RPI as of 2/19 @8:42pm EST

[triaddukefan]

Gotta down vote your post Dukee. It's obvious you are not from UConn.
No one here would call the Washington Huskies the Real Huskies.

Me thinks you forget where you visit.

Obviously.

Out here there isn't any kind of question about who the real Huskies are. The bigger issue is who is the real UW. Some people in Madison, WI for some strange reason think it is them. But to avoid confusion at least half the time the NW Huskies are referred to as the Dawgs and UW is pronounced U Dub.

One of my husky hats has UDUB on the front. Someone asked me about it once, and I explained that it was the U of Washington.

 

[watanabe]

Obviously.



One of my husky hats has UDUB on the front. Someone asked me about it once, and I explained that it was the U of Washington.

No worries, we'll straighten you out (every time).

 

[CBear01]

Gotta down vote your post Dukee. It's obvious you are not from UConn.
No one here would call the Washington Huskies the Real Huskies.

Me thinks you forget where you visit.

@triaddukefan is actually very correct in this case. The University of Washington officially named their sports teams the Huskies in 1923. UCONN waited until 1934 to become the Huskies.

Just sayin (but we all know who the big dogs really are )

 

[Plebe]

If you look at the Pac 12 overall, it's a down year for the conference I'm not sure there's a team -- even Washington -- that deserves a #4 seed or higher. I've watched a lot of Pac 12 games -- and they just don't pass the eye test. There have been some ugly games. They're on late here in the east, so I don't think a lot of folks watch them.

You think there are 16 teams in the country more deserving of a top-16 seed than any of the Pac-12 teams?

Whenever these comments come up, I feel obligated to remind people that the exact same arguments were constantly heard last year in the lead-up to tournament time: how the Pac-12 was overrated, how the Pac-12 didn't pass the eye test, how the Pac-12 hadn't beaten anyone good in the nonconference, etc. etc. So I suppose it was just lucky matchups that explain how Stanford beat Notre Dame, Oregon State beat Baylor in Dallas, and Washington beat Maryland at Maryland and then Kentucky at Kentucky.

If you were to put the microscope on most teams' resumes, you would see similar deficiencies. Until FSU's recent two losses, no one was questioning that they were deserving of a high seed. But their best OOC win was also over Michigan. Louisville had an OOC win over Kentucky, but then again so did Arizona State and Colorado. So I'm not sure where you're gonna find 16 teams with better OOC bona fides than the top 4 of the Pac-12.

 

[watanabe]

@triaddukefan is actually very correct in this case. The University of Washington officially named their sports teams the Huskies in 1923. UCONN waited until 1934 to become the Huskies.

Just sayin (but we all know who the big dogs really are )

History?
So you argue that it's History that defines the real Husky?
Me thinks you are on the wrong side of the preponderance of the evidence.
1% of history does not invalidate the other 99% of history.

 

[Ozimoto]

Well, with Maryland going down to The Ohio State University last night, I think they have lost their shot at a 1 seed. They have to rely on other teams to lose several times before the tournament to get there. As of this morning, the committee has Notre Dame as a 1 seed along with UConn, Mississippi State, and Baylor. Baylor took care of business last night in beating Texas who has now lost two games in a row. These last few regular season games and conference tournaments are going to have a big impact on the seedings for the big show.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Count in The Ohio State as hosting when brackets are announced.

Probably can count out Kentucky hosting as they still have to play So Carolina and Miss St. Will have another loss in the SEC tournament.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Out here there isn't any kind of question about who the real Huskies are. The bigger issue is who is the real UW. Some people in Madison, WI for some strange reason think it is them. But to avoid confusion at least half the time the NW Huskies are referred to as the Dawgs and UW is pronounced U Dub.

Those certainly would be strange for those people to think that, as the University of Wisconsin are the Badgers. Could you have been thinking of the Northern Illinois Huskies from DeKalb, Illinois? They are 100 miles south of Madison.

 

[UcMiami]

You think there are 16 teams in the country more deserving of a top-16 seed than any of the Pac-12 teams?

Whenever these comments come up, I feel obligated to remind people that the exact same arguments were constantly heard last year in the lead-up to tournament time: how the Pac-12 was overrated, how the Pac-12 didn't pass the eye test, how the Pac-12 hadn't beaten anyone good in the nonconference, etc. etc. So I suppose it was just lucky matchups that explain how Stanford beat Notre Dame, Oregon State beat Baylor in Dallas, and Washington beat Maryland at Maryland and then Kentucky at Kentucky.

If you were to put the microscope on most teams' resumes, you would see similar deficiencies. Until FSU's recent two losses, no one was questioning that they were deserving of a high seed. But their best OOC win was also over Michigan. Louisville had an OOC win over Kentucky, but then again so did Arizona State and Colorado. So I'm not sure where you're gonna find 16 teams with better OOC bona fides than the top 4 of the Pac-12.

Certainly agree about this, as there are very few really solid resumes out there this year - for a year that has seemed to have a lot of really good OOC match-ups, when you actually look at individual team records they look pretty sparse. Only a few teams scheduled more than two decent games OOC. With the ACC, SEC, and Pac12 at least the conferences are pretty solid with good teams, the Big12 is weaker than usual except at the very top, and the Big10 is just mediocre.
I do wonder whether there will be a Pac12 team with a two seed which I suspect would be a odd and perhaps unique situation for a league likely to get 6 bids.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Those certainly would be strange for those people to think that, as the University of Wisconsin are the Badgers. Could you have been thinking of the Northern Illinois Huskies from DeKalb, Illinois? They are 100 miles south of Madison.

I was referring to the UW part, not the mascot.

 

[nwhoopfan]

You think there are 16 teams in the country more deserving of a top-16 seed than any of the Pac-12 teams?

Whenever these comments come up, I feel obligated to remind people that the exact same arguments were constantly heard last year in the lead-up to tournament time: how the Pac-12 was overrated, how the Pac-12 didn't pass the eye test, how the Pac-12 hadn't beaten anyone good in the nonconference, etc. etc. So I suppose it was just lucky matchups that explain how Stanford beat Notre Dame, Oregon State beat Baylor in Dallas, and Washington beat Maryland at Maryland and then Kentucky at Kentucky.

If you were to put the microscope on most teams' resumes, you would see similar deficiencies. Until FSU's recent two losses, no one was questioning that they were deserving of a high seed. But their best OOC win was also over Michigan. Louisville had an OOC win over Kentucky, but then again so did Arizona State and Colorado. So I'm not sure where you're gonna find 16 teams with better OOC bona fides than the top 4 of the Pac-12.

Well stated. There is no guarantee any Pac 12 team will make the Final 4 this year, let alone a repeat of two conference members doing it like last year. There are certainly teams capable of it however.

Washington is MUCH better than they were last year during the regular season. They miss Walton as a reliable 3rd scoring option, but Plum and Osahor are both significantly improved and they are getting better contributions from their role players this year.

It would be hard to say that Oregon St. is as good this year as they were last year after losing 2 key cogs in Weisner and Hamblin plus another starter, but they have the exact same record as last year and stylistically they look about the same. The essence of what they've built their program around is still there--solid defense, strong rebounding, a number of players that can hit the 3 and decent post play. I think they do miss a go to scorer like Weisner, but they are on the verge of winning/sharing the conference title for the 3rd year in a row, a feat no one other than Stanford has ever done in the Pac.

I think Stanford is slightly better this year than last year. Hard to quantify, just my opinion. And UCLA is certainly a dangerous team when they are hitting on all cylinders. They've gone 3-2 against Stanford, OSU and UW, they've just stumbled several times against lesser teams.

 

[Plebe]

Well stated. There is no guarantee any Pac 12 team will make the Final 4 this year, let alone a repeat of two conference members doing it like last year. There are certainly teams capable of it however.

Washington is MUCH better than they were last year during the regular season. They miss Walton as a reliable 3rd scoring option, but Plum and Osahor are both significantly improved and they are getting better contributions from their role players this year.

It would be hard to say that Oregon St. is as good this year as they were last year after losing 2 key cogs in Weisner and Hamblin plus another starter, but they have the exact same record as last year and stylistically they look about the same. The essence of what they've built their program around is still there--solid defense, strong rebounding, a number of players that can hit the 3 and decent post play. I think they do miss a go to scorer like Weisner, but they are on the verge of winning/sharing the conference title for the 3rd year in a row, a feat no one other than Stanford has ever done in the Pac.

I think Stanford is slightly better this year than last year. Hard to quantify, just my opinion. And UCLA is certainly a dangerous team when they are hitting on all cylinders. They've gone 3-2 against Stanford, OSU and UW, they've just stumbled several times against lesser teams.

All of your points are spot on, IMO. Last year UW had given no indication that they were a threat for a deep run. I think their only significant win before March was UCLA.

No doubt Oregon State has struggled more this year than last year, despite achieving the same win-loss record. They have vastly improved since their early loss to Marquette.

UCLA now has the second-longest home winning streak in the country (at 20-something, I forget exactly). When they're on, they're a handful, and they seem to always be on at Pauley.

The top four Pac-12 teams will be seeded in the low-2 to high-4 seed range, so much like last year it will take at least a mild surprise for any of them to get to the Final Four this year. Stanford, in particular, faces the unenviable task of having to play a true road game in the 2nd round against a very decent 6 or 7 seed.