As Dominant as Hurley Has Made the Program, the Road is still a Harsh Place

[Chin Diesel]

Illinois loses to unranked Penn St at State College last night.
Dayton loses to unranked George Mason in Virginia.
Kentucky loses at Baton Rouge
Colorado loses to New Mexico in New Mexico.

Top 25 teams are under .500 on the road this year for in-conference game.

 

[Scoe]

The road is a that dark place in a horror movie that you probably shouldn’t go into but go into anyways, like taking a wrong turn. In UConn’s case we don’t have a choice one day will be our day.

 

[DogMania]

Well then it's a good thing we have our BET games in what is a quasi home court at MSG and NCAA Tournament games in what will likely be quasi home courts in Brooklyn and Boston and the F4 in what will be a neutral site in Glendale, Arizona, well unless we end up facing Arizona in one of those F4 matchups.

I kinda like our chances.

My only concern would be if we were to face one of the top tier Big East teams somewhere down the line in the NCAA Tournament that have already game planned and learned how to successfully attack our half court offensive and/or defense. Hopefully Hurley will make some adjustments that can mitigate what McDermott and Creighton did the other night. We'll probably find out if that's the case in the upcoming BET. Wouldn't mind facing Creighton again at MSG to see what adjustments Hurley and the team can successfully make to beat them if we face them again. Hum...I kinda lean toward hoping some other teams knocks them off in both tournaments before we would come to face them again.

 

[DogMania]

Dec 15th in Seattle was essentially a road game.

How is that not considered a road win over a ranked (11th at the time) team? Granted Seattle is over a 4 hour drive from Spokane, while 44 hours fromStorrs to Seattle.

Good grief! As flawed as it is, that is a crazy stat but who gives a flying fart when we bring home the hardware when it counts the most.

When it comes to UConn hoops, there are many out there that respect the h*ll out of us, there are some that root against us due to our success, and there's the few vocal haters out there especially those who are members of the ACC (probably add SEC...those UK hayseeds), those who kiss the ass of those in the ACC and those yahoos at ESPN and other national networks that disrespect us and the Big Esst.

No matter how many NC banners we put up in our two hoops' venues, there will always be haters, while other blue chip programs that load up year after year with Burger AAs that lose early to lower seeds in the tournament will get their assess kissed without anyone calling them out for doing less with more.

Extra Credit for some BY Brainiac: I've made this point many times, that if someone would come up with some sort of calculation that takes into account the combined recruiting rankings of a program's players per the success they've had in the NCAA tournament, UConn would stand alone at the top of that list while programs like Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas would likely show poorly in that type of algorithm. There must be some Brainiac on this site that could put something together. Total up the combined player (recruiting) rankings of these programs for a given time span (or do it by season) the divide (or some sort of calculation) that by how deep they went into the tournament, and maybe weighting reaching the F4 and championship game and winning it all higher due to the elite status of those achievements. And for good measure calculate in a boost (such as +3 for a 4 seed beating a 1) when beating higher seeds and a reduction for losing to a lower seed (such as -3 for a 1 loosing to a 4). Hum...magbe dividing the success factors by the total combined player rankings makes more sense. I'd love to see someone tackle that challenge, and I have little doubt that if you go back to 1999 or maybe even as far back as 1990 (that would be a lot of stat gathering) UConn would score pretty high, while those other programs low due to the sheer numbers of Burger AAs and highly ranked recruits they land just about every sesson.

 

[superjohn]

How is that not considered a road win over a ranked (11th at the time) team? Granted Seattle is over a 4 hour drive from Spokane, while 44 hours fromStorrs to Seattle.

You answered your own question.

 

[TheChamps990411]

I have bad news for you, his list was wrong because it's been 21 straight games. 10 for KO and now 11 for Hurley

Thats it. Lets can him! Lets bring in Cooley!

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

My only concern would be if we were to face one of the top tier Big East teams somewhere down the line in the NCAA Tournament that have already game planned and learned how to successfully attack our half court offensive and/or defense.

You have a good analytical mind, and you've long displayed an interest in using it in this forum.

Why do you (and often others here) regularly suppose that UConn's opponents might benefit from having previously played us such that they can have figured out how to beat us, but completely omit the likelihood that UConn might benefit from having previously played BE opponents and gained equivalent or even greater advantages.

Is there a compelling argument for why those teams should not be even more concerned that UConn is also doing game prep and will be in a better position to beat their team?

It's true that experience with a prior foe removes a meaningful element of surprise, but what necessarily makes that more disadvantageous or advantageous for one team than another?

Hopefully Hurley will make some adjustments that can mitigate what McDermott and Creighton did the other night.

Next, I have a grammar question.

You have used the word "hopefully" in a way that is more likely than not incorrect, but is quite common. At best, it is ambiguous.

I believe that you are intending to convey your own hopeful wish that Dan Hurley will make adjustments. What you have written instead claims that Dan Hurley will make adjustments with his own hopefulness. That may well be true, but you don't necessarily know that and probably didn't mean for that to be your emphasis.

The adverb that begins your sentence qualifies the next occurring verb, and the subject associated with that verb is described by the introductory adverb.

Generally speaking, most people in your situation are wanting to express (in effect), "I'm hopeful that Hurley will make some adjustments that will mitigate..." but instead are writing (also in effect), "Hurley is hopeful that he can make adjustments will mitigate..." The latter is probably true, but his hopefulness also probably goes without the need to be said.

 

[Hunt for 7]

I have bad news for you, his list was wrong because it's been 21 straight games. 10 for KO and now 11 for Hurley

I guess you could have attacked the original post which of course I considered to be accurate when it listed 19. So although you seem compelled to insult or correct or whatever to any of my posts, perhaps you could have questioned the initial headline that it was 19 games in a row. Unlike you I generally trust people and don’t go looking to take the knives out as a first move. But you are who you are. Generally I am fairly good at math but as you do you will find an abstract to dismiss my next statement. 19-10 = 9. Therefore I did not count Hurley’s losses. But thank for pointing out you are not a fan of our current coach. And I write that tongue in cheek since I am projecting what you might say about me if I pointed out that our current coach has an accumulated more consecutive road loses against ranked teams than our previous coach. Or said another way has never won a road game against a ranked opponent. Good job being the arse that you are.

 

[Hunt for 7]

I have bad news for you, his list was wrong because it's been 21 straight games. 10 for KO and now 11 for Hurley

And since you are the accuracy police let’s do this, you were wrong, the original post was wrong, the initial correction was wrong and I was wrong. It is now 12 for Hurley. Let’s count them.

1/18/20 at #14 Villanova we were not ranked = 1
1/23/20 at #25 Houston we were not ranked = 2
1/23/21 at # 11 Creighton we were ranked #23 = 3
2/20/21 at #10 Villanova we were not ranked = 4
1/8/22 at # 24 Seton Hall we were not ranked = 5
2/5/22 at #12 Villanova we were ranked #17 = 6
2/11/22 at #25 Xavier we were ranked # 24 =7
12/3/22 at #22 Xavier we were ranked #2 = 8
1/11/23 at #25 Marquette we were ranked #6 = 9
2/11/23 at #23 Creighton we were ranked #10 = 10
12/1/23 at #5 Kansas we were ranked #4 = 11
2/20/24 at #15 Creighton we were ranked #1 =12

At least I did some research before posting and admittedly could have been more thorough. But you find it easier to insult without verifying. Not sure you are the type to research when you see what you think is blood in the water. Just your style. But I will continue to go at bullies it is just in my nature. Because by nature and as illustrated bullying usually leads to a less than positive outcome. Now the number is worse than when this all started.

Research footnote I did not verify ranking in both AP and Coaches poll. So if you are inclined find your blood there.

 

[navery12]

And since you are the accuracy police let’s do this, you were wrong, the original post was wrong, the initial correction was wrong and I was wrong. It is now 12 for Hurley. Let’s count them.

1/18/20 at #14 Villanova we were not ranked = 1
1/23/20 at #25 Houston we were not ranked = 2
1/23/21 at # 11 Creighton we were ranked #23 = 3
2/20/21 at #10 Villanova we were not ranked = 4
1/8/22 at # 24 Seton Hall we were not ranked = 5
2/5/22 at #12 Villanova we were ranked #17 = 6
2/11/22 at #25 Xavier we were ranked # 24 =7
12/3/22 at #22 Xavier we were ranked #2 = 8
1/11/23 at #25 Marquette we were ranked #6 = 9
2/11/23 at #23 Creighton we were ranked #10 = 10
12/1/23 at #5 Kansas we were ranked #4 = 11
2/20/24 at #15 Creighton we were ranked #1 =12

At least I did some research before posting and admittedly could have been more thorough. But you find it easier to insult without verifying. Not sure you are the type to research when you see what you think is blood in the water. Just your style. But I will continue to go at bullies it is just in my nature. Because by nature and as illustrated bullying usually leads to a less than positive outcome. Now the number is worse than when this all started.

Research footnote I did not verify ranking in both AP and Coaches poll. So if you are inclined find your blood there.

Good catch, I did research too but forgot to count the most recent Creighton game when I was checking. And I have no idea what your issue is, but you need to relax. I didn't correct you with your post because it was obvious you were just using ESPN's mistaken number and it's really not a big deal

If you took my obvious joke about firing Hurley to another poster as an insult I think it's time to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're taking it so personally. And I didn't bother to correct the 19 number because it had already been pointed out, right above your post

 

[Hunt for 7]

The post about firing Hurley that you made by first saying I was wrong….no that is not what the issue is. You have outright called me several less than flattering things. Instead of debating content in what I would call a civil manner you have just went to name calling and insulting. I think we are both UConn fans, I guess that does not make us friends but if you disagree or find something I post incorrect there are ways of pointing that out without starting with insults. So I saw an opportunity to do it your way and as I can see you did not love it. Accuracy police is a lot more civil than some of the things you have written/posted about me being FOS. Deflect instead of accept. Trust me I wait for patterns before I engage like this.

 

[navery12]

The post about firing Hurley that you made by first saying I was wrong….no that is not what the issue is. You have outright called me several less than flattering things. Instead of debating content in what I would call a civil manner you have just went to name calling and insulting. I think we are both UConn fans, I guess that does not make us friends but if you disagree or find something I post incorrect there are ways of pointing that out without starting with insults. So I saw an opportunity to do it your way and as I can see you did not love it. Accuracy police is a lot more civil than some of the things you have written/posted about me being FOS. Deflect instead of accept. Trust me I wait for patterns before I engage like this.

I think you're confusing posters, I've done none of that