| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/14/15 4:38 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| linkster wrote: |
Notre Dame, as I pointed out, has 4 games left against ranked teams. Hardly a challenging state. UConn has 3 and one is better (according to both my and your standards) than any of Notre Dame's future opponents.
|
If you didn't strain so hard to try to make a point maybe people could take your position more seriously. First, you have to ignore that ND will almost certainly play at least two more ranked teams in the ACC tournament. Second, ND is up 4-3 in ranked opponents already.
Third, in order to even try to claim three upcoming top 25 foes for UConn, you have to include a team that is #25 for one week in the Coaches poll only (30 in the AP), whose 15 minutes of fame will end after one that one week when it gets stomped by UConn next Sunday, and who will never be there at season end (unless they beat UConn which, if that happens, will knock UConn off the top line of the bracket anyhow). So honestly, UConn in March will have somewhere between 2 and 4 top 25 opponents for the entire season (depending on whether Stanford or Duke are still ranked). Every other major team will have several more than that.
Now, compare that 2-4 ranked teams to the 8-10 that ND will face for the season and try your argument over again.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 5:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| My only point (and one I have repeatedly had to repeat ) is that there are no "power" conferences in wcbb. The B1G may have the best football team but what have any of their wcbb teams done in the last 6 years in the NCAA's? (And MD wasn't a member till this year) But some refuse to admit that. Over a month ago I listed the MOV's that Notre Dame had last season in the ACC. My memory may be wrong but it was 20 pts+. I think they had one game that was single digits. Is that what you call a competitive schedule worthy of having POWER placed in front of it? It may be the best that there is in wcbb but that is no great claim. |
I recall that thread, but your basic argument is that there are no power conferences because nobody is as good as UConn. (I'm overstating for effect here; I know you weren't as blunt.) But objectively, there are better conferences and worse conferences - the AAC has 2 teams in the coaches poll right now, while the ACC has 6, the SEC has 5, and the B1G has 4 (and it's more stark in the AP poll - 1 AAC team, 6 ACC, 5 SEC and 5 B1G). And the last week or so, with so many upsets, suggests pretty strongly there is significantly more depth in the P5 conferences than the AAC, which is another distinguishing factor.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 7:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
I recall that thread, but your basic argument is that there are no power conferences because nobody is as good as UConn. (I'm overstating for effect here; I know you weren't as blunt.) But objectively, there are better conferences and worse conferences - the AAC has 2 teams in the coaches poll right now, while the ACC has 6, the SEC has 5, and the B1G has 4 (and it's more stark in the AP poll - 1 AAC team, 6 ACC, 5 SEC and 5 B1G). And the last week or so, with so many upsets, suggests pretty strongly there is significantly more depth in the P5 conferences than the AAC, which is another distinguishing factor. |
My "no power conferences" position has nothing to do with the AAC. Yes, there are better and worse conferences. But that doesn't equate to those "better" conferences being "power conferences". To me their fans are trying to ride on the coattails of football. And it comes across to me as snobbery. UConn fans get accused of that a lot but at least we have something at which to be arrogant. The last time any conference had a reason to declare themselves "powerful" was when the BE had 3 of the 4 FF teams and half the FF teams in a 3 year span. How in hell does the B1G think they are powerful? Put a single team in the FF for even 2 years in a row then come back and suggest it. And yeah, I have been told about the "good top to bottom" argument, but when the "top" isn't very high that argument falls apart.
To me, if a conference is to be considered powerful there should be a lot more than 2 or 3 teams in it that could be competitive (not necessarily win) against the top 3 or 4 teams in the country. At least half. In men's BB that is true for several conferences, where the dropoff in quality of teams top to bottom looks like a bunny slope. In wcbb that slope turns into a triple black diamond.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 8:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I recall that thread, but your basic argument is that there are no power conferences because nobody is as good as UConn. (I'm overstating for effect here; I know you weren't as blunt.) But objectively, there are better conferences and worse conferences - the AAC has 2 teams in the coaches poll right now, while the ACC has 6, the SEC has 5, and the B1G has 4 (and it's more stark in the AP poll - 1 AAC team, 6 ACC, 5 SEC and 5 B1G). And the last week or so, with so many upsets, suggests pretty strongly there is significantly more depth in the P5 conferences than the AAC, which is another distinguishing factor. |
My "no power conferences" position has nothing to do with the AAC. Yes, there are better and worse conferences. But that doesn't equate to those "better" conferences being "power conferences". To me their fans are trying to ride on the coattails of football. And it comes across to me as snobbery. UConn fans get accused of that a lot but at least we have something at which to be arrogant. The last time any conference had a reason to declare themselves "powerful" was when the BE had 3 of the 4 FF teams and half the FF teams in a 3 year span. How in hell does the B1G think they are powerful? Put a single team in the FF for even 2 years in a row then come back and suggest it. And yeah, I have been told about the "good top to bottom" argument, but when the "top" isn't very high that argument falls apart.
To me, if a conference is to be considered powerful there should be a lot more than 2 or 3 teams in it that could be competitive (not necessarily win) against the top 3 or 4 teams in the country. At least half. In men's BB that is true for several conferences, where the dropoff in quality of teams top to bottom looks like a bunny slope. In wcbb that slope turns into a triple black diamond. |
I have to say that post has more spin than my washing machine could ever do...holy cow. This basically reads that there are no such things as power conferences. And the last comments trying to equate the conferences with a type of ski slope is wrong...there are some conferences that are actually fairly deep. I guess that gets discarded because those bottom teams couldn't challenge the top 3 or 4 teams in the nation.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 9:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I recall that thread, but your basic argument is that there are no power conferences because nobody is as good as UConn. (I'm overstating for effect here; I know you weren't as blunt.) But objectively, there are better conferences and worse conferences - the AAC has 2 teams in the coaches poll right now, while the ACC has 6, the SEC has 5, and the B1G has 4 (and it's more stark in the AP poll - 1 AAC team, 6 ACC, 5 SEC and 5 B1G). And the last week or so, with so many upsets, suggests pretty strongly there is significantly more depth in the P5 conferences than the AAC, which is another distinguishing factor. |
My "no power conferences" position has nothing to do with the AAC. Yes, there are better and worse conferences. But that doesn't equate to those "better" conferences being "power conferences". To me their fans are trying to ride on the coattails of football. And it comes across to me as snobbery. UConn fans get accused of that a lot but at least we have something at which to be arrogant. The last time any conference had a reason to declare themselves "powerful" was when the BE had 3 of the 4 FF teams and half the FF teams in a 3 year span. How in hell does the B1G think they are powerful? Put a single team in the FF for even 2 years in a row then come back and suggest it. And yeah, I have been told about the "good top to bottom" argument, but when the "top" isn't very high that argument falls apart.
To me, if a conference is to be considered powerful there should be a lot more than 2 or 3 teams in it that could be competitive (not necessarily win) against the top 3 or 4 teams in the country. At least half. In men's BB that is true for several conferences, where the dropoff in quality of teams top to bottom looks like a bunny slope. In wcbb that slope turns into a triple black diamond. |
I have to say that post has more spin than my washing machine could ever do...holy cow. This basically reads that there are no such things as power conferences. And the last comments trying to equate the conferences with a type of ski slope is wrong...there are some conferences that are actually fairly deep. I guess that gets discarded because those bottom teams couldn't challenge the top 3 or 4 teams in the nation. |
I highlighted what I said and what you said I said. Who is spinning?
There's a difference between depth and power. Your conference may have some depth but it has little height. When was the last time a BiG team challenged for a NC by making the FF? (And again, MD did it for the ACC)
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15746
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 9:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| There's a difference between depth and power. Your conference may have some depth but it has little height. When was the last time a BiG team challenged for a NC by making the FF? (And again, MD did it for the ACC) |
"Spin" comes from all vantage points, really: it is the lifeblood of most fandom.
In this particular discussion, tho, I cannot be convinced that there are no real power conferences in wbb. Yes, it isn't precisely like the men's field, nor like football, etc. But there IS a decided hierarchy of conferences from which most FF teams come. The Big Ten? Not so much, recently (that'll be changing, sooner than later). Big 12, SEC, ACC, and Pac 12, though do consistently produce FF contenders. The BEast did, once upon a time.
But. ALL things change. 
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7851
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 11:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
| There's a difference between depth and power. Your conference may have some depth but it has little height. When was the last time a BiG team challenged for a NC by making the FF? (And again, MD did it for the ACC) |
"Spin" comes from all vantage points, really: it is the lifeblood of most fandom.
In this particular discussion, tho, I cannot be convinced that there are no real power conferences in wbb. Yes, it isn't precisely like the men's field, nor like football, etc. But there IS a decided hierarchy of conferences from which most FF teams come. The Big Ten? Not so much, recently (that'll be changing, sooner than later). Big 12, SEC, ACC, and Pac 12, though do consistently produce FF contenders. The BEast did, once upon a time.
But. ALL things change. |
I'd say the B1G will definitely be producing more contenders. And I have to side with those who say there definitely are power conferences in WBB. There aren't as many powerful teams as in the men's game, but that is changing. As you say, ALL things change, and UConn will not always be the juggernaut it is at the moment.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 11:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
In this particular discussion, tho, I cannot be convinced that there are no real power conferences in wbb. Yes, it isn't precisely like the men's field, nor like football, etc. But there IS a decided hierarchy of conferences from which most FF teams come. The Big Ten? Not so much, recently (that'll be changing, sooner than later). Big 12, SEC, ACC, and Pac 12, though do consistently produce FF contenders. The BEast did, once upon a time.
But. ALL things change. |
The SEC hasn't had a team in the Final Four since 2008. It's only been 3 more years than that for the Big Ten. The ACC went from 2007 until 2013 when new member Notre Dame got them into the Final Four which was also a 6 year span of not getting there. The Pac-12 was consistent basically because of Stanford.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/15 11:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| The ACC went from 2007 until 2013 when new member Notre Dame got them into the Final Four which was also a 6 year span of not getting there. |
Just as an aside, ND was still in the BE in 2013. BE had 3 of the 4 final four teams that year.
Last year (2014) ACC had two final four teams with first year ND and last year Maryland.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 12:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
There's a pretty good argument that the "power" conferences are more significant in WCBB than in MCBB.
If you exclude UConn (which, let's admit, is an anomaly), the last time a team not from a P5 conference (or P6 prior to the BEast split) made the Elite 8 was 2011, and there only have been 3 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments. The last time a non-power conference team (other than UConn last year) made the Final Four was 2001.
On the men's side, on the other hand, there have been 11 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments and 6 in the Final Four (two of them in 2011).
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 12:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| The SEC hasn't had a team in the Final Four since 2008. It's only been 3 more years than that for the Big Ten. The ACC went from 2007 until 2013 when new member Notre Dame got them into the Final Four which was also a 6 year span of not getting there. The Pac-12 was consistent basically because of Stanford. |
I'm not sure how you're counting, but the ACC did have a team in the FF in 2007 - North Carolina.
And don't forget Cal in 2013 - the P12 wasn't just Stanford.
Last edited by beknighted on 01/15/15 12:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 12:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| The ACC went from 2007 until 2013 when new member Notre Dame got them into the Final Four which was also a 6 year span of not getting there. |
Just as an aside, ND was still in the BE in 2013. BE had 3 of the 4 final four teams that year.
Last year (2014) ACC had two final four teams with first year ND and last year Maryland. |
That's right...I was thinking they had already made the move. So, the ACC went 7 years between Final Fours, which is the streak the SEC is working on right now.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 1:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
There's a pretty good argument that the "power" conferences are more significant in WCBB than in MCBB.
If you exclude UConn (which, let's admit, is an anomaly), the last time a team not from a P5 conference (or P6 prior to the BEast split) made the Elite 8 was 2011, and there only have been 3 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments. The last time a non-power conference team (other than UConn last year) made the Final Four was 2001.
On the men's side, on the other hand, there have been 11 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments and 6 in the Final Four (two of them in 2011). |
I agree with this.
BTW, since this discussion is largely driven by the AAC, it's worth noting that, putting UConn aside, in the 32 years of the Womens Tournament, the other ten teams in the AAC other than UConn have advanced beyond the 2nd round of the Tournament a grand total of once - Memphis in the very first year, 1982, made it to the Sweet 16.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 9:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| The SEC hasn't had a team in the Final Four since 2008. It's only been 3 more years than that for the Big Ten. The ACC went from 2007 until 2013 when new member Notre Dame got them into the Final Four which was also a 6 year span of not getting there. The Pac-12 was consistent basically because of Stanford. |
I'm not sure how you're counting, but the ACC did have a team in the FF in 2007 - North Carolina.
And don't forget Cal in 2013 - the P12 wasn't just Stanford. |
That should have said "since" 2007. But either way, they went from 2008-2014...a 6 year span. I know Cal in 2013...they caught lightning in a bottle but notice I said "basically because of Stanford".
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11155
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 10:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
There's a pretty good argument that the "power" conferences are more significant in WCBB than in MCBB.
If you exclude UConn (which, let's admit, is an anomaly), the last time a team not from a P5 conference (or P6 prior to the BEast split) made the Elite 8 was 2011, and there only have been 3 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments. The last time a non-power conference team (other than UConn last year) made the Final Four was 2001.
On the men's side, on the other hand, there have been 11 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments and 6 in the Final Four (two of them in 2011). |
I agree with this.
BTW, since this discussion is largely driven by the AAC, it's worth noting that, putting UConn aside, in the 32 years of the Womens Tournament, the other ten teams in the AAC other than UConn have advanced beyond the 2nd round of the Tournament a grand total of once - Memphis in the very first year, 1982, made it to the Sweet 16. |
This pretty much puts it in perspective.
And I'd like to note that the Pac-12 is as balanced as it's ever been this year. Arizona and Oregon aren't very good, but nobody wants to play Washington State in Pullman, and every other team is capable of beating any conference opponent on any night.
Of course, UConn is way better than the best team in the Pac-12, but night in and night out, the Pac-12 is a tough place to get a win.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 11:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
There's a pretty good argument that the "power" conferences are more significant in WCBB than in MCBB.
If you exclude UConn (which, let's admit, is an anomaly), the last time a team not from a P5 conference (or P6 prior to the BEast split) made the Elite 8 was 2011, and there only have been 3 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments. The last time a non-power conference team (other than UConn last year) made the Final Four was 2001.
On the men's side, on the other hand, there have been 11 non-power conference teams in the Elite 8 in the last ten tournaments and 6 in the Final Four (two of them in 2011). |
I agree with this.
BTW, since this discussion is largely driven by the AAC, it's worth noting that, putting UConn aside, in the 32 years of the Womens Tournament, the other ten teams in the AAC other than UConn have advanced beyond the 2nd round of the Tournament a grand total of once - Memphis in the very first year, 1982, made it to the Sweet 16. |
This pretty much puts it in perspective.
And I'd like to note that the Pac-12 is as balanced as it's ever been this year. Arizona and Oregon aren't very good, but nobody wants to play Washington State in Pullman, and every other team is capable of beating any conference opponent on any night.
Of course, UConn is way better than the best team in the Pac-12, but night in and night out, the Pac-12 is a tough place to get a win. |
UConn is WAAAAYY better than the Pac-12. I'm not sure that a 50% winning record against the Pac-12 corroborates that statement. I'd be interested to see how UConn does against a team like, say, Oregon State. Or, hell, even Arizona State. UConn beat a VERY mediocre UCLA, but lost to a mediocre (by Palo Alto standards) Stanford.
Hmmm. Something doesn't add up.
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 2:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
"...UConn beat a very mediocre UCLA, but lost to a mediocre (by Palo Alto standards) Stanford.
Hmmm. Something doesn't add up."
Your implication is based on an early season game in which Stanford, although only winning by 1 point, thoroughly beat UCONN in avery aspect of the game. I too, felt Stanford was a mediocre team and that surprising game gave me pause.
I have been watching UCONN for 25 years and never saw them exhibit such horrible defense (before or since). I consider it an anomaly and am strongly hoping they meet Stanford again in the NCAA's. I suspect you are hoping they don't.
|
|
bballjunkie
Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 785
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 3:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| What's even funnier about the Stanford game comments is that NO other team has been able to duplicate Stanford's defensive plan, what does that say about those teams!
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7851
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 3:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I also don't think early season games mean that much. But then, everybody usually brings their "A" game to UConn or Tennessee or ND or now, to SC, so you can factor that in, no matter what time of year those games are played. In the end, it all comes down to how the teams play in March anyway.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66932
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 3:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballjunkie wrote: |
| What's even funnier about the Stanford game comments is that NO other team has been able to duplicate Stanford's defensive plan, what does that say about those teams! |
That UConn hasn't played anyone else with a coach as good as Tara Vanderveer?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15746
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| bballjunkie wrote: |
| What's even funnier about the Stanford game comments is that NO other team has been able to duplicate Stanford's defensive plan, what does that say about those teams! |
That UConn hasn't played anyone else with a coach as good as Tara Vanderveer? |
How True, How True! But I must say, Muff is in that league, too. One truth is certain: No other teams have combined for as many victories over UConn in the past several years as Stanford and Notre Dame combined.
In response to Homerian comments earlier in the thread, it IS deserving of reiteration: UConn lost to a VERY PAINFULLY *average* Stanford team. UConn must accept full responsibility for the fact that they are, indeed, "Human", and are perfectly capable of failure. And yes, BOTH Stanford and UConn are gonna be better in March. Tara certainly wouldn't shy away from a re-match: why would the Cardinal fans mind?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/15 5:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| bballjunkie wrote: |
| What's even funnier about the Stanford game comments is that NO other team has been able to duplicate Stanford's defensive plan, what does that say about those teams! |
That UConn hasn't played anyone else with a coach as good as Tara Vanderveer? |
How True, How True! But I must say, Muff is in that league, too. One truth is certain: No other teams have combined for as many victories over UConn in the past several years as Stanford and Notre Dame combined.
In response to Homerian comments earlier in the thread, it IS deserving of reiteration: UConn lost to a VERY PAINFULLY *average* Stanford team. UConn must accept full responsibility for the fact that they are, indeed, "Human", and are perfectly capable of failure. And yes, BOTH Stanford and UConn are gonna be better in March. Tara certainly wouldn't shy away from a re-match: why would the Cardinal fans mind? |
I'm certain that Tara wouldn't shy away from a re-match. But a fan might very well consider that that would be the end of the line the way UCONN has handled other ranked teams and the expected outcome of the So.Car. game. (The book has UCONN a 12 point favorite.)
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/15 12:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Homyonkel wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| bballjunkie wrote: |
| What's even funnier about the Stanford game comments is that NO other team has been able to duplicate Stanford's defensive plan, what does that say about those teams! |
That UConn hasn't played anyone else with a coach as good as Tara Vanderveer? |
How True, How True! But I must say, Muff is in that league, too. One truth is certain: No other teams have combined for as many victories over UConn in the past several years as Stanford and Notre Dame combined.
In response to Homerian comments earlier in the thread, it IS deserving of reiteration: UConn lost to a VERY PAINFULLY *average* Stanford team. UConn must accept full responsibility for the fact that they are, indeed, "Human", and are perfectly capable of failure. And yes, BOTH Stanford and UConn are gonna be better in March. Tara certainly wouldn't shy away from a re-match: why would the Cardinal fans mind? |
I'm certain that Tara wouldn't shy away from a re-match. But a fan might very well consider that that would be the end of the line the way UCONN has handled other ranked teams and the expected outcome of the So.Car. game. (The book has UCONN a 12 point favorite.) |
Honestly? If we really want to analyze UConn's season--let's look at what they've done. Oh, they beat Notre Dame....a Notre Dame team without one of their best players in Turner.
They beat a Duke team that has always played like a deer in headlights against the Huskies.
Who else? I mean, a plucky squad from New York gave the Huskies some trouble. For all the people claiming that UConn has beaten ranked teams....I don't see a single overly impressive victory.
I mean. Vandy is nice. DePaul is okay, but if your biggest argument that UConn should be ranked no. 1 is the margin of victory over a Duke team that has historically been a dud against UConn....I'm not sure it flies.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/15 1:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| Homyonkel wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| bballjunkie wrote: |
| What's even funnier about the Stanford game comments is that NO other team has been able to duplicate Stanford's defensive plan, what does that say about those teams! |
That UConn hasn't played anyone else with a coach as good as Tara Vanderveer? |
How True, How True! But I must say, Muff is in that league, too. One truth is certain: No other teams have combined for as many victories over UConn in the past several years as Stanford and Notre Dame combined.
In response to Homerian comments earlier in the thread, it IS deserving of reiteration: UConn lost to a VERY PAINFULLY *average* Stanford team. UConn must accept full responsibility for the fact that they are, indeed, "Human", and are perfectly capable of failure. And yes, BOTH Stanford and UConn are gonna be better in March. Tara certainly wouldn't shy away from a re-match: why would the Cardinal fans mind? |
I'm certain that Tara wouldn't shy away from a re-match. But a fan might very well consider that that would be the end of the line the way UCONN has handled other ranked teams and the expected outcome of the So.Car. game. (The book has UCONN a 12 point favorite.) |
Honestly? If we really want to analyze UConn's season--let's look at what they've done. Oh, they beat Notre Dame....a Notre Dame team without one of their best players in Turner.
They beat a Duke team that has always played like a deer in headlights against the Huskies.
Who else? I mean, a plucky squad from New York gave the Huskies some trouble. For all the people claiming that UConn has beaten ranked teams....I don't see a single overly impressive victory.
I mean. Vandy is nice. DePaul is okay, but if your biggest argument that UConn should be ranked no. 1 is the margin of victory over a Duke team that has historically been a dud against UConn....I'm not sure it flies. |
I don't see anyone who has anything to brag about in the their schedule, incuding UConn. But UConn has played as tough a schedule as anyone. And to suggest that UConn has some Svengali hold on Duke is baseless. Duke plays equally bad against Notre Dame. The fact is that Duke isn't as good.
The key thing about UConn isn't who they play but how they play. UConn leads the nation in points scored per possession (Notre Dame 2nd) and in points allowed per possession (South Carolina 2nd).
And to the poster who wondered what Tara's secret defense was, it consisted of: Brenda Pantoja, Charles Gonzalez, Cathi Cornell 
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63790
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/15 2:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
Oh, they beat Notre Dame....a Notre Dame team without one of their best players in Turner.
|
Early season Notre Dame couldn't absorb the loss of a freshman? That's kind of a sad statement in itself. Apparently they couldn't absorb the loss of Reimer either. I guess they're like a finely tuned engine where if one of the pistons is missing, that expensive machine is undriveable. Too vulnerable. Not likely to be a championship team.
I guess I'm just tired of hearing the violins for Notre Dame.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Last edited by Shades on 01/16/15 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
