I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I hate this type of argument. You play to win the game, not to win by a certain spread. When you make these comparisons you ignore all kinds of factors. Match-ups. Circumstances. Refereeing. Who's hurt, either out or playing hurt? Who's hot? Who's not? Who picks up early fouls? Hell, sometimes teams have several guys dealing with flu and we don't even hear about it.For crying out aloud a title contender cannot possible struggle so badly to beat the #32 seeded team...and only by six pts...with a lot of 'help' from the refs.
They have struggled with EVERY major conf team they have faced with the sole exception of terrible Wash. As I said above, NU played Vandy about even, and Vandy narrowly beat FL three times. The Zags only beat FL by 5. All four of the mentioned teams aren't far from each other. Todays result PROVED IT.
Several NCAA Final Four teams and eventual National Champions through the years barely squeak by in Round of 32 games.
Notre Dame last year had a Round-of-8 run, but I sat there in Brooklyn four rows off the court and watched them lose to Stephen F. Austin. The refs literally handed that game to the Irish.
Gonzaga very well could win the whole damn thing. They very well may lose their next one. But that is a deserving one seed team, a very balanced team who does not beat themselves, who forces teams to play really, really well to beat them.
Villanova won it all last year—how about you go back and dissect their regular season? There is just so much nuance.
Not trying to be a dick. I just think this line of argument is incredibly short-sighted.