What team do you think was the worst team to ever make the Final Four?

[rsvman]

On a related note to the thread about ESPN's ranking of the best national championship teams, I wondered which team that ended up making the Final Four was the worst team to manage the feat (at least in your estimation)?


I'll go ahead and nominate the 1999-2000 UNC TarHeels.

[UrinalCake]

Georgia tech in 2004, with that tall German guy. Our semifinal game with Connecticut was the defacto championship game.

[freshmanjs]

Georgia tech in 2004, with that tall German guy. Our semifinal game with Connecticut was the defacto championship game.

that Georgia Tech team beat duke in Cameron in March. I don't really know what "the defacto championship game" means, but if it means that the winner of the semifinal would be a lock to win the final, i don't see how that could have been true.

[uh_no]

Georgia tech in 2004, with that tall German guy. Our semifinal game with Connecticut was the defacto championship game.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=233300041

regardless of the final score in the final, the GT team was still pretty good

[Matches]

Virginia in '84 was a pretty huge fluke.

UNC '00 was a mediocre team that saw its bracket fall apart.

LSU '86 was a pretty weak team that got hot at the right time.

Wichita State this year may end up winning the prize. I'll be shocked if Louisville doesn't absolutely roll them.

[Olympic Fan]

You might want to define your terms a bit before making this debate. I can absolutely guarantee you that the worst Final Four team did not coming in the 64-team era ore relatively balanced fields.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, the field was chosen geographically, divided into the East, Mideast, Midwest and West. Almost all the great teams were in the East and Mideast, so winning those two regionals was a great accomplishment. Out West, there were occasionally some great teams -- San Francisco with Russell, Cal under Newell, UCLA under Wooden.

But in the Midwest, it was pretty much hit or miss -- there was an occasional power -- Cincinnati was a Midwest team in the Oscar era (and afterwards, when they were even better). Kansas has a few good teams. But there were some real clunkers too -- New Mexico State, Louisville in '59 ... I'd have to study to figure out which was worst, but I guarantee you that the absolute worst Final Four team was a Midwest Regional champion from the 50s-70s. Those would be teams that didn't have to play or beat anybody to get to the FF.

[brevity]

I'll go ahead and nominate the 1999-2000 UNC TarHeels.

It's hard to talk about that team without talking about the other 8 seed in that Final Four, 1999-2000 Wisconsin. Their paths:

UNC beat (9) Missouri, (1) Stanford, (4) Tennessee, (7) Tulsa
Wisconsin beat (9) Fresno State, (1) Arizona, (4) LSU, (6) Purdue

I'm presenting that information, but don't know what to do with it. That 7-seed Tulsa team beat 2-seed Cincinnati. Do you subscribe to the philosophy that Tulsa essentially becomes the new 2-seed, or will they retain the stench of the 7 seed no matter how far they go? (Because 2013 Wichita State, not to mention 2013 Michigan and 2013 Syracuse, are looking like the 1 seeds they beat to get to Atlanta.)

If I can't use regional paths to make my decision, the alternative is to look at the Final Four team that had the absolute worst national semifinal. In 2000, UNC and Wisconsin both lost by 12. Other options:

2010 West Virginia lost by 19 to Duke, though we should factor the injury to De'Sean Butler.
2009 Villanova lost by 14 to UNC.
2008 UNC lost by 18 to Kansas, and their coach defected two days later. We have a winner!

[Duvall]

Wichita State this year may end up winning the prize. I'll be shocked if Louisville doesn't absolutely roll them.

First point doesn't necessarily follow from the second.

That 2000 UNC team may not have been the worst team in *that* Final Four.

[UrinalCake]

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=233300041

regardless of the final score in the final, the GT team was still pretty good

Perhaps my memory is clouded by watching the final that year and thinking we would and should have easily handled GT. This happens pretty often for me when I watch the team that beats Duke play their next game - I always see us winning in their place. I'm sure it will continue this year when I watch Louisville destroy Wichita State while I am left to wonder what might have been...

[rsvman]

You might want to define your terms a bit before making this debate. I can absolutely guarantee you that the worst Final Four team did not coming in the 64-team era ore relatively balanced fields.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, the field was chosen geographically, divided into the East, Mideast, Midwest and West. Almost all the great teams were in the East and Mideast, so winning those two regionals was a great accomplishment. Out West, there were occasionally some great teams -- San Francisco with Russell, Cal under Newell, UCLA under Wooden.

But in the Midwest, it was pretty much hit or miss -- there was an occasional power -- Cincinnati was a Midwest team in the Oscar era (and afterwards, when they were even better). Kansas has a few good teams. But there were some real clunkers too -- New Mexico State, Louisville in '59 ... I'd have to study to figure out which was worst, but I guarantee you that the absolute worst Final Four team was a Midwest Regional champion from the 50s-70s. Those would be teams that didn't have to play or beat anybody to get to the FF.

Good point. How about if we restrict ourselves to the 64-team era?

[freshmanjs]

Good point. How about if we restrict ourselves to the 64-team era?

there are probably 2 types of teams to look at:

1) mediocre teams that lucked into a very easy path to the final 4

2) teams that had mediocre regular seasons but got hot in the tournament

LSU 2006, Butler 2011, VCU 2011, and George Mason are probably the worst teams in my estimation (type 2).

[CDu]

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=233300041

regardless of the final score in the final, the GT team was still pretty good

Yeah, they thumped the eventual champion in November, then beat several ranked teams (UNC twice, @Wake, @Duke, Maryland twice) on the way to the tournament. And in the tournament, they beat BC (who was pretty decent back then), Kansas, and Oklahoma State on their way to the title game. That was a legitimately good team.

As to the original question (with the tweak of limiting to the 64+ team field era), I'd say the list would include:
LSU (#11 seed in 1986)
George Mason (#11 seed in 2006)
VCU (#11 seed in 2011)

Aside from those teams, none of the others were worse than a #8 seed (Wisconsin and UNC in 2000; Villanova in 1985).

If you expand to the era when only conference champions participated and the bracket was split distinctly by region, then I agree with Olympic Fan. The truly worst team would have come from the '50s or '60s.

[A-Tex Devil]

there are probably 2 types of teams to look at:

1) mediocre teams that lucked into a very easy path to the final 4

2) teams that had mediocre regular seasons but got hot in the tournament

LSU 2006, Butler 2011, VCU 2011, and George Mason are probably the worst teams in my estimation (type 2).

LSU in the '80s was a worse team than LSU in 2006 (who was a 4 or 5 seed, as I recall). I'd agree with George Mason and VCU. I think one of the things you need to weigh is how did they fare in the Final Four? George Mason was killed by Florida, as I recall. That would be my pick if you played a reverse tourney where the losers had to keep playing until you found out who the biggest loser is.

[1 24 90]

It's hard to talk about that team without talking about the other 8 seed in that Final Four, 1999-2000 Wisconsin. Their paths:

UNC beat (9) Missouri, (1) Stanford, (4) Tennessee, (7) Tulsa
Wisconsin beat (9) Fresno State, (1) Arizona, (4) LSU, (6) Purdue

I'm presenting that information, but don't know what to do with it. That 7-seed Tulsa team beat 2-seed Cincinnati. Do you subscribe to the philosophy that Tulsa essentially becomes the new 2-seed, or will they retain the stench of the 7 seed no matter how far they go? (Because 2013 Wichita State, not to mention 2013 Michigan and 2013 Syracuse, are looking like the 1 seeds they beat to get to Atlanta.)

If I can't use regional paths to make my decision, the alternative is to look at the Final Four team that had the absolute worst national semifinal. In 2000, UNC and Wisconsin both lost by 12. Other options:

2010 West Virginia lost by 19 to Duke, though we should factor the injury to De'Sean Butler.
2009 Villanova lost by 14 to UNC.
2008 UNC lost by 18 to Kansas, and their coach defected two days later. We have a winner!

Don't forget Jordan Davidson's late 3 that made the final margin 21 points. 78-57

[flyingdutchdevil]

Georgia tech in 2004, with that tall German guy. Our semifinal game with Connecticut was the defacto championship game.

You mean Australian? Big Bird?

[Olympic Fan]

It find it hard to accept Georgia Tech in 2004 as among the worst teams. True, they are an example of a team that got hot late, but they were a pretty good team all season. I know they finished with a mediocre 9-7 ACC record, but that was in an era when the ACC was far and away the best conference in college basketball. They were closer to the equivalent to this year's Michigan team than anything else. They were 23-9 and No. 14 in the nation BEFORE the NCAA Tournament. There was a LOT worse teams than Georgia Tech.

Heck, they were just a No. 3 seed ... that's hardly Cinderella territory. They beat a Kansas team that had been to the two previous Final Fours in the regional finals ... they beat Oklahoma State in Final Four ... if Georgia Tech was so weak, what was Okla State?

We forget now because the ACC has become just another conference, but there was a time -- from about 1980 to 2005 -- when the ACC was consistently the strongest conference in the nation. There were plenty of mid-level ACC teams that could have made Final Four runs.

Yeah, there was 1984 Virginia, below .500 in the ACC, but beat 2 seed Arkansas, 3-seed Syracuse and 4 seed Indiana to reach the Final Four (where they lost in OT to Houston).

That 2000 UNC team underachieved in the ACC, but they did start the year at No. 6 in the nation and climbed as high as No. 2 before they tanked it in ACC play.

You might bring up 1990 Duke -- which had a resume very much like 2004 Georgia Tech. They were a 3 seed and were ranked No. 15 before the tournament.

I know we're talking 64-team era now, but I keep going back to 1959 Louisville ... an unranked team (they spent one week at No. 17 at midseason). I know of them because they lost to a 13-12 Duke team in the 5th place game of the Dixie Classic.

They would have finished 5th in the ACC that year because of the weakness in the Midwest, they earned a ticket to the Final Four. Not saying they are the worst FF team ever ... but they are clearly worst than anybody we've been talking about.

[CDu]

You mean Australian? Big Bird?

Yeah, Schencher was an Aussie, not a German.

[rsvman]

Georgia tech in 2004, with that tall German guy. Our semifinal game with Connecticut was the defacto championship game.

I would think that solely by virtue of the fact that they made it to the championship game they would be out of the discussion.

I agree that Duke would likely have beat them had we gotten past UConn.......sigh......


I was living in New Orleans in 1986 when that upstart LSU team made the Final Four. In retrospect, they were probably worse than Guthridge's 2000 UNC squad.


As far as the George Mason team goes, I omit them from my thought process because on their way to the Final Four, they beat two of the three evil empires: UNC and UConn. I am eternally grateful to them.:D

[tommy]

It was pre-64 team field, but what about Penn in 1979, a 9 seed that somehow beat UNC only to get rolled by Magic's Spartans by 35 in the FF?

[Olympic Fan]

It was pre-64 team field, but what about Penn in 1979, a 9 seed that somehow beat UNC only to get rolled by Magic's Spartans by 35 in the FF?

Not that big a surprise. Penn -- and the Ivy -- was actually pretty good in that era. Much the same Penn team took Duke's 1978 Final Four team to the wire in the '78 East Regional semifinals. It took a couple of big blocks by G-man to save the game. in '79, Penn was ranked No. 14 nationally ... again, not a huge Cinderella. They finished No. 20 in 1978 ... that was a good team.

[arnie]

Not that big a surprise. Penn -- and the Ivy -- was actually pretty good in that era. Much the same Penn team took Duke's 1978 Final Four team to the wire in the '78 East Regional semifinals. It took a couple of big blocks by G-man to save the game. in '79, Penn was ranked No. 14 nationally ... again, not a huge Cinderella. They finished No. 20 in 1978 ... that was a good team.

I'll nominate the only Wake Forest team to make it. Any team with Billy Packer as a star can't be very good. Bet the refs favored Duke back then too.

[Chicago 1995]

I'd vote for the 2000 Wisconsin team, although defensively, they were really good. Wisconsin had 13 losses before the Final Four. They were 307th in scoring, but 4th in scoring D. Both numbers were driven down by pace, not just good defense. They're the only team I remember that didn't seem to view a shot clock violation on offense as a turnover. If not them, I think it has to be the '86 LSU team. It was an 11 seed, had 11 losses going into the tourney, and hadn't played a terribly murderous schedule. Whereas GMU and VCU's seeds may have been depressed by being a mid-major, LSU was just mediocre.

I don't think they are quite in the class of the other teams mentioned in this thread, but the 1987 Providence team played the one of the least interesting and seemingly non-competative Final Four game I've attended. Thankfully the UNLV-Indiana game thereafter was great, but Syracuse-Providence that day was a complete sleeper.

[sagegrouse]

The 1965 Wichita State Shockers, who lost 118-82 to Princeton, for heaven's sakes, in the consolation game. Bill Bradley had a field day.

sagegrouse

[TruBlu]

I can not honestly say that they were the worst team to make the Final Four, but the team that made me feel the worst was the UNC team that made it . . . all of them.

[Olympic Fan]

I'll nominate the only Wake Forest team to make it. Any team with Billy Packer as a star can't be very good. Bet the refs favored Duke back then too.

I know you were joking, but that was a great Wake team. Packer was a star, but he was only the third-best player on the team. Dave Weideman was a better guard (trivia -- growing up in Shelby, David Thompson was nicknamed Weideman because he played a bit like the Wake star). Still the real star of that Wake team was Len Chappell, a 6-8 bull who averaged 30 points and 15 rebounds as a senior.

That Wake team was one of the most important in ACC history. They lost the national semifinals to Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek and company (Chappell outplayed Lucas, but Hondo killed them). The next night, they beat UCLA in the consolation game -- that win earned the ACC a bye into the Sweet 16 ... which really helped Bubas' best Duke teams get to the Final Four in 63, 64 and 66.

So, please, no shot at the '62 Deacs.

PS I don't know about Wichita State in '65 ... they spent most of the year in the top 5 and were even No. 1 for a week. They did drop out of the top 10 before the NCAAs (that was a year when there was no second 10).

[vick]

If we go by Simple Rating System (i.e. scoring margin adjusted for schedule difficulty), the worst Final Four team of the 64+ era was, by a healthy margin, VCU 2011 at 8.56. The top (bottom?) 10 have mostly been mentioned:

VCU 2011 - 8.56
Butler 2011 - 11.53
Villanova 1985 - 12.03
George Mason 2006 - 12.11
Butler 2010 - 14.37
Memphis 1985 - 14.92
LSU 1986 - 15.12
Providence 1987 - 15.31
Michigan State 2010 - 15.33
Kansas 1988 - 15.71

VCU ranked 70th that year, the only other team to be above 35th was...Butler, in the same year, ranking 52. Given the huge gap in computer ranking, the fact that as I recall most analysts did not believe they should have even been in the tournament (and they had to go into the play-in game), and their loss to an unimpressive Butler team, I'm comfortable saying they were the worst Final Four team of the 64+ team era.

[Mal]

I'd vote for the 2000 Wisconsin team, although defensively, they were really good. Wisconsin had 13 losses before the Final Four. They were 307th in scoring, but 4th in scoring D. Both numbers were driven down by pace, not just good defense. They're the only team I remember that didn't seem to view a shot clock violation on offense as a turnover.

I'd vote for them, as well, for the reasons you mention, for the sake of feeding my eternal hatred of all things Bucky, and for the same reason you gave consideration to Providence '87. I attended the 2000 Final Four, the first I'd been to in close to a decade, and resented the fact that they were in it and guaranteed to make the first game unbearably awful. And they delivered. 19-17 at the half. Wisconsin scored 41 points in a 40 minute national semifinal. That is a crime against basketball, and akin to urinating on the grave of James Naismith. Less than 90 shots taken in the entire game. It was an utter disgrace. People were laughing about how cynical it was. That the other semifinal included a joke of a UNC team that included Haywood, and Teddy Dupay's Gators (who knocked us out in the Sweet 16) didn't help, either. I should have just refused the tickets. Probably would have if Maryland or Kentucky had come out of Michigan State's region instead of the Spartans. You could count me as possibly the biggest Mateen Cleaves fan in the world that weekend.

[BlueandWhite]

I'd vote for them, as well, for the reasons you mention, for the sake of feeding my eternal hatred of all things Bucky, and for the same reason you gave consideration to Providence '87. I attended the 2000 Final Four, the first I'd been to in close to a decade, and resented the fact that they were in it and guaranteed to make the first game unbearably awful. And they delivered. 19-17 at the half. Wisconsin scored 41 points in a 40 minute national semifinal. That is a crime against basketball, and akin to urinating on the grave of James Naismith. Less than 90 shots taken in the entire game. It was an utter disgrace. People were laughing about how cynical it was. That the other semifinal included a joke of a UNC team that included Haywood, and Teddy Dupay's Gators (who knocked us out in the Sweet 16) didn't help, either. I should have just refused the tickets. Probably would have if Maryland or Kentucky had come out of Michigan State's region instead of the Spartans. You could count me as possibly the biggest Mateen Cleaves fan in the world that weekend.

I guess I'd have to agree with you -- that was a debacle of a Final Four game with a very mediocre Wisconsin team that benefitted from a region that blew up...as did UNC's that year. 1986 LSU could be an honorable mention.

For the weakest NCAA title team, how about UConn in 2011? That was the worst Final Four ever in terms of overall quality of the games, even worse than 2000.

[uh_no]

I guess I'd have to agree with you -- that was a debacle of a Final Four game with a very mediocre Wisconsin team that benefitted from a region that blew up...as did UNC's that year. 1986 LSU could be an honorable mention.

For the weakest NCAA title team, how about UConn in 2011? That was the worst Final Four ever in terms of overall quality of the games, even worse than 2000.

the semifinal game against UK was a good game.

[vick]

For the weakest NCAA title team, how about UConn in 2011? That was the worst Final Four ever in terms of overall quality of the games, even worse than 2000.

I'm no UConn fan, but I'd have a hard time saying that team was worse than 1985 Villanova. I mean, UConn was a 3 seed led by a first team all-American. Villanova was an 8 seed!