To all those predicting our demise.

[Bonehead]

So, do something that has never before been done? And make UConn the only school to ever do it. And the next coach will be thrilled to go to a school that humiliates its coach because it is too poor. Great.

The next coach isn't going to be too thrilled with what is left behind either.

I'm happy to see you and I are both on the same page on worrying about the next coach.

 

[djct1999]

We have already witnessed it in football. We are living it in basketball. Its one thing for a coach to lose a locker room. Its an entirely different story for a coach to lose a fan base. Over the last few years, Ollie has a dug a fairly deep hole that I don't think he will climb out of. The longer we wait, the longer the next coach will need to rebuild. Even now, if hypothetically KO was let go after this season, the roster is so bad that it will take 3plus years to start.

 

[upstater]

The next coach isn't going to be too thrilled with what is left behind either.

I'm happy to see you and I are both on the same page on worrying about the next coach.

If UConn humiliates Ollie by demoting him instead of firing, the next coach is going to come out of the student section.

 

[David 76]

I suppose that’s all in the definition of “peak.” Many folks would say 18 months removed from a National Championship and 3.5 years from another final four - not to mention the list of lottery picks, NBA all stars, etc was pretty “peak-ish”. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that...as well as your take on Ollie improving UConn’s status in ‘13 & ‘14. That being said, it’s mind-numbing to see how far that status has fallen...I’d guess we agree on that.

Interesting that 3.5 years from a final four in 2013 counts but being 3.5 years from a NC in 2017 doesn't.
But anyway, yes. UConn was looking better in 2014 than when Ollie got the job. And I think the word peak's meaning ins pretty universal. I'm done with the semantics. UConn was in a pretty precarious place when Ollie took over and people wondered if it would ever be the same. Two years later we were all pretty happy.

 

[Deadrody]

5. Did I mention no bad losses against poor competition? We haven't lost to a preseason mid-major yet. The committee notices that.

I'm sorry, but what ? The committee "notices" if you manage to avoid losing to a mid-major ?

No. No they do not.

 

[Jay-Bone]

I'm sorry, but what ? The committee "notices" if you manage to avoid losing to a mid-major ?

No. No they do not.

What are you even talking about ding dong....they notice if you do, so obviously they notice if you don't. Have you never watched a selections show?

 

[Deadrody]

Let me translate -- nothing has changed since the first season he didn't win a National Championship. Seems sillier that way, doesn't it?

Yup. That's the criticism. Ollie hasn't won another championship since 2014. Intentionally putting words in people's mouth that they aren't saying is disingenuous, at best.

 

[Deadrody]

What are you even talking about ding dong....they notice if you do, so obviously they notice if you don't. Have you never watched a selections show?

No, no, no, no, no. Just because you look bad for losing games you should win, does not mean you get bonus points for winning those games. They're looking for good wins and bad losses. No team in the history of basketball has made the tournament because they managed to avoid losing to a mid-major in November and December. Not one.

 

[selles]

No, no, no, no, no. Just because you look bad for losing games you should win, does not mean you get bonus points for winning those games. They're looking for good wins and bad losses. No team in the history of basketball has made the tournament because they managed to avoid losing to a mid-major in November and December. Not one.

He didn't say that beating mid majors gets you a tournament bid. He suggested that the committee notices whether you take care of business by avoiding losses to mid majors. Obviously that's a factor in the committee's review. How is that controversial? What on earth drove you to pick this sort of picayune argument several days after the original post?

 

[Waquoit]

He didn't say that beating mid majors gets you a tournament bid. He suggested that the committee notices whether you take care of business by avoiding losses to mid majors. Obviously that's a factor in the committee's review. How is that controversial?

Because the committee doesn't start by looking for teams that beat mid-majors. Maybe they look at that as a way to break a tie way down the line but you don't get credit for it. A tourney team is supposed to beat mid-majors. Sounds like you and Jay want a cookie.

 

[Deadrody]

Because the committee doesn't start by looking for teams that beat mid-majors. Maybe they look at that as a way to break a tie way down the line but you don't get credit for it. A tourney team is supposed to beat mid-majors. Sounds like you and Jay want a cookie.

Indeed. The idea that UConn - or anyone else - is getting "noticed" by the committee because they don't have any "bad losses" (and let's be honest - losing to a mid major is a BAD loss) is NUTS. They notice big wins and bad losses. End of story.

The only way their assertion makes any sense is by logical deduction. Since the committee notices big wins and bad losses, the fact that UConn has avoided a bad loss is - by deduction - "noticed". But in truth, it's not.

And, like you say, it's not even like bad losses would be a primary factor in the committee's decision making. When it comes down to seeding, or the last 4 teams that get at-large bids, THEN they may consider who had a bad loss and who didn't.

 

[tentoes4rings]

Indeed. The idea that UConn - or anyone else - is getting "noticed" by the committee because they don't have any "bad losses" (and let's be honest - losing to a mid major is a BAD loss) is NUTS. They notice big wins and bad losses. End of story.

The only way their assertion makes any sense is by logical deduction. Since the committee notices big wins and bad losses, the fact that UConn has avoided a bad loss is - by deduction - "noticed". But in truth, it's not.

And, like you say, it's not even like bad losses would be a primary factor in the committee's decision making. When it comes down to seeding, or the last 4 teams that get at-large bids, THEN they may consider who had a bad loss and who didn't.

What’s sad, is the program is unraveling to the point where borderline tourney teams get no credit for beating us, and we could be considered a bad loss for bubble teams. I never imagined a few years back that could ever be the case.

 

[huskyrob1]

Let me tell you something about yourselves.



You aren't basketball geniuses. You are disingenuous hedgers. I see right through it.

You can look at a season start and find stuff wrong on a 6 and 2 young team. Sure. No problems there. The rest of us see it too. Let's discuss it.

But there are so many declarative "The seasons over, Fire Ollie posts" here. The way they are positioned makes the game here abundantly clear.

If we do in fact go in the toilet (and there is no way for anyone to know that now. Its a long season), you all can smugly sit here and say "Ollie needs to go Right now!" every time we lose a game. You feel good about a UConn loss, your position is made. (Even though its not ;you think it is).

But if they reel off some wins and actually get better as a team over the course of the season you will all be here reveling in the success of a young team getting better.

Its a win/win for you. You can feel like a genius in the teams misery (when applicable) to mitigate the hurt losing does to your oh so fragile psyches. And a win, hell ,is a win (because youre supposedly a UConn fan; there should be some semblance of satisfaction out of one of those still....I hope)

But its not a win/win for the program you profess to love. They need our support. The Players absolutely deserve our support. And Kevin Ollie who brought us a National title 3.5 years ago and is not going anywhere for any time soon (for a myriad of reasons)deserves our support.

You can take these fire Ollie petitions (Marc Diamonte and the 43 mouth breathers, Im looking at you) and shove them straight up your Scalitos. You can place them next to the Fire Ollie threads and the Dan Hurley threads and every other piece of premature misery that gets manufactured here.

Im no Sunshiner ,(thanks ECU for the phrase!) . But I find our fans performance more disappointing than the teams at this point in the season.

But I think all you whiners are good mojo. I will very much enjoy the victory against Syracuse tomorrow and then enjoy making sure every one of you so down on us doesnt extract any enjoyment out of it. You dont deserve it.
Save the funerals and wakes for the end of the season when talking about a coaching change has a slight bit more realism. Now is the time to get down to MSG and root your 6-2 Huskies to a victory over the super pathetic Syracuse Orange.
If you hate 6-2 Kevin Ollie more than Syracuse, I question if you were ever even a UConn fan.

I'll start supporting KO the first time I see him yank JA in a close game, and bench him for five minutes, after two stupid turnovers in a row at the start of the 2nd half.

 

[August_West]

I'll start supporting KO the first time I see him yank JA in a close game, and bench him for five minutes, after two stupid turnovers in a row at the start of the 2nd half.

You know who was the king of "Star Treatment"? - Jim Calhoun. I guess KO learned it from him.

 

[SubbaBub]

Sure, they could all start playing better, shooting better, making more free throws, taking fewer bad shots, and play a full 40 minutes but they haven't given you no reason to think they will give their struggles in every game to date for the last 2 seasons.

If you don't see that there is a program level problem here, then I don't think you are looking at it honestly.

Bad UConn teams don't struggle like this. They don't have gaping holes in the line up. They don't guy multiple versions of the same guy with the same skills and deficiencies. They sure don't need OT to beat Stony Brook and Monmouth.

The ratings have this as a 13-15 win team. That may or may not be right but the fact that it is there says a lot.

 

[Waquoit]

You know who was the king of "Star Treatment"? - Jim Calhoun. I guess KO learned it from him.

Yeah, but Jim saved the star treatment for stars.

 

[businesslawyer]

Indeed. The idea that UConn - or anyone else - is getting "noticed" by the committee because they don't have any "bad losses" (and let's be honest - losing to a mid major is a BAD loss) is NUTS. They notice big wins and bad losses. End of story.

The only way their assertion makes any sense is by logical deduction. Since the committee notices big wins and bad losses, the fact that UConn has avoided a bad loss is - by deduction - "noticed". But in truth, it's not.

And, like you say, it's not even like bad losses would be a primary factor in the committee's decision making. When it comes down to seeding, or the last 4 teams that get at-large bids, THEN they may consider who had a bad loss and who didn't.

If you try mapping your second paragraph out using logical techniques -- substituting letters for particular phrases -- you will see your second paragraph is utterly absurd.

If bad losses are important to making or not making the tournament -- and if you either win a game or lose a game against a team that, if you lose to, it would be a bad loss -- then by logical rules winning games that would otherwise constitute bad losses is important.

Proving only that even rules of Carrolian logic can be ignored by those trying to make any point that we need a new coach.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

I'll start supporting KO the first time I see him yank JA in a close game, and bench him for five minutes, after two stupid turnovers in a row at the start of the 2nd half.

What will your response be when that close game turns into a blowout with no one to run the offense or score?

 

[businesslawyer]

Sure, they could all start playing better, shooting better, making more free throws, taking fewer bad shots, and play a full 40 minutes but they haven't given you no reason to think they will give their struggles in every game to date for the last 2 seasons.

If you don't see that there is a program level problem here, then I don't think you are looking at it honestly.

Bad UConn teams don't struggle like this. They don't have gaping holes in the line up. They don't guy multiple versions of the same guy with the same skills and deficiencies. They sure don't need OT to beat Stony Brook and Monmouth.

The ratings have this as a 13-15 win team. That may or may not be right but the fact that it is there says a lot.

What that shows is that, to date, we have not played well enough to have a good season. Question -- do you think there is a single poster here who would disagree with that statement? And if not, what is the point?

 

[The Funster]

If you try mapping your second paragraph out using logical techniques -- substituting letters for particular phrases -- you will see your second paragraph is utterly absurd.

If bad losses are important to making or not making the tournament -- and if you either win a game or lose a game against a team that, if you lose to, it would be a bad loss -- then by logical rules winning games that would otherwise constitute bad losses is important.

Proving only that even rules of Carrolian logic can be ignored by those trying to make any point that we need a new coach.

From a logical standpoint you are correct but if we are to believe that a bad loss would "stand out" to the committee, a "bad loss" could be considered anecdotal evidence. Assume a team wins a game against a much lower ranked team 64-60. Because its not a loss the outcome won't draw much attention. However, if the team lost that game by 64-60 the BIG L would draw additional scrutiny. I would argue that the negative consequences of a "bad loss" far outweigh the positives of a win for the same game.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I'll start supporting KO the first time I see him yank JA in a close game, and bench him for five minutes, after two stupid turnovers in a row at the start of the 2nd half.

C'mon, no you won't. Not if they lose as a result.

 

[SubbaBub]

What that shows is that, to date, we have not played well enough to have a good season. Question -- do you think there is a single poster here who would disagree with that statement? And if not, what is the point?

Point is it goes beyond just waiting to see if we have a good season. I appreciate your evidentiary rules but there has been plenty of red flags already. Yes, this is a new team playing together for the first time but that shouldn't matter against our schedule if the players are that much better than most of the opponents to date.

My question is, what are you seeing that makes it more likely that not that this team will turn it around? In terms of at large chances there are several games over the break that we are going to be big underdogs. Then we are looking at several teams in league that will be heavy favorites over us.

Sure, we'll win a few but we need to win more than a few of those games and nearly all of the rest. That is our lot in the new order. The days of building throughout the year, finishing 4th, getting in and making the second weekend are over. The 4th place AAC team is likely in the NIT.

 

[businesslawyer]

From a logical standpoint you are correct but if we are to believe that a bad loss would "stand out" to the committee, a "bad loss" could be considered anecdotal evidence. Assume a team wins a game against a much lower ranked team 64-60. Because its not a loss the outcome won't draw much attention. However, if the team lost that game by 64-60 the BIG L would draw additional scrutiny. I would argue that the negative consequences of a "bad loss" far outweigh the positives of a win for the same game.

How can avoiding a big negative not be a big positive? Do you get credit for pulling those games out? No. But you avoid having your season torpedoed by them.

Maybe I can make the point -- and the hypocrisy of the constantly fire KO crowd -- more clear this way. Did anyone say when we had the awful back to back losses to start last season that "The losses aren't that bad, since if we had won close games it wouldn't have helped us anyway."

 

[businesslawyer]

Point is it goes beyond just waiting to see if we have a good season. I appreciate your evidentiary rules but there has been plenty of red flags already. Yes, this is a new team playing together for the first time but that shouldn't matter against our schedule if the players are that much better than most of the opponents to date.

My question is, what are you seeing that makes it more likely that not that this team will turn it around? In terms of at large chances there are several games over the break that we are going to be big underdogs. Then we are looking at several teams in league that will be heavy favorites over us.

Sure, we'll win a few but we need to win more than a few of those games and nearly all of the rest. That is our lot in the new order. The days of building throughout the year, finishing 4th, getting in and making the second weekend are over. The 4th place AAC team is likely in the NIT.

No one is arguing that there aren't red flags out. No one. But we're in the season, so most UConn fans will see how it plays out and will root for them to play better and win games. A red flag is a warning. What's important is not whether you have a warning that you may not succeed. What is important is that you succeed or you don't.

 

[The Funster]

How can avoiding a big negative not be a big positive? Do you get credit for pulling those games out? No. But you avoid having your season torpedoed by them.

Maybe I can make the point -- and the hypocrisy of the constantly fire KO crowd -- more clear this way. Did anyone say when we had the awful back to back losses to start last season that "The losses aren't that bad, since if we had won close games it wouldn't have helped us anyway."

Well yeah, the same way renewing a large contract customer you've had for years is better than losing it. The owner or sales manager may not notice your customer renewed but he's damn well gonna notice if he didn't.

I'm talking in the context of how the NCAA committe might weight particular wins and losses. I could care less about the hypocrites.