Bear Down Wildcats

Yea we were 3-2 in them before 1998. Since I've been a fan we're 0-5

ASUHATER! wrote:Yea we were 3-2 in them before 1998. Since I've been a fan we're 0-5

Hater, take one for the team and disavow your fanship. I want to be 5-0 for the next 5.

No thanks. I figure the pain is some sort of penance and the reward for sticking through it will be really nice

Beachcat97 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote: Yep. 1-6 in our last 7 elite 8s.

This is so damn crazy. If that number is even at 3-6, it dramatically changes the perception/status of our program. I'd bet no other program has as dismal a record as ours in E-8s over the past few decades.

The matchups haven't been lopsided seed wise either. Off the top of my head, it was a #3 vs #5 in 2011 and #1 vs #3 in 2005, and the remainder were single digit difference in seed.

I could see it being reasonable if we were always getting there is massive underdogs, but we aren't. We just have a terrible, frustrating streak in the EE.

ASUHATER! wrote:No thanks. I figure the pain is some sort of penance and the reward for sticking through it will be really nice

I think of the day we break through and all the prior losses cease to do anything more than just make that moment sweeter.

0 for our last 5. Lets take a look at those:

03- Kansas (2), lost by 3. They went on to lose to Carmelo Anthony/Cuse in the title game
05- Illinois (1), lost by 1 (choke job). Illinois was still an outstanding team and lost a close title game to UNC
11- UCONN (3), went on to be National Champions. Horne clanked what would have been the game winning shot.
14- Wisky (2), had two chances to win, one ruined by a blown call. Lost to Kentucky by 1 in Final Four.
15- Lost to (1) Wisky by 7 when not even God could have stopped the shots Dekker hit. They then went on to beat a historically good Kentucky team by the same margin and lost a close one to Duke in the title game.

Only one of those four teams did not go on to at least the Championship game, though they were a special team who did so the next year. Four of those five losses were three points or less. That's just shit luck, some calls/bounces that didn't go our way late, and running into the wrong team. I mean, that is expected in the Elite 8, but there are plenty of schools with final four banners that beat teams that don't stack up to the above in the game before. Would be nice some of those years to been in a region where the #1 or 2 seed got taken down early, some schools have final four banners hanging because of that. So yea, the bottom line is, it doesn't matter how u get there, but it just goes to show how there haven't really been any breaks during this 5 game losing streak, and some other schools haven't had such bad luck.

I think it is kind of silly to hold the Miller era Wildcats to anything before, as well. Truth is Sean Miller has lost exactly one game to a lower seeded team, and it was as a 1 to a 2 seed after losing a starter to injury for the year. Otherwise, minus one game where a 1 lost to a 2 on a final possession, we have always lived up to our seeding, which is pretty amazing considering we are always a high seed.

2011 was way early. 2014 was the year, but the Ashley injury made us have to cover some offensive deficiencies and lost us flexibility with Gordon. Last year was insane...whatever they shot in the 2nd half from 3, it was ridiculous, especially considering how good we were defending the 3. We lost to a higher seed twice, and lost on a final possession to a 2 seed once.

Just because large parts of the fanbase become mentally ill in their obsession with a certain round of the tournament doesn't mean this program isn't doing exactly what it should, especially considering the crater it crawled out of.

Beachcat97 wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote: Yep. 1-6 in our last 7 elite 8s.

This is so damn crazy. If that number is even at 3-6, it dramatically changes the perception/status of our program. I'd bet no other program has as dismal a record as ours in E-8s over the past few decades.

It's not dismal that we lost in 2005 and 2011. Only dismal in 2005 because we blew a lead. Still, we were the underdog. One seed against three seed. In 2011, it was five seed against three seed (and eventual national champ).

We could've avoided those fates by failing to upset Oklahoma State (2005) and Duke (2011). Could've avoided the other losses by being upset ourselves.

I get the frustration, but "dismal" is not getting the opportunity in the first place.

EVCat wrote:I think it is kind of silly to hold the Miller era Wildcats to anything before, as well. Truth is Sean Miller has lost exactly one game to a lower seeded team, and it was as a 1 to a 2 seed after losing a starter to injury for the year. Otherwise, minus one game where a 1 lost to a 2 on a final possession, we have always lived up to our seeding, which is pretty amazing considering we are always a high seed.

2011 was way early. 2014 was the year, but the Ashley injury made us have to cover some offensive deficiencies and lost us flexibility with Gordon. Last year was insane...whatever they shot in the 2nd half from 3, it was ridiculous, especially considering how good we were defending the 3. We lost to a higher seed twice, and lost on a final possession to a 2 seed once.

Just because large parts of the fanbase become mentally ill in their obsession with a certain round of the tournament doesn't mean this program isn't doing exactly what it should, especially considering the crater it crawled out of.

Ashley stays healthy, we win the 2014 national championship. What can you do to control that sort of bad break?

Yep. That team was rollllllling until that happened. They may not have lost another game the rest of the year.

Good posts EVcat and Gumby.

rgdeuce wrote:Yep. That team was rollllllling until that happened. They may not have lost another game the rest of the year.

Weren't we undefeated going to Cal? That team was definitely rolling. Pre-Ashley injury, probably the most confident I've felt of any of our teams winning the whole damn thing (there with 98 and 01).

pokinmik wrote:Good posts EVcat and Gumby.

rgdeuce wrote:Yep. That team was rollllllling until that happened. They may not have lost another game the rest of the year.

Weren't we undefeated going to Cal? That team was definitely rolling. Pre-Ashley injury, probably the most confident I've felt of any of our teams winning the whole damn thing (there with 98 and 01).

Yep. And even with Ashley down, they barely lost that Cal game, I remember losing close at ASU, and in the conference tourney to Oregon? I just remember we had four losses heading into the NCAA's, cant remember who number 4 was to.

rgdeuce wrote:

pokinmik wrote:Good posts EVcat and Gumby.

rgdeuce wrote:Yep. That team was rollllllling until that happened. They may not have lost another game the rest of the year.

Weren't we undefeated going to Cal? That team was definitely rolling. Pre-Ashley injury, probably the most confident I've felt of any of our teams winning the whole damn thing (there with 98 and 01).

Yep. And even with Ashley down, they barely lost that Cal game, I remember losing close at ASU, and in the conference tourney to Oregon? I just remember we had four losses heading into the NCAA's, cant remember who number 4 was to.

Lost to UCLA in the Pac tourney. I thought we only had the 3 losses, but I could be wrong. We were 21-0 when Brandon went down.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

pokinmik wrote:Good posts EVcat and Gumby.

rgdeuce wrote:Yep. That team was rollllllling until that happened. They may not have lost another game the rest of the year.

Weren't we undefeated going to Cal? That team was definitely rolling. Pre-Ashley injury, probably the most confident I've felt of any of our teams winning the whole damn thing (there with 98 and 01).

Yep. And even with Ashley down, they barely lost that Cal game, I remember losing close at ASU, and in the conference tourney to Oregon? I just remember we had four losses heading into the NCAA's, cant remember who number 4 was to.

Lost to UCLA in the Pac tourney. I thought we only had the 3 losses, but I could be wrong. We were 21-0 when Brandon went down.

I was 100% convinced, when we were sitting at 21-0, that we were going to go undefeated. Not only was there no doubt in my mind that we were the best team in the country, but looking at our schedule I knew nobody in the Pac could beat us.

Then Ashley goes down and here we are....

Merkin wrote:

Bangkok Wildcat wrote:

Puerco wrote:

Thanks, Jefe. I can't believe they hang a banner for tourney appearances.

I can't believe there is Women's Basketball! Talk about one of the most boring and non-feminine sports imaginable! Huge fan of women's soccer, tennis and swimming though

The UA women's basketball team is jealous about not having any banners.

But no softball BW?

Ohhhhhhhh, my bad! Apologies, love UA Women's softball the most.....Good call Merkin, thanks!

We're right back in it with this Cal win over Oregon!!!!!

With the Ducks falling to Stanford today a win tomorrow puts us in a tie for 1st place.

UA remaining games:

Home: USC, ASU, Cal, Stanford
Away: Utah, Colorado

UO remaining games:

Home: OSU, WSU, UW
Away: UCLA, USC

Looking at todays standings the UA plays: #3,4,5,6, 10 and 11
UO plays #3,7,8,9,12

IMO, The schedule still favors the Ducks and they own the tie breaker for the PAC12 tournament seeding.

A tie for first means co-champs. Seeding doesn't change that. Had the Cats 8-4 at this point, beating Oregon and losing to UW. Had them finishing 13-5. Still doable.

gumby wrote:A tie for first means co-champs. Seeding doesn't change that. Had the Cats 8-4 at this point, beating Oregon and losing to UW. Had them finishing 13-5. Still doable.

Actually there is no such thing as co-champs. The PAC12 rules state that the PAC12 tournament champion is the PAC 12 Champion:

http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/2012 ... aspx?id=29&" target="_blank

2. "The conference champion will be decided at a conference tournament. A double round-robin regular season schedule will determine tournament seeding"

Sorta think OR is gonna lose two games in L.A.

dmjcat wrote:

gumby wrote:A tie for first means co-champs. Seeding doesn't change that. Had the Cats 8-4 at this point, beating Oregon and losing to UW. Had them finishing 13-5. Still doable.

Actually there is no such thing as co-champs. The PAC12 rules state that the PAC12 tournament champion is the PAC 12 Champion:

http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/2012 ... aspx?id=29&" target="_blank

2. "The conference champion will be decided at a conference tournament. A double round-robin regular season schedule will determine tournament seeding"

That's the President's Athletic Conference. I can't find the Pac 12 rules, but the radio pre-game has said that co-champs is possible, and I'm pretty sure the regular season champion is considered the true champion.

we were co-champs in like 2000 with 'furd, though i think the p10 tournament was still on hiatus at the time

AZCatGirl wrote:

dmjcat wrote:

gumby wrote:A tie for first means co-champs. Seeding doesn't change that. Had the Cats 8-4 at this point, beating Oregon and losing to UW. Had them finishing 13-5. Still doable.

Actually there is no such thing as co-champs. The PAC12 rules state that the PAC12 tournament champion is the PAC 12 Champion:

http://www.pacathletics.org/sports/2012 ... aspx?id=29&" target="_blank

2. "The conference champion will be decided at a conference tournament. A double round-robin regular season schedule will determine tournament seeding"

That's the President's Athletic Conference. I can't find the Pac 12 rules, but the radio pre-game has said that co-champs is possible, and I'm pretty sure the regular season champion is considered the true champion.

You are correct.......I googled PAC12 and didn't read the fine print
I never even heard of the "PAC" prior to today.

I can't find the PAC12 rules but the official website lists regular season and conference tournament champions. It also lists co-champs for the 1990 season (Stanford-UA). I have no idea if the rules have changed since the PAC12 was formed.

http://pac-12.com/content/mens-basketba ... mpionships" target="_blank

The tournament champion will never be the real champion. Regular season is the only one that counts

Beachcat97 wrote:Sorta think OR is gonna lose two games in L.A.

Na. UCLA will lay a big fat turd u watch

rgdeuce wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Sorta think OR is gonna lose two games in L.A.

Na. UCLA will lay a big fat turd u watch

They've played better at home all season, and OR just showed everyone that they're a vulnerable road team. OR is not leaving L.A. with two wins. No way.

I'm actually more concerned, though, about beating SC tomorrow. Huge game.

U said they gonna lose two in LA tho. Im sayin theyll split

rgdeuce wrote:U said they gonna lose two in LA tho. Im sayin theyll split

Well, even if it's a split, that could help us win the reg season title, which I thought was looking unlikely a few weeks ago.

The longer the tournament goes on will lessen the importance of the regular season "title". Plus it seems like the best team rarely wins the tournament

MrBug708 wrote:The longer the tournament goes on will lessen the importance of the regular season "title". Plus it seems like the best team rarely wins the tournament

Not to most people. And why the "" on title? One is a conference title and one is a three game just for funsies tournament title.

Automatic tourney berth still goes to the conferece tourney champ, doesn't it? Ridiculous if so.

MrBug708 wrote:The longer the tournament goes on will lessen the importance of the regular season "title". Plus it seems like the best team rarely wins the tournament

Said the guy whose team is not (nor will be for the foreseeable future) anywhere near winning this title.

So stupid.

But so fun when UCLA reverts to form as they've been doing lately.

Puerco wrote:Automatic tourney berth still goes to the conferece tourney champ, doesn't it? Ridiculous if so.

I'm fine with the tourney champ getting a bid, but it still means far less than the reg season title.

Puerco wrote:Automatic tourney berth still goes to the conferece tourney champ, doesn't it? Ridiculous if so.

I actually like it in some years, don't in others.

For instance, this year they are talking about the Pac getting 7 or 8 teams into the tourney. But since so many are in that 8-10 seed range, if UCLA or ASU wins the tourney then they likely knock out an Oregon State or Washington. So its no help there as far as conference reputation.

On the flip side, if we had only three teams slated to go to the dance, a fourth team coming out of nowhere to win the automatic bid makes the conference look that much better when you compare which conferences placed the most teams in the postseason.

In Lavin's last year I was hoping UCLA would win the tourney to get the automatic bid since everyone knew he was getting fired. I think Lute did wanted UCLA to win too, since he hated the tourney anyway and wanted an early exit.

What a huge gift from Oregon over the weekend.

If we take advantage tonight we're in a great spot to get at least a piece.

I care about continuing the process. Pac 12 titles are nice, but we know who runs the conference.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I care about continuing the process. Pac 12 titles are nice, but we know who runs the conference.

That's fine. I care a ton about the regular season title so getting at least a piece of it out of this topsy turvy season would make me feel fantastic.

Merkin wrote:In Lavin's last year I was hoping UCLA would win the tourney to get the automatic bid since everyone knew he was getting fired. I think Lute did wanted UCLA to win too, since he hated the tourney anyway and wanted an early exit.

Lavin > Alford

SCCats wrote:What a huge gift from Oregon over the weekend.

If we take advantage tonight we're in a great spot to get at least a piece.

I was actually feeling down for what that opportunity did for our chances against USC, but then I remembered that this ain't football.

Longhorned wrote:

SCCats wrote:What a huge gift from Oregon over the weekend.

If we take advantage tonight we're in a great spot to get at least a piece.

I was actually feeling down for what that opportunity did for our chances against USC, but then I remembered that this ain't football.

The door has been opened for us to win the title. I don't think we'll win the rest of our reg season games, though. Think we drop one to Utah or Colorado. We're winning today.

dcZONAfan wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

pokinmik wrote:Good posts EVcat and Gumby.

rgdeuce wrote:Yep. That team was rollllllling until that happened. They may not have lost another game the rest of the year.

Weren't we undefeated going to Cal? That team was definitely rolling. Pre-Ashley injury, probably the most confident I've felt of any of our teams winning the whole damn thing (there with 98 and 01).

Yep. And even with Ashley down, they barely lost that Cal game, I remember losing close at ASU, and in the conference tourney to Oregon? I just remember we had four losses heading into the NCAA's, cant remember who number 4 was to.

Lost to UCLA in the Pac tourney. I thought we only had the 3 losses, but I could be wrong. We were 21-0 when Brandon went down.

I was 100% convinced, when we were sitting at 21-0, that we were going to go undefeated. Not only was there no doubt in my mind that we were the best team in the country, but looking at our schedule I knew nobody in the Pac could beat us.

Then Ashley goes down and here we are....

I felt the same. When Ashley got hurt I proceeded to get black out drunk and kicked out of a bar for dancing in a bar stool. I did not take the loss well.

ASUHATER! wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:The longer the tournament goes on will lessen the importance of the regular season "title". Plus it seems like the best team rarely wins the tournament

Not to most people. And why the "" on title? One is a conference title and one is a three game just for funsies tournament title.

So do you think the #1 team in the final regular season poll is the 'real' national champion... As opposed to the winner of a six and just for funnies tournament title?

I also value the regular season conference title more than the P12 tournament title - although not to the same degree I used to. Regardless, the P12 tourney is more important than your post suggests.

There is one big difference between the P12 tourney and the NCAA tourney, as far as tournaments go. What do you think it is?

Arizona:

ASU
@Colorado
@Utah
Cal
Stanford

Oregon:

Oregon State
Wazzu
UW
@UCLA
@USC

Utah:

@UCLA
@USC
ASU
Arizona
Colorado

Colorado:

@USC
@UCLA
Arizona
ASU
@Utah

Oregon probably has the easiest road ahead. We're going to need to split or better in the mountains to win the conference.

The only reason the conference tourney matters is because the powers that be saw a way to make more money. The only way it can make money is to switch the automatic bid from regular season champ to this affectation.

It's like when you're playing for a couple hours as a kid and one of your friends has to leave. "Next basket wins."

As for the real tournament, the best team often doesn't win, but it's either that or rely on voting. And we've seen how that's gone in football.

For majors, the conference tournament isn't that consequential, except it can cost a more deserving team elsewhere. For small conferences, it's everything, and really undermines the regular season.

Not too difficult to imagine OR losing two in L.A.

If you told me 2 weeks ago that we would be back tied at the top, I would say you're crazy. Health may be the biggest factor in remaining atop of the standings.

Its unfortunate we didn't take care of business in the Oregon game, or this would not be a slightly uphill battle. Still think we tie for the title in the end. All things considered, turnover, injuries, some bad bounces, and how tough the league this is this year, where we are at is pretty amazing. Still plenty of ball to play though. I think its amazing we are the only team in the conference w a winning conference road record.

rgdeuce wrote:. I think its amazing we are the only team in the conference w a winning conference road record.

This fact does not bode well for the Pac in the tourney. Historically, road record has been a reliable indicator of tourney success.

I wonder if USC or OR can get to the S-16.

Oregon was counting on Dylan Ennis being the point guard. Jordan Bell has been banged up. They've had some hurdles, too.

But, yeah, pretty crazy that we're tied for first this soon after losing to them.