National Title Contenders

[#UnleashSean]

Are we still doing the 5 years to judge meme?

[K1 Lover]

I dug into this and it's actually a bigger trend than this tweet indicates. Yes, it does include every champion back to 2004, but it really started earlier.

The 2003 Champs were Syracuse and they were unranked in the 2002 Week 6 AP Poll. But before that, every Champion going back to 1988-89 Michigan was also top-12 in the Week 6 Poll. So from 1988-89 through today, that UR Syracuse team was the only one not to be ranked in the AP Top-12 in Week 6. So 34 of the last 35 champs were in that Top-12 (97.1%).

Wild.

As far as narrowing the list goes, I recall a comment saying that none of the champs since 2004 have been west of Kansas. If that holds true for the stat you just mentioned too, I guess that means we can knock off of Oregon and Gonzaga (lol). And let's be real, Purdue isn't winning 6 straight games this year unless a miracle happens.

That gives us a 1/9 chance of winning that title based on this trend. Sounds pretty good to me.

[cheebs09]

Are we still doing the 5 years to judge meme?

Yes, I still haven't decided if Shaka is the right fit or not.

[The Sultan]

Wild.

As far as narrowing the list goes, I recall a comment saying that none of the champs since 2004 have been west of Kansas. If that holds true for the stat you just mentioned too, I guess that means we can knock off of Oregon and Gonzaga (lol). And let's be real, Purdue isn't winning 6 straight games this year unless a miracle happens.

That gives us a 1/9 chance of winning that title based on this trend. Sounds pretty good to me.

The last champion from the far west was Arizona in 1997.  And Waco is slightly further west than Lawrence.

[K1 Lover]

The last champion from the far west was Arizona in 1997.  And Waco is slightly further west than Lawrence.

UCLA in 1995 too, I just found out. Nevertheless, I'll gladly take 1/11.

[Galway Eagle]

I dug into this and it's actually a bigger trend than this tweet indicates. Yes, it does include every champion back to 2004, but it really started earlier.

The 2003 Champs were Syracuse and they were unranked in the 2002 Week 6 AP Poll. But before that, every Champion going back to 1988-89 Michigan was also top-12 in the Week 6 Poll. So from 1988-89 through today, that UR Syracuse team was the only one not to be ranked in the AP Top-12 in Week 6. So 34 of the last 35 champs were in that Top-12 (97.1%).

So the 12 teams people perceive as good after a few weeks are in fact... good?

If it was a smaller number than 12 it'd be cool but basically all I'm seeing is that after a decent amount of evidence people know who good teams are

[The Sultan]

So the 12 teams people perceive as good after a few weeks are in fact... good?

If it was a smaller number than 12 it'd be cool but basically all I'm seeing is that after a decent amount of evidence people know who good teams are

You don't think its at least a little shocking that, for the last 35 seasons, teams who were judged to be in the top 4-5% of all of D1 basketball in mid-December, have always won a single stage knockout tournament in March???

[brewcity77]

I ran it on the runners up, as well.

• Unranked - 6 times
• Ranked 13-25 - 7 times
• Top-12 - 22 times

So while the top-12 is still the most prevalent, it's a much stronger corollary with the winners than the losers. And one of the 13-25s was 2003 Kansas, so teams ranked #13 or worse in the Week 6 poll are 0-12 against teams in the top-12.

When two teams from the top-12 of Week 6 meet, the team that was ranked higher in Week 6 went 13-8 against the lower ranked team.

[tower912]

What needs to be emphasized is that MU is in that group again this season.  With two players gone to the NBA.  With no new players from the portal. 
Kudos to all of you who were bullish on this season's roster during the offseason.

Get healthy, stay healthy, build that bench, make those 3s.   All of that and the sky is the limit.

[K1 Lover]

So the 12 teams people perceive as good after a few weeks are in fact... good?

If it was a smaller number than 12 it'd be cool but basically all I'm seeing is that after a decent amount of evidence people know who good teams are

I get what you're saying, and I'd say the same thing if it was referring to the final week of the AP Poll. But it's not.

What makes this trend noteworthy is that it's referring specifically to week 6 — an entire three months before the tournament. There's plenty of room for variance between now and then, and in theory, it's possible that the top 12 in week 21 (when the final poll is released) will feature twelve different teams than it does now. Most people would be inclined to believe that the top twelve teams in early March stand the best chance of winning the tournament. But this trend suggests otherwise.

That is why it's interesting.

[Galway Eagle]

I get what you're saying, and I'd say the same thing if it was referring to the final week of the AP Poll. But it's not.

What makes this trend noteworthy is that it's referring specifically to week 6 — an entire three months before the tournament. There's plenty of room for variance between now and then, and in theory, it's possible that the top 12 in week 21 (when the final poll is released) will feature twelve different teams than it does now. Most people would be inclined to believe that the top twelve teams in early March stand the best chance of winning the tournament. But this trend suggests otherwise.

That is why it's interesting.

Personally I'd be curious about how much variance there is from that 6wk mark to the end of year. At 6 weeks most major schools have played in a MTE, maybe the non con rival, potentially a conference challenge. That's a good enough data set to have gauged whether a team's actually good.if there's not really many teams falling out of the top 12 then all the stat's really telling us is that by 6wks we've determined who the best teams are. If there is a decent amount of variance then it'd be interesting that teams that are on top early seem to peak again at the end of the year.