Should the criteria or definition of "blue blood" be changed?

[cheesesteak]

For the past year or two, I've been wondering if "blue blood" should be redefined, possibly even retired as a term given the state of college bball w/ NIL and the transfer portal. Even w/ NIL and TP, I figured it should be any program that recruits itself, based on program prestige, tradition, player development, etc, independent of whoever the coach is. I was going to theorize that the traditionally undebatable bluebloods - KU, UK, Duke, UNC - still fit that bill. Whereas the debatable ones - UConn, UCLA, Indiana, Villanova, Mich St, etc are too dependent on coaches (although UConn has had down stretches even under Hurley and obviously another title winner Ollie).

But now I'm starting to doubt things after this UK coaching situation (supplemented by transfers like Caleb Love). If UK can't even get a coach from Baylor, does program tradition and prestige not matter even to coaches anymore? Can a blueblood no longer be presumed to be like "self-elite" anymore in the current landscape, which is so dependent on NIL and transfers now? Can any program recruit itself anymore based on tradition? I know, I know, even the prestigious programs with great tradition paid players under the table before NIL days. But I'd like to think those players still were drawn by a program's history to an extent.

And how much recruiting in and of itself, not relying on NIL, make an impact? I've heard ppl say Scheyer is a great recruiter at Duke, but do ppl say that just because they get great classes? They got great classes under Coach K, too. I figured the program recruits itself, and maybe even stronger now with that private university NIL budget lol.

But the thing is...recruiting HS players isn't as relevant anymore since the transfer portal can be used to keep a program running at a top level. Although, I suppose you still do "recruit" the transfers... But anyway, you see some powerhouse programs like Arizona not have AMAZING recruiting classes but still be powerhouses due to the transfer portal (and obviously great coaching).

So should blueblood still just be defined by being a consistently elite program where the program basically recruits itself? Do you ever see a program like Duke or Kansas having a "down era" let's say if they get a string of bad recruiters as coaches and can't recover? What are your lists of bluebloods now in this new landscape? Programs that have had a long lasting history of being elite and now can still stay elite thanks to either HS recruiting AND/OR the transfer portal, and it may not matter who coaches?