PDA

View Full Version : Chasing the #1 seed



Johnnygu
10-19-2010, 11:24 PM
It's great that Gonzaga won Len Elmore's vote, but Mark Few said last year in a press conference at the NCAA Tournament that the next step for the Gonzaga program is not winning a National Championship or getting to the final four or even elite eight, but setting themselves up for a realistic shot at a deep run in the Tournament by capturing a #1 seed. It's time for Gonzaga to chop wood, not raise Len Elmore awards above their heads. For Gonzaga to get a #1 seed, as a WCC team, to me means having only one loss at the most. Can this team do this? I think realistically no. A two or a 3 seed at best. What do you think?

HOOTER
10-19-2010, 11:42 PM
I'm boring and I think it's still too early to have an opinion

Copied and pasted.

hondo
10-19-2010, 11:49 PM
This years schedule is far too difficult to even be dreaming of a high seed.
One game at a time, I'll be real happy if we can get a win in Pullman

MickMick
10-20-2010, 04:54 AM
Hondo is right.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen how tough the schedule is?

I chose 4-10.

Bocco
10-20-2010, 07:07 AM
I agree with Hondo and Mick....

While a little love for GU from some national talking heads is nice, right now I'm not even thinking about tournament seeding, I'm just hoping we can get through the tough pre-conference schedule with a respectable record.

Baldwinzag
10-20-2010, 08:21 AM
Quick take:

I feel we're going to be a little better/stronger as a team this season.

However, I feel our upcoming schedule is more difficult than last year.

Given the tougher schedule yet overall improvement as a team, I foresee us having a similar record to last season yet a better seed come Tourney time.

So, 25-7 but just enough quality wins to capture a 5/6 seed.

There you go...

CDC84
10-20-2010, 09:01 AM
I think we are going to get a lot of information about how Gonzaga's season is going to go after the month of November. More so than usual. The sked is tough, but there are a lot more home games, the games have better spacing, there are easy games after finals week and after the Xmas holiday, etc. The sked is tough, but it has never been so perfectly constructed.

In order for Gonzaga to ever get a number one seed, they are going to have to enjoy a season like Memphis did a few years ago. That's just unrealistic.

Personally, I don't think getting a number one seed is the be all end all. What is a big deal is to get a top 3 seed (so you don't have to play the one seed until the elite 8) and to stay out west (to lessen travel, to get more GU fans in the seats, etc.). If GU's season goes well, they could play their subregional games in Denver (1,092 miles from Spokane), and their regional games in Anaheim (1,230 miles from Spokane). It is also highly likely that the weakest number one seed will, once again, be assigned the west region (Anaheim).

No trips to Buffalo. No 2nd round matchups vs. number one seeds. The Zags need to avoid this this season. That's a realistic goal.

The Zags really need to take advantage of the current state of college basketball because there are so few good teams out west. This "trend" isn't going to last forever folks - UCLA will be back, Arizona will be back, etc. But the Zags aren't going to land a favorable draw if they lose to USF and fail to pickup some big time wins.

cbbfanatic
10-20-2010, 09:03 AM
Hondo is right.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen how tough the schedule is?

I chose 4-10.

i dont understand this logic. historically, MOST 1 seeds play a very tough schedule during the season (probably as tough or likely tougher than gu's complete sched this year). i dont think having a tough schedule makes a team any less likely or worthy of being a 1 seed, i think that depends mostly on their talent and execution.

so i think what you are really saying is that GU is likely not talented enough to earn a 1 seed - i would agree with that. earning a 1 seed is no walk in the park.

BUT, if there ever was a year to do it, this is the year. As weak as last year was, i think this year will be weaker. i also baselessly predict that following this year, things may toughen up a bit. izzo is right when he says there are no great teams out there. there are a couple that i think could MAYBE get there, if all the right things fall in place and the right guys develop. but id say most dont even have a chance of rounding out

Reborn
10-20-2010, 09:32 AM
I agree with CDC with a #3 seed. However, I feel that Gonzaga's overall schedule this year is no more difficult than any of the other Elite teams because of who they play in conference. I think the Zags have a good chance of going undefeated in conferencee schedule this year, and I think they will need to do so in order to get a #3 or better seed. At best, they can not lose more than one conference game.

I said #3 seed. We do not want a #4 seed. Four seed plays the #1 seed in the round of Sixteen.

Robzagnut
10-20-2010, 09:39 AM
GU will be a #2 or a #3 at worst. Why?

* There are no powerhouse teams this year. With a nice resume (and wins) during their OCC schedule, GU should be able to position itself nicely at the end of the year with a dominant performance in the WCC tourney.

* This is the first year in a long time where I've been confident going in about this team. GU has eight legitimate starters on this team and that doesn't include either of the Mathis bros. When was the last time GU could go eight deep without any drop off? They are tall, deep and experienced.

* Rebounds, rebounds, rebounds. A starting front court that stands 7' 0", 7' 0" and 6' 7", with Arop the rebounding machine coming off the bench. If this team doesn't win the rebounding wars by a wide margin in every game this year I will be surprised.

* Defense. We know about the size of the front court, but the back court has three shut down defenders in Gray, Arop and Keita. All of them are 6' 5" tall. Remember Memphis and their tall guards shutting down GU players? GU gets to return the favor this year.

* Sam Dower. GU has a true back to the basket scorer in Dower. The first since Batista. Sacre will pound on the opposing center and then, in comes Dower. Remember how Ham Sandwich complained last year about GU's ability to bring in another big man after Sacre went out? This years beast can bang, but also has the ability and willingness to put the ball in the hole.


We've been waiting for this team for years. We all looked in the future at the Sacre/Gray/Daye team and knew it would be THE team. Daye has been replaced by Harris, so nothing has changed. That future we dreamed about is here right now. All the pieces are in place. This team is ready to make a run and I'm going to be running and screaming right along side it the whole way.

LongIslandZagFan
10-20-2010, 09:51 AM
I went with 4-10... But IMHO there are so many variables this season that it makes it a tough call. The ooc schedule is tough... They could go through and win all but one or two or they could lose 4-6 of those games. You get a 1 or 2 seed if you do the former and a 8 or 9 seed with the latter. Not to mention that there will be very very kittle room for error in conference. If I had to be more specific I'd lean toward a 6 seed.

VaBeachZAG
10-20-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm going with the expectation of the players; one or two seed, and if any of the players don't have that expectation, they shouldn't be putting on a GU uniform. Realistic be dam***

TacomaZAG
10-20-2010, 10:21 AM
A top 3 seed is a distinct possibility. With the schedule laid out like it is this year, we have a good shot at a top 3 seed. Additionally, with the incredibly difficult OOC schedule (typical) an early loss or two against a top tier team won't kill us. But, and this is a big but, we have to take care of business against WCC foes and lesser OOC opponents. Any losses against the likes of USF and the commitee has their opening to seed us anywhere from 4-10 and send us anywhere in the country.

It's no secret that the committee likes to pair the good non-BCS teams against each other early to thin their ranks, so we need to avoid giving them the opportunity to do that.

No more than 2 losses to good OOC competition, and run the table in the WCC, hello 2 or 3 seed. Isn't that easy............

Go ZAGS

HOOTER
10-20-2010, 10:36 AM
The option I wanted to select wasn't there, which is "somewhere between 1 and 16". That's the only likelihood at this point. I'll revise my answer next year.

cggonzaga
10-20-2010, 04:12 PM
I agree with CDC, CBB, Rob, Reborn and Tacoma. With the schedule we're playing this year we have a great shot at anywhere from a 1-3 seed as long as we go better than .500 in those tough OCC games. If we lose only 2 of those games and maybe only 3 overall I see a good shot at a 1 seed. Anything in the top 3 is greatly needed though to make a long run in March.

cbbfanatic
10-20-2010, 04:50 PM
.

It's no secret that the committee likes to pair the good non-BCS teams against each other early to thin their ranks, so we need to avoid giving them the opportunity to do that.

Go ZAGS

such a myth. historically, mid majors have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of advancing when they play other mid majors (and im not including in this the 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s against the dregs in the first round either, so dont give me this "unc vs ark pine bluff doesnt count" business, bc i already agree to that)

if anything, mids playing mids in 8/9s, 7/10s, 6/11s etc is KIND to the mid majors because it GUARANTEES that one of them will advance, when statistically, it is less likely that one advances if 2 mids have shots at 2 highs

it was just as funny to hear people complain about bsu and tcu playing last yr in the bcs game... that was a huge gift to them - ONE of them was getting a win, for sure.

23dpg
10-20-2010, 05:19 PM
such a myth. historically, mid majors have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of advancing when they play other mid majors (and im not including in this the 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s against the dregs in the first round either, so dont give me this "unc vs ark pine bluff doesnt count" business, bc i already agree to that)

if anything, mids playing mids in 8/9s, 7/10s, 6/11s etc is KIND to the mid majors because it GUARANTEES that one of them will advance, when statistically, it is less likely that one advances if 2 mids have shots at 2 highs

it was just as funny to hear people complain about bsu and tcu playing last yr in the bcs game... that was a huge gift to them - ONE of them was getting a win, for sure.

I completely disagree (respectfully).

When BSU beat TCU, no one in the major conference mind-set gave it any thought. When the mids are facing each other, neither has a chance to earn respectability....especially in football. BSU's win over very good TCU didn't mean nearly as much as their victory over an average (for them) Oklahoma team.
In basketball, the same applies to a lessen extent. If you match up mids against each other, less of them have a CHANCE to move on. That's all we ask. Almost everyone in the mid-major range would like to play a BCS (sic) school. You don't get that because you are a Big East guy.

BTW, I'm not a conspiracy guy either so I don't buy that its intentionally done that way.

Reborn
10-21-2010, 10:18 AM
No more than 2 losses to good OOC competition, and run the table in the WCC, hello 2 or 3 seed. Isn't that easy............

Go ZAGS

I think that the Zags can lose 3 and possibly 4 OOC games, and still get a 3 seed if we go undefeated in conference play. Our OOC schedule is that tough.

cbbfanatic
10-21-2010, 10:47 AM
I completely disagree (respectfully).

When BSU beat TCU, no one in the major conference mind-set gave it any thought. When the mids are facing each other, neither has a chance to earn respectability....especially in football. BSU's win over very good TCU didn't mean nearly as much as their victory over an average (for them) Oklahoma team.
In basketball, the same applies to a lessen extent. If you match up mids against each other, less of them have a CHANCE to move on. That's all we ask. Almost everyone in the mid-major range would like to play a BCS (sic) school. You don't get that because you are a Big East guy.

BTW, I'm not a conspiracy guy either so I don't buy that its intentionally done that way.

We're talking about slightly different angles on the same issue. You seem to be coming from the angle of getting respect, where i am coming from the angle of trying to get wins/advance. i agree with you when you say that BSU gains less respect by beating TCU/mid than they do by beating oklahoma/high (for good reason, in my opinion). thing is though, bsu is more likely to beat tcu/mid than oklahoma/high... so it all goes hand in hand. its basic risk/reward.

so if they're only after respect, shoot for the moon and hope for oklahoma as an opponent. but if theyre more concerned with purely winning a bcs game, hope for tcu.

same works for basketball. for example, take GU's second rd game 2 yrs ago. its not a great parallel because ILL was fraudulent and not 4/5 seed good, and wku was actually decent (not great, but dangerous in a one dimensional way). anyway, gu probably had more respect and visibility to gain by beating ILL in rd two, but probably had an easier path to the s16 by playing wku... again, i dont like this SPECIFIC example much because i think illinois sucked that year, but the general framework applies, and its something recent and can be identified with by this board.

its really easy to say you would want more mids getting shots at highs, but statistically/historically, that would only result in FEWER mids moving on. its that risk/reward thing again, and you APPEAR to be assuming that more mids would move on then they typically do.

(sidenote: i dont need ot be told what i do or do not understand by coming from a big east background. i grew up in spokane, followed GU my whole life, and really follow college basketball on the whole very avidly (something that is not apparent with many around here). i understand both sides of the coin here... i just see results for what they are)

TacomaZAG
10-21-2010, 11:11 AM
CBB - my point in the assertion that we want to avoid the possible mid-mid matchup was to make sure that we don't have any "bad" losses and thus, per your point, get a protected 1-4 seed. I also see the mid-mid matchup a little differently than how you see it. When a mid plays a mid there is only one possible outcome, one moves on and one goes home (2 mids down to one) after one game. In the other option involving two mid-high games, there are 3 options with respect to the mids, both move on, one moves on, or both go home. My point is that the selection committee seems (I have no proof and, being an engineer, can't argue with any statistics you may have) to prefer to take the sure (one mid goes home and one advances) rather than take the chance that both mids advance. This discussion is only for the first round matchups, as after that anything goes, like our game a couple of years ago against WKU for a trip to the Sweet 16.

Reborn - I agree with you that we could have 3-4 losses in the OOC, as long as those are losses to top teams. The thing we can't have is an OOC loss to a less than stellar opponent or any loss to a WCC foe, if we want to have any chance to get a 2 or 3 seed.

Good points guys, I can't wait for the season to begin so we can start talking about real stuff.

Go ZAGS

Reborn
10-21-2010, 11:21 AM
As time goes on, I think the distinction between Major and Mid-major universites is becoming less and less important or significant. The mid-majors are catching up in basketball. Except for a few mid-majors in football, I do not think the mid-majors are catching up. I think the biggest difference between college basketball and football is that mid-majors in basketball are now playing plenty of the Elite college programs in America and beating them in non-conference games. Gonaaga's non conference schedule is, and has been for awhile, as tough or tougher than any program in America. The success of Gonzaga, and other teams like Butler, Vandy, Creighton, St. Mary's, even Portland last season, St.Joes, et al, against Elite programs has certainly been a huge factor in eliminating the perception that the majors are better than mid-majors in college basketball. I am one who sees no difference between the likes of Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, St. Joes, even St. Mary's now, Vandy, Creighton, Western Kentucky, and more and teams in the major conferences in America. So, to me it doesn't matter who Gonzaga plays in the NCAA tournament they had better be ready to play or they're going to get beat. And I feel the same way about most games GU plays, and especially conference games. GU had better come to play or they will get beat. We saw that in conference play last season; and we saw it against Portland St. at home two years ago.

23dpg
10-21-2010, 03:11 PM
CBB, I didn't mean to offend with the Big East comment. I may be wrong, but I have perceived that your loyalties lie within the Big East, esp. Nova. If GU played Villanova, you might root for them. If GU plays anyone, I root for GU, in a big way. My mood will vary greatly depending on how the Zags play. If this is not the case, I apologize, my post wasn't meant to belittle.

As for the mids vs. majors; is it a fact that mids do less well when evenly matched? Is it true for the last 20 years? 5 years? My assumption is that the teams in the 20-40 range are now homogenized, regardless of conference affiliation. (The bottom 12-16 teams will be from low ranked confs. and the top 12-16 teams will be overwhelmingly from BCS type confs.) The gap is closing in the middle if it hasn't already disappeared.

You know your stuff so this might be in error or it could be two different opinions.

Mine are:
Mids and majors are equal in the same seed.
An overwhelming majority of fans of a # 8 seeded mid would rather play a BCS #9 seed over another mid-major team.
The results vs. either wouldn't be any different.
JMO

Johnnygu
03-10-2011, 01:33 AM
Most of us(not me) are going to be right