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

[Husky25]

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.

 

[Tenspro2002]

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]

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...

 

[mauconnfan]

Kevin Pangos is still at Gonzaga? How is that even possible???

He probably played at Pitt for 2 years too before he transferred! LOL

 

[HooperScooper]

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]

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.

 

[Tenspro2002]

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).

 

[DogMania]

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!

 

[Tenspro2002]

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.

 

[DogMania]

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.

 

[champs99and04]

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]

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

 

[mauconnfan]

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]

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.