The 2021 NCAA Tournament is done, with Baylor University winning over the University of Gonzaga. In order the tournament to "not suck" I had a number of criteria for it to be somewhat satisfactory.
The first I wanted my own team to win (which they didn't). The second was to not have Alabama win. Thankfully UCLA defeated them in the Sweet Sixteen. The third was to see Houston go down. This also happened in the Final Four where the eventual champion, Baylor snuffed them out. And fourth, to have Gonzaga's perfect season be tainted by their single defeat - the biggest game of their season. This wish became true when Baylor man-handled them in both halves.
And yes, I do think Gonzaga was overrated as a team in general which is based on a multitude of reasons. So here's another list -
- Weak in-conference schedule. Let's face it, the WCC is not just a mid-major conference, but low-mid-major conference outside the likes of the MAC and Horizon League, both of which are relatively solid and more competitive.
- Non-conference regular season was good at best. Beating ranked opponents in the form of Iowa, Kansas, Virginia and West Virginia in the beginning of the season is impressive, but as one person said each team, no matter the talent level and predicted level of success, is still figuring themselves out. Take for example #12 ranked Illinois vs non-ranked Norther Carolina in 2005. It was a match-up to relive the the 2004 NCAA championship game between the two very same programs in which North Carolina won by five. This time around Illinois won the game where both teams received bids to the NCAA tournament. At the end of the season North Carolina was ranked higher than Illinois at #10 while Illinois dropped down a step to #13. Both lost in the Round of 32 with #3 seeded North Carolina losing to a #11 seeded George Mason.
- Weak in-conference schedule masked any on-court team weaknesses that are generally exposed throughout the season by either equal or superior talent. Gonzaga's talent is a cut above any team found in the WCC besides BYU. Their closest game was against BYU, winning by eleven. But the talent was suited for the WCC - not for equal or better competition on a weekly basis. The lack of speed and overall athleticism by Gonzaga's starting line-up in the NCAA championship game showed; Coach Few seemed lost and unprepared as Baylor, more or less, did what they wanted to do with the Zags.
- Gonzaga's uninterrupted 20+ NCAA appearances by Coach Few starting in 1999 is impressive but not remarkable. When you recruit better than your competition where the ranking of incoming the class consists of players that are either high-major or solidly P5 recruits, when your competition is such low quality from top to bottom, and when your head coach is a cut above any other WCC coach in terms of X's and O's, the chances you coming in first place every single year is quite high. The only time Gonzaga weren't conference winners? In 1999-2000 and 2011-2012 season where they ended up in 2nd place.
- KenPom ratings are misleading since it doesn't take into factor the low quality defense and offense attributed by Gonzaga's in-conference competition. You're going to shooting more efficiently, create more and defend much better if your in-game plan and on-court talent exceeds what a vast majority of your competition can muster. I doubt Gonzaga can do that in conferences like the Big Ten, ACC or even Big 12.
- The amount of defense thrown at Gonzaga's lost is both understandable yet pathetic. They did go undefeated in in-conference play, which is historic in it of itself, but the devil is in the details as stated above. This is the first time that I've watched any second-place team be defended, almost coddled, by amateur sports analysts (me not included) appealing to the amount of consecutive NCAA berths and relatively deep tournament runs pointing to 2017 and 2021 in particular.
Another thing I'd like to discuss is the comparison that men's college basketball is of lower quality than the NBA. Of course it is. One entity consists of amateurs with various skill parity, both on the individual and team level, from the very top programs to the lowest ranked program at the D1 level. The other is the best of the best in the game of basketball.
For the most part, players at the D1 collegiate level are the best high school players in their state, region or even the nation. Then that pyramid reaches the very peak in the form of drafted players of the NBA where only a tiny percent of the players of the 357 D1 programs are drafted. Then are more ways to see who truly are at the peak. Here are four standards so to speak of when vetting the talent that do go professional.
- The first are those who manage to make a living in the NBA until their retirement.
- The second are those who are starters.
- The third, and the highest standard, are those are who recognized for awards like All-Stars, MVPs, or All-Defensive Teams.
- The fourth are those that are un-drafted or do not manage to make a living as an NBA journeyman, who tend to go overseas to play either in continental Europe or SE Asia.
There is one caveat: A number of fantastic college players at the D1 who are drafted do not pan out for whatever reason. Usually it's because their college game isn't suited for NBA-style games, their lack of speed at their position wasn't a hindrance in college, or they're too one dimensional (i.e. Tyler Hansbrough, Adam Morrison, Jimmer Fredette). One person stated it perfectly: "Pretty much everyone in the NBA was a star in college, [it's] the same way how not every college player ends up a star in college despite being a star in high school. The NBA is the best of the best[.]"
The very last point of this post is to rebuke the statement of NBA fans who say that there is no defense played in the NBA. On the surface this may seem to be true given many games are high scoring and there is a belief that players just want to score. In my perspective this is a shallow assessment.
- First, why would there be no defense? Once you think about it's absurd. There was a time where I'd nod and say that the NBA was just glorified street ball, but rethinking and watching more NBA I wholeheartedly disagree. I can't imagine a working environment where I would half-ass my defensive effort when part of my job is to (1) score/help score and (2) stop the other team from scoring.
Second, defense is emphasized since the moment one picks up a basketball, from co-ed elementary leagues to programs like Duke to Houston Baptist. Why would NBA coaches and players suddenly drop this aspect of the game? Some basketball programs to do it better than others. Some players are liabilities on defense where the slower pace of college basketball helps mitigate either lack of defensive talent and/or lack of lateral quickness.- Third, the best college offenses would struggle against the worst NBA defense. Arguable there are more elite offensive players than defensive players at the NBA level where the defense is already top-tier. I remember Jeremy Lin saying that at the NBA level, on offense, that being a foot off from your mark would ruin a given play since the defense is so much more stifling.
- Fourth, the NBA offense is just that good. It's an offense that creates an illusion that there's very little defense played. The league consists of the very best offensive talent that can shoot three's way beyond the assigned three point arc. The league consists of specimens like LeBron James and Zion Williamson. There are players in the form of Alex Caruso and Stephen Curry who are deceptive in their perceived lack of athleticism. There's better shot selection, better technique in follow through, better offensive spatial awareness, better basketball IQ and better offensive rebounding (which is also a form of defense). All of this combined creates havoc on mediocre to poor defenses.
