Sporting News: Best Programs Since 2000 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Sporting News: Best Programs Since 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry1714 said:
They have out performed us in every metric except titles, granted its the most important one, but saying Kansas is "garbage" just lets me know I cannot take you seriously.
Expand ...
People were/are still taking JimOllie seriously? Wow

Winning percentage per year is what killed us.
 
I wonder how different it would be if you counted 1999?

We were in a bunch of EEs in the 90s. I'll take more inconsistency and a title every 4 years.
Fourth place is still good. I just wish we drew recruits like the other three.
 
I get that we're all fans of UConn and we're obviously a bit biased but sometimes it's just ridiculous what people say/think on here. First off, we moan and groan about the lack of attention we receive nationally, well we were ranked 4th so clearly some people respect us. Second, Duke is #1. Not a debate, sorry. Numbers 2, 3, 4 are up for debate. They had a point system and in that specific system we ended up 4th. What Kansas and Kentucky put out on the floor year in and year out is impressive. Plain and simple. I'm just glad to be considered a top 5 program over the last 15 years. We're doing pretty damn good. Anways, when we win #5 this year these rankings will change.
 
Worth mentioning we were basically left for dead at least three different times in this time span (Calhoun leaving, APR and AAC) and yet we're in the mix with Kansas, Kentucky and UNC at the very top of the sport. They can't kill us.
 
.-.
Basketball, unlike say Tennis, is a team sport. Why give points for "all-americans"?

Who gives a rats-ass when looking at the analysis of each team? Regular season wins/losses and Tournament success should be how you judge it IMO.

Take out the AA, sporting news players of the year, NBA players and I'd be interested where we end up. And do I see right that you get the same amount of points for reaching the championship game as you do the FF?

WTF?
 
Last edited:
People are getting way too upset here. I'd rather have our last 15 years than anyone other than Duke. However, Kansas and Kentucky have both been consistently top ranked teams during this time frame moreso than us. I'd love for Uconn to just run train on the AAC (assuming we're stuck here) for the next 10 years and people to discredit us like they do Kansas for being a crappy league.

Also, since it never gets old...even limiting it to the last 15 years...as always Cuse fans...3>1 :)
 
Um, I think Michigan State got hosed. Their national championship is not noted. That would bump them up ahead of Syracuse.
 
Obrero said:
Um, I think Michigan State got hosed. Their national championship is not noted. That would bump them up ahead of Syracuse.
Expand ...

That year doesn't count. It's 2000-2001 through 2014-2015. It starts and ends with Duke.
 
Rocktheworld said:
People were/are still taking JimOllie seriously? Wow

Winning percentage per year is what killed us.
Expand ...

Dude, count the rings. That will tell who has been better since 2000. And enough of you being a jackass. I have the right to my opinion on this site just as you have yours. Respect it. There's plenty of comments on here I don't agree with but I don't go around bashing them.
 
JimOllie said:
Dude, count the rings. That will tell who has been better since 2000. And enough of you being a jackass. I have the right to my opinion on this site just as you have yours. Respect it. There's plenty of comments on here I don't agree with but I don't go around bashing them.
Expand ...
well in this case there's a formulaic approach (albeit a kinda crappy one) to how the list was determined, and we're 4th best. sooooo this time you're opinion is wrong
 
.-.
JimOllie said:
Dude, count the rings. That will tell who has been better since 2000. And enough of you being a jackass. I have the right to my opinion on this site just as you have yours. Respect it. There's plenty of comments on here I don't agree with but I don't go around bashing them.
Expand ...

It's funny with titles being the ultimate goal...would you rather be the Braves who won like 9,000 straight division tiles with 1 WS win or the Marlins who sucked ass like 80% of the time but won 2 titles. It's easy to look back and take the extra title...but while it's happening it's hard to overlook being relevant every year.
 
JimOllie said:
Dude, count the rings. That will tell who has been better since 2000. And enough of you being a jackass. I have the right to my opinion on this site just as you have yours. Respect it. There's plenty of comments on here I don't agree with but I don't go around bashing them.
Expand ...
Dude, read the scoring rubric. In this scoring scheme, agree with it or not (a separate debate), it hurt us. Get over it. UConn is great regardless. Ahead of UNC.

And I don't need to bash your posts. Your repeated whining ITT says enough. We get that you, subjectively, value NCs over everything else. Well, it's not your scoring metric, and it isn't your article.
 
Last edited:
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 ...
I also recall a few head to head matchups we won when it mattered during this time frame. That alone refutes their listing.
 
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).
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,225
Messages
4,558,156
Members
10,445
Latest member
Billy Boy


Top Bottom