Andre Jackson Top 5 includes.....
- Thread starter MepoDawg#
- Start date
Not really.
It wouldn’t take a decade or two of success for either program to be back in the BB club. Just a few years.
Minny bball on the other hand would need to basically start from scratch. Probably a couple of decades at least.
Notre Dame has been to ONE Final Four in their history (1978).
They have been to just 2 Elite 8s in the last 40 years.
They have zero conference titles. Ever.
Kansas has 3 basketball national championships, spanning 6 decades, last one in 2008. Indiana has 5 basketball national championships, spanning 6 decades, last one in 1987. IN has had some down years but to say they aren't still a blue blood is short-sighted.
I guess I have a very different view of what qualifies a team as a "blue blood." IMO the biggest requirement is consistent success. Actual winning. Being a good program 20 years ago does not count.
If a program gets 4-5 star players, one-and-dones like Romeo Langford, and can't even make the NCAA tournament, that program is not a blue blood. The Hoosiers haven't made it past the Sweet Sixteen since 2002.
Again, not saying they are a Blue Blood, but an upper echelon program who only needs a few years of high-level finishes to be mentioned in that group by the media...which then graduates to sustained recruiting success.
ND is viewed by both media and recruits as a place with some history. Maybe not to your standards, but yours aren't relevant. (Not just because you're a clown who spends his time on a Hawkeye message board either.)
ND is ND and is always given special consideration due to that. Definitely a upper echelon program, and one that, with 3-5 years of high-level success, would be treated as a BB "light" by both recruits and media. Stretch that success out a decade and then they become an active BB.
A program like Iowa would not get such a bounce, they just wouldn't.
ND has a .647 winning %...that's #15 all-time among majors I believe.
Here is their tournament history:
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1978
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1953, 1954, 1958, 1978, 1979, 2015, 2016
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987, 2003, 2015, 2016
NCAA Tournament Round of 32
1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1987, 1989, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017
NCAA Tournament Appearances
1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017
Conference Tournament Champions
2015
True. I'm simply differentiating between "active" and "light" BBs.
Many on here only hold to rules of being a Blue Blood when it serves their purpose...take Nub fball for an example. Most on here like to say Nub isn't a BB in fball any more, but historically they are --without a doubt. It's just that they aren't "active" at the moment. Plus, most of us don't like them or respect them, so refuse to acknowledge their overall history. They may never get back to being an "active" BB, but it wouldn't take much success to get them there in the eyes of the media and the recruits. This also applies to Indiana in bball.
Also, Kansas has a butt-load of conference championships over that same time span....how about Indiana?
If UCLA and Indiana are, then so is UCONN, Syracuse, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Arizona.
What about Villanova and Michigan State?
Wow, this conversation went far afield quickly. It was about Andre Jackson. Here's an idea, if you want to debate about blue blood schools, start a new thread.
So what's your criteria for a blue blood?
I agree Villanova probably isn't, but why not Michigan State?
I think IU has been getting some very highly ranked recruits because they are a "blue blood" over the past few years, but their coaches weren't good enough to win a lot with them.
I don't have concrete criteria and it's a discussion certainly open to conversation. I said when listing those 6 that it's "IMO".
You want to think 12-14 programs are blue bloods in college bball, go right ahead.
I don't have a strong opinion on it.
To me, the Indiana "blue blood" discussion is the same one for Nebraska football.
I have no idea how many schools are legitimate blue bloods, but after twenty years of Tom Izzo putting multiple teams in the Final Four, I think Michigan State should be in the discussion.
Need a common definition of Blue Blood. Personally, I always think of it as a program with very high level success going back at least 50 years. To me, Blue Blood means very high level success, with following generations continuing that success for generations (or numerous coaches).
Similar threads
