UC-Frickin'-LA... What About This?

[MylesKnight]

I'm wondering, the Bruins can now possibly win the Pac-10 Tourney after knocking out their biggest obstacle last night in the #1 Ranked Arizona Wildcats.

The Bruins are now 10-18 with an RPI rank of #156 (as of today from CollegeRPI.com).. Hell, UCF is ranked higher, #128 for what it's worth..

If, the improbable happens and UCLA wins the Pac-10 Tournament, just what kind of seed would they get?

If you just look at the numbers, wouldn't it have to be a #16 or at best maybe a #15?

This is definitely a pretty interesting development..

[JeeberD]

Nah, due to the fact that they're in the PAC Ten they wouldn't get a seed lower than ten or twleve...

[heybrad]

Lets just hope they dont go cookoo over there and think that this is a reason to keep Steve Lavin.

[Anrhydeddu]

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6463

[MylesKnight]

I don't know Jeeber.. A what would then be 12-18 team getting a seed that high?

I would be shocked if a team that only won 12 games ended up getting a seed higher than teams like Weber State, Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Southern Illinois..

One thing is for sure though, UCLA definitely won't be the school yelling to the Pac 10 officials to get rid of the Pac 10 Tourney.

[Radii]

they'd be playing who is it... UNC Asheville? in the play in game. I'll put money on it. Power conference or not, you go 10-18 and upset your way into the NCAAs and you're in the play in game :)

[Chief Rum]

If UCLA wins the tourney, they shouldn't get anything except a 16-seed. And this is coming froma UCLA fan (and a general proponent of the bigger conferences are better line of thinking that TroyF hates :) ).

The real funny thing is hearing some of the nutballs at the main fan site I go to, Bruin Report Online, talk about how UCLA is a shoo-in for a 12 seed or better. Even though they are fellow Bruins fans, it is hard for me to read that and accept that these are objective-thinking individuals (so I don't try).

What's really funny, though, is that, given UCLA's habit of upsetting #1 seed teams, wouldn't be neat if they got in, got that 16-seed I think they deserve (and yes, the play-in game as well) and then became that first 16-seed ever to actually win?

One caveat: I would like them to fall just short of whatever would save Lavion's job. Man, he needs to go.

Chief rum

[TroyF]

That's the big problem with putting UCLA as a 16-13 seed. . . you almost punish the higher seeded teams. 10-18 record or not, UCLA has talent.

They'll be a much tougher out for a team like Kansas than McNese St.

Do you put them where they belong at 16 or do you put them closer to where their talent level resides?

Tough one. I'm glad I'm not the selection guys on it.

Of course, we are all getting ahead of ourselves. UCLA has to win 2 more games to get there. . . and exactly where have they shown that type of consistency this year?

They've still got a long way to go.

TroyF

[Radii]

You get seeded based on results, not talent level. UCLA will play UNC Asheville in the play in game should they win the Pac 10 Tournament, barring some other well below .500 team winning their conference tourney.

[Chief Rum]

Who are you talking to? Everyone here agrees with you. It's some of my biased fellow UCLA fans at another site that don't seem to get it. :)

Chief Rum

[lynchjm24]

You get seeded based on results. UCLA beat the number 1 team in the country. They at worst would be a 12 seed. How could the committee justify to Kentucky bringing them out of the play-in game. What benefit would that be to the team 1-12 on the 'S-Curve'.

[bosshogg23]

Put them in the play-in game. The entire regular season should mean something. I root for UCLA(im one of the few who like Steve Lavin) but their record is deserving of very little at this point.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by bosshogg23
Put them in the play-in game. The entire regular season should mean something. I root for UCLA(im one of the few who like Steve Lavin) but their record is deserving of very little at this point.

I dunno about that. Ucla at 12-18 is probably better than some crap team like Farleigh-Dickenson who'll get a 16...

[Racer]

If they win their tournament I see them most likely ending with up with a 12th seed. I personally think they should be a 13th or 14th seed.

[bosshogg23]

Did anyone see the AM Sportscenter today? It showed a stat that no team from the major conferences has ever won a their tournament and finished with a below .500 record for the season. One team finished 18-18. UCLA would have to win their tournament and the NCAA tournament to avoid that situation(according to Sportscenter).

[tucker342]

UCLA is ahead by 9 with 15 minutes to go.........

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by tucker342
UCLA is ahead by 9 with 15 minutes to go.........

heh heh...tucker, obviously, you're not familiar with Steve Lavin basketball. No UCLA lead is safe. :)

Now you guys know why we want him gone.

It is too bad, though, because I really would have liked to see the selection guys grapple with the UCLA as a 16-seed issue.

Chief Rum

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by bosshogg23
Put them in the play-in game. The entire regular season should mean something. I root for UCLA(im one of the few who like Steve Lavin) but their record is deserving of very little at this point.

It's beside the point now - but the same goes for USC. If you give them a 16 seed - then you screw the 1 seeds that had great seasons - or do you not see that obvious ramification?

[Chief Rum]

But at what point do we stop measuring and their actual performance and start doing it on their talent? And on how on Earth do we fairly measure talent anyway?

If you want to take schedule strength into consideration (which would certainly be higherfor UCLA/USC than most small conference 16 seeds), then maybe you can put up an objective argument about putting them higher than a good small conference team.

But that would be very hard to do, IMO. You might practically have to make strength of schedule mean everything, even to the point of devaluing the wins themselves (indeed, that's exactly what you're trying to do--you're trying to get a 12 team UCLA squad a higher seed than small conference schools with 20+ games on their resumes).

If according to our objective measures, a big conference team plays worse than a small conference team, I don't really care if anyone feels that it's not fair for a 16-seed to open play against UCLA-USC--they would be playing the worse team, which is what the entire purpose of the brackets is far.

Chief Rum

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
It's beside the point now - but the same goes for USC. If you give them a 16 seed - then you screw the 1 seeds that had great seasons - or do you not see that obvious ramification?

See: Missouri 12 seed, 2002 tourney. Their talent didn't justify the seeding, but their results did. They turned it on come tourney time, wound up in the Elite Eight. It's a tough spot to put the committee in, but what can they realistically do?

[MylesKnight]

What about Southern Cal?

If they beat Oregon, they get win the Pac 10 Tourney and get in with a 14-16 record..

Also, there current RPI going into today's game with Oregon, according to CollegeRPI.com, is #140..

Heck, UNC-Asheville isn't that far behind, at #185..

USC may get bailed out of the Play-In Game though because of the terribly low ratings of the two teams playing in the SWAC Title Game tonight... Texas Southern #251, and Alcorn State #271..

Bottom line though, if the Trojans beat Oregon, they deserve a #16 team.. Their record and RPI rating speak for themselves..

A #12 or #13 seed would be a complete slap in the face to teams that won their Conferences and Conference Tourneys will outstanding seasons and great records..

And hey, for a #1 seed like Kentucky or Texas for example, USC may be a much tougher matchup than say Sam Houston State, but if a UK or UT is a true National Title Contender, shouldn't they be able to beat a team like USC anyway?

This could get interesting if it happens, and I hope it does.. GO USC!!

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by MylesKnight


And hey, for a #1 seed like Kentucky or Texas for example, USC may be a much tougher matchup than say Sam Houston State, but if a UK or UT is a true National Title Contender, shouldn't they be able to beat a team like USC anyway?

This could get interesting if it happens, and I hope it does.. GO USC!!

Not that it matters now, but the committee even protects those top seeds with local games. They sent at 28-3 CCSU team to Mellon Arena last year to play Pittsburgh, who was only a 3 seed. If the tournament protects teams that aren't even that great with home games, aren't they going to protect the 1 and 2 seeds against unfavorable matchups?

Anyone who thinks that these 'good' small conference teams would do anything but get their asses handed to them in the big conferences is crazy. There have been a few teams over the years that could hang - Gonzaga the past few years (not this year) is a pretty good example, but the BCS conferences are still light years ahead of the 'mid-majors'.

If a team is good enough to run the table in the Pac-10 tournament they are light years ahead of the 12-14 conferences that don't have a chance to get an at-large bid. I go to plenty of MAAC, NEC, America East games and I saw UNC-Asheville in person this season - Arizona could play every team in those leagues 5 times on the road and I doubt they would lose a game. UCLA had they made the tourney would have more quality wins in a weekend then you typical 14 seed gets in a decade.