UConn is a Blue Blood

[upstater]

Interesting thing about these arguments are that the early BE teams had a lot of losses but almost no one uses that argument against them anymore. Georgetown's 1st FF team, Pearl Washington's Syracuse team, Villanova's national champions, many of these teams had 7, 8, 9 even 10 losses. Losing in the BE regular season was common for the most legendary BE teams. Only '85 St Johns and '85 Georgetown had 3 or 4 loss seasons.

 

[Billy Jack]

It came up because one of the reporters asked earlier, what it means to not have a number 1 seeds or blue bloods in the final four. And, he explained the transfer portal increased the parity of the college game. Then, someone asked, "since the blue bloods didn't make it to the final four, can you talk about the possibly of playing FAU for a national title."

Larranaga in an interview from yesterday: "University of Connecticut is certainly a blue blood. They've proven over the course of time, they've won national championships. They had a hall of fame coach in Jim Calhoun. Their history and tradition is great. And you got a guy like Danny Hurley, whose built that program in his image and likeness, he's a basketball lifer, comes from a basketball family, where his brother and dad are also coaches. Connecticut is a blue blood."

✂️ Larranaga says UCONN is a Blue Blood

Thank you. And I appreciate the context.

I think that the different perspectives exist because the term “blue blood” itself originated as a designation for the elite families of high society when such things existed. Typically it was used to refer to “old money” families. Often such families could trace their lineage back to colonial times, even to the Mayflower in some cases. The Bushes, for example, are such a family.

Following through with the analogy, programs like Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas would be true “blue bloods” because they are “old money” in the sense that they were competing for championships back in the 1940s, the era when championship play and true national competition first began. And those programs have continued to compete for championships in every decade since almost without missing a beat. (Kansas failed to make a Final Four in the 1960s and Kentucky missed the first decade of the 2000s.) With more than 2 decades having passed since their last Final Four, Indiana can be considered a blue blood which has fallen on hard times just as their are old, monied families who squandered their riches and were no longer among the “leading families”.

In contrast to these programs, we would be considered new money albeit a program which has been dominant in terms of winning national championships in the past quarter century.

It’s reall a silly and meaningless term and nothing to be concerned about. Anyone who can count knows who’s won the most national championships and when they won them. And as important, we all know has been to the most Final Fours and when they went to those Final Fours. This is the level of those programs who were competing for championships even if they fell short.

 

[upstater]

Thank you. And I appreciate the context.

I think that the different perspectives exist because the term “blue blood” itself originated as a designation for the elite families of high society when such things existed. Typically it was used to refer to “old money” families. Often such families could trace their lineage back to colonial times, even to the Mayflower in some cases. The Bushes, for example, are such a family.

Following through with the analogy, programs like Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas would be true “blue bloods” because they are “old money” in the sense that they were competing for championships back in the 1940s, the era when championship play and true national competition first began. And those programs have continued to compete for championships in every decade since almost without missing a beat. (Kansas failed to make a Final Four in the 1960s and Kentucky missed the first decade of the 2000s.) With more than 2 decades having passed since their last Final Four, Indiana can be considered a blue blood which has fallen on hard times just as their are old, monied families who squandered their riches and were no longer among the “leading families”.

In contrast to these programs, we would be considered new money albeit a program which has been dominant in terms of winning national championships in the past quarter century.

It’s reall a silly and meaningless term and nothing to be concerned about. Anyone who can count knows who’s won the most national championships and when they won them. And as important, we all know has been to the most Final Fours and when they went to those Final Fours. This is the level of those programs who were competing for championships even if they fell short.

10 years from now, the only people who remember pre-1980 UConn will be near 70 years old.

At that point, It will seem silly to celebrate something your school did decades before you were even alive.

 

[bendm]

1) Duke - 5 - 1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015
1) UNC - 5 - 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009, 2017
3) UConn - 4 - 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014
3) Kentucky - 4 - 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012
5) Kansas - 3 - 1988, 2008, 2022
5) Villanova - 3 - 1985, 2016, 2018
5) Indiana - 3 - 1976, 1981, 1987
5) Louisville - 3 - 1980, 1986, 2013
9) UCLA - 2 - 1975, 1995 (plus most of the championships from the "asterisk" era)
9) Florida - 2 - 2006, 2007
9) Michigan State - 2 - 1979, 2000

great list but people cite to our lack of final fours as the hole in our resume; here is the list since '75:

1) Duke - 14 - '78, '86, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92, '94, '99, '01, '04, '10, '15, '22
1) UNC - 14 - '77, '81, '82, '91, '93, '95, '97, '00, '05, '08, '09, '16, '17, '22
3) UK - 10 - '75, '78, '84, '93, '96, '97, '11, '12, '14, '15
3) KU - 10 - '86, '88, '91, '93, '02, '03, '08, '12, '18, '22
5) MSU - 9 - '79, '99, '00, '01, '05, '09, '10, '15, '19
6) UCLA - 8 - '75, '76, '80, '95, '06, '07, '08, '21
6) Lville - 8 - '75, '80, '82, '83, '86, '05, '12, '13
8) UConn - 6 - '99, '04, '09, '11, '14, '23
8) Cuse - 6 - '75, '87, '96, '03, '13, '16
8) Mich - 6 - '76, '89, '92, '93, '13, '18

IU, Nova, UF tied at 5

 

[Billy Jack]

10 years from now, the only people who remember pre-1980 UConn will be near 70 years old.

At that point, It will seem silly to celebrate something your school did decades before you were even alive.

Not a student if history, I see.

Even if you began college pre-1980, you’d be near 60, not 70. And wouldn’t the relevant cut off be pre-1990? And if we’re talking about blue blood status, wouldn’t it be pre-1999?

Like it matters. This thread just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Waquoit]

great list but people cite to our lack of final fours as the hole in our resume; here is the list since '75:

That's why we start the clock for the last 25 years, or this century. UConn held the record in 1999 for the most tourney appearances without a FF. Since then we average one per leap year.

 

[Umami Zen]

Thank you. And I appreciate the context.

I think that the different perspectives exist because the term “blue blood” itself originated as a designation for the elite families of high society when such things existed. Typically it was used to refer to “old money” families. Often such families could trace their lineage back to colonial times, even to the Mayflower in some cases. The Bushes, for example, are such a family.

Following through with the analogy, programs like Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas would be true “blue bloods” because they are “old money” in the sense that they were competing for championships back in the 1940s, the era when championship play and true national competition first began. And those programs have continued to compete for championships in every decade since almost without missing a beat. (Kansas failed to make a Final Four in the 1960s and Kentucky missed the first decade of the 2000s.) With more than 2 decades having passed since their last Final Four, Indiana can be considered a blue blood which has fallen on hard times just as their are old, monied families who squandered their riches and were no longer among the “leading families”.

In contrast to these programs, we would be considered new money albeit a program which has been dominant in terms of winning national championships in the past quarter century.

It’s reall a silly and meaningless term and nothing to be concerned about. Anyone who can count knows who’s won the most national championships and when they won them. And as important, we all know has been to the most Final Fours and when they went to those Final Fours. This is the level of those programs who were competing for championships even if they fell short.

Agree with many of your points.. Additionally.. When the Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985..Making winning the Trophy much more difficult.. The argument about UConn's legacy/status since that point in time really breaks down quickly when compared to the "blue bloods" over that same period of time.Even though we had to wait a few years for our first championship trophy.

 

[bendm]

if we calculate a weighted average for chips and final fours since 1975, with chips get 2/3 weight and FFs getting 1/3, then here is the definitive program ranking in the modern era:

1) UNC- 7.92
1) Duke- 7.92
3) UK- 5.94
4) KU- 5.28
5) UConn- 4.62
5) Lville- 4.62
7) MSU- 4.29
8) UCLA- 3.96
9) Nova- 3.63
9) IU- 3.63
11) UF- 2.97

(if we win #5 we jump up a spot to a tie w/ KU for 4th)

 

[upstater]

Not a student if history, I see.

Even if you began college pre-1980, you’d be near 60, not 70. And wouldn’t the relevant cut off be pre-1990? And if we’re talking about blue blood status, wouldn’t it be pre-1999?

Like it matters. This thread just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

Not a student of math, I see.

If you're 20 in 1980, you'd be 73 in 2033.

 

[businesslawyer]

Thank you. And I appreciate the context.

I think that the different perspectives exist because the term “blue blood” itself originated as a designation for the elite families of high society when such things existed. Typically it was used to refer to “old money” families. Often such families could trace their lineage back to colonial times, even to the Mayflower in some cases. The Bushes, for example, are such a family.

Following through with the analogy, programs like Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas would be true “blue bloods” because they are “old money” in the sense that they were competing for championships back in the 1940s, the era when championship play and true national competition first began. And those programs have continued to compete for championships in every decade since almost without missing a beat. (Kansas failed to make a Final Four in the 1960s and Kentucky missed the first decade of the 2000s.) With more than 2 decades having passed since their last Final Four, Indiana can be considered a blue blood which has fallen on hard times just as their are old, monied families who squandered their riches and were no longer among the “leading families”.

In contrast to these programs, we would be considered new money albeit a program which has been dominant in terms of winning national championships in the past quarter century.

It’s reall a silly and meaningless term and nothing to be concerned about. Anyone who can count knows who’s won the most national championships and when they won them. And as important, we all know has been to the most Final Fours and when they went to those Final Fours. This is the level of those programs who were competing for championships even if they fell short.

This. The use of the term blue blood refers not just to achievement, wealth, recognition or power. It by defintion includes the length of time in the past you had those things. Thus, it is a term that is only important by those who have been surpassed but want to think having been around longer makes them better.

It is a nonsensical thing to be arguing over. If we tie Duke and Indiana for 4th all times in tourney wins Monday night, no sane Duke or Indiana fan is going to say "but good news -- we had more of our achievement a longer time ago than UConn had."

 

[HuskyBaggins]

great list but people cite to our lack of final fours as the hole in our resume; here is the list since '75:

1) Duke - 14 - '78, '86, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92, '94, '99, '01, '04, '10, '15, '22
1) UNC - 14 - '77, '81, '82, '91, '93, '95, '97, '00, '05, '08, '09, '16, '17, '22
3) UK - 10 - '75, '78, '84, '93, '96, '97, '11, '12, '14, '15
3) KU - 10 - '86, '88, '91, '93, '02, '03, '08, '12, '18, '22
5) MSU - 9 - '79, '99, '00, '01, '05, '09, '10, '15, '19
6) UCLA - 8 - '75, '76, '80, '95, '06, '07, '08, '21
6) Lville - 8 - '75, '80, '82, '83, '86, '05, '12, '13
8) UConn - 6 - '99, '04, '09, '11, '14, '23
8) Cuse - 6 - '75, '87, '96, '03, '13, '16
8) Mich - 6 - '76, '89, '92, '93, '13, '18

IU, Nova, UF tied at 5

People who make that argument are doing so on behalf of teams / schools with less CHAMPIONSHIPS

 

[bendm]

People who make that argument are doing so on behalf of teams / schools with less CHAMPIONSHIPS

they matter. they demonstrate consistent quality across non-chip years.. regardless we are still a top 5 program even when factoring FFs in.

 

[The Yakk]

Not a student if history, I see.

Even if you began college pre-1980, you’d be near 60, not 70. And wouldn’t the relevant cut off be pre-1990? And if we’re talking about blue blood status, wouldn’t it be pre-1999?

Like it matters. This thread just keeps getting sillier and sillier.

It will jump to a new level of silliness when you start arguing for blue blood status for Providence College.

 

[bendm]

rounding out the "sweet 16" programs since 1975 and sorting into tiers:

Bluebloods
1) UNC- 7.92
1) Duke- 7.92
3) UK- 5.94
4) KU- 5.28

Light-blue Bloods
5) UConn- 4.62
5) Lville- 4.62
7) MSU- 4.29
8) UCLA- 3.96
9) Nova- 3.63
9) IU- 3.63

Honorable Mention
11) UF- 2.97
12) Cuse- 2.64
13) Gtown- 1.98
13) Zona- 1.98
13) Ark- 1.98
13) UNLV- 1.98

as explained above, if we win #5 we will tie KU for 4th, thus attaining indisputable Blue Blood status.

 

[Waquoit]

It will jump to a new level of silliness when you start arguing for blue blood status for Providence College.

When PC had their stretch of wins in the 60's they were ducking UConn.

 

[Inyatkin]

The tournament expanded into what we know it today in the mid 80s. Our first run was in 1990. As long as March Madness has been a thing, we've been at or near the top. Seems good enough to me.

 

[HooperScooper]

If you want UConn to be called a Blue Blood, I think the media is coming to.

However, it’s high time we start to place a little more importance on what has happened during the last quarter century and not demand that a program was great through the entirety of the Cold War. There is room to expand the Blue Blood conversation. And when that happens, UConn should be at the front of the line for this title as it has more than earned VIP entrance into the exclusive club.

Over the last 25 years, UConn has a resumé that stands up to — and in many cases is better than — some of those traditional powers. The Huskies became a budding power under Jim Calhoun in the 90’s, knocking on the door of the Final Four and making the Elite Eight three times in the early to late part of the decade. They finally broke through to the next round in 1999 making their first Final Four and winning their first National Championship.

The Daily Dish: UConn is more than deserving of Blue Blood status

As the Final Four sets to tip in Houston, there's been concern about the lack of Blue Blood programs on hand. UConn would like a word.

247sports.com

 

[Ratso]

we’ve lost to every team & beaten every team. I like that. a lot of “blue bloods” don’t typically lose to like tulsa or smu ever. we don’t discriminate who we lost to. equal opportunity son.

 

[HuskyinWRNY]

10 years from now, the only people who remember pre-1980 UConn will be near 70 years old.

At that point, It will seem silly to celebrate something your school did decades before you were even alive.

I'm 71. I still remember watching Toby, tony Hansen, etc. I loved those years as much as I've loved husky mbb and wbb since. Let's win this one, the drive for 5!!!!

 

[Ratso]

if national sports media is asking if we are?

 

[That Guy]

UNC legend Tyler Hansbrough on Field of 68 last night:

"Listen, UConn is an iconic school for basketball. I'm not sure they're that far, if they are a step below Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, all these other places, that it's a major step. The reason I say that is because they've had great players, they've had great history, Calhoun was an amazing coach. You look at Ray Allen, Kemba Walker, Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva, Rudy Gay, all these guys. Not many programs have alums like that, so when you start talking about people like that, you start talking about UConn, it's known for basketball. I'm not really sure what else UConn is known for on the big stage. I'm not affiliated, I'm not running around UConn much, but when I think UConn, I think of UConn basketball. And I wouldn't say they're a major step off, I would put them right there at the top, especially since some of these "blue bloods" haven't really done much recently, and I know UConn is making it's way back to the top."

 

[bendm]

ranking schools by Championships in the Near-Modern and Modern Era:

actually, considering tourney appearances is when we fall out of blue blood status...if you calculate a weighted average using chips (60%), final fours (30%), and tourney appearances (10%), since 1975:

1) UNC- 11.6
2) Duke- 11.2
3) UK- 9.4
4) KU- 8.6
5) Lville- 7.7
6) UCLA- 7.3
6) MSU- 7.3
8) IU- 6.8
9) UConn- 6.7
10) Nova- 6.4
11) Cuse- 6.1
12) Zona- 5.4
13) Florida- 5
14) Ark- 4.9
15) Gtown- 4.8
16) UVA- 4

(but if we win #5 we'd move into a tie for 6th with UCLA and MSU)

 

[Waquoit]

We dominated the Big East in the 90's and was a fixture in the Top 10 for most of the decade. But because we didn't get over the Final Four hump earlier, it's like we don't get credit for how good those teams were. And one reason we got blocked is because we seemingly always had a road game on the 2nd weekend.

 

[Huskyforlife]

The tourney appearances argument makes no sense to me. Nobody cares if you make it and lose in the first weekend. Dukes loss to Lehigh and Kentucys to St. Peter’s may as well be equivalent to missing the tournament. They don’t get extra credit for those games imo.

 

[bendm]

The tourney appearances argument makes no sense to me. Nobody cares if you make it and lose in the first weekend. Dukes loss to Lehigh and Kentucys to St. Peter’s may as well be equivalent to missing the tournament. They don’t get extra credit for those games imo.

I was going to use sweet 16s instead of tourney appearances at first. It would help us since we made the sweet 16 in 17 of the 25 tourneys we’ve made since ‘75