Silver Linings: Parity and the Pac-10 . . . errr . . . Pac-9 Tourney
According to Wikipedia, "parity" (in sports) is achieved when all participating teams enjoy roughly equivalent levels of talent. In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team. In theory, this leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance. All the wikies need to do is simply embed the Pac-10 men's basketball standings as an insert to exemplify this concept. This begs the obvious question: "What does this mean for the good guys in one of their worst seasons in modern recorded history?"
This morning's Sagarin ratings only have two Pac-10 teams in the top 64 (Cal is 31st and ASU is 42nd, and we have beaten them both even though we are ranked 144th ahead of only the Beavers at 178th). See Jeff Sagarin NCAA basketball ratings for a nice chuckle. Anyhoo, I bring this up because it is becoming evermore likely that the Pac-10 may only get one seed to the Big Dance . . . and, of course, that boils down to whomever is fortunate enough to win the Pac-10 . . . err . . . Pac-9 SUC-less Tourney. Yes, even our guys can get into the Show despite losing the rest of their games this year if they can beat three other also-rans in the Small Dance.
Should UCLA be that team, we'd likely get a 13 seed and have the joy of facing North Carolina in Charlotte or something, but most of us would clearly take that over nothing. We aren't getting Title #12 anytime soon, but I still want to see UCLA in my brackets come March. So if the Small Dance is going to determine our fate, how does SUC's absence therefrom this season play into our hands? Has the Pac-10 released the 2010 seeding adjustments to account for a 9-team field? If they simply put a hole where SUC would have been seeded, giving some lucky team like us a first round buy, does that mean we only need to beat two other equally crummy teams to punch our ticket this year? Or, does the buy go to the top seed . . . and, if so, how does that affect the play-in games for the teams seeded 7-10? And if SUC is only of those teams, does their would-be opponent get the buy?
Needless to say, if UCLA had to pick a year to take a sabbatical, this year was the one to do it. And should the heavens part and the devine light leads our guys to the promise land, would you really want to be Carolina?
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.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Carolina
Well 50-50 chance they might end up in the NIT. For me that will take the sting off this March. I definitely will not be following March Madness if we are not in it. Looks like I might be blogging about football or baseball the way it’s going so far this season.
My guess is
they will seed SUC 10th (regardless of record) and assume a forfeit to the 7th seed. 8th and 9th seed will play the Wednesday before the tournament as usual. 1 seed plays the 8th-9th winner and so on.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
presumably
they will give byes to all teams except the 8-9 game, with seeding determined by where you finish in the conference standings if $C is not counted.
And then, it’s anyone’s game. At this point, I don’t see how we could be either a big favorite or a big underdog against any team in the conference. I’d give us about a 1 in 10 shot of winning the tourney
Sounds correct
But I can’t imagine laying odds on anyone in this conference. Washington was a big preseason favorite, followed by Cal and Arizona State, and we’ve beaten all three. Give the Bruins a decent matchup, and they can compete with anybody—or lose by 15.
Like N, at ths point I’d settle for a winning season and the NIT, but I’ll keep my hopes up at the Pac-10 tourney.
Still, we have to show we can win two in a row before we can think about winning 3.
interestingly
in Vegas we were actually the preseason favorite to win the conference, at +250, but that was presumably based on how to even the money out. An interesting preseason breakdown (interesting with hindsight) is linked below
by britishbruin on Jan 23, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
That article is interesting, especially . . .
the part that says: “The go-to guy may be Drew Gordon, a sophomore who was a big recruit when he got to Westwood, and will get a lot more playing time.”
California money
generally leads to inflated futures odds for Cali teams. Not as many folks stopping in from Pullman, Eugene etc. to put in futures bets means long (read, more enticing) odds on futures for those squads.
yup
though $C turned out to be good value…
by britishbruin on Jan 23, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions

by 
















