I'll Say It... | Page 3 | The Boneyard

I'll Say It...

temery said:
Ah, don't do that. Very bad mojo.
Expand ...
This is going to be a hard pill to swallow for the people who don't want to believe Hurley is a lunatic, but magic isn't real.
 
Deepster said:
Agreed. It was a cute story when we just broke out of the Fieldhouse and were happy to get into a Sweet 16. I'm not condoning we turn into a bunch of elitist d bags, but here on our message board? Let's stop playing like we're gonna jinx things if we say we're really really good. Acknowledge where we are and enjoy it.
Expand ...

So Deep I go back to the Field House, the “Top25” as well as “Also ReceiviyVotes” days it was fun. In the 90s it was fun seeing where we were going to land no doubt. For me don’t care in January any more and even March because we can do it from anywhere. Is it a jinx per se to get to 1, nah but you can only lose from there so great if we are but let’s get healthy, take a couple bumps and then be the UConn no one wants in their region in a couple months that ball that matters.
 
UConn Esq said:
Objectively hard to justify putting us ahead of Kansas if both of us have the same amount of losses. I defend us in that game whenever I get the chance but in the end they have the W.
Expand ...
Apparently, some dont have issue putting UNC ahead of us…
 
Leebo said:
There's nothing disrespectful about someone having Purdue at #1. If we win this weekend, I'm sure we'll get some #1 votes as well.
Expand ...
I disagree, it would absolutely be disrespectful. The AP and coaches polls are a really dumb system of ranking, but there is definite consistency in how teams are treated after losses. You lose, you drop. It’s (seemingly) either us or them (assuming we win Sunday), but they lost. So if it’s them, to me there is no other way to read it than a direct snub of UConn, because Purdue isn’t some generational dream team worthy of rising above the standards of the past several decades.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
Odd considering the roster is incomplete right now.
Expand ...
i suspect he was saying it more in the context of the whole season as Clingan is due back and not as much of the right now. But idk.
 
tennmike said:
Not bad for an incomplete team. Just wait until the big guy gets a green light.
Expand ...
Yeah, he's probably thinking we don't even have Clingan back yet, but we're still winning most conference road games that other top 10 teams aren't.
 
If only there existed something, anything between "nothing disrespectful" and "absolutely disrespectful."

Screenshot_20240112-092608.png
 
If Johnson shows himself to be more productive and dominant in the future I see us going to #1 at some point. If he doesn’t we will be losing some games because some of these close ones will go the other way. That said, I’d like some disrespect coming our way before we start the tourney, Hate being a favorite and am not obsessed with being #1.
 
.-.
homunculus said:
I disagree, it would absolutely be disrespectful. The AP and coaches polls are a really dumb system of ranking, but there is definite consistency in how teams are treated after losses. You lose, you drop. It’s (seemingly) either us or them (assuming we win Sunday), but they lost. So if it’s them, to me there is no other way to read it than a direct snub of UConn, because Purdue isn’t some generational dream team worthy of rising above the standards of the past several decades.
Expand ...
If you had a (somewhat unrealistically extreme) situation where #1 is 20-0 and #2 is 15-5, and the #1 team loses, so they're now 20-1 and #2 is now 16-5, are you arguing that even in that situation it would be disrespectful to the #2 team to not flip the rankings? I'm just making it more extreme to see if there's some limit to your position.

My position is that a reasonable person can look at two teams, Purdue and UConn, that both have 2 losses, and come to the conclusion that Purdue's record is slightly better, even though they have the most recent loss. If you think that would be an unreasonable position for an individual to have, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
homunculus said:
Well, that little word “be” between “absolutely” and “disrespectful” is doing a lot of work for me. At least I didn’t say it was 1000% disrespectful.
Expand ...
Not sure that I comprehend what you meant by the word "be," because I don't see it anywhere, (EDIT: I do see the word "be." I did make a mistake in misquoting you) but I will add - and only because it's more accurately descriptive than anything else I know - that "absolutely" is defined as "without qualification" or "totally," and therefore means ALL of something, which is (in mathematical terms) 100%. As such, I can make some sense of what you've said, though you've still planted your flag at one of the two available reality-based extremes.

On that particular point, I disagree, but I also respect your clarity, which included beginning what you wrote with, "I disagree," and firming things up with, "to me." It's your opinion, not fact.

Personally, I see room for arguments to vote in favor of Purdue irrespective of respect or disrespect toward UConn. Some of those arguments will translate into actual votes for Purdue, so I can reasonably predict they'll occur.

In my estimation, particularly prior to the results of games through Sunday, a vote for Purdue wouldn't necessarily constitute "nothing disrespectful" OR something "absolutely be[Ing] disrespectful" toward UConn.

Thevway I see it, there are facts, feelings, thoughts, and opinions. Frequently, in loosely defined language, they get compared as though they are pretty much fully equivalent to each other. I don't think that's the case.

I do know this much. If I have $1 and you have $10, then you have 10 times as much money than I have, and that means you have 1,000% of the amount of money I have.

72% of the Top 25 ranked teams play on Saturday. Half of them are road games. That's 9, or 50%. There should be some good ones. UConn plays Sunday. Go Huskies.

Haircut done, yoga next, back home to do paperwork.

I probably made some mistakes in this post.
 
homunculus said:
I disagree, it would absolutely be disrespectful. The AP and coaches polls are a really dumb system of ranking, but there is definite consistency in how teams are treated after losses. You lose, you drop. It’s (seemingly) either us or them (assuming we win Sunday), but they lost. So if it’s them, to me there is no other way to read it than a direct snub of UConn, because Purdue isn’t some generational dream team worthy of rising above the standards of the past several decades.
Expand ...
The AP is a conglomeration of individual voters each with unique rankings based on individual standards. Those voters will follow that rule: you lose, you drop. Thus, we are absolutely going to move up on every single individual ballot. It's just that some of them have us behind teams that didn't lose (Kentucky, UNC), and unless they lose, we aren't jumping them. And on ballots that have us 6 or 7, it's possible they won't drop Purdue below us.

I find the conversation about where we land is interesting. I find the the "this thing that totally makes sense given the structure of the AP and the strangeness of the week which hasn't happened yet is totally a slight to UConn" conversation, um, bizarre.
 
Leebo said:
If you had a (somewhat unrealistically extreme) situation where #1 is 20-0 and #2 is 15-5, and the #1 team loses, so they're now 20-1 and #2 is now 16-5, are you arguing that even in that situation it would be disrespectful to the #2 team to not flip the rankings? I'm just making it more extreme to see if there's some limit to your position.

My position is that a reasonable person can look at two teams, Purdue and UConn, that both have 2 losses, and come to the conclusion that Purdue's record is slightly better, even though they have the most recent loss. If you think that would be an unreasonable position for an individual to have, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Expand ...

None of this really matters and we don’t know if any of this will even come to pass. The bottom line is that the pattern of the AP poll has been pretty consistent for as long as I’ve been paying attention. The pattern is broken from time to time but there’s usually a strong case to be made for it. I just don’t think Purdue is so good that they deserve to stay at #1 despite losing, therefore to me that feels more like a slight toward UConn, that’s all.
 
.-.
tzznandrew said:
Right now:

Purdue: 1566 (54)
Houston: 1486 (7)
Kansas: 1481 (2)
UConn: 1335 (0)

No on has UConn above 4 on their ballots. That will change, but it means we're not necessarily going to pick up a bunch of easy #1s on individual ballots.

3 voters have us #7, and UNC and Kentucky haven't lost, so you figure we're staying behind those two teams on those three ballots.

7 voters have us #6. In 6 of them, it's either Kentucky or UNC, so, again, we'll likely stay behind them. In one, it's both (they had Tennessee far lower).

Of the many voters that have us #5, most have Tennessee ahead of us. 4 have Kentucky ahead of us, 1 has Arizona, neither of whom have lost.

So I'd say of the 63 possible first place votes, we know for a fact that we aren't getting 15. For at least 4 ballots, we're highest #3. The odds that they'd jump their #7 team over a #1 team who lost is pretty low. Also, 4 -> 1 is a fairly large jump, especially since we didn't dominate that Xavier game.

My guess is some people will keep Purdue. Some analytic forward people will keep Houston. We'll move up across the board and have a range of votes ranging from 1-4 in voters. We may end up with the most #1 votes but end up #2 or even #3.

I'm beting UConn, Purdue, Houston, Kentucky, and UNC all get #1 votes.
Expand ...
I agree with everything you're saying here except for the UNC #1 vote piece. I'm not saying it won't happen but anyone voting them #1 should have their vote taken away. A 3 loss team all on neutrals should not get first place votes this early in the year especially when competing for the spot with 2 teams who have beaten them.
 
Blue Blood said:
I agree with everything you're saying here except for the UNC #1 vote piece. I'm not saying it won't happen but anyone voting them #1 should have their vote taken away. A 3 loss team all on neutrals should not get first place votes this early in the year especially when competing for the spot with 2 teams who have beaten them.
Expand ...
I agree that they shouldn't be #1, but Jon Wilner and Adam Cole have them at #4 with the only teams ahead of them being Purdue and Kansas and then Tennessee or Houston. By the logic we all have (UConn is #4, they should go to #1 because everyone ahead of them lost), you'd think they'd move UNC to #1. They were certainly more impressive than UConn this week, so if you had them ahead of Kentucky and UConn already (each who beat them), I can't see why you would change it now.

I wouldn't be surprised if Purdue stays #1 in those two polls, though.
 
uconn_jack said:
We should be #1 if we beat Gtown, and if the Kansas, Purdue, and Houston loses were this weekend, I'd be more confident. But unfortunately there's time for the other teams to "recover", especially Kansas if they beat ranked Oklahoma, and the writers just have a stiffy for Purdue for some reason. So if they all win this weekend, it would be close, but I could see it end up Kansas 1, Purdue 2, UConn 3, Houston 4 (or maybe 3). I could also see them slipping UK and UNC into the top 5 too.
Expand ...
Yeah , but don’t forget all 3 of those teams lost to unranked teams. Purdue got smacked by 16 and Houston was playing from behind the whole game against Iowa st. It wasn’t like one of these Teams lost at the buzzer to a top 10 team on the road. I think it will be a joke if we are not #1 if we beat gtown. I mean what more has to happen for god sakes ?
 
tzznandrew said:
The AP is a conglomeration of individual voters each with unique rankings based on individual standards. Those voters will follow that rule: you lose, you drop. Thus, we are absolutely going to move up on every single individual ballot. It's just that some of them have us behind teams that didn't lose (Kentucky, UNC), and unless they lose, we aren't jumping them. And on ballots that have us 6 or 7, it's possible they won't drop Purdue below us.

I find the conversation about where we land is interesting. I find the the "this thing that totally makes sense given the structure of the AP and the strangeness of the week which hasn't happened yet is totally a slight to UConn" conversation, um, bizarre.
Expand ...
You are correct sir, about all of it. I’ll be a man and admit that I am looking at a theoretical situation from too emotional a standpoint. I confess, I call my coffee table stupid when I stub my toe on it. I want us to be #1, because I think we’re the best team in the country, that’s the extent of it. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve exceeded my average of about 3 posts per season and my vital essence is completely drained.
 
JB75 said:
Yeah , but don’t forget all 3 of those teams lost to unranked teams. Purdue got smacked by 16 and Houston was playing from behind the whole game against Iowa st. It wasn’t like one of these Teams lost at the buzzer to a top 10 team on the road. I think it will be a joke if we are not #1 if we beat gtown. I mean what more has to happen for god sakes ?
Expand ...
I agree, but already many in the media are trying to make justifications why the other teams are better (particularly Purdue, and to a lesser degree KU since they beat us). I just have low confidence in enough of the AP writers to get it right, or at least be consistent with how they usually rank teams.
 
Htu
uconn_jack said:
I agree, but already many in the media are trying to make justifications why the other teams are better (particularly Purdue, and to a lesser degree KU since they beat us). I just have low confidence in enough of the AP writers to get it right, or at least be consistent with how they usually rank teams.
Expand ...
i hear ya. I Know how it is. Was just trying to draw some logic to it. Now if that was duke In uconns position , it would have been a no brainer for them to be #1 Monday. I just don’t understand the national medias Infatuation with the big 10. that conference hasnt made a deep tourney run in years(prolly since Frank kaminsky, Sam dekker wisconsin squad)And purdue got pounded by 16 points to Nebraska WITH edey!!!
 
.-.
Part of the issue is that the losses happened so early in the week. Houston and Purdue will have a chance to play another game, win big, and get back in some voters good graces. Individual voters may think it was just a blip.
I really wouldnt be surprised if we are 2 or even (less likely) 3 on Monday.

I know it's silly, but we don't play on ESPN. It hurts us with some voters.
 
mauconnfan said:
So Deep I go back to the Field House, the “Top25” as well as “Also ReceiviyVotes” days it was fun. In the 90s it was fun seeing where we were going to land no doubt. For me don’t care in January any more and even March because we can do it from anywhere. Is it a jinx per se to get to 1, nah but you can only lose from there so great if we are but let’s get healthy, take a couple bumps and then be the UConn no one wants in their region in a couple months that ball that matters.
Expand ...

This post is the reason why you don’t type in the mens room at Winnapaug CC getting things done during a frost delay. Add to that no reading glasses:eek::rolleyes:
 
If we lose to the Hoyas Sunday, we know who to hang
 
mauconnfan said:
This post is the reason why you don’t type in the mens room at Winnapaug CC getting things done during a frost delay. Add to that no reading glasses:eek::rolleyes:
Expand ...
I don't blame you, I blame the ridiculous 15 minute limit on editing policy of The Boneyard.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,289
Messages
4,561,592
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom