UConnSwag11
Storrs, CT The Mecca
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 13,989
- Reaction Score
- 53,335
They still won 7 in a rowCan you really still call UCLA a blueblood? As dominant a run as they had in the Wooden days, they have one NC in the last 43 years. Even Indiana hasn't won it all since 1987.
Can you really still call UCLA a blueblood? As dominant a run as they had in the Wooden days, they have one NC in the last 43 years. Even Indiana hasn't won it all since 1987.
They still won 7 in a row
Well in my opinion blue bloods are in the full history of the game, and if they’ve stayed somewhat relevant, which UCLA has, just without recent championship success, they’re still a blue blood. I’d say once a blue blood always a blue blood, unless you fade into somewhat obscurity.Yes they did, and 9 in 11 yrs, but if people are going to live in a "what have you done for me lately" world, then that should apply to everyone. Heck, we just won it all 4 years ago and with everything that happened to the program since, people treat it like it was 10-15 years ago.
Which is what UCLA has doneWell in my opinion blue bloods are in the full history of the game, and if they’ve stayed somewhat relevant, which UCLA has, just without recent championship success, they’re still a blue blood. I’d say once a blue blood always a blue blood, unless you fade into somewhat obscurity.
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:Which is what UCLA has done
But isn’t all what have you don’t for me lately? Indiana and UCLA have largely irrelevant in the landscape of college basketball. I also take into consideration when the field expanded and the “modern game”. Kentucky has championships from 40+ years ago. Only 3 since ‘94 (not saying they’re irrelevant but titles when only 4 teams played isn’t saying much). Kansas has three titles. One being in 2008 and the other in 1988. UConn is a blueblood with everything we take into consideration. Maybe not the top but certainly among the discussedI 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.
Wow! That guy just tore that conference a new one. Yikes!
lol Syracuse.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.
This exactly! As great as having four championships is, imagine how much less impressive our resume would be if our final four record wasn't a ridiculous 8-1!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.
The "ancient" history matters a bit. Specifically in the 1960s when the NCAAs became clearly more important than the NIT.But isn’t all what have you don’t for me lately? Indiana and UCLA have largely irrelevant in the landscape of college basketball. I also take into consideration when the field expanded and the “modern game”. Kentucky has championships from 40+ years ago. Only 3 since ‘94 (not saying they’re irrelevant but titles when only 4 teams played isn’t saying much). Kansas has three titles. One being in 2008 and the other in 1988. UConn is a blueblood with everything we take into consideration. Maybe not the top but certainly among the discussed
Jerome doesn't go down and we don't have to play MSU in Detroit and we are 9-1 or 10-0.This exactly! As great as having four championships is, imagine how much less impressive our resume would be if our final four record wasn't a ridiculous 8-1!