ESPN Jeff Borzello - Article Is UConn a blue blood ?

[Marat]

Is UConn a blue blood? 'We've got five nattys in the last 25 years, man'

Over the past generation, the Huskies' success -- under three different coaches -- is undeniable. But is it enough to be considered a blue blood?

www.espn.com

Haven't read it yet... looks long.

 

[Connecticut13]

Is UConn a blue blood? 'We've got five nattys in the last 25 years, man'

Over the past generation, the Huskies' success -- under three different coaches -- is undeniable. But is it enough to be considered a blue blood?

www.espn.com

Haven't read it yet... looks long.

It can be much shorter. Even one word really. “Yes.”

 

[G0UCONN]

Excellent article, nice quotes by Boeheim.

 

[OceanDoggie]

Excellent article, nice quotes by Boeheim.

Boeheim speaking about what gets swept under the rug. Uconn's success, beginning with Calhoun, is a long history or molding coal into diamonds.

 

[bluestreak]

Honestly, I don't care what other people think.
I suppose the chatter gives UCONN more press and perhaps recognition. It's up to the program to win. Just keep winning.

 

[Hurleyman216]

I love the quote from Boeheim about how impossible it was to do what we did in Storrs, CT…I mean it’s not like he was coaching in Los Angeles or some other resort town. Storrs, CT is like heaven compared to Syracuse, NY.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Five years ago, you could maybe make an argument that, well, they only won with one coach and the next guy won with his players, and then they fell off the map.

Now it's 3 different coaches. Like Emeka pointed out, it's in 4 different decades. On a championship basis, there's no argument.

The only argument you could make against us is inconsistency. Our non-title years over the last 15 years we've often been irrelevant, since 2009 only 1 Tournament win in non-title years (though the fact that we have 3 championships in that period makes that caveat look silly).

Edit: I didn't realize that in addition to having the most championships in the last 25 years, we also tied for the most Final Four appearances. That's pretty significant.

 

[CL82]

Is UConn a blue blood? 'We've got five nattys in the last 25 years, man'

Over the past generation, the Huskies' success -- under three different coaches -- is undeniable. But is it enough to be considered a blue blood?

www.espn.com

Haven't read it yet... looks long.

It is, but a good read. The only weak point was when the author made up a numeric formula for ranking teams in terms of blue blood status. It didn't seem to give more weight to winning a national championship then winning a first round game. Still, I think Connecticut came out in fifth place with nova just behind.

Here's the thing about the whole "blueblood" debate. It means different things to different people. If your criteria is whether or not a school won a championship 50 years ago, we are not a part of that discussion. On the other hand if your criteria is winning national championships over the last quarter century, we are, obviously, at the top of the list.

For someone to have a serious debate on this, the first thing they need to do is define what "Blue Blood" means. Once they define what their criteria is, then it becomes easy to rank schools according to it. But, it's a moving target meaning different things to different people.

Here's the thing though, over the last quarter century the University of Connecticut men's basketball program has won more national championships than anyone else. We stand alone at the pinnacle of success. Frankly, I don't worry about comparing ourselves to other programs. Other programs need to justify why they should be in the conversation with the single most successful men's basketball program over the last 25 years. Very few can even make an argument that they belong in that conversation.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is great stuff. Really need a signature win tonight. Keep your foot on the floor. Hurley can't afford any stumbles. Year to year this team needs to be top 15 or so on a regular basis.

 

[Travelman6]

It can be much shorter. Even one word really. “Yes.”

That's unfair to the author who made several good points in favor of blue blood status and UConn in general.

 

[OceanDoggie]

This is great stuff. Really need a signature win tonight. Keep your foot on the floor. Hurley can't afford any stumbles. Year to year this team needs to be top 15 or so on a regular basis.

From the article, Calhoun had the Team ranking in the top 10 in the AP poll in 17 of 21 seasons between 1990 and 2011. I had no idea that to be true. I suppose it just considers just one week in the AP, but still impressive.

 

[UConn Esq]

In the end, I'd rather be debated because I have such an overwhelmingly large amount of success now than be debated because I have such an overwhelmingly large lack of success now. Isn't that right, UCLA and Indiana...

 

[Connecticut13]

That's unfair to the author who made several good points in favor of blue blood status and UConn in general.

Sure, but how many times can this question be asked? And how many national championships do we have to win so that it's no longer a discussion?

 

[Tenspro2002]

It is, but a good read. The only weak point was when the author made up a numeric formula for ranking teams in terms of blue blood status. It didn't seem to give more weight to winning a national championship then winning a first round game. Still, I think Connecticut came out in fifth place with nova just behind.

Here's the thing about the whole "blueblood" debate. It means different things to different people. If your criteria is whether or not a school won a championship 50 years ago, we are not a part of that discussion. On the other hand if your criteria is winning national championships over the last quarter century, we are, obviously, at the top of the list.

For someone to have a serious debate on this, the first thing they need to do is define what "Blue Blood" means. Once they define what their criteria is, then it becomes easy to rank schools according to it. But, it's a moving target meaning different things to different people.

Here's the thing though, over the last quarter century the University of Connecticut men's basketball program has won more national championships than anyone else. We stand alone at the pinnacle of success. Frankly, I don't worry about comparing ourselves to other programs. Other programs need to justify why they should be in the conversation with the single most successful men's basketball program over the last 25 years. Very few can even make an argument that they belong in that conversation.

Yeah, it's fair to argue over the criteria. I would suggest like:

10 points for championship
6 points for Final Four
3 points for Sweet 16
1 point for NCAAT appearance
3 points for conference championship
3 points for top 10 in the polls for 4+ weeks during the season
2 points per NCAA 1st team All-American
2 points per NBA lottery pick

and have it from 1985 to present (sorry, UCLA).

Something like that, which rewards titles, sustained excellence, being the top dog in conference, and individual player cachet.

 

[Hi-Low]

Sure, but how many times can this question be asked? And how many national championships do we have to win so that it's no longer a discussion?

 

[Ha Who]

From the article, Calhoun had the Team ranking in the top 10 in the AP poll in 17 of 21 seasons between 1990 and 2011. I had no idea that to be true. I suppose it just considers just one week in the AP, but still impressive.

That is even more impressive when you think about the respect we get from the national media

 

[husky429]

"Yes."

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah, it's fair to argue over the criteria. I would suggest like:

10 points for championship
6 points for Final Four
3 points for Sweet 16
1 point for NCAAT appearance
3 points for conference championship
3 points for top 10 in the polls for 4+ weeks during the season
2 points per NCAA 1st team All-American
2 points per NBA lottery pick

and have it from 1985 to present (sorry, UCLA).

Something like that, which rewards titles, sustained excellence, being the top dog in conference, and individual player cachet.

1 pt for NCAA tournament appearance is too few unless you award like -3 for missing it. Lottery picks should be worth zero.

 

[AdamaNation]

It is, but a good read. The only weak point was when the author made up a numeric formula for ranking teams in terms of blue blood status. It didn't seem to give more weight to winning a national championship then winning a first round game. Still, I think Connecticut came out in fifth place with nova just behind.

Here's the thing about the whole "blueblood" debate. It means different things to different people. If your criteria is whether or not a school won a championship 50 years ago, we are not a part of that discussion. On the other hand if your criteria is winning national championships over the last quarter century, we are, obviously, at the top of the list.

For someone to have a serious debate on this, the first thing they need to do is define what "Blue Blood" means. Once they define what their criteria is, then it becomes easy to rank schools according to it. But, it's a moving target meaning different things to different people.

Here's the thing though, over the last quarter century the University of Connecticut men's basketball program has won more national championships than anyone else. We stand alone at the pinnacle of success. Frankly, I don't worry about comparing ourselves to other programs. Other programs need to justify why they should be in the conversation with the single most successful men's basketball program over the last 25 years. Very few can even make an argument that they belong in that conversation.

Correct. The 50 year parameter would challenge the women’s program as being blue blood.

 

[HooperScooper]

Sure, but how many times can this question be asked? And how many national championships do we have to win so that it's no longer a discussion?

I agree. What's the point of asking this question when the answer is "yes" all the time? I don't see articles asking if Kentucky is still a blue blood because they've only won 1 national championship in the last 25 years.

 

[notEwekon]

1 pt for NCAA tournament appearance is too few unless you award like -3 for missing it. Lottery picks should be worth zero.

Yeah, it's an arbitrary set of criteria for an arbitrarily applied label. I wish UConn fans would turn their backs on this conversation. We're above begging to be in a club that includes UCLA.

 

[HooperScooper]

Not having that cachet is motivation for Hurley and UConn.

"Whether we get as much hype as other national brand programs that, in the last 25 years, haven't done as much as us in terms of producing big results, we'll come into the season maybe with more of a chip on our shoulder -- or maybe two chips," he said earlier this fall. "And maybe that's why the program's been as successful as it's been.

"Because we don't carry complacency."

Maybe there is something to that. They can have the blue blood. We'll take the championships.

 

[superjohn]

I'm so sick of hearing/reading about this, it's insulting. We're the best program of the past 25 years, it would be like debating whether Apple is worthy of being compared to/sharing a table with General Electric.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yeah, it's fair to argue over the criteria. I would suggest like:

10 points for championship
6 points for Final Four
3 points for Sweet 16
1 point for NCAAT appearance
3 points for conference championship
3 points for top 10 in the polls for 4+ weeks during the season
2 points per NCAA 1st team All-American
2 points per NBA lottery pick

and have it from 1985 to present (sorry, UCLA).

Something like that, which rewards titles, sustained excellence, being the top dog in conference, and individual player cachet.

I would make it 100 points for a championship. 30 points for a Final Four, and whatever on the rest.

I disagree 1000% with giving a school any credit for individual accomplishments or NBA performance of its players. The absolutely insane run of ex-Kentucky players in the NBA (Booker, Murray, Randle, Adebayo, AD, Fox, Maxey, Washington, Herro, Gilgeous-Alexander) makes Calipari's performance in Lexington even more hilariously pathetic. Doing nothing with all of that future NBA all-star talent should take away from Kentucky's "blue blood" status, not add to it. You have to be a historically terrible coach to not win 5+ championships with all that talent.

 

[CL82]

Yeah, it's fair to argue over the criteria. I would suggest like:

10 points for championship
6 points for Final Four
3 points for Sweet 16
1 point for NCAAT appearance
3 points for conference championship
3 points for top 10 in the polls for 4+ weeks during the season
2 points per NCAA 1st team All-American
2 points per NBA lottery pick

and have it from 1985 to present (sorry, UCLA).

Something like that, which rewards titles, sustained excellence, being the top dog in conference, and individual player cachet.

I like it! Of course, I like it more when you actually do all the math and come up with an answer for us!