by: Griffin Bennett
First of all, I’d like to congratulate and thank Coach Romar on his 300th career win and 100th conference win. Great achievements by a great man.
That game was a breath of fresh air. The team finally had a great energy out of the gate and controlled the pace for the entire game. Being in the building, it just felt different. I can’t really explain it. It felt different than any other game this year as the players had a new energy and it was transferred to Dawg Pack and then to all of Hec-Ed.
Perhaps the catalyst of this energy was a Austin Seferian-Jenkins who made one hell of a debut. His 6’6 frame holds a lot of power and he immediately made his presence known in the post as he abused the Stanford big men. He brings that football mentality to this team which was lacking a truly physical player.
Could this be the new rotation? Romar only played 7 men in the game with Gant and ASJ coming off of the bench. The guards, Gaddy, Wroten and Ross, played 38, 34, and 39 minutes respectively and will probably be playing those type of high-minute games until Wilcox returns.
Thank you, Cougs. Thank you so much. Soak that in because you probably won’t hear me say it again. The Cougars beat Cal to keep us still in the title hunt as we are still only a half game back.
On to the reviews…
Positives:
- Austin Seferian-Jenkins – Loved his game. Against a smaller Stanford squad, he was able to move players around. He played 17 solid minutes while grabbing 7 rebounds and five hard fouls.
- Tony Wroten – He was Wade-esque out there. The way he cuts through traffic to the hoop and finishes with style is incredible. When you see those flashes your jaw drops. He led the game with 21 points will stuffing the rest of the stat sheet with 5 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals, 1 block, and only 3 turnovers.
- Terrence Ross – Another stat stuffing effort with 18 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists, and 1 steal. He was only 2 of 8 from three and you’d like to see him improve his scoring efficiency as he was 6 of 17 from the field.
- Darnell Gant – A great bounce back game for Gant who needed it badly. He was 2 of 3 from deep, which is great to see him continue to shoot. he finished with 7 rebounds and 17 points.
- Rebounding – It was a great team effort on the boards against the second best rebounding team in the conference (Huskies are number one). Aziz only played 13 minutes, probably due to ASJ’s effectiveness and the quickness of Stanford’s post players. Even with him out, the Huskies won the battle 39-31 with no one player getting more than 7.
Negatives:
- Passing – The assist-to-turnover ratio continues to be a struggle for the team. 13:16 against Stanford is unacceptable and Gaddy’s 3 assists to 5 turnovers need to be improved. Gaddy is supposed to be the consistent, mistake free player.
- Foot to the Throat – The Huskies had the Cardinal under their throat late in the second half but they let them crawl back. This team needs to be able to put away teams late in the game. With the smaller bench this year, that gets a little more difficult. I like it when I get to be picky in my negatives.
Overall:
This was the most enjoyable game to watch since the New York trip. Seeing Gant fist pump, ASJ grinding, Wroten slashing, Ross finishing… it was just a great feeling. Is ASJ the change that this team needed? Let’s hope so. We’re still in the race and now a trip down to Arizona is coming and date that we have all had circled on our calendar. A date in Tucson on ESPN’s Gameday. Bow Down.
-
I wouldn’t necessarily say the foot to the throat was a negative, probably neutral. After the 21-3 (I think that’s right) run, it never got within 10 again. It would’ve been nice to keep the game in the 20 point range, but its really not a big deal to me, since it was pretty obvious we had the game in hand.
-
That’s fair, Evan. Not really a negative but something to build to.
-Griffin
-
I’m back, BYTCHES! Hee hee Ha ha
And yeah I dropped a solo Benjamin, when I sagaciously went with the Cardinal. Albeit I still ended up in the BLACK regarding the degenerate game. If you know what I mean.
Because I had Arizona + 1 1/2 points. It’s too bad that Romer’s team was bloody well MOLESTED by Ralphie in Boulder. While the Wildcats lost a tough, defensive battle by ONLY ONE point. Go bloody figures.
Nonetheless, I abso-LUTE-ly don’t see Washington in the N.C.A.A. Tournament. Of course, they possibly could win the conference tournament in La-La Land.
But then again, FIVE or SIX WEAK PAC-12 squads have an opportunity to win a PAC-12 conference tournament this season. That’s how LAME ARSE WEAK the PAC-12 is in 2012.
Bottom line is ONLY two PAC-12 squads will be in the N.C.A.A. Tournament come the Ides of March. dUh!
-
I love this guy, so much.
-
Cal 5:2
Arizona 4:1
U.C.L.A. 5:1
Washington 7:1
Stanford 8:1
Colorado 9:1
The above listed WEAK PAC-12 squads which are all in contention to win the conference tournament in SEEDY downtown L.A.
Cal is the obvious opening line favorite because General Monty is head and shoulders the superior coach than Washington’s. eH.
And PAC-12 fan can mention the same thing about Arizona. Because, again, Miller is the far superior x’s and 0′s coach than that Romer. dUh.
As for U.C.L.A. The tournament is basically a DE FACTO home game situation for Howling Howland’s squad.
Washington is Washington. A talented athletic squad which lacks team cohesiveness and is lame arse STUPID when it comes to hard court savy.
However, the abso-LUTE Achilles Hill for that Romer’s team, is the EGOTISTICAL, ME FIRST, PRIMMA DONNA disease!Stanford is a bit of an enigma. When Dawkin’s squad comes with their A game, they can easily defeat a Wahington. Especially on a NUETRAL court. See L.A., for instance.
Colorado is a very good defensive team. A tangible which the Huskies lack! Yet, Ralphie doesn’t have the bench to play 3 consecutive games in The City of the Angels.
Enjoy Huskie YAHOO’s. Howdy.
-
Positives: the team. Great game, great effort, great addition to the rotation in Austin Sefarian-Jenkins. When CJ comes back, this could be something that at least bears a resemblance to a complete team. Maybe a closer resemblance than any other team in the Pac12 at the moment.
We got killed on the glass, and on hustle plays against Cal. Yesterday was a complete 180 from Thursday. Overnight, the NCAA Tournament went from a pipe dream, to something that just might be w/in our grasp.
Negatives: “Thank you, Cougs. Thank you so much. Soak that in because you probably won’t hear me say it again. The Cougars beat Cal to keep us still in the title hunt.”
Dude, seriously? Please tell me that you know how the Tournament is selected. Please tell me that you were just kidding when you said that. You’re covering this team, Griffin. You really ought to know that winning the Pac12 regular-season title will not get us anything more than a banner.
I’ve said this over and over and over again, here and other places, and still many of our fans are under the delusion that we’ll get into the Tournament if we win the Pac12 title. The automatic bid goes to the conference tournament champ. There is no automatic bid for ANY regular-season conference champion, except for the Ivy League winner.
The Pac12 has a conference RPI of 9. That’s bordering on one-bid territory. In all likelihood, the regular-season champ WON’T get in, unless it’s Cal or Oregon, or maybe Colorado. But Cal is probably going to get in regardless. W/ our complete lack of any Tournament resume, and w/ no more upcoming games against top-50 opponents, 2 more losses will put us on the bubble, and 3 more will eliminate us from at-large contention, even if we win the league title. So the Cougs win really does nothing for us. Might as well thank the Miami Heat for beating the Lakers the other night.
As UW fans, there ARE reasons to watch other Pac12 games, but the title race ain’t one of them. First off, we do want to finish in the top 4, in order to get a first-round bye in the conference tournament.
The problem w/ that, is that this early, it’s very hard to tell what teams are likely to be competing for that 4th-place spot. Maybe the Cougs will go on a tear in the second half, and push for the top 4, and Cal will finish a couple of games above the 4-hole. Then we’ll wish that Cal had won that game. Maybe we’ll finish a couple games above 4th-place ourselves; in which case the WSU-Cal game will have no affect at all on us. It’s just too early to tell when the league is this bad, top to bottom.
I guess you can always root for ASU, SC and Utah. You know those teams won’t be in contention for anything.
But the biggest rooting interests we have in other Pac12 games is–and you’re gonna love this one–root, root root for the Ducks. For real. They’re the only team in the country that can really help us. The Zeros are sitting at 56 in the RPI, and they are the only team that we’ve beaten, and the only team left on our schedule, that has a realistic shot of finishing in the top 50.
Quality wins (aka wins against the top 50) is a HUGE criterion for the Selection Committee. Oregon cracking the top 50, would give us a quality win, and a shot at another one. If the Ducks can keep winning, against everyone except us, that would really help in our bid for an at-large berth, even if it means that they finish ahead of us in the standings. But we still have to go at least 9-2 from here on out, or it’ll be a moot point. But w/ the emergence of ASJ, all of a sudden, that doesn’t seem so impossible.
And I have changed my mind about burning Andrews’ redshirt. W/ ASJ coming on, and hopefully CJ Wilcox coming back soon, maybe that’s not the only possible way we can make a Tournament run. And w/ only ten games left, it really is late in the season for that. IMO we should have pulled the redshirt off of him two weeks ago, when CJ was first diagnosed. But now, probably not.
But Romar seriously NEEDS to re-evaluate his redshirt policy. It’s killing us. Other programs aren’t missing the Tournament; while a kid who could make the difference between getting in and not, is sitting on the bench, perfectly healthy and eligible, taking a voluntary redshirt year. And at the same time other kids are burning their first year of eligibility w/ a few spot minutes and garbage time at the end of blowouts. It’s the same every year, it makes no sense, and it serves the interests of no one, except our opponents.
That has been my biggest beef w/ Romar for a while now. But no, I wouldn’t burn Andrews’ redshirt at this point.
-
D’oh! I mean w/ only ELEVEN games left, it really is late for that. I really can count past 10, I swear.
-
What’s happening y’all NIHILISTIC ruffians of the Purple Dog sort.
Checked out several N.C.A.A. Tournametn PROJECTION sites in the cyberrealm, and lo and behold, your Huskies are absolutely NOWHERE to be found. Eh.
Matter of fact, it looks like Cal is the only safe wager to receive an invitation to the Tournament that matters the most.
And for the time being, the MIGHTY Oregon Ducks be the other WEAK PAC-12 representative. Imagine that.
Of course, PAC-12 mens hoops matters will all come out in the wash, come the Ides of March.
See ya in Tu-STONE.
-
Damn, macjones. You really think anybody reads your posts? Well, I guess YOU do. Maybe that’s all you care about?
Keep talking, Einstein.
-
MAYBE some day in the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very distant FUTURE. Washington will be a PAC-12 mens basketball flag carrier on the national major college hoopdom scene.
But I highly doubt it. Eh.
Because even though both Arizona and U.C.L.A. are MOMENTARILY down. Both programs are still the flag carriers of the conference. duh.
In other words, when the typical college basketball EINSTEIN thinks of the PAC-12 conference. The Arizona Wildcats and the U.C.L.A. Bruins come to mind first and foremost. NOT the Huskies.
And don’t you ever FORGET THAT, bUbba!!
-
Dawgiedaddy, I think you’re making some assumptions on your belief that Andrews could contribute. Everyone read the reports, mostly amateurs, that Andrews was good in summer. I don’t doubt it. However there is evidence contradicting that as well. He wasn’t that highly rated and Romar, who has experience and the most chance to evaluate, decided it was smart to redshirt. things have changed since then (suggs, wilcox), but that doesn’t mean from his position now, he sees it smart to burn a redshirt. He may be wrong, you may be right, but I am going to side with coach.
Lets hope the huskies get some solid wins on the road, that’s the next step. Unfortunately the jump to being in the Tourny might be too much to ask. We’ll see. Good win against a pretty good team. Nice write up.
-
I love the way the kids took the ball to the hole. Athlete vs athlete – you take it at them and see who wins. TW / Ross / Gaddy should win almost all the time against smaller guards.
ASU will be a cake walk, but can we win at Arizona???? That will be huge to go to 7-2!
-
@dawgiedaddy — I see what you are saying, but I just don’t agree with it. I think the Pac-12 is bad, but I think we were bad last year. I really don’t see much difference. The Pac-10 got four teams in last year (USC did a play-in). With a bigger conference, I see us getting at least two. The record of the conference champion and the Pac-10 tournament champion (Arizona and Washington) last year also helps.
Does winning the conference help? I think so. I think they would have had a hard time explaining why they give a bid to a second or third place finisher instead of the conference champion. I see a few possibilities. One, that team won the head to head. Another, it is really close, and that team had a good out of conference record. Well, the second is unlikely, because just about everyone had a bad out of conference record. The first possibility is good one, though. Let’s assume that the Huskies win the conference, but Cal finishes second, just one game back (and everyone else is further back). Assume also that a third team wins the tournament. Now what? I wouldn’t put it past the tournament folks to pick Cal. After all, the schedule was unbalanced and Cal won the only contest, in Seattle at that.
Now, imagine it is some other team. Oregon, OSU, WSU or Stanford. Well, at worse we tie with them in direct contests. It is hard to imagine that the conference people pick, say, Stanford over the UW, if we are a game ahead and we split the two head to head games. Therefore, the teams we want to win are the teams we have beaten, while the teams we want to lose are the teams we have lost to. It’s that simple.
-
Hey mac, keep it civil. Racism is not tolerated.
-
@RossB, sorry, but you’re making a lot of assumptions here that simply aren’t true.
“I think the Pac-12 is bad, but I think we were bad last year. I really don’t see much difference. The Pac-10 got four teams in last year (USC did a play-in).”
No. The Pac10 had a conference RPI of 5 last year. This year it’s 9. That’s a MASSIVE difference historically. On a typical year, the 5th-rated conference will get 3-5 teams in, and the 9th-rated league gets 1-2 teams in. Look it up if you don’t believe me. The # of bids plummets between about 5 and 10. That’s just how the numbers-game of the 64/68-team Tournament works.
“I think they would have had a hard time explaining why they give a bid to a second or third place finisher instead of the conference champion.”
The Selection Committee would have no problem explaining it at all. It’s the body of work. That’s what say that every year, when they’re asked to defend a controversial inclusion or omission. And they would be absolutely right. Cal, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona, and even OSU, all had much better non-conference seasons, much higher NC RPI’s, and they’ll probably end up w/ more quality wins, than us.
“I see a few possibilities. One, that team won the head to head. Another, it is really close, and that team had a good out of conference record. Well, the second is unlikely, because just about everyone had a bad out of conference record. The first possibility is good one, though.”
Actually, it’s exactly the opposite. The Committee has made it a point of emphasis for years now that head-to-head competition is NOT a criterion. They will not pick a team based on head-to-head. Remember they’re not choosing between two teams in the same league. They’re choosing between 30-40 bubble teams around the country. It’s impossible and illogical to use head-to-head, and the Committee is especially adamant about that specific point. In fact I haven’t heard the national sports media even bring it up on Selection Sunday for probably a decade or so.
As for the whole league being bad in the non-conference season, dude, we went 7-5 in non-league games, with losses to Nevada and South Dakota State (at home). Our best win was UC-Santa Barbara (also at home). Cal, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona, OSU, and Colorado, all had mediocre NC records, but they were nowhere near THAT bad. Any of those teams–except maybe Colorado–would easily leapfrog us if they finished second, unless we won by 2 games or more.
Plus, of course, the Selection Committee doesn’t just award X number of bids to any league. I would agree that 2 Pac12 bids sounds about right, but it could just as easily be one, and it could even conceivably be three.
So it’s impossible to say who would get in, based solely on who wins the league, who finishes second, and by how much. In any of those scenarios it’s possible that both teams could get in, or that neither team could get in. But any of those teams except WSU, would get in AHEAD of us, if we finished first, and they finished second behind us, by one game.
Ross, how often do you see mid-major regular-season conference champs get left out of the Tournament? Many times, every year. And w/ and RPI of 9, the Pac12 is functionally a mid-major this year. I’m not saying we won’t get in if we win the regular-season title. It would probably takl a record of at least 14-4 to win it outright, and that would probably be enough to get us in. What I’m saying is, we won’t get in BECAUSE we won the regular-season title. We’ll sink or swim w/ our record and our Tournament resume, and finishing first (or second) in a godawful Pac12, won’t matter much one way or the other.
Seriously dude, look up the criteria for qualification for the NCAA Tournament. The Selection Committee’s not some secret, mystical sect, using inscrutable mechanisms in smoke-filled rooms. It’s all up-front. Look it up in Wikipedia.
But again, two wins over a top-50 Oregon team, now THAT would matter. And yeah, I do agree that our recent success might help just a little bit, if we were right on the bubble.
-
Oh, and you might be right bellingham. It doesn’t really matter now; I think that ship has already sailed at this point.
And actually it’s Jim Basnight who’s making those assumptions, more than I am. And JB is a lot more knowledgable about the Dawgs than me. I’m just going on what I’ve heard about practices, summer league, and open gym at the IMA.
-
I spoke to that and other UW related topics on “Talkin’ Hoops” last night:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nwsportsradio/2012/01/24/talkin-hoops-with-jim-basnight
-
OK, I’m not an expert on how the selection committee picks the teams. I couldn’t find much detail on Wikipedia. It had plenty of anecdotal stories, but nothing in there that said a specific scientific process was followed. In other words, unlike the national champion in football, it is people, not a computer algorithm, which determines the winner(s). Oddly enough, this article, while smaller, gave more detail: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/march-madness4.htm — Now, I would be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I am hardly and expert, and it may be that this article is now out of date, or was never accurate. However, if it is accurate, then “conference record” is a legitimate criteria. If we win the conference, then we will have the best conference record, and all other things being equal, that would be a good thing. Wikipedia also suggested that extra weight was given to the BCS conferences (although again, this may have been anecdotal). In general, I believe it to be a fairly fungible process. If we are on the bubble, and Cal is on the bubble, and we are a game ahead of Cal, and we won the conference, then I think it is highly likely that we will be selected and Cal won’t. Again, as I understand it, these are men making the decisions, and they aren’t just looking at the math.
If I’m not mistaken, RPI plays a really big part in the selection. If I understand it right, opponents record is a huge part of RPI. Thus, even though we lost those games, playing tough teams helps our RPI. Obviously not enough to make up for losing all those games (or games in general) but our RPI may not necessarily be as inherently bad as we assume. By that I mean that it is our winning percentage, not the teams that we’ve played that has dragged us down. Over time, the conference winning percentage will make for a bigger percentage. In other words, our 6-5 out of conference record will be overwhelmed by the 20 or so conference games we play. Likewise with Cal. Thus, over time, even if we just keep pace with Cal, our RPI will begin to get closer.
It is also my understanding that the tournament selection committee values quality wins over quality losses (even though the RPI is neutral on that subject, but cares a lot about winning on the road). In other words, while we want all of our opponents to win other games (go South Dakota State!) if we have a contest between two teams we have played, with one a loss and one a victory, then we want the team we have beaten to win. If that is the case, then it is a very good thing if Oregon, Stanford, WSU, OSU and Utah beat California and Colorado (when playing them).
-
John Chase on January 23, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Hey mac, keep it civil. Racism is not tolerated.
…………………………………Oh yeah, and the bloody T-R-U-T-H apparently isn’t either!
Bottom line is y’all Purple BYTCHES just be bloody well ANGRY and in a bytchy tiff over your team de jure not being on Lunardi’s latest edition of Bracketology. Because Joey knows best. Eh.
And what about those Wildcats. I see they are on BUBBLE STATUS and Romer’s team is abso-LUTE-ly nowhere to be found. LOL
-
And by the way Purple BYTCHES. Your team de jour abso-LUTE-ly aint going to finish with a 14-4. Like some Romer LAP DOG suggested and or predicted above. That I can bloody well guarantee!
And here’s N.C.A.A. RPI 101 for y’all Huskie DULLARDS. Eh.
Washington’s RPI won’t increase with any further WEAK PAC-12 wins. dUh.
Simply because ain’t no other conference squad has a RPI to match Cal’s and Romer’s team cost themselves, seriously I may add, with a HOME lost to General Montgomery’s N.C.A.A. bound squad.
Then there was TINY South Dakota St. LMAO
In other words, Washington’s RPI is so far down the list- 89-, that the only way Romer’s team get in to the Tournament that matters the most, is by winning the conference tournament in La-La Land.
But the again, with the exception of Cal. PAC-12 fan could easily say five or six other squads have a legitimate chance to win the conference tournament.
So, CEAST with lame arse notion that Romer’s team CAN IMPROVE their overall RPI by leaps and bounds.
Simple Simon Purple BYTCHES. There’s a bloody REASON why Joey left the Huskies off his Projections and at least TRADITION-ORIENTED Arizona is on Lunardi’s BUBBLE. Howdy!
-
Then there was 2009. The N.C.A.A. Tournament season when the ARIZONA WILDCATS received one of those precious invitations as a No. 12 seed. Eh.
By the way, the Arizona Wildcats had an overall RPI of 49 entering the Tournament that matters most. That’s a N.C.A.A. RPI of 49!! Bloody CAPICE.
And too bad for y’all Romer LAP PUPS, because it is MATHAMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, in N.C.A.A. RPI terms, for Washington to improve their RPI and reach the low 50,s. Let alone the high 40′s. When speaking of RPI numberology.
In other words, other than Cal the next highest is Oregon at No. 60, I believe. And your team de jure lost in a severe way to the Golden Bear at home. LMAO
Even Colorado with a low RPI-61, relatively speaking, BYTCHED SLAPPED Washington by DOUBLE-DIGITS. LOL
So, do the SIMPLETON math Purple BYTCHES… no WEAK PAC-12 squad with a relatively strong RPI in the 30′s or LOW 40′s. So no way for Washington to leap into the 40′s or 50′s level. Eh.
Again, MAY BE Romer’s team win the conference tournament. But I highly doubt it!!
-
Hey macjones — please just shut up. You have posted about half of the comments on this blog. Most of them don’t make any sense. That is why people don’t argue with you. What is annoying is that this blog doesn’t allow you to collapse comments. So, basically, you are interrupting. So, please, just take it outside. Take it somewhere else. People really don’t want to read your crap, and it makes it harder to read what other people are saying. You might as well be spreading spam.
-
In other words Purple BYTCH, the Romer lap dogs can’t handle the abso-LUTE truth about the current state of Washington mens basketball.
oh, I was wrong about the Huskies current N.C.A.A. RPI. It’s a highly REMARKABLE No. 83, yet so far away from that No. 49-No. 59 range. Eh.
By the way, I happen to peruse NUMEROUS N.C.A.A. Tournament Bracket sites and absolutely NO Washington Huskies on the sacred 68 best of the rest list. What give Purple Chichuachua’s. LOL
I guess this other NUMEROUS touters don’t make sense either. dUh. Seeing that they collectively don’t have Romer’s team in their brackets too. Albeit for the time being. LOL
-
I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but obviously you can’t understand basic courtesy. You are being rude. You remind me of annoying orange. You are obnoxious, annoying and oblivious to your own rudeness. You also laugh a lot at your own jokes (LOL).
I don’t know why you persist on being a pest. Seriously, what do you get out of it? It sounds really pathetic. Do you have some deep seeded hatred of Husky basketball (denied admission, perhaps?). Really, why waste your time commenting on blogs when you obviously add nothing to the conversation and your posts aren’t welcome. What is the point of that?
In contrast, DawgieDaddy and I have a sensible, polite disagreement. We have both provided a fair amount of arguments to support our side. I have certainly learned something, and so, maybe, have others. Hopefully the discussion will continue and we will continue to learn, even if we don’t actually come to an agreement. It is called having a civil discussion. You should try it some time.
-
Macjones drugs are bad, mkay?
-
macjones – Just play nice. A little trash talk is all well and good but now you’re just spamming. Please don’t make me have to block you.
Reply
Awesome Products and Services
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.montlakemadness.com/energized-dawgs-take-down-stanford-76-63/trackback/