PDA

View Full Version : Interesting



7ICoug
11-09-2011, 05:37 AM
Why indeed.

http://rushthecourt.net/2011/11/09/20-questions-why-cant-gonzaga-make-another-serious-run-in-the-ncaa-tournament/

Bet we get you off to a good start this year tho. Still with three starters on the injury list.

FuManShoes
11-09-2011, 05:53 AM
Good find. Thanks for posting. It's a reminder that it isn't easy to reach the pinnacle of success year after year or even a few times a decade and really only a few blue-chips and the occasional Cinderella do it (hence those unlikelies that do - i.e. Butler - are called a Cinderella). It's also a reminder that a school like Gonzaga and about 350 others face unique challenges compared to those big boys. To make a run, a mid major's recruits have to stick it out and develop into solid players and both a star and glue guys need to emerge. You also need a lot of luck. The UCLA debacle comes to mind or an unfortunate matchup against a crazy talented UNC team. You hate to dwell on the past but a few stops here, a few less mistakes there, a different draw, and who knows where those seasons end and whether this article would have a different premise.

EuroZag2010
11-09-2011, 06:37 AM
Rush the court writer is a St.Marys alum...

willandi
11-09-2011, 07:10 AM
He makes some good points, obviously he is a lurker on this forum as we have hashed and re-hashed all of his best points. It also is obvious that he is not a NY high schooler who aspires to be something that he is not intellectually prepared to deal with. This writer makes cogent points and follows them up with good reasoning. As said above, tough, a bounce here, a draw there and the tables are turned. Maybe, just maybe, this is that year. We are exceptional in the front court, and while unproven in the back court, we have the POY from Ontario, CA, POY from WA, POY from ID and MVP State tourney, WA all as frosh, and all in the frontcourt. It should be exciting!

60 HOURS and COUNTING!!!

Reborn
11-09-2011, 07:22 AM
His premise, that Gonzaga has not made it past the Sweet 16 since 1999 because players have left the program is, imo, very weak. I also feel that his opinion on why these players left is also very weak. I think the topic that he is discussing is a good one, but I feel that if we had a thread here on this board about that same topic that it would be more interesting and especially more accurate. I am not surprised that the person writing the story is a grad of Saint Mary's.

bullzag23
11-09-2011, 07:39 AM
He makes some good points, obviously he is a lurker on this forum as we have hashed and re-hashed all of his best points. It also is obvious that he is not a NY high schooler who aspires to be something that he is not intellectually prepared to deal with. This writer makes cogent points and follows them up with good reasoning. As said above, tough, a bounce here, a draw there and the tables are turned. Maybe, just maybe, this is that year. We are exceptional in the front court, and while unproven in the back court, we have the POY from Ontario, CA, POY from WA, POY from ID and MVP State tourney, WA all as frosh, and all in the frontcourt. It should be exciting!

60 HOURS and COUNTING!!!

Not trying to pick nits, but you left out a POY/All time leading rebounder for OK...

hooter73
11-09-2011, 07:48 AM
Ive said it before, there is a theory out there that I dont quite buy but it does add up that Few is VERY good in a low to mid conference team. He cant get over the door step from there. Amazing conference record, amazing NCAA APPEARANCE record, but all his teams can do is make an appearance. Cant get over the hump. Again I dont completely buy that and if all he can do is win the conference every year with an 80% + career win record then its good enough for me.

zagzilla
11-09-2011, 07:58 AM
Continuity is good but not at the expense of excellence. GU has to take more chances on recruiting and has had some misses recently. "Recruiting over" those players led to some exits and discontinuity. It was the right thing to do.

Remember we have had good luck as well as bad in the dance. The E8 team drew Seattle site and then faced a Minnesota team that was going through a scandal. We took advantage. OTOH: Davidson in Raleigh and UCLA evened that out big time.

You can't win it if you don't get in to begin with. 300+ other schools would trade places with this "underachieving" Zag squad-including SMC right "Alamedafan"?

ZZ

willandi
11-09-2011, 07:59 AM
Not trying to pick nits, but you left out a POY/All time leading rebounder for OK...

He's front court, already a strength. Wasn't intending it to be a slight, just addressing the guard situation.

willandi
11-09-2011, 08:04 AM
His premise, that Gonzaga has not made it past the Sweet 16 since 1999 because players have left the program is, imo, very weak. I also feel that his opinion on why these players left is also very weak. I think the topic that he is discussing is a good one, but I feel that if we had a thread here on this board about that same topic that it would be more interesting and especially more accurate. I am not surprised that the person writing the story is a grad of Saint Mary's.

Agreed, but we have been over this topic so many times, with no real consensus. We have had players leave. Is it because they weren't seeing the minutes they expected?, because they were recruited over?, becaues they weren't as good as they thought, as we thought? The answer is probably yes to all, but not in every case. I'm sure there are other reasons too, and yes, his premise that we haven't been past the SS because of this is weak.
I do hope that in another inciteful article, he examines the overall lack of success of his alma mater. Why haven't they been to the tourney more, why aren't they able to beat the zags consistently etc.

CDC84
11-09-2011, 08:07 AM
All I know is that most coaches in sports who win and win and win like Few does eventually get over the hump. You can't possibly win that many games and appear in that many consecutive NCAA tournaments and not pull a slot at some point that comes up all cherries.

bartruff1
11-09-2011, 08:23 AM
You can argue with his arguments (and I would) but I think his conclusions are right. Eg.... Gonzaga is not one of those handful of elite programs that can attract 5 Star's that are lottery and first round picks and that Butler has accomplished more in the last few years. Those are just facts. Having said that, we will get a chance to beat Butler this season on NATIONAL TV and if Few can continue to get to the dance and be competitive, who knows !!! I hate to offer a excuse, but with a little more luck, there have been teams that may well have advanced deep into the tourney. I am more than happy with what Few has accomplished and anyone who isn't is just a moron. It is just that simple :p

Baldwinzag
11-09-2011, 08:28 AM
All I know is that most coaches in sports who win and win and win like Few does eventually get over the hump. You can't possibly win that many games and appear in that many consecutive NCAA tournaments and not pull a slot at some point that comes up all cherries.

Exactly.

Also, a little "bad luck" plays a role --

The 2008-2009 team comes to mind: Pargo, Bouldin, Down, Daye, Heytvelt (Gray as 6th man) was one of the best Starting-5's in the Country. We were 28-5, 14-0 in WCC, won Old Spice Classic, and lost to #2 UConn in OT. That was a Final-4 team if we hadn't run into a buzz-saw team in #1 North Carolina(S16). We were a #4 Seed and could have beaten any other #1 seed outside that insane & unstoppable UNC team. We actually gave them one of their best games that Tournament and scored more pts than any other opponent. As we know they ended up winning the Nat'l Championship by nearly 20pts (heck, their avg margin of victory in the Tourney was 22pts or something). One of the best teams this Century and WE had to play 'em. Go Figure.

Its not the first time we've played, and lost, to the eventual National Champion(UConn & UNC) and / or the Nat'l Runner-up(such as an unnamed team & result in 2006).

This has to count for something and not nearly mentioned enough...

Allowing teams to shoot 55%-on average the last 4 yrs-from 3pt is on us, but when we lose close games to the National Champion, its really luck of the draw in those years.

I still have a lame case of the "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" over that 2008-2009 team, moreso than any other in Zag history for me...I'm convinced that was a F4 team, if not better...

bullzag23
11-09-2011, 08:40 AM
Exactly.

Also, a little "bad luck" plays a role --

The 2008-2009 team comes to mind: Pargo, Bouldin, Down, Daye, Heytvelt (Gray as 6th man) was one of the best Starting-5's in the Country. We were 28-5, 14-0 in WCC, won Old Spice Classic, and lost to #2 UConn in OT. That was a Final-4 team if we hadn't run into a buzz-saw team in #1 North Carolina(S16). We were a #4 Seed and could have beaten any other #1 seed outside that insane & unstoppable UNC team. We actually gave them one of their best games that Tournament and scored more pts than any other opponent. As we know they ended up winning the Nat'l Championship by nearly 20pts (heck, their avg margin of victory in the Tourney was 22pts or something). One of the best teams this Century and WE had to play 'em. Go Figure.

Its not the first time we've played, and lost, to the eventual National Champion(UConn & UNC) and / or the Nat'l Runner-up(such as an unnamed team & result in 2006).

This has to count for something and not nearly mentioned enough...

Allowing teams to shoot 55%-on average the last 4 yrs-from 3pt is on us, but when we lose close games to the National Champion, its really luck of the draw in those years.

I still have a lame case of the "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" over that 2008-2009 team, moreso than any other in Zag history for me...I'm convinced that was a F4 team, if not better...


I don't call that 'bad luck'. This team had some head scratching losses in regular season, one of which I was in attendance to witness(Portland State anyone?). They don't lose a couple of those games they should have won and we don't get a 4 seed, and don't see UNC in the S16. We made our own luck that year.

Pargo the Destroyer
11-09-2011, 09:28 AM
I'd like to see an article on his alma maters incredibly consistently weak ass schedule year in and year out, and then further explain why they ##### when they don't make the tournament with 25,26 wins after losing the at large. But I digress.....

mgadfly
11-09-2011, 10:00 AM
I can't remember what game Sacre was injured in during the 2008-09 season, but I'm pretty sure the last game he suited up for was WSU. I seem to remember him getting 10 or so minutes against WSU but can't remember if he was injured during the game (they had a real big guy -- was it Baynes?-- inside and when GU brought R.S. in, it forced their 4 to guard Heytvelt). The team looked really good and then Sacre was injured.

We had been on the road for a month straight playing well. The team was exhausted, lost their true center, and came "home" (including BIS loss to UConn) to play in front of a crowd without a student section. We lost four of our next five games after the Sacre injury. After that we lost to Memphis and UNC.

The only loss that might have been head scratching was to Portland State, who won 23 games, made the NCAA tournament, and was one of the most prolific three point shooting teams in the nation (they jacked up shots from everywhere). That may have been our best defensive team, but our system makes us vulnerable to such shooting teams. It was a tough game for us from a match up perspective.

The 2009 and 2006 teams were very good (so was 2005, really). Certainly capable of reaching an E8 if they were a little luckier with a draw, or an official hadn't swallowed his whistle...

You can't really control everything. But consistently making the tournament and putting yourself in a position where luck will hopefully eventually favor you is what you do. There are 5 to 10 teams who are elite programs who get their pick of recruits. Our record holds up very well against the 40 or so teams in that second tier. What Butler has done should in no way diminish what GU has done.

BroncoZAG615
11-09-2011, 10:08 AM
Rush the court writer is a St.Marys alum...

This is false.

RTC has a number of correspondents. The guy who wrote the linked article is one of the founders I believe and he is not a SMC grad.

TexasZagFan
11-09-2011, 10:15 AM
A lot of good things have to go your way to go deep into the Dance.

It took Dean Smith 21 years to get his first NCAA title. With nothing but Burgerboys, you'd think he would have won many more than just two.

CDC84
11-09-2011, 10:18 AM
I still say the 2004/05 team had the best chance to make the final four of any team besides the 1999 team. Had they just not blown that 17 point lead to Texas Tech, they would've had very favorable matchups (especially in the frontcourt) against every team in the Albuquerque regional. It's not just about having talent, but also your matchups, and the 2004/05 crew had the matchups but unfortunately blew it.

rennis
11-09-2011, 10:37 AM
He replied in the comments on that link that he is not a SMC alum...and welcomes our input over there.

:beer:

rennis
11-09-2011, 10:38 AM
I still say the 2004/05 team had the best chance to make the final four of any team besides the 1999 team. Had they just not blown that 17 point lead to Texas Tech, they would've had very favorable matchups (especially in the frontcourt) against every team in the Albuquerque regional. It's not just about having talent, but also your matchups, and the 2004/05 crew had the matchups but unfortunately blew it.

Very, very, very, very true. That year was a brutal disappointment.

bullzag23
11-09-2011, 10:43 AM
I can't remember what game Sacre was injured in during the 2008-09 season, but I'm pretty sure the last game he suited up for was WSU. I seem to remember him getting 10 or so minutes against WSU but can't remember if he was injured during the game (they had a real big guy -- was it Baynes?-- inside and when GU brought R.S. in, it forced their 4 to guard Heytvelt). The team looked really good and then Sacre was injured.

We had been on the road for a month straight playing well. The team was exhausted, lost their true center, and came "home" (including BIS loss to UConn) to play in front of a crowd without a student section. We lost four of our next five games after the Sacre injury. After that we lost to Memphis and UNC.

The only loss that might have been head scratching was to Portland State, who won 23 games, made the NCAA tournament, and was one of the most prolific three point shooting teams in the nation (they jacked up shots from everywhere). That may have been our best defensive team, but our system makes us vulnerable to such shooting teams. It was a tough game for us from a match up perspective.

The 2009 and 2006 teams were very good (so was 2005, really). Certainly capable of reaching an E8 if they were a little luckier with a draw, or an official hadn't swallowed his whistle...

You can't really control everything. But consistently making the tournament and putting yourself in a position where luck will hopefully eventually favor you is what you do. There are 5 to 10 teams who are elite programs who get their pick of recruits. Our record holds up very well against the 40 or so teams in that second tier. What Butler has done should in no way diminish what GU has done.

That PSU game was terrible. Not only did they have someone shooting lights out from 3 (Dominguez 7-10), but we got out rebounded by a MUCH smaller team. This was a game where it didn't appear like the GU players showed up to play at all. I'd also peg the Utah loss as a head scratcher given the talent and size difference. That was another poor rebounding effort on our part.

jim77
11-09-2011, 10:56 AM
Don't get GREEDY. To be whining about GU's lack of success is pathetic....the numbers don't lie. I consider the last 10 years a HUGE accomplishment. One day we might go to an elite 8....then again we might not....enjoy the ride. You can't advance in the dance if you ain't in the dance.......and our dancing shoes have holes:p

MJGoGaels
11-09-2011, 11:34 AM
I see this applies to Euro Zag, too.

His premise, that Gonzaga has not made it past the Sweet 16 since 1999 because players have left the program is, imo, very weak. I also feel that his opinion on why these players left is also very weak. I think the topic that he is discussing is a good one, but I feel that if we had a thread here on this board about that same topic that it would be more interesting and especially more accurate. I am not surprised that the person writing the story is a grad of Saint Mary's.

It did not read like Mike Vernetti's work (he's a professional author and writer and personal friend) so I emailed him and asked. He confirmed that it was not his work. This is the problem with most posters on boards - they take two independent facts and automatically join them as a third fact when such statement has no basis in fact, which leads to a bunch of mindless posts based upon your statement. If you are not following along, let be break it down for you.

A. Mike Vernetti is a graduate of Saint Mary's College.
B. Mike Vernetti writes for www.rushthecourt.net
C. Therefore, Mike must have written the Rush The Court Article in question concerning Gonzaga.
Buzz - wrong. Sorry. Learn the lesson, improve your posts, and move on. It's pre-season for all posters, too, so get the rust off and improve your game. ;)

MaroonZag22
11-09-2011, 12:22 PM
I am sure I could find 328 teams (or 95% of all DI basketball teams) that wish they could have the "shallow" run in March that the Zags have experienced four times since the '99 run. And even on our one and done years in the dance, there are 276 teams (about 80% of DI teams) in the country that wish they had that unsuccessful of a season. Just a little perspective.

titopoet
11-09-2011, 12:23 PM
I read the article and thought what does he mean, four sweet sixteens and a consistent appearances makes for a top twnety program. I love rhetoric and this is classic:


To start off, we should point out that Gonzaga has been far from a total failure during the Mark Few era, which also happens to coincide with the stretch where Gonzaga has been unable to get beyond the Sweet Sixteen, a fact that is probably not lost on Gonzaga fans.

"Far from a total failure" (with the connotation of failure just not "total" The truth being that most BCS schools would give their let lugnuts to have a similar non-success in the post season. Most of us should be aware that GU is not one of the elite programs yet. GU is not in Duke, MSU, UCLA North Carolina. Spinning the story by painting GU has failed while having better success than at least 85% of the BCS schools seems a bit extreme. Couple that with saying pointing the recruiting for a "WCC school" was good. Success always brings cries of being really failure.

nvr1983
11-09-2011, 01:15 PM
So the administrators here finally cleared my request. Anyways, as it has been mentioned here I am not associated with St. Mary's. I don't think I have even been any closer to it than visiting San Francisco for a few days. As for the question of measuring success by Sweet Sixteen appearances, I provided the numbers in a response at the bottom of the post and Gonzaga does pretty well if that is your metric (tied for 12th overall), but in my opinion getting to the Sweet Sixteen means that you are a good team while the truly great programs get to Elite Eights and beyond. Obviously there are some cases where this leads to strange results/conclusions in one season (VCU isn't a truly great program), but when you don't make it to the Elite Eight a single time in 12 years I have to question whether you deserve the label as a "great program". Once again these are all arbitrary definitions.

04ZagFan
11-09-2011, 01:25 PM
Eh, not worth reading the entire thing, but I'll touch on the beginning points...

We've made the NCAA tournament a million years in a row. We win AT LEAST one game the majority of the time, with several trips to the sweet 16... So for me, I think it's pretty apparent that we are anywhere from being a 16-32 ranked basketball program in the entire country... Out of all the programs in the country, and all of the basketball teams in power conferences, I think it's freaking awesome that we are in top 32 (probably top 25) programs in the country.

Our bitter neighbors to the west can make fun of our program all they want, our run since 1998 has been amazing, and there are no signs of it ending... So we aren't a perennial final four team.. So we aren't a top 10 program.. That's fine. We ARE a top 32 program. That's pretty impressive for a tiny WCC school in Spokane, Washington.

People make fun of how proud we are of the program... Making fun of the "Decade of Excellence" DVD. Whatever makes them feel better about themselves.. The truth is, what Gonzaga has done since that 1998 season is unmatched. Never been done. Similar streaks like UCLA's is more understandable because they are a power program, one of the greatest programs ever.. We are a tiny little school in Eastern Washington. WOW. Unthinkable that the program is where it is.

04ZagFan
11-09-2011, 01:26 PM
So the administrators here finally cleared my request. Anyways, as it has been mentioned here I am not associated with St. Mary's. I don't think I have even been any closer to it than visiting San Francisco for a few days. As for the question of measuring success by Sweet Sixteen appearances, I provided the numbers in a response at the bottom of the post and Gonzaga does pretty well if that is your metric (tied for 12th overall), but in my opinion getting to the Sweet Sixteen means that you are a good team while the truly great programs get to Elite Eights and beyond. Obviously there are some cases where this leads to strange results/conclusions in one season (VCU isn't a truly great program), but when you don't make it to the Elite Eight a single time in 12 years I have to question whether you deserve the label as a "great program". Once again these are all arbitrary definitions.

How many of the hundreds of programs then, do you consider to be "great?" There are only a handful that would meet your criteria. I don't think any GU fans think we are among the best programs in the country.... But what we've been doing for over a decade is remarkable. Respect it.

mgadfly
11-09-2011, 01:54 PM
That PSU game was terrible. Not only did they have someone shooting lights out from 3 (Dominguez 7-10), but we got out rebounded by a MUCH smaller team. This was a game where it didn't appear like the GU players showed up to play at all. I'd also peg the Utah loss as a head scratcher given the talent and size difference. That was another poor rebounding effort on our part.

I don't really disagree on whether GU should have won the game, and whether they should have out-rebounded that Portland State team. They should have.

Just losing a mid-season, Christmas break game to a pretty good team full of juniors and seniors who do the one thing well (shoot threes) your team doesn't defend, shortly after an injury that has caused everyone to have to play out of position, really doesn't qualify as a head-scratcher to me.

As for the rebounding, being taller isn't everything. And that game our bigs rebounded pretty well. Our guards gave them no help (which you need when there are a lot of longer rebounds because the teams combined for 50 three point attempts). Plus, Portland State was an okay rebounding team that year.

Utah was a well coached team that won the Mountain West Conference. Losing by a point on their court was disappointing, but certainly not a head scratcher.

At the time, losing 4 of 5 after such a great start to the season, I was incredibly disappointed and was scratching my head a little. In retrospect, every team we lost to made the tournament. One was the national champions, one reached the Final Four, two made the sweet 16. Utah lost to Arizona in the first round (we had lost to both, so one had to go out that round), and Portland State lost to Xavier in the first round.


That was a good team, and just like 2006 there weren't really any real bad losses to bad teams. Portland State was by far the worst loss and I still don't think it was a head-scrather considering their strengths, our weaknesses, and where we were at in the season.

mgadfly
11-09-2011, 02:00 PM
My problem with the article is it is very light on the "hype" proof. I understand that some people feel as though Gonzaga is too often cited as a possible Cinderella but what other mid-tier conference team has fit the bill more often?

If the question is this: What "mid-major" (whatever that means) school is most likely to challenge the "major" conferences for the national championship?

Then has GU really been over-hyped?

I don't see a whole lot of people picking us to beat the UNC's of the world. Usually we get the nod as the best of a certain subset of teams. I don't know if that is too much hype because our resume stacks up very well, year in and year out, against those teams. Instead the author compares us to teams that are clearly elite teams that NO mid-major (except Butler over the past two seasons) has ever stacked up well against. It seems a little bit intellectually dishonest and misleading.

nvr1983
11-09-2011, 02:09 PM
I didn't think it was necessary to pull up "hype proof" because Gonzaga is one of the most talked about teams in the country. Are you looking for a few randomly selected articles talking about how great Gonzaga is as a program and how they are "one of the big boys"? In terms of cache and name brand they are probably on the second or third tier. They are certainly below Duke, UNC, and Kentucky in terms of basketball awareness and they fall below schools like Connecticut, Syracuse, etc, but they are probably above schools like Wisconsin, who has every bit the record that they do over the past decade (actually better).

What I was trying to do with the article was try to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that next step? A decade ago, they were the premier mid-major. Now they are probably third at best behind Butler and Xavier (the latter doesn't even like being described as such any more). If you have any good explanations on why they haven't been able to take that next step and win that big game to get them back to the Elite Eight or beyond, I'd love to hear it. Maybe it is just as I said that making it there is really hard.

rennis
11-09-2011, 02:11 PM
^also important to note that Butler didn't exactly stack up against "the elite" teams well on paper either. Butler wasn't even a top 4 seed in either year. 5 and 8 if memory serves. They just got the right matchups, were healthy, and played great basketball.

rennis
11-09-2011, 02:16 PM
What I was trying to do with the article was try to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that next step? A decade ago, they were the premier mid-major. Now they are probably third at best behind Butler and Xavier (the latter doesn't even like being described as such any more). If you have any good explanations on why they haven't been able to take that next step and win that big game to get them back to the Elite Eight or beyond, I'd love to hear it. Maybe it is just as I said that making it there is really hard.

I'd be willing to bet the only people who are trying to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that step than you are the members of this board.

I'd be willing to bet the only people who are trying to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that step than the members of this board are the members of the team.

I'd be willing to bet the only people who are trying to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that step than the members of the team are the coaches.

I'm also willing to bet the coaches wives know best. haha

mgadfly
11-09-2011, 02:30 PM
Are you looking for a few randomly selected articles talking about how great Gonzaga is as a program and how they are "one of the big boys"?


The idea that Gonzaga hasn't lived up to the hype should compare what the expectations are with what results they achieved. Your article does a fine job using an Elite 8 appearance metric to determine how GU has fared. Although, had a championship been the measure of success GU would have fared as well as any other mid-major.

The article doesn't have any objective measurement for expectations (i.e. "hype"). A better article would have compared the pre-season ranking of GU and whether they achieved that ranking.

For example, in all seasons that they were ranked #1, did they win a national championship? Ranked 2-4, did they reach a final four. 5-8, did they reach an Elite 8, and so forth...

I don't know what the results of such a study would show, but it would be better than, "I hear a lot about Gonzaga and they haven't reached an Elite 8, therefore they are obviously over-hyped."

titopoet
11-09-2011, 03:12 PM
I didn't think it was necessary to pull up "hype proof" because Gonzaga is one of the most talked about teams in the country. Are you looking for a few randomly selected articles talking about how great Gonzaga is as a program and how they are "one of the big boys"? In terms of cache and name brand they are probably on the second or third tier. They are certainly below Duke, UNC, and Kentucky in terms of basketball awareness and they fall below schools like Connecticut, Syracuse, etc, but they are probably above schools like Wisconsin, who has every bit the record that they do over the past decade (actually better).

What I was trying to do with the article was try to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that next step? A decade ago, they were the premier mid-major. Now they are probably third at best behind Butler and Xavier (the latter doesn't even like being described as such any more). If you have any good explanations on why they haven't been able to take that next step and win that big game to get them back to the Elite Eight or beyond, I'd love to hear it. Maybe it is just as I said that making it there is really hard.

Of course they are not one of the elite programs, but not being elite does not mean they lack success. In your article you mention 4 star recruits and not 5 star, because? North Carolina has more in their current roster than in GU's history. The fact that a small school from the northwest can maintain such a level of success is nothing shirt of remarkable. They are not a consistent 10 ten program, but they are a consistent top 25 program and considering their resources that in fact makes them far more successful a program.

Now you mention Xaiver and Butler. X's success and Gu is measure almost equal. (In the post season they met once in the run with GU W) X has one more elite 8 but some years did not make it. What Butler has done is nothing short of pushing themselves to the point of elite program. The next few years will be telling if they can translate their success into better recruits to push into that next level. Gonzaga will continue to push and has been close before and will be their one of these seasons.

jim77
11-09-2011, 03:45 PM
Haven't we met the X-men a few times....and beat them a few times too. In fact, we have them on the schedule this year. I would not put Xavier above us...its closer to equal. I don't think their elite 8's trump our sheer number of invitations in the last 11 or so years.

GU has a chance to equal UCLA's record streak....and going to 13 or 14 straight dances.....hardly material for even mentioning anything negative. GO ZAGS!

bartruff1
11-09-2011, 03:46 PM
I am trying hard to give the guy credit for being objective and fair minded... and I will give him credit for making a effort to come in here and make his points... but, I am afraid that he just has a axe to grind and is not looking for a explanation but rather is belittling a truly remarkable achievement that will likely never be matched by a University with comparable obstacles over a relatively long period.. a non story.

bullzag23
11-09-2011, 03:58 PM
I don't really disagree on whether GU should have won the game, and whether they should have out-rebounded that Portland State team. They should have.

Just losing a mid-season, Christmas break game to a pretty good team full of juniors and seniors who do the one thing well (shoot threes) your team doesn't defend, shortly after an injury that has caused everyone to have to play out of position, really doesn't qualify as a head-scratcher to me.

As for the rebounding, being taller isn't everything. And that game our bigs rebounded pretty well. Our guards gave them no help (which you need when there are a lot of longer rebounds because the teams combined for 50 three point attempts). Plus, Portland State was an okay rebounding team that year.

Utah was a well coached team that won the Mountain West Conference. Losing by a point on their court was disappointing, but certainly not a head scratcher.

At the time, losing 4 of 5 after such a great start to the season, I was incredibly disappointed and was scratching my head a little. In retrospect, every team we lost to made the tournament. One was the national champions, one reached the Final Four, two made the sweet 16. Utah lost to Arizona in the first round (we had lost to both, so one had to go out that round), and Portland State lost to Xavier in the first round.


That was a good team, and just like 2006 there weren't really any real bad losses to bad teams. Portland State was by far the worst loss and I still don't think it was a head-scrather considering their strengths, our weaknesses, and where we were at in the season.

Well we agree to disagree then. Being at the PSU game in my mind it was clear to me that one team looked like they wanted it while the other(take a guess which) looked like they didn't care they were there. Watching it only for a few minutes I could tell who the better team was, but the better team did not show up to play that day. I still feel that was our most talented team, but they lacked the fire that other GU teams have had.

nvr1983
11-09-2011, 04:28 PM
To start off, this will probably be my last post on this thread although I may come back to the message board at a later time if warranted. It isn't that I don't enjoy chatting with you or I don't feel I can handle an argument/discussion. It is just that it is difficult to follow a thread on here, run a Twitter feed, run the site, request credentials, etc. I'll be happy to answer additional questions, but I would have to direct them to the post, which I can keep an eye on when I am on the site rather than having to jump between the site and this message board.

1) I don't have any axe to grind. I enjoy watching Gonzaga play. This was just another question in our 20-part series of questions for the start of the season. Originally the question was going to be "Has Butler surpassed Gonzaga as the best mid-major program?", but that would have been a very short post. (Content = "Yes.") I am not trying to belittle what Gonzaga has accomplished. If you think I am then you are reading way too much into the post. Perhaps if you were a Duke fan you would criticize me for mentioning that Roy Williams has made more than twice as many Elite Eight appearances as Mike Krzyzewski has in the past 12 years. I am just pointing out that it is interesting that Gonzaga has not made it back to the Elite Eight in the 12 years that Mark Few has been coach and was trying to figure out a reason (or reasons) why he has not done so.

2) Metrics: This is a difficult part. You can spin this any way you want. It really is a pointless argument. I remember when we did a post on the best programs of the past decade (http://rushthecourt.net/category/best-of-rtc/team-of-the-2000s/) several years ago. We had fans of various teams coming up with different rating systems where you assigned point values to making the NCAA Tournament, making the Sweet Sixteen, winning the NCAA Title, etc. Amazingly their teams tended to always end up being the "best" using their "objective" analysis because the numbers never lie. Basically, what I am saying is that you can parse the data any way you want to come up with an argument (ok, well almost any argument). The reason I used the Elite Eight to evaluate Gonzaga is because that is what their national reputation is built on (the 1999 NCAA Tournament). If you are looking for more objective data, I'm not sure we have done other posts that answer the exact question that you are looking for, but a few weeks ago I did an analysis of preseason versus end of regular season ranking (http://rushthecourt.net/2011/10/20/preseason-polls-who-tends-to-be-overrated-and-underrated/) and a much older/outdated post comparing NCAA seed versus performance (http://rushthecourt.net/2007/06/15/ncaa-tourney-overachievers-and-underachievers-of-the-65-64-team-era/) that showed the Gonzaga actually had done better than their seed would have suggested (look at Table D), but that included the 1999 run and did not include anything after the 2007 NCAA Tournament.

Anyways, I have enjoyed discussing it with you, but like I said I can't keep on checking back here and sorting through all the responses. I would be happy to answer any other questions/criticisms on our site if you leave a comment on the post.

bostonzagfan
11-09-2011, 06:02 PM
a 2 yr run does not constitute a "best program" in my opinion.

A tremendous 2 yr run which Gonzaga has never approaches I admit, but 2 years is not enough for me.

04ZagFan
11-09-2011, 06:49 PM
Of course they are not one of the elite programs, but not being elite does not mean they lack success. In your article you mention 4 star recruits and not 5 star, because? North Carolina has more in their current roster than in GU's history. The fact that a small school from the northwest can maintain such a level of success is nothing shirt of remarkable. They are not a consistent 10 ten program, but they are a consistent top 25 program and considering their resources that in fact makes them far more successful a program.

Now you mention Xaiver and Butler. X's success and Gu is measure almost equal. (In the post season they met once in the run with GU W) X has one more elite 8 but some years did not make it. What Butler has done is nothing short of pushing themselves to the point of elite program. The next few years will be telling if they can translate their success into better recruits to push into that next level. Gonzaga will continue to push and has been close before and will be their one of these seasons.

OK, this is weird.. Post #35... You quoted my user name, but oddly, I didn't write it... What the hell!? How did that happen?

Demetri Awesome
11-09-2011, 07:54 PM
So the administrators here finally cleared my request. Anyways, as it has been mentioned here I am not associated with St. Mary's. I don't think I have even been any closer to it than visiting San Francisco for a few days. As for the question of measuring success by Sweet Sixteen appearances, I provided the numbers in a response at the bottom of the post and Gonzaga does pretty well if that is your metric (tied for 12th overall), but in my opinion getting to the Sweet Sixteen means that you are a good team while the truly great programs get to Elite Eights and beyond. Obviously there are some cases where this leads to strange results/conclusions in one season (VCU isn't a truly great program), but when you don't make it to the Elite Eight a single time in 12 years I have to question whether you deserve the label as a "great program". Once again these are all arbitrary definitions.


Why do you care so much about Gonzaga? You could be writing this article about 30 other well respected programs?

Demetri Awesome
11-09-2011, 08:01 PM
a 2 yr run does not constitute a "best program" in my opinion.

A tremendous 2 yr run which Gonzaga has never approaches I admit, but 2 years is not enough for me.

Well said! I'm sorry but this guy is a total clown. His site is not worth the time. I don't understand how someone can be considered a sports writer with his logic.

MickMick
11-09-2011, 08:30 PM
All I know is that most coaches in sports who win and win and win like Few does eventually get over the hump. You can't possibly win that many games and appear in that many consecutive NCAA tournaments and not pull a slot at some point that comes up all cherries.

To reinforce you excellent point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wooden#Head_coaching_record)

It took this guy 18 season to get past the Sweet Sixteen.

To the author: Randy Bennett is on the clock.

Reborn
11-09-2011, 08:48 PM
I didn't think it was necessary to pull up "hype proof" because Gonzaga is one of the most talked about teams in the country. Are you looking for a few randomly selected articles talking about how great Gonzaga is as a program and how they are "one of the big boys"? In terms of cache and name brand they are probably on the second or third tier. They are certainly below Duke, UNC, and Kentucky in terms of basketball awareness and they fall below schools like Connecticut, Syracuse, etc, but they are probably above schools like Wisconsin, who has every bit the record that they do over the past decade (actually better).

What I was trying to do with the article was try to figure out why Gonzaga hasn't been able to make that next step? A decade ago, they were the premier mid-major. Now they are probably third at best behind Butler and Xavier (the latter doesn't even like being described as such any more). If you have any good explanations on why they haven't been able to take that next step and win that big game to get them back to the Elite Eight or beyond, I'd love to hear it. Maybe it is just as I said that making it there is really hard.

I seriously do not believe that the best criteria to use for evaluating a team's success is how frequently they make the Elite 8. In fact the one year that Gonzaga did make it to the Elite 8, they certainly did not have a great year prior to the NCAA tournament. I think the writer of the article minizes the importance of reaching the Sweet 16. He merely calls it a good year, and he gives all honor and glory to those teams that make it to the Elite 8 and beyond. Let me tell you the truth. The teams that make it to the Sweet 16 are GREAT TEAMS. I'll say it again. They are GREAT TEAMS. The goal of any of the great teams in the country is to make it to the Sweet 16, and anyone who truly knows the game knows that if you make it that far you've had a great year. It is SOOOOOOOO hard to make it to the Sweet 16. The teams still standing at the Sweet 16 are great. To me if Gonzaga makes it to the Sweet 16 they have had a great year.

I think most people who know the game would say that to make it beyond the Sweet 16 takes some luck...and you can not tell me that Butler had a heck of a lot of luck last year...YES ALOT OF LUCK....THEY won two games on lucky shots. Gonzaga has not had that kind of luck, best illustrated by the 2005-06 team when JP had the ball stolen on what certainly should have been called a foul. JP makes those two foul shots and the Zags go on to the final 4. The same could be said about the GU vs Arizona game...Zags missed by a hair. And yes the GU game vs Texas Tech when Roney misses two foul shots at the end of the game was just unlucky. If he makes them the Zags win...and who knows from there.

The second measure of greatness to me is how long a program can sustain success. This, in fact, may be the truest measure of success. I think most teams will admit that it is a season goal to reach the NCAA tournament. And there have been years, and recent ones too, when some of the so called Elite Teams have not made it to the NCAA tournament. I can think of UCONN and UNC not making it recently. And i think there was a year UCLA did not make it too recently. And I think Gonzaga has made it 12 years in a row, right up there at the Elite level.

And finally, the last, and again maybe the most important measure of success is winning the conference. Those who understand basketball know how difficult it is to win a conference...and to keep winning it year after year 12 or 13 years in a row is just pretty unbelievable....YES IT IS, nvr1983. Only the great years at UCLA under coach Wooden are ahead of the Zags.

To say Butler or Xavier are a better program then GU because they made it to the final 4 the last two years is, imo, debateable, and imo, the writer of this article has blinders on. He says he has no bias, but honestly I see that he does. I'm not sure why. I think that maybe because Gonzaga gets so much praise from the TV analysts. Personally, I think Butler needs to show that they can keep a winning steak going year after year like Gonzaga has before I will say they have a better program. And I think they missed the NCAA tournament recently too. I put Xavier ahead of Butler and even with Gonzaga, or maybe slightly behind us.

JPtheBeasta
11-09-2011, 08:58 PM
Why do you care so much about Gonzaga? You could be writing this article about 30 other well respected programs?

So many big programs do less with more. I still feel Few and Co overacheive in a lot of ways. As a fan I want GU to make a leap to the next level (ie Final Four), but as a realist it is pretty remarkable what has been happening at this small private school in Spokane, WA for the last decade. Roy Williams, one of the paragons of coaching mentioned in the article missed the tournament recently and has one of the easiest schools in the country to recruit to. If GU starts having lottery picks leaving early for the draft every year and we have the same relative success we are having now, then we can start talking about GU being over rated.

bostonzagfan
11-09-2011, 09:07 PM
a two year run spans the junior and senior seasons of most likely your top players... any 2 or 3 season run usually concurs with the careers of a couple of special players. the gonzaga run has survived the loss of great players (such as ammo) and still been a good team. let's see if butler can survive the loss of their best players and still be good. not saying they can't, but it is not fair to assume they can make the tournament for the next 8 seasons.

ZagFanInNC
11-09-2011, 11:27 PM
Don't get GREEDY. To be whining about GU's lack of success is pathetic....the numbers don't lie. I consider the last 10 years a HUGE accomplishment. One day we might go to an elite 8....then again we might not....enjoy the ride. You can't advance in the dance if you ain't in the dance.......and our dancing shoes have holes:p

I think the ultimate goal for every good program is to win the National Championship. While dominating the WCC that has usually 2 worthy opponents a year is fun and all I don't think it is "greedy" to want further success for your team.

Honestly I can't stand it when fans are okay with losing when it really matters because, "hey we won our confrence". Yes, the NCAA tournament is when it really matters, not the WCC tournament or regular season. If we don't win our confrence regular season or tournament and then go to the Elite 8 it would be a bigger success than what we have been doing. Enjoy our success, yes, but don't be complacent.

EuroZag2010
11-09-2011, 11:55 PM
This is false.

RTC has a number of correspondents. The guy who wrote the linked article is one of the founders I believe and he is not a SMC grad.

This was posted on the smc board regarding the preview alameda wrote.... Looks like he's one of the writers might not be the one that wrote this article





Posts: 344
10/27/11 03:52
Fan
Why don't the big magazines hire a WCC vet like Alameda to write their WCC preview? This is so much better than the puff pieces that the bigger media outlets publish. Some of them can't even figure out the correct spelling of the players names.#


http://godisagael.yuku.com/topic/5389/Another-conference-preview#.TruPbbd5mc1

jim77
11-10-2011, 12:47 AM
I think the ultimate goal for every good program is to win the National Championship. While dominating the WCC that has usually 2 worthy opponents a year is fun and all I don't think it is "greedy" to want further success for your team.

Honestly I can't stand it when fans are okay with losing when it really matters because, "hey we won our confrence". Yes, the NCAA tournament is when it really matters, not the WCC tournament or regular season. If we don't win our confrence regular season or tournament and then go to the Elite 8 it would be a bigger success than what we have been doing. Enjoy our success, yes, but don't be complacent.

Two worthy teams a year, huh? Okay, then name me another team besides UCLA (and you can include UN-worthy conferences too) who have done what GU has done? I guess it is pretty remarkable, huh....and no I'm not complacent. I just recognize exceptional acheivements when I see them....staying on top of ANY conference for 12 straight is pretty remarkable.

bartruff1
11-10-2011, 04:35 AM
That would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. We are not worthy of your fandom, perhaps you should be a fan of Kentucky or some other worthy team ?

GoZags
11-10-2011, 05:29 AM
A stat I bring up from time to time:

Since Gonzaga's "cute little run" began in '99, a grand total of 7 schools (out of the 348 that play D1 hoops) have advanced to the Sweet 16 (or beyond) more often than our Zags.

Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, UConn, UCLA, Arizona and Kentucky.

The Zags have NEVER had a Scout.com Top 25 recruiting class, and have had a grand total of ONE (1) Rivals.com Top 25 recruiting class-- yet they're consistently in the dance -- and advance more than their fair share.

11 straight conference titles. 13 straight NCAA tourney appearances.

The Zags are doing okay.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top/2001-2002

rennis
11-10-2011, 07:56 AM
how the hell is Memphis not in that group?

zagzilla
11-10-2011, 08:44 AM
You can't simply look at how far a team advances while ignoring seeding. If you are a protected seed you have a MUCH easier path to the S16 or E8.

To get a better sense for under or over achievement you have to consider how a team has performed vs. expectations. Not expectations of the media but of the committee as defined by seed.

GU is 8-4 as a favorite in the NCAA in since '99. Losses to grossly underseeded Davidson and Wyoming accounting for half of the "bad" losses.

As an underdog, they are 8-9 with 5 of those losses against #1 seeds and another vs a #2. Playing 5 #1 seeds in 13 seasons is hard to ignore when considering why they haven't gotten further in the brackets.

Zags were also a double digit seed 5 times and have had a much tougher paths to the second and 3rd weekends of the dance than the other elite schools the author mentions.

ZZ

GoZags
11-10-2011, 09:06 AM
how the hell is Memphis not in that group?

Well, you could have looked it up, rather than asking how the hell Memphis isn't in the group of 7 schools that have advanced to the 2nd weekend of the dance more often than Gonzaga since '99 (the start of Gonzaga's consecutive NCAA tourney streak).

Memphis has been to the Sweet 16 (or beyond) 4 times since '99.
Gonzaga has been to the Sweet 16 (or beyond) 6 times since '99.

6>4

That's how the hell Memphis wasn't on the list.

jim77
11-10-2011, 09:49 AM
You can't simply look at how far a team advances while ignoring seeding. If you are a protected seed you have a MUCH easier path to the S16 or E8.

To get a better sense for under or over achievement you have to consider how a team has performed vs. expectations. Not expectations of the media but of the committee as defined by seed.

GU is 8-4 as a favorite in the NCAA in since '99. Losses to grossly underseeded Davidson and Wyoming accounting for half of the "bad" losses.

As an underdog, they are 8-9 with 5 of those losses against #1 seeds and another vs a #2. Playing 5 #1 seeds in 13 seasons is hard to ignore when considering why they haven't gotten further in the brackets.

Zags were also a double digit seed 5 times and have had a much tougher paths to the second and 3rd weekends of the dance than the other elite schools the author mentions.

ZZ

Nice points.

JPtheBeasta
11-10-2011, 10:34 AM
You can't simply look at how far a team advances while ignoring seeding. If you are a protected seed you have a MUCH easier path to the S16 or E8.

To get a better sense for under or over achievement you have to consider how a team has performed vs. expectations. Not expectations of the media but of the committee as defined by seed.

GU is 8-4 as a favorite in the NCAA in since '99. Losses to grossly underseeded Davidson and Wyoming accounting for half of the "bad" losses.

As an underdog, they are 8-9 with 5 of those losses against #1 seeds and another vs a #2. Playing 5 #1 seeds in 13 seasons is hard to ignore when considering why they haven't gotten further in the brackets.

Zags were also a double digit seed 5 times and have had a much tougher paths to the second and 3rd weekends of the dance than the other elite schools the author mentions.

ZZ

Good stuff. Thanks. We've blown some good chances at better seeding recently and it would be awesome (needless to say) for GU and its fans to have a protected seed close to home this year.

04ZagFan
11-10-2011, 10:43 AM
A stat I bring up from time to time:

Since Gonzaga's "cute little run" began in '99, a grand total of 7 schools (out of the 348 that play D1 hoops) have advanced to the Sweet 16 (or beyond) more often than our Zags.

Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, UConn, UCLA, Arizona and Kentucky.

The Zags have NEVER had a Scout.com Top 25 recruiting class, and have had a grand total of ONE (1) Rivals.com Top 25 recruiting class-- yet they're consistently in the dance -- and advance more than their fair share.

11 straight conference titles. 13 straight NCAA tourney appearances.

The Zags are doing okay.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top/2001-2002

There are the ELITE programs, and then there are the ELITE of the ELITE. There is absolutely nothing UNremarkable about what GOnzaga has done. Amazing.

Now, is it "greedy" to want more? No way. I would LOVE a final four... Hope one day we get there.. But we have to remember who we are. You don't have to be OK with losing, but once and a while we need threads like this to put things into perspective. We are extremely lucky. We aren't North Carolina, Duke, UCONN, UCLA, Arizona, ect... We have to remember that.

bostonzagfan
11-10-2011, 12:24 PM
it would be helpful if the zags start to get better seeds. getting a 1 seed is such a huge advantage... basically an automatic bye into the second round, then beat an 8/9 seed and your in the sweet 16 and going up against a 4/5 to make the elite 8... if we played a 4/5 for a chance for the elite 8, i would imagine we would make it on the first or second try.

ZagFanInNC
11-10-2011, 12:59 PM
That would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. We are not worthy of your fandom, perhaps you should be a fan of Kentucky or some other worthy team ?

Your right, I am completely okay with regualr season championships. When we get to the tournament i'll be happy with a loss at any time because we are better than WCC teams. :fingergun:


Two worthy teams a year, huh? Okay, then name me another team besides UCLA (and you can include UN-worthy conferences too) who have done what GU has done? I guess it is pretty remarkable, huh....and no I'm not complacent. I just recognize exceptional acheivements when I see them....staying on top of ANY conference for 12 straight is pretty remarkable.

Nobody is diminishing what we have done with our regular season confrence streak. But you need a history lesson if you are trying to compare what we are doing to UCLA, they won multiple NCAA Championships during their streak.

If Idaho wins the WAC for the next 13 years and makes little to no impact in the tournamnet it will not be on UCLA's level. Its just a fact... TOURNAMENT SUCCESS MATTERS! If we have good tournament showings to go along with regular season confrence championship streak people will respect our streak 10X more than they do now.

GoZags
11-10-2011, 01:07 PM
it would be helpful if the zags start to get better seeds. getting a 1 seed is such a huge advantage... basically an automatic bye into the second round, then beat an 8/9 seed and your in the sweet 16 and going up against a 4/5 to make the elite 8... if we played a 4/5 for a chance for the elite 8, i would imagine we would make it on the first or second try.

Unfortunately during the three seasons only Duke and Gonzaga finished back to back to back Top 10 RPI ('04, '05 and '06) the Zags ran into some trouble in the dance.

Their #2 seed ('04) they got run out of the gym by Nevada in the 2nd round. The following year (#3 seed) they couldn't hit a free throw down the stretch to save their lives, and lost a nailbiter in the 2nd round to #6 seed Texas Tech.

Then, there's '06 -- where they DID get to the Sweet 16 as a 3 seed, then faced UCLA in the battle to reach the Elite 8. That game was great for awhile (a long while) -- but ended poorly for our Zags.

Yes -- I'd like to see greater success in the regular season -- and start to get those type of seeds again. Hopefully they'll be in a position to take advantage of a good (or great) seed.

zagzilla
11-10-2011, 01:21 PM
We have to earn the higher seeds. The protected seeds are 1-4 in each of the 4 regions. Those teams are supposed to make the S16 by virtue of playing lower seeded teams and by being given games closer to home

We have been a protected seed 4 times

#2 in '04 lost to #10 Nevada in 2nd round
#3 in '05 lost to #6 Texas Tech in 2nd round
#3 in '06 Lost to #2 UCLA in S16
#4 in '09 lost to #1 NC in S16

in '06 and '09 we played to our seed

'04 and '05 we under-performed. $hit happens....

ZZ

rennis
11-10-2011, 01:35 PM
That's how the hell Memphis wasn't on the list.

sorry, my question was somewhat rhetorical. (and I didn't have time to figure out the answer.)

Goes to show how far a couple of Final Fours will take your reputation as a school. (doesn't help that Gonzaga suffered so many beatings by Calipari's Tigers in those years...)

BULLDOG#1
11-10-2011, 01:56 PM
Interesting thread...

Here's a question:

Can you name one pac-12 team that would have won the WCC for the past 11 years like the zags have?

I can't. Not one pac-12 team has been as consistant as the zags over the last decade.

bostonzagfan
11-10-2011, 02:38 PM
We have to earn the higher seeds. The protected seeds are 1-4 in each of the 4 regions. Those teams are supposed to make the S16 by virtue of playing lower seeded teams and by being given games closer to home

We have been a protected seed 4 times

#2 in '04 lost to #10 Nevada in 2nd round
#3 in '05 lost to #6 Texas Tech in 2nd round
#3 in '06 Lost to #2 UCLA in S16
#4 in '09 lost to #1 NC in S16

in '06 and '09 we played to our seed

'04 and '05 we under-performed. $hit happens....

ZZ

Would scheduling an easier OOC give us a better record and a better seed? If it did would it be worth doing so? I'm talking a 1, 2, or 3 seed.

I don't think a 4 seed is that great. you have to go against a 1 seed in the sweet 16 almost every time, as most #1 seeds make it through the first weekend. At least being a 3 seed means you get to play a #2, who may lose to a #7 or #10 seed. Being a 2 seed is better because you could play a #3, #6, or even an #11.

zagzilla
11-10-2011, 03:39 PM
I don’t think Few and co are happy to settle for the S16′s but being realistic, it is a very good result – moreso than it would be for say, Carolina with the resources they have. NC has had 58 McDonald’s All Americans and the lowest they have been seeded this century is 6th (except when they missed altogether). Despite that they have just 2 more S16′s than GU since 2000.

At GU, you need a combination of recruiting diamonds in the rough and then coaching them up, winning a WCC where you get everybody’s best shot and then with a deflated RPI hope for a decent seed that gives you a path through the bracket. Lots of things to go wrong there.

With that in mind-13 straight appearances, 4 S16′s and 1 E8 are OK. One of these days they will go further….

ZZ

jim77
11-10-2011, 03:46 PM
Your right, I am completely okay with regualr season championships. When we get to the tournament i'll be happy with a loss at any time because we are better than WCC teams. :fingergun:



Nobody is diminishing what we have done with our regular season confrence streak. But you need a history lesson if you are trying to compare what we are doing to UCLA, they won multiple NCAA Championships during their streak.

If Idaho wins the WAC for the next 13 years and makes little to no impact in the tournamnet it will not be on UCLA's level. Its just a fact... TOURNAMENT SUCCESS MATTERS! If we have good tournament showings to go along with regular season confrence championship streak people will respect our streak 10X more than they do now.


The problem is Idaho isn't likely to win it for the next 13 years....and apparently neither has anybody except UCLA...so yeah streaks matter...and I'd beg to differ on what consitutes tourney failure.

JPtheBeasta
11-10-2011, 04:06 PM
Interesting thread...

Here's a question:

Can you name one pac-12 team that would have won the WCC for the past 11 years like the zags have?

I can't. Not one pac-12 team has been as consistant as the zags over the last decade.

University of Arizona would be the closest, IMO. They had some off years where they still made at-large bids. If we were playing still in the WCC in this hypothetical scenario, it would be tough, because we can't seem to beat them.

maynard g krebs
11-10-2011, 04:21 PM
Would scheduling an easier OOC give us a better record and a better seed? If it did would it be worth doing so? I'm talking a 1, 2, or 3 seed.



Better record, yes. Better seed, no.

TheGonzagaFactor
11-10-2011, 05:53 PM
University of Arizona would be the closest, IMO. They had some off years where they still made at-large bids. If we were playing still in the WCC in this hypothetical scenario, it would be tough, because we can't seem to beat them.

No PAC 12 school would have won it every year because their recruiting would take a HUGE hit.. like Derrick Williams would have gone to Arizona if it was a WCC school.

bigblahla
11-10-2011, 09:20 PM
Interesting thread...Here's a question:Can you name one pac-12 team that would have won the WCC for the past 11 years like the zags have?I can't. Not one pac-12 team has been as consistant as the zags over the last decade.

Great Question.

I'd have to agree with JP. Arizona would also be my choice.

It sure would be nice to send them home to the desert with a "L".

Go!! Zags!!!

GoZags
11-11-2011, 07:15 AM
Great Question.

I'd have to agree with JP. Arizona would also be my choice.

It sure would be nice to send them home to the desert with a "L".

Go!! Zags!!!

My opinion is based on having both Gonzaga AND the Pac 12 school in the conference (not one or the other). If that were the case, then I'd say Arizona was capable -- but wouldn't have done it. In my opinion -- there would be a split between Arizona and Gonzaga (and the SMC in the years where they were co-champs). I can't see any school (from any conference) beating out the Zags for the title for the past 11 years.