Cam Johnson officially released from Pitt

[BUConn10]

Yes this is true. Im just an optimist at heart. I dont believe everything needs a pessimistic spin on it. For example, a poster A says, " this off-season sucked, but at least we have 4 really talented players coming back" Poster B responds, "Jalens overrated, gilbert's arm is going to fall off, CV stinks, and larrier is a chucker."
Why was it necessary for poster B to take a reasonable positive with our team next yr and find the most pessimistic scenerio possible. Those are the type of discussions that getting exhausting. But judging KO and the staff for royally pooping the bed this past yr is more than fair.

Agreed.

 

[JMick]

The only reason why you're seeing more negative comments is because this is unprecedented in terms of how rapid and recent our decline has become. I don't think people are looking for new things to be down about, it's just that new things to be down about keep happening. It's one thing to endure mediocre seasons, and a lost season from the tournament here and there, but when the tailspin culminates into your first losing season, since the microwave oven, and then becomes compounded daily by the loss of now 4 of Ollie's own top recruits there is just nothing to be positive about. But unfortunately, more/constant negative comments are simple reflection of the current reality, rather than a new norm of people looking for sh$t to be down about. And I think people are just trying to figure out what is wrong and why. I mean clearly we have lots of problems and we have lots of players who are having a hard time getting on board with our coach. People are just searching for answers and venting. That said, I get it it's not fun to hear and it's not what any of us wants to hear and I definitely think no one wants us to fail we're just searching for answers

Yup. It sucks here because the last few teams have sucked. Not super complicated

 

[djct1999]

Heard we called but got basically zero response.

If this is true, RIP UConn basketball as Calhoun built it. It's over. The premise that we were a one coach program appears accurate. Not entirely surprisingly, but the speed of deterioration surely is. Not even getting a response? Wow. That speaks volumes.

 

[6xChamps]

Zona already a top 5 team next year

 

[intlzncster]

Yes this is true. Im just an optimist at heart. I dont believe everything needs a pessimistic spin on it. For example, a poster A says, " this off-season sucked, but at least we have 4 really talented players coming back" Poster B responds, "Jalens overrated, gilbert's arm is going to fall off, CV stinks, and larrier is a chucker."
Why was it necessary for poster B to take a reasonable positive with our team next yr and find the most pessimistic scenerio possible. Those are the type of discussions that getting exhausting. But judging KO and the staff for royally pooping the bed this past yr is more than fair.

The ones that grind my gears the most are the guys who come out of the wood works at times like these. You probably know the cast of characters so I won't list them. They get to complain, to pick apart every little nuance, to shout the sky is falling from the hilltops, spreading negativity and destruction in their wake.

Usually, it's only after a loss or two, and the tide is stemmed. But when real cracks show? They live for these moments. It's their Superbowl. The canvas with which to paint their masterpiece.

 

[auror]

If this is true, RIP UConn basketball as Calhoun built it. It's over. The premise that we were a one coach program appears accurate. Not entirely surprisingly, but the speed of deterioration surely is. Not even getting a response? Wow. That speaks volumes.

Yeah this is a bridge too far. This is a kid fleeing a program on the downswing looking for immediate improvement. No one in that situation would rationally come here considering other, better options in the short term.

But this doesn't signify we can't or won't upswing if we knock '18 out of the park.

 

[businesslawyer]

That's a good example.

Although, you could argue that potentially 6-7 straight 1996 type seasons creates a better brand/ more program prestige than one 2014 season surrounded by 5 or 6 20-12, 22-10 type seasons.

Not saying I agree, but I can definitely see how some people would see that.

I don't understand this. Why &&& do I care about prestige over winning championships. What kid in any sport loses a game in the playoffs and says "Well, that's unfortunate but I created more prestige for my program by winning regular season games than if I had had a mediocre season and won a championship, so I guess I don't care that much."

Seriously, why do people push this narrative? Yes, everything else being equal you would rather have more prestige than less prestige, but even discussing prestige in the same sentence as winning when it counts is absurd.

 

[Matt1010]

Jemarl Baker just committed to UK. He's a SG and the #73 ranked player in '17. They now have 2 SG, 1 CG and a SF in this class...all top 100 guys. Hard to see Johnson fitting in next year.

 

[WrenchFan69]

Jemarl Baker just committed to UK. He's a SG and the #73 ranked player in '17. They now have 2 SG, 1 CG and a SF in this class...all top 100 guys. Hard to see Johnson fitting in next year.

Have to wait and see what happens at UK. If Bam comes back and/or they get Bamba and/or Knox things get way more interesting. As of how things stand right now, he'd probably start or be their 6th man. Lot of waiting to do around the game still on NBA decisions and transfers

 

[auror]

Jemarl Baker just committed to UK. He's a SG and the #73 ranked player in '17. They now have 2 SG, 1 CG and a SF in this class...all top 100 guys. Hard to see Johnson fitting in next year.

Johnson will fit, Jemarl will be the one that doesn't.

 

[upstater]

Yup. It sucks here because the last few teams have sucked. Not super complicated

Last year's team sucked?

 

[BUConn10]

Jemarl Baker just committed to UK. He's a SG and the #73 ranked player in '17. They now have 2 SG, 1 CG and a SF in this class...all top 100 guys. Hard to see Johnson fitting in next year.

Too bad that has never seemed to matter with Cal.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I don't understand this. Why &&& do I care about prestige over winning championships. What kid in any sport loses a game in the playoffs and says "Well, that's unfortunate but I created more prestige for my program by winning regular season games than if I had had a mediocre season and won a championship, so I guess I don't care that much."

Seriously, why do people push this narrative? Yes, everything else being equal you would rather have more prestige than less prestige, but even discussing prestige in the same sentence as winning when it counts is absurd.

Nobody is saying they'd rather have prestige instead of championships. The argument is:

If you have a great regular season, are relevant and highly ranked all year, then even if you fall short of a championship you've done something positive for the program.

If you have a mediocre regular season, the only way the program comes out positive for the year is if you make an improbable deep run.

 

[mauconnfan]

Johnson will fit, Jemarl will be the one that doesn't.

Yeah I'm not sure who sold this kid the bill of goods but he will see little playing time and is just a back up plan just in case. Then when he improves going into his sophomore year they will have the top 5 recruits coming in with promises of grandeur.

Give it 1 or 2 years we will see his name on the list we treasure so much at the moment.

 

[Matrim55]

Yeah I'm not sure who sold this kid the bill of goods but he will see little playing time and is just a back up plan just in case. Then when he improves going into his sophomore year they will have the top 5 recruits coming in with promises of grandeur.

Give it 1 or 2 years we will see his name on the list we treasure so much at the moment.

He'll be good for USC in a couple years.

 

[businesslawyer]

Nobody is saying they'd rather have prestige instead of championships. The argument is:

If you have a great regular season, are relevant and highly ranked all year, then even if you fall short of a championship you've done something positive for the program.

If you have a mediocre regular season, the only way the program comes out positive for the year is if you make an improbable deep run.

I'm sorry, but that is a total BS response. You are now claiming only that folks are saying it would be better to win games all year long than not? And that someone is arguing with that? Please.

 

[champs99and04]

There's a certain irony in complaining about the board because the board is complaining about the product.

Look, the internet is a bad place. It is a grooming ground for stupidity and ignorance and I don't absolve myself from that. But as far as this board goes, it's actually pretty great. There are a handful of posters who consistently spew nonsense, but people who have more of a negative take on the program aren't any more insufferable than the moralists who won't allow a bad word. If the traffic is higher when they lose, fine. Message boards are meant to vent.

With regard to this program, I'm an optimist. Have no reason not to be. There are about a dozen or so posters on this board who constantly have great takes and no matter how many trolls there are, I'll keep coming back for their posts. Guys like @BUConn10 @Tenspro2002 aren't people I agree with all the time, but they're valuable foils and should not be lumped in as trolls even if they're annoying at times. Nobody ever gets mad about relentless optimism so I'm fine applying the same standard to negativity so long as it's reasonable.

 

[Storrs South]

 

[gtcam]

Nobody is saying they'd rather have prestige instead of championships. The argument is:

If you have a great regular season, are relevant and highly ranked all year, then even if you fall short of a championship you've done something positive for the program.

If you have a mediocre regular season, the only way the program comes out positive for the year is if you make an improbable deep run.

I keep reading this and trying to find some way of agreeing
I showed it to some others and they are not seeing it either
If you looking at success as an annual thing and based only on won/loss record then maybe you very well could be correct but I tend to rate the success of a program over a stretch of time rather than a snapshot

I look at a program like Arizona - great regular seasons but ALWAYS a flameout in the dance (except for some of the LO years)
Even a good number of the Kensucky fans are growing somewhat weary of all these blue chip teams falling short of the ring

Listen - UConn has hit some bumps in the road over the past 3 years and I know in my heart that things will get better. Will they experience the run of the last 20 years? I highly doubt it BUT I also highly doubt ANY program will replicate what UConn has done. Twenty years from now kids will look at the list of NCAA MBB winners and be amazed at what was accomplished at UConn. That doesn't mean that because UConn may not win 4 more NCAAs in the next 20 years it will fall from the ranks of highly visible programs. It has earned that right and will keep it. Not making the tournament this past season doesn't mean that something positive won't come out of the outcome.
We all have our opinions - that's what makes this fun

 

[Tenspro2002]

I look at a program like Arizona - great regular seasons but ALWAYS a flameout in the dance (except for some of the LO years)
Even a good number of the Kensucky fans are growing somewhat weary of all these blue chip teams falling short of the ring

We all have our opinions - that's what makes this fun

Let's look at Arizona, which you correctly characterize as having consistently great regular seasons though they tend to fall short in the Tournament.

Their program, despite fewer championships or Final Fours this decade, is in a much healthier position than ours. Why? Because they're always relevant and can sell recruits on that.

Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program. You lose that and you're finished, whatever your history might be. Recruits care about exposure.

If you're consistently great in the regular season, you get exposure. If you're consistently mediocre in the regular season, you're relying on improbable postseason runs for exposure.

Now we've gotten that a few times this decade, but it's not something this program should count on in the future.

On your last point I wholeheartedly agree - the fun of this forum is being able to have these debates.

 

[upstater]

Let's look at Arizona, which you correctly characterize as having consistently great regular seasons though they tend to fall short in the Tournament.

Their program, despite fewer championships or Final Fours this decade, is in a much healthier position than ours. Why? Because they're always relevant and can sell recruits on that.

Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program. You lose that and you're finished, whatever your history might be. Recruits care about exposure.

If you're consistently great in the regular season, you get exposure. If you're consistently mediocre in the regular season, you're relying on improbable postseason runs for exposure.

Now we've gotten that a few times this decade, but it's not something this program should count on in the future.

On your last point I wholeheartedly agree - the fun of this forum is being able to have these debates.

Arizona is relevant because they have a history in a P5 conference. UConn would be as relevant as, say, Butler without the NCs. And by Butler I'm referring to a team that is not on the main channels as much as UConn is.

UConn gets exposure by the way.

AND, I would not call 2011 an improbable run. Not at all. More people picked UConn to win it all prior to the 2011 tourney than Gonzaga, Or UCLA, or Kentucky, or Arizona were this year.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

There's a certain irony in complaining about the board because the board is complaining about the product.

Look, the internet is a bad place. It is a grooming ground for stupidity and ignorance and I don't absolve myself from that. But as far as this board goes, it's actually pretty great. There are a handful of posters who consistently spew nonsense, but people who have more of a negative take on the program aren't any more insufferable than the moralists who won't allow a bad word. If the traffic is higher when they lose, fine. Message boards are meant to vent.

With regard to this program, I'm an optimist. Have no reason not to be. There are about a dozen or so posters on this board who constantly have great takes and no matter how many trolls there are, I'll keep coming back for their posts. Guys like @BUConn10 @Tenspro2002 aren't people I agree with all the time, but they're valuable foils and should not be lumped in as trolls even if they're annoying at times. Nobody ever gets mad about relentless optimism so I'm fine applying the same standard to negativity so long as it's reasonable.

Because you were willing to name names, I know you are more tolerant than I. Actually, I knew this when you used the word "handful," and I realized I know of no hand with more than 30 fingers. Good for you.

That said, one thing that has not been mentioned much is that this is board appears to have a significant uptick in posters whose trolling activity is as nefarious as certain hand signals. As with political message boards, we are now seeing visits from fake fans intent on creating confusion, controversy, and damage. Regrettably, they have something to work with, in addition to their motives to wreak havoc for fun and/or profit.

Those who show up exclusively to cause harm likely don't know the joy of New Haven pizza, and are correspondingly and notably absent on vigorous, healthy, and fun OT discussions. But those who claim Pepe's on Wooster Street is superior to the outposts surely merit a seat at the table so long as that's not the entirety of their contribution. Something related to this tortured analogy gives me guidance.

 

[GetTheFacts]

Heard we called but got basically zero response.

I said this a few weeks ago and almost got laughed off the Boneyard forum. UConn would be a lateral move, or maybe even a step-down from where he was before.

 

[mauconnfan]

I said this a few weeks ago and almost got laughed off the Boneyard forum. UConn would be a lateral move, or maybe even a step-down from where he was before.

Yeah because Pitt has had so many NC's and runs in the tourney. Hell they've dominated the ACC too, why would he even leave?

I'd say step down no doubt.

 

[GetTheFacts]

Yeah because Pitt has had so many NC's and runs in the tourney. Hell they've dominated the ACC too, why would he even leave?

I'd say step down no doubt.

It's all about exposure, that's why these kids transfer. He's not going to receive more exposure playing Tulane at 9 PM on a Tuesday on CBS Sports Network. At least Pitt plays almost every game on ESPN.

There's a reason why he didn't return our call and is looking exclusively at blue chip programs.