Uconn is pathetic

[caw]

It doesn't matter what you're point was. 2003 was an extremely tough road and he's an idiot for thinking otherwise.

I don't know about extremely tough, but it wasn't a cupcake either. Syracuse had an extremely easy road to the elite eight that year. Playing a #14, #6, #10 seed, then had the hardest possible road there on playing 3 #1 seeds.

UConn had a slightly harder road to the elite eight by seeding in 2011 playing a #14, #6, #2, but had an easier road after that, by seeding, #5, #4, and #8.

Which teams were actually better teams; the ones UConn played or the ones Syracuse played. No clue. Nearly impossible to judge.

 

[jdubs30]

I don't know about extremely tough, but it wasn't a cupcake either. Syracuse had an extremely easy road to the elite eight that year. Playing a #14, #6, #10 seed, then had the hardest possible road there on playing 3 #1 seeds.

UConn had a slightly harder road to the elite eight by seeding in 2011 playing a #14, #6, #2, but had an easier road after that, by seeding, #5, #4, and #8.

Which teams were actually better teams; the ones UConn played or the ones Syracuse played. No clue. Nearly impossible to judge.

Aren't you seeded based on how good you are? Are you suggesting a 5, 4 and 8 might have been better than 3 1s?

 

[alexd.]

Yes, but prior to Calhoun...

We all know UConn pretty much sucked before Calhoun.

I took Bufforange's comment that UCONN has had "more bad seasons than any perennial powerhouse" to mean "bad seasons" by an actual powerhouse program. UCONN has only been anything close to a powerhouse since 1990. I realize we had lousy seasons before 1990 and were just a "regional power" through the 60's and 70's.

 

[caw]

Aren't you seeded based on how good you are? Are you suggesting a 5, 4 and 8 might have been better than 3 1s?

You are seeded based on quite a number of things, but most of it is total season success relative to that year.

There could be any number of reasons that an 5, 4 or 8 seed could be a better team on the court than a 1 seed. Or why the 14 seed in 2011 could be better/worse than the 14 seed in 2003. Or a #6 vs. a #6. Perhaps college basketball is really top heavy in one year and the #6 would have been a #9 or #10 in the other year. Or the #14 not in the tournament in one of those years. Or the #1 a #4 in another year or a #4 a #1, etc.

To answer your question; UK beat a 12, 5, 1 and 2 seeds before losing to UConn. Arizona beat a 12, 4, 1 seeds. Butler beat a 9, 1, 4, and 2 seeds. So yes, a 4, 5 and 8 seed can be better teams than 3 #1's in March. All three of those teams were better teams than their #1 counterparts and thus harder than three #1's in 2011.

I am going to say clearly: cross comparing seed numbers 2011 to 2003 is not a good way to judge team talent or team strength overall.

The best NBA player Cuse played was Kirk Hinrich, so really how talented were those teams Cuse played?

 

[caw]

I took Bufforange's comment that UCONN has had "more bad seasons than any perennial powerhouse" to mean "bad seasons" by an actual powerhouse program. UCONN has only been anything close to a powerhouse since 1990. I realize we had lousy seasons before 1990 and were just a "regional power" through the 60's and 70's.

I was being a jerk and beating someone to the punch on that comment.

 

[jdubs30]

You are seeded based on quite a number of things, but most of it is total season success relative to that year.

There could be any number of reasons that an 5, 4 or 8 seed could be a better team on the court than a 1 seed. Or why the 14 seed in 2011 could be better/worse than the 14 seed in 2003. Or a #6 vs. a #6. Perhaps college basketball is really top heavy in one year and the #6 would have been a #9 or #10 in the other year. Or the #14 not in the tournament in one of those years. Or the #1 a #4 in another year or a #4 a #1, etc.

To answer your question; UK beat a 12, 5, 1 and 2 seeds before losing to UConn. Arizona beat a 12, 4, 1 seeds. Butler beat a 9, 1, 4, and 2 seeds. So yes, a 4, 5 and 8 seed can be better teams than 3 #1's in March. All three of those teams were better teams than their #1 counterparts and thus harder than three #1's in 2011.

I am going to say clearly: cross comparing seed numbers 2011 to 2003 is not a good way to judge team talent or team strength overall.

The best NBA player Cuse played was Kirk Hinrich, so really how talented were those teams Cuse played?

:rolling:

 

[caw]

:rolling:

Great rebuttal. Maybe you can flesh out what you think is wrong with the post. Seriously, I am dying to hear it.

Edit: I am pretty sure you were just going to post that laughing man regardless of what I wrote. I doubt you even read the post.

 

[orangecuse]

:rolling:

Agree.

Whatever credibility this intruder thought he had...just lost it all with that post. Making an argument that 3 number ones were not excellent teams that year due to insignificant NBA prowess type players is just foolish. Inprudent as well attempting to make an argument that a 4, 5 & 8 seed are better teams in March than 3 number 1's when the selection process is done the weekend before the tournament...I believe that's in March...we all know how those 8 & 9 type seeds are just on fire heading into the Dance. :crazy:

 

[caw]

Agree. Whatever credibility this intruder thought he had...just lost it all with that post. Making an argument that 3 number ones were not really elite teams that year due to insignificant NBA prowess type players is just foolish.

I think you have failed to grasp what I wrote.

I never said they weren't elite teams that year. I said that it's near impossible to say those teams were better than X, Y, Z seeded teams in another year based solely on seeding. Those number 1 seeds may be elite teams in other years even, but there are also years they would be 5 or 6 seeds. I think it's a fallacy to look at seeding to determine who had a harder road in a single season/tournament.

Edit: I do question how good those teams would have been in other years, but that would just be hypothetical guess work.

 

[jdubs30]

I think you have failed to grasp what I wrote.

I never said they weren't elite teams that year. I said that it's near impossible to say those teams were better than X, Y, Z seeded teams in another year based solely on seeding. Those number 1 seeds may be elite teams in other years even, but there are also years they would be 5 or 6 seeds. I think it's a fallacy to look at seeding to determine who had a harder road in a single season tournament.

Edit: I do question how good those teams would have been in other years, but that would just be hypothetical guess work.

Ok, so you're confirming that the 3 number 1 seeds could very well have been "elite" teams. No one is comparing 03 Texas to 2011 Butler as far as matching up with each other. Our road involved 3 #1 seeds, yours didn't.

I get there are weak years, but if you're a number 1 seed, you probably didn't have a down year. If Texas was 29-4 or something that year (didn't look it up), I highly doubt that same exact team would be 17-14 in 02 or 04.

I really don't get your point. I think you're grasping at straws.

 

[orangecuse]

I think you have failed to grasp what I wrote.

I never said they weren't elite teams that year. I said that it's near impossible to say those teams were better than X, Y, Z seeded teams in another year based solely on seeding. Those number 1 seeds may be elite teams in other years even, but there are also years they would be 5 or 6 seeds. I think it's a fallacy to look at seeding to determine who had a harder road in a single season tournament.

Edit: I do question how good those teams would have been in other years, but that would just be hypothetical guess work.

Not failing to grasp...just a very weak argument you're attempting to make relative to the #1 seeds in addition to none of these teams having significant NBA type talent, therefore, discrediting their stature that year. Basketball is a TEAM sport made up of individual players. Generally, the TEAM that attains the utmost success is the TEAM that plays as such...just ask Lebron and his Miami counterparts.

 

[djcon57]

Ok, so you're confirming that the 3 number 1 seeds could very well have been "elite" teams. No one is comparing 03 Texas to 2011 Butler as far as matching up with each other. Our road involved 3 #1 seeds, yours didn't.

I get there are weak years, but if you're a number 1 seed, you probably didn't have a down year. If Texas was 29-4 or something that year (didn't look it up), I highly doubt that same exact team would be 17-14 in 02 or 04.

I really don't get your point. I think you're grasping at straws.

..and you want to go down that road...He's also ignoring that the 2003 NBA Draft was ONE OF THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. Wade was in the Final 4. Melo, Final 4. Hinrich, Top 10 pick. TJ Ford, Top 10 pick. Collison, 11. Not to mention guys who didn't make the final 4 like Bosh, Josh Howard, David West.

Last year? Derrick Williams. He of 7 pts a game, rookie year.
The GREAT Shelvin Mack? 3 pts a game
Kemba's even eating a hot one in the NBA so far.

So this is a bad argument as well.

 

[zls44]

You played one #1 seed at home, which was an Oklahoma team that was not as strong as you think, and the other was a #1 seed coached by Rick Barnes. And had home-court the first four games. Gift road. Total gift road. After UConn slapped you around for 40 minutes for the second time that season, MIGHT I ADD.

UConn flew 3,000 miles and played two road games in a hostile environment- one against the best non-Kemba player in the tournament, who was a machine, and the other against a team that had two losses all year. And their reward for that was playing a loaded Kentucky team and the defending national finalist, a team you might know a bit about, right Syracuse fans?

 

[djcon57]

You played one #1 seed at home, which was an Oklahoma team that was not as strong as you think, and the other was a #1 seed coached by Rick Barnes. And had home-court the first four games. Gift road. Total gift road. After UConn slapped you around for 40 minutes for the second time that season, MIGHT I ADD.

UConn flew 3,000 miles and played two road games in a hostile environment- one against the best non-Kemba player in the tournament, who was a machine, and the other against a team that had two losses all year. And their reward for that was playing a loaded Kentucky team and the defending national finalist, a team you might know a bit about, right Syracuse fans?

Not the same Butler team. No Gordon Heyward. In fact, not even close.

 

[zls44]

Not the same Butler team. No Gordon Heyward. In fact, not even close.

They took out Pitt and Florida, I'd say they were pretty good. Although you can make a great argument that Pitt took out Pitt.

If your only argument is "they didn't have Gordon Heyward", then I rest my case. SU deservedly won the 2003 NC. But to act like they didn't have one of the gift brackets of all-time- FOUR HOME GAMES- is to lie to yourself.

 

[BuffOrange]

Great rebuttal. Maybe you can flesh out what you think is wrong with the post. Seriously, I am dying to hear it.

I mean, listing the seeds of teams that lost to the teams you played is a little ridiculous - you can make the biggest cakewalk ever look like murderer's row if you wanted to. It's a "UK lost to Indiana who lost to Nebraska" sort of thing.

 

[Marsh01]

FOUR HOME GAMES- is to lie to yourself.

Its not our fault that, being the greatest fan base in college basketball history we make money for the NCAA by bringing people in droves to these arenas.

You think we had a home court advantage in 2003 wait until this year.

 

[djcon57]

They took out Pitt and Florida, I'd say they were pretty good. Although you can make a great argument that Pitt took out Pitt.

If your only argument is "they didn't have Gordon Heyward", then I rest my case. SU deservedly won the 2003 NC. But to act like they didn't have one of the gift brackets of all-time- FOUR HOME GAMES- is to lie to yourself.

Oh..I'm sorry I don't have the "HEY GUYS, Texas is coached by Rich Barnes" argument and "Oklahoma wasn't that good...trust me"

Syracuse is not in Boston.

Not sure what else you want.

Enjoy the rest of your season
...and next
...and you'll be playing Bosie State and Air Force in basketball

 

[PauliePeppas]

I wonder if well need tulane fans to fill up our section in new orleans...

 

[orangecuse]

They took out Pitt and Florida, I'd say they were pretty good. Although you can make a great argument that Pitt took out Pitt.

If your only argument is "they didn't have Gordon Heyward", then I rest my case. SU deservedly won the 2003 NC. But to act like they didn't have one of the gift brackets of all-time- FOUR HOME GAMES- is to lie to yourself.

Four home games indeed, especially the Fleet Center in Boston. We should be wearing our home white unis this weekend when we play you in Hartford...another home venue for us.

 

[orangenirvana]

Gotta give credit where it's due: UConn finished the 2011-12 season as the best college basketball team in the country. Period. To say otherwise is foolish and sour grapes.

 

[djcon57]

Gotta give credit where it's due: UConn finished the 2011-12 season as the best college basketball team in the country. Period. To say otherwise is foolish and sour grapes.

Except no one said otherwise.

 

[BuffOrange]

Oh..I'm sorry I don't have the "HEY GUYS, Texas is coached by Rich Barnes" argument and "Oklahoma wasn't that good...trust me"

Syracuse is not in Boston.

Not sure what else you want.

Enjoy the rest of your season
...and next
...and you'll be playing Bosie State and Air Force in basketball

Haha touche. That the "best non-Kemba player in the tournament" was a 5 seed and the "Rick Barnes & not so good OU trust me" teams were a #1 might be the biggest mystery in the history of sports.
And I don't mean that as a slam against Derrick Williams who was a terrific player but just holy arbitrary criteria. Lets see what he does in the NBA if lack of stardom in the pros is your basis for scoffing at TJ Ford & Nick Collison.

 

[caw]

Ok, so you're confirming that the 3 number 1 seeds could very well have been "elite" teams. No one is comparing 03 Texas to 2011 Butler as far as matching up with each other. Our road involved 3 #1 seeds, yours didn't.

I get there are weak years, but if you're a number 1 seed, you probably didn't have a down year. If Texas was 29-4 or something that year (didn't look it up), I highly doubt that same exact team would be 17-14 in 02 or 04.

I really don't get your point. I think you're grasping at straws.

I'm grasping at straws, this will be fun.

My lord you should look things up or tell ESPN/Yahoo/Wiki they are wrong. Name the 3, #1's that Cuse beat in 2003? I bet you can't. I was just assuming you knew your team's run when it was stated they beat three #1's.

All kidding aside. Yes, of course they could have been in other years, but UK in 2011 could have been an elite team in another year also, perhaps Arizona as well, who knows maybe even Butler. I think I was pretty clear that by seeding Cuse had a harder road to the NC in 2003. I am suggesting that seeding isn't a good way to compare roads to the NC.

You asked, "Are you suggesting a 5, 4, 8 might have been better than 3 1's?". Correct? This was your question? The question wasn't, "Are you suggesting the 5, 4, 8 UConn beat in 2011 were better than 3 1's Cuse beat in 2003?" Because I answered the first question quite clearly.

The 5, 4 and 8 were (not might have been) better than 3 1's - in 2011. They beat 3 #1's and proved it (each beat 1 #1, they also took out 2 #2's).

If you are asking the second question, I am stating that it is an impossible feat to try and compare the two but it is in the realm of possibility that the 5, 4 and 8 were better than the 3 #1's. I never said it was highly probable just possible and by trying to compare them solely based on seeding in their respective seasons was a fallacy of an argument.

Of course it's probably silly to think a 29-4 team would be 17-14 in another year...but look at it closer to this; could that 29-4 Texas team lost another 3-4 or even 5 games and been a 4-6 seed in another season?

BTW you really need to look things up. Why would you not look up the record? Surely not because you were making reductio ad absurdum argument based on false and misleading information.

Texas was let's see ummm...26-7, Kansas was 30-8 and Oklahoma was 27-7. Ohh opps.

For reference, the 5th seed (Arizona) in 2011 was 30-8, the 4 seed was 29-9 and the 8 seed was 28-10. So in another season could those teams (perhaps not Butler due to conference) have been 1 or 2 seeds? Or maybe have slipped and been 8-12 seeds?

Just for fun, the teams UConn beat had 4 more wins and 5 more losses even though they were seeded completely differently.

I'm grasping?

Not failing to grasp...just a very weak argument you're attempting to make relative to the 1 seeds as well as since none of these teams had significant NBA type talent, discrediting their stature that year. Basketball is a TEAM sport made up of individual players. Generally, the TEAM that attains the utmost success are the teams that play as such...just ask Lebron and his Miami counterparts.

Look at teams that have won college titles, most have 3+ NBA players (maybe not good NBA players, but NBA players). Besides that was the least part of my argument and really just an afterthought more than anything else. It is however true that the NBA talent on those teams was not high.

 

[caw]

I mean, listing the seeds of teams that lost to the teams you played is a little ridiculous - you can make the biggest cakewalk ever look like murderer's row if you wanted to. It's a "UK lost to Indiana who lost to Nebraska" sort of thing.

He asked a very specific question about whether I thought a 5, 4 and 8 could be better than three 1's. The point of listing the teams they beat was not to make UConn's road look extremely difficult but to show that indeed those 5, 4, and 8 seeds did in fact beat three 1 seeds and were better on the court.