Should UCONN be considered a blue blood? SI.com

[dogpause]

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

All that really matter is how many National Championships you've won, every other stat is for losers. Give Duke their due for that alone, but we're up there too.

 

[CAHUSKY]

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

In fairness to Duke, that is pretty amazing. It also points out how incredible it is that we achieved 4 titles in just 5 tries. Our efficiency once we get there is astonishing.

 

[Brochacho]

In fairness to Duke, that is pretty amazing. It also points out how incredible it is that we achieved 4 titles in just 5 tries. Our efficiency once we get there is astonishing.

It is amazing. Winning 4 titles in 4 NC appearances is crazy. A 6% chance, actually. Statistically speaking, UConn is pretty lucky.

 

[Hoophound]

Florida caught lightning in a bottle in that their back to back title group stayed together. That only happened because there was a rare coincidence there where the top players all had families with some or a lot of money.

 

[mauconnfan]

National Flag BLUE Blood to be more precise!!!

 

[Robertelamin]

Florida caught lightning in a bottle in that their back to back title group stayed together. That only happened because there was a rare coincidence there where the top players all had families with some or a lot of money.

It doesn't take anything away from the titles though.

 

[Hoophound]

In a way it does. It was a very rare and "lucky" occurrence that the players came from money. If having to win titles with multiple coaches is a blue blood qualifier then winning championships with different teams is also. On top of that, Donovan was the coach both times.

 

[Hoophound]

And yes, I know, it is still impressive. Just sayin.

 

[Brochacho]

All that really matter is how many National Championships you've won, every other stat is for losers. Give Duke their due for that alone, but we're up there too.

So in 2010, San Fransisco was equivalent to our program yes?

 

[intlzncster]

Exactly, now imagine that happening as many times as kansas, dook, etc have done it.

Granted I was too young to remember anything before about 97-98, but the only losses in that time that even come close to sucking that bad are the Mason and 6ot games

Not a knock at all, but the most gut wrenching losses happened in the 90s imo. Losses really sting when you haven't been to the promised land before....and you get your heart ripped out. In 2006, we still had 1999 and 2004.

Absolutely 2006 sucked too, but at the same time, UCONN was playing like garbage in that tournament for some reason.

6OT I didn't care too much about because it was a sick game, and it's one of those things where a bounce or 2 decides the outcome, less so than the players.

2009 sucked, but it wasn't completely unexpected it without Dyson. Hate losing in the FF, but am proud they got there.

 

[intlzncster]

Florida got a gift in 06 with George Mason. That should have been our tournament… our 3rd most talented team to not make it. We would have crushed them in the final 4 and UCLA in the final. Same goes for our loss to Florida in 1994. 2nd most talented team that didn't make it. Our most talented team to underachieving by far was 2012. A case can be made that all 3 of those years we had the most talented teams.

I don't get this sentiment. 2012 was at best a sweet sixteen team. They were a bunch of (non one and done) freshman and sophomores and 1 malcontent Jr. The leader (Bazz) was a soph who wasn't ready as a player nor as a leader.

I think 2012 is mismatch of expectations and developed talent.

 

[intlzncster]

It is amazing. Winning 4 titles in 4 NC appearances is crazy. A 6% chance, actually. Statistically speaking, UConn is pretty lucky.

And that is with everything else being equal, which we know in basketball/sports is not the case.

 

[intlzncster]

Florida caught lightning in a bottle in that their back to back title group stayed together. That only happened because there was a rare coincidence there where the top players all had families with some or a lot of money.

I don't think you can take that away from them though. I know that if it happened at UCONN, we wouldn't discount it one iota. That's part of being a good program: players developing chemistry,wanting to fight for championships, and wanting to play for their coach.

You could say we caught lightning in a bottle too, in a different fashion.

Florida is definitely NOT on UCONN's level, but you have to give Donovan a lot of credit. Florida is most definitely a football school, in football country, and Donovan has built a year in year out contender down there. He's made people care about the basketball team. He's 35–12 in the NCAAs and won his first title within 10 years of starting at Florida.

IMO BD is one of the best coaches in America.

 

[Brochacho]

And that is with everything else being equal, which we know in basketball/sports is not the case.

Yes. But to come out of 4 essentially 50-50 games with 4 wins is impressive no matter what.

 

[intlzncster]

Yes. But to come out of 4 essentially 50-50 games with 4 wins is impressive no matter what.

Without question, I was just adding to the point, saying that it was even more impressive given variability.

 

[Obrero]

I'm too lazy to read all of the posts on this thread, but, my first thought is this:

I hate the question. Why should we care about "bluebloods", or feel like we have to bang on the door to be allowed into that club? That's an old, irrelevant category that means very little in today's college basketball scene. (Much like UCLA under John Wooden, great achievements that belong to another era.) We're making history now, creating a new club. Like Jay Bilas said, those other programs should be asking whether they belong in Uconn's category!

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Not a knock at all, but the most gut wrenching losses happened in the 90s imo. Losses really sting when you haven't been to the promised land before....and you get your heart ripped out. In 2006, we still had 1999 and 2004.

Absolutely 2006 sucked too, but at the same time, UCONN was playing like garbage in that tournament for some reason.

6OT I didn't care too much about because it was a sick game, and it's one of those things where a bounce or 2 decides the outcome, less so than the players.

2009 sucked, but it wasn't completely unexpected it without Dyson. Hate losing in the FF, but am proud they got there.

As a Sox fan that experienced 03, I get where you're coming from. Hence my qualifying by saying the games I'm old enough to remember.

The 06 team was loaded regardless of how they played, imo the best uconn team not to win a title.

The 09 team certainly wasn't nearly as explosive without Dyson but when besides 04 have we been the favorites in the final 4?

 

[intlzncster]

As a Sox fan that experienced 03, I get where you're coming from. Hence my qualifying by saying the games I'm old enough to remember.

The 06 team was loaded regardless of how they played, imo the best uconn team not to win a title.

The 09 team certainly wasn't nearly as explosive without Dyson but when besides 04 have we been the favorites in the final 4?

Ha, that's a good point.

 

[TheChamps990411]

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

This again?

 

[TheChamps990411]

One thing that kind of annoys me is everyone keeps bringing up "since 1999" as if we came out of nowhere that year and won a national title. So we`re "new blood" which is disregarding the fact that UCONN has been an elite program since 1990. We were a constant sweet 16 elite 8 team before we won it all in 99. Dukes a blue blood but they won their first title in 91` so were they a blue blood after that first title or even before that? Was it after their 4th? Is being blue blood measured by titles or sustained success?

UCONN IS A BLUE BLOOD whether anyone wants to admit it or not they are. They are the top program in mens basketball right now and its not close. You cant have a list of blue bloods and leave a team out that has as many titles as duke and more than kansas. I dont know what blue bloods means but we are a blue blood and 4 titles is all the proof you need.

Go look at national titles not just since 99 but since 1990

BLUE BLOODS
Ucla 1 title
UK 3 titles
UNC 3 titles
INDIANA 0 titles
DUKE 4 titles
KANSAS 1 title

UCONN 4 titles

 

[PcketknfNiels]

One thing that kind of annoys me is everyone keeps bringing up "since 1999" as if we came out of nowhere that year and won a national title. So we`re "new blood" which is disregarding the fact that UCONN has been an elite program since 1990. We were a constant sweet 16 elite 8 team before we won it all in 99. Dukes a blue blood but they won their first title in 91` so were they a blue blood after that first title or even before that? Was it after their 4th? Is being blue blood measured by titles or sustained success?

UCONN IS A BLUE BLOOD whether anyone wants to admit it or not they are. They are the top program in mens basketball right now and its not close. You cant have a list of blue bloods and leave a team out that has as many titles as duke and more than kansas. I dont know what blue bloods means but we are a blue blood and 4 titles is all the proof you need.

Go look at national titles not just since 99 but since 1990

BLUE BLOODS
Ucla 1 title
UK 3 titles
UNC 3 titles
INDIANA 0 titles
DUKE 4 titles
KANSAS 1 title

UCONN 4 titles

I don't think people realize that we're going on 25 years at this level of success. That's long enough to merit blueblood inclusion.

 

[jibsey]

Let the teams with only 1 or 2 titles argue bout whether they are blue bloods.

 

[NHUConnfan]

I don't think you can take that away from them though. I know that if it happened at UCONN, we wouldn't discount it one iota. That's part of being a good program: players developing chemistry,wanting to fight for championships, and wanting to play for their coach.

You could say we caught lightning in a bottle too, in a different fashion.

Florida is definitely NOT on UCONN's level, but you have to give Donovan a lot of credit. Florida is most definitely a football school, in football country, and Donovan has built a year in year out contender down there. He's made people care about the basketball team. He's 35–12 in the NCAAs and won his first title within 10 years of starting at Florida.

IMO BD is one of the best coaches in America.

Yeah, BD is a great coach. Still doesn't mean that they deserve to be in the conversation for top programs of all time (and you're seeing that more frequently now). That was my point of the post. Cincinnati has a much better claim in that, but everyone would think I'm nuts by suggesting that. It just shows you how overrated the Florida program is today.

 

[NHUConnfan]

I should point out that Florida has produced a ton of NBA players. In fact, they have the most in the playoffs currently. It's a good program. But in terms of success and top programs of all-time, they're not in the top 10. Probably not even in the top 15. Alright, enough bashing Florida from me.

 

[Huskybass]

I would rather say that UConn is an elite program. UCLA and Indiana are no longer elite programs. No other program has matched UConn's success over the past 5,10, or 15 years. Duke also has 4 titles since 1990, but we have bitch slapped them pretty good under the bright lights.

 

[Palatine]

UConn is the best, the premiere, the top basketball program of the 21st century. Bleed any color you want. UConn is the best of this era.

 

[JaYnYcE]

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.

thats's one less Final Four than us tho. they have a longer history than us.

 

[NHUConnfan]

I would rather say that UConn is an elite program. UCLA and Indiana are no longer elite programs. No other program has matched UConn's success over the past 5,10, or 15 years. Duke also has 4 titles since 1990, but we have bitch slapped them pretty good under the bright lights.

We've definitely have had more luck finishing than Duke has during the same time...though I would imagine that any Husky fan would be pretty stoked if we had their success during the same time too. Without a question, UConn is an elite program today. Very few schools can say that. I think that Duke...unfortunately...is still in that category

 

[freescooter]

Seems to me that when you are one of the elite programs, you really need to step back before you're no longer elite. Programs like Indiana, UCLA they do just enough to stay in the conversation, so they are still considered among the elite. To be a blue blood, though, you need to go back to the early days of the game and be elite there. Frankly I'm not sure Duke qualifies, but teams like North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, they all do. As long as they continue to play the sport at this level, they'll be blue bloods. But they may not be elites any more. Duke and UConn I put in the same category as elite programs. Louisville too probably. But none of us have the deep history of success. But if I had a choice, I'd take UConn's elite status over UCLA or Indiana's blue blood status.

 

[IMind]

thats's one less Final Four than us tho. they have a longer history than us.

I don't think our fans don't give enough credit to UConn as a historical program. We have more NCAA appearances prior to 1980 than Duke does. UConn has 13, Duke has 8.

I'm not saying we're a better program than Duke... actually our history matches Duke very closely. We've both been good in the same eras (1950s-1960s)... almost exactly. Our down periods coincide very closely as well.