If you ranked our teams from 1989-2015

[FartMan69]

The OP that made no mention of our team's youth? You're special.

But was he wrong? Are you really going to argue this isn't one of the bottom 5 teams in that era? They're young no doubt but it's still one of the worst seasons we've had in that span. You may be taking this too personally.

 

[Husky Dad]

Worst team and coaching. Has me begging for Blaney.

 

[Stainmaster]

Worst team and coaching. Has me begging for Blaney.

I'm just curious, do you think Ollie should be ousted? Not trying to insinuate anything, genuinely wondering.

 

[jazyj]

I'm just curious, do you think Ollie should be ousted? Not trying to insinuate anything, genuinely wondering.

no

 

[mauconnfan]

If I were to even think I wanted to rank all the teams from 89 to now I'd probably shoot myself. For one it would be beyond difficult and #2, it would take too long and I'd rather read all the doom and gloom posts tonight.

 

[uconngb]

would this team be in the bottom 5?

Que the guy who will say, "you would have said the same thing about the 2011 and 2014 teams!"

Did ollie forget how to coach, or are these kids just that untalented?

No question this team would be bottom 5. This is not a good team, and this is not a light switch situation. Very easy team for opposition to prepare for.

 

[Towney007]

Yeah, this is a bottom five team, but I'm far from the point where I'm ready to pound holes in the bottom of the ship. This program's had as many rebuilding years as they've had Championships over the years, so i'll take that.

 

[johnhuskies95]

We're young but also don't have the talent some of our past younger squads had. For example the 06-07 team was all Frosh and Soph's and IMO would destroy this team.

I don't think the '07 beat a single tournament team all year, so that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Boat deserves more credit than that.

 

[Dribbles]

Good one. The thing you forgot to mention is that we've been duck*ing awesome over that time
period. Obviously we're not great this year (to this point), but that's kind of like asking if some supermodel is one of the 5 ugliest supermodels out of 25 supermodels.

And the answer to your other question is we're really young.

I really enjoy the "We're really young" argument. It is important, but don't ignore fact that the hated team down t'bacca road started 3 freshman this year. Can be done, has been done, and is being done.
Usual story is "wait till Mr. X arrives next year." And when Mr. x is found to be a walking t/o, the line changes to "he's just young."

 

[3rdbass]

I really enjoy the "We're really young" argument. It is important, but don't ignore fact that the hated team down t'bacca road started 3 freshman this year. Can be done, has been done, and is being done.
Usual story is "wait till Mr. X arrives next year." And when Mr. x is found to be a walking t/o, the line changes to "he's just young."

We just don't recruit to the levels of Kentucky, NC and Duke to reload every year. Unfortunately UCONN is destined to have down years but this year in a bad conference is very disheartening.

 

[FartMan69]

I don't think the '07 beat a single tournament team all year, so that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Boat deserves more credit than that.

look at both rosters and tell me which one is better.

 

[Kitaman]

Can we stop looking at this team through a negative lens? Its just not good karma especially for us fans (okay for me). We are losing games and not playing well, okay I got that. Our players are not performing at high level I got that too.

We all know the realities but how do these types of threads and its variations, help us enjoy what we can from the team? We are entering the final month, they still wear UConn jerseys, the media, league and out of conference teams are enjoying our suffering tremendously.

My point is how can we change the thread narratives to extending a huge middle finger to the nation and get behind this 'suffering' team. If we don't do it no one else will.

They may not be that good right now, but they are still our team.

 

[Drame]

Not a bad list but you have to rank last year higher. Separating the national championship, that team won 32 games, beat 10 ranked teams, 7 of which were away or neutral site. This is not including the most talented team in the country, Kentucky, which we also beat.

OK, I'll bite. If we're ranking teams (not seasons), I'll say

1. 2004
2. 1999
3. 2009
4. 2006
5. 1996
6. 1990
7. 1995
8. 1994
9. 2011
10. 1998
11. 2002
12. 2005
13. 2000
14. 2003
15. 2008
16. 2014
17. 1992
18. 2013
19. 1991
20. 2012
21. 2015
22. 1997
23. 2001
24. 1993
25. 2010
26. 2007

Not quite bottom 5 this year, but close.

Incidentally, the last 6 years contain 5 of the worst 11 teams, and only one of the best 10 teams. That's a disturbing trend.

 

[Yankees32123]

look at both rosters and tell me which one is better.

Don't be deceived by the names on the roster. Jerome Dyson, Hasheem Thabeet, Stanley Robinson, and Gavin Edwards were all freshman. Jeff Adrian, Craig Austrie, and AJ Price were all sophomores. Young team. Like this one. But you're being deceived by how those players played in the next 2-3 years. Give our current young players 2-3 years and then it will be a fair assessment.

 

[champs99and04]

OK, I'll bite. If we're ranking teams (not seasons), I'll say

1. 2004
2. 1999
3. 2009
4. 2006
5. 1996
6. 1990
7. 1995
8. 1994
9. 2011
10. 1998
11. 2002
12. 2005
13. 2000
14. 2003
15. 2008
16. 2014
17. 1992
18. 2013
19. 1991
20. 2012
21. 2015
22. 1997
23. 2001
24. 1993
25. 2010
26. 2007

Not quite bottom 5 this year, but close.

Incidentally, the last 6 years contain 5 of the worst 11 teams, and only one of the best 10 teams. That's a disturbing trend.

I get that this is an impossible thing to do without receiving criticism, but since you put it out there...

1. Wait, how are you ranking these teams? If you're ranking them on how good they were in a vacuum, the list makes a little more sense. But they don't compete in a vacuum, and they should be graded relative to their competition - to the extent that some of our more recent teams are lower may have more to do with college basketball as a whole declining.

2. I just don't see how you can justify placing a team that won a national championship sixteenth. I understand the arguments against them - they were waxed by Louisville three times, and they were one Brimah and-one away from going down as a relatively forgettable UConn team. But they beat five excellent teams in a row, and there was no doubt in any of them who the better team was. For some reason the 2014 tearing apart a Florida team riding a 30 game winning streak gets chalked up to catching lightning in a bottle or something. They were the best team in the country when it mattered - that carries a lot more weight in my mind than some of the other stuff.

 

[FartMan69]

Don't be deceived by the names on the roster. Jerome Dyson, Hasheem Thabeet, Stanley Robinson, and Gavin Edwards were all freshman. Jeff Adrian, Craig Austrie, and AJ Price were all sophomores. Young team. Like this one. But you're being deceived by how those players played in the next 2-3 years. Give our current young players 2-3 years and then it will be a fair assessment.

I get your point but..

Frosh Thabeet > Soph Brimah
Adrian > Facey,Nolan
Dyson, Austrie > TSam, Purvis

To be fair,
Hamilton> Robinson
Boat > Price

It could be a wash but i'm leaning towards '07 because they had multiple ball handlers, better rebounding and IMO were deeper overall. I also think if this years squad played that Big East schedule no way they'd manage to win 6 games. All opinion though.

 

[UC990411]

No way THabeet as a freshman was better than Brimas as a sophomore. hasheem was really bad as a freshman and didn't turn the corner until his Sophomore year.

That being said, sophoomore HT > sophomore AB

 

[Tenspro2002]

I get that this is an impossible thing to do without receiving criticism, but since you put it out there...

1. Wait, how are you ranking these teams? If you're ranking them on how good they were in a vacuum, the list makes a little more sense. But they don't compete in a vacuum, and they should be graded relative to their competition - to the extent that some of our more recent teams are lower may have more to do with college basketball as a whole declining.

2. I just don't see how you can justify placing a team that won a national championship sixteenth. I understand the arguments against them - they were waxed by Louisville three times, and they were one Brimah and-one away from going down as a relatively forgettable UConn team. But they beat five excellent teams in a row, and there was no doubt in any of them who the better team was. For some reason the 2014 tearing apart a Florida team riding a 30 game winning streak gets chalked up to catching lightning in a bottle or something. They were the best team in the country when it mattered - that carries a lot more weight in my mind than some of the other stuff.

I actually did rank them somewhat along the lines of how good they were relative to their own competition. #1-8 or so were Top 10 virtually wire to wire. #9-15 were Top 25 most of the year and/or became better than that by the end of the year. The next handful were between fringe Top 25 teams and bubble teams. The bottom handful couldn't even make the Tournament.

You and someone else who quoted me above are probably right -- 2014 should be ranked higher, maybe in the #12 range. Certainly closer to 1994 than 1992. We were very good in March/April, though we were downright ordinary the rest of the year and I don't think, competition adjusted, the 2014 team could "beat" any of our teams from the mid-late 90's.

 

[willie99]

10/11
6/7
96/97
92/93

I'll go with yes, but that's more a reflection on how great we are

BTW: I think 00/01 was pretty good, the best team to miss the dance

we beat several teams that made the dance, including 2 or 3 sweet sixteen seeds

but that good ole RPI killed us. Playing good teams that can actually beat you is not as important as scheduling better chumps

if you play teams you should beat by 20 points instead of teams you should beat by 30 points, the committee thinks that actually makes you a better team