Selection Sunday Open Thread
Today, Selection Sunday, is arguably one of the most exciting, yet somewhat predictable day in college athletics, as the NCAA Men's Basketball Selection Committee fields a bracket of 65 teams to compete in "March Madness" over the next two-three weeks. In turn, today is filled with eons of sports writer predicting which bubble teams are either in the field of 65 or NIT-bound. Well, thanks to our friends over in Heritage Hall, it's clear that the Trojans will not be partaking in any postseason activities. Yet, the bids of California and Arizona State are still somewhat at stake, after Washington earned the Pac-10's automatic bid yesterday afternoon with a close win over the Golden Bears. So, with today's national importance, here are a few topics to discuss.
- Seemingly every prognosticator out there seems to know with absolute certainty which teams will end up making the final 65. To spare you every opinion, we'll keep in simple and just check out who ESPN's Joe Lunardi has making the field, and by the look of things, it appears as if the Pac-10 is going to get two teams in with California and Washington. As of right now, Lunardi has Cal as a 7th seed, while Washington a 10th seed. Arizona State, despite getting over the 20-wins mark, looks to be NIT-bound.
- After a disappointing year for the Pac-10, ESPN's Arash Markazi takes a look at yesterday's thrilling conference title game, where the Huskies earned the conference's autmoatic bid and put on a positive face for the league.
- With Washington, not Cal, earning the automatic bid, there are some out there in the national media, notably Jay Bilas and Jerry Palm, that are somewhat skeptical of the Bears earning an at-large birth. According to Palm, they are no longer a "lock" for the field of 65. In turn, the folks over at SB Nation's California Golden Blogs explain why the Bears should still be dancing this March. And for once, I seem to be in agreement with the NorCal hippies.Don't worry, I'll refrain from saying "hella" though.
- While a lot of talk seems to be centered on the men's side of things, the Women of Troy faced UCLA in the semi-finals of the Pac-10 Tournament yesterday. However, 'SC, despite holding a six-game winning streak, wasn't able to topple No. 23 UCLA, as they fell 59-53 in heartbreaking fashion. With a 19-13 record, the Women of Troy are hoping to earn an at-large birth to the NCAA Tournament next week. But for now, they'll have to wait anxiously until Monday, when the brackets are released.
- Yet, basketball isn't the only thing making headlines in the Pac-10, as Friday brought a lot of news stories coming out of Eugene, where Oregon head coach Chip Kelly suspended Jeremiah Masoli for the entire 2010 season, and running back and freshman all-American LaMichael James for the season opener against New Mexico. In response to Kelly's decision, SI.com's Andy Staples certainly has a few thoughts on Kelly's decision.
- I couldn't possibly make an open thread without discussing the upcoming football season in at least some form. So, here is a story from WeAreSC.com that takes a look at the impact the running game needs to make in 2010.
Fight On!
Follow ParagonSC and Joey Kaufman on Twitter.
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Comments
It looks like Cal did earn an at-large bid
The Bears drew the 8th seed against Louisville and will play in the South Region. If they can win, they’ll face Duke. So-so draw, but at least they’re in.
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
As for Washington
They drew a seed in the East region and will face #6 Marquette in San Jose. Should get some nice representation on the west coast.
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
Glad we got 2 in...
Seth Davis is just insufferable though….
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
I lost all respect for Seth Davis after his tweet regarding the USC-UCLA Timeout "Controversy"
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
by Joey Kaufman on Mar 14, 2010 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, I think ASU had a case.
They had 22 wins and went second in the Pac-10 with a 12-6 conference mark. However, I can understand why they didn’t They had a weak nonconference schedule and went 0-3 against their three toughest opponents – Duke, Baylor, and BYU. But still, I thought they should have been considered more than they were. Of course, 3 teams from the Pac-10 might be asking a bit too much.
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
by Joey Kaufman on Mar 14, 2010 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Is there are team out there that doesn't get Dick Vitale all excited?
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
On the women's side of things
Stanford just defeated UCLA in the Pac-10 Tournament Finals 70-46. Wow!
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
How is Bob Knight emplyed by ESPN?
Could think of that “good guard” from Duke. Uhmmm…his name is Jon Scheyer.
--Conquest Chronicles, SBNation's USC Trojans blog
Spoiled by Timmy
After 3 years in a row, I’m just not into the tourney this year w/out USC in it. I’ll watch the games and build some interest, but Timmy spoiled me. Also agree that even the hoops pronosticators continue to show anti-PacX bias. Cal was a lock for the tourney, yet so many talking heads wanted them out. How about a sports channel with NO BROADCASTERS? I would love that. STFU already!
It would have been 4 in a row!
STILL LOCO AFTER ALL THESE YEARS!
CELEBRATING THE DAWN OF THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
If USC isn't playing
I have no interest in the tournament until the final four… if that. Sometimes I ignore the whole thing.
The first weekend is the most fun to watch
for all the upsets. Although, chances are, there won’t be many big ones this year (unless you consider a Hummel-less Purdue getting beat an upset). Expect another Sweet -16 with very few high seeds (if any) and all 1 and 2 seeds in the Final Four.
It’s less fun to watch with no SC (and not much Pac-10 in general).
Someone should make a post where people put up their Final Four and Championship picks.

by 














