Dominance (not parity)

[freshmanjs]

Reflecting on the last 25 years, it is truly amazing what Duke and a handful of other programs have accomplished. We are very, very lucky. And, while there may be parity overall, there is not in terms of winning the tournament. Consider:

Titles By Program

Duke 5
Uconn 4
KY 3
UNC 3
Florida 2
Everyone else 8


Titles by Coach

K 5
Calhoun 3
Pitino 3
Roy 2
Billy 2
Everyone else 10


Titles by Conference (using current alignment)

ACC 10 (wow!)
SEC 6
Everyone else 9

[1999ballboy]

Slight correction: Pitino has 2, not 3, in that time period. Tubby Smith coached Kentucky in 1998.

[kexman]

Starting with the 84 tourney we have been really dominant with out seeding. That may be even more impressive than the 5 championships. 28 of 32 years being a top 3 seed...never much of a drop off. 22 years as a top 2 seed. That is super impressive!!!


#1 seed: 13
#2 seed: 9
#3 seed: 6
#5 seed: 1
#6 seed: 1
#8 seed: 1
missed tourney in 1995

[wilson]

...and we are still the last two-time defending champion to make the tournament.

[mo.st.dukie]

The parity thing gets overblown a bit. All the champions of the 21st Century are big time name programs. Through the entire history of the tournament many champions are 1 seeds and the vast majority of champions are 1's, 2's or 3's (i.e. champions usually come from the 12 best teams in the tournament). Every so often we have a 6 or 7 seed win it or see a mid major get to the Final Four but mostly the tournament does a great job crowning a champion that is among the best teams in the country.

[SCMatt33]

The parity thing gets overblown a bit. All the champions of the 21st Century are big time name programs. Through the entire history of the tournament many champions are 1 seeds and the vast majority of champions are 1's, 2's or 3's (i.e. champions usually come from the 12 best teams in the tournament). Every so often we have a 6 or 7 seed win it or see a mid major get to the Final Four but mostly the tournament does a great job crowning a champion that is among the best teams in the country.

Some of that is a self fullfilling prophecy. Prior to 1999, both UConn and Florida had a pretty pedestrian basketball history. UConn had never been to the Final Four, with only the early 90's providing some deep runs in the tourney. Florida had even less history. Other than a Final Four with Lon Kruger in '94, they barely had even been to the tourney prior to this century. So while we may consider them "big time name programs" now, that wasn't always the case.

That doesn't mean however, there isn't merit to the point about a lack of parity at the championship level in recent years. Since Florida won their back to back titles, no school who didn't enter the season with multiple championships won the tourney. Here's the full list:

2008 - Kansas - 3rd Title
2009 - UNC - 5th
2010 - Duke - 4th
2011 - UConn - 3rd
2012 - Kentucky - 8th
2013 - Louisville - 3rd
2014 - UConn - 4th
2015 - Duke - 5th

So the little guy (in championship terms) hasn't quite closed the deal recently, but they're definitely getting close, with the runner up in 5 of those 8 seasons having 0 or 1 title.

[Olympic Fan]

I think it's interesting that in the last six years, Duke and UConn have won four titles between them.

In that same six year span, UConn has twice missed the NCAA Tournament and Duke has twice lost in the first round (well, actually, the round of 64 is now the second round)

In determining dominance, it's all about drawing lines.

If you insist on the last five years, then it's between UConn (two titles) and Kentucky (one title and four Final Fours)

Stretch it to 10 years and you get a number of double champions -- Duke, UConn and Florida ... stretch it to 11 years and you add UNC as a two-time winner ... but go to 12 years and UConn becomes a three-time winner ... go to 15 years and Duke also gets a third title.

In the 25 year span, it's clearly Duke -- five titles ... UConn has four and nobody else has more than three (UNC and Kentucky)

[Reilly]

I've had an annoying, long-running debate with a Clemson fan. The Clemson fan basically posits that "not as many schools care about big-time basketball, so it's easier to win a national championship and have sustained success there, and that's why Duke's basketball success is not so great (whereas Clemson's 25th place finish year after year in football is a feat of sustained dominance)."

There are 351 college hoops teams in D1 rather than 125-ish I-A football teams, so basketball's harder that way.

There's a 6-game run to the championship in hoops versus now a 2-game run in football, so basketball's harder in that way.

To me, the entry costs to compete in basketball are much lower than in football, meaning there can be more serious competitors in basketball, and more competition makes it harder. In football, there is lots of infrastructure required, and lots of expense, so there are fewer serious competitors. In basketball, a Jim Valvano with a Jeff Ruland at Iona can make some noise, or so can a FGCU or VCU or George Mason -- and that's just not possible in football.

My Clemson friend posits that there are many more schools spending serious $$$ on football than those that spend on basketball, so that makes footbal harder.

For the past 25 CFB seasons, there have been 29 recognized champs, I think:

Alabama - 4
Florida - 3
FSU - 3
Nebraska - 3
Ohio State - 2
USC - 2
LSU - 2
Miami - 2
Eight others (Washington, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Auburn, Colorado, Georgia Tech)

In football, that's 16 schools winning 29 championships. Eight schools won 21 of the 29 championships.

In basketball, that's 13 schools winning 25 championships. Five schools won 17 of the 25 championships.

Maybe each sport only has about 20 serious championship contenders year after year?

[Henderson]

I wonder if the NCAA would ever try to address "parity" as pro sports have done, and if so, how they would go about it. It seems farfetched to me, and I can't see the logistics. But I think we're entering a 10 year period where some radical things might happen with the NCAA generally and with it, college basketball. Not much would drop my jaw in the next few years.

[Saratoga2]

I wonder if the NCAA would ever try to address "parity" as pro sports have done, and if so, how they would go about it. It seems farfetched to me, and I can't see the logistics. But I think we're entering a 10 year period where some radical things might happen with the NCAA generally and with it, college basketball. Not much would drop my jaw in the next few years.

1. Clamp down on the cheaters (significant penalties as a direct response to academic or other fraudulent dealings)
2. Limit a team to 3 top 30 picks and 4 top 50 picks in any one year
3. Limit teams to 5 top 30 picks in any two year period

[Kedsy]

2. Limit a team to 3 top 30 picks and 4 top 50 picks in any one year
3. Limit teams to 5 top 30 picks in any two year period

What does this mean? NBA draft picks? I don't understand.