Comment Ive made before in regards to people saying UConn has been very inconsistent over the past couple decades:
"I've heard the "inconsistency" argument before, but its really a result of recency bias. Since 2010 UConn has been very up and down like you said, so I agree in that regard. Yet it changes your overall perception of their performance over the last 15 years (like this article measures), or even 25 years. Since 2000-01, UConn has been a #1 or a #2 seed 5 times, 6 if you include the year they won it all as a #3. Bring the timeline back another 10 years to 1990 to present and thats 12 times. I consider tournament seeding a pretty good indicator of a teams regular season performance leading up to the tournament and thats a pretty competitive number, and not at all behind the bottom end of this Top 15 list like you imply. Comparatively since 2000-01 (1990), UNC has 7 (13) #1/#2 seeds, Kentucky 7 (13), Indiana 1 (4), UCLA 3 (6), Duke 12 (19), Kansas 10 (16).
My point being is that if you use top seeding in the tournament to define regular season success, UConn is up there with the best in the game.
I'm okay with just winning NCs, but maybe that just me.It's funny that there is an argument against those three programs above us who have won more consistently during the regular season while the majority of this board is longing for a dominant regular season that's been missing since 2008-2009 and a regular season championship that's been missing since 2005-2006.
Screw regular season dominance. Surprise Championships are more fun anyway. Name me the sports movie that begins with a dominant team who wins all the time and then wins it all. Boring.It's funny that there is an argument against those three programs above us who have won more consistently during the regular season while the majority of this board is longing for a dominant regular season that's been missing since 2008-2009 and a regular season championship that's been missing since 2005-2006.
Screw regular season dominance. Surprise Championships are more fun anyway. Name me the sports movie that begins with a dominant team who wins all the time and then wins it all. Boring.
I want the bad news bears winning a title. I want Major League. I want a team that can't get out of its own way clicking and running the table. Because overcoming adversity is what sports is all about. Worrying about our title teams who didn't win cover to cover is for jealous fans who want to move the goal posts because they haven't been able to enjoy what we have.
You don't play your best team in October, November, December and January, you play the team who needs the most minutes to develop into the best team you can be in March. Unless your Syracuse.
Yes because recruits looks at this list and what happened in 2004, not what conference the school is in, the location of the school, the shoe affiliation of the school, the facilities of the school, or anything relevant to 2016 and beyond.......And, yet, we get out-recruited by every team below us with the possible exception of Wisconsin. Hmmmm, nothing to see here. Win some, lose some...right? Makes perfect sense to be outrecruited by Maryland.
Anyone worried about us being "outrecruited" should read the quote in the calhoun interview thread and understand that our "operational model" is to take the higher upside guy over the immediate impact guy with a 3-4 year championship run cycle and then fill in the needs with quality role players fit for them.And, yet, we get out-recruited by every team below us with the possible exception of Wisconsin. Hmmmm, nothing to see here. Win some, lose some...right? Makes perfect sense to be outrecruited by Maryland.
You don't play your best team in October, November, December and January, you play the team who needs the most minutes to develop into the best team you can be in March. Unless your Syracuse.
So you are saying that want lose in the regular season and post season?The issue is: the two groups of fans (championships vs. consistency) are talking past each other.
The "championships" fans say, "would you really rather have had a better regular season, but not won the championship?" (Answer: obviously not.)
The "consistency" fans say, "do you really think having mediocre regular seasons is more likely to lead to championships in the future?" (Answer: obviously not.)
Surprised so many people are trying to justify UConn being #4. Using overall winning percentage is flawed because there is no commonality in the scheduling structure. Look at these numbers and tell me Kentucky belongs ahead of UConn:
Tournament appearances: Kentucky 13, UConn 10 (should be 11 if you discount the NCAA mafia parachuting down on Calhoun)
Sweet Sixteen: Kentucky 7, UConn 5
Elite Eight: Kentucky 6, UConn 6
Final Four: Kentucky 4, UConn 4
National Championships: Kentucky 1, UConn 3
Essentially, they're valuing Kentucky's additional three tournament appearances and additional two sweet sixteen's over UConn's additional two championships.
Something looks funny about our 5 sweet sixteens but 6 elite eights. Is this the semantics talking?