Hello Followers. Hope you're having a great weekend!!!!!
While I remain BURIED in work at the old compound (which is the reason for my near two week hiatus from the blog, a forced sabattical which I hope to end by next week), Selection Sunday is once again upon us.
So, if you want to check out a few very quick thoughts about what I am expecting to see this weekend, well, read on.
Followers, I want you all to know that for the past few days I have been telling SeanHawk that there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES in which Washington will be left out of the NCAA tournament. And the reason why I have felt that way has nothing to do with the basketball side of the ledger (e.g. Washington's body of work) but instead has EVERYTHING to do with the political side of the selection process. Simply put, there are no AD's from BCS conferences, nor conference comissisioners who are communicating with them, that want to see a BCS conference champion get excluded from the NCAA tournament. And for that reason alone, expect to see Washington seeded 12 in play-in game on Wednesday night. I guarantee it.
That all said, the one thing that has me thinking that Washington may get the NCAA ziggy has everything to do with the team that won the Pac-12 tournament: those zany dancing Buffaloes from Colorado.
You see, in my mind, the ONLY way that a major conference champion can be excluded from the dance with FOURTEEN conference wins is if they have ZERO wins against confernece opponents who are going to the Dance. And in the case of Washington, their record against conference foes who are dancing?
A FAT 0-2.
Had Arizona beaten Colorado on Saturday, UW would have been 2-1 in that same category. And, in my view, that record alone would have SEALED 3 bids for the conference.
In the end, here's to thinking that the Committee is going to pick between California, Washington, Mississipi State, and Brigham Young for three of the final four spots. And the loser in all of this? Either California or BYU. But, of course, we'll see.
Following the NCAA tournament selection show, we'll learn about the post-season fate of our beloved Cougs.
And boy even a CBI bid look like an uphill climb right now, doesn't it?
Basically, if you take at face value that the Pac-12 figures to receive 2 bids to the NCAAs, that leaves 6 other Pac12 teams with 19 or more wins. While I have not done the math to figure out how many NIT bids will be eaten up by regular seasoon conference champions who did not make it to the Dance, you can bet that the Pac12 will NOT receive 6 bids to the NIT. I think we're looking more at 3 or 4.
So, in order for the Cougs to get invited to the CBI, that tournament is also going to have to go 3 deep into the lack luster Pac-12 to pick a Cougar team that was five games under .500 in conference and one game under overall.
Simply put, I don't see it happenning.
That's all we have for today, feel free to use this thread to talk about your thoughts about who is in, who is out, and who you see cutting down them nets in April.
All for now. Go Cougs.
While I generally dislike the "typical Husky" types, there are some great fans on their side too and so I don't dance on their grave over something like this. But I was having serious doubts about UW, not because I'm some self-proclaimed expert - I'm NOT by any stretch! But I do know that there are certain people you must listen to in terms of bracketology and bubble watches and all that, and that guy is Joe Lunardi.
Lunardi gets some heat here and there for what it is that he does, and it generally goes like this - Team X is a bubble team, and starts to slip in Lunardi's rankings. Fans of Team X go ballistic, screaming that Lunardi is an east coast hack, east coast bias lives, and he just doesn't know what he's doing! Read the Seattle Times comments over the weekend from when Lunardi had UW to "last four out", you'll know what I'm getting at.
But what do you know, at the end of the day, Lunardi goes a flipping amazing 67-1 in projecting the field this year. The only team he misses on is Iona, easily the most controversial team included in the field. And then it's also revealed that Lunardi has been doing this kind of thing for years. In 2008 he went a perfect 65-0. In 2009 he went 63-2, and in 2010 he went 64-1.
But think about just this year - 67 out of 68 teams he got right!?? He's not a committee member, he's not in the room when they put all of this stuff together. He's just a journalist out there gathering data and making his best bets, and his rate of success is astonishing. And it was Lunardi's warnings about UW late last week that had me seriously doubting they were going to make it, even when matched up against Cal, the #2 team in the conference by one game but much better in RPi.
I guess it was the perfect storm though for UW to not get in. No great out of conference wins; their only decent road win was at Arizona, a non-tournament team; no round robin, so they never got a shot at Cal on the road; and losing the first tourney game to Oregon State. When you haev one of the most "down" years in Pac 10/12 history? Add it all up and their are NIT bound.
"The CBI. Because teams No. 101 to 116 reaaaaaally deserve to be in someone's tournament."
On a serious note, the NCAA needs to mandate a minimum number of wins for eligibility in post-season tournaments. I'm thinking (with the exception of auto-bid qualifiers) that you need to be a minimum of 2 games over .500.
I have one question for the CBI. Was the 14th place team in the Big East just not good enough?
Really? Wazzu? Come on. Have you seen us play?
All I can say about UW not being picked is: LOL! I think it's hilarious that the team that made snyde, condescending remarks all last March about the NIT tournament, now find themselves in it... albeit with ignominious distinction of being the only power-conference regular season winner to not make the tourney; in fact, it's emerging that they weren't even close to making the Big Dance, by not being the first 4 out, and possibly not even the next 4 out. Always great to see the ever-arrogant and delusional Huskies take a large serving of humble-pie. And if they get anything less than a trip to MSG, well, let the sh*t talking begin. Is this the first time a regular season champ from a power-conference hasn't made the tourney since the expansion to 64 teams?
Looks like I'm going 0-2 on Selection Sunday. Lots of word around the interwebs that WSU will play San Francisco in the first round of the CBI.
Once again, Bill Moos comes through in spades for Ken Bone in the clutch.
While I am not optimistic about even winning one game, you all can be comforted that, so far, I am 100% wrong in March.
Wow--Pac12 champ doesn't make the dance. HORRIBLE precedent for the conference. Enjoy a short NIT run, puppies.
The way I see it, we need three Pac-12 teams in to make our best CBI case. However, the Huskies do not deserve the bid over a number of other bubble teams who will be left out. I guess I have to hope they get in and get rolled in the play in game.
Uhh... I didn't know anyone was still hoping for the post-season about three weeks ago (save for an improbable Pac-12 tourney run).
That said, I can't see leaving the Huskies out either. No, they don't have quality wins, but they didn't play a creampuff schedule either. They played two major teams back east and acquitted themselves well in losses. They have the talent of a lower seeded tourney team. And in the end, if you can't make a field of 68--not 64--with this decent of team then well, I guess we'd better expand to a 96-team field. You know...for the good of the sport.
@WallaCoug Totally agree. It was somewhat understandable that UCLA went to a bowl game with a losing record b/c of SC's probation. But the fact that they ended their BOWL season two games under .500 was a total disgrace.
And after we lose on Tuesday night, we'll be two games under .500 Heck, we need to win the next two just to guarantee a .500 season.
That should NOT be good enough for the post season...IMHO
@Sutra purely technical question: how did you get these large line breaks in your post? Every time I hit enter, it deletes the space I've created when I post.
@Sutra to be fair though, if it had to happen, I'm glad it happened to UW
@WSUcougar05 Read my lips. N...O... C...B...I...
There will be a handful of teams above us in the Pac that won't make the CBI.
@ragtopmanMy sentiments exactly
@ragtopman Sports fans, for one. Also, there could be a tangential effect on the Cougs in the even we're ever good again. Seeing the PAC-12 retain some measure of respect nationally is good for all its members.
That just made my LOL *that* much heartier.
@TruCoug89 No idea.
I think I just hit enter a few times.
That usually does the trick..
Beat the Dons!