Blue Blood Final Four

[WoadBlue]

For all the excitement of deep-running Cinderellas like St. Peter's and Miami, as well as for Iowa St in one season going from 2 wins total to the Sweet Sixteen, the Final Four is pure Blue Blood. And I don't mean that each of the four teams claims blue as its color.

Kansas is now the winningest program in history. UNC is 3rd, and Dook is 4th. Villanova is only 19th in all time wins, but the Wildcats did not play until 1921 - KU started in 1899, UNC in 1911, and Dook in 1906.

In terms of highest winning percentage, UNC is #2, KU #3, Dook #4, and 'Nova #9.

UNC has 21 Final Four appearances, Dook has 17, KU has 16, and Villanova has 7.

UNC has 6 NCAA Championships, Dook has 5, KU and 'Nova each have 3.

 

[tarheel0910]

Not sure Villanova counts as a blue blood. Wright has them playing like one during his tenure, though.

 

[WoadBlue]

Not sure Villanova counts as a blue blood. Wright has them playing like one during his tenure, though.

I guess it depends on which categories you rank most highly and how high on those lists you think the Blue Blood cut off line is. Villanova is Top 20 in all time wins, Top 10 in all time winning %, and has as many NCAA Championships as KU, which surely is among the 4 or 5 top programs of all time.

 

[tarheel0910]

I guess it depends on which categories you rank most highly and how high on those lists you think the Blue Blood cut off line is. Villanova is Top 20 in all time wins, Top 10 in all time winning %, and has as many NCAA Championships as KU, which surely is among the 4 or 5 top programs of all time.

I think the general consensus is the top 4-5 teams. I've never heard Villanova mentioned by anyone. It's always some combination of UNC, uk, KU, duke, IU and UCLA. They're a great program, but not one of the greatest.

 

[Mrs.Jeans15]

Not sure Villanova counts as a blue blood. Wright has them playing like one during his tenure, though.

They are.

They have NCs under 2 different coaches

 

[tarheel0910]

They are.

They have NCs under 2 different coaches

There are several teams with multiple national championships. We going to start calling moo a blue blood now? Being top 20 in a lot of all time stats makes you a great program, not a blue blood. But if you guys want to insist on putting them on the mountain, who are you pushing off? Or are we just going to give everyone a participation trophy and expand it even more to add Villanova, UConn, FL, etc.

 

[Travis2262]

Villanova is not a blue blood

 

[WoadBlue]

I think the general consensus is the top 4-5 teams. I've never heard Villanova mentioned by anyone. It's always some combination of UNC, uk, KU, duke, IU and UCLA. They're a great program, but not one of the greatest.

Only 4 or 5 Blue Bloods in basketball? I doubt anyone would make such a claim for football, because even casual fans all would think of Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Oklahoma, Texas, and Southern Cal. Nebraska has fallen off this century, but its history belongs with that list.

Then fans with more knowledge are going to wonder how the current SEC only has 1 team on that list. Florida, LSU, Georgia will all get mentioned by many. Tennessee should get a few mentions. Many of those more knowledgeable fans also are going to wonder about FSU and Miami and Clemson.

 

[hill6]

Villanova is decidedly not a blue blood. They are a great recent program, and a top tier program, but blue blood is reserved for the best of the best.

For me, there are 4 no-question, can't miss blue bloods: KU, UK, UNC, UCLA. Who is the best decides on what your criteria are. Impact on the sport - hard to put anyone ahead of KU. Sustained excellence? Hard to put anyone ahead of UNC/UK. Championships? Can't beat UCLA.

IU and Duke to me are light blue bloods. Duke has been dominate for decades but it's been under one coach. They don't have the pedigree/long time history of the four previously mentioned. IU has a long history, but has really been irrelevant for decades (they haven't made the tourney in 6 years, they have 3 final fours in the last 40 years).

Villanova is a program that has really come into its own under Wright - who is amazing - but doesn't have that impact on the game the other programs do.

To put it this way: UNC, UK, UCLA and KU are the Rockefeller and Kennedy families (were and are relevant), Duke is the Walton family (hugely impactful for decades, but relatively modern), IU is the Carnegie family (used to be huge, kind of forgotten now), and Villanova is Elon (huge impact, very short recent time).

 

[WoadBlue]

There are several teams with multiple national championships. We going to start calling moo a blue blood now? Being top 20 in a lot of all time stats makes you a great program, not a blue blood. But if you guys want to insist on putting them on the mountain, who are you pushing off? Or are we just going to give everyone a participation trophy and expand it even more to add Villanova, UConn, FL, etc.

Villanova does not have 2 NCAA Championships; it has 3, which is the same number as KU, which has the least among the group of 6 Blue Bloods (UNC, Dook, UK, KU, UCLA, Indiana) you would agree on.

Unlike Nova, Moo is not Top 20 in all time wins, nor Top 10 in all time winning percentage. Moo has only 3 Final Four teams, not 7.

UConn is NOT even in the Top 25 in all time wins, though starting play 20 years before Villanova had a team. Florida isn't in the Top 50 in all time wins.

For me, it is the complete picture produced by all those factors: all time wins, all time winning percentage, Final Four teams, National Champs.

In terms of all time wins, Notre Dame could claim to be Blue Blood, because it is Top 10, and the Irish also are Top 15 in winning percentage. But ND has only 1 Final Four trip and 0 championships. The latter two categories mean I don't see the Irish as Blue Blood.

 

[tarheel0910]

Only 4 or 5 Blue Bloods in basketball? I doubt anyone would make such a claim for football, because even casual fans all would think of Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Oklahoma, Texas, and Southern Cal. Nebraska has fallen off this century, but its history belongs with that list.

Then fans with more knowledge are going to wonder how the current SEC only has 1 team on that list. Florida, LSU, Georgia will all get mentioned by many. Tennessee should get a few mentions. Many of those more knowledgeable fans also are going to wonder about FSU and Miami and Clemson.

As you said, this isn't football.

 

[tarheel0910]

Before this final four, I've heard of about zero people who consider Villanova a blue blood. I'm sure marketing has nothing to do with this sudden all time greatness of Villanova. I'm not taking anything away from them. They are an excellent program, with more history than most. That doesn't automatically make them great.

 

[hill6]

Villanova does not have 2 NCAA Championships; it has 3, which is the same number as KU, which has the least among the group of 6 Blue Bloods (UNC, Dook, UK, KU, UCLA, Indiana) you would agree on.

Unlike Nova, Moo is not Top 20 in all time wins, nor Top 10 in all time winning percentage. Moo has only 3 Final Four teams, not 7.

UConn is NOT even in the Top 25 in all time wins, though starting play 20 years before Villanova had a team. Florida isn't in the Top 50 in all time wins.

For me, it is the complete picture produced by all those factors: all time wins, all time winning percentage, Final Four teams, National Champs.

In terms of all time wins, Notre Dame could claim to be Blue Blood, because it is Top 10, and the Irish also are Top 15 in winning percentage. But ND has only 1 Final Four trip and 0 championships. The latter two categories mean I don't see the Irish as Blue Blood.

So do you have Arizona? Do you have Syracuse and Louisville in the discussion?

For me, part of being a blue blood as well is impact on the sport, to an extent. If someone is talking about the history of college basketball, KU, UCLA, UNC, and UK are all getting mention for good and bad. They have all drastically impacted the sport. IU and Duke do as well, but for shorter amounts of time and in less pronounced ways. I'm not sure Villanova would ever enter the discussion on looking at the overall history of the sport from a high level.

I'm also curious if you count non-NCAA national championships. You count non-NCAA wins and win percentage, so why not championships as well, which then adds other schools. I see that mentioned a lot - NCAA championships - and people usually say 'but there wasn't a tourney' so pre tourney it doesn't count. So do pre-playoff football championships not count?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get your line.

 

[sctarheel30]

The only way to be more blue is add kensucky or ucla instead of Villanova. Nova is a hot team though.

 

[TarHeelTroy]

This fits with the topic

 

[hill6]

View embedded media

This fits with the topic

Easily the best thing Duke has ever contributed.

 

[Heels5150]

To me the Blue Bloods in order are: UNC, kensucky, dook and Kansas. Once again to me ucla is not. 90% of their success while extensive was mostly in one period of time. Plus wooden although a great coach was so dirty in their recruiting

 

[hill6]

To me the Blue Bloods in order are: UNC, kensucky, dook and Kansas. Once again to me ucla is not. 90% of their success while extensive was mostly in one period of time. Plus wooden although a great coach was so dirty in their recruiting

I think you'd be hard pressed to put Dook above Kansas. I think between UNC, UK, and KU you can make a case for top overall from any of those three - it really depends on the criteria. I would be hard to make a case for Dook overall, unlike those previous three, so I'm not sure I could make a case for Dook being better.