Gonzaga | The Boneyard

Gonzaga

S

SeaDog

Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction Score
42
Each year when Gonzaga inevitably comes up short, I'm reminded that it's been a long time that they've been good. It must just be brutal for their fans.

I went back and looked at their tourney record vs. ours since that fateful game in '99. Gonzaga has 23 tournaments and 23 losses. Five in a row as the equal/higher seed. We have 4 wins, 11 losses, and 8 DNQs. Two straight losses as higher seed.

They have had some likable players but I find Mark Few irritating so love this annual tradition.

UCONN:
  • 23 years / 4 wins / 11 losses / 8 DNQ
  • 4 Won National Championship
  • 0 National Cham losses
  • 1 Final Four loss
  • 2 Elite Eight losses
  • 1 Sweet Sixteen loss
  • 3 2nd Round losses
  • 4 1st Round losses
  • 8 DNQ
*6X as equal/better seed
**2X as #1 seed

Gonzaga
  • 23 years / 0 Wins / 23 losses / 0 DNQ
  • 2 Nat’l Cham losses
  • 0 Final Four losses
  • 3 Elite 8 losses
  • 7 Sweet Sixteen losses
  • 8 2nd Round losses
  • 3 1st Round losses
  • 0 DNQ
*10X as equal/better seed
**5X as a #1 seed


UCONN:
  • 1999: Won #1 Duke (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2000: Lost #4 Tennessee
  • 2001: DNQ
  • 2002: Lost #1 Maryland
  • 2003: Lost #1 Texas
  • 2004: Won #3 Georgia Tech (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2005: Lost #10 NC State*
  • 2006: Lost #11 George Mason**
  • 2007: DNQ
  • 2008: Lost #13 San Diego*
  • 2009: Lost #2 Michigan State**
  • 2010: DNQ
  • 2011: Won #8 Butler (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2012: Lost #8 Iowa State
  • 2013: DNQ
  • 2014: Won #8 Kentucky (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2015; DNQ
  • 2016: Lost #1 Kansas
  • 2017: DNQ
  • 2018: DNQ
  • 2019: DNQ
  • 2021: Lost #10 Maryland*
  • 2022: Lost #12 New Mexico St.*
Gonzaga:

  • 1999: Lost #1 Connecticut
  • 2000: Lost #6 Purdue
  • 2001: Lost #1 Michigan State
  • 2002: Lost #11 Wyoming*
  • 2003: Lost #1 Arizona
  • 2004: Lost #10 Nevada*
  • 2005: Lost #6 Texas Tech*
  • 2006: Lost #2 UCLA
  • 2007: Lost #7 Indiana
  • 2008: Lost #10 Davidson*
  • 2009: Lost #1 North Carolina
  • 2010: Lost #1 Syracuse
  • 2011: Lost #3 BYU
  • 2012: Lost #2 Ohio State
  • 2013: Lost #9 Wichita State**
  • 2014: Lost #1 Arizona
  • 2015: Lost #1 Duke
  • 2016: Lost #10 Syracuse
  • 2017: Lost #1 North Carolina**
  • 2018: Lost #9 Florida State*
  • 2019: Lost #3 Texas Tech**
  • 2021: Lost #1 Baylor**
  • 2022: Lost #4 Arkansas**
 
Zags are good but record is always inflated because of top heavy conference. Last years team was best they've had I believe but not better than Baylor.

In reality in a P6 conference where 75% of games are a real test the Zags would be good but likely 7 or 8 losses and a 4 or 5 seed most years.
 
I always feel bad when they lose for 2 reasons:
1. They really deserve it. More than any team in CBB history.
2. It makes me question reality as I know it. A team that is always so good should have won a couple at least. There is no rational.
I don't buy the mid major knock either. I think the committee gets it right with them - it's not like they fold the second they face a power 5 team. They routinely win. There is something spooky going on.
 
Jaydumo20 said:
I always feel bad when they lose for 2 reasons:
1. They really deserve it. More than any team in CBB history.
2. It makes me question reality as I know it. A team that is always so good should have won a couple at least. There is no rational.
I don't buy the mid major knock either. I think the committee gets it right with them - it's not like they fold the second they face a power 5 team. They routinely win. There is something spooky going on.
Expand ...
It's not that the Zags fold against P6 teams it's that they aren't tested and pushed enough in conference games.

It's a major difference not playing 16 or so difficult conference games. So in Tourney when you'll face 5 good teams in a row it's not the norm for them.
 
SeaDog said:
Each year when Gonzaga inevitably comes up short, I'm reminded that it's been a long time that they've been good. It must just be brutal for their fans.

I went back and looked at their tourney record vs. ours since that fateful game in '99. Gonzaga has 23 tournaments and 23 losses. Five in a row as the equal/higher seed. We have 4 wins, 11 losses, and 8 DNQs. Two straight losses as higher seed.

They have had some likable players but I find Mark Few irritating so love this annual tradition.

UCONN:
  • 23 years / 4 wins / 11 losses / 8 DNQ
  • 4 Won National Championship
  • 0 National Cham losses
  • 1 Final Four loss
  • 2 Elite Eight losses
  • 1 Sweet Sixteen loss
  • 3 2nd Round losses
  • 4 1st Round losses
  • 8 DNQ
*6X as equal/better seed
**2X as #1 seed

Gonzaga
  • 23 years / 0 Wins / 23 losses / 0 DNQ
  • 2 Nat’l Cham losses
  • 0 Final Four losses
  • 3 Elite 8 losses
  • 7 Sweet Sixteen losses
  • 8 2nd Round losses
  • 3 1st Round losses
  • 0 DNQ
*10X as equal/better seed
**5X as a #1 seed


UCONN:
  • 1999: Won #1 Duke (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2000: Lost #4 Tennessee
  • 2001: DNQ
  • 2002: Lost #1 Maryland
  • 2003: Lost #1 Texas
  • 2004: Won #3 Georgia Tech (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2005: Lost #10 NC State*
  • 2006: Lost #11 George Mason**
  • 2007: DNQ
  • 2008: Lost #13 San Diego*
  • 2009: Lost #2 Michigan State**
  • 2010: DNQ
  • 2011: Won #8 Butler (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2012: Lost #8 Iowa State
  • 2013: DNQ
  • 2014: Won #8 Kentucky (NATIONAL CHAMPION)
  • 2015; DNQ
  • 2016: Lost #1 Kansas
  • 2017: DNQ
  • 2018: DNQ
  • 2019: DNQ
  • 2021: Lost #10 Maryland*
  • 2022: Lost #12 New Mexico St.*
Gonzaga:

  • 1999: Lost #1 Connecticut
  • 2000: Lost #6 Purdue
  • 2001: Lost #1 Michigan State
  • 2002: Lost #11 Wyoming*
  • 2003: Lost #1 Arizona
  • 2004: Lost #10 Nevada*
  • 2005: Lost #6 Texas Tech*
  • 2006: Lost #2 UCLA
  • 2007: Lost #7 Indiana
  • 2008: Lost #10 Davidson*
  • 2009: Lost #1 North Carolina
  • 2010: Lost #1 Syracuse
  • 2011: Lost #3 BYU
  • 2012: Lost #2 Ohio State
  • 2013: Lost #9 Wichita State**
  • 2014: Lost #1 Arizona
  • 2015: Lost #1 Duke
  • 2016: Lost #10 Syracuse
  • 2017: Lost #1 North Carolina**
  • 2018: Lost #9 Florida State*
  • 2019: Lost #3 Texas Tech**
  • 2021: Lost #1 Baylor**
  • 2022: Lost #4 Arkansas**
Expand ...
Its not fair to compare Gonzaga or basically anyone else other than Duke in the modern era to Uconn which had the greatest run of championships over a 15 year period the sport has seen. Gonzaga is a great program that has had amazing success but surprise surprise THEY ARENT UCONN!!! I tell you some of my fellow Uconn fans are so spoiled and unapreciative of just how special and DIFFICULT a run of 4 national titles is. Heres something no one talks about. It took Uconn 15 years to win their 4 championships which is the third shortest in history and easily the shortest in the modern tourney era. It took duke 19 years to win 4 and 24 years to win 5. It took UNC 48 years to win 4 and 60 years to win 6. It took UK 10 years to win its first 4 and 34 years to win their most recent 4. And of course UCLA is UCLA but theyve only won once in the last 47 years. Let that sink in.
 
You'd think they'd have won a title by now, but it's not like they are flaming out early. They've been deep in the tournament a lot. It's just really hard to win a title.

Look at Kansas. They had the coach who invented basketball. They had the player that forced basketball to wide the lane.

They only have 3 titles.
 
.-.
Few whines about physicality often in order for refs to hear it. Last night he basically called Williams (big kid for Razorbacks) a flipping machine so he wouldn’t get any charge calls the 2nd half. Sorry he’s a nice guy and all but always whining and his team kind of has his attitude always looking for the call or never thinking they foul anyone. Timme, nice player but he can’t lose enough for me. Glad they’re out and happy for Arkansas!

But the history of the Zags is impressive as far as success goes, no denying that.
 
Jaydumo20 said:
I always feel bad when they lose for 2 reasons:
1. They really deserve it. More than any team in CBB history.
2. It makes me question reality as I know it. A team that is always so good should have won a couple at least. There is no rational.
I don't buy the mid major knock either. I think the committee gets it right with them - it's not like they fold the second they face a power 5 team. They routinely win. There is something spooky going on.
Expand ...
Feel bad for Gonzaga because they deserve a national title , right lol
 
My takes on Gonzaga:

1. Their record and seed is always overinflated due to the lack of competition in the WCC. This contributes to them being overrated most years. If they played in a P5 they would still obviously be a great team, but they would likely average 6-10 losses most years and not get an automatic #1 seed every year. They would likely be a top 15 team instead of top 3 most years.

2. Even though their non-conference schedule is always tough, all those tough games are played early in the season before teams start gelling. They then go on to play mediocre competition in conference from late December all the way to March which doesn't keep them "ready" to play these P5 teams with top talent when the tourney comes around. I just don't think they're able to handle winning 4 or 5 games in a row against top competition when the tourney rolls around because they spend the previous 2.5 months not being tested and beating up on minnows in the WCC.

Just my 2 cents
 
Hi-Low said:
It's not that the Zags fold against P6 teams it's that they aren't tested and pushed enough in conference games.

It's a major difference not playing 16 or so difficult conference games. So in Tourney when you'll face 5 good teams in a row it's not the norm for them.
Expand ...
I don’t think this argument holds any water, they have made it all the way to the championship game twice and been tested plenty in the tournament.
 
That Guy said:
My takes on Gonzaga:

1. Their record and seed is always overinflated due to the lack of competition in the WCC. This contributes to them being overrated most years. If they played in a P5 they would still obviously be a great team, but they would likely average 6-10 losses most years and not get an automatic #1 seed every year. They would likely be a top 15 team instead of top 3 most years.

2. Even though their non-conference schedule is always tough, all those tough games are played early in the season before teams start gelling. They then go on to play mediocre competition in conference from late December all the way to March which doesn't keep them "ready" to play these P5 teams with top talent when the tourney comes around. I just don't think they're able to handle winning 4 or 5 games in a row against top competition when the tourney rolls around because they spend the previous 2.5 months not being tested and beating up on minnows in the WCC.

Just my 2 cents
Expand ...
Record, maybe. Seed, no. The Committee is sophisticated enough to understand quality of record, and Gonzaga plays tough teams.

Point #2 is more valid, and honestly I wonder if it's been an issue for the UConn women the last 5 years or so. They play a tough schedule, but it's mostly frontloaded and the quality of opponent for the last 2-3 months of the season is generally awful.
 
.-.
Jbirdp5 said:
I don’t think this argument holds any water, they have made it all the way to the championship game twice and been tested plenty in the tournament.
Expand ...
I think their success speaks for itself; however, the higher the seed, the higher the likelihood of advancing based on matchups. I think that's the general argument with Gonzaga - that they are overseeded vs. teams from P6 leagues based on an inflated record. That gives them an easier path through the 1st 2-3 rounds. What they do from there is completely merit-based, but lots of folks are tired of hearing the incessant fawning over Mark Few and the Zags as if they are the Duke of the West.
 
But the AAC apologists always bring up the Zags as how a school from a small conference can do it
 
What makes Gonzaga so hard to evaluate here is that somewhere in this 24-season run of relevance, they went from plucky mid-major pulling 8-10 seeds to nationally recognized power getting 1-seeds every year -- and you can't really judge the results the same throughout.

1999-2003: Very much a mid-major team (seeds: 10, 10, 12, 6, 9) with no realistic expectation of winning a championship or even making Final Fours. These were the years when the Zags winning a couple games become a big deal because they were a true mid-major -- and their name was fun for people to say.

2004-06: Morrison and Turiaf came along and the conversation shifted to Should Gonzaga actually get a top 2-3 seed? 2004 was the first legitimate disappointment (Nevada in second round), '05 similar (two-point loss to Texas Tech) and the '06 team lost a 2 vs. 3 matchup by 2 to an absolutely loaded UCLA team that ended up in the title game.

2007-12: Much more of the mid-major version again. (seeds: 10, 7, 4, 8, 11, 7) We're talking about guys like Matt Bouldin and Austin Daye as their premium recruits. The best team of this group was a 4-seed in 2009, which won a couple games and then got run out of a 1-vs.-4 game by eventual champion North Carolina -- who ran over everyone they played that tourney. Really not an expectation of a champion or a huge disappointment in the group.

2013-2016: 2013 was the real turning point team in Gonzaga's stature. First time getting a 1-seed, first No. 1 ranking in school history. Olynyk, Harris, Pangos core. That loss to Wichita State was the first time since Adam Morrison left the court in tears it really felt like the Zags disappointed with a chance to go really deep. 2014 was an 8-seed. Then 2015 (Wiltjer) was a 2 seed that lost a 1 vs. 2 Elite Eight game to the eventual national champ Duke team. 2016 was an 11 that actually overperformed by a couple rounds (beat a 6 and a 3) before losing to a Final Four team in Cuse, in a strange 11-vs.-10 Sweet 16 game.

2017-2022: OK, now this is where things really changed for good in national perception. Few started pulling national recruits and big-time transfers regularly -- 2017 team had Williams-Goss, the big big Polish center, Williams, Collins and Perk. And they started regularly collecting 1 seeds. With a few exceptions above, this is when it's fair to really saying not winning or at least making the Final Four was a disappointment (and of course 2020 was a 31-2 team that got no tournament). The results?

2017: 1-seed, made the national championship game. Lost to UNC
2018: 4-seed, made the Sweet 16. Lost to (9) Florida State
2019: 1-seed, made the Elite Eight. Lost to (3) Texas Tech
2020: No tourney. Would have been another 1-seed, KenPom No. 2 when season ended.
2021: 1-seed, made the national championship game. Lost to Baylor
2022: 1-seed, made the Sweet 16. Lost to Arkansas.

So all in all, they've had 8-10 teams with realistic expectation of a Final Four or title going into the tourney (8 1-3 seeds; 10 if you add 4-seed years) resulting in a couple title game losses, some Sweet 16/Elite 8 losses (including 2 to eventual national champions, 4 if you add the title game losses to that) and a few clear seed disappointments.
 
Last edited:
Sonova said:
I think their success speaks for itself; however, the higher the seed, the higher the likelihood of advancing based on matchups. I think that's the general argument with Gonzaga - that they are overseeded vs. teams from P6 leagues based on an inflated record. That gives them an easier path through the 1st 2-3 rounds. What they do from there is completely merit-based, but lots of folks are tired of hearing the incessant fawning over Mark Few and the Zags as if they are the Duke of the West.
Expand ...
Look at all of their tournament success, multiple title game appearances. They are not seeded well and lose early. Every metric agrees with their seeding. The way they recruit and level of talent they have agrees with their seed. Peoples traditional views on power teams and power conferences are what makes people think they are overseeded.
 
Who Ha said:
But the AAC apologists always bring up the Zags as how a school from a small conference can do it
Expand ...
The criticism of our performance in the AAC was not that the AAC left us unprepared for the Tournament, it was that we should have been able to dominate the AAC like Gonzaga dominates the WCC, and under KO we couldn't do it.
 
Kemba Time said:
What makes Gonzaga so hard to evaluate here is that somewhere in this 24-season run of relevance, they went from plucky mid-major pulling 8-10 seeds to nationally recognized power getting 1-seeds every year -- and you can't really judge the results the same throughout.

1999-2003: Very much a mid-major team (seeds: 10, 10, 12, 6, 9) with no realistic expectation of winning a championship or even making Final Fours. These were the years when the Zags winning a couple games become a big deal because they were a true mid-major -- and their name was fun for people to say.

2004-06: Morrison and Turiaf came along and the conversation shifted to Should Gonzaga actually get a top 2-3 seed? 2004 was the first legitimate disappointment (Nevada in second round), '05 similar (two-point loss to Texas Tech) and the '06 team lost a 2 vs. 3 matchup by 2 to an absolutely loaded UCLA team that ended up in the title game.

2007-12: Much more of the mid-major version again. (seeds: 10, 7, 4, 8, 11, 7) We're talking about guys like Matt Bouldin and Austin Daye as their premium recruits. The best team of this group was a 4-seed in 2009, which won a couple games and then got run out of a 1-vs.-4 game by eventual champion North Carolina -- who ran over everyone they played that tourney. Really not an expectation of a champion or a huge disappointment in the group.

2013-2016: 2013 was the real turning point team in Gonzaga's stature. First time getting a 1-seed, first No. 1 ranking in school history. Olynyk, Harris, Pangos core. That loss to Wichita State was the first time since Adam Morrison left the court in tears it really felt like the Zags disappointed with a chance to go really deep. 2014 was an 8-seed. Then 2015 (Wiltjer) was a 2 seed that lost a 1 vs. 2 Elite Eight game to the eventual national champ Duke team. 2016 was an 11 that actually overperformed by a couple rounds (beat a 6 and a 3) before losing to a Final Four team in Cuse, in a strange 11-vs.-10 Sweet 16 game.

2017-2022: OK, now this is where things really changed for good in national perception. Few started pulling national recruits and big-time transfers regularly -- 2017 team had Williams-Goss, the big big Polish center, Williams, Collins and Perk. And they started regularly collecting 1 seeds. With a few exceptions above, this is when it's fair to really saying not winning or at least making the Final Four was a disappointment (and of course 2020 was a 31-2 team that got no tournament). The results?

2017: 1-seed, made the national championship game. Lost to UNC
2018: 4-seed, made the Sweet 16. Lost to (9) Florida State
2019: 1-seed, made the Elite Eight. Lost to (3) Texas Tech
2020: No tourney. Would have been another 1-seed, KenPom No. 2 when season ended.
2021: 1-seed, made the national championship game. Lost to Baylor
2022: 1-seed, made the Sweet 16. Lost to Arkansas.

So all in all, they've had 8-10 teams with realistic expectation of a Final Four or title going into the tourney (8 1-3 seeds; 10 if you add 4-seed years) resulting in a couple title game losses, some Sweet 16/Elite 8 losses (including 2 to eventual national champions, 4 if you add the title game losses to that) and a few clear seed disappointments.
Expand ...
Great summary, thanks.
 
.-.
Tenspro2002 said:
The criticism of our performance in the AAC was not that the AAC left us unprepared for the Tournament, it was that we should have been able to dominate the AAC like Gonzaga dominates the WCC, and under KO we couldn't do it.
Expand ...
It was a southern football conference and much like Pitt we were losing the Northeast basketball recruits

Look at their roster. Other than one kid from Virginia, they are west coast or mid west. What choices do they have. PAC or Gonzaga. The kids we wanted had Big East (or you might call NBE), ACC or Big as an alternative All those choices allow a kid to be close to home or have family relatively close and play top competition

www.espn.com

Gonzaga Bulldogs Men's College Basketball Roster - ESPN

Explore the 2025-26 Gonzaga Bulldogs NCAAM roster on ESPN. Includes full details on point guards, shooting guards, power forwards, small forwards and centers.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Last edited:
Who Ha said:
It was a southern football conference and much like Pitt we were losing the Northeast basketball recruits
Expand ...
I won't argue that it was a (basically) southern football conference (nor will I argue against the move back to the BE).

I will say however that if the guys in charge of the football and basketball programs kept up their ends of the bargain when we were in that conference we could have succeeded.

During the first extended run of quality teams under JC (93-94/94-95/95-96) what was the makeup of our roster?

Our first title had starters from Georgia, Minnesota and Texas. Our second had them from Florida, Maryland and Texas with the kid from Florida surpassing one from Canada.

Yes, there were a number of reasons to gripe about the conference when we were in the AAC but too many blame our failures on the conference when the blame lies on those running the programs.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
I won't argue that it was a (basically) southern football conference (nor will I argue against the move back to the BE).

I will say however that if the guys in charge of the football and basketball programs kept up their ends of the bargain when we were in that conference we could have succeeded.

During the first extended run of quality teams under JC (93-94/94-95/95-96) what was the makeup of our roster?

Our first title had starters from Georgia, Minnesota and Texas. Our second had them from Florida, Maryland and Texas with the kid from Florida surpassing one from Canada.

Yes, there were a number of reasons to gripe about the conference when we were in the AAC but too many blame our failures on the conference when the blame lies on those running the programs.
Expand ...
Good points
 
Kemba Time said:
2017: 1-seed, made the national championship game. Lost to UNC
2018: 4-seed, made the Sweet 16. Lost to (9) Florida State
2019: 1-seed, made the Elite Eight. Lost to (3) Texas Tech
2020: No tourney. Would have been another 1-seed, KenPom No. 2 when season ended.
2021: 1-seed, made the national championship game. Lost to Baylor
2022: 1-seed, made the Sweet 16. Lost to Arkansas.
Expand ...

this is an amazing stretch for any team, let alone a non power conference team. it'll be nice if/when they do finally get over the hump. three straight "what-if" seasons.....i'd kill for a uconn "what-if" season to be like this and not "what-if we didn't lose to new mexico st". i think this is the first season i've felt disappointed by them

these gonzaga teams are always so good, even if they do come up short. love watching them play anyone anywhere when the season first starts. wonder how hard it is to find a nonconf team to play in january or february. not that i really buy the "not battle tested" label always thrown their way, but would still be nice to see them play a ranked matchup vs someone other than st marys or byu for the last three months of the season. i guess for what it's worth their SOS is always above several major conference teams
 
.-.
I've always kind of felt that we put Gonzaga on the map and kind of helped them out in the process of putting them on the map.

They pissed me off beyond description in the 1999 regional final when they just wouldn't go away. Every time I felt "now we will make a little run an put some distance between us" they clawed back, remaining in striking distance. It wasn't until about 25 seconds left that I felt fully confident that we had it.

Then, the head coach (Monson) leaves, handing the job to someone who turned out to be a far better coach.

In a way, we made Gonzaga. Not like Al Gore inventing the internet, but actually contributing to them being the Gonzaga everyone knows.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I have always thought that Few was a big game choker.
Expand ...
That's pretty safe to say, considering the recent loss and the 0 Titles.
But it is so hard for me to see BYers criticize big time D1 coaches. Even "small time" D1 coaches. What experience, expertise, or acid trip delusion makes common BY posters think they have any place to knock a tourney coach? Each and every one of you would be laughed off the court at the D1 level. It is impossible to take you seriously. I would pay money to watch you stand in front of Hurley or Few and give them some tips. They'd thank you for your time and then fire security for letting you in. You'd all fail miserably as a D1 coach (Apologies to all the former D1 coaches on this thread.)
 
Jaydumo20 said:
That's pretty safe to say, considering the recent loss and the 0 Titles.
But it is so hard for me to see BYers criticize big time D1 coaches. Even "small time" D1 coaches. What experience, expertise, or acid trip delusion makes common BY posters think they have any place to knock a tourney coach? Each and every one of you would be laughed off the court at the D1 level. It is impossible to take you seriously. I would pay money to watch you stand in front of Hurley or Few and give them some tips. They'd thank you for your time and then fire security for letting you in. You'd all fail miserably as a D1 coach (Apologies to all the former D1 coaches on this thread.)
Expand ...
Humility is far more scarce than gold.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,626
Messages
4,586,377
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom