I know they lost their last two games to non-tourney teams, but wasn't there schedule considered to be the toughtest (Pac10 was considered the hardest conference this year).
2007-03-11 13:24:05 · 12 answers · asked by DCMVP 1 in Sports ➔ Basketball
I noticed that all four of the No. 1 seeds won their conference tournaments. UCLA got knocked out in their first conference tournament game. I think the committee got the No. 1 seeds right this year.
2007-03-11 13:29:56 · answer #1 · answered by Cardinals = Greatness 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UCLA fans understand that the team has to win to be a #1 seed. They didn't. Case closed. Their schedule did count and that's why everybody is afraid of them.and not counting them out. Remember being # 1 only counts at the end when you cut down the net and take another trophy home.
The team is in the tournament and that's that. No matter were they are seeded , #1 or #65 its show me time.
Came real close last year. Have Fingers x
2007-03-11 21:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hate to burst someone's bubble, but the SEC has less business in a 'power vonference' discussion than the Big East and ACC have in the BCS.
UCLA isn't a 1 because they lost their conference tourney opener. Granted Cal is better than anyone Florida played in the SEC, but with Florida is going home after the first weekend and UCLA playing on, maybe a 2 isn't something to complain about.
2007-03-11 20:46:03 · answer #3 · answered by sdwillie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Kansas would have lost to Texas today they would have been a 1 seed. UCLA didnt get the one seed because of their losses to non tournament teams at the end of the season. I think that there were 6 teams in the running to get a 1 seed. Kansas, UCLA, Wisconsin, OSU, UNC, Florida. Obviously the teams that won their conference got rewarded with the 1 seeds while UCLA, and UW ended up with 2 seeds. Not that bad its like comparing apple, and oranges.
2007-03-11 20:31:39 · answer #4 · answered by Kenneth W 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ucla didn't do so well at the end of the season, but my question is why is North Carolina a #1 seed when they haven't done so well all season long? and why si nobody question this fact and questioning the fact that KU the #2 team in the nation got a #1 seed. I think Ucla deserved the seed that North Carolina got.
2007-03-11 20:44:07 · answer #5 · answered by lilreveuse 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kansas had their #1 locked in before they even played today. Hell, the game went up to about 15 minutes before the bracket was even announced. Unfortunately, UCLA fans, no team has ever won a National Championship after losing their first game in their conference tournament.
2007-03-11 23:09:38 · answer #6 · answered by bshmalb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Pac-10 was no harder than the Big 12. Sports announcers haven't given the Big 12 their due credit all season long. But to answer your question: UCLA isn't the team KU is. KU won the tournament, UCLA didn't
2007-03-11 22:03:50 · answer #7 · answered by mimegamy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i really thught they would be a number 1 as well because i mean two losses isnt that much and ucla played great al year so it really shouldnt matter.
well being a number 1 or 2 really doesnt make a whole lot of difference because either way they will play the same team if they reach the elite eight
2007-03-11 20:28:28 · answer #8 · answered by aznballergurl5 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They lost in the first round of the Pac 10 tournament. Actually the ACC has the best RPI, so they are the best conference in college basketball.
2007-03-11 20:52:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They play in a very weak conference,same as football,the SEC IS THE EAL STUFF!!
2007-03-11 20:29:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋