- 32,219
- 29,892
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
No UCLA is wild
I get that UCLA has a ton of storied success, but 1 title in 50 years? I can divide.
There’s a lot of programs who have accomplished more than UCLA in that 50 year span as well. 9 of their 10 titles came during an era of when the ncaa tournament was 16 teams. I’m not trying to devalue their history, but at what point do we start to question their status as a blue blood due to the lack of modern success?
You can have them on your blue blood list, but they ain’t making mine