A Question No One Has Pondered...Is UConn a Blue Blood?

[LIuconn]

The lazy media are so quick to do the "Is Texas (or Miami) back" and "A good Texas (or Miami) is great for college football...."
Same thing with hoops and Indiana/UCLA, etc.

I don't recall the media playing up UConn when Hurley got them going again. Not that it matters with us winning championships withe 3 different coaches and a few this millennium, but it's a perception/reality thing within the media and our national profile

 

[jibsey]

No one believes that UCLA has been a blue blood for the last umpteen years.

 

[donyell34]

Indiana is worse than UCLA. Last ship in the mid 80's.

 

[prankster]

The Athletic staff thinks so:

College basketball program tiers: Who's a blue blood these days? (Hi, UConn, bye Indiana)

We took on the impossible task of tiering the top college hoops programs, from Duke to DePaul. Where does your favorite team belong?

theathletic.com

From Dana O'Neil:

But just as blue-blood status should not be conferred for life, it shouldn’t be sealed off for new membership, either. Welcome, UConn. Admittedly, there was debate over this one. It centered largely on the Huskies’ temporary disappearance from the upper crust after the university unwisely tried to chase football success at the expense of basketball supremacy. But five national championships won by three different coaches cannot be ignored. Nor can the projections. Back where it belongs in the Big East and led by a coach who is perfect for the current age of college hoops, UConn’s future is bright. So long as the school doesn’t interfere again.

No!

We are better than that.

 

[CL82]

No one believes that UCLA has been a blue blood for the last umpteen years.

Depends. If Blue Blood status is based on current performance, then no, but if it is breached on historic performance than obviously yes.

That's always been the issue with Blue Blood status. It's a moving target meaning different things to different people at different times.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas are the true blue bloods who have been consistently great throughout the history of the sport.

UCLA has been good lately but not elite. Indiana, LOL.

Duke and UConn has been great for a long period of time but can't compare to UNC, Kentucky and Kansas.

 

[NowInStorrs]

The blue blood argument is boring and I don't care at all about that part of the article, but this really bugs me:

"It centered largely on the Huskies’ temporary disappearance from the upper crust after the university unwisely tried to chase football success at the expense of basketball supremacy."

This isn't what happened and is extremely reductionist. Why is every other big public school encouraged to try in football but we're supposed to know our role and go play with the small private basketball-only schools? The media coverage of us sucks.

 

[temery]

Stupidly lazy article. It's been asked and discussed many times on many sites, and by many in the print media.

Locked because stupidity should rarely be encouraged (outside the boneyard).