Uconn is pathetic

[djcon57]

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.

AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR???? Am I taking crazy pills?

Hinrich and Collison are still in the NBA, 8 years later.
TJ Ford averaged 11 pts a game for 7 years.


Shelvin Mack and Derrick Williams. What else am I missing here? Who Brandon Knight? Kawai Leonard?

 

[NailstheCusefan12]

AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR???? Am I taking crazy pills?

Hinrich and Collison are still in the NBA, 8 years later.
TJ Ford averaged 11 pts a game for 7 years.


Shelvin Mack and Derrick Williams. What else am I missing here? Who Brandon Knight? Kawai Leonard?

And Kansas smacked a Marquette team that featured Dwyane Wade.

 

[djcon57]

BTW you really need to look things up.
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.

Yes, someone needs to look up things.

Look up records and teams from 2003 Big 12 and 2011 Pac 10.

 

[caw]

..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.

Don't really want to go down this road, bc this is not the main or even secondary point I was making but:

Cuse faced these great NBA players on it's road to the championship:
Kansas: Collison, Hinrich
Texas: TJ Ford
Oklahoma: ?
Oklahoma St: Tony Allen
Auburn: Marquis Daniels

Did I miss anyone?

UConn faced future or rookie NBA players which may or may not be any good in:
Cincy: maybe someone like Kilpatrick or Gates but no clue atm
SDSU: Kawhi Leonard
Arizona: Derrick Williams
UK: Brandon Knight, Harrelson, Liggins was drafted also (probably: Doron Lamb, Terrance Jones)
Butler: Mack

Neither team faced daunting NBA talent and it is certainly up for debate which faced more and which faced better.

Look at rookie numbers and tell me those aren't darn similar, which again is really not a good idea.

 

[caw]

Yes, someone needs to look up things.

Look up records and teams from 2003 Big 12 and 2011 Pac 10.

Right, because my point the entire time is cross referencing years is a good idea.

 

[caw]

AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR???? Am I taking crazy pills?

Hinrich and Collison are still in the NBA, 8 years later.
TJ Ford averaged 11 pts a game for 7 years.


Shelvin Mack and Derrick Williams. What else am I missing here? Who Brandon Knight? Kawai Leonard?

Just in general, not compared to last year. Or at least I hadn't prior to 5 minutes ago meant to go down that road. Find out it's not that crazy a comparison, aside from the whole impossibility of telling if 11 ppg in 2004 is as easy or as hard as 11 ppg in 2010-2011

 

[BuffOrange]

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.

That's cool but you do realize that it's physically impossible to not play such teams deep into any tournament (if the team you're actually playing isn't a high seed themselves) right?

 

[Knicks411]

Seeds aren't the best way to compare teams, but I do think you are stretching it to say a 4,5, and 8 are going to be better than 3 # 1's. Could 2 or 3's, or even 4's, be better than 1's? Sure. (But I am not sure what the evidence in this case is that they are, it's possible th e 4,5,8 UConn played were even worse than a normal 4,5, and 8.)

But I do have a hard time imagining that a 4,5, and 8 were of equal quality to 2 1's and a 2. (If I remember, there were basically 5 #1 seeds in 2003, for lack of a better term).

 

[djcon57]

Don't really want to go down this road, bc this is not the main or even secondary point I was making but:

Cuse faced these great NBA players on it's road to the championship:
Kansas: Collison, Hinrich
Texas: TJ Ford
Oklahoma: ?
Oklahoma St: Tony Allen
Auburn: Marquis Daniels

Did I miss anyone?

UConn faced future or rookie NBA players which may or may not be any good in:
Cincy: maybe someone like Kilpatrick or Gates but no clue atm
SDSU: Kawhi Leonard
Arizona: Derrick Williams
UK: Brandon Knight, Harrelson, Liggins was drafted also (probably: Doron Lamb, Terrance Jones)
Butler: Mack

Neither team faced daunting NBA talent and it is certainly up for debate which faced more and which faced better.

Look at rookie numbers and tell me those aren't darn similar, which again is really not a good idea.

I agree to a point.
I'm just basing it on what I see...but I guess Kawhi could be good NBA players...maybe Knight. I don't think Derrick is going to make it long term. But that's just opinion.

I think you are underplaying Ford, Collison, and Hinrich's careers. Not everyone is Lebron or Wade. Just having a solid NBA is a decent feat. Your boy Thabeet should know.

Well...let's revisit 8 years from now. Bookmark this post.

 

[Knicks411]

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 think Kentucky was actually a very good team last year. But is it not possible that Butler's record was a little inflated because they playedin the Horizon? Or Arizona played in a weak Pac 10 that had 4 teams in the dance, none of whom were seeded better than 5?

Pomeroy ranked Kansas #1 in 2003, Oklahoma #8, and Texas #10. He had Kentucky 6 (a 4 seed was a bad seed for them), Butler 41, and Arizona 24. (Of course, he had SD State 8).

 

[caw]

That's cool but you do realize that it's physically impossible to not play such teams deep into any tournament (if the team you're actually playing isn't a high seed themselves) right?

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.

 

[caw]

Seeds aren't the best way to compare teams, but I do think you are stretching it to say a 4,5, and 8 are going to be better than 3 # 1's. Could 2 or 3's, or even 4's, be better than 1's? Sure. (But I am not sure what the evidence in this case is that they are, it's possible th e 4,5,8 UConn played were even worse than a normal 4,5, and 8.)

But I do have a hard time imagining that a 4,5, and 8 were of equal quality to 2 1's and a 2. (If I remember, there were basically 5 #1 seeds in 2003, for lack of a better term).

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.

 

[caw]

I agree to a point.
I'm just basing it on what I see...but I guess Kawhi could be good NBA players...maybe Knight. I don't think Derrick is going to make it long term. But that's just opinion.

I think you are underplaying Ford, Collison, and Hinrich's careers. Not everyone is Lebron or Wade. Just having a solid NBA is a decent feat. Your boy Thabeet should know.

Well...let's revisit 8 years from now. Bookmark this post.

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.

 

[Knicks411]

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.)

 

[caw]

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.

 

[Marsh01]

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

 

[rstone7727]

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

Proof that the truth hurts.

 

[Garbs]

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.

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

 

[nyucuse]

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?




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.

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...

 

[caw]

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

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.

 

[SouthCampusHero]

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.

 

[caw]

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...

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?

 

[Garbs]

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? .

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

 

[caw]

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.

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.

 

[caw]

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

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.