ESPN calls our basketball program a "Blue Blood"
Look, calling ESPN a dumpster fire is being nice, but hey, I'll take it.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22913028/loyola-…
March 25th, 2018 at 10:28 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:28 PM ^
There's a fun little article below that about C.J. Baird's big shot against Texas A&M:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22889831/michiga…
damn onions...
March 25th, 2018 at 10:29 PM ^
Michigan has a lot of final fours. I still don't think we are blue blood. What is the definition?
March 25th, 2018 at 10:37 PM ^
Well, it means we're either being considered as basketball nobility, although it seems like it would be a nouveau riche thing probably to most pundits, or we apparently have copper-based blood. One of these things is a compliment, the other is not found in vertabrates, I believe.
I love Michigan, but graduated from MSU and have lived in Lansing my whole life. I love Mgoblog too. I feel like I am the bastard son of college sports fandom. I like who I like though, GO BLUE! Hard to tell who the blue bloods are. I think traditionally they are Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, and Indiana. Maybe "old blood" would be more appropriate here. UConn has four titles since '99 and I do not think anyone considers them a blue blood, probably because of the program volatility and recency of titles/lack of history. Too bad we only have one. Few schools have two. Unfortunately Sparty does. Hopefully we bring it home! Would love to add to that trophy case!!! Titles /final fours/tournament success aren't the only factors in being a blue blood. I just don't feel that we're there. Anyone else think FSU should have fouled again at the end? Bill Simmons' theringer thought they should have:
https://www.theringer.com/march-madness/2018/3/25/17160808/florida-stat…
TL;DR
If you are saying that the Indiana is not a blue blood because their school colors are red, then that isn't quite the definition of the term.
"Blue blood" has nothing to do with school color and just refers to a traditional power.
"From the medieval European belief that royalty and nobility had blue blood; the elite had enough power and wealth that they could afford to have peasants and the urban poor do their dirty work for them- since the aristocrats were able to stay inside and avoid long hours in the fields (and the sunlight), they were often so pale that their blue veins showed under their translucent skin, thus leading people to believe that their blood was blue." (yeah, copied and pasted it... I'm lazy)
March 26th, 2018 at 10:26 AM ^
I lived near Lansing most of my life and graduated from MSU and have been a Michigan fan since I was a child. Back in the early 90's, it wasn't uncommon to see people in Michigan gear as I walked to class across the MSU campus. We'd probably get assaulted these days.
March 25th, 2018 at 10:29 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:30 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:51 PM ^
Butler's been to two Final Fours in the past decade (same as us) but they're no blueblood.
Kentucky, Duke, UNC and Kansas are indisputably bluebloods. UCLA, Indiana and Louisville are debatable.
We're in that next tier (with about 10 other schools) that have a good history but not to that extent. With a great coach (like Beilein) we can do big things.
March 25th, 2018 at 10:55 PM ^
Historical accomplishments certainly count towards the blueness of the blood; they got known as royalty for some reason. Michigan has a very solid historical success rate at the Final Four Tournament; 8 Final Four appearances, 1 championship, and a pretty gawdy 58-26 record in the event. I say we're blue blood, can I get a dilly-dilly?
March 25th, 2018 at 10:58 PM ^
I'd say UNC, UCLA and Kansas for sure. When I think of the bar in college basketball its been those teams for half a century. Duke, Indiana, Kentucky and Lousiville have not been able to claim that as far as I'm concerned. Duke wasn't kicking peoples asses in the 70's and 80's. Pretty sure no one knew who the hell they even were until Christian Laetner came along. What the hell has Indiana or Louisville really done the last 30 years? Jack shit. You are obviously in your early 20s and havne't much of a grasp on history. Michigan is more of a blueblood program over the whole timeline than Duke and Lousiville. Michigan has been around forever.
March 25th, 2018 at 10:59 PM ^
Too many championships not to include them...and in that case, I could say that Michigan FB blueblood status is debateable
March 25th, 2018 at 11:02 PM ^
Fair enough. I think they're a particular case though, as most of their dominance came under one coach. Their post-Wooden performance has been good but more like Michigan than the UK/UNC/Duke/KU group.
March 25th, 2018 at 11:16 PM ^
3 consecutive Final Fours under Howland, though...only problem was that UCLA was elite again at the same time Donavan's Florida teams were...
March 25th, 2018 at 11:29 PM ^
Yeah but I mean, Michigan went to three Final Fours between 1989 and '93, and the Elite Eight in '94 . . . when I say UCLA's performance post-Wooden has been like Michigan's, that's not really a slight. Other than the rough decade from 1998-2008 we've been a very good program.
March 25th, 2018 at 11:35 PM ^
UCLA has a championship...they were pretty damn good in he Harrick/Lavin/Howland era...throw that on top of the Wooden era...they are pretty damn elite...No doubt we consider UCLA as a blueblood because of the Wooden era...but it's more than that
March 25th, 2018 at 11:45 PM ^
Yeah, I guess if you add what Wooden did to that, they've got to be a blueblood.
They're underperforming right now though.
March 25th, 2018 at 11:50 PM ^
March 26th, 2018 at 12:04 AM ^
they were constantly running into Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Corey Brewer, Taurean Green, and Chris Richard in the Final Four
Their best chance was blown when Howland wouldnt put Westbrook on Rose in the Final Four for some inexplicable reason.
Just goes to show that the tournament is weird and comes down to little things and a lot of luck.
March 26th, 2018 at 12:08 AM ^
are absolutely blue bloods. Basketball nobility. Jobs that anyone would kill for. I also think it's tough to be a blue blood if basketball isn't the number one sport at the school. Also being a blue blood isn't dependent on actual results. If Duke went 12-20 everyone would still call it a blue blood. If Michigan went 12-20 nobody would call it a blue blood.
I'd put Michigan in the second tier of elite programs: Georgetown, Michigan, Villanova, Syracuse, Michigan State, Florida, and Louisville.
I think the most debatable program is Arizona.
March 26th, 2018 at 12:11 AM ^
that Miami, Fla. is a CFB blue blood then, yes, UConn is a blueblood
Miami a blue blood. I consider CFB BlueBloods to be: Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Notre Dame and then maybe Penn State or Nebraska. You could definitely convince me about LSU or Georgia, or maybe even Tennessee.
I would've said yes to UConn being a blue blood as a no-brainer, but I still can't get over their conference. It's the biggest shame. We should be getting UConn-Syracuse, or UNC-UConn, or Duke-UConn, but instead we get UConn-Houston, UConn-Tulsa and other shittier matchups. I lean towards yes for them, but they may just be in the great cateogry.
March 26th, 2018 at 10:55 AM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 11:26 PM ^
March 26th, 2018 at 12:18 AM ^
Because no one outside EL cares about MSU. LOL
LUTHA SPEAKS THE TRUTH
March 25th, 2018 at 10:35 PM ^
Villanova is a blue blood?
March 25th, 2018 at 10:36 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:39 PM ^
FTR...based on Duke BB's similarities with Penn State FB under Paterno, I mght hesitate to put Duke in that category with Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas and UCLA
March 25th, 2018 at 10:47 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:51 PM ^
prior to Knight...Duke had won none before Coach K...although they had some awfully good teams
for having the misfortune of having their best coach ever stick around long enough that someone else couldn't win the title. If anything, Kansas is the one that should be dropped. Fewer titles than Duke, lost their coach to UNC, usually chokes, and dominates a football conference.
March 26th, 2018 at 10:07 AM ^
There is a lot more competitiveness and certainly a lot more games you have to win to become Champion nowadays. How many teams were involved in the tournaments that UCLA won, 16? There ain't no way the Bruins win 10 national championships in 12 years with a field of 64 and change.
March 25th, 2018 at 10:39 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:41 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:42 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:52 PM ^
March 25th, 2018 at 10:55 PM ^
They're a good program at the moment but don't have the history of a blueblood. They won a shock national title in '85, then did nothing for 20-some years before Wright revived them.
Also, MSU is not a cut above us, historically or presently.