Bear Down Wildcats

I suppose the key thing here may be the difference between a 4 seed (protected) and a 5 seed (not protected).

Olsondogg wrote:I'm seeing a 4 seed...if only for the 97 comparisons...

And we got swept on a road trip the next to last week of the season! (I think I remember that happening in '97, too).

Unfortunately, to me that is where the comparisons end, our guard play is not good this season - and my hopes/ expectations for the tournament do not extend beyond a Sweet 16. Which means absolutely nothing... except that we are positioned to possibly exceed my expectations for the first time in a while.

Anything can happen, and it will be kind of fun to watch the tournament without any big expectations. Except, of course, the realization that the season will have been a complete waste of time and unmitigated failure if we do not make the Final 4.

All I want is to make it to the PAC 12 finals and then the sweet 16.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology" target="_blank

Irish27 wrote:http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Duke, Kansas, Oregon/Kentucky path to the final four...

It's a joke that Oregon is a 2 in the Midwest and not the west!!!

ASUHATER! wrote:

Irish27 wrote:http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Duke, Kansas, Oregon/Kentucky path to the final four...

Bear down or Lay down!!!

3goggles wrote:It's a joke that Oregon is a 2 in the Midwest and not the west!!!

That's a mistake in the projection. Oregon will be in the West. They have to be.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology" target="_blank

Doesn't Lunardi do the whole bracket based off the S-curve instead of all considerations? Bracket Matrix has us as a 5 right now. How important do you think it is to stay out west this year? That hasn't helped us lately, while the other regions have fallen apart (Nova/UVA last year, looking at you). I'd love getting shipped east with some of the following: Kansas, Nova, UVA, Iowa State, Duke, all of whom I like for an early exit.

prh wrote:Doesn't Lunardi do the whole bracket based off the S-curve instead of all considerations? Bracket Matrix has us as a 5 right now. How important do you think it is to stay out west this year? That hasn't helped us lately, while the other regions have fallen apart (Nova/UVA last year, looking at you). I'd love getting shipped east with some of the following: Kansas, Nova, UVA, Iowa State, Duke, all of whom I like for an early exit.

You like Kansas and UVA for an early exit? Ooooook bud

I love KU and MSU and UVA's chances to win the whole thing. Nova, ISU, Duke, UK...not so much.

If UVA is a 1 over Oregon, which would be horseshit, I'd love to be in their bracket at the 4-5 game. I'll believe when I actually see it with UVA, same with Nova.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology" target="_blank

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... palm_preSS" target="_blank

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /81702546/" target="_blank

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spo ... on-sunday/" target="_blank

Is it time yet?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... ration/282" target="_blank

AZ a 2 seed in the West with #1 Villanova and #3 Louisville

6 P12 schools

Jefe wrote:Is it time yet?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... ration/282" target="_blank

AZ a 2 seed in the West with #1 Villanova and #3 Louisville

6 P12 schools

It offends me there are up and down arrows on that. Like a ton has changed in the first week of the offseason.

I would take that bracket any day

Anyone else think KU will be a 1 seed next year? That seems lofty given what they're losing.

If Trier does not play, I can't see us being a #2 seed.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology" target="_blank

Definitely not. If AT's out, you can switch our seed with UCLA's.

This is before the lost to Gonzaga.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology" target="_blank

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology" target="_blank

Looking awfully bubbly at the moment. Need some quality wins.

There are 25 at large teams below us. How is that bubble or bubbly?

Didn't get your troll toll today, better leave or pay it or get better. Please tell me you didn't graduate from U of A.

Beachcat97 wrote:http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

Looking awfully bubbly at the moment. Need some quality wins.

Haha. A 6 seed is nowhere close to the bubble. You are, as usual, being ridiculous.

I have to think that BC97 does this shit every year for superstitious reasons or something.

Beachcat97 wrote:http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

Looking awfully bubbly at the moment. Need some quality wins.

Delete your account.

A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

EVCat wrote:A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

Yeah. WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

EVCat wrote:A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

Well, to be completely fair, it's a hell of a lot easier to tumble down than it is to climb up. But still, Arizona is not in danger of being on he bubble at the moment.

Bruins01 wrote:

EVCat wrote:A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

Well, to be completely fair, it's a hell of a lot easier to tumble down than it is to climb up. But still, Arizona is not in danger of being on he bubble at the moment.

What you're not accounting for is that BC has us penciled in to lose our next 10 games.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Bruins01 wrote:

EVCat wrote:A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

Well, to be completely fair, it's a hell of a lot easier to tumble down than it is to climb up. But still, Arizona is not in danger of being on he bubble at the moment.

What you're not accounting for is that BC has us penciled in to lose our next 10 games.

Wow, that's fairly optimistic, don't you think? 10 game losing streaks happen often! This team, effected by the knowledge that they will lose by 300 to UCLA, is likely to score 0 points the rest of the season

Very bubbly. It's a down year. They happen.

Ill take this kind of down year any year

if we have to literally lose half of our team to be this "bad" then i'll take it.

Jefe wrote:Ill take this kind of down year any year

Let's see if you feel the same way in February.

dcZONAfan wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Bruins01 wrote:

EVCat wrote:A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

Well, to be completely fair, it's a hell of a lot easier to tumble down than it is to climb up. But still, Arizona is not in danger of being on he bubble at the moment.

What you're not accounting for is that BC has us penciled in to lose our next 10 games.

Wow, that's fairly optimistic, don't you think? 10 game losing streaks happen often! This team, effected by the knowledge that they will lose by 300 to UCLA, is likely to score 0 points the rest of the season

I was just about to say "It's a down year. They happen." Too slow.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I was just about to say "It's a down year. They happen." Too slow.

Exactly, SS. It's all good, though. Great class coming in next year. Hopefully at least a couple of our freshmen stick around.

Beachcat97 wrote:Very bubbly. It's a down year. They happen.

Ya know BC, just when I think you couldn't possibly post anything worse...you go and post something like this...

Bruins01 wrote:

EVCat wrote:A 6 is just about the halfway point from the bubble and being the #1 seed.

So we can be as excited about that West #1 as we are concerned about the bubble...

As a 6, we'd be playing against a bubble team...as the 6 in a 6/11...

Well, to be completely fair, it's a hell of a lot easier to tumble down than it is to climb up. But still, Arizona is not in danger of being on he bubble at the moment.

Yes...the teams above us could all tumble too.

It's absurd to talk about us as a 1 seed. I figure we'd have to win every game we have left other than maybe one or two to do that. But it is as absurd to put us on a bubble of any sort. We will be 11-2, ranked about 16, entering into the Cal/Stanford trip over New Years. Our bracketology seeding will be a 4/5 at that point. Thinking we'd have to go about 9-9 or 10-8 in conference...get to double digits in losses...before we even hit the danger of a double digit seed. A 9-9 conference, 20-11, and a first round exit from the PAC tournament? Now we are on that bubble, praying for conference champions to win their small conference tournaments. But anything from 10-8 and up in conference keeps us off a bubble.

We get to play the Washingtons twice, ASU twice, and Oregon only once. Our other two game opponents are the Bays (we should go no worse than 3-1 in those 4 games) and the LAs (UCLA will be a beast. 3-1 to 1-3 here). The Washingtons are 3-1 at worst, ASU is swept...even in the worst case scenario I can imagine, with 3 wins vs UW/WSU, 2 vs ASU, only 1 vs the LAs in 4 games, a split of 2-2 with the Bays, and 2 of 3 @ Oregon State and home vs Utah and Colorado, gets to 10-8. And that is the absolute nightmare scenario in my mind. So if we absolutely win no games we are underdogs in, get swept by UCLA and lose a game vs USC on top of it, and only split the Bay, I see 10 wins with our current roster (without even adding in Trier/PJC at some point).

Yeah, that's a lot of pointless prognosticating, but looking at our schedule realistically, the path to the bubble would take more than the disappointment we have felt when losing to a very good opponent this year...it would take a reverse of trend and us losing to teams we are clearly better than, and in bulk.

This is no longer for BC97's post...his troll doesn't deserve all this. But just as an exercise looking at our season ahead, just for the hell of looking at worst case scenarios (not including further player loss), it would take some out of character play for this team, which has won the games they should, and in multiple cases, with no mitigating wins in big games, to get to a point where this silliness is even in play.

EVCat wrote:It's absurd to talk about us as a 1 seed. I figure we'd have to win every game we have left other than maybe one or two to do that. But it is as absurd to put us on a bubble of any sort. We will be 11-2, ranked about 16, entering into the Cal/Stanford trip over New Years. Our bracketology seeding will be a 4/5 at that point. Thinking we'd have to go about 9-9 or 10-8 in conference...get to double digits in losses...before we even hit the danger of a double digit seed. A 9-9 conference, 20-11, and a first round exit from the PAC tournament? Now we are on that bubble, praying for conference champions to win their small conference tournaments. But anything from 10-8 and up in conference keeps us off a bubble.

10-3 heading into the Cal/Stanford trip, with 0 quality OOC wins. So unless we win 12+ games in the Pac, we'll be a little nervous on Selection Sunday, especially if we have 0 wins vs. UCLA or OR.

How many programs are still ranked with the second longest streak of being ranked during a "down" year caused by playing with only 7 scholarship players?
I can't remember a ranked team being on the bubble.

Beachcat97 wrote: 10-3 heading into the Cal/Stanford trip, with 0 quality OOC wins. So unless we win 12+ games in the Pac, we'll be a little nervous on Selection Sunday, especially if we have 0 wins vs. UCLA or OR.

Why 10-3? Why not 11-2? Did we lose to someone in the future? Are you expecting us to lose to an awful Missouri team? Or at home to Texas A&M?

You are factually incorrect about what it will take in the PAC...as much as a future decision can be. Our profile as it exists right now, at 7-2, is a 6 seed. We do not need to win 2/3rds of our conference games to not drop 6 more seeds. That is absurd. We need to win 12+ games in the PAC to maintain our current hypothetical seed.

10-8 in the PAC would give us 21 wins and a top 5 finish in a power conference. That would keep us off the bubble.

You seem to be operating from the frame of mind that we are currently on the bubble and need to play up. In reality, we can lose TWENTY spots from where we are right now at just be approaching the bubble.

Just saying something over and over again doesn't make it so...

Isn't the A&M game in Houston EVCat?

UAEebs86 wrote:Isn't the A&M game in Houston EVCat?

Is it? Yup. My bad.

That is my own documenting error. I have the games on my office whiteboard (yes, valuable whiteboard space gets taken for our schedule) and just had it as "vs", not "@".

Makes it tougher. But if the poster in question is deciding we will be 10-3 approaching the Bay trip because we will definitely lose a roadish neutral site game (clearly the majority of fans will be Texas A&M, but how many will that actually be?) to an unranked opponent hanging out in one of the two polls "receiving votes" section, I would still say that is more of a stretch than us winning the game.

Edited to add: it is part of a double header with Texas vs Arkansas. Unless UT fans become Aggy lovers for a day, which I cannot imagine, I am thinking that crowd will be empty to slowly filling and of little advantage to A&M.

One thing that may undo us the next two weeks is this crap 10am start time (local) both weeks.

Michigan State was a great win and will be proven to be so later in the year. By my count we are 4 and 2 vs tournament teams and have one more upcoming before conference play starts. Not exactly bubble material but lock material.

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I was just about to say "It's a down year. They happen." Too slow.

Exactly, SS. It's all good, though. Great class coming in next year. Hopefully at least a couple of our freshmen stick around.

I was mocking you.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I was just about to say "It's a down year. They happen." Too slow.

Exactly, SS. It's all good, though. Great class coming in next year. Hopefully at least a couple of our freshmen stick around.

I was mocking you.

Aren't we all?