(02-21-2017 12:45 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:09 AM)payday Wrote:  Hence my shot at UConn winning titles playin a lineup of mostly #8 to #16 seeds. Obviously still impressive, but also based on some luck in any particular game. And especially based on the luck of the seeded teams who happen to win to advance and play you.

Which is more impressive? Arizona's 1996 Title where they beat three #1 seeds? Or UConn's 4 titles where they only beat two #1 seeds total? Obviously everyone would want the 4 titles, but no doubt what Arizona did was the most impressive. And what Arizona did is more comparable to the early Tourney title winners.

You need to do some research to see if it really played out the way you imagine, because I can tell you it did not.

Outside of 2004, UConn has had a very tough road. Heck, in 2014, they played Villanova, Iowa St., Michigan State, Florida and Kentucky in succession.

But, also of note, UConn has lost in the Final 8 to eventual national champions UCLA, North Carolina, Duke and Maryland.

I don't think UConn's success owes itself to easy seeding, outside of the 2004 team, which was actually by far and away the best team in the country.

In fact, an argument can be made that UConn would be even more successful were it not for the seeding.

He's insane if he thinks UConn got where it was due to easy runs. I don't care that Kemba's team beat 8 seeded Butler in the finals, or that Napier's team 8 seeded UK (an incredibly talented UK team that peaked at the right time), those two teams made historically great runs from improbable spots. Kemba taking UConn from team close to the bubble, to national champions by winning the insanely loaded big east tournament (5 games in 5 days) then the national title is the most impressive college basketball run I have ever seen.

Then we get to UConn's other two national championship teams that were just great basketball teams. I agree about 2004 being the year they benefited the most but that team was excellent and had to beat a loaded Duke team in the final 4. I frankly believe the 1999 Duke team is the best team since the 1991 UNLV team that lost to Duke. I think the 1999 Duke team is the best Duke team I ever watched (taking into account my memory of the Grant Hill /Laettner teams is not great) and might even be the best team I've watched. UConn going through that team in the finals to win the National Title was absolutely championship worthy. That Duke team lost to my Bearcats in the Great Alaskan Shootout finals, they didn't lose again until that game against UConn in the National Championship. They ran through the ACC, ACC tourney and NCAA's until Rip and the Huskies beat them.

If the OP wasn't such a colossal dbag with comments like "know your place" this would have been a nice thread celebrating the great history of the top AAC teams. Too bad (and before you say it, yes TU stinks). Then we could discuss how that history will help move the league forward. But alas, ego and immaturity gets in the way.

For the last 4 years
Smu ranked 33 times
Cincinnati 29 times
UConn 21 times

(02-21-2017 01:42 PM)PonyUpTempo Wrote:  For the last 4 years
Smu ranked 33 times
Cincinnati 29 times
UConn 21 times

NCAA wins during same time period:
SMU: 0
UC: 1
UConn: 7

(02-21-2017 12:10 PM)payday Wrote:  Everything played before today's games are in the past. But I get the jealousy a other fans who have no history but a history of futility.

Who is trashing UC in this thread really? I love the enthusiasm, but you are taking this 'us against the world' mentality to an unhealthy level.

(02-21-2017 01:22 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  If the OP wasn't such a colossal dbag with comments like "know your place" this would have been a nice thread celebrating the great history of the top AAC teams. Too bad (and before you say it, yes TU stinks). Then we could discuss how that history will help move the league forward. But alas, ego and immaturity gets in the way.

Mean spirited

(02-20-2017 07:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Program/All Time Weeks Spent in Top 25 (Since 1949 AP Ranking started)
UC #12
UConn #21
Memphis #25
Temple #49
UH #63
Tulsa #82
SMU #88

UC 12th all time....

Know your place

Congrats buddy

LOL! Unhealthy for who? I'm doing fine.

(02-21-2017 01:19 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:45 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:09 AM)payday Wrote:  Hence my shot at UConn winning titles playin a lineup of mostly #8 to #16 seeds. Obviously still impressive, but also based on some luck in any particular game. And especially based on the luck of the seeded teams who happen to win to advance and play you.

Which is more impressive? Arizona's 1996 Title where they beat three #1 seeds? Or UConn's 4 titles where they only beat two #1 seeds total? Obviously everyone would want the 4 titles, but no doubt what Arizona did was the most impressive. And what Arizona did is more comparable to the early Tourney title winners.

You need to do some research to see if it really played out the way you imagine, because I can tell you it did not.

Outside of 2004, UConn has had a very tough road. Heck, in 2014, they played Villanova, Iowa St., Michigan State, Florida and Kentucky in succession.

But, also of note, UConn has lost in the Final 8 to eventual national champions UCLA, North Carolina, Duke and Maryland.

I don't think UConn's success owes itself to easy seeding, outside of the 2004 team, which was actually by far and away the best team in the country.

In fact, an argument can be made that UConn would be even more successful were it not for the seeding.

He's insane if he thinks UConn got where it was due to easy runs. I don't care that Kemba's team beat 8 seeded Butler in the finals, or that Napier's team 8 seeded UK (an incredibly talented UK team that peaked at the right time), those two teams made historically great runs from improbable spots. Kemba taking UConn from team close to the bubble, to national champions by winning the insanely loaded big east tournament (5 games in 5 days) then the national title is the most impressive college basketball run I have ever seen.

Then we get to UConn's other two national championship teams that were just great basketball teams. I agree about 2004 being the year they benefited the most but that team was excellent and had to beat a loaded Duke team in the final 4. I frankly believe the 1999 Duke team is the best team since the 1991 UNLV team that lost to Duke. I think the 1999 Duke team is the best Duke team I ever watched (taking into account my memory of the Grant Hill /Laettner teams is not great) and might even be the best team I've watched. UConn going through that team in the finals to win the National Title was absolutely championship worthy. That Duke team lost to my Bearcats in the Great Alaskan Shootout finals, they didn't lose again until that game against UConn in the National Championship. They ran through the ACC, ACC tourney and NCAA's until Rip and the Huskies beat them.

I agree mostly. The only additional thing I'd add is that Kemba's team wasn't actually close to the bubble. People think that because of the 9-9 conference record, but recall they were actually 23-0 outside the conference regular season. They won Maui against the bluebloods. They beat all the top OOC teams on their schedule.

This is why they were ranked in the top 10 BEFORE the NCAA tourney. And, also, on ESPN brackets, they were the 4th most popular pick to win it all of the tens of millions of brackets.

The 2014 team, on the other hand, came out of nowhere, and it surprised even UConn fans. I can tell you that many of us were not surprised by Kemba's 2011 team and what it accomplished.

(02-21-2017 06:49 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:19 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:45 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:09 AM)payday Wrote:  Hence my shot at UConn winning titles playin a lineup of mostly #8 to #16 seeds. Obviously still impressive, but also based on some luck in any particular game. And especially based on the luck of the seeded teams who happen to win to advance and play you.

Which is more impressive? Arizona's 1996 Title where they beat three #1 seeds? Or UConn's 4 titles where they only beat two #1 seeds total? Obviously everyone would want the 4 titles, but no doubt what Arizona did was the most impressive. And what Arizona did is more comparable to the early Tourney title winners.

You need to do some research to see if it really played out the way you imagine, because I can tell you it did not.

Outside of 2004, UConn has had a very tough road. Heck, in 2014, they played Villanova, Iowa St., Michigan State, Florida and Kentucky in succession.

But, also of note, UConn has lost in the Final 8 to eventual national champions UCLA, North Carolina, Duke and Maryland.

I don't think UConn's success owes itself to easy seeding, outside of the 2004 team, which was actually by far and away the best team in the country.

In fact, an argument can be made that UConn would be even more successful were it not for the seeding.

He's insane if he thinks UConn got where it was due to easy runs. I don't care that Kemba's team beat 8 seeded Butler in the finals, or that Napier's team 8 seeded UK (an incredibly talented UK team that peaked at the right time), those two teams made historically great runs from improbable spots. Kemba taking UConn from team close to the bubble, to national champions by winning the insanely loaded big east tournament (5 games in 5 days) then the national title is the most impressive college basketball run I have ever seen.

Then we get to UConn's other two national championship teams that were just great basketball teams. I agree about 2004 being the year they benefited the most but that team was excellent and had to beat a loaded Duke team in the final 4. I frankly believe the 1999 Duke team is the best team since the 1991 UNLV team that lost to Duke. I think the 1999 Duke team is the best Duke team I ever watched (taking into account my memory of the Grant Hill /Laettner teams is not great) and might even be the best team I've watched. UConn going through that team in the finals to win the National Title was absolutely championship worthy. That Duke team lost to my Bearcats in the Great Alaskan Shootout finals, they didn't lose again until that game against UConn in the National Championship. They ran through the ACC, ACC tourney and NCAA's until Rip and the Huskies beat them.

I agree mostly. The only additional thing I'd add is that Kemba's team wasn't actually close to the bubble. People think that because of the 9-9 conference record, but recall they were actually 23-0 outside the conference regular season. They won Maui against the bluebloods. They beat all the top OOC teams on their schedule.

This is why they were ranked in the top 10 BEFORE the NCAA tourney. And, also, on ESPN brackets, they were the 4th most popular pick to win it all of the tens of millions of brackets.

The 2014 team, on the other hand, came out of nowhere, and it surprised even UConn fans. I can tell you that many of us were not surprised by Kemba's 2011 team and what it accomplished.

Interesting to note that the Big East had two teams that didn't lose a game to non-Big East competition. Both Connecticut and Cincinnati were a combined 31-0 against non-Big East teams throughout the season.

(02-21-2017 06:49 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  I agree mostly. The only additional thing I'd add is that Kemba's team wasn't actually close to the bubble. People think that because of the 9-9 conference record, but recall they were actually 23-0 outside the conference regular season. They won Maui against the bluebloods. They beat all the top OOC teams on their schedule.

This is why they were ranked in the top 10 BEFORE the NCAA tourney. And, also, on ESPN brackets, they were the 4th most popular pick to win it all of the tens of millions of brackets.

The 2014 team, on the other hand, came out of nowhere, and it surprised even UConn fans. I can tell you that many of us were not surprised by Kemba's 2011 team and what it accomplished.

I guess "close to the bubble" can be taken a lot of ways. They were never in danger of missing the NCAA tournament even if they lost the first game of the Big East tournament, but I remember seeing them in the 7-10 seed range prior to the Big East tournament as well. They were going to be a low seed and went on an incredible run. Everyone bought in after the run because of how great they were in the nonconference combined with the Big East tournament run.