| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/22/15 9:24 pm ::: Oregon State |
Reply  |
|
| Oregon State really fizzled in the post-season. I would blame it on being too slow of a team for the more intense post-season play, but they just lost to Gonzaga. They were behind the entire game, until tying it at 64. But then lost 76-64 following a 12-0 run by Gonzaga. But you could look at it that that they over-achieved in the regular season.
|
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/15 9:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Bottomline: The Pac 12 is overrated. For a long time, there was a bias against the West coast but now I feel like its almost reversed. The Pac 12 garners respect that they really haven't earned IMO.
Washington lost to a mediocre Miami team.
Oregon State loses to Gonzaga, who is good but not great.
Cal is trailing a Texas team without one of it's best players.
Stanford barely beat CSUN and I anticipate them having issues with Oklahoma.
So that leaves, Arizona State.
I personally think the Pac 12 just blows.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/15 9:47 pm ::: Re: Oregon State |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Oregon State really fizzled in the post-season. I would blame it on being too slow of a team for the more intense post-season play, but they just lost to Gonzaga. They were behind the entire game, until tying it at 64. But then lost 76-64 following a 12-0 run by Gonzaga. But you could look at it that that they over-achieved in the regular season. |
I doubt speed had anything to do with it. Speed didn't help Kentucky (who forced 24 Dayton TOs) win.
I think it came down to a couple of things.
Matchups: Gonzaga is one team that can counter Oregon's size. The Zags can and did to with their two 6'5 and their 6'4 posts. This limited Hamblins ability to dominate down low. Many teams try to double or triple her quick leaves sharp shooters open on the perimeter. Zags could effectively one-on-one defend her. And the backup center went off for 17 points. Gonzaga can also go 6-2 and 6-0 on the perimeter which can prevent the Beaver sharpshooters from getting uncontested looks.
Preparation: both teams faltered in league tourneys and didn't make their Respective championship games. In retrospect Gonzaga may have use this failure to energize and motivate themselves. They have certainly played inspired the last two games. The same cannot be said for Oregon State. I also think that Lisa had her entire roster ready to contribute. She went to her bench early and often and Did not miss a beat. Scott was more reserved about using his bench players. I think that explains why Gonzaga was more aggressive and energize at the end of the game.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7822
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/15 10:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| OSU did not pass nearly as well. Gonzaga is a very good passing team. And IMHO OSU is just slow. I thought so when they played Tennessee too. As I said elsewhere I don't think Hamblin is all that. She's big....and so? I wasn't impressed early in the season and I wasn't impressed tonight.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/15 10:45 pm ::: Pac-12 |
Reply |
|
Pac-12 is stinking up the NCAAs. Three teams upset so far, two on their home court. I keep hearing Pac-12 coaches say the conference is better. They say that every year and every year it isn't really true. It's not true this year either.
It maybe seemed so this season because OSU won the regular season title and ASU was second but the only thing that changed was Stanford was way down from the past 7 or so years, which allowed other teams to fill that vacuum at the top. Only problem is those teams are not really better than usual. If Stanford was at their level of the Final Four run, they rip through this season's conference same as usual, OSU and ASU have more losses, and because of those losses they don't get the seeds they got. They aren't ranked where they were this year with Stanford doing their normal thing. They were not better. Stanford was just worse, that's the only difference in the conference. If I seem grumpy about this, it is because I am. I want a strong Pac-12. I am very, very tired of conference teams yapping about how much better they all are and then not backing up their words. Over and over.
I don't know what Cal's excuse is. If they can't win the conference this year with Gray and Boyd seniors and Stanford not dominating, when will they?
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/15 11:13 pm ::: Re: Pac-12 |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
Pac-12 is stinking up the NCAAs. Three teams upset so far, two on their home court. I keep hearing Pac-12 coaches say the conference is better. They say that every year and every year it isn't really true. It's not true this year either.
It maybe seemed so this season because OSU won the regular season title and ASU was second but the only thing that changed was Stanford was way down from the past 7 or so years, which allowed other teams to fill that vacuum at the top. Only problem is those teams are not really better than usual. If Stanford was at their level of the Final Four run, they rip through this season's conference same as usual, OSU and ASU have more losses, and because of those losses they don't get the seeds they got. They aren't ranked where they were this year with Stanford doing their normal thing. They were not better. Stanford was just worse, that's the only difference in the conference. If I seem grumpy about this, it is because I am. I want a strong Pac-12. I am very, very tired of conference teams yapping about how much better they all are and then not backing up their words. Over and over.
I don't know what Cal's excuse is. If they can't win the conference this year with Gray and Boyd seniors and Stanford not dominating, when will they? |
If Oregon State had 1 more lose they would still have been seeded where they were, they were not seeded at 3 because they beat Stanford 1 time. Instead of 16-2 in conference they are 15-3 and instead of 27-4 they are 26-5. I'm not seeing that one game difference dropping them that much, if at all.
Overall the level of talent is higher in the Pac-12, and Pac-12 play was certainly better than in past years, even if Stanford went 18-0 that has no bearing on the rest of the conference and how those games ended up. Stanford's less then normal year didn't make Oregon State and Arizona State look better as they both went into Pac-12 play with 2 losses, and as I mentioned if Stanford swept both teams, that doesn't affect how they played the rest of conference, nor does it affect how they played in non-conference.
Many teams under achieved based on the talent they had and unfortunately Utah had to deal with all of those injuries, but the Pac-12 was better than in previous years, and saying that has nothing to do with comparing the conference to other conferences, it's comparing it to Pac-10/12 years of the past. Oregon State and Washington specifically are still on the ground stages of building their programs, the coaches are just getting started in creating the culture they want the programs to be about, I'd say Oregon State is well ahead of schedule, even for what the coaches envisioned the team to be at this stage in the process.
I think as Pac-12 teams and coaches get more experience they should be come better in terms of competing with other nationally ranked teams in the country, but only time will tell if that will happen.
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/15 11:54 pm ::: Re: Pac-12 |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
Overall the level of talent is higher in the Pac-12, and Pac-12 play was certainly better than in past years, even if Stanford went 18-0 that has no bearing on the rest of the conference and how those games ended up. Stanford's less then normal year didn't make Oregon State and Arizona State look better as they both went into Pac-12 play with 2 losses, and as I mentioned if Stanford swept both teams, that doesn't affect how they played the rest of conference, nor does it affect how they played in non-conference.
Many teams under achieved based on the talent they had and unfortunately Utah had to deal with all of those injuries, but the Pac-12 was better than in previous years, and saying that has nothing to do with comparing the conference to other conferences, it's comparing it to Pac-10/12 years of the past. Oregon State and Washington specifically are still on the ground stages of building their programs, the coaches are just getting started in creating the culture they want the programs to be about, I'd say Oregon State is well ahead of schedule, even for what the coaches envisioned the team to be at this stage in the process.
I think as Pac-12 teams and coaches get more experience they should be come better in terms of competing with other nationally ranked teams in the country, but only time will tell if that will happen. |
Excuses. Always excuses. If the talent level in the conference is higher why are the teams bombing out when it counts? How is the Pac-12 better? WSU had a big win early on but lost in an upset in the WNIT. UW got upset by a team that lost their next game. OSU and Cal just lost at home to worse seeds. Every year I hear the conference is young, the conference is improving. When is it for real? There may have been different teams on the top and maybe the very bottom of the conference was not as bad (but I'm not even sure about that). People have short memories. It was not that long ago that Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and Colorado were all in the top 25 for much of the year. Cal and Stanford were both in the top 10 a few years ago. The top teams in the conference are not better than the top teams in conference have been.
There is no sugarcoating how the conference has bombed out so far this year. UW 6 seed upset by an 11 seed. OSU 3 seed upset by an 11 seed at home. Cal 4 seed upset by a 5 seed at home with two players that are supposed to be the best the conference has. But they are somehow better? Or we just claim wait until next year yet again?
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 12:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
Overall the level of talent is higher in the Pac-12, and Pac-12 play was certainly better than in past years, even if Stanford went 18-0 that has no bearing on the rest of the conference and how those games ended up. Stanford's less then normal year didn't make Oregon State and Arizona State look better as they both went into Pac-12 play with 2 losses, and as I mentioned if Stanford swept both teams, that doesn't affect how they played the rest of conference, nor does it affect how they played in non-conference.
Many teams under achieved based on the talent they had and unfortunately Utah had to deal with all of those injuries, but the Pac-12 was better than in previous years, and saying that has nothing to do with comparing the conference to other conferences, it's comparing it to Pac-10/12 years of the past. Oregon State and Washington specifically are still on the ground stages of building their programs, the coaches are just getting started in creating the culture they want the programs to be about, I'd say Oregon State is well ahead of schedule, even for what the coaches envisioned the team to be at this stage in the process.
I think as Pac-12 teams and coaches get more experience they should be come better in terms of competing with other nationally ranked teams in the country, but only time will tell if that will happen. |
Excuses. Always excuses. If the talent level in the conference is higher why are the teams bombing out when it counts? How is the Pac-12 better? WSU had a big win early on but lost in an upset in the WNIT. UW got upset by a team that lost their next game. OSU and Cal just lost at home to worse seeds. Every year I hear the conference is young, the conference is improving. When is it for real? There may have been different teams on the top and maybe the very bottom of the conference was not as bad (but I'm not even sure about that). People have short memories. It was not that long ago that Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and Colorado were all in the top 25 for much of the year. Cal and Stanford were both in the top 10 a few years ago. The top teams in the conference are not better than the top teams in conference have been.
There is no sugarcoating how the conference has bombed out so far this year. UW 6 seed upset by an 11 seed. OSU 3 seed upset by an 11 seed at home. Cal 4 seed upset by a 5 seed at home with two players that are supposed to be the best the conference has. But they are somehow better? Or we just claim wait until next year yet again? |
Colorado has been in the Pac-12 for 4 years, and they have only had a record better than .500 1 time, it's not as if Colorado is some perennial top 25 team and they just had a recent drop off.
And talent isn't everything, if talent was the only thing that matter teams wouldn't need to practice, be coached, etc., but as I did mention many teams under achieved this season based on talent alone, not taking into consideration the other other things I just mentioned.
And you can't really compare teams in terms of rankings, seedings, finishes in the tournament year to year because those are not just Pac-12 based, those are nationally based.
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 1:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Who exactly was over-rating the Pac 12? I don't remember anyone saying they were any better than the 5th-best conference.
Oregon State had a lofty ranking, but we know how polls work... it was all based on what they did earlier in the year, a classic case of peaking too early.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9606
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 4:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| OSU didn't just lose to Gonzaga in the NCAA tournament. After winning the Pac-12 regular season, they lost to Colorado in the Pac-12 tournament. Colorado had been tied for 9th in the regular season. In looking at the box score for that game, OSU shot badly. They start 3 guards and 2 of them shot poorly. Six foot point guard Sydney Wiese was 3-14 (2-10), Ali Gibson was 3-12 (2-7). Another rotation guard - Gabriella Hanson was 2-9 (0-5). A rotation forward, Samantha Siegner was 0-4 (0-1). For the game they were 6-31 from 3 (19.4%) and 22-65 overall (33.8%). But shooting problems can often be caused by the defense. Crank the defense up to tournament level and maybe they don't have the speed to get quality or non-rushed shots like they could in the regular season. Although, last year as the #3 seed, they did beat #11 Utah and #7 Washington State in the Pac-12 tournament before losing by 9 in the final to #5 USC.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 8:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Sometimes good teams just play bad.
I think OSU rose too far too fast. IMO they weren't under rated, they under performed. The OSU team was a much more confident and dynamic team in January & February. They got that deer in the headlights look during the P12 tourney against teams they handled much more easily earlier. The total lack of big game experience among the upperclassmen and the youth of their pg led to their losses in both the P12 tourney and the NCAA's.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 8:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I think when a conferences has losses like the ones the P12 had this year, it's fair to say that the conference was overrated, both in the rankings and in the tournament seedings.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 9:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I thought the Pac-12 was better this year, but it was not as much better as I had expected.
The fact that a down Stanford still was one of the best teams should have given me a clue, and the fact that an underathletic Oregon State won so many games should have sealed the deal.
I will stand by the assertion that the Pac-12 has improved; but as it turned out, that doesn't mean the league stood all that tall.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 10:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I thought the Pac-12 was better this year, but it was not as much better as I had expected.
The fact that a down Stanford still was one of the best teams should have given me a clue, and the fact that an underathletic Oregon State won so many games should have sealed the deal.
I will stand by the assertion that the Pac-12 has improved; but as it turned out, that doesn't mean the league stood all that tall. |
Part of the reason the conf may have looked better may have been driven by the presence of some better high profile individual players like Kelsey Plum and all the freshmen at UCLA, and new coaches like Graves. But so far that hasn't necessarily translated into better teams.
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 10:59 am ::: Who was better in the Pac-12? |
Reply |
|
I just saw a post somewhere on here that showed the Pac-12's record against RPI top 25 teams was 25%, well below the top conferences and well down the list of conferences. Ultimately the only way to judge how good the conference might be is to see how they fare against other conferences. The Pac-12 has failed that test. Look, I am a Pac-12 fan. I want the conference to be better. Better does not mean more competitive within the conference. It means whooping up on other conferences, beating top 25 RPI teams. All the rest about "looking better" is meaningless. How many years in a row can you say, looking better, maybe next year.
I have followed the Pac-10/Pac-12 very closely for 20+ years. I do not think this year was a strong year at the top of the conference at all. The depth may be better but even that may not be right. It may just seem like a tougher middle and bottom because the top teams are not that great.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 11:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The view of the PAC was also fed by some early high profile wins.
WSU beat Maryland
Washington beat FSU (pre-Romero) and aTm
Ore St beat UNC
and of course Stanford beat UConn
The early impression may have been excessively exuberant but it's hard to shake the early impression once it has formed.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 11:48 am ::: Re: Pac-12 |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
Pac-12 is stinking up the NCAAs. Three teams upset so far, two on their home court. I keep hearing Pac-12 coaches say the conference is better. They say that every year and every year it isn't really true. It's not true this year either.
It maybe seemed so this season because OSU won the regular season title and ASU was second but the only thing that changed was Stanford was way down from the past 7 or so years, which allowed other teams to fill that vacuum at the top. Only problem is those teams are not really better than usual. If Stanford was at their level of the Final Four run, they rip through this season's conference same as usual, OSU and ASU have more losses, and because of those losses they don't get the seeds they got. They aren't ranked where they were this year with Stanford doing their normal thing. They were not better. Stanford was just worse, that's the only difference in the conference. If I seem grumpy about this, it is because I am. I want a strong Pac-12. I am very, very tired of conference teams yapping about how much better they all are and then not backing up their words. Over and over.
I don't know what Cal's excuse is. If they can't win the conference this year with Gray and Boyd seniors and Stanford not dominating, when will they? |
^^^^^^^^^
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 11:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| One thing to consider with this OSU team, is that Rueck has done what he's done with no top recruits. I think Weise was maybe the highest rated and she was somewhere around #80 in Hoopgurlz. That, to me, is truly remarkable that they can even compete with the top teams, with their multiple top 20 recruits! It makes it hard for me to dis them - I think they've over-achieved with what they have. Now if he can actually recruit a few true athletes to fit his system, they could truly become a top team.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
CompSci87
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 812
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 12:13 pm ::: Re: Pac-12 |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
If Oregon State had 1 more lose they would still have been seeded where they were, they were not seeded at 3 because they beat Stanford 1 time. Instead of 16-2 in conference they are 15-3 and instead of 27-4 they are 26-5. I'm not seeing that one game difference dropping them that much, if at all.
|
Actually OSU did not beat Stanford 1 time. They played Stanford only once this year and Stanford won.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 12:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
Who exactly was over-rating the Pac 12? I don't remember anyone saying they were any better than the 5th-best conference.
|
The Selection Committee?
So far, three Pac12 teams have lost to lower seeds, twice on their home courts. Two of those losses have been to No. 11 seeds.
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 1:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| One thing to consider with this OSU team, is that Rueck has done what he's done with no top recruits. I think Weise was maybe the highest rated and she was somewhere around #80 in Hoopgurlz. That, to me, is truly remarkable that they can even compete with the top teams, with their multiple top 20 recruits! It makes it hard for me to dis them - I think they've over-achieved with what they have. Now if he can actually recruit a few true athletes to fit his system, they could truly become a top team. |
I think this bodes well for the Oregon program: make a little noise in the tournament, a coach with a history of success...these factors should help with recruiting, which will make the program stronger.
I'm disappointed by Washington's early exit. But we're looking much better than we were a few years ago. It was frustrating to lose our previous coach so precipitously, and I've been openly critical of the practice of hiring assistant coaches to be head within"big" conferences versus bringing in a successful mid-major head coach. But so far so good.
I agree that the conference looks bad in our showing this year, though.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7822
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 1:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I thought Weise looked good. I thought Hamblin looked bleah. I thought OSU overall looked slow. I thought Cal looked pretty decent, all told, very much an up and coming program but not quite there yet. I was most impressed by Gabby Green. Ordinarily I probably would have rooted for them, but with the awful luck Texas had this year, my heart was with their team instead.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 2:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| I thought Weise looked good. I thought Hamblin looked bleah. I thought OSU overall looked slow. I thought Cal looked pretty decent, all told, very much an up and coming program but not quite there yet. I was most impressed by Gabby Green. Ordinarily I probably would have rooted for them, but with the awful luck Texas had this year, my heart was with their team instead. |
Cal has been called up and coming for years now. They lose Boyd and Gray. With the talent they have, they should be pretty good but gotta think next year will be worse than this year without their two biggest stars.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7822
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 2:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's called growing a program. You lose some one year, you gain some the next. You can't look back at who graduated, you have to look ahead at who you have and who's coming up.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/23/15 3:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CompSci87 wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
If Oregon State had 1 more lose they would still have been seeded where they were, they were not seeded at 3 because they beat Stanford 1 time. Instead of 16-2 in conference they are 15-3 and instead of 27-4 they are 26-5. I'm not seeing that one game difference dropping them that much, if at all.
|
Actually OSU did not beat Stanford 1 time. They played Stanford only once this year and Stanford won. |
Thanks for the correction, so if Stanford went 18-0 Oregon State's record would have been exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
