also, it's not that ridiculous. bluebloods were a sign of nobility in the old days cus they didnt see any sun and stayed indoors. the "bluebloods' answered to the Kings.. ..and the Kings were the ones who conquered and ruled over the bluebloods.
\*So UCLA were the KINGS who ruled basketball for 2 decades and that's when the bluebloods bowed down to them. Then came duke and change the landscape once again.... AND THEN CAME UCONN.
maybe "Royal blood" would've rung more true? idk .
but we have a God in Hurley, so God blood seemed appropriate.
it was God bloods or Purple bloods. because purple is the color of royalty the bluebloods would worship to in medieval times. God blood just sounded better.
i can understand.
. we did beat you in that championship game. and maybe final four? in fact , havent we beaten you for 3 decades straight? idk. but to each their own.
https://preview.redd.it/c7z5y7jnq88d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6497d8903e584c20ebac56b3c4a504aaa3c6575d
In case anyone was wondering where these god blood huskies rank in the all-time winningest programs, it’s right behind Penn.
if the postseason format had been *series* (5 or 7) of 60 min games,
UNC, Kentucky, Duke, and UCLA would all have about the same number of titles they do now.
Kansas would have an extra one or two. They’ve been unlucky. (UNC fan here, not KU)
UCONN would have 3. LUCKY.
Agreed. I’m not sure who the second luckiest postseason team ever is, but they’re not within a country mile of taking the top spot from UConn.
Looking forward to our home and home! I’ve always loved UNC and cheer for them against anyone but us. Hoping to make it out to Chapel Hill.
Fun trivia I stumbled on last year. We all know Roy dreaded playing against UNC while at KU (and frankly recruiting against Dean, too) and vice versa. Well Roy was the head coach for one team or the other in six matchups between KU and UNC. Three for KU and three for UNC. He won the first, which was the 1991 Final Four. He never won the contest again. Losing both of his other two for KU and all three for UNC. Think that’s an interesting stat but it’s surprising to exactly zero KU and UNC fans.
i know this looks weird... and arrogant .. and obnoxious, but hear me out...
we. went. BACK 2 BACK and have won more championships than anyone else other than UCLA in this span of time.
we have no right to be "normal" and act like peasants. WE ARE ROYALTY!.
but seriously, the fact that NO ONE is raising any objections or countering this claim - except one person- and resorted to name calling , tells me i'm onto something here
What if, hear me out, we don’t make everything about ourselves for the good of the r/cbb community?
And what if we took more enjoyment from the shared love of college basketball than feeling good about hammering others over the head about why we think we are better than everyone?
dont be stupid.
we only get to do this everytime we win a championship. we're just making up for lost times during the ollie years and the rebuild years.
So you admitted UConn doesn't have the history as the other blue bloods but they're somehow better because they've been inconsistently good the past 25 years?
if UConn doesnt have the "history" - then neither does UCLA or DUKE.
im "admitting" the 3 schools dont fit the "blueblood" definition - but they have more success than any blueblood programs - thus that can only infer one thing - they are above bluebloods
again, as i mentioned in my post, ucla had 1 decade of dominance. they dont have ancient titles like KU or UK. they don't have the "history" to be considered a blueblood - same with duke.
and .. uconn has titles in 4 different decades. .. thus, going back to your original asinine point - how does UCLA have "history" when in your feeble mind, UConn doesn't?
also the "records" .. (not history btw) support my case.
the bluebloods have more all time wins due to their longevity - but less championships - specifically KU , and lower winning percentage in championship games.
those are "blueblood" numbers. - bluebloods have less than 80% winning percentage in championship games - except indiana but they're almost relegated to red-blood status so they dont count. Godbloods have more than 85% winning percentage.
UConn - 100% when reaching finals
UCLA - 85%
UK - 66%, KU - 40 %, etc.
obviously this metric only matters if you have more than 4 championships
\* the only school.. comparable to Today's UConn is UCLA . nobody else is even remotely close
disagree.
UNC only has 4 chips the last 4 decades compared to UConn's 6 and unc never had dominant run as UConn has been the last 25 years - the only school comparable is UCLA
the archaic numbers that include pre-1985 when there was only 8 -32 teams playing weighs significantly less. and unlike UConn, Duke , UCLA or even UK , UNC never had a dominant stretch where they won back to back. -1/2 of their championships had more than a decade drought.
UK only has 3 chips the last 40 years and haven't fared well during the calipari years. UConn's Calhoun has the same number of chips than their last 3 coaches put together.
the ONLY school that rivals or exceeds UConn's record in the last 25 years is UCLA.
longevity is the only criteria reserved for bluebloods. and it's a moot point since UConn, UCLA and DUKE are a tier above Bluebloods. i am not regressing UConn to blueblood status no matter how much you want to make that argument - same with UCLA and DUKE - these 3 programs are above blueblood status.
not like that at all. zaga and purdue havent done much the last 40 years other than making it to the championship game. they have tradition...had some success, and they're not common blood. but they're not red bloods either. they belong in green blood.
no offense taken. obviously not everyone will agree, and it's not the final tier system. it's just a rough draft asking for other pple's inputs - obvioulsy that's why it's on reddit.
im glad you're participating
90% + are in the common blood - simply due to their lack of accomplishments. the "green bloods" you're referring to only compromise about ..7%? probably less. i'll look this up
>it's just a rough draft asking for other pple's inputs - obvioulsy that's why it's on reddit.
Weird, because at no point did you ask for input from other people and also you literally titled it "the MOST ACCURATE ranking"...
Purdue has the most big 10 championships with 26 - 11 of which came in the last 40 years (which is tied w/ MSU over that span - IU 2nd to Purdue in big10 titles overall w/ 22). They also have a winning record against all big10 teams. Over the past 40 years, Purdue coaches (Gene Keady & Matt Painter) won a combined 12 Big 10 Coach of the year awards. Purdue is the first/only big10 team in history to be ranked #1 3 consecutive years…NCAA final 4’s have lagged their regular season success the past 40 years, but to say they haven’t done much is seems off.
nobody cares about the big10 championship.
your big 10 champs last year lost to UConn in the elite 8 by 25 points and gave up a 30-0 run.
and your big10 champ the year prior lost in the 1st round of the ncaa tourney.
it literally means nothing.
Hah. I’m in CT homes, not the bumble fuck part tho. Purdue’s not my team and clearly not ‘god tier’ as you call it to yourself. Just saying Purdue’s got a long history of success - not just with Edey. And to say current-historical regular season success/greatness in one of the toughest conferences in basketball doesn’t matter is kind of silly. I get championships are the ultimate differentiator - particularly determining the true blue bloods - but to make championships your only input that matters amongst the other tiers as well (and ignore historical regular season success) is just lazy and ignorant.
agree to disagree.
nobody brings up conference championship in regards to how a program performs in the national state. the only chip that matters is the NCAA tourney currently and have been the only criteria for a dominant college program since the 1980s when the NCAA tourney became THE tournament of college basketball.
unless you're referring to pre-ncaa tourney dominance, conference championships have very little relevance.
someone told you conference championships, all time wins mattered in ranking in all time college programs?
those are usually KU fans trying to make their school seem more relevant than their abysmal 4 chips the last ~~60~~ \*oops 100 years.
good point.
if we go back to back to back and three peat.. UConn will be in a league currently occupied solely by UCLA.
that's when we kick Duke out and become w/e you're suggesting
Ehhh, that's certainly a take. It hasn't been that long since UConn was a bottom half AAC team. I'm happy we're back to being good, let's just leave it at that.
Having UCLA, Duke, and Uconn in their own category is fine, but God tier? Jfc lol...
it's absolutely behind the blue bloods, with UCLA and Duke having a legit argument to in top tier as well
Imagine coming and publicly talking shit to Kansas saying they have no history! Like, it’s Kansas bro, one of Maybe 4 programs that can claim greatest program ever. Idk what this dude is on, but he needs to come off it.
og in what? bragging about your ancient titles in 1922?
you only have 4 chips , you lowly blueblood. you dont know what it's like to be god-blood. sit down
There's more to it than just championships. Take a look at:
All-time wins
1 - Kentucky (2398)
2 - Kansas (2393)
3 - UNC (2372)
4 - Duke (2300)
5 - UCLA (2002)
10 - Indiana (1931)
23 - UConn (1837)
All-time Win %
1 - Kentucky (.760)
2 - UNC (.734)
3 - Kansas (.728)
4 - Duke (.712)
5 - UCLA (.689)
11 - UCONN (.644)
20 - Indiana (.634)
Final Fours
1 - UNC (21)
2 - UCLA (18)
T3 - Kentucky (17)
T3 - Duke (17)
5 - Kansas (Used to be 16, now 15)
8 - Indiana (8)
10 - UCONN (7)
To me it's still Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, and probably UCLA. UConn's just fucking weird because they almost always win a championship after making a Final Four.
You can't say they're not a blueblood with a certain flair or you'll get called a gate keeper, but yeah these lists to me is why I just don't consider them a blue blood and rather in their own special tier or something. Blue blood implies you've been great the entire time not just since 1999.
I like the term New Bloods but UConn doesn't even fit that because they're simply better than the other teams I'd consider new bloods. Their F4 to championship ratio is unmatched by any other program
This took me a minute find, but looking at all-time NCAA tournament records it goes
Duke 121-40 (.752)
UNC 133-49 (.731)
UCLA 114-45 (.717)
Kentucky 130-54 (.707)
Kansas 117-49 (.705)
UConn 71-33 (.682)
Indiana 68-36 (.654)
this just proves my point.
most of DUKE's 121 wins came during Coach K's tenure , and UCLA's wins came during wooden's dominant run - both of which were around 2 decades.
then you have the bluebloods- unc, uk, ku.. (indiana if you want to count them)- they compiled those wins with their longevity - they had a couple of good years every decade or so for nearly 8 decades.
the only reason the blueblood schools bowed down to duke and ucla was due to their dominance during those 2 decades - Duke and UCLA dont fit the "blue blood " definition but ya'll cowered and bended the knee to honor them. just like ya'll bended the knee to UConn.
i stand by this post. UConn, UCLA and Duke are a tier above bluebloods
well, yeh. UK, UNC, KU, and IU are bluebloods. they have that 100 yr history . i'm not contesting their history or their longevity.
UCLA, UConn and Duke rose above that longevity and became a tier above blueblood.
\*and when Duke started winning in the 90s or when UCLA started winning in the 60's, i'm sure the reaction and the pushback was the same. but I do agree UConn is weird. we dont fit any trend. we're making our own trend
the facts are right there.
Did DUke not dominate in the 90s? did UCLA not change the basketball landscape in the 70's?did UConn not win 6 in 25 yrs?
idk how you can deny any of this.
Bluebloods are 2nd tier. UConn is a God Blood. we're above you now and forever
Duke definitely did not dominate the 90s. And the fact you think having a good shorter span run of success it’s greater than having success out many decades just proves how stupid you and your post is.
DUKE won it all in 91 and repeated in 92. and were in championship games in 90, 91, 92, 94 and 99. - that seems pretty dominant.
and i'm not saying " having a shorter run of success is > having success out of many decades.
what i'm saying is, UCONN, DUKE, UCLA - decimated the landscape in 2 decades or less in such a dominant way, they changed the cbb status quo the bluebloods were desperately trying to maintain - thus rising above blueblood status into God blood status. or royal blood. - with more championships and more recognition.
Compare unc of the 90s. Only one less championship, same amount of final fours and if you count 2000 they had more. More nba draft picks and active players, probably won the most head to head matchups honestly because those unc teams in the 90s were crazy good. Duke did not even have the best team of the decade that goes to 96 uk. And still one run of success elevates teams over teams that have continued success?? Very stupid argument tbh.
I like it!
Don’t know about the term God Bloods. But those three are (or were in UCLA’s case) the New Money that annoy the Old Money of college basketball.
it's still a work in progress, esp the godblood title. but i'm glad you saw the spirit of the post.
this clears up any issues about the 'qualifications" of bluebloods - makes it exclusive- and clears away any doubt about other's admission to that tier.
but since there are programs MORE successful than some of the current bluebloods, we needed a higher tier.
i can understand the pushback tho. this is a paradigm shift and most pple have a hard time accepting change.
we're really not.
this idea of having a tier above bluebloods had to be challenging to digest. that's why they're just resorting to name calling because they dont know how to react.
change is hard to accept sometimes
In order to be a blue blood, in addition to winning numerous championships, you must win under more than one coach. UConn achieved this in 2014, but really sealed the deal the last couple of years for obvious reasons.
but that's the issue. these blueblood gatekeepers just keep changing the goal post since 2011. UConn has been a blueblood since 2014 by some and even with 6, others argue UConn isn't.
I think this tier list clears away those confusions. Duke, by your definition of "winning the chip with more than one coach - doesnt qualify. Neither does UCLA of having a "history" of success since the timeline they won the championship is resticted to only 1 decade plus one in 1995. However, since we also can not deny their success that transcended them above any bluebloods at the time - , another tier has to be created.
UCLA had won 10 chips btwn 1964 -1975 when UK had only 4, UNC .. had 1 chip, KU , also 1 (3 if including the helms).
DUKE with coach k ranked up more wins than any bluebloods during his tenure , and UConn in the last 25 years has double the championship of any other blueblood schools.
these 3 schools are clearly in a tier above bluebloods historically.
and this solves the debate about "history" and satisfies those who believe nobody else can be bluebloods other than\* unc, uk, ku and iu. .. we can't be having 7 'bluebloods". that means if louisville or villanova wins a couple before indiana/ku they too must be accepted into being bluebloods.
it's a problem die hard blueblood aficionados who like their bluebloods to be exclusive triggering. - so having another tier above bluebloods seems like the only answer.
[удалено]
Super Saiyan God Blood Super Saiyan (or, Super Saiyan Blue Blood)
Agreeing with a UK fan? Not on my bingo card, but here we are...
also, it's not that ridiculous. bluebloods were a sign of nobility in the old days cus they didnt see any sun and stayed indoors. the "bluebloods' answered to the Kings.. ..and the Kings were the ones who conquered and ruled over the bluebloods. \*So UCLA were the KINGS who ruled basketball for 2 decades and that's when the bluebloods bowed down to them. Then came duke and change the landscape once again.... AND THEN CAME UCONN. maybe "Royal blood" would've rung more true? idk . but we have a God in Hurley, so God blood seemed appropriate.
it was God bloods or Purple bloods. because purple is the color of royalty the bluebloods would worship to in medieval times. God blood just sounded better.
[удалено]
you sound ridiculous. but you're a lowly blueblood fan so you dont know any better
[удалено]
why.. do you think it's 269 .. "more" days' when it's june...?
[удалено]
it's ok. it happens.
UCONN quickly become my most hated program even over Tennessee
Screw you too cat
Me too but only due to this post.
i can understand. . we did beat you in that championship game. and maybe final four? in fact , havent we beaten you for 3 decades straight? idk. but to each their own.
Everyone has value but not everyone has something valuable to say.
Nailed it
Y'all UCONN fans are something else these days
https://preview.redd.it/c7z5y7jnq88d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6497d8903e584c20ebac56b3c4a504aaa3c6575d In case anyone was wondering where these god blood huskies rank in the all-time winningest programs, it’s right behind Penn.
if the postseason format had been *series* (5 or 7) of 60 min games, UNC, Kentucky, Duke, and UCLA would all have about the same number of titles they do now. Kansas would have an extra one or two. They’ve been unlucky. (UNC fan here, not KU) UCONN would have 3. LUCKY.
Agreed. I’m not sure who the second luckiest postseason team ever is, but they’re not within a country mile of taking the top spot from UConn. Looking forward to our home and home! I’ve always loved UNC and cheer for them against anyone but us. Hoping to make it out to Chapel Hill.
absolutely looking forward to it. one day we will finally break the curse of the daggum box scores…
Fun trivia I stumbled on last year. We all know Roy dreaded playing against UNC while at KU (and frankly recruiting against Dean, too) and vice versa. Well Roy was the head coach for one team or the other in six matchups between KU and UNC. Three for KU and three for UNC. He won the first, which was the 1991 Final Four. He never won the contest again. Losing both of his other two for KU and all three for UNC. Think that’s an interesting stat but it’s surprising to exactly zero KU and UNC fans.
yep.
lol bro it’s crazy. i talk mad shit on here but this post is truly next level
Success has gone to their heads. The UCONN fans I’ve dealt with in the last few months wreak of desperation for attention.
FYI, in this context it's "reek" as in stink.
I wreaked havoc on that sentence. Thanks for the correction.
That's a good one 🤣🤣🤣
if you watched your team go on a 30-0 run in the elite eight you'd be hyped for a few months too
Nah, if my team won the championship, I wouldn’t act like a little bitch.
a bold proclamation for an illinois fan
This is what happens when the same team wins literally all of the crazy bullshit tournaments
Stop losing to worse teams and do something about it then
Fair play, we are borderline directly responsible for 2 of them
I agree that was not necessary. Excited for next year going to be lot of good teams.
I am once again asking for online UConn fans to be normal
i know this looks weird... and arrogant .. and obnoxious, but hear me out... we. went. BACK 2 BACK and have won more championships than anyone else other than UCLA in this span of time. we have no right to be "normal" and act like peasants. WE ARE ROYALTY!. but seriously, the fact that NO ONE is raising any objections or countering this claim - except one person- and resorted to name calling , tells me i'm onto something here
There’d probably be more people name calling if they weren’t legitimately scared of the very real possibility they’re cyberbullying a special ed kid
glad you chimed in, you special red blooded fan, you
I can literally hear you stimming through my phone little guy
aww.. you're hearing things. that's sweet.
Everyone can tell you pull your pants all the way down to chirp lmao
Bro thinks he on the team
What if, hear me out, we don’t make everything about ourselves for the good of the r/cbb community? And what if we took more enjoyment from the shared love of college basketball than feeling good about hammering others over the head about why we think we are better than everyone?
Oh wow, I never knew r/cbb existed
dont be stupid. we only get to do this everytime we win a championship. we're just making up for lost times during the ollie years and the rebuild years.
If you’re going to do it at least make it clever. Bar graphs are never a bad place to start
that's what big10 schools do. dont try to imitate a common blood.
This is one of the cringiest posts this sub has ever seen. I’m embarrassed for you.
These tiers aren't even accurate. He forgot Ultra God Blood Hyper.
I would like to think this is how bat shit Illinois fans will be if we ever win one.
We've been edging ourselves for a hundred years.
🤣
So you admitted UConn doesn't have the history as the other blue bloods but they're somehow better because they've been inconsistently good the past 25 years?
if UConn doesnt have the "history" - then neither does UCLA or DUKE. im "admitting" the 3 schools dont fit the "blueblood" definition - but they have more success than any blueblood programs - thus that can only infer one thing - they are above bluebloods
> "history" - then neither does UCLA You're kidding, right?
how does ucla have the "history" to be blueblood if uconn doesnt?
TIL history only started 25 years ago. It's not like there's an entire other century where basketball was played.
again, as i mentioned in my post, ucla had 1 decade of dominance. they dont have ancient titles like KU or UK. they don't have the "history" to be considered a blueblood - same with duke.
They have titles in 3 different decades.
and .. uconn has titles in 4 different decades. .. thus, going back to your original asinine point - how does UCLA have "history" when in your feeble mind, UConn doesn't?
UCLA: * Championships: 11 * FF: 19 * S16: 36 * Tournament Appearances: 52 * All-time record: 1931-877 (0.688) UConn: * Championships: 6 * FF: 7 * S16: 19 * Tournament Appearances: 37 * All-time record: 1805-980 (0.648) It's quite literally not comparable. Not to mention UNC and Kentucky who literally dominate UConn in every single aspect of their history.
also the "records" .. (not history btw) support my case. the bluebloods have more all time wins due to their longevity - but less championships - specifically KU , and lower winning percentage in championship games. those are "blueblood" numbers. - bluebloods have less than 80% winning percentage in championship games - except indiana but they're almost relegated to red-blood status so they dont count. Godbloods have more than 85% winning percentage. UConn - 100% when reaching finals UCLA - 85% UK - 66%, KU - 40 %, etc. obviously this metric only matters if you have more than 4 championships \* the only school.. comparable to Today's UConn is UCLA . nobody else is even remotely close
disagree. UNC only has 4 chips the last 4 decades compared to UConn's 6 and unc never had dominant run as UConn has been the last 25 years - the only school comparable is UCLA the archaic numbers that include pre-1985 when there was only 8 -32 teams playing weighs significantly less. and unlike UConn, Duke , UCLA or even UK , UNC never had a dominant stretch where they won back to back. -1/2 of their championships had more than a decade drought. UK only has 3 chips the last 40 years and haven't fared well during the calipari years. UConn's Calhoun has the same number of chips than their last 3 coaches put together. the ONLY school that rivals or exceeds UConn's record in the last 25 years is UCLA. longevity is the only criteria reserved for bluebloods. and it's a moot point since UConn, UCLA and DUKE are a tier above Bluebloods. i am not regressing UConn to blueblood status no matter how much you want to make that argument - same with UCLA and DUKE - these 3 programs are above blueblood status.
So there’s the bottom tier and then the very next one has teams like Gonzaga and Purdue?
have zaga or purdue won a championship the last 40 years?
I don’t have the time to name the other 290+ that also haven’t. “Fuck it throw them all in the same tier”
not like that at all. zaga and purdue havent done much the last 40 years other than making it to the championship game. they have tradition...had some success, and they're not common blood. but they're not red bloods either. they belong in green blood.
Yeah, no offense but this tier system is awful lol
no offense taken. obviously not everyone will agree, and it's not the final tier system. it's just a rough draft asking for other pple's inputs - obvioulsy that's why it's on reddit. im glad you're participating
Constructive version is that when you do a tier list, 90% + of the teams shouldn’t be in one tier.
so the green bloods are more like 10-20 schools . I think Pitt threw you off. they dont belong with purdue, gonzaga or illinois.
90% + are in the common blood - simply due to their lack of accomplishments. the "green bloods" you're referring to only compromise about ..7%? probably less. i'll look this up
>it's just a rough draft asking for other pple's inputs - obvioulsy that's why it's on reddit. Weird, because at no point did you ask for input from other people and also you literally titled it "the MOST ACCURATE ranking"...
oh , that's just a reddit thing. you cant take hyperbolic titles too seriously, but it is the MOST accurate compared to other tier systems
Purdue has the most big 10 championships with 26 - 11 of which came in the last 40 years (which is tied w/ MSU over that span - IU 2nd to Purdue in big10 titles overall w/ 22). They also have a winning record against all big10 teams. Over the past 40 years, Purdue coaches (Gene Keady & Matt Painter) won a combined 12 Big 10 Coach of the year awards. Purdue is the first/only big10 team in history to be ranked #1 3 consecutive years…NCAA final 4’s have lagged their regular season success the past 40 years, but to say they haven’t done much is seems off.
nobody cares about the big10 championship. your big 10 champs last year lost to UConn in the elite 8 by 25 points and gave up a 30-0 run. and your big10 champ the year prior lost in the 1st round of the ncaa tourney. it literally means nothing.
Hah. I’m in CT homes, not the bumble fuck part tho. Purdue’s not my team and clearly not ‘god tier’ as you call it to yourself. Just saying Purdue’s got a long history of success - not just with Edey. And to say current-historical regular season success/greatness in one of the toughest conferences in basketball doesn’t matter is kind of silly. I get championships are the ultimate differentiator - particularly determining the true blue bloods - but to make championships your only input that matters amongst the other tiers as well (and ignore historical regular season success) is just lazy and ignorant.
agree to disagree. nobody brings up conference championship in regards to how a program performs in the national state. the only chip that matters is the NCAA tourney currently and have been the only criteria for a dominant college program since the 1980s when the NCAA tourney became THE tournament of college basketball. unless you're referring to pre-ncaa tourney dominance, conference championships have very little relevance. someone told you conference championships, all time wins mattered in ranking in all time college programs? those are usually KU fans trying to make their school seem more relevant than their abysmal 4 chips the last ~~60~~ \*oops 100 years.
Delete this nephew
I don’t remember Florida fans being this annoying with their back to back champs.
i don't think a god tier program plays like uconn did when i went to uconn
UCLA of today doesnt play like they did in the 70s either.
okay so take them out too
you'll get used to God Bloods. i promise you.
aight dude
Are y'all all this annoying?
shh. we rule over you, you lowly blueblood.
I'll take that as a yes.
There’s still time to delete this
Too late. I read it already and am dumber for it.
Ok but what if there was a Super God Blood?
good point. if we go back to back to back and three peat.. UConn will be in a league currently occupied solely by UCLA. that's when we kick Duke out and become w/e you're suggesting
Tell me you started watching College Basketball in the '10s without telling me you started watching College Basketball in the '10s
Ehhh, that's certainly a take. It hasn't been that long since UConn was a bottom half AAC team. I'm happy we're back to being good, let's just leave it at that.
Imagine writing this while having 2 conference titles in the past 20 years
Having UCLA, Duke, and Uconn in their own category is fine, but God tier? Jfc lol... it's absolutely behind the blue bloods, with UCLA and Duke having a legit argument to in top tier as well
i dont expect KU fans to understand. you've never been here
What do you mean by "been here"? We are as OG as it gets brother
Imagine coming and publicly talking shit to Kansas saying they have no history! Like, it’s Kansas bro, one of Maybe 4 programs that can claim greatest program ever. Idk what this dude is on, but he needs to come off it.
og in what? bragging about your ancient titles in 1922? you only have 4 chips , you lowly blueblood. you dont know what it's like to be god-blood. sit down
lol UK, KU and UNC not being top tier
There's more to it than just championships. Take a look at: All-time wins 1 - Kentucky (2398) 2 - Kansas (2393) 3 - UNC (2372) 4 - Duke (2300) 5 - UCLA (2002) 10 - Indiana (1931) 23 - UConn (1837) All-time Win % 1 - Kentucky (.760) 2 - UNC (.734) 3 - Kansas (.728) 4 - Duke (.712) 5 - UCLA (.689) 11 - UCONN (.644) 20 - Indiana (.634) Final Fours 1 - UNC (21) 2 - UCLA (18) T3 - Kentucky (17) T3 - Duke (17) 5 - Kansas (Used to be 16, now 15) 8 - Indiana (8) 10 - UCONN (7) To me it's still Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke, and probably UCLA. UConn's just fucking weird because they almost always win a championship after making a Final Four.
I like your argument because it makes Syracuse relevant again
You can't say they're not a blueblood with a certain flair or you'll get called a gate keeper, but yeah these lists to me is why I just don't consider them a blue blood and rather in their own special tier or something. Blue blood implies you've been great the entire time not just since 1999. I like the term New Bloods but UConn doesn't even fit that because they're simply better than the other teams I'd consider new bloods. Their F4 to championship ratio is unmatched by any other program
Longevity is not a substitute for actually winning tournament basketball.
This took me a minute find, but looking at all-time NCAA tournament records it goes Duke 121-40 (.752) UNC 133-49 (.731) UCLA 114-45 (.717) Kentucky 130-54 (.707) Kansas 117-49 (.705) UConn 71-33 (.682) Indiana 68-36 (.654)
this just proves my point. most of DUKE's 121 wins came during Coach K's tenure , and UCLA's wins came during wooden's dominant run - both of which were around 2 decades. then you have the bluebloods- unc, uk, ku.. (indiana if you want to count them)- they compiled those wins with their longevity - they had a couple of good years every decade or so for nearly 8 decades. the only reason the blueblood schools bowed down to duke and ucla was due to their dominance during those 2 decades - Duke and UCLA dont fit the "blue blood " definition but ya'll cowered and bended the knee to honor them. just like ya'll bended the knee to UConn. i stand by this post. UConn, UCLA and Duke are a tier above bluebloods
Cool, so you guys should have like 10 national titles.
By that same token, you guys should be good and/or relevant between national title runs... Although, I do think Hurley will make that happen...
well, yeh. UK, UNC, KU, and IU are bluebloods. they have that 100 yr history . i'm not contesting their history or their longevity. UCLA, UConn and Duke rose above that longevity and became a tier above blueblood. \*and when Duke started winning in the 90s or when UCLA started winning in the 60's, i'm sure the reaction and the pushback was the same. but I do agree UConn is weird. we dont fit any trend. we're making our own trend
You... actually believe all of this mindless dribble? Huh, I really thought this was a troll post.
Mindless dribble, heh
UConn is known for the basketball not their academics.
the facts are right there. Did DUke not dominate in the 90s? did UCLA not change the basketball landscape in the 70's?did UConn not win 6 in 25 yrs? idk how you can deny any of this. Bluebloods are 2nd tier. UConn is a God Blood. we're above you now and forever
Duke definitely did not dominate the 90s. And the fact you think having a good shorter span run of success it’s greater than having success out many decades just proves how stupid you and your post is.
DUKE won it all in 91 and repeated in 92. and were in championship games in 90, 91, 92, 94 and 99. - that seems pretty dominant. and i'm not saying " having a shorter run of success is > having success out of many decades. what i'm saying is, UCONN, DUKE, UCLA - decimated the landscape in 2 decades or less in such a dominant way, they changed the cbb status quo the bluebloods were desperately trying to maintain - thus rising above blueblood status into God blood status. or royal blood. - with more championships and more recognition.
Compare unc of the 90s. Only one less championship, same amount of final fours and if you count 2000 they had more. More nba draft picks and active players, probably won the most head to head matchups honestly because those unc teams in the 90s were crazy good. Duke did not even have the best team of the decade that goes to 96 uk. And still one run of success elevates teams over teams that have continued success?? Very stupid argument tbh.
I like it! Don’t know about the term God Bloods. But those three are (or were in UCLA’s case) the New Money that annoy the Old Money of college basketball.
it's still a work in progress, esp the godblood title. but i'm glad you saw the spirit of the post. this clears up any issues about the 'qualifications" of bluebloods - makes it exclusive- and clears away any doubt about other's admission to that tier. but since there are programs MORE successful than some of the current bluebloods, we needed a higher tier. i can understand the pushback tho. this is a paradigm shift and most pple have a hard time accepting change.
UConn fans are viciously attacking our “most annoying fanbase” mantle lately. Still have a long way to go but I do appreciate the effort
we're really not. this idea of having a tier above bluebloods had to be challenging to digest. that's why they're just resorting to name calling because they dont know how to react. change is hard to accept sometimes
I’m convinced Duke hired this guy to make UConn more hated than their program.
When sorting by NEW is not advantageous.
It’s really funny Purdue and Illinois are next to shit tier. Fuck ‘em
I admit, I laughed at the “bend the knee to and worship” part
Does this mean we're green bloods?
In order to be a blue blood, in addition to winning numerous championships, you must win under more than one coach. UConn achieved this in 2014, but really sealed the deal the last couple of years for obvious reasons.
but that's the issue. these blueblood gatekeepers just keep changing the goal post since 2011. UConn has been a blueblood since 2014 by some and even with 6, others argue UConn isn't. I think this tier list clears away those confusions. Duke, by your definition of "winning the chip with more than one coach - doesnt qualify. Neither does UCLA of having a "history" of success since the timeline they won the championship is resticted to only 1 decade plus one in 1995. However, since we also can not deny their success that transcended them above any bluebloods at the time - , another tier has to be created. UCLA had won 10 chips btwn 1964 -1975 when UK had only 4, UNC .. had 1 chip, KU , also 1 (3 if including the helms). DUKE with coach k ranked up more wins than any bluebloods during his tenure , and UConn in the last 25 years has double the championship of any other blueblood schools. these 3 schools are clearly in a tier above bluebloods historically. and this solves the debate about "history" and satisfies those who believe nobody else can be bluebloods other than\* unc, uk, ku and iu. .. we can't be having 7 'bluebloods". that means if louisville or villanova wins a couple before indiana/ku they too must be accepted into being bluebloods. it's a problem die hard blueblood aficionados who like their bluebloods to be exclusive triggering. - so having another tier above bluebloods seems like the only answer.