And may be going down to st Mary's.

The Zags will stay a formidable program but I maintain that their peak is behind them.

Gonzaga has a couple of bad losses -- at Washington and at Santa Clara -- but the rest of their losses are by 10 to KenPom No. 2 Purdue, by 13 to KenPom No. 3 UConn, by 10 points to KenPom No. 20 San Diego State and by two to KenPom No. 28 Saint Mary's.

This team is down compared to their past squads, but they're still solid. It will be interesting to see how the rest of their season plays out. They're fortunate the success of them and Saint Mary's has made the West Coast Conference a two- or three-bid league. They'll still make the tournament barring collapse and will be a dangerous team once there.

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

are there exceptions to your rule?

i would take uconn in a heartbeat

WATCH: Here is the moment when Gonzaga fans started throwing stuff on the floor after being upset with the officiating. The players and arena PA announcer were trying to tell them to stop. @kxly4news pic.twitter.com/bgcSx56wZH

— Julian Mininsohn (@JMininsohn) February 4, 2024

Zags aren't going to scare anyone this year. And honestly shouldn't even make the dance unless they win their conference tournament

bear2be2 said:

---

Gonzaga has a couple of bad losses -- at Washington and at Santa Clara -- but the rest of their losses are by 10 to KenPom No. 2 Purdue, by 13 to KenPom No. 3 UConn, by 10 points to KenPom No. 20 San Diego State and by two to KenPom No. 28 Saint Mary's.

This team is down compared to their past squads, but they're still solid. It will be interesting to see how the rest of their season plays out. They're fortunate the success of them and Saint Mary's has made the West Coast Conference a two- or three-bid league. They'll still make the tournament barring collapse and will be a dangerous team once there.

---

Ok, now what wins do they have? I haven't looked, but it's generally not many worth talking about and that's when they have 0-2 losses.

None… their best win is arguably Syracuse… they aren't getting in without winning their conference tournament and rightfully so

IowaBear said:

---

None… their best win is arguably Syracuse… they aren't getting in without winning their conference tournament and rightfully so

---

Good. If they collapse it makes it less likely we pull a Big East and invite them so I'm all for it.

IowaBear said:

---

None… their best win is arguably Syracuse… they aren't getting in without winning their conference tournament and rightfully so

---

I wouldn't be so sure. They're currently 27th in the NET rankings and have two more QUAD 1 win opportunities.

I don't think they have a great team this year by any stretch. But they're not a bad team either. And I respect the hell out of the way they schedule. They'll likely benefit from their past success when selection time rolls around. And given their tournament track record, they probably deserve to more than, say, a PAC-12, ACC or Big Ten also-ran.

thales said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

are there exceptions to your rule?

i would take uconn in a heartbeat

---

UCONN has proven to be capable of winning it all over a span of decades with different coaches. If they would give FB the same emphasis I would love to have them as partners.

ABC BEAR said:

---

thales said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

are there exceptions to your rule?

i would take uconn in a heartbeat

---

UCONN has proven to be capable of winning it all over a span of decades with different coaches. If they would give FB the same emphasis I would love to have them as partners.

---

That is the key....with different coaches. Most basketball programs both men and women, but not all, are really about the coach, not the school. When the coach leaves the program takes a hit, some to never really recover to what they were. From my memory there has been no women's program, even Tennessee, that has not taken a tumble from where they were after the elite coach left.

On the men's side KU didn't seem to stumble much. NC and Duke stumbled some after losing their elite coach. But these are big P5 programs. They are some of the only schools where the program may be able to withstand the exit of an elite long-time coach. The Zags are just not in that category when Few departs. If the program was the thing versus the coach, UCLA would not have wandered in the wilderness after Wooden retired. If it is the program you really need to see it survive after the long-time coach leaves to prove it has staying power on its own. UConn has done that.

Anyone want to bet that Baylor doesn't falter when Drew is no longer on the sideline? I wouldn't bet a plug nickel that we remain near the top. In the vast majority of the cases, it is the coach, not the school that is the draw to athletes.

blackie said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

thales said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

are there exceptions to your rule?

i would take uconn in a heartbeat

---

UCONN has proven to be capable of winning it all over a span of decades with different coaches. If they would give FB the same emphasis I would love to have them as partners.

---

That is the key....with different coaches. Most basketball programs both men and women, but not all, are really about the coach, not the school. When the coach leaves the program takes a hit, some to never really recover to what they were. From my memory there has been no women's program, even Tennessee, that has not taken a tumble from where they were after the elite coach left.

On the men's side KU didn't seem to stumble much. NC and Duke stumbled some after losing their elite coach. But these are big P5 programs. They are some of the only schools where the program may be able to withstand the exit of an elite long-time coach. The Zags are just not in that category when Few departs. If the program was the thing versus the coach, UCLA would not have wandered in the wilderness after Wooden retired. If it is the program you really need to see it survive after the long-time coach leaves to prove it has staying power on its own. UConn has done that.

Anyone want to bet that Baylor doesn't falter when Drew is no longer on the sideline? I wouldn't bet a plug nickel that we remain near the top. In the vast majority of the cases, it is the coach, not the school that is the draw to athletes.

---

If Drew leaves and we don't hire one of the many excellent coaches out of his tree, I'll be very disappointed. But I think anyone who follows him will struggle to recreate the same level of success.

Grant McCasland's track record is such that I think he'd be able to keep us at a relevant level. But he's only six years younger than Drew and would have to leave a Big 12 job to come home to Baylor.

The good thing is Drew is still only 53. He could lead this program for another 12-20 years if he really wants to.

Let's hope that he does! At least until after he gets a second or third natty. Maybe more!

We can put to rest any notion of Gonzaga missing the tournament. They picked up a huge road win at Saint Mary's tonight. That and their win at Kentucky will put them firmly in the field.

Mark Few is a phenomenal coach. This year's team isn't nearly as talented as those he's had in the recent past, but he has them playing really well going into March. They're going to be a dangerous team in the tournament once again.

bear2be2 said:

---

blackie said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

thales said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

are there exceptions to your rule?

i would take uconn in a heartbeat

---

UCONN has proven to be capable of winning it all over a span of decades with different coaches. If they would give FB the same emphasis I would love to have them as partners.

---

That is the key....with different coaches. Most basketball programs both men and women, but not all, are really about the coach, not the school. When the coach leaves the program takes a hit, some to never really recover to what they were. From my memory there has been no women's program, even Tennessee, that has not taken a tumble from where they were after the elite coach left.

On the men's side KU didn't seem to stumble much. NC and Duke stumbled some after losing their elite coach. But these are big P5 programs. They are some of the only schools where the program may be able to withstand the exit of an elite long-time coach. The Zags are just not in that category when Few departs. If the program was the thing versus the coach, UCLA would not have wandered in the wilderness after Wooden retired. If it is the program you really need to see it survive after the long-time coach leaves to prove it has staying power on its own. UConn has done that.

Anyone want to bet that Baylor doesn't falter when Drew is no longer on the sideline? I wouldn't bet a plug nickel that we remain near the top. In the vast majority of the cases, it is the coach, not the school that is the draw to athletes.

---

If Drew leaves and we don't hire one of the many excellent coaches out of his tree, I'll be very disappointed. But I think anyone who follows him will struggle to recreate the same level of success.

Grant McCasland's track record is such that I think he'd be able to keep us at a relevant level. But he's only six years younger than Drew and would have to leave a Big 12 job to come home to Baylor.

The good thing is Drew is still only 53. He could lead this program for another 12-20 years if he really wants to.

---

I will say though his coaching tree is growing and at this young age it is impressive. The guys currently coaching who are part of Drew's tree are not going to be his replacement anyway due to Drew and their relative ages. He'll have more guys on his staff that become HC's over the next 10-20 years.

This budding pedigree is already impressive for it's sample size. It gives me hope there will be opportunity for success after Drew because he doesn't just pick quality players he's clearly had an eye for good assistants as well.

Gonzaga isn't just a team that deserves to be in the NCAA Tournament --- Gonzaga is a team that can advance in the NCAA Tournament.

The Bulldogs are a LOCK after tonight's win over Saint Mary's.

A dominant performance in Moraga.

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) March 3, 2024

Nebraska finishes 18-1 at Pinnacle Bank Arena. Now 21-9 overall. Huskers are in good shape to reach the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2014.

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) March 4, 2024

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

I agree. Regardless of whether they make the tournament or not, they will probably struggle to make the NCAA tournament in the Big 12 on a regular basis and what else do they offer when this happens.

They should be proud of what they have accomplished but its a different level in the Big 12/ACC/SEC/Big 10. Its probably actually better for them to dominate where they are at than probably struggle in Big 12.

I think the reason for not inviting non-football schools that have great basketball programs is the coach. What will Gonzaga be like when their coach leaves? I am taking that bet.

JP1037 said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

I agree. Regardless of whether they make the tournament or not, they will probably struggle to make the NCAA tournament in the Big 12 on a regular basis and what else do they offer when this happens.

They should be proud of what they have accomplished but its a different level in the Big 12/ACC/SEC/Big 10. Its probably actually better for them to dominate where they are at than probably struggle in Big 12.

---

Gonzaga would not struggle in the Big 12. That's silly.

They've had more and more consistent tournament success than anyone in the Big 12 -- or anywhere else -- over the last 15 years. The only thing lacking on their resume is a national title, and they've played for two.

bear2be2 said:

---

JP1037 said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

I agree. Regardless of whether they make the tournament or not, they will probably struggle to make the NCAA tournament in the Big 12 on a regular basis and what else do they offer when this happens.

They should be proud of what they have accomplished but its a different level in the Big 12/ACC/SEC/Big 10. Its probably actually better for them to dominate where they are at than probably struggle in Big 12.

---

Gonzaga would not struggle in the Big 12. That's silly.

They've had more and more consistent tournament success than anyone in the Big 12 -- or anywhere else -- over the last 15 years. The only thing lacking on their resume is a national title, and they've played for two.

---

I'm not silly, your silly, silly.

Defining struggle is worth a debate but otherwise I disagree. Right now they get an auto bid to the NCAA with an inflated seed due to their conference. WCC is a decent 2nd tiered conference but nothing like the Big 12 night after night. I say struggle meaning on average they would be 4th to 8th best team in the Big 12 (especially after we add Arizona) most years. In the Big 12 they would be an 7/8 seed (and some years not even make the tournament) rather than top 3 and likely often not make it past the 2nd round.

If Mark Few leaves, then who knows what happens. With Few they will have good teams. They just won't have the walk in the park and high seeds they have had over the last 15 years or so.

JP1037 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JP1037 said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

This is why we don't want to add any BB only schools to the conference. If they aren't producing in that one sport, they have nothing else to offer.

---

I agree. Regardless of whether they make the tournament or not, they will probably struggle to make the NCAA tournament in the Big 12 on a regular basis and what else do they offer when this happens.

They should be proud of what they have accomplished but its a different level in the Big 12/ACC/SEC/Big 10. Its probably actually better for them to dominate where they are at than probably struggle in Big 12.

---

Gonzaga would not struggle in the Big 12. That's silly.

They've had more and more consistent tournament success than anyone in the Big 12 -- or anywhere else -- over the last 15 years. The only thing lacking on their resume is a national title, and they've played for two.

---

I'm not silly, your silly, silly.

Defining struggle is worth a debate but otherwise I disagree. Right now they get an auto bid to the NCAA with an inflated seed due to their conference. WCC is a decent 2nd tiered conference but nothing like the Big 12 night after night. I say struggle meaning on average they would be 4th to 8th best team in the Big 12 (especially after we add Arizona) most years. In the Big 12 they would be an 7/8 seed (and some years not even make the tournament) rather than top 3 and likely often not make it past the 2nd round.

If Mark Few leaves, then who knows what happens. With Few they will have good teams. They just won't have the walk in the park and high seeds they have had over the last 15 years or so.

---

They get the seeds they do because of the work they do outside of the West Coast Conference. They play a top-30 nonconference schedule every single year and usually fare really well against it.

The way you describe them might have had some validity in the Richie Frahm, Adam Morrison, Derek Raivio days. They haven't been a plucky mid-major underdog in a decade and a half. They build elite rosters, play elite out-of-conference schedules and have elite tournament success.

They'd be good in any league in America.

If Gonzaga was a paper tiger, they wouldn't have as many sweet 16's, elite eights, final fours and championship games as they do. They would just automatically lose to the big conference team. Houston is going to win the conference in their first year. They adapted well. Why wouldn't a program like Gonzaga?

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

If Gonzaga was a paper tiger, they wouldn't have as many sweet 16's, elite eights, final fours and championship games as they do. They would just automatically lose to the big conference team. Houston is going to win the conference in their first year. They adapted well. Why wouldn't a program like Gonzaga?

---

Houston winning the big 12 this year isn't so much a testament to their adjusting. It's a story about how down the Big 12 is this year. (Baylor has been a young inconsistent mess, Kansas somehow failed to recruit anyone on their team that can make an outside shot, Texas made the wrong decision with head coaches, and Iowa State is incredibly consistent but not incredibly talented). I fully expect to see Houston get cooked in the NCAA tournament by the first talented team the run into. They haven't looked great this year against teams loaded with talent, even though they managed to pull out the win against us.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

If Gonzaga was a paper tiger, they wouldn't have as many sweet 16's, elite eights, final fours and championship games as they do. They would just automatically lose to the big conference team. Houston is going to win the conference in their first year. They adapted well. Why wouldn't a program like Gonzaga?

---

Higher seeds often have an easier win the first two games. Gonzaga is a good program. Staying at that level with a big 12 schedule will be a lot less likely. IMO.

IvanBear said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

If Gonzaga was a paper tiger, they wouldn't have as many sweet 16's, elite eights, final fours and championship games as they do. They would just automatically lose to the big conference team. Houston is going to win the conference in their first year. They adapted well. Why wouldn't a program like Gonzaga?

---

Houston winning the big 12 this year isn't so much a testament to their adjusting. It's a story about how down the Big 12 is this year. (Baylor has been a young inconsistent mess, Kansas somehow failed to recruit anyone on their team that can make an outside shot, Texas made the wrong decision with head coaches, and Iowa State is incredibly consistent but not incredibly talented). I fully expect to see Houston get cooked in the NCAA tournament by the first talented team the run into. They haven't looked great this year against teams loaded with talent, even though they managed to pull out the win against us.

---

This sounds Texas football fans. Bu and TCU had a couple of titles because Texas was down. Give me a break. Zags will be just fine anywhere. UH proved that year one. Win when you win. Zags non conf has historically been super tough

JP1037 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

If Gonzaga was a paper tiger, they wouldn't have as many sweet 16's, elite eights, final fours and championship games as they do. They would just automatically lose to the big conference team. Houston is going to win the conference in their first year. They adapted well. Why wouldn't a program like Gonzaga?

---

Higher seeds often have an easier win the first two games. Gonzaga is a good program. Staying at that level with a big 12 schedule will be a lot less likely. IMO.

---

We've been a No. 1 and No. 3 seed the last two years and have lost in the first weekend.

Gonzaga hasn't lost in the first weekend since 2014.

The inability some here have to give that program due credit is beyond odd.

You're taking my line. But I disagree slightly. Ku is the worst in conference we've ever seen. They're down and by definition the big 12 isnt at max potential with them like this. Bu doesn't have a defense, lacks consistent effort, and is young/thin at spots.

Two teams that built the reputation what it is now aren't all that good. But this might be Hou best team. They have 3 22 yr old + starting for them. Shead has willed himself to a pretty good offensive player and uncanny in clutch moments. It was a perfect storm as I don't think any of their prior teams win the league in any previous year.

They are rock solid. But I agree they are flawed and go wire to wire against any talented team they play. If their style brings more injuries they will get clipped.

And I think you're spot on with Iowa St

Quinton said:

---

You're taking my line. But I disagree slightly. Ku is the worst in conference we've ever seen. They're down and by definition the big 12 isnt at max potential with them like this. Bu doesn't have a defense, lacks consistent effort, and is young/thin at spots.

Two teams that built the reputation what it is now aren't all that good. But this might be Hou best team. They have 3 22 yr old + starting for them. Shead has willed himself to a pretty good offensive player and uncanny in clutch moments. It was a perfect storm as I don't think any of their prior teams win the league in any previous year.

They are rock solid. But I agree they are flawed and go wire to wire against any talented team they play. If their style brings more injuries they will get clipped.

And I think you're spot on with Iowa St

---

I think what makes this Houston team better than those they've had in the past is this one can actually score the ball efficiently. In addition to being the best defensive team in the country, they've got the best or second-best guard corps in the Big 12.

In the past, any team with good, quick guards could give them fits because they couldn't keep up in a shootout. With Shead, Sharp and Cryer, this team has the guns in their backcourt to go toe-to-toe with most.

Shead is just crazy in the clutch. Just wills them to tough win after tough win .

I agree they are solid offensively (due to years of experience in my view) and Cryer is automatic when open. The third guard also has a knack for big shots.

Probably their best chance to win it as they weren't winning in 21'. Now that I say that they probably get upset.. which rarely happens bc of their consistent rebounding and defensive effort. They are the hardest playing most consistently motivated team in the country, that's their edge.

Quinton said:

---

Shead is just crazy in the clutch. Just wills them to tough win after tough win .

I agree they are solid offensively (due to years of experience in my view) and Cryer is automatic when open. The third guard also has a knack for big shots.

Probably their best chance to win it as they weren't winning in 21'. Now that I say that they probably get upset.. which rarely happens bc of their consistent rebounding and defensive effort. They are the hardest playing most consistently motivated team in the country, that's their edge.

---

They bear some similarities to our 2021 team. They aren't as talented or good, but there are a fair number of similarities.