Dear ESPN

[hoophuskee]

They were simply saying that those types of teams are better than the lesser teams in the AAC which is true but, in the end, you're just talking about degrees of difference in the final score. They also mentioned ND of course. They forget teams like Rutgers and DePaul which would've made their point better for them, I think.

No I don't agree- that is not what they said. If that is what they meant they would have said it.

.

 

[triaddukefan]

3rd and 4th and they would have lost games by 35-45 points. So is it worth it to mention them?

I think Syracuse is better than USF, at the very least they are equal. but we will never know.

 

[Alydar]

Yes exactly!

SO by them mentioning teams like Cuse or Pitt -- as if they mattered - was wrong.

Yeah, they were wrong about them being a better challenge for the women. But coincidently Pitt and Syracuse were strong opponents of the men's team and maybe that's what they were referring to.

Frankly I enjoy listening to male announcers who are watching UConn for the first time. I thought the time Bobby Knight did a game was one of the most enjoyable. I'm not sure if Walton ever did a UConn game but I think that would be a trip.

 

[hoophuskee]

Yeah, they were wrong about them being a better challenge for the women. But coincidently Pitt and Syracuse were strong opponents of the men's team and maybe that's what they were referring to.

Frankly I enjoy listening to male announcers who are watching UConn for the first time. I thought the time Bobby Knight did a game was one of the most enjoyable. I'm not sure if Walton ever did a UConn game but I think that would be a trip.

yes but they said to paraphrase "there is nobody close to them in the conference." In that context they weren't talking about the men. They were right to say just of the conference. No way should those two teams been mentioned.

I do enjoy hearing different views of the game too.

 

[hoophuskee]

I think Syracuse is better than USF, at the very least they are equal. but we will never know.

Put up your "DUKES!!!" J/k.

SO you must either think Cuse was seeded too low? Or was it USF seeded too high? Or both?

 

[Sluconn Husky]

No I don't agree- that is not what they said. If that is what they meant they would have said it.

.

What else do you think they were talking about?

Their point is rather obvious though. A conference with ND, Rutgers, SF, DePaul, Syracuse, and Pitt added to UConn looks a lot better than the current one. Not UConn's fault, just the way things are.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I can't believe we've had a two page (at least) thread on the question of
whether or not the announcers should have mentioned Syracuse and Pitt.

 

[triaddukefan]

Put up your "DUKES!!!" J/k.

SO you must either think Cuse was seeded too low? Or was it USF seeded too high? Or both?

Cuse was seeded right.... they probably get a 7 seed if they didnt lose to Wake Forest in the ACC tourney. Not sure what to make of USF. Hopefully i will see some of the game monday vs Louisville.

 

[hoophuskee]

What else do you think they were talking about?

Their point is rather obvious though. A conference with ND, Rutgers, SF, DePaul, Syracuse, and Pitt added to UConn looks a lot better than the current one. Not UConn's fault, just the way things are.

It wasn't "they"-- it was the play-by-play guy. IMO he was saying - misinformed that he was- that the rest of the AAC conference can't come close to competing (true) and teams like Cuse and Pitt can (idiotic).

You're right the point was rather obvious - he made a dumb comment by mentioning Pitt and Cuse. If he was to mention the Big East he would have left it at that. He didn't.

 

[triaddukefan]

I can't believe we've had a two page (at least) thread on the question of
whether or not the announcers should have mentioned Syracuse and Pitt.

I'd rather talk about pastries... but I dont have much choice in the matter so here I am in this thread.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

The point is in front of a national tv audience he is all but saying bottom-tier ACC teams with no hope of being near the top for a long top is better than anything else in our conference. It's a dumb comment being spread out nationally. Was his comment dumb? I say it is. Pitt and Cuse have been nothing. Mentioning them as relevant as if they would be better than USF is slap in the face to USF and what the other teams are trying to do in our conference. They are competing against the "mediocre Pitt's." When you have a national commentators making dumb comments it needs to be called out. We need our conference to get better. Ignorant comments like what he said doesn't help our conference. These are the type of comments why mid-major teams get so little respect from the NCAA. Maybe USF should have been a higher seed. I doubt that commentator has nay clue about any of that stuff.

I think Syracuse finished 4th in the ACC this year, with an 11-5 conference record. That is hardly terrible. Pitt won their first round NCAAT game against UTC, who beat both Tennessee and Stanford during the regular season, so they're not exactly chopped liver, either. There isn't tremendous depth of talent in WBB. Why is that? There are probably almost as many girls playing sports in high school as guys, but most likely the best coaches are not coaching girls sports in junior high, high school and even college, so the issue is probably one of quality coaching depth as much as anything.

 

[hoophuskee]

I think Syracuse finished 4th in the ACC this year, with an 11-5 conference record. That is hardly terrible. Pitt won their first round NCAAT game against UTC, who beat both Tennessee and Stanford during the regular season, so they're not exactly chopped liver, either. There isn't tremendous depth of talent in WBB. Why is that? There are probably almost as many girls playing sports in high school as guys, but most likely the best coaches are not coaching girls sports in junior high, high school and even college, so the issue is probably one of quality coaching depth as much as anything.

And what is USF?

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I'd rather talk about pastries... but I dont have much choice in the matter so here I am in this thread.

Are you going to make me head out to Dunkin' Donuts at 2am?

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

And what is USF?

I think Syracuse is better than USF and USF is probably better than Pitt.

 

[hoophuskee]

I think Syracuse is better than USF and USF is probably better than Pitt.

So you think Cuse seeded too low or USF too high? Or both?

 

[Sluconn Husky]

It wasn't "they"-- it was the play-by-play guy. IMO he was saying - misinformed that he was- that the rest of the AAC conference can't come close to competing (true) and teams like Cuse and Pitt can (idiotic).

I don't think he was saying Syracuse and Pitt can compete with UConn, just that they, as examples, are better than some of the teams that make up the current group. It started off with the guy saying UConn doesn't belong in the AAC. He thinks they belong in a better conference which was the overall point. Does anyone not agree with that sentiment?

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

So you think Cuse seeded too low or USF too high? Or both?

I think Syracuse at 4th in the ACC should have been a 5th or 6th seed. Losing to "Weak Florist" in the ACCT probably dropped them a couple of notches. I probably would have given USF a 7 seed.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I don't think he was saying Syracuse and Pitt can compete with UConn, just that they, as examples, are better than some of the teams that make up the current group. It started off with the guy saying UConn doesn't belong in the AAC. He thinks they belong in a better conference which was the overall point. Does anyone not agree with that sentiment?

I think he only used Syracuse and Pitt because Laphonso Ellis played for ND and he jokingly didn't want to give them any props.

 

[hoophuskee]

I think he only used Syracuse and Pitt because Laphonso Ellis played for ND and he jokingly didn't want to give them any props.

I don't agree with that at all.

 

[Wally East]

I don't agree with that at all.

You don't have to but he actually said THAT VERY THING in the very next sentence.

 

[sarals24]

I don't agree with that at all.

It's not a matter of opinion, he actually said so.

 

[jimazee]

Are you going to make me head out to Dunkin' Donuts at 2am?

I'm thinkin' of Krispy Kreme about now...I'll check this thread later

 

[UcMiami]

I am not sure why I actually read to the end of this thread, but I did.

1. Princeton is one of only 14 teams to enter the NCAA tournament during its 30+ year history with an undefeated record. That is very noteworthy! (NB Uconn has 6 of those 14.) And unlike other lower conference teams and a number of P5 teams, they tried to play up in their OOC - something that can be very difficult to do as most P5 teams do not want to do home-home series with lesser conferences. They should be celebrated, they should have been a higher seed, and celebrating their year does not in any way disparage Uconn or any other team.

2. In the P5 conferences there was one undefeated team in conference play (Maryland 18-0) and three 15-1 teams (TN, SC, ND) and three two loss teams in Baylor 16-2, FL St 14-2, and OrSt 16-2. After those 7 teams there was a lot of mediocrity. You might argue that a few other teams 'challenged' those leaders in conference play, but I think more a result of inconsistency in those 7 teams than actual competitiveness. That picture is not that different from what Uconn/USF experienced in the AAC and Uconn in any of those P5 conferences would likely have breezed and added two losses to the record of most of those 7. Whatever conference Uconn has played in OBE, Initial AAC, or Current AAC they have dominated and their consistency most years has hurt the reputation of most of their conference mates - ECU or Tulane would have looked a lot better had Uconn laid an egg in one of their games, like ND did at Miami, or Baylor did at OK or ISU for example.

3. The AAC is poor at the bottom (as was the OBE) and mediocre in the 3-6, USF has distanced itself a little from those but still has a mountain to climb. This is one of the best Uconn teams ever in terms of balanced scoring, defense, and team play, and the bench is one of the strongest in my memory which has all contributed to an outrageous 40+ point MOV. They will probably exceed their team and NCAA record in that category by around 5 points (2001-2 and nearly repeated in 2009-10.) Impressive, but not a significant difference and those teams played in the Old Big East. Uconn MOV is almost entirely driven by what happens in the final 10 minutes when reserves are playing and this year the reserves are good enough to maintain or increase. Add two competitive games against an ND/Baylor with a 5 point margin and the MOV would be right back to the 35-36 point range and people wouldn't be shaking their head quite so much about the AAC.

 

[hoophuskee]

You don't have to but he actually said THAT VERY THING in the very next sentence.

That's crap. After he named two teams -- then he joked about Notre Dame .

If your intent was to tell a joke from the beginning you certainly would have mentioned more that two teams before mentioning ND.

Before mentioning Cuse and Pitt they weren't joking about a crummy conference. So immediately after telling us how crappy the league is he immediately just mentions two teams from the old Big East and it was actually a joke? Yeah - I got a bridge to sell you too. .

 

[HuskyNan]

Just askin', not demanding anything, but.......