Kind of a cruddy article and the author even took a shot at the 90-game streak because Tennessee wasn't in the mix. Sure he says UConn probably would have beaten them, but then he adds a "you never know" kind of statement, wondering if the second-best program in women's basketball might have been able to break the streak. Also, like NCorBust said, where's the insight into why the Huskies reign supreme? What is it that draws the best from throughout the land to tiny Storrs, Connecticut to become even better? When a story purports to be a report on the top ten programs in the country and uses the report on the very top team as a platform for rehashing old news about a rivalry cut short, I call it shoddy journalism.
"Shoddy" is too kind. The implications 1) that UConn's recent success is due in part to not having had to play UT and 2) that the growing rivalries in WBB are attempts to substitute for the old UConn/UT rivalry are ridiculous to me. To quote Geno very selectively and not mention the acid-tongued remarks from PS (in fact just writing that she has had little to say on the matter) is just plain goofy. I believe that everyone would like to see the series with UT resume but only some diehards still believe that WBB somehow is short-changed without it.
It really was rather odd to devote the entire UConn section to the discontinued rivalry with Tennessee. Yes, it's a game I'd like to see on annual basis again. However, Tennessee was mediocre in 2008-09 AND the following season lost in the regional semis in their home state to a Baylor team that UConn handled two rounds later. So yeah, I suppose you never know, but there's no reason under the sun to believe UConn wouldn't have obliterated Tennessee in 2008-09 and precious little reason to believe that the LVs would have posed any threat to UConn in 2009-10. As it was, UConn defeated the clear #2 team during those two seasons three times, as well as Brittney Griner-led Baylor twice, and a host of other top-10 teams. Only two teams even came within single. The notion that the streak was somehow tainted because UConn didn't play Tennessee is ludicrous...not to mention not especially apropos to the subject of the feature.
couldn't agree more with what everyone said. UCONN is now at the top and tennessee is looking up at them, with no end in sight. even if tennessee manages to win this year, UCONN's recruiting has been head and shoulders better and if they play in the next 3 years after, UCONN will win. What's left of the 2009 class, UCONN is better. 2010 class, UCONN is better, 2011 class, draw. 2012 class, UCONN is better. tennessee just doesn't have the players to challenge UCONN going forward.
as for the streak, it's a good thing they didn't play tennessee. it would have been so lopsided as to have been funny. a team who lost to Ball State, then lost in the sweet 16, then lost in the elite 8 was never going to challenge UCONN, even if they did face each other.
Which matchup would I pay to see? Clearly, UConn v. Stanford, and it's not even close. Relative to Tennessee, Stanford has the better offense, better team, and better coach. Tennessee is so "last milennium."
Somebody help me out here. I don't object to the writing about the Tennessee non-rivalry, and all the rest. But how do you analyze the teams -- rank them, even -- without discussing the players, the people who actually play the game?
The whole piece lacks credibility because there really is no explanation for the placement of the teams, several of which, IMHO, are just dead wrong (starting with Baylor). No analysis of returning players and incoming freshman, of strengths and weaknesses, of styles and matchups. Maybe this is a new style of sportswriting -- The Completely Insubstantial Genre. If so, it stinks.
It wasn't only his write up of Ucon that was absurd but many of the other 100 teams. I mean there will always be some discrepancy when ranking teams but some of his were rediculous. Many of his rankings were well off from how the teams were even ranked in their own conferences in relation too each other. As to not mentioning the Ucon players, he did the same with many other teams also preferring to focus on past history rather than the coming season. But then what can you expect from someone who writes blogs. He is certainly not much of critical analyst.
One must remember that the article is about the top 100 programs. It isn't as such a survey of the future as a snapshot of history and where we are today. It is not preseason rankings so current players are more irrelevant to that type of piece.
UCONN will always be the #1 program because its not about individual players doing their thing; its all about the best team concept in the country. Individual players don't win titles, teams win titles.