South Carolina Schedule

[cockhrnleghrn]

And Piscataway

Well, I grew up about 8 miles from Piscataway...

Besides, nothing vile comes out of my mouth, I simply point out things. Poor players that can't shoot free throws or get in foul trouble, especially.

 

[Zorro]

Five will get you ten he will not hear a word you say.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

TX was ranked #3 and talked about as one of the elite teams in WCBB in 2014-2015 and as of tonight they've lost to Iowa Stare and Oklahoma! Not two of the "watch out for these two at Tournament time"! It seems you're only as HOT as tonight's game!
I still feel like Tonyc that all things being equal UCONN has more to work with than any other team in the nation! Now that they got their "Stanford game" out of their systems they're more focused and know their personal roles on the team! They are imo 20 to 30 points better than SoCar!
Teams don't go from having potential to National Champions overnight, they have to suffer a little then work to the top!
Dawn Staley's statement that, "I bring something to the table that neither Geno or Pat has brought, I played and had success at the highest level and that gives me the edge!" That bothers me, as just because someone was an elite player doesn't necessarily mean they can be an elite coach! Geno wasn't an elite player but he sure is an elite coach!

 

[DobbsRover2]

TX was ranked #3 and talked about as one of the elite teams in WCBB in 2014-2015 and as of tonight they've lost to Iowa Stare and Oklahoma! Not two of the "watch out for these two at Tournament time"! It seems you're only as HOT as tonight's game!
I still feel like Tonyc that all things being equal UCONN has more to work with than any other team in the nation! Now that they got their "Stanford game" out of their systems they're more focused and know their personal roles on the team! They are imo 20 to 30 points better than SoCar!
Teams don't go from having potential to National Champions overnight, they have to suffer a little then work to the top!
Dawn Staley's statement that, "I bring something to the table that neither Geno or Pat has brought, I played and had success at the highest level and that gives me the edge!" That bothers me, as just because someone was an elite player doesn't necessarily mean they can be an elite coach! Geno wasn't an elite player but he sure is an elite coach!

As always these days, there is a slide show for Former NBA Players Who Flopped as Head Coaches, and though some on the list like Kurt Rambis are not exactly Hall of Fame types even if they epitomized a true warrior, others like Kidd, Reed, Cousy, Thomas, Unseld, and Baylor are legends of the game. There are a number of other legends who were unsuccessful coaches who didn't make that list, although Magic Johnson had the sense to bow out after 13 games.

Three guys who were certainly at least very good players and who have been great coaches are Riley, Jackson, and Wilkens, plus Bird did well in the three seasons he coached. But in general, I'd rather have a Kevin Ollie type as my team's coach.

 

[j66kicker]

Dawn Staley's statement that, "I bring something to the table that neither Geno or Pat has brought, I played and had success at the highest level and that gives me the edge!" That bothers me, as just because someone was an elite player doesn't necessarily mean they can be an elite coach! Geno wasn't an elite player but he sure is an elite coach!

IMO that was a recruiting ploy. Probably a pretty good one ("I can relate to great players as a great player myself.")

 

[EricSD]

I have no issue with SC's SOS or even who they schedule. The issue I have is how annoying it is to hear people (not you, mind you...) go on and on about what a great team they were last year in earning the 1 seed, and how they are going to give UCONN all they can handle because they brought everyone back. My point is they were not a great team last year - they flamed out in the sweet 16. So they were anywhere between a top 10-15 team. And they earned a 1 seed apparently because they had a GREAT record, but again, they did not play a single top 10 team... (was Tennessee or Kentucky top 10 last year?)

Some people (not you) talk about how their starting 5 is going to give UCONN fits. Blah blah. It's my personal opinion that there is really zero "proof" that SC is a top team (yet). Last year they didn't beat a single top 10 team. This year they beat Duke when they were #9 and Kentucky when they were #10, but those teams are barely in the top 15 now. They needed a miracle to beat Duke, and Kentucky was not a decisive win. Are they both REALLY top 10 teams? For SOS sure it counts, but who else?

UCONN plays SC, Duke, Stanford, and Notre Dame. I bet that by the end of the year SC's SOS will be better than UCONN's. But when you look at the margin of victory against "top" programs, it's a pretty cavernous divide. I'm of the opinion that UCONN wins by at least 20 over SC. BUT the great thing is that they game will be played so all the suppositions and assumptions will be addressed on the court!

 

[DobbsRover2]

CLE, agree with a lot of your points and ranking relevancy, but you are being a little slippery in your factoids (and as one who also picks and chooses, I admire the artistry).

1. Using the final 2014 AP poll allows you to skirt the Tourney action, where we all know the SEC goes whoopsie quite a bit. Maybe the USA Today poll would be a better one to cite for end of year final rankings since it includes the Tournament and shows which teams were exposed. UTenn hung on in the top 10 to finish at #8, falling back 5 spots, but UK drifted to #11. So technically they were not both top 10 teams. But I would agree it's a minor point, as they were both close.

2. USCar played KY three times, and the Cats were ranked #9, #15, and #12. So why don't we just average it out and say they were a #12 team (or #11 by the final ranking) instead of the #9 you want to push? I know that means the Wildcats were not a top ten team last year, but c'mon, a team that lost to Alabama and to Florida twice just should not be considered top 10 material, even if it is from the hallowed SEC where road apples always smell like chocolate.

3. Determining an opponent's true value during a season is always tough and it is a value that can change hugely over the course of 5 months. Teams can get credit for playing a season's end tough team even though the game was played in November when the opponent was a mess, or conversely they can play a team like maybe a Stanford this year that was tough early and then faded and look like they got an easy game when the season's tally was made. I would certainly not say that USCar will have played an easy schedule by the end of the season even if my view of the SEC competition is likely many levels below what you see it as, but the fact is that up to now USCar has not played much of anything when it is ranked #1 in both polls (Sagarin SOS of #42 is very very poor, just ask the Summiteers). The future is the future, and if USCar is undefeated in early March after playing a decent SOS, then sure, they will deserve all accolades. But most of us here are talking about what has happened till now. Fact is, USCar has not played that testy part of the schedule yet, and if they do have some missteps in the SEC, most of what's discussed here becomes kind of moot.

4. Let's not get too screechy excited about LSU which is still just 4-3 in it's "surge" period, with two wins over bad Vandy and FL teams. The last two wins were over a Miss. State team that has played a #175 SOS this year and is ready to do an SEC swan dive as the froth part of schedule gets a little tougher, and a home win over a KY team that just had lost their point guard Janee Thompson. Really, are we supposed to be impressed? LSU, the team that lost to Tulane from that AAC conference you despise? And to #184 rated Santa Clara? The team that is #68 in Sagarin and is 2-6 against the top 50? I really hope that the SEC is not pinning too much of its self-worth on LSU.

 

[EricSD]

At the time USC played them, yes they were: UK was 9th-ranked the 1st time, and UT was 10th-ranked. They both finished as top-10 ranked teams in the final AP poll last season...



Based on that reasoning, UConn played Notre Dame who is a top-10 opponent, but that's it. Neither Stanford nor Duke are now top-10 ranked teams. And Depaul - one of the ranked OOC opponents UConn played this season, isn't even in the top-25 any more. They were given one single vote of consideration in Monday's AP poll.

That leaves just Stanford, Notre Dame, Duke, and USC as possible ranked opponents UConn will play this season, until the NCAAT. USC has already played 3 top-25 ranked opponents, and as I posted above still have 6 more ranked opponents left to play, with half of them top-10 ranked. That doesn't exactly make USC's schedule look weak by comparison, by any measure IMO...



That may well be, but again I'm addressing the perception of USC's schedule being so much weaker than UConn's that seems to be pervasive on this site. Similar to the pervasive notion of the SEC as a conference being such a weaker conference than it appears to be. Based on current polls, USC is set to finish it's regular season having played against NINE (9) top-25 ranked opponents, compared to UConn having played against FOUR (4) top-25 ranked opponents. True either Syracuse or UGA could fall out of the rankings, but that would still be 7 versus 4, with possible more ranked opponents awaiting in the SECT.

And LSU is currently surging up the rankings and could crack the top-25 before we play them, if they continue at their current pace. Either way, whether it's 9 to 4 or 7 to 4, it's a clear advantage to USC. But USC is playing a much weaker, or less-relevant schedule compared to UConn?? Does that make sense?

SC played a complete cream puff schedule last year. If not for Tennessee and Kentucky, they would have had zero tough games. You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying SC did not deserve a 1 seed based on the plethora of wins. I'm also not saying SC does not deserve to be ranked #1 this year. I'm saying last year they were not a top 4 team - barely in the top 16 is what they were. And they are no where near as good as UCONN based on their anemic performances against either identical competition, or similar competition with their margins of victory. And it's no different this year.

Just to me clear, my comments have zero to do with the SOS. They have everything to do with how good SC is compared to UCONN. I am still of the opinion that the gap is wide.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Sorry, but if a team finishes ranked in the top 10 of a poll, then that team was a top-10 ranked team at the end of its season. I mean, it's the definition of what it is, isn't it? Of course there's TWO different polls, but even if there are TEN (10) different polls, and one of those polls ranked a team in it's top-10, then that team finished its season as a top-10 ranked team. And that's technically. Isn't that 1+1 = 2 kinda stuff there, as a definition? I mean, if a prospect was rated a 5-star by a rating service, but a 4-star by another service or by other services, then that prospect was TECHNICALLY a 5-star rated prospect. That's how those prospects are always regarded.

A college FB team is ranked in the top-10 of the AP but 12th in the Coaches Poll, they are always referred to as a top-10 ranked team by its AD, its university, and its fanbase. Because it is TECHNICALLY correct. Being ranked something else by another ranking poll doesn't change that (although a lot of schools would then refer to their team as the 10/12 ranked team, or similar. But all that is saying is that their team is ranked 10th AND 12th, at the same time).

You can of course place high value/credibility in one poll over the other, but now you're talking about subjectivity, not technicality. If UConn was ranked #1 by the AP but #2 by the Coaches, I can bet someone $$ that you'd put higher value in the AP over the Coaches, but that's OK. It's what fans do. But it certainly doesn't make it technical, lol...



I was referring to eric's argument that a team that's ranked "X" at the time of being played, and then is ranked "Y" at a later time, negates that team's "X" ranking at the time it was played. And I can agree with that. However, if said team is still ranked "X" at the end of the season when there are no more games to be played and nothing left to impact that ranking, then it's the inverse to his argument, and therefore the team that was ranked "X" at the time of being played is still ranked "X", and thus that "X" ranking is a legitimate ranking. I'm not "pushing" anything: both teams were ranked in the top-10 at the end of the season, so it's a TECHNICAL ranking, and not a theoretical ranking. I'm basing this on the generally accepted notion that the polls dictate the rankings of these teams, and the public accepts the poll rankings as legitimate.



But that's not what ericsandiego was talking about, and therefore not what my response to him is talking about. I have read many posts on this site that refers to USC's schedule as a whole - and not what they have played thus far - in referencing USC's schedule. So this point is irrelevant.



I haven't implied that anyone should be anything over LSU - do and be whatever YOU feel you should do and be over them, and please don't put words into my mouth. I said LSU COULD (or may) crack the top-25. That means that it also COULD NOT (or may not). LSU didn't have a single vote in last week's polls, but now they are just outside the top-30 for the AP, and just inside the top-40 of the Coaches polls. Another week's leap like they had last week, and they'll move up another 5 spots or so. So we debate on the semantics of the word "surge". Who cares?

Okay, but still that's all slippery, slippery, slippery.

1. The "end of season" to you as a USCar fan is mid March when the final AP poll is posted and before Tournament play begins. You have to understand that Husky fans refer to the end of the season as early April, because that's when the Huskies' season always ends. It is the Coaches poll that includes the Tournament, and no, KY was not a top 10 team in that poll. Close, but no banana slugs. And UTenn was not the #3 team at the end of the season that Husky fans refer to, the one that includes Tournament performance.

2. Eric may or may not have been referring to the Gamecocks' schedule for the whole season, but to this point the rankings are only based on the games that USCar has played, and those have not been particularly taxing, and I'm sure at least some of the old guard UTenn fans are seething that a team with a #44 rated SOS can be a #1 team since they used to spew endlessly about UConn's "creampuff" schedule when it was anywhere from #2 at best to #19 at worst during the early 2000s.

3. Not sure what you were saying about LSU, but you certainly seemed to be getting pretty excited about them. As noted, if a team that loses to #184 Santa Clara can make it into the rankings, then we will know that the AP poll is owned by the officials of the SEC conference. Yes, it could happen, but the truth of the ownership shall be revealed.

 

[EricSD]

USC's schedule was ranked within or at the top-25 last season. It may not have been #1-seed worthy, but it wasn't "complete cream puff", as you say. But it's only your opinion, and that's OK. It's just not supported with facts: only your highly subjective perspective, which is common for typical sports fans....

Well clearly discussing with you is like pissing in the wind, but that's typical for opposing fan bases. Oh, and yeah, my opinions are based on facts. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I never said SC did not deserve a 1 seed. I've said over and over again, but will repeat once more so maybe it will sink in. SC is not on the same level as UCONN. They weren't even close last year in spite of the hysteria some of the media had in talking about them as a 1 seed. Unfortunately the teams did not get a chance to play.

This year, many people talked about how "great" SC was last year and how they bring everyone back so they should be close to UCONN's level. I don't just point to the cream puff schedule - (OOC) last year and this year. I point to the margin of victory (oops more of those pesky facts). In comparing common opponents, or similar opponents (USF to Syracuse for example - USF was just in the top 25 before UCONN beat them).

SC beat Duke by 1 point. they beat Syracuse by 4. UCONN beat Duke by 31. They beat USF by 42.

Auburn - probably comparable to ECU in the American. SC beat Auburn by 18. UCONN beat ECU by 50. See where I'm going with all of this? And it's not just like SC had one close game with a "less than" opponent. SC just played an 11-8 Missou team (1-5 in the SEC) and beat them by 11. That would be like UCONN beating Temple by 11.

I have no issue with how Dawn schedules the OOC schedule. I have no issue with them being undefeated. I even have no issue with them being ranked #1. I draw the line at the argument that the teams are "equal". IMHO they are very far from equal. IMHO UCONN will win by at least 20. Then we can finally put to bed all the "SC is as good as UCONN" discussion.

Or... SC will beat UCONN (or it will be a nail biter), then I will readily admit that I was wrong about them...

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

Well clearly discussing with you is like pissing in the wind, but that's typical for opposing fan bases. Oh, and yeah, my opinions are based on facts. Sorry to rain on your parade.

I never said SC did not deserve a 1 seed. I've said over and over again, but will repeat once more so maybe it will sink in. SC is not on the same level as UCONN. They weren't even close last year in spite of the hysteria some of the media had in talking about them as a 1 seed. Unfortunately the teams did not get a chance to play.

This year, many people talked about how "great" SC was last year and how they bring everyone back so they should be close to UCONN's level. I don't just point to the cream puff schedule - (OOC) last year and this year. I point to the margin of victory (oops more of those pesky facts). In comparing common opponents, or similar opponents (USF to Syracuse for example - USF was just in the top 25 before UCONN beat them).

SC beat Duke by 1 point. they beat Syracuse by 4. UCONN beat Duke by 31. They beat USF by 42.

Auburn - probably comparable to ECU in the American. SC beat Auburn by 18. UCONN beat ECU by 50. See where I'm going with all of this? And it's not just like SC had one close game with a "less than" opponent. SC just played an 11-8 Missou team (1-5 in the SEC) and beat them by 11. That would be like UCONN beating Temple by 11.

I have no issue with how Dawn schedules the OOC schedule. I have no issue with them being undefeated. I even have no issue with them being ranked #1. I draw the line at the argument that the teams are "equal". IMHO they are very far from equal. IMHO UCONN will win by at least 20. Then we can finally put to bed all the "SC is as good as UCONN" discussion.

Or... SC will beat UCONN (or it will be a nail biter), then I will readily admit that I was wrong about them...

The real question is whether many people will care about our game on the 9th besides our 2 passionate fan bases.

 

[EricSD]

The real question is whether many people will care about our game on the 9th besides our 2 passionate fan bases.

Good one! Honestly, WCBB lags far behind MCBB in national interest, and I think it's terrific that teams like Texas, SC, UCLA, and several others have "burst" onto the scene. L'ville and Baylor (altho Baylor has been there before)....as well. Schools like ISU, Purdue, and several others have always had good attendance, and therefore good interest IMHO but the more interest there is in "local schools", I think the more fans will care about the apparent top 2 teams in the nation meeting.

ESPN will likely care about it too - I bet it gets a snippet on Sportsline (or whatever it's called...)...

 

[EricSD]

Discussions like "pissing in the wind", as you say? The question is, where is the piss originating from? I never said that you said USC "did not deserve a 1 seed". You know that, right? I said that USC "may not have been #1-seed worthy". That's MY opinion, not yours. Posters on this site make it a habit of putting words into others' mouths in order to gain strength in their own arguments, it seems to me. Did it just happen again?

Please post one or more of those "facts" that USC's schedule last season overall was "a complete cream puff schedule". Thank you.

I also very well understand that you think USC is not on the same level as UConn. I never even came close to implying that I thought you thought otherwise. Why would I, as often as you repeat it like a mantra? More of those words into my mouth at work here? In fact what you haven't figured out yet is that I myself haven't ever made the implication on this site that I MYSELF thought USC was on the same level as UConn. Maybe I do, and maybe I don't. I never made a declarative statement either way. Not on this site, at least. So speaking of things sinking in, give that one a try why don't ya!



Ahh, there we have it! Good move on your part! A neat little shift in time, so to speak. A slight revision of history. Clever maneuver I must say!

So now we have this: "(OOC)". See what you did there? I see it too.

So before it was just USC's schedule last season being a "complete cream puff", and NOW it's USC's "(OOC)" schedule last year being "a complete cream puff". Nice move I will say. Even though I already quoted your above post, and you cannot change my quoted post like you might change yours. And you weren't referring about "(OOC)" schedules when you implied cream puff - you referred to USC's ENTIRE schedule last season. But good try there....

If you're now talking about USC's "(OOC)" schedule last season, when I very clearly have been referring to their entire 2013-14 schedule, then we're not arguing the same thing now, are we? I already stated in my initial post above: "USC's OOC schedule last season wasn't very strong, this is true". I pretty much agreed with you on OOC schedule. But you and I WERE debating the ENTIRE USC schedule.

So this is your representation of a "fact": "I point to the margin of victory (oops more of those pesky facts). In comparing common opponents, or similar opponents (USF to Syracuse for example - USF was just in the top 25 before UCONN beat them)"

Haha. So the transitive property argument is now fact? And similar opponents? Similar to what? And who establishes this basis? Sure doesn't sound "factual" to me.



Yes, I see all too well where this is going, unfortunately. Back to the same ol' same ol' of highly biased, subjective reasoning to make ones argument. I thought you mentioned "facts" at one point in time - was your "fact" the "(OOC)" maneuver? Do you have a real fact, or facts, to offer? Still waiting...

So you're back to talking about MOV? Aren't RPIs and SOS utilizing MOV in some fashion in the equations? If they aren't, is it because MOV isn't regarded as highly as you like it to be? Either way, isn't MOV already being accounted for? And you now compare Auburn to East Carolina: is this one of your "facts"?

You say you "draw the line" at the debate that the teams are "equal". But I have presented NO position that the teams are equal. My argument (at least in this thread) was in counter to various posts about USC's schedule being a "crap schedule last year and similar this year" and of last season's schedule being a "complete cream puff" schedule. You counter with subjective points that have nothing to do with my points, and start all the typical subjective basis that passes as "facts" here like margin of victory of Team A over Team B compared to margin of victory of Team C over Team D, etc. So what are we debating about? I am confused - it don't look like what I intended it to be...

Honestly, I'm bored with this whole thing. Feel free to continue going on and on and on if you like. I maintain that SC is nowhere near as good as UCONN and that's all i've been saying over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet you keep arguing about everything under the sun. Honestly, I didn't even bother reading your entire post, frankly because I'm bored with the whole discussion. Thank you for your interest in UCONN basketball. Oh, and by the way if the exact scores I listed aren't facts enough for you, then you need a reading comprehension course.

Oh, almost forgot - you have your panties in a twist over my reference to SC's cream puff schedule. How many OOC games were against top 10 teams? top 25 teams? last year there was exactly 1 - UNC. the rest of the schedule was against the likes of Charleston Southern and Winthrop and NC Central and South Caroline State and Savannah. There were about 7 or 8 other OOC games just like that.

 

[EricSD]

It's cool that you maintain what you maintain. I have never and would never try to debate against one's subjective opinion, as that has been proven long, long ago by many people much smarter than I ever will be to be a fruitless endeavor. But when one wants their opinion to be regarded as factual, IMO they need to be able to hold fact within it. And then one should be able to present those facts as easily as they present their opinion(s). But as we've seen here, in this case it wasn't all that easy to do, was it?

Signing out of this debate....

You keep saying I presented no facts LOL. I said over and over and over - and I don't know how to say it any plainer. I gavea facts. Scores against common opponents, margins of victories over similar opponents, and then pointed out SC's OOC schedule of the Savannah State's of the world, and sans UNC, was a complete cream puff schedule. I'm sorry if the facts are unpleasant or if the truth hurts, but there it is.

So I'll try one last time. My opinion of SC's OOC cream puff schedule last year is based on the facts of the teams they played...

 

[toadfoot]

With regards to Kentucky, don't tell that to Matthew Mitchell. He considers them a legit top team this year.

Much has been made of SC's schedule, especially last year - they backed into a 1 seed in the NCAA's because they hardly lost any games, and then went out and lost in the sweet 16. Borderline top 10-15 team, not a top 4 team. Lots said this year that they would mount a serious challenge to UCONN because they brought everyone back...

But some of us said - "wait - crap schedule last year and similar this year". Not only will they not be challenged, but their record will be inflated because of the easy schedule. AND they had some less than impressive victories over teams not that good this year. I believe SC loses to UCONN by at least 20 and the argument that they are a legit NC contender will be put to bed.

As for challenging themselves, they will probably argue that they have been challenged. Kentucky gave them a good game but I tend to agree that Kentucky is a border line top 15 team. There is big drop off after UCONN, then after a few other top teams. A team that is outside the top 10-15 wont be challenging for anything the last weekend of the year...

Not that polls really matter this time of year, but the only reason South Carolina is currently #1 is because the pollsters gave them an abnormally high ranking based upon last year's ranking, which as you correctly point out, was grossly inflated by a weak schedule and thus the early exit from the NCAA's.

I get the SECN and have seen a number of SEC games and the overarching impression is that nearly ALL the SEC teams are offensively challenged and top to bottom the league has a great deal of parity, but the top tier teams are mostly paper tigers.

 

[EricSD]

Not that polls really matter this time of year, but the only reason South Carolina is currently #1 is because the pollsters gave them an abnormally high ranking based upon last year's ranking, which as you correctly point out, was grossly inflated by a weak schedule and thus the early exit from the NCAA's..

Well that and the fact that they haven't lost any games yet!

 

[EricSD]

Well, I do admire your perseverance on the matter. Let's recap:

1 - You present transitive property argument as fact. Margin of victory of one team compared to margin of victory of another team over same or similar opponent is the definition of transitive property argument. Transitive property argument is NOT fact, nor is it truth.

2 - You again refer to your NEW position of USC's OOC schedule last season as being weak. That was NOT your initial position - it was USC's ENTIRE schedule last season, not it's OOC schedule, that you described as "complete cream puff". So therefore you changed your position, rather than defend your initial one.

Thank you...

Are you being serious? Just wow. Again you completely missed the point I was making. So let's recap.

Do you deny that SC had a creampuff OOC schedule? I didn't think so. By the way, now many top 10 teams did SC beat last year? Yeah, I thought so...And you have switched your arguments at least 3 times. Now it appears you acknowledge the facts I provided in spite of being wrong and going on and on about me not providing any facts.

And I explained several times how weak the SEC was in talking about SC's inflated record, and the fact that they really beat no one who was in the top 10. Their overall record was inflated because they played a crap schedule, notwithstanding the couple of teams in the top 25 in the SEC. So you choose to focus in the minutia of one portion, which was not even the main intention of my post, and condescendingly say "thank you".

Let me say it one more time so hopefully even you can understand. Actually, never mind. Logic and facts are obviously lost on you. Thank you for your interest in UCONN basketball. As Jim Calhoun famously said...

"Get some facts and come back and see me"...

 

[toadfoot]

Well that and the fact that they haven't lost any games yet!

Well, neither has Princeton, but they're not ranked #1, nor should they be, just like SC shouldn't. At some point rankings have to be about more than wins/loses, the eye test should count for something. SC is usually pretty good at beating up the Alabama's and Savannah's, but not so much against anyone even remotely decent.

 

[CTyankee]

That's right, which means I get to harass Geno from my perch 4 rows behind the visiting head coach next season!

Won't change the score... UC = 2 SC = 0

 

[DobbsRover2]

Won't change the score... UC = 2 SC = 0

The 2-0 record for UConn goes back to the 2007-09 years with some December matches, with UConn first winning at home by 58 and then by 29 on the road. Gamecock fans will take heart that the margin was halved between the two games I guess, and that the coming game is in February.

 

[CL82]

I think the ACC is still the best confrence with SEC Big Ten Big 12 being second. UConn is in a weak conference but it means nothing because we beating elite teams by at least 20 points

The issue for most teams in our situtation would be staying sharp and peaking at the right time. Not for an Auriema coached team, mind you, but most teams.

 

[Biff]

The 2-0 record for UConn goes back to the 2007-09 years with some December matches, with UConn first winning at home by 58 and then by 29 on the road. Gamecock fans will take heart that the margin was halved between the two games I guess

So then we can deduce that UConn wins by 14 1/2 this time around or should we take the 1/2 point due to home court advantage?

 

[DobbsRover2]

So then we can deduce that UConn wins by 14 1/2 this time around or should we take the 1/2 point due to home court advantage?

UConn's back to being at home, so I think we have to bet on them winning by 33 1/2. Maybe they'll give Gabby only half a point for banking in another FT.

 

[meyers7]

Well, I grew up about 8 miles from Piscataway...

Besides, nothing vile comes out of my mouth, I simply point out things. Poor players that can't shoot free throws or get in foul trouble, especially.

Well you are going to have to do way better than that have it even register with him, let alone get him to acknowledge or laugh at you.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

The 2-0 record for UConn goes back to the 2007-09 years with some December matches, with UConn first winning at home by 58 and then by 29 on the road. Gamecock fans will take heart that the margin was halved between the two games I guess, and that the coming game is in February.

We also had terrible teams back then in Susan Walvius' 2nd to last season and Dawn's first.

 

[DobbsRover2]

We also had terrible teams back then in Susan Walvius' 2nd to last season and Dawn's first.

Well the first team (2007-08) had a 7-2 record when they played UConn and wound up at 16-16, but yeah though the second team was at 6-4 before the Husky game,they went 2-12 in the SEC, which does kind of equate to terrible. Things seem to have worked out better for the Gamecocks since, and that's why UConn was ducking them.