as proof that this blog is reaching a wider audience, i received a comment from someone clearly not a Bruin fan. regarding my critique of Seth Davis, an anonymous poster wrote the following:

Where's the retraction on Seth Davis now that your Bruins disgraced themselves and had their asses handed to them in the 1st round? Davis was the only analyst who flat out pick the Alabama upset. He picked the exact final four a few years back - google him and you'll see it - before the first game began. Read "the sports guy" at espn.com's comments on Davis being unreal in his opinions and predictions. Wake up and ride the bandwagon of the Next Nantz.

Hmmm, where to begin? Let's start with this: losing to a higher-seeded, more experienced Texas Tech team is hardly a disgrace, especially considering that the Red Raiders made it to the Big-12 Championship game and have advanced to the Sweet 16 by beating a very good Gonzaga team.

Moving along, my initial complaint with Davis was that in his bubbleology article, he picked ten teams more likely to make the tourney than UCLA, one of which was a Notre Dame team that the Bruins had just beaten in South Bend. of those ten teams, four did not make the tourney, while of course, UCLA did. So clearly Davis was flat-out wrong with this list.

And my main issue with his comment on the Bruins was his devaluation and apparent lack of understanding of the RPI. He felt the Bruins' RPI was "inflated" because we played (and lost to) good teams. How can the RPI be inflated by measuring exactly what it is intended to measure, i.e. the strength of opposition you faced while compiling your season record? This was, and is, complete nonsense. The RPI is not perfect, but as I've said before, it captures in one number many of the factors considered by the selection committee. That is why, according to Ken Pomeroy at the end of this entry from his blog, if you had picked the at-larges in order of RPI, you would have only gotten three picks wrong.

As far as Davis being the "Next Nance", I never knew that Nance was the standard to which college hoops analysts try to achieve. I do know that despite your claim, Davis wasn't the only one picking Alabama to lose in the first round: see this article by Tim Keown at ESPN.com, items 10, 11, 40, and 41. You'll see that Keown also picked UW-Milwaukee as the most likely darkhorse to reach the Sweet 16.

Finally, it seems a tad gutless of you to come on here and post AFTER the Bruins lose. if you really think Davis is such a genius, then where were you before the brackets came out? At least have the courage to say something before the Texas Tech game, while the outcome is still an unknown. I have a feeling had the Bruins managed to get lucky and pull out a W in the first round, we never would have heard from you.

In any event, and I am very serious about this, I appreciate hearing an opposing point of view. As fans (and as people), it is easy for us to interpret objective facts in a way that reinforces what we want to believe. There are certain things that I believe, including that the UCLA basketball program is on its way to recovery and there exists an East Coast bias from media knuckleheads like Seth Davis. It's good for me to be reminded every now and then that these are not irrefutable truths, so if someone wants to present an intelligent argument counter to what I believe, I'll do my best to listen. So yes, I do want to hear others' opinions, even if they're wrong different than mine. :)