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

[Matrim55]

Here's the key - Calhoun's teams were always significantly better the year after a down season.

We'll find out next year if Ollie is able to continue that trend.

True-ish, though I think we all felt, at the time, that the 91/92 season was definitely a down year relative to expectations, and 92/93 was definitely a step backward from that.

I think we tend to gloss over how up-and-down his first 7 years really were. Our improvement was hardly linear, and guys like Smitty & Burrell didn't develop as expected.

 

[NielsisGood]

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.

If you ranked all the players from both teams, Kemba would be #1 for sure, but the 09 team has the next 4-5 best guys.

 

[NielsisGood]

Also the pieces should be in place to win 25ish total games next year. That's the over/under I'm looking at on whether I'd consider next year a big step in the right direction, or just babysteps.

 

[metsfan2323]

Of course we can get back to being a dominant team, the real question is can Ollie do it.

If Wichita State, Butler, Creighton, Xavier, Villanova, Gonzaga and Dayton can produce dominant teams then so can UCONN.

And spare me the "we can't do it in the AAC" argument. Cincinnati hasn't regressed one bit in the AAC. We should be dominating this league and raising the tide of all the schools in the league with us.

 

[upstater]

If you ranked all the players from both teams, Kemba would be #1 for sure, but the 09 team has the next 4-5 best guys.

I'd like to see that ranking.

AJ was probably second, but Lamb was just as good as Stanley Robinson if not better.

The huge X factor of course is Thabeet. He would have absolutely changed the game for 09's advantage, but I would point out that Oriakhi and Roscoe Smith obliterated people on D and somehow had as great an impact as Thabeet did.

 

[upstater]

Of course we can get back to being a dominant team, the real question is can Ollie do it.

If Wichita State, Butler, Creighton, Xavier, Villanova, Gonzaga and Dayton can produce dominant teams then so can UCONN.

And spare me the "we can't do it in the AAC" argument. Cincinnati hasn't regressed one bit in the AAC. We should be dominating this league and raising the tide of all the schools in the league with us.

None of those schools except Villanova and maybe Gonzaga this year were dominant.

We are taking this back to 2009 level dominance, right? Because none of those schools have achieved that.

 

[Paesano]

No, wrong. Tulsa got in. They had a worse record and went out in the first round.

Maybe so but that is, and always has been, a misleading statement. It may be true that we didn't need to win that game but it is also true that we went into the AAC tournament on the bubble. If games around the nation broke differently, and we didn't win the AAC tournament, we could have been out. Going into the conference tournanent, this conference especially, on the bubble, is pretty mediocre by UConn standards. In isolation, not a big deal. Sandwiched between two flat out bad seasons makes it a big deal. If we get another bad, or even mediocre, season next year, alarms will be screaming and rightfully so. No more excuses next year. If it is like this year, or even like 2014/2015, I would lean toward making a coaching change. If it is like 2015/2016, there will be a very heated debate but he probably gets one more chance.

Has anyone considered the possibility that KO may just not be right emotionally after the divorce? A change might actually be good for him. A fresh start in a new place could get him back on track. And has anyone considered that his best place might not be as a head coach in college? He might be a better fit for an assistant or head coaching position in the NBA.

 

[upstater]

Maybe so but that is, and always has been, a misleading statement. It may be true that we didn't need to win that game but it is also true that we went into the AAC tournament on the bubble. If games around the nation broke differently, and we didn't win the AAC tournament, we could have been out. Going into the conference tournanent, this conference especially, on the bubble, is pretty mediocre by UConn standards. In isolation, not a big deal. Sandwiched between two flat out bad seasons makes it a big deal. If we get another bad, or even mediocre, season next year, alarms will be screaming and rightfully so. No more excuses next year. If it is like this year, or even like 2014/2015, I would lean toward making a coaching change. If it is like 2015/2016, there will be a very heated debate but he probably gets one more chance.

Has anyone considered the possibility that KO may just not be right emotionally after the divorce? A change might actually be good for him. A fresh start in a new place could get him back on track. And has anyone considered that his best place might not be as a head coach in college? He might be a better fit for an assistant or head coaching position in the NBA.

I couldn't disagree with this more. No way.

I'll say it again. Tulsa lost in its first game, had a worse record than UConn had before the tournament. You're actually talking about the championship game here. I am saying UConn would have been in if it lost its FIRST game. You guys are way out in left field on this.

 

[Paesano]

I couldn't disagree with this more. No way.

I'll say it again. Tulsa lost in its first game, had a worse record than UConn had before the tournament. You're actually talking about the championship game here. I am saying UConn would have been in if it lost its FIRST game. You guys are way out in left field on this.

You are disagreeing with a strawman you built for convenience. I didn't say UConn wouldn't have made it had they lost. I said, going into the tournamemt, they were on the bubble. Tulsa made it because of how the other bubble teams performed and how all the games broke nation wide. We were not a lock going into that tournament. We were on the bubble, IN THE AAC. That is mediocre.

 

[blackbird]

If we are including Dyson in the 08/09 analysis, Kemba and the Freshmen have no chance in hell.

They were an excellent defensive team, and Kemba is Uconn's best player (although, I might argue AJP was more of a true point guard) but they aren't deep enough or mature enough to beat 08:09. Biggest problem is they wouldn't be able to score with that team.

Has to be Uconn's best team that never one a championship. (And have to wonder how good they would have been had AJP not torn his ACL the year before or Dyson not torn his MCl that year.)

 

[metsfan2323]

None of those schools except Villanova and maybe Gonzaga this year were dominant.

We are taking this back to 2009 level dominance, right? Because none of those schools have achieved that.

I don't have a gauge that tells me what "2009 level of dominance" means and neither do you. I'll provide something measurable:

Can we finish first in our league and end the regular season ranked in the top 1o.

Of course UCONN can do that. Will we do it with this coach? I have no idea. If Donny Marshall's comments last week were relayed directly from Ollie then the answer is we need a new coach. If Kevin has the attitude that he "didn't sign up for this" please show him the door. Benedict should actually ask him if that is how he feels because nothing good will happen with that attitude.

 

[mauconnfan]

If we are including Dyson in the 08/09 analysis, Kemba and the Freshmen have no chance in hell.

They were an excellent defensive team, and Kemba is Uconn's best player (although, I might argue AJP was more of a true point guard) but they aren't deep enough or mature enough to beat 08:09. Biggest problem is they wouldn't be able to score with that team.

Has to be Uconn's best team that never one a championship. (And have to wonder how good they would have been had AJP not torn his ACL the year before or Dyson not torn his MCl that year.)

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.

 

[blackbird]

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 would say that was the most talented team. I'm not sure they were mentally the best team. (I doubt 08/09 loses to George Mason), at least that's the difference for me.

Couldn't say with 94-95

 

[intlzncster]

Also the pieces should be in place to win 25ish total games next year. That's the over/under I'm looking at on whether I'd consider next year a big step in the right direction, or just babysteps.

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.

 

[Tenspro2002]

This was my fear 3-4 years ago, that wire-to-wire dominant seasons were getting further and further from reach.

The championship in 2014 was special, but over the last few years people have used it as an excuse to ignore what should have been serious concerns about the long term trajectory of the program.

If this year is like 2007, then the expectation next year should be an improving team that grows to be solidly Top 25 and a #5 seed or better, setting the stage for a vintage, dominant UConn team in 2018-19.

If over the next two years KO's teams continue to bumble along around the bubble (or worse) and far from national relevance, it's time to look in another direction.

 

[upstater]

You are disagreeing with a strawman you built for convenience. I didn't say UConn wouldn't have made it had they lost. I said, going into the tournamemt, they were on the bubble. Tulsa made it because of how the other bubble teams performed and how all the games broke nation wide. We were not a lock going into that tournament. We were on the bubble, IN THE AAC. That is mediocre.

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.

 

[upstater]

This was my fear 3-4 years ago, that wire-to-wire dominant seasons were getting further and further from reach.

The championship in 2014 was special, but over the last few years people have used it as an excuse to ignore what should have been serious concerns about the long term trajectory of the program.

If this year is like 2007, then the expectation next year should be an improving team that grows to be solidly Top 25 and a #5 seed or better, setting the stage for a vintage, dominant UConn team in 2018-19.

If over the next two years KO's teams continue to bumble along around the bubble (or worse) and far from national relevance, it's time to look in another direction.

2014 and serious concerns? I mean, losing a long time HOF coach, the 2011 sanctions against the program, the 2013 APR tourney ban, and the losses of players who got to leave without losing a year of eligibility, compounded by dropping down to a lower conference, and 3 or 4 years of recruiting that didn't see a single top 50 player other than Omar Calhoun commit to UConn.

6 strikes against UConn that had nothing to do with KO--and in the face of this they won a national championship.

So, what were the serious concerns you saw?

 

[upstater]

I don't have a gauge that tells me what "2009 level of dominance" means and neither do you. I'll provide something measurable:

Can we finish first in our league and end the regular season ranked in the top 1o.

Of course UCONN can do that. Will we do it with this coach? I have no idea. If Donny Marshall's comments last week were relayed directly from Ollie then the answer is we need a new coach. If Kevin has the attitude that he "didn't sign up for this" please show him the door. Benedict should actually ask him if that is how he feels because nothing good will happen with that attitude.

Well, the original post said 30 wins.

 

[upstater]

I would say that was the most talented team. I'm not sure they were mentally the best team. (I doubt 08/09 loses to George Mason), at least that's the difference for me.

Couldn't say with 94-95

02 was really good too. Okafor came on as a youngster, and Caron might have been the best player in college basketball.

 

[Travelman6]

One could argue 2011 was powerhouse...well, okay, MAYBE NOT. But I will always prefer a 9-9 record in that conference, which was so stacked (2010-2011), over a 15-3 in the AAC in a year like this. For real. Or at the very least, that 9-9 in that conference is more impressive considering the teams than if uconn had somehow gone 15-3 this year.

In 2010-2011, Only 5 teams were under .500 in conference and seton hall was somewhat close. You had seven top 25 teams at the end of the year and one could argue cincy could have easily been at least close to the top 25 as well as gtown.

Uconn may never have another powerhouse team, unless they somehow get out of the aac. But as they proved in 2011 and 2014, a team (not just uconn) does not always need to be powerhouse to make some noise when it matters most. Just like the cuse last year or some of those butler teams or gmason.

 

[Mr. Hand]

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.