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.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
