Dear ESPN

[hoophuskee]

Well, you've called it out to the dozens of people (other than UConn and St. Francis fans) that I'm sure tuned in to a blowout women's game on a Saturday night.

I say this in all fun - don't over-read into it - or anything - but I'm the most important wcbb fan on the planet. You realize I'm joking in a manner of speak when I say that but I felt better bringing it up just as many posters bring up their own pet peeves- that dudes comments pissed me off. He was out of line referencing those teams as if they were relevant when they aren't even that relevant in the ACC. Nor were they relevant to us in the many years we played them.

Hey Colin Cowherd pissed me off a few weeks ago when he thought it was okay for those 2 high school teams to deliberately throw the game so they wouldn't have faced our recruit's - Dangerfield - her team. If I wasn't at driving and had to get somewhere I'd have called him.

 

[hoophuskee]

I (and I think most people) want to get out of the AAC. I sincerely doubt we are going to attract better teams to join, so I think our best hope is that one of the P5 conferences invites UConn to join.

And I don't think the NCAA listens to announcers when they are determining brackets. Just a hunch.

1--- Sure. Until then we need the teams in our league to recruit better though, don't we? We're not going to be able to attract big schools - no way- what I meant is at least for wcbb - attract better recruits. For the other schools.

2-- I think the NCAA listen at least a little to the media. he is a part of the media and many probably share his foolish belief that Pitt or Cuse would be 2nd best.

 

[mhshuskies]

But if Princeton was in our conference they'd have at least 3 losses, right? So you'd still be saying our conference sucks, right? What are they ever going to nationally? Nothing, right?

Secondly, what has Pittsburg and Syracuse been nationally? For early 20 years we've blown them out, right? Why should a play-by-play guy mention such "mediocre teams" as if these mediocre teams are so superior to every team in our conference? I'd make a bet that USF can beat both. Would you? Did it seem like when he made those comments that anybody in our league can compete vs Pitt or Cuse? HE made it could like a foregone conclusion that two mediocre ACC teams would be the toughest teams in our league yet imo USF is better. And somehow as they televise a national game that's okay? I don't think any men's announcers for men's college basketball would belittle another conference in that manner by referencing teams we've already stomped over for 15-20 years.

If we play Pitt or Cuse how much of a better game are they giving us than USF? How much better than Tulane? You mean if we beat Tulane by 45 and these teams by 35 it matters that much to belittle the AAC?

That is it exactly, whatever conference we are in doesn't matter. It might only effect the average margin of victory. It would still be greater than 30 regardless of the conference.

 

[UConnNick]

Who said anything about parity thread had nothing to do with parity.

The point si sarls seems ot care about Princeton.

I care about the perception of the AAC. So when some ESPN dude speaks of Pitt and CUse as if they are relevant it was at least important to me.

Yet as you and sarals say if only 5 teams matter then why should Princeton matter? Or is it -- to sarals and others --only their concerns matter?

Pitt and Cuse are not as good as USF. Belittling our conference to make these teams seem as if they would be - should be called out.

I don't think the announcers' intent was to disparage USF simply by referring to a couple of old Big East teams UCONN used to play, which both happen to be in the tournament this season. What did that reference have to do with USF?

Let's face facts here. The AAC blows as a women's BB conference. Nothing a couple of announcers said during the game tonight is going to change that fact. It's also a fact that the old Big East Conference became an elite women's BB conference over the years. Perhaps Syracuse and Pitt were poor analogies for teams that were "competitive" with UCONN in the old Big East, but then again, nobody except for Notre Lame ever was either. Maybe DePaul, West Virginia, Villanova or Georgetown would have been better examples, but none of them were truly competitive with UCONN. It was an inside joke that they didn't refer to ND because Ellis played there.

I think their point was the Big East was routinely sending several women's teams to the NCAAs every season, while now UCONN plays in a conference that's lucky if it sends one or two teams other than UCONN. They were only trying to point out that Pitt and Syracuse are among a group of former BE teams that occasionally made it into the NCAAs, like they did this season.

The AAC sucks, and whether these announcers used an analogy you didn't like doesn't change that fact.

 

[triaddukefan]

1--- Sure. Until then we need the teams in our league to recruit better though, don't we? We're not going to be able to attract big schools - no way- what I meant is at least for wcbb - attract better recruits. For the other schools.

2-- I think the NCAA listen at least a little to the media. he is a part of the media and many probably share his foolish belief that Pitt or Cuse would be 2nd best.

Its not foolish to believe that Syracuse would have finished #2 in the AAC this year. Pitt would probably have finished #3 or #4

I guess im foolish

 

[hoophuskee]

First you accuse me of not caring about Princeton. Then, when I prove that I DO care about Princeton I get yelled at for not caring about the perception of the AAC. I can't win!

I accused you 1st off for not caring about Pricneton with your 1st post. Read your 1st post again to me and tell me if it sounds like you would have given a damn about Princeton. I feel like I can't give you kudos for acknowledging that you care about them. Yet if you care about them -- I don't get why the "forceful post" you 1st replied to me "who cares - we;'re in a lousy league."

I'm stunned how you seem to be a wcbb fan and a UCONN fan yet you don't mind some dude who probably watches very few games put on a pedestal teams we've routinely embarrassed as if they would be giants in our league. SO if you are going to call everyone in our league lousy -- then why wouldn't you call Pitt and CUse lousy? And if you have so much interest in Princeton why not have similar interest in USF? And if you do have interest in USF why refer to only 5 teams matter in wcbb? If lousy (i.e. not being in top 5) is such a determining factor for you - then why even bother with Princeton?

 

[hoophuskee]

Its not foolish to believe that Syracuse would have finished #2 in the AAC this year. Pitt would probably have finished #3 or #4

I guess im foolish

He didn't make it sound that way. And I'll take USF. But he didn't make it sound it that way. He made it sound like Cuse and Pitt would be belle of the ball.

 

[Buzzyboy]

He mentioned Syracuse and Pitt because he was talking about more quality teams that UConn used to face in the BE. Doesn't really have anything to do with South Florida. Course, Pitt had been mostly awful prior to this year.

He probably is confused with the men's programs. Syracuse and Pitt played the UConn men tough often on the men's side but not much on the women's side. The fact is it was totally wrong and he is clueless.

 

[hoophuskee]

I don't think the announcers' intent was to disparage USF simply by referring to a couple of old Big East teams UCONN used to play, which both happen to be in the tournament this season. What did that reference have to do with USF?

Let's face facts here. The AAC blows as a women's BB conference. Nothing a couple of announcers said during the game tonight is going to change that fact. It's also a fact that the old Big East Conference became an elite women's BB conference over the years. Perhaps Syracuse and Pitt were poor analogies for teams that were "competitive" with UCONN in the old Big East, but then again, nobody except for Notre Lame ever was either. Maybe DePaul, West Virginia, Villanova or Georgetown would have been better examples, but none of them were truly competitive with UCONN. It was an inside joke that they didn't refer to ND because Ellis played there.

I think their point was the Big East was routinely sending several women's teams to the NCAAs every season, while now UCONN plays in a conference that's lucky if it sends one or two teams other than UCONN. They were only trying to point out that Pitt and Syracuse are among a group of former BE teams that occasionally made it into the NCAAs, like they did this season.

The AAC sucks, and whether these announcers used an analogy you didn't like doesn't change that fact.

Pitt and Cuse blow just as much as USF. Do they not? Why reference two teams that blow just as much as USF - however at least imo USF is probably better.

The relevance of USF is that he said our conference was weak - he implied did he not? Is USF in our conference? SO if you (the announcer) disparage the whole conference - why are you then suggesting two other teams which blow just as much - as though they are relevant?

And I don't agree with with what you think their intent was. I think it was someone whom I happen to have heard on WFAN quite a bit - though not much in a long time- make another un-informed comment / remark that imo he makes often.

Okay if you want to say the aac sucks - but don't give me the crap of Pitt or Cuse as if if they aren't the same crap as the rest of the league. Though again USF is better - imo.

 

[triaddukefan]

He didn't make it sound that way. And I'll take USF. But he didn't make it sound it that way. He made it sound like Cuse and Pitt would be belle of the ball.

I didnt watch one minute of the game...... watched some of the Rutgers-Seton Hall game..... they seemed like they were doing a good job in that one.

 

[hoophuskee]

I didnt watch one minute of the game. watched some of the Rutgers-Seton Hall game..... they seemed like they were doing a good job in that one.

I'll say again I thought they were fine in the 2nd half. Sometimes play-by-play guys add comments as if they know what they are talking about. IMO he should stick to play-by-play.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I didnt watch one minute of the game. watched some of the Rutgers-Seton Hall game..... they seemed like they were doing a good job in that one.

I didn't watch either, but watched all of the RU game and a bunch of others over the 2 days - I forked my money for the privilege. But yes, they were OK, they did seem to be less familiar than some and there were some inside jokes that I didn't get (heck, I didn't know who the color commentator was). But they were not obnoxious, as some are and were basically ok to listen to.

I doubt they were claiming that Syracuse and Pittsburgh were great teams, it was probably just some drivel that didn't come out right.

 

[sarals24]

I accused you 1st off for not caring about Pricneton with your 1st post. Read your 1st post again to me and tell me if it sounds like you would have given a damn about Princeton. I feel like I can't give you kudos for acknowledging that you care about them. Yet if you care about them -- I don't get why the "forceful post" you 1st replied to me "who cares - we;'re in a lousy league."

I'm stunned how you seem to be a wcbb fan and a UCONN fan yet you don't mind some dude who probably watches very few games put on a pedestal teams we've routinely embarrassed as if they would be giants in our league. SO if you are going to call everyone in our league lousy -- then why wouldn't you call Pitt and CUse lousy? And if you have so much interest in Princeton why not have similar interest in USF? And if you do have interest in USF why refer to only 5 teams matter in wcbb? If lousy (i.e. not being in top 5) is such a determining factor for you - then why even bother with Princeton?

I am a WCBB fan, as evidenced by me posting on a WCBB board at midnight on a Saturday. And I don't have that much interest in Princeton, I just think it's a good story and think they are deserving of coverage. I'm glad WCBB as a whole is getting more coverage than just UConn-ND-Tenn, etc.
And I don't really have any interest in USF. Sure, they are the second best team in a lousy conference. Good for them. Why do I have to care about them? Why do I have to care about the AAC? I am a UConn fan. I like WCBB in general, but I am a UConn fan first and foremost. I don't think that something an announcer says during a blowout win has any effect whatsoever on recruiting or conferences.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

I doubt they were claiming that Syracuse and Pittsburgh were great teams, it was probably just some drivel that didn't come out right.

They were simply saying that those types of teams are better than the lesser teams in the AAC which is true but, in the end, you're just talking about degrees of difference in the final score. They also mentioned ND of course. They forget teams like Rutgers and DePaul which would've made their point better for them, I think.

 

[hoophuskee]

That is it exactly, whatever conference we are in doesn't matter. It might only effect the average margin of victory. It would still be greater than 30 regardless of the conference.

Right!! SO why reference Pitt and Cuse- two mediocre teams as if they would be relevant in our current conference?

 

[triaddukefan]

Right!! SO why reference Pitt and Cuse- two mediocre teams as if they would be relevant in our current conference?

If Tulane is the 3rd best team in your conference... where would Syracuse and Pitt fit in this years AAC in your opinion ?

 

[Alydar]

I liked these guys. They seemed candid. I heard them say that it was a shame that UConn ended up in the AAC. They then said they needed to be a conference that had competition for them, which is true. What they didn't say and didn't know was that there is no conference that offers more than 1 or maybe 2 teams that can compete with UConn except for a game here or there. Get rid of UConn and maybe Notre Dame and the rest play inconsistently enough that it would be tough to predict the winner from a group of say 6. But the quality of the product would be weak compared to how UConn and Notre Dame play most every game.

The funny thing is that these guys didn't see Jefferson or Lewis at their best. Hopefully they get to see Lewis get hot and Jefferson put on a show.

 

[hoophuskee]

I am a WCBB fan, as evidenced by me posting on a WCBB board at midnight on a Saturday. And I don't have that much interest in Princeton, I just think it's a good story and think they are deserving of coverage. I'm glad WCBB as a whole is getting more coverage than just UConn-ND-Tenn, etc.
And I don't really have any interest in USF. Sure, they are the second best team in a lousy conference. Good for them. Why do I have to care about them? Why do I have to care about the AAC? I am a UConn fan. I like WCBB in general, but I am a UConn fan first and foremost. I don't think that something an announcer says during a blowout win has any effect whatsoever on recruiting or conferences.

Okay -- but I am a wcbb fan just like you. As I am also posting back to you on Saturday night. I do care about USF. I do care how our conference is perceived. So if I start a thread and you reply "who cares?"-- I responded that I do! And how you could say you are a UCONN fan and okay with a dumb comment made on National TV - that's your prerogative. But I am expressing my opinion that I cared and he was a moron to say it - Pitt and Cuse are just as bad. Also I have listened to him on WFAn as well and some things he says - I think he is flat-out wrong.

IMO you should care about the AAC maybe it can build a rivalry or two. The better USF does - doesn't it stand to reason the better they will recruit? Don't you want to see a better rival?

And what you call "a commentator" - I call "prevalent thinking in the media." And I think that perception can influence recruiting. It doesn't mean it effect it all the time.

 

[hoophuskee]

If Tulane is the 3rd best team in your conference... where would Syracuse and Pitt fit in this years AAC in your opinion ?

3rd and 4th and they would have lost games by 35-45 points. So is it worth it to mention them?

 

[hoophuskee]

I liked these guys. They seemed candid. I heard them say that it was a shame that UConn ended up in the AAC. They then said they needed to be a conference that had competition for them, which is true. What they didn't say and didn't know was that there is no conference that offers more than 1 or maybe 2 teams that can compete with UConn except for a game here or there. Get rid of UConn and maybe Notre Dame and the rest play inconsistently enough that it would be tough to predict the winner from a group of say 6. But the quality of the product would be weak compared to how UConn and Notre Dame play most every game.

The funny thing is that these guys didn't see Jefferson or Lewis at their best. Hopefully they get to see Lewis get hot and Jefferson put on a show.

Yes exactly!

SO by them mentioning teams like Cuse or Pitt -- as if they mattered - was wrong.

 

[hoophuskee]

They were simply saying that those types of teams are better than the lesser teams in the AAC which is true but, in the end, you're just talking about degrees of difference in the final score. They also mentioned ND of course. They forget teams like Rutgers and DePaul which would've made their point better for them, I think.

No I don't agree- that is not what they said. If that is what they meant they would have said it.

.

 

[triaddukefan]

3rd and 4th and they would have lost games by 35-45 points. So is it worth it to mention them?

I think Syracuse is better than USF, at the very least they are equal. but we will never know.

 

[Alydar]

Yes exactly!

SO by them mentioning teams like Cuse or Pitt -- as if they mattered - was wrong.

Yeah, they were wrong about them being a better challenge for the women. But coincidently Pitt and Syracuse were strong opponents of the men's team and maybe that's what they were referring to.

Frankly I enjoy listening to male announcers who are watching UConn for the first time. I thought the time Bobby Knight did a game was one of the most enjoyable. I'm not sure if Walton ever did a UConn game but I think that would be a trip.

 

[hoophuskee]

Yeah, they were wrong about them being a better challenge for the women. But coincidently Pitt and Syracuse were strong opponents of the men's team and maybe that's what they were referring to.

Frankly I enjoy listening to male announcers who are watching UConn for the first time. I thought the time Bobby Knight did a game was one of the most enjoyable. I'm not sure if Walton ever did a UConn game but I think that would be a trip.

yes but they said to paraphrase "there is nobody close to them in the conference." In that context they weren't talking about the men. They were right to say just of the conference. No way should those two teams been mentioned.

I do enjoy hearing different views of the game too.

 

[hoophuskee]

I think Syracuse is better than USF, at the very least they are equal. but we will never know.

Put up your "DUKES!!!" J/k.

SO you must either think Cuse was seeded too low? Or was it USF seeded too high? Or both?

 

[Sluconn Husky]

No I don't agree- that is not what they said. If that is what they meant they would have said it.

.

What else do you think they were talking about?

Their point is rather obvious though. A conference with ND, Rutgers, SF, DePaul, Syracuse, and Pitt added to UConn looks a lot better than the current one. Not UConn's fault, just the way things are.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I can't believe we've had a two page (at least) thread on the question of
whether or not the announcers should have mentioned Syracuse and Pitt.

 

[triaddukefan]

Put up your "DUKES!!!" J/k.

SO you must either think Cuse was seeded too low? Or was it USF seeded too high? Or both?

Cuse was seeded right.... they probably get a 7 seed if they didnt lose to Wake Forest in the ACC tourney. Not sure what to make of USF. Hopefully i will see some of the game monday vs Louisville.

 

[hoophuskee]

What else do you think they were talking about?

Their point is rather obvious though. A conference with ND, Rutgers, SF, DePaul, Syracuse, and Pitt added to UConn looks a lot better than the current one. Not UConn's fault, just the way things are.

It wasn't "they"-- it was the play-by-play guy. IMO he was saying - misinformed that he was- that the rest of the AAC conference can't come close to competing (true) and teams like Cuse and Pitt can (idiotic).

You're right the point was rather obvious - he made a dumb comment by mentioning Pitt and Cuse. If he was to mention the Big East he would have left it at that. He didn't.

 

[triaddukefan]

I can't believe we've had a two page (at least) thread on the question of
whether or not the announcers should have mentioned Syracuse and Pitt.

I'd rather talk about pastries... but I dont have much choice in the matter so here I am in this thread.