Maybe UCSB's Defeat at UNC Wasn't That Bad

I forgot to mention this in my earlier post, so a second post goes to mention this. Chances are that if you're reading this blog, you already know what I'm going to mention.

For those of you who don't know (or just emerged from your cave yesterday), UNC beat Nevada-Reno 106-70. To recap, UNC beat UCSB 105-70. In other words, Nevada lost to UNC by 1 more point than UCSB did.

I don't know what this means, but I thought I would point it out. Maybe UCSB's loss wasn't that bad. OK, it was bad, but this makes it hurt (and seem) not as bad. After all, Ken Pomeroy gives UNR an RPI of 57, which is about 1,500 higher than UCSB's RPI. This gives us a good barometer to measure our team by. Nevada is 7-5 and we're going to end up having more than a couple common opponents.

Both of us will end up playing UCI, UNLV, Pacific, Montana St. and UNC.

Nevada has lost to UNLV, Pacific and UNC. We beat UNLV, lost to UNC and we're going to beat Pacific.

UCSB is going to beat UCI bad (both times) and we both beat Montana St (but we beat them by more).

Generally, I think people hold Nevada in high esteem as a decent mid major. If they lose to UNC by 36 and we lose to them by 35, I think we're looking good (I can't really say this with a straight face). I know this is a slightly ridiculous argument because the difference between 35 and 36 comes down to semantics, but damnit, it matters to me!