Started By
Message
Rank the Basketball Bluebloods
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:06 pm
First off, let’s define the Bluebloods as (alphabetical order): Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA.
National Titles:
11- UCLA
8- Kentucky
6- North Carolina
5- Duke
4- Kansas
Championship Game Appearances:
12- Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA
11- Duke
10- Kansas
Final Four Appearances:
21- North Carolina
18- Duke, UCLA
17- Kentucky
15- Kansas
Elite 8 Appearances:
38- Kentucky
29- North Carolina
25- Duke
23- Kansas
22- UCLA
Tournament Appearances:
62- Kentucky
54- North Carolina
51- Kansas, UCLA
47- Duke
So here are my 2 cents…
I think that Tournament success since 1985, which is when the field expanded to 64 teams and seeding began, is more impressive than what happened back in the 1940s when the Tournament was just 8 teams and often teams with very poor records were included just because they were in certain geographical regions.
Two of Kentucky’s titles and 3 Final Four’s came between 1939-1950 when the Tournament had just 8 teams. Two other titles occurred in 1951 and 1958 when the Tournament had just 16 and 24 teams respectively.
Almost the entirety of UCLA’s major success occurred between 1964-1975, when the tournament had either 23 or 24 teams except for ‘75 when it expanded to 32 teams.
While I do think these accomplishments count, they shouldn’t be weighted with the same value as a Tournament won in the Modern Era (1985-present).
Here are how those same stats look in just the modern era:
National Titles:
5- Duke
4- North Carolina
3- Kentucky, Kansas
1- UCLA
*UConn has 6 and Villanova has 3
Championship Game Appearances:
9- Duke
6- Kansas, North Carolina
5- Kentucky
2- UCLA
*UConn has 6
Final Four Appearances:
14- Duke
12- North Carolina
9- Kansas
8- Kentucky
5- UCLA
Elite 8 Appearances:
19- Duke
18- North Carolina
17- Kentucky
15- Kansas
7- UCLA
Tournament Appearances:
38- Duke
36- Kansas, North Carolina
33- Kentucky
29- UCLA
Weighing everything together, I rate them like this…
1. North Carolina
2. Kentucky*
3. Duke*
4. Kansas
5. UCLA
*If Duke wins the title this year, I think they pass Kentucky.
National Titles:
11- UCLA
8- Kentucky
6- North Carolina
5- Duke
4- Kansas
Championship Game Appearances:
12- Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA
11- Duke
10- Kansas
Final Four Appearances:
21- North Carolina
18- Duke, UCLA
17- Kentucky
15- Kansas
Elite 8 Appearances:
38- Kentucky
29- North Carolina
25- Duke
23- Kansas
22- UCLA
Tournament Appearances:
62- Kentucky
54- North Carolina
51- Kansas, UCLA
47- Duke
So here are my 2 cents…
I think that Tournament success since 1985, which is when the field expanded to 64 teams and seeding began, is more impressive than what happened back in the 1940s when the Tournament was just 8 teams and often teams with very poor records were included just because they were in certain geographical regions.
Two of Kentucky’s titles and 3 Final Four’s came between 1939-1950 when the Tournament had just 8 teams. Two other titles occurred in 1951 and 1958 when the Tournament had just 16 and 24 teams respectively.
Almost the entirety of UCLA’s major success occurred between 1964-1975, when the tournament had either 23 or 24 teams except for ‘75 when it expanded to 32 teams.
While I do think these accomplishments count, they shouldn’t be weighted with the same value as a Tournament won in the Modern Era (1985-present).
Here are how those same stats look in just the modern era:
National Titles:
5- Duke
4- North Carolina
3- Kentucky, Kansas
1- UCLA
*UConn has 6 and Villanova has 3
Championship Game Appearances:
9- Duke
6- Kansas, North Carolina
5- Kentucky
2- UCLA
*UConn has 6
Final Four Appearances:
14- Duke
12- North Carolina
9- Kansas
8- Kentucky
5- UCLA
Elite 8 Appearances:
19- Duke
18- North Carolina
17- Kentucky
15- Kansas
7- UCLA
Tournament Appearances:
38- Duke
36- Kansas, North Carolina
33- Kentucky
29- UCLA
Weighing everything together, I rate them like this…
1. North Carolina
2. Kentucky*
3. Duke*
4. Kansas
5. UCLA
*If Duke wins the title this year, I think they pass Kentucky.
This post was edited on 4/1/25 at 4:09 pm
20
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:14 pm to AUTiger789
And just for fun, here is how I rank the teams including the elite programs just behind the Blue Bloods:
1. North Carolina
2. Kentucky
3. Duke
4. Kansas
5. UCLA
6. UConn
7. Michigan St
8. Indiana
9. Villanova
10. Syracuse
11. Louisville
1. North Carolina
2. Kentucky
3. Duke
4. Kansas
5. UCLA
6. UConn
7. Michigan St
8. Indiana
9. Villanova
10. Syracuse
11. Louisville
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:16 pm to AUTiger789
Kentucky has won a National Championship in 5 different decades with 5 different coaches.
Smaller number of entries means it was harder to get into the tournament. Why wouldn’t that count?
quote:
While I do think these accomplishments count, they shouldn’t be weighted with the same value as a Tournament won in the Modern Era (1985-present).
Smaller number of entries means it was harder to get into the tournament. Why wouldn’t that count?
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:16 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
10. Syracuse
Should thank their lucky stars for Carmelo Anthony. Otherwise they'd be approaching FSU baseball territory.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:19 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Smaller number of entries means it was harder to get into the tournament. Why wouldn’t that count?
I agree with that sentiment. Although I'll also add the NCAA tournament used to only allow conference tournament winners in. Meaning you could have a hell of a season, win the regular season title, and not get in. This happened to one of South Carolina's teams way back in our ACC days. I'm not sure if getting in on conference tournament titles alone is a true reflection of how good a program is.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:27 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Why wouldn’t that count?
I literally said they count.
quote:
Smaller number of entries means it was harder to get into the tournament.
1939 Oklahoma got in with an 11-8 record
1948 Wyoming got in with an 18-9 record and a 6-4 conference record
1949 Arkansas was 15-11 and they got in.
1950 Baylor was 14-13 and they got in.
Every one of these teams can automatically count an “Elite 8 appearance” before even winning a single NCAA Tournament game.
Tell me how that is equal to a team in the modern era making a run to the Elite 8.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:28 pm to AUTiger789
.759% - Kentucky
.733% - North Carolina
.726% - Kansas
.715% - Duke
UCLA's all-time win % is sub - .700 - they are not a blue blood -
Western Kentucky has a higher all-time win % than Connecticut - so does Villanova -
the NCAAT is not the best barometer to determine which college basketball program has been winning the most - for the longest period of time -
.733% - North Carolina
.726% - Kansas
.715% - Duke
UCLA's all-time win % is sub - .700 - they are not a blue blood -
Western Kentucky has a higher all-time win % than Connecticut - so does Villanova -
the NCAAT is not the best barometer to determine which college basketball program has been winning the most - for the longest period of time -
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:29 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
Should thank their lucky stars for Carmelo Anthony.
They have 41 Tournament appearances and 7 Final Fours. They are a legit program even without the 2003 season.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:31 pm to 1801
Win % is a garbage stat.
Gonzaga has an automatic path to 25 wins minimum thanks to a conference schedule loaded with the likes of Santa Clara and Pepperdine.
How does that count when the SEC and Big 10 are having to play all Quad 1 and 2 games in conference play?
Gonzaga has an automatic path to 25 wins minimum thanks to a conference schedule loaded with the likes of Santa Clara and Pepperdine.
How does that count when the SEC and Big 10 are having to play all Quad 1 and 2 games in conference play?
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:33 pm to AUTiger789
And just to add for the context that no one asked for. If wiki to be believed:
1969-70: We finished 25-3, 14-0 in the ACC. Lost the ACC tournament final to NC State by 3 points (our other two losses were to #1 UT by 1 and #13 Davidson by 6). We were ranked #3 by the time of the tournament loss with 3 losses coming at a combined 10 points but didn't get in the NCAA tournament.
1970-71: Finished second in the ACC behind UNC, but won the ACC tournament and got in. It's considered a Sweet 16 appearance even though only 25 teams made the tournament then.
There's also some real screwy stuff if you go deep enough. For example, I swear I remember reading we didn't get the '69-70 NIT either because Columbia was a host and teams that had a host site couldn't get in.
That '69-70 tournament also saw #8 Marquette turn down the NCAA tournament to play in the NIT instead.
Point is, it's not so cut and dry as it is now.
1969-70: We finished 25-3, 14-0 in the ACC. Lost the ACC tournament final to NC State by 3 points (our other two losses were to #1 UT by 1 and #13 Davidson by 6). We were ranked #3 by the time of the tournament loss with 3 losses coming at a combined 10 points but didn't get in the NCAA tournament.
1970-71: Finished second in the ACC behind UNC, but won the ACC tournament and got in. It's considered a Sweet 16 appearance even though only 25 teams made the tournament then.
There's also some real screwy stuff if you go deep enough. For example, I swear I remember reading we didn't get the '69-70 NIT either because Columbia was a host and teams that had a host site couldn't get in.
That '69-70 tournament also saw #8 Marquette turn down the NCAA tournament to play in the NIT instead.
Point is, it's not so cut and dry as it is now.
This post was edited on 4/1/25 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:35 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
They have 41 Tournament appearances and 7 Final Fours. They are a legit program even without the 2003 season.
That's my point. FSU baseball has an ungodly amount of NCAA tournament and CWS appearances, but they haven't been able to bring it home. Syracuse brought home that 1 title with a generational player but otherwise haven't been able to cross the finish line. If not for that one title, they'd be college basketball's version of FSU baseball... or the Buffalo Bills even.
This post was edited on 4/1/25 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:37 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
Point is, it's not so cut and dry as it is now.
Hell the NCAA tournament wasn’t even the most prestigious post-season tournament at that time. At some point in the 70s it did finally pass the NIT, but the NIT was still king for the 69-70 season.
I would argue you need to consider from the modern era up before you can truly use it as a metric to rank the blue bloods.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:41 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
Tell me how that is equal to a team in the modern era making a run to the Elite 8.
It simply means they had to win their conference tournament or conference regular season championship to get in. Again, still difficult to do in that day and age.
Different difficulty but still difficult.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:42 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
Hell the NCAA tournament wasn’t even the most prestigious post-season tournament at that time. At some point in the 70s it did finally pass the NIT, but the NIT was still king for the 69-70 season.
What’s funny is certain teams claim their Helm’s Titles when Kentucky doesn’t but has those as well.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 4:55 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
Win % is a garbage stat.
there are only 4 true blue bloods of college basketball - you asked to rank them -
Gonzaga can never - and will never - be one -
you can rank the most successful college basketball programs which can include everyone that currently plays D1 ball - but there are only 4 blue bloods than can be ranked - ever -
Posted on 4/1/25 at 5:11 pm to 1801
quote:
but there are only 4 blue bloods
I agree they are behind the other 4, but saying a program like UCLA is not a blue despite 11 National Titles is legit crazy.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 5:11 pm to AUTiger789
quote:Wooden was the OG cheat. Look up Sam Gilbert.
11- UCLA
Posted on 4/1/25 at 5:36 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Smaller number of entries means it was harder to get into the tournament. Why wouldn’t that count?
Back on 1940-1960 NIT was very prestigious. In fact I think even Kentucky once chose NIT over NCAA
“ In the 1940s, when the NCAA tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by the Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the NCAA tournament.
— A Sense of Where You Are: Bill Bradley at Princeton” from Wikipedia
Interesting
“ Nevertheless, as late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA at-large invitation because the Warriors were going to be placed in the NCAA Midwest Regional (Fort Worth, Texas) instead of closer to home in the Mideast Regional (Dayton, Ohio).[41] The team played in the NIT instead, which it won. This led the NCAA to decree in 1971 that any school to which it offered a bid must accept it or be prohibited from participating in postseason competition, reducing the pool of teams that could accept an NIT invitation.”
This post was edited on 4/1/25 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 4/1/25 at 6:03 pm to AUTiger789
Not sure about Blue Blood but there is no denying UCONNs dominance in basketball the last 25 years for the men. and Women.
Men’s Basketball has 6 titles since 99’ starting with Calhoun.
I rather be a New Blood than a Blue Blood.
Men’s Basketball has 6 titles since 99’ starting with Calhoun.
I rather be a New Blood than a Blue Blood.
Posted on 4/1/25 at 6:16 pm to AUTiger789
Interesting analysis. I didn’t realize how kansas only had 4.
I’m surprised there isn’t someone making the UCONN argument that doesn’t understand the meaning of “blue blood”
I’m surprised there isn’t someone making the UCONN argument that doesn’t understand the meaning of “blue blood”
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News