Should UCONN be considered a blue blood? SI.com

[7774]

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.

Tons of people would argue that the Patriots aren't a better historical franchise than the Bears. Not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Brochacho]

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.

If it weren't for UConn, UK would be looking to tie UCLA this season. I think it will be interesting to see whether UConn passes Indiana/UNC or if UK passes UCLA first. I think UK takes out UCLA in the next 10 years.

 

[tzznandrew]

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.

Not true. Generally, but the early-60s, mostly eastern schools--often with a catholic bent--played in the NIT. There were occasional schools like Wichita State and whatnot, but the NIT had been overtaken by the mid-50s or so for a number of reasons, including the cheating scandals.

You can go back and look who played in the NCAA and NIT, and compare where they were ranked in the AP polls. The top schools went to the NCAAs by the early 60s, but you'd get an occasional stray top 10 school in the NIT. Schools like UNC or Duke would be ranked in the Top 10, but then not win their league, and be passed over by the NCAA...and also by the NIT, who would invite a school like Canisius over them.

 

[mauconnfan]

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

But the only thing that tells me is they lost a lot when they got there……….

 

[Brochacho]

Anyways, I think there are 10 programs ahead of the rest of the pack:

1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Connecticut
7. Louisville
8. Indiana
9. Michigan State
10. Florida

I think they are separated into 3 tiers:

Bluebloods: UK, UCLA, UNC, Duke, KU, Indiana
Top Elite: UConn, Louisville
Elite: MSU, Florida

UConn and Ville are better than Indiana and are gaining quick on Kansas, but I just like to think of those schools being the only bluebloods out of respect to their history.

Let's be honest, UConn if makes the final four in 06 in addition to having some random championship in the dinosaur days (looking at you, Oregon - 1939) the UConn is a blueblood.

 

[Kitaman]

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 !!!!!!

I agree. So what if we are considered blue blood, its just a symbol of ancient times. The blue blood teams of old have dead blood anyway.

What we are is the 'best program in college basketball' and the program everyone wants to emulate. So I personally don't care as UConn doesn't need to be in that category, we are in a league of our own. That's fine by me as I don't want to be uk, unc, dook or any of the rest. I want to be UConn blood which is a category that no other team can match or will ever match.

Right now they all are chasing us. As a fan that feels real good vs a permanent label that apparently is outdated.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Tons of people would argue that the Patriots aren't a better historical franchise than the Bears. Not sure what you're talking about.

You think so? Patriots have been to 7 Super Bowls and the Bears have only been to 2 I believe. I'm a Giant fan as I mentioned so I really don't have a dog in this fight but just used it as a loose example to highlight my point.

 

[uchusky32]

This is a dumb question. As to winning Championships and dominating a conference for 2 decades answers this question.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Anyways, I think there are 10 programs ahead of the rest of the pack:

1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Connecticut
7. Louisville
8. Indiana
9. Michigan State
10. Florida

I think they are separated into 3 tiers:

Bluebloods: UK, UCLA, UNC, Duke, KU, Indiana
Top Elite: UConn, Louisville
Elite: MSU, Florida

UConn and Ville are better than Indiana and are gaining quick on Kansas, but I just like to think of those schools being the only bluebloods out of respect to their history.

Let's be honest, UConn if makes the final four in 06 in addition to having some random championship in the dinosaur days (looking at you, Oregon - 1939) the UConn is a blueblood.

What about Dukes history significantly separates them from the "elites" and puts them among your "blue bloods"? When I was a kid in the 80's they were an up and comer and not historically important as the others you mentioned.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

What about Dukes history significantly separates them from the "elites" and puts them among your "blue bloods"? When I was a kid in the 80's they were an up and comer and not historically important as the others you mentioned.

Agreed. Their first title was, what, eight years before UConn's? So what is it that automatically makes them a "blue blood"?

This whole blue blood thing is so dumb to me. Kansas has two titles in the last 26 years. UConn has 4. But because KU was good in the 1950s then for the rest of time they're a "blue blood"? FOH. Might as well call San Francisco blue bloods too.

 

[king conn]

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

You can see why others will rationalize ways to not include Uconn. Whats funny is some of our own fans buy in.
Lets see, we need to lose more final four games to be considered elite.....

The best final four and finals winning percentage of any program in the country, including mighty UCLA? Give me a break, where are the losses!

 

[willie99]

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

forgetaboutit, we're not them and I don't want to be them

we are Blue Collar, we are Husky Blue, we're about winning and certainly not about ancient history (it's akin to Italians bragging about the Roman Empire today, who cares?)

most importantly, we are the most crowned program in the new millennium

let them talk about set shots and wooden baskets and being icons, I prefer being us celebrating in March & April. They celebrate in November when they're all anointed to the Final Four by the same talking heads that never ever learn from their mistakes.

at the end of the day, we're the program the media tells us they are

 

[intlzncster]

Tons of people would argue that the Patriots aren't a better historical franchise than the Bears. Not sure what you're talking about.

Well then, UCONN is not a better historical program than most of the blue bloods, as it's a perfect analogy. Fact is, they have won one Superbowl. C'est la vie.

 

[patrick]

If we add the woman in, because the title says "UCONN BASKETBALL", don't we have more national championships then any other program in history?

Blue Blood or NOT!

The combined total is f#cking impressive! ! !

 

[chrisn671]

One more title, and only putting UCLA, UNC and Kentucky ahead of UConn would be an argument worth listening to. Just win baby.

 

[Jluc]

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

Yeah...we win those games though

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Give us more credit. The titles we've won in the modern era are much more impressive than anything pre-64 and pre-3 point shot. If we're going to be grouped with other programs, I'd much rather be thought of in the same breath with dook, uk, unc, than with msu, zona, ville.

 

[TheRogers]

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.

I'm not too keen on the "new blood" title. UCONN deserves any prestige it has earned. It's been a blue blood since #3. If the hang-up was "history" as in an era where there was far less competition in the tournament, then that's an argument made by current blue bloods who only has that to claim. If the likes of Kansas, Indiana or UCLA keep on being labeled blue bloods then it's not even up for discussion.

 

[BearJWS]

To me, "Blue Blood" is just an overrated statement. It makes the teams & fans who were relevant 30-50 years ago "feel good" by today's standards. "Hey, we won titles in the 1950's, 1960's & 1970's so we're still relevant today".... As another poster said, I'd rather be part of the "New Blood". The "Blue Bloods" will say anything to make their program to look good in 2014. Hey, if that's what you got, I'm glad you like living in the past. I like living in the future. Ollie is "The Future". Ollie is one positive person. I love "good eggs".

 

[Matrim55]

Anyways, I think there are 10 programs ahead of the rest of the pack:

1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Connecticut
7. Louisville
8. Indiana
9. Michigan State
10. Florida

I think they are separated into 3 tiers:

Bluebloods: UK, UCLA, UNC, Duke, KU, Indiana
Top Elite: UConn, Louisville
Elite: MSU, Florida

UConn and Ville are better than Indiana and are gaining quick on Kansas, but I just like to think of those schools being the only bluebloods out of respect to their history.

Let's be honest, UConn if makes the final four in 06 in addition to having some random championship in the dinosaur days (looking at you, Oregon - 1939) the UConn is a blueblood.

I agree with this, though I think you could argue for Louisville being ahead of us - they have 2x the number of Final Fours, after all.

And yes, Final Four trips matter. I don't know why some here are pretending they don't.

 

[tzznandrew]

One more title, and only putting UCLA, UNC and Kentucky ahead of UConn would be an argument worth listening to. Just win baby.

One more title puts only UCLA and UK ahead of us. UNC has 5. Unless you want to count Helms titles, in which case you have to put Kansas ahead of us (2 Helms), give Kentucky 9 titles (1 Helms), and suddenly, Wisconsin (2 Helms + 1941 NCAA), Syracuse (2 Helms + 2003 NCAA), Chicago (3 Helms), and Columbia (3 Helms) are breathing down our neck...

 

[tzznandrew]

I agree with this, though I think you could argue for Louisville being ahead of us - they have 2x the number of Final Fours, after all.

And yes, Final Four trips matter. I don't know why some here are pretending they don't.

Titles matter most. Final Fours matter next--and you are right, they do matter. National title appearances? Eh. I lump those in with Final Fours.

I think when you are within one title of one another, and the differential between Final Fours is that stark, a case can be made.

That said, I'd rather have 4 titles and half the Final Fours than the other way around...and so that should be something we account for.

 

[jleves]

Titles matter most. Final Fours matter next--and you are right, they do matter. National title appearances? Eh. I lump those in with Final Fours.

I think when you are within one title of one another, and the differential between Final Fours is that stark, a case can be made.

That said, I'd rather have 4 titles and half the Final Fours than the other way around...and so that should be something we account for.

To put this another way - what would you rather have: 4 titles and 4 or 0 titles and 20 ? It's akin to would you rather win the NCAA Championship or start the season 25-0?

 

[PcketknfNiels]

To put this another way - what would you rather have: 4 titles and 4 or 0 titles and 20 ? It's akin to would you rather win the NCAA Championship or start the season 25-0?

Seriously this. How many people here were happy in 09 losing in the final 4? Getting that close to the title and losing is brutal.

 

[Brochacho]

What about Dukes history significantly separates them from the "elites" and puts them among your "blue bloods"? When I was a kid in the 80's they were an up and comer and not historically important as the others you mentioned.

You are correct in your thought process, Duke really is the bridge program between bluebloods and elites. When thinking about the top programs its all about NCs and . Overall, I think you need 4 decades of being in championship contention (ie NC/FF) to be a blueblood. We are at 3. Here is why I consider Duke a BB:
-6 consecutive decades playing for a NC
- Played for 10 titles, won 4
- 15 final fours, including 5 straight and 7 of 9