ugly game

[AtlHusky]

Free setting up high expectations for Ollie means that if he didn't meet them, then the school should fire him now and get it over with. If he meets them, then Ollie is just doing what he is supposed to and there should be no reason to give him props. Its a win-win for him either way.

My sentiments exactly. Free's conspicuous agenda is more important to him than the team's success. In my book, Free's a fraud of a fan.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I thought this team was a minimum 18 wins form the outset, so I guess I don't buy all the alocades.

I know there is nothing that Ollie could do to impress you at this point, but here's a good rule of thumb....

When a team that's coming off an 18-win regular season loses four starters and a Hall of Fame head coach in the offseason (and only brings in one immediate impact freshman), it's usually pretty damn impressive if they win the exact same number of games (or more) the following year.

 

[freescooter]

That pretty opto
That is pretty optimistic coming from you Free. That usually would mean we are going to win 30 games. I also do not see the BE being down- nor these teams being "exposed" there are what 5 ranked teams in the BE and another 5 teams that have shown they can beat top 15 teams if they play well including UCONN.

18 games is a good season- not great but good. We lost our two best players to the Pros and had 3 leave and we are still competing at a reasonable level.

I guess if you did not set your expectations so high you could not longer be negative about what we are doing so your season would have been a bust. I get it.

I thought we had a good "mid-major" type team...weak front court but with better than mid-major back court players. We had the usual glop in the early season, and got a break from the Big East schedulers in that we got our home-homes with DePaul, Providence and USF, not Syracuse, Louisville and Cincy. fiigured we'd be 10-2 in the early season, though I admit I thought it would be a different 2 losses. That meant we'd need to win 8 big East games. Given the dreck at the bottom of the league, Depaul X2 , St Johns, the Rutgirls, PC X2, USF X2, Seton Hall, Villanova who despite their recent upset isn't that good, and considering that you can almost always count on 1 or two upsets from everyone over the course of the conference season (see Notre Dame), it sure didn't seem a really high bar. Guys, Rutgers was a really bad basketball team. DePaul is dreadful. their RPIs look decent because of the Big East but they aren't good teams. Providence lost to Brown and did almost the impossible and lost to DePaul. I would argue that aceboone and his fellow Ollieistas basically under stated the status of this team and the Big East in order to be able to claim that a decent season, one which really was about what should have been expected, was somehow this remarkable coaching job by Ollie. We could have picked a name out of a hat to coach this team with this schedule and the expectation would have been .500. And as for the quality of the Big East this year, we have 4 ranked teams, but only 1top 10 and two of the 4 are 24 and 25. It is just not quite up to the standards we've come to expect. given where the league has been in the recent past, a little rebuilding would not be unexpected.

 

[freescooter]

I know there is nothing that Ollie could do to impress you at this point, but here's a good rule of thumb....

When a team that's coming off an 18-win regular season loses four starters and a Hall of Fame head coach in the offseason (and only brings in one immediate impact freshman), it's usually pretty damn impressive if they win the exact same number of games (or more) the following year.

What team did you follow last year? We won 20, not 18.

 

[aceboon]

What team did you follow last year? We won 20, not 18.

18 REGULAR SEASON WINS

 

[champs99and04]

Today was a day when it really struck home how undertalented this team is. There is some decent talent, but as I have said before, you have to go back 20 years to find a team with as little NBA-caliber talent as this one. I like Evans' hustle and there are benefits to having a guard as physically strong as he is, but would this guy ever get these kind of minutes on any Calhoun team? Before you say Harrison, Harrison was a cheetah compared to Evans.

We are Boat, Napier, Daniels, and 5 Calhoun Whipping Boys. Daniels is still below average defensively and Boat is getting close to mediocre. I like Giffey's game but when 7 points is a big game when UConn was struggling this hard to score, you can't argue that he is more than a role player, yet he played half or more of the last 4 games.

I love the hustle and chemistry, but UConn is a Mercedes program and this team is a Chevy. I think people predicting a Top 15 preseason if everyone returns are being exceptionally optimistic. There are a lot of guys playing about as well as they are ever going to play.

Today was an ugly game because this team depends on outside shots to win and there will be cold spells that are terrifying as a fan. It's going to happen. I think this team will win 20 games with the remaining schedule, and I will consider this season a big success.

I disagree with this post almost entirely, outside of the fact that 20 wins this season would be a huge success. Do we have a ton of NBA talent on this team? No. But this board is caught up in the notion that you MUST have NBA talent to contend in college basketball, and that's just not the case. College Basketball is a watered down product - you don't need a surplus of skilled, long, athletic bodies up front to win. Most teams get by with one, two at the most unless you're a McDonald's All-American factory like UNC or UK, and even then, those teams are generally inexperienced and able to be exploited.

When I look at this team, I see four potential very good college players, and about four or five role players. Are Omar Calhoun and Deandre Daniels going to be lottery picks? No. Neither are incredibly quick off the bounce, they're not built to put on a ton of muscle, and they struggle moving their feet latterally from time to time. However, you can score an awful lot of buckets in college basketball simply by out-manuvering your defender. A crafty player who can hit shots from anywhere on the floor, use the defenders aggression to his advantage, and consistently get to the line is going to be successful in college basketball regardless of how athletically gifted they are. And it's not as if Daniels and Calhoun are stiffs athletically - they can both get off the ground, run the floor, and defend at a competent level despite not fully understanding the nuances of defending at the D-1 level just yet. With another year in the weight room, a summer hoisting hundreds of jumpers per day, and the coachings of an NBA coaching staff, it's hard to imagine Daniels and Calhoun not presenting matchup problems defensively for the opposition.

Making matters worse, neither of those two even have to create their own offense, because the amount of guards int he country who can stay in front of Boatright and Napier can probably be counted on one hand. The value of potentially returning our entire starting lineup is enormous. It is impossible to quantify the value of cohesion in college basketball, offensively and defensively, specifically in an era where few of the top teams return their entire cores from year to year.

I don't want to get into too much deteail in fear that this will become one of my classic essays, but the offensive ceiling of this four man core (Daniels, Calhoun, Napier, Boatright) is extremely high. I talked about it before the season, and we've seen glimpses of it this year. Floor spacing is the most fundamental aspect of any efficient offense - you need shooters, guys who can create their own shot, and guys who can pass. If Calhoun and Daniels make the necessary improvements over the off-season, UConn will have four formidable shooters, and four guys who at least pose the threat of driving to the basket (in other words, there's nowhere to "hide" a poor defender - we saw what happened to poor Scott Martin in the Notre Dame game). I'm already salivating at the possiblity of what the offense could look like next year.

Now, is this team going to resemble our 2004 group? Of course not. But let me say it again - COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS A DIMINISHED PRODUCT. Some of you are using past UConn teams as a foundation, and it is simply not feasible to replicate, or even approach, the level of basketball we saw here in some of the glory years. The D-League makes it too easy for any Joe Schmo to declare for the draft and take his chances. Sure, there will be a couple teams with 4-5 NBA players, and if they click by the time March rolls around, they'll probably win it all. But they have their own obstacles to overcome, and at the end of the day I think next years team will be one of the 15-20 teams in any given year with a realistic shot at making the Final Four.

 

[caw]

I disagree with this post almost entirely, outside of the fact that 20 wins this season would be a huge success. Do we have a ton of NBA talent on this team? No. But this board is caught up in the notion that you MUST have NBA talent to contend in college basketball, and that's just not the case. College Basketball is a watered down product - you don't need a surplus of skilled, long, athletic bodies up front to win. Most teams get by with one, two at the most unless you're a McDonald's All-American factory like UNC or UK, and even then, those teams are generally inexperienced and able to be exploited.

When I look at this team, I see four potential very good college players, and about four or five role players. Are Omar Calhoun and Deandre Daniels going to be lottery picks? No. Neither are incredibly quick off the bounce, they're not built to put on a ton of muscle, and they struggle moving their feet latterally from time to time. However, you can score an awful lot of buckets in college basketball simply by out-manuvering your defender. A crafty player who can hit shots from anywhere on the floor, use the defenders aggression to his advantage, and consistently get to the line is going to be successful in college basketball regardless of how athletically gifted they are. And it's not as if Daniels and Calhoun are stiffs athletically - they can both get off the ground, run the floor, and defend at a competent level despite not fully understanding the nuances of defending at the D-1 level just yet. With another year in the weight room, a summer hoisting hundreds of jumpers per day, and the coachings of an NBA coaching staff, it's hard to imagine Daniels and Calhoun not presenting matchup problems defensively for the opposition.

Making matters worse, neither of those two even have to create their own offense, because the amount of guards int he country who can stay in front of Boatright and Napier can probably be counted on one hand. The value of potentially returning our entire starting lineup is enormous. It is impossible to quantify the value of cohesion in college basketball, offensively and defensively, specifically in an era where few of the top teams return their entire cores from year to year.

I don't want to get into too much deteail in fear that this will become one of my classic essays, but the offensive ceiling of this four man core (Daniels, Calhoun, Napier, Boatright) is extremely high. I talked about it before the season, and we've seen glimpses of it this year. Floor spacing is the most fundamental aspect of any efficient offense - you need shooters, guys who can create their own shot, and guys who can pass. If Calhoun and Daniels make the necessary improvements over the off-season, UConn will have four formidable shooters, and four guys who at least pose the threat of driving to the basket (in other words, there's nowhere to "hide" a poor defender - we saw what happened to poor Scott Martin in the Notre Dame game). I'm already salivating at the possiblity of what the offense could look like next year.

Now, is this team going to resemble our 2004 group? Of course not. But let me say it again - COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS A DIMINISHED PRODUCT. Some of you are using past UConn teams as a foundation, and it is simply not feasible to replicate, or even approach, the level of basketball we saw here in some of the glory years. The D-League makes it too easy for any Joe Schmo to declare for the draft and take his chances. Sure, there will be a couple teams with 4-5 NBA players, and if they click by the time March rolls around, they'll probably win it all. But they have their own obstacles to overcome, and at the end of the day I think next years team will be one of the 15-20 teams in any given year with a realistic shot at making the Final Four.

I agree with your point, not sure about it being diminished though. 1999 had Rip, Jake and El-Amin as NBA players and only Rip who left right away. Jake played some solid NBA minutes but was never a starter. El-Amin didn't play that long due to his height/weight ratio. That team might have been the best ever assembled at UConn.

 

[freescooter]

I know there is nothing that Ollie could do to impress you at this point, but here's a good rule of thumb....

When a team that's coming off an 18-win regular season loses four starters and a Hall of Fame head coach in the offseason (and only brings in one immediate impact freshman), it's usually pretty damn impressive if they win the exact same number of games (or more) the following year.

Also keep in mind that last year's team was one of the most under performing in recent memory. Completely disfunctional For both internal and external reasons with the Boatright/NCAA issues, one or another front court players in a funk, the coach missing games and the point guard complaining about his teammates. that team came into the season figuring to compete for a national championship and went out with a whimper in the round of 64. So living up to their performance isn't that impressive.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I disagree with this post almost entirely, outside of the fact that 20 wins this season would be a huge success. Do we have a ton of NBA talent on this team? No. But this board is caught up in the notion that you MUST have NBA talent to contend in college basketball, and that's just not the case. College Basketball is a watered down product - you don't need a surplus of skilled, long, athletic bodies up front to win. Most teams get by with one, two at the most unless you're a McDonald's All-American factory like UNC or UK, and even then, those teams are generally inexperienced and able to be exploited.

When I look at this team, I see four potential very good college players, and about four or five role players. Are Omar Calhoun and Deandre Daniels going to be lottery picks? No. Neither are incredibly quick off the bounce, they're not built to put on a ton of muscle, and they struggle moving their feet latterally from time to time. However, you can score an awful lot of buckets in college basketball simply by out-manuvering your defender. A crafty player who can hit shots from anywhere on the floor, use the defenders aggression to his advantage, and consistently get to the line is going to be successful in college basketball regardless of how athletically gifted they are. And it's not as if Daniels and Calhoun are stiffs athletically - they can both get off the ground, run the floor, and defend at a competent level despite not fully understanding the nuances of defending at the D-1 level just yet. With another year in the weight room, a summer hoisting hundreds of jumpers per day, and the coachings of an NBA coaching staff, it's hard to imagine Daniels and Calhoun not presenting matchup problems defensively for the opposition.

Making matters worse, neither of those two even have to create their own offense, because the amount of guards int he country who can stay in front of Boatright and Napier can probably be counted on one hand. The value of potentially returning our entire starting lineup is enormous. It is impossible to quantify the value of cohesion in college basketball, offensively and defensively, specifically in an era where few of the top teams return their entire cores from year to year.

I don't want to get into too much deteail in fear that this will become one of my classic essays, but the offensive ceiling of this four man core (Daniels, Calhoun, Napier, Boatright) is extremely high. I talked about it before the season, and we've seen glimpses of it this year. Floor spacing is the most fundamental aspect of any efficient offense - you need shooters, guys who can create their own shot, and guys who can pass. If Calhoun and Daniels make the necessary improvements over the off-season, UConn will have four formidable shooters, and four guys who at least pose the threat of driving to the basket (in other words, there's nowhere to "hide" a poor defender - we saw what happened to poor Scott Martin in the Notre Dame game). I'm already salivating at the possiblity of what the offense could look like next year.

Now, is this team going to resemble our 2004 group? Of course not. But let me say it again - COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS A DIMINISHED PRODUCT. Some of you are using past UConn teams as a foundation, and it is simply not feasible to replicate, or even approach, the level of basketball we saw here in some of the glory years. The D-League makes it too easy for any Joe Schmo to declare for the draft and take his chances. Sure, there will be a couple teams with 4-5 NBA players, and if they click by the time March rolls around, they'll probably win it all. But they have their own obstacles to overcome, and at the end of the day I think next years team will be one of the 15-20 teams in any given year with a realistic shot at making the Final Four.

College basketball is played at an incredibly high level today compared to 40, or even 20 years ago. Early entrants have been going on since Magic, so don't complain about the NBA. The quality of youth league, AAU, and high school ball is light years ahead of 30 years ago, in part because the coaching is so much better. High schools are producing a lot more athletes, and a lot more of those athletes are playing basketball because sports like baseball are in decline. There is a ton of talent out there, and with so many professional outlets internationally, a lot more college players that take their game seriously. More importantly, foreign youth basketball has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, so there are a lot more quality players from overseas than there were then.

30 years ago, many college coaches, even in D1, were not full-time because it didn't pay enough. 30 years ago, a bottom 100 college might pay a HC $50k and his assistants were close to minimum wage. Tom Moore makes $300k a year at Quinnipiac. He isn't going to get rich off that, but it is still $300k a year, and he can pay his assistants enough to attract quality talent that looks at basketball coaching as a career and not just something to pay some bills before they find their next job.

The coaching is better across the board and you see it on the court. Even bad teams play good defense and have a couple of shooters. It is definitely NOT a diminished product.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Also keep in mind that last year's team was one of the most under performing in recent memory. Completely disfunctional For both internal and external reasons with the Boatright/NCAA issues, one or another front court players in a funk, the coach missing games and the point guard complaining about his teammates. that team came into the season figuring to compete for a national championship and went out with a whimper in the round of 64. So living up to their performance isn't that impressive.

It is when you have significantly less talent. It is when you still have the same point guard who contributed to last year's disfunction.

And of course, if this year's team has better chemistry and plays with more effort than last year's team (despite not even having a post season to play for), it would be crazy to give some credit to the head coach. Right?

 

[freescooter]

It is when you have significantly less talent. It is when you still have the same point guard who contributed to last year's disfunction.

And of course, if this year's team has better chemistry and plays with more effort than last year's team (despite not even having a post season to play for), it would be crazy to give some credit to the head coach. Right?

Yeah. Kevin Ollie is definitely a better head coach than Jim Calhoun. PUHLEEZE!

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Yeah. Kevin Ollie is definitely a better head coach than Jim Calhoun. PUHLEEZE!

OK I give up. I would recommend researching the term "straw man argument" and then stop using them.

 

[Husky68]

We weren't very good this game. Rutgers really blows.

What does that say about Uconn when can't beat Pitt and Rutgers did? Losing to ND by 3 @ ND suggests they are at least a tough out.

 

[Waquoit]

What does that say about Uconn when can't beat Pitt and Rutgers did?

Nothing, file it under stuff happens. Did you see the game? UConn wasn't exactly on all cylinders and Rutgers just rolled over.

 

[freescooter]

What does that say about Uconn when can't beat Pitt and Rutgers did? Losing to ND by 3 @ ND suggests they are at least a tough out.

Things happen especially in conference games. On the whole its pretty rare for a team to go 18-0 in the conference and its pretty rare for a team to go 0-18. And over the course of a season, a surprising number of upsets happen. Some you figure are possible. Some are completely inexplicable. Over the years UConn has been on both sides of the ledger as far as that goes. As have all the other Big East teams...

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Yeah. Kevin Ollie is definitely a better head coach than Jim Calhoun. PUHLEEZE!

Your contrarianism is starting to sound like insanity.

 

[Greathusky]

I guess after losing Alex, Roscoe and JC and dealing with the sanctions, my expectations were tempered going into the season. This team has exceeded my expectations. We knew that rebounding would be a problem. We knew that creating offense would be a problem. If you had told me before the season that we would beat Michigan State in Germany and ND on their home court with a record of 13-5 at this point, you would have seen a -eating grin on my face.

 

[freescooter]

There were just so many things that effected last year's performance that it really isn't much of a metric. Forget about the players and the coach. Think about what went on. Calhoun missed a bunch of games with his illness, Boatright missed a bunch due to NCAA issues, Drummond and Oriaki didn't get along, lamb and Napier didn't get along. We lost 4 guys to but in terms of team chemistry it was somewhat a case of addition by subtraction. And as i said, the Big East is a little down this year, too. Sure not an 11 bid league this year. And we got a break from the Big East schedule makers on top of that. I really htink some people just assumed we'd be bad this year without looking at what we had and what the rest of the league had and what our non-league schedule was like. And some just wanted to set a very low bar such that as long as Ollie managed to show up wearing pants to most games they could say he over performed. And there were a bunch who didn't want to predict, because they knew 18 was reasonable, but if they said it and this team failed to get there, they'd have to conclude that Ollie wasn't the answer. The bottom line is that as long as UConn stayed healthy and eligible, 17-18 games was a completely reasonable expectation when you look at who we had on the schedule and who we had on the team. 16 was a lock.

 

[AtlHusky]

There were just so many things that effected last year's performance that it really isn't much of a metric. Forget about the players and the coach.... Calhoun missed a bunch of games with his illness, Boatright missed a bunch due to NCAA issues, Drummond and Oriaki didn't get along, lamb and Napier didn't get along. We lost 4 guys to but in terms of team chemistry it was somewhat a case of addition by subtraction.

So forget about the players and the coach?...So instead you decide to focus on the players and coach.

And as i said, the Big East is a little down this year, too. Sure not an 11 bid league this year.

No, instead it looks like an 8 or 9 bid league w/o UConn in the mix and one team that normally makes it already out the door as of this year.

And we got a break from the Big East schedule makers on top of that.

The only thing you said here that I can't disagree with.

I really htink some people just assumed we'd be bad this year without looking at what we had and what the rest of the league had and what our non-league schedule was like.

I wasn't able to quickly find our OOC SOS, but I believe it is ranked quite high despite your attempt to spin.

some just wanted to set a very low bar such that as long as Ollie managed to show up wearing pants to most games they could say he over performed. And there were a bunch who didn't want to predict, because they knew 18 was reasonable, but if they said it and this team failed to get there, they'd have to conclude that Ollie wasn't the answer. The bottom line is that as long as UConn stayed healthy and eligible, 17-18 games was a completely reasonable expectation when you look at who we had on the schedule and who we had on the team. 16 was a lock.

And here you are just making $h1t up in an attempt to avoid or distract from the obvious...KO has done just about everything real fans would like to see in yr #1, and then some, with the hand he was dealt. Yet you are consistently on here doing all you can to emphasize your agenda-driven notion that all you see is what was expected of any first year coach in this situation.

Nobody likes the "I told you so" guy. People despise the "I told you so" guy that's been wrong from day one, yet keeps on tellin' ya.

 

[freescooter]

So forget about the players and the coach?...So instead you decide to focus on the players and coach.



No, instead it looks like an 8 or 9 bid league w/o UConn in the mix and one team that normally makes it already out the door as of this year.



The only thing you said here that I can't disagree with.



I wasn't able to quickly find our OOC SOS, but I believe it is ranked quite high despite your attempt to spin.



And here you are just making $h1t up in an attempt to avoid or distract from the obvious...KO has done just about everything real fans would like to see in yr #1, and then some, with the hand he was dealt. Yet you are consistently on here doing all you can to emphasize your agenda-driven notion that all you see is what was expected of any first year coach in this situation.

Nobody likes the "I told you so" guy. People despise the "I told you so" guy that's been wrong from day one, yet keeps on tellin' ya.

He's fine. he hasn't done anything exceptional. He's done what any competent coach should have been expected to do given this team and this schedule. Nothing more. Nothing less. Especially given where we're headed the next few years, he's probably going to be fine. Nothing exceptional but in our new league getting someone exceptional will require pure luck anyway.

I don't know what our out of conference SOS was either. Might have been very good relative to what lots of majors do for what is in effect an extensive pre-season. But any time you have Maryland Eastern Shore, New Hampshire, Quinnipiac, Harvard, Fordham, Vermont, Stony Brook, you ought to walk away with 7 wins if you are in the Big East. We probably could have beaten Fordham and UMES playing 4 on 5. I said at the beginning of the year he ought to win 18 games. He's on track to do exactly that. Maybe a bit better.

 

[champs99and04]

College basketball is played at an incredibly high level today compared to 40, or even 20 years ago. Early entrants have been going on since Magic, so don't complain about the NBA. The quality of youth league, AAU, and high school ball is light years ahead of 30 years ago, in part because the coaching is so much better. High schools are producing a lot more athletes, and a lot more of those athletes are playing basketball because sports like baseball are in decline. There is a ton of talent out there, and with so many professional outlets internationally, a lot more college players that take their game seriously. More importantly, foreign youth basketball has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, so there are a lot more quality players from overseas than there were then.

30 years ago, many college coaches, even in D1, were not full-time because it didn't pay enough. 30 years ago, a bottom 100 college might pay a HC $50k and his assistants were close to minimum wage. Tom Moore makes $300k a year at Quinnipiac. He isn't going to get rich off that, but it is still $300k a year, and he can pay his assistants enough to attract quality talent that looks at basketball coaching as a career and not just something to pay some bills before they find their next job.

The coaching is better across the board and you see it on the court. Even bad teams play good defense and have a couple of shooters. It is definitely NOT a diminished product.

You can't be serious...yeah, they've been going on for a while, but they weren't nearly as common as they are now. Magic Johnson stayed for two years. Larry Bird stayed for three years. Michael Jordan stayed three years. Those are three of the best five players of all-time, and they stayed in college for a combined eight years. Compare that to today - LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Durant spent a total of one year combined in college. Carmelo Anthony, Derrick Rose, and Dwight Howard spent a combined two years in college. I can keep going if you want, but to say this isn't a legitimate point because the early entrant has merely existed for thirty years is completely ridiculous.

It's interesting you bring up AAU - if anything, I think this has hurt the product. There is less of an emphasis on team basketball, fundamentals, etc. Furthermore, the AAU seems to be a large factor behind the "more, sooner, younger..." aspect of todays game. You're lying if you don't think a huge sum of players in the AAU circuit have their eyes on girls, money, and the NBA, in that order. They don't care if they have to skip a couple steps along the way - they want fame and money, and in most cases, they want it before they're even old enough to drink. How many times do we hear of an early entrant and say, "he's nowhere near ready"? Hint: a lot more often than we said it 20 years ago.

So, are the kids today bigger, faster, and stronger than kids 20 and 30 years ago? Yeah, basic evolution would tell you that much. It certainly doesn't mean the quality of play is superior, though. It's really very simple: cohesion + talent = success. Because of all the early departurers and transfers, teams very rarely have both at the same time, they either have one or the other. Does Kentucky have talent this year? Of course, but if you watch one of their games they're discombobulated, raw, and inexperienced. And teams that have played 2-3 years together generally don't have the talent to win the whole thing. So what do you get? You get a load of parity, and Final Fours consisting of teams like VCU, Butler, and George Mason. You also get 53-41 final scores in the title game. So if you don't think a junior and senior-laden UConn team with five top 100 recruits at the very least has a punchers chance next year, I really don't know what sport you've been watching the past few years.

 

[Waquoit]

Saying the game has gotten better doesn't pass the eye test. Go watch a few minutes of our 1999 or 2004 teams. Those teams go undefeated this year without breaking a sweat.

 

[aceboon]

anybody arguing college basketball hasn't declined is out of their mind, but then again this is nelson/waylan so it's not surprising. the majority of college ball is borderline unwatchable from an entertainment aspect.