Dissed by Dick Nerdstreet again

[whaler11]

You are easily impressed. Neither team was very good, just like UConn wasn't very good in its championship years.

I didn't say Louisville was great. Just a hell of a lot better than UConn.

 

[upstater]

I didn't say Louisville was great. Just a hell of a lot better than UConn.

Are we talking football or resources? Resources yes. Football, no. You are too easily impressed by a bowl victory. But that thing happens every year as bowl season is silly season. Upsets happen. Ville was a huge dog in that game. We've seen top dogs get taken down year after year. UConn was a big dog to South Carolina. It happens. And, I never said UConn was as good as Ville last year. I said Ville wasn't eons ahead. If you look at their schedule and their performances, they were a prototypical BE champion. Which means, not very good. And not much better than the middle of the pack in the conference.

 

[upstater]

I didn't say Louisville was great. Just a hell of a lot better than UConn.

One more thing: do you think UConn was a helluva lot better than Western Michigan? Or USF?

 

[whaler11]

Are we talking football or resources? Resources yes. Football, no. You are too easily impressed by a bowl victory. But that thing happens every year as bowl season is silly season. Upsets happen. Ville was a huge dog in that game. We've seen top dogs get taken down year after year. UConn was a big dog to South Carolina. It happens. And, I never said UConn was as good as Ville last year. I said Ville wasn't eons ahead. If you look at their schedule and their performances, they were a prototypical BE champion. Which means, not very good. And not much better than the middle of the pack in the conference.

I'm talking about the 2012 and 2013 teams.

Louisville was beyond a shadow of a doubt better than UConn in 2012 and any realistic view of their 2013 prospects leads you to the same conclusion.

Louisville was light years ahead of UConn last year. I know you don't believe in things like computer rankings - but one finished in the top 20 and the other finished 80th. I'll let you try an guess which was which.

 

[whaler11]

One more thing: do you think UConn was a helluva lot better than Western Michigan? Or USF?

I think that UConn was a good amount better than Western Michigan and marginally better than South Florida.

 

[Jimdish255]

Remind you of anything? Weren't they all drooling over WVU as soon as they left the BE? Everyone who left suddenly becomes a national championship contender!

 

[whaler11]

Physical to me refers to te line play. Actually If they ran for 371 I would say they were more physical. Us limiting them to less than fifty running and sacking him numerous times. No matter how you want to skew it they were whooped that game.
We actually performed better than uconns average on offense that day

UConn gained 200 yards in regulation. I'd hate to see the results when they aren't 'whooping' someone. If 10
points and 200 yards is better than average... really - you believe that?

 

[Sean]

Stockholm Syndrome.

Put up 10 ppg and try to win nailbiters and convince your fans that is dominating a game...

 

[upstater]

I'm talking about the 2012 and 2013 teams.

Louisville was beyond a shadow of a doubt better than UConn in 2012 and any realistic view of their 2013 prospects leads you to the same conclusion.

Louisville was light years ahead of UConn last year. I know you don't believe in things like computer rankings - but one finished in the top 20 and the other finished 80th. I'll let you try an guess which was which.

I think that UConn was a good amount better than Western Michigan and marginally better than South Florida.

We're obviously determining these things very differently. When I watch football, I look for domination. Physically overpowering the other team. Louisville did that to UConn last year as much as UConn did it to WM and USF. In other words, not very well at all. These teams are not as far apart as you imagine. Louisville had dogfights week in and week out.

 

[upstater]

Stockholm Syndrome.

Put up 10 ppg and try to win nailbiters and convince your fans that is dominating a game...

The defense did whup them. The offense, not so much.

I can't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the defense wasn't having its way.

 

[whaler11]

We're obviously determining these things very differently. When I watch football, I look for domination. Physically overpowering the other team. Louisville did that to UConn last year as much as UConn did it to WM and USF. In other words, not very well at all. These teams are not as far apart as you imagine. Louisville had dogfights week in and week out.

Yes we are looking at it very differently. You are basing your comparisons off one game versus what they do over the course of a season.

Louisville was a lot better than UConn overall. UConn's defense showed up one day on the road and did enough to beat them.

Maybe you don't think there is much difference between the 20th and 80th best teams in the country but that makes you a population of one.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

It's actually really about points in the end. UConn gained 200 yards in regulation. To say they dominated a team that had almost double is honestly stupid. But this is a thread that contains posts that infer UConn is as good as Louisville... So it's par for the course.

My point was that using yards differential is not a good way to determine which team was better.

On a side note...I do agree that UL was a much better team. That was a bad coaching game for Strong. His team wasn't prepared mentally and he didn't adjust well.

 

[upstater]

Yes we are looking at it very differently. You are basing your comparisons off one game versus what they do over the course of a season.

Louisville was a lot better than UConn overall. UConn's defense showed up one day on the road and did enough to beat them.

Maybe you don't think there is much difference between the 20th and 80th best teams in the country but that makes you a population of one.

In a sport with 130 teams and then another 50 that play at least a game against those 130, there are a lot of different ways to come by a 10-2 record. I look at Louisville's schedule and its margins and I think of it as middling. I could go to another conference and see a 7-5 record of a better team. I agree Ville was better than UConn last year. Do I think they were much much better? No. Middling, like most BE champs. When you see physical domination on the field, only then are you much better. I didn't see it with Louisville. This is also why I disagree with your take on West Michigan and on USF as well.

In 2010, during UConn's BCS season, the year they beat West Virginia, UConn lost to a Louisville team that was sub-.500 in the BE. I'd love to hear your assessment of those teams at the time. When I look at it, that UConn team was at best even with Ville. Not better.

 

[upstater]

My point was that using yards differential is not a good way to determine which team was better.

On a side note...I do agree that UL was a much better team. That was a bad coaching game for Strong. His team wasn't prepared mentally and he didn't adjust well.

Our offense was bad that day (and much the rest of the year). And I agree that yards given up by the defense is practically meaningless. The Patriots in the early 2000s finished at the bottom third of the league in yards allowed multiple times, but in the top 3 of points allowed each year.

When you add the fact that UConn's lack of offense puts immense pressure on the defnese by forcing them to constantly defned and frequently in bad field position, it's a wonder the defense can hold a team at all.

I do disagree with both you and whaler about Strong and preparation. It's a big indictment of that team to say they were not ready for UConn at a time when the game was shown on national TV, Ville had everything to play for, and while the whole ACC thing was going on. It was a big game. I think both of you are arguing against yourselves when you talk about the strength of Louisville and then saying that somehow they weren't prepared.

 

[Tommyboy]

One could say that Florida really has "to bring focus every week and you won't lose to the louisvilles....".

 

[upstater]

One could say that Florida really has "to bring focus every week and you won't lose to the louisvilles....".

It would be a reversal of the meme, but honestly, I never take bowl season seriously outside one or two games. I've been watching far too long to ignore the always wacky results. The big problem with bowl season is that schools take players and families down there for 1 or 2 weeks over Christmas. It's simply not the same state of mind. I've had it described to me numerous times by both players and coaches. It's a whole different atmosphere all together, and that's why you will see many more upsets during bowl season than at any other time. I'm guilty of knocking the ACC's bowl record compared to the BE's quite a bit, but surely the wackiness of bowl season is the main reason why the two records are so lopsided.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Our offense was bad that day (and much the rest of the year). And I agree that yards given up by the defense is practically meaningless. The Patriots in the early 2000s finished at the bottom third of the league in yards allowed multiple times, but in the top 3 of points allowed each year.

When you add the fact that UConn's lack of offense puts immense pressure on the defnese by forcing them to constantly defned and frequently in bad field position, it's a wonder the defense can hold a team at all.

I do disagree with both you and whaler about Strong and preparation. It's a big indictment of that team to say they were not ready for UConn at a time when the game was shown on national TV, Ville had everything to play for, and while the whole ACC thing was going on. It was a big game. I think both of you are arguing against yourselves when you talk about the strength of Louisville and then saying that somehow they weren't prepared.

Tough to follow your logic here. Ville went 10-2 and beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl. In reality they were probably somewhere in the 15-20 range nationally.

We played a cupcake schedule and lost to Temple at home and WMU and USF on the road. People overlook that USF game. They were beyond terrible last year. Their defense was a disgrace. We scored 6.

Louisville was a good team last year. We were bad. 80th for us is generous.

 

[upstater]

Tough to follow your logic here. Ville went 10-2 and beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl. In reality they were probably somewhere in the 15-20 range nationally.

We played a cupcake schedule and lost to Temple at home and WMU and USF on the road. People overlook that USF game. They were beyond terrible last year. Their defense was a disgrace. We scored 6.

Louisville was a good team last year. We were bad. 80th for us is generous.

I didn't say Louisville wasn't better. Read it again. I gave other examples where the argument is reversed. Where UConn was the BCS team and yet lost to Ville, and in my estimation, given the loss, it surely meant UConn was not better. Head to head, Ville lost a big game to UConn. Their schedule was weak and they battled close games. When you talked about domination or being much better, that means something very very different to me.

You can see this in Whalers own arguments. He seems to think UConn was much much better than Western Michigan. I can't even fathom how he comes to that conclusion. These are middling to bad teams. I disagree with him.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I didn't say Louisville wasn't better. Read it again. I gave other examples where the argument is reversed. Where UConn was the BCS team and yet lost to Ville, and in my estimation, given the loss, it surely meant UConn was not better. Head to head, Ville lost a big game to UConn. Their schedule was weak and they battled close games. When you talked about domination or being much better, that means something very very different to me.

You can see this in Whalers own arguments. He seems to think UConn was much much better than Western Michigan. I can't even fathom how he comes to that conclusion. These are middling to bad teams. I disagree with him.

If you think that Ville was a middling team last year that's where our disagreement is.

 

[upstater]

If you think that Ville was a middling team last year that's where our disagreement is.

Louisville was obvious better than middling (that referred to UConn and Western Michigan). But were they head and shoulders above UConn? No. I think they were your average BE championship team. Like WV and Cincy.

 

[BHusky]

UL had top 25 talent, but they did not play as a top 25 team for a alot of the season (maybe even for 11 of 13 games). We can only use the facts in determining how good they were and that is by looking at who they played and what the results were. They beat Southern Miss team by 4 who went 0-12, they beat 3-9 FIU by 7, 3-9 USF by 2, beat 2-10 Kentucky, NC State (who we know through experience can be inept on offense and lost to Duke), us at 5-7 (2-5 in a weak BE). The UF win was impressive, but to the non-Uconn fan those wins and the loss to us were nothing werth boasting about.

Ville had nearly 2x the yards, 2x the first downs and 50% more plays run on Offense versus us. If they weren't able to see the final score, most fans would assume there was a dominant team in that game and they would not have said UCONN.

 

[whaler11]

Louisville was obvious better than middling (that referred to UConn and Western Michigan). But were they head and shoulders above UConn? No. I think they were your average BE championship team. Like WV and Cincy.

How LV compares to an average Big East championship team has nothing to do with how much better LV was than UConn in 2012.

Western Michigan was awful. They played one good half of football all year, it just happened to be against UConn.

You don't see the difference between 20th and 80th as head and shoulders better. That makes absolutely zero sense but par for the upstater course.

 

[upstater]

How LV compares to an average Big East championship team has nothing to do with how much better LV was than UConn in 2012.

Western Michigan was awful. They played one good half of football all year, it just happened to be against UConn.

You don't see the difference between 20th and 80th as head and shoulders better. That makes absolutely zero sense but par for the upstater course.

Wow, so both USF and W Mich just happened to play a couple good qtrs against UConn.

Even though UConn was embarrassed by W Mich last year, and had a revenge game going, and everything to play for.

You don't want to admit that a middling to bad MAC team was as good as a middling to bad BE team.

This is the thing, you can't make your argument about clear surperiority when a team LOSES to another team. And, you especially can't do it in college ball when the schedules are so different.

This is what BHusky wrote above: They beat Southern Miss team by 4 who went 0-12, they beat 3-9 FIU by 7, 3-9 USF by 2, beat 2-10 Kentucky, NC State (who we know through experience can be inept on offense and lost to Duke), us at 5-7 (2-5 in a weak BE). The UF win was impressive, but to the non-Uconn fan those wins and the loss to us were nothing werth boasting about.

You are way too easily impressed.

 

[whaler11]

Wow, so both USF and W Mich just happened to play a couple good qtrs against UConn.

Even though UConn was embarrassed by W Mich last year, and had a revenge game going, and everything to play for.

You don't want to admit that a middling to bad MAC team was as good as a middling to bad BE team.

This is the thing, you can't make your argument about clear surperiority when a team LOSES to another team. And, you especially can't do it in college ball when the schedules are so different.

This is what BHusky wrote above: They beat Southern Miss team by 4 who went 0-12, they beat 3-9 FIU by 7, 3-9 USF by 2, beat 2-10 Kentucky, NC State (who we know through experience can be inept on offense and lost to Duke), us at 5-7 (2-5 in a weak BE). The UF win was impressive, but to the non-Uconn fan those wins and the loss to us were nothing werth boasting about.

You are way too easily impressed.

Are you broken?

For the tenth time I don't think Louisville is that great and I watched a good number of those games including Southern Miss. Without looking why don't you tell me why you can't even consider what happened in the Southern Miss game?

Louisville was like the 15-25th best team in the country. UConn was like 75-85. WMU was around 100. That's based on all the results - not making silly comments where only head to head matchups determine who is better because you measure dominance with your eyes and ignore all actual data.

 

[upstater]

Are you broken?

For the tenth time I don't think Louisville is that great and I watched a good number of those games including Southern Miss. Without looking why don't you tell me why you can't even consider what happened in the Southern Miss game?

Louisville was like the 15-25th best team in the country. UConn was like 75-85. WMU was around 100. That's based on all the results - not making silly comments where only head to head matchups determine who is better because you measure dominance with your eyes and ignore all actual data.

"Without looking why don't you tell me why you can't even consider what happened in the Southern Miss game?"

Can you be more explicit? What?

I don't think Ville was much better. Plain and simple. Better, yes. Head and shoulders, no? And rankings mean squat really in this respect because all hell breaks loose around the 20s, and teams with wildly different schedules are bunched up. That being said, I don't dispute your Ville ranking, I was generally very surprised they beat Florida, based on what I'd seem of Ville over the year. I'd put them at 25. And I'd say UConn was a little better than 75-85 but not much (i.e. one of the worst BCS teams but better than most nons). I just don't think there is a great deal separating the 25th from the 60th best. Granted, the 25th is definitely better than the 60th, but put them in a game, and I think you'd be hard pressed to spot the 60th team more than a touchdown.