“People tend to forget how good the UConn Men's Basketball team has been the last quarter century.“

[UConnSwag11]

Jerome doesn't go down and we don't have to play MSU in Detroit and we are 9-1 or 10-0.

even if we played MSU, if we had Dyson we'd win. Not sure about the UNC game but it would've been close

 

[tzznandrew]

even if we played MSU, if we had Dyson we'd win. Not sure about the UNC game but it would've been close

Thabeet was exactly the type of player who bothered Hansborough.

That team, with Dyson, had scoring, defense, etc. UConn may have lost, but it would have been a good game.

 

[Hoophound]

That team was unstoppable before Dyson went down. That’s the best UConn team we’ve ever seen prior to the Dyson injury and it isn’t close. Beautiful basketball.

 

[businesslawyer]

That team was unstoppable before Dyson went down. That’s the best UConn team we’ve ever seen prior to the Dyson injury and it isn’t close. Beautiful basketball.

No. It wasn't as good as the 99 team. Remember, that team comfortably won at a Top 5 Stanford team without Rip.

 

[superjohn]

That team was unstoppable before Dyson went down. That’s the best UConn team we’ve ever seen prior to the Dyson injury and it isn’t close. Beautiful basketball.

'99 and '04 were better.

 

[jleves]

The "ancient" history matters a bit. Specifically in the 1960s when the NCAAs became clearly more important than the NIT.

But if you were to give 1 point for every pre-1985 Final Four, 2 four every pre-85 Championship, and double each for post. This is every team that has been to 5+ Final Fours and won at least one title in the modern era and, every team with 2 titles that has been to a FF in the modern era. And Ohio State, who has been to to a crap ton of Final Fours and therefore stands apart from teams like Georgetown in deserving to be listed. I did it without assumption of how it would turn out, but it strikes me as the appropriate ranking of programs relative to actual accomplishments while considering history.

Final Fours, Pre-1985 (points)

1. UCLA: 14 (14)
2. Kentucky: 9 (9)
3. UNC: 9 (9)
4. Ohio State: 8 (8)
5. Kansas: 6 (6)
6. Louisville: 6 (6)
7. Indiana: 5 (5)
8. Cincinnati: 5 (5)
9. Duke: 4 (4)
10. NC State: 4 (4)
11. Michigan: 3 (3)
12. Michigan State: 2 (2)
13. Villanova: 2 (2)
14. Syracuse: 1 (1)

Championships, Pre-1985 (points)

1. UCLA: 10 (20)
2. Kentucky: 5 (10)
3. Indiana: 4 (8)
4. UNC: 2 (4)
5. Cincinnati: 2 (4)
6. NC State: 2 (4)
7. Louisville: 1 (2)
8. Kansas: 1 (2)
9. Michigan State: 1 (2)
10. Ohio State: 1 (2)

Final Fours, Post-1985 (points)

1. Duke: 12 (24)
2. UNC: 11 (22)
3. Kansas: 9 (18)
4. Kentucky: 8 (16)
5. Michigan State: 7 (14)
6. UConn: 5 (10)
7. Michigan: 5 (10)
8. Syracuse: 5 (10)
9. Florida: 5 (10)
10. Louisville: 4 (8)
11. UCLA: 4 (8)
12. Arizona: 4 (8)
13. Villanova: 4 (8)
14. Indiana: 3 (6)
15. Ohio State: 3 (6)
16. Cincinnati: 1 (2)

Championships, Post-1985 (points)

1. Duke: 5 (20)
2. UConn: 4 (16)
3. UNC: 4 (16)
4. Kentucky: 3 (12)
5. Kansas: 2 (8)
6. Louisville: 2 (8)
7. Villanova: 2 (8)
8. Florida: 2 (8)
9. UCLA: 1 (4)
10. Indiana: 1 (4)
11. Arizona: 1 (4)
12. Michigan State: 1 (4)
13. Michigan: 1 (4)
14. Syracuse: 1 (4)

Total

1. UNC: 51 points
2. Duke: 48 points
3. Kentucky: 47 points
4. UCLA: 46 points
5. Kansas: 34 points
6. UConn: 26 points
7. Louisville: 24 points
8. Michigan State: 22 points
9. Indiana: 19 points
10. Villanova: 18 points
11. Florida: 18 points
12. Michigan: 17 points
13. Ohio State: 16 points
14. Syracuse: 15 points
15. Arizona: 12 points
16. NC State: 8 points
17. Cincinnati: 7 points

That's a fair way to account for history. I think that means there are 5 remaining blue bloods and Indiana who was boarderline to begin with can not longer be considered a blue blood and I'm not sure many people outside of Indiana would argue the point.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The "ancient" history matters a bit. Specifically in the 1960s when the NCAAs became clearly more important than the NIT.

But if you were to give 1 point for every pre-1985 Final Four, 2 four every pre-85 Championship, and double each for post. This is every team that has been to 5+ Final Fours and won at least one title in the modern era and, every team with 2 titles that has been to a FF in the modern era. And Ohio State, who has been to to a crap ton of Final Fours and therefore stands apart from teams like Georgetown in deserving to be listed. I did it without assumption of how it would turn out, but it strikes me as the appropriate ranking of programs relative to actual accomplishments while considering history.

Final Fours, Pre-1985 (points)

1. UCLA: 14 (14)
2. Kentucky: 9 (9)
3. UNC: 9 (9)
4. Ohio State: 8 (8)
5. Kansas: 6 (6)
6. Louisville: 6 (6)
7. Indiana: 5 (5)
8. Cincinnati: 5 (5)
9. Duke: 4 (4)
10. NC State: 4 (4)
11. Michigan: 3 (3)
12. Michigan State: 2 (2)
13. Villanova: 2 (2)
14. Syracuse: 1 (1)

Championships, Pre-1985 (points)

1. UCLA: 10 (20)
2. Kentucky: 5 (10)
3. Indiana: 4 (8)
4. UNC: 2 (4)
5. Cincinnati: 2 (4)
6. NC State: 2 (4)
7. Louisville: 1 (2)
8. Kansas: 1 (2)
9. Michigan State: 1 (2)
10. Ohio State: 1 (2)

Final Fours, Post-1985 (points)

1. Duke: 12 (24)
2. UNC: 11 (22)
3. Kansas: 9 (18)
4. Kentucky: 8 (16)
5. Michigan State: 7 (14)
6. UConn: 5 (10)
7. Michigan: 5 (10)
8. Syracuse: 5 (10)
9. Florida: 5 (10)
10. Louisville: 4 (8)
11. UCLA: 4 (8)
12. Arizona: 4 (8)
13. Villanova: 4 (8)
14. Indiana: 3 (6)
15. Ohio State: 3 (6)
16. Cincinnati: 1 (2)

Championships, Post-1985 (points)

1. Duke: 5 (20)
2. UConn: 4 (16)
3. UNC: 4 (16)
4. Kentucky: 3 (12)
5. Kansas: 2 (8)
6. Louisville: 2 (8)
7. Villanova: 2 (8)
8. Florida: 2 (8)
9. UCLA: 1 (4)
10. Indiana: 1 (4)
11. Arizona: 1 (4)
12. Michigan State: 1 (4)
13. Michigan: 1 (4)
14. Syracuse: 1 (4)

Total

1. UNC: 51 points
2. Duke: 48 points
3. Kentucky: 47 points
4. UCLA: 46 points
5. Kansas: 34 points
6. UConn: 26 points
7. Louisville: 24 points
8. Michigan State: 22 points
9. Indiana: 19 points
10. Villanova: 18 points
11. Florida: 18 points
12. Michigan: 17 points
13. Ohio State: 16 points
14. Syracuse: 15 points
15. Arizona: 12 points
16. NC State: 8 points
17. Cincinnati: 7 points

This list, and the methodology, passes the smell test.

I'm OK with us not being in the Top 5 "blue blood" class as long as it's recognized that we're at the head of that second tier (and that Indiana being in the "blue blood" discussion is a joke).

 

[Hoophound]

I respectfully disagree. That 09’ team was motoring. I agree with Biz on 99 though, that is my favorite UConn title team and they were tough as nails. I always side with the 99’ camp as our best team.

However, we have never looked better than 08-09’ up until the Dyson injury. I can’t say for sure they would have won a title but they were amazing and were scoring from everywhere on the floor. Unlike other great UConn teams, they were making it look easy every night. As I said, it was beautiful basketball. It was pretty. We didn’t have to grind it out, we just rolled.

 

[UConnSwag11]

I respectfully disagree. That 09’ team was motoring. I agree with Biz on 99 though, that is my favorite UConn title team and they were tough as nails. I always side with the 99’ camp as our best team.

However, we have never looked better than 08-09’ up until the Dyson injury. I can’t say for sure they would have won a title but they were amazing and were scoring from everywhere on the floor. Unlike other great UConn teams, they were making it look easy every night. As I said, it was beautiful basketball. It was pretty. We didn’t have to grind it out, we just rolled.

we weren't the best free throw shooting team or 3 point shooting team, but our defense, inside game, and transition game was insane

 

[RoderickSpode]

I always go back to the game at Louisville in ‘09. Absolutely waxed a #1 seed on their home floor.

 

[tzznandrew]

That's a fair way to account for history. I think that means there are 5 remaining blue bloods and Indiana who was boarderline to begin with can not longer be considered a blue blood and I'm not sure many people outside of Indiana would argue the point.

Yeah. I can't be entirely "what have you done for me lately?" But also, you sort of have to do something for me lately. Two pre-1960 titles (i.e. gentleman's agreement titles...) and only 8 Final Fours ever (that upper echelon has a lot more: UNC [20], UCLA [18], Kentucky [17], Duke [16], Kansas [15]) really doesn't cut it. We're over 30 years since a title, and over 15 since a Final Four. At least UCLA had a trio from 2006-2008.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Yeah. I can't be entirely "what have you done for me lately?" But also, you sort of have to do something for me lately. Two pre-1960 titles (i.e. gentleman's agreement titles...) and only 8 Final Fours ever (that upper echelon has a lot more: UNC [20], UCLA [18], Kentucky [17], Duke [16], Kansas [15]) really doesn't cut it. We're over 30 years since a title, and over 15 since a Final Four. At least UCLA had a trio from 2006-2008.

The only thing I would add is some way to account for regular season performance. Tourney success alone isn't the mark of a program that's relevant in the minds of fans.

You could award a point for #1 or #2 seeds in the post-1985 era to account for teams that were relevant and title contenders throughout the year, regardless of their actual Tournament performance. That would probably bump up Kansas, and I think would boost us a bit also.

 

[superjohn]

I respectfully disagree. That 09’ team was motoring. I agree with Biz on 99 though, that is my favorite UConn title team and they were tough as nails. I always side with the 99’ camp as our best team.

However, we have never looked better than 08-09’ up until the Dyson injury. I can’t say for sure they would have won a title but they were amazing and were scoring from everywhere on the floor. Unlike other great UConn teams, they were making it look easy every night. As I said, it was beautiful basketball. It was pretty. We didn’t have to grind it out, we just rolled.

The way I see it '99 was the best team just based on consistency, off of memory they were a Hamilton and Voskuhl injury away from having a legit chance of going undefeated.

'04 didn't always bring it but when they did it was the best and most dominant squad we ever had. Point guard clearly wasn't as good as in '99 and '09 but they were basically 2 deep at every other position with NBA type talent and they would just overwhelm you with size.

'09 was great and really rolling with Dyson, they had size/physicality with Thabeet and Adrien and a really good backcourt but they simply didn't have a Rip, Okafor, Ben, or even El-Amin on the squad.

 

[Scrutiner]

Jerome doesn't go down and we don't have to play MSU in Detroit and we are 9-1 or 10-0.

Then there's Donyell missing the two free throws at the end of regulation in the 1994 Final 8 game, Tyus Edney's drive at the end of UCLA's game against Missouri (Calhoun said UCLA was the only team we could lose to and he was right), and the overall underachieving 2006 team. However, people could argue we shouldn't have won in 2011 and 2014 so maybe that was the payback for the earlier years' failures.

 

[Ewekon]

No. It wasn't as good as the 99 team. Remember, that team comfortably won at a Top 5 Stamford team without Rip.

Stanford

 

[TheChamps990411]

If nova wins, they’ll pass UConn in most people’s minds even tho they shouldn’t. It’s just how it is

Wait, what? lol! In the minds of Villanova fans maybe but come on now. Maybe they are ahead of us right now where our respective programs are at but all time? NO! I think they make a nice case for themselves being in the discussion now for sure but surpass? No. Not yet.

 

[UConnNick]

They still won 7 in a row

They only had to win four games to win it all back in those days.

 

[UConnNick]

I think you would have better off going with Indiana. Since winning it all in 87, they have been to two final fours. UCLA won it in 95 and have been to 3 final fours since then. I like the idea of giving programs 1 point for a final four, 2 more for a final 2 and 4 more for a championship. Using that criteria, here's what you get:
UCLA 88
Kentucky 73
UNC 66
Duke 58
Kansas 45
Indiana 40
^ End of the blue bloods
then you have:
UConn 29
Ohio St 24
Mich St 23
Louisville 20
Cincy 20
Oklahoma St 20

Pretty clear separation between the blue bloods and not blue bloods. UConn needs at least 4 more final fours and a championship to be considered one.

Irrelevant if you're counting NCAA Final Fours prior to the late 60's. The NIT was considered an equivalent, if not sometimes more prestigious title. NCAA titles from the 40's and 50's shouldn't be counted the same as ones from the mid to late 60's on. Teams were still able to opt to play in the NIT, so the NCAA tournament didn't necessarily include all the best teams.

 

[TheChamps990411]

I think you would have better off going with Indiana. Since winning it all in 87, they have been to two final fours. UCLA won it in 95 and have been to 3 final fours since then. I like the idea of giving programs 1 point for a final four, 2 more for a final 2 and 4 more for a championship. Using that criteria, here's what you get:
UCLA 88
Kentucky 73
UNC 66
Duke 58
Kansas 45
Indiana 40
^ End of the blue bloods
then you have:
UConn 29
Ohio St 24
Mich St 23
Louisville 20
Cincy 20
Oklahoma St 20

Pretty clear separation between the blue bloods and not blue bloods. UConn needs at least 4 more final fours and a championship to be considered one.

I think Blue Blood gets thrown around far too casually. Imho there are only 5 BBs and i consider them so based on 3 things F4s, National titles and All time wins by the program. The only 5 BBs to me are:

Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
UCLA
Indiana

The first four have the most wins with UCLA at #7 and Indiana #11 all time and of course they are all tops in titles. As far as im concerned those two things are what matters most although its still just opinion. I used to think Uconn was one but i changed my mind on that a few years ago.

I think what you have is Two different eras of CBB. You have old era (pre 1985) and the new era (Post 1985) and thats where you see the rise of what i like to call the "New Bloods". Villanova, Uconn, Michigan St. , Syracuse and Florida. All have multiple national titles and numerous F4 appearances. Now im taking their entire history into account but there rise has been as good as any in the post 85` era.

I know its a bit of a rant but its just how i see the whole blue blood non blue blood thing. Ive come up with my own separation of eras and blue/New bloods. I really dont care to be honest as long as Uconn wins more titles in the future people can call us whatever blood they like.

 

[Huskybass]

The 99 team will always be special because it was our first National Championship and it was over Duke. Plus, the players on that team had really defined roles:

Rip: the Superstar;
KFree: the Warrior;
Jake: the Screener, Rebounder, Defender, and all around physical presence;
Khalid: Star with moxie and stones;
Ricky: Elite defender with a propensity to rise to the occasion;

Rash, Souly, Edmund and Mouring: role players who got it done.

 

[Mokum]

I think you would have better off going with Indiana. Since winning it all in 87, they have been to two final fours. UCLA won it in 95 and have been to 3 final fours since then. I like the idea of giving programs 1 point for a final four, 2 more for a final 2 and 4 more for a championship. Using that criteria, here's what you get:
UCLA 88
Kentucky 73
UNC 66
Duke 58
Kansas 45
Indiana 40
^ End of the blue bloods
then you have:
UConn 29
Ohio St 24
Mich St 23
Louisville 20
Cincy 20
Oklahoma St 20

Pretty clear separation between the blue bloods and not blue bloods. UConn needs at least 4 more final fours and a championship to be considered one.

I don't care what happened in the '40s and '50's. Segregation, 8 teams in the tournament ( NIT was the priemier post season tourny back then.)I'll bet there were all black schools back then that could have kicked Kentuckys butt. Plus they undoubtably cheated a lot back then by paying players. I can't prove it so don't ask me too.

 

[MattMang23]

I still think our 2006 team was every bit as good as any team we've had outside '99 and '04. I would have it as our third best team ever. Certainly ahead of '09, '11, or '14.

 

[Lefty2one]

I still think our 2006 team was every bit as good as any team we've had outside '99 and '04. I would have it as our third best team ever. Certainly ahead of 09, 11, or 14.

And to think that team should have had Andrew Bynum and a healthy AJ Price.

 

[J187Money]

I don't care what happened in the '40s and '50's. Segregation, 8 teams in the tournament ( NIT was the priemier post season tourny back then.)I'll bet there were all black schools back then that could have kicked Kentuckys butt. Plus they undoubtably cheated a lot back then by paying players. I can't prove it so don't ask me too.

The dark side of the UCLA basketball dynasty

 

[RoderickSpode]

I still think our 2006 team was every bit as good as any team we've had outside '99 and '04. I would have it as our third best team ever. Certainly ahead of '09, '11, or '14.

On paper, sure. But they probably would have lost to ‘09, ‘11 and ‘14 in March because ‘06 never really showed up when it counted.