AO Article On CBS Sports

[diggerfoot]

It's not always about winning when talking about something like this. It wasn't Dyson or Austrie going 1 on 5. I mean specifically Austrie being able to do anything against top teams:

Top 25 Teams without Dyson, 2008-2009, Austrie Numbers

MSU: 6 PTS, 2/3, 2 ASTS, 3 REB, 37 Minutes
Missouri: 7 PTS, 1/4, 1 Ast, 1 Reb, 27 Minutes
Purdue: 17 PTS, 4/6, 4 Asts, 2 Reb, 32 Minutes
Cuse: 8 PTS, 2/13, 4 Asts, 2 Rebs 45 Minutes
Pitt: 0 PTS, 0/2, 3 Asts, 0 Rebs, ?? Minutes
Marquette: 2 PTS, 1/6, 2 Asts, 1 Reb, 18 Minutes
Pitt: 5 PTS, 2/9, 1 Asts, 1 Reb, 27 Minutes
Average: 6.4 PTS, 2.4 Asts, 1.4 Reb, 31 Minutes 12/43 = 27%

Top 25 Teams Dyson gets injured, Austrie Numbers
Cuse: 10 PTS, 4/10, 3 Asts, 5 Reb, 29 Minutes

Top 25 Teams with Dyson, Austrie Numbers
UL: 3 PTS, 0/1, 1 Reb, 1 Ast, 21 Minutes
ND: 5 PTS, 1/5, 3 Reb, 2 Ast, 16 Minutes
Nova: 7 PTS, 2/10, 2 Reb, 2 Asts, 27 Minutes
WVU: 2 PTS, 1/2, 1 Reb, 1 Ast, 21 Minutes
Georgetown: 4 PTS 2/5, 1 Reb, 0 Asts, 18 Minutes
Gonzaga: 6 PTS 2/7, 1 Reb, 1 Ast, 27 Minutes
Wiscy: 8 PTS, 3/4, 1 REB, 2 Ast, 27 Minutes
Miami: 9 PTs, 1/6, 0 REB, 2 Ast, 34 Minutes
Averages: 5.5 PTS, 1.4 Asts, 1.3 Reb, 24 Minutes, 12/40 = 30%

Averages against top 25 teams: 6.2 PTS, 1.9 Asts, 1.6 Rebs, 30.1%, 27.4 Minutes
Averages that year: 7.2 PTS, 2.3 Asts, 1.8 Rebs, 35.5%, 25 minutes

Dyson versus Ranked Teams:
UL: 14 PTS, 5/12, 4 Reb, 2 Ast, 30 Minutes
ND: 15 PTS, 5/13, 9 Reb, 2 Ast, 35 Minutes
Nova: 7 PTS, 6/11, 4 Reb, 1 Asts, 30 Minutes
WVU: 11 PTS, 3/7, 2 Reb, 2 Ast, 18 Minutes
Georgetown: 4 PTS 1/10, 5 Reb, 3 Asts, 28 Minutes
Gonzaga: 21 PTS 5/12, 9 Reb, 4 Ast, 38 Minutes
Wiscy: 21 PTS, 8/13, 4 REB, 3 Ast, 33 Minutes
Miami: 12 PTs, 4/7, 3 REB, 3 Ast, 21 Minutes

Averages: 13.1, 2.5 Asts, 5 Rebs, 29 Minutes, 37/85 = 43.5%
Averages that year: 12.5, 2 Asts, 3.6 Rebs, 27 Minutes, 41.3%

I rushed this so feel free to check the numbers.

It seems I hijacked the thread, but got a lot good discussion going. Don't know whether to apologize or not for that. I'm replying to this particular post to make one final comment. It's not about the numbers in regards to Austrie; or, should I say, it's not about Austrie's numbers. Perhaps I should have started an isolated thread at some earlier point (like maybe when Austrie was still on the team) that focused only on what happened in 2006. A freshman point comes in and steers the team to victory in a tournament. Does that make him a star? Of course not. He could only do what he did because every one else were stars, and only Austrie's steadying hand was needed. It's worth pointing out again that very same star-laden team often underperformed. On a team full of stars I like Austrie there to facilitate what they can do. On a team lacking stars Austrie's value diminishes and a player like Dyson rises.

I agree with the poster who said he wanted both for 2009 and I should not have implied an either/or. Perhaps I'm too sensitive to a statement of automatically winning a championship with Dyson to implying diminished value for Austrie.

 

[diggerfoot]

You keep coming back to the Louisville played "worse than their ranking" argument. I don't get your point. They ended the regular season ranked no. 1 in the country - not like they were overrated when we played them. If they played lousy that night, perhaps the other team had a little to do with it? It was a road game against one of the top teams in the country and we ran them out of their own gym. We looked like the 2004 team against Alabama or GT.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not arguing for Dyson instead of Austrie. I wanted them both. They both had valuable roles to fill when we had everyone.

As for 2009 v 2010, I think it comes down to some people being better as a complementary player rather than the go-to (happened with Burrell and Albie too). The 2010 team was also poorly constructed with Kemba-JD-Sticks at the 1-2-3, all of whom wanted to drive and all of whom had unreliable jumpers. The lane was always crowded. But Dyson deserves a lot of the heat for that year as a senior. The 2007 season isn't fair to hold over anyone - we had a bunch of very raw freshmen (Dyson was still raw, AJ was a shadow of himself, Thabeet couldn't stay upright, Sticks could jump but that was it, etc.) and Adrien as a sophomore. Our only hope of anything that year was to sign Durant - but the 2007 lumps led to 2009. The 2011 season we had a bunch of freshmen, but Kemba to lead them - makes a big difference.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

First, I think we actually agree about Dyson and Austrie; elsewhere I admitted to presenting my case in a perhaps too sensitive fashion. I agree with virtually everything in your last paragraph. I'm responding now only to your continued defense of using the Louisville game as an example of us "gobsmacking" a "top five" opponent.

Using your same logic for the Final Four game, I could say that Michigan State was the main cause for the way we performed in the Final Four, not the absence of a player whose superb skills yet could be duplicated somewhat by Price or Walker. A Calhoun coached team having much to do with Louisville playing the way it did? Very plausible. An Izzo coached team, essentially at home, having much to do with UConn playing the way we did, irregardless of Dyson? Very plausible as well. We are delving into murky areas of interpreting what we observed here. You think UConn could have played better than they did, particularly with Dyson in. I think Louisville could have played better than they did, though I think we still would have beat them that day. My issue was "gobsmacking" a "top five" team, not the fact that in reality we beat a top ten team at the time.

 

[caw]

It seems I hijacked the thread, but got a lot good discussion going. Don't know whether to apologize or not for that. I'm replying to this particular post to make one final comment. It's not about the numbers in regards to Austrie; or, should I say, it's not about Austrie's numbers. Perhaps I should have started an isolated thread at some earlier point (like maybe when Austrie was still on the team) that focused only on what happened in 2006. A freshman point comes in and steers the team to victory in a tournament. Does that make him a star? Of course not. He could only do what he did because every one else were stars, and only Austrie's steadying hand was needed. It's worth pointing out again that very same star-laden team often underperformed. On a team full of stars I like Austrie there to facilitate what they can do. On a team lacking stars Austrie's value diminishes and a player like Dyson rises.

I agree with the poster who said he wanted both for 2009 and I should not have implied an either/or. Perhaps I'm too sensitive to a statement of automatically winning a championship with Dyson to implying diminished value for Austrie.

Just defining what I meant by top, top teams but I agree having both would have been the ideal scenario.

BTW I'd rather have this discussion than talk about Alex again.

 

[ctchamps]

Just defining what I meant by top, top teams but I agree having both would have been the ideal scenario.

BTW I'd rather have this discussion than talk about Alex again.

Funny how time changes things when some of us rather be talking about Dyson as opposed to Alex!

 

[Gurleyman]

First, I think we actually agree about Dyson and Austrie; elsewhere I admitted to presenting my case in a perhaps too sensitive fashion. I agree with virtually everything in your last paragraph. I'm responding now only to your continued defense of using the Louisville game as an example of us "gobsmacking" a "top five" opponent.

Using your same logic for the Final Four game, I could say that Michigan State was the main cause for the way we performed in the Final Four, not the absence of a player whose superb skills yet could be duplicated somewhat by Price or Walker. A Calhoun coached team having much to do with Louisville playing the way it did? Very plausible. An Izzo coached team, essentially at home, having much to do with UConn playing the way we did, irregardless of Dyson? Very plausible as well. We are delving into murky areas of interpreting what we observed here. You think UConn could have played better than they did, particularly with Dyson in. I think Louisville could have played better than they did, though I think we still would have beat them that day. My issue was "gobsmacking" a "top five" team, not the fact that in reality we beat a top ten team at the time.

I think it is fair to consider Louisville a top five team. They may have been ranked seven at the time (I didn't look it up - and frankly #5 vs. #7 is splitting hairs), but they were No. 1 by the end of the regular season and the top seed in the whole tournament. No matter what metric you use, they were one of the five best college basketball teams that season (us, Lville, Pitt, UNC, Michigan State). If you want to take just that sliver of time and say they were only top seven, so be it - it doesn't disprove my basic point that it was a statement road win over one of the elite teams in the country.

We also beat them by 17 on the road (leading by double digits the whole second half), so I would also say that calling it a gobsmacking is fair and it doesn't deserve quotation marks. Louisville was undefeated in the Big East at the time, and we mauled them in front of their fans.

Michigan State took control in the second half against us, and was the better team that day, but we did get that game down to three points with a minute to go (alas, we kept the frantic fullcourt press on after making that basket to cut it to three, and gave them an easy leakout). Certainly not a gobsmacking, and it is within reason that that game could have turned out differently with a change in personnel. We'll never know for sure - my basketball thought is that Michigan State had a Ricky Moore-type defensive specialist (Travis Walton was his name, I think) and he did a great job on AJ, cutting off the head of the dragon, so to speak. Dyson in the game would have given us a secondary place to go to initiate the offense. We tried Kemba, but like I said before, he had a case of the freshmans and was 0-5 with a few turnovers in 20 minutes (two years later he said the whole Final Four experience overwhelmed him). Of course, if Dyson was still available, maybe Kemba doesn't get the chance to go off against Missouri and we don't win that one, so who knows? I certainly wouldn't guarantee a win over Michigan State in Detroit with Dyson - or with anyone - just that our odds would have been better with another weapon.

I'll also say that the debate is interesting, but in my view, sort of unneeded. I've learned over the years that no single season can be taken in isolation - if we don't get Ricky/Kirk suspended in 1997, maybe Rip-Jake-Free take longer to develop and we don't win in 1999. If we win it all in 2009, maybe Kemba isn't as hungry in 2011. Or if we don't make it to the Final Four at all, maybe Kemba is less wise from that 0-5 experience. If we don't stink in 2007 as we develop our freshmen, maybe the 2009 team wouldn't have been as good as it was. There have been what ifs, but the whole journey has been worth it - well, except for George Mason. That sucked.

 

[Stinger92860]

I believe Miss is starting to see the Alex who played here. This was in a win against D1 powerhouse Appalachian State.

21 mins 5 rebounds 3 to's 2 pf 5 points 1-3 FT's

 

[ctchamps]

I believe Miss is starting to see the Alex who played here. This was in a win against D1 powerhouse Appalachian State.

21 mins 5 rebounds 3 to's 2 pf 5 points 1-3 FT's

Sooner or later finds its maggots.