The last 13 NCAA Champs (14 seasons) | Syracusefan.com

The last 13 NCAA Champs (14 seasons)

HRE Otto IV

All American
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
7,190
Like
11,865
Six titles have come from the Northeast, and seven from current or former Big East teams. Four of the other titles have come from your so called blue bloods, and four from current ACC teams.

4 UConn
2 Nova
Baylor, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, UNC, UVA

Going back another 3 years, all three were blue bloods (Duke, Kansas, UNC) and two were ACC teams. And going back to our title you can add another two time winner (Florida), another blue blood UNC), and another Northeast/Big East (UConn).

Since our title (21 years but 20 NCAATs):

5 UConn
3 UNC
2 Duke, Florida, Kansas, Nova
Baylor, Kentucky, Louisville, UVA

8 by current or former Big East teams
7 by current ACC teams
3 by B12 and SEC
0 by B1G and PAC
 
If you're a basketball fan you have to appreciate the majesty of UConn's basketball teams. They have dominated on the men's and women's side like no other team over the past quarter century. Six titles for the men since 1999, but they are underachievers. The women have won 11 titles since 95.

To paraphrase the Meg Ryan scene in Harry Met Sally, I'll have what they're having!
 
Last edited:
As much as it pains me to say it, I think it’s beyond time that UCONN needs to be mentioned in the same sentence as UCLA, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC as a blue blood school. They 100% are in that class.

I suppose it depends on one’s definition of blue blood. I don’t consider UCLA one. I wouldn’t consider UConn one. For me it is OG successful programs. Duke, KU, Indiana, UK, UNC have been making Final Fours for over half a century. It doesn’t mean they are better programs than UConn (see Indiana).
 
I suppose it depends on one’s definition of blue blood. I don’t consider UCLA one. I wouldn’t consider UConn one. For me it is OG successful programs. Duke, KU, Indiana, UK, UNC have been making Final Fours for over half a century. It doesn’t mean they are better programs than UConn (see Indiana).
UCLA is not in the same category of Duke, KU etc?
 
I suppose it depends on one’s definition of blue blood.
The term comes from a term for aristocracy - the privileged ruling class that's just born into it. So I've always thought of it as being entitled to being a top program just for existing, it doesn't really matter who the coach is, they're just always going to get good players because they're such a strong program. They can massively screw up a coaching hire or two in a row, and just snap their fingers and get a good coach and be a powerhouse again. No rebuilding process needed.

It takes generations to lose the privilege and generations to build up your bloodline to that privilege - in college sports, a generation is probably somewhere between 4 years and a decade.

Right now I'd say those are UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UConn, and Kansas. I think UCLA going almost 30 years without a title and making just four final fours since the turn of the century drops them out of the group.

But as a poker player I have to say there's an argument to be made that UConn is just a beneficiary of variance (aka, lucky). They've got seven final fours and six titles. Indiana is somewhat similar with eight and five. Meanwhile Louisville has eight and just two titles. Seven schools have six final fours and none have more than two titles, except Villanova with three. You'd really have to dissect it year by year - were they clear cut, dominant favorites who didn't get lucky? Or were there a handful of teams in that tier that year, and they caught an easy bracket or won some nailbiters?

Generally when variance is involved, a measure that gives us a bigger sample size is going to be more accurate - hence Final Fours might be a better judgement of programs than titles. Each Final Four should give you 0.25 titles, all else being equal. Obviously it's not all equal every year. This year, NC State definitely wasn't a 0.25 expected value (EV) for titles, and UConn was definitely higher than that. Never the less, if you simulated every Final Four 100 times and divided up the titles accordingly, there's no way UConn gets 6 titles off 7 Final Fours.

Unfortunately for us, I don't think it matters anymore for UConn. Even if they just got lucky to have six titles instead of, say, two or three, they are almost certain to be able to parlay that into long-term blue blood status - and that's very bad news for us, battling over Northeast recruits.
 
As much as it pains me to say it, I think it’s beyond time that UCONN needs to be mentioned in the same sentence as UCLA, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC as a blue blood school. They 100% are in that class.
The top 6 programs are a given. You can argue the order but:
Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, UCLA, Kansas and UConn.

UCLA has fallen off the map a bit but you can not argue with 11 titles. UConn now has more titles than Duke and tied with UNC.

Next batch of teams: in no order
Indiana (historical success and titles put them here), Michigan State, Villanova, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Syracuse, Louisville, Gonzaga, Maryland

New Blood who based on strong recent success can make an argument for group 2:
Baylor, Virginia, variety of SEC schools (Bama, Tennessee, Auburn), Illinois, Wisconsin, Purdue

If you agree with this I would say we are comfortably in the top 15 programs of all time. We are far removed from the blue bloods and not that far removed from the third group which is made of better programs at this point in time.

Cuse
 
The media is never going to buy into UConn as a blue blood like they do the others. They aren’t sexy enough and they don’t get the type of player Duke or UK do. It also hurts them that their games are primarily on FS1 and not ESPN.
 
Since 99 they have won what 6titles? Under 3 coaches and multiple rule changes? With no football money?

It is amazing what they are accomplishing.
 
I suppose it depends on one’s definition of blue blood. I don’t consider UCLA one. I wouldn’t consider UConn one. For me it is OG successful programs. Duke, KU, Indiana, UK, UNC have been making Final Fours for over half a century. It doesn’t mean they are better programs than UConn (see Indiana).
Winning a national every 4 years on average since their very first in 1999 helps to define it for me. Sustained excellence. And then if you factor in their women’s program there might not be another school like them in any sport. Additionally, they now have 1 more title than Duke and 2 more than Kansas.
 
The media is never going to buy into UConn as a blue blood like they do the others. They aren’t sexy enough and they don’t get the type of player Duke or UK do. It also hurts them that their games are primarily on FS1 and not ESPN.
Why do we let the media decide these things?
 
Why do we let the media decide these things?
Well the media wanted to talk more about Cal leaving UK and promote Flagg to Duke because I suspect that's what drives ratings.

I'm not sure who said it, but I read in another thread that UConn is Gonzaga with titles and that's probably a fair point. Gonzaga and UConn don't drive eyeballs. They don't get as many sure fire NBA players.
 
As much as it pains me to say it, I think it’s beyond time that UCONN needs to be mentioned in the same sentence as UCLA, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC as a blue blood school. They 100% are in that class.
Wish we had an agree button, so I didn’t have to use like. Taking basketball as a whole (M&W), UConn has to be considered the best. Don’t know how they do it. I have been to that campus twice. Nothing to write home about (except help me) but they get players there, and they have arguably the greatest women’s coach of all time and they had an all time great in Calhoun. Even Ollie won there. They were also ruthless in running guys out whose time had come. We don’t have that.
 
As much as it pains me to say it, I think it’s beyond time that UCONN needs to be mentioned in the same sentence as UCLA, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC as a blue blood school. They 100% are in that class.
They are. And we are not even in the same galaxy. Not even close.
 
Well the media wanted to talk more about Cal leaving UK and promote Flagg to Duke because I suspect that's what drives ratings.

I'm not sure who said it, but I read in another thread that UConn is Gonzaga with titles and that's probably a fair point. Gonzaga and UConn don't drive eyeballs. They don't get as many sure fire NBA players.
I guess this goes back to the point someone made regarding how you define a “blue blood”. Personally, media coverage and NBA caliber players are completely separate from sustained excellence regarding a schools legacy. The two former usually don’t come with out the latter typically, but being at the pinnacle of your sport for the better part of three decades without the attention and NBA caliber players really cements the point that they belong really? The Gonzaga point is interesting, however UCONN has dominated a major conference multiple times during this run. So fairly different.
 
I guess this goes back to the point someone made regarding how you define a “blue blood”. Personally, media coverage and NBA caliber players are completely separate from sustained excellence regarding a schools legacy. The two former usually don’t come with out the latter typically, but being at the pinnacle of your sport for the better part of three decades without the attention and NBA caliber players really cements the point that they belong really? The Gonzaga point is interesting, however UCONN has dominated a major conference multiple times during this run. So fairly different.
I'd be ecstatic having 6 titles, but imagine winning and having one of the biggest morning sports shows discuss the Dallas Cowboys in a prime spot the next day. If that is Duke with Zion or Cooper Flagg that does not happen.

Donovan Clingan is a top pro prospect, but he and UConn aren't moving the needle.

Winning is awesome and should come before everything, but it doesn't.
 
The blueblood conversation is 2024 media (and social media) personified. It might have had a cut-and-dry meaning once upon a time, but now everyone shapeshifts it to fit their argument and gatekeep from the out-group. It's cable news drivel.
 
I suppose it depends on one’s definition of blue blood. I don’t consider UCLA one. I wouldn’t consider UConn one. For me it is OG successful programs. Duke, KU, Indiana, UK, UNC have been making Final Fours for over half a century. It doesn’t mean they are better programs than UConn (see Indiana).
If it's about OG successful programs, how is UCLA not one? They made their first FF before Duke (1962). The year Duke made their first FF, UCLA won their first NC (1964). Duke didn't win their first NC until 1991. They've won the most NC's and have made FF's during every era under numerous coaches.
 
If it's about OG successful programs, how is UCLA not one? They made their first FF before Duke (1962). The year Duke made their first FF, UCLA won their first NC (1964). Duke didn't win their first NC until 1991. They've won the most NC's and have made FF's during every era under numerous coaches.

Duke for me is borderline. They didn’t have F4s as early as the others and won their first title much later.

UCLA was awesome from 1960-1980. They haven’t been much since. The lack of sustained success IMO knocks them out.

I think Indiana is borderline too due to the lack of recent success.

I only watched the first season but I would compare UConn to the Russell’s in the Gilded Age. They are the richest people on the block but not a blue blood. I think too many people associate “blue blood” with best program.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,891
Messages
4,735,689
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Online statistics

Members online
262
Guests online
1,190
Total visitors
1,452


Top Bottom