With Selection Sunday closing in on us, the college basketball community confronts a discussion it doesn’t get in December or early January: seeding. This is when media, fans and bracketologists tell us where each team should be ranked, against whom, and in what part of the country. Truly a fun time of the year.
Despite the entertainment that comes with people taking educated guesses at seeding, this theater of debate also happens to morph into a yearly discussion about certain teams’ overseedings. Like most late winters, this year’s angle has to deal with the Gonzaga Bulldogs, and the perception that they regularly receive a better seed than they deserve.
History tells us that the Zags have often underperformed in the Big Dance: only one Elite Eight appearance, zero Final Fours, and a growing resentment of the program for years past.
A few things should be pointed out, however, about the growing perception of Gonzaga being a regular disappointment in the madness that is March.
*
Since 1995, the Zags have garnered the “4” seed or better only five times. Three of those years involved what would be considered an “early” exit, but what does it mean for the 1999 season when they got the “10th” seed and made it to the Elite Eight, or the following year — with the same seed — when they managed to make it to the Sweet 16? Were they underseeded those seasons?
Of course no one wants to bring that up while discussing Gonzaga being undeserving of a number one seed. That does bring us to another question in this mostly pointless battle of educated guessing.
Does history even matter?
Outside some members of the coaching staff, how many of these 2015 players were a part of the supposed long history of the Bulldogs making a mockery out of the NCAA tournament selection process?
Out of the last three NCAA tournaments, Gonzaga had only one good seeding that resulted in a perceived early exit: in 2013, when the program managed to get a number one seed. The Zags happened to fall to Wichita State in the third round. Considering the Shockers made it to the Final Four that season, I’m not too sure we can actually claim that the Bulldogs lived down to the myth of their postseason failings. That loss to Wichita State was more about the Zags running into a red-hot team at the wrong time.
Moreover, history only matters when most of the players involved were actually a part of it. I find it almost laughable when a sports network hurls up some fancy statistics from way back in the day. You know, something like “Team X has beaten Team Z 20 out of 28 times going back to 1958.” Um, okay. How relevant are some of those (decades-ago) games to the present day? The majority of the people involved were not even floating around in the loins of their fathers yet.
The argument for this particular Gonzaga team should have to deal with this specific year’s version of GU. It is fair to argue their schedule, conference strength, or anything else that has tangible evidence to suggest something other than them being a one or two seed — anything else is less than zero, which makes those people Robert Downey Jr., I guess.
To be honest, at this point I’m not entirely too sure where this anti-Gonzaga seeding thing has even come from. Yes, some of it is rooted in the history of a few early exits, but loads of other programs that are viewed as regular deep dancers have fallen early in the tourney at one point or another. Maybe it is a coastal bias or people not being able to stay up late to watch the games, or maybe it is because the easiest narratives are the best ones to serve, 140 characters at a time. The heck if I know, really.
As for this year, though, Gonzaga has only one loss, is 8-1 against the RPI 100, and should run the table the rest of the way. Now, considering the Zags are likely the only team to come out of their league that will go dancing, then yes, a discussion should be had about giving them a worse seed if they are to lose at some point. Until that happens, however, arguing against their seeding using iffy history isn’t just a bad look — it’s uneducated.
