The Seeding Debate: Where Do The Golden Bears Deserve to End Up?
by Avinash on Mar 14, 2010 5:59 AM PST
in Basketball
286 comments
Cal is in. A lot of people will gripe and moan about it, but they are in. Winning the Pac-10 put them in. Winning the first two games of the tournament made it even clearer they deserved to be in. Winning seven of their final eight in the conference play to clinch their first undisputed Pac-10 title in 50 years put them so far in. Yet for some reason we seem to have to keep on justifying ourselves to the rest of the country. Crazy.
The fact that we're even discussing this is due to the spewing hatefest coming from the rest of the country, which is quick to disparage the Pac-10 for not being a land of Kevin Loves and Brandon Roys this season (Hey, rest of country, word of advice: Other than the top three, you're not that great either.). This group includes Jerry Palm of CollegeRPI and CBSSports.com who no longer has us as a lock (WTF?), Rivals taking us out of the lock category, the CBS jokefest at the Pac-10 tournament final halftime show which had the Cal/UDub loser as the first one out (UDub, maybe; Cal???), some of the morons on the ESPN shows including Dukie shill Jay Williams (who believed MIGHTY RHODE ISLAND has a better resume than Cal), etc. etc. I normally try to be objective about this nonsense, but the idea that Cal has somehow moved back to bubble territory after losing by 4 points in a highly contested Pac-10 title game is becoming a joke. Thankfully, reasonable people are on the NCAA Selection Committee, and the Bears will be traveling somewhere this Thursday or Friday.*
*For your health and sanity, root for Kentucky and Ohio State to win today. Then you can certainly breathe easy.
So let's focus on tournament seeding, and the arguments for giving Cal a poor seeding and the counterarguments for giving Cal a fair one.
Argument for seeding Cal low: Cal is 1-6 against top competition.
Counterargument: Let's revise this. Cal is 0-4 against four of the TOP TEN team in the countries (#1 Kansas, #3 Syracuse, #5 Ohio State, #8 New Mexico), and three of those losses were without Theo Robertson, who was basically a fourth of their offense. I see people giving Ohio State credit all the time for losing games against Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin without Evan Turner. Do we not get the same benefit of the doubt for being competitive in what amounted to huge road games against teams being considered for #1, #2 and #3 seeds in the tourney?
From this, the Bears have also played the hardest OOC schedule of any major conference team. They've played six conference winners (Kansas, Syracuse, Ohio State, New Mexico, Murray St., UCSB) and gone 2-4 (include Ivy League's 2nd place Princeton and it's 3-4). The Bears deserve to be rewarded for these quality wins. They've beaten several teams in the tournament, even if they're not the greatest in the world.
Argument for seeding Cal low: The Pac-10 sucks. It's no better than a midmajor and only deserves one bid.
Counterargument: The conference might be down, but it's not horribly down to the point that other conferences have bypassed it. The Pac-10 might be the worst of the sixth major conferences, but it's still way ahead of any of the midmajors according to Pomeroy.
The next nearest conference, the Mountain West, is in all likelihood sending four teams (New Mexico, BYU, UNLV, SDSU). The next nearest, the Atlantic Ten, is sending three (Richmond, Xavier, Temple). Are those conferences that much more deserving or superior in their resumes that they deserve two or three more teams than the Pac-10? Sure, the Lobos, Cougars and Rebels earned bonus points from facing off against each other, but Cal did have two pretty good squads in Washington and Arizona State they faced off with.
Speaking of which...
Argument for seeding Cal low: Even if the Bears had no luck against good teams, they have not faced real competition in over two months.
Counterargument: This isn't something California can realistically control. The Bears have only had one bad loss this season (UCLA at home), and one "somewhat bad loss that can be explained because we don't matchup well against that team at all" (Oregon State). Other than that, Cal has either taken care of business or lost a few close ones to good teams at the wire--Washington, Arizona and USC were all games the Bears could've won in the final seconds. And despite the fact they've played bad teams, they haven't struggled against many of them, they've won 11 of their 15 conference victories by double digits.
The SEC has generally not had good teams the past few years and is the fifth best conference--they're still sending three teams at the least (Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, maybe Mississippi State). We're not that far behind the SEC in terms of quality. It's hard to see us being two teams worse.
Finally, keep this in mind--a big conference has always sent at least one at-large team in the history of the tournament. There would be no precedent for this kind of omission. None.
Bracket forecasts:
Every participant in the Bracket Project has Cal in, and their predictions aggregate to the (gulp) dreaded 8th seed.
Brackets of notice (i.e. brackets to really consider, ponder, or point and laugh at):
ESPN's Joe Lunardi (who is generally right on who gets in but not terribly accurate as who gets in where) has Cal as a 7 seed in Buffalo facing Georgia Tech (hey it's just like last year!), with West Virginia the likely 2nd round opponent. Not a terrible bracket, probably one of the nicest ones for Cal. Even if it's in Buffalo.
SBN's Blogging the Bracket's Saturday outlook had Cal as an 8th seed in Jacksonville facing Utah State, with Duke looming in the second round. Again, I don't hate this.
Jerry Palm of CollegeRPI and CBSSports also has Cal in Jacksonville with Duke looming in the second round. Only we're a 10th seed facing Oklahoma State and Duke is a 2nd seed. Yeesh.
Our biggest supporters are RealTimeRPI, which I believe are the only bracketologists to give California a 6th seed (in this case in New Orleans against UTEP). That's to be followed by Georgetown-Ohio winner. Even though this is the most respect we've gotten so far, this is probably the worst of the first week brackets I've seen. I'm not really interested in taking on the Hoyas right now, and UTEP is a dangerous team...
Rivals has Cal as a 10 seed facing Marquette. I have no feelings about this.
Oh, but I do have strong feelings about this one. Andy Glockner must really hate us, because he has Cal as a 12 seed in a rematch with Maryland in Spokane (at least it's better than Oklahoma City). Then if we somehow scrape ourselves past Vazquez, a faceoff with the Purdue-Murray State winner. Yuck. I don't care how badly Purdue played Saturday, I want no part of them that early.
Our biggest detractor is something called The Bracket Board, who hands us a 12 seed. TBB has us in Spokane against 5th seed Tennessee, with the winner to take on Michigan State-Murray State. Maybe getting hated on isn't the worst thing after all--these are pretty good first week draws.
.There are plenty of places Cal can end up this upcoming week. The only question left is "will we like what we get?"
0 recs |
286 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Remember when I said you guys were better than UW Dawg Pound?
Yeah, I take that back. This would be one of the worst FanShots I’ve ever read, and it’s not even a FanShot.
The first two paragraphs are petty whining and the rest is full of logical fallacies or things the committee doesn’t consider. Get over yourself.
You know what would make sense? Looking at the resume of the other teams around you and NOT JUST YOURS. THAT could be a good post. You could compellingly argue that California absolutely deserves to be in, and a deserves a 10 seed or higher, quite easily. This is just anger-fueled crap that you pounded out on your keyboard.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 8:12 AM PST reply actions
the rest is full of logical fallacies or things the committee doesn’t consider.
Oh? Such as? I mean, an example of a logical fallacy, or something the committee wouldn’t consider would be nice.
Taking out any bias you may have, it seems that this post is much less whining and fallacy than a response to the season-long disrespect both Cal and the rest of the Pac-10 have been getting all year.
My only real confusion regarding your whole point about Avi’s post being “anger fueled crap” is whether you are playing Pot or Kettle.
Perhaps you ought to get over yourself before you offer that advice to others.
I’m just saying …
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
by SoCal Oski on Mar 14, 2010 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Things they don’t consider:
Pomeroy rankings
Fallacies:
That California can’t realistically control the fact that they beat no good teams
That the committee cares that you beat Princeton
That the strength (or weakness) of the Pac-10 has ANY bearing on this argument
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:04 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
He’s not a troll. He seems to believe what he’s saying and he wants to have a debate. That’s different than just saying something to piss people off.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments, but (in yesterday’s post) you’ve staked out a rather convenient, I-can’t-be-wrong argument: Cal is not a “lock”, but they’ll most likely get in. As you’ve demonstrated, this is not an unreasonable point of view, but it does fall short of being a prediction that we can then test against the actual outcome this afternoon.
Obviously, if Cal doesn’t get invited, your arguments are vindicated big time. And likewise, if Cal just squeaks in with a low seed, that would seem to validate everything you said. So here’s my question: how high would Cal need to be seeded to get you to acknowledge this evening that, “Yes, I was wrong, Cal was in fact a ‘lock’ as its number-X seeding demonstrates”?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Mar 14, 2010 9:23 AM PST up reply actions
The problem with saying “this seed is a lock, this seed isn’t” is that selecting teams for the field and seeding them are separate processes. Additionally, a team can be moved from their “true seed” (as determined by the committee) a spot in either direction to facilitate meeting other bracket guidelines.
If Cal got a 14 seed (which they obviously won’t) I still wouldn’t come back here and be like ALL YOU HATERS SUCK MY BALLS. If Cal got like, a 4, I’d be willing to concede that I (along with every major bracketologist) was wrong. That won’t happen either.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:07 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Come on, a 4?? I mean, sure it’s a little arbitrary, there’s gotta be a line you can draw. Say, if Cal gets a 10, 9, 8, 7, or 6 seed, couldn’t you say that, “You know what, they probably were a lock and I was likely wrong”. Conversely, how low a seed do you think they would have to be to validate your argument? 12?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the better way to look at it would be how many at large teams are seeded below Cal. If it’s 12 teams, then Cal was a lock. If it’s 3 or 4 teams, they weren’t.
Although as soon as Cal makes the tournament I will care 0% about this whole crazy debate
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
The thing is a) we will never know how many teams were truly seeded below Cal, as they can adjust their seeds and b) seeding and selecting are separate processes.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
What if it’s 6 or 8?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
It means we need to have another 6 hour insulting debate with sixsevenfiftysix until the topic is decided!
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
You know what our problem is? We aren’t fighting fire with fire.
We need Berkelium97 and Rocky2354235 to take on 6756. Well, maybe not Rocky3423423.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Does Berkelium still have that plane?
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
I'll just start one with you for practice
You know what our problem is?
You know what our problem is?
You know what our problem is?
You know what our problem is?
You know what our problem is?
You know what our problem is?
I think I know!
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Condescending!
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Read the damn post. I just said even a 14 seed wouldn’t “validate my argument”.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I read the post, and you said you wouldn’t come back and talk shit. But I dunno, I think it might just validate your argument. I mean, obviously it can’t be conclusive either way, but the lower the seed, the more likely that your interpretation was correct, and vice versa.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
but the lower the seed, the more likely that your interpretation was correct, and vice versa.
Only in truly extreme cases (i.e., a top 4 seed or like, a play-in game appearance). Otherwise there’s really just no saying.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Like I said, no saying for certain. Nothing conclusive. But it’s not like you’re making a black-and-white argument, either.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Frankly, I think the fact that many people who do bracketology for a living (and are presumably much better at it than you, I, or anyone else here) are saying that California is among the last teams in is enough proof for me to justify saying “California are not a lock to make the NCAA tournament”. Black-and-white.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
…And if/when Cal gets into the tournament, that statement is rendered completely meaningless. Anyway, we only have a few hours to wait before we find out for sure, lock or not.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
…And if/when Cal gets into the tournament, that statement is rendered completely meaningless.
Well, it’s before then, isn’t it?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Fine, I don’t mind shooting the shit with you, since you seem to be enjoying this silly debate.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not following
Lunardi has us at a #7. Palm has us a #10. That’s not really the bubble; it’s not the last 4 out, and it’s not the last 8 out. That seems to be close enough to a lock to me.
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Glockner has you as the last team in the tournament
And from Palm’s site:
Cal, Utah St, UTEP and Minnesota all have legitimate reasons to be left out. So do Mississippi, Miss St, Illinois, Seton Hall and Virginia Tech. The committee needs to pick five of those and could do almost anything.
Find where in that passage Jerry Palm says you’re a lock and circle it.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not reading much out of that
Palm still has us as a #10 seed. 11 and 12 are the more “bubbly” spots. We might not be a lock, but we’re as close as it gets
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
We might not be a lock
We might not be a lock
We might not be a lock
We might not be a lock
We might not be a lock
We might not be a lock
We might not be a lock
Check that out! Who would’ve thought?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Me not giving a fuck that you think I’m condescending!
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude. Madbum has done NOTHING to you. But you’re treating him like a jerk. why?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Because a lot of people here have treated me like I’m a jerk, even before I decided that I might want to be in some egregious instances.
It’s the internet. People say mean things.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't really give a fuck, to be honest
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
I know you don’t, but norcalnick does, and I was responding to him.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
That it is possible that you are not, strictly speaking, a troll merely leads to the conclusion that you are completely fucking retarded.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
That word. It does not mean what you think it means.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Take a break dude.
Otherwise we’re going to have to ban you here too, we don’t want to do that.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
If you don’t want to do it, then don’t.
You’re basically saying “stop posting or we’ll make you stop posting”. Why would I bother to stop posting?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
You're not adding anything
You’re reiterating the same point ad nauseum.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Sure, some people are. But many other people are reiterating the same points that have been made ad nauseum already.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ve seen you lash out angrily at at least two different people who did nothing to prompt your outburst.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Other than saying the exact same shit over and over. If it’s wrong to be mad about that, I don’t want to be right.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Because you keep on bringing the same comments ad nauseum, which forces people to bring their same counterarguments. Takes two to tango.
Stop.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
See, this is precisely the problem. There ARE NO COUNTERARGUMENTS to what I’m saying.
I’m saying that California do not have a 100% chance, stone-cold-fucking-lock, bet-your-wife’s-right-breast chance of making the tournament. You can not refute that.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Finally! The first advantage to my wife being flat!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Hahaha. On that excellent closing note, I’m really, really going this time. Sorry if I genuinely hurt some of you guys.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Because it can’t be disproven unless Cal doesn’t make the tournament. It’s like saying that “there is/is not a god”.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
FWIW, I’m actually going to start getting ready to go to the UW selection watching party in a few minutes anyway. So don’t sweat banning me or whatever.
Nice talking to some of you guys. Not nice talking to the guy who called me “completely fucking retarded”, which is offensive to many people. Good luck today.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks for stopping by
we needed a reason to dislike uw other than thomas being a complete poser and pondexter’s cheap shot on Jorge at the end of the game at Haas. Now we have you, the whiniest commentator on our whiny blog.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Can you find a single “expert” that DOESN’T have us in the tourney? How about that?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Probably not, but that’s not the point. I think you guys are making it too. Also remember that all of this conversation occurred before Mississippi State lost, and we were operating under the assumption that they could have won. In that case, you would’ve fallen out in Glockner’s bracket and others.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Find where in the passage it says Michigan State is a lock and circle it
Isn’t this game fun?
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Wait, do you have any idea what the fuck you’re talking about? He EXPLICITLY STATES THAT CALIFORNIA MAY NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Find where in that passage Jerry Palm says you’re a lock and circle it.
Fuck. Reading Comprehension! I wasn’t told the SATs were today.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
SAT
That’s funny because I know a few people who are taking them today.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry
I thought you didn’t need to take them!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, according to sixfourthreeeighttwoninesixtynine, I have to do some reading comprehension RIGHT NOW!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yikes
I was never good at that, but I wish you luck!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
What I don't get is
how Palm had us as a 12 before yesterday and now we’re suddenly a 10?
Yeah, that’s a little screwy. Probably to facilitate the other bracket guidelines.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he’s just shuffling teams around on a piece of paper and making them fit. He doesn’t seem to have a very rigorous methodology. I strongly suspect he’s pulling it out of his ass.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Probably to facilitate the other bracket guidelines.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, ok! You’re SO right! Your input is good for this discussion!
Seriously, are you trying to bait me into getting in a HOCKEY argument (that’s been beaten to death) on this blog post? Who’s the troll here?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:10 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn’t taking him/her/it seriously.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:19 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
yeah, come on Twist
everyone knows Ovechkin is better. After all, he has zero gold medals and zero stanley cup wins while Crosby has one of each in the last 9 months and was the youngest captain ever to win a Stanley cup…but Ovechkin only has one less goal than Crosby this year. So, yeah.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I had to laugh when Ovechkin got thrown out earlier
Fram rider trollens kung,
Med vargbroder ut pa jakt,
Allt levade flyr, fa och frande,
Blodst skall dranka denna ensliga trakt!
by Maisbikkja on Mar 14, 2010 10:31 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is just anger-fueled crap that you pounded out on your keyboard.
This would be one of the worst FanShots I’ve ever read, and it’s not even a FanShot.
The first two paragraphs are petty whining and the rest is full of logical fallacies or things the committee doesn’t consider. Get over yourself.
Pot, meet kettle?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Mar 14, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
facepalm
petty whining? What are you doing right now?
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Call it whatever you want, but I don’t write the fucking blog.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
If you don't like it so much
then leave. Nothing is keeping you here.
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
No, you don’t write it. You just complain endlessly about it after already making your point and insult everybody who disagrees with you.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Anti-Pac 10
It is fashionable to disparage the weakness and inconsistency of the Pac-10; some of which is understandable this year but plays into the East Coast bias that already exists, especially in basketball. The talking heads who don’t stay up late enough to watch west coast games like to say only one team should get in and they should be above 10 seed —that is stupid.
Lottery balls land on DeMarcus Cousins baby.
by bringbackbuddytrees on Mar 14, 2010 8:16 AM PST reply actions
There's only one solution to this problem...
Expand the tournament to 128 teams!
Though people would still contest us being a lock in that format as well…
But as far as today’s selection goes, I still don’t know what to think. I WANT to count us as locked in, but I keep reading reports about Cal being a “bubble team” and “Cal not showing up against top competition”…
But the fact of the matter is that this team IS tournament ready!
-PAC 10 Champions
-Top ten SOS
-Top twenty RPI
-PAC 10 player of the year Randle (also Cal’s all-time scoring leader)
-Going to the conference tournament championship game and narrowly losing to a GOOD Washington team
It also needs to be noted that this wasn’t a complete team halfway through the season. Injuries kept Cal with an inconsistent roster through the toughest part of the SOS, most notably marquee games against Kansas, Syracuse and Ohio State, all of which WITHOUT Theo! After that, it was this lineup or that lineup until well into conference play. This team is complete now and showed it down the final stretch of the season.
Again, I WANT to not worry, but it’s the constant stammering and side-mouthiness of the “experts” that keeps giving me pause.
GO BEARS!
Fram rider trollens kung,
Med vargbroder ut pa jakt,
Allt levade flyr, fa och frande,
Blodst skall dranka denna ensliga trakt!
by Maisbikkja on Mar 14, 2010 8:35 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Yup – exactly – if Cal hadn’t played our strong OOC schedule, I would grant that we would be a tough call.
But honestly, outside of the Big East, we must be one of the most tested teams out there. At Kansas, At New Mexico, Syracuse at MSG, OSU pre-Turner injury – plus a hard-fought race for the conference and conference tourney. Plus, we are playing our best ball of the year.
How we could be out, but Texas could be in is beyond me.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Would we put the shellacking at Washington in the “bad loss” category. Washington is a decent enough team, but what was the difference there? 20+ points? That seems like it could trend poorly for Cal. I still think we are a LOCK to make the tournament. Also a DOOR KNOB and a FRENCH DOOR WINDOW PANE. But I fear that we’ll be 8, at best.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Bad Loss Category
Would we put the shellacking at Washington in the "bad loss" category.
No, this isn’t a bad loss. A bad loss would be to someone with an RPI of about 90 or worse. It doesn’t have anything to do with the score. Washington is 41st in RPI.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
This is of course, the hilarious part of the arbitrary Top 50 RPI wins thing – we now have a Top 50 win largely because we lost to Washington twice. Our RPI of course, does take this into account, but looking at only Top 50 WINS of course, can’t really take this into account.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
wow, I used “of course” three times in that post. I must be right.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Measuring Teams
Wins against the RPI top 50 is one of the many tools to measure a team. You look at RPI, SOS, the strength of the conference, wins against the top 50 in RPI and the eye test. Take Cal, for example. We have a great RPI, a great SOS and we do pass the eye test. We’re good enough to get in for sure. If you look at Utah State, though, their SOS is weak and their conference is worse than ours especially since they’re in the WAC. They’re only 2-1 against the RPI top 50 and I don’t know if they pass the eye test in the eyes of the committee.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Right. Its just I don’t get why it is Top 50 rather than Top 25 or Top 100. If RPI is an “objective” measurement, it stops being objective when you use it in this way.
Cal’s RPI takes into account that they have only one Top 50 win. Why does Top 50 wins need to be a separate category?
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Good Question
I think it needs to be a separate category so we can look at how teams did against the best. Looking at the top 25 is too small and the top 100 is too big. If you look at the top 75, it probably includes teams that aren’t quality teams.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I can see that argument. But I see no reason why the committee can’t just look at a team’s actual schedule rather than have a separate category. (I guess this would make it part of the eye test).
For example, does it really take longer in Cal’s case to look at:
(1) Four Top 10 losses, none at home, and 1-2 against Washington
(2) 1-6 against Top 50.
I think the first category is much more meaningful and took like an extra three seconds.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it’s separate because it largely represents the tournament field.
What does make me laugh is that it’s also figured into RPI, so every time some talking head says, “well, Team X has a great RPI but no big wins” or “Team Y has a crappy RPI but they beat three teams in the top 50” I just want to say, well, yes, but that’s already included in their RPI calculation, dudes. That’s why seeding almost always is very tightly correlated to RPI.
That being said, I will be shocked if we are in the top half of the draw — I expect us to be a 9 or 10. But the only one of the scenarios listed above that I hate is the one that has us playing UTEP in the first round.
Exactly man. As weird as it sounds, I would love an 8/9 or 7/10 game against Texas as long as it isn’t in OKC. Those guys are playing terrible basketball right now.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Gameday
Watching Gameday about 10 minutes ago:
For some reason the debate was Cal v. Utah State getting in.
Cal is 19th in RPI (presumably maybe higher afte)
USU is 26th.
By ANY measurement – BOTH teams are clearly in.
Many are arguing that Illinois will get in – their RPI is 72nd.
The focus seems to be on the lack of RPI Top 50 wins for both teams – this is obviously an arbitrary distinction.
Also, the idea of ignoring a Team’s RPI (19th!) while also knocking them for lacking high RPI wins is just insane. Either use RPI, or don’t use it.
Here is a good example – all the teams that beat us get credit for a Top 20 RPI win – but everyone is arguing that we don’t belong in one of the 35 at-large spots.
LMFAO at “[b]y ANY measurement — BOTH teams are clearly in.”
You don’t really know how this works, do you?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:12 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You’ve made your point clearly and concisely in two different threads approx. 5,492,538 times. No need to arrogantly insult members of this blog while making it again. Chill dude.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
With all due respect, members of this blog have arrogantly insulted me as well.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:16 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I believe you are arrogantly insulting yourself.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Utah State
They could really be on the bubble. Their SOS is weak and have only played three games against the top 50 teams in RPI. In the end, I think they’ll be an 11 seed or a 12 seed.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Rated-R Superstar, I respect your sports opinion. Do you believe Cal will make the tourney and, if so, what seed?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yes
I think we’ll make the tournament as a nine seed. I think we’ll play Oklahoma State or Florida State.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I am sure you know more about who is on/off the bubble than I do. However, when I see at team in the top 30 RPI, it offends me that they can be on the same bubble as a team 40 spots lower.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Bracketology
According to Joe Lunardi’s latest brackets, we’re a seven seed and he has us playing Old Dominion. In the second round, though, we’d get West Virginia. I’d rather play Duke. I think West Virginia deserves a top seed as opposed to Duke.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:22 AM PDT reply actions
Lunardi
His last three teams in are Utah State, Virginia Tech and Minnesota. His first three teams out are Mississippi State, Illinois and Florida.
I’d swap Illinois for Virginia Tech. I never thought Mississippi State was in. Virginia Tech and Florida can then thank UTEP and Utah State for blowing it as heavy favorites. Teams like Houston and New Mexico State make the case for banning postseason tournaments.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Teams like Houston and New Mexico State make the case for banning postseason tournaments.
this x 1,000,000. RRS nailed it
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
The conference tournaments are as bad as conference title games in football – just money grabs.
What I don’t get is this – why are they all the same format?
Why hasn’t some mid-major conference started a midseason tournament for their auto-bid. If the WCC tournament was in January, wouldn’t everyone watch it? Wouldn’t it make them a ton of money? Sure, your best team might not make it, but its not like that is happening in a season-ending conference tournament.
I think there are lots of variations of conference tournaments that would be great – people just need to experiment. Why not have it be AAU style, with short halfs and play the whole thing in a day? Wouldn’t that be far more compelling?
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Formatting
Well, the SEC is weird. The Big 12 and ACC have two separate divisions, but at least they seed from best to worst. In the SEC, they include your division. For example, Kentucky is an “E1” and Mississippi State is a “W1” even though Mississippi State was tied for fourth in the conference.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t really think seeding matters too much in conference tournaments. I just think there is a nice space for a conference to do something really fun with it.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Outside of the fact Minnesota could win the Big 10 tourney, why are MN and Illinois anywhere close to the bubble?
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Minnesota and Illinois
Well, Minnesota went just 9-9 in Big Ten play and Illinois has 14 losses. Minnesota was out up until the postseason tournament. They took out Michigan State and crushed Purdue. As for Illinois, their RPI is only 74 now. They’ve lost too many games. They both deserve to be right on the bubble.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Good stuff man – I wish you were on the committee as you watch more games than anyone else out there.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks
I appreciate it. And right now, Mississippi State is leading Kentucky late in the first half. If they win, that’s another at-large bid gone. I think it will be down to just two spots between Virginia Tech, Minnesota, Utah State, Illinois and Florida. Personally, I’d have to go with Minnesota and Utah State.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
An other year Illinois would be an NIT lock, but with this year’s field, you can’t ignore all their huge quality wins.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:46 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Illinois
They have five quality wins against Wisconsin twice, Vanderbilt, Michigan State and Clemson. They also have four bad losses to Bradley, Georgia, Northwestern and Utah.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Minnesota
They have five quality wins against Butler, Purdue, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State. They also have four bad losses to Northwestern, Indiana and Michigan twice.
They have the better RPI by a little bit and the weaker SOS by a little bit as well.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Guerrero
I can’t see him letting the selection committee accepting only one Pac-10 team in the tourney and picking Utah St. over Cal.
I just can’t!
He leaves the room when Pac-10 teams are being discussed, IIRC.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
He only leaves if UCLA is discussed, because he is the chair. Any other member leaves when all of their league’s teams are discussed.
Ah, good call. Forgot about that.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:59 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I believe it is only if UCLA is discussed.
It all depends on how the committee treats the Pac-10. Guerrero obviously holds considerable sway over the proceedings and does not have to leave the room when Pac-10 teams are discussed, unless it’s UCLA (which won’t be).
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Back in 1990, Cal AD Dave Maggard was on the selection committee and the Bears “miraculously” made the tourney despite not having the strongest resume.
They even beat Bob Knight’s Indiana squad before getting crushed by CT.
Do not underestimate the power of politics!
by KikiRevenge on Mar 14, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I am holding out for a 1 seed!
Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with a 12 seed. Personally, I would like a sweet 16. Way easier to get there as a 12 than as a 7/8/9/10.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Seeding
According to Joe Lunardi, the five seeds are Maryland, Vanderbilt, Michigan State and Butler. The six seeds are Richmond, Xavier, Texas A&M and Brigham Young. I’d love to play Butler, Richmond, Xavier or Brigham Young as opposed to a Louisville, Texas, Marquette or Notre Dame.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
That sounds right – we matchup poorly against teams with size and/or athleticism. Personally, Texas as a six surprises me – they would be a bad matchup on paper, but they are playing terribly, so I have mixed feelings about that one.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Texas
I think they’re a nine seed right now.
The eight seeds should be Marquette, Louisville, Notre Dame and probably someone between a Clemson, UTEP, Florida State or Oklahoma State.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh – I read TA&M as Texas. This makes much more sense now.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Funny how Texas was #1 at one point
and now are a 9.
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Indeed
After a 17-0 start, they finished 7-9.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Didn't Clemson do something similar a few years back
and get left out of the tourney?
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Clemson
They were in the NIT in 2007 despite a 25-11 record, so you might be right.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
my memory is faulty, but I think they had one of the weakest non-conference schedules in the nation that year, which is why they were undefeated
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
It wasn’t atrocious on a historical level, but it was pretty bad.
Wins over Old Dominion (RPI top 50 that year) on the road, Minnesota and South Carolina (both on the road but in down years), but that’s about it.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Utah State
Upon further review, yeah, they’re out if you ask me. Personally, I wouldn’t put them in despite 27 wins. Their two wins against tournament teams are against Brigham Young and New Mexico State, and New Mexico State is only in because they lost to them. I think Illinois is a better option with their SOS being miles better. If Mississippi State can beat Kentucky, then I’d just replace them like that.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:37 AM PDT reply actions
Yeah, it’s really close. Utah State needed to take care of business last night—now they’re no guarantee.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
One thing that may be working in Cal’s favor is how late the Big Ten game is. Put simply, there’s absolutely no way that the NCAA is working on two brackets (one for an OSU win and one for a Minnesota win) that late in the day. The committee may very well be saying “this spot is for Minnesota if Minnesota wins and Illinois if Minnesota loses”—i.e., only one or the other can get in (because that makes virtually all bracket considerations moot if you’re talking about two teams from the same conference).
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:52 AM PDT reply actions
Eh
I think Minnesota should be in over Illinois regardless.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, maybe. But it’s obviously close. If Minnesota loses today and Illinois makes it over them I don’t think anyone would be shocked.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
The committee may very well be saying "this spot is for Minnesota if Minnesota wins and Illinois if Minnesota loses"—i.e., only one or the other can get in
That makes sense as well since they’re both so close and they could be fighting for one spot if Mississippi State wins.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Gosh, I really wish I could be watching that SEC game right now. MAJOR implications. I’m watching Caps-Blackhawks instead.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Watching now, with 8.2 seconds left. OMFG.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
And yes, the Big Ten are absolute idiots for having their game so late. One year it’ll really bite them in the ass and they’ll switch.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
It's not the Big Ten, it's CBS
They want a game to roll right into the Selection Show.
The problem is, that makes it almost impossible for said game to actually affect the selection show.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Well, yeah, CBS wants it, but it’s not like they can mandate when the Big Ten schedules their game. The Big Ten are a consenting party.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Right, just like the government can't mandate that other countries not talk about abortions in their hospitals
The mandate is simple enough. Want $$$? Do what we tell you to.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Every other conference does without the incremental boost in their bottom line. I think the Big Ten can too. Just saying.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Except this year it might have to impact the field – MN is right on the bubble.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
You know,
Kentucky looks nice and all that, but they can’t actually score points in a halfcourt game. I don’t think Stanford beating them was a coincidence— I think they’d lose badly to a Wisconsin or some other reasonably talented team that can control tempo.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
*nearly beating them
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Kentucky
How are they only going to get Cousins four shots?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
John Wall:
Maybe he’s a major prospect, but he’s not very good at basketball right now.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
That was a nice 3(:
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
He can’t shoot and I think he is a little overrated, but he is exciting to watch.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s certainly explosive. The play where he exploded from the three point line to the hoop to draw the foul on Varnado was impressive. Dude’s fast.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Oh, he's very ATHLETIC
He’s just not good at basketball…
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Even though he is a PG he has a power game – he will get around guys even if he has to go through them. He doesn’t have the ball control or vision of a player like Kidd, but he is huge and physically dominates in the same way.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
THAT WAS SWEET
WHAT A PLAY
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
WOw
Kentucky just did what we needed to do yesterday.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:05 PM PDT reply actions
That was an awesome play. I kinda am starting to love this Kentucky team. I have never seen such a genuine celebration for a tying basket.
Man, that was the EXACT same situation as we were in yesterday. Behind by 3, couple seconds left, make the first, missed the second on purpose… I wish we could have made it happen like Kentucky just did.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Odd
I’m really growing to hate them for their remarkably low basketball IQ.
Their last three possessions have been 1-on-4 fast break, contested fadeaway jumper just inside the 3-point line, 1-on-4 fast break.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Yeah, they are bad at basketball, but they do seem to really enjoy playing together. And they are damn talented – I really like watching Cousins play – he is farther along than Wall as a player to me.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
CHRIST
So lucky.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Haha, don’t you mean “he has a knack for making the big shots”?
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I should add – if they WERE good at basketball, they would absolutely blow everyone off the court.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure
Any team with the 21-year-old versions of Wall and Cousins, plus their other talent, would likely be the best college basketball team of all time.
But that’s the deal with one-and-dones— you don’t get their 21-year-old selves, you get 18-year-olds with limited skills.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Wall and Cousins
I really hope they come back, but it doesn’t appear likely.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't
I like the fact that college basketball is not, for the most part, filled with freak athletes with mediocre basketball skills.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Wouldn’t they presumably develop basketball skills over the next year or two?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Obviously
These guys didn’t get here accidentally.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
What?
Wall and Cousins will improve their basketball skills if they stay and then they’ll probably be better off in the pros.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Eh – for every John Wall, there are 10 Jerome Randles who are maximizing their talents after four years in school.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Whatever comparison it is that you're trying to make here, I didn't follow it...
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Oops, totally misread your previous statement. I agree – I like when the kids who win games are the ones who really play the game well, and have maximized their abilities.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Calipari is on record saying they are not welcome back. I read an article about Wall where he said sometimes he goes to Calipari to talk through whether he should leave or not and Calipari won’t even discuss it, just tells Wall there is no decision to be made and he is leaving.
While I’m sure the support feels great for their egos, it seems remarkably cavalier for a coach to essentially make that decision for his players. Of course, this is the coach who tore up Dajuan Wagner’s scholarship papers in front of him to ensure he declared early for the NBA, so what else is to be expected…
Well, he's right
If you are a projected first-round pick, you should declare for the draft unless you are independently wealthy. Most hoopsters are not independently wealthy.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Except, if I as a student want to stay in school, I should be allowed to. He’s failing in his responsibility as an educator. And be as cynical as you like, he still does have a duty to be one. He can strongly encourage, he can even say “You’d be crazy to come back” but he should be able to articulate reasonably to the kid why he believes this, not just tell the kid he won’t have the conversation.
Maybe he’s teaching them about profit maximization and opportunity cost.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Why waste time?
It’s patronizing and unnecessary. Wall really would be insane to come back.
The notion that college coaches have a responsibility to be educators is fairly laughable. Their job is to win basketball games. If they are doubling as professors of something else, then they have a responsibility to be educators. Calipari is most certainly not doubling as a professor of anything, since I don’t think UK has a Sleaziness department.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Yup – it is a shame in this case – both players really could use some more time on this level. And I would love to watch them mature as a team, rather than struggling in the NBA.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Mississippi State
I don’t care if they take this thing into eight overtimes. They don’t deserve to make it with a loss. Their resume isn’t better than that of Minnesota or Illinois for sure and it may not be better than Florida or Virginia Tech. I’m tired of Jimmy Dykes trying to tell me otherwise.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:10 PM PDT reply actions
ESPN
With 18 seconds to go, Duke has a 63-59 lead over Georgia Tech.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:18 PM PDT reply actions
Only 2 and a half more hours:(
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Minnesota-Ohio State
A part of me wants Minnesota to win this game so they’re guaranteed a spot in the tournament because I feel as if they should get one with a win or a loss. I love Evan Turner, though, and I picked Ohio State to win this game on ESPN’s streak challenge.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:26 PM PDT reply actions
I’m rooting for Ohio State because even though I think Cal is in regardless, it minimizes the chances for funny business.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Man, I hate rooting for Ohio State in anything. At least Evan Turner is likeable.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
anyone notice John Wall crashing in for that rebound after the freethrow?
Did the same thing Randle did. It should have been a lane violation.
Oops
I thought he was talking about a Wall free throw attempt.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Really?
Wall probably left after the ball had touched something, so it was probably legal. I’m sure the referees would have called it. If anything, there would be a conspiracy against Kentucky so the SEC could get another team into the dance for sure.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Wall wasn’t the shooter – so he just has to wait until it leaves the shooter’s hand.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Turner
He’s the team’s point guard (5.9 assists), shooting guard (1.8 steals), small forward (19.9 points), power forward (0.9 blocks) and center (9.1 rebounds) all wrapped in one!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:46 PM PDT reply actions
Yes
He’s the better college player for sure. In terms of NBA prospect status, I’d rather have Turner as opposed to Wall because I think Turner is the better fit for my Warriors.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
What the Warriors need is someone who can score while actually playing defense
I guess Turner’s a good defender, but I feel like there might be better ones available.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Big Ten
I watched Purdue-Ohio State earlier this year and it was fantastic. I also watched Ohio State-Michigan State earlier this year and it was even better. Penn State has even had their moments against Ohio State and Michigan State. I’ve seen Minnesota against Ohio State and Michigan State and their games are definitely played a slower pace.
Other teams like Wisconsin and Illinois are fun to watch, particularly Demetri McCamey of Illinois who is second in the NCAA in assists. Illinois took Ohio State to two overtimes yesterday in a thrilling game.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Obviously because
Cal beat Duke in the tourney way back in the 90’s!
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
"way back in the 90’s!"
You’re making me feel old. I was at that game!
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Mar 14, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
To take attention away from the weakness of the ACC perhaps.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
ACC
It’s weak at the top, but I think there are some pretty solid teams in that conference with Maryland, Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Totally – but just not what you normally expect out of them.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
I expected better things out of Wake Forest and Georgia Tech.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Jay Bilas proved to me that he's an idiot today
I don’t see how I could justify putting Illinois over us when the’ve lost 13 games
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Correction
They’ve lost 14 games.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
hahaha, thats hilarious! It forces Bilas to think. Instead of just saying “Cal is x-y and they are in” he has to say “Cal is x-y, but lets take a closer look at those losses to see why some of them werent so bad and I think when you look at all the factors here they are NOT A LOCK AND SIXFOURFOURFOURFOURFOUR IS RIGHT AHHAAHAHAH TAKE THAT CGB!!!!!!!!!!!”
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I hope no one has been watching ESPN, the channel of Duke today
I think all the Dukies are scared of playing Cal again. So they’re trying to get us out in favor of Utah State. HA, nice try Blue Devils.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Duke
They shouldn’t be a one seed if you ask me, so we shouldn’t even match up with them in the second round since I think we’re a nine seed.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m hoping for a 7 (which is unlikely) or a 10.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Ummm...
If we’re a nine seed, we’d play the 1-16 winner if we upset the 8 in the second round.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Right
I don’t think Duke is a one seed, though.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno
Winning the ACC tourney locked them in, unless you think Ohio State can surpass them.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Ohio State
I also don’t think they’re a one seed. I think they’re the second number two seed behind Duke.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
They are 9-5 against the top 50 teams in the RPI. Their RPI ranks fourth in the country and their SOS is even better at third in the country.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Is that what you think should happen, or what you think will happen, or both?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Good Question
I think that’s what should happen, but I’m about 60 percent sure that Duke will grab the final top seed.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
And RRS thinks Duke is a 2 seed, not a 1 seed.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Where the bracketologists have Cal
Jerry Palm has Cal as a #10 seed against Oklahoma State with Duke as a possible second round match
Joe Lunardi has Cal as a #7 seed against Old Dominion with WVU as possible second round match
Glockner has as one of the last 6 in
SB Nation’s bracket has us as an #11 seed
Bracketville has us as a #10
College Hoops Net has us a #9 seed
Bracket Project has us as a #7 seed
Fox Sports has us as a #7 seed
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
I don’t mind that. If only we can use Jason Kidd’s remaining eligibility.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Good Research
As an 11 seed, I hope we can get Richmond. As a 10 seed, I hope we can get Northern Iowa. As a nine or eight seed seed, I hope we can somehow get UTEP or San Diego State. As a seven seed, I hope we can get Old Dominion or UNLV.
Teams I want to avoid entirely that we have a chance of facing in the first round are Louisville, Marquette, Notre Dame, Texas and Georgia Tech.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
And I haven't found a single bracketology that has us out
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Even Glockner has us in, because Kentucky and Duke won, and he had Minnesota in anyway, regardless if they win or lose to Ohio State.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Seth Davis (another Dukie) has us out
I’m so hoping we draw Duke. Pummel their pansy Blue Devil media dick sucking asses.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Basically, studio desk jockeys who don’t get into the numbers say we’re out, and bracketologists say we’re in.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
They just need things to talk about on these studio shows – and talking about the Pac-10 champ being out is sexier than talking about the merits of Utah State.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
My brother's a Duke fan
it’d be fun talking trash to him(:
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
But…Jay Bilas thinks we have desecrated college basketball. You are telling me he doesn’t get a vote?
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Huh?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
From the post above – “Jay Bilas just accused us of ‘gaming the system’ by not playing enough patsies.”
Just joking around.
by Tedfordisgod on Mar 14, 2010 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh. Yeah, I don’t understand the context of that, as I didn’t see it. What was he trying to say, and why?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn’t see it, but apparently the idea is that we ‘gamed’ the system by losing to great teams to make our strength of schedule look artificially high. He’s psycho
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
That's not gaming the system, it's playing a lot of teams that actually know how to play college basketball
..
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Virginia Tech
Their non-conference SOS rank is 339th in the country. They should be in the NIT, but I have a strange suspicion that they’re getting into the big dance.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 1:35 PM PDT reply actions
As for the "bad" loss to fUCLA
we were missing Jorge for that game. That might have had an effect on the outcome.
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Bad Losses
Our bad losses are to Arizona (97), USC (112), UCLA (135) and Oregon State (185). Those numbers after the teams in parenthesis are each team’s RPI.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think Arizona, USC is a bad loss
USC is a solid team, they beat Tennessee but got jipped by their AD and they seemed to give up afterwards. Arizona was in front of the conference at the time. UCLA already has an excuse, and we match up poorly against OSU.
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Minnesota got blown out by tOSU
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Top Performers
Top Performers
Minnesota: L. Westbrook 17 Pts, 2 Reb, 3 Ast, 2 Stl, 1 Blk
Ohio State: E. Turner 31 Pts, 12 Reb, 6 Ast, 2 Blk
Turner was amazing.
Also, Ohio State couldn’t miss. They shot 59 percent from the floor and 57 percent from deep.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
flagged
…For using the t for Ohio State.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Lunardi is revealing his bracket on ESPN
"But it only takes five future unabombers to take what should be a 400-comment thread and turn it into a 1,200-comment one full of anger… anger I suspect has more to do with the fact that they can’t land the hot chick rather than the fact that we signed Aubrey Huff instead of gave Garko a chance after dealing away a supposedly valuable prospect for him." -mlb22
Read my Cal blog: http://since59.blogspot.com/ Go Bears!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
