- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 4,346
- Reaction Score
- 43,843
lot of people guessing Michigan State, Ohio State, and Cincy over us lolol
1 | Kentucky | 1903 | 117 | 2,318 | 712 | 1 | .765 |
2 | Kansas | 1899 | 122 | 2,302 | 862 | 0 | .728 |
3 | North Carolina | 1911 | 110 | 2,275 | 818 | 0 | .736 |
4 | Duke | 1906 | 115 | 2,201 | 893 | 0 | .711 |
5 | Temple | 1895 | 126 | 1,940 | 1,096 | 0 | .639 |
6 | Syracuse | 1901 | 120 | 1,922 | 922 | 0 | .676 |
7 | UCLA | 1920 | 101 | 1,906 | 864 | 0 | .688 |
8 | Notre Dame | 1898 | 123 | 1,900 | 1,040 | 1 | .646 |
9 | St. John's | 1908 | 113 | 1,871 | 1,044 | 0 | .642 |
10 | Indiana |
Just a comment on my post above. Seems that those top 7 always get mentioned as the "Blue Bloods" of college basketball. So is UConn just outside Blue Blood status?
I'd have to agree with this.I never consider Louisville a blue blood. Just the other 6.
Forgot UCLA, but no way Louisville should be ranked ahead of us with 3 titles and Rick Pitino.Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky and Indiana are probably the only programs that should be ranked ahead of UConn. UConn is in the top 5 most consecutive conference titles won with that run in the 50s. Gonzaga appears on that list twice.
That's like saying UConn women's bball are not a blue blood 60 years from now, only because they didn't win a title they in 25 years.!Controversial hot take alert!
I consider neither UCLA nor Indiana to be blue bloods (whatever that means). To me, that is a status that a program can lose, and they lost it.
I also never counted UConn or Villanova in that group. I think we can join it in the next 10 years if the results warrant it. Likewise, 'Nova can make the cut in the next 15 years.
Just a comment on my post above. Seems that those top 7 always get mentioned as the "Blue Bloods" of college basketball. So is UConn just outside Blue Blood status?
Forgot UCLA, but no way Louisville should be ranked ahead of us with 3 titles and Rick Pitino.
"Oh, the P5 will never want us!"And the official Top 10 is:
Kentucky
UNC
Duke
UCLA
Kansas
Louisville
Indiana
UConn
Villanova
Cincinnati
The Greatest College Basketball Programs Ever: Ranking the top teams of all time
You know who the top schools are, but can you guess them in the right order? Come look at the top shelf of college hoopswww.cbssports.com
Might want to use this in recruiting:
Storrs, Connecticut, can now claim to be home to one of the 10 best programs in college basketball history on the men's side -- and certainly the best in women's hoops. This means UConn is the best basketball school in America from a historical perspective.
That, I am aware of. But I'd equate Louisville to Villanova, since the goal is titles.They have more NCAA appearances, more wins, a better record overall, more final fours, and more weeks ranked.
That, I am aware of. But I'd equate Louisville to Villanova, since the goal is titles.
The fact UConn has never lost a championship game in basketball is unreal. Am sure that'll change one day.
While I already consider UConn to be a “blue blood,” I do think our last 4-5 years put a dent on the identity of our program, and ultimately being included in that discussion. So it is probably accurate where we are placed on this list. With our move back to the Big East and our expected return to prominence, I would be surprised if UConn doesn’t cement their blue blood status over the next 5 years. Another Natty would be the end of the discussion for sure!Just a comment on my post above. Seems that those top 7 always get mentioned as the "Blue Bloods" of college basketball. So is UConn just outside Blue Blood status?
We have had a much longer run of success than USF, starting in the 50s, continuing till this day. Does that suit your standards better, more fulfilling?This is a pretty narrow-minded and reductive view, not to mention boring. You can probably find the list of programs ranked by titles on wikipedia, but it's going to tell you that San Francisco is better than Syracuse and Arizona. Louisville is one of the all-time great programs, and by most metrics, they've been better than UConn. Yes, UConn has one more national championship than Louisville, but is that more important than everything else? How about Kansas? They only have three.
UConn made the tournament in 2016 so let's say the last 4 years were sucky. Really only 3 years since they weren't bad last season. I think every program has some downturns.While I already consider UConn to be a “blue blood,” I do think our last 4-5 years put a dent on the identity of our program, and ultimately being included in that discussion. So it is probably accurate where we are placed on this list. With our move back to the Big East and our expected return to prominence, I would be surprised if UConn doesn’t cement their blue blood status over the next 5 years. Another Natty would be the end of the discussion for sure!
I’m not arguing with any of your points about Indiana. I’m talking about UConn’s status as a blue blood. Indiana is probably on the cusp of being a questionable blue blood for the reasons you mentioned. The only programs I wouldn’t argue against their blue blood status are Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC and I suppose UCLA.UConn made the tournament in 2016 so let's say the last 4 years were sucky. Really only 3 years since they weren't bad last season. I think every program has some downturns.
Most say Indiana is a blue blood. Between 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 they went 6-25, 10-21 and 12-20. You can say the B10 was better than the AAC but those are still 3 way worse years than UConn had. Plus Indiana hasn't won a national championship in 33 years, since 1987. 33 years is a long time. Since that championship they've been to 2 Final Fours, in 1992 and 2002. Hardly a record of a blue blood over a 33 year period.
Since 2003 they've made the NCAA Tournament only 7 times and only gotten through the first weekend three times, in 2012, 2013 and 2016 when they made the Sweet 16 each time.
So why has Indiana held on to their blue blood status? Did they have a longer sustained period of success than UConn and it would take a longer and much worse period to knock them out of that blue blood status?
They don't seem to recruit like a blue blood program. A good B10 program, but not an elite program.
So is Indiana still a blue blood? Why?
List of Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball seasons - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I see your point on Indiana. To dig even deeper, since 1994, Indiana has made it past the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament only 5 times. One of those times was the fluke Final Four and Championship game appearance in 2002. People point to our 2014 Championship and say that was a "fluke". I disagree because it is hard to win a National Championship, therefore, there are no such thing as "fluke" National Championships. It's a big step from the Elite 8 compared to the Final Four, and it's also a huge step from winning the National Championship compared to just an appearance in the Final Four.UConn made the tournament in 2016 so let's say the last 4 years were sucky. Really only 3 years since they weren't bad last season. I think every program has some downturns.
Most say Indiana is a blue blood. Between 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 they went 6-25, 10-21 and 12-20. You can say the B10 was better than the AAC but those are still 3 way worse years than UConn had. Plus Indiana hasn't won a national championship in 33 years, since 1987. 33 years is a long time. Since that championship they've been to 2 Final Fours, in 1992 and 2002. Hardly a record of a blue blood over a 33 year period.
Since 2003 they've made the NCAA Tournament only 7 times and only gotten through the first weekend three times, in 2012, 2013 and 2016 when they made the Sweet 16 each time.
So why has Indiana held on to their blue blood status? Did they have a longer sustained period of success than UConn and it would take a longer and much worse period to knock them out of that blue blood status?
They don't seem to recruit like a blue blood program. A good B10 program, but not an elite program.
So is Indiana still a blue blood? Why?
List of Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball seasons - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
We have had a much longer run of success than USF, starting in the 50s, continuing till this day. Does that suit your standards better, more fulfilling?
USF to Syracuse was a lame comparison. Really.
UConn made the tournament in 2016 so let's say the last 4 years were sucky. Really only 3 years since they weren't bad last season. I think every program has some downturns.
Most say Indiana is a blue blood. Between 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 they went 6-25, 10-21 and 12-20. You can say the B10 was better than the AAC but those are still 3 way worse years than UConn had. Plus Indiana hasn't won a national championship in 33 years, since 1987. 33 years is a long time. Since that championship they've been to 2 Final Fours, in 1992 and 2002. Hardly a record of a blue blood over a 33 year period.
Since 2003 they've made the NCAA Tournament only 7 times and only gotten through the first weekend three times, in 2012, 2013 and 2016 when they made the Sweet 16 each time.
So why has Indiana held on to their blue blood status? Did they have a longer sustained period of success than UConn and it would take a longer and much worse period to knock them out of that blue blood status?
They don't seem to recruit like a blue blood program. A good B10 program, but not an elite program.
So is Indiana still a blue blood? Why?
List of Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball seasons - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org