Devil07
03-11-2008, 04:25 PM
In light of Roy's comments about the importance of the ACC tournament I was curious as to whether or not he had a point. Namely, how do the teams which win their respective conference tournaments fare in the NCAA Tournament? Does success in the conference lead to success in the NCAA's? And in particular, for teams who have no real incentive to win the tournament (ie they've already locked up a high seed) does winning the tournament actually hurt them? Below is what my quick research showed. Please pardon the length of this post.
First I looked at the last 5 Final Fours to see which participants had won their respective conference tournaments.
2007: Florida, Ohio St., UCLA, Georgetown
2006: Florida, UCLA, LSU, George Mason
2005: UNC, Illinois, Michigan St., Louisville
2004: UConn, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma St., Duke
2003: Syracuse, Kansas, Marquette, Texas
The teams which won their tournaments are in bold. Other than 2003, each year, at least 2 of the Final Four participants won their conference, with 3 of the 4 eventual national champions among them. However, there's only so much that can show, so I also decided to see what happened to the winners of the 6 major conference tournaments each year in the NCAA's. I included the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big East, Big 12, and Pac 10 only. Next to each team in parentheses is their seed.
ACC
2007: UNC (1) - Elite 8
2006: Duke (1) - Sweet 16
2005: Duke (1) - Sweet 16
2004: Maryland (4) - Round of 32
2003: Duke (3) - Sweet 26
SEC
2007: Florida (1) - National Champs
2006: Florida (3) - National Champs
2005: Florida (4) - Round of 32
2004: Kentucky (1) - Round of 32
2003: Kentucky (1) - Elite 8
Big 10
2007: Ohio St. (1) - National Runner-Up
2006: Iowa (3) - Round of 64
2005: Illinois (1) - National Runner-Up
2004: Wisconsin (6) - Round of 32
2003: Illinois (4) - Round of 32
Big East
2007: Georgetown (2) - Final Four
2006: Syracuse (5) - Round of 64
2005: Syracuse (4) - Round of 64
2004: UConn (2) - National Champs
2003: Pitt (2) - Sweet 16
Big 12
2007: Kansas (1) - Elite 8
2006: Kansas (4) - Round of 64
2005: Oklahoma St. (2) - Sweet 16
2004: Oklahoma St. (2) - Final Four
2003: Oklahoma (1) - Elite 8
Pac 10
2007: Oregon (3) - Elite 8
2006: UCLA (2) - Final Four
2005: Washington (1) - Sweet 16
2004: Stanford (1) - Round of 32
2003: Oregon (8) - Round of 32
Although conference tournaments obviously affect seedings, I am going to assume for simplicity that teams which received either a 1 or 2 seed most likely would have gotten that regardless of whether or not they won their conference. I also assume that for a 1 or 2 seed "success" is defined as making it to the Elite 8 or beyond. I believe that once a team has made it that far, the competition is usually so tough and such a crap shoot that an Elite 8 appearance is a fair measure of tournament success. And I'm frankly not good enough at math to weigh performances, so winning it all and just making it to the Elite 8 count equally here. So for those top teams, was playing the extra games a hindrance?
A quick look shows that 17 of the conference winners received 1 or 2 seeds. 11 of those made it to the Elite 8 or beyond, or roughly 65%. From just briefly looking at the last 5 years, only 24 teams seeded 1st or 2nd made it to the Elite 8 (60%). So in other words, the percentage of success for teams which had "nothing to play for" in their conference tournament is actually higher than the general average.
So what this would lead me to believe is that no, winning your conference tournament and playing the extra games does not in fact hurt highly ranked teams. I don't think there's enough to suggest that it helps, but it certainly does not seem to be a deterrent for NCAA success. Long story short, I'd hold off before I start arguing that playing in the conference tournaments will only hurt a top team...
First I looked at the last 5 Final Fours to see which participants had won their respective conference tournaments.
2007: Florida, Ohio St., UCLA, Georgetown
2006: Florida, UCLA, LSU, George Mason
2005: UNC, Illinois, Michigan St., Louisville
2004: UConn, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma St., Duke
2003: Syracuse, Kansas, Marquette, Texas
The teams which won their tournaments are in bold. Other than 2003, each year, at least 2 of the Final Four participants won their conference, with 3 of the 4 eventual national champions among them. However, there's only so much that can show, so I also decided to see what happened to the winners of the 6 major conference tournaments each year in the NCAA's. I included the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big East, Big 12, and Pac 10 only. Next to each team in parentheses is their seed.
ACC
2007: UNC (1) - Elite 8
2006: Duke (1) - Sweet 16
2005: Duke (1) - Sweet 16
2004: Maryland (4) - Round of 32
2003: Duke (3) - Sweet 26
SEC
2007: Florida (1) - National Champs
2006: Florida (3) - National Champs
2005: Florida (4) - Round of 32
2004: Kentucky (1) - Round of 32
2003: Kentucky (1) - Elite 8
Big 10
2007: Ohio St. (1) - National Runner-Up
2006: Iowa (3) - Round of 64
2005: Illinois (1) - National Runner-Up
2004: Wisconsin (6) - Round of 32
2003: Illinois (4) - Round of 32
Big East
2007: Georgetown (2) - Final Four
2006: Syracuse (5) - Round of 64
2005: Syracuse (4) - Round of 64
2004: UConn (2) - National Champs
2003: Pitt (2) - Sweet 16
Big 12
2007: Kansas (1) - Elite 8
2006: Kansas (4) - Round of 64
2005: Oklahoma St. (2) - Sweet 16
2004: Oklahoma St. (2) - Final Four
2003: Oklahoma (1) - Elite 8
Pac 10
2007: Oregon (3) - Elite 8
2006: UCLA (2) - Final Four
2005: Washington (1) - Sweet 16
2004: Stanford (1) - Round of 32
2003: Oregon (8) - Round of 32
Although conference tournaments obviously affect seedings, I am going to assume for simplicity that teams which received either a 1 or 2 seed most likely would have gotten that regardless of whether or not they won their conference. I also assume that for a 1 or 2 seed "success" is defined as making it to the Elite 8 or beyond. I believe that once a team has made it that far, the competition is usually so tough and such a crap shoot that an Elite 8 appearance is a fair measure of tournament success. And I'm frankly not good enough at math to weigh performances, so winning it all and just making it to the Elite 8 count equally here. So for those top teams, was playing the extra games a hindrance?
A quick look shows that 17 of the conference winners received 1 or 2 seeds. 11 of those made it to the Elite 8 or beyond, or roughly 65%. From just briefly looking at the last 5 years, only 24 teams seeded 1st or 2nd made it to the Elite 8 (60%). So in other words, the percentage of success for teams which had "nothing to play for" in their conference tournament is actually higher than the general average.
So what this would lead me to believe is that no, winning your conference tournament and playing the extra games does not in fact hurt highly ranked teams. I don't think there's enough to suggest that it helps, but it certainly does not seem to be a deterrent for NCAA success. Long story short, I'd hold off before I start arguing that playing in the conference tournaments will only hurt a top team...