Grantland's AAC Preview

[nomar]

Lots about UConn.

Titus has some funny lines.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2...tulsa-larry-brown-kevin-ollie-ryan-boatright/

 

[Tenspro2002]

I wonder if "Little Balls" is going to catch on.

Maybe "Balls Jr." would be better.

 

[Drame]

Will Tyler Olander be hired to the coaching staff?

Olander has more national championship rings than Jim Boeheim, Tom Izzo, John Calipari, Bill Self, Phog Allen, Lute Olson, Jerry Tarkanian, John Thompson, Al McGuire, and Eddie Sutton. If UConn lets him walk away from the program, it will go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of college basketball. (He is currently playing in Lithuania.) Mark my words.

 

[SirHypeAlot]

I thought this was really well done.

 

[Minicoop69]

he calls sam cassell jr, little balls. everytime i saw that in the article i grinned a little bit.

 

[Walker11]

Titus makes me laugh and he likes UCONN but this is a bad article.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Not a fan of Titus at all. But his take on the blue blood question sure makes sense to me.

 

[Mr. French]

Love his little paragraph on "blue bloods" he basically makes all of the traditional boneyard arguments, but doesn't sound so whiny as an objective writer. And he's a true college hoops fan, so he's fairly in tune and honest, bc he's not really a media member.

 

[nomar]

Titus makes me laugh and he likes UCONN but this is a bad article.

The only stuff I questioned was what he wrote about Boatright (and he seems awfully bullish on Purvis) -- what did you think was bad?

 

[Waquoit]

I think he was off-base with the Boat criticism from 2 years back. I thought his interaction with Bazz was fine, much better than I expected anyway. And UConn was the best team in 04 and 99.

 

[Walker11]

The only stuff I questioned was what he wrote about Boatright (and he seems awfully bullish on Purvis) -- what did you think was bad?

Yea I was probably too harsh.

I have a similar take to you on how he addressed Purvis and Boat. I didn't like what he said about Omar, and the omission of his hip injury. The line "does he even want to play basketball annoyed me" even though the questions about his performance are obviously fair.

I also didn't like that he said UCONN wasn't the best team in the country during the National Championship years even though his broader point was complimentary. 99 and 04 were clearly dominant teams.

 

[tzznandrew]

Yea I was probably too harsh.

I have a similar take to you on how he addressed Purvis and Boat. I didn't like what he said about Omar, and the omission of his hip injury. The line "does he even want to play basketball annoyed me" even though the questions about his performance are obviously fair.

I also didn't like that he said UCONN wasn't the best team in the country during the National Championship years even though his broader point was complimentary. 99 and 04 were clearly dominant teams.

Regardless of whether they were the best team on the court (they weren't), in neither of those years did they go into the NCAAs with the best record. 1999 had Duke, who hadn't lost since the Alaska Shootout, and 2004 had Stanford and St. Joe's go into the last game and conference tournament undefeated, respectively.

I take your point, but I don't think of it as a slight.

 

[nomar]

Yea I was probably too harsh.

I have a similar take to you on how he addressed Purvis and Boat. I didn't like what he said about Omar, and the omission of his hip injury. The line "does he even want to play basketball annoyed me" even though the questions about his performance are obviously fair.

I also didn't like that he said UCONN wasn't the best team in the country during the National Championship years even though his broader point was complimentary. 99 and 04 were clearly dominant teams.

Yes, right, I shook my head at that, too. 2004, we were the best. 1999, obviously everyone thought Duke was the best but we hardly snuck up on anyone. And I did think the same thing about Omar's injury. Fair points, both. Overall it was pretty good, though, I thought.

 

[Walker11]

I hold Titus to a higher standard because he is actually good at his job, unlike basically every other mainstream writer, other than Luke Winn.

 

[bmayuc]

Much, Much better read on our team than any mainstream publication. His rundown on the Purvis situation is spot on...

 

[CallMeBruce]

Regardless of whether they were the best team on the court (they weren't), in neither of those years did they go into the NCAAs with the best record. 1999 had Duke, who hadn't lost since the Alaska Shootout, and 2004 had Stanford and St. Joe's go into the last game and conference tournament undefeated, respectively.

I take your point, but I don't think of it as a slight.

St. Joe's 2004 schedule can bite me.

 

[tzznandrew]

St. Joe's 2004 schedule can bite me.

And the PAC wasn't particularly strong that year. But that's not really the point. It's more about some not getting indignant about every perceived slight. It gets tiring.

 

[auror]

This was good. I think he hit on all the important questions/concerns about this team. Much better than all the "Boatright's turn!" puff pieces. Although, I think the Brimah snippet (while mostly accurate) is probably not optimistic enough, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Walker11]

And the PAC wasn't particularly strong that year. But that's not really the point. It's more about some not getting indignant about every perceived slight. It gets tiring.

He said UCONN wasn't the best team in the country on their championship teams. It is actually quite easy to argue that UCONN was the best team in 99 and 04, even for a non-UCONN fan. No one is getting indignant, it was just a stupid comment by Titus IMO. I have a lot of respect for you as a poster but I think you are in the minority on this one, and rightfully so.

 

[CallMeBruce]

And the PAC wasn't particularly strong that year. But that's not really the point. It's more about some not getting indignant about every perceived slight. It gets tiring.

Insinuating that the '99 and '04 titles were lucky is a little obnoxious. The '04 team was the preseason #1 team in the country, and the '99 team had two losses: to Cuse minus Hamilton and Voskuhl, and that 2-point loss to Miami. They beat Michigan State and Stanford (on the road) decisively, won the Big East regular season and tournament with ease, and beat Duke head-to-head in the title game. Plus, there were a number of seasons where they were in the conversation for best team and had some tough luck, so I'm going to pick this one up every time somebody gets it wrong.

 

[sdhusky]

Plus, there were a number of seasons where they were in the conversation for best team and had some tough luck, so I'm going to pick this one up every time somebody gets it wrong.

That's the crux of it. The tournament is a bit of luck and UConn had its fair share of bad luck - and bad draws - with dominant teams.

Our overall body of work is good enough to have 4 NC teams - and while every NC winner is a bit "lucky" when you have the best player in the country that year (Rip, Emeka, Kemba & Bazz), you make your own luck to a great degree.

 

[tzznandrew]

Insinuating that the '99 and '04 titles were lucky is a little obnoxious. The '04 team was the preseason #1 team in the country, and the '99 team had two losses: to Cuse minus Hamilton and Voskuhl, and that 2-point loss to Miami. They beat Michigan State and Stanford (on the road) decisively, won the Big East regular season and tournament with ease, and beat Duke head-to-head in the title game. Plus, there were a number of seasons where they were in the conversation for best team and had some tough luck, so I'm going to pick this one up every time somebody gets it wrong.

Yes. I'm aware. And if I remember correctly, the team wasn't feeling 100% against Miami either.

I'm not sure he thinks they were lucky. Going into the tournament, both in 1999 and 2004, we weren't the favorites. We were 2 in 1999, and probably behind Duke in 2004, although widely picked. But we had 6 losses, didn't always look great throughout the year, and were a 2 seed.

Look, I think they were the best team both times, but I can understand why a rational person might disagree. And Titus is merely parroting popular opinion, and he doesn't remember those years himself--he was on the 2008 Ohio State team, if I recall right. Meaning he was quite young for both 1999 and 2004. And the mythical "best team" title is meaningless. The best team is the team that wins the title--and we did that 4 times.

 

[CallMeBruce]

I don't know what we're arguing about.

 

[tzznandrew]

I quoted you initially, but I never really was trying to criticize your point. I was more seconding your point and pointing out that Stanford was a paper tiger as well (the 1 seed in our bracket taken out by Alabama...Kentucky was another popular pick that was out in the second round).

Generally, I was just annoyed with the easily offended, and wasn't even really trying to pull you in on it too much.

 

[CallMeBruce]

It's too late. We're over.