We are NOT an 8 seed

[ScuderiaDiU]

Look at the NET ratings. We are an 8 seed right now. Last I checked, Emmert is still in charge. We will not be placed higher than our NET rating would suggest. Need to keep winning to move up. Are we better than an 8 seed? Yes. The NET rating is almost as flawed as the RPI was. It is what it is.

 

[7774]

The AAC was absolutely undervalued that year. The committee didn't know what to do with a conference that had 5 good to very good teams at the top (Louisville, Cincy, UConn, Memphis, SMU) and 5 abominable teams at the bottom (Rutgers, Houston, USF, UCF, Temple).

The KenPom that year went:

1. Louisville
15. UConn
27. Cincy
31. SMU
36. Memphis

All these schools were lower than they would normally be (other than Louisville, of course) because of what follows:

132. Houston
150. Temple
155. UCF
170. Rutgers
191. South Florida

The committee got Cincy's seed mostly right and they did what Cincy always does. Louisville was underseeded by 2 seed-lines. Same with UConn. Memphis was mostly right. And SMU should have made it.

But not often is there that big a chasm between top and bottom in a conference.

To be fair, 15th is where we were ranked after winning the title. We were ranked 25th going into the tournament, which would be a 7 seed. I agree with Louisville that year, the rest seemed OK to me.

The whole “committee hates the AAC“ is one of my least favorite narratives here (I know that’s not what you’re saying, just in general). They gave Cincinnati a 2 seed with a team that was never getting a 2 seed playing in the old Big East. They put Tulsa in one year and I remember reading an article that said 0 out of 60 projected brackets had them in, and even their own players figured they had no shot.

The AAC was generally treated fine, it’s just not very good.

 

[tzznandrew]

To be fair, 15th is where we were ranked after winning the title. We were ranked 25th going into the tournament, which would be a 7 seed. I agree with Louisville that year, the rest seemed OK to me.

The whole “committee hates the AAC“ is one of my least favorite narratives here (I know that’s not what you’re saying, just in general). They gave Cincinnati a 2 seed with a team that was never getting a 2 seed playing in the old Big East. They put Tulsa in one year and I remember reading an article that said 0 out of 60 projected brackets had them in, and even their own players figured they had no shot.

The AAC was generally treated fine, it’s just not very good.

But KenPom is just one measure. I stand by my position that they botched Louisville, UConn, and SMU that year.

But I don't really think we're in much disagreement here. I don't think the committee hated the AAC. They missed in the early years, but were mostly okay with the conference. The conference just wasn't that good, as you say.

 

[jibsey]

How about the team you saw in the second half?

Foot off the gas, sitting on a lead 2nd half?

 

[billybud]

Lunardi has UConn #8 meeting LSU...

Palm has UConn #8 meeting Colorado...

Both have In Illinois' bracket as game two being with the Illini (assuming an Illinois win).

 

[aburks41]

They had they home game vs us in the ‘09 final four it was good to return the favor

If Dyson doesn't blow out his knee in late February we would have 5 titles. We were the best team in the country before that happened and I don't think it was really even that close.

 

[JustbrewitMan]

If you're up 27 and maintain a 20+ point lead into the final 3 minutes, I feel pretty okay.

Georgetown went 6-6 from 3 to start the second half. Many of them were not great, clean looks.

Nothing about the second half concerned me because the game was over with about 5 minutes to go in the first half. Hurley can and should disagree for motivational purposes, but the game was never in doubt so as fans it's not that big of a deal.

this x 1000.

Plus, Hurley noticeably let the air out of the ball, ate clock, and controlled our scoring for pretty much the entire 2nd half.

I was blessed to be on of the ~200 healthcare workers/1st responders at the game yesterday. Being able to see the whole court, there were many times when GTown was pressing where we had players wide open for easy layups and didn’t pass it to them. Broke the press and then killed time. If Hurley let the reigns out in the 2nd half, we could have scored 110-120.

Even with GTown catching fire from 3, we comfortably maintained a 20-24 pt lead until the last minute or so, when they got some garbage time freebies

 

[navery12]

What is also pretty simple is that this team is not going +27 and -11 against Baylor or pretty much any team in the top half of the tournament. But you already knew that was what I was saying, didn't you? You just wanted to be a...you know.

So, yeah, against a good team it will be more like +1 and -37. Against a decent team, it could be +18 and -20.

I have no idea what you're arguing, because if you go +1 you're not going to let up in the 2nd half. We can look at the same team we played yesterday, where we played Georgetown to +1 in the first half and +11 in the 2nd half. Anyone watching yesterday's game knew the game was never in doubt when we led by 20 for almost the entire 2nd half

 

[SportsFan88]

If Dyson doesn't blow out his knee in late February we would have 5 titles. We were the best team in the country before that happened and I don't think it was really even that close.

I’ve always had those sentiments as well. The Louisville game that year was indicative of that. We were ROLLING before Jerome got hurt. Besides the stinker vs Georgetown. That’s one of my favorite UConn teams, and my favorite one to not win a title

 

[7774]

But KenPom is just one measure. I stand by my position that they botched Louisville, UConn, and SMU that year.

But I don't really think we're in much disagreement here. I don't think the committee hated the AAC. They missed in the early years, but were mostly okay with the conference. The conference just wasn't that good, as you say.

Yeah, we’re basically on the same page. This discussiom got me thinking more about that year, and I believe with Louisville they got crushed because their OOC schedule was horrendous. Like 7-8 games against legitimately terrible teams. I never understood why they would schedule like that.

 

[Rico444]

If Dyson doesn't blow out his knee in late February we would have 5 titles. We were the best team in the country before that happened and I don't think it was really even that close.

I don't know if I'd say it wasn't that close...North Carolina had a great team.

 

[SportsFan88]

I don't know if I'd say it wasn't that close...North Carolina had a great team.

They did but with Jerome we beat them on a neutral court.

 

[tzznandrew]

Yeah, we’re basically on the same page. This discussiom got me thinking more about that year, and I believe with Louisville they got crushed because their OOC schedule was horrendous. Like 7-8 games against legitimately terrible teams. I never understood why they would schedule like that.

I assume it was a bad OOC compounded by Kentucky having a down year (8-seed, but played for the title) and not really adjusting to how bad the bottom of the AAC would be. Who knows?

 

[billybud]

UNC, in '09, won their Final Four and Final matches by double digits....strong team.

 

[tzznandrew]

I don't know if I'd say it wasn't that close...North Carolina had a great team.

Yeah, that would have been an epic title game and we could certainly have lost. I do think Thabeet was exactly the sort of big that could have slowed down Hansborough, though.

 

[aburks41]

I don't know if I'd say it wasn't that close...North Carolina had a great team.

They were a great team, we were better. We would have gone 39-1 if Dyson wasn't injured

 

[superjohn]

I have no idea what you're arguing, because if you go +1 you're not going to let up in the 2nd half. We can look at the same team we played yesterday, where we played Georgetown to +1 in the first half and +11 in the 2nd half. Anyone watching yesterday's game knew the game was never in doubt when we led by 20 for almost the entire 2nd half

This guy is brutal.

 

[billybud]

Was 09 the year that UConn had that big shot blocker.....Hasheem something or other..

 

[ScuderiaDiU]

I have no idea what you're arguing, because if you go +1 you're not going to let up in the 2nd half. We can look at the same team we played yesterday, where we played Georgetown to +1 in the first half and +11 in the 2nd half. Anyone watching yesterday's game knew the game was never in doubt when we led by 20 for almost the entire 2nd half

Fair enough. Then how about the +18 and -20 scenario? That is the most dangerous one. That could happen against a team like Arkansas, for example.

 

[tzznandrew]

This guy is brutal.

Yea, people get bogged down in all these little moments. The 2004 team was -6 in the second half of the title game. Was that some great cause for concern or indicative of some deep problems? No!

While individual moments and chunks of time in a game matter, you have to look at the situation in context and view the game holistically.

UConn dominated Georgetown. Before going into the game if you told me they'd be up about 30, be up by 22 with 3 minutes left, and win by 16, we'd all say we played great. That's what happened. That's all that matters. This other stuff is just nonsense nitpicking by people who don't actually know what it's like to play or coach basketball.

 

[7774]

I assume it was a bad OOC compounded by Kentucky having a down year (8-seed, but played for the title) and not really adjusting to how bad the bottom of the AAC would be. Who knows?

I had to go back and look. They played:

College of Charleston - Kenpom 200
Hofstra - 266
Cornell - 340
Hartford - 234
Fairfield - 271
UMKC - 272
Louisiana Lafayette - 113
Western Kentucky - 179
Missouri St - 157
FIU - 231

That is just amazingly terrible. So much worse than I even remembered. Also played Carolina and Kentucky and lost to both. I think I might have convinced myself they should have been a 4 seed haha. Probably still should have been a 3, but man that is so bad.

 

[BFieldHusky]

Palm has us as a 7 seed as of this morning.

 

[tzznandrew]

I had to go back and look. They played:

College of Charleston - Kenpom 200
Hofstra - 266
Cornell - 340
Hartford - 234
Fairfield - 271
UMKC - 272
Louisiana Lafayette - 113
Western Kentucky - 179
Missouri St - 157
FIU - 231

That is just amazingly terrible. So much worse than I even remembered. Also played Carolina and Kentucky and lost to both. I think I might have convinced myself they should have been a 4 seed haha. Probably still should have been a 3, but man that is so bad.

Oh. Wow. That's just awful.

Then you add in the bottom 5 of AAC and they had a lot of really really really bad teams on their schedule.

Also, though, they were better than a 4 seed. Much like this UConn team will likely be better than its seeding, though for different reasons.

 

[UConNick]

I find it difficult to say even at full strength we were better than UNC that year; to me, 09 UNC is one of the top teams of the last 20 years.

That said, there’s little doubt we’d have given them a better game than Sparty, with or without Dyson, and would definitely have been capable of winning. We were much closer to UNC than any other team in the country, including UL and Pitt (let alone Memphis, lol), was to either the Heels or us.

 

[navery12]

Fair enough. Then how about the +18 and -20 scenario? That is the most dangerous one. That could happen against a team like Arkansas, for example.

I would trust Dan Hurley to call a timeout once it got to 10 and light a spark under the team. Not saying it's impossible, but it's not something I'm concerned about happening