west coast bias
im curious with all you east coast bball fans, is there a west coast bias or are we just being insecure out here? Becuase we feel like our basketball in the pac 10 does not get the right amount of respect around the nation. I can tell you right now, acc, big east, sec, big 10 and big 12 basketball is on non stop out here and we see plenty of it. ESPN and all the sports networks shove it down our throats. Do you get PAC 10 coverage every day? Do you have the chance to see all the pac 10 teams at least a half dozen times a year?
Is the west coast slept on, or is it becasue the west coast ball just aint that good?
I know me personnally i grew up in chicago with the Big Ten and I never really saw or was that interested in the pac-10 the only time I really remember watching the pac-10 was during the tournament. Everything comes on too late out there nobody wants to stay up late to watch a pac-10 game thats just my opinion. Now I live on the west coast and I get too much pac-10. And you also have to realize ESPN is based on the east coast so they are gonna cater to the region that they are in.
undarstandable. My point is not to defend the pac 10, i just honestly want to hear if people on this site get the same amount of pac 10 coverage as they do all the other conferences. Becuase we get plenty of of coverage from the other big 6 conferences out here.
When ESPN does put them on its always like a 10:15 tip or something like that, and I'm not going to stay up til midnight or later to watch arizona play usc, I just dont care that much about those teams, but to answer your question, yeah the pac 10 is on atleast 8 or 9 times a year. And like Chicago said, ESPN is based in the east coast in Conn. so of course they're going to jam UCONN bball and the rest of the big east down your throats.
Yeah I have to force myself to stay up to watch Pac-10 games because they start late at night. Last year I didn't watch the Pac-10 too much because the conference was worse than a few of the mid-major conferences, and lacked good teams. I still watch enough college basketball to hold an educated conversation about just about every single high-major team and a good bit of the mid-majors too, but last year no one was going to go out of their way to watch a Pac-10 game because the conference was very weak on top of the games starting late.
It is usually referred to as an East Coast bias, and I mostly found it prevalent in college football rather than basketball. With college basketball, the worst thing that can happen is them thinking your conference is weak and maybe giving you a lower seed than you deserve. As a fellow Pac-10 follower and fan, I think you and I both know that last year, that was actually the case. We were bad enough to be considered mid-majors, it was just a very bad season where basically, every team underachieved. Cal and Washington were both expected to make the tournament, and did, but both had disappointing seasons. Every single team had numerous horrible non-conference losses, Oregon beat Washington at home, and as a Ducks alum and fan, I was shocked. I know UW at least made it to the Sweet 16 with their upset over New Mexico and loss to eventual Final Four team West Virginia, and Cal did beat Louisville and lost to Duke, but those were positives on an otherwise terribly down year. Neither team deserved a higher seed really, just look over their records and teams they played. Had either of them dominated conference, and maybe scored at least one big non-conference win, than maybe it would be otherwise, but it just did not happen. You can highlight that Cal and UW played some good teams non-conference, but they lost to good teams. ASU, who finished with usually a more than respectable 12-6 record in conference, lost to every good non-conference team they played and every team they beat would have to be described as a cupcake. To add insult to injury in their NCAA hopes, they lost to a mediocre Stanford team (even with Landry Fields being what should have been Pac-10 player of the year, it was a down year in Palo Alto) and than lost in the first round of the NIT. USC of course was hit by the OJ Mayo/Renardo Sidney weirdness and the loss of the brilliant Tim Floyd (sarcasm). Arizona lost Lute, and UCLA had numerous player issues and a less than stellar recruiting class that underachieved. Washington St. lost Tony Bennett and have yet to recover, even with Klay Thompson putting up big numbers. My Ducks, well, they at least finished with more than 2 conference wins, but were still really weak, and after the Beavers won the CBI last year, they definitely did not build on anything.
So, while I too love to go on about how the West Coast gets no love, I found that we really did not win a lot this past year. We lost numerous recruits to the NBA and when it was found that USC was, gasp, giving people money to play basketball at their school, than that ended that programs resurgence for a while. I think Kevin O'Neill will build a solid program, but he will not be getting the high profile one and dones that will be making programs very dangerous. I am not saying you need one and dones to win, that is usually not the case, but I am saying that they certainly can help teams out, and have definitely helped teams in the Pac-10. Kevin Love gave the Pac-10 the best chance of winning a title in years as Pac-10 player of the year. I mean, every recruiting class the Pac-10 has gotten the past couple years has been filled with less than the top national talent, this year having more sleepers than 2009-10. But as of right now, the Pac-10 has to be in resurgence mode. They had a number of huge changes that went on with Lute leaving Arizona and Ben Howland losing numerous first round picks without John Calipari-ing it up in 2009. The USC thing certainly hurt the conference, and I will say again Calipari did not help any by jacking two major recruits from UW, though you cannot totally blame him for wanting those guys, or those guys for wanting to play for a coach who just had 5 players go in the first round. The Pac-10 has gone through a very rough spell, and to overcome the fact that most East Coast journalists can not stay up late enough to watch our games, we need to make them pay attention. I thought we might have been the best conference a few short years ago, but last year, we were the worst of the major conferences, and truly only deserved our two semi-successful bids.
So what can we as a conference do to turn it around? I think expansion is going to be beneficial, it gives us a higher profile, and if we did become the Pac-16, our basketball program would rival the Big East and get all of us definite attention. But, with the addition of Utah and Colorado, we are getting two schools who should boost our name as far as basketball. Colorado is an up and comer, and Utah has been an NCAA mainstay for years. Adding more schools gives you a wider base for recruiting, and it should benefit Utah and Colorado as well as other Pac-12 teams. I think this year Stanford got itself a class that will turn them around, and their were numerous coaching changes that will lead to positive effects. Romar has turned UW into a recruiting powerhouse, despite the UK departures, and Mike Montgomery has made Cal a player. I have big expectations for Dana Altman, who will be given every chance imaginable to make Oregon the basketball team they should be. He has Uncle Phil on his side, and I am hearing he has some nice connects. Even Oregon St, after their somewhat down 2009, should be money as long as Craig Obama, I mean Robinson, stays coach. Sean Miller at Arizona just needs time, but they should blow up, and Kevin O'Neill was a great fit for USC. Herb Sendek, last years Pac-10 coach of the year, has done a GREAT job at ASU, and that should continue. The Pac-10 is due for a much better season, and that is what they need to overturn an East Coast bias. If our teams start winning big non-conference games, even a few, than that will only make our conference look better if their is the parity that happened last year. Improvement will be gradual, but we have to improve before talking about us being hurt by an East Coast Bias. I think a goal for the Pac-10 this year would be 4 NCAA teams, one of which will be UW, and maybe the others being ASU, UCLA and Arizona. Might be a slightly worse year for Cal, but they should be back the next year, and Stanford should make serious noise in the future. If the Pac-10 starts winning back major recruits from the west coast and maybe lands a few other big names, this conference should be back full force and hard to ignore. They just have to have a couple teams that maintain through a whole year, meaning do well in and out of conference and than make a little noise in the tourney. Easier said than done, but it has to be the goal to beat the bias.
Now, with football, where this bias is much more existent, it can only be beaten by continuing to win big non-conference games and than, WINNING BOWL GAMES. I thought we had a great conference last year, but we died in the bowl games, Stanford giving us our only win. It seems we constantly get screwed by the BCS, but the only way to show them we truly got screwed is by winning the bowl we are supposedly better than. It has happened to Oregon once when we won Fiesta when we got skipped over for Rose, but than Cal and Oregon have both been supposedly passed over for major BCS games in those coming years only to lose our lesser bowl games. This past year, when we finally did make it to the Rose Bowl, we unfortunately lose to a Big-10 team who had lost to two schools we had beaten. It seems frustrating as a Pac-10 fan that our conference does not get more love other than USC in football and UCLA in basketball, but we have to show and prove. When we do that, than the East Coast can no longer over look our schools on the West.
We dont get many pac-10 games here in the south. I think Fox Sports South shows the most of them and like Jnixon says you have to stay up late to catch them
i agree. when i was living out east i noticed the pac10 games didnt come on till late and if you already dont watch the pac10 much youre not really gonna stay up late to watch a them unless theres some superstar or big time freshmen playing.
Where I'm at(Central Oklahoma) basketball isn't as large as on the coasts and the smaller stations, like foxsports southwest only play local games(big 12, occassional big 10). So, i'm only watching games on ESPN,2, or ESPNU, and from what i've seen, the eastern teams are favored, but with reason, because even if USC or Arizona play as well as Duke or UNC, the ACC teams are more marketable and will draw a larger audience based upon name recognition(most people see Duke in a headline and pause for atleast a little while). The weird thing to me is the large amount of big ten games that I see. Honestly, i understand a bias by ESPN to the coastal conferences, but i don't see the appeal of the big ten. It usually seems like they try to play off of the "rivalries" in the Big Ten, and to me, as a true basketball fan, I don't care that much about Wisconsin vs. OSU. In that case, I would rather watch a Pac-Ten game..
few things, it should be pointed out the pac deserved to be slept on last year. That was the worst i have ever seen the conference. I do think washington got a little to slept on and that landry fields as a player got too slept on for the type of year he had. But otherwise, the conference sucked big time.
I do think it will bounce back starting this year. I think there are 5 teams capable of getting in the tournament(wash, ucla, ariz, ariz st, wash st). A lot of teams are very young and have new coaches who just recently took over.
At the end of the day, the pac 10 has not won a national championship this decade and thats a big reason for people not giving it a ton of respect.
give the pac10 2 years and they will be a real force. they got alot of fresmen with talent coming in. the type of players that arent one and dones but close to it and that will develope to become all america type players