Was the 08-09 team the last powerhouse we'll see?

[Mr. Wonderful]

I can't believe this is even a thread.

I guess this is a good indicator of exactly how demoralizing this nightmare of a season has been to men's basketball fans.

It's been disappointing, but Ollie deserves to see what he can make of the sophomores, freshmen, and hs senior classes he's recruited. As far as talent and rank, they're as good as UConn can reasonably expect to attract with any coach. Keep that in mind when evaluating KO.

We've lost more minutes to injury this season than any season in all of Calhoun's career. Those lost minutes hurt double, because it completely changes the dynamic of practice. With all due respect to Foxen and Noyes, Jackson and Vital were supposed to be matched with Larrier and Gilbert, in somewhat reversed roles. Think about that when evaluating wins and losses...

There will be question marks moving forward, but I like what the answers can be quite a lot. So will UConn ever be dominant again? Not next year, but as the underclassmen become juniors and seniors it's a sure thing.

 

[Paesano]

We were a lock. That was my point. if we lost the first game, we were still in. People pointed this out repeatedly last year, BEFORE the tournament. Our RPI was very high. A loss in the first game would have put us in the low 30s. Absolute LOCK for the tournament.

Are you pulling this stuff out of your ***?

Bubble Tracker: Who's in, who's out of the NCAA tournament?

Our RPI was 55 headed into the AAC tournament. Tulsa's was 39. We were both considered bubble teams and were both on the good side of the bubble. But we were NOT a lock. If we lost that first game and other games broke the wrong way, we could have been out. We were a bubble team that finished 6th in the AAC. That is not a "good" season.

 

[upstater]

Are you pulling this stuff out of your ***?

Bubble Tracker: Who's in, who's out of the NCAA tournament?

Our RPI was 55 headed into the AAC tournament. Tulsa's was 39. We were both considered bubble teams and were both on the good side of the bubble. But we were NOT a lock. If we lost that first game and other games broke the wrong way, we could have been out. We were a bubble team that finished 6th in the AAC. That is not a "good" season.

As we know, RPI measures diverge. Some say they use Pomeroy. But here's another link that has UConn at 33, Tulsa at 70: 2015-2016 Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Live - WarrenNolan.com

This is Joe Lunardi. He has 17 schools for 9 spots. UConn is probable with Cincy and such schools. Here is the catch though. Lunardi's possibilities below came BEFORe the SMU game to close out the season. After UConnbeat SMU, they cinched a spot in the tourney. We had multiple people here commenting about their high RPI. The people here also calculated that a loss in the first game to UCF would have resulted in an RPI drop of only 2 spots. Translated: they were a lock.

Probable (5). These teams have a 65 percent T.O.P or better and should make the tournament, provided they suffer "no bad losses" down the stretch: Syracuse, Providence, Vanderbilt, Cincinnati, Connecticut.

Coin flip (8). These teams are in the 50/50 T.O.P range and need at least one more "good win" to make the field: Michigan, Butler, Florida, Oregon State, Gonzaga, Tulsa, St. Bonaventure, Alabama.

Possible (4). These teams have a 35 percent T.O.P. or lower and need a really big finish and/or deep conference-tournament run: George Washington, Ohio State, Washington, LSU.

Long shots (7). These teams aren't completely off the board, but they better not lose before their respective conference-championship games. In a typical year, no one from this category actually makes the tournament: BYU, Stanford, Creighton, Clemson, Florida State, Marquette, Georgia Tech.

 

[Paesano]

As we know, RPI measures diverge. Some say they use Pomeroy. But here's another link that has UConn at 33, Tulsa at 70: 2015-2016 Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Live - WarrenNolan.com

This is Joe Lunardi. He has 17 schools for 9 spots. UConn is probable with Cincy and such schools. Here is the catch though. Lunardi's possibilities below came BEFORe the SMU game to close out the season. After UConnbeat SMU, they cinched a spot in the tourney. We had multiple people here commenting about their high RPI. The people here also calculated that a loss in the first game to UCF would have resulted in an RPI drop of only 2 spots. Translated: they were a lock.

Probable (5). These teams have a 65 percent T.O.P or better and should make the tournament, provided they suffer "no bad losses" down the stretch: Syracuse, Providence, Vanderbilt, Cincinnati, Connecticut.

Coin flip (8). These teams are in the 50/50 T.O.P range and need at least one more "good win" to make the field: Michigan, Butler, Florida, Oregon State, Gonzaga, Tulsa, St. Bonaventure, Alabama.

Possible (4). These teams have a 35 percent T.O.P. or lower and need a really big finish and/or deep conference-tournament run: George Washington, Ohio State, Washington, LSU.

Long shots (7). These teams aren't completely off the board, but they better not lose before their respective conference-championship games. In a typical year, no one from this category actually makes the tournament: BYU, Stanford, Creighton, Clemson, Florida State, Marquette, Georgia Tech.

It is people like you that are the reason why we can't have productive debates and discussions anymore. At this point I can only conclude that your are hopelessly intellectually dishonest. You friggin posted our RPI from the END OF THE POST SEASON!!! Not, the end of the regular season. Do you do this crap on purpose or are you just sloppy? Either you are careless or dishonest, there are no other options at this point. Our RPI was 55 going into the AAC tournament. We were on the bubble. I will concede that "on the bubble is subjective" and people can and will differ in their opinions on who exactly was on the bubble. What was the date of your Lunardi statement above? I have to ask because you have proven to be dishonest. Was that his statement the day before the AAC tournament started or some later date like, for example, after we won the first game of the tournament? Either way, he didn't call us a lock. His bubble appears to be larger and he breaks it up differently. Fine. But he doesn't call us a lock. And that is probably because it depended on how all the games played out nation wide plus the whim of the committee.

You are still wrong and now your honesty is also in doubt.

By the way, you were equally wrong and equally dishonest in our discussion on the cause of rising college costs.

 

[methodology]

It's on the defensive side that I like them. I like Kemba more than AJ Price. But I think Thabeet and Adrien on offense would be powerless against Oriakhi and Roscoe Smith.

At the end of the day, I just like Kemba and Lamb on offense more than AJ Price and Dyson. That is what I base my comment on. Kemba especially was better than all of the players we are talking about. He is up there with Rip and Emeka as an all-time top 5 Husky. Can't say that about anyone from 2009.

Thabeet might be a top 5 college defensive player in history. He was that dominate. Dyson is a much better defender than lamb was and Sticks was a terrific defender who could guard 1-4 which is why he guarded John Wall in the 2nd half when uconn played Kentucky at msg. The 09 team was better defensively, offensively, had more talent, was deeper and just a better more seasoned squad

 

[upstater]

It is people like you that are the reason why we can't have productive debates and discussions anymore. At this point I can only conclude that your are hopelessly intellectually dishonest. You friggin posted our RPI from the END OF THE POST SEASON!!! Not, the end of the regular season. Do you do this crap on purpose or are you just sloppy? Either you are careless or dishonest, there are no other options at this point. Our RPI was 55 going into the AAC tournament. We were on the bubble. I will concede that "on the bubble is subjective" and people can and will differ in their opinions on who exactly was on the bubble. What was the date of your Lunardi statement above? I have to ask because you have proven to be dishonest. Was that his statement the day before the AAC tournament started or some later date like, for example, after we won the first game of the tournament? Either way, he didn't call us a lock. His bubble appears to be larger and he breaks it up differently. Fine. But he doesn't call us a lock. And that is probably because it depended on how all the games played out nation wide plus the whim of the committee.

You are still wrong and now your honesty is also in doubt.

By the way, you were equally wrong and equally dishonest in our discussion on the cause of rising college costs.

You are deranged. Take a breath, don't explode. Yes, my numbers were after. I assumed that because we couldn't move a couple spots that it hadn't changed much, but more on this at the bottom of my post.

I made it clear I was posting that Lunardi wrote that right BEFORE our last game of the season (which was UCF). The whole conversation about UConn NOT being on the bubble was posted here in long threads. In fact, there were articles showing that UConn was much higher in BPI than RPI and that the committee was emphasizing BPI over RPI.

Furthermore, I can't even imagine where you are getting that RPI quote for Tulsa. Everything I see has them in the 50s prior to the tournament:

In fact, on selection Sunday, Tulsa was 62!!!!!

NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)

You are being dishonest here.

And don't bring politics onto this board.

 

[Paesano]

You are deranged. Take a breath, don't explode. Yes, my numbers were after. I assumed that because we couldn't move a couple spots that it hadn't changed much, but more on this at the bottom of my post.

I made it clear I was posting that Lunardi wrote that right BEFORE our last game of the season (which was UCF). The whole conversation about UConn NOT being on the bubble was posted here in long threads. In fact, there were articles showing that UConn was much higher in BPI than RPI and that the committee was emphasizing BPI over RPI.

Furthermore, I can't even imagine where you are getting that RPI quote for Tulsa. Everything I see has them in the 50s prior to the tournament:

In fact, on selection Sunday, Tulsa was 62!!!!!

NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)

You are being dishonest here.

And don't bring politics onto this board.

Yeah, that must be it. I am deranged for calling you out on your intellectual dishonesty. And can you admit you were wrong? No. Now you move the debate to BPI. If that is the metric you wanted to use, why didn't you do that from the beginning instead of presenting misleading RPI data? If you want to move to BPI now, admit your mistake instead of rationalizing it with faulty logic like. "I thought it wouldn't change much after winning the entire AAC tournament, the first round of the NCAAs and losing to a 1 seed." Seriously?

 

[upstater]

Yeah, that must be it. I am deranged for calling you out on your intellectual dishonesty. And can you admit you were wrong? No. Now you move the debate to BPI. If that is the metric you wanted to use, why didn't you do that from the beginning instead of presenting misleading RPI data? If you want to move to BPI now, admit your mistake instead of rationalizing it with faulty logic like. "I thought it wouldn't change much after winning the entire AAC tournament, the first round of the NCAAs and losing to a 1 seed." Seriously?

You're muddleheaded. I quoted the RPI because you mentioned it. And I wrote this in the very first line to acknowledge that there are divergences: "As we know, RPI measures diverge. Some say they use Pomeroy. But here's another link that has UConn at 33, Tulsa at 70: 2015-2016 Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Live - WarrenNolan.com"

Stop mixing things up. I am telling you point blank they were not in danger. This was the consensus on the Boneyard.

Furthermore, you were totally wrong about Tulsa's RPI ranking. Just admit you were wrong. Or, should I call you dishonest?

This whole discussion originated with the FACT that Tulsa got into the tourney, and they lost their first AAC game. They had an RPI of 62!

Not 39.

 

[ctchamps]

The biggest impediment next year is Alterique's and Terry's injuries. Losing that year is huge for both of them, the former because he'll essentially be a freshman again, and the latter because he'll be 2 years removed from competitive hoops.

Yes, Vance and Vitale will be better for it, but Alterique and Terry are the better players, and much more significant in terms of what the team will do next year.

I'd feel fairly confident next year if AG and TA had not gotten hurt.

I was going to write the exact same thing almost word for word. Thanks for saving me the time.

 

[ctchamps]

No way man. Can you imagine Thabeet and Adrien vs 2011 front court. Curtains.

Kemba, Lamb and crew could NOT go within 10ft of the hoop. And AJP would eat Shabazz's lunch.

Thabeet was the exact type of player who neutralized AO.

 

[ctchamps]

UConns best team that never won a championship got beat by George Mason. Real close 2nd is 94-95 who was beaten by UCLA. This may be 3rd though. Jus one's opinion mind you.

I switch your one and two because although I can argue the team that lost against GM had more overall talent, they really were missing a second ball handler. The UCLA team, although having less overall talent I felt they were more balanced.

 

[Mr. French]

Most people have it right: 09 was our most balanced, comparative to other teams in the country at the time, best team that never won.

2006 was loaded and probably the most overall talent, but they were missing a few ingredients, including an indefinable "it" I think ...

95 and 96 I felt both teams were good enough to win it all, but they were more on the line of 2011 with one star and a lot of very good players. Ray wasn't able to quite pull a Kemba.

 

[Matrim55]

Our best team not to win a title was '96. If Ricky stays healthy our most recent banner is our fifth.

 

[intlzncster]

95 and 96 I felt both teams were good enough to win it all, but they were more on the line of 2011 with one star and a lot of very good players. Ray wasn't able to quite pull a Kemba.

It is also luck of the draw with matchups. UCLA was the one team that I felt could beat UCONN. Bad matchup. If Tyus Edney doesn't go coast to coast against Mizzou(?) earlier in the tournament, I think we'd have been Champions.

 

[Mr. French]

It is also luck of the draw with matchups. UCLA was the one team that I felt could beat UCONN. Bad matchup. If Tyus Edney doesn't go coast to coast against Mizzou(?) earlier in the tournament, I think we'd have been Champions.

Agreed 100%. Some of these years we caught good matchups at the right times, some years not. I remember seeing the Edney play and thinking exactly that at the time ... We smoke Mizzou at the least and get to a FF...

You could say that ab 02 & 03 probably, and even 09 -- if we matched with Nova in the semis instead of MSU we may have won even without Dyson. We would have lost to UNC most likely, but you never know.

 

[intlzncster]

Agreed 100%. Some of these years we caught good matchups at the right times, some years not. I remember seeing the Edney play and thinking exactly that at the time ... We smoke Mizzou at the least and get to a FF...

You could say that ab 02 & 03 probably, and even 09 -- if we matched with Nova in the semis instead of MSU we may have won even without Dyson. We would have lost to UNC most likely, but you never know.

Most recent example would be 2014. If we run into Louisville at any time during that tournament, I think we're out. Just an awful matchup for a number of reasons. Says a lot that they were my personal most feared team in the country that year.

 

[Paesano]

You're muddleheaded. I quoted the RPI because you mentioned it. And I wrote this in the very first line to acknowledge that there are divergences: "As we know, RPI measures diverge. Some say they use Pomeroy. But here's another link that has UConn at 33, Tulsa at 70: 2015-2016 Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Live - WarrenNolan.com"

Stop mixing things up. I am telling you point blank they were not in danger. This was the consensus on the Boneyard.

Furthermore, you were totally wrong about Tulsa's RPI ranking. Just admit you were wrong. Or, should I call you dishonest?

This whole discussion originated with the FACT that Tulsa got into the tourney, and they lost their first AAC game. They had an RPI of 62!

Not 39.

Nope. Not muddleheaded. You are dishonest.

I did not bring up RPI first, you did. At least go back and re-read the thread before posting garbage. Or, are you, again, making a dishonest statement? Go ahead, keep spinning yourself into the ground.

You keep posting RPI data from after the post season. I posted a link to a USA Today article from March 7th. You know, from before the AAC tournament and from after the regular season. Yeah, I saw your point about people calculating the RPI differently. I don't disagree. So, ok, how about the RPI from the NCAAs own website:

DI Men's College Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball RPI | NCAA.com

Now, I know you will pull the predictable diversion tactic by focusing on the discrepancy in Tulsa's rating from this site to the USA Today article. But do you see UConn's rating? 57? They were NOT a lock going into the AAC tournament. They were on the bubble. That is all I have ever said. You tried, and failed, to use misleading RPI data from the wrong point in time to argue they were a lock. You were wrong and then you went full dishonest to try and slither your way out of it.

Oh and, newsflash for you, the "consensus" opinion on a biased message board can be wrong. It was.

 

[Matrim55]

It is also luck of the draw with matchups. UCLA was the one team that I felt could beat UCONN. Bad matchup. If Tyus Edney doesn't go coast to coast against Mizzou(?) earlier in the tournament, I think we'd have been Champions.

I mean, perhaps. But that team also lost by 30 to Kansas, and 25 & 15 to Villanova. It wasn't as good a defensive team as it could/should have been.

The '96 team was a juggernaut on both sides of the ball. Remember that when we beat Georgetown it was because of our defense and rebounding, not our ability to just outrun/outgun them.

 

[Mr. French]

Most recent example would be 2014. If we run into Louisville at any time during that tournament, I think we're out. Just an awful matchup for a number of reasons. Says a lot that they were my personal most feared team in the country that year.

Ha I remember feeling the exact same way.

I think I picked Louisville in one bracket and Kansas in another ... But for UConn specifically I feared Louisville first by far followed by MSU.

Btw, that 09 team had some similar stuff to 06 ... I remember seeing them in a rare early non-conference away game at UB (from MAC) and they almost lost.

They had some hiccups/head scratching performances. That always made me nervous that season. Plus they were coming off of an upset (rare for JC) in 08 when AJ went down, and we found out later that he definitely was the engine of that team, leadership and play. They were a fragile group, I think...

 

[intlzncster]

I mean, perhaps. But that team also lost by 30 to Kansas, and 25 & 15 to Villanova. It wasn't as good a defensive team as it could/should have been.

The '96 team was a juggernaut on both sides of the ball. Remember that when we beat Georgetown it was because of our defense and rebounding, not our ability to just outrun/outgun them.

That's fair. It was my perception at the time. It was certainly no slam dunk. Louisville 2014 on the other hand...

 

[Matrim55]

That's fair. It was my perception at the time. It was certainly no slam dunk. Louisville 2014 on the other hand...

For sure, and you guys are right in that I think if we get past UCLA in '95 our path was pretty manageable, while the '96 team still would've had to beat a stacked UK group in the title game.

 

[Tenspro2002]

My takeaway from this interesting debate: we've had a lot of teams that could have competed for a title, and more than half of the time between 1994 and 2009 had a legitimate shot (10 #1 or #2 seeds in 16 years).

We need to get back to that level.

 

[Mr. French]

My takeaway from this interesting debate: we've had a lot of teams that could have competed for a title, and more than half of the time between 1994 and 2009 had a legitimate shot (10 #1 or #2 seeds in 16 years).

We need to get back to that level.

Agreed. We never went more than 2 years without having a championship caliber team.

Think about the stretch from 04-06: After a few years of good young teams, we win in 04 with an absolute monster, then we were a 2 seed next year and get upset in round 2... THEN had one of renowned "most talented teams" in 2006.

Then, if you recall, that year's recruiting class was Sticks, Kelly and Wiggins and it was a monster, rankings-wise. Also a note to the disciples of recruiting rankings as end-all, be-all.

 

[upstater]

Nope. Not muddleheaded. You are dishonest.

I did not bring up RPI first, you did. At least go back and re-read the thread before posting garbage. Or, are you, again, making a dishonest statement? Go ahead, keep spinning yourself into the ground.

You keep posting RPI data from after the post season. I posted a link to a USA Today article from March 7th. You know, from before the AAC tournament and from after the regular season. Yeah, I saw your point about people calculating the RPI differently. I don't disagree. So, ok, how about the RPI from the NCAAs own website:

DI Men's College Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball RPI | NCAA.com

Now, I know you will pull the predictable diversion tactic by focusing on the discrepancy in Tulsa's rating from this site to the USA Today article. But do you see UConn's rating? 57? They were NOT a lock going into the AAC tournament. They were on the bubble. That is all I have ever said. You tried, and failed, to use misleading RPI data from the wrong point in time to argue they were a lock. You were wrong and then you went full dishonest to try and slither your way out of it.

Oh and, newsflash for you, the "consensus" opinion on a biased message board can be wrong. It was.

How is it data from after the postseason?

It is dated. You choose the date.

Now I know what your problem is. The data is defaulting for you.

I am choosing the date. 3/13/16

I am choosing the date PRIOR to the NCAA tourney.

On that day, Tulsa is in the 60s when it comes to RPI.

My first comment on RPI in reply to you is that there is a great divergence among the many services. This is a FACT.

 

[upstater]

Syracuse probably felt the same about UConn in 2003 as UConn felt about Louisville in 2014.