The difference between Kansas and Duke is that while both are basketball blue bloods, Kansas has been a more consistent blue blood for a longer time and through more coaching changes. I put Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina at the top of the pyramid because they have been nationally relevant for many decades and big winners (including national championships) under multiple coaches. UCLA, Indiana and Duke are in the same discussion and at times in the past one might have put one or more of them alongside the first three. But UCLA and Indiana have been wandering in the wilderness for a long time. Duke won, at times, before Coach K. But Duke's blue blood status rests entirely on Coach K's legacy. To me, there is no guarantee Duke will sustain its success under the current or any future coaching regime. Logically, Duke should not be able to sustain it. It's a small, private, elite academic school and big-time basketball doesn't really fit, particularly in the modern era. And as bad as Kansas football has been, and even though Duke has punched above its weight in recent times, Kansas clearly has a higher football ceiling, if only because it is a public school with a greater alumni base.