‘22 CA C Yohan Traore

#82
#82
Blue bloods have different meanings and connotations depending on various factors. I was a young kid when UCLA was doing their thing. The last few decades they’ve really not been big winners, and a non-factor for the most part in the blue blood discussion.

Let‘s face it, it’s all about what you’ve done for me lately in the world in general. UK, Duke, KU, NC, etc have been in those discussions in the past decade. Louisville has had some good years, too, but nothing like the UCLA run. It’s all semantics, and what is true in one person’s mind might not be in the next person’s mind. Personally, I’m glad to be an orange blood.
 
#83
#83
Saying that UCLA isn't a traditional blue blood is like saying Notre Dame isn't traditionally college football royalty. I'm not old enough to have experienced either's prime dominance, but both have still won titles in my lifetime, and competed for several others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryno14
#84
#84
cncchris33 said:
Saying that UCLA isn't a traditional blue blood is like saying Notre Dame isn't traditionally college football royalty. I'm not old enough to have experienced either's prime dominance, but both have still won titles in my lifetime, and competed for several others.
Click to expand...
If you’re directing your comment to me, you might read what I said again. I never said UCLA wasn’t a traditional blue blood.
 
#85
#85
cardvolfan said:
If you’re directing your comment to me, you might read what I said again. I never said UCLA wasn’t a traditional blue blood.
Click to expand...
If I were directing my comment to you, I'd have quoted your post. I hadn't even read your post when I made mine. My post was general in nature to anyone who may not consider UCLA a traditional blue blood.
 
#86
#86
cncchris33 said:
If I were directing my comment to you, I'd have quoted your post. I hadn't even read your post when I made mine. My post was general in nature to anyone who may not consider UCLA a traditional blue blood.
Click to expand...
Okay then. Sorry, man.
 
#87
#87
bleedingTNorange said:
Not sure how you view Louisville as one, but ok.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you don’t, but okay.

These are their numbers AFTER the NCAA vacated every win/accomplish from 2011-15.
 

Attachments

  • 1C98ABCD-1AC7-47AA-9F3C-5B23CC701B5F.jpeg
    1C98ABCD-1AC7-47AA-9F3C-5B23CC701B5F.jpeg
    248.6 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
#90
#90
volfaninky said:
Louisville is not a blue blood and possibly the most corrupt university in the country
Click to expand...
I’ve always put Louisville, Memphis and Cincinnati in the same category. Large universities in major cities with passionate fans. But they will always be considered the little brother to their state’s flagship university and it drives them crazy. So they are willing to do almost anything to win including prostitution, illegal payments, etc.
 
#92
#92
Blue blood isn’t a permanent status. I think right now there are 4 blue bloods. UK, Duke, UNC and Kansas. Those four programs basically get their pick. UCLA couldn’t even hire away Rick Barnes from Tennessee! 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan
#93
#93
GregAmsler said:
If being corrupt precluded one from being a blue blood, there would be no blue bloods.

I’m actually shocked anyone is arguing this. The numbers show that they are quite obviously a blue blood.
Click to expand...

I’d have them a top 7-15 program, but they don’t play home games on their campus and they’ve played in average conferences. Pitino tainted their history as well.
 
#94
#94
cncchris33 said:
Saying that UCLA isn't a traditional blue blood is like saying Notre Dame isn't traditionally college football royalty. I'm not old enough to have experienced either's prime dominance, but both have still won titles in my lifetime, and competed for several others.
Click to expand...

They’ve won one title in 45 years. They might be a blue blood in the old school traditional sense but I don’t think they’re a current top 10 program nationally
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caculator and golfballs
#95
#95
zjcvols said:
They’ve won one title in 45 years. They might be a blue blood in the old school traditional sense but I don’t think they’re a current top 10 program nationally
Click to expand...
This discussion has been had multiple times, and I've always claimed the term "blue blood" is relative. I even detailed it in the post you quoted. And so yeah, UCLA's glory days are behind them, but they still have 11 titles and 19 Final Fours, 4 of those in the last 15 years. How many other schools boast 4 F4s in the last 15 years? I can think of 3 (UK, UNC, and Michigan St.). Duke hasn't. Kansas hasn't. Louisville hasn't. Indiana hasn't. It's not like the people who are upholding them in the blue blood category are throwing support in the way of someone like San Francisco, who won a couple titles, but has done nothing of any sort of relevance for the last 60 years. UCLA, despite not having the titles, has remained relevant, and in the national picture, and in the hunt for titles.

As I said before, I think of UCLA as the basketball version of Notre Dame football, who, coincidentally also boasts 11 titles, but only 2 in the last 45 years. The Notre Dame name still carries a lot of weight in the national picture, so much so, that even until very recently, the college football postseason had clauses that specifically accounted for Notre Dame.

Again, it's relative and mostly age-based. And I would guess the over/under is probably age 40.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NighthawkVol and The Dog
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top