PAC-10 WEEKEND WRAP: That's a little more like it
Well, after two weeks of pretty much general craziness, things went a little more to form this week. In fact, for the first time in a while, my rankings from last week don't look too silly. That's kind of nice, to tell you the truth. Can't have you all thinking I have no idea what I'm talking about, now, can we?
First off, here are the standings after three weekends of play:
Still a pretty tightly bunched group, but there is just a smidgen of clarity, I think. First off, the top three teams are no big surprise, and only separated by one half of a game. The next three teams -- WSU, Washington and Arizona -- are only a game out. Again, no surprise with any of those teams. And then there are the final four teams, who, while only a game and a half out, are the teams we thought we'd probably see down there when conference play began.
I speculated last week that we might see a different No. 1 each week. Well, turns out that's already not true. Even No. 2 was the same. On to the rankings!
1. Arizona State
Rank last week: 1
Record last week: 2-0
Overall Record: 14-5
I wanted the Sun Devils to go on the road and show me something. Lo and behold, they did exactly that, sweeping the Oregon schools in relatively convincing fashion. Sure, it's the easiest road trip the conference has to offer, but road wins are road wins in the Pac-10, and don't look now, but ASU is on a four-game winning streak after sweeping the past two weekends. It's pretty obvious they're playing the best ball in the conference right now.
Bright spot: ASU finally survived a reasonably good shooting night from an opponent -- OSU was the first team to shoot over 50 percent eFG against the Devils and not win. You can probably chalk that up to OSU once again giving the ball away on 30 percent of their possessions. Ah, those Beavers ... so giving.
Question mark: I really don't think there are any. In a conference still full of question marks, the Sun Devils are who they are. They shoot better than most, they defend better than most, and you're not going to get a lot of inconsistency. I guess my only real question is this: Is there a possibility the squads with more talent pass them by as they continue to improve?
2. California
Rank last week: 2
Record last week: 1-1
Overall Record: 11-6
What? The top two stay the same? What the heck? Well, the Bears did enough to stay here, but I'm growing increasingly concerned about this squad after their split in Washington. It's not the split; no shame in going 1-1 through here. It's the manner in which it happened, as the Bears are starting to put up some consistent defensive numbers -- and not in a good way. More on that in a second. Also, as CGB points out, this is a fragile squad. One guy from the rotation goes out (in this case, Jorge Gutierrez), and their performance suffers in a big way.
Bright spot: Jerome Randle is still really good, stinker of a performance against UW notwithstanding. Cal fans pray to their God/gods/no god at all that he's not the next to get injured.
Question mark: We're starting to get a bit of a bead on this team defensively now. Yes, I know Gutierrez has been out for four games, but that doesn't have much to do with the fact that they don't defensive rebound particularly well (look at their conference numbers), don't force a lot of turnovers, and their field goal defense is inconsistent at best. In other words, this team could win -- or lose -- on any given night. I'll go ahead and predict that they'll lose three games they "shouldn't" the rest of the way.
3. Washington
Rank last week: 9
Record last week: 2-0
Overall Record: 12-5
Welcome back, Huskies -- or, should I call you, "My Flavor Of The Week"? Washington fans like to point to the return of Justin Holiday as the catalyst for the Huskies' surge this weekend in whipping Stanford and Cal, but c'mon ... I have a hard time believing one guy who plays 20 minutes a game could have that big of an impact. To be sure, he provided a boost, but I just think these guys have a lot of pride, and they had their manhood challenged.
Bright spot: The aforementioned Holiday played his most extensive minutes of the season and responded in a big way by filling the stat sheet and providing excellent perimeter defense. He's an underrated guy outside Seattle.
Question mark: Stop me if you've heard this one before, but can the Huskies take this intensity on the road? If they're serious about fulfilling preseason expectations, they really should sweep the L.A. schools this weekend.
4. Arizona
Rank last week: 3
Record last week: 1-1
Overall Record: 9-9
The Wildcats could be sitting in first place with the Sun Devils if they had figured out some way to beat Oregon State. Alas, they were doomed by their second last-second loss in a week when Lathen Wallace drained a 3-pointer . Ouch. As pained as WSU fans are by what happened against Oregon, Arizona fans have to be more crazy -- this team has now lost two games in dramatic fashion, and could just as easily be 5-1 instead of 3-3.
Bright spot: HUGE weekend for Derrick Williams -- 20 points, 10 rebounds and a block per game for good measure. And that was against the zone of OSU and the big front line of Oregon. A month ago, I would have said Reggie Moore runs away with newcomer of the year in the conference. But Williams will have something to say about that.
Question mark: Fun stat of the week. Arizona is 9-2 when shooting above 50 in effective field goal percentage; conversely, the Wildcats are 0-7 when shooting under 50.
5. USC
Rank last week: 6
Record last week: 1-0
Overall Record: 11-6
Nothing like destroying your crosstown rival at Pauley to get your season back on track, eh? How about this stat for you: We know UCLA's a pretty bad offensive rebounding team, but USC dominated the defensive boards against them in a way that is simply absurd -- the Bruins were only able to grab 9.2 percent of their misses. And there were a lot of misses, as the Bruins made just 15 of 45 attempts. Good win for the Trojans.
Bright spot: USC topped 100 offensive efficiency for just the fourth time this year, and first since the win over Tennessee a month ago, and did it without Mike Gerrity scoring a single point. Dwight Lewis picked up the slack with 24.
Question mark: Is this a one-game bump in performance from playing their rivals, or are the Trojans truly over the news of their postseason ban?
6. Washington State
Rank last week: 5
Record last week: 1-1
Overall Record: 13-5
Not much else to say here we haven't already covered. Nearly came back to beat Cal after falling behind by 20 early, and then got up 20 on Stanford and had to hold on. If this team has any designs on really cracking this top three, the solution is simple: 40 minutes of defensive intensity. The time for figuring things out has passed -- the season is more than half over. It's time for some results, otherwise, this team is most certainly destined for the NIT ... or worse.
Bright spot: This team is resilient. They got smoked by Arizona State, then came out slow against Cal, but fought back and didn't fold up the tents. That's really big, and don't forget it.
Question mark: The Cougs have played four of the first six at home, and are only 3-3. The next three games are on the road -- USC, UCLA, UW. Two wins in that stretch would be considered an unmitigated success. Three losses are also a very real possibility. This will bear watching.
7. UCLA
Rank last week: 4
Record last week: 0-1
Overall Record: 7-10
Getting killed on your home floor is never good and UCLA fans are fairly disgusted. I didn't see the game, so I'm not really sure what happened. USC's defense has made a number of teams look pretty pitiful, and we know that when the Bruins aren't hitting shots, they aren't very good. Well, they shot only 36.7 effective field goal percentage against the Trojans. Not going to be anyone like that. But I'll not penalize the Bruins for one bad performance.
Bright spot: There isn't one. Last week was a disaster.
Question mark: Is this team ever going to get its crap together? Or were the ASU and Cal wins essentially flukes?
8. Oregon State
Rank last week: 10
Record last week: 1-1
Overall Record: 8-8
After winning two of three, the Beavers have vaulted out of the cellar. They picked up a nice win at home over the Wildcats, then had their turnover problems crop up again against the Sun Devils (30.5 percent!). That's not totally unexpected, given that ASU forces a lot of turnovers, but kind of a downer for a team that had seen those turnovers slow down somewhat the previous two games.
Bright spot: How about Roeland Schaftenaar coming alive against Arizona? It might be too strong to call his season so far a disappointment, but he certainly hasn't taken a big step forward. But against the Wildcats, he had 22 points, four rebounds, two assists, two blocks and a steal. Nice.
Question mark: This team's not half bad when it's not giving the ball to the opponent one out of every four possessions. Will they be able to contain it going forward as they did against Oregon and Arizona?
9. Stanford
Rank last week: 8
Record last week: 0-2
Record: 8-9
The Cardinal were cruising for No. 10 before they figured out a way to come back on the Cougs after trailing by 20 at halftime. Despite being outmanned virtually every time they step on the floor, they continue to keep battling for Johnny Dawkins.
Bright spot: Jeremy Green only got 10 shots against UW. Clearly, the Cardinal realized the error of their way, getting him 22 shots against the Cougs, and he responded with 24 points. Stanford needs to make sure that it's doing everything it can to ride Green and Fields..
Question mark: They looked pretty bad in getting whipped by Washington and in getting down by 20 to WSU. Were the home wins over UCLA and USC a result of fortunate circumstance?
10. Oregon
Rank last week: 7
Record last week: 0-2
Overall Record: 10-7
From the penthouse to the outhouse for the Ducks. Just think: Two weeks ago, Oregon was the toast of the town -- the only team 2-0 in the league -- after road wins at UW and WSU. Since then, they've lost three in a row ... at home. Yikes. Let the Ernie Kent hot seat talk start up for the 1,382nd time.
Bright spot: How about LeKendric Longmire? Averaged 14.5 points, four offensive rebounds, two steals and 1.5 assists on the weekend. Hey, gotta start somewhere.
Question mark: After lackluster performances against ASU, Kent benched Tajuan Porter and Malcolm Armstead. Now, far be it from me to question Ernie Kent, but why jerk around the two guys who led you to that 2-0 start? They played poorly against the Devils to be sure, but it seems amateurish.
Like what you read? Then check out us out on Twitter @CougCenter and @NussCoug. It's the same good stuff ... just with more brevity. Some of you will probably find that attractive.
0 recs |
40 comments
|
Comments
Actually, given that Gutierrez is a good rebounder and the only real steals guy on Cal's team
I’d say him being out actually has a fair bit to do with their woes in those areas.
Also, Randle’s already hurt, or at least was on Saturday, as a result of banging knees with someone when Cal played the Cougs. I don’t want to say that’s why they lost— Cal really took the wrong approach to that game, I think. Poor game plan. But it probably explains why he himself had such an off game.
UCLA has now won two Pac-10 games by a combined total of three points, one of them in overtime, while losing 3 games by 46 points. I don’t know exactly what the Pythagorean W/L coefficient is for college hoops, but I do know that they are the worst team in the conference.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2010 5:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Really? You think a guy who rebounds just 13 percent of available defensive rebounds
And plays 50 percent of the minutes would make a big difference in terms of rebounding? His steal percentage is also only 2.0 …
Let’s not overstate his impact. He’s good, and important to Cal, but having him out isn’t akin to losing Robertson.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 18, 2010 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His rates were lower at the beginning of the year, possibly due to the (different) injury that he had at the start of the season
They’ve gradually been climbing toward the levels that he established last year.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2010 7:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He still was only 16.0 last year
Nice for a guard, but hardly a difference maker. Nik Koprivica is at 16.7 …
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 18, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I miss Bennett
I think his defense with how bad the Pac-10 is this year would probably have won the league this year. Look at ASU sitting on top of the Pac-10 and how they play defense. I really hate saying this, but man I do miss him and wish he was still here and not coaching the only undefeated team in the ACC.
Also, don’t totally yell at me, I do like Bone and I think in the long run he will actually prove to be better for us then Bennett would have been once he gets his system and players in place – and I don’t think he ever leaves WSU……..but for this year, I wish we had Bennett.
by ajs8026 on Jan 18, 2010 6:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not yelling
But we have to remember the weaknesses this team would have under the Bennett system. Bennett requires a patient and confident ball handler to start the offense and direct it as the shot clock runs down. We wouldn’t have Reggie.
X is improving, but is still young. Our starting PG would possibly be Marcus (gulp) or X. While Bennett would have us playing a slower tempo and a stronger man to man, we would still be young, we would still have defensive breakdowns, and we would be without our 2nd or 3rd most important player depending on how highly you rank Marcus.
I think it is easy to remember the D-Low, Weaver, Baynes, et. al. teams at their peak when they really “got” the system and ran it to perfection while forgetting the years they spent learning the system, showing some glimmers of promise by also making mistakes of youth. Tony can’t coach experience, and we are without it no matter how you slice it.
by 02Coug on Jan 18, 2010 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Offense through the years
2005 – 94.5 efficiency for a rank of 253.
2006 – 95.3 efficiency for a rank of 256
2007 – 112.6 ranked 54
2008 – 115.9 ranked 26
2009 – 104.4 ranked 121
I know wasn’t the head man until 2007. But my above argument about “getting” the system on offense and running it well I think is valid as the system didn’t drastically change under Tony. Small tweaks to the same basic idea. Our guys had to learn it, and peaked in 2008 as we all know. Last year we regressed despite having seniors that knew what they were doing. We’ve seen Nik under Tony’s system and he would be the only upperclassman.
So while I agree our defense would be a little better and more consisten, I think we have to remember the flip side that our offense would likely be less efficient then our 110.2 which is good for a 52 ranking.
by 02Coug on Jan 18, 2010 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's fair to say our offense would be MUCH less efficient
But I think it’s also fair to say our defense would be much more efficient. But in the end, I think it would be the same net result. I don’t think the results would be appreciably different.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 18, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's what I forgot to really get to
I think with Tony as coach we would still by about 3-3 in conference, we would still have some glaring weaknesses and would be wondering if we could turn the corner. It would just be the really fun weaknesses of 4, 5, 6 minute scoring droughts versus wondering why we can’t get stops or hold a lead.
by 02Coug on Jan 18, 2010 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
Yeah, I think so. We’d be talking about how the Bennett offense drives us crazy, instead of how Bone’s defense drives us crazy. It’s all the same. Unlike the Weaver/Low years, this is an incomplete team.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 18, 2010 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
Reading over this Bennett discussion and the Cougs’ struggles, I am confident that Klay won’t be leaving to the NBA until he has run his full course. If he let’s his emotions get into the way of his gameplay, he won’t be leaving his Junior year. He needs to put a lot of muscle on too, or else he will get mowed over by Lebron. A lot of people around the net think Klay will be entering the draft. I strongly disagree.
I think, if this whole roster stays in place for the next few years (and stays consistent in their season), WSU will have seared their mark into the recruiting map for big talent, hopefully.
by Valiance on Jan 18, 2010 9:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Everyone gets mowed over by LeBron!
I think Klay will go pro when he has proved to himself he can consistently hit shots while being defended closely as the focal point of the offense. If these games where he goes 4-13 start turning into 8-13, he’s gone. I don’t know his financial situation, I’d assume it’s not pressing since his Dad was in the NBA. But it’s also understandable if he left early for the money or for the immediate chance to play on some crappy NBA team.
I really hope everyone DOES stay their full 4 years. The conference is going to be pretty dang good the next couple years and we could really use everybody!
by johnnycougar on Jan 19, 2010 12:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not the consistenly hit shots
He needs to learn how to create on his own. That’s still the stick point of his development. He was better at getting to the rim and getting fouled/finishing, but that has seemed to have tailed off lately. Part of it is probably fatigue, part of it is being the focal point of the D, and part of it is that he just hasn’t developed that part of his game.
Shooting comes and goes for everyone but if he can create and get good shots he makes it easier on himself. Right now, he has to have someone feeding him. His ball handling, decision making, and, subsequently, his ability to take care of the ball needs to improve.
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 12:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take your word for it
I haven’t been able to see as many games as I’d like so maybe I’m off. When I’ve watched, Klay either couldn’t get open (like you point out) or would take ridiculous shots the few times he caught a glimpse of the rim. He does seem to have success when he can get a step on his man while driving to the hoop, but if the defender anticipates it well enough Klay seems lost. I personally would chalk that up to the improved athletes he’s facing in the Pac-10 as much as anything.
by johnnycougar on Jan 19, 2010 12:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's still gotta be able to create
In order to succeed at the next level he’s gotta find a way to create. If he can’t do that against pac-10 guys, imagine how hard it will be in the NBA. That seems to be the missing part of his game, or at least the biggest hole.
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 1:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've gotta agree with cougfan
Klay is a wonderful scorer, but he is pretty one dimensional. He’s a poor man’s Adam Morrison right now. Hard to seeing that parlay into the NBA without a few more years of adding some more tricks to his bag.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Jan 19, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
But don’t forget that just because Klay may not be a complete player yet doesn’t mean he won’t get drafted. We’ve seen plenty of NBA teams take a “project” in the draft. If the NBA draft people tell Klay there’s a good chance he’ll be drafted in the 1st round, would he prefer to develop his game at college (and risk getting injured or whatever) or in the D-League / on the bench of an NBA team (with instant $$$)?
by johnnycougar on Jan 19, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot the most important part
The quality of the opposition.
Plenty of players who could drive, penetrate gaps, shoot pullups at a high percentage, etc etc against mid-major competition cannot do so against high-major competition. They can’t get as far into the lane, their shots are more closely contested, and they have fewer bail-out options if they need to kick the ball back out.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Jan 19, 2010 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alot of the rankings are by default, it seems
The top three kind of slot into place, with Washington probably jumping Cal if they can play on the road. The next three are the same, with WSU taking 6th by default. Even though they beat Arizona I’m not sure they’re better than AZ or USC, yet. The bottom three are also the same, except I think UCLA is too high. It just feels like they fluked into those two wins by catching Cal and ASU at a bad time, especially when they were games UCLA squeaked out. They could really be battling Oregon for that bottom spot.
The conference seems to have 3 pretty separate tiers though, which won’t matter as soon as everyone finishes the season 9-9 (not going to happen but would be funny).
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 12:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It looks that way ...
… but I’m having a tough time thinking it will stay that way. The disparity between those teams in the top half doesn’t seem great. UW is probably the second best team in the conference under normal conditions – but their lack of consistent deep shooting makes them vulnerable to zone D’s and teams that are able to establish early leads. Cal should be the best team in the league with a starting lineup of four seniors, but their meltdown in Seattle is eye opening. There was a visible lack of leadership on that team which probably makes them vulnerable to other teams that might get hot on them. Arizona has the talent to beat anyone, but they are still prone to mistakes and lack of focus. ASU? They are overachieving in much the same way UW did last year. Who knows if they can keep it going? USC continues to lurk in the shadows.
I haven’t even written off WSU yet. Getting Klay hot at the right time could help you capture a few games that you might otherwise not be able to steal.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Jan 19, 2010 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"otherwise, this team is most certainly destined for the NIT ... or worse"
That still seems pretty optimistic to me. Say that the team does figure it out – does going 9-3 or even 10-2 (and not winning the Pac-10 tournament) get us into the NCAA’s? I just don’t see it. Unless we win something like 10 straight (yeah right) I think our best shot is the NIT. Hopefully we could get close enough to the NCAA’s to merit a home game in the NIT but that’s about where I see our ceiling. This team does have the capability to make a run through the Pac-10 tourney but I can’t see us earning an at-large bid.
Next year, though, is a different story.
by johnnycougar on Jan 19, 2010 12:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Going 10-2 probably wins us the league title
Whether or not the selection committee bids the regular season and conference tourney champion is question. I’m leaning more towards they would, with those being the two bids if they are different teams.
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 12:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, I don't see us winning 10 of 12 as being likely
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 12:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I figured
Winning the league title at 13-5 with no solid non-con wins (the jury is still out on LSU) combined with the Pac-10 as a whole being down… yeah it’s hard to say. I wouldn’t put us as automatic by any means. With the relative parity (or just plain inconsistency of all the teams) of the league, I wouldn’t be surprised if some crapola team won the tourney and the league winner (assuming it’s not Cal / ASU / UW) gets left out in the cold.
by johnnycougar on Jan 19, 2010 12:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm more thinking about getting its crap together to make a run in the Pac-10 tournament
I wouldn’t bet on this team to win that tournament right now.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 19, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
K-State rolled Texas
Since we don’t really have a signature win that jumps out, can we call that our signature loss for the season?
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 1:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
With every K-State and Gonzaga win
It definitely makes those losses look less bad. Kind of the opposite of what happened with Baylor last year.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 19, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We've been pretty predictable this year
We didn’t have any bad non-conference losses, with KSU and GU losses looking better and better, and our conference slate has gone similar, with losses to Cal and ASU being expected.
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Predictable is good
Tournament committees like to feel like they know what they’re getting if they pick you for their tournament.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 19, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't gotten this read at all
I think the selection committee is much more willing to take a team with a good win and a bad loss than a team with a bad win and a good loss. There are plenty of teams that manage to amass the latter kind of resume in the mid-major conferences who don’t get bids.
Predictability means fewer upsets, which generally means lower ratings, at least in the first two weekends.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Jan 19, 2010 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the first part, but the committee doesn't pick teams for the ratings
Usually it comes down to maybe ten teams for the last three or four spots. What differentiates them? A team with a couple good wins in there looks better than a team with nothing notable. Similarly, a team that finishes the season well looks better than a team who faltered down the stretch.
by johnnycougar on Jan 20, 2010 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the idea is that they want to try and pick a team that they know has a chance to win
There’s nothing worse than putting a team in one of those final few spots and having them go out and embarrass themselves (and the committee) by getting killed in the first round. Proof that they can hang with the big boys is the best thing that committee can see.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 20, 2010 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that true?
Is it better “[p]roof that they can hang with the big boys” if they consistently beat worse teams and lose to good teams (like we’ve done) or if they can beat good teams but occasionally lose to bad teams? I agree a blowout loss to a good team in the first round is embarrassing for the committee, but I don’t know that they worry about that when making selections. Sometimes the “last guy in” makes them look good when they’re widely panned by the media (like Arizona last year) and sometimes it’s embarrassing (like Stanford a few years ago).
Maybe if a team is being inconsistent at the end of the year, then the committee will worry about it. But I don’t know that their philosophy involves picking someone they think can win that next week. I think they pick the team with the best resume, that “deserves” to be there. Losing to every good team you play, even if the games are close, doesn’t jump out in my mind as fitting that description.
by johnnycougar on Jan 20, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wish I could find it
But I remember reading in one of Katz’s mock selection things that he did with the NCAA that it actually is a consideration — they like to be as certain as possible that the team is on the same level as the other teams in the tournament. If you think about it, this makes sense: If you’re in the tournament as a 12 seed, you should be able to perform like the other 12 seeds.
This whole line of reasoning mostly applies to the midmajors, who might lose a game in conference to an inferior opponent, but have demonstrated they can beat quality teams in the nonconference schedule. Teams like Gonzaga and Butler come to mind on that front.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 20, 2010 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I remember that article
I thought that line about making sure the included team is on par with the others was more of a general statement, like “of course every team in the tournament should be able to compete.” I didn’t remember it coming across as a selection criteria.
I guess what I’m saying is: not counting Oregon, we don’t have a bad loss, but we don’t have any good wins either. 12 seeds usually have beaten a few good teams and always represent a danger in the first round. I think our resume would look better if we had beaten Gonzaga and lost to San Diego instead of the other way around. I think the committee would be more likely to think we could compete if we had switched the results.
by johnnycougar on Jan 20, 2010 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're absolutely right about our resume
I didn’t mean to make it sound like selection criteria. It’s more like an "all things being otherwise equal" sort of deal. Arizona made it in two years ago on that sort of an argument – they’d shown they could beat some teams, and even were a No. 10 seed with a sub.500 Pac-10 record.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 20, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you mean, but "predictable" in hindsight is easy to say
At least we haven’t lost to a team that has since proved to be horrible (oh wait, how good is Oregon….?). I still don’t think we’re at the point of predictability, if only because we have little idea how good the rest of our opponents will be. Can we predict how we’ll fare against USC or UCLA accurately? I for one have no clue. We could sweep or be swept.
Maybe “average” is a better word. We’ve managed to beat the cruddy teams (if only barely in some cases) and lost to the really good teams in non-con. I don’t think anyone outside of the Pac-10 is ready to say Cal or ASU is “good” just yet. The fact that the Pac-10 is currently a mess of similar teams is reflected in the standings. It’s nice that we should have a chance in any remaining game (except maybe @Cal) but it’s hard to say what will happen as the season goes on.
I guess I’m saying that we’re “predictably” not capable of beating a Top 25 team or losing to a worse-than-150 RPI team. There’s a lot of leeway in those 125 other spots, still to be decided.
by johnnycougar on Jan 19, 2010 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Predictable in that you can call the wins and losses
Quite a few of us chalked Cal and ASU up as probable losses. Doesn’t mean they’re great, but looking at the numbers they are better, so in that respect I see it as predictable. The KSU and GU losses, same deal. I didn’t mention Oregon because of the extenuating factors.
Just looking at it, I think we split on the road. UCLA isn’t good at all and USC has the ability to shut down our offense.
by cougfan on Jan 19, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
So, as an exercise, what games do you see going forward as losses? I agree with @USC and also think we probably lose @UW, @Cal, and hosting ASU. I’d say we will have very tough battles at the Oregon schools and hosting Arizona, UW and USC. We should win @Stanford and hopefully sweep UCLA. I could “predict” us going anywhere from 3-9 to 8-4 down the stretch. So basically I have no idea! I’m sure we’ll have a better clue the day before each of these games but I still don’t know if we’ve figured this team out.
I do agree though that I thought hosting Cal would be a loss. I figured we had a decent chance at beating ASU considering their recent struggles and the fact we had just beaten Arizona, clearly I was off there.
by johnnycougar on Jan 20, 2010 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Without reaching too far in to the future
I think this team can look totally different in two weeks or a month than it does now. I don’t expect them to get worse, but do expect them to get better.
I had ASU chalked up as a loss, but I thought it would be closer than it was. Looking at the extenuating circumstances, I can see why it ended how it did.
USC I see as an old Bennett game, with it being a race to 65. I don’t think either team will blow the other out, but I’d give the edge to USC. With UCLA, I would be surprised and unhappy if we didn’t run them out of the gym. UW at Hec Ed is a loss, in my eyes. They play as good as anyone at home, save for that Oregon loss. After that, I’m not sure where we will be. If we win the next three, it would show the team is growing and our odds are better. Two of three is just as good as we’ve beat someone we shouldn’t have.
by cougfan on Jan 20, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 










