NCAA championships by opponents’ total seeds

[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

 

[Palatine]

Every team has exactly the same route to the NC. Survive and Advance. UConn changed it up this year to Seek and Destroy.

 

[Zissou]

Because the tournament expanded to 64 teams at that point

1985 had 64 teams. Prior to ‘85 was fewer.

 

[Zissou]

I think that graphic is wrong.

1985 Villanova had played the toughest road if I remember.

Dayton - 9
Michigan - 1
Maryland - 5
UNC - 2
Memphis State - 2
Georgetown - 1

Total = 20

1985 had 64 teams. They probably started in 1986 internationally knowing Nova’s historic run.

 

[alexd]

I guess the argument is 1 seeds "deserve" an easy path, and higher seeds like us don't.

The argument gets a lot weaker when you consider that we beat everyone by 13 points or more and none of the games were competitive inside the last TV timeout.

"UConn was lucky they didn't have to face Kansas [who lost to a team we beat by 23], UCLA [who lost to a team we beat by 28], Houston [who lost to a team we beat by 13], or Bama [who lost to a team we beat by 17]."

Okay - to me "higher seed" (better seed) means a 1 or a 2 seed not an 8 or 9.
An 8 or 9 is a "lower" (worse) seed.

 

[Drame]

What about average victory margin divided by average opponent seed.

 

[uconnfan68]

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.

We’re lucky Louisville wasn’t in our 2014 bracket, but stuff happens. They can still put up a banner if they need to.

 

[TheChamps990411]

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

Lol! That lame asf argument always gives me a good chuckle. 5 NATIONAL TITLES and every single one of them is as legit as any. Problem is when youre at the top people are going to take shots even if all they can come up with are blanks. Let me repeat 5 NATIONAL TITLES!!!