Bear Down Wildcats

all this aside...rewind back about 4 weeks, then tell yourself "we are sitting around after beating UCLA and Oregon to win in Vegas thinking..."can we get a 1 seed?"

And knowing we have the team to back it up.

Just stay away from teams like big bad Wichita State with their 2* players lol

Remember last year? lol

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.

Duke is scary no doubt, but it's more about depth of talent than Jayson Tatum imo.

Arizona's RPI = #2

#2 in the RPI in the year in which the committee has been pretty transparent in saying the RPI doesn't factor into or matter.

They're focusing on sos, ooc SOS, 1 vs top 25, 1 vs top 50. It seems, RPI a small factor.

I think we locked up the #2 seed in the West last night, which is better than #1 in the South.

question i don't know the answer to, but I'd be curious to know what's the lowest seed the overall #2 RPI team has ever received?

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/rpi/?date=2013-03-10" target="_blank

Didn't have to go back very long before I found one team. Maybe there's another if you go back further (but they'll likely be mid majors as well).

New Mexico was #2 RPI in 2012-2013. They were a #3 seed. But they were a mid Major.

Kinda makes sense, the PAC 12 is getting treated as a mid major conference. Dead last in the power 5 conference, and behind the big East also.

Besides the top 3 in the conference of champions, only USC is making the tournament, and they're probably a last four in/play in game.

rgdeuce wrote:We beat Oregon and dropped a spot in kenpom we beat Rado, UCLA and Oregon all in convincing fashion (sans scotts buddies making oregon close) and dropped a spot in kenpom

Our Kenpom rating actually went up. We just got momentarily passed.

I'm curious how the committee will treat Oregon with the loss of Boucher.

Frybry02 wrote:I'm curious how the committee will treat Oregon with the loss of Boucher.

I'm guessing they get a three seed. Can't see justification for dropping them to a 4 or letting them remain a 2.

Chicat wrote:

Frybry02 wrote:I'm curious how the committee will treat Oregon with the loss of Boucher.

I'm guessing they get a three seed. Can't see justification for dropping them to a 4 or letting them remain a 2.

My thoughts as well. But I am getting a funny feelin that the seeding will be absolutely crazy this year.

Only 3 options

1 west
1 south
2 west

Sean Miller is a mother fucking witch!

It's a cruel reality that the committee has to punish teams with injuries to avoid rewarding the other teams in their bracket. But by the same logic, you're rewarding teams in Gonzaga's bracket by giving them a 1-seed whose win-loss record in easily explained away. If Arizona is the 2-seed in the west, win or lose early, chances are the highest seed we'd play in our region is a 3-seed.

Alieberman wrote:Only 3 options

1 west. Yes
1 south. No
2 west. Yes

Sean Miller is a mother fucking witch!

Are my wishes

Longhorned wrote:It's a cruel reality that the committee has to punish teams with injuries to avoid awarding the other teams in their bracket. But by the same logic, you're awarding teams in Gonzaga's bracket by giving them a 1-seed whose win-loss record in easily explained away. If Arizona is the 2-seed in the west, win or lose early, chances are the highest seed we'd play in our region is a 3-seed.

Exactly. I hope they give us #2 in the west to set up the rematch!

Bay Area cats/nor cal cats will represent!

Right now the 1 in the south has less value than the other options.

Bracket Matrix most accurate bracketologist

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html" target="_blank

http://assemblycall.com/bracketology-nc ... r-12-2017/" target="_blank

I'm liking this bracket

Has Arizona as a #2 in the West
7 Maryland/10 Marquette as a possible 2nd round matchup
3 seed is Florida State as the probable S16 matchup (6 seed Creighton / 11 seed Michigan State)

Gonzaga has to go through 8 VCU or 9 Wichita State
Then Iowa ​State or Florida if they win that game.

NYCat wrote:Bracket Matrix most accurate bracketologist

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html" target="_blank

http://assemblycall.com/bracketology-nc ... r-12-2017/" target="_blank

I'm liking this bracket

Has Arizona as a #2 in the West
7 Maryland/10 Marquette as a possible 2nd round matchup
3 seed is Florida State as the probable S16 matchup (6 seed Creighton / 11 seed Michigan State)

Gonzaga has to go through 8 VCU or 9 Wichita State
Then Iowa ​State or Florida if they win that game.

Looks good - which means it's the exact opposite of what the committee will give us.

Misconceptions abound in bracketology. One is that Gonzaga underachieves...in this 18 year run, they have outperformed their seed 12 times, or 66.7% of the time. With adj O and D of 2/10, they arent the cute little Zags of years ago. They are starting to resemble UNLV of thr 80s and 90s as a legit power in a crap conference. S16 and E8 the last 2 years, last year as a super high seed, and were a tough out even when it finally happened.

UNLV consistently had athletes that Gonzaga never has.

RaisingArizona wrote:UNLV consistently had athletes that Gonzaga never has.

I wonder why that was?

Also, in the last 11 years, Gonzaga has made it out of the first weekend 4 times. They have done so 5 times in the last 16 years.

UAEebs86 wrote:

NYCat wrote:Bracket Matrix most accurate bracketologist

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html" target="_blank

http://assemblycall.com/bracketology-nc ... r-12-2017/" target="_blank

I'm liking this bracket

Has Arizona as a #2 in the West
7 Maryland/10 Marquette as a possible 2nd round matchup
3 seed is Florida State as the probable S16 matchup (6 seed Creighton / 11 seed Michigan State)

Gonzaga has to go through 8 VCU or 9 Wichita State
Then Iowa ​State or Florida if they win that game.

Looks good - which means it's the exact opposite of what the committee will give us.

If they do, it will be a great Sunday for BRM (the Big Red Machine).

Feels like I might be on an island here preferring a 1 in the south to a 2 in the west

In the sweet 16 would you rather play a 4 or a 3? Especially given the drop off from the projected 3 line to the 4 line this year?

Besides, what has being in the west done for us lately? Pushed us over the edge in close games?

SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Feels like I might be on an island here preferring a 1 in the south to a 2 in the west

In the sweet 16 would you rather play a 4 or a 3? Especially given the drop off from the projected 3 line to the 4 line this year?

Besides, what has being in the west done for us lately? Pushed us over the edge in close games?

1 vs 2 isn't a big difference because you likely get just about the same matchup. I like the West because it means Gonzaga, and we've hung with them once with a severely shorthanded team. If we can keep it within double digits without Trier and PJC, well...that's a decent Elite Eight matchup.

Other teams are scarier to me. South is close to Duke and I don't want a piece of Duke right now.

SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Feels like I might be on an island here preferring a 1 in the south to a 2 in the west

In the sweet 16 would you rather play a 4 or a 3? Especially given the drop off from the projected 3 line to the 4 line this year?

Besides, what has being in the west done for us lately? Pushed us over the edge in close games?

I'd rather be playing in San Jose then Memphis.

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.

Tatum averaged 22 and 7.5 and put Duke on his shoulders in multiple comebacks against top competition. It is not about the whole season, it's about now. Right now he is playing on the same level that both of those guys were playing in March

azgreg wrote:

SteveKerrsStroke wrote:Feels like I might be on an island here preferring a 1 in the south to a 2 in the west

In the sweet 16 would you rather play a 4 or a 3? Especially given the drop off from the projected 3 line to the 4 line this year?

Besides, what has being in the west done for us lately? Pushed us over the edge in close games?

I'd rather be playing in San Jose then Memphis.

rgdeuce 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.

Tatum averaged 22 and 7.5 and put Duke on his shoulders in multiple comebacks against top competition. It is not about the whole season, it's about now. Right now he is playing on the same level that both of those guys were playing in March

For me, it's like this: Duke has the most talent in the nation. When they are on, they win. I'd rather get a team that I think we can beat straight up. Duke is the only team in terms of talent level where they can give you a game that makes the game you play irrelevant.

I will say, they do have weaknesses. No pg and a tendency to space out, but they are loaded. Tatum is really good, but they have Allen and Kennard on the wing who also play at a high level.

rgdeuce 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.

Tatum averaged 22 and 7.5 and put Duke on his shoulders in multiple comebacks against top competition. It is not about the whole season, it's about now. Right now he is playing on the same level that both of those guys were playing in March

3 games is too small of a sample size for me to make the Carmelo competition at this point. I like Tatum, I just don't see him as being quite on that level. Additionally, his supporting cast is on a completely different level than what Melo had to work with.

I do think Duke should be one of the favorites to win it all. I think ultimately the lack of a true point guard may come back to bite them.

Chicat wrote:

Frybry02 wrote:I'm curious how the committee will treat Oregon with the loss of Boucher.

I'm guessing they get a three seed. Can't see justification for dropping them to a 4 or letting them remain a 2.

True and lets keep in mind with all the "Boucher" talk that he WAS NOT A STARTER...granted he came off the bench much like our rotation, still...would it affect our seeding if we lost Pinder or Kobi right now? Same thing there.

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Frybry02 wrote:I'm curious how the committee will treat Oregon with the loss of Boucher.

I'm guessing they get a three seed. Can't see justification for dropping them to a 4 or letting them remain a 2.

True and lets keep in mind with all the "Boucher" talk that he WAS NOT A STARTER...granted he came off the bench much like our rotation, still...would it affect our seeding if we lost Pinder or Kobi right now? Same thing there.

Comparing Boucher to Simmons/Pinder is extreme. Boucher is oregon's 3rd leading scorer, 2nd leading rebounder, and team leading shot blocker. That is a lot of production to have to replace.

The committee is punishing everyone in the bracket they put Michigan in.

Seriously it's like that plane crash transported them into an higher level.

CatFanOneMil wrote:True and lets keep in mind with all the "Boucher" talk that he WAS NOT A STARTER...granted he came off the bench much like our rotation, still...would it affect our seeding if we lost Pinder or Kobi right now? Same thing there.

11.8 points, 6.1 boards, 2.6 blocks per game in 23.5 minutes per game

The issue with losing Boucher is it completely changes what made Oregon special defensively. The tandem of elite shot blockers was such an exceptionally rare dynamic. I think they'll be fine offensively but take a hit on the other end. Still a threat to make it to Phoenix.

Is it just me or does it make zero sense for sports writers to state the RPI is flawed and doesn't matter while at the same time hyping up teams because of the amount of top 25 and 50 RPI wins that they have? Not sure how those POVs can be mutually exclusive.

Anybody leak the bracket yet?

1 hour until we discover who we will dominate on our way to the final 4...

Alieberman wrote:1 hour until we discover who we will dominate on our way to the final 4...

no jinx right..

It's going to be interesting to see where Michigan will be placed.... they are on fire... I'm no Michigan fan but you gotta love the story

Michigan 6th seed in the West, in lunardi's final bracket

http://www.espn.com/ncb/bracketology?it ... &year=2017" target="_blank

RaisingArizona wrote:Also, in the last 11 years, Gonzaga has made it out of the first weekend 4 times. They have done so 5 times in the last 16 years.

That would be the reference to Gonzaga of yesteryear. If we use a 2 year look back, a double digit seed went to the S16 and a single digit made the E8. But, yes...most definitely Gonzaga went through a stretch of bad tournaments a few years back. The program has not resembled that team the last couple.

They have, under Few, outperformed their seeding 2/3rds of the time. The myth of Gonzaga underachieving based on seeding is myth.

EVCat wrote:Misconceptions abound in bracketology. One is that Gonzaga underachieves...in this 18 year run, they have outperformed their seed 12 times, or 66.7% of the time. With adj O and D of 2/10, they arent the cute little Zags of years ago. They are starting to resemble UNLV of thr 80s and 90s as a legit power in a crap conference. S16 and E8 the last 2 years, last year as a super high seed, and were a tough out even when it finally happened.

How have they performed as a top 3 seed? How many top 3 seeds have they beaten?
Other than beating that streaky 2015 UCLA team, what have they actually accomplished other than being consistently mediocre-good but never great?

Is two years enough of a sample to declare that the Gonzaga of old is no more? Also in those last two years they have beaten an over seeded 3 in Utah plus a 6, 7, 11, 15 and they lost to a 10 seed. One win against a pretty decent Utah team is hardly enough to convince me that Gonzaga underperforming in the tournament is in the past.

legallykenny wrote:

EVCat wrote:Misconceptions abound in bracketology. One is that Gonzaga underachieves...in this 18 year run, they have outperformed their seed 12 times, or 66.7% of the time. With adj O and D of 2/10, they arent the cute little Zags of years ago. They are starting to resemble UNLV of thr 80s and 90s as a legit power in a crap conference. S16 and E8 the last 2 years, last year as a super high seed, and were a tough out even when it finally happened.

How have they performed as a top 3 seed? How many top 3 seeds have they beaten?
Other than beating that streaky 2015 UCLA team, what have they actually accomplished other than being consistently mediocre-good but never great?

I agree. I think conceptions regarding Gonzaga are pretty spot on.

RaisingArizona wrote:Is two years enough of a sample to declare that the Gonzaga of old is no more? Also in those last two years they have beaten an over seeded 3 in Utah plus a 6, 7, 11, 15 and they lost to a 10 seed. One win against a pretty decent Utah team is hardly enough to convince me that Gonzaga underperforming in the tournament is in the past.

I guess the definition of "underperforming" differs for you.

They are given a seed. Did they perform or finish worse than that seed?

If they performed m, they performed to or above seed. If they did not, they underperformed. No "but Utah..." micro opinion analysis....just facts. Did they perform equal to or better, or worse, than they were seeded? Not opinions or perception. Did they meet or exceed their assigned seed or worse than their assigned seed?

67% of the time, Mark Few's Gonzaga teams do what they should or better in the tournament based on their seeding. 2/3rds of the time, they perform to their seeding. No conjecture. Unless you think the NCAA has been unfair to them and mis-seeded them. But i dont think you are making that argument.

Removing personal bias and making it a factual statement...Gonzaga performs equal to or better than the committee seeds them 2 of every 3 years. 2/3rds of rhe time, thay walk away from the tournament saying "we did equal to or better than thr NCAA expected".

I think most people would be surprised, if honest, to learn that. Because the perceptuon is Gonzaga underperforms. And that just isn't statistically true.

I think you're placing way too much importance on that overperforming metric. So this year, they will underperform w/o a final four. I don't think that's particularly fair to them to be honest.

Forget the Utah part for a second (though I do believe they were a joke of a 3. Just look at those wins the last two years. Does that wow you? It certainly doesn't impress me.