Would you rather be Michigan? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Would you rather be Michigan?

If we finished 17-14 this year in year 4 of Hurley, his seat would be scorching hot. Michigan didn't even deserve to make the tournament in the first place. We never should have lost to NMST, but going 17-14 would be disaster
 
The reason why I say I don't buy the people saying they'd swap seasons is if we went 17-14 and went on a fluke run to the Sweet 16 people would still be calling for Hurley's head. The reality is neither season is acceptable for UConn's standards
 
Of course we would rather have Michigan's results this year. They made the NCAA tournament and are in the Sweet 16. Trading programs: definitely not.

We were a 5 seed and got bounced in the first round again to a NMSU.

Dan Hurley has no excuses anymore. Schools like St Peters are in the Sweet 16.

Eric Musselman has taken a non-existent program like Arkansas and had them in year 2(just last year) of his tenure in the Elite Eight and now this year has them back into the Sweet 16. Following this with the number 2 in the nation recruiting class in the nation with elite players in the fold for next year.

Nate Oats similarly getting the number 3 recruiting class in the nation with some elite guys in the fold particularly at the point guard guard and shooting guard/wing position.
 
The Power Conference schools will always have an advantage over mid majors. 17-14 in the Big 10 is very different from being 17-14 in the Big East. Big Ten Conference games were battles for the upper 2/3 of the conference. Big East had three contenders and the rest had flaws. Even Rutgers would have beaten UConn this year. It would be much better to be in the Big Ten in the long run, no doubt. I don't care for Michigan only because their AD failed UConn.
 
.-.
Really don't care about this debate over which we'd prefer. Michigan is Michigan. Bottom line is if we're to become the program that we expect to be because we're UConn, then Hurley's got to become a better in-game coach. Needs to learn how to outcoach the other guy, make the right decisions at the right times, make adjustments, and beat teams we're supposed to beat in a tourney format.

No way we should have let that kid score 37 on us. He's not an unstoppable force as Arkansas showed. Bad end to a season that had a lot of promise for us.
 
Ts5034 said:
As far as trajectory of the program, you have to look big picture. The random nature of the NCAA Tournament can make or break your season, and a lot of times that is not fair. I think a lot of it has to do with expectations. You take our 2005-2006 season where we lost to George Mason in the Elite 8, compare that to our 2002 team that also lost in the Elite 8, but to the 1 seed Maryland, and 100% of UConn fans will say 2001-2002 was a better season.

The reason we are all sour right now is becaus le we lost in the first round…again, to a lower seeded team. Upsets in the tournament are going to happen, It’s a guarantee. Some of the best coaches to ever walk the sidelines have been upset in the NCAA Tournament. With that said, you have to choose our situation over Michigan.
Expand ...

Which is another part of the Calhoun legacy that is just remarkable. In his 20 plus year run from the Dream Season on, only once did we lose in the first weekend to a clearly inferior team. And that was when our point guard blew out his knee in the game and it took too long for our players to recover emotionally. Normal ranked teams, and normal prominent programs, are used to losing 5-12 or 4-13 games every so often.

I'm not saying that to make excuses for our play Thursday night in the first half, which was not acceptable, or for our inability to make enough good and smart plays in the second half. But normal coaches, not named Jim Calhoun, have to be viewed in terms of reality. The reality is that we had a good year. You can absolutely question whether Hurley could have tweaked a little more out of this team, but the reality is that he brought a team with obvious and visible limitations into the Tourney as the 17th best team in the country. A team that was limited in terms of present quality depth, outside shooting and other than RJ the ability to keep making smart decisions at the end of close games.

We had a good season that was at the top level of expectations. We sucked in one game in the tourney. Those are almost separate things. Everyone is free to value one more than the other, but no one should be not paying attention to both of them.
 
Drew said:
They absolutely have been a better program than us the last 5 years and are still alive for a national title this year and are in the Big Ten.

You’re lying to yourself if you wouldn’t rather be in their shoes right now.
Expand ...

Way to understand the question.
 
BackAftaThis said:
If we went 17-14 and were labeled as the team that got in when we shouldn’t have this place would have burned to the ground
Expand ...
Big deal. This place is crazy on any L. Right now we'd be psyched if our team was still playing
 
.-.
tzznandrew said:
Rutgers improved going to the B10 and has been better than they've ever been in the BE.
Expand ...
Pitt, Syracuse, BC, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Louisville…odds aren’t in our favor.
 
businesslawyer said:
I would like to be in the Big Ten for football reasons, and maybe a few other sports as well. But if we're just talking about men's basketball, absolutely not. From the perspective of mens basketball only, we are in the right place for travel, rivalries and recruiting.
Expand ...
I agree if we are only talking about basketball, which is my major concern by a long shot. But I have come to realize—too late, unfortunately, like our own AD—that football drives the bus for Div. 1 sports and that the long term health of our basketball program and our university is better served by being in a P5 conference.
 
CTBasketball said:
Pitt, Syracuse, BC, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Louisville…odds aren’t in our favor.
Expand ...

In terms of basketball, Virginia Tech and Miami are just as good if not better than they were in the Big East. Miami had a few good years at the end of their run, but they are regularly successful in the ACC...more than they were on average in the Big East. Tech was dreadful in the Big East and has clearly improved their lot.

Louisville has been fine in the ACC. The last two years overshadow their larger success provided they had Pitino. They were a 4 seed in the 2015 ACC tournament (and ranked 17), then in 2016 finished 4th and nationally ranked 16 (but ineligible for post-season). Then tied for 2nd and ranked 10th.

In 2018, no more Pitino, so they dropped, but they've only been bad the last two years, and I'm sure they'll be very good again soon.

Notre Dame has largely stayed where they were or improved in the ACC too.

Syracuse-Pitt-BC have all fell off.

Louisville and West Virginia are down at the moment, but have had success more or less the same as in the Big East. West Virginia was a 3 seed in last year's tournament!

Notre Dame and Miami have been essentially what they were in the Big East.

Virginia Tech and Rutgers are better than they ever were in the Big East.
 
buddy said:
The Power Conference schools will always have an advantage over mid majors. 17-14 in the Big 10 is very different from being 17-14 in the Big East. Big Ten Conference games were battles for the upper 2/3 of the conference. Big East had three contenders and the rest had flaws. Even Rutgers would have beaten UConn this year. It would be much better to be in the Big Ten in the long run, no doubt. I don't care for Michigan only because their AD failed UConn.
Expand ...
The Big East isn't a mid major. It is a power conference in basketball. Marquette went 19-12 this year and was CLEANLY in the field. If they had gone 17-14, they probably would have been in the First Four due to their scheduling.
 
Hi-Low said:
Ok with me if Michigan wins this year... prefer them over most of the teams left besides St. Peter's and maybe Purdue. Don't want to see PC or Nova win that's for sure.
Expand ...
I'll always support Big East teams. Their success leads to monetary and reputational benefits for everyone in the conference, including UConn. Go PC, go Nova!
 
What Juwann Howard did was very wrong but that is not really Howard at all
Coach Martelli said that Howard had been chirped at by the opposing players and coaches all game and that his actions came out of nowhere.
I have gotten to know Phil Martelli a little and if he says that, I will accept his word
I am not a Micigan fan by any means nor am I a B10 fan
In college basketball, when you play in the P5 or NBE, if you dont win the league tournament, you have to do enough to get into the dance
Its what you do in the dance that counts.
UConn has more NCs so they are a more successful program but overall Michigan performs with more consistency in the dance
UConn needs to be in a P5-bottom line
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
Which is another part of the Calhoun legacy that is just remarkable. In his 20 plus year run from the Dream Season on, only once did we lose in the first weekend to a clearly inferior team. And that was when our point guard blew out his knee in the game and it took too long for our players to recover emotionally. Normal ranked teams, and normal prominent programs, are used to losing 5-12 or 4-13 games every so often.

I'm not saying that to make excuses for our play Thursday night in the first half, which was not acceptable, or for our inability to make enough good and smart plays in the second half. But normal coaches, not named Jim Calhoun, have to be viewed in terms of reality. The reality is that we had a good year. You can absolutely question whether Hurley could have tweaked a little more out of this team, but the reality is that he brought a team with obvious and visible limitations into the Tourney as the 17th best team in the country. A team that was limited in terms of present quality depth, outside shooting and other than RJ the ability to keep making smart decisions at the end of close games.

We had a good season that was at the top level of expectations. We sucked in one game in the tourney. Those are almost separate things. Everyone is free to value one more than the other, but no one should be not paying attention to both of them.
Expand ...
AJ Price - San Diego
Ricky Moore - Mississippi
RJ Cole - Maryland
Khalid El-Amin - Tennessee
Jerome Dyson - Michigan State

Here are 5 tournament losses that I always thought we'd win if we had the player who suffered an injury that put a ceiling on the team's ability to compete for a National Championship. Whether or not, we'd have lost in a later round, I don't know.

IF Jordan Hawkins blossomed like many here believe he certainly will, then this team would have done something similar, including a 4 or better seed and the Sweet 16 that most believe should have been our floor.

Is there a year when a key injury resulted in UConn meeting or exceeding highest expectations?

Is there are year when another team suffered a key injury and did so? I'm stuck thinking that last year's Michigan & Villanova, and this year's Creighton
 
I'd much rather have the Sweet 16. At least that's a season that gets acknowledged in the Gampel scoreboards.
 
shizzle787 said:
The Big East isn't a mid major. It is a power conference in basketball. Marquette went 19-12 this year and was CLEANLY in the field. If they had gone 17-14, they probably would have been in the First Four due to their scheduling.
Expand ...
I was unaware. You are correct. From what I found out, the Big East is actually the second strongest of the basketball power conferences, with the Big Ten ranked first.
 
buddy said:
I was unaware. You are correct. From what I found out, the Big East is actually the second strongest of the basketball power conferences, with the Big Ten ranked first.
Expand ...
Probably closer to fourth but yes it is a major league.
Sagarin has them:
1. Big 12
2. B1G
3. SEC
4. Big East
5. Pac-12
6. ACC
 
buddy said:
The Power Conference schools will always have an advantage over mid majors. 17-14 in the Big 10 is very different from being 17-14 in the Big East. Big Ten Conference games were battles for the upper 2/3 of the conference. Big East had three contenders and the rest had flaws. Even Rutgers would have beaten UConn this year. It would be much better to be in the Big Ten in the long run, no doubt. I don't care for Michigan only because their AD failed UConn.
Expand ...

Tell me you don't watch B10 games without telling me you don't watch B10 games.

B10 was filled with flawed teams. The metrics generally love the way B10 teams play, but the reason so many compete for the top of the league is because of how flawed many of their teams are while still having a bevy of strong teams. This is the same in the BE.

Many here seem to just be looking for excuses, but the tournament is a crapshoot. Get in, get as good a seeding as you can, then from there hope for good matchups and peak performance. The rest is up to chance and fate.
 
.-.
shizzle787 said:
Probably closer to fourth but yes it is a major league.
Sagarin has them:
1. Big 12
2. B1G
3. SEC
4. Big East
5. Pac-12
6. ACC
Expand ...
Guess Saragin doesn’t look at tournament performance. The bad ACC has 3 of 4 in the Sweet 16 while the might NOOB has 2 of 6. Oh well. Of course he is the guy who declared Duke the national champion in 1999. After they lost to UConn! But statistically they were better.
 
freescooter said:
Guess Saragin doesn’t look at tournament performance. The bad ACC has 3 of 4 in the Sweet 16 while the might NOOB has 2 of 6. Oh well. Of course he is the guy who declared Duke the national champion in 1999. After they lost to UConn! But statistically they were better.
Expand ...
That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.
 
shizzle787 said:
That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.
Expand ...
LOL. And the Super Bowl isn’t the best way of determining the Champion, either. AFC is much tougher so the winner is more worn down. And the US Open isn’t the best way to determine the Champion either. Andy North can get hot while a great player hits it into the toolie boonies. We should do it by computer. I can just see the ratings now. Millions of viewers watching some guy punch in SOS data, and then two statistics PhDs arguing about components of the Golden Mean calculation and whether Recent results should be weighed more than overall.

Actually it kinda does identify the best team. Since 2000, only 6 champs have not been a 1 seed. And if we posit that seeding is generally correct and 1 seeds are more or less the best teams in their years, that is pretty much what would be expected. There have also been 2 2-seeds, 3 3-seeds and a 7-seed. UConn in 2014 being the biggest Outlier. But it is the only one over a 3 seed to win a title since Villanova in 1985. And I would argue that that team was under seeded because nobody really had a handle on how good or bad the AAC was.
 
freescooter said:
LOL. And the Super Bowl isn’t the best way of determining the Champion, either. AFC is much tougher so the winner is more worn down. And the US Open isn’t the best way to determine the Champion either. Andy North can get hot while a great player hits it into the toolie boonies. We should do it by computer. I can just see the ratings now. Millions of viewers watching some guy punch in SOS data, and then two statistics PhDs arguing about components of the Golden Mean calculation and whether Recent results should be weighed more than overall.

Actually it kinda does identify the best team. Since 2000, only 6 champs have not been a 1 seed. And if we posit that seeding is generally correct and 1 seeds are more or less the best teams in their years, that is pretty much what would be expected. There have also been 2 2-seeds, 3 3-seeds and a 7-seed. UConn in 2014 being the biggest Outlier. But it is the only one over a 3 seed to win a title since Villanova in 1985. And I would argue that that team was under seeded because nobody really had a handle on how good or bad the AAC was.
Expand ...
It isn't. See the 18-1 Patriots. They were a better team than the Giants that year but they lost. The only true way to determine who the best team is is a double round robin (home/away) format. That way everyone has the same SOS and the same opponents. Over the course of the season, the best team would have the most wins. That is not practical in college basketball because that would require all 358 teams have a 714-game season.
 
shizzle787 said:
That's the point. The tournament isn't the best way of determining the champion or the best league. It only determines who gets hot at the right time.
Expand ...
So you might say calling a whole season a failure after a tournament loss is a bit extreme right?
 
Jaydumo20 said:
I know it's a different conference and all but they are the perfect counterpoint to these recent threads.

1. A very lackluster regular season. A regular season we would all be very disappointed in.
2. A Coach whose actions were more egregious than Hurley's ejection and comments.
3. But 2 tourney wins.

Do the tourney wins wipe everything clean? Is this what we want?
Expand ...
Yes
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,326
Messages
4,564,060
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom