Should UCONN be considered a blue blood? SI.com

[fgbrault]

http://hoopshabit.com/2014/04/18/college-basketball-uconn-huskies-considered-blue-blood/

 

[jleves]

I prefer to think of us as the New Blood. Everyone else can strive to be among the New Bloods but for now, there's just one in the company.

 

[nym410]

Its a nothing argument but if Duke is one, UConn is too. Duke had an OK history before K. A few final fours but no titles. They have only won with one coach and their stretch of elite play is only about six years longer than UConn.

 

[tzznandrew]

Its a nothing argument but if Duke is one, UConn is too. Duke had an OK history before K. A few final fours but no titles. They have only won with one coach and their stretch of elite play is only about six years longer than UConn.

Yeah, it's funny that Duke is all uppity about winning its first title a whole 8 years before us. They made four Final Fours, and lost in the title game 2x before K showed up. A solid, if unimpressive history.

 

[UConn5]

I used to really want sports writers to accept UConn as one of the blue blood programs but I don't really care anymore. Duke wont their first title 8 years before we won ours and they're a blueblood and we're not?

I used to hear people say it takes sustained success (we've covered that), with multiple groups of players (we've covered that) and then they would finally say that you need to win with different coaches (we've done that...Duke hasn't).

We've cleared every hurdle but I'm sure some arbitrary new lines will be drawn by some (e.g. UConn didn't make any final fours in the 80's) by some people.

I just don't want to be grouped in with the Arizona's and MSU's of the world anymore. We are a cut above.

 

[Brochacho]

UConn has made the Elite Eight 11 times. Duke has been in the National Championship 10 times. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[Scoe]

Is this even a question

-HOF coach check

-National championships from different coaches check

-HOF player will have that soon with Ray

-NBA success check

Not to mention we have beaten Duke twice in the FF, we have been on the national map for 25 years, its not like we just became good in 99

 

[Scoe]

UConn has made the Elite Eight 11 times. Duke has been in the National Championship 10 times. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

We are still right up there though, and we still equal them in titles. You can argue whether we are ahead of Duke or not but we are most definitely a blue blood.

 

[dogfan96]

UConn has made the Elite Eight 11 times. Duke has been in the National Championship 10 times. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Nobody remembers who finished 2nd (unless you're the team that finishes 2nd).... nobody celebrates all those great Bills teams from the 90s.. just saying

 

[Tenspro2002]

We're not ahead of Duke, but we are a blue blood.

We are clearly above programs like Arizona, Michigan State, Florida, Syracuse, who have been contenders, but haven't won as much as we have.

 

[alexd]

Don't forget SU's two Helms titles from 100 years ago....back when 25 ppg was considered run and gun offense.

 

[MattMang23]

That article lost any possible relevance or credence when they mentioned Wisconsin in the same breath as us.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The mentioned Wisconsin in the group of " New bloods"..uh what?

 

[noeynox]

So A Program With The Greatest Final for Winning Percentage In History Belongs In A Grouping With Wisconsin???? Ah No!

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I know I'm incredibly biased but as another poster on the Boneyard mentioned, the title count should reset at the time the tournament expanded in the mid 80s and view it like the NFL's pre and post Super Bowl era.

It just seems ridiculous UCLA will likely forever hold the title count lead when it was an entirely different animal when all but one of their titles.

Nobody would deny say the Chicago Bears of being one of the NFL's flagship teams with 8 pre Super Bowl titles and 1 Super Bowl title but then take the Patriotsfor instance ( I'm a Giant fan fwiw) and their success, 3 SB titles and 4 SB losses.

Nobody would argue the Patriots aren't a better overall historical franchise than the Bears, so I don't understand why the same logic doesn't apply to college hoops.

 

[UConn9604]

http://hoopshabit.com/2014/04/18/college-basketball-uconn-huskies-considered-blue-blood/

I can't acknowledge a piece that refers to Indiana or UCLA as a blueblood but questions whether we are one. The Bears/Patriots comparison is directly on point.

 

[Scoe]

We also dominated the best conference ever, no ACC you will never be what the Big East was no matter how many teams you try to take out of the Big East.

 

[EricLA]

Blue blood? Not even sure what that means. Husky fans bleed blue.

But Elite program? Championship program? Whatever you want to call it, we are one. And honestly, I don't care that much what "others" say about UCONN. I care about what our coaches and fans think, and what recruits think when KO walks into their home or gym to recruit them. How much does what some random writer say about UCONN really impact our future? 4 NC's. UCLA and Indiana USED to be great and elite programs. Last 20 years? Not so much.

UCLA has had 1 NC since 1976. Indiana hasn't won since 1987. If you go back 20 years to 1994...

UCONN 4
Kentucky 3
Duke 2
UNC 2
Florida 2
UCLA, Zona, MSU, MD, Syracuse, Kansas and L'ville all have 1 each.

There are only 4 programs who have more NC's in their history than UCONN - UCLA, Kentucky, Indiana, UNC. Duke has 4. Everyone else has less.

I don't mean this to sound critical at all of UCONN fans, but I will say the same thing we say when a fan base rushes the court after beating a top 5 team - "act like you've been there before".

In the past 20 years, NO TEAM has had more NCAA success than UCONN. NOT ONE SINGLE TEAM. I didn't check total # of NCAA appearances, sweet 16's, elite 8's, final 4's, or whatever because in the grand scheme, those "accolades" mean squat. Not only did we win 3 with JC as many have pointed out, but our new HC won it in his 2nd season as HC. So yeah, we've been here for the past 20 years. Crazy.

So "Blue Blood"? Meh. Best program in the nation in the past 20 years? Sure...

 

[Husky999]

If we win another title we'll be just behind UCLA and Kentucky. Not sure how you could not consider us a top 5 "blue blood" program of all time. Take Indiana.. why are they considered a blue blood? They haven't been relevant in 30 years. And UCLA?? They had a 20 year run of absolute domination and are considered the best ever but why? They haven't been relevant in 20 years as well. Why do we get penalized because our run of domination was the past 20 years and not in the 60s? But who cares? Who cares how many final 4's you've been to. All that matters is winning them and were 4-5.

 

[MattMang23]

Indiana is a blue blood because a movie about high school basketball in that state is popular.

Kentucky is a blue blood because Adolph Rupp once coached there.

Kansas is a blue blood because the father of the game of basketball moved from Springfield, MA to teach there.

Duke is a blue blood because the rich kids who go there get influential jobs afterward and tell people how good Duke is.

I won't crap on UCLA. Eleven titles is impressive I don't care if there were only eight tournament teams. I won't crap on UNC because I legitimately root for them (it's probably the whole anti-Duke thing). Kentucky really shouldn't be crapped on either but Squid makes it so hard not to.

 

[UConnNick]

I know I'm incredibly biased but as another poster on the Boneyard mentioned, the title count should reset at the time the tournament expanded in the mid 80s and view it like the NFL's pre and post Super Bowl era.

It just seems ridiculous UCLA will likely forever hold the title count lead when it was an entirely different animal when all but one of their titles.

Nobody would deny say the Chicago Bears of being one of the NFL's flagship teams with 8 pre Super Bowl titles and 1 Super Bowl title but then take the Patriotsfor instance ( I'm a Giant fan fwiw) and their success, 3 SB titles and 4 SB losses.

Nobody would argue the Patriots aren't a better overall historical franchise than the Bears, so I don't understand why the same logic doesn't apply to college hoops.

UCLA's first few championships in the mid-1960's were won during the tail end of the era when the NIT was either the more prestigious national tournament, or at least considered to be the equal of the NCAA, because teams could pick and choose which tournament to accept a bid to. It wasn't until the late 1960's after the infamous UCLA vs. Houston game at the Astrodome that the tide turned toward the NCAA tournament being generally recognized as THE national championship. Plus UCLA cheated just as much or perhaps just as well as any other major program during that era.

Their run shouldn't be discounted completely, and they deserve to be considered a blue blood historically, but they haven't been consistently successful since the early 1980's. They've been to the Final Four what, a couple of times in over 30 seasons? By modern standards they don't qualify, and that makes Indiana even less relevant, since they have only won the championship once since the field was expanded to 64 teams, and that was on a last second shot.

Louisville has accomplished more than either of those programs during the 64-team era. Only one of their three titles (1980) came before the field expanded.

UCONN, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisville and Kansas, in that order, have ruled the 64-team NCAA tournament era. We've had a knack for knocking Duke and Kentucky out of the tournament on repeated occasions. That's what gives us the edge over both of them. They have more Elite 8's, Sweet 16's and tourney appearances during the 64-team era, but when we get there we close the deal, and usually knock one of those two out when we do it.

 

[UCDaveD]

To quote the illustrious 50 Cent:

"They call me new money, say I have no class
I'm from the bottom, I came up too fast
The hell if I care, I'm just here to get my cash
Bougie b!tches, you can kiss my "

 

[Calhoun's Court]

I don't care what they call us at all. All I know is we are FOUR TIME NATIONAL CHAMPIONS !!!!!

Just don't call us late for the tournament because (quite frankly) it's not the same without us !!!!!!

 

[B1GEast]

We've won in the modern era, when it was much harder to do, we're significant no matter if other programs think we are or not. Other programs can brag about titles won in the 50's and 60's, but I could care less.

When KO gets us to another FF, what are they going to say then? Doesn't matter as long as we keep collecting hardware.

 

[UConn17]

It all depends on your definition of a "blue blood." If it involves having a rich tradition of final fours and championships. But if it is about national championships and the success of a program over the last 20 years, then of course we are a blue blood. We are the most dominant program of the last 15-20 years, but if blue-blood status involves history, we are borderline. Either way, we are UCONN!