Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Tenspro2002, post: 3084315, member: 889"] It is both the case that our resume was not that impressive [B]and[/B] the logic used to relegate us to a #2 seed is disturbing. - Yes, we only went 1-2 against other contenders and weren't all that competitive in the games we lost (never got closer than 6 points in the 4th quarter against Baylor, nor closer than 5 in the 4th quarter against Louisville). - We also didn't have that many good wins against second tier opponents. Our OOC was stronger on paper going into the year than it turned out to be -- a lot of those second tier teams turned out to be frauds, though we almost lost to abysmal Oklahoma. - The conference was at its usual weakness, and we looked bad in a number of those games despite winning. That said, our only losses are to #1 seeds, on the road. The "eye test" has frankly never been a consideration, and for the committee to invoke how we looked down the stretch -- which also has never been a consideration -- is disingenuous. They also finally admitted, through an accidental slip of the tongue, that they evaluate "strength of conference" and not just strength of schedule. They're giving license to downgrade UConn on account of the AAC. There's a long way to go for this program to fade to the level of a Louisiana Tech or Old Dominion, but if you're looking for a first step, this is it. [/QUOTE]