Why is South Carolina #1?

[HoopsFan21]

A casual fan of WCBB tunes in to ESPN to watch the #1 team in the country vs Duke, and what do they see?

Is it always "Good for the game" of WCBB to have an overrated team as #1 playing BB like SC did/does?

Is it really that much better for the game if the casual fan tunes in to watch the #3 team throttle the #2 team on their own court?

 

[NorCalHuskie]

The quality of basketball was much better, by both teams.

 

[iamcbs]

Pardon me, but that is nonsense. Losing by a few points to a tean like, say, UConn shows MUCH more strength than whopping a team like, say, Lipscomb.

If you want style then attend a Fashion Show, if I'm at an athletic event I want the team or individual I root for to win. That's the desired result of an athletic contest. If you're ranked relative to other teams and you don't lose then the rankings shouldn't change. They don't ask how, just how many.

 

[OldAlum]

I have only seen SC in the Duke game. So I am unimpressed with their claims to number one.
However if I had only seen UConn against Stanford, I wouldn't have thought much of their skills either!

 

[RegisteredUconn]

If you want style then attend a Fashion Show, if I'm at an athletic event I want the team or individual I root for to win. That's the desired result of an athletic contest. If you're ranked relative to other teams and you don't lose then the rankings shouldn't change. They don't ask how, just how many.

Of course winning is meaningful. Nobody is offering a counter argument to that. However you don't seem to offer universal position where every unbeaten team should be ranked above any and all 1 loss teams (who in turn should be ranked above every 2 loss teams). What you don't offer is a rationale for why some no loss teams should be ranked below some 1 loss or 2 loss teams. The best I can discern is that, somehow, the opening poll should be the arbiter. South Carolina began at #2. #1 lost so South Carolina moves up and they can't be moved down until they lose. But the preseason poll is a flawed assessment of teams' relative strengths and weaknesses. Not enough information was known before the season began. Should we simply perpetuate the flaws by ignoring them when new information exposes them?

 

[NorCalHuskie]

I think the pre-season ranking should be considered the least reliable ranking of all because no team has demonstrated what they can do together on the court. And now that the "best" teams have played at least one or two ranked opponents and 7-10 games, the pre-season ranking should receive very little consideration, if any. Texas beat the 4 and the 6, and SC barely beat the 9 and the 22. Why isn't Texas ranked above SC?

 

[easttexastrash]

Texas is undefeated. Should they be ranked above us? Texas A&M, North Carolina, Oregon State, Georgia, and Mississippi State are also unbeaten. Should UConn be ranked #8? And that's just unbeaten top 25 teams. Do we even belong in the top ten?

You are so disrespected at #2. What HAS the world come to when a team other than UCONN is ranked number 1. We should demand a full investigation of each voter.

Should UCONN be ranked lower than Texas, TAMU or UNC? Maybe. Texas does have a win over the same team that beat UCONN, so they do have an argument to be ranked ahead of UCONN.

 

[easttexastrash]

Why should we tout the living conditions in fools' paradises?

What would be your argument for UCONN being ranked ahead of Texas, since Texas beat the team that beat UCONN?

 

[iamcbs]

Of course winning is meaningful. Nobody is offering a counter argument to that. However you don't seem to offer universal position where every unbeaten team should be ranked above any and all 1 loss teams (who in turn should be ranked above every 2 loss teams). What you don't offer is a rationale for why some no loss teams should be ranked below some 1 loss or 2 loss teams. The best I can discern is that, somehow, the opening poll should be the arbiter. South Carolina began at #2. #1 lost so South Carolina moves up and they can't be moved down until they lose. But the preseason poll is a flawed assessment of teams' relative strengths and weaknesses. Not enough information was known before the season began. Should we simply perpetuate the flaws by ignoring them when new information exposes them?

I really don't believe in pre-season polls. I don't believe the first poll should come out until February n people have had an actual opportunity to see teams play.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

You are so disrespected at #2. What HAS the world come to when a team other than UCONN is ranked number 1. We should demand a full investigation of each voter.

Should UCONN be ranked lower than Texas, TAMU or UNC? Maybe. Texas does have a win over the same team that beat UCONN, so they do have an argument to be ranked ahead of UCONN.

What would be your argument for UCONN being ranked ahead of Texas, since Texas beat the team that beat UCONN?

I haven't made any statements about UConn's respect or lack thereof. I'm just trying to understand the logic the poster uses. I've already asked the question about the relative rankings of Texas and UConn if the sole criterion of ordering teams is who has the fewest losses. My point never was that UConn deserves to be #1 (full disclosure: if I were voting I would put UConn #1 and, if you were being serious as opposed to argumentative, I suspect so would you).

I, too, may have dropped the Huskies after the Stamford game. We didn't play particularly well. We'd just graduated two multi-time, first-team All-Americans. Perhaps we all were expecting too much. Perhaps a sense of entitlement was showing. Doubts do arise. South Carolina's performance thus far indicates they are far from invincible. UConn's convincing win over Notre Dame shows that the power hasn't really shifted even though double digit wins as far as the eye can see might be legitimately questioned.

I'll be the first to admit UConn gets all the respect they've earned. Extraordinary achievement is generally rewarded.

 

[RadyLady]

Say USC comes into it's game vs UConn undefeated...

That would mean that USC would first have to beat a top-10 ranked Duke - Duke is not in the top-10 now with 3 losses, but they lost all three to ranked opponents in consecutive games with their top player either missing the games to injury or just coming back from that injury - a top-10 ranked Kentucky (who still has to play @ Duke before us), and a top-5 ranked Texas A&M (who will play Texas for their next big game, and also plays UT before us). Also USC will have to beat ranked UGA, who is undefeated and quickly moving up the rankings but will run a gauntlet of TAMU, @ UT, @ UK, and then hosting USC in successive games(!!!). Four days after the UGA game, USC faces UConn...

IF USC gets through all those unscathed, but even struggles through them, will there still be posters here saying that finally UConn gets to show USC who is rightfully the #1 team?

Yes. We play Duke before we play you. It should be an eye opener for some how well we handle a team that almost cost you your perfect record, a game you won not on skill, but on mistakes made by the opposing team. Then in February, a polished confident UConn team will take the floor and do what they do: space the floor, read the defenses, pass the ball, execute well and send SC home with a few dents in their armor...oh, and a tick in their loss column.

But you have your work cut out before you get to the UConn game. A&M is a force, and Kentucky may be a dark horse and as you mention UGA....

UConn's schedule includes teams from their conference which I have seen some poo-poo, but I must say, that schedule did not diminish their prowess when it came tourney time, so as far as I can see there is nothing to worry about for the UConn fan.

'The Truth' will be revealed for all to see, maybe even you. One can only hope. You can use the "undefeated" as a shield, where UConn takes their defeat, looks it full in the face, analyzes it, and uses it as a teaching tool to make themselves better, nay make themselves the best that women's college basketball has to offer.

UConn - it's how they do it.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I really don't believe in pre-season polls. I don't believe the first poll should come out until February n people have had an actual opportunity to see teams play.

Then why make mutiple posts to a thread that, in part, uses them to establish legitimacy?

 

[easttexastrash]

I haven't made any statements about UConn's respect or lack thereof. I'm just trying to understand the logic the poster uses. I've already asked the question about the relative rankings of Texas and UConn if the sole criterion of ordering teams is who has the fewest losses. My point never was that UConn deserves to be #1 (full disclosure: if I were voting I would put UConn #1 and, if you were being serious as opposed to argumentative, I suspect so would you).

I, too, may have dropped the Huskies after the Stamford game. We didn't play particularly well. We'd just graduated two multi-time, first-team All-Americans. Perhaps we all were expecting too much. Perhaps a sense of entitlement was showing. Doubts do arise. South Carolina's performance thus far indicates they are far from invincible. UConn's convincing win over Notre Dame shows that the power hasn't really shifted even though double digit wins as far as the eye can see might be legitimately questioned.

I'll be the first to admit UConn gets all the respect they've earned. Extraordinary achievement is generally rewarded.

I don't think you are trying to undstand logic, but instead defy it.

If I were voting I would vote USC as #1, so your suspicion is incorrect. And I would put Texas at #2 because they are undefeated and they have beaten the team that beat UCONN. I think Texas can play with any team in the nation.

I also think that Baylor is better than Kentucky because Baylor was playing without two key contributors (Small and Cohen) for the game at UK, but I accept that UK is ranked ahead of Baylor based on UK's win.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I don't think you are trying to undstand logic, but instead defy it.

If I were voting I would vote USC as #1, so your suspicion is incorrect. And I would put Texas at #2 because they are undefeated and they have beaten the team that beat UCONN. I think Texas can play with any team in the nation.

I also think that Baylor is better than Kentucky because Baylor was playing without two key contributors (Small and Cohen) for the game at UK, but I accept that UK is ranked ahead of Baylor based on UK's win.

"I don't think you are trying to undstand logic, but instead defy it." You would be wrong.

"If I were voting I would vote USC as #1, so your suspicion is incorrect. And I would put Texas at #2 because they are undefeated and they have beaten the team that beat UCONN. I think Texas can play with any team in the nation." Fair enough. I take you at your word although we haven't actually established any criteria for rank ordering teams. Do you assign #1 to the team you believe would prevail against any other team on the day you rank them? Or, do you assign #1 to the team you believe has performed the best overall thus far in the season? Or do you assign #1 to the team you believe will be the national champion?

"I also think that Baylor is better than Kentucky because Baylor was playing without two key contributors (Small and Cohen) for the game at UK, but I accept that UK is ranked ahead of Baylor based on UK's win." This statement puzzles me. Baylor deserves special consideration because of the status of two key players (something I don't disagree with). Yet in the Stanford game, UConn was down two current starters (one of whom was just voted ESPN's player of the week). There is a whiff of a double standard at work there.

 

[HoopsFan21]

"I don't think you are trying to undstand logic, but instead defy it." You would be wrong.

"If I were voting I would vote USC as #1, so your suspicion is incorrect. And I would put Texas at #2 because they are undefeated and they have beaten the team that beat UCONN. I think Texas can play with any team in the nation." Fair enough. I take you at your word although we haven't actually established any criteria for rank ordering teams. Do you assign #1 to the team you believe would prevail against any other team on the day you rank them? Or, do you assign #1 to the team you believe has performed the best overall thus far in the season? Or do you assign #1 to the team you believe will be the national champion?

"I also think that Baylor is better than Kentucky because Baylor was playing without two key contributors (Small and Cohen) for the game at UK, but I accept that UK is ranked ahead of Baylor based on UK's win." This statement puzzles me. Baylor deserves special consideration because of the status of two key players (something I don't disagree with). Yet in the Stanford game, UConn was down two current starters (one of whom was just voted ESPN's player of the week). There is a whiff of a double standard at work there.

There's s difference between being down players due to injuries versus them not being starters. Nurse and Tuck both played 20 minutes in the Stanford game, so they were hardly without them. UConn just blew it that night. It happens, and they'll get their chance to earn back that #1 ranking throughout the season.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

There's s difference between being down players due to injuries versus them not being starters. Nurse and Tuck both played 20 minutes in the Stanford game, so they were hardly without them. UConn just blew it that night. It happens, and they'll get their chance to earn back that #1 ranking throughout the season.

Of course there are differences between the two situations. There are also similarities. The fact is that UConn's starting lineup is different today by two players. UConn prepared for Stanford with Stokes and Chong as starters. Today, those preparations would be different. You seem to want to take my arguments in a different direction. I have no brief with Stanford or their win. My posts in this thread have been about which team should be ranked #1 and why. I'm not one of those who dismiss polls as irrelevant. Polls do reflect collective thinking at a point in time. I think they are important because they, to a degree drive the conversation and, as such, affect recruiting.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Of course there are differences between the two situations. There are also similarities. The fact is that UConn's starting lineup is different today by two players. UConn prepared for Stanford with Stokes and Chong as starters. Today, those preparations would be different. You seem to want to take my arguments in a different direction. I have no brief with Stanford or their win. My posts in this thread have been about which team should be ranked #1 and why. I'm not one of those who dismiss polls as irrelevant. Polls do reflect collective thinking at a point in time. I think they are important because they, to a degree drive the conversation and, as such, affect recruiting.

I bet Geno disagrees with your last statement and couldn't care less who was ranked where. The only thing that matters to Geno is that he wins the final game of the college basketball season. Win titles and the recruits will come.

 

[uconnell]

Much ado about nothing. I don't care who is ranked #1 in Dec. only who is ranked #1 in April. Guess it is just something to discuss as the season wears on.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Much ado about nothing. I don't care who is ranked #1 in Dec. only who is ranked #1 in April. Guess it is just something to discuss as the season wears on.

As I said polls, to a degree, drive the conversation. Teams in the conversation enjoy a recruiting advantage.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I bet Geno disagrees with your last statement and couldn't care less who was ranked where. The only thing that matters to Geno is that he wins the final game of the college basketball season. Win titles and the recruits will come.

I may get banned for blasphemy but my thoughts and Geno's don't necessarily always coincide. I think he makes zero coaching decisions based on where the Huskies are ranked during the season but I would be mildly surprised to discover to discover he doesn't care at all. I imagine he generally finds our rankings rather fair and therefore devotes next to no thought about them. However, taking an extreme position, if after the Notre Dame win he learned we had dropped out of the top 25, I think he would have a reaction whether he expressed it publicly or not. He understands he affects team performance, that performance affects wins, and that wins affect everything else. He has no control over the polls so he focuses his effort on what he does. You know of another path to success?

Recruiting is driven by perception. Polls are part of perception. Think South Carolina isn't delighted to be #1? You think they don't believe that ranking will help their recruiting?

 

[easttexastrash]

"I don't think you are trying to undstand logic, but instead defy it." You would be wrong.

"If I were voting I would vote USC as #1, so your suspicion is incorrect. And I would put Texas at #2 because they are undefeated and they have beaten the team that beat UCONN. I think Texas can play with any team in the nation." Fair enough. I take you at your word although we haven't actually established any criteria for rank ordering teams. Do you assign #1 to the team you believe would prevail against any other team on the day you rank them? Or, do you assign #1 to the team you believe has performed the best overall thus far in the season? Or do you assign #1 to the team you believe will be the national champion?

"I also think that Baylor is better than Kentucky because Baylor was playing without two key contributors (Small and Cohen) for the game at UK, but I accept that UK is ranked ahead of Baylor based on UK's win." This statement puzzles me. Baylor deserves special consideration because of the status of two key players (something I don't disagree with). Yet in the Stanford game, UConn was down two current starters (one of whom was just voted ESPN's player of the week). There is a whiff of a double standard at work there.

Maybe you miss the part where I said "but I accept that UK is ranked ahead of Baylor based on UK's win." Where did I state that Baylor deserves special consideration or to be ranked ahead of UK? Based on that head-to-head, I belive that UK deserves to be ranked higher. And UCONN wasn't "down two starters." Those two players were available to play, they just didn't start and that was the coach's decision. You make it sound as if they didn't even play.

Time for the next debate....done with this one.

 

[iamcbs]

Then why make mutiple posts to a thread that, in part, uses them to establish legitimacy?

Because that's what Message Boards are for.

 

[Waquoit]

I don't understand this thread. Of course SC is No. 1 right now.

 

[iamcbs]

I don't understand this thread. Of course SC is No. 1 right now.

[mod edit]
At the time of their elevation to #1, South Carolina was #2 and UConn lost to Stanford, which then lost to Texas which is also undefeated, so if I'm a Texas fan I'm asking why not us? The impressive win over ND makes a statement but all-in-all does it really matter, because unlike the travesty that is CFB, it'll all work itself out in March because all of the best teams will compete in the NCAA Tournament and at the end we'll know who #1 really is and we won't need a Poll to tell us. In the meantime, have some fun!!

 

[EricLA]

Ok smarty pants! ... so how do you explain football polls where a 1-loss team is ranked ahead of an undefeated team? Because the pollsters and computers and what not look at SOS and ALSO how impressive victories are over other teams. This is why you have 12-1 Alabama and 12-1 Oregon ranked ahead of 13-0 Florida State.

I'm not saying that SC should NOT be ranked #1, but I do agree that there is wiggle room and an argument that UCONN could be considered. This is evidenced by the national polls where UCONN has 7 and 6 1st place votes respectively in the AP and Coaches polls. It will all be moot at least by Feb 9 since the 2 teams play. If either loses a game between now and then, the polls of course will have a different dynamic...

One last thing on the impressiveness of wins - SC needed a miracle to beat a Duke team on a 2 game losing streak in the last seconds, and had to come from behind to beat Syracuse by 4 or 5. Those are not "good" wins in the sense that they were ugly against teams that the score should not have been that close.

It was the same argument I made when UCONN lost to Stanford, and THEN Stanford went on to lose to Texas in OT (understandable), barely squeaked past New Mexico (poor showing) and got thumped by UNC. That makes UCONN's loss "look" worse based on Stanford's poor performance vs. other teams. The eyeball test I guess you'd call it...