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.