PDA

View Full Version : Bill Raftery says GU a sleeper in NYTimes



lothar98zag
03-13-2009, 10:51 AM
Looks like GU is being "overlooked" by fewer an fewer experts this week...

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/raftery-likes-pitt-unc-oklahoma-and-gonzaga/


Hopefully the players don't revert back to how they were thinking after Orlando, the last time they were getting praise like this - speaking publicly about going undefeated, etc...

UberZagFan
03-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Can a potential 4 seed be a "sleeper"? Hmm...maybe so. But it's not that rare that a 4 or below makes the final four....is it?

Zag4Hire
03-13-2009, 12:07 PM
Can a potential 4 seed be a "sleeper"? Hmm...maybe so. But it's not that rare that a 4 or below makes the final four....is it?

Lots of great info and history here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/history/

Interesting note: The success of 10 seeds reaching the regional finals including Gonzaga in 1999 is pretty impressive.

Seeds in the Final Four
Year Seeds Teams
2008 1, 1, 1, 1 Kansas, Memphis, North Carolina, UCLA
2007 1, 1, 2, 2 Florida, Ohio State, Georgetown, UCLA
2006 2, 3, 4, 11 UCLA, Florida, LSU, George Mason
2005 1, 1, 4, 5 North Carolina, Illinois, Louisville, Michigan State
2004 1, 2, 2, 3 Duke, Connecticut, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech
2003 1, 2, 3, 3 Texas, Kansas, Marquette, Syracuse
2002 1, 1, 2, 5 Maryland, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana
2001 1, 1, 2, 3 Duke, Michigan State, Arizona, Maryland
2000 1, 5, 8, 8 Michigan State, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin
1999 1, 1, 1, 4 Connecticut, Duke, Michigan State, Ohio State
1998 1, 2, 3, 3 North Carolina, Kentucky, Stanford, Utah
1997 1, 1, 1, 4 Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Arizona
1996 1, 1, 4, 5 Kentucky, Massachusetts, Syracuse, Mississippi State
1995 1, 2, 2, 4 UCLA, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma State
1994 1, 2, 2, 3 Arkansas, Arizona, Duke, Florida
1993 1, 1, 1, 2 North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan, Kansas
1992 1, 2, 4, 6 Duke, Indiana, Cincinnati, Michigan
1991 1, 1, 2, 3 UNLV, North Carolin, Duke, Kansas
1990 1, 3, 4, 4 UNLV, Duke, Georgia Tech, Arkansas
1989 1, 2, 3, 3 Illinois, Duke, Seton Hall, Michigan
1988 1, 1, 2, 6 Arizona, Oklahoma, Duke, Kansas
1987 1, 1, 2, 6 UNLV, Indiana, Syracuse, Providence
1986 1, 1, 2, 11 Duke, Kansas, Louisville, LSU
1985 1, 1, 2, 8 St. John's, Georgetown, Memphis, Villanova
1984 1, 1, 2, 7 Kentucky, Georgetown, Houston, Virginia
1983 1, 1, 4, 6 Houston, Louisville, Georgia, N.C. State
1982 1, 1, 3, 6 North Carolina, Georgetown, Louisville, Houston
1981 1, 1, 2, 3 Virginia, LSU, North Carolina, Indiana
1980 2, 5, 6, 8 Louisville, Iowa, Purdue, UCLA
1979 1, 2, 2, 9 Indiana State, Michigan State, DePaul, Pennsylvania

UberZagFan
03-13-2009, 12:38 PM
So in the last 10 years, 9 out of 40 FF teams were seeded 4 or lower and that includes the fluke year of 2000 where a 5 and 2 8s made it. Doing the quick math, that's about a 1 in 4 chance, or in other words 25%. That's not too bad. Unless you look at it the other way: 1-3 seeds have a 75% chance of making it.

MDABE80
03-13-2009, 12:43 PM
Great list. Thanx for posting it. Sorta puts thingsin perspective regarding how amazing the 99 team was. Just 1 possession and a few ticks and we woul dhave beenin the FF. This present team should get there with a bit of luck. Looks to me like they've finally grown a heart. Looks like they believe they should win. This matters. Get tough guys.....

krozman
03-13-2009, 01:06 PM
Any team projected by seeding to make the sweet 16 can't be a sleeper IMO.

KROZMAN'S RANKINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED IN ALL FUTURE DISCUSSIONS!

Seeds 1-4: Non Sleeper. Competitor for National Champion.
5 seed: "Sleeper" to lose to a 12 seed.
6-9: Traditional "Sleeper" to make a deep run to final 4.
10-13: Cinderella definition applies post sweet 16.
14-16: Cinderella definition applies with any win.

MotoZag
03-13-2009, 01:51 PM
Rafferty also likes Oklahoma, which incidentally makes me disregard anything he could say. Oklahoma is an overhyped BCS school that is in a conference a little better than the Big 12. There are several individually talented players in the the Big 10, but not one of the teams will make the Elite 8 imo. I know it's a stern opinion, but I've watched 20-25 games involving the these schools and am not impressed really. Kansas has the best shot to go deep.

JohnOGU
03-13-2009, 02:14 PM
Rafferty also likes Oklahoma, which incidentally makes me disregard anything he could say. Oklahoma is an overhyped BCS school that is in a conference a little better than the Big 10. There are several individually talented players in the the Big 10, but not one of the teams will make the Elite 8 imo. I know it's a stern opinion, but I've watched 20-25 games involving the these schools and am not impressed really. Kansas has the best shot to go deep.

I agree with you on the Big12, however i do think Missouri is the team that has the best chance of doing something. Oklahoma and Kansas have been over-rated all year in my opinion. I feel that rankings and such have been determined off of teams that have one really good player. St. Mary's being the prime example.

MotoZag
03-13-2009, 09:19 PM
I agree with you on the Big12, however i do think Missouri is the team that has the best chance of doing something. Oklahoma and Kansas have been over-rated all year in my opinion. I feel that rankings and such have been determined off of teams that have one really good player. St. Mary's being the prime example.

I seem to have had a memory lapse, because I agree with you about Missouri. I only go for a team like Kansas because they remind me of our guys, which I'm not sure why of yet. With St. Mary's, another agreement, but I think Simpson could be a starter with solid minutes at any school. Samhan is just opportunistic and feeds off of Simpson's play with rebounds and dishes. Put him alone in the paint and he looks like a lost puppy.

Also, I followed the link and Raftery toned down his Gonzaga prediction quite a bit by simply saying that we have potential, more or less. After all of the comments he had earlier today with people denouncing him as any kind of analyst and that he should "stick to football", they took all of the comments off.