2011 - 2012 College Basketball Season

[KCMax]

Hey, congrats to the KU Women for upsetting #3 seed Delaware (they have former UConn standout Delle Donne, the one who quit UConn to be closer to her special needs sister) and reaching the Sweet 16 as a #11 seed.

[AllThingsKC]

Kansas and Baylor are 2 of only 3 schools to have both their men's and women's teams reach the Sweet 16.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Easiest Road to the Final 4
Last 5 years in the NCAA tournament (minimum 3 games, after round of 64)
includes next round opponents

1. Kansas - avg opponent seed = 9.55
2. Baylor = 8.6
3. Florida = 7.2
4. Wisconsin = 7
5. North Carolina = 6.64

In the last 5 years, KU has played 11 games in this range of the tournament (round of 32, S16, E8), only North Carolina has played as many.

These are the seeds KU has played or will play: 10, 11, 9, 12, 11, 9, 11, 2, 8, 12, 10. So, at this point in the tournament, if every team played to their seed, teams would only facing seeds 1-8. KU has only played two of those games out of 11. That's right, in FIVE years, KU has only played 2 teams that played to their seed before the Final Four. The one time they faced a team seeded below #8, was #2 Michigan State in 2009, KU lost 67-62).

For reference, Carolina has played 8, 13, 7, 11, 4, 8, 4, 2, 9, 4, 3 (2 double digit seeded opponents, KU has 7)
Michigan State: 9, 4, 4, 9, 6, 10, 3, 1, 4, 1 (1 double digit opponent)
Xavier: 15, 3, 3, 2, 12, 1, 6, 7, 1 (2 double digit opponents)

Clearly KU has been BY FAR the luckiest team in the last five years. Did I mention Memphis' epic choke job in the 2008 championship game? No?

[chingon]

I don't for a second lament these kids $1000 scholarship that they lost.

And comparing them to the athletes that can lose scolarships worth tens of thousands of dollars because they accepted a dinner or clothes from a booster is ludicrous.

You are both missing and making my point.

[shinatoo]

I don't for a second lament these kids $1000 scholarship that they lost.

And comparing them to the athletes that can lose scolarships worth tens of thousands of dollars because they accepted a dinner or clothes from a booster is ludicrous.

You are both missing and making my point.

Enlighten me.

[KCMax]

Easiest Road to the Final 4
Last 5 years in the NCAA tournament (minimum 3 games, after round of 64)
includes next round opponents

1. Kansas - avg opponent seed = 9.55
2. Baylor = 8.6
3. Florida = 7.2
4. Wisconsin = 7
5. North Carolina = 6.64

In the last 5 years, KU has played 11 games in this range of the tournament (round of 32, S16, E8), only North Carolina has played as many.

These are the seeds KU has played or will play: 10, 11, 9, 12, 11, 9, 11, 2, 8, 12, 10. So, at this point in the tournament, if every team played to their seed, teams would only facing seeds 1-8. KU has only played two of those games out of 11. That's right, in FIVE years, KU has only played 2 teams that played to their seed before the Final Four. The one time they faced a team seeded below #8, was #2 Michigan State in 2009, KU lost 67-62).

For reference, Carolina has played 8, 13, 7, 11, 4, 8, 4, 2, 9, 4, 3 (2 double digit seeded opponents, KU has 7)
Michigan State: 9, 4, 4, 9, 6, 10, 3, 1, 4, 1 (1 double digit opponent)
Xavier: 15, 3, 3, 2, 12, 1, 6, 7, 1 (2 double digit opponents)

Clearly KU has been BY FAR the luckiest team in the last five years. Did I mention Memphis' epic choke job in the 2008 championship game? No?

Yea, its easy. That's why all those schools listed there have won so many championships recently.

[KCPowercat]

Easiest Road to the Final 4
Last 5 years in the NCAA tournament (minimum 3 games, after round of 64)
includes next round opponents

1. Kansas - avg opponent seed = 9.55
2. Baylor = 8.6
3. Florida = 7.2
4. Wisconsin = 7
5. North Carolina = 6.64

In the last 5 years, KU has played 11 games in this range of the tournament (round of 32, S16, E8), only North Carolina has played as many.

These are the seeds KU has played or will play: 10, 11, 9, 12, 11, 9, 11, 2, 8, 12, 10. So, at this point in the tournament, if every team played to their seed, teams would only facing seeds 1-8. KU has only played two of those games out of 11. That's right, in FIVE years, KU has only played 2 teams that played to their seed before the Final Four. The one time they faced a team seeded below #8, was #2 Michigan State in 2009, KU lost 67-62).

For reference, Carolina has played 8, 13, 7, 11, 4, 8, 4, 2, 9, 4, 3 (2 double digit seeded opponents, KU has 7)
Michigan State: 9, 4, 4, 9, 6, 10, 3, 1, 4, 1 (1 double digit opponent)
Xavier: 15, 3, 3, 2, 12, 1, 6, 7, 1 (2 double digit opponents)

Clearly KU has been BY FAR the luckiest team in the last five years. Did I mention Memphis' epic choke job in the 2008 championship game? No?

Yea, its easy. That's why all those schools listed there have won so many championships recently.

Not easy...but in those teams in the past 5 years, they have won 3 championships.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Easiest Road to the Final 4
Last 5 years in the NCAA tournament (minimum 3 games, after round of 64)
includes next round opponents

1. Kansas - avg opponent seed = 9.55
2. Baylor = 8.6
3. Florida = 7.2
4. Wisconsin = 7
5. North Carolina = 6.64

In the last 5 years, KU has played 11 games in this range of the tournament (round of 32, S16, E8), only North Carolina has played as many.

These are the seeds KU has played or will play: 10, 11, 9, 12, 11, 9, 11, 2, 8, 12, 10. So, at this point in the tournament, if every team played to their seed, teams would only facing seeds 1-8. KU has only played two of those games out of 11. That's right, in FIVE years, KU has only played 2 teams that played to their seed before the Final Four. The one time they faced a team seeded below #8, was #2 Michigan State in 2009, KU lost 67-62).

For reference, Carolina has played 8, 13, 7, 11, 4, 8, 4, 2, 9, 4, 3 (2 double digit seeded opponents, KU has 7)
Michigan State: 9, 4, 4, 9, 6, 10, 3, 1, 4, 1 (1 double digit opponent)
Xavier: 15, 3, 3, 2, 12, 1, 6, 7, 1 (2 double digit opponents)

Clearly KU has been BY FAR the luckiest team in the last five years. Did I mention Memphis' epic choke job in the 2008 championship game? No?

Yea, its easy. That's why all those schools listed there have won so many championships recently.

Well, yeah. Two of them have, though. Getting lucky definitely doesn't guarantee a championship.

All 5 of those teams are still alive in this tournament, though (that probably says something), and would make one of those teams a winner in 3 of the past 5 years.

Not easy...but in those teams in the past 5 years, they have won 3 championships.

I think past 5 years includes this year so Florida's championship in 2007 wouldn't be counted. So, KU, North Carolina, Duke, UConn, 2012?.

[bobbyhawks]

To be fair, a #1 or #2 seed will always play a #7 through #10 in the second round, so those who maintain high seeds year after year will play more of those teams. When you evaluate the easiest road to the Final Four, it is incorrect to only evaluate the games that a team played unless they made the Final Four every year. Also, Duke lost in the first round this year, and had they advanced, would have faced a #10 seed. A loss to the #10 seed would spike their numbers up, but they lost instead to the #15 seed which does not count. I get why first round numbers are excluded, but this metric trends to a specific type of team (one who is highly seeded year after year and makes the tournament a lot). 3 of 4 #1 seeds on average make the Elite Eight, so it isn't unusual for a team in the tournament every year to get lucky a few times in 5 years. Mediocre teams that make it to the second round and lose immediately do very well in this measure.

07 - KU lost to a #2 seed in the Elite Eight
08 - KU beat every team
09 - KU lost in the Sweet 16 to the higher #2 seed and runner up, would have faced the #1 seed to get to the Final Four
10 - KU lost to the #9 in 2nd round, would have faced a #5 and #6 seed to get to the Final Four
11 - KU lost to the #11 seed in the Elite Eight

KU had the easiest path the Final Four in the last 5 years by seeding (of all the champions), but they are also the only team to win the championship by beating two #1 seeds in the Final Four. KU has definitely been lucky, but I also think this measure is a tad flawed. Kentucky, for instance, lost in the second round one year as a #8 seed (to KU) and had a DNQ the year after that. That first game ends up helping their numbers, and the second doesn't end up counting against them at all. Wisconsin and KU are the only teams on that list to make the tournament every year, and KU has averaged a higher seed (Wisc. lost to #4 Xavier in the second round as a #12 seed).

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Why would it matter if a team has made it every year or gets upset in the first round? That wouldn't count for or against their numbers. You would actually think KU's numbers would go down since they've played every year. I would think, the more games you play, the more likely you are to face lower seeded teams. For KU to have played the most games overall and still have such a high percentage of those games be against weakly seeded teams is pretty incredible.

We're also not talking about the teams that aren't on that list that have made it every year and have played even tougher competition. Those are the 5 teams playing the weakest competition in that time frame. There are tons of other teams that have played even stronger.

During this time period, KU has been a 2, 1, 1, 3, 1
Duke: 2, 1, 1, 2, 2
Michigan State: 1, 10, 5, 2, 5
North Carolina: 1, 2, -, 1, 1
Kentucky: 1, 4, 1, -, 11
Syracuse: 1, 3, 1, 3, -

So, if a team's seed is a heavy contributer to this list, then shouldn't Duke obviously be on it and Carolina much higher? In reality, KU's years as a #1 seed actually lowered their average since they were guaranteed an 8 or 9 seed and since their average was 9.55, those 3 games probably lowered their average to less than 10.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Wisconsin: 4, 4, 4, 12, 3

If being a high seed contributes significantly to making it on this list, Wisconsin certainly shouldn't be on it.

[bobbyhawks]

Wisconsin: 4, 4, 4, 12, 3

If being a high seed contributes significantly to making it on this list, Wisconsin certainly shouldn't be on it.

The better your average seed, the worse your average opponent ranking will be. That is just the statistics of it.

If you compile all of the tournament seeds on average faced by KU and Duke over those 5 years, KU's average seed faced is 10.2 vs. Duke's 8.6. Clearly, KU has been a bit lucky, but also Duke has been a bit unlucky. Both teams, oddly enough (in the 2007 through 2012 period), have faced the same number of top 3 seeds, with Duke never facing a #1 seed. A #1 seed's average seed faced if making the Final Four vs. all top potential seeds is 4.67. #2 is 3.67. #3 is 3.0, and on down. Rarely do things all break down by chalk, though. Currently, no bracket has all top 4 seeds remaining.

Wisconsin still has one of the highest average seeds over recent years in the field. To use completed years, from 2007 through 2011, they averaged a 5 seed and an 8.2 seed exit. Because the last team they played often was a higher seed, it drove up their numbers as they weren't able to face another low seed in the next round. For comparison, KU averaged a 1.4 seed, meaning on average they could not face an equivalently ranked team in this metric, so the vs. #1 exit that helps others does not "help" KU. KU averaged a 4.8 seed exit. Duke averaged a 2.4 seed and a 5.2 seed exit. Michigan St. averaged a 6.2 seed and a 2.6 seed exit. If you make DNQs 16 seeds and 16 seed losses, UNC averaged a 4.2 seed with a 4.6 seed exit. Kentucky averaged an 8 seed with a 5.6 seed exit.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

The better your average seed, the worse your average opponent ranking will be. That is just the statistics of it.

I get that but that's not really what's at play here. This list may be a little unfair to KU because they've been highly seeded the past 5 years but it should help them by going far consistently, as well, since upsets get less likely each round that is played (especially upsets by double digit seeds).

What's at play is clearly the upsets going on around KU and it's not just one year skewing things (like Baylor). It's 2008, 2011, and 2012. 3 years of consistently playing teams that had upset their opponents in the previous round and/or couple rounds.

2012: KU played (10) Purdue after a moderate upset and (11) NC State after 2 pretty large upsets
2011: KU played (9) Illinois, (12) Richmond who got an upset in the first round and then beat (13) Morehead State (so KU was guaranteed a double digit seed), then KU played (11) VCU who won in a moderate upset in the first round, big upset in the second round, then beat (10) Florida State in the S16 (once again guaranteeing KU a double digit seed in the E8)
2008: KU played (8) UNLV, (12) Villanova who got at upset in the first round and then beat (13) Siena (so KU was guaranteed a double digit seed), then KU played (10) Davidson who won in three straight upsets.

I mean, look at that. Three Sweet 16 appearances (2 Elite 8 ) and they only played ONE team that had played to their seed. And, it's not like they were getting a 5 or 6 seed in the Elite 8 or anything, they're getting 11's and 10's.

It doesn't say anything positive or negative about KU. It's just crazy.

In the last 5 years, there have been 2 double digit seeds to make the Elite 8. KU played both of them.

[bobbyhawks]

2012: KU played (10) Purdue after a moderate upset and (11) NC State after 2 pretty large upsets
2011: KU played (9) Illinois, (12) Richmond who got an upset in the first round and then beat (13) Morehead State (so KU was guaranteed a double digit seed), then KU played (11) VCU who won in a moderate upset in the first round, big upset in the second round, then beat (10) Florida State in the S16 (once again guaranteeing KU a double digit seed in the E8)
2008: KU played (8) UNLV, (12) Villanova who got at upset in the first round and then beat (13) Siena (so KU was guaranteed a double digit seed), then KU played (10) Davidson who won in three straight upsets.

I mean, look at that. Three Sweet 16 appearances (2 Elite 8 ) and they only played ONE team that had played to their seed. And, it's not like they were getting a 5 or 6 seed in the Elite 8 or anything, they're getting 11's and 10's.

It doesn't say anything positive or negative about KU. It's just crazy.

In the last 5 years, there have been 2 double digit seeds to make the Elite 8. KU played both of them.

I agree that KU has been lucky. My point was that KU has the best average seed over that span of time, so it is expected that they have also faced some of the worst seeds on average, especially if they do not advance to the Elite Eight every time. Also, a 2 seed playing a 10 seed is quite likely as the 7/10 game is nearly a coin flip, and a 9 beating an 8 is actually more likely than the other way around. KU's 9.55 number is 8.92 if you factor in who they would have played had they advanced to at least the Elite Eight in every year. So as expected, losing early also hurts this number for a top seed. If KU advances to play UNC, the number will fall to 8.36. Still luckier than many, but I think it isn't representative of the true path to the Final Four if you stop counting when a team loses. If UNC loses tonight, though, I'm totally on board with this KU is incredibly lucky thing.

Again, KU is clearly the luckier of the two, but I also think that Duke has been unlucky. Over the last five years, 3 out of the 16 teams on average have been a double digit seed (and one 9). Duke has been a low seed every year for the last 5 years and has only faced a #5 in the Sweet 16 that was not really much of an upset over a #4. Assuming that you are equally likely to face all seeds, and seeing as how the average for 5 years is 3/16, there is a 65% chance that Duke (if they were in the Sweet 16 every year mind you) would face one of those seeds at least once. So, luck goes both ways. Not saying you are wrong to say KU is lucky, but I don't think it is as crazy as it might look from certain perspectives.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

KU's 9.55 number is 8.92 if you factor in who they would have played had they advanced to at least the Elite Eight in every year. So as expected, losing early also hurts this number for a top seed.

But, I think this is a point that maybe shows how lucky KU has been in the specific years I mentioned. They'd still be #1 even if you added a few games against tough seeds.

In the two years left off my previous list, KU just played a 9 in 2010 and an 11 and 2 in 2009 (6.5 avg). So, the years that they didn't advance are the years that are actually bringing down their average. I get it that, yes, if they had advanced in those years, they would have played a 1, 5 and 6 but they didn't. Even if one were to run the numbers assuming every team advanced to the Elite 8, I don't have much of a doubt that KU would still be #1. Their average wouldn't be as high obviously but I would imagine almost every team's would have to go down.

But, Duke's numbers go the other way. If there are only 3 double digit seeds in the Sweet 16 on average, what are the chances of facing one of those teams 3 out of 4 years? If double digit seeds only make it to the Elite 8 once every 2.5 years, what are the chances of facing two in a row? The answers to both are much lower than 35%.

[bobbyhawks]

In the two years left off my previous list, KU just played a 9 in 2010 and an 11 and 2 in 2009 (6.5 avg). So, the years that they didn't advance are the years that are actually bringing down their average. I get it that, yes, if they had advanced in those years, they would have played a 1, 5 and 6 but they didn't. Even if one were to run the numbers assuming every team advanced to the Elite 8, I don't have much of a doubt that KU would still be #1. Their average wouldn't be as high obviously but I would imagine almost every team's would have to go down.

Obviously, we would just go back and forth on this, but I'm not disagreeing that KU has been lucky. The entire premise of the initial measure was how easy the path to the Final Four is, and this is why the measure stops after the Elite Eight, and also why it ignores opening round matchups to keep perennial 16 seeds from being the best by this measure. This is why I think it convenient (wrong) to only count games that a team played, and to let teams like MU and Duke skate because they lost in the first round. The only way I can think to fairly make a comparison is to identify the average seeding path to a Final Four for each initial seed (who on average a #1, #2, etc. face in each round) and compare it to what a team actually faces. So, some sort of weight would need to be applied to each seed so the numbers could be combined, or a differential would be identified annually that would be combined, and the entire path to the Final Four would need to be considered.

Shifting to a completely different topic, did anyone else notice in that KSU/Souther Miss game last week the trumpet player in the band who flipped KSU the bird as they went in for halftime? I'm just wondering if he was one of the guys who lost his scholarship. That would seem a bit poetic.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Alright, here you go. These are the numbers for the easiest path for the Final 4 including future rounds if a team lost.

2011
1. Kansas (1): 12
2. Notre Dame (2): 9.25
2. North Carolina (2): 9.25
2. Louisville (4): 9.25
2. Vanderbilt (5): 9.25

2010
1. Kentucky (1): 9.75
2. West Virginia (2): 9.25
3. Kansas (1): 9
3. Ohio State (2): 9
3. Baylor (3): 9

2009
1. Louisville (1): 9.75
2. UConn (1): 8.25
3. Pittsburgh (1): 7.75
4. North Carolina (1): 7.5
5. Michigan State (2): 7.25
5. Memphis (2): 7.25
5. Oklahoma (2): 7.25
5. Xavier (4): 7.25

2008
1. Kansas (1): 11.5
2. UCLA (1): 10
3. Wisconsin (3): 9
3. Vanderbilt (4): 9
3. Clemson (5): 9

We can't do this for this year until later tonight, obviously. But, in 2 of these 4 years, KU is #1 and they're #3 in another year. The only year they weren't in the top 5 is 2009 in which there were very very few upsets. #2 that year wouldn't have made it in the top 5 any other year.

Another interesting thing to note is that a double digit average only happened 3 times. 2 of those times were KU. Also, interesting, the two years KU made the Elite 8 are the years where they were #1.

For this year, KU will be in the top 3 even if Carolina wins. If Ohio wins, it'll be the highest average in the past 5 years (12.25), and they'll be #1 3/5 years.

Obviously, we would just go back and forth on this, but I'm not disagreeing that KU has been lucky. The entire premise of the initial measure was how easy the path to the Final Four is, and this is why the measure stops after the Elite Eight, and also why it ignores opening round matchups to keep perennial 16 seeds from being the best by this measure. This is why I think it convenient (wrong) to only count games that a team played, and to let teams like MU and Duke skate because they lost in the first round. The only way I can think to fairly make a comparison is to identify the average seeding path to a Final Four for each initial seed (who on average a #1, #2, etc. face in each round) and compare it to what a team actually faces. So, some sort of weight would need to be applied to each seed so the numbers could be combined, or a differential would be identified annually that would be combined, and the entire path to the Final Four would need to be considered.

I get what you're saying and that's a better way to do it but you're kidding yourself if you don't think KU would be #1 no matter how you sliced and diced it.

[bobbyhawks]

I get what you're saying and that's a better way to do it but you're kidding yourself if you don't think KU would be #1 no matter how you sliced and diced it.

I agree that KU has been lucky. My point was that KU has the best average seed over that span of time, so it is expected that they have also faced some of the worst seeds on average

Thanks for breaking it down by year, btw. That is cool to see. Also of note is that every single year, the top position is held by a #1 seed and that 9 out of 16 #1 seeds were in the top 5 easiest paths to the Final Four metric. That's all I'm saying. KU has put themselves in a position where, statistically, they should have the easiest path on average for these years, but they have also been lucky on top of that.

If you average out the #2 seeds from those 4 years, you get an average seed path to the Final Four of 5.25 after the first round. This year, KU would be 7.33 if they win and face UNC (11.33 if Ohio somehow won!). Definitely lucky, but not unheard of. 3 of the 16 #2 seeds have faced the same average path of 7.33 in the last four years ('10 West Virginia, '11 Notre Dame, and '11 UNC). Only West Virginia made the Final Four from that list, so "easy" seeds didn't really help them like you would expect.

#1 seeds average out to 6.31 after the first round. As you referenced earlier, KU has the two most fortunate scenarios in the last 4 complete years of any #1 seed (10.67 and 10). Their 3rd #1 seed was right near the average at 6.67. If we lose tonight, UNC would match our #1 seed easiest path of 10.67.

We have averaged a +2.07 differential from the average considering our seed, which would be interesting to compare to all teams if I had a bit more time. It is probably the highest during this span, but I have no idea if this is true or how it compares to all teams. The only other team I have checked is Duke, and they look to be incredibly unlucky with a -1.36 differential from the average when compared by seeding.

[bobbyhawks]

UNC and Syracuse only had 3 of the 4 years to sample, but UNC averaged a -0.18 seed differential, and Syracuse averaged -0.74. I have no idea what the expected seed average would be for when Baylor was a #11 seed, but they did post a +2.54 in 2010.

[Highlander]

There's just too many random parameters to make charting the path to the final four quantifiable. Not only are the seedings imperfect (to say the least), things like relative home court advantages (like KU's case this year), injuries, match-ups and recent play all come into play. Last year, it would have seemed that KU had an easy path with VCU upsetting higher seeds, but VCU was a damn good team and I don't buy the argument that KU would have won the game nine times out of ten. VCU was just a very good mid major that got downplayed due to their conference affiliation. This kind of thing happens over and over again in the tourney; which is why Butler got to the championship game two years in a row. Mid majors are generally better than their records would otherwise suggest as they play an inordinate number of non-conference games on the road.

An aside about the tourney, I can't see how Anderson at Arkansas is ever going to have any success in the NCAA tourney with that system. I've watched a lot of the tourney this year and it seems like this year, more than any other, there are more commercials than there is actual playing time. It's been really annoying watching 3 minutes of basketball followed by 10 minutes of commercials; watching a team take a time out followed by a TV timeout 45 seconds after they return to action.