Crap 10
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:56
Okay, I admit it: I’ve been slow on the uptake in commentating about the 2009-2010 NHL, NBA and college basketball seasons. It’s not that I haven’t been following those sports, but some years I follow certain sports more closely than others, and in 2009 I paid a lot more attention to college football than I have the past couple seasons. With that added focus, other sports took somewhat of a backseat.
But now that college football is over (except for the bowls) I’ll be watching a lot more basketball and hockey.
So, let’s start off with a question that has many people scratching their heads:
What is up with the Pac-10?
The Pac-10 has always been a powerhouse basketball conference. But this season? Wow, the conference is off to a bad start.
Right now the Pac-10 is the only one of the Big Six conferences without a single undefeated or one-loss team. In fact, the other five all have at least two, if not more, such teams. Now, no one expects a high percentage of any league to maintain such a high level of play throughout the entire campaign, but the losses don’t usually mount for Big Six teams until conference play begins and they start beating up on each other. To start off the season in such a hole does not bode well.
To make matters worse, only one Pac-10 is currently in the AP Top 25, and even that squad (the Washington Huskies) clocks in no higher than No. 24. No other Big Six conference has less than three teams in the Top 25.
To be fair, college basketball is not college football. There is far more parity in college hoops than on the gridiron. On any given day, almost any school can beat any other, except for the very best facing the very worst. It’s why the NCAA Tournament is so exciting and an underdog such as George Mason can make a run like it did.
Still… the Pac-10 is off to a bad start.
No team epitomizes the Pac-10’s woes more than UCLA. Admittedly, the Bruins were supposed to be rebuilding this season, but a 2-6 start is far worse than “rebuilding”. UCLA opened the year with a loss to Cal State Fullerton and is currently wallowing in the midst of a five-game losing streak which has seen defeats at the hands of Long Beach State and Portland (the latter a 74-47 blowout).
We’re talking UCLA here. UCLA. You know, the school that averaged less than two losses a season over a twelve-year span in the 60s and 70s, including back-to-back perfect season in 1971-72 an 1972-73. A team synonymous with greatness. Sure that was a long time ago, but in the intervening 35 years, the Bruins have only add two losing seasons (2002-03 and 2003-04). Coming off a four year stretch in which they went 113-16 and had three Final Four appearances, a 2-6 start with losses to two Big West schools and a West Coast Conference school not named Gonzaga is a precipitous drop.
That’s bad. That’s really, really bad. In fact, the Bruins currently sport the worst record of any Big Six school.
UCLA shouldn’t feel too bad; after all the Bruins have some sorry conference company. Half the teams in the Pac-10 are playing .500 ball or worse. Remember the teams’ records so far come entirely in non-conference games.
Matters don’t usually take a turn for the better when conference play begins.
It’s going to be a long year for the Pac-10. Which begs the question: could a power conference possibly only send one team to the NCAA Tournament?
We’ll find out this March.
Gairzo
says:
December 15th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I kind of wonder if there aren't some California recruits opting to matriculate in Florida Texas or Carolina–even back east. When UCLA coach Ben Howland left Pitt a while back, everyone figured it would be a cinch for him to duplicate Wooden's sucess-given the talent laden California schools.
We're seeing two factors at work. The PAC 10 doesn't [produce as many 1st or 2nd round picks as the Big East or ACC or even the SEC. Players in the eastern and southern conferences are taught the value of defense more than are many players out west. A raw, talented player knows Coach K or Roy Williams will prepare him to be the complete player the NBA demands.
We can also point population and demographics. California urban high schools are offering more athletic options than just football and basketball and maybe the talent pool is contracting enough to make a difference. I've noticed a higher concentration of Latino players in the NFL and NBA and as the Hispanic populaton grows a higher percentage of children will opt for sports more favored in their culture, (soccer, baseball).
Nate Barlow
says:
December 16th, 2009 at 2:43 am
I've also noticed the higher numbers of Hispanic players in the NFL and NBA, which is great. I hope that influx continues to the point where enough Hispanics are in those sports so that the numbers are high enough that we don't notice them, a la the Asian influx in MLB, as opposed to the rarity of seeing an African-American in the NHL.
Another theory re: the Pac-10: Could the league be a victim of its own success, attracting a high number of high-school players who become one-and-dones (e.g. Kevin Love), thus hampering the programs' long term stability? I don't know the numbers, but it would be an interesting study. That could still work with your first factor, since many of the one-and-dones aren't as good as they think they are and go further in the draft than expected.
Ben Howland is a good defensive coach, too, but the East may have more high-profile coaches, which can be more important than what the players think they will get out of their coaches.