UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
That's why there's history.UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
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.People only care about what happened recently apparently
Pretty obvious answer.UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
People only care about what happened recently apparently
You asked "If you had zero history" and then you list almost 30 years of history.UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
Yeah, he kinda botched the title, didn’t he?You asked "If you had zero history" and then you list almost 30 years of history.
If UCONN isn't winning titles no one in the nation cares.UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
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.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 by recently, you mean the last 27 years?People only care about what happened recently apparently
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.
Yes and UCLA 64,65,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,75 and 9548, 49, 51, 58, 78, 96, 98 still count we won the tournament as it was
Mitch?Also: the biggest reason for our decade of failure rests firmly on the shoulders of a single man.
And none since. What's your point?Yes and UCLA 64,65,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,75 and 95
Why are you bragging about another program?Yes and UCLA 64,65,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,75 and 95
Right its in the hands on the fansUCONN 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 !!!!
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.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.
One title this century. Tubby, Gillespie, and honestly, the last few years of Calipari, we aren’t even on the CBB map.UConn: Multiple titles across 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024
Kentucky: Only 1 title since 1998 (2012)
The NCAAT back then, were the best 8 teams in the country, you had to win your conference to go the NCAAT. 2012 UK would not be invited to the NCAA tournament under the old rules from back then. It was actually harder to win a title back then than today. No filler games.Half of UK's championships were won several years before Jim Crow ended. It just doesn't mean what it used to.
Winning your conference tournament to go to the NCAA meant nothing when no one in the south knew what months of the year basketball season even was.The NCAAT back then, were the best 8 teams in the country, you had to win your conference to go the NCAAT. 2012 UK would not be invited to the NCAA tournament under the old rules from back then. It was actually harder to win a title back then than today. No filler games.
Ummmm 30 years would include 96, 97 and 98. Not to mention, Tubby had some excellent teams as well, outside of 98.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.