Going off Sagarin's "RECENT" numbers for a best estimate of team performance for the season so far:
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2020/conference/

Top Tier (should be ranked)
5. Oregon 90.10
13. Arizona 88.61
18. Stanford 87.52
19 Colorado 87.46

Middle (bubble teams)
43. Washington 82.99
46. Arizona St. 82.61
62. Oregon St. 81.28
68. USC 80.18

Bottom (rebuilding teams)
103. Utah 76.75
125. California 74.99
158. UCLA 73.03
182. Washington St. 70.07

R90 said:

---

Going off Sagarin's "RECENT" numbers for a best estimate of team performance for the season so far:
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2020/conference/

Top Tier (should be ranked)
5. Oregon 90.10
13. Arizona 88.61
18. Stanford 87.52
19 Colorado 87.46

Middle (bubble teams)
43. Washington 82.99
46. Arizona St. 82.61
62. Oregon St. 81.28
68. USC 80.18

Bottom (rebuilding teams)
103. Utah 76.75
125. California 74.99
158. UCLA 73.03
182. Washington St. 70.07

---

Looks about right. Surprised about UCLA.

this is not you're father's ucla
this year's version plays defense

ucla will be higher

If 'Furd finishes in that top tier, the unkempt Jerrod Haase should win Pac 12 Coach of the Year and, especially, National Most-Improved Coach of the Year. Huge "if" though...

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

R90 said:

---

Going off Sagarin's "RECENT" numbers for a best estimate of team performance for the season so far:
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2020/conference/

Top Tier (should be ranked)
5. Oregon 90.10
13. Arizona 88.61
18. Stanford 87.52
19 Colorado 87.46

Middle (bubble teams)
43. Washington 82.99
46. Arizona St. 82.61
62. Oregon St. 81.28
68. USC 80.18

Bottom (rebuilding teams)
103. Utah 76.75
125. California 74.99
158. UCLA 73.03
182. Washington St. 70.07

---

Looks about right. Surprised about UCLA.

---

Well, I guess it takes Sagarin time to put this together, but it is way too early to predict these tiers and individual rankings, based on six or seven games, and half of these teams have played no ranked teams. All of the teams have schedules padded with easy opponents, or based on the high school recruit rankings of roster players, which are about 40% accurate, IMO, based in turn on my spreadsheet of the top 100 recruits for one year and the results of their careers.

In the top tier, I would remove Stanford, and put them in the middle or the 3rd tier. They have yet to play a good team or a ranked team in the preseason, they have lost their best player Okpala, and lost Sharma, the recruits who may replace them are not very highly ranked, and Haase has not been impressive.

I would add Washington to the top tier, as Hopkins did a Cuonzo Martin in landing a fancy recruiting class. They have lost a lot of players, but he's a good coach and now he has a couple top 10 recruits and more ranked players, which may work for the dogs. They already beat #16 Baylor in their first game.

I think ASU stays in the middle tier. They lost to Colorado and they also lost to #7 Virginia by 3 points in the 2nd game of a back to back pair of games. USC lost Boatwright and Aaron, but picked up two top 20 recruits, so the could move up, but I think they stay in the middle tier. SC hasn't played anyone, but they did lose to Temple, who in turn lost to #5 Maryland, by only 7 points. .

I can't see UCLA staying in the bottom tier. They have a few good players, and now maybe a better coach, so they move up to the middle tier. Utah has good coaching, and maybe Cal does, so one or both could move up to the middle tier, abeit not likely. WSU stays in the bottom tier. Ernie Kent is not that bad a coach, and has had success before, so if he could not raise WSU from the cellar, I'm not sure Smith can do it, and do it in his first season. They do have Elleby.

---

Very good analysis. Agree it's way too early

I was surprised to see how good Stanford's offense looks, with good movement off the ball, screens, passing, back cuts

I think this will win them some games and a tough matchup for a young cal defense. I expect we get caught up in a lot of those back cut actions

I think UW's Stewart looks a lot like duke's freshmen big, and you know what he did to us. Hopefully we learned from that

I don't expect we can sneak up on UCLA this year due to better coaching

I always think it's OSU's year with Tinkle, but for what ever reason they under perform compared to my expectation

Oregon is the clear number 1 in the conference

I think WSU will be last

Big C said:

---

If 'Furd finishes in that top tier, the unkempt Jerrod Haase should win Pac 12 Coach of the Year and, especially, National Most-Improved Coach of the Year. Huge "if" though...

---

LOLish and TRUE.

Biggest surprise of the season for me is USC. They haven't looked good even against lower competition and got drilled hard today by Marquette (including giving up 51 to Markus Howard). That roster has a lot of talent. They should absolutely be a top 25ish team. UCLA has been almost as unimpressive though it looks like Jaime Jacquez is a keeper.

Data from 7 games is enough now to give a general idea of where teams stand. It's tempting to look at just the games against strong teams, but each game is a valid datapoint. Cal was looking good 3 games in, after pulling away from two average teams. However, since then we got blown out by two ranked teams and couldn't pull away from 2 weaker ones, showing overall that we're still in the bottom group. Of course any team can improve or decline from here and we have some upside.

Toughest games so far:
(S# = Sagarin ranking)

Top Tier (should be ranked)
5. Oregon 90.10
W 82-74 vs. #13 Memphis, W 71-69 vs. #Seton Hall, L 73-72 vs. #8 Gonzaga, L 78-74 vs. #6 North Carolina

13. Arizona 88.61
W 83-53 vs. S#101 New Mexico St.

18. Stanford 87.52
W 73-54 v. S#38 Oklahoma, L 68-67 S#26 Butler

19 Colorado 87.46
W 81-71 vs. S#48 ASU, W 71-67 vs. S#57 Clemson


Middle (bubble teams)
43. Washington 82.99
W 67-64 vs. #16 Baylor

46. Arizona St. 82.61
L 48-45 vs. #7 Virginia

62. Oregon St. 81.28
W 80-74 vs. S#48 Iowa St.

68. USC 80.18
W 76-66 vs. S#69 Nevada, L 70-61 vs. S#62 Temple, L 101-79 vs. S#54 Marquette

Bottom (rebuilding teams)
103. Utah 76.75
W 73-69 vs. S#65 Minnesota

125. California 74.99
L 87-52 vs. #1 Duke, L 62-45 vs. #22 Texas

158. UCLA 73.03
L 75-62 vs. #3 Michigan St.

182. Washington St. 70.07
L 70-62 vs. S#113 Santa Clara, L 85-77 S#136 vs. Omaha, L 82-71 vs. S#142 Nebraska, L 79-69 vs. S#150 Colorado St.

R90 said:

---

Data from 7 games is enough now to give a general idea of where teams stand. It's tempting to look at just the games against strong teams, but each game is a valid datapoint. Cal was looking good 3 games in, after pulling away from two average teams. However, since then we got blown out by two ranked teams and couldn't pull away from 2 weaker ones, showing overall that we're still in the bottom group. Of course any team can improve or decline from here and we have some upside.

Toughest games so far:
(S# = Sagarin ranking)

Top Tier (should be ranked)
5. Oregon 90.10
W 82-74 vs. #13 Memphis, W 71-69 vs. #Seton Hall, L 73-72 vs. #8 Gonzaga, L 78-74 vs. #6 North Carolina

13. Arizona 88.61
W 83-53 vs. S#101 New Mexico St.

18. Stanford 87.52
W 73-54 v. S#38 Oklahoma, L 68-67 S#26 Butler

19 Colorado 87.46
W 81-71 vs. S#48 ASU, W 71-67 vs. S#57 Clemson


Middle (bubble teams)
43. Washington 82.99
W 67-64 vs. #16 Baylor

46. Arizona St. 82.61
L 48-45 vs. #7 Virginia

62. Oregon St. 81.28
W 80-74 vs. S#48 Iowa St.

68. USC 80.18
W 76-66 vs. S#69 Nevada, L 70-61 vs. S#62 Temple, L 101-79 vs. S#54 Marquette

Bottom (rebuilding teams)
103. Utah 76.75
W 73-69 vs. S#65 Minnesota

125. California 74.99
L 87-52 vs. #1 Duke, L 62-45 vs. #22 Texas

158. UCLA 73.03
L 75-62 vs. #3 Michigan St.

182. Washington St. 70.07
L 70-62 vs. S#113 Santa Clara, L 85-77 S#136 vs. Omaha, L 82-71 vs. S#142 Nebraska, L 79-69 vs. S#150 Colorado St.

---

R90,

I respectfully disagree. I don't think you can tell much of anything from preseason games, except maybe the last couple of games before conference play begins. Coaches are trying out new players, maybe new plays, maybe new defenses. It is a time for evaluating your personnel, your assistant coaches and your system. These games only count in overall record and the RPI, not in what counts, like conference games, and since all teams pad their schedules with weak opponents, you can't tell much about how your players might perform against good teams.

I'll take you back to 1954-5, when Cal started two All-Americans, Bob McKeen and Larry Friend, and finished 8-3 in the preseason, including 2 wins over #11 Ohio State, and a win over #16 Kansas. After the conference games started, Cal won only one game, finishing 1-11 in conference and 9-16 overall. Not many fans expected this after the preseason.

In 1958-9, Cal played a lot of unknown players, and finished 6-2 in the preseason, with a win over #14 St Marys, and losses to #3 Kansas State and #16 St Loius. After the conference season started, Cal would go 14-2 in the PCC, finishing 25-4 overall and win the PCC and win the NCAA. Not many fans expected this after the preseason.

I'd also disagree that the Texas game was a blowout. Cal was within range until they cut the Texas lead to 9, with 5 minutes to play. At that point the game could have gone either way, but Texas ran away with it. I think many Cal players just got tired and the 4 games in 9 days caught up to them on the road in NYC. Cal shot 36% for the game, 12% on threes, 60% on FTs. That is usually tired legs. It is probably safe to predict that Cal won't shoot this poorly for the rest of the season.

I think a better measure of where the teams might finish is a few games into the conference season. Let's look at it then, and then later look at how they finished. Maybe you can convince me then of Mr Sagarin's predictions after just 7 games.

Stanford routed Oklahoma who was unbeaten.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Biggest surprise of the season for me is USC. They haven't looked good even against lower competition and got drilled hard today by Marquette (including giving up 51 to Markus Howard). That roster has a lot of talent. They should absolutely be a top 25ish team. UCLA has been almost as unimpressive though it looks like Jaime Jacquez is a keeper.

---

You're probably correct about U$C. But can Enfield actually coach defense?

BTW1: Markus Howard just had a hot game. He only put up 40 against Davidson.
BTW2: Rakosevic played only 15 minutes before fouling out and will put up 25 & 10 (at least) against CAL.

caltagjohnson said:

---

Stanford routed Oklahoma who was unbeaten.

---

That is true, but Oklahoma hadn't played any good teams prior to playing Stanford. And Cal was unbeaten prior to playing Duke. It was billed as "The Battle of the Unbeatens."

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I'll take you back to 1954-5, when Cal.....

---

---

Nobody is forcing you to read what SFCityBear writes. We're lucky to have someone who brings a historical Cal perspective to this board, because the alternative is far less interesting. You're pretty rude. If you don't like him, put him on ignore.

When Grandpa tells stories about The War at the Thanksgiving dinner table, I bet you're the one staring at your phone...

---

Thanks, Chapman_is_Gone.

Actually, I suspect Pete may be older than I am, based on his handle here, Pigskin Pete. The first rugby ball was made of a pig bladder, way back in 1855. The early footballs were similarly made, and thus the nickname, "pigskin" became a slang term for football, but that was not until 1894. By then, footballs were no longer made of a pig's bladder, but were made of cowhide or vulcanized rubber, which had been invented in 1844. Today, NFL and college footballs are all made of cowhide and the footballs used for youth or recreational sports are made of vulcanized rubber or some synthetic materials. (References available upon request).

It has been said that if you don't study the mistakes of the past, you are doomed to repeat them. So it seems that Pigskin Pete has chosen a screen handle that represents a past from football played in the late 1800's, much earlier than any era I have personal experience with. It is ancient compared the 1950's and 1960's in the Bay Area, about which I often post. I am sure some coaches in the 1950s studied the great coaches like Andy Smith to learn from them. No doubt Pigskin Pete could teach me all about 19th century football, which I'd like to learn from him, but instead he chooses to trash me for using examples from a more recent time, the 1950s and 1960s, as somehow not applicable in any way to today's sports of football and basketball. How ironic.