Yeah, tough to figure out what to do with that. Generally the blueblood category has been reserved for teams with sustained success over their entire history.
If Kansas and Duke are bluebloods then so is UConn.
Correct. But Duke had a long history of success before they won their first title in 1991.
I get that. It definitely makes it muddy. It's the same reason I hesitate to call IU or to a lesser extent UCLA bluebloods. Both have had sustained periods of mediocrity.
naw, I don't agree with that. Robinson was the first great player they had and was active during the prime of the Big East conference. He's the player who put that school on the map and paved the way for Calhoun to start landing other great players.
Eugene Banks and Mike Gminski were the first big-time Duke players I remember watching.
Maybe something more catchy., like "New Money". kidding.
Well here we are at the Sweet 16. Let’s see if Vols Fan’s opinion is spot on or not.
Every one of the remaining 16 is very beatable. It is going to be brutal from a betting standpoint.
RJ nearly pull off the win on his own against UK. For a moment, I thought he was going to.
Are you going to change your name if UConn wins it this year? You can't be rocking a five natty's name when they have 6.
"Five Nattys' should be a handle for an IU grad. More sustainable.
Fair enough. Most blue blood fans are older than Johnny come lately.
not being a homer, but stats wise, I'd go back to UK 96-97 Title team and well Arizona loss.
I was thinking maybe UNLV, but just looked. They had some surprisingly close games the year they won it. a 2pt win over #12 seed Ball State in the S16 stands out like a sore thumb. Without looking, was that Bonzi Wells?
