Uconn is pathetic

Not really impossible at all when talking about #1 seeds, it depends on when the 1 seeds fall. For example: Butler beat Pitt in the second round. They could have easily lost in the sweet 16, the elite 8 or the final four before facing UConn. UK beat OSU in the sweet 16 but had to face UNC before facing UConn. Only Arizona was a guarantee because UConn faced the winner of Arizona/Duke.

So UConn if things fall a bit differently, UConn only plays 1 team that beat a #1 seed.

I never said this, I just said it was possible and entirely impossible to prove either way.


You are correct and I said in another reply that the 4, 5, 8 could possibly be worse than normal. My point all along is that you can't just look at the seed number and shouldn't look across years. I've already said numerous times that Cuse had a much harder way to go by seeding after the sweet 16. UConn had a harder way to go prior to the sweet 16, by seeding.

Really the difference, by seeding comes down to Cuse playing 2 #1's and UConn playing a 4 and 5. The other seed #'s are all similar or slightly favor UConn as being more difficult. After that it's an interpretation of which teams were actually stronger teams outside the bubble of the year they played, which there is no basis for analysis.

As should Wesley Johnson or Flynn.

Honestly, neither team faced amazing NBA talent and both managed to miss facing the best NBA potential out there (aside from those on the two teams in Kemba/Melo) in Wade and Irving.

I think Knight, Kawhi and Derrick will have better careers than Collison. Knight should be able to match/surpass Hinrich and Ford. Kawhi should be around for at least 8 years. Williams could be a good player but he has some holes he needs to work on. Interesting thing is, the top players are all much younger than Collison/Hinrich when they entered the NBA and may have much more room to grow. The interesting player will be Terrence Jones, who if he gets his head out of his butt, could be a very good player.

Not that it is a huge deal, but I believe Collison is an incredibly underrated player. I think he constantly has one of the best plus/minus numbers in the league. (Not saying he'll be better than the guys listed or not, just wanted to point it out.)

True, I like Collison and the way he plays. If he had some of other NBA's physical tools he would be a great player. He's got a great basketball IQ.

Jesus I never thought 3 words in a post would cause so much chaos.

Proof that the truth hurts.

actually someone posted the kenpom #'s that is a start and surely better than seeding

Do you really take yourself seriously with these posts? You think uconn's draw last year was anything other than the easiest, BY FAR, in the history of tournament? Are you seriously trying to argue that your draw of a weakass 8-seed Butler, along with a 10-6 SEC Kentucky team and a mediocre at best Zona team, compares to SU playing 1 and 2 seeds in the tourney in 2003? Do the season performances that warranted those 1 and 2 seeds not count, and somehow the shitty seeds Kentucky, Zona and Butler underrepresent how they performed?

Look uconn won last year, well done, but the tourney was an absolute joke - the cosmos aligned like never before, and likely never again....

That was a 1-man team like I have never seen, 9-9 in the BE and a 10-seed. Remove 1 guy, return EVERYONE, add the #1 recruit in the country, and 2 other top recruits, and what do you have? A preseason top 4 team that is squarely on the bubble...

Kenpom numbers are interesting for sure and a better measure. I have some issues with his stats and the way he calculates things though, his formula is good but there are a lot of variables that really aren't accounted for in year to year comparisons.

Throwing this out there. Fact or fiction? Prior to last year, the last 24 of the 28 teams to go to the Final Four had an offensive AND defensive efficiency rating in the top 10 (Pomeroy).

Looking at the numbers right now, only UK and KU fit that mold. And considering the season is winding down and individual games make less of an impact on his numbers than they did at the start of the season, I'd say only MSU, OSU and UNC have a chance to get their numbers there.

Heck, going by the seeding argument you could say that UConn 2011 was as good in the regular season/BET as Syracuse 2003. Both were 3 seeds in the tournament. Do you agree with that statement? If, yes. Then sure, UConn had an easier road but even that "one-man" team was as good as Cuse's NC in the regular season. If no, then it shows cross-comparing years based on seeding is just stupid off the bat. I lean to the second.

My argument isn't that UConn had a tough road. My argument is that you can't compare Cuse's 2003 road and UConn's 2011 road based on cometition seeding from different years. Heck I prefer your argument that, "Butler didn't look good and was weakass". That at least admits the fact you are basing off of your viewing opinion not some sort of made up fact that doesn't exist to cross-compare years.

In my viewing opinion, I would agree Cuse had a harder road. There are zero empirical facts to back that up. Do you get the difference?

what? UConn was 9-9 in the big east and finished 9th

I don't subscribe to KenPom. So I guess I should take it you have looked it up. Have you? If so, why ask the question?

Also, that is a bad way of representing it, IMO. I would need some more data, or it's really a biased/inconclusive statement. I need to know how many teams in the top 10 in both those numbers failed to reach the final four, aside from last year. Basically, the 24 are out of how many teams? Is it 24 out of 70 (unlikely) or 24 out of 48 (possible)? You get why I am asking, I assume?

Also, it only covers from 2003-2010, which seems like a small data set. Stretch it back to when the NCAA tournament was expanded to 64. I assume it's actually 24 out of 32 including last year? Is it 24 out of 36 or 40 if you go back another year or two? Does the model fall apart if you stretch it back further?

Edit: I honestly don't know and am very curious.

Did you miss the part where I said, "going by the seeding argument"? That was quite literally the 5 words before what you quoted. I love it when people misquote or partially quote someone.

I dont subscribe. Just heard that little "fact" from an avid follower and was wondering some of the same things you are. Since you mentioned in your post that you had "issues" with his numbers, I apparently incorrectly assumed you followed his work.

You are trying to convince yourself of nonsense. Syracuse won the BE at 13-3. Uconn had a nice BE tourney run after a VERY mediocre regular season.

Any way you cut it, to get a 1 seed in the NCAAs you have to had a flat out phenomenal regular season. The teams Syracuse beat had great regular seasons. Your false argument would maybe have a little merit if we were speaking of 8s vs. 6s. But the joke competition uconn faced last year would not be considered championship worthy in any context. Sorry. These are just the facts. Furthermore, how about that mediocre GTech team you beat in 2004? uconn has seriously lucked out in terms of competition in those two tourneys. To their credit, they won, but you could put 20 teams in that spot and they would have won as well. You took advantage of the cakewalk, so good for your.

I followed when it was free. I refuse to pay.

Sigh. I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. You are having reading issues. Let me help. Read the following re-quote of myself:

Syracuse beat a 14, 6, 10, 1, 1, 2 seed. UConn a 14, 6, 2, 4, 5 and 8. So by seeding (which is really silly to discuss, as previously mentioned) UConn and Cuse both played one 14, one 6 and one 2 seed. Cuse played a 10 and UConn an 8 (let's call those even). So essentially you are talking about the difference between a 4 and a 1 and 5 and a 1. That seems fairly close, similar to discussing a 8 and 6.

Umm, OK GT was mediocre? Based on what? Your opinion? Can't really argue with opinion, sure great in your opinion they were mediocre. Good luck proving it.

BTW going by your argument that "to get a 1 seed in the NCAAs you have to had a flat out phenomenal regular season". You do see the irony here, correct? GT in 2004 was a 3 seed, Cuse in 2003 was a 3 seed, UConn in 2011 was a 3 seed. But GT was mediocre, Cuse was great and "Uconn had a nice BE tourney run after a VERY mediocre regular season".

Please tell me you understand why cross-referencing seeding numbers btw years is silly.

In 2004, UCONN beat #1 Duke in the semi's. In my mind, that was the true national championship game. Even though G-Tech was a 3 seed, some consider them a "mediocre" finalist because of they way UCONN dismantled them in the first 30 minutes. That game was a letdown after the crazy win vs. Coach K. And I guess playing #8 Alabama in the Elite 8 can be looked at as "lucking out", but they had beaten #1 Stanford and #5 Cuse along the way.