AO Article On CBS Sports

[ctchamps]

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

I give JC more heat than JD. And really there was not much heat to give anyone. KW was not ready to run the team as a sophomore. And JD lacked the skills to be a pg.

JD was playing superbly in the 2010 season as the 2g. Kemba had several bad games in a row and JC put JD at the point. I had no problem with the initial switch. I had a problem with JC continuing to play JD once it became obvious he was more a liability at the pg than Kemba. Meanwhile the production JD manufactured at the 2g was lost. The failure that year was KW was not ready to replace AJP.

This season it will be interesting to see how quickly RB develops and how KO handles the situation vs. JC. You have a similar situation to the 2010 situation in that SN is a much better 2g than a 1g and RB is a much better 1g. But SN like JD brings more experience on the court. The one advantage KO has is SN is a better pg than JD and there is a decent RJE to run things if necessary!

 

[ctchamps]

Purdue was pretty good also.

Yes they were and in the category of good wins that CA was involved with this would be it. CA was a contributor for the other games. A wonderful player to have for UConn.

 

[UConn990411]

By evidence I did not mean stats, and I conceded that Dyson was a better scorer, and let me add a better stat stuffer in general.

Dyson was not just a better scorer than Austrie - he was a better rebounder, passer (that season) and, when he wanted to be, could lock people up defensively. UConn could also play an extremely effective 3-guard lineup with Dyson, which they couldn't do nearly as well after he went down. The only real advantage Austrie had that year was taking care of the ball.

The reality is that UConn was either the first or second-best team in the country with BOTH Dyson and Austrie. Each player brought very different things to the table that helped make that team great. But I'm not going to argue whether they would have done better in the tournament with Dyson or Austrie because, well, there's no tangible way to settle the argument.

I will say this, though: UConn has a far better chance at beating MSU if 2009 Dyson were in the lineup instead of Austrie.

 

[caw]

Dyson was not just a better scorer than Austrie - he was a better rebounder, passer (that season) and, when he wanted to be, could lock people up defensively. UConn could also play an extremely effective 3-guard lineup with Dyson, which they couldn't do nearly as well after he went down. The only real advantage Austrie had that year was taking care of the ball.

The reality is that UConn was either the first or second-best team in the country with BOTH Dyson and Austrie. Each player brought very different things to the table that helped make that team great. But I'm not going to argue whether they would have done better in the tournament with Dyson or Austrie because, well, there's no tangible way to settle the argument.

I will say this, though: UConn has a far better chance at beating MSU if 2009 Dyson were in the lineup instead of Austrie.

That '09 team is probably the biggest what-if in UConn's history.

What if:

• Dyson never gets hurt
• Stanley is with the team all year and focused
• Miles doesn't get expelled
• Miles doesn't deal with Nochimson and is eligible

It would have gone down as one of the best teams ever at UConn, IMO and probably the best defensive unit ever at UConn, or just ever.

Shame never saw an eligible/healthy/focused team of:

PG: Price, Walker, Beverly
SG: Dyson, Austrie
SF: Stanley, Miles
PF: Adrien, Edwards
C: Thabeet, Okuandu
Others: Dove, Haralson

Of course Stanley backed up the four quite a bit and Edwards the five, but still. And I imagine Miles would have played some 2 guard as well and Dyson some 3.

For those saying UConn hasn't has shooters recently, the 2009 recruiting class is a big part of the reason. Miles was a great shooter and Haralson was supposed to be.

Going into the season Dyson and Miles were in place to be option 1a and 1b at the SG spot. Even without either that team went to the final four and had the game to 3 points with a minute to go, I give Austrie a ton of credit for filling in, but Dyson brought that team another level of athletic ability and physicality that it missed after he was injured.

 

[Gurleyman]

That '09 team is probably the biggest what-if in UConn's history.

2006 is close - give us a healthy AJ Price, no laptop scandal, and Andrew Bynum...

(although if Bynum came, Hilton might have redshirted, and Hilton's improvement that year was key - gave us a face-up four to stretch the D a little).

There are a few others (no Ricky injury in 1996, Nadav coming back for his final two seasons, KEA doesn't roll ankle in 2000, Price and Rashad don't both almost die in 2005, Donny doesn't get hurt during Florida game, Edney doesn't go coast to coast, etc.) - but that's basketball, and a lot of programs have similar stories. I'd say 2006 and 2009 both had the most what ifs with them.

 

[Tenspro2002]

2006 is close - give us a healthy AJ Price, no laptop scandal

That's the biggest one. A sophomore AJ Price backing up/playing alongside Marcus Williams makes us a totally different team.

Aside from Austrie, who played sparingly down the stretch, we had one (1!) guy who could reliably handle the ball. MW basically did everything for us down the stretch. Of course, it wasn't point guard play that lost us the GM game, but I would argue that AJ's presence (as someone who wasn't already looking ahead to the NBA) would have focused and sharpened that team.

 

[caw]

That's the biggest one. A sophomore AJ Price backing up/playing alongside Marcus Williams makes us a totally different team.

Aside from Austrie, who played sparingly down the stretch, we had one (1!) guy who could reliably handle the ball. MW basically did everything for us down the stretch. Of course, it wasn't point guard play that lost us the GM game, but I would argue that AJ's presence (as someone who wasn't already looking ahead to the NBA) would have focused and sharpened that team.

The main reason I give 09 the nod here is due to the fact they went to a final four.

I do agree 06 was close, if they had beaten Mason, I would probably have leaned toward 06. Price + Bynum would have made that team very interesting. Not sure if that young Florida team or the UNC team was a better college team though that Florida team was a better NBA team. I'm not sure if Hilton would have redshirted, necessarily. He probably played pretty well in practice and who knows how long Bynum would have taken to adjust to the college game.

 

[UConn990411]

Price and Bynum never played for UConn, and if I'm remembering correctly, A.J. might not have been cleared for that season anyway. We got to see what '09 UConn was capable of doing with a healthy Dyson...and they were a machine.

I'm not guaranteeing UConn would have won the NC because that UNC team was damn good. But UConn would've given them a run for their money, that's for sure.

 

[CTBasketball]

If we start what-if'ing then UConn should have at least 5 rings.

 

[Rico444]

I have no bitterness towards Dyson. From the start I stated I was here to promote Austrie, not dis Dyson. I've conceded that Dyson was the better scorer and stat stuffer. I never said he was bad for the team. When Austrie started the team reliably performed well (though not necessarily Austrie's own stats) in big games in tournaments. The evidence is still not conclusive for Dyson because how many big games or tournaments did Dyson play in during 2009? Louisville was the one big game that I recall. Certainly he does not have the overall body of work of the team playing well in a big game or tournament that Austrie has.

I can sympathize with you if you are a fan who thinks a player you support is unfairly attacked. Dyson certainly has fallen into that category. So, too, has Austrie, which makes me that kind of fan as well. I always felt he was not fully appreciated because as an individual player he does not measure up to others. But basketball is a team game and Austrie was the consummate teammate. He made the teams he started on better, or at least play to their potential.

Hmm. Let me phrase it this way, then. Dyson was unavailable for the Final Four. If Austrie was the one unavailable instead our chances of winning the championship that year would have been no better.

Fair enough, I jumped to conclusions when assuming you were bitter towards Dyson and I apologize. I still disagree pretty strongly that Austrie made the team better than Dyson did. Maybe in 2010 he would've been a better fit; he was certainly better at running the point, but Dyson was a perfect fit for the 2009 team. He was our only real threat to penetrate into the paint; without him, our team was much less balanced offensively.

 

[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.