Uconn is pathetic

[SouthCampusHero]

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.

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.

 

[nyucuse]

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?

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.

 

[caw]

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.

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

 

[caw]

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.

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:

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?

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.

 

[alexd.]

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.

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.