March 26th, 2018 at 1:23 AM ^

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:…



March 26th, 2018 at 7:11 AM ^

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 25th, 2018 at 10:30 PM ^

More final four appearances than Kansas in the last six years. Same amount as Nova. More than Duke, Indiana, Michigan State, UCLA, Arizona, Louisville. Same as North Carolina and Kentucky.

Sounds like a blue blood to me.

snarling wolverine

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 26th, 2018 at 8:06 AM ^

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?

The Fan in Fargo

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. 

snarling wolverine

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 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 3:41 AM ^

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 5:34 AM ^

...was the single biggest casualty of the "conference roulette" that took place a couple years ago. Their boat anchor of a football program is killing them.

In hindsight, they would have been better off staying in the Big East (for everything else) and going independent in football.

Chitown Kev

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 26th, 2018 at 10:07 AM ^

I don’t think the Big 12 should be held against Kansas. First off, it’s not a bad conference most years (most elite 8 teams from any conference this year and was pretty deep) and if anything they should get extra credit for pulling players to the middle of nowhere where there are fewer marquee TV games than at UNC or Duke. And even though they dominate their conference, they still perform pretty well most years in the tourney, this year being an example.

snarling wolverine

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.