Types of national championship teams

[alexrgct]

There are, in my estimation, five types of national championship teams Examples, both UConn-centric and not (all from 1994 on, aka the 64-team tournament era), are below.

The Ugly Duckling

This shouldn't be too hard to figure out. An ugly regular season (relatively speaking- this is WCBB after all, and we do like to keep things orderly) blossoms into a beautiful tournament run.

UConn example- 2004

Others- Tennessee 1997, Baylor 2005

Baylor 2005 is tough to characterize because they didn't play that tough a schedule, but we'll give them an Ugly Duckling for the Nebraska and Texas losses. There was little heading into the tournament to suggest a true contender.

The Bridesmaid

This type of team is good to very good throughout the season, but enters the tournament as clear underdogs behind another team or two who they may have well played and lost to already.

UConn example- 2013

Others- UNC 1994, Maryland 2006, Texas A&M 2011

The Contender

This is your most common sort of champion. The contender is always a #1 seed, never a huge surprise to see them cutting down the nets, but showed just enough vulnerabilities heading into the tourney that you didn't necessarily use a pen when filling out your bracket.

UConn example- 2003

Others- Tennessee 1996, Purdue 1999, Notre Dame 2001, Tennessee 2007, Tennessee 2008

Note: Purdue 1999 was close to making it to the next level given that they only lost a single game by a single point, but they had enough close calls that I had to keep them at this level.

The Near-Juggernaut

The near-juggernaut completes a sterling season, memorable by those who are fans of the team and those who are not. Such teams enter the tournament as favorites, and they prevail accordingly. However, they lack that aura of invincibility the next level of team possesses.

UConn examples- 1995, 2000

Others- none, arguably

The Juggernaut

It is necessary, but not sufficient, that a juggernaut have a perfect record. A juggernaut must be dominant, and with an aura of indestructability, a tendency to go on soul-crushing runs. All-time great players in the history of WCBB should be involved. These are teams that you know are historic while you watch them and seem even more amazing with the passage of time.

UConn examples, 2002, 2009, 2010

Others- Tennessee 1998, Baylor 2012

-----------------------------------

UConn 2014 could, of course, not end up being a championship team at all. But, should they end up being one, I believe that, other than Bridesmaid, all four other categories are possibilities. To be continued...

 

[Phil]

If you relax the 1994 limitation, Texas in 1986 may earn the title of juggernaut. They did have a three point win over Mississippi to get to the Final Four, but they won the other four games by an average of 226 points, with the closest being the 16 point National Championship game. Their win completed the first undefeated NCAA D1 season.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Purdue is an interesting case study, as we (Rutgers) almost had them in I think it was the elite 8. We fell apart - I'm not claiming they had nothing to do with it - but we really didn't play well in the end of the game. I remember Tasha Pointer being in the stands after the game and being really upset over losing.

 

[diggerfoot]

I can think of only two operational definitions for claiming 2010 UConn to be invincible, 1995 not so, with only one of those supported by evidence. One is the greatest vulnerability displayed in the half against Virginia, but that was not as bad as the greatest vulnerability displayed in the half against Stanford. The only operational definition that can hold up empirically, as far as I can tell, is that UConn 1995 was not viewed as invincible for the whole year. Up until the first Tennessee game everyone thought that Tennessee would have the historically great, invincible team that year. Other than that, 1995 was more statistically invincible than 2010, while 1995 also has the distinction of possessing the single most invincible Final Four smackdown for a UConn team, 27 points over a well-regarded Stanford team. Indeed, considering the caliber of opponent, that may be the single most impressive display of invincibility by any Final Four team ever .... though apparently VanDerveer was not impressed .... yeah, I just can't let that one go. They also beat the highest caliber opponent "on paper" of any UConn team in a championship, once again the one that was supposed to be invincible when the year started. So you could provide one operational definition by which 2010 comes out more invincible than 1995, but such definition is not a very meaningful one.

 

[meyers7]

There are, in my estimation, five types of national championship teams Examples, both UConn-centric and not (all from 1994 on, aka the 64-team tournament era), are below.

.

In my estimation there are two types, teams that win the NC and teams that don't.

(ok, now I'll go back and read the rest of your post )

 

[meyers7]

UConn 2014 could, of course, not end up being a championship team at all. But, should they end up being one, I believe that, other than Bridesmaid, all four other categories are possibilities. To be continued...

I don't see UCONN 2014 as being an Ugly season, wouldn't surprise me to see them go undefeated (not saying they will, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did). Definitely won't be Bridesmaid, flying under the radar. A Contender? Maybe. But assuming no major injuries, I see them as Near-Juggernaut or Juggernaut.

 

[msf22b]

I don't see UCONN 2014 as being an Ugly season, wouldn't surprise me to see them go undefeated (not saying they will, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did). Definitely won't be Bridesmaid, flying under the radar. A Contender? Maybe. But assuming no major injuries, I see them as Near-Juggernaut or Juggernaut.

I generally agree Meyers, just have a tiny bit of bad taste regarding the way the freshman were developed this past season and now having been essentially role players, have to have a huge stake in carrying the team. Of course Stewie broke out, Morgan and Mo contributed mightily and perhaps the National Championship healed all wounds. Maybe that of the kids, but not all of mine.

Although my concern on this point is generally unpopular on this forum, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not more widely shared. Loved the end, hated the means.

But at the end of the day, the team looks pretty invincible for the upcoming campaign and I expect my phsyco-babble concerns to just dissapate in a slew of 30-point wins

i just worry a little.

 

[alexrgct]

I don't see UCONN 2014 as being an Ugly season, wouldn't surprise me to see them go undefeated (not saying they will, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did). Definitely won't be Bridesmaid, flying under the radar. A Contender? Maybe. But assuming no major injuries, I see them as Near-Juggernaut or Juggernaut.

Ugly duckling seems unlikely but not inconceivable. Injuries, growing pains, chemistry, etc. I agree near-juggernaut or juggernaut isn't likely.

 

[meyers7]

Ugly duckling seems unlikely but not inconceivable. Injuries, growing pains, chemistry, etc. I agree near-juggernaut or juggernaut isn't likely.

Ugly seems pretty inconceivable to me. (you keep using that word, I'm not sure it means what you think it means ). And if you think Near-Juggernaut or Juggernaut isn't likely, then you're not agreeing with me. That's what I am expecting next year.

I don't think we should have too many growing pains or chemistry problems. We basically have 4 starters back (playing time anyway) and only have to incorporate 1 new player. Or only problems could be injuries and/or depth.

 

[alexrgct]

I can think of only two operational definitions for claiming 2010 UConn to be invincible, 1995 not so, with only one of those supported by evidence. One is the greatest vulnerability displayed in the half against Virginia, but that was not as bad as the greatest vulnerability displayed in the half against Stanford. The only operational definition that can hold up empirically, as far as I can tell, is that UConn 1995 was not viewed as invincible for the whole year. Up until the first Tennessee game everyone thought that Tennessee would have the historically great, invincible team that year. Other than that, 1995 was more statistically invincible than 2010, while 1995 also has the distinction of possessing the single most invincible Final Four smackdown for a UConn team, 27 points over a well-regarded Stanford team. Indeed, considering the caliber of opponent, that may be the single most impressive display of invincibility by any Final Four team ever .... though apparently VanDerveer was not impressed .... yeah, I just can't let that one go. They also beat the highest caliber opponent "on paper" of any UConn team in a championship, once again the one that was supposed to be invincible when the year started. So you could provide one operational definition by which 2010 comes out more invincible than 1995, but such definition is not a very meaningful one.

The 2010 team played a lot of highly ranked squads and just eviscerated them. The 1995 team didn't have that type of schedule and blinked a bit against both Virginia and Tennessee in the championship game.

The 2010 did indeed play a bad half of basketball against Stanford but outscored them by 14 in the second half. I can't penalize them for that- the 1995 championship game was in doubt for far longer. Having the two best players in WCBB is something that hasn't happened basically ever- not in the modern era, anyway.

 

[alexrgct]

Ugly seems pretty inconceivable to me. (you keep using that word, I'm not sure it means what you think it means ). And if you think Near-Juggernaut or Juggernaut isn't likely, then you're not agreeing with me. That's what I am expecting next year.

I don't think we should have too many growing pains or chemistry problems. We basically have 4 starters back (playing time anyway) and only have to incorporate 1 new player. Or only problems could be injuries and/or depth.

I mean is likely, not isn't.

 

[meyers7]

I mean is likely, not isn't.

ah ok, then we agree.

 

[Icebear]

I mean is likely, not isn't.

Or you may have meant "isn't unlikely."

 

[Wally East]

Having the two best players in WCBB is something that hasn't happened basically ever- not in the modern era, anyway.

I looked into what I thought were two obvious possibilities -- 1998 and 2002 -- and was surprised by what I found.

Holdsclaw the POY in '98. Catchings was only a 2nd team All-American. Catchings was behind Sales, Ticha Penicherio (ODU), Alicia Thompson (Texas Tech), and Tracy Reid (UNC), who were on the first team, and Dominique Canty (Alabama), Muriel Page (Florida), Kristin Folkl (Stanford), and Alisa Burras on the second team (Catching was fifth vote-getter on the second team, if the order of appearance is an indicator (p. 103)).

Bird was POY in '02. Cash and Taurasi were, again, only on the second team. They were behind: Alana Beard (Duke), Chantelle Anderson (Vanderbilt),
Stacey Dales (Oklahoma), and LaToya Thomas (Mississippi State).

 

[Sonny44]

One addition please.
The Near-Juggernaut

The near-juggernaut completes a sterling season, memorable by those who are fans of the team and those who are not. Such teams enter the tournament as favorites, and they prevail accordingly. However, they lack that aura of invincibility the next level of team possesses.

UConn examples- 1995, 2000, 2014

 

[DobbsRover2]

I looked into what I thought were two obvious possibilities -- 1998 and 2002 -- and was surprised by what I found.

Holdsclaw the POY in '98. Catchings was only a 2nd team All-American. Catchings was behind Sales, Ticha Penicherio (ODU), Alicia Thompson (Texas Tech), and Tracy Reid (UNC), who were on the first team, and Dominique Canty (Alabama), Muriel Page (Florida), Kristin Folkl (Stanford), and Alisa Burras on the second team (Catching was fifth vote-getter on the second team, if the order of appearance is an indicator (p. 103)).

Bird was POY in '02. Cash and Taurasi were, again, only on the second team. They were behind: Alana Beard (Duke), Chantelle Anderson (Vanderbilt),
Stacey Dales (Oklahoma), and LaToya Thomas (Mississippi State).

Well, to be blunt, the AP picks are always a bit open for some criticism though they don't usually have giant howlers. Catchings was a freshman in '98 and would only go 3rd in the WNBA draft in 2001, so yeah she was not the second best player in the nation in 1998, though she would be a star in the WNBA.

Looking at the 2002 lists leads me back to a lot of snotty remarks made about the AP selectors back in 2002. Anyone who saw Swin Cash against Stacey Dales in the 2002 NC would not have thought Dales the 1st team player and Cash the 2nd team player, they'd be reversed. Dales wasn't even the best Sooner on the court that game. Who went 2nd in the WNBA 2002 draft behind Bird? Cash. Dales was picked 3rd and her later career did not back up that high a pick compared to say Ashja Jones or Tamika Williams of UConn. Chantelle Anderson and Latoya Thomas would go 1-2 in the WNBA draft in 2003 but never did much, and there were always questions about their real level in college. Beard lived off the FT line more than I liked, but she definitely was the real deal in college and afterward. So Bird might well have had the next-best shadow running right behind her.

 

[Wally East]

Well, to be blunt, the AP picks are always a bit open for some criticism though they don't usually have giant howlers. Catchings was a freshman in '98 and would only go 3rd in the WNBA draft in 2001, so yeah she was not the second best player in the nation in 1998, though she would be a star in the WNBA.

I couldn't find voting for any of the POY awards. Using the WNBA draft seems like a good yardstick to use. On the other hand, Catchings was drafted behind Lauren Jackson and Kelly Miller, so I do think she was the best player in college that year.

Looking at the 2002 lists leads me back to a lot of snotty remarks made about the AP selectors back in 2002.

Yeah, me too. It's hard not think that Bird, Cash, and D weren't the three best players in the game that season.

 

[diggerfoot]

The 2010 team played a lot of highly ranked squads and just eviscerated them. The 1995 team didn't have that type of schedule and blinked a bit against both Virginia and Tennessee in the championship game.

The 2010 did indeed play a bad half of basketball against Stanford but outscored them by 14 in the second half. I can't penalize them for that- the 1995 championship game was in doubt for far longer. Having the two best players in WCBB is something that hasn't happened basically ever- not in the modern era, anyway.

I am talking about evidence to justify invincibility/vulnerability. Having the two best players is not evidence of such; it's an explanation of why it might exist, but not a measure in any sense. Beating more highly ranked teams counts as evidence, but so does greater statistical domination of the opponent, which favors 1995. You could argue that if 2010 had the 1995 schedule their dominance would rise to match 1995's, or if 1995 had the extra highly ranked teams they would have beaten them by double digits as well. Overall, that's not evidence that favors one team over the other.

Ah, but what about Louisville beating Baylor? Vulnerability is vulnerability, what is the chance you might lose to a team great or good. 2010 had trouble against at least two teams: Stanford and Notre Dame. 1995 had trouble against two teams. The vulnerability to Notre Dame lasted longer into the game than the vulnerability to Virginia, two similar teams in terms of quality. Meanwhile there was a much more legitimate, beyond the team's control excuse for 1995 against Tennessee than for 2010 against Stanford, and the vulnerability against Stanford look much greater.

On an ordinal scale I'm not going to convince you that 1995 or 2010 was more vulnerable, it starts getting too subjective for either of us to convince the other. On a nominal scale, however, the two are at the same level.

 

[Wally East]

If I may, I think part of the difference of opinion comes from how we look at the champions. Are we looking at them retrospectively or are at we looking at them prospectively as they move through their season?

If you examine the 1995 team from the point of view as a work in progress, they were looked as a great team, of course, but there was still a question about how they would perform against teams like Stanford and Tennessee on a neutral floor. Obviously, they performed REALLY well. But the questions were asked.

The 2010 team only had a question about whether they'd be okay without Renee. Once it was obvious they'd be fine, there were no questions the rest of the season other than, "When will they visit President Obama?"

 

[DobbsRover2]

Well, to be blunt, the AP picks are always a bit open for some criticism though they don't usually have giant howlers. Catchings was a freshman in '98 and would only go 3rd in the WNBA draft in 2001, so yeah she was not the second best player in the nation in 1998, though she would be a star in the WNBA.

Looking at the 2002 lists leads me back to a lot of snotty remarks made about the AP selectors back in 2002. Anyone who saw Swin Cash against Stacey Dales in the 2002 NC would not have thought Dales the 1st team player and Cash the 2nd team player, they'd be reversed. Dales wasn't even the best Sooner on the court that game. Who went 2nd in the WNBA 2002 draft behind Bird? Cash. Dales was picked 3rd and her later career did not back up that high a pick compared to say Ashja Jones or Tamika Williams of UConn. Chantelle Anderson and Latoya Thomas would go 1-2 in the WNBA draft in 2003 but never did much, and there were always questions about their real level in college. Beard lived off the FT line more than I liked, but she definitely was the real deal in college and afterward. So Bird might well have had the next-best shadow running right behind her.

On Catchings, she was a freshman in 1998 and was still learning a lot. Certainly a very good player behind Holdsclaw at that time, but I would not put her ahead of Sales or Penicheiro then.

 

[Wally East]

On Catchings, she was a freshman in 1998 and was still learning a lot. Certainly a very good player behind Holdsclaw at that time, but I would not put her ahead of Sales or Penicheiro then.

Regretfully, I couldn't find Ticha's season stats for '98.

Here are Catchings and Sales:

PPG RPG APG BPG SPG
20.9 5.7 2.9 0.4 3.3
18.2 8.0 2.4 1.5 2.6

Closer than you thought? Oh, wait, you can tell which one is which, right?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Regretfully, I couldn't find Ticha's season stats for '98.

Here are Catchings and Sales:

PPG RPG APG BPG SPG
20.9 5.7 2.9 0.4 3.3
18.2 8.0 2.4 1.5 2.6

Closer than you thought? Oh, wait, you can tell which one is which, right?

Personally, I'd take Sales the savvy senior over the freshman Catchings who was living behind Holdsclaw her first two years. After CH left, Catchings' scoring and shooting dropped from that 18ppg level down to the 15.5 ppg/.475 range, hence the reason she did not go #1 or #2 in the draft despite the pedigree. Pinicheiro was ODU's floor general who fed the scorers in the team's offensive machine, so stats aren't in a comparable class to the other two players but at 7.1 apg and 4.4 steals per game average with a decent 4.7 rpg career stats and better ones for senior year and a great assist/TO ratio, there was a reason she was highly valued in WCBB and became the first player in WNBA history to 2000 assists and has the record for steals.

And Sales scoring average would have been over 21 if not for the final little action vs Villanova.

 

[reno tony]

One addition please.
The Near-Juggernaut

The near-juggernaut completes a sterling season, memorable by those who are fans of the team and those who are not. Such teams enter the tournament as favorites, and they prevail accordingly. However, they lack that aura of invincibility the next level of team possesses.

UConn examples- 1995, 2000, 2014

Next year I definitely agree will be at least be a Near-Juggernaut year. I can't really think of a team that will give UCONN a game. I expect an undefeated N.C. and will be astonished if they fall short. Realistically, there are four AA possibilities on this team. Best center, best 3-pt shooter, Bria and Stewie. Is there another team that has that kind of potential that I'm overlooking right now? If so, I would like to hear who they are so I can do some research.

 

[baggerbob]

Is there anyone who doesn't think Stewie is just getting started, on her path to being a player who is a finished product?

 

[alexrgct]

Nm