We had a discussion after the game on this board. The biggest outlier of the game was Gonzaga finishing terrible on a high volume of easy looks at the rim.
5 Likes
I think Gonzaga is great and This may not age well but I am going out on a limb and saying they donât make the final 4. I think they have the most talent but I really think it is a detriment to just beat up on bad teams for 2 months going into the tourney
1 Like
That is another good point. Zags are the top 2-pt team in the nation by a healthy margin.
Iâm remembering that now. One of the early @buckets12 Iowa Stan vs. everyone else discussions
3 Likes
Well there is some empirical evidence to show that is not the case.
Whatâs the evidence? Since theyâve been a National power the zags have always underwhelmed a bit in the tournament. Thatâs all the evidence I need
Gonzaga has underwhelmed by pretty much playing to their seed?
2 Likes
Thatâs a common misconception. Here are their last 5 tourney results:
2019 - Elite 8
2018 - Sweet 16
2017 - National Runner Up
2016 - Sweet 16
2015 - Elite 8
Nearly every team would love to have those results
3 Likes
Looks like we wonât be playing our first round game at Purdue/IU after all.
3 Likes
Iâm not saying they have no results but you have to remember they have 1 final four. Theyâve been a 1 seed 3 times and 2 seed once in the last 7 years âŚthatâs not great
A one seed making the elite eight is not a data point supporting the idea that Gonzaga is hurt by playing in their conference.
1 Like
Ok. Iâve rallied to think that LSU matchup isnât so bad. Smith should torch them off the bounce, Dickinson should eat, and we should do well on the offensive glass. Now the Bonnies I know nothing about haha.
Please see my original post. It clearly says I think it is a detriment. I do think that
I wasnât implying I had data. But to me they have underperformed their seed a number of times
I know you did, and Iâm saying thatâs simply not the case.
They have underperformed their seed a grand total of 3 times in 12 tournaments since 2008. They have also overplayed their seed twice in that time.
By definition a 1-seed is expected to make the final four. So not making the final four is underperforming.
âExpectedâ is too strong a word. They may be favored / have a better chance than anyone else, but historically, the field makes it 60% of the time.
3 Likes
Not worth arguing about. We can all have our opinions. My opinion is that the WCC was very bad this year and it will hurt them. Also not sure underperforming seed 3 times and over performing twice is considered empirical data to prove your argument lol
- 2019: As a #1, lose in E8 (underperform)
- 2018: As a #4, lose in S16 (play to seed)
- 2017: As a #1, lose in the title game (play to seed/overperform?)
- 2016: As a #11, lose in the S16 (overperform)
- 2015: As a #2, lose in the E8 (play to seed)
- 2014: As a #8, lose in R32 (play to seed)
- 2013: As a #1, lose in R32 (underperform)
- 2012: As a #7, lose in R32 (play to seed)
- 2011: As a #11, lose in R32 (play to seed)
- 2010: As a #8, lose in R32 (play to seed)
- 2009: As a #4, lose in S16 (play to seed)
- 2008: As a #7, lose in R64 (underperform)
I count three underperforms, 7/8 play to seeds, and 2/3 overperforms, depending on how you define making it to the title game as a #1 seed.