So after all the "craziest NCAA tourney of all time" talk.......

[OG Goat Holder]

....the championship game is a typical blue blood vs. this quarter century's UNLV. Seems pretty par for the course. Maybe we just don't know how to truly seed the teams, or maybe that's where the COVID seniors really jacked up the committee. Looking at UConn's record, they were always good. Blew out Alabama early in the year.

 

[mstateglfr]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

 

[FQDawg]

To me, the only real blue bloods are North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas and UCLA.

UConn, Michigan State, Syracuse, Indiana, Louisville are all in the next tier down and then the third tier has teams like Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova and Georgetown.

It's not exactly a scientific system but it's how I see those programs.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Jim Rome discussed this on his radio show last week with a guest, a ncaa basketball journalist. The journalist said most don’t consider them a blue blood because they weren’t one when most writers were growing up.

 

[L4Dawg]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

They are a blue blood. FOUR titles says they are. Gonzaga is NOT a blueblood.

 

[curseddawgs]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

It’s a fascinating dilemma. Would you rather be Kansas who has made every tournament (I think) since 1990 with 2 titles and countless Big 12 championships. Or UConn who has 4 maybe 5 championships in 6 final fours in the same time frame but have been wildly inconsistent since Calhoun retired

 

[OG Goat Holder]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

I know what you mean and don't disagree about inconsistency. But Top 7 all-time in titles won and right alongside Kansas (KANSAS!), and the undisputed #1 team in titles won over the last 25 years. It's a personal metric of mine, but I like to use the last 25 years as a standard because I think that's about the time an actual title won buys you for being considered a 'national title caliber team'. That may not make sense to anybody else but it does to me.

 

[Perd Hapley]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

Blueblood is a subjective term. They are one of about 35-40 programs in college basketball that are capable of winning a national title. Those programs are the Top 25-30 power conference teams plus maybe 5 non-power conference teams that have no football money, but still have strong basketball history. They are one of those 5 non-power conference teams…..along with Villanova, Gonzaga, and perhaps 1-2 others.

Compare that to football, where there are only 8 ~ 10 teams capable of winning the CFP, max. Way more parity in college basketball by far than football. Is it perfect parity like pro sports? No.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

I can understand where you are coming from. They are a Blue Blood in the 2000's, but before that they were not at the level where North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas and UCLA have always been. I would lump Gonzaga in the same level with UConn.

I can't believe we forgot Duke. Weren't they successful back in the 60's?

 

[mstateglfr]

They are a blue blood. FOUR titles says they are. Gonzaga is NOT a blueblood.

Making the tournament less than 2/3 of the time says they are not.

See how easy it is?

This is actually a really interesting topic because there is no established set of qualifications for a team to be viewed as a blueblood or not. Its the perception of each of us.
Age certainly matters here too- people who watched UCLA dominate for a decade will view them as a blueblood, which people who were in diapers when UCLA last mattered(Howland era) may not see things in the same light.

The term 'blue blood' means noble birth. So basically, no recently dominant programs could qualify.
But practically speaking, that term has often been used to just describe programs with a long history of great play/dominance.
Gonzaga isnt a blueblood in the traditional sense, but they for sure are in the well accepted and used sense.


As I mentioned, I may need to reconsider UConn as a blueblood. When they make the tournament, they have been dominant. I just havent thought of them as a blueblood due to the lack of consistency.
If a program makes 6 tournaments in 25 years, but wins 3 of them...is that a blueblood? Consistency has played a driving force for how I view teams up to now, but perhaps there should be room for teams that dont even make 1/3 of the tournaments, if they do really well when they make it in.

 

[HailStout]

It’s a fascinating dilemma. Would you rather be Kansas who has made every tournament (I think) since 1990 with 2 titles and countless Big 12 championships. Or UConn who has 4 maybe 5 championships in 6 final fours in the same time frame but have been wildly inconsistent since Calhoun retired

If UConn wins this one it’s UConn hands down. I think I would stick with UConn regardless.

 

[L4Dawg]

Making the tournament less than 2/3 of the time says they are not.

See how easy it is?

This is actually a really interesting topic because there is no established set of qualifications for a team to be viewed as a blueblood or not. Its the perception of each of us.
Age certainly matters here too- people who watched UCLA dominate for a decade will view them as a blueblood, which people who were in diapers when UCLA last mattered(Howland era) may not see things in the same light.

The term 'blue blood' means noble birth. So basically, no recently dominant programs could qualify.
But practically speaking, that term has often been used to just describe programs with a long history of great play/dominance.
Gonzaga isnt a blueblood in the traditional sense, but they for sure are in the well accepted and used sense.


As I mentioned, I may need to reconsider UConn as a blueblood. When they make the tournament, they have been dominant. I just havent thought of them as a blueblood due to the lack of consistency.
If a program makes 6 tournaments in 25 years, but wins 3 of them...is that a blueblood? Consistency has played a driving force for how I view teams up to now, but perhaps there should be room for teams that dont even make 1/3 of the tournaments, if they do really well when they make it in.

The object of the tournament is not to make it, it's to win it, if you are a blueblood. UConn has won four.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

A ton of people picked UConn to win it all. They'll destroy SDSU.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Blueblood is a subjective term. They are one of about 35-40 programs in college basketball that are capable of winning a national title. Those programs are the Top 25-30 power conference teams plus maybe 5 non-power conference teams that have no football money, but still have strong basketball history. They are one of those 5 non-power conference teams…..along with Villanova, Gonzaga, and perhaps 1-2 others.

Compare that to football, where there are only 8 ~ 10 teams capable of winning the CFP, max. Way more parity in college basketball by far than football. Is it perfect parity like pro sports? No.

This has been debunked. In the last 25 years, 13 college football teams have won a title, and 13 basketball teams have won a title. Winning a title is very elusive in both sports.

Going forward in football, it does seem like the muscle teams will probably consolidate more titles. But they could also have an off-game, and allow a lesser team to creep in and get a lucky win in the next round.

 

[She Mate Me]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

Most people do this kind of thinking within their own head, not out loud on a message board.

btw, 4 national titles and in the current championship game, definitely makes you a blue blood. And their girls have been decent too.

 

[mstateglfr]

The object of the tournament is not to make it, it's to win it, if you are a blueblood. UConn has won four.

Thanks for helping me understand what the object of the tournament is.***

There is more to college basketball than just NCAAT success. Conference championships, conference tournament championships, early season tournaments, non-conference matchups, etc.
The ability for KU to win 21 Big12 titles, with 16 in a row, is kinda impressive. That is sustained success since there have only been 27 titles possible. Add in 12 conference tournament titles to that.


Ill spell it out for you- up to now, you and I weighed metrics differently when considering if a team is a blueblood or not.
If a team isnt even making over 1/3 of the tournaments and therefore I am never even thinking of them 1/3 of the time, I didnt view them as a blueblood. But as already stated in this thread, perhaps I need to adjust how I view that term and include a team that has won 4 times in 25 years, even if they are inconsistent.
There is no right or wrong here as its subjective, though you sure seem to think your view is the only correct view.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

There is more to college basketball than just NCAAT success. Conference championships, conference tournament championships, early season tournaments, non-conference matchups, etc.
The ability for KU to win 21 Big12 titles, with 16 in a row, is kinda impressive. That is sustained success since there have only been 27 titles possible. Add in 12 conference tournament titles to that.

Sort of. That's really only a metric to compare teams within the same conference.

I could buy off more on a metric that has to do with national implications, like the Big Dance, with teams playing against teams from all over and getting that cross-pollination. Appearances, wins, Sweet 16s, titles, etc. Titles obviously weighing more.

 

[mstateglfr]

This has been debunked. In the last 25 years, 13 college football teams have won a title, and 13 basketball teams have won a title. Winning a title is very elusive in both sports.

Going forward in football, it does seem like the muscle teams will probably consolidate more titles. But they could also have an off-game, and allow a lesser team to creep in and get a lucky win in the next round.

Just because 13 in 25 years have won, doesnt mean the comment that 35 teams could win is wrong. Many games are won by 1 point or on a last second shot. Take SDSU- they have won 2 games in a row in the closing seconds. 35 teams having a legit chance to win it all can be true, even if only 13 actually have.

 

[L4Dawg]

Thanks for helping me understand what the object of the tournament is.***

There is more to college basketball than just NCAAT success. Conference championships, conference tournament championships, early season tournaments, non-conference matchups, etc.
The ability for KU to win 21 Big12 titles, with 16 in a row, is kinda impressive. That is sustained success since there have only been 27 titles possible. Add in 12 conference tournament titles to that.


Ill spell it out for you- up to now, you and I weighed metrics differently when considering if a team is a blueblood or not.
If a team isnt even making over 1/3 of the tournaments and therefore I am never even thinking of them 1/3 of the time, I didnt view them as a blueblood. But as already stated in this thread, perhaps I need to adjust how I view that term and include a team that has won 4 times in 25 years, even if they are inconsistent.
There is no right or wrong here as its subjective, though you sure seem to think your view is the only correct view.

Yet you view Gonzaga, who has never won a title to be a blueblood. They aren't and can't be considered as one till they do. Now tell me, would you rather be a fan of UConn or Gonzaga based off their overall success? One more thing, nobody outside of fans of the schools involved remembers much about conference titles or conference tournament titles in basketball. The NCAA tournament in basketball means more than it does in any other NCAA sport. When it comes to BLUE BLOODS, it's ALL that matters.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

this quarter century's UNLV.

I would love to hear how you came to this conclusion.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I would love to hear how you came to this conclusion.

You are thinking way too much. I was simply picking a team who randomly makes a run to the championship game, who stands out among the champions listed in the years before and after them. I could have picked Butler and said decade, whatever. I picked UNLV because they actually won it, and SDSU still has a chance to win it. And they are a city school out west.

The comparison, and thought, ended there. I understand UNLV had multiple good years, but outside of that little window, haven't much. Maybe SDSU gets back next year. And also to make the point that a team like this does win the title every so often, thus to reiterate that this tournament is not too far from the historical norm.

Good enough for you?

 

[mstateglfr]

Yet you view Gonzaga, who has never won a title to be a blueblood. They aren't and can't be considered as one till they do. Now tell me, would you rather be a fan of UConn or Gonzaga based off their overall success? One more thing, nobody outside of fans of the schools involved remembers much about conference titles or conference tournament titles in basketball. The NCAA tournament in basketball means more than it does in any other NCAA sport. When it comes to BLUE BLOODS, it's ALL that matters.

I am a fan of Gonzaga- got into them back in '05 when they would play a late night 11pm central game on ESPN. So to answer your question, I would rather be a fan of Gonzaga. And to further answer your question, I would rather be a fan of Gonzaga based on their overall success.
If I were to select my fandom based not on overall success, but on NCAA Tournament success, I would choose UConn.
...but being a fan isnt really based on that. And being a fan of Gonzaga would have allowed me to follow my team for every single NCAA Tournament since UConn won their title in the 90s. That is opposed to following UConn less than 2/3 of the time come March.

Gonzaga since UConn won their title in the 90s- 24 NCAA Tournament appearances, 8 Sweet 16, 2 Elite 8, 2 Title Games, 22 Conference Titles, 20 Conference Tournament Titles.

I am not claiming Gonzaga to be better than UConn, to be clear. I am just listing why I view Gonzaga as an elite program that has been elite for so long that I view them as equal to the traditional bluebloods. Polls back it up, regular season success backs it up, and NCAA Tournament success backs it up.

As for your claim that nobody outside of fans of the schools remembers conference titles...I disagree. I think that fans of college basketball know and remember various regular season and conference tournament titles. I still remember the 2009 quarterfinal BigEast game where Devendorf hit a game winning 3 and jumped on a table in celebration, only to find out it left after time expired and they proceeded to play 6 overtimes. Syracuse won, they won the next day in OT, then lost in the finals. I 'member.
Its cool that you dont though. There is no single way to be a fan of a sport and we all have different levels of interest and passion.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Everyone pales to the Blue Blood of UCLA.

• 11 NCAA titles
• 7 consecutive NCAA titles (1967–1973)
• 13 NCAA title game appearances*
• 10 consecutive Final Four appearances (1967–1976)
• 25 Final Four wins*
• 38 game NCAA Tournament winning streak (1964–1974)
• 134 weeks ranked No. 1 in AP Top 25 Poll
• 54 consecutive winning seasons (1949–2002)
• 88 game men's regular season winning streak (1971–1974)
• 4 undefeated seasons (1964, 1967, 1972, 1973)

* 1980 tournament final vacated by NCAA

Kentucky is awful close
8 Championships - 4 Runner Up - 15 Final Fours

North Carolina
6 Championships - 6 Runner Up -


Kansas
4 Championships - 6 Runner Up - 16 Final Fours - 21 Final Fours

 

[Perd Hapley]

This has been debunked. In the last 25 years, 13 college football teams have won a title, and 13 basketball teams have won a title. Winning a title is very elusive in both sports.

Going forward in football, it does seem like the muscle teams will probably consolidate more titles. But they could also have an off-game, and allow a lesser team to creep in and get a lucky win in the next round.

But the college football playoff doesn’t go back 25 years. And the parity problem with college football has gotten infinitely worse in the past 10-12 years with the advent of the CFP, NIL, and the TV mega contracts. Miami, Auburn, USC, Texas, and Nebraska are nowhere close to winning the CFP in the modern environment (and USC technically never even won one for themselves since they vacated one and shared the other), and OU, Tennessee, and FSU very arguably aren’t either.

Georgia
Bama
LSU
Florida
Ohio State
Clemson

maybe FSU
maybe Michigan
maybe OU
maybe Tennessee

That’s the whole list in college football. I could see Clemson eventually dropping off and getting replaced by one of those other 4 teams…..perhaps. But there is almost no one with any chance.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Everyone pales to the Blue Blood of UCLA.

• 11 NCAA titles
• 7 consecutive NCAA titles (1967–1973)
• 13 NCAA title game appearances*
• 10 consecutive Final Four appearances (1967–1976)
• 25 Final Four wins*
• 38 game NCAA Tournament winning streak (1964–1974)
• 134 weeks ranked No. 1 in AP Top 25 Poll
• 54 consecutive winning seasons (1949–2002)
• 88 game men's regular season winning streak (1971–1974)
• 4 undefeated seasons (1964, 1967, 1972, 1973)

* 1980 tournament final vacated by NCAA

Kentucky is awful close
8 Championships - 4 Runner Up - 15 Final Fours

North Carolina
6 Championships - 6 Runner Up -


Kansas
4 Championships - 6 Runner Up - 16 Final Fours - 21 Final Fours

UCLA is kinda like Notre Dame football though. Haven't won it in the last quarter century, although they've made it to the Final a few times.

If you're talking about who is the modern day Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, LSU, Ohio State type teams, it's got to be North Carolina, Duke, UConn, Villanova, Kansas.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

But the college football playoff doesn’t go back 25 years. And the parity problem with college football has gotten infinitely worse in the past 10-12 years with the advent of the CFP, NIL, and the TV mega contracts. Auburn, USC, Texas, and Nebraska are nowhere close to winning the CFP in the modern environment (and USC technically never even won one for themselves since they vacated one and shared the other), and OU and Tennessee very arguably aren’t either.

I don't disagree. Guess we'll see if the playoff consolidates or spreads power. I kinda think it was pretty consolidated back in the BCS era too. Who knows? And I also sometimes wonder if we're just blinded by Alabama's dominant run? I mean it's shaped everything over the past 15 years.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

....the championship game is a typical blue blood vs. this quarter century's UNLV. Seems pretty par for the course. Maybe we just don't know how to truly seed the teams, or maybe that's where the COVID seniors really jacked up the committee. Looking at UConn's record, they were always good. Blew out Alabama early in the year.

No 1, 2, or 3 seeds made the Final 4. That’s pretty crazy.

 

[She Mate Me]

Disregard

 

[ZombieKissinger]

They are a blue blood. FOUR titles says they are. Gonzaga is NOT a blueblood.

Hey, now, come on. My Zags are at least purple blood these days.

 

[L4Dawg]

I am a fan of Gonzaga- got into them back in '05 when they would play a late night 11pm central game on ESPN. So to answer your question, I would rather be a fan of Gonzaga. And to further answer your question, I would rather be a fan of Gonzaga based on their overall success.
If I were to select my fandom based not on overall success, but on NCAA Tournament success, I would choose UConn.
...but being a fan isnt really based on that. And being a fan of Gonzaga would have allowed me to follow my team for every single NCAA Tournament since UConn won their title in the 90s. That is opposed to following UConn less than 2/3 of the time come March.

Gonzaga since UConn won their title in the 90s- 24 NCAA Tournament appearances, 8 Sweet 16, 2 Elite 8, 2 Title Games, 22 Conference Titles, 20 Conference Tournament Titles.

I am not claiming Gonzaga to be better than UConn, to be clear. I am just listing why I view Gonzaga as an elite program that has been elite for so long that I view them as equal to the traditional bluebloods. Polls back it up, regular season success backs it up, and NCAA Tournament success backs it up.

As for your claim that nobody outside of fans of the schools remembers conference titles...I disagree. I think that fans of college basketball know and remember various regular season and conference tournament titles. I still remember the 2009 quarterfinal BigEast game where Devendorf hit a game winning 3 and jumped on a table in celebration, only to find out it left after time expired and they proceeded to play 6 overtimes. Syracuse won, they won the next day in OT, then lost in the finals. I 'member.
Its cool that you dont though. There is no single way to be a fan of a sport and we all have different levels of interest and passion.

UConn won titles in 99, 04, 11, and 14. That makes the last one less than 10 years ago. Quit trying to pretend they were all over 20 years ago. Gonzaga has never won anything at all to speak of. That includes all those Big Sky (or whatever it is ) titles. Just for the record, I can't stand either of them. I'm a big SDSU fan tonight.

 

[L4Dawg]

Everyone pales to the Blue Blood of UCLA.

• 11 NCAA titles
• 7 consecutive NCAA titles (1967–1973)
• 13 NCAA title game appearances*
• 10 consecutive Final Four appearances (1967–1976)
• 25 Final Four wins*
• 38 game NCAA Tournament winning streak (1964–1974)
• 134 weeks ranked No. 1 in AP Top 25 Poll
• 54 consecutive winning seasons (1949–2002)
• 88 game men's regular season winning streak (1971–1974)
• 4 undefeated seasons (1964, 1967, 1972, 1973)

* 1980 tournament final vacated by NCAA

Kentucky is awful close
8 Championships - 4 Runner Up - 15 Final Fours

North Carolina
6 Championships - 6 Runner Up -


Kansas
4 Championships - 6 Runner Up - 16 Final Fours - 21 Final Fours

They are the ultimate blue blood.....but as pointed out above, in a Notre Dame Football way.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

20% of titles won in the past 25 years. Definition of a blue blood.

New money maybe. But I’d say UConn’s program is stronger than UCLA’s by quite a bit. And Kentucky. Hell all of them. There’s none better.

 

[Lettuce]

Hard to argue with them not being a blue blood in all of my 30 years watching cbb…

edit to add: 30 years and 1 day….of watching college basketball

 

[Anon1664516582]

UConn has not been a blue blood in my eyes. They are a really good program over the last 25 years in terms of tournament success, but thats only when they make the tournament.
They won in 99, 04, 11, 14, and are in the championship game now. They also have made deep runs other years.
At the same time, they have only made the tournament 16 times in the last 25 seasons. That doesnt scream blueblood.
In the last 15 years they made it just 8 times. They were left out almost half the time.

I guess when I think of blueblood programs, its ones that consistently make the tournament- Duke, UK, KU, Gonzaga, UNC, UCLA, etc.
Kinda odd that a team which has won 4 NCs and is in another tonight in the last 25 years isnt a blueblood in my mind. Huh, may need to change that.
...they have been so inconsistent since the '14 championship that I guess I just weigh the recent years over prior ones?

Who has more National Championships in Men’s basketball than UCONN in the last 25 years?

And another thing… Folks thought they could be Kentucky in 96 until we kicked their *** in Lexington… Damn it was fun to be in Lexington then go to NYC!!!

I am now blaming Lemonhead for us not winning the Natty in 96. Feels good too!

 

[Anon1664516582]

They are the ultimate blue blood.....but as pointed out above, in a Notre Dame Football way.

That was a generation ago….. but just imagine if Howland would have won. Those 3 National final game trophies were damn impressive in his office.

 

[aTotal360]

Anyone arguing that UCONN isn’t a blue blood is a fool.

5 championships in 25 years is blue bloody.

 

[Ranchdawg]

ESPN decides who is a blue blood usually by demographics. I'm sure everyone in the northeast were cheering on UConn. Just watch the conference preseason shows. ESPN will spend 40 minutes on the "blue bloods" and 20 minutes on the rest.

 

[FlotownDawg]

UConn is now tied for fourth with Duke and Indiana in most national championships won. Only one behind North Carolina. Won titles with three different coaches. As opposed to “blue blood” Duke, which was a Coach K creation. They were nothing before he got there and we will see how they are now that he’s retired. First season was very meh.

 

[L4Dawg]

That's 20% of the national titles since 1999. UConn is a blue blood.