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

[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.

 

[Paesano]

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.

Oh, this is classic. Now you are trying to move the goalposts to avoid admitting you are wrong. Please stop. You are starting to look like a real snake.

Here is the first comment from either of us about the RPI. It is from YOU.

"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."

So, we were clearly talking about being a lock or not BEFORE the AAC tournament started and NOT your new date of 3/13 prior to the NCAA tournament. Nice try though, snake. And your first RPI comment was clearly not about the divergence of RPI ratings but, rather, about our RPI being "very high...in the low 30s" BEFORE the AAC tournament. How many times do I have to prove you wrong and embarass you before you stop? What the hell is wrong with you? You were wrong. Admit it and move on!

 

[NielsisGood]

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.

#1 Kemba
#2-5 AJ, Thabeet, Adrien, Dyson

Then after that you can argue for any of Sticks/Lamb/AO or even freshman Kemba.

 

[NielsisGood]

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.

Both Gilbert and Larrier looked good when they played, and both are going to have a full year of training/becoming acclimated by the staff by the time we see them again. Even if neither sees exponential improvement as a result of their injuries, it's not like they'll be worse than what they were this year, and that combined with Jalen/Vance/Vital's development and (IMO) not having Purvis and Brimah leaves me feeling pretty confident that next year's team can win 24-26 games.

 

[UofCT]

Oh, this is classic. Now you are trying to move the goalposts to avoid admitting you are wrong. Please stop. You are starting to look like a real snake.

Here is the first comment from either of us about the RPI. It is from YOU.

"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."

So, we were clearly talking about being a lock or not BEFORE the AAC tournament started and NOT your new date of 3/13 prior to the NCAA tournament. Nice try though, snake. And your first RPI comment was clearly not about the divergence of RPI ratings but, rather, about our RPI being "very high...in the low 30s" BEFORE the AAC tournament. How many times do I have to prove you wrong and embarass you before you stop? What the hell is wrong with you? You were wrong. Admit it and move on!

Don't bother with @upstater. He is the biggest loser on this board. Just ignore him. He never makes sense, he's a flip flopper, and a TROLL.

 

[mauconnfan]

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.

You're kidding me right? AO and Roscoe together didn't impact the defense as much as Thabeet c'mon HUGE game changer. This was a guy who made the opposition routinely get offensive rebounds and dribble back out, he was the real deal. And those 2 would have been manhandled by Jeff and Hasheem. I might have come into this thread late and you could have been sarcastic so if true I apologize. Not taking away that AO and Roscoe did a very good job during row NC run, they did.

Lamb and Stanley could be argued as Jeremy's late run was a game changer, but Stanley was right there. Toss up for the most part but overall year I would have taken Stanley, much better defender.

 

[upstater]

You're kidding me right? AO and Roscoe together didn't impact the defense as much as Thabeet c'mon HUGE game changer. This was a guy who made the opposition routinely get offensive rebounds and dribble back out, he was the real deal. And those 2 would have been manhandled by Jeff and Hasheem. I might have come into this thread late and you could have been sarcastic so if true I apologize. Not taking away that AO and Roscoe did a very good job during row NC run, they did.

Lamb and Stanley could be argued as Jeremy's late run was a game changer, but Stanley was right there. Toss up for the most part but overall year I would have taken Stanley, much better defender.

Read it again. I specifically mentioned them during the NC run. Thabeet was fantastic that whole season. But during the run, Oriakhi and Roscoe were ferocious down low.

I still don't see anyone like Kemba Walker in '09, and he made all the difference. I think Kemba and boys beat that Michigan State team.

 

[upstater]

So, we were clearly talking about being a lock or not BEFORE the AAC tournament started and NOT your new date of 3/13 prior to the NCAA tournament. Nice try though, snake. And your first RPI comment was clearly not about the divergence of RPI ratings but, rather, about our RPI being "very high...in the low 30s" BEFORE the AAC tournament. How many times do I have to prove you wrong and embarass you before you stop? What the hell is wrong with you? You were wrong. Admit it and move on!

Wowowowowow.

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.

You can't read. The 3/13 date was about your WRONG claims about Tulsa. Holy cow, it even references Tulsa right next to the date.

You are so mixed up you don't know if you are coming or going.

I'll say it again: when referencing RPI, the first thing I wrote is that there are a great deal of divergences between the many services.

It is the first thing I wrote. VERY FIRST. And I even mentioned Pomeroy.

So for you to say I am moving the goalposts when it was the FIRST thing I wrote is totally dishonesty.

Secondly, you were absolutely wrong about Tulsa. They got in with an RPI in the 60s. This is why I gave you the link with a 3/13 date, to show you Tulsa had an RPI in the 60s, but you are so dishonest you won't even admit you were wrong.

 

[mauconnfan]

Wowowowowow.

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.

You can't read. The 3/13 date was about your WRONG claims about Tulsa. Holy cow, it even references Tulsa right next to the date.

You are so mixed up you don't know if you are coming or going.

I'll say it again: when referencing RPI, the first thing I wrote is that there are a great deal of divergences between the many services.

It is the first thing I wrote. VERY FIRST. And I even mentioned Pomeroy.

So for you to say I am moving the goalposts when it was the FIRST thing I wrote is totally dishonesty.

Secondly, you were absolutely wrong about Tulsa. They got in with an RPI in the 60s. This is why I gave you the link with a 3/13 date, to show you Tulsa had an RPI in the 60s, but you are so dishonest you won't even admit you were wrong.

How could you even be posting when you're team is playing so well with all of those balls carrying regulation PSI's?

 

[upstater]

How could you even be posting when you're team is playing so well with all of those balls carrying regulation PSI's?

Because I've had beers and I am relaxed. I'm not only posting, but I have texts from people flying in left and right. multitasking: beer, watching football game, texts on phone, posting on UConn

 

[Towney007]

I always felt '95 and '96 were good enough to win the national title. The later more than the former.

In '95, there were a lot of good teams. I feel like Arkansas and North Carolina were really tough outs. Same with UCLA. I think we murder UMass or OK State out of the other bracket. I guess let's put it this way - we were cleanly the best team that didn't make the final four that year, I felt - and I def. think we were better than OK State, who DID make the Final Four. A better draw and maybe things are a bit different.

'96 was - I felt - our first BONAFIDE National title or bust kind of team. I think we got a little unlucky getting stuck with Mississippi State in our bracket. That team was something like pre-season #3 or #4 and really underperformed all season until the SEC tournament when they just started whacking the shit out of teams left and right. Dampier, Jones and Bullard were all a handful. That and we just didn't play our best game that night. We get through that - I think we play UMass or Kentucky in the final.

'94 was a weird year luck-wise, too. I was younger - so my memory is foggy - but I remember being really offed that Mizzou was given the #1 seed out West and we had to eat a #2 in the East AND got bracketed with having to face Florida in Miami. I mean that stuff evens itself out I suppose (MSG in '14 was nice) - but I felt like we had Final Four potential that year, too.

Of the title teams - I always felt like '11 was a really, really good ballclub that just hit the skids for a longer stretch than most good teams do. Once that team started clicking, they were as good as any UConn team I can ever remember. '14 was def. our Cinderella run. I feel like all the blue bloods have years like that, though.. where they win a title in spite of not being world beaters. Kentucky's '98 team was kind of 'meh.' The '90 Duke team that made that run before getting plowed by UNLV was good - but I wasn't blown away by them even though we lost to them. They happen and I don't think it's a mark against us or anything.

'09 I felt was - overall - a more talented team than the '96 team - but I would have lovedto have seen those two teams play each other. 2006 was another heart breaker but I always felt like there were some cracks that showed with that club that kind of caught up to them.

Everyone else was more or less where they should have been. '99 team didn't shock me beating Duke - even though that's arguably Duke's best team ever. 2004 was underseeded in the tournament and I felt were the best team in the country from the word go.

 

[Towney007]

As far as us falling - yeah - i'm worried. But I guess what *worries* me really isn't anything you can fix with a player here or there, or tweaking an offense, or whatever.. It's just kind of a weird death spiral of weird things all lining up to really set you back.

I mean this year it really just boils down to injuries. You can't win with six players no matter what you have. You just can't pin anything on anyone, really.

But that being said - I'm concerned generally in the same problems with this team manifesting itself in a variety of different ways. The offense just looks lethargic and not really all that focused. While I'm just not smart enough to pinpoint the problem, I will say that the style doesn't always seem to fit the team they have. Not having much of a presence down low has really hurt. Brimah is a solid, but seriously flawed player the team has been forced to use in a situation that isn't ideal. Purvis is maddening - all the tools are there for him to not just be a good college player - but an elite one. But he doesn't blend well with anyone around him. Not having a true point guard is a killer - although I expect Gilbert to help alot next year.. but still - he's missed a year of development. Larrier looks like a stud in waiting, but he's played five games in two years.. They haven't done well with their depthy big men in terms of developing them into real starters. Facey's been a really nice surprise this year - but he seems like an outliar. Enoch's been a huge disappointment. Rakim Lubin is gone (He wasn't a world beater, but another one to throw on the pile I guess - fairly or not). Some of the more hearalded recruits haven't had the kind of impact we'd have hoped for - particularly guys like Calhoun and even Adams to a far more limited degree. Just seems like they've had a hard time developing - or at the very least having the development meet the style of play they want.

To good part from this year is that guys like Vital and Durham are getting more time and should really make us a lot longer next year. I'm worried though that guys like Gilbert, Larrier and Diarra won't have the kind development we'll need to be what our talent suggests the ycould be next year. I feel like there are enough pieces in place talent wise to be a national title contender. But none of those pieces have given me an indication that they're ready to take anything close to that kind of jump.

SO i'm a big 'I dunno' with a lot of it. Ollie deserves another year IMO to see what he can do but if this team is middling again next year - I don't know what kind of scenario would play out for him to come back the following year. Of course that's kind of doomsday - because that's even more of an extended rebuild, but who knows. But saying everything is cool is kind of being a little 'head in the sand.' We're in trouble. I dunno if it's program killing, but there is a scenario where it could be. They could also bounce back super hard next year and be the UConn we grew up with.

 

[Paesano]

Wowowowowow.

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.

You can't read. The 3/13 date was about your WRONG claims about Tulsa. Holy cow, it even references Tulsa right next to the date.

You are so mixed up you don't know if you are coming or going.

I'll say it again: when referencing RPI, the first thing I wrote is that there are a great deal of divergences between the many services.

It is the first thing I wrote. VERY FIRST. And I even mentioned Pomeroy.

So for you to say I am moving the goalposts when it was the FIRST thing I wrote is totally dishonesty.

Secondly, you were absolutely wrong about Tulsa. They got in with an RPI in the 60s. This is why I gave you the link with a 3/13 date, to show you Tulsa had an RPI in the 60s, but you are so dishonest you won't even admit you were wrong.

Again, so predictable. You are such a dishonest snake. Great, Tulsa's ratings are all over the map. Again, we were talking about UCONN being a lock or bubble team, not Tulsa. I don't care about Tulsa. And we were talking about going into the AAC tournament, not the NCAA. You were wrong about UConn being a lock and you keep trying to use data from after the AAC tournament or, even worse, after the NCAA tournament. You keep trying to change the subject to Tulsa and you keep trying to move the goalposts. And you also refuse to admit that I was not the one to first mention RPI in this debate. I quoted your post which was the first time either of us mentioned the RPI in OUR exchange. You are a snake and you seem to be completely devoid if character. A man of integrity and character would have long ago admitted he was wrong but you just keep trying to slither your way out of it. And this grade school stuff of "no, you are" is just sad. Just stop.

 

[Inyatkin]

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.

Weird how it's become a legend that '95 was the best team of that run, while '94 and '96 are overlooked. All because '95 won exactly one more NCAA tournament game than the other two. You could argue that was the weakest of those three teams.

 

[UConnfan8]

@upstater @Paesano

 

[Com'rGordon]

What makes you think we will be any better next year?
We will have Rique and Terry back, but they were here when we lost to Northeastern and Wagner.
We lose Facey, Brimah, and Purvis and replace them with MAL, Polley, and Carlton?
I'm not too optimistic