UConn's Season Needs To Be Re-evaluated

[shizzle787]

What early round NCAA results suggest is that BE mid-tier teams were seriously over-rated this year. Among UConn's better wins (we thought) were the four over Marquette and Seton Hall, two teams that were utterly crushed in NCAA 9/8 matchups that were supposed to be even. UConn's own first round loss only underscores the point.

If you re-evaluate the Marquette and Hall wins. what exactly is left to support the notion of UConn as a Top-20 team? Certainly not the six wins over bought cupcakes. Probably not the eight wins over Butler , DePaul, Georgetown and St. Johns. What's left to hang our hats on is the double-overtime win over Auburn, the miracle (ref-aided) win over Villanova and perhaps the overtime win over VCU. You can argue that in those games, although each decided by a final bounce or a favorable whistle, we proved that we can stay with best. Perhaps we also proved this in the closeness of our games with the top-tier of the BE, although going 1-5 against this bunch.

But here's the point -- here's what the NCAA early rounds are proving -- the woods are full of good teams who can stay with the best, even occasionally beat them. UConn was not exceptional in this regard. We were just one of many power conference also-rans and mid-majors who can give a biggie a surprise once in a while. What we perhaps never were, because of the persistent over-rating of the BE mid-tier, was the true Top-20 team we were touted as.

This is not the entirely negative assessment it may seem to be. It just might allow us a kindlier view of what our coach accomplished this year. Instead of seeing him as a coach whose questionable in-game tactics cost an exceptional team a post-reason run, we might see him as a motivating leader who guided a flawed and injury-ridden team to a season as successful as it was ever likely to be,

The only thing early exits suggest is that they got bad matchups or hadn't been playing well yet. Marquette (bad form) and Seton Hall (coaching rumored to leave) does not suggest the middle of the league was overrated. The Big East got six teams in because of the OOC. That is what ultimately determines the cap of teams you can get it. The BE is the 4th rated league by Sagarin (right there with the SEC and well ahead of the Pac-12 and ACC). The league is 4-4 in the tournament so far and 1-0 in the NIT. It is a good league.

However, I do believe that we need to schedule better in the OOC going forward. I ignore the "but we play in the Big East." 80 teams play in the power conferences (ACC, BE, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC). They all have roughly the same difficult league schedules (give or take), but the difference is how these programs schedule OOC. We should be playing a minimum of 6 power conference opponents OOC. Failure to do so (like this year) deprives the team the opportunity to play multiple different styles across different leagues AND referees.

 

[Jimdish255]

You can't win without good guards and decent shooting. We had 1 guard and our shooting was guaranteed to be spotty because we didn't address our most pressing needs. The only thing that needs to be re-evaluated is our Coach's approach to the Portal. And of course the magical thinking on this board that players will reinvent themselves every off-season.

 

[wheelerdog]

We need to get better at winning these games against elite competition, not merely making it close.

This is the next step. Tourney success requires it

 

[UConnSwag11]

I'm not sure this says what you think it does.

What this says is that the computer systems had us very accurately pegged and that we were a pretty low variance team. We returned a lot of our team from last year, had a veteran team, and had a lot of minutes consistency, so we were pretty easy to forecast. We were ranked 20-24th in the pre-season almost everywhere... and we finished 20th and got a 5 seed. And it's not like the ride was very bumpy. We were between 16 and 27 in KenPom the entire season.

In general our style is pretty low variance, too. We don't take a ton of 3's, offensive rebounding and defense is consistent home and away, and we don't do risky things like press or try to force a ton of turnovers at the cost of easy buckets to teams that can beat it.

Providence for example being 7-2 is because the computer systems underrated them all year and they were underdogs in games they should have been favorites in (like Home vs. Seton Hall). Their shooting is pretty streaky and their foul drawing can be subject to ref game variance. We were correctly forecast as underdog or favorite in basically all of our games.

Fair if this was an off year. 3 years of this is a large enough sample to be a cause for concern.

 

[UCSouth]

Probably less the result of my post than a long-standing inner need.

Or maybe the fact that you wanted your 15 minutes, so you started a thread about the same thing as 10 other threads since we lost. Just a little kinder and gentler.

 

[gtcam]

The season was what the season should have been based on many factors that have been discussed and beaten to death.
Change has to come in many areas. It starts with the coaching- lots of areas to be addressed
The players - need to get stronger and work a lot on fundamentals - all the different ones that each player is lacking
This was not an off year, It was a year where the team produced to expected results based on who played and how they were coached

 

[ecasadoSBU]

What early round NCAA results suggest is that BE mid-tier teams were seriously over-rated this year. Among UConn's better wins (we thought) were the four over Marquette and Seton Hall, two teams that were utterly crushed in NCAA 9/8 matchups that were supposed to be even. UConn's own first round loss only underscores the point.

If you re-evaluate the Marquette and Hall wins. what exactly is left to support the notion of UConn as a Top-20 team? Certainly not the six wins over bought cupcakes. Probably not the eight wins over Butler , DePaul, Georgetown and St. Johns. What's left to hang our hats on is the double-overtime win over Auburn, the miracle (ref-aided) win over Villanova and perhaps the overtime win over VCU. You can argue that in those games, although each decided by a final bounce or a favorable whistle, we proved that we can stay with best. Perhaps we also proved this in the closeness of our games with the top-tier of the BE, although going 1-5 against this bunch.

But here's the point -- here's what the NCAA early rounds are proving -- the woods are full of good teams who can stay with the best, even occasionally beat them. UConn was not exceptional in this regard. We were just one of many power conference also-rans and mid-majors who can give a biggie a surprise once in a while. What we perhaps never were, because of the persistent over-rating of the BE mid-tier, was the true Top-20 team we were touted as.

This is not the entirely negative assessment it may seem to be. It just might allow us a kindlier view of what our coach accomplished this year. Instead of seeing him as a coach whose questionable in-game tactics cost an exceptional team a post-reason run, we might see him as a motivating leader who guided a flawed and injury-ridden team to a season as successful as it was ever likely to be,

Ha. Trying to throw the league under the bus to explain UConn first round exit?!?

I disagree. The Big East mid-tier was really good and they proved it against OOC competition early in the season. But the NCAA is all about matchups and the teams that find themselves best at this point in time. Most of our Big East teams were worn down.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Please stop with x league was overrated based on a 2 or 3 game sample.

If PC and Nova somehow both make it to the final 4 does that then mean the league was actually good?

What about the SEC? Kentucky (2), Tennessee (3), Alabama (6), LSU (6) all getting bounced.

 

[jibsey]

St. John's played us twice to a draw nearly and they didn't even make the NIT. We were weren't miles better than them but we beat Auburn and everyone got stars in their eyes right?
Hurley, get me a stud 2 guard!

 

[Palatine]

What? The Boneyard overrates the Big East? Heavens no, say it's not so.

 

[Storrs South]

Marginalizing any success this team had while emphasizing the failures doesn't accurately summarize the season.

Sure they had to thread a needle and get a break on a 50/50 call vs. Nova, but this team also got a bad shafted by the refs against Michigan State, even add the touch fouls @ Nova and @ Xavier. Should we just talk about the first part and ignore the latter?

They protected home court going 14-2 at home while also having some let downs away going 5-5 in such contests, but also went 3-1 during neutral contests prior to the BET (1-2 thereafter).

They swept Marquette who swept Nova. They beat Auburn. They beat Nova for the first time in 8 years. They beat a lot of good teams on their home floor. These were successes. No need to pretend they didn't happen or don't count or carry any significance.

They were an excellent shot blocking and offensive rebounding unit, but inconsistent from 3-point range and inefficient at the rim (again).

It isn't mutually exclusive to say it was a good season and they beat good to great teams from November to February while also acknowledge this team had some shortcomings that were easy to exploit and opponents got better at figuring it out by February / March.

Some of those shortcomings include that after Tyrese the next two highest volume 3-pt shooters on the team went 33-35% from distance on the season. That isn't going to get it done in 2022. That's partly on the staff for roster construction, partly bad luck due to injuries, and partly players not executing (how many wide open 3s were missed v. NMSU?).

The defense is so focused on shotblocking it leaves vulnerabilities to opponent offensive rebounding. It crushed them all season. There needs to be a happy balance or better recovery by weakside defenders to help on the glass.

Silly turnovers in transition and inconsistency on press breaks due to not enough strong ball handlers on the roster and too high an appetite for risk.

At end of day though staff needs to take care of business in March: make a BET championship, get to the second weekend of NCAAT. And soon.

I am optimistic for next year when you are talking about a starting 5 that should include foundational pieces like Andre, Sanogo, and Hawk. Add Akok to that bunch, too. That's shooting, passing, rim protection, rebounding, and post play all covered. Add some ballhandling and more shooting and this team could be pretty good again next year.

You know Hurley coached teams have a minimum standard of defense and another season of Luke Murray in the building for offensive scheming going into Year 2 with some guys should pay massive dividends, but continued development like saw from Andre and Sanogo Year 1 to year 2, next year could surprise.

But back to the original point: Let's not warp reality for the sake of beating the same points over the head, long way to go to November.

 

[jdb50]

With big leads at the half away against Georgetown and at home against Depaul that we turned into close final scores at the end of the season were red flags to me. The lack of consistent shooting and offense with not being able to defend the 3 well. Creighton was just a coaching clinic and they own us even without their point guard. Seton Hall playing without their point guard who we could not stop in game one. We could win the Big East and still lay an egg in the Tourney but it won't be because of our league.

 

[willie99]

Probably less the result of my post than a long-standing inner need.

It's not you at all

It's a collective effort

 

[pj]

View attachment 74654

Yes, 0-5 as the underdog this year and 1-5 last year shows the team did not have the ability to exploit mismatches to get an advantage over a generally superior team. This was a team of good but limited players, many of whom excelled only at a very specific role, and they played hard, but they had a hard ceiling they couldn't rise above. It didn't help that they basically had 6 guys and so no ability to give opponents a different look. And because the team was so dependent on having every player play their best, when the pressure made them tighten up just a little, the team performance took a big hit.

 

[Letsgohuskies11]

We lost to a team that shot 65% from 3 and had a guy score 37 points.
No we aren’t perfect, but we could easily be in the Sweet 16 right now, and giving Gonzaga he**. Arkansas and NMSU looked extremely unimpressive last night. We caught NMSU on one of their best nights ever.
That’s March madness.

Kentucky had CHAMPIONSHIP aspirations this year. And they lost to the MAAC team in round 1. It could be worse folks. It’s hard to win in the NCAA tournament. Very very very freaking hard. We’ve been lucky to have a HOF coach and some bad mfin point guards. We were inches away from losing to Arizona in 2011, and an Amida Brimah and- one away from losing in round 1 in 2014.

The loss sucks eggs. Hard. But it doesn’t take away from the good season we had, and progress that was made.

I am concerned about next season though. Hurley has some work to do in the roster construction department.

NMSU shooting 65% from 3 and having a guy score 37 still doesn't excuse how poor UConn looked out of the gate. Our defense had been strong as of late but this teams downfall has always been it's offense. There seemed like a real lack of energy and fire as well that was baffling.

 

[willie99]

NMSU shooting 65% from 3 and having a guy score 37 still doesn't excuse how poor UConn looked out of the gate. Our defense had been strong as of late but this teams downfall has always been it's offense. There seemed like a real lack of energy and fire as well that was baffling.

I don't think it was lack of energy, moreso about the lack of talent on the offensive side of the ball. We need to shoot better, it's as simple as that. It seemed like at the beginning of games, Cole was trying to get other people involved and it usually didn't work.

 

[Inyatkin]

Or maybe it's that the tournament is way more of a crapshoot than we give it credit for. A mediocre NC team is suddenly better than No. 1 seed Baylor ever though Baylor had a better season by every conceivable metric? Memphis-Gonzaga, Arizona-TCU? A one-and-out tournament means crazy stuff happens, which is why people like it so much. But with the exception of truly dominant teams, it rarely does a great job of proving who's better over the long haul.

 

[UCLJ0211]

As others have said, overall it was a positive year and another step forward for the program. We produced, for the most part, the expected results. Yes, the tourney loss stings and was disappointing, but think about what some of you are saying: would one more win in the NCAA tourney really have made the difference between a “successful” and “unsuccessful” year?

 

[August_West]

As others have said, overall it was a positive year and another step forward for the program. We produced, for the most part, the expected results. Yes, the tourney loss stings and was disappointing, but think about what some of you are saying: would one more win in the NCAA tourney really have made the difference between a “successful” and “unsuccessful” year?

Kind of. That would've been a step forward.

I don't see this past season as a step forward. I saw it as holding ground with last year. Same results. 3rd place finish in Big East regular season. Loss in BET semi's and 1st round NCAA loss as higher seed. It actually played out as exactly the same as the year before so how can that be a step forward? Especially after all that hullaballoo with the 45:07 (or whatever it was) mantra and all that. I guess if you want to say we were top 25 for much of season, I guess that is something, but that is marginal to me compared to the overall arc of the season.

I believe we could've stepped forward this year. I believe we had the pieces to play just a bit better than we did as I look at the overall arc of the season. Was it a successful season overall? I suppose I would say yes. But for me it was a frustrating successful season. It felt like we had another gear to hit, and saw flashes of it but could never fully put it together. Very tantalizing season and I'm using tantalizing in the original reference to the story of Tantalus.

We had a lot of very serviceable and sometimes excellent pieces to this team. It definitely wasn't easy to fit them together. I do believe though that there were fit possibilities that could've been addressed by coach. It was mystifying to me at times, after everything we had seen. Combined the lack of addressing of the ill fitting pieces, along with some inconsistent play on pretty much everyone on the team at some point this year, and it always felt that we were just short of getting over the hump.

I'm looking forward to next year. I think we have some real possibilities. I don't think we should be looking to step back from what we've done the last 2 years or expect it. I expect to be better.

 

[shizzle787]

As others have said, overall it was a positive year and another step forward for the program. We produced, for the most part, the expected results. Yes, the tourney loss stings and was disappointing, but think about what some of you are saying: would one more win in the NCAA tourney really have made the difference between a “successful” and “unsuccessful” year?

Yea

 

[businesslawyer]

The only thing early exits suggest is that they got bad matchups or hadn't been playing well yet. Marquette (bad form) and Seton Hall (coaching rumored to leave) does not suggest the middle of the league was overrated. The Big East got six teams in because of the OOC. That is what ultimately determines the cap of teams you can get it. The BE is the 4th rated league by Sagarin (right there with the SEC and well ahead of the Pac-12 and ACC). The league is 4-4 in the tournament so far and 1-0 in the NIT. It is a good league.

However, I do believe that we need to schedule better in the OOC going forward. I ignore the "but we play in the Big East." 80 teams play in the power conferences (ACC, BE, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC). They all have roughly the same difficult league schedules (give or take), but the difference is how these programs schedule OOC. We should be playing a minimum of 6 power conference opponents OOC. Failure to do so (like this year) deprives the team the opportunity to play multiple different styles across different leagues AND referees.

I understand your point, but computers don’t overrate anyone. They tell you how good teams played when the confererences played against each other in November and December. Marquette and Seton Hall had good wins. What computers can’t do is tell you what will happen tomorrow . Just what will happen tomorrow if teams play like their averages.

Having said that, trashing the Hall because the players couldn’t handle emotionally learning their coach was leaving them is unbelievably unfair.

 

[mussels]

Very tantalizing season and I'm using tantalizing in the original reference to the story of Tantalus.

OK. So once again, I had to look something up, and learn cause of the Boneyard. Thanks.

 

[Watchdog]

What early round NCAA results suggest is that BE mid-tier teams were seriously over-rated this year. Among UConn's better wins (we thought) were the four over Marquette and Seton Hall, two teams that were utterly crushed in NCAA 9/8 matchups that were supposed to be even. UConn's own first round loss only underscores the point.

If you re-evaluate the Marquette and Hall wins. what exactly is left to support the notion of UConn as a Top-20 team? Certainly not the six wins over bought cupcakes. Probably not the eight wins over Butler , DePaul, Georgetown and St. Johns. What's left to hang our hats on is the double-overtime win over Auburn, the miracle (ref-aided) win over Villanova and perhaps the overtime win over VCU. You can argue that in those games, although each decided by a final bounce or a favorable whistle, we proved that we can stay with best. Perhaps we also proved this in the closeness of our games with the top-tier of the BE, although going 1-5 against this bunch.

But here's the point -- here's what the NCAA early rounds are proving -- the woods are full of good teams who can stay with the best, even occasionally beat them. UConn was not exceptional in this regard. We were just one of many power conference also-rans and mid-majors who can give a biggie a surprise once in a while. What we perhaps never were, because of the persistent over-rating of the BE mid-tier, was the true Top-20 team we were touted as.

This is not the entirely negative assessment it may seem to be. It just might allow us a kindlier view of what our coach accomplished this year. Instead of seeing him as a coach whose questionable in-game tactics cost an exceptional team a post-reason run, we might see him as a motivating leader who guided a flawed and injury-ridden team to a season as successful as it was ever likely to be,b

Good points, but we can also see him as failing to properly construct a roster. Too few guards who can handle and shoot being the most obvious. But, maybe it all simply comes down to mistakenly believing JG was going to be a complete, confident, player by his junior year.

 

[Kolumbo]

the season was a success, no question. Here's the deal, some of you will agree and some of you will not disagree.

There's Kentucky, a blue blood program steamrolling along year after year in the same conference for the past 200 years always ranked always making the dance scores a 2 seed and BAM! out in the first round. It happens to everyone. Here's UCONN still trying to get back to normal after multiple CR kicks in the crotch, stuck in an abysmal conference, coaching changes, a change to another conference which hadn't yet solidified itself, and trying to tell recruits it's all good. First round loss first round shmoss.

 

[Hoopcrazee]

We lost to a team that shot 65% from 3 and had a guy score 37 points.
No we aren’t perfect, but we could easily be in the Sweet 16 right now, and giving Gonzaga he**. Arkansas and NMSU looked extremely unimpressive last night. We caught NMSU on one of their best nights ever.
That’s March madness.

Kentucky had CHAMPIONSHIP aspirations this year. And they lost to the MAAC team in round 1. It could be worse folks. It’s hard to win in the NCAA tournament. Very very very freaking hard. We’ve been lucky to have a HOF coach and some bad mfin point guards. We were inches away from losing to Arizona in 2011, and an Amida Brimah and- one away from losing in round 1 in 2014.

The loss sucks eggs. Hard. But it doesn’t take away from the good season we had, and progress that was made.

I am concerned about next season though. Hurley has some work to do in the roster construction department.

Great take... March Madness / March Sadness..one team shoots lights out, other team not so much...I'd guess we'd beat NMSU more times than not...but it's not like we hadn't seen that kind of performance on way too many occasions this year...

I'll take the good though..where were we 3 years ago, two years ago..vast improvement!!!

Seems like we always fall into the trap of overhyping our prospects for an upcoming season or the latest greatest incoming recruit...How about the seasons that PC and Creighton had????

After watching the tourney, there are plenty of underclassmen playing major roles ...Let's hope the influx of talent is as good as we are led to believe...and Hurley finds a great complementary piece or two on the late recruiting trail or transfer portal...It's FUN to be relevant again!!!