View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
IM in OC
Joined: 25 Mar 2009 Posts: 1000 Location: Orange County, CA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/24/18 10:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Agree with Calbearman and Pat.
Pat, Congrats on the Bruins, keep going.
Maybe now some of the haters on "other forums" that keep calling for Close to be replaced will STFU.......maybe.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012 Posts: 2539
Back to top |
Posted: 03/24/18 10:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Lets not get carried away. I personally don't think the PAC is put down any more. I think the characters have changed and will continue to change which is always interesting.
|
|
willtalk
Joined: 13 Apr 2012 Posts: 1106 Location: NorCal
Back to top |
Posted: 03/25/18 5:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Nixtreefan wrote: |
Lets not get carried away. I personally don't think the PAC is put down any more. I think the characters have changed and will continue to change which is always interesting. |
Perhaps not as badly as they once were, however the committed still rejected USC for teams with lesser records. I mean Oklahoma was 16-14. I looked at the choices they made for the last in and last out and could not understand why certain teams were picked over USC especially if the actual rather than perceived strength of conference was even considered. Rather it appeared that they "Cherry picked" criteria's that would justify their predisposed selections. The tournament results seem to bear out their mistakes. When you consider that the Pac 12 only got 6 teams in, and the ones in were under ranked.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013 Posts: 7865 Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
Posted: 03/25/18 12:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
willtalk wrote: |
Nixtreefan wrote: |
Lets not get carried away. I personally don't think the PAC is put down any more. I think the characters have changed and will continue to change which is always interesting. |
Perhaps not as badly as they once were, however the committed still rejected USC for teams with lesser records. I mean Oklahoma was 16-14. I looked at the choices they made for the last in and last out and could not understand why certain teams were picked over USC especially if the actual rather than perceived strength of conference was even considered. Rather it appeared that they "Cherry picked" criteria's that would justify their predisposed selections. The tournament results seem to bear out their mistakes. When you consider that the Pac 12 only got 6 teams in, and the ones in were under ranked. |
Oh come on! They're not going to bring the entire conference in!
_________________ Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
Last edited by summertime blues on 03/26/18 11:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012 Posts: 5424
Back to top |
Posted: 03/25/18 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't think you judge whether a conference is being disrespected by whether a team gets in as one of the last selected. Neither USC nor Okl belonged in a championship tournament.
Another point to be considered is whether coaches should just use the 1st 30 games of the season as a sort of exhibition season. Is how far a team gets in a tournament the measure of the team's season? Is that why so many seem to think that beating a couple of mediocrities and getting into the final 16 is so great?
UCLA's seniors have, with a few exceptions, under performed for 4 years. They have a shot at a final four but that isn't going to make up for all the missed opportunities.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 14125
Back to top |
Posted: 03/25/18 11:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
linkster wrote: |
I don't think you judge whether a conference is being disrespected by whether a team gets in as one of the last selected. Neither USC nor Okl belonged in a championship tournament.
Another point to be considered is whether coaches should just use the 1st 30 games of the season as a sort of exhibition season. Is how far a team gets in a tournament the measure of the team's season? Is that why so many seem to think that beating a couple of mediocrities and getting into the final 16 is so great?
UCLA's seniors have, with a few exceptions, under performed for 4 years. They have a shot at a final four but that isn't going to make up for all the missed opportunities. |
Serious question, what were the expectations of UCLA's now senior class before they stepped foot on campus and when you have 1 player transfer and another player miss multiple games and pretty much a full season and multiple off seasons rehabbing injuries and those 2 players are 2 of the 3 players that were named McDonald's All-Americans in that class does that change the expectations on the class, and why not if they don't make a difference. And even if you don't count the injury and just the transfer, say Recee' Caldwell never signed with UCLA is UCLA still the #1 recruiting class, do they drop to #5, do they drop further, if so what are the expectations then. With all that happened with just that group not counting what happened to other players on the team in other years, I'm not so sure they did under perform. I mean they reached 3 sweet 16 (not counting the WNIT title when all 5 were on the team) and an Elite 8 with 3 players and 1 player for about half the time. BTW Recee' was injured for a good part of her freshman year as well. And yes I understand injuries are a part of the game and everyone deals with them, but they also change expectations.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 14125
Back to top |
Posted: 03/25/18 11:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
summertime blues wrote: |
willtalk wrote: |
Nixtreefan wrote: |
Lets not get carried away. I personally don't think the PAC is put down any more. I think the characters have changed and will continue to change which is always interesting. |
Perhaps not as badly as they once were, however the committed still rejected USC for teams with lesser records. I mean Oklahoma was 16-14. I looked at the choices they made for the last in and last out and could not understand why certain teams were picked over USC especially if the actual rather than perceived strength of conference was even considered. Rather it appeared that they "Cherry picked" criteria's that would justify their predisposed selections. The tournament results seem to bear out their mistakes. When you consider that the Pac 12 only got 6 teams in, and the ones in were under ranked. |
Oh come one! They're not going to being the entire conference in! |
Saying one more team should have been included in NCAA Tournament is different than saying they should have included the entire conference. And when the Pac-12 had 7 in 2017 and 6 in 2016 it's not unreasonable to think they should have gotten a 7th team in this year based on the last couple years and how this regular season played out.
|
|
|
|