Ap poll is ridiculous

[champs99and04]

I don't disagree with where we're ranked right now, but I also don't think the Maryland, BC, and Indiana victories are as unimpressive as people are making them out to be. We didn't dominate any of them as convincingly as we may have liked, but those are all teams with BCS talent (besides maybe BC), who we played at neutral sites, and we controlled all of those games from start to finish (specifically the Maryland and BC games, where we were up double digits in the second half). Indiana, BC, and Maryland will all have games this year where they look good, and they'll all have games where they push good teams to the brink. It would be one thing if games against Yale and Eastern Washington were coming down to the wire - whenever you play a team with top 100 talent, especially when UConn is one of the biggest games they'll play all year, you have to expect at least somewhat of a battle.

 

[DogMania]

Twice this year we have been dropped in the rankings with out losing,how is Louisville ahead of us with two loses and no quality wins on there resume. And as for kensucky, three loses! gets one good win and leap frogs us, it's bullsh!t!



Not to mention a 10-2 gator team we beat and a 8-3 kansas team ranked higher.

I try not to get all hot and bothered with this sort of stuff. It is strange considering we've not lost since we dropped to 15 and as you noted, we beat a FL team that is ranked well ahead of us. We do have to keep in mind that FL is getting some (or at least one) player back since we played them and could turn out to be a formidable team.

Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of our team. We've not been shooting the 3 crazy good like we were before. I had hoped they'd keep it up, even though history tells us no team can keep up the pace that we were knocking down 3s early on. I felt that if we shot the ball exceptionally well from deep we could make up for the lack of inside productivity (rebounding & scoring). If they can get back to that level of efficiency on 3s along with the big number of 3s their taking, I can see this team being quite a surprise and end up a top 10 team. If that doesn't happen, and our bigs don't begin to improve enough in the paint and on the boards, this team looks more like a top 15 to 25 type team.

It's still very early. Unfortunately our AAC schedule doesn't have the long list of quality wins that we had with the Big East Schedule, so the team must win the ones they should and most if not all the few ranked teams they'll face to improve their ranking. Boy do I miss the days of the Big East...it's pure self-punishment to even go down that road.

 

[UCONNfan1]

To be fair, Champs, it was an 11 point lead at the 3;30 mark. EWU was still in the game at that point. We didn't push the lead up to 20 or so till the last 3 minutes of the game and ended up winning by 16. EWU is 5-6 now and was slaughtered by UC Irvine (by 23) and Seton Hall (22). Honestly, a 16 point victory was disappointing to me.

And I'm not sure I buy the "UCONN is the biggest game they play all year" any more than I buy the "Team A just wanted to win more than Team B". Their kids had spent a week on the east coast after getting demolished at Seton Hall. It's not like the game was in Washington in front of their fans in a sold out facility... Just my $.02...

I see nothing wrong with our ranking nor with dropping us. We've had 1 wire to wire smackdown (Detroit) and gutted out a win against a good Florida team. Literally every other game has been far closer than it should have and none were overly impressive in the eyes of the national voters...

 

[Vuce]

To be fair, Champs, it was an 11 point lead at the 3;30 mark. EWU was still in the game at that point. We didn't push the lead up to 20 or so till the last 3 minutes of the game and ended up winning by 16. EWU is 5-6 now and was slaughtered by UC Irvine (by 23) and Seton Hall (22). Honestly, a 16 point victory was disappointing to me.
..

I am not going to quibble much with this but do you honestly think the writers that vote in these polls WATCHED one second of our game versus EWU? My bet is 95% of them saw we won by 17 and moved on (we were favored by 19)

 

[CTBasketball]

The only way we get a top 3 seed is if we lose less than 3-4 games all year. That's the way the conferences work. Guarantee a 5-6 loss team from the ACC gets a better seed than a 3 loss team from the AAC.

And win the AAC Tournament.

 

[PRHusky]

The only way we get a top 3 seed is if we lose less than 3-4 games all year. That's the way the conferences work. Guarantee a 5-6 loss team from the ACC gets a better seed than a 3 loss team from the AAC.

And win the AAC Tournament.

BS. People forget that in the late 90s and early 2000s the BE was not the juggernaut it later became. As an example, in the 2002-2003 season, the BE only had 4 teams (out of 14) invited to the tournament. Rarely did more than 6 BE teams make the tournament before 2006. Yet, our seed or any other good BE team's seed was never affected by this. Heck, the SEC is at best as good as the AAC; do you think UK is concerned about their seed?!?

 

[ASweet3781]

I don't disagree with where we're ranked right now, but I also don't think the Maryland, BC, and Indiana victories are as unimpressive as people are making them out to be. We didn't dominate any of them as convincingly as we may have liked, but those are all teams with BCS talent (besides maybe BC), who we played at neutral sites, and we controlled all of those games from start to finish (specifically the Maryland and BC games, where we were up double digits in the second half). Indiana, BC, and Maryland will all have games this year where they look good, and they'll all have games where they push good teams to the brink. It would be one thing if games against Yale and Eastern Washington were coming down to the wire - whenever you play a team with top 100 talent, especially when UConn is one of the biggest games they'll play all year, you have to expect at least somewhat of a battle.

I think it is dishonest to say we controlled those games from start to finish. Indiana had a 51-46 lead on us and most in the game chat we about to throw in the towel. That is not controlling a game from start to finish.

Somewhat of a battle? We survived by the skin of our teeth in all 3 of them. BC is not a good team and that has been proven. Don't blame the voters if they are not impressed with the whole picture. The good thing is we played close games all of last year and we rose our game for the big opponents. But the voters judge based on scores, and UConn's makeup makes a big blowout almost impossible regardless of opponent. And that 2nd half performance vs Stanford is what is the last image most of the voters saw.

 

[Woof 101]

To be fair, Champs, it was an 11 point lead at the 3;30 mark. EWU was still in the game at that point. We didn't push the lead up to 20 or so till the last 3 minutes of the game and ended up winning by 16. EWU is 5-6 now and was slaughtered by UC Irvine (by 23) and Seton Hall (22). Honestly, a 16 point victory was disappointing to me.

And I'm not sure I buy the "UCONN is the biggest game they play all year" any more than I buy the "Team A just wanted to win more than Team B". Their kids had spent a week on the east coast after getting demolished at Seton Hall. It's not like the game was in Washington in front of their fans in a sold out facility... Just my $.02...

I see nothing wrong with our ranking nor with dropping us. We've had 1 wire to wire smackdown (Detroit) and gutted out a win against a good Florida team. Literally every other game has been far closer than it should have and none were overly impressive in the eyes of the national voters...

So far on this post I would have to follow your tack. Quite frankly (JC term) I was not impressed, EWU was still in it well into the fourth. That and the officials were very obvious of who the home team was. I am not defending the pollsters and understand how some can be upset that a team we beat is ahead of us in the polls.
On the other hand quite frankly they may be looking at the big picture and down the road. By this I mean our conference and I wonder how many teams ranked ahead of us have a point guard as the leading rebounder? The team is working hard but an 11-1 juggernaut they are not...A work in progress I am sure KO would agree. Let's see where they are in Feb when it begins to count.

 

[Hurleyman216]

The December 30th AP Poll has nothing to do with seeding, absolutely nothing. The polls get more accurate as the year goes along.

I disagree we have a top 10 resume, we have one great win and a terrible loss. BC, Maryland, and IU are not what we hoped they would be and we didn't beat any of them impressively.

Keep winning, win the league, and win the conference tournament and our seeding will be just fine.

Agree to disagree, but I can count at least 7 teams ahead of us with weaker resumes to date including: OK State, Duke, Witchita State (hasn't played anyone with a pulse and doesn't have a SINGLE ranked opponent on their schedule all year), Florida, Louisville, Kentucky (only solid win is a questionable Louisville team) and Kansas. You can sit there and say the polls on Dec. 30th don't matter, but the fact of the matter is that this week's poll affects next weeks poll and so on. So when we continue to get screwed multiple weeks in a row getting knocked back by 4 spots without losing, over time it does have an impact. The press clearly has different rules for different teams. There is a love affair with Duke, Kentucky and Kansas every year and every year Duke gets a favorable seed and then usually gets bounced in the 2nd round. We clearly don't get the love from ESPN that some of the other ACC and bluechip teams get and this does have an impact on public perception and rankings. You can say we don't have a top 10 resume, but then name me 10 or 11 teams that are clearly better than us right now...you can't because they don't exist.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

On the other hand quite frankly they may be looking at the big picture and down the road. By this I mean our conference and I wonder how many teams ranked ahead of us have a point guard as the leading rebounder?

I think you're giving the people that make these lists entirely too much credit. I would bet a decent number of them can't name a single player on the team, and most of them can't name two.

I'm not really bothered by the ranking, it'll all shake out eventually, but it is a bit strange that they keep falling without losing. I think it's a case of out of sight, out of mind. Wichita State's a good story, so the fact that they have beaten exactly zero good teams doesn't hurt them. They'll be a media darling all year.

 

[champs99and04]

I think it is dishonest to say we controlled those games from start to finish. Indiana had a 51-46 lead on us and most in the game chat we about to throw in the towel. That is not controlling a game from start to finish.

Somewhat of a battle? We survived by the skin of our teeth in all 3 of them. BC is not a good team and that has been proven. Don't blame the voters if they are not impressed with the whole picture. The good thing is we played close games all of last year and we rose our game for the big opponents. But the voters judge based on scores, and UConn's makeup makes a big blowout almost impossible regardless of opponent. And that 2nd half performance vs Stanford is what is the last image most of the voters saw.

Again, read the first sentence of my post - I don't have a problem with the voters ranking us where they did. I realize BC and Maryland are not good teams - we were up 17 on Maryland mid-way through the second half before Napier got called for a bogus technical (which led to him going to the bench with foul trouble) and double digits for most of the game against BC. It's concerning that we let those teams back into the game, but again, both of those teams also give out scholarships and have some pretty talented players on their roster. Look at Ohio State - it took a complete meltdown for them to survive a Notre Dame team that has been pretty mediocre this season. Look at Oklahoma State - they were two Kyle Marshall free throws away from losing to an underwhelming Butler team. Look at Arizona - they almost lost to a terrible UNLV team at home. Point is, the list goes on. It's not easy to beat BCS-caliber teams away from home, regardless of how good they may be. UConn has played six BCS teams this season - Maryland, BC, Indiana, Florida, Stanford, and Washington - with four of those games coming away from home, and won five of those games. I'm pretty sure we all would have signed up for that before the season, even before we knew Maryland, BC, and Washington weren't as good as we thought they'd be. Would the 2004 and 2006 and 2009 UConn teams have won those games more easily? Yes. But we knew coming into the season that this UConn team wasn't as good as those teams. For all the revisionists out there, look at the 2011 team, and the way they struggled with some pretty mediocre opponents - that team struggled with Vermont, struggled with New Hampshire, struggled with South Florida, struggled with Seton Hall. That team, much like the current group, was simply constructed to play close games, regardless of competition level. This team is the same way - we're going to make the tournament, and probably play 50/50 games down to the wire (not unlike the 2011 team, by the way). They can lose to pretty much anybody in the tournament field, but they can also beat anybody - aside from Arizona, and maybe a Kentucky or Kansas team down the road, there's really nobody out there that I won't take my chances against. There just isn't going to be a lot of wire-to-wire stomping's with this UConn team this year - they're not talented enough on the interior and Napier has really been the only consistent offensive performer). Buckle up and get ready for a lot of close games.

 

[Inyatkin]

BS. People forget that in the late 90s and early 2000s the BE was not the juggernaut it later became. As an example, in the 2002-2003 season, the BE only had 4 teams (out of 14) invited to the tournament. Rarely did more than 6 BE teams make the tournament before 2006. Yet, our seed or any other good BE team's seed was never affected by this. Heck, the SEC is at best as good as the AAC; do you think UK is concerned about their seed?!?

Yeah everyone forgets how low the Big East got. In the 90s there was Cuse in 96 and us in 99 and that's it for Final Fours. We still got 1s and 2s when we deserved it.
Also, Princeton one year was a top 10 AP team but a 4-seed. They really don't use polls for seeding.

 

[huskiesnyc]

I think Daniels summed it up pretty good

David Borges ‏@DaveBorges1m
DeAndre Daniels on UConn dropping two spots in AP poll despite 1-0 week: "I mean, I guess people don't like UConn. I don't know."

 

[tzznandrew]

Yeah everyone forgets how low the Big East got. In the 90s there was Cuse in 96 and us in 99 and that's it for Final Fours. We still got 1s and 2s when we deserved it.
Also, Princeton one year was a top 10 AP team but a 4-seed. They really don't use polls for seeding.

I forgot about that. They got a 5-seed in the 1998 bracket, beat UNLV and then lost to Michigan State.

 

[CTBasketball]

BS. People forget that in the late 90s and early 2000s the BE was not the juggernaut it later became. As an example, in the 2002-2003 season, the BE only had 4 teams (out of 14) invited to the tournament. Rarely did more than 6 BE teams make the tournament before 2006. Yet, our seed or any other good BE team's seed was never affected by this. Heck, the SEC is at best as good as the AAC; do you think UK is concerned about their seed?!?

Its all about the name and the teams in the conference. The AAC will realistically get 3 teams in this year. SEC will probably get 3-4. And that's one of the worst power conferences there is.

 

[Inyatkin]

I forgot about that. They got a 5-seed in the 1998 bracket, beat UNLV and then lost to Michigan State.

I knew it was a 4-5 game they lost. I think Cleaves hit a big shot to win it.

 

[Inyatkin]

Its all about the name and the teams in the conference. The AAC will realistically get 3 teams in this year. SEC will probably get 3-4. And that's one of the worst power conferences there is.

The AAC will realistically get 3 teams with top-4 seeds. The trouble for the AAC is not this year, it's next year and beyond.
Before the ACC became the greatest conference in the history of organized sports they had years where they sent three teams. The MVC one year sent four and could have had six. I don't like our situation any more than anyone else, but conference affiliation is just one part of the equation.

 

[kelde1wd]

It is still early. We need to keep winning games. If we do that, our rankings will get better and our NCAA seed will reflect that. We do that and everything will take care of themselves. Too early to worry. Last time I checked, seeds are not based off of 12/30 polls.

 

[gtcam]

I think it is dishonest to say we controlled those games from start to finish. Indiana had a 51-46 lead on us and most in the game chat we about to throw in the towel. That is not controlling a game from start to finish.

Somewhat of a battle? We survived by the skin of our teeth in all 3 of them. BC is not a good team and that has been proven. Don't blame the voters if they are not impressed with the whole picture. The good thing is we played close games all of last year and we rose our game for the big opponents. But the voters judge based on scores, and UConn's makeup makes a big blowout almost impossible regardless of opponent. And that 2nd half performance vs Stanford is what is the last image most of the voters saw.

Losing to Stanford on national tv, playing like we did is a killer
nobody gives a rats a## about ewu.
should we be higher? probably not
should we be ranked behind some others?
probably not
UConn needs to take care of business in conference. Louisville just became much weaker-don't be surprised if it came down to cinci/uconn

 

[gtcam]

Its all about the name and the teams in the conference. The AAC will realistically get 3 teams in this year. SEC will probably get 3-4. And that's one of the worst power conferences there is.

Who out of Louisville, Memphis, UConn and Cincinatti will be left out? maybe add SMU in there

 

[UConnDan97]

Who out of Louisville, Memphis, UConn and Cincinatti will be left out? maybe add SMU in there

For what it's worth, teamrankings.com currently has us at about 4 teams in the tourney (3.9), CBSSports has us at 4 teams (the teams you mentioned), and ESPN has us at 3 teams with both Cincy and SMU on the bubble. As it stands today, my money is on 4 teams into the tourney from the AAC...

 

[Huskygamble19]

It's also December 30th. Conference play starts this week. Teams at the top of the rankings will start losing games as they go on the road in conference play. We need to win both games this week on the road against teams we are better than, and continue to build of that going forward. Silly to get too worked up over rankings this time of year. March is a different story.[/quot


Teams that we are better Than? Stanford was ranked 199th in the nation and they beat us.so that means nothing until you actually play that team. We should win the next 2, but they have come out flat before and lost..IE Stanford.. Couldn't buy a 3 to save their life.

 

[Huskygamble19]

Don't know if you caught it during the EWU game, but a SNY announcer was talking about how difficult it will be to shine in the AAC because conference is very poorly rated.
More evidence of the need for UConn's administration and BOT to work every damn day to get us out of this dumpster fire of a conference.

You mean the All Afterbirth Conference, or the , Turn off the lights after the big boys leave conference? Take your pick.

 

[Jerry1714]

Agree to disagree, but I can count at least 7 teams ahead of us with weaker resumes to date including: OK State, Duke, Witchita State (hasn't played anyone with a pulse and doesn't have a SINGLE ranked opponent on their schedule all year), Florida, Louisville, Kentucky (only solid win is a questionable Louisville team) and Kansas. You can sit there and say the polls on Dec. 30th don't matter, but the fact of the matter is that this week's poll affects next weeks poll and so on. So when we continue to get screwed multiple weeks in a row getting knocked back by 4 spots without losing, over time it does have an impact. The press clearly has different rules for different teams. There is a love affair with Duke, Kentucky and Kansas every year and every year Duke gets a favorable seed and then usually gets bounced in the 2nd round. We clearly don't get the love from ESPN that some of the other ACC and bluechip teams get and this does have an impact on public perception and rankings. You can say we don't have a top 10 resume, but then name me 10 or 11 teams that are clearly better than us right now...you can't because they don't exist.

It would help if you knew what you were talking about, but I will still respond.

Wanna bash Witchita's schedule? Their SOS is 81, ours is 85. They beat Tennessee, St. Louis, and BYU. All three of those teams are rated higher by kempom than BC, IU, or Maryland.

Ok state blew the doors off of Memphis and won AT Colorado, but we have a better resume? Yea okay.

Why is that no one has us ranked in the top 10? Not on any site. Is it because everyone "hates" us and is out to get us? No it is because its reality right now. Wake up. You want 10 better teams? Zona, Cuse, Mich St., Ok State, Witchita, Ohio St., Wisky, Baylor, Oregon and Florida (yes we beat them, but by 1 at home, with their best player in the locker room, can you say with 100% certainty that we beat them on a neutral court?)

And your point about this weeks poll having effect on the one in March, what has an effect is winning games, that is all. Murray State was in the top 10 2 years ago in the last poll and was given a 6 seed, the poll means nothing. Do I think were the 17th best team? No, probably 12-14, but does it matter how were ranked now and do I worry about, not at all. All I care about is where we are ranked in April.

 

[Huskygamble19]

The AAC will realistically get 3 teams with top-4 seeds. The trouble for the AAC is not this year, it's next year and beyond.
Before the ACC became the greatest conference in the history of organized sports they had years where they sent three teams. The MVC one year sent four and could have had six. I don't like our situation any more than anyone else, but conference affiliation is just one part of the equation.[/quote



Becase of the huge step back from the football team the basketball had to suffer.