Pitt Men's Basketball: Disappointment or Secret Success?

After another weird March Madness, I was wondering what to think of college basketball's power teams. It seems like mid-majors are catching up, so the definition of what a "power" team is might be changing. I want to focus on teams that have good programs but can't win in the tournament. This will not be a very in-depth analysis of the college game, because frankly, I haven't paid much attention to it since graduating and have merely dabbled to get a look at pro prospects.

I was chuckling to a few Pitt fans (having grown up in the middle of the Pitt - Penn State rivalry, I always liked to rib them, even if basketball isn't really the main sport to do so over) about their loss to Butler. I remarked that Pitt went from being a surprisingly good program to now maybe being a little overrated. I said that, while they have had amazing success in the regular season, they sure seem to fall apart quickly in the big dance.

Several people told me that Pitt is overachieving, given that Western PA locally does not care about basketball nearly as much as football, they don't get top recruits, that they don't have the glamour of the other Big East programs, and they have to scrap for people. I won't argue with that. But since they can beat those other Big East teams in the regular season, and the Big East is maybe the strongest conference around (and put 11 schools in the tourney this year), why can't they win in March? Are they now one of the biggest chokers? Or are they just overachievers whose talent level is exposed late? I don't know. But I wanted to have some data.

I decided to look at which major basketball programs had the most embarrassing losses in the tournament recently. I knew some obvious ones off the top of my head, but I wanted to go back and check for the past decade or so.

What counts as an embarrassing loss? I decided to qualify it as this:

A team loses to another team slotted at least 6 spots less than them (1 loses to 7 or lower, 2 loses to 8 or lower);

1 and 2 seeds who don't get out of first weekend;

3 seed or 4 seed loses in the first round.

I think that's pretty good for determining an embarrassing loss. If you are a 1 or 2 seed, the NCAA committee expects you to go pretty far. Not making it out of the first weekend is a disappointment. 3 and 4 seeds shouldn't lose in the first round. 5 seeds do often, as we know, but it hurts.

Let's look at some major programs with some bad losses in the tourney over the past 15 years....

Kansas

1998 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
2005 - 3 lost to 14 in first game
2006 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
2010 - 1 lost to 9 in first weekend
2011 - 1 lost to 11 (but made elite eight)

Kansas has had some awful, awful showings. They couldn't make a final four in the late 90's with a stud lineup that included Paul Pierce, Jacque Vaughn, Raef LaFrentz and others. They couldn't have had an easier route this year, but blew it. They have a lot of bad upsets... but, of course, they won it all in 2008, almost won it all in 2003, and made another Final Four in 2002. That's 3 Final Fours in a decade, which is pretty nice. Considering their recruiting, they really should be a contender every year, so the pressure is high.

Duke

1997 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2008 - 2 lost to 7 in first weekend

Duke doesn't have a ton of very bad losses, but they have a lot of losing in the Sweet Sixteen, which I did not include on here. Considering their recruiting, they should be a 1 or 2 seed every year... and they are, usually. For all their losses as a 1 seed before the Final Four, they do have two titles and another FF appearance this decade, plus a near title in '99. Although I will contend that they never faced anyone that great last year. Yes, I'm still pissed.

Cincinnati

1998 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2000 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2002 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend

The Bearcats under Bob Huggins were an erratic team. They recruited well by recruiting shady guys, dominated a mid major, and always seems to blow it in the tourney. But, he did get them to a Final Four in the early 90's. And they might have done more in 2000 with a healthy Kenyon Martin.

Wisconsin

1999 - 5 lost to 12 in first game
2007 - 2 lost to 7 in first weekend
2008 - 3 lost to 10 (but they did make sweet sixteen)
2010 - 4 lost to 12 in first weekend

It's hard to believe that Wisconsin is even considered a power, but they usually get a decent seed for the tournament. I don't think they get any of the best recruits in the Big Ten, but they win in the regular season. Are they comparable to Pitt? They have their one shining moment, though, making the Final Four as an 8 seed.

Wake Forest

2003 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2005 - 2 lost to 7 in first weekend
2009 - 4 lost to 13 in first game

Wake Forest isn't a consistent power, but they've had some very good teams and 3 good players. They haven't made a Final Four despite a few good years from Tim Duncan and Chris Paul. Duncan did make the Elite Eight, but to have a dominant big man for 4 years and later the best point guard for 2 ... and never get to the Final Four? Somewhat disappointing?

Vanderbilt

2008 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
2010 - 4 lost to 13 in first game
2011 - 5 lost to 12 in first game

I didn't think Vanderbilt was such a consistent tournament team, but they make it more often that not. Considering that they are the only academically-minded school in the SEC, I guess it's nice that they can compete. It would be helpful if they ever won a game, though. (They did make a Sweet Sixteen earlier this decade.)

Stanford

1999 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2000 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend
2004 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend

For a while, Mike Montgomery had Stanford at the top of the Pac Ten. He made a surprise Final Four trip in 1998 and helped them get big seeds for a while before he left. They had a few bad losses as high seeds, however, and haven't done much in the past five years.

Georgetown

2008 - 2 lost to 10 in first weekend
2010 - 3 lost to 14 in first game

After making a Final Four in 2007, Georgetown has done awful in the tournament despite some good players and some high seeds. They don't recruit like they did in the 80's, but they do have access to the D.C. metro area, which has produced some of the best talent of late. If it wasn't for that '07 run, they might be considered one of the biggest disappointments.

Pitt

2002 - 3 lost to 10 (but did make sweet sixteen)
2006 - 5 lost to 13 in first weekend
2011 - 1 lost to 8 in first weekend

Lastly, here's Pitt. Since 2002, they've been in the tourney consistently. They've had a couple high seeds and a couple mid seeds. They only made the Elite Eight once, no Final Four. They only have 3 losses that stand out, and two of them weren't extremely terrible. They're less of a choker than some other big name programs... but, they don't have that Final Four appearance to give them some credibility. Out of all these programs I've listed, most have made the last weekend at least once. Pitt has not, despite some chances.

Let's try one more stat: I'm going to list all the schools that have gotten a number one seed over the past 15 years and how many times they did it, since Pitt has done it twice. Let's see....

Duke - 10 times a # 1 seed
Kansas - 7 times
North Carolina - 6 times
Michigan State, UConn, Arizona, Kentucky, Stanford - 3 times
Pitt, Ohio State, Illinois, Memphis - 2 times
Syracuse, UCLA, Florida, Villanova, Louisville, Washington, St. Joseph's, Oklahoma, Texas, Cincinnati, Maryland, Auburn, Minnesota - once

As I expected, Pitt is the only team in the past 15 years to receive a # 1 seed more than once, but yet not make a Final Four in that span. [Notice that a lot of these schools did NOT make the Final Four in the year that they got the # 1 seed, but in another year.] Out of the 25 teams here, only 5 of them did not make any Final Four in the span.

And as for the teams that just had one great showing... Pitt is not just a one time wonder (like St. Joe's or Auburn or Minnesota); they've had several high seeds. That seems disappointing.

I don't know if these number suggest Pitt is a failure or not. There are so many factors here, from recruiting to officiating to the parity that seems to exist now in college basketball. Pitt's staff from Ben Howland to Jame Dixon to the whole athletic department deserves a ton of credit for turning them around. I never expected them to become a perennial power back in the late 90's. I thought maybe their football team would return to some relevance, but basketball has been way more successful. I just don't know what to make of their tournament problems. As Gene Keady or John Chaney will tell you, having a good program but not making any Final Fours will leave you wanting. We'll see if Dixon can get them there.

Contraction Draft: A possible fix?

With a labor dispute looming, some teams in financial crisis, and the NBA taking a weird step in owning a team, there has been talk of contraction. Some have speculated for many years that the league should subtract a few teams. The talent level is good right now, but pundits are getting worried that all the stars are flocking to a few select teams (mainly based off what the Heat did, and also Melo forcing his way to New York). I don't think it's going to become like that, but I have thought about contraction for a while.

Every year, I ask myself what would happen if the league lost 2 more more teams and condensed rosters. I even have a mock draft to see what might happen. I was inspired by this way back in 2003 or so when Bill Simmons tried to see what would happen if recent expansion teams were shut down. I don't think we need to kill 4 teams; 2 always seems like a nice number. That would push the number back down to 28, in 4 divisions. I've complained about the 6 division format a million times on here and I desperately want them to go back to how it was before 2005. It's so much easier. If this helps, I'm for it.

I don't know how the financials would work or if any of this is legal. I'm not worried about it, because this is just hypothetical anyway. I merely want to see how much the talent level would be raised.

So who am I cutting? I thought about the teams with the worst fan support, or who have been losing the most money, or smallest market, or are worth the least, or are just bad and poorly run. I'm considering all of these and picking a team from each conference. The Hornets are an obvious choice because they are already in a state of flux, being owned by the league. They are a good team, though, and they have a solid coach and front office staff minus ownership. I hate to break them up, so I have a quirky solution: much like Bud Selig arranged for some owners to dump one franchise for another, I propose that the Hornets move back to Charlotte under Michael Jordan's ownership (but he should cut his front office people, they're terrible) and the Bobcat players are dispersed. The Bobcats have a terrible roster, despite their playoff contention, and no stars. They could be cut and no one would notice. Meanwhile, the long-suffering city of Charlotte would have an exciting team again with North Carolina natives Chris Paul and David West. This move might ensure that they stay with the team, instead of bolting for bigger markets. Sorry, New Orleans, but there's too many problems.

My other team is the Sacramento Kings. I hate to do this because they have an interesting roster and are one of the league's oldest franchises, but if they're seriously considering becoming the third team in one Southern California market, they need to go. If the Maloofs need the money so bad, I propose they just cut their losses and sell the team to the league. I wish it was the Clippers being contracted, but it seems like they'll just keep surviving somehow. This would give me some pleasure, but there's a lot of stuff I would change if I was in charge - Charlotte never would have given up the Hornets, George Shinn would've just sold them to Jordan and Bob Johnson in the first place; there would be no Grizzlies; the Sonics would be in Seattle; and Oklahoma City would be a nice backup plan for any other team that needed to move. We can't solve all these problems, but we can improve some if we dumped these two teams.

So, let's begin: the Bobcats and Kings are disbanded. All their players enter a supplemental draft held right after the season ends. Their contracts are still guaranteed by the league, although there aren't too many big deals left. Teams can draft them, and are responsible for paying their salaries. Those not selected will become free agents, although they will still get paid what they are owed. The draft order is based solely on record, from worst to first. No lottery.

Here's a look at how it might play out.....

1. Cleveland - Tyreke Evans
2. Minnesota - DeMarcus Cousins * (trade)
3. Washington - Gerald Henderson
4. Toronto - Omri Casspi
5. Detroit - Jason Thompson
6. New Jersey - D. J. Augustin (for trade)
7. L.A. Clippers - Stephen Jackson
8. Milwaukee - Boris Diaw
9. Indiana - Tyrus Thomas
10. Golden State - Hassan Whiteside
11. Phoenix - Marcus Thornton
12. Houston - Donte Greene
13. Philadelphia - Samuel Dalembert * (trade)
14. New York - Joel Pryzbilla
15. Utah - Francisco Garcia
16. Memphis - Beno Udrih
17. Portland - D.J. White
18. New Orleans (new Charlotte) - Dominic McGuire
19. Atlanta - Kwame Brown
20. Denver - Dante Cunningham
21. Orlando - DeSanga Diop

...and that probably ends it.

I made a faux trade too: Philly admits they screwed up last year, and sends the 11 pick in the contraction draft (Dalembert), their first round pick in this year's regular draft, and Evan Turner to Minnesota for the second pick in the contraction draft (Cousins) and Wayne Ellington. Minnesota didn't need another head case, but didn't want to waste their pick, so now they have Turner (who they wanted last year) and someone to block shots and play D. Works out well for both.

Let's look at how this improves some of the league's bottom feeders. Cleveland gets a new star in Evans; Minnesota gets two starters; Washington gets another young wing; Toronto gets another international player and shores up its small forward spot; Detroit gets another big man they desperately need; New Jersey gets more prospects or insurance for Deron leaving; the Clips get a sold wing who will help until Aminu is ready; Milwaukee gets post help; Indiana really is excited to have an athletic big guy; Golden State gets a big man project; Phoenix gets a wing scorer to replace Jason Richardson; Houston gets another young prospect; Philly finally gets a center; and other teams get depth where they need it. Half the teams in the league are severely improved by this, and the ripple effect of guys being traded and moved around will probably help some of the good teams get even more depth.

Think about what this does for talent levels and teams that have major holes. Cleveland suddenly looks a lot better and won't have to use NBDL guys at wing. Toronto doesn't have journeymen at small forward. Detroit and Philly don't have to play undersized. New Jersey gets depth. The Clips get an important wing piece. Indiana goes from terrible at the power forward spot to intriguing.

I don't want to take away jobs; I think the league could expand roster size so that the total number of players remains the same. I do want players to be earning their spots instead of being the only option. This will move some of the weaker starters around the league to the bench, and weaker rotation players to the end of the bench. I want that.

It's hard to come up with a constant number of teams based on talent because the level is always changing; 10 years ago it was bad, but after some good drafts, I feel better. (Look how many bad teams were at least fine with their point guard spot. No one needed Augustin, who should've been picked high.) But everything is always fluctuating.

This was just an experiment, and I think it showed that maybe just 2 teams would help. I don't think it will happen, and I don't know what other changes will be made this summer. I just wanted to see what would happen, and I propose that the NBA at least consider this as a way to improve itself.

The 2000's: The End of Curses and Droughts?

After the Giants won the series, their first in 50 years, I thought back to some of the long droughts that ended this decade, like the Red Sox, Saints, Blackhawks and White Sox. It seemed like a lot of franchises in all 4 major pro sports were finally breaking through over the past 10 or so years. The Red Sox certainly got the most attention, but I had a feeling that many other teams had won a title or made a final game for the first time ever, or in a long time. I decided to look up and see how many there actually were.

And yes, there were quite a few.



Teams that won a championship this decade for the first time ever, or the first time in a long time (more than 35 years):


St. Louis Rams '00 (see also: Arizona Cardinals '09) - The Rams won their first Super Bowl (they had lost one while in Los Angeles). This was their first overall title since 1951 (pre-Super Bowl era), and first since moving in 1995. This was also the first NFL title for the city of St. Louis, as the football Cardinals never won anything while they were there.

Baltimore Ravens '01 (see also: Indianapolis Colts '07) - The Ravens won their first Super Bowl since moving in 1996. Baltimore the city already had titles with the Colts, but this was the first for the "new" franchise. If you count their previous history as the Browns, it was still their first Super Bowl appearance and win.

Arizona Diamondbacks '01 - Won first title in first World Series appearance after only 4 seasons of existence. Yeah, I know, not much of a drought..... but, they were the first team from that state to win a title. Arizona has had pro teams since 1969, although up until the 80's it was just the Suns.

New England Patriots '02 - Won first Super Bowl. Franchise started in 1960.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers '03 - Won first Super Bowl in first appearance. Franchise started in 1976. They sure seemed cursed for a long time; maybe it was just those orange jerseys.

Anaheim / Los Angeles Angels '02 - Won first title ever in first trip to World Series. Franchise started in 1961.

Tampa Bay Lightning '04 - Won first Stanley Cup. Franchise started in 1992, despite questions about why they'd put a hockey team in Florida.

Boston Red Sox '04 - Won title for first time since 1918. You may have heard about this.

Chicago White Sox '05 - Won title for first time since 1917, in first trip to World Series since 1959. Yes, they were out longer than the Red Sox but got less attention, probably because everyone knows where their bad karma came from.

Carolina Hurricanes '06 - Won first Stanley Cup, including time as Hartford Whalers, who joined NHL in 1979.

Miami Heat '06 - Won first NBA title in first finals trip ever. Franchise started in 1988.

Indianapolis Colts '07 - As stated, the Colts had won Super Bowls in Baltimore, but this was the first pro title of any kind for the state of Indiana. The Colts moved to Indy in 1984.

Anaheim Ducks '07 - Won first Stanley Cup. Franchise started in 1993. Unfortunately, the junior world titles accumulated under the reign of Emilio Estevez did not count.

New Orleans Saints '10 - Won first title in first trip to Super Bowl. Franchise started in 1967.

Chicago Blackhawks '10 - Won Stanley Cup for first time since 1961.

San Francisco Giants '10 - Won title for first time since 1954, and first ever since they moved west.

And the Phillies..... Philadelphia had the infamous curse of William Penn, so named for the old rule that no building could be made higher than the statue of Billy Penn that sits atop city hall. This rule was broken in the mid 80's, and since it happened, no team had won a title, until the Phils. Now, 1983-2008 may not seem like a super long time. 25 years, compared to some of these franchises, isn't much. But when you consider the fact that Philly has 4 teams, to not have any of them win any titles in 25 years is a big stretch. Consider all the cities that have 4 or more teams. None of them had longer streaks. Even the cities with 3 pro teams didn't have as long of a winless streak at the time the Phillies won.... well, except for one.... you can guess who that is....

Cities with 3 or more teams (4 or more get an *), with last title won, as of September 2008 [last title in brackets]:

Atlanta* [Braves '95], Boston* [Red Sox '07], Cleveland [err...Browns '64], Chicago* [White Sox '05], Dallas* [Stars '99], Detroit* [Pistons '04], Denver* [Avalanche '01], Houston [Rockets '94], Los Angeles* [Lakers '03], Miami* [Heat '06], Minneapolis* [Twins '91], New York* [Giants '08], Oakland [A's '89], Phoenix* [D-Backs '01], Philly* [Sixers '83], Pittsburgh [Steelers '05], St. Louis [Cardinals '06], Tampa Bay [Lightning '04], Toronto [Blue Jays '93], Washington* [Redskins '92]

(....and if you want to include North Carolina with Charlotte/Raleigh [Hurricanes '06] and Wisconsin with Milwaukee/Green Bay [Packers '97], they were more recent too.)

So maybe it was a big deal that Philly overcame that. Sorry, Cleveland.






Teams that made a championship game/finals appearance for the first time:


Already covered - winners in their first appearance - Diamondbacks, Angels, Ravens, Lightning, Heat, Saints

Tennessee Titans '00 - First Super Bowl appearance, not only for their brief time in Nashville, but also counting their previous years as the Houston Oilers. The Oilers won the AFL title in 1961, but never made the Super Bowl once it started.

Indiana Pacers '00 - First finals appearance. Franchise joined NBA in 1976.

New Jersey Nets '02 - First finals appearance. Franchise joined NBA in 1976.

Carolina Panthers '04 - First Super Bowl appearance. Franchise started in 1995. Not that long, but they had some terrible luck and tragedy.

Houston Astros '05 - First World Series appearance. Franchise started in 1962.

Seattle Seahawks '06 - First Super Bowl appearance. Franchise started in 1976.

Dallas Mavericks '06 - First finals appearance. Franchise started in 1980.

Ottawa Senators '07 - First finals appearance. Franchise started in 1992.

Cleveland Cavaliers '07 - First finals appearance. Franchise started in 1970. Despite Dan Gilbert's promise, this is probably not going to happen again anytime soon.

Colorado Rockies '07 - First World Series appearance. Franchise started in 1993.

Tampa Bay Rays '08 - First World Series appearance. Franchise started in 1998. Not long, but after (all their) 10 seasons only finishing dead last, it was a surprise run.

Arizona Cardinals '09 - First Super Bowl appearance. First NFL title game appearance in Phoenix. They last won the NFL title in 1947, long before the Super Bowl era, when they were in Chicago. They never won a title nor made it to the final game during years in St. Louis.

Texas Rangers '10 - First World Series appearance. Includes previous years as "new" Washington Senators. Lots of rough years. Franchise started in 1961.






Notable droughts (40 years or more of no titles, 50 or more with no finals appearances) still abound:


Arizona / St. Louis / Chicago Cardinals - last won NFL title in 1947, haven't won Super Bowl

Atlanta Falcons - never won NFL title or Super Bowl; franchise started in 1966

Atlanta Hawks - last won NBA title in 1958 while they were in St. Louis; have never made NBA finals since moving to Atlanta in 1968

Buffalo Bills - never won Super Bowl, despite four straight trips; franchise won AFL title in 1966; just ask Vincent Gallo

Buffalo Sabres - never won Stanley Cup; franchise started in 1970

Chicago Cubs - haven't made World Series since 1945; haven't won since 1908

Cincinnati Bengals - never won NFL title or Super Bowl; franchise started in 1968

Cleveland Browns - last won NFL title in 1964; have never made a Super Bowl (unless you count the Ravens, but they don't)

Cleveland Cavaliers - never won NBA title; franchise started in 1970

Cleveland Indians - haven't won World Series since 1948

(Cleveland, city of - lake on fire, LeBron's decision, the fumble, Jose Mesa, last title of any kind in 1964)

Denver Nuggets - never won ABA title or made NBA finals; franchise began in 1967

Detroit Lions - last won NFL title in 1957; have never made a Super Bowl

Houston Astros - never won World Series; franchise started in 1962

Houston NFL teams - haven't ever made Super Bowl; Oilers won AFL title in 1961 but never made SB; Texans haven't even made playoffs yet


Los Angeles Clippers / Buffalo Braves - have never made NBA finals; franchise started in 1970


Los Angeles Kings - never won Stanley Cup; franchise started in 1967


Milwaukee Brewers - never won World Series; franchise started in 1969


Minnesota Vikings - never won Super Bowl; franchise started in 1961


Minnesota NHL teams - North Stars never won Stanley Cup from 1967-1993; Wild has not made finals in 10 years of existence (I'm giving them this because this one of the few places in America that really REALLY cares about hockey)


Philadelphia Eagles - last won NFL title in 1960. Have not won Super Bowl. I guess this isn't the WORST place to be......


Phoenix Suns - never won NBA title; franchise started in 1969. A lot of close misses.


Sacramento / Kansas City Kings - have not won NBA title since 1951, when they were the Rochester Royals. Have not made finals since 1951 either. (Were close a few years ago before Laker shenanigans.)


San Diego Padres - never won World Series; franchise started in 1969


St. Louis Blues - never made Stanley Cup finals; franchise started in 1967


Texas Rangers - never won World Series; franchise started in 1961


Toronto Maple Leafs - haven't won Stanley Cup since 1967


Vancouver Canucks - never won Stanley Cup; franchise started in 1970


Washington Nationals / Montreal Expos - never made a World Series; franchise started in 1969



.... and maybe we can count the Jets and Chiefs, who won some of the early Super Bowls ('69, '70) but haven't made it since......