Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!srt
From: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.hoops
Subject: Re: Pac-10 weakest conference?
Message-ID: <4432@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 21:29:09 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.4432
Posted: Wed Mar 20 21:29:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 04:49:29 EST
References: <4337@ucla-cs.ARPA> <479@spp2.UUCP>
Reply-To: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 29
Summary: 

In article <479@spp2.UUCP> kovalsky@spp2.UUCP (Bruce Kovalsky) writes:
>
>Scott, although UCLA did kill Montana, a mediocre team at best, you did neglect
>to mention that ALL 4 teams that finished above UCLA in the Pac-10 (USC, 
>Washington, Oregon St. & Arizona) LOST in the first round of the NCAA tourney,
>where the REAL teams play.

Right you are.  Allow me to mention it:  USC, Washington, Oregon St. and
Arizona all lost early in the NCAAs.

>And you can't call me a West Coast hater since I went to school at UCLA and
>Cal.

Oh yes I can.  You West Coast hater!

>Face it, the Pac-10 just didn't have it this year. As far as the strongest
>conferences this year, after Round 2 of the NCAA's you don't have to look very
>far to see that both the ACC and Big East still have 4 teams remaining in the
>tournament. I'd say it is a toss up between those 2 conferences.
>

Right you are.  I was just pointing out, that, weak as the Pac-10 is, the
Big Sky Conference is weaker.  And, as a side-light, I don't think UCLA
is as weak (now) as the NCAA committee thought it was.  They improved a lot
toward the end of the season and played one of the toughest non-conference
schedules west of the Mississipi (DePaul, St. Johns, etc., etc.), which
contributed to their poor record.

					-- Scott