Zags making 9th consecutive SW16
- Thread starter IUfanBorden
- Start date
People need to stop crapping on them for their conference affiliation. That is really impressive.
99% of programs would kill for what he's done there. Even without a title.
Meh.. they just didn't run into St Peter's or Oakland. Pretty lucky imo.
9 straight is pretty wild.
9 straight is pretty wild.
Yep. Get tired of hearing it. 9 fukin straight SW16's is impressive. Zgas are 26-8 in NCAAT during that span; most wins by any program. Also, have been an 11, 4 and now a 5 seed during this.
These dudes would compete in amy conference.
I know KU was w/o McCullars...but that second half was impressive shit. Led by as much as 30, I believe? This after being down 1 at the half.
Gonzaga is a damn good program. Anyone else curious what Few could do at a blue blood school?
No doubt they have performed well in the tourney. I couldn't care less they play in the WCC. They are legit.
However, they gotta win a title at some point. After a while (as in right now), this Sweet 16 run they have been on the past decade only does so much. The Zags have been a household name since they jumped on the scene in '99 (or whatever yr in the late 90s). They need to win a title, or in reality, if I am a Zags fan, this almost 30 yr run has been a huge disappointment.
However, they gotta win a title at some point. After a while (as in right now), this Sweet 16 run they have been on the past decade only does so much. The Zags have been a household name since they jumped on the scene in '99 (or whatever yr in the late 90s). They need to win a title, or in reality, if I am a Zags fan, this almost 30 yr run has been a huge disappointment.
Fantastic program, but I don't trust them to maintain it at all after Few retires.
The program only goes as far as the coach.
Shiiiiiiiiit, I'd trade our history during their run with the success they have sustained for so long in a second.
That's why I hate all the talk about adding them to the Big 12 for basketball. So stupid if the conference did that.
Yeah, some of these dumbo's think their schools name carries weight. You are always one bad coach away from disaster.
I’d be curious about this too, but the job of a blue blood school is a totally different experience compared to a mid major school. There are a lot more than just coaching that are relevant in such a role, and we have seen talented young coaches fail at big schools for various reasons. Chris Mack is a talented coach but failed at Louisville, a big blue blood school like UK will be even harder. The expectation to win and be good instantly and consistently can also be overwhelming.
Oh that's just the sports side of the blue blood job. The other half is the political side of it. Face of the program, boosters under control and wallets open, kissing the babies and the motivational speeches. Many a men have failed under the pressure, however I don't think Mark Few would. Too many battle scars and old enough not to give a shit. I think Few would kill at UK.
Few is 61 yrs old and comfortable. No way he would go to that lunatic bin
Oh I know but I do think he would be successful. However the meat grinder isn't worth it to him at his age.
Few has stated frequently he has no desire to ever leave Gonzaga. Which is why we have never heard his name tied to jobs that have opened over the years.
Gillespie is living proof of this. It was a bigger monster than he anticipated.
Never felt he was that good of a coach to begin with, tbh...
If Few had the talent that Cal has at UK...I think he would have won a couple NCs by now. Few is a really good coach.
Yes he is. The fellas here have said he will never leave Gonzaga though. I can't say that I blame him. Beautiful area.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, but he's not got the talent and there's no guarantees. Would he be on the chopping block if he did and didn't respectively?
If only a coach had the same rosters full of new players could they do it or do they rely on having returning players and running the same system despite the players? It's an impossible question.
Cal takes a brand new team on each and every year. Others don't. I would say Duke but they didn't have a single transfer last year.
What they're doing is historically great. They're now tied with Duke for the 2nd most consecutive Sweet 16 appearances. Zags were also projected to be a 1 seed in 2020. They very likely would have had 10 consecutive Sweet 16s if not for the tourney being canceled a few years ago.
UNC leads the way with 13 consecutive Sweet 16s. Technically you could say UCLA has the record with 14 (1967-1980). I'd disagree because from 1967-1974 UCLA received a bye to Regional Semifinals (there were 23-25 teams in the tourney then), meaning they didn't have to win any tournament games for 8 straight years. I'd give UCLA credit for the 6 years from 1975-1980 where they had to win a Round of 32 game, however.
Most consecutive Sweet 16s
UNC, (1981-1993) - 13
Duke, (1998-2006) - 9
Gonzaga, (2015-2024) - 9
UNC leads the way with 13 consecutive Sweet 16s. Technically you could say UCLA has the record with 14 (1967-1980). I'd disagree because from 1967-1974 UCLA received a bye to Regional Semifinals (there were 23-25 teams in the tourney then), meaning they didn't have to win any tournament games for 8 straight years. I'd give UCLA credit for the 6 years from 1975-1980 where they had to win a Round of 32 game, however.
Most consecutive Sweet 16s
UNC, (1981-1993) - 13
Duke, (1998-2006) - 9
Gonzaga, (2015-2024) - 9
Now, just because he has kicked Cal's ass twice, doesn't prove anything.
Eh.. I have never been a fan of this logic. Listen, I was hoping UK would pay the buyout and move on. Both sides need a fresh start. But it didn't happen.
However, I always dislike when ppl say "x" coach would have won multiple championships with all the talent Cal has pulled in....but then they alway conveniently leave out the fact that Cal's teams are generally composed of 18 yr olds, who are beyond immature, are all about themselves, don't know how to play defense, have never played a minute of college ball in their lives, and are generally playing against 21-24 yr olds, who are more emotionally and physically developed and have played college ball multiple years. That is flippin hard work for a coach, and 99% of coaches wouldn't be able to get teams like that to perform.
Too many ppl look at the draft board and see where these guys are projected to get drafted, or look at what these guys did in the NBA 4-5 yrs down the road, when they are actually physically and emotionally developed. Heck UKs two top 10 draft picks crapped down their legs against Oakland. Couldn't handle the pressure of the moment. Heck, Reed Sheppard looked like he had never played the game before. That is freshmen for you.
But Cal chooses to build his roster like that, so it is his problem. But that doesn't mean other coaches would be able to come in and do a better job because of the talent. Have never bought that argument.
Probably the same promises that it took for Cal to secure these players commitments would hinder any other coach that had recruited them too. There is give and take in anything.
Oh, no doubt. Lots of programs would love to have had that success over the past nearly 30 yrs. Just saying that if I was a Zags fan, would be extremely disappointed to not have one championship after all that success.
You don't think that other coaches could have done better than 9-16? Or beaten Oakland/St Peter's/etc? Made the tourney in 2013? Won it all in 2015?
Calipari's best teams are also some of his youngest teams. His most experienced teams at Kentucky went nowhere. And it's not like he's throwing only freshmen out there. This year was one of his youngest rosters and he still had 3-4 really good vets. Maybe not an absolutely perfect mix, but who has that? Self, for example, has had an "ideal" roster at KU a couple times max. Many have been nowhere near ideal. Calipari's far from the only coach who has roster turnover, especially in the portal era. Difference is, he pulls nothing but hyped freshmen and top transfers, while other coaches settle for run of the mill recruits and players that aren't an ideal fit.
I think the youth excuse is weak. No one expects him to win it all every year, but he definitely could have done more. To say that others couldn't do better is to say that Cal's as good as it gets at Xs and Os/player development/adjustments/drawing up plays/etc. Do you really believe that? One thing I heard all year was that it was idiotic to start Wagner and Edwards over Sheppard and Dillingham (which it obviously was), and his substitution patterns were baffling. You think every coach would have handled that the same way?
One thing that no one ever talks about...why doesn't Calipari develop the upperclassmen more? It's not like the roster is made up of only OADs every year. Why don't we see more development among the less heralded upperclassmen on the bench? Those are the types of players that everyone else has to use in key roles.
Last edited:
To get those players, it appears that Cal had to coddle them with "PLayer first Bullshit". Sure other coaches could coach them differently if they hadn't made those promises, but so could Cal. The problem is they wouldn't have come on masse if those promises hadn't been made. So, it is unfair to say other coaches would have done better because the circumstances would have been different.
Btw, the youth excuse is ridiculous. You can't blame a tactic you chose of your own free will. That just means you have to blame yourself because you employed it. If you do it and it fails, that is one thing and if it continues to fail you're just a dumbass.
Cal claims that nothing is handed to anyone at Kentucky (haha).
But I'm referring more to Xs/Os, player development, adjustments, etc. I think there are plenty of coaches who are clearly better in those areas, including Few.
Yes, the youth excuse is weak. It is annoying to every UK fan whenever Cal says it, which is often. Hence, that is why I said Cal chooses to build his rosters this way, so it is his problem. If you don't want 60-70% of the minutes going to freshmen every yr, build your team differently.
Cal's best ability as a coach is to get 18-19 yr olds to buy in and play for each other, the team, and defensively (outside of this year). To answer your question, no, I do not think other coaches would be able to step in and do that. The emotional/mental immaturity of a team full of 18 yr olds is grossly different then a team full of 21-24 yr olds.
Yep, there are most definitely other coaches that are much better at the Xs and Os then Cal. Wouldn't even try to debate that. But Xs and Os, or drawing up plays, becomes completely irrelevant if the team is checked out, or is not cohesive, or are too busy listening to their handlers, or cannot overcome their immaturity. To his credit, Cal is a master at doing that. I personally don't see any other coaches who would be able to handle that.
And yes, there probably are other coaches who would have had this team beat St. Peter's or Oakland. That doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of coaches who wouldn't have lost to Bucknell, Bradley, UNI, VCU, Wichita St, etc. Cal could have easily stepped in for Self and won those games. Doesn't mean anything one way or the other. One game sample sizes don't prove anything.
Cal has 2 players coming off the bench who are projected to be lottery picks but the 2 players in front of them aren't expected to get picked in the first round, how crazy is that? He had to make a deal with Wagners/Edwards families because I see no other coach doing that.
Few has it going on at Gonzaga so why mess that up so if UK does make a move in the future, it's going to cost them along with paying a new coach. If UK does a repeat of the last 2 years Cal along with the AD won't survive it.
To be fair, those two lottery picks are the reason UK lost to Oakland. Way too many fans were pissed at who started. That isn't why UK lost
My goodness, Dilly and Shep were awful. They pee'd down their legs, to be honest. They were a combined 3/14 from the field, and most of their shots were way off. Shep threw two passes to guys that were wide open into the seats. He was an emotional headcase.
I actually wanted Edwards to play more against Oakland. He wasn't scared of the moment and was playing aggressively. Can't say the same for the projected lotto picks.
