NCAA Basketball Final Four Game Thread
- Thread starter Ale Xander
- Start date
The Hawkins three and being in the double bonus just made it too hard for SDSU to keep the momentum when they got it to 5.
Story of the game is 32 percent for SDSU. Huskies won the game with amazing defense all game.
Story of the game is 32 percent for SDSU. Huskies won the game with amazing defense all game.
I think Dog's son Timmy is part of UConn's coaching/training staff. But I would not put such a rant past him.
It was a good call by whomever on the CBS selection show had said the winner of that game would win the championship. Clark Kellogg or Seth Davis?
Clingan went undefeated in 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 in high school. Now he just completed a good freshman season on a National Champion.
If he can bulk up, great things will happen.
If he can bulk up, great things will happen.
Uh…. Just last year UConn womens basketball lost in the championship game against South Carolina. Geno is 11-1 in title games. Still amazing of course. But not perfect.
BC fan? Anyway to all BC fans on the board you can basically claim this championship as your own. BC beat ND who beat MSU who beat Nova who beat St Johns who beat UConn. Maybe you can hang a banner for that.
Whatever, it was when they squeaked by the overwhelming tourney faves Arkansas by hitting that 23-pt game winner!
This team should be a monster again next year. What a run. They basically laid waste to the entire field. I’d have loved to have seen them play Houston at full strength but oh well.
UConn is obviously good but the best team they faced was a 3 seed. You can only play the schedule so no knock on them but agreed we were robbed of a potential great matchup with Bama or a healthy Houston squad. This team will once again be very good again next year.
Teams usually change between November and March, especially those whose best player is a frosh. I think a healthier Houston squad would have been a real test but I also didn’t see anyone over the course of the year who looked “better” than UConn. They were worthy champs.
One great thing about the tournament is that it is designed to get you match ups of the teams that are playing best. For all the craziness, I think it largely did. There are not too many times when I thought teams lost that would have won 8 out of 10 or whatever. Purdue obviously. And some others along the way.
But I think we kind of have to get over seeding a little to enjoy the tournament for what it is. Maybe if Michigan State or Duke comes out of that bracket, the tournament has more of a name recognition feel. But the thing where we learn a lot about the competition within conferences during the tournament is going to keep happening.
When I think about what could have been in this tournament, the two teams I think about are Arizona and UCLA. Not Alabama or Houston. Arizona had the worst loss of the tournament, to me. That was one of those one in ten things. We have seen teams just barely get out of an early round game and then not look back. I think if Arizona beats Princeton they might well have been playing last night. One of those things.
If UConn got fortunate, it was not having to play UCLA. Even at less than full strength, they were not a great matchup. Gonzaga hitting that late basket probably benefitted UConn, though with UCLA’s injuries I still think UConn wins. At full strength, I think they were an incredible team.
Edit — And I guess Arkansas beating Kansas obviously. I forgot that. That really was huge for UConn.
But I think we kind of have to get over seeding a little to enjoy the tournament for what it is. Maybe if Michigan State or Duke comes out of that bracket, the tournament has more of a name recognition feel. But the thing where we learn a lot about the competition within conferences during the tournament is going to keep happening.
When I think about what could have been in this tournament, the two teams I think about are Arizona and UCLA. Not Alabama or Houston. Arizona had the worst loss of the tournament, to me. That was one of those one in ten things. We have seen teams just barely get out of an early round game and then not look back. I think if Arizona beats Princeton they might well have been playing last night. One of those things.
If UConn got fortunate, it was not having to play UCLA. Even at less than full strength, they were not a great matchup. Gonzaga hitting that late basket probably benefitted UConn, though with UCLA’s injuries I still think UConn wins. At full strength, I think they were an incredible team.
Edit — And I guess Arkansas beating Kansas obviously. I forgot that. That really was huge for UConn.
Last edited:
If UCLA was healthy I think they beat Gonzaga and Uconn
if Self was coaching Kansas, they beat Arkansas and Uconn
if Self was coaching Kansas, they beat Arkansas and Uconn
I didn't realize how lucky we were.Phew
Can you go back and do the other 4 championships too?
UConn rolls UCLA. The way they were playing, nobody was beating the Huskies. The nation saw what the Huskies were capable of. And no team came close to playing at their level. I'm not saying UCLA *couldn't* have beaten UConn. But I don't see that happening, not in this tournament.
The NCAA not listening to what its own NET rankings tell them (or better yet KenPom) is kind of at fault here. What I saw from an account that researched it this morning: 5 of the 6 teams UConn beat in the tournament were ranked top 25 in KenPom.
Last year Kansas faced 2, 2019 Virginia faced 3, 2018 Nova faced 4. Of the last 10 national champs, the only ones to face 5 of them in their runs were Baylor in 2021, Nova in 2016, and (get ready) UConn in 2014. And apparently the computer does in fact know something, because those were the teams that actually did make it that far in the tournament once the games were played.
Last year Kansas faced 2, 2019 Virginia faced 3, 2018 Nova faced 4. Of the last 10 national champs, the only ones to face 5 of them in their runs were Baylor in 2021, Nova in 2016, and (get ready) UConn in 2014. And apparently the computer does in fact know something, because those were the teams that actually did make it that far in the tournament once the games were played.
This is where I'm at, I don't buy going by seeding as any great indicator. We talk about the blue bloods of the women's game coming back to earth more and more due to the spread of talent around the college game now, but the same thing is happening to the men's game. Just that the spread is continuing through the lower-level power conferences to the mid-majors and even some lower majors. The increase in conference games around the nation combined with lack of motivation for power conference teams to schedule "very good" mid-majors - their trick is to alternate top 25 teams and bottom 100 teams to make an average SOS which shoots up higher as the team plays their in-conference games - means the seeding is weighted against teams like FAU who can only play like 2 or 3 marquee opponents per year.
The tournament is a great equalizer which disrupts a lot of those power teams who can coast through bottom-level opponents OOC and adjust their style of play to win in their particular conference, when lower conference D1 teams tend to need to play "anyone, anywhere" and therefore I feel their style of play is a bit more malleable.
Are these pre-tournament rankings? If I get to make my rankings after the tournament they’re going to look amazing.
EDIT: Also the NCAA historically won’t use any rankings that take margin of victory into account. They won’t want to encourage bad sportsmanship / running up the score. I actually think ESPN “strength of resume” rankings are really, really good for this purpose.
Last edited:
It looks like these are the end of season (including end of tournament) rankings. But the same methodology was used to compare to the previous national champions, so it's still an apples-to-apples comparison.
You're right that there are some valid reasons not to strictly seed based off computer rankings like NET or KenPom. So perhaps it's just better left at, seeding is difficult and can be misleading and it's not necessarily a good way to judge if a team had an easy path or not.
I had the KenPom ratings downloaded from prior to the tourney (I use them for a work draft pool). UConn was ranked #4 overall in the final pre-tournament rankings (note - he does another ranking that gives who has the best odds to win, which takes regional matchups into account - I think he had them ranked 7th overall odds-wise).
They beat Iona (didnt have that ranking saved, too far down); St. Mary's (#11 overall), Arkansas (#20 overall; Kansas would have been #9), Gonzaga (#8 overall, UCLA was at #3 but not at full strength obviously), Miami (#40 overall), and San Diego St. (#14 overall). Not exactly a cupcake schedule, even if the seeding wasn't as prestigious.
If UConn was "lucky" at all then it was Miami coming out of the Midwest and not Houston (#1 overall), Texas (#7 overall), or Xavier (#16 overall). But hard to say that Miami wasn't playing as well as anybody at that point, considering they beat two of those teams themselves.
If anyone's interested, the Elite Eight, per final KenPom Rankings: UConn (#4), SD ST (#14), FAU (#22), Miami (#40); Texas (#7), Gonzaga (#8), Creighton (#13), and Kansas St. (#25). Miami clearly seems like a team that put it all together just at the end (or was somehow undervalued by KenPom/everyone else), but all the rest look pretty good in hindsight, and its tough to argue that any of them didn't deserve to be there.
The thing that Pomeroy had all year was UConn's defense. I think they were pretty highly ranked in dunks and threes and their fast break was very good. They seemed to have depth on offense and so it was natural to think about the offense. But offense is weird and susceptible to foul trouble, nights when the ball is not dropping, turnover-itis (which really was UConn's Achilles heel at times).
Even during the down period in conference, the defense was there. It was really the most surprising thing about Pomeroy's rankings all year because you thought how can a team that has that many options on offense lose 8 games if their defense is as good as he says. Well, shit happens. Small samples happen. But the defense was relatively constant all year -- though I guess Xavier would say otherwise. Once the offense was clicking they were pretty much unstoppable because they could throw scoreless streaks at you. The runs that dominated the tournament just don't happen if the other team is coming down the other way and getting easy baskets or making uncontested threes.
Defense won this tournament for Connecticut. Miami had scored 85, 89, and 88 (against a 4, 1 and 2 seed) going into their game with UConn. Gonzaga had scored 82, 84, and 79. UConn just shut them down, and that's where the big leads come in -- because the inability to come back is demoralizing. Every team that played them just had to work too hard for everything that it was not a fair match over 40 minutes.
So, credit to Pomeroy's model for kind of seeing that aspect of UConn when the eye test really wasn't focused on it.
Even during the down period in conference, the defense was there. It was really the most surprising thing about Pomeroy's rankings all year because you thought how can a team that has that many options on offense lose 8 games if their defense is as good as he says. Well, shit happens. Small samples happen. But the defense was relatively constant all year -- though I guess Xavier would say otherwise. Once the offense was clicking they were pretty much unstoppable because they could throw scoreless streaks at you. The runs that dominated the tournament just don't happen if the other team is coming down the other way and getting easy baskets or making uncontested threes.
Defense won this tournament for Connecticut. Miami had scored 85, 89, and 88 (against a 4, 1 and 2 seed) going into their game with UConn. Gonzaga had scored 82, 84, and 79. UConn just shut them down, and that's where the big leads come in -- because the inability to come back is demoralizing. Every team that played them just had to work too hard for everything that it was not a fair match over 40 minutes.
So, credit to Pomeroy's model for kind of seeing that aspect of UConn when the eye test really wasn't focused on it.
Last edited:
At halftime the SDSU coach was saying, look, we're getting good looks, just aren't making them.
I was like...are you crazy? SDSU had to work for EVERYTHING, and the vast, vast majority of their shots were massive high degree of difficulty, always with a UConn hand in their face, highly contested. Even shots around the rim. They weren't at all getting these good, open looks.
I was like...are you crazy? SDSU had to work for EVERYTHING, and the vast, vast majority of their shots were massive high degree of difficulty, always with a UConn hand in their face, highly contested. Even shots around the rim. They weren't at all getting these good, open looks.
I have no hesitation and say it's Duke. UConn has had to many down years. But now I have confidence that Hurley can match them going forward.
I also have no problem saying Duke right now. Look at how many FF’s they’ve been to. I think where UConn has come from to where they are now is incredibly impressive and like Murph has said, deserving of a ESPN 30-30. They have also won with 3 separate HC. Duke has only won under coach K. But you can’t deny Dukes constant presence over the last 40 years.
Yeah I don’t want to hear anything about an
“easy path” or “luck” regarding UConn’s NC run. They just rag-dolled every team that stood in their path. This was the best team in college basketball this year, they just took January off.
Last edited:
Duke has historically been better, but man, UConn has had some AWESOME seasons. Certainly UConn has been better from 1999-2023, but, while UConn was very good in the decade before that, Duke was off the charts great during that time frame.
Moving forward, I'd absolutely put my money on UConn being easily as good as or better than Duke. (If I was to bet on sports, which I would not)
It's Duke. But what Connecticut has done is just so improbable. Anyone that watched a game in the field house before Jim Calhoun could have scarcely imagined they could seriously compete with the powerhouses in the conference just to win a Big East tournament, let alone win a national championship.
When Connecticut won the NIT in 1988, they had to close the campus down for a couple of days because of the celebration. Those were the expectations. Storrs as the birthplace of a basketball powerhouse was pretty unimaginable in the mid-1980s. It has been transformed with the attention that the 1999 Championship and the women's game gave to the place, but back then? You just couldn't even imagine it. Winning the NIT seemed like about as much to dream.
Calhoun -- and others for sure -- recognized the promise of the team's conference and location. But he basically willed it into existence. There have been a lot of great players and a lot of great stories and when performance spreads across three coaches it detracts a bit from my point, but, in the end, the incredible success of the program is down to one man. He deserves to be on the John Wooden Mt. Rushmore. It all comes back to him -- he built a program that survived his tenure and has gone on to do the unthinkable. That doesn't take away from what Hurley did this year. He rebuilt a program that was lost in the desert of conference shit and realignment, did it fast, and got the players to believe. But he was able to do it in the environment Calhoun created.
I don't really know enough about the history of Duke University to say whether similar things happened there. Or Chapel Hill or Indiana or UCLA. But the story of the Connecticut Huskies is close to unique in sports. And whatever the comparison to the traditional "blue bloods," I actually don't much care. It is its own thing.
When Connecticut won the NIT in 1988, they had to close the campus down for a couple of days because of the celebration. Those were the expectations. Storrs as the birthplace of a basketball powerhouse was pretty unimaginable in the mid-1980s. It has been transformed with the attention that the 1999 Championship and the women's game gave to the place, but back then? You just couldn't even imagine it. Winning the NIT seemed like about as much to dream.
Calhoun -- and others for sure -- recognized the promise of the team's conference and location. But he basically willed it into existence. There have been a lot of great players and a lot of great stories and when performance spreads across three coaches it detracts a bit from my point, but, in the end, the incredible success of the program is down to one man. He deserves to be on the John Wooden Mt. Rushmore. It all comes back to him -- he built a program that survived his tenure and has gone on to do the unthinkable. That doesn't take away from what Hurley did this year. He rebuilt a program that was lost in the desert of conference shit and realignment, did it fast, and got the players to believe. But he was able to do it in the environment Calhoun created.
I don't really know enough about the history of Duke University to say whether similar things happened there. Or Chapel Hill or Indiana or UCLA. But the story of the Connecticut Huskies is close to unique in sports. And whatever the comparison to the traditional "blue bloods," I actually don't much care. It is its own thing.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'd rather they NOT be considered a "blue blood" - that's reserved for traditional powerhouses, which UConn is not. What it IS is a remarkable story of success from...nothing, starting a little more than 30 years ago. No school since 1999 has done better than UConn.