Just how bad is the bubble this year?

[uconngb]

IMO, we as fans, need to stop kidding ourselves about this team, even if that's what fans do. Do we have the talent to turn this around? Sure. But toughness, on court chemistry, basketball instincts, coachability, leadership, effort and intangibles are traits that don't just develop overnight.

How many games in a row do opponents have to drain threes on us before guys learn to rotate and hedge properly on screens? How many *king times are these kids going to look up at the ball, hoping it will land in their hands, only to have a stronger, hungrier opponent snatch it away from them? How many times are we going to pass the ball around on the perimeter without realizing that the best way to beat the zone is to get the ball to the middle? Jeez, these guys just played pretty damn well against the Syracuse zone and then they all look clueless when Providence plays a little zone on them.

Frankly, this team has absolutley no buisness playing in the tournament. The NCAA really needs to re-evaluate the system if this sorry group is even getting consideration.

Hell, maybe they beat Pitt and win one BE tournament game and sneak into the tournament. None of it matters to me, because for some of these guys, it looks like the season can't end soon enough. They have shown zero sign of improvement from the start of the season, they make the same mistakes over and over, and we still have guys bi*tching and moaning about the roles that should have been established a long time ago.

This team just doesn't get it. Last night is the last time this group will fool me. We need a makeover in the offseason. That doesn't mean the players need to be replaced, but these guys need an ego check. To borrow a phrase from Bill Simmons, The Disease of More has bitten this squad in the ass.

I nominate this as post of the year...spot on

 

[champs99and04]

Right, because objective measures are bad. Why not just make it a popularity contest like the BCS.

UConn is in the field right now and probably isn't even sweating it, but UConn can not lose again before Cincinnati in the second round of the BET. It is that simple.

While RPI and SOS are somewhat useful, I think the committee weighs them a little to heavily. As I've said before, you can easily game the RPI by playing a bunch of "tough cupcakes". I mean, the University of Vermont might be 20-13, and Binghampton might be 1-26, but in reality, those teams both have about a 1% chance of beating a legitimate top 5 team. A computer doesn't know that though, and it crunches the numbers accordingly.

The RPI is the reason we had teams like Clemson making the dance last year while deserving teams like Harvard and Wichita State went home. I think Bilas was spot on when he said this type of stuff is watering down the tournament. Do we really need a tenth team to the Big East in the dance? Personally, I'd rather let in a 3rd or 4th team from the MWC who beats the teams on their schedule but maybe doesn't have experience in gaming the RPI.

The bigger problem though, is the stupid decision to go from 64 to 65 and now to 68. What was the reason for this? $$$. Usually when decisions are driven by money (and most are) the quality begins to increase and things begin to make less and less sense. The tournament is at 68 teams right now (and growing) for the same reason an NBA team has Tyrus Thomas, Desagna Diop, and Corey Higgins playing major minutes right now. Greed decreases quality almost every time. And as you can see, not only has the tournament expansion cheapened the tournament (sorry, but nobody wants to watch VCU and Butler in the final four), but it has also decreased the meaning of the regular season, which is why some of us are still clinging to the hope that this bunch is going to rally the troops and make a run. Not gonna happen.

Of course, with all that said, the biggest problem in college basketball right now is roster instability. The roster turnover year to year is way too high. AAU, recruiting services, boosters, you name it...have been feeding into these kids egos, which is why we seem to see more transfers than ever in todays game. JMO

 

[champs99and04]

I nominate this as post of the year...spot on

Thanks, I really do like these group of kids, but that's what they are, kids. If UConn doesn't make the tournament for ten years, I'll always be thankful for the championship that they won. That said, when 18-20 year old kids are getting smoke blown up their asses by their peers for a full eight months, a lot of these guys are going to lose some of that team concept, even if it happens unconsciously. Hopefully Calhoun is back soon to tell them how much they suck.

 

[UConn5]

I think Lunardi is giving UConn's SOS a lot more weight than the committee will. It feels like this team hasn't won a game since the new year (I know that isn't true). I am praying that JC can figure something out so they can beat Pitt and win two games in the BET to make me feel comfortable.

 

[Prezidint]

Frankly, I find it preposterous that we're even being considered.
Forget SOS and all that crap. How about the trend?

In our last 16 games we are 5 and 11.
In our last 12 we are 3 and 9.

3 and 9!! We lose 3 for every 1 we win!

It's insanity that we're being considered based upon the apparent statistical anomaly that we're getting pounded by really good teams.

It's like saying, "I'm a better boxer than him because I got beat by Klitschko and he got beat by some unranked bum."

There should be a premium placed on how a team is doing down the stretch and also on whether a team is in a winning habit.

From a pure basketball fan perspective, I'd rather see a mid-major with a winning record in its conference get a shot than a powerhouse that's playing like garbage.

Man - if somebody told me that any team would get in as an unranked team that has just gone either 3 and 9 in its conference to wrap up the year I'd declare that an injustice, unless some injured guy was coming back.

 

[zls44]

It does not matter one iota when UConn played game x versus game y. 3-9 does not matter and does not get considered.

Hey, I'm not saying it's right, but the truth is UConn is still very safely in at the moment. It's a crappy year. If Drexel doesn't get in but UConn does, Drexel has a legit argument, but it is the way it is.

 

[Inyatkin]

Who ever thought they'd see a time when people would be arguing why we definitely shouldn't even be considered, and the voice of reason guys would say, "Sorry guys, we're in"

 

[NHUConnfan]

On sheer number of top 50 wins, we're in. It sounds ridiculous...but it's the fact.

As far as this team goes, yeah...I don't think they get it. But after watching the first half of Cincy v. Marquette, I now see that our guards just don't drive the ball to the hoop. Kemba did that last year. Hell, Shabazz did that last year. We simply don't do that anymore because our guards are enamored at the possibility of an alley-oop rather than driving in down the lane.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

From a pure basketball fan perspective, I'd rather see a mid-major with a winning record in its conference get a shot than a powerhouse that's playing like garbage.

Maybe Uconn should be trying to join the CAA instead of the ACC. That way we can play Towson and Deleware a couple times per year, get our guaranteed 24 wins, and have everyone argue that we should make the tournament because, hey, we'd be a "hungry mid major team that deserves a shot".

The statistics that the Committee uses are skewed in favor of major conference teams because they should be. When VCU plays middle of the road CAA teams, they play Northeastern and James Madison. Middle of the road in our league is Cincinnatti and West Virginia.

 

[8893]

When so-called "fans" of our team fail to appreciate the significance of simply making the NCAA tournament--no matter what the circumstances or seed--and some are actively arguing against it, one has to wonder whether it's the players or the fan base whose asses have been bitten harder by "The Disease of More."

I don't care what you think of this squad of kids and all the judgments you have projected on them; when you start to think that you don't want them to make the NCAAs, you have stopped understanding what is good for the program (assuming you ever did in the first place).

 

[freescooter]

As I said, the RPI is merely a fancier BCS. For proof you need look no further than last year's Tournament. The great and powerful 11 bid Big East got as many teams into the Sweet 16 as the CAA. Look att the Sweet 16 and you had 2 11s, a 12, an 8 and a 10. No systemm that works even reasonably well should result in that much of a misfire. It badly unvalues mid-mjaors and overvalues modest teams from big conferences. it isn't "as it should be" it is a function of the way the formula is written, specifically to overvalue certain things and undervalue others.

 

[bobbygt]

When so-called "fans" of our team fail to appreciate the significance of simply making the NCAA tournament--no matter what the circumstances or seed--and some are actively arguing against it, one has to wonder whether it's the players or the fan base whose asses have been bitten harder by "The Disease of More."

I don't care what you think of this squad of kids and all the judgments you have projected on them; when you start to think that you don't want them to make the NCAAs, you have stopped understanding what is good for the program (assuming you ever did in the first place).

My guess is that every single one of the posters who say, "Uconn doesn't deserve to get in," are merely frustrated that the team consistently fails to win must win games.

It's sorta like arguing with your partner and saying things that don't really make sense or you're just bluffing so as not to be too passive.

I'm almost 100% sure that all of them really really want uconn in the tournament and would give their third nut (or their other pair of ovaries) to ensure that the huskies get in.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The fact is, missing the Tournament this year would be a colossal embarrassment for our program and merely getting in would erase a lot of the negativity.

 

[freescooter]

Missing the tournament would be no worse than missing it in 2010, or not even getting an NIT bid in 2007...You get in because you earn it. You think UCONN has earned it this year? Seriously?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

As I said, the RPI is merely a fancier BCS. For proof you need look no further than last year's Tournament. The great and powerful 11 bid Big East got as many teams into the Sweet 16 as the CAA. Look att the Sweet 16 and you had 2 11s, a 12, an 8 and a 10. No systemm that works even reasonably well should result in that much of a misfire. It badly unvalues mid-mjaors and overvalues modest teams from big conferences. it isn't "as it should be" it is a function of the way the formula is written, specifically to overvalue certain things and undervalue others.

The fact that 10, 11, and 12 seeds made the Sweet Sixteen is a function of the parity in today's game and the fact that it's a single elimination tournament -not a function of teams being seeded or added to the field incorrectly. It's the reason why the tournament is as great as it is - the very nature of the system (single elimination, neutral courts) increases the chances of upsets happening.

Further, you mention that those higher seeded Sweet Sixteen teams were seeded incorrectly since the system "undervalues mid majors and overvalues modest big conference teams." Yet you leave out the fact that two of those higher seeded teams were Marquette and Florida State.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Missing the tournament would be no worse than missing it in 2010, or not even getting an NIT bid in 2007...You get in because you earn it. You think UCONN has earned it this year? Seriously?

No. You get in because you have one of the best 37 at-large profiles in the country.

If Uconn meets that criteria, they get in. It's that simple.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Missing the tournament would be no worse than missing it in 2010, or not even getting an NIT bid in 2007...You get in because you earn it. You think UCONN has earned it this year? Seriously?

Coming off a championship with all these returning players, receiving truckloads of negative press with the media and fans nation-wide openly rooting against us, I think this would be worse than not making the Tournament in 2010 or 2007.

And like other posters are saying, I definitely don't think we've "earned" it, but we have a better profile than most bubble teams and I don't care how we get in as long as we do.

 

[freescooter]

No. You get in because you have one of the best 37 at-large profiles in the country.

If Uconn meets that criteria, they get in. It's that simple.

So we've established that its the BCS...

 

[HuskyBballFan]

So we've established that its the BCS...

Yes, the BCS uses a flawed computerized system just like the RPI. But that's where the comparisons end.

The BCS system gives TWO teams the chance to actually play for the National Championship. The NCAA selection committee gives 68 teams a chance.

 

[tzznandrew]

Yes, the BCS uses a flawed computerized system just like the RPI. But that's where the comparisons end.

The BCS system gives TWO teams the chance to actually play for the National Championship. The NCAA selection committee gives 68 teams a chance.

The last teams left out are not going to win the title. There have been many OOC games as well. Just not the case with football. In the BCS, we don't really know if the 8th best team is the best team--just like in basketball. A number of 2-3 seeds win it all the time.

 

[champs99and04]

When so-called "fans" of our team fail to appreciate the significance of simply making the NCAA tournament--no matter what the circumstances or seed--and some are actively arguing against it, one has to wonder whether it's the players or the fan base whose asses have been bitten harder by "The Disease of More."

I don't care what you think of this squad of kids and all the judgments you have projected on them; when you start to think that you don't want them to make the NCAAs, you have stopped understanding what is good for the program (assuming you ever did in the first place).

We're not in the 80's anymore. Of course I have been spoiled by the success of this program, but as a program striving to become a blue blood, making the tournament does not carry much significance. You could say, "well, maybe not, but it would be a huge embarassment if we missed it", to which I'd argue that missing the tournament in 2007 and 2010 only made the program stronger, in an odd sort of way. There is really no difference to me between missing the tournament entirely, and limping in as a 12 seed to lose in a first round game.

Under the current criteria, you could argue that UConn should get in, and you might be right. But do these guys really deserve it? I think they answered that question pretty emphaticly on Tuesday night.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

We're not in the 80's anymore. Of course I have been spoiled by the success of this program, but as a program striving to become a blue blood, making the tournament does not carry much significance. You could say, "well, maybe not, but it would be a huge embarassment if we missed it", to which I'd argue that missing the tournament in 2007 and 2010 only made the program stronger, in an odd sort of way. There is really no difference to me between missing the tournament entirely, and limping in as a 12 seed to lose in a first round game.

Under the current criteria, you could argue that UConn should get in, and you might be right. But do these guys really deserve it? I think they answered that question pretty emphaticly on Tuesday night.

I'm not sure how you could ever prove that to actually be true. The Price/Adrien/Thabeet group was better after 2007 because they stayed together for 2 years after that and turned into a junior/senior dominated team in 2009. You can say that they were "extra motivated after missing the tourny" but do you really think making the tournament in 2007 would have been bad for that group?

I truly and honestly don't know how someone can call themselves a fan of a college basketball team and be indifferent as to whether or not they make the NCAA tournament. That simply does not compute on any level.

 

[caw]

As I said, the RPI is merely a fancier BCS. For proof you need look no further than last year's Tournament. The great and powerful 11 bid Big East got as many teams into the Sweet 16 as the CAA. Look att the Sweet 16 and you had 2 11s, a 12, an 8 and a 10. No systemm that works even reasonably well should result in that much of a misfire. It badly unvalues mid-mjaors and overvalues modest teams from big conferences. it isn't "as it should be" it is a function of the way the formula is written, specifically to overvalue certain things and undervalue others.

There is a huge problem with this argument. RPI is a component (main maybe but not sole) for who makes the tournament and seeding. When looking at last year's Tournament, one shouldn't look at it and say "X, Y, Z" didn't live up to their seeding, but rather look at it as "who should have gotten in instead that looked like they could win the whole thing".

There is no "good" way to measure who is on the right side and who is on the wrong side. RPI does a decent job of separating teams but even NCAA members ignore it for what they perceive as correct (ie VCU over other teams last year).

31 teams earn their way into the NCAAT and 37 are just who the committee feel are the most deserving left. It's rare where you can point to a team that didn't make the NCAA's and say, "They could have won 6 games" or look at a full bracket and say "the best team isn't in it this year". The BCS is consistent in having teams left out who "could" win the big game or look like the "best" team in the country.

 

[freescooter]

I think you missed my point. It really isn't about the makeup of the tournament vs the BCS game. It is that the system used is equally flawed, though in a different way. It badly overvalues Strength of schedule to the point where it rewards teams for losing. That makes zero sense. And it creates a circular logic where the big east teams have the toughest schedules, thus making the big East the best conference, thus making Big East teams play the toughest schedule which makes the Big East the toughest conference...Strength of schedule basically accounts for 75% of the RPI. So it overrates major conference teams and underrates mid-majors and let's face it, if you are a mid-major, a CAA team for example, you simply aren't going to play as many games against Top 50 teams, you'll probably play them on the road (RPI doen't account for this) and you'll probably also play them very early before you've totally gotten into a groove.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think you missed my point. It really isn't about the makeup of the tournament vs the BCS game. It is that the system used is equally flawed, though in a different way. It badly overvalues Strength of schedule to the point where it rewards teams for losing. That makes zero sense. And it creates a circular logic where the big east teams have the toughest schedules, thus making the big East the best conference, thus making Big East teams play the toughest schedule which makes the Big East the toughest conference...Strength of schedule basically accounts for 75% of the RPI. So it overrates major conference teams and underrates mid-majors and let's face it, if you are a mid-major, a CAA team for example, you simply aren't going to play as many games against Top 50 teams, you'll probably play them on the road (RPI doen't account for this) and you'll probably also play them very early before you've totally gotten into a groove.

Unless something has changed, it absolutely accounts for R/N/H games.

A road win is 1.3 wins, a road loss 0.6--and vice versa for home games.

Also, how is SOS composed? A team's adjusted W/L record. So if the CAA went out and won a bunch of games, they'd bring those wins back to the conference. There's nothing inherently unfair about this (especially after the home-road adjustment).

What is unfair is those top teams feel little incentive to play mid-to-low majors in road games. But that's not the RPI's fault.

Also, 25% is your own W/L record. A loss hurts that more than adding Syacuse's 30 wins to the 900 games that go in SOS. It just makes the loss hurt less than a loss to Columbia. As it should.

It's not the best system, but not as bad or biased as you're making it seem.