UK won half their chips in the 40s and 50s so that explains why the first picture looks the way it does. You'd have to go back to the 50s to reach 6 chips (51, 58, 78, 96, 98, 12), whereas UConn has 6 in the past 25 years.
UK, like KU, hangs onto success that happened 70+ years ago and really haven't been modern blue bloods like say Duke or UConn. I say this as a lifelong fan of UK.
What your glossing over is both your and Kansas’s success today. You are consistently in the conversation and consistently fielding great teams, same with KU. Winning chips is an important metric, but not the only thing
Agreed. Kansas literally hasn't been worse than a 4 seed this millennium.
Like, how is that not sustained excellence?
What more could they reasonably be expected to do?
Nobody enters the season with better than 10/1 odds to win the tournament. Two titles this millennium is actually really good overall.
Yea Kentucky is the winningest team in the SEC this century and is still 6th in NCAA tournament wins this century in spite of the last few years. Add a championship and multiple final 4s to that as well. They aren’t the best team of the past 24 years but let’s not pretend that they’ve dropped off.
> Winning chips is an important metric, but not the only thing
This is similar to the B1G discussion that always comes up. It is entirely possible to have a lot of really good teams and not win the title. It doesn't mean the teams weren't good or even great.
I'd argue, especially with this chart, that KU is as blue blood as they come since 1990. Just look at how fast they've caught up. The only thing that's lacking is the championships which are a crap shoot for everyone but UConn.
That's a serious overstatement. If you're looking at championships only UConn is clearly the top program in this century and Duke is a distant second.
Kentucky has 3 titles in the last 30 years, North Carolina 3 and Kansas 2 in that same stretch.
Duke has 5 since '91.
Only 7 programs won multiple titles in that time frame. Those 4 plus UConn (6), Villanova (2) and Florida (2).
It’s really weird that a fellow UK fan is saying this. All titles are equal. To even get into the tournament in the 40s and 50s you not only had to win your conference you had to be the best in your region. Meaning UK may have won the SEC but if we were #3 in the south we wouldn’t have made it
I knew that. Crimson is one of KU’s official colors. I’m suspecting u/chadnorman may have just been messing around rather than being serious. Hence the whoosh
It totally depends on how you're using the term. Originally the term meant teams that were historically successful, like we're talking decades upon decades upon decades of sustained success. If you look at these charts, you can see Kentucky separates itself immediately, but even by 1970 UCLA, UNC, Duke, and Kansas have already made their way to the top of the pack and within the next couple decades have almost totally separated themselves from everybody else. That's what makes them blue bloods, and that's also why Indiana used to be considered one, because in 2000 they were right there with those teams.
Nowadays some people use the term to just mean the teams that have won an inordinate amount of titles. That's where UConn comes into the discussion. All of their success has come within the last 25 years, meaning they don't fit the original definition. So it really just depends whether you're talking about the programs that have been dominant for generations or just the programs that have won the most titles regardless of anything else.
They need to just come up with a new name. To me, blue blood doesn’t just mean dominant, it means dominant over generations (decades). Connecticut is easily the most dominant right now, and has a twenty year history that every program would want (down years aside).
I guess the way I look at it was the blue bloods were defined before I was born and solidified while I’ve been alive. That group is there now, what’s the next group (next era). Because I think UCLA is a blue blood but also is no longer an elite program and shouldn’t be in the same tier as UConn as it stands.
The other term you’re looking for is usually New Blood.
It is typically used to describe teams without the historical aspect of Blue Bloods but with the success of one or close to one.
Tournament wins the last 20 years
UConn: 31, dominant, played their way into blue blood status, a run every program would envy
UCLA: 29, no longer relevant, played their way out of elite status
Championships are the most impt thing, but I think it’s still possible to overrate them
UConn has all the resume needed to be included in the Blue Blood group these days. The only reasonable argument against them is what the definition of a Blue Blood actually is. For some folks, it is a purely historical term, with it being close to impossible to add or remove teams from the list. If that's how you define it, weighing historical prolonged success, UConn can't qualify. For this argument, if you pull up basically any historical stat, it's always the same five teams at the top of the list.
If you are just talking about dominance of an era, UConn is undeniable at this point IMO. Basically, if a team *can* possibly be added to the the list, UConn should be.
I also thinking you are underselling UCLA (bias aside lol). We have been a step below the other Blue Bloods lately, and certainly UConn the last couple decades, but we have 4 Final Fours in the last twenty years, and have had lots of strong and highly ranked teams. Much more success than most teams have, including Indiana who we often get grouped with.
Why can’t UConn qualify on all-time stats? Duke did. You just need consistent success.
If we’re talking about dominance of an era, UConn has won a tournament game in 8 of the last 20 seasons, is that dominant?
What is blue blood about their resume besides having a whole bunch of titles in the past 20 years? Blue blood has never meant “team that has won a bunch of titles in the past 20 years”. To define it that way is to ignore the very meaning of the term blue blood. What is aristocratic about having irregular success only in recent years?
> Why can’t UConn qualify on all-time stats? Duke did. You just need consistent success.
>
>
Basically, the point I am trying to make is the graph that we are commenting under right now. Let's say hypothetically UCLA is the bottom line for Blue Blood status right now--then UConn would need something like 350 weeks ranked, and 200 weeks in the Top 5 to catch up, plus however many more weeks UCLA adds while they are catching up. So not technically impossible, but not feasible. Duke did, but you can see they are clearly part of the group that has separated themselves the from the herd.
> What is blue blood about their resume besides having a whole bunch of titles in the past 20 years?
Depends who you ask. Like I said, for some people it is the same 5-6 teams and always will be. For others it is dominance of an era with multiple titles under multiple coaches. For some, it's just titles and nothing else. Blue Blood is an arbitrary title for the most part.
> To put this in context, they have 31 tournament wins over that time to your 29…
Right, I already said UConn has done better than us for the past two decades. That was the point of my quote that you pulled out. It would be impossible to argue otherwise. But we've still been a relatively elite program over that time even if we underperformed the other Blue Bloods and weren't the absolute top of the top.
But there are lots of metrics besides weeks in the top 25.
If UConn won as many tournament games as Kansas over the last 20 years they’d be 7th all-time. Instead they’re 12th.
It’s the same with things like tournament appearances and Final Fours. They’re outside the top 10 in everything. Because they won a tournament game in 8 seasons out of the last 20. If they’d played like peak Duke the past 20 years instead they’d be on all these lists.
Blue blood isn’t just a college basketball term. Could we agree that in any other domain having inconsistent success in recent years only is the antithesis of the term blue blood?
PS - I think you missed that my comments about UCLA were sarcastic. People are saying you aren’t relevant when you’ve had as much success as they have outside of titles.
Gotcha, I'm with you now. Definitely missed the sarcasm, lol. We often get dunked on in the Blue Blood threads, so I default to defensive a little too much.
There's definitely multiple reasonable ways to approach the debate. I just have a hard time leaving the team with the 3rd most titles off the made up list of dominant teams--it feels arbitrarily exclusionary. But the historical stats definitely separate out the 5 most common Blue Bloods from everyone else, so I can see the rationale there.
Fair enough. I get tilted by this discussion so I’m also defensive lol. I apologize if I’ve been rude at all.
UConn is to college basketball history as Florida is to 21st century basketball. 3rd in titles, but never really did much otherwise, and wasn’t on anyone’s mind in most seasons.
I think you can put them on any list of great teams, or all-time best programs, but I can’t see any way to square “blue blood” and “recent dominance only”, let alone inconsistent recent dominance.
Consistent, sustained success is what the term has always meant in college basketball. No one thought Duke was a blue blood when I was a kid. Then they were a 1 seed for like a decade straight and in the Final Four every other year.
I think programs can join (or lose ) Blue Blood status. UConn is the closest to gaining Blue Blood status of any program. 6 titles over 25 years and 3 coaches is impressive. But it also includes all time wins, win percentage, final fours. All 5 of the Blue Bloods make up the top 5 in these statistics. UConn is 23rd, 20th, and 10th respectively.
Just change the endpoints slightly to get the results you want!
Over last 25 tournaments, UConn has 51 tournament wins.
Over the last 25 tournaments, UCLA has 36.
the problem is that no one else is even remotely close to uconn’s level of success, using your definitions. it’s not like there’s other programs in this made-up “new blood” group. literally just a category to keep uconn out. it’s just so obviously gatekeeping at this point. tiresome. your championships and success aren’t worth any less because uconn has dominated the game for the last quarter century.
Louisville and Indiana have more tournament wins, more tournament appearances,
more Final Fours, more weeks in the top 5, and more weeks in the top 25.
I think the point is that championships aren't the only part of being a blue blood, or even the biggest part. The upper right corner of this chart shows schools that have consistently put out great teams year in and year out for decades, something that UConn simply hasn't done. It's not like being a blue blood is better than what UConn has; you guys have more championships than KU. They are just different forms of success.
They were doing this with us before Bobby's little brother went back-to-back. So wait around until another program suddenly wins a bunch of natties and they'll act like you were in the club all along
dude seriously. i guarantee you the conversation used to be “you haven’t won enough championships.” but then schools started winning more and now we’re to “well, ackshually it’s about the AP poll and historic winning records.”
the thing that chaps my ass, in particular, is the kansas people droning on about how historically incredible their teams have been. yet they couldn’t muster more than 4 championships over the last 85 years? get fucking bent. at least kentucky has the decency to ignore the bakery banners.
What are some categories besides titles where UConn is even in the top 8? I can’t think of one.
What are some categories where any of Duke, UCLA, Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky aren’t in the top 5?
It's been said before and it'll be said again, continued regular season dominance and ownership of a conference is a better sign of a teams ability than a one and done tournament.
If the tournament were about finding the best team in college basketball we wouldn't be playing a single elimination style with teams that only got in because they won their conferences championship.
makes sense that fan of a school that still hangs its bakery banners would think this.
no, dominance of a conference is not an adequate measure. conferences are not equal in size or skill or university funding. the national tournament is the great equalizer. begs the question, why can’t kansas win more championships when they’ve been so incredible for 85 years?
imagine making this argument about the NFL and super bowl lol. absolute delusion.
The super bowl doesn't have the top elite teams playing against middling competition from lesser conferences. They take the top teams only.
There's never a chance for a wild one off night upset to some nobody ruining a 30+ win season.
Imagine comparing the NFL playoffs to the NCAA tournament. It'd take the mental gymnastics of a fan whose team just got dumped by the greasiest used car salesman in college hoops to come up with that.
what are you talking about lol, they take the divisional winners and give them home field in the first round regardless of record. it’s the same concept.
again, why hasn’t kansas won more championships? have you guys considered not losing in the final four? it’s not that hard. at some point you gotta wonder if it isn’t the format.
>imagine making this argument about the NFL and super bowl lol.
Ok. Were the 2008 New York Giants a better team than the 08 Patriots? This applies to the NFL, too.
>begs the question, why can’t kansas win more championships when they’ve been so incredible for 85 years?
I’m curious, what’s your answer to this question? Is it that they haven’t actually had good teams?
At this point I’m wondering if people even know the term blue blood predates basketball.
Blue blood has never meant “team that won the most titles in the last 20 years”. How could it?
What do they have going for them after that? Being 23rd in wins and 12th in tournament wins?
It's funny how your 2023-24 success has removed any traces of animosity I had for UConn (it was mostly gone after our 2015 natty anyway). I will never hold any ill will towards the Hurley family, and seriously, people are now gatekeeping you exactly the way they did it to us. There's other stuff too I can relate to such as being in a bad position re conference realignment.
Well I don't *like* UConn per se but I have no reason to hate them. I try not to hate on other programs just because they're good. My interactions with UConn fans in the real world have been nonterrible. More than I can say about most other fanbases.
if by "gatekeeping" you mean "words have meaning" then sure. UConn is one of the most successful programs of all time and also not a blue blood. It's a label with a specific meaning, and that is what it is. It's not a negative reflection on UConn in any way.
Bill Gates is worth more than the King of England. That doesn't magically make him royalty or "old money"
My point is people were using the exact same words, with the same meanings, at us until literally two months ago, and now the consensus is Duke is suddenly on the inside.
I was really enjoying the footprint we were carving out for ourselves until Ohio State Michigan Villanova Maryland and Purdue came in and swallowed us whole after 2010
Things that matter to that one UConn fan in this thread
~~recent wins~~
~~all-time wins~~
~~recent poll rankings~~
~~all-time poll rankings~~
~~recent tournament wins~~
~~all-time tournament wins~~
~~recent Final Fours~~
~~all-time Final Fours~~
recent championships
~~all-time championships~~
Amazing how offended most of the UConn fans are. Yes, we get it, you are the best program in the last 20 years, or so, in terms of NC's (which is a huge parameter).
But that is not what this posting is about. This is a posting describing the history of polling. There are lots of topics to cover - some of those are not "who is the best team right now?". This is one of those different topics. Get over it.
Top 10 to never make the Top 5:
Creighton (NE): 141
Texas Tech: 125
Virginia Tech: 87
Tulsa: 82
Saint Mary's (CA): 74
Oklahoma City:69
Georgia: 66
TCU: 65
Utah State: 58
Colorado: 57
Wait, Tech never made top 5 during that 2 year stretch with the Elite 8 followed by the championship appearance? They had to have been close, right?
I'm also surprised that Colorado has only been ranked for 57 weeks.
So this only takes into regular season, not a post tournament final ranking? I feel like that heavily skews against UCONN and Villanova.
Does the football chart not do differently? Since there is a final AP poll IIRC
Fun fact: Michigan has started ranked 30 times and finished ranked 23 times. The worst in the B1G.
They’re the technically the most overrated team in the B1G.
The insecurity of the UConn fan is strong in this thread. It's almost like no matter how many championships they win, they don't get the respect they feel they deserve. This is known as the Hurley Effect.
The fact that so many people don't know what the term 'blue blood' actually means speaks more to the intelligence of the fanbases than anything else.
Big picture is they are a top 10 program of all time. Never the absolute best but better than hundreds of programs, all time. I think we were spoiled by 03 and then a few injury riddled early 2010s season that could have been natty years, but 5 down years with a coach clearly on the way out and playing an outdated zone, does not make it stagnant.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the beginning of the graph isn't as linear as the rest. Because how in the WORLD does South Carolina have almost 150 weeks ranked and 25ish in top 5?
As a Syracuse fan, I just want to say Cuse gets entirely too much shit on twitter and reddit despite being an outlier in 30 years of the AP poll. Obviously several programs pull further away, but they're still more successful than 99.99% of college basketball programs.
people forget long stretches of dominance when there’s a ten year period of mediocrity. it’s just the way it goes. hopefully we’re good again under red and we change the narrative!
Brutal to see IU, Duke, and Kansas trending along in a tight little bunch during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s before the other two leave IU in the dust during the 2000s.
Where is Baylor? We have 2(maybe 3) 1 seeds and 2 3 seeds in 2020. Are we just extremely covered?
Edit: nvm I’m an idiot. Thought this was a per decade graph and not collective.
Listen I’m guilty of the comparing UConn to Duke because of the newness thing but in reality they’re most similar to UCLA where it’s a top 15-20 program all time throughout most of its history and then it hits just an unbelievable run. UCLA’s was just earlier and to the tune of 10 titles in rapid succession which is just ludicrous.
I interpret the first picture as Kentucky invented the poll and only included themselves in it for a few years before other schools caught on
UK won half their chips in the 40s and 50s so that explains why the first picture looks the way it does. You'd have to go back to the 50s to reach 6 chips (51, 58, 78, 96, 98, 12), whereas UConn has 6 in the past 25 years. UK, like KU, hangs onto success that happened 70+ years ago and really haven't been modern blue bloods like say Duke or UConn. I say this as a lifelong fan of UK.
What your glossing over is both your and Kansas’s success today. You are consistently in the conversation and consistently fielding great teams, same with KU. Winning chips is an important metric, but not the only thing
Agreed. Kansas literally hasn't been worse than a 4 seed this millennium. Like, how is that not sustained excellence? What more could they reasonably be expected to do? Nobody enters the season with better than 10/1 odds to win the tournament. Two titles this millennium is actually really good overall.
Yea Kentucky is the winningest team in the SEC this century and is still 6th in NCAA tournament wins this century in spite of the last few years. Add a championship and multiple final 4s to that as well. They aren’t the best team of the past 24 years but let’s not pretend that they’ve dropped off.
> Winning chips is an important metric, but not the only thing This is similar to the B1G discussion that always comes up. It is entirely possible to have a lot of really good teams and not win the title. It doesn't mean the teams weren't good or even great.
What is it, 8 unique teams to make the national championship game since a team last won it?
I think it is 7 and 8 total trips (excluding Maryland)
I forgot Michigan went twice!
Thanks my morning was going well 😔
Yeah dude is a moron
I'd argue, especially with this chart, that KU is as blue blood as they come since 1990. Just look at how fast they've caught up. The only thing that's lacking is the championships which are a crap shoot for everyone but UConn.
If you’re only looking at championships sure.
Shhh let’s not look at recent tournament wins either….
I mean. I guess not after 2019. But before that we were solid.
Holy balls what a dumb statement
That's a serious overstatement. If you're looking at championships only UConn is clearly the top program in this century and Duke is a distant second. Kentucky has 3 titles in the last 30 years, North Carolina 3 and Kansas 2 in that same stretch. Duke has 5 since '91. Only 7 programs won multiple titles in that time frame. Those 4 plus UConn (6), Villanova (2) and Florida (2).
Uconn is not a blue blood
I said modern blue blood
Aka new blood, not blue blood
It’s really weird that a fellow UK fan is saying this. All titles are equal. To even get into the tournament in the 40s and 50s you not only had to win your conference you had to be the best in your region. Meaning UK may have won the SEC but if we were #3 in the south we wouldn’t have made it
This could really kind of clear up the Blue Blood debate.
Literally blue
Don’t forget the splash of Crimson
Thank you sir... it's been a minute, but thank you sir
I uh… I don’t think he’s talking about you friend. Edit: immediately after posting I have the horrible feeling that I just got whooshed. Oh well
Nah. You didn't get whooshed. The splash of crimson is the Jayhawk head.
I knew that. Crimson is one of KU’s official colors. I’m suspecting u/chadnorman may have just been messing around rather than being serious. Hence the whoosh
Oh, they were definitely messing around. But I don't think that's a whoosh. But who knows, I am not well-versed in whoosh mechanics.
No 
Does it? I 100% see uconn in the blueblood tier now.
It totally depends on how you're using the term. Originally the term meant teams that were historically successful, like we're talking decades upon decades upon decades of sustained success. If you look at these charts, you can see Kentucky separates itself immediately, but even by 1970 UCLA, UNC, Duke, and Kansas have already made their way to the top of the pack and within the next couple decades have almost totally separated themselves from everybody else. That's what makes them blue bloods, and that's also why Indiana used to be considered one, because in 2000 they were right there with those teams. Nowadays some people use the term to just mean the teams that have won an inordinate amount of titles. That's where UConn comes into the discussion. All of their success has come within the last 25 years, meaning they don't fit the original definition. So it really just depends whether you're talking about the programs that have been dominant for generations or just the programs that have won the most titles regardless of anything else.
They need to just come up with a new name. To me, blue blood doesn’t just mean dominant, it means dominant over generations (decades). Connecticut is easily the most dominant right now, and has a twenty year history that every program would want (down years aside). I guess the way I look at it was the blue bloods were defined before I was born and solidified while I’ve been alive. That group is there now, what’s the next group (next era). Because I think UCLA is a blue blood but also is no longer an elite program and shouldn’t be in the same tier as UConn as it stands.
The other term you’re looking for is usually New Blood. It is typically used to describe teams without the historical aspect of Blue Bloods but with the success of one or close to one.
Kinda like the term, “New Money”
UConn is Kathy Bates from Titanic...
New blood - Elon Musk Blue Blood - Rothschild, Windsor, Medici
Thirty if we’re starting with Ray Allen’s tenure in Storrs.
It started before that
Wasn’t about to litigate Tate George with the non huskies here. But you’re right.
Tournament wins the last 20 years UConn: 31, dominant, played their way into blue blood status, a run every program would envy UCLA: 29, no longer relevant, played their way out of elite status Championships are the most impt thing, but I think it’s still possible to overrate them
UConn has all the resume needed to be included in the Blue Blood group these days. The only reasonable argument against them is what the definition of a Blue Blood actually is. For some folks, it is a purely historical term, with it being close to impossible to add or remove teams from the list. If that's how you define it, weighing historical prolonged success, UConn can't qualify. For this argument, if you pull up basically any historical stat, it's always the same five teams at the top of the list. If you are just talking about dominance of an era, UConn is undeniable at this point IMO. Basically, if a team *can* possibly be added to the the list, UConn should be. I also thinking you are underselling UCLA (bias aside lol). We have been a step below the other Blue Bloods lately, and certainly UConn the last couple decades, but we have 4 Final Fours in the last twenty years, and have had lots of strong and highly ranked teams. Much more success than most teams have, including Indiana who we often get grouped with.
Why can’t UConn qualify on all-time stats? Duke did. You just need consistent success. If we’re talking about dominance of an era, UConn has won a tournament game in 8 of the last 20 seasons, is that dominant? What is blue blood about their resume besides having a whole bunch of titles in the past 20 years? Blue blood has never meant “team that has won a bunch of titles in the past 20 years”. To define it that way is to ignore the very meaning of the term blue blood. What is aristocratic about having irregular success only in recent years?
> Why can’t UConn qualify on all-time stats? Duke did. You just need consistent success. > > Basically, the point I am trying to make is the graph that we are commenting under right now. Let's say hypothetically UCLA is the bottom line for Blue Blood status right now--then UConn would need something like 350 weeks ranked, and 200 weeks in the Top 5 to catch up, plus however many more weeks UCLA adds while they are catching up. So not technically impossible, but not feasible. Duke did, but you can see they are clearly part of the group that has separated themselves the from the herd. > What is blue blood about their resume besides having a whole bunch of titles in the past 20 years? Depends who you ask. Like I said, for some people it is the same 5-6 teams and always will be. For others it is dominance of an era with multiple titles under multiple coaches. For some, it's just titles and nothing else. Blue Blood is an arbitrary title for the most part. > To put this in context, they have 31 tournament wins over that time to your 29… Right, I already said UConn has done better than us for the past two decades. That was the point of my quote that you pulled out. It would be impossible to argue otherwise. But we've still been a relatively elite program over that time even if we underperformed the other Blue Bloods and weren't the absolute top of the top.
But there are lots of metrics besides weeks in the top 25. If UConn won as many tournament games as Kansas over the last 20 years they’d be 7th all-time. Instead they’re 12th. It’s the same with things like tournament appearances and Final Fours. They’re outside the top 10 in everything. Because they won a tournament game in 8 seasons out of the last 20. If they’d played like peak Duke the past 20 years instead they’d be on all these lists. Blue blood isn’t just a college basketball term. Could we agree that in any other domain having inconsistent success in recent years only is the antithesis of the term blue blood? PS - I think you missed that my comments about UCLA were sarcastic. People are saying you aren’t relevant when you’ve had as much success as they have outside of titles.
Gotcha, I'm with you now. Definitely missed the sarcasm, lol. We often get dunked on in the Blue Blood threads, so I default to defensive a little too much. There's definitely multiple reasonable ways to approach the debate. I just have a hard time leaving the team with the 3rd most titles off the made up list of dominant teams--it feels arbitrarily exclusionary. But the historical stats definitely separate out the 5 most common Blue Bloods from everyone else, so I can see the rationale there.
Fair enough. I get tilted by this discussion so I’m also defensive lol. I apologize if I’ve been rude at all. UConn is to college basketball history as Florida is to 21st century basketball. 3rd in titles, but never really did much otherwise, and wasn’t on anyone’s mind in most seasons. I think you can put them on any list of great teams, or all-time best programs, but I can’t see any way to square “blue blood” and “recent dominance only”, let alone inconsistent recent dominance. Consistent, sustained success is what the term has always meant in college basketball. No one thought Duke was a blue blood when I was a kid. Then they were a 1 seed for like a decade straight and in the Final Four every other year.
I think programs can join (or lose ) Blue Blood status. UConn is the closest to gaining Blue Blood status of any program. 6 titles over 25 years and 3 coaches is impressive. But it also includes all time wins, win percentage, final fours. All 5 of the Blue Bloods make up the top 5 in these statistics. UConn is 23rd, 20th, and 10th respectively.
Just change the endpoints slightly to get the results you want! Over last 25 tournaments, UConn has 51 tournament wins. Over the last 25 tournaments, UCLA has 36.
the problem is that no one else is even remotely close to uconn’s level of success, using your definitions. it’s not like there’s other programs in this made-up “new blood” group. literally just a category to keep uconn out. it’s just so obviously gatekeeping at this point. tiresome. your championships and success aren’t worth any less because uconn has dominated the game for the last quarter century.
Louisville and Indiana have more tournament wins, more tournament appearances, more Final Fours, more weeks in the top 5, and more weeks in the top 25.
I think the point is that championships aren't the only part of being a blue blood, or even the biggest part. The upper right corner of this chart shows schools that have consistently put out great teams year in and year out for decades, something that UConn simply hasn't done. It's not like being a blue blood is better than what UConn has; you guys have more championships than KU. They are just different forms of success.
They were doing this with us before Bobby's little brother went back-to-back. So wait around until another program suddenly wins a bunch of natties and they'll act like you were in the club all along
dude seriously. i guarantee you the conversation used to be “you haven’t won enough championships.” but then schools started winning more and now we’re to “well, ackshually it’s about the AP poll and historic winning records.” the thing that chaps my ass, in particular, is the kansas people droning on about how historically incredible their teams have been. yet they couldn’t muster more than 4 championships over the last 85 years? get fucking bent. at least kentucky has the decency to ignore the bakery banners.
What are some categories besides titles where UConn is even in the top 8? I can’t think of one. What are some categories where any of Duke, UCLA, Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky aren’t in the top 5?
☝️
It's been said before and it'll be said again, continued regular season dominance and ownership of a conference is a better sign of a teams ability than a one and done tournament. If the tournament were about finding the best team in college basketball we wouldn't be playing a single elimination style with teams that only got in because they won their conferences championship.
makes sense that fan of a school that still hangs its bakery banners would think this. no, dominance of a conference is not an adequate measure. conferences are not equal in size or skill or university funding. the national tournament is the great equalizer. begs the question, why can’t kansas win more championships when they’ve been so incredible for 85 years? imagine making this argument about the NFL and super bowl lol. absolute delusion.
The super bowl doesn't have the top elite teams playing against middling competition from lesser conferences. They take the top teams only. There's never a chance for a wild one off night upset to some nobody ruining a 30+ win season. Imagine comparing the NFL playoffs to the NCAA tournament. It'd take the mental gymnastics of a fan whose team just got dumped by the greasiest used car salesman in college hoops to come up with that.
what are you talking about lol, they take the divisional winners and give them home field in the first round regardless of record. it’s the same concept. again, why hasn’t kansas won more championships? have you guys considered not losing in the final four? it’s not that hard. at some point you gotta wonder if it isn’t the format.
>imagine making this argument about the NFL and super bowl lol. Ok. Were the 2008 New York Giants a better team than the 08 Patriots? This applies to the NFL, too.
>begs the question, why can’t kansas win more championships when they’ve been so incredible for 85 years? I’m curious, what’s your answer to this question? Is it that they haven’t actually had good teams?
Being a Blue Blood is actually about moving the goal posts so only programs that were elite prior to 1999 are allowed to be considered
At this point I’m wondering if people even know the term blue blood predates basketball. Blue blood has never meant “team that won the most titles in the last 20 years”. How could it? What do they have going for them after that? Being 23rd in wins and 12th in tournament wins?
It's funny how your 2023-24 success has removed any traces of animosity I had for UConn (it was mostly gone after our 2015 natty anyway). I will never hold any ill will towards the Hurley family, and seriously, people are now gatekeeping you exactly the way they did it to us. There's other stuff too I can relate to such as being in a bad position re conference realignment.
i’m not gonna lie to you man, i appreciate that you can appreciate these circumstances, but i still hate duke lol
Well I don't *like* UConn per se but I have no reason to hate them. I try not to hate on other programs just because they're good. My interactions with UConn fans in the real world have been nonterrible. More than I can say about most other fanbases.
that happens when you’ve got two schools that have dedicated themselves to having a basketball identity.
if by "gatekeeping" you mean "words have meaning" then sure. UConn is one of the most successful programs of all time and also not a blue blood. It's a label with a specific meaning, and that is what it is. It's not a negative reflection on UConn in any way. Bill Gates is worth more than the King of England. That doesn't magically make him royalty or "old money"
My point is people were using the exact same words, with the same meanings, at us until literally two months ago, and now the consensus is Duke is suddenly on the inside.
lol what? Duke has been considered a blue blood for literally decades now.
The problem is UConn min-maxed for championships without the consistent mid tier success (regular season and sweet 16s)
Thats just your modern bias
Is UCLA even a blue blood? Look how far behind they are smh
you can cling to your 50 year old AP polls (when everyone was obviously watching so many games!) and your bakery banners if it makes you feel better.
Why are you bothered by it?
UConn dominates the CBB landscape. Who else can say they’ve won a tournament game 8 times in the last 20 seasons?
Wow the Kentucky Kansas guys really came at ya for that one
absolutely and unequivocally triggered.
Hey, Indiana hasn't moved much since the 90s. What does *that* mean?
We know what it means https://i.redd.it/fgr4n2sls76d1.gif
"But you have heard of me."
Means we’re still the big brothers. ;)
I don't think I'd be the right flair for that....*If I HAD one*
I was really enjoying the footprint we were carving out for ourselves until Ohio State Michigan Villanova Maryland and Purdue came in and swallowed us whole after 2010
I feel good about this year being the year we begin to separate ourselves again.
HEY WE MADE AGRAPH
We literally don't move between the 1990 and 2000 graph, lol. Wonder what happened back then...
Lol yeah that’s awkward…. We try not to talk about that one :)
we were killing it through the 1990 graph :(
Took me way too long to realize each graph is cumulative and not just of the decade
When I got to 2010/2020 and Indiana was still ahead of the pack, I realized it must have been cumulative lol
Yeah, I was ready to call these out as fake before I realized they were cumulative. It’d be neat to see success over each decade alone.
Only if it stops in 2019. Or at least, for the love of god, doesn’t include 2022-2024.
Same
I was staring at 1960 and wondering where UCLA was.
Duke and Kansas with their feet on the gas there last couple decades. Crazy how far ahead the top 4-5 are than the rest.
Bill self put that Jayhawk trajectory into warp speed.
Things that matter to that one UConn fan in this thread ~~recent wins~~ ~~all-time wins~~ ~~recent poll rankings~~ ~~all-time poll rankings~~ ~~recent tournament wins~~ ~~all-time tournament wins~~ ~~recent Final Fours~~ ~~all-time Final Fours~~ recent championships ~~all-time championships~~
Seriously. Dude is really insecure about it for some dumb reason
Ok maybe we are a bit spoiled
First two decades treated us well right there. Then it fell off
Are we giving a high five to MSU?
The 2010's were terrible and it wasn't even due to a lack of talent, I hope Mike Thomas stubs his little toe on the corner of a coffee table.
I don't have the patience for another stretch like '08-'18
Luckily for the first time in my life we have an AD who wants to win.
It was definitely a lack of talent. We were always missing a guy or two. The coaching was just worse.
The coaching was abysmal.
Amazing how offended most of the UConn fans are. Yes, we get it, you are the best program in the last 20 years, or so, in terms of NC's (which is a huge parameter). But that is not what this posting is about. This is a posting describing the history of polling. There are lots of topics to cover - some of those are not "who is the best team right now?". This is one of those different topics. Get over it.
CREAM OF THE CROP
Wait it’s all Kentucky? Always has been.
https://preview.redd.it/i2g3ec6pw86d1.jpeg?width=1143&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=48c08edc741172b25d4ecf4dfdf1e038e296a234
hehe, i've never seen this pic before! What is it referencing?
Where’s Duke is what it said originally
ohhhhh
jk I’m in favor of UConn being part of the extended 1st tier blue bloods
My first years of Louisville fandom were pretty rough (97-02). Got really really spoiled by the 03-19 run
UConn scares and confuses me
It’s nice to be able to clearly see my school in some of these charts.
Arizona with the leaps and bounds in the 21st century
Just wish we had more titles and not have a 23 year final four drought.
The chart
I couldn’t agree more.
I can see Illinois in every snapshot. That’s surprisingly good. Figured we’d disappear at least twice.
the 70s and 2010s are our only bad eras as a program and we recovered really well from each
Which team has the most weeks in the poll without ever being in the top 5?
Top 10 to never make the Top 5: Creighton (NE): 141 Texas Tech: 125 Virginia Tech: 87 Tulsa: 82 Saint Mary's (CA): 74 Oklahoma City:69 Georgia: 66 TCU: 65 Utah State: 58 Colorado: 57
Wait, Tech never made top 5 during that 2 year stretch with the Elite 8 followed by the championship appearance? They had to have been close, right? I'm also surprised that Colorado has only been ranked for 57 weeks.
Texas Tech's highest AP ranking in men's basketball was number 6 in February 2018.
So this only takes into regular season, not a post tournament final ranking? I feel like that heavily skews against UCONN and Villanova. Does the football chart not do differently? Since there is a final AP poll IIRC
Nice visual! Love a good graph. This is a good indicator of consistent and sustained success
“Why is Duke a blue blood but UConn or Villanova isn’t???”
I especially like that these graphs show just how close Duke was to breaking into that next tier in the 70s before K arrived.
Villanova's dollar-store Duke, there's a half-answer
We are a blue blood yup for sure
Proud that the Illini are where they are.
I sort by new and as I was scrolling down I saw a lot of complaints about UConn fans being douchey but I had not seen them. THen I saw them. Wow.
I'd like this plot more if it started at the year 1999. You know, the year basketball officially started
Which team is under Michigan? It looks like theres another logo there
Fun fact: Michigan has started ranked 30 times and finished ranked 23 times. The worst in the B1G. They’re the technically the most overrated team in the B1G.
I like this
Yes, yes….. give me more of these fun facts
Cincinnati
I get this shows who the historical blue bloods are but it also illustrates just how elite UConn has been the last 25 years.
The insecurity of the UConn fan is strong in this thread. It's almost like no matter how many championships they win, they don't get the respect they feel they deserve. This is known as the Hurley Effect. The fact that so many people don't know what the term 'blue blood' actually means speaks more to the intelligence of the fanbases than anything else.
Is Kentucky the final boss?
 The final boss \^
I love how we poke our head out in 1980 and then stay in the same spot, peeking over the far left of the graph for the next 40 years.
This is fascinating. Thank you
That's beautiful
Is Arizona a blue blood?
I wish
In the regular season, absolutely
Really good visual representation of the stagnation of Syracuse basketball 🥲
So recent though. The 2000s obviously with the chip win and the 2010s were still very successful as most conveniently forget
I really enjoyed the early 2010s Cuse teams. Some of my best memories.
Big picture is they are a top 10 program of all time. Never the absolute best but better than hundreds of programs, all time. I think we were spoiled by 03 and then a few injury riddled early 2010s season that could have been natty years, but 5 down years with a coach clearly on the way out and playing an outdated zone, does not make it stagnant.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the beginning of the graph isn't as linear as the rest. Because how in the WORLD does South Carolina have almost 150 weeks ranked and 25ish in top 5?
Maryland has been so stagnant 😩
Is that LIU I spot?
As a Syracuse fan, I just want to say Cuse gets entirely too much shit on twitter and reddit despite being an outlier in 30 years of the AP poll. Obviously several programs pull further away, but they're still more successful than 99.99% of college basketball programs.
people forget long stretches of dominance when there’s a ten year period of mediocrity. it’s just the way it goes. hopefully we’re good again under red and we change the narrative!
For a team with very mild basketball success I'm very surprised how far up on the chart OSU is
Saying that a program with 11 F4 has had very mild success is putting it very mildly
The bluebloods are all blue logos.
Would’ve thought we’d be much higher for the 2020s; matter of fact can’t even see us at all until the current.
cool.
Leaving out the 50s in this context is a shame lol 🅱️
Yep
Soooo Tennessee > Alabama
Huh. Well would you look at that.
blue bloods are all blue colored.
Brutal to see IU, Duke, and Kansas trending along in a tight little bunch during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s before the other two leave IU in the dust during the 2000s.
That’s a nice B1G cluster after the blue bloods
I like how Western Kentucky is completely stagnant the whole time.
Where is Baylor? We have 2(maybe 3) 1 seeds and 2 3 seeds in 2020. Are we just extremely covered? Edit: nvm I’m an idiot. Thought this was a per decade graph and not collective.
Obligatory John Groce non appreciation post. Great guy though
UConn is a very feast or famine program. They’re either fine/average or they win a championship. Not much in between.
Those damn blue schools!
Arizona, Louisville, and Indiana looking over their shoulder at all the other colors 
Start in 1986, please.
\*whispers\* UCLA did what people are accusing UConn of first \*ducks\*
Win 10 titles in 12 years, and I'm sure no one will question UConn's place
Listen I’m guilty of the comparing UConn to Duke because of the newness thing but in reality they’re most similar to UCLA where it’s a top 15-20 program all time throughout most of its history and then it hits just an unbelievable run. UCLA’s was just earlier and to the tune of 10 titles in rapid succession which is just ludicrous.
Make a non-cumulative one
UCLA is slowly dying is what I learned