Bear Down Wildcats

I'll be surprised if we can go win at the Zags, that's as tough of a OOC road game as there is on the west coast.

catgrad97 wrote:The Cats win without Zeus and the way Providence was able to hang with Michigan State gives me more hope than I had on Saturday.

But no matter the severity of the injury, Tollefsen should back up Anderson for the rest of the season and never make another start again. He's a fifth-year senior who plays more lost than PJC on the floor, most of the time. Why?

Catching up to the system and the demands of major college basketball. Arizona is major college basketball, San Francisco is not.

So we fall to 19 but only 4 spots in the coaches poll. Not that it matters but the eye test might mean a spot or two with the committee come seeding time.

I would think the PAC champ would be no less than a 4 seed so as long as we take care of business in conference we should be OK

Olsondogg wrote:I'll be surprised if we can go win at the Zags, that's as tough of a OOC road game as there is on the west coast.

I can't imagine trying to play them without Tarc.

I think it is safe to say that the Pac line defense is a more cerebral defense as opposed to being purely athletic. I think it will take some t ok me for these 1 year transfers to get in the right spot for Miller's liking.

Be patient G, we will improve and I think we are even now from game to game

catgrad97 wrote:The Cats win without Zeus and the way Providence was able to hang with Michigan State gives me more hope than I had on Saturday.

But no matter the severity of the injury, Tollefsen should back up Anderson for the rest of the season and never make another start again. He's a fifth-year senior who plays more lost than PJC on the floor, most of the time. Why?

No need for absolutes. It's a work in progress. If we're benching for "lost," we won't have enough guys. First-year player in this program.

catgrad97 wrote:Look, I feel bad for the dude, and there's still plenty of time for him to get it--though his playing style just doesn't seem capable of making that leap from the West Coast Conference, for whatever reason.

Trust me when I say this, I agree with everything you are saying about him, which I have deleted for the sake of keeping things brief. Our complaints are the same every game, and I have been critical of him from the first time I saw him in person. And even when...

Merkin wrote:Tollefsen had 10 points, 5 boards, 3 blocks, 1 assist with 1 TO in 21 minutes against BSU.

He had his best all around game for us yesterday. But like I said above, still over the backs in bonus situations that send guys to the line, still letting anyone blow by him, not realizing we are extremely thin on the interior and forgetting he had four fouls and promptly fouling out, still plenty of brain farts that don't show up in a stat sheet. The timing of a lot of his mental lapses are what hurt the worst.

Olsondogg wrote:
Adj at #11....

http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjDE" target="_blank

I've been keeping my eye on Kenpom and this just seems like one of those cases where numbers don't tell the correct story. I know some of it is what we are used to, but im not sure I have seen anybody praising this defense or even considering it good. From Miller, to the teams, to a ton of smart analysts and the really smart posters on here. It seems to be pretty obvious too. I was more impressed with Providence's defense than ours, they are ranked 67th. Michigan States blows ours out of the water.

azcat49 wrote:So we fall to 19 but only 4 spots in the coaches poll. Not that it matters but the eye test might mean a spot or two with the committee come seeding time.

I would think the PAC champ would be no less than a 4 seed so as long as we take care of business in conference we should be OK

Again, more BS. Not sure of many instances where an "eye test," or En Fuego's favorite "technical loss" is used against teams in the polls. Clearly what happened with the writers with us dropping 8 spots (tell me when a loss to a team who is subsequently ranked and gives a top 3 team all they can handle the next game drops you eight spots. Plus we handled Boise State better than Mich State did two days earlier), yet the coaches who aren't typically a bunch of blowhards only dropped us four. Virginia lost to an unranked George Washington team and only dropped 6 spots, and I don't remember them being down any major pieces, like we were with Zeus, and I'm not sure I see any quality wins on their schedule so far.

The funny thing is, A&M climbs 7 spots. Yes, they beat Gonzaga, but they also lost to a Syracuse team who wasnt even receiving any poll votes at the time (now 14th). I don't know of many already ranked teams that go 1-1 and climb 7 spots, especially when they didn't have any big wins before It wasnt like they beat a top 5 team and lost to another.

As for the committee's eye test: a WIN in November with almost a completely new team who was down their 2nd best player/fourth year senior and wooden award candidate, that's going to have virtually little of a negative effect on us. How teams are playing January through seedings holds significantly more weight as is, many are going to forget the blown free throws at the end, and they all are going to take Zeus' injury (and Smith's even though he is done for the season, it still is a major loss that requires major early adjustments) into consideration. If you really want to get deep into the eye test, Santa Clara wasnt playing like an 0-5 team that night and their dude had a career game.

I believe early in the season, the kenpom ratings have a lag element that relies on the teams performance in the prior 2 or 3 years, so I would expect our defense rating to reflect that. I know he has talked about this effect on his blog, but it's not that great to search.

We were plagued by stupid stuff in LA. I can remember against Providence a rebound with 4 of our players in the lane and fumbling it out of bounds. That sort of thing has been happening a ton and it costs us. Thing is, all you can do is hope people mentally tune in.

It's a long year. Maintaining focus and getting better day to day is what matters at this point.

Off subject! I just want to say how happy I am to see all these names of posters I liked in the past. I could not find you when GoAZCats imploded. Finally! It feels like Christmas for me.

DiehardDave37 wrote:Off subject! I just want to say how happy I am to see all these names of posters I liked in the past. I could not find you when GoAZCats imploded. Finally! It feels like Christmas for me.

Welcome aboard.

rgdeuce wrote:

azcat49 wrote:So we fall to 19 but only 4 spots in the coaches poll. Not that it matters but the eye test might mean a spot or two with the committee come seeding time.

I would think the PAC champ would be no less than a 4 seed so as long as we take care of business in conference we should be OK

Again, more BS. Not sure of many instances where an "eye test," or En Fuego's favorite "technical loss" is used against teams in the polls. Clearly what happened with the writers with us dropping 8 spots (tell me when a loss to a team who is subsequently ranked and gives a top 3 team all they can handle the next game drops you eight spots. Plus we handled Boise State better than Mich State did two days earlier), yet the coaches who aren't typically a bunch of blowhards only dropped us four. Virginia lost to an unranked George Washington team and only dropped 6 spots, and I don't remember them being down any major pieces, like we were with Zeus, and I'm not sure I see any quality wins on their schedule so far.

The funny thing is, A&M climbs 7 spots. Yes, they beat Gonzaga, but they also lost to a Syracuse team who wasnt even receiving any poll votes at the time (now 14th). I don't know of many already ranked teams that go 1-1 and climb 7 spots, especially when they didn't have any big wins before It wasnt like they beat a top 5 team and lost to another.

As for the committee's eye test: a WIN in November with almost a completely new team who was down their 2nd best player/fourth year senior and wooden award candidate, that's going to have virtually little of a negative effect on us. How teams are playing January through seedings holds significantly more weight as is, many are going to forget the blown free throws at the end, and they all are going to take Zeus' injury (and Smith's even though he is done for the season, it still is a major loss that requires major early adjustments) into consideration. If you really want to get deep into the eye test, Santa Clara wasnt playing like an 0-5 team that night and their dude had a career game.

I think 19 is too high, because 11 was too high. So another way to look at it is that we were overrated by the same people you're complaining about now. Unless, of course, you think we actually were the 11th best team at the time. Santa Clara makes one of two free throws and we're out of the Top 25. Not even close. So are we a better team because the guy missed both?

DiehardDave37 wrote:Off subject! I just want to say how happy I am to see all these names of posters I liked in the past. I could not find you when GoAZCats imploded. Finally! It feels like Christmas for me.

Hey, Dave. Good to see you, too.

DiehardDave37 wrote:Off subject! I just want to say how happy I am to see all these names of posters I liked in the past. I could not find you when GoAZCats imploded. Finally! It feels like Christmas for me.

Haha, nice!

Out of curiosity, how did you find the site?

rgdeuce wrote:

azcat49 wrote:So we fall to 19 but only 4 spots in the coaches poll. Not that it matters but the eye test might mean a spot or two with the committee come seeding time.

I would think the PAC champ would be no less than a 4 seed so as long as we take care of business in conference we should be OK

Again, more BS. Not sure of many instances where an "eye test," or En Fuego's favorite "technical loss" is used against teams in the polls. Clearly what happened with the writers with us dropping 8 spots (tell me when a loss to a team who is subsequently ranked and gives a top 3 team all they can handle the next game drops you eight spots. Plus we handled Boise State better than Mich State did two days earlier), yet the coaches who aren't typically a bunch of blowhards only dropped us four. Virginia lost to an unranked George Washington team and only dropped 6 spots, and I don't remember them being down any major pieces, like we were with Zeus, and I'm not sure I see any quality wins on their schedule so far.

I think it had as much to do with getting absolutely bailed out by two missed free throws against a very bad 0-5 Santa Clara team as it did with losing to Providence. In fact I'd definitely say our game or lack there of against Santa Clara is the predominant reason we fell in the polls. The Providence loss was just the cherry on top.

Olsondogg wrote:

Main Event wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:

Main Event wrote:I've already accepted we're not going to be nearly as good defensively especially if we're really throwing out PJC-Gabe-Tollefsen on the perimeter to start. Offensively we'll probably shoot it better but we're not getting to the line nearly as much as we did last year and we're asking a lot from PJC to create for guys who haven't shown they can create offense for themselves consistently.

You may have a point about getting to the line, but I doubt the dropoff will be as much. I don't think we are suddenly going to become a perimeter team, and I would expect Zeus to get the ball inside more often (insert smartass comment about his hands). I don't have data in front of me about how the FT's compare year to year to year, but I am guessing they are pretty consistent year in and year out based on the sets that the coaching staff uses.

Defensively, I said I was concerned more than offense, but I am really not that concerned. I mean, we will likely still be a top 20 defensive team by the end of the year.

Defensive Efficiency
14-15: 3rd
13-14: 1st
12-13: 47th
11-12: 41st
10-11: 88th

If we're a top 20 team defensively next year go ahead and build him a statue

Are you and Choo Choo at least drawing up plans?

Adj at #11....

http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjDE" target="_blank

Against the 243rd toughest schedule in the nation. Also Pomeroy himself said his numbers don't mean much and aren't remotely accurate until 10-12 games into the season.

We should probably take tips from Boston College and Evansville how to stop elite players like Jared Brownridge.

Choo Choo and Gumby. My beef is not with us being dropped for undeserved reasons. I agree, we probably weren't the 10th or 11th best team in the country and I am more than fine with a number 19 ranking right now.

My beef is two-fold:

1) voters using the "eye-test" against us. Which is fine if consistent, but historically I have not seen many blue blood or second tier programs dropped in the rankings because they got a lucky victory or squeeked out a win against a bad team.

2) Voters not taking injury into account. Again, fine if it is consistent, but how many times have we seen top teams lose a game when one of their top players are out, and they don't lose much ground. It's always, "well ____ was hurt." With us, Zeus being arguably our most important piece when you factor in his defense and presence, obviously it was a non-factor. We drop 8 slots losing to a team worthy of the top 25 and an eye test game. Even in hindsight, Michigan State struggled with Providence and may have lost if he didnt pick up foul 4 with tons of time left, and we handled Boise State better than Michigan State did. You think if Wichita State was down Van Fleet and only lost a game, they would plummet? We didn't get to see that cuz they completely imploded with him gone and lost a string of games.

If we were overrated, then fine. It is what it is. But again, not my beef. And coaches, who obviously understand that a win is a win and understand how missing such a huge piece can make things difficult and losses understandable, dropped us half the slots the writers did.

If voters are not to use the eye test then should we just rely on the computer guys? Pomeroy has us at 19. Sagarin has us at 25. RPI Forecast has us at 28. Looks like the Coaches and writers might have us a little too high.

If injuries and such are to be factored in for Arizona shouldn't the opposing teams little footnotes also be considered also? Like Pacific not having three starters playing; or, Northwestern State not having their point guard available; or, Providence having their megastar in foul trouble all game.

KaibabKat wrote:If voters are not to use the eye test then should we just rely on the computer guys? Pomeroy has us at 19. Sagarin has us at 25. RPI Forecast has us at 28. Looks like the Coaches and writers might have us a little too high.

If injuries and such are to be factored in for Arizona shouldn't the opposing teams little footnotes also be considered also? Like Pacific not having three starters playing; or, Northwestern State not having their point guard available; or, Providence having their megastar in foul trouble all game.

I've never seen the point of rankings this early.

Athletic wings will be this team's greatest defensive issue. Simon has the most potential from a defensive perspective, but he is the most raw offensively. We shall see if he gets more or less PT as the season moves along.

This team will get better and better defensively. We have lots of guys who have never played a season under Miller. By March our defense should be very tough. We also have a lot of scorers on this team. Maybe more than we have had in years. I have no doubt that will improve as well.

I don't think anyone will be too excited to see Arizona in their bracket come March, regardless of what our ranking is today. Let's just enjoy the ride! (Though that Santa Clara game was decidedly NOT an enjoyable ride in any way!)

Go Cats!!

KaibabKat wrote:If voters are not to use the eye test then should we just rely on the computer guys? Pomeroy has us at 19. Sagarin has us at 25. RPI Forecast has us at 28. Looks like the Coaches and writers might have us a little too high.

If injuries and such are to be factored in for Arizona shouldn't the opposing teams little footnotes also be considered also? Like Pacific not having three starters playing; or, Northwestern State not having their point guard available; or, Providence having their megastar in foul trouble all game.

Jesus. I'm not sure how you are missing this, I thought it was pretty clearly stated in the previous post that: I don't have beef with our ranking, I dont have beef with the eye test, I don't have beef with injuries being considered or not considered. My beef is the double standard, how one thing applies to us, while it doesn't to the next program. This has been typical with our program for quite some time, and looking at the big picture, it is a problem that affects plenty of other west coast programs. Certain writers, bloggers, analysts, etc., wait with baited breath for a west coast school to lose or struggle so they can say, "See, I told you so, they aren't for real, they were overrated." Just about everyone else has to lose games to drop and close games or games where they struggle are not used against them. injuries are accounted for most of the time.

I frankly do not care about our current ranking all that much, as much as I like being ranked 10th, or at least in the top 25, I'm more concerned with this team improving.

rgdeuce wrote:Choo Choo and Gumby. My beef is not with us being dropped for undeserved reasons. I agree, we probably weren't the 10th or 11th best team in the country and I am more than fine with a number 19 ranking right now.

My beef is two-fold:

1) voters using the "eye-test" against us. Which is fine if consistent, but historically I have not seen many blue blood or second tier programs dropped in the rankings because they got a lucky victory or squeeked out a win against a bad team.

2) Voters not taking injury into account. Again, fine if it is consistent, but how many times have we seen top teams lose a game when one of their top players are out, and they don't lose much ground. It's always, "well ____ was hurt." With us, Zeus being arguably our most important piece when you factor in his defense and presence, obviously it was a non-factor. We drop 8 slots losing to a team worthy of the top 25 and an eye test game. Even in hindsight, Michigan State struggled with Providence and may have lost if he didnt pick up foul 4 with tons of time left, and we handled Boise State better than Michigan State did. You think if Wichita State was down Van Fleet and only lost a game, they would plummet? We didn't get to see that cuz they completely imploded with him gone and lost a string of games.

If we were overrated, then fine. It is what it is. But again, not my beef. And coaches, who obviously understand that a win is a win and understand how missing such a huge piece can make things difficult and losses understandable, dropped us half the slots the writers did.

You may have a spreadsheet that documents all of that -- please say you don't -- but it seems like a lot of analysis based on speculation larded with mitigating factors and what-ifs.

Why bother? It will all work out if we're good. And won't if we're not. Important thing is we agree the team has a ways to go to get near Top 10 again. If the "blue bloods" are overrated, it will be a bigger embarrassment when they lose. We've been there, too.

The sight-unseen high ranking while losing four starters suggests that we're deemed to be fairly regal.

Which west coast teams are getting dissed exactly? In the last 20 years 1 team west of the Rockies (Arizona) has won a National Championship. In that same span of time only two teams from the west, Arizona and UCLA, have made it to the Final Four. Eighty chances - five appearances (2 Arizona, 3 UCLA, 0 everybody else) for those western teams that get no respect. It has been eight years since any team from the west was good enough to make it to a final four - eight years. There is no east coast bias but there seems to be a whole lot of west coast sniveling.

KaibabKat wrote:Which west coast teams are getting dissed exactly? In the last 20 years 1 team west of the Rockies (Arizona) has won a National Championship. In that same span of time only two teams from the west, Arizona and UCLA, have made it to the Final Four. Eighty chances - five appearances (2 Arizona, 3 UCLA, 0 everybody else) for those western teams that get no respect. It has been eight years since any team from the west was good enough to make it to a final four - eight years. There is no east coast bias but there seems to be a whole lot of west coast sniveling.

There's only one power 5 conference with members west of the Rockies. For comparison's sake, the SEC has KY and Fla during that time period and that's it. Big 12, KU and Texas.

For what it's worth, I did no research into the above, but sure cannot remember more teams than that in the last 20.

Edit: I think you're forgetting Utah too. There was the one time in 98 that sticks out in my mind...

KaibabKat wrote:Which west coast teams are getting dissed exactly? In the last 20 years 1 team west of the Rockies (Arizona) has won a National Championship. In that same span of time only two teams from the west, Arizona and UCLA, have made it to the Final Four. Eighty chances - five appearances (2 Arizona, 3 UCLA, 0 everybody else) for those western teams that get no respect. It has been eight years since any team from the west was good enough to make it to a final four - eight years. There is no east coast bias but there seems to be a whole lot of west coast sniveling.

I think that stat is telling. But I also see where so often the west coast teams really get shafted when it comes to seeding. Geographically, you're lucky to have more than one region west of the Mississippi River each year. Maybe in Texas. Maybe. That's a long haul for the west coast teams that are shipped to the South, East, or Midwest Region. Hell, even if your a west coast team the travel is still a haul. The NCAA tourney is about $$$, but it sure would be nice to see multiple regions in the Pacific NW, the Southwest or even the Rocky Mt. time area. Instead, the West is lumped into anything west of Texas & Oklahoma. That's a lot of real estate.

It's a real up hill battle for any west coast team to make any headway in the tourney unless they're an elite program. It's just too hard to win that many games. And the odds of that happening are tougher when all the good west coast teams are all bunched in one region. Take 2014, where Arizona played Gonzaga, then SDSU in the same region before facing Wisconsin. If you have 2 or 3 really good west coast teams, they aren't going to be spread out in different regions. So the most you're going to get the Final Four is one. Last year, Gonzaga was shipped out and faced Duke in Houston.

In 2011, UW was good enough to possibly make a deep run but they ended up getting shipped to Charlotte to face #2 seed UNC. That's really tough. UW lost in OT. Also in 2011, SDSU had probably their best season ever and was in the same Anaheim region as Arizona. They lost to UCONN in the round before. Had they won, it would've been Arizona & SDSU in the Elite Eight. But still, only one west coast team would've made it.

The NCAA would never allow multiple regions west of Texas because of travel, money, etc... But I think you'd see more west coast teams if that happened.

I think part of your argument is valid because there just aren't many elite west coast teams.

Just heard that Zeus is out four to six weeks

az91 wrote:Just heard that Zeus is out four to six weeks

Where?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

az91 wrote:Just heard that Zeus is out four to six weeks

Where?

Pascoe tweeted it.

az91 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

az91 wrote:Just heard that Zeus is out four to six weeks

Where?

Pascoe tweeted it.

Ugh. I was hoping it was a completely unreliable source trying to scare us.

That really hurts.

ESPN just posted. Stress reaction in foot. Lovely. It appears the injury bug has migrated from football to basketball. We are fvkin snake bit this year in athletics. First Ray Smith. Now Tarc. We've basically lost two starters due to injury and it's only December 1st.

Didn't we have enough injuries in football? Why do the sports Gods hate us?

The way they were pressing down on foot made it look like something other than an ankle sprain. Not as bad as Ashley.

Precursor to stress fracture.

http://www.active.com/running/articles/ ... e-recovery" target="_blank

Guards better work on digging the post.

Good thing we did not redshirt Comanche after all.

KaibabKat wrote:Which west coast teams are getting dissed exactly? In the last 20 years 1 team west of the Rockies (Arizona) has won a National Championship. In that same span of time only two teams from the west, Arizona and UCLA, have made it to the Final Four. Eighty chances - five appearances (2 Arizona, 3 UCLA, 0 everybody else) for those western teams that get no respect. It has been eight years since any team from the west was good enough to make it to a final four - eight years. There is no east coast bias but there seems to be a whole lot of west coast sniveling.

You left off UCLA's 1995 championship and Utah and Stanford's final fours. Regardless, we are talking about individual teams here, and there have been plenty of great teams from the west in that time frame that did not make final fours or win titles for various reasons. It's a crap shoot and the best teams dont always win. For one, there are significantly more college conferences, power conferences, and schools away from the west. The Big East and Big 10 can put 7, 8 teams in a tournament and have much better odds at getting a final four as opposed to a conference putting 2-4 in. The talent base and pool is vastly inferior out here to pretty much all geographic locations, let alone competing with the rest of the country as a whole. Time zone differences create a big disadvantage in the tournament. Seeding issues. A tournament where one prayer, an off night, some bad calls, crap luck, etc. can send you home holds weight but isn't the end-all. The west is at a disadvantage as is and has done a decent job despite that.

Regardless, this 2014 data that reflects conference winning percentages in the first round over the past 10 years, Pac 12 is fourth behind ACC, Big 10, and Big 12, and is ahead of the Big East and SEC. The disparity between the Pac 12 and the other conferences looks to be between 5-7%. Same time frame, second round, Pac 12 is fourth behind American, Big East and Big 12, but ahead of ACC, Big 10, and SEC. The sweet 16 is a dropoff (7th), but the elite 8 bounces back up with tied-4th w Big East, behind ACC (marginal), Big 10 and American. Trips to the final four, we are 4th in that data behind ACC, SEC and Big 10 (and rank 3rd since 1985). So no, we arent an elite conference out of the power conferences, but the Pac 12 is not a complete joke either. and seems to fit in that #4 range when you really break down the numbers, factoring in the last two years, we probably stay in that range but are trending down. Like I said though, tournament is not the end-all. By no means am I calling our conference or us underrated, but to completely shit on us is ridiculous. And you know our luck in elite 8 games.. what is that, 5 since 2001?

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/ ... ament.aspx" target="_blank

Christ on that Zeus news

Get well soon big fella!

So Smith out for the year, Tarc out for probably a dozen games total, Anderson has a bum ankle. Time for Ristic and Comanche to step up. Just gotta find a way to make the tournament.

carolinacat wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:Which west coast teams are getting dissed exactly? In the last 20 years 1 team west of the Rockies (Arizona) has won a National Championship. In that same span of time only two teams from the west, Arizona and UCLA, have made it to the Final Four. Eighty chances - five appearances (2 Arizona, 3 UCLA, 0 everybody else) for those western teams that get no respect. It has been eight years since any team from the west was good enough to make it to a final four - eight years. There is no east coast bias but there seems to be a whole lot of west coast sniveling.

I think that stat is telling. But I also see where so often the west coast teams really get shafted when it comes to seeding. Geographically, you're lucky to have more than one region west of the Mississippi River each year. Maybe in Texas. Maybe. That's a long haul for the west coast teams that are shipped to the South, East, or Midwest Region. Hell, even if your a west coast team the travel is still a haul. The NCAA tourney is about $$$, but it sure would be nice to see multiple regions in the Pacific NW, the Southwest or even the Rocky Mt. time area. Instead, the West is lumped into anything west of Texas & Oklahoma. That's a lot of real estate.

It's a real up hill battle for any west coast team to make any headway in the tourney unless they're an elite program. It's just too hard to win that many games. And the odds of that happening are tougher when all the good west coast teams are all bunched in one region. Take 2014, where Arizona played Gonzaga, then SDSU in the same region before facing Wisconsin. If you have 2 or 3 really good west coast teams, they aren't going to be spread out in different regions. So the most you're going to get the Final Four is one. Last year, Gonzaga was shipped out and faced Duke in Houston.

In 2011, UW was good enough to possibly make a deep run but they ended up getting shipped to Charlotte to face #2 seed UNC. That's really tough. UW lost in OT. Also in 2011, SDSU had probably their best season ever and was in the same Anaheim region as Arizona. They lost to UCONN in the round before. Had they won, it would've been Arizona & SDSU in the Elite Eight. But still, only one west coast team would've made it.

The NCAA would never allow multiple regions west of Texas because of travel, money, etc... But I think you'd see more west coast teams if that happened.

I think part of your argument is valid because there just aren't many elite west coast teams.

Polls, the original topic, don't determine seeding.

It's only recently that they've tried harder to keep teams in region. In any event:

Final Fours

The 1997 Cats came out of Birmingham.
The 1994 Cats came out of Charlotte.
The 1998 Stanford team came out of St. Louis.
The 2001 Cats came our of San Antonio

The 1998, 2003, 2011, 2014 and 2015 Cats lost FF games in California. Four of those losses to teams from back east.

All things being equal, bunching teams in one region should increase chances of one of them making it through.

Last one to make it, UCLA in 2007.

I'm fine if we never play a tournament game in southern California again.

Well, if Zeus' injury is ends up being worse than believed now and he ends up missing the rest of the season, I believe he qualifies for a medical redshirt (if he wanted). Think the injury has to occur before the halfway point and u can't play in more than 1/3 of your team's games in a season.

Has to occur before the halfway point. Right.

Kaleb and Smith both have five letters in it. curse also has five letters in it, coincidence? probably

gumby wrote:

carolinacat wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:Which west coast teams are getting dissed exactly? In the last 20 years 1 team west of the Rockies (Arizona) has won a National Championship. In that same span of time only two teams from the west, Arizona and UCLA, have made it to the Final Four. Eighty chances - five appearances (2 Arizona, 3 UCLA, 0 everybody else) for those western teams that get no respect. It has been eight years since any team from the west was good enough to make it to a final four - eight years. There is no east coast bias but there seems to be a whole lot of west coast sniveling.

I think that stat is telling. But I also see where so often the west coast teams really get shafted when it comes to seeding. Geographically, you're lucky to have more than one region west of the Mississippi River each year. Maybe in Texas. Maybe. That's a long haul for the west coast teams that are shipped to the South, East, or Midwest Region. Hell, even if your a west coast team the travel is still a haul. The NCAA tourney is about $$$, but it sure would be nice to see multiple regions in the Pacific NW, the Southwest or even the Rocky Mt. time area. Instead, the West is lumped into anything west of Texas & Oklahoma. That's a lot of real estate.

It's a real up hill battle for any west coast team to make any headway in the tourney unless they're an elite program. It's just too hard to win that many games. And the odds of that happening are tougher when all the good west coast teams are all bunched in one region. Take 2014, where Arizona played Gonzaga, then SDSU in the same region before facing Wisconsin. If you have 2 or 3 really good west coast teams, they aren't going to be spread out in different regions. So the most you're going to get the Final Four is one. Last year, Gonzaga was shipped out and faced Duke in Houston.

In 2011, UW was good enough to possibly make a deep run but they ended up getting shipped to Charlotte to face #2 seed UNC. That's really tough. UW lost in OT. Also in 2011, SDSU had probably their best season ever and was in the same Anaheim region as Arizona. They lost to UCONN in the round before. Had they won, it would've been Arizona & SDSU in the Elite Eight. But still, only one west coast team would've made it.

The NCAA would never allow multiple regions west of Texas because of travel, money, etc... But I think you'd see more west coast teams if that happened.

I think part of your argument is valid because there just aren't many elite west coast teams.

Polls, the original topic, don't determine seeding.

It's only recently that they've tried harder to keep teams in region. In any event:

Final Fours

The 1997 Cats came out of Birmingham.
The 1994 Cats came out of Charlotte.
The 1998 Stanford team came out of St. Louis.
The 2001 Cats came our of San Antonio

The 1998, 2003, 2011, 2014 and 2015 Cats lost FF games in California. Four of those losses to teams from back east.

All things being equal, bunching teams in one region should increase chances of one of them making it through.

Last one to make it, UCLA in 2007.

I see your point and agree...somewhat. There haven't been many final four worthy teams out west for awhile, I agree with that. The best chances of late have been bunched in the same region....like you said that increases the chance for one of them to get out. But only one. So UCONN & Wisky spoiled things both times.
Personally, I think the seeding last year was poor and Virginia & Villanova were given too much respect. The top 4 teams per offensive & defensive efficiency were Duke, Kentucky, Wisky & Arizona. But when two of those play in a regional final, only one gets to go.
It's always gonna be an uphill battle for the west coast teams based on geography. But the top seeds that do get seeded out west need to deliver....Arizona or whoever.

catinfl wrote:Kaleb and Smilth both have five letters in it. curse also has five letters in it, coincidence? probably

Alien does too.

catgrad97 wrote:

catinfl wrote:Kaleb and Smilth both have five letters in it. curse also has five letters in it, coincidence? probably

Alien does too.

it's settled. Aliens put a curse on arizona sports.

catgrad97 wrote:

catinfl wrote:Kaleb and Smilth both have five letters in it. curse also has five letters in it, coincidence? probably

Alien does too.

Allen. Trier. Simon. Pitts. Mason.

Stop it!

catgrad97 wrote:

catinfl wrote:Kaleb and Smilth both have five letters in it. curse also has five letters in it, coincidence? probably

Alien does too.

So does pansy (and another close variation). No time for pansies, we need to move forward.

Here's the silver lining. Zeus will be back for most or all of conference play. In the meantime, some of our lesser guys have to step up and get experience. Zeus can step in when back, and hopefully he will step back into a more seasoned lineup.

The interim may be rough, but this year is all about the long term and March.

rgdeuce wrote:Well, if Zeus' injury is ends up being worse than believed now and he ends up missing the rest of the season, I believe he qualifies for a medical redshirt (if he wanted). Think the injury has to occur before the halfway point and u can't play in more than 1/3 of your team's games in a season.

Injury has to be season ending, which it isn't, but if it's worse than expected I'm not sure he would come back.

catgrad97 wrote:

catinfl wrote:Kaleb and Smilth both have five letters in it. curse also has five letters in it, coincidence? probably

Alien does too.

Does he have any eligibility left?

Space jam!