PDA

View Full Version : UConn = Paper Tiger



Udaman
04-06-2011, 09:56 AM
Let me get this out front - I don't like UConn. I think Calhoun is a cheat. I think he continually bends and breaks the rules. I typically don't like the players he tries to recruit. Yes, they have 3 championships now. But all this talk about what a terrific coach Calhoun is....sort of turns my stomach.

I think they are a paper tiger, and they have had a TON of luck with their tournament draws. Let's look at their championships:

1) 1999. There was all this talk about how Calhoun dominated Coach K and our amazing team....but UConn started the season ranked #1, and only lost 2 games. It's not like they were some Cinderella team. Even so - their road to Duke in the title game consisted of playing: 9 seed New Mexico, 5 seed Iowa, 10 Seed Gonzaga in the regional finals, then 4 seed Ohio State in the Final Four. Thus they avoided Stanford, Maryland, North Carolina and St. Johns that year. Duke had to play and beat the 1 seed Michigan State in the Final Four before UConn.

2) 2004. GRRRRRRR. They were the 2 seed. They had to play #7 Depaul (who went to 2 OT in their game), then #5 Vanderbilt, then #8 Alabama, then they played us. So they missed NC State, and Stanford (the overall #1 seed). Against us, we were the better team. Foul trouble, and some awful calls really, really hurt us. After beating us, they got #3 seed Georgia Tech, instead of either Kansas or St. Josephs.

3) 2011. The got #6 Cincy, #2 San Diego State, #4 Arizona, #4 Kentucky, #8 Butler. That's a joke. They avoided Duke, UNC, Ohio State, Kansas and Pittsburgh....any of which would have beaten them I believe.

UConn has only made the Final Four 1 other time since 1990 (where they lost), and have no other championship, despite being:

1 Seed in 1990, 1996, 2006 and 2009
2 Seed in 1994, 1995, 1998 and 2002

they were also a 4 seed in 2008, 5 seed in 2000 and 2003, a 9 seed in 1992 and an 11 seed in 1991

They didn't even make the tournament in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2007 or 2010

UConn is a fine team. They've won championships - two of which were what I consider jokes. They have underperformed big time in the tournament many other years, and haven't even made the tournament 25% over the past 20 years.

Calhous is a good coach. Nothing more to me. I wouldn't put him in the current top 10 of coaches. Maybe not even the current top 20.

Bluedog
04-06-2011, 10:35 AM
I think you can easily argue that UConn 2011 wasn't a great vintage team (perhaps not in the top 5 this year) and things fell their way to get the championship, but to say they're simply lucky is unfair. The tournament is always full of luck and teams that take advantage and win 6 games in a row deserve to be crowned champions. We were in the same region as UConn and couldn't get it done. So, to say "#4 Arizona" (although they were a 5 seed), is a "joke" as a Duke fan is a bit absurd as that "joke" destroyed us. If we want the best teams to always win the championship, then perhaps basketball should go to the BCS format, but people tend to not really like that. ;) I think basketball format is definitely preferred. Is it perfect? No. Does the best team always win? No, I'd argue the best team this season was OSU. Does it make for entertaining basketball and give the opportunity for any team to get hot and go all the way? Absolutely. UConn is the 2011 champions. While I certainly wasn't cheering for them, they deserve it. They beat the six teams in front of them. And the 1999/2004 UConn teams were really solid. It is amazing how much success they've had after getting to the Final Four (3 out of 4 ended up in championships).

UrinalCake
04-06-2011, 10:42 AM
I despise UCONN as well, but I don't think it's really fair to say they were "lucky" this year. I can't speak much for Cincy or SD State, but Arizona did wallop us, Kentucky was a very talented team that knocked off overall #1 OSU as well as UNC, and you can't say that Butler was any worse than the team we beat last year even though they are minus Hayward. Plenty of people complained that we got a favorable draw last year, to which Duke fans are very defensive, so let's not throw that same argument out at someone else. Plus they did win the Big East tournament in five consecutive days, so they had to play something like 11 games in just over three weeks.

It's perfectly fine to hate them for their recruiting violations, for turning a blind eye to the whole laptop stealing incident (except for the guy who wasn't on the basketball team, whom they put in jail), for Calhoun appearing to be a complete jerk, for having punks like El-amin who get busted for marijuana posession and then proclaim "I am a role model," etc. etc. But give them credit for winning it this year on the court.

Starter
04-06-2011, 10:42 AM
How was their path any easier than Duke's was last year, with the exception that Duke played a better Butler team in the Finals? The NCAA landscape is so watered down, even from a few years ago, that you'd have a tough time finding those elite teams for UConn to have beaten. That said, beating a good Arizona team with arguably the most talented forward in the country, a good and perpetually underrated San Diego State team (that I still feel got robbed by some very suspect calls in that game), and a very good present-day NCAA team in Kentucky -- is no joke. I'd say it was certainly more challenging than Purdue (without Hummel), Baylor and West Virginia.

Not to mention, both of their previous championships, they went directly through excellent Duke teams to do it, and I think all of us have to offer some respect to Calhoun, even if it's of the begrudging sort. Winning three championships doesn't happen by accident.

Starter
04-06-2011, 10:43 AM
It's perfectly fine to hate them for their recruiting violations, for turning a blind eye to the whole laptop stealing incident (except for the guy who wasn't on the basketball team, whom they put in jail), for Calhoun appearing to be a complete jerk, for having punks like El-amin who get busted for marijuana posession and then proclaim "I am a role model," etc. etc. But give them credit for winning it this year on the court.

Well said.

Jderf
04-06-2011, 10:46 AM
The great thing about the NCAA tournament is that, as crazy as it is, it's a meritocracy. Teams get rewarded for what they do and how they perform. Sure, in any given year you could make an argument that it could have easily turned out different if this had happened or if that had happened. But at the end of the day, if you want to win the championship you have to do exactly that: win the championship.

I don't like Uconn any more than you do, but they've now done that three times. There's just no way to downplay it. It happened. They did it. You can't take it away. Any way you put it, that's a remarkable achievement--even if no amount of rubbing alcohol will ever get those trophies clean.

Duvall
04-06-2011, 10:50 AM
Calhous is a good coach. Nothing more to me. I wouldn't put him in the current top 10 of coaches. Maybe not even the current top 20.

If Calhoun doesn't make your top 10, who does? It's one thing to downgrade him because of ethical questions, but putting that aside, at some point results matter.

Saratoga2
04-06-2011, 11:12 AM
I think the UCONN players proved that they belonged in the elite group by winning out in the BE and then winning the tournament. They players did their job and like it or not, Calhoun coached well.

That said, it is hard to believe that a coach and a program that have had recruiting violations and criminal activities should be held in esteem.

My spin (view) is that any advantages that Calhoun got with his violations and playing easy with the rules, has had a direct impact on those opponents who try to conduct a clean program. It seems likely that a program that has dirty laundry being aired regularly has additional unpunished violations that gave them a advantages.

They got the championship three times under Calhoun. Those he beat getting there may have been cheated out of their own chance to win. It is likely that UCONN had players who were recruited through some breakage of the rules. We don't know, but can surmise that is the case.

There are other coaches in similar circumstances. I hope the NCAA comes down hard when they find a serious violation.

HaveFunExpectToWin
04-06-2011, 11:31 AM
2) 2004. GRRRRRRR. They were the 2 seed. They had to play #7 Depaul (who went to 2 OT in their game), then #5 Vanderbilt, then #8 Alabama, then they played us. So they missed NC State, and Stanford (the overall #1 seed). Against us, we were the better team. Foul trouble, and some awful calls really, really hurt us. After beating us, they got #3 seed Georgia Tech, instead of either Kansas or St. Josephs.

Agree with the overall premise, but one thing: Vandy was a 6 seed in 2004.

sagegrouse
04-06-2011, 11:47 AM
UConn deserved to win the NCAAs this year. It played a series of close games against SD State, Arizona, and Kentucky but won them all fair and square. And I said so to uh_no, our resident UConn fan. Look, all you can do is play the teams that show up. And to say that UConn's championship is tarnished because it didn't have to play Duke, Ohio State, and Kansas is beside the point. "Not showing up" was the fault of those #1 seeds, not UConn's.

Now I don't particularly like Calhoun or the UConn program, but he has built that school, which had no basketball tradition to speak of, into a national power and on the threshold of being a blueblood program. (Actually it did have a tradition. As the NCAA representative of what might have been the Yankee Conference in 1964, it beat Bill Bradley and Princeton in a first round game. Then ex-Duke assistant Fred Shabel and the Huskies got to play Duke in the regional semis at Reynolds. They lost by 50 points.)

In judging where Calhoun stands in the history of the game, let me propose some metrics:


Games won. 855

Conference championships: 7 Big East tournaments, 9 regular seasons, 4 America East tournaments

NCAA tourneys. A bunch

Sweet Sixteens. Don't know

Final Fours. 4

National Championsips. 3


Luck or not, the three NCAA championships are the largest feathers in his war bonnet. There are a number of coaches with the wins and conference championships that never won an NCAA championship: Eddie Sutton, Lou Carnesecca, Lefty, etc.

This is the month to give UConn and Calhoun a ton of recognition and praise. Next month is another matter.

sagegrouse

Spret42
04-06-2011, 11:59 AM
This thread is unbelievable.

DevilBen02
04-06-2011, 12:00 PM
they were also a 4 seed in 2008, 5 seed in 2000 and 2003, a 9 seed in 1992 and an 11 seed in 1991

They didn't even make the tournament in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2007 or 2010

I think this is the most reasonable point to knock Calhoun from the ranks of the elite. As others have mentioned, whining about the strength of the teams they had to go through for each of their championships is lame. Just as Duke fans defended our title run last year, the only thing you can ask is that you beat the teams in front of you. UConn did that this year, and they earned their title, just as they did in 1999 and 2004.

However, I think that the fact that Calhoun's teams have missed the tournament or been a relatively low seed so many times are indicators that he is not in the upper echelon of coaches. In the same time period, my quick research shows that K missed the tournament once ('95, which you may or may not credit to him) and was only as low as a 6- and 8-seed ('07 and '96), Roy missed the tournament only once (never at Kansas and only last year with UNC), Izzo missed the tournament in two of his first three seasons at MSU ('96 and '97) but has been there every year since, etc. In my mind, those kinds of records of consistent success can be considered more indicative of greatness than the number of championships won in a highly-competitive single-elimination tournament.

I don't agree that Calhoun is merely a good coach. He has assembled some scary good teams a number of times, and he has often shown himself to be a very good in-game coach. If you're going to knock his resume, your arguments would be more persuasive if you played up his failures rather than trying to attack his successes.

uh_no
04-06-2011, 12:14 PM
However, I think that the fact that Calhoun's teams have missed the tournament or been a relatively low seed so many times are indicators that he is not in the upper echelon of coaches. In the same time period, my quick research shows that K missed the tournament once ('95, which you may or may not credit to him) and was only as low as a 6- and 8-seed ('07 and '96), Roy missed the tournament only once (never at Kansas and only last year with UNC), Izzo missed the tournament in two of his first three seasons at MSU ('96 and '97) but has been there every year since, etc. In my mind, those kinds of records of consistent success can be considered more indicative of greatness than the number of championships won in a highly-competitive single-elimination tournament.

I think we need to stop comparing K and calhoun. There is no comparison.

That said, people here are all right, yes calhoun joined that upper echelon, but coach K is in another galaxy. the number of final fours has proven that. Calhoun has made a living putting together a great team every few years...1999, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011...see a pattern? In between those years the team can be down right bad. K on the other hand makes a living after trying to put a great team on the floor every year. This explains the 11 final fours. If you have a great product out there, you will win, and coach K has done that more often than any coach other than wooden. Part of the problem is that its a lot harder to recruit at uconn vs duke/unc/ku, meaning that its harder to put together a top team year after year like we do here. There's something to be said about a coach that is 6-1 at the final four.

As others have pointed out, its extremely hypocritical to be calling out uconn for having an easy path (not playing any of the other top teams in the tournament) a year after duke won the title after having UK taken out for them by west virginia and then getting butler in the final

rsvman
04-06-2011, 12:27 PM
I think that Calhoun is an outstanding in-game coach; one of the best in the business. Arguably better than Coach K at this ONE ASPECT of coaching.

The fact that he has years where his teams don't even make the tournament, and that these years are not rare, leads me to believe that other than his in-game coaching, he lags behind the other great coaches.

I'd take K all day every day over Calhoun, but you have to give the guy his props. When the game is being played, and the season in on the line, he makes a lot of good decisions.

uh_no
04-06-2011, 12:40 PM
I think that Calhoun is an outstanding in-game coach; one of the best in the business. Arguably better than Coach K at this ONE ASPECT of coaching.

The fact that he has years where his teams don't even make the tournament, and that these years are not rare, leads me to believe that other than his in-game coaching, he lags behind the other great coaches.

I'd take K all day every day over Calhoun, but you have to give the guy his props. When the game is being played, and the season in on the line, he makes a lot of good decisions.


He's very inflexible in coaching style, much like roy. We saw similar results last year with both teams. Usually, though, roy has the talent to prevail anyway. Tis is not the case in CT. Calhoun has a very demanding style, take a look at his pregame speech before the championship game, even then it was less about motivation and more about game plan. WHen he gets kids without the right attitude, things can go horribly wrong. WHen he gets the kids with the right attituts (this year) we see how things can go horribly right.

ClosetHurleyFan
04-06-2011, 12:52 PM
This thread is unbelievable.

This thread just reaks of pissing and moaning to me. The UConn kids won it three times and got the job done three different times period.

That being said, when it comes to evaluating the coach, we should absolutely be considering the means employed to get the job done. Lets assume for a second (a big assumption I grant you) that Calhoun has violated NCAA rules multiple times. Shouldnt we judge a coach's legacy with that in the mix? I mean, I absolutely think less of Calhoun as a coach than I do many others because of this. We have an ethics/cheating culture absolutely festering in this country and until we get away from this "well he got the results mentality", we will continue to foster it more and more. And the worse thing is that it teaches the kids that its okay to cheat if you win, and it shouldnt be that way. I saw a movie recently called "Race to Nowhere" about the state of public education in this country and I was really struck by students being interviewed that commented that cheating is running rampant (partly due, mind you, to kids being overwhelmed with too much homework/athletics, etc. than they can possibly accomplish in a 24 hour day), but its not a leap at all to say that every time we give a guy like Calhoun a pass, we tell the young generation that its okay to cheat if you get the results you want. And that worries me......a lot.

Think of it this way: by not shortchanging Calhoun's legacy, in a way, you cheapen Coach Ks. Because even from this Carolina fan's standpoint, the way Coach K has gone about things is just as important to his positive legacy as the final fours and championships. And the same goes for Dean Smith.

jaytoc
04-06-2011, 12:55 PM
Sagegrouse is correct - UConn dominated the Yankee Conference in the mid=60's, led by Wes Bialosuknia, a great shooting bomber from long distance, often off the glass (yes, he frequently banked in what today would be three pointers, and he intended them), and regularly racked up point totals in the 40's, as I vaguely recall. Little recognition nationally, of course.

I wonder if the criticism of Calhoun for failure to consistently produce tournament teams, and comparison to K in that regard, might be at least a bit unfair. My eye test tells me that Connecticut plays in a tougher conference, perhaps has for some time now, and its record reflects that fact, as it did this year. It is not surprising that there are some years when it fails to excel, or appear to excel, and doesn't receive an invitation.

Calhoun appears a graceless man, guilty of any number of regrettable acts, including cheating. Claiming he isn't as good a coach as K simply because he hasn't been to as many tournaments seems to me grasping at straws, however.

NashvilleDevil
04-06-2011, 01:02 PM
I think they are a paper tiger, and they have had a TON of luck with their tournament draws. Let's look at their championships:

1) 1999. There was all this talk about how Calhoun dominated Coach K and our amazing team....but UConn started the season ranked #1, and only lost 2 games. It's not like they were some Cinderella team. Even so - their road to Duke in the title game consisted of playing: 9 seed New Mexico, 5 seed Iowa, 10 Seed Gonzaga in the regional finals, then 4 seed Ohio State in the Final Four. Thus they avoided Stanford, Maryland, North Carolina and St. Johns that year. Duke had to play and beat the 1 seed Michigan State in the Final Four before UConn.

2) 2004. GRRRRRRR. They were the 2 seed. They had to play #7 Depaul (who went to 2 OT in their game), then #5 Vanderbilt, then #8 Alabama, then they played us. So they missed NC State, and Stanford (the overall #1 seed). Against us, we were the better team. Foul trouble, and some awful calls really, really hurt us. After beating us, they got #3 seed Georgia Tech, instead of either Kansas or St. Josephs.

3) 2011. The got #6 Cincy, #2 San Diego State, #4 Arizona, #4 Kentucky, #8 Butler. That's a joke. They avoided Duke, UNC, Ohio State, Kansas and Pittsburgh....any of which would have beaten them I believe.


Not a UConn or Calhoun fan but this is ridiculous. It is not UConn's fault that they played lower seeded teams in the tournament. When they played the lower seeded teams they did what the other teams could not and that was win.

uh_no
04-06-2011, 01:05 PM
Calhoun appears a graceless man, guilty of any number of regrettable acts, including cheating. Claiming he isn't as good a coach as K simply because he hasn't been to as many tournaments seems to me grasping at straws, however.

Even as a uconn homer, I have to disagree with this statement. If anything, K's consistency of getting to the tournament says MORE about his coaching superiority than any number of championships could.

Duvall
04-06-2011, 01:14 PM
This thread is unbelievable.

Would probably be more unbelievable if anyone had actually agreed with the original post.

PADukeMom
04-06-2011, 01:17 PM
I can congratulate the Uconn players however I don't have to like their coach & I probably never will.

Spret42
04-06-2011, 01:30 PM
Would probably be more unbelievable if anyone had actually agreed with the original post.

Good point.

basketball
04-06-2011, 07:26 PM
There are a lot of sour grapes here on this thread. Love them or hate them you have to admire what Uconn did this year. They won 5 games in 5 days at the Big East Tournament. Included in those wins were victories over Georgetown, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville. In the tournament the beat San Diego State and Arizona which were essentially away games in very hostile territory. The same Arizona team that beat Duke by 16 points. The route then got easier with Kentucky who beat the number 1 overall seed, Ohio State.

Regular season victories included; Kentucky, Michigan State, Texas, and Tennessee. Actually if you look close at Uconn's schedule, their only losses this season were to Big East teams.

Give props where they are due.

Duvall
04-06-2011, 07:28 PM
There are a lot of sour grapes here on this thread.

Not really. I'm pretty sure we revile Calhoun for his cheating in both good times and bad.

uh_no
04-06-2011, 08:29 PM
Give props where they are due.

Nah dude, uconn recruits don't want props...they want free tickets and $500 handshakes :P

sorry...couldn't pass it up

weezie
04-06-2011, 08:32 PM
My son conjectured that maybe Calhoun will quit and Brad Stevens will take over uconn for a bagillion dollars. That made me laugh but is it as kooky as it sounded?
Just a humorous discussion...I am NOT trying to start anything.