Who’s #1? (Merged)

[ERWUC65]

ND at home for Texas and UConn in December. Rankings will have some meaning after those games.

 

[The CDR-Ret]

My top 6:
#1: UConn - We have Paige, Sarah, & AZZI (even though she has only one game so far) and they don't!
#2 UCLA - very impressive vs. South Carolina
#3 uNd - looking good so far - Still early
#4 South Carolina - was on a 43 game winning streak, defending National Champs & many AP writers already voted (early and often)
#5 Texas - best win so far is Vs. DePaul, we'll see how real they are vs. uNd on 12/6/24 in South Bend
#6 USoCal - they still have Juju Watkins and don't see LSU moving up with the light weights they are playing

 

[ScottCT]

I don't understand why the people who say they don't care about the rankings, click on thread that's clearly about the rankings, and then complain that people are talking about the rankings.

 

[Happydad745]

Either Norte Dame or UCLA will be ranked first....UConn third.

 

[Cuango]

Either Norte Dame or UCLA will be ranked first....UConn third.

Yeah, I don’t think so. Not sure why UConn would go down after soundly beating #14 on the road?

 

[FormerCTrez]

Well, South Carolina came up just short of our 111 game win streak. And our 90. And our 60...
I think UConn, UCLA, ND make up the top 3 in that order, but would not be surprised if we are not #1

You’re funny, funny, funny, and I love your sense of humor!

The Gamecocks lost today’s game, but it’s not the end of the world. And like Geno would, I believe Dawn Staley will use this as a lesson to her squad. However, it’s just another reminder that it’s really, really hard to remain unbeatable, and UConn’s streaks mentioned above, are very rare occurrence. Go UConn!

 

[kidfrom360]

1- UCLA
2- UCONN
3-ND
4- South Carolina
5- Texas
6- USC

 

[AzzisBraids]

#1 UConn
#2 UCLA
#3 Notre Dame

I think the ND - USC game was more of a referendum of USC than Notre Dame. UCLA beat the top and so if they exchange with UConn, that's fine too. UConn has the coaching advantage but Hidalgo needs to be at the top of the "how do we stop this kid" list. Defensively she is more disruptive than a spoiled kid at the Dollar Tree.

 

[donalddoowop]

That was last season, UConn is a completely different team this year. I believe that UConn only played 6 players in that game, they can play at least 11 right now.

I know that. I was responding to Next12's statement. Also, UCLA is a completely different team.

 

[Skeets]

I don't understand why the people who say they don't care about the rankings, click on thread that's clearly about the rankings, and then complain that people are talking about the rankings.

LOL, because that's what we do.

 

[Bald Husky]

Well, South Carolina came up just short of our 111 game win streak. And our 90. And our 60...
I think UConn, UCLA, ND make up the top 3 in that order, but would not be surprised if we are not #1

We don't have a 60, but we do have a 70 game streak.

 

[Skeets]

I've always said that the national champion is the king of the mountain until someone proves they are not. UCLA proved SCar is not the king of the mountain. OK, cool. But if you think UConn needs to drop in the polls for a game that doesn't involve them then maybe you should see someone because you have a problem.

OT, by the same reasoning above, why aren't the UConn men #1? They are the reigning king of the mountain.

 

[Centerstream]

To each their own but I'm trying to figure out why it matters at this time in the season........the rankings are likely to change on a weekly basis with every top ten team win or loss so who's ranked number one right now is of little consequence.......as we come down the stretch towards the conference tournaments that's when they'll have my attention.....

I wasn't defending the early season rankings banter on the BY just saying that it is a topic that is discussed here on the BY. It's right up there with the number of threads and posts on early season line-ups/who is starting.
If #1 rankings matter, the only one that really, really matters is the one with the obvious choice the day after the NC.

 

[CL82]

We don't have a 60, but we do have a 70 game streak.

Pssh, 60 game win streaks are for amateurs.

 

[oldhusky]

Doesn't UConn play three of the four teams mentioned?

Yes with the main point being our opportunity for an impressive win against a top ranked opponent will come in each of those games. Four of the top 7 teams had that opportunity this weekend. Assuming we hold serve against the other opponents, the difference between being 3-0 in those games vs. 0-3 could mean the difference between #1 and #8 or #9 IMO.

 

[oldude]

For what it's worth, the men have dropped in the polls, notwithstanding being undefeated this year.

? In the past week UConn MBB has risen from 3 to 2 in both the AP & Coaches polls, behind #1 Kansas. Former # 2 Alabama dropped several spots after losing last week to Purdue.

 

[Jumper33]

I think people are just looking at this in different ways and that’s ok. It’s not that UConn is being “punished” if UCLA and/or ND pass them.

I can imagine a voter may try to sort out the teams at the top by looking at each team’s (short) resume so far and ranking accordingly. UCLA, ND, and Uconn are obviously all undefeated, but who has the best win? By that logic it’s:

1.UCLA
2. ND
3. UConn

However due to poll inertia, and the fact that UConn was previously 2, I think UConn will split first place votes with UCLA.

 

[yhun89]

Notre Dame

UCLA

No Idea, any order probably works:

UCONN

SC

Texas



I can't see SC right under UCLA because of how badly they were beaten. But UCONN hasn't seemed number 3 ready yet either, even with the win over UNC. Texas hasn't played anyone ranked yet, so really, 1 and 2 are the only valid spots. 3-5 remain open to anyone of those three.

Rationally, it should be UCONN, SC, then Texas. But I've watched all of them gameplay wise, and SC looks messy rotation wise. UCONN is still having front court issues, and Texas just hasn't played anyone good yet.

 

[WiseWillie]

My only addition to this thread is: it's November, folks. Relax.

It takes time to work on team chemistry. There's a full schedule ahead. Whether we are #1 or #4 in November doesn't mean a whole lot until January/February when we and all the teams should be at least at 90% of their potential. Right now it is pretty obvious to seel there are a lot of rough edges to everyone's game. That is expected. What is most important right now is not so much MOV but to see steady improvement in teamwork and in all statistical phases offensively and defensively.

Geno has us on the right course and if there happens to be one or a couple of losses between now and March doesn't mean a whole lot because by March we will be firing on all cylinders toward our ultimate goal.

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

Betts exposed a big problem that SC has... it was like a Woman against a Child... Kitts couldn't do anything.

 

[Phil]

I think I understand the motivation behind anointing UCLA is the number one team in the country. After all, they just played South Carolina the undisputed number one team in the country and beat them soundly.

However, it's always helpful to check one's premises.

Why does everyone agree that South Carolina is the undisputed number one team before yesterday? It's very common for the prior seasons national champion to be considered for the number one spot, and not get that position if a substantial portion of the team is graduated or left. They only lost one player of note, Cardoso, but maybe this game demonstrates her loss was much more significant than presumed. In other words, perhaps the initial rating of number one for South Carolina was too high. UCLA still won convincingly but if they beat the number two or number three team, would anybody still be seriously arguing they deserve to be number one?

Another potential factor is that South Carolina had a bad game for some reason. Two clear examples:
1. Chloe Kitts entered the game as the team's leading scorer, averaging 14 points per game. She played only 12 minutes and scored two points. Why?
2. MiLaysia Fulwiley was last year's wunderkind, and the teams third leading scorer. She played three minutes and scored zero points. Why?

I haven't read any explanations for either those two players (admittedly haven't looked hard) but when two of your top three scores basically don't show up, but doesn't mean UCLA did win but it arguably means that the win is as much on South Carolina as it is on UCLA.

Putting UCLA ahead of UConn in the rankings would be surprising. I reviewed the last eight years and haven't found an example where the top team loses and someone other than the next best team moved up.

 

[yhun89]

I think I understand the motivation behind anointing UCLA is the number one team in the country. After all, they just played South Carolina the undisputed number one team in the country and beat them soundly.

However, it's always helpful to check one's premises.

Why does everyone agree that South Carolina is the undisputed number one team before yesterday? It's very common for the prior seasons national champion to be considered for the number one spot, and not get that position if a substantial portion of the team is graduated or left. They only lost one player of note, Cardoso, but maybe this game demonstrates her loss was much more significant than presumed. In other words, perhaps the initial rating of number one for South Carolina was too high. UCLA still won convincingly but if they beat the number two or number three team, would anybody still be seriously arguing they deserve to be number one?

Another potential factor is that South Carolina had a bad game for some reason. Two clear examples:
1. Chloe Kitts entered the game as the team's leading scorer, averaging 14 points per game. She played only 12 minutes and scored two points. Why?
2. MiLaysia Fulwiley was last year's wunderkind, and the teams third leading scorer. She played three minutes and scored zero points. Why?

I haven't read any explanations for either those two players (admittedly haven't looked hard) but when two of your top three scores basically don't show up, but doesn't mean UCLA did win but it arguably means that the win is as much on South Carolina as it is on UCLA.

Putting UCLA ahead of UConn in the rankings would be surprising. I reviewed the last eight years and haven't found an example where the top team loses and someone other than the next best team moved up.

1. Kitts was making poor decisions. Kept driving on Betts and getting blocked spectacularly/taking midranges she isn't comfortable with. Needed to be pulled immediately.

2. According to someone I asked, Fulwiley was waving off Dawn/being immature. She also wasn't contributing much. Reportedly, she also hasn't been seen in practice? I don't know, it's just what I heard from somebody.

 

[Vowelguy]

If a dominant (mostly) 20 point win over the #1 team early in the year isn’t enough to get a team to #1 then I don’t know what the voters are doing.

 

[Bald Husky]

UConn will be #1, and SC will not be #2, not because they lost, but how they lost. They looked terrible and UCLA probably won't play a game like that for the rest of the year. Should be UConn, Texas, UCLA, ND, and SC. We need to take care of business this weekend to get ready for the three huge games before Christmas. ND, USC, Iowa State.

 

[HuskyNan]

Why does everyone agree that South Carolina is the undisputed number one team before yesterday? It's very common for the prior seasons national champion to be considered for the number one spot, and not get that position if a substantial portion of the team is graduated or left. They only lost one player of note, Cardoso, but maybe this game demonstrates her loss was much more significant than presumed. In other words, perhaps the initial rating of number one for South Carolina was too high

It's interesting, the difference between men's and women's rankings. The two-time defending National Champion UConn men started the season at #3. Yeah, they lost guys to the NBA but they had the previous year, too, and still had a dominating 2023-24 season.