UConn is such an under appreciated Blue Blood…

#26
#26
05_never_again said:
UConn has been good since about 1990. Look up UK, Kansas, UNC, and Duke and see how long they've been good. The dude who invented the sport coached at Kansas. Duke is actually the biggest Johnny-come-lately in that group, and they've been good since the late 70s (also went on a run in the mid 60s). That's what I mean. I don't mean it as an insult. At least for me, the term "blue blood" isn't 100% a compliment and can often imply a pompous arrogance that is unjustified.

UConn is new money relative to the blue blood schools. If UConn is able to stretch their run of relevance into the 40-year-range, then maybe you can talk about them being a blue blood. We are comparing them to schools that have been good for over or closing in on 100 years, in the case of Kansas and UK.

I also think part of the reason it seems like they might not get their due as a program is that they've missed the tournament 7 times since 2000. UNC and UK have missed it 3 times, Duke missed it once, and Kansas hasn't missed it at all. They have more titles than the blue bloods do over the last 25 years, but not the consistency.
Click to expand...

LOL. Give me the NC’s minus the consistency since you evidently don’t consider winning basically 25% of all NC’s since 1999 as not being consistent.

Plus, darn shame UConn didn’t win more when the sport was predominantly white.
 
#27
#27
RDU VOL#14 said:
They may not be snobs, but they’re dicks. Confirmed by Coach Hurley. Every real UConn fan I’ve ever met is obnoxious as hell.

Click to expand...

No offense to @Boston Vol, but most people I've met from that part of the country are pretentious and put on airs. Could just be the personality of people who are from there. UConn is not an "old money" program, but there are plenty of old money people in that fanbase I'm sure.
 
#28
#28
volfanbill said:
Duke was not very good in the 70s. They did have a small run in 60s but most everything Duke started with K about 1985. UConn has done it with 3 different coaches.

But it’s convenient to know we’re now basing it off of 40 years. Can’t wait for it to jump further.
Click to expand...
I said late 70s. They went on a run with Bill Foster in the late 70s and had another run in the late 60s. Also as I said, they are the biggest Johnny-come-lately to the group. Kansas has been good since Phog Allen showed up in 1907. UK since Rupp in 1930. UNC since the mid 60s with Dean Smith, but also won titles in 1957 and 1924. UConn, again, is new money. Wasn't on the radar at all until about 1990.

Don't know why you're being a pedantic ass about this. Old money versus new money isn't a hard concept to understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#29
#29
brockytop said:
LOL. Give me the NC’s minus the consistency since you evidently don’t consider winning basically 25% of all NC’s since 1999 as not being consistent.

Plus, darn shame UConn didn’t win more when the sport was predominantly white.
Click to expand...
The tournament itself is a crap shoot. Making it 20 years in a row with no title is more impressive than a team that made it 50% of the time, but won a couple of titles.
 
#30
#30
05_never_again said:
I said late 70s. They went on a run with Bill Foster in the late 70s and had another run in the late 60s. Also as I said, they are the biggest Johnny-come-lately to the group.

Don't know why you're being a pedantic ass about this.
Click to expand...
That’s a real stretch to call that 70s bit a “run” and not include UConn the same way when they were winning conference championships in the late 60s and early 70s. But you do do you
 
#31
#31
volfanbill said:
That’s a real stretch to call that 70s bit a “run” and not include UConn the same way when they were winning conference championships in the late 60s and early 70s. But you do do you
Click to expand...
Call me crazy, but I don't consider 1st place finishes in something called the Yankee Conference (wasn't even D1 until 1978) as the same thing the same as ACC championships and multiple third-place/runner-up/Elite Eight finishes in the NCAAT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#32
#32
since the measuring stick is now 40 years, who has the most championships over the last 40 years?
 
#33
#33
05_never_again said:
Call me crazy, but I don't consider 1st place finishes in something called the Yankee Conference (wasn't even D1 until 1978) as the same thing the same as ACC championships and multiple third-place/runner-up/Elite Eight finishes in the NCAAT.
Click to expand...
They had sweet sixteen appearances the 50s, 60s, and 70s
 
#34
#34
volfanbill said:
since the measuring stick is now 40 years, who has the most championships over the last 40 years?
Click to expand...
You really don't understand what old money means, do you?

Elon Musk is wealthier than the Rockefeller family. Which one is old money? UConn is Elon, the blue bloods are the Rockefellers. Saying that someone isn't a blue blood is simply saying that they aren't old money, and is not an insult.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
05_never_again said:
You really don't understand what old money means, do you?

Elon Musk is wealthier than the Rockefeller family. Which one is old money? UConn is Elon, the blue bloods are the Rockefellers. Saying that someone isn't a blue blood is simply saying that they aren't old money, and is not an insult.
Click to expand...
We’re not talking old money. That was your dumb comment that has zero bearing on actual results. I’ve never touched the dumb old money comment. So are we moving to 50 years now?
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
05_never_again said:
Um...getting to the top 16 of a tournament with 24 teams isn't as impressive as getting to the top 16 of a tournament with 64 or 68 teams.

I'm done...you're being intentionally dense now.
Click to expand...
They made the tournament.? One of the best teams by default with that. But I’m the dense one. Please for real, be done. Preferably forever
 
#40
#40
05_never_again said:
They aren't a blue blood and I don't mean that as an insult. Blue blood simply means high social status/old money. UConn isn't old money, and their brand does not have the same cachet UK/UNC/Kansas/Duke. They've won all of their national titles since 1999 and really didn't do anything of note as a program until Jim Calhoun's first tournament run in 1990.

In a sport that has a history going back to the early 1900s, who is or isn't a blue blood doesn't change in just a few years or even 15 years. UConn is an awesome program, among the best in CBB over the last 15 years. If they are still a good program in another decade, then you could probably talk about him joining the ranks of "the nobility."
Click to expand...

I'm with you. It mostly aligns with the old money concept. No matter how well they do, they are still a lower-profile team than the blue bloods. I think a big part of it is the fan base* and another part of it is the star power. They just don't have what Duke, UNC, KU, and UK have. Despite having more titles than all of them in my lifetime, they are not a blue blood. They are on the same tier as Michigan St and Villanova, as far as cachet goes. It's a bizarre reality, but it is what it is.

And TBH, I think UCLA is on that tier now. They may be old money, but the money's gone. The PAC 12 is dead and UCLA hasn't been consistently relevant for a long time.

*I'm pretty sure I've never met a UConn fan
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#42
#42
Vol423 said:
A Duke fan complaining about a Hurley? That's humorous.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t complaining about him. Although, I easily can. I was just using his quote to show that even he acknowledges that they’re $hitty on social media, or in person.
 
#43
#43
The blue bloods are blue bloods because they're consistent and at the top of every single category. UConn is not one of them. Indiana isn't either tbh

Wins
1. Kentucky 2,398
2. Kansas 2,393
3. UNC 2,372
4. Duke 2,300
5. UCLA 2,002

10. Indiana 1,931

23. UConn 1,837

Final Fours
1. UNC 21
2. UCLA 18
3. Duke/Kentucky 17
5. Kansas 15

8. Indiana/Louisville 8
10. UConn 7

Championships
1. UCLA 11
2. Kentucky 8
3. UNC/UConn 6
5. Duke/Indiana 5
7. Kansas 4

Winning Percentage
1. Kentucky .760
2. UNC .734
3. Kansas .728
4. Duke .712
5. UCLA .689

10. Murray State .645
11. UConn .644

20. Indiana .634
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
TNHopeful505 said:
www.cbssports.com

How UConn masterfully baited Purdue and Zach Edey into a math problem en route to its second national title

UConn flexed its defensive smarts with a dominant game plan to cork one of Purdue's best weapons
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com

This is brilliant. They had a plan and made it work. The sad part is I feel like we could have and should have done the same.
Click to expand...

We pretty much did do the same. We took away the 3 and made them beat us with Edey or with tough 2's. There were a few major differences:

1. UConn had a kid who could go toe to toe with Edey who the officials weren't going to foul out. Clingan was just as physical as our centers, but the refs let them play on Monday - Purdue had 15 total FT's, while Edey himself shot 22 against us.

2. UConn got balanced scoring, with four players in double figures, while our offense was DK or bust.

3. Purdue crushed us on the boards, while UConn out rebounded Purdue and didn't give up all those second chance points.

UConn turned Purdue into a limited, one-man gang. Our plan was kind of similar, but we couldn't score aside from DK and got killed by second chance points and free throws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNHopeful505
#45
#45
UCONN pretty much gets the NYC kids who ball in the parks year round. When I followed Duke bball years ago, many of their kids were from there as well.
 
#46
#46
Remy said:
UCONN pretty much gets the NYC kids who ball in the parks year round. When I followed Duke bball years ago, many of their kids were from there as well.
Click to expand...
They have one guy from Queens. A few from near UConn, notably Clingan and two practice players, one of which is Hurley’s son. UConn does and has recruited nationally and internationally for some time.
 
#47
#47
Duke didn’t win their first title until 1991 and everybody agrees they’re a blue blood. UConn is a blue blood now. You will see when Hurley decides to turn down more money from Kentucky to stay there.
 
#48
#48
SGMVols said:
Duke didn’t win their first title until 1991 and everybody agrees they’re a blue blood. UConn is a blue blood now. You will see when Hurley decides to turn down more money from Kentucky to stay there.
Click to expand...
Duke has 17 Final Fours and 2300 wins, both of which are top 4 all time, and UConn is nowhere remotely close to that
 
#50
#50
volfanbill said:
I’ll take six Natties over more FFs all day, every day
Click to expand...
Well yeah, you apparently have a thing for UConn. No one with a brain is putting UConn with the 5 obvious schools on these lists

NashVol11 said:
The blue bloods are blue bloods because they're consistent and at the top of every single category. UConn is not one of them. Indiana isn't either tbh

Wins
1. Kentucky 2,398
2. Kansas 2,393
3. UNC 2,372
4. Duke 2,300
5. UCLA 2,002

10. Indiana 1,931

23. UConn 1,837

Final Fours
1. UNC 21
2. UCLA 18
3. Duke/Kentucky 17
5. Kansas 15

8. Indiana/Louisville 8
10. UConn 7

Championships
1. UCLA 11
2. Kentucky 8
3. UNC/UConn 6
5. Duke/Indiana 5
7. Kansas 4

Winning Percentage
1. Kentucky .760
2. UNC .734
3. Kansas .728
4. Duke .712
5. UCLA .689

10. Murray State .645
11. UConn .644

20. Indiana .634
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top