Discussion in 'UConn Women's Basketball' started by John Fryer, May 17, 2012.
That's what they all say.
Yeah, it depends on "so-so." Diana had far better than so-so talent as a supporting cast. We won those 2 years obviously, but the games were close. I prefer something like the 2009 team that was head and shoulders better than all others rather than a team that is about even with 3-4 others. Some of us are looking not just to be competitive, but to be the clear favorite--with as large a margin for error as possible. The 2012 kids give us a big step in that direction. To maintain that edge, we need continued good recruiting, though obviously not necessarily at the level of 2012.
That "opinion" of yours is patently ridiculous.
Obviously when the 2012 recruits are seniors the well is not going to be dry. I'll take any bets right now that UCONN will have other outstanding players on that team. UCONN has been an elite team since I believe 1994, the year before they won their first National Championship. I don't see any indication that this is going to change. Geno will probably be the coach for the next five to ten years so I'm confident that UCONN will remain very, very good.
Are you brainwashing those poor kids? I've had little success with mine.
Unconditional love, baby.
Oh, maybe I'll try that.
Of course stuff happens. But you have to keep a few things in mind. First of all, as you yourself have pointed out, the top five to seven in every class tend to be at a different level than the rest of the class. And all three of the incoming freshmen are in that tier. Further, over the last seven or eight years, players rated 98 by Hoopgurlz have a great track record of becoming dominant players. We have two of those coming in. So, I don't think the comparison with 2002 and 2008 works. This class may not be deep but I think the odds that at least two of them are going to be very special players is high.
Beyond that, if, in any given year, your team's prospects are leaps and bounds better than any team in the country (which I think you have to concede UConn's 2014-15 prospects are), and you're still worried, I humbly suggest you're setting the bar too high. Stuff happens, and UConn is hardly a lock to win the championship that year, but the chances are about as high as you could ever reasonably expect two plus years out.
Finally, I would note that you and I seem to disagree on Kiah. I think she was one of the top five freshman in the country. Yes, she could be more consistent, but in my mind she is extremely close to being a championship caliber starting post right now. You obviously had a different opinion and I respect that.
this is a great thread, one out of every 10 messages are about 2013 recruits
Then the average has been hit.
You said "We are, along with Baylor/Stanford, the only elite schools without a ranked 2013 commit."
Not true. Not even close.
As I noted and you didn't reply -
Top twenty from last year
Baylor - zero
ND - 4,21,33
UConn - zero
Maryland - 55
Duke - 26
Tennessee - zero
Kentucky - zero
Penn State - zero
Georgia Tech - zero
Miami - zero
Texas A&M - zero
Green Bay - zero
Delaware - zero
St. Johns - zero
Louisville - 51
GTown - zero
Purdue - zero
Gonzoga - zero
Georgia - zero
Unranked UNC has 3,7,15,17,30.
Oh, Goody! We can get a patent on crap like this!
No. Go for a copyright instead. Good for 75 years!
I'm worried that we will end up with a good recruiting class. A poor one would be better. Then, the following year, the top recruits will flock to Uconn because they will get oodles of playing time.
WTH are you talking about ?
He said "We are, along with Baylor/Stanford, the only elite schools without a ranked 2013 commit."
So I listed last years top 20 and their recruits for 2013. It clearly showed that it's not just UConn Baylor and Stanford that haven't signed ranked 2013 recruits.
I added UNC as they were elite in the past even though not top 25 last year. I listed the rankings of their verbals for 2013.
Hope that helps clear up your confusion.
What is the matter with you? The goal of UCONN is to have balanced, but good if not great recruiting classes every year. This is how a team remains on top of the pile.
Clarification is needed here.
The quote you referenced is flat-out wrong.
John Glass was quoating the original poster, namely me.
As a further clarification, my intent was to focus on the so-called top tier programs.
Duke, for example, would be a 2nd tier program for the purposes of this discussion.
(Programs ranked from 5 - 10 would be considered second tier, again for the purposes of this discussion.)
The quote I referenced is exactly what you posted. I cut and pasted it.
I'm glad you are clarifying because it's apparent that your original statement is not what you meant.
So, you mean the top tier programs. Can you tell me who they are and what top recruits they have committements from? Because I still think your statement, even in that light, is bull.
Maybe you DID take your meds and it's effecting your posting abilities to make sense.
Top tier programs? Not sure what the criteria is but here is a look at Final Four appearances in the last 10 years. One could argue that there are really only 4 elite programs in the past 10 years, those being the ones that were in 50% of the Final Fours. Only three teams (UCONN, Tennessee and Baylor) have multiple titles and only two other universities (MD and TAMU) have even won a championship in the past 10 years other than those three.
Can Notre Dame really be considered an elite program at this point? Do two Final Fours and no titles put you in the category? Not in my book. UNC is not really an elite program in my book at this point, but will be again soon, I suspect. Stanford has not titles but is obviously elite. The jury is still out on Tennessee's future status as an elite program.
Final Four Appearances in the Last Ten Years
UCONN - 7
Tennessee - 5
LSU - 5
Baylor - 3
Notre Dame - 2
North Carolina - 2
Duke - 2
Oklahoma - 2
Rutgers - 1
MD - 1
Minnesota - 1
Texas - 1
Louisville - 1
TAMU - 1
Michigan State - 1
Separate names with a comma.