NCAA championships by opponents’ total seeds | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NCAA championships by opponents’ total seeds

I think that graphic is wrong.

1985 Villanova had played the toughest road if I remember.
 
REB1094 said:
Upsets happen, injuries happen, and the "better" team doesn't always win. That's the Madness part of March Madness. Alabama, Houston, Purdue, Kansas, Arizona, UCLA, Texas, Marquette didn't beat who was in front of them. UConn, SDSU, FAU, and Miami did. Does that mean those were the best 4 teams last year? Probably not. But it's win-or-go-home every game, and those four won when it mattered while the others couldn't get it done.

There is a valid hypothetical question: "if UConn had to play Kansas, UCLA, Houston, Alabama, could they have won it all?". I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Their advanced metrics and OOC dominance indicate they could, and they already blew out Bama early in the season. But it's all hypothetical.

There is an equally valid hypothetical question: "If Kansas couldn't beat Arkansas and UConn blew them out, if UCLA couldn't beat Gonzaga and UConn blew them out, if Houston couldn't beat Miami and UConn blew them out, if Alabama couldn't beat SDSU and UConn blew them out, could any of those teams beat UConn?". I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. All hypothetical

But what I do know is that UConn ran every single opponent off the court en route to 6 blowout wins and a National Championship. That's all that I really care about lol
Expand ...
@REB1094 seems very logical. Is this type of behavior appropriate for this board or should he be banned?
 
Tenspro2002 said:
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]."
Expand ...
This is right on point. We destroyed the field anyway you look at it. No matter how anyone wants to diminish what this years team accomplished it will not change my mind. This was one of the greatest runs ever since the NCAA tourney expanded to 64 teams PERIOD!!
 
ConnHuskBask said:
It's fair to say some of the tourney runs have opened up for us, to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

That said, the only people that seem to care are Kentucky, Kansas and Syracuse fans, with to some degree actually makes it more enjoyable knowing how much it tweaks them.
Expand ...
I think we faced a number one seed in all but one of our national championships. Is there a “0” seed that we missed?
 
The ridiculous thing is that people would have an easier time criticizing our run if they examined luck that fell our way during the games themselves:
  • Ducas freak injury on St. Mary's
  • Timme severe foul trouble early in the 2nd half (#3 and #4 could have gone either way)
  • Nijel Pack's missing shoes

The raw seed number argument is pretty weak, especially considering we ended up far and away #1 in KenPom, with the #3 offense (and we beat the #1 offense) and #7 defense (we beat #4 and #10 defense, as well as #3 and #8 during the regular season). In fact, during our run, we beat Kenpom #76, #13, #22, #8, #24, #14. Several of our opponents were under-seeded, which is why they advanced as far as they did.
 
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.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
If I'm interpreting the criticism correctly, a Kansas fan is criticizing our title run this year because instead of facing overall #1 seed Kansas we had to play the team that beat Kansas.
Expand ...

Danny Manning says ST FuP
 
Hoophound said:
Nobody that watched that tournament thinks Kansas would have beaten us. Not even Bill Self. No one was beating us.
Expand ...
I know. I was just pointing out how ridiculous the notion was.
 
CL82 said:
I think we faced a number one seed in all but one of our national championships. Is there a “0” seed that we missed?
Expand ...

@superjohn

No need to take the facts personal. Nor does who we played detract from the accomplishments.

We got a fortuitous break to play two 5 seeds this year, and then played two 8 seeds for titles in Butler and Kentucky. I believe in 2011 it was the first title game to not feature a 1 or 2 seed. So, if anything our title game opponents have been statistical outliers.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
@superjohn

No need to take the facts personal. Nor does who we played detract from the accomplishments.

We got a fortuitous break to play two 5 seeds this year, and then played two 8 seeds for titles in Butler and Kentucky. I believe in 2011 it was the first title game to not feature a 1 or 2 seed. So, if anything our title game opponents have been statistical outliers.
Expand ...
I just disagree with you. There’s nothing personal about it. If you have seen, there’s actually a lot of charts that show that the data supports that.
 
Get a Job said:
It's not remotely ludicrous. There are many instances where the winner in one round is less equipped to beat the next opponent than the team they just beat would have been. Maybe the winner just had a great/lucky night. Maybe the other team just had a bad/unlucky night. Injuries, sickness, matchups, coaches' game plans, I could go on.

If you are saying that the fact that Team A just beat Team B is sufficient evidence to say that Team A is the more difficult opponent for Team C, then THAT is ludicrous.
Expand ...
So your argument is the team that LOST is the better team? Ok, makes sense.
 

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
2,670
Total visitors
2,723
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,256
Messages
4,389,281
Members
10,196
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom