OT: College Basketball Blue Bloods
- Thread starter Riled Up
- Start date
I’ve yet to see a mock with him getting drafted. Surprised. Hell, Zach Edey is barely getting drafted.
Hawkins is near lottery, but I’ve seen him go mid 20s too.
However, they’ve just won a championship and might just want to see what’s next somewhere else
To be considered a blueblood it is. UCONN is a top tier program, but no blueblood. Compare their history with Ky, Duke, NC, UCLA, Kansas, and Indiana. They are close with Indiana, but not on the same plane as the others. As a matter of fact you can make the argument that Louisville has an all time better program than UCONN.
Collegs basketball didn't have 64 teams in the tournament til about 1985.
So how you performed since then matters.
Villanova was the first 64 teams tournament champ. .
So how you performed since then matters.
Villanova was the first 64 teams tournament champ. .
So you're saying in a 30 year span Connecticut completely missed the tournament 10 years? I'd call that a whole lot of mediocrity thrown in there for a so called blueblood by some on here.
They’ve had a tremendous amount of success in 30 years. More than anyone, in fact. You’re nitpicking at this point. I think getting to the final four 6x and winning 5 of those is incredible, considering most teams have never even made it to one
Makes them a top tier program the last 30 years doesn’t make them a blue blood program.
All that matters is championships
Which is why you think Yale and Princeton are 2 of the best CFB programs ever.
To be quite honest I don’t think they give a shit. They are the best program since 1999. I really don’t care either. It’s just a made-up opinion award anywho.
^^^This is the correct answer. I bet if you told UCONN we will give you two options, first you could make the tournament every year and win 4 titles in your entire 125 year existence, like Kansas. Or option two, you could make the tournament 2/3 of the time over thirty years, then make the Sweet Sixteen on 65% of those tournaments, make the Elite Eight 50% of those, the Final Four 30%, make it to the Title game 25% of those and win every Title you played for. UCONN wouldn’t change a thing, they don’t care if people consider them Blue bloods, they are just fine with the five trophies in their display cabinet.
If you want to compare NC fine 5-4, , but don’t throw the The sweet 16 elite 8 and Final 4 numbers if you are not going to include KUs final Jeopardy if asked 100 random fans on the street about what basketball program is better known , what’s the answer.
Compared to NC Kentucky, UCLA and Kansas for history in Basketball, take a hike Bluejay man.
They are a 2nd tier blueblood.
You have to be winning championships now not just years ago m
Especially when they played half the games to win a NC.
Bet you are 60s Celtics fan...lol
Tier 1 - Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA
Tier 2 - Villanova, Indiana, Michigan State, UConn
Tier 3 - Gonzaga, Syracuse, Arizona, Georgetown, Cincinnati, Louisville
Indiana has to earn their 2nd tier status.
They aren't a threat to win a NC. And haven't won since 1987.
So what.. 5 National Titles..
They’re definitely a blue blood, put them in any tier you desire ..
From Duke Basketball Report on this question:
There has been an argument this week about whether or not UConn is a so-called Blue Blood program.
It’s tricker than it looks.
First, how do you define Blue Blood? The term itself comes from the Spanish term Sangre Azul. Castilians used it to indicate they had no Moorish ancestry because they had blue veins.
How it came to basketball is a bit of a mystery but it has basically been applied to schools like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, UCLA and Kansas.
There are no rules here, but as far as one can tell, it’s a vague combination of all-time wins and national championships.
Here’s a quick look at the top programs in both categories
Some people have suggested Michigan State, but the Spartans have two national championships and are 23rd in total wins - just two spots ahead of UConn.
One thing that seems to be a common factor is that each Blue Blood program has a sort of founding father, a coach that lifted that program to iconic status. Kansas, where the game started, has Phog Allen, who was there for a total for decades. The program has been consistently excellent for a very long time and it has produced phenomenal coaches like Dean Smith and Adolph Rupp, who are the founding fathers at UNC and Kentucky.
A lot of people, including CBS’s Gary Parrish for one (he recently said something about how Duke wasn’t making Final Fours in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, which is really lazy and ignorant, since the Blue Devils made three in the ‘60’s under Vic Bubas and one in ‘78 under Bill Foster) think Duke only got good when Mike Krzyzewski arrived. Not true. However, he kicked the Blue Devils into a much higher gear.
At UCLA, obviously it’s John Wooden who won seven straight national championships and 10 total.
If longevity and national championships are the standard, where does that put UConn?
Prior to Jim Calhoun’s arrival in Storrs, UConn was a solid regional power. The Huskies had four Sweet Sixteen appearances pre-Calhoun, but they were somewhat handicapped by conference affiliation. The Yankee Conference and the ECAC were hardly basketball power conferences.
The Big East was a different story.
UConn was a founding member in 1979 and in 1986, the Huskies hired Jim Calhoun from Northeastern and he proved to be a superb coach. Calhoun’s teams played beautiful basketball.
Honestly though the whole Blue Bloods thing is just stupid. Maybe we could split the difference and have two categories. Number one would be historically great and could include faded powers like Temple, Louisville, NC State and St. John’s (St. John’s won’t be faded much longer with Rick Pitino in charge).
Then we could have the current elite, which should list the five above plus UConn, Gonzaga, Arizona and Baylor, to pick a few.
What is undeniable about UConn is that since Calhoun arrived, the Huskies have been consistently excellent. There was a bit of a dip at the end of the Kevin Ollie era, but Hurley has fixed that.
In other words, if UConn is not a Blue Blood by your definition, be patient. They’re not going anywhere.
There has been an argument this week about whether or not UConn is a so-called Blue Blood program.
It’s tricker than it looks.
First, how do you define Blue Blood? The term itself comes from the Spanish term Sangre Azul. Castilians used it to indicate they had no Moorish ancestry because they had blue veins.
How it came to basketball is a bit of a mystery but it has basically been applied to schools like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, UCLA and Kansas.
There are no rules here, but as far as one can tell, it’s a vague combination of all-time wins and national championships.
Here’s a quick look at the top programs in both categories
- Kansas 2,385/four championships
- Kentucky - 2,375/eight championships
- UNC - 2,343/six championships
- Duke 2,273/five championships
- UCLA 1,986/11 championships
Some people have suggested Michigan State, but the Spartans have two national championships and are 23rd in total wins - just two spots ahead of UConn.
One thing that seems to be a common factor is that each Blue Blood program has a sort of founding father, a coach that lifted that program to iconic status. Kansas, where the game started, has Phog Allen, who was there for a total for decades. The program has been consistently excellent for a very long time and it has produced phenomenal coaches like Dean Smith and Adolph Rupp, who are the founding fathers at UNC and Kentucky.
A lot of people, including CBS’s Gary Parrish for one (he recently said something about how Duke wasn’t making Final Fours in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, which is really lazy and ignorant, since the Blue Devils made three in the ‘60’s under Vic Bubas and one in ‘78 under Bill Foster) think Duke only got good when Mike Krzyzewski arrived. Not true. However, he kicked the Blue Devils into a much higher gear.
At UCLA, obviously it’s John Wooden who won seven straight national championships and 10 total.
If longevity and national championships are the standard, where does that put UConn?
Prior to Jim Calhoun’s arrival in Storrs, UConn was a solid regional power. The Huskies had four Sweet Sixteen appearances pre-Calhoun, but they were somewhat handicapped by conference affiliation. The Yankee Conference and the ECAC were hardly basketball power conferences.
The Big East was a different story.
UConn was a founding member in 1979 and in 1986, the Huskies hired Jim Calhoun from Northeastern and he proved to be a superb coach. Calhoun’s teams played beautiful basketball.
Honestly though the whole Blue Bloods thing is just stupid. Maybe we could split the difference and have two categories. Number one would be historically great and could include faded powers like Temple, Louisville, NC State and St. John’s (St. John’s won’t be faded much longer with Rick Pitino in charge).
Then we could have the current elite, which should list the five above plus UConn, Gonzaga, Arizona and Baylor, to pick a few.
What is undeniable about UConn is that since Calhoun arrived, the Huskies have been consistently excellent. There was a bit of a dip at the end of the Kevin Ollie era, but Hurley has fixed that.
In other words, if UConn is not a Blue Blood by your definition, be patient. They’re not going anywhere.
KU is absolutely Tier 1. Won more games than any other program in history...a coaching tree that includes Phog Allen, Adolph Rupp, Ralph Miller, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, Bill Self and some guy named Naismith.
To me the true bluebloods are KU, UK, NC, UCLA, Duke. Indiana may have been at one time but have fallen too far off. UConn is knocking on the door and not going away.
To me the true bluebloods are KU, UK, NC, UCLA, Duke. Indiana may have been at one time but have fallen too far off. UConn is knocking on the door and not going away.
I like to view it as winning a NC with more than 1 coach over the years
Different era's of basketball.
OT but I have a parlay for the Pistons and Lakers both upsetting tonight at a +1090. Pistons currently down by 4. Nets were 11 point favorites. Can still get them live at almost the same odds
K won his 1st Natty in 1990 and last 25 years later in 2015. Those were different eras.
