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.

[SiouxFan100]

Sometimes I wonder if UND is still a blue blood. We really haven’t excelled these past years.

[brianvf]

6 minutes ago, SiouxFan100 said:

Sometimes I wonder if UND is still a blue blood. We really haven’t excelled these past years.

That's crazy.  If people are saying that any team with 5 or more titles is a for-sure blueblood, you sure can't dismiss a team with 8 of them.

And it's not like they won all their titles decades ago.
Look at MTU.  In 1975, they won their 3rd title.  At that point, only DU and Michigan had more.
So they were probably considered a blueblood at that time...but now they haven't won a title since, so they were taken out of that blueblood conversation decades ago.

[Fratt Mattin]

19 minutes ago, SiouxFan100 said:

Sometimes I wonder if UND is still a blue blood. We really haven’t excelled these past years.

Considering we’ve won a national title more recently than every other blue blood not named Denver, I’m gonna have to disagree

[gfNDfan]

39 minutes ago, Fratt Mattin said:

Considering we’ve won a national title more recently than every other blue blood not named Denver, I’m gonna have to disagree

Time to win another one to reinvigorate the bloodline!  This team has a shot - we'll see

[Level B Fishbowl]

On 2/18/2026 at 5:19 PM, yzerman19 said:

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

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

 

 

Harvard is not even the best Ivy. Cornell has much more of a claim than them, especially recently. UNH is tough because they've been bad the past decade but a lot of that is due to macroeconomic factors out of the institution's control. However, they've very much lost their way compared to the blue bloods of BU and BC and obviously Maine and PC.

Quinnipiac should also be in that second tier conversation given their history and the recruiting advantages they have compared to other ECAC schools. That said, the question then becomes how well they would do without Pecknold behind the bench.

 

[Blackheart]

4 minutes ago, Level B Fishbowl said:

 

Harvard is not even the best Ivy. Cornell has much more of a claim than them, especially recently. UNH is tough because they've been bad the past decade but a lot of that is due to macroeconomic factors out of the institution's control. However, they've very much lost their way compared to the blue bloods of BU and BC and obviously Maine and PC.

Quinnipiac should also be in that second tier conversation given their history and the recruiting advantages they have compared to other ECAC schools. That said, the question then becomes how well they would do without Pecknold behind the bench.

 

Is there any consideration given to the fact that Pecknold is a total douche?

[yzerman19]

35 minutes ago, Level B Fishbowl said:

 

Harvard is not even the best Ivy. Cornell has much more of a claim than them, especially recently. UNH is tough because they've been bad the past decade but a lot of that is due to macroeconomic factors out of the institution's control. However, they've very much lost their way compared to the blue bloods of BU and BC and obviously Maine and PC.

Quinnipiac should also be in that second tier conversation given their history and the recruiting advantages they have compared to other ECAC schools. That said, the question then becomes how well they would do without Pecknold behind the bench.

 

Since 1975 Harvard has more tourney appearances than any other Ivy (22)and claims the only NCAA title by an Ivy in the last 50 years.  New Hampshire has the same 22 appearances and was runner-up twice.  Those 22 are 1 less than Wisconsin (albeit Wisconsin won 5 titles in that time frame).

 

 

[Level B Fishbowl]

7 hours ago, yzerman19 said:

Since 1975 Harvard has more tourney appearances than any other Ivy (22)and claims the only NCAA title by an Ivy in the last 50 years.  New Hampshire has the same 22 appearances and was runner-up twice.  Those 22 are 1 less than Wisconsin (albeit Wisconsin won 5 titles in that time frame).

 

 

22 compared to 19 for Cornell, so not very far off, and aside from 2017, most of those appearances in the past two decades have been one and done under Donato (with many unambiguous losses). That said, being in the Boston metro area and being Harvard offers a significant receuiting advantage which puts them in that 2nd tier.

And only Ivy to win a title in the last 50 years? I find it hard to believe any UND fan has already forgotten about Yale's 2013 run, although I can't blame any for doing so 🫠