Is UConn a blue blood now?

[CTWarrior]

I'll take a stab at this:
I think UConn took a big step towards blue bloodedness, but I don't think they are there yet. The 4 championships is very impressive but I don't think you can call a program a blue blood if all their success has basically been in the past 15 years.

UConn has been excellent since 1990, when they won their first Big East championship.  So that is 25 seasons.  Still don't know if that meets your blue blood standard, but its hard for me to call Indiana a blue blood and UConn not won when UConn has been the vastly superior program for a quarter century.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is pretty simple

Blue blood comes from the royal terminology.  Its based on history, long term success, etc.  It is based on conference titles, NCAA titles, Final Fours, elite players (college and those that went on to do great things beyond).  I also think you have to do it for decades.

You can be both elite and a blue blood, you can be a blue blood and not elite.  You can be elite but not a blue blood.  Mileage will vary for some based on criteria.  Of course it is possible to be a blue blood and not elite only to regain elite status.  I would argue IU is a blue blood but not elite.  Ask me about Louisville five years ago, would they have been elite?  Things can change awfully quick. 

Blue Bloods...there were 6....now 7?

UCLA  (11 titles, 18 Final Fours, 31 conference titles, 1700+ wins, great players)
Kentucky (8 titles, 52 conference titles, 2000+ wins, 16 Final Fours, great players)
North Carolina (5 titles, 18 Final Fours, 36 conference titles, 2000+ wins)
Indiana (5 titles, 8 Final Fours, 21 conference titles, 1700+ wins, great players)
Duke (4 titles, 15 Final Fours, 22 conference titles, 2000+ wins)
Kansas (3 titles, 14 Final Fours, 57 conference titles, 2000+ wins, great players)


UCONN (4 titles, 5 Final Fours, 29 conference titles, 1,500+ wins, great players)

As Eamon Brennan of ESPN eloquently stated, "Any reasonable college hoops fan will recognize those six programs as the sport's true "blue bloods." Each is steeped in enough history, tradition, success, resources and fan interest to qualify as the elite of the elite in the sport. They're the six jobs every college hoops coach dreams of one day obtaining, the six teams you always expect to be good, the six programs that spend huge amounts of money and effort each and every year assuring that their fan bases never have to confront the frightening notion that the "good old days" are lost and gone forever.  UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana and Duke are the all-time college hoops aristocracy."

As he also wrote, if UCONN were to win a few more, they can be argued for admission into that club.

I would put them in there, though 1990 is still modern \ recent times IMO and they haven't done it for 40 or 50+ years.


Elite - different category altogether, but some overlapping

Kentucky
Duke
Kansas
Louisville
UCONN
Michigan State
Arizona
UCLA
UNC
Syracuse


Could reach blue blood status with a couple more trophies and sustained success, but some have a long long long way to go

Arizona (2 titles)
Michigan State (2 titles)
Louisville (3 titles)
Cincinnati (2 titles)
NC State (2 titles)
Oklahoma State (2 titles)

[Galway Eagle]

Chicos I agree with almost everything you posted but might take away Oklahoma and Cinci.

Cinci because they aren't even the biggest program in there state anymore but still to me their titles came when CBB was just becoming legit so ok. Ok state though won theirs in the Stone Age.  Oklahoma has two and one of them was at least in the days of real college basketball.  But other than that critique I agree

[StillAWarrior]

So, Chicos...is is possible to lose blue blood status.  If royals hang out with commoners for long enough, do they ever relinquish their status?  And, if so, how long does it take?

FWIW, I've always ascribed to the "big 5" (and now +1) theory of college basketball royalty.  I'm just wondering if others think that it's a lifetime membership?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, Chicos...is is possible to lose blue blood status.  If royals hang out with commoners for long enough, do they ever relinquish their status?  And, if so, how long does it take?

FWIW, I've always ascribed to the "big 5" (and now +1) theory of college basketball royalty.  I'm just wondering if others think that it's a lifetime membership?

I don't think it is a lifetime membership, otherwise Navy or Army would have it for football blue bloods. 

That being said, those "big 6" or whatever we call them have a national title and\or Final Four in 6 or 7 decades....usually consecutively (not always, but usually) They all have had down years, but they find a way to get to the Final Four, win conference titles, etc consistently.  They rarely, if ever, have a bad decade.  When you can go through nearly every single decade back to the 1940's or 1950's and find these schools in the Final Four every decade, that's staying power.  UCLA was a little late to the game.  UCONN is certainly much later to the game.  If a school fell off the map, didn't win any more conference titles, went consecutive decades without a Final Four, consistently finished middle to bottom of the league, missed the NCAAs, etc....then I would say yes.  Hard to imagine any of these schools with their history and resources allowing that to happen.  Kentucky had some down years in the 2000's, not so much now.  IU had some down years in the last 15, yet still managed to play for a national title in that stint and won several Big Ten titles.  Etc.

[Atticus]

Never said need. Said that they should drop football and they would be able to spend more on basketball. Can you imagine what UConn could do if they spent Marquette levels of money on their bball program?

This is interesting.    So, UConn has now won 4 titles since 99 and 3 since 2000. I dont believe any bballl program in the country has done that. You are saying that if UConn spent the same money on basketball as MU has spent that they would have earned more NC's. Oh really? How many have we won in that time frame? I think UConn is spending a very adequate amount on basketball based on their results, dont you? I believe the Law of Diminishing Returns exists in college basketball. You clearly dont believe that.

The Department of Education figures suggested we spend the 2nd most amount of money on basketball. You cited it. Because Im a CPA, I can only laugh at those numbers. Tell me...which athletic departments pay for the use of the game day facility? Keep in mind that there are schools that own their facility but charge the use of it to its very own athletic department. I cant find that information in those numbers. Can you? 

There are some schools that classify the expenditures of transportation of teams to away facilities as university costs because the teams are classified as 'ambassadors of the university.' The DoE numbers dont tell me which schools do that and which ones dont. Can you, please?

Bands. I have read that some schools require the music departments to pay for the transportation of its band members. Which ones? Do you know? Others require the athletic departments to cover the costs. Which ones? I cant find the breakdown in those DoE numbers. Hmmmm.

I could go on and on.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is interesting.    So, UConn has now won 4 titles since 99 and 3 since 2000. I dont believe any bballl program in the country has done that. You are saying that if UConn spent the same money on basketball as MU has spent that they would have earned more NC's. Oh really? How many have we won in that time frame? I think UConn is spending a very adequate amount on basketball based on their results, dont you? I believe the Law of Diminishing Returns exists in college basketball. You clearly dont believe that.

The Department of Education figures suggested we spend the 2nd most amount of money on basketball. You cited it. Because Im a CPA, I can only laugh at those numbers. Tell me...which athletic departments pay for the use of the game day facility? Keep in mind that there are schools that own their facility but charge the use of it to its very own athletic department. I cant find that information in those numbers. Can you? 

There are some schools that classify the expenditures of transportation of teams to away facilities as university costs because the teams are classified as 'ambassadors of the university.' The DoE numbers dont tell me which schools do that and which ones dont. Can you, please?

Bands. I have read that some schools require the music departments to pay for the transportation of its band members. Which ones? Do you know? Others require the athletic departments to cover the costs. Which ones? I cant find the breakdown in those DoE numbers. Hmmmm.

I could go on and on.

Would UConn's basketball team benefit from having more money? Yes or no?

That's all I was saying

[Atticus]

Would UConn's basketball team benefit from having more money? Yes or no?

That's all I was saying

No, you were saying that, based on the DoE numbers, UConn would be more successful if they spent the equivalent of MU. Yet, MU doesnt have any NCs in the last 30 years.

Im saying that those DoE numbers are worthless.

Now you are asking me to answer the question of whether having more money would equate to more success for UConn. My answer is NO. They have already won more NCs than any other school in the country since 99. Oh, and they have have done it without a dedicated practise facility (i believe its being built right now but isnt yet complete). They are at the top of the mountain. Period. To say they could do better than would they have done would ignore the Law of Diminishing Returns....which most certainly exists in college athletics. More money wont make last second jumpers go in. More money wont make Calhoun or Ollie a better coach. More money wont cinvince the minds of players that they need to improve during the offseason.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

No, you were saying that, based on the DoE numbers, UConn would be more successful if they spent the equivalent of MU. Yet, MU doesnt have any NCs in the last 30 years.

Im saying that those DoE numbers are worthless.

Now you are asking me to answer the question of whether having more money would equate to more success for UConn. My answer is NO. They have already won more NCs than any other school in the country since 99. Oh, and they have have done it without a dedicated practise facility (i believe its being built right now but isnt yet complete). They are at the top of the mountain. Period. To say they could do better than would they have done would ignore the Law of Diminishing Returns....which most certainly exists in college athletics. More money wont make last second jumpers go in. More money wont make Calhoun or Ollie a better coach. More money wont cinvince the minds of players that they need to improve during the offseason.

More Money?  Sure, it can make things easier for the program.  Does it make it a better program?  It all depends on how that money is allocated.  The best thing you can do with money is use it to hire assistants that can recruit well and free up the coach's schedule so he doesn't have to waste time on petty little things. 

Nonetheless, you could argue that UCONN already makes do with their budget, concerning the success they've had without recruiting to top dogs like other schools.  They have a keen eye for talented guards, and have done a superb job of developing them. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No, you were saying that, based on the DoE numbers, UConn would be more successful if they spent the equivalent of MU. Yet, MU doesnt have any NCs in the last 30 years.

Im saying that those DoE numbers are worthless.

Now you are asking me to answer the question of whether having more money would equate to more success for UConn. My answer is NO. They have already won more NCs than any other school in the country since 99. Oh, and they have have done it without a dedicated practise facility (i believe its being built right now but isnt yet complete). They are at the top of the mountain. Period. To say they could do better than would they have done would ignore the Law of Diminishing Returns....which most certainly exists in college athletics. More money wont make last second jumpers go in. More money wont make Calhoun or Ollie a better coach. More money wont cinvince the minds of players that they need to improve during the offseason.

Now your just being stubborn and refusing to concede a point.

The DoE numbers are not worthless, they are probably not 100% accurate but they are not useless.

More money does not make last second jumper go in, but it does hire better coaches.

More money does not make Calhoun and Ollie better coaches, but it does buy them more resources.

More money does not make player develop, but it does buy better facilities to facilitate that development.

More money also attracts better recruits.

Winning NCs isn't the only way to measure success. UConn would have the 4 NCs and more accolades if they spent more money.

[Atticus]

Winning NCs isn't the only way to measure success. UConn would have the 4 NCs and more accolades if they spent more money.

Like MU? Or Duke? They beat both....combined. There is no precedent that supports your argument. Does Bama spend the mmost amount of money on football? LOL....please spare me the DoE numbers, please.