Elite Programs

[mattyv1908]

After the 1st round in the NCAA Tournament every team is going to be very strong or have a very good player (or both).  That's not an excuse for being a 1 or 2 seed and losing in the 2nd round.  They are 100% overrated.  They have 5 Sweet 16 appearances and 1 Elite 8 appearance with no Final Four appearances in the last 20 years, but 3 of those Sweet 16s (and their only Elite 8) all came 15 years ago, and never made the NCAA Tournament before then.  They have made 2 Sweet 16s and 0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years.  For a team that is constantly ranked in the top 10 in the country, that is pretty underwhelming.

They get a couple decent wins every year (let's be honest, St. John's, UCLA, and Memphis are all okay but not great, none of those teams are even near the top 25, and without going back and looking I'm guessing most of the teams on this list are similar to those teams, while getting a big win here and there), play absolutely nobody in conference (St. Mary's is the same story...have an incredible record because they play nobody good), and then bow out in the NCAAs before their seed suggests they should.  Their record against top 25 opponents since the 1998-1999 season is 25-47.

Over the last 13 seasons they have made the NCAA Tournament every year and have a record of 12-13.  Their seeds in those years have been 6, 9, 2, 3, 3, 10, 7, 4, 8, 11, 7, 1, and 8.  They were much more successful in the years prior to that when they were double digit seeds going to the Sweet 16 3 straight times.

'Playing to seed' is a horrible way to judge a team's success.  Just look at this example.

Duke (99-14, same span as you used for Gonzaga) - 1,1,1,1,3,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,1,2,2,3.  For this calculation I gave both Gonzaga and Duke expected wins-losses as #1 seeds of 4-1 since technically reaching the final four is all that is expected of a #1 seed.

According to your rationale, Duke should be 53-16 over that stretch.  In reality they're 38-14 and that's with them winning the NCAAT twice.

If almighty Duke who always seems to be placed in the most favorable region both geographically and in opposing teams can only play to their seed line in 70% of their NCAAT games then either A)  Duke is a vastly overrated program as well or B)  Using NCAAT seeding is a poor way to judge a team's success in March.

[Benny B]

To much subjectivity.... so I'm going to invoke the doctrine of K.I.S.S.


"Elite" Program: Any team who has been to an Elite 8 within the last four years.

"Near Elite" a/k/a "Sweet" Program: Any team who has been to a Sweet 16 within the last four years.

Blue Blood: Any team that has been Elite or Sweet more often than not throughout the lifespan of a person whose age reflects the U.S. median and has at least one championship in that same period of time and also has some shade of blue on their uniform.


I guess that means Marquette was a blue blood program up until the clock struck midnight on last year's tourney.  So be it.

[wadesworld]

'Playing to seed' is a horrible way to judge a team's success.  Just look at this example.

Duke (99-14, same span as you used for Gonzaga) - 1,1,1,1,3,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,1,2,2,3.  For this calculation I gave both Gonzaga and Duke expected wins-losses as #1 seeds of 4-1 since technically reaching the final four is all that is expected of a #1 seed.

According to your rationale, Duke should be 53-16 over that stretch.  In reality they're 38-14 and that's with them winning the NCAAT twice.

If almighty Duke who always seems to be placed in the most favorable region both geographically and in opposing teams can only play to their seed line in 70% of their NCAAT games then either A)  Duke is a vastly overrated program as well or B)  Using NCAAT seeding is a poor way to judge a team's success in March.

But unlike Gonzaga Duke actually has NCAA Tournament success as well.  They've won the National title twice in that time span and have multiple FFs and E8s.  Gonzaga?  None of either.  Duke has won as many titles as Gonzaga has been to the S16 in the last 15 years.

Again, 25-47 against ranked teams.  0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years.  Consistently ranked in the top 10 in the country.  O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D

[Groin_pull]

To much subjectivity.... so I'm going to invoke the doctrine of K.I.S.S.


"Elite" Program: Any team who has been to an Elite 8 within the last four years.

"Near Elite" a/k/a "Sweet" Program: Any team who has been to a Sweet 16 within the last four years.

Blue Blood: Any team that has been Elite or Sweet more often than not throughout the lifespan of a person whose age reflects the U.S. median and has at least one championship in that same period of time and also has some shade of blue on their uniform.


I guess that means Marquette was a blue blood program up until the clock struck midnight on last year's tourney.  So be it.

I would add one more. Walk into any sports apparel shop across the country and you'll see a blue blood school's gear on the shelves.

[mattyv1908]

But unlike Gonzaga Duke actually has NCAA Tournament success as well.  They've won the National title twice in that time span and have multiple FFs and E8s.  Gonzaga?  None of either.  Duke has won as many titles as Gonzaga has been to the S16 in the last 15 years.

Again, 25-47 against ranked teams.  0 Elite 8s in the last 15 years.  Consistently ranked in the top 10 in the country.  O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D

Winning 2 NCAA tournaments while having nine #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, and two #3 seeds while having your choice of McDonald's All Americans is the definition of overrated.

Georgetown and Syracuse have performed worse playing to their seed than Gonzaga over the same time span.  Surprisingly only UConn and Marquette have exceeded their seeding during the same span.  Guess that makes the Big East overrated and validates all the critics of the league the last few years.

I guess Marquette's record of 37-63 against ranked opponents during the same 15 year stretch makes our program garbage as well.

[wadesworld]

Winning 2 NCAA tournaments while having nine #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, and two #3 seeds while having your choice of McDonald's All Americans is the definition of overrated.

Georgetown and Syracuse have performed worse playing to their seed than Gonzaga over the same time span.  Surprisingly only UConn and Marquette have exceeded their seeding during the same span.  Guess that makes the Big East overrated and validates all the critics of the league the last few years.

I guess Marquette's record of 37-63 against ranked opponents during the same 15 year stretch makes our program garbage as well.

Yawn.  Let me know when they do anything in the tournament.  Of course teams underperform in the NCAA Tournament sometimes.  But when you make Elite 8s, Final Fours, and National titles you also are doing some things right.  Gonzaga?  Well, they were good in the very early 2000s when they were coming in with a double digit seed?  Since then?  Nothing to note.

Every one of those programs you have mentioned have been to multiple Elite 8s and at least 1 Final Four in the last 20 years.  Gonzaga has 1 Elite 8.  Congrats to them!

[77ncaachamps]

I could have sworn VA Tech was an Elite school.

That's what a charismatic, bald-headed feller kept preaching. He had an colorful sweater too.

[mattyv1908]

Yawn.  Let me know when they do anything in the tournament.  Of course teams underperform in the NCAA Tournament sometimes.  But when you make Elite 8s, Final Fours, and National titles you also are doing some things right.  Gonzaga?  Well, they were good in the very early 2000s when they were coming in with a double digit seed?  Since then?  Nothing to note.

Every one of those programs you have mentioned have been to multiple Elite 8s and at least 1 Final Four in the last 20 years.  Gonzaga has 1 Elite 8.  Congrats to them!

Let's clarify.  I never once listed them as elite or even made mention of it.  If I were to categorize I'd put them floating around the top 25-35 over the last couple of decades.  They (along with a couple other schools) have rewritten the book on how to compete on a national level as a mid major, but I would never consider them an elite level program.

You made the statement that they are the most overrated team in college basketball history, a statement that simply isn't true.

[wadesworld]

Let's clarify.  I never once listed them as elite or even made mention of it.  If I were to categorize I'd put them floating around the top 25-35 over the last couple of decades.  They (along with a couple other schools) have rewritten the book on how to compete on a national level as a mid major, but I would never consider them an elite level program.

You made the statement that they are the most overrated team in college basketball history, a statement that simply isn't true.

Your first paragraph is fair and I can completely agree with that.

I don't think Gonzaga is looked at historically as one of the best programs in college basketball history, but over the last 10 years they have been glorified way beyond what they are.  In my opinion they should never be ranked in the top 10 in the country unless they beat multiple top 25 teams in non-conference and one of the teams they beat proves itself to be a legitimate top 10 team as well.  Same with the #1 seed...they simply never deserve that unless they have beaten multiple quality opponents.  The fact that, up until they lost to BYU, they were ranked above Wisconsin is a joke, and it shows how completely overrated they were and continue to be, in my opinion.  They simply don't play anybody, their record blows up because they play nobody, and then they get a high seed that they simply don't deserve based on their resume.  30-3 is awesome.  But given their schedule, it's what they should do.

[dgies9156]

You must not be factoring in the proud tradition of cheating at Memphis State. Dana Kirk, Larry Finch, and Coach Cal were all hammered by authorities ranging from the NCAA to Federal prosecutors for an incredible variety of shenanigans. One of the most toxic programs in the tawdry history of college hoops. And that is saying a lot.

Quit being so negative, Keefe. People who can't read and write need a college degree too!

[ChicosBailBonds]

'Playing to seed' is a horrible way to judge a team's success.  Just look at this example.

Duke (99-14, same span as you used for Gonzaga) - 1,1,1,1,3,1,1,1,6,2,2,1,1,2,2,3.  For this calculation I gave both Gonzaga and Duke expected wins-losses as #1 seeds of 4-1 since technically reaching the final four is all that is expected of a #1 seed.

According to your rationale, Duke should be 53-16 over that stretch.  In reality they're 38-14 and that's with them winning the NCAAT twice.

If almighty Duke who always seems to be placed in the most favorable region both geographically and in opposing teams can only play to their seed line in 70% of their NCAAT games then either A)  Duke is a vastly overrated program as well or B)  Using NCAAT seeding is a poor way to judge a team's success in March.

NCAA tournament is a crap shoot

[mattyv1908]

Your first paragraph is fair and I can completely agree with that.

I don't think Gonzaga is looked at historically as one of the best programs in college basketball history, but over the last 10 years they have been glorified way beyond what they are.  In my opinion they should never be ranked in the top 10 in the country unless they beat multiple top 25 teams in non-conference and one of the teams they beat proves itself to be a legitimate top 10 team as well.  Same with the #1 seed...they simply never deserve that unless they have beaten multiple quality opponents.  The fact that, up until they lost to BYU, they were ranked above Wisconsin is a joke, and it shows how completely overrated they were and continue to be, in my opinion.  They simply don't play anybody, their record blows up because they play nobody, and then they get a high seed that they simply don't deserve based on their resume.  30-3 is awesome.  But given their schedule, it's what they should do.

I get what you're saying, but what I think you forget is that they HAVE to schedule one of the most difficult non conference schedules every season due to the conference they play in.  I'll agree with you that once conference comes around they have an advantage in the rankings as it's easier to pile up the W's, but they get their ranking in November and December by playing quality competition and winning a high percentage of those games.  You also have to remember that Gonzaga has to play far more non conference games away from home in order to play top shelf opponents because most high major programs don't want to sign up for home and homes.  Marquette and others get the luxury of playing most of their non conference schedule either at home or on neutral courts.

Living in Washington, I was probably one of the few Marquette fans who thought the Huskies were the better team regardless of seeding that year in the opening round of the NCAAT.  I follow the Big East closer than any other league, but in my opinion it's not so much east coast bias as much as that many quality programs are playing games when most people in other time zones are sleeping.  It's why Arizona is always overlooked.  I don't care who you are, playing at BYU or New Mexico is a tough environment to win in period.  While there will never be the concentration of basketball programs on the west coast like there is back east, a lot of programs get overlooked.

The year Gonzaga was awarded the #1 seed (which IMO should have been a #2 seed), they cleaned out the top half of the Big 12 amongst other tough OOC games.  What more can they do?

The two biggest things that hurt Gonzaga come tournament time which will not change as long as they're in the WCC are:

1.  Very few serious tests after January 1st.  I think this hurts them for obvious reasons.

2.  The WCC conference tournament takes place a week before the Big East, ACC, B1G, etc.  (leaving 9-11 days of inactivity).

The best thing that could happen for Gonzaga and St. Mary's is for the Mountain West to accept them as basketball only members.  It's highly unlikely to happen but something to that effect would need to take place for them to eliminate the problems they have in late March.

[mattyv1908]

NCAA tournament is a crap shoot

I agree Chicos, that's why I think it's hard to call a team overrated based on their tournament success.

[Eldon]

NCAA tournament is a crap shoot

Are you using 'crap shoot' to mean 'completely random'?  I mean, this can't be true because then we would see 15 and 16 seeds advance a lot more than they actually do.

Or by 'crap shoot' do you mean like an actual roll of dice, where, say, the number 7 has the greatest chance of showing, but is not certain to show? (where 7 is the dice-roll analog of a high seed advancing)

[brewcity77]

NCAA tournament is a crap shoot

In some regards it is, but there are definitely trends. Izzo seems to succeed no matter his seed or matchups. Others, like JTIII, always flame out early. I do feel there is something to coaches that can put together a game plan on the fly and engineer a quick turnaround between games. I also think it's a different animal than conference play. It shows how well coaches can adapt to different play styles and referees.

There is some luck of the draw, but there's also a bit of separating the men from the boys. One reason why Tom Izzo will always be a better coach than Bo Ryan.

[breadtree]

I think Izzo is simply the end of the bell curve on the crap shoot.  Also worth mentioning he'll likely win 1 or fewer games in the tourney this year, making it two of the last 5 that he's done so.  He has first round losses to George Mason, Nevada, NC St, and UCLA on his resume too.

Regardless, noting that there's one coach who consistently seems to do well in the tournament doesn't disprove the idea that there's a lot of luck involved.  Basically every other coach has several notable flameouts.  

Put another way, people keep winning the Powerball every month or so.  Doesn't mean it's likely.  Simply  means there's a large sample size.

[MU82]

In some regards it is, but there are definitely trends. Izzo seems to succeed no matter his seed or matchups. Others, like JTIII, always flame out early. I do feel there is something to coaches that can put together a game plan on the fly and engineer a quick turnaround between games. I also think it's a different animal than conference play. It shows how well coaches can adapt to different play styles and referees.

There is some luck of the draw, but there's also a bit of separating the men from the boys. One reason why Tom Izzo will always be a better coach than Bo Ryan.

brew, did you really let yourself get sucked into Chico's "crap shoot" debate?

He loves to throw that out there and see how everybody reacts to it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are you using 'crap shoot' to mean 'completely random'?  I mean, this can't be true because then we would see 15 and 16 seeds advance a lot more than they actually do.

Or by 'crap shoot' do you mean like an actual roll of dice, where, say, the number 7 has the greatest chance of showing, but is not certain to show? (where 7 is the dice-roll analog of a high seed advancing)

Is it completely random...of course not....because teams are seeded to prevent such randomness from happening.  If teams were seeded randomly, you would see more random results.  YET, despite the structured seeding by experts who determine on a seeding line who is better than another team, the results show that the best team or even the four #1 seeds (presumably the 4 best teams) do not win the NCAA title

The best team doesn't always win the NCAA championship in basketball.  In fact, more often than not does not win the NCAA title.  The NCAA Championship crowns a champion of a tournament, it doesn't quantify who the best team in the country is. Some years it gets both right, but less than half the time.   With no do overs, with pseudo home court advantages at times, with one so-so game and it's all over....it's a crap shoot. 

Each year there are four #1 seeds.  In theory, all four of them should make the Final Four if the experts picked them correctly.  It's only happened once in history.  Three times no number one's have made it.  Nearly half the time only one number 1 has made it....25% of the number 1's.  So on and so forth. 

Totally random....nope...by design not to happen because of seeding lines.  The results, however, have shown how often things don't remain to form because of the nature of the closeness of the teams, one team having an off night, another team having a surreal night, etc.  This is a tournament where the 11 seed in one's own conference can get hot and be crowned national champion three weeks later.  Crap shoot.

[ChicosBailBonds]

brew, did you really let yourself get sucked into Chico's "crap shoot" debate?

He loves to throw that out there and see how everybody reacts to it.

Me, Jay Bilas, Al McGuire, Coach K, recently USA Today and the Sporting News, on and on.  It's a crap shoot.  Is what it is....it's like settled science.