Conference Winners in the NCAA Tourney

[Philadukie]

One thing that occured to me when the bracket was announced is that Duke is the only team of the top eight seeds that did not either win it's conference regular season (Indiana, Georgetown), it's conference tournament (Ohio St), or both (Louisville, Kansas, Miami, Gonzaga).

This got me wondering about how other teams who have not won their conferences (either in the tournament or the regular season) have faired in making it to the Final Four or winning it all in previous NCAA tournaments.

Going back to 1985, when the tournament expanded to 64 teams, I found only four national championship teams that did not win either their conference regular season or conference tournament (Arizona - 1997; Michigan - 1989; Kansas - 1988; and Villanova - 1985), or 4 teams/28 seasons for 14.3%. In fact, you have to go back 17 seasons to find the last team (Arizona) that didn't win either one.

In looking at the Final Four teams since 1985, 27 of 112 teams (or 24%) didn't win either their conference regular seasons or tournaments. However, the trend seems to be narrowing in favor of conference winners over the last decade. Since 2003, only four teams (12.5%) who didn't win their conference tournament or regular season have made the Final Four.

'Tis the season for historical tournament facts, which in themselves do not predict future results. But if you're trying to pick the Final Four and the National Champion, it seems that it's best to pick conference winners.

[dukelifer]

One thing that occured to me when the bracket was announced is that Duke is the only team of the top eight seeds that did not either win it's conference regular season (Indiana, Georgetown), it's conference tournament (Ohio St), or both (Louisville, Kansas, Miami, Gonzaga).

This got me wondering about how other teams who have not won their conferences (either in the tournament or the regular season) have faired in making it to the Final Four or winning it all in previous NCAA tournaments.

Going back to 1985, when the tournament expanded to 64 teams, I found only four national championship teams that did not win either their conference regular season or conference tournament (Arizona - 1997; Michigan - 1989; Kansas - 1988; and Villanova - 1985), or 4 teams/28 seasons for 14.3%. In fact, you have to go back 17 seasons to find the last team (Arizona) that didn't win either one.

In looking at the Final Four teams since 1985, 27 of 112 teams (or 24%) didn't win either their conference regular seasons or tournaments. However, the trend seems to be narrowing in favor of conference winners over the last decade. Since 2003, only four teams (12.5%) who didn't win their conference tournament or regular season have made the Final Four.

'Tis the season for historical tournament facts, which in themselves do not predict future results. But if you're trying to pick the Final Four and the National Champion, it seems that it's best to pick conference winners.

If you also exclude teams outside the power conferences (who have not won since 1985) -and exclude any team below a 6th seed then that would limit the possible winners to just a few teams.

[turnandburn55]

if you also exclude teams outside the power conferences (who have not won since 1985)s.

unlv 1990?

[dukelifer]

unlv 1990?

Hmmm. I guess I tried to blot that one out of my memory ;)

[Bob Green]

If you also exclude teams outside the power conferences (who have not won since 1985) -


unlv 1990?


Hmmm. I guess I tried to blot that one out of my memory ;)

Here is another one to blot out of your memory: when Louisville beat Duke in 1986, they were a member of the Metro Conference.

[Kedsy]

In looking at the Final Four teams since 1985, 27 of 112 teams (or 24%) didn't win either their conference regular seasons or tournaments. However, the trend seems to be narrowing in favor of conference winners over the last decade. Since 2003, only four teams (12.5%) who didn't win their conference tournament or regular season have made the Final Four.

Well, the overall number of 24% implies one Final Four team a year, although according to your numbers that hasn't been true over the past ten years. I wonder if it's a difference in the way the committee seeds in more recent years? My question would be how many teams that won neither their conference tourney nor finished first in the regular season have gotten #1 or #2 seeds?

Here's the list since 2003:



Year Team Result
---- --------- ------
2012 Duke 1st round
2010 Kan St Elite 8
2009 UConn Final Four
2009 Pitt Elite 8
2009 Okla Elite 8
2008 Duke 2nd round
2007 Wisc 2nd round
2005 Wake 2nd round
2003 Texas Final Four
2003 Fla 2nd round


So only 10 of the past 80 #1/#2 seeds (coincidentally 12.5%) neither won their conference tournament nor regular season. Of these ten teams, two made the Final Four (20%) and three others made the Elite Eight, meaning fully half of these teams did pretty well in the NCAA tournament. While Duke's two appearances on this list may cause alarm in the eyes of Duke fans, I'd say overall this characteristic is not a dealbreaker.

Interestingly enough, if you'd filled in your bracket for the 2009 tournament after looking at the 2003 to 2008 period, you'd have shied away from three Elite Eight teams.




.

[Philadukie]

Interestingly enough, if you'd filled in your bracket for the 2009 tournament after looking at the 2003 to 2008 period, you'd have shied away from three Elite Eight teams.


This exception kind of proves the rule (or at least the historical trend), doesn't it? Or rather, look at the inverse: six times over the last ten tournaments the Final Four has been comprised of only conference (tournament or regular season) champions. In three other seasons, there was one team in the Final Four that didn't win either; and in one season there were two teams in the Final Four that didn't win either. All of which is to say that, if I'm a neutral, betting person (which none of us here admittedly is), I like my odds better of getting the Final Four right by picking only conference winners.

I'm not trying to find reasons for why people shouldn't pick Duke, there are plenty of other reasons why one should or should not, this is more general commentary on tournament history and trends, which I happen to like because I love the tournament in general. That said, you could probably bet your Nick Horvath jersey that if the trend showed the opposite (that teams who didn't win their conference perform just as well as, or even better than, teams who do win their conferences) this fact would have been pointed out as another piece of evidence why we shouldn't pick against Duke this year.

Personally, I'm pretty good at suspending my emotions when it comes to filling out my bracket. I want to win my bracket, rather than stay "true" to some abstract notion of being a good fan. I'm sure some take umbrage with that; to which I would reply, in a perhaps eye-rollingly lame way, that the most "Duke" thing one could do is try to excel in their pool as best as possible. I went to Duke, I love Duke, but I always fill out my bracket with the intent of winning by staying true to my interpretation of the evidence and not (usually, but not always) my emotions. And to head off getting into a debate on what constitutes good evidence, I fully understand and appreciate that what is sometimes being debated is the worthiness of the evidence itself.

In any case, I try to win but still have fun with all of this. I'm still not sure how far I'll pick Duke to go.

[NSDukeFan]

This exception kind of proves the rule (or at least the historical trend), doesn't it? Or rather, look at the inverse: six times over the last ten tournaments the Final Four has been comprised of only conference (tournament or regular season) champions. In three other seasons, there was one team in the Final Four that didn't win either; and in one season there were two teams in the Final Four that didn't win either. All of which is to say that, if I'm a neutral, betting person (which none of us here admittedly is), I like my odds better of getting the Final Four right by picking only conference winners.
...

I don't think this is necessarily a great argument for picking or not picking Duke this year. If you wanted some more solid evidence wouldn't you want to differentiate for quality of the teams. Presumably, the best teams tend to win their conference regular season and/or tournament championships. For teams that are close, but don't quite win the regular season or tournament championship but are close to as good as the champions (such as Duke this year, which I would argue is as good as the ACC champion), I would expect they have as much of a chance to make the final four as the teams that are as good as them but are champions.

Basically, I think the data may indicate that the better teams tend to do better in the tournament, but I don't think it shows anything about how comparably rated teams do whether or not they were champions of their conference.

[jv001]

Pretty interesting discussion. I hope the "talking heads" will have to say after Duke wins it all;
Well, Duke was 18-1 entering the NCAAT with Ryan Kelly in the rotation. So it was no surprise they won the championship. GoDuke!