Kentucky - UCLA

[SoBeCuse]

USC won a play in game. They lost in the 2nd road.

Arizona and Ucla lost in the sweet 16. Both underachieved. Like I said, they beat up on weak teams all season and weren't great teams. Both were exposed. Oregon was the only PAC 12 team to have a good run. Sorry. That's not a good tournament when only 1 team does well.

USC may be ranked Top 25, but rankings mean nothing. Just ask Tom Izzo and those Spartans from Michigan State. Like I said, we'll see on USC.

Oh I don't care about the rankings either. Just pointing out that USC will have national respect when the season starts. Ok so no Sweet 16 technically but two wins and a one possession L to 3 seed Baylor. You'll take it.

Arizona I'll agree on. Again, not that surprising though when you see what Xavier was doing to people like Florida St.

I don't think anyone would think UCLA underachieved. One can't just generalize without looking at context and/or matchups. Kentucky was the two seed and that game was even in Vegas. That's not underachieving. Had they lost to Cincinnati or Wichita St if WSU had beaten UK then sure.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Oh I don't care about the rankings either. Just pointing out that USC will have national respect when the season starts. Ok so no Sweet 16 technically but two wins and a one possession L to 3 seed Baylor. You'll take it.

Arizona I'll agree on. Again, not that surprising though when you see what Xavier was doing to people like Florida St.

I don't think anyone would think UCLA underachieved. One can't just generalize without looking at context and/or matchups. Kentucky was the two seed and that game was even in Vegas. That's not underachieving. Had they lost to Cincinnati or Wichita St if WSU had beaten UK then sure.

Regardless, USC lost in the 2nd round, UCLA and Arizona, both top 5 teams all season (because they beat up on weak teams all year) both got exposed and lost in the sweet 16. Both underachievers, without question. And I don't know anyone that considers losing in the 2nd round a GOOD THING. Sweet 16's are nice, unless you're a top 5 team supposedly good enough to win a title.

I team from the PAC 12 did well. Not the PAC 12, of course. Sorry.

USC will get national respect when the season starts just like Michigan State did? If they start losing nobody will care. Preaseason National respect means nothing.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Regardless, USC lost in the 2nd round, UCLA and Arizona, both top 5 teams all season (because they beat up on weak teams all year) both got exposed and lost in the sweet 16. Both underachievers, without question. And I don't know anyone that considers losing in the 2nd round a GOOD THING. Sweet 16's are nice, unless you're a top 5 team supposedly good enough to win a title.

I team from the PAC 12 did well. Not the PAC 12, of course. Sorry.

USC will get national respect when the season starts just like Michigan State did? If they start losing nobody will care. Preaseason National respect means nothing.

Again you generalize and fail to consider matchups. Two national title contenders in UCLA and Kentucky meet in the Sweet 16. One is going to lose. Kentucky was the higher seed and UCLA lost. So what? How the hell is that underacheiving losing to another national title contender while being the lower seed?! Seems to me you are overvaluing the rankings/polls we mock leading up to the Tourney. Those are null and void come Tourney. It's all about seed and matchups.

USC outperfomed their seed by far! Obviously the Pac-12 performed well. Most analysts and bloggers were talking or writing about that even with Arizona's loss to Xavier.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Again you generalize and fail to consider matchups. Two national title contenders in UCLA and Kentucky meet in the Sweet 16. One is going to lose. Kentucky was the higher seed and UCLA lost. So what? How the hell is that underacheiving losing to another national title contender while being the lower seed?! Seems to me you are overvaluing the rankings/polls we mock leading up to the Tourney. Those are null and void come Tourney. It's all about seed and matchups.

USC outperfomed their seed by far! Obviously the Pac-12 performed well. Most analysts and bloggers were talking or writing about that even with Arizona's loss to Xavier.

Well, UCLA had beaten Kentucky on the road, so how is that a bad matchup for them? They got crushed when it mattered because they don't play defense. My point was ucla and Arizona were not that good to begin with (not top 5) and that turned out to be true. USC getting bounced in the 2nd round isn't good man. I get that's your team, but that's reality. The PAC 12 had 1 team do well. That doesn't mean the conference had a good tournament. I don't care what your bloggers say.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Well, UCLA had beaten Kentucky on the road, so how is that a bad matchup for them? They got crushed when it mattered because they don't play defense. My point was ucla and Arizona were not that good to begin with (not top 5) and that turned out to be true. USC getting bounced in the 2nd round isn't good man. I get that's your team, but that's reality. The PAC 12 had 1 team do well. That doesn't mean the conference had a good tournament. I don't care what your bloggers say.

We're just not going to see eye to eye. Probably ever, ha. I get it...you hate the Pac-12. But you probably don't see those teams play, don't know their rosters/personnel, etc. That's fine. I never had UCLA in the F4. Arizona yes. But, Kentucky beating UCLA wasn't any upset or anything. They did what they were supposed to do in my eyes. They got to the S16. Weren't upset or anything. Fine. They were a 3 seed anyways. What do you want?

I'm not naive. I didn't expect USC to do more than win one game. But the facts are facts. They outperformed their seeding. They beat SMU who many thought would be a sleeper to get to the E8. That is doing well for an 11 seed or whatever they were. Again, good for the Pac-12...checkmark there.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

We're just not going to see eye to eye. Probably ever, ha. I get it...you hate the Pac-12. But you probably don't see those teams play, don't know their rosters/personnel, etc. That's fine. I never had UCLA in the F4. Arizona yes. But, Kentucky beating UCLA wasn't any upset or anything. They did what they were supposed to do in my eyes. They got to the S16. Weren't upset or anything. Fine. They were a 3 seed anyways. What do you want?

I'm not naive. I didn't expect USC to do more than win one game. But the facts are facts. They outperformed their seeding. They beat SMU who many thought would be a sleeper to get to the E8. That is doing well for an 11 seed or whatever they were. Again, good for the Pac-12...checkmark there.

Wait..so you knew UCLA was vastly overrated? Lol. I mean, I don't hate the PAC 12. I'm just not their biggest fan like you. Did you know Arizona was vastly improved overrated too? They were a fraud. They lost to an 11 seed. But you saw that coming, right? You're a PAC 12 homer. I get It. I think they have 1-2 teams typically that are good. Usually Arizona and somebody else. Typically the conference sucks. Last year was a big year for them. 1 team made it past past the sweet 16. Congrats. USC was lucky to make the field so you think they did well. Sorry. They lost in the 2nd round. That blows. Don't get mad at me. The PAC 12 is like the 6th best conference. Ucla and Oregon are back to medicroty. Yay.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Wait..so you knew UCLA was vastly overrated? Lol. I mean, I don't hate the PAC 12. I'm just not their biggest fan like you. Did you know Arizona was vastly improved overrated too? They were a fraud. They lost to an 11 seed. But you saw that coming, right? You're a PAC 12 homer. I get It. I think they have 1-2 teams typically that are good. Usually Arizona and somebody else. Typically the conference sucks. Last year was a big year for them. 1 team made it past past the sweet 16. Congrats. USC was lucky to make the field so you think they did well. Sorry. They lost in the 2nd round. That blows. Don't get mad at me. The PAC 12 is like the 6th best conference. Ucla and Oregon are back to medicroty. Yay.

This is the last I'll comment on this. I regret not continuing to ignore you.

I don't see how any intelligent fan/analyst would call Arizona a fraud. That's just crazy. So Florida St. was a fraud too? They lost BY 30 to Xavier!! At least Arizona lost by one possession. Did Arizona underperform? Yes. Fraud of course not.

I didn't think UCLA was overrated. Their body of work was solid obviously. They were what they were. A 3 seed. Kentucky a 2 seed. UCLA did what they were supposed to do doing the conference no harm. Again, USC outperformed their seed. Irrelevant on their deservedness. They were in and capitalized with nice wins and a one possession game L to Baylor in S16. That's good. The PAC-12 should be pretty weak this coming agreed but the conference did not struggle the way the ACC did in the Tourney. That's not debateable.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

This is the last I'll comment on this. I regret not continuing to ignore you.

I don't see how any intelligent fan/analyst would call Arizona a fraud. That's just crazy. So Florida St. was a fraud too? They lost BY 30 to Xavier!! At least Arizona lost by one possession. Did Arizona underperform? Yes. Fraud of course not.

I didn't think UCLA was overrated. Their body of work was solid obviously. They were what they were. A 3 seed. Kentucky a 2 seed. UCLA did what they were supposed to do doing the conference no harm. Again, USC outperformed their seed. Irrelevant on their deservedness. They were in and capitalized with nice wins and a one possession game L to Baylor in S16. That's good. The PAC-12 should be pretty weak this coming agreed but the conference did not struggle the way the ACC did in the Tourney. That's not debateable.

That's fine. You're a PAC 12 fan so you wanted those teams to do well. You're obviously biased. Any objective person can see the facts. Their top 2 teams both underperformed and lost in the sweet 16. One was blown out and the other lost to an 11 seed mid major. That's not good. Neither Ucla or Arizona "did what they were supposed to do", being top 5 all year. USC lost in the 2nd round. Sorry man, that's not a good tournament for a conference when you only get 4 teams in and only 1 does well. By the way, the ACC played for and won another title. Something the PAC 12 hasn't done in 20 years. That's not debatable. And the PAC 12 will go back to being weak again this year, like you said.