Grantland Big East Preview

[Rico444]

It's not the world's greatest article but I don't see a lack of logic.

I think it's fair to conclude that Kemba > Drummond/Daniels/Boatright is more of a loss than Jackson > Christmas/Carter-Williams. Not in overall talent, of course, but in terms of crunch time performance. Jackson was a nice player but Kemba is irreplaceable.

I also think it's fair -- even if controversial -- to say that the team wasn't "great" last year but benefited from getting super-hot at the right time and having an extraordinary go-to player.

My main issue is that he actually used the words "not very good" and that they just got hot.

 

[nomar]

This.

Maybe if the Big East tourney didn't happen, you could make the argument that we just had a nice run. Maybe. But when you won 6 straight in the NCAA's, 5 straight in the big east tourney, Maui, Texas at texas, etc., there's no more argument.

Just to play Devil's Advocate -- and, frankly, that's what I've been doing in this entire thread -- while nobody can deny that UConn was one of the top if not the top teams in the country by the end of the season (winning 11 straight a title tends to give some credence to that), it's fair to say that there will be better teams this season than there were last year. It seems like a lot of good teams got better. I think that's the point being made.

Or maybe I'm making his arguments for him

He chose to make the unpopular prediction that UConn wouldn't be as good as people expect and he had to back that up. There are only a couple objectively inaccurate points he makes (one about our incoming class, the other about last year's team not having a target on its back - people went after us just as hard). The rest are fact-based opinions.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

There's no reason to dismiss all content from site X just because 80% of the content is crap.

Speak for yourself. Sounds like a perfectly good reason to dismiss site X to me.

 

[champs99and04]

His analysis is fair. It's just his opinion. And he says we're a top-10 team. And he doesn't rag on UConn or mention sanctions or anything. But oh boy, he didn't say we're the best team in the country. HATER ALERT, amiright?

The "Grantland sucks" posts are silly.

I get that you like grant land, and are going to defend them. I too, think they have some entertaining articles and writers. But you have to admit that for the most part their college basketball coverage sucks. Simmons likes them to take "unique" stances, or in other words, not to get to in depth with the analysis. If he had legitimately broken down the rosters, that would be one thing.

 

[nomar]

As I said above, "I'm not saying it's the place for the best sports analysis. It has its strengths and weaknesses."

No, this isn't the most in-depth article. But most previews I read online aren't all that deep. I don't think you need to break down the roster, player by player, to make a prediction. And I don't think his prediction -- a top-10 ranking -- is all that crazy. People are objecting to the bottom line (UConn is overrated) and arguing opinions as if they were facts (were we "good," "very good" or "great" last year from start to finish?).

I think that HOWEVER deep this article was, its conclusion would have resulted in howls from the Boneyard about how stupid and baseless and devoid of insight it was. It happens everytime anybody says anything less than 100% flattering about UConn. This dude said we're a top-10 team and he's getting killed.

I realize I have put myself in the position of "defending" Grantland (even though my point is that Grantland isn't one person and that articles should be analyzed on an individual basis). We're just talking in circles -- and past each other to a large extent. I don't know why I keep responding in this thread. Procrastination I guess.

 

[Waquoit]

The sub-heading of this article was "Prepare to get really mad at us again, UConn fans." What a great compliment. Makes us look special.