UConn #16 in Dickie V's Pre-season Top 40 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UConn #16 in Dickie V's Pre-season Top 40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
16,450
Reaction Score
31,328
We should not be alarmed at our ranking. What were we ranked last year and in 2011? Its not how you start but how you finish.

Preseason #16 (or pick any low number) and #1 is interchangeable. Only UConn consistently can make that claim.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
5,292
Reaction Score
19,788
We should not be alarmed at our ranking. What were we ranked last year and in 2011? Its not how you start but how you finish.

Preseason #16 (or pick any low number) and #1 is interchangeable. Only UConn consistently can make that claim.

I don't think that anyone has indicated that a team ranked #16 to start the season can't win the title.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
4,089
Reaction Score
5,894
I'm not buying that a kid from Yale was near Jabari Parker. Unless the Yalie did a residency at Duke Hospital.

It is an offensive efficiency stat per KenPom. Nothing more an nothing less. 1 thing you will notice though is ALL the players mentioned by Champs had higher offensive efficiency stats than Parker per KenPom which is known as a credible source.

Just saying Curley and your Moe follower...lol
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
2,793
Reaction Score
4,896
Arizona is going to be a force this year. I don't buy Duke or UNC. Wisconsin will be good though.

Games vs. Duke, Florida, and Texas will be tough ones.
Agree. Nothing that Dook and the Heels did last season plus their additions make me believe they'll end up that high when the dust settles.

As for UConn, I think we'll have a similar up and down season as we did last year and will be positioned come tourney time to make a deep run if they get rolling and don't have horrible matchups along the way. Though note that their matchups last spring looked problematic (Michigan State and Florida, two physical teams that played tough physical D) but they dispatched every team that was in their way.

What makes UConn tough to figure out, they showed very little pre-NCAA that made us believe that they could sustain the run they had. Though they have a history of doing that under both JC and KO.

With KO coaching this team up, and Boatshow leading the way on both ends of the floor, how can anyone count UConn out?!?!
 
Last edited:

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,505
Reaction Score
19,477
Agree. Nothing that Dook and the Heels did last season plus their additions make me believe they'll end up that high when the dust settles.

As for UConn, I think we'll have a similar up and down season as we did last year and will be positioned come tourney time to make a deep run if they get rolling and don't have horrible matchups along the way. Though note that their matchups last spring looked problematic (Michigan State and Florida, two physical teams that played tough physical D) but they dispatched every team that was in their way.

What makes UConn tough to figure out, they showed very little pre-NCAA that made us believe that they could sustain the run they had. Though they have a history of doing that under both JC and KO.

With KO coaching this team up, and Boatshow leading the way on both ends of the floor, how can anyone count UConn out?!?!
Some injuries to UConn's opponents contributed, but at the end of the day, UConn won their last 5 games with defense, defense and more defense, especially in the back court.

Watching Boatright pester the point every trip up the court was a thing of beauty. Teams only had 20 seconds to set up plays that typically take 30 seconds and the ball deny philosophy down low took the likes of Young and Payne out of their element.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,879
Reaction Score
32,718
What makes UConn tough to figure out, they showed very little pre-NCAA that made us believe that they could sustain the run they had. Though they have a history of doing that under both JC and KO.

I actually disagree with your second sentence there. On this board, we have an inexplicable reputation of being a team that has categorically exceeded expectations in March. Actually, it's more fair to say that over our history, we have performed exactly to expectations in March (though this in itself is remarkable, considering how often highly-ranked teams get upset).

For the 20 years preceding 2011, we in fact have typically performed to our expected level, with the exception of a brief period in the mid-2000's where we were on a Kansas-esque streak of falling to teams seeded way below us:

1990 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1991 - #11 seed, Sweet 16 [exceeded]
1992 - #9 seed, 2nd round [matched]
1994 - #2 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
1995 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1996 - #1 seed, Sweet 16 [fell short]
1998 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1999 - #1 seed, champs [matched]
2000 - #5 seed, 2nd round [matched]
2002 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
2003 - #5 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
2004 - #2 seed, champs [matched]
2005 - #2 seed, 2nd round [fell short]
2006 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [fell short]
2008 - #4 seed, 1st round [fell short]
2009 - #1 seed, Final Four [matched]
2011 - #3 seed, champs [exceeded]
2012 - #9 seed, 1st round [matched]
2014 - #7 seed, champs [far exceeded]

It's really only the last two title runs where we've outperformed expectations. Most of the time, it was a good team doing what a good team should do in the Tournament.
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,505
Reaction Score
19,477
I actually disagree with your second sentence there. On this board, we have an inexplicable reputation of being a team that has categorically exceeded expectations in March. Actually, it's more fair to say that over our history, we have performed exactly to expectations in March (though this in itself is remarkable, considering how often highly-ranked teams get upset).

For the 20 years preceding 2011, we in fact have typically performed to our expected level, with the exception of a brief period in the mid-2000's where we were on a Kansas-esque streak of falling to teams seeded way below us:

1990 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1991 - #11 seed, Sweet 16 [exceeded]
1992 - #9 seed, 2nd round [matched]
1994 - #2 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
1995 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1996 - #1 seed, Sweet 16 [fell short]
1998 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1999 - #1 seed, champs [matched]
2000 - #5 seed, 2nd round [matched]
2002 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
2003 - #5 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
2004 - #2 seed, champs [matched]
2005 - #2 seed, 2nd round [fell short]
2006 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [fell short]
2008 - #4 seed, 1st round [fell short]
2009 - #1 seed, Final Four [matched]
2011 - #3 seed, champs [exceeded]
2012 - #9 seed, 1st round [matched]
2014 - #7 seed, champs [far exceeded]

It's really only the last two title runs where we've outperformed expectations. Most of the time, it was a good team doing what a good team should do in the Tournament.
By your measure, UConn has exceeded expectations in the Tournament 3 times, matched 12 times and fell short 4 times, but what is the criteria? Theoretically, a 1 seed should get to the Final 4, a 2 seed should get to the Elite 8, a 3 and 4 seed should get to the Sweet 16, and so on.

So by that definition, UConn has exceeded expectations 6 times, Fell short 6, times and matched 7 times.

I don't know what that means other than I guess I helped support your argument...;)
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
14,293
Reaction Score
78,509
I actually disagree with your second sentence there. On this board, we have an inexplicable reputation of being a team that has categorically exceeded expectations in March. Actually, it's more fair to say that over our history, we have performed exactly to expectations in March (though this in itself is remarkable, considering how often highly-ranked teams get upset).

For the 20 years preceding 2011, we in fact have typically performed to our expected level, with the exception of a brief period in the mid-2000's where we were on a Kansas-esque streak of falling to teams seeded way below us:

1990 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1991 - #11 seed, Sweet 16 [exceeded]
1992 - #9 seed, 2nd round [matched]
1994 - #2 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
1995 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1996 - #1 seed, Sweet 16 [fell short]
1998 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1999 - #1 seed, champs [matched]
2000 - #5 seed, 2nd round [matched]
2002 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
2003 - #5 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
2004 - #2 seed, champs [matched]
2005 - #2 seed, 2nd round [fell short]
2006 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [fell short]
2008 - #4 seed, 1st round [fell short]
2009 - #1 seed, Final Four [matched]
2011 - #3 seed, champs [exceeded]
2012 - #9 seed, 1st round [matched]
2014 - #7 seed, champs [far exceeded]

It's really only the last two title runs where we've outperformed expectations. Most of the time, it was a good team doing what a good team should do in the Tournament.
I'm curious why you have the 1990 team as a 1 seed getting to the Elite 8 matching expected level but the 2006 team as a 1 seed getting to the Elite 8 is falling short.
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,505
Reaction Score
19,477
I'm curious why you have the 1990 team as a 1 seed getting to the Elite 8 matching expected level but the 2006 team as a 1 seed getting to the Elite 8 is falling short.
Only a guess but UConn lost to Duke in an instant classic and eventually made the final game in 1990. UConn as probably the 2nd strongest team in the history of the program lost to a double digit seed in 2006.

It's definitely a personal criteria, whereas mine was far too rigid. The correct methodology is somewhere in between and must take into consideration the seeding, match ups, and intangibles.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,879
Reaction Score
32,718
Only a guess but UConn lost to Duke in an instant classic and eventually made the final game in 1990. UConn as probably the 2nd strongest team in the history of the program lost to a double digit seed in 2006.

It's definitely a personal criteria, whereas mine was far too rigid. The correct methodology is somewhere in between and must take into consideration the seeding, match ups, and intangibles.

Yes, that's right. Mine was a bit subjective.

It was basically "did it feel like we did about as well as we could have?" And in the majority of years, the answer was "yes". In a few of them, it was "we did better than we were expected to". In a few of them, it was "we didn't do as well as expected".

Whether you look at it subjectively or objectively, the fact is UConn teams have tended to perform to expectations, and only in the last 10 years have seriously deviated (disappointing earlier, surprising later).
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
2,793
Reaction Score
4,896
I actually disagree with your second sentence there. On this board, we have an inexplicable reputation of being a team that has categorically exceeded expectations in March. Actually, it's more fair to say that over our history, we have performed exactly to expectations in March (though this in itself is remarkable, considering how often highly-ranked teams get upset).

For the 20 years preceding 2011, we in fact have typically performed to our expected level, with the exception of a brief period in the mid-2000's where we were on a Kansas-esque streak of falling to teams seeded way below us:

1990 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1991 - #11 seed, Sweet 16 [exceeded]
1992 - #9 seed, 2nd round [matched]
1994 - #2 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
1995 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1996 - #1 seed, Sweet 16 [fell short]
1998 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
1999 - #1 seed, champs [matched]
2000 - #5 seed, 2nd round [matched]
2002 - #2 seed, Elite 8 [matched]
2003 - #5 seed, Sweet 16 [matched]
2004 - #2 seed, champs [matched]
2005 - #2 seed, 2nd round [fell short]
2006 - #1 seed, Elite 8 [fell short]
2008 - #4 seed, 1st round [fell short]
2009 - #1 seed, Final Four [matched]
2011 - #3 seed, champs [exceeded]
2012 - #9 seed, 1st round [matched]
2014 - #7 seed, champs [far exceeded]

It's really only the last two title runs where we've outperformed expectations. Most of the time, it was a good team doing what a good team should do in the Tournament.
I was talking about just last season. I don't know how you can disagree with that. Did you see anything in there play during the season that gave you confidence that they could defend the way they did during those six games during the NCAA tournament? I certainly did not!
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
15,879
Reaction Score
32,718
I was talking about just last season. I don't know how you can disagree with that. Did you see anything in there play during the season that gave you confidence that they could defend the way they did during those six games during the NCAA tournament? I certainly did not!

I completely agree with you about last year.

My point is simply just that narrative of "UConn plays its best and exceeds expectations in March" is overblown, and discredits a lot of dominant regular seasons.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
2,793
Reaction Score
4,896
I completely agree with you about last year.

My point is simply just that narrative of "UConn plays its best and exceeds expectations in March" is overblown, and discredits a lot of dominant regular seasons.
They certainly have had mixed results over the years as high and low seeds performing up to or below or beyond their seeding. They obviously exceeded their seeding the last two championship runs.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction Score
23,496
Did you see anything in there play during the season that gave you confidence that they could defend the way they did during those six games during the NCAA tournament? I certainly did not!

I thought the big jump in the tournament came on the offensive side. Defensively, they were top notch pretty much from December onward. A lot of the defenses in the AAC (Louisville, Cincinnati, SMU) made us look pretty bad, and getting to March proved to be a breath of fresh air.
 

David 76

Forty years a fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
6,131
Reaction Score
15,089
No one, no one, expected us to get to the elite 8, let alone the final four in 1990. I understand what you mean re the seeding but it is impossible for me to see that season (or tourney) as under achieving
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
33,488
Reaction Score
96,161
No one, no one, expected us to get to the elite 8, let alone the final four in 1990. I understand what you mean re the seeding but it is impossible for me to see that season (or tourney) as under achieving

Agree David. No matter where they were seeded and placed this was a program that had NEVER been in this spot before and even as a Husky fan to think they could actually go that far and have the ball in Tate's hands to get to the FF, well that was plain insane. This was the one that catapulted UConn hoops into what we have now and everything that happened that year right to the Laetnner bitter end was simply overachieving in the biggest sense.
 

David 76

Forty years a fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
6,131
Reaction Score
15,089
Dickie V and every other "expert" seem to do the same thing every year.
1) Chose 1 team from the hundreds they don't pick every single year (this year Wisconsin)
2)Add that team to the 5 teams they pick every year regardless of reality ( UK, Duke, UNC, KU and AZ)
3) Mix and declare your top six

You are never right but you risk nothing because no one will question picking the "elite" 5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
485
Guests online
3,599
Total visitors
4,084

Forum statistics

Threads
155,780
Messages
4,031,401
Members
9,864
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom