Gonzaga's ranking is a joke

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

Gonzaga can beat anyone this year IMO. They also could get upset in the 2nd round depending on match ups. If they defend the 3 and Hart/Bell can control the perimeter on D Gonzaga could break through and win it all. The front court of Harris/Olynyk can score with anyone, Great offensive duo.

 

[CAHUSKY]

No kidding that statistically the higher seed has a better chance of making it but it doesnt guarantee anything.

I think you missed the original point. You said rankings don't matter. No one said anything about guaranteeing anything. Only that statistically , you are more likely to advance as a higher seed. Therefore, rankings matter.

 

[seanmc94]

The Zags are the real deal. They can match up with any top 10 team.

 

[tzznandrew]

The Zags are the real deal. They can match up with any top 10 team.

Agreed. People were saying the same thing about St. Joe's in 2004, Memphis from 2006-2008, Butler in 2010, and Murray State last year. Most of these teams are pretty darn legit. Doesn't mean they'll make the Final Four (there's always a little luck involved), but I'd wager Gonzaga is damn good team that could beat anyone.

Ultimately, looking back, this may be their best team since the team that blew their S16 game against UCLA and left Morrison a crying, shattered shell of his former self.

 

[Uconn93]

Why not? They didn't choose their conference. Butler almost won a title from the Horizon League.

Because your ranking should be a true representation of your strength as a team. If you play a strong schedule and have a great record, your record is a good indicator of how stong of a team you are. If you play a weak schedule, your record means a whole let less when evaluating how strong the team is. The number one team should be the best team in the country, not a team that makes everyone feel good beacuse they are a cinderella story with a strong record against weak competition.

 

[tzznandrew]

Because your ranking should be a true representation of your strength as a team. If you play a strong schedule and have a great record, your record is a good indicator of how stong of a team you are. If you play a weak schedule, your record means a whole let less when evaluating how strong the team is. The number one team should be the best team in the country, not a team that makes everyone feel good beacuse they are a cinderella story with a strong record against weak competition.

Eh. It never is. UConn was a 2-seed going into the 2004 NCAA tournament, but everyone thought they were the best team. Even in 2011, while UConn was a 3-seed, a greater percentage of people were picking them over all but a few teams. Subjective rankings never have been, and never will be accurate. Not everyone plays everyone else, so we never really know how strong a team is. Miami beat Michigan State, and Duke (without Kelly). They've also lost to Florida Gulf Coast (146 in KenPom), Wake Forest (123), and Indiana St (95).

And, for all the talk about SOS, remember that the RPI doesn't take into account margin of victory. KenPom or Sagarin are clearly better indicators of a team's strength than RPI. They are unbiased, and KenPom has Gonzaga as #4 and Sagarin as #6.

 

[Kitaman]

I thought the writers/coaches rankings are based primarily on wins. The more you win (without a recent loss) the higher up you move. Based on that theory how is Gonzaga's ranking unfair?