Now that UConn has won its 5th national championship, talk has heated up if they are one of the blue bloods of college basketball. Everyone is in agreement that Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke and Kansas are definite blue bloods; UCLA is nearly unanimous; and Indiana is hanging on to that status. But does Connecticut join the list?
PRO: THEY HAVE FIVE CHAMPIONSHIPS
This is the main point that should get them in. Right now, only UCLA (11), Kentucky (8) and North Carolina (6) have more national championships than UConn's five. Yes, that means the Huskies have as many titles as Duke and Indiana have and one more than Kansas. That's blue blood game right there.
CON: THEY ARE NEW BLUE BLOOD
This is one of the more interesting arguments that is kind of a backhanded compliment. Many note that Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas and Indiana have been historically great for decades and decades. Kansas was coached by Dr. James Naismith. North Carolina has been to a Final Four in nine straight decades. UCLA's Wooden era will never be repeated. Kentucky and Indiana have "black and white" titles. UConn's status as an elite program has really only been for the last 30 years. They don't have the history that any of the other blue bloods have, but ....
PRO: THEY'VE WON FIVE TITLES IN 25 YEARS
This is the amazing stat. Again, only three schools have more titles than UConn but only UCLA and Duke have won five titles in a 25 year span ever. Both those schools did that with one legendary coach while UConn has managed to do so with three.
CON: THEY ARE A BOOM OR BUST PROGRAM
This is where the people who are against UConn's blue blood status tend to begin their argument. UConn has only been to six Final Fours, which places them 10th all time ... and tied with the likes of Arkansas, Cincinnati, Houston and Oklahoma State. UConn trails Indiana by two on that front and trails the other blue bloods by at least 10 appearances. Not only that, but during their 25 year reign, UConn has missed the tournament entirely eight times. They've only reached the Sweet 16 nine times during that time and have had double digit losses 14 times in that span.
PRO: THEY WIN WITH DIFFERENT COACHES IN DIFFERENT ERAS
Duke has never won a title with a coach not named Mike Krzyzewski. Several schools have won a title with two coaches. But only Kentucky, UConn, Kansas and North Carolina have won a championship under at least three different coaches (Kentucky has done so with five coaches). Also, their 2023 title places them with North Carolina as the only schools to win a national championship in four straight decades. UConn has won titles in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s (the Tar Heels won in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s).
CON: LACK OF HISTORICAL NUMBERS
This is another stickler for folks. Of the blue bloods we all recognize or debate, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke and UCLA rank one through five in all-time wins. Indiana, whose hold on their status, is 10th. Connecticut is 25th. That's less than Penn, Princeton, Washington, West Virginia, BYU and Western Kentucky. Until 1990, UConn was 4-14 in NCAA tournament games. Before this tournament, they hadn't won an NCAA tournament game since beating Colorado in the 2016 dance. UConn is 12th in NCAA tournament wins all-time.
PRO: THEY'VE BEEN BETTER THAN THE OTHER BLUE BLOODS RECENTLY
I mentioned earlier where their rank is as far as championship totals. Let's take it a step further: How is UCLA or Indiana considered a blue blood if they have won zero titles since UConn's first in 1999? UCLA has won one national championship in 48 years. Indiana hasn't won one in 36 years. Kentucky has won one title since UConn's first ring. Duke and North Carolina has each won three titles in that span. And 25 years isn't nothing to sneeze at as a time frame of winning.
CON: THEIR CHAMPIONSHIPS ARE ... WEAK?
Of the last 16 NCAA tournament winners, 13 were either a No. 1 or No. 2 seed. The three that weren't? UConn in 2011, UConn in 2014 and UConn in 2023. Their opponents in those games were a No. 8 seed (Butler), No. 8 seed (Kentucky) and a No. 5 seed (San Diego State). They're not the lone school to beat a low seed in a final (Kansas beat a No. 8 last year, for example), but detractors hold it against the Huskies.
They have an extremely strong case to be considered a "blue blood" program. They certainly have the titles to prove so and probably should be placed among the greatest programs in college basketball. The main obstacle is their resume is just ... different. Sort of like the Miami Hurricanes in college football. That was a program that was built from nothing and quickly became a powerhouse in the sport and challenged the "blue bloods" of that time and historically. Some don't consider The U to be a blue blood like Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Nebraska, etc ... yet Miami won four national championships in a nine year span and five titles in a 19 year span. So do you think UConn has deserved to be considered a true hoops blue blood?
No comments:
Post a Comment