NCAA Tournament Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
This game is reason number 4626 that women are better than men. Even though last nights game wasn’t very good, and both teams played under their skill level, I would rather watch a game where the outcome is in doubt for more than two minutes. But maybe I’m crazy.
huh? Women’s basketball has had a ton of blowouts, way more than men over the years. Those UConn teams used to slaughter everyone year after year
The most impressive thing about that game was that at the end the Stanford players were more concerned with consoling the Arizona players for their loss than with celebrating their own victory.
I’m saying this game and last night.
Also: 1000% less posing and flexing for cardboard fans in women’s sports.
My nephew graduated from Baylor so I imagine he’s stoked. An easy title game for them, never expected that.
And they established the offensive rebounding in the first five minutes. Absolute punch in the mouth.
And consider this: they destroyed the best defensive team in the country in the semis, and now they’re destroying the best offensive team in the country tonight. Amazing.
Scott Drew have a buyout? If so, amazing Indiana didn't wait a couple weeks and back up the truck
If we ignore them it deprives them of life force. Stick together on this, my friends.
Emotional rollercoaster for Suggs the last few days. I feel bad for him, but I can’t stand Timme.
Jayson Tatum's performance in that Subway commercial is the worst job by an athlete in a commercial in like a generation. I can't believe that was the best take they could get.
As an alum who went there before this all started I'm trying to look on the upside...
I’m a BC fan and haven’t seen the tourney in over a decade and a Final Four...ever.
Sorry for the loss but you are incredibly lucky to be a Zags fan. You’ll break through at some point.
Actually, they won't. This was their year and they got smoked in the title game and were lucky to escape UCLA too.
Still, it's an incredible program and it's had a phenomenal two decade run. Gonzaga fans are luckier than most.
Eh, they're in the mix every year and they've got a good recruiting class coming in with potentially the #1 overall guy in Chet Holmgren. This window hasn't closed and they rebounded quite nicely from the 2017 disappointment. But I do agree that this one will sting for a long time. I do think they need to figure out how to get more physicality and athleticism. Baylor bullied them like it was JV vs. Varsity. They needed a Ronny Turiaf type to bang down low last night.
Other than Suggs, they were out-athleted by Baylor in a huge way. Plus, Baylor shot the lights out. Still, the Zags put up a game effort, and I thought it showed how good they were that they had it down to 9 after being absolutely slaughtered early on.
Yup. I think they need to take a hard look at their recruiting and style if they want to get over the hump. Suggs was the only guy on the Zags who was in the same stratosphere athletically with Baylor. UCLA wasn't an overly athletic team and Zags struggled with them. I bet Houston would have given them similar problems given their athleticism and defensive capabilities.
The mismatch in athleticism was exacerbated by the Zags playing tight man-to-man and switching on screens. Their guards could hang with that, but Teague and Butler kept isolating Timme, Watson, and Kispert in space. That ended badly for the Zags every time. And then Vitale would bully the smaller defenders down low or, all too often, no one would follow the screener to the basket. All that to say, it was a poor defensive plan that compounded the mistmatch in athleticism.
Last edited:
I *LOVED* how Baylor attacked Gonzaga last night. I've coached basketball for a long time and I constantly preach a few things from an offensive side of the ball:
(1) The whole point of the offense is to get good shots, so don't turn down a good shot unless you know you've got a better one coming (i.e., you have an open look but you have a teammate open for a layup).
(2) Hunt the other team's weak defenders. Now if you have some weak offensive players, this might not help, but if you've got five fairly good offensive players on the floor, identify their bad defenders and go right at them over and over and over. Why more teams don't do this, I have NO idea. They just seem to want to "run their offense", and I'm like, what's the point of "running the offense"? See point (1) above. And you can get better shots by going at their bad defenders.
(3) I teach principles rather than plays. Of course we need to have a few set plays, but basically, I want my players to be able to see the floor, understand what's going on, and operate according to principles. That way the offense can "look" different each time down the court depending on what defense they're playing, yet we are still getting quality looks because the principles work.
So yeah, long story short, Baylor lived out principle (2) and they just ate Gonzaga alive. It was pretty amazing to watch.
(1) The whole point of the offense is to get good shots, so don't turn down a good shot unless you know you've got a better one coming (i.e., you have an open look but you have a teammate open for a layup).
(2) Hunt the other team's weak defenders. Now if you have some weak offensive players, this might not help, but if you've got five fairly good offensive players on the floor, identify their bad defenders and go right at them over and over and over. Why more teams don't do this, I have NO idea. They just seem to want to "run their offense", and I'm like, what's the point of "running the offense"? See point (1) above. And you can get better shots by going at their bad defenders.
(3) I teach principles rather than plays. Of course we need to have a few set plays, but basically, I want my players to be able to see the floor, understand what's going on, and operate according to principles. That way the offense can "look" different each time down the court depending on what defense they're playing, yet we are still getting quality looks because the principles work.
So yeah, long story short, Baylor lived out principle (2) and they just ate Gonzaga alive. It was pretty amazing to watch.
I don't think it's a hot take to say they won't win. It is really really hard to win a NCAA Championship. Winning is the exception. Gonzaga is always there but getting over the top will now require exorcising a lot of ghosts, and as any Sox fan knows, that is tough to do.
Sure, never said it was a hot take. Obviously, odds are they won't do it but they're not done either.
Come on. Gonzaga has been to the Final Four twice without winning the title. That's hardly ghosts. For comparison, Roy Williams went to the Final Four 4 times before winning on his 5th attempt. Coach K also won his first championship during his 5th Final Four. It just takes time.
Here's what Gonzaga has going for it:
1. A great coach.
2. A reputation as being one of the big boys, no longer a plucky underdog.
3. A weak conference, which means that they'll always have a great record.
So they're getting great players, they'll always be in the top 10 (probably), and that means they'll always have high seeds in the NCAA tournament. And that means that in general, easier paths to the Final Four. That happens, they'll keep getting shots at the championship. Eventually they'll likely break through.
1. A great coach.
2. A reputation as being one of the big boys, no longer a plucky underdog.
3. A weak conference, which means that they'll always have a great record.
So they're getting great players, they'll always be in the top 10 (probably), and that means they'll always have high seeds in the NCAA tournament. And that means that in general, easier paths to the Final Four. That happens, they'll keep getting shots at the championship. Eventually they'll likely break through.
I think it's easier to get over ass kickings like last night compared to if they had lost the UCLA game; which, I think, took a lot out of them. They sure as hell weren't ready to play when they threw up the ball and things seemed to get progressively worse.
I don't get the "the UCLA game took a lot out of them" angle. No shot at you, Humphrey - I heard this a lot last night and this morning from a lot of people. I mean...physically it should be no big deal. It's two nights removed, and these guys are elite athletes at 20 years of age. Playing a game after that should have been no big deal from a physical standpoint. As far as the mental side goes, I would think such a win would have given them such a huge lift. In fact, if Gonzaga had come out on fire, people would have said they were riding the momentum from their incredible win.
They just got smacked around by a superior team (athletically) that hit EVERYTHING early, and buried them. Suggs got two quick fouls as well, and that really hurt. Just kind of an avalanche. They may not have been ready for Baylor, but I don't think it was because of the UCLA game two days before.
They just got smacked around by a superior team (athletically) that hit EVERYTHING early, and buried them. Suggs got two quick fouls as well, and that really hurt. Just kind of an avalanche. They may not have been ready for Baylor, but I don't think it was because of the UCLA game two days before.