Chip On Their Shoulder?

[magic]

Uconn, last year. The Sporting News had SC preseason number one and as you know Uconn was undefeated.

Uconn, last year. The Sporting News had SC preseason number one and as you know Uconn was undefeated.

The only point I was making is, from 1970-1973 UCLA won 3 straight championships and were ranked #1 preseason even though they did not win a fourth. In my opinion the closest other situation .

 

[Carnac]

We should not talk until after they play DePaul. They have to win that game just to remain number two. If they don't, beating ND would send SC to number one, where they probably belong for now.

These first 5 games were just a "warn up", a precursor if you will. The dinner salad before the entree is served. December will be a character revealing month for UConn one way or the other.
Let's see were they are on December 30, after the Maryland game. 12 games into the season. No more questions, no more guessing, no more conjecture or head scratching. All of our questions will be answered at that time.

 

[Monte]

Yeah no kidding. Despite the top 3 longest winning streaks, 11 titles, 4 straight, most media coverage, and domination of the Olympic team, apparently UConn gets no respect and must play with a chip on their shoulder.

Wasn't there a person named Dangerfield who got, "NO RESPECT?"

 

[UcMiami]

Magic, at the beginning of the season, I thought and rationalized exactly the way you do, and I expressed the same in a comment. After reading some of the responses, I began realized the error in my thinking. The knee jerk reaction is to assume that because you won the NC last year, you should be the preseason # 1 until you lose a game. That's one way of looking at it, and that's the way I saw it.

That's NOT how the voters or those that create the rankings see it. They don't use that kind of logic or criteria in forming their opinions. They look at the teams strength and weaknesses "on paper" (because no games have been played yet), and create their rankings. Since you're no kid, I know you are aware of all that I'm saying here.

The general consensus over the summer was that UConn lost the "core" of it's team last year, and would not be the same dominant team that it was last year. UConn had no returning All Americans on this team. Most felt that Notre Dame had the best/strongest/most dominant team THIS year, at least at the beginning, until some games were played, and the appropriate ranking adjustments could be made.

I never get too worked up about polls - anything that gets voted on is subject to so many variables, the ones that matter leave no doubt. (To paraphrase a certain coach we revere)
That said I think the coaches poll was curious - Uconn starts preseason #1, has a tough first win against a ranked team and drops to #2, has a better second game against the #4 while the new #1 struggles against an unranked team at home, and Uconn moves up to #2 - while the #3 team has had convincing wins against two top 10 teams and no struggles at all and hasn't moved. It isn't exactly logical - perhaps the preseason was a 'curtesy' vote and that is probably the only real explanation - but if it was all logical the two undefeated teams that struggled should have been dropped down to 2 and 3 in some order, and the #3 team should have risen to the top.
Logic is not something that has a lot to do with these polls so it isn't a big deal - it will get settled on the court over the course of the season and the NCAA - and for most of the teams we are discussing, they are pretty well locked into the 1 and 2 seed lines, and there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two come tournament time. In some instances being the fourth #1 is a worse seeding than being the first or second #2 seed - you likely end up in a better geographic site with a elite eight game where the #1 seed is further from home.

 

[Carnac]

I never get too worked up about polls - anything that gets voted on is subject to so many variables, the ones that matter leave no doubt. (To paraphrase a certain coach we revere)
That said I think the coaches poll was curious - Uconn starts preseason #1, has a tough first win against a ranked team and drops to #2, has a better second game against the #4 while the new #1 struggles against an unranked team at home, and Uconn moves up to #2 - while the #3 team has had convincing wins against two top 10 teams and no struggles at all and hasn't moved. It isn't exactly logical - perhaps the preseason was a 'curtesy' vote and that is probably the only real explanation - but if it was all logical the two undefeated teams that struggled should have been dropped down to 2 and 3 in some order, and the #3 team should have risen to the top.
Logic is not something that has a lot to do with these polls so it isn't a big deal - it will get settled on the court over the course of the season and the NCAA - and for most of the teams we are discussing, they are pretty well locked into the 1 and 2 seed lines, and there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two come tournament time. In some instances being the fourth #1 is a worse seeding than being the first or second #2 seed - you likely end up in a better geographic site with a elite eight game where the #1 seed is further from home.

It will never happen, but I'd like for WCBB and the media to not post any preseason polls. I'd like to see the first poll come out at the Christmas break. Enough games would have been played by then. The elite teams should have played 1 or 2 top 15 teams by then. That first poll would have some weight to it, and numbers to back it up. By the Christmas break, the contenders have begun to pull away from the pretenders. The cream has begun rising to the top, and the pretenders have begun to settle towards the bottom.

UConn was #1 in one preseason poll, and #4 in another. ESPN's Charlie Creme had the Huskies at #6 in his way too early preseason WCBB poll during the summer. Was the same criteria used to determine the order in all of the polls, obviously not. Every year you could put UConn, Notre Dame, Baylor and South Carolina in the top four of any poll and not be too far off. At the beginning of the season, they all have the look of a #1 team.

 

[BroadwayVa]

It

I like your posting philosophy. There are way too many acronyms thrown about here. It makes following intent difficult for the many lurkers who are trying to get an education. I'm sure even the seasoned members get confused at times, particularly when other teams players are referred to by their initials. A complete answer is always clearer and there is no need for the experienced yarder to be insulted. Responses are for everyone to read and enjoy.

Regarding the 50 year followers. One never knows if the person has 50 years experience, or 1 year 50 times. There is a difference.[/QUOTE\

It's like the company that says we have 150 years of software development--and has 150 employees none over 40. ??????
Being specific apparently is an ART Form!!

 

[Fanmomma]

Not only are we spoiled, but we have the spoils .

So true. So true.

 

[easttexastrash]

Wasn't there a person named Dangerfield who got, "NO RESPECT?"

Simmer down, Aretha Franklin.