OT: UConn venting/sympathy thread

upstater1 said:

Do you watch much college ball?

UConn is known as running a Euro offense with maximal passing, offensive sets. It's a highly intricate offense. Anything but headless chickens. Their style is direct from Europe... closest thing to the San Antonio Spurs.

Click to expand...

Pape said:

maybe there is a silver lining to Michigan buying a 'chip ... might lead to some sort reform for the transfer portal fiasco that currently wrecks multiple D1 sports...

Click to expand...

catent said:

I'm not a huge Michigan fan, but my dad is an alumni so I grew up watching and rooting for Michigan sports.

I'm not sure if you're aware that UConn's best player (or certainly one of their top players) - Tarris Reed - is, too, a transfer (from Michigan, funnily enough).

Mara was a bench player at UCLA averaging 6pts, 4rbs, 1.6blks on 13 mins per game in 2024-25. He was far from some ready-made superstar that Michigan bought. Cronin (his coach at UCLA) talked **** about Mara and called him too weak.

Johnson averaged 7pts & 1blk on 18 mins per game at Illinois in 2024-25. Again, far from a ready-made superstar.

Cadeau averaged 9pts, 6ast, 3 turnovers & shot 67% on free throws in 28 mins/game at UNC in 2024-25. He was a solid starting PG, but had holes in his game, primarily questions about his size and shooting. Also, not a superstar.

Lendeborg was the most highly-recruited transfer and arguably the most talented of the bunch, but played at UAB, so there was always some inherent uncertainty as to if his quality of play would transfer to higher levels of competition.

McKenney grew up in the Detroit area and committed to Michigan straight out of H.S. as the top (or one of the top) recruits in the country.

I listened to the game last night while driving to Virginia from Pennsylvania. I don't recall who it was, but an analyst for Westwood One heaped a lot of (well deserved) praise on Dusty May postgame for the reasons listed above: a lot of these transfers had holes/flaws in their respective games and weren't obvious, ready-made superstars.

It required quality scouting, a good eye for talent, and a vision for how the roster would fit together in order to make this work. While it might look like Michigan poached a bunch of already high-level players, that isn't actually consistent with these players' respective trajectories before playing at Michigan.

Not only did these players come to Michigan and individually develop, but they played really well/seamlessly together as a team from the jump, which is rare and very challenging to accomplish (especially with young college athletes), so Michigan's coaching staff (especially May) deserve a ton of credit, IMHO.

Check out these stats:

UConn outscored Michigan by 21 from 3p (Michigan shot especially poorly, only make two 3-pointers all game)

UConn outrebounded Michigan by 7 (46-39)

UConn only had one more turnover than Michigan (11 compared to 10)

Michigan's only meaningful statistical edge was FTs, which gave them 13 more points than UConn (even accounting for this, UConn still had an 8 point advantage as a result of 3p disparity)

While Michigan shot a better field goal % (38% compared to UConn's 31%), that's only because they took fewer shots - both teams made 21 total field goals.

May said that if you'd told him before the game that Michigan would make two total 3-pointers and get outrebounded by 7, he'd have expected to be addressing a very disappointed team in the lockeroom.

UConn played about as well as they could have hoped to, other than some poor shooting (although Michigan was almost as bad, and much worse from 3p). Watching the highlights today, UConn appeared to do a good job controlling the pace/tempo of the game (especially in the 1st half).

The only good explanation for Michigan winning is that they played consistently strong defense.

Click to expand...

upstater1 said:

Do you watch much college ball?

UConn is known as running a Euro offense with maximal passing, offensive sets. It's a highly intricate offense. Anything but headless chickens. Their style is direct from Europe... closest thing to the San Antonio Spurs.

Click to expand...

catent said:

I'm not a huge Michigan fan, but my dad is an alumni so I grew up watching and rooting for Michigan sports.

I'm not sure if you're aware that UConn's best player (or certainly one of their top players) - Tarris Reed - is, too, a transfer (from Michigan, funnily enough).

Mara was a bench player at UCLA averaging 6pts, 4rbs, 1.6blks on 13 mins per game in 2024-25. He was far from some ready-made superstar that Michigan bought. Cronin (his coach at UCLA) talked **** about Mara and called him too weak.

Johnson averaged 7pts & 1blk on 18 mins per game at Illinois in 2024-25. Again, far from a ready-made superstar.

Cadeau averaged 9pts, 6ast, 3 turnovers & shot 67% on free throws in 28 mins/game at UNC in 2024-25. He was a solid starting PG, but had holes in his game, primarily questions about his size and shooting. Also, not a superstar.

Lendeborg was the most highly-recruited transfer and arguably the most talented of the bunch, but played at UAB, so there was always some inherent uncertainty as to if his quality of play would transfer to higher levels of competition.

McKenney grew up in the Detroit-area and committed to Michigan straight out of H.S. as the top (or one of the top) recruit(s) in the country.

I listened to the game last night while driving to Virginia from Pennsylvania. I don't recall who it was, but an analyst for Westwood One heaped a lot of (well deserved) praise on Dusty May postgame for the reasons listed above: a lot of these transfers had holes/flaws in their respective games and weren't obvious, ready-made superstars.

It required quality scouting, a good eye for talent, and a vision for how the roster would fit together in order to make this work. While it might look like Michigan poached a bunch of already high-level players, that isn't actually consistent with these players' respective trajectories before playing at Michigan.

Not only did these players come to Michigan and individually develop, but they played really well/seamlessly together as a team from the jump, which is rare and very challenging to accomplish (especially with young college athletes), so Michigan's coaching staff (especially May) deserve a ton of credit, IMHO.

Check out these stats:

UConn outscored Michigan by 21 from 3p (Michigan shot especially poorly, only making two 3-pointers all game)

UConn outrebounded Michigan by 7 (46-39)

UConn only had one more turnover than Michigan (11 compared to 10)

Michigan's only meaningful statistical edge was FTs, which gave them 13 more points than UConn (even accounting for this, UConn still had an 8 point advantage as a result of 3p disparity)

While Michigan shot a better field goal % (38% compared to UConn's 31%), that's only because they took fewer shots - both teams made 21 total field goals.

May said that if you'd told him before the game that Michigan would make two total 3-pointers and get outrebounded by 7, he'd have expected to be addressing a very disappointed team in the lockeroom.

UConn played about as well as they could have hoped to, other than some poor shooting (although Michigan was almost as bad, and much worse from 3p). Watching the highlights today, UConn appeared to do a good job controlling the pace/tempo of the game (especially in the 1st half).

The only good explanation for Michigan winning is that they played consistently strong defense.

Click to expand...

catent said:

I would suggest that those complaining about the state of the game watch Michigan's performance against Arizona (or any of their NCAA tournament games, sans that ugly final). They, too, are an especially good offensive team and very enjoyable to watch their sets, ball movement/passing, shooting. Dusty May was running elite offenses at FAU before he arrived at Michigan.

Not addressed to you specifically, but just a more general thought: If you go back 15-20 years ago, I promise you had people complaining about the state of the game then too, and harkening back to the 15-20 years prior ... rinse and repeat. That there are different people complaining about defense being both too physaical and too soft, simultaneously, kind of illustrates the point.

I'm not a huge basketball guy so perhaps not best qualified to comment, but I tend to think the state of the game is better now than it was 4-8 years ago.

Click to expand...

upstater1 said:

This was not a good shooting team.

Click to expand...

Tunescribe said:

Yeah, give them a mower and clippers and it would look like a crazy quilt.

You actually think NCAA basketball in its current state does credit to the sport? It can't hold a candle to the teams and quality of play from 15-20 years ago. It's sad.

Click to expand...

Pape said:

So 5 transfers vs 1 ... thanks for making my point for me.

Click to expand...

catent said:

Four transfers for Michigan, actually. Unless you're counting Nimari Burnett, who has now played four full seasons at Michigan - he's not a first-year transfer.

You claimed Michigan "bought" a championship, as if they simply offered the most money to a bunch of ready-made superstars and rolled them out onto the court. That's not what happened. They found players with potential but lack of production, and then developed them individually and collectively. That required a lot more than simply writing a check.

UConn had two first-year transfers see playing time the other night, too - Demary and Malachi Smith. So I guess they are also guilty of attempting to buy a championship.

Transfers have always been a part of collegiate athletics to some extent. Obviously NIL changed the landscape in a significant and rapid manner, but plenty of other high-quality D-I schools also have large NIL budgets and brought in highly-regarded transfers, but didn't ultimately see anywhere near the same level of success.

Click to expand...

upstater1 said:

This was not a good shooting team.

Ball's wrist injury robbed them of that second shooter.

Karaban actually shot at a very high rate. But Ball and Mullins were well below expectations. Ball was understandable given the injury.

Demary and Smith shot above expectations but at low volume. Ross was a surprise with shooting.

They were bullied and bruised.

If they had made more shots, then maybe they win. But you could say the same about Michigan running away with it.

The biggest factor was the way the game was called. You could run right up someone's back and knock them out of the way, which favored the more athletic team. Offensive ball sets were taken away by all the clutching and grabbing that was allowed. This was the equivalent of refs allowing DBs to grab WRs but somehow also decided to blow the whistle for OL holding constantly.

This is exactly what UConn didn't want.

Click to expand...

Pape said:

i claimed? I didn't claim anything. i stated a fact. you can parse it how ever you want, but Michigan went on a shopping spree and bought a team.

Compare this years Michigan team to the Fab Five years... is there a difference? yes. one will go down as a phenom that shifted the paradigm of college basketball, the other mercenary athletics at its finest

just an opinion of someone who doesn't watch college sports - looking in from the outside, so to speak... while you are spending an inordinate amount of time and words trying to legitimize the championship Michigan just took home...

The transfer portal has ruined D1 collegiate athletics. Its good for the players bank accounts, sure. but not much else... ymmv

Click to expand...

JoeSixPat said:

Right - there were always haves and have nots, but much more extreme now to the point that yes, colleges can buy a team through NILs

And then when they lose a player for the draft, the best teams have their pick of the best players through the portal

I don't think its right that the NCAAs have made billions off the backs of the players for so long, and they SHOULD get a share of that, but this free for all isn't the way to go - something more akin to profit sharing among the teams and a distribution among the teams seems like a worthwhile compromise. Certain players will have to wait for the Pros to really cash in but all will get a fair share and create an even playing field.

Click to expand...

JoeSixPat said:

Yeah - and when the 3s go cold they can't get or maintain a lead.

But I'll take a different view and say that this team should NOT have even made it to the final four based on talent - they've had a LOT more in past years and I think this team overachieved

Too bad Geno embarrassed himself and the state with his poor sportsmaship on the women's side

Click to expand...

JoeSixPat said:

Right - there were always haves and have nots, but much more extreme now to the point that yes, colleges can buy a team through NILs

And then when they lose a player for the draft, the best teams have their pick of the best players through the portal

I don't think its right that the NCAAs have made billions off the backs of the players for so long, and they SHOULD get a share of that, but this free for all isn't the way to go - something more akin to profit sharing among the teams and a distribution among the teams seems like a worthwhile compromise. Certain players will have to wait for the Pros to really cash in but all will get a fair share and create an even playing field.

Click to expand...

catent said:

The only good explanation for Michigan winning is that they played consistently strong defense.

Click to expand...

JoeSixPat said:

Yeah - and when the 3s go cold they can't get or maintain a lead.

Click to expand...

JoeSixPat said:

But I'll take a different view and say that this team should NOT have even made it to the final four based on talent - they've had a LOT more in past years and I think this team overachieved

Click to expand...