PDA

View Full Version : Will they or won"t they?



Section 116
03-01-2007, 05:11 PM
Interesting questions from a Scripps News reporter:

_ How will the NCAA Tournament selection committee rationalize its decision if it awards Gonzaga (if it doesn't win the WCC tournament) an at-large berth, considering the Zags are No. 71 in the RPI rankings (behind Cal ) and are just 4-2 since losing one of their best players, Josh Heytvelt?

_ How will the selection committee rationalize its decision if it does not award Gonzaga an at-large berth, considering Gonzaga has wins away from home against North Carolina, Texas and Stanford, and would have beaten No. 6 Memphis earlier this month without Heytvelt had a controversial officiating call gone the other way?

Of course I am biased but if we were to finish 22-11 with a loss in the WCC final, that sounds tournament worthy to me. The committtee will have to look beyond the suspension to the current team and the manner in which they are competing.

Here is link to the article:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/19679

Doktorkev
03-01-2007, 06:19 PM
IMO I think that wins over North Carolina, Texas, Stanford and a near miss with Memphis combined with a respectable conference record would be an almost AUTOMATIC insertion into the tourney for just about any team in the nation. Any team in the nation that is except for Gonzaga. I don't understand the math involved with RPIs and frankly I dont want to. But this is a Gonzaga team that also played Butler, Nevada, Duke, WSU Virginia (a 20 game winner) Georgia (17 wins, 8 in the SEC) Yes I realize that these are also games they lost but this serves as a reminder as to just how tough of a schedule this team had this year and still came away with 21 WINS . WCC tournament aside, this GU team belongs in the dance.

sonuvazag
03-01-2007, 06:36 PM
If the selection committee closes it eyes and pretends all those quality OOC wins and losses were part of one imaginary power conference and then pretends that all the WCC games were just a mediocre out of conference schedule with a couple of flubs... yes... they're in.

fedwayzag
03-01-2007, 06:49 PM
The tough pill for me to swallow will be if Stanford gets an at large and we do not. I am not worried about the at large because I have faith we win the WCC tourney.

drnoe
03-01-2007, 07:33 PM
The tough pill for me to swallow will be if Stanford gets an at large and we do not.

Stanford won't make it...5 PAC-10 teams will make it...UCLA, USC, WSU, UA & UO. UW should have to wait until next year. The ACC is the only conference worthy of sending 6 teams.

RenoZag
03-01-2007, 07:42 PM
Curtis' comments about GU underscore how fine the line will be if the automatic bid isn't part of the hand dealt to the Zags.

ZagMania
03-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Stanford won't make it...5 PAC-10 teams will make it...UCLA, USC, WSU, UA & UO. UW should have to wait until next year. The ACC is the only conference worthy of sending 6 teams.

Conferences don't get bids, teams do. IMO, I think Stanford will get in and that we have a better shot at an at-large bid than most people on this forum think, but the tournament loss would have to come from Santa Clara in the finals. Just in case everyone should be pulling for Butler, Memphis, and company in their conference tournaments.

roxdoc
03-01-2007, 09:43 PM
Section 116 - Lets see, since loosing one of our better players we are only 4-2.....that versus 17-8 prior to that time. Pretty close in percentage! :confused:

Doktorkev
03-01-2007, 10:31 PM
I dont disagree with anything you said, but I would be interested to hear as to why you think the Zags will have a better shot at an at large bid.

DrDrivel
03-02-2007, 02:06 AM
Stanford won't make it...5 PAC-10 teams will make it...UCLA, USC, WSU, UA & UO. UW should have to wait until next year. The ACC is the only conference worthy of sending 6 teams.
Why exactly is the ACC worthy of sending 6 teams? Duke, North Carolina, Boston College and Virginia are all locks, but after that, it seems like a precipitous drop-off. Virginia Tech, probably. Beyond that, there are no locks. Let's not accord the ACC dynastic bids. The Pac-10 is the best league in the country this year - both on paper and by the eyeball test. Stanford is hardly hoping for a miracle here... they've got as good a resume as Virginia Tech, if not better.

Edit: I don't know why I left out Maryland. You're right. ACC could well get 6. But Stanford should still get in. They've got the same resume as Virginia and VaTech.

mdZag23
03-02-2007, 09:00 AM
It really depends on the conference tournaments. If there are a bunch of upsets, like Winthrop losing, or Washington winning the Pac 10 Tourney; there is no way we get in.

If things go as planned, we have a great argument and should get in.

gamagin
03-02-2007, 09:47 AM
Doktorkev: I dont disagree with anything you said, but I would be interested to hear as to why you think the Zags will have a better shot at an at large bid.
--

The zags have a better shot because they have a history. They are well-known, competitive and have been involved in a half dozen games that were crowned instant classics -- memphis being the latest.

As such, GU, its story, the national interest its program has generated, the fact that it has been to the NCAA's for several years running etc etc., would make it an at large candidate in all but the worst of years. This versus a lesser know but perhaps arguably better rpi team makes for a Zag nod. This doesn't go on forever, but certainly is good for a season or two, if the slippage is minor.

That said, I have a complaint: I don't know how this blog works, but this topic has appeared under several other headings in the past few days. Makes me wonder why they aren't consolidated. and for that matter, why other topics which are essentially about the same thing aren't consolidated ? It would make the discussions more cohesive and interesting, imo.

Go Zags !

JAGzag
03-02-2007, 10:05 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the committee rewards programs for previous years accomplishments.

gamagin
03-02-2007, 10:29 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the committee rewards programs for previous years accomplishments.
---
in my experience, following the selection process in sports, the process of selecting a bubble team grinds down to a fairly subjective process. A more popular, regular tourney team (wcc champ in our case) has a better chance than a one-time team with, say, a better RPI. At some point it's a subjective decision that sends the final few teams. And don't forget TV. All those millions also want to see the best matchups, whether ####s creek belongs in the NCAA's or not. It wasn't that long ago we were ####s creek. Now, the best teams in the lands are proud as anything when they beat us. And, to me. that's the difference if it comes down to a choice. fwiw.

zzzjag
03-02-2007, 10:54 AM
I would like the 'experts' to pick up a little more on the emergence of Micah Downs and his recent Player of the Week award. So much has been discussed about factoring in...."this is a different team w/out Heytvelt, and the committee will take that into consideration". He was not a factor in most of the key RPI wins this season and now is healthy and productive.

mdZag23
03-02-2007, 03:31 PM
They, the experts, don't think we've done ANYTHING significant since Josh was suspended. That also means that they aren't factoring in any positives Micah may be adding and that they feel that we haven't done anything to improve our resume.

The only way we get in with an At Large is if they look at our OOC schedule and our good wins!

VanZagar
03-02-2007, 04:50 PM
A loss in the tourney will be a huge loss. We can't keep disparaging our conference mates and expect to get off the bubble by losing to one of them.

brasszag
03-02-2007, 05:07 PM
How many WCC teams had winning OOC records - regardless of SOS?

lothar98zag
03-02-2007, 05:29 PM
How many WCC teams had winning OOC records - regardless of SOS?
3 - GU, SCU, & USD