Big East dominance in NCAA Tournament

[Phil]

I thought it would be interesting to see how the conferences have fared in the NCAA tournament.

Spreadsheet with results and graph.

Regular season win percentages have some interest, but are somewhat distorted by the level of competition chosen by the school in their OOC scheduling. The NCAA Tournament doesn't have this aspect, so it s better measure of how the best teams and conferences do in post-season match-ups.

Not surprisingly, the SEC dominates in terms of sheer number of wins over the entire period, due to the strength of the conference in the early years of the Tournament. In addition to Tennessee, there were strong teams like Auburn, national runner-up three consecutive seasons, and other teams with strong performances in NCAA tournaments.

That also shows up in all-time win percentage, with the SEC having the best all-time win percentage. (Sorry, I don't have 2012 in the database at the moment)

Not everyone would predict how well the Big East does over the same time period. The Big East was decidedly weaker in the 80's and has been getting stronger since (possibly hitting a peak last week? We shall see). The ACC has a larger number of all-time wins, but the Big East has a materially better win percentage than any conference other than the SEC.

If we look at the current millennium, the Big East is more dominant (some claim it started in 2001, but I'm starting at 2000- feel free to give it a different name if you wish)

Since 2000, the Big East not only have more wins than any other conference, which is partially attributable to being a larger conference. However, it is also has the best win % of all conferences, which is not influenced by size.

The Conference is in a state of change, with possibly more to come, but for the last decade or so, the Big East can claim to be the best NCAA Tournament results conference.

 

[EricLA]

We can only hope that UCONN isn't in the BE for much longer and that the BE stats will be a thing of the past for them.

 

[alexrgct]

The link is asking me for a Google Docs login, so I'm not going off of the actual data, just speculating here.

Starting in 2000, UConn has won six NCs and has four other Final Four appearences. Notre Dame has one NC and two other NC game appearences. Rutgers has been to one championship game and has one other Final Four appearance. And of course Louisville went to the NC game in 2009. Those extended tourney runs really help both your winning percentage and wins total. A national championship by itself is worth three teams making the Sweet 16 in terms of games won or six teams making the tourney and winning a game.

In recent years, the Big East has also fielded some very solid teams that can win a game or two in the tourney. That obviously contributes to the win total.

The SEC has a number of very solid programs right now, but they haven't been consistently so over the past 12 years. The two top programs, Tennessee and LSU, have both seen a bit of a dropoff. Texas A&M joining and Kentucky's ascendency help going forward.

 

[Phil]

The link is asking me for a Google Docs login,

My bad, forgot to change the share options. Now changed.

 

[Phil]

Summarizing the key stat: Between 2000 and 2011, the Big East has 148 wins and 72 losses in NCAA Tournament play for a win percentage of 67.3%, slightly better than two out of every three. No other conference has more wins during that period, no other conference has a better win %.

The graph also highlights why some refer to the Big Six conferences. 33 conferences have sent teams to the NCAA Tournament since 2000, and only six conferences have a winning record. There's a big gap between the Big Ten's 56% win percentage and the Sun Belt's 41%

 

[Vowelguy]

Summarizing the key stat: Between 2000 and 2011, the Big East has 148 wins and 72 losses in NCAA Tournament play for a win percentage of 67.3%, slightly better than two out of every three. No other conference has more wins during that period, no other conference has a better win %.

The graph also highlights why some refer to the Big Six conferences. 33 conferences have sent teams to the NCAA Tournament since 2000, and only six conferences have a winning record. There's a big gap between the Big Ten's 56% win percentage and the Sun Belt's 41%

Skewed by UConn's performance I'm sure (56-6, I believe).
Take the top team out of every conference and then what are the results? I'm guessing the BE is #1 anymore.

 

[alexrgct]

Skewed by UConn's performance I'm sure (56-6, I believe).
Take the top team out of every conference and then what are the results? I'm guessing the BE is #1 anymore.

It would be close. If you remove Tennessee from the SEC tally, you'd still have LSU's five Final Four runs, but the BEast has had three such runs by ND, two by Rutgers, and one by Louisville. And more balanced conferences, such as the ACC minus Duke and the Big XII minus either Baylor or OU, might enter the picture.

 

[Phil]

Skewed by UConn's performance I'm sure (56-6, I believe).
Take the top team out of every conference and then what are the results? I'm guessing the BE is #1 anymore.

Yes, removing UConn from the Big East hurts the Big East more than removing Tennessee from the SEC (because UConn has a better win % in the NCAA). After removal, the win % for the BE drop to 58%, for the SEC to 62%.

I have not checked other conferences

 

[VAUConnFan]

I love stats. Still, there are only a couple to a few teams from any of the power conferences that have ever been to the Final Four. The SEC and Big East, I believe, have had four different programs represent their respective conference in the Final Four. It would be nice to see more, but it is what it is. Only the ACC can brag of having three teams make it the same year.

 

[Phil]

If anyone wants to do some of their own analysis, I included all 1614 results in the detail tab.

 

[oneresult]

and ONLY the big east can brag, that only UCONN both men & Women won in the same year...

 

[alexrgct]

I love stats. Still, there are only a couple to a few teams from any of the power conferences that have ever been to the Final Four. The SEC and Big East, I believe, have had four different programs represent their respective conference in the Final Four. It would be nice to see more, but it is what it is. Only the ACC can brag of having three teams make it the same year.

The Big XII has also had Baylor, OU, A&M, and Texas represent it in the F4 in the past ten seasons, though it feels much longer ago than that for Texas.

 

[rjp172]

Was geography always the deciding factor when placing 2 seeds in this time period? The first time I remember it was UConn-Rutgers. Then it was Baylor/Texas A&M. If it wasn't you have the NCAA committee themselves determining the conferences win percentage by determining that conference mates meet in the E8. Don't recall all of the 1 & 2 seeds from the successful ACC and SEC years that resulted in several teams in the F4. Obviously in 2006 none of the top ACC teams were in each others brackets with two 1 seeds and one 2 seed. If geography has always been considered then selection of regional sites has an effect.

 

[VAUConnFan]

The Big XII has also had Baylor, OU, A&M, and Texas represent it in the F4 in the past ten seasons, though it feels much longer ago than that for Texas.

Thank you. I had forgotten about Oklahoma of all teams. And, had forgotten about Texas' most recent run to the Final Four. Truth be told, the Longhorns should have won that game. It was, by far, Diana Taurasi's best tournament game, and, I am hard pressed to remember her playing a better game than she did against Texas.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Was geography always the deciding factor when placing 2 seeds in this time period? The first time I remember it was UConn-Rutgers. Then it was Baylor/Texas A&M. If it wasn't you have the NCAA committee themselves determining the conferences win percentage by determining that conference mates meet in the E8. Don't recall all of the 1 & 2 seeds from the successful ACC and SEC years that resulted in several teams in the F4. Obviously in 2006 none of the top ACC teams were in each others brackets with two 1 seeds and one 2 seed. If geography has always been considered then selection of regional sites has an effect.

The Committee has been wishy washy over the seeding/geography issue. Both instances you mentioned were egregious screw ups. The best team in a conference should never meet the second best team in a regional final.

 

[Phil]

Thank you. I had forgotten about Oklahoma of all teams. And, had forgotten about Texas' most recent run to the Final Four. Truth be told, the Longhorns should have won that game. It was, by far, Diana Taurasi's best tournament game, and, I am hard pressed to remember her playing a better game than she did against Texas.

I remember that game well. I have a distinct memory of thinking, near the end, that I had to mentally prepare myself for the possibility that we might lose. I recounted the story to Maria's dad later, and he said he had the exact same feeling.

But we won. I thought we would, but I was starting to get worried.