as someone born in the 90's, UConn always felt like a blue blood to me growing up with Jim Calhoun. They were constantly loaded with legendary players and were always deep in the tournament. And they played in the Big East. They felt like northeastern Duke. I think their brand took a huge hit playing in the AAC for a decade, so that hurt them, but establishing themselves again in the Big East, I think the brand is all the way back. Just in my lifetime, they've won 6 natties, 7 final fours, 11 elite eights, had 37 guys drafted, and 17 lottery picks. that's crazy.
Blood status is determined largely by historical and consistent success…. UConn is what you’d call a “new blood”… they also don’t have a satisfying win to loss ratio all time.
@@isaiahevans001 True,but the historical stuff is tainted. Those teams in the 30’s,40’s,and 50’s, were playing a different game. First of all no black guys allowed. The tournaments,NCAA,NIT only had a few teams and during the season they played a whole lot of crappy opponents. Just Google the records and schedules back then. Not their fault,because they had to play these teams,there was not a lot of options. UConn was until Calhoun a regional mid major. Pretty good usually,but being the powerhouse of New England was not saying much. And they weren’t even that. Holy Cross,Providence and BC were better than UConn. But now? They are the powerhouse of college basketball. No one is better. They are sitting on top of the mountain,not planning on leaving Soon.
@@jadedequeljoe3283 UConn’s success in the recent decades doesn’t put them at the top tho at all… you can’t be considered a powerhouse anyways if you don’t have that historical and consistent factor.. UConn is still known as a hit or miss program and yea they’ve won big in a lot of messy tourneys and just did back to back. But theyve also missed like 10 postseasons since 95’. Uconn is definitely getting up there but there’s always gonna be 4 Mount Rushmore elite programs in the sport. UConn is just that weird case with a lot of shallow success outside the 6 titles.
Zero success before the late 90s… terrible win to loss ratio. You’ve also won ur natties in majority of beat up tourneys. You’ll never be a legit blue blood and your unis just aren’t asthmatic anyways lol
I’m not impressed by national championships in the 40’s and 50’s. 8 teams in the tournament. Segregation. No 3 point shot. No shot clock. Two hand set shots and underhand foul shots.
I don’t care if you include UConn as a blue blood. I know UConn has the best basketball program of the 21st century. We have 6 championships in 25 years.
Not upset...this is actually funny to us because CT people don't give a sh't about stuff like this. Kentucky fans be like huh? You have 17 Mens and Womens National Championships for basketball the last 30 years? Yeah but you aren't a blue blood. LMAO...Huh? We are like Okay. Whatever.
@@hoopssouthbound With all due respect I don't honestly consider this a reasonable argument but an opinion is an opininon. I think most people in CT are Ok not being considered a blue blood. It's the wins we care about.
Your all time programs (blue bloods) by respective unbiased order are (1) Kentucky (2) North Carolina (3) Kansas (4) duke (5) ucla… With programs like Louisville, UConn, Michigan, Michigan state, and villanova following in line.
@@hoopssouthbound the lack of banners and relevant success since the 80s really puts the Hoosiers in a tough place. Which is also why ucla is sitting at 5th all time while having 11 titles… because they haven’t impressed much since the mid 90s.
Granted their recent success is not there. But I don’t think you can just say they aren’t a blue blood when clearly they’ve been one of the best basketball programs in the country. Could they be at the bottom of the list, sure. But they’re without a doubt one of the teams to be considered a blue blood.
as someone born in the 90's, UConn always felt like a blue blood to me growing up with Jim Calhoun. They were constantly loaded with legendary players and were always deep in the tournament. And they played in the Big East. They felt like northeastern Duke. I think their brand took a huge hit playing in the AAC for a decade, so that hurt them, but establishing themselves again in the Big East, I think the brand is all the way back.
Just in my lifetime, they've won 6 natties, 7 final fours, 11 elite eights, had 37 guys drafted, and 17 lottery picks. that's crazy.
Uconn just did it back to back and there are some people still prepared to deny them the blue blood title, its doomed.
Blood status is determined largely by historical and consistent success…. UConn is what you’d call a “new blood”… they also don’t have a satisfying win to loss ratio all time.
@@isaiahevans001 True,but the historical stuff is tainted. Those teams in the 30’s,40’s,and 50’s, were playing a different game. First of all no black guys allowed. The tournaments,NCAA,NIT only had a few teams and during the season they played a whole lot of crappy opponents. Just Google the records and schedules back then. Not their fault,because they had to play these teams,there was not a lot of options. UConn was until Calhoun a regional mid major. Pretty good usually,but being the powerhouse of New England was not saying much. And they weren’t even that. Holy Cross,Providence and BC were better than UConn. But now? They are the powerhouse of college basketball. No one is better. They are sitting on top of the mountain,not planning on leaving Soon.
@@jadedequeljoe3283 UConn’s success in the recent decades doesn’t put them at the top tho at all… you can’t be considered a powerhouse anyways if you don’t have that historical and consistent factor.. UConn is still known as a hit or miss program and yea they’ve won big in a lot of messy tourneys and just did back to back. But theyve also missed like 10 postseasons since 95’. Uconn is definitely getting up there but there’s always gonna be 4 Mount Rushmore elite programs in the sport. UConn is just that weird case with a lot of shallow success outside the 6 titles.
Keep your points and “blue blood”status, we’ll take the championships! - UConn TRUE BLOODS
Zero success before the late 90s… terrible win to loss ratio. You’ve also won ur natties in majority of beat up tourneys. You’ll never be a legit blue blood and your unis just aren’t asthmatic anyways lol
I’m not impressed by national championships in the 40’s and 50’s. 8 teams in the tournament. Segregation. No 3 point shot. No shot clock. Two hand set shots and underhand foul shots.
I don’t care if you include UConn as a blue blood. I know UConn has the best basketball program of the 21st century. We have 6 championships in 25 years.
In 2024 you can put UCONN up to #4 all time. Sorry DUKE.
Not upset...this is actually funny to us because CT people don't give a sh't about stuff like this. Kentucky fans be like huh? You have 17 Mens and Womens National Championships for basketball the last 30 years? Yeah but you aren't a blue blood. LMAO...Huh? We are like Okay. Whatever.
You weren’t the fanbase that was targeted. UConn is more or less a blue blood with reasonable argument
@@hoopssouthbound With all due respect I don't honestly consider this a reasonable argument but an opinion is an opininon. I think most people in CT are Ok not being considered a blue blood. It's the wins we care about.
Your all time programs (blue bloods) by respective unbiased order are (1) Kentucky (2) North Carolina (3) Kansas (4) duke (5) ucla… With programs like Louisville, UConn, Michigan, Michigan state, and villanova following in line.
Don’t know how you leave Indiana off that list? 5 national titles, 8 final fours, hall of fame coaches, and top 10 in the AP Poll all time.
@@hoopssouthbound the lack of banners and relevant success since the 80s really puts the Hoosiers in a tough place. Which is also why ucla is sitting at 5th all time while having 11 titles… because they haven’t impressed much since the mid 90s.
Granted their recent success is not there. But I don’t think you can just say they aren’t a blue blood when clearly they’ve been one of the best basketball programs in the country. Could they be at the bottom of the list, sure. But they’re without a doubt one of the teams to be considered a blue blood.
@@hoopssouthboundfair enough. You’d agree the first 5 are our definitive bloods tho no?
Without doubt@@isaiahevans001
Kentucky has only won four championships since blacks were allowed to play.