Another Gonzaga Discussion

[jontaejones]

To play devil's advocate here for a minute. The Big West wasn't a power either when UNLV was a force back in the late 1980's-early 1990's under Tark and they were able to contend in the tournament.

That was my closest analogy, although a lot of posters here probably never really saw that team play, I sure did.

The question was not who they were going to lose to, but who could beat them, if anybody.

That team had four first round draft picks on it. Gonzaga doesn't have that, but it's got 2 McDonalds AAs and a bunch of 4 star players, and I don't think people realize that.

I also must say that team lost to Duke in a close game down to the wire and I thought that if they had played more close games, they would have beat them. But Gonzaga might not have a close game down to the wire, especially if they get a good draw.

Can they make the Final 4? Absolutely. Can they win the title? That to me is doubtful.

 

[CatsTopPac]

To play devil's advocate here for a minute. The Big West wasn't a power either when UNLV was a force back in the late 1980's-early 1990's under Tark and they were able to contend in the tournament.

I remember the end of the Tark years, and the animosity between him and Lute.

You're right, the Big West wasn't anywhere close to competitive back then, or now.

But let's take a look at the year UNLV won it in 1990. That year, UNLV played 13 games against 11 tourney teams.

Their first five games were against (11 seed) LMU, (9 seed) Cal, Depaul (who ended the season #24), (2 seed) KU, and (1 seed) Ok. They also played (1 seed) Ark on New Years Day.

After New Year, UNLV had a game against (9 seed) Temple, two games against (6 seed) NMSU, (5 seed) LSU, two games against (9 seed UCSB), (2 seed) Arizona, and (4 seed) Louisville.

That's a pretty well-balanced schedule. They played (2) #1 seeds, (2 )#2 seeds, a #4 seed, a #5 seed, (2) #6 seeds, (3) #9 seeds, and (2) #11 seeds. Most of their games against these teams happened after New Years, a time when Gonzaga usually falls off. Obviously, Tark mixed in teams from other conferences during Jan and Feb to account for a weaker BWC schedule.

This UNLV team was the last team to win a NC that was not from a power conference. They still played a pretty good schedule though. They ended up playing a FF, EE, and 7 S16 teams among those 11 teams that made the tourney. UNLV also had 5 losses that year, spread throughout the season, and all against tourney teams.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I remember the end of the Tark years, and the animosity between him and Lute.

You're right, the Big West wasn't anywhere close to competitive back then, or now.

But let's take a look at the year UNLV won it in 1990. That year, UNLV played 13 games against 11 tourney teams.

Their first five games were against (11 seed) LMU, (9 seed) Cal, Depaul (who ended the season #24), (2 seed) KU, and (1 seed) Ok. They also played (1 seed) Ark on New Years Day.

After New Year, UNLV had a game against (9 seed) Temple, two games against (6 seed) NMSU, (5 seed) LSU, two games against (9 seed UCSB), (2 seed) Arizona, and (4 seed) Louisville. 7 games total against teams in the final top 25.

That's a pretty well-balanced schedule. They played (2) #1 seeds, (2 )#2 seeds, a #4 seed, a #5 seed, (2) #6 seeds, (3) #9 seeds, and (2) #11 seeds. Most of their games against these teams happened after New Years, a time when Gonzaga usually falls off. Obviously, Tark mixed in teams from other conferences during Jan and Feb to account for a weaker BWC schedule.

This UNLV team was the last team to win a NC that was not from a power conference. They still played a pretty good schedule though. They ended up playing a FF, EE, among those 11 teams that made the tourney. UNLV also had 5 losses that year, spread throughout the season, and all against tourney teams.

*edit, those were 7 R32 teams. In the final rankings that year, they had games against two top ten teams, two teams in the 11-15 range, and 2 more teams in the 16-25 range. They played a total of 7 games against teams that finished in the top 25.

 

[ericd7633]

I remember the end of the Tark years, and the animosity between him and Lute.

You're right, the Big West wasn't anywhere close to competitive back then, or now.

But let's take a look at the year UNLV won it in 1990. That year, UNLV played 13 games against 11 tourney teams.

Their first five games were against (11 seed) LMU, (9 seed) Cal, Depaul (who ended the season #24), (2 seed) KU, and (1 seed) Ok. They also played (1 seed) Ark on New Years Day.

After New Year, UNLV had a game against (9 seed) Temple, two games against (6 seed) NMSU, (5 seed) LSU, two games against (9 seed UCSB), (2 seed) Arizona, and (4 seed) Louisville.

That's a pretty well-balanced schedule. They played (2) #1 seeds, (2 )#2 seeds, a #4 seed, a #5 seed, (2) #6 seeds, (3) #9 seeds, and (2) #11 seeds. Most of their games against these teams happened after New Years, a time when Gonzaga usually falls off. Obviously, Tark mixed in teams from other conferences during Jan and Feb to account for a weaker BWC schedule.

This UNLV team was the last team to win a NC that was not from a power conference. They still played a pretty good schedule though. They ended up playing a FF, EE, and 7 S16 teams among those 11 teams that made the tourney. UNLV also had 5 losses that year, spread throughout the season, and all against tourney teams.

Few has also done that, just to a lesser extent, because times are different. Hell that UNLV team only played a total of 8 games before New Years and two of them were conference opponents. How the hell is any team going to do that in today's landscape? This Gonzaga team played 14 games prior to New Years. Gonzaga just isn't going to be able to schedule a half dozen games in January and February in this landscape.

Gonzaga has done a great job challenging themselves OOC. The last 7 years on average they have a top 60 OOC SOS, which is pretty good IMO.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Few has also done that, just to a lesser extent, because times are different. Hell that UNLV team only played a total of 8 games before New Years and two of them were conference opponents. How the hell is any team going to do that in today's landscape? This Gonzaga team played 14 games prior to New Years. Gonzaga just isn't going to be able to schedule a half dozen games in January and February in this landscape.

Gonzaga has done a great job challenging themselves in OOC. The last 7 years on average they have a top 60 OOC SOS, which is pretty good IMO.

Again, they have definitely played some solid OOC schedules. And it is pretty much all they can do. I think they could get back to putting one non-con game in their conference schedule, but you're right, they can't schedule the half dozen non-con games after New Year like Tark did. I've agreed that his hands are fairly tied (especially in the WCC).

I agree that the landscape has changed, that's why I don't think how UNLV did it is the way that GU will have to do it. Even the last team out of a power conference (almost 30 yrs ago) to win the NC still had a far more balanced schedule throughout that made up for a weak conference schedule.

I was addressing the example of UNLV playing in the weak BWC and still doing well. UNLV still had a balanced schedule against a dozen top 50 teams, and their Jan and Feb schedules still mirrored a solid conference schedule.

The last non power school to win the NC still had a power school balance in their schedule.

 

[Loneranger]

To play devil's advocate here for a minute. The Big West wasn't a power either when UNLV was a force back in the late 1980's-early 1990's under Tark and they were able to contend in the tournament.

I was gonna ,mention those UNLV teams as a perfect example. Those teams were better than any team the Zags have ever put on the floor and they won nothing. All they get was get "upset" year after year. Compare their undefeated, until the championship game, team with the Zags just for the fun of it. Sure they competed but so did a lot of teams just like today. They weren't expected to just compete, we were told year after year they would win it all. The Zags are a less talented version of those teams and they've yet to prove they can do anything but compete sometimes.

 

[jontaejones]

I remember the end of the Tark years, and the animosity between him and Lute.

You're right, the Big West wasn't anywhere close to competitive back then, or now.

But let's take a look at the year UNLV won it in 1990. That year, UNLV played 13 games against 11 tourney teams.

Their first five games were against (11 seed) LMU, (9 seed) Cal, Depaul (who ended the season #24), (2 seed) KU, and (1 seed) Ok. They also played (1 seed) Ark on New Years Day.

After New Year, UNLV had a game against (9 seed) Temple, two games against (6 seed) NMSU, (5 seed) LSU, two games against (9 seed UCSB), (2 seed) Arizona, and (4 seed) Louisville.

That's a pretty well-balanced schedule. They played (2) #1 seeds, (2 )#2 seeds, a #4 seed, a #5 seed, (2) #6 seeds, (3) #9 seeds, and (2) #11 seeds. Most of their games against these teams happened after New Years, a time when Gonzaga usually falls off. Obviously, Tark mixed in teams from other conferences during Jan and Feb to account for a weaker BWC schedule.

This UNLV team was the last team to win a NC that was not from a power conference. They still played a pretty good schedule though. They ended up playing a FF, EE, and 7 S16 teams among those 11 teams that made the tourney. UNLV also had 5 losses that year, spread throughout the season, and all against tourney teams.

Damn, that was some good research.

I didn't realize they played that many games against legit teams, especially after New Years. The 1990 team played 7 OOC games against what are now P5 teams ... after New Years!

Weird. That would never happen these days.

 

[Loneranger]

Them being tested has no effect on whether or not they are good enough to get to a FF. Its pretty clear they're good enough, I mean if youve actually watched them this year, it is, holding the schedule against them doesn't make sense to me. If you've watched them over the past decade, this is their best team, even better than the Morrison teams. Look I'm not saying they'll get to the FF, because declaring as fact that any one will in this wide open season is dumb. But you have to include them on the short list of teams to win the whole thing.

I have to disagree with you here, I'm sure I'm not alone. The schedule means everything, especially in March. Many teams have proven you can't play weak schedules and expect to be ready for the tourn. The ACC type teams are MUCH better prepared than the Zags will ever be. Playing the best talent in the country nite after nite makes a team better in every measurable way. Look no further than the Zags exit last yr as a perfect example.

 

[ericd7633]

Again, they have definitely played some solid OOC schedules. And it is pretty much all they can do. I think they could get back to putting one non-con game in their conference schedule, but you're right, they can't schedule the half dozen non-con games after New Year like Tark did. I've agreed that his hands are fairly tied (especially in the WCC).

I agree that the landscape has changed, that's why I don't think how UNLV did it is the way that GU will have to do it. Even the last team out of a power conference (almost 30 yrs ago) to win the NC still had a far more balanced schedule throughout that made up for a weak conference schedule.

I was addressing the example of UNLV playing in the weak BWC and still doing well. UNLV still had a balanced schedule against a dozen top 50 teams, and their Jan and Feb schedules still mirrored a solid conference schedule.

The last non power school to win the NC still had a power school balance in their schedule.

And the reason they did well, at least IMO, was because of Larry Johnson, Greg Anthony, Anderson Hunt and Stacey Augmon. And even they almost lost in the tournament to an unranked team from the MAC in the S16.

This Gonzaga team has the best talent of any of the Few coached teams IMO.

 

[ericd7633]

I have to disagree with you here, I'm sure I'm not alone. The schedule means everything, especially in March. Many teams have proven you can't play weak schedules and expect to be ready for the tourn. The ACC type teams are MUCH better prepared than the Zags will ever be. Playing the best talent in the country nite after nite makes a team better in every measurable way. Look no further than the Zags exit last yr as a perfect example.

??? Gonzaga was an 11 seed last year and made it to the Sweet 16. That's a pretty awful example to be honest. Gonzaga wasn't that good last year, there's a reason why they were an 11 seed to begin with.

Gonzaga has a much better roster this year than last year, and better than any other team Few has coached. They've essentially added 6 impact guys to the roster, and 4 of those guys are experienced players with high level talent. It should tell you something when the guy with the best NBA potential comes off the bench for them.

 

[CatsTopPac]

And the reason they did well, at least IMO, was because of Larry Johnson, Greg Anthony, Anderson Hunt and Stacey Augmon. And even they almost lost in the tournament to an unranked team from the MAC in the S16.

This Gonzaga team has the best talent of any of the Few coached teams IMO.

Sure. Having 4 guys drafted in the first round the next year (and all juniors that year) definitely helps. Hell, having that many badass upperclassmen playing together for so long) is another way the landscape has changed. And having Tark as their coach helped too.

But they also played a bunch of solid teams that year (more than GU ever does), and played them all throughout the year (which GU never does). Add to that the 4 first rounders (which GU doesn't have), and a coach who had FFs under his belt (which GU doesn't have), and its a much better recipe than GU has in any given year (or this year).

Those are the kinds of teams going in that I would call FF teams going in. They played the tourney field from top to bottom throughout the year over and over and had the horses to do well, grow, and translate it in March.

And assuming that this GU team plays to the level of Few's best team ever, that still equates to a 16-point loss in the EE (at best). Again, if they even get that far, it's still not for me to say that they can win that game this year, going in.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Damn, that was some good research.

I didn't realize they played that many games against legit teams, especially after New Years. The 1990 team played 7 OOC games against what are now P5 teams ... after New Years!

Weird. That would never happen these days.

Yeah, they limited OOC games during the conference schedule as the conferences grew and now, you only get to play a game or two OOC during the conference stretch, max. I remember Lute always wanted a really tough game on the schedule at least the weeks we only played ASU, and sometimes additional games. Now, having any OOC games after December is pretty rare.

 

[CatsTopPac]

??? Gonzaga was an 11 seed last year and made it to the Sweet 16. That's a pretty awful example to be honest. Gonzaga wasn't that good last year, there's a reason why they were an 11 seed to begin with.

Gonzaga has a much better roster this year than last year, and better than any other team Few has coached. They've essentially added 6 impact guys to the roster, and 4 of those guys are experienced players with high level talent. It should tell you something when the guy with the best NBA potential comes off the bench for them.

He's probably talking about 2 years ago and misspoke.

And just to your point about "if you've actually watched them this year", I have. And they are good because they have a bunch of games against weak opponents surrounding anything resembling a tough game.

They played nobodies until Florida. Struggled and won. Struggled the very next game against a mediocre ISU team. Another week playing a shitty team and then they beat AZ w/o PJC and Trier, and starting 3 freshmen. I went to that game. AZ looked more nervous about playing in the Staples Center against a good team without their guys, than actually playing against GU. GU ran away with a huge lead to start. AZ settled down, and almost won (again without two of their best returners and starting 3 freshmen). No excuses though, GU looked pretty good, but I don't know if that game would have the same result today if AZ is playing well at all.

Then they played a terrible UW team, a mediocre Akron team, and a mediocre Tennessee team that came back to threaten. After that game, on December 18th, they played garbage (for weeks) on both sides of anything resembling a good team. It's pretty easy to play well against a fringe top 25 team when you have weeks on either side where you play no one, all of your guys are rested, and probably even preparing for them a bit weeks in advance, because why, not, none of the other teams they play are worth the prep.

Then GU goes out and beats the decent team and looks good doing it, knowing they have weeks of shitty teams to play before the next decent matchup. How does that resemble March at all? How can I say that watching GU blow away shitty competition tells me that they will do well in March? Their metrics? Because they actually did well against those shitty teams instead of struggling?

 

[CatsTopPac]

I have to disagree with you here, I'm sure I'm not alone. The schedule means everything, especially in March. Many teams have proven you can't play weak schedules and expect to be ready for the tourn. The ACC type teams are MUCH better prepared than the Zags will ever be. Playing the best talent in the country nite after nite makes a team better in every measurable way. Look no further than the Zags exit last yr as a perfect example.

I do agree that the schedule is a huge deal. That's why SOS is incorporated into everything. Sometimes I don't think the metrics take into consideration all of the nuances of SOS, but SOS is huge. I think that playing a stretch of games against good teams should matter more, because it's tougher to play well against all of them. It's much easier to have them spread out with the ability to recover from one game and get ready for another. Looking at that stretch FSU had a month back or whatever, when they played like 5 ranked teams in 7 games is a much bigger deal than playing 5 ranked teams over 2 months, let's say. And SOS doesn't account for that.

And yes, I think conferences like the ACC, and the BE a few years ago, were getting their teams ready for March. Again, one of my problems with the Pac for the past few years (besides last year and this year) is that AZ was the only team in conference that made it past the S16 after UCLA's runs a decade ago. That means that for years AZ never played a team after January that really mirrored a team they'd have to face in the EE or beyond. I think that is a big reason we didn't make it past the EE.

This year the Pac has 3 teams that I think are definitely EE capable. Having us all play each other is great prep for March and I think that one might hang a FF banner this year. I base that on the fact that all three have been playing and/or beating EE level teams (surrounded by other tourney teams on the schedule) in conference as well as prior. The three Pac teams have to be playing consistently well and improving in order to do that over the course of the season. It'll also happen again for the conference tourney when it will resemble March even more.

There are 6-8 teams in CBB who have been doing that, and those are the ones I think have shown that they can play for a FF and/or win.

 

[CatsTopPac]

duplicate

 

[ericd7633]

He's probably talking about 2 years ago and misspoke.

And just to your point about "if you've actually watched them this year", I have. And they are good because they have a bunch of games against weak opponents surrounding anything resembling a tough game.

They played nobodies until Florida. Struggled and won. Struggled the very next game against a mediocre ISU team. Another week playing a shitty team and then they beat AZ w/o PJC and Trier, and starting 3 freshmen. I went to that game. AZ looked more nervous about playing in the Staples Center against a good team without their guys, than actually playing against GU. GU ran away with a huge lead to start. AZ settled down, and almost won (again without two of their best returners and starting 3 freshmen). No excuses though, GU looked pretty good, but I don't know if that game would have the same result today if AZ is playing well at all.

Then they played a terrible UW team, a mediocre Akron team, and a mediocre Tennessee team that came back to threaten. After that game, on December 18th, they played garbage (for weeks) on both sides of anything resembling a good team. It's pretty easy to play well against a fringe top 25 team when you have weeks on either side where you play no one, all of your guys are rested, and probably even preparing for them a bit weeks in advance, because why, not, none of the other teams they play are worth the prep.

Then GU goes out and beats the decent team and looks good doing it, knowing they have weeks of shitty teams to play before the next decent matchup. How does that resemble March at all? How can I say that watching GU blow away shitty competition tells me that they will do well in March? Their metrics? Because they actually did well against those shitty teams instead of struggling?

It is funny that last year you were so quick to point out those same metrics that rated Arizona higher meant something and now this year they don't. Don't be a hypocrite man.

We'll just have to disagree. There literally isn't one metric that doesn't have Gonzaga as a top 4 team. Guess we'll find out come March.

 

[ericd7633]

Also, I think its pretty fucking dumb for any type of evaluation of a team be totally dependent on how they perform in a one and done scenario. There's not a lot of difference between losing in the 1st round/2nd and getting to a FF or winning a title. Gonzaga could lose in the S16 to a top 15 team and the told ya so crowd will come out, but if a team like Kansas loses in the S16 everyone will just say, oh that's the nature of the tournament. Which is bull shit to be honest.

 

[Loneranger]

I do agree that the schedule is a huge deal. That's why SOS is incorporated into everything. Sometimes I don't think the metrics take into consideration all of the nuances of SOS, but SOS is huge. I think that playing a stretch of games against good teams should matter more, because it's tougher to play well against all of them. It's much easier to have them spread out with the ability to recover from one game and get ready for another. Looking at that stretch FSU had a month back or whatever, when they played like 5 ranked teams in 7 games is a much bigger deal than playing 5 ranked teams over 2 months, let's say. And SOS doesn't account for that.

And yes, I think conferences like the ACC, and the BE a few years ago, were getting their teams ready for March. Again, one of my problems with the Pac for the past few years (besides last year and this year) is that AZ was the only team in conference that made it past the S16 after UCLA's runs a decade ago. That means that for years AZ never played a team after January that really mirrored a team they'd have to face in the EE or beyond. I think that is a big reason we didn't make it past the EE.

This year the Pac has 3 teams that I think are definitely EE capable. Having us all play each other is great prep for March and I think that one might hang a FF banner this year. I base that on the fact that all three have been playing and/or beating EE level teams (surrounded by other tourney teams on the schedule) in conference as well as prior. The three Pac teams have to be playing consistently well and improving in order to do that over the course of the season. It'll also happen again for the conference tourney when it will resemble March even more.

There are 6-8 teams in CBB who have been doing that, and those are the ones I think have shown that they can play for a FF and/or win.

I don't think anyone who has watched the games for decades could possibly disagree. It's just common sense, you play good or great teams all the time and you will improve. There are arguably 11 ACC teams that could make the tourn. No way 11 make it but there is no doubt there's at least 11 that could compete in March. When you play that kind of talent it makes a huge difference in how good, how improved and how ready a team is. A team like the Zags show up in March facing the 1st test of the yr or the 1st in months. It isn't a coincidence they never live up to their billing.

 

[CatsTopPac]

It is funny that last year you were so quick to point out those same metrics that rated Arizona higher meant something and now this year they don't. Don't be a hypocrite man.

We'll just have to disagree. There literally isn't one metric that doesn't have Gonzaga as a top 4 team. Guess we'll find out come March.

I think those metrics are fine, but even as I said last year, they don't cover everything. I think GU is a top 5-10 team so it's not far from where they are in the metrics. I just don't think that comparing a team that beats up on garbage all year to those who play much better schedules is going to be wholly accurate. Close, but not air tight. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Also, I think its pretty fucking dumb for any type of evaluation of a team be totally dependent on how they perform in a one and done scenario. There's not a lot of difference between losing in the 1st round/2nd and getting to a FF or winning a title. Gonzaga could lose in the S16 to a top 15 team and the told ya so crowd will come out, but if a team like Kansas loses in the S16 everyone will just say, oh that's the nature of the tournament. Which is bull shit to be honest.

Are you kidding me? There's not a lot of difference between losing in the 1st or 2nd round and the FF/NC? How many 1 or 2 seeds have lost in the first round? How many double digit seeds have ever been to the FF. See the correlation yet? There is a HUGE difference. Yes, the win or go home format means that shit does happen, but definitely not as much as the higher seeds going father.

The better teams do better in March for the most part. The higher seeds are supposed to win.

BracketOdds - Final Four

And the reason why people tend to excuse a typical 1 seed who loses early (a Duke or KU, or UNC, etc.) as just having a bad game is because they have actually shown over and over again throughout the entire season that they can play great teams back to back, and win. They prove that them losing early is more of a fluke than not. When you look at Gonzaga, they have only played 2 teams this season that are S16 quality going in, and those games happened more than 3 months since March. If they lose in the S16 then it's much more realistic to say that they are not good enough to win than saying KU is. KU will have played 6-8 games that are all EE or better, have done so playing them back to back, and won. They have played and beaten these team over and over, all throughout the year. If they lose in the S16 you can definitely make the case more that they just didn't show up, or the other team went on a run.

 

[ericd7633]

I think those metrics are fine, but even as I said last year, they don't cover everything. I think GU is a top 5-10 team so it's not far from where they are in the metrics. I just don't think that comparing a team that beats up on garbage all year to those who play much better schedules is going to be wholly accurate. Close, but not air tight. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.




Are you kidding me? There's not a lot of difference between losing in the 1st or 2nd round and the FF/NC? How many 1 or 2 seeds have lost in the first round? How many double digit seeds have ever been to the FF. See the correlation yet? There is a HUGE difference. Yes, the win or go home format means that shit does happen, but definitely not as much as the higher seeds going father.

The better teams do better in March for the most part. The higher seeds are supposed to win.

BracketOdds - Final Four

And the reason why people tend to excuse a typical 1 seed who loses early (a Duke or KU, or UNC, etc.) as just having a bad game is because they have actually shown over and over again throughout the entire season that they can play great teams back to back, and win. They prove that them losing early is more of a fluke than not. When you look at Gonzaga, they have only played 2 teams this season that are S16 quality going in, and those games happened more than 3 months since March. If they lose in the S16 then it's much more realistic to say that they are not good enough to win than saying KU is. KU will have played 6-8 games that are all EE or better, have done so playing them back to back, and won. They have played and beaten these team over and over, all throughout the year. If they lose in the S16 you can definitely make the case more that they just didn't show up, or the other team went on a run.

So you think a top 5/10 team has no shot to get to a FF? I guess that's why I don't understand because makes no sense.

And I stand by what I said. A bunch of high seeds could just as easily lose in the 2nd round and get to a FF. Just look at the last couple years. Oklahoma barely beats VCU in the 2nd round. MSU loses in the first round. Nova loses as a #1 seed in 2015. UConn almost loses in the 1st round and goes onto win the whole thing. My point is once the 2nd round begins anything can happen. Most the time the higher seeded team wins because they're better, but that doesn't mean they weren't pushed early in the tournament.