Lupica: UConn last Blue Blood standing | The Boneyard

Lupica: UConn last Blue Blood standing

.-.
giphy.gif
 
nomar said:
Kinda tired of the "blue bood" stuff. We're the best MCBB program this millennium, and that doesn't even count 1999.
Expand ...
Seriously at this point - I'm over the BB qualifying. At this point, it really is Uconn and the rest, call it whatever you want. Anyone clinging to their titles from the 40's to create their own exclusive club is self soothing.
 
Outside CT, I feel like we're the powerball billionaire that the generational rich don't want in the country club. The problem is, that "generational" wealth is nice but outdated at this point. Like the Yankees bragging about winning rings in the 1920's.
 
.-.
nomar said:
Kinda tired of the "blue bood" stuff. We're the best MCBB program this millennium, and that doesn't even count 1999.
Expand ...
Boneyard posters zealously guard our exclusive right to criticize and complain about our favorite team, but UConn has won its most recent matchup with Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan State, Illinois, Gonzaga, Houston, Purdue, Iowa State, Villanova, Indiana, Alabama, and Baylor.

Over 3 games this season, UConn outscored St. John's by 3 points.

UConn mounted a second half comeback against Arizona and took the lead, but could not hold onto it and lost by 4 points.

Go Huskies.
 
Deepster said:
Outside CT, I feel like we're the powerball billionaire that the generational rich don't want in the country club. The problem is, that "generational" wealth is nice but outdated at this point. Like the Yankees bragging about winning rings in the 1920's.
Expand ...
The Yankees have won seven rings in my lifetime. That's still more than any other team.
 
.-.
Hans Sprungfeld said:
Over 3 games this season, UConn outscored St. John's by 3 points.
Expand ...
Really good post but this was too gimmicky for me.

UConn goes for #7 this year and then can get ready to take care of St John’s next season.
 
nomar said:
Kinda tired of the "blue bood" stuff. We're the best MCBB program this millennium, and that doesn't even count 1999.
Expand ...
I'm okay with the term Blue Blood, just don't refer to it as a "Brotherhood".
 
cwh20 said:
Really good post but this was too gimmicky for me.

UConn goes for #7 this year and then can get ready to take care of St John’s next season.
Expand ...
Yeah, I paused to decide whether to include StJ and/or AZ, and decided not to shy away from either of them as open losses. We're scheduled for both next season, and may yet play AZ again this year.

I gave some thought to a few other schools that might 'worry' us that we've beaten, but haven't had long-term/recent top success, but in the end my last two in were limited to Alabama & Indiana, and it seemed like an unnecessary outlier to include Syracuse which we did beat with Hurley coaching in 2018, but well....
 
ninety-nine said:
The Yankees have won seven rings in my lifetime. That's still more than any other team.
Expand ...
So tell me. When you start to talk about the Yankees, how often do you say "27 championships" and how often do you say "7 championships in my lifetime"?
 
.-.
Deepster said:
So tell me. When you start to talk about the Yankees, how often do you say "27 championships" and how often do you say "7 championships in my lifetime"?
Expand ...
In what context? If I'm talking about my experience as a fan, I say I've seen them win six or seven times since I was a little kid (1977 is kinda borderline just because I wasn't really much of a sports fan until the following spring when my dad took me to a game), and for that reason I don't feel any sense of enduring disappointment that they haven't won one since 2009. If the conversation is about total championships, then sure, all of them count to some degree for any team in any pro sport. Just like the Red Sox titles from the very early 20th century count, or the Celtics titles from the 1950s and 1960s count. They counted when I was young, and it would be weird to say they don't matter anymore because too much time has passed.

I don't get what you're going for here. They played pro football before the Super Bowl, and it's weird to me that people seem to feel like nothing counts before January 1967.
 
ninety-nine said:
In what context? If I'm talking about my experience as a fan, I say I've seen them win six or seven times since I was a little kid (1977 is kinda borderline just because I wasn't really much of a sports fan until the following spring when my dad took me to a game), and for that reason I don't feel any sense of enduring disappointment that they haven't won one since 2009. If the conversation is about total championships, then sure, all of them count to some degree for any team in any pro sport. Just like the Red Sox titles from the very early 20th century count, or the Celtics titles from the 1950s and 1960s count. They counted when I was young, and it would be weird to say they don't matter anymore because too much time has passed.

I don't get what you're going for here. They played pro football before the Super Bowl, and it's weird to me that people seem to feel like nothing counts before January 1967.
Expand ...
You're tap dancing around the obvious. Every single Yankees fan in existence has "27 rings" locked and loaded at all times and throws it in any argument they can.

The discussion was around blue bloods and my point is, you want to consider Indiana blue blood for winning titles in 1940 and 1953? No difference from a Yankee fan bragging about 27 titles against plumbers and all-whites.
 
Deepster said:
You're tap dancing around the obvious. Every single Yankees fan in existence has "27 rings" locked and loaded at all times and throws it in any argument they can.

The discussion was around blue bloods and my point is, you want to consider Indiana blue blood for winning titles in 1940 and 1953? No difference from a Yankee fan bragging about 27 titles against plumbers and all-whites.
Expand ...
Obviously there are a few asterisks when you're factoring in old championships, which is why MLB has incorporated the Negro Leagues statistics into its official history. And someday there might be other kinds of asterisks about things we're celebrating right now. But deciding if Indiana is currently a "blue blood" (subjective) despite not being terribly good at basketball for the last 30 years is a different question than whether or not Indiana should get conversational credit for their natties in 1940 and 1953.

I would say that in the specific case of college basketball, NCAA titles before 1950 or '51 don't really move the needle much because the NIT was actually the more prestigious event, so there is a pretty sound competitive argument for looking at those years differently. But sports continue to evolve all the time both in terms of who participates and the rules of the game, so how do we know when to impose a relevancy cutoff?

I feel like you're bringing a specific grudge into this conversation. So which Yankees titles matter, in your humble opinion?
 
Lupica has been continuing the Robert B. Parker Spenser series of novels for a number of years. Does a great job with it.
 
I miss shows like the "Sports Reporters". Things were more relaxing then. The Disney Channel generation seems to need a lot of screaming and arguing on their sports shows. Journalism was great 20+ years ago.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,131
Messages
4,554,286
Members
10,437
Latest member
poppopwow


Top Bottom