PDA

View Full Version : UNC's best game



cggonzaga
03-28-2009, 10:27 PM
I've watched quite a few Tarheel games this year and have family that live there and attended the university. I think what some don't realize around here is that was the best game UNC has played all year hands down. They would've beat put that beating on anyone two nights ago. My hat is off to them but in no way was that a representation of them being that much better than us. I know people around here don't believe our talent level is close to some of the premier teams in the country but it's really not that far off. Again, UNC would've beaten any team in the country that bad a couple nights ago.

cbbfanatic
03-28-2009, 10:32 PM
i think the S16 round really separated the top tier from the next tier in college bball this year, on a talent level.

GU was solid, but im pretty sure theyre not better than any of the teams that moved on to the elite 8, from a talent perspective. no shame in that.

unc isnt the only team that woulda knocked out the zags in round 3, in my opinion. there were some very dominating performances to get from 16 to 8, a whole different level

cggonzaga
03-28-2009, 10:41 PM
I honestly do not believe any of the elite 8 teams are significantly more talented than us. What I do believe is this, those teams all play with much more passion and desire. I've been saying this since half way through the year but I can't wait to see next year's team play because while we may not be as talented I think that group will play much harder and tougher. It's already very clear to me that Meech and Rob will be the leaders of next year's team and you've got to love their fire!

Take this as some of you will but I would really love to see a more fiery side of Mark Few next year. Just watch every coach in the elite 8 this year and you'll see what I mean.

cbbfanatic
03-28-2009, 10:52 PM
I honestly do not believe any of the elite 8 teams are significantly more talented than us. What I do believe is this, those teams all play with much more passion and desire. I've been saying this since half way through the year but I can't wait to see next year's team play because while we may not be as talented I think that group will play much harder and tougher. It's already very clear to me that Meech and Rob will be the leaders of next year's team and you've got to love their fire!

Take this as some of you will but I would really love to see a more fiery side of Mark Few next year. Just watch every coach in the elite 8 this year and you'll see what I mean.

you dont believe ANY of them are more talented?

do you watch the games? (thats an honest question, btw)

rawkmandale
03-28-2009, 11:37 PM
Well, we played UConn to an overtime game on a neutral floor, and I do believe they are in the Final Four. So, yes - I think Gonzaga matches up on a talent level. UNC was hotter than a firecracker against us - it happens sometimes. Too many early turnovers were also a factor.

Saxon_zag
03-28-2009, 11:40 PM
you dont believe ANY of them are more talented?

do you watch the games? (thats an honest question, btw)

I believe we have more individual talent than

missouri and nova for sure.. but like some have said the team never equaled the sum of it's parts

B Wayne
03-28-2009, 11:55 PM
Get real

Everyone is "hot" against us.

Paddy Mills was "hot" against us

Dominguez of PSU was "hot" against us

WKU was "hot" against us.

And so on (utah, arizona for example)

And UConn played us in Seattle, not a neutral court

And the easiest thing to say , and a cliche, out of a biased hometown lens, is that the sum of our parts doesn't equal the whole. Probably without a true center, the sum of our parts has a hole (not to be confused with a whole) and really is equal to our whole end result. After all we have an excellent coaching staff. A succesful team in basketball, and in any sport has to have balance, not just talent at certain positions.

And to say the team wasn't "ready", or "into the game" or "focused" against NC or Memphis is just candy coated fan speak and defies all logic. Of course those kids were trying their best, psyched and ready. Maybe those teams were just better than us. Sometimes we overcomplicate things to fufill our needs as fan(atics).

Saxon_zag
03-29-2009, 12:18 AM
Get real

Everyone is "hot" against us.

Paddy Mills was "hot" against us

Dominguez of PSU was "hot" against us

WKU was "hot" against us.

And so on (utah, arizona for example)

And UConn played us in Seattle, not a neutral court

And the easiest thing to say , and a cliche, out of a biased hometown lens, is that the sum of our parts doesn't equal the whole. Probably without a true center, the sum of our parts has a hole (not to be confused with a whole) and really is equal to our whole end result. After all we have an excellent coaching staff. A succesful team in basketball, and in any sport has to have balance, not just talent at certain positions.

And to say the team wasn't "ready", or "into the game" or "focused" against NC or Memphis is just candy coated fan speak and defies all logic. Of course those kids were trying their best, psyched and ready. Maybe those teams were just better than us. Sometimes we overcomplicate things to fufill our needs as fan(atics).

They were hot.. what else would you like to call it?

Hot is hot even though i know we can't seem to guard the 3 ball (that doesn't pertain to wku, can't guard 26 foot turnarounds much better than we did)

The players themselves said they weren't ready for that memphis game looking back on it.

I'll agree we had a "hole" but still with the talent we had, we had 0 wins against a team that ended the season in the top 25 and that should not have happened with the talent on this team

Nevtelen
03-29-2009, 05:10 AM
IMO, the UNC game came down to a lack of rebounding and bad shots. After a bad start, the team let UNC run away with the game by taking lots of 3s and not getting enough rebounds. As soon as we put up a shot (way too many quick 3s), bang, they were off in transtion. The Zags haven't been good at guarding the 3 in transition all season.

While I do think GU could have beat some of the teams that made it to the EE (despite appearances, I think we could have beat Pitt, for example), most of the teams in the EE did just have better/more talent, especially depth-wise. After the starters, GU just didn't have enough quality back-ups to compensate for foul trouble/an off night. Most other teams in the EE did. Games don't always come down to raw talent (G Mason, anyone?), but having lots of talent gives a team a MUCH better chance.

bartruff1
03-29-2009, 05:26 AM
Every team in the EE weighs 600lbs more than Gonzaga !!!

cbbfanatic
03-29-2009, 07:57 AM
I believe we have more individual talent than

missouri and nova for sure.. but like some have said the team never equaled the sum of it's parts

disagree wholeheartedly. villanova and missouri both have serious talent, the fact that espn didnt talk them up all year is meaningless to that end.

i guess it all depends on how you define talent though, i mean, do you want these guys to have a 3 pt or free throw shooting contest? dribbling between the legs? what?

i want to know how you define talent to where you get to the conclusion that gonzaga is more talented than a team like villanova.

and come on people, stop referencing the uconn game. great teams get pushed to the brink frequently - it doesnt mean that the opposition would play them that way every time out (see memphis - who wasnt even THAT good this year, and UNC), AND that was in december. great teams change a lot from december to march. if i am going to look at this years GU season and reference any individual "solid" wins, i am looking at ok st (nov), tennx2 (nov/dec) and st marysx3 (jan-) and to be honest, looking at that makes me think that GU should feel fortunate for a 4 seed close to home and that they avoided what would have been two serious upsets to get to the sweet 16, though WKU really came to play in that game and could have upset a number of teams with that performance.

i think there is a lot of reality that people are avoiding here, and i dont ever want to hear about teams at the end of the season building their resume on losses... by this time in the year there should be plenty of quality WINS to look at.

NotoriousZ
03-29-2009, 08:59 AM
UNC was more athletic. And that WAS their best game of the season. Every single other team would have lost to them also that night. It's really dissapointing that we didn't fare better, we could have played tighter D on the perimeter, but UNC played up to the hype of the beginning of the season when everyone said they could go undefeated. I honestly believe we could have made it to the final four if they were in another region. If Carolina doesn't win it all, it will be because of their play, not the other team's.

cbbfanatic
03-29-2009, 09:22 AM
all of north carolinas losses this year came to teams that couldnt make it out of the first round of the tourney. and we saw what happened to acc tourney champion duke in the tourney...

the acc was weak this year, and while carolina is very talented, they certainly have not been far and away the best team in college ball this year.

i believe that there are teams out there that could do a lot to derail this unc team. they are soft and play very little defense. a team that brings intensity, heart and defense will give them fits

i think some of you are (understandably) overhyping UNC here because the zags lost to them

BobZag
03-29-2009, 09:34 AM
We'll soon see.

B Wayne
03-29-2009, 10:11 AM
I agree with Cbb that this year there was a big separation between the top 8 teams and the rest of the tournament teams.

Conversely, there was much less a separation after about the 3 or 4 seeds down to the 12 seeds.

Which is too bad, we didn't see a Cinderella dance this year. Last year was much the same with 4 #1 seeds in the finals. I'm not sure why this is happening.

We lost to Memphis by 18 and NC by 22. Akron (#13) played us more competively than we played either Memphis or NC. And WKU (#12) even more so.

When we win games by 18 or 22, say over Portland or Santa Clara, many on this board described it as the Zags just being the better team. No one here said "If Santa Clara had defended the 3 better, they would have beat us" of "If Portland had rebounded better they would have beat us"..instead we just say we have a better team.

Now I'm sure if you went to a Portland or SCU board forum, after a loss to GU, one would find saying things like "Too many turnovers, if we had less, we would have won" or "Our guys just weren't in the game"

Let's not forget talent level means talent at all positions, and on all aspects of the game. The last few years Phoenix Suns fans thought there team had so much talent! What does talent mean? Are you just looking at cool dribbling between the legs, or are you including passing, playing defense, and at all positions?

Or in football, fans of a team with an explosive passing attack may talk about all their talent and their fans might believe the sum of the parts doesn't equal the whole.. Well the great teams in football have balance aka talent as to all facets of the game...a good running game..a good passing game...a good defense. The same goes for baseball with pitching, offense and defense (fielding)


I believe we have an excellent coaching staff and they got everything they could out of the talent level we have, keeping in mind all positions, and all features of the game

JosephZags
03-29-2009, 10:34 AM
I believe we have more individual talent than

missouri and nova for sure.. but like some have said the team never equaled the sum of it's parts

Nova has something silly like four or five McDonald's All Americans.

cggonzaga
03-29-2009, 12:36 PM
you dont believe ANY of them are more talented?

do you watch the games? (thats an honest question, btw)

CBB please go back and read what I wrote. I said none of the teams were "significantly more talented than us". That would mean that there are teams more talented but just not by much. Again, this time of year comes down to who wants it more. That would be why Villanova beat Pitt and MSU beat Louisville. Nobody would say those teams have better talent than who they beat. They won those games because they simply played harder and weren't going to be denied. Just like our 98' elite 8 team and the George Mason team from a few years ago.

Saxon_zag
03-29-2009, 12:46 PM
Nova has something silly like four or five McDonald's All Americans.

WHen i think talent in a college team i think players that can play at the next level. When picking your bracket in the past decade or so it has shown to have the best results to choose teams with the most "nba talent"

Villanova might have there AA's but like has been said before. Kids aren't going to Duke, unc, ucla or another major school because they are mcdonalds all americans, they are mcdonalds all americans because they are going to those schools. Highly political

On top of that the only player from nova that is going to be drafted in the next 2 years is cunningham.. and even he will be taken after josh

cbbfanatic
03-29-2009, 12:49 PM
CBB please go back and read what I wrote. I said none of the teams were "significantly more talented than us". That would mean that there are teams more talented but just not by much. Again, this time of year comes down to who wants it more. That would be why Villanova beat Pitt and MSU beat Louisville. Nobody would say those teams have better talent than who they beat. They won those games because they simply played harder and weren't going to be denied. Just like our 98' elite 8 team and the George Mason team from a few years ago.

i would agree that UofL, MSU, PITT and NOVA could all beat each other on any given day, i was saying earlier that the elite 8 teams really separated themselves from the sweet 16, round of 32, 65, NIT etc teams. just watching those games, the winners looked like they were on a different level. maybe its talent, maybe its coaching, playing harder etc. (i personally think playing hard all the time is part of talent though).

i guess i am confused about how some people around here define talent, because ive heard all year about how talented this GU team was, and i didnt really buy into it. and the body of work this season didnt do anything at all to change that opinion of mine. doesnt mean i think they stink, but like ive said before, talentwise a borderline top 25 team - which is no unimpressive achievement really.

cbbfanatic
03-29-2009, 12:51 PM
WHen i think talent in a college team i think players that can play at the next level. When picking your bracket in the past decade or so it has shown to have the best results to choose teams with the most "nba talent"

Villanova might have there AA's but like has been said before. Kids aren't going to Duke, unc, ucla or another major school because they are mcdonalds all americans, they are mcdonalds all americans because they are going to those schools. Highly political

On top of that the only player from nova that is going to be drafted in the next 2 years is cunningham.. and even he will be taken after josh

so who from gonzaga, outside of daye, is an nba player?

please dont tell me downs, heytvelt, gray or pargo

any of those guys COULD make it, but as of now would have a LOT to prove.

i really get the impression that some of you buy way too much into the hype and dont pay much attention to the other teams and players across the US.

Saxon_zag
03-29-2009, 12:51 PM
so who from gonzaga, outside of daye, is an nba player?

please dont tell me downs, heytvelt, gray or pargo

any of those guys COULD make it, but as of now would have a LOT to prove.

i really get the impression that some of you buy way too much into the hype and dont pay much attention to the other teams and players across the US.

ok then in that case villanova has 0 nba players

Saxon_zag
03-29-2009, 12:54 PM
doesnt mean i think they stink, but like ive said before, talentwise a borderline top 25 team - which is no unimpressive achievement really.


i really get the impression from you that you haven't watched much gonzaga basketball this season. Possibly to busy scouting out all the other teams across the US much more than anyone on this board :lmao:

B Wayne
03-29-2009, 12:59 PM
Again, this time of year comes down to who wants it more. That would be why Villanova beat Pitt and MSU beat Louisville. Nobody would say those teams have better talent than who they beat. They won those games because they simply played harder and weren't going to be denied. Just like our 98' elite 8 team and the George Mason team from a few years ago.


"The team who wants it more will win this time of year" is such a tired and misleading cliche. tI believe his years Zag team wanted to win badlly. Just as much as past Zag teams. And almost all the teams in the tourmanent want to win BADLY.
NO matter how hard Akron may have wanted to win, they didn't beat the Zags. The Zags were just better. No matter how badly the Zags wanted to win, they couldn't beat a quicker and more talented UNC team.

Once in a long while, "wanting to win more" makes a difference as to the end result. But this long in the tooth cliche is overused and often misused. The saying is often just jock speech used by coaches to get the most out of it's team, but nonetheless exagereated.

Oh, and George Mason? That was a very good team...and they won because they were good. I can't believe this years George Mason team wanted to win any less than their Final Four team.

cggonzaga
03-29-2009, 01:16 PM
Understandable argument B Wayne but here's where I think the difference is. There is a huge difference in level of talent from 65 to 16. Once you get down to the final 16 the talent level is all about the same. That is where determination and effort make up the difference in talent levels. "Wanting" to win is very different than going out and taking it. I don't doubt every one on this team "wanted" to win more than anything in the world. This team however never showed the ability in my opinion to not be denied. There is a huge difference. I have yet to see a Gonzaga team since 98' that was not going to be denied and left every ounce of themselves on the court. I've seen players but not teams.

cbbfanatic
03-29-2009, 02:24 PM
Understandable argument B Wayne but here's where I think the difference is. There is a huge difference in level of talent from 65 to 16. Once you get down to the final 16 the talent level is all about the same. That is where determination and effort make up the difference in talent levels. "Wanting" to win is very different than going out and taking it. I don't doubt every one on this team "wanted" to win more than anything in the world. This team however never showed the ability in my opinion to not be denied. There is a huge difference. I have yet to see a Gonzaga team since 98' that was not going to be denied and left every ounce of themselves on the court. I've seen players but not teams.

i dont necessarily agree with the 65-16 idea. in most cases, yeah, it probably fits, but every year there are teams that dont have to do much in the way of beating anyone good to get to the sweet 16. how many round of 32 teams could have made the s16 with gonzaga or arizonas draw? lets be honest here, the zags avoided two would-be major upsets to get to the sweet 16 - but i bet there are probably around 10 teams that were eliminated that could have safely navigated that path as well. do you disagree with this? do any of you?

USUALLY, you are going to have to really have a "prove it" game to get to the E8 - one recent exception i think is memphis 3-4 yrs ago, i think they only played double digit seeds in the first 3 rounds that year

im not at all trying to diminish GUs sweet 16, because you can only play who is in your bracket and who advances, but its not like they had to really be a top 16 team in the country to get there with the draw they got

skan72
03-29-2009, 02:27 PM
I don't think any of the teams still dancing are that much more talented than we were. We just played very poorly, and maybe it is because we weren't as battle tested playing in the WCC. We didn't seem to be able to play transition D on them, close out or recognize shooters, and we turned the ball over every time we started making a come back.

But, talent wise, we're one of the best in the nation. I love our guys, and I wish all of our seniors the best in the future. And I wish everyone still on the actual team great seasons of Gonzaga basketball to come. We all know the seniors are still part of the Gonzaga "team" though, and for that matter so is everyone who ever was a Zag.

BobZag
03-29-2009, 02:44 PM
Heard an interview with Hansbrough on Westwood One Radio and Tyler said their game against Gonzaga was payback and motivation for their loss to Gonzaga two years ago. TH said he remembered that game well and how frustrated he was and how mad Roy Williams was at the Heels. Revenge put a chip on the Heels' shoulders and PJ Carlisemo(sp?) agreed and said it looked like it.

Thought that was of interest.

cggonzaga
03-29-2009, 03:03 PM
i dont necessarily agree with the 65-16 idea. in most cases, yeah, it probably fits, but every year there are teams that dont have to do much in the way of beating anyone good to get to the sweet 16. how many round of 32 teams could have made the s16 with gonzaga or arizonas draw? lets be honest here, the zags avoided two would-be major upsets to get to the sweet 16 - but i bet there are probably around 10 teams that were eliminated that could have safely navigated that path as well. do you disagree with this? do any of you?

USUALLY, you are going to have to really have a "prove it" game to get to the E8 - one recent exception i think is memphis 3-4 yrs ago, i think they only played double digit seeds in the first 3 rounds that year

im not at all trying to diminish GUs sweet 16, because you can only play who is in your bracket and who advances, but its not like they had to really be a top 16 team in the country to get there with the draw they got


Let's be honest CBB, we won the first 2 games because we were simply more talented. WKU wasn't going to be denied in that game and nearly pulled it off. Nobody would argue they were anywhere near as talented as we were. That is why I say that at least 14 teams in the sweet 16 every year are nearly as talented as anyone else. There's always those exceptions of teams that just aren't going to be denied. That attitude can make up for the lack of talent.


but i bet there are probably around 10 teams that were eliminated that could have safely navigated that path as well. do you disagree with this? do any of you?

Based on talent? Absolutely. You have to have the attitude to match it though.

Zag79
03-29-2009, 06:56 PM
you dont believe ANY of them are more talented?

this thread made me have to post the reasons i thought we lost. i didnt want to, its petty. we had a fabulous year, and lost in the sweet 16 to the team EVERY analyst picked to win it all at the beginning of the year AND tournament. NC is awesome, dont get me wrong. they have more talent, and thats obvious. but how many times were we in the game, only to throw away the ball or miss a wide open shot? every time we started a run and it felt like "this is where we break through", NC didnt do anything that made me feel like we couldnt win, we did. i saw pargo, daye, micah and even josh play well enough to win. i saw matt and gray miss wide open 3s at very ciritcal parts of the game. 3 times we got a stop, and had a wide open shot to get the lead to 6-8 points. miss. miss. turn over. look at the play by play on espn or rewatch the game. everytime the zags cut it to a managable defecit WE missed an open shot or made a bad pass. NC didnt mess up the shot with amazing D or steal the ball from an outstanding play. 31-25 NC, 3 missed by gray. score NC. TO bouldin. score nc. now its back to an 11 point defecit. over and over thats how it went. if matt and gray are hitting the open, uncontested 3s, and we dont have such sloppy passing its a tight game until the wire. and if its tight i dont believe NC shoots the way they did. we might not win but its not a blowout. im sorry, but when bobby frasor scores as many as matty its not a good sign. the difference was simple, all the players for NC showed up.

skan72
03-29-2009, 07:02 PM
this thread made me have to post the reasons i thought we lost. i didnt want to, its petty. we had a fabulous year, and lost in the sweet 16 to the team EVERY analyst picked to win it all at the beginning of the year AND tournament. NC is awesome, dont get me wrong. they have more talent, and thats obvious. but how many times were we in the game, only to throw away the ball or miss a wide open shot? every time we started a run and it felt like "this is where we break through", NC didnt do anything that made me feel like we couldnt win, we did. i saw pargo, daye, micah and even josh play well enough to win. i saw matt and gray miss wide open 3s at very ciritcal parts of the game. 3 times we got a stop, and had a wide open shot to get the lead to 6-8 points. miss. miss. turn over. look at the play by play on espn or rewatch the game. everytime the zags cut it to a managable defecit WE missed an open shot or made a bad pass. NC didnt mess up the shot with amazing D or steal the ball from an outstanding play. 31-25 NC, 3 missed by gray. score NC. TO bouldin. score nc. now its back to an 11 point defecit. over and over thats how it went. if matt and gray are hitting the open, uncontested 3s, and we dont have such sloppy passing its a tight game until the wire. and if its tight i dont believe NC shoots the way they did. we might not win but its not a blowout. im sorry, but when bobby frasor scores as many as matty its not a good sign. the difference was simple, all the players for NC showed up.

Well said, and my sentiments exactly.

gum797
03-29-2009, 07:05 PM
Our problem wasnt a lack of talent. And I am getting tired of everyone "having their best game against us." Obviously, there is a pattern there. I really think the thing that seperated us from the elite eight teams or the final four teams is toughness. I know that has been talked about all year on our boards, but I think that is the number one problem. Toughnes is exactly how Villanova is in the Final 4. I agree with CG about Meech and rob adding that component to next year teams (hopefully guys like Gibbs, Poling and the new class will too!!) will make for a very different make-up for us. Gonzaga's elite 8 team personified that. Everyone needs to remember how mentally strong Santangelo, Hall, Fraham, casey and the rest of that team was. That is how we need to play again.

Zag79
03-29-2009, 07:38 PM
Gonzaga's elite 8 team personified that. Everyone needs to remember how mentally strong Santangelo, Hall, Fraham, casey and the rest of that team was. That is how we need to play again.

problem. the elite 8 team had a big man at he 5. sacre was supposed to be our dench. that was a key part of why we couldnt play how we wanted. josh at the 4 with sacre at the 5 and our guards would be tough to beat even for NC. so i agree its not all talent why we lost. but also, the 98 teams "best player" showed up in every game in march against the top notch teams. matty as much as i love him and understand how damn good he is, has a real bad tendency to disappear against top flight competition. his stats are very inflated due to how well he slaps wcc and teams like them around. as good as he was, and all the praise he received (most of it deserved) he wasnt as good as the matt lovers claimed, nor were josh or pargo as bad. wku is similar to a wcc team. look at what matt did. nc is more like memphis, uconn, wsu, maryland, utah, all games that he wasnt close to our best player. 3rd or 4th for that matter. those are the 2 reasons i think this team didnt make the game tighter. NC wasnt 21 points better if sacre plays all year, or even if matt and gray are on.

cbbfanatic
03-29-2009, 08:00 PM
would you guys agree that playing tough and showing up are HUGE components of talent - and without them, this fake-ish notion of "talent" is utterly meaningless?

i mean, who cares how awesome you are in the driveway if you cant get it done in an organized game (not meant literally in GU's case, just an exaggerated example)?

kclubfounder
03-29-2009, 08:28 PM
North Carolina smoked Oklahoma today. It was just as easy a win as their win over GU, regardless of the final score. There were numerous points in the game where the point spread was the same - all the way up until the last couple minutes.

So, I guess that proves Gonzaga was just as worthy to be in the Elite 8 as Oklahoma.

Actually, it doesn't prove Jack. And anyone who believes that the Elite 8 was the perfect separation point - that the 8 teams who made it to the Elite 8 were clearly the superior teams and those that were left behind had no chance - in my opinion is someone that just doesn't understand sports very well (let alone college basketball).

The theory of transitivity doesn't work in sports. And I am SO sick and tired of reading comment after comment in thread after thread that this one game against North Carolina proved definitively this or that. It is ONE flipping game. If Carolina came out cold, had a couple players with personal issues behind the scenes, got in foul trouble, and ultimately lost to Gonzaga, would that have changed our team? No. Our strengths and weaknesses would be exactly the same.

Michigan State POUNDED Louisville. Beat the Hell out of them. I guaranfrickingtee you we would have a fighting chance against Michigan State RIGHT NOW.

No matter how many times I see fans over-react and lose perspective because of a 40 minute stretch of basketball, it still catches me by surprise and frustrates me.

Rant over. Have a great off-season everyone. Go Mariners.

B Wayne
03-29-2009, 09:41 PM
Matt Santangelo led the Zags to the Elite 8 and is arguably the second best point guard in GU history. He was on the Best Darn Zags show tonight. He didn't make excuses or give explanations about missed shots or sloppy passes when asked about the NC game. He said the Zags lost to a better team. I let that be the final word on the subject.

23dpg
03-29-2009, 09:49 PM
No matter how many times I see fans over-react and lose perspective because of a 40 minute stretch of basketball, it still catches me by surprise and frustrates me.

Some of the posters on this thread are not fans. Some of them are neutral and others seems to dislike Gonzaga. I do wonder why they come over to this board and continually give the same pitch; "you're not as good as you think you are" "you're nothing like basketball back east", blah blah blah.

I am a fan of Gonzaga and a college basketball fan. I also think that this team was a tad overrated during the season. I never thought that this was Gonzaga's best team. I would argue the team from 3 years ago was better. I could be wrong. Who knows? North Carolina was the best team heading into the season and they are the best team now. Could have we beat Missouri or Nova or Pittsburg? Maybe. But we didn't play them and it doesn't matter.

Overall a sweet 16 is a good year.

Nittany Tar Heel
03-30-2009, 06:09 AM
all of north carolinas losses this year came to teams that couldnt make it out of the first round of the tourney. and we saw what happened to acc tourney champion duke in the tourney...

the acc was weak this year, and while carolina is very talented, they certainly have not been far and away the best team in college ball this year.

i believe that there are teams out there that could do a lot to derail this unc team. they are soft and play very little defense. a team that brings intensity, heart and defense will give them fits

i think some of you are (understandably) overhyping UNC here because the zags lost to them

Carolina is 18th in the country at defensive points per posession. Soft/little defense is just not applicable.

We played well but our best game this year was the dismantling of Michigan State in Detroit back in December. That was as thorough a beating as I've seen of a quality team in a while.

LongIslandZagFan
03-30-2009, 06:14 AM
Paddy Mills was "hot" against us



And there have been games where he has not. What is your point? Star players on other teams have career nights against us. Why? Because they see it as a big big game... and that is when stars rise to the occasion.