Sporting News: Best Programs Since 2000 | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Sporting News: Best Programs Since 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they go back one year to 1999, how does that affect the numbers?
 
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.
 
BUHusky10 said:
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.
Expand ...

But still a bit behind KU, UK, and Dook (and UNC, #5) , just like we see in the SN article, hmmm.
 
But that's where titles and FF come in to offset the difference.
 
I guess the reality of this whole thread is if you were a fan in the 70's and 80's and ever expected this you were nuts. I mean it was a celebration to see "UConn" in the "Those receiving votes" section of the ten Top 20.

If you look at it that way it's fairly easy to settle for #4 I guess. ;)
 
tcf15 said:
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.
Expand ...
I'm okay with just winning NCs, but maybe that just me.
 
We won lots of games in the 90s. The national media didn't care so much. Now we've won a bunch of NCs. I can't say the national media doesn't care, but apparently they don't care enough. Can't please everyone I guess. Personally, I've had way more fun winning NCs. Been to 2 final fours. Won both of them. Kansas and whoever else can have the winning %.
 
tcf15 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
OkaForPrez said:
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.
Expand ...

The last 2 NY Giant Superbowls are kind of similar to Uconn's last 2. It does make for a better story line, and I love the fact that it pisses people off.
 
This is just a list that sporting news came up with its last I checked you don't get a trophy or banner for being number 1 on this list.
 
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.
 
Paesano said:
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.
Expand ...
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.......
 
Paesano said:
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.
Expand ...
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.

This was one of my main criticisms for recruiting class rankings in that thread. They are fundamentally built on who is ready now. If there were two recruiting ladders one for current ability and one for highest potential, and the evaluations were actually sound, UConn would be at the top of the rankings in the second more often than not. For example, would Brimah have been a 3 star potential recruit?
 
I'm surprised they still publish The Sporting News - people still read that?
 
OkaForPrez said:
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.
Expand ...

This is explained better in two sentences than all of my thousands of run-on sentences ever did justice to.

Granted, this is sports, and one answer is rarely more intrinsically viable than an other. We create our own narratives to explain history. If I was a Syracuse or a Kansas fan, I'd probably spend my days wondering why I tied so much emotional investment into a sport that is essentially just a ruthless regression model.

As it is, though, the right team always wins (subject to change if UConn loses as a one seed in the near future).
 
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.)
 
Tenspro2002 said:
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.)
Expand ...
So you are saying that want lose in the regular season and post season?
 
champs99and04 said:
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.
Expand ...


Something looks funny about our 5 sweet sixteens but 6 elite eights. Is this the semantics talking?
 
It is not bad to be rated #4. That is unbelievable given were we were not very long ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
1,377
Total visitors
1,563
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,987
Messages
4,377,685
Members
10,167
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom