Gonzaga sure whines a lot
- Thread starter Cawood86
- Start date
I was wondering about that. I knew it was taking forever bc they were in a pickle realizing they made a call that was incorrect, but that was not what they were reviewing. I'd love to know the rule on that. In the end, they got the call right, but as you pointed out, were they able to legally change that call?
They had already ruled Gonzaga ball. Although they missed the call, they can not review that. They can only review an issue with the clock, or 2or3 point shot or in the last 2 minutes who the ball went out of bounds on. They can not change a call that they screw up on. What the refs did on that play is illegal according to the rules.
That is why they made up the "inadvertent whistle".
It only worked because WV had the possession arrow. Otherwise, they would have had to make something else up.
But to say that Gonzaga was "screwed" is at the least, inaccurate. It was rightfully West Virginia's ball based upon what actually happened on the court, the refs just blew the initial call.
If anything, the call had the potential to damage West Virginia, because of the possession arrow change.
Fortunately, for both teams (and the officials), the possession arrow did not come into play again in the final two minutes and Gonzaga won the game by out-executing West Virginia.
Why not dig back into their history a little more? Why 2005? Is 13 years an even number? And why just focus on being a top 4 seed?
1999 - 10 seed, lost to a 1
2000 - 10 seed, lost to a 6
2001 - 12 seed, lost to a 1
2002 - 6 seed, lost to a 11
2003 - 9 seed, lost to a 1
2004 - 2 seed, lost to a 10
2005 - 3 seed, lost to a 6
2006 - 3 seed, lost to a 2
2007 - 10 seed, lost to a 7
2008 - 7 seed, lost to a 10
2009 - 4 seed, lost to a 1
2010 - 8 seed, lost to a 1
2011 - 11 seed, lost to a 3
2012 - 7 seed, lost to a 2
2013 - 1 seed, lost to a 9
2014 - 8 seed, lost to a 1
2015 - 2 seed, lost to a 1
2016 - 11 seed, lost to a 10
As you can see, they've done pretty well, but there are periods of disappointment with this team that are fueling the current narrative from many of their detractors. It's not all bogus and it's not all based upon what they've done in 4 select years when they had a top 4 seed.
People got on their bandwagon years ago because they made surprising runs. People wanted them to knock off CT in '99 and Duke in 2015.
While they did choke a little in 2015, they aren't really viewed as underperforming in those years.
But that stretch from 2004 to 2008, combined with the loss to Wichita State, rightfully made people question their place as a top program.
The strength of schedule questions are legitimate, even if not their fault.
Awarding them a #1 seed is met with reservation, because it's essentially a first round bye, which some believe should be reserved for teams that have proven themselves against a team with a more difficult schedule.
Now that they have a #1 seed again, people expect them to either validate it with a trip to the FF, or hope to see them scrutinized more heavily going forward.
This year, this tournament, so far, they have done their job. While they are fortunate that Arizona was upset, those are the spoils of the tournament and they get to take advantage of that tomorrow.
If they win, then they have been validated. If they lose, then the narrative continues.
Last edited:
Actually, since the ball nor the player actually went out of bounds, it was an inadvertent whistle. In which case, the ball goes back to who had possession last, which was WV.
It s not an inadvertent whistle. Right or wrong the refs ruled zag ball. They could not review that play. That was a non-reviewable play. They had no rite to review it or change their call.
So, in 18 years, they have lost to a lower seeded team 5 times? That is why I don't agree with the stigma that they flame out in the tournament.
Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't out of bounds plays reviewable in the last 2 minutes, or is it the last minute?
Are you going to ignore that the numbers you presented were both incomplete and inaccurate?
Just go back to 2004:
They have been a top 4 seed (your chosen metric) 6 times and lost to a lower seed 3 times.
That's 50%. I don't care if you don't want to use the term "flame out". But it is underperforming the seed, which is what you were arguing against when you presented the incorrect figures in your earlier post.
(Also, 7 of the 18 years they were seeded 9 or lower. Extremely unlikely that you will even play a lower seeded team when seeded that low. So, wipe those years out of the "losing to a lower seed" analysis.)
Again, win tomorrow and they hang a FF banner as a #1 seed. It will dramatically improve perception, just as Butler did when they made the title game in 2010 (and followed it up with a repeat in 2011).
Last edited:
They can rule who the ball was out of bounds off of, but that particular play wasn't out of bounds actually it was just a blown judgement play, even if it was wrong it was a judgement pay which is non-reviewable.
Last edited:
They ruled the ball was out, then determined correctly that it wasn't out to begin with. Not understanding why they couldn't review that.
in the opinion of the ref the ball was out of bounds and he gave the ball to the Zags. When they reversed the call it gave the ball back to west Virginia that was one more possession for them in what turned out what turned into a one possession game. In the end the ref blew the call but in his judgement the ball went out of bounds and judgement calls are non-reviewable. The bottom line is you just don't like Gonzaga. That may be because the Zags beat the --- out of Georgia every time they play them, even when a Georgia player intentially kicks a Zag player in the face and breaks his jaw. That's rite I was watching that game too.
I don't know what is so hard to understand ? A judgement call is non-reviewable. They can review who tipped the ball out of bounds,they can review if a fg is a 2 or 3 pointer or a clock issue, but they can't review and change a call like that to see if they blew a call or not or a goal tending call or if a player is in the lane for 3 seconds these plays can not be reviewed.
Just wanted to understand the call, since you seem to understand it so well.
You are the one who said Gonzaga was "screwed" when they didn't benefit from what you agree was initially the incorrect call.
I am more than happy to agree that the refs mishandled that situation. But Gonzaga certainly was not hurt because they were not incorrectly awarded the ball.
And I'm sorry your friend broke his face. I don't even know what you are talking about, but I pray that you and he have healed both physically and emotionally from the situation.
Last edited:
The distinction is that you can apparently review who a ball is out on (player deflection situation), but cannot simply review whether or not someone steps out of bounds.
In this case, the last player to touch the ball was not in question. So, apparently not reviewable.
That's what someone has been attempting to tell you on this thread, but the at least one of the attempts to explain was quite confusing.
Excellent, excellent post, with which I agree 100%.
I've never disagreed with showing Gonzaga some respect. However, there are different levels of that, and giving them 1 and 2 seeds is clearly the highest. I don't think they've ever earned that, which is why most of the time I would have been more comfortable with them in the 3-6 range. Including this year.
The West Virginia win was a big step, but closing it out against Xavier is hugely important for them.
Thanks.
I don't necessarily have a problem with them as a 1 this year, but I don't think dropping them to a 2 would have been unjust.
I think a 3 would have been too low, in what has likely been their best season (while around the country, other top teams were losing a fair amount).
But to your point, I believe they deserve scrutiny, which is why tomorrow is huge for them, including how they should be perceived going forward if they don't win.
Yeah, this year they probably deserved at least a 2. But I'd like to see more consistency in how non-power conference teams are looked at. It seems idiotic that a Wichita State team that goes undefeated, but doesn't really beat anyone, is a 1 seed, while a few years later a 4 loss Wichita State team (that didn't beat anyone), is a 10 seed. You see the same kind of huge variation with Gonzaga over the years.
I think 3-6 is the general sweet-spot where I'm comfortable that teams like that are being treated fairly without potentially making certain parts of the bracket far easier (or more difficult) than others.
Yes. Good points.
The seeding of top mid major schools is often derived significantly from the results of 1-3 non-conference games against P5/Major conference schools.
The short post earlier is bc I was chasing my 18 month old around....I usually write more than that when having a debate...he's snoozing now.
I used the top 4 seed metric because people always talk about how they never live up to expectations when getting a high seed. My opinion on them is also that recent years is the best way to look at them. The Power 5 transfer is a huge part of their recent success too, which is a change from their teams 10-15 years ago.
We are also talking about a team that has made 2 Elite Eights and a Sweet 16 in the last 3 years with the possibility 1 of those Elite Eights turns into a Final Four. If you're good, you're good, and you deserve a good seed if you lose 1 game and play a solid OOC schedule.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
BB Recruiting ***** UK BASKETBALL ROSTER TRACKER 2024-25 *****- Latest: Jeff Drummond