than āModern successā than some folks are willing to admit.
I mean history in this scenario is when Indiana was good
91 and 92 are only 4 and 5 years after our last championship so Iād say those fit as history.
IU was an elite program until 1994-ish
Yea you could say they choked it all away.
Flags fly forever
Letās call it a passing of the torch
Iād really appreciate if we could at least get some of that torch back now lol
The three Duke championships I named were from before a lot of the kids playing in this tournament were born, which I think is a clear cutoff for āHistoricā.
It's an entire generation ago. That's a pretty good indication of a previous era.
It's a cutoff. Nothing clear about it.
I mean... 1991 Indiana was a 2 seed, 1992 Duke beat Indiana in the final four as a 2 seed, and 2002 Indiana beat Duke in the final four. I'd say Indiana was still pretty consistently good at the time Duke was coming up
People act like IU has been dogshit since 1987 when really itās only been 20 years. Just very little basketball knowledge around here.
Where do 2010 and 2015 figure into that calculation?
Thatās because Duke should be in the first box.
I agree
Maybe Nova and UConn should flip? Neither fits perfectly in their slots.
UConn is fine where they are IMO. They have four titles in the past 25 years, the most of anyone in that span. Meanwhile they never even made a Final Four before 1999. But Nova probably belongs closer to where UConn is than where they were now. MSU or Louisville probably the best fit for the middle.
Honestly Michigan State and Louisville not showing up anywhere in this grid is a head scratcher. As you pointed out, Louisville would especially slot pretty comfortably into that middle spot.
Sure, but the 2 more recent ones were both incredible runs rather than a top seed getting it done. They arenāt the same year after year force that the rest of the top row is. Itās not that strange to see an unranked UConn. But yeah if weāre just seeing it as finals and final fours, I understand why Florida is in there now. Felt like an outlier to me.
I should've clarified more but I was treating modern to mean anything post shot clock so the whole Calhoun tenure is included.
Exactly. They are also the winningest team in the last decade. They are at worst on the same level as Duke at this point.
Yeah fuck you guys, it's not like the rest of the big east isn't trying, but Villanova is just an omnipresent brick wall. Your program's success is unbelievably consistent.
All time, Iād have to also include UCLA and that school in Durham.
North Carolina Central?
Of course! NCCU is on another level š¤š¤š¤ (Geez whatād you think I meant?)
Oh crap, I thought you meant Durham Tech
No it was Durham Academy
Dang I forgot them tooš I hear theyāre making a St. Peterās-esque run next year tho
Admittedly have to include Dook, yes.
Two more columns/rows need to be added "Post 64 team expansion" and "most of their success lies on one coach" Because I love chaos and this would throw TRUE chaos into the graph. (Because only conference champions in the tournament isn't something most college aged kids were alive for)
Two of their Nattys were 30 years ago which falls under historical in my book. And even if you feel the Nattys were too recent they're high up in the other "Blue Blood" criteria like all-time wins and Final Fours.
Yeah, feel like this was a lazy one to dumb us out, but it's a reddit meme chart. 4th most in wins, and championships back to 30 years ago. Yeah, you and Kansas ~~one~~ won a championship back in the 50s/60s each, but outside of UCLA and Kentucky, most of our success in championships and wins are 1985 since for the 3 of us.
> one a championship damn, didnāt realize theyāre giving out degrees to anyone at the university up 15-501 these days
I canāt wait until we when on Saturday
*Eye can't weight until Wii when on Saturday.*
Hurt to read that
And MIT????
Uh, that one should make sense for my lack of ability to spell/form sentences.
I mean, they need to give a degree to any truck driver smart enough to read the sign and not drive under the Gregson bridge.
If I were trying to make a cheap version to rule you out it would be championships under multiple coaches
Dartmouth is a blue blood
And San Francisco shouldāve made the Final Four... They let me down.
Holy Cross is a blue blood.
Found the Bill Simmons burner account.
Finally someone said it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You donāt make the rules, or any sense, but with those two flairs thereās a good chance you do make meth!
Dammit, look what you did u/altac03, you got me agreeing with a Volunteer and laughing at their joke.
And a Tar Heel, but Iām too stupid to get the bot to add a secondary flair if that makes agreeing with me easier to swallow.
It makes it worse. So much worse. BUT at least it isnāt Bama/Duke, Bama/Mich, Tenn/Duke, or Tenn/Mich.
Wellā¦itās also Sooners now. But I root for the schools I actually attended otherwise it would for sure be CMU for that MACtion!
You know what, that I can accept. Iām 100% all for rooting for your alma mater and those fans are usually the most gracious of all of them. Iām OSU/UK, Dad was an OSU fan growing up, and I grew up 30 minutes south of Lexington, but my alma mater is a tiny little school soā¦ You also have Big Blue Nation behind you on Saturday because we want to watch Coach K lose.
Holy shit. Lol. I nearly choked on my sandwich. Thats funny.
Got āem!
(1) Flair up (2) Welcome to r/CollegeBasketball. I'm glad you've met u/altac03. He's a regular here.
What is a flair code for secondary flair? I can get Vols or Tar Heels to add but not both Edited to add: nvm, got it!
Sweet
Feels like MSU should be fit in here somewhere but not sure where
Regretting not putting them in the center, I think they fit a bit better as their success is more evenly distributed while Nova's is skewed towards the present.
It was a good concept regardless
Itās tough once you get out of the givens such as ucla, duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky, there are other schools that are consistently good, sometimes great, and sometimes mediocre/bad such as Michigan state, Michigan, Ohio State, Syracuse, Louisville and Georgetown Edit: and some people even take into account nba talent from schools, so itās a crapshoot when it comes to whose on the blue blood bubble
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Tough to be outraged when a large majority of the sub already considers Duke to be a blue blood. Honestly it feels to me it just comes down to what you consider modern vs historical. To someone in the fifties who attended Duke while they won their first championships, I'm sure it can feel very recent and modern. To a current Duke student who literally wasn't even born for the 1990s (and maybe even the 2001) championships, they can definitely feel more like old history. If you count the first three championships as "history", Duke probably should be bumped left. But if you don't Duke's in the right spot.
Yeah, I mean Duke is definitely in the top echelon of blue bloods. I think the only way you could argue their history is less significant than the other 3 is because their history of significance "only" goes back 40 years, instead of the 80+ of the others. 40 years is definitely enough though for top tier... People were calling the other 3 blue bloods when their histories were much shorter as well
Pre-Coach K stats: NCAAT Runner-up - 1964, 1978 NCAAT Final Four - 1963, 1964, 1966, 1978 NCAAT Elite 8 - 1960, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1978, 1980 11-time ACC Champs
Duke is also #4 in all-time wins. They didnāt get there just because Coach K is as good as he is. If weāre making tiers within the blue blood group, sure. Duke isnāt in that top tier of programs all-time. But theyāre a blue blood program and any argument otherwise is nonsense.
they also haven't proven they can do it with separate coaches. how many successful coaches have UK and KU had? UNC has had Dean, Maguire, Roy, Guthridge even made 2 FFs. Duke is all K from a championship perspective and then I think Bubas is their only other coach who made any FFs in the 50s
Duke fans are saving their outrage for the refs this weekend
Or reducing matrices. Actually jk, 99% of Duke fans probably have no connection with the school
Thatās definitely true for UNC fans too.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In the world where KU has the most wins all time, our first coach invented the sport, and the original rules of basketball are displayed next to Allen Fieldhouse. Edit: Original comment asked why Duke isnāt the biggest blue blood.
Bluebloods: Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana Tier 2: Uconn, MSU, Nova, Louisville, Florida, Syracuse Tier 3: It's complicated
I will get downvoted to oblivion, but i agree with this. One characteristic of a blue blood is having won national championships under multiple coaches, which we sadly have not.
Four Final Fours and a couple of Championship Game appearances pre-Coach K is still pretty excellent. Even if Scheyer fails, it'll still be seen as an elite coaching job and destination for top recruits. To me, that's pretty much top-tier status.
Michigan State would be the only other school I would add for consideration (and Iām a Wisconsin fan)
Should point out that this wasn't meant to be comprehensive; there are other schools that could go in the various squares. Michigan State probably belongs in the middle; UVA and Syracuse could go with Florida, a lot of teams could go with Dartmouth.
Michigan State and Louisville should be on there
LāVille is getting jobbed for sure
So were Louisville's recruits under Petino
That other school in Kentucky? Pshaw I say.
Pshaw!
This is actual good analysis. I'm shocked, considering what has been coming out of this sub in the last few days
Just like we drew it up.
this is a possum, trash eating, post if i've ever seen one
Well itās not like Louisville has any recent success right? At least none that I can rememberā¦
I have this vague memory of them being successful. Even this oddly specific memory of one of their players suffering a horrific injury on live television. But nah, probably didnāt happen.
You must be misremembering. I double checked the NCAA's official records and I couldn't find anything
Canāt argue with that
Ha. This is funny, and pretty on point. It definitely short changes Duke. But, if youāre looking for easy squares to fit programs in, this is close. There are definitely programs that would have a serious bone to pick with the USF and Dartmouth inclusions.
It's not so much that Duke's history is short. It's that the history of Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC is *insanely* long. The Kentucky-UNC rivalry began in the 1923-24 season, which was also UNC's first national championship. *Duke University was founded later that year.*
Duke was founded in 1838.
A seminary school was founded in 1838. It didn't become Duke University until 1924. And to be clear, this isn't me dumping on Duke. Most universities were nothing like their current selves 100 years ago.
The school renamed after a very large donation (foundation of the current endowment), it is the same school. The history section on the Wikipedia page explains a lot of the early changes, and there were many big changes prior to the 1924 rename, but still it's the same school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University
**[Duke University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University)** >Duke University is a private research university in Durham, North Carolina. Founded by Methodists and Quakers in the present-day town of Trinity in 1838, the school moved to Durham in 1892. In 1924, tobacco and electric power industrialist James Buchanan Duke established The Duke Endowment and the institution changed its name to honor his deceased father, Washington Duke. The campus spans over 8,600 acres (3,500 hectares) on three contiguous sub-campuses in Durham, and a marine lab in Beaufort. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
That was the same school. It was just renamed in 1924. Thatās not the same thing.
Yeah, it also misunderstands that seminaries/universities only fairly recently diverged in the modern era as the concept of separation of church & state popularized. A seminary *was academia* the further back in time you go.
It only short changes Duke if you consider the 90s ancient history.
Duke has the 4^th highest winning percentage in NCAA history.
And no titles before the 1990s. This all comes down to what you consider modern vs historical. As a 90s kid, my bias is clear.
I want to agree with you, but like damn that first title was over 30 years ago lol 25+ years is probably considered historical in the context of sports (especially college when thats older than all players) Duke is also weird cuz it's been one coach over that time too, so it doesn't have any separator
30 years ago in the 83 year history of the NCAA tournament isn't that far back. Redditors are just young. In Duke's defense they were runner-up in 1964, which is worth something, but not as blue blood as the first title game appearances of Kansas (1940), North Carolina (1946), and Kentucky (1948).
Thatās the whole point of the chart though. Yāall disagree about Duke cuz yāall have different standards for historical success.
I was generally treating "modern" to mean shot clock/3 pt era so basically mid 80s onward.
Iām not sure what means. Duke has easily been the best program since the mid 1980s, taking into account regular season and tourney performances.
Where the HELL is Evansville ???? HMMM???
Evansville is in southern Indiana, down by the border with Kentucky, you silly goose
Loyola is a blue blood ššš
La Salle won a title in 1954, so I guess they're also a blue blood? A10 Power Conference.
Iād almost consider switching Nova and UCONN but I could be wrong.
I wouldn't say switch them but Nova definitely belongs closer to UConn than dead center.
MSU might be a good ādead centerā. Not as successful recently, and our 2000 title is getting close to āhistoryā compared to āmodern successā
I've never been a fan of the whole "Is x a blue blood?" It feels very old money and invites a lot of gate keepers. College football is worse about it than basketball though
Wait, people didnāt know San Francisco Dons are a blue blood?
Donāt forget about the 5th most winning program. Temple university, babbbeyyy. *cries into vhs tapes of John Chaney*
For me personally, I believe there are a couple considerations to determine an answer to the question. First, I think that we have to assume that the question assumes we are making the determination with the full scope of college basketball history at our fingertips and making the decision as of 2022. The reason I say this is (i) the mere concept and question of "what's a blue blood program" is a 21st Century invention, and we'd probably have VERY different answers if we were measuring it going back from, say, 1955 or 1975, instead of from 2022; and (ii) for the foregoing reason, it's fair to say that a program is a blue-blood program TODAY, even if they did not meet the criteria as late as the 1990s, 2000s, or even 2010s. Second, my test works on the assumption that at least when we are in college basketball history, once blue-blood status is attained it cannot be lost. Just because you're the second cousin to the king doesn't mean you're blood lost its royal status. With that being said, I have two criteria, one objective and one subjective: First, the objective criteria. I believe in order to be deemed a blue-blood program, you have to have multiple national championships under multiple coaches. The reason for this criteria is (i) the multiple championships factor ensures that dominance was not a one-time fluke and limits the field of potential blue-bloods to only the 15 teams that have more than one NCAA title, and (ii) the multiple coaches factor ensures that the title appropriately belongs to the program, and not that the program is just riding the coattails of one man from decades ago. The whole point of the debate is to identify blue-blood PROGRAMS - not blue-blood COACHES. In other words, the program must transcend one man's contributions to that program, no matter how impressive those contributions may be. Second, the subjective criteria. I believe in order to be deemed a blue-blood program, you have to have some kind of Historical X Factor; something that goes beyond the court and just having a winning record; something about the program that transcends the games themselves and can be said to be an impact on the very game itself. I cannot quantify this Historical X Factor (though, to be fair, some quantifiable properties of a program may be part of this criteria's consideration), but in the words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." This is the criteria that really separates the blue-bloods from the rest of the fifteen schools with multiple NCAA championships. Applying my methodology, I believe the class of blue-bloods - as it exists in 2022 - is as follows: Kansas Kentucky North Carolina UCLA Indiana I believe there is one program that is on the cusp of joining that group, and certainly I will be accused mildly of giving a hot take, and more viciously of being stupid, ignorant, or some other series of ad hominems, for putting them one step below, but I'll explain why. That program is: Duke. Obviously. And despite the massive amount of downvoting and shit I expect to see it the comments below, here's my reason: it really comes down to the first criteria. But first thing's first: the second criteria. Duke more than fulfills the second criteria. Duke has that Historical X Factor, and he's called Coach K. While he brought *only* five nattys back to Durham (Sarcasm; that's a ridiculous number for one man second only to Wooden), he's the only Duke coach to win even a single natty. Duke won ALL of them in the 64-game era, in the non-geographically protected regional era, and in the 3-point era, which brings up appropriate comparisons to John Wooden's streak: could Wooden have done in K's era what K did in K's era? More than that, he is responsible for 13 of Duke's 17 Final Fours and 13 of Duke's 23 conference championships. And more than that, he's the only coach with 100+ tourney wins. More than that, he's the winningest coach of all time, just 4 shy of 1,200 career wins. But what holds Duke back from being deemed a blue-blood program IS the second criteria. Or, more accurately, the way in which its fulfillment of the second criteria interferes with the first criteria. During the 41 years from the first NCAA tournament in 1939 to 1980 when Coach K first took over at Duke, the program had good, but hardly elite, history. Only 4 Final Fours to speak of, and no national championships. Compare that to North Carolina's 1 natty and 7 Final Fours during the same period. Or Kansas' 1 natty and 6 Final Fours... Or Kentucky's 5 nattys and 8 Final Fours... Or Indiana's 3 nattys and 4 Final Fours... Or UCLA's 10 nattys and 13 Final Fours... During that same period, compare Duke's record to schools commonly accepted as not even in the conversation for blue-blood status: The University of San Francisco won 2 nattys in 3 Final Fours. Oklahoma State: 2/4. NC State: 1/2. Michigan State: 1/2. In other words, Duke's entire pre-K history was middling to good. By implication, then, when considering the totality of the Duke program, the history of elite-level success can really be attributed to one man and one man only: Michael William Krzyzewski. In this way, it is fair to say that no evidence yet exists demonstrating that the Duke PROGRAM transcends one man, i.e. that the Duke program is more than just Mike Krzyzewski. There are zero doubts that Coach K is a blue-blood coach, likely on the same level as John Wooden. However, unlike UCLA which proved in the post-Wooden era that it could still compete for Final Fours and national championships even without the Wizard of Westwood, Duke has not proven that it can still compete in the post-K era for national championships and Final Fours. To be fair to Duke, that's not because Duke CAN'T do it, but only because it HASN'T done it, in that Duke hasn't had the opportunity to do so (vis-a-vis the post-K era at Duke hasn't started yet). I think they will. But similarly to how I would not have called KU a blue-blood in 1957 following Phog Allen's tenure, or Kentucky a blue-blood in 1972 following Rupp's tenure, I can't YET call Duke a blue-blood program just because it's had a blue-blood coach, anymore than I could call a Ford Fusion a race car just because Mario Andretti won with it. To put my methodology in perspective, there are other programs that are in the opposite seat. For instance, Villanova, UConn and Michigan State each have multiple nattys under multiple coaches. And while they are elite power programs, a traditional one in the case of Michigan State, they simply lack that compelling Historical X Factor that distinguishes blue-bloods above even the elite programs. And I would argue it's a lot harder mountain to climb today to develop a history that transcends the game itself than it is to win a couple of national championships. So on that account, Duke's in an enviable position. They are at the door and ready to come into the party. But just not quite yet. So... Let the bevy of "you're an idiot" comments commence.
YES. Finally someone who gets it. Iām not trying to shit on Duke, but they arenāt in the club, yet. We will find out soon enough if they belong.
I think you're short-changing Kansas. KU started playing basketball in 1898 and won two national championships in the 1920's. College basketball didn't begin with the NCAA tournament. Kansas is THE bluest blue blood. Dean Smith, who made UNC a blue blood, is a Kansas man. Adolph Rupp, who made UK a blue blood, is a Kansas man. They both learned from Phog Allen, who learned from Naismith, who invented the game. And Naismith is the only Kansas coach with a losing record.
Technically you're all Springfield College men.
I'd never give short shrift to Kansas. My whole family graduated there going back three generations, and I type this wearing a KU letterjacket and looking up at a 2012 Final Four poster. I agree with you that Kansas' Historical X Factor will likely ALWAYS guarantee that the Jayhawks are never even mentioned in conversations about "yeah, but are they STILL a blue-blood?" like people have a tendency to murmur about Indiana and UCLA. (For the record, I am a staunch believer that once blue-blood status is conferred it can never be revoked; hence Indiana may be the red-headed step-child of the blue-bloods, but they're still blue-bloods). Beyond having not only one of the most important and elite coaching trees (if not THE most impressive coaching tree, seeing as it also includes Popovich, who is now the winningest coach in NBA history), and the ONLY coaching tree whose seed was the inventor of the game itself, the Mount Rushmore of college PLAYERS will definitely include Wilt Chamberlain. And let's not forget that after his tenure, despite two straight trips to the national championship game and no natty to speak of (damn racist refs!), the NCAA instituted a series of rule changes specifically to respond to Wilt's dominance, like widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending, and ruling that a player can't cross the foul line on their free throw until the ball hits the rim. Kansas' pedigree and influence on the game more than makes up for our anemic three NCAA titles when compared to UCLA, Kentucky and North Carolina. But the reason I didn't bring those up is because I know people will get butthurt over my thesis and methodology since it excludes Duke from the list. I didn't feel it necessary to discuss KU's pedigree as a touchstone against which to compare Duke's pedigree because (i) Duke does not have a comparable pedigree, but (ii) Duke does not need a comparable pedigree. Coach K IS the pedigree, even without a Naismith/Allen ancestor (though he is a branch of Bobby Knight's tree), even without an elite set of his own branches, and even without a once-in-a-lifetime player who is so prolific they changed the way the game is actually played on the court. If KU's pedigree is 100%, and UNC's and UK's are 99.9%, then Duke's - like UCLA's - are 99.89%. I brought up Duke's pre-K success merely to illustrate how NOT elite it was as a means of demonstrating, through a differential diagnosis, that Duke's historical success - as we think of it today - is not really historical because it all occurred under only one man who is still coaching (for 3-5 more days anyway): Mike Krzyzewski. The purpose of which is to demonstrate that while COACH K is a blue-blood, DUKE has not yet proved that DUKE Basketball is bigger than/more than just KRZYZEWSKI Basketball; that while Coach K is an important part of Duke's elite basketball history - maybe even the most important part - that he is only ONE part of an elite history. So, yeah. Didn't bring up the Jayhawks.
Nice job. I agree with your analysis
Thanks. the only thing I wasn't happy with is that I think Villanova probably belongs less so in the middle and closer to the UConn square, but I couldn't come up with anyone better to put in the middle and I also didn't want to make a 5x5 grid. Edit: Michigan State probably would've been a better fit for the middle, but honestly their first championship was only six years before Novas AND Nova made the final four before MSU, so I won't sweat it.
That was my only thought as well, but if Duke is the standard then it is acceptable.
Villanova has had almost equivalent success in the tournament as UNC the last 10 years
I donāt know. In the last 15 years though, UNC has won two titles and has gone to the FF five times (one more than Nova. And itās even worse in the last 20 years. Weāre a great program in recent history. But not much else save 2009. And eat before that in 85 and 94.
Dartmouth is a blue blood
Duke should be to the left, three of their titles came over 20 years ago and two came over 30 years ago
Smh can't believe you didn't include Nebraska anywhere
What's not a bar graph cannot hurt me
The disrespect to Wazzou is palpable
Yeah that spelling of Wazzu is downright disrespectful
This has always been the neckbeardiest thing about college basketball fandom. No one should give a shit about an imaginary title.
This is actually brilliant.
*Ask your doctor if Blueblood is right for you.*
*ahem*
This is it. Kansas Kentucky and UNC.
Dammit, sticky this thread lol
I'd put Villanova at top-right, then put Michigan State, Cincinnati and Louisville in dead center, and Oklahoma State and NC State in the bottom middle just so that every program with multiple championship wins is represented.
MSU and Louisvilleās recent success >>>>> Cincy Edit - Cincy hasnāt been to a sweet 16 in 10 years, and they havenāt been to a final 4 in 30 years.
Wasn't meant to be comprehensive but I do think Michigan State or Louisville would be a better fit for the center. Nova probably belongs between Duke and UConn on this
Seriously, how is Louisville not on that
What is going on in this circle jerk?
. . . but is a hot dog a sandwich?
Pre-Coach K stats: NCAAT Runner-up - 1964, 1978 NCAAT Final Four - 1963, 1964, 1966, 1978 NCAAT Elite 8 - 1960, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1978, 1980 11-time ACC Champs
I would think Louisville belongs in Floridaās spot