(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."