Hoopfeed: Proud to be an American, but is No. 1 Connecticut happy to be in the American?

[DobbsRover2]

AAC took Big East's spot in the Big 6 power conferences.

Starting next year, it is the Big 5 power conferences, the AAC shares with the MAC, Mountain West, and 2 others the possibility of one team (from those conferences put together) making the party. I'm not sure the spot is even guaranteed or if is similar to the past where someone from a non-power conference "could" qualify.

What do you mean by "a spot is guaranteed?" It's a playoff system for the four spots and the AAC champ like UCF this year could be selected if they have the credentials, or it could be four SEC teams. Who knows? For the other 6 non-playoff "major bowls," the AAC champ is guaranteed a spot if it was not selected as one of the 4 playoff teams.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

What do you mean by "a spot is guaranteed?" It's a playoff system for the four spots and the AAC champ like UCF this year could be selected if they have the credentials, or it could be four SEC teams. Who knows? For the other 6 non-playoff "major bowls," the AAC champ is guaranteed a spot if it was not selected as one of the 4 playoff teams.

The following is copied from the AAC web site article announcing the AAC's bowl affiliation.

"Under the new postseason structure that will be in place for the 2014 season, American Athletic Conference teams would have the opportunity to participate in the four-team College Football Playoff if chosen by the CFP Selection Committee.

If the American champion finishes as the highest-ranked team among the champions of Conference USA, the Mountain West Conference, the Mid-American Conference and the Sun Belt Conference, but does not qualify for the College Football Playoff, then it would participate in one of the three Host Bowls that will comprise part of the CFP rotation – the Cotton Bowl, the Chick-fil-A Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl".

It is only if it is the highest ranked team among 5 conferences that it will be guaranteed a spot in one of those bowls. Obviously, if the AAC champion is one of the 4 or 10 best teams in the country, great. But if not, the conference is shut out of the entire business.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The following is copied from the AAC web site article announcing the AAC's bowl affiliation.

Highest ranked team among 5 conferences that it will be guaranteed a spot in one of those bowls. Obviously, if the AAC champion is one of the 4 or 10 best teams in the country, great. But if not, the conference is shut out of the entire business.

Ah, of all the G-5 conferences. Well, this year the AAC had two teams in the top 15 and was well ahead of the other G-5 conferences and close to some of the P-5 group, and with UConn getting ready to fill one of the top spots once the Cards flee the scene, it doesn't look so bad for the AAC. Liking this with AAC teams in line for two of the 16 big bowl places this year, and Huskies' chances seem not so bad in that scenario compared to the the masses of bottom feeders of certain P-5 conferences.

 

[DishNSwish]

This getting-to-be-hoary topic is the province of Chicken Littles, writers who are desperate for a new topic, and UConn haters who are willing to blow up any perceived argument against UConn, with the hope of eventually bringing down Goliath.

I wish Nan would let this crap/speculation topic be covered once a year from now on. Eventually we'll get an historical perspective so we can compare reality to the guesswork.

Well I do take some exception to this post. I wrote this because it just feels different, and I wondered if Geno and the players felt the same way. In some ways they do, in some ways they don't.

There's no judgment in it at all, just that it feels different. Certainly, there's no speculation.

 

[DishNSwish]

We can wax poetic about what a great conference the BE was but 90% of the games in conference each year were completely uncompetitive for Uconn, and playing most of the ranked teams in the country over the last 5 years has also been a completely non-competitive adventure. In the last five seasons outside of Baylor and ND, Stanford has gone 1 and 6, St Johns 1 and 5 and everyone else has an 0fer going. Do I think DePaul and Syracuse might be better than USF or Temple, probably most years but not by much. Louisville has had a nice little run with Jeff, but they still haven't beaten Uconn in 20+ years and even during this run haven't often come within 20 points. Rutgers had its moment and they may be back to respectability this year, but ... except for a few years in the early 2000s they haven't been competitive. The AAC is no ones dream conference, though playing 2 + games in Texas and FL every year is not bad in terms of recruiting exposure, but to get schools up to the average big east quality is not a great leap. To match an ND is more difficult, but then there are only a few of them around.

This is 100% true, and a big part of the reason I wrote this.

The results ARE the same. But to me, it feels different. I can't quite put a finger on the whole thing, but all I could really come up with the other schools' history with UConn. Which is why I talked to Geno, Dolson and KML about it. Separately, after the long answer Geno gave Mike D.

I thought it might just be me, but the answers and questions after Houston made me think maybe it's more.

And I'm only focused in this discussion on women's hoops; I know there are plenty of other issues, problems, pros/cons, discussion on the other sports.

 

[huskeynut]

"At one time" translates to over 30 years. So you just swallowed that slur without objection? It is, and always was, just a cheap shot by fans of teams in other conferences. The so-called "Big Least" always kicked butt in men's basketball. Right from the start, half the schools were not funding football, so what's the point in talking about Bowl Games?

I never said I swallowed it as you suggest. Simply stated it was what the Big East was referred to by some.

 

[semper]

I'm sick to death of this topic....BUT, I am still waiting for all those close ND, Duke, etc. games. Most of them are playing blowouts too. There are going to be conference games, and then the hot-shot non conference games that every top ten team needs to schedule as much as possible. I would cut the conference games WAY down, maybe play each team every other year or something, and then have the winners of the two halves square off, and then have tons of top 20 games, a league of its own kinda thing. Look, I know this is completely unrealistic, but ya gotta have a dream. Wouldn't it be great?

 

[mudcat]

This is 100% true, and a big part of the reason I wrote this.

The results ARE the same. But to me, it feels different. I can't quite put a finger on the whole thing, but all I could really come up with the other schools' history with UConn. Which is why I talked to Geno, Dolson and KML about it. Separately, after the long answer Geno gave Mike D.

I thought it might just be me, but the answers and questions after Houston made me think maybe it's more.

And I'm only focused in this discussion on women's hoops; I know there are plenty of other issues, problems, pros/cons, discussion on the other sports.

But all you seem to be saying is that it feels different because they are new teams. It seems a little ridiculous to say, but it takes time to create history. I remember when Angnes Berenato was at GT also - Pittsburgh was terrible then and is terrible now. It's not impossible for the new AAC to also create some history, and even rivalries, as the years pass and some of the other teams improve (which they will).

 

[DobbsRover2]

I never said I swallowed it as you suggest. Simply stated it was what the Big East was referred to by some.

Probably the best that came from the SECondary Conference fans was their use of the Big Easy moniker, which somehow seemed weird not only because the BEast was in the process of winning 5 straight NCs but also because LSU was in the SECophant conference.

 

[Joe6cats]

Okay, way over discussed, but did you hear Geno's response to a similar question after the Houston game? I wish I had a link so I could quote it, but IIRC he had two main points: Games like that allow the team to experiment, develop new things, try out challenging player roles and combinations. Second they can allow individual players to develop their games, as Tuck did vs. Houston. He said that especially for players coming off injuries, the important thing is getting their confidence back. He saw that happening in the Houston game.

Most fans want more competitive games, but perhaps enjoyment comes from looking at games against weak teams more like Geno and the coaches do: they offer a different kind of challenge for the players, and as such an opportunity to teach excellence. Forget the score and focus on the excellence of play, team-wise and individually.

 

[watanabe]

Blowouts can and will happen no matter which conference you're in....ND just moved into the ACC and look at the ND vs BC score.. ND by 40+. Blowouts are going to happen every week when you have the best team on the floor , and possibly in the country in UConn's case.

The Big East Conference was started decades ago with some teams that no other conference wanted. Villanova , Syracuse, Providence , BC , Rutgers , Georgetown , UConn , etc...Not great football schools then. They were joined later by Florida State , Miami , West Virginia. My point is that the Big East had a very humble beginning back then . Sort of like the AAC is having now. In time the Big East grew to become a powerhouse league until greed and football$$ took over.

I would say that UConn was proud to be a Big East inaugural member and represented the Big East well and with Pride. And I will say that they are proud to be an Inaugural member of a new league, the AAC.

I wonder how the other conference's are taking it looking up and seeing a AAC member No.1 in the polls that they are suppose to be dominating. Also , if it comes to past that UConn goes on and wins a 9th NC , I wonder how the other conference's are going to feel seeing UConn, a AAC member , the NC ?

That's my 2-cents.

**** I know I am not as smart as the rest of these guys on this forum, but I was on campus when this team started and have been a follower ever since. Now when I browse the leagues and team standings in them, I see the AAC as the best league in the country with UConn and Louisville in it. I really think that all WCBB followers think the same thing when they see the quality of these two teams. The rest of the ACC members must feel pretty good about it as well. It's just a matter of time before UConn's tide lifts all the boats in the ACC. Just wait.

 

[Tonyc]

As far as UConn Women's BB goes. WCBB should be thrilled to have a team like UConn that can draw and win and set records and do everything they do and they should be shoving UConn WCBB down everybody's throats to promote the women's games. Something like what UConn WCBB is doing comes once every 100 years. Use it to build all the programs a cross America. All this stuff about is UConn good for WCBB. The answer is yes only if you use it to build other programs. UConn WCBB attracts fans where ever they go. I've read that they are the circus coming to town. They are. People want to see them. I truly hope the NCAA sends them to Nebraska so that people in that part of the country can see them. The AAC is getting a treat with UConn in their league. More people will take notice of the women's game. More fans will come to see them. TV has been good to UConn. Keep it up. They are good for the game and play the part well, thanks to Geno and his staff. Americas Dream Team and somebody little girls can look up to as role models.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I know I am not as smart as the rest of these guys on this forum, but I was on campus when this team started and have been a follower ever since. Now when I browse the leagues and team standings in them, I see the AAC as the best league in the country with UConn and Louisville in it. I really think that all WCBB followers think the same thing when they see the quality of these two teams. The rest of the ACC members must feel pretty good about it as well. It's just a matter of time before UConn's tide lifts all the boats in the ACC. Just wait.

Uh, yeah. We all have problems with keeping the AAC and ACC straight, but unless you have some inside info that BCU is being kicked out of the ACC, I think that the Titanic is being boosted up in the AAC. And no, I don't think the ACC is too keen on that.

 

[DobbsRover2]

As far as UConn Women's BB goes. They are good for the game and play the part well, thanks to Geno and his staff. Americas Dream Team and somebody little girls can look up to as role models.

You got it , Tony. They are the All American Red Heads of old, and every conference will wish they had the traveling show coming through their neighbs. But tough to them, it's the AAC that gets to enjoy the show. More teams to come, after the b-b-b-bye to Louisville and Rutgers.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm sorry, but AAC football WILL be getting the short end of the stick starting next season. To the extent that school's need football revenue (at least as things stand now), no one can possibly think that AAC membership is better than membership in one of the power 5. Again, this could change in the future, but for the immediate, it is simply a fact.

Um, this is UConn you're talking about. For a few years to come, the Huskies get to live off the buttermilk fat of the squeezing of all the teams that ran off to the ACC, and do okay. With all the UN-Cheat and FSU quarterback type stuff going on in the ACC and the scandals at UMich, PSU, OSU and that always combustible Rutgers AD situation (thank god that gov CC will be drawing attention away for many months) for the B10, the AAC doesn't really seem so bad. With all the slime that covers so many conferences that strive to pay a king's ransom to get into bowl games, why would any school be hankering to run to a cable-propped conference that can have its plug pulled at any economic downturn?

 

[huskybill]

What makes this topic so interesting today is that a letter appeared in the Hartford Courant Letters section on the Opinion Page. Written by Joseph Iacobellis of Stratford, it is entitled "What's Lost in UConn Winning." The author is puzzled why the best players would want to go to UConn since they play only a few competitive games each year. He states

"...Sure, winning is a goal, but is it the only thing that matters?...there's perhaps more gained from highly competitive games even from losing from time to time,...(this) will only cahange if and when high scholl stars, and the culture in general, consider what's lost as well as gained when signing up for a career that most likely includes 10 "real" games, with the remainder being over in the first five minutes. Eventually, even winning has a downside."

I bring this letter up because the question is not really just a UConn or a few top teams question. It's not even just a sports question. The letter implies that everyone would be better off if we lost once in a while. And not just in sports but all through our culture. I'm sure UConn could do its part by recruiting a few bad players each year. Eventually, losing will have an upside.

 

[hjoerring]

Yes, the quality of the AAC has been written about, and the new conferences, will recruits come, etc. angles.

Here's the thing, yes there's been a million blowouts, but I don't know about you guys, but it just feels different this year. I almost feel sorry for Houston, etc, yet I also feel angry that that's who UConn is playing in some ways.

As I mentioned, I didn't mind the blowouts of the old guard as much, because of the history, because they've been competitive before, because they had one or two players worth watching, or for some reason I could still look forward to UConn playing them. Maybe it was the feeling that still, as good as UConn has been, these other teams were tournament quality level, and the conference usually had many teams in the tournament.

I know I for one have limited at best interest in these games, and I love watching UConn execute to perfection as much as the next guy. I love watching Stewie swoop in, Dolson bang, MoJeff outquick them, etc. but it just doesn't feel the same. However these teams have limited outstanding players, and virtually no chance of making the tournament. I know it's early in the conference development, but being honest it sucks.

Apparently, based on press row, and the questions to Geno, I wasn't alone in that feeling. Even Geno admitted it feels different.

That's why the piece was written, and with the focus on Geno's quotes.

the

O'K. But the old (and new) BE was never as good as we are making it out to be; it was top heavy. And of course AAC is today where the BE began years ago before fighting its way into relevancy. I see 2 differences: at the infancy of the BE there wasn't a dominant team like CT (?); and proximity creates familiarity. Most of us in the NE know very little about the schools so far away and we can question what it will take or how long before we really feel that there is something at stake in these games. Did we really have anything in common with ND? LV? Marquette, even Cuse? When Cuse left for the ACC the men's BB coach responded to a question regarding their rivalry w/ CT: rivalries are mostly created among the teams you play frequently and with something at stake- regardless of how trivial. We could do that with Yale, Harvard, etc. Indeed, we had that with BC in wbb- even if BC had no chance of coming 30 pts near us. That certainly did not stop us from wanting to beat the hell out of them X2 yearly, if we could schedule them.
As for motivation or motivating a 'dying' interest. I can only remember something my father once told me as a teenager- when I said something (doing a particular kind of work) was boring: All work soon or later become boring when you master it. And that is when we as humans begin to draw on all other things-- like 'perfection'. This is where uconn is today-- not because they are being others (regardless of ranking) by 30-points, but because they have broken through to something else. They play at a defined level, not at the level of an opponent. This doesn't mean that they will not lose a game (and if they do-- we can only imagine what all the talking heads are going to be saying about a "weak" conf) but ........

 

[hjoerring]

What makes this topic so interesting today is that a letter appeared in the Hartford Courant Letters section on the Opinion Page. Written by Joseph Iacobellis of Stratford, it is entitled "What's Lost in UConn Winning." The author is puzzled why the best players would want to go to UConn since they play only a few competitive games each year. He states

"...Sure, winning is a goal, but is it the only thing that matters?...there's perhaps more gained from highly competitive games even from losing from time to time,...(this) will only cahange if and when high scholl stars, and the culture in general, consider what's lost as well as gained when signing up for a career that most likely includes 10 "real" games, with the remainder being over in the first five minutes. Eventually, even winning has a downside."

I bring this letter up because the question is not really just a UConn or a few top teams question. It's not even just a sports question. The letter implies that everyone would be better off if we lost once in a while. And not just in sports but all through our culture. I'm sure UConn could do its part by recruiting a few bad players each year. Eventually, losing will have an upside.

Wow! let us now praise this famous man/letter. Is this the same as the expression: 'you can be too smart for your own good'? What will do-Uconn-in is all this silly hype about being too good. It is taking on a life of its own and if team-Uconn starts believing in it then .......(wish comes through). Can a scientist/researcher ever be too smart for his/her own good? Are they going to fall on their face because they want to break out of the old paradigm? Come on. Let us leave behind all these small minds that would confined us to the pack. Oh dare these huskies to think and behave as if they were better that everybody.

 

[lynn b]

http://j.mp/1aNHRbx

Just my opinion, but all this talk about whether teams will want to play UCONN is silly. It doesn't matter whether UCONN is in the dipsy doodle conference, they are the team that all others strive to simulate. If you want to be the top dog, you have to beat the top dog. You cannot get honest national recognition in WBB unless you play and defeat UCONN somewhere along the line in a given year. Other segments of the athletic program at UCONN may suffer as a result of the AAC affiliation, but not women's basketball.

 

[UcMiami]

Dobbs and Knight - I think most years the BE got 7/8 teams into the tournament one or two of those teams got in specifically on their strength of schedule because they had played Uconn and recently ND each once or twice during conference play vs a Pac10, Big10, mid-major, or even an SEC team. And usually lost in the first round. That plus will now be afforded some of the mid-major new members of the AAC - two loses to Uconn may trump 2 wins against nobodies.
I don't have rose colored glasses about the AAC and would certainly prefer Uconn being in either the ACC or Big10, but as far as WCBB it can be a pretty short jump from NIT to NCAA for middling programs. A few moderately good recruits can turn a program around very quickly if the school takes WCBB seriously and has a good coach in place. And playing Uconn was the calling card that St. John's for example used to improve their profile with recruits.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I bring this letter up because the question is not really just a UConn or a few top teams question. It's not even just a sports question. The letter implies that everyone would be better off if we lost once in a while. And not just in sports but all through our culture. I'm sure UConn could do its part by recruiting a few bad players each year. Eventually, losing will have an upside.

Back in the times of the Black Death there were a weirdish fad sect called the flagellants who went about beating themselves with whips and chains for whatever reasons, mainly to show penance for their evil deeds. Today we have the "losing is good" cult of flagellants who would believe that subjecting yourself to losses and failures is a fine means of building your moral character.

In sports, every team except a few college football squads and one WCBB team every few years get well acquainted with losing some games, and they have no reason to feel they need to parade around beating themselves to get extra moral fiber. I get that we often learn a huge lot from our failures and that picking yourself up after falling down is the true mark of a champion. But every day in practice or in a game, the Huskies experience hundreds of little failures that get them scoured by a Geno eye-roll or witticism, and I don't really see a reason that they need to lose a game to get their characters elevated. I'm guessing that it's only the other top teams that feel that a UConn loss would make everyone better off and make the Husky players better people.

 

[Tonyc]

What makes this topic so interesting today is that a letter appeared in the Hartford Courant Letters section on the Opinion Page. Written by Joseph Iacobellis of Stratford, it is entitled "What's Lost in UConn Winning." The author is puzzled why the best players would want to go to UConn since they play only a few competitive games each year. He states

"...Sure, winning is a goal, but is it the only thing that matters?...there's perhaps more gained from highly competitive games even from losing from time to time,...(this) will only cahange if and when high scholl stars, and the culture in general, consider what's lost as well as gained when signing up for a career that most likely includes 10 "real" games, with the remainder being over in the first five minutes. Eventually, even winning has a downside."

I bring this letter up because the question is not really just a UConn or a few top teams question. It's not even just a sports question. The letter implies that everyone would be better off if we lost once in a while. And not just in sports but all through our culture. I'm sure UConn could do its part by recruiting a few bad players each year. Eventually, losing will have an upside.

huskybill perhaps the writer should frequently switch jobs and take a lower paying job vs making the money he makes because its boring doing the same job for more money. Stupid article. Why would anyone want to step to a lower platform after reaching the top. Why would they wanna lose unless they are in fact a loser. The goal of winners is to win. Whats the fun in being average and ordinary. There are many average and ordinary teams in all sports. Do you think their fans like that? Fans want to follow winners. For me there is no happiness in losing at anything. The UConn women at a level and setting records that we may never see in the sport again. I find this article just silly.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Dobbs and Knight - I think most years the BE got 7/8 teams into the tournament one or two of those teams got in specifically on their strength of schedule because they had played Uconn and recently ND each once or twice during conference play vs a Pac10, Big10, mid-major, or even an SEC team. And usually lost in the first round. That plus will now be afforded some of the mid-major new members of the AAC - two loses to Uconn may trump 2 wins against nobodies.
I don't have rose colored glasses about the AAC and would certainly prefer Uconn being in either the ACC or Big10, but as far as WCBB it can be a pretty short jump from NIT to NCAA for middling programs. A few moderately good recruits can turn a program around very quickly if the school takes WCBB seriously and has a good coach in place. And playing Uconn was the calling card that St. John's for example used to improve their profile with recruits.

It can take a few years to build conference strength, and patience is always in short supply. Back in the early 2000s when I was younger and stupider and the Summitt was open to all who firmly believed in the god of masochism, I used to post the overall NCAA tourney records of the BEast teams and the SEC teams on the Vol board. This of course enraged them and the Summitteers used to say that the BEast teams just had a much better tourney record because of their cupcake SOSs, which really made no sense once March Madness began. But admittedly I was kind of cheating with the stats, because the Volites could have shot back that the SEC had 6 teams in the tourney (which guaranteed 6 eventual losses), while the BEast only had 4 or 5 teams in the tourney, and three of them were UConn, ND, and Rutgers teams that were running up the wins and combining for 2 losses.

The AAC this year could well be like the 13-3 BEast teams of 2000 or the 13-4 group of 2001. That's not the worst place to be (that would be the B10), and you know that the AAC party is only going to get bigger after that even if the action doesn't have such a concentrated high.

 

[DishNSwish]

I'm really intrigued by the different paths this has gone in this thread, and that's part of what makes the Boneyard so much fun.

I wrote about the games just having a different feel for whatever reason, and I got Geno, Stef and Kaleena's opinions. There was no judgment of the conferences, gloom or doom about recruits and/or scheduling, just sharing that feeling by me and comments from them.

Just comments on whether they liked where they were right now, and if it felt different to them too.

The intelligent posters here (and I'm serious, not being sarcastic), have taken that premise and ran with it in several directions.

I love it. Well, that and hoopfeed getting a lot of hits from here too!

Thanks, I've enjoyed reading everyone's responses!

 

[Scotter]

I've had the exact opposite reaction to the original poster. I've enjoyed the games much more in the American that most of the Big East games in recent years. And I expected too going into the season because the teams in the American by and large were going to be more athletic full court teams with coaches not yet too scared to let their kids play.

Too many coaches in the bottom half of the Big East had grown more concerned with managing the margin of victory than playing basketball. I completely understand why the media misses Harry, Agnus, and Doug, but as a fan just watching the actual game I really don't need to see UConn play Villanova again. I'd certainly rather see UConn play Houston than Seton Hall or Providence. Even some of the better teams I don't miss because the actual basketball wasn't that much fun to watch. UConn would slog through to an inevitable win while they got beat up in the process. Sure the score was closer because the ball was being walked up the court and there was more tension because you didn't know if players were going to get hurt, but I don't think the actual basketball was that much better if at all.

And DePaul will be back on the schedule, which is great because Doug's not afraid to let his kids play even if it is to his own detriment at times. So far none of the new American teams have played scared maybe that will change in time, but for now I'll enjoy it.