(03-24-2016 11:47 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The WCC is stable but that doesn't make it great. The WCC is like lipstick on a pig, with the top 3 being the lipstick. Great history of course with Steve Nash, Hank Gathers, Bill Russell, etc... but still a pig in that analogy.

And fine, you didn't like the A-Sun in that analogy? Try the NEC, which I usually compare it to. That fits better imo. We can agree to disagree.

The NEC is a lousy comparison as well. Have they EVER won a first-round NCAA game?!?!? First round, not counting play-in.

In terms of basketball prowess (both current and prospects for the future) and long-term conference outlook, The WCC's closest doppelganger conference is the Ivy League.

Yeah, comparing the WCC to the NEC is troll-ish. NEC never has a team get out of the first round and ranks 30th out of 32 D-I conferences in RPI.

WCC was 14th in conference RPI this season, right behind the MVC which was 13th. In each of the previous two years, the WCC was 9th in conference RPI, right behind the American which was 8th in both of those seasons.

But I say again, the WCC is propped up by its top 3 teams. If there wasn't such a sharp dropoff after BYU/St. Mary's, maybe I wouldn't make a comparison to minor 1-bid leagues but the WCC clearly has 3 good programs and otherwise a bunch of programs that are barely D-I, great history or not. And even SMC is a solid basketball program that otherwise shares more in common with the bottom of D-I than, say, the A-10. Randy Bennett has done an excellent job but when he took over they were 2-27 and arguably the worst overall program in D-I.

Currently, of course, the WCC doesn't compare to the A-Sun or NEC but that can definitely change in the future.

The WCC is a traditional Top 10 basketball conference. Its a high major basketball conference and the western version of the Atlantic 10.

From year to year, like the A10 there is a lot of crap in the WCC but the programs at the top have a high ceiling.

There have definitely been years where Gonzaga was a legit national title contender with All American's on the team. Take a look at their seeds in the NCAAs over the years.

1999 #10
2000 #10
2001 #12
2002 #6
2003 #9
2004 #2
2005 #3
2006 #3
2007 #10
2008 #7
2009 #4
2010 #8
2011 #11
2012 #7
2013 #1
2014 #8
2015 #2
2016 #11

A team with a 4 seed or above (Top 16) is a legitimate national title contender entering the tourney. Gonzaga has done that six times since 2004.

Since 2002, Gonzaga has 12 years in which it was a single digit seed.

The top WCC and A10 programs are equivalent to a Big East club. That's the way its always been. Bottom teams in the WCC and A10 are average D1.

(03-25-2016 01:05 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  But I say again, the AAC is propped up by its top 3 teams. If there wasn't such a sharp dropoff after UCONN/CINCY/SMU, maybe I wouldn't make a comparison to minor 1-bid leagues but the AAC clearly has 3 good programs and otherwise a bunch of programs that are barely D-I, great history or not. And even SMC is a solid basketball program that otherwise shares more in common with the bottom of D-I than, say, the A-10. Randy Bennett has done an excellent job but when he took over they were 2-27 and arguably the worst overall program in D-I.

Currently, of course, the WCC doesn't compare to the A-Sun or NEC but that can definitely change in the future.

I mean you are not wrong.

(03-25-2016 02:18 PM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 01:05 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  But I say again, the AAC is propped up by its top 3 teams. If there wasn't such a sharp dropoff after UCONN/CINCY/SMU, maybe I wouldn't make a comparison to minor 1-bid leagues but the AAC clearly has 3 good programs and otherwise a bunch of programs that are barely D-I, great history or not. And even SMC is a solid basketball program that otherwise shares more in common with the bottom of D-I than, say, the A-10. Randy Bennett has done an excellent job but when he took over they were 2-27 and arguably the worst overall program in D-I.

Currently, of course, the WCC doesn't compare to the A-Sun or NEC but that can definitely change in the future.

I mean you are not wrong.

??????????
Temple and Memphis say Hi.

WCC a traditional top 10 conference? Really? What top 10 conference has ever produced a 15-seed? That was Steve Nash's Santa Clara team's seed when they shocked Arizona. As I said with the WCC, great history and great moments but it's propped up by 3 great teams.

(03-24-2016 11:47 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The WCC is stable but that doesn't make it great. The WCC is like lipstick on a pig, with the top 3 being the lipstick. Great history of course with Steve Nash, Hank Gathers, Bill Russell, etc... but still a pig in that analogy.

And fine, you didn't like the A-Sun in that analogy? Try the NEC, which I usually compare it to. That fits better imo. We can agree to disagree.

The NEC is a lousy comparison as well. Have they EVER won a first-round NCAA game?!?!? First round, not counting play-in.

In terms of basketball prowess (both current and prospects for the future) and long-term conference outlook, The WCC's closest doppelganger conference is the Ivy League.

Call me when Chambers actually does something good or when Penn State fans stop worshiping a fallen idol.

The NEC is a small conference that utilizes every dollar they have.

The Zags are more "Major" than mid...better than Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, MState, Georgia, Vandy, LSU, etc...really only Kentucky and Florida from the SEC are markedly better than the Zags' program.

They're not Blue Blood level...but are in the next rung or two down

So I guess we're all agreed. The SEC really sucks at basketball.

(03-26-2016 09:15 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The Zags are more "Major" than mid...better than Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, MState, Georgia, Vandy, LSU, etc...really only Kentucky and Florida from the SEC are markedly better than the Zags' program.

They're not Blue Blood level...but are in the next rung or two down

The Zags can compete at a national level but it remains to be seen if they can stay at this level and those other schools have things the Zags wish they had, most especially major conference affiliation. They also have football money and the prestige that being in one of THE leagues brings.

Gonzaga is the basketball version of Boise State football. Even when Few leaves, the Zags have enough pedigree to attract a good young coach who this time will take them to another level like a Final Four and even a NC. Their "demise" is as exaggerated as the countless of Boise State threads about their eminent fall every time they lose a coach only to prove the naysayers wrong.

(03-26-2016 04:47 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Gonzaga is the basketball version of Boise State football. Even when Few leaves, the Zags have enough pedigree to attract a good young coach who this time will take them to another level like a Final Four and even a NC. Their "demise" is as exaggerated as the countless of Boise State threads about their eminent fall every time they lose a coach only to prove the naysayers wrong.

Well said!

(03-26-2016 04:47 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Gonzaga is the basketball version of Boise State football. Even when Few leaves, the Zags have enough pedigree to attract a good young coach who this time will take them to another level like a Final Four and even a NC. Their "demise" is as exaggerated as the countless of Boise State threads about their eminent fall every time they lose a coach only to prove the naysayers wrong.

We'll see. San Francisco used to be exactly what Gonzaga is but look at them now. Granted, their program went through the death penalty but nothing is forever.

I'm not saying they will decline but it has to be proven. GU basketball has gone through minimal adversity over the last two decades.

(03-26-2016 06:38 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 04:47 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Gonzaga is the basketball version of Boise State football. Even when Few leaves, the Zags have enough pedigree to attract a good young coach who this time will take them to another level like a Final Four and even a NC. Their "demise" is as exaggerated as the countless of Boise State threads about their eminent fall every time they lose a coach only to prove the naysayers wrong.

We'll see. San Francisco used to be exactly what Gonzaga is but look at them now. Granted, their program went through the death penalty but nothing is forever.

I'm not saying they will decline but it has to be proven. GU basketball has gone through minimal adversity over the last two decades.

Gonzaga basketball has the benefit of not having a football team to compete for funding and resources so I don't see their basketball program going downhill anytime soon. Could they have a bad season or two while transitioning with a new coach or losing a senior heavy team? Of course. But it also helps they play in the WCC while they rebuild than in a heavy top to bottom conference like the Big East (Gonzaga's peers).

Basketball is where they put all their money, resources and energy. It's the sport that put them in a map. I'm find it hard to believe their administration will neglect the very sport that made the little Catholic school from Spokane a recognized brand.

We will see is the way I'll leave it, you can't say for certain either way.

Since 1999, Gonzaga has a record of 466 wins and 111 losses for an .807 percentage with 18 straight NCAA tournament appearances with a 24-19 record. About all "mid-majors would love that record. They are no longer seen as a giant killer.

"San Francisco Dons" were great from 1955 to 1957 with two national champions and a third place finish but the NCAA Tournament was considerably smaller. They had 14 appearances from 1955 to 1981 and their 15th and last appearance was 1998 and their NCAA record is 21-13.

But also note that it was much, much harder to make the NCAA Tournament back then. Now days, it's much easier and some power programs that rack up countless appearances by sneaking in the field in the 8/9 game or as a double digit seed in off years would have missed in the time span where San Francisco was really, really good. I think as little as 25 teams made the Dance as recently as 1974 and even top 5 teams got left out the field (that year, Maryland could have won the national title but lost in the ACC Finals, leading to rules changes). To top it off, half the bids were auto-bids from weak conferences, which explains why you saw so many non-descript teams make the Final Four in the 70's like NMSU as opposed to the 80's.

Despite not making the Dance every year, San Francisco was a top 25 caliber program many years until their Death Penalty, which was in 1984 IIRC.

(03-26-2016 01:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 09:15 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The Zags are more "Major" than mid...better than Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, MState, Georgia, Vandy, LSU, etc...really only Kentucky and Florida from the SEC are markedly better than the Zags' program.

They're not Blue Blood level...but are in the next rung or two down

The Zags can compete at a national level but it remains to be seen if they can stay at this level and those other schools have things the Zags wish they had, most especially major conference affiliation. They also have football money and the prestige that being in one of THE leagues brings.

They might be like Dayton long term where they'll have some prestige to make a tourney run once in a while. Spokane and Dayton are similar sized cities.

Gonzaga may fall back some but they'll never be able to go back to being an anonymous D1 school. Boise likewise will never go back to the level of a Big Sky football programs. At worst they will be a good MWC program just outside AQ contention.

Never say never, there's a long list of schools that used to be very big time in the 40's-70's that are relative unknowns or have a poor reputation today (La Salle, Duquesne, San Francisco, NMSU, DePaul, Holy Cross, etc... ). All it takes is a generation or two of being irrelevant and people will either forget about you or you'll draw a blank stare from new fans. And as I just listed as an example, look at San Francisco in the Zags same conference, who had a ton of prestige as late as the late 70's. Loyola Marymount is forgotten other than March Madness highlight reels.

(03-26-2016 11:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Never say never, there's a long list of schools that used to be very big time in the 40's-70's that are relative unknowns or have a poor reputation today (La Salle, Duquesne, San Francisco, NMSU, DePaul, Holy Cross, etc... ). All it takes is a generation or two of being irrelevant and people will either forget about you or you'll draw a blank stare from new fans. And as I just listed as an example, look at San Francisco in the Zags same conference, who had a ton of prestige as late as the late 70's. Loyola Marymount is forgotten other than March Madness highlight reels.

To add to your argument, DePaul went to the NCG in the late 80's, so you don't even need to go back to the 70's. You can almost go back to the 90's (I think DePaul made it in '89). St. John's could also be on that list, and they were also very good in the '80's.

IMHO, the 'Zags are a 3rd tier team. Tier 1 would be blue bloods (i.e. KU, UNC, Duke, UK, etc.), tier 2 would be non-blue blood elites ('Nova, Louisville, Michigan State, etc.), and tier 3 would be good, solid teams (i.e. Gonzaga, Notre Dame, Pitt, etc.).