Sunday morning update: What’s ahead on the Hotline
Thought I would have a Stanford-bounced-by-Texas analysis and look-ahead posted Saturday, but I ran out of time.
And I’m planning to take today off (after 450 Hotline posts since mid-August, I could actually use a few days off, but the Final Four and coaching searches beckon and Kawakami and Buzz would make me look bad …)
Anyhow, I’ll have a bevy of posts up and running starting Monday morning, including:
Stanford hoops: What happened, and what happens next (ie: the status of Lopez, Lopez and Johnson).
Cal hoops: State of the coaching search. (Mike Dunlap? Are you kidding me? (Actually, the man can coach his butt off.))
Mike Montgomery: Will he ever coach again? (I’m not sure he even knows.)
My pick for the Final Four. (The name starts with a “U” and has a “C”, but that’s all I’ll say.)
My post-Elite Eight power rankings (ie: the best 16 teams).
An analysis of the Pac-10’s performance in the NCAAs (could have been better, couldn’t have been much worse).
Your comments, my responses (yes, I picked Stanford, and yes, I thought Braun was coming back).
And finally … Two words:
Spring. Football.
Okay Jon - I need to take issue with the Pac-10 “Couldn’t have been much worse” comment.
Each of the Pac 10’s seeds performed to their ranking EXCEPT the Trojans. Here’s the results:
UCLA #1: Advanced to the Final Four
Stanford #3: Advanced to Sweet Sixteen, beat by a #2
Wa St. #4: Advanced to Sweet Sixteen, beat by a #1
USC #6: First round loss to a #11
Oregon #9: First round loss to a #8
Arizona #10: First round loss to a #7
In a year when all four #1’s will advance to the final weekend (barring a major upset by Davidson) it’s clear the committee did a pretty good job with the seedings.
I’m a Stanford fan so I understand the “could have done better” part. But since when is doing what’s expected in a year of high expectations a case of “couldn’t have been much worse?”
I agree with Leftcoast to a point. The point is this: as far as the rest of the nation is concerned, Stanford is a member of the Pac-1 (UCLA in basketball, USC in football). Sure, those of us living out West know better, but the performance of conference teams in this year’s tourney just reinforced those stereotypes.
Still, it could have been much worse. UCLA could have (should have?) lost to Texas A&M or Western Kentucky. For the sake of remaining conference pride, I am cheering for the Bruins.
If UCLA wins it all as Wilner suggests, there’s nothing wrong with the Pac 10, up and down. Considering how the Pac 10 absolutely beat each other up this season, it just shows more power. The Pac-10 is still the conference of champions. The fact no one boasts (like the SEC) just shows west coast at its best.
Cal would be lucky to get Dunlap. The question is….would Dunlap want Cal?????
Dear Jon,
Just wanted to say how much I enjoy reading your Hotline articles. They are always insightful, and fun to read.
I look forward to reading it all the time.
Your excellence makes it hard to read the insights of other sports journalists (such as Jake Curtis of SF Chronicle).
You put Jake (and others like him) to shame.
There is no way in the world that UCLA can win the NCAA Tournament. They make way too many mistakes. Primarily unforced errors! I’m sure they will lose to Memphis, but if somehow they do squeak by Memphis they will never be able tgo beat North Carolina. NC is awsome! UCLA represented the PAC 10 quite well. Lets just be happy for that!