NCAA championships by opponents’ total seeds

[navery12]

That 2014 run just continues to look more impressive.

Hardest road to a tourney seed wise AND was the first team to win a title with no McDonald’s All Americans.

2002 Maryland was the 1st team, but still impressive. So UConn now has 2 of the 4 seasons (2021 Baylor)

 

[Get a Job]

So your argument is the team that LOST is the better team? Ok, makes sense.

That is not my argument. My position is that it is often the case that the team that loses would have been a tougher matchup for the opponent in the next round than the team that won is. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I would say that is more random. If a team got a buy into the regional final, there, chances of winning increase dramatically. But even using that method, you still see us defeating a number one seed in 3 to 5 years. That would seem to be contrary to the notion that we somehow “lucked” our way to the championship.

I'm not saying we lucked into anything. We've played lower seeds by and large in regional finals, final 4s, and title games than the average seed expected.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I will go to my grave believing that three of our teams (1999, 2004, 2023) were taking the tournament in their respective years regardless of how everything else fell.

I'm not sure (considering how they were playing once the BET began forward) that for the 2011 team different results in games that led to who ended up in our path would have changed anything and the only complaints about 2014 would be a) the effort for most of the St Joe's game and b) our prior results that year against Louisville but I will argue that if someone wants to open that can of worms, 2/3 of all titles won since the tournament allowed multiple teams from a conference could be called into question.

 

[BlueMAB]

So your argument is the team that LOST is the better team? Ok, makes sense.

You must believe that UConn, despite steamrolling every tournament team, isn’t better than Xavier, 0-2? Or better than Marquette, 1-2?

Of one game is enough to prove who the better team is, then 2 or 3 must solidify it right?

 

[Tenspro2002]

Seeding is still just other people's subjective opinions, even if those people are given the title of "committee". Every year there are a handful of "top" teams however you define that. All this says is that the chattering class was wrong...again. Running though the bottom halves of 16 team leagues will put up gaudy records. There hasn't been a single NCAA champion that hasn't beat at least one of the "really good teams" to get there. People whine about playing Ga Tech, Butler, #8 Kentucky, and SDSU in the finals but fail to talk about beating Duke, Kentucky, Florida, and Gonzaga to get there.

The 2023 destroyed the early non-conference, including Alabama, Gonzaga was another top team, destroyed them too. Kansas couldn't make the game, why does anyone think they were more likely to beat this team than Purdue. I don't hear anyone whining about us missing Purdue. It's all sour grapes. Every team in the field had it's chance to meet UConn in the final if not before and failed. boo hoo.

Funny thing about us and Purdue.

Through December, we were far and away #1 and #2 and looked to be on a collision course. Then we went on completely different trajectories. They stayed around the top 5 (albeit looking a little vulnerable) and we were in freefall. They got a #1 seed. We were a #4.

Then they lost in the 1st round and we won the championship.

 

[whosurdaddy2720]

UNC last won in 2017 not 2016

This chart seems flawed.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The salient point is neither how easy or hard our various paths were. For a team that gets very few chances but succeeds you could look at their paths and maybe conclude whether they caught breaks or not.

For a program that gets many chances you would expect the law of averages to apply. Times when the path was hard, times when we caught a break, times when the breaks went against us. These all have applied to us, as an elite program that accumulated many chances.

The unusual pattern for us is that we caught mainly bad breaks in the nineties, while the past two decades we have have had some good breaks. The bottom line is that we accumulated five championships because we were elite and in the hunt enough for the law of averages to result in achieving that many.

This is an excellent point. Most of our heartbreak in the 90s to early 00s came in situations where we got no breaks whatsoever.

Lost to #3 seed and the eventual runner-up in 1990.
Lost in a road game in a chalk matchup in 1994.
Lost in a road game to #1 seed and eventual champion in 1995.
Lost in a road game to #1 seed in 1998.
Lost to #1 seed and eventual champion in 2002.
Lost in a road game to #1 seed in 2003.

We got no favors from the Committee or the Tournament outcome itself.

We've had better luck since then and have taken advantage.

 

[my2cents]

That is not my argument. My position is that it is often the case that the team that loses would have been a tougher matchup for the opponent in the next round than the team that won is. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you.

You are off in some philosophical, imaginary realm that doesn't exist in real life. In this tournament, you lose, you go home and can 'talk" all you want about how you would be this match-up or that, but i nreality...you are home waiting for next year.

 

[August_West]

I think this UConn fan was responding to a Villanova fan‘s dopey assertion. UConn twitter is all over stuff like that

UConn twitter is so stupid for even trying. Its a thin skinned retort. Plays right into the trolls.

Anytime seed path or that crap comes up where the haters are trying to devalue our accomplishments only requires one answer:

"We have 5 natties in 24 years, if it was so easy why didn't ::insert the haters team here:: do it? "

Point.Blank.Period.

Addressing this any other way is small dik energy. Unzip the fly and let that meat swing.

 

[Get a Job]

You are off in some philosophical, imaginary realm that doesn't exist in real life. In this tournament, you lose, you go home and can 'talk" all you want about how you would be this match-up or that, but i nreality...you are home waiting for next year.

You haven't responded to the substance of anything I've said, so I will bow out now. Good day, sir!

 

[boba]

You haven't responded to the substance of anything I've said, so I will bow out now. Good day, sir!

FYI you didn't provide any substance either so the game ended nil-nil.

 

[my2cents]

You must believe that UConn, despite steamrolling every tournament team, isn’t better than Xavier, 0-2? Or better than Marquette, 1-2?Discussion

Of one game is enough to prove who the better team is, then 2 or 3 must solidify it right?

I am talking about the NCAA tournament. You can talk about the regular season all you want. In the tournament, when you lose, your season is OVER. You can talk about match-ups with the losing team all you want, but's it pointless and makes no sense. Why? Because, their season has ended.

 

[navery12]

I am talking about the NCAA tournament. You can talk about the regular season all you want. In the tournament, when you lose, your season is OVER. You can talk about match-ups with the losing team all you want, but's it pointless and makes no sense. Why? Because, their season has ended.

You should really quit this conversation and stop digging, you have no ability to grasp the discussion that's happening

 

[Get a Job]

FYI you didn't provide any substance either so the game ended nil-nil.

 

[Umami Zen]

You play the team in front of you.. You have no control over who that is.. And try to win.. Its worked for UConn 5 different Tournament runs.

 

[BlueMAB]

I am talking about the NCAA tournament. You can talk about the regular season all you want. In the tournament, when you lose, your season is OVER. You can talk about match-ups with the losing team all you want, but's it pointless and makes no sense. Why? Because, their season has ended.

I didn’t talk about matchups.

So your argument is the team that LOST is the better team? Ok, makes sense.

If this logic holds, then Xavier is better than UConn because they went 2-0 against us.

Unless you’re going to tell me I’m off in some “imaginary realm“ because regular season games don’t count “in real life”.

 

[tzznandrew]

I didn’t talk about matchups.



If this logic holds, then Xavier is better than UConn because they went 2-0 against us.

Unless you’re going to tell me I’m off in some “imaginary realm“ because regular season games don’t count “in real life”.

I mean, the easy example is Purdue-FDU. Purdue wasn't the best team in the country, clearly, but they were better than FDU and would win that matchup 49 out of 50 times. Just so happens that this was the 1/50 of them.

 

[my2cents]

The point that I make, which the people on this board have trouble comprehending is that "subjective" opinions about "better than" or "worse than" are nothing more than hot air.
Games are played to determine a winner and loser, thats it. You win, you keep playing, you lose, you go home. Arguing that you were the better team on your way home is comical.

 

[BlueMAB]

People comprehend and disagree. Both things can be true.

 

[Billy Jack]

Tournament titles obtained since 1985 are much more difficult to win. That’s when the field expanded to 64.

The tournament itself may be harder to win, BUT access to the tournament is much easier. You can’t win a tournament which you’re not invited to. It’s likely that neither of our last 2 national championship teams would have been invited to the tournament in the era before expansion to 64 teams.

Which format is preferable, i.e. more teams or fewer, is debatable, but it really isn’t about achieving a championship under one format or the other being better or more significant. Just different. Expanding the tournament to 64 teams wasn’t done for the purpose of producing a better champion, it was done for the purpose of making more money and to give more teams access to tournament money. In that respect, it’s been wildly successful.

 

[navery12]

The tournament itself may be harder to win, BUT access to the tournament is much easier. You can’t win a tournament which you’re not invited to. It’s likely that neither of our last 2 national championship teams would have been invited to the tournament in the era before expansion to 64 teams.

Which format is preferable, i.e. more teams or fewer, is debatable, but it really isn’t about achieving a championship under one format or the other being better or more significant. Just different. Expanding the tournament to 64 teams wasn’t done for the purpose of producing a better champion, it was done for the purpose of making more money and to give more teams access to tournament money. In that respect, it’s been wildly successful.

Yes, this UConn championship team which was the top 4 seed would have definitely been left out of a 32 team NCAA tournament. I know you're not a UConn fan but you need to hide it a little better

 

[HooperScooper]

The tournament itself may be harder to win, BUT access to the tournament is much easier. You can’t win a tournament which you’re not invited to. It’s likely that neither of our last 2 national championship teams would have been invited to the tournament in the era before expansion to 64 teams.

Which format is preferable, i.e. more teams or fewer, is debatable, but it really isn’t about achieving a championship under one format or the other being better or more significant. Just different. Expanding the tournament to 64 teams wasn’t done for the purpose of producing a better champion, it was done for the purpose of making more money and to give more teams access to tournament money. In that respect, it’s been wildly successful.

Which 2 NCAA Tournaments would UConn not have been invited to? Out of all 5 championships 2014 is the only one.

 

[tzznandrew]

Which 2 NCAA Tournaments would UConn not have been invited to? Out of all 5 championships 2014 is the only one.

Pre-1975, only conference tournament champions were invited. So 1999, 2004, and 2011 would have been fine, but not 2014/2023.

Once it went to 32 teams, though, post-1975, 2023 would be fine; 2014 would have probably been squeezed out because of the smaller bubble needed to accommodate entry of all conferences until 1980 (48 teams) or maybe 1983 (52).

 

[BGesus4]

The funny thing is ppl aren’t really arguing that we weren’t the best team (because it’s too easy to refute given KP #1 and the way we whooped up on teams), just that we got very lucky with our path. And??? You mean, we were the best team and won the title?!

 

[pepband99]

The funny thing is ppl aren’t really arguing that we weren’t the best team (because it’s too easy to refute given KP #1 and the way we whooped up on teams), just that we got very lucky with our path. And??? You mean, we were the best team and won the title?!

So, I was bored for a few mins, and decided to get the average Kenpom rank winner (lowest is best), going back to 01 (which is when Ken has stats going back to)

Year	Team	Seed	Total	Avg per 6
2001​	Duke	1​	268​	44.66667​
2002​	Maryland	1​	262​	43.66667​
2003​	Syracuse	3​	157​	26.16667​
2004​	UConn	2​	291​	48.5​
2005​	UNC	1​	257​	42.83333​
2006​	Florida	3​	193​	32.16667​
2007​	Florida	1​	323​	53.83333​
2008​	Kansas	1​	222​	37​
2009​	UNC	1​	259​	43.16667​
2010​	Duke	1​	285​	47.5​
2011​	UConn	3​	188​	31.33333​
2012​	Kentucky	1​	262​	43.66667​
2013​	LCC*	1​	311​	51.83333​
2014​	UConn	7​	111​	18.5​
2015​	Duke	1​	247​	41.16667​
2016​	Villanova	2​	184​	30.66667​
2017​	UNC	1​	287​	47.83333​
2018​	Villanova	1​	266​	44.33333​
2019​	UVA	1​	248​	41.33333​
2021​	Baylor	1​	244​	40.66667​
2022​	Kansas	1​	336​	56​
2023​	UConn	4​	157​	26.16667​

This data is hard to draw too many conclusions from, given that the 1 seeds have a variably awful 1/16 game that throws the numbers out.

One thing i did notice - hey Cuse fans: your lone, single, lucky, rent-a-player title: your ranking matches our 2023 title on the number, and we didn't need 4 geographically advantageous games to do it. Pound sand.

 

[Hunt for 7]

If you really think about it the NCAA tournament selection committee did their usual. Favor Big 10 schools. Diminish any teams other than Duke, Kentucky (usually N. Carolina) that are not in the Midwest and end up with completely wrong seeding. By most metrics we were under seeded. If people want to complain they should complain to the good ole boy selection process. I love it that we usually throw it back in their faces. I forget how many Big 10 teams made the tourney and how many were playing the second weekend?

 

[Chief00]

The post season is about winning the game in front of you, nothing else. Some other Big East schools are taking shots at UConn because unlike us and Villanova they are consistent post season flops.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

This whole "UConn has had easy runs to the title" argument has always struck me as unbelievably pathetic. If it's so easy everyone would do it this often.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

The chart goes from 1986-2016. Not sure why, but they were using a 30 year span.

Because the tournament expanded to 64 teams at that point