@dukedevilz I really appreciate your contributions to threads like this. Your spreadsheet is super.
At this point, you cant deny that UConn is blue blood already
- Thread starter thebasketballreasons
- Start date
Those are separate discussions - all-time versus modern era. An all-time ranking can't just discount everything that happened prior to 1985.
FWIW, the Pacific Coast/Pac 8 teams won 3 titles, in addition to the UCLA titles pre-1985, whereas the ACC only won 2 titles outside of UNC pre-1985 (NCSU in 74 & 83).
I've created two separate tables to analyze the all-time and modern era. Haven't update it yet, but UConn will gain 83 points after this season. They'll be within 36 points of Kentucky for 5th place in the modern era.
You obviously can't discount what UCLA did in the past (or the fact that their overall numbers compare well to any), but I think there are plenty of valid opinions about this. So many changes in the game/tourney format, etc.
You can’t tell me that a title from the 40s-70s is equal to winning it today. Especially those from the period in which the NIT was the more prestigious event.
Yep. And those UCLA teams never had to win 6 games to win a title.
All titles are equal, doesn't matter when they were won. With all the changes over the years with the tourney and the game you can't act like those titles aren't worth anything.
Back in the day those were the rules so to say now those titles aren't valued now is wrong. Stats from the from the 40-70's should be valued just as much as when the modern era started, whatever year that was.
It's not a perfect science. I have included NIT points on there from 1939-1956. Though, if you look at the rankings/records and compare NIT/NCAA Tournaments, I'd actually argue the NCAA Tournaments in those first few years were generally more competitive.
Also, an NCAA Champion today would receive more points than in the 1970s because UCLA wasn't winning R64/R32 games - and they also weren't competing in a conference tournament. I didn't start tracking points from conference tournaments until 2002 because that's the first year that all the power leagues held a tourney.
UCLA has dropped quite a bit since Wooden left. They're #12 in my modern day rankings, which is how I think most people view them, essentially a borderline top 10 program. 12th ain't bad - but, certainly there's a lot more weight on the resume when you throw in an additional 14 Final Fours and 10 National Championships.
So if a bunch of the top teams opted to play in a different tourney this year, and only conference winners were allowed into the NCAA field, and the field was dropped to 8 teams (3 games to win it all), you'd say that title was equal to UNC's last tourney title?
Yeah, if that was the format at that time. There weren't a lot of schools playing basketball back then so you can't incorporate "modern rules" to judge all time status to how the game is played now.
I'm just not down for anyone trying to cheapen titles won 50-60 years ago to make their argument. Had any other school other than UK won those titles back then you'll be claiming them too
KU does have a title from that period, and I don't give it the same weight as I do the last three.
There's a reason that UCLA and Kentucky haven't continued to pile up titles in the modern era, despite having boatloads of talent. It's 10x harder now.
UConn = blue blood. End of discussion. Let's move on.
The opposite to that is if it was so much easier in the 40s to the 70s, why doesn't KU have more titles??
It is interesting that UConn's last two championships have been two of the least viewed games in NCAA tournament championship game history. If UConn is the marquee name in the game, they are not a big draw, at all.
However, I would still include them as a blueblood.
However, I would still include them as a blueblood.
Also, I wouldn't diminish the value of KUs 1952 title team. The NCAA field was 16 teams, NIT was only 12.
Also, teams in the NCAA field were stronger then the NIT field that yr, plus an additional game had to be won.
UCONNs been a blue blood in my eyes for a while now.
UCLA played under the same rules as all the other NCAA, so why does that lessen the achievements of UCLA?
I was told by a good source the only thing keeping UConn from the blue blood list is Stors. 🤪
We were comparing how difficult it is to win a title then to how difficult it is to win a title today. The achievement is still great...just an easier path at the time.
Might have something to do with the stupidity that the games aren't on a network anymore. They moved away from CBS in 2022.
Could be wrong, but pretty sure the 2023 final four and championship was on CBS, and the UConn SDSU game had really poor ratings.
It's not ideal but the games were both over early and against two no name opponents that aren't draws at all. And it was on TBS which is stupid but has to be adjusted for.
For context, the 1999 UConn vs. Duke title game drew 26.3 million which was the highest over the last 25 years save for 2015 (Duke vs Wisconsin) and outdrew 2001 (Duke vs AZ by 2.3 million), 2003 (Cuse vs Kansas by 7.7 million), 2005 (UNC vs Illinois), 2012 (UK vs KU by 5.4 million) and 2022 (KU vs UNC by 9.2 million). Heck - UConn vs UK in 2014 outdrew UK vs KU in 2011.
UConn is a major draw -- especially in NYC and Boston -- two of the largest TV markets.
NCAA Men's Final Four Ratings Hub
A historical chart of NCAA Final Four ratings, including national championship games dating back to 1975 and national semifinals dating back to 1997.
www.sportsmediawatch.com
The Women's Final and the Duke-NC State Elite 8 game was more viewed than the UConn-Purdue national championship which is crazy!
I would counter by saying if UConn was such a big draw, viewership numbers from the past two championships would not have been record lows (and 2023 champ game was on CBS).
Over the past 10 yrs, live sporting events have seen an increase in competition when it comes to viewership due to all the streaming apps and overabundance of shows.
UConn does not move the needle enough by itself to compensate for all these alternative viewing options. The ratings bear that out.
I’m guessing people were just getting tired of watching the Huskies dominate the rest of college basketball.
My bad. That's weird that they flipped it.NCAA Men's Final Four Ratings Hub
A historical chart of NCAA Final Four ratings, including national championship games dating back to 1975 and national semifinals dating back to 1997.
Stop being purposely dense, ok Don Lemon?
By your logic, we can conclude that Texas Tech and UVA (2019), which outdrew Kansas vs UNC in 2022, are bigger draws than Kansas and UNC.
Sorry UConn doesn't move the needle. But those are the facts.
You can get as upset as you would like and take it personally, but UConn in the past two title games has had record low viewership. They are not nearly as important as you think.
To be fair, do think they care about viewership? They just hung two banners.
All of this. I dont care if I am the only person watching lol.
He clearly does care, or he wouldn't be getting so agitated about the facts from the past two championships games.
Of course it doesn't take away from the school's accomplishments, just thought it was noteworthy that the last two championship games have had the lowest recorded viewership, by a landslide. It is clear to me that UConn alone does not move the needle.
We all know when there's a blueblood playing for a title or in the FF the viewership is up.
This isn't a knock on UConn but they don't move the needle when it comes to excitement/anticipation unless they're going for a 3-4 peat. The numbers don't lie but I can imagine a lot more people are going to be watching them in the future.
This isn't a knock on UConn but they don't move the needle when it comes to excitement/anticipation unless they're going for a 3-4 peat. The numbers don't lie but I can imagine a lot more people are going to be watching them in the future.
What facts ? The one where by your logic UVA and Texas Tech are bigger draws than UK and KU? I'm not sure if you know what a fact is , but that's certainly not one.
And why would I be upset that you do not understand something so simple? That's not my problem -- it's yours. It'll be ok. Maybe just take a basic math course -- typically that can help in many different areas of life.
Apparently not as one just played for the title and you are seemingly unaware of this fact.
Again, UVA and Texas Tech in 2019 outdrew UK vs KU in 2022.
Also, UConn UK in 2014 outdrew Nova UNC in 2016...
2009 UNC vs Mich. State had the lowest total viewers of any title game between 2007 and 2018.
If UConn is in a FF and no other blueblood is there, the numbers are going to show that, check the last 2 years.
Check the numbers when UK, KU, UNC and duke are in the FF/title game, the numbers don't compare.
They watch to see those teams lose. They know when we get there is just about a lock its over. 😎
I hear you. Personally I wouldn't care if no one watched, as long as we got the win I'm good.
Last edited:
