March Madness, the Wrath of the Snubbed, and the Curse of the 3

[DobbsRover2]

As NCAA tourney selections next month and March Madness get set to descend on us all, the question of whether we can learn from our past springs up. Mulling through through the pre-tourney poll rankings, the 1-4 ranks of seedings, and the final results for the WCBB championships the last three years, there are a lot of things that become clearly ambiguous and fuzzily true. Among them:

• The Curse of the 3. No team should want to earn a 3 seed in a regional. Standard-performing 3 seeds are supposed to win two tourney games and then bow out. But last year all of the 3 seeds were beaten in the Round of 32, a fate that has befallen 9 of the 12 third stringers in the last three tourneys. None of the three who survived to get to the Sweet 16 won a game there. On the other hand, being a 6 seed was pretty peachy last year, though all four of them lost in the Sweet 16. And the 4 seeds have pushed 5 of 12 into the Sweet 16, which is not stellar but still much better than the 3-seeds.
  
• The Wrath of the Snubbed. Although the AP\USA Today polls are not necessarily the most perfect measure of a team's worth pre-tourney, they do allow fans from a bunch of teams ranked in the 10-20 region to gripe if they believe their team was deserving of a top 4 seed but didn't get one. Choosing the three seemingly most snubbed teams of the past three tourneys, I found that only one of the nine sank into a funk and bombed out in the first round, and that naturally was Ohio State (ranked 16\17 with 8 seed) in 2012. But last year Louisville (16\17 with 5 seed while Purdue at 21\21 got 4 seed) won 5 games on way to NC, and Delaware (15\16 with 6 seed) went to the Sweet 16 and Dayton (18\15 with 7 seed) won its expected first game. In 2012 along with OSU, UW-Green Bay (10\10 and 7th seed) won two games before losing to 2-seed KY. And in 2011 UW-Green Bay (13\11 and 5th seed) won two games before losing in S16, UNC (14\14 and 5th seed) lost in S16, and Marist (17\19 and 10th seed) lost in R32 by 5 to 2-seed Duke.
• The Comfort of the 1-2 Punch. The 1 and 2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet 16 in 23 of 24 cases in the last three years. The only flop was by Xavier back in 2011 who followed a stunning performance in 2010 with a R32 exit in 2011. The 1- and 2-seeds have also placed 21 of the 24 teams in the Elite 8, and 11 of the 12 FF teams have been from this group, the only exception of course being last year's #5 seed Louisville team. So yeah, the importance of being an earnest 1 or 2 seed is wildly important.
• 2 Be in the FF, or Not. The NC winners of the the last three years have been the third #1 seed in 2013, the first #1 seed in 2012, and #2 seed that was in the third #1 seed's region in 2011. Three #2 seeds have advanced to the FF, and two have been matched with the fourth #1 seed and 2011 NC champ Texas A&M was in with the third #1 seed. So likely being judged by the selection committee to be among the better of the #2 seeds is way better. However, none of the teams ranked #5 has been lined up against the fourth #1 seed or have advanced to the FF.
• Bet on #11 for Double Digit Seeds. Expectations are that double-digit seeds should not win any games in the tourney, but three #10 seeds have advanced to the R32 during the last three years along with a #13 seed (Marist in 2012), and last year #12 seed Kansas advanced to the S16 with two wins. But it is the #11 seeds that have really excelled, picking up 7 wins as Gonzaga picked up 3 wins in 2011 and in 2012 Gonzaga and Kansas got 2 wins. Last year Gonzaga was bumped back to a #12 seed and lost in the first round.

 

[Sonny44]

Interesting; guess you've been homebound by a lot of storms lately, huh.

 

[UcMiami]

I would say the above data points to what we all generally feel. The top end of women's basketball separates itself from the rest of the field. Once you get beyond the top 5-8 teams each year you are into the realm of better and slightly worse teams, but parity is pretty rampant.
The interesting thing is except for the rotating of teams in and out of that top 5-8 schools (that is mostly the result of the stars playing only one or two years) the same could be said for the men's tournament. In both tournaments the top two seed line dominate the elite eight and final four teams.
I would also guess that if you looked at a ten year window on men's teams you would find that the one and two seeds, elite eight and final fours were dominated by maybe 15-20 teams that rotate in and out. On the women's side it is more like 8-10 teams. I would attribute this to the aforementioned recruiting cycle being shorter and the larger pool of really good coaches in the men's game. Probably also in the mix is the AD's greater devotion of resources and expectation for success on the men's side at a larger pool of elite programs. And the willingness to cut losses with non-preforming coaches - winning conference championships is not enough for a men's team if they continually fail in the NCAAs - a Foster or Landers would not last 20+ years at Kentucky or Duke on the men's side.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Interesting; guess you've been homebound by a lot of storms lately, huh.

Been slapped silly, but after digging out another foot of sloppy glop, the body may be dead but the mind still works a bit, though it goes into strange places.

 

[huskybill]

As NCAA tourney selections next month and March Madness get set to descend on us all, the question of whether we can learn from our past springs up. Mulling through through the pre-tourney poll rankings, the 1-4 ranks of seedings, and the final results for the WCBB championships the last three years, there are a lot of things that become clearly ambiguous and fuzzily true. Among them:

• 
  [ ]The Curse of the 3. No team should want to earn a 3 seed in a regional. Standard-performing 3 seeds are supposed to win two tourney games and then bow out. But last year all of the 3 seeds were beaten in the Round of 32, a fate that has befallen 9 of the 12 third stringers in the last three tourneys. None of the three who survived to get to the Sweet 16 won a game there. On the other hand, being a 6 seed was pretty peachy last year, though all four of them lost in the Sweet 16. And the 4 seeds have pushed 5 of 12 into the Sweet 16, which is not stellar but still much better than the 3-seeds.
  
  [ ]The Wrath of the Snubbed. Although the AP\USA Today polls are not necessarily the most perfect measure of a team's worth pre-tourney, they do allow fans from a bunch of teams ranked in the 10-20 region to gripe if they believe their team was deserving of a top 4 seed but didn't get one. Choosing the three seemingly most snubbed teams of the past three tourneys, I found that only one of the nine sank into a funk and bombed out in the first round, and that naturally was Ohio State (ranked 16\17 with 8 seed) in 2012. But last year Louisville (16\17 with 5 seed while Purdue at 21\21 got 4 seed) won 5 games on way to NC, and Delaware (15\16 with 6 seed) went to the Sweet 16 and Dayton (18\15 with 7 seed) won its expected first game. In 2012 along with OSU, UW-Green Bay (10\10 and 7th seed) won two games before losing to 2-seed KY. And in 2011 UW-Green Bay (13\11 and 5th seed) won two games before losing in S16, UNC (14\14 and 5th seed) lost in S16, and Marist (17\19 and 10th seed) lost in R32 by 5 to 2-seed Duke.
  [ ]The Comfort of the 1-2 Punch. The 1 and 2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet 16 in 23 of 24 cases in the last three years. The only flop was by Xavier back in 2011 who followed a stunning performance in 2010 with a R32 exit in 2011. The 1- and 2-seeds have also placed 21 of the 24 teams in the Elite 8, and 11 of the 12 FF teams have been from this group, the only exception of course being last year's #5 seed Louisville team. So yeah, the importance of being an earnest 1 or 2 seed is wildly important.
  [ ]2 Be in the FF, or Not. The NC winners of the the last three years have been the third #1 seed in 2013, the first #1 seed in 2012, and #2 seed that was in the third #1 seed's region in 2011. Three #2 seeds have advanced to the FF, and two have been matched with the fourth #1 seed and 2011 NC champ Texas A&M was in with the third #1 seed. So likely being judged by the selection committee to be among the better of the #2 seeds is way better. However, none of the teams ranked #5 has been lined up against the fourth #1 seed or have advanced to the FF.
  [ ]Bet on #11 for Double Digit Seeds. Expectations are that double-digit seeds should not win any games in the tourney, but three #10 seeds have advanced to the R32 during the last three years along with a #13 seed (Marist in 2012), and last year #12 seed Kansas advanced to the S16 with two wins. But it is the #11 seeds that have really excelled, picking up 7 wins as Gonzaga picked up 3 wins in 2011 and in 2012 Gonzaga and Kansas got 2 wins. Last year Gonzaga was bumped back to a #12 seed and lost in the first round.

Anyone who reads this post expecting to learn anything useful from it should have YOUR head examined.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I did not claim there would be anything useful or erudite in the above info, but gnomes who stand 36 inches low should be aware of the Curse of 3. Being 2'11" in stature might actually be safer so that you do not get picked off in the Round of 32.