While I wait for CJ to return from Florida, I figured I'd post about something that bothers me. Recently, various media and blogger types have been saying that since Cal won the Pac-10 regular season, Cal is in. I don't think it works that way. Let's look at some key numbers on Cal.
Well, those look good...
Wins against tournament teams: 3-6
Well, thats not horrible. Wait. Who are those wins, you ask? Washington... who they also lost to twice. Murray St and UC-SB? They're in the tournament? Ohhhhh... AQs. If you take out the two AQ's, Cal is 1-6 vs. tournament teams (notably, also their record vs. the RPI top 50).
Okay, okay... what about their RPI top 100 record? 5-7. Come on... William and Mary is 6-7, and has better wins. Rhode Island is 7-7, and has better wins.
Bad Losses: 3
I know, I hate using bad losses. But some blogger whose writing I normally respect was trying to justify Cal by saying that their profile should be evaluated like a mid-major, and that they had avoided bad losses. Cal had three bad losses: at USC, at Oregon St, and at Pauley against UCLA.
Since I've already used one measure that I despise, lets take a look at another. Road/Neutral Record: 8-9. Not terrible, but certainly not something to hang your hat on.
Its fairly obvious that Washington, who took 2 out of 3 from Cal, actually has a halfway decent win (against A&M), and has a better record against the top 100 (8-5 vs. 5-7) will be seeded higher than Cal. I currently have Washington as a 12. This does not bode well for Cal.
If the Golden Bears get in, it will be a travesty.
EDIT: And my biggest trouble was finding a team to take Cal's spot. Thank you, New Mexico St Aggies, for solving my problem.