Yeah....so....they are pretty good. I know it's SMU but they are good.
20-27 FG (74.1%) in the first half.
5-6 3PT.
20-27 FG (74.1%) in the first half.
5-6 3PT.
Gonzaga
- Thread starter HRTheCard
- Start date
Saint Mary's isn't exactly chump change. Before the game, Lunardi had them projected as a 7 seed. SMC has one of the best offensives in the country. Super impressive win for Gonzaga, actually. After that win, Gonzaga surpassed both Baylor and Duke in the KenPom rankings.
The Zags and Baylor both seem like a clear notch above the rest to me. Gonzaga is flat out loaded.
It’s a weird year. This team isn’t as good as last years’ team but last years’ would be far and away the best team in the country this year so it’s hard to judge them.
The crazy thing is that this is their gap year. Of Jalen Suggs actually comes and doesn’t go overseas then next years’ team will probably be the best they’ve ever had.
The crazy thing is that this is their gap year. Of Jalen Suggs actually comes and doesn’t go overseas then next years’ team will probably be the best they’ve ever had.
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
Yeah well they should try to not win a national championship before Iowa does.
There's f***ing rules here for a reason dammit.....
Pretty much. You guys have remained my pick to win it all along. Thought you guys had the most complete team back in October. Still feel that way. I was one of the few non-Jayhawks that picked KU.
Pretty much. You guys have remained my pick to win it all along. Thought you guys had the most complete team back in October. Still feel that way. I was one of the few non-Jayhawks that picked KU.
They’ll need to clean up turnovers in the tourney. A team that plays their tempo can’t afford to hand away so many possessions vs an elite team.
Until somebody plays defense against them. Somebody from Baltimore.
I have near zero respect for Gonzaga. They have had one decent run even with all the "unearned" high seeds.
I think Few has at least 3 elite eights the last five tourneys- why the dislike Bert??
High seeds and they don't earn them. That is the reason. They have had some really good teams but they are never tried by fire.
My Kentucky Wildcats also has made three elite eights the last five tourneys, but a couple times they were not high seeds.
Gonzaga plays few good teams to earn a high seed. They get the high seed because they have few losses. If Gonzaga played in the ACC or B1G or any competitive conference they would have few top seeds.
So Bert, using your logic, not counting the elite eight as a good run, Cal has not have a good run since the 15 tourney, correct?
Last year, they beat Duke, Washington(27-9, lost in 2nd round) Arizona, won @ Creighton, lost by 3 to UT, and lost @ North Carolina....I mean thats a pretty good OOC slate. So, in their OOC, they played two 1 seeds,a 3 seed and a 9 seed. In those 4 games, they went 2-2. I mean, what else , or who else, are they supposed to play? Arizona was 4-0 when they beat them. Not Gonzaga's fault they fell apart...Winning at Creighton is tough.
This cracks me up, every year. "Gonzaga isn't deserving...." Then, well they got to the Elite 8 or the FF.
Crazy.
Maybe I'm off, but I took it as comparing.
Everyone who shits on UK .....nevermind.
Another day.
zero doubt, they're right there, high seeds seem to be the debate.
have they benefited from high seeds?
Is it? Crazy.
have they benefited from high seeds?
Is it? Crazy.
Valid, but I only talked about Kentucky since Bert brought them into the discussion
I like it's starting to get intense. Everyone is starting to worry about seeding and such. This year is so wide open, can you imagine the storylines of UNC winning the ACCT, them flaming out in the first round?Valid, but I only talked about Kentucky since Bert brought them into the discussion
Should have gave their bid to a mid major.
2015-----Final Four(1 seed)
2017----Elite 8 (2 seed)
2019---Elite 8 (2 seed)
Bert, I love ya, brother. But..............
Sure they have benefited. I mean, who doesn't? Cal has always said---"Its about seeding." I mean, right? They lived up to their seeding.
Witch-a-ta state
If I wasn't lazy, I'd paint her green with envy and photoshop...some how tie in KU,Kansas Witchta St, his wife, envy and of all colors.....GREEN.
OZ dildoes. With Shades of UK blue, than later, probably going to be gay blue UNC fans introduce to their kids.
>.....disclaimer, I'm watching Jim Carrey's Kidding.
Last edited:
You should probably start respecting them a little more. They're tied for the second most tournament wins since 2015.
Most NCAA Tournament wins (2015-2019):
UNC- 16
Gonzaga- 15
Duke- 15
Villanova- 15
Kentucky- 13
Kansas- 12
a) since 2015, b) all that can change with a single tournament, but yes, since 2015 very few wins separate them. Maybe seeding helps with their early round win totals. Just guessing.
Gonzaga
2017: 1 seed - 5 wins
2019: 1 seed - 3 wins
2015: 2 seed - 3 wins
2018: 4 seed - 2 wins
2016: 11 seed - 2 wins
Kentucky
2015: 1 seed - 4 wins
2017: 2 seed - 3 wins
2019: 2 seed - 3 wins
2016: 4 seed - 1 win
2018: 5 seed - 2 wins
Not much difference between the seedings of Gonzaga and Kentucky. They've both been a 1 or 2 seed three times in the past 5 years. They were both a 4 seed once. Kentucky's worse seed was a 5 seed, while Gonzaga was an 11 seed. Zags still able to win 2 games in 2016 as #11 seed.
I love that the responses to Bert's oversimplified criticism of Gonzaga was more oversimplified stuff - straight wins without regard to seed, quality of opponent, etc... Incoming TL;DR herp derp.
For seeding, there are two components: 1) quality of opponents; and 2) results in all games. Gonzaga does a great job scheduling tough OOC games, and generally performs pretty well in those OOC games (although 2-2 against a good slate of teams is not necessarily #1 seed worthy, it's something). They also play in a pretty crappy conference and beat the living crap out of those teams. As a result, they end up high in both the subjective crap (AP/coaches love them some "can't drop a team if they don't lose" illogic) and the objective crap (KenPom, NET, BPI, Sargarin, etc...). That results in good seeds, which means they play teams that are worse than they are, which means they rack up NCAA Tournament wins, which means they get the benefit of the doubt going forward, etc... to create a positive feedback loop.
It's the same feedback loop that blue bloods get, but with a giant caveat: Gonzaga is tested less often than blue bloods, especially in conference play when teams are closer to their tournament form than they are in the early season. Instead, their "tests" are whether they beat the living crap out of clearly inferior teams, which itself has two flaws in comparison to playing other good to elite teams: 1) there's more wiggle room in the "did you utterly destroy this crappy team" test; and 2) the difference in caliber of athlete makes certain approaches better/worse against great to elite teams. For point 2, think that 3-point shooter from Wofford (Magee?), or how Gonzaga looked against FSU in 2018 (or Kyle Wiltjer generally). Or for the NBA, the difference between an okay regular season player and one that will get run off the floor in the playoffs (Ryan Anderson from a few years ago comes to mind). I think a key point in this is that Gonzaga's players are generally more experienced, meaning less hiccups in the regular season compared to younger, but more "talented" (i.e. athletic) teams, like UK and Duke.
Gonzaga seems to have turned a corner, and now they have been getting some elite athletes like Brandon Clarke, who was probably the steal of the 2019 NBA draft, and Hachimura. And they've largely kept up with their seeding in the tournament recently (although you'd want to get more granular than just record to substantiate this claim). But they're now in the positive feedback loop after some (well deserved) backlash from their NCAA Tournament flame outs, and so they get the benefit of the doubt but with less real (i.e. meaningful for high tournament seeds) tests.
Anyway, I hope they win this year, both to shut everyone up about it forever and because I hate literally every other team, especially yours.
For seeding, there are two components: 1) quality of opponents; and 2) results in all games. Gonzaga does a great job scheduling tough OOC games, and generally performs pretty well in those OOC games (although 2-2 against a good slate of teams is not necessarily #1 seed worthy, it's something). They also play in a pretty crappy conference and beat the living crap out of those teams. As a result, they end up high in both the subjective crap (AP/coaches love them some "can't drop a team if they don't lose" illogic) and the objective crap (KenPom, NET, BPI, Sargarin, etc...). That results in good seeds, which means they play teams that are worse than they are, which means they rack up NCAA Tournament wins, which means they get the benefit of the doubt going forward, etc... to create a positive feedback loop.
It's the same feedback loop that blue bloods get, but with a giant caveat: Gonzaga is tested less often than blue bloods, especially in conference play when teams are closer to their tournament form than they are in the early season. Instead, their "tests" are whether they beat the living crap out of clearly inferior teams, which itself has two flaws in comparison to playing other good to elite teams: 1) there's more wiggle room in the "did you utterly destroy this crappy team" test; and 2) the difference in caliber of athlete makes certain approaches better/worse against great to elite teams. For point 2, think that 3-point shooter from Wofford (Magee?), or how Gonzaga looked against FSU in 2018 (or Kyle Wiltjer generally). Or for the NBA, the difference between an okay regular season player and one that will get run off the floor in the playoffs (Ryan Anderson from a few years ago comes to mind). I think a key point in this is that Gonzaga's players are generally more experienced, meaning less hiccups in the regular season compared to younger, but more "talented" (i.e. athletic) teams, like UK and Duke.
Gonzaga seems to have turned a corner, and now they have been getting some elite athletes like Brandon Clarke, who was probably the steal of the 2019 NBA draft, and Hachimura. And they've largely kept up with their seeding in the tournament recently (although you'd want to get more granular than just record to substantiate this claim). But they're now in the positive feedback loop after some (well deserved) backlash from their NCAA Tournament flame outs, and so they get the benefit of the doubt but with less real (i.e. meaningful for high tournament seeds) tests.
Anyway, I hope they win this year, both to shut everyone up about it forever and because I hate literally every other team, especially yours.
Here were the records from 2017, before heading into the conference tournaments. I wrote this three years ago.
Among the projected four #1 seeds
Highest Win% Verse top 50:
1. Gonzaga 6-0, 100%
2. Villanova 10-2, 83.3%
3. Kansas 8-2, 80%
4. UNC 10-4, 71.4%
Highest Win% verse top 100:
1. Gonzaga 11-1, 91.7%
2. Villanova 17-3, 85%
3. Kansas 16-3, 84.2%
4. UNC 15-5, 75%
Among the projected four #1 seeds
Highest Win% Verse top 50:
1. Gonzaga 6-0, 100%
2. Villanova 10-2, 83.3%
3. Kansas 8-2, 80%
4. UNC 10-4, 71.4%
Highest Win% verse top 100:
1. Gonzaga 11-1, 91.7%
2. Villanova 17-3, 85%
3. Kansas 16-3, 84.2%
4. UNC 15-5, 75%
lol you guys are funny. I mean, if Gonzaga truly didn't deserve being a high seed, they wouldn't win in the tournament. Simple as that. They've only been a 1 or 2 seed on five different occasions. Never were they ranked below 7th on KenPom in any of those seasons. Here's a little comparison of how they stack up with other top programs over the past 5 years.
UNC
Seeds: 4, 1, 1, 2, 1
Average Seed: 1.8
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 16
Gonzaga
Seeds: 2, 11, 1, 4, 1
Average Seed: 3.8
Median: 2
Tournament Wins: 15
Duke
Seeds: 1, 4, 2, 2, 1
Average Seed: 2.0
Median: 2
Tournament Wins: 15
Villanova
Seeds: 1, 2, 1, 1, 6
Average Seed: 2.2
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 15
Kentucky
Seeds: 1, 4, 2, 5, 2
Average Seed: 2.8
Median: 2
Tournament Wins: 13
Kansas
Seeds: 2, 1, 1, 1, 4
Average Seed: 1.8
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 12
Virginia
Seeds: 2, 1, 5, 1, 1
Average Seed: 2.0
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 11
RECAP
Average Seed (Tournament Wins in Parenthesis):
UNC- 1.8 (16)
Kansas- 1.8 (12)
Virginia- 2.0 (11)
Duke- 2.0 (15)
Villanova- 2.2 (15)
Kentucky- 2.8 (13)
Gonzaga- 3.8 (15)
Of the seven schools listed, Gonzaga has the lowest average seed, and yet they're tied for the second most wins. Time to give it up, guys. Gonzaga may continue to fall short in March, but they're a legitimate top 5-10 team. And they haven't been choking in the early rounds like every single one of the power schools has done at some point in the past 5 years.
UNC
Seeds: 4, 1, 1, 2, 1
Average Seed: 1.8
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 16
Gonzaga
Seeds: 2, 11, 1, 4, 1
Average Seed: 3.8
Median: 2
Tournament Wins: 15
Duke
Seeds: 1, 4, 2, 2, 1
Average Seed: 2.0
Median: 2
Tournament Wins: 15
Villanova
Seeds: 1, 2, 1, 1, 6
Average Seed: 2.2
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 15
Kentucky
Seeds: 1, 4, 2, 5, 2
Average Seed: 2.8
Median: 2
Tournament Wins: 13
Kansas
Seeds: 2, 1, 1, 1, 4
Average Seed: 1.8
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 12
Virginia
Seeds: 2, 1, 5, 1, 1
Average Seed: 2.0
Median: 1
Tournament Wins: 11
RECAP
Average Seed (Tournament Wins in Parenthesis):
UNC- 1.8 (16)
Kansas- 1.8 (12)
Virginia- 2.0 (11)
Duke- 2.0 (15)
Villanova- 2.2 (15)
Kentucky- 2.8 (13)
Gonzaga- 3.8 (15)
Of the seven schools listed, Gonzaga has the lowest average seed, and yet they're tied for the second most wins. Time to give it up, guys. Gonzaga may continue to fall short in March, but they're a legitimate top 5-10 team. And they haven't been choking in the early rounds like every single one of the power schools has done at some point in the past 5 years.
The bolded part is so deceitful. The one 11 seed eschews the 1, 1, 2 & 4 seeds.
That's why I also used the median. Take out the 11 seed, and make them a 6 seed. Then they have the same 5-year average as Kentucky. As it is, Gonzaga is 9-4 when they're a double-digit seed.
Just saw Spokane is hosting 1st and 2nd Round games this year. The University of Idaho is technically the "host" school. So looks like the Zags will be able to play two games in their own town. That's a HUGE advantage. Wow.
Whenever he has free time, @dukedevilz should also look at average seed earned vs. average recruiting class rankings. We make so much out of tourney wins based on seed but some teams are clearly overperforming in the regular season based on recruiting rankings and some are underperforming.
If Gonzaga played Duke, I would root for Duke. The Zags get all of the Western treatment.
They suck.
They suck.
Sounds like a good summer project. I think it might be easier to get the average rank of the players that logged 10+ minutes. If I'm getting multiple classes, I have to account for the turnover of possibly multiple players.
Got a fairly sizable data-driven project for college basketball that I'm currently working on. I think everyone on the board should have interest in this one. Way more interesting than my preseason top 50. Hoping to have it released in the next week or two.
Wow. You really do hate Gonzaga. I think the Zags would gladly play in a better conference, if there was one that actually made sense. Pac-12 ain't letting a Jesuit school into their conference anytime ever.
You guys haven't played the Zags in the tournament yet. I think you're due for a clash. I think it would be an entertaining matchup, if nothing else.
Which years' recruiting rankings, and how do you weight it for guys staying multiple years? And do you adjust for the fact that the delta between recruits (and classes) shrinks as the numbers get higher (i.e. the gap between #1 and #3 >>>> the gap between #37 and #39)?
Like the simple "lol 1 seed winz!" argument, the sample size is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Consider a top 10 recruit that stays for 4 years but is never really more than an average starter. In this scenario, that single player will destroy the team that signed him not because the school did anything right or wrong but because the player just wasn't that good.
It would.
Kentucky played Gonzaga on 11-27-2002 and beat them 80-72 in Maui. That was a good Gonzaga and Kentucky team.
I would love to see Kentucky play the dudes on a home and home every year. Of course Gonzaga or Duke, and many other "great" teams do not want any part of playing Kentucky because because over time Kentucky will own them.
That has been the case all of my life.
Similar threads
