Page 25 of 90
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:44 pm
by EVCat
To be clear, i had the same misconceptions about Gonzaga's performance vs seed. I thought they underperformed too.
I think that is because we are thinking AP/Coaches Poll ranking, where they are often times over rated. But the NCAA has, if anything, underestimated them, overall
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:49 pm
by EVCat
I dont think there can be too much emphasis placed on meeting the seeding expectations. We argue seeding till blue in the face every year, and i think the perception is Gonzaga gets better seeds than they deserve. Over 18 years, equalling or exceeding yhe seed 12 times is remarkable...but especially so for Gonzaga, who most think the exact opposite of.
The 1 seed is the lone seed you cannot outperform, but you can perform to expectation. So if they make the final four, they will have met/exceeds expectation 13 of 19 years.
To me, that is the most telling metric...like a job evaluation...do you meet expectations, exceed expectations, or need improvement?
On the same metric, Sean Miller is fantastic. Only 2 times in his career has he failed to meet expectations.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:57 pm
by Bangkok Wildcat
All I can say is that we couldn't have done any better post UCLA loss at home. The team rose up and kicked butt. I know the West bracket has some historical demons for us but a 2 seed there is looking really good to me now.
So proud of this team and what they have accomplished this season. High hopes for the tourney as well. Bear Down!
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:01 pm
by RaisingArizona
EVCAT,
I think where we're having a disconnect because I inferred that your statement about achievement was implying that Gonzaga has performed up to snuff in the tournament. If you consider them a regional power (like most in the media do) that simply hasn't been the case in the last fifteen years. Here is Gonzaga recent tourney history:
Defeated Seton Hall in first round, 68-52
Defeated Utah in second round, 82-59
Lost to Syracuse in regional semifinal, 63-60
2015 3-1 Defeated North Dakota State in first round, 86-76
Defeated Iowa in second round, 87-68
Defeated UCLA in regional semifinal, 74-62
Lost to Duke in regional final, 66-52
2014 1-1 Defeated Oklahoma State in first round, 85-77
Lost to Arizona in second round, 84-61
2013 1-1 Defeated Southern University in first round, 64-58
Lost to Wichita State in second round, 76-70
2012 1-1 Defeated West Virginia in first round, 77-54
Lost to Ohio State in second round, 73-66
2011 1-1 Defeated St. John's in first round, 86-71
Lost to Brigham Young in second round, 89-67
2010 1-1 Defeated Florida State in first round, 67-60
Lost to Syracuse in second round, 87-65
2009 2-1 Defeated Akron in first round, 77-64
Defeated Western Kentucky in second round, 83-81
Lost to North Carolina in regional semifinal, 98-77
2008 0-1 Lost to Davidson in first round, 82-76
2007 0-1 Lost to Indiana in first round, 70-57
2006 2-1 Defeated Xavier in first round, 79-75
Defeated Indiana in second round, 90-80
Lost to UCLA in regional semifinal, 73-71
2005 1-1 Defeated Winthrop in first round, 74-64
Lost to Texas Tech in second round, 71-69
2004 1-1 Defeated Valparaiso in first round, 76-49
Lost to Nevada in second round, 91-72
2003 1-1 Defeated Cincinnati in first round, 74-69
Lost to Arizona in second round, 96-95
2002 0-1 Lost to Wyoming in first round, 73-66
2001 2-1 Defeated Virginia in first round, 86-85
Defeated Indiana State in second round, 85-68
Lost to Michigan State in regional semifinal, 77-62
2000 2-1 Defeated Louisville in first round, 77-66
Defeated St. John's in second round, 82-76
Lost to Purdue in regional semifinal, 75-66
1999 3-1 Defeated Minnesota in first round, 75-63
Defeated Stanford in second round, 82-74
Defeated Florida in regional semifinal, 73-72
Lost to Connecticut in regional final, 67-62
----
I will not argue with you about the 1999-2001 teams. Dan Monson had the amazing run in 99 and then Few followed it up the next two years. Once Casey Cavalry graduated though I really don't see a great track record. The 2003 got upset by a pretty meh Wyoming team. In 2004 they were massively underseeded as we found out the hard way. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
By 2004 Gonzaga was no longer perceived as Cinderella but instead upstart regional powerhouse. They went 27-2 but then lost to a 10 as a 2 seed in the second round. In 2005 they were a 3 that beat a 14 and then flamed out against a 6 seed. 2006 was the Adam Morrison led team. They did perform up to seed before losing to a good UCLA team (seeded 2). I'd call that a push rather than a resounding success. In 2007 they beat a 10 as a 7 before losing to a 2. In 2008 they were a 7 that lost to a Steph Curry led Davidsonteam in the 1st round. In 2009 they were a 4 that had the fortune of facing a 13 and 12 to get to the sweet sixteen. They beat that 12 seeded WKU team by 2 btw. In 2010 they were a 9 that beat an 8 before losing in the second round. In 2011 they were an 11 that pulled an upset before being knocked out in the second round. In 2012 they were a 7 that beat a ten before falling in round 2. In 2013 they were a 1 that was dangerously close to being taken out by a 16 before falling to a 9. In 2014 they were an 8 that won and then we trounced them. In 2015&16 they won five combined games but had the good fortunes of only facing on top 16 overall seed.
Here is how I would summarize Gonzaga's performance since the 2001:
1:) They have fared well in round 1 toss up kind of matchups
2:) They have only made it to the second weekend when presented with tremendous luck in terms of upsets
3:) they still do not have a signature tournament win against an elite basketball program having a great year
4:) they have some horrible second round flameouts that generally occur to their supposed elite squads
In summary, Gonzaga has been a really solid first round NCAA team. Beyond that their tournament has been pretty spotty.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:03 am
by RichardCranium
RA, you still aren't addressing EVCat's point. At all.
Have they or have they not performed to their SEEDING. We know they haven't won it all, but have they performed to the standard that the selection committee expected?
Your great list of wins and losses above does not indicate what seed the teams carried, either Gonzaga or their opponent when they played those games. Who was favored in those games by the selection committee? Repeat, by the selection committee, not by Las Vegas.
EvCat says they won games they were favored in by the selection committee seedings two thirds of the time. How does your list of games refute that?
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:58 am
by Gladiator Cat
RaisingArizona wrote:EVCAT,
I think where we're having a disconnect because I inferred that your statement about achievement was implying that Gonzaga has performed up to snuff in the tournament. If you consider them a regional power (like most in the media do) that simply hasn't been the case in the last fifteen years. Here is Gonzaga recent tourney history:
Defeated Seton Hall in first round, 68-52
Defeated Utah in second round, 82-59
Lost to Syracuse in regional semifinal, 63-60
2015 3-1 Defeated North Dakota State in first round, 86-76
Defeated Iowa in second round, 87-68
Defeated UCLA in regional semifinal, 74-62
Lost to Duke in regional final, 66-52
2014 1-1 Defeated Oklahoma State in first round, 85-77
Lost to Arizona in second round, 84-61
2013 1-1 Defeated Southern University in first round, 64-58
Lost to Wichita State in second round, 76-70
2012 1-1 Defeated West Virginia in first round, 77-54
Lost to Ohio State in second round, 73-66
2011 1-1 Defeated St. John's in first round, 86-71
Lost to Brigham Young in second round, 89-67
2010 1-1 Defeated Florida State in first round, 67-60
Lost to Syracuse in second round, 87-65
2009 2-1 Defeated Akron in first round, 77-64
Defeated Western Kentucky in second round, 83-81
Lost to North Carolina in regional semifinal, 98-77
2008 0-1 Lost to Davidson in first round, 82-76
2007 0-1 Lost to Indiana in first round, 70-57
2006 2-1 Defeated Xavier in first round, 79-75
Defeated Indiana in second round, 90-80
Lost to UCLA in regional semifinal, 73-71
2005 1-1 Defeated Winthrop in first round, 74-64
Lost to Texas Tech in second round, 71-69
2004 1-1 Defeated Valparaiso in first round, 76-49
Lost to Nevada in second round, 91-72
2003 1-1 Defeated Cincinnati in first round, 74-69
Lost to Arizona in second round, 96-95
2002 0-1 Lost to Wyoming in first round, 73-66
2001 2-1 Defeated Virginia in first round, 86-85
Defeated Indiana State in second round, 85-68
Lost to Michigan State in regional semifinal, 77-62
2000 2-1 Defeated Louisville in first round, 77-66
Defeated St. John's in second round, 82-76
Lost to Purdue in regional semifinal, 75-66
1999 3-1 Defeated Minnesota in first round, 75-63
Defeated Stanford in second round, 82-74
Defeated Florida in regional semifinal, 73-72
Lost to Connecticut in regional final, 67-62
----
I will not argue with you about the 1999-2001 teams. Dan Monson had the amazing run in 99 and then Few followed it up the next two years. Once Casey Cavalry graduated though I really don't see a great track record. The 2003 got upset by a pretty meh Wyoming team. In 2004 they were massively underseeded as we found out the hard way. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
By 2004 Gonzaga was no longer perceived as Cinderella but instead upstart regional powerhouse. They went 27-2 but then lost to a 10 as a 2 seed in the second round. In 2005 they were a 3 that beat a 14 and then flamed out against a 6 seed. 2006 was the Adam Morrison led team. They did perform up to seed before losing to a good UCLA team (seeded 2). I'd call that a push rather than a resounding success. In 2007 they beat a 10 as a 7 before losing to a 2. In 2008 they were a 7 that lost to a Steph Curry led Davidsonteam in the 1st round. In 2009 they were a 4 that had the fortune of facing a 13 and 12 to get to the sweet sixteen. They beat that 12 seeded WKU team by 2 btw. In 2010 they were a 9 that beat an 8 before losing in the second round. In 2011 they were an 11 that pulled an upset before being knocked out in the second round. In 2012 they were a 7 that beat a ten before falling in round 2. In 2013 they were a 1 that was dangerously close to being taken out by a 16 before falling to a 9. In 2014 they were an 8 that won and then we trounced them. In 2015&16 they won five combined games but had the good fortunes of only facing on top 16 overall seed.
Here is how I would summarize Gonzaga's performance since the 2001:
1:) They have fared well in round 1 toss up kind of match-ups
2:) They have only made it to the second weekend when presented with tremendous luck in terms of upsets
3:) they still do not have a signature tournament win against an elite basketball program having a great year
4:) they have some horrible second round flame-outs that generally occur to their supposed elite squads
In summary, Gonzaga has been a really solid first round NCAA team. Beyond that their tournament has been pretty spotty.
Why in the hell would someone who doesn't appear to like the Wildcats basketball program and whom has never appeared to like this program continue to post as a adversarial entity.
The answer is: You wouldn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its long past time to flush this turd!
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:38 am
by FreeSpiritCat
RaisingArizona wrote:EVCAT,
I think where we're having a disconnect because I inferred that your statement about achievement was implying that Gonzaga has performed up to snuff in the tournament. If you consider them a regional power (like most in the media do) that simply hasn't been the case in the last fifteen years. Here is Gonzaga recent tourney history:
Defeated Seton Hall in first round, 68-52
Defeated Utah in second round, 82-59
Lost to Syracuse in regional semifinal, 63-60
2015 3-1 Defeated North Dakota State in first round, 86-76
Defeated Iowa in second round, 87-68
Defeated UCLA in regional semifinal, 74-62
Lost to Duke in regional final, 66-52
2014 1-1 Defeated Oklahoma State in first round, 85-77
Lost to Arizona in second round, 84-61
2013 1-1 Defeated Southern University in first round, 64-58
Lost to Wichita State in second round, 76-70
2012 1-1 Defeated West Virginia in first round, 77-54
Lost to Ohio State in second round, 73-66
2011 1-1 Defeated St. John's in first round, 86-71
Lost to Brigham Young in second round, 89-67
2010 1-1 Defeated Florida State in first round, 67-60
Lost to Syracuse in second round, 87-65
2009 2-1 Defeated Akron in first round, 77-64
Defeated Western Kentucky in second round, 83-81
Lost to North Carolina in regional semifinal, 98-77
2008 0-1 Lost to Davidson in first round, 82-76
2007 0-1 Lost to Indiana in first round, 70-57
2006 2-1 Defeated Xavier in first round, 79-75
Defeated Indiana in second round, 90-80
Lost to UCLA in regional semifinal, 73-71
2005 1-1 Defeated Winthrop in first round, 74-64
Lost to Texas Tech in second round, 71-69
2004 1-1 Defeated Valparaiso in first round, 76-49
Lost to Nevada in second round, 91-72
2003 1-1 Defeated Cincinnati in first round, 74-69
Lost to Arizona in second round, 96-95
2002 0-1 Lost to Wyoming in first round, 73-66
2001 2-1 Defeated Virginia in first round, 86-85
Defeated Indiana State in second round, 85-68
Lost to Michigan State in regional semifinal, 77-62
2000 2-1 Defeated Louisville in first round, 77-66
Defeated St. John's in second round, 82-76
Lost to Purdue in regional semifinal, 75-66
1999 3-1 Defeated Minnesota in first round, 75-63
Defeated Stanford in second round, 82-74
Defeated Florida in regional semifinal, 73-72
Lost to Connecticut in regional final, 67-62
----
I will not argue with you about the 1999-2001 teams. Dan Monson had the amazing run in 99 and then Few followed it up the next two years. Once Casey Cavalry graduated though I really don't see a great track record. The 2003 got upset by a pretty meh Wyoming team. In 2004 they were massively underseeded as we found out the hard way. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
By 2004 Gonzaga was no longer perceived as Cinderella but instead upstart regional powerhouse. They went 27-2 but then lost to a 10 as a 2 seed in the second round. In 2005 they were a 3 that beat a 14 and then flamed out against a 6 seed. 2006 was the Adam Morrison led team. They did perform up to seed before losing to a good UCLA team (seeded 2). I'd call that a push rather than a resounding success. In 2007 they beat a 10 as a 7 before losing to a 2. In 2008 they were a 7 that lost to a Steph Curry led Davidsonteam in the 1st round. In 2009 they were a 4 that had the fortune of facing a 13 and 12 to get to the sweet sixteen. They beat that 12 seeded WKU team by 2 btw. In 2010 they were a 9 that beat an 8 before losing in the second round. In 2011 they were an 11 that pulled an upset before being knocked out in the second round. In 2012 they were a 7 that beat a ten before falling in round 2. In 2013 they were a 1 that was dangerously close to being taken out by a 16 before falling to a 9. In 2014 they were an 8 that won and then we trounced them. In 2015&16 they won five combined games but had the good fortunes of only facing on top 16 overall seed.
Here is how I would summarize Gonzaga's performance since the 2001:
1:) They have fared well in round 1 toss up kind of matchups
2:) They have only made it to the second weekend when presented with tremendous luck in terms of upsets
3:) they still do not have a signature tournament win against an elite basketball program having a great year
4:) they have some horrible second round flameouts that generally occur to their supposed elite squads
In summary, Gonzaga has been a really solid first round NCAA team. Beyond that their tournament has been pretty spotty.
I think Gonzaga has run into a lot of bad luck, losing some close games. The instant classic game against Arizona in 03 comes to mind. Also the lack of competition in their conference hurts them, i.e. not battle tested enough. This makes it harder to get over the hump in the big dance. This will always be the case since the Zags won't be able to join a power conference.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:01 am
by PennZona20
RaisingArizona wrote:rgdeuce wrote:Guys, I dont want Duke. They dont deserve the seed they will get, but they are red hot and Tatum is going to be this tournaments Carnelo Anthony. Dude was unreal in the ACC tournament and we dont have an answer for him.
Tatum as a freshman is nowhere near Carmelo. Carmelo was 22/10 his one year in college. He and Durant are the two best freshman of the one and done era.
Anthony Davis says hello.
Also Melo could have skipped college.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:29 am
by RaisingArizona
Edit: moved this response to the bottom as it was most relevant to the thread title
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:34 am
by RaisingArizona
Gladiator Cat wrote:RaisingArizona wrote:EVCAT,
Why in the hell would someone who doesn't appear to like the Wildcats basketball program and whom has never appeared to like this program continue to post as a adversarial entity.
The answer is: You wouldn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its long past time to flush this turd!
Not sure what made you feel this way. Been a huge fan since going to my first college basketball game in '88. My intention was to flush out the realities of Gonzaga's tournament performance rather than aggregate certain posters. My apologies for achieving the latter.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:38 am
by RaisingArizona
PennZona20 wrote:RaisingArizona wrote:rgdeuce wrote:Guys, I dont want Duke. They dont deserve the seed they will get, but they are red hot and Tatum is going to be this tournaments Carnelo Anthony. Dude was unreal in the ACC tournament and we dont have an answer for him.
Tatum as a freshman is nowhere near Carmelo. Carmelo was 22/10 his one year in college. He and Durant are the two best freshman of the one and done era.
Anthony Davis says hello.
Also Melo could have skipped college.
Good call on Melo. Forgot that he was a freshman prior to the rule change. Davis is right up there. With the talent around him he simply didn't get enough FGA to amass similar stats. You're right though, may very well have Had more effects on games than Melo or Durant.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:40 am
by RaisingArizona
RichardCranium wrote:RA, you still aren't addressing EVCat's point. At all.
Have they or have they not performed to their SEEDING. We know they haven't won it all, but have they performed to the standard that the selection committee expected?
Your great list of wins and losses above does not indicate what seed the teams carried, either Gonzaga or their opponent when they played those games. Who was favored in those games by the selection committee? Repeat, by the selection committee, not by Las Vegas.
EvCat says they won games they were favored in by the selection committee seedings two thirds of the time. How does your list of games refute that?
I get that. I meant to clear that up by stating that the disconnect was b/c I inferred a greater point than he was trying to make. I do think my counterpost is a worthwhile attempt to dig deeper as it does show that the metric that EV used is buyoed by their performance as a mid seed in the first round. If you separate the times when the commitee gives them a high seed and real expectations than the fact remains that more often than not Gonzaga underachieved their high seed. Off the top of my head I believe that as a 4 seed or higher they've made it to the sweet 16 seed 40% of the time. Given their seed make up those 5 times (1,2,2,3,3) the historical tournament average would've been 63% of the time.
So my point is that while EV's point is true it is heavily skewed by first round success in which the games were more a toss up.
P.S. EV I was not trying to be disrespectful in any way
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:08 am
by rgdeuce
Chris Webber says hello.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:13 am
by Longhorned
The preseason AP poll, which may be the best indicator of how teams finish, had Indiana at #11 and not even a vote for consideration to rank Baylor at all.
Arizona was #10, but Trier's status was unknown.
BTW, Arizona is now #4 in the coaches' poll.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:02 pm
by Alieberman
Holy Crap the folks at ESPN are all over the pac... 1 guy even has UofA, UCLA, and Oregon to FF.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:08 pm
by RaisingArizona
rgdeuce wrote:Chris Webber says hello.
Good one. Greg Oden has to be up there as well. Carmelo from an all around POV was probably greatly aided by the matchup zone which concealed his deficiencies on defense.
Lonzo Ball is pretty high on my list as well.
It's well before the one and done era but from a stats standpoint Chris Jackson has to be the number 1 freshman in the last thirty years.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:04 pm
by rgdeuce
I stopped at Webber and only went back that far because he jumped out at me, but Chris Jackson is at or near the top. Melo and Durant both were extremely high volume scorers and I think that skews their ranking a bit, especially when you got guys like Webber, Okafor, and Kevin Love who probably shot 6-8 less times per game because of double teams, unselfishness, or being on teams with a lot of talent; or a Derrick Rose or John Wall who had to run an offense and I imagine also shot significantly less per game. At the end of the day, I'm picking all those guys over Melo unless I have a big need for a scoring wing and I'm already doing pretty well at their respective positions.
Edit: Michael Beasley is another dude who had a huge freshman season.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:40 pm
by azgreg
Colin Cowherd picked us.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:52 pm
by rgdeuce
I cant find it, so I am guessing my post about this didn't go through. Basically,
St Mary's: AP 22, Coaches Poll 21, RPI 17, BPI 12, Kenpom 14, Strength of Schedule 78, Nonconference SOS 53 = 7 seed
Florida: AP 20, Coaches Poll 17, RPI 10, BPI 8, Kenpom 9, Strength of schedule 8, Nonconference SOS 7 = 4 seed
So how does this happen? Florida and Saint Mary's are pretty close by every measurement, so why a 3-level seed variation? It has two be one of two things: strength of who they have played, or record against top teams. We can probably rule out the latter: St Marys is 0-3 against the RPI top 25, but all three of those losses is to Gonzaga. Florida is 1-4 against the RPI top 25 (home win vs Kentucky, neutral loss to Duke, Kentucky on road, and FSU on road). Against RPI 26-50, SM is 2-1 (at 28 Dayton, 29 Nevada, loss to 45 UT Arlington); Florida is 5-4 (wins vs & at 26 Arkansas, and Miami, South Carolina, and Seton Hall 42-44; three losses to 38 Vanderbilt and one to 43 South Carolina). Neither have losses outside of RPI top 50. So we can look at all that and tell ourselves, yes, Florida deserves to be a higher seed, but not a three-seed variance between them unless you are punishing SM for the conference they play in. If you look at the committee's 1-68 rankings, Florida is 14th and St Mary's is 25th. Basically, Florida moves up above their deserved ranking just because they had the benefit of a tougher schedule and beat Kentucky once out of two tries. St Mary's moves down because they couldn't beat a #1 seed when given three tries and didnt have the benefit of merely showing up against tougher teams.
So that begs the case, if that is indeed the reason there is the variance, then why didn't Gonzaga get the same treatment? Gonzaga's SOS is 102 (24 positions worse than SM) and their nonconference SOS is 59 (6 positions worse than SM's. Oh, but Gonzaga is 6-0 against the RPI top 25, right? Lets start off by pointing out that three of those six came from a team the tournament committee thought very low of, #7 seed Saint Mary's themselves. Win #4 came against Arizona, on a neutral floor, when they were without Trier and PJC. The other two wins are at neutral sites at the start of the season against Florida (who isn't that much different than Saint Mary's other than just merely showing up for more tough games), and Iowa State RPI 22 (who has two big wins, but also a few bad losses). Gonzaga never played a true road game against any top 50 team except Saint Mary's. The only top 150 true road games were against 66 BYU, 94 San Francisco, 126, Santa Clara, and 149 Loyola Marymount. Talk about tough!!!
Basically, the committee is full of shit.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:07 pm
by Olsondogg
azgreg wrote:Colin Cowherd picked us.
When he said Arizona are you sure he wasn't talking about the NFL? That's all he does.
Also, Cowherd is still doing it? How hard is he to find now, sheesh.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:28 pm
by azcat49
I am good with what the committee did. It appears to me they desperately want a west coast team in Glendale and the west bracket to me is the easiest.
I think out of either Notre Dame or FSU I prefer FSU. In fact, didn't ND beat FSU 2 out of 3 times? Somehow FSU got that 3 seed and I am not sure they win there opening game. I also think our first game will be tougher than our second so what do I know
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:37 am
by azgreg
Olsondogg wrote:azgreg wrote:Colin Cowherd picked us.
When he said Arizona are you sure he wasn't talking about the NFL? That's all he does.
Also, Cowherd is still doing it? How hard is he to find now, sheesh.
Apparently if you can talk for 4 hours straight someone will give you a job.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:54 am
by rgdeuce
azcat49 wrote:I am good with what the committee did. It appears to me they desperately want a west coast team in Glendale and the west bracket to me is the easiest.
I think out of either Notre Dame or FSU I prefer FSU. In fact, didn't ND beat FSU 2 out of 3 times? Somehow FSU got that 3 seed and I am not sure they win there opening game. I also think our first game will be tougher than our second so what do I know
Notre Dame is a tough team and despite not breaking through to the next level in the NCAA tournament, they have been a tough out for final four teams in recent years. I have them beating Gonzaga in my bracket.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:25 pm
by BearDown89
Getting some love from Michael Vick
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:27 pm
by UAEebs86
Thought he was a Bulldogs fan
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:16 pm
by UAtrue
ASUHATER! wrote:Because ACC
1 out of the 8 teams make past the first weekend?
Man I hope some lessons are learned for the poll voters and those seeding the tourney next year
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:19 pm
by UAEebs86
UAtrue wrote:ASUHATER! wrote:Because ACC
1 out of the 8 teams make past the first weekend?
Man I hope some lessons are learned for the poll voters and those seeding the tourney next year
One out of nine
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:09 pm
by scumdevils86
And the one is a 1 seed
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:18 am
by waysouthcat
scumdevils86 wrote:And the one is a 1 seed
A 1 seed who squeaked past a not that great 8 seed.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:15 am
by rgdeuce
With the refs blatantly swinging the game on two huge and horrible calls very late in the game and Arkansas completely choking in the moment. This has happened before (though I never recall a conference shitting the bed this bad) and will happen again at some point.
VS RPI top 50 or teams ranked at the time they played them (and ranking at the time).
UNC= Wisconsin (16), Oklahoma State (UR), remaining wins against ACC. Losses= Kentucky (4), Indiana (13, ended up being a disaster), rest to ACC.
Duke= Rhode Island (21, but began a 2 and 4 stretch with some bad losses included), Florida (21), remaining wins against ACC. Losses= Kansas (7), the rest ACC.
Louisville = Wichita State (UR), Purdue (15), Kentucky (6), the rest ACC. Losses= Baylor (20th, but part of that torrid upset streak Baylor had), the rest ACC.
FSU = Minnesota (UR), Florida (21), the rest ACC. Losses = Temple (151 RPI), the rest ACC.
Virginia= All ACC. Losses= WVU (25), close game to Nova (1), the rest to ACC.
Notre Dame = Northwestern (UR), the rest ACC. Losses= Nova (1), Purdue (15), the rest ACC.
Easy to see what happened here, aside from preconceived bias. Louisville skewed things by beating Kentucky. The second common denominator is Nova, who turned out to be a little too well thought of. Virginia played Nova close, as did Notre Dame, making them both look good. Purdue also played Nova close, plus gave a win to Louisville and a "tough" loss to Notre Dame. Purdue otherwise didn't do a thing against tough opponents in nonconference slate. Rule out that Louisville/Kentucky game and look at the sum of the ACCs nonconference wins vs losses. 9 wins, entirely teams ranked 15th or lower or unranked (and a few not playing well at the time) vs 9 losses = 0-6 against current top 13 teams, to now 15 Purdue, two bad losses to Indiana and Temple. Nothing there says this is the God conference, they were 1-6 against the top 13 teams in the country nonconference. They were overrated going into their conference season, and when overrated teams lose to conference opponents it overrates everyone else and excuses losses for the top overrated teams.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:57 am
by HiCat
Sweet 16 brackets, predictions for increasingly mad March
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basket ... mad-march/" target="_blank
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:44 am
by azgreg
A lot of love there. Makes me nervous.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:10 am
by prh
Two of them have us vs UCLA. That was a crazy but fun idea when the field was announced, but it suddenly doesn't seem so impossible. Too bad UNC survived
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:33 pm
by Longhorned
#1 seed in the west per Lunardi. Looks like he's got Arizona as #1 overall.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:37 pm
by Beachcat97
Longhorned wrote:#1 seed in the west per Lunardi. Looks like he's got Arizona as #1 overall.
If we get some luck with guys coming back and filling out our '17 class, this is very realistic.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:46 pm
by Jefe
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology" target="_blank
1: AZ/Duke/Kansas/Kentucky
SD > LA > SA
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:09 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
Is placing the West Regional in LA a NCAA bylaw yet?
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:24 pm
by 97cats
i pledge to stay out of Staples
youre welcome in advance
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:27 pm
by Main Event
I'll take that bracket if it means seeing Xavier again
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:03 pm
by azgreg
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:38 pm
by NYCat
Nm
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:10 pm
by Bangkok Wildcat
This tourney is a mixed blessing with all the weight put on it......1997 got us a NC when we ran through the tourney red hot after a below average P10 Season for us.
Last year, I would argue, was one of CSM best years ever. Successfully overcoming all the adversities; Losing Ray Smith, T Ferguson not qualifying (umm, choosing to go pro
), Zo's suspension, PJC and Rawle injuries, etc. Yet ended as P12 co-champs and P12 Tourney Champs with some really good quality wins during the year......BUT, losing to an inferior Xavier Team in the S16 seems to hold too much weight in reviewing the year IMHO.
And yes, this thread is ridiculous at this time of year BUT I understand the passions and needs surrounding it.....I can't wait till the season starts! Bear Down.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:13 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
We are strong for the #1 seed in the West. As we've been for a while. We pull that ajd we will have been a 1 or 2 seed in the West 4 of the last 5 years.
Being a consensus #1 or #2 overall, there really isn't a ton of wiggle room.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:46 am
by YoDeFoe
Bangkok Wildcat wrote:This tourney is a mixed blessing with all the weight put on it......1997 got us a NC when we ran through the tourney red hot after a below average P10 Season for us.
Last year, I would argue, was one of CSM best years ever. Successfully overcoming all the adversities; Losing Ray Smith, T Ferguson not qualifying (umm, choosing to go pro
), Zo's suspension, PJC and Rawle injuries, etc. Yet ended as P12 co-champs and P12 Tourney Champs with some really good quality wins during the year......BUT, losing to an inferior Xavier Team in the S16 seems to hold too much weight in reviewing the year IMHO.
And yes, this thread is ridiculous at this time of year BUT I understand the passions and needs surrounding it.....I can't wait till the season starts! Bear Down.
It was a great season, considering the hurdles including the final hurdle we couldn't clear: Rawle breaking his hand in the tourney.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:07 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
YoDeFoe wrote:Bangkok Wildcat wrote:This tourney is a mixed blessing with all the weight put on it......1997 got us a NC when we ran through the tourney red hot after a below average P10 Season for us.
Last year, I would argue, was one of CSM best years ever. Successfully overcoming all the adversities; Losing Ray Smith, T Ferguson not qualifying (umm, choosing to go pro
), Zo's suspension, PJC and Rawle injuries, etc. Yet ended as P12 co-champs and P12 Tourney Champs with some really good quality wins during the year......BUT, losing to an inferior Xavier Team in the S16 seems to hold too much weight in reviewing the year IMHO.
And yes, this thread is ridiculous at this time of year BUT I understand the passions and needs surrounding it.....I can't wait till the season starts! Bear Down.
It was a great season, considering the hurdles including the final hurdle we couldn't clear: Rawle breaking his hand in the tourney.
You can make a convincing argument Miller is two fractures from having 2 Final Fours and 1 Natty. I'm not certain we would have taken Gonzaga down bc they played a dominant game in the Elite Eight. Not many people beat them that day.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:40 pm
by Irish27
Wisconsin in the west again?
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:13 pm
by midnightx
Spaceman Spiff wrote:YoDeFoe wrote:Bangkok Wildcat wrote:This tourney is a mixed blessing with all the weight put on it......1997 got us a NC when we ran through the tourney red hot after a below average P10 Season for us.
Last year, I would argue, was one of CSM best years ever. Successfully overcoming all the adversities; Losing Ray Smith, T Ferguson not qualifying (umm, choosing to go pro
), Zo's suspension, PJC and Rawle injuries, etc. Yet ended as P12 co-champs and P12 Tourney Champs with some really good quality wins during the year......BUT, losing to an inferior Xavier Team in the S16 seems to hold too much weight in reviewing the year IMHO.
And yes, this thread is ridiculous at this time of year BUT I understand the passions and needs surrounding it.....I can't wait till the season starts! Bear Down.
It was a great season, considering the hurdles including the final hurdle we couldn't clear: Rawle breaking his hand in the tourney.
You can make a convincing argument Miller is two fractures from having 2 Final Fours and 1 Natty. I'm not certain we would have taken Gonzaga down bc they played a dominant game in the Elite Eight. Not many people beat them that day.
Don't forget about 2011; if AZ defeats UConn in the Elite 8 (and that likely would have happened had D. Williams not received two quick fouls at the beginning of the first half), I am not convinced anyone in the final four would have beat them. Miller could easily have 3 FF's and at least one Title if not two.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:50 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
midnightx wrote:Spaceman Spiff wrote:YoDeFoe wrote:Bangkok Wildcat wrote:This tourney is a mixed blessing with all the weight put on it......1997 got us a NC when we ran through the tourney red hot after a below average P10 Season for us.
Last year, I would argue, was one of CSM best years ever. Successfully overcoming all the adversities; Losing Ray Smith, T Ferguson not qualifying (umm, choosing to go pro
), Zo's suspension, PJC and Rawle injuries, etc. Yet ended as P12 co-champs and P12 Tourney Champs with some really good quality wins during the year......BUT, losing to an inferior Xavier Team in the S16 seems to hold too much weight in reviewing the year IMHO.
And yes, this thread is ridiculous at this time of year BUT I understand the passions and needs surrounding it.....I can't wait till the season starts! Bear Down.
It was a great season, considering the hurdles including the final hurdle we couldn't clear: Rawle breaking his hand in the tourney.
You can make a convincing argument Miller is two fractures from having 2 Final Fours and 1 Natty. I'm not certain we would have taken Gonzaga down bc they played a dominant game in the Elite Eight. Not many people beat them that day.
Don't forget about 2011; if AZ defeats UConn in the Elite 8 (and that likely would have happened had D. Williams not received two quick fouls at the beginning of the first half), I am not convinced anyone in the final four would have beat them. Miller could easily have 3 FF's and at least one Title if not two.
Yeah. See, I usually set 2011 aside because we were just as close to losing in the first round and needed the miracle vs Texas. With the what ifs, 2011 is at least as much a what if Memphis took us out immediately for me.
2011 was the strangest run. We looked super vulnerable for 7 of 8 halves and had the miracle stretch run vs Texas and the beautiful 2nd half against Duke. Just thinking about the second half against Duke makes me feel good.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:04 pm
by Bangkok Wildcat
Spaceman Spiff wrote:midnightx wrote:Spaceman Spiff wrote:YoDeFoe wrote:Bangkok Wildcat wrote:This tourney is a mixed blessing with all the weight put on it......1997 got us a NC when we ran through the tourney red hot after a below average P10 Season for us.
Last year, I would argue, was one of CSM best years ever. Successfully overcoming all the adversities; Losing Ray Smith, T Ferguson not qualifying (umm, choosing to go pro
), Zo's suspension, PJC and Rawle injuries, etc. Yet ended as P12 co-champs and P12 Tourney Champs with some really good quality wins during the year......BUT, losing to an inferior Xavier Team in the S16 seems to hold too much weight in reviewing the year IMHO.
And yes, this thread is ridiculous at this time of year BUT I understand the passions and needs surrounding it.....I can't wait till the season starts! Bear Down.
It was a great season, considering the hurdles including the final hurdle we couldn't clear: Rawle breaking his hand in the tourney.
You can make a convincing argument Miller is two fractures from having 2 Final Fours and 1 Natty. I'm not certain we would have taken Gonzaga down bc they played a dominant game in the Elite Eight. Not many people beat them that day.
Don't forget about 2011; if AZ defeats UConn in the Elite 8 (and that likely would have happened had D. Williams not received two quick fouls at the beginning of the first half), I am not convinced anyone in the final four would have beat them. Miller could easily have 3 FF's and at least one Title if not two.
Yeah. See, I usually set 2011 aside because we were just as close to losing in the first round and needed the miracle vs Texas. With the what ifs, 2011 is at least as much a what if Memphis took us out immediately for me.
2011 was the strangest run. We looked super vulnerable for 7 of 8 halves and had the miracle stretch run vs Texas and the beautiful 2nd half against Duke. Just thinking about the second half against Duke makes me feel good.
No kidding Spiff....I've rewatched that game a few times and that second half was one of the most beautiful, dominating, exciting halves of Arizona Basketball and definitely the CSM era.......Man, I close my eyes now and I can see Williams monster back-breaking dunk.....as well as Janelle's...and the look of utter defeat and even humiliation on Coach K's face
.
Great memories.
Re: Official Bracketology Thread
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:34 pm
by PennZona20
We definitely should have beat Memphis. Close game but we lead most the way. No doubt we stole the Texas game though.
Duke was just a Herculean effort by DW to keep us in it first half and then everything clicked in the second half. We seemed like (and were) the better team w more momentum v UConn that game but the terrible 3rd foul and then UConn gonna UConn, but if we beat them we could have easily went on the run they did.