Frustration, exhilaration as Gonzaga loses thriller to #2 MSU

SafariScreenSnapz118

I just got through watching the Gonzaga-Michigan State game — it ended more than two hours ago, but because it conflicted with the girls’ bedtimes, I had to TiVo it and watch it on a delay (sequestering myself from the Internet so I wouldn’t accidentally learn the result) — and, like Zach at The Slipper Still Fits, I’m not quite sure how to feel.

Gonzaga Michigan St BasketballOn the one hand, dammit, the Zags should have won that game. They were clearly the better team for 37 minutes, outplaying and outhustling and “out-physical-ing” (God, I hate that non-word) the #2-ranked team in the country. But they couldn’t quite put the nail in the coffin, which is frustrating. Actually, the way I see it, they didn’t lose that game in the closing minutes; they lost it in the first 15 minutes, when they were dominating (and Michigan State was playing some seriously sloppy basketball), yet they couldn’t build up a huge lead because they weren’t hitting enough shots. I remember at one point, Gonzaga led by 12 points, or something like that, while shooting 10-of-29 from the field. When I saw that graphic on screen, I thought to myself, “They’re going to lose this game because they’re not putting the Spartans away now, when they have the chance.” And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Sparty battled back, as elite teams always do. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching college basketball for all these years, it’s that when you’re the underdog, and you’re playing better than the favorite early on, it isn’t enough to take a 10- or 12- or 15-point lead. You’ve got to go for the kill, take a truly insurmountable lead, because if you don’t, you’ll be sorry. If only Gonzaga had taken fewer ill-advised perimeter shots in those first 15 minutes when they were rolling around, and had battled for another 6 or 8 or 10 points, they’d have cruised to victory.

Having said all that: Holy cow, the Zags look good this year! And fun to watch, too. As Zach puts it: “damn…Gonzaga can play with the best in the nation and not play their best game. That is very, very good news for such a young team.” And as La Rev puts it in a trio of tweets: “Goodness! … This is exactly the kind of Zag team I was hoping for. Rock! … This team is already infinity more enjoyable than last year’s Daye-Heytvelt flopfest bonanza. For that, I’m thankful. … I will now spend the next four months tempering my expectations, but either way, THIS is a team I can get behind. Go Zags!”

I know one thing. Although Dave O’Brien and Steve Lavin harped on this point a little too much, they’re right: Gonzaga didn’t look like an unranked team tonight. They were effectively #38 in the Week 1 AP poll, and tied for #37 in the coaches’ poll. That was with a 1-0 record. Now they’re 1-1, but in defeat, they looked for all the world like a Top 25-worthy team. Assuming they take care of business against IPFW at home Friday, will they rise into the rankings on the strength of a “good loss”? I don’t know (and thankfully, in college basketball, unlike college football, it doesn’t really matter). But regardless, this is a good team, and they should only get better.

Go Zags.

Brilliant idea of the day

      2 Comments on Brilliant idea of the day

Courtesy of Scout.com’s Matt Zemek:

The commissioners of the Mountain West, Western Athletic, and Pac-10 Conferences (especially new Pac-10 boss Larry Scott) need to create their own answer to the SEC and Big 12 title games on the first weekend of December: Have the champions of the three leagues and one at-large second-place team compete in two made-for-TV games. Call the event the Western Football Classic. Play one game in Phoenix on the first Friday night of December, and one game in Denver on the first Saturday afternoon of December. Give your teams exposure, publicity, and a fat schedule boost just before the BCS Selection Show. TCU and Boise State could sure use games against Oregon and Stanford, don’t you think?

I’m not only endorsing this idea because of the “game in Denver” part, although that’s certainly a bonus. 🙂

From the Pac-10’s perspective, however, it probably doesn’t make sense to put the conference champion in this hypothetical Western Football Classic, since that team would already have locked up a BCS berth. I suppose it might sometimes make sense, if the Pac-10 champ is competing for a national championship spot… but in the vast majority of years, that’ll either be guaranteed or out of the question by the season’s final week. And in the rare case when it might be in question, I’d argue that playing a TCU or a Boise State carries more risk than reward. Instead, the Pac-10 might want to put its second- and third-place teams into the WFC, to increase the odds of getting two at-large BCS bids (something the Pac-10 hasn’t done since 2002, and very likely won’t this year, either). The third-place Pac-10 team vs. the WAC champion on Friday night, and the second-place Pac-10 team vs. the MWC champion on Saturday afternoon? I’d watch those games.