UConn is a Blue Blood | Page 3 | The Boneyard

UConn is a Blue Blood

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sky ball said:
UConn is in it's own category. There's UConn then all the Blue Bloods. Both Men and Women.
Expand ...

^ that.

And this...

Screenshot_20230326-080653.png
 
UConn990411 said:
They have 11 national titles and 19 final fours, including four in the last two decades.

If they don’t fit your definition of a blue blood, then you need a new definition.
Expand ...

The Tournament was so different for much of UCLA's run that it is hard to compare what they did with anything in the last 50 years or so. Still impressive, but not nearly as hard as winning a championship in the last 40 years when the field expanded to 64+ teams.
 
Some people have ridiculous standards.

A lot of people claim since we weren't winning titles 500 years ago and don't have 20 final fours we don't belong in the category.

I don't care if people consider us "new blood", "Blue blood", or whatever else... I could care less what people think of our program. We're in Final Four #6, making a push for title #5. Let the haters hate. We're tied for the 6th most titles all time. If we get 5 we'll be tied for 4th most titles all time with Duke and Indiana.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
The Tournament was so different for much of UCLA's run that it is hard to compare what they did with anything in the last 50 years or so. Still impressive, but not nearly as hard as winning a championship in the last 40 years when the field expanded to 64+ teams.
Expand ...
People forget this. In the early and mid 60s, not only did major conference champions start in the round of 16, but (i) only conference champions participated and (ii) the placement was actually by region. To get to the Final Four, UCLA’s path in many years might be Idaho State and Long Beach State. What they did was an unreal achievement, and they absolutely were the unchallenged best team in most years they won, but it’s not at all comparable to winning national championships today
 
ninety-nine said:
I can't tell for sure which people are playing along with the, uh, "troll," and which people are actually being trolled. It'd be weirder if no one was legit being trolled, but y'all were going through this exercise anyway, like some sort of ritual prayer. Or maybe you're just trying to lure fans of other teams into joining the "debate." I was going to say that board dynamics were a lot simpler back in the 1990's, but thinking about it, that might not be true either. I think it was always this way, just with UMass fans added to the mix.
Expand ...
Board didn't really exist until 96 or 97. Hell, internet didn't exist in 1990
 
businesslawyer said:
People forget this. In the early and mid 60s, not only did major conference champions start in the round of 16, but (i) only conference champions participated and (ii) the placement was actually by region. To get to the Final Four, UCLA’s path in many years might be Idaho State and Long Beach State. What they did was an unreal achievement, and they absolutely were the unchallenged best team in most years they won, but it’s not at all comparable to winning national championships today
Expand ...

There were very few at-large teams in the NCAA Tournament in the 60's, and some of those teams would turn down the NCAA Tournament to play in the NIT because they wanted to go to New York City. Marquette turned down the NCAA Tournament in 1970, which actually caused a change in the rules requiring teams to go to the NCAA Tournament if they were invited. Marquette got to play Maravich's LSU team in MSG, so they probably made the right decision that year.
 
HuskyBaggins said:
Board didn't really exist until 96 or 97. Hell, internet didn't exist in 1990
Expand ...
Yep, I joined in probably the fall of 1997 some months after I got my first home PC. I wasn't sure how old the board was at that point, but figured it couldn't have been around much before 1995. The World Wide Web and web browsing weren't around until the early 1990s (1993 or 1994, I think), so message boards like this one didn't pop up until folks started adopting that technology, but the internet itself is about 20 years older than that. Not that I used anything other than my friend's dial-up BBS in the '80s.

It's amazing to me how much things have changed for UConn sports since those early days of the Boneyard. I feel so relaxed about the program now, seeing how far we've come.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
I think that with NIL and the Transfer Portal, the era of the Blue Blood program is probably ending. Talent will be spread out, and there are a lot more FAU's and SDSU's or Creighton's making the Final 8 and Final 4 in the future.
Expand ...
Agree. Look at Kentucky, Duke & UNC in particular. One and done is not working.
 
.-.
ElGreco said:
Agree. Look at Kentucky, Duke & UNC in particular. One and done is not working.
Expand ...

I think this is partially the reason for so many coaching retirements recently, or coaches like Boeheim no longer being able to compete. Calipari and Pearl are spiraling. The top teams can no longer stockpile talent, and players do not have to put up with lousy coaching. Furthermore, the cheater programs (Kentucky, Auburn for example) no longer have an advantage because everyone can pay their players.

I started a thread on the football board on this topic. I think the programs that will be successful going forward will be urban or close to cities. Legacy will matter a little, but nothing like it did before. Selling high school recruits will be less important than evaluating and selling transfers. Keeping the bench happy will be very important. One coach that could struggle in this world is Geno. He would play just 5 players if it was possible. That approach won't work going forward.
 
Blue Bloods: UK, UNC, Duke, KU
Light-Blue Bloods: UCLA, IU, UConn, Nova

A fifth chip would move us past KU again and tie us with Duke, but those programs lap us in games won, conference chips, tourney appearances, and final fours. I think we need 6 chips for indisputable tier 1 blue blood status.
 
bendm said:
Blue Bloods: UK, UNC, Duke, KU
Light-Blue Bloods: UCLA, IU, UConn, Nova

A fifth chip would move us past KU again and tie us with Duke, but those programs lap us in games won, conference chips, tourney appearances, and final fours. I think we need 6 chips for indisputable tier 1 blue blood status.
Expand ...

I think Calipari sucks so bad as a coach that he has actually un-blue blooded Kentucky. Now Kentucky needs two more championships to re-establish their blue blood credentials.
 
That Guy said:
From the Kentucky board lol

View attachment 85957
Expand ...
Definition of a blue blood? Here is one. When the face of red blooded fans turns blue when discussing UConn winning another championship. Blue blood is so last century. We are not blue blood. But we are nasty good and we can steam roll red blooded, green "with envy" blooded, or "blue blooded" teams, when March and April come around.
 
.-.
Friarsnoop said:
I've always thought this is the stupidest argument you guys have on this board. Whether you win it this year or not, the blue bloods will never consider you one of them. Just enjoy the journey and the championships.
Expand ...
Exactly, it’s a silly label created by certain fan bases to stroke their own egos. Nobody agrees on the criteria, especially when historically great programs like UCLA and Indiana are left out by large portions of CBB fans. Winning title number 5 would make them more jealous than a stupid label anyways.
 
UConn990411 said:
They have 11 national titles and 19 final fours, including four in the last two decades.

If they don’t fit your definition of a blue blood, then you need a new definition.
Expand ...
Until I saw only 19 Final Fours, I was going to say that this comment was more appropriate for the WBB Board.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,178
Messages
4,555,875
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom