Grantland's AAC Preview | The Boneyard

Grantland's AAC Preview

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
581
Reaction Score
2,441
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.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,062
Reaction Score
2,740
he calls sam cassell jr, little balls. everytime i saw that in the article i grinned a little bit.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,135
Reaction Score
20,042
Titus makes me laugh and he likes UCONN but this is a bad article.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,957
Reaction Score
5,401
Not a fan of Titus at all. But his take on the blue blood question sure makes sense to me.
 

Mr. French

Tremendous Individual
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
3,693
Reaction Score
14,673
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

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,964
Reaction Score
45,070
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

Mr. Positive
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,731
Reaction Score
84,658
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,135
Reaction Score
20,042
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,267
Reaction Score
35,069
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

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,964
Reaction Score
45,070
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,135
Reaction Score
20,042
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,733
Reaction Score
9,059
Much, Much better read on our team than any mainstream publication. His rundown on the Purvis situation is spot on...
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,292
Reaction Score
19,788
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,267
Reaction Score
35,069
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.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
12,645
Reaction Score
67,742
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,135
Reaction Score
20,042
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.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,292
Reaction Score
19,788
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

1972,73 & 98 Boneyard Poster of the Year
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
9,272
Reaction Score
6,556
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,267
Reaction Score
35,069
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,267
Reaction Score
35,069
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.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,292
Reaction Score
19,788
It's too late. We're over.

dawson-crying1-e1334175453650.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
395
Guests online
2,548
Total visitors
2,943

Forum statistics

Threads
157,639
Messages
4,116,575
Members
10,007
Latest member
macklin


Top Bottom