Chip On Their Shoulder?

[Carnac]

Look I completely understand why you and most of the women's basketball world can't wait for the Huskies to lose. But I still think a team needs to be removed from pedestal by more than a hypothetical.

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.

 

[Buzzyboy]

First, polls mean nothing. Second - let's talk after they play ND and SC.

That's a long time not to talk because isn't it forever until we play South Carolina???? My mute button might be worn out by then.

 

[Buzzyboy]

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.

Exactly! Well said!

 

[SCGamecock]

Can you imagine how South Carolina feels because there's even been mention here that they might have a legitimate claim as the best team in the country at this moment. What specifically has the Irish done to take that mantle this year???? I agree that to lose the three top draft picks in the WNBA draft and no longer be considered the best team in the country at the start of the season isn't necessarily outrageous. To implement hree new starters and having to figure out who the team leaders are and where the scoring and rebounding is going to come from would be concerns for a lot of prognosticators. What team wouldn't be considered less? On paper and so far on the court, why is it Notre Dame and not SC? They might have more of an argument for indignation.

Meh. I do see your point though. I think we beat Notre Dame head to head but I'm enjoying the pressure of not being number 1, right now at least. I don't think we're a program yet that can wear a crown so heavy for the entire season...

 

[Carnac]

You wrote: We were taught not to assume.

ISN'T THIS AN ASSUMPTION??????

Broadway, I'm responding to Magic's response. Why are YOU trying to become involved in our discussion and critiquing my comments? Have you anointed yourself the boneyard police?
I was answering/responding HIS inquiry, not yours. 90% of the comments or posts I write, you respond to, why?

Broadway, you're not a mod. I don't answer to you. I don't criticize your posts. You seem to delight in criticizing others posts/comments even when they are not that far out of line or irrational, but rather when said comments don't conform to your thinking or rationale. You've made some comments to others recently that were very rude in nature, and I feel was unnecessary. You're acting like a troll, roaming the yard looking for whom you can devour.

 

[Florida Fan]

First, polls mean nothing. Second - let's talk after they play ND and SC.[/QUOTE

In a nutshell.

 

[meyers7]

Huskies should be building big chip on their shoulders. As a fan, I normally do not care very much about rankings in novenber , but..Can someone explain to me how a team that has won 4 championships in a row, has a 4- 0 record, and an 80 game winning streak is ranked # 2 ?

Do you think Syracuse, Oregon St and Washington should have been ranked #2, #3 and #4 at the beginning of the year?

 

[McFly]

There's only one poll that matters, the one the AP doesn't even bother with. The one after the dance. That said, I wouldn't mind if they were ranked lower. It might give them some real incentive.

 

[magic]

Magic, Sorry if I offended you. I have no way of knowing how old you are, or how high your BB IQ is. You asked: "Can someone explain to me how a team that has won 4 championships in a row, has a 4- 0 record, and an 80 game winning streak is ranked # 2 ?". I tried to answer your question the way it was asked. Not everyone here in the yard is a mature and savvy basketball fan. Some are new to the game, new to the yard, and are not up to speed with the lingo and verbiage we commonly use here.

If you had prefaced your question with: "I've been watching basketball for 50 years, and I don't understand.....", then I would have either used a different approach, or not answered your question at all, assuming it was rhetorical in nature.

When I took my first journalism class (to write for the school newspaper) back in junior high school, we where taught to write as if the reader did not have any knowledge about the subject of the article.

We were taught not to assume. That's why when I write, I seldom use initials or abbreviations. We could not assume the reader knew what they stood for. We got dinged when we did. We were taught that after the reader reads your piece, they should know as much about the subject of the piece as you do.

All or most of their questions should be addressed and answered in the limited space your article was given, which wasn't much. Old habits die hard.

Being a born and raised in the Los Angeles area, I was a UCLA fan. USC (football - '62 &'67), the Dodgers ('63 & '65), and the basketball Bruins were the only teams in town winning championships in the 60's. I remember when UCLA won their first NC in 1964, led by Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich.

Carnac, there was absolutely no offense taken on my part, and enjoy reading your posts. I should have done a much better job of writing. I'm not a big social media person, and even though I read posts on a daily basis, I don't post very often. ☺

 

[Bestiarius]

Magic, Sorry if I offended you. I have no way of knowing how old you are, or how high your BB IQ is. You asked: "Can someone explain to me how a team that has won 4 championships in a row, has a 4- 0 record, and an 80 game winning streak is ranked # 2 ?". I tried to answer your question the way it was asked. Not everyone here in the yard is a mature and savvy basketball fan. Some are new to the game, new to the yard, and are not up to speed with the lingo and verbiage we commonly use here.

If you had prefaced your question with: "I've been watching basketball for 50 years, and I don't understand.....", then I would have either used a different approach, or not answered your question at all, assuming it was rhetorical in nature.

we where taught to write as if the reader did not have any knowledge about the subject of the article.

We were taught not to assume. That's why when I write, I seldom use initials or abbreviations. We could not assume the reader knew what they stood for. We got dinged when we did. We were taught that after the reader reads your piece, they should know as much about the subject of the piece as you do.

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.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Broadway, I'm responding to Magic's response. Why are YOU trying to become involved in our discussion and critiquing my comments? Have you anointed yourself the boneyard police?
I was answering/responding HIS inquiry, not yours. 90% of the comments or posts I write, you respond to, why?

Broadway, you're not a mod. I don't answer to you. I don't criticize your posts. You seem to delight in criticizing others posts/comments even when they are not that far out of line or irrational, but rather when said comments don't conform to your thinking or rationale. You've made some comments to others recently that were very rude in nature, and I feel was unnecessary. You're acting like a troll, roaming the yard looking for whom you can devour.

All posts are open to everyone--if you wish private conversations--use CONVERSATIONS.

In the boneyard---if you have an opinion on anyone's posting--you are allowed to respond---unless the rules have been changed.

My posting to your''s was a fair question based on your previous I learned to not assume!! Then you posted with an assumption
because none one knows about Uconn winning or losing for certain.

Enjoy your day, they are too short to be so up tight.

 

[magic]

Do you think Syracuse, Oregon St and Washington should have been ranked #2, #3 and #4 at the beginning of the year?

Well, this is week 4, and that is the difference. Besides, which of those teams are still unbeaten, and are reigning champs. I still have not seen anyone come up with another team that is a reigning champion and unbeaten that wasn't ranked #1. Maybe you can enlighten me with a team.

 

[Aluminny69]

Well, this is week 4, and that is the difference. Besides, which of those teams are still unbeaten, and are reigning champs. I still have not seen anyone come up with another team that is a reigning champion and unbeaten that wasn't ranked #1. Maybe you can enlighten me with a team.

You left out, "and lost the top three WNBA draft choices." What was UConn ranked at the start of the 2002-03 season? ( After they lost four top players.)

 

[meyers7]

Well, this is week 4, and that is the difference. Besides, which of those teams are still unbeaten, and are reigning champs. I still have not seen anyone come up with another team that is a reigning champion and unbeaten that wasn't ranked #1. Maybe you can enlighten me with a team.

What does reigning champion have to do with anything THIS year?

But to answer your question, Villanova. In fact they are ranked #2 also.

And maybe you can answer my question??

 

[easttexastrash]

Show me one other team that has won 4 straght championships , is 4-0, a win against #2 team and was ranked #2 !

THIS team has not won four straight championships. The UCONN program has won four straight, but this team has not. Voters are voting as if this is a new season, which it happens to be.

 

[easttexastrash]

Look I completely understand why you and most of the women's basketball world can't wait for the Huskies to lose. But I still think a team needs to be removed from pedestal by more than a hypothetical.

I do not want UCONN to lose. UCONN going undefeated increases Baylor's chances of getting a number one seed and staying close to home for the entire tournament.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Turns out the chip may be riding on our shoulders?? Tough for us to adjust to a "shoulder" or "transition" year when we have been glorying in the most transcendent four years in WCBB. Still going to be a year most programs would die to have just once. Great fans here. Don't let the tensions engendered by our desires and fears divide us.

 

[tomcat]

Huskies should be building big chip on their shoulders. As a fan, I normally do not care very much about rankings in novenber , but..Can someone explain to me how a team that has won 4 championships in a row, has a 4- 0 record, and an 80 game winning streak is ranked # 2 ?

This team did not do any of those things (except for the undefeated record). Most of those accomplishments came when real superstars were on the roster. IMHO, UConn should be ranked 2 or 3 until they beat the other big guys. If they beat ND -- not at all a sure thing -- they we can talk about a top ranking.

 

[donalddoowop]

Well, this is week 4, and that is the difference. Besides, which of those teams are still unbeaten, and are reigning champs. I still have not seen anyone come up with another team that is a reigning champion and unbeaten that wasn't ranked #1. Maybe you can enlighten me with a team.

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

 

[magic]

THIS team has not won four straight championships. The UCONN program has won four straight, but this team has not. Voters are voting as if this is a new season, which it happens to be.

I rest my case . Just ain't worth the effort. Rather watch the game.☺

 

[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.