Bear Down Wildcats

I don't even care who they throw at us at this point, I'm just ready to get this shit going

I think Oregon/Arizona/uCla all deserve 2 seeds. If Oregon wins out, they deserve a 1.

Olsondogg wrote:I think Oregon/Arizona/uCla all deserve 2 seeds. If Oregon wins out, they deserve a 1.

And if they don't win out, do you think they put the winner of the PAC 12 tourney winner in as the #1? Or, do you put a 1 loss Zag team who wins out their conference as the #1 in the West?

Gonna be interesting how the committee sets it up. Possibly SOS might be the determining factor.

gman4gov wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:I think Oregon/Arizona/uCla all deserve 2 seeds. If Oregon wins out, they deserve a 1.

And if they don't win out, do you think they put the winner of the PAC 12 tourney winner in as the #1? Or, do you put a 1 loss Zag team who wins out their conference as the #1 in the West?

Gonna be interesting how the committee sets it up. Possibly SOS might be the determining factor.

I think the Zags still get it, much to the dismay of seemingly everyone that isn't a Zags fan.

Consider just for a second the teams they've beaten: Florida, Iowa State, Arizona, St. Mary's (twice)...

gman4gov wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:I think Oregon/Arizona/uCla all deserve 2 seeds. If Oregon wins out, they deserve a 1.

And if they don't win out, do you think they put the winner of the PAC 12 tourney winner in as the #1? Or, do you put a 1 loss Zag team who wins out their conference as the #1 in the West?

Gonna be interesting how the committee sets it up. Possibly SOS might be the determining factor.

I think its a lock for Gonzaga unless they lose again. Big difference between 3 loss (now 4) Arizona w/ two losses without PJC in one and Trier in both, and Oregon's four losses - Colorado and Georgetown aren't good losses and ours were all to great teams. At this point, Oregon can only bolster their resume with a win against us or UCLA in the tournament title game, whereas we would have had the UCLA game and with that win (if we beat ASU), UCLA/Oregon in the title game (which we possibly may not have needed had we handled business Saturday).

I think whoever loses the UCLA/Arizona game at the Pac 12 tournament is going to get stuck with a 3 seed. The three pac 12 teams don't "measure up" in some of the basketball ranking metrics and they will use that to justify it.

I think if uCla loses in the first game, they are a 3. If they lose on Friday or Saturday they are a 2. Win out, and they are a 1.

Oregon? They are a 1 most likely if they win out provided some things happen in the other conferences.

Winner of the pac12 tournament assuming no losses this weekend between UCLA UA and Oregon gets the number 2 in the west.

Arizona was never getting a one over Kansas North Carolina Gonzaga Nova so the loss Saturday means nothing.

Did NC lose their 1 seed last night?

Jefe wrote:Did NC lose their 1 seed last night?

They should have, especially with how shitty UVA was this month, but you know . . . ACC . . .

Besides at UCLA do we have a major win? Is that why we are a three now in projections while Duke and Kentucky are being discussed as twos?

PHXCATS wrote:Besides at UCLA do we have a major win? Is that why we are a three now in projections while Duke and Kentucky are being discussed as twos?

outside of that our best wins of the year are probably @USC, @Utah and USC at home. we're not a bad team...but we just lost to pretty much every team we played that was any better than a like 8 seed in the tournament.

ASUHATER! wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:Besides at UCLA do we have a major win? Is that why we are a three now in projections while Duke and Kentucky are being discussed as twos?

outside of that our best wins of the year are probably @USC, @Utah and USC at home. we're not a bad team...but we just lost to pretty much every team we played that was any better than a like 8 seed in the tournament.

It remains to be seen is which is more important; a good win against a top team, or no bad losses.

Chicat wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:Besides at UCLA do we have a major win? Is that why we are a three now in projections while Duke and Kentucky are being discussed as twos?

outside of that our best wins of the year are probably @USC, @Utah and USC at home. we're not a bad team...but we just lost to pretty much every team we played that was any better than a like 8 seed in the tournament.

It remains to be seen is which is more important; a good win against a top team, or no bad losses.

seems like the selection committee hasn't made up their mind on that yet. never seems to be the same from year to year.

With teams who could still lose, am I insane for thinking if Arizona wins out (beating UCLA & Oregon obviously) they wouldn't have a chance at a 1? I would think #2 in the West would be worst case scenario.

I would say if Gonzaga and Arizona both win out Gonzaga is the 1 and Arizona is the 2 in the West. UCLA or Oregon wins out they are in the West as the 1 and Gonzaga is the top 2 and in the West

Arizona is not and was not going to get one of the 1 seeds. Its really not even debatable at this point.

With our forth loss coming against a high quality UCLA team a 2 seed is still possible if we were to win out and be crowned PAC 12 tournament champs. I don't see that scenario playing out as we will surely play either UCLA or Oregon again for the title.

Oregon is a terrible match-up problem for us and they will beat us again if we play for the title or any game leading up-to the title game.

So in my estimation is we are likely looking a fifth loss on the season to either UCLA or Oregon before selection Sunday and a subsequent three seed and placed in region who knows where.

We're a good team but not great and the team appears to be a little out of kilter as we come down to the finish line.

Bottom line is a fifth loss slots us as a three seed, where we go from there is anybodies guess.

#1 seed in the South - with Louisville or UNC as the #2 seed- is worse than #2 seed in the West. Seedings don't matter, matchups do. Our best bet is to beat ASU, get to the tournament final -while beating ucla again- and lose to Oregon in a close game. Oregon is a terrible matchup for Arizona, I can't see beating them anyway.

Hopefully that puts us as a #2 in West with Gonzaga. UCLA was a #4 seed in the first early committee bracket, so they have more work to do. (Although they have wins over @Kentucky, Oregon, @Arizona, arguably way better than UA).

If UNC wins their tournament and regular season conference title they're going to get #1.

#2 in the West is the best scenario, but I think what is most likely is #3 in the Midwest and play the first weekend in Salt Lake city.

This has been buggin the shit out of me for over a month.

Can anyone tell me why Florida State, a team that has lost 7 games, and been routinely in the 15-20 ranking for the AP and Coaches Polls has also routinely been listed as a #2 or #3 seed in the USA Today, ESPN and CBS Sports brackets?

Where does this come from? Other than playing Florida, the nonconference schedule sucks.

(Postscript: I see CBS finally finally! pushed them down to a 4 seed today, however I see USA Today still lists them as a #2 seed)

Because ACC

ASUHATER! wrote:Because ACC

Ohhh, right.

they have a couple of good wins (@ Virginia, Duke, ND, Louisville) and reached #6 in the AP poll before they had to play road games in conference play

Lost to Temple 86-83
Lost @ UNC 96-83
Lost @ Georgia Tech 78-56
Lost @ Syracuse 82-72
Lost @ Notre Dame 84-72
Lost @ Pittsburgh 80-66
Lost @ Duke 75-70

In other news, lunardi latest bracket has us playing in Salt Lake in the South. Which could be the toughest region top 4

South:
1. UNC
2. UK
3. Arizona
4. West Virginia

Midwest:
1. Kansas
2. Louisville
3. UCLA
4. Virginia

West:
1. Gonzaga
2. Oregon
3. Butler
4. Florida State

East:
1. Villanova
2. Baylor
3. Duke
4. Florida

I can't wait till lunardi retires.

Baylor is not a 2

UNC is not a one.

Oregon should be.

Also Cal, USC, X, Wake are the last four teams in.

PAC 12 is pretty weak, the #4 & #5 teams in the conference are barely sneaking in probably having to play play in games.

CalStateTempe wrote:UNC is not a one.

Oregon should be.

I checked their schedule, North Carolina hasn't beaten a tournament team outside of Chapel Hill.

Beat Oklahoma St, Wisconsin in Hawaii
Lost @ Indiana
Lost to Kentucky in Vegas
Lost @ GTech
Lost @ Miami
Lost @ Duke
Lost @ Virginia

Wake Forest is their best win on the road. I think they'll lose early based on being terrible away from Dean Smith Center.

They don't deserve the #1 but if they win the ACC conference and tournament they'll get it.

NYCat wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:UNC is not a one.

Oregon should be.

I checked their schedule, North Carolina hasn't beaten a tournament team outside of Chapel Hill.

Beat Oklahoma St, Wisconsin in Hawaii
Lost @ Indiana
Lost to Kentucky in Vegas
Lost @ GTech
Lost @ Miami
Lost @ Duke
Lost @ Virginia

Wake Forest is their best win on the road. I think they'll lose early based on being terrible away from Dean Smith Center.

They don't deserve the #1 but if they win the ACC conference and tournament they'll get it.

High ceiling, basement level floor.

All the talent in the world, but a headcase.

But ACC.

No its not because ACC, it's all about $$$$$$ and TV ratings. That's how the they seed, for big matchups, good storylines, TV ratings and markets. They'll set up Indiana vs ND or Butler. Wichita St vs Kansas, former coach vs ex team (i.e. Arizona vs Sean Miller), teams with history, Virginia/Michigan St, Arizona/Wisconsin. They'll force seedings just to set up matchups because that'll give them ratings and sell tickets.

Mick Cronin talks about it here.

Yup. Totally agree.

And that's why we all know Wichita State is going to be lined up with KU

I don't think we're getting a #1 under any circumstances. With that, the only thing that matters is matchups. Region, 2 vs 3, don't care. We need matchups that favor us or maybe a few upsets.

NYCat wrote: Midwest:
1. Kansas
2. Louisville
3. UCLA
4. Virginia

That Midwest bracket looks brutal. Though I'm confused, how could the #3 team in the country, UCLA, fall to a 3 seed? They'd have to lose to WSU this weekend or to another equally pathetic team in the first round of the Pac12 tourney to fall out of the top 10, wouldn't they?

Personally I think the South looks great! I'd love for Arizona to have that bracket and have only Kentucky to worry about in the Sweet 16. I'll leave the predictions to the pundits but I could see Oregon and Arizona in the Elite 8. I'm not as confident about UCLA in that mid-west bracket.

He's needs to take up residence at the old folks home.

Wisconsin lost to Iowa so that can only mean one thing

#3 Arizona vs #6 Wisconsin

Book it







if we move up to a #2 seed we get Archie, (maybe even Wisconsin also if they sucking it up)

#2 Arizona vs #7 Dayton

Book it.

Chicat wrote:

Yeah I don't always get Joes picks, but he has a point here, at THIS MOMENT, Ucla is third in it's conference had a terrible non conference schedule and also leaf is question-mark...I know they beat us at home but they also lost to us at home so its a wash...unless you suggest that the bottom of the Pac12 is like really good they have some losses and a funky schedule that does not say "#1 or #2 seed...

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Yeah I don't always get Joes picks, but he has a point here, at THIS MOMENT, Ucla is third in it's conference had a terrible non conference schedule and also leaf is question-mark...I know they beat us at home but they also lost to us at home so its a wash...unless you suggest that the bottom of the Pac12 is like really good they have some losses and a funky schedule that does not say "#1 or #2 seed...

UCLA is third solely because Oregon and Arizona only played each other once.

Bruins01 wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Yeah I don't always get Joes picks, but he has a point here, at THIS MOMENT, Ucla is third in it's conference had a terrible non conference schedule and also leaf is question-mark...I know they beat us at home but they also lost to us at home so its a wash...unless you suggest that the bottom of the Pac12 is like really good they have some losses and a funky schedule that does not say "#1 or #2 seed...

UCLA is third solely because Oregon and Arizona only played each other once.

I thought it was because they lost to USC.

Bruins01 wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Yeah I don't always get Joes picks, but he has a point here, at THIS MOMENT, Ucla is third in it's conference had a terrible non conference schedule and also leaf is question-mark...I know they beat us at home but they also lost to us at home so its a wash...unless you suggest that the bottom of the Pac12 is like really good they have some losses and a funky schedule that does not say "#1 or #2 seed...

UCLA is third solely because Oregon and Arizona only played each other once.

Um no. Ucla could have easily lost at cal or vs Utah if they had to play them a second time.

UCLA is #16 in RPI. Nice 5-3 top 50 rpi record but #136 in SOS! Arizona is only 4-4 in top 50 rpi but #31 in SOS. The difference comes down to scheduling 2 harder teams. It worked for UCLA and got them on a roll but it cost them a seed (or two).

We all agree Gonzaga is in a worst conference (I hope we do) and their SOS was 103.

I think I have a feeling on what the committee will do. I am pretty sure all the Pac12 teams are locked in and only the sites will change based on the next week's results. Oregon is a 2 and AZ/UCLA is a 3.

PHXCATS wrote:

Bruins01 wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Yeah I don't always get Joes picks, but he has a point here, at THIS MOMENT, Ucla is third in it's conference had a terrible non conference schedule and also leaf is question-mark...I know they beat us at home but they also lost to us at home so its a wash...unless you suggest that the bottom of the Pac12 is like really good they have some losses and a funky schedule that does not say "#1 or #2 seed...

UCLA is third solely because Oregon and Arizona only played each other once.

Um no. Ucla could have easily lost at cal or vs Utah if they had to play them a second time.

Haha. Sure, whatever makes you feel better about how it happened. I don't particularly care, and I don't think the committee does either, but let's just be rational here. If Oregon and Arizona had played each other more than once, UCLA and one of those two would be tied for second in conference.

Haha. Sure, whatever makes you feel better about your "bad luck" due to a schedule that doesn't include your team.

I think most rational people who have watched all 3 of these teams closely would say Oregon is the best team in the conference and AZ/ UCLA are both basically equal right behind

Bear Down Vegas wrote:Haha. Sure, whatever makes you feel better about your "bad luck" due to a schedule that doesn't include your team.

You know you have to be quoting somebody else to put things in quotation marks, right?

Bruins01 wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Bruins01 wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Yeah I don't always get Joes picks, but he has a point here, at THIS MOMENT, Ucla is third in it's conference had a terrible non conference schedule and also leaf is question-mark...I know they beat us at home but they also lost to us at home so its a wash...unless you suggest that the bottom of the Pac12 is like really good they have some losses and a funky schedule that does not say "#1 or #2 seed...

UCLA is third solely because Oregon and Arizona only played each other once.

Um no. Ucla could have easily lost at cal or vs Utah if they had to play them a second time.

Haha. Sure, whatever makes you feel better about how it happened. I don't particularly care, and I don't think the committee does either, but let's just be rational here. If Oregon and Arizona had played each other more than once, UCLA and one of those two would be tied for second in conference.

Rationally, here's the reason for the standings.

Oregon is #1 because they had one misstep vs a member of the non-power three in the Pac , but are 2-1 vs the other big 3.

Arizona is #2 because they're only 1-2 vs the other big 3 members, but have no L's to the lower teams.

UCLA is #3 because they're 2-2 vs the big 3 and have lost to a lower team.

If UCLA has an issue with where they're at, they shouldn't have lost to USC. Oregon only survived that by being over .500 vs the big boys. We have our advantage because we haven't lost to anyone but the big boys.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Rationally, here's the reason for the standings.

Oregon is #1 because they had one misstep vs a member of the non-power three in the Pac , but are 2-1 vs the other big 3.

Arizona is #2 because they're only 1-2 vs the other big 3 members, but have no L's to the lower teams.

UCLA is #3 because they're 2-2 vs the big 3 and have lost to a lower team.

If UCLA has an issue with where they're at, they shouldn't have lost to USC. Oregon only survived that by being over .500 vs the big boys. We have our advantage because we haven't lost to anyone but the big boys.

You're getting me wrong here. I am complaining about the unbalanced schedule. I actually like that UCLA played both Oregon and Arizona twice, because all four games were fun as hell and I got to attend two of them. I don't think UCLA was going to win the conference either way nor do I think the committee is stupid enough to factor that into seedings, I'm just saying that the unbalanced schedule is the only reason UCLA is in third place rather than tied for second.

If you want to have a separate and much more interesting conversation about whether UCLA was the best team in the conference...

USC USC USC USC USC usc

Is it really not possible to have a substantive conversation without childishness from Arizona fans? I don't even know what I said in this thread that could possibly have offended anybody.

Bruins01 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Rationally, here's the reason for the standings.

Oregon is #1 because they had one misstep vs a member of the non-power three in the Pac , but are 2-1 vs the other big 3.

Arizona is #2 because they're only 1-2 vs the other big 3 members, but have no L's to the lower teams.

UCLA is #3 because they're 2-2 vs the big 3 and have lost to a lower team.

If UCLA has an issue with where they're at, they shouldn't have lost to USC. Oregon only survived that by being over .500 vs the big boys. We have our advantage because we haven't lost to anyone but the big boys.

You're getting me wrong here. I am complaining about the unbalanced schedule. I actually like that UCLA played both Oregon and Arizona twice, because all four games were fun as hell and I got to attend two of them. I don't think UCLA was going to win the conference either way nor do I think the committee is stupid enough to factor that into seedings, I'm just saying that the unbalanced schedule is the only reason UCLA is in third place rather than tied for second.

If you want to have a separate and much more interesting conversation about whether UCLA was the best team in the conference...

I'm saying that one factor never solely defines where you wind up. The unbalanced schedule gave UCLA one more game than Oregon or Arizona, but that doesn't matter if UCLA doesn't lose to USC.

Blame the schedule, but USC matters just as much.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Bruins01 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Rationally, here's the reason for the standings.

Oregon is #1 because they had one misstep vs a member of the non-power three in the Pac , but are 2-1 vs the other big 3.

Arizona is #2 because they're only 1-2 vs the other big 3 members, but have no L's to the lower teams.

UCLA is #3 because they're 2-2 vs the big 3 and have lost to a lower team.

If UCLA has an issue with where they're at, they shouldn't have lost to USC. Oregon only survived that by being over .500 vs the big boys. We have our advantage because we haven't lost to anyone but the big boys.

You're getting me wrong here. I am complaining about the unbalanced schedule. I actually like that UCLA played both Oregon and Arizona twice, because all four games were fun as hell and I got to attend two of them. I don't think UCLA was going to win the conference either way nor do I think the committee is stupid enough to factor that into seedings, I'm just saying that the unbalanced schedule is the only reason UCLA is in third place rather than tied for second.

If you want to have a separate and much more interesting conversation about whether UCLA was the best team in the conference...

I'm saying that one factor never solely defines where you wind up. The unbalanced schedule gave UCLA one more game than Oregon or Arizona, but that doesn't matter if UCLA doesn't lose to USC.

Blame the schedule, but USC matters just as much.

Well, duh...

My whole point was that the committee shouldn't give Arizona or Oregon a higher seed than UCLA just because UCLA finished behind them on the conference standings, simply because of the unbalanced conference schedule. The USC loss has nothing to do with that.