View Full Version : Get it straight, Seattle Times!

03-14-2011, 09:27 AM
What the heck is wrong with the Times reporting?

In their preview capsule, they say "in the last 10 years gonzaga is only 8-9, with 2 sweet 16s" From 2001-10 (the last 10 tourneys) they are 10-9 and have 3 Sweet 16s.

I believe there is a widely held myth here in Seattle that Gonzaga is a major underperfomer in the tournament and some even say they are chokers. Hey, they got their tournament shortcomings, but what program doesn't when you look back 10 years? Frankly, with some national powers aside, there are but a handful programs that have had the success Gonzaga program. 10-15 out of almost 300? Many programs like to leave out missing the tournament altogether some sort of free pass in evaluating their historical success. Heck Florida has 2 titles in the last 10, and hasn't won a game since 2007.

I get mischaracterizations and impressions based on emotion and not really knowing Gonzaga's history as I do, but it just seems so often that people I talk to, read, and listen to on the radio never quite seem to have a handle on the facts.

The Times should have gotten this right.

I feel a lot better about this team. They were a pretty lousy, NIT caliber team, but they really showed some growth and improvement.

03-14-2011, 09:39 AM
Well it's been an elite 8 and 5 S16's in the past 12 years. We need to go further though.
Seattle's papers sometimes are based on not much.as will most papers these days.
All we can do is correct them and play tough on the court.

Most people do know what's been done at GU. Many resent it as most would like UW to be pre-eminent. Not on our watch....Gu was there first and has continued its string. 13 stright yrs of NCAA appearances must count for something. For two straight years beginning four years back, UW didn't get an invite.. Last year and this one they're in but it's been inconsistent for UW.
I guess I'd resent it too.

03-14-2011, 09:57 AM
If you assume a board of all "chalk" we really havent failed given the expectation set by our seed that often.

played beyond expections 4 times, to expectations 4 times, and below expectations 4 times.

2010: played to seed
2009: played to seed
2008: played below seed (to an elite 8 team that was ranked in playing basically a home game that somehow got a 10 seed)
2007: played to seed (first round lost admittably)
2006: played to seed
2005: played below seed
2004: played below seed
2003: played above seed (almost knocked off #1)
2002: played below seed
2001: played above seed
2000: played above seed
1999: played above seed

I dont know. seems like kind of an unfair expectation. UW made it a game farther than us last year, although we hit a 1 seed. The year before they couldnt get out of a bracket in Portland despite being the high seed in it, but we managed to do so. While we were losing in the first round a couple times, they were losing in the first round of the cbi, or not playing at all.

We get out of the first weekend 42% of the time over this run of tourneys. How is that not wildly exceeding expectations for a small school in a mid major conference?