Gonzaga and Wichita St.

[CatsTopPac]

I thought I would get this debate set up early this year. No reason to wait for midseason when we already know what is going to happen.

So here it goes:

Gonzaga and Wichita State are once again going to find themselves in early January with only about 0-2 losses each, heading into conference play. Then they will play absolutely horrible teams in conference, and basically keep themselves in the top 5-10 while everyone else beats the shit out of each other in conference play. Then everyone will say how well Gonzaga and Wichita State are playing because they keep winning (and because of a game or two in Nov/Dec in which they played well, against a good team).

Come March, they will only have a loss or two and be complaining that they should be a #1 seed. Then, regardless, and because they haven't played but one top 50 team since Dec, they will lose in March before the Sweet 16 (once again proving that they had no business being a top seed).

I don't mean to just shit on these teams, and I'm not even just picking on them. I think that right now, both of those teams are good, and deserve their current rankings. But I also think there is something to be said for what is lost when you go 2 months at the end of a season without playing but one or two teams that are even in the top 100, let alone the top 50. St. Mary's should be good this year, but Gonzaga has basically weeks and weeks to prep for them, and then that's it. BYU might be worth mentioning this year as well. And that's it for the Zags. And for Wichita State, it's worse. I'm not sure they play a top 100 team after Dec.

I get that Wichita State played UK well in the tourney, but every UK game was close. Should Michigan have been a #1 seed because they only lost to UK by 3? I don't think seeding is justified like that. If you are a #1 seed, you are expected to go to the Final Four, or at least play a hell of an Elite Eight game. When you are a #1 seed and you lose in the first weekend, I don't think you should have been a #1 seed, period. I have been saying this about GU and WSU for the last couple years, and I am just wondering when we stop blowing #1 seeds on teams that run the table on some shitty conference.

 

[Smart]

Wichita was undefeated coming off a Final Four berth. They were #5 in KenPom. Yes, they deserved a #1 seed. I'm appalled that you can think otherwise. And as for these mid-major #1s, it is a tiny sample size. It doesn't happen every year, and every recent such #1 seed has clearly earned it.

There have only been five of them in the last fifteen years. Three made the Elite Eight. One took a complete choke to lose the title. I don't know what you are worried about. It's not like the NCAA does it every year. They do it sporadically and all of them are fair.

 

[MI Nightmare]

Personally, I'd rather my team run a gauntlet in college hoops because even the losses, against top talent, can better prepare them for the Big Dance.

I applaud The Zags for scheduling SMU and Memphis at home, and traveling to both UCLA and Zona. At least they'll get a nice taste before that 2 month drought and we'll see how good they are early on. If they manage only 1 loss I'd be open to them landing a 1 seed (depending on how their competition fairs throughout the season).

Wichita's schedule is more embarrassing; Memphis in tourney play, St Louis at home, and at Utah. Not gonna cut it, imo. They deserved to get Kentucky in the Round of 32 last year. The problem is there is no guarantee another 7 UConn or 8 UK will be knocking off teams left and right so in short, the committee rewarded Wichita too greatly based on Ws and Ls.

 

[MI Nightmare]

I think it's more important to balance the brackets than to get the seeds exactly right. In theory you'd like it to be perfect but it won't be. The selection committee does a good job with all the data. The best teams, playing the best basketball, seem to end up in the E8, and further.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

If you don't see why WSU was a 1 seed last year IDK what the fuck to tell you. And if you can't see why this Gonzaga team this year is a great team then again I really don't know what to say.


Both these teams are very talented this year, and Gonzaga is as close to as well rounded as you can be.

 

[podsox]

all the hate Wichita got last yr for being a 1 seed and they got rewarded with Kentucky in the 2nd rd. when it comes to the ncaa tourney seeding really doesn't matter imo. who is your region does

 

[dcZONAfan]

I argued against you last year CTP, and I'll do it again. Wichita absolutely should have been a #1 seed last year, and if they had been on the other side of the bracket from Kentucky they easily could have made it to the final four.

Kentucky played their BEST game of the tournament against WSU, and I think WSU very easily could have taken down Uconn. Not saying they would have, but if you think Uconn blows that team away then you don't know what you're talking about.

Gonzaga looks legit this year as well, and we have a chance to see them quite soon so i'll leave my judgement until they come to our house

 

[CatsTopPac]

Wichita was undefeated coming off a Final Four berth. They were #5 in KenPom. Yes, they deserved a #1 seed. I'm appalled that you can think otherwise. And as for these mid-major #1s, it is a tiny sample size. It doesn't happen every year, and every recent such #1 seed has clearly earned it.

There have only been five of them in the last fifteen years. Three made the Elite Eight. One took a complete choke to lose the title. I don't know what you are worried about. It's not like the NCAA does it every year. They do it sporadically and all of them are fair.

That's 1 in 3 years including back to back the last two years.

If you don't see why WSU was a 1 seed last year IDK what the fuck to tell you. And if you can't see why this Gonzaga team this year is a great team then again I really don't know what to say.


Both these teams are very talented this year, and Gonzaga is as close to as well rounded as you can be.

I specifically wrote (and think) that both are pretty good teams right now, and worthy of their ranking. So we can start there (again).

I argued against you last year CTP, and I'll do it again. Wichita absolutely should have been a #1 seed last year, and if they had been on the other side of the bracket from Kentucky they easily could have made it to the final four.

Kentucky played their BEST game of the tournament against WSU, and I think WSU very easily could have taken down Uconn. Not saying they would have, but if you think Uconn blows that team away then you don't know what you're talking about.

Gonzaga looks legit this year as well, and we have a chance to see them quite soon so i'll leave my judgement until they come to our house

Aside from the fact that neither team was still in my bracket after the first weekend, neither one proved me wrong. I think that the mid-majors that have been #1 seeds in the past, you look at Cal's Memphis and UMASS, and Utah in 1998. Before that it was St Joe's, Temple in '88, UNLV in '91. Indiana State before that. I don't think that Gonzaga or WSU is on that level.

Fact is, when the last good team you play happened in December, then you go 2 of the most critical months of the season without playing anyone that really tests your ability (I mean, you're a future #1 seed, right?) you don't play anyone. And if you do, it's the only tough game within weeks, probably until they play again. You have conferences like B1G, B12, ACC, and the Pac, at least you have tourney competition in tough environments. The combination of the two both gets you ready for the tourney, and justifies the polls.

But then you have these anomalies that are outside of this. Not only do they not have teams constantly expose weaknesses throughout the conference season, but as you lose, you fall in ranking with the other teams that do the same. Now take WSU. They don't play anyone, never get tested by tourney teams game in and game out, and because they don't lose, they rise in the polls.

Then they get to March, and they fall apart because no game has been played like a March game, since Dec. I get that WSU made the FF the year before but they did that for 3 reasons. First, they were a good club, never said they weren't. Second, they played a pretty good schedule in the dance to start (Pitt, Gonzaga, and La Salle). Then, I think they caught OSU, and even 'Ville, off guard. They were good enough to take advantage, and there they were. But they didn't surprise anyone last year, and they won't this year. They played well against UK, but fine, they beat UK. Do you really think they would have gone through UK, Louisville, and Michigan, to get to the FF? Who did they play in a stretch that are even close to those teams that tells you that they could have won out the bracket? Nothing tells me that.

Gonzaga has had this problem for years. As good as they have been, they haven't gotten anywhere near their seeding overall, because they play against no one (but Saint Mary's) every year before March. Then we put them as a #1 seed and expect them off a top to beat a few top 10-20) teams to go to the Final Four?

I just can't see how not playing anything resembling a March game in 2 months, provides the airtight case that they should get a #1 seed with the expectations to go to the FF. You don't lose because you really don't play anyone, and you get into the top 5 and now have an argument for a #1 seed? I don't see it, and I still haven't from WSU or GU as #1 seeds these last two years.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Two months later, this is all going how I thought it would. I wonder what it will look like in another 2 months.

Can't wait to play GU in LA for the FF if that's how it shakes out.

 

[jontaejones]

Two months later, this is all going how I thought it would. I wonder what it will look like in another 2 months.

Can't wait to play GU in LA for the FF if that's how it shakes out.

I think the eye test is important too.

Gonzaga looks like a #1 seed contender. Wichita, not so much.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I thought I would get this debate set up early this year. No reason to wait for midseason when we already know what is going to happen.

So here it goes:

Gonzaga and Wichita State are once again going to find themselves in early January with only about 0-2 losses each, heading into conference play. Then they will play absolutely horrible teams in conference, and basically keep themselves in the top 5-10 while everyone else beats the shit out of each other in conference play. Then everyone will say how well Gonzaga and Wichita State are playing because they keep winning (and because of a game or two in Nov/Dec in which they played well, against a good team).

Come March, they will only have a loss or two and be complaining that they should be a #1 seed. Then, regardless, and because they haven't played but one top 50 team since Dec, they will lose in March before the Sweet 16 (once again proving that they had no business being a top seed).

I don't mean to just shit on these teams, and I'm not even just picking on them. I think that right now, both of those teams are good, and deserve their current rankings. But I also think there is something to be said for what is lost when you go 2 months at the end of a season without playing but one or two teams that are even in the top 100, let alone the top 50. St. Mary's should be good this year, but Gonzaga has basically weeks and weeks to prep for them, and then that's it. BYU might be worth mentioning this year as well. And that's it for the Zags. And for Wichita State, it's worse. I'm not sure they play a top 100 team after Dec.

I get that Wichita State played UK well in the tourney, but every UK game was close. Should Michigan have been a #1 seed because they only lost to UK by 3? I don't think seeding is justified like that. If you are a #1 seed, you are expected to go to the Final Four, or at least play a hell of an Elite Eight game. When you are a #1 seed and you lose in the first weekend, I don't think you should have been a #1 seed, period. I have been saying this about GU and WSU for the last couple years, and I am just wondering when we stop blowing #1 seeds on teams that run the table on some shitty conference.

A few issues with this:

1) Losing before the Sweet 16 has nothing to do with getting a top seed. The result of a single game doesn't ever prove anything other than what team played better on a given night. A single game doesn't negate the results of an entire season, and that is what seeding is based on... the results of the entire season.

2) Matchups and style of play can dictate tournament success as much as anything else. Bo Ryan's stall ball, and Jim Boeheim's 2-3 zone have accumulated a ton of regular season wins over the years, but both have generally failed to perform up to expectations in the tournament. No offense to Cuse fans, but I've long said that Syracuse was the most likely team to be a 1 seed to lose to a 16 seed, and it's based purely on style of play. the 2-3 zone is vulnerable to hot shooting teams, and 16 seeds tend to be small schools that have teams made up of short quasi-athletes that aren't good for much besides jacking up 3s for 40 minutes. And jacking up 3s for 40 minutes is a great way to beat Syracuse if you can hit a decent percentage. If that came to fruition it wouldn't mean that Syracuse didn't earn their seed. It means they lost a single game. And that's all it means.

3) Why does it matter? There are 68 effing teams in the tournament. It's not like some deserving team was left out because Wichita St got a 1 seed. I've always said that complaining about seeding is bush league bullshit. Beat who's in front of you and you'll eventually be playing for a Championship regardless of what seed you are. Don't worry about Wichita. Worry about your team.

 

[Smart]

Bo Ryan's stall ball, and Jim Boeheim's 2-3 zone have accumulated a ton of regular season wins over the years, but both have generally failed to perform up to expectations in the tournament.

People say this, but if you look at Bo's numbers, his tourney performance actually (slightly) outperform his seeds. I agree that matchups matter, but that isn't the best example.

Like I said in November, there have been 5 mid-major 1 seeds in the last 15 years. Just looking at them, we had:

Wichita State last year. They were undefeated the year after making the Final Four, and were a top 6 team in all metrics. They lost an instant classic to a team that reached the title game. Clearly, there was no flaw here.

Gonzaga in 2013. They entered the dance with only two losses after a very good non-conference schedule which got them to have a top 100 SOS. They killed their opposition, and were top 4 in most advanced metrics because of it. They did struggle in the dance, although the Wichita team that beat them made the Final Four. Again, totally justified.

2008 Memphis. Should have won the national title against one of the most efficient teams in years. Had Derrick Rose. Clearly, justified as a 1.

2006 Memphis. Stacked lineup. Three losses all regular season, to a 1 seed, a 2 seed, and a 9 seed. Lost a tight game in the Elite Eight to their brackets 2 seed. Was top 4 in all advanced metrics. Clearly deserving of a #1.

2004 St. Joseph. 1 loss all year. Played a top 10 OOC schedule and won every game. Finished with a top 40 overall schedule. Lost by 2 in the Elite Eight. Were a top 5 team in all advanced metrics.

Yeah, I'm not getting the outrage here. If anything, the committee has been very conservative in granting high seeds to mid-majors.

 

[podsox]

Gonzaga is loaded this yr. Wichita st is still a good team but has taken a step back imo

 

[azchamps]

How about eff seeds. 68 teams are picked for the tournament, I guess the way they are picked now, and then names are drawn out of a hat. Two at a time. First and second play each other, 3 and 4 and so on. Remember, you have to beat the team put in front of you to win it all, right? This way everyone can stop bitching about how they were screwed over by where they were seeded.

 

[azchamps]

Almost forgot. New drawing every round.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Almost forgot. New drawing every round.

Then we could stop filling out brackets completely! Great idea!

 

[azchamps]

What's up Trolly? Afraid your team couldn't hang unless they were playing a 16 seed?

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

What's up Trolly? Afraid your team couldn't hang unless they were playing a 16 seed?

Did you read anything I wrote?

You realize it an AZ fan bitching about the seeding, right?

 

[azchamps]

I don't bitch about seeding. If my team makes the dance they have six games to win just like everyone else. No matter who they play.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

It's not about you, numbnuts. You made some stupid accusation about me worrying about seeding. I simply pointed out that I'm not worried about it at all (as my post should indicate if you bothered to read them) It was another AZ fan bitching about seeding. (again... if you'd bothered to read anything before posting)

But I've made no secret of my thoughts on the current tournament structure. I'm sure you can find them if you're that interested.