California Draws #8 Seed in South Region, to Play Louisville in Jacksonville on Friday
by Avinash on Mar 14, 2010 7:34 PM PDT
in Basketball
489 comments
Game is at 9:45 PM EST/6:45 PM PST. Can't ask for anything better timewise.
If Cal were to somehow pull it out, our second round opponent would be Duke. The Cardinals will be a tough first round opponent though, and probably should be one of the most competitive games this upcoming week. Some quick notes:
Brief look at Louisville's kenpom stats
LINK
Like Cal they have an efficient offense (#20) and an iffy defense (#77). On offense they’re good at offensive rebounding. On defense they’re good at forcing turnovers. Conversely, they’re bad at preventing offensive rebounds and they foul too much. Also, their offense turns the ball over too much.
Louisville
The reason why I am scared of them is because the team has proven that they can beat the best team in the country not once but twice. They beat Syracuse twice. They are definitely tested. They played one of the toughest schedules in the nation. Edgar Sosa is as dangerous as it gets if you ask me. If he’s on, it’s over. Rick Pitino is a fantastic head coach and even more so in the tournament. Samardo Samuels can be a load inside. Reginald Delk can really shoot it. Their biggest flaw is probably just inconsistency, but they are definitely capable of beating anyone.
Louisville plays up tempo and they pressure the ball. Christopher and Theo are not great ball handlers. There is only one Randle, and he can make some turnover mistakes when going mach 10. In the past, Pitino has had a lot of depth, and in a fast game, depth matters, because they just keep running fresh legs at you. Eventually you wear down and die at the end of the game.
Further, Louisville comes from the Big East, the best basketball conference by a long shot. The Big East is known for its big size and physical play. Meanwhile, Cal is undersized and prone to getting beat up inside.
Lastly, Pitino is a well experienced coach.
Those are 3 reasons to fear.
That said, Louisville’s tempo might play to our advantage. If our shooters are able to get into a groove, they can shoot till the cows come home. Lots of shots allow you to get into a groove. Few shots (Oregon State) makes it hard.
I don’t know Louisville’s current squad, but just knowing what they usually put out there, it would be a good program win.
I think Duke does not have the bruisers they have had in the past, and that’s our biggest weakness. Teams that can roll size and more size at us are the biggest concern.
ESPN2 Bracketology Show Just Talked About Cal vs. Louisville
It’s a roundtable format with several analysts. The highlights of the discussion:
Fran Fraschilla:
This is a tough draw for Louisville because Rick Pitino has had to play “mostly zone” because he “knows his team can’t play man to man.” And it’s a bad combination with Cal, because Fraschilla says Cal has the shooters to beat the zone. (He mentioned Randle, Christopher, and Robertson specifically.)Len Elmore:
Impressed by the fact that Louisville beat Syracuse twice. Even though Louisville has trouble playing man to man, he’s seen Louisville switch up from zone and man to man, then go back to zone. The multiple defenses have confused some teams during the season. Thinks Pitino might come up with some “wrinkles” to compensate for his team’s shortcomings in man to man defense.Mark Gottfried:
Mentioned that he did the Cal game vs. Murray State last November when “Murray State was one possession away from tying the game.” He likes the fact that Cal has 4 seniors and acknolwedged that Cal has great shooters. But he also said we have a glaring weakness on the inside: we have no consistent post presence to get baskets down low. Might be a problem for us.Not sure who said these things, but one of the analysts called us “a poor man’s Villanova.”
Don't forget to sign up for for the CGB March Madness Pool. Here is the full bracket. GO BEARS!
Big thanks to norcalnick and Ohio Bear for these tips, Rated-R Superstar and concordtom for their thoughts. Substantive preview coming tomorrow.
0 recs |
489 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Notre Dame and Clemson
The only two seeds higher than 8 that I really question.
But, feeling good. Anyone know Montgomery’s head-to-head versus Pitino?
Just to answer my lingering question
Pitino and Montgomery have NEVER matched up in college. NEVER matched up in the pros. At the very least, we’re going to witness one of the greatest coaching match-ups in modern college basketball.
Also, a Note Stolen from Card Chronicle
In 2001, Montgomery was coaching Stanford and Pitino was coaching UK. In 2010, they’re facing each other from their previous rival schools.
actually
RP was in transition from Boston to UofL. He left UK after the ’97 NCAA runner up for the Celtics….
by twistedwedge on Mar 15, 2010 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Can someone with college bball knowledge explain to me why so many of us are scared of Louisville? I’m not too up on college hoops. Not that I necessarily think we have a super good chance of winning (again, see: “not to up on college hoops”)… but Louisville must have been seeded at a 9 spot for a reason, right?
For one, Louisville press a lot. Depending on how physical they get with Randle and our lack of depth, I would be scared against any team that presses all game long.
by LEastCoastBears on Mar 14, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Louisville
The reason why I am scared of them is because the team has proven that they can beat the best team in the country not once but twice. They beat Syracuse twice. They are definitely tested. They played one of the toughest schedules in the nation. Edgar Sosa is as dangerous as it gets if you ask me. If he’s on, it’s over. Rick Pitino is a fantastic head coach and even more so in the tournament. Samardo Samuels can be a load inside. Reginald Delk can really shoot it. Their biggest flaw is probably just inconsistency, but they are definitely capable of beating anyone.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Louisville plays up tempo and they pressure the ball. Christopher and Theo are not great ball handlers. There is only one Randle, and he can make some turnover mistakes when going mach 10. In the past, Pitino has had a lot of depth, and in a fast game, depth matters, because they just keep running fresh legs at you. Eventually you wear down and die at the end of the game.
Further, Louisville comes from the Big East, the best basketball conference by a long shot. The Big East is known for its big size and physical play. Meanwhile, Cal is undersized and prone to getting beat up inside.
Lastly, Pitino is a well experienced coach.
Those are 3 reasons to fear.
That said, Louisville’s tempo might play to our advantage. If our shooters are able to get into a groove, they can shoot till the cows come home. Lots of shots allow you to get into a groove. Few shots (Oregon State) makes it hard.
I don’t know Louisville’s current squad, but just knowing what they usually put out there, it would be a good program win.
I think Duke does not have the bruisers they have had in the past, and that’s our biggest weakness. Teams that can roll size and more size at us are the biggest concern.
Brief look at Louisville's kenpom stats
LINK
Like Cal they have an efficient offense (#20) and an iffy defense (#77). On offense they’re good at offensive rebounding. On defense they’re good at forcing turnovers. Conversely, they’re bad at preventing offensive rebounds and they foul too much. Also, their offense turns the ball over too much.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Also, potentially important: Their 3 point defense is mediocre: 180th in the nation
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Mar 14, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pitino needs to go down
"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!
Pitino, then Coach K
Two of the most loathsome coaches in college hoops.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Printable Bracket
Print it and fill it out!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 3:58 PM PDT reply actions
Does Louisville have a big man or strong inside preence? That is something that could worry me.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yes
Samardo Samuels averages about 15 points and 7 rebounds per game, but that’s really it.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, my concern all year has been Cal’s lack of inside power. We will see howJamal Boykin can do. NorCalNick noted that they havebad 3 point defense, so hopefully we can take advantage of that.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Does anyone else...
…hate CBS Seth as much as I do right now?
by BlackandOldGold on Mar 14, 2010 3:58 PM PDT reply actions
I hate him soooooo much
"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!
Kind of random, but I just switched over to ESPN to watchtheir show at 4. They had some video of Pete Sampras and Andrew Aggasi being DICKS to each other at a charity event for Haiti. Like just mocking each other on the court and then Sampras served RIGHT at Aggasi. Crazy.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
YES
"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!
Virginia Tech
Well, Dick, when you play a non-conference schedule that’s 339th in the country, you probably don’t deserve to make the tournament and the Hokies did play that schedule and so they don’t deserve it.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:04 PM PDT reply actions
Good Question
I think Andy Katz or Steve Lavin pointed out that there’s about 350.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
340-something
"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!
Michigan State
Well, Dick, they’re not higher than a five seed because they went 8-7 against the RPI top 100. They probably should have been a six seed or a seven seed, really.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:06 PM PDT reply actions
MSU is dangerous
I think that even though they struggled (they seemingly always do), they can make a run
"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!
Agreed
Tom Izzo is a really good coach.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Note
Of all the 12 seeds, I think New Mexico State is the weakest and that’s who Michigan State gets.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Dickie V’s analysis these days is basically “A-C-C DUKIEEES COACH K DUKIEEES COACH K COACH K BIG EAST HERE AND THERE BUT DUKIEEEESSSS!!!!”
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Also, arguing for VT
"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!
though his logic
would have us in because he’s raving about how people finish
I went and glanced at the comments on SBNation’s Louisville site, and it made me sad. They all basically know nothing about Cal because Pac-10 is never on over there. All they know is the Pac-10 was way down this year so they think they got a great draw. Our conference promotion stinks so bad.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I like this
Question: Anyone know anything about Cal?
All i know is that they are from the Pac-10, which is terrible
by Tryce on Mar 14, 2010 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lost games early without their best player, then won the PAC-10 regular season.
But still have a terrible SOS and weak wins. I think 1 win vs. RPI top 50.
by CARD_G6 on Mar 14, 2010 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Terrible SOS? I thought we had the #8 SOS in the country.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I doubt they are reading Card Chronicles.
This reader believes that itll be easierto beat Duke than Cal.
This reader remembers when they crushed Stanford and hopes Cal is similar.
SO WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA?
by Cambroni Cardinals on Mar 14, 2010 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They play in the Pac 10, thats good enough for me
by Jerry H on Mar 14, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are a Pac-10 team, so they suck, i would guess?
by Tryce on Mar 14, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many of them seem to be looking past Cal to Duke already. Even talking about potential Final Fours.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Let them overlook us. I think we’re a lot better than our 8 seed gives us credit for.
What I know about Louisville from watching them this season is they bring it against teams where they’re perceived as huge underdogs. They’re definitely going to overlook us.
Some of their fans might
but I doubt their team or coaches will.
USC's Kevin O'Neill is on CBS in Socal
He’s raving about Cal and says they have a good chance of getting past Louisville and putting up a good fight against Duke. He says Randle can shoot “from Hollywood.” The other commentator on the show also called out Seth Davis for thinking so lowly of Cal.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
I didn’t watch the selection show. This Seth Davis really did a good job huh. It’s a witchhunt out here.
Seth Davis lets strange men sit on his face.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
He says Randle can shoot "from Hollywood."
That means nothing to me unless I know where the basket is! He might be underestimating Randle’s range!
I am a Vereenian.
Unless he was talking about Hollywood, FL. That’s only 330 miles from Jacksonville.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Called out? What’d he say?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions
It was kind of cool of Seth Davis
to post on our blog so much over the last 24 hours.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Mar 14, 2010 4:22 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
all that blather and Cal is pretty much right where everybody expected them to be
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I love it. Card Chronicals. Classic trap game is ready to bite them.
There are more posts about Duke than Cal. They talking like we’re a 15 seed or something.
Cornell and Temple
Both teams got screwed. Cornell should at least be where Florida is and Temple should be swapped with Purdue, Vanderbilt or Maryland.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Life in Louisville...
As someone who now lives in Louisville, many of the people here think their team is better than they really are.
I would love for our guys to shoot the lights out. Louisville isn’t very good at the 3 but does have a good inside guy (Samardo Samuels) who is a load. I think they’ll play pretty good D which Pitino’s players usually do. They did beat Syracuse twice, once in the final game of the Freedom Hall last weekend. Love to see Cal play Duke again…Maybe Jerome can lead Cal like Kidd did in 93.
having seen very little of Louisville this year, it sounds to me like the key to the game may be Boykin and Amoke containing Samuels and keeping him off the glass. And, of course, Cal’s perpetual key: Shooting well
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
HeyAlumniGo, good thoughts
Few questions.
1) What are Louisville’s biggest weaknesses you’ve seen?
2) How do the individual matchups work out?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Actually I don’t watch many of their games. They actually had a freshman who didn’t play much play really well against Syracuse last weekend. Hit a bunch of 3s and I think came from the weakside for a few dunks.
From what little I’ve seen, I think our guards are better but their big man is much better. I think MM will have to decide how to handle the inside game.
They are pretty athletic and I think have fairly good length at the guards and will probably press, given Pitino’s history. Not sure if he’ll have the zone up after seeing our tape. He usually does like to run so hopefully they’ll want to run with us.
We laugh at other people for knowing nothing about the Pac 10, but we know nothing about any other conference BUT the Pac 10!
Or am I just speaking for myself?
We are more knowledgable about them then they are us.
"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 think most Cal fans can name Edgar Sosa. Sometimes it feels like nobody east of the Mississippi has heard of Jerome Randle
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I think there are two people in Columbus Ohio who have heard of Jerome Randle
Those two people are CALumbus Bear and me.
I am a Vereenian.
That name does sound familiar…
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Mar 15, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Jerome needs to do better, period… I guess he was visibly tired/hurt in the championship game, and really made no dent in Washington. And if Louisville runs like UW did, then man… i’m nervous.
no cal bear? no care
by EchoOfSilence on Mar 14, 2010 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ve seen most of the 2 Syracuse games, and I’m not afraid of Samuels. It’s one of their other random players getting hot that worries me.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously
They have Georgetown, Maryland, Tennessee and Ohio State in there.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I would be so pissed if I were them. #1 seed and they have to do a death march to the finals? Their regional is brutal.
Good thing they have the team to do it
They’re the most complete team in the country. If they win their first four they should win their final two.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Bracket Predictions
Midwest: I like Kansas, UNLV, Michigan State, Maryland, Tennessee, Georgetown, Georgia Tech and Ohio State to advance. My final four teams in this region are Kansas, Maryland, Tennessee and Ohio State. My regional final for this is Kansas over Tennessee.
West: I like Syracuse, Gonzaga, UTEP, Murray State, Xavier, Pittsburgh, Brigham Young and Kansas State to advance. My final four teams in this region are Syracuse, Murray State, Pittsburgh and Kansas State. My regional final for this is Syracuse over Kansas State.
East: I like Kentucky, Texas, Temple, Wisconsin, Marquette, New Mexico, Clemson and West Virginia to advance. My final four teams in this region are Texas, Wisconsin, Marquette and West Virginia. My regional final for this is Marquette over West Virginia.
South: I like Duke, California, Texas A&M, Siena, Notre Dame, Baylor, Saint Mary’s and Villanova to advance. My final four teams in this region are Duke, Texas A&M, Baylor and Villanova. My regional final for this is Baylor over Texas A&M.
Final Four: I like Syracuse over Kansas and Baylor over Marquette. I’ll take Syracuse to win it all over Baylor.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:39 PM PDT reply actions
My favorite match up is Oakland versus Pittsburg. IT’S ALL EAST BAY!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I was surprised that Clayton was left out of the tournament altogether. Disappointing season for them.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Hayward had a good team but they were snubbed. They’ll dominate the NIT.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 14, 2010 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Pittsburgh
They have Xavier, Minnesota, Brigham Young and Florida down there. With the exception of Kansas State, that’s very favorable for ’em.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel kind of sorry for the Mid-majors who have gotten so many bids this year. They’re going to reset their view of normal. Going to be a rude awakening when the Pac-10 revives and takes four of those away again.
Kyle Whelliston is grinding his teeth somewhere
at yet another reference to the MWC and A-10 as “mid-majors.”
By $$$ spent, they rank far higher than conferences that are typically thought of as mid-majors. So does C-USA, though they don’t get any results for it. The only teams from true “mids” to get at-large bids are Gonzaga (lol) and Utah State. The WAC is like the #10 conference this year and Gonzaga is not a mid-major program.
It’s par for the course in the world of seeding by projected results. Until the NCAA scraps that system and replaces it with one where teams are seeded based on what they actually did during the regular season, it will not change. This year was fluky only in the sense that the #6-8 leagues were unusually close to one another in talent level.
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."
Yep, A-10 is legit. Richmond beat Missouri OOC, we beat Florida OOC, we beat Miss St OOC (who just missed the tourney), we beat Temple (who beat ‘Nova, by the way) and Xavier in conference. Our conference got more teams in than the Pac-10 did, and also had the top bubble team (URI) that didn’t get in, at least according to RPI….
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we’re going to see more years like this. Big programs have to keep on replenishing their programs due to the one and done rule. North Carolina, UCLA, UConn, Arizona, all of them aren’t going dancing this year. Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse are all taking huge hits this season.
College basketball will never be a parity league, but we could see up years for midmajors more and more where they draw a huge number of seeds.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
I’m not sure why everyone is so down on the draw. 8 seed sucks, but it’s going to suck no matter what. My school (Richmond) is in the same bracket, and I love our bracket, it’s really set up for a good run with some luck. It’s easily the weakest bracket – ‘Nova is a bit weak for a 2, I’d rather play Duke than any of the other 1 seeds, Purdue has been playing terribly lately, including scoring 42 points while getting destroyed by Minnesota in their last game….really the best bracket to be in. Just sucks that Cal has a tough first round game in Louisville, especially since Cal struggles with some of the more athletic teams. At least Duke is the least athletic #1 out there if you get by Louisville. I’m extremely pleased with Richmond’s draw (bottom of the same bracket), except that we have to play another team I root against first round….
Agreed. If Cal is an 8 (and I don’t think many will argue too hard about that) then we may as well get matched up across from Duke. As for Louisville, I can’t tell you if they’re any more or less scary than the other 9 seeds: Florida St. (#19 kenpom), Northern Iowa (#32) or Wake Forest (#50)
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Nine Seeds
Looking around, Wake Forest is the last one of them I’d rather play because of Al-Farouq Aminu. In this order, I would have wanted Northern Iowa, Florida State, Louisville and then Wake Forest.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Awesome, no one giving Cal any love at all
Keep it up guys. I’m sure our boys will be super motivated at all the ignoring everyone’s doing.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
LOL at ESPN right now
Nobody has even considered that Louisville might not win their opening game. Fuel for the fire for our guys, I guess.
Louisville should just keep on looking ahead
Start preparing for that Duke game. I’m liking this. I’m liking this.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
It's more than that
It’s more that they didn’t really even mention that Louisville even had an opening game. It was just a given that Louisville would play Duke.
It was worse than saying they thought Louisville would have problem with Cal. For all I know, that’s what will happen. But they acted as if Cal didn’t exist.
yup
all they said about cal was “their resume isn’t the best” followed by all assuming that they beat us. You’d think we were about a 11 seed or greater the way this is going.
Looking Ahead
Against whom does Cal match up better: Winthrop or Arkansas – Pine Bluff?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Mar 14, 2010 5:52 PM PDT reply actions
So just to review...
Cal wins the conference, loses the tournament final to the 3 team in the conference, and gets an 8 seed, which means playing a 9 seed and therefore no real advantage from the seeding in the first place? The bracketeers think they’re worse than 56 teams in the country?
I suppose it’s a good thing they advanced to the tournament final.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
loses the tournament final to the 3 team in the conference
Well, considering the 2 team didn’t get into the tournament and the 3 team only did because they got the automatic bid…..that’s not all the impressive……
The bracketeers think they’re worse than 56 teams in the country?
? 8 seeds should be the 29-32 teams in the country?
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions
sorry MB
you know I’m not a stat guy… I meant 32. It just seems like pretty tough medicine for losing the tournament final but at least it demonstrates what would have happened had they dumped the first round game… only one Pac-10 team in at all?
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Mar 14, 2010 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
That would have been weird. What’s it like rooting for such a bad conference? It’s a mystery to us power conference folks (my school’s in the A-10). ;)
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope to see your California Golden Bears in the Elite 8.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope to see nobody’s Duke Blue Devils in the Thrifty Thirty Two!
PS Don’t hat on me, bc I’m rooting for my hometown Gaels!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I’m a bit disappointed. I root for the Gaels, too (I root for Richmond, Cal, St Mary’s in that order), and they’re all in the same bracket and two of them play each other first round. That’s too bad. My roommate went to ’Nova, so that could get interesting in Round 2 if we win.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually have some friends who went to Richmond and you are cool, so I would defintiely root for them if they werent up against the Gaels. Oh well, its sorta win-win there. Also, lose-lose.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
It is kinda fun since I know both teams and have an interest in them and watched them, and it guarantees one moves on, so it’s not all bad.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Good thing you didn’t attend our 1920 football game against St. Mary’s, then. Final score: Cal 127, St. Mary’s 0. You would have been so torn.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Roger, Roger. What's our Vector, Victor?
Damn no DBDs on the weekend. The entire CGB family I’m sure will tomorrow be mourning Peter Graves, who was found dead at home today. :-(
What’s the over/under on how many Airplane! lines can be quoted in one DBD?
Peter Graves is dead???
Guess I picked the wrong time to quit drinking…
RIP :(
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Surely you can’t be serious…
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 15, 2010 9:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
We used to have weekend DBDs
Now that our community’s grown, we might consider reviving them.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Friday's game time is set
ESPN2 showing that Cal vs. Louisville is at 9:45 PM ET on Friday.
I am a Vereenian.
Nice
I can watch the game.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions
That's very good for Cal
9:45 is unusually late for an East Coast team’s game, while 6:45 is quite normal for a West Coast team.
I remember Stanford had to play Louisville at 9:30 a.m. a few years ago (and in Kentucky, just to make things even worse). They were essentially run out of the building before anyone on the team had even woken up.
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."
ESPN2 Bracketology Show Just Talked About Cal vs. Louisville
It’s a roundtable format with several analysts. The highlights of the discussion:
Fran Fraschilla:
This is a tough draw for Louisville because Rick Pitino has had to play “mostly zone” because he “knows his team can’t play man to man.” And it’s a bad combination with Cal, because Fraschilla says Cal has the shooters to beat the zone. (He mentioned Randle, Christopher, and Robertson specifically.)
Len Elmore:
Impressed by the fact that Louisville beat Syracuse twice. Even though Louisville has trouble playing man to man, he’s seen Louisville switch up from zone and man to man, then go back to zone. The multiple defenses have confused some teams during the season. Thinks Pitino might come up with some “wrinkles” to compensate for his team’s shortcomings in man to man defense.
Mark Gottfried:
Mentioned that he did the Cal game vs. Murray State last November when “Murray State was one possession away from tying the game.” He likes the fact that Cal has 4 seniors and acknolwedged that Cal has great shooters. But he also said we have a glaring weakness on the inside: we have no consistent post presence to get baskets down low. Might be a problem for us.
Not sure who said these things, but one of the analysts called us “a poor man’s Villanova.”
I am a Vereenian.
Cal’s struggled against zone this year, that could be a problem. They’ve also struggled against athletic teams both this year and last. Also, Louisville’s leading scorer is 6’9 260 – MSF is going to have to have a nice game. The more I look into it, the more it does sound like a tough matchup for Cal.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s why the comments from Fraschilla surprised me a little bit. Since we struggled against zone, it was a little surprising to hear someone say that Louisville’s zone was actually a good matchup for us because of our shooting.
Someone else, not Fraschilla or Gottfried, pointed out that Pitino long ago was an assistant for Boeheim, which meant that perhaps he had some insider’s knowledge of Boeheim’s matchup zone that gave Louisville the “blueprint” to do well against the Cuse. Not only that, the analyst mused that Louisville’s zone can be beat if you can spot an athletic player who can shoot right in the middle of it — at about the FT line. The rhetorical question was, “Does Cal have a player like that?” the implication being, if yes, we have a good chance to win and, if no, we don’t.
Sorry, don’t remember who made that observation.
I am a Vereenian.
Robertson and Boykin would presumably be the candidates for that role
though I question the wisdom of any sort of offensive attack that would rely primarily on midrange jumpers, which are a lousy bet in the college game. There’s a reason the midrange game is becoming a lost art— it’s not very valuable.
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."
It'll make them better pros, whereever they end up
But I do agree that their games are not suited to win six straight games in a row against the best of the country.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Sorry, I wasn't clear
I didn’t mean to imply that Robertson and Boykin as players are primarily useful in that role. They aren’t— Boykin gets a ton of layups and post shots and Robertson is most useful on dribble-drives and 3-pointers.
I’m just saying that a. if Cal (for strategic reasons) chose to put someone at that spot, they would be reasonable choices, and b. that I question the wisdom of such a strategy.
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."
though I question the wisdom of any sort of offensive attack that would rely primarily on midrange jumpers
The point isn’t to get midrange jumpers, it’s the zone is most exploitable from the FT line area – not for shots, but for passing. You get the ball to that point, and it opens up the whole floor, as you can pass to everyone, and nobody on the defense is in good position to guard it, so it also creates dribble drive opportunities. Having a jump shot opens it up a bit (both in passing lanes and for the dribble drive), but creating a midrange jump shot is only secondary to the strategy of getting the ball to the middle of the zone.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Cal has not struggled against zone defenses
Their sub-100 offensive-efficiency games came against three great defenses (Kansas, Syracuse and USC) and Washington on the road (and they’re great at defense at Hec Ed— only one opponent all season had better than a 100.6 offensive efficiency there). The “struggle against zones” thing is a pure canard. Cal actually was over 100 both times they played Oregon State— the cause of the blowout loss in Corvallis was the team’s complete unwillingness to play any defense.
Posting a 100 offensive efficiency is unlikely to be good enough (Cal lost 6 games where they posted >100 OEs), but Louisville would have to be playing quite well defensively to hold Cal to a point per possession.
More fun with efficiencies: Cal is 7-6 in “no-defense” games (both teams over 100 OE) while losing the only “no-offense” game they played to USC. This game is much more likely to be in the former category.
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."
by PaulThomas on Mar 14, 2010 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
PT, do you side with Kenpom and see Cal as a slight favorite?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Sure
I have no particular reason to buck them.
I will say this— I’d be surprised if the game is close. I’d expect one team to put the other away by about the 8 minute mark of the second half. I’m just not sure who’s the putter and who’s the puttee.
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."
The "struggle against zones" thing is a pure canard.
It’s a duck? ;-)
Seriously, glad you pointed that out. I instinctively fall prey to the canard.
BTW, as I recall, we also struggled in the Ucla game at Haas against Ucla’s lame zone. But that had more to do with you inability to make open shots.
I am a Vereenian.
That looks to me like it supports Cal struggling against a zone. They posted a 103.2 efficiency both games against OSU, which is over 100, but also far less than the 113.9 it says they averaged. So OSU, a not very good team, caused their offense to be less effective than normal according to those stats. Additionally, while a team like Syracuse is good, Cal really did struggle against their zone, and the fact that it was a zone contributed. Watching that game, it was obvious Cal struggled to break down zone defense – they didn’t get it to the high post, the only player that could penetrate was Randal, and he was too short to create passing lanes….good shooting doesn’t mean much if the zone covers the shooters, which was exactly what happened. The only real excuse was Theo didn’t play, though that is definitely a meaningful excuse.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions
So here’s the question. How much does OSU’s particular 1-3-1 effect Cal vs. a more traditional 2-3 like what ASU and UCLA ran ineffectively against Cal. I think Louisville runs a 2-3. Can anybody confirm that?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
A 2-3 does not harass the point guard the way a 1-3-1 does. And Randle has always struggled with Tarver’s length and ability. It takes so long for Cal to get out of their offense, and they don’t have the bigs inside to break it down.
With a 2-3, you can still move the ball around methodically-it might keep the Bears from getting the usual shots they want, but they still get pretty good looks they’re used to hitting. You just have to find the holes, exploit the high post and then get guys cutting to the basket.
Like most things, it comes down to the amount of pressure you get on Randle.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
And of course the lack of bigs which has hurt us all year
Damn I miss Kamp. This is a top 15 team if he’s here.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Imagine this team with Kamp and Ryan Anderson...
A title contender, or THE title contender?
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."
PG: Jason Kidd, Jerome Randle
SG: Ed Gray, Patrick Christopher, joe Shipp
SF: Lamond Murray, Sean Lampley
PF: Leon Powe, Tony Gonzalez
PF/C: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Ryan Anderson
11th man: Monty Buckley
12th man: Max Zhang
Cal’s problems with the zone as I see them:
First – Cal doesn’t have much in terms of post scoring. For some zones, this is ok, as the zone collapses on the post anyways and doesn’t let a post man do much. If the post man is a great passer, they can exploit this, but big men are dumb, can’t help it, just how they’re born, so most can’t exploit it anyways. For other zones, though, there’s a lot of room down low as they extend out on shooters and perimeter players, which is exactly what a zone against Cal should do since they don’t have a real threat down low to take advantage of it.
Second – they don’t look for the high post enough. Most zones are weak at the FT line area. This is because all passing lanes are open, the guy can hit every spot on the floor with a pass, be it a high low action on the post, the corner spots, either wing, or the PG. The zone can’t defend all these places at once, especially if it’s overloaded. Plus, if the high post guy has skills of his own, he can hit that jumper or take it to the rim, which adds another problem as most zones get out of whack when they really have to worry about the high post man scoring. Some of Cal’s lack of attacking from the high post is they don’t try hard enough, but some of it I think might be lack of size – while Boykin and Theo both have the perfect skillset for it, they’re a little small and it can be difficult for a wing to get the ball in to them, especially against long athletic players like Syracuse features. They really close up passing lanes. Also, Cal’s best player and passer is Randle, but he’s small and struggles with passing lanes.
Third – Randle. He makes the offense go. The zone matches up well against him – there’s always someone everywhere he goes, it closes his driving lanes fast, they can easily extend out and pressure and harass him all game. Also, he’s the only one on the team that can penetrate effectively (Theo can at times against man defense, but struggles more against zone because of his lack of quickness), but he’s too small to create passing lanes and has a hard time creating for his teammates against zones. In man, it’s not a problem as he’s such a mismatch, but the zone always has players ready to guard him – which means someone’s open, but his size makes it difficult for him to find them (and for a PG, his vision/passing isn’t ideal, which is normally fine because he’s so good at other stuff but hurts at times against the zone).
So against a traditional 2-3, this isn’t too much of a problem as you can beat it with good perimeter passing, and not too much dribble drives. It becomes more of a problem against a 1-3-1 or a matchup zone like Syracuse’s, where the spots to beat it are either on the low or high post, but those are places Cal has struggled to get the ball and be effective once it’s there. Also, driving and kicking can be effective, but Cal’s personnel doesn’t match up well to do that. So that’s what I’ve seen.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, OSU isn’t a very good team, but they do have a good defense…the average offensive efficiency against them is just 93.5. Posting above a 100 efficiency against them, even if below the Bears’ average, is still an accomplishment.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I’m not sure that it is – OSU played the #126 hardest schedule according to that site, with the only tournament teams they played being Cal and UW – given that Cal is the best team they played all year, AND a pretty good offensive team, I would expect them to post well above OSU’s defensive efficiency average. Cal put up their 113.9 average efficiency against the #19 SOS, on the other hand….
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
OK
Look at only conference games then. The link is further down the thread. It’s a balanced schedule so the symmetry is perfect.
Cal scored 1.13 points per possession and OSU gave up 0.97. Average the two and you get 1.05, which is only 0.025 points per possession less than expected. That’s literally one missed three-pointer away from expected results, surely within the margin for error.
The shocking thing about those two games was, rather, OSU scoring 1.12 points per trip when you’d have expected about 0.97, or about 19 points more than you’d expect.
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."
On further consideration, I believe I'm doing this incorrectly
I think Cal is actually expected to show more like 1.09 PPP and OSU 0.94. So that makes it look a little worse for Cal against that defense.
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."
OSU isn't a very good team overall, but they ARE a good team defensively
giving up only about 0.97 points per possession in conference play.
Again, the apparent struggles against zone are a product of the particular (and very unusual) fact that most of the best defenses Cal played against this season were zones (and that includes ASU, which Cal effectually shredded twice). It’s confusing correlation with causation.
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."
It’s confusing correlation with causation.
Eh, I think you’d need a really, really convincing case to get me to buy that. Just from the games I watched Cal’s shortcomings were pretty evident – what they needed to do to beat the zone tended to be things their team is weak in as I laid out a ltitle above this comment – getting the ball to the high post, driving into the gaps of the zone, and taking advantage of the zone when it extends with an effective post man….
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions
If you take the Pomeroy rankings for the gospel,
Cal just IS Villanova, no socioeconomic qualifiers required.
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’s higher level analysis than you usually get from those shows. Still pretty perfunctory though, and it’s clear that none of them know much about Cal.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Joe Lunardi likes us at least...
From ESPN chat-
“JOE LUNARDI: I’m taking Cal over Louisville. The Golden Bears are better than most think.”
Jack "The Must, Just has no Rust, ain't no Bust, after him the ladies Lust, turns pitchers into Dust, likes his pizza with no Crust" Cust
Yeah, I love Lunardi
Jack "The Must, Just has no Rust, ain't no Bust, after him the ladies Lust, turns pitchers into Dust, likes his pizza with no Crust" Cust
"Five sleepers to watch"
Some dude named Eamonn Brennan:
4. No. 9 Louisville: OK, so Louisville isn’t the most enticing team in the world. The Cardinals have plenty of flaws. But hear me out: Louisville got a fantastic match up with overseeded No. 8 California in the first round of the tournament. Then it’s No. 1 Duke, and yeah, sure, that’s a tough one, but if you’re a No. 9 seed, of all the No. 1 seeds, you want your second round game to be against Duke. If Louisville can beat Syracuse twice, they can (at least theoretically) top the Dukies.
I am a Vereenian.
Overseeded?
Seeded too high: Notre Dame as a No. 6, Florida as a No. 10, Wake Forest at No. 9.
Seeded too low: Pretty much all of the Atlantic-10 (Temple, Richmond and Xavier), Cornell at No. 12, and probably Tennessee at No. 6.
Most intriguing first-round games: UNLV-Northern Iowa, Maryland-Houston, Oklahoma State-Georgia Tech, Butler-UTEP, Xavier-Minnesota, Marquette-Wisconsin, California-Louisville, Notre Dame-Old Dominion and Richmond-St. Mary’s.
Great individual star-watch games: Maryland guard Greivis Vasquez, the ACC Player of the Year, against Houston guard Aubrey Coleman, averaging 25.6 points per game; Oklahoma State All-American guard James Anderson against Georgia Tech lottery pick Derrick Favors; Butler forward Gordon Hayward against UTEP forward Derrick Caracter; Texas’ all-purpose forward Damion James against Wake Forest’s Al-Farouq Aminu (if Aminu shows up, after finishing the season poorly); Cal guard Jerome Randle against Louisville guard Edgar Sosa.
I am a Vereenian.
Most intriguing first-round games: UNLV-Northern Iowa, Maryland-Houston, Oklahoma State-Georgia Tech, Butler-UTEP, Xavier-Minnesota, Marquette-Wisconsin, California-Louisville, Notre Dame-Old Dominion and Richmond-St. Mary’s.
:)
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
It’ll be interesting. I think we’re going to win, too – we’re too athletic for them, but we don’t really have much to matchup with Samhan. Maybe Geroit can do it, but the rest of our big men are skinny and athletic – (Samhan is just huge), it’ll be interesting to see if that favors Samhan or us in the game.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s the athleticism that I had in mind for Richmond’s edge. (Grain of salt: I’ve seen Saint Mary’s play twice and Richmond about the same this year.) Samhan looks unathletic to me; he might be tough to guard low, but he might not be able to stay with an athletic big defensively.
If SMC can be as hot as they were in the 2nd half of the WCC championship game, it will be REAL interesting.
I am a Vereenian.
Samhan definitely isn’t athletic, but he’s really big, and to his credit, his conditioning and athleticism have improved tremendously since HS – more than anyone I’ve seen. We, on the other hand, are actually extremely athletic – moreso than Cal I would say.
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions
(Samhan’s definitely more skilled than any of our bigs, though, and 6’11 ~250+ is…..big!)
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Snort. Easy money.
I’m not going to begrudge you your ability to bet on the Bears, but the only thing easy there is betting it.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Jerome is ready to prove the doubters wrong
Waking up and seeing that we might be a bubble team really got to me," Randle said. "I’m not really understanding that. Then I started thinking about (people) trashing our league. It’s a slap in the face. People are downing this league like it’s not a competitive league but I know competition.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Message to Louisville...
Randle can’t make anything from 22 feet out. So if he’s out a step or two beyond the arc, leave him alone. Let him take that shot. But if he gets by you inside the arc, FOUL HIM! Better to put him on the line than let him drive.
I am a Vereenian.
Actually, why let him dribble the ball at all
Just foul him constantly when we’re in the bonus. Two points is less than three.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
according to Card Chronicle, it only took 5 hours
U of L opened as a one-point underdog in Vegas, but are now a one-point favorite after five hours of betting.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Sounds like oski4u should hold off on his betting!
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions
sixsevenfiftysix, where are you now?
Whatever happened to sixsevenfifty guy?
I’d love to see an equally dedicated discussion about what actually transpired today versus his ridiculous ‘arguments’ (full of runarounds where he’ll say one thing to argue his point but when we use the same point against him he hits his caps lock button) that pissed off a lot of Cal fans yesterday.
Surprisingly, Cal fans are very confident about this team and it seems like our basketball team support is at levels never seen before in recent times. Skepticism is low, optimism is super high. I’m loving it. Go Bears.
lawlz.
" Voted for Cal earned the wrong seeding and drew a horrible bracket. on California Golden Blogs – 03/14/10 6:33 PM PDT"
Yeah, me and fifty-five other people.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
To be fair, that could mean they think Cal should be a 7 seed. Or a 9 seed. Not that Cal should be like a 14 seed.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I heart TwistNHook, and I know you know that I didn’t think Cal should be anywhere near a 14 seed, but some people who probably didn’t even read my posts probably may think I did. I didn’t.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I’d love to see an equally dedicated discussion about what actually transpired today versus his ridiculous ‘arguments’
You’re the only one. I never want to discuss this again.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Haha you fueled his fire by making that post. Should have stopped while you were ahead. Can’t feed trolls like that.
He seemed reasonable when he started. I had no idea what I was in for.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
I’m not going to get started again (I wouldn’t have any desire to, even if I did feel like making you guys mad again, which I don’t), but the people responding to me weren’t reasonable either. When people make dumb points to me, I call them out on it. I’m sorry.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but I’m both intrigued and scared by whatever I missed, and I’m not sure which of those emotions should be winning….
by Missing Barry on Mar 14, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions
If you feel like seeing one person (me) start off by stating his disagreement that California were a “lock” after losing the Pac-10 title game (i.e., while games could’ve knocked even more teams off the bubble), then get progressively angrier and angrier (and admittedly out of line) as other people tell him he’s just such an idiot and “fucking retarded” and so forth, then read the comments on the “Seeding Debate” and post-P10 final recap posts. Otherwise, don’t bother.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
In all seriousness, 6756, as long as we can put the ridiculousness of yesterday and this morning behind us and everybody can act calmly and reasonably going forward, you are always welcome here. Some other blogs might be quick to ban, but we give way too many chances! Way too many!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I probably won’t be here much just because I spend about 90% of my consciousness on the Caps (that’s not 90% of my sports consciousness, people), but yeah.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
yet somehow
you were trolling our blog while the Caps were making an incredible comeback against a very good Blackhawks team yesterday, sans Ovechkin (a dirty hit by Ovechkin?? You don’t say!).
Kind of odd for a self professed Caps die hard to miss all that for a stupid argument on a random blog for a team that has little interest for you
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’m obviously not going to take your Ovi troll bait, but I didn’t miss a thing. I did most posting between periods and during commercial breaks. You’ll even see that I wrote that I wished I could’ve been watching the SEC game but I was actually watching the Caps.
Stop acting like you know my life.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Only if you come to Seattle and perform the interpretive dance you were talking about for me.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
What makes you think I haven’t been angry at random people since before that?
Stop acting like you know my life.
With all due respect, you’re trolling right now. You’re posting about a Pittsburgh Penguins-Washington Capitals game on a blog about the Cal Bears on a post that’s about basketball just to try to get a reaction out of me. I’m not even going to post a response to anything else about hockey from you on here.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
So, to calm this situation down, it seems like I need to post as many hockey-related things as possible.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
/puts on his best Razor voice
Go Sharks!
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
you're the one who brought up the Caps in this thread, buddy
I did not bring hockey into this, you did. And you do seem to have a lot of anger. Lots of ALL CAPS use. Lots of HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THIS type of sentiment.
I’m calmer than you are, dude.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I brought up the Caps as a complete aside during a friendly conversation with someone other than you. I also never accused you of not being calm.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
And I never said I wasn’t angry, either. We completely agree, there’s no need to beat it to a bloody pulp. We can still salvage some of those organs and and donate them if we just stop now.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
You should’ve just said, “CBKWit, I love you, but sooner or later you’re gonna have to face the fact that you’re a goddamn moron”.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
CBKWit, I love you, but sooner or later you’re gonna have to face the fact that you’re a goddamn moron.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
you're right, 6756, there is an unspoken message here
fuck you, leave me the fuck alone!!
…
yeah, I’ll be at practice
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
If you were actually reading this thread you’d know that I was making a joke, along with someone who seems to be a respected member of your community. I’m taking it very, very easy.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
(psst – CBKWit and sycasey are both still quoting Lebowski)
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I know. See, this is the problem with SBNation not being able to show who’s replying to who when we’re at this point.
I think we can probably both agree that, upon first reading “Would you just take it easy?!” ostensibly in response to me essentially telling someone they’re a goddamn moron, it’s not completely unreasonable to initially believe they’re talking to you.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Best line in the whole movie. Easily.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
My favorite line is when Donny says, “What do you need that for, Dude?”, when the Dude says he doesn’t need sympathy, he needs his fucking Johnson.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
and keeping an amphibious rodent...
for domestic…that ain’t legal either dude
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Another good one.
Best moment in the movie, spoken or unspoken: the In-n-Out reveal. Which now makes me sad because I went vegetarian and In-n-Out is probably the only thing I occasionally miss. Booooo :(
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I went vegetarian
Ohhhhh you just lost all your credibility right there. You really have been completely wrong about everything! :)
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve only seen that movie about three dozen times. I think SBNation is out of its element.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
(oh btw—since we’re so far along in this thread I assumed you were responding to me when it might’ve been to CBKWit, sorry if I made an incorrect assumption)
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Click on the “up” button on the bottom of each post to see to which previous post it is replying.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
But he’s the only person here that I trust. Other than myself.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow. Such a misguided soul :)
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
But 6756, they called you an idiot because you WERE being an idiot. People tried to explain to you that top 50 wins wasn’t the most important selection criteria and that we were a lock to make the tourney. You disagreed, saying it was a close call. Whether or not you’ll admit it, an 8 seed proves that they were right and you were wrong.
I’m sorry, no matter what kind of seeding adjustments take place, one of the last few teams in doesn’t get all the way up to an 8.
Even though I partially agree with you, GoBears7, we had those discussions, they are in the past. Let’s just move on. Right or wrong, it’s all water under the bridge.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
That seems a little unnecessary. I didn’t read it, but just because someone was making a case that’s different from your opinion doesn’t make them an idiot, there are probably some fair points why Cal could have been ranked lower than an 8 seed. Sure, you can look in hindsight now and say they were ranked #8, but that doesn’t mean the arguments about what the tournament selection committee was going to do were invalid at the time, before you knew the outcome….
You guys can get a little over the top defensive about Cal, by the way…..
;)
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, but 6756 wasn’t arguing that “Cal should be lower than an 8 seed”, he was saying it was quite possible that Cal wouldn’t be selected for the tourney AT ALL.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
the 10 at large teams below us beg to differ
sorry Seth, you were wrong.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
ANYTHING is “possible”, but I think the point that we were making was that it was extremely unlikely. I’d say there was maybe a 1 or 2% chance that something crazy happened and we were left out, which is pretty much a lock as far as most normal people are concerned. Maybe that’s not a lock to you, though, and maybe therein lies the root of our disagreement.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
My argument the entire time included the assertion that if all the teams that bubble (and bubble-ish) teams wanted to win won then you were “extremely unlikely” to miss the tournament. But all that argument happened before those games ended/started. So relax.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
And if they all won, then I think that the other (what is it, 10?) at-large teams seeded below us would’ve been bounced before us. Or at least 8 or 9 of them would’ve been. Which means the possibility was quite remote.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
at-large teams seeded below us would’ve been bounced before us.
Yeah, probably, but seeding and selection are separate processes. First you select the teams, then you seed them—the last teams selected aren’t necessarily the lowest seeded. You’re also assuming that the committee would do the right thing. They often do, but usually there’s at least one OMG WTF HOW COULD YOU LEAVE THEM OUT per year. Seriously, we’re all internet-friends here. There’s no reason for this to continue.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
but usually there’s at least one OMG WTF HOW COULD YOU LEAVE THEM OUT per year.
URI! URI! Doesn’t the selection committee know how tough and competitive the power conference A-10 is?! It’s not like we get to cake walk through a Pac-10 schedule all season long. We play real competition day in and day out! :)
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve got no beef. We’re having a rational discussion about it. I agree that seeding and selection are different, but they’re not completely unrelated. I even acknowledged that maybe not ALL the at-large teams seeded below us would have been bounced before us, but you have to admit that most of them would. Like I said, maybe not all 10 but at least 8 or 9.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
The thing you really have to remember is that the committee, even after determining what each team’s true seed should be, can adjust it one slot either way to meet other bracket guidelines. Maybe you guys were a true seven. Maybe you guys were a true nine. Florida was a ten, and they were pretty clearly on the bubble—maybe the committee thought they were a true nine as well? We can’t say.
Also, like… I mean, I feel like I’ve already said this a dozen times, but since you seem to continue to ignore it, the whole point was never that I was saying that either 1) Cal didn’t deserve to make it, 2) The committee wouldn’t think Cal didn’t deserve to make it, or 3) Cal wouldn’t make it. Just saying that (unlike a good 25+ other at-large teams) a group of people could sit down, say that California wasn’t one of the non-automatic qualifiers that had had one of the 34 best seasons, and it wouldn’t be the most shocking thing to ever happen in the world. Are you really disputing this? If you are, we’re not going to find any common ground.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it wouldn’t have been the most shocking thing ever to happen in the world.
But it would’ve been fairly shocking in terms of NCAA tournament selection history, and it was quite unlikely. I’ll grant that it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility, but it was far outside the realm of probability. Why don’t we put some numbers on it; what do you think the chances were, roughly, that we didn’t get picked? 30% 25? 20%? 10%? That will probably give us the clearest indication of how different our perspectives are.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I think I said something like 60-70% chance in one of the threads (considering the possibility that OSU and UK could lose), and that was probably lower than what I actually believed just because people here were pissing me off something fierce.
I’ll grant that it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility
That’s what I was being called an idiot for.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
60-70% chance that Cal DIDN’T get picked? So, more likely than not that we stayed home.
Or do you mean 30-40% chance that we didn’t get picked?
Even still, that’s a pretty significant difference from what I think most of us were thinking. I bet most of us felt there was maybe around 5% chance we didn’t get picked, which is pretty much lock territory, barring some major surprises. So you were about an order of magnitude higher than most of us in your pessimism.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, the second one. I always maintained that I thought California should and would get picked.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, probably, but seeding and selection are separate processes.
Yeah, but you can’t act like the committee would seed the teams completely out of order from how they picked them. Otherwise, what the hell would be the point of seeding? True bubble teams are the at-larges seeded between 10-12. For Cal to have truly been on the bubble, they would have had to have been pushed up at least TWO FULL SEEDS to an 8. I find it hard to believe there’s that much difference between the last teams selected and the lowest seeded.
Face it, bro . . . Cal was never on the bubble. RPI of 20 and SOS of 15 even after losing to UW had it clinched.
This is a flagrant misrepresentation of the selection process
The committee selects teams in waves. They then seed those teams preliminarily while still waiting on additional information from conference tournaments.
It is not merely likely, but overwhelmingly likely, that Cal was not selected in the final wave of teams. In fact, it is rather likely, based on where they ended up, that they had already been selected for the field at the time you were making your argument yesterday.
Of course the last teams selected are the lowest seeded. Why the hell would the committee wait until the last minute to pick a team, then suddenly decide that they really like the team after all and rework the brackets completely to add the team? The reason the team didn’t get in earlier is that there wasn’t a consensus about their talent level. You think there’s suddenly going to be one after the team is picked?
Guidelines allow a team to be moved up or down ONE SEED LINE for administrative purposes. There is NO POSSIBILITY that Cal was rated below any of the at-large teams seeded 11th or 12th. None. It is also overwhelmingly likely that Cal was not selected in a group with those teams.
You were just flat-out wrong. At no point was Cal on the bubble and no non-ludicrous (i.e. not having 6 BCS schools that would otherwise have been excluded win their conference tourneys or something) conjunction of results could possibly have put Cal on the bubble.
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."
Does how wrong a CGB poster is increase linearly with how long their post is?
Yes. Yes it does.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Before, I was not in favor of banning you
This post changed my mind. I have no idea whether anyone takes flags seriously around here, so I figure I’ll just make it very obvious that I’m requesting that your ass get canned from the site.
One-line taunts like this garbage combined with your prior confession of trolling:
that was probably lower than what I actually believed just because people here were pissing me off something fierce.
is more than enough to render you persona non grata in my eyes.
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."
your prior confession of trolling
Whoa, I must have missed a few episodes of this thread.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Now, don’t take this the wrong way, I have no desire to get into a conversation about whether Cal deserved it or not, I just don’t see a reason someone couldn’t try to make reasoned arguments that maybe they didn’t deserve it (and like I said, I didn’t read the conversation, maybe the arguments weren’t reasoned, I don’t know).
Sure, now we know the selection committee clearly thought they deserved it, as many at larges were selected after them, but just because the group making the decisions ends up choosing a different argument doesn’t mean there aren’t some well thought out, valid, and interesting points to be made to the contrary.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
sure
the problem was, we knew Cal was a lock. We were a lock after beating Oregon in the first round of the pac-10 tourney. Seth Davis and CBS and our new friend disagreed, and they were wrong. It happens. I’m wrong all the time – I thought Twist was smart enough to know that gratuity is included when you have a group of 6 or more, and on Friday I was very, very wrong.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
the problem was, we knew Cal was a lock.
Honestly, that seems the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen said on this subject yet. How could you know that? You might think you have a very strong case and you don’t see why the selection committee would go with a different argument (and at this point it looks like they agreed), but you can’t know that you’re a lock ahead of time. It’s not a very transparent process, who knows what happens behind closed doors? I just don’t find it entirely implausible that they saw something like your record against RPI Top 50, and then a couple more upsets happened like Miss St beating Kentucky or if URI had won the A-10, for instance (then we’d have 4 teams in instead of 3) and all of a sudden they leave you out? Unless you know exactly what the committee was thinking or exactly the criteria they use, I don’t see how you can regard Cal’s case as anything more than a very strong argument. A very strong argument is not a lock.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
using your criteria
no one is a lock except the tourney winners, so the whole thing is moot.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
That’s a bit of a stretch to go from talking about an 8 seed at large not being a lock to not even considering an at large team like ‘Nova that’s in the running for a 2-4 seed a lock. I imagine there are actual arguments against Cal – now, they might not be very good, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There are definitely teams there aren’t even arguments against.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree that this guy can believe what he wants, but I disagreed with his rationale, as did many other people here, and I think while our eventual selection and seeding doesn’t completely disprove his argument in any scientific manner (which would be impossible to do, as his entire argument was unverifiable in the first place), it does make it seem, in retrospect, misguided, and it does somewhat vindicate the position of those of us arguing against him.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
You honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m obviously NOT getting into this again (even though literally every single sentence in this post is wrong), but the main point is that the committee has done some mind-alteringly dumb things in the past. They have left wrongfully left better teams than California out. All I was saying was that there was no way you could be 100% sure California could make it, unlike, say, Washington or Syracuse.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Again
There is no team that has ever been left out of the tournament with a Pomeroy ranking as high as California’s. Not one, in seven years of data. It’s vanishingly rare (around one team per year on average) for a team even in the top 30 to be left out. Leaving out one in the top 15 would have been “mind-alteringly dumb,” all right.
Querulously insisting that the committee might do something incredibly idiotic because once upon a time a group of similarly situated people (none of whose tenures overlap with the current group) did something incredibly idiotic is not an argument, it’s a postmodernist temper tantrum.
I should add, by the way, that your repeated assertions that you are “not getting into this again” are really making you look bad, and are also counterproductive. If you want things to die down, stop trying to get the last word in. If you think you are being misquoted and want to make a stand on the issue, then you’d damn well better be prepared to debate the point.
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."
If you want things to die down
I don’t. I mean, I don’t want things to start up again like they were yesterday, but I have no problem with this. I DO think my statements are being (probably willfully) misrepresented by quite a few people here.
And how many god damn times do I have to say that Pomeroy rankings aren’t considered by the committee? Plus, seven years? OMG THAT’S LIKE A LIFETIME OF DATA, IF SOMETHING HASN’T HAPPENED IN SEVEN YEARS IT’LL NEVER EVER HAPPEN EVER!
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Can I recommend to you strongly as somebody looking out for your best interests ( believe me or not) that you don’t want things to start up again like anything even reasonably close to yesterday.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Oh, yeah, of course (sorry if my post made it seem otherwise—I just meant that I don’t mind two or three people posting on here every few minutes in a generally calm manner about whether or not I was being an idiot yesterday while I procrastinate studying for my final tomorrow).
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
It's already been demonstrated
that your assertion that Pomeroy rankings are not considered is flatly false. They are included within the materials that the committee receives. Moreover, there is no prohibition on committee members performing their own outside research (obviously— they all attend games during the season).
atoms’s point below is also relevant, but this claim isn’t even correct to begin with.
Attacking me for lack of data— when you have, AFAIK, not presented even a single anecdote of a top 15-20 objective-measurements team being left out of the modern tournament, much less a pattern of such— is quite rich. Seven years is more than 1/4 of the period of the modern tournament. It extends beyond the tenure of any current committee member.
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."
Hahahahhahaa. Oh my freaking god. You’re lucky I just woke up.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
And you are lucky that you are going to take the high road, put an end to this increasingly heated discussion, and move on.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
To be fair, I’m only doing that out of courtesy to you (as in you personally, more or less). I have nothing to lose from perpetuating this (especially if I do so in a respectful way), as I couldn’t care less what anyone here thinks of me.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
except you keep getting madder and madder when people call you and idiot and explain how you were wrong…but maybe that’s just to make a point, too.
calmer than you are
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
but maybe that’s just to make a point, too.
Exactly!
calmer than you are
I have continued to agree with this, as I have already stated, and find your attempts at trolling on your own blog amusing!
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
you do and say a lot of weird, contradictory things (eg “I couldn’t care less what anyone here thinks of me”…when you keep getting pissed off because of what people think about you) just to “make a point,” especially since your main point was refuted about 24 hours ago.
If using Big Lebowksi quotes to make fun of someone is trolling, then A) trolling is awesome and B) your definition of trolling is more all encompassing than the standards at bruins nation
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’m trying to keep our “We Don’t Ban People Unless They Are Racist And Homophobic” streak alive. That’s my #1 focus here. You would be the not so innocent bystander is that streak were to die, so I think we’re in the same boat here, 6756.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I said yesterday that I really don’t care if I were to be banned, and that’s still true today.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems like you are trying your best to get banned, and to ruin the fun of the people here in the process. Why? Seriously, I’ve never understood people who act like that. What is your motivation?
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
I’m definitely not trying to get banned, but I’m also not going to stop posting to avoid getting banned, even putting aside the fact that all “getting banned” equals is “being made to stop posting”.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not being deliberately annoying.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, you are. And don’t tell me not to act like I “know your life.” It is obvious that you are here for one reason only: to try to annoy the Cal fans on this site. Be honest.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
And don’t tell me not to act like I "know your life."
Part of a running “joke” between me and someone who’s not you.
It is obvious that you are here for one reason only: totry to annoy the Cal fans on this site.Be honest.
Defend myself against bullshit while I really, really try to put off studying for this Econ final. If nickle hadn’t posted “Whatever happened to sixsevenfifty guy?” I wouldn’t be here.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry for baiting you. This was my ultimate evil plan.
In all seriousness I don’t like what this discussion has turned into. I don’t mind long discussions, but everyone’s said what they needed to say again.
But like I said before, we have way too many trolls who won’t man up after leaving trolling comments. At least you showed up and for that I respect that.
I feel as if there are many different viewpoints you could offer this site. It would be great to have you here and continue posting. Al you n eed to do is not get hung up on this Cal LOCK bubble thing and we can all move on.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
In all seriousness, I’m almost certainly never going to come back here once this thing passes, and will certainly never be a member of this community.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think now that you’ve joined the CGB to partcipate in this discussion, you are a member of the community. Sorry!
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha. Touché. But I meant more in terms of how Twist seemed to mean it, in the sense that I could theoretically be someone who offers many different viewpoints on this site in the future. That won’t happen.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
This place is very accepting of all sorts of people. We have alums from USC, Oregon, UCLA and other schools who are regular posters, and whom we enjoy having here very much. You would be welcomed too, if you could tone your self-righteousness down a bit.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
You would be welcomed too, ifyou could tone your self-righteousness down a bityou wanted to be.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
And I don’t want to be, because I don’t have the time going forward to be, and this is a decent blog about a team that is only of tangential importance to me for the majority of the year.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
if you could tone your self-righteousness down a bit.
Sounds like somebody who is nervous their job in the Senior Division is being challenged!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
6756, to be fair, this thing will pass when you decide it has passed. We’re not going anywhere and so we’ll be here for infinity period of time. We could all carry on this inane conversation until the end of time. It’s really your choice.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
There is no team that has ever been left out of the tournament with a Pomeroy ranking as high as California’s.
Just curious, what are the Pomeroy rankings and does the selection committee use them?
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s a mathematical formula done by Ken Pomeroy to predict which team would win a game between two opponents and how likely they are to do so (which is a separate from what the committee is trying to do), and they don’t.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
You guys are missing the point of the people bringing up Pomeroy. The committee may not use them directly, but the Pomeroy rankings are a relatively objective statistical metric that measures team quality, and conceptions of team quality is a relevant factor that the committee uses in making its selections.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
But saying “a team with this high of a Pomeroy ranking has never been left out in all seven years” is a complete non-sequiter. It has no bearing on this argument whatsoever. If California had a Pomeroy ranking of 6,756 it wouldn’t have helped my case or hurt yours.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
but you're missing the point
pomeroy rankings indicate the quality of the team…so even though they are not used by the committee, there is a strong correlation between them and tournament selection. Basically, it’s saying “no team this good has been left out of the tournament in the last 7 years”
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Basically, it’s saying "no team this good has been left out of the tournament in the last 7 years"
It’s pretty close to saying that (not quite exactly the same, which we’re both aware of, but it’s not important), but that line of reasoning still doesn’t logically conclude with “California are a lock”.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
It seems harder to conclude that there would be a 30-40% chance that the committee would make exceed its most extreme precedents in terms of leaving a team out with the type of statistical and other credentials that we had.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
-make
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Basically, it’s saying "no team this good has been left out of the tournament in the last 7 years"
Well, kind of. It’s saying no team this measure says is this good has been left out in the last 7 years. If they use different criteria, even if there’s strong correlation, it’s plausible that there’s a great enough difference between Pomeroy and what they use to leave Cal out. I’d be more convinced by evidence there’s not only a strong correlation, but that Cal is far and away better than anyone who’s been left out – so how high was Cal ranked, and how high was the highest team that’s been left out?
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal are like a 14 or something, and (according to people here yesterday, I don’t really know) teams with rankings in the 20s have been left out before.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but it’s not like 60 or something. And why are we even talking about this when we established that Pomeroy rankings are in no way, shape, or form used by the committee and don’t even claim to measure the same thing that the committee is trying to evaluate?
Things I’m not even going to waste time responding to anymore:
*Anything CBKWit says about hockey
*Anything about why Pomeroy rankings matter for this discussion
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Because we don’t have the actual metrics that the committee uses, and Pomeroy ratings are the best thing we have in its place. Unless you can find a better proxy.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
We have ALL the metrics the committee uses. Pomeroy ratings don’t even measure the same thing.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, maybe we do, but we obviously don’t know how they weight what, or else Selection Sunday wouldn’t hold any surprises at all.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Idea
Next time you think there is a 20 – 30% chance of an event occurring, and you know of a group of people who think there is a 1 – 5% chance of the event occurring, go to Las Vegas and profit.
It would also reduce angst and electron usage on the inter-webs.
jh
Hey jh!
I already clearly stated that I DIDN’T actually think that there was a 20-30% chance of that happening! Thanks for joining the conversation though.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
The highest-ranked team by postseason rankings to have been left out
was 2006 South Carolina at #15. However, that team beat four teams in the ~ 30s range in the NIT and flat-out drubbed two of them on a neutral floor. There is no way they were ranked higher than about #25 on Selection Sunday.
Other teams omitted with postseason rankings of 30 or better:
2004 Florida State: 27 (lost early in NIT, likely no real change)
2005 Vanderbilt: 29 (lost in third round of NIT, likely no real change)
2006 Notre Dame: 27 (decent NIT performance, probably around #30 on Selection Sunday)
2006 St. Joseph: 29 (average performance in NIT)
2007 Air Force: 21 (made NIT semis, likely moved up several places)
2007 Mississippi State: 23 (made NIT semis, definitely moved up several places)
2007 Clemson: 30 (made NIT finals, moved way up)
2008 Ohio State: 29 (won NIT against a weak field, likely moved up slightly)
2009 Georgetown: 27 (lost first round of NIT, dropped)
Conclusion: If you rank 25 or higher on Selection Sunday, you are basically a lock for the NCAAs.
Out of this motley crew, only Air Force, St. Joe’s and Ohio State had winning conference records. Further conclusion: if you rank 30 or higher and have a winning conference record, you are almost certainly a lock, especially if you play in a BCS league.
Cal would have been not merely the most talented team to have been omitted during this seven-year stretch, it would have been (by a staggering margin) the most talented team omitted despite a winning conference record.
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."
South Carolina was ranked 64th in the RPI on Selection Sunday in 2006:
http://www.realtimerpi.com/2005-2006/rpi_Men.html
They’d made a nice run to get to the SEC finals and had a strong SOS number, but 64 is pretty far down for the committee to reach, especially for a 17-15 team. No surprise they didn’t get picked.
Next highest team on your list was Air Force. They had an RPI of 29 on Selection Sunday, but a SOS of only 75:
http://www.realtimerpi.com/2006-2007/rpi_Men.html
Also, they’d just been upset in the first round of the MWC tourney by 7th-place Wyoming. No surprise they got left out either.
Actually I think it would be more germane to pay attention to Cal’s standing in the RPI . . . something the committee manifestly DOES look at, and also at the SOS component of the RPI ranking (something that also seems to have a high degree of influence on the committee).
Cal was ranked 20th in RPI and had the 15th best SOS according to that measure. Has any team ranked that high in both categories EVER been left out? I don’t think so. Cal was a lock. Lack of quality wins and a down Pac-10 could have cost them seeding (and probably did), but Cal was never going to be out.
Has any team ranked that high in both categories EVER been left out? I don’t think so. Cal was a lock.
Did you know that as of October of 2007 the Dow had never reached 14,000 and subsequently dropped below 7,000? Yeah, that ended up happening. The point of this little story is that historical precedent is only meaningful when you can identify why it’s relevant/meaningful, and how that applies directly to the future.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Not the best analogy, since the Dow can grow to any amount, but there are a finite number of seeds and a finite number of slots in the RPI. In any event, I’ve already stated why the RPI and SOS component are relevant: because those ratings were created specifically with the intent of helping the committee, and because the committee says they use them. Also, history seems to conform pretty well to it: Top 20 teams are never left out, and Top 30 teams are rarely left out. If a Top 30-40 team is left out, it’s usually because their SOS number was weak. Conversely, if a team from further down the bubble (50-60 RPI) gets in, usually you’ll find a strong SOS number. This is pretty consistently true since RPI started being used, and it was really consistently true this year. The bubble reams left off (Rhode Island, Miss St., Va Tech) had okay RPIs but bad SOS. The bubble teams that got in (Florida, Minnesota) had middling RPIs but strong SOS. Then there was obviously some parsing for strong finishes, big wins, road record, etc. (hence why teams like Dayton or Seton Hall don’t get in).
http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html
So yes, in the sense of “anything might happen, frogs might fall from the sky, dogs and cats might start living together,” yes, it’s always possible the committee goes nuts and decides to ignore all precedent to leave someone out. But in the more reasonable universe of how much an at-large team can reasonably be considered a “lock,” Cal was a lock.
Not the best analogy
It wasn’t presented as an analogy, simply a story, and then I elaborated on the general point. History doesn’t tell us anything about the future in itself – you have to understand why events of the past happened and how it relates to the future and gives us insight into what might happen going forward. It got the desired response – a more in depth analysis. Simply saying “this has never happened so it never will happen” isn’t very satisfying or telling logic.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
"this has never happened so it never will happen"
But nobody is arguing for “never”; we’re arguing for “extremely unlikely”. Just because some extremely unlikely event has happened, it doesn’t make another extremely unlikely event more likely to happen.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
But nobody is arguing for "never"
Maybe you’re not, but a lot of people were.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I really don’t think so. Like I said, I bet most people thought there was maybe at most a 5% chance we didn’t get in. I didn’t see anyone make the case that there was a 0% chance of not making it. Maybe there was someone who said that, though it’s possible, as you might surely understand yourself, that such a person might be exaggerating. Look, you said yourself that you thought it was a 30-40% chance, and all we’re saying is, that seems like a ridiculously high number.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, I am saying that although 5% chance isn’t a guarantee, it’s enough to colloquially refer to something as a “lock”, and good enough to say that a team is not on the bubble.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Really? If I roll a 20-sided die, you’d say it’s a lock that it doesn’t end up on “4”? On this, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, if the committee were making a decision based on rolling a die, I’d be less inclined to call it a lock. But seeing as how it was a group of supposedly intelligent and rational individuals making a relatively objective decision based on reasonable criteria, and not a roll of the dice, it’s good enough. Look, it’s not a scientific 5% number, either; I’m allowing for some possibility for external events or bias or human frailty, but my point is that it was overwhelmingly likely, and not a marginal question.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Just going to throw it out there – my interpretation of the word “lock” does mean it is going to happen every single time. It will never not happen.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Top 20 teams are never left out
Sure, but you were number twenty and the number twenty-one has been left out before. Did they have a worse SOS than you? Yes.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
(whoops, I hit “post” too early. that post is supposed to end with something like “Yes. But again, stranger things HAVE happened”. Then again, you can probably figure that part out)
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
But again, stranger things HAVE happened
Except that in this case (a Top 20 team with a SOS as strong as Cal’s), it hasn’t happened. Ever. Which is why you saying that Cal was still “on the bubble” after the Pac-10 tourney final was a ludicrous suggestion, unless you’re expanding the bubble to include about 20 teams.
(FYI, that 2006 Missouri St. team was ranked 21 in the RPI after the tournament. On Selection Sunday, they were at 24: http://www.realtimerpi.com/2005-2006/rpi_Men.html)
I’m not going to address the rest of the post, but RTRPI’s numbers are wrong—I subscribe to Palm, who is so good at this crap that he ends up getting the NCAA to correct their numbers on a weekly basis, and on Monday, March 16 2006 at 7:45 AM, Missouri State had an RPI ranking of 21, and a raw RPI of .6030.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Palm had us on the bubble, as did you. Turns out you were wrong. Deal with it. I was wrong when I bet on Oregon covering at Bosie State last fall, and that cost me money. We’re all wrong, some of the time.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
as did you
But see, here’s the thing—not only is this not true about what I said, but it’s not necessarily wrong.
Better at making logically coherent arguments than you.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
as a college kid, you are convinced that you are always right. Everyone goes through this phase. You’ll come out of it eventually. It’s probably worse at uw, though, because the people surrounding you aren’t the brightest in the world and you are probably right more often than your peers.
As for your last line, I could set up a poll for everyone to vote, but you’d probably vote for me anyways to “prove” a stupid point in a weird, inconsistent manner.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
you are convinced that you are always right
Stop acting like you know my life.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
So this isn’t “on the bubble?”
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/3/13/1371870/cal-basketball-loses-a-thrilling#32523781
you’re either one of the last four in or last four out.
I don’t know what your definition of “the bubble” is, but that sounds to me like you thought Cal was on the bubble.
Alright. I was guilty of exaggeration to prove my point.
(see, CBKWit? I’m NOT convinced that I was always right!)
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
so...
instead of owning up to the fact that you were dead wrong on here…you again claim that what you said isn’t really what you meant…just like your vote…just like you obviously do care what we think about you, even though you said you didn’t.
How could we possibly have missed the obvious exaggeration in that comment, and all the other times you were obviously saying weird things to make a point? We must be stupid.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
How could we possibly have missed the obvious exaggeration in that comment, and all the other times you were obviously saying weird things to make a point? We must be stupid.
I never called the exaggeration obvious, and I never criticized you for missing it. If the entire crux of your argument is that I’m wrong because of that statement, guess what: you’re right!
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s not necessarily wrong, but it seems very likely to have been wrong, and if you can’t at least admit that, then I think you’re just being obstinate just for the sake of being obstinate, and because you can’t bear to back down in an internet pissing match.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
it seems very likely to have been wrong
It seems very likely to have been wrong that California were on the bubble (after the results on Selection Sunday all went your way), but it doesn’t seem to even be approaching wrong that neither you nor I could conclusively say that California would be in the tournament without being in the room with the selection committee.
People who accused me of making such a wishy-washy, unverifiable statement in order to keep from being wrong are absolutely right.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
People who accused me of making such a wishy-washy, unverifiable statement in order to keep from being wrong are absolutely right.
There we go.
but it doesn’t seem to even be approaching wrong that neither you nor I could conclusively say that California would be in the tournament without being in the room with the selection committee
Sure, nobody can conclusively say anything. That’s a completely bogus and irrelevant bar to set. I think we were at 90-95% certainty of being in the tourney on Saturday, and when the games went our way, it moved the dial up to 97-98%.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ll take your word for it, but the point still stands: Cal’s RPI and SOS was just too good to make them a team in serious danger of missing the NCAAs. Missouri St. was an outlier, it’s the ONLY example of anything even CLOSE to that happening, and it’s not really comparable anyway because Missouri St.‘s schedule was considerably weaker than Cal’s.
Cal’s miserable resume apart from their raw RPI ranking and raw SOS ranking was an outlier too. Just saying.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Pfft. RPI and SOS are parts of the resume, perhaps the most important parts nowadays. This statement is a tautology. You can’t say Cal has a miserable resume when their resume is headed by those strong rankings.
I said they had a miserable resume apart from those two things (which I obviously know are large parts of the resume), and that resume was a historical outlier as far as teams with top 20 RPIs are concerned. It’s not a controversial statement.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, except that it’s a silly argument to make:
“If the committee decides to look at Cal’s resume apart from RPI and SOS, they are clearly a bubble team!”
Except that the committee always does look at RPI and SOS, and probably looks at them before most everything else. Also, if I just looked at my genetic makeup outside of that pesky Y chromosome, I’d be a woman.
"If the committee decides to look at Cal’s resume apart from RPI and SOS, they are clearly a bubble team!"
No, if the committee decided to look at Cal’s resume apart from RPI and SOS, they would’ve been so clearly out of the tournament that you might not even be hosting an NIT game this week. Since there isn’t much precedent for how they deal with a team like this, it’s reasonably to express skepticism of a claim that they were a lock.
Look, a lot of bracketologists—i.e., people who are better at this than you or I—are expressing surprise at Cal’s seeding, and made statements before Selection Sunday that they were unsure if Cal would make the field. Send your hatemail to them, not me.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Send your hatemail to them, not me.
I would, except they’re not doggedly posting on a Cal sports blog about how Cal might not make the tournament, and then continuing to insist that they were right all along despite Cal getting a seed high enough to suggest they had nothing to worry about.
You were wrong, bro. It’s pretty conclusive at this point. Maybe it’s time to re-think some of those bracketologists you follow, instead of continuing to nitpick our arguments (which turned out to be right) for why Cal was a lock.
Since when does the committee make its decisions without factoring in RPI and SOS?
Essentially, you’re saying that, in some alternate reality where the committee made its decision on Cal based on another set of criteria from what it otherwise always makes its decisions, then Cal was an iffy bubble team. Well then, sure. In your alternate reality, you’re right.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Since when does the committee make its decisions without factoring in RPI and SOS?
They don’t, and I never said they did. If I believed that, I’d have been on here saying “California are guaranteed to not make the tournament”.
However, they DO consider other things, as we both know. For instance, if all they considered were your RPI and SOS, you’d have been a three or four or five seed.
I’m sort of stunned that I’m bothering to bring up this point so late in the game, but I’m doing it because you seem like a rational human being who might be interested: California’s RPI and SOS were inflated by the fact that they played very few eyeball-gougingly poor teams. If you look at the RPIs of teams a little below or above you, you’ll see that they have quite a few games against teams outside the RPI top 200, 250, or even 300. Cal’s “cupcakes”, meanwhile, aren’t as cupcake-y as those—they’re merely teams outside the RPI top 100.
The problem with this (and why I say it’s “inflated”) is that any team that has any business playing in the NCAA tournament should have just as much of a chance of beating an RPI 150-200 team as they do an RPI 356 team. This is why Missouri State was left out a few years ago—they were gaming the system, and it showed. Now, this year’s Cal had the benefit of being part of a much weaker field than that Missouri State team, so they got in.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
yes, we gamed the system
by not scheduling shitty teams for non-conference play.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Well, you did schedule shitty teams. The point is that you scheduled teams that, from a basketball standpoint, are functionally just as shitty as teams that would hurt your RPI a whole lot more. The committee considers that.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Again, if they didn’t consider it, you’d be a god damn four seed. You’re not.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Nobody said we’d be a 4 seed. I think most people assumed we’d be in the 7-10 range, and voila, we’re an 8. If we’d beaten you guys in the Pac-10 tourney championship game, I think we could have maybe been as high as a 6, or possibly an outside chance at a 5, though that would have been quite unlikely. A 4 would have been out of the question.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
A 4 would have been out of the question.
Right. Because the NCAA doesn’t seed solely in terms of RPI and SOS. You and I agree. That post was in response to someone else.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
no one said the NCAA seeds solely on RPI or SOS. That’s absurd. Our point was that our strong RPI and SOS (and conference title and reaching the conference tourney championship etc) were enough to get us into the tourney…we never said we’d get a high seed or even that we should.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Well, if our cupcakes were less cupcakey, our non-cupcakes were stale hardtack. We played 4 top-10 teams. We were at least competitive with New Mexico and Ohio State, even though we played them without a key starter, and we hung with Kansas until the last 7 minutes. We beat a good Murray State team as well. You can’t hold it against us that we didn’t play slightly crappier teams, especially when we played really good teams and took our lumps as well.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but you lost to your stale hardtack. You get some credit for that, but not a lot.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
some credit for that, but not a lot
Enough.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
For instance, if all they considered were your RPI and SOS, you’d have been a three or four or five seed.
True, but I don’t know that many people here were making the argument that Cal would get a seed of 5 or higher. Most recognized that we’d get dinged in the seeding for a lack of marquee wins; it’s just that we thought it was clear that we’d be nowhere near out of the field even with that penalty.
California’s RPI and SOS were inflated by the fact that they played very few eyeball-gougingly poor teams.
Well, that’s fair, isn’t it? In a perfect world, everyone would beat every team with an RPI below theirs, but since everyone loses some games, we know that doesn’t happen. The fact is that you are more likely to pick up some extra losses if you play teams in the 150-200 range than if you play teams in the under-300 range. I do think that you should get extra points for beating teams at the top of the bracket, but it’s not “gaming the system” or having an “inflated” ranking to simply have a schedule filled with teams that, while not great, are at least competitive.
The problem with your argument is that you are taking things that the committee uses as “extra credit” criteria and thinking of them as the base value. The base value is your schedule and how you did against that schedule — i.e., your RPI and SOS. Marquee wins (along with conference record, road record, and last 10 games) can help vault you higher than you might ordinarily be based on those numbers (or lower your seeding if you’re weak in those areas), but your RPI/SOS still determines your basic starting point. That’s why Cal was safe.
Missouri State 2006 was an outlier by this criteria (and probably should have been in), but they’re pretty much the only one that’s close. Cal played a much tougher schedule than they did anyway, with multiple opponents in the RPI Top 10, so it’s not truly comparable.
sycasey, sorry I got here late
But you are arguing with a troll. I’d advise you to stop responding to him and wasting precious resources talking to him. He is not going to budge from his poorly defined position.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Avi, he’s a college kid who is supposed to be studying for an exam, and who is avoiding doing so by writing endless posts here. Who among us has not found some similarly BS reason to avoid studying for exams?
We would all be doing the boy a favor by ceasing to respond to him, so he has no further excuse to avoid studying. Otherwise, his exam will be as big a fail as his posts have been.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Otherwise, his exam will be as big a fail as his posts have been.
I have an A in this class and I’ve already studied a ton. Oh wait, I’m doing well here too. Never mind, you’re exactly right.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh oh, my sarcasm detector just went out of control!
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not a troll. We both know that. I just disagree with you and am willing to state that forcefully.
Avinash, you used to be alright. What happened?*
*that’s a rhetorical question
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Please, I've been around the Internet a lot
Scroll down to the bottom and you’ll find out what type of troll you really are.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
are at least competitive.
But they’re not. They’re really not.
It was probably a mistake to raise this point, just because there’s no point in really discussing it. Also, let me just be clear that I’m absolutely not criticizing California’s non-conference scheduling. The fact that people throw around terms like “rigged” or “inflated” when talking about RPIs is more of a product of the fact that other major programs schedule such pathetic teams.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
But they’re not. They’re really not.
Yes, they are. I looked at the teams ranked between 150-200 in the RPI. They all have at least 11 wins over Div. 1 competition. Some of them have as many as 20 wins. If they’re not competitive, how did they do that?
Stanford was ranked 163 in the RPI. They lost to Oklahoma State by 1 stinkin’ point. OSU was pretty safely in the tourney, right?
WSU was ranked 172, and they played a pretty competitive game with Gonzaga, losing by 5. Gonzaga was safely in the tourney, right?
Again, not saying these teams are good, just that they are competitive. In other words, they can beat a solid tourney team if said team has a bad night. They’re certainly more likely to do so than a team under 300 in the rankings. I’m also not saying that you have to think this way, only that I’m pretty sure the committee does.
They all have at least 11 wins over Div. 1 competition
They’re not competitive against teams that should be getting at-large bids. When a team loses to a team outside of the RPI top 150, especially more than once, it looks REALLY bad. You need to have done some serious shit to make up for that in the eyes of the committee.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
They’re not competitive against teams that should be getting at-large bids.
I just showed you a couple of teams that were. Are you kidding? Either you’re not arguing honestly (i.e. trolling) or you’re just dense.
I’m talking about on a grand scale, i.e., the majority of a non-conference schedule. We all know anything can happen in one game, I’m not disputing that.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
We all know anything can happen in one game, I’m not disputing that.
Right, which means that if you play them, you are running a higher risk of taking a loss than if you played someone ranked under 300. That’s why it’s fair that Cal should get credit for playing a schedule full of teams ranked 200+ (except for one team). It’s also why Virginia Tech was out of luck with their pathetic OOC slate.
Yeah, but that’s completely beside sycasey’s point.
First off, he just demonstrated that RPI ~150 teams can be competitive against teams that got at-large bids, moreso than teams in the ~250+ range. Secondly, Cal didn’t lose more than once to a team outside RPI top 150; they lost once to Oregon State, and that’s it.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Look, I don’t follow any of this bubble shit, but is this guy right that our Pac-10 resume was so week that we wouldn’t have even been in the NIT?
Didn’t say you wouldn’t be in the NIT—said you wouldn’t have a home game. That was also something of a comedic exaggeration. Also I didn’t say anything about your “Pac-10” resume.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, OK I got worried the Pac-10 was that bad…because it seems like most of this stuff, at least on ESPN, is about Pac-10 hate. And I just assumed our resume is “bad” because of the Pac-10. I remember beating UCSB, Pacific, and Murray State, who all turned out to be pretty good this year.
There’s nothing to fear here. These men just have East Coast bias, that’s all Donny.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Their miserable resume… apart from those solid resume ingredients.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
If you think I was wrong about there being a chance that California would be left out of the tournament, I suggest you read the comments on the Selection Sunday thread that were made before you guys got in by the very same people who called me stupid, etc. Then go read the threads on blogs for Villanova or Baylor and tell me that they were sweating it when they weren’t announced until the last bracket.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I liked “It’s in the past, so let’s just move on to bigger and better things.” more than this.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well come on, Twist. You must know me well enough by now to know that that’s not my style :)
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m ready to start watching the basketball season!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
ESPNU
These guys have wall-to-wall-to-wall-to-wall coverage!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Mar 14, 2010 10:24 PM PDT reply actions
Still only talking about Kentucky, huh?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Mar 14, 2010 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The biggest thing that scares me is who is going to handle the ball against Louisville’s pressure. If they ratchet it up, we don’t really have a “good” ballhandler besides Jerome, because PC is pretty much average and Theo is below average. Because of Louisville’s length (at least compared to Jerome), we won’t be able to bring in a second ball-handler, like Brandon Smith, because we’ll be too outsized. Honestly, I think Jamal can play a big part in breaking the zone, not unlike the way Joakim Noah and Al Horford were the true secondary press-breakers for Florida during their title runs. From what (little) I’ve seen of Samuels, he doesn’t seem too assertive. Hopefully we can get into him early and get in his head a bit. GO BEARS!
I wouldn’t even call PC average – he’s a pretty poor ballhandler for a SG, though I think Theo is much better than you give him credit for, his bigger problem is he’s not as quick as you’d like. Jorge can handle the ball some, I’ve been impressed by how far along his ballhandling has come when I was watching the Pac-10 tournament, but it’s definitely still a team weakness. Even when Louisville isn’t pressing/trapping, you still need to drive at the gaps in the zone in the half court, and that’s something Cal may struggle with.
by Missing Barry on Mar 15, 2010 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions
BTW, just read through a chat on ESPN. Mark Schlabach took 3 or 4 shots at us, calling our seeding a “joke”. But Joe Lunardi threw us some love, saying he has us over Louisville.
Don’t worry, we’ll have a lot more discussion about Louisville going forward. Feel free to bring up any discussion in this thread.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
commenters, you are debating with a troll
A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user’s sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.12
An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a “concerned” supporter of Bass’s opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms “IndieNH” or “IndyNH”. “IndyNH” expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable. 13 14
I think we could apply similar logic to Jay Bilas and Seth Davis, although they’re probably just actual trolls. I would suggest you guys stop wasting your time and breath and start focusing ahead on the next game.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Wait, what? You think I have a sockpuppet? Where did you get this from?
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think you know what you’re saying. You’re saying that I (the person who is typing this) truly believe that California should NOT have made the tournament, but made this account (sixsevenfiftysix) and pretended to believe that I DID want you to make the tournament. That’s not right. At all.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
POV: Cal is not safe. But I believe they should be safe. But I will keep on talking about how they’re not safe (at this pt, WEREN’T safe) to rouse reactions from everyone on this site and despite all evidence to the contrary.
You’d be best to move on from this if you want to keep on commenting here.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Look, you can warn me, but you can’t honestly accuse me of being a troll. There are people on this site who disagree with my thesis but agree with me on that. I’m not going to just let that stand. Disagree with me all you want but I’m not a troll. The only thing about your first paragraph that is true is that my point of view was that Cal wasn’t safe, and even if the rest WERE true that doesn’t make me a troll.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
My patience is gone
I’m done discussing this. Final warning. Any more discussion on this topic will not end well for you.
(I have to say I’m somewhat impressed and more saddened than anything. It takes a lot on this site to even be considered for banning.)
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Avi, I fail to see what harm it does. He’s obviously getting owned on the merits, and it’s been polite for the most part. Anyway, I’ll stop responding if it bothers you that much.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s obviously getting owned on the merits
This is where it should’ve ended. Re-engaging the fool makes you no better than him.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Eh, I guess. When he admitted he purposefully crafted his position in a way that could not be verified or disproven, that essentially gave the game away that he was arguing just for the sake of argument. Still, as long as it’s not personal and overly inflammatory, there can be some enjoyable quality to a silly debating-society diversion.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 15, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Avi, he’s a child. He’s not going to stop. Everyone just needs to stop responding to him.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
[Hangs head in shame.]
But never on the substance on anything. (I couldn’t if I wanted to, since I don’t pay any attention to all this tournament committee stuff.) I was trying to mock him into letting go of his silliness. I thought that might work, because I didn’t realize the full extent of his immaturity. Now I do. :(
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
not all trolls are created equal
here are the top candidates for 6756 c/o flame warriors:
TIRELESS REBUTTER
For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can’t understand why he is universally loathed.
FERROUS CRANUS
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
LAMER
Mediocrity is Lamer’s salient characteristic, yet the word “mediocre” seems inadequate to fully encompass the crushing dullness of his personality. Not one of his utterances demonstrates the faintest insight on any topic, no glimmer of wit or humor brightens his conversation, nor does stone ignorance of the subject at hand discourage him from sharing his views. He isn’t even obnoxious enough to justify banning him from the forum. He’s a very weak Warrior in the conventional sense, but not even the most stalwart opponent can withstand prolonged contact with this truly fearsome Warrior.
ENFANT PROVOCATEUR
Enfant Provocateur likes to stir up trouble because…because, well…just because. This species of Flame Warrior is almost always young and male – it could be just a hormone thing.
LONELY GUY
Lonely Guy doesn’t get out much, and often his social isolation can drive him to do battle just for the human contact. Compassion dictates that we shouldn’t get too upset with his antics. Nonetheless, Lonely Guy can be very fierce. Remember, he has nothing better to do than stew over real or imagined insults.
by ttgiang15 on Mar 15, 2010 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Please Avinash (and whoever else), read this.
I’m truly sorry for crossing the line.
I disagree that I am a troll and will continue to do so until the day I forget that this ever happened. Some people here agree with me. Some don’t. Frankly, I do feel insulted that you are accusing me of this.
I’m not going to just walk away and let your insult stand, just as no one here walked away after I insulted them. This entire misunderstanding escalated to an absurd degree, and I apologize for expressing dissent when it wasn’t welcome. I won’t make this mistake again. But I am not a troll.
Twist, if you’re in Seattle in the next few years, track down the curly-brown-haired dude that likes the Caps and he’ll buy you a beer.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:35 PM PDT reply actions
it's ok kid
the issue driving all this discussion is that you’re young, in college, and can’t recognize when you’re wrong. We’ve all been there. It’s a tough thing to learn.
The best thing to do is to do just own up to it, instead of digging a deeper and deeper hole. People will have a lot more respect for you this way and will be a lot more forgiving in the future.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Mar 15, 2010 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’ve owned up to being wrong, in this apology and elsewhere in the thread. I really don’t appreciate you lecturing me. If that’s something that’s getting me banned, so be it, but I don’t think you’ve been rational here at all.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 15, 2010 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Why are you insulted?
It’s the internet for goodness sake.
"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.
