Official 2007-2008 College Basketball Thread

[Chief Rum]

TIE again!

[INDalltheway]

I guess I would be scared playing in Pauley if I knew the home team was going to get a call like that at the end of the ball game.

[Chief Rum]

Foul happened too fast. I need to see it again to know. It looked like a good block to me, but then the camera angle here didn't show too well if there was a body or if one of the side guys got a hand in (I didn't even see who got called for it).

Overtime we go.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

I guess I would be scared playing in Pauley if I knew the home team was going to get a call like that at the end of the ball game.

Don't be a hater now.

[MrBug708]

UCLA got bailed out, but I'll take it

[INDalltheway]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Don't be a hater now.

I'm just an outsider with no ties to either team.. Nor bets.

[Chief Rum]

Bug, did you see a replay of the foul?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

I'm just an outsider with no ties to either team.. Nor bets.

Yeah, but you keep lumping Hansbrough and Love together! That's hater talk!

Feel the Love, man. He ain't no Hansbrough. And if you think you get Love thrown at ya, try being in Cali and having Gordon shoved in your face all the time.

At least you can mostly hide from Pac 10 ball on ESPN.

[Chief Rum]

I think Westbrook landed on B Lopez's foot and turned his ankle. Ouch.

[INDalltheway]

I'm a Purdue guy so I'm tired of the Gordon hoopla too. I would much rather get the 4 freshman we got, guys that will be around for four years, than a guy like Gordon. I only see the Pac 10 when I come home to the extended cable, so I really don't try to hide from it!

[Chief Rum]

Okay, they just showed the foul. Stanford should be pissed.

[INDalltheway]

Weak stuff in this conference they call the Pac 10. The officials made the game about them, and they didn't let the players really decide the game. Nice comeback by UCLA, but it was definitely aided. Off to bed. It was fun hanging with you west coasters.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

I'm a Purdue guy so I'm tired of the Gordon hoopla too. I would much rather get the 4 freshman we got, guys that will be around for four years, than a guy like Gordon. I only see the Pac 10 when I come home to the extended cable, so I really don't try to hide from it!

Well, at least you get to see the best ball in the country.

I like Purdue. Always liked Keady (yes, I know he's retired). Plus the Coach went there back in the day.

You guys seem pretty solid this year. Tough to bring a kiddie crew into the tourney, though.

WTF, Shipp? You're like a 90% FT shooter and you keep missing FTs!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

Weak stuff in this conference they call the Pac 10. The officials made the game about them, and they didn't let the players really decide the game. Nice comeback by UCLA, but it was definitely aided. Off to bed. It was fun hanging with you west coasters.

Stanford should have a win here. I hope the selection committee is watching. Stanford deserves a #2 at least (heck, knowing how tough the Pac 10 is, they should get a 1, although I know non-Pac-10 people will disagree).

Bug and I should go hide before Kalifornia gets back.

[INDalltheway]

Nice pass Love. Great layup Collison..

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

Nice pass Love. Great layup Collison..

Eh, the Stanford guy shot it when UCLA stopped defending him, so UCLA did it back.

Poor Stanford.

I'll take the win

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Eh, the Stanford guy shot it when UCLA stopped defending him, so UCLA did it back.

Poor Stanford.

I'll take the win

I'll take the win, too, and I think UCLA did a lot to deserve that win. That said, I feel awful that a terrible call like that gave the team the opportunity to win. Now UCLA deserves credit for taking that opportunity and making the most of it, but that was a BS call. Definitely all ball up top, and I didn't see any significant body either. Frankly, it wasn't a bright decision by Collison to go one on five.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think Westbrook landed on B Lopez's foot and turned his ankle. Ouch.

Stanford should have gone after him at the other end the way he was limping. Poor recognition.

In A-10 news, St. Joe's with a huge win over Xavier. A-10 may yet get 3 in.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'll take the win, too, and I think UCLA did a lot to deserve that win. That said, I feel awful that a terrible call like that gave the team the opportunity to win. Now UCLA deserves credit for taking that opportunity and making the most of it, but that was a BS call. Definitely all ball up top, and I didn't see any significant body either. Frankly, it wasn't a bright decision by Collison to go one on five.

The call at the end of regulation was atrocious, especially considering the way the game was called all day. When a team like Stanford doesn't shoot a FT until 8 minutes left even though their offense runs through the post EVERY possession, you sure had Hell better not call a touch foul at the buzzer. Stanford got screwed there and in OT as well (if that's intentional, then there should be 5 intentional fouls every end game).

Just a horribly officiated game. UCLA did not deserve to win.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Stanford should have a win here. I hope the selection committee is watching. Stanford deserves a #2 at least (heck, knowing how tough the Pac 10 is, they should get a 1, although I know non-Pac-10 people will disagree).

Bug and I should go hide before Kalifornia gets back.

You do know Stanford lost to Siena by 12 points correct? No other #1 seed candidate has a loss close to being that suspect.

Stanford couldn't beat the one elite team they played this season. Their OOC SOS was awful (best OOC was a 1 point win against Texas Tech). This team is in no way good enough to be a #1.

[Karlifornia]

Eh..I'm not too pissed about the foul call on Hill there at the end. It happens...you gotta keep playing. Stanford played an awesome 40 minutes of basketball, but sometimes that isn't enough against a great team, with a great coach, in a great building.

Collison won this game for UCLA. He's just a beast.

I'd like to see the two teams tangle again in the PAC-10 final, but who knows what'll happen in this wacky conference.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

You do know Stanford lost to Siena by 12 points correct? No other #1 seed candidate has a loss close to being that suspect.

Stanford couldn't beat the one elite team they played this season. Their OOC SOS was awful (best OOC was a 1 point win against Texas Tech). This team is in no way good enough to be a #1.

I don't think Stanford should be a number 1 seed even if they had won tonight's game, but stop bringing up the Siena game. Stanford didn't have uhm....who? Oh, just BROOK LOPEZ, their lottery pick center. No big loss, though.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

The call at the end of regulation was atrocious, especially considering the way the game was called all day. When a team like Stanford doesn't shoot a FT until 8 minutes left even though their offense runs through the post EVERY possession, you sure had Hell better not call a touch foul at the buzzer. Stanford got screwed there and in OT as well (if that's intentional, then there should be 5 intentional fouls every end game).

Just a horribly officiated game. UCLA did not deserve to win.

I would argue UCLA deserved to win. They aren't to blame for the refs. Collison made the free throws, regardless how he got them. UCLA came back from being down big, and Stanford let them. Stanford also didn't show up in OT at all (and that's all on them). The intentional foul was meaningless at that point.

Also, no one has brought up that UCLA even without the foul would have had an inbounds pass from under their own basket with 2.7 seconds to get two points. Not exactly a 100% Stanford wins situation (although certainly better than 2 FTs to Collison).

And as for the Stanford offense through the post situation, it appeared to me that every Stanford score I saw was either outside shots or Lopez fadeaways (neither of which generate much fouls). By comparison, UCLA in the second half was jumping at the basket, doing lots of runs into the lane, and Love doesn't do fadeaways--he goes right in like a bull.

All that said, yeah, that call at the end was complete BS (as I have said). Not trying to be a UCLA apologist, just pointing out that much of your post outside of your call opinion is, essentially, inaccurate.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Radii

http://proxy.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

looks like Lunardi and Chief Rum are on the same page. At first glance, there are some really dangerous teams in the 7-10 seed range. Baylor has played some incredible games this year, Kansas State, Arizona, Mississippi State, Davidson, etc. Hell if that were the actual bracket I would probably fill out my sheet with Tennessee going down in the 2nd round.

On the ACC front, Clemson has finally played their way in. Miami, Virginia Tech, and Maryland are all very, very shaky, but all have winnable games to close out their seasons

Miami is a lock. They have won 6 of 7 and have several quality wins (dook, Clemson, @ Miss State). They needed to take care of business and have. the only way they don't make it is two consecutive losses and several upsets elsewhere (e.g., Butler and Kent State losing).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

You do know Stanford lost to Siena by 12 points correct? No other #1 seed candidate has a loss close to being that suspect.

Stanford couldn't beat the one elite team they played this season. Their OOC SOS was awful (best OOC was a 1 point win against Texas Tech). This team is in no way good enough to be a #1.

To each their own. I saw Stanford in January and I see them now. They are only getting better, a tremendous team. You put any of the other #1 seed candidates into this league, and I think it's quite likely Stanford finishes ahead of them.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Eh..I'm not too pissed about the foul call on Hill there at the end. It happens...you gotta keep playing. Stanford played an awesome 40 minutes of basketball, but sometimes that isn't enough against a great team, with a great coach, in a great building.

Collison won this game for UCLA. He's just a beast.

I'd like to see the two teams tangle again in the PAC-10 final, but who knows what'll happen in this wacky conference.

I would love to see these two teams tangle again in the final. Heck, they both deserve it.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I don't think Stanford should be a number 1 seed even if they had won tonight's game, but stop bringing up the Siena game. Stanford didn't have uhm....who? Oh, just BROOK LOPEZ, their lottery pick center. No big loss, though.

UCLA, UNC, and Kansas have all played several games without their best players. A #1 should still be able to win @ Siena with even their best layer out. I know Siena isn't terrible, but that is a bad loss.

If Stanford had a better OOC I could ignore the Siena loss. But their OOC was awful, They are in no way deserving of a #1. Not that you said they did but the original poster did.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I don't think Stanford should be a number 1 seed even if they had won tonight's game, but stop bringing up the Siena game. Stanford didn't have uhm....who? Oh, just BROOK LOPEZ, their lottery pick center. No big loss, though.

Yup, very good point.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You put any of the other #1 seed candidates into this league, and I think it's quite likely Stanford finishes ahead of them.

There's no sense arguing with someone so blinded by conference loyalty. that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Do you really think Kansas or UNC would lose more than 4 games in the Pac 10? Really?

Wow.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

UCLA, UNC, and Kansas have all played several games without their best players. A #1 should still be able to win @ Siena with even their best layer out. I know Siena isn't terrible, but that is a bad loss.

If Stanford had a better OOC I could ignore the Siena loss. But their OOC was awful, They are in no way deserving of a #1. Not that you said they did but the original poster did.

Well, I can see that reasoning, too. I guess it's the best team now versus best season theory, like with the BCS. I think Stanford right now is in the argument for being one of the top four teams in the country. But if you consider their entire body of work, you're right that you can't outright ignore Siena or a weak OOC schedule.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I would argue UCLA deserved to win. They aren't to blame for the refs. Collison made the free throws, regardless how he got them. UCLA came back from being down big, and Stanford let them. Stanford also didn't show up in OT at all (and that's all on them). The intentional foul was meaningless at that point.

Also, no one has brought up that UCLA even without the foul would have had an inbounds pass from under their own basket with 2.7 seconds to get two points. Not exactly a 100% Stanford wins situation (although certainly better than 2 FTs to Collison).

And as for the Stanford offense through the post situation, it appeared to me that every Stanford score I saw was either outside shots or Lopez fadeaways (neither of which generate much fouls). By comparison, UCLA in the second half was jumping at the basket, doing lots of runs into the lane, and Love doesn't do fadeaways--he goes right in like a bull.

All that said, yeah, that call at the end was complete BS (as I have said). Not trying to be a UCLA apologist, just pointing out that much of your post outside of your call opinion is, essentially, inaccurate.

I didn't say once that the officiating was a problem. I said that you can't not call fouls on several of Lopez's shot when he got tapped in the shooting arm and elbow and then call a brush in the body with 2.5 seconds to go. that is horribly inconsistent officiating.

The intentional in OT was also a veyr poor call. I watch a TON of basketball and see an intentional maybe every other game. That, my friend, was not an intentional.

What else is even in my post? that UCLA didn't deserve to win? They didn't. that it was a horribly officiated game? It was. Where is the inaccuracy? I'm not claiming Love is a fat prick and that Howland's waste of timeouts is extremely poor strategy. I didn't bemoan the fact that Collison played 43 minutes of ball pressure with nary a hand check called. i didn't complain about the lack of class for shooting a layup with a second to go.

For God sakes, admit you should have lost and move on. You'll feel much better in the end.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

There's no sense arguing with someone so blinded by conference loyalty. that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Do you really think Kansas or UNC would lose more than 4 games in the Pac 10? Really?

Wow.

Do you really know so little about Pac 10 basketball?

UCLA is on a par with those two teams, no? UCLA lost to Washington on the road and USC at home. That's not even the top three teams in the conference. There was only one "easy out" in this conference in Oregon State. Unlike Kansas, UCLA doesn't have an Iowa State, Colorado AND Missourim nor does the Pac 10 feature any other teams besides OSU that lose by 40 like Texas Tech did--twice--in the past week or more. Unlike UNC, UCLA doesn't have four teams like GTech, BC, Virginia and NC State to beat up on. UNC loses two point guards, including Lawson, in ACC play and they can wing it. In the Pac 10, though, there is only one Oregon State. They have to fight tooth and nail to get a win against just about any other conference team (particularly on the road).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Stanford should have a win here.

Fail reading comprehension, did ya, Super Grover?

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Well, I can see that reasoning, too. I guess it's the best team now versus best season theory, like with the BCS. I think Stanford right now is in the argument for being one of the top four teams in the country. But if you consider their entire body of work, you're right that you can't outright ignore Siena or a weak OOC schedule.

who has Stanford beaten to show they are one of the best four teams? Wash State? Who has Wash State beaten? you are starting to catch my drift.

Let's see how Stanford responds Saturday. I have a feeling they will be 25-6 in 48 hours.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Do you really know so little about Pac 10 basketball?

UCLA is on a par with those two teams, no? UCLA lost to Washington on the road and USC at home. That's not even the top three teams in the conference. There was only one "easy out" in this conference in Oregon State. Unlike Kansas, UCLA doesn't have an Iowa State, Colorado AND Missourim nor does the Pac 10 feature any other teams besides OSU that lose by 40 like Texas Tech did--twice--in the past week or more. Unlike UNC, UCLA doesn't have four teams like GTech, BC, Virginia and NC State to beat up on. UNC loses two point guards, including Lawson, in ACC play and they can wing it. In the Pac 10, though, there is only one Oregon State. They have to fight tooth and nail to get a win against just about any other conference team (particularly on the road).

Let's see, I've seen the following Pac 10 games this season:

UCLA @ Oregon
UCAL @ Wash
UCLA @ Wash St
UCLA @ Stanford
UCLA @ Arizona
Arizona @ ASU
ASU @ Arizona
Stanford @Arizona
Oregon @ OSU (I was bored)
USC @ Arizona
UCLA @ USC
Wash State @ Cal

There's probably a couple more, but that is all I can think of now.

look, I know the Pac 10 is a damn good conference. I think it's the best in the nation, although if Marquette shows me something the Big East can overtake them. Nevertheless, UCLA is CLEARLY the elite team in the league. Stanford, while solid, is simply not in the same league. UCLA played horribly tonight and still won (albeit with some luck). 9 times out of 10 they are gonna whip the Cardinal. that's all there is to it.

Now, if you want to say UCLA would win any conference in the nation, I would find that defensible. Not that I agree, but at least I understand the argument.

Claiming that Stanford is better than Kansas, UNC, Memphis, et al. is ludicrous though. that would mean that UCLA is clearly better than every team in the nation. Sorry to inform you that just ain't the case. They might be as good, but they aren't better.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

I didn't say once that the officiating was a problem. I said that you can't not call fouls on several of Lopez's shot when he got tapped in the shooting arm and elbow and then call a brush in the body with 2.5 seconds to go. that is horribly inconsistent officiating.

The intentional in OT was also a veyr poor call. I watch a TON of basketball and see an intentional maybe every other game. That, my friend, was not an intentional.

What else is even in my post? that UCLA didn't deserve to win? They didn't. that it was a horribly officiated game? It was. Where is the inaccuracy? I'm not claiming Love is a fat prick and that Howland's waste of timeouts is extremely poor strategy. I didn't bemoan the fact that Collison played 43 minutes of ball pressure with nary a hand check called. i didn't complain about the lack of class for shooting a layup with a second to go.

For God sakes, admit you should have lost and move on. You'll feel much better in the end.

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

The call at the end of regulation was atrocious, especially considering the way the game was called all day. When a team like Stanford doesn't shoot a FT until 8 minutes left even though their offense runs through the post EVERY possession, you sure had Hell better not call a touch foul at the buzzer. Stanford got screwed there and in OT as well (if that's intentional, then there should be 5 intentional fouls every end game).

Just a horribly officiated game. UCLA did not deserve to win.

Here you go. I bolded the parts you got wrong.

And even that last part, IMO, is limited to the last call and the intentional call.

I won't even respond otherwise to the rest of your classy post above.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Do you really know so little about Pac 10 basketball?

UCLA is on a par with those two teams, no? UCLA lost to Washington on the road and USC at home. That's not even the top three teams in the conference. There was only one "easy out" in this conference in Oregon State. Unlike Kansas, UCLA doesn't have an Iowa State, Colorado AND Missourim nor does the Pac 10 feature any other teams besides OSU that lose by 40 like Texas Tech did--twice--in the past week or more. Unlike UNC, UCLA doesn't have four teams like GTech, BC, Virginia and NC State to beat up on. UNC loses two point guards, including Lawson, in ACC play and they can wing it. In the Pac 10, though, there is only one Oregon State. They have to fight tooth and nail to get a win against just about any other conference team (particularly on the road).

Oh and Missouri is a better team than Washington and about as good as Oregon. Ga Tech, BC and UVa are all on the same caliber as Washington and Cal. UVa proved it by winning at Arizona earlier this season. Claiming they aren't is showing your ignorance of anything BUT Pac 10 basketball. Trying to say the ACC has a bunch of teams worse than Washington and CaL is an absolute joke.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Here you go. I bolded the parts you got wrong.

And even that last part, IMO, is limited to the last call and the intentional call.

I won't even respond otherwise to the rest of your classy post above.

So are you saying that the officiating the majority of the game wasn't very lenient? Is that your claim? Are you trying to tell me that the last call wasn't completely out of character to the previous 39 minutes?

Simple yes or no question.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

Let's see, I've seen the following Pac 10 games this season:

UCLA @ Oregon
UCAL @ Wash
UCLA @ Wash St
UCLA @ Stanford
UCLA @ Arizona
Arizona @ ASU
ASU @ Arizona
Stanford @Arizona
Oregon @ OSU (I was bored)
USC @ Arizona
UCLA @ USC
Wash State @ Cal

There's probably a couple more, but that is all I can think of now.

look, I know the Pac 10 is a damn good conference. I think it's the best in the nation, although if Marquette shows me something the Big East can overtake them. Nevertheless, UCLA is CLEARLY the elite team in the league. Stanford, while solid, is simply not in the same league. UCLA played horribly tonight and still won (albeit with some luck). 9 times out of 10 they are gonna whip the Cardinal. that's all there is to it.

Now, if you want to say UCLA would win any conference in the nation, I would find that defensible. Not that I agree, but at least I understand the argument.

Claiming that Stanford is better than Kansas, UNC, Memphis, et al. is ludicrous though. that would mean that UCLA is clearly better than every team in the nation. Sorry to inform you that just ain't the case. They might be as good, but they aren't better.

First of all, I said "quite likely". I'm saying Stanford can be considered in the league of those teams and it's not impossible they could finish ahead of those teams if they both played a Pac 10 schedule.

I don't think UCLA is clearly better. I think Stanford is close to on par with UCLA, and I think UCLA is in a group with those other teams as one of the best in the nation, any of which is clearly capable of cutting down the nets.

I think you're overreaching to make a point and putting words in my mouth/overemphasizing things that are actually putting them well beyond what I intended.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

So are you saying that the officiating the majority of the game wasn't very lenient? Is that your claim? Are you trying to tell me that the last call wasn't completely out of character to the previous 39 minutes?

Simple yes or no question.

The last call was atrocious. Do you really want me to post quotes again?

We agree on that--it was an awful call, and, yes, it was out of character with the rest of the game. That doesn't mean the whole game was badly officiated or unevenly. That just means that call was awful. Does it impact the impression of the officiating as a whole? Of course. It turned a solid officiated game into one weighed down by a huge bad mark (that was otherwise fairly evenly and, yes, leniently called).

Sorry I didn't answer just "yes" or "no", but no one gave you the right to set the table.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

Oh and Missouri is a better team than Washington and about as good as Oregon. Ga Tech, BC and UVa are all on the same caliber as Washington and Cal. UVa proved it by winning at Arizona earlier this season. Claiming they aren't is showing your ignorance of anything BUT Pac 10 basketball. Trying to say the ACC has a bunch of teams worse than Washington and CaL is an absolute joke.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. One game does not make a season. Arizona does not make Virginia, nor does Siena make Stanford. Fact is, Virginia has played awful at times this year, as have the other teams you mention (and the ones I mention that you don't).

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

First of all, I said "quite likely". I'm saying Stanford can be considered in the league of those teams and it's not impossible they could finish ahead of those teams if they both played a Pac 10 schedule.

I don't think UCLA is clearly better. I think Stanford is close to on par with UCLA, and I think UCLA is in a group with those other teams as one of the best in the nation, any of which is clearly capable of cutting down the nets.

I think you're overreaching to make a point and putting words in my mouth/overemphasizing things that are actually putting them well beyond what I intended.

I can only infer from your posts, and the inference I'm getting is that you think the following:

1. Stanford is as good as Kansas, UNC, Memphis, et al.
2. Washington and Cal are better than Missouri (who beat Texas, K State, Maryland, and Purdue), Texas Tech (who beat Gonzaga, Texas, and Kansas State and lost to Stanford by 1), Virginia (who beat Arizona on the road), BC, and Ga Tech (who beat Notre Dame, Clemson and barely lost to Kansas, Indiana, and UNC).
3. UCLA is not clearly the best team in the Pac 10.

This is what I perceive from your posts. I should tell you that you are absolutely incorrect and all of the assumptions (if you need help, I will bold the pieces that I think are inaccurate).

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The last call was atrocious. Do you really want me to post quotes again?

We agree on that--it was an awful call, and, yes, it was out of character with the rest of the game. That doesn't mean the whole game was badly officiated or unevenly. That just means that call was awful. Does it impact the impression of the officiating as a whole? Of course. It turned a solid officiated game into one weighed down by a huge bad mark (that was otherwise fairly evenly and, yes, leniently called).

Sorry I didn't answer just "yes" or "no", but no one gave you the right to set the table.

I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS A POORLY OFFICATED GAME. I said it was lenient. that doesn't mean poor if your are consistent. Jesus Christ, read for a second.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

The call at the end of regulation was atrocious, especially considering the way the game was called all day. When a team like Stanford doesn't shoot a FT until 8 minutes left even though their offense runs through the post EVERY possession, you sure had Hell better not call a touch foul at the buzzer. Stanford got screwed there and in OT as well (if that's intentional, then there should be 5 intentional fouls every end game).

Just a horribly officiated game. UCLA did not deserve to win.

See, this is sad. You are making me go back and pull your own quotes, bold them and supersize them.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. One game does not make a season. Arizona does not make Virginia, nor does Siena make Stanford. Fact is, Virginia has played awful at times this year, as have the other teams you mention (and the ones I mention that you don't).

Let's look at Washington. Here are some of the results from their season:

v Tex A&M L 14
V Syracuse L 6
@ Okie State L 25 (one of those shitty Big XII teams)
V Pitt L 1 (quality loss)
v Portland W 4 (not a quality win)

That's pretty much the only quality teams they played. Their best OOC win was Utah or LSU. Washington is simply not very good

Here's Cal:

v Missouri W 14 (solid home win)
@ KSU L 7 (not a bad loss)
v Utah L 2 (not a bad loss, although at home)

That's it. Again, no impressive OOC victories, but no awful losses either. Cal isn't a bad club and would finish about as well as Missouri or Ga Tech in the Big XII/ACC.

However, these teams are not significantly better than the majority of clubs KU and UNC play on a daily basis. And that doesn't include the two gimmies against OSU.

Like I said, the Pac 10 is a good conference from 2-9, but has only one elite team. That's UCLA. Stanford is a lot closer to the Clemson and KSU's of the world than the UNC's and KU's. That's not a bad thing, but it's reality.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

See, this is sad. You are making me go back and pull your own quotes, bold them and supersize them.

i apologize as I did not intend to imply the entire game was horribly officiated even though that's what I typed. My intention was to say the last minute and overtime were horribly officiated. I think it's pretty clear by the previous statement that's what I meant.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

I can only infer from your posts, and the inference I'm getting is that you think the following:

1. Stanford is as good as Kansas, UNC, Memphis, et al.
2. Washington and Cal are better than Missouri (who beat Texas, K State, Maryland, and Purdue), Texas Tech (who beat Gonzaga, Texas, and Kansas State and lost to Stanford by 1), Virginia (who beat Arizona on the road), BC, and Ga Tech (who beat Notre Dame, Clemson and barely lost to Kansas, Indiana, and UNC).
3. UCLA is not clearly the best team in the Pac 10.

This is what I perceive from your posts. I should tell you that you are absolutely incorrect and all of the assumptions (if you need help, I will bold the pieces that I think are inaccurate).

I think Stanford is right behind all of the #1 seeds. Remember, I said it's quite likely they would finish ahead of those teams in the Pac 10. I didn't say it would definitely happen. If we disagree on their ability, fine. I guess we'll see in the tourney, and if I am wrong, so be it, I'll man up.

I do think Cal is better than all of those teams. Washington, the second worst team in the Pac 10, is more likely on par--and they beat UCLA and Washington State. I am sure we can both dig up key wins and key losses uintil our faces turn blue. Wouldn't it be better to just agree to disagree? You know you're not going to change my mind, and I know I won't change yours.

UCLA is the best team in the Pac 10. They have shown that. But you don't see that Stanford is right there? They came in one game back in the conference standings, and you yourself day they should have beaten UCLA tonight. How can you say all that and not see that the gap between UCLA and Stanford is not all that big?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

i apologize as I did not intend to imply the entire game was horribly officiated even though that's what I typed. My intention was to say the last minute and overtime were horribly officiated. I think it's pretty clear by the previous statement that's what I meant.

I am sorry, but until this statement here, I don't think that was clear at all. And in fact you spoke on two different occasions about Lopez not getting calls. I am glad you see that you stated this and are backing off of it, but I can't agree your original point was pretty clear at all until now.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

i apologize as I did not intend to imply the entire game was horribly officiated even though that's what I typed. My intention was to say the last minute and overtime were horribly officiated. I think it's pretty clear by the previous statement that's what I meant.

Not to skirt over the apology. I apologize, too. I don't want to "go away mad" as it were (actually, I'm not mad, but I can see hurt feelings from this convo, and that's not what I want).

All the same to you, I have to go to bed, and frankly don't think there is much more to cover here. We just don't agree. And that's fine. Different strokes.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think Stanford is right behind all of the #1 seeds. Remember, I said it's quite likely they would finish ahead of those teams in the Pac 10. I didn't say it would definitely happen. If we disagree on their ability, fine. I guess we'll see in the tourney, and if I am wrong, so be it, I'll man up.

I do think Cal is better than all of those teams. Washington, the second worst team in the Pac 10, is more likely on par--and they beat UCLA and Washington State. I am sure we can both dig up key wins and key losses uintil our faces turn blue. Wouldn't it be better to just agree to disagree? You know you're not going to change my mind, and I know I won't change yours.

UCLA is the best team in the Pac 10. They have shown that. But you don't see that Stanford is right there? They came in one game back in the conference standings, and you yourself day they should have beaten UCLA tonight. How can you say all that and not see that the gap between UCLA and Stanford is not all that big?

Three things:

1. If you think Washington is on par with Missouri, Ga Tech and UVa the objective data I've put forth than this argument is over. How is a team with their pedigree better than the teams I've laid out? they aren't.

2. You said Stanford would "quite likely they would finish ahead of those teams in the Pac 10." i don't see how you can interpret any other than way than saying Stanford is better than the other #1 seed. Quite likely = probably. In this case, that means better. there's no other way to spin it.on

3. Stanford is two games behind UCLA with a tough game at USC remaining. they could easily finish three games back. Further, several of the games they won could've went either way (@ Arizona, @ Wash St., vs USC, v Ariz, v Wash). Only this game and the ASU game did they lose closely. UCLA, on the other hand, really only had three games come down to the wire (@ Arizona, vs, Stanford, and @ Oregon). Most other games they were in control of by the 5 minute mark.

Look, I'm done arguing with you because you are blinded by West Coast love. that's fine and dandy. As a UCLA fan, you should have some confidence in your team...to me they are clearly one of the three (maybe four if Louisville keeps playing like this) teams in the nation with KU and UNC. No one else in the conference is, but that is irrelevant.