23 wins

[MU in MKE]

And if you have more 23 win teams than there are bids? If the committee decides they don't want more than 3 bids for the AAC (they still use opinion at the end of the day), that excludes somebody.

Conference affiliation doesn't have any affect. It is all on the quality of wins/losses and the total resume. That's why the NET is used as a baseline. They don't come in with a preset notion of how many teams from each conference will get bids. At 23 wins (which I think is a fairly accurate goal if you want to be a lock), just by the nature of the schedule, you've beaten a healthy percentage of the Q1 and Q2 teams on the schedule.

In other words, it is not the 23 wins itself, it is what those 23 wins would have to be made up of based on UConns remaining schedule this year. A 23 win season for a mid major for example is not equal because their schedule is easier.

 

[storrsroars]

Very, very hard to get a read on this team. The single biggest thing I have to see is the mental toughness to win the games that could go either way down the stretch, and to play as well on the road as on neutral courts. I still believe there is enough talent and depth on this team to be a Top 40 team and in the tourney, but they have to show that the talent and depth that gave them a chance for huge wins versus Indiana and Xavier can translate to beating good teams.

But if we only go 2-3 against teams rated 51 to 100, we don't deserve to be in the tourney and the rest of this discussion isn't meaningful.

On your first point, I'm not overly confident on top 40, but I do think in the 40s is doable, so I'm figuring bubble.

On the second point, I believe NET (but am far from certain) would weight close road losses to 50s teams (e.g. Cincy, Temple) accordingly better than those to teams in the 75-100 range, so I'm thinking those won't hurt too much. Of course finally snagging a win @SMU would turn that 2-3 to 3-2 and make it a moot point.

 

[Waquoit]

Remember that in the loss to Xavier, three of their guys had fouled out, including their top two scorers. Yet our boys couldn't close it out.

Closing out games will be our Achilles heel all year as long as our starting guards keep calling their own number.

 

[Husky68]

Carlton needs to be a plus on offense. He must catch the ball and finish/get fouled several times each half to keep opponents bigs working/fouling. He hasn't shown ability to catch and finish without making slow and easily defensible moves in the paint (.
He needs to be a 14/9 guy and more importantly needs to be able to score when team needs a bucket (and make that foul shot).
Rest of team has enough moving parts and talent to be 22-24 win team. 33 turnovers, 8 assists through 12 games needs to improve going forward.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

all of this necessarily depends on 'compared to whom?' having seen a good bit of the 'whom' recently, I am not impressed at all by the competition. what does impress me is our 62 ppg defense. that's not a fluke, and d travels well. add to that reasonable expectations for offensive growth, and I like our chance to dance a lot. a real lot.

 

[HuskyHawk]

all of this necessarily depends on 'compared to whom?' having seen a good bit of the 'whom' recently, I am not impressed at all by the competition. what does impress me is our 62 ppg defense. that's not a fluke, and d travels well. add to that reasonable expectations for offensive growth, and I like our chance to dance a lot. a real lot.

This is what everyone seems to be missing. Yes, the Huskies are very imperfect. So is every other team. All of them. There are no great teams out there.

 

[Jluc]

Remember that in the loss to Xavier, three of their guys had fouled out, including their top two scorers. Yet our boys couldn't close it out.

And as far as St Joe's goes, as someone else inferred, you don't get to have two really bad losses when you're around the bubble.

If you’re going to play that game then you also have to remember akok missed the entire second half and both overtime’s and we all know how important he is to this team.

 

[jibsey]

More hopeful than I was last couple years but watching Carlton, Gilbert and Vital disappear so often is not a good sign because we can go from world beaters to crap in one game.

 

[Waquoit]

More hopeful than I was last couple years but watching Carlton, Gilbert and Vital disappear so often is not a good sign because we can go from world beaters to crap in one game.

But this year we have bench guys.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Conference affiliation doesn't have any affect. It is all on the quality of wins/losses and the total resume. That's why the NET is used as a baseline. They don't come in with a preset notion of how many teams from each conference will get bids. At 23 wins (which I think is a fairly accurate goal if you want to be a lock), just by the nature of the schedule, you've beaten a healthy percentage of the Q1 and Q2 teams on the schedule.

In other words, it is not the 23 wins itself, it is what those 23 wins would have to be made up of based on UConns remaining schedule this year. A 23 win season for a mid major for example is not equal because their schedule is easier.

I think that this year:

20-21 wins in Big East/Big 12/Big Ten/ACC/Pac 12/SEC = 23 wins in AAC. This can swing a lot team to team based on who they played and how they scheduled, but is probably a decent rule of thumb.

 

[intlzncster]

Conference affiliation doesn't have any affect. It is all on the quality of wins/losses and the total resume. That's why the NET is used as a baseline. They don't come in with a preset notion of how many teams from each conference will get bids. At 23 wins (which I think is a fairly accurate goal if you want to be a lock), just by the nature of the schedule, you've beaten a healthy percentage of the Q1 and Q2 teams on the schedule.

I wasn't saying they have preset number per conference. Just that each conference is 'ranked' by the very fact of how good the collection of schools are. So a better conference has better teams, and will get more bids by default. When I say AAC is a 3 bid league, that's the level of how I expect things like NET rating etc to shake out.

They use their own 'formula' at the end of the day. What that means is that, at the margin, they'll select who they want in the tournament. Whether that's a power program, or someone on the committee's school or whatever.

We've seen a number of crap big time schools get bids in recent years.

In other words, it is not the 23 wins itself, it is what those 23 wins would have to be made up of based on UConns remaining schedule this year. A 23 win season for a mid major for example is not equal because their schedule is easier.

That was actually my point. The win total doesn't actually matter if the conference stinks.

 

[Drew]

I posted this earlier in December, now is seemingly a good time for another update: Odds to make the 2020 NCAA Tournament (TeamRankings)

TeamRankings gives UConn an 18.7% chance to make the tournament today, 41.9% if we get to 23 wins 72.9% chance if we get to 24 wins.

I broke down the path to 24 wins previously and updated it based off the games played through yesterday:

Wins needed: 24. Current Record: 9-3 (0-0)

Must wins: 4-0, 5 games remaining

Iona- W 80-62
St. Peter’s- W 66-56
UNH- W 88-62
NJIT- W 69-47
USF
@ USF
Tulane
@ Tulane
@ ECU

Need 10 from: 0-1, 14 games remaining

IU (Neutral)- L 54-57
@ Villanova
Cincinnati
@ Cincinnati
Wichita State
Memphis
@ Memphis
Houston
@ Houston
Tulsa
@ Tulsa
Temple
@ Temple
@ SMU
UCF

 

[Waquoit]

This is why I love college basketball. Every single game, all over the country, matters in deciding who makes the tournament.

It always killed me when folks tried to say the regular season doesn't matter. I like 23 as a minimum number for wins. It looks so much better than 21, especially when paired with single digit losses. 23-9 looks like the record of a team that deserves to be in.

 

[444JR]

3 upcoming games against 2 top 10 teams. Hope we'll be ready for them. Race for it all is wide open this year



Also, Witchita St at #24

https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/1211695068903546881?s=20

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I posted this earlier in December, now is seemingly a good time for another update: Odds to make the 2020 NCAA Tournament (TeamRankings)

TeamRankings gives UConn an 18.7% chance to make the tournament today, 41.9% if we get to 23 wins 72.9% chance if we get to 24 wins.

I broke down the path to 24 wins previously and updated it based off the games played through yesterday:

Wins needed: 24. Current Record: 9-3 (0-0)

Must wins: 4-0, 5 games remaining

Iona- W 80-62
St. Peter’s- W 66-56
UNH- W 88-62
NJIT- W 69-47
USF
@ USF
Tulane
@ Tulane
@ ECU

Need 10 from: 0-1, 14 games remaining

IU (Neutral)- L 54-57
@ Villanova
Cincinnati
@ Cincinnati
Wichita State
Memphis
@ Memphis
Houston
@ Houston
Tulsa
@ Tulsa
Temple
@ Temple
@ SMU
UCF

That site gives UConn a 42% chance of making the tournament with 23 wins. I think that with all the upsets we have seen this season, 23 will be enough. We will see.

 

[auror]

Need 10 from: 0-1, 14 games remaining

IU (Neutral)- L 54-57
@ Villanova
Cincinnati
@ Cincinnati
Wichita State
Memphis
@ Memphis
Houston
@ Houston
Tulsa
@ Tulsa
Temple
@ Temple
@ SMU
UCF

If we break this down further, if we sweep home games, we need 3 wins out of:

• @ Villanova
• @ Cincinnati
• @ Memphis
• @ Houston
• @ Tulsa
• @ Temple
• @ SMU

@Temple, @Tulsa and @SMU would be the obvious candidates. BUT we likely won't sweep at home, so we'll likely need 1 or 2 from:

• @ Villanova
• @ Cincinnati
• @ Memphis
• @ Houston

Getting @Cincy this week is huge. It's likely the most winnable game from those 4, and it allows us to drop a game to Memphis, Wichita, or Houston at home (or the dreaded Tulsa road game)..

 

[Tenspro2002]

If we break this down further, if we sweep home games, we need 3 wins out of:

• @ Villanova
• @ Cincinnati
• @ Memphis
• @ Houston
• @ Tulsa
• @ Temple
• @ SMU

@Temple, @Tulsa and @SMU would be the obvious candidates. BUT we likely won't sweep at home, so we'll likely need 1 or 2 from:

• @ Villanova
• @ Cincinnati
• @ Memphis
• @ Houston

Getting @Cincy this week is huge. It's likely the most winnable game from those 4, and it allows us to drop a game to Memphis, Wichita, or Houston at home (or the dreaded Tulsa road game)..

Our path to an at-large bid becomes very narrow if we lose at Cincy. This is a low-key huge game for us and I hope Hurley impresses that on the team.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

If we break this down further, if we sweep home games, we need 3 wins out of:

• @ Villanova
• @ Cincinnati
• @ Memphis
• @ Houston
• @ Tulsa
• @ Temple
• @ SMU

@Temple, @Tulsa and @SMU would be the obvious candidates. BUT we likely won't sweep at home, so we'll likely need 1 or 2 from:

• @ Villanova
• @ Cincinnati
• @ Memphis
• @ Houston

Getting @Cincy this week is huge. It's likely the most winnable game from those 4, and it allows us to drop a game to Memphis, Wichita, or Houston at home (or the dreaded Tulsa road game)..

D

 

[Get a Job]

This is what everyone seems to be missing. Yes, the Huskies are very imperfect. So is every other team. All of them. There are no great teams out there.

I think this narrative falls firmly into the "false conventional wisdom" category, at least as it is applied on the Boneyard. Many are basically saying, "There are no great teams, so we are right in the mix." Duke lost, Kentucky lost, Michigan and MSU lost 3 each. So what? They are light years ahead of us. We would lose to all of them about 75 out of 100 times.

We are improving. We have a shot at the dance, and I hope we get there. But enough with the no great teams nonsense.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

I think this narrative falls firmly into the "false conventional wisdom" category, at least as it is applied on the Boneyard. Many are basically saying, "There are no great teams, so we are right in the mix." Duke lost, Kentucky lost, Michigan and MSU lost 3 each. So what? They are light years ahead of us. We would lose to all of them about 75 out of 100 times.

We are improving. We have a shot at the dance, and I hope we get there. But enough with the no great teams nonsense.

next you'll tell us about how great the big ten is. 'the big ten this,' 'the big ten that,' like the experts do every friggin year since forever. except it's not, and they stink. how many decades again since a big ten team won the championship? Memphis, with wiseman, had wheels and looked different. now, he's gone, and everybody else looks, um, ahh, hmmm, … similar, while they all pray to get into the right bracket.

 

[Get a Job]

next you'll tell us about how great the big ten is. 'the big ten this,' 'the big ten that,' like the experts do every friggin year since forever. except it's not, and they stink. how many decades again since a big ten team won the championship? Memphis, with wiseman, had wheels and looked different. now, he's gone, and everybody else looks, um, ahh, hmmm, … similar, while they all pray to get into the right bracket.

That has nothing to do with my point. Do you think we'd beat MSU or Michigan right now? How about Ohio State? We can't even beat Indiana.

I don't think the Big Ten is any better than the other top conferences, but I used their teams as examples for your sake to support my point that all the "flawed teams" everyone is talking about are better than us.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

That has nothing to do with my point. Do you think we'd beat MSU or Michigan right now? How about Ohio State? We can't even beat Indiana.

I don't think the Big Ten is any better than the other top conferences, but I used their teams as examples for your sake to support my point that all the "flawed teams" everyone is talking about are better than us.

and how do you know that? based on what? some blowhard screaming that jimmer fredette or grayson alllen is the next Michael Jordan? the washington nationals beg to differ, especially since they dumped the 'next babe ruth.' how'd that work out for them? I know fathers who have been alive longer than the time since the last big ten ncaa men's champion. count me in the unimpressed group for 2019-2020 season, regardless of how much bs is being shoveled about the teams and players in order to sell soap.

 

[bazz&boujee]

next you'll tell us about how great the big ten is. 'the big ten this,' 'the big ten that,' like the experts do every friggin year since forever. except it's not, and they stink. how many decades again since a big ten team won the championship? Memphis, with wiseman, had wheels and looked different. now, he's gone, and everybody else looks, um, ahh, hmmm, … similar, while they all pray to get into the right bracket.

all he said was we’re currently likely to lose more times than not to a few of the top 5-10 teams in the country. we’re coming off a couple of losing seasons in a conference all metrics rank a clear 7th. we are trending up but it’s not asinine to request one to pump the brakes on the “we can compete with anyone” talk. let’s finish above .500 in conference first and prove we’re all the way back before claiming we are.

 

[Get a Job]

and how do you know that? based on what? some blowhard screaming that jimmer fredette or grayson alllen is the next Michael Jordan? the washington nationals beg to differ, especially since they dumped the 'next babe ruth.' how'd that work out for them? I know fathers who have been alive longer than the time since the last big ten ncaa men's champion. count me in the unimpressed group for 2019-2020 season, regardless of how much bs is being shoveled about the teams and players in order to sell soap.

You have a very Quixotic way of debating. Not sure how I can respond a few disjointed references that are completely unrelated to my original point.

As to your first 2 questions, I admittedly don't know that we can't beat those teams since we haven't played them, but I don't think we would beat them right now based on watching them play and having seen us play. Jimmer Fredette certainly has nothing to do with it.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

your 'point' is right there, in black and white. it even says 'my point.'
'I don't think the Big Ten is any better than the other top conferences, but I used their teams as examples for your sake to support my point that all the "flawed teams" everyone is talking about are better than us'
my 'point' is that the big ten stinks, and any discussion about 'top teams' that refers to any big ten team falls on my deaf ears cuz, uh well, you know...the truth that they never win anything. 'light years ahead of us?' I won't even touch that nonsense cuz, uh well, you know...the truth that they never win anything. that leaves the rest of the 'top teams' that you refer to, and other than carolina, duke, or kentucky, and absent an all world player or two for a team not named carolina, duke, or kentucky, which im not seeing so far this year, well, forget them too. when's that gonzaga victory parade again? so, no, I do not 'know' that this years bball version of the "unbeatable dallas cowgirls' soap opera (they really suck since forever, yet im told that same baloney every year for decades) as it applies to the 'top teams' is any more true than that hogwash. and, since I started these thoughts based upon my eye test for those teams, i'll finish with I don't see nuthin so far to tell me different other than it's wide open. signed, don quixotic.