Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: 0 good wins 7 bad losses

  1. #1

    Basketball 0 good wins 7 bad losses

    Might be better to go to the NIT and possibly get more than 1 game

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by diva1 View Post
    Might be better to go to the NIT and possibly get more than 1 game
    Disagree completely. Our "seven bad losses" are only bad losses if you think this is a top 10 team. It isn't. Nice top 30-40 team. I also think that this is not a "young" team that needs games. We are going to be retooling and rethinking next year so I would like to see Harper and Jorge have a nice chance at the tournie. They are, however, likely to get a match up against a 1 or a 2 in the second game ;-(

  3. #3

    As usual

    Idiots are idiots.

    Technically, we have NO bad losses (conference road losses aren't "bad," and losing to Arizona is hardly a "bad" loss; unless you think losing to Missouri on the road is a "bad" loss). It was a disappointing loss, but Colorado is 17-2 at home, and it is at altitude.

    You are either a troll who just likes to provoke, or you are a truly unintelligent person.

  4. #4
    any conference loss when the conference is as bad as the pac12 is this year is a bad loss. take away the missouri loss, 6 bad losses, we still have no significant wins.

  5. #5
    Lot of idiotic posts happening right now..I'll come back later.

  6. #6
    "They are, however, likely to get a match up against a 1 or a 2 in the second game."

    Before we start worrying about a hypothetical opponent in the second round of the NCAA tournament, let's first worry about getting into the tournament and second, winning our first round game. Neither of these is a given at this point. If we lose at Stanfurd we may not get into the tournament.

  7. #7
    Come back when you are not a caricature of a post-loss poster.

    I consider winning at Seattle a quality win. We have no bad losses except at OSU/WSU and they aren't horrible since road games.

    Obviously, that was a pretty poor performance today, and we're by no means a great team, but I don't understand why we have to go through this every time we lose a game. We won 6 in a row, as I recall, previously.

  8. #8

    take a few moments to reflect

    on what you are going to post, Diva or CHF, or anyone else. Posting after a tough loss is never a good idea, but if after an hour or so, you still feel that way, put it up on the board

  9. #9
    Calm down. Losing at CU isn't the end of the world. As bad as the PAC is this year, there's still a chance the conference gets 4 teams in.

  10. #10
    The minute I saw Furd beat Colorado the other night I knew we'd be in trouble since they would be pi---d. We still have a chance at the #1 seed plus a week off to regroup.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by diva1 View Post
    any conference loss when the conference is as bad as the pac12 is this year is a bad loss. take away the missouri loss, 6 bad losses, we still have no significant wins.
    i saw a graphic the other day that the 5 pac-12 teams with a chance at making the ncaa tourney field are I think a combined 1-18 against top-50 teams (and i think that 1 was arizona's narrow win over cal)

  12. #12
    Jeez, calm down with the negativity. If Cal beats the Furd, we will have gone 14-4 in league, 24-7 overall, been close in almost every game we lost, and have shown resiliency with great coaching. This could knock us down to a #10 seed, which is better than the dreaded 8 or 9. I love this team for how they have played this year, considering the lack of depth...

  13. #13
    the silver lining to this loss is that we're no longer going to be a 8/9 seed but perhaps a 10-13 seed instead. yeah!

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by majorursa View Post
    Jeez, calm down with the negativity. If Cal beats the Furd, we will have gone 14-4 in league, 24-7 overall, been close in almost every game we lost, and have shown resiliency with great coaching. This could knock us down to a #10 seed, which is better than the dreaded 8 or 9. I love this team for how they have played this year, considering the lack of depth...
    I can't believe people are still talking about us as if seeding will matter after watching how we've performed against any decent competition and our conference losses. It doesn't matter whether we have to play a high seed in the second game or not because it would be a miracle if we survived the first game and any seed under 9 makes it even that much more unlikely that we would survive the first game. We're not deep, we struggle against good front lines, athletic teams, teams with quick guards, and teams that play tight aggressive defense. We'd really have to get a perfect matchup just to survive our first round game because there are so many different types of good teams that give us fits.

    If we get any seed at all in the tournament, be grateful and don't whine.

  15. #15

    To be honest

    Quote Originally Posted by CalBeast View Post
    I can't believe people are still talking about us as if seeding will matter after watching how we've performed against any decent competition and our conference losses. It doesn't matter whether we have to play a high seed in the second game or not because it would be a miracle if we survived the first game and any seed under 9 makes it even that much more unlikely that we would survive the first game. We're not deep, we struggle against good front lines, athletic teams, teams with quick guards, and teams that play tight aggressive defense. We'd really have to get a perfect matchup just to survive our first round game because there are so many different types of good teams that give us fits.

    If we get any seed at all in the tournament, be grateful and don't whine.

    This Colorado loss put us back on the bubble. Winning at Stanford becomes imperative! People are talking about seeding when we may not even make it in!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •