UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
If you had zero history, which team is better .
- Thread starter BleedBlue747
- Start date
That's why there's history.
48, 49, 51, 58, 78, 96, 98 still count we won the tournament as it was
Dude I get what you’re saying but we literally won the title in 1998, which was our third straight trip to the final game.
Yes it’s been a ****** decade but arbitrary dates don’t really help the argument.
Also: the biggest reason for our decade of failure rests firmly on the shoulders of a single man.
At the very least, Uconn is absolutely a blue blood now, if they werent already.
And if you want to say they arent a traditional blue blood.. thats fine.. but then they are a new age blue blood... and its arguable if Kentucky would even be in that list of 4 or 5 teams. They are ahead of us now as a program. Maybe not in titles, maybe not in history. But they are firmly at the top.
Were also seemingly going to become 3rd in titles before long.. if not Uconn than maybe UNC or Duke. And we absolutely deserve it. We cant keep just hoping teams behind us blow it.. we actually have to CREATE the distance ourselves.
And if you want to say they arent a traditional blue blood.. thats fine.. but then they are a new age blue blood... and its arguable if Kentucky would even be in that list of 4 or 5 teams. They are ahead of us now as a program. Maybe not in titles, maybe not in history. But they are firmly at the top.
Were also seemingly going to become 3rd in titles before long.. if not Uconn than maybe UNC or Duke. And we absolutely deserve it. We cant keep just hoping teams behind us blow it.. we actually have to CREATE the distance ourselves.
Uconn is way better n the modern era despite being inconsistent as hell even though they have 6 titles.
History matters though and 8 is more than 6.
History matters though and 8 is more than 6.
Not “people” in general. But, yeah, young people of the age of today’s recruits usually only care about what happened recently …or at least within their lifetime.
And unfortunately, that age group today has no memory of seeing UK even reach a final four. Meanwhile, they’ve seen all sorts of UConn glory.
UConn will pass us before they figure things out in administration and coaching. The game changed in a way that is keeping coaches where they are. History no longer matters. We are stuck with pope all we can do is watch. I don’t have any confidence these clowns don’t know how to hire a coach . UConn maybe knocking on uclas door by the time we are sniffing another final four.
But who decides what's recent? We spent years talking about how Helms titles and UCLA's titles are too old.. but we're fine counting all of our titles against Uconn's? That's starting to not fly, I hate to say it. At some point Kentucky has to take back it's history or we're going to keep finding all these excuses and loopholes of why we're still the top program while we slip into Kansas Helm territory, and it's going to look silly.
I mean, what would any of us honestly have to say to a Uconn fan right now? What argument do we have? Oh, we're about to be #2 in wins? We have two more titles but only 1 of them was in the last 30 years? We won titles before the Korean war? Then only thing Kentucky has on Uconn is that it took it's basketball program seriously for like 60 more years. IDK, thats not exactly something I'm bragging about.
Sad times. This feels worse than BCGs final year honestly. At least then, we were only 10 years or so removed from Pitino's incredible run. Kentucky was very much the best program in 2008. But they sure aren't now, history be damned.
We've got three titles before the invention of the microwave oven for home use. They still happened and it's a neat historical tidbit but tell that to any sports fan in 2026 and watch their eyes glaze over and act like you're 102 years old. There also wasn't legit competition back then. I'm all about "what have you done lately?" I'm proud of our history but Duke and UNC have inched closer to us and UCONN is speeding towards us like a freight train with cocaine fuel. They can still lose Monday night but Hurley clearly has this new era most of BBN hates figured the hell out. Our admin better figure it out too because even if they come up short Monday, that dude is likely winning a couple more before he retires.
UCONN will surpass UK in the near future its just a matter of when, the leadership at UK is abysmal and why I fear that OUR Basketball Program will become irrelevant unless BBN makes a stand and demands new leadership. The longer we let this program spiral downward the harder it will become to recover to the status we enjoyed for so long !!!!
You asked "If you had zero history" and then you list almost 30 years of history.
Yeah, he kinda botched the title, didn’t he?
I think what he meant was something more like “if you only knew the history you can remember…”
If UCONN isn't winning titles no one in the nation cares.
When Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, and/or UNC aren't winning, everyone notices.
True Blue Bloods move the national needle. UCONN is the 21st century's UCLA. Relevant only because of titles, but otherwise insignificant.
Literally, UCONN's women's team is more important than their men's basketball team. You are not a blue blood if your women's team matters more to your national brand than your men's team.
What is amazing is that, if UConn wins it, that means they will have played in the Final Four 8 times in the last 26 years, winning it 7 times.
Last edited:
I just took it as would you rather have little to no history before 1999 and then rip off several titles that most basketball fans have seen, thereby pushing your way into Blueblood status or would you rather have an actual history that spans generations.
If that's what OP meant, it is an interesting question. You don't move the needle that much but who cares if you can pile up possibly 7 titles since '99. That's crazy. I wouldn't care how people talked about this year's team if they made a miracle run and won #9. On the other hand, you lose decades of success and tradition and stories told by your UK-loving relatives from bygone eras.
I used to talk to a UCONN fan on the old ESPN board back when we had Tubby. We had 7 to their 1 at the time. Guy must be on cloud nine some 25 years later.
If that's what OP meant, it is an interesting question. You don't move the needle that much but who cares if you can pile up possibly 7 titles since '99. That's crazy. I wouldn't care how people talked about this year's team if they made a miracle run and won #9. On the other hand, you lose decades of success and tradition and stories told by your UK-loving relatives from bygone eras.
I used to talk to a UCONN fan on the old ESPN board back when we had Tubby. We had 7 to their 1 at the time. Guy must be on cloud nine some 25 years later.
If you told me mark pope was leaving BYU for Kentucky with 0 tournament wins. I’d say, oh SEC, football school, makes sense
UConn is the better program in your arbitrary time frame of 25 years. All time, it's UK no question.
If I had zero history and only looked at 1996-1998, and 2012 for what if's too. I'm for sure picking UK.
LMAO we are so far ahead of UConn historically it’s insane. There isn’t no maybe to it. I wouldn’t trade our history for anyone’s. Literally not one single program. I mean I could sit here and rattle off historical records and compare them to UConn and prove how we absolutely blow them out of the water, but yall can search it yourself.
I just think that at some point, history becomes so far in the past that it loses some meaning. Lets be real, the titles in the 40s/50s are closer to being the same value as Helms titles, as they are to value of titles today.
I would feel a lot better about Kentucky's position "at the top", if we did *anything* to really seperate ourselves over the last 30 or so years. We did our damage during WW2 and then in the 90s.. and the only thing we've had since was Cal for a good 6 years stretch.
We have to start making a case for Kentucky as a program NOW, instead of hanging on to longevity records and titles that came before blacks were playing. Kentucky fans might not want to hear that, but its literally how everyone else in the sport is starting to see us.
Yes and UCLA 64,65,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,75 and 95
I don't discount what happened in the past but I do know until the mid 1970's only about eight to 10 college programs *if that many* emphasized basketball or cared much about it. Football ruled the roost most places.
Why is UCLA never mentioned? If we don't win soon, will we an afterthought in college basketball? This talk of blue bloods goes both ways. A school is or isn't, how long without a title before a schools dismissed as a blue blood.