In case anyone was wondering how impressive 19 straight S16s is...

[alexrgct]

...from Pat McKenna:

With a win tonight, #UConn would advance to its 19th-straight Sweet 16. Stanford has the next highest consecutive Sweet 16's with four

She meant active streak...but still.

 

[alexrgct]

Other active streaks that started in the 1993-94 season:

• 25 wins or more
• Top 10 finishes in the final poll
• No consecutive defeats
• Either a BEast regular season and/or BET title.

 

[Icebear]

How long was TN and Pat Summitt's streak before it was broken by Ball State?

 

[Wonkster]

.
Hey, Ice - stop breaking Pat Summitt's Ball States, OK?
.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Tenn has the record with 27 consecutive Sweet 16's. Both Tenn & Geno's number of Consecutive Sweet 16's is amazing sign of consistency.

 

[Vowelguy]

UConn also moves into a tie with LaTech for most total sweet 16s with 20. (Though LT also had 3 in the AIAW era.)

 

[Icebear]

Tenn has the record with 27 consecutive Sweet 16's. Both Tenn & Geno's number of Consecutive Sweet 16's is amazing sign of consistency.

Thanks I thought they had made every one from the beginning of the NCAA tourney to the Ball State loss. Couldn't remember how many that was.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Tenn has the record with 27 consecutive Sweet 16's. Both Tenn & Geno's number of Consecutive Sweet 16's is amazing sign of consistency.

No, you can't cite the Vols' record as being on the same basis as UConn's, though I know you were just responding to the question of how long UTenn's streak went. But let's put a little context in there for perspective.

• The first 4 years of the UTenn streak were from the the 32 team era when you just had to win one game at home to get to the Sweet 16. That's a sweet deal.
• The next 3 years of the UTenn streak were from the 40 game era when UTenn played a home game starting in the 2nd round, so again one win at TBA and they're in the Sweet 16. Another sweet deal.
• The next 5 years of the UTenn streak were in the 48 game era when UTenn still just played a home game in the 2nd round, and still 1 win at TBA and they're in the Sweet 16. Keep dumping that sugar.
• Finally, we start with the 64 team era in 1994 after 12 years of 1 win and you're in, but still UTenn played those first two games at home in TBA for the first 10 years of this era through 2003. Two wins and in at home against weak seeds, still very sweet.
• Starting in 2004, the tourney no longer necessarily had the first two games at the home of the highest seeded team of the subregional, though in 2005 UTenn did again host the first two games. From 2004 to 2008, the Vols won the first two games, 4 of the 5 years not on their home court. The first two rounds weren't too far from home, but a relatively close win as a #1 seed in 2007 against Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh showed the times had become a little bit of sweet and sour.

And then came 2009 in KY, and it was sourballs time for the Vols and the end of the streak. In only 4 of the 27 years did the Vols have to play an away game before hitting the Sweet 16, and in 12 of the years they needed to win just 1 game to become sweet creampuff ladies.

UConn's 19-year streak has come entirely during the 64 team era, so they have always had to win 2 games to get to the Sweet 16. In only two of the 19 years have the Huskies had to leave the state in the first two rounds (along with 3 years in Bridgeport), so that's not bitters they're biting on but it's a lot less sweet than the Vols had it.

 

[alexrgct]

Bear in mind that having a high seed and getting to play at or close to home in opening rounds on a regular basis is a distinction you earn by building a strong program and having superior regular seasons.

During the 27-season run by Tennessee, the LVs won eight NCs, were runners up five times, went to five additional Final Fours, made it to five additional Elite Eights, and only lost in the round of 16 four times. So that's definitely not chopped liver. Not saying you were implying it was, but just wanted to get the full resume out there.

UConn's current run absolutely is extremely impressive in the context of the fact that, during the exact same period of WCBB, no team has an active streak longer than five (since Stanford won last night, too).

And UConn isn't keeping the streak alive by the skin of its teeth either; the 18 previous seasons of the streak have resulted seven NCs, four more Final Four appearances, five other Elite Eight finishes, and only two losses in the Sweet 16. Here's to hoping for another deeper run still this season.

 

[choochoo]

.
Hey, Ice - stop breaking Pat Summitt's Ball States, OK?
.

Ice your a BALL state breaker!

 

[Vowelguy]

An accomplishment is an accomplishment.
(Otherwise it leads to claims like: "UConn's winning streak doesnt mean anything because of the teams they beat.")

TN had 27 in a row; UConn now has 19.

 

[Scotter]

Picking on the Vol's record seems a little petty. When has winning the 1st game in a 64 team field ever been difficult for a Top 10 team in the country? However they got there, they were still in the last 16 teams for 27 straight years. Seems a little like the Vol fans that try to diminish UConn records because UConn doesn't obsess about the RPI of teams that have no chance to ultimately win the game anyway. The great thing is that thanks to Ball State it is now a record that can potentially be broken.

 

[DobbsRover2]

An accomplishment is an accomplishment.
(Otherwise it leads to claims like: "UConn's winning streak doesnt mean anything because of the teams they beat.")

TN had 27 in a row; UConn now has 19.

Um, right, let's not think about context because it never means anything, I guess. How about another 19 year streak -- the UCLA guy's streak of consecutive Sweet 16s? Wow, amazing, who can believe it? Exact same as UConn's because it's 19.

Of course, the first 14 of those 19 years, the Bruins didn't start playing until the Sweet 16 round back in the 24 team era. But hey, 19 years is 19 years, even though the Bruin guys never had to win 2 games (and usually had to win 0) to get to the Sweet 16. Throw out the context, it's all the same.

I do see your point that the quality of opponents can be thrown into discussions by Vol fans who want to argue that UTenn's win over Georgia State in 2002 was more impressive than UConn's beatdown of St. Francis, but please don't tell me that 2=1. That's not the math I learned in school.

 

[bruinbball]

Ice your a BALL state breaker!

I'm a Ball State Alum...there's joke there but it's also a fact.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Picking on the Vol's record seems a little petty. When has winning the 1st game in a 64 team field ever been difficult for a Top 10 team in the country? However they got there, they were still in the last 16 teams for 27 straight years. Seems a little like the Vol fans that try to diminish UConn records because UConn doesn't obsess about the RPI of teams that have no chance to ultimately win the game anyway. The great thing is that thanks to Ball State it is now a record that can potentially be broken.

Call it petty if you want, but it's not the same. How difficult is it for a top team (top 16 got those first round byes way back) to win that first game? I dunno, why don't you ask Harvard, or Ball State, or Marist whether they can ever knock off a top team.

We could also talk about the round of 32 streak that also ended with Ball State. Those streaks are also 27 for UTenn and 19 for UConn because the Huskies lost to Louisville at Gampel in the first round in 1993. So the fact that for 12 years UTenn never even needed to play and potentially lose a first round game is just a petty point to you? Okay, whatever -- all streaks are created equal.

 

[JellyBean]

Wow. Pretty impressive indeed. 19 straight Sweet 16 appearances. Awesome.

 

[Scotter]

We could also talk about the round of 32 streak that also ended with Ball State. Those streaks are also 27 for UTenn and 19 for UConn because the Huskies lost to Louisville at Gampel in the first round in 1993. So the fact that for 12 years UTenn never even needed to play and potentially lose a first round game is just a petty point to you? Okay, whatever -- all streaks are created equal.

Come on, don't make up straw men arguments. No one has said all streaks are created equal. I'm pretty clearly saying the inequality isn't what you're making it out to be. The UConn team that lost in the 2nd round in 1993 wasn't even ranked and had double digit losses going into the NCAA tourney and still they lost in the 2nd round game. I don't think that is much evidence that the Vols streak still isn't 27 years if they had to play a 1st round game. I said petty because in my opinion the differences are inconsequential. That is a big difference from "all streaks are created equal," which is asinine. The Vols weren't going to lose a 1st round game back then. The differences between the teams were too great.

 

[alexrgct]

DobbsRover's analysis of Tennessee's streak actually brought up a tangential point to Pat's/Tennessee's credit in my eyes.

You look at how much WCBB has changed over the years (some of which is underscored in DR's post), and very few programs have withstood those changes. Only two programs were even top 15-caliber in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Georgia is one (and they barely were top 15 in the 2000s). Tennessee, meanwhile, was the #2, #1, and #2 program over those three decades. In the 1980s, the top six programs were La Tech, Tennessee, USC, Texas, Long Beach State, and ODU. Only two of those schools even made the tourney this year, and the one not named Tennessee is looking for a new coach. In the 1990s, it was Tennessee, Stanford, UConn, La Tech, Virginia, and Purdue. In the 2000s, the top six was UConn, Tennessee, Duke, LSU, UNC, and Stanford. Even in 2012, my have times changed since then. As of the conclusion of league tournament play and tourney seeding for 2012, I have the top six of the 2010s as UConn, Stanford, A&M, Notre Dame, Baylor, and Tennessee.

In other words, while other programs came and went (or in UConn's case, came and stayed), Tennessee remained one of the premier programs in the country. There are a lot of different ways we could measure/demonstrate how significant that success was over those three decades, but the bottom line is that it happened and is extremely impressive.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Come on, don't make up straw men arguments. No one has said all streaks are created equal. I'm pretty clearly saying the inequality isn't what you're making it out to be. The UConn team that lost in the 2nd round in 1993 wasn't even ranked and had double digit losses going into the NCAA tourney and still they lost in the 2nd round game. I don't think that is much evidence that the Vols streak still isn't 27 years if they had to play a 1st round game. I said petty because in my opinion the differences are inconsequential. That is a big difference from "all streaks are created equal," which is asinine. The Vols weren't going to lose a 1st round game back then. The differences between the teams were too great.

Petty or meaningful, the differences remain, and records set in different conditions in different eras are different. Both can be impressive in their own right, but that doesn't mean the differences are inconsequential, or that we can pretend to know the outcomes of games that were not played, any more than we can say that Stanford would never lose in the first round or that a key player may be lost in an early game

The fact is, we will never know if a team would have got through the first two rounds if they had to play them during the first 12 years, only that during the 19 year history of the 6-games-wins-an-NC era, UConn has won at least two games every year. That is a Sweet 16 record that has not been matched. Among UTenn's 27 year streak is a 1985 year and a 1992 year when they won just 1 game, losing in the Sweet 16 round. They were the #1 seed in 1992, so clearly they weren't going to lose in a round of 64 even if they did lose way before everyone expected. In 1985 the Vols lost 10 games and were 4-4 in the SEC.

Did the top teams ever lose to much lower rated teams in the early years? Sure, but in the 1st round the top rated team was a #5 seed from 1989-1993, and California and Western KY both lost as home teams. In 1992, a #1 seed could go down in its first game even if the difference between between them and their opponent made that outcome impossible. In 1993, a #2 and #3 seed lost in the same region, and that also could not possibly happen. In the first year of the 64 team bracket was inserted, the first round winners included two #10s, a #12, and a #13 seed. Could the upsets have happened in earlier years? Why not?