Bluebloods Discussion

[nascar99]

46 minutes ago, Dustin said:

Michigan State has a better history than you've given credit for.  They played in their first championship game in 1959 (lost to UND), and won their first title in 1966, which is before Boston U, Wisconsin, and Minnesota won their first.  While several programs are streaky, with several titles over a short period and big gaps in between, Michigan State (so far) has consistently won a title about every 20 years, which means they are due, and in great position to maintain that, I might add.

Michigan State probably should have another title or 2 at least. Dominant regular season teams from 1982-1990 as well as 1998-2002, with only 1 National Championship (1986) to show for it. Actually a shame that Ron Mason (1979-2002 at State) only had 1 National Championship.

[nodakvindy]

On 2/8/2026 at 2:22 PM, hawksfan12 said:

Does anyone have the history on why Wisconsin is the least successful blue blood YET the program UND has struggled against the most (ie record)? I know Wisconsin plays a very defensive style and maybe UND never matched up well against them.

Wisconsin came to D1 late and their arrival came during the mediocre Bjorkman years, so some of their best years came when UND was down, so they were able to build some cushion and UND has seen them less frequently during this down period. 

I would say Duluth's titles and hobey baker winners put them in the discussion as well. Having a hall of famer in Brett Hull doesn't hurt.  

[Fratt Mattin]

17 hours ago, nodakvindy said:

Wisconsin came to D1 late and their arrival came during the mediocre Bjorkman years, so some of their best years came when UND was down, so they were able to build some cushion and UND has seen them less frequently during this down period. 

I would say Duluth's titles and hobey baker winners put them in the discussion as well. Having a hall of famer in Brett Hull doesn't hurt.  

Duluth is a weird one because they've had a ton of individual success and one era of extreme team success. Outside of the last 15 years though, they haven't accomplished a lot. Prior to their first natty they only had three frozen four appearances. With that said, if they maintain the standard they've set recently for another decade or two, then you have to add them to the list

[yzerman19]

Blue Bloods:  BU, BC, Michigan, Denver, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Solid Next Tier:  Michigan State, UMD, New Hampshire, Maine, Harvard

 

[Dustin]

Without Denver's and especially BC's success this century, I am not sure they would be in the discussion.  They would be in a category with Cornell, Colorado College, and Michigan Tech - some titles in the first generation of the tourney, but not sustained.  

[Dustin]

1 hour ago, yzerman19 said:

Blue Bloods:  BU, BC, Michigan, Denver, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Solid Next Tier:  Michigan State, UMD, New Hampshire, Maine, Harvard

 

The second tier list is spotty, AFAIC.  Not quite on board with Harvard or New Hampshire.  Would put Michigan Tech in there before those two.