5 titles with 3 different head coaches, with 4 in this century. Theres something about this team, maybe I'd call it championship DNA.
At this point, you cant deny that UConn is blue blood already
- Thread starter thebasketballreasons
- Start date
Why does Kansas try so hard to be a Blue Blood? Lol
They really want to be apart of the group. Bad.
They really want to be apart of the group. Bad.
Wee man, what are you doing in a thread about bluebloods?
On one hand, they are a middle of the road program. On the other they have top of the hill championship pedigree.
Fvck them either way.
Fvck them either way.
Men's and women's basketball... when you mention UConn I think national champions.
They’re obviously one of the best programs of the modern era, but historically they fall short in everything but titles.
lol… middle of the road program with more titles than anyone else by 2 over the last 25 years. just stupid.
so uconn falls short in everything except for what matters most…. got it…. lol
It’s an important one, but you have to check a few more boxes too. Do you think that San Francisco is a better basketball program than Syracuse and Arizona?
an important one ?? lol…. it’s really all that matters. and in my biased opinion yes i absolutely think san francisco has a better program than syracuse
Last edited:
Sort of...
25th in all time wins----Meh
4th in titles(5)---tied with IU/Duke
6th in FF's(6)
9th all time tourney wins(65)
10 in NCAAT appearances(37)
Three coaches who have titles. UNC/KU also has three. Only UK has more with 5.
Pretty impressive resume... I mean Top 10 in 4 major categories..
If they have six FFs, I’m pretty sure that ties them for 10th with like ten other programs.
But anyway…sure, when you list it like that, it looks pretty good. But when you say they have one third as many FFs as the average BB, it doesn’t sound so impressive.
There’s a big drop-off in most of these categories after the top 5. So being top 10 doesn’t necessarily mean they’re close.
5 titles
6 FF's
36 NCAAT
65 NCAAT wins..
Three coaches with titles.
Impressive. Minus UCLA, Duke, UNC, UK, KU and IU, no one has a better tournament resume.
Coach K, the master of April, approved UConn’s blue blood status:
amp.foxsports.com
Is UConn a 'Blue Blood' program? Coach K thinks so | Fox Sports
Should UConn be considered among the "blue bloods" of men's college basketball? Mike Krzyzewski made a case for the Huskies in a recent interview.
UK
UNC
UCLA
Duke
KU
That's the indisputable top 5 to me (can argue about the order).
Indiana
Uconn
Probably next 2 programs? If you value modern success over historical Uconn is clearly above IU.
UNC
UCLA
Duke
KU
That's the indisputable top 5 to me (can argue about the order).
Indiana
Uconn
Probably next 2 programs? If you value modern success over historical Uconn is clearly above IU.
I'm not here to argue whether they should or shouldn’t be. To me it boils down to the passion of the fan base as well. Intangibles matter. Are their fans ever present talking about basketball, both on and off-season, or is it more of a surfacing of fans when they have a good year? Is basketball a rich part of the state’s tradition? Do their fans identify deeply with the program, obsess about the recruiting year-in and out? It’s how some explain the difference between new money vs. old money.
Just food for thought . . .
Just food for thought . . .
Yes to all of the above questions. Hoops is huge in CT.
Kansas fans are triggered beyond belief, lol
Congrats on your title run, very impressive to say the least. Let's hope you guys stay consistent on the court so you and your homies will post here on a regular basis.
People who call it like it is tend to get that.
You can call them one of the top teams of the modern era, maybe even best team of the last 20+ years, but you can't put them above any of the bluebloods in all-time ranking.
UConn had like two tourney wins in the first 75 years of their existence. Missed the tourney 20 times in 22 years from the late 60s to late 80s. One tourney win in the last decade before this year. Losing record in 25% of their seasons.
Does that read like blueblood material to you?
This still has me chuckling. jumpingsmile
Man if you want to be this picky, then only UK is bonafide blue blood. It’s easy to make an argument against everyone else who has been considered blue blood:
UCLA: no sustained success in 21st century.
KU: only 4 titles, chokes in march madness routinely.
Duke: only won titles under one head coach.
UNC: 2(2005,2009) out of their 6 titles may be vacated.
At some point you just have to accept that they have done enough and are worthy of blue blood introduction. 25 years is enough long period of time already, it’s not like they won 5 in 10 years and then became completely irrelevant. And apparently titles since the tourneys expanded to 64-68 teams matter much more than the old days before 1985.
But of course, if a team has to wear blue to be considered blue blood, then forget all I have said.
Man if you want to be this picky, then only UK is bonafide blue blood. It’s easy to make an argument against everyone else who has been considered blue blood:
UCLA: no sustained success in 21st century.
KU: only 4 titles, chokes in march madness routinely.
Duke: only won titles under one head coach.
UNC: 2(2005,2009) out of their 6 titles may be vacated.
At some point you just have to accept that they have done enough and are worthy of blue blood introduction. 25 years is enough long period of time already, it’s not like they won 5 in 10 years and then became completely irrelevant. And apparently titles since the tourneys expanded to 64-68 teams matter much more than the old days before 1985.
But of course, if a team has to wear blue to be considered blue blood, then forget all I have said.
Nitpicking? 🤣
What you just did is nitpicking (at its worst). Pointing out that they've had a losing record in a quarter of their seasons, and long stretches of not being competitive, isn't nitpicking.
25 years is enough time to crown them one of, if not the best program during that period. And even before this title, they were firmly in the all time top 10. That doesn't mean they've forced their way into the blueblood club. Historically, there's a pretty big gap between the bluebloods and the rest of the top 10. Last night didn't just erase that.
Like you just said, sustained success is a big part of it. And having a great 15 year stretch, then disappearing for a decade before winning another title is pretty much the opposite of sustained success. How many times did you even hear the word UConn over the past decade until a few weeks ago?
Well I was nitpicking as much as you are nitpicking, let’s try not to be double standard shall we? Unless you really are just jealous and sour.
90% of analysts would agree with me. Maybe they're all haters?
Please point out the double standard. Here's an actual double standard: knocking UCLA for not having sustained success in the modern era, while forgiving the fact that UConn's never had sustained success.
Even in this 25 year period, they've missed the tourney about 40% of the time and failed to get past the 1st round in half the seasons. And before this period, they were a nobody. So...where's the sustained success? They've basically been an average to below average team every year but a handful in this run.
If UConn had done anything at all in the 8 seasons before this, I'd probably be right there with you. Can we let them put together a little sustained success with a coach not named Calhoun before anointing them one of the top 5-6 all time?
Weird I’ve seen more analysts agreeing that UConn is blue blood, or at least makes a very strong case. I wonder where your ‘90% of analysts’ come from, you are also the only one so adamant they ain’t blue blood in this thread, no one seems to agree with you. Maybe the ‘90%’ is just yourself after all, of course if you ignore any opinions but your own, then perhaps 100% of ‘analysts’ all agree with you.
Last edited:
You have to win on a consistent basis to be a blueblood. UConn hasn't doesn't that. How many times have they finished below 500/ missed the tourney in between their recent titles? You can't suck for 8-10 years, then got hot and win a title. You can't repeat that scenario and be considered great but they do have 5 titles.
The gatekeeping in here is hilarious. I'm sure UCONN and their 5 titles are super concerned anyway.
So if you don't automatically answer "yes" every time somebody asks "is so and so a blueblood," then you're gatekeeping? All righty.
Which analysts? You mentioned K. Of course, in the moment and in front of a camera, he's going to kiss another program's ass. Whether he believes it or not.
And the only person who's agreed with you in this thread is a UConn fan. Imagine that. 😆
Exactly. Kansas has a turd in their pocket. They were counting HELMS titles just a couple years ago so they could try and act Blue Blood, lol
They want to belong SO bad
Nope. But, they have the best resume of anyone that could be added to that list. And you are cherry picking reasons they can't be considered. 5 titles in 25 years with 3 different coaches shows sustained excellence.
Weird I have seen UK, UCLA, MSU, Iowa fans besides UConn fans agreeing with me, a few seem undecided, while there’s only one UNC fan who appeared to take your side. 90% of analysts? More like 10% if you ask me, and I wonder why you sound so sour and insecure.
I am a Kentucky fan and your points are well made.
5 titles in a short length of time under 3 coaches seems to indicate that they are up there with Duke (only one coach with a title) and UNC in the number of titles. Plus if you time line it, then they are with Duke as the greatest in the shortest length of time.
So you're saying you don't have to win on a consistent basis to be a blueblood?
