The evolution of the blue bloods | The Boneyard

The evolution of the blue bloods

I was thinking about this the other day. ESPN has the Champions Classic every year as one-night event pitting Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, and Kentucky every year. Why not expand it to 8 with UCLA, UNC, Indiana, and UConn?
 
UNC & UCLA are already in their own annual event with Ohio State and Kentucky. Called the “CBSSports Classic”.

Always found it ironic that UConn has more championships than half the teams in the “Championship Classic”.
 
I say UConn isn’t a blue blood.

But, we should absolutely be in the Champions classic over Michigan State. The love that program - and Izzo - gets is beyond absurd.
 
Guapo said:
I say UConn isn’t a blue blood.

But, we should absolutely be in the Champions classic over Michigan State. The love that program - and Izzo - gets is beyond absurd.
Expand ...
Part of it I always believed was that we never have the consistency the other programs have.
 
Guapo said:
I say UConn isn’t a blue blood.

But, we should absolutely be in the Champions classic over Michigan State. The love that program - and Izzo - gets is beyond absurd.
Expand ...
Why not UConn...lack of history prior to the 90's? I think 1 more Title UConn joins no doubters.

Just UNC, Duke, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana in your opinion? Those 6 are absolute blue bloods , Indiana has been shaky lately but history keeps them at #6 ....followed UConn, Nova, Mich State, Louisville. Nobody else in conversation if not including UConn. Personally I think 3 Titles are the minimum to be considered.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Hi-Low said:
Why not UConn...lack of history prior to the 90's?

Just UNC, Duke, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas in your opinion? Those 5 are absolute blue bloods....followed by Indiana, UConn & Mich State in that order. Nobody else in conversation if not including UConn.
Expand ...
Blue Bloods are blue bloods, like it’s set in stone - you can’t change it.

UConn is a new blood, we’re new money and that’s fine enough for me
 
I actually don’t think Duke is a blue blood. The blue bloods are as follows:

UNC, Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, UCLA.

It’s not about winning so much as it is about being foundational to the history of the sport.
 
Guapo said:
I actually don’t think Duke is a blue blood. The blue bloods are as follows:

UNC, Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, UCLA.

It’s not about winning so much as it is about being foundational to the history of the sport.
Expand ...
I can see that...so I'll currently rank UConn as the #2 "New Blood" behind Puke at #1 with Nova, Mich State, Louisville all tied at #3.

The 4 UConn titles give us a leg up on the the rest of New Bloods besides the Pukies.
 
Last edited:
Friarsnoop said:
UConn will never be a blue blood. It's the same as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk will never be old money like the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers, but I'm sure they don't stay up nights worrying about it.
Expand ...
Exactly
 
.-.
Friarsnoop said:
UConn will never be a blue blood. It's the same as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk will never be old money like the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers, but I'm sure they don't stay up nights worrying about it.
Expand ...
Yet, Duke is snuck in, somehow. In my lifetime, they definitely were not considered a blue blood.

UConn’s Resume
  • 4 NCAA Titles (1999, 2004, 2011, 2014)
  • 5 Final Fours (1999, 2004, 2009, 2011, 2014)
  • 4 Big East/AAC Conference Tournament Titles Since 2000 (2002, 2004, 2011, 2016)
  • 4 Big East Regular Season Championships Since 2000 (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006)
  • 20 year average NCAA Tourney Seed = 7
Sounds pretty blue bloody to me, but I really don’t care about it that much. When another Natty and let everyone debate our status.
 
CL82 said:
Yet, Duke is snuck in, somehow. In my lifetime, they definitely were not considered a blue blood.

UConn’s Resume
  • 4 NCAA Titles (1999, 2004, 2011, 2014)
  • 5 Final Fours (1999, 2004, 2009, 2011, 2014)
  • 4 Big East/AAC Conference Tournament Titles Since 2000 (2002, 2004, 2011, 2016)
  • 4 Big East Regular Season Championships Since 2000 (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006)
  • 20 year average NCAA Tourney Seed = 7
Sounds pretty blue bloody to me, but I really don’t care about it that much. When another Natty and let everyone debate our status.
Expand ...
The only thing those other schools have over us is more Final Fours and regular season wins due to longevity of basketball tradition.

However, when you've won 4 national championships, I don't care for bragging about 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place finishes in a tournament. That's what loser programs hang their hats on. We hang championship banners, not runner up ones.

Also fun Duke fact, they have only won the ACC regular season ONCE since 2006. They haven't won it in over a decade. I feel like no one ever brings that up or counts it against them, but that is always counted against us.
 
aburks41 said:
I'd say we're a blue blood based on the following categories: Won championships in 3 different decades. Won championships with multiple coaches. You know who doesn't meet both of those criteria? Duke.
Expand ...
People knock down the UConn “Blue Blood” status because lack of history. Like you just mentioned, we have won National Championships in 3 different decades, and with multiple coaches. It is a stupid argument because if 1 out of the 4 Championships we have were won in the 70’s or 80’s, would that make us more of a “Blue Blood” in some peoples eyes???
 
Part of the reason Dave Gavitt created the Big East, besides the changing landscape of NCAA eligibility, was the lack of respect for basketball in the northeast. Providence, Syracuse, and Villanova had all been to the Final Four in the 70s, but weren't viewed the same as the blue bloods.

The Big East schools will never be voted as blue bloods. They'll just have to be satisfied being a better conference than the ACC (and most everyone else).
 
aburks41 said:
The only thing those other schools have over us is more Final Fours and regular season wins due to longevity of basketball tradition.

However, when you've won 4 national championships, I don't care for bragging about 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place finishes in a tournament. That's what loser programs hang their hats on. We hang championship banners, not runner up ones.

Also fun Duke fact, they have only won the ACC regular season ONCE since 2006. They haven't won it in over a decade. I feel like no one ever brings that up or counts it against them, but that is always counted against us.
Expand ...
Well, it's because they're down years are much much better than ours. They didn't win the regular season but are still a 1-3 seed every year. I get your point, but it's not apples to apples.
 
.-.
Friarsnoop said:
UConn will never be a blue blood. It's the same as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk will never be old money like the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers, but I'm sure they don't stay up nights worrying about it.
Expand ...
The Rockefellers and Vanderbilts were nouveau riche once themselves. Time changes things, but it's lots of time, not a single generation.
 
In my list UConn is a Blue Blood

If Blue Blood is a purely historical term to be used with teams that have historical value thats fine but people in the media don't use it in that context - they use it as a level of excellence. If it is level of excellence based on NCs (what other measurement is there?), UConn is unquestionably in the top 6.
Don't forget that even if historical context is used, UConn has quite a decent history in basketball.
 
Ts5034 said:
People knock down the UConn “Blue Blood” status because lack of history. Like you just mentioned, we have won National Championships in 3 different decades, and with multiple coaches. It is a stupid argument because if 1 out of the 4 Championships we have were won in the 70’s or 80’s, would that make us more of a “Blue Blood” in some peoples eyes???
Expand ...
It probably would, which is stupid. However, Duke's titles have all come since the 90's as well. But they had FF's in prior decades
tzznandrew said:
Well, it's because they're down years are much much better than ours. They didn't win the regular season but are still a 1-3 seed every year. I get your point, but it's not apples to apples.
Expand ...
Outside of the bad Ollie years, our down years weren't terrible. We made the tourney almost every year for a 25 year stretch starting in the 90's. It looks like we will be a mainstay in the tournament for a loooong time with Hurley. People will forget about the 2017-2019 stretch when we win our 5th title in the next few years.
 
This isn’t really a discussion (and it’s a pretty dumb meaningless one, to the extent that it is)

What we are is one of the most accomplished basketball programs.

What we’re not is a blue blood.

The term “blue blood” has an actual definition.

You can’t “become” a blue blood or stop being a a blue blood. It’s not how the term works.

But again, we are amongst the most accomplished programs ever. That’s all that matters. Bill Gates is richer than every Vanderbilt family member in history - probably combined. The Vanderbilts are blue bloods, Bill Gates is not. Bill Gates doesn’t care and neither should you.
 
Guapo said:
This isn’t really a discussion (and it’s a pretty dumb meaningless one, to the extent that it is)

What we are is one of the most accomplished basketball programs.

What we’re not is a blue blood.

The term “blue blood” has an actual definition.

You can’t “become” a blue blood or stop being a a blue blood. It’s not how the term works.

But again, we are amongst the most accomplished programs ever. That’s all that matters. Bill Gates is richer than every Vanderbilt family member in history - probably combined. The Vanderbilts are blue bloods, Bill Gates is not. Bill Gates doesn’t care and neither should you.
Expand ...
And we absolutely belong in the Champions Classic and not Michigan State
 
I like coming here before a road game and seeing all the positive things people have to say about the team/program. I’ll bet at like the 8-minute mark of the first half tonight there will be people in chat saying the sky is falling and claiming that Hurley “isn’t the man for the job.” :D Gotta love the ‘yard for endless snow day entertainment.

As for this thread, idk whether or not UConn should be considered a blue blood. I do know that NONE of the “true” blue bloods ever want to be matched up against the Huskies in March, and I’m cool with hanging my hat on that. We’re the Hungry Huskies…we don’t get invited to the party, we just crash in that b**ch and come home with a banner.
 
.-.
aburks41 said:
It probably would, which is stupid. However, Duke's titles have all come since the 90's as well. But they had FF's in prior decades

Outside of the bad Ollie years, our down years weren't terrible. We made the tourney almost every year for a 25 year stretch starting in the 90's. It looks like we will be a mainstay in the tournament for a loooong time with Hurley. People will forget about the 2017-2019 stretch when we win our 5th title in the next few years.
Expand ...
From 2010-2021 the team had 5 NCAA appearances total. Two of them were titles, amazingly, but there was 1 win combined in the other 3 coming out of 8/9 and 7/10 games. There were multiple sub-.500 seasons.

In that same stretch in Duke has 2 titles as well, and missed the tournament once. They had 3 other Elite 8s, and 2 S16s. They had 4 1-seeds, 4-seeds, a 3 and a 4.

When people don't talk about Duke not winning an ACC regular season title, is because it doesn't point toward any greater decline in the program. That's just not the case of UConn with regards to its relative lack of regular season conference titles.
 
I think if we win number 5, it’ll be unquestioned. But I also think the blue bloods are the programs no sane person makes an argument against, and you can reasonably make a case against us.
 
Guapo said:
I actually don’t think Duke is a blue blood. The blue bloods are as follows:

UNC, Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, UCLA.

It’s not about winning so much as it is about being foundational to the history of the sport.
Expand ...
That's the only reason to include Indiana on the list as a blue blood.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,632
Messages
4,586,974
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom