Yeah, pretty good but the graphic does not tell the whole story.Originally posted by BBCatsExile:
ESPN Tweet Comparing the four teams.
10-0 against BPI Top 50. That's pretty good.
This post was edited on 3/15 12:27 AM by BBCatsExile
What "power" team have they played? I don't consider San Diego St or Utah as power teams, either.Originally posted by BBCatsExile:
Sometimes bad losses are good losses and good losses are bad losses.
AZ beat every power team they played. In other words, they beat everyone at a high level. They had 3 duds against terrible teams. They fell asleep. I'd think it would look worse if they lost to a Duke or Virginia IMO.
I guess what constitutes as a power team is a matter of opinion. I will say Arizona is very good, so they'll present a big challenge if we play them.Originally posted by BBCatsExile:
Power = high level teams, teams who can beat them, etc.
This post was edited on 3/15 12:53 AM by BBCatsExile
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the one poster thinks that we should punish a team in UVA who lost to 3 solid to good teams while rewarding one that lost to 3 crap teams?Originally posted by CatPhight:
Beating up on a 8/9 seed Oregon - losses to Arizona State, UNLV and Oregon State, none who are dancing, and just barely squeaking past a weak UCLA team last night.
2 seed tops in my book.
I find it disturbing that some on the committee might feel the same.Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the one poster thinks that we should punish a team in UVA who lost to 3 solid to good teams while rewarding one that lost to 3 crap teams?[/B]Originally posted by CatPhight:
Beating up on a 8/9 seed Oregon - losses to Arizona State, UNLV and Oregon State, none who are dancing, and just barely squeaking past a weak UCLA team last night.
2 seed tops in my book.
Plus, UVA also beat NC on the road, ND on the road, VCU on the road, Maryland on the road, and also beat UL. I'm not sure beating Gonzaga, Utah twice, and San Diego State trumps UVA's top wins. The one poster is basically saying "They beat all the weak and overrated and over ranked west coast teams they played."
That would be like punishing a college football team like LSU more for losing to Alabama in the SEC, while saying "Ohio State beat all the Big Ten schools but they lost to Akron OOC...good wake up call loss" and such.
Huh? I'm saying Arizona is NOT a 1 seed, but a 2 seed in the west.Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the one poster thinks that we should punish a team in UVA who lost to 3 solid to good teams while rewarding one that lost to 3 crap teams?Originally posted by CatPhight:
Beating up on a 8/9 seed Oregon - losses to Arizona State, UNLV and Oregon State, none who are dancing, and just barely squeaking past a weak UCLA team last night.
2 seed tops in my book.
Plus, UVA also beat NC on the road, ND on the road, VCU on the road, Maryland on the road, and also beat UL. I'm not sure beating Gonzaga, Utah twice, and San Diego State trumps UVA's top wins. The one poster is basically saying "They beat all the weak and overrated and over ranked west coast teams they played."
That would be like punishing a college football team like LSU more for losing to Alabama in the SEC, while saying "Ohio State beat all the Big Ten schools but they lost to Akron OOC...good wake up call loss" and such.
I was talking about the one poster with the low post count...sorry. I'm tired of talking about this. I'm actually sitting here angry thinking the committee might be as off base as some of the posters on this board. We have already established a fair way of seeding that won't screw the top 1 seed and the top 2 seed...and people want to try to SCREW that all up by forcing an overrated Arizona as a 1 seed out west all in the name of GOd forsaken geography!Originally posted by CatPhight:
Huh? I'm saying Arizona is NOT a 1 seed, but a 2 seed in the west.Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the one poster thinks that we should punish a team in UVA who lost to 3 solid to good teams while rewarding one that lost to 3 crap teams?Originally posted by CatPhight:
Beating up on a 8/9 seed Oregon - losses to Arizona State, UNLV and Oregon State, none who are dancing, and just barely squeaking past a weak UCLA team last night.
2 seed tops in my book.
Plus, UVA also beat NC on the road, ND on the road, VCU on the road, Maryland on the road, and also beat UL. I'm not sure beating Gonzaga, Utah twice, and San Diego State trumps UVA's top wins. The one poster is basically saying "They beat all the weak and overrated and over ranked west coast teams they played."
That would be like punishing a college football team like LSU more for losing to Alabama in the SEC, while saying "Ohio State beat all the Big Ten schools but they lost to Akron OOC...good wake up call loss" and such.
I'm 29. Me and my people always referred to seeds as "the top" number one. "number two" 1st seed. "number 3" 1 seed etc.Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
I was talking about the one poster with the low post count...sorry. I'm tired of talking about this. I'm actually sitting here angry thinking the committee might be as off base as some of the posters on this board. We have already established a fair way of seeding that won't screw the top 1 seed and the top 2 seed...and people want to try to SCREW that all up by forcing an overrated Arizona as a 1 seed out west all in the name of GOd forsaken geography!Originally posted by CatPhight:
Huh? I'm saying Arizona is NOT a 1 seed, but a 2 seed in the west.Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the one poster thinks that we should punish a team in UVA who lost to 3 solid to good teams while rewarding one that lost to 3 crap teams?Originally posted by CatPhight:
Beating up on a 8/9 seed Oregon - losses to Arizona State, UNLV and Oregon State, none who are dancing, and just barely squeaking past a weak UCLA team last night.
2 seed tops in my book.
Plus, UVA also beat NC on the road, ND on the road, VCU on the road, Maryland on the road, and also beat UL. I'm not sure beating Gonzaga, Utah twice, and San Diego State trumps UVA's top wins. The one poster is basically saying "They beat all the weak and overrated and over ranked west coast teams they played."
That would be like punishing a college football team like LSU more for losing to Alabama in the SEC, while saying "Ohio State beat all the Big Ten schools but they lost to Akron OOC...good wake up call loss" and such.
Arizona being a 2 seed out west in no way hurts them or punishes them...but if they unjustly receive a 1 seed then UK is the main team that gets screwed. Oh well, no point in worrying anymore as UK will beat whoever they play but God it would be nice to get the 2 seed UK deserves!
I thought the committee didn't really value margin of victory or loss?Originally posted by Seth C:
Yes, Arizona has 3 bad losses. HOWEVER...
All 3 losses were on the road
The combined total of all 3 losses is NINE points
They have lost only once in the last two months
Meanwhile Duke...
All 4 losses were in the last two months
One loss was at home (to a bad team) and one a neutral court
Those four losses were by a total of 42 points
Arguments can be made to support many perspectives, but I'm going to have trouble arguing against Arizona for losing 3 games by a single basket. We are a few bounces away from being in their position in that regard. And NO, a loss is not a loss. That's stupid and anyone knows it. There is a big difference in losing on the road because of one missed shot and never being in a game and getting beat by 12.
But more importantly, geography matters. They will happily move Duke down to a 2 and Arizona up to a 1 if it means keeping both close to home, and both teams would be happy to make that trade.
This post was edited on 3/15 1:22 AM by Seth C
I've never believed that. I've always believed when it comes to really close picks they factor it down like algebra.Originally posted by JerseyCat84:
I thought the committee didn't really value margin of victory or loss?Originally posted by Seth C:
Yes, Arizona has 3 bad losses. HOWEVER...
All 3 losses were on the road
The combined total of all 3 losses is NINE points
They have lost only once in the last two months
Meanwhile Duke...
All 4 losses were in the last two months
One loss was at home (to a bad team) and one a neutral court
Those four losses were by a total of 42 points
Arguments can be made to support many perspectives, but I'm going to have trouble arguing against Arizona for losing 3 games by a single basket. We are a few bounces away from being in their position in that regard. And NO, a loss is not a loss. That's stupid and anyone knows it. There is a big difference in losing on the road because of one missed shot and never being in a game and getting beat by 12.
But more importantly, geography matters. They will happily move Duke down to a 2 and Arizona up to a 1 if it means keeping both close to home, and both teams would be happy to make that trade.
This post was edited on 3/15 1:22 AM by Seth C
100% agree.Originally posted by .S&C.:
btw, regardless of sides, does everyone agree there shouldn't be a west region?
They don't officially. That is to say, it isn't factored in to the RPI. But if they had one team with a single loss to Duke, on the road, by 2 points...and another team with one loss to Duke, at home, by 12...would it matter? You have to say that it would. They consider absolutely everything if it comes to that. They also consider "the eye test" or "how are they playing". Is margin of victory a factor in that? Of course it is. If one team is perceived as struggling, that matters. If a team "fought hard and lost at the buzzer" that matters. When they say they don't value margin of victory what they really mean is that beating a team by 30 isn't more impressive to them than beating them by 12.Originally posted by JerseyCat84:
I thought the committee didn't really value margin of victory or loss?Originally posted by Seth C:
Yes, Arizona has 3 bad losses. HOWEVER...
All 3 losses were on the road
The combined total of all 3 losses is NINE points
They have lost only once in the last two months
Meanwhile Duke...
All 4 losses were in the last two months
One loss was at home (to a bad team) and one a neutral court
Those four losses were by a total of 42 points
Arguments can be made to support many perspectives, but I'm going to have trouble arguing against Arizona for losing 3 games by a single basket. We are a few bounces away from being in their position in that regard. And NO, a loss is not a loss. That's stupid and anyone knows it. There is a big difference in losing on the road because of one missed shot and never being in a game and getting beat by 12.
But more importantly, geography matters. They will happily move Duke down to a 2 and Arizona up to a 1 if it means keeping both close to home, and both teams would be happy to make that trade.
This post was edited on 3/15 1:22 AM by Seth C
Wins and Losses shouldn't be the only criteria. They are in the past now. Today who are the best teams?Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
100% agree.Originally posted by .S&C.:
btw, regardless of sides, does everyone agree there shouldn't be a west region?
And no matter how anyone spins it, Arizona has 3 losses to terrible teams in the 2014-2015 season...which includes games played in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb and March. You can't pretend losses did not happen or pretend like they do not matter as much because they were further in the past. I'll add they lost them all at full health/strength.
Duke has lost 1 game since they booted the bad apple rapist guy...and that was to a ND team that is better than anyone Arizona has played ALL year. Duke won 12 straight games before they lost to ND...seems like people are ignoring that though.
Wisconsin lost to Rutgers without Kaminsky...and has lost to one team since then (Top 10 Maryland) and dominated a much better conference. Wisconsin has won 15/16 games since then.
UVA has lost 2 games at full strength and lost by 2 on the road without their best player to UL, and went 16-2 in the ACC, which is an IMMENSELY much stronger conference than the weak Pac 12.
Honestly it should be UK, Nova, UVA and Wisconsin...but people are so caught up in thinking there is no way the committee will drop Duke to a 2 seed that I feel people on here are propping Arizona up when their resume clearly does not hold up in the most competitive season for 1 seeds that I can ever remember.
What you seem to not be considering, at all, is that the selection committee has OPENLY said geography is one of their highest priorities. Even if they completely agree with you, to the absolute detail, and they think the top 4 seeds are Kentucky, Villanova, Virginia, and Wisconsin...do you know who the 1 seeds would be?Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
100% agree.Originally posted by .S&C.:
btw, regardless of sides, does everyone agree there shouldn't be a west region?
And no matter how anyone spins it, Arizona has 3 losses to terrible teams in the 2014-2015 season...which includes games played in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb and March. You can't pretend losses did not happen or pretend like they do not matter as much because they were further in the past. I'll add they lost them all at full health/strength.
Duke has lost 1 game since they booted the bad apple rapist guy...and that was to a ND team that is better than anyone Arizona has played ALL year. Duke won 12 straight games before they lost to ND...seems like people are ignoring that though.
Wisconsin lost to Rutgers without Kaminsky...and has lost to one team since then (Top 10 Maryland) and dominated a much better conference. Wisconsin has won 15/16 games since then.
UVA has lost 2 games at full strength and lost by 2 on the road without their best player to UL, and went 16-2 in the ACC, which is an IMMENSELY much stronger conference than the weak Pac 12.
Honestly it should be UK, Nova, UVA and Wisconsin...but people are so caught up in thinking there is no way the committee will drop Duke to a 2 seed that I feel people on here are propping Arizona up when their resume clearly does not hold up in the most competitive season for 1 seeds that I can ever remember.