NCAA Tourney thread

14Red

Well-known member
That’s debatable. Most yrs it’s extremely top heavy at the top followed by 8-9 win teams.
Top to bottom talent wise the SEC is far far superior. Even the bad teams in the SEC put alot of guys in the NFL. It just takes so many NFL guys to make a good team. Pay attention to the upcoming draft, especially in rounds 4-7, SEC guys all over the place, many who don't even start on their teams. A backup D-lineman at Alabama will get drafted before 2-3 year starters in other conferences.
 

Omar

Well-known member
Top to bottom talent wise the SEC is far far superior. Even the bad teams in the SEC put alot of guys in the NFL. It just takes so many NFL guys to make a good team. Pay attention to the upcoming draft, especially in rounds 4-7, SEC guys all over the place, many who don't even start on their teams. A backup D-lineman at Alabama will get drafted before 2-3 year starters in other conferences.
Talent wise yes, but that’s not the point being made.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
If you never win the ultimate prize, are you truly elite?

There are many programs/teams who have won titles and are never, and will never be considered elite, but a way to differentiate yourself from all the other great programs is bringing home that title.

The Zags do get a bulk of their season when they are not challenged. They schedule a few big dogs in preconference, skate for the conference season, and then hit the tournament trail.

They are a nice story, but if they want to be considered elite they have to win a ttiel
 

14Red

Well-known member
When any team from the SEC plays a game in November in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin et al, I will consider them above average. Until then SEC football is overrated.
Always love that analogy...it's the typical big ten response. I wonder why they have the big ten championship game indoors in Indianapolis?? BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT CRAPPY WEATHER DICTATING THE OUTCOME OF GAMES!!!! :rolleyes:
 

tucson

Active member
The Zags do get a bulk of their season when they are not challenged. They schedule a few big dogs in preconference, skate for the conference season, and then hit the tournament trail.
A few big dogs? 6 of their 9 non-conference games were against big dogs.
 

Omar

Well-known member
If you never win the ultimate prize, are you truly elite?

There are many programs/teams who have won titles and are never, and will never be considered elite, but a way to differentiate yourself from all the other great programs is bringing home that title.

The Zags do get a bulk of their season when they are not challenged. They schedule a few big dogs in preconference, skate for the conference season, and then hit the tournament trail.

They are a nice story, but if they want to be considered elite they have to win a ttiel
No, you’re not. Gonzaga is capable of getting there but they haven’t done that yet. And it does bother me how the media will be gentle with them after a loss like that but still call them elite. Meanwhile, if that was UK, UNC, Duke,etc, they’d be getting mocked and killed by pundits.
 

Omar

Well-known member
When any team from the SEC plays a game in November in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin et al, I will consider them above average. Until then SEC football is overrated.
It’s not overrated in terms of talent, but it’s overrated in the way the conference is talked about in terms of depth. Bama is obviously the best Program in college football. Then they usually have sort of a rotation where one other team is Top 3-5. In 2017 & 2018 it was UGA, in 2019 it was LSU, last yr it was A&M. However, there’s a whole lot of middle of the pack teams after that.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Zags under Mark Few are:
0-8 vs #1 seeds in the tournament.

I think that tells us a lot about how elite, or not so much, they have been...........
 

Omar

Well-known member
Zags under Mark Few are:
0-8 vs #1 seeds in the tournament.

I think that tells us a lot about how elite, or not so much, they have been...........
I believe he’s also 2-12 vs a 3 seed or higher. I think Few is a great coach and what he’s done at Gonzaga is impressive but they’re not among the elite programs in College Basketball.
 

Raymo

Well-known member
Does anyone know which conference refs officiated the title game? While I doubt it would have made that much of a difference they definitely let the big Baylor guys push around the slighter built Gonzaga players. In particular Timme was constantly body checked when he tried to make those quick moves with his back to the basket. Reminded me more of a B1G game than some other conferences.
If Gonzaga played a B1G schedule this year with their officials I doubt they would have gone undefeated.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
I believe he’s also 2-12 vs a 3 seed or higher. I think Few is a great coach and what he’s done at Gonzaga is impressive but they’re not among the elite programs in College Basketball.
What happened to you? I leave for Lent and come back and you have a cogent thought.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
Zags under Mark Few are:
0-8 vs #1 seeds in the tournament.

I think that tells us a lot about how elite, or not so much, they have been...........
Context. How many of those were when they were a real underdog program from the late 90s through the early 2010s when they were regularly upsetting someone on the opening weekend to make the Sweet 16?

13-14 of their top-20 all-time recruits have been in the last five classes. In the four tournaments since then they've been in the title game twice, lost to runner-up Texas Tech in the Elite 8, and lost to a Florida State team in the Sweet 16 that nearly bounced runner-up Michigan in the Elite 8 that year.

As far as winning a crapshoot tournament title, they've been hot on the trail lately and have more incoming studs next year with another guard that's probably on par with Suggs and they'll probably get a 7'0 kid that's the #1 recruit and from Suggs' prep school. Sooner than later they're going to 'ship it on the trajectory they've been on.
 

USA70PP

Well-known member
Always love that analogy...it's the typical big ten response. I wonder why they have the big ten championship game indoors in Indianapolis?? BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT CRAPPY WEATHER DICTATING THE OUTCOME OF GAMES!!!! :rolleyes:
I would say a lot of the reason for playing indoors is so the "important" big wigs that attend these games don't have to deal with "CRAPPY WEATHER".
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Context. How many of those were when they were a real underdog program from the late 90s through the early 2010s when they were regularly upsetting someone on the opening weekend to make the Sweet 16?

13-14 of their top-20 all-time recruits have been in the last five classes. In the four tournaments since then they've been in the title game twice, lost to runner-up Texas Tech in the Elite 8, and lost to a Florida State team in the Sweet 16 that nearly bounced runner-up Michigan in the Elite 8 that year.

As far as winning a crapshoot tournament title, they've been hot on the trail lately and have more incoming studs next year with another guard that's probably on par with Suggs and they'll probably get a 7'0 kid that's the #1 recruit and from Suggs' prep school. Sooner than later they're going to 'ship it on the trajectory they've been on.
Doesnt matter. If they are to be considered elite, like some in here think they should, they cannot be 0-8 against top seeds. They are not some johngy come lately program. They have been ranked and seeded highly for quite awhile now.

Very good program, yes. Elite. No.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
Doesnt matter. If they are to be considered elite, like some in here think they should, they cannot be 0-8 against top seeds. They are not some johngy come lately program. They have been ranked and seeded highly for quite awhile now.

Very good program, yes. Elite. No.
To each their own. By the caliber of player they've been getting lately it's been a totally different caliber of program over the last 6-7 years than it was from the late 90s through the early 2010s. During that initial run they had guys representative of a very good mid-major program or of a good school in the A-10 or Mountain West. Lately they've been getting recruits that are on par with Duke and Kentucky and the quality of the product is representative of that.

The only years anyone gave them any respect at all through that initial run and that they had pretty good seeds was when they had that shaggy haired Morrison kid that could score like crazy and was in the running for Naismith Player of the Year. Outside of the few years he was there they averaged an 8 or 9 seed for the first 15 years they were a regular tournament team.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Doesnt matter.
I am discussing the point of if they are an elite program or not.


They are not.

Saw your NW baseball team the other day. LIked the old St Louis blue cardinal unis
 

Omar

Well-known member
What happened to you? I leave for Lent and come back and you have a cogent thought.
I’ve felt this way about Gonzaga for a while. This year, they had a legit team and I still believe if they draw Houston instead of UCLA, Monday night is entirely different. However, it also feels like they’re trying to cut the line to get to Elite Status and that bothers me. It was before my time, but I’m certain Duke was crushed by the media in the late 80s and 1990 as choke artists for constantly getting to a FF and losing. Gonzaga doesn’t get any of that pushback. Instead they still get to play the “upstart underdog” role.
 

Omar

Well-known member
To each their own. By the caliber of player they've been getting lately it's been a totally different caliber of program over the last 6-7 years than it was from the late 90s through the early 2010s. During that initial run they had guys representative of a very good mid-major program or of a good school in the A-10 or Mountain West. Lately they've been getting recruits that are on par with Duke and Kentucky and the quality of the product is representative of that.

The only years anyone gave them any respect at all through that initial run and that they had pretty good seeds was when they had that shaggy haired Morrison kid that could score like crazy and was in the running for Naismith Player of the Year. Outside of the few years he was there they averaged an 8 or 9 seed for the first 15 years they were a regular tournament team.
They’ve gotten a few recruits on par with Duke & UK but not classes on par with them. And you know what? That works better. The constant roster turnover with one & dones does not work.

However, Gonzaga doesn’t get to claim to be elite without a Title. That’s not how this sport works. They should be proud of what they’ve built out there, but they’re not Duke, UK, or UNC.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
I’ve felt this way about Gonzaga for a while. This year, they had a legit team and I still believe if they draw Houston instead of UCLA, Monday night is entirely different. However, it also feels like they’re trying to cut the line to get to Elite Status and that bothers me. It was before my time, but I’m certain Duke was crushed by the media in the late 80s ad choke artists for constantly getting to a FF and losing. Gonzaga doesn’t get any of that pushback. Instead they still get to play the “upstart underdog” role.
They are still that loveable "underdog" of sorts. America is not jaded from their success, like it happens to most programs who are winning titles or always highly rated.

Personally, if they were not undefeated this year I woulda been all over them to win it. Being an IU fan, I want to protect that '76 IU team. My brother and adopted what the Dolphins team did and buy a bottle before the season, and drink it when the last undefeated team is beaten.


They are a bit insulated because of their conference, and will always have a very strong record as long as Few is there. They just are not going to have years where they lose many league games.
 

tucson

Active member
It's nice to see Gonzaga gets under y'alls skin so much. :LOL: I don't think the Zags particularly care what a couple Ohio forum posters think about the status of their basketball program. Most only know about Gonzaga University because of basketball. The fact that y'all are talking about them so much speaks volumes.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
It was before my time, but I’m certain Duke was crushed by the media in the late 80s and 1990 as choke artists for constantly getting to a FF and losing. Gonzaga doesn’t get any of that pushback. Instead they still get to play the “upstart underdog” role.
Duke was also a much better program in the run-up to that period. When K took over the program they were 8th or 9th in all-time wins and borderline top-10 in winning percentage with a handful of deep tournament runs in the previous 15-20 years before him, and it's why he almost got fired after 4-5 years for underperformance.

Gonzaga until the last few years was the definition of upstart. Duke was definitely not and was already a very good (but not blueblood/great) program.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
They’ve gotten a few recruits on par with Duke & UK but not classes on par with them. And you know what? That works better. The constant roster turnover with one & dones does not work.

However, Gonzaga doesn’t get to claim to be elite without a Title. That’s not how this sport works. They should be proud of what they’ve built out there, but they’re not Duke, UK, or UNC.
Both are getting fewer one and done type players because it doesn't work anymore. Younger teams are more vulnerable to upsets and bad losses in the tournament. I personally prefer what Gonzaga has been getting the last few years with most of their guys slotted somewhere between 30th and 80th nationally in their respective classes with one top 5-10 kid per year. Someone like Timme or Kispert that's a top 40-50 recruit with fringe NBA prospects is the perfect recruit.

Teams that actually win in the tournament have a ton of experience with one or two younger high-end players.
 

wolves82

Well-known member
Doesnt matter.
I am discussing the point of if they are an elite program or not.
I've read the thread, and understand the point about them being 0-8 against #1 seeds. But how do you define "elite"? Which schools are "elite" for you?

For me, "elite" means "among the best 3-5 teams", and I have to put them in that class, but only for the last 2-3 years. They recruit at a high level, they win at a high level. Would they be unbeaten in the Big 10 or Big 12? Certainly not. But they are among the best right now.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
I've read the thread, and understand the point about them being 0-8 against #1 seeds. But how do you define "elite"? Which schools are "elite" for you?

For me, "elite" means "among the best 3-5 teams", and I have to put them in that class, but only for the last 2-3 years. They recruit at a high level, they win at a high level. Would they be unbeaten in the Big 10 or Big 12? Certainly not. But they are among the best right now.
Would agree with "elite" meaning being in the top handful of teams in a given year or over a period of years. The problem I see with the argument being made here is you have examples like UConn that has four titles in the last 20 or so years while having a ton of middling seasons, especially over the last 7 years since their last title. They certainly have not been "elite" in several years although they have several titles over the last two decades. Same with (insert Blueblood program) that may have 1 title and 1-2 final fours over the last 10 years, but has been no better and likely worse than someone like Gonzaga in the tournament over the last 4-5 years.

Reminds me of the arguments that many tried to make about Tony Bennett as a coach prior to UVA breaking through and winning a tournament title. By basketball people, he was one of the most respected and most studied coaches and continues to be, and a lot of casual fans act like getting that one win was a major dealbreaker as compared to the full body of work he has over the last 8-9 years (winning percentage, record against rivals, League titles, etc.).
 
Last edited:
.
Top