ESPN Jeff Borzello - Article Is UConn a blue blood ? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

ESPN Jeff Borzello - Article Is UConn a blue blood ?

Last year after we won it, Newton responded to his haters. He said “I don’t care if you call me a PG, call me a national champion.” I now think the same way about the blue blood label. In fact, I don’t want it. We’re here to crash the blue bloods party, steal their beer, leave with their girlfriends, and laugh about it. Call us whatever you want, we’re just here win.
 
First it is ESPN. So they are no longer creative in any sense. I mean people can still laugh but that part of Sportscenter no longer exits. They just don’t care to improve their product. So this article was bound to get clicks. Not sure anyone else has posted this yet as I only read a few comments. But since this is a particularly hot topic for me I may be more sensitive. But he starts off the whole debate by listing the “accepted” blue bloods and describing them as the place that blue chip 5* s go to school. So here we are again changing the definition. Blue bloods now is only related to how many blue chip players you recruit. This question has been asked and answered from an on the court perspective.
 
SilentDog said:
First it is ESPN. So they are no longer creative in any sense. I mean people can still laugh but that part of Sportscenter no longer exits. They just don’t care to improve their product. So this article was bound to get clicks. Not sure anyone else has posted this yet as I only read a few comments. But since this is a particularly hot topic for me I may be more sensitive. But he starts off the whole debate by listing the “accepted” blue bloods and describing them as the place that blue chip 5* s go to school. So here we are again changing the definition. Blue bloods now is only related to how many blue chip players you recruit. This question has been asked and answered from an on the court perspective.
Expand ...

ESPN deserves all the hate in the world for conference realignment and ruining the regionality of CFB but pretty fair here and the author is or at least grew up as a UConn fan.
 
The biggest complaint people seem to have most often is that there have been too many down years and not enough strong years outside the national championships... Hurley will take care of that.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
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.
Expand ...
I honestly think there's value to the older titles, they should just be worth less.

I also think there's value to overall wins, to the NIT when it was the preeminent tournament, and (sigh) to the Helms. Just not as much as are national championships.

Blue Blood is prestige and longevity. Those old things fade, but they aren't really ever gone. History matters.
 
Leebo said:
The biggest complaint people seem to have most often is that there have been too many down years and not enough strong years outside the national championships... Hurley will take care of that.
Expand ...
They also value things that we would never value: most total victories, for instance.

No amount of national championships will change that until the kids watching the 1999 national championship are old or dead.

Which is why the designation is essentially meaningless.
 
tzznandrew said:
They also value things that we would never value: most total victories, for instance.

No amount of national championships will change that until the kids watching the 1999 national championship are old or dead.

Which is why the designation is essentially meaningless.
Expand ...
Disagree on that one. The Yankees have sucked for decades. They are still the Yankees. Total wins means a lot. Consecutive trips to the tournament means a lot. Helms? Nah, that doesn't mean anything. There's room to balance history of excellence in the sport with "what have you done lately. Both matter. Some, like Indiana and to some extent UCLA fail on the "lately" and hit on "history". KU, Duke, UK and UNC hit on both. UConn hits on "lately" and has now been doing it long enough that I think we're being perceived as having enough history too.
 
UConn didn’t leave the big east.

We’ve gone to the tourney 5 out of 9 seasons since 2012.
 
They can have their shade of blue dook, Carolina, Kentucky etc.....but we bleed blue.....and we have those chips on our shoulder, all five of them.

National Championship Sport GIF by NCAA March Madness
 
Last edited:
Leebo said:
The biggest complaint people seem to have most often is that there have been too many down years and not enough strong years outside the national championships... Hurley will take care of that.
Expand ...
No other blue blood has had to survive a concerted effort to destroy it. To just ignore the CR situation is dishonest. We should get extra credit for the perseverance.
 
tzznandrew said:
I honestly think there's value to the older titles, they should just be worth less.

I also think there's value to overall wins, to the NIT when it was the preeminent tournament, and (sigh) to the Helms. Just not as much as are national championships.

Blue Blood is prestige and longevity. Those old things fade, but they aren't really ever gone. History matters.
Expand ...
Agree regarding the NIT. Helms championships are nonsense and always have been. UCF put up a national champion banner when it was undefeated and the rest of college sports laughed at them. The rest of college sports should be laughing at "Helms bakery championships."
 
Waquoit said:
No other blue blood has had to survive a concerted effort to destroy it. To just ignore the CR situation is dishonest. We should get extra credit for the perseverance.
Expand ...
Multiple coaches is more impressive. Multiple titles from multiple coaches is a short list. Kentucky, Kansas, UConn, UNC, Indiana, Villanova, UCLA, NC State, Michigan State. I'm leaving Louisville out since Pitino's was vacated.

The list to do it with three 3 coaches (all the way back to 1939) is Kentucky, UConn, Kansas, UNC.
 
Worth reading. I wanted to quibble with the points system they used to rank the eight teams considered in their "blue blood analysis" but can't really complain. It gives more credit to those who consistently have won their leagues or league championships while we received credit for NC's won. What pushed us down the list was the dismal record during the Ollie downfall years and Dan Hurley's first couple years along with our inability to get past the first round of the tournament in Dan Hurley's first two tournament years.
Marat said:
www.espn.com

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 www.espn.com

Haven't read it yet... looks long.
Expand ...
 
Leebo said:
The biggest complaint people seem to have most often is that there have been too many down years and not enough strong years outside the national championships... Hurley will take care of that.
Expand ...
This just isn’t true. Outside of a couple nit bids with Calhoun because the teams were depleted to the NBA, he always made deep runs. It’s the end of the Ollie run that really sticks out.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
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.
Expand ...
But, for you to be a blue blood, you (yes you) need to use your system and score the teams!:rolleyes:
Oops, didn't see 82's comment on that till after I posted this.
 
Last edited:
Since the term has no real definition, there's no satisfactory way to answer the question. Sometimes you see people claiming a team with five titles hasn't done enough. Other times you see story about struggling blue bloods and they're talking about, like, Wisconsin or Gonzaga. It's all semantics
 
superjohn said:
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.
Expand ...
That's a great way of putting it. If that doesn't give you perspective, nothing will.
 
A very good article. Yes its long but worth the read.

Frankly I don't care if we are called blue bloods or not. Kentucky, Duke and the rest will always be protective of the "blue blood" status. God forbid anyone else be admitted to that lofty status.

I like the fact that UConn is a "blue collar" type program. Bring it every night, grind it out and just win. Recruit very good basketball players and make them better. Let the team play with a chip on its shoulder.

Its a shame the BE coaches give UConn so little respect after last season. Hopefully the all eat crow this season.
 

Online statistics

Members online
238
Guests online
2,728
Total visitors
2,966
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,244
Messages
4,388,548
Members
10,195
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom