As I write, I'm watching Andrew Luck finally get his chit together in the 2nd half, and it looks like Stanford will avoid being another top 10 victim this week. The same cannot be said for 4 of my other Top 10s from last week. I'll keep the commentary short for most of the winners to save room for the upsets.
But who deserves the title game?
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Pac 10
I'm sure you've heard rumblings (on this site too) about how mediocre Pac 10 basketball has been this season. It's quite possible only one team may qualify for the tournament. This unprecedented for a BCS conference - even the SEC which is not known for basketball routinely gets three bids. The most common reasoning I've heard for the conference's poor season has been the number of players drafted by the NBA over the last couple of years. Let's take a look.
* denotes this player would be unable to help this season due to exhausted eligibility
Wow, that's a lot of players. UCLA in particular could have four more players on their team right now. I still think this is a bit misleading. I think the majority of players who know they will be first round picks as an underclassmen bolt, but how many do as freshman? Last year two players declared for the draft as after their first year in college making it likely that if it wasn't for the silly NBA rule these guys wouldn't have attended college at all. I think schools realize the possibility of this happening when they offer a high profile kid a scholarship. Only John Calipari has come to grips with it.
My take on this is, yeah, the Pac 10 has lost a ton of talent to the NBA which has caused typical contenders (UCLA, Arizona, ASU) to come back to the pack. The result is a bunched conference with no elite team. But saying the Pac 10 is a terrible basketball conference is lazy and doesn't address the real issue. After all they've had 21 players drafted in the last two seasons. The question analysts should be asking is where is that talent now? I don't see any underclassmen as sure thing first rounders. Last time I checked, when a player leaves school you get that scholarship back to offer to a new recruit. This is likely just the result of a cyclical pattern but it bears watching next season.
| School | Record | RPI | Players Lost |
| Arizona St. | 16-7 (6-4) | 76 | James Harden, Jeff Pendergraph |
| California | 14-8 (6-4) | 27 | Ryan Anderson, DeVon Hardin* |
| Arizona | 12-10 (6-4) | 57 | Jerryd Bayless, Jordan Hill, Chase Budinger |
| UCLA | 11-11 (6-4) | 123 | Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Luc Mbah a Moute*, |
| Jrue Holliday, Darrin Collison* | |||
| Washington | 15-7 (5-5) | 60 | Jon Brockman |
| USC | 13-9 (5-5) | 83 | OJ Mayo, DeMar DeRozan, Taj Gibson |
| Oregon | 12-9 (4-5) | 137 | Malik Hairston*, Maarty Leunen* |
| Stanford | 10-12 (4-6) | 148 | Brook Lopez, Robin Lopez |
| Wash. St. | 14-8 (4-6) | 110 | Kyle Weaver* |
| Oregon St. | 9-12 (3-6) | 205 |
* denotes this player would be unable to help this season due to exhausted eligibility
Wow, that's a lot of players. UCLA in particular could have four more players on their team right now. I still think this is a bit misleading. I think the majority of players who know they will be first round picks as an underclassmen bolt, but how many do as freshman? Last year two players declared for the draft as after their first year in college making it likely that if it wasn't for the silly NBA rule these guys wouldn't have attended college at all. I think schools realize the possibility of this happening when they offer a high profile kid a scholarship. Only John Calipari has come to grips with it.
My take on this is, yeah, the Pac 10 has lost a ton of talent to the NBA which has caused typical contenders (UCLA, Arizona, ASU) to come back to the pack. The result is a bunched conference with no elite team. But saying the Pac 10 is a terrible basketball conference is lazy and doesn't address the real issue. After all they've had 21 players drafted in the last two seasons. The question analysts should be asking is where is that talent now? I don't see any underclassmen as sure thing first rounders. Last time I checked, when a player leaves school you get that scholarship back to offer to a new recruit. This is likely just the result of a cyclical pattern but it bears watching next season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)