A Dire Prediction By Jason King of Yahoo Sports

by Fox 71 on Jul 11, 2009 10:28 AM PDT Comment 11 comments

Bumped. GO BRUINS. - N

Jason King, whose work is usually pretty good, was apparently up against a deadline and had to get something turned in. ~~I don't know how to link to it, but someone smart may well do it for me.~~ Anyway, he begins his article with this:

"Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina will likely be ranked among the nation’s top five teams when the college basketball season begins in November. The difference this year is that some of the elite, tradition-rich programs that usually join them at the top of the polls might not be there in 2009-10. What about Duke, UCLA and Arizona?"

He goes on to talk about various "tradition rich" teams who might not do well next year. And in the Pac 10, he lists three "tradition rich" teams: UCLA, Arizona and (wait for it) -- just$c*. I suppose Arizona might be viewed as "tradition rich", but the only "tradition" in which just$c* is rich is cheating.

I can't put myself in Jason King's head, but his synapses don't appear to have been firing all that well. Over the past five years, UCLA is 141-37 and 75-23 in Pac 10. Arizona is 110-60 - not bad I suppose - and 54-36 in Pac 10 play. But just$c*? Come on. In the past five years, they're 97-66 and 44-46 in Pac 10 play. Their tradition is basketball mediocrity. Of course they'll fall this year, as they should after what Timmeh did and what he left in the cupboard for the new guy, O'Tool or whatever his name is.

Anyway, I got a kick out of his predictions. I sent him off a little note already. The place to send notes says something like "Ask Jason your question." My question should have been "Wanna bet?" But overall a bad article by a generally good writer.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

2 recs | Comment 11 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree with you Fox.

SuC is tradition-rich in basketball? Really? If what he meant was a tradition of recruiting kids from mysterious prep schools, using package deals and recruiting rap artists, then yes, they are tradition-rich. Otherwise, I have no clue what he is talking about. Just because they won the Pac-10 Tournament last year doesn’t mean they have any sort of tradition. Here is the link to the article.

by BruinFanBaby on Jul 10, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

WHAT!?!!? ROFL…

U$C* has basketball tradition?!?!?! other than being a distant 2nd during the Wooden years? Please…

by impaulv on Jul 10, 2009 6:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

he means the u$c* women’s team.

Troy will fall.

by Bruins102NCAA on Jul 10, 2009 6:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That would make more sense :-)

by impaulv on Jul 10, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Their women's team is imploding as badly as their men's team

I know the father of one of the ex-‘09 commits, and it’s the same sound of talent running for the exits. Cooper’s got as much work to do as the clown on the men’s side.

by bornagainbruin on Jul 12, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I don't know . . .

USC has a long history and tradition in basketball. They traditionally underachieve, play poorly, leave the tournament early and otherwise embarrass themselves. It may not be worth celebrating, but it is a tradition.

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

by MexiBruin on Jul 10, 2009 10:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

who is the 3rd best team in the pac-10 historically?

Serious question. I’m not old enough to know the answer.

by kidro2001 on Jul 11, 2009 12:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Stanford?

Pretty strong during Montgomery’s time, and I think they have some NC’s way back when.

by bru79 on Jul 11, 2009 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure there is an easy answer

Unlike football, where UCLA and UW can reasonably take the #2 and 3 spots in the historical conference pecking order, I do not believe that any of the other basketball programs have enough periods of success, or a long enough period of consistent play to be a clearcut #3.

*$C was good in the early days, and had a few good-but not good enough seasons during the Wooden era, but (if memory serves) has won only 2 conference titles since 1940. Cal won a NC and had a few good years under Newell in the late 50’s-early 60’s, but little else outside of Jason Kidd’s 2 years in Berkeley. Stanford has the best claim based upon recent history, I believe, but has little to show for between its WWII-era NC and Monty’s arrival.

by bruinhoo on Jul 11, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tough to say

Should note that I didn’t include Arizona’s pre-Pac-10 Conference Titles, I couldn’t find numbers for ASU (though I’m pretty sure those are correct), and WSU’s lone National Championship was before the NCAA tournament.

Just going by these numbers, it’s hard to distinguish between Stanford, Cal and Oregon State for third. Stanford has won 4 Pac-10 titles in the last decade, but hadn’t won any for 36 before. Cal’s last title was in 1960, before the AAWU became the Pac-8. Oregon State won 5 Pac-10 titles between 1980 and 1990 but hasn’t been to the NCAA Tournament since.

by SuperBruinMan on Jul 11, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs