schools

Pity the one seed that gets us in the 3rd round!

I hear what you are saying, Dohn, but the ‘homer’ in me says we can get a 2 or 3 seed. Nevertheless, a 4 seed wouldn’t be all that bad if it is in the West. Based upon how UCLA is playing NOW, I think we are better than a 4 seed. But, I’ll take a 4 . . .

Brian, there is an opportunity for a big road win on Thursday night.

The Pac 10 champ is no better than a #4 seed in the West doesn’t make sense even in a down year. Are these the same experts that thought K-Love and Westbrook were no better than 13 to 15 in the draft?

While a 4 seed is about right today, I believe that’s going to rise. One game on national TV against a known “name” opponent and we leapfrogged a whole bunch of teams in the coaches’ poll and now stand at #6. This week we play on the road vs. a top 25 team that beat us earlier – Asu – and then at improving Arizona. Those games are on ESPN (with a 9 pm EST tipoff) and CBS (with another of those 1 pm EST tipoffs). Win those two and keep winning and, as is noted above, we’re 29-5 or 30-4, playing (as Ben Howland notes) to the level of expectations when the year began with ferocious defense and second in the NATION in offensive efficiency. That’s better than a 4 seed, especially as we’ll be pretty much the ONLY Western team at or near that level.

As to an earlier comment, no it’s not as simple as we’ll win if we’re good enough no matter where we’re seeded. #4 winds up playing a #1 seed just to get to the Final Four. Tough row to hoe. And were we to get shipped out of the West – which I don’t believe we will – it gets even tougher. A 1, 2 or 3 seed is important and getting such in the West is close to essential….

Agreed that staying West is key, anywhere in the top 4 seeds. Traveling time zones to play games really bad for teams, esp. west to east. Like I said, #3 out West works wonders.

no way. what are we ranked today, 6th? if that stays the same then we’re a 2 seed at worst. a 4 seed is ostensibly for the 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th best teams in the country. we may not have any big wins but the record and the 4 magical letters get us a seed in line with the ranking. guaranteed.

win out and we’re a 2 seed.

If UCLA wins out–regular season + conference tournament–it will be a 2 seed at minimum. That is a guarantee given UCLA’s pedigree, recent history, and frankly the lack of other quality teams on the West Coast. I see this scenario as very similar to 2006, with a young team spending a few games (ie, losses) to find itself, then going on an absolute tear to the Final Four. Also, if UCLA continues to pound its opponents, that will win it some style points. You’ve also got to consider the other teams nationally, some of whom will go on losing streaks, some of whom will go on winning streaks. Bit if UCLA is in the top 10 of both polls, then it should earn a 2 seed.

Excellent! We could use all the motivation we can get. Tell these kids they get no higher than a 4th seed, they’ll start blowing everyone out to make a statement. If they actually get that 4th seed, look out because we’re gonna be on a mission.

Roll On You Bears! Not so fast teddies, we’re baaaack. Can’t wait for you to come visit Bear Territory!

CalGirl, do you remember the thrashing you had in Pauley just a few weeks ago? 81-66 was the final but it could have easily been 100-66 if Coach Howland hadn’t pulled the starters and key subs way early. Smack down in Oakland come Feb. 28th!

2 or 3 out west we’re fine!

I Agree with Blue Bruin. If we win the PAC-10 title there is no way we get a 4 seed. A 1,2, or 3 seed is what we can expect as long as we win the PAC-10 title. And I mean the regular season title, not the bogus PAC-10 tournament title.

Dear Brian:

Seeding information from a week ago is useless already. Look how many top 20 teams lost in the past week and UCLA has been noticed to be “en fuego” and thus received huge jumps in the AP and Coaches polls. Even conservative Ben Howland publicly says UCLA is now a Top 5 Team. If the Bruins only lose one or no games rest of way in regular season (not counting Pac10 tourney) they will be a #2 or #3 seed. I think the tourney committee has a lot of latitude on using the RPI and will concede UCLA a seed above what the RPI might suggest. The RPI is seriously flawed — why should teams like Siena and Minnesota get inflated rankings because they lost to a lot of quality teams?

Win out and we’re a 1 seed. Look at the rankings. But I think a couple more losses are likely.

I’ve said this all along… that the SOS and non-conf schedule would kill us. But seriously… common, no higher than a 4? Talk about major East Coast bias if that comes into play. If UCLA wins out they will clearly be the best team in the west and if the best team in the west is only a 4 seed… no way.

p.s. Seeding does matter. Very much. No matter how good you are… the harder the teams you play, eventually you’ll have an off day and lose. I am like most, I LOVE playing big name teams, but you need the early gimmies in the Big Dance if you want to go far. Look back at the past National Champs for I dunno, the past decade – you’ll see that most (if not all) had at least one game where they were off. There is a big diff between a 3 and a 4.

My prediction – a 2 seed at best. Most likely a 3. Oh, yeah, in the West (which is also essential to a deep tourny run).

This really is a ridiculous discussion.

If UCLA wins out they will only move up in the polls. Thus they will conservatively be #5 and number #9 in the polls (at worst). A team that wins a power conference and is ranked in the top ten in the polls will not get lower than a 3 seed and will in all likelihood get a #2 seed. In fact they are more likely to get a #1 seed than a #3 seed in my opinion if they win out. Their RPI is in the 20′s and will only move up with losses from other teams higher up (likely it will be in the low teens if they win out). There obviously has to be a few losses from some of the higher ranked teams to get a #1 but it would be more likely than a #3 if they win out.

If UCLA loses one game they will probably get a 3 seed(unless it is to washington and Wash wins the PAC). If they lose 2 but win the conference (tie with a pac 10 tournament championship) they will get a 4 seed.

This is just another example of the east coast bias and the advantadge to a large conference with multiple weak teams where many of the good teams only play each other once (Big east and ACC). A conference with parity that always plays home and away will end up with more losses than other conferences where a team may get a luckier schedule (good teams at home). Imagine if Cal only played Arizona State and UCLA once and at home. Granted the PAC 10 is not as good as the other conferences but a four seed is ridiculous if they win out.

I can’t believe you guys think UCLA deserves higher than a 4th seed…. We have not beaten any ranked team this year! Every oportunity to prove themselves they have faulted… You guys complain about an east coast bias… how about a team without a single quality win getting ranked 6th in the nation?

The boys are looking like they are starting to gel now and hopefully they can go deep into the tourney. but they should go deep from a starting position they earned. I hope they can play like they have recently against other good team… but they haven’t proved it yet. Personally I think a 4 seed would be a gift.

To be honest, I could care less what seed we get so long as it’s in the west.

That being said – while I do agree we should be able to get better than a 4 seed “at best,” I also think that if we want a better seeding, we’ve got to prove we can (a) win big games on the road, and (b) win close games in the clutch.

Blowing out teams at home is great, but it doesn’t give them any more experience with what I think are the two major concerns about UCLA from reporters and tourney officials…

All of the comments are relevant however let’s just keep steamrolling opponents and not worry about the numbers.

We need a huge win at ASU and Arizona is the hottest team next to us in the Pac-10. UCLA will always be overrated in the eyes of non-Pac-10 fans. Whether it’s jealousy, blaming our favor on the “UCLA legacy” or a lack of media exposure, that’s just how it is.

The facts are the facts. On paper and in terms of committee selection criteria, we aren’t as strong as many teams in the country. And unfortunately we have lost to the best teams (Texas, ASU, UW) we have played and the way in which we have lost was not impressive. Are we playing like a top 5 team right now? . . . absolutely. We are literally a completely different team with a completely different offense but we need to do this for more than 4 games to justify a higher seed. That’s reality.

But let’s use it to our advantage. Anybody who hasn’t seen the last 4 games surely underestimates us. If we end up a 4 seed let’s plan on shocking that #1 seed in the Sweet 16.

Brian,

You have missed the bigger picture, last week the seniors asked Ben to let them run and in return promised better defense and since than (last 4 games) UCLA has had an average of 15 more scoring opportuninties thus scoring an additional 17 pts p/game while not giving up an extra points to the opposing team.

The Bruins are starting to gel and based on points per possession stats this team is better than last years team at this time with just as many loses in the PAC 10. We lost to SC at home last year no one cried we lose to ASU who is a much better team than last year’s SC team and we are screaming the roof is falling. In fact this team might be better as we are more balanced on offense and scoring and not just feeding KL in the post.

So if we go 29-5 winning the PAC 10 title we are no worse than a #2 seed staying in the west. If we are as BH suggests a top 5 team we may get a 1 seed but no worse than a 2 seed.

Let’s hope for a win by Michigan at home against Michigan State tonight, however unlikely that may be.

Not so unlikely, Jewin. Michigan held their own this past weekend against #1 Connecticut. In fact, it was a ‘game’ the entire way. i would not be terribly surprised if Michigan beats MIST.

One of the problems with the RPI is it doesn’t take into account how well a team is playing RIGHT NOW. And the RPI has other intrinsic problems. Take Utah for example, with their RPI of 13. While it’s true that they have a tougher shedule than us, having played the likes of Oklahoma (and getting crushed by them), along with squeaking out a one-point win over Gonzaga, they’ve lost to such powerhouses as Southwest Baptist, Idaho State, Utah State, San Diego State and UNLV. The polls, on the other hand, do account for how well teams are playing right now, and they are another factor the selection committee considers when drawing the seedings. bz, I assume based on your logic that the Bruins are overrated at #6 in the ESPN poll and even at #11 in the AP poll? You must believe that we should be ranked no higher than 13, right, as there are clearly 12 teams deserving of a higher seed than us right now?

“INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Travel costs will not play a larger role in this year’s NCAA tournament pairings this year than it has in other years.

Selection committee chairman Mike Slive said during a conference call Tuesday that while the committee is sensitive to the economic climate, it has a responsibility to the nation to provide balanced brackets for the NCAA’s marquee event, which begins in mid-March.

Slive believes the committee hopes to keep schools close to their fans, a policy that first began in 2001, but not at the expense of competitive balance.

Slive also said that the committee will not consider conference RPIs and will instead focus on each team’s resume individually.” 2/10/2009 SI.com

Chris Dufrense of LA Times wrote, “The Bruins’ No. 67 strength of schedule is no doubt a factor, but it’s hard to imagine UCLA will be lower than a No. 2 if they win the Pac-10 title.”