What is the definition of a blue blood program?

[Dave]

My guess would be 3 national titles, 30+ NCAA tournament appearances....

Redundant. Any team with 3 titles has 30+ appearances

[Bill Marsh]

My guess would be 3 national titles, 30+ NCAA tournament appearances....

Redundant. Any team with 3 titles has 30+ appearances

SAN Francisco has 3 national titles, but they don't have 30+ appearances.

[Dave]

My guess would be 3 national titles, 30+ NCAA tournament appearances....

Redundant. Any team with 3 titles has 30+ appearances

SAN Francisco has 3 national titles, but they don't have 30+ appearances.

Teams that have won both hoops and football national championship titles in Div 1:
Ohio State, Michigan, Mich State, Arkansas, Cuse, Maryland, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Florida, and Villanova.

If you're counting San Francisco's NIT, I'm counting Nova's 2009 football championship.

[Edrick]

The pre-shot clock era has such minimal influence on the present it really shouldn't even factor into any kind of analysis along these lines.

The 85 season was the expansion to 64 teams, 86 was the introduction of both the shot clock and the three point field goal.

The three pointer and shot clock, effectively, created a new sport. It's simply not comparable. Prior to that you literally had programs that would go Four Corners with a multiple possession lead in second halves and just hold the ball.

Basketball before the mid-80s is analogous to Baseball's Dead Ball era -- and don't get me going on pre-intergration in the late 60s.

Present day women's basketball is more comparable to present day men's basketball as present day men's basketball to pre-racial integration, pre-shot clock, pre-three point field goal, 32 (and fewer) team NCAA Tournament basketball

[Dave]

The pre-shot clock era has such minimal influence on the present it really shouldn't even factor into any kind of analysis along these lines.

The 85 season was the expansion to 64 teams, 86 was the introduction of both the shot clock and the three point field goal.

The three pointer and shot clock, effectively, created a new sport. It's simply not comparable. Prior to that you literally had programs that would go Four Corners with a multiple possession lead in second halves and just hold the ball.

Basketball before the mid-80s is analogous to Baseball's Dead Ball era -- and don't get me going on pre-integration in the late 60s.

Present day women's basketball is more comparable to present day men's basketball as present day men's basketball to pre-racial integration, pre-shot clock, pre-three point field goal, 32 (and fewer) team NCAA Tournament basketball

I think the earlier days of college basketball are very relevant to the Blue Blood discussion. There is old money and new money, and how old does your money have to be (and how much do you need) to become a blue blood? Do you have sustained excellence over many years and multiple coaches?

UConn, for example, is completely new money. They don't have any early era Final Fours. But they do have 4 NCAA championships. So they are a new money Blue Blood.

Ville and Duke have some older Final Fours, but Ville's first NCAA title is 1980 and Duke's is 1991.

Duke has won 5 over a 24 year span. They have won them all under K, so they don't fit the multiple coach criteria. But he has won 5. So yes, they are a modern era Blue Blood.

Nova is similar to Ville, with one less title. Older Final Fours (1939, 1971). Sustained excellence over many coaches. Titles under different coaches. First title not until 1985. Nova probably needs another title to build consensus.

Cincinnati, San Francisco, and OK State all won back-to-back NCAA titles, but they did not sustain excellence over a long time. Florida runs that risk, although they could change that perception today and next weekend.

[Bill Marsh]

Redundant. Any team with 3 titles has 30+ appearances

SAN Francisco has 3 national titles, but they don't have 30+ appearances.

Teams that have won both hoops and football national championship titles in Div 1:
Ohio State, Michigan, Mich State, Arkansas, Cuse, Maryland, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Florida, and Villanova.

If you're counting San Francisco's NIT, I'm counting Nova's 2009 football championship.

Apples and oranges.

To imply that the 1949 NIT was a 2nd rate tournament comparable to the FCS simply ignores the facts. In the 1940's, the NIT was as big as the NCAA tournament, maybe bigger. A glance at the 1949 AP poll shows that the 2 tournaments had a comparable number of ranked teams.

But more to the point is the fact that NCAA champ Kentucky played in the 1949 NIT and lost. So why wouldn't the 1949 NIT champ be considered the national title holder that year? That was in fact the national championship tournament in 1949.

[Dave]

But more to the point is the fact that NCAA champ Kentucky played in the 1949 NIT and lost. So why wouldn't the 1949 NIT champ be considered the national title holder that year? That was in fact the national championship tournament in 1949.

I love the history and the exceptions. I wasn't implying second rate, just an asterisk. San Francisco isn't a blue blood in any sense, even though it have an interesting place in history. If they had made more appearances that didn't go anywhere it wouldn't change that.

Wait, are you saying Nova's football championship is second rate?

[Bill Marsh]

But more to the point is the fact that NCAA champ Kentucky played in the 1949 NIT and lost. So why wouldn't the 1949 NIT champ be considered the national title holder that year? That was in fact the national championship tournament in 1949.

I love the history and the exceptions. I wasn't implying second rate, just an asterisk. San Francisco isn't a blue blood in any sense, even though it have an interesting place in history. If they had made more appearances that didn't go anywhere it wouldn't change that.

Wait, are you saying Nova's football championship is second rate?

I'm not sure how much of an exception 1949 was. The NCAA tournament has been retrojected as the national championship tournament in the early years of national competition due to its later prominence. But that really wasn't the case back then. At a minimum, the NIT champs have a claim to the national title in the following years:

1938
1939
1941
1944
1949
1950
1953
1954

Maybe it's the NCAA champs who should be getting the asterisk in the years before the NCAA competition had truly established itself as the premier tournament.

BTW, I agree that San Francisco is not a blue blood, but following the same logic, can anyone really claim that UConn is?

I'm not even going to nibble at your Villanova question. It's not safe with so many Nova fans hovering around this board.

[Bill Marsh]

The pre-shot clock era has such minimal influence on the present it really shouldn't even factor into any kind of analysis along these lines.

The 85 season was the expansion to 64 teams, 86 was the introduction of both the shot clock and the three point field goal.

The three pointer and shot clock, effectively, created a new sport. It's simply not comparable. Prior to that you literally had programs that would go Four Corners with a multiple possession lead in second halves and just hold the ball.

Basketball before the mid-80s is analogous to Baseball's Dead Ball era -- and don't get me going on pre-integration in the late 60s.

Present day women's basketball is more comparable to present day men's basketball as present day men's basketball to pre-racial integration, pre-shot clock, pre-three point field goal, 32 (and fewer) team NCAA Tournament basketball

I think the earlier days of college basketball are very relevant to the Blue Blood discussion. There is old money and new money, and how old does your money have to be (and how much do you need) to become a blue blood? Do you have sustained excellence over many years and multiple coaches?

UConn, for example, is completely new money. They don't have any early era Final Fours. But they do have 4 NCAA championships. So they are a new money Blue Blood.

Ville and Duke have some older Final Fours, but Ville's first NCAA title is 1980 and Duke's is 1991.

Duke has won 5 over a 24 year span. They have won them all under K, so they don't fit the multiple coach criteria. But he has won 5. So yes, they are a modern era Blue Blood.

Nova is similar to Ville, with one less title. Older Final Fours (1939, 1971). Sustained excellence over many coaches. Titles under different coaches. First title not until 1985. Nova probably needs another title to build consensus.

I like your thinking, but I have to take issue with your comparison of Villanova with Louisville. Villanova's 1939 "final 4" is not worth mentioning. It's a meaningless concept in an 8 team tournament especially at a time when half of the best teams were going to the other tournament. Louisville can legitimately claim 10 Final Fours, going back to the 1950's as well as their 3 national championships. I love the Wildcats, but they have only 4 legitimate Final 4's and one of those was vacate, leaving them further behind the .cardinals than just one national title.

[billyjack]

On a side note, I'd like to add some information about the San Francisco Dons...

Thru 1982 they were a total blueblood, probably the best team west of the Rockies outside of UCLA.

They could have maintained their top status beyond 1982, into the current day, but they correctly and voluntarily gave themselves the death penalty ("de-emphasized hoops") because they lost control of their program... in particular, a sexual assault by their star All-American player.

San Francisco was a major, major team. Like, huge. Like on par with today's Arizona or Louisville, only cooler and more fun to watch. Can you imagine Hookerville Louisville giving themselves the death penalty? Or those f-ckin Cheatin Tarheels? Or Baylor? It's so ridiculous.

So i gotta give props to SF, though they've struggled for a long time.

Here's some quick Dons history thru 1982

Late 1940's:
- Top 10 team.

1955-1958 - (103-10), peak rankings each year: 1, 1, 2, 4.
1955 - National Champions.
1956 - National Champions.
1957 - Final Four.
1958 - Sweet-16.

1963-1965 - (65-19), peaked at #3 in 1965.
1963 - Sweet-16.
1964 - Sweet-16.
1965 - Elite-8.

1972-1982 - (248-72), peak rankings: nr, 10, 11, nr, 12, 1, 5, 12, nr, nr, 6.
1972 - Sweet-16.
1973 - Elite-8.
1974 - Elite-8.
1975 - 19-7.
1976 - 22-8, peaked at #12.
1977 - NCAA.
1978 - Sweet-16.
1979 - Sweet-16.
1980 - 22-7.
1981 - NCAA.
1982 - NCAA. (lost to Boston College during the Eagles' Elite-8 run).

When we toss together ideas on western expansion, which has less than 1% chance of happening, and we pair Gonzaga with a second team, it's my guess that Jesuit city school San Francisco in its recruiting hotbed would be the choice over countryside St Mary’s. But before that could ever happen, they would have to string a bunch of great seasons together, like a west coast VCU or Dayton.