To all those predicting our demise. | Page 8 | The Boneyard

To all those predicting our demise.

Waquoit said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Deadrody said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
August_West said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
huskyrob1 said:
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.
Expand ...

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

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.
 
huskyrob1 said:
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.
Expand ...
What will your response be when that close game turns into a blowout with no one to run the offense or score?
 
SubbaBub said:
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.
Expand ...

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?
 
businesslawyer said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
businesslawyer said:
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?
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
The Funster said:
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.
Expand ...

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."
 
SubbaBub said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
businesslawyer said:
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."
Expand ...

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. ;)
 
The Funster said:
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. ;)
Expand ...

You don't think sales managers measure retention rates as well as new business development? Certainly all competent ones do.
 
businesslawyer said:
You don't think sales managers measure retention rates as well as new business development? Certainly all competent ones do.
Expand ...


Do you think Dave Benedict measures OT wins against Monmouth and Columbia against a blowout at the hands of Arkansas, or does he lump all three in his "crappy" category?
 
huskyrob1 said:
Do you think Dave Benedict measures OT wins against Monmouth and Columbia against a blowout at the hands of Arkansas, or does he lump all three in his "crappy" category?
Expand ...

I dont think an AD takes that myopic a view when making coaching evaluations which have way more far reaching implications.
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
One guy looks unhappy -> KO's lost the team; he's gotta go.
Expand ...

Ben Gordon looked miserable for three years. Some guys just don't smile.
 
August_West said:
I dont think an AD takes that myopic a view when making coaching evaluations which have way more far reaching implications.
Expand ...
If he was a sales manager, he might, and quite frankly to some degree he is.
 
businesslawyer said:
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.
Expand ...


Turning it around would make for a very exciting season but it's akin to think a bowl game was still likely after losing to Missou.
 
SubbaBub said:
Turning it around would make for a very exciting season but it's akin to think a bowl game was still likely after losing to Missou.
Expand ...
Nice comparison, I for one think Randy Edsall will right the ship after next year. Not worried much about football, much more worried about men's basketball. That ship is spelled Titanic.
 
huskyrob1 said:
Nice comparison, I for one think Randy Edsall will right the ship after next year. Not worried much about football, much more worried about men's basketball. That ship is spelled Titanic.
Expand ...

To be fair, right the ship in football means a very different thing than right the ship for basketball.

But wih the way next years recruits keep rising, seeing what a akinjo/Mathews/Wilson lineup looks like is mighty intriguing. Squint closely and you can see the core of a team that can make some noise in the tourney in say 2019 or 2020.
 
businesslawyer said:
You don't think sales managers measure retention rates as well as new business development? Certainly all competent ones do.
Expand ...

Of course they do. Just like the selection committee would. There are minimum standards and maybe one of the standards is dont lose to a 200+ RPI team because it sticks out like a sore thumb
 
Last edited:
.-.
huskyrob1 said:
Do you think Dave Benedict measures OT wins against Monmouth and Columbia against a blowout at the hands of Arkansas, or does he lump all three in his "crappy" category?
Expand ...

AD David Benedict better take a more holistic view rather than just looking at individual performances or even wins and losses. If this team plays better at the end of the season and shows that it has turned the corner and we don't make the NCAAs, I'd take Ollie back. Not everything one might use to judge a situation is quantifiable.
 
huskyrob1 said:
Do you think Dave Benedict measures OT wins against Monmouth and Columbia against a blowout at the hands of Arkansas, or does he lump all three in his "crappy" category?
Expand ...

Wait -- are you really asking whether an AD has the same reaction to a bad loss as he does to a bad win? Seriously, LMFAO.
 
The Funster said:
AD David Benedict better take a more holistic view rather than just looking at individual performances or even wins and losses. If this team plays better at the end of the season and shows that it has turned the corner and we don't make the NCAAs, I'd take Ollie back. Not everything one might use to judge a situation is quantifiable.
Expand ...
I'll give you that, if we go deep into the NIT, maybe that's an indication that he's turning things around, but it's a BIG BIG "if".
 
huskyrob1 said:
I'll give you that, if we go deep into the NIT, maybe that's an indication that he's turning things around, but it's a BIG BIG "if".
Expand ...
So now, the goal is an NIT bid and going deep in the NIT? This is hilarious! Are we back in the early 80's?
 
buddy said:
So now, the goal is an NIT bid and going deep in the NIT? This is hilarious! Are we back in the early 80's?
Expand ...

We're back in 1988. Young coach building his reputation, one step at a time.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,326
Messages
4,564,167
Members
10,462
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom