SI.Com Insults UCLA As A "Bubble Team"

Typical

I don’t know where Glockner is from, but this smells to me like typical East Coast bias. I think all of us here agree that UCLA still has some growing to do before the tourney but not all the top teams in the country play in the Big East and ACC. Carolina loses two in a row in conference and drops to #5?

That said, I’m concerned that we will not be able to keep our record of playing the opening rounds in the West. I wonder if we would get a #1 or 2 out here even if we run the table the rest of the way (which is quite unlikely). I’m sure there are many out there who don’t want to see UCLA in another Final Four, whether consciously or unconsciously, like this guy.

Bruins Forever

by bruinsince69 on Jan 20, 2009 3:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree about bias

regarding the East Coast media. The Bruins are far from a bubble team but a 1 or 2 seed seems highly unlikely; mostly because the Pac-10 is not as strong as it was a year ago. Besides Notre Dame, the Bruins have at most four other games this season against Top 25 competition (Cal 2x, USC and ASU).
Fair or not, the perception of a weaker Pac-10 will effect the Bruins seeding.

Having said that, it’s way to early to be concerned. I’m confident the team will continue to improve and will be poised for a deep tourny run, especially if they can stay out west for the early rounds.

richramus

by richramus on Jan 21, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lunardi has them a five seed...

in the MIDWEST. These guys are truly tools.

I see us as a 2 in the West or maybe a 3 (at worst) in the Midwest.

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

JohnnyBrewin

by johnnybrewin on Jan 20, 2009 3:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Present performance vs. future expectations

Looking at our record and resume as of today (does Lunardi do this?), we would not deserve a 2/3 seed; as rye notes below, a 5 is not out of line at this time, given current results. If the team pulls together, plays at the level which we believe it can achieve, and wins the conference, we can achieve the 2/3 in region.

Regardless, we are still too early in the season for this to be a significant concern – we are only 3 weeks into conference play, and are just now at the halfway point in the season. There is a lot of basketball left to be played before Selection Sunday, and plenty of time to earn quality wins (and avoid the bad losses) before the committee meets.

by bruinhoo on Jan 20, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention that our previous games can change category

With so much time left in the season, who’s in the RPI top 50 will undoubtedly change.

by jaffa on Jan 20, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see their point

CBH designed a soft non-conference schedule to develop the fab five. Look at the progress made by JH, DG, JA, and ML – even Bobo is improving. At this point in time, however, there aren’t any standout wins. Granted, the only losses were to Az. St., Texas, and Michigan, all solid teams, but if you simply judge the season to date, without looking into the future, UCLA might be a five seed.

That said, by the time the season finishes, I have no doubts CBH will have the guys with a 3 seed at worst, and primed for a deep tournament run. I’m sure UCLA will finish strong, win the PAC-10, and get the quality wins the resume is currently lacking. The season was laid out by design to have the strongest team come tournament time. It’s way too early to worry about bubble teams and seeding. I trust CBH.

by AllHailMightyBruins on Jan 20, 2009 4:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree

He’s right. We don’t have any quality wins right now. Not a single one. How many teams get into the tournament without a quality win. We have plenty of quality opponents coming up and we’ll pick up wins to put us easily in, hopefully with a high seed, but right now we don’t have much. When it comes to putting teams in the tournament and seeding them the committee looks at a team’s resume and right now, ours isn’t very impressive.

Let’s do a little comparison.

Team A: 13-3 (2-1), RPI- 34, SOS- 34, Last 12- 9-3, Good Wins- Arizona St. (Neutral), Oklahoma St., Bad Losses- none

Team B: 15-3 (4-1), RPI- 42, SOS- 117, Last 12- 10-2, Good Wins- none, Bad Losses- none

Team C: 16-2 (3-0), RPI-27, SOS-108, Last 12- 11-1, Good Wins- Washington (neutral), Bad Losses- none

Team CD: 14-4 (3-0), RPI-36, SOS-48, Last 12- 19-3, Good Wins- Washington (neutral), Tennessee, Siena, Temple, Bad Losses- UMass

Team A is Baylor, Team B is UCLA, Team C is Florida and Team D is Kansas. Baylor and Florida are listed as teams that “should be in” as well. Kansas is listed as “in the mix.” In Lunardi’s Bracketology we’re a 5 seed, Baylor is a 7 and Florida and Kansas are both 9’s. As of now, our resume isn’t impressive. Give it a month and we’ll be fine.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 20, 2009 4:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree, either

If we continue to improve, the quality wins will come. If we don’t, they won’t. In either case, the seeding will take care of itself.

by Bruinut on Jan 20, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

while i like the analysis

i disagree with the claim that wins over sienna and temple and okl state are considered good, while Arizona and USC are not good wins

by realfabfive on Jan 20, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good wins are wins over RPI top 50 teams

That’s what the committee looks at. That’s what’s important, which makes Siena and Temple good wins.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 20, 2009 7:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bullitin Board Material

at this point for Howland, that is all. Should lite an extra fire under these guys. In all fairness, we are 0-3 against the top 25.

Win the Pac 10, beat Notre Dame, we’ll be NO WORSE than a 2 seed. Book it.

Finish 2nd or worse in the Pac 10, lose to Notre Dame, all bets are off.

This stuff really is irrelevant at this point anyway, isn’t it?

by godblesstyus95 on Jan 20, 2009 4:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Definitely irrelevant at this point, but still.

The conference season isn’t even a third over, so it’s pretty silly to start comparing tournament profiles. But Glockner has a fair point, and I wouldn’t say that he’s “insulting” us by making it: we don’t have any truly impressive wins.

Last year at this time, we’d already notched victories over Michigan State, Davidson, Stanford and Washington State – all teams that eventually reached the Sweet 16. This season, we have zero wins over teams that (per Lunardi) are projected to reach the NCAA tournament. Consider that for a second: zero wins over tournament teams.

I believe that we’ll eventually build a good resume and get a decent tournament seed, but we’re not entitled to it. This team will have to earn what it gets, and so far it hasn’t come through against its toughest opponents.

by Dexter Fishmore on Jan 20, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not irrelevant

if this was a bulletin board material. I will point to the comments made by Nic Wise after the Gonzaga game. Some folks here thought those comments were harmless as well.

by Nestor on Jan 21, 2009 7:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i can't disagree with this yet either

The 3 quality teams we’ve played so far, we’ve lost so we still have quite a bit of work to do

by blinkshot on Jan 20, 2009 5:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Me neither

I like that he said this. Think DC and the boys will see this and be fired up to prove him wrong? I think so!

GO BRUINS!!!

by uclafan11 on Jan 20, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

we have to win the conference to stay out West

Which means we’ll have to shoot better against zones against the good Pac 10 teams. Which means it’s not a lock. The upside is that I don’t see any of the freshman leaving and our young bigs should be better next year.

by EdDunkle on Jan 20, 2009 6:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

not on the bubble but no impressive wins either

seeding is about beating tournament bound teams. we’re highly ranked but our seeding won’t be anything to write home about until we beat some ranked teams.

by lilbobdog on Jan 20, 2009 7:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Meh. I'm not concerned with prognosticator's guesses.

Nor is he way off base. The loss to Michigan opened my eyes a bit. I know we aren’t going to just waltz into another Final Four. So, my immediate concern is winning the Pac 10 and getting a good seed. I don’t think we’ll just waltz through the Pac 10 either, but I also don’t see any one team that is the obvious front runner. So, I like our chances to win the Pac 10 or get a nice seed in a friendly regional. Whether we get the West regional or another favorable regional will determine how far we get in the tournament. Where ever we are placed, we’ll fare better than people would like.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Jan 20, 2009 9:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is the reason

why beating Notre Dame next month will be so crucial. We are going to get 2-3 chances each to beat the likes of ASU, Cal, and Washington but we only have one more shot to beat a good out-of-conference opponent (hoping that they turn it around and stop losing themselves). In terms of our resume, the Michigan loss is looking worse and worse as they just got blasted by Penn State tonight and they’ve now dropped to the bottom half of the Big 10 standings. I also think that it’s ironic that in order for Michigan to look like a “quality opponent” we had to lose to them. Beat them and they probably don’t get the recognition they do this season and that win does not look like a good OOC win but more along the lines of a Southern Illinois/De Paul win.

by turs12 on Jan 21, 2009 1:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

West Regional ?

As our own history proves, winning the west does not necessarily mean staying in the west. There was a year (can’t remember) when UCLA swept Arizona, won the Pac-10 by a couple of games, and was sent packing, while Arizona stayed west thanks to some “quality” wins in November.

The tools aren’t limited to the media. They are present in the NCAA selection committee as well.

In an ideal world, the bubble comments would work in the team’s favor, by presenting a challenge to the team to steamroll the rest of the way through the regular season and Pac-10 tournament. Unfortunately, in the real world, perception can become reality, and winning the Pac-10 may not assure a west regional bid.

For what it is worth, I would rather see the Bruins with a 3 or 4 in the West than a 2 elsewhere.

by islandbruin on Jan 21, 2009 6:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is also why road conference wins are important.

Some of the most quality opponents we’ll face all year are right here in our time zone.

If, if, IF (not wanting to jinx) we sweep the Bay Area trip and pay back ASU, then guess what? We’ll have three quality road wins against likely (assuming Stanford rights the ship) Tournament teams.

Throw in our hometown Pac-10 Tournament, and guess what? Our resume gets padded, puffed, and stuffed.

The ASU loss actually did p*** me off, but it’s time to move on. Payback ASU, and it’s a wash. Sweep Cal, win the conference, and get 2 wins in the P10 tourney, and a high pod seeding is all but assured.

MIM

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Jan 21, 2009 4:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

These are all great posts

I think the SI note was totally fair. We don’t have a good win. If anything, the fact that we are still ranked so high is a sign of respect for our program and its ability to grow.

by rfirpo on Jan 22, 2009 1:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Who gives a flying sh**?

They might have done the analysis correctly, but this is January, fer crissakes. There’s two and a half more months before the big dance invites are mailed out.

Sorry to weigh in with a piece hoary history here, but SI — who had to dredge themselves up from financial oblivion by publishing half-naked women posing doggie-style on Mazatlan beaches for the horny old snow-bound back East farts — had always had a rag on for UCLA.

Back in ‘80, they gleefully published that “Bruins in Ruins” article after UCLA had a mediocre pre-season. We went on through a string of upsets, laying to waste their precious DePaul and other favorites only to be a Kiki Vanderweghe foul short of a victory over L’vlle.

Also, the biggest example of Back East Bias came when the put out their Baseball Issue with Steve Garvey on the cover (breaking a skein of NCAA BBAll Winner Covers) and practically relegated John Wooden to the “Faces in the Crowd” section with minimal coverage of his team’s championship.

Yea, they may get it right with teir silly-assed analysis, but they do it with annoying elan..

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by WHP '68 on Jan 22, 2009 4:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs