12 hours ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

A question for guys on here will Connecticut now be considered a "blue blood" with the likes of UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, and Indiana?

In my opinion, you can't "become" blue blood. I'm probably way too literal but blue blood programs are who they were whenever the term was initially defining college basketball programs and you can't become a blue blood just because you've had a great 25 year run after that. If you weren't originally a blue blood, then you never will be.

We had this exact argument at our guys get together on Friday of the Opening Weekend of the tournament and I basically died on that hill. Everyone disagreed with me except for the guy that taught History, who said I was technically correct but he didn't wanna jump into it as much as me lol. The term blue blood dates back to the days forever ago and keeping royalty blood pure. You don't create new blue blood.

So no, in my opinion, UConn is not and never will be a blue blood program. However, they are absolutely a powerhouse program.

2 hours ago, DragonFire said:

UConn has equaled Duke for the most titles during the 64+ team era of the NCAA tournament.  Doesn't get much more blue blood than that IMO. 

Connecticut - 5
Duke - 5
North Carolina - 4
Kansas - 3
Kentucky - 3
Villanova - 3
Florida - 2
Louisville - 2

The term blue blood means they were a dominant program long ago, thus won titles long before it was 64+ team era. Media has changed what "blue blood" means. If you didn't win titles until the tournament had 64 teams, you can't be a blue blood program.

A powerhouse in the last 25-35 years? Absolutely. Blue blood? No, you can't become one.

22 minutes ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

The term blue blood means they were a dominant program long ago, thus won titles long before it was 64+ team era. Media has changed what "blue blood" means. If you didn't win titles until the tournament had 64 teams, you can't be a blue blood program.

A powerhouse in the last 25-35 years? Absolutely. Blue blood? No, you can't become one.

So, is UC a blue blood?

6 minutes ago, 4 Quarters said:

So, is UC a blue blood?

That's a great question and one the opposing side of my argument asked me before. I don't know the answer that. Were they considered a blue blood program when people first started using that terminology in college basketball? If so, then yes. I don't think they were, so I'd say no.

Just because they had two titles, doesn't mean they had extended success in the early years which should be needed to considered a blue blood.

27 minutes ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

The term blue blood means they were a dominant program long ago, thus won titles long before it was 64+ team era. Media has changed what "blue blood" means. If you didn't win titles until the tournament had 64 teams, you can't be a blue blood program.

A powerhouse in the last 25-35 years? Absolutely. Blue blood? No, you can't become one.

To each their own on that definition.  To me it means the elite of the elite programs with staying power.  I don't feel like if Oklahoma State started winning titles that they'd just immediately jump to blue blood status on the strength of them having won a couple back in the 40s.

Also, by your definition, Duke would not qualify as a blue blood.  The only reason Kansas would is because they happened to stumble their way into one in 1952. 

10 minutes ago, 4 Quarters said:

So, is UC a blue blood?

No idea but Dion Dixon (UC 2009-2012) was my Uber driver this past weekend. 

Newbloods?

Sounds like you could deem UConn an "Elite" program without almost any argument.  But without the pedigree it seems they do not qualify as "Blue Blood" based on above. 

So the terms "Blue Blood" and "Elite" should not be used interchangeably.  Correct? 

Just now, Bluegrasscard said:

Sounds like you could deem UConn an "Elite" program without almost any argument.  But without the pedigree it seems they do not qualify as "Blue Blood" based on above. 

So the terms "Blue Blood" and "Elite" should not be used interchangeably.  Correct? 

It's just my opinion, but in my eyes they are not the same thing.

But I am taking the literal definition of "blue blood" and the historical context that has and applying it to college basketball, which in my opinion was the intent whenever people started using the term to define basketball programs. Which I'll admit, I have no idea when that was.

2 hours ago, DragonFire said:

Also, by your definition, Duke would not qualify as a blue blood.  The only reason Kansas would is because they happened to stumble their way into one in 1952. 

And that's where the majority of my friends told me I was an idiot, but I said yeah, I wouldn't count Duke as a true blue blood program.

Kansas gets the blue blood title because that's literally where basketball was invented.

3 hours ago, 4 Quarters said:

So, is UC a blue blood?

Never would be on this site lol.

3 hours ago, theguru said:

No idea but Dion Dixon (UC 2009-2012) was my Uber driver this past weekend. 

I don't recall that name, but it sounds like he has done well.

3 hours ago, MJAlltheWay24 said:

That's a great question and one the opposing side of my argument asked me before. I don't know the answer that. Were they considered a blue blood program when people first started using that terminology in college basketball? If so, then yes. I don't think they were, so I'd say no.

Just because they had two titles, doesn't mean they had extended success in the early years which should be needed to considered a blue blood.

They were successful in the late 50's, early 60's.  Looks to me like you need to redefine the word blue blood.

54 minutes ago, 4 Quarters said:

I don't recall that name, but it sounds like he has done well.

I agree, he has been playing pro ball out of country since he left UC and he told me he is going to play again this year.

6 hours ago, 4 Quarters said:

They were successful in the late 50's, early 60's.  Looks to me like you need to redefine the word blue blood.

The problem is, people have redefined what it meant already.

Saying "has XYZ earned blue blood status", in my mind it's not possible to earn. Whoever was defined as the original blue bloods when the term was coined in college bball is all there can ever be.

Blue Blood and Elite are two different things.

I will ask anyone cause I don't know, who was the first to use the term "Blue Blood" in regards to college bball programs? When was "Blue Blood" first used? Who was defined at the time as being a Blue Blood program? I don't believe UConn was, thus they can't be a Blue Blood now cause they never were and you can't just become Blue Blood, even after 30 years of great basketball cause in historical context, you don't obtain it. You have it and hold onto it.

Saying Uconn is now a Blue Blood program goes against what the term "Blue Blood" truly means outside of college bball.

So no, UConn is not a Blue Blood. They are an Elite or Powerhouse program that has done great things in the last 25-30 years but you can't earn a "Blue Blood" status in my eyes.

In my eyes "Blue Blood" needs to stop being a term that is used if you can earn your way into it, cause you can't earn your way into a bloodline.